Hell has a finite amount of power vis-a-vis the number of souls in it at any time. They're being "used up" via powering spells, devils, etc. True, they're constantly being flooded with new sources of souls, making it seem like a limitless source, but it is in fact not limitless, merely constantly refreshed. You're directly contributing to the necessity for more souls to be collected by using such power.
This one, I think, I can answer. Hell itself is literally powered by the souls of the damned. Benefiting from it is literally causing yourself to be healed by the suffering and torment of others.
healing someone by tapping into the plane of hell is most certainly evil.Why?0
You're using other's suffering (which you can't stop) in order to lessen another's suffering. I call that a wash, morality wise.Now, if you had to actively harm someone else to use it, sure. But as-is? Nah.
At the risk of Godwining this thread, the Nazis performed horrific, inexcusable experiments on living subjects.
However, the knowledge gained from that has saved countless lives over the years. Are all doctors evil because they're pulling their "healing power" from the "suffering and torment of others"?
To get one thing straight real quick, there is no mention of the source of Infernal Healing's magic besides the fact that it is magic, like all other spells. There is no mention of it using souls, damned or otherwise, as a power source. The fact that it is an Arcane, not Divine spell sorta dashes the notion that it comes from any deific source. At worst, it draws its power from Unholy Water or Devil's blood, neither of which are created by nor passively cause the suffering of another innocent creature.
Second, even if it WAS powered by said souls, it is not connected to Hell gathering more souls. Hell's ultimate goal is to be the owner of all of the souls in the universe...they'll keep collecting them regardless.
Furthermore, morality isn't math. You don't throw down numbers and if it balances out you're good. It doesn't matter how many people an evil person helps, if they're evil, they're evil.
No, all doctors aren't evil, but those Nazis sure are, no matter if their knowledge saves billions, even trillions of lives in the future.
For example, imagine there were a police officer. This police officer saves hundreds of lives throughout the course of his career, puts many badguys, legitimate badguys not just petty lawbreakers, but murderers and the like, in jail. He volunteers, donates to charity, and does tons of great stuff.
Imagine that guy touches one kid inappropriately one time.
The rest of that stuff doesn't matter in light of that one action. All the good in the world doesn't erase evil.
The rest of that stuff doesn't matter? You can't be serious.
Certainly, it may not EXCUSE such an action, but it certainly doesn't invalidate any previous or future good he does. One evil act doesn't taint everything you have done or will ever do.
The very idea that it does throws the whole idea of redemption out the window.
Really? You think that a guy who's touched a kid inappropriately, but also done lots of overwhelmingly good stuff in their life is an okay person?
Chalk this up to a fundamentally different means of looking at the universe, because I simply cannot agree with that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rest of that stuff doesn't matter? You can't be serious.
Certainly, it may not EXCUSE such an action, but it certainly doesn't invalidate any previous or future good he does. One evil act doesn't taint everything you have done or will ever do.
The very idea that it does throws the whole idea of redemption out the window.
Not necessarily. The order of actions also matters, as does intent.
Somebody who's been doing good things up until that point and then done one utterly awful thing (for which they're making no effort to atone) is in a whole different boat, morally speaking, from one who did a horrible thing many years ago and has spent the entire interim trying to make up for it with good works.
Even if the crime they committed is identical and so are the good works in question, the order of events and reasons for their actions matter.
So...saying that morality isn't arithmetic is true. It's also not 'one strike and you're out'...but it can come pretty close if you don't actively seek redemption.
also, undead for me, as kinda said are evil, but only in so much as their A. mindless or B. a perversion of life and nature, and thus applicable smite targets, along with all over mechanical effects of being evil.
Really? You think that a guy who's touched a kid inappropriately, but also done lots of overwhelmingly good stuff in their life is an okay person?
Chalk this up to a fundamentally different means of looking at the universe, because I simply cannot agree with that.
Nobody's perfect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always found this blog useful:
Removing alignment - part 1: Classes
Removing alignment - part 2: Magic
Removing alignment - part 3: MonstersIt deals with nearly every aspect of removing alignment in a fairly easy and quick way.
Actually, some of this stuff may be useful even if you want to keep alignment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The current argument on morality is why I do not use alignment in my home games. Alignment doesn't resolve conflicts. Granted in most games they dont cause them either, but that's very near always because alignment and alignment rules are ignored rather than because they are functional. The truth is that very nearly all instances of alignment coming up at all is an out of game argument about it. It's just not a set of rules that actually does things.
If there weren't so many mechanics tied to alignment, I'd drop it like a bad habit.
Things that come to mind tied to alignment:
-Class restrictions (if anyone even uses these..)
-Smite Evil
-Protection From Good/Evil/Chaos/Law
-Holy Smite / Chaos Hammer / Order's Wrath / Unholy Blight
-Holy Aura / Mantle of Chaos / Shield of Law / Unholy Aura
-Damage Reduction based on Alignment. (Slight balancing factor for monsters)
-Magic Items that are based on alignment of the wielder
Just some off the top of my head.
I have tried numerous alignment systems and the ONE system that persists decade after decade is D&D's nine point system. Is it really hard to comprehensively understand? Yes this IS why your GM is the final arbiter and NOT the game rules; because everyone seems to have their own take on what they mean. Is super simple to use? Absolutely, this is it's persistent charm.
I had a perfect alignment system with a 16 word set of descriptors that could describe ANY character... But EVERY player hated it with a passion. So it sits in a binder somewhere in a dusty box never to be used again. And I find that simply cleaning up the meaning of each axis transforms the D&D alignment system into one that is easy to understand as well. Good vs Evil is the willingness to do harm to innocents. (new)Law vs Chaos is the willingness to use dirty tactics to get to your goal... things like poison, traps, torture, curses, or even mind control fall under dirty tactics.
