|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This thread is a spin-off of a tangent from an unrelated thread:
Which rule did that?As per the new rules, casting it three times moves you one step towards evil.Casting Infernal Healing now comes with it's own problems for non-evil casters.What did I miss?This section includes a large number of evil spells. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. 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.
The simple question I have, is:
Is this feasible for PFS?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No.
First off, this is the exact same thing the rule has always been. Doing a minor bit of evil slowly pushes you towards evil, that's not news. PFS doesn't track that because it would be a pain. Nothing has changed with the rules so nothing has changed with the house rule/clarification/concession to the nature of the campaign that the necromancers aren't gravitating towards evil.
Secondly, people may have features build around some of those spells. You'd have to enable people to rewrite their characters (vocational job training for necromancers 101)
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this moment, I would think that the FAQ on the issue would still apply. The new rule suggests a number, but leaves it to GM discretion. The FAQ represents the current GM ruling.
In a lot of ways, the new rule isn't that different than the old rule, other than suggesting a number. It fleshes it out a bit, but we already knew that casting a spell with the evil descriptor was technically an evil act; we just didn't have a gauge for how evil it was.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no comment on whether or not it's an appropriate spell for the campaign. I just want to know if I need to stop using it and whether or not I can sell back a wand of it.
I think the PFS FAQ still overrides other rules about using evil spells, but this is something that should definitely be considered for clarification, as I'm sure it will become a major source of table variation until there's some official word from the campaign.
I'm not going to be comfortable telling a player the item they've been using for years will suddenly turn them evil based solely on a sidebar in a book I don't own while there is an FAQ from the campaign stating otherwise.
|
I'll bring up an obvious subset of characters that this would negatively impact: those that regularly use Animate Dead.
I have such a character myself that I love dearly, so any new rules would ideally both allow him to continue doing his schtick while also making him pause to consider his actions.
I think an allowance for Atonement to "reset" the count to zero would be a possibility. The character could continue animating dead, infernally healing when needed, etc., but would be aware of the additional cost coming around the bend.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the context of PFS, I believe the "count" wouldn't carry over from one scenario to the next. Other than that, it seems perfectly feasible.
I would think that the line in the rule "The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change," supports that interpretation, if you were going with alignment changes for castings (which I think the FAQ currently prevents).
|
|
Ok.
What do you propose?
That the existing FAQ stand, and that this be treated like any other optional rule from any other book (ie. not part of the campaign)?
That is the ruling with the least immediate impact. If the campaign wants to rethink the use of [evil] spells, I don't have an issue with that. But I feel like a ruling needs to be made now to prevent table variation, and sticking with the status quo until the issue has been able to be looked at is much more prudent than making a change that might be reversed later.
EDIT: Ninja'd by nosig.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
Additional rules elements such as the one cited are rarely introduced into Society play for a reason (the only exception I can think of is the retraining rules from Ultimate Campaign). One shouldn't need to buy a different hardback book in order to know how alignment, which is in the CRB, will be adjudicated in PFS. I believe this is one reason almost all of Unchained (barring the re-written classes) is not allowed per additional resources.
Stick with the FAQ.
|
|
I see people get squeamish about [evil] spells, and alignment in general, all the time. IMO, the current FAQ does nothing.
If it were tweaked, though, and gave numbers to go off of, I think it would be a step in the right direction.
Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting a single 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, but casting multiple such spells over the course of a scenario can be. A good-aligned spellcaster shifts one step towards evil after casting three such spells, and a neutral-aligned spellcaster shifts one step towards evil after casting two such spells. An Atonement spell resets this count to zero. Committing an evil act outside of castingthea spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an immediate alignment infraction.For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
Bolded words are ones I added, strikethroughs are the ones I'd propose removing.
|
|
What the existing FAQ does is say that a spell cannot be called out as an evil act based solely on the fact that it has the [evil] descriptor. It's not trying to address whether or not animating a particular corpse is an evil act. Just that casting the spell itself is not. It's an FAQ based in practicality, not morality. Tracking uses of [evil] spells is problematic from scenario to scenario. So it's easier to just not make the descriptor the deciding factor on whether or not the spell is being used for evil. It's still entirely possible for a GM to rule that animating the corpse of a party member or an NPC is an evil act. Nothing in the FAQ prevents that. What it does prevent is endless arguments at the table about whether or not Infernal Healing or Animate Dead or a handful of other spells can be used at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS FAQ trumps all for PFS.
