You never made a thread and battled people over the Evilness of Simulacrum before. I don't think your NG Cleric has ever fought a party member over the use of summoned tigers.
I just think it's funny.
I think these discussions are better had away from the gaming table out of respect for other players and DMs. Not sure your point Dominus. I don't need to have been born with an opinion to be allowed to express it.
Interesting opinion black waltz that the ethical dimension is whether to make the copy, but once cast you can treat it how you like. If I use simulacrum to create a replica of a family member killed by my nemesis - is that evil? If I beat the simulacrum ever morning to vent my anger is that evil?
Ultimately is any removal of free will an evil act? Domination, Geas, Suggestion.
Some spells are wholly benign. Plenty are not.
Now you can choose to totally ignore this dimension of the game - of course you can. But if you are struggling with a super Mage who dominates every character and enemy you come across, creates simulacrum to explore red dragon lairs, and throws endless summoned monsters at his foes then you can question whether other 'good' npcs or characters will take issue with that.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you are struggling with a super Mage who dominates every character and enemy you come across, creates simulacrum to explore red dragon lairs, and throws endless summoned monsters at his foes then you can question whether other 'good' npcs or characters will take issue with that.
I've personally never used summoned creatures, or simulacrum, or mind control. I've still seen massive disparities between not only my casters and my tablemates' martials, but even between my own casters and martials.
One of the most common myths about the C/MD is that it's primarily the result of a handful of famously "broken" spells/combos.
I followed your comments on the 5th ed thread Jiggy with interest. I enjoyed seeing how they tried to resolve some of these issues with some success. Would you say more careful wording of spells is a solution?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you say more careful wording of spells is a solution?
No.
In my experience, the things that are the source of most of the issues are completely clear.
Another of the most common myths about the C/MD is the idea that it mostly centers around matters of interpretation or ambiguous rules, etc.
So is it just part of the game then?
In which case is the ONLY solution not the way the players and DM interact and create a world around themselves? Changing rules isn't the answer. As Einstein said...
“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them” . ― Albert Einstein.
C/MD is, How many options do you have to a problem.
Fighter's options are hit it, hit it, hit it, and try a skill roll.
Wizard has what 1800 spells possible, and skill roll, with personally hit as an attractive option.
the reason it's more of an issue higher than lower level is that the fighter's options never change. While the Wizard's options increase tons every spell level, up to the full 1800+ options.
And yes the fighter and the wizard don't have all options to solve a problem at one time. But we're more worried about the total amount of options the class can provide to a challenge, than how many they actually have.
So is it just part of the game then?
In which case is the ONLY solution not the way the players and DM interact and create a world around themselves? Changing rules isn't the answer. As Einstein said...
“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them” . ― Albert Einstein.
The solution is to have working rules, because all you are suggesting is fiat. If you did not realize, you need to first somehow manage to rebut the Create Water satire, before your position can be taken seriously.
Just a quick note:
In Pathfinder alignment terms, there is nothing "Evil" about slavery. It can be a perfectly fine, very "Lawful" institution. Ideas about freedom, self-determination, etc. are not the domain of "Good", but rather "Chaos". Paladins don't want to protect your freedom, Paladins hate your freedom!
Also, by pathfinder alignment terms, nothing about simulacrum affect alignment in anyway.
Okay Anzyr - my rebuttal of the satire is that it is grossly disproportional.
Proportionality is a key component of fairness.
An elemental swarm as a consequence for casting a create water spell is 100 bucks of punishment for a 50c crime as create water neither breaks the game nor spoils the enjoyment of other character types. The elemental swarm does kill the 1st level caster using it though.
Using morality or the Planar patrons to limit excessive use of a simulacrum spell or high level summons/bindings/gates is proportional. It neither stops the character using the ability nor removes it effectiveness. It simply gives the characters reasons not to use the solution every time and evens the odds if they do.
Sorry Fergie are you actually suggesting that Slavery is not an evil act? I think your missing the point. The other posts above dispute your assertation
Proportionality is a key component of fairness.
It also has no metric -- it's pure fiat on your part. For any given circumstance, what you consider "proportional" and what Anzyr considers so are likely to wildly vary. Indeed, your own idea of what's "proportional" is likely to vary depending on your mood, etc. Given the variability, I think it's an error to consider it a component of fairness -- the latter implies to me some degree of consistency and/or predictability.
Sorry Fergie are you actually suggesting that Slavery is not an evil act? I think your missing the point. The other posts above dispute your assertation
Why is slavery evil "Evil"? I know why it is not chaotic, but there is nothing evil "Evil" about taking away someones freedom. By game terms honoring a slave contract is a very "Lawful" thing to do. If I treat them well, and honor the contract, there is no reason a lawful good character can't have slaves.
