|
I mean, if you summon a bunch of demons and force them to build low-cost housing for the poor and orphanages then you dismiss them back to their plane before they can get up to any mischief, that's probably a net good act.As a GM I would have so much fun with using summoned demons to build houses - houses with hidden deathtraps, secret altars to dark powers, nonsensical layouts, slightly off measurements to make life there a series of petty annoyances, one way secret doors to trap curious children in the walls, and so forth. The demons' every working moment would be spent finding ways to subvert your commands. You would end up with the worst possible place to live on the material plane.
Building houses is not a situation where I want living embodiments of chaos and suffering doing the work. That orphanage would have "FUTURE ADVENTURE SITE" written all over it in big letters, with flashing neon signs. Orphanage built by literal demons? That's a horror movie plot not an altruistic act!
SUMMONS DON'T WORK THAT WAY.
They do exactly what you say exactly as you say it. They don't work around your orders or try to murder people unless you tell them to.
CALLING Demons to build an orphanage would be stupid and probably kill everyone, but SUMMONS are 100% safe. Please read how spells work.
Dood. It was a joke. Calm down.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was noticing the same issue will arise with Lantern Archon.
I pretty much have to summon non aligned creatures, otherwise Archon will make me Lawful.
That's where I fail to see the similarity with Evil summons. Why would summoning an Archon make you more lawful?
You suddenly start abiding a code? You care extremely about your words? Suddenly doing good isn't enough but now it must be done under certain criteria?
Summoning evil creatures does not make you evil.
Summoning lawful creatures does not make you lawful.
Dood. It was a joke. Calm down.
I mean, if you summon a bunch of demons and force them to build low-cost housing for the poor and orphanages then you dismiss them back to their plane before they can get up to any mischief, that's probably a net good act.As a GM I would have so much fun with using summoned demons to build houses - houses with hidden deathtraps, secret altars to dark powers, nonsensical layouts, slightly off measurements to make life there a series of petty annoyances, one way secret doors to trap curious children in the walls, and so forth. The demons' every working moment would be spent finding ways to subvert your commands. You would end up with the worst possible place to live on the material plane.
Building houses is not a situation where I want living embodiments of chaos and suffering doing the work. That orphanage would have "FUTURE ADVENTURE SITE" written all over it in big letters, with flashing neon signs. Orphanage built by literal demons? That's a horror movie plot not an altruistic act!
SUMMONS DON'T WORK THAT WAY.
They do exactly what you say exactly as you say it. They don't work around your orders or try to murder people unless you tell them to.
CALLING Demons to build an orphanage would be stupid and probably kill everyone, but SUMMONS are 100% safe. Please read how spells work.
I'm sorry, but so many people in threads like this seem to not be joking. They honestly claim that summoning demons to save people will just end with your summons randomly attempting to off the innocents.
They ignore rules and make things up to make an [evil] spell Evil, instead of thinking, maybe, those spells aren't at all Evil, so they shouldn't be [evil] spells in the first place.
|
|
I was noticing the same issue will arise with Lantern Archon.
I pretty much have to summon non aligned creatures, otherwise Archon will make me Lawful.
That's where I fail to see the similarity with Evil summons. Why would summoning an Archon make you more lawful?
You suddenly start abiding a code? You care extremely about your words? Suddenly doing good isn't enough but now it must be done under certain criteria?
Summoning evil creatures does not make you evil.
Summoning lawful creatures does not make you lawful.
Which is your interpretation. To me, casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act, and casting a spell with the Lawful descriptor is a lawful act.
EDIT: probably jumped the gun in regards to your post. Yes I agree using those spells will not automatically make you that alignment. But they do set you on the path, or your mind already has.
They ignore rules and make things up to make an [evil] spell Evil, instead of thinking, maybe, those spells aren't at all Evil, so they shouldn't be [evil] spells in the first place.
And yet they are. Per RAW.
Which is your interpretation. To me, casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act, and casting a spell with the Lawful descriptor is a lawful act.I was noticing the same issue will arise with Lantern Archon.
I pretty much have to summon non aligned creatures, otherwise Archon will make me Lawful.
