And I've seen people use the Lawful alignment to screw over the players ("I have my code and I will never break it! Yes, even if it means derailing the plot because my character is an inflexible tool and I like him that way.").
Dicks are dicks no matter what initials they write on their character sheets.
Good to know.
|
Dicks are dicks no matter what initials they write on their character sheets.
So anyone with an uncompromising moral standard that is unwilling to think and act as you feel they should (based upon differing interpretation of a rule) is a phallic symbol?
If I am playing a Lawful Good character, and my character is hiding escaped slaves in his basement, and the city guard comes pounding upon his door demanding to know if he's seen them, well, the answer is not so easy for him as a character (or me as a player for that matter)...
Who the hell is using infernal healing on a child anyway?According to the example, the same guy using a Celestial Hound to randomly injure him. Just to prove he can.
==Aelryinth
Person 1: uses Summon Monster to harm a child
Person 2: uses Infernal Healing to heal the aforementioned child, harmed by a creature summoned by someone else.At what point did I say they were the same person? At what point did I even imply that nonsense?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I am playing a Lawful Good character, and my character is hiding escaped slaves in his basement, and the city guard comes pounding upon his door demanding to know if he's seen them, well, the answer is not so easy for me as a player, or him as a character...
If your character is willing to sacrifice innocents just because that's the law, then he's far closer to LN than LG. In fact, I'd say that prioritizing your code over the lives or innocents is Evil, and not something that a Good person would do or condone.
|
|
If your character is willing to sacrifice innocents just because that's the law, then he's far closer to LN than LG. In fact, I'd say that prioritizing your code over the lives or innocents is Evil, and not something that a Good person would do or condone.
And that is how you see it... I don't see it that way.
As I see it, the rules for LG do not say "She tells the truth (Unless the truth is inconvenient), keeps her word (Even if it means lying to the city guard), helps those in need (At the expense of one's own personal ethical code), and speaks out against injustice (With lies and deceit - no matter how unjust the law may be)".
And my question still stands. Why is there a difference between how a creature's alignment subtypes work and how a spell's alignment subtypes work?
Actually, scratch that. Where does it even say that they operate differently? Book, chapter, page number, paragraph, if you please. Because I looked and didn't find it.
Don't say it's obvious. Because what's obvious is that the walking embodiment of Law and Evil is lawful evil, exactly like he registers according to the Detect Alignment spells.
And what is actually the case is another thing entirely. His actual alignment has only a one-in-nine chance of being LE.
He's using the power of Evil just to stand up straight, and his alignment is entirely independent of this.
Yet we don't take any more look at what Infernal Healing does other than to determine what energy is used for it.
So I want to know why. And I want to know where this is even established.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your character is willing to sacrifice innocents just because that's the law, then he's far closer to LN than LG. In fact, I'd say that prioritizing your code over the lives or innocents is Evil, and not something that a Good person would do or condone.And that is how you see it... I don't see it that way.
As I see it, the rules for LG do not say "She tells the truth (Unless the truth is inconvenient), keeps her word (Even if it means lying to the city guard), helps those in need (At the expense of one's own personal ethical code), and speaks out against injustice (With lies and deceit - no matter how unjust the law may be)".
Strict adherence to a code, with no regard for its intention and no willingness to factor in the situation is not only short-sighted, but much closer to LN than LG.
You can have an extremelly Lawful and honest character without being 100% Lawful and honest all the freaking time.
|
|
Strict adherence to a code, with no regard for its intention and no willingness to factor in the situation is not only short-sighted, but much closer to LN than LG.
Again, that's how you see it, and that's fine... I just do not see it that way, nor could you convince me otherwise. A lie is a lie. And if it's just a little "white lie"; it's still a lie... A LG character "tells the truth", there is no unwritten part to that.
Does that mean that a LG character is infallible? No... And if you'll note, in my original post I said (emphasis mine):
and if the city guard comes pounding upon his door demanding to know if he's seen them, well, the answer is not so easy for him as a character (or me as a player for that matter)...
Which fails to say whether he will lie to the guards, or tell them the truth... It just say that it is a difficult situation to be in as there is no easy answer for a LG character.
It doesn't say "A LG character tells the truth at all times either...
*sigh*
Whatever... This sort of discussion is why I stay out of Paladin/Alignment threads... I occasionally fail my Will save, though...
|
Your story depends on which code of laws he follows. If he's a chelaxian (he wouldn't hide slaves). If he's andoran (I have guests, they're indisposed come back tomorrow).
Many of these corner queries will never come up. Unless the DM is out for you, or you push the limits. If the DM is out against any form of LG don't play one.
Pathfinder paladins (and any lawful character) needs to have a clear reason to be in the presence of criminals (Pathfinders) who's crimes ocurr far more often than the odd chelaxian/andoran slugfest over slavery & undead.
My current one: the Paladin chooses to redeem the pathfinders by showing them crime is not the only answer. He will not participate in crimes, but won't turn in society members either. There are still some scenarios were lawful wont work. (My LN cleric dropped out of two scenarios after hearing the intro)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't say "A LG character tells the truth at all times either...
*sigh*
Whatever... This sort of discussion is why I stay out of Paladin/Alignment threads... I occasionally fail my Will save, though...
Lemmy's right. Even the alignment rules specifically say that few people are entirely consistent with their alignments, and yes if you DE was in my games I'd definitely see selling out innocents to a corrupt law to be closer to LN if not even LE since he's furthering the oppression of others for no other reason than his personal code of order.
But Digital Elf demonstrates why alignment adds nothing to the game. When questioned on why his character would behave that way, noting that it didn't sound very kosher, he then goes and pulls up the alignment stuff to try and show that he is playing lawful good correctly or in this case playing lawful correctly, but alignments aren't supposed to dictate our actions or be strait jackets, they're supposed to be based on how our characters act, but this isn't true in practice.
Digital Elf has just made a billboard for why alignment doesn't help the game with his posts. It wasn't simply because his character believes in order or something and had a character quirk, it was "I'm playing lawful correctly".
Well I don't want to ****ing watch people play an alignment, I wan't to see them playing a character ******* it. >:(
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
and maybe you've now infected the toddler you injured in the first place with an affinity for diabolic power associated with this energy that healed him when he was a child.
Rejoice! You've recruited another soul for Hell! Chalk another one up on the board of evil!
Evil doing good deeds is serving itself...the deed generates more Evil, showing the flexibility and willingness of Evil to take any action, good or evil, to further its ends. The act becomes at best neutral, and far more likely simply more evil.
