Either your DM doesn't care about this rule or you can cast one good spell for every evil spell.
This only works until the DM decides raising undead is an evil act.
Not because of the spell descriptor, but the action itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either your DM doesn't care about this rule or you can cast one good spell for every evil spell.This only works until the DM decides raising undead is an evil act.
Not because of the spell descriptor, but the action itself.
But good spells would still turn you towards good, no matter what the cause that shifted you towards evil.
But good spells would still turn you towards good, no matter what the cause that shifted you towards evil.Either your DM doesn't care about this rule or you can cast one good spell for every evil spell.This only works until the DM decides raising undead is an evil act.
Not because of the spell descriptor, but the action itself.
Yep. What caused the shift doesn't matter, just the amount and direction. So if the act is evil and the spell is evil, at best you have 2 evil acts. So that should mean 2 good acts like 2 good spells should clean the slate. Easy peasy.
The only way the DM 'gets one over on the player' is if he throws out spells being evil or good all together. THEN dead raising would matter, though it doesn't stop mundane ways of doing the same thing.
qaplawjw: Only having alignment spells go one way doesn't make much sense IMO. Only evil acts affect your alignment? And your houserule would mean evil characters/NPC can cast good spells with impunity as it's 'neutral'. Go-go angel summoner lich! And they can cast holy word! LOL Evil gods become totally cool with unlimited good spell casting.
|
If a character is "neutral aligned towards good/evil", then that character is more on a grey area, the character doesn't mind casting from time to time, but still won't spam them as a main resource.Take a LN character that worships Asmodeus who enjoys his max ranks in profession barrister. This sounds like a character that has fun with the legalistic function of 'this spell counteracts that spell' and would use the heck out of the process. And of course they'd take the Pact Servant trait so they treat Asmodeus as LN so even enforced alignment shifts to good/evil's aren't an issue with abilities until the good/evil is 'fixed'.
After all, it SHOULD be common knowledge that good spells MAKE you good and evil spells MAKE you evil. Some characters will want to game the system just as some players will want to.
Just to point out but Pact Servant was made to represent a specific heretical sect from a specific region, it wasn't made so everyone and their brother could treat Azzy as a LN deity.
Temples both new and ancient cover Spineback, but the smallest is perhaps the most unusual. A tiny, neurotic church of archivists and arbiters here worships Asmodeus, known locally as the Wily Linguist, thanks to a minor role he played in aiding Mazludeh in mediating , recording, and filing the Celestial Concordance between the mortals of Holomog and the forces of Elysium, Heaven, and Nirvana. Visiting Asmodeans might be somewhat torn between amusement that a nation of angel-worshipers pays him some honor, and consternation that they invariably depict the notorious god as a woman. First Arbiter Oluche (LN female human cleric of Asmodeus 6) struggles to keep her temple afloat, organizing fighting tournaments and poetry competitions for the temple’s annual Days of Wrath celebration that helps fund their archives through the rest of the year.
The faith of Holomog focuses on nding the good in unusual places and appreciating the nuances of virtue in the world. You may treat Asmodeus as if he were a lawful neutral deity for the purposes of determining your own alignment as a cleric, inquisitor, or other divine spellcaster. You may not select the evil domain unless your own alignment also contains an evil aspect.
But good spells would still turn you towards good, no matter what the cause that shifted you towards evil.Either your DM doesn't care about this rule or you can cast one good spell for every evil spell.This only works until the DM decides raising undead is an evil act.
Not because of the spell descriptor, but the action itself.
Assuming I am using the PFS ruling, spells with the good descriptor are no more going to affect your alignment than spells with the evil descriptor.
Desecration of corpses and creation of undead, however, are evil actions that will affect your alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can assume you are using PFS rules, but those are house rules, the same as any other.
This has been argued before, Melkiador will not be convinced.
Remember, most of this goes to basic assumptions, which differ.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been argued before, Melkiador will not be convinced.
Remember, most of this goes to basic assumptions, which differ.
The default assumption is that you are using the rules that are published. Houserules are fine, and maybe you want to use houserules for this situation, but don't pretend like your houserules aren't houserules. This board is for the discussion of rules that are, not for rules that you wish there were.
