Can we ditch the nonsense with infernal healing yet?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 567 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Horror Adentures wrote:
Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Considering that anybody who fights a devil in hand to hand combat is likely to end up absolutely covered in devil

blood, I don't see why infernal healing is that big a deal...

Devils blood is more than a substance, it's a sign of a bargain. When given or used to bind a contract in exchange for power it holds power over you. When forcibly taken there's no quid pro quo and thus no bargain and thus no power.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So there's no ethical problem when you harvest your blood from freshly slain devils in order to power infernal healing?

That is, both kinds work for the spell, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:


If you're Neutral, those are necessary evils (mweh heh heh) to keep your alignment from changing after so many adventures of saving people and helping the innocent.

Not really.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons doesn't make you good. You can save the prince because he's in trouble, or for a big heaping pile of gold. Motivations matter for good. Not nearly as much for evil. Good and evil don't mirror each other as exact opposites: some of the rules are different.

Consequently, if you do evil things for the right reasons, it won't keep you from turning evil? For example, if you kill to be able to help or save others, you'll slip to evil regardless of intent?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:


Consequently, if you do evil things for the right reasons, it won't keep you from turning evil?

No. Because as I said, good an evil do NOT match up in a mirror for mirror, equal and opposites fashion. Much like gravity: going up and going down aren't the same thing.

Quote:
For example, if you kill to be able to help or save others, you'll slip to evil regardless of intent?

Killing isn't always evil.

Torture is a better example. If you torture someone for good reasons (there's a box full of Shadows in the city: if you don't find it by sundown in 5 hours the lid opens and the shadows are released, starting a chain reaction apocalypse) yes, it's still an evil act. A paladin would fall. It would not cause an alignment shift unless you kept doing it, but if you did, even with good intent, your alignment would shift. Not AS quickly as the guy torturing because it's fun (thats the express route: do not pass go, do not collect 200 gp) but it would still happen.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How many little old ladies to I have to help across the street to make up for murdering one?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:


Consequently, if you do evil things for the right reasons, it won't keep you from turning evil?

No. Because as I said, good an evil do NOT match up in a mirror for mirror, equal and opposites fashion. Much like gravity: going up and going down aren't the same thing.

Quote:
For example, if you kill to be able to help or save others, you'll slip to evil regardless of intent?

My problem with alignment is that sonetimes they are.

Protection from Goid and Protection from Evil are exactly the same, power wise. Antipaladins are basically inverted Paladins.

D&D / Pathfinder can't seem to decide if they want Good and evil to be mirrors of each other or not.


Ventnor wrote:

My problem with alignment is that sonetimes they are.

Protection from Goid and Protection from Evil are exactly the same, power wise. Antipaladins are basically inverted Paladins.

D&D / Pathfinder can't seem to decide if they want Good and evil to be mirrors of each other or not.

Sometimes thye mirror, sometimes they do not. It's not like a complete match or complete mismatch are the only possibilities. Even on a cosmic scale you have Archons - Devils, Daemons - Agathions and Demons - Azata but then there are various aligned outsiders that aren't matched up as you don't have a fiendish equivalent of Angels and there are varieties of fiends who don't have a Celestial counter.

The Paladin and Antipaladin codes aren't mirrors either, as the Antipaladin code explicitly gives more leeway on straying from the mandate


Snowlilly wrote:

Using it on an unconscious paladin was amusing.

The player completely flipped out.

I have a witch/barbarian from before Scarred Witch Doctor was changed. The catfolk ninja in the party was CG, and didn't want infernal healing but he DID want to run into combat and jump on ledges alone with monsters, and spent most of his time until level 10 (greater invis ftw) unconscious. My witch spoke no languages, so she didn't even have to hear him complain that he felt "icky" when he woke up.

The best was when he was down to 3 hps and refusing healing, so she smacked him for nonlethal and then cast her spell...


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Torture is a better example. If you torture someone for good reasons (there's a box full of Shadows in the city: if you don't find it by sundown in 5 hours the lid opens and the shadows are released, starting a chain reaction apocalypse) yes, it's still an evil act. A paladin would fall. It would not cause an alignment shift unless you kept doing it, but if you did, even with good intent, your alignment would shift. Not AS quickly as the guy torturing because it's fun (thats the express route: do not pass go, do not collect 200 gp) but it would still happen.