"Look, I'm evil, and I can use the power of Evil to heal this child! And I can summon up a Celestial Hound to murder the babe if I wish, nyah, nyah!"
It's the insidious nature of evil that is most dangerous. Using logic to justify using the power of evil has them glowing with approval for your choices.
==Aelryinth
I'm still wondering how you got the impression that the two examples were of the same person.
But no matter. You're caught on the propaganda that Evil spreads. Here's a transcript from Hell that might enlighten you:
In the Nine Hells...
Asmodeus: Send in my next appointment.
Henchdevil: Greetings, Exalted Lord Asmodeus, from this most unworthy-
A: Yes, yes, get on with it. I must begin torturing your immediate predecessor.
H: Of course, my lord. I have a proposal for how the powers of Hell might be better able to corrupt the innocent on the mortal plane. Put simply, we shall offer the mortals a healing spell.
A: Explain how a healing spell will further the cause of Evil, or I will be torturing you alongside your predecessor.
H: Absolutely, Great Asmodeus. See, we will make sure that every use of this spell draws from Hell's own power.
A: Will this not put us at a disadvantage? Sacrificing our power for... healing?
H: No, see, that is the beauty of this plan. This spell will never be used because it uses Hell's power. The mortals will be too afraid of tainting their souls to use it.
A: Intriguing. Continue.
H: The old adage that "evil prevails when good men do nothing" certainly holds true, my lord.
A: Indeed, that notion has led to many souls led astray. Some of my finest work.
H: And masterfully did you seize those souls. My lord, you and I both know that Evil energy doesn't influence a damn thing. After all, I am a devil, but that's not why I'm evil. It's because I do things like overhear my immediate predecessor concoct a plan like this, scheme behind his back to make him fall in your esteem, and then present his plan as my own without anyone knowing.
A: What was that?
H: Nothing. Not a damn thing. Anyway, we realize that Evil energy has no influence, but the mortals do not. They will have the opportunity to heal a person and instead elect not to out of fear. Thus, we expend no power and gain more souls.
A: What about evil mortals?
H: I think we can assume their uses of this spell would be in service of evil, even if the casting of the spell is not.
A: Ah, of course. But there is a fatal flaw in your plan.
H: What flaw, my lord?
A: There will still be mortals of good hearts that will either realize that their purity is not at stake with the casting of this spell or still be fooled by their ignorance and nevertheless sacrifice their purity (as far as they know) for the sake of another.
So here is my decision: half of every bit of evil we acquire through the lack of use of this spell shall increase your standing in Hell. But every bit of evil we lose due to a mortal's courage and good heart will be taken from you. Pray you have judged the ignorance of mortals correctly.
H: O-Of course, my liege.
A: All of Hell has heard this. It is done.
...
Translation: If you have Infernal Healing, then for the sake of your immortal soul, use it whenever you have cause to.
Or, drink the Kool-Aid, be a good man and do nothing, and when you're done, please call the hotline 1-800-BDAMNED* so Team Evil can send you the complimentary T-shirt. Team Evil would also like to remind its customers that it's a courtesy that you need not pay for the shirt with your soul during the phone call, since, of course, you already gave it up when you didn't use Infernal Healing when you were supposed to.
*Not a real number as far as I know.
alignment is fundamental to many of the games I play and run, but it usually doesn't come to the forefront until the mid levels.
I think part of it is certainly style and flavor, games I'm in tend to have a planar focus, gods often take a guiding hand in sending prophecies and dreams to the faithful, outsiders tend to represent a significant break downs in the cohesion of the prime and work to advance not just themselves but their entire plane and its outlook which usually entails competing interests to suffer setbacks etc.
Generally players 'play' first and 'alignment' later, but the DM gets final say on what alignment is or isn't appropriate for a character, alignment changes generally don't have any special penalties unless it's a cleric or paladin who often get ample warning(both in and out of game to ensure there isn't any misunderstandings) if they are not otherwise roleplaying an alignment change on purpose(sometimes people want to play paladins that fall etc). Other alignment class restrictions tend to get handwaved, occasionally powerful magical effects have either forced an alignment change or been enough of a boon to entice one and this sometimes can cause the campaign to veer in a new direction or even cause a party break up. Players are encouraged to work together and severe interparty fighting usually doesn't last long as someone or other is either killed, forced out, or has a change of heart -- as a side note I notice interparty conflict is more common for players new to the game and after a session or two has often worked its way out of their system.
As a DM one alignment interpretation I have that may not be incredibly popular in the forums is I almost entirely discount motivations when I consider character alignment, with 'ignorance' or 'innocence' being only a minor concern, and even actions not being too heavily considered, but with the almost entire onus being placed on the actual outcomes of character actions be they intentional or accidental it matters more how reality is shaped.
Another concept I've been considering lately but haven't made much use of is the idea of irredeemable acts, alignment chasms that once you fall into you cannot climb out of(short of divine fiat), not that this would force certain behavior but characters would merely be under the mechanical effects of that alignment, but this hasn't really come up much as irredeemable acts would involve cataclysmic events.
I find alignment one of the more interesting parts of the game and once it becomes firmly established in game it can create many hooks and challenges, alignment becomes part of the metaphysical reality of the game world just like magic and helps inform the mystery of the multiverse.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dicks are dicks no matter what initials they write on their character sheets.So anyone with an uncompromising moral standard that is unwilling to think and act as you feel they should (based upon differing interpretation of a rule) is a phallic symbol?
If I am playing a Lawful Good character, and my character is hiding escaped slaves in his basement, and the city guard comes pounding upon his door demanding to know if he's seen them, well, the answer is not so easy for him as a character (or me as a player for that matter)...
Anyone, anywhere with an "uncompromising" ANYTHING is a dick.
If someone is so thickheaded that they can't see that sometimes, other things are more important than their narrow personal beliefs, then they are a dick.
And you better believe I'd call someone who ratted out escaped slave more than just a dick. I'd certainly never call them ANY variation of "Good".
Asmodeus: Send in my next appointment.
Henchdevil: Greetings, Exalted Lord Asmodeus, from this most unworthy-
A: Yes, yes, get on with it. I must begin torturing your immediate predecessor.
H: Of course, my lord. I have a proposal for how the powers of Hell might be better able to corrupt the innocent on the mortal plane. Put simply, we shall offer the mortals a healing spell.
