|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
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.
"Other alignment changes do not hold this true."
What other alignment changes are there where this is not true?
Literally every other one than the rules attached to Helm of Opposite Alignment. Your mind is not changed. Only your alignment is. Casting an evil spell is an evil act... just as killing someone is an evil act. It has no special rules attached that prevent you from performing any other type of aligned act.
Otherwise you literally could not fall or be redeemed.
A lawful good character can perform a chaotic evil act. Do you disagree with this? If so, then this whole discussion is moot because at your table a good character couldn't cast infernal healing anyway or nuke an orphanage. But if you don't disagree then you already agree that having your alignment changed, except under the rule of one specific magic item, does not change your mind. Your change of mind changed your alignment not the other way around.
I think you are looking for there to be a rule to prevent a player from playing their character however they choose. There isn't such a rule, you just have to trust that a player will play in a consistent manner or at least be willing to do so. Alignment change is a tool in the GM's toolbox and character's mental changes are in the Player's.
A lawful good character can perform a chaotic evil act, but they wouldn't want to unless they could justify it in some really meaningful way.
|
|
Yeah, murdering an innocent orphan would shift ya straight to Evil in my view.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.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....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.
...
Horror Adventures agree with you. So long as you can equate killing an innocent and sacrificing a living being. Which is pretty fair.
|
|
A lawful good character can perform a chaotic evil act, but they wouldn't want to unless they could justify it in some really meaningful way.
That is sort of the point. With a slight change. A character with a good outlook, despite whatever their current alignment is, would not want to perform an evil act.
Outlook and alignment are two separate things that need not match at any given moment. Your mental outlook(morality) combined with actions does eventually move your alignment but your alignment does not restrict your outlook.
Interestingly enough though, Ultimate Intrigue does have a line that explains that your alignment is much more fluid than the CRB explains. It says that a person who has a strongly aligned motive will detect as that alignment instead of their own.
"The second thing to keep in mind is that creatures with actively evil, good, chaotic, and lawful intents register as that alignment if they have enough Hit Dice, regardless of their actual alignment. So a selfish merchant whose heart is moved by an orphan’s plight into an act of largesse would register as good at the time, and a loyal knight forced to kill an innocent child to stop a war could appear evil while she formulates and executes the deed."
|
Literally every other one than the rules attached to Helm of Opposite Alignment. Your mind is not changed. Only your alignment is. Casting an evil spell is an evil act... just as killing someone is an evil act. It has no special rules attached that prevent you from performing any other type of aligned act.I never said it did.
Otherwise you literally could not fall or be redeemed.
A lawful good character can perform a chaotic evil act. Do you disagree with this? If so, then this whole discussion is moot because at your table a good character couldn't cast infernal healing anyway or nuke an orphanage. But if you don't disagree then you already agree that having your alignment changed, except under the rule of one specific magic item, does not change your mind. Your change of mind changed your alignment not the other way around.
Again, I've never said characters of certain alignments can't do actions of opposed alignments. I'm saying they wouldn't be inclined to do so. A Person who was Good aligned would be really pressed to commit Evil acts, and a person who committed enough Evil acts to become Evil would no longer be a good person.
I think you are looking for there to be a rule to prevent a player from playing their character however they choose. There isn't such a rule, you just have to trust that a player will play in a consistent manner or at least be willing to do so. Alignment change is a tool in the GM's toolbox and character's mental changes are in the Player's.
Well I don't GM for one thing.
But if you spam enough Evil spells in a short peroid of time to make yourself completely evil, you're evil. You're not the exact same person you were when you were NG. You're nice, and friendly, and helpful and the only difference is a different letter on your character sheet with your character remaining completely the same.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So why on earth is an ARCANE spell better at healing than divine spells if there's no downsides to it?
|
|
A lawful good character can perform a chaotic evil act, but they wouldn't want to unless they could justify it in some really meaningful way.That is sort of the point. With a slight change. A character with a good outlook, despite whatever their current alignment is, would not want to perform an evil act.
