|
Why using the One Ring corrupts ? Everyone say the ring is the ultimate corruptor, but we never see if this is the effect of the ring itself or only the fact that it is powerful. The One Ring has the [Evil] tag ?
Why helping orfans makes someone good ? It is the duty of society. If you just barge in orphanates and help them you are teaching the orphans that heavy labor isn't worth it and you just should ask for someone to help you everytime you need anything.
Some magics are [evil] because their is no way to achieve those effects without getting evil on you
I was going to go with a "you got some evil on you" analogy but you beat me to it. Although you use it for the opposite point that I would.
I don't think it has anything to do with an act being inherently immoral, torture spells do not always get the [Evil] descriptor and aiding/benefiting ones do not get [Good].
I like the explanation that they are powered by supernatural evil, are supernaturally evil of themselves, and are treated as evil by effects regardless of whether they are used immorally or have immoral effects.
Similar to how evil alignment descriptor outsiders will count as evil and interact as if they are evil even if they are actually Lawful Good and doing good things.
Evil Subtype: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299).
I find Infernal Healing fits this mode of understanding well. Use it to heal and you get some supernatural evil on you.
I don't have a problem with spells being evil, but I think the spell should be obviously evil. An an example infernal healing should have flavor that explains how it corrupts you, since healing, even from Asmodeus is not going to be obvious as an evil act. A spell that steals people's souls might not need as much as an explanation. For many people if there is no rule or flavor, but only possible tropes to show it is evil, then to them it is not evil.
I don't know if Pathfinder has a book specifically focused on evil as a topic planned, but if not they have a good chance to go into further explanation on certain things. They can also say that while certain spells such as the "protection from ..." spells have alignments a GM should feel free to remove those tags.
Not everyone can match certain things up to certain tropes, especially when some things are not obvious, and even if they can tropes are not rules, which is why so many people disagree on these types of debates.
Why using the One Ring corrupts ? Everyone say the ring is the ultimate corruptor, but we never see if this is the effect of the ring itself or only the fact that it is powerful. The One Ring has the [Evil] tag ?
Why helping orfans makes someone good ? It is the duty of society. If you just barge in orphanates and help them you are teaching the orphans that heavy labor isn't worth it and you just should ask for someone to help you everytime you need anything.
The ring changes everyone not just mentally but physically. This is not a hard connection to make. Now if the rings invis power just happened to be convenient, and they went to far with the liberties then it would be the person. Some things just don't need to be spelled out. If I gave someone a liquid which made them really strong and they became meaner, and over time they mutated, I don't think you would say "well maybe it is just them being made stronger that changed them".
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. ;)
Really? You're from pre-600 BC? I'm impressed at your grasp of modern idioms.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
didnt read the whole thread, but if use of an [EVIL] descriptor can change your alignment to evil then you must also allow spells with the [GOOD] descriptor change your alignment to good.
You're assuming symmetry where there is none.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
didnt read the whole thread, but if use of an [EVIL] descriptor can change your alignment to evil then you must also allow spells with the [GOOD] descriptor change your alignment to good.You're assuming symmetry where there is none.
So casting spells of one alignment makes you more of that alignment, but you posit this is only true for that one alignment? The alignments are in fact symetrical. There is Good, opposed by Evil and on the other end there is Law opposed by Chaos. If Evil gets special treatment then realistically it should have won already.
|
|
So casting spells of one alignment makes you more of that alignment, but you posit this is only true for that one alignment? The alignments are in fact symetrical. There is Good, opposed by Evil and on the other end there is Law opposed by Chaos. If Evil gets special treatment then realistically it should have won already.didnt read the whole thread, but if use of an [EVIL] descriptor can change your alignment to evil then you must also allow spells with the [GOOD] descriptor change your alignment to good.You're assuming symmetry where there is none.
