| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anzyr, with how many things in the game make no sense, it fits perfectly into pathfinder. It makes as much sense as healing being conjuration, a certain ailment in the iron gods adventure, magic in general, the gods, cthulhu monster abilities, how strong poison and acids are, and lots more.
Sorry. When I hear something is just some dumb descriptor or tag that means nothing, I keep going back to the "Let just play the spreadsheet game." Remove everything but the numbers as all the descriptors , flavour text, etc.. is meaningless or it is wrong because a player disagrees with it.
See, it is not inaccurate. In Pathfinder, the game the devs made, that is how it works. It is evil. Saying it isn't is inaccurate because they said it is. There are lots of things in this game I have a huge problem with but in the game they created, it is correct whether or not you like it. In pathfinder, in the world they made, it is accurate no matter how much you don't like it. If you can't figure out why, that sounds like a personal problem.
You realize the tag is as much a part of the "spreadsheet game" as the numbers right? The cognitive dissonance present here indicates that there is no argument that can convince you to change your position. And besides with this rule a caster can cast animate dead all they want so long as they cast 5 protection from evil spells later. This is really a win for Good aligned necromancers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Jacinto, why shouldn't the Batman Kill ALL of the villains. And you know, a lot of the so-called heroes are pretty sketchy, and endanger the innocents. Heck, is Wonder Woman even a legal immigrant? Martian Manhunter?
And this is what I mean. When you only care about the numbers and not about the character's mentality really. If you are good, you wouldn't want to cast evil magics or worship an evil patron. However, if we are only going off the numbers than all that matters is the numbers. Lets play spreadsheets. Compare numbers against another person's numbers, tally with the variables, and see who has the higher numbers. If yours are higher, reduce some of their numbers by a variable and do it again. role-playing games sure sound fun when you ignore the meaning behind things and solely play the system.
Most of my characters have reasons behind their actions, which are tied to their personality, backstory, and in-game experiences. They change behavior over time, but usually having a different letter on a character sheet doesn't actually impact them. It takes more than preventing mind control from angels, or helping my comrades in arms recover so we can continue to fight, to completely change my worldview, personality, or goals.
On another note, it turns out using more powerful evil magic is less evil in some instances. For example, Greater Infernal Healing will change your alignment far slower than the regular version. Yeah, I am ignoring this rule.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is it about Americans that so many people insist on every complicated question be dumbed down to a simple binary response?Either casting aligned spells is an inherently aligned act and affects your alignment equally or it doesn't.
The reason 'why' you cast the spells is a different metric and can slow or speed up the process, but if your motive was the sole metric then casting aligned spells wouldn't affect your alignment, your motives would be the only vector for alignment change.
Wow. ಠ_ಠ
They are going to have to ban this book in pfs, lol.
At least the alignment rules. Thats kind of embarrassing when your new major rulebook cant be used
*rolls eyes*
1) these aren't new rules to begin with.
2) the book was already vetted and okayed before Gencon.
It soft bans wands of infernal healing, as if you cast them like 5 times your character is functionally dead until you get an atonement.
It also seems like you would have to track this between scenarios
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
One can assume that this, for pathfinder society, will override the Horror Adventures rule and that that part of the book will not be considered rules text. That or paizo just invalidated one of their FAQs (which is also possible). Home games may vary (though mine will use the former).
OK guys, You do understand that "I hate this" has zero chance of effecting a positive change. We all know that there is little chance of getting anything improved, but little is preferable to none. Can you come up with fair and measurable ideas that still address the situation? Whether you want the situation addressed is a moot point now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are going to have to ban this book in pfs, lol.
At least the alignment rules. Thats kind of embarrassing when your new major rulebook cant be used
*rolls eyes*
1) these aren't new rules to begin with.
2) the book was already vetted and okayed before Gencon.
It soft bans wands of infernal healing, as if you cast them like 5 times your character is functionally dead until you get an atonement.
It also seems like you would have to track this between scenarios
Um, it says if used after a short period after each other. The longer you go before using it again, the less chance it can affect your alignment.
So you don't track between scenarios, you track between days/encounters.
If you use it, multiple times in same hour, then the DM is told he should start changing your alignment. Read the book again.
So Jacinto, why shouldn't the Batman Kill ALL of the villains. And you know, a lot of the so-called heroes are pretty sketchy, and endanger the innocents. Heck, is Wonder Woman even a legal immigrant? Martian Manhunter?
