| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, I agree with your assessment that it's not evil since it doesn't have the evil descriptor.
Second, please be aware of language that has offensive baggage such as a certain r word you use above. I suspect you mean no offense, but it's still important to be aware of what you're actually saying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That your GM is right and it's a spell that should have the Evil descriptor.
Actually forget that noise. Your GM is right in any changes he makes to the rules, he should however not be capricious in doing so.
In this case, he's picking up a ball that Paizo dropped on this spell.
You on the other hand should leave the game if you can't give your GM the respect not to call him the kind of names I'd expect a third grader to use.
Or they should not have used the word 'Unholy' in the description. But yeah the GM has the final call.
Contributor
|
I ruled something similar, given its source (Wrath of the Righteous, in an article on demonic magic) and the "unholy" lightning it creates.
However, by RAW, it does not have the evil descriptor. (I second the whole "Paizo dropping the ball" statement. Although I'm guessing Jason Nelson didn't expect players to be clamoring for spells from his article.)
So, everyone's right! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like the spell is from an AP; I'm not familiar with the combat in question but I suspect it was made specifically for the use of an evil BBEG cleric.
That being said, no evil descriptor means it's not necessarily evil. There'd likely be a variant that deals holy damage for nonevil characters.
Not evil. Flamestrike (which is somewhat similar) is neither good nor evil.
Also, probably doesn't matter because the spell is pretty bad anyway.
|
If you want to see pedantry...
It's a divine spell. If it's granted by divine powers, how can it be not be holy (defined as connected to a god or a religion)?
Conversely unholy doesn't necessarily mean evil, it can be defined as "not showing respect for a god or a religion". By this definition all arcane spells could be considered to be "unholy".
Not Evil.
No descriptor no dice.
"Iomedae champion of all that is good and just, grant me, your humblest of servants unholy lightning that I might render unto thine enemies a good lashing!"
Based mostly on the above phrase the word unholy in the spell description is at odds with it's RAW lack of the evil descriptor.
It is my opinion that if the lightning can be called unholy then the spell should have the evil descriptor or if it's not intended to be an evil spell that the word unholy should be changed to divine.
Either of those fixes would seem like perfectly reasonable house rules to me. And your GM is not being pedantic, consistency is in the details.
- Torger
*Edit* just noticed this is in the rules forum, so yes, the RAW answer is that the spell is not evil. That doesn't stop it from being poorly written and in need of a change though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inheritor's Smite, does not have the good descriptor.
Is it a good act to cast the spell?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to see pedantry...
It's a divine spell. If it's granted by divine powers, how can it be not be holy (defined as connected to a god or a religion)?
Conversely unholy doesn't necessarily mean evil, it can be defined as "not showing respect for a god or a religion". By this definition all arcane spells could be considered to be "unholy".
Generally I would agree. However the game does consistently use "holy" to refer to things relating to good-aligned divine power and "unholy" to refer to things relating to evil-aligned divine power, so that usage informs the intent of this spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inheritor's Smite, does not have the good descriptor.
Is it a good act to cast the spell?
Since it doesn't have a good descriptor, not by the rules,no.
Besides, Inquisitors and clerics can cast it. They don't have to be good. They could just be channeling the power of being a righteousness a******.
OP: Assuming for the moment that your GM is using [alignment]=an act of that alignment (which afaik is how the devs say it works, but to my knowledge isn't actualy stated in the CRB), then no, that spell is not evil aligned.
That still doesn't excuse you being incredibly disrespectful of your GM. The GM gets the final call on how your game works.
They doesn't mean that they have the right to make the game unfun for the players (anything the GM does should be done with the group's fun as the goal in mind), but in this case saying "The rules don't explicitly state that the spell is evil, but the flavour of the spell implies that it is, so I am saying it is evil" sounds like a reasonable ruling for your GM to make.
If you disagree with the GM's ruling, a mature way of handling it is talking to the GM about it. Going to a forum on the internet and yelling "my gm said something i dont like he went full retard NEVER GO FULL RETARD" is never an appropriate way of handling a disagreement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Energy Drain, a spell that uses negative energy (the same stuff that brings the dead back to walk around and be commanded by whomever) doesn't even have the evil descriptor.
