| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Certain spells have the tag "evil" (without quotes) right next to the school of magic.
Three examples are Animate Dead, Blood Transcription and Nightmare.
Please note not all Evil aligns spells are from the school of magic Necromancy, however, it seems the majority are, just not all of them. It has been ruled at our table that the consistent use of such spells will result in an alignment shift.
My question to you is, should it?
Thanks for your time.
Yes - if it makes for a better story/RP. If it adds to your fun. Otherwise, as it is not built into the rules, then no, it shouldn't.
Personally, I like the added flavor of: "Man! It would really help to use those powers in this situation! But it is against my faith (beliefs, conscience)..." It adds tension that is really interesting!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, in your campaings, the spell Atonement has any function ? As any people can forgive themselves for any aligment transgression.
If you're asking me (not sure, since you didn't use a quote);
I don't allow wands of Prot[Evil] to act as atonement-in-a-can.
Nor do I allow lapsed priests of evil deities to buy themselves back into the favour of their deity, using repeated castings of Prot[Good].
I'm illustrating the inevitable effects on a gameworld that does.
That doesn't prevent the caster from enjoying the mechanical benefits of a spell, to better carry out other actions that affect their alignment.
Casting Prot[Evil] may give you more survivability, to bring some evildoer to justice.
Casting Prot[Good] may aid in carrying out some nefarious plan.
But any alignment drift would be the result of those other actions carried out, not from the mere pointing of a stick and saying 'Abracadabra'.
I've never needed to use Atonement myself, or make it available to players. The players I'm used to seem to do a good job of staying on the straight and narrow, when they play LG divine characters, more so than I demand of them as GM.
Which is a good thing, as I dislike the implications of being able to buy off sin. Upping the spell level and gp cost doesn't change that.
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.
You don't believe that if someone does Good they should be able to change their alignment to Good? Or do you just think all criminals are Evil after one crime and are therefore completely irredeemable? Because that sounds much more awful then any criminal (even the really big ones) who does enough Good actions becoming Good.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe his objection may be against the abuse of repetitive, trivial actions.
Redemption, at a cost, whether that cost is financial, time, effort, or painful self-reflection, is thematic and dramatic.
Going to ground after every murder, and safely burning all the charges off a wand, isn't.
Nor should you be able to blow five prepared level 1 slots per day, over the course of a week.
Then 'Hey, Ho. Off to murder we go.'
It's cheap and tasteless.
I see each alignment as a virtue. So the overall motivations of a person defines their alignment not actions. Some actions though are incompatible with certain motivations.
So no, an evilly motivated person cannot become good through any means and a goodly person cannot become evil through any means.
But I would argue that no goodly motivated can eat orphans because they taste yummy to him.
|
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'.
Except I've never said precisely that. I've said "An [aligned] spell is an [aligned] act." Which is, as a matter of fact, a very different statement (and also, for the record, more or less the one made in Champions of Purity).
The inhabitants of that setting will cast [aligned] spells, to change their alignment.
That would be the logical conclusion of the statement you made, not the one I did.
Someone may perform an Evil act without changing alignment whatsoever. It's only when a preponderance of their acts, motivations, and goals hit a certain point that they actually become Evil. Thus, going by my logic, casting Protection From X a bunch of times? Basically never gonna change all that in real life absent other factors...but it can certainly be one factor among many.
That's the way I play, and doesn't result in 'cosmic vending machine' Alignment shifts at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see each alignment as a virtue. So the overall motivations of a person defines their alignment not actions. Some actions though are incompatible with certain motivations.
So no, an evilly motivated person cannot become good through any means and a goodly person cannot become evil through any means.
But I would argue that no goodly motivated can eat orphans because they taste yummy to him.
No road to hell pave with good intentions, then? That seems sadly limited...some of the greatest monsters in history and fiction started out thinking they were doing something good, after all.
Then what you have is an unbalanced spell that violates some core tenets of the game, a spell I would not allow in any campaign I'm running. Infernal Healing is balanced by the problems it brings into the game. A person healed by this spell will ping on Paladin or other Detect Evil radars as will anyone carrying wands/scrolls/potions of said spell
*Marked Return To Sender*
What core tenets do you see as being violated?
Bards, alchemists, and witches do arcane healing spells. I believe every divine class does healing spells. Wizards and sorcerers are the only spellcasters who do not have a healing option without going up to limited wish to create spell effects from other classes.
How do you see the spell as unbalanced and how does the restrictions balance it?
Playing an evil devil summoning chelaxian wizard is an option in games set in Golarion. I don't see infernal healing adding any problems to that valid character concept that can be said to balance anything.
No road to hell pave with good intentions, then? That seems sadly limited...some of the greatest monsters in history and fiction started out thinking they were doing something good, after all.I see each alignment as a virtue. So the overall motivations of a person defines their alignment not actions. Some actions though are incompatible with certain motivations.
