|
If a player is just spamming good spells to scribble a G on their character sheet with no regard to their character's mindset or motives they're a f#!%ing moron and deserve to be slapped.
If you cast an evil spell and a GM slaps evil on your character sheet with no regard to your characters mindset or motives...
well, they are your words...
Then your GM is being a dick.
If you're gonna try and use my reasoning against me at least, you know, actually try?
Remember, Good isn't pragmatic. It's hard to justify using Evil spells based on reasoning of "they work better". So it's not so much that the Evil spell "contaminates" you, but more that you're making little choices that pile up and, eventually, your character doesn't care so much about being Good and Noble and more about how well he performs in combat. Alignment and Action ought to be reciprocal for good roleplay; the alignment on your sheet doesn't dictate your actions but it also isn't just an inert element. Moral tension can make for very good roleplay if handled well. Maybe decide if your character really is devoted to being NG or if he's starting to slide into TN territory; and roleplay accordingly.
What if your character is unaware of the descriptor of the spell? I've seen sorcerers with very low spellcraft that wouldn't know such things.
|
|
1)Yes there is. If a Good aligned Cleric researches a way to cast a divine prestidigitation they can do so. There is no way for a Good aligned Cleric to research and cast Blasphemy however.*replace prestigitation for any spell a good cleric can't cast*
2) If no non-evil deities have the Community domain in setting the I'd be inclined that communities in that setting are evil. Not the case in Golarion.We are not talking about golarion. In golarion I'm pretty sure it's an evil act to cast an evil act, I mean, it's James Jacob's setting and CampinCarl9127 has already shown James Jacob's views on the matter (though in PFS it is houseruled so that isn't what happens). So we must be talking setting neutral based on the rules.
3) No, magical masturbation will not get you a free ticket to heaven.So why does doing the exact same thing ethically get you a free ticket to hell?
You don't do good actions because you're Good, you're Good because you genuinely do good actions.Or, because you want to Ping as good :P
5) Then they do a quickie to get a Good high. That's it.According to what?
1)AGAIN, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SPELL NOT BEING ON A SPELL LIST, AND BEING BARRED BY YOUR GOD FROM CASTING A SPELL THAT IS.
2) It's the default for Pathfinder and no one said otherwise to my knowledge.
3) It doesn't.
5) According to you since you keep bringing up the "ping as Good".
|
|
Remember, Good isn't pragmatic. It's hard to justify using Evil spells based on reasoning of "they work better". So it's not so much that the Evil spell "contaminates" you, but more that you're making little choices that pile up and, eventually, your character doesn't care so much about being Good and Noble and more about how well he performs in combat. Alignment and Action ought to be reciprocal for good roleplay; the alignment on your sheet doesn't dictate your actions but it also isn't just an inert element. Moral tension can make for very good roleplay if handled well. Maybe decide if your character really is devoted to being NG or if he's starting to slide into TN territory; and roleplay accordingly.What if your character is unaware of the descriptor of the spell? I've seen sorcerers with very low spellcraft that wouldn't know such things.
Because Good and Evil are tangible things in Pathfinder. Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it if they weren't Evil themselves.
It's time to agree to disagree and leave the conversation. Clearly nobody is changing their mind. Let's not let the thread turn toxic.
1)AGAIN, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SPELL NOT BEING ON A SPELL LIST, AND BEING BARRED BY YOUR GOD FROM CASTING A SPELL THAT IS.
Not when it comes to the argument of "If your good god won't let you cast it, it must be evil". That is that reply was to.
2) It's the default for Pathfinder and no one said otherwise to my knowledge.
Actually, the default for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is rules neutral. Golarion has alternate rules in some places, such as clerics being required to worship a god to get spells or undead having to be evil except in very rare cases.
3) It doesn't.
According to the arguement of [Aligned Spell] = Aligned Act, yes it does. That interpetation has it that if you cast enough [evil] spells, you will drift to the evil alignment. So a perfectly neutral person repeatedly casting protection from good throughout his life will end up in an evil aligned afterlife.
5) According to you since you keep bringing up the "ping as Good".