Your GM doesn't have his priorities straight if he is fixating on a mediocre damage spell.
No evil descriptor, thus not evil. Kinda like how a spear does Piercing damage, not slashing. No room for interpretation in my opinion.
Also, unholy doesn't specifically mean evil. Suggest to him to look up what it means. It can be used to mean evil, but really is related to 'not holy'...
Anyone who isn't religious is unholy.
Are they all evil?
*drops the mic*
It's not an evil spell because it lacks the [Evil] descriptor. Thus, there's no specific prohibition against a good cleric or a neutral cleric of a good god using it per se. So, if your question is "can my good cleric cast this spell?" then the answer is yes.
However, if you're asking "is it an evil act to cast this spell?" then let me point you to this:
In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or armor class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
If it is an [Evil] spell or not, it still may be an act that is not in accordance with your indicated alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*picks the mic back up*
I got into an argument recently with players at my table... I had to convince THEM that dealing damage did not mean you were being evil.
Evil spells have the descriptor for a reason: primarily to see if they qualify for overcoming damage reduction.
This spell, not having the Evil descriptor, cannot be used to overcome damage reduction: evil.
If your DM rules otherwise, he is ruling against published material, and although it is his right to do so, he is not correct if the thinks the published spell is evil.
One of my players is convinced that magic missile should be evil, because it can't be used to subdue opponents, and kills most things it hits (it is usually a 'finishing move' on wounded opponents).
Try this on your GM, tell him to look up Divine and Unholy. They are NOT synonymous with Good and Evil. They basically mean Godly and Not Godly... Unholy is no more Evil than Divine is Good. Shiva the destroyer is Divine... Satan is Divine...
Divine: Of, from, or like a God
Satan: Fallen angel, from heaven, created by God.
*gently puts mic down again and backs out of the room*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is an [Evil] spell or not, it still may be an act that is not in accordance with your indicated alignment.
Doesn't seem any more evil then burning someone to death with a column of divine fire.
*picks the mic back up*
I got into an argument recently with players at my table... I had to convince THEM that dealing damage did not mean you were being evil.
Evil spells have the descriptor for a reason: primarily to see if they qualify for overcoming damage reduction.
This spell, not having the Evil descriptor, cannot be used to overcome damage reduction: evil.
To me, the primary reason is to determine if a good cleric or a neutral cleric of a good diety can cast a spell is the primary reason for its appearance. Either way, though, it's a mechanical question with a clear answer.
If your DM rules otherwise, he is ruling against published material, and although it is his right to do so, he is not correct if the thinks the published spell is evil.
One of my players is convinced that magic missile should be evil, because it can't be used to subdue opponents, and kills most things it hits (it is usually a 'finishing move' on wounded opponents).
Try this on your GM, tell him to look up Divine and Unholy. They are NOT synonymous with Good and Evil. They basically mean Godly and Not Godly... Unholy is no more Evil than Divine is Good. Shiva the destroyer is Divine... Satan is Divine...
Divine: Of, from, or like a God
Satan: Fallen angel, from heaven, created by God.*gently puts mic down again and backs out of the room*
Here's where I would politely disagree with you. Regardless of what the words mean in the real world, the word "unholy" has a clear definition in the actual game that trumps it. It's used repeatedly and consistently to mean a divine evil. Considering that it's clearly defined in the game as something different than what it is in the real world, I'd argue the real-world definition isn't relevant.
Actual divine ingame means that it comes from a god (gods themselves can be good, bad, neutral, etc). Holy and unholy are basically another word for positive energy and negative energy really that have the "good" and "evil" labeled onto them.
Divine just means it comes from the gods, that's it. its the source.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The [Evil] descriptor isn't a description of an actual ethical value judgement. That's where a lot of people have trouble understanding the seemingly arbitrary nature by which some spells are designated as Evil.
For example, Infernal Healing is Evil just because it uses demon blood in the casting, regardless of the fact that someone had to kill a direct agent of evil in order to obtain the reagent. Demons are anthropomorphized Evil itself, therefor demon blood is actually made of Evil, and using it in a spell is Evil even if it is used to save the life of an innocent.
