Not exactly. Good Clerics, even of Neutral deities, cannot cast it either.It is not written that specific way, but still :
"Her alignment, however, may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see chaotic, evil, good, and lawful spells." (PRD, Cleric class, section on Spells).
So, there are indeed evil spells and these spells are exactly those that a Good Cleric or Cleric of a Good deity cannot cast.
"Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions." (PRD, Cleric class too).
So, some spells do indeed have an alignment. The prohibition on casting them indeed checks if they are opposed to the alignment of the Cleric or his deity. And the association with an alignment is indicated by the alignment descriptor.
So, the rules do indeed tell us that spells with the indicator Evil are indeed evil spells.
They do not tell it like this because a CE spell (with descriptors Evil and Chaotic) is an evil spell, but also a chaotic spell. The wording used in the PRD (above) just uses less wordcount which has great value for designers and publishers ;-)
None of what you just quoted says that [Evil] spells are evil acts, simply that [Evil] spells are associated with evil.... which is true, since they all involve manipulating evil in some manner according to the descriptors description.
|
None of what you just quoted says that [Evil] spells are evil acts, simply that [Evil] spells are associated with evil.... which is true, since they all involve manipulating evil in some manner according to the descriptors description.
Please note that some posters here argue that some spells with the Evil descriptor do not involve manipulating evil ;-)
I was answering TOZ who wanted to know if the rules said that "Spells with the Evil descriptor are Evil acts/spells/whatever". So, I did show that they are indeed evil spells.
Of course, you can still argue that casting an evil spell is not an evil act. Since the RAW do not actually write that it is. That said, AFAIK there is no exhaustive list of evil acts in the RAW, nor of good acts or neutral acts BTW.
|
You know what the [Evil] tag does?
Tells you clerics of Good deities can't cast it. That's it.
Not exactly. Good Clerics, even of Neutral deities, cannot cast it either.
Nowhere in the actual rules does it say "Spells with the Evil descriptor are Evil acts/spells/whatever". It's totally reasonable to say they are, but the rules don't actually do it.It is not written that specific way, but still :
"Her alignment, however, may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see chaotic, evil, good, and lawful spells." (PRD, Cleric class, section on Spells).
So, there are indeed evil spells and these spells are exactly those that a Good Cleric or Cleric of a Good deity cannot cast.
"Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions." (PRD, Cleric class too).
So, some spells do indeed have an alignment. The prohibition on casting them indeed checks if they are opposed to the alignment of the Cleric or his deity. And the association with an alignment is indicated by the alignment descriptor.
So, the rules do indeed tell us that spells with the indicator Evil are indeed evil spells.
They do not tell it like this because a CE spell (with descriptors Evil and Chaotic) is an evil spell, but also a chaotic spell. The wording used in the PRD (above) just uses less wordcount which has great value for designers and publishers ;-)
this is fairly logically sound. But using the same logic see my above point about casting holy word being good.
None of what you just quoted says that [Evil] spells are evil acts, simply that [Evil] spells are associated with evil.... which is true, since they all involve manipulating evil in some manner according to the descriptors description.Please note that some posters here argue that some spells with the Evil descriptor do not involve manipulating evil ;-)
I was answering TOZ who wanted to know if the rules said that "Spells with the Evil descriptor are Evil acts/spells/whatever". So, I did show that they are indeed evil spells.
Of course, you can still argue that casting an evil spell is not an evil act. Since the RAW do not actually write that it is. That said, AFAIK there is no exhaustive list of evil acts in the RAW, nor of good acts or neutral acts BTW.
Black Raven, I agree.
Usually by the spell's description, a player can easily define if it's a good or evil act. The spell Death Knell is a merciless and dishonourable spell.
A bit of common sense goes a long way
Usually by the spell's description, a player can easily define if it's a good or evil act.
And yet I cannot see why animating skeletons and getting them to build a wall to defend a town would be an evil act.
Usually by the spell's description, a player can easily define if it's a good or evil act.And yet I cannot see why animating skeletons and getting them to build a wall to defend a town would be an evil act.
Breaking the sacredness of a burial ritual. Not having your own sacred burial site (like mass graves.
