|
Not just Paizo's rule, it's always been part of the system.According to Paizo's "brilliant" rules, casting a Evil spell is always a evil action, no matter the motivation, effect or consequences...
Truly a superbly designed and well-thought rule. XD
Paizo is the only responsible for all the merits and faults of Pathfinder, though. They could've added or removed whatever they wanted. They are the ones I praise for the good decisions and the ones I criticize for the bad ones.
This particular rule was left pretty unclear and ambiguous for quite a long time too.
Actually it was more of a case of "we don't need to waste word count spelling this out do we?" rather than being left "unclear" or "ambiguous".
|
Champions of Purity is a player companion, so does not define RAW. Horror Adventures is in the RPG line, and therefore does define RAW.
Why should this be? Because it's a bigger book???
If anything, Horror Adventures is about a genre style of game, whereas Champions of Purity is specifically all about alignment, so the latter's word should weigh more on the subject.
|
|
Because it's a Core Rulebook.Champions of Purity is a player companion, so does not define RAW. Horror Adventures is in the RPG line, and therefore does define RAW.Why should this be? Because it's a bigger book???
If anything, Horror Adventures is about a genre style of game, whereas Champions of Purity is specifically all about alignment, so the latter's word should weigh more on the subject.
They both talk about alignment, but Champions just talks a bit about the Good Alignments, not all of them, and it's more about playing Good characters than a rulebook on alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was good that they codified that there is some sort effect from casting spells with alignment descriptors opposed to your own. The magic is corrupting and influential, is the basic implication. Which I'm happy with.
The only problem was setting numbers. I realize people probably would have asked for numbers, but I think it would have been better to say "Yes infernal healing is a corrupting influence, if you use it frequently enough it might make you evil. But, how quickly that happens is something you should talk with your GM about."
They don't take into account other actions (outside of the spell casting) you might be taking. [Maybe you're out saving the world, killing all sorts of demons. You happen to use infernal healing to heal yourself while out doing so. Little evil, lot of good done by killing demons.]
I think really the thing that ruffled feathers wasn't that spells can affect your alignment, but the number of castings which did it.
|
|
Because it's a Core Rulebook.
Why should this be? Because it's a bigger book???
^_-
So all the hardcover books are "core?" Is that even a distinction that carries any weight? That doesn't make much sense to me, especially since there's only one Core Rulebook, a statement that sounds like it's driven home by the strictures of Pathfinder Society's "Core-only" version.
|
|
It was good that they codified that there is some sort effect from casting spells with alignment descriptors opposed to your own. The magic is corrupting and influential, is the basic implication. Which I'm happy with.
The only problem was setting numbers. I realize people probably would have asked for numbers, but I think it would have been better to say "Yes infernal healing is a corrupting influence, if you use it frequently enough it might make you evil. But, how quickly that happens is something you should talk with your GM about."
They don't take into account other actions (outside of the spell casting) you might be taking. [Maybe you're out saving the world, killing all sorts of demons. You happen to use infernal healing to heal yourself while out doing so. Little evil, lot of good done by killing demons.]
I think really the thing that ruffled feathers wasn't that spells can affect your alignment, but the number of castings which did it.
*nods*
Yeah the rule is rather brutal if you keep the casting on their own track and don't take into account other actions that occur inbetween.
One of things most asked though was "How much does it take to turn [Alignment]" unfortunately. I would have preferred a system where each spell has it's own rating, but I know there's no chance of that appearing anywhere official.
Someone above mentioned having the level of the spell count towards how much it affects you, which I think is a good inbetween.
|
|
Because it's a Core Rulebook.
Why should this be? Because it's a bigger book???^_-
So all the hardcover books are "core?" Is that even a distinction that carries any weight? That doesn't make much sense to me, especially since there's only one Core Rulebook, a statement that sounds like it's driven home by the strictures of Pathfinder Society's "Core-only" version.
Yes, all the Hardcovers in the Core Rulebook line are "Core". Core Rulebook line. Rulebook line. Roleplaying Game line. However you want to label them, those are the core books.
I don't know anything about "Core" PFS.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to Paizo's "brilliant" rules, casting a Evil spell is always a evil action, no matter the motivation, effect or consequences...
Truly a superbly designed and well-thought rule. XD
It actually makes perfect sense to me.
Both the intent and the means matter. The ends do not justify the means. It's harder to be good than it is to be evil.
Using Evil means to a Good intent is still an evil action.
But the reverse is not true: Using Good means for evil intent is also an evil action.
Here's how I interpret it:
Evil intent, evil means = evil action
Evil intent, good/neutral means = evil action
Good/neutral intent, evil means = evil action
Netural intent, good/neutral means = neutral action
Good intent, good/neutral means = good action.
That's how it works when I'm behind the GM screen. Your miles may vary.
And, for the record, I'm not a big fan about the attempt at codifying alignment and marking it along a chart that was in Pathfinder Unchained. I prefer to leave it more open-ended and subject to GM interpretation in the context of the GM's campaign world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the real problem is less the "casting evil spells makes you nongood" and more the clause about how "two spells is usually enough." I feel that probably should have been left about the book since "how easy it is to fall to evil" is the sort of thing that naturally should change from game to game depending on the tone and themes of that game.
