| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I have two problems with this.
1. This is unnecessary because there is a class (cleric) in the core rulebook that can also fill this role but is being told arbitrarily that it cannot. If Cleric and Oracle had identical mechanics, then it might not be a problem as it's just a name change (and thus fluffy), but clerics and oracles play very differently and it is the destruction of options for both GMs and PCs for no apparent reason.
I don't really see the benefit of making core base classes less capable of filling character concepts. In fact it just seems dumb to me.
It also bars drawing on a pantheon, and requires there to be a printed deity that you like that will let you play a cleric you want to play. If you want to play a cleric of fire and life (which could be very appropriate for a faith that puts emphasis on the sun) you have to find a deity that has those two specific domains and also is a deity that you like.
I have also experienced first hand, players who because of their IRL religions feel uncomfortable assuming the rule of a character that worships a different god, even for pretend. They might want to play a cleric because it looks fun and such but their belief system and gray areas makes it uncomfortable to them. In the past I've simply responded that you don't actually have to have a deity in-game to play a cleric and that solved it for them (a much better idea for inclusion rather than telling them, "you you can't play this class unless you pretend to worship a false god" or "your religion is stupid, this is just a game, grow up").
2. Oracles have different mechanics. I also hate oracles because of their "forced fluff". Oracles can be fun to play, are quite strong, etc; yet at the end of the day your oracle is having a piece of unimportant fluff shoved down your throat to (again) limit your creativity.
Why should every animist, buddhist, ancestralist, diabolist, demonologist, astrolatist, taoist, and so forth also be lame, blind, deaf, talk in tongues, or have some other obnoxious "curse which gives mechanical power tradeoff"?
Truly, it disgusts me every time I hear someone say "just be an oracle". As much so as those people who supposedly hear "just be a wizard" when asking about *insert underpowered class here*, except I hear the oracle thing more often. :(
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.
No, I haven't called anyone silly. What I have done is demonstrate the natural conclusion of that as some sort of mechanic and the result is absurdity, but that's different than calling those players silly.
See, I understand the idea that a resonant influence could be a cool mechanic from a fantasy perspective. However, alignment is not set up that way and does it very, very poorly. If you want to include something like that you'd be better off with some sort of purity/taint system (and they exist and are not hard to make). Do I think being able to buy 50 good acts in a wand protection from evil is silly? You betcha. Do I think the people advocating for some sort of purity/taint system (even if they don't say so by that description) are silly? Not in the least.
Likewise there is no actual rule stating that evil spells are evil, merely that they A) function by drawing on the power of evil, B) summon/call an outsider from an [Evil] plane of existence. The casting spells being evil thing that some have quoted is from a campaign specific splatbook that means about as much to the core game as any campaign specific rules found in Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Mystara, or Ravenloft. That is to say not a damn thing. Sure, in Darksun using arcane magic super-screws the world into being a horrible place and eats greenery and generally makes you a jerk for destroying the world for your own personal power, which is why good guys play psions, but if you come insisting that is the core of it...just no.
Not exclusively, but even people presenting it as an actual rule haven't universally been otherwise unreasonable or anything.
I'm not 100% sure what you were saying with this so I'm winging my response to what I think you mean.
Yes, I think those who are presenting it as an actual rule are being unreasonable when they refuse to bring the goods. Further, I find the intentional spreading of misinformation to be innately destructive and about as useful as telling people the world is flat or that phlogiston is a real thing, because even if the person saying this is actually intending to advocate for the playstyle of a purity/taint mechanic even where one does not exist, it can serve to confuse and/or misinform those new to the game or inexperienced with its intricacies.
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.
I agree. Ebeneezer Scrooge would likely be an evil character (at least initially) since he hurt and oppressed for his own gains and did little good ever. However, we can see that he is evil because he's evil. Not because he was using mindless automatons stuffed with neutral-juice to provide free labor to help build houses for the homeless.
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.
I agree with this 100%. I do however think that to be evil you should really actually be evil. Likewise I feel like you should also have to be good to be good. If spells and/or magic items change your alignment, then a neutral (doesn't really gravitate one way or another) who's using [X] aligned spells will stop being neutral. If he wouldn't, then they don't really have any influence on your alignment. But if they do, here you have a guy who is now X alignment but is really just Neutral.
Likewise there is no actual rule stating that evil spells are evil, merely that they A) function by drawing on the power of evil, B) summon/call an outsider from an [Evil] plane of existence.