So no, an evilly motivated person cannot become good through any means and a goodly person cannot become evil through any means.
But I would argue that no goodly motivated can eat orphans because they taste yummy to him.
Oh that is still very much a thing, but at some point the person's motivations change.
Where is the line between wanting to protect your country and wanting to kill terrorist? When does justice fury against evil turn into mindless cruelty? When does the abyss gaze back into you?
Just because you start out with good intentions, does not means they cannot progress to evil motivations.
Sure, it seems out of place when read in a vacuum, but considering it comes from a source book about Cheliax, things are put into context.
It is only a dumb evil tag if you think evil spells are evil actions, instead of just being fueled by an evil source.
I do not think anyone would argue that casting planar binding on an angel is a good act even though the spell is [good]. The spell is fueled by a good source, the act of casting it is not good.
|
|
Oh that is still very much a thing, but at some point the person's motivations change.
Where is the line between wanting to protect your country and wanting to kill terrorist? When does justice fury against evil turn into mindless cruelty? When does the abyss gaze back into you?
Just because you start out with good intentions, does not means they cannot progress to evil motivations.
Except that's not how people work. They can absolutely commit terrible acts that cannot and should not be forgiven without ever changing their core motivation.
To take a fictional example, let's look at The Operative, from Serenity. There's an example of a man who will do almost literally anything (killing children leaps to mind) for his cause of making a perfect world. And, as the movie proves, that really is his motivation, not something more sinister.
The most terrible of people really are often those who think they're the good guys.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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'.
Except I've never said precisely that.
Then I'm obviously not understanding your stance, since 'influence you a little in the direction of that alignment' reads to me as 'moves your alignment a little along the spectrum of Good/Evil or Law/Chaos.'
How much the distance moved doesn't matter, the fact that it moves at all makes it open to spam-casting to force an alignment change.Is there another meaning to 'influence' that I'm missing?
Because if it simply opens a mental doorway, that you never step through, I don't see it as an aligned action, except from intent and results. But that's the same for every spell.
Barkskin could give me a similar AC bonus, yet carries no baggage.
If I carry out evil actions while under the influence, I become more evil, but that's a result of those other actions, not the casting of the spell itself.
Oh that is still very much a thing, but at some point the person's motivations change.
Where is the line between wanting to protect your country and wanting to kill terrorist? When does justice fury against evil turn into mindless cruelty? When does the abyss gaze back into you?
Just because you start out with good intentions, does not means they cannot progress to evil motivations.
Except that's not how people work. They can absolutely commit terrible acts that cannot and should not be forgiven without ever changing their core motivation.
To take a fictional example, let's look at The Operative, from Serenity. There's an example of a man who will do almost literally anything (killing children leaps to mind) for his cause of making a perfect world. And, as the movie proves, that really is his motivation, not something more sinister.
The most terrible of people really are often those who think they're the good guys.
Why is his motivation good?
A better world could be a good motivation, but if that means you run around killing "lesser races", then your "better world" motivation has a connotation of meaning genocide. "Better world" in your case then becomes an evil motivation.I disagree with concept of a perfect world even being a feasible concept, let alone a possible actuality.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, dumbest [evil] tag in the universe.
Sure, it seems out of place when read in a vacuum, but considering it comes from a source book about Cheliax, things are put into context.
Why should that matter?
It's a mass teleport spell, just like word of recall, refuge, or teleportation circle.Either they should all have that descriptor, or none.
Either all teleportation effects require the active permission or cooperation of Hellish agents, or none do.
What's happening, is that someone is contributing to a Chelaxian sourcebook, and feels the need to make the contents more 'eeeeeevilllll', so they start flinging descriptors around where they're not justified, simply so they can say "Look at our Chelaxian book! It's so eeeeeevvillll!"
Whooooo-ooooo-oooo
Don't put the light out, Mummy. I'm scared the bad man will get me, with his evil teleportation spell. <sob>
|
|
Then I'm obviously not understanding your stance, since 'influence you a little in the direction of that alignment' reads to me as 'moves your alignment a little along the spectrum of Good/Evil or Law/Chaos.'
How much the distance moved doesn't matter, the fact that it moves at all makes it open to spam-casting to force an alignment change.
Nope. Because things like why you're doing it and what you're achieving with it also matter. If you're, say, burning a bunch of Protection From Evil spells, your IC motivation is to 'game the system', and the net effect on the world is wasting a bunch of Protection From Evil spells. Do those sound like they outweigh minor Good actions in the other direction? Because I'd say yes, they do.
Is there another meaning to 'influence' that I'm missing?