Outlook and alignment are two separate things that need not match at any given moment. Your mental outlook(morality) combined with actions does eventually move your alignment but your alignment does not restrict your outlook.
"Your mental outlook(morality) combined with actions does eventually move your alignment"
Exactly. And choosing to commit certain extreme actions (whether mundane or through spells) shifts your alignment and morality.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lawful good character can perform a chaotic evil act, but they wouldn't want to unless they could justify it in some really meaningful way.That is sort of the point. With a slight change. A character with a good outlook, despite whatever their current alignment is, would not want to perform an evil act.
Outlook and alignment are two separate things that need not match at any given moment. Your mental outlook(morality) combined with actions does eventually move your alignment but your alignment does not restrict your outlook.
"Your mental outlook(morality) combined with actions does eventually move your alignment"
Exactly. And choosing to commit certain extreme actions (whether mundane or through spells) shifts your alignment and morality.
No, you're getting the order wrong again.
It goes...
Change in morality.
Actions that differ from alignment.
Change in alignment.
Not...
Actions that differ from alignment.
Change in alignment.
Change in morality.
Your morality isn't forced into a change. Only your alignment. That does have a lot of meaning even if it might seem a quibble.
Alignment isn't morality. Alignment follows from actions guided by morality.
And healing hit points alone doesn't really make you a good healer. Being a good healer means that you can get rid of all of the afflictions, like poison and negative levels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So why on earth is an ARCANE spell better at healing than divine spells if there's no downsides to it?
To be fair... the spell isn't a better healing spell. It's a spell that adds a physical ability to a creature. And arcane spells tend to be best at performing transmutation like effects(changing the physical nature of a being). Remember, the spell doesn't heal 1 point per turn for ten turns. It grants fast healing 1 for ten turns. The fast healing ability is what does the healing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, murdering an innocent orphan would shift ya straight to Evil in my view.
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.
So I think what we're all getting at is the need of a subsystem for alignment change.
I propose the OU (Orphan Unit).
The OU (or, "Orphie") represents an act that will shift you from firm Good into Evil. It's been established that 5 castings of an Evil spell will shift someone from firm Good into Evil, so an evil spell is worth 0.2 OU. Since a Good spell will perform just the opposite, it is worth -0.2 OU.
We can also apply the OU on the Law-Chaos axis in the same fashion if we assume that it is worth 1 OU for turning an orphan into a surrealist.
So now, we just need a comprehensive list of actions (or a representative list would probably do in a pinch) with an OU value for each.
|
|
A lawful good character can perform a chaotic evil act, but they wouldn't want to unless they could justify it in some really meaningful way.That is sort of the point. With a slight change. A character with a good outlook, despite whatever their current alignment is, would not want to perform an evil act.
Outlook and alignment are two separate things that need not match at any given moment. Your mental outlook(morality) combined with actions does eventually move your alignment but your alignment does not restrict your outlook.
"Your mental outlook(morality) combined with actions does eventually move your alignment"
Exactly. And choosing to commit certain extreme actions (whether mundane or through spells) shifts your alignment and morality.
No, you're getting the order wrong again.
It goes...
Change in morality.
Actions that differ from alignment.
Change in alignment.Not...
Actions that differ from alignment.
Change in alignment.
Change in morality.Your morality isn't forced into a change. Only your alignment. That does have a lot of meaning even if it might seem a quibble.
Alignment isn't morality. Alignment follows from actions guided by morality.
And if they're choosing to cast a heavily aligned spell, hasn't they're morality already started to change?
EDIT: ninjaed by thejeff
|
|
Which is how it works, even with the spells - you are choosing to do evil things. This is a change in your morality (or at least a demonstration that your morality wasn't as pure as you thought).
The problem comes in when we the players don't agree that using the spells is in and of itself evil, because it doesn't match with the player's morality. But, in the game world, by the rules, you are doing an evil thing by casting certain spells. What do we call someone who regularly does evil things?