A: Explain how a healing spell will further the cause of Evil, or I will be torturing you alongside your predecessor.
H: Absolutely, Great Asmodeus. See, we will make sure that every use of this spell draws from Hell's own power.
A: Will this not put us at a disadvantage? Sacrificing our power for... healing?
H: No, see, that is the beauty of this plan. This spell will never be used because it uses Hell's power. The mortals will be too afraid of tainting their souls to use it.
A: Intriguing. Continue.
H: The old adage that "evil prevails when good men do nothing" certainly holds true, my lord.
A: Indeed, that notion has led to many souls led astray. Some of my finest work.
H: And masterfully did you seize those souls. My lord, you and I both know that Evil energy doesn't influence a damn thing. After all, I am a devil, but that's not why I'm evil. It's because I do things like overhear my immediate predecessor concoct a plan like this, scheme behind his back to make him fall in your esteem, and then present his plan as my own without anyone knowing.
A: What was that?
H: Nothing. Not a damn thing. Anyway, we realize that Evil energy has no influence, but the mortals do not. They will have the opportunity to heal a person and instead elect not to out of fear. Thus, we expend no power and gain more souls.
A: What about evil mortals?
H: I think we can assume their uses of this spell would be in service of evil, even if the casting of the spell is not.
A: Ah, of course. But there is a fatal flaw in your plan.
H: What flaw, my lord?
A: There will still be mortals of good hearts that will either realize that their purity is not at stake with the casting of this spell or still be fooled by their ignorance and nevertheless sacrifice their purity (as far as they know) for the sake of another.
So here is my decision: half of every bit of evil we acquire through the lack of use of this spell shall increase your standing in Hell. But every bit of evil we lose due to a mortal's courage and good heart will be taken from you. Pray you have judged the ignorance of mortals correctly.
H: O-Of course, my liege.
A: All of Hell has heard this. It is done.
I see you have the whitewashed copy sent out to the gullible. Let me give you the real copy as faithfully recorded by the faithful scribes subsequently and carefully put to death, their scribbles accidentally falling into the hands of our dear Cayden whilst stumbling away from entanglements with a certain bevy of erinyes...
Asmodeus: Send in my next appointment.
Henchdevil: Greetings, Exalted Lord Asmodeus, from this most unworthy-
A: Yes, yes, get on with it. I am torturing your immediate predecessor for wasting my time.
H: Of course, my lord. I have a proposal for how the powers of Hell might be better able to corrupt powerful souls, and the innocent, upon the mortal plane. Put simply, we shall offer the mortals an arcane healing spell.
A: Explain how a healing spell will further the cause of Evil, or you shall join your predecessor.
H: Absolutely, Great Asmodeus. We will make sure that every use of this spell draws from Hell's own power.
A: Interesting. Use of this spell would then constitute an Evil act.(strokes oiled beard). Willing use of this spell would thus cause more Evil...
H: Indeed. But the arrogant among the mortals would refuse to believe that mere healing magic would alter the course of their souls. Indeed, they would point to the beneficial effects of calling upon the power, disregarding the effects on their own souls as immaterial. This would then naturally lead them to consider using other, darker spells whose power they believe they could suborn to 'Good', thus bringing more Evil into the world, while still refusing to believe they are being influenced.
This would especially be attractive to wizards, who are always desperate to expand the breadth of their knowledge, and are envious of those that have healing magic. To add such to their arsenal is a nigh irresistible temptation, and they will bend their intellects to any form of logic that justifies their using it.
A: Intriguing. Continue.
H: The old adage that "evil prevails when good men do nothing" certainly holds true, my lord. Good folk seeing the spell may not run afoul of its taint, but they will certainly be tempted to call upon its power again, and again. The cost will weigh upon the caster, but their 'need' will encourage other good folk to learn the magic, and others, as well. They will start to associate Hell with easy and frequent healing, and that they can get away with using the power of Hell cheaply and easily, with no repercussions.
A: That notion has led to many souls coming to our door (chuckles knowingly). It will certainly work wonderfully here. I know wizards and sorcerers, always seeking the best trick, and willing to convince themselves there will be no consequences to their souls for its use. (laughs deeply) And the foolish and the innocent, not knowing the powers they deal with, will be influenced in our direction by the reception of such powers in their times of need, bending them ever closer to My Will.
H: And masterfully do you seize such souls, My Lord. Master, you and I both know that Evil energy sways the souls of those who use it, but mortals endlessly try to convince themselves otherwise, especially if they use it for 'good' acts. The use of Evil begets Evil, as devils know properly, and is the only correct view on life. My predecessor was lax in his comprehension of this fact, and it has cost him dearly.(smirks inside).
A: What was that?
H: Nothing, sire. My lord, we realize that Evil energy has influence, but the mortals do not. They will have the opportunity to heal a person and this will then create both the need to heal and the desire to heal further, using the power of Evil. Thus, we expend no power net, our power grows as more Evil is done, and we gain more souls.
A: What about evil mortals?
H: They are already ours, but of course their beneficial use of this magic is a great tool for tempting others that are not already ours, and will increase our flock. We should encourage their use of it and have them encourage others to use it.
A: Ah, of course. But there is a flaw in your plan.
H: What flaw, my lord?
A: There will still be mortals of good hearts that will either realize that their purity is at stake with the casting of this spell. They will discourage use of the spell, and seek other alternatives, even at higher cost or lack of efficiency. (Both devils shake their heads at such waste of time and effort).
Still, the idea has great merit to it. It will be difficult in the extreme for those of foolish Goodness to speak out against a spell that is so distinctly beneficial for others, and which the casters can cloak in self-serving logic as a useful tool, whilst really serving their own pride, power and influence, perhaps even talking up their own sacrifice of purity for the well-being of others and believing their own lies. The spell will pay for the power used by the very decision to cast it, and then the temptation upon others will spread slowly and subtly and reap Hell the greater reward.
Make it so. I approve of this course. You have permission to set up the necessary channels and supplies to make this spell extremely viable and efficient to wield. Let us crush their foolish morals with proper efficiency and expediency exemplified in this magic.
H: (eagerly) O-Of course, my liege!
A: All of Hell has heard this. It is done.
=========
==Aelryinth
|
|
I don't want to ****ing watch people play an alignment, I wan't to see them playing a character ******* it. >:(
The thread is asking how we (the members of this message board) use alignment. I am given my thoughts and opinions on the subject...
If you've read my posts in their entirety, you'll note that I clearly state that it is how I interpret the rules, saying nothing about my interpretation being how they should or even should not be interpreted.
