Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 892 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So are there no minor good or evil acts? If there are, could they not be used the same way? Does someone being their alignment with repeated castings of Protection from Evil bother you more than someone buying their alignment by repeatedly holding the door open for someone?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
...these are things explored in game.
And not covered by rules.

well, sort of, what happens during PFS play if a LG cleric of Iomedae begins using scrolls of animate dead on things the party kills? Or a paladin begins using a shield of undead controlling to gather minions to slay other baddies?

The general objection I have in this thread is it seems many 'players' want to use Cool Stuff(TM) and not be punished, it's a fine and lofty goal and if that means you all are having fun then go for it, but when they argue until they're blue in the face that this has no alignment effects because there is no RAW sentence that says using undead to kill more undead is evil I do find it a little silly and I certainly don't see the logic nor consistency of what alignment is in such a world.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Trimalchio wrote:
well, sort of, what happens during PFS play if a LG cleric of Iomedae begins using scrolls of animate dead on things the party kills? Or a paladin begins using a shield of undead controlling to gather minions to slay other baddies?

The GM tells the cleric player that he can't cast spells with the [Evil] descriptor and the paladin player that his gods teachings may frown on such things and require an atonement spell.

"Trimalchio wrote:
...I do find it a little silly and I certainly don't see the logic nor consistency of what alignment is in such a world.

And the reason for that is that alignment is very generally defined, and each group is left to determine their own consistent application thereof.


I disagree with your scroll usage rulings but that's fine, let's assume the same cleric uses a cauldron of the dead instead.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Same answer as the paladin.

As for scroll usage, "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."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Trimalchio wrote:
I disagree with your scroll usage rulings but that's fine, let's assume the same cleric uses a cauldron of the dead instead.

Why should that change anything? The rules are very clear on clerics or other divine casters using magic that's oppositely aligned to their own. Just because it's from a magic item means no difference.

Pathfinder is not a game of moral subjectivity, or where the ends justify the means.


Scrolls

Spoiler:

To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
The user must have the spell on her class list.
The user must have the requisite ability score.
If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check.

It's an unimportant distinction for our purposes.

anyway we agree on the same mechanical outcome (risk of losing powers, atonement is needed), but whether that crunch is RAW seems to be up for debate at times in this thread.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
The general objection I have in this thread is it seems many 'players' want to use Cool Stuff(TM) and not be punished

(Emphasis mine).

Did you mean to use the word "punished"?

Come up with logical consequences for my character's actions? Fine.

Come up with less logical but really fun consequences for my character's actions? Hell yeah!

Explain out of character that my character's actions are taking the campaign in a direction the GM isn't happy running? Let's have a conversation and see if we can come up with something that keeps us both happy.

Punish my character for behaving in a way the GM doesn't like? We obviously have very different ideas about how a game should work, so I'll bow out as gracefully as I can manage.


Trimalchio wrote:
The general objection I have in this thread is it seems many 'players' want to use Cool Stuff(TM) and not be punished, it's a fine and lofty goal and if that means you all are having fun then go for it, but when they argue until they're blue in the face that this has no alignment effects because there is no RAW sentence that says using undead to kill more undead is evil I do find it a little silly and I certainly don't see the logic nor consistency of what alignment is in such a world.

1. Why would using undead to kill undead be evil? I see no way that would logically follow from a moral theory standpoint.

2. Upon close inspection the alignment system does not make sense. It is a common existentialist critique.

3. If you think your players need to be punished for having agency... let's just say I do not enjoy playing with such GMs.


You want a punishment for using evil spells? There is one, they're called inquisitors. There's also paladins. You can also use clerics if you prefer.


when people complain that using evil spells and items and creatures can cause them to take an 'alignment hit' it seems to me that they feel they are being punished and want to be able to use these things without suffering any mechanical or alignment effects. In my opinion they can, they just have to write down some non-good alignment on their character sheets if it becomes a theme for them, this could cause problems for certain clerics or paladins, but they can play a different sort of cleric or an anti-paladin.

I find it odd that people are arguing that paladins can make use of undead and arguing otherwise is 'homebrew' or not RAW -- if no one is making this argument then I apologize. As a GM I simply wouldn't run such players because the game logic this requires is belief-breaking and non-immersive for me, and as a player I'd quite likely quietly excuse myself from the table because of multiple bad past experiences such views tend to herald, but again if it's fun for everyone else go for it.

GMs punishing players because of some personal vendetta, yeah that's pretty much an immediate pack up the dice and go home event for me.


Trimalchio wrote:

when people complain that using evil spells and items and creatures can cause them to take an 'alignment hit' it seems to me that they feel they are being punished and want to be able to use these things without suffering any mechanical or alignment effects. In my opinion they can, they just have to write down some non-good alignment on their character sheets if it becomes a theme for them, this could cause problems for certain clerics or paladins, but they can play a different sort of cleric or an anti-paladin.

I find it odd that people are arguing that paladins can make use of undead and arguing otherwise is 'homebrew' or not RAW -- if no one is making this argument then I apologize. As a GM I simply wouldn't run such players because the game logic this requires is belief-breaking and non-immersive for me, and as a player I'd quite likely quietly excuse myself from the table because of multiple bad past experiences such views tend to herald, but again if it's fun for everyone else go for it.

GMs punishing players because of some personal vendetta, yeah that's pretty much an immediate pack up the dice and go home event for me.