If you don't like the evil descriptor throw it out, but arguing that water isn't wet or the sun isn't hot is silly. I apologize to you on behalf of the game designers but it happened, it's probably better for you just to accept the truth and move on.
| 4 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.
If you use good means to perform evil ends, you have still done good. You have still strengthened your morals. An evil person should still feel guilty about their choice in that circumstance, even if no other option was known or available.
Likewise there is no actual rule stating that evil spells are evil, merely that they A) function by drawing on the power of evil, B) summon/call an outsider from an [Evil] plane of existence.If you don't like the evil descriptor throw it out, but arguing that water isn't wet or the sun isn't hot is silly. I apologize to you on behalf of the game designers but it happened, it's probably better for you just to accept the truth and move on.
If you don't like the evil descriptor throw it out, but arguing that water isn't wet or the sun isn't hot is silly. I apologize to you on behalf of the game designers but it happened, it's probably better for you just to accept the truth and move on.
*The same phrase applies to you, since the rules clearly state [evil] means the spell draws from an evil source, not that casting the spell is evil. That is why enslaving angels is a [good] spell. The spell draws from a good source but that does not make casting the spell a good action.
Likewise, using a flash-light does not mean my use of a flash-light is morally electricity.
When I turn on a car, I am not performing a gasoline action.
If I cast fireball, I am not performing a fire action.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person 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.If you use good means to perform evil ends, you have still done good. You have still strengthened your morals. An evil person should still feel guilty about their choice in that circumstance, even if no other option was known or available.
I know you were attempting to be snarky here, but if you actually read what you wrote it's a nonsensical mess. Good/evil don't just flip like you'd need them to for your word substitution to make sense, which is basically my point.
There's a reason that a paladin falls for any evil act but an antipaladin can commit good acts just fine as long as they are for evil ends - it's because good/evil are not symmetrical.
well as i wrote earlier I am not here to have a debate about philosophy.
If you truly believe using spell [evil] isn't evil there isn't much left for us to discuss. I suppose the allure of the Cool Stuff(TM) has just been too powerful and has corrupted some players into believing the use of evil is in fact good because they are that special, so in a way the evil tag is working as intended. Play accordingly.
Good luck all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well as i wrote earlier I am not here to have a debate about philosophy.
If you truly believe using spell [evil] isn't evil there isn't much left for us to discuss. I suppose the allure of the Cool Stuff(TM) has just been too powerful and has corrupted some players into believing the use of evil is in fact good because they are that special, so in a way the evil tag is working as intended. Play accordingly.
Good luck all.
In Golarion, yes using an Evil spell is an act of Evil. And most players are fine with that. Provided the GM recognizes that Good people can do Evil things without changing alignments.
well as i wrote earlier I am not here to have a debate about philosophy.
So you are here to assert opinion and feelings without any relation to logic or facts?
That's fine, but you should lead with that so that people don't try to logic with your feeling statements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It's a good thing that 0% of anything I said has anything to do with your response then, hm?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly this whole thing should be done with your table, not in a forum with a bunch of random strangers.
Work with your table to figure out how this is done and don't spout your way as the best way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a reason that a paladin falls for any evil act but an antipaladin can commit good acts just fine as long as they are for evil ends - it's because good/evil are not symmetrical.
Or it could have something to do with the fact the Blackguard is CHAOTIC Evil rather than lawful evil. It really doesn't make much sense for a blackguard to adhere to a strict standard when his very being is about saying "**** the rules" and the fact his code is an open mockery of the Paladin's code in that it is his "code" to act this way, except he can ignore it when he pleases.
It's kind of part of the CHAOTIC-Evil thing.
Evil clerics can't cast [Good] spells either. So yeah, when comparing apples to apples they're pretty damn symmetrical. :)
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 fighterHey, 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.
You'd have a point except that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor isn't an Evil act under the rules.
You'd have a point except that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor isn't an Evil act under the rules.
Neither is burning down a orphanage full of orphans. Or genocide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'd have a point except that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor isn't an Evil act under the rules.Neither is burning down a orphanage full of orphans. Or genocide.
Except they do...
Don't those involved killing others?
Do you have a link to a list of "evil acts" on the PRD?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know if you what to play a cleric that does not worship one god or a god at all on Golarion .there is the shaman
You realize this is just as bad as telling someone to play an oracle right? It's kind of funny that the oracle is a parent class of the shaman, but this class does not play like a cleric, is forced to have a "spirit animal", has a different spell list, different mechanics, requires you to have access and knowledge of a different class with an existing core class already can fill the role if you just want to use existing mechanics.