If you do not like or agree with my interpretation of alignment, that's fine, but insulting my opinions and views by saying that I am some kind of poster-child of what is wrong with the rules, is, I think, overstepping the bounds of remaining polite... You could have very easily made your point without insulting my preferred play-style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to ****ing watch people play an alignment, I wan't to see them playing a character ******* it. >:(The thread is asking how we (the members of this message board) use alignment. I am given my thoughts and opinions...
If you do not like or agree with my opinion or how I view alignment, and if you've read my posts in their entirety, you'll note that I clearly state that it is how I interpret the rules, saying nothing about my interpretation being how they should or even should not be interpreted.
If you do not like or agree with my interpretation of alignment, that's fine, but insulting my opinions and views by saying that I am some kind of poster-child of what is wrong with the rules, is, I think, overstepping the bounds of remaining polite...
I did nothing of the sort. I said:
But Digital Elf demonstrates why alignment adds nothing to the game. When questioned on why his character would behave that way, noting that it didn't sound very kosher, he then goes and pulls up the alignment stuff to try and show that he is playing lawful good correctly or in this case playing lawful correctly, but alignments aren't supposed to dictate our actions or be strait jackets, they're supposed to be based on how our characters act, but this isn't true in practice.
It is factual that your post exemplifies that it has added nothing to the game that you couldn't already do without alignment except an argument, which you felt compelled to try and justify within the rules to say that you were playing it correctly.
Which means that doing otherwise would be incorrectly, thus you are being limited by alignment rather than broadened. This is a prime example of this and why many people hate alignment.
Digital Elf has just made a billboard for why alignment doesn't help the game with his posts. It wasn't simply because his character believes in order or something and had a character quirk, it was "I'm playing lawful correctly".
This is where I simplified the point. You were playing him a specific way by your own statement because he was "lawful" and then felt the need to justify it by trying to argue that your interpretation of "lawful" was valid if not correct. Not because you just wanted to play your character a certain way which happened to make him lawful, which is alignment dictating action rather than the reverse, which is not what alignment is supposed to do by its own admission.
Well I don't want to ****ing watch people play an alignment, I wan't to see them playing a character ******* it. >:(
This paragraph, albeit small, is a notation of my personal frustration with the conflict and problems that alignment creates by its very existence. It seems too difficult for people to divorce the idea that alignment determines what you do instead of by what you do. RPGs without alignment have been having great heroes, nasty villains, great players, and backstabbing jerks, all without alignment. What they don't have is alignment threads and arguments over alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Putting it another way, I don't want to know your character is X/Y. I want to know your character. If they are defined by X/Y, then they're not really a character, they're a caricature and I have no further interest in them.
|
|
This paragraph, albeit small, is a notation of my personal frustration with the conflict and problems that alignment creates by its very existence. It seems too difficult for people to divorce the idea that alignment determines what you do instead of by what you do.
I view alignment as an integral part of who a character is, an actual part of their identity...
There is nothing wrong with that interpretation, other than you not liking or agreeing with it; which again I say is fine, you don't have to...
I still posit that you could have very easily made your point without saying that my OPINION is wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This paragraph, albeit small, is a notation of my personal frustration with the conflict and problems that alignment creates by its very existence. It seems too difficult for people to divorce the idea that alignment determines what you do instead of by what you do.I view alignment as an integral part of who a character is, an actual part of their identity...
There is nothing wrong with that interpretation, other than you not liking or agreeing with it; which again I say is fine, you don't have to...
I still posit that you could have very easily made your point without saying that my OPINION is wrong.
My point is I didn't say that your opinion was wrong, merely that it exemplified why alignment is frustrating to people and why many people realize it adds nothing to the game. The correctness/incorrectness of your opinion was and is wholly and utterly irrelevant to anything I've been saying.
What is completely relevant is your exchange with Lemmy exemplifies the problem with alignment, in that neither of you, and very likely we, cannot agree on what means, merely that you are certain that your interpretation of the mechanic is the correct one or at least not the incorrect one, while Lemmy and I look at it and see something different, be it right or wrong.
The fact is that it's still adding nothing to the game other than needless conflict. If you can say "I have a character who doesn't like the idea of lying to authorities but he wanted to help those people" then you don't need the alignment and the baggage attached. The alignment doesn't really do anything for your character in the sense of allowing you to make him or her deeper, more interesting, or even adequately describe a character who seems like a real person.
In fact, the opposite is true. By adherence to alignment (rather than alignment adhering to you, but even that's pretty flawed) the player is given a false set of absolutes that governs how the character is supposed to respond to things rather than just responding as they would if they were really a person.
Since other RPGs have no problem whatsoever with depicting a near infinite amount of potential character personalities, with many heroes, villains, and champions of order and legions of chaos, it's clear the alignment system is not even granting us an advantage in roleplaying or storytelling. More often than not it actually hinders both.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you are certain that your interpretation of the mechanic is the correct one or at least not the incorrect one, while Lemmy and I look at it and see something different, be it right or wrong.
I never said that my view of alignment was the correct nor incorrect interpretation. I said it is the way that I view and interpret it...
Here is exactly what I said:
As I see it, the rules for LG...
As you can see, all I said was that is how I personally see alignment.
The fact is that it's still adding nothing to the game other than needless conflict.
It's not a fact, it is your opinion. I happen to think alignment adds a multitude of role-playing opportunities, as well as being a mechanic that helps define who a character actually is (note that I said "helps", I do not think, nor have ever stated that it is the be all and end all of a character).
In fact, the opposite is true. By adherence to alignment (rather than alignment adhering to you, but even that's pretty flawed) the player is given a false set of absolutes that governs how the character is supposed to respond to...
Maybe that is the case in your purely anecdotal experience, but in my purely anecdotal experience, my strict adherence to alignment has not once, been an issue. But, anecdotal is antidotal...
Since other RPGs have no problem whatsoever with depicting a near infinite amount of potential character personalities... ...it's clear the alignment system is not even granting us an advantage in roleplaying or storytelling. More often than not it actually hinders both.
While it may be true that other games work just fine without alignment, and that perhaps in your personal games, you do not even use alignment, it is anything but "clear" that alignment in D&D/Pathfinder "does not grant us an advantage in role-playing"... It's nothing more than your opinion. And using my personal opinion as the poster-child of how you feel that alignment is useless, is wrong... And I say for the third time now, you could have very easily made you opinion known without condemning mine...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm.. When Aelryinth misundertood my post as saying that Protection From Evil would prevent forced alignment change, he asked me cite the rules... And yet, he now explicetly ignores the rules of Infernal Healing to say that the spell has an effect on alignment.... How odd...