It's not about punishment, it's about playing your character. Casting an Evil spell isn't going to turn you Evil overnight. Using Animate Dead 1, 2, 3, or 468 times isn't going to put your alignment in danger and as long as the GM understands that it's fine. What people complain about is GMs who want to force an alignment change over nothing. Good people can do Evil things without changing alignment. In the same way Evil people can (and often do) Good things without changing alignment. So the problem in these cases is the GMs not the players. No one here is arguing that Clerics should be cast opposed alignment spells or that Paladins should be able to cast Evil spells without falling. Though I would argue a Paladin can cast Evil spell and fall without changing Alignment from LG, because they of course can.

Dark Archive

Trimalchio wrote:
when people complain that using evil spells and items and creatures can cause them to take an 'alignment hit' it seems to me that they feel they are being punished and want to be able to use these things without suffering any mechanical or alignment effects. In my opinion they can, they just have to write down some non-good alignment on their character sheets if it becomes a theme for them, this could cause problems for certain clerics or paladins, but they can play a different sort of cleric or an anti-paladin.

I like to play my character as hard bitten and pragmatic, but basically a good guy. If some GMs would rather I put N down on my character sheet instead of NG, that's fine by me. I'm not sure where the idea of an "alignment hit" comes from - given the number of spells that target Good, you are normally better off mechanically playing N anyway.

Heck, if we were so far apart in our views on morality that you want me to put NE down then I'd still have no problem with that. He'd be a character who was convinced he was a good guy, but the universe disagreed. I'd still play him the same way.

Quote:
I find it odd that people are arguing that paladins can make use of undead and arguing otherwise is 'homebrew' or not RAW -- if no one is making this argument then I apologize.

Paladins are a special case, with the Paladin's code to worry about. I find that using them as examples in a general alignment discussion just clouds the issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
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.

Maybe casting [X] alignment spells sucks up X energy present in the plane and uses it to fuel your spell. Maybe every time you cast protection from evil a priest's left testicle explodes half way around the world, because you just used up some [Good] to cast your spell and just introduced a little more pain and suffering into the world.

We could make up stuff all day long and explore the strange metaphysics that we want to pull out of our butts until the cows come home. One could just as easily say that casting [Evil] spells is stealing power away from demons and the unholy planes and thus tipping the scales in the favor of good, and this would be no less wrong or right than anything anyone else has said. In fact, one could say that it is even more justified since it "draws on the power", not "creates" but "draws" which means that you are siphoning something away, and since [Alignment] spells do not interact with the aligned planes (some spells require a connection to the planes, such as shadow magic, teleportation magic, etc, where being cut off from said plane prevents the use of said magic) it means they are not drawing more [Alignment] into the plane, they are drawing it from something else and then using it for their spell.

So one could very easily say that casting animate dead is actually breaking down evil present in the world and turning it into something productive, sort of like recycling.

But I'm not arguing that, because the rules don't say that (just like they don't say casting [Alignment] spells does diddly to your alignment or is an aligned act), but you should now get the idea that fluff is whatever the heck we want it to be, and since mine's no less and no more valid than yours, they cancel out. So let's get down to something that matters, yeah?


In Pathfinder, a butt-naked rogue can completely dodge a delayed-blast fireball explosion centered on his own square while trapped in a 5' x 5' cell. Because rules. Because magic. Because evasion.

In Pathfinder, though a T-Rex struggles to damage a fully armored, dexterous Fighter with 60 AC, a Magic Missile can. Because rules. Because magic.

In Pathfinder, an attack against a human with 8 mirror images will only hit 1 out of 9 times, even if all the images are in the exact same 5' x 5' square, and even if the attacker is a colossal great wyrm red dragon's bite attack (an attack that could presumably fill up the entire 5' x 5' square). Because rules. Because magic.

....Why are we asking for an explanation for [evil] spells being evil and [good] spells being good, when all the above (and more) are unexplained? Isn't it just because rules, because magic?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
when people complain that using evil spells and items and creatures can cause them to take an 'alignment hit' it seems to me that they feel they are being punished and want to be able to use these things without suffering any mechanical or alignment effects.

It's mostly because we find it dissatisfying. I for one don't need "good" written on my character sheet to play a good character. I have in several games played a more righteous character than other members of the group though our individual alignments said Neutral and Good respectively.

If you changed my alignment to Neutral Evil, I'd still go on playing the character as a good character. I would just know not to play certain classes with you. It would be somewhat awkward having to play a blackguard to continue being a good guy though.

EDIT: To be more specific, we find it dissatisfying because some of us like good and evil to mean something rather than just being red vs blue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
voideternal wrote:

In Pathfinder, a butt-naked rogue can completely dodge a delayed-blast fireball explosion centered on his own square while trapped in a 5' x 5' cell. Because rules. Because magic. Because evasion.

In Pathfinder, though a T-Rex struggles to damage a fully armored, dexterous Fighter with 60 AC, a Magic Missile can. Because rules. Because magic.

In Pathfinder, an attack against a human with 8 mirror images will only hit 1 out of 9 times, even if all the images are in the exact same 5' x 5' square, and even if the attacker is a colossal great wyrm red dragon's bite attack (an attack that could presumably fill up the entire 5' x 5' square). Because rules. Because magic.

....Why are we asking for an explanation for [evil] spells being evil and [good] spells being good, when all the above (and more) are unexplained? Isn't it just because rules, because magic?

