| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the local apothecary that sells Spell Component Pouches. You know, the same merchant who sells butter, bat poop, and every other spell component without a listed cost.Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with? What is he giving the Devil who provides it in return for his supply?Here's a thought experiment.
Let's say we have a character whose only evil acts have been casting Infernal Healing to save lives. This is the only evil spell that they know. This character has never hurt anyone, and is in fact a pacifist. They've never cheated, lied, stolen, or done any other evil act. Committing these acts just feels wrong to them. But they are now objectively evil because the only way for them to save friends on the verge of death was to use Infernal Healing.
How is their evilness expressed in the game?
You can't have it both ways. Either we're evaluating the situation based on rational RP considerations, or we're taking game mechanics as the laws of the universe. If it's the latter, then the spell is Evil because the book says it's Evil. If it's the former, then no, you can't buy blood from a goddamn Devil at the corner store guilt-free. Somewhere in the chain of providing you with the wand (which needed the blood to be made) or the blood itself, evil occurred.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't have it both ways. Either we're evaluating the situation based on rational RP considerations, or we're taking game mechanics as the laws of the universe. If it's the latter, then the spell is Evil because the book says it's Evil. If it's the former, then no, you can't buy blood from a g&%&%*n Devil at the corner store guilt-free. Somewhere in the chain of providing you with the wand (which needed the blood to be made) or the blood itself, evil occurred.From the local apothecary that sells Spell Component Pouches. You know, the same merchant who sells butter, bat poop, and every other spell component without a listed cost.Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with? What is he giving the Devil who provides it in return for his supply?Here's a thought experiment.
Let's say we have a character whose only evil acts have been casting Infernal Healing to save lives. This is the only evil spell that they know. This character has never hurt anyone, and is in fact a pacifist. They've never cheated, lied, stolen, or done any other evil act. Committing these acts just feels wrong to them. But they are now objectively evil because the only way for them to save friends on the verge of death was to use Infernal Healing.
How is their evilness expressed in the game?
Eschew Materials or False Focus then. No devil blood needed. Only the act of healing itself is evil. How does this pacifist's evil express itself?
|
Eschew Materials or False Focus then. No devil blood needed. Only the act of healing itself is evil. How does this pacifist's evil express itself?You can't have it both ways. Either we're evaluating the situation based on rational RP considerations, or we're taking game mechanics as the laws of the universe. If it's the latter, then the spell is Evil because the book says it's Evil. If it's the former, then no, you can't buy blood from a g&%&%*n Devil at the corner store guilt-free. Somewhere in the chain of providing you with the wand (which needed the blood to be made) or the blood itself, evil occurred.From the local apothecary that sells Spell Component Pouches. You know, the same merchant who sells butter, bat poop, and every other spell component without a listed cost.Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with? What is he giving the Devil who provides it in return for his supply?Here's a thought experiment.
Let's say we have a character whose only evil acts have been casting Infernal Healing to save lives. This is the only evil spell that they know. This character has never hurt anyone, and is in fact a pacifist. They've never cheated, lied, stolen, or done any other evil act. Committing these acts just feels wrong to them. But they are now objectively evil because the only way for them to save friends on the verge of death was to use Infernal Healing.
How is their evilness expressed in the game?
However the player would want to express their character's descent into Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
false focus, you get to ignore components up to 100gp cost "cause of your faith" no purchase of blood or unholy water needed to cast.
and I believe the discussion is the combining them. If I'm casting this evil spell mechanically I shift, but if I'm doing these good acts, do I still quickly descend to an evil alignment?
|
|
false focus, you get to ignore components up to 100gp cost "cause of your faith" no purchase of blood or unholy water needed to cast.
and I believe the discussion is the combining them. If I'm casting this evil spell mechanically I shift, but if I'm doing these good acts, do I still quickly descend to an evil alignment?
Not as quickly, but you will still turn Evil if you repeatedly use it.
However the player would want to express their character's descent into Evil.Eschew Materials or False Focus then. No devil blood needed. Only the act of healing itself is evil. How does this pacifist's evil express itself?You can't have it both ways. Either we're evaluating the situation based on rational RP considerations, or we're taking game mechanics as the laws of the universe. If it's the latter, then the spell is Evil because the book says it's Evil. If it's the former, then no, you can't buy blood from a g&%&%*n Devil at the corner store guilt-free. Somewhere in the chain of providing you with the wand (which needed the blood to be made) or the blood itself, evil occurred.From the local apothecary that sells Spell Component Pouches. You know, the same merchant who sells butter, bat poop, and every other spell component without a listed cost.Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with? What is he giving the Devil who provides it in return for his supply?Here's a thought experiment.