Or using the skeletal remains of people whose souls have passed on to Valhalla and other otherworldly places for your own purposes, no matter how noble, is still seen as practising the dark arts, and is frowned upon by the majority.
They are dead (the skeletons) and it's not your character's place to interfere in the natural cycle of life and death.
Breaking the sacredness of a burial ritual. Not having your own sacred burial site (like mass graves.
And what if being turned into an undead is part of a cultures sacred burial rites?
Or using the skeletal remains of people whose souls have passed on to Valhalla and other otherworldly places for your own purposes, no matter how noble, is still seen as practising the dark arts, and is frowned upon by the majority.
Alignment doesn't care about the majority's views. It's an objective thing in the pathfinder ruleset.
They are dead (the skeletons) and it's not your character's place to interfere in the natural cycle of life and death.
According to what? I mean hell, the best necromancers in PF are divine casters, the god is actually the one messing with the natural cycle. If that were true then gods of nature would not grant animate dead or create dead to their priests, but they do. Also, raise dead and reincarnate would be an evil act. As far as I can tell, interfereing with the cycle of life and death is a chaotic act not evil considering inevitables are the outsiders with a bone to pick with the act.
|
|
this is fairly logically sound. But using the same logic see my above point about casting holy word being good.You know what the [Evil] tag does?
Tells you clerics of Good deities can't cast it. That's it.
Not exactly. Good Clerics, even of Neutral deities, cannot cast it either.
Nowhere in the actual rules does it say "Spells with the Evil descriptor are Evil acts/spells/whatever". It's totally reasonable to say they are, but the rules don't actually do it.It is not written that specific way, but still :
"Her alignment, however, may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see chaotic, evil, good, and lawful spells." (PRD, Cleric class, section on Spells).
So, there are indeed evil spells and these spells are exactly those that a Good Cleric or Cleric of a Good deity cannot cast.
"Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions." (PRD, Cleric class too).
So, some spells do indeed have an alignment. The prohibition on casting them indeed checks if they are opposed to the alignment of the Cleric or his deity. And the association with an alignment is indicated by the alignment descriptor.
So, the rules do indeed tell us that spells with the indicator Evil are indeed evil spells.
They do not tell it like this because a CE spell (with descriptors Evil and Chaotic) is an evil spell, but also a chaotic spell. The wording used in the PRD (above) just uses less wordcount which has great value for designers and publishers ;-)
If Holy Word is a spell with the Good descriptor, then it is a Good spell.
Is casting Holy Word always a Good act ? I would say yes as far as just the casting action is concerned.
Otherwise, why would Evil deities prohibit its casting ? Or why would Evil Clerics of Neutral deities be prohibited from casting it ? I believe it is because casting this Good spell by itself puts more Good in the world.
Now, what you use this spell for can be Good or Evil. But I see it as a different action, to be considered separately.
On a side note, it is also interesting that channeling positive or negative energy does not have such prohibitions and that those energies do not have alignment descriptors attached.
Otherwise, why would Evil deities prohibit its casting ?
... I'd imagine because being made of Evil that they cannot send the literal Good to you....
|
|
Usually by the spell's description, a player can easily define if it's a good or evil act.And yet I cannot see why animating skeletons and getting them to build a wall to defend a town would be an evil act.
Two things :
1) casting an Evil spell is an Evil act IMO
2) Using the result of the spell to protect innocents is a Good act.
BTW if the town you defend is full of not-innocent Evil people, is defending it a Good act ?
But when the game proper is made and includes a number of assumptions that fit for Golarion but aren't necessarily true in other settings (and therefore shouldn't be assumed the default for the core game, just by definition) that non-Golarion players then have to work around and play the game in spite of, then it becomes really difficult to accept that Pathfinder being a setting-neutral game system was really an honest effort on the developers' part.Setting neutral-ness is why bestiaries list monsters in limbo rather than the maelstrom, why rules for playing without alignment exist, why you can worship concepts as a cleric, elves are not aliens in RPG-line, that undead do not all have to be evil, etc.
James Jacob was actually annoyed with the setting neutral-ness and backwards compatibility making it so that he couldn't make it a new rule that clerics Have to worship gods to get powers.
