what about the example the op gave with infernal healing? how could a spell that heals people be inherently evil?I was talking about killing orc babies being Good. Which there's no evidence of being a thing. Not every possible reason you could object to Alignment. That was my primary point there.
But if you want to talk about Infernal Healing being Evil, though, I have a simple answer:
If you use an Evil spell to save a life when there was no other way to save them, then you've performed two deeds, one minor Evil act and a major Good act. You therefore, if anything, move your Alignment toward Good.
If you had other ways to save them, why'd you use the Evil spell? Was it cheaper and more efficient? Then you're probably in a little more trouble Alignment-wise.
Who was it you saved and why? A random stranger out of charity and kindness? You're still Good (and becoming more so) then, I mean, you're saving strangers even if you're doing it a bit wrongly.
Was it a close friend because you care for them? Now we're getting into the realm where you might be in trouble. Helping your friends is a Good act...but not a very Good one. Even Evil people do it pretty regularly, after all. Still, probably evens out at Neutral at worst.
Was it an ally who you do not consider a friend purely because you needed his aid to accomplish a goal? Now we're into the realm of a Neutral act done with an Evil spell when other options were available...and a little bit Evil. Not alot, certainly not enough to change alignments, but a little bit.
And then of course there's using a Wand of Infernal Healing rather than one of Cure Light Wounds purely as a cost-cutting measure and mostly because people are down some HP, not because anyone's dying. That's choosing the Evil option out of pure expedience and saves nobody who wouldn't be saved the other way. And that's when it starts being a real issue. When you do it constantly out of expedience.
And even then, you're fine unless...
even if I admit I gave a bad example so what? its like you want to argue my example instead of my point. besides. You still have addressed the core problem here. Why is Infernal Healing considered Evil.
I'm not raising the question of whether the ends justify the means. I'm posing the question, how do you determine that the means are evil. why is infernal healing an evil spell? how can a spell that heals people be inherently evil. thats the problem with good/evil in pathfinder, its not a descriptor of an act based on the detrimental or positive consequences to society of said act like in real life. in pathfinder good and evil are magical and seemingly arbitrary forces of nature.
a character who dedicates there life to healing the sick via infernal healing wouldn't be a morally grey character based on that alone. but the pathfinder rule system would have us treat them as such.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
even if I admit I gave a bad example so what? its like you want to argue my example instead of my point.
When you use factually untrue and morally abhorrent examples? Absolutely. I'm perfectly happy to have a debate on the general point, but I'm not gonna go along with a gross mischaracterization of what the book actually says in a way that makes the whole thing ugly and unpleasant.
The 'it's fine to kill orc babies' thing is something a lot of people apparently actually believe the rules support, is a complete load of crap, and is as morally toxic as any opinion about an imaginary species can get. I'm gonna oppose that a whole lot whenever it's brought up.
besides. You still have addressed the core problem here. Why is Infernal Healing considered Evil.
It was literally designed by Asmodeus. The God best known for corrupting people. Specifically to corrupt them.
So...it does that. Specifically, by having the [evil] descriptor. Which is workable mechanically and makes sense thematically.
How it corrupts you is a little unclear, but that can be flavored by GMs any way they like. I've put forward...I think three different explanations? Any would work.
I'm not raising the question of whether the ends justify the means. I'm posing the question, how do you determine that the means are evil. why is infernal healing an evil spell? how can a spell that heals people be inherently evil.
By being powered by torturing people (specifically, it increases the suffering of those in Hell slightly every time it's cast). By mystically tainting your soul with a hint of darkness that whispers in your ear to do wickedness. By increasing Asmodeus's personal power every time you cast it.
Are any of these true? That depends on the game, but any of them might be, and I rather think the Evil descriptior means one of them (or something on par) is indeed the case.
thats the problem with good/evil in pathfinder, its not a descriptor of an act based on the detrimental or positive consequences to society of said act like in real life.
For the record, this is not how I, or many others, would define Good or Evil in real life.
in pathfinder good and evil are magical and seemingly arbitrary forces of nature.
Magical? Yes. Arbitrary? No.
a character who dedicates there life to healing the sick via infernal healing wouldn't be a morally grey character based on that alone. but the pathfinder rule system would have us treat them as such.
Depends on how Infernal Healing works and why it has the [evil] descriptor, doesn't it?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On evil and good spells. The power of the dark side is seductive and corrupting. Infernal healing is a great example. It is easy to use, works better, so why not, just give in, join the dark side, we have more efficient healing. Infernal healing was probably created by devils as a way to seduce good people to evil. It's the gateway spell to more evil. The standard rules assume that evil is a tangible thing. So channeling evil power slowly corrupts your body and turns you to evil.
As for people claiming oh, I can just balance out my evil deeds with good ones and no alignment change right? Your character is a certain alignment because that's their personal morals. They don't want to be a different alignment. So lets say you are LG, you do some chaotic acts and your alignment shifts to NG. That is because the experiences you had caused you to reevaluate and redefine your morals. You now believe being NG is better and don't want to go back to before. Spells are the same, they just magically change your mind instead of through experience. So you cast an evil spell and become evil, you think: wow I was an idiot before, but now my eyes are opened to the way things really are. Why would you want to go back to being an idiot?
As others have said, it's an antiquated and simplistic system based on absolute black and white (or in this case, black, white, red and blue) ethical codes. If you don't like it, I highly recommend picking up a copy of pathfinder unchained and checking out the rules on removing alignment.
The alignment system is purposely left vague, so each group can define their own version of good/evil/law/chaos, but those are absolute categories, not relative. Under this system you either define orcs as irrevocably evil (I would call this the classic style) in which case killing orc babies is a good act, you are exterminating monsters. In this version, the orc babies would be like Chucky and try to murder you because they are Evil. Or you can define them as only evil due to circumstance (I would call this the modern style) in which case killing orc babies is an evil act. In this version of the world, any baby raised right could be a good person, so you would be murdering innocent children.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You still have addressed the core problem here. Why is Infernal Healing considered Evil.It was literally designed by Asmodeus. The God best known for corrupting people. Specifically to corrupt them.
