They out "the GM decides", "typically" and "advice" in the 'rule', but there is still a 4-page thread about how ridiculous it is that healing hospital wards full of sick children using Infernal Healing is bad. I cannot wait for the "Avoid music with lyrics" discussion.
]OK this is my opinion and it goes like this.
This is a book that has horror as it's theme. My personal tastes when it comes to this form of fiction is that evil is EVIL, it is pernicious and unforgiving and it's a trap. I want my horror games to be like this.
Do I want all games to be like this, nope. I certainly don't want a sandbox game run like this. I don't want a Giantslayer game run like this. I don't want a Sci-Fi game like this.
But here is the rub, I also know that the very front of the book is about getting the players and the game master on the same page as for expectations for how the game will be played. If you don't like the rules, please don't use the rule. If you don't like the book of rules, please don't use the book. I have yet to see where Paizo has ever made anyone use rules from specific books.
As for whether or not points 1 or 2 had a net positive effect, I actually do. I'm certain that there are plenty of lurkers that will read his opinion and go back and read the rule with fresh eyes.
This "rule" though for your horror games is that the other alignments are also as effected. That means that good is GOOD, and is just as much a trap for the evil guys as evil is for the good guys?
This is part of the big issue. If it was only good guys falling because evil is tempting that's one thing. But then to say that it's the same for evil to become good? Like, the idea that good is a trap doesn't really feel as supported.Say you're a druid, lawful neutral. You have to be afraid of casting too many good spells as you are of casting too many evil spells. Not sure how many there are of if you'd need a domain to get any good spells. But say you have a good and an evil spell. 3 casting of this tempting trap evil spell and you're LE and not a druid. BUT 3 castings of this non-trap(?) good spell and you're LG and also not a druid.
They out "the GM decides", "typically" and "advice" in the 'rule', but there is still a 4-page thread about how ridiculous it is that healing hospital wards full of sick children using Infernal Healing is bad. I cannot wait for the "Avoid music with lyrics" discussion.
My actual issue is that this just as easily could have been an actual rule, and I would not want something of that quality, and my main complaint is about how easy it is to change alignments.
Casting evil spells being an evil act isn't advice, it's a flat out rule. The specific number for the Alignmnet change however is advice.It's odd to me that we're now up to nearly 200 posts in this thread and people are still looking at something that is clearly labeled as GM Advice and assuming that makes it a rule. It's not a rule. It clearly, unambiguously says that it's merely advice.Does not change the fact that this is a poorly designed rule which does not make me confident in getting other Paizo products. Even if it is optional, I would have expected at least some attempt to block it from the abuse that it can be used for, which took most people only a short time to realize. I would like good design in even the optional stuff.
Actually agree with you there Rysky, that is the part I have the most issue with.
As for whether or not points 1 or 2 had a net positive effect, I actually do. I'm certain that there are plenty of lurkers that will read his opinion and go back and read the rule with fresh eyes.
You mean the points that assumed that because I disagree with one aspect of the book I must be looking for flaws to tut it as the worst book ever? I actually like this book. Or the pint that questioned my reading comprehension and stated facts that I have written a response to around five times so far? Oh yeah, it definitely made me think, but not in the way you imagine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't an horror-themed game benefit more from having shades of grey, though? Allowing characters to slowly, but surely grow into a different alignment?
This rule pretty much ruins that. It becomes a video-game karma system, and not even a good one. It destroys all the nuance that makes stories about corruption/redemption interesting in the first place!
Wouldn't an horror-themed game benefit more from having shades of grey, though? Allowing characters to slowly, but surely grow into a different alignment?
This rule pretty much ruins that. It becomes a video=game karma system, and not even a good one. It destroys all the nuance that makes stories about corruption/redemption interesting in the first place!
100% this. Essentially what I've been trying to say in my corruption thread. Nuance and change over long periods of time is what makes a good story, not doing it in he course of one day.
I think I would want to use a variant of the addiction mechanics for the simple act of casting an aligned spell. The rush of fuzzy warm Goodness, the feelings of Evil power, the assurance of Lawful order, and the freedom of Chaos. These have all got to be like a drug.
Corruptions seem to be a little bit like the addiction models as well.
Oh, I also do not buy the End justifying the Means, I have payed attention to history. The fallacy of End/Means is that it never really just ends, does it?
Addictive Magic is a rule set that could be quite interesting, and an alternate rule which I would hope would help clarify that this is optional would be nice.
General campaigns I would rather have [evil] mean the same as [fire] or [figment] denotating the type of spell and caster who typically uses the thing (Pyromancers tend to use fireball, illusionists like figments, evil casters are prone to [evil] spells).