To contrast, Dominate Person completely removes another creature's autonomy and disallows it from being able to make its own choices. Magic Jar is even worse. Ethically speaking, these spells are vile, but they are not considered Evil.
The reason for that is because in Golarion, Good and Evil are actual forces with actual divine agents who advance those causes.
In terms of alignment based spell descriptors, think of them like a Cleric's Aura. A neutral cleric who worships and evil god still registers as Evil. That's because of the god, not because of the cleric.
When a person casts a spell with the Evil descriptor, it isn't evil because of what the caster is using it for, it is Evil because of some sort of outside influence.
In ethics, morality is determined by actions. It is the destination, and the road chosen to get there that are important.
With Alignment, morality is determined by intention and inherent values. It is the starting point that is important, not where the road goes.
So, to answer OPs question, the spell isn't Evil. Even if it is used to make a baby casserole, it still isn't Capital E Evil because the power doesn't come from an evil source.
RAW is not evil, just like Shadow Barbs. Your GM can houserule it as he wishes tho.
*picks the mic back up*
I got into an argument recently with players at my table... I had to convince THEM that dealing damage did not mean you were being evil.
Evil spells have the descriptor for a reason: primarily to see if they qualify for overcoming damage reduction.
This spell, not having the Evil descriptor, cannot be used to overcome damage reduction: evil.
To me, the primary reason is to determine if a good cleric or a neutral cleric of a good diety can cast a spell is the primary reason for its appearance. Either way, though, it's a mechanical question with a clear answer.
Here's where I would politely disagree with you. Regardless of what the words mean in the real world, the word "unholy" has a clear definition in the actual game that trumps it. It's used repeatedly and consistently to mean a divine evil. Considering that it's clearly defined in the game as something different than what it is in the real world, I'd argue the real-world definition isn't relevant.If your DM rules otherwise, he is ruling against published material, and although it is his right to do so, he is not correct if the thinks the published spell is evil.
One of my players is convinced that magic missile should be evil, because it can't be used to subdue opponents, and kills most things it hits (it is usually a 'finishing move' on wounded opponents).
Try this on your GM, tell him to look up Divine and Unholy. They are NOT synonymous with Good and Evil. They basically mean Godly and Not Godly... Unholy is no more Evil than Divine is Good. Shiva the destroyer is Divine... Satan is Divine...
Divine: Of, from, or like a God
Satan: Fallen angel, from heaven, created by God.*gently puts mic down again and backs out of the room*
I was not aware of this... citation?
Does this mean any spell using the word 'unholy' has to be classified as 'evil'?I'm aware of the fact that they use "holy" and "unholy" a lot, but wasn't aware it was synonymous with "good" and "evil"...
I'm starting to feel like an idiot reading what I wrote, if you are correct, please point me to the book/page where this is clarified if you can.
Let's forget about the lack of descriptors, the spell contradicts itself in it's effect and text.
It's a personal range 20 ft spread. But that spread is useless, as it attacks a single target once per round with a 15 ft range.
Not to mention whats the Fort save for?
Tell him, without a descriptor, it is not evil in it's self, but could be used for evil.
This is true of any spell.
Or a hammer.
I was not aware of this... citation?
Does this mean any spell using the word 'unholy' has to be classified as 'evil'?
I'm aware of the fact that they use "holy" and "unholy" a lot, but wasn't aware it was synonymous with "good" and "evil"...I'm starting to feel like an idiot reading what I wrote, if you are correct, please point me to the book/page where this is clarified if you can.
It's not any formal rule. They just use the term "unholy" to specifically refer to evil divine magic. Like, a lot. Examples:
An unholy weapon is imbued with unholy power. This power makes the weapon evil-aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction.
You call up unholy power to smite your enemies. The power takes the form of a cold, cloying miasma of greasy darkness. Only good and neutral (not evil) creatures are harmed by the spell.
Note, also, it's an [Evil] spell and a clerical one.
A malevolent darkness surrounds the subjects, protecting them from attacks, granting them resistance to spells cast by good creatures, and weakening good creatures when they strike the subjects.
Again, it's an [Evil] spell and a clerical one.