Just to point out but Pact Servant was made to represent a specific heretical sect from a specific region, it wasn't made so everyone and their brother could treat Azzy as a LN deity.
Just to counterpoint, it JUST has to be about the single character in question. As such, your point is pretty meaningless. If the trait isn't meant to be used, it wouldn't be in print. As such, any character that wished to have Asmodeus as a LN deity can take it. To further hammer the point, the trait ISN'T a region feat, requiring you to be from some "tiny, neurotic church" in that area of the world.
In fact, you don't even have to worship Asmodeus to take it, though it'd do nothing for you unless you do. "Faith Traits: These traits rely upon conviction of spirit, perception, and religion, but are not directly tied to the worship of a specific deity."
So in conclusion, any character in the entire game world of Golarion can pick and use said trait without issue. You may see it as focused on a "specific heretical sect from a specific region" but the rules of the game disagree. It's not a Regional trait, for specific region, nor a Religion trait, for a specific god.
No Melkiador,
Your default assumptions are that these actions will not turn you evil.
You choose to disagree with anything that is counter to that.
In your own head, and at your own table, you are right. You need to be content with that.
Everyone who disagrees with you, including Mr. Jacobs, is at least as right as you.
As I have said before, this has been done. Play the way you want to, but if you want to win D&D, and make everyone everyone else play your way, maybe you should stick to Toad Hall.
No Melkiador,
Your default assumptions are that these actions will not turn you evil.
You choose to disagree with anything that is counter to that.
It's not that those actions don't turn you towards evil. It's that these other official actions, unquestionably turn you good. And no current quotes by Jacobs are relevant to that fact.
I personally am less than comfortable with Protection from Evil making you good. Sanctifying an area to Goodness I can see being a bigger influence, and friendly Contact wiith powerful good beings, much more so. Atonement magic, even more so.
I personally am less than comfortable with Protection from Evil making you good.
Yeah, and I don't like swashbucklers having a weak fortitude save. I don't really think this is a good rule either, but it is an official rule that is not described as being optional. Feel free to houserule it away like the PFS does, but don't act like that's not a houserule.
|
I personally am less than comfortable with Protection from Evil making you good.Yeah, and I don't like swashbucklers having a weak fortitude save. I don't really think this is a good rule either, but it is an official rule that is not described as being optional. Feel free to houserule it away like the PFS does, but don't act like that's not a houserule.
"A GM decides whether the character's alignment changes"
Everything is a houserule when it's up to the GM. We don't have official rules on alignment changes, we have official suggestions.
Daw, Melkiador is right. Unless an act is spelled out in a book/FAQ/blog as an evil/good act, it isn't. And if it is, then it's opposite counteracts it.
Mr. Jacob's unofficial posts are unsurprisingly unofficial. You are of course free to take whatever RAI you want from them and use it to fashion houserule with it. And as Melkiador points out, there are NO comments that I've seem about good acts and their relative 'goodness' vs how 'evil' evil acts are.
PFS: Any comment that starts off with "Assuming I'm using the PFS ruling" has moved from the rules to the houserules of PFS. In the rules forum, I know my posts are talking about the actual rules without consideration for PFS rules.
Levels of good/evil: you have good/evil acts, which make a partial move in alignment, and major evil/good acts which directly move alignment in that direction. That's it, so all 'normal' alignment acts are equal, so a level 1 evil spell [1 evil partial] and a 9th level good spell [1 good partial] return you to your base alignment [1 partial good + 1 partial evil = 0 partials].
KingOfAnything: Of course the DM can rule 0 anything, but that isn't very useful or productive for a rules debate. It's as useful as saying "you could play old maid instead and then you have no issues with alignment".
This is a far cry from a rules debate. The text of the sidebar declares it rule 0, so you've really just been going back and forth about old maid.
They give you what typically happens and say the DM can override it if they wish... That is literally every rule in the pathfinder game. So it's as much 'old maid' as the swashbucklers fort save.
Greystone,
I am not an adherent of the Sanctity of the Rule, I am not interested in the PFS codes, other than they are less objectionable in approach as the RPGA used to be.
I also have no use for the argument that nothing counts unless the Rules say it is so.
So, we're not on the same page there, and never will be. I try my best to avoid threads citing PFS, as this one did not.
