| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, using Ashiel's interpretation you are asking people to just go to hir and get the "ok not ok" list of what's evil and not. Casting evil spells isn't evil (despite devs confirming the obviousness of it), consciously lending great magic power to a demon lord bent on genocide isn't evil (despite common sense saying it is) and killing orcs isn't evil (despite the alignment rules explicitly saying it is).
Actually, I'm not asking you to go to me for what's evil and what's not. See, we have the alignment rules in the core rulebook for that. See, where I get my argument concerning alignment rules is (oddly enough) by going to the alignment rules. Crazy, I know. See, here's the thing...
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
...
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
So we've got the core of good and evil here. It's pretty simple yet encompassing, because you can figure out what is good and evil with these very universal concepts.
Meanwhile, Neutral is between these two extremes and a neutral character is described as acting without bias towards one or the other. Which is what I was saying concerning the orcs & paladin bit. The Paladin is protecting life (good), however to do so he is killing (evil). So he's showing no bias in either direction, so killing in self defense is neutral. If he was putting himself in harms way to protect someone else from the orc, he's being altruistic (good), while protecting life (good), and killing (evil), but the bias is towards good in this case. That's why those valorous hero sorts tend to be good guys.
Meanwhile, giving gifts to a demon bent on genocide is not innately good/evil because giving gifts to anyone is not good or evil. But why are you giving this gift? Is it just out of a sense of altruism (because you're showing some sort of extreme love for everything); is a bribe to convince said demon to pull back on the genocide; is it an attempt to befriend the demon and be a good influence on it; is it to convince the demon to give you power; is it to further the demon's genocide because you really hate those other guys?
You're over complicating it. The alignment rules are intentionally simplistic while being reasonable. Things are not just arbitrarily X according to the core alignment rules. For example, in previous editions using poison was considered evil arbitrarily, which made no sense since it meant that using tranquilizers or ability-damaging poisons were evil, even when using them generally meant doing less evil (disabling an enemy with poisons generally means you can defeat them without slaying them), which is why a checklist of each individual tool or action being a set alignment is a terribad idea.
Much easier to just use the method of tracking the norms of the character's activities based on what the alignment rules declare as the core precepts of the alignments.
Of course, once you've reached a certain part of arbitrariness nothing becomes self-contradictory because everything is on a case by case basis with no continuous guideline, but it still makes the game extremely hard to understand even in cases that would normally not be considered difficult questions (such as the example of the demon lord above).
Not in the slightest. It's in fact the opposite of arbitrary because it allows you to use basic principles ascribed to the alignments to easily weigh whether anything was good, evil, or neither. Arbitrary is what you are describing, where X is always Y because it is X, where it does not take into account the circumstances and/or activities with X.
Again, in this arbitrary world you describe, casting Holy Smite and nuking a bunch of commoners, or enslaving angels, and so forth is GOOD because no matter how you are using those spells, it is good and making you more good. In my game (the one using the core alignment rules), wiping out a bunch of commoners with holy smite isn't even remotely good, not even a tiny bit. Further, enslaving angels is quite horrible. Crafting golems likewise makes you a jerk. Turning someone into a ghoul and using necromancy to enslave them is abominable. Mind-screwing someone into being your minion with enchantment spells is likewise dirty pool.
However, turning someone into a ghoul as a pseudo-raise dead and leaving them with free will? Not evil (maybe even good if you did it to save them). Casting infernal healing out of a sense of altruism? Good! Casting fireball at a group of orcs because you were paid to? Bad! Animating a bunch of dead corpses to water your bushes? Lazy (but neither good nor evil)!
See how easy this is? And it never deviates from just practical logic. I can rationally explain every reason why it is and is not evil in any given case, and I can do it by citing the alignment rules. It doesn't require me to say the alignment rules don't work, it doesn't require me to add to the rules what isn't already described there, and it doesn't require me to create any strange exceptions in the rules that make you scratch your head. It allows every version of evil, Evil, and [Evil] to exist in the game at the same time, and you can still have deep and complex characters that aren't even close to being cookie-cutter.
I think your problem with alignment comes from user error.
Which, of course, leads to the question why even have alignment?
It's romantic. Alignment comes with the assumption of moral essentialism. Which can be a great narrative tool and depending on your perspective a premise that makes the setting pure fantasy.
Ask yourself this. Should summoning celestial badgers make you go to heaven? Should you be able to buy away your sins with a UMD check?To be fair, it's pretty unclear even by RAW to how high degree using a magic item is similar to casting a spell. By default, it seems spell-like abilities are considered as spells unless otherwise mentioned, while items are different from spells unless otherwise mentioned. Though the rules aren't clear at all on this.
Are you suggesting that a paladin can use an [evil] unholy sword and not commit an evil act but if he uses UMD to cast an [evil] protection from good spell from a wand or a scroll or as a multiclassed caster he is doing an evil act because one is a magic item that does cast spells and one is using a spell?
|
Ask yourself this. Should summoning celestial badgers make you go to heaven? Should you be able to buy away your sins with a UMD check? If the answer is NO, then similarly casting spells tagged with [Evil] will not make you more evil, any more than casting fireball makes you, the caster, more on fire because it has the [Fire] tag.
This is certainly a valid choice...but it assumes a bit too much significance to 'evil acts' or 'good acts', as I'll address below.
Imprisoning angels with Planar Binding is a [Good] spell to boot, which means if you have an evil wizard enslaving angels, it would actually make him more good to be doing so.
Okay, this demonstrates the essential bit of illogic people on this side of the argument use:
All Good Acts are not equal. All Evil Acts are not equal. Therefore, enslaving angels with a [Good] spell is still Evil even if [Good] spells are Good acts, because enslaving an Angel is way more Evil than using such a spell is Good. It'd be even more Evil if they did it another way...but only a very little bit.
And besides, imprisoning them is a Magic Circle Against Good, which is an Evil Act. So, the spell to summon them (a Good act) and the spell to bind them (an Evil act) cancel each other out, leaving your intent and what you ask or make them do as the determining factor in the summoning's Good or Evil.
You're acting like, if you consider casting aligned spells to be acts of that alignment, you can torture and murder people and atone by casting Protection From Evil a bunch. Which is like saying you can torture or murder people and then atone by being nice to all your waiters, or other exceedingly minor Good acts. It doesn't actually follow at all, because torture and murder are really major acts of Evil, while casting an Aligned spell is a really minor act of the alignment in question.
The idea that you can is a reductio ad absurdum and a bit of a straw man, and not appropriate when having a civilized discussion.
Now, the other side is sometimes arguing in bad faith too, to about the same degree (a lot of references to the use of torture spells by Paladins and the like, despite the fact that whether the spell counts as Evil in and of itself is immaterial to torture being Evil), and I'd just really like both sides to please stop misrepresenting the other side's position.