Ping as good is in reference to people casting Detect Good/Evil/Alignment spells. Ping a good doesn't mean some sort of high... alignment change isn't a temporary thing unless you change your course of action.
edit:
Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it if they weren't Evil themselves.
Wait. Is this an actual thing? I've never heard of it before. Such a thing would have very large ramifications.
Let's not let the thread turn toxic.
I do personally hope that it doesn't turn toxic.
Because Good and Evil are tangible things in Pathfinder. Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it if they weren't Evil themselves.Remember, Good isn't pragmatic. It's hard to justify using Evil spells based on reasoning of "they work better". So it's not so much that the Evil spell "contaminates" you, but more that you're making little choices that pile up and, eventually, your character doesn't care so much about being Good and Noble and more about how well he performs in combat. Alignment and Action ought to be reciprocal for good roleplay; the alignment on your sheet doesn't dictate your actions but it also isn't just an inert element. Moral tension can make for very good roleplay if handled well. Maybe decide if your character really is devoted to being NG or if he's starting to slide into TN territory; and roleplay accordingly.What if your character is unaware of the descriptor of the spell? I've seen sorcerers with very low spellcraft that wouldn't know such things.
Can I have a source for this?
I think a GM should really make clear to the player what his or her interpretation of the metaphysics of [evil] spells to players, and if this hasn't happened then ask.
Like if a divine spell has an [evil] tag that could mean one of several things:
- Casting it is an inherently evil act.
- The effect of this spell is within the purview of an evil deity.
- The specific ritual for casting the spell was developed by the priesthood of an evil deity.
Those aren't all the same thing, so if you're not clear on "why is this spell evil" I would talk to the GM about it. If it's perfectly clear to you why the spell is evil, then casting it is probably an evil act and so you shouldn't do so as a good character. Still, there are lots of little inconsistencies in the game; for example the spell "Animate Dead" has the [evil] tag, but the Occultist focus power "Necromantic Servant" has nothing to indicate that it's an evil act despite creating a temporary undead. The difference between the two is that animate dead turns a corpse into an undead creature, but Necromantic Servant simply causes an undead to rise from the ground and then disappear after 10 minutes/level. Is one evil and the other not? Are they both evil? Are neither of them *really* evil? Ask your GM about how metaphysics work!
|
|
Can I have a source for this?Because Good and Evil are tangible things in Pathfinder. Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it if they weren't Evil themselves.Remember, Good isn't pragmatic. It's hard to justify using Evil spells based on reasoning of "they work better". So it's not so much that the Evil spell "contaminates" you, but more that you're making little choices that pile up and, eventually, your character doesn't care so much about being Good and Noble and more about how well he performs in combat. Alignment and Action ought to be reciprocal for good roleplay; the alignment on your sheet doesn't dictate your actions but it also isn't just an inert element. Moral tension can make for very good roleplay if handled well. Maybe decide if your character really is devoted to being NG or if he's starting to slide into TN territory; and roleplay accordingly.What if your character is unaware of the descriptor of the spell? I've seen sorcerers with very low spellcraft that wouldn't know such things.
Hell, Abbadon, Abyss - Planes of Evil.
Fiends - races made out of Evil.
Heaven, Elysium, Nirvana - Planes made out of Good.
Angels - races made out of Good.
Can I have a source for this?Because Good and Evil are tangible things in Pathfinder. Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it if they weren't Evil themselves.
What if your character is unaware of the descriptor of the spell? I've seen sorcerers with very low spellcraft that wouldn't know such things.Hell, Abbadon, Abyss - Planes of Evil.
Fiends - races made out of Evil.
Heaven, Elysium, Nirvana - Planes made out of Good.
Angels - races made out of Good.
That's not a source for a sorcerer knowing the spell they're using is evil without looking it up or feeling bad vibes when casting it.
I think the argument about "good and evil are tangible things" is while there is certainly some energy associated with a certain team of outsiders and a different kind of energy associated with a different group of outsiders (since "protection from [foo]" is on the wizard list) there's really nothing to indicate that our moral judgments of these creatures is intrinsic to to them having that kind of energy.