That's where I fail to see the similarity with Evil summons. Why would summoning an Archon make you more lawful?
You suddenly start abiding a code? You care extremely about your words? Suddenly doing good isn't enough but now it must be done under certain criteria?
Summoning evil creatures does not make you evil.
Summoning lawful creatures does not make you lawful.
Explain why Signifier's Rally is Evil, but Maddening Oubliette can be cast by a LN Kuthite without affecting his alignment.
Which is your interpretation. To me, casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act, and casting a spell with the Lawful descriptor is a lawful act.Summoning evil creatures does not make you evil.
Summoning lawful creatures does not make you lawful.
I agree with what you wrote here. I have no problem with "casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act" (etc.). It is obviously RAI and almost RAW with a little bit of extrapolation.
But I'll stand firm on the ground that committing an evil act doesn't make you evil. The game has no rules that explicitly say that a GM should change your alignment because you commit ONE evil act, or even lots of evil acts. There's some gray area around that, but nothing officially stipulating it.
So a good character can cast spells with the [evil] descriptor all day long, Each time he casts one it's an evil act. But it doesn't make the character evil and his alignment doesn't change. I would ask the player why he wants to do this and I would talk to him about whether he has the correct alignment for this character, but simply casting these spells doesn't make him evil.
|
|
Explain why Signifier's Rally is Evil, but Maddening Oubliette can be cast by a LN Kuthite without affecting his alignment.Which is your interpretation. To me, casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act, and casting a spell with the Lawful descriptor is a lawful act.I was noticing the same issue will arise with Lantern Archon.
I pretty much have to summon non aligned creatures, otherwise Archon will make me Lawful.
That's where I fail to see the similarity with Evil summons. Why would summoning an Archon make you more lawful?
You suddenly start abiding a code? You care extremely about your words? Suddenly doing good isn't enough but now it must be done under certain criteria?
Summoning evil creatures does not make you evil.
Summoning lawful creatures does not make you lawful.
I did not say all spells with or without Alignments are deserving of having/not having them. I said that using an aligned spell is an aligned act.
After reading that second spell I believe it should warrant an Evil tag based off the flavor text and what it does.
As for Signifer's Rally? I'm guessing it pulls the same s%&* that Event Horizon did. *shrugs*
|
|
Which is your interpretation. To me, casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act, and casting a spell with the Lawful descriptor is a lawful act.Summoning evil creatures does not make you evil.
Summoning lawful creatures does not make you lawful.
I agree with what you wrote here. I have no problem with "casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act" (etc.). It is obviously RAI and almost RAW with a little bit of extrapolation.
But I'll stand firm on the ground that committing an evil act doesn't make you evil. The game has no rules that explicitly say that a GM should change your alignment because you commit ONE evil act, or even lots of evil acts. There's some gray area around that, but nothing officially stipulating it.
So a good character can cast spells with the [evil] descriptor all day long, Each time he casts one it's an evil act. But it doesn't make the character evil and his alignment doesn't change. I would ask the player why he wants to do this and I would talk to him about whether he has the correct alignment for this character, but simply casting these spells doesn't make him evil.
And I agree. Sorry, I edited my last post after I realized I had misread what you posted.
Explain why Signifier's Rally is Evil, but Maddening Oubliette can be cast by a LN Kuthite without affecting his alignment.
Does this thread need to devolve into citing specific spells and their effects against specific cultists?
If you feel that Signifier's Rally has the wrong descriptor, create a thread and ask for a FAQ or errata. Or house rule a different descriptor in your game. But the OP didn't ask about this spell; his question was far more general than this.
Let's please keep the discussion at the same general level or this thread will lose whatever relevancy and usefulness it might have left.
EDIT: probably jumped the gun in regards to your post. Yes I agree using those spells will not automatically make you that alignment. But they do set you on the path, or your mind already has.
It's a "cart before the horse" question.
Some players seem to feel that casting an evil spell makes you evil, or doing an evil deed makes you evil.
I disagree. That's sticking the cart in front of the horse that pulls it.