Even within the horror campaign genre, there ought to be a big difference in how this works between the sort of game with "you read the evil tome, now you're evil" versus the sort of game that's about a series of increasingly tenuous ethical compromises made in order to acquire power that eventually lead towards a tragic end.
It would have been better if they had just left it at: "Casting evil spells is an evil act, committing enough evil acts can move your alignment towards evil at the GM's discretion, depending on appropriateness to the story as a whole."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the real problem is less the "casting evil spells makes you nongood" and more the clause about how "two spells is usually enough." I feel that probably should have been left about the book since "how easy it is to fall to evil" is the sort of thing that's naturally should change from game to game depending on the tone and themes of that game.
Even within the horror campaign genre, there ought to be a big difference in how this works between the sort of game with "you read the evil tome, now you're evil" versus the sort of game that's about a series of increasingly tenuous moral justifications made in order to acquire power that eventually lead towards a tragic end.
It would have been better if they had just left it at: "Casting evil spells is an evil act, committing enough evil acts can move your alignment towards evil at the GM's discretion, depending on appropriateness to the story as a whole."
From the commentary designers have offered, they debated whether or not to attach a number at all. Ultimately, it is better to have a number that everyone is free to ignore if they want to, than not have a number at all. It provides a starting point, an anchor to the discussion. Without it, you'd see some GMs arguing "one and done" and players arguing for freedom to cast tens of evil spells before facing consequences. With the guideline, we have one thing to be angry at, and it's not the people we play with. GMs are free to be more lenient if they like. They also have a published number to lean on if that's the game they want to play, or players start abusing evil spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's a Core Rulebook.
Why should this be? Because it's a bigger book???^_-
So all the hardcover books are "core?" Is that even a distinction that carries any weight? That doesn't make much sense to me, especially since there's only one Core Rulebook, a statement that sounds like it's driven home by the strictures of Pathfinder Society's "Core-only" version.
The RPG hardcovers are designed and developed by the PDT, whereas player companions do not receive any (or very minimal) PDT input. That's the difference.
According to Paizo's "brilliant" rules, casting a Evil spell is always a evil action, no matter the motivation, effect or consequences...
Truly a superbly designed and well-thought rule. XD
It actually makes perfect sense to me.
Both the intent and the means matter. The ends do not justify the means. It's harder to be good than it is to be evil.
Not under this system, just casting a few good spells each day and you too can keep the smiting away.
|
|
Not under this system, just casting a few good spells each day and you too can keep the smiting away.According to Paizo's "brilliant" rules, casting a Evil spell is always a evil action, no matter the motivation, effect or consequences...
Truly a superbly designed and well-thought rule. XD
It actually makes perfect sense to me.
Both the intent and the means matter. The ends do not justify the means. It's harder to be good than it is to be evil.
And also work on why the smitings are occurring in the first place.
You hotwire you're alignment into Good and you're not gonna do Evil things anymore.
From the commentary designers have offered, they debated whether or not to attach a number at all. Ultimately, it is better to have a number that everyone is free to ignore if they want to, than not have a number at all. It provides a starting point, an anchor to the discussion. Without it, you'd see some GMs arguing "one and done" and players arguing for freedom to cast tens of evil spells before facing consequences. With the guideline, we have one thing to be angry at, and it's not the people we play with. GMs are free to be more lenient if they like. They also have a published number to lean on if that's the game they want to play, or players start abusing evil spells.Yeah, the real problem is less the "casting evil spells makes you nongood" and more the clause about how "two spells is usually enough." I feel that probably should have been left about the book since "how easy it is to fall to evil" is the sort of thing that's naturally should change from game to game depending on the tone and themes of that game.
Even within the horror campaign genre, there ought to be a big difference in how this works between the sort of game with "you read the evil tome, now you're evil" versus the sort of game that's about a series of increasingly tenuous moral justifications made in order to acquire power that eventually lead towards a tragic end.
It would have been better if they had just left it at: "Casting evil spells is an evil act, committing enough evil acts can move your alignment towards evil at the GM's discretion, depending on appropriateness to the story as a whole."
I still think they should have left it vague and subject to GM ruling.
It's my opinion that the commentary you refer to is part of the downside of having such a robust organized play community... especially the requirement that PFS GMs be pretty much on the same page with how things workd. Part of the PFS ethos is a minimum of table variability. Since there are a spectrum of opinions about how to adjucate alignment questions, it seems that the devs decided to draw a line in the sand so that a baseline could be established and some level of agreement could be reached. In PFS, there's a blanket "no evil PCs" rule, and PCs who become evil are bounced out. Unfortunately, the needs of PFS sometimes bleed into the game in general.