For a rules discussion, the rules should count. That's the point of this board. If we were in the house rules board or the advice board then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
|
|
This is a far cry from a rules debate. The text of the sidebar declares it rule 0, so you've really just been going back and forth about old maid.They give you what typically happens and say the DM can override it if they wish... That is literally every rule in the pathfinder game. So it's as much 'old maid' as the swashbucklers fort save.
Do wizards "typically" use a d6 to determine their hit points? Do fighters "typically" have a BAB equal to their level? The Core Rulebook uses the word several times, and it is typically to call out text as a guideline for GMs to use to make judgement calls.
I agree that rules should count. The rule is that it is up to the GM.
Greystone,
I am not an adherent of the Sanctity of the Rule
Then you seem to be posting in the wrong forum. This section is all about the rules so it's all about the Sanctity of the Rule. Literally, the only thing this section is about is what "the Rules say it is so".
Do wizards "typically" use a d6 to determine their hit points? Do fighters "typically" have a BAB equal to their level? The Core Rulebook uses the word several times, and it is typically to call out text as a guideline for GMs to use to make judgement calls.
I agree that rules should count. The rule is that it is up to the GM.
For instance, druids typically have 3/4 BAB but they have an archetype that changes that to 1/2 BAB. That's what typical means, the base default rule that may be altered by another rule. I'd LIKE for it to be optional but that's not how it's presented in the rules. Evil spells are evil acts and evil acts cause typically cause at least partial alignment shifts. The "typical"/rule 0 text seems to be for increasing/decreasing the incremental change than doing away with the change: it makes a point that raising undead to save people is 'less' evil than normal.
|
But good spells would still turn you towards good, no matter what the cause that shifted you towards evil.Either your DM doesn't care about this rule or you can cast one good spell for every evil spell.This only works until the DM decides raising undead is an evil act.
Not because of the spell descriptor, but the action itself.
If a character does no Evil actions and casts Good spells, I have no qualms with the character becoming Good
Very similar to how I would handle a character doing no Evil actions and doing small Good acts such as giving alms or helping the elderly
It was clarified that casting Good spells are Good acts. No reason to treat this differently from any other Good acts
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually you are wrong, since the section for traits opens withJust to point out but Pact Servant was made to represent a specific heretical sect from a specific region, it wasn't made so everyone and their brother could treat Azzy as a LN deity.Just to counterpoint, it JUST has to be about the single character in question. As such, your point is pretty meaningless. If the trait isn't meant to be used, it wouldn't be in print. As such, any character that wished to have Asmodeus as a LN deity can take it. To further hammer the point, the trait ISN'T a region feat, requiring you to be from some "tiny, neurotic church" in that area of the world.
In fact, you don't even have to worship Asmodeus to take it, though it'd do nothing for you unless you do. "Faith Traits: These traits rely upon conviction of spirit, perception, and religion, but are not directly tied to the worship of a specific deity."
So in conclusion, any character in the entire game world of Golarion can pick and use said trait without issue. You may see it as focused on a "specific heretical sect from a specific region" but the rules of the game disagree. It's not a Regional trait, for specific region, nor a Religion trait, for a specific god.
The following traits are available to characters from Anuli.
You HAVE to be from Anuli in order to take that trait.
If a character is "neutral aligned towards good/evil", then that character is more on a grey area, the character doesn't mind casting from time to time, but still won't spam them as a main resource.Take a LN character that worships Asmodeus who enjoys his max ranks in profession barrister. This sounds like a character that has fun with the legalistic function of 'this spell counteracts that spell' and would use the heck out of the process. And of course they'd take the Pact Servant trait so they treat Asmodeus as LN so even enforced alignment shifts to good/evil's aren't an issue with abilities until the good/evil is 'fixed'.
After all, it SHOULD be common knowledge that good spells MAKE you good and evil spells MAKE you evil. Some characters will want to game the system just as some players will want to.
A Good character casting a Good spell won't make him "better", specially when casting at random with no purpose (flower/rainbow spamming) just because it has a Good descriptor. That's why the most basic rule for alignment is the best: Leave the choice to the GM's hands.
