So then a question, and yes it's all theoretical. Let's say you keep using that wand. Cause overall your good and it helps. Tomorrow paizo posts errata that each time you use it an important gets its wings 4 kittens die and a child gets cancer.
Does that matter to your view of your charector now? How would they react to learning that?
The character wouldn't learn it, he retroactively would always have known it, and thus never would have used it. If Fireball was suddenly made [Evil] next week, not every fire blaster would retroactively turn evil, they just wouldn't have used it in the first place.
I'd expect a refund for the remaining uses of the wand, and then stop using it.
Cause if you basis for using it nothing in the rules tells why it's bad, it just is so whatever I don't care that seems...negligent? Probably not the right word I'm looking for, but I need sleep
The thing is, there is literally no way you could have known. Not even a deity could Divine why it's evil, because there is no reason.
That's not negligence, or callousness, that's disregarding a really dumb rule.
|
You might not have known precisely why it was evil and bad but it's listed as bad, was the point I was trying to make. If you were told the spell was evil, no one is sure how or why even the gods are silent on that when asked why it was an evil spell but you went ahead and used it anyway and then we're shocked when you discovered it was evil than well I have nothing to say.
And we know it's evil, the rules say so.
I mean having a evil soul dooms you into a poop devil, it is not something you (might) want.
Every Paladin thread ever?
This thread has really made me reexamine alignment in my games and primarily for my own campaign setting. Thank you.
|
So you don't accept any errata to the rules?Does that matter to your view of your charector now? How would they react to learning that?Pretty much the same way I would view the GM altering the campaign world after the fact any other time.
I don't understand the question. Your first example is not a representation of your second.
And we know it's evil, the rules say so.No, the rules say it is Evil, not evil. It is up to the GM and players to determine if Evil is evil now.
For the rules, you might as well replace Evil with Blue. It means about as much.
Or you just use the official unofficial Paizo published rule that does exactly the same.
Do Unchained rules count as homebread?
Mm.
Bread.
Do Unchained rules count as homebread?They count as optional.
Yes but what exactly do we count as "mandatory alignment rules"?
Rhetorical question.|
|
I don't understand the question. Your first example is not a representation of your second.So you don't accept any errata to the rules?Does that matter to your view of your charector now? How would they react to learning that?Pretty much the same way I would view the GM altering the campaign world after the fact any other time.
That's not the question I was asking you. In this specific case I'm asking you if they changed the wording of the spell to give it a defined answer of what the evil nature of it was would you change your view on it. Would your charector in a game suddenly change their view. If they discovered the direct consequences. Those are two separate questions by the way. Have you never had a charector set up to use a rule in the book get errata? Certainly it would be dependant on the gm on whether a rules change made it into a current ongoing game. As I am not your gm I have no answer for you.
I would have an answer for you on why the spell is evil if you were in a campagna I was running, I don't need a full detailed explanation to come up with flavor on why and evil spell is labeled evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might not have known precisely why it was evil and bad but it's listed as bad, was the point I was trying to make. If you were told the spell was evil, no one is sure how or why even the gods are silent on that when asked why it was an evil spell but you went ahead and used it anyway and then we're shocked when you discovered it was evil than well I have nothing to say.
And we know it's evil, the rules say so.
You want to talk rules? Let's talk rules.
>Allignmnet rules say:Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.
Emphasis mine. So no matter what secret stuff that spell does, since it isn't stated outright what it does, casting it is a minor act of Evil. RAW. Get your own facts right. There is no way this spell makes kids get cancer, unless you claim that commiting a child to die a horrible painful death is a "minor" act of evil.
>My current working explanation by the way is that he's deliberately set it up to create discussions like this in the game world - to blur the hard objective nature of good and evil and convince otherwise good people that alignment magic isn't to be trusted and that not everything evil is really wrong. :)
Which would make this spell in no way Evil, unless(*gasp*) you now subscribe to the Consequentialist Morality journal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I do. Haven't used alignment in years. But HWalsh denying the problem exists is what I rail against.As I've said before, I don't consider it a problem. Undead being evil (in and of themselves or the creation of them) and dealing with devils and demons being evil are both common fantasy tropes. I've got no problems with that being built into the system.