I submit that, generally speaking, only evil people WANT to cast evil spells and do evil deeds (rare exceptions and necessities exist). If you wrote evil on your character sheet, I'll never question you when you do evil deeds. But if you wrote good on your character sheet, like the OP did, I'll question why a good character wants to do this evil stuff.
If you have no good answer for that then we'll talk about whether your character is really good, or is he really just evil and we got the alighment label wrong the first time.
jfc do we need another of these threads?
Yep, it seems we do.
I think though that we make a mistake when we consider everybody with a given alignment to be an exemplar of that alignment, and for all of their ideas to turn out to be good ideas. It doesn't make a character "not Good" if their attitudes towards outsiders tend towards irreverence or whimsy, and they can even have ideas that turn out to not work out and still be a good character.
Like a powerful wizard could theoretically have seen nothing but good come from summoning demons to mine gems or turn a grist mill, with the proceeds donated to worthy charities so maybe thought that he could continue to help reform demons by having them construct orphanages. This might backfire horribly, but "I'm going to redeem demons by having them do good works" is more naive than evil. You shouldn't be evil simply because you're naive (though the two can go together) and you shouldn't end up as evil just because you screwed up despite your intentions being good. Whichever good deity takes an interest in orphans might get really mad at you if you accidentally end up dooming a whole lot of orphans, but there has to be a way to make it up to him or her.
I think though that we make a mistake when we consider everybody with a given alignment to be an exemplar of that alignment, and for all of their ideas to turn out to be good ideas. It doesn't make a character "not Good" if their attitudes towards outsiders tend towards irreverence or whimsy, and they can even have ideas that turn out to not work out and still be a good character.
Like a powerful wizard could theoretically have seen nothing but good come from summoning demons to mine gems or turn a grist mill, with the proceeds donated to worthy charities so maybe thought that he could continue to help reform demons by having them construct orphanages. This might backfire horribly, but "I'm going to redeem demons by having them do good works" is more naive than evil. You shouldn't be evil simply because you're naive (though the two can go together) and you shouldn't end up as evil just because you screwed up despite your intentions being good. Whichever good deity takes an interest in orphans might get really mad at you if you accidentally end up dooming a whole lot of orphans, but there has to be a way to make it up to him or her.
Your example falls under that NG idea of "greater good" - you're using evil for the greater good, which a NG is willing to do, but not so much a LG.
Nevertheless, I would wonder why you won't summon an earth elemental to mine those gems or summon a simple animal to turn your grist mill. After all, why summon an evil creature when a neutral one can do the job just as easily? I submit that a NG caster would see it that way and wouldn't be inclined to summon demons for those tasks. If is IS inclined to use demons for that, he's probably not NG in the first place.
Arcane spellcasters can cast any spells on their spell lists.
Divine spellcasters are limited by the power of their gods, and therefore they are limited to what spells their gods would know.
If you're going with evil spells as evil acts, expect all of your summoners to eventually become cackling necromancers by the end who just walk around with an army of skeletons to act as meat shields since most of the best summons are evil.
Someone already quoted the PFS ruling that [evil] spells aren't Evil acts in that campaign.
Apparently yes, there is a Celestial Healing.
If you're going with evil spells as evil acts, expect all of your summoners to eventually become cackling necromancers by the end who just walk around with an army of skeletons to act as meat shields since most of the best summons are evil.
I thought most of the best summons were either good, felines, or made of dirt.
Nevertheless, I would wonder why you won't summon an earth elemental to mine those gems or summon a simple animal to turn your grist mill. After all, why summon an evil creature when a neutral one can do the job just as easily?
There's no reason a hypothetical naive master summoner couldn't think he or she is actually doing more good by teaching demons about the value of good, honest work or the satisfaction one gets from helping those less fortunate. You're unlikely to teach an earth elemental or an animal anything, and good outsiders likely already understand the lessons you are trying to impart on those you summon.
I mean, this is likely to backfire horribly, but "I want to redeem a bunch of demons" is very much a "good" aligned thing to think.