Let's say we have a character whose only evil acts have been casting Infernal Healing to save lives. This is the only evil spell that they know. This character has never hurt anyone, and is in fact a pacifist. They've never cheated, lied, stolen, or done any other evil act. Committing these acts just feels wrong to them. But they are now objectively evil because the only way for them to save friends on the verge of death was to use Infernal Healing.
How is their evilness expressed in the game?
Alright, I guess I'll go first then.
If I agreed to the premise that evil spells make you evil no matter your intentions, I'd probably have the character get more and more obsessed with keeping their companions safe to the detriment of said companions' happiness. Sort of an overprotective parent up to 11, if you get my meaning,
How would you role play the descent of such a character?
|
|
However the player would want to express their character's descent into Evil.Eschew Materials or False Focus then. No devil blood needed. Only the act of healing itself is evil. How does this pacifist's evil express itself?You can't have it both ways. Either we're evaluating the situation based on rational RP considerations, or we're taking game mechanics as the laws of the universe. If it's the latter, then the spell is Evil because the book says it's Evil. If it's the former, then no, you can't buy blood from a g&%&%*n Devil at the corner store guilt-free. Somewhere in the chain of providing you with the wand (which needed the blood to be made) or the blood itself, evil occurred.From the local apothecary that sells Spell Component Pouches. You know, the same merchant who sells butter, bat poop, and every other spell component without a listed cost.Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with? What is he giving the Devil who provides it in return for his supply?Here's a thought experiment.
Let's say we have a character whose only evil acts have been casting Infernal Healing to save lives. This is the only evil spell that they know. This character has never hurt anyone, and is in fact a pacifist. They've never cheated, lied, stolen, or done any other evil act. Committing these acts just feels wrong to them. But they are now objectively evil because the only way for them to save friends on the verge of death was to use Infernal Healing.
How is their evilness expressed in the game?
Alright, I guess I'll go first then.
If I agreed to the premise that evil spells make you evil no matter your intentions, I'd probably have the character get more and more obsessed with keeping their companions safe to the detriment of said companions' happiness. Sort of an overprotective parent up to 11, if you get my...
*nods*
Yeah, that's about how I'd do it too, the character would probably start looking to get rid of what is causing the damage, real or perceived.
Eschew Materials or False Focus then. No devil blood needed. Only the act of healing itself is evil. How does this pacifist's evil express itself?You can't have it both ways. Either we're evaluating the situation based on rational RP considerations, or we're taking game mechanics as the laws of the universe. If it's the latter, then the spell is Evil because the book says it's Evil. If it's the former, then no, you can't buy blood from a g&%&%*n Devil at the corner store guilt-free. Somewhere in the chain of providing you with the wand (which needed the blood to be made) or the blood itself, evil occurred.From the local apothecary that sells Spell Component Pouches. You know, the same merchant who sells butter, bat poop, and every other spell component without a listed cost.Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with? What is he giving the Devil who provides it in return for his supply?Here's a thought experiment.
Let's say we have a character whose only evil acts have been casting Infernal Healing to save lives. This is the only evil spell that they know. This character has never hurt anyone, and is in fact a pacifist. They've never cheated, lied, stolen, or done any other evil act. Committing these acts just feels wrong to them. But they are now objectively evil because the only way for them to save friends on the verge of death was to use Infernal Healing.
How is their evilness expressed in the game?
That really depends on how Devil blood is valued in your world. If it's common enough that it's worth less than 1GP, then I'd assume it's a fairly Evil world you're in, so yes, relatively speaking, you might still be a good person.
If, as one might expect, extracting blood from an Evil Outsider is rather expensive (more than 1GP), then Eschew Materials is irrelevant. False Focus could work, but then you're at the mercy of your deity regarding invoking a Devil's healing gifts instead of their's.
From a mechanical perspective, I sympathize with you: 10HP regen over the course of 1 minute is pretty crucial at low levels, and shouldn't be so hard to obtain. Out of combat healing in Pathfinder is ridiculous, and has been since before Infernal Healing became available. Adventurers jabbing each other with sticks between fights to stay alive is an awkward rules hack made necessary by the fragile nature of low-level characters.
As I mentioned previously, I think we should all just set aside this argument, houserule short/long rests (from D&D 5e) into our home games, and call it a day. Magic healing should be used in battle, to sustain you through a fight, not in camp to top people off for the next encounter.