I don't think I'm missing the point at all. We are talking about Alignment effects in the game, are we not?
Fergie, I'd call it LE, not LG. There are some things that the game's alignment system is pretty black-and-white on, and I think "slavery = evil" is one of them.
[EDIT] +1 blackwaltzomega.
as a law graduate I know that not only is proportionality an essential part of fairness but it is also measurable in many situations.
Plenty of pathfinder rules are based on ththe principal. it may not be an exact science, but pitting a ECL 1 party against a CR 20 threat is probably not proportional. A CR 10 threat for a ECL 10 party probably is.
Ultimately the players around your table and the games writers will be the ultimate arbiters of what is proportional.
BUT I agree with your essential point that it will come down to individual preference which is fine if everyone agrees but if you're a player with a stingy/unreasonable DM that decided arbitrarily that magic ruins the game then you are in a very sucky situation
Many countries had slavery for many years and for most of the time the populations of said countries didn't think it was evil. Yes now we may label it as evil, but that's our society. If charming someone was innately evil it'd have the evil descriptor in the spell.
EDIT: also, evil has varying degrees. If you look at what evil means in Pathfinder, Being selfish and greedy could cause you to fall under evil in pathfinder terms. Not caring if people are dying in your war to conquer a neighboring country. That could be evil. Hitler was evil and you didn't see his nation "getting out the pitchforks for a mob"
Fergie, I'd call it LE, not LG. There are some things that the game's alignment system is pretty black-and-white on, and I think "slavery = evil" is one of them.
Not according to the alignment system as presented in the PRD. Again, freedom is valued by choas, not good. If I treat my slaves well, there is nothing "Evil" or even "Neutral" about it.
Note: Obviously, talking about game stuff here, NOT real world.
it may not be an exact science, but pitting a ECL 1 party against a CR 20 threat is probably not proportional. A CR 10 threat for a ECL 10 party probably is.
So, is it reasonable for the fire gods to send a Tiny fire elemental in response to a create water spell? Do they sometimes send a Huge fire elemental if you summon a powerful enough water elemental? When you cast control water (a 4th level spell), do the water gods sometimes send a water elemental from a summon monster IV spell to punish you? At what point are these "logical consequences" just outright punishing casters for being casters?
If a creature can be permanently removed from all of existence by dispel magic, it probably isn't a real creature. If a creature is specifically an illusion, it probably isn't a real creature. If a creature is conjured by the summoning subschool, it probably isn't a real creature (you want to conjure a real creature use calling spells).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chess Pwn: I'm sorry and I don't often say this but you are simply wrong. The populations most certainly did think slavery was evil and campaigned for many many years to stop it. Slavery was abolished when the metropolitan population realised what was happening in the colonies. Metropolitan elites faught against abolition because they made a huge amount of money.
Plenty of Germans did find the Nazis horrific but there was a very extensive control system that included propaganda, racial stereotypes and military authority. The mass genocides were not common knowledge, and where It was known a lot of people felt powerless. The world at war series is excellent for portraying interviews with ordinary German citizens. Very sad really and not a good example.
In pathfinder terms, I think you are mistreading the alignment section of the prd. The lawful evil section clearly cites despotism and absolute obedience as LE. Really not sure how you are justifying slavery as acceptable for a good person from that section. Go back and read the tyranny section in the LE section.
Kirth - if you were a cleric of a fire God then maybe but I'm not sure why you would want to punish casting a minor uninfluential sprll. Consequence requires conscious cophoice for it to be a useful plot effect. ASOIAF is so good because more often than not characters awful deaths are a consequence of their own choices.
... In pathfinder terms, I think you are mistreading the alignment section of the prd. The lawful evil section clearly cites despotism and absolute obedience as LE. Really not sure how you are justifying slavery as acceptable for a good person from that section. Go back and read the tyranny section in the LE section. ...
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil.
Nope. Nothing in there about not having slaves.
Again, Slavery is taking away someones freedom. Freedom and self determination are what chaos is all about, not good. Forcing someone to live by Lawful Good ways (even against their will), is a really Lawful Good thing to do.
Chess Pwn: I'm sorry and I don't often say this but you are simply wrong. The populations most certainly did think slavery was evil and campaigned for many many years to stop it. Slavery was abolished when the metropolitan population realised what was happening in the colonies. Metropolitan elites faught against abolition because they made a huge amount of money.