So...it does that. Specifically, by having the [evil] descriptor. Which is workable mechanically and makes sense thematically.
How it corrupts you is a little unclear, but that can be flavored by GMs any way they like. I've put forward...I think three different explanations? Any would work.
I'm not raising the question of whether the ends justify the means. I'm posing the question, how do you determine that the means are evil. why is infernal healing an evil spell? how can a spell that heals people be inherently evil.By being powered by torturing people (specifically, it increases the suffering of those in Hell slightly every time it's cast). By mystically tainting your soul with a hint of darkness that whispers in your ear to do wickedness. By increasing Asmodeus's personal power every time you cast it.
Are any of these true? That depends on the game, but any of them might be, and I rather think the Evil descriptior means one of them (or something on par) is indeed the case.
Yeah, that's basically it. BlackJack Weasel is specifically assuming a materialistic, non-supernatural theory of evil -- "a descriptor of an act based on the detrimental or positive consequences to society of said act."
The problem with this is that a) we don't have a full description of all the consequences to society of said act; goodness, we don't even have a full description of all the consequences to society of acts a lot less subtle than a spell deliberately designed by an deceptive and evil god to corrupt people. What are the consequences of burning coal? It took generations of scientists person-centuries of work to establish that climate change is a real thing and likely to be a negative consequence. It similarly took person-centuries to establish that tobacco was carcinogenic, and so forth. There are lots of subtle things that could have been built into a spell designed by Asmodeus that aren't going to be describe in a few lines of spell rules -- but we know that the spell is [evil].
But the other problem is that b) the Pathfinder universe is explicitly not simply materialistic. A spell that adjusts the relative power between Asmodeus and Saranrae, for example, would not necessarily have any obvious effects "on society," but it would greatly change the balance of power among the gods. At a minimum, if casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor makes you more likely to be sent to Asmodeus' domain, then you're ultimately creating more devils by casting this spell.....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that part of the issue is that there's no defined consequence for using [evil]/[good] spells, so players are just looking at the numerical/crunch benefit and not the possible story/RP implications.
I think that part of the issue is that there's no defined consequence for using [evil]/[good] spells, so players are just looking at the numerical/crunch benefit and not the possible story/RP implications.
I think that they are, but they are also used to looking at the numerical crunch as part of their story/RP implications (as such things are hard-coded into the system in various places). To be clear, I certainly agree that some players may not see the implications, but others are used to internally consistent explanations, and this feels incongruous with that to them.
what about the example the op gave with infernal healing? how could a spell that heals people be inherently evil?
Because Asmodeus explicitly designed it to be that way? Reread the material component. As I recall, it made it's debut as a setting specific spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that they are, but they are also used to looking at the numerical crunch as part of their story/RP implications (as such things are hard-coded into the system in various places). To be clear, I certainly agree that some players may not see the implications, but others are used to internally consistent explanations, and this feels incongruous with that to them.
There is no numerical crunch for alignment, though. Mechanically, if an Chaotic Good Wizard summons a Bone Devil vs a Lawful Evil Wizard summoning a Bone Devil, the exact same math applies.
Story/RP-wise, a bone devil might memorize the party's strengths and weaknesses, then report to a higher devil that there's a chance to corrupt a good (the CG wizard) or a chance to bargain with and bind a new mortal pawn (the LE wizard). Or it might resent being used for good, track the party's movements after being dismissed, and lure them into Hell at some point. Or if the CG wizard keeps summoning devils, the taint of Hell could begin to creep into his mind and he starts having sick thoughts that he thinks aren't his own (but they are, as his alignment slowly shifts). Or nothing whatsoever could happen. And none of those possibilities are right or wrong because there's nothing hard and fast about in the rules about alignment and how a PC's actions affect their alignment.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[ A good roleplayer could have a ball with this, either with playing the struggle and descent into evil or with repentance, atonement and redemption - cleansing the corruption from their soul.
Alternatively, a good role-player could play his character how the heck he wanted to, and not even notice when the GM amended the contents of the alignment box on his character sheet.
GM: The devil casts unholy blight on the party.
Player: Remind me again what alignment you decided I am?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[ A good roleplayer could have a ball with this, either with playing the struggle and descent into evil or with repentance, atonement and redemption - cleansing the corruption from their soul.Alternatively, a good role-player could play his character how the heck he wanted to, and not even notice when the GM amended the contents of the alignment box on his character sheet.
GM: The devil casts unholy blight on the party.
Player: Remind me again what alignment you decided I am?Would that "good roleplayer" also ignore direct magical changes to his alignment, like a cursed Helm of Opposite Alignment? Just go on playing his character how the heck he wanted to?
I've never seen a Helm of Opposite Alignment inflicted on a player character. Not this this century, anyway.
I guess it depends on the person. I'd find it fun in the short term. Forcing someone to play a chaotic evil character (say) on a regular basis? Not cool.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[ A good roleplayer could have a ball with this, either with playing the struggle and descent into evil or with repentance, atonement and redemption - cleansing the corruption from their soul.Alternatively, a good role-player could play his character how the heck he wanted to, and not even notice when the GM amended the contents of the alignment box on his character sheet.
GM: The devil casts unholy blight on the party.
Player: Remind me again what alignment you decided I am?
That seems legitimate, yeah.
Would that "good roleplayer" also ignore direct magical changes to his alignment, like a cursed Helm of Opposite Alignment? Just go on playing his character how the heck he wanted to?
That's a bit different. The Helm of Opposite Alignment specifies that the change is 'mental as well as moral' distinguishing it from normal Alignment shifts...and is a magical curse and thus basically mind control.
It's also CL 12, DC 15 to resist, and frankly extremely unlikely to show up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want devil's blood just buy a spell component pouch, no questions asked about how you get anything in one of them, it's just there.
I think that they are, but they are also used to looking at the numerical crunch as part of their story/RP implications (as such things are hard-coded into the system in various places). To be clear, I certainly agree that some players may not see the implications, but others are used to internally consistent explanations, and this feels incongruous with that to them.There is no numerical crunch for alignment, though. Mechanically, if an Chaotic Good Wizard summons a Bone Devil vs a Lawful Evil Wizard summoning a Bone Devil, the exact same math applies.