...However the player would want to express their character's descent into Evil.Eschew Materials or False Focus then. No devil blood needed. Only the act of healing itself is evil. How does this pacifist's evil express itself?You can't have it both ways. Either we're evaluating the situation based on rational RP considerations, or we're taking game mechanics as the laws of the universe. If it's the latter, then the spell is Evil because the book says it's Evil. If it's the former, then no, you can't buy blood from a g&%&%*n Devil at the corner store guilt-free. Somewhere in the chain of providing you with the wand (which needed the blood to be made) or the blood itself, evil occurred.From the local apothecary that sells Spell Component Pouches. You know, the same merchant who sells butter, bat poop, and every other spell component without a listed cost.Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with? What is he giving the Devil who provides it in return for his supply?Here's a thought experiment.
Let's say we have a character whose only evil acts have been casting Infernal Healing to save lives. This is the only evil spell that they know. This character has never hurt anyone, and is in fact a pacifist. They've never cheated, lied, stolen, or done any other evil act. Committing these acts just feels wrong to them. But they are now objectively evil because the only way for them to save friends on the verge of death was to use Infernal Healing.
How is their evilness expressed in the game?
Alright, I guess I'll go first then.
If I agreed to the premise that evil spells make you evil no matter your intentions, I'd probably have the character get more and more obsessed with keeping their companions safe to the detriment of said companions' happiness. Sort of an overprotective
Further extrapolating, they'd probably go with a bunch of spells that don't actually kill foes, but still stop them. Sleep, domination, and the like. Killing is still bad, in their mind. A line they'd never cross.
Performing an evil act for good means is still an evil act, but the reverse is not true.
Honestly, it's pretty simple:
It's easier to be evil than to be good
Intent matters, but the ends do not justify the means.
Evil means, evil intent: Evil action.
Evil means, good intent: Evil action.
Good means, evil intent: Evil action.
Good means, good intent: Good action.Being good is supposed to be an uphill battle... just like in the real world.
Maybe it's supposed to be, but that's not how the rules for aligned spells work. A couple of castings of a spell moves you towards that alignment, regardless of the spell.
That's my basic problem with the rule. It's too symmetrical and it shouldn't be. Corruption from using evil magic is a common genre trope. Purification by using good magic isn't.
Sort of, but the same rules that say that aligned spells are aligned actions do not specify the "amount" of this action for non-evil aligned spells.
Aside that the general rule "a good action for selfish reasons is neutral at best" still holds and thus casing Protection from Evil with the purpose of gaming the alignment system actually does jack, it amounts to something like that:
Casting a Evil spell = Punching a random dude in the face
Casting a Good spell = helping a old lady cross the street
Now, while punching random dudes for kicks twice can make you drop to Neutral and like 5 more can make you go Evil, how many old ladies do you need to help cross the street to get from Neutral to Good, let alone from Evil to Neutral? 2 or 3 is silly by any metric.
Atonement isn't that easy as falling, and redemption rules even have shifts being harder to accomplish per HD as the more HD you have the longer your laundry list of deeds is
| 1 person 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.
Yes I really have never liked this spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might expect it, but you'd be house ruling it, since no specific cost is given.
That really depends on how Devil blood is valued in your world. If it's common enough that it's worth less than 1GP, then I'd assume it's a fairly Evil world you're in, so yes, relatively speaking, you might still be a good person.If, as one might expect, extracting blood from an Evil Outsider is rather expensive (more than 1GP), then Eschew Materials is irrelevant. False Focus could work, but then you're at the mercy of your deity regarding invoking a Devil's healing gifts instead of their's.
That's a fair point. If we assume that Devil Blood has no earthly value, and thus a Sorcerer can cast it blood/unholy water-free, then the question of how one might roleplay this pull towards Evil is still pretty straightforward.
Sorcerers gain their magic intuitively; it's in their blood. Knowledge of an Evil spell is a stain, a temptation to draw on Evil powers to do good. Jack Bauer might have had the best intentions for torturing all of those people, but at the end of the day he's still not a nice guy. He's the guy who gets his hands dirty, and so is the "good" person who relies on Infernal healing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly, infernal healing, regardless of the intent of the caster,
...regardless of the intent of the player,
...regardless of whether the PC has ever even cast the spell or received its benefit,
...is not just [evil], but full-on . If for no other reason, it causes these absurd, drawn-out, straw-filled threads that just irritate and anger posters and mods alike. Thus, all of us who participated in this thread, lurked in this thread, or were adjacent to this thread are now slightly closer to an evil alignment. Please make a note of this on your character sheet.