Despite American TV, Torture doesnt work. The guy being tortured would either refuse to talk, or give false info (which might open the box anyway) or under duress will forget.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
threemilechild wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

Using it on an unconscious paladin was amusing.

The player completely flipped out.

I have a witch/barbarian from before Scarred Witch Doctor was changed. The catfolk ninja in the party was CG, and didn't want infernal healing but he DID want to run into combat and jump on ledges alone with monsters, and spent most of his time until level 10 (greater invis ftw) unconscious. My witch spoke no languages, so she didn't even have to hear him complain that he felt "icky" when he woke up.

The best was when he was down to 3 hps and refusing healing, so she smacked him for nonlethal and then cast her spell...

This why Pathfinder should simply errata the spell out of existence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Despite American TV, Torture doesnt work. The guy being tortured would either refuse to talk, or give false info (which might open the box anyway) or under duress will forget.

But it works in fiction, and characters are in a fictional world, so it works there : )


BigNorseWolf wrote:
But it works in fiction, and characters are in a fictional world, so it works there : )

That's pretty unreliable though, since the GM (as architect of the fictional world and the person controlling the NPCs) might realize "fiction in the real world doesn't work, and fictional stories that show torture as working help cultivate the erroneous idea that it does work, so of course the victim is just going to say anything they think their captors want to hear and as a result nothing useful comes from this" or they might say "Well, it works on 24, so it works here."

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Despite American TV, Torture doesnt work. The guy being tortured would either refuse to talk, or give false info (which might open the box anyway) or under duress will forget.

But it works in fiction, and characters are in a fictional world, so it works there : )

No tummywubs for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Despite American TV, Torture doesnt work. The guy being tortured would either refuse to talk, or give false info (which might open the box anyway) or under duress will forget.

But it works in fiction, and characters are in a fictional world, so it works there : )

But you also have magic that is still more reliable making the torture again an unneeded infliction of pain


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Entryhazard wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Despite American TV, Torture doesnt work. The guy being tortured would either refuse to talk, or give false info (which might open the box anyway) or under duress will forget.

But it works in fiction, and characters are in a fictional world, so it works there : )
But you also have magic that is still more reliable making the torture again an unneeded infliction of pain

Like making them chug potions of protection from evil and chaos until they are lawful good and thus learn to see the errors of their ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


Despite American TV, Torture doesnt work. The guy being tortured would either refuse to talk, or give false info (which might open the box anyway) or under duress will forget.

Can you point me to a peer reviewed study showing that when subjects were tortured for specific, immediately verifiable information ("what is the passcode to your gmail account?") they all refused to answer (over what duration and under what torture, one wonders), repeatedly gave false information (over what duration), or forgot their password?

Until then, I'm going to rely on common sense suggesting that torture can indeed work in that and similar situations. I can even promise you that if tortured even a little bit I'd be happy to share my gmail password and it's sharply enough in my mind that nothing short of brain damage is going to make me forget it.


So, TC, as you can see, many people aren't ready to give up the nonsense.


Zedth wrote:
Ridiculon wrote:


Are there no opportunistic Devils hanging out on the material plane of their own free will making deals for their blood? deals that they know will end with the users more devil than mortal? seems pretty in character to me

Sure, that's "in character" but that had nothing to do with my statement. It was a humble observation about how uncommon a devil might be who is "hanging out" as opposed to be summoned. Common enough to have blood samples to hand out to any mage who wants it? Maybe, maybe not, depending on the game setting.

*shrugs*

I know a devil. Let me give you her card.

There will likely be a little more in the vial than just devil's blood, but that's nothing to concern yourself with...

♫♪ There'll be no more, AHHHHHH!
But you may feel a little sick
Can you stand up?
I do believe it's working, good
That'll keep you going through the fight
Come on it's time for flight.
♫♪


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Like making them chug potions of protection from evil and chaos until they are lawful good and thus learn to see the errors of their ways.

