| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying that you can't play without being murder hobos. In fact, I hope that isn't really the case. But every edition of D&D that has ever existed inherently promotes this style of play through mechanical benefits for murder and looting. That isn't even up for debate. You measure you're characters power in his ability to fight. You get exp for killing things. You get more powerful by looting things. Pre-written adventures since the dawn of pre-written adventures have included encounters that expect players to kill creatures indiscriminately. Pathfinder is no different.
It is up for debate, since that's not the way D&D has been played at any table I have been at for forty years.
You get exp for defeating encounters. Not "killing things". And if you turn evil (in a non-evil campaign) you "lose' as your PC becomes a NPC.
And in many pre-written adventures it's not expected that you go around and massacre peasants and shopkeepers. You dont "kill creatures indiscriminately"- perhaps you kill "monsters' on sight in some (but in others that turns against you) but after all- what is a "Monster"? Perhaps "killing monsters' is simplistic, but it *IS* a *GAME* not a realistic recreation.
So yeah, the Alignment system in D&D has always been a bit simplistic, but that's to make it a fun GAME. You can, of course, make it "more serious" or "more realistic" by adding nuances to morality if you so choose.
|
While I have read the book, and it was one of the more awesome moments of the series, actually not where that idea came from. Was something I'd considered doing for a Magus of mine, who could get Animate Dead, but only at a high level and without most of the support stuff. So the strategy turned into "find the best thing to animate for its hit dice", and that pretty much went "Holy carp a Bloody T-Rex Skeleton is awesome".Part of the problem is that "sketch" is kind of a flexible term. For example-- Animate Dead. If a character uses it to revive a T-Rex (a wild animal-- is desecrating its corpse really significant to anybody?) to use as a mount, in what way is it evil?Been reading Jim Butcher? :PTwo things:
1. One or two uses of a Evil spell doesnt make you evil.
2. It's hard to tell if Dresden "animated dead" or just make the skeleton move like a puppet. In D&D terms- Was it "animate dead' or "animate object"?
As to #2 - I'd say it's definitely "animate dead" - it's just that in his world it's only an evil act when done on humans. After all - the main reason to use a T-rex was that it was really old and the book talks about pulling at its hunter spirit etc. But again - in the Dresden world - it's only [Evil] when done on a human.
Most do it on humans as the two ways to get a beefy zombie are for the spirit to be of an intelligent creature (basically a human) and really old. The more of each the more powerful the zombie. The necromancers use civil war soldiers etc - Dresden ignored the intelligent half of the equation and went for SUPER old but dumb so as not to be [Evil].
Dresden definitely made a fully-functional zombie, not a puppet. And he did so with a spell picked up from one of the most evil books around, presented to him by the mental impression of a very-much-evil fallen angel who was living in his head at the time. Evil all around on that one. But he used it to save the world.
But that's not particularly relevant to my point. For Harvy Dreyden, Pathfinder Wizard Extraordinaire, he is casting Animate Dead. He is most definitely creating a fully functional Bloody T-Rex Skeleton. And without some sort of indication of why it's evil, I can't figure out what makes this act evil in and of itself.
*Shrug* I may be in the minority on it, but that's me.
Because the game defines it as such. Again- 1. One or two uses of a Evil spell doesnt make you evil.
Now if it did- we might need to argue the point. But mortals do bad things once in a while- "evil acts" if you wish- but they arent "evil".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is up for debate, since that's not the way D&D has been played at any table I have been at for forty years.
How you or I play is entirely irrelivent.
you get exp for defeating encounters. Not "killing things". And if you turn evil (in a non-evil campaign) you "lose' as your PC becomes a NPC.
And you do not get exp for building orphanages, healing the sick, establishing trade routes, or discovering lost history. This point doesn't help you're case.
"Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil"
Where is this quote from? I'm not finding it on the PRD.
RE: Dresden animates - Dresden's animates don't work like PF animates. PF animates don't care about how old the body is, unlike in Dresden. Not sure, but I don't think in Dresden it rips the soul out of whatever afterlife or judgment it's in the process of as it does in PF, either.
-TimD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So then... by this logic would an "evil" character suddenly start changing into "good" by casting [Good] spells? Such as... Sanctify Corpse?