Nevertheless, I would wonder why you won't summon an earth elemental to mine those gems or summon a simple animal to turn your grist mill. After all, why summon an evil creature when a neutral one can do the job just as easily?There's no reason a hypothetical naive master summoner couldn't think he or she is actually doing more good by teaching demons about the value of good, honest work or the satisfaction one gets from helping those less fortunate. You're unlikely to teach an earth elemental or an animal anything, and good outsiders likely already understand the lessons you are trying to impart on those you summon.
I mean, this is likely to backfire horribly, but "I want to redeem a bunch of demons" is very much a "good" aligned thing to think.
That's quite a stretch. I've yet to encounter a player who had a spellcaster capable of summoning demons yet so naive that he couldn't understand what a demon really is.
However, if such a caster existed (I'm imagining Sandel from Dragon Age: "Enchantment? Enchantment!", but it's "Summon? Summon!") then I would count that as a valid answer to my question. I wondered why your good caster would summon demons and you satisfactorily answered it: he's a summoning savant and doesn't know any better.
I've said it repeatedly in my posts on this thread: I would ask why a character of alignment X wants to do action Y, and if you can answer that then there's no problem. If you can't, I might suggest that alignment X is not well suited to the character you're really trying to play. Your Sandel summoner has the answer so no need to talk about whether his alignment is misplaced.
Nevertheless, I would wonder why you won't summon an earth elemental to mine those gems or summon a simple animal to turn your grist mill. After all, why summon an evil creature when a neutral one can do the job just as easily?There's no reason a hypothetical naive master summoner couldn't think he or she is actually doing more good by teaching demons about the value of good, honest work or the satisfaction one gets from helping those less fortunate. You're unlikely to teach an earth elemental or an animal anything, and good outsiders likely already understand the lessons you are trying to impart on those you summon.
I mean, this is likely to backfire horribly, but "I want to redeem a bunch of demons" is very much a "good" aligned thing to think.
How many high level summoners (high level, of necessity, meaning they have had a lot of experience) would remain naive through those life experiences?
It is a possibility, it is just a extreme rarity, and is usually related to some form of mental disability. But then I'd have to question whether such individuals would really qualify as high level/experienced. Sure they may have had a lot of life experiences, but the inability to learn from those experiences....
Crai, that sounds really fun. By why is a GOOD character concerned with balancing good and evil? I think you missed the axis there. Your NG guy should have worried about balancing Law and Chaos. Or he should have been LN and then he would have been justified in balancing Good and Evil.
In other words, the character you're describing was FIRMLY planted on the side of good, so why is he trying so hard to exist between good and evil - that's what (some) neutrals do.
Because he considered it a fascinating moral & intellectual challenge to wield Evil spells against his the evil enemies that he despised. All the way to the extreme thresholds of usage without having said magicks lure him back over to the Dark Side (part of his backstory was that he was an apprentice to an evil wizard in his early years). Again, it was a game-within-game to him. His "goodness" was firmly entrenched - yet he loved the tinkering with Evil spells - and he loved quashing evil enemies with their own medicine.
The Neutral part of his prefixed alignment never really factored into the character's thematic schtick.
The naivete would be compatible with the hubris that comes with being someone who has tremendous cosmic magic power. If you can get anybody from anywhere to come to appear to you at your beck and call you might start thinking like "I am so tremendous, I can convince demons to turn from their nature and become kind and generous." It is, after all, not impossible for demons to have alignments other than evil ones (though the text does grant that they are generally iconoclasts, outcasts, or both) so it should be possible to take a demon who is evil and convince him or her to become not evil (as this is a thing other demons have done of their own volition.) Whether or not this backfires horribly is going to have a lot to do with how powerful, patient, and careful the wizard actually is, but it's wholly in keeping with the fantasy tropes of mages to overestimate their own power.
As for "knowing the true nature of demons" I don't think that's a thing a character can realistically know, any more than they can know the true nature of elves, orcs, people from another country, or people of the opposite sex. The fact of the matter is that if you're an intelligent being capable of making decisions, even if you were brought up in a culture that strongly instilled certain notions in you, you are capable of making the decision to do other than what you find easiest or most natural.