Worst. frat party. EVAR.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Zedth wrote:

Side note -

It seems like it could be exceedingly difficult to obtain a spell component of devil's blood that wouldn't disappear since summoned creatures pop back to their home planes when killed. The inference being that the blood would likewise disappear. The second inference here is that any "componentable" devil blood must have been harvested from a bona fide gated devil that is wholly on this plane of existence, which would be uncommon at best and quite dangerous at worst.

Dangerous, but you can get a lot of blood from one devil.

Especially if you use some of their blood to cast Infernal Healing on them...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Note that while the Evil descriptor entry has the rules for casting of evil spells making you evil, there are no corresponding rules for the Good descriptor. (Or for Lawful & Chaotic, for that matter.)

RAW, unless I'm missing something, it's a one way street.

The listing for Evil says:

"Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors."

...if the actual text matters. In a RP-driven game, the RP will decide case to case. In an RP-less game, it would appear you can wash away the taint, or at least 'taint over it' with another color.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Despite American TV, Torture doesnt work. The guy being tortured would either refuse to talk, or give false info (which might open the box anyway) or under duress will forget.

Can you point me to a peer reviewed study showing that when subjects were tortured for specific, immediately verifiable information ("what is the passcode to your gmail account?") they all refused to answer (over what duration and under what torture, one wonders), repeatedly gave false information (over what duration), or forgot their password?

Until then, I'm going to rely on common sense suggesting that torture can indeed work in that and similar situations. I can even promise you that if tortured even a little bit I'd be happy to share my gmail password and it's sharply enough in my mind that nothing short of brain damage is going to make me forget it.

There's a game show based around the phenomenon that it is difficult to remember things under duress. It's called Distraction, and is hosted by Jimmy Carr. Questions involve common trivia and simple math. Distractions involve electric shock, rubber bands constricting your face, and professional wrestlers attacking you.

Watch an episode or two and imagine how difficult it would be to remember and then speak or write a password you generally only type if you are in actual pain or your life is actually in danger.

Of course, if someone is evil and you're not going to give up your password anyway, there would be no reason for them not to torture you just in case.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


Not in pathfinder. I think it's 5 spells and you've gone from good to evil or from evil to good.
Not in pathfinder using an optional rule from horror adventures, much like called shots, armor as damage reduction, words of power and other subsystems that people ignore.

This is a misunderstanding many are under. The rule is not optional. Much like where ultimate intrigue stated detect magic can find someone using invisibility which was already true before the book came out, horror adventures merely clarifies what was already true about aligned casting. That casting an aligned spell is an aligned action, that no aligned cast affects your alignment stronger and that the GM decides when you change alignment.

The two most optional parts, as they are not covered anywhere else, are the baseline suggestion of how many casts and that an aligned spell cast for an opposing aligned purpose always becomes an aligned action the same as the spell cast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:


The two most optional parts, as they are not covered anywhere else, are the baseline suggestion of how many casts and that an aligned spell cast for an opposing aligned purpose always becomes an aligned action the same as the spell cast.

To clarify this part, do you mean that casting Infernal Healing (an Evil spell) to save somebody's life (a Good act) would make Infernal Healing good or saving somebody's life evil? I don't have the book, so I'm not sure which you're saying it says. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Johnico wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:


The two most optional parts, as they are not covered anywhere else, are the baseline suggestion of how many casts and that an aligned spell cast for an opposing aligned purpose always becomes an aligned action the same as the spell cast.
To clarify this part, do you mean that casting Infernal Healing (an Evil spell) to save somebody's life (a Good act) would make Infernal Healing good or saving somebody's life evil? I don't have the book, so I'm not sure which you're saying it says. :P

Either way, casting Protection from Evil for the purpose of protecting my party from evil creatures is a good act with a good aligned spell.

The fact that I later cast Infernal Healing to heal my party, after killing the evil creatures is, at worst, eroding the buffer built up by the good aligned spells I previously cast.

By the time we are done tracking all the aligned spells, on top of everything already tracked, we'll be playing Accountantfinder before we finish.


