|
has nothin to do with what i want. i do not have any palis that use infernal. i am simply pointing out that brock made a flat statement that casting a spell with an evil discriptor is not an evil act. the evil discriptor means the spell came from an evil deity. as for the secret knowledge of vo's you can not throw it around without someway to back it up. the pali code says you can not commit an evil act, the post which was not superseded by the faq in anyway states casting a spell with the evil discriptor is not an evil act. the faq just states casting evil spells will not cause an alignment shift. while the faq may have only stated half the post it does not mean the other half the post gets tossed away.
|
Sarvei, we're in disagreement about what Mike Brock's statement actually means.
Some of us are reading the entire statement, which has multiple clauses, whereas others are only focusing on a selection of it, and ignoring the rest.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. The best answer thus far has been, "Accept that there will be Table Variation".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. I read it to say casting the spell is not a evil action, and will only cause an alignment infraction if it is against a code of conduct. And since casting Evil subtyped spells is not against the code, I will not cause a paladin to fall for it. It will have to actually be an Evil act before I will do so. A paladin using infernal healing to heal his allies does not fall at my table.
|
|
Sarvei, we're in disagreement about what Mike Brock's statement actually means.
Some of us are reading the entire statement, which has multiple clauses, whereas others are only focusing on a selection of it, and ignoring the rest.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. The best answer thus far has been, "Accept that there will be Table Variation".
What tenet is the Paladin violating by casting that spell?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. I read it to say casting the spell is not a evil action, and will only cause an alignment infraction if it is against a code of conduct. And since casting Evil subtyped spells is not against the code, I will not cause a paladin to fall for it. It will have to actually be an Evil act before I will do so. A paladin using infernal healing to heal his allies does not fall at my table.
That's certainly fine. Which is I why I indicated it was Table Variation.
But lets consider the following:
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.[/b]
That's the Paladin Code. While nowhere does it say, "you can't cast a spell with an "evil descriptor" and in PFS, the campaign leadership has been nice enough to remove the potential for an alignment infraction by simply casting a spell with an evil descriptor, I strongly feel that you are going against the Paladin's code. You are knowingly using something evil. Whether it constitutes an evil act or creates an alignment infraction is actually inconsequential.
You are doing something that is akin to consorting with evil. The spell itself is still an evil spell.
If you start allowing a Paladin to use infernal healing how far away is allowing them to animate dead as long as the undead are used for a good purpose?
It breaks their code, because a Paladin who would willingly use an evil spell, no matter the end result, is not being honorable to himself, his deity, or what being lawful good means.
|
|
the faq just states casting evil spells will not cause an alignment shift. while the faq may have only stated half the post it does not mean the other half the post gets tossed away.
Yes, it actually does. The FAQ was created to communicate what his post said. It supersedes the post. You can use the post to help you determine intent or context if you wish. But the post itself is no longer valid due to the fact it was condensed into an FAQ.
|
|
What tenet is the Paladin violating by casting that spell?Sarvei, we're in disagreement about what Mike Brock's statement actually means.
Some of us are reading the entire statement, which has multiple clauses, whereas others are only focusing on a selection of it, and ignoring the rest.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. The best answer thus far has been, "Accept that there will be Table Variation".
I believe this earlier post lays out everything nicely.
|
|
I believe this earlier post lays out everything nicely.What tenet is the Paladin violating by casting that spell?Sarvei, we're in disagreement about what Mike Brock's statement actually means.
Some of us are reading the entire statement, which has multiple clauses, whereas others are only focusing on a selection of it, and ignoring the rest.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. The best answer thus far has been, "Accept that there will be Table Variation".
Mmmm, nope. Not seeing it. IH is called out specifically as not an evil act in the FAQ, and the only thing in the Paladin entry that I saw related to this is that Paladins can't knowingly commit an evil act, and casting IH is not an evil act.
The caveat refers to the specific effect of the spell / act and how it interacts with your specific deities code of conduct. Example: Paladin of Pharasma using a scroll of Animate Dead. The spell has the evil descriptor, but the FAQ calls it not an evil act, but the effect of the spell (raising undead) is still is repugnant to Pharasma. Paladin falls. (To those who caught it, yes I know Pharasmins can't be paladins, this was a hypothetical to illustrate my point).
Nefreet, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by restricting this.
|
|
Holding Paladins to being Honorable.
It breaks the part of thier code where they have to be honorable.
Let's step aside from the Paladin argument for a second and consider alignment infraction discussions. There are so many opinions on what is evil, that you can't possibly define it 100%. From canabalism to torture and assassination to coup de grace on helpless victims. You'll find more opinions on it than you can shake a stick at.
So I say that being Honorable is equally ambiguous. And a GM has every right to declare casting an evil spell as dishonorable.
|
|
Indeed. I read it to say casting the spell is not a evil action, and will only cause an alignment infraction if it is against a code of conduct. And since casting Evil subtyped spells is not against the code, I will not cause a paladin to fall for it. It will have to actually be an Evil act before I will do so. A paladin using infernal healing to heal his allies does not fall at my table.That's certainly fine. Which is I why I indicated it was Table Variation.