Because those rules handwaves make the game run smoother.

Having to stop and go "you know Jimmy, if you heal enough people with that spell you'll turn evil!" is the opposite of that.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
when people complain that using evil spells and items and creatures can cause them to take an 'alignment hit' it seems to me that they feel they are being punished and want to be able to use these things without suffering any mechanical or alignment effects.

It's mostly because we find it dissatisfying. I for one don't need "good" written on my character sheet to play a good character. I have in several games played a more righteous character than other members of the group though our individual alignments said Neutral and Good respectively.

If you changed my alignment to Neutral Evil, I'd still go on playing the character as a good character. I would just know not to play certain classes with you. It would be somewhat awkward having to play a blackguard to continue being a good guy though.

EDIT: To be more specific, we find it dissatisfying because some of us like good and evil to mean something rather than just being red vs blue.

Here's the thing... playing a good character means doing GOOD things, not rationalizing a continuing stream of evil acts. Pragmatism is not a license for doing whatever the hell you feel like and calling it "good".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I'm just going to have to paraphrase this post from the Infernal Healing thread: "Every time you cast an [Evil] spell, a pointless argument starts on a message board." Now THAT'S scary . . . .


6 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Here's the thing... playing a good character means doing GOOD things, not rationalizing a continuing stream of evil acts. Pragmatism is not a license for doing whatever the hell you feel like and calling it "good".

Exactly. Given that the vast majority of my characters go out of their way to help people, value life (even to the point of putting ranks into Heal so I can take-10 to stabilize dying enemies), and are very concerned with treating people with respect and dignity, I imagine that they will go on being what I understand to be "good", even if the GM doesn't think so.

That's fine, because I just won't play a class that cares about her now meaningless alignment. I don't really care in a world of red vs blue anymore than I would care whether I was red or blue in a game of Unreal Tournament or Halo, because if my character acts in all ways that are good and the GM decides that I used infernal healing to heal too many orphans then it really doesn't.


I think part of the problem here is that many "evil" spells can be used for good things, and they don't really always cause harm. Some of them can potentially cause harm, but so can many "non-evil" spells. The only connection many of them have to evil is some trope. However many players don't care about a trope. They care about the actual result, when it comes to alignment.

Another problem is the confusing of "bad" with evil. There is a line between evil and bad, and I don't think any small evils really exist. If it is a small thing, then it is not really evil.

I think that "common evils" were just accepted as being evil because the publisher either said so or strongly hinted to it via flavor, but people have changed, and so should the game. I am not saying "don't say X is evil". I am saying "explain why it is evil", and don't depend on "because fantasy trope Y".

If I cast a spell that rips off your arms and legs, and sends your soul to hell, even if you have done good your entire life then to me that is evil.

If a spells taints the world by releasing evil into the world in such a way that it makes the world a more negative place, and therefore makes it easier for Team Evil to take over then that is an evil spell, and therefore an evil act.

As for actual spells, the animate dead spell would have to do really bad things, such as trap souls into the zombie or have a much higher risk of any caster losing control of the undead. Maybe if there was a __% chance that some undead within XdY miles was also raised the spell could be evil.

Basically what I am getting at is if a spell is going to have an alignment tag then it should very much be able to express that alignment.

Sometimes this is just a matter of changing the flavor of the spell, but the description should be a deterrent to a good character or maybe even a neutral one wanting to use the spell. <---I mean for evil spells.

Infernal Healing as an example should put some type of taint on either the soul of the caster or whoever is healed. Personally for the sake of simplicity this does not need to be another game mechanic, but the idea would be that by dealing with Asmodeus you are damning a soul to hell or something else that is not good.
How many infernal heals would it take? That information would be unknown. For the sake of fun and gameplay I would suggest the GM not ever really enforce this, but if you are in character it should give you pause to use it. If your player is of the mindset that "if it has no mechanical affect then it does not really matter", then I guess you could add something to it. What that something is would likely be suggestions given by Paizo, but with a statement telling the GM to be free to add his own.

Scarab Sages

Trimalchio wrote:
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.

Right; you're almost with us, just let's hold that thought, and extrapolate from that.

In other words, you're saying the act of casting the aligned spell is not enough, in itself, to force alignment change. Some further action has to follow, one that shows intent and commitment to a new outlook.
Without that [good] intent and commitment, the casting of an [good] aligned spell is meaningless.

If that's the case for Prot/evil, then it's identically true for prot/good.
"Is casting the 1st prot vs good as evil as casting the second? Are all these gains linear? Will only casting [evil] 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!"

Without that [evil] intent and commitment, the casting of an [evil] aligned spell is meaningless.
Ruling otherwise is inconsistent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something that does not follow to me is that some are taking a spell's source of power being evil to mean that casting the spell itself is evil.

To invoke Godwin's law: a large amount of what we know about the brain came from unquestionably evil experiments. Yet I think we would be hard pressed to say all brain surgery is evil since it pulls from this evil source.

From a more general standpoint, If evil spells use evil resources than doing good with an evil spell not only diminishes evil but increases good. It seems to me that casting evil spells to do good is inherently more good than casting good spells to do good.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you use evil means to perform good ends, you have still done evil. You have still compromised your morals. A good person should still feel guilty about their choice in that circumstance, even if no other option was known or available.