Story/RP-wise, a bone devil might memorize the party's strengths and weaknesses, then report to a higher devil that there's a chance to corrupt a good (the CG wizard) or a chance to bargain with and bind a new mortal pawn (the LE wizard). Or it might resent being used for good, track the party's movements after being dismissed, and lure them into Hell at some point. Or if the CG wizard keeps summoning devils, the taint of Hell could begin to creep into his mind and he starts having sick thoughts that he thinks aren't his own (but they are, as his alignment slowly shifts). Or nothing whatsoever could happen. And none of those possibilities are right or wrong because there's nothing hard and fast about in the rules about alignment and how a PC's actions affect their alignment.
Yes and no. Numbers = alignment, notsomuch... I agree entirely with you there. But there are a host of ways that crunch (i.e. hard mechanics) does directly impact alignment (and thus RP and story), and some groups could be put off by suddenly have it be more "fluffy" than their used to.
Examples include all of the detection and protection spells, the <alignment word> spells, magic circles, and <alignment smite> spells. Those are hard numerical results of alignment. Then again, there are effects like the atonement spell or the helm of opposite alignment - effects that explicitly and demonstrably - and, most importantly, [i\discreetly[/i], i.e. "all at once" - alter the alignment of the person.
Some players and groups can be used to looking a alignment in such terms - as a hard, encoded, and obvious mechanical device with rather explicit numbers that are derived from it (aka that +2 to defensive stats or that 4d8+ damage or even <X>-HD-based nausea). Such a view could naturally experience dissonance with a handwavy "it's evil, even without a demonstrable reason why" - similar, in some regards, to the pushback against "undead are always evil, and so is creating them" that you see.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When someone falls in the movies, it doesn't happen after casting the fifty-third protection from good spell. Let's take an example:
Judge Claude Frollo of the Disney movie Hunchback of Notre Dame: He is far from a pleasant man from the start. He despises gypsies, indeed he sees society as at war with them. When faced with Quasimodo, he first intends to have him killed due to his deformity, but realizes he would damn himself if he did. If he did, there would be no way back. Even in his shriveled soul, there is enough good (or maybe fear of the tortures of Hell) to force him to save the child.
However, years later he meets Esmeralda. And he must have her. In the face of this need, he chooses to set fire to the city (IIRC), knowing full well the consequences of doing so for his immortal soul. The act he finally fell for was monstrous, not some little piddling thing.
Otherwise put: Everyone eventually gets one final warning, and yet they choose to ignore it.
However, I would say having lesser evil acts be routine is perfectly sufficient to make you Evil.
This.
An Evil act, like summoning devils to save children, does not force you to start murdering children the next day. But it eats at your conscience. Either you are going to repent of it, bemoaning the circumstances that forced you to rely on devils... Or you will start to think that it's morally permissible to use devils to save children. And from there, it's easier to "fall" for a position in which you think it's morally permissible to use devils to topple oppressive lords... And from there, to using devils for torturing Evil people... Or criminals... Or people you just don't like.
Will this necessarily happen? No, not necessarily... It might not happen. But everyone has to agree that it is easier to fall from "it's okay to use devils to save children" to "it's okay to use devils to beat my enemies" than from "it's never okay to use devils at all".
Good is not symmetrical to Evil. Good is way more demanding, and way easier to fall from.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is that I consider both to similar, though the Helm is obviously more direct.
Regularly casting the evil spells is changing you. Corrupting you. Your roleplay should reflect that. If you don't want to play the Chaotic Evil character, stop doing the magical things that are changing you into one.
That's a House Rule though. Casting Evil spells changes you, but no more than any other Aligned act (indeed, Animate Dead aside, it's specified as a 'minor act'). It's corrupting, not controlling.
A Helm of Opposite Alignment has specific language that forces you to like your new Alignment...no other Alignment change (including that from casting spells) has that 'mental as well as moral' language, and thus no other Alignment change actually enforces any particular behavioral changes.
This.
An Evil act, like summoning devils to save children, does not force you to start murdering children the next day. But it watts at your conscience. Either you are going to repent of it, bemoaning the circumstances that forced you to rely on devils... Or you will start to think that it's morally permissible to use devils to save children. And from there, it's easier to "fall" for a position in which you think it's morally permissible to use devils to topple oppressive lords... And from there, to using devils for torturing Evil people... Or criminals... Or people you just don't like.
Will this necessarily happen? No, not necessarily... It might not happen. But everyone has to agree that it is easier to fall from "it's okay to use devils to save children" to "it's okay to use devils to beat my enemies" than from "it's never okay to use devils at all".
Yeah. This. this is corruption. It doesn't compel behavior, or force you to do or think anything...it just starts you on a path. You can certainly always turn around, but it's easier to just keep going.
Good is not symmetrical to Evil. Good is way more demanding, and way easier to fall from.
This I kinda disagree with. Kinda.
It's not true that Good acts somehow impact your alignment less than Evil ones. It's not true that a minor Evil act taints every Good related to it but not vice versa. The two are equal in force and function.
But...Good acts are, on a practical level, often much harder to accomplish than Evil ones. Saving an innocent life at risk to your own is simply more difficult to do than the cold-blooded murder of an innocent. And so on.
So...I disagree that Evil is easier on a conceptual level, but I agree that it often is on a practical one. At least the extreme stuff. Small acts of both types are generally pretty easy...though even minor acts of Good are easier for some than others.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good is not symmetrical to Evil. Good is way more demanding,This I kinda disagree with. Kinda.
It's not true that Good acts somehow impact your alignment less than Evil ones. It's not true that a minor Evil act taints every Good related to it but not vice versa. The two are equal in force and function.
But...Good acts are, on a practical level, often much harder to accomplish than Evil ones. Saving an innocent life at risk to your own is simply more difficult to do than the cold-blooded murder of an innocent. And so on.