If you have levels in the devil's advocate PrC, check with your GM to see how much bonus experience you have earned and how much closer you are to final damnation.
Casting infernal healing to save someone is a compounded action: Casting Infernal Healing (Evil) and Saving a life (Good). Now, the good of saving a person outweights the evil of casting a level 1 spell itself, so at net you have a good action.
Well, you're only saving a life if they have a bleed effect. Otherwise you're just speeding up a natural process, which doesn't seem to have any moral component to me. Lacking a bleed effect or any pain mechanic, healing is no more morally important than casting a spell that grants temporary HP.
I agree with the goblin.
The reason for this spell existing is clear.
There just isn´t enough Evil.
We need arcane spell casters walking around, literally projecting pure evil from their finger tips...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a big conflict with the Horror Adventures aligned casting rules people have(along with how many casts cause an alignment switch). There, it states performing an evil act with good intentions is still an evil act. Thus, casting a good spell for an evil reason is a good act. Actions trump intent.That's a fallacy. If you cast a good spell for an evil reason, it's still evil, which is why HA doesn't make your claim. Surely you can think of at least one spell with a [good] descriptor that can be used with deliberatenon-goodevil intent... and thus would be evil. Actions do not always trump intent.
It is not the intent that matters. This is made clear in HA. Now, having said that, you can certainly include other actions in the final calculation.
If you use a good spell to kill an innocent, then the murder, being an irredeemably evil act, would make the act evil instead of good. None of that is intent though. Only the actions that happened.
Remember, a paladin will fall even if they are dominated and ordered to break their code. Intent has nothing to do with it. Only actions.
Horror Adventures makes it very clear. Casting Animate Dead to save a village is an evil act. The intent to save lives does not counteract the evil of casting the spell.
You may call it a fallacy. You may say you do not like it. But that is in black and white in the pages of official Pathfinder text.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with?Eschew Materials.Nope. Devil's blood or unholy water is more than 1 gp.
Edit: ninjae'd by Rysky
Devil's blood is not. And a 'dose' of unholy water is not given a cost and is a unique item in the amount of unholy water needed. As unholy water is priced by the flask. Any component not priced in the spell has an insignificant cost. That's in the rules.
|
Devil's blood is not. And a 'dose' of unholy water is not given a cost and is a unique item in the amount of unholy water needed. As unholy water is priced by the flask. Any component not priced in the spell has an insignificant cost. That's in the rules.Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with?Eschew Materials.Nope. Devil's blood or unholy water is more than 1 gp.
Edit: ninjae'd by Rysky
A dose of unholy water is 25gp. Devil's blood is more expensive than 25gp. I said so in my game last week.
"And the wise good clerics and paladins shook their heads, as droves of wizards and sorcerers were indentured into Hell's service..."
"But why did it work, master?" asked the young bard apprentice, "why did the wizards stop asking for the clerics' help, as they had done for centuries?"
The old master smiled. "Because Asmodeus is smart you see. He knew that a wizard's deepest wish is to rule the world, and the best place to start is not having to beg for the help of priests and their gods every time a spell backfires on them"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that's for the whole flask, we don't know that it takes the entire flask for the spell.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Devil's blood is not. And a 'dose' of unholy water is not given a cost and is a unique item in the amount of unholy water needed. As unholy water is priced by the flask. Any component not priced in the spell has an insignificant cost. That's in the rules.Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with?Eschew Materials.Nope. Devil's blood or unholy water is more than 1 gp.
Edit: ninjae'd by Rysky
A dose of unholy water is 25gp. Devil's blood is more expensive than 25gp. I said so in my game last week.
"And the wise good clerics and paladins shook their heads, as droves of wizards and sorcerers were indentured into Hell's service..."
"But why did it work, master?" asked the young bard apprentice, "why did the wizards stop asking for the clerics' help, as they had done for centuries?"
The old master smiled. "Because Asmodeus is smart you see. He knew that a wizard's deepest wish is to rule the world, and the best place to start is not having to beg for the help of priests and their gods every time a spell backfires on them"
Then you changed the rules for your game. Cool. The only problem being we don't all play by your house rules nor do the official rules change to match your personal play.