Yeah, I'm still waiting to hear how it's actually established by the game that use of a spell with a certain alignment constitutes an act of said alignment. I established the basis of my disbelief, the fact the alignment subtypes mean exactly zilch with regards to a creature's alignment, and cited the book that states it.
So, "casting Infernal Healing is an evil act" is a houserule until otherwise stated.
Although, I'm beginning to suspect behavior associated with green regenerating things. I gave two (2) examples of spells with alignment descriptors being used by different people (as in, not the same person) for deeds in exact opposition to the alignments whose energy was used for those spells, and somehow, they were inexplicably mistaken as the same person performing one deed and then the other. And I have no idea how we came to that failure of reading comprehension. An honest mistake or deliberate obfuscation? I can't tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it may be true that other games work just fine without alignment, and that perhaps in your personal games, you do not even use alignment, it is anything but "clear" that alignment in D&D/Pathfinder "does not grant us an advantage in role-playing"... It's nothing more than your opinion. And using my personal opinion as the poster-child of how you feel that alignment is useless, is wrong... And I say for the third time now, you could have very easily made you opinion known without condemning mine...
And for the third time, I haven't condemned your opinion. Your opinion on alignment doesn't matter to my point and doesn't matter to me beyond its standalone value.
And I've presented reasons why alignment doesn't really do anything. You haven't presented much beyond a real life example of alignment causing a pointless disagreement between you and another game player (thanks for that by the way, this way I don't have to use a hypothetical, I can just point and say "Here we have exhibit A").
Again since alignment doesn't allow us to have any characters we already have without alignment I'm skeptical of what it adds. It would appear that, with your example, it didn't help to deepen your character as you presented it. If anything it made the character feel less real while reading it, less like the character was making a reasoned choice and more a check and balance vs his alignment axis.
Explain to me what alignment adds to character development that is not present in literally every other form of storytelling?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm still waiting to hear how it's actually established by the game that use of a spell with a certain alignment constitutes an act of said alignment. I established the basis of my disbelief, the fact the alignment subtypes mean exactly zilch with regards to a creature's alignment, and cited the book that states it.
So, "casting Infernal Healing is an evil act" is a houserule until otherwise stated.
It's also canon for Golarion per Champions of Purity. And has been stated repeatedly to be the intent of the rules by the folks at Paizo. So...that's probably where people are getting the idea from.
Neither of those statements make it part of the core rules per se, but they sure explain where people got the idea from, and why they feel comfortable treating it that way for their games.
|
|
And for the third time, I haven't condemned your opinion. Your opinion on alignment doesn't matter to my point and doesn't matter to me beyond its standalone value.
Digital Elf demonstrates why alignment adds nothing to the game. When questioned on why his character would behave that way, noting that it didn't sound very kosher, he then goes and pulls up the alignment stuff to try and show that he is playing lawful good correctly or in this case playing lawful correctly, but alignments aren't supposed to dictate our actions or be strait jackets, they're supposed to be based on how our characters act, but this isn't true in practice.
This raises my personal opinion as the poster-child of why YOU don't like alignment, and why YOU think that it adds nothing to the game…
It is factual that your post exemplifies that it has added nothing to the game that you couldn't already do without alignment except an argument, which you felt compelled to try and justify within the rules to say that you were playing it correctly.
Hear you are saying I am wrong...
And BTW, I did not bring up the rules to try and justify anything but how and why I have the opinion that I do...
I've presented reasons why alignment doesn't really do anything.
Yes, you provided reasons, not opinions...
You haven't presented much beyond a real life example of alignment causing a pointless disagreement between you and another game player (thanks for that by the way, this way I don't have to use a hypothetical, I can just point and say "Here we have exhibit A").
Opinions do not need justification. It would be a different conversation if I had claimed that my opinion was fact or RAW...
And the only disagreements I've had with other posters in this thread, is when they tell me alignment does not work that way or have taken my posts to mean or say something that they are not or did not...
It would appear that, with your example, it didn't help to deepen your character as you presented it. If anything it made the character feel less real while reading it, less like the character was making a reasoned choice and more a check and balance vs his alignment axis.
And if you read my original post, you’ll note (as I have explained in a later post) that I never said what his answer to the guards would be, only that it was a conundrum to the character...
Explain to me what alignment adds to character development that is not present in literally every other form of storytelling?
For one, this thread is about how we use or do not use alignment, specifically in Pathfinder, not other game systems, and talk of how they work or do not work with or without alignment is irrelevant. What IS relevant, is how and/or why you personally use or do not use alignment (the why does not actually matter unless you are trying to claim that your opinion is anything but your opinion)...
This entire thread is why I throw Alignment out the window and use a Karma and Reputation system. I highly suggest it.
Hmmm.. When Aelryinth misundertood my post as saying that Protection From Evil would prevent forced alignment change, he asked me cite the rules... And yet, he now explicetly ignores the rules of Infernal Healing to say that the spell has an effect on alignment.... How odd...
Hmm. When Lemmy misunderstood my post about Infernal Healing and cited the rules saying Infernal Healing specifically stated that using the spell on someone else has no effect on the target of the spell, he was specifically ignoring the fact that it's an Evil spell, and casting Evil spells is an Evil act and will affect THE CASTER'S alignment over time, which is what I was talking about. How odd.
==============================
re: what Deadman said. It's been the ruling for YEARS. I'd personally like to see the ruling where using Evil magic is NOT an Evil deed.
As for the target, the effect on alignment for them is psychological. The power of Evil has now healed them. Whether you like it or not, you're going to start associating Evil with healing, and if it's the only thing around, you're going to use it when you need it, and it's going to break down any resistance to 'it's Evil' over time, until you completely justify its use.
But its an Evil spell, casting it is an Evil act, and it has ramifications. It's a tool of temptation and seduction. And a really good one, judging by how much non-Evil people want to use it.
Which begs the question why there isn't an angelic equivalent...
==Aelryinth
This entire thread is why I throw Alignment out the window and use a Karma and Reputation system. I highly suggest it.
So, I gather you threw out Holy/Unholy/Axiomatic/Anarchic out the window, since they are tied to the Alignment system? And got rid of the alignment subtypes on outsiders, too?