Well, wonderwoman can be considered a foreign diplomat, which might imply diplomatic immunity. Also, her nation was considered an ally during WWII (by sending her to help fight), and she could have likely been granted something similar to citizenship status due to that.
But that is likely not a very good metaphor, since batman is more than ready to take down every single hero he meets. He always has back up plans if they get out of line.
Dunno about "can be", she at least at one point was officially the ambassador from Themyscira.
OK guys, You do understand that "I hate this" has zero chance of effecting a positive change. We all know that there is little chance of getting anything improved, but little is preferable to none. Can you come up with fair and measurable ideas that still address the situation? Whether you want the situation addressed is a moot point now.
Yes that's why I offered actual revised rules with context to keep it from being a general rule, means of controlling it in context of will power and a means of atonement that offers no guarantees.
Yes, I was pushing the envelope with Wonder Woman, though I don't doubt that the Dark Knight has her on a Watch List somewhere.
I was just tickled that the most morally ambivalent (at best) major hero in the DC universe was picked as a refutation of whether an act is evil.
(Personally out of current here) Old justice league Interactions generally came down to "He is at least on our side, right?"
He is a fun read, not a role model.
And yes, Abraham, you provided good ideas, they just got buried in the masses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK guys, You do understand that "I hate this" has zero chance of effecting a positive change. We all know that there is little chance of getting anything improved, but little is preferable to none. Can you come up with fair and measurable ideas that still address the situation? Whether you want the situation addressed is a moot point now.
For a more constructive bit of feedback: This rule would work much better if it were later deemed optional. That way if you run campaigns where evil magic is supposed to tempt players into losing morality it fits right in, but if that takes a back burner in your campaign you don't feel like you are obligated to enforce RAW. Perhaps have a book which expands on this with a more elegant mechanic, such as the one Abraham Spalding suggested upthread. Or at least to better-clarify the cooldown time (a flexible one, based on spell level and the number of spells you cast). I will still probably avoid such rules, but it seems there is no real eliminating this ruling entirely.
Paradozen and Abraham both have good ideas.
Don't forget that, outside of PFS, everything can be considered at the GM's option.
Oh, Batman has always been my favorite DC character.
Well, Linda Carter as Wonder Woman, but I was young, and she was Linda Carter.
Ooh, Damnation is pretty awesome [Good] spell: If using that [evil] fast heal spell (you know which one) on kids.
This one will kill them. And do it as a good act.
Yes, it will hurt them (and if children kill them usually) if they accepted a [evil] spell willingly currently.
Heck, Desecrate works too (even if unwilling).
This is why I play without alignment.
This is why I play without alignment.
What is it about Americans that so many people insist on every complicated question be dumbed down to a simple binary response?
Creating Undead is not the reverse equivalent to casting Protection from Evil. One is a spell of protection, the other is a spell which has as an end result bringing forth evil into the world in the creation of undead. Not to mention the cultural taboos of disturbing the dead.
Being Good is a lot more than having done 5 good deads as opposed to 4 evil ones.
I just spent four hours trawling 4chan, and I felt less insulted during that time then I do now. We want the question as a binary response because that is what it is. Casting Evil aligned spells makes you evil, same with Good aligned ones according to RAW. And if you argue that we should just ignore them, then why are they in there in the first place? As for the rest of your post, as pointed out by others, using Infernal Healing to save innocent children? Evil. Using Protection from Good to protect town from mind-controlled Good creature? Evil.
Personally, my next PF horror campaign, I'm tossing alignment right out the window with the Corruption NPC control stuff. If a player decides to kill some BBEG serial killer by casting Slough on them, fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thing is so eminently silly it reminds me of Fable 1. Are you considered evil because you murder too much? Just eat enough tofu and your sins will be absolved.
Is this rule silly? Sure. But that's true of most alignment-based concepts. The only good aspect of this rule is that it certainly implies that purpose matters; at least with respect to ratio. So if you have to run it, cast an evil spell to harm someone isn't equal to casting protection from evil simply to repair your alignment. That said if this feels like one of those things that should just be ignored or modified in home games.
I agree and respect your opinion, but I personally feel that this rules stifles the ability to explore different moral tones. Your solution is a good one, but again, casting evil spells, no matter what the intent, making you evil, feels thematically wrong to me. Then again, I play DH way more than this, so that might be Bias taking over for my brain. I just think that there should be the ability to play morally grey games without constant rules coming out forcing into a more Black/White morality system.