It's pretty dumb overall. Having to make an entirely new class to do a thing that another class already does, because you house-ruled that the other class can't do it, thus forcing the need for a new class, except the new class is going to be criticized if it's identical to the old class, but then if you just wanted to play a cleric who attained enlightenment through a series of mantras and meditational reflection, you still can't do that, because now you need Sparky the Spirit-mutt so you can say "Oh, I'm a cleric, but I'm not".
Ugh...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't those involved killing others?Do you have a link to a list of "evil acts" on the PRD?
Yep. Hurting, oppressing, or killing others. It's in the alignment rules in the "Additional Rules" chapter.
This is why the alignment rules are actually usable. You don't need an infinite page textbook that ascribes an alignment to literally everything that you could possibly do. That would be really, really horrible.
Instead, it tells you what constitutes good and evil, and then you can apply that formula to everything. It's really not difficult to decide if someone is willingly hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone in a given situation, is it? No, no it's not. It's also not hard to spot altruism, respect for dignity of others, and protecting life.
Many times you end up with players and NPCs doing a mixture of these things. That's okay, because Neutral is a thing. Then there are plenty of things that are simply neither good nor evil because they do not fall within these parameters.
For example, is it evil to bury a corpse? Is it good to cremate it? Neither. It's a corpse. If you do it out of a particular intent to do something (such as putting coins on the eyes of the corpse because you believe they help the dead person in the afterlife) then you might be acting in a way that is altruistic if misguided.
It's not rocket science. I don't understand why you guys want to break the alignment system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't those involved killing others?Do you have a link to a list of "evil acts" on the PRD?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not rocket science. I don't understand why you guys want to break the alignment system.
They don't. They just have different metrics by which they rule alignment, and as intended by the designers, it matches their tables and not ours. The confusion occurs when they try to say 'the rules say alignment works the way I say it does' when that is obviously not the case.
Are you saying killing others isn't an evil act?Don't those involved killing others?Do you have a link to a list of "evil acts" on the PRD?
Where is the list of Evil Acts?
If the point is that casting a spell with the Evil descriptor isn;t a Evil act as the rules dont spell it out as such, then that argument is only valid if the rules *DO* spell out such "Evil Acts". And in fact they dont.
" Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
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."
And in fact "killing others" isnt on that list- destroying innocent life is.
And in fact "killing others" isnt on that list- destroying innocent life is.
Except it is on the list...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the list of Evil Acts?Are you saying killing others isn't an evil act?Don't those involved killing others?Do you have a link to a list of "evil acts" on the PRD?
There's not a list of "evil acts". There is a list of things that make acts evil. To understand this, let us first understand what "act" means.
1. anything done, being done, or to be done; deed; performance:
a heroic act.
2. the process of doing:
caught in the act.
3. a formal decision, law, or the like, by a legislature, ruler, court, or other authority; decree or edict; statute; judgment, resolve, or award:
an act of Congress.
4. an instrument or document stating something done or transacted.
5. one of the main divisions of a play or opera: the second act ofHamlet.
6. a short performance by one or more entertainers, usually part of a variety show or radio or television program.
7. the personnel of such a group:
Specifically, the two applicable here are #1 and #2. An evil act is literally "doing evil". Now how does alignment define "doing evil"?
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
So if you are acting in a way that hurts, oppresses, or killing others, you are performing an evil act. Pretty simple, right? You don't need some sort of brainless "list" of evil acts where someone on high declares the color red, or poisons, or homosexuality "evil" because it suits whatever their unique view of personal ethics / morality. No, you just need to determine if the character is hurting, oppressing, or killing.
Meanwhile, you have a similar checklist for good, law, and chaos. In some cases a character will be acting in a way that is neither specifically a given alignment. For example, a Paladin who slays an orc in self defense is killing but he's also protecting respecting his life, so it has both good and evil qualities. Fortunately there's this big fat "NEUTRAL" alignment in which all the possible acts that don't fall very cleanly into the other alignments get tossed. Self defense is a character acting neutrally.
If said Paladin kills said orc to protect someone else, he's now also acting altruistically, and most people would agree that he's now doing more good than evil. If the same Paladin killed the orc to take his stuff, the Paladin was doing evil and falls. Easy-peasy.
The insistence on a "list" is not how the alignment rules function. It would actively make alignment unusable and rigid. It would also require a book thicker than the phone book to try and account for even half of the things that someone could do in a single session in a D&D/PF game. Even then, tons of things that were never on the list will show up.