I say (new) because I used to have Law vs Chaos mean how strict a code you followed. BUT this tended to complicate alignment discussions with intent and patterns of behavior. I wanted something simpler that ANYONE could instantly grasp. Still the change does affect a few things in-game. For example the creation and use of unaligned undead becomes inherently Chaotic in my new system. The creation of Evil aligned undead is still an evil act in fact it becomes a chaotic evil act.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Defiling a corpse by using dark magic to make it walk and do your bidding? Um, seems pretty darned evil to me!
Drinking the blood of a humanoid is cannibalism. Um, seems pretty darned evil to me!
Summoning dark powers via unspeakable eldritch rituals and incantations? Um, seems pretty darned evil to me!
Those are merely "labels" placed by your misunderstanding societal culture. Change or remove the negative labels and is it really still evil?
Animating a corpse by using animation magic to make it walk and do societal functions? Um, seems pretty darned awesome to me!
Drinking the blood of a humanoid to avoid dying of thirst, or to ritualistically honor his life. Um, seems pretty darned awesome to me!
Summoning great powers via ancient eldritch rituals and incantations to serve a greater purpose? Um, seems pretty darned awesome to me!
|
If there weren't so many mechanics tied to alignment, I'd drop it like a bad habit.
Things that come to mind tied to alignment:
-Class restrictions (if anyone even uses these..)
-Smite Evil
-Protection From Good/Evil/Chaos/Law
-Holy Smite / Chaos Hammer / Order's Wrath / Unholy Blight
-Holy Aura / Mantle of Chaos / Shield of Law / Unholy Aura
-Damage Reduction based on Alignment. (Slight balancing factor for monsters)
-Magic Items that are based on alignment of the wielderJust some off the top of my head.
Treat everyone as Neutral for the purposes of those effects unless they have an alignment subtype or aura.
That solves about 90% of your problem.
|
I just thought I'd point this out. In home games with long time friends , close family, or even long term gaming groups (not necessarily friends, but that's another topic) none of these issues come up for any side of the arguments presented here.
Those groups have a mostly limited viewpoint, and if any arguments do arise it's usually handled pretty quick by some communication and some pizza ordered.
Most of these alignment arguments pop up when you get others of vastly different mindsets by implementing a larger pool of debaters. Thus do these arguments almost exclusively exist on the internet in messageboards, Rp sites, and youtube. These arguments only prove a few things.
1) People are passionate about their games.
2) People often (and rightly so) run games differently from each other.
3) Alignment is like politics, there are a few major sides to the battle, but in the end nothing really changes because everyone is trying to claim their way is better.
4) No one is likely to change their mind on the topic, barring a system change.
Ain't human nature Intrstin'?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there weren't so many mechanics tied to alignment, I'd drop it like a bad habit.
Things that come to mind tied to alignment:
-Class restrictions (if anyone even uses these..)
-Smite Evil
-Protection From Good/Evil/Chaos/Law
-Holy Smite / Chaos Hammer / Order's Wrath / Unholy Blight
-Holy Aura / Mantle of Chaos / Shield of Law / Unholy Aura
-Damage Reduction based on Alignment. (Slight balancing factor for monsters)
-Magic Items that are based on alignment of the wielderJust some off the top of my head.
Treat everyone as Neutral for the purposes of those effects unless they have an alignment subtype or aura.
That solves about 90% of your problem.
Y'know, this is how I handle it as well. I might as well jump in before I'm off to work. :)
I removed it from my campaign setting, but I use it when I theorycraft character backstories in case I use the character under a different GM. I have several reasons. I touch up against issues that are major political arguments IRL, and I don't want to start throwing up alignments to those involved in those issues. In the setting backstory, humans and various allies killed all the gods but one, and that god is a horrid creature, so alignment isn't being enforced from above and humans are free to define their own moral compass. We don't have a cosmic or absolute ruling on what good and evil are. Finally, the setting revolves around government agents who keep the biggest threats in the monster population under control and deal with rogue mages, both of which are extremely dangerous jobs. This slants the game towards Law and towards Good heavily enough that I find it better to just have people be people instead of tagging them with an alignment when the game itself is heavily biased towards certain parts of the spectrum. Law and Good are very easily conflated when looking through the eyes of those who uphold law and order, and Chaotic Good is just going to cause trouble. Maybe even more than Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral. If that much of the alignment spectrum is problematic, it's easier to get rid of it and just say "You are an elite Crown Agent. Please role play accordingly." then have an alignment system where most alignments don't fit the game well.
So, what about you guys?
I used alignment more or less as written since I started playing back with 3E launched. I'd had a few instances where alignment was causing some troubles in small groups, particularly after the BoVD/BoED was released late 3.0; yet I didn't abandon it until sometime much, much later when I was running a persistent world campaign via OpenRPG (until RL became too demanding to continue).
We had a pretty large number of players, maybe 2-4 groups worth of players who would play with each other from adventure to adventure (kind of like an organized play system, you came in, you sat down, you played a game) and to my frustration players who spending more time estimating the alignment of PCs and NPCs instead of actually interacting with them, or telling other PCs what their alignment should be, and so on and so forth. I got rather tired of it and realized that the alignment system was causing more problems than it was solving, and upon looking at the big picture, I realized it was already solving very little to begin with.
What it was doing was limiting characters, stories, and roles, in a game about characters, stories, and roles. And not limiting in power or balance, but limiting in creativity and options. It was also providing a distraction from what was really going on in the game, where people just defaulted to preset reactions based on alignment.
However, I didn't want to remove alignment in its entirety because I enjoy the idea of spells and creatures empowered by holiness or profanity, and I like things like holy smite and fiends in my RPGs, so a balance had to be made. I didn't want to throw the baby out with the bath. :P
Upon examining the system I realized the answer was clear!