There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
As said: there's no point system and way to measure alignment. The GM must check what the character is doing based on a spell per spell and action per action basis and then decide. An Evil spell is an aligned act towards Evil, and a Good spell is an aligned act towards Good, we all agree on that. But, the GM will always have the last word on alignment change.
The problem is when a player casts an Evil spell as a character, and then choses to game the system and counter that spell as a player. For a GM that limits to an "alignment point system" (Evil spell vs Good spell) that player could "conter" that way, but any GM that "sees" that move may perfectly declare that "rainbow popping" weights zero towards "Good" alignment change. That's not a houserule, but the most basic alignment rule.
Every GM may decide how she's going to handle alignment in her games, but at least for me, a Raise Dead (a SL5 spell) that heavily desecrates to obtain benefit from it in some way, won't be alignment countered by a Holy Word SL7 spell cast at random in an empty field.
[...]
Every GM may decide how she's going to handle alignment in her games, but at least for me, a Raise Dead (a SL5 spell) that heavily desecrates to obtain benefit from it in some way, won't be alignment countered by a Holy Word SL7 spell cast at random in an empty field.
EDIT: Clearly not Raise Dead, but Animate Dead. My mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wish they hadn't included alignment descriptors on Protection from X. A large part of the silliness comes from that, along with issues with restricted casting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your character is a super genius with tons of ranks in spellcraft and knowledge arcana, then I would expect them to know how to game the rules of magic and alignment in their world. To them these are just basic rules of physics, to be used as tools in their goals.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your character is a super genius with tons of ranks in spellcraft and knowledge arcana, then I would expect them to know how to game the rules of magic and alignment in their world. To them these are just basic rules of physics, to be used as tools in their goals.
One could argue, however, that any action that uses knowledge of how to game the rules of alignment is an aligned act that equally and oppositely reacts to the direction one's alignment would have shifted due to said action.
Newtonian ethics.
If your character is a super genius with tons of ranks in spellcraft and knowledge arcana, then I would expect them to know how to game the rules of magic and alignment in their world. To them these are just basic rules of physics, to be used as tools in their goals.One could argue, however, that any action that uses knowledge of how to game the rules of alignment is an aligned act that equally and oppositely reacts to the direction one's alignment would have shifted due to said action.
Newtonian ethics.
So if My wizard knows that casting evil spells corrupts him and cast such spells with that purpose in mind then he gets less corrupt?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if My wizard knows that casting evil spells corrupts him and cast such spells with that purpose in mind then he gets less corrupt?
Yup.
Nobody likes someone who's too eager to join their club...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about casting Good Spells with the intent of alignment change, but to Evil?
Clearly, I cannot choose the wine in front of you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about casting Good Spells with the intent of alignment change, but to Evil?
Then, depending on how your GM rules it, you may perfectly become Evil.
Casting an aligned spell (good,/evil/lawful/chaotic) is an aligned act of that type, and will affect how the spell interacts with alignment (specially with heavily aligned creatures or forces, a neutral creature may not give a f*ck about an Animated Dead being cast on her presence, but a Solar may end up moping the floor with your remains immediately afterwards).
Also, this also means how the spell will interact with the casting character's alignment. A good spell cast by a good creature doesn't exactly have to make that creature "better", but an Evil spell cast by the same creature is something unexpected, and may have alignment consequences.
The point is, Alignment balance adjustment, by CRB, is ruled as "ultimately left at the GM's choice", so a GM may say that "Evil spell X" in situation Y WILL have an alignment balance adjustment but the same spell in situation Z will NOT have an alignment balance adjustment.
Unless you use "additional rules" like the ones from Horror Adventures, and aligned act doesn't have to enforce an alignment adjustment. If a GM wants to allow "rainbow popping" to counter evil spells (specially clearly evil spells like Animate Dead, even more it the spell desecrates sentient creatures), so be it; and if a GM doesn't, so be it, but there's no "good spell counters Evil spell" rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A long time ago, when I was much more quibbly, my GM instituted a rule whereby every time I asked a leading question about alignment and actions, my alignment shifted one step towards evil...
He was right to do it. I'm the worst. The. Worst.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, I'll point out that the first thing said by these rules is that the GM decides when your alignment changes.