As far as divine spells like "detect evil" those can be easily interpreted as "detect that thing my god doesn't like." Since insofar as we give the deities personalities, there has to be a difference between "what this deity likes/dislikes" and "what is good/evil."
It would be completely okay to for a duke of Hell to have a particular interest in cats, their well being, and their advancement (since cats can be selfish, prideful, and cruel). That does't mean that your good character can't have a pet cat because cats are now evil.
It takes very little in the way of changes to mechanics to simply delete alignment from Pathfinder. You lose almost nothing from the game, since you can still have devils and fiends and hell and the abyss, and you can have those people and places be awful and repellent, and you can have the PCs oppose them, you just don't stamp it with [evil] and it works almost exactly the same way.
Can I have a source for this?Because Good and Evil are tangible things in Pathfinder. Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it if they weren't Evil themselves.Remember, Good isn't pragmatic. It's hard to justify using Evil spells based on reasoning of "they work better". So it's not so much that the Evil spell "contaminates" you, but more that you're making little choices that pile up and, eventually, your character doesn't care so much about being Good and Noble and more about how well he performs in combat. Alignment and Action ought to be reciprocal for good roleplay; the alignment on your sheet doesn't dictate your actions but it also isn't just an inert element. Moral tension can make for very good roleplay if handled well. Maybe decide if your character really is devoted to being NG or if he's starting to slide into TN territory; and roleplay accordingly.What if your character is unaware of the descriptor of the spell? I've seen sorcerers with very low spellcraft that wouldn't know such things.Hell, Abbadon, Abyss - Planes of Evil.
Fiends - races made out of Evil.
Heaven, Elysium, Nirvana - Planes made out of Good.
Angels - races made out of Good.
I think he was asking about "Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it", something you just made up and do not have a rules quote for.
Hell, Abbadon, Abyss - Planes of Evil.
Fiends - races made out of Evil.
Heaven, Elysium, Nirvana - Planes made out of Good.
Angels - races made out of Good.
I'm sure all here agree that of that Pathfinder runs of objective morality with cosmic evil and good and law and chaos being literal things, but I believe the intention was a request for the source of "Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it if they weren't Evil themselves."
|
Oh you have no idea about the lockpick business. At PFS tables it was a scenario full of locka, and no one in the party had diaable device. So the summoner whipped out a couple of babau demons to pick the locks so we could proceed. We joked he was barred from summoning babaus ever after because the Babau society was protesting against his sending of babaus to do menial tasks.
|
|
1)AGAIN, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SPELL NOT BEING ON A SPELL LIST, AND BEING BARRED BY YOUR GOD FROM CASTING A SPELL THAT IS.Not when it comes to the argument of "If your good god won't let you cast it, it must be evil". That is that reply was to.
2) It's the default for Pathfinder and no one said otherwise to my knowledge.Actually, the default for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is rules neutral. Golarion has alternate rules in some places, such as clerics being required to worship a god to get spells or undead having to be evil except in very rare cases.
3) It doesn't.According to the arguement of [Aligned Spell] = Aligned Act, yes it does. That interpetation has it that if you cast enough [evil] spells, you will drift to the evil alignment. So a perfectly neutral person repeatedly casting protection from good throughout his life will end up in an evil aligned afterlife.
5) According to you since you keep bringing up the "ping as Good".Ping as good is in reference to people casting Detect Good/Evil/Alignment spells. Ping a good doesn't mean some sort of high... alignment change isn't a temporary thing unless you change your course of action.
edit:
Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it if they weren't Evil themselves.Wait. Is this an actual thing? I've never heard of it before. Such a thing would have very large ramifications.
Let's not let the thread turn toxic.I do personally hope that it doesn't turn toxic.
1) By the logic all arcane and psychic magic must be evil.
Oh no wait it's good.
Oh no, it lawful.
Or wait, it's Chaotic.
2)Sorry, the assumed setting then.
3) If he keeps casting evil spells and risks going to an evil afterlife then he's not Neutral.
4) You say ping, I say high, basically the residual effects effects of using aligned spells.
5) It's always been like that, if not outright stated than heavily implied throughout the history of this game for as long as I can remember.