So according to this concept, an evil character should not be able to prevent an ally from being raised as undead? Unfortunately the alignment system tends to led people into thinking of the world of Good vs. Evil, which is not necessarily the case in a real world. There are plenty of evil people who do not necessarily want to see their loved ones turned into zombies. Something to think about.
It is up for debate, since that's not the way D&D has been played at any table I have been at for forty years.How you or I play is entirely irrelivent.
you get exp for defeating encounters. Not "killing things". And if you turn evil (in a non-evil campaign) you "lose' as your PC becomes a NPC.
And you do not get exp for building orphanages, healing the sick, establishing trade routes, or discovering lost history. This point doesn't help you're case.
It's entirely relevant as you claimed "But every edition of D&D that has ever existed inherently promotes this style of play through mechanical benefits for murder and looting. " No D&D game I have ever played (exception, a Evil campaign) gave any benefits at all for "murder". You might as well say that when playing A wargame you get "mechanical benefits for murder".
And you do get exp for those if doing so is the encounter or quest.
"Experience points are awarded for overcoming challenges and completing major storylines. " "As a character overcomes challenges, defeats monsters, and completes quests, he gains experience points." "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game characters advance in level by defeating monsters, overcoming challenges, and completing adventures—in so doing, they earn experience points (XP for short). .....
Keep a list of the CRs of all the monsters, traps, obstacles, and roleplaying encounters the PCs overcome. Feel free to award Story Awards when players conclude a major storyline or make an important accomplishment. "
Not a single mention of "murder" or even "killing".
And "completing major storylines" "completes quests" and "completing adventures" are all called out. More often than "defeating monsters".
My 2 coppers.
The Gods are not blind or stupid. If some one uses an evil spell for the greater good, they dont turn evil automatically. But if some one keeps finding a reason to use evil spells, then the Good Gods will start to wonder why.
So then... by this logic would an "evil" character suddenly start changing into "good" by casting [Good] spells? Such as... Sanctify Corpse?
Yes, in the sense that doing good deeds is a good action. No in the sense that good deeds and bad deeds do not "cancel out" mathematically.
So according to this concept, an evil character should not be able to prevent an ally from being raised as undead?
Not at all, any more than a murderer stops being a murderer because he puts coins into the Red Cross box, helps old ladies across the street, or takes his wife to the doctor when she gets sick. An evil character does not necessarily do exclusively evil actions.
So then... by this logic would an "evil" character suddenly start changing into "good" by casting [Good] spells? Such as... Sanctify Corpse?Yes, in the sense that doing good deeds is a good action. No in the sense that good deeds and bad deeds do not "cancel out" mathematically.
Not at all, any more than a murderer stops being a murderer because he puts coins into the Red Cross box, helps old ladies across the street, or takes his wife to the doctor when she gets sick. An evil character does not necessarily do exclusively evil actions.
So according to this concept, an evil character should not be able to prevent an ally from being raised as undead?
Yes exactly! This is why I'm ok with a good character sacrificing their daughter's mothers on altar to commit an act of genocide and still being good. (This probably doesn't count as spoilers but its pretty major for the series so I won't go into more detail here.) Because one evil act does not a monster make. And by the same token, one good act does not a saint make. And for the record caring for people you like doesn't make you good either. It's pretty neutral.
|
So then... by this logic would an "evil" character suddenly start changing into "good" by casting [Good] spells? Such as... Sanctify Corpse?
If they do no evil acts and only cast good spells, yes, that is how the standard metaphysics of alignment operate.
We don't steal treasure from foes if there is an available next of kin.I can imagine that conversation goes well.
What the "good" adventurer says: "Yeah we killed your uncle Rob, but here's his stuff. Also, we killed your uncle Rob and actually put effort into dragging his s$** out of whatever cave or forest or wherever we killed him, tracked you down, and are now here to give it to you."
What a sane person hears: "Hey, we're murderers and now we know where you live. Here, take this hush money. Or else."
Or, you know, taking his stuff to the local authorities, letting them know what happened, and making sure the stuff gets passed along. Or, if you're of a more chaotic bent, leaving the stuff anonymously where it will be found. I mean, if uncle Rob was doing something that deserved death he must have been pretty bad to begin with. We'd much rather deliver uncle Rob to the local law enforcement and see civilized justice done if possible. And if Rob didn't deserve death a good character should try to make amends, and at the very least be upset about it.