- Everything was Neutral unless it had an alignment subtype.
- I made it so that classes with the Aura feature (Clerics, Paladins, etc) gained alignment subtypes as part of the feature. So if you have a Paladin of Order and Goodness that Paladin would have the [Law] and [Good] subtypes.
- Anything that was anti-alignment was 50% as effective against Neutral-aligned targets (similar to the already existing holy smite and similar effects). That means a holy weapon deals +2d6 vs evil and +1d6 vs Neutral. By similar effect, Paladins now could smite virtually anything but their smite was far less potent (instead of +level to damage it was +1/2 level to damage, making it similar to Favored Enemy against a chosen foe).
- Class alignment requirements were removed. Paladins got to grab spells associated with their chosen devotions (so some cloned Paladin spells such as vilify weapon, weapon of order, and liberating weapon would be available alongside bless weapon, and so forth) and smote any alignments opposed to their devotion on the alignment axis with full power.
- Some existing spells such as protection from evil were buffed to provide their normal effects against all but their root alignment, and double their buffs against their opposed alignment (so a protection from evil provides +2 AC, +2 saves, mental protection, and so forth against Neutral foes, +4s against Evil foes, and no benefit vs Good foes). Mostly because these spells are staples in the genre and provide non-stacking buffs (deflection/resistance) and I felt they should be worthwhile even in the game that now had 80%+ neutral enemies.
Humorously this actually made the game far more balanced. In your usual PF games, you encounter 75%+ evil foes, which means that spells like protection from good, or protection from law almost never get any play or are woefully undervalued by the metagame. Now, no matter what, you would be able to use your abilities!
Literally overnight the problems stopped. I was very pleased. This has been the default way to go in my campaigns sense. We have lost nothing, gained so much, nobody ever fights about alignment, everyone makes choices and opinions on other characters based on real factors like their attitudes, their actions, and so forth.
Detect evil and similar spells were still useful for detecting intent like usual, so casting detect evil could give you some insight into things like if someone intended to do something evil, or something good, or something orderly, or something chaotic, so even they weren't useless. :)
On a Side Note
While I was overhauling this, I also made a [Positive] (which got slapped on [Healing] spells) and [Negative] descriptor (which got slapped on spells using negative energy like harm and animate dead) for spells and effects, and moved all the healing spells back into Necromancy where they belong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything was Neutral unless it had an alignment subtype.
I made it so that classes with the Aura feature (Clerics, Paladins, etc) gained alignment subtypes as part of the feature. So if you have a Paladin of Order and Goodness that Paladin would have the [Law] and [Good] subtypes.
Anything that was anti-alignment was 50% as effective against Neutral-aligned targets (similar to the already existing holy smite and similar effects). That means a holy weapon deals +2d6 vs evil and +1d6 vs Neutral. By similar effect, Paladins now could smite virtually anything but their smite was far less potent (instead of +level to damage it was +1/2 level to damage, making it similar to Favored Enemy against a chosen foe).
Class alignment requirements were removed. Paladins got to grab spells associated with their chosen devotions (so some cloned Paladin spells such as vilify weapon, weapon of order, and liberating weapon would be available alongside bless weapon, and so forth) and smote any alignments opposed to their devotion on the alignment axis with full power.
Some existing spells such as protection from evil were buffed to provide their normal effects against all but their root alignment, and double their buffs against their opposed alignment (so a protection from evil provides +2 AC, +2 saves, mental protection, and so forth against Neutral foes, +4s against Evil foes, and no benefit vs Good foes). Mostly because these spells are staples in the genre and provide non-stacking buffs (deflection/resistance) and I felt they should be worthwhile even in the game that now had 80%+ neutral enemies.
I like this very much and may have to incorporate some of these ideas, but then you said...
moved all the healing spells back into Necromancy where they belong.
I'd vigorously fist bump with you through my screen if I could and then pull back and make an explosion sound. I'm not normally into that sort of thing, but my level of agreement with the bolded statement cannot be overstated.
I had a perfect alignment system with a 16 word set of descriptors that could describe ANY character... But EVERY player hated it with a passion. So it sits in a binder somewhere in a dusty box never to be used again. And I find that simply cleaning up the meaning of each axis transforms the D&D alignment system into one that is easy to understand as well. Good vs Evil is the willingness to do harm to innocents. (new)Law vs Chaos is the willingness to use dirty tactics to get to your goal... things like poison, traps, torture, curses, or even mind control fall under dirty tactics.
Yeah, alignment is much more coherent when redefined so that each term is associated with a single belief or personality trait, rather than half a dozen. Particularly the law-chaos axis!
moved all the healing spells back into Necromancy where they belong.I'd vigorously fist bump with you through my screen if I could and then pull back and make an explosion sound. I'm not normally into that sort of thing, but my level of agreement with the bolded statement...
Thirded!
This is on my short list of things that 2e did right, and I have yet to figure out why 3e changed it, and why PF and 5e have stuck with it...
|
Alignment-- do I use it in PF, and did I use it in AD&D/D&D games?
Yes, because it's there in the rules and the people I game with use it. Additional comment: Most of the folks I have gamed with over the years, have generally chosen alignments that matched how they intended to play their characters, and have generally done a good job of playing their chosen alignment (with changes along the way if character development pushed towards shifting to a different alignment). And with most of the folks I've gamed with-- lots of good characters, who were actually played in such a way as to earn and keep the "good" label.
So far, I have yet to try to run a PF game with the alignment system stripped away.