Admittedly, there was a recent example of Golarion fluff overriding RPG-line fluff with Aasimar/Tiefling lifespans for no actual good reason.... which I am still very very annoyed about.
As a person who dislikes the golarion setting and disagrees with James Jacobs a decent amount, if PF was just a golarion RPG I would have never played it.
That's what I'm talking about. By and large, the game proper is a separate entity from Golarion, but since the designers are mostly writing their game proper material with an eye only for Golarion, the Golarion-only material sometimes leaks through. Which, to me, makes it feel like an uphill battle to use the game proper material in a different direction than Golarion. It gets wearying to constantly have to do that when the game sells itself as being one where that sort of thing isn't necessary. If the game were Golarion-only, then at least there wouldn't be any inadvertent false advertising.
BTW if the town you defend is full of not-innocent Evil people, is defending it a Good act ?
Well it says "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life." So.... not sure.... I mean, it is defending people which is good. But the rule does technically say "innocent life" over life...
Is a life worth less if it has fallen to evil? Personally, I'd imagine that the alignment of the people saved shouldn't matter, especially if it's a case of people being ignorant (such as a village of necromancers in a setting where undead creation is evil but they weren't told or you simply not knowing their alignments). What would matter is whether protecting them would lead to the suffering of others, which I would say is not necessarily true.
Plus as a CE person myself, I personally hope that it still counts as good so I still get protection from Goody two shoes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not really see Necromancer-Paladin as a staple of the game, nor actually a desirable way to go.
I will admit using both positive and negative energy can be tricky, melted many of my skeleton minions with an accidental lay on hands.
You do not blip on my Detect Evil actually :-)
Lets just say angelskin armour is very useful for evading paladins with no ranks in Knowledge (Planes).
So that's every player character Paladin in the history of ever. :-)
"Knowledge! Why the f+#~ would I take knowledge, I'm a f*$@ing Paladin! Everything I need to know about something, I learn from Detect Evil"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW if the town you defend is full of not-innocent Evil people, is defending it a Good act ?
Yes, because you're still being altruistic, protective of life, and concerned for the dignity of those people.
Caring for neutral and evil people is no less good than caring for good people.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does make it less fun however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what about Neutral deities and their Evil Clerics ? After all the Good Clerics of the same Neutral deities can cast Holy Word all day long :-)Otherwise, why would Evil deities prohibit its casting ?... I'd imagine because being made of Evil that they cannot send the literal Good to you....
The deity can provide but it appears the cleric cannot receive. This is an issue unique to clerics. Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Oracles, Sorcerers, and Wizards all have no such issues casting spells with aligned subtypes opposing their own, RAW.
The issue isn't explicitly noted as an aligned one either since it doesn't appear to be about morality, since a lawful cleric of a neutral deity cannot cast protection from law. If it actually was an aligned act, doing so would push their actions more towards Neutrality, however they simply can't cast it at all, even though their deity is sitting their just handing them out to 3/4ths of their clerics.
The issue I see is you're reading something into the text that is not stated and using the cleric as though it were the gold standard. However, the cleric is clearly the minority here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that if casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is not an evil act, a Paladin could do it and not fall. And I do not really see Necromancer-Paladin as a staple of the game, nor actually a desirable way to go.
You might not find it desirable but that doesn't mean it's not allowed. Some people don't find it desirable that clerics can cast spells without devotion to a deity or that they can while being devoted to multiple deities (in the case of pantheon clerics) but some do.
And for the record, Paladins actually can pick up [Evil] spells in Pathfinder. The feat Unsanctioned Knowledge allows them indiscriminate access to four spells from the the bard, cleric, inquisitor, or oracle spell lists. You add the spells to the Paladin's spell list at the same spell levels and the Paladin can cast them.
There is no restriction on the sorts of spells that the Paladin can choose, so the Paladin with Unsanctioned Knowledge can pick up spells like protection from law and animate dead and they, factually, will not break their Paladin code for using them unless they do malicious things with them.