Strange affirmation in a game where good is wired to win. Why the GMs are expected to be punished wanting for the good guys to win by using good strategies ?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So casting spells of one alignment makes you more of that alignment, but you posit this is only true for that one alignment? The alignments are in fact symetrical. There is Good, opposed by Evil and on the other end there is Law opposed by Chaos. If Evil gets special treatment then realistically it should have won already.didnt read the whole thread, but if use of an [EVIL] descriptor can change your alignment to evil then you must also allow spells with the [GOOD] descriptor change your alignment to good.You're assuming symmetry where there is none.
I'd argue that it's not a balanced scale between good & evil so much as it's a sort of hill or slope (the classic slippery slope even). Good is at the top of the hill, and each evil thing you do slides you a bit further down the hill towards evil, but it's a lot harder to get back up said hill.
I'd even argue that law & chaos would work the same way to some degree. A lawful character breaking his code even occasionally makes him slide towards chaos, while a chaotic character obeying the law some of the time doesn't make him significantly more lawful.
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.
Ah, good old "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE GOD-GM!" territory. Remember, the instant you start calling yourself a GM, you become a god among men, above the petty concerns of mortal scum like your pathetic players. Really, the slime should be grateful you allow such unworthy beings into your presence.
Just play a fun game with friends? Blasphemy! Familiarity breeds contempt.
Strange affirmation in a game where good is wired to win. Why the GMs are expected to be punished wanting for the good guys to win by using good strategies ?So casting spells of one alignment makes you more of that alignment, but you posit this is only true for that one alignment? The alignments are in fact symetrical. There is Good, opposed by Evil and on the other end there is Law opposed by Chaos. If Evil gets special treatment then realistically it should have won already.didnt read the whole thread, but if use of an [EVIL] descriptor can change your alignment to evil then you must also allow spells with the [GOOD] descriptor change your alignment to good.You're assuming symmetry where there is none.
I would respond to this, but I cannot make any sense out of it. Could you explain further please?
@ Charon's Little Helper: According to 3.5 and PF lore this is not the case. And why is Law better then Chaos? Genuinely curious here.
I've always run it that when the player's character casts the evil spell, they know they're doing something evil. They get some of the stain on their being. If they continue to use it I feel free to slide their character's alignment. This takes time and I prompt them every time they use evil descriptor spells. There's no set number of uses, their actions also factor into my decision. A person who makes use of evil magic but is otherwise a bastion of charity and general good is generally going to get more uses before they slide than the abusive, selfish, a~@@%~%.
Casting good aligned magic has the same effect but in reverse. An evil wizard might begin feeling empathy, might feel the urge to become more giving before they 'ascend' to neutral. It's me prompting them for alignment shift. If you act in a goodly manner, use spells that are by nature good, you'll slowly shift towards good alignment. Same goes for Law / Chaos.
It's gradual and should be RPed mostly. Its not something you're likely to stat up (I think it would be worse off if it did). A paladin using evil spells to fight evil is still an evil act and is going to fall.
When you use a summoning spell to summon a creature with an alignment or elemental subtype, it is a spell of that type. Creatures on Table: Summon Monster marked with an "*" are summoned with the celestial template, if you are good, and the fiendish template, if you are evil. If you are neutral, you may choose which template to apply to the creature. Creatures marked with an "*" always have an alignment that matches yours, regardless of their usual alignment. Summoning these creatures makes the summoning spell's type match your alignment.
As I've always run Summoned Monsters with intelligence as acting according to their own motivations. You can tell it what to do but it is in no way compelled to follow orders.
It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.
Therefore in my games if you summoned a Hound Archon to go pillage the orphanage, at best it would stand there disobeying. Much more likely it would refuse and put a pin in it's agenda to come back later with it's buddies and stomp your ass.
Really? You're from pre-600 BC? I'm impressed at your grasp of modern idioms.....
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. ;)
What are you even talking about?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 a DM I dislike this mindset. Of course I owe you an explination when I change the rules. I absolutely do. Hell in my opinion I don't even get to change the rules without talking to the players about it first. It's not even a reasonable possition
Just a personal observation but generally the players I've gamed with who treat me with some kind of special reverence as if I was like unto a god, are also the ones who wait around for me to tell them what to do. I really wish players would start seeing the dm as a human being again.