And yes, p-sto, the rules *do* prevent a GM calling out spells like animate dead as an evil act:
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself
Casting evil spells are NOT evil acts in PFS, therefore the number of spells you cast doesn't matter. 0+0+0+... is still zero evil.
If a spell is used for an evil (in PFS) act, that's different - torturing people for fun, fireballing a market square of civilians, etc. will cause you trouble, but that is the act, not whether the spell itself is evil or not. Nothing has changed unless and until the FAQ changes.
|
|
I've never actually bothered to look at the faq on this topic until now. I'll note that it doesn't actually specify that a GM can't call out using spells such as animate dead as evil acts.
...yes. Yes it most certainly does.
According to pfs it's not an evil act. You cannot call something that is not an evil act an evil act. Do not try to rules lawyer against the players like that. You can always say its not x its a synonoym of x and manufacture some difference. If they didn't want people casting animate dead it would be banned or called out as evil rather than allowed by the faq
|
|
I would call desecrating a corpse and preventing a soul from reaching the afterlife going beyond the evil descriptor of the spell.The spell does not do the second part. Desecration of a corpse is more subjective.
If you could point me to specifics it would be appreciated. Pharasma's opposition to undead and the mechanics of creating them has always seemed nebulous to me.
|
|
It's an FAQ based in practicality, not morality.
I actually 100% disagree.
There are no practical numbers to go off of.
It references vague "codes" and "tenets of faith", which differ from GM to GM.
P-sto's objections are exactly the sort of rulings I come across often.
And so, in my experience, the FAQ doesn't work.
|
|
I guess I'll remind everyone of the second post in this thread:
Problem is it's hard to talk about the practicality of this without getting into specifics of different spells.
The implication would be that impossible to be a good character who uses infernal healing and people would likely be asking refunds for wands they can only use twice a scenario.
Off the top of my head there are very few evil spells a character is likely to be spamming unless they happen to a spontaneous caster, in which case rebuild allowance would have to be made if the Horror rules were put into effect.
|
|
It's an FAQ based in practicality, not morality.I actually 100% disagree.
There are no practical numbers to go off of.
It references vague "codes" and "tenets of faith", which differ from GM to GM.
P-sto's objections are exactly the sort of rulings I come across often.
And so, in my experience, the FAQ doesn't work.
But setting a limit on the number of times you can cast a spell with the [evil] description per scenario doesn't do anything to address those issues anymore than the current FAQ does. It just puts an arbitrary (slightly less arbitrary now that there are some published suggestion) limit. If a GM believes raising a particular corpse is an evil act, they'll believe that whether you are limited to a single [evil] spell per scenario or whether you are not limited.
What the current FAQ does is leave things that are judgement calls as judgement calls. Is this particular use of this particular spell an evil act? Ask your GM. Does this particular use violate your character's code? Ask your GM. Does every use of this spell constitute an evil act purely because the spell has the [evil] descriptor? No, very clearly not according to the FAQ.
The FAQ doesn't answer the question that you'd like it to answer, but that doesn't mean it does nothing. It answers one very specific question, then includes language to make sure players know what they do with the spell can still be ruled an evil act even if the spell itself is not.
EDIT: In other words, the language that you call vague is vague for a reason. They don't want to ban the spells entirely, but they can't anticipate every situation, so they've left resolving those issues up to the GM. The one thing they did make clear is that simply casting the spell is not an evil act.
|
|
Problem is it's hard to talk about the practicality of this without getting into specifics of different spells.