The alignment rules themselves (located in the Additional Rules chapter of the core rulebook) make no mention of spells having any effect on alignment. The only things that have an effect on alignment unless specifically noted in the effect's entry are what you DO as a character, not what you use.
This is, indeed, true of the core rules. There are maybe some vague implications that an [Evil] spell is Evil, but certainly nothing concrete.
If you are altruistic, protective of life, and respectful of the rights of sentient beings, you are doing and being Good. If you are hurting, oppressing, or killing, you are doing and being Evil. What spells you use has 0% effect on your alignment. What it DOES have an effect on is what spells you can cast as a cleric from your class spells (which doesn't even directly relate to your god, since a Neutral-aligned god cannot grant Lawful spells to a Chaotic follower, even if they're handing out lawful spells like candy to their Lawful and Neutral followers).
Yep, that's what it does by the Core Rules.
If a wizard casts infernal healing to save someone's life and becomes more evil for doing so, then your GM is quite literally doing it wrong as he is acting 100% contrary to what the rules actually say on the matter.
Not precisely if playing in Golarion. Champions of Purity does, in fact, explicitly state that in Golarion, casting an Evil descriptor spell is a minor act of Evil. So...yeah, that's a thing. That being the case, and several posts by people at Paizo confirming that that's the way they run things in Pathfinder generally, and it's one of the most reasonable House Rules to implement even in a non-Golarion game.
All that said, even in a game where casting Infernal Healing is an Evil act, doing it to save an innocent life or the life of a friend is enough of a Good act to more than compensate for all practical purposes, IMO. A Paladin would still fall from it, because, y'know, they fall from even the smallest Evil acts in service of the greater Good...but basically nobody else should have a problem.
Now, using it regularly when you have other healing available because it's more convenient (ie: 15 gp per 10 hp instead of per 5.5 with a Wand as compared to a Wand of CLW)...that might start drifting your Alignment gently southward depending on your other actions.
1) The alignment section states that evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Guess what genocide is and casting an [Evil] spell isn't (necessarily)?
2) They do. The [Evil] descriptor, (Evil) subtype, and having an evil alignment are three clearly defined and separate elements. "The amount of dice of hit points" and "the limit to what creatures can be affected by the sleep spell" aren't even close to the same thing, one is a stat creatures have (in the same way they have hit points or ability scores) and one is a rules element that references the hit dice of its targets.
3) House rules and opinions are nice. Sometimes devs have them too. But regarding my point, no, that isn't a quote (or a fact).
1. Never said genocide wasn't stated as evil. The rules don't say active _support_ for genocide is evil. Claiming "actively supporting others in evil actions is evil" has exactly as much support as "causing evil is evil", which is what you argue against.
2. No, they don't. They don't in any way shape or form say "Evil as a descriptor is unrelated to evil as an alignment". There is no "clear separation", or even separation at all. Evil is a game term, and unless something says "evil here does not mean the established meaning of evil in the game's all other sections", then it doesn't. Just like with hit dice. Unless something explicitly says "Here, hit dice means something different", it doesn't mean something different.
3. It is an actual quote from a dev, not stated as "this is my house rules" but "this is how it works".
Also, note that you claim they are incorrect statements and then go on to make completely irrelevant remarks to their correctness, like claiming the fact is irrelevant just because you don't like it.
The rules on alignment are general. Words like "oppression" etc. describing actions broadly and being open to interpretation. Given the inability to list every possible action (without an encyclopedic collection of possibilities and a new definition of "rules lawyer") this makes sense. The casting of a spell with the "evil" descriptor is specific, and is called out as an evil action. Last time I checked specific trumps general. That goes for "good" too. Casting a spell with the evil descriptor is "evil". The good descriptor is "good". Etc.
If your good character has to perform an evil act for the "greater good", oh well. It's a "necessary evil", as the saying has it, so just do it and take the consequences. Outside of Paladins most characters can commit the occasional "opposite aligned act" without catastrophic consequences, if there are any at all. If, on the other hand you do it frequently... the road to H3ll is paved with good intentions. Or heaven, depending :) Or maybe you just sucked it down and took one for the team. Depending on your perspective.
Alignment exists in D&D / PF. It is a system with absolutes of good and evil. In our world of cultural relativism it often doesn't seem to make sense. It doesn't have to make sense to us. Just to the characters in that world. Role playing. pretending to be someone different, somewhere different. It does make sense in a fantasy world replete with demons and angels. And, in the end, it's up to the GM (or the players in a shared world set up) to decide anyway. So, why drag it onto a forum when the only answer really needed is derived from your GM / group. Unless this is PF society...
Oh, and in this different world there is nothing "wrong" with being evil. In our world evil = "wrong". There, evil thinks it is "right" (as does good) and the opposite is wrong. See how easy that is :D
My 2 cents tossed into the endless sea of alignment arguments...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't say kicking puppies is evil either, but it falls under hurting. Directly causing people to be hurt, oppressed, or killed is literally what supporting genocide is.
*****
There is a clearly defined Evil descriptor:
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
There is a clearly defined Evil subtype:
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.
There is a clearly defined alignment:
Evil Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
*****
When someone says how something works (or should work) and it isn't actually part of the rules, it doesn't make it how it works. If it's how they run it in their personal games, and it deviates from what's in the book, it's a house rule.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Useful piece of information for this thread: Developer quotes are not rules sources.
Source: The developers.
Useful piece of information for this thread: Developer quotes are not rules sources.
Source: The developers.
Another Paizo source with link:
What if another member of Paizo’s staff answers a question?
The design team is the final arbiter of how the core rules are supposed to work. Other staff may weigh in with opinions about rules (and in general the staff is very informed about the rules), but it's the design team’s job to understand all the ins and outs of the rules, and the design team’s responsibility to make official rulings about the core rules.
Note that the design team is separate from the developers.
In short, hell no.
Alignment is something personal to a PLAYER, their actions and how they interpret them are theirs and theirs alone. I do not support mechanics interfering with the player's concept of their character.
If there is something egregious like the player makes undead but insists he is of a Good alignment, that is something for the DM to handle outside the story.
|
|
Useful piece of information for this thread: Developer quotes are not rules sources.
Source: The developers.
Totally true.
Published books on the other hand, are rules sources. Y'know, like Champions of Purity. Which may only apply to Golarion, but sure does apply there.
Additionally, Developer quotes are often excellent and reasonable sources for House Rules.
Quotes from the design team on the forums are likewise not rules sources, though may provide insight into the RAI of some text.
The sole exception is the Paizo Design Team account which is used to issue FAQs/Errata, and is the result of a consensus of the entire design team.