That's how we keep track of everything around here! We live in a bureaucratic democracy, don't you know!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get all the hubub about evil spells. They're not chaotic or anything crazy like that. I know lots of devils, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't give us a spell that had any nasty consequences.


Hellknight #685,340 wrote:
I don't get all the hubub about evil spells. They're not chaotic or anything crazy like that. I know lots of devils, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't give us a spell that had any nasty consequences.

Well, you see, fellow hellknight. It's of particular importance for paladins. Due to the way their code of conducts works, they aren't allowed access to such spells. It isn't so much as an ethical breach but a contractual one, though paladins specifically see it as an ethical one. But if a paladin DOES breach this contract, that means we need to step in and ENFORCE THE LAW. Once you have worked in this job as long as I have, you begin to more easily appreciate the differences between the two.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Johnico wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:


The two most optional parts, as they are not covered anywhere else, are the baseline suggestion of how many casts and that an aligned spell cast for an opposing aligned purpose always becomes an aligned action the same as the spell cast.
To clarify this part, do you mean that casting Infernal Healing (an Evil spell) to save somebody's life (a Good act) would make Infernal Healing good or saving somebody's life evil? I don't have the book, so I'm not sure which you're saying it says. :P

Depends, everything isn't just one whole single Alignment Act after you do something, so casting Infernal Healing (Evil) to save someone who is dying (Good) would go a ways to counter the Evil from casting Infernal Heaing but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting aligned magic.

Scarab Sages

Johnico wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:


The two most optional parts, as they are not covered anywhere else, are the baseline suggestion of how many casts and that an aligned spell cast for an opposing aligned purpose always becomes an aligned action the same as the spell cast.
To clarify this part, do you mean that casting Infernal Healing (an Evil spell) to save somebody's life (a Good act) would make Infernal Healing good or saving somebody's life evil? I don't have the book, so I'm not sure which you're saying it says. :P

Since the spell cast is evil the action is evil despite the purpose of the cast being good. That's what I mean.

That the normal action of attempting good is greatly less a good action than casting an evil spell is an evil action. So much as to barely make a dent in the old alignment-o-meter.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

...

Depends, everything isn't just one whole single Alignment Act after you do something, so casting Infernal Healing (Evil) to save someone who is dying (Good) would go a ways to counter the Evil from casting Infernal Heaing but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting aligned magic.

Likewise, using Holy Word (Good) to nuke an entire orphanage filled with little children would go a ways to counter the Good from casting Holy Word but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting orphan nuking aligned magic, because alignment is mostly a label and having the wrong label is Bad(TM) because it is dangerous because it is bad(TM).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:
Rysky wrote:

...

Depends, everything isn't just one whole single Alignment Act after you do something, so casting Infernal Healing (Evil) to save someone who is dying (Good) would go a ways to counter the Evil from casting Infernal Heaing but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting aligned magic.
Likewise, using Holy Word (Good) to nuke an entire orphanage filled with little children would go a ways to counter the Good from casting Holy Word but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting orphan nuking aligned magic, because alignment is mostly a label and having the wrong label is Bad(TM) because it is dangerous because it is bad(TM).

What if they were orphaned goblin children?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:
Rysky wrote:

...

Depends, everything isn't just one whole single Alignment Act after you do something, so casting Infernal Healing (Evil) to save someone who is dying (Good) would go a ways to counter the Evil from casting Infernal Heaing but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting aligned magic.
Likewise, using Holy Word (Good) to nuke an entire orphanage filled with little children would go a ways to counter the Good from casting Holy Word but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting orphan nuking aligned magic, because alignment is mostly a label and having the wrong label is Bad(TM) because it is dangerous because it is bad(TM).
What if they were orphaned goblin children?

Then it is just a Good act, because goblins are evil because the bestiary says so. Yes, even children. Especially Children.

I do have to warn you though, for every goblin baby orphan that you hit, somewhere in the world a Paladin falls.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:
Rysky wrote:

...