So...I disagree that Evil is easier on a conceptual level, but I agree that it often is on a practical one. At least the extreme stuff. Small acts of both types are generally pretty easy...though even minor acts of Good are easier for some than others.
Classically, this is untrue. There's even a proverb about it. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Taking evil means to a good end is still an evil act, as has been understood by nearly every theologian and moral philosopher going back to Plato.
Similarly, taking good means to achieve an evil end is also an evil act, and there's another proverb about THAT: "The Devil can cite Scripture to his purpose."
Indeed, for most of Western philosophical history, the idea that good and evil are somehow balanced or symmetrical has not been merely wrong, but often actively heretical. (The formal name for that heresy is "Manichaenism," q.v.) Evil is not an independent power opposed to good, but goodness twisted (for example, the sin of lust is simply a perversion of the divine virtue of love, while the sin of greed is a perversion of the divine virtue of joy.)
Now, it's certainly true that performing good acts (even to evil ends) may help you get in the habit of performing those acts, which may help you find a path to eventual goodness and redemption -- so, yes, performing enough good acts may eventually turn you good, but it's a lot longer a slog, in part because it's harder to undo corruption than merely to corrupt, just as it's harder to build than to break. (Or if you like, a pint of wine in a barrel of sewage yields a barrel of sewage -- but a pint of sewage in a barrel of wine also yields a barrel of sewage.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it depends on the person. I'd find it fun in the short term. Forcing someone to play a chaotic evil character (say) on a regular basis? Not cool.My point is that I consider both to similar, though the Helm is obviously more direct.
Regularly casting the evil spells is changing you. Corrupting you. Your roleplay should reflect that. If you don't want to play the Chaotic Evil character, stop doing the magical things that are changing you into one.
No one's "forcing" anyone to do anything. But if you were willing to routinely do things explicitly labelled as "evil" because it's more efficient or convenient than taking the more difficult "straight and narrow" path, you probably weren't "good" in the first place, and your character sheet will eventually reflect that.
Goodwill: Look before thee; dost thou see this narrow way? That is the way thou must go. It was cast up by the Patriarchs, Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, and it is as strait as a Rule can make it: This is the Way thou must go.Christian: But, said Christian, are there no turnings nor windings, by which a Stranger may lose his way?
Goodwill: Yes, there are many ways butt down upon this; and they are crooked and wide: But thus thou mayst distinguish the right from the wrong, the Right only being strait and narrow.
(Emphasis OQ.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classically, this is untrue. There's even a proverb about it. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Taking evil means to a good end is still an evil act, as has been understood by nearly every theologian and moral philosopher going back to Plato.
Well, that's sorta the point of my argument about corruption. I'd argue that committing an Evil act in the service of Good is still Evil, but outweighed by the Good (so, no net effect on Alignment). However, it makes it just that bit easier to perform the next Evil act in service of Good. And the next, and the next, with the bar for 'in service to Good' getting lower each and every time.
The road to hell being paved with good intentions doesn't necessitate Evil being anything but useful and expedient. Which it often is. It doesn't need to mean that it's an inherently different kind of thing on a metaphysical level, just that, due to Evil being easier on a purely practical level than Good, it's easy to fall into Evil habits and behaviors.
Similarly, taking good means to achieve an evil end is also an evil act, and there's another proverb about THAT: "The Devil can cite Scripture to his purpose."
Using a Good act to accomplish an Evil purpose, like using an Evil act to achieve a Good one, doesn't make one any more God. Indeed, it makes one more Evil most times, since Evil acts requiring that kind of setup are usually pretty bad.
Indeed, for most of Western philosophical history, the idea that good and evil are somehow balanced or symmetrical has not been merely wrong, but often actively heretical. (The formal name for that heresy is "Manichaenism," q.v.) Evil is not an independent power opposed to good, but goodness twisted (for example, the sin of lust is simply a perversion of the divine virtue of love, while the sin of greed is a perversion of the divine virtue of joy.)
That's an extremely Judaeo-Christian view of Good and Evil and, IMO, does not really belong in Pathfinder where Evil is explicitly it's own force separate from Good, and there is no evidence whatsoever of Good being superior in terms of power.
In Pathfinder, Good and Evil actually are, definitionally, balanced and symmetrical. That fact is integral to how the world works.
Now, it's certainly true that performing good acts (even to evil ends) may help you get in the habit of performing those acts, which may help you find a path to eventual goodness and redemption -- so, yes, performing enough good acts may eventually turn you good, but it's a lot longer a slog, in part because it's harder to undo corruption than merely to corrupt, just as it's harder to build than to break. (Or if you like, a pint of wine in a barrel of sewage yields a barrel of sewage -- but a pint of sewage in a barrel of wine also yields a barrel of sewage.)
This I agree with. But it's purely because of the practical difficulties I went into above. Good acts are rarely more expedient than Evil ones, so it's much harder to fall into a pattern of doing them out of sheer practicality...whereas the reverse is not true. Evil acts are often easier and more expedient than Good ones on a purely practical level.
I'm not sure I'd call it so much a House Rule as an interpretation (or a justification?) that allows the "casting evil spells makes you evil" and "you should roleplay your alignment" parts to work together. I guess the last is sort of a house rule?
Yep, that last bit is the House Rule.
But if the "corruption" doesn't actually do anything but mechanically change your alignment even though you keep exactly the same behavior, other than maybe being willing to use devils for more good purposes, we're back at the "Well why is that a problem in the first place?" You might be evil, but there's no reason your behavior has to change to do things you wouldn't have done in the first place - like torture, you're just willing to use devilish magic to do the things you would have been doing anyway.
In theory? Sure. But if that's really all you're doing, you aren't Evil. If you go around doing Good deeds all day but summoning Devils, you're probably Good, maybe Neutral. It's if you start using the Devils for things that aren't Good deeds that it starts being an issue.
And my point with the corruption is that, frankly, most people don't actually keep only using a morally dubious but useful thing in extreme circumstances. They start using it more and more...and likely start using other morally dubious things as well, because why not? And before they know it, they're doing some pretty bad stuff without there ever being one moment they can point to and say 'That's where I decided I was the bad guy.'