And if it's some bandit 20 miles form the nearest town we're not going to worry about it. But if the villain is gasping with his last breath, "Please ask my daughter to forgive me," we're going to go see the daughter and we're not going to be wearing his stuff as trophies when we do. We're going to pass on the message and give her the inheritance. Those items might have sentimental value or at the very least be saleable for enough money to live a life of comfort.
Y'know, acting with basic compassion, respect, and tolerance. Good things.
Near as I'm concerned, as soon as someone has tried to murder me (and in a Pathfinder game, probably has murdered many others and is carrying out a plan to murder many many more), any requests the f*&&er makes of me after I've gutted him immediately go into the "Yeah...I could not possibly care less" pile.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
What always amuses me is when GMs are like "Well that changes your alignment!"
And then gets on your cased for not immediately changing your roleplaying for that character.
I'm sorry? Do my actions affect my alignment or does my alignment affect my actions? It doesn't go both ways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What always amuses me is when GMs are like "Well that changes your alignment!"
And then gets on your cased for not immediately changing your roleplaying for that character.
I'm sorry? Do my actions affect my alignment or does my alignment affect my actions? It doesn't go both ways.
People who I force to be Evil are not allowed to help orphans, you powergaming swine dsadfffafdsafdafdasfsda
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely relevant as you claimed "But every edition of D&D that has ever existed inherently promotes this style of play through mechanical benefits for murder and looting. " No D&D game I have ever played (exception, a Evil campaign) gave any benefits at all for "murder". You might as well say that when playing A wargame you get "mechanical benefits for murder".
No. I'm sorry but how you play the game is irrelivent to what the game actually promotes. It it adds nothing whatsoever of value to the discussion. And frankly, I'm not willing to debate "but my group has never gained anything for murdering someone" because thats not a rules debate and therefor pointless to a debate about rules. It's no different than me trying defend a rule in monopoly by telling you about my free parking house rule. Regardless of your personal experience the game clealry promotes killing.
And you do get exp for those if doing so is the encounter or quest."Experience points are awarded for overcoming challenges and completing major storylines. " "As a character overcomes challenges, defeats monsters, and completes quests, he gains experience points." "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game characters advance in level by defeating monsters, overcoming challenges, and completing adventures—in so doing, they earn experience points (XP for short). .....
Keep a list of the CRs of all the monsters, traps, obstacles, and roleplaying encounters the PCs overcome. Feel free to award Story Awards when players conclude a major storyline or make an important accomplishment. "Not a single mention of "murder" or even "killing".
And "completing major storylines" "completes quests" and "completing adventures" are all called out. More often than "defeating monsters".
Well that's reasuring. Progress has been made. It feels good knowing that killing a goblin bags me clearly defined loot and xp but if I heal a goblin, and it happens to be part of a quest, which was likely to include killing (especially if it was a prewritten AP), that my DM may find it in his heart to grant me rewards on par with killing. And I'm relieved to learn that if I establish a trade route to help with commerce that I'll be rewarded, but only if the DM agrees it was a quest or major story and only however much he guesses is appropriate. Look, if they can't even be bothered to actually write the damn rules for non-murder hobo xp clearly than the game still promotes murder hobos.
The system defaults to lethal damage and penalizes non-lethal. Levels are gained through an exp system that, as you've just shown, makes it easier to kill for xp than to build, explore, or heal for it, wealth translates to power in d&d and can be aquired easiest by killing, and published adventures- which like it or not inform the public as to the way the game is intended to be played- almost always include encounters which the players are expected to kill first and ask questions later, if ever, and usuallly even encounters with alternative solutions often do not penalize the kill first ask questiosn later solution. D&D has always promoted killing. It isn't even that big a deal. The problem is that alignment issues become insanely absurd in that context. You can kill the behir and nobody bats and eye. But raise it as a zombie? Oh no, now you've crossed the line
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was always under the impression that evil spells 'tainted' you in some way. The question kept coming up as to why animating dead was evil even if you have good intentions. Eventually I just said that evil spells were kind of like messing with the One Ring by nature of how they operate. Casting them does something to you and pulls you out of your alignment. As such unless they are straight up restricted from the spell I use Ultimate Campaign's alignment steps to determine how close you are to falling from your alignment and stopping at neutral, except in the case of my horror campaigns where a spell can make you go from good to evil and some spells I added from third parties can make you go insane. I'm thinking of messing with players by allowing some really broken third party evil spells to tempt them in a campaign that involves a book recording things so evil that reading it can make you evil and/or insane.