Just curious.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This raises my personal opinion as the poster-child of why YOU don't like alignment, and why YOU think that it adds nothing to the game…
Yep. You have a very high opinion of opinions so I imagine you should have no problems with this since I'm not calling your interpretation of alignment wrong at all, but using the opinion you have intentionally inserted into a group conversation as a an example in the group conversation.
Opinions do not need justification.
To have value they do. But again, the value of your opinion is irrelevant to my point. Merely that you hold that opinion is the beginning and end of that point.
I never said what his answer to the guards would be, only that it was a conundrum to the character...
Again, I said the answer didn't matter. It was your description of why there was a conundrum in the first place.
What IS relevant, is how and/or why you personally use or do not use alignment (the why does not actually matter unless you are trying to claim that your opinion is anything but your opinion)...
The why actually does, because saying what one does or does not without reason is useless. It leads to nothing. Your commentary is very relevant to the very reason one would or would not.
...
...
...
...
...
...
This...is...fun... :D
This entire thread is why I throw Alignment out the window and use a Karma and Reputation system. I highly suggest it.So, I gather you threw out Holy/Unholy/Axiomatic/Anarchic out the window, since they are tied to the Alignment system? And got rid of the alignment subtypes on outsiders, too?
Just curious.
==Aelryinth
Quite. Took a little re-working, but it was actually worth it. Got rid of alignment arguments at the table.
Basically, took Law and Chaos out of the mix, gave a Good and Evil scale (+100 to -100) with varying degrees of good (every 25 'points' up or down the scale), and use Fame and Infamy tickers with the reputation.
Granted, I rarely run Golarion anymore. Been working on a high-sci-fantasy setting that's very much a Magic vs Science theme. Alignment just doesn't work for my homebrew.
|
|
but using the opinion you have intentionally inserted into a group conversation as a an example in the group conversation.
Using it to say "hey look at how silly this interpretation is! Don't you know alignment does not work that way? It is supposed to work like this..." is inserting it into the conversation as a negative example of how you feel about alignment overall, and if you had just disagreed with me, and stated how you interpret what the rules of alignment say and mean without pointing and laughing at mine, we would not be having this conversation...
You can justify what you wrote until your fingers fall off from all the typing, but whether you meant to or not, you ridiculed my opinion...
So instead of flagging your post and moving on, I thought I’d very politely inform you that your post was very mean-spirited.
You may disagree with my opinion, you may even think that my opinion is silly, but don't point to it as an example of everything you think is wrong with alignment... Quote it, perhaps tell me you disagree with it, say how you personally view alignment, and move on...
I'll say it again; you could have made you point without using my opinion in a negative way to illustrate your point, pure and simple.
This...is...fun... :D
I'm glad you're finding this so amusing...
But this WHOLE exchange (which will probably get deleted in the morning) could have been avoided, or at the very least, nipped in the bud when I first said something to you about your initial post...
i had someone get mad at my lawful good monk for not trying to stop the party from attacking the village. apparently, replying "we're stuck out in the woods and the only resources besides berries and water for miles is that town filled with people who want to kill us, so attacking the village is a great idea for anyone wanting to not die.(I was using non-lethal damage and diplomacy checks to make people run while this was happening)" was not good enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
also digital elf, you seem as uncompromising as your original example seems to make lawful good people to be.
|
|
re: what Deadman said. It's been the ruling for YEARS. I'd personally like to see the ruling where using Evil magic is NOT an Evil deed.
In fairness, if you're of the RAW camp that feels that creator opinions aren't relevant and you don't use Golarion...there's nothing in the actual core rules to suggest this (at least not directly).
So...in a non-Goarion setting, you're on pretty solid footing to argue that ruling it as a non-Evil act isn't even a House Rule, just a rules interpretation. And a pretty straightforward one.
Personally, I favor going with what the folks at Paizo state as the RAI in most cases, but I can see why some folks go the other way.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using it to say "hey look at how silly this interpretation is! Don't you know alignment does not work that way? It is supposed to work like this..." is inserting it into the conversation as a negative example of how you feel about alignment overall, and if you had just disagreed with me, and stated how you interpret what the rules of alignment say and mean without pointing and laughing at mine, we would not be having this conversation...
Please don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about how alignment does or doesn't work barring that alignment specifically notes that it is supposed to be derivative not dictating (which y'know, alignment actually says) when I was agreeing with Lemmy.
Post my agreement with Lemmy, my point thereafter had and has since had no interest in wrong, right, playstyle, or anything else. It was an observation and demonstration (with your help I might add, thank you for volunteering) as to why alignment as some sort of pseudo-mechanic creates problems in the game where none would otherwise exist, yet serves little to no purpose as it doesn't expand a character's potential but in most cases actively limits them in practice as to how complex their persona can be, while other RPGs and mediums have clearly not needed an alignment system to create compelling characters since the dawn of fantasy/fiction.
You can justify what you wrote until your fingers fall off from all the typing, but whether you meant to or not, you ridiculed my opinion...
Except you forget the most important part. I didn't.
So instead of flagging your post and moving on, I thought I’d very politely inform you that your post was very mean-spirited.
I'm very well aware of the spirit of my post and it was not mean, it was academic. Though you may like to think so, it wasn't about you, so much as what you demonstrated. Again, I don't actually care about your opinion because you have repeatedly declared that you are neither interested in discussing your opinion nor do you believe that opinions should be grounded in anything. As a result, I care about your opinion about as much as I care what your favorite color is (here's a hint - I don't).
You may disagree with my opinion, you may even think that my opinion is silly, but don't point to it as an example of everything you think is wrong with alignment... Quote it, perhaps tell me you disagree with it, say how you personally view alignment, and move on...
Nothing that I've said has any bearing on how I personally view alignment beyond my agreement with Lemmy was was a single short paragraph in a string of posts. Again, I don't care what your view on alignment is beyond being a reference for another point about alignment from a completely different direction.
I'll say it again; you could have made you point without using my opinion in a negative way to illustrate your point, pure and simple.
Well, no, I couldn't. My point hinged on what you brought to this public and cross-posting group conversation. If you do not want people actually referencing things that you have said in the conversation that you have said them in, perhaps you should re-evaluate what you are doing in the conversation in the first place.