Which changes nothing about what I said. In an earlier post I already went over the necessity for a player to play consistently. But, you are correct to note that a player should also understand morality as the game sees it. As the game, and by extension the GM, dictates what is considered an action with a moral component and not the players. That does not change the flow of moral thought to moral action to alignment change though. It just means the player needs to know what sorts of actions are considered moral actions and that the GM is the final say.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real evil individual is the game designer who created infernal healing in the first place.
There's no way they were unaware of the ramifications of creating a more efficient healing option, then declaring it evil.
I can just imagine the author wringing his hands in evil glee at the temptation and turmoil he has brought into the world.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real evil individual is the game designer who created infernal healing in the first place.
There's no way they were unaware of the ramifications of creating a more efficient healing option, then declaring it evil.
I can just imagine the author wringing his hands in evil glee at the temptation and turmoil he has brought into the world.
That was exactly the purpose of infernal healing. It's a very seductive spell.
|
|
And if they're choosing to cast a heavily aligned spell, hasn't they're morality already started to change?
EDIT: ninjaed by thejeff
Yes. As I thought I made pretty clear by stating that morale change comes first. It was even in the post your quoted.
"It goes...
Change in morality.
Actions that differ from alignment.
Change in alignment."
A change in morality allows a change in what actions you choose to do which leads to a change in alignment. Choosing to perform evil does not come from a vacuum. Nor does a change in alignment change your morality. For alignment and aligned actions all flows from your outlook, your morality.
If a player of a good character says, 'I'm going to nuke the orphanage.' Then they are playing their good character as one with an evil outlook. This tends to lead to a character becoming evil aligned. And, as thejeff noted, the player may not even realize it.
The real evil individual is the game designer who created infernal healing in the first place.
There's no way they were unaware of the ramifications of creating a more efficient healing option, then declaring it evil.
I can just imagine the author wringing his hands in evil glee at the temptation and turmoil he has brought into the world.
or they were stuck in the 2e mindset that a cleric heals their allies in combat, and that 1 hp of healing a round was no big deal. Not the 3.x and beyond SOP of healing outside of combat
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes good characters should act accordingly and *do* refuse an offer from someone offering infernal healing...
A little roleplay/flavor can go a long way to make things make sense again. Infernal healing should be for the lawful evil folks at best, and the neutrally folks at worst... no way a good soul should accept to get a marker /stain from Hell on his life record... ;)
|
|
And if they're choosing to cast a heavily aligned spell, hasn't they're morality already started to change?
EDIT: ninjaed by thejeff
Yes. As I thought I made pretty clear by stating that morale change comes first. It was even in the post your quoted.
"It goes...
Change in morality.
Actions that differ from alignment.
Change in alignment."A change in morality allows a change in what actions you choose to do which leads to a change in alignment. Choosing to perform evil does not come from a vacuum. Nor does a change in alignment change your morality. For alignment and aligned actions all flows from your outlook, your morality.
If a player of a good character says, 'I'm going to nuke the orphanage.' Then they are playing their good character as one with an evil outlook. This tends to lead to a character becoming evil aligned. And, as thejeff noted, the player may not even realize it.
I don't think we're actually arguing at this point, we're saying the same thing just using different words.
If you choose (morality) to cast an opposed alignment spell (action) your alignment starts to change (alignment).
|
|
So why on earth is an ARCANE spell better at healing than divine spells if there's no downsides to it?To be fair... the spell isn't a better healing spell. It's a spell that adds a physical ability to a creature. And arcane spells tend to be best at performing transmutation like effects(changing the physical nature of a being). Remember, the spell doesn't heal 1 point per turn for ten turns. It grants fast healing 1 for ten turns. The fast healing ability is what does the healing.That's pointlessly silly.
"I'm not going to let you cast that on me. I need healing, not some transmutation!" Said no one ever.
I feel my point has gone over your head. BNW was noting that it is weird that an arcane spell is good at healing when arcane spells are not traditionally good at healing(unless you are a bard or witch which get the cure spells on their list). Healing hit points is usually the domain of divine spells.