On the other hand, I have played many other RPGs over the years, which did not have alignment systems... and I preferred gaming without something like D&D's artificial alignment system. Most of the folks I have gamed with over the years have been quite capable of creating characters with interesting personalities and intricate motivations, and playing them consistently (often as quite heroic individuals, seldom falling into greedy "murder-hobo" caricatures) without needing the crutch of alignment to provide guidelines (or straight-jackets) to shape/enforce their character's behavior.
{. . .}
Awesome. Fourth plus here, especially for moving Healing back into Necromancy where it belongs.
Although it would be funny if institutions of magical education insisted on teaching about healing in classes about Conjuration for ideological reasons. The Wizards that see through this cover-up are the ones that can learn Infernal Healing . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is on my short list of things that 2e did right, and I have yet to figure out why 3e changed it, and why PF and 5e have stuck with it...
"Because Necromancy is eeeeevvvvvviiiiiilllllllllll!"
The weirdest part is inflict spells still ARE necromancy.
The only rationale I can find for this is that cure spells physically create from nothingness the tissue that is being replaced during healing and...
NOPE, otherwise regenerate wouldn't be such a high level flippin' spell, because CLW and the like would do the job.
If the rationale is that it "creates" the healing energy, then inflict spells should be conjuration by that same logic.
No, both should be necromancy. This is stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much. Of course there's still a lot of overlap between schools in the game, so in my d20 rewrite I'm slowly working towards, I'm not sorting spells into specific schools so much as giving them a school descriptor, and things like Spell Focus apply to the chosen descriptor.
This means that there can be overlap between schools as well. For example, the spells mage armor and shield might be a combination of [Abjuration], [Conjuration], and [Evocation] as they are warding spells that you conjure which are made of force. So if you had a mechanic like the existing specialization mechanic that required one of your learned spells to be from your chosen school, Abjurers, Conjurers, and Evokers could all learn mage armor.
This simple revision to the way magic will work in my rewrite will open up a lot of wonderful opportunities to explore some new mechanics while simultaneously making spells easier to create and place in the game. Who here hasn't browsed some spells online, or in a splatbook, or even the core rulebook and said "wait, why is this spell not in that school"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is on my short list of things that 2e did right, and I have yet to figure out why 3e changed it, and why PF and 5e have stuck with it..."Because Necromancy is eeeeevvvvvviiiiiilllllllllll!"
This is pretty much it the whole way. There's no other reason. :P
Conjuration is about, among other things, calling things from other planes. Positive and negative energy can be called from other planes. Positive energy, in particular, is called via the Healing sub-school of Conjuration for the purpose of re-vitalizing tissues to their former living state. There's a Fetchling-specific spell that calls negative energy + shadow matter and it is also conjuration. Necromancy is a school that deals with the manipulation of negative energy in particular. Maybe Necromancy should be a sub-school of conjuration with Healing focusing on manipulation of positive and Necromancy concerning negative.
Yeah, but when you cast an evocation spell, aren't you calling energy from the planes as well?
Your fireball is a mote from the Elemental Plane of Fire, conjured into the Material Plane and released in all its fiery glory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hell has a finite amount of power vis-a-vis the number of souls in it at any time. They're being "used up" via powering spells, devils, etc. True, they're constantly being flooded with new sources of souls, making it seem like a limitless source, but it is in fact not limitless, merely constantly refreshed.
So it drains the finite power of Hell and turns it into arcane healing magic instead of letting it power devils? So infernal healing reduces the amount of available [evil] that can be used for evil. That's an awesome spell! I see a good devil-fighting wizard researching that to combat the forces of Hell.
So it drains the finite power of Hell and turns it into arcane healing magic instead of letting it power devils? So infernal healing reduces the amount of available [evil] that can be used for evil. That's an awesome spell! I see a good devil-fighting wizard researching that to combat the forces of Hell.
Hell has a finite amount of power vis-a-vis the number of souls in it at any time. They're being "used up" via powering spells, devils, etc. True, they're constantly being flooded with new sources of souls, making it seem like a limitless source, but it is in fact not limitless, merely constantly refreshed.
to me it actually feels implied you sacrificed something to some devil for some infernal rejuvenation, but that's just me.
Pretty much. Of course there's still a lot of overlap between schools in the game, so in my d20 rewrite I'm slowly working towards, I'm not sorting spells into specific schools so much as giving them a school descriptor, and things like Spell Focus apply to the chosen descriptor.
Not a bad idea, although you might want to retain sorting into schools for players of characters that treat the schools differently. (Admittedly, this does making updating take more work and be more error-prone.)
This means that there can be overlap between schools as well. For example, the spells mage armor and shield might be a combination of [Abjuration], [Conjuration], and [Evocation] as they are warding spells that you conjure which are made of force. So if you had a mechanic like the existing specialization mechanic that required one of your learned spells to be from your chosen school, Abjurers, Conjurers, and Evokers could all learn mage armor.
{. . .}
This is good as far as it goes, but why not go further and have AND and OR operators in there, so some spells can be accomplished with any one of a few Schools (I can think of Conjuration, Evocation, and Transmutation, and maybe even Abjuration ways to do Flying, each with its own unique twist), but some of the more powerful spells might require more than one School to be used (the most obvious examples being those that have multiple effects duplicating lesser spells that are in different Schools).
So it drains the finite power of Hell and turns it into arcane healing magic instead of letting it power devils? So infernal healing reduces the amount of available [evil] that can be used for evil. That's an awesome spell! I see a good devil-fighting wizard researching that to combat the forces of Hell.
Not really -- at most, it might tire them temporarily, but in the long run it would bulk them up all the more.