Back in the day before i played pathfinder or any type of dnd, i remember drinking and listening to 2 friends argue. It was about morality of doing evil things in a certain setting (they talked about dnd but never watch them play it). Anyways i remember thsi subject even though i was drunk.
one friend was saying that u could do something evil but if u had good intentions, it wasnt evil. My other friend said that was wrong because it didnt matter. Evil spells and acts eventually eroded a person and he used spawn as an example. He said that spawns custome feed off souls and that while spawn did "good" with the powers ha gained, spqwn eventually becomes corrupted by the influence of all the evil even though he using this evil thing for good.
When u look into the abyss, the abyss is looking back at you.
Why does it matter that it's a spell? Either you use the "casting [Evil] spells is an evil act" rule or you don't. If you use the rule then the question becomes "should evil acts affect your alignment?" Or you don't use the rule and the question is moot.
And without some sort of indication of why it's evil, I can't figure out what makes this act evil in and of itself.
*Shrug* I may be in the minority on it, but that's me.
Maybe you are, but maybe you aren't. There do seem to be gamers who are perfectly happy to swallow inconsistencies within the rules just because "that's what the rule book says," particularly within certain fandoms. But I think there are quite a few others who are willing to read rules with a critical eye, and I think it's perfectly reasonable for a player to open a discussion with his/her DM about those inconsistencies.
Like if you were at my table, I'd be happy to give you my very concrete explanation for animate dead being Evil with a capital E, and why using it make your character Evil. On the other hand, I can't think of any particular reason that nightmare should be inherently evil, so I think you'd be perfectly justified in asking me to house rule the [evil] tag away.
This sort of thing is of course best handled outside of game time, but I'm not convinced that you're in a minority for questioning inconsistent game conventions, and I certainly don't think that it's unreasonable to ask for consistency one way or another. :)
"Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil"
by extension casting good spells is a minor act of good, which is vastly outweighed by the murder of a thousand innocents, again you are purposely ignoring what is written down. Animating dead is actually singled out as being more then a minor act of evil but such an evil act that it requires atonement.
Except this isn't in any of the hardcover/rules books of Pathfinder so he isn't purposely ignoring what is written down because it hasn't been written down in a rules book.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Near as I'm concerned, as soon as someone has tried to murder me (and in a Pathfinder game, probably has murdered many others and is carrying out a plan to murder many many more), any requests the f~$%er makes of me after I've gutted him immediately go into the "Yeah...I could not possibly care less" pile.
And that's fine, I just wouldn't consider characters with that attitude to be "good."
And you do not get exp for building orphanages, healing the sick, establishing trade routes, or discovering lost history. This point doesn't help you're case.
I'll grant you healing the sick is ill-defined.
However, the kingdom building rules do give you defined XP for building certain amounts of buildings, which could be orphanages. Also roads help so there's your trade routes. Constructing civilization is actually worth a lot of XP.Serpent's Skull AP includes XP rewards for discovering lost history.
Just sayin'. This isn't 2e anymore.
Near as I'm concerned, as soon as someone has tried to murder me (and in a Pathfinder game, probably has murdered many others and is carrying out a plan to murder many many more), any requests the f~$%er makes of me after I've gutted him immediately go into the "Yeah...I could not possibly care less" pile.And that's fine, I just wouldn't consider characters with that attitude to be "good."
Good characters don't need to be all sunshine and roses, helping people who don't deserve it. They can, and it's fun to see the cute little incorruptible ball of innocent naivete sometimes, but it's definitely not necessary.