I merely noted that spells which grant physical changes are typically an arcane spell type of thing. Which is what infernal healing does. Making the spell one with a similar outcome to a divine healing spell but with an arcane twist.
It has nothing to do with whether a character would want it cast on them or not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if they're choosing to cast a heavily aligned spell, hasn't they're morality already started to change?
EDIT: ninjaed by thejeff
Yes. As I thought I made pretty clear by stating that morale change comes first. It was even in the post your quoted.
"It goes...
Change in morality.
Actions that differ from alignment.
Change in alignment."A change in morality allows a change in what actions you choose to do which leads to a change in alignment. Choosing to perform evil does not come from a vacuum. Nor does a change in alignment change your morality. For alignment and aligned actions all flows from your outlook, your morality.
If a player of a good character says, 'I'm going to nuke the orphanage.' Then they are playing their good character as one with an evil outlook. This tends to lead to a character becoming evil aligned. And, as thejeff noted, the player may not even realize it.
I don't think we're actually arguing at this point, we're saying the same thing just using different words.
If you choose (morality) to cast an opposed alignment spell (action) your alignment starts to change (alignment).
As what you are saying there is different from what I said in words only, I agree that we are no longer in disagreement.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real evil individual is the game designer who created infernal healing in the first place.
There's no way they were unaware of the ramifications of creating a more efficient healing option, then declaring it evil.
I can just imagine the author wringing his hands in evil glee at the temptation and turmoil he has brought into the world.
Along with the creator of Celestial Healing, he basically codified that Evil is Efficient and Good is Garbage. On top of that, it sealed the concept that Good and Evil are abstract, alien concepts in Pathfinder.
If someone casts Infernal Healing to help someone recover from a field accident or Create Infernal Food and Drink to feed the starving on Fiendish Boar or Daemon Physiology to cure a leper, he's a bad guy. A good guy, however, would balk at helping these people due to the ramifications.
In another example, if you have a choice to drink a Protection from Good potion to keep someone from killing an orphan, you should refuse to drink the Protection from Good potion since doing so is evil and the orphan's fate isn't on you, per se.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we ditch the nonsense with infernal healing yet?
Doesn't look like it, more like we used the nonsense as a sort of springboard to jump right into the subjective vs objective alignment madness. We'll see what the thread looks like if we ever make it out the other side.
|
|
As what you are saying there is different from what I said in words only, I agree that we are no longer in disagreement.And if they're choosing to cast a heavily aligned spell, hasn't they're morality already started to change?
EDIT: ninjaed by thejeff
Yes. As I thought I made pretty clear by stating that morale change comes first. It was even in the post your quoted.
"It goes...
Change in morality.
Actions that differ from alignment.
Change in alignment."A change in morality allows a change in what actions you choose to do which leads to a change in alignment. Choosing to perform evil does not come from a vacuum. Nor does a change in alignment change your morality. For alignment and aligned actions all flows from your outlook, your morality.
If a player of a good character says, 'I'm going to nuke the orphanage.' Then they are playing their good character as one with an evil outlook. This tends to lead to a character becoming evil aligned. And, as thejeff noted, the player may not even realize it.
I don't think we're actually arguing at this point, we're saying the same thing just using different words.
If you choose (morality) to cast an opposed alignment spell (action) your alignment starts to change (alignment).
Yay!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we ditch the nonsense with infernal healing yet?Doesn't look like it, more like we used the nonsense as a sort of springboard to jump right into the subjective vs objective alignment madness. We'll see what the thread looks like if we ever make it out the other side.
Mention of alignment is like a drop of blood in piranha infested waters. It only leads to a frenzy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone casts Infernal Healing to help someone recover from a field accident or Create Infernal Food and Drink to feed the starving on Fiendish Boar or Daemon Physiology to cure a leper, he's a bad guy. A good guy, however, would balk at helping these people due to the ramifications.
In another example, if you have a choice to drink a Protection from Good potion to keep someone from killing an orphan, you should refuse to drink the Protection from Good potion since doing so is evil and the orphan's fate isn't on you, per se.