I don't play or GM in PFS, so there's a lot more emphasis on GM discretion in the games that I GM or play in: there is no "higer power" to whom an objecting player can appeal. Fortunately, when I GM, my players pretty much all trust me to make the right calls. That said, I try to make my expectations vis-a-vis alignment very clear at the outset.
|
|
From the commentary designers have offered, they debated whether or not to attach a number at all. Ultimately, it is better to have a number that everyone is free to ignore if they want to, than not have a number at all. It provides a starting point, an anchor to the discussion. Without it, you'd see some GMs arguing "one and done" and players arguing for freedom to cast tens of evil spells before facing consequences. With the guideline, we have one thing to be angry at, and it's not the people we play with. GMs are free to be more lenient if they like. They also have a published number to lean on if that's the game they want to play, or players start abusing evil spells.I still think they should have left it vague and subject to GM ruling.
It's my opinion that the commentary you refer to is part of the downside of having such a robust organized play community... especially the requirement that PFS GMs be pretty much on the same page with how things workd. Part of the PFS ethos is a minimum of table variability. Since there are a spectrum of opinions about how to adjucate alignment questions, it seems that the devs decided to draw a line in the sand so that a baseline could be established and some level of agreement could be reached. In PFS, there's a blanket "no evil PCs" rule, and PCs who become evil are bounced out. Unfortunately, the needs of PFS sometimes bleed into the game in general.
I don't play or GM in PFS, so there's a lot more emphasis on GM discretion in the games that I GM or play in: there is no "higer power" to whom an objecting player can appeal. Fortunately, when I GM, my players pretty much all trust me to make the right calls. That said, I try to make my expectations vis-a-vis alignment very clear at the outset.
This isn't really one of those PFS cases, though. The PFS campaign rules say that casting evil spells doesn't affect alignment unless the act itself was evil. PFS is a worldwide example of throwing out the rule for the benefit of the campaign you want to run.
The rule is totally still up to the GM, it just has a defined number as a guideline. This sidebar was all about making player-GM conversations easier at the home gaming table. A GM who throws the published rule out is being reasonable. If they had left it vague, any GM who tries to define or enforce any limit is an a!@#*#&. Publishing the rule as-is supports the widest variety of tables, especially inexperienced GMs at home.
I remember these discussions back in the days of 1st edition AD&D. They tended to be more crucial for divine based classes (clerics, paladins, druids). Maybe some of the more recent Star Wars films/video games would be instructive - or just muddy the waters? Generally speaking, minor bad acts by a jedi didn't turn them into sith immediately; but such behavior was frowned upon by other jedi.
I think it's important to look at how the player deals with the aftermath of their poor choice. An "ends justifies the means" outlook should be reflected in the player's behavior: a pious character might go out of their way to engage in additional good deeds out of shame for their actions and not punishment from some external source, while a compromised character might be more willing to behave poorly in the future.
If the player is unwilling to explore those role-playing aspects, but it's still important to you as a game master, I'd suggest disallowing the action in the first place or withholding experience points gained from the first such incident, and then stepping up the penalty from there for additional violations. Obviously the GM should apply their own judgment: casting Cause Blindness on the priest who cares for homeless orphans so the party could "borrow" a relic is probably worse than casting the same blindness spell on a random encounter monster.
I'm also reminded of this chestnut from Penny Arcade about the Harry Potter Crucio spell:
It was good that they codified that there is some sort effect from casting spells with alignment descriptors opposed to your own. The magic is corrupting and influential, is the basic implication. Which I'm happy with.
The only problem was setting numbers. I realize people probably would have asked for numbers, but I think it would have been better to say "Yes infernal healing is a corrupting influence, if you use it frequently enough it might make you evil. But, how quickly that happens is something you should talk with your GM about."
They don't take into account other actions (outside of the spell casting) you might be taking. [Maybe you're out saving the world, killing all sorts of demons. You happen to use infernal healing to heal yourself while out doing so. Little evil, lot of good done by killing demons.]
I think really the thing that ruffled feathers wasn't that spells can affect your alignment, but the number of castings which did it.
No, "spells even being able to affect your alignment regardless of what else you're doing" is what ruffled mine.
Before that got codified in something beyond the Golarion-specific Champions of Purity, one could pretend that the ultimate Cosmic Morality that the alignment system within the game suggested wasn't a binary computer that could be hacked and gamed. Now, it's as though any resemblance between what I mean when I say "good" and what the game means when it says "good" is purely coincidental.
I mean, drinking the blood of infants: good or evil? I know what I would say, but I no longer have any faith that I can take what I know in my own life and apply it to the worlds embodied in this game, Golarion or otherwise. I could look at the rulebook, but at this point, I basically have to. Because I know for damned certain that I wouldn't be tagging anyone who used Infernal Healing just to heal their wounds as beginning to lean towards evil, not after one use or three uses or a thousand uses or after casting it every six seconds from now until Pharasma ended the universe. Ditto castings of Protection from Whatever.
Codifying that spells operate that way, that morality can be that easily manipulated and fooled, makes the game's concepts of "good" and "evil" alien and inhuman beyond anything Lovecraft could've come up with. Gone is the capacity to empathize with the characters depicted, and now, the only hope is that Rovagug rise up soon and end the multiverse such that something else can arise in its place.
|
|
Except they didn't do that. They didn't codify non-spell acts at all. They just finally put into writing that "yes, aligned spells are aligned acts.