What are you even talking about?He's commenting on TS's phrasing being able to be parsed as referring to the real world, and suggesting that Asmodeus has been the BBEG of the real world since 600 BC.
I thought that might be it, but I wanted to make sure.
|
I know Dragon Magazine had a similar spell to Infernal Healing for 1st edition AD&D, but this thread has inspired me to convert the spell (and the "Greater" version of it as well) to 2nd edition AD&D (complete with a warning that use of the spell could have "possible" long-term effects to one's alignment)... :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So casting spells of one alignment makes you more of that alignment, but you posit this is only true for that one alignment? The alignments are in fact symetrical. There is Good, opposed by Evil and on the other end there is Law opposed by Chaos. If Evil gets special treatment then realistically it should have won already.didnt read the whole thread, but if use of an [EVIL] descriptor can change your alignment to evil then you must also allow spells with the [GOOD] descriptor change your alignment to good.You're assuming symmetry where there is none.
No, but what keeps it from winning is not the cosmic symmetry of the universe, but the cosmic anti-symmetry of the universe. Evil is usually dominant over the short run, but ultimately self-defeating over the long run. (If you want empirical evidence for that, look at Robert Axelrod's work on the iterated prisoner's dilemma.)
It's not a good or even a neutral action to perform something evil to a good end (the ends do not justify the means), but neither is it good or even neutral to perform something good to an evil end (the Devil can still cite Scripture to his purpose).
The same assymmetry applies to the law/chaos axis as well. In the real world, it is unlawful (illegal) to perform an illegal act to a legal purpose (I can't burglarize your house to recover my own property), but also to perform a legal act to an illegal purpose (that's basically "conspiracy to..." or "attempt to ...", and, yes, it's illegal). Both the means and the ends must be lawful for the court of action itself to be lawful.
Of course, this is something that has been well understood by ethicists, theologians, and philosophers for centuries, so it's hardly a new idea. But if you don't want me to start quoting extensively from the Old Testament, look at The Empire Strikes Back instead:
Luke: Is the dark side stronger?
Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
Evil is easier and more seductive, but ultimately no stronger, as evil begins to consume itself. ("Apology accepted, Captain Needa.")
What are you even talking about?He's commenting on TS's phrasing being able to be parsed as referring to the real world, and suggesting that Asmodeus has been the BBEG of the real world since 600 BC.
Specifically, the Book of Tobit. If TS truly predates the Book of Tobit, I'm impressed.
The point, of course, being that the idea that demons offer subtle gifts to corrupt the receiver is far from a new invention of the Pathfinder authors. If you're willing to give mind-controlling vampires a pass (which date only to the 19th century) and silver-vulnerable werewolves (which, I believe, date only to the early 20th), then you should have no problem accepting the seductions of evil as a standard part of real-world folklore.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The problem to me of just declaring that Good and Evil are "Team White" and "Team Black" is that there really is not direct equivalence/symmetry between good and evil acts - there is no way to say that action A is just as good as action B is evil. If you think there is, what is the universally accepted good counterpart to cold-blooded murder? To torture for fun? To petty theft?
What is the universally accepted evil act that balances giving to charity? Showing mercy? Helping your friends move?
As long as good and evil are defined by different actions, they can't just be flip sides of the same coin.
And Anzyr, I'm comfortable saying Good is better because the definition of "better" is "more good."
Better, adj. 2. morally superior; more virtuous
|
|
The point, of course, being that the idea that demons offer subtle gifts to corrupt the receiver is far from a new invention of the Pathfinder authors. If you're willing to give mind-controlling vampires a pass (which date only to the 19th century) and silver-vulnerable werewolves (which, I believe, date only to the early 20th), then you should have no problem accepting the seductions of evil as a standard part of real-world folklore.
Yeah, but you know that he was talking about Golarion's Asmodeus and the fact that he started playing the game before Pathfinder was a thing.