It's not inevitable by any means, but it's pretty common. Which was sorta my point.
Here I'd agree with Orfamay below - especially when it comes to acts of supernatural evil - things that are magically corrupting. Evil and good don't have to work the same way there and don't have to cancel out cleanly.
Except that they do work the same way and cancel out cleanly in every other example of aligned magic. So them not doing so here is weird and immersion-breaking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, for most of Western philosophical history, the idea that good and evil are somehow balanced or symmetrical has not been merely wrong, but often actively heretical. (The formal name for that heresy is "Manichaenism," q.v.) Evil is not an independent power opposed to good, but goodness twisted (for example, the sin of lust is simply a perversion of the divine virtue of love, while the sin of greed is a perversion of the divine virtue of joy.)That's an extremely Judaeo-Christian view of Good and Evil
Of course it is. Pathfinder is fourth-generation D&D, which was itself an extremely JC game, based on an extremely JC literary genre (high fantasy), as written explicitly so by most of the founding writers such as Tolkien, Lewis, Dunsany, MacDonald, and so forth. You can also add much more modern writers such as Moorcock to that list.
Being surprised to find JC-based morality in Pathfinder and similar games is like being surprised to find warp drive in Star Trek games or samurai in L5R.
In Pathfinder, Good and Evil actually are, definitionally, balanced and symmetrical. That fact is integral to how the world works.
Really? Show me the definition, then.
No one's "forcing" anyone to do anything. But if you were willing to routinely do things explicitly labelled as "evil" because it's more efficient or convenient than taking the more difficult "straight and narrow" path, you probably weren't "good" in the first place, and your character sheet will eventually reflect that.
I guess it depends on the person. I'd find it fun in the short term. Forcing someone to play a chaotic evil character (say) on a regular basis? Not cool.My point is that I consider both to similar, though the Helm is obviously more direct.
Regularly casting the evil spells is changing you. Corrupting you. Your roleplay should reflect that. If you don't want to play the Chaotic Evil character, stop doing the magical things that are changing you into one.Right. And I agree with that.
The question only comes in when the character's only "evil" acts are the routine use of spells labelled as "evil". The rest of the time he's behaving "good".
"The question only comes in when the character's only crimes are the routine commission of misdemeanors. The rest of the time he's being law-abiding."
Yeah, that's basically patently nonsensical. Refraining from murder does not justify running red lights.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my campaigns, infernal healing works by stealing health from otherwise healthy people and transferring it to the recipient. So every time you cast it, a child falls out of a tree and breaks an arm or a kindly grandmother gets cancer or some other misfortune befalls an innocent. Thus every time it's cast the overall misery and pain in the world increases just a little bit.
Is it a justification? Yes. Is it strictly mentioned in the spell description? No. But I feel that Evil spells bring more evil into the world in the same way that Fire spells bring more fire into the world.
And I would look just as much askance at a character that deliberately cultivated an alliance with the plane of water but consistently cast a bunch of Fire spells afterward, as I would at an otherwise good-aligned PC who uses Evil spells routinely.
And yes, that means when someone casts protection from evil that some orphanage somewhere finds a valuable old coin tucked away in the corner of the attic while cleaning or other good fortune. Brining good energy into the world makes things slightly better for everyone.
|
|
Of course it is. Pathfinder is fourth-generation D&D, which was itself an extremely JC game, based on an extremely JC literary genre (high fantasy), as written explicitly so by most of the founding writers such as Tolkien, Lewis, Dunsany, MacDonald, and so forth. You can also add much more modern writers such as Moorcock to that list.
Sure. But the cosmology is specifically and profoundly different. No omnipotent deity, the way the Planes work is extremely divergent, and a host of other changes.
The morality espoused is pretty Judaeo-Christian in most ways, as befits the source material, but the metaphysics and cosmology aren't Judaeo-Christian in the least.
And that's what we're discussing here, really, in terms of whether Good and Evil function differently. As noted reviously, they are real magical forces in the universe, so exactly how they work is metaphysics. Morality 'merely' determines what sort of actions are considered 'Good' or 'Evil'.
Being surprised to find JC-based morality in Pathfinder and similar games is like being surprised to find warp drive in Star Trek games or samurai in L5R.
Morality? Sure, that shows up. Metaphysics? Not so much. That's like finding real historical Japanese figures with their own names in L5R. Does it happen? Maybe occasionally, but it's not the default.
Really? Show me the definition, then.
Well, just to start with, aligned planes all work the same way, in terms of how the effect other Alignments. So do Protection From Alignment and Detect Alignment spells. So do Alignment subtypes. So does...literally every mechanic based on Alignment.
Also, the deity in charge of where your soul goes is True Neutral. If Evil were merely the absence of Good and Good had primacy...wouldn't the being in charge of that be Good?
And then there are the Outer Planes. Which are set up in an explicitly equal and equivalent way.
Literally everything in the game treats all Alignments pretty much identically in terms of symmetry. That's...sorta how I'd define 'definitonally balanced and symmetrical'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the deity in charge of where your soul goes is True Neutral. If Evil were merely the absence of Good and Good had primacy...wouldn't the being in charge of that be Good?
And then there are the Outer Planes. Which are set up in an explicitly equal and equivalent way.
Literally...
Just to play the devil's advocate... The deity in charge of where your soul goes is gonna die herself. The entire plane structure in awesomely impermanent. The multiverse itself will go down in a distant future. In other words, Pharasma also is under judgement. It could be argued that another "layer" of reality exists where Good and Evil are way more fundamental, and Good is the final arbiter.
Indeed, the existence of the Manasaputras gives credence to this (Tough I don't know if they actually exist in Golarion cosmology, since the Bestiary is supposed to be setting-neutral).
P.S.: I don't know if we could add Moorcock to that list, Orfamay. His philosophical leanings seem to run opposite of the others'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one's "forcing" anyone to do anything. But if you were willing to routinely do things explicitly labelled as "evil" because it's more efficient or convenient than taking the more difficult "straight and narrow" path, you probably weren't "good" in the first place, and your character sheet will eventually reflect that.