Useful piece of information for this thread: Developer quotes are not rules sources.
Source: The developers.
Totally true.
Published books on the other hand, are rules sources. Y'know, like Champions of Purity. Which may only apply to Golarion, but sure does apply there.
Additionally, Developer quotes are often excellent and reasonable sources for House Rules.
CoP and setting books like it are in a nebulous space.
They unambiguously apply to Golarion, but not necessarily games in other settings.
For example, rules provided entirely for Clerics of Asmodeus or some such are certain RAW in Golarion...but don't make much sense in a game set in the Forgotten Realms setting.
While Golarion is the default assumption of settings, and thus most [Evil] spells are written with that in mind, it is also not precisely a houserule to do away with this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer to this question is "It depends on how your group wants to play the game".
Personally as I have stated before some spells should not even be tagged as evil, but if someone wants to enforce those spells because "protection from good" is somehow evil, that is their choice.
If you(general statement) as a GM wish to be strict with players and keeping them withing their alignment then don't' assume everyone does or should, view the alignments like you do. Give them a heads up and some type of examples so they know how many evil points they get for certain acts. Yes, I am aware there are no such thing as "evil points", so I don't needs any stupid comments/replies telling me they don't exist. It is just there to make a point, which I hope was understood.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CoP and setting books like it are in a nebulous space.
They unambiguously apply to Golarion, but not necessarily games in other settings.
For example, rules provided entirely for Clerics of Asmodeus or some such are certain RAW in Golarion...but don't make much sense in a game set in the Forgotten Realms setting.
All agreed completely, actually. :)
While Golarion is the default assumption of settings, and thus most [Evil] spells are written with that in mind, it is also not precisely a houserule to do away with this.
Also agreed, I'm just saying that I don't feel the opposite (ie: having them count as Evil acts) is a weird or unreasonable House Rule, even outside of Golarion where it isn't one at all.
In short, I feel like both ways of running it are reasonable interpretations and ways of doing it, and feel like a lot of people in this thread on both sides are taking way too hard a line on this subject.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow this thread has wandered pretty far since I last looked at it.
Sure you can play in your home games however you want. But there is certainly an easy justification for the idea that Good and Evil aren't balanced, and casting Evil spells can slip you towards evil more readily than casting Good spells could make you good.
I'd also point out that while the bit about casting evil spells being evil is from a campaign setting book, one of the most popular spells to center this argument around (infernal healing) is also from a campaign setting book, and arguably designed with that rule in mind. Heck the first version of the spell was limited to followers of Asmodeus.
In fact the argument to ignore alignment descriptors often sounds to me like "Evil has better toys, and I want my good character to use them without consequences!" Well some of us want there to be consequences - we want there to be temptation to use Evil in the name of good and have that be a corrupting influence. That's the sort of game I enjoy.
After 260+ responses the real answer here is "Alignment spells affect the caster's alignment if the group wants them to."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That might have some ground if [Evil] spells weren't almost ALL worse than their [Good] or non-aligned counterparts, in general applicability if nothing else, and raw power in many cases as well.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That might have some ground if [Evil] spells weren't almost ALL worse than their [Good] or non-aligned counterparts, in general applicability if nothing else, and raw power in many cases as well.
This +1000
It would make sense, if the good and neutral options were weak, 'meh', 'blah', and the evil options were 'Whooh-Hoo!'.
PCs would be faced with an actual dilemma. There would actually be a debate worth having, in character or out, about how bad a situation needed to get, before you were justified in tainting your soul with forbidden lore.
But they're not.
Many evil spells are 'good spells with the polarity reversed', which do exactly the same game effect. Others are weaker, situational, even irrelevant.
Holy Aura blinds opponents; Unholy Aura must flay the skin from their bones, soak them in vinegar, and roll them through broken glass, while taunting them with their failure and the impending death of all they hold dear, since it's such an Eeeeeeeeeeeeevil spell, right?
Oh, no, hang on. It does d6 Strength damage.
Are you s%!%ting me?
d6 Strength damage? Not even drain? From a level 8 spell?
If I'm going to accept all the baggage that comes with using 'vile' magic, and risk a public execution from the Witch Hunters, then it had better be something that gives a better bang for the buck than summoning a giant spider, know what I mean?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much. It's difficult to justify evil spells somehow weighing more than good spells when they are entirely equivalent to one another. Doubly so when you consider that the idea of spell-weight is a made up mechanic for a made up mechanic. That's how stupid this argument is.
Caster: "I cast magic circle against good"
GM: "The taint of evil corrupts you and you become more evil"
Caster: "...No I don't,"
GM: "Yes, you do,"
*discussion ensues*
Caster: "Fine, I cast magic circle against evil as well"
GM: "You become a tiny bit more good, but it's outweighed by your evil"
Caster: "Wtf? How do you determine that?"
GM: "Determine what?"
Caster: "What rule are you using to determine that one spell means more than the other, or any of this alignment bull-patty anyway? Is it based on spell level? Caster level? The heck man?"
GM: "Um, it's so obvious! You just don't understand how obvious it is that it has always been a thing and I don't need rules, because it's so natural a conclusion that if you weren't being an overly anal rules lawyer you'd agree with me,"
Caster: "...You're just making **** up as you go along aren't you?"
GM: "...Yes."
Pretty much. It's difficult to justify evil spells somehow weighing more than good spells when they are entirely equivalent to one another. Doubly so when you consider that the idea of spell-weight is a made up mechanic for a made up mechanic. That's how stupid this argument is.
Caster: "I cast magic circle against good"
GM: "The taint of evil corrupts you and you become more evil"
Caster: "...No I don't,"
GM: "Yes, you do,"
*discussion ensues*
Caster: "Fine, I cast magic circle against evil as well"
GM: "You become a tiny bit more good, but it's outweighed by your evil"
Caster: "Wtf? How do you determine that?"
GM: "Determine what?"
Caster: "What rule are you using to determine that one spell means more than the other, or any of this alignment bull-patty anyway? Is it based on spell level? Caster level? The heck man?"
GM: "Um, it's so obvious! You just don't understand how obvious it is that it has always been a thing and I don't need rules, because it's so natural a conclusion that if you weren't being an overly anal rules lawyer you'd agree with me,"
Caster: "...You're just making **** up as you go along aren't you?"
GM: "...Yes."
^ This. So much this. And again folks remember, Harry Dresden is a good guy despite:
Because again, one act does not define who someone is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All Good Acts are not equal. All Evil Acts are not equal. Therefore, enslaving angels with a [Good] spell is still Evil even if [Good] spells are Good acts, because enslaving an Angel is way more Evil than using such a spell is Good. It'd be even more Evil if they did it another way...but only a very little bit.