So he rejected your specific arguments using Asmodeus as the source of evil and corruption to explain the evil of infernal healing. Which has nothing to do with real-world folklore save for the inspiration Paizo took from it.
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.
Yeah, but you know that he was talking about Golarion's Asmodeus and the fact that he started playing the game before Pathfinder was a thing.
And I'm not going to enable him to pretend that Golarion's Asmodeus is in any way a new or imaginative take on the problem of 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.
And I stand by that writing. If someone wants to pretend that they are willfully ignorant of that particular aspect of folklore while playing in a folklore-based game, they're both stupid and arrogant.
And if TS want to take that particular shoe, put it on, and loudly proclaim that it fits,... that becomes his choice.
What are you even talking about?He's commenting on TS's phrasing being able to be parsed as referring to the real world, and suggesting that Asmodeus has been the BBEG of the real world since 600 BC.Specifically, the Book of Tobit. If TS truly predates the Book of Tobit, I'm impressed.
The point, of course, being that the idea that demons offer subtle gifts to corrupt the receiver is far from a new invention of the Pathfinder authors. If you're willing to give mind-controlling vampires a pass (which date only to the 19th century) and silver-vulnerable werewolves (which, I believe, date only to the early 20th), then you should have no problem accepting the seductions of evil as a standard part of real-world folklore.
Yeah, but you know that he was talking about Golarion's Asmodeus and the fact that he started playing the game before Pathfinder was a thing.And I'm not going to enable him to pretend that Golarion's Asmodeus is in any way a new or imaginative take on the problem of Evil.
...
And I stand by that writing. If someone wants to pretend that they are willfully ignorant of that particular aspect of folklore while playing in a folklore-based game, they're both stupid and arrogant.
And if TS want to take that particular shoe, put it on, and loudly proclaim that it fits,... that becomes his choice.
Oh. Wow. Gee. Er, see, I thought your comment about me dating back to 600 BC was a joke.
But you seem to be arguing against things that I never said. All this stuff about Asmodeus working in mysterious ways, and whatnot? I don't have a problem with you using it to explain [evil] spells in your campaign, and I can certainly see the parallel with RW mythology; heck, Asmodeus is essentially the Christian Lucifer.
I just choose to explain [evil] spells differently.
As a general rule, I run alignment as intent or as striving for a virtue.
Alignment changes are extremely rare and I rarely look at the alignment of actions (paladins *sigh*).
Also from the atonement spell - "Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement offers a method for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively."
So as far as that spell has stated, your PC alignment does not normally change unless he player wants it to. Sense casting spells is a normal action, then I infer that spellcasting does not change your alignment just because of the [type].
|
|
I would respond to this, but I cannot make any sense out of it. Could you explain further please?
The expected common game is the group of players representing the GOOD, the game is "wired" so the good allways win and the players already have a huge advantage againts the monsters. The GM only want the players to have fun, so he masquerade as if the players could lose (the fact that they really could is a a collateral damage).
Many GMs try to limit the players as having to keep being good to really win, so they shouldn´t use evil or unfair strategies to win (sniping BBEG from afar, scrying in teleporting into boss bedroom, killing the guy who sells magic items, using the villain evil plan to actually dominate the world after killing him, etc).When a player start wanting to use [evil] spells, sounds a lot like they just want thin the barrier betwin good and evil and start using the villains toys.
Creating undead is a pretty smart move, undead workers who never tire can be as world changing as undead soldiers. But the design said its a villain thing. Why ? Each one can create a why, but the truth is the evil must remain appealing. The evil should be easy, and good be hard to follow. But the game give so many toys to good, how to make people choose to be evil ? I can only see, making evil have cool exclusive toys, but is hard because the game has balance.
The GMS end being punished for wanting for fairness.
| 1 person 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 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.
Now where is this listed in the rules/description of the spells and where does it say they need to be learned from a Devil?
|
|
Now where is this listed in the rules/description of the spells and where does it say they need to be learned from a Devil?