But lets consider the following:
I have.
|
|
I have.Indeed. I read it to say casting the spell is not a evil action, and will only cause an alignment infraction if it is against a code of conduct. And since casting Evil subtyped spells is not against the code, I will not cause a paladin to fall for it. It will have to actually be an Evil act before I will do so. A paladin using infernal healing to heal his allies does not fall at my table.That's certainly fine. Which is I why I indicated it was Table Variation.
But lets consider the following:
Fair enough. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its these threads that further ensure I'll never play a paladin in PFS. I know that isn't a contributing statement, just a personal viewpoint.
I'll lend my voice that I think this thread has been boiled down to table variation. I'd be hesitant to allow a Paladin to use a wand of Infernal Healing in all but the most dire situations, like saving another players life and there is no other recourse or alternative to saving the players life.
However, I tend not to argue with paladins too much since they can be kind of fanatical! So if that Paladin said that they are trying to redeem this evil wand by putting it to use by saving creatures of good so they can further fight the forces of evil, I'd say "great!" and be thinking "This guy needs to find the Low Templar prestige class"
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
... it only takes an evil though for someone to detect as evil. that does not mean they are nor does it mean that they can be smited it just meant that in that moment they had an evil aura/thought or intent. ....
Could you explain this, sarvei? That's not my understanding at all I have understood that detect evil pings on a character having an evil alignment. (Or, in the case of a cleric, following an Evil-aligned god.) How does a random nasty thought set off detect evil?
Contributor
|
How about, instead of this thread continuing to revolve around and around and get nowhere, everyone agrees to disagree, expect table variation, and move on to something else? Nothing on this thread is so overwhelmingly "obvious" of an "answer" that it is going to convince anyone who feels strongly to change their mind.
This falls into the category of things that Mike Brock used to hate being forced into weighing in on, because once threads like this start demanding an official ruling, rarely is anybody happy with how that tends to work out.
Expect table variation - you might get a GM who says "no prob idk", you might get a GM who says "you lose your powers for even thinking about it", or anything in between. Accept the GM call at the table, and move on without slowing down your PFS game table.
|
|
... it only takes an evil though for someone to detect as evil. that does not mean they are nor does it mean that they can be smited it just meant that in that moment they had an evil aura/thought or intent. ....Could you explain this, sarvei? That's not my understanding at all I have understood that detect evil pings on a character having an evil alignment. (Or, in the case of a cleric, following an Evil-aligned god.) How does a random nasty thought set off detect evil?
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
Mind you, you'd still be an evil 5th level critter to show up on it..
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that this is a revolving discussion, so this'll be my last post on the matter as well. IMO there is only one obvious answer, so I recognize I'm probably unfit to keep going.
casting IH is not an evil act.
Yes, it most clearly is.
Even if you ignore the [evil] descriptor, just read the spell's description. "Devil blood", "unholy water", "detects as evil". It has more evil dripping in its flavor than Unholy Blight (which I'd also be against a multiclass Paladin casting).
You cannot in any good conscience claim that casting Infernal Healing is not an evil act.
The FAQ (and Mike's statement) do not dispute this or in any way give you a clear pass. Read the entire sentence. Don't stop at the comma, the clauses that follow it are very important.
All the FAQ does is this:
a spell doesn't violate any codes or tenets,
it doesn't count as an evil act.
That is an entirely different statement than just:
"It doesn't count as an evil act."
Normally, in Pathfinder, casting this spell over and over again would shift you to evil. Not a full on 9 on the alignment scale, but at least a 7. This FAQ was created to avoid that, .
If it's your belief that a Paladin doesn't have anything against evil, then there's absolutely no point to having those clauses there to begin with.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
... it only takes an evil though for someone to detect as evil. that does not mean they are nor does it mean that they can be smited it just meant that in that moment they had an evil aura/thought or intent. ....Could you explain this, sarvei? That's not my understanding at all I have understood that detect evil pings on a character having an evil alignment. (Or, in the case of a cleric, following an Evil-aligned god.) How does a random nasty thought set off detect evil?Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
Mind you, you'd still be an evil 5th level critter to show up on it..
Also, a random nasty thought is not evil intent. Evil intent requires that you actually intend to act on that evil thought.
In other words, it detects some one who is evil or just about to commit an alignment infraction.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There should be no table variation. No matter how distasteful you personally find it, per the rules we are bound by it is explicitly not an evil act to cast an [evil]spell. It is also neither an evil act or contrary to the paladins code to heal either yourself or another. There is little to no chance of a Paladin falling or needing to atone in most circumstances.
Now if it's a paladin of Torag showing mercy to a fallen foe, or using it as an attempted deception by masking your alignment - that's a different kettle of aquatic vertebrate.
One of the problems here is that people are conflating two distinct definitions of 'evil act'. One applies to society play and one applies to the Paladin code.
Casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is not an Evil act enough to by itself warrant removal of that character from Society play. That does not mean that it is not evil, and thus a violation of the Paladin code.
I'm against it.
Not for any alignment reasons.
It's just a damn inefficient use of build resources.
:)
(Seriously, though, losing levels to a dip just to get an off-list spell? If nothing else the Unsanctioned Knowledge feat should let you grab it. Just fluff it as part of infernal hunter training.)
-j
|
|
But let's consider the following:
Associates:
... a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code....
A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance...
Yes. Let us consider that.
While Malraine is certainly not evil, she does appear more devil than human, holds Asmodeus in the highest of regards, and does have a somewhat "fluid" morality. Sometimes she says things that a paladin could find offensive.
Atonement spells for all paladins unfortunate enough to have a Venture Captain pair them with Malraine for a field assignment!
|
|
Careful, one could say you are intentionally trying to make the Paladin at your table fall.
However unless you are truly an evil character (and therefore reported as dead at the end of the scenario) it doesn't really matter what you say, it wont impact a Paladins alignment unless he fails to respond by telling you what you said is wrong.
|
|
According to the paladin's code, lying, cheating and using poison are dishonorable. An argument could be made that a rogue who lies or cheats (uses the Bluff skill) or uses poison (perfectly legal in organized play under certain circumstances) would offend a paladin's moral code. Said paladin expressing distaste with tha behavior isn't enough; working with said rogue could cause the paladin to "fall" regardless.
In such a case, is the rogue "intentionally" trying to make the paladin fall by using the skills to which she's devoted her training?
|
|
Oh please don't. We have beaten that horse so hard into the ground it has dug it's own grave.According to the paladin's code...you might want to start a NEW thread with that topic... it is beyond the scope of the header of this thread.
Could you provide a link to that discussion, please? Instead of starting a new thread, I'll head there and read that one. Thanks.
|
|
Could you provide a link to that discussion, please? Instead of starting a new thread, I'll head there and read that one. Thanks.Oh please don't. We have beaten that horse so hard into the ground it has dug it's own grave.According to the paladin's code...you might want to start a NEW thread with that topic... it is beyond the scope of the header of this thread.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
For PFS where the paladin has NO control over their party members, ability to pick his party members, or ability to hold them back really, making the paladin responsible is beyond jerk dming and into language not allowed on the boards or legal in vegas.
Just assume that the society covers the occasional cost of living atonement and move on. A pfs paladin already has a hard enough time maintaining their own soul, much less their parties.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I find most disturbing is that the campaign leadership did the player base a major solid, by removing the ambiguity of what constitutes an alignment shift action. Apparently there was enough ambiguity with spells with an evil descriptor, that some GM's felt that casting an evil spell meant you became evil immediately, and some players felt that casting an evil spell shouldn't mean anything at all.
There were posts by James Jacobs and Sean K Reynolds that weighed in on this.
It is no coincidence that the rule on evil spells, faction missions, and the new policy on how to police evil actions all came about at a similar time.
But now we have people trying to take the solid campaign leadership did, and apply it in such a way it was never intended to be applied. Indeed, it was written specifically to avoid this particular method of employment.
Perhaps the language is imprecise enough that it needs to be reworked once the new Campaign Coordinator is hired.
But it really is disturbing that something done as a gift to the player base is being taken way out of proportion to its intent. If we keep on this route, it may be that we lose access to all evil spells in PFS.
That solves many problems.
We won't have necromancers fighting with Priests of Pharasma or Paladins. We won't have players trying to manipulate RAW to cast evil spells with their Paladins. And so on.
Is that what we really want?
Or can we PLEASE try to use a bit of common sense?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When did people start thinking paladins had so much grey between the black and white of evil? Other classes maybe but paladins?
You start with the Holy warrior of rightousness, law, justice and the american way!
The inevitable conflict between those conflicting ideas produce a lot of story lines.
Add Sturgeons law.
Many of those stories are contrived, no win conflicts that don't show the paladins inner struggle to reconcile them, but instead brutal, nihilistic vindictive no win situations that have arbitrary if any solutions because the DM has decided that there are none or that ONLY their way will work.
So paladins have to be "less than perfect" They can break a law here and there, they can be badass. They can be different than what people expect....
which people in turn take a good idea too far. Since a paladin cannot fit the impossible standard of an impossible man, they conclude that the paladin can do ANYTHING and still be a paladin. Flirt with the forces of evil. Sell his soul for the greater good, wipe out the orphans because it needed to be done! Your standards of paladinhood are antiquated trap and a strait jacket!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so done with this forum, ive played under Andrew c. at paizocon. he is an awesome guy yah people do not see eye to eye on rules but this post has run its course lets not insult or degrade anyone and just be done with it. call it table variation and move on. done and done
Thanks. I appreciate the shout out. And yeah, you are right, the insults, veiled or not, are not appropriate. No matter who they come from. So mea culpa. Game on!