@ Unearthed Arcana
Organizing them by school might be impractical since it would mean reprinting several spells for the traditional d20 wizard spell list. Instead, I'm thinking of doing it more like every other spell list (such as clerics, or druids) where the spells are arranged alphabetically by level. However, I will probably include notations on the spell lists for which schools the spells fall into, either in parenthesis, abbreviation, or some sort of checkbox format (depending on which I think delivers the best results in the long run).
As for any/or operators, I think it might complicate things. As I'm leaning now, a spell with just be associated with a specific school of magic, so all you really need to worry about if you're specialized in the school is whether the spell in question has the descriptor. I think we could end up with a jumbled mess if you had to decide as what school you were casting it as or had to figure out which schools were okay and which ones weren't (in the case of forbidden school-type mechanics).
As to different ways to do existing things, I doubt that I'd include more than the basic things in the default rules to avoid redundancy and to make room for more content. You really only need so many ways to hammer a nail. Plus I'd still want to allow players to feel like playing a specialist in a particular school of magic to feel very different from playing a specialist of another, otherwise there's little point in even including schools at all. However, I project that this descriptor-based system should make homebrewing new spells far easier since you can create complex spell effects without trying to figure out how to put the circle in the square peg, which should allow you to customize your games to your liking with greater ease.
For example, if you decided "I want a 5th level spell that throws a big ol' fireball, and then anyone who is slain by it rises as a burning skeleton under the caster's control for 1 hour before crumbling to ashes," then you could write up your spell. In traditional D&D/PF, now you have to decide if this spell belongs in evocation or necromancy, with the descriptors, it would simply fall into both camps. Similarly you made a spell that summoned a minion (conjuration) and gave you aspects of that minion (say summoning a fire elemental also gave you the fire subtype while the summon was active) (transmutation) then it would again fall into both schools.
It also adjusts the possibilities for metamagic effects. In a similar vein if you have a metamagic feat that would make your fireballs/cloudkills/whatevers turn slain enemies into undead, then the metamagic feat would just add the [Necromancy] descriptor to the spell at the end.
Like you said, certain spells might have fluctuating descriptors much like some spells in core D&D/PF do (like planar binding). Most universal spells would probably fall into this category, such as wish, as it would obtain the descriptors of any spell effects that it duplicated.
So wish used to summon a genie might be a [conjuration] spell, but the same spell used to mimic raise dead would be a [necromancy] spell, while the same spell used to dispel magic would be an [abjuration] spell and so on.
@ Unearthed Arcana
Well, I guess I could do something like this if I wasn't already busy with my Modern Necromancy Life Science Research job . . .
{. . .}
As to different ways to do existing things, I doubt that I'd include more than the basic things in the default rules to avoid redundancy and to make room for more content. You really only need so many ways to hammer a nail. Plus I'd still want to allow players to feel like playing a specialist in a particular school of magic to feel very different from playing a specialist of another, otherwise there's little point in even including schools at all. {. . .}
Specialist would still mean something -- you wouldn't want EVERY spell to have more than one way to do it, just certain ones. Also, different ways of doing something should have noticeably different results, both in their own right and with respect to interaction with other things. Actually, this gives me an idea that develops further than what I was thinking of when I posted earlier. Take the example of Flying, for instance (and while we're at it, the following replaces the generic "Fly" and "Overland Flight" spells). Conjuration using a spell of 3rd or 5th Level ("Overland Wings" or "Greater Overland Wings") creates a pair of wings on you -- you get a moderate fly speed with decent or good endurance, but not so great maneuverability, because you are using a clunky device (like a magic device, but temporary) to fly, and you need space to flap the wings in. Transmutatation using a spell of 3rd Level or so ("Form of Flight") makes you actually grow the wings (like Beast Shape I or Monstrous Physique I, but specialized for giving you wings with minimal other changes) -- you get a moderate fly speed (somewhat better than "Overland Flight") and good maneuverability, but potentially worse endurance (which need not be the same as the duration of the spell), because you are using your own flesh to put out the effort, even if it is magically assisted; on the other hand, if you also have some sort of Fast Healing or Regeneration in effect at the same time, it also repairs your wings. All other things being equal, the more physically fit magic users capable of casting 3rd but not 5th Level spells might tend to favor the latter spell, whereas the more traditional nerd Wizard might tend to favor the former, as would those going up against opponents that have Anti-Shapechanger weapons or magic. Evocation [Force] using a spell of 7th Level or so ("Levitating Flight") gets you superhero-style flight, with no wings (or the space that they require) and great speed and awesome maneuverability, with decent endurance, but it's a high-level and rather expensive spell. A combination Evocation + Transmutation [Chaotic, Fire] spell of 5th Level or so ("Flight of the Brijidine") also gets you superhero-style flight and great speed but not so great maneuverability or endurance, and you leave behind a trail that is somewhat of a temporary environmental hazard, and Stealth is practically impossible while flying with this spell (although not necessarily while you have landed in the middle of its duration); the spell is not so expensive as the previous example, although as somatic and material components you do need to consume a significant volume of spicy beans with prunes (ever wonder why Brijidines love spicy foods? -- now you know, as well as having an idea why this spell gets the [Chaotic] Descriptor :-) ).
For example, if you decided "I want a 5th level spell that throws a big ol' fireball, and then anyone who is slain by it rises as a burning skeleton under the caster's control for 1 hour before crumbling to ashes," {. . .}
This would be an example of a spell requiring more than one school.
Wow! What a big topic! And what an interesting question! I only learned there even were folks who played sans-alignment when a new fellow showed up in our game (somewhere back in the June/July time-frame) & told us he'd played without it a few times before. And, as the reader will suspect, I'm even newer to these boards (or at least those outside the homebrew threads). So please allow me my two cents:
Alignment is good...Pun intended.