This here is the disconnect... There are many players who look to the rules and say that if something is not explicitly stated therein; it simply does not exist (thus ignoring any fluff that may be implied by or behind a given rule). Which is precisely why many players of good characters see no problem casting spells such as Infernal Healing, because nowhere in the rules does it explicitly state anything bad will happen by casting them (in fact, the description of Infernal Healing states: "this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment."), Thus (in their minds) giving them carte blanche access to these spells with no regrets or repercussions.
Whereas others play up to the fluff behind the rules, and feel that this fluff is important, and that good characters, simply by the fact of being good, should avoid all evil, even the appearances of evil, lest they become tainted by it.
But that's just my thoughts on the subject... YMMV. :-)
Now where is this listed in the rules/description of the spells and where does it say they need to be learned from a Devil?This here is the disconnect... There are many players who look to the rules and say that if something is not explicitly stated therein; it simply does not exist (thus ignoring any fluff that may be implied by or behind a given rule). Which is precisely why many players of good characters see no problem casting spells such as Infernal Healing, because nowhere in the rules does it explicitly state anything bad will happen by casting them (in fact, the description of Infernal Healing states: "this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment."), Thus (in their minds) giving them carte blanche access to these spells with no regrets or repercussions.
Whereas others play up to the fluff behind the rules, and feel that this fluff is important, and that good characters, simply by the fact of being good, should avoid all evil, even the appearances of evil, lest they become tainted by it.
But that's just my thoughts on the subject... YMMV. :-)
I can understand the fluff but when you begin to tie Mechanics/RP requirements it stops being fluff.
Whereas others play up to the fluff behind the rules, and feel that this fluff is important, and that good characters, simply by the fact of being good, should avoid all evil, even the appearances of evil, lest they become tainted by it.
Axes are evil.
I see the fluff beyond the rules, so I make all characters that use axes turn evil.
If they didn't want an alignment change they should have been better RP-ers like me.
There's no mechanic in play to force alignment change...so as far as I can tell the real purpose of the [Evil] descriptor is to limit who can use it with impunity.
Clerics of good Gods and Paladins can't go around casting evil spells and expect it to be ok.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which rules say axes are evil, and what fluff are you using to justify it?Axes are evil.
I see the fluff beyond the rules, so I make all characters that use axes turn evil.
It doesn't have to be written if you RP hard enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which rules say axes are evil, and what fluff are you using to justify it?Axes are evil.
I see the fluff beyond the rules, so I make all characters that use axes turn evil.
I'll give that a go. :)
"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
Axes are designed and used to kill people and trees.
Axe murderer is a whole trope of evil.
"good characters, simply by the fact of being good, should avoid all evil, even the appearances of evil, lest they become tainted by it."
It doesn't have to be written if you RP hard enough.I fail to see the relevance in making up rules with no justification to using fluff to explain official rules.
It isn't really an "official rule", to be honest. It's an off-hand mention from a campaign setting book.
It is a quality of the SETTING but not the RULE SET.
Pathfinder does not have an "[Evil] spells are evil acts" rule, Golarion does.
That's a massive difference.
There's no mechanic in play to force alignment change...so as far as I can tell the real purpose of the [Evil] descriptor is to limit who can use it with impunity.
Clerics of good Gods and Paladins can't go around casting evil spells and expect it to be ok.
This applies only to multiclassed clerics of good gods and multiclassed paladins or ones using UMD.
Paladins do not have evil spells on their spell list and as for clerics:
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
As a general rule, I run alignment as intent or as striving for a virtue.
Alignment changes are extremely rare and I rarely look at the alignment of actions (paladins *sigh*).
Also from the atonement spell - "Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement offers a method for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively."
So as far as that spell has stated, your PC alignment does not normally change unless he player wants it to. Sense casting spells is a normal action, then I infer that spellcasting does not change your alignment just because of the [type].
That's pretty much the core rules on changing alignments too. It says alignment is a label the DM controls but if he believes the player is roleplaying in a way inconsistent with the stated alignment the DM should talk it over with him, explain why and if the player wants to change alignment let him.