We joked he was barred from summoning babaus ever after because the Babau society was protesting against his sending of babaus to do menial tasks.
The babau society sounds like a place with a lot of jelly and backstabbing.
1) By the logic all arcane and psychic magic must be evil.
Oh no wait it's good.
Oh no, it lawful.
Or wait, it's Chaotic.
That's why I argued against it. I think such an argument runs on flawed logic.
3) If he keeps casting evil spells and risks going to an evil afterlife then he's not Neutral.
Why is that different from "If he keeps casting good spells and risks going to an good afterlife then he's not Neutral."? Sincerely wondering.
4) You say ping, I say high, basically the residual effects effects of using aligned spells.
I was not aware you considered the entirety of the alignment system a high... That is a rather humorous take on it I must say :p
5) It's always been like that, if not outright stated than heavily implied throughout the history of this game for as long as I can remember.
I... think that might have been something from some GM you've played under, because I've never heard of that at all and it doesn't seem to be anywhere it he rules.
To answer the actual question.
There is n othing stoping good wizards from casting evil spells by the rules. So in PFS you can cast evilly as you like while clinging to that good banner.
Individual cases and home DM's may vary.
For myself I do go by the universal principle that all actions have consequences. Take that as you will.
|
|
I think he was asking about "Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it", something you just made up and do not have a rules quote for.Can I have a source for this?Because Good and Evil are tangible things in Pathfinder. Someone who's never cast an evil aligned spell before who did so would feel a wrongness with it if they weren't Evil themselves.Remember, Good isn't pragmatic. It's hard to justify using Evil spells based on reasoning of "they work better". So it's not so much that the Evil spell "contaminates" you, but more that you're making little choices that pile up and, eventually, your character doesn't care so much about being Good and Noble and more about how well he performs in combat. Alignment and Action ought to be reciprocal for good roleplay; the alignment on your sheet doesn't dictate your actions but it also isn't just an inert element. Moral tension can make for very good roleplay if handled well. Maybe decide if your character really is devoted to being NG or if he's starting to slide into TN territory; and roleplay accordingly.What if your character is unaware of the descriptor of the spell? I've seen sorcerers with very low spellcraft that wouldn't know such things.Hell, Abbadon, Abyss - Planes of Evil.
Fiends - races made out of Evil.
Heaven, Elysium, Nirvana - Planes made out of Good.
Angels - races made out of Good.
Object morality was indeed what I was basing this off of.
Note: the game does not have rules for going into shock the first time your character kills a person in their life either.
Note: the game does not have rules for going into shock the first time your character kills a person in their life either.
Generally people don't then say that "first time you kill someone You Have to go into shock" and act as though it is a rule of the game though... And while going into shock isn't in the rules, alignment and alignment descriptors are. And the descriptor rules do not suggest such a thing.
Plus, characters generally become hardened killers gradually. Mostly you fight things that could easily be considered sub-human before you start slaughtering people because they're in your way.
"It's okay to murder it, since it's a kobold... [days pass]... but that kobold had a family... [levels pass]... so I guess it's okay to kill this person with a family too, I mean I wouldn't want to be a racist and imply that kobolds are less valuable as individuals or anything..."
|
|
We joked he was barred from summoning babaus ever after because the Babau society was protesting against his sending of babaus to do menial tasks.The babau society sounds like a place with a lot of jelly and backstabbing.
1) By the logic all arcane and psychic magic must be evil.
Oh no wait it's good.
Oh no, it lawful.
Or wait, it's Chaotic.
That's why I argued against it. I think such an argument runs on flawed logic.
3) If he keeps casting evil spells and risks going to an evil afterlife then he's not Neutral.Why is that different from "If he keeps casting good spells and risks going to an good afterlife then he's not Neutral."? Sincerely wondering.
4) You say ping, I say high, basically the residual effects effects of using aligned spells.I was not aware you considered the entirety of the alignment system a high... That is a rather humorous take on it I must say :p
5) It's always been like that, if not outright stated than heavily implied throughout the history of this game for as long as I can remember.I... think that might have been something from some GM you've played under, because I've never heard of that at all and it doesn't seem to be anywhere it he rules.