Because if it simply opens a mental doorway, that you never step through, I don't see it as an aligned action, except from intent and results. But that's the same for every spell.
They influence your alignment as much as any other, non-magical, act, and with the same limitations. It's a step in the direction of the Alignment in question, but not necessarily one that outweighs the circumstances and motivations involved.
Barkskin could give me a similar AC bonus, yet carries no baggage.
If I carry out evil actions while under the influence, I become more evil, but that's a result of those other actions, not the casting of the spell itself.
Right, and that's per-the-rules. But making spells actually count as Aligned acts doesn't inherently result in the kind of thing you're talking about.
|
|
Also, dumbest [evil] tag in the universe.Sure, it seems out of place when read in a vacuum, but considering it comes from a source book about Cheliax, things are put into context.Why should that matter?
It's a mass teleport spell, just like word of recall, refuge, or teleportation circle.
Either they should all have that descriptor, or none.
Either all teleportation effects require the active permission or cooperation of Hellish agents, or none do.What's happening, is that someone is contributing to a Chelaxian sourcebook, and feels the need to make the contents more 'eeeeeevilllll', so they start flinging descriptors around where they're not justified, simply so they can say "Look at our Chelaxian book! It's so eeeeeevvillll!"
Whooooo-ooooo-oooo
Don't put the light out, Mummy. I'm scared the bad man will get me, with his evil teleportation spell. <sob>
Actually, given that its material component is 'bloodstone' (a material I can't find the definition of, but sure sounds like something made with less than savory means)...my suspicion would be that every time (or few times) this is done necessitates at least one human death for magical components. That's certainly getting towards Evil...
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Casting protection from good is evil in the same way that stealing from the tip jar is evil. An otherwise virtuous character who does either is still basically good, but not perfectly so. Neither negative act on its own really ever indicates an alignment shift, but this character is closer to slipping than a character who does not partake of such activities. It's simply an action that, when viewed as part of the whole character, can inform what alignment they currently represent.
Similarly casting protection from evil is good like holding open a door for someone with a cane - it's a minor virtuous act but no amount of door-holding or casting will redeem you from a serial murder spree.
It's not some mathematical video game morality system where a murder is -50 points and casting a [Good] spell is +2. It's all part of an overall attitude and other actions. Alignment isn't an absolute concept - it's more of a fuzzy blur, and while casting aligned spells should adjust where you are in the blur, if the GM thinks a character is on the border it really should be up to the player to decide if they slip over. I do believe that aligned spells are acts of their alignment, but I sure don't believe in punitive alignment shifts. Honestly this can lead to some great roleplaying if your players are onboard with treating things like infernal healing like gateway drugs.
Oh, earlier in the thread someone mentioned a guy who sold people undead labor animals. Am I the only one that thinks simple economics would put that guy out of business faster than adventurers? I mean, an ox probably has 3-4 HD, so that's an expensive zombie and a farmer could get a lot of living oxen for much cheaper than one zombie. Plus once our dealer made enough zombie animals wouldn't they lose control of the ones they made earlier? So now we have uncontrolled zombie oxen hungry for human flesh(cause zombies). At least in my game the default behavior for uncontrolled undead is "kill the living." This just sounds like a flawed business model(but a fantastic low level adventure hook).
Actually, given that its material component is 'bloodstone' (a material I can't find the definition of, but sure sounds like something made with less than savory means)...my suspicion would be that every time (or few times) this is done necessitates at least one human death for magical components. That's certainly getting towards Evil...
Bloodstone is a real mineral.
|
|
Why is his motivation good?
A better world could be a good motivation, but if that means you run around killing "lesser races", then your "better world" motivation has a connotation of meaning genocide. "Better world" in your case then becomes an evil motivation.
Right, but his motivation doesn't involve 'killing lesser races' or anything like that. It's purely to make the world a better place in a pretty legitimate sense. He's just wiling to do literally anything to advance that cause.
And it's Good because he wants to make the world a better place. It's completely altruistic, selfless, and aimed at improving people's lives.
I disagree with concept of a perfect world even being a feasible concept, let alone a possible actuality.
I agree entirely, and that's actually part of the moral of Serenity (the guy mentioned above is the villain of the piece, remember).
|
|
Actually, given that its material component is 'bloodstone' (a material I can't find the definition of, but sure sounds like something made with less than savory means)...my suspicion would be that every time (or few times) this is done necessitates at least one human death for magical components. That's certainly getting towards Evil...Bloodstone is a real mineral.
That's not what it being listed as part of a magical component leads me to think of, but maybe you're right. If so, it definitely goes on the list of 'maybe this shouldn't be [evil]' spells.
That says nothing about whether [evil] spells should have any effect on Alignment, though. Just whether a particular spell should be considered [evil].