It's easy. Anything with an alignment descriptor.
It could even apply to [Lawful], [Chaotic] and [Good] spells.
The implication would be that impossible to be a good character who uses infernal healing and people would likely be asking refunds for wands they can only use twice a scenario.
If asking for or offering refunds is the only objection then I don't see that as a problem.
Such a wand could still last someone their entire career, too.
Off the top of my head there are very few evil spells a character is likely to be spamming unless they happen to a spontaneous caster, in which case rebuild allowance would have to be made if the Horror rules were put into effect.
They could also, using my character as an example, weigh the risks and rewards of "spamming" such spells.
I would not like if this rule was implemented in PFS.
For clarity's sake, I know the current ruling for PFS is that casting something like Infernal Healing to heal a party member isn't evil, but I am assuming that this would be changed in favor of a new ruling in line with the excerpt from Horror Adventures. I do not have a necromancer character and only one of my characters intend on owning a wand of infernal healing.
A rule like this would gimp any characters who utilize [evil] options, like necromancers and anybody with a wand of infernal healing (as mentioned previously), by effectively threatening them with death (even if it is 'death'), if they don't pay for atonements. You could realistically earn half PP for the rest of your PFS career. This is even more painful for necromancers who are already paying for onyx gems every session.
I believe that if worshiping an evil deity doesn't cause some sort of alignment infraction, casting an [evil] spell shouldn't either (just the act of doing so. Intent of the action should absolutely play into alignment infractions). It doesn't make sense to me that a character can receive spells by worshiping an evil deity, but if spells with the [Evil] descriptor are cast X amount of times, the character is shifting towards evil and risks being kicked out of the society.
If this is the direction people want to go, it would make more sense to me to just remove evil options from future characters completely. While this would make me sad (because evil gets all the cool stuff), I think it would at least be more transparent/fair than systematically inhibiting their abilities to the point of becoming unplayable (which is the direction I predict the campaign would start going, if it hasn't already).
Slightly off topic, is there any language that says casting spells of [alignment] shifts you towards that alignment? I think part of my problem with the rule is that it only applies to [evil]. If all of [alignment] spells were treated this way, that would make more sense to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's an FAQ based in practicality, not morality.I actually 100% disagree.
There are no practical numbers to go off of.
It references vague "codes" and "tenets of faith", which differ from GM to GM.
P-sto's objections are exactly the sort of rulings I come across often.
And so, in my experience, the FAQ doesn't work.
Code: Paladin code. Druid code to revere nature. Cavalier order.
tenant of faith: You Worship (in the technical sense) a deity that is either good or has a specific beef with undead (like pharasma), either to get spellcasting powers, power an item, or power a trait/feat.
It's not that the faq isn't working, its that people either don't know about it or are actively trying to subvert it.
|
|
I think this section of the recent blog is relevant to this discussion:
Another change in the Roleplaying Guild Guide involves the Pathfinder Society Community Policy. The goal of the policy is to create an inclusive environment for our players while leaving options open for communities to have the flavor of Pathfinder Society that they desire. The new policy puts the burden of good behavior on each individual player, with consequences for players not interested in fostering a community spirit. It also puts weight on the GM to regulate the table and ensure that no one is being excluded from play. So if you want to play edgier concepts, recognize the time and place for them. A public venue with new players may not be the right time to bring out the man-hating cleric of Calistra, elf supremacist, or Zarta Dralneen's newest enthusiast—save those characters for a private game with people you know. "My character would act that way" is not an excuse to abuse other Pathfinders, and when choosing which character to play, consider your environment and the other players at your table and select appropriately.
With the inclusion of a more defined community behavior policy, we are rescinding the limitation on slaver and torturer professions. This does not lift the restriction on Pathfinders purchasing slaves. The reason for this inclusion in the campaign is that they are an ingrained part of the economy (slaver) and religious observance for Kuthonites (torturer). Again, as with other changes to the campaign, please send feedback and let me know how this is working in your area. If it becomes evident players are not able to have this content and treat it in a responsible manner, then it will once again be removed and offending players subject to disciplinary action.