And besides, imprisoning them is a Magic Circle Against Good, which is an Evil Act. So, the spell to summon them (a Good act) and the spell to bind them (an Evil act) cancel each other out, leaving your intent and what you ask or make them do as the determining factor in the summoning's Good or Evil.
You're acting like, if you consider casting aligned spells to be acts of that alignment, you can torture and murder people and atone by casting Protection From Evil a bunch. Which is like saying you can torture or murder people and then atone by being nice to all your waiters, or other exceedingly minor Good acts. It doesn't actually follow at all, because torture and murder are really major acts of Evil, while casting an Aligned spell is a really minor act of the alignment in question.
So tell me, how much GOOD or EVIL is a spell worth? If casting said spells are so minor that casting protection from good is the equivalent of not tipping your waiter, why the **** is it even worth arguing about?
Meanwhile, if you're arguing that casting a spell means enough that it will change your alignment, then which spells are the most potent. Is it caster level (do you become more evil by being a better caster?), is it spell level (does a heightened 8th level protection from evil make you more righteous than a 3rd level magic circle against evil)?
Also, for the record, you can imprison an angel with a magic circle against law, or chaos, it doesn't require an anti-good circle, so the two don't assuredly cancel each other out as you claim, but oh wait, you just pointed out how inconsistent your argument is because you claim that casting magic circle vs good equates to casting planar binding [good] but there's no real explanation as to why. So how does that work? I mean, if I decide I want to enslave an angel and I toss a magic circle against chaos as my circle and then cast planar binding [Good] I've netted good here, but I'm also enslaving somebody which is also evil, so is my alignment now "Lawful Neutral Jerkface"?
What if I use magic circle against evil to soul-trap an elemental (a sentient elemental spirit of human-like intelligence) and then I cast protection from evil three times? I'm most consistently acting "good" more than I'm consistently acting "evil", and the alignment rules care more about consistency than anything else.
That said, the alignment rules do mention spells.
All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
Gee, nothing there either. :(
The idea that you can is a reductio ad absurdum and a bit of a straw man, and not appropriate when having a civilized discussion.
Oh no, see, I most definitely can. I'm not straw-manning, I'm attacking the opposing position as it has been presented, and I most certainly can reduce it to its absurdity because that's what it is. Absolutely absurd. It has no backing in the rules, those citing the non-existent rules cannot even maintain consistency within their own arguments, and have to create rules for their created rules to keep up this conversation. Thus far they have been able to cite NOTHING from the rules that supports their case, have committed several logical errs, and the best they have managed is "You can play it like you want to, but it's not a house rule, I swear" or "The devs told me I could!"
A civilized discussion generally involves the opposing side presenting a point that has evidence for it. I'm still waiting for said point, so we'll see what happens if we ever get that far.
Not precisely if playing in Golarion. Champions of Purity does, in fact, explicitly state that in Golarion, casting an Evil descriptor spell is a minor act of Evil. So...yeah, that's a thing. That being the case, and several posts by people at Paizo confirming that that's the way they run things in Pathfinder generally, and it's one of the most reasonable House Rules to implement even in a non-Golarion game.
The "Golarion Campaign Setting" board is down the hall and to the right. Please be careful not to trip over any social injustice threads on your way there as the halls can be quite harrowing.
As for house rules, I agree 100% that it's as good a house rule as any, but it requires a lot of work to make any sense at all. The name of the game here is consistency. If you're going to implement a house rule like that you should probably also determine a measured scale for how it works, or at least figure out how much X you become when you cast an X spell. This sort of thing works pretty well with some sort of taint or sanity system in play that relies on it as a fundamental part of a campaign, but if we want to discuss that (I might even throw something together for said people), we'd need to do it on Homebrew forum, and we'd need to step lightly as there's usually someone up to some mad science over there. :)
All that said, even in a game where casting Infernal Healing is an Evil act, doing it to save an innocent life or the life of a friend is enough of a Good act to more than compensate for all practical purposes, IMO. A Paladin would still fall from it, because, y'know, they fall from even the smallest Evil acts in service of the greater Good...but basically nobody else should have a problem.
Fun fact. In Pathfinder, a Paladin is not barred from casting spells with the [Chaotic] or [Evil] descriptors as a cleric is. A Paladin with Unsanctioned Knowledge (the feat) can learn a few spells of the Chaotic or Evil descriptors and cast them as Paladin spells without problems. I guess that's why it's unsanctioned!
He may of not "loaded the gun" so to speak. But he is definitely the one who fired it. That being said, ya in this case "loading the gun" was capital E, Evil.
Sometimes people are beyond inane and silly in their comments and beliefs on what is RAW or RAI or how to read a RAW sentence etc etc
" 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."
Alignment, even by RAW, is the original house rules, play however you want and have fun, arguing with people that they are having lessbadfun then you is a waste of time.
Oh and it's been quoted, but just to quote it again:
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
I'm sure a philosophy majors can read that sentence to mean whatever they want, but I already have my philosophy degree and am more interested in playing pathfinder then spending a redux of 4 years of undergrad.
GM: "Um, it's so obvious! You just don't understand how obvious it is that it has always been a thing and I don't need rules, because it's so natural a conclusion that if you weren't being an overly anal rules lawyer you'd agree with me."
It's only funny to you because you haven't actually had a GM, in all seriousness, say this to your face.
Because again, one act does not define who someone is.
Try telling that to the Czarnians about Lobo.
|
|
I'm curious how much the hobbling of [evil] spells and abilities is a historical leftover from the Satanic Panic years?
After all, a game where Team Evil has all the best toys, and is clearly the fast-track route to power, if only you could throw off the shackles of your limiting, pathetic morality, is going to be a PR nightmare.
One of the more robust counters to the accusations of 'corrupting the youth', and one that I know was used by 'Dragon' editors in the day, was "Yes, the game does include demons. And devils. And the players make heroes, who go kick their butts!".
Hence, the fiends became pathetic whipping boys, with easily-predicted and negated powers ("Oh, look. A fire spell. Yawn. Good job I prepped for that, before coming to HELL, eh?"), while the angels were boosted with ridonkulous laundry lists of powers (check out a ghaele azata; full clerical casting, with racial SLAs on top, and tell me that matches the combat or narrative power of a fiend of equal CR), to show concerned parents that little Timmy was being coached to be a good little soldier, whenever he played.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM: "Um, it's so obvious! You just don't understand how obvious it is that it has always been a thing and I don't need rules, because it's so natural a conclusion that if you weren't being an overly anal rules lawyer you'd agree with me."It's only funny to you because you haven't actually had a GM, in all seriousness, say this to your face.