I guess it depends on the person. I'd find it fun in the short term. Forcing someone to play a chaotic evil character (say) on a regular basis? Not cool.My point is that I consider both to similar, though the Helm is obviously more direct.
Regularly casting the evil spells is changing you. Corrupting you. Your roleplay should reflect that. If you don't want to play the Chaotic Evil character, stop doing the magical things that are changing you into one.Right. And I agree with that.
The question only comes in when the character's only "evil" acts are the routine use of spells labelled as "evil". The rest of the time he's behaving "good".
"The question only comes in when the character's only crimes are the routine commission of misdemeanors. The rest of the time he's being law-abiding."
Yeah, that's basically patently nonsensical. Refraining from murder does not justify running red lights.
Not my point. It's not the labels that are the issue. You use the evil spells sufficiently, your alignment changes to evil.
The question is does the character who uses such spells in the course of his normal adventuring life, but who otherwise adheres to Good behavior make sense? Or should the corruption from those spells that changes his alignment also lead to changes in behavior in other ways?Does dealing with devils or raising undead just change some arbitrary magical tag that affects how you interact with certain spells and effects or does your actual behavior and personality reflect the change in that tag?
A strict reading of the rules doesn't get...
You're going from the premise that the adventurer will use such spells but behave perfectly Good the rest of the time.
What we are arguing is precisely that it's very unlikely that someone using such spells would continue acting perfectly Good the rest of the time.
I mean, why does the adventurer uses such spells in the first place? There are Good and neutral (small-case n neutral) spells with the same effect. Why this affinity for Evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]My point is that I consider both to similar, though the Helm is obviously more direct.
Regularly casting the evil spells is changing you. Corrupting you. Your roleplay should reflect that. If you don't want to play the Chaotic Evil character, stop doing the magical things that are changing you into one.
My problem is that there's a lot of characters who fall into "cast spells that are evil without becoming a complete monster, but are absolutely corrupted by it" in fiction, the most famous probably being the character of Faust, who is a character that falls, but in most versions of the tale never becomes truly 100% evil, just tainted by the magic he uses- and that's what allows hell to get him in the end.
SO there's two benefits:
- Being able to play a fairly interesting fiction archetype
- The fact that this sort of character, a kinda decent guy who had rather poor judgement in spells to cast and is going to have to pay the price eventually, works much better with a Neutral or even Good party than the guy who's doomed to become That Chaotic Evil Guy.
In a more D&D related example, the character I was thinking about yesterday but wasn't able to put my finger on it was Erevis Cale, who is a Cleric of a god that is most certainly Evil, but manages (at least in the first trilogy, haven't read the second) to maintain a mostly Neutral alignment, despite drawing power from the God for his spells. So this sort of character can definitely happen, and is interesting when it does.
SO yeah, I definitely agree with the "Evil spells corrupt, but don't mind control" train of thought.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Judaeo-Christian view of Good and Evil ...
Being surprised to find JC-based morality in Pathfinder and similar games is like being surprised to find warp drive in Star Trek games or samurai in L5R.
It's true that PF and its D&D forebears were grounded in JC (and, as I called out upthread, Aristotelean) concept of evil as a perversion of good.
It's also true that PF is equally grounded in classical and Norse mythology, and, e.g., Moorcock, which represent a much more dualistic view of good and evil.
This tension is evident in the alignment system. Because culturally we are more intuitively familiar with the tropes of the JC concept of evil (easy temptation, difficult redemption), we find certain aspects of the dualistic alignment system... perhaps unsatisfying? Insufficient? Counterintuitive? Bottom line, they cut against some fundamental cultural assumptions.
Nonetheless, dualism (especially as a corollary of polytheism) makes for great heroic fantasy. Good vs. evil, the stuff of legend. Adventuring isn't interesting if you know the side of the angels always wins in the end, right?
IMO, I find the game most satisfying under an approach that combines the two. Start with the core dualistic approach, and all it entails, but deal with alignment changes based on the JC approach. You can have angels enlisting bold heroes to fight against the demons, and also Faustian temptations and diabolical bargains. This approach is possible under the rules because they are mostly silent on the topic of alignment changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The question only comes in when the character's only crimes are the routine commission of misdemeanors. The rest of the time he's being law-abiding."
Yeah, that's basically patently nonsensical. Refraining from murder does not justify running red lights.
It is, but it is also not... at least, not for all interpretations.
And also, this is quite the escalation.
If you double park, or park in a handicapped space without a permission thingy, are you a criminal? What if you're never penalized for it, by officers? Certainly, you've committed something that is against the law. Does that condemn your destiny down a road of ever-greater violations? What about going the wrong way in a one-way parking lot? Are you, then, inevitably the same as the Mafia with which you () consort? What if these parking violations, and wrong-ways in one-way parking lots (*) are habitual, but never to the point at which you receive penalties - does this equate you to the criminal element?
Or, you know... what if you do? Does that make you criminal? And if it does... does it make you a felon?
Because that's what we're discussing. At what point do you cross the line from "citizen (with habitual misdemeanors) to "criminal" to "felon" or worse? What is that line? Where does it change? Obviously, there's a point at which one would pass from "a" to "b" but, though U.S. law may spell it out pretty clearly (sometimes, unless a lawyer successfully argues it into a different understanding), alignment doesn't always seem as clear-cut.
*
It is not by any means certain that all the planes work similarly regarding number of dead souls that go there. Indeed, it has been made explicitly clear that they do not. The lower planes have been far more populated since the very beginning, and this holds true for PF as well. The PROCESS, though, is the same. A good person and an evil one are judged in the same way.
Someone who did a lot of good things, but also spent their time casting evil spells to heal, summon and reanimate, would by my view be solidly evil. After all: All those spells come with pretty bad baggage in any number of ways. You desecrate dead bodies for your convenience. You risk letting evil incarnate loose on the world if you make a single mistake. You gather unholy water - how do you get that and what do you pay for it? Even protection from good implies pretty directly that you need protection from good creatures - why? If you want to heal, there are better ways without the baggage, why not use them? If you need menial labour, why not just pay people for it? If you need powerful extraplanar creatures to help you, perhaps summon some good ones? There is a world of complications you avoid that way. Not doing it means that something is more important to you.