1) I don't see it as flawed.
There are spells this class can't use because they were designed for a different class.
And,
There are spells this class cannot use because their deity won't let them.
Two different things.
3&4) It why I use the term high lol
If the person is constantly using a Good aligned spell, that is slowly changing them, kinda like a drug I suppose. They keep casting it, and their alignment will change, because of their actions. If they just do it to ping as good or constantly just for fun dies then either a) nothing will change or b) their mindset and ethics and morals will start to "warp" and they'll either stop because having your outlook quickly change would frankly be rather shocking, or they might like the new way they feel and think and keep at it, slowly and actually changing their alignment.
5) *shrugs* I don't know what to say then, evey GM I've played with has always used that, but then that goes back to the Object Morality as well.
|
|
Note: the game does not have rules for going into shock the first time your character kills a person in their life either.Generally people don't then say that "first time you kill someone You Have to go into shock" and act as though it is a rule of the game though... And while going into shock isn't in the rules, alignment and alignment descriptors are. And the descriptor rules do not suggest such a thing.
Yes, but Alignments shifts and destinations are not.
Unlike in a video game where an action might get you +2 Good points or +3 evil points and you need 100 to change into that alignment, in Pathfinder it's determined by you and the GM.
The game also doesn't have rules for how much a sorcerer without ranks in spellcraft knows about the spells they cast, unless there's a rule I missed somewhere.
The game also doesn't have rules for how much a sorcerer without ranks in spellcraft knows about the spells they cast, unless there's a rule I missed somewhere.Object morality and tangible alignments. That's all I can really say to this.
Objective morality doesn't mean I know every detail of the magic that's in my blood.
If they just do it to ping as good or constantly just for fun dies then either a) nothing will change or b) their mindset and ethics and morals will start to "warp" and they'll either stop because having your outlook quickly change would frankly be rather shocking, or they might like the new way they feel and think and keep at it, slowly and actually changing their alignment.
Where are you getting the impression that b) is possible outside of a person changing their alignment through non-magical means?
|
|
Objective morality doesn't mean I know every detail of the magic that's in my blood.The game also doesn't have rules for how much a sorcerer without ranks in spellcraft knows about the spells they cast, unless there's a rule I missed somewhere.Object morality and tangible alignments. That's all I can really say to this.
You may not know every detail but you will know the alignment. Listen to yourself, you're basically asking me how is Good good and Evil evil at this point.
|
|
If they just do it to ping as good or constantly just for fun dies then either a) nothing will change or b) their mindset and ethics and morals will start to "warp" and they'll either stop because having your outlook quickly change would frankly be rather shocking, or they might like the new way they feel and think and keep at it, slowly and actually changing their alignment.Where are you getting the impression that b) is possible outside of a person changing their alignment through non-magical means?
People have changes of heart all through out their life all the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also question how tangible alignments are to people in the reality of the game. Almost everybody walking around on Golarion (or wherever) not only doesn't know what their alignment is, they most likely think about their code of ethics in terms other than the nine point alignment system. A realistic code of ethics for a person to have is "I think these things are desirable for those reasons, I think those things are undesirable for these reasons." No one would think "I'm Chaotic Good" but they might think that "I am distrustful of power because it is so easily abused and I want to stick up for the little guy because that's the right thing to do." I really don't think your character should know or even think of their code of morality in the terms that the game mechanics discuss it. You really don't need any sort of objective notion of "good" or "evil" to explain why people do what they do or think what they think.
Plus, even though you can build a magic circle that keeps out both an "evil" person and a demon doesn't mean that those two things are the same anymore than a faraday cage blocking both radio waves and lightning strikes means those are the same.
You may not know every detail but you will know the alignment. Listen to yourself, you're basically asking me how is Good good and Evil evil at this point.
No. Asking how the individual knows that x specific thing is Good/Evil/Unaligned when there is no observable method without casting detect evil/good/see alignment or dying.
People have changes of heart all through out their life all the time.
You'll note I specifically asked about how B) was possible outside of a "person changing their alignment through non-magical means" that anyone can do. I am asking how you think B) is possible when it comes to you saying " b) their mindset and ethics and morals will start to "warp" and they'll either stop because having your outlook quickly change would frankly be rather shocking".