Changing Alignments
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character. In some cases, changing alignments can impact a character's abilities—see the class write-ups in Classes for details. An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality.
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.
Now a DM could reasonably say "Hey, you're casting a lot of [evil] spells, don't you think your character's alignment should shift towards evil?" and let him change that direction if he wants to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
didnt read the whole thread, but if use of an [EVIL] descriptor can change your alignment to evil then you must also allow spells with the [GOOD] descriptor change your alignment to good.You're assuming symmetry where there is none.
You're assuming asymmetry where symmetry is implied.
Good and Evil are opposites. There are [evil] and [good] spells. Using [evil] spells makes one more Evil. Therefore using [good] spells makes one more Good.
Either alignment descriptors affect casters, or they don't. You can't have it both ways.
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.
They also don't explain why fighter levels make you better at fighting, why wizards research spells in their free time or why deities want to grant spells to their clerics.
Sure, we could argue that as a fighter has fought more and more they've become more used to their weapons etc and that's why they get better at fighting - but that's a "made up justification" and not in the rules. By the rules fighter is good at fighting because it's good at fighting. Because fighting.
The game never fully explains it's reasoning for why a rule is the way it is. We are assumed to figure out a reason on our own.
Also, honestly, I find the division between devils and demons to be a far more important and interesting subject than why casting infernal healing is evil. I'd gladly read a three page or even full chapter on the matter, but I don't need a more complex explanation of infernal healing than "it's made by Asmodeus".
didnt read the whole thread, but if use of an [EVIL] descriptor can change your alignment to evil then you must also allow spells with the [GOOD] descriptor change your alignment to good.You're assuming symmetry where there is none.
You're assuming asymmetry where symmetry is implied.
Good and Evil are opposites. There are [evil] and [good] spells. Using [evil] spells makes one more Evil. Therefore using [good] spells makes one more Good.
Either alignment descriptors affect casters, or they don't. You can't have it both ways.
This is incorrect, of course. There's no inherent rule that everything needs to apply equally.
That said, I agree that good spells make you more good, when "casting good spells" is the only aligned thing you do.I even think that you can compensate for evil actions with good actions.
However, I also think there may be a difference in scope, and that being truly "good" requires self-sacrifice, which puts a practical limit to how good you can be (while still remaining in existence). Evil, on the other hand, is all about egoism and so you can nearly always do more evil acts.
Saving a life does not "balance" with murder. If you've been a willing murderer and want to become good again, you need a little more than that. If you're a petty thief but also save lives, that can compensate.
Since the game doesn't have a listed scale of how evil something is, just whether it is or isn't, it's pretty easy to adjust it however you want. Because not all aligned spells are created equal. Animating dead might very well be far more evil than summoning a hell hound, and might very well be far more evil than summoning a lantern archon is good.
We are. And those rules say that [evil] spells are evil.Is that another 'unwritten rule'?
Are you seriously arguing that "evil is evil" is an unwritten rule? Would you also argue that "spells are spells" is an unwritten rule? Or that "race" when referred to in a feat isn't the same as "race" referred to in the race chapter?
What's next, "Oh, you claim that orcs "evil" alignment infers that they act in a way somehow similar to the evil alignment described elsewhere"?
This is incorrect, of course. There's no inherent rule that everything needs to apply equally.didnt read the whole thread, but if use of an [EVIL] descriptor can change your alignment to evil then you must also allow spells with the [GOOD] descriptor change your alignment to good.You're assuming symmetry where there is none.
You're assuming asymmetry where symmetry is implied.
Good and Evil are opposites. There are [evil] and [good] spells. Using [evil] spells makes one more Evil. Therefore using [good] spells makes one more Good.
Either alignment descriptors affect casters, or they don't. You can't have it both ways.
This is correct in everyday life, but within the structure of a game it is incorrect. When a disparity exists, it is a function of the rules to notify you. If you fail a save against a sleep spell, you fall asleep. Except if you are an elf, or half-elf. As there is no rules text, or even rules implication that evil is somehow more powerful, and thus affects one more, they affect a caster equally (if at all).