The very existence of such an option can encourage players to step outside of what is a traditional archetype. Such as with my Paladin of Wee Jass who did in fact cast animate dead on a number of occasions and was studying necromancy with the intent of becoming a mummy so she could better serve.
She was also, by the way, one of the most incredibly lawful good people you'd ever meet without shoving it down your throat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further, if we only cared about "staples" of the game, we can throw out 99% of Golarion, go with only humans, elves, dwarfs, and halflings as core races, and have only 4 character classes.
And as far as you not seeing it as a desirable way to go to allow for the "option" or "potential" to build a character outside the standard staples, many other people can and will see it as desirable to make ways for people to play the characters they want to play and/or explore things outside of what is customary.
This is why I have an issue with this whole thing. Aside from the logical potholes which bother me on a sort of base level, it also a springboard for exclusion of players and GMs who don't have the same flavor preference that the new rules push, where in 3E and all previous editions there was no such pushed ideology. Instead, it was consistent from the perspective of moral alignment, logic, and allowed players and GMs to explore a greater breadth of character possibilities without auroch-poo like these arguments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, because I feel the need to reiterate this now and then, I'd also be championing how stupid it was for mindless undead to be GOOD as well if that were the case, because it stumbles into the exact same logical inconsistencies.
They would also return to Neutrality in the current mechanics just like skeletons and zombies do by RAW. Undead with templates that change their alignment to things like "any evil" do not provide any sort of ability that makes them exempt from the alignment rules, so the mindless ones must revert to Neutrality after a while and the non-mindless ones will shift to whatever alignment that more accurately reflects their actions.
At best it represents that they have the temporary taint of evil which is less hardcoded than actually being a creature of evil such as those with the [Evil] subtype. Even those with the [Evil] subtype, mind you, can be non-evil in alignment because their alignment changes to reflect their actions but they are so saturated with literal evil that they're still affected as though they were Evil by any effect that keys from evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know its far too late in the day to do so, but it would be wonderful if Paizo put out a quick pdf, lining up the differences between Base and 'Golarion specific' information that made its way into the Core rules.
Its one of those things like a 'this is no longer canon' reference document that will never be done, but would be so incredibly useful.
And I do not really see Necromancer-Paladin as a staple of the game, nor actually a desirable way to go.
There are lots of things I find undesirable, for one I'm strongly against mix-matching Sci-fi and Fantasy (Less so than I used to be), but that doesn't mean for a second I'd demand no one ever play a game set in Numeria, even when our GM included a Numerian Mech in our Kingmaker game as part of the barbarian horde, I was down with it since that was how he enjoys his fantasy and if everyone was forced to kow-tow to my personal taste? They'd have far less fun with the game.
Personal taste should never define what others get to enjoy and to be honest playing a Paladin-Necromancer sounds like it'd be a riot. I can easily imagine an order of Paladins who firmly believe duty goes beyond death and animate their own armor once they fall, in times of great need, to fight alongside the living. Training the next generation of Paladins.Or even a destroyed order, similar to the Hellknight Order of Crux, maybe an order who were annihilated during the battle with the Whispering Tyrant but survive in defiance of him, it'd certainly suit the gothic horror tone of Ustalav better, to have a Gothic Paladin Order with say, a Lantern theme, plate clad and tragic, than King Arthur-esq knights, rocking across the landscape.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As noted before, if mindless things are evil, that means that when left to their own devices they will mindlessly do evil things. This goes beyond "find the nearest life source and kill it" because animals do that. Cats actively torture things for fun and they aren't evil. A golem could be told to act like an undead creature and it wouldn't make the golem evil. Mindless evil means that undead know, on an instinctive level, what the evilest thing they could do at any given moment is, and they do it. This knowledge has to come from some non-concious echo of intelligence that tells them things like the difference between something that is alive and something that is dead, and which end of a sword to hold.
Alignment is about intent and about action. Mindless things cannot have intent. That means all mindless undead must be driven to perform evil actions. They don't have to be commanded to kill babies. They have to be commanded not to.
If that is the case, then it makes perfect sense for animate dead to be evil since the caster is bringing into the world things who's sole purpose is to do things that are morally repugnant.