Doing evil to achieve a good end should never be a casual or "go-to" option for a good character. This is the actual problem I have with the rationalizations around infernal healing - your character made a deliberate choice to prepare the spell or buy a wand or a scroll or whatever - you knowingly and willingly put an evil tool in your toolbox. Almost no one ever ends up in a situation where infernal healing is the only option unless they put themselves in that situation. "Hey guys, I'm going to pick up a wand of puppy kicking just for emergencies, okay?" So honestly in my games you wouldn't even have to cast evil spells to have me look askance at things - just buying or preparing them means you're anticipating and planning an evil act. Luckily for me my group is fine with that.

Another way to justify Evil spells being evil is that spell descriptors often represent what energies are brought to bear on the spell's effects. A Fire spell makes the world more hot, a water spell makes it more wet, a Fear spell makes it more scary. The Prime material plane is often considered a balance between all the forces of all the other planes - a roughly equal amount of all elements, alignments, and so forth. Casting any spells with descriptors from another planes brings more of that plane to the Prime, slightly tipping the balance each time. In this view casting a Fire spell does make the world more firey. Casting an Evil spell makes the world more evil, and so forth. While not alignment related, if you were trying to be friends with extraplanar fire creatures, they might be upset if you were to cast a whole bunch of Cold spells all the time.

Again, use what you like in your game. I'm just explaining ways to have alignment descriptors matter in a logically consistent fashion if that's what you want.


ryric wrote:

If you use evil means to perform good ends, you have still done evil. You have still compromised your morals. A good person should still feel guilty about their choice in that circumstance, even if no other option was known or available.

Doing evil to achieve a good end should never be a casual or "go-to" option for a good character. This is the actual problem I have with the rationalizations around infernal healing - your character made a deliberate choice to prepare the spell or buy a wand or a scroll or whatever - you knowingly and willingly put an evil tool in your toolbox. Almost no one ever ends up in a situation where infernal healing is the only option unless they put themselves in that situation. "Hey guys, I'm going to pick up a wand of puppy kicking just for emergencies, okay?" So honestly in my games you wouldn't even have to cast evil spells to have me look askance at things - just buying or preparing them means you're anticipating and planning an evil act. Luckily for me my group is fine with that.

Another way to justify Evil spells being evil is that spell descriptors often represent what energies are brought to bear on the spell's effects. A Fire spell makes the world more hot, a water spell makes it more wet, a Fear spell makes it more scary. The Prime material plane is often considered a balance between all the forces of all the other planes - a roughly equal amount of all elements, alignments, and so forth. Casting any spells with descriptors from another planes brings more of that plane to the Prime, slightly tipping the balance each time. In this view casting a Fire spell does make the world more firey. Casting an Evil spell makes the world more evil, and so forth. While not alignment related, if you were trying to be friends with extraplanar fire creatures, they might be upset if you were to cast a whole bunch of Cold spells all the time.

Again, use what you like in your game. I'm just explaining ways to have alignment descriptors matter in a...

So if enough people were to use fire spells(even where they'd cause no damage like say using burning hands up into the sky) the world would burst into flames?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, "could be, might be, maybe, but aren't".

Fire spells don't make the world more hot. Water spells don't make the world more wet. Good spells don't make the world more good. Evil spells don't make the world more evil.

If they did, there would be some mention, somewhere, of any such phenomenon happening. Until there is, there is not.

I'll also make sure to apply your logic next time I make a Good character. Hurting, oppressing, and killing others is explicitly evil.

Guess I can't kill, or even attack monsters now. Or put them in jail. That's oppression. After all, if I did, I would be using evil means for good ends. And that's wrong.


ryric wrote:

If you use evil means to perform good ends, you have still done evil. You have still compromised your morals. A good person should still feel guilty about their choice in that circumstance, even if no other option was known or available.

Doing evil to achieve a good end should never be a casual or "go-to" option for a good character. This is the actual problem I have with the rationalizations around infernal healing - your character made a deliberate choice to prepare the spell or buy a wand or a scroll or whatever - you knowingly and willingly put an evil tool in your toolbox. Almost no one ever ends up in a situation where infernal healing is the only option unless they put themselves in that situation. "Hey guys, I'm going to pick up a wand of puppy kicking just for emergencies, okay?" So honestly in my games you wouldn't even have to cast evil spells to have me look askance at things - just buying or preparing them means you're anticipating and planning an evil act. Luckily for me my group is fine with that.

Another way to justify Evil spells being evil is that spell descriptors often represent what energies are brought to bear on the spell's effects. A Fire spell makes the world more hot, a water spell makes it more wet, a Fear spell makes it more scary. The Prime material plane is often considered a balance between all the forces of all the other planes - a roughly equal amount of all elements, alignments, and so forth. Casting any spells with descriptors from another planes brings more of that plane to the Prime, slightly tipping the balance each time. In this view casting a Fire spell does make the world more firey. Casting an Evil spell makes the world more evil, and so forth. While not alignment related, if you were trying to be friends with extraplanar fire creatures, they might be upset if you were to cast a whole bunch of Cold spells all the time.

Again, use what you like in your game. I'm just explaining ways to have alignment descriptors matter in a...