I only permit my players nonevil characters in any event. Although I allow wide latitude as to what counts as "good." Moreover, I practically ignore law vs. chaos altogether. (I might use it with respect to spells...but as of yet, still haven't found occasion to.)
So take the issue of torture or lying for instance? My question as DM is a simple one: Does the fact that the PC just tortured or lied increase or decrease the overall amount of evil in the world? If the answer is "decreases evil," then his action was good.
It's almost like that famous answer to "How do you know the difference between art & pornography?" "I may not know how to define it; but I know it when I see it."
Therefore, if the paladin tortures the half-demon in order to ascertain the location of a group of elf-children who are currently being sexually abused, then his actions were good. As DM, it seems pretty obvious to me.
Does that mean I run a game that looks a bit like a caricature of some Arthurian legend? Maybe. And so what if I do? The only question I fret over is whether or not my players had fun on gaming night.
So from where do my in-game good vs. evil values derive? The 10 Commandments seem like a good place to start (c.f., "Prager University" for 5 minute video descriptions of these). Resultantly, as opposed to the initial poster on this thread, the government is just about the last place one should look to in defining your values. Governments consist of men. And men, as a general rule, are not good. (Note that that doesn't necessarily make them all black-hearted-devils either. If I say "It's not warm outside," that doesn't necessarily mean it's freezing cold.)
My "Urth" mimics this earth. And on this earth, men, taken as a whole, are not good. But there are individuals (que in our player-character heroes to enter from stage right) who are quite good.
So it drains the finite power of Hell and turns it into arcane healing magic instead of letting it power devils? So infernal healing reduces the amount of available [evil] that can be used for evil. That's an awesome spell! I see a good devil-fighting wizard researching that to combat the forces of Hell.
Hell has a finite amount of power vis-a-vis the number of souls in it at any time. They're being "used up" via powering spells, devils, etc. True, they're constantly being flooded with new sources of souls, making it seem like a limitless source, but it is in fact not limitless, merely constantly refreshed.
No, it uses the functionally unlimited power of Evil and allows you to tap into it to gain something you want...more healing. Thus tempting you to see what ELSE Evil powers can give you without 'any moral repercussions.' And other people see you doing it and say, "Hey, that looks neat!" and lo, you have now started THEM on the same path...
It's the top of that slippery slope. I personally consider it one of the most insidious methods for recruitment Hell has devised.
As a special note, the spell was just a straight regeneration spell without an arcane mix in 3.5e. So you CAN write up a fast healing spell series (same levels as Cure Spells, actually) with no evil bias.
But the arcane and Evil nature are baked into the spell for a reason. The mechanics of it are wonderful for the character, and that's what makes it all the more insidious. Like it or not, you're calling on diabolic power when you do this, and you're not using it up...you're helping it grow!
==Aelryinth
I only permit my players nonevil characters in any event. Although I allow wide latitude as to what counts as "good." Moreover, I practically ignore law vs. chaos altogether. (I might use it with respect to spells...but as of yet, still haven't found occasion to.)
Yeah, I find Chaos and Law to be rather confused, and not terribly inspiring. In the past, I've vacillated between redefining them in much broader terms, and not caring one way or the other.
Yeah, I find Chaos and Law to be rather confused, and not terribly inspiring. In the past, I've vacillated between redefining them in much broader terms, and not caring one way or the other.
I only permit my players nonevil characters in any event. Although I allow wide latitude as to what counts as "good." Moreover, I practically ignore law vs. chaos altogether. (I might use it with respect to spells...but as of yet, still haven't found occasion to.)
I feel Law vs Chaos should be order vs liberty/freedom or some such.
|
|
Can you put some citation on that? From what I've read, all they got was bad science.At the risk of Godwining this thread, the Nazis performed horrific, inexcusable experiments on living subjects.
However, the knowledge gained from that has saved countless lives over the years. Are all doctors evil because they're pulling their "healing power" from the "suffering and torment of others"?
My understanding is that they discovered one or two useful things involving hypothermia (though even that's debated)...but yeah, 'countless lives' is an exaggeration. Most of the horrific Nazi 'experiments' had about just about zero scientific validity.
Nor is the attitude that using what results they did achieve is appropriate anywhere close to universal, with many people objecting on ethical, as well as scientific, grounds.
To be fair, what the nazis did or didn't achieve doesn't has any impact on whether or not a cruel/unethical experiment can achieve useful results and discoveries.
I'm sure it happened multiple times on human history. And probably still does. More so if you consider animal cruelty.
Can you put some citation on that? From what I've read, all they got was bad science.At the risk of Godwining this thread, the Nazis performed horrific, inexcusable experiments on living subjects.
However, the knowledge gained from that has saved countless lives over the years. Are all doctors evil because they're pulling their "healing power" from the "suffering and torment of others"?
The quickest source.
TL;DR: Barbaric experiments that nevertheless laid the foundations for things such as non-organ transplants.
This also seems to suggest that the origins of successful vasectomy and "tube tying" procedures were with Nazi science.
I'm not particularly interested in doing more in-depth research, but it's also something I've heard mention of in various documentaries on the subject.
So take the issue of torture or lying for instance? My question as DM is a simple one: Does the fact that the PC just tortured or lied increase or decrease the overall amount of evil in the world? If the answer is "decreases evil," then his action was good.
It's almost like that famous answer to "How do you know the difference between art & pornography?" "I may not know how to define it; but I know it when I see it."
Therefore, if the paladin tortures the half-demon in order to ascertain the location of a group of elf-children who are currently being sexually abused, then his actions were good. As DM, it seems pretty obvious to me.
This is why torture (for information not pleasure) and lying are Chaotic Aligned actions in my new definitions. They can be good... they can be evil... but they most definitely are dirty tactics. A single chaotic act from a paladin wouldn't cause his fall... but if he makes a pattern of torturing his enemies for information, then his alignment would start to move toward CG and away from LG causing a fall unless he alters his behavior.