That's quite a stretch. I've yet to encounter a player who had a spellcaster capable of summoning demons yet so naive that he couldn't understand what a demon really is.
I've had one. Sorcerers... perfect excuse to play a spellcaster who doesn't actually understand the ramifications of toying with the worlds physics on an minutely-basis.
At least this situation is in better than in 3.5e, where you could actually conjure demons and then just cast a spell to make them become good.
The naivete would be compatible with the hubris that comes with being someone who has tremendous cosmic magic power. If you can get anybody from anywhere to come to appear to you at your beck and call you might start thinking like "I am so tremendous, I can convince demons to turn from their nature and become kind and generous."
Yep, someone might think that. But since demons are MADE OF evil, the way fire elementals are made of fire, believing this is exactly like believing you can convince a fire elemental to be wet instead of hot.
It is, after all, not impossible for demons to have alignments other than evil ones (though the text does grant that they are generally iconoclasts, outcasts, or both) so it should be possible to take a demon who is evil and convince him or her to become not evil (as this is a thing other demons have done of their own volition.) Whether or not this backfires horribly is going to have a lot to do with how powerful, patient, and careful the wizard actually is, but it's wholly in keeping with the fantasy tropes of mages to overestimate their own power.
Not impossible, sure. But such demons are essentially mutants. Birth defects. Cast out because they are defective, the way some societies on earth have cast out infants born with Downs Syndrome or other defects.
Summoning a non-defective demon and trying to "convince" it to be autistic is not really likely to happen.
Being that naive is also not likely to happen.
As for "knowing the true nature of demons" I don't think that's a thing a character can realistically know,
Except they can, with a Knowledge(Planes) roll. Not even a tremendously high roll.
any more than they can know the true nature of elves,
Knowledge(Local)
orcs,
Knowledge(Local)
people from another country,
Knowledge(Local)
or people of the opposite sex.
Knowledge(Alien Life Forms)
The fact of the matter is that if you're an intelligent being capable of making decisions, even if you were brought up in a culture that strongly instilled certain notions in you, you are capable of making the decision to do other than what you find easiest or most natural.
Yes, but once you have made that decision, and live by that decision, or more importantly, once you have become the person who WANTS to live by that decision, then the alignment level we hang on you, at that point, might not be reflective of that differently-aligned culture.
I think passing a knowledge roll to know a thing about something grants you insight into it, it doesn't let you know the "true nature" of a thing especially since there may not really be any nature of a thing that's more "true" than other, potentially contradictory natures. Like there's no one thing you can say about "people who live in another country" that will be universally true about them save for "they are people who live in that country."
And while demons are certainly made of some elemental force that "protection from evil" repels, the link between "evil" in the sense of that kind of energy and "evil" in the sense of ordinary acts committed by normal mortals that are mean or destructive should be far from clear to a character. It's certainly not especially clear to me when I'm GMing. If a player were interested in exploring the distinction the distinction between "evil in a cosmic sense" and "evil in a mundane sense" that would be a great thing to put in a campaign. You certainly can play this game where good and evil are starkly defined sides that are constantly in opposition, but it's kind of more interesting when you muddy the waters a little bit and get people to think about "how does anyone know or choose what the right thing to do is?"
I mean, I'm a 20 year veteran of D&D in its various incarnations, I've kind of gotten bored with "let's kill the orcs because it says in the book that they're evil; we're good so we destroy evil" and I'm more interested in "If we kill the orcs because they are different from us, potentially but not necessarily hostile, and they have stuff we want... are we evil? Certainly if we attack the orcs unprovoked they would consider us such."
|
|
No one, I think, is advocating for murderhobingk, this is a conversation on the existence and ramifications of supernatural evil (and other alignments and elements).
And the thing about Knowledges is that you can learn more about an outsider than simply some insight, much more than you can a mortal. Outsiders are a lot closer to 1-dimensioal in how they act than mortals, in that how they act is hardwired into him.
Interestingly if [Evil] = Evil act then you can highlight the distinction between "evil in a cosmic sense" and "evil in a mundane sense" by having people who have alignments that are a step away from their true personality because they happened to keep using aligned magic. Show how you can do acts of Team X without intention, but count as team X because those are the rules of the cosmos.