Of course, none of this explains why mindless undead are evil. It only describes what that means.
As noted before, if mindless things are evil, that means that when left to their own devices they will mindlessly do evil things.
I have to wonder what a Mindless good aligned creature would be like now that you've said that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or even a destroyed order, similar to the Hellknight Order of Crux, maybe an order who were annihilated during the battle with the Whispering Tyrant but survive in defiance of him, it'd certainly suit the gothic horror tone of Ustalav better, to have a Gothic Paladin Order with say, a Lantern theme, plate clad and tragic, than King Arthur-esq knights, rocking across the landscape.
This is a brilliantly awesome concept. :o
Here's some concept art for fun!
Undead king.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As noted before, if mindless things are evil, that means that when left to their own devices they will mindlessly do evil things. This goes beyond "find the nearest life source and kill it" because animals do that. Cats actively torture things for fun and they aren't evil. A golem could be told to act like an undead creature and it wouldn't make the golem evil. Mindless evil means that undead know, on an instinctive level, what the evilest thing they could do at any given moment is, and they do it. This knowledge has to come from some non-concious echo of intelligence that tells them things like the difference between something that is alive and something that is dead, and which end of a sword to hold.
Alignment is about intent and about action. Mindless things cannot have intent. That means all mindless undead must be driven to perform evil actions. They don't have to be commanded to kill babies. They have to be commanded not to.
If that is the case, then it makes perfect sense for animate dead to be evil since the caster is bringing into the world things who's sole purpose is to do things that are morally repugnant.
Of course, none of this explains why mindless undead are evil. It only describes what that means.
Unfortunately for your argument, it is baseless.
"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."
Spells with the Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil descriptors do in fact interact with alignment.
It's specifically mentioned.
It's well within the rules for a Paladin to fall from casting [Evil] spells.
|
"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."
Spells with the Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil descriptors do in fact interact with alignment.
It's specifically mentioned.
But it does not call them out as aligned acts.
It's well within the rules for a Paladin to fall from casting [Evil] spells.
This is not in dispute.
But it does not call them out as aligned acts.
How else would they interact with Alignment then?
This is not in dispute.
And for the record, Paladins actually can pick up [Evil] spells in Pathfinder. The feat Unsanctioned Knowledge allows them indiscriminate access to four spells from the the bard, cleric, inquisitor, or oracle spell lists. You add the spells to the Paladin's spell list at the same spell levels and the Paladin can cast them.
There is no restriction on the sorts of spells that the Paladin can choose, so the Paladin with Unsanctioned Knowledge can pick up spells like protection from law and animate dead and they, factually, will not break their Paladin code for using them unless they do malicious things with them.
I mentioned it because of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually not within the rules for a Paladin to fall from casting aligned spells. You haven't established that as a fact. All you've done is say that aligned descriptors can interact with alignment. That's true, there are many spells with aligned descriptors that interact with alignments. Nothing about that makes casting them an aligned act. Casting protection from law is not a chaotic act for example, but it does interact directly with alignments.
Again, you're reading things into the rules that are not there. Either provide something that says that X is true, or stop arguing that X is true. Yeah?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."
Spells with the Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil descriptors do in fact interact with alignment.
It's specifically mentioned.
It's well within the rules for a Paladin to fall from casting [Evil] spells.
Not necessarily.
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
Nothing in there mentions alignment, the same way casting Protection from Evil isn't a good aligned act, casting evil descriptor spells isn't an evil one.
Or every Diabolist would have an aura of moral decency from trapping devils. The only source I can find that claims casting [evil] spells is an Evil act, is the redemption rules and those are very subjective, full of umming, ahhing, well-maybe's and fiddle-faddle, they're, to put it lightly, not very solid, with such stellar bits of mechanics as 'Redemption probably takes 2*HD good acts, or maybe 4*HD, or 8*HD, or you might throw your hands in the air and say 'Stop trying to redeem Asmodeus, it takes 999 good aligned acts, have fun with that lads'.And why should they be? Everyones path to redemption is different. And more importantly in this case, they claim its an act equal to worshiping an evil god or mind controlling a good aligned person into doing evil, which is insane.