I've got no problem with handwaving it away either. I really have trouble understanding why it's such a huge deal for so many people.
I think it's the very idea of objective morality. Most people nowadays, if pressed, would argue either for some form of utilitarianism or moral subjectivism. When you impose a system that deals with good and evil as objective, the first reaction is revulsion.
Notice how most of the "support" for Infernal Healing makes their case in utilitarian terms.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in a God or a Satan. But I have no problems with using alignment in the manner it's intended for the game. I don't however try to map alignment onto real historical people for any serious examination.
|
|
You might not have known precisely why it was evil and bad but it's listed as bad, was the point I was trying to make. If you were told the spell was evil, no one is sure how or why even the gods are silent on that when asked why it was an evil spell but you went ahead and used it anyway and then we're shocked when you discovered it was evil than well I have nothing to say.
And we know it's evil, the rules say so.
You want to talk rules? Let's talk rules.
>Allignmnet rules say:Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.
Emphasis mine. So no matter what secret stuff that spell does, since it isn't stated outright what it does, casting it is a minor act of Evil. RAW. Get your own facts right. There is no way this spell makes kids get cancer, unless you claim that commiting a child to die a horrible painful death is a "minor" act of evil.
Uh... that was kinda my point. That it doesn't matter what explanation was being given the spell is considered evil.
I was merely trying to make the point that it's not written down, so the evil it causes could be anything. . . But that it is considered evil. I was no way claiming what evil the spell did at all. Get you nuances right?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing IS NOT objectively evil by the game rules.I'm more up in arms as you put it because of the logic that using evil to do good is good just because they didn't put in numbers to make sure everyone could clearly see it was evil.Which turns this into a subjective moral argument, because both IRL and in the game there are gradients.
Killing is, objectively, by the game rules, evil.
Good can still be accomplished by doing it.
The question, of course, remains where the line is. When is a small evil justified for accomplishing a bigger good?
Questions that have gone unanswered since the start of recorded history, and I somehow doubt we'll manage to hash out here.
>Allignmnet rules say: Evil: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
>Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
>killing others
Am I missing something?
Killing IS NOT objectively evil by the game rules.I'm more up in arms as you put it because of the logic that using evil to do good is good just because they didn't put in numbers to make sure everyone could clearly see it was evil.Which turns this into a subjective moral argument, because both IRL and in the game there are gradients.
Killing is, objectively, by the game rules, evil.
Good can still be accomplished by doing it.
The question, of course, remains where the line is. When is a small evil justified for accomplishing a bigger good?
Questions that have gone unanswered since the start of recorded history, and I somehow doubt we'll manage to hash out here.
Evil implies killing, as per the rules.
Technically this doesn't mean that killing implies evil, but I think that was the intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>Allignmnet rules say: Evil: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.>Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
>killing others
Am I missing something?
It's because of "and" - which means that it has to include all three of the listed items.
1. hurting
2. oppressing
3. killing.
If it was meant that each one individually was evil then it would be "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, or killing others."
Killing without both hurting and oppressing is not inherently evil per that bit of Pathfinder rules.
Though of note; it is also evil when one kills "without qualms if doing so is convenient" or "for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master".
>My current working explanation by the way is that he's deliberately set it up to create discussions like this in the game world - to blur the hard objective nature of good and evil and convince otherwise good people that alignment magic isn't to be trusted and that not everything evil is really wrong. :)Which would make this spell in no way Evil, unless(*gasp*) you now subscribe to the Consequentialist Morality journal.
No. That doesn't, in itself make it evil. It's evil because it was designed that way.
It's evil. And Asmodeus has a plan. Because he always does.
Maybe that's just what he wants you to think.
Stop buying into the Asmodean propaganda, sheeple!
You might not have known precisely why it was evil and bad but it's listed as bad, was the point I was trying to make. If you were told the spell was evil, no one is sure how or why even the gods are silent on that when asked why it was an evil spell but you went ahead and used it anyway and then we're shocked when you discovered it was evil than well I have nothing to say.