For sure. I just felt the need to point it out, since I've noticed it used as loot in the past and got curious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casting protection from good is evil in the same way that stealing from the tip jar is evil. An otherwise virtuous character who does either is still basically good, but not perfectly so. Neither negative act on its own really ever indicates an alignment shift, but this character is closer to slipping than a character who does not partake of such activities. It's simply an action that, when viewed as part of the whole character, can inform what alignment they currently represent.
Similarly casting protection from evil is good like holding open a door for someone with a cane - it's a minor virtuous act but no amount of door-holding or casting will redeem you from a serial murder spree.
This is the crux of the issue.
Is using something powered by team [evil] the same as stealing from a tip jar?
In stealing you are actually doing minor harm. What is the minor harm of casting Protection from Good?
Sure, it seems out of place when read in a vacuum, but considering it comes from a source book about Cheliax, things are put into context.It is only a dumb evil tag if you think evil spells are evil actions, instead of just being fueled by an evil source.
I do not think anyone would argue that casting planar binding on an angel is a good act even though the spell is [good]. The spell is fueled by a good source, the act of casting it is not good.
Why not? Are only divine casters with planar ally allowed to ask for the help of angels? How else would a wizard plead for divine assistance, he could negotiate in an earnest manner as possible and dismiss the summonings if they cannot agree. It would be little more than a interplanar phone call.
Now if he summons them and forcibly binds them that would be akin to an act of enslaving another sentient being.
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'.
Except I've never said precisely that.Then I'm obviously not understanding your stance, since 'influence you a little in the direction of that alignment' reads to me as 'moves your alignment a little along the spectrum of Good/Evil or Law/Chaos.'
How much the distance moved doesn't matter, the fact that it moves at all makes it open to spam-casting to force an alignment change.Is there another meaning to 'influence' that I'm missing?
Because if it simply opens a mental doorway, that you never step through, I don't see it as an aligned action, except from intent and results. But that's the same for every spell.Barkskin could give me a similar AC bonus, yet carries no baggage.
If I carry out evil actions while under the influence, I become more evil, but that's a result of those other actions, not the casting of the spell itself.
Go learn what an Asymptote is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casting protection from good is evil in the same way that stealing from the tip jar is evil. An otherwise virtuous character who does either is still basically good, but not perfectly so. Neither negative act on its own really ever indicates an alignment shift, but this character is closer to slipping than a character who does not partake of such activities. It's simply an action that, when viewed as part of the whole character, can inform what alignment they currently represent.
Similarly casting protection from evil is good like holding open a door for someone with a cane - it's a minor virtuous act but no amount of door-holding or casting will redeem you from a serial murder spree.
What you describe is a fake mechanic. A mechanic that theoretically does something but then you yourself go on to say doesn't really affect anything. Which makes a lot of sense because the mechanic doesn't exist so why should the effect? :)
Oh, earlier in the thread someone mentioned a guy who sold people undead labor animals. Am I the only one that thinks simple economics would put that guy out of business faster than adventurers? I mean, an ox probably has 3-4 HD, so that's an expensive zombie and a farmer could get a lot of living oxen for much cheaper than one zombie. Plus once our dealer made enough zombie animals wouldn't they lose control of the ones they made earlier? So now we have uncontrolled zombie oxen hungry for human flesh(cause zombies). At least in my game the default behavior for uncontrolled undead is "kill the living." This just sounds like a flawed business model(but a fantastic low level adventure hook).
Actually I said renting. And no, economics wouldn't hurt him at all. The price of an actual ox is 15 gp plus whatever it costs to feed and house said ox. An ox shares statistics with an auroch so 3 HD. It would cost a necromancer a total of 85 gp to create one undead auroch. This is what's known as a start-up cost, and this is assuming he didn't just offer to clean up ox corpses for people (skipping the 15 gp cost of buying a living ox).
Meanwhile, said Ox can now be rented out. Now why would you ever rent an undead ox? Because they're effective. You don't need to house them as the weather doesn't bother them. They can work day and night no matter the conditions (so if you're in a heat wave they can continue to work without rest or water, and if you're in a cold snap they're not going to freeze to death) so one ox can double if not triple the productivity of a normal ox. They also follow verbal orders and won't stubbornly decide to just stop moving or decide they want to get to know the lady ox across the field better. The farmer doesn't have to feed them either.
It's really no different than renting heavy equipment which is in fact what a lot of farmers will actually do. The cost to feed an ox (assuming it's the same as a horse) is 18.25 gp per year. The cost to house an ox probably varies (depends on if it's a barn or open-air stable). The cost of dealing with a bum ox, a diseased ox, or whatever is significantly more dire however. If your oxen take sick they can die or spread the disease to your other oxen, which often leaves farmers in a serious pickle since they may have to kill their own investment.