Of course, you'd have to wonder why someone good would have copied, learned or bought access to those options in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mention of alignment is like a drop of blood in piranha infested waters. It only leads to a frenzy.Can we ditch the nonsense with infernal healing yet?Doesn't look like it, more like we used the nonsense as a sort of springboard to jump right into the subjective vs objective alignment madness. We'll see what the thread looks like if we ever make it out the other side.
If that's devil's blood used to heal celestial piranhas swimming in holy water you've committed an evil act.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dipping into the forces of evil in order to try to do good never working out well is one of the oldest tropes in the genre.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My deal, is that if you have devils fighting demons or a lich that if they use spells that are normally effective against their enemies. Like align weapon to bypass DR or protection from evil since their enemies are evil, and suddenly, you have good guys fighting good guys?...
A succubus wants to target an evil wizard and the evil wizard knows about this. if they take counter measures, suddenly there's no more evil.
yeah, not fond of this as it realistically shifts people towards good and probably lawful. I see evil fighting evil as more probable than good fighting good, and I see chaos fighting chaos more than law fighting law. suddenly, only new borns are evil since they are evil at birth.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So why on earth is an ARCANE spell better at healing than divine spells if there's no downsides to it?To be fair... the spell isn't a better healing spell. It's a spell that adds a physical ability to a creature. And arcane spells tend to be best at performing transmutation like effects(changing the physical nature of a being). Remember, the spell doesn't heal 1 point per turn for ten turns. It grants fast healing 1 for ten turns. The fast healing ability is what does the healing.That's pointlessly silly.
"I'm not going to let you cast that on me. I need healing, not some transmutation!" Said no one ever.
I feel my point has gone over your head. BNW was noting that it is weird that an arcane spell is good at healing when arcane spells are not traditionally good at healing(unless you are a bard or witch which get the cure spells on their list). Healing hit points is usually the domain of divine spells.
I merely noted that spells which grant physical changes are typically an arcane spell type of thing. Which is what infernal healing does. Making the spell one with a similar outcome to a divine healing spell but with an arcane twist.
It has nothing to do with whether a character would want it cast on them or not.
No, I got the point, I just disagree. Healing is a divine niche as a metagame thing. Saying it doesn't conflict with that niche because it's not a "healing" spell, but a "transmutation" spell misses the point.
It's a healing spell because it heals people, whatever the fluff justification for it. Therefore it's problematic for it to be better as an arcane spell than divine healing is.
As for your new point... diving spells are not the only spells which meddle in hit points. It's not really that niche to begin with. Though no arcane list is better than the cleric list when it comes to healing in general, they do come close when it is HP recovery only. One arcane spell is superior, out of combat if you have the time to wait, than one divine healing spell(well, two, since there is a greater infernal healing spell). Oh no, the world shall surely end. What were they thinking?
To go beyond sarcasm though, it is not problematic in the least as far as the perceived separation between divine and arcane spells goes. Again, I say look at the bard and witch lists. The gap is not that large to begin with.
If you think that is bad... how about I tell you about the horrors of giant form 1 which grants regeneration 5 if you turn into a troll? That's some incredible transmutation spell(or healing spell? I just don't know anymore! Oops.. slipped back into sarcasm)! So incredible it won't even let you die unless you are hit with acid or fire damage.
Oh, and let's not forget that Infernal Healing is also a cleric spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dipping into the forces of evil in order to try to do good never working out well is one of the oldest tropes in the genre.
So is, "If you kill him, you'll become just like him." But Pathfinder seems to have avoided that one.
|
|
My deal, is that if you have devils fighting demons or a lich that if they use spells that are normally effective against their enemies. Like align weapon to bypass DR or protection from evil since their enemies are evil, and suddenly, you have good guys fighting good guys?...
A succubus wants to target an evil wizard and the evil wizard knows about this. if they take counter measures, suddenly there's no more evil.
yeah, not fond of this as it realistically shifts people towards good and probably lawful. I see evil fighting evil as more probable than good fighting good, and I see chaos fighting chaos more than law fighting law. suddenly, only new borns are evil since they are evil at birth.