No one would think "I'm Chaotic Good" but they might think that "I am distrustful of power because it is so easily abused and I want to stick up for the little guy because that's the right thing to do."
This is made even worse by the fact a CE individual could also think "I am distrustful of power because it is so easily abused and I want to stick up for the little guy because that's the right thing to do." I think it'd be pretty hard for people to guess their alignments without external stimulus or extreme action.
You may not know every detail but you will know the alignment. Listen to yourself, you're basically asking me how is Good good and Evil evil at this point.Objective morality doesn't mean I know every detail of the magic that's in my blood.The game also doesn't have rules for how much a sorcerer without ranks in spellcraft knows about the spells they cast, unless there's a rule I missed somewhere.Object morality and tangible alignments. That's all I can really say to this.
I'm asking you to cite your source that a sorcerer automatically knows an evil spell is evil the moment they cast it in the default setting. If there is proof you should easily be able to give it. I haven't seen anything in the sorcerer page that they feel sick or something when they cast an evil spell.
Granted most evil spells are pretty easy to figure out that they are evil but some like Pain Strike might not be obvious to their alignment. I mean it seems no more outwardly evil than Trial of Fire and Acid which has a similar effect unless it gives out very bad vibes.
Again, I'm asking you where you found that sorcerers get this bad vibe from when they cast evil spells. You say it like fact but without a quote from a rulebook or staff I'm just going to consider it a theory.
I also question how tangible alignments are to people in the reality of the game. Almost everybody walking around on Golarion (or wherever) not only doesn't know what their alignment is, they most likely think about their code of ethics in terms other than the nine point alignment system. A realistic code of ethics for a person to have is "I think these things are desirable for these reasons, I think those things are undesirable for these reasons." No one would think "I'm Chaotic Good" but they might think that "I am distrustful of power because it is so easily abused and I want to stick up for the little guy because that's the right thing to do." I really don't think your character should know or even think of their code of morality in the terms that the game mechanics discuss it. You really don't need any sort of objective notion of "good" or "evil" to explain why people do what they do or think what they think.
Plus, even though you can build a magic circle that keeps out both an "evil" person and a demon doesn't mean that those two things are the same anymore than a faraday cage blocking both radio waves and lightning strikes means those are the same.
If you're strong enough for summoning outsiders to just be a thing that you do then you're strong enough where your alignment (and the alignment of the people you associate with) matters. It may not matter to Generic Farmer #369, but it absolutely matters to the Mr. God Wizard who's so certain he's in control.
Just going to throw PFS faqs out here.
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.But I don't thinks PFS faqs count as RAW, so take that however you like.
PFS also requires you to worship one, singular god when we know for a fact there are people who worship pantheons such as the Empyreal Lords or people who don't worship a god at all such as the citizens of Rahadoum. Absolutely not a reliable citation when it comes to where rules and fluff meet because they tend to just make stuff up without communicating with the people who made those rules.
If you're strong enough for summoning outsiders to just be a thing that you do then you're strong enough where your alignment (and the alignment of the people you associate with) matters. It may not matter to Generic Farmer #369, but it absolutely matters to the Mr. God Wizard who's so certain he's in control.
I don't think even Mr. 20 Level Wizard who can summon anything in the universe needs to know or care what their alignment is or the alignments of their associates for that matter. What matters for the company you keep is that you have compatible values and the alignment system is far too crude to model every conceivable sets of values a player can expect. Your character would want to associate with people who feel similarly about the things they all consider to important, but realistically those things are more likely phrased in terms other than "good/chaos/law/evil."
Like you can have a lawful good character who is a holy warrior for their church and wants to convince everybody to follow the "one true way" by leading by example and proselytizing incessantly, and another lawful good character who wants nothing to do with organized religion and simply believes in the rule of law and helping others for reasons of the categorical imperative, and those two characters probably wouldn't get along all that well despite being the same alignment.