I usually play Lawful Neutral though, so my view probably wouldn't conflict with yours at a table anyway. =)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Near as I'm concerned, as soon as someone has tried to murder me (and in a Pathfinder game, probably has murdered many others and is carrying out a plan to murder many many more), any requests the f~$%er makes of me after I've gutted him immediately go into the "Yeah...I could not possibly care less" pile.And that's fine, I just wouldn't consider characters with that attitude to be "good."
Good characters don't need to be all sunshine and roses, helping people who don't deserve it. They can, and it's fun to see the cute little incorruptible ball of innocent naivete sometimes, but it's definitely not necessary.
I usually play Lawful Neutral though, so my view probably wouldn't conflict with yours at a table anyway. =)
I dunno if character Alignment makes that big a difference in whether you think that idea's weird, I prefer playing Good characters almost exclusively and I'm pretty much with you on this one. I'm certainly not against gestures of personal grace or letting foes live and go to trial if possible...but invariably giving their stuff to their next of kin? Yeah, that's not normal.
Even among Good aligned people, there's such a thing as 'We need money. To buy cool stuff with which to do more good.' There's also the concept of spoils of war as legitimate, which is pretty common. And the fact that if anybody gets things from a slain villain, it should be the victims of his crimes in restitution for their suffering, not his relatives. That one actually happens sometimes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you are, but maybe you aren't.And without some sort of indication of why it's evil, I can't figure out what makes this act evil in and of itself.
*Shrug* I may be in the minority on it, but that's me.
I think a lot of people are asking for a lot more of the alignment system than they do of other aspects of Pathfinder. Why are demons vulnerable to cold iron, but devils vulnerable to silver? For that matter, why are lycanthropes vulnerable to silver? I've known since I was six years old that you need a silver bullet to kill a werewolf, but I've never received any indication of why that's so. I've never received any indication as to why gnomes live longer than dwarves, or why humans and orcs can crossbreed, as can humans and elves, but not elves and orcs. Et cetera, et cetera.
Failure to provide an explicit reason is not an inconsistency.
Similarly, using evil means to achieve (what you believe to be) good ends has been understood by theologians since antiquity to be one of the Devil's tricks; if nothing else, it provides support to the idea that "the ends justify the means" and also helps to convince people that true evil may not be that bad after all.
I think part of the issue is that a lot of people see a symmetry where there is not one. Evil and good do not "balance out," and it's not a neutral act to do an evil deed to good end, or a good deed for an evil end -- although either is preferable to doing an evil deed for an evil end. After all, "the Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek, a goodly apple rotten at the heart. O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!" (Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been looking for this for a bit. Casting evil spells -- why they're evil, even though it doesn't show up in the combat stats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We ask for more because it's a complex system that the devs have taken every opportunity to shove into every game mechanic they can find, without rhyme or reason.
Spells that are evil don't have any sort of specific criteria for why they're evil except that they're [Evil].
They're evil because they're evil. The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
I'll grant you it's consistent.
It's just NONSENSICAL.
Here, a list of things that are evil:
-Drinking blood for a benefit (doesn't matter if you've attacked someone in self defense or not).
-Using Infernal Healing to heal someone.
-Casting Protection From good to help you against some sort of misunderstanding witha Good character.
Here are a list of things that are NOT evil:
-Drinking blood just for fun.
-Using an above posted spell that forces someone into an extradimensional solitary confinement filled with madness inducing whisperings and slimy tentacles until they become permanently insane.
-Using Horrid Wilting on a living creature to cause "flesh to wither and crack and crumble to dust".
The only difference between these two lists is one thing says This is evil!" for arbitrary and unexplained reasons.
Which is not the same as DR. Many thing's DR is explained...just not in Pathfinder. Because they're based on pre-existing real world folklore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only difference between these two lists is one thing says This is evil!" for arbitrary and unexplained reasons.Which is not the same as DR. Many thing's DR is explained...just not in Pathfinder. Because they're based on pre-existing real world folklore.
I defy you to find any "real world folklore" that distinguishes between demonic vulnerability to cold iron and devilish vulnerability to silver. Even the basic distinction between demons and devils (and daemons) is arbitrary and unexplained, but for some reason, you accept that?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
using evil means to achieve (what you believe to be) good ends has been understood by theologians since antiquity to be one of the Devil's tricks; if nothing else, it provides support to the idea that "the ends justify the means" and also helps to convince people that true evil may not be that bad after all.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions!