By the official rules, though, they are cost-less.
|
|
Devil's blood is not. And a 'dose' of unholy water is not given a cost and is a unique item in the amount of unholy water needed. As unholy water is priced by the flask. Any component not priced in the spell has an insignificant cost. That's in the rules.Where is this saint getting all of his Devil blood to annoint people with?Eschew Materials.Nope. Devil's blood or unholy water is more than 1 gp.
Edit: ninjae'd by Rysky
A dose of unholy water is 25gp. Devil's blood is more expensive than 25gp. I said so in my game last week.
"And the wise good clerics and paladins shook their heads, as droves of wizards and sorcerers were indentured into Hell's service..."
"But why did it work, master?" asked the young bard apprentice, "why did the wizards stop asking for the clerics' help, as they had done for centuries?"
The old master smiled. "Because Asmodeus is smart you see. He knew that a wizard's deepest wish is to rule the world, and the best place to start is not having to beg for the help of priests and their gods every time a spell backfires on them"Then you changed the rules for your game. Cool. The only problem being we don't all play by your house rules nor do the official rules change to match your personal play.
By the official rules, though, they are cost-less.
The point I'm trying to make is that my anecdotal evidence is greater than your absolute lack of evidence.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point I'm trying to make is that my anecdotal evidence is greater than your absolute lack of evidence.
Material (M)
A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
you choose to read dose of unholy water as something less than a flask of unholy water; that's being myopic on purpose and frankly players bringing this kind of argument to a game table is what slows the game down and bores everyone to death...
Ah, now we start with personal insults. Cool.
I choose to read the fact that the spell does not list a price for the components means exactly what the rules say about spells that do not list a price for their components.Either way, you have zero base to say that devil blood does not follow the rules of the game. It is a possible component and one with a negligible cost. Thus making the spell free to use eschew materials on no matter what you choose to think dose of unholy water means. Simple as that.
Now if you would kindly please stop making up rules as you go to answer people in this thread? It's tiring.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you choose to read dose of unholy water as something less than a flask of unholy water; that's being myopic on purpose and frankly players bringing this kind of argument to a game table is what slows the game down and bores everyone to death...
Components V, S, M (1 of devil blood or 1 dose of unholy water)
as a listed material component with no price, or a price less than 1 gp if you figure out the math of how many drops in a flask, its free in a spell component pouch. Its not us that are choosing to read things into the text.
It is not the intent that matters. This is made clear in HA. Now, having said that, you can certainly include other actions in the final calculation.
Yes, intent matters. I never said it didn't. Go back and re-read what I quoted and highlighted of your text, and my reply.
If you use a good spell to kill an innocent, then the murder, being an irredeemably evil act, would make the act evil instead of good. None of that is intent though. Only the actions that happened.
Remember, a paladin will fall even if they are dominated and ordered to break their code. Intent has nothing to do with it. Only actions.
Horror Adventures makes it very clear. Casting Animate Dead to save a village is an evil act. The intent to save lives does not counteract the evil of casting the spell.
Yep, we're both in agreement on this.
You may call it a fallacy. You may say you do not like it. But that is in black and white in the pages of official Pathfinder text.
No. The fallacy isn't in the HA text. The fallacy occurs when you, Lorewalker, try to flip it around to justify this:
Here is a big conflict with the Horror Adventures aligned casting rules people have(along with how many casts cause an alignment switch). There, it states performing an evil act with good intentions is still an evil act. Thus, casting a good spell for an evil reason is a good act. Actions trump intent.
As Haladir already spelled out, you can't just reverse the rule:
Performing an evil act for good means is still an evil act, but the reverse is not true.
Honestly, it's pretty simple:
It's easier to be evil than to be good
Intent matters, but the ends do not justify the means.
Evil means, evil intent: Evil action.
Evil means, good intent: Evil action.
Good means, evil intent: Evil action.
Good means, good intent: Good action.
Nothing Haladir or I (or others here) contradicts the HA.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My view: Yes, casting an aligned spell will push your alignment in that direction. However, alignment is descriptive rather than proscriptive, and doing one (aligned) thing does not make you particularly more likely to do (other aligned thing).
If you walk old ladies across a street that doesn't make you more likely to donate money to (insert good cause here). If you cast Infernal Healing that doesn't make you more likely to torture people.
So, casting Infernal Healing matters. It makes you more likely to get sentenced to one of the fiendish afterlives, other people (including your deity) might disapprove and bring about consequences that way, and it significantly increases the risks that you'll use an evil spell again if it seems useful. It will not make you a mustache-twirling villain any more than casting good spells would make a lawful-good cleric of Torag any more likely to forgive people.