Why is anyone surprised that a book about horror shows you how easy it is for magic users to lose their identity by casting the wrong spells.
For good to evil it would have been fine. it's the 'cast protection from Evil five times, and my lord lich, you shall no longer be smiteable by the paladin' that is causing a lot of raised eyebrows.
For a more constructive bit of feedback: This rule would work much better if it were later deemed optional.
All rules, and their execution, ARE by definition, optional for home campaigns. PFS has yet to make it's statement on the matter.
For a more constructive bit of feedback: This rule would work much better if it were later deemed optional.All rules, and their execution, ARE by definition, optional for home campaigns. PFS has yet to make it's statement on the matter.
I do believe somebody posted an FAQ about what the PFS will go by, unless Paizo decides to start violating their own FAQs.
I do believe somebody posted an FAQ about what the PFS will go by, unless Paizo decides to start violating their own FAQs.For a more constructive bit of feedback: This rule would work much better if it were later deemed optional.All rules, and their execution, ARE by definition, optional for home campaigns. PFS has yet to make it's statement on the matter.
It wouldn't be the first time. That's why PFS has it's separate Additional Resources section.
Is this rule silly? Sure. But that's true of most alignment-based concepts. The only good aspect of this rule is that it certainly implies that purpose matters; at least with respect to ratio. So if you have to run it, cast an evil spell to harm someone isn't equal to casting protection from evil simply to repair your alignment. That said if this feels like one of those things that should just be ignored or modified in home games.I agree and respect your opinion, but I personally feel that this rules stifles the ability to explore different moral tones. Your solution is a good one, but again, casting evil spells, no matter what the intent, making you evil, feels thematically wrong to me. Then again, I play DH way more than this, so that might be Bias taking over for my brain. I just think that there should be the ability to play morally grey games without constant rules coming out forcing into a more Black/White morality system.
Why is anyone surprised that a book about horror shows you how easy it is for magic users to lose their identity by casting the wrong spells.For good to evil it would have been fine. it's the 'cast protection from Evil five times, and my lord lich, you shall no longer be smiteable by the paladin' that is causing a lot of raised eyebrows.
As long as he is casting them in secession.
He can't do it once/day for 5 times. It has to be the same day.
For good to evil it would have been fine. it's the 'cast protection from Evil five times, and my lord lich, you shall no longer be smiteable by the paladin' that is causing a lot of raised eyebrows.
I still don't understand why that is. I say "still" because I was having the same conversation in another alignment thread (which I usually avoid like the plague... now two in one night, ack.)
Anyway. I get it - I really do. By pretty much every moral viewpoint, being good is meant to be more difficult than being evil. Falling from the lofty heights is meant to be a much easier process than dragging yourself up from the muck. And in the real world, that makes a degree of sense. All very vague, philosophical stuff of course, so no definite answers.
However in Pathfinder there are definite answers. Good and evil are real, tangible forces in the universe, not unlike the four classical elements in our universe. There are entire planes devoted to the alignments, and they are filled with physical incarnations of those alignments.
So if the primordial force known as Good decides "okay Good mortals, use a few too many Evil spells and you're off our team," why would Evil not have the equivalent rule? "Woops, that was your third Good spell today Antipaladin Jim. Get your arse out of my (strictly metaphysical) house."
I get your argument, and while I personally have issues with having Good/Evil being metaphysical forces without the obligatory force of Grey, even if we go by your logic, that both should be applied equally, it still makes no sense that by casting a handful of level 1 spells in a single day, a tyrant of unimaginable evil and cruelty changes alignment to the side of justice, law, and goodness. How does casting a small number of magically minor spells make him from the paragon of sin to paragon of virtue? The issue then is that it makes alignment meaningless in a game that tends to have quite a bit of focus on it.
I welcome Paizo trying to do corruption mechanics, but the problem is that this feels really forced, makes no sense, and is easily abusable, and fails to capture the spirit of corruption. Corruption is supposed to be the slow change of a hero and he slowly turns to more and more morally questionable actions to do what he thinks is good, not the bloody undead creature of pure darkness turning good because it cast a good aligned spell a few different times! That is where I take issue, even in the realm of B&W Pathfinder morality.
Yeah, absolutely agree with you there. The "cast a few spells and change your alignment" was clearly an oversight. I mean, there's no sidebar saying "If your character kills three or more innocent sentient creatures in one day, s/he turns evil" so I don't get the spell thing.I'm just always interested when people think Good is somehow more difficult, demanding, and time-intensive than Evil. As if the "tyrant of unimaginable evil and cruelty" in your example is somehow striving less than his opposite, the "paladin of purest mercy and goodness." Both are champions who daily strive to embody all it means to be Good/Evil.