On the flip side it says casting a single good aligned spell is of the same caliber as going to confession, giving 50 GP to a church, preaching for an hour, not resorting to stabbing someone for their baked beans (Either before or after the fight) or not lying for a week.
So, very, very weak and very, very general guidelines at best.
Now I know what you're going to say, evil source, evil sources and evil aligned creatures are Evil, capital E, no questions, no ifs, no buts.
However;
Evil Subtype - This subtype is usually applied to Outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil Outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned.
Most evil subtype creatures have an evil alignment, those that don't retain the evil subtype which proves you can be [evil] without being Alignment: Evil. In fact, it implies that only Most are, not almost all, not every last one bar exceptions. Most.
An [evil] source doesn't mean an Evil source, its never been clearly defined as such and with the above we can see that [evil] doesn't always mean Evil.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Stop trying to redeem Asmodeus, it takes 999 good aligned acts, have fun with that lads'.
Well in the worlds where people play with rules that don't exist concerning casting spells with aligned subtypes that'd be pretty easy. Casting 999 protection from evil spells isn't even that hard. Hell, if you didn't mind snacking on a wand of mnemonic enhancer you could shave off 150 of them per day without even touching your actual daily spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually not within the rules for a Paladin to fall from casting aligned spells. You haven't established that as a fact. All you've done is say that aligned descriptors can interact with alignment. That's true, there are many spells with aligned descriptors that interact with alignments. Nothing about that makes casting them an aligned act. Casting protection from law is not a chaotic act for example, but it does interact directly with alignments.
Again, you're reading things into the rules that are not there. Either provide something that says that X is true, or stop arguing that X is true. Yeah?
The rules don't say that any act is evil. They describe the general behavior of creatures of various alignments. They say that if somebody isn't acting like their alignment you should update their sheet to match the alignment they're acting. So the fact that the rules don't call out whether casting [evil] spells is an actual evil act is no different from feeding orphaned puppies or cold-blooded murder. The interpretation of what is good and what is evil on an individual action level is left to the GM and social contract in the instances when it's relevant.
Note: most of this is from memory. I reread the section of the Additional Rules chapter in the PRD about alignment to make sure of that, but if I'm wrong because of another book I'd be happy to rethink my position and come out with a more refined one.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Stop trying to redeem Asmodeus, it takes 999 good aligned acts, have fun with that lads'.Well in the worlds where people play with rules that don't exist concerning casting spells with aligned subtypes that'd be pretty easy. Casting 999 protection from evil spells isn't even that hard. Hell, if you didn't mind snacking on a wand of mnemonic enhancer you could shave off 150 of them per day without even touching your actual daily spells.
God that'd be a fun campaign.
Playing a bunch of Mythic characters pulling a hit and run invasion of hell, plunging the very depths of damnation itself.Armed with the worlds largest stockpile of [Good] aligned spells, scrolls and wands alike, defeating and pinning down powerful Devils and forcing them to taste the god damn rainbow son and convert to good, working your way up to eventually Care Bear'ing Asmodeus himself into redemption while the Empyreals themselves watch on and laugh at the sheer silliness of it all.
Hahaha, you sir, win life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually not within the rules for a Paladin to fall from casting aligned spells. You haven't established that as a fact. All you've done is say that aligned descriptors can interact with alignment. That's true, there are many spells with aligned descriptors that interact with alignments. Nothing about that makes casting them an aligned act. Casting protection from law is not a chaotic act for example, but it does interact directly with alignments.
Again, you're reading things into the rules that are not there. Either provide something that says that X is true, or stop arguing that X is true. Yeah?
The rules don't say that any act is evil. They describe the general behavior of creatures of various alignments. They say that if somebody isn't acting like their alignment you should update their sheet to match the alignment they're acting. So the fact that the rules don't call out whether casting [evil] spells is an actual evil act is no different from feeding orphaned puppies or cold-blooded murder. The interpretation of what is good and what is evil on an individual action level is left to the GM and social contract in the instances when it's relevant.
Note: most of this is from memory. I reread the section of the Additional Rules chapter in the PRD about alignment to make sure of that, but if I'm wrong because of another book I'd be happy to rethink my position and come out with a more refined one.