Druid: "Is it evil to have sex in wild shape form with my animal?" (this has actually come up on not just this forum but other forums I've visited).
The answer is "It's kinda squicky but you're not hurting, oppressing, or killing, so if it's a willing participant, blessings of nature upon you druid-dudette"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Want Evil Infernal Healing with Devil's blood?
then include Good Celestial Healing with Angel Tears?
and include Neutral Fey Healing with Fey tears?
Want Evil Infernal Healing with Devil's blood?
then include Good Celestial Healing with Angel Tears?
and include Neutral Fey Healing with Fey tears?
Well it's not like devils are any more possessive of fast healing or regeneration than angels (solar regeneration is pretty BAMF). Troll Juice would probably be a good option for a generic spell as well. A tagless spell would be stronger though because Neutral is the best alignment (no dispel X debuffing you).
Well it's not like devils are any more possessive of fast healing or regeneration than angels (solar regeneration is pretty BAMF). Troll Juice would probably be a good option for a generic spell as well. A tagless spell would be stronger though because Neutral is the best alignment (no dispel X debuffing you).Want Evil Infernal Healing with Devil's blood?
then include Good Celestial Healing with Angel Tears?
and include Neutral Fey Healing with Fey tears?
Devils, Angels, Trolls, Fey, and hell, Oni possess it too
[Yep. Hurting, oppressing, or killing others. It's in the alignment rules in the "Additional Rules" chapter.
So a Paladin commits an 'EVIL act' when he kills a homicidal goblin?
If casting Evil spells affects your alignment, then so does casting Good spells, to the same degree. So, your evil wizard down the block can cast a couple dozen Protection from Evils and maintain a good alignment.
This is satire, more or less. Alignment is stupid.
| 2 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.If you use good means to perform evil ends, you have still done good. You have still strengthened your morals. An evil person should still feel guilty about their choice in that circumstance, even if no other option was known or available.I know you were attempting to be snarky here, but if you actually read what you wrote it's a nonsensical mess. Good/evil don't just flip like you'd need them to for your word substitution to make sense, which is basically my point.
There's a reason that a paladin falls for any evil act but an antipaladin can commit good acts just fine as long as they are for evil ends - it's because good/evil are not symmetrical.
I wasn't trying to be snarky. I've found it's a good thing to examine one's argument from the other side. If it doesn't make sense, that might be because you're relying on assumptions. The dangerous thing about relying on assumptions is that they are not universal. Good and Evil are symmetrical. They are opposite ends of the moral spectrum. Any preferential weight you give them is simply your belief, and not accepted by all. Among hot and cold, it is true that cold is simply the absence of heat. Among light and dark it is true that dark is the absence of light. No such presence/absence relationship exists between good and evil.
As to your reference to the Paladin and Antipaladin, you ignore a confounding factor: the Paladin has a strict code because they are lawful, the Antipaladin has a lax code because they are chaotic.
[Yep. Hurting, oppressing, or killing others. It's in the alignment rules in the "Additional Rules" chapter.So a Paladin commits an 'EVIL act' when he kills a homicidal goblin?
the evil of killing the homicidal goblin is outweighted by the removal of a homicidal threat from the material plane, meaning the good outweighs the bad, even though the killing itself was to be considered evil
if that goblin were just a harmless goblin tanner working bathide in a cave so his fellow goblins may have shoes to protect their soles from the harsh edges of the cave floor, then killing him would be an evil act, with no good to balance it, amplified by the evil of Racism, a form of oppression. that goblin Tanner might have never taken a human life, for all you know, he could have simply tanned hides from common cave bats or from cows goblin raiders stole to feed their society
i really dislike the whole black and white thing, and really like to add shades of grey, not exactly misery porn, but why exactly, are those goblins raiding a human run farming town? what motivates those goblins to leave their harmless post and take by force? it could very well be that there underground homes are poor circumstances for agriculture and they recieve massive migranes in bright light, forcing them on night skirmishes to steal corn and cattle to feed their starving kin, because they don't have enough time, manpower, fertile soil and water to farm enough crops to feed their rapidly growing population and at the same time, are driven to poverty and a shattered economy by "palefaced giants" who ravage their kind on a regular basis.