I think the point being made is that unless he spell is irrevocably evil then the circumstances trump the descriptor. I get your point to. Some are willing to accept that just because it has an evil tag that makes it evil no matter how you use it. Other are saying that evil tag should not make it an evil act, especially if it is use for good, and that calling an evil spell evil is just like saying a gun is evil. The spell like the gun is just a tool.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Doing evil to achieve a good end should never be a casual or "go-to" option for a good character. This is the actual problem I have with the rationalizations around infernal healing - your character made a deliberate choice to prepare the spell or buy a wand or a scroll or whatever - you knowingly and willingly put an evil tool in your toolbox.

And the point that keeps being missed, is that there is absolutely nothing about infernal healing that makes it an evil spell, except for a completely arbitary descriptor, slapped on it.

It's a circular argument.

"Casting spell X is an evil act."
"Why is it an evil act?"
"Because it has an evil descriptor."
"Why does it have an evil descriptor?"
"Because it's an evil act."
"Why is it an evil act?"
"Because it has an evil descriptor."
"Why does it have an evil descriptor?"
"Because it's an evil act."
"Why is it an evil act?"
"Because it has an evil descriptor."
"Why does it have an evil descriptor?"
"Because it's an evil act."
"Why is it an evil act?"
"Because it has an evil descriptor."
"Why does it have an evil descriptor?"
"Because it's an evil act."
"Why is it an evil act?"
"Because it has an evil descriptor."
"Why does it have an evil descriptor?"
"Because it's an evil act."
(repeat)


Now as for the evil and fire comparison Paizo could have just made a new mechanic, but that descriptor is not really the issue, and is pretty much irrelevant unless someone is going to say that if "evil/good/ect alignments with regard to spells) was a category*(official game term) as opposed to a descriptor it would really change their opinion.

Since this is not really about the rules but about an opinion in playstyle then nobody is really wrong, and this is just another silly alignment thread.

PS(I missed this before): I really doubt a fire based creature will care if someone cast a cold spell as long as they are not hit by it.

PS2: *Feel free to insert a new pseudo-official game term if you don't like "category". The name I gave it is not the point.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:
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).

Cool. :)

Ashiel wrote:
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

Indeed! I'm glad we're in agreement here, too.

Ashiel wrote:
(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).

But there are lots of other Classes you can use for that. I mean, Oracle leaps immediately to mind, and is used for that by the folks at Paizo several times.

Ashiel wrote:

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"

Once again, cool. :)

Ashiel wrote:
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.

Okay, that's fair, but you're sorta flipping that around and calling anyone who does use the 'Evil spells are Evil' rule silly, which is equally unfair. And that's really my issue with some of your posts.

Ashiel wrote:
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.

Not exclusively, but even people presenting it as an actual rule haven't universally been otherwise unreasonable or anything.

Ashiel wrote:
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.

Well, not entirely. They're doing things that hurt, oppress, or kill others to a significant enough degree that it outweighs their Good actions. That doesn't necessarily mean they're doing it regularly per se, just regularly enough.

An actual villain is, almost certainly, gonna be doing that stuff pretty regularly, but not everyone with an Evil Alignment is a villain per se...just a bad person.

Ashiel wrote:
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...

I generally agree with this...excerpt that in most games, firstly, anyone who's generally pleasant probably doesn't get all the way to Evil from Evil spells alone, the most that's likely to do is keep them from being Good, which sorta fits the shady nature of what they do. And secondly, not everyone who's Evil is a villain for the PCs to confront. Many are just cruel and unpleasant people of one sort or another.

So obviously, the PCs don't go after a guy who runs a skeleton-ox rental service (assuming he's even Evil). Or a merchant who cheats his customers of small amounts of money. Or anyone else whose Evil is petty and small time. Doing so is boring OOC, and a poor use of their capabilities IC. They go after the guy they hear is enslaving the populace or kidnapping people...and they do that whether he's Evil or not. After all, a LN guy could be involved in enslaving the populace under certain circumstances.

In short, Evil isn't shorthand for 'villain the PCs will fight' and the two should not be used interchangeably.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To illustrate that last point, here is the infernal healing spell, presented in its original form:

Name Lesser Vigor
School Conjuration (Healing) [Positive]
Level Arc 1, Clr 1, Drd 1
Range Touch
Duration 10 rounds, plus 1 round/level
Saving Throw Yes (harmless)

Target creature heals 1 hp/round (max 15 rounds).

Sources Complete Divine on page 186, Masters of the Wild on page 92
Living Greyhawk Open

What's the difference?
What evil powers this vile magic?

Who's going to argue for a paladin to fall for using this from a wand?

Anyone?

<crickets>

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Dread Knight wrote:
So if enough people were to use fire spells(even where they'd cause no damage like say using burning hands up into the sky) the world would burst into flames?

I suppose so, but it would take an awful lot, and with no one casting Cold spells. I mean, each casting would raise the ambient air temperature a tiny fraction of a degree in a small area. So if you somehow were casting millions of Fire spells you might cause fantasy global warming.

Rynjin wrote:

Fire spells don't make the world more hot. Water spells don't make the world more wet.

...If they did, there would be some mention, somewhere, of any such phenomenon happening.

Like maybe in the spell description? Fire spells create fire, they burn things, they start things on fire sometimes. That's an increase in the thermal energy of the world. If you make a fire out of nowhere you have made the world more hot. If I cast create water the world now has more water in it, so it is more wet.

Snorter wrote:
And the point that keeps being missed, is that there is absolutely nothing about infernal healing that makes it an evil spell, except for a completely arbitary descriptor, slapped on it.