The creatures you mentioned would not do this then specifically to avoid such scenarios.
I've also never heard of scenarios of one set of Fiends casting PfE on themselves when going up against other Fiends.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My deal, is that if you have devils fighting demons or a lich that if they use spells that are normally effective against their enemies. Like align weapon to bypass DR or protection from evil since their enemies are evil, and suddenly, you have good guys fighting good guys?...
A succubus wants to target an evil wizard and the evil wizard knows about this. if they take counter measures, suddenly there's no more evil.
yeah, not fond of this as it realistically shifts people towards good and probably lawful. I see evil fighting evil as more probable than good fighting good, and I see chaos fighting chaos more than law fighting law. suddenly, only new borns are evil since they are evil at birth.
Anything that lets me call a succubus, trap it in a circle until it agrees to cast from some wands for me, give it a wand of protection from evil and protection from chaos and a headband of vast intelligence(UMD), so I can get a lawful good succubus paladin cuddle buddy... is a good thing in my book.
(this is sarcasm... but legally possible)| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil people do not use Protection from Evil when they fight with other evil people.
"But it makes sense-"
Shhh.
Shh shh shh.
I know. Everyone knows.
It is not science, it is not advance scholarship to realize best way to bypass 10/good is to use good weapons. But just like alignment, status effect durations, opposing skill checks, the fantasy is not aware of its rules.
Actors in a play are both aware of the script and not aware of it. Murder victims in plays do not avoid being murdered. You are playing make belief, where certain rules give it structure but fantasy is not self-aware.
I've also never heard of scenarios of one set of Fiends casting PfE on themselves when going up against other Fiends.
I haven't either, but I'm totally going to do this next time I run a game that features unrest in Hell.
The "less evil" faction might feature officers who selflessly heal their troops through "infernal healing" offering their own blood so that others may live.
|
|
My deal, is that if you have devils fighting demons or a lich that if they use spells that are normally effective against their enemies. Like align weapon to bypass DR or protection from evil since their enemies are evil, and suddenly, you have good guys fighting good guys?...
A succubus wants to target an evil wizard and the evil wizard knows about this. if they take counter measures, suddenly there's no more evil.
yeah, not fond of this as it realistically shifts people towards good and probably lawful. I see evil fighting evil as more probable than good fighting good, and I see chaos fighting chaos more than law fighting law. suddenly, only new borns are evil since they are evil at birth.
The creatures you mentioned would not do this then specifically to avoid such scenarios.
I've also never heard of scenarios of one set of Fiends casting PfE on themselves when going up against other Fiends.
Heh, but any demon caller would. It's sort of necessary unless you already have a pact with the demon you call. Lest they rip you a new one the moment they arrive.(Well, circle of PfE)
Heh, but any demon caller would. It's sort of necessary unless you already have a pact with the demon you call. Lest they rip you a new one the moment they arrive.(Well, circle of PfE)
If you believe , summoning demons is an explicitly Good act.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My deal, is that if you have devils fighting demons or a lich that if they use spells that are normally effective against their enemies. Like align weapon to bypass DR or protection from evil since their enemies are evil, and suddenly, you have good guys fighting good guys?...
A succubus wants to target an evil wizard and the evil wizard knows about this. if they take counter measures, suddenly there's no more evil.
yeah, not fond of this as it realistically shifts people towards good and probably lawful. I see evil fighting evil as more probable than good fighting good, and I see chaos fighting chaos more than law fighting law. suddenly, only new borns are evil since they are evil at birth.
Anything that lets me call a succubus, trap it in a circle until it agrees to cast from some wands for me, give it a wand of protection from evil and protection from chaos and a headband of vast intelligence(UMD), so I can get a lawful good succubus paladin cuddle buddy... is a good thing in my book.
(this is sarcasm... but legally possible)
*sigh*
We lose so many Succubi that way.