Oh believe me, I've had my fair share of bad GMs. In fact, I'd attribute a large amount of my best features as a GM to simply doing all I can to not be like some of the GMs I've encountered. :P
And I get enough similar responses on the forums as well to believe that my experiences with this sort of mindset are not isolated incidents. For example:
Sometimes people are beyond inane and silly in their comments and beliefs on what is RAW or RAI or how to read a RAW sentence etc etc
...
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.I'm sure a philosophy majors can read that sentence to mean whatever they want, but I already have my philosophy degree and am more interested in playing pathfinder then spending a redux of 4 years of undergrad.
Notice the subtle but important distinction between what I've said and what this poster has said. I've noted that the arguments put for are absurd for X, Y, and Z reason. This poster says the PEOPLE who disagree are "inane" and "silly" for doing so, and doesn't actually explain why.
The poster then points out the bit about consistency.
" 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."
That's right. I never said that the GM didn't have to weigh in on things. What I did say was that the rules say the GM is supposed to use the descriptions for what is the indicated alignments and be consistent. Remember the consistent part? Yeah, most of these folks are being really, really inconsistent, which means they're still breaking this and creating problems where non exist.
And then, here's the big one.
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
At this point the poster confuses using a thing with both being and doing a thing. According to the poster's made up rules, a Paladin fighting with a big demon grabs a +1 unholy axomatic sword off a nearby slain devil would suddenly fall because the sword itself is evil, regardless of the Paladin's usage of it or the Paladin's alignment.
See, here's the thing. The Paladin is Lawful Good. The sword is Lawful Evil. Why is the sword lawful evil? Because the sword draws on Lawful and Evil powers. However, wielding said sword does absolutely nothing to someone's alignment beyond how they use it. The sword even has special mechanics for individuals with opposed alignments wielding it, and it inflicts a temporary negative level on the person wielding it, not corrupt them (and the Paladin can probably afford to take the -1 to hit and saves for the +2d6 damage).
Alignment of the person cares about what they are DOING. To act consistently withen a given alignment. It says nothing about the tools that you use to do that. This is where the evil as an objective force comes in, because evil is an element, similar to how FIRE is an element in D&D. Using and being are two different things.
By this poster's argument, if a Paladin used an evil creature to his advantage the Paladin would fall. For example, if during a strategy meeting the Paladin said "We know his Rival, McAlsoBad, is going to be attacking his compound on this night, so while the two are dealing with each other, we should slip in the back and prevent his chance for escape", the Paladin just fell. Why? Because the Paladin used something with an Evil alignment (in this case, a person, by using him as a distraction against the BBEG).
So yeah, be careful to have identify the spell cast on every potion you find, because it might be magic aura'd to look like a cure light wounds potion, then bam, your Paladin falls. Sucks to be you. What a devious trap!
way to prove my point, and also thanks for telling me how i play without actually ever having played with me, stellar.
|
|
So tell me, how much GOOD or EVIL is a spell worth? If casting said spells are so minor that casting protection from good is the equivalent of not tipping your waiter, why the **** is it even worth arguing about?
Well, as an Evil act, it'll cause a Paladin to fall, and repeated and consistent use of such things will eventually cause a Neutral character who rarely if ever performs Good acts to become Evil. So...relevant, but it's certainly not the end of the world.
And I'm a little concerned about people getting upset about such a minor point as well.
Meanwhile, if you're arguing that casting a spell means enough that it will change your alignment, then which spells are the most potent. Is it caster level (do you become more evil by being a better caster?), is it spell level (does a heightened 8th level protection from evil make you more righteous than a 3rd level magic circle against evil)?
Officially? In Golarion, they're all the same. It's the act of casting an 'Evil' spell that's a minor Evil act.
Unofficially? That's really up to the GM, and seems a reasonable thing to leave in their hands.
Also, for the record, you can imprison an angel with a magic circle against law, or chaos, it doesn't require an anti-good circle, so the two don't assuredly cancel each other out as you claim, but oh wait, you just pointed out how inconsistent your argument is because you claim that casting magic circle vs good equates to casting planar binding [good] but there's no real explanation as to why.
How is the fact that a minor Good act cancels out a minor Evil act inconsistent?
Let's use an exceedingly petty mundane situation as an example. My name is Joe, and I tip pretty well, but am generally rude to the waitstaff. Those actions cancel each other out, leaving me about where I was before the meal, Alignment-wise, afterwards. Then, to make the example less petty, I go out and kidnap and enslave someone...taking me straight on down towards the Evil alignments.
That's what enslaving an angel with a mix of God and Evil magic is like. If I leave out the Evil magic, assume I'm polite at the restaurant. Doesn't really make things much better, does it?
So how does that work? I mean, if I decide I want to enslave an angel and I toss a magic circle against chaos as my circle and then cast planar binding [Good] I've netted good here, but I'm also enslaving somebody which is also evil, so is my alignment now "Lawful Neutral Jerkface"?
No, you're pretty clearly Evil regardless, since enslaving angels is one of those 'definition of Evil' things. You're infinitesimally less Evil than the guy who did the same thing with Dominate Monster (who didn't ever go to a restaurant in the first place), but not enough to matter.
What if I use magic circle against evil to soul-trap an elemental (a sentient elemental spirit of human-like intelligence) and then I cast protection from evil three times? I'm most consistently acting "good" more than I'm consistently acting "evil", and the alignment rules care more about consistency than anything else.
Uh...once again, not all acts are equivalent. John Wayne Gacey was a clown at kids birthday parties. He probably did family man stuff far more often than he brutally murdered people. In Pathfinder, he'd still be Evil, since the bad stuff he did was infinitely worse than the Good stuff was Good. Same principle here.
That said, the alignment rules do mention spells.
Gee, nothing there either. :(
I'm sorry, but are you under the impression I'm arguing that, per RAW, spells have an effect on Alignment? Because I'm not. And they don't. Not by a strict reading.
However, they have been stated to by the folks at Paizo and officially do in Golarion. So...house ruling to make them do so seems very much reasonable and even following the RAI. It's far enough from the RAW to be a House Rule..but only just.
However, due to the sheer number of games set in Golarion, where it isn't a House Rule at all, but the RAW, it seems reasonable for people to discuss such things here.
Oh no, see, I most definitely can. I'm not straw-manning, I'm attacking the opposing position as it has been presented, and I most certainly can reduce it to its absurdity because that's what it is. Absolutely absurd. It has no backing in the rules, those citing the non-existent rules cannot even maintain consistency within their own arguments, and have to create rules for their created rules to keep up this conversation. Thus far they have been able to cite NOTHING from the rules that supports their case, have committed several logical errs, and the best they have managed is "You can play it like you want to, but it's not a house rule, I swear" or "The devs told me I could!"