"drinking the blood of infants: good or evil?" Evil, absolutely nothing Paizo has published has contradicted this and suggesting otherwise is superfluous.
Infernal Healing is Evil because it's powered by either Unholy Water or Devil's Blood, that's some evil s*%@. Healing people is a good act but healing spells themselves are not in and of themselves Good or Aligned except in this case when it is literally powered by Evil. Cure Wounds for example has no alignment descriptor whatsoever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I understand healing is not a good act itself. You can heal another person for completely selfish reasons:
The other person is protecting you and you don't want to die!
You are on your flying mount and you don't want to die if it cannot continue flying!
You heal yourself because you don't want to die!
Not that wanting to save your own ass is evil, of course, but I wouldn't think of it as a good act either. Just survival instinct.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I understand healing is not a good act itself. You can heal another person for completely selfish reasons:
The other person is protecting you and you don't want to die!
You are on your flying mount and you don't want to die if it cannot continue flying!
You heal yourself because you don't want to die!Not that wanting to save your own ass is evil, of course, but I wouldn't think of it as a good act either. Just survival instinct.
You can also heal someone so you can keep torturing them. Definitely not a Good act.
Not under this system, just casting a few good spells each day and you too can keep the smiting away.According to Paizo's "brilliant" rules, casting a Evil spell is always a evil action, no matter the motivation, effect or consequences...
Truly a superbly designed and well-thought rule. XD
It actually makes perfect sense to me.
Both the intent and the means matter. The ends do not justify the means. It's harder to be good than it is to be evil.
And also work on why the smitings are occurring in the first place.
You hotwire you're alignment into Good and you're not gonna do Evil things anymore.
Don't have to go good just stop at neutral
You can also heal someone so you can keep torturing them. Definitely not a Good act.Well, I understand healing is not a good act itself. You can heal another person for completely selfish reasons:
The other person is protecting you and you don't want to die!
You are on your flying mount and you don't want to die if it cannot continue flying!
You heal yourself because you don't want to die!Not that wanting to save your own ass is evil, of course, but I wouldn't think of it as a good act either. Just survival instinct.
Yes. My WotW players know well. Their best was forcing a good cleric to cure herself to keep torturing her.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely, something I've done multiple times.
I just don't get why they keep calling me "Evil". It's all for the greater good, you know!
I do wonder how much "knowing what you're doing is evil and doing it anyway" should play into this versus "honesty having no idea." Like if a sorcerer picks up a wand of internal healing (remember, sorcerers are basically defined by not knowing how their own magic works) and waves it around without knowing that it's evil, should they still turn nongood after 2 charges?
On one hand ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but on the other hand it's more evil to knowingly choose evil than to accidentally do the evil thing, right?
|
|
I do wonder how much "knowing what you're doing is evil and doing it anyway" should play into this versus "honesty having no idea." Like if a sorcerer picks up a wand of internal healing (remember, sorcerers are basically defined by not knowing how their own magic works) and waves it around without knowing that it's evil, should they still turn nongood after 2 charges?
On one hand ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but on the other hand it's more evil to knowingly choose evil than to accidentally do the evil thing, right?
GMs are totally empowered to rule on those sort of edge cases in their games. Two is just the number to start working from.
|
|
GMs are totally empowered to rule on those sort of edge cases in their games. Two is just the number to start working from.I do wonder how much "knowing what you're doing is evil and doing it anyway" should play into this versus "honesty having no idea." Like if a sorcerer picks up a wand of internal healing (remember, sorcerers are basically defined by not knowing how their own magic works) and waves it around without knowing that it's evil, should they still turn nongood after 2 charges?
On one hand ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but on the other hand it's more evil to knowingly choose evil than to accidentally do the evil thing, right?
That would make wands of Infernal healing even more insidious.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would make wands of Infernal healing even more insidious.GMs are totally empowered to rule on those sort of edge cases in their games. Two is just the number to start working from.I do wonder how much "knowing what you're doing is evil and doing it anyway" should play into this versus "honesty having no idea." Like if a sorcerer picks up a wand of internal healing (remember, sorcerers are basically defined by not knowing how their own magic works) and waves it around without knowing that it's evil, should they still turn nongood after 2 charges?
On one hand ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but on the other hand it's more evil to knowingly choose evil than to accidentally do the evil thing, right?
Well, suckering souls into the grip of hell was precisely the reason Asmodeus created the spell in the first place, wasn't it?
On the subject of balancing it out by casting protection from evil all the time, I feel that trying to game the energy of the cosmos is a great way to annoy both groups of aligned outsider as well as Inevitables, if not mess you up in general by engulfing yourself with conflicting aligned power. In general though, on the same camp as 'always really liked the general concept, just find the numbers weird'.
That would make wands of Infernal healing even more insidious.GMs are totally empowered to rule on those sort of edge cases in their games. Two is just the number to start working from.I do wonder how much "knowing what you're doing is evil and doing it anyway" should play into this versus "honesty having no idea." Like if a sorcerer picks up a wand of internal healing (remember, sorcerers are basically defined by not knowing how their own magic works) and waves it around without knowing that it's evil, should they still turn nongood after 2 charges?