This archetype was created with evil PCs in mind. However, you can easily use it for evil NPCs as well. This archetype is typically only used by characters that worship Asmodeus, but some have taken root in the blasphemous service of other devil princes and demon lords.
Unholy Symbols An unholy symbol is like a holy symbol except that it focuses negative energy and is used by evil clerics (or by neutral clerics who want to cast evil spells or channel negative energy).
This spell imbues a flask (1 pint) of water with negative energy, turning it into unholy water. Unholy water damages good outsiders the way holy water damages undead and evil outsiders.
So, consistently throughout the ruleset they use the term "unholy" to mean "evil divine magic". It's quite different from the real-world definition of "unholy" as being, well, "not holy".
I was not aware of this... citation?
Does this mean any spell using the word 'unholy' has to be classified as 'evil'?
I'm aware of the fact that they use "holy" and "unholy" a lot, but wasn't aware it was synonymous with "good" and "evil"...I'm starting to feel like an idiot reading what I wrote, if you are correct, please point me to the book/page where this is clarified if you can.
It's not any formal rule. They just use the term "unholy" to specifically refer to evil divine magic. Like, a lot. Examples:
An unholy weapon is imbued with unholy power. This power makes the weapon evil-aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction.They specifically state the weapons alignment here. No need to interpret meaning.
You call up unholy power to smite your enemies. The power takes the form of a cold, cloying miasma of greasy darkness. Only good and neutral (not evil) creatures are harmed by the spell.Note, also, it's an [Evil] spell and a clerical one.
They label the spell with the 'evil' descriptor, no need to interpret meaning.
A malevolent darkness surrounds the subjects, protecting them from attacks, granting them resistance to spells cast by good creatures, and weakening good creatures when they strike the subjects.Again, it's an [Evil] spell and a clerical one.
They label the spell with the 'evil' descriptor, no need to interpret meaning.
This archetype was created with evil PCs in mind. However, you can easily use it for evil NPCs as well. This archetype is typically only used by characters that worship Asmodeus, but some have taken root in the blasphemous service of other devil princes and demon lords.Unholy Symbols An unholy symbol is like a holy symbol except that it focuses negative energy and is used by evil clerics (or by neutral clerics who want to cast evil spells or channel negative energy).Can be used by Neutral Clerics to channel negative energy, which as we know from Energy Drain and Harm, is NOT evil (for some reason).
This spell imbues a flask (1 pint) of water with negative energy, turning it into unholy water. Unholy water damages good outsiders the way...
Partial quote, I won't comment, unsure what it says next.
None of the above examples explicitly states that the use of the term 'unholy' grants the associated spell/item the 'evil' property... The fact that those spells are classified as 'evil' is circumstantial, I still don't see anything stating 'unholy'='evil'.
It's understandable that one would associate one with the other, but are not actually specifically linked to each other, just often used together.
Regardless, the original spell isn't classified/identified as evil in the description, and thus isn't evil. The use of the 'unholy' in the spell is fluff, essentially, because there are no rules linking the word 'unholy' with the descriptor of 'evil'.
The GM has the right to change this, but then should probably alter all items, spells and abilities using the word 'unholy' to have the 'evil' property added to it, by the same logic.
I wouldn't want to comb through all the books to make these changes...
|
|
The spell does not actually do unholy damage. It does divine damage.
Compare it with Flame Strike which is neither good nor evil.
Partial quote, I won't comment, unsure what it says next.
None of the above examples explicitly states that the use of the term 'unholy' grants the associated spell/item the 'evil' property... The fact that those spells are classified as 'evil' is circumstantial, I still don't see anything stating 'unholy'='evil'.
It's understandable that one would associate one with the other, but are not actually specifically linked to each other, just often used together.
Regardless, the original spell isn't classified/identified as evil in the description, and thus isn't evil. The use of the 'unholy' in the spell is fluff, essentially, because there are no rules linking the word 'unholy' with the descriptor of 'evil'.
The GM has the right to change this, but then should probably alter all items, spells and abilities using the word 'unholy' to have the 'evil' property added to it, by the same logic.
I wouldn't want to comb through all the books to make these changes...
You're picking the discussion up halfway through about a tangent.