At that point it's just a matter of discussing price. A single undead ox is worth 3 living oxen (it can work in three 8 hour shifts without break), is as functionally intelligent as a human with 10 Int but requires orders (it's effectively a robot) so you can actually hook a plow or harvester up to it and tell it to plow the field in a grid or whatever and it'll do it without the need for a farmer to actively be driving the reigns. If you rented said ox for 1 gp/day or 5 gp for a work-week, it would take 25 days of labor for the farmer to have cost as much as just buying 3 oxen except you don't have to feed, house, or take care of it to make sure it doesn't get sick. You also don't have to worry about wild animals bothering it (animals won't even mess with it unless they're trained to) so you don't have to worry about nearby wolves taking a bite out of your investment.
At the meager 1 gp / day (which the oxen's effective profession check will pay for), our necromancer ends up with a happy customer and pays off his investment in 3.4 weeks. WEEKS man. We're talking about a robo-plow with advanced AI that you create in your spare time and pays for itself in less than a month of active renting.
Economically it's a brilliant investment. Now said necromancer could just go into the farming business himself since each undead minion nets 5 gp worth of progress with a Craft or Profession check working an 8 hour shift, but it would require him to take time out of his busy day of studying or praying or roasting marshmallows to do and he probably makes more friends by supporting the local farmers rather than outdoing them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not? Are only divine casters with planar ally allowed to ask for the help of angels? How else would a wizard plead for divine assistance, he could negotiate in an earnest manner as possible and dismiss the summonings if they cannot agree. It would be little more than a interplanar phone call.
That's 100% correct. What you describe is as morally aligned as making a phone call. That is, not at all. If I call a latern archon and want it to turn all these sticks into continual flame torches for me, I'm not becoming a more good person. :|
Why not? Are only divine casters with planar ally allowed to ask for the help of angels? How else would a wizard plead for divine assistance, he could negotiate in an earnest manner as possible and dismiss the summonings if they cannot agree. It would be little more than a interplanar phone call.That's 100% correct. What you describe is as morally aligned as making a phone call. That is, not at all. If I call a latern archon and want it to turn all these sticks into continual flame torches for me, I'm not becoming a more good person. :|
I don't know, I believe talking to good people has an influence, so would talking to evil people, or chaotic people, etc. It's one of the most basic ways we inform our decisions; by consensus, discussion, talk.
Actually, given that its material component is 'bloodstone' (a material I can't find the definition of, but sure sounds like something made with less than savory means)...my suspicion would be that every time (or few times) this is done necessitates at least one human death for magical components. That's certainly getting towards Evil...Bloodstone is a real mineral.That's not what it being listed as part of a magical component leads me to think of, but maybe you're right. If so, it definitely goes on the list of 'maybe this shouldn't be [evil]' spells.
That says nothing about whether [evil] spells should have any effect on Alignment, though. Just whether a particular spell should be considered [evil].
Bloodstone Gemstone meaning
Bloodstone (also called heliotrope) is green with distinctive red spots that resemble blood, giving this stone its name. The bloodstone was used to stop bleeding especially nosebleeds.There is a legend that says the bloodstone was formed from the blood of Christ dripping on the green earth and solidifying. It was also called heliotrope by the Greeks and was thought to bring change. The bloodstone has been used as an amulet to protect against the evil eye. Bloodstone is the symbol of justice.
Healing properties of bloodstone
The bloodstone is used for circulation of all energy in the body and helps to remove energy blocks. Bloodstone is used in the alignment of all the centers of the body. A healer must do this alignment while the patient lies on his stomach. It also aids in the circulation of blood. It is good to have several pieces of Bloodstone in the home to increase the flow of life energy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Then what you have is an unbalanced spell that violates some core tenets of the game, a spell I would not allow in any campaign I'm running. Infernal Healing is balanced by the problems it brings into the game. A person healed by this spell will ping on Paladin or other Detect Evil radars as will anyone carrying wands/scrolls/potions of said spell
*Marked Return To Sender*
For someone so concerned with reading into context, you sure seem to have missed an important detail. I would have thought that the bolded part of my post would imply simpler spell text, but since you missed it I'll give you a hand:
--------------------------------------------
You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.
--------------------------------------------
You give the touched creature fast healing 1.
--------------------------------------------
You pointed out an easily, easily solved problem -- the lack of justification for Infernal Healing in other settings -- and I solved it for you. I couldn't care less what you would or wouldn't do in your games, but from personal experience I can tell you that letting go of the unwritten 'arcane magic shall not heal' rule is nothing but good clean fun. And besides, as Voadam mentions, that rule by now has more exceptions than the English language.As to concerns for imbalance, I posit that a spell is either balanced or it's not, regardless of alignment tags. Just like the ranger's unique ability to fight with two weapons at once and other amazing class abilities aren't balanced out by his requirement to be Good.