Except the setting fluff where it was created by an Evil deity as a gift to his followers. And the part where it involves anointing someone with devil's blood. Oh, and it makes the target radiate evil. Yep, no reason at all.

I agree if you strip away all the "pact with the Devil" trappings it loses any justification as an evil spell.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snorter wrote:
ryric wrote:
Doing evil to achieve a good end should never be a casual or "go-to" option for a good character. This is the actual problem I have with the rationalizations around infernal healing - your character made a deliberate choice to prepare the spell or buy a wand or a scroll or whatever - you knowingly and willingly put an evil tool in your toolbox.

And the point that keeps being missed, is that there is absolutely nothing about infernal healing that makes it an evil spell, except for a completely arbitary descriptor, slapped on it.

It's a circular argument.

"Casting spell X is an evil act."
"Why is it an evil act?"

These arguments ignore one critical fact. Infernal Healing was not created as a world-independent core spell. It was created as part of Inner Sea magic which means it's a Golarion native spell. And in that spell what makes it evil is that Asmodeus created it and released it as a means of corruption. THAT is what makes it evil. You can't discuss the spell without the setting that creates it. If you use this spell in a different setting that's not Golarion, it needs another justification for it's very existence.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:

And the point that keeps being missed, is that there is absolutely nothing about infernal healing that makes it an evil spell, except for a completely arbitary descriptor, slapped on it.

It's a circular argument.

Well...it does seem to draw its power from the raw energy of evil, what with using unholy water or devil blood as a material component. The effect is clearly not Evil, but the source could be.

Is what effect that has metaphysically gone into in detail? No. Is it reasonable to ignore it if you feel that's better for the game? Sure.

But don't act like there's nothing potentially Evil about a spell that seems to use unholy water or devil blood to draw on the powers of Hell. And is specifically noted as being designed by Asmodeus to corrupt people.

And it's from Golarion. So...it's Evil because Asmodeus designed it that way, specifically to corrupt the people that use it. Which is a reasonable plan in a world where that's how things work.

Scarab Sages

ryric wrote:
I agree if you strip away all the "pact with the Devil" trappings it loses any justification as an evil spell.

And now, we're in agreement.

So, let's take that fact to its logical conclusion.

An arcane caster is troubled by the fact that he is unable to cure his friends, and sees it as a tactical Achilles Heel, which he would like to correct.

He accepts that 'true' healing is outside of his portfolio, but reasons that this doesn't have to prevent him giving aid to wounded allies.
All he has to do is harness the supernatural fast healing powers of an existing creature, to kickstart the target's own body into healing itself.
Eureka!

So, which creature can he use?
There are several options, but one of the most obvious creatures with fast healing would be the troll, a stupid, easily tricked species of giant, known to inhabit the nearby hills. A short time later, a band of mercenaries sets out to the Troll Hills, and successfully kidnaps a young troll, and brings it back to town in a cage, after killing and incinerating its parents. This troll is kept at the Wizard's University, where it is kept docile, and bled for magical materials.
The resulting spell 'Trollish Healing' becomes a firm favourite among adventuring wizards who need insurance on their travels. This spell is a neutrally-aligned spell, that has no effect on the morality of the caster.

OR...
He can call a devil, sign away his soul in a blood-pact, that damns himself to Hell for all eternity, to learn a spell that does the exact same thing, and which sets the armies and agents of the Good deities on his trail, with a death sentence in every civilised town. He will die alone, unmourned, unloved, in the gutter, in excommunicado, having to rely on his own resources, but falling further and further away from achieving redemption every time he uses it.

What stat do Wizards prize, again?

Infernal Healing is a badly-thought out spell, since it makes no sense, whatever the setting.
If it were possible for arcane magic to power a fast healing effect, there would be nothing for a devil to use as leverage, since a non-aligned fast healing spell would already exist.

Liberty's Edge

Snorter wrote:

What stat do Wizards prize, again?

Infernal Healing is a badly-thought out spell, since it makes no sense, whatever the setting.
If it were possible for arcane magic to power a fast healing effect, there would be nothing for a devil to use as leverage, since a non-aligned fast healing spell would already exist.

What if it's only possible via a very precise loophole, and only works if very precise and detailed conditions are fulfilled? That'd certainly make sense.

Now...who's the best guy with loopholes in the Golarion universe? Oh, right, Asmodeus.

Who, being a God, is kinda definitionally smarter than anyone who isn't also a God, and likely smarter than most of those as well, based on what we know of him.

So...is it really a leap that Asmodeus (one of the oldest and smartest beings in existence) would come up with this idea first? And perhaps that nobody has been able to duplicate his work as of yet? Particularly if he is taking pains to ensure those who come close meet messy and unpleasant ends...

That seems plausible to me.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Snorter wrote:

What stat do Wizards prize, again?

Infernal Healing is a badly-thought out spell, since it makes no sense, whatever the setting.
If it were possible for arcane magic to power a fast healing effect, there would be nothing for a devil to use as leverage, since a non-aligned fast healing spell would already exist.

What if it's only possible via a very precise loophole, and only works if very precise and detailed conditions are fulfilled? That'd certainly make sense.

What, like being a bard?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Snorter wrote:
ryric wrote:
I agree if you strip away all the "pact with the Devil" trappings it loses any justification as an evil spell.

And now, we're in agreement.

So, let's take that fact to its logical conclusion.

An arcane caster is troubled by the fact that he is unable to cure his friends, and sees it as a tactical Achilles Heel, which he would like to correct.