On one hand ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but on the other hand it's more evil to knowingly choose evil than to accidentally do the evil thing, right?
Well, suckering souls into the grip of hell was precisely the reason Asmodeus created the spell in the first place, wasn't it?
On the subject of balancing it out by casting protection from evil all the time, I feel that trying to game the energy of the cosmos will annoy both groups of aligned outsider as well as Inevitables, if not mess you up in general by engulfing yourself with conflicting aligned power. ...
That's not RAW though nothing about conflicting power or that anyone cares other than your Deity about your alignment.
|
|
I was prompted to start this thread because I couldn't find the answer anywhere else.
Normally casting spells with the "evil" effect is considered evil and will eventually require atonement. But what if they are used for good.
Specifically in my case. I am playing a LG Dhampir Inquisitor (Kinslayer), and I need negative energy to heal me. Positive energy would actually hurt me.
So my question than because is it ok to cast to Inflict Lights Wounds etc. on myself without it being evil? What is the RAW? Obviously in homebrew its whatever but I am still curious about the official rules.
Inflict Spells don't have the Evil Descriptor, so they are not evil actions and can be cast by your character without issue.
I will note that Positive Energy isn't the only thing that can heal your Dhampir. Bed rest, as well as the Heal Skill, will be able to grant you healing because it is untyped healing. Goodberries and few others will also heal you without regard to positive or negative energy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to Paizo's "brilliant" rules, casting a Evil spell is always a evil action, no matter the motivation, effect or consequences...
Truly a superbly designed and well-thought rule. XD
It actually makes perfect sense to me.
Both the intent and the means matter. The ends do not justify the means. It's harder to be good than it is to be evil.
Using Evil means to a Good intent is still an evil action.
But the reverse is not true: Using Good means for evil intent is also an evil action.
Here's how I interpret it:
Evil intent, evil means = evil action
Evil intent, good/neutral means = evil action
Good/neutral intent, evil means = evil action
Netural intent, good/neutral means = neutral action
Good intent, good/neutral means = good action.That's how it works when I'm behind the GM screen. Your miles may vary.
I agree with your system, but I'll note it misleadingly implies that evil is the most common action availible. In most adventuring, Neutral actions require the least effort and are the most common. Evil and good require actually trying towards a particular end, at least most of the time.
Since the OP was already answered and this has devolved into an alignment debate, here's how I personally rule good/evil spells (and acts in general) in my game:
Next, if the act was performed with an evil intention, that is an additional -3. Neutral intention is +0, and good intention is +1. Add the score from the act and intention behind the act together, and you'll get something ranging from +3 to -6. If the final score is positive, the act is overall good. Any positive score is enough to bring an evil creature into neutral after a couple of times, but to go from neutral to good requires repeatedly performing +2 or higher end result actions. Any negative score is enough to bring a good creature into neutral after a couple of times, but to go from neutral to evil requires repeatedly performing -3 or lower end result actions.
The end consequences of the above system roughly matches what Haladir wrote above, just with concrete numbers instead.
As for when alignment actually changes when using that system? I leave that up to role playing. If they do an evil act while good, or a good act while evil, I'll ask them how their character feels about that and what they plan on doing moving forward. Depending how they continue to act in light of their past actions, we evaluate what alignment their character actually is together as a group. If that alignment is different than what is written on the character sheet, I ask the player to either change what's on the sheet, or change how they are playing the character to better match what is on the sheet. So far, I've had no issues with this methodology, and my players are playing a wide variety of alignments (the party has two CG, and one each of CN, LG, N, and LE).
I do wonder how much "knowing what you're doing is evil and doing it anyway" should play into this versus "honesty having no idea." Like if a sorcerer picks up a wand of internal healing (remember, sorcerers are basically defined by not knowing how their own magic works) and waves it around without knowing that it's evil, should they still turn nongood after 2 charges?
On one hand ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but on the other hand it's more evil to knowingly choose evil than to accidentally do the evil thing, right?
I had a player who played a character with dumped INT. She pretended her character to be of good alignment, but then he almost killed people dealing lethal damage in training combats and didn't feel guilty because «it is not my fault if they are weak», and wanted to kill anyone who dared to oppose him, even if that opponent was clearly under mind control, threatened, etc.
She tried to explain her character's behavior with his INT score: as he was not very clever he didn't know how to deal non lethal damage, and couldn't judge properly if the baddies were really bad or not. Also, he wasn't clever enough to realize that an evil person could be redeemed or that someone who opposed him could not be evil. So, he was a very good man (centaur), but as we was so simple he could do anything he wanted to because he wouldn't know it was a bad thing.
Since then, I am very careful with players who declare lack of knowledge as an excuse to perform evil acts freely.
P.S. The character has an INT of 8, which is not so low, if you ask me.
|
|
I do wonder how much "knowing what you're doing is evil and doing it anyway" should play into this versus "honesty having no idea." Like if a sorcerer picks up a wand of internal healing (remember, sorcerers are basically defined by not knowing how their own magic works) and waves it around without knowing that it's evil, should they still turn nongood after 2 charges?