But if you specifically want to add temptation and moral degeneration having a caster who used an evil spell make a save or fall prone to casting the spell/take ability penalties as they physically need to would be nice.
Casting evil spells being an evil act isn't advice, it's a flat out rule. The specific number for the Alignmnet change however is advice.It's odd to me that we're now up to nearly 200 posts in this thread and people are still looking at something that is clearly labeled as GM Advice and assuming that makes it a rule. It's not a rule. It clearly, unambiguously says that it's merely advice.Does not change the fact that this is a poorly designed rule which does not make me confident in getting other Paizo products. Even if it is optional, I would have expected at least some attempt to block it from the abuse that it can be used for, which took most people only a short time to realize. I would like good design in even the optional stuff.
Yes but we're not talking about the rule that "casting spells with the evil descriptor is an evil act". We're talking about the silly advice that approximately five castings of Protection from Evil makes you good aligned.
100% this. Essentially what I've been trying to say in my corruption thread. Nuance and change over long periods of time is what makes a good story, not doing it in he course of one day.Wouldn't an horror-themed game benefit more from having shades of grey, though? Allowing characters to slowly, but surely grow into a different alignment?
This rule pretty much ruins that. It becomes a video=game karma system, and not even a good one. It destroys all the nuance that makes stories about corruption/redemption interesting in the first place!
Exactly... The cool things about (good) stories about corruption is how the "evil" made is nearly (or completely) harmless at first, so the one falling down the alignment chart takes greater (and riskier) chances when using evil.
*Heals children with Infernal Healing*
- Hey! there are no downsides to this! The children are healthy again and no one got hurt! Maybe we shouldn't judge things based on their power source, after all...
*Raises an army of undead to fight an invading army*
- Well... It's not nice to twist the souls of the departed, but it's just temporary, and the invaders were driven away, so all is well when it ends well.
*binds a demon to depose a tyrant and take control*
- I suppose summoning demons to our world is risky and can lead to trouble... But something had to be done about that tyrant... And I'm in total control of the demon, so it won't cause any harm.
*Sacrifices an innocent to gain power.*
- Well... That was bad, but with this new power I can defend hundreds, maybe even thousands of innocents, so it's ok...
And so on...
This is how corruption should work. Little by little, step by step... The corrupted character "falls" by being willing to go just a little farther than he went before... And before he realizes, he's deep into full evil territory and can't even pinpoint the moment when he got there.
OTOH, having your mind completely changed to hell and back again because you cast 3 spells in the same day is idiotic.
"Well... The evil wizard enslaved angels to fight us, so I'll use Protection from Good to allow us to get past the angels and punished the wicked mage... Oops! There goes my 3rd casting! Now I want to kill puppies! On the upside, the wizard became good after enslaving so many angels, so now he's a virtuous paragon of justice!"
|
]OK this is my opinion and it goes like this.
This is a book that has horror as it's theme. My personal tastes when it comes to this form of fiction is that evil is EVIL, it is pernicious and unforgiving and it's a trap. I want my horror games to be like this.
Do I want all games to be like this, nope. I certainly don't want a sandbox game run like this. I don't want a Giantslayer game run like this. I don't want a Sci-Fi game like this.
But here is the rub, I also know that the very front of the book is about getting the players and the game master on the same page as for expectations for how the game will be played. If you don't like the rules, please don't use the rule. If you don't like the book of rules, please don't use the book. I have yet to see where Paizo has ever made anyone use rules from specific books.
As for whether or not points 1 or 2 had a net positive effect, I actually do. I'm certain that there are plenty of lurkers that will read his opinion and go back and read the rule with fresh eyes.
This "rule" though for your horror games is that the other alignments are also as effected. That means that good is GOOD, and is just as much a trap for the evil guys as evil is for the good guys?
This is part of the big issue. If it was only good guys falling because evil is tempting that's one thing. But then to say that it's the same for evil to become good? Like, the idea that good is a trap doesn't really feel as supported.Say you're a druid, lawful neutral. You have to be afraid of casting too many good spells as you are of casting too many evil spells. Not sure how many there are of if you'd need a domain to get any good spells. But say you have a good and an evil spell. 3 casting of this tempting trap evil spell and you're LE and not a druid. BUT 3 castings of this non-trap(?) good spell and you're LG and also not a druid.
This is part of the rule I like:
The GM decides whether
the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.
I bolded the part I consider to be the most importance part.
When I run a game, I set the parameters to the game and expect that others read the materials prior to the game so we all are in agreement. It's a social contract and I don't like popping in rules with out a buy in with my entire group.
As far as your druid question, if I'm running a Horror game, I would consider how altruistically his action would be. In most cases if It's just a matter of personal survival, then chances are it's not that altruistic and not a good act. But if the Druid is constantly saving communities,orphanages, ect, then maybe he's moving from Lawful Neutral to Neutral Good.