He accepts that 'true' healing is outside of his portfolio, but reasons that this doesn't have to prevent him giving aid to wounded allies.
All he has to do is harness the supernatural fast healing powers of an existing creature, to kickstart the target's own body into healing itself.
Eureka!

So, which creature can he use?
There are several options, but one of the most obvious creatures with fast healing would be the troll, a stupid, easily tricked species of giant, known to inhabit the nearby hills. A short time later, a band of mercenaries sets out to the Troll Hills, and successfully kidnaps a young troll, and brings it back to town in a cage, after killing and incinerating its parents. This troll is kept at the Wizard's University, where it is kept docile, and bled for magical materials.
The resulting spell 'Trollish Healing' becomes a firm favourite among adventuring wizards who need insurance on their travels. This spell is a neutrally-aligned spell, that has no effect on the morality of the caster.

OR...
He can call a devil, sign away his soul in a blood-pact, that damns himself to Hell for all eternity, to learn a spell that does the exact same thing, and which sets the armies and agents of the Good deities on his trail, with a death sentence in every civilised town. He will die alone, unmourned, unloved, in the gutter, in excommunicado, having to rely on his own resources, but falling further and further away from achieving redemption every time he uses it.

What stat do Wizards prize, again?

Infernal Healing is a badly-thought out spell, since it makes no sense, whatever the setting.
If it were...

Wizards don't prize Wisdom, which would be the stat that informs you an idea is bad before you try it.

I posit that if your trollish healing spell existed we wouldn't be having this discussion. The very reason people get so worked up about this is that there are a couple Evil spells with really good or unique effects that can't be duplicated without the evil baggage.

Basically, as Pathfinder stands right now, infernal healing exists and trollish healing does not. I would even contend that this is intentional on the part of the developers.

But I fully agree that the Evil descriptor is more fluff than mechanics. I'm okay with that.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
What, like being a bard?

Bards just get normal healing spells, not spells that grant Fast Healing. Different thing entirely, thematically and mechanically.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
What, like being a bard?
Bards just get normal healing spells, not spells that grant Fast Healing. Different thing entirely, thematically and mechanically.

And it walks all over 'healing is the province of the divine'.


ryric wrote:


Like maybe in the spell description? Fire spells create fire, they burn things, they start things on fire sometimes. That's an increase in the thermal energy of the world. If you make a fire out of nowhere you have made the world more hot.

Not precisely. Evocation spells create things out of raw magical energy. It doesn't "come from nowhere". The implication seems to be that it dissipates back into said energy when the spell effect is over.

ryric wrote:
If I cast create water the world now has more water in it, so it is more wet.

The water disappears after 24 hours. Plus, as it is a Conjuration spell, it comes from somewhere anyway. The universe has the same amount of water in it it did before.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Who, being a God, is kinda definitionally smarter than anyone who isn't also a God, and likely smarter than most of those as well, based on what we know of him.

That's not my understanding of the gods at all. Thor is not known for his brilliant intellect. I don't picture Cayden Cailean as a brainiac.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Rynjin wrote:
ryric wrote:


Like maybe in the spell description? Fire spells create fire, they burn things, they start things on fire sometimes. That's an increase in the thermal energy of the world. If you make a fire out of nowhere you have made the world more hot.

Not precisely. Evocation spells create things out of raw magical energy. It doesn't "come from nowhere". The implication seems to be that it dissipates back into said energy when the spell effect is over.

ryric wrote:
If I cast create water the world now has more water in it, so it is more wet.
The water disappears after 24 hours. Plus, as it is a Conjuration spell, it comes from somewhere anyway. The universe has the same amount of water in it it did before.

And once we get into "implications" anybody's made up rationalization is just as good, which is all I was pointing out. Things burned with a fire spell stay burned, melted things stay melted, and flaming things stay on fire. That seems like extra fire to me. Do you really rule that campfires started by spark go out as soon as the spell ends?

Created water doesn't go away if you drink it. Also your use of universe is unclear - if you mean the prime plane, it could have its water increased by pulling water from the elemental plane. If you mean the multiverse it can get trickier. Is there a law of conservation of matter when you can have infinite planes? If the plane of water has infinite water, and you take two gallons of it to the material, you've increased the overall water of the multiverse. Infinity is weird.

Liberty's Edge

Voadam wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Who, being a God, is kinda definitionally smarter than anyone who isn't also a God, and likely smarter than most of those as well, based on what we know of him.

That's not my understanding of the gods at all. Thor is not known for his brilliant intellect. I don't picture Cayden Cailean as a brainiac.

Full Gods have, in fact, been stated to be so far beyond mortals they can't even be measured in conventional stats. That includes Intelligence.

Cayden Cailean's exploits as a mortal don't indicate him having been a super-genius, but per James Jacobs and others (and his opinion is controlling regarding Golarion canon) he sure is now...at least by mortal standards if not those of other Gods.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:

when people complain that using evil spells and items and creatures can cause them to take an 'alignment hit' it seems to me that they feel they are being punished and want to be able to use these things without suffering any mechanical or alignment effects. In my opinion they can, they just have to write down some non-good alignment on their character sheets if it becomes a theme for them, this could cause problems for certain clerics or paladins, but they can play a different sort of cleric or an anti-paladin.

There are also people taking a different tack on seriously interpreting morality versus alignment descriptors.