I feel Law vs Chaos should be order vs liberty/freedom or some such.Yeah, I find Chaos and Law to be rather confused, and not terribly inspiring. In the past, I've vacillated between redefining them in much broader terms, and not caring one way or the other.
I only permit my players nonevil characters in any event. Although I allow wide latitude as to what counts as "good." Moreover, I practically ignore law vs. chaos altogether. (I might use it with respect to spells...but as of yet, still haven't found occasion to.)
Liberty and freedom are pretty self-explanatory terms, but how would you define order?
Lately I've been thinking that since one of alignment's most commonly cited and practical uses is to provide a quick and easy reference to a monster or NPC's behavior, a good way to think of Law vs. Chaos would be "Likes Working in Groups vs. Likes Working Alone." These definitions have some overlap with the traditional definitions -- chaotics don't like being told what to do, for example -- but I wouldn't want to get much more definitive than that.
It also casts Chaos in a more negative light, at least when it comes to small groups of individuals expected to trust and work together -- like adventuring parties! But this might be a feature, depending on your PoV, because it's a convenient way to tell players "Don't play a brooding loner!"
This is why torture (for information not pleasure) and lying are Chaotic Aligned actions in my new definitions. They can be good... they can be evil... but they most definitely are dirty tactics. A single chaotic act from a paladin wouldn't cause his fall... but if he makes a pattern of torturing his enemies for information, then his alignment would start to move toward CG and away from LG causing a fall unless he alters his behavior.So take the issue of torture or lying for instance? My question as DM is a simple one: Does the fact that the PC just tortured or lied increase or decrease the overall amount of evil in the world? If the answer is "decreases evil," then his action was good.
It's almost like that famous answer to "How do you know the difference between art & pornography?" "I may not know how to define it; but I know it when I see it."
Therefore, if the paladin tortures the half-demon in order to ascertain the location of a group of elf-children who are currently being sexually abused, then his actions were good. As DM, it seems pretty obvious to me.
This is where alignment gets [more] messy.
Torture is a violation of the victim's dignity, if not its life, which makes it definitionally Evil. (Both by my way of thinking and by the game's definition.) Even ignoring the utter lack of empathy that torture requires, which is easy to forget about or gloss over when it's your imaginary character doing the torturing rather than yourself in the real world, torture is inherently problematic. Because even innocents will eventually say anything to stop the pain, a torturer often has no way of knowing that her victim is even guilty.
That said, I don't believe in absolutes and I can certainly imagine plenty of corner cases where "Yeah, we have to torture this guy who we're absolutely sure is an evil cultist who knows where the evil sacrificial ritual is happening" is the Good decision. In the real world, the heat of the moment makes this seem like the right call much more often than it is, but again playing a rpg means that stress and emotional influences are [potentially] less misleading.
This is why torture (for information not pleasure) and lying are Chaotic Aligned actions in my new definitions. They can be good... they can be evil... but they most definitely are dirty tactics. A single chaotic act from a paladin wouldn't cause his fall... but if he makes a pattern of torturing his enemies for information, then his alignment would start to move toward CG and away from LG causing a fall unless he alters his behavior.So take the issue of torture or lying for instance? My question as DM is a simple one: Does the fact that the PC just tortured or lied increase or decrease the overall amount of evil in the world? If the answer is "decreases evil," then his action was good.
It's almost like that famous answer to "How do you know the difference between art & pornography?" "I may not know how to define it; but I know it when I see it."
Therefore, if the paladin tortures the half-demon in order to ascertain the location of a group of elf-children who are currently being sexually abused, then his actions were good. As DM, it seems pretty obvious to me.
This is where alignment gets [more] messy.
Torture is a violation of the victim's dignity, if not its life, which makes it definitionally Evil. (Both by my way of thinking and by the game's definition.) Even ignoring the utter lack of empathy that torture requires, which is easy to forget about or gloss over when it's your imaginary character doing the torturing rather than yourself in the real world, torture is inherently problematic. Because even innocents will eventually say anything to stop the pain, a torturer often has no way of knowing that her victim is even guilty.
That said, I don't believe in absolutes and I can certainly imagine plenty of corner cases where "Yeah, we have to torture this guy who we're absolutely sure is an evil cultist who knows where the evil sacrificial ritual is happening" is the Good decision. In the real world, the heat of...
This is why I slightly changed the book definitions, it makes things clear instead of murky. In the case of doing evil to evil doers this has been a thing in the game already a crusader hunts down and murders the bad guys; he doesn't bring them in for a trial unless the GM has them surrender... Torture to stop further crime is good in your own words, yet it makes no sense if we leave that type of torture as evil acts. Better to make that a Chaotic act and call it a Dirty Tactic that way Paladins would still avoid it but it leaves the CG guys free to pick up the knives while the paladin guards the perimeter as long as you are fine with the paladin being cross with you later. No ones alignments need to change this way and everyone has a clear vision about the alignment of their actions.
This is why I slightly changed the book definitions, it makes things clear instead of murky. In the case of doing evil to evil doers this has been a thing in the game already a crusader hunts down and murders the bad guys; he doesn't bring them in for a trial unless the GM has them surrender... Torture to stop further crime is good in your own words, yet it makes no sense if we leave that type of torture as evil acts. Better to make that a Chaotic act and call it a Dirty Tactic that way Paladins would still avoid it but it leaves the CG guys free to pick up the knives while the paladin guards the perimeter as long as you are fine with the paladin being cross with you later. No ones alignments need to change this way and everyone has a clear vision about the alignment of their actions.
Ah, gotcha.