Personally, I think infernal healing is a bit overrated (healing hex, kinetic healer, and path of glory FTW!) and likely to backfire on devils if they're behind it. After all, if infernal healing is a common healing spell, then clearly using good-aligned damage, silver weapons, etc is good since damage will stick to your opponent's more readily, and these measures simultaneously make people better-armed against devils.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you choose to read dose of unholy water as something less than a flask of unholy water; that's being myopic on purpose and frankly players bringing this kind of argument to a game table is what slows the game down and bores everyone to death...Components V, S, M (1 of devil blood or 1 dose of unholy water)
as a listed material component with no price, or a price less than 1 gp if you figure out the math of how many drops in a flask, its free in a spell component pouch. Its not us that are choosing to read things into the text.
The Devil Blood is a "drop", but the Unholy Water requires a "dose." How much is a dose? It's not a specific measurement unto itself, it's a measurement required by the situation. A "dose" of Unholy Water could be a drop, a sprinkle, half a flask, a whole flask, or even 5 whole flasks.
a quantity of a medicine or drug taken or recommended to be taken at a particular time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing Haladir or I (or others here) contradicts the HA.
The moment you say intent matters and having a good intent for an evil spell... or evil intent for a good spell can make a lick of difference... then you are in direct conflict with HA. It says that casting an evil spell for a good reason is an evil act. It also says that you use the same exact logic when you switch the alignments around.
You are looking for a logic to exist in the game that you hold true. But in that fervent want you miss the text that disagrees with you... explicitly.
Don't believe me? Here's the text from HA.
"Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors."
So, you take this line...
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.
And you can do this to it and it still be true...
A wizard who uses [good spell x] to create [minions meant to attack] defenseless people won’t turn [good], but he will if he does it over and over again.
Of course, if he actually does end up using those minions it is a whole new action. And committing murder is worthy of immediately becoming evil.
Again, you might call the FACT that the book says exactly what I was relaying to you a fallacy... but it is in black and white in text.
|
|
you choose to read dose of unholy water as something less than a flask of unholy water; that's being myopic on purpose and frankly players bringing this kind of argument to a game table is what slows the game down and bores everyone to death...Components V, S, M (1 of devil blood or 1 dose of unholy water)
as a listed material component with no price, or a price less than 1 gp if you figure out the math of how many drops in a flask, its free in a spell component pouch. Its not us that are choosing to read things into the text.
The Devil Blood is a "drop", but the Unholy Water requires a "dose." How much is a dose? It's not a specific measurement unto itself, it's a measurement required by the situation. A "dose" of Unholy Water could be a drop, a sprinkle, half a flask, a whole flask, or even 5 whole flasks.
a quantity of a medicine or drug taken or recommended to be taken at a particular time.
Is there a listed price for that dose in the spell?
Follow this rule if there is not."Material (M)
A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch."
This is the official rule. Ask them to change the spell if you want the spell to use a whole flask or an amount of unholy water that has a non-negligible cost. But until that happens this is the cold hard facts of the matter.
Having said that, I agree that it seems silly to use an item that has a cost and portion it down to one that does not. But silly or not it is the rule. Change it as you please at your own tables, or suggest the change to your GM as is required.
But as for black and white, it seems that the rule is that a dose of unholy water as is required by the spell is one of negligible cost(having no cost attached in the spell)... and thus you can backtrack the logic to arrive at the figure that it is at least less than 25th parts of a flask of unholy water.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors."So, you take this line...
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.And you can do this to it and it still be true...
A wizard who uses [good spell x] to create [minions meant to attack] defenseless people won’t turn [good], but he will if he does it over and over again.Again, you might call the FACT that the book says exactly what I was relaying to you a fallacy... but it is in black and white in text.
I remember when this first came out, people seemed to be reading that sidebar as a new set-in-stone rule. My reading was quite different - not only does it identify itself as "advice" but it also qualifies its scope (with "generally"). Whether that advice is heeded and what the qualification entails remain (by the written rules) up to the DM.
In my view, although this is explicitly suggesting that casting aligned spells is an aligned act, it doesn't trump the rest of the game's rules on alignment which are explicitly subjective and one of the few cases where the rules outright declare something a matter of DM fiat. In other words, I think if you read the alignment rules in their entirety it means that all of these questions are up to the DM to decide. There's some advice in Horror Adventures (and elsewhere, notably the Gamemastery Guide) but there is no objective system for determining whether something is evil or good - Rules As Written "alignment is solely a label the GM controls".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that's the problem with using the term "dose".