Also, dumbest [evil] tag in the universe.
Hahaha, that is indeed one incredibly shallow excuse for an [evil] tag!
"It was written by an evil wizard, and it smells bad, and it totally requires a natural stone with blood in its name...it must be [evil]!!!"
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Yeah, Ashiel, I think we just disagree about a lot of things here. No way would I let someone tell a mindless undead "plow that field" and have it come out anywhere near usable, at least not without constant supervision. That's way too complicated a task for a zombie. Also, profession can't be rolled untrained so there's no way for the zombie to "pay for itself."
Undead oxen also likely stink, can catch carrion-related diseases and pass them on to your family and actual livestock, and possibly contaminate the crops. They can't be used as a food source in a pinch and don't make copies of themselves.
At 3 HD per zombie a 7th level adept caster can have 4 of these ox zombies under his control. I'll go ahead and grant that he can give them the standing order of "do what this farmer says." I'd also presume, however, that said farmer is probably not an experienced necromancer with spellcraft, appropriate knowledges, or what have you and thus will make some, er, mistakes, when ordering his zombie around, mistakes that could lead to the zombie attacking him or his family. I mean, it's pretty easy to tell a zombie "drag this plow to the end of the field in a straight line" (although you're also neglecting the role of the farmer in providing downward force on the plow to push it into the ground) but as soon as the zombie completes that task it defaults to "kill the living," so that seems like a pretty big problem.
Also I calculate the initial investment at 300gp (15 gp for ox, 75 gp material component for 3 HD, 7 level caster(adept), 3rd level spell) per zombie ox. So for the same price you get 20 regular oxen.
Anyway, this is an amusing diversion but has little to do with the actual thread. If people want to continue discussing ZombieOxCo we can make it in its own thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, I believe talking to good people has an influence, so would talking to evil people, or chaotic people, etc. It's one of the most basic ways we inform our decisions; by consensus, discussion, talk.Why not? Are only divine casters with planar ally allowed to ask for the help of angels? How else would a wizard plead for divine assistance, he could negotiate in an earnest manner as possible and dismiss the summonings if they cannot agree. It would be little more than a interplanar phone call.That's 100% correct. What you describe is as morally aligned as making a phone call. That is, not at all. If I call a latern archon and want it to turn all these sticks into continual flame torches for me, I'm not becoming a more good person. :|
So now we become more X alignment by so much as talking to someone of a different alignment. Oh for pity's sake. *facepalm*
So now we become more X alignment by so much as talking to someone of a different alignment. Oh for pity's sake. *facepalm*I don't know, I believe talking to good people has an influence, so would talking to evil people, or chaotic people, etc. It's one of the most basic ways we inform our decisions; by consensus, discussion, talk.Why not? Are only divine casters with planar ally allowed to ask for the help of angels? How else would a wizard plead for divine assistance, he could negotiate in an earnest manner as possible and dismiss the summonings if they cannot agree. It would be little more than a interplanar phone call.That's 100% correct. What you describe is as morally aligned as making a phone call. That is, not at all. If I call a latern archon and want it to turn all these sticks into continual flame torches for me, I'm not becoming a more good person. :|
You seem to be reading "influence" as "automatically convert to new alignment."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be reading "influence" as "automatically convert to new alignment."
I'm interpreting "influence" as "have any effect whatsoever on that character's alignment" and having the same viscerally negative reaction, so I doubt it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, in your campaings, the spell Atonement has any function ? As any people can forgive themselves for any aligment transgression.If you're asking me (not sure, since you didn't use a quote);
I don't allow wands of Prot[Evil] to act as atonement-in-a-can.
Nor do I allow lapsed priests of evil deities to buy themselves back into the favour of their deity, using repeated castings of Prot[Good].I'm illustrating the inevitable effects on a gameworld that does.
That doesn't prevent the caster from enjoying the mechanical benefits of a spell, to better carry out other actions that affect their alignment.
Casting Prot[Evil] may give you more survivability, to bring some evildoer to justice.
Casting Prot[Good] may aid in carrying out some nefarious plan.
But any alignment drift would be the result of those other actions carried out, not from the mere pointing of a stick and saying 'Abracadabra'.I've never needed to use Atonement myself, or make it available to players. The players I'm used to seem to do a good job of staying on the straight and narrow, when they play LG divine characters, more so than I demand of them as GM.
Which is a good thing, as I dislike the implications of being able to buy off sin. Upping the spell level and gp cost doesn't change that.
You know, the funny thing is, I get where people are coming from now.
Were the people condoning this raised as Catholic or something?