Depends, everything isn't just one whole single Alignment Act after you do something, so casting Infernal Healing (Evil) to save someone who is dying (Good) would go a ways to counter the Evil from casting Infernal Heaing but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting aligned magic.
Likewise, using Holy Word (Good) to nuke an entire orphanage filled with little children would go a ways to counter the Good from casting Holy Word but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting orphan nuking aligned magic, because alignment is mostly a label and having the wrong label is Bad(TM) because it is dangerous because it is bad(TM).

uh no, nuking an entire orphanage would definitely outweigh the single casting of a Good aligned spell.

Kinda like how the Horror Adventures sidebar calls out human sacrifice in a spell as irredeemably evil, nuking a whole bunch of innocent people would be irredeemably evil no matter what aligned spell you used.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

So would healing a Solar or something on the brink of death so it can save an orphanage be irredeemably good no matter what spell you used? Can that spell, or any spell cast afterwards that is also aligned not shift your alignment towards evil because you did "irredeemable" good? Or does casting 5 more infernal healings shift you to NE (you monster), like casting 5 Protection/Evil spells would make up for a mammoth monster orphanage rampage (0 to hero in 5 rounds, now I'd buy that for 125gp). Remember - Horror Adventures explicitly says that aligned spells work both ways.

God, this aligned casting rule is so gloriously stupid.

EDIT: I just noticed something.

So nuking the entire orphanage is irredeemably evil, right? What fraction of the orphanage is not irredeemably evil? Where does the line lie between "horrible monster" and "lessening the heroic act of casting a Grand Spell of Pure, Orphan Annihilating Good"?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Only because you're intentionally reading it as stupid.

If you spam aligned spells in quick succession it would shift your alignment, and thus your mindset as well. If you slaughter an orphanage and then spam Good spells your character would go insane from guilt and grief, since Good people tend to not go around slaughtering orphanages.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

"So nuking the entire orphanage is irredeemably evil, right? What fraction of the orphanage is not irredeemably evil? Where does the line lie between "horrible monster" and "lessening the heroic act of casting a Grand Spell of Pure, Orphan Annihilating Good"?"

Nuking an orphanage? Evil.

Nuking a town? Evil.

Nuking bandits that jumped you? Nuetral, so a net good act form the casting of the Good spell.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

...

If you spam aligned spells in quick succession it would shift your alignment, and thus your mindset as well.
...

Got an unambigous citation which says that aligned acts change your personality beyond what would be expected for the acts themselves?

Besides, Good people don't have to have a totally Good outlook. They just have to have a Good enough (rimshot) mindset, and our Holy Word using hero definitely has a Good enough mindset, because they are using Good spells and that makes them Good because the rules say so. What more do you want, besides aligned casting rules that aren't so mindbogglingly stupid that no GM should ever pay heed to them.

Rysky wrote:

"So nuking the entire orphanage is irredeemably evil, right? What fraction of the orphanage is not irredeemably evil? Where does the line lie between "horrible monster" and "lessening the heroic act of casting a Grand Spell of Pure, Orphan Annihilating Good"?"

Nuking an orphanage? Evil.

Nuking a town? Evil.

Nuking bandits that jumped you? Nuetral, so a net good act form the casting of the Good spell.

You didn't answer my question. What fraction of the orphanage is not an irredeemably evil body count? Or is killing anyone grounds for getting sent to hell for ever and ever because redemption is not just rare and special, but only for those who do things like swear too much in church since real heavy hitters are disqualified from the heavenly choir?

But it is OK, just cast Blinding ray (yes, it's Good) at some random dude and you will be right as rain for not answering my question. In fact, steal a few wallets before casting that spell. You might as well counter as much of the Good spell as you can get away with by doing petty evil things, because hey, why not? It is not as if context matters much when you blind some random bystander as part of your "Good for the Good God(s)" routine.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I didn't answer your dumb "fraction" question because, well, it was dumb. You don't slaughter innocent people for no reason and remain Good.

And yes forcibly changing your alignment changes your mindset to match, read the alignment rules. Good people act a certain way. Evil people act a certain way.

The only reason you see this as stupid is because you're intentionally ignoring the consequences of the effects, alignment is not just a collection of meaningless letters on your sheet.