and almost all the time those "palefaced giants" are human adventurers seeking loot and experience points and often more vile raiders than the goblins themselves
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the ideas repeated in this thread is that performing evil or good actions, in this case via flagged spells, can shift your alignment one way or the other if cast enough times. If casting evil spells turns a good man evil over time and casting good spells turns an evil man good over time than you have just created a system where you can rape and then "wash it away" by casting good spells. I can't even fathom why anyone would want to play in a setting where its possible to be called lawful good after killing and raping because you cast protection from evil enough times. It's offensive whether you believe it's RAW or a house rule. No thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the ideas repeated in this thread is that performing evil or good actions, in this case via flagged spells, can shift your alignment one way or the other if cast enough times. If casting evil spells turns a good man evil over time and casting good spells turns an evil man good over time than you have just created a system where you can rape and then "wash it away" by casting good spells. I can't even fathom why anyone would want to play in a setting where its possible to be called lawful good after killing and raping because you cast protection from evil enough times. It's offensive whether you believe it's RAW or a house rule. No thank you.
i agree with that, casting protection from evil frequently should not be a way to buy off your sins, and it isn't even an official rule, just something published as a house rule in Faiths of Purity, a completely noncore sourcebook with no bearing on the core rules.
the fact an abusive foster father can use a wand of protection from evil to buy off the sins of beating his wife and foster daughters in a drunken rage is something that should not be an option at all.
One of the ideas repeated in this thread is that performing evil or good actions, in this case via flagged spells, can shift your alignment one way or the other if cast enough times. If casting evil spells turns a good man evil over time and casting good spells turns an evil man good over time than you have just created a system where you can rape and then "wash it away" by casting good spells. I can't even fathom why anyone would want to play in a setting where its possible to be called lawful good after killing and raping because you cast protection from evil enough times. It's offensive whether you believe it's RAW or a house rule. No thank you.
Why does casting a spell bother you? Do you have minor good or evil acts in your game? Do they affect alignment? Can you "wash away" rape by donating to the poor?
|
One of the ideas repeated in this thread is that performing evil or good actions, in this case via flagged spells, can shift your alignment one way or the other if cast enough times. If casting evil spells turns a good man evil over time and casting good spells turns an evil man good over time than you have just created a system where you can rape and then "wash it away" by casting good spells. I can't even fathom why anyone would want to play in a setting where its possible to be called lawful good after killing and raping because you cast protection from evil enough times. It's offensive whether you believe it's RAW or a house rule. No thank you.
Uh...this is poor logic whether spells apply or not. Using this logic, no spells involved, someone can commit an act of rape or murder and then become Good over time by, say, giving a lot of money to charity, coincidentally having a career involving helping people, being friendly and politely affable to people on the street, or a host of other things. All with no real intent to reform.
The problem with this idea isn't spells being aligned acts, it's the idea that by performing a relatively minor action defined as Good repeatedly and by rote, your Alignment will change. Which is, y'know, b%~@*!@$. Whether spells are involved or not.
EDIT: Semi-ninja'd. Still worth repeating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the ideas repeated in this thread is that performing evil or good actions, in this case via flagged spells, can shift your alignment one way or the other if cast enough times. If casting evil spells turns a good man evil over time and casting good spells turns an evil man good over time than you have just created a system where you can rape and then "wash it away" by casting good spells. I can't even fathom why anyone would want to play in a setting where its possible to be called lawful good after killing and raping because you cast protection from evil enough times. It's offensive whether you believe it's RAW or a house rule. No thank you.Why does casting a spell bother you? Do you have minor good or evil acts in your game? Do they affect alignment? Can you "wash away" rape by donating to the poor?
It is not the spells that bother me. It is the idea that trivially good deeds in large quantities somehow make you good. I used spells as an example because that is what has been talked about and it's relvent to this thread.
No. I don't use alignment in my games so I don't have to account for such idiocy.
Uh...this is poor logic whether spells apply or not. Using this logic, no spells involved, someone can commit an act of rape or murder and then become Good over time by, say, giving a lot of money to charity, coincidentally having a career involving helping people, being friendly and politely affable to people on the street, or a host of other things. All with no real intent to reform.
The problem with this idea isn't spells being aligned acts, it's the idea that by performing a relatively minor action defined as Good repeatedly and by rote, your Alignment will change. Which is, y'know, b~+!*#$#. Whether spells are involved or not.
My very first sentence said actions. I was very clear that I was using spells as an example of actions and that my problem was with the implication that trivially "good" actions somehow allow you to atone for horrific evil acts. So unless your trying to agree with me I fail to see what your point is.
|
|
My very first sentence said actions. I was very clear that I was using spells as an example of actions and that my problem was with the implication that trivially "good" actions somehow allow you to atone for horrific evil acts. So unless your trying to agree with me I fail to see what your point is.