Because constantly casting Protection from Good to atone a bit totally sounds like doing 100 Hail Marys or whatever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Ashiel, I think we just disagree about a lot of things here. No way would I let someone tell a mindless undead "plow that field" and have it come out anywhere near usable, at least not without constant supervision. That's way too complicated a task for a zombie. Also, profession can't be rolled untrained so there's no way for the zombie to "pay for itself."
No, it's not, and you're just plain wrong about this. The absence of an ability score has a +0 modifier to checks related to that score. Skeletons and Zombies are both perfectly capable of perceiving and reacting to their surroundings, while being capable of doing things that an untrained laborer is capable of doing. As someone who has grown up in a rural environment, let me assure you that plowing a field is not rocket science. It takes no special sort of training.
So no, it's not too complicated a task for a zombie or a golem or anything similar. You're just wrong about this one. I'm sorry. There is nothing that prevents a mindless creature from making Craft or Profession checks. In fact, the rules even account for this by telling you their effective modifier is +0.
Undead oxen also likely stink, can catch carrion-related diseases and pass them on to your family and actual livestock, and possibly contaminate the crops. They can't be used as a food source in a pinch and don't make copies of themselves.
Again, you're making stuff up. There are countless adventures and such with zombies both new and old and unless there is something special about said zombie then they aren't contaminated. Likewise, you'd only stink if you were rotting, but undead do not decompose so there is no rot. Further, skeletons. Skeletons man. Skeletons, seriously, skeletons.
You're just being contrary with no basis for it, just to be contrary.
At 3 HD per zombie a 7th level adept caster can have 4 of these ox zombies under his control. I'll go ahead and grant that he can give them the standing order of "do what this farmer says." I'd also presume, however, that said farmer is probably not an experienced necromancer with spellcraft, appropriate knowledges, or what have you and thus will make some, er, mistakes, when ordering his zombie around, mistakes that could lead to the zombie attacking him or his family.
You really should know more about farming given how good you are at shoveling manure. Again, making up stuff and just trying to be obtuse. NOTHING YOU JUST SAID is actually a thing. You do not need ranks in Spellcraft, Knowledges, or anything else to make animate dead work for you. It's very clear, they follow orders. The rules on Intelligence are very clear that mindless creatures are still at least as capable at performing Int based tasks as someone with 10 Int.
I mean, it's pretty easy to tell a zombie "drag this plow to the end of the field in a straight line" (although you're also neglecting the role of the farmer in providing downward force on the plow to push it into the ground) but as soon as the zombie completes that task it defaults to "kill the living," so that seems like a pretty big problem.
Again, lies.
Also I calculate the initial investment at 300gp (15 gp for ox, 75 gp material component for 3 HD, 7 level caster(adept), 3rd level spell) per zombie ox. So for the same price you get 20 regular oxen.
Why would the necromancer renting the undead pay another necromancer to animate them? I'm beginning to wonder if the reason you seem so off-field in terms of how the game works is because you are actively refusing to actually read, pick a few words out, and then mush in a bunch of filler based on whatever you wanted to think it said.
I agree with everything but that last bit, Ashiel, since he's just pointing out the cost of casting Animate Dead to begin with. It costs 25 gp per HD, and a corpse (which unless stolen would be 15 gp).
He stated 300 gp "per zombie ox", even though the actual price would be 90 gp (75 gp of onyx + 15 gp ox- Ashiel typo'd it to 85 earlier). It's a minor distinction in the scheme of things (skeleton ox farming is a bit tangential to the discussion), but still kinda dishonest.
I figured he meant total (for 3 oxes). For some reason I thought Ashiel had mentioned 3 at some point. My bed.
Seeing as we don't have stats for oxen, what would an undead one even look like?
Seeing as we don't have stats for oxen, what would an undead one even look like?
We do (Aurochs are basically oxen).
Perhaps, but it's never explicitly stated.
Perhaps, but it's never explicitly stated.
It is by Aurochs being a real (though extinct) creature, related to buffalo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point the Skeleton ox rentals are becoming a derail. They were meant to demonstrate a point. The point could have been made with any number of other skeletal animals performing any number of other tasks. My own campaign has a necromancer who sells skeletal watchdogs and in one city zombies pull sedan chairs. However, worrying about whether an Auroch is an Ox kind of misses the point.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then I'm obviously not understanding your stance, since 'influence you a little in the direction of that alignment' reads to me as 'moves your alignment a little along the spectrum of Good/Evil or Law/Chaos.'
How much the distance moved doesn't matter, the fact that it moves at all makes it open to spam-casting to force an alignment change.
Nope. Because things like why you're doing it and what you're achieving with it also matter. If you're, say, burning a bunch of Protection From Evil spells, your IC motivation is to 'game the system', and the net effect on the world is wasting a bunch of Protection From Evil spells. Do those sound like they outweigh minor Good actions in the other direction? Because I'd say yes, they do.