And we know it's evil, the rules say so.
You want to talk rules? Let's talk rules.
>Allignmnet rules say:Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.
Emphasis mine. So no matter what secret stuff that spell does, since it isn't stated outright what it does, casting it is a minor act of Evil. RAW. Get your own facts right. There is no way this spell makes kids get cancer, unless you claim that commiting a child to die a horrible painful death is a "minor" act of evil.
Uh... that was kinda my point. That it doesn't matter what explanation was being given the spell is considered evil.
I was merely trying to make the point that it's not written down, so the evil it causes could be anything. . . But that it is considered evil. I was no way claiming what evil the spell did at all. Get you nuances right?
>it's not written down, so the evil it causes could be anything
Which is not true, RAW. Evil it causes is a minor evil at worst.
>Allignmnet rules say: Evil: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.>Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
>killing others
Am I missing something?
It's because of "and" - which means that it has to include all three of the listed items.
1. hurting
2. oppressing
3. killing.
If it was meant that each one individually was evil then it would be "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, or killing others."
Killing without both hurting and oppressing is not inherently evil per that bit of Pathfinder rules.
So what, it is not evil to capture slaves and torture them to insanity as long as you don't acutally, you know, kill them?
|
|
You might not have known precisely why it was evil and bad but it's listed as bad, was the point I was trying to make. If you were told the spell was evil, no one is sure how or why even the gods are silent on that when asked why it was an evil spell but you went ahead and used it anyway and then we're shocked when you discovered it was evil than well I have nothing to say.
And we know it's evil, the rules say so.
You want to talk rules? Let's talk rules.
>Allignmnet rules say:Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.
Emphasis mine. So no matter what secret stuff that spell does, since it isn't stated outright what it does, casting it is a minor act of Evil. RAW. Get your own facts right. There is no way this spell makes kids get cancer, unless you claim that commiting a child to die a horrible painful death is a "minor" act of evil.
Uh... that was kinda my point. That it doesn't matter what explanation was being given the spell is considered evil.
I was merely trying to make the point that it's not written down, so the evil it causes could be anything. . . But that it is considered evil. I was no way claiming what evil the spell did at all. Get you nuances right?>it's not written down, so the evil it causes could be anything
Which is not true, RAW. Evil it causes is a minor evil at worst.
whose the deciding factor of minor? In a world of billions one child might not even be considered minor, it might be considered miniscule, but then maybe the loss of that child causes a mother to snap becoming a serial killer and murdering hundreds which minor... which is back I belive to my point it says it's nebulous 'minor' evil. Up to your charector to decide what that's worth. As long as you aren't trying to convince me a known evil spell is good we are content
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what, it is not evil to capture slaves and torture them to insanity as long as you don't acutally, you know, kill them?
>Allignmnet rules say: Evil: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.>Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
>killing others
Am I missing something?
It's because of "and" - which means that it has to include all three of the listed items.
1. hurting
2. oppressing
3. killing.
If it was meant that each one individually was evil then it would be "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, or killing others."
Killing without both hurting and oppressing is not inherently evil per that bit of Pathfinder rules.
Flawed logic. Note my post "is not inherently evil per that bit of Pathfinder rules". Just because that particular rule doesn't make it evil doesn't mean that it isn't evil.
Both slavery & torture have each been ruled as being inherently evil.
So what, it is not evil to capture slaves and torture them to insanity as long as you don't acutally, you know, kill them?
>Allignmnet rules say: Evil: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.>Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
>killing others
Am I missing something?
It's because of "and" - which means that it has to include all three of the listed items.
1. hurting
2. oppressing
3. killing.
If it was meant that each one individually was evil then it would be "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, or killing others."
Killing without both hurting and oppressing is not inherently evil per that bit of Pathfinder rules.
Flawed logic. Note my post "is not inherently evil per that bit of Pathfinder rules". Just because that particular rule doesn't make it evil doesn't mean that it isn't evil.
Both slavery & torture have each been ruled as being inherently evil.
>Both slavery & torture have each been ruled as being inherently evil.