And because you're proposing asinine scenarios. A Good person would not go around lasting random people with Blinding Ray. A person whose alignment has been forcibly shifted to Good would not do that either.

And that's not even getting into the fact that your Deity would strip your spells and abilities from if you tried to cast Holy Word in order to slaughter an orphanage.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:
Rysky wrote:

...

If you spam aligned spells in quick succession it would shift your alignment, and thus your mindset as well.
...

Got an unambigous citation which says that aligned acts change your personality beyond what would be expected for the acts themselves?

Besides, Good people don't have to have a totally Good outlook. They just have to have a Good enough (rimshot) mindset, and our Holy Word using hero definitely has a Good enough mindset, because they are using Good spells and that makes them Good because the rules say so. What more do you want, besides aligned casting rules that aren't so mindbogglingly stupid that no GM should ever pay heed to them.

Rysky wrote:

"So nuking the entire orphanage is irredeemably evil, right? What fraction of the orphanage is not irredeemably evil? Where does the line lie between "horrible monster" and "lessening the heroic act of casting a Grand Spell of Pure, Orphan Annihilating Good"?"

Nuking an orphanage? Evil.

Nuking a town? Evil.

Nuking bandits that jumped you? Nuetral, so a net good act form the casting of the Good spell.

You didn't answer my question. What fraction of the orphanage is not an irredeemably evil body count? Or is killing anyone grounds for getting sent to hell for ever and ever because redemption is not just rare and special, but only for those who do things like swear too much in church since real heavy hitters are disqualified from the heavenly choir?

But it is OK, just cast Blinding ray (yes, it's Good) at some random dude and you will be right as rain for not answering my question. In fact, steal a few wallets before casting that spell. You might as well counter as much of the Good spell as you can get away with by doing petty evil things, because hey, why not? It is not as if context matters much when you blind some random bystander as part of your "Good for the Good God(s)" routine.

It'd be better to take this line of thought to another thread dedicated to the aligned casting rules.

But to answer simply in hopes that it is enough for you, any amount of death of innocence is considered irredeemably evil and is grounds for a GM to declare an immediate alignment shift towards evil. And possibly towards chaotic if your target selection is random. This also holds true for people who are evil but innocent. Much as an unscrupulous street vendor who price gouges for greed can be evil but has not committed an act worthy of killing over and is thus innocent even if evil.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

I didn't answer your dumb "fraction" question because, well, it was dumb. You don't slaughter innocent people for no reason and remain Good.

And yes forcibly changing your alignment changes your mindset to match, read the alignment rules. Good people act a certain way. Evil people act a certain way.

The only reason you see this as stupid is because you're intentionally ignoring the consequences of the effects, alignment is not just a collection of meaningless letters on your sheet.

And because you're proposing asinine scenarios. A Good person would not go around lasting random people with Blinding Ray. A person whose alignment has been forcibly shifted to Good would not do that either.

And that's not even getting into the fact that your Deity would strip your spells and abilities from if you tried to cast Holy Word in order to slaughter an orphanage.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Alignment is a consequence not an instigator. You are a way and thus your alignment matches that. You don't match what you are to your alignment. This is why alignment can change, otherwise you couldn't possibly perform an act that was different from your alignment. The only exception is the Helm of Opposite Alignment which explicitly also changes your mind to match your new alignment and also explicitly makes it so you enjoy the change. Other alignment changes do not hold this true.

But, you are certainly right that a deity doesn't just let someone use their spells to do as they please if they go directly against the god's views. Completely up to the GM to handle that, but a GM worth their salt would.


Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:


Likewise, using Holy Word (Good) to nuke an entire orphanage filled with little children would go a ways to counter the Good from casting Holy Word but it wouldn't equal out. That's why aligned magic is dangerous, especially very tempting orphan nuking aligned magic, because alignment is mostly a label and having the wrong label is Bad(TM) because it is dangerous because it is bad(TM).
What if they were orphaned goblin children?

Then it is just a Good act, because goblins are evil because the bestiary says so. Yes, even children. Especially Children.

I do have to warn you though, for every goblin baby orphan that you hit, somewhere in the world a Paladin falls.