Outside of using this spell, a "dose" of Unholy Water when you use it for anything is the whole flask. So when this spell says "dose" without naming the dosage we can only refer to other doses, which in other cases is the whole flask.
There's no cost attached to the "dose" of Unholy Water in this spell, just like there's no cost attached to the potion of bull's strength needed for the transformation spell. We all know that potions are not included in spell component pouches, and so that is my problem when they use the term "dose" instead of an actual measurement.
If they had used drop of Unholy water this debate wouldn't even exist. But they used "dose" What is the dose? Is it negligible? It may, it may not be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that's the problem with using the term "dose".
Outside of using this spell, a "dose" of Unholy Water when you use it for anything is the whole flask. So when this spell says "dose" without naming the dosage we can only refer to other doses, which in other cases is the whole flask.
There's no cost attached to the "dose" of Unholy Water in this spell, just like there's no cost attached to the potion of bull's strength needed for the transformation spell. We all know that potions are not included in spell component pouches, and so that is my problem when they use the term "dose" instead of an actual measurement.
If they had used drop of Unholy water this debate wouldn't even exist. But they used "dose" What is the dose? Is it negligible? It may, it may not be.
A dose is not a measured quantity anywhere else. You say elsewhere a dose is a whole flask. Can you show me this text? I have never see this to be true. I have only seen where you can use a flask. Of course, you can portion it down if you use a battle aspergillum. But that doesn't use the verbiage dose either. It is an unknown quantity with no given cost.
Please also note that the spell has one negligible cost component. I would bet you many many monopoly monies that the other possible component is supposed to be the same.
Yes, yes, it would have been great if they used the word drop. Or some other way to get an exact amount. Since then we would know how much of the component a flask of unholy water gives. But, they didn't. They just gave us a unique item and then gave no price. Same as bat guano, dragon scales or pieces of humanoids(for alter self).
I know the cost of a living humanoid. There is text for this. Should I then use that as a basis for how much alter self costs? It says piece but not how large a piece. Maybe it's a whole one or really, two humanoids.
(Now I can't help myself... "Hey, Glorph, buddy, um, I need to turn into a half-orc for a bit... hold still", John the now evil wizard sacrifices Glorph as a material component to cast Alter Self.)
|
|
"Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors."So, you take this line...
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.And you can do this to it and it still be true...
A wizard who uses [good spell x] to create [minions meant to attack] defenseless people won’t turn [good], but he will if he does it over and over again.Again, you might call the FACT that the book says exactly what I was relaying to you a fallacy... but it is in black and white in text.I remember when this first came out, people seemed to be reading that sidebar as a new set-in-stone rule. My reading was quite different - not only does it identify itself as "advice" but it also qualifies its scope (with "generally"). Whether that advice is heeded and what the qualification entails remain (by the written rules) up to the DM.
In my view, although this is explicitly suggesting that casting aligned spells is an aligned act, it doesn't trump the rest of the game's rules on alignment which are explicitly subjective and one of the few cases where the rules outright declare something a matter of DM fiat. In other words, I think if you read the alignment rules in their entirety it means that all of these questions are up to the DM to decide. There's some advice in Horror Adventures (and elsewhere, notably the Gamemastery Guide) but there is no objective system for determining whether something is evil or good - Rules As Written "alignment is solely a label the GM controls".
Well, except that which is explicitly labeled as evil. This is really not a 'anything goes' situation. It is more of a 'we literally can't list everything, so here are some examples' kind of thing.
Murder = evil. Torture = evil. Having slaves = evil. Casting an evil spell = evil. Casting a good spell = good.Call it an oddity of non-subjective alignment in a universe.
But, again, as for literally every part of the game, the GM is final arbiter. Your GM can say that hugging puppies is extremely evil. Nothing in the game disagrees explicitly. But I would not expect to see that at any table a GM actually tried to follow the spirit of the alignment rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, again, as for literally every part of the game, the GM is final arbiter.
I don't mean a 'rule zero means anything goes' way. I think the DM's role in alignment is different from the DM's role in recovery of spells or healing or...anything else - even though they can run any aspect of their game however they like, only with alignment is that an inherent part of the mechanics.