Or have a member of an alignment restricted class like a bard or druid using aligned magic to try and retain their powers despite their personalities or actions.
|
|
Interestingly if [Evil] = Evil act then you can highlight the distinction between "evil in a cosmic sense" and "evil in a mundane sense" by having people who have alignments that are a step away from their true personality because they happened to keep using aligned magic. Show how you can do acts of Team X without intention, but count as team X because those are the rules of the cosmos.
Or have a member of an alignment restricted class like a bard or druid using aligned magic to try and retain their powers despite their personalities or actions.
Just a note, Bards aren't alignment restricted in Pathfinder anymore.
I just don't think "Demons that end up other than evil were simply mutants or glitches in the system" or "Demons that end up other than evil because they had some experiences or exposure to other new ideas that convinced them to reconsider what they believed" should be a thing a character ought to be capable of knowing. It's perfectly valid that for the GM to play it either way, since it's fluff, but "why is x the way they are" is not generally something anybody is really able to get down a concrete answer on.
|
|
I just don't think "Demons that end up other than evil were simply mutants or glitches in the system" or "Demons that end up other than evil because they had some experiences or exposure to other new ideas that convinced them to reconsider what they believed" should be a thing a character ought to be capable of knowing. It's perfectly valid that for the GM to play it either way, since it's fluff, but "why is x the way they are" is not generally something anybody is really able to get down a concrete answer on.
Are you talking about Unique outsiders that are outside their norm for alignment (in which case I agree that would be outside the scope of a knowledge: planes check) or Outsiders in general?
Just a note, Bards aren't alignment restricted in Pathfinder anymore.
Huh, I've been houseruling that since 3.0 so I never noticed. Neat.
Are you talking about Unique outsiders that are outside their norm for alignment (in which case I agree that would be outside the scope of a knowledge: planes check) or Outsiders in general?
Specific cases of outsiders. If you summon a demon, you can have a general idea about it, but if you actually sit down and talk to it, it shouldn't be odd if it surprises you by breaking from your expectations of it. Insofar as an instance of whatever type of thing is allowed to be a character, it will likely deviate from preconceptions and stereotypes about that sort of thing. I would think "you are able to summon outsiders" will appeal to a lot of folks for reasons more in line with "you can have a controlled conversation with an alien being" than "you can get it to fight your enemies for you" honestly.
People who use awesome cosmic powers to go on dangerous adventures would most likely be vastly outnumbered by people who use awesome cosmic powers to learn about things.
the only thing the Summon Monster spell seems to guarantee is that it attacks your opponents to the best of the summon's ability. Other than that, all the RAW says is, "you can direct it ... to perform other actions." To me, this doesn't exactly read as "They do exactly what you say exactly as you say it. They don't work around your orders or try to murder people unless you tell them to."
The line of "If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions." is pointless if they don't do what you say... since it's not necessary to say "you can communicate with creatures you can communicate with".
I agree that the summon will obey the summoner's orders. But the order "Build an orphanage" can be executed in so many different ways, and per "Summoning", the summon has a personality, so....
Oh, I certainly think if you say "Build an orphanage" to a demon they'll try to use orphans as the building materials. But they'll still do what you say.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
On my joke about the evil orphanage, I actually presumed a Calling spell was involved simply because most summons don't even last long enough to read and understand a building blueprint, let alone get any real work done.
But yes, if you carefully supervise and give exacting instructions, probably a DC 25 Profession(foreman) roll or so, you could get a decent normal structure. Fail the roll and you'll get a building with unanticipated "surprises." You are trying to control living embodiments of chaos and malice.
It would actually be a lot easier to use devils. At least they are used to following commands and cooperating to achieve goals. Demons seem like the absolute worst choice if you need an altruistic team project.
Many outsiders are super smart so I wouldn't worry too much about their lack of appropriate Craft skills.
Demons seem like the absolute worst choice if you need an altruistic team project.