You'll note I called out the other side for straw-manning and arguing in bad faith, too. Because you're totally right, there's been a fair bit of that going on.
But no, your core argument is, in fact, a straw-man, because the argument you make throughout this post and the previous one is not "The rules say nothing about this." (that comes off as more of as side note in the posts I've responded to) it is instead "This is utterly ridiculous and unworkable and results in [Hypothetical Straw Situation]."
That rules thing? True. The assumption that making aligned spells minor aligned acts results in people being able to Protection From Evil their way out of the alignment consequences of their actions? Very much arguing in bad faith.
You want to argue that this isn't in the official rules? Go for it, I'll even back you up.
You want to argue that it's an utterly absurd rule that results in terrible things and nobody should use? That's a whoile lot shakier and more unpleasant.
Because, intentionally or not, your arguments are definitely veering into that second category.
A civilized discussion generally involves the opposing side presenting a point that has evidence for it. I'm still waiting for said point, so we'll see what happens if we ever get that far.
Eh. I think several people have made reasonable points. There's certainly also been a lot of people making less reasonable ones...but even if nobody is being reasonable, descending to the level of 'The way you play is stupid' accusations (which is what some of your posts are coming across as) is poor form.
The "Golarion Campaign Setting" board is down the hall and to the right. Please be careful not to trip over any social injustice threads on your way there as the halls can be quite harrowing.
Dervish Dance is also Golarion specific rules content. And yet nobody demands all discussion of it be taken to other Forums...
Certainly, this is a slightly different situation, and should be noted as such...but talking about the differences between the core rules and those of the setting the majority of the people here play in seems very much on topic for the General Discussion Forum.
It's actually much more like the whole "Do Clerics need a God?" question (since the answer to that is "No, unless you're playing in Golarion, in which case yes.")...which also seems perfectly appropriate for this Forum.
As for house rules, I agree 100% that it's as good a house rule as any, but it requires a lot of work to make any sense at all. The name of the game here is consistency. If you're going to implement a house rule like that you should probably also determine a measured scale for how it works, or at least figure out how much X you become when you cast an X spell. This sort of thing works pretty well with some sort of taint or sanity system in play that relies on it as a fundamental part of a campaign, but if we want to discuss that (I might even throw something together for said people), we'd need to do it on Homebrew forum, and we'd need to step lightly as there's usually someone up to some mad science over there. :)
Eh. I definitely agree that consistency is key (as it is for Alignment changes in general), but don't feel it needs to be codified any more than the rest of the Alignment system...which is to say, quite a bit in some circumstances, or not at all if you trust your GM enough.
Fun fact. In Pathfinder, a Paladin is not barred from casting spells with the [Chaotic] or [Evil] descriptors as a cleric is. A Paladin with Unsanctioned Knowledge (the feat) can learn a few spells of the Chaotic or Evil descriptors and cast them as Paladin spells without problems. I guess that's why it's unsanctioned!
True. Though in Golarion Evil spells will still cause you to fall the first time you cast them. Chaotic spells are relatively kosher even in Golarion, though. :)
|
|
Alignment of the person cares about what they are DOING. To act consistently withen a given alignment. It says nothing about the tools that you use to do that. This is where the evil as an objective force comes in, because evil is an element, similar to how FIRE is an element in D&D. Using and being are two different things.
Not necessarily. You're forgetting about the story that started modern fantasy in the first place. No matter your intentions - any use of The One Ring was corrupting upon the user. Less than if you used it to kill innocents? Yes. But still corrupting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
way to prove my point, and also thanks for telling me how i play without actually ever having played with me, stellar.
Kinda vague. Can you elaborate? Can you point out where I misunderstood your position?
Because from what I gathered reading your post, using anything that is typed as evil is the same as DOING evil. Yes? That is what you were saying, right? That's kind of the whole crux of your argument, I think.
And consistency is a thing. So said Paladin would fall for "doing evil" by "using evil" for using an evil creature (the BBEG's rival) to further the cause of good (something that the protagonists in the D&D cartoon actually did in the episode where a badguy was trying to obtain ultimate power by wreckin' some unicorns and stuff, so they told their own arch-nemesis about the bad-guy's plan, and those two baddies fought it out while they saved unicorns), because that is consistent with what you describe.
Again, neither of these things are supported by the alignment rules. You are effectively resorting to rule 0 for your argument (which means it has already failed) because you are citing the GM being the arbiter of alignment but neglecting the consistency part in the same paragraph.
As for "thanks for telling me how i play without actually ever having played with me, stellar", was it not you yourself who said:
Sometimes people are beyond inane and silly in their comments and beliefs on what is RAW or RAI or how to read a RAW sentence etc etc
...
I'm sure a philosophy majors can read that sentence to mean whatever they want, but I already have my philosophy degree and am more interested in playing pathfinder then spending a redux of 4 years of undergrad.
That's a pretty good analog to the hypothetical gamer-talk I posted earlier. Another good analog, perhaps even better is this one by Gaberlunzie:
Look, if you're completely literal and anal about reading the rules, you might come to the conclusion that [evil] isn't evil. You might also come to the conclusion that hit dice isn't hit dice. But then the alignment rules don't make any sense at all, since they become an extremely limited check list of do's and don'ts that have no resemblance at all to what we usually consider the words to mean
I have little to go on other than your own respective words.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment of the person cares about what they are DOING. To act consistently withen a given alignment. It says nothing about the tools that you use to do that. This is where the evil as an objective force comes in, because evil is an element, similar to how FIRE is an element in D&D. Using and being are two different things.Not necessarily. You're forgetting about the story that started modern fantasy in the first place. No matter your intentions - any use of The One Ring was corrupting upon the user. Less than if you used it to kill innocents? Yes. But still corrupting.
The one ring was an Intelligent/cursed magic item. We actually have rules for the corrupting influence of such things or their ability to influence you.
You might also forget the story that started binding fantasy, where King Solomon uses a magic ring/seal to bind demons to serve the forces of good (or what the story considered good, I'm not interested in getting into that today).
Oh, and then there's Star Wars, and there was this book I read when I was nine that I can't remember the name of, and have you ever played Devil May Cry? But Call of Cthulu...
|
|
Alignment of the person cares about what they are DOING. To act consistently withen a given alignment. It says nothing about the tools that you use to do that. This is where the evil as an objective force comes in, because evil is an element, similar to how FIRE is an element in D&D. Using and being are two different things.Not necessarily. You're forgetting about the story that started modern fantasy in the first place. No matter your intentions - any use of The One Ring was corrupting upon the user. Less than if you used it to kill innocents? Yes. But still corrupting.The one ring was an Intelligent/cursed magic item. We actually have rules for the corrupting influence of such things or their ability to influence you.