There is moral alignment, doing good is good and doing evil is evil and then there is supernatural [alignment] which is a physical part of the universe. Fiends are composed of supernatural elemental [evil] but their actions and individual alignment are still judged by the morality of their individual actions. A risen/redeemed fiend is still composed of supernatural elemental [evil] and interacts with the universe mechanically as evil but has chosen through free will to not do evil and is morally not evil and has a non-evil alignment. Morally they should be judged as non-evil. Summoning such a risen fiend counts as mechanically [evil] for detect evil spells and clerical spell use but if done for good purposes/effects without causing evil it is a morally good act.

A fallen angel still has the [good] subtype but has a non-good alignment. To protect orphans from the fallen angel a protection from good spell can be used effectively, which uses physical supernatural [evil] to power it against the fallen angel's supernatural [good].

So supernatural [evil] and [good] are not the same as moral evil and good. So when judging the morality of using a supernatural [alignment] spell, it makes sense to judge the morality of that action independent of the descriptor. If the [evil] spell actually does evil and does not just interact mechanically as evil then its casting should be judged a morally evil act. If not then it shouldn't.


LazarX wrote:
These arguments ignore one critical fact. Infernal Healing was not created as a world-independent core spell. It was created as part of Inner Sea magic which means it's a Golarion native spell. And in that spell what makes it evil is that Asmodeus created it and released it as a means of corruption. THAT is what makes it evil. You can't discuss the spell without the setting that creates it. If you use this spell in a different setting that's not Golarion, it needs another justification for it's very existence.

"A wizard did it."

It's simple, it follows the precedent set by virtually every other wizard spell, and it creates the perfect justification for renaming the spell, dropping the specific components, and removing the [evil] tag.

You're welcome.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty much.
If 'Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum' is in all respects that matter, functionally identical to 'Mage's Private Sanctum', and 'Tenser's Floating Disc' may as well be 'Floating Disc', then 'Asmodeus' Fast Healing' can be replaced by a generic 'Fast Healing', and Mr Hoofypants can go cry in the corner.


Snorter wrote:
ryric wrote:
Doing evil to achieve a good end should never be a casual or "go-to" option for a good character. This is the actual problem I have with the rationalizations around infernal healing - your character made a deliberate choice to prepare the spell or buy a wand or a scroll or whatever - you knowingly and willingly put an evil tool in your toolbox.

And the point that keeps being missed, is that there is absolutely nothing about infernal healing that makes it an evil spell, except for a completely arbitary descriptor, slapped on it.

It's a circular argument.

"Casting spell X is an evil act."
"Why is it an evil act?"
"Because it has an evil descriptor."
"Why does it have an evil descriptor?"
"Because it's an evil act."
"Why is it an evil act?"
"Because it has an evil descriptor."
"Why does it have an evil descriptor?"
"Because it's an evil act."
"Why is it an evil act?"
"Because it has an evil descriptor."
"Why does it have an evil descriptor?"
"Because it's an evil act."
"Why is it an evil act?"
"Because it has an evil descriptor."
"Why does it have an evil descriptor?"
"Because it's an evil act."
"Why is it an evil act?"
"Because it has an evil descriptor."
"Why does it have an evil descriptor?"
"Because it's an evil act."
(repeat)

Why can't my fighter use scrolls?

Because he can't cast spells
Why can't he cast spells
Because he is a fighter
But I want to cast spells
Then maybe play a ranger or a bloodrager
But I want to be a fighter

Hey, it's cool, you don't have to follow the rules, let that fighter cast spells, but I suggest you go hangout in the home brew section of the forums.

So my suspicion that people want the Cool Stuff(TM) without the 'evil' fluff getting in their way seems correct. Again, nothing wrong with wanting all the Cool Stuff(TM) and if everyone has more fun then go for it, I just don't know why you're in this thread instead of designing your own game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Why can't my fighter use scrolls?

He could with UMD.
Why doesn't he have UMD?
Cause you didn't put ranks into the skill.
Why didn't I do that?
I don't know.

Much circle
Such logic


Ashiel wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
when people complain that using evil spells and items and creatures can cause them to take an 'alignment hit' it seems to me that they feel they are being punished and want to be able to use these things without suffering any mechanical or alignment effects.

It's mostly because we find it dissatisfying. I for one don't need "good" written on my character sheet to play a good character. I have in several games played a more righteous character than other members of the group though our individual alignments said Neutral and Good respectively.

If you changed my alignment to Neutral Evil, I'd still go on playing the character as a good character. I would just know not to play certain classes with you. It would be somewhat awkward having to play a blackguard to continue being a good guy though.

EDIT: To be more specific, we find it dissatisfying because some of us like good and evil to mean something rather than just being red vs blue.

Except that's not what this thread and the OP is about.

"SHOULD THE USE OF EVIL ALIGNED SPELLS AFFECT YOUR ALIGNMENT AS A PC?"

Not "Why I dont like alignment in my RPG".

Mind you- that's a valid point- and there are quite a few fun RPGs that dont have alignment.

But whatever one thinks about alignment in RPGs in general and PF in particular has nothing to do with "SHOULD THE USE OF EVIL ALIGNED SPELLS AFFECT YOUR ALIGNMENT AS A PC?"

Why does every thread about alignment have to devolve into two hijacks:
1. A discussion of real world morality.
2. A discussion of having alignments in a RPG.

301 to 350 of 892 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.