Nah, that'd be either Qlippoth (even more Erratic and wrong to have in reality than demons) or Div (who's backstory is literally revolting from being slaves for mortals having to do things like make buildings). :P
Didn't Solomon build a temple using demons? I believe he did according to the bible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't Solomon build a temple using demons? I believe he did according to the bible.
That's from the Testament of Solomon, an ~1st-5th century AD apocryphal work, probably written by a Greek Christian. Definitely not part of the Bible.
Also, the writer doesn't really make the Pathfinder distinction between demons and any other non-angelic spirits. More specifically, all non-angelic spirits are portrayed as demons (some of the demons are ~the Pleiades who make their home in Mount Olympus).
Finally, I think it ends with Solomon losing the Spirit of God that was upon him, and warning humanity not to be foolish like he was. So I guess he ended up with RP consequences for his actions too.
What a train wreck of a thread.
Summoning demons and devils has other potential mechanical effects.
Scrying becomes easier, and it adds yet another location for teleport without error.
That orphanage built by demons? In ten years that place will be crash pad #1 whenever some hapless demon is on the same plane or in need of blowing off some steam.
|
That's kinda my point. Sometimes evil summons are just better in combat for the situation.
I'm trying not to make it a permanent thing, but if my desire is to save my friends, I don't think I'll stop and look "oh I'm casting an evil spell", I'll just think along the lines "this will save my friends, it has to be done".
Will I commit an evil act besides the casting to save my friends? I don't know. Maybe? That's where I have to draw the line probably.Is there something as a greater good? Is it worth willingly sacrificing someone if the good it will do it's far more? I can't tell you that.
I'm a Wizard, if summoning an evil demon will help me defeat something and summoning something good might not work, then, it's hard to not do it.
That is how temptation works actually ;-)
Quicker, easier, more seductive ...
Didn't Solomon build a temple using demons? I believe he did according to the bible.That's from the Testament of Solomon, an ~1st-5th century AD apocryphal work, probably written by a Greek Christian. Definitely not part of the Bible.
Also, the writer doesn't really make the Pathfinder distinction between demons and any other non-angelic spirits. More specifically, all non-angelic spirits are portrayed as demons (some of the demons are ~the Pleiades who make their home in Mount Olympus).
Finally, I think it ends with Solomon losing the Spirit of God that was upon him, and warning humanity not to be foolish like he was. So I guess he ended up with RP consequences for his actions too.
I think having your house lose 5/6ths of his Kingdom would qualify. Not many folks are aware of the end of Solomon's story... that for all his wisdom, he ends up being a wicked idolator, and God all but takes his kingdom away from his family as punishment.
On using evil outsiders to do good things: several real-world legends involves the devil losing a bet or challenge and having to help the winner do something... (e.g. such as the devil being forced to help build a church in the form of a draft horse...)
Isn't the reason why those are legends because it was amazing that it didn't end in disaster?
Y'know- either the usual monkey paw garbage (ie- but your church ended up being EVVVVUUULLL!!1! bleh bleh) or they get loose and eat like...all the blind/deaf orphans. Or convince you to murder the blind/deaf orphans ("c'mon, it'll be easy- they'll never see it coming!")
It is an honest thing you might need to consider in a world where evil outsiders are actual, tangible lifeforms with long, well documented histories. It is like nuclear power- oh, sure, you can do some great things...but if you don't know what you are doing, and if you don't have very, very good systems in place...things can get ugly. And nuclear waste usually (as far as I know) doesn't actively plot to murder you, or to get you to murder blind dead orphans.
The general idea that "it is usually best not to mess with them at all" might be public opinion. Outside of Chelaix (and the nations under its influence), working with evil outsiders might be seen as working with TNT.
Whether that opinion is fair or not is up for question, of course. I think we can all agree that calling is bad mojo, but the very limited nature of the usual summoning spells might be more up for question.
The reason clerics of good can't cast evil spells is because their gods give them their power. Such a weak argument.
You DMs that are ruling evil spells make you evil are just bad DMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer is: yes. Wizards are not bound by alignment because their power comes from knowledge, but clerics and Divine spellcasters are due to their spellcasting coming from a deity who doesn't cast such spells and therefore can't bestow them to a mortal.