Citation needed? Not saying that this isn't true, but I would like to know where it is written. My quick searches didn't turn up anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Citation needed? Not saying that this isn't true, but I would like to know where it is written. My quick searches didn't turn up anything.
Check here for torture - alignment rules
it's mentioned as being a double step towards an evil alignment in the section "Ultimate Campaign on Alignment". Though the devs have also been in several threads before saying that it was evil as well.
I can't see anything as blatant there calling out slavery as evil, (though I believe I read it somewhere) it's implied several times in that same link.
Ex: One of the penances to become good is "•Freeing an oppressed, enslaved, or abused creature. " (and it has the 'or' there)
Ex: Freedom Fighter code is "You find tyranny and slavery the most intolerable crimes in existence" - saying that it is a crime in that context implies evil.
I suppose that I could see an argument for some slavery being LN so long as there are laws protecting the slaves from mistreatment, but that's probably more like an indentured servant in modern context anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Citation needed? Not saying that this isn't true, but I would like to know where it is written. My quick searches didn't turn up anything.Check here for torture - alignment rules
it's mentioned as being a double step towards an evil alignment in the section "Ultimate Campaign on Alignment". Though the devs have also been in several threads before saying that it was evil as well.
I can't see anything as blatant there calling out slavery as evil, (though I believe I read it somewhere) it's implied several times in that same link.
Ex: One of the penances to become good is "•Freeing an oppressed, enslaved, or abused creature. " (and it has the 'or' there)
Ex: Freedom Fighter code is "You find tyranny and slavery the most intolerable crimes in existence" - saying that it is a crime in that context implies evil.
I suppose that I could see an argument for some slavery being LN so long as there are laws protecting the slaves from mistreatment, but that's probably more like an indentured servant in modern context anyway.
Replace torture with rape then, my point stands. By your logic actions that aren't specifically specified to be evil while being [hurts, opresses, not kills] aren't evil, and your only argument is that "and" is supposed to be a logical AND, not a grammatical conjunction "and". To me it sounds like you are just trying to find a way for paladins to murder things without losing their "no evil acts ever" status.
Replace torture with rape then, my point stands. By your logic actions that aren't specifically specified to be evil while being [hurts, opresses, not kills] aren't evil, and your only argument is that "and" is supposed to be a logical AND, not a grammatical conjunction "and". To me it sounds like you are just trying to find a way for paladins to murder things without losing their "no evil acts ever" status.Citation needed? Not saying that this isn't true, but I would like to know where it is written. My quick searches didn't turn up anything.Check here for torture - alignment rules
it's mentioned as being a double step towards an evil alignment in the section "Ultimate Campaign on Alignment". Though the devs have also been in several threads before saying that it was evil as well.
I can't see anything as blatant there calling out slavery as evil, (though I believe I read it somewhere) it's implied several times in that same link.
Ex: One of the penances to become good is "•Freeing an oppressed, enslaved, or abused creature. " (and it has the 'or' there)
Ex: Freedom Fighter code is "You find tyranny and slavery the most intolerable crimes in existence" - saying that it is a crime in that context implies evil.
I suppose that I could see an argument for some slavery being LN so long as there are laws protecting the slaves from mistreatment, but that's probably more like an indentured servant in modern context anyway.
Flawed logic again.
I didn't ever say that the mention proved that killing WASN'T evil. I stated only that the rule you quoted didn't prove that it WAS.
Many other things prove that killing isn't inherently evil though.
Replace torture with rape then, my point stands. By your logic actions that aren't specifically specified to be evil while being [hurts, opresses, not kills] aren't evil, and your only argument is that "and" is supposed to be a logical AND, not a grammatical conjunction "and". To me it sounds like you are just trying to find a way for paladins to murder things without losing their "no evil acts ever" status.Citation needed? Not saying that this isn't true, but I would like to know where it is written. My quick searches didn't turn up anything.Check here for torture - alignment rules
it's mentioned as being a double step towards an evil alignment in the section "Ultimate Campaign on Alignment". Though the devs have also been in several threads before saying that it was evil as well.
I can't see anything as blatant there calling out slavery as evil, (though I believe I read it somewhere) it's implied several times in that same link.