Your back and forth between Lemmy, combined with your anecdotes, combined with my own questions and points concerning the value of having an alignment system in this game, which hinges greatly on your posts as the starting point and public example of a recorded disconnect that has added nothing to the game that was not already there without the alignment system. For some reason beyond the scope of my admittedly limited understanding of human nature, you have taken this usage of your own public declarations and anecdotes in a conversation to extend the conversation and have intended to fabricate it into some sort of witch hunt or crusade against you and your self-claimed groundless opinions, which just doesn't make much sense to me. Especially since I have clarified thrice now that I don't give two coppers as to whether you or Lemmy was right or wrong as far as my actual points were concerned after the fact.
It is my current belief that you just desire to feel oppressed or persecuted for some reason, as when I explained in greater detail my point as to why many people see more harm than good in the alignment system of the game, instead of explaining what value the alignment system had that would make amends for its damage that it causes to our games and our very community, you have instead gone on rant after rant about how I'm somehow being "mean" to you by acknowledging what you have said and discussing it further.
Flag my posts as you will, DigitalElf, but false-flagging is frowned upon too. If you cannot, or will not, engage in a rational discussion about this mechanic, its usage, and its value, and get angry when the things you have publicly said are then discussed in the same topic, you should probably not bother, or at least be willing to discuss your public declarations further if they have been somehow edited or misrepresented from what you originally said. I have done neither and so I believe your incessant rage is bordering on harassment at this point.
I would much prefer to either get back to the point I was making using your publicly announced opinion to the rest of the thread who are interested in a discussion or to hear your clarification that addresses my point and concerns. Far moreso than I want to hear you diminish the value of your opinion by calling it baseless while shouting "opinion" "opinion" over and over like it was some sort of sacred badge that made your publicly declared thoughts exempt from discussion in the same public discussion you declared them in.
Good day sir or madam.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
re: what Deadman said. It's been the ruling for YEARS. I'd personally like to see the ruling where using Evil magic is NOT an Evil deed.In fairness, if you're of the RAW camp that feels that creator opinions aren't relevant and you don't use Golarion...there's nothing in the actual core rules to suggest this (at least not directly).
So...in a non-Goarion setting, you're on pretty solid footing to argue that ruling it as a non-Evil act isn't even a House Rule, just a rules interpretation. And a pretty straightforward one.
Personally, I favor going with what the folks at Paizo state as the RAI in most cases, but I can see why some folks go the other way.
The problem with using creator opinions is that the creators have different and often conflicting opinions, either with each other or with what the actual rules state.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
re: what Deadman said. It's been the ruling for YEARS. I'd personally like to see the ruling where using Evil magic is NOT an Evil deed.In fairness, if you're of the RAW camp that feels that creator opinions aren't relevant and you don't use Golarion...there's nothing in the actual core rules to suggest this (at least not directly).
So...in a non-Goarion setting, you're on pretty solid footing to argue that ruling it as a non-Evil act isn't even a House Rule, just a rules interpretation. And a pretty straightforward one.
Personally, I favor going with what the folks at Paizo state as the RAI in most cases, but I can see why some folks go the other way.
The problem with using creator opinions is that the creators have different and often conflicting opinions, either with each other or with what the actual rules state.
To further complicate things, many creators can't even be bothered to stay consistant or non-cntradictory with their own writing. It goes beyond things like 'summoning demons is neither evil nor good' getting published in one book and then 'summoning demons is totally evil' getting published in another book. Andy Collins and Skip Williams basically had no idea how the whole thing worked and didn't much care. They just changed their possitions to suit the moment because reasons. And 3x suffered for it. Not so much at the table. But forum arguments become kind of a circle jerk when quotes from books and the sage say two different things but are both written by the same dude. It was almost like they were trolling us. Pathfinder hasn't made any steps to improve the communities snow ball fights on good n' evil either.
I always have a new appoach and good intentions walking into these threads. But I always walk away from them them feeling like a junky.
|
|
The problem with using creator opinions is that the creators have different and often conflicting opinions, either with each other or with what the actual rules state.
I did say that I understood why some people felt that way. :)
Though I do feel that in this case, the Champions of Purity thing makes it a bit more simple to divine the general opinion than usual...
|
|
I didn't.
Usually, in a polite setting, when one person says something, and another takes offence to the remark, the person making said remark, will more often than not, offer up an apology (unless of course, the remark was intended to offend that person).
I know that whenever I say something on these boards and someone says "Hey! Not cool dude." my post history shows that I sincerely apologize (first) and then offer an explanation of why I said what I did, or what prompted me to say what I did in the first place.
Did I expect too much from you? Would it have been so awful to, at the very least, acknowledge that even though you don't think or believe you said anything wrong, that perhaps, just perhaps, you might have inadvertently done so, and thus offer an apology?
You may have thought you were only adding to the conversation by holding my views up as an example, but I very clearly had an issue with the way in which you did it.
Quoting me and posting your disagreement is one thing, but I thought you took it a step too far... I mean the back and forth exchange with Lemmy and the few others who posted their disagreement with my interpretation of LG did not end up like this has.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except you forget the most important part. I didn't.Usually, in a polite setting, when one person says something, and another takes offence to the remark, the first person, unless the remark was intended to offend that person, will offer up an apology.
I know that whenever I say something on these boards and someone says "Hey! Not cool dude." my post history shows that I sincerely apologize (first) and then offer an explanation of why I said what I did, or what prompted me to say what I did in the first place.
Did I expect too much? Would it have been so awful to, at the very least, acknowledge that even though you don't think or believe you said anything wrong, that perhaps, just perhaps, you might inadvertently had?
Frankly sir, I must very vehemently disagree with you. Of course, we should all be polite to one another. But there are things you should not apologize for, regardless of who it offends. A well constructed criticism is one of those things. In a debate being passive aggressive is, in my opinion, annoying but also a little insulting. We should not be attcking each other. But we most certainly should be attacking the possition of the opposition in the debate (in an honest and well reasoned way). It is just respectful and plain good form.
That said, the debate is becoming about your feelings. That is a derail. If you still feel dejected than perhaps a private conversation would be best.
|
|
there are things you should not apologize for, regardless of who it offends
If I inadvertently offend anyone, regardless of the setting, with my words or actions, and that person makes it known to me that I have offended them, even if I do not think I have said or done anything offensive, I will offer a genuine, sincere apology to all persons involved.
In fact, you're absolutely right, this has been a major derail, and I apologize for my part in that. Any further discussion between myself and Ashiel in this thread about our "disagreement" will contain spoiler tags in any of my posts from this point on...