To me, that is not describing a situation where the campaign needs or wants to start imposing limits on [evil] options in game. Instead, it's saying that they are willing to open them back up/leave them open, because they know that they are part of many character concepts, as long as the players utilizing them follow the PFS Community Policy and behave appropriately. Limiting an option that was previously unlimited [EDIT: without examples of players abusing it to break the Community Policy] is, to me, in contrast to the spirit of the statements above.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would call desecrating a corpse and preventing a soul from reaching the afterlife going beyond the evil descriptor of the spell.
Because casting a spell with an evil descriptor is not in and of itself an evil act (per the FAQ) there *must* be a way to cast such a spell in a way that is not an alignment infraction.
Any GM ruling which makes it impossible under any circumstances to cast such a spell is necessarily invalid.
Now...a cleric of Pharasma may never be able to cast animate dead -- but that is a different thing.
|
|
I would call desecrating a corpse and preventing a soul from reaching the afterlife going beyond the evil descriptor of the spell.Because casting a spell with an evil descriptor is not in and of itself an evil act (per the FAQ) there *must* be a way to cast such a spell in a way that is not an alignment infraction.
I disagree that there must be a way to cast the spell that isn't evil. The morality of spell can be subjective to what the spell does. Cup of Dust doesn't have the evil descriptor but the only use for it is to torture another individual. A player would have a hard time convincing me that the spell isn't an alignment infraction despite it's lack of the evil descriptor.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly off topic, is there any language that says casting spells of [alignment] shifts you towards that alignment? I think part of my problem with the rule is that it only applies to [evil]. If all of [alignment] spells were treated this way, that would make more sense to me.
It is all alignments. The box says so
"Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also appliesto spells with other alignment descriptors."
|
|
I am going to follow directions and ignore the question of "should this be a rule" because that isn't the question. From a nuts and bolts perspective, in order to track this properly there would probably need to be another sheet like the ITS to keep track of strikes. It would also need to have areas to keep track of atonements. This seems like a needless introduction of paperwork for me, but that's what would need to be done to support it.
|
|
I disagree that there must be a way to cast the spell that isn't evil. The morality of spell can be subjective to what the spell does. Cup of Dust doesn't have the evil descriptor but the only use for it is to torture another individual. A player would have a hard time convincing me that the spell isn't an alignment infraction despite it's lack of the evil descriptor.I would call desecrating a corpse and preventing a soul from reaching the afterlife going beyond the evil descriptor of the spell.Because casting a spell with an evil descriptor is not in and of itself an evil act (per the FAQ) there *must* be a way to cast such a spell in a way that is not an alignment infraction.
For reference, p-sto is not unique in the world of PFS.
|
|
I am going to follow directions and ignore the question of "should this be a rule" because that isn't the question. From a nuts and bolts perspective, in order to track this properly there would probably need to be another sheet like the ITS to keep track of strikes. It would also need to have areas to keep track of atonements. This seems like a needless introduction of paperwork for me, but that's what would need to be done to support it.
Kalindlara up thread mentioned an idea that this would only be trackable during a scenario.
Not scenario to scenario, so no additional paperwork needed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that there must be a way to cast the spell that isn't evil. The morality of spell can be subjective to what the spell does. Cup of Dust doesn't have the evil descriptor but the only use for it is to torture another individual. A player would have a hard time convincing me that the spell isn't an alignment infraction despite it's lack of the evil descriptor.I would call desecrating a corpse and preventing a soul from reaching the afterlife going beyond the evil descriptor of the spell.Because casting a spell with an evil descriptor is not in and of itself an evil act (per the FAQ) there *must* be a way to cast such a spell in a way that is not an alignment infraction.
In a home game I 100% agree with you. And would rule the same way myself.
In PFS it is *literally* what the FAQ says. if you cannot envision a non-evil way to cast a spell with an evil descriptor, you are going against the intentions of campaign leadership.