Ah. Well, in that case my point is that you're seriously off-topic since this thread is specifically about how and whether spells effect Alignment, not about whether Alignment is a good system to start with.
It's also misleading due to the spell example thing.
My very first sentence said actions. I was very clear that I was using spells as an example of actions and that my problem was with the implication that trivially "good" actions somehow allow you to atone for horrific evil acts. So unless your trying to agree with me I fail to see what your point is.Ah. Well, in that case my point is that you're seriously off-topic since this thread is specifically about how and whether spells effect Alignment, not about whether Alignment is a good system to start with.
It's also misleading due to the spell example thing.
You may be right about it being misleading, in which case I apologize. I disagree however that it is off topic. When we discuss whether Alignment tags affect alignment, asking whether it's even a good idea for that to be the case because of the implication that doing so comes with seems a pretty solid starting point to me. It may be part of a larger alignment issue than just spell descriptors, but that doesn't mean that fixing or understanding the larger issue doesn't directly portain to the smaller.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like WPharolin's posts are right on topic. The topic and OP pertained to "should these affect your alignment". Seems like Mr. WPharolin (who is a mighty fine poster I might add) is casting his coppers into the correct fountain. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Yep. Hurting, oppressing, or killing others. It's in the alignment rules in the "Additional Rules" chapter.So a Paladin commits an 'EVIL act' when he kills a homicidal goblin?
As Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider noted, and I have already explained in triplicate at this point, there is little to nothing that is predefined as an "evil act". Morso there are qualities of alignments that reflect in the things that you do.
Yes killing itself is acting evil, but the alignment system is far more flexible than check-boxes. For something to be an "evil action" you'd need for it to be more evil than good, surely. However, it's generally assumed that Paladins killing homocidal goblins are acting with qualities such as:
Altruism (good)
Protection/Concern for Life (good)
Concern for Dignity of others (good)
Now if the Paladin was killing the goblin to take his stuff, heck yeah man, totally evil. The Paladin is a murdering thief (and likely the wrong sort of Paladin if'n ya know what I'm sayin'). However, if the Paladin was slaying said goblin to protect the lives of himself and/or his companions, it's not really good or evil. If the Paladin is protecting the life of someone else, he's also acting with altruism to boot (even more good).
It's both fairly simple in practice while also being a very powerful tool to gauge a character's activities in terms of good/evil.
|
|
You may be right about it being misleading, in which case I apologize. I disagree however that it is off topic. When we discuss whether Alignment tags affect alignment, asking whether it's even a good idea for that to be the case because of the implication that doing so comes with seems a pretty solid starting point to me. It may be part of a larger alignment issue than just spell descriptors, but that doesn't mean that fixing or understanding the larger issue doesn't directly portain to the smaller.
But it's not actually a subset of that topic. Not inherently, anyway. Alignment can easily be done, as Ashiel notes, as a lot more than check-boxes.
Making Aligned spells influence you a little in the direction of that Alignment in no way necessitates making Alignment the kind of cosmic ATM machine you're complaining about. It can become part of such an ATM if your GM is inclined that way, but whether spells count as acts of a particular Alignment matters little in whether such a concept is used in the first place. At least, IMO.
Also, reading back, I think I came off as a bit more confrontational than I intended in some of my previous posts (especially the last one). My apologies for any tonal errors that crept in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, motivation and results of an action should be the primary dictates of alignment shifting. It cannot be judged seperately with only one of the two.
|
|
IMHO, motivation and results of an action should be the primary dictates of alignment shifting. It cannot be judged seperately with only one of the two.
I feel like the nature of the specific action is relevant, too. But yeah, taking any one factor in isolation is gonna be insufficient to determine the net effect on one's Alignment.
IMHO, motivation and results of an action should be the primary dictates of alignment shifting. It cannot be judged seperately with only one of the two.I feel like the nature of the specific action is relevant, too. But yeah, taking any one factor in isolation is gonna be insufficient to determine the net effect on one's Alignment.
I get what your saying. I pretty much included the specifics of the action as part of the results in my mind. However apparently your not a mind reader.
|
Making Aligned spells influence you a little in the direction of that Alignment in no way necessitates making Alignment the kind of cosmic ATM machine you're complaining about.
Actually, it does.
It's the inevitable consequence of taking the stance that '[aligned] spells change the caster's alignment'.
The inhabitants of that setting will cast [aligned] spells, to change their alignment.