Aelryinth, again... If you're saying that casting [Evil] spells is what makes the caster Evil, then by the same logic, casting [Good] spells make the caster Good. Saying that the target or caster will associate healing with Evil and will now use Evil every time he has a problem has no rules basis what-so-ever. If that happens is simply because the player decided to roleplay it that way. Makes as much sense as saying that every target healed by CLW will take levels in Cleric.
If you're saying it's the infernal energy of IH that makes the caster Evil, then I'd like a rules' citation. Also you explicitly mentioned thst Evil energy affects people's alignment in your copy of the Asmodeus' post.
(And there is no rule saying that casting [Evil] spells is an Evil action. That's a setting-specific rule, much like Clerics having to worship a specific deity in Golarion).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment threads never change, people. We all should know better.
It's also why I am very picky about situations where I refer to alignment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I inadvertently offend anyone, regardless of the setting, with my words or actions, and that person makes it known to me that I have offended them, even if I do not think I have said or done anything offensive, I will offer a genuine, sincere apology to all persons involved.
Why?
You're essentially admitting you've done something wrong, when you know you haven't done anything wrong.
I don't know how people can live like that man, especially today when the so many people both online and in real life LOOK for things to be offended by.
At some point you have to tell people to suck it up.
{. . .}
If I am playing a Lawful Good character, and my character is hiding escaped slaves in his basement, and the city guard comes pounding upon his door demanding to know if he's seen them, well, the answer is not so easy for him as a character (or me as a player for that matter)...
It shouldn't be so hard to decide that betraying the slaves to the city guard(*) would be more evil than lying to the city guard. (That said, a character's cultural upbringing certainly could interfere with the ability to make a proper judgment in this case.)
(*)This is, of course, assuming that the city guard is here to round up the escaped slaves to send them back into slavery, not just to check up on them.
Of course, it is possible to try to use a Diabolical culture's own strictures against it:
City Guard: "Some slaves ran away last night, and we're pretty sure some terrorists busted 'em out. You seen 'em?"
Chelish Oracle with Legalistic Curse and dip in Paladin: "Can't say that I have." Actually, I have seen them, since I helped bust them out, but I can't say that to the guards.
DM: Fortunately, the city guard doesn't seem to be sophisticated enough to cast Detect Thoughts, and your improvised bluff seems to have done the trick without raising an eyebrow. Not only that, you managed to avoid triggering the drawback of your Legalistic Curse.
Aelryinth, again... If you're saying that casting [Evil] spells is what makes the caster Evil, then by the same logic, casting [Good] spells make the caster Good. Saying that the target or caster will associate healing with Evil and will now use Evil every time he has a problem has no rules basis what-so-ever. If that happens is simply because the player decided to roleplay it that way. Makes as much sense as saying that every target healed by CLW will take levels in Cleric.
If you're saying it's the infernal energy of IH that makes the caster Evil, then I'd like a rules' citation. Also you explicitly mentioned thst Evil energy affects people's alignment in your copy of the Asmodeus' post.
(And there is no rule saying that casting [Evil] spells is an Evil action. That's a setting-specific rule, much like Clerics having to worship a specific deity in Golarion).
And yes, the spirit of the rules is that using Good spells is doing good and will slowly change your alignment.
Of course, if you use Good Spells to Evil ends, it does nothing for you.I've repeatedly noted that the change to the target is a psychological one, which means 'not covered by rules'. It assumes how people think. And getting healing when you want it, even if from an Evil source, is bound to corrupt people. It's a trope. Stop fighting it. Mass conversion of people, the corruption of the innocent in wide numbers, and the infiltration of taint into a society aren't covered by hard and fast rules, either...yet they still happen in the setting and the game.
This spell is one of the ways it can very easily do that.
It's a RAW citation in champions of purity, as noted above, and has been noted in many posts and rules by the dev team that using Evil magic is doing Evil, and doing Evil will affect your alignment.
I'm just incredulous at the very idea that using Evil magic is a neutral thing. I could maybe see it with negative energy, but you're using Evil, and that's not Evil? The very decision to do so is embracing it. It's not a neutral decision, regardless of the results.
but, meh. You can house rule that people can play with the most corrupt energies in creation without consequence, but, you know, that flies in the face of pretty much every trope whatsoever.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Why?
Because it takes so little of my time, and almost no energy to do so. And if the person is genuinely offended, my apology actually means something to them, and more often than not, that simple act leaves them feeling better... If the person was just looking to be offended, I'm out what, a few seconds of my time??
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny you say that, because there are plenty of tropes and examples in media that defy this idea that pulling power from an evil source makes you more evil.
Ghost Rider is a superhero. Powered by Hell. Sure, you can call him an anti-hero, but he's definitely now outright EVIL as you're suggesting he should be by using his powers.
The protagonist of Blue Exorcist, Rin Okamura, is the son of Satan, and the inheritor of his powers. He's a good guy.
Riku, of Kingdom Hearts, uses spooky dark powers of eeeevil. He's unambiguously a good guy, once he realizes he was being a t@*& and shakes off the mind control.
I coud go on, but I think this TvTropes page makes my point for me.
Beware the argument "Because tropes" because there's ALWAYS an equal and opposite trope in play as well.
Why?Because it takes so little of my time, and almost no energy to do so. And if the person is genuinely offended, my apology actually means something to them, and more often than not, that simple act leaves them feeling better... If the person was just looking to be offended, I'm out what, a few seconds of my time??
It's not your job to police other people's feelings, and it belittles your own opinions and identity when you say something innocuous and feel the need to take back said opinion because someone got offended (or pretended to be offended).
Apologizing for making a a logical argument is not a good thing. It's not healthy for you, since you're becoming a doormat, and it's not healthy for the other person, because at some point they need to grow up and realize that, yes, their opinion is NOT the only one that matters, and other people can rightly argue against it.
Aelriynth, I'm not house-ruling anything. You are. There are no rules saying that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is an Evil action.
If it does or doesn't fit any trope is irrelevant, because tropes are role-playing choices, not rules. There is nothig wrong with using or descarding tropes, but they shouldn't be presented as rules.
In fact, one easily say that using IH is putting [Evil] energies to work for a [Good] cause, therefore actually reedemin said energy or, at very least, spending the energy from whatever Evil fuels the spell, therefore making it weaker. It has the psychological effect of showing thar even Evil can be redeemed, so we should be more merciful, accepting and forgiving.
That's as valid and make as much sense as your idea of IH inspiring people to use Evil to solve all their problems and therefore becoming evil themselves.