That quote I gave was literally from the CRB alignment section. Including a little more, for context:
In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation - the only thing a GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment - unike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
A few years later they published Horror Adventures and presented some advice on evil aligned spells. People spoke about it at the time as if it were a black-and-white thing, but even the section in question says "generally" and what that means is not spelled out - that doesn't make it superfluous.
I think it's over-reading that sidebar to suggest that the casting of aligned spells trumps the DM-fiat nature of alignment. My take on 'generally' is that it means "absent any further, relevant information derived from this specific case" ie if there's no moral dimension to the situation then casting an evil spell will move you towards evil (I think it then goes on to say that if you routinely use evil means to achieve good results then you'll also become evil).
Surely "advice" presented in a sidebar of a genre book expansion of the game shouldn't trump the rules in the CRB on alignment (which explicitly make it a subjective-no-hard-and-fast-rules thing)?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mean a 'rule zero means anything goes' way.
That quote I gave was literally from the CRB alignment section. Including a little more, for context:
In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation - the only thing a GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment - unike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.A few years later they published Horror Adventures and presented some advice on evil aligned spells. People spoke about it at the time as if it were a black-and-white thing, but even the section in question says "generally" and what that means is not spelled out, but that doesn't make it ignorable.
I think it's over-reading it to suggest that the casting of aligned spells trumps the DM-fiat nature of alignment. My take on 'generally' is that it means "absent any further information" ie if there's no moral dimension to the situation then casting an evil spell will move you towards evil (I think it then goes on to say that if you routinely use evil means to achieve good results then you'll also become evil).
Surely "advice" presented in a sidebar of a genre book expansion shouldn't trump the rules in the CRB on alignment (which explicitly make it a subjective-no-hard-and-fast-rules thing)?
Oh, certainly I agree that it is advice and really more clarification on existing rules than anything truly new.
My personal view is that the evil spells sidebar would actually fit the game perfectly already if it did not give a number of casts. As an evil act(casting an evil spell) would not be more powerful than an evil act(torture someone). Which is how I view it in my home games. The rest, though, pretty much already existed in the rules of the game elsewhere.
The biggest problem with that sidebar is the relevant strength of an aligned act from spell casting vs "mundane" acts. You may not have seen it, but I've been strongly against using that side-bar as a hard rule because of it both in the forums and on two of the major Facebook groups. Though, the parts that exist elsewhere are law as far as the game is concerned.
Though, intent was never considered in the rules. Which is why the paladin falls if he is dominated and is forced to commit evil acts.
Maybe we don't really disagree. Can you clarify this:
Though, the parts that exist elsewhere are law as far as the game is concerned.
What does that mean?
Though, intent was never considered in the rules. Which is why the paladin falls if he is dominated and is forced to commit evil acts.
You see, as per the quote I gave above, I would amend this to:
"Which is why the paladin falls if he is dominated and is forced to commit evil acts. "
You can't take the subjective element out of alignment (even though, paradoxically, it's a model of an objective morality in-world). The DM-adjudication is baked into that section of the rules in a way qualitatively different from any other subsystem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we don't really disagree. Can you clarify this:
Though, the parts that exist elsewhere are law as far as the game is concerned.What does that mean?
Aligned casting existed as a rule before the sidebar. That is a fact of the game and not advice. I mean situations like that. As I said almost all of the side bar is clarification on existing rules not just existing advice. Those rules still stand whether you pay attention to the sidebar or not.
|
|
Though, intent was never considered in the rules. Which is why the paladin falls if he is dominated and is forced to commit evil acts.You see, as per the quote I gave above, I would amend this to:
"Which is why the paladin falls if he is dominated and is forced to commit evil acts. "
You can't take the subjective element out of alignment (even though, paradoxically, it's a model of an objective morality in-world). The DM-adjudication is baked into that section of the rules in a way qualitatively different from any other subsystem.
No, that's a rule of the game. One that even the atonement spell compensates for.
"If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. "
Being a rule, the GM can change it as they please.
If they do not change the rule though, they are allowed to say this... "If the game did not explicitly call this act evil then I can choose to say it is not evil without changing any rules."But you can not say the paladin does not fall for being compelled to murder someone without changing the rules in the game.
This is also a rule:
"In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation"
which means if the DM decides that forced evil action doesn't make a paladin fall, that's RAW.
Nothing is as explicit as that. Nothing declares "that bit in the alignment section about DM judgement is superceded here".
I believe that what's being referenced is the Atonement rules. "If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you." <As such, performing the act while misguided/under a compulsion is not enough to avoid all penalties, though it's forgiven far more readily.