Actually, as we've quoted repeatedly, good and evil are both defined. Acts themselves can be weighed by how closely they fit with the associated alignments in the situations.
There's also the absurdity of what you're pushing that makes it a hard pill to swallow, given that alignment is 100% meaningless if all it takes is casting some spells over and over again.
Rape hundreds like Genghis Khan? Well, better get out the wand of protection from evil and buy your way into heaven.
It's actually not within the rules for a Paladin to fall from casting aligned spells. You haven't established that as a fact. All you've done is say that aligned descriptors can interact with alignment. That's true, there are many spells with aligned descriptors that interact with alignments. Nothing about that makes casting them an aligned act. Casting protection from law is not a chaotic act for example, but it does interact directly with alignments.
Again, you're reading things into the rules that are not there. Either provide something that says that X is true, or stop arguing that X is true. Yeah?
I'm not reading into anything.
It quite literally says;
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
It tells you it interacts with Alignment.
It doesn't say it interacts with Alignment sometimes.
That means it interacts with the Alignment rules.
You are the one coming to the conclusion that [Evil] Spells aren't evil.
But at this point I'll just have to agree to disagree. I mean you've already been told you were wrong almost 5 years ago.
At this point you are just too stubborn to acknowledge it and it's not worth my time to continue re-hashing why you are wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Literally, trying to enforce rules that don't exist to make [Alignment] spells always that thing literally takes alignment from Good vs Evil and makes it Green vs Orange. It doesn't really matter anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually not within the rules for a Paladin to fall from casting aligned spells. You haven't established that as a fact. All you've done is say that aligned descriptors can interact with alignment. That's true, there are many spells with aligned descriptors that interact with alignments. Nothing about that makes casting them an aligned act. Casting protection from law is not a chaotic act for example, but it does interact directly with alignments.
Again, you're reading things into the rules that are not there. Either provide something that says that X is true, or stop arguing that X is true. Yeah?
I'm not reading into anything.
It quite literally says;
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
It tells you it interacts with Alignment.
It doesn't say it interacts with Alignment sometimes.
That means it interacts with the Alignment rules.
You are the one coming to the conclusion that [Evil] Spells aren't evil.
But at this point I'll just have to agree to disagree. I mean you've already been told you were wrong almost 5 years ago.
At this point you are just too stubborn to acknowledge it and it's not worth my time to continue re-hashing why you are wrong.
The alignment subtype spells all interact with alignment. It does not however call them out as aligned actions because those things do not exist in that way.
Also, thanks for linking that thread. I was having a hard time finding the thread where Sean K. Reynolds argued that it was a great idea to let a kid die of cancer after picking up a scroll of "cures anything but Little Timmy was sacrificed to create it", maintaining that it's more good to burn the scroll making little Timmy's death a complete waste and dooming the child to dying a slow and agonizing death.
Even though that actually, y'know, is directly contradicted by what the alignment rules say. And suggest. And, y'know, sanity. And isn't actually supported in the rules at all.
It wouldn't be the first time Sean ever said things that weren't in the rules and by golly I doubt it'll be the last.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, I'll note that aligned spells interact with alignment and other spells quite noticeably. Protection from evil interacts with alignment everytime it protects against creatures with the evil alignment. Similarly, spells like protection from good are sensed by things like detect evil and are dispelled by things like dispel evil.
They penetrate the regeneration of things like Solars.
No where, however, does it say that casting aligned spells is an aligned act anymore than doing anything else is an aligned act. If it were really the case, it would have been very simple to actually make that true, such as in the descriptors part or better yet in the actual alignment rules themselves where it could have said "casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is considered an act of that alignment" or something.
But it doesn't.
Never has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, I remember when Sean tried to say that you have a different unarmed attack for each of your limbs and need to get magic fang cast on each of your arms and legs individually.
Yeah, Sean says some funny things sometimes. But I don't care about Sean. I care about what the rules actually say. So either give something that actually says how it interacts with alignment or...continue providing nothing useful as you've done so far. :D
Go with the second one, it'll keep the thread going another 100 1,000 pages. >:3
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
Do death spells make you more dead?