Not my point. It's not the labels that are the issue. You use the evil spells sufficiently, your alignment changes to evil.
The question is does the character who uses such spells in the course of his normal adventuring life, but who otherwise adheres to Good behavior make sense? Or should the corruption from those spells that changes his alignment also lead to changes in behavior in other ways?Does dealing with devils or raising undead just change some arbitrary magical tag that affects how you interact with certain spells and effects or does your actual behavior and personality reflect the change in that tag?
A strict reading
You're going from the premise that the adventurer will use such spells but behave perfectly Good the rest of the time.
What we are arguing is precisely that it's very unlikely that someone using such spells would continue acting perfectly Good the rest of the time.
I mean, why does the adventurer uses such spells in the first place? There are Good and neutral (small-case n neutral) spells with the same effect. Why this affinity for Evil?
I think in character it would be unlikely, but there are plenty of players who look at those spells and go "They aren't really evil, so I might as well use them", even though they wouldn't have their characters do things they consider evil.
So we really do see characters who behave that way.
Well, yeah. But in that case, it ceases to be a "role-playing" game and it becomes a sort of videogame... Which is okay, if you're having fun, but in that case, it's better to ditch the alignment mechanics altogether.
]My point is that I consider both to similar, though the Helm is obviously more direct.
Regularly casting the evil spells is changing you. Corrupting you. Your roleplay should reflect that. If you don't want to play the Chaotic Evil character, stop doing the magical things that are changing you into one.My problem is that there's a lot of characters who fall into "cast spells that are evil without becoming a complete monster, but are absolutely corrupted by it" in fiction, the most famous probably being the character of Faust, who is a character that falls, but in most versions of the tale never becomes truly 100% evil, just tainted by the magic he uses- and that's what allows hell to get him in the end.
SO there's two benefits:
- Being able to play a fairly interesting fiction archetype
- The fact that this sort of character, a kinda decent guy who had rather poor judgement in spells to cast and is going to have to pay the price eventually, works much better with a Neutral or even Good party than the guy who's doomed to become That Chaotic Evil Guy.In a more D&D related example, the character I was thinking about yesterday but wasn't able to put my finger on it was Erevis Cale, who is a Cleric of a god that is most certainly Evil, but manages (at least in the first trilogy, haven't read the second) to maintain a mostly Neutral alignment, despite drawing power from the God for his spells. So this sort of character can definitely happen, and is interesting when it does.
SO yeah, I definitely agree with the "Evil spells corrupt, but don't mind control" train of thought.
I can as well, but what does that mean? Is "corrupt" just changing the alignment tag, but having no effect on behavior otherwise, just that I now interact differently with a handful of spells?
I'd rather play a character that struggles with the corruption and tries to keep from going too far, than someone who's really just a nice guy even though he detects...
I in fact like that too! But I consider that the natural psychological effect of using Evil magic when you're a decent guy- or at least, you thought you were, as opposed to something that happens magically.
Remember, the examples I use both struggle with the morality of their actions. It just happens to be a psychological rather than magical struggle. And it doesn't lead to an inevitable end result of becoming completely evil.
As for what corruption means, I'd argue it simply means your soul is stained with evil, that evil has more influence on you (which is painfully vague but I'd argue influence =/= behavior, at most it means evil is more tempting) , and when you die there's probably going to be open season on your soul in the lower planes- but that's it. What gets people then is the psychological baggage associated with the consequences of using evil magic.
Which is more interesting to me because then if a character falls, it's ultimately their own fault instead of the fault of the spells they cast, though the spells may have helped them along- but only to a degree.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, take into account what is needed for Infernal Healing...
Unholy Water (requires an evil spell being cast by someone to create)
This is begging the question. Casting Infernal Healing is an evil act because it requires Unholy Water. Using Unholy Water is an evil act because it's created with an [evil] spell, which is evil because casting [evil] spells is an evil act.
Devil's Blood (there are a bunch of ways to get this, most notably by having someone make a deal with a devil which is probably an evil act, or slaying one, which also means that someone had to call it to this plane to begin with, which is an evil act.)
Because nonevil adventurers are highly unlikely to have to fight and kill an evil outsider that they didn't personally call to the material plane.
And most (sane) GMs won't let you "Eschew Materials" the Devil's Blood component, simply because the other component that can be substituted is 25 gold pieces a pop indicating that the cost of Devil's Blood is likely too high for Eschew to cover.
Absolutely disagree. If devil's blood has no listed cost, it is not unusually expensive. It would be a house rule to prevent Eschew Materials from working with it, or to require a caster to purchase it at 25gp per casting. Aside from creating restrictions beyond those included in the text, it also cuts against one of the most interesting thematic aspects of the spell - that it is tempting/corrupting specifically because it's easier and cheaper.
Will this necessarily happen? No, not necessarily... It might not happen. But everyone has to agree that it is easier to fall from "it's okay to use devils to save children" to "it's okay to use devils to beat my enemies" than from "it's never okay to use devils at all".
It's also easier to fall from "it's OK to use lethal force to save children" to "it's OK to use lethal force to beat my enemies" than "it's never okay to use lethal force at all." And yet killing is not considered inherently evil in PF despite the fact that it can easily be used for evil ends.
Classically, this is untrue. There's even a proverb about it. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Taking evil means to a good end is still an evil act, as has been understood by nearly every theologian and moral philosopher going back to Plato.
Which is a fine argument if you're able to demonstrate that casting an [evil] spell is actually an evil means. As opposed to just using a power source that is inaccessible to those directly powered by good entities, which would sufficiently justify the need for an [evil] tag.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you double park, or park in a handicapped space without a permission thingy, are you a criminal? What if you're never penalized for it, by officers? Certainly, you've committed something that is against the law. Does that condemn your destiny down a road of ever-greater violations? What about going the wrong way in a one-way parking lot? Are you, then, inevitably the same as the Mafia with which you () consort? What if these parking violations, and wrong-ways in one-way parking lots (*) are habitual, but never to the point at which you receive penalties - does this equate you to the criminal element?Or, you know... what if you do? Does that make you criminal? And if it does... does it make you a felon?