Plenty of Germans did find the Nazis horrific but there was a very extensive control system that included propaganda, racial stereotypes and military authority. The mass genocides were not common knowledge, and where It was known a lot of people felt powerless. The world at war series is excellent for portraying interviews with ordinary German citizens. Very sad really and not a good example.
You're not getting what I'm saying. When America was found, founded for freedom, many of these founders had slaves. Not enough of them thought slavery was evil, or at least evil enough, to fight. If the American population thought slavery was evil then they should have fought it when fighting for freedom. George Washington was a slave owner, would you label him as Evil?
Plenty of Germans didn't agree with him, but they weren't creating mobs to stop him cause he did something evil, like you proposed should have happened.
I'm using him as the extreme, while George Washington meets your criteria for being evil enough that hordes would come to kill him.
Wizard + evil act = hordes of screaming pitchfork wielding commoners banging on your door as van Helsing sets fire to your house and then coup de gras you in the head.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get perverse satisfaction from reading alignment arguments, because each one of them reinforces my conviction that alignment ought to be thrown straight into the s*~*can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simulacrum = slavery
Slavery = evil act
Wizard + evil act = hordes of screaming pitchfork wielding commoners banging on your door as van Helsing sets fire to your house and then coup de gras you in the head.[/quoteYeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man.
But seriously the act of making a Simulacrum isn't evil. If it was the spell would be tagged as "Evil" just like every other "Evil" spell.
Perhaps what you do with them afterwards could be evil. But that has nothing to do with the spell or magic.
Your point is kinda dull.
Some spells are designed to be used against PCs not by them. Arkelion is ace though I love it when Jiggy said we may not see Arkelion wizards in every game... May not... Because of system mastery and how the other players are. Ha ha.Care to show me the NPC section for spells?
Rather than respecting your DM and the general courtesy of not treating your gaming group as your own personal playground. A character in our group who brought Arkelion along would generate a lot of laughs for a session. If he did it the following session then he would politely be asked to leave.Asked to leave for playing the game as written.
Yet, you can't see why the caster/martial disparity is real.
You can misquote as many rules as you want, make up as many contrived scenarios as you like, but none of that makes your argument any more valid.
LE in alignment section:
Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil.
youre knowledge of these historical concepts is inaccurate Pwn. America was founded for the benefit of white settlers. They did not consider black people at that time real people and your own constitution makes that clear. Kidnapping people from their homes and families for financial profit is an evil act. A small number of elites made a lot of money from slavery and plantations. That was evil. They may have justified it to themselves by saying 'everybody does it' but that does not make it right. There are fundamental rights and yes those founding fathers ignored the ones that didn't suit them.
The rise of Naxi Germany is a very interesting subject. The German people never thought Hitler would rise to the power he did. Once he had it was too late. There were riots In Germany - they were put down ruthlessly and mercilessly by the military and nation wide system of control was implanted which included teaching children to inform on their parents.
I can't believe I'm having to argue that slavery is an evil act in any system in 2015.
Cheliax - LE - slavery
Andorran - NG - anti slavery
Brain in a Jar : asked to leave for spoiling the game for the other five players. This game is a collaberative effort not a solo game.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is it just part of the game then?
Yes. That's kind of the point. Pathfinder suffers from a severe caster/martial disparity. It is baked into the system.
In which case is the ONLY solution not the way the players and DM interact and create a world around themselves? Changing rules isn't the answer.
The rules are the problem, so the changing them is indeed the answer. Whether that's writing Kirthfinder, playing the surprisingly popular E6, or switching to 5E for your class-and-level fantasy itch; the solution to "this ruleset suffers from C/MD" is "don't use this ruleset".
As Einstein said...
“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them” . ― Albert Einstein.
The identification of where a problem lies does not create the problem any more than a doctor's diagnosis gives you a disease.
|
If a creature can be permanently removed from all of existence by dispel magic, it probably isn't a real creature. If a creature is specifically an illusion, it probably isn't a real creature. If a creature is conjured by the summoning subschool, it probably isn't a real creature (you want to conjure a real creature use calling spells).
Pretty sure this is basically everything that needs to be discussed. I mean slavery's evil to me, but that doesn't matter since we're not dealing with a 'real' creature.
Also so what if it's evil, the only reason I'm assuming Arkelion is neutral is to be able to avoid spell effects, if they're evil, they're just vulnerable to a few more which I doubt is even an issue since their body has the evil subtype, making it pretty moot.
So yeah, none of this is really relevant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is it just part of the game then?The rules are the problem, so the changing them is indeed the answer. Whether that's writing Kirthfinder, playing the surprisingly popular E6, or switching to 5E for your class-and-level fantasy itch; the solution to "this ruleset suffers from C/MD" is "don't use this ruleset".