The only difference between these two lists is one thing says This is evil!" for arbitrary and unexplained reasons.Which is not the same as DR. Many thing's DR is explained...just not in Pathfinder. Because they're based on pre-existing real world folklore.
I defy you to find any "real world folklore" that distinguishes between demonic vulnerability to cold iron and devilish vulnerability to silver. Even the basic distinction between demons and devils (and daemons) is arbitrary and unexplained, but for some reason, you accept that?
I accept it because it's a minor detail.
Alignment is not a minor detail.
It determines in some cases, what class I can play.
What spells I can cast at all, and what spells I can cast without changing alignment because reasons.
How I can act, if most DMs are to be believed.
How I am affected by certain spells.
How easily I am detected or targeted by certain creatures.
What gods I can worship.
Sometimes, even what Feats I can take.
All of these, individually, are far more significant than the fact that a Demon takes less damage from most things.
And the distinction between Devils and Demons is pretty clear anyway.
One wants to subjugate all beings.
One wants to destroy everything.
Daemons want to destroy everything sentient, which admittedly is hardly distinguishable from Demons.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
using evil means to achieve (what you believe to be) good ends has been understood by theologians since antiquity to be one of the Devil's tricks; if nothing else, it provides support to the idea that "the ends justify the" and also helps to convince people that true evil may not be that bad after all.The road to Hell, is paved with good intentions!
Pretty much.
One reason that infernal healing, in particular, could be evil is simply because it encourages the use of devil's blood and/or unholy water. This, in turn, will encourage people to start performing unholy rituals (because they need the unholy water) and/or making deals to devils (it's much easier and safer to ask a devil to donate blood than to try to kill it outright and exsanguinate it -- but you need to provide something "trivial" to the devil in exchange for its blood).
This is the classic sort of "hey, kid, the first hit's free" long game that I would expect of Asmodeus. Infernal healing is actually better for a first-level caster than Saranrae's cure light wounds, both in that it cures more hit points and in that it can be cast by more people (such as sorcerers). So over the next several centuries, he's hoping there will be more altars to Asmodeus (for the unholy water) and minor acts of evil as quid pro quo for the blood donations.... and Asmodeus gains, and Saranrae loses.
It's not that hard to look at most of the "evil" spells that people want to cast and to see exactly why the forces of Hell (or the Abyss) would be offering them as sucker bait, knowing that people would be saying things like "how can it be evil to heal someone?" or "how can it be wrong to cast Protection from Good?" And from such cobblestones is the road to Hell constructed.....
Could be, might be, but nowhere is this explanation given, and nowhere does it tie into the definition of evil "[...] hurting, oppressing, and killing others.".
Infernal healing, in fact, does the opposite of two of those.
Could be, might be, but nowhere is this explanation given,
It doesn't need to be.
and nowhere does it tie into the definition of evil "[...] hurting, oppressing, and killing others.".
Certainly it does. In the long run. And that, in fact, is the whole point. Knowing that it's an evil spell, one that is intended eventually to lead to the domination of the entire world and everything in it by the forces of Hell,.... you're still using it?
As I said, it's sucker bait. If you want to claim the bait and own that title, that's your choice.
Certainly it does. In the long run. And that, in fact, is the whole point. Knowing that it's an evil spell, one that is intended eventually to lead to the domination of the entire world and everything in it by the forces of Hell,.... you're still using it?As I said, it's sucker bait. If you want to claim the bait and own that title, that's your choice.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Pathfinder rules.
Not Orfamay's made up fluff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly it does. In the long run. And that, in fact, is the whole point. Knowing that it's an evil spell, one that is intended eventually to lead to the domination of the entire world and everything in it by the forces of Hell,.... you're still using it?As I said, it's sucker bait. If you want to claim the bait and own that title, that's your choice.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Pathfinder rules.
We are. And those rules say that [evil] spells are evil. I'm merely pointing out that your expressed desire to use them and wish that they were other-than-evil is one factor that may, in fact, contribute to their evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. They say evil is evil because it's evil. Because evil.
They do not say any of those made up justifications you created for yourself and are now for some reason using to prove that there is no contradiction between the text describing the evil alignment and what [Evil] spells actually do.