You might also forget the story that started binding fantasy, where King Solomon uses a magic ring/seal to bind demons to serve the forces of good (or what the story considered good, I'm not interested in getting into that today).
Oh, and then there's Star Wars, and there was this book I read when I was nine that I can't remember the name of, and have you ever played Devil May Cry? But Call of Cthulu...
I'm not saying that there aren't opposing examples (you kinda were) - but you can't say something as an absolute when contrary examples exist.
I'll give this a try, but I honestly think you're arguing in bad faith Ashiel.
I think this sentence is pretty clear,
what do you think this sentence means? We can have a philosophical discussion of instrumental evil versus consequential evil versus theological definitions of evil, the variation between Augustus and Aquinas, but as I wrote earlier I truly am not interested in such a discussion, as I thought we were all here to talk about pathfinder and not philosophy.
From what i can tell your view is that making use of evil is not evil, and evil is purely intentional, which i find confusing since evil is a substance and thing in-of-itself, at least as far as i understand pathfinder and most of 3.x
Now perhaps you want to argue that using a thing that is evil in-of-itself is again not evil if you use it for a non-evil purpose, and this is a perfectly fine way to play, have fun you're a rockstar man, but to insult other people because they don't have the same interpretation as you is childish in my book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe that alignments are mirrors of each other.
A good character can indeed taint himself from over use of Evil-Aligned spells. The reverse isn't true because it's always harder to progress towards good and very easy to fall towards evil. And the overall act and character intentions in total should be factored in. If the evil wizard intends to enslave angels to murder orphans, it's an even more evil act than if he intends to do so with demons despite what descriptors may be in play.
On the other hand, if magic itself is tainted the way it is for the Mark of the Red Death setting, than any spellcasting, no matter what descriptor runs the risk of tainting the caster.
In D&D 3.5 and by extension PF cosmology this is not the case. Each alignment is no better or worse then the others. They are all just alignments. The afterlife in D&D is not a punishment or a reward, a soul simply goes to the place that is closest to it's ideals. Your view is one of our world, where good is viewed as superior to evil. However, there is nothing in PF that makes Good a better choice the Lawful. Or even a better choice then Evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll give this a try, but I honestly think you're arguing in bad faith Ashiel.
I think this sentence is pretty clear,
what do you think this sentence means? We can have a philosophical discussion of instrumental evil versus consequential evil versus theological definitions of evil, the variation between Augustus and Aquinas, but as I wrote earlier I truly am not interested in such a discussion, as I thought we were all here to talk about pathfinder and not philosophy.
From what i can tell your view is that making use of evil is not evil, and evil is purely intentional, which i find confusing since evil is a substance and thing in-of-itself, at least as far as i understand pathfinder and most of 3.x
Now perhaps you want to argue that using a thing that is evil in-of-itself is again not evil if you use it for a non-evil purpose, and this is a perfectly fine way to play, have fun you're a rockstar man, but to insult other people because they don't have the same interpretation as you is childish in my book.
Your problem is you are using our world morality, which does not apply at all. Evil spells may use Evil power. But Good spells use Good power. Why is one superior to the other? The answer in PF cosmology is that they aren't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually much more like the whole "Do Clerics need a God?" question (since the answer to that is "No, unless you're playing in Golarion, in which case yes.")...which also seems perfectly appropriate for this Forum.
Firstly, assume that if I didn't respond to something in your post that I'm quoting, it's because I agree with you (at least mostly, for example, AFAIAC, enslaving is bad regardless of what spells you're using).
And you're right. It is exactly like "do clerics need a god?". By default, in 3.x/PF, no they don't. You can most certainly house rule it as such as Golarion does (I actually dislike that Golarion does because it bars the path for things like divine analogs of spiritual practices in our own world that are no god-oriented from having a place in Golarion, which strikes me as odd since Golarion seems to pride itself on hijacking as much from different cultures as possible).
And I have 0% to contest with people that say things like:
"I like a campaign where evil has a corrupting influence"
"In Golarion, casting an [Evil] spell is a minor act of evil"
"My game is based on the crusade-era earth with magic, so buying your sins away with magic deals is a thing"
"I think it should be like this"
"I think it shouldn't be like this"
What I have a problem with, and what I still continue to argue against is the posters who present their house rules as RAW, call those who are for following the rules (because they just freakin' work if you're not butchering them) "inane", "silly", or "anal". When you start declaring things that are not in the rules as the rules then I'm going to say something about it.
If you want to talk about your specific campaigns, house rules, or ideas for house rules (I'm all for coming up with some sort of system for corruption / anti-corruption, sure) then I'm on board. I'll even contribute to it. However, that is not what has been presented here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe that alignments are mirrors of each other.
A good character can indeed taint himself from over use of Evil-Aligned spells. The reverse isn't true because it's always harder to progress towards good and very easy to fall towards evil. And the overall act and character intentions in total should be factored in. If the evil wizard intends to enslave angels to murder orphans, it's an even more evil act than if he intends to do so with demons despite what descriptors may be in play.
On the other hand, if magic itself is tainted the way it is for the Mark of the Red Death setting, than any spellcasting, no matter what descriptor runs the risk of tainting the caster.
It actually isn't harder. It's traditionally been thought of as harder, but all you really have to do to be a good person is be a good person. It's entirely possible to be a good person who used to be a bad person. You just have to not be a bad person anymore. That can be hard for some people because being bad fills something in their lives.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It actually isn't harder. It's traditionally been thought of as harder, but all you really have to do to be a good person is be a good person. It's entirely possible to be a good person who used to be a bad person. You just have to not be a bad person anymore. That can be hard for some people because being bad fills something in their lives.I don't believe that alignments are mirrors of each other.
A good character can indeed taint himself from over use of Evil-Aligned spells. The reverse isn't true because it's always harder to progress towards good and very easy to fall towards evil. And the overall act and character intentions in total should be factored in. If the evil wizard intends to enslave angels to murder orphans, it's an even more evil act than if he intends to do so with demons despite what descriptors may be in play.
On the other hand, if magic itself is tainted the way it is for the Mark of the Red Death setting, than any spellcasting, no matter what descriptor runs the risk of tainting the caster.
And let's be honest here, Evil is a real time commitment. Those puppies aren't going to kick themselves!
Your problem is you are using our world morality, which does not apply at all. Evil spells may use Evil power. But Good spells use Good power. Why is one superior to the other? The answer in PF cosmology is that they aren't.
I agree? I am not sure where or how you got the impression that I view one alignment as superior to another? Others have expressed a view that being or maintaining or becoming good is 'harder' then being or maintaining or becoming evil, which again, is a fine way to play especially if everyone at the table is having fun doing that.