On one hand ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but on the other hand it's more evil to knowingly choose evil than to accidentally do the evil thing, right?
Accidental Evil is like killing in self defense. Yeah, killing is probably evil, but under the circumstances, they didn't have a choice if they wanted to stay alive, so it becomes a neutral action.
That said, if the character isn't learning from their mistakes, and keeps putting themselves in situations where they need to kill in self defense, it ceases to be self defense. That's because it really isn't an accident at this stage, it's a learned strategdy that they are allowing to reoccur. At best it's criminal negligence, but more likely it's premeditated murder - yeah, evil actions either way.
So I'd let it slide the first time and just warn the player, but if keeps coming up with the same character, I'd shift their alignment down. Intelligence doesn't come into play here.
Regarding your example Sorcerer, I've never really thought the alignment descriptors were really meant to cover arcane casters. If the sorcerer can't detect evil (or doesn't) and so doesn't know the evilness of the wand, I don't really see issues with them using it. Once they know the wand is evil, though, I think their alignment should come into play (if only role playing, since good characters should not willingly attempt to use evil objects or evil spells under normal circumstances).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, suckering souls into the grip of hell was precisely the reason Asmodeus created the spell in the first place, wasn't it?
Is it? The spell doesn't say so. And even if that was true, it's the caster's soul that's in danger - so the caster is endangering his soul to heal others. Self sacrifice to help others is the very definition of an act of good!
Infernal Healing is Evil because it's powered by either Unholy Water or Devil's Blood, that's some evil s+$#.
Yeah, and moulds are bad, so healing someone with Penicillin is capital E Evil too, right?
The spells are literally described as evil. It's kind of silly the clarification was needed in the first place.
No. They are tagged as evil, with often not the slightest bit of description what makes them evil. Which is my (and I believe many other's) main beef with the "five evil spells" 'rule'.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
If so, however, I HATE it, especially since there's been a lot of obvious bouncing around in the literature as to whether it was true or not (one writer making new material with one assumption in mind, and another introducing new material assuming the other stance), and it's not so easily all swept to one side, particularly not this stricter one.
The animate dead spell is a particularly irksome example. Part of it may be that I got into proper D&D by way of the Baldur's Gate computer games, which means I started out with 2nd Edition rules, and in 2nd Edition, the Necromancer's Handbook specifically stated that animating undead servitors was a form of "grey necromancy," neither Good nor Evil.
Also, it is indeed just like others have said: There's too many instances of spells with alignment descriptors that simply don't have to be inherently of that alignment. A handy way for a (for example) Good Wizard to help protect the Party Fighter from his own fireballs is to cast protection from Good on him - is he really supposed to shift toward Evil for that?!? What makes sense is how you use it, just like swinging a sword - simply casting the spell just shouldn't be enough, and it shouldn't be core, non-setting-specific RAW.
AD&D 1st and 2nd edition zombies and skeletons were neutral. essentially they were automatons. There were even a few good undead in in the monster books.
In Pathfinder all undead are evil, and zombies crave for living flesh.Basically they have shifted from dead flesh automatons to Romero zombies. And unleashing Romero zombies on the world is an evil act.
Evil spell descriptors are one of the silliest things in this game. Oh, you've desecrated that wolf's corpse by reanimating its bones, you're evil now. Launching a ball of fire at someone and burning them to death, or at the least leaving them horribly scarred and in tremendous lifelong pain. That's kosher.
I prefer the part where symbol of pain is evil and symbol of insanity isn't.
So making you feel excruciating pain for a time is evil, but making you forever mad isn't ....
The spells are literally described as evil. It's kind of silly the clarification was needed in the first place.No. They are tagged as evil, with often not the slightest bit of description what makes them evil. Which is my (and I believe many other's) main beef with the "five evil spells" 'rule'.
I might agree that the number of castings is almost comical, particularly since putting specific numbers to things seems contrary to the point of alignment describing the overall trend in a character's moral behavior.
But the spells being evil and, ultimately, capable of helping define that general trend? I'm digging it. Evil's more than just a moral label in D&D-style fantasy. It can have actual presence, form, shape, inherent character, and effect. Using it should be somewhat perilous and corrupting, just not to the point of "I'm a paragon of virtue in all things but because I used summon monster to summon up an erinyes to use her truesight ability on my behalf, twice over the last 20 years, I can't be more good than neutral".|
|
I don't have a problem with the idea that some things are evil corrupting influences, like using Sauron's ring. Even if you're doing it for a good cause, it's taking a toll upon you.
What I don't like is how fast it works according to that rule.
Scenario: the party has triggered a fireball trap. Everyone's bleeding out except for the Wizard who wasn't caught in the blast.
Wizard: "Don't worry guys! I'll save you! I bought a Wand of Infernal Healing for situations like this! One charge for the barbarian... one for the rogue... boy, I'm feeling oddly neutral about all this... one for the monk... one for the druid... and finally one for his pet cat. Finished!"