Changing the rules is certainly ONE solution. But there is another solution that a great many groups find to be acceptable. A playstyle can be chosen (either explicitly or implicitly) that minimizes the disparity sufficiently that martials and casters can quite happily play together.
There are lots and lots of successful campaigns where that option has been taken and worked well. And this option allows the players to keep most or all of what they like in Pathfinder.
One could argue that this agreement as to playstyle constitutes changing the rules but most people would consider a game with a gentle persons agreement to still be Pathfinder.
If a creature can be permanently removed from all of existence by dispel magic, it probably isn't a real creature. If a creature is specifically an illusion, it probably isn't a real creature. If a creature is conjured by the summoning subschool, it probably isn't a real creature (you want to conjure a real creature use calling spells).Pretty sure this is basically everything that needs to be discussed. I mean slavery's evil to me, but that doesn't matter since we're not dealing with a 'real' creature.
Also so what if it's evil, the only reason I'm assuming Arkelion is neutral is to be able to avoid spell effects, if they're evil, they're just vulnerable to a few more which I doubt is even an issue since their body has the evil subtype, making it pretty moot.
So yeah, none of this is really relevant.
Also, it's possible to do evil acts without being/becoming evil... Just like it's possible to do good acts without being/becoming good.
Look how many people condoned slavery in the past. I doubt every single one of them would be described as evil by Pathfinder's alignment system.
Whoever hits first, wins, or deserves to lose.
If you wanted this to be more productive, please list conditions.
Size/Scale of Arena and its composition.
What is even the Win Condition of the contest? First to tap out, first to die, is leaving the premises a forfeit?
What are the limitations on gear? Ironic if the Martial insists on magical equipment.
Otherwise this is a non-stop game of cowboys versus indians where everyone argues past each other. At least those South Park kids did it right... until the Ninja Star incident of course.
Why is there even a debate of Martial VS. Magic?
You mean that force that supersedes the Material Plane and can bend reality... why does that beat Fighter? I can infinite-cast Sword!
This is really just player wankage over why their preferred playstyle isn't universally accepted by all others as the One True King of the Battlefield. There will never be an agreed answer because it is the nature of any fandom to have fanatics.
To get away from this madness I just abstract it that "Mages" are just another way of saying "Ranged" effect. Then it turns to Melee Versus Ranged... argh I can't get away!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So is it just part of the game then?The rules are the problem, so the changing them is indeed the answer. Whether that's writing Kirthfinder, playing the surprisingly popular E6, or switching to 5E for your class-and-level fantasy itch; the solution to "this ruleset suffers from C/MD" is "don't use this ruleset".
Changing the rules is certainly ONE solution. But there is another solution that a great many groups find to be acceptable. A playstyle can be chosen (either explicitly or implicitly) that minimizes the disparity sufficiently that martials and casters can quite happily play together.
There are lots and lots of successful campaigns where that option has been taken and worked well. And this option allows the players to keep most or all of what they like in Pathfinder.
One could argue that this agreement as to playstyle constitutes changing the rules but most people would consider a game with a gentle persons agreement to still be Pathfinder.
There's an element or two of the C/MD that I could see being handled by a certain playstyle selection, but for the bulk of it (particularly all the stuff I talk about the most), I don't really see the connection. Can you elaborate?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's an element or two of the C/MD that I could see being handled by a certain playstyle selection, but for the bulk of it (particularly all the stuff I talk about the most), I don't really see the connection. Can you elaborate?
I'll take a campaign I'm playing in as an example.
The basic unwritten agreement is "don't do stuff that is too hosey and let others have fun too".
The combat power aspect is largely handled by the casters just not being particularly well built. For some players this is due to a low system mastery. For others, it is due to building to a concept with little or no attention to power (the noble born wizard has a follower that is optimized to be a WONDERFUL seamstress :-) ). For others, the player has consciously chosen sub optimal choices. I fall mostly into the latter category, playing a Cleric who is mostly a healer and an undead killing machine (the campaign does NOT feature that much undead).
The narrative power aspect is largely handled by players not stepping into other players roles. If skills can be used to solve a problem they are allowed to even if magic would be superior. This is augmented by many of the challenges being far more roleplaying challenges than mechanical challenges. In many ways the greatest challenges my character faces are dealing with his Church.
I only use paradigm changing magics such as Commune when the situation REALLY calls for it. And I accept it when the GM is less than forthcoming.
The last is a significant part of it. We all accept that story can overule mechanics and accept with good grace when the GM stops things. In turn, the GM rarely plays that card