Personally I'm rather uncomfortable calling torture anything but Evil, and would rather make exceptions that even paladins can take advantage of. Just like killing is normally Evil, while including exceptions for the pure of heart, as you note.
But c'est la vie, right?
So it drains the finite power of Hell and turns it into arcane healing magic instead of letting it power devils? So infernal healing reduces the amount of available [evil] that can be used for evil. That's an awesome spell! I see a good devil-fighting wizard researching that to combat the forces of Hell.
Hell has a finite amount of power vis-a-vis the number of souls in it at any time. They're being "used up" via powering spells, devils, etc. True, they're constantly being flooded with new sources of souls, making it seem like a limitless source, but it is in fact not limitless, merely constantly refreshed.
No, it uses the functionally unlimited power of Evil and allows you to tap into it to gain something you want...more healing. Thus tempting you to see what ELSE Evil powers can give you without 'any moral repercussions.' And other people see you doing it and say, "Hey, that looks neat!" and lo, you have now started THEM on the same path...
It's the top of that slippery slope. I personally consider it one of the most insidious methods for recruitment Hell has devised.
As a special note, the spell was just a straight regeneration spell without an arcane mix in 3.5e. So you CAN write up a fast healing spell series (same levels as Cure Spells, actually) with no evil bias.
But the arcane and Evil nature are baked into the spell for a reason. The mechanics of it are wonderful for the character, and that's what makes it all the more insidious. Like it or not, you're calling on diabolic power when you do this, and you're not using it up...you're helping it grow!
==Aelryinth
In the cosmology that greenteagamer posited on the cosmic scale it is finite. I would still say that diverting the power of [evil] away to nonevil is a good thing.
Flipping it so that [Good] spells draws away from large but finite resources of [Good] as a good person trying to do good I would be much more hesitant to use [Good] spells for my own purposes. I would always look to use other resources before sacrificing the power of [Good]. As an aware person who wants to support [Good] I would summon elementals before summoning archons to fight random foes.
Perhaps the arcane [Good] spells were developed by fiends specifically to drain away the power of [Good]. On the individual scale they are functionally unlimited and have no apparent downside, but each casting drains heaven of a little bit of Goodness. They are super useful in fighting evil on the local scale and have functional incentives to use them. The [Good] spells are therefore insidious tools of evil in the cosmic clash of [Good] and [Evil].
So it drains the finite power of Hell and turns it into arcane healing magic instead of letting it power devils? So infernal healing reduces the amount of available [evil] that can be used for evil. That's an awesome spell! I see a good devil-fighting wizard researching that to combat the forces of Hell.
Hell has a finite amount of power vis-a-vis the number of souls in it at any time. They're being "used up" via powering spells, devils, etc. True, they're constantly being flooded with new sources of souls, making it seem like a limitless source, but it is in fact not limitless, merely constantly refreshed.
No, it uses the functionally unlimited power of Evil and allows you to tap into it to gain something you want...more healing. Thus tempting you to see what ELSE Evil powers can give you without 'any moral repercussions.' And other people see you doing it and say, "Hey, that looks neat!" and lo, you have now started THEM on the same path...
It's the top of that slippery slope. I personally consider it one of the most insidious methods for recruitment Hell has devised.
As a special note, the spell was just a straight regeneration spell without an arcane mix in 3.5e. So you CAN write up a fast healing spell series (same levels as Cure Spells, actually) with no evil bias.
But the arcane and Evil nature are baked into the spell for a reason. The mechanics of it are wonderful for the character, and that's what makes it all the more insidious. Like it or not, you're calling on diabolic power when you do this, and you're not using it up...you're helping it grow!
==Aelryinth
In the cosmology that greenteagamer posited on the cosmic scale it is finite. I would still say that diverting the power of [evil] away to nonevil is a good thing.
Flipping it so that [Good] spells draws away from large but finite resources of [Good] as a good person trying to do good I would be much more hesitant to use [Good]...
You're forgetting that using the power of Good to do something translates as a Good deed, and using the power of Good to inspire others creates yet more Good deeds.
In other words, it wouldn't even be possible unless it was zero sum or a net gain to the power involved, unless they were suicidal. I mean, seriously, Good would simply let their people use up Evil's power, while Evil would try to tempt the Good people and keep losing power, whilst Good kept to its morals and didn't let Evil or Neutrals use their magic. Heaven would win.
But that's not how it works. Using evil begets more evil, using good begets more good.
And while you can make the argument that the powers of each are finite, on the scale the PC's are concerned with, it's effectively infinite and eternal.
And the example of 'diverting evil' is not diverting it, it's spreading it. Remember, it's Evil just to cast the spell. In turn, arcane casters are tempted to use it themselves, thus spreading the evil and causing them to look for other useful Evil things they can do...like necromancy, dealing with devils for knowledge, etc.
It's the tip of the slippery slope, and it's a fantastic tipper, based on how many people love the spell.
==Aelryinth
|
|
The stereotype of the jackass Paladin arose because players just misinterpreted (or too narrowly interpreted) Lawful Good
It wasn't all from misinterpretations...
You should take a look at the optional 2nd edition AD&D rulebook "The Complete Paladin's Handbook"; it made it pretty clear what the paladin could and could not do, and had a very narrow interpretation by today's standards of what it was to be both Lawful Good, and a paladin back then.
Things such as no sex, could not marry, no lying (what-so-ever, no exceptions), no associating with those of evil alignment (no exceptions - and to do so is considered an evil act), etc.
Not all of these "rules", if broken, were cause for the paladin to fall, but the paladin would need to seek atonement for breaking them (but of course there were rules that if broken, would cause the paladin to fall, such as the no associating with evil for example)...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like optional books regarding alignment don't have a standing tradition of making the game worse. :)