Most of them make other people deader, admittedly, but you're not going to suddenly have a heart attack due to your being 'contaminated' by death.And you can happily throw around fire spells until the cows come home without anyone arguing you should gain the fire subtype, or are you arguing that language-dependent spells change your alignment?
Saying 'this interacts with alignment' isn't saying 'This changes your alignment'
Protection from evil interacts with alignment by protecting you from evil, that's how it interacts, it doesn't turn you good suddenly because you cast it a few times.
Unless you have a literal quotation that says 'Casting evil spells lowers your alignment' then its about as valid as me saying 'Casting fear spells makes you evil, because you're upsetting people you monster'
Plus, you know, you didn't reply to the above [evil] creatures aren't always evil and by implication [evil] sources/spells aren't always Evil.
If I cast Planar binding to summon a redeemed demon (Looking at you Wrath of the Righteous) am I suddenly on par with someone that just ate a baby.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, as we've quoted repeatedly, good and evil are both defined. Acts themselves can be weighed by how closely they fit with the associated alignments in the situations.
There's also the absurdity of what you're pushing that makes it a hard pill to swallow, given that alignment is 100% meaningless if all it takes is casting some spells over and over again.
Rape hundreds like Genghis Khan? Well, better get out the wand of protection from evil and buy your way into heaven.
What's defined is how people of a certain alignment act, not any specific actions.
But the other aspect to my position (which I understand you not double-checking since it has been a few pages since I have contributed meaningfully to this thread) is that alignment shift isn't a matter of getting enough good points to flip alignments. It's a matter of weighing your actions and motivations and concluding that your outlook doesn't really fit with this alignment written on your sheet and we should replace it with this other alignment.
Willingness to do evil is a characteristic of evil-aligned characters and is not a characteristic of good-aligned characters. Willingness to do good isn't really counter to any alignment (other than an anti-paladin's oath perhaps). The characteristic of good-aligned characters closest to willingness to do evil is willingness to sacrifice for a good outcome.
Evil and good aren't just mirror images of each other or teams. There are legitimate differences between what makes a good character good and what makes an evil character evil. As a result, the warning signs that indicate your character is secretly evil (willing to do evil actions, the details of what's what not being made explicit in the rules) are categorically different from the indicators your character might be secretly good (e.g. taking the hard path when it'll have a better result for others even when there's not a personal connection to those who'll benefit or a reward).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil is defined as hurting, oppressing, and killing.
EDIT: And the alignment rules also note that it is not the lack of will to do evil but actively the will to do good that defines a good person.
Or all adventurers are evil. Because if it's about what you won't do, well, most adventurers aren't carebears.
EDIT 2: Well, except for the most hardcore metal adventurers like those mentioned by BLloyd607502. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil is defined as hurting, oppressing, and killing.
No, evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing. There's a subtle and important difference there.
Also, as I have said before, just thinking that casting [evil] spells is an evil act and casting [good] spells is a good act doesn't mean that casting enough [good] spells will flip your alignment to good. So please stop drawing that false equivalency in order to straw-man people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
Do death spells make you more dead?
Most of them make other people deader, admittedly, but you're not going to suddenly have a heart attack due to your being 'contaminated' by death.
And you can happily throw around fire spells until the cows come home without anyone arguing you should gain the fire subtype, or are you arguing that language-dependent spells change your alignment?
Saying 'this interacts with alignment' isn't saying 'This changes your alignment'
Protection from evil interacts with alignment by protecting you from evil, that's how it interacts, it doesn't turn you good suddenly because you cast it a few times.
Unless you have a literal quotation that says 'Casting evil spells lowers your alignment' then its about as valid as me saying 'Casting fear spells makes you evil, because you're upsetting people you monster'
Plus, you know, you didn't reply to the above [evil] creatures aren't always evil and by implication [evil] sources/spells aren't always Evil.
If I cast Planar binding to summon a redeemed demon (Looking at you Wrath of the Righteous) am I suddenly on par with someone that just ate a baby.
Actually what's really funny is that by their logic, binding an angel is a totes good thing to do.