Rogue: "Thanks, buddy."
Wizard: "Silence, puny fool! I am your master now! You owe me your life and you will serve me or perish! Wa ha ha ha!"At least neutral to evil says "3 or more" so that the GM has more wiggle room as to when to change over, but yeah, the speed is too fast for a general rule imo, especially for the reverse (evil casting spells with the good descriptor). The rule also implies that casting a [good] spell with Evil intentions is still a Good act, which I also personally disagree with. That said, this is the Rules forum, so I have the rules in my initial response, not how I feel about them.
Also (unrelated to Matthew's post), the book the above rule is found in is called Horror Adventures, not Ultimate Horror.
I think that most GM will consider the reason to cast a spell a multiplier.
To make some example:
- Use infernal healing to save your companions life 1 evil act multiplied by x0.01. So you need to consume 2 wands to get the effect of casting 1 evil spell. Easy to counter with some good deed.
- Buy a wand of infernal healing instead of one of CLW so you don't have to train UMD to use it. Selfish act that show you are willing to cut corners. Maybe 1/2 evil act.
- casting protection from evil so that you can call a evil outsider safely x0.001. Casting the calling spell evil x1 (the motivations behind your act can change that modifier).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are also RAW that say different.
Champions of Purity says - I think we all agree that five minor acts of evil don't make a good character evil.
The Core Rulebook says the following things:
- The "five evil spells" 'rule' is a direct voilation of this.
- THis confirms what I said regarding the CoP quote.
- The "five evil spells" 'rule' voilates this hard.
And last, the very same text in Horror Adventures says - Casting Infernal Healing on the entire party does definitely not fall under either.
You have to ask yourself if three times does indeed fall under .As you can see from the above CRB quotes, the text in HA is not a clarification but doing a 180.
They can not simply put game changing rules into some book seven years later. A non-optional rule that drastically alters the game can only be in the CRB because everything else is basically "use it if you want". Would such an alignment change still occur in a core-only game? Do I need to buy every single future book in case it changes basic rules?But the real question you have to ask yourself is this: Do I trust a company who considers the "personification of horrible, exhilarating war" and "the excitement, battle-lust, and brutality of combat." to be neutral to define my alignment?
@Triune:...
Five minor evil acts, without any form of penance or repentance in between, without a prior pattern of good act and a lot of neutral/doubtful acts (and most actions of adventures fall in the gray list of action, true good actions are uncommon)? A bit harsh, but not wrong. the character has established a pattern.
On the other hand evil is really different from Mad character bent of world dominion.
My magus just turned evil, to his companions: "Ok people, I did spend good money to buy that wand that saved you. And money don't grow on trees, so I expect you to pay for it as soon as possible. And Paja, seeing your famous phrase 'I don't buy healing potions, I only use them.' I will take your bag of holding as a guarantee."
I will be more willing to let them take the head and be the first to be hit, less willing to cast spells for them it those spells don't help me too, but I will not backstab them for the jollies, even with my new CE alignment. My character is rational and doing that will probably increase his chances to get killed. And they are still his friends (well, some fo them).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, a pit fiend regularly fights demons and daemons and decides to cast protection from evil to give himself an edge. Devils regularly fight with other evil entities. After two castings, they are neutral and three more and they can take levels in paladin.
Beside the interesting question: "How he has got the ability to cast Protection from Evil?", and that alone will show that the pit fiend in question is not normal to start with, but devils are made of sterner Evil stuff than humans and humanoids.
Humans have the ability to shift alignment and no fixed racial alignment, devils have a fixed alignment and are literally made by LE material.|
|
It was good that they codified that there is some sort effect from casting spells with alignment descriptors opposed to your own. The magic is corrupting and influential, is the basic implication. Which I'm happy with.
The only problem was setting numbers. I realize people probably would have asked for numbers, but I think it would have been better to say "Yes infernal healing is a corrupting influence, if you use it frequently enough it might make you evil. But, how quickly that happens is something you should talk with your GM about."
They don't take into account other actions (outside of the spell casting) you might be taking. [Maybe you're out saving the world, killing all sorts of demons. You happen to use infernal healing to heal yourself while out doing so. Little evil, lot of good done by killing demons.]
I think really the thing that ruffled feathers wasn't that spells can affect your alignment, but the number of castings which did it.
*nods*
Yeah the rule is rather brutal if you keep the casting on their own track and don't take into account other actions that occur inbetween.
One of things most asked though was "How much does it take to turn [Alignment]" unfortunately. I would have preferred a system where each spell has it's own rating, but I know there's no chance of that appearing anywhere official.
Someone above mentioned having the level of the spell count towards how much it affects you, which I think is a good inbetween.