Personally, I like to run that evil has a corrupting influence, good is similar but people tend to speak of goodness as 'uplifting' etc, but in the more general formulation that using the powers and tools provided by [alignment source] has a small tug effect on those using it, if only that access to such things generally comes from interacting with such entities or invoking such powers tends to attract such forces. In terms of mechanics this generally only has an issue for classes with strict alignment requirements, and certain spell/item interactions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And let's be honest here, Evil is a real time commitment. Those puppies aren't going to kick themselves!It actually isn't harder. It's traditionally been thought of as harder, but all you really have to do to be a good person is be a good person. It's entirely possible to be a good person who used to be a bad person. You just have to not be a bad person anymore. That can be hard for some people because being bad fills something in their lives.I don't believe that alignments are mirrors of each other.
A good character can indeed taint himself from over use of Evil-Aligned spells. The reverse isn't true because it's always harder to progress towards good and very easy to fall towards evil. And the overall act and character intentions in total should be factored in. If the evil wizard intends to enslave angels to murder orphans, it's an even more evil act than if he intends to do so with demons despite what descriptors may be in play.
On the other hand, if magic itself is tainted the way it is for the Mark of the Red Death setting, than any spellcasting, no matter what descriptor runs the risk of tainting the caster.
Indeed. For many people, evil is not the easier path to take. If anything, for me, it seems like being Evil is kind of a big deal since it means that you fairly routinely engage in hurting, oppressing, and/or killing. If you're evil because you are evil, you are a much better villain.
If your being evil is because you use oils of infernal healing like a cheap cologne but are otherwise a pretty average or even enjoyable person, it really kills it for me. My good characters aren't going to be interested in defeating an "evil" necromancer who's running a skeleton-ox rental service. My good characters are going to be interested in defeating an "evil" necromancer who's doing something like trying to enslave the local populace or is kidnapping people to "borrow" their souls and using them as power sources to fuel his eldritch abominations (kind of like how golems are made).
Y'know. I want evil to be evil. Not just wearing a different color.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like to run that evil has a corrupting influence, good is similar but people tend to speak of goodness as 'uplifting' etc, but in the more general formulation that using the powers and tools provided by [alignment source] has a small tug effect on those using it, if only that access to such things generally comes from interacting with such entities or invoking such powers tends to attract such forces.
That could be cool, but you always have to deal with the logical conclusion, which is the hard pill for most (even those advocating these things) people to swallow. The logical conclusion being that if it does have a pull on your alignment, even a small one, then ultimate it means you can just buy your alignment.
It's just a matter of how many castings does it take. 10? 25? 50? 100? When you realize that it means that crafting a wand of protection from evil means you are bottling 50 acts of good and putting it on sale for 750 gp. And most people when presented with this fall back to "but evil is more influential". Then it becomes "why?", and we spiral again.
Further, if it makes you more X, but you still have free will (which alignment doesn't remove) it basically poops all over the point of alignment and makes it both cheap and shallow. It doesn't really matter if you're evil, because you might have gotten there being a pretty average person overall, you just happened to be a bloodline sorcerer who used their bloodline magic regularly.
You basically end up in a world where alignment no longer has a lot of meaning in terms of who a person is, it's mostly about which element he picked. It's down to fire mage vs frost mage. There's not really any reason for good to be against evil so much as you're against some of the things that evil does that are actually harmful (like murdering) but you're not really against all evil (because Mordrin's Tireless Oxen service "60% off this weekend" isn't exactly worthy of your time).
One needs to address this in an in-universe way, come up with some good mechanics, and make it work in a sense that doesn't seem dumb at the end. The closest I've seen to these is corruption mechanics like Taint or Sanity.
I like to run that evil has a corrupting influence, good is similar but people tend to speak of goodness as 'uplifting' etc, but in the more general formulation that using the powers and tools provided by [alignment source] has a small tug effect on those using it, if only that access to such things generally comes from interacting with such entities or invoking such powers tends to attract such forces.That could be cool, but you always have to deal with the logical conclusion, which is the hard pill for most (even those advocating these things) people to swallow. The logical conclusion being that if it does have a pull on your alignment, even a small one, then ultimate it means you can just buy your alignment.
It's just a matter of how many castings does it take. 10? 25? 50? 100? When you realize that it means that crafting a wand of protection from evil means you are bottling 50 acts of good and putting it on sale for 750 gp. And most people when presented with this fall back to "but evil is more influential". Then it becomes "why?", and we spiral again.
Further, if it makes you more X, but you still have free will (which alignment doesn't remove) it basically poops all over the point of alignment and makes it both cheap and shallow. It doesn't really matter if you're evil, because you might have gotten there being a pretty average person overall, you just happened to be a bloodline sorcerer who used their bloodline magic regularly.
You basically end up in a world where alignment no longer has a lot of meaning in terms of who a person is, it's mostly about which element he picked. It's down to fire mage vs frost mage. There's not really any reason for good to be against evil so much as you're against some of the things that evil does that are actually harmful (like murdering) but you're not really against all evil (because Mordrin's Tireless Oxen service "60% off this weekend" isn't exactly worthy of your time).
One needs to address this in an in-universe...
One issue here is you're trying to apply a simple mechanic, is casting the 1st proc vs evil as good as casting the second? Are all these gains linear? Will only casting [alignment source spells] and doing nothing else be sufficient eventually to change alignments? Perhaps it only opens a door, or sends out a signal to strongly aligned beings that your character can step across an 'alignment threshold' with but one additional volitional act etc etc, who knows! Perhaps the metaphysics of such things will become more apparent over time, perhaps the very foundation of these metaphysics will be shaken when the abyss conquers limbo, whatever, these are things explored in game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being good takes effort. It goes against the grain of a society that extols indifference and outright greed. The only thing that Evil requires for success is the inattention or lack of particpation from good.It actually isn't harder. It's traditionally been thought of as harder, but all you really have to do to be a good person is be a good person. It's entirely possible to be a good person who used to be a bad person. You just have to not be a bad person anymore. That can be hard for some people because being bad fills something in their lives.I don't believe that alignments are mirrors of each other.
A good character can indeed taint himself from over use of Evil-Aligned spells. The reverse isn't true because it's always harder to progress towards good and very easy to fall towards evil. And the overall act and character intentions in total should be factored in. If the evil wizard intends to enslave angels to murder orphans, it's an even more evil act than if he intends to do so with demons despite what descriptors may be in play.
On the other hand, if magic itself is tainted the way it is for the Mark of the Red Death setting, than any spellcasting, no matter what descriptor runs the risk of tainting the caster.
Hey now! Those Evil conglomerations didn't slack their way to the top. They had to destroy countless youth rec centers to get where they are. And that takes a lot of hard work and dedication.