Nah, the Paladin just wobbles a bit.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lorewalker wrote:
Rysky wrote:

I didn't answer your dumb "fraction" question because, well, it was dumb. You don't slaughter innocent people for no reason and remain Good.

And yes forcibly changing your alignment changes your mindset to match, read the alignment rules. Good people act a certain way. Evil people act a certain way.

The only reason you see this as stupid is because you're intentionally ignoring the consequences of the effects, alignment is not just a collection of meaningless letters on your sheet.

And because you're proposing asinine scenarios. A Good person would not go around lasting random people with Blinding Ray. A person whose alignment has been forcibly shifted to Good would not do that either.

And that's not even getting into the fact that your Deity would strip your spells and abilities from if you tried to cast Holy Word in order to slaughter an orphanage.

Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Alignment is a consequence not an instigator. You are a way and thus your alignment matches that. You don't match what you are to your alignment. This is why alignment can change, otherwise you couldn't possibly perform an act that was different from your alignment. The only exception is the Helm of Opposite Alignment which explicitly also changes your mind and also explicitly makes it so you enjoy the change. Other alignment changes do not hold this true.

Correct for the most part, actions determine alignment. But that starts to veer off when you forcibly change your alignment, such as by choosing to cast aligned spells of a differing alignment, which are aligned acts, so you're performing aligned acts, choosing to perform acts of a certain alignment..

"Other alignment changes do not hold this true."

What other alignment changes are there where this is not true?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

...Correct for the most part, actions determine alignment. But that starts to veer off when you forcibly change your alignment, such as by choosing to cast aligned spells of a differing alignment.

...

How does casting an Evil spell "forcibly" change your alignment any more than murdering an orphan does? They are both Evil acts, and they change your alignment because (and solely because) they are Evil acts.


This discussion is why I, as the designate GM, of both the PF groups i am a part of gave the groups a couple of simple and, in my opinion, pretty strait forward models of how the alignment descriptors should work.

The first model was simply, they function as intended, ie cast Evil spells -> you become evil. The group comes up with a fair number of castings that represents when a characters alignment changes (if I remember correctly we talked about between 5-10 castings).
However I, as the GM, reserved the right to bring up spells for a group vote on if they should gain or loss they alignment descriptor(s). (which I exercised to bring up a long list of enchantment school spells that in my opinion qualified to gain the Evil descriptor)

The second model was that that the alignment descriptor of a spell counted as such a miniscule part, of the overall alignment, on a particular course of action compared to things such as intent, negligence or other factors that it won´t sway it either way 99% of the time.

After a bit of deliberation (I can´t really remember how long...around 30-40 min I think) both groups went for the second model. Because it seemed to be the least of a hassel to them. (although the kitsune sorc in one of the groups had ulterior motives to his vote I suspect...).


Snowblind wrote:
Rysky wrote:

...Correct for the most part, actions determine alignment. But that starts to veer off when you forcibly change your alignment, such as by choosing to cast aligned spells of a differing alignment.

...
How does casting an Evil spell "forcibly" change your alignment any more than murdering an orphan does? They are both Evil acts, and they change your alignment because (and solely because) they are Evil acts.

Mostly just because the spell casting has been codified. We know that it takes a fairly specific number of alignment spells in succession to change your alignment. But other evil acts are left more ambiguous as to their effect on your alignment.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Good people do not cast evil spells.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Melkiador wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Rysky wrote:

...Correct for the most part, actions determine alignment. But that starts to veer off when you forcibly change your alignment, such as by choosing to cast aligned spells of a differing alignment.

...
How does casting an Evil spell "forcibly" change your alignment any more than murdering an orphan does? They are both Evil acts, and they change your alignment because (and solely because) they are Evil acts.
Mostly just because the spell casting has been codified. We know that it takes a fairly specific number of alignment spells in succession to change your alignment. But other evil acts are left more ambiguous as to their effect on your alignment.

Yeah, murdering an innocent orphan would shift ya straight to Evil in my view.

101 to 150 of 567 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Can we ditch the nonsense with infernal healing yet? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.