I think that the Unchained alignment section has something more nuanced, but I haven't read it carefully. But the whole Unchained is optional material.
|
|
From the commentary designers have offered, they debated whether or not to attach a number at all. Ultimately, it is better to have a number that everyone is free to ignore if they want to, than not have a number at all. It provides a starting point, an anchor to the discussion. Without it, you'd see some GMs arguing "one and done" and players arguing for freedom to cast tens of evil spells before facing consequences. With the guideline, we have one thing to be angry at, and it's not the people we play with. GMs are free to be more lenient if they like. They also have a published number to lean on if that's the game they want to play, or players start abusing evil spells.Yeah, the real problem is less the "casting evil spells makes you nongood" and more the clause about how "two spells is usually enough." I feel that probably should have been left about the book since "how easy it is to fall to evil" is the sort of thing that's naturally should change from game to game depending on the tone and themes of that game.
Even within the horror campaign genre, there ought to be a big difference in how this works between the sort of game with "you read the evil tome, now you're evil" versus the sort of game that's about a series of increasingly tenuous moral justifications made in order to acquire power that eventually lead towards a tragic end.
It would have been better if they had just left it at: "Casting evil spells is an evil act, committing enough evil acts can move your alignment towards evil at the GM's discretion, depending on appropriateness to the story as a whole."
I still think they should have left it vague and subject to GM ruling.
It's my opinion that the commentary you refer to is part of the downside of having such a robust organized play community... especially the requirement that PFS GMs be pretty much on the same page with how things workd. Part of the PFS ethos is a minimum of table variability. Since...
"two spells is usually enough." is vague and subject to GM ruling.
This FAQ entry below for PFS made things simple, at least for Infernal Healing (at least from Aug 15, 2016 - March 12, 2017). However, now the last line is stricken (as of March 13, 2017).
http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/faq#v5748eaic9qy1
Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenets of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction.
For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
They removed that last line for PFS [where cooperation is a lot easier for wizards and sorcerers with infernal healing as a spell/wand {and not anemic as with celestial healing}], and my guess is to avoid contradicting Horror Adventures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil spell descriptors are one of the silliest things in this game. Oh, you've desecrated that wolf's corpse by reanimating its bones, you're evil now. Launching a ball of fire at someone and burning them to death, or at the least leaving them horribly scarred and in tremendous lifelong pain. That's kosher.
Only if you first make sure that your target isn't wearing pig skin, and hasn't been anointed with milk.
So... buffer solutions should grant acid resistence?
Are there buffer solutions for alignment conflicts?
Even short of that, are there buffer solutions for alignment threads?
I prefer the part where symbol of pain is evil and symbol of insanity isn't.
So making you feel excruciating pain for a time is evil, but making you forever mad isn't ....
Could be worse -- at least we're not talking about Symbol of Inanity . . . now that's REALLY Evil.
|
|
This FAQ entry below for PFS made things simple, at least for Infernal Healing (at least from Aug 15, 2016 - March 12, 2017). However, now the last line is stricken (as of March 13, 2017).
http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/faq#v5748eaic9qy1
Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenets of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction.
For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.They removed that last line for PFS [where cooperation is a lot easier for wizards and sorcerers with infernal healing as a spell/wand {and not anemic as with celestial healing}], and my guess is to avoid contradicting Horror Adventures.
That last line was PFS authorities saying what an evil act is. Which is not part of their mandate because it is not a PFS-only element
All the rest deals with what an alignment infraction is. Since this belongs solely to PFS, it is part and parcel of their mandate to define how it works
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, a pit fiend regularly fights demons and daemons and decides to cast protection from evil to give himself an edge. Devils regularly fight with other evil entities. After two castings, they are neutral and three more and they can take levels in paladin.
Beside the interesting question: "How he has got the ability to cast Protection from Evil?", and that alone will show that the pit fiend in question is not normal to start with, but devils are made of sterner Evil stuff than humans and humanoids.
Humans have the ability to shift alignment and no fixed racial alignment, devils have a fixed alignment and are literally made by LE material.
Quite in agreement with this.
If a Pit Fiend was only casting Good spells and not doing any Evil act, I would be quite okay with considering it as being on the way to redemption :-)
By its very Evil nature, this never happens barring GM fiat
Just using an Evil SLA twice would make it Evil again after all
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spells are literally described as evil. It's kind of silly the clarification was needed in the first place.No. They are tagged as evil, with often not the slightest bit of description what makes them evil. Which is my (and I believe many other's) main beef with the "five evil spells" 'rule'.
Evil spells are not just tagged as evil. They have the Evil Descriptor. A descriptor does not simply categorize the spell (as a "tag" would do), it "governs how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment..."
A spell with an Evil descriptor is just not just "tagged" as evil so you can easily find it by searching "evil spells". The spell is described as evil (no matter what you want to do with it) and thus, will interact with anything susceptible to it (in this case, alignment).
I also, don't think that there should be a "X evil spells/Day = alignment shift" rule, it should be left at GM's choice depending on the spell "power" and what is used for. Still, non-evil creatures must be wary of "when" and "what for" they use those spells. Casting a single Infernal Healing to prevent a death won't shift a character alignment to evil, but using it as a main mean of healing "just because it's better than a cure light wounds for out of battle healing" will steadily shift the caster's alignment towards evil.
Also, heavily Good-aligned characters (including Paladins, Inquisitors and Clerics from Good aligned deities) should not happily commune with creatures and characters casting those spells in a frequent basis.