Ex: One of the penances to become good is "•Freeing an oppressed, enslaved, or abused creature. " (and it has the 'or' there)
Ex: Freedom Fighter code is "You find tyranny and slavery the most intolerable crimes in existence" - saying that it is a crime in that context implies evil.
I suppose that I could see an argument for some slavery being LN so long as there are laws protecting the slaves from mistreatment, but that's probably more like an indentured servant in modern context anyway.
Flawed logic again.
I didn't ever say that the mention proved that killing WASN'T evil. I stated only that the rule you quoted didn't prove that it WAS.
Many other things prove that killing isn't inherently evil though.
>Many other things prove that killing isn't inherently evil though.
Like? And what determines if something is evil then?
It's pretty damn obvious that paladins can kill things without falling.
Replace torture with rape then, my point stands. By your logic actions that aren't specifically specified to be evil while being [hurts, opresses, not kills] aren't evil, and your only argument is that "and" is supposed to be a logical AND, not a grammatical conjunction "and". To me it sounds like you are just trying to find a way for paladins to murder things without losing their "no evil acts ever" status.
Yes it is. Which is of course her point. Taken by the implications of the alignment rules, either the weight of what you are doing determines the totality of your actions, or all adventurers are evil.
One is functional, the other is absurd.
It literally defines evil as hurting, oppressing, and killing.
It doesn't get any clearer than that. Also, eradicating evil could mean converting them to good, if you want to argue about it some more.
But again, it doesn't matter, because blue and orange.
Like? And what determines if something is evil then?
In Pathfinder (as was the case in D&D and AD&D before it) Evil is determined by the Universe itself. To put it bluntly Evil and Good, in Pathfinder, are things that can be quantified measured. It isn't the real world where philosophers had to debate for centuries about what is Evil and what is Good.
This was basically a world where you could, with the right skills, simply look at something and tell it.
Proof that killing isn't inherently evil:
From the listing under Crusaders, under Alignment: Lawful Good:
You are honorable and risk your life to eradicate the evil threatening your lands or the lives of those you've vowed to protect.
Under Redeemers, for Alignment: Neutral Good:
Are willing to kill those who refuse redemption.
-----
Bolding is mind of course.
Two good alignments one implying that they kill (Eradicate is kind of a strong word after all) or outright saying they do. Thus, killing, in Pathfinder, is not inherently evil.
>Evil is determined by the Universe itself
So any GM has no guidelines to use other than their own fiat to determine if something is Evil or not? How is that good game design? Ashiel's version, while requiring one to jump through hoops to make allignment reasonable, at least works.
To expand on the "killing" thing:
Killing, in none of these games, has ever in and of itself been an evil act. That is a myth largely propagated by people who believe strongly in subjective morality as the governing morality of Pathfinder.
It is a myth that is empirically false.
Heck, the man who invented the Alignment System, the late Gary Gygax once went on record as saying that killing, in itself, is not an evil act.
No, just so you're curious, you don't get to argue with Gary Gygax. He is the holy of holies in this case.
"Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies." -Gary Gygax, 2005
Also a moment of silence, as invoking the name of Gygax deserves no less. We lost a great man when he passed.
Last time I checked, Gary Gyrax the "Tomb Of Horrors Is Very Fun For The GM" wasn't one of Pathfinder developers, wasn't writing the core rulebook or any other rulebook for it and thus has pretty much nothing to do with this argument.
It literally defines evil as hurting, oppressing, and killing.
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
I'm assuming that you ignored my above post?
It defines evil as hurting, oppressing, and killing NOT hurting, oppressing, or killing.
Quite different. In the former (the actual definition) killing is in no way inherently evil.
It literally defines evil as hurting, oppressing, and killing.
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
I'm assuming that you ignored my above post?
It defines evil as hurting, oppressing, and killing NOT hurting, oppressing, or killing.
Quite different. In the former (the actual definition) killing is in no way inherently evil.
You know that there is such a thing as not logical AND right?
"In my bar you can gamble and smoke, but not gamble and smoke at the same time" and such?