This particular spell does not have the [Evil] descriptor and this is not an [Evil] spell as per the mechanical rules (Good clerics can't cast it, etc.).
Casting this particular spell may or may not be an act inconsistent with a good alignment - that's a GM call. Despite using the same word, an evil alignment and a spell with the [Evil] descriptor refer to two different things.
The question at hand was if the word "unholy" used in Pathfinder means the common English definition of "something that is not holy" or if it refers to "evil divine energy". It's clear that in the text when they use the word "unholy" they mean "evil divine energy". This is explicitly NOT the same as saying "a spell with the [Evil] descriptor".
Let's forget about the lack of descriptors, the spell contradicts itself in it's effect and text.
It's a personal range 20 ft spread. But that spread is useless, as it attacks a single target once per round with a 15 ft range.
Oh, it's a horribly written spell.
The spell does not actually do unholy damage. It does divine damage.
Compare it with Flame Strike which is neither good nor evil.
^ this.
Basically, the spell has badly worded fluff (and area of effect).
The question at hand was if the word "unholy" used in Pathfinder means the common English definition of "something that is not holy"
People keep saying this. I vaguely wonder what they think a "common" English definition is.
For example, thesaurus.com lists the following as synonyms for "unholy:
unhallowed, base, blameful,corrupt, culpable, depraved, dishonest, evil, godless, guilty, heinous, immoral, impious, iniquitous, irreligious, irreverent, irreverential, profane, sinful, ungodly, unsanctified, vile
Similarly, the OED lists the primary definition as "Not holy; impious, profane, wicked:"and a secondary definition as "Awful, dreadful."
The idea "unholy" has a primary use as a neutral term is simply wrong. Unholy means evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@OP: I think you need to explain clearly what your DM is saying. Is s/he saying it's a spell that should have the Evil descriptor? Or that the way you are using it is evil? Or that you cannot cast this spell without it being evil? Be specific with what your DM is doing/saying, and why you disagree. Then people might have enough contextual information to give useful feedback.
Clearly the spell doesn't have an evil descriptor. So RAW it isn't an evil spell.
However, for those of you who point at flame strike, while both do divine damage, flame strike is not specifically called out as holy or unholy, presumably the divine power in question matches that of your deity (or yourself if you aren't a deity having person.) It is reasonable to imagine that flame strike is a aligned, but since it is always aligned 'with' you that doesn't really make any difference (good spell for good people, evil for evil etc.)
This spell calls out that it is unholy, so it is certainly different in flavor and I don't think it unreasonable for a DM to house-rule it to be an evil spell.
Also, unholy doesn't mean 'not holy' in the sense that it is not connected with a deity, unholy in the English language means sinful, wicked, evil etc.
Despite the fact that is used often I am pretty sure Unholy isnt actually a game term in the context of spells and effects. The term you are looking for is profane. As in a profane vs sacred bonus. Or Negative energy vs positive energy. Unholy is literally just a descriptive word here. That said, either its a badly placed descriptive word, or they did indeed drop the ball when writing it.
If you took out the word unholy, the spell would be an interesting if somewhat lackluster evocation spell, but would still make sense.
If you look at actual evil spells. They have far more in them then a single descriptive world to make them evil. Take this example.
Unholy Blight:You call up unholy power to smite your enemies. The power takes the form of a cold, cloying miasma of greasy darkness. Only good and neutral (not evil) creatures are harmed by the spell.
The spell deals 1d8 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d8) to a good creature (or 1d6 per caster level, maximum 10d6, to a good outsider) and causes it to be sickened for 1d4 rounds. A successful Will save reduces damage to half and negates the sickened effect. The effects cannot be negated by remove disease or heal, but remove curse is effective.
The spell deals only half damage to creatures who are neither evil nor good, and they are not sickened. Such a creature can reduce the damage by half again (down to one-quarter) with a successful Will save.
If you take the word unholy out of there, it still seems like an evil spell doesnt it? Aside from the additional description of 'cold cloying miasma of greasy darkness, the actual spell does evil sounding things, that are worse to good characters. That is an evil spell.
Honestly, if I were the gm I'd say cross the word unholy out of the description and move on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