PFS also requires you to worship one, singular god when we know for a fact there are people who worship pantheons such as the Empyreal Lords or people who don't worship a god at all such as the citizens of Rahadoum. Absolutely not a reliable citation when it comes to where rules and fluff meet because they tend to just make stuff up without communicating with the people who made those rules.
To be clear. PFS mandates that you can only get game mechanics value from the worship of one diety. You can still have your characters venerate others.
As long your character isn't from a class that requires worship such as a cleric, you can certainly not worship any dieties. You can't be a no-diety cleric because the setting and campaign rules forbid it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A perfect example of two LGs who disagree would be a Paladin of Sarenrae, Goddess of Redemption and a Paladin of Dammerich, Empyreal Lord of Just Executions.
Guess how well they get along when a repentant demon shows up. "I killed some babies, but I feel bad about it."
Obviously, the LGs agree to ________________.
A perfect example of two LGs who disagree would be a Paladin of Sarenrae, Goddess of Redemption and a Paladin of Dammerich, Empyreal Lord of Just Executions.
Guess how well they get along when a repentant demon shows up. "I killed some babies, but I feel bad about it."
Obviously, the LGs agree to ________________.
Slice the demon up because not even Sarenrae priests are required to be stupid. The demon has to SHOW some kind of repentence, not just lamely talk it.
Slice the demon up because not even Sarenrae priests are required to be stupid. The demon has to SHOW some kind of repentence, not just lamely talk it.
So it's okay to kill repentant people, as long as you get them before they make the repentant act... That means no trying to get anyone to redeem ever. How does the priests know it hasn't already done some repentant acts (and yes there is a large chance it could just be lying)? Not killing it is not stupid. It is just a different perspective on LG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slice the demon up because not even Sarenrae priests are required to be stupid. The demon has to SHOW some kind of repentence, not just lamely talk it.So it's okay to kill repentant people, as long as you get them before they make the repentant act... That means no trying to get anyone to redeem ever. How does the priests know it hasn't already done some repentant acts (and yes there is a large chance it could just be lying)? Not killing it is not stupid. It is just a different perspective on LG.
Unless special exceptions prove otherwise, demons are monsters, not people. Stop moving goalposts. Demons like other outsiders, are living incarnations of alignment. AOnly very special and rare circumstances make exception to that rule. A baby-killing monster would have to do or exhibit something better than a lame "I regret it now." because after all, demons DO lie.
I said he was repentant. Not "he feigned being repentant", but he actually truly was sorry for what he did and wanted to be Good. Does the Sarenite deny him redemption after she uses skills and magic to confirm that?
demons are monsters, not people.
Haha, oh wow. Play Wrath of the Righteous some time.
If a demon is repenting it means someone magically altered his alignment. Same for a chromatic dragon.
I said he was repentant. Not "he feigned being repentant", but he actually truly was sorry for what he did and wanted to be Good. Does the Sarenite deny him redemption after she uses skills and magic to confirm that?
And how is the character supposed to make that observation? IF the Demon fails to make an appropriate effort to SHOW instead of merely tell, the Paladin is not required to assume the demon isn't lying. Demons turning spontaneously good is a rare enough event in the history of the world for someone not to be obliged to assume on face value, that it's true.
Is that how Sarenites react to someone begging for redemption? To slice them in half?
Praise the Sun.
demons are monsters, not people.Haha, oh wow. Play Wrath of the Righteous some time.
Demons trying to be good, don't exactly fall out of the sky, even in Wrath.
We could even cut this whole thing down to what I meant by making him a normal human being. He admits to baby murder, and is honestly repentant. You take him prisoner and confirm this.
Conflict ensues.
Actually, the bestiary says aligned outsiders can change their alignments. It's just immensely rare. I can understand paladins being very suspicious and assuming that it is a trick though.... since... well... who would think that it's being honest.
If a demon is repenting it means someone magically altered his alignment.
Not true.
Same for a chromatic dragon.
Where did people get the idea that true dragons are tied to their alignments? I've seen people say it everynow and then in alignment discussions but I've never seen a source.... Either way, that's not how it works in PFRPG. Chromatic dragons can change their alignments as easily as a kobold or orc or goblin or gnoll or gnome.