Okay, maybe evil is not the simplest way to put it. I was thinking more like how deal with great evil beings works, like with Faust. Yes, you get to live forever, but eventually you must face the price for your actions. In the case of Faust, and in the context of his story, he could have been an upstanding man and earned himself a spot of eternal happiness in heaven, but it would have taken a lot of work to be morally good, etc., and he would have suffered the end of his mortal life.
Instead, he took the easy way out, trying to get what he believed to be immortality by making a simple deal, but later ended up paying the price. So less 'evil is easy' as it is 'evil appears easy'. Also, many people think evil is easy because often in stories evil is portrayed as more powerful seemingly without much effort at the start so as to pose a threat to the heroes. We don't see the villain's story of conquering the kingdom and working hard to keep in order since, his sacrifices, etc. Instead we seem him at the peak of his power, in charge of the kingdom as the heroes set off to throw him off his throne.
Generally speaking, evil forces are not that dumb.
So if the primordial force known as Good decides "okay Good mortals, use a few too many Evil spells and you're off our team," why would Evil not have the equivalent rule? "Woops, that was your third Good spell today Antipaladin Jim. Get your arse out of my (strictly metaphysical) house."
Yet Good's is? 'I know t was to save some children from the dragon, but we really can't keep on people se willing to cast Infernal Healing"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, I am not American.
(why yes, that was the most important thing to get out there, why do you ask?)
And it is binary, because it is a rules issue, it is not in any way a moral issue. "does casting an aligned spell inherently affect your alignment?" We aren't having this discussion about whether using charm person to help others or for selfish purposes is good/evil, because your actions and the way you use the spell tells us whether it is good or evil.
This is solely about whether a spell can affect your alignment irrespective of how you use it. The very casting of the spell affects the way you view the world.
In that context evil isn't any different than good (or chaos or law) the argument is you are channelling the essence of that alignment and it fundamentally changes you. There cannot be any sustainable argument that, from a rules perspective, you can justify treating good spells any different from evil spells.
I'm going to ignore these lazily written rules. I do want them to say the descriptors matter since there has been a vocal group of players on these forums who insist they don't unless specifically stated.
I always thought that if Paizo were to explain this, it would be in better details with examples, and they would address how much intent mattered, and whether or not the entire act(bad thing+good intention) was still evil.
Yet Good's is? 'I know t was to save some children from the dragon, but we really can't keep on people se willing to cast Infernal Healing"
Generally, yeah. Evil is often portrayed as more pragmatic about things than Good.
It's also a bit janky simply because even thematically Evil is more likely to want to use [good] aligned spells.
As dumb as "You've spent all day tending to the wounded with infernal healing, now you're evil" is, it's still not nearly as insane as "You've spent all day summoning enslaved angels to fight for you, now you're good".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin, an Antipaladin, and a Wizard who prepared a dozen various Protection from Evil/Good spells gather together to experiment on whether the moral laws of the universe are objective or not.
Unfortunately, then the Paladin and Antipaladin notice each other.
There were no survivors.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a solution. Maybe Divine Anthology can have the following rule:
Any character found to be gaming the alignment system should be removed from reality by the GM, typically via an act of divine intervention.
The book is a suggestion. The GM makes the rules. Even the cited guideline explicitly said that it's the GM's call when alignment changes, and then gave a suggestion for the "typical" campaign. I'm sure every GM has their own way of handling alignment. Pathfinder Unchained had numerous alternate ways of handling it, including removing the system entirely.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And this is what I mean. When you only care about the numbers and not about the character's mentality really. If you are good, you wouldn't want to cast evil magics or worship an evil patron. However, if we are only going off the numbers than all that matters is the numbers. Lets play spreadsheets. Compare numbers against another person's numbers, tally with the variables, and see who has the higher numbers. If yours are higher, reduce some of their numbers by a variable and do it again. role-playing games sure sound fun when you ignore the meaning behind things and solely play the system.Or... you look at the spell and see that the only thing that makes animate dead evil at all is a stupid tag that makes no sense. Same with infernal healing, aside from the tag, how is casting it "Evil"? The result is you cured someone. That's Good. The tag can go cry in the corner for being inaccurate.
Seriously?
You don't see how UNHOLY water and DEVIL'S blood is evil?