Technically speaking it's only a rule if you're using Faiths of Purity (IIRC that was the correct book).
|
|
Another question to ponder is this:
Do casting some of the beneficial spells (Infernal Healing, I'm looking at you) on a character also corrupt [i]that person[//i]? If Bingo the Rogue uses his Wand of Infernal Healing to keep Sir Zinbo The Paladin alive, does the Infernal eeeeevil bit of it go to:
- the Wand crafter
- Bingo the Rogue
- Sir Zinbo the Paladin
And even so, could a superior demand the paladin end up having to do an atonement for allowing himself to be 'tainted' by the infernal energies (to which he could say 'allow? I was unconscious and bleeding to death and had no ability to say no', but also might accept that it might be a taint)?
There's some interesting possible RP opportunities.
Another question to ponder is this:
Do casting some of the beneficial spells (Infernal Healing, I'm looking at you) on a character also corrupt that person? If Bingo the Rogue uses his Wand of Infernal Healing to keep Sir Zinbo The Paladin alive, does the Infernal eeeeevil bit of it go to:
- the Wand crafter
- Bingo the Rogue
- Sir Zinbo the Paladin
All of the above, since all of them are "learning" that evil isn't as bad as they paint it to be, and thereby allowing evil to get a stronger presence in the world.
Have you ever heard the expression "the standard you walk past is the standard you accept"? A paladin who walks past an evil action, even done with good intentions, is accepting that "the end justifies the means." This is true whether the evil act involved is casting an evil spell, or leaving the room and letting someone else torture a prisoner.
And even so, could a superior demand the paladin end up having to do an atonement for allowing himself to be 'tainted' by the infernal energies (to which he could say 'allow? I was unconscious and bleeding to death and had no ability to say no', but also might accept that it might be a taint)?
Well, that's up to the superior, innit? It would be a pretty hard-arsed and probably unreasonable superior who went nuts over it, but, on the other hand, that's why the atonement spell exists in the first place. (Bearing in mind that the spell has no significant costs to cast, I get the feeling that it's a spell that gets prepared weekly if not daily at the Paladin Palace.)
I think the more appropriate response from the superior is "what does this say about the kind of people you choose to associate with?" While the paladin may not have allowed Bingo to cast the spell, he allowed himself to hang with the kind of person who sees no harm in casting evil spells.
I think a lot of people are asking for a lot more of the alignment system than they do of other aspects of Pathfinder. Why are demons vulnerable to cold iron, but devils vulnerable to silver? For that matter, why are lycanthropes vulnerable to silver? I've known since I was six years old that you need a silver bullet to kill a werewolf, but I've never received any indication of why that's so. I've never received any indication as to why gnomes live longer than dwarves, or why humans and orcs can crossbreed, as can humans and elves, but not elves and orcs. Et cetera, et cetera.Maybe you are, but maybe you aren't.And without some sort of indication of why it's evil, I can't figure out what makes this act evil in and of itself.
*Shrug* I may be in the minority on it, but that's me.
I don't know about others here, but there certainly are many many arbitrary and/or inconsistent rules in D&D and PF that get under my skin, including many monster resistances and vulnerabilities. Start a thread about them, and I'll be happy to talk about 'em!
However, this thread is about [evil] spells, so I thus far haven't had reason to comment on PF's many other inconsistencies. I suspect that other posters also see other inconsistencies in the rules that you might not be aware of for similar reasons.
Failure to provide an explicit reason is not an inconsistency.
Call it inconsistent, arbitrary, or whatever you like. Point is, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect either an explanation or a house rule when one of these sort of things come up. We all realize that PF is just a game, but this "Move along citizen, the rule is a rule because it's written in the rule book" attitude just doesn't cut it for some of us.
And frankly, I find this sort of attitude troubling, but that's probably worthy of a whole different discussion.
One reason that infernal healing, in particular, could be evil is simply because it encourages the use of devil's blood and/or unholy water. This, in turn, will encourage people to start performing unholy rituals (because they need the unholy water) and/or making deals to devils (it's much easier and safer to ask a devil to donate blood than to try to kill it outright and exsanguinate it -- but you need to provide something "trivial" to the devil in exchange for its blood).