By the way, how any good descriptors end up on the Druid list?
|
|
Wouldn't an horror-themed game benefit more from having shades of grey, though? Allowing characters to slowly, but surely grow into a different alignment?
This rule pretty much ruins that. It becomes a video=game karma system, and not even a good one. It destroys all the nuance that makes stories about corruption/redemption interesting in the first place!
I really can't remember any horror story I knew about where there were many shades of grey, but I'll bite what stories are you talking about?
(Honest question, I'm open to answers/advice.)
Personally I like my horror stories pretty black and white, but to each their own.
It does present an interesting insight into the mind of the developers, though. That they run games where just a few castings can turn you evil is so unlike how I've seen games ran. That could be part of the issue as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule is there, cast several times a good spell and you are good. Don't be dishonest.The assumption that all acts are equal is false, just FYI.Well, yeah, you are right, Just cast the spell five more time and we are cool. A good thing that the spell level don't count for those rules.Protection from evil to seal an unholy pact with a devil prince?, a good act in the multiverse.I think you might be missing the point a bit here.
Effectively they are (at least) two acts. One is good and the other is evil.
If you want to be honest, then don't ignore the rest of the sidebar that presents mitigating factors.
Frankly, I thought things were going well with that sidebar until they included specific numbers of spells cast that could cause a 180 on alignment and be counted on one hand. Numbers that low are pretty much ridiculous.
It does present an interesting insight into the mind of the developers, though. That they run games where just a few castings can turn you evil is so unlike how I've seen games ran. That could be part of the issue as well.
It may reflect a desire to make that rule relevant in a short campaign or one-shot environment where a PC won't be played in front of the same GM very often or for very long - like PFS.
This is part of the rule I like:
The GM decides whether
the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.
I bolded the part I consider to be the most importance part.
When I run a game, I set the parameters to the game and expect that others read the materials prior to the game so we all are in agreement. It's a social contract and I don't like popping in rules with out a buy in with my entire group.
For me, the problem is in the following words.
The GM decides whether
the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil.
By stating this is the "typical" amount of spells cast to perform a moral 180, it is saying that GMs that do not follow this number are house ruling the number of spells required. And for many GMs who prefer to follow the rules whenever possible, it carries with it a certain weight.
It's almost saying "sure, you could make it so it takes more than five casts of the Infernal Healing wand to turn evil, but that's not typical, you're just doing it differently from normal." And there truly are GMs attached to "the rules" and "the right way to do things", for whom house ruling this is a very negative outcome, as necessary as it may seem to be.
It does present an interesting insight into the mind of the developers, though. That they run games where just a few castings can turn you evil is so unlike how I've seen games ran. That could be part of the issue as well.
I suspect so.
FWIW, I don't have an issue with the whole thing since I think "the GM decides" and "typically" are more significant than most here seem to think. Nonetheless - the suggestied thresholds of two/three spells in quick succession does suggest that the author considers casting a spell with the evil descriptor to be a truly heinous act. That's a surprise to me - I'd rule it to be a much more gradual thing.
|
|
This is part of the rule I like:
The GM decides whether
the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.
I bolded the part I consider to be the most importance part.
When I run a game, I set the parameters to the game and expect that others read the materials prior to the game so we all are in agreement. It's a social contract and I don't like popping in rules with out a buy in with my entire group.For me, the problem is in the following words.
The GM decides whether
the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil.By stating this is the "typical" amount of spells cast to perform a moral 180, it is saying that GMs that do not follow this number are house ruling the number of spells required. And for many GMs who prefer to follow the rules whenever possible, it carries with it a certain weight.
It's almost saying "sure, you could make it so it takes more than five casts of the Infernal Healing wand to turn evil, but that's not typical, you're just doing it differently from normal." And there truly are GMs attached to "the rules" and "the right way to do things", for whom house ruling this is a very negative outcome, as necessary as it may seem to be.
And if that is OK with that game master and their group, what wrong is that? The social contract is set between the players and the GM. Right now your creating a hypothetical that I don't think exists all that often and I have large doubts that the problem will be that much. We seem to be moving into a bad/wrong fun argument here and if that's the case it's unfortunate...
Herald wrote:
I really can't remember any horror story I knew about where there were many shades of grey, but I'll bite what stories are you talking about?
(Honest question, I'm open to answers/advice.)
Most Stephen King Horror and Clive Barker. Little reasonable steps, leading ever downward. Pet Sematary is the perfect example, what could possibly be evil about trying to bring your child back?
I would include Anne Rice and Laurel Hamilton but the steps into evil tend to be overshadowed by the slide into sleaze.