Then again the entire concept of aligned spells affecting a caster's alignment does not appear in rules text to my knowledge.
By the same notion, however, nothing separates spellcasting from other aligned effects, and unless you think all aligned actions are as strongly aligned, theres no reason why the spells should be. Unless you either think helpig someone cross the street is equally good as burning down an orphanage is evil, or unless you think those are unaligned actions, theres no reason to think all aligned spellcasting is equally srongy aligned.
And btw saying "the rules dont say castingevil spells affects alignment", neither do they say burning down an orphanage or aiding a demons genocide against gnomes is evil.
Are you seriously arguing that "evil is evil" is an unwritten rule?We are. And those rules say that [evil] spells are evil.Is that another 'unwritten rule'?
No he's talking about casting a Spell with an Evil descriptor as being an Evil action which is an unwritten(house) rule in the Pathfinder Rule-set.
And btw saying "the rules dont say castingevil spells affects alignment", neither do they say burning down an orphanage or aiding a demons genocide against gnomes is evil.
Except that they rules do say that the other two are Evil it does not say that using Undead to build orphanages, summoning Demons to fight against the genocide of gnomes, or healing the injured with Devil's blood are Evil just because the person had the gall to use a spell with the Evil descriptor; this and this are the only things they say on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game never fully explains it's reasoning for why a rule is the way it is. We are assumed to figure out a reason on our own.
Or to change the rule to suit our tastes.
Just saying.
(Unless we're talking about organized play, of course.)
|
No he's talking about casting a Spell with an Evil descriptor as being an Evil action which is an unwritten(house) rule in the Pathfinder Rule-set.
For the record, it's actually explicitly written in (I believe) Champions of Purity. So...it's definitely official for Golarion.
You can argue it's not official for the core rulebooks...but calling it 'unwritten' or a 'house rule' is like saying using Dervish Dance is a House Rule because it's from a campaign setting book. It's simply not true.
On a more general note: I think everyone needs to calm down a bit. I'm seeing people on both sides of this debate say some pretty harsh stuff. Way harsher than seems warranted regarding a relatively minor rules/setting point on a forum about games we play to have fun. How about we all take a deep breath and just chill out?
No he's talking about casting a Spell with an Evil descriptor as being an Evil action which is an unwritten(house) rule in the Pathfinder Rule-set.
If you go arbitrarily literal about nearly any rule you can say it's a house rule. For example, just like "evil" in a spell description doesn't need to mean the same "evil" as in the alignment section, so doesn't "hit dice" in the sleep spell description need to mean the same "hit dice" as in the glossary section.
Except that they rules do say that the other two are Evil
Nope. Says nothing about gnomes nor genocide there. It does not define innocence either; as the word of the imperial inquisition; "there is no innocence, only degrees of guilt". It'd be very easy to claim that all gnomes are guilty of, say, gnomishness, and that killing them all of thus isn't "murder of innocents". Also, it says nothing about aiding others who commit genocide.
Aiding a demon in it's quest to commit a genocide against gnomes is not stated as an evil action in the rules. People are supposed to understand that aiding genocide is evil, just like they're supposed to understand that evil is evil.
it does not say that using Undead to build orphanages
That isn't an inherently evil action, though. You can be lawfully good and do that for a millennium without ever commiting an evil action. Just don't use any evil spells to do it, but keep to unaligned spells like Control Undead.
summoning Demons to fight against the genocide of gnomes
Actually it does. It says it right there in the spell description that it is an evil spell. Now you might argue that the rules don't explicitly say casting evil spells is evil, but neither do they say that genocide is evil. It's implied by the choice of words, such as "evil".
or healing the injured with Devil's blood are Evil
Nope, the rules don't say it's evil, just that the spell Infernal Healing is. If you find some other non-evil way to heal people with devil's blood then it isn't evil, though I don't know if any such methods exist.