This touches on one of my other pet peeves; the unwritten 'Arcane magic shall not heal' convention that D&D and PF are still dragging along, such that arcane healing still demands either convoluted rules use or special conditions like infernal healing.
Anyhow, it's good that you've put thought into why IH could warrant its [evil] tag. It kinda begs for further explanation, given that unholy water and curse water similarly lack explicit explanations for being Evil -- but I'm guessing you can explain those too, so I'd say fair enough.
It's not that hard to look at most of the "evil" spells that people want to cast and to see exactly why the forces of Hell (or the Abyss) would be offering them as sucker bait, knowing that people would be saying things like "how can it be evil to heal someone?" or "how can it be wrong to cast Protection from Good?" And from such cobblestones is the road to Hell constructed.....
As an aside, I could house rule just about any spell as [evil], and provide a similarly compelling explanation. So, other than blindly accepting that a game writer at some point slapped the [evil] tag onto various spells, the deciding factor in which spells are justifiably [evil] is whichever ones any particular DM wants to explain as being so.
As an aside, I could house rule just about any spell as [evil], and provide a similarly compelling explanation. So, other than blindly accepting that a game writer at some point slapped the [evil] tag onto various spells, the deciding factor in which spells are justifiably [evil] is whichever ones any particular DM can explain as being so.
"Decides," not "can explain."
If the DM says that infernal healing is an evil spell, he is under no obligation to explain to you why, either in-character or out. Similarly, if he decides that fireball or cure light wounds is an evil spell, you are not entitled to an explanation.
As you yourself pointed out, the ways of Hell are mysterious and Asmodeus is capable of creating almost anything as a way of enhancing his power and his grip over the universe. The idea that as a mere mortal, you would understand fully the depths of his plans is frankly presumptuous.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would expect that some of the spells being discussed here, obviously coming from devilish sources, have the evil descriptor because they were designed that way. It is a feature not a bug.
This is really pretty classic devil strategy. Here, I'll teach you this ritual to heal yourself, (fine print) but it corrupts your soul each time you use it.
Or here, this handy spell will bring your allies to your side instants, don't worry about the small side effect that shortcutting them through hell is going to expose you to infernal corruption.
Some magics are [evil] because their is no way to achieve those effects without getting evil on you (animate dead for example) but others are evil not because their effects are anything to do with evil, but because they are specifically designed to be corrupting.
Which is exactly what you should expect to get when you get a spell from a Devil.
I would expect that some of the spells being discussed here, obviously coming from devilish sources, have the evil descriptor because they were designed that way. It is a feature not a bug.
This is really pretty classic devil strategy. Here, I'll teach you this ritual to heal yourself, (fine print) but it corrupts your soul each time you use it.
Or here, this handy spell will bring your allies to your side instantly, don't worry about the small side effect that shortcutting them through hell is going to expose you to infernal corruption.
Some magics are [evil] because there is no way to achieve those effects without getting evil on you (animate dead for example) but others are evil not because their effects are anything to do with evil, but because they are specifically designed to be corrupting.
Which is exactly what you should expect to get when you get a spell from a Devil.
As an aside, I could house rule just about any spell as [evil], and provide a similarly compelling explanation. So, other than blindly accepting that a game writer at some point slapped the [evil] tag onto various spells, the deciding factor in which spells are justifiably [evil] is whichever ones any particular DM can explain as being so."Decides," not "can explain."
If the DM says that infernal healing is an evil spell, he is under no obligation to explain to you why, either in-character or out. Similarly, if he decides that fireball or cure light wounds is an evil spell, you are not entitled to an explanation.
Sure, sure, "There is a good reason that this spell is Evil, and looking into this mystery sounds like a great adventure hook!" is a perfectly reasonable reply to "Why is this spell [evil]?"
As you yourself pointed out, the ways of Hell are mysterious and Asmodeus is capable of creating almost anything as a way of enhancing his power and his grip over the universe. The idea that as a mere mortal, you would understand fully the depths of his plans is frankly presumptuous.
Er, no, that was your explanation. I myself come from an era in which Asmodeus was not the BBEG of the entire multiverse, and I don't particularly care for the idea of elevating him to such a position. ;)