And if that is OK with that game master and their group, what wrong is that? The social contract is set between the players and the GM. Right now your creating a hypothetical that I don't think exists all that often and I have large doubts that the problem will be that much. We seem to be moving into a bad/wrong fun argument here and if that's the case it's unfortunate...
If you don't think it's a likely hypothetical, that's fine, but I have seen it happen so often, in so many instances, in Pathfinder and out, to know that peer pressure, whether real or implied, has very real effects on people. My statement wasn't intended to be hypothetical, it was intended to state that this is how many people actually think.
Compare to the following statements, taking the rules phrasing into other contexts:
"In your house, you can place the toilet paper roll however you like, but typically people in this country set it draped over the top."
"You can fix your hot dogs in whatever way you want, but typically people eat hot dogs with ketchup."
It may seem like stretches, but people are honestly intimidated by this sort of phrasing. The use of "typical" means any other way isn't typical, which is a polite way of saying "you're doing it wrong". And there are a lot of people who would rather fit in and not "do it wrong" that they won't question why the typical is typical.
Yes, this is the road of "wrong bad fun", but unfortunately that's what the language implies. I don't like it any more than you do.
To me the typically means the apex of the bell curve. Most should fall in the typically section. A few should be +-1 and rare should be +- 2. So if the GM alters it so that the bell curve is at 20 castings of a spell then it's no longer typical, aka viewed as houserules.
It's similar issue to lets say SR. Typically the highest SR you'll face is 12+cr. Cr is typically no higher than APL+3. So typically the highest SR you'll every face is level+15. If all the SR is bumped up by 5 because the caster is focusing on spell pen, then the game is no longer typical and the GM is houseruling things. Often on the spot after the campaign has started! Which often causes players to not have fun.
So the typical amount should be the default amount and GMs should state if that's going to vary by a large amount, to the point that it's no longer typical to change in 5 spells. This is the problem of listing the typical amount. It means that the standard, average, base, normal game should be using this amount.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So many spells seem so evil yet can be used for "justice". What you do with these neutral spells affects whether they're good or evil.
Murderous Command is a questionable spell, but it isn't evil. A good person could justifiably use it against bandits to distract and weaken them. But if he casts it on random townsfolk in a busy city, you can bet there is going to be a blip on the evildar.
Infernal Healing is [evil] because it is actively harnessing the power of evil aligned outsiders (who are made of objective, concentrated evil, rather than any of the subjective stuff) to do something. It's evil even if you are healing sick orphans, because you are channeling pure evil to do so, especially when good options exist.
The real problem with this rule is that some spells have an alignment tag because they don't want opposite aligned deities to grant those spells for thematic reasons (planar ally, protection against X), while others have an alignment tag because they are (arguably) objectively like their alignment tag in actual operation ([pain] spells).
It's absurd that any number of castings of Protection from Evil turns you good. It's not absurd that repeated use of Pain Strike could turn you evil.
The real problem with this rule is that some spells have an alignment tag because they don't want opposite aligned deities to grant those spells for thematic reasons (planar ally, protection against X), while others have an alignment tag because they are (arguably) objectively like their alignment tag in actual operation ([pain] spells).
Except when your good deity grants an [evil] spell in their domains, as some of the Empyreal Lords do. Then it gets awkward.
|
|
Herald wrote:
I really can't remember any horror story I knew about where there were many shades of grey, but I'll bite what stories are you talking about?
(Honest question, I'm open to answers/advice.)
Most Stephen King Horror and Clive Barker. Little reasonable steps, leading ever downward. Pet Sematary is the perfect example, what could possibly be evil about trying to bring your child back?
I would include Anne Rice and Laurel Hamilton but the steps into evil tend to be overshadowed by the slide into sleaze.
See Pet Cemetery seems black and white to me. Interfering in natural order means that your loved ones after they die will mean they will come back to kill you. The profane actions of a person are immediately revisited back upon the transgressor. Like many of Steven King's work, (and the EC comics that he so very much cherished) it's a cautionary tale not to play around with evil.
I'll give you Anne Rice and Laurel Hamilton are grey, and for that matter we could have a while thread derailing exchange about White Wolf games [I love the original series], but I won't go into here) But I argue that Anne Rice and Laurel K. Hamilton aren't strictly Horror as they are more of a Post Human genre. Maybe I'm short sighted, or being snobbish but I certainly don't really think that they best typify the genres proposed by the book. And that's not to say that their stories aren't good or not creepy, it just doesn't IMHO fit my idea of horror. I feel like many of the entries in the Horrific Inspirations do fit my bill of what I want to play in a Pathfinder game.
When I want something like Anne Rice, I run WOD, and I did for over 10 years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