Which means you're agreeing with me, since I'm playing Devil's Advocate*, when I show what would happen, if [alignment] tagged spells were allowed to change alignment, even by a microscopic amount.
It becomes an awful mess, with horrible implications that many GMs would recoil from, so they hurriedly start loading on the exceptions.The position taken by the 'Yes' camp (from the original post, and represented by Trimalchio and others), is that Prot[Good] and similar should be an evil spell, and as such, should cause alignment drift.
The position of the 'No' camp (represented by myself, Ashiel, Auren, and others) is that doing so would set a precedent with awful implications, allowing terrible people to buy a ticket out of Hell (or if they're a caster, to do so free of charge).
We've illustrated how that would happen, in game, and the only way it can be rebutted is for the Yes camp to insist that alignment drift only happens in one direction. The slippery slope. The plughole of suck.
If good intent and good end results are totally irrelevant to whether someone drifts to evil from casting Prot[Good], then they must be equally irrelevant when considering if someone drifts to good by casting Prot[Evil], and thus, you have introduced the concept of 'Get out of Hell Free' trinkets being sold as indulgences, in the way they were sold in Medieval Europe.
If intent matters, such that the cosmic powers just 'know' when someone is cynically trying to abuse a Prot[Evil] loophole, then intent also has to matter, when judging the use of Prot[Good] for noble or neutral intent. But what kind of good intent could you possibly have, for using such tools? Well, how about using a captured P[G] wand to slap AC and save bonuses on two feuding Good nobles at a parley, so they can't as easily hurt each other, for example. The intent is noble, peaceful, diplomatic, the end result is to prevent an ill-considered blow or spell to prolong a misunderstanding. Why would helping to broker peace between goodly countries cause excommunication?
The position of the Yes camp is inconsistent, and relies on a stance of 'evil spells send you to evil, no exceptions for intent', but when shown the implications, suddenly 'Nuh-uh, good spells can't do the reverse, because intent matters!'.
*
Then I'm obviously not understanding your stance, since 'influence you a little in the direction of that alignment' reads to me as 'moves your alignment a little along the spectrum of Good/Evil or Law/Chaos.'
How much the distance moved doesn't matter, the fact that it moves at all makes it open to spam-casting to force an alignment change.Nope. Because things like why you're doing it and what you're achieving with it also matter. If you're, say, burning a bunch of Protection From Evil spells, your IC motivation is to 'game the system', and the net effect on the world is wasting a bunch of Protection From Evil spells. Do those sound like they outweigh minor Good actions in the other direction? Because I'd say yes, they do.Which means you're agreeing with me, since I'm playing Devil's Advocate*, when I show what would happen, if [alignment] tagged spells were allowed to change alignment, even by a microscopic amount.
It becomes an awful mess, with horrible implications that many GMs would recoil from, so they hurriedly start loading on the exceptions.*
essentially, slavers, child traffickers, sex offenders of any stripe, spouse abusers and child abusers should not be able to maintain a good alignment by simply buying a cheap wand or few, nor should blatant genocidal tyrants like the many we have had in our worlds history, whether or not you count a certain one whose war ended like 80 years ago. because of this, the alignment descriptor shouldn't exist, nor should the alignment system, or even counting aligned spells as acts of that alignment, or else you have a blatant Lawful Good Vladimir Tepes who does his murderous and oppressive actions without repurcussion and can somehow stay a paladin or something.
you want people like the Impaler Prince of Transylvania, Caligula, or Even Tiberius Running around able to function as if they were good aligned without needing to repent?
do you want to really include what basically amounts to indulgences? which allowed various genocidal tyrants to buy themselves a spot in heaven by spending money on sin coupons?
this also removes power from the atonement spell
|
The position of the Yes camp is inconsistent, and relies on a stance of 'evil spells send you to evil, no exceptions for intent', but when shown the implications, suddenly 'Nuh-uh, good spells can't do the reverse, because intent matters!'.
These things are only inconsistent if you look at good and evil as being equal in all things (and not everyone does, especially within the “yes” crowd)...
The "yes" crowd says that the means do not justify the ends - thus their view that one cannot maintain good by using an evil means, no matter what the intent behind it is.
The "yes" crowd also says that it is far easier to accomplish evil than it is to maintain good, so in their view, one cannot simply "erase" evil deeds by doing something good just for the sake of it, because in that case the intention behind the deed is hollow and means nothing. But also (in their view) if one were to start accomplishing good and the intent behind it is pure, then it is not simply a hollow act, and one is on the path towards good.
But again, to fully understand that and not just claim it is being inconsistent, one must realize that it is coming from an ideal that good and evil are not equal (I know most in this thread view good vs. evil as being totally equal).
YMMV...