Because that's what we're discussing. At what point do you cross the line from "citizen (with habitual misdemeanors) to "criminal" to "felon" or worse? What is that line? Where does it change? Obviously, there's a point at which one would pass from "a" to "b" but, though U.S. law may spell it out pretty clearly (sometimes, unless a lawyer successfully argues it into a different understanding), alignment doesn't always seem as clear-cut.
From a legal perspective (although IANAL, actually), a criminal is simply someone who has violated the criminal code, e.g., committed an act which the state has defined as a crime. For the real propeller-heads in the group, each state gets to make up its own set of laws, but in general, felonies and misdemeanors are always crimes, and "infractions" or "petty offenses" may or may not be crimes.
But the bigger question is: does double-parking lead to greater harm to society?, and I think the answer is pretty clear, actually, that it does. First, even in the case of patently stupid rules, they're still rules, and human society is actually pretty lawful, because we're fundamentally a tribal/group species. Disrespect for minor customs, whether formalized as "law" or not, leads to disrespect for more major customs -- why should I respect society in THIS regard and not THAT one?
This is the basis, for example, of the "broken window" theory of policing (q.v.), and there's a lot of actual science backing it up. If society shows its indifference to minor violations, things escalate to major ones pretty quickly.
The second point, of course, is that this corruption doesn't have to be only about the criminal personally. I've been yelled at a number of times by the Germans when I'm over there and doing something like crossing against the light, or stepping off the curb, because "I'm setting a bad example for the children!" And, again, they're right. It says something negative about me that I don't actually give "the south end of a northbound rat" about their kids....
And that, of course, is the third thing. Double-parking is harmful to society because it makes everyone else's life worse. It blocks traffic, slows emergency response vehicles down to a crawl, traps people from using their cars,.... all for the sake of the driver's own convenience. There are parts of town that I avoid driving because the drivers are so bad and always doing dumb stuff like that -- and of course, the cops don't prevent it ("broken window" again).
But when you look at it in D&D terms, double-parking is at best selfish (which is "neutral," not "good") and certainly doesn't display the respect for other people's well-being that I associate with goodness. If the ambulance didn't make it to Grandma's apartment on time because it couldn't get through.... well, at this point, indifference to human life may well have killed someone. (Of course, i'm not going to know or care about that because the responsibility is so diffuse; see the Kitty Genovese case.)
And that, ultimately, is what Asmodeus is trying to do in Golarion (and part of what Satan is supposed to be doing in the real world, if your crumpet butters on that side): make people selfishly accept doing the evil way for their own convenience and thereby make the world more accepting of evil in general. Because it's really hard for me to say "hey, don't double-park there" when it's an accepted part of how that neighborhood works -- and people just don't care enough about human life to worry about how the ambulance gets through.
(I should also point out, perhaps in one of Satan's little ironies, that this part of town also has an older-than-average population. So there are a lot of grandmothers waiting for ambulances in very bad traffic.)
General Morrison, of the Australian Army, put it well. "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept." In this case, the standard that a lot of people are walking past, if not explicitly supporting, is that "if I can't see the harm resulting from an action, it doesn't exist." Which means all evil needs to do to triumph is do it out of sight?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is begging the question.Also, take into account what is needed for Infernal Healing...
Unholy Water (requires an evil spell being cast by someone to create)
No, it's a tautology. Evil spells are, by definition and by game rule, evil.
Yes and no. Numbers = alignment, notsomuch... I agree entirely with you there. But there are a host of ways that crunch (i.e. hard mechanics) does directly impact alignment (and thus RP and story), and some groups could be put off by suddenly have it be more "fluffy" than their used to.
Examples include all of the detection and protection spells, the <alignment word> spells, magic circles, and <alignment smite> spells. Those are hard numerical results of alignment. Then again, there are effects like the atonement spell or the helm of opposite alignment - effects that explicitly and...
I think you kind of missed my point. Yes, there are numbers that your alignment affects, but what is the mechanic that tracks alignment? Stealing is unlawful, so how many Chaotic points does stealing net you? Burning down an orphanage is both Chaotic and Evil, but if you burned it down because it was a gateway to the Abyss and you evacuated the children beforehand, how does that affect your alignment?
Those bonuses you're talking about don't affect alignment; it's the other way around. For example, you don't become lawful from getting a +2 to your AC, you get the bonus because you're already lawful. If you go around lying and breaking contracts, then your DM should have your character end up chaotic and lose that bonus. But, here's the thing; there's no set mechanic in the Core Rulebook for the DM determine how he's supposed to adjudicate alignment. Other than the descriptor for evil spells, there's no real method for determine what, by RAW, constitutes an evil act.
It's also easier to fall from "it's OK to use lethal force to save children" to "it's OK to use lethal force to beat my enemies" than "it's never okay to use lethal force at all." And yet killing is not considered inherently evil in PF despite the fact that it can easily be used for evil ends.
Except killing people can very easily turn you to Evil. Killing innocents is evil. Killing when you have the option of simply knocking off is evil. Killing as anything but a last measure is very close to the Evil end of Neutral. It is certainly not Good.
Which is a fine argument if you're able to demonstrate that casting an [evil] spell is actually an evil means. As opposed to just using a power source that is inaccessible to those directly powered by good entities, which would sufficiently justify the need for an [evil] tag.
This is a mechanicist understanding of what is trying to be said here.
See: why use Infernal Healing when Healing is available? Why Summon Devils when summoned Archons, or heck, even hired hands could do what you want them to do?
Because it's easier. Because it's more expedient. Because I wanna show them who's boss
All of which are the kind of thinking that will eventually lead someone to lose consideration for others... Which is the opposite of what the Good alignment is all about.
I mean... At the very least, you are using the energies of planes who are objectively Evil, bent on corrupting you, and dedicated to spread suffering, oppression and despair through the whole multiverse... How is that not evil?