So you can try to cast protection from good after shifting to evil from casting 100 evil spells. Doesn't mean it works.
On the other side of the spectrum, you might not shift down from good after casting 100 evil spells because they were all done to accomplish exceedingly good acts under extenuating circumstances.
The GM decides when you change alignments, thus trying to game the system to switch up and down the spectrum so you can do evil acts and detect as good or neutral doesn't work unless the GM wants it to.
This is a far cry from a rules debate. The text of the sidebar declares it rule 0, so you've really just been going back and forth about old maid.They give you what typically happens and say the DM can override it if they wish... That is literally every rule in the pathfinder game. So it's as much 'old maid' as the swashbucklers fort save.Do wizards "typically" use a d6 to determine their hit points? Do fighters "typically" have a BAB equal to their level? The Core Rulebook uses the word several times, and it is typically to call out text as a guideline for GMs to use to make judgement calls.
I agree that rules should count. The rule is that it is up to the GM.
This
Alignment impact of spells, and actions in general, is explicitly DM discretion.
Every single time you sit in front of new GM, you need to verify his interpretation, unless campaign specific guidance, e.g., PFS, is available.
|
|
For instance, druids typically have 3/4 BAB but they have an archetype that changes that to 1/2 BAB. That's what typical means, the base default rule that may be altered by another rule. I'd LIKE for it to be optional but that's not how it's presented in the rules. Evil spells are evil acts and evil acts cause typically cause at least partial alignment shifts. The "typical"/rule 0 text seems to be for increasing/decreasing the incremental change than doing away with the change: it makes a point that raising undead to save people is 'less' evil than normal.Do wizards "typically" use a d6 to determine their hit points? Do fighters "typically" have a BAB equal to their level? The Core Rulebook uses the word several times, and it is typically to call out text as a guideline for GMs to use to make judgement calls.
I agree that rules should count. The rule is that it is up to the GM.
Reading comprehension! Quotation marks and context clues should inform you that I was asking if the CRB uses the word "typically" to describe such basic facts as BAB and hit points. Fun fact, it does not. The rules are not described with words such as "typically". Guidelines for GMs to use are.
The rules say that evil spells are evil acts. The rules say that evil acts change alignment. The rules say that the GM determines when alignment changes. The text suggests a number close to 2, but that is by no means a "rule".
Actually you are wrong, since the section for traits opens withThe following traits are available to characters from Anuli.You HAVE to be from Anuli in order to take that trait.
What they failed to do is #1 say they AREN'T available to anyone else or #2 have an actual prerequisite that requires you be from the area. What you quoted is no more than a suggestion, like 'look, here are some new traits that work well for characters from here'. It's much like the AP player guider that suggest feats, archetypes, ect that would fit well into the adventures. For it to mean what you think it does, it would say "The following traits are available only to characters from Anuli" which it does not say.
For instance I can say someone from Tian Xia has the Improved Initiative available to them, but that doesn't mean ONLY they can use it. To be clear, the trait is neither region or religion trait and does not have the prerequisites Anuli or Asmodeous.
A Good character casting a Good spell won't make him "better", specially when casting at random with no purpose (flower/rainbow spamming) just because it has a Good descriptor. That's why the most basic rule for alignment is the best: Leave the choice to the GM's hands.
It should affect him as much as any other 'good act', just as an evil spell should affect them the same as an 'evil act'. That is my point, that the new rules equate the spells to an aligned act. It's saying feeding an orphan is the same as casting protection from evil. We can quibble about the exact formula [how many x spells/acts offset x spells/acts but that's what it boils down to.
The point of them making the spells themselves aligned acts is that in fact (flower/rainbow spamming] would be aligned independent of the intent of the spell. Spamming imps summoning to pass out pretty flowers is still going to make a paladin fall same as (flower/rainbow spamming] does the same for an Antipaladin.
The rules say that evil spells are evil acts. The rules say that evil acts change alignment. The rules say that the GM determines when alignment changes. The text suggests a number close to 2, but that is by no means a "rule".
If they are leaving it all up to DM's, it makes me wonder why hard code evil spells = evil acts if they turn around and don't make a rule on it's use. Why not say 'it's up to the DM if evil spells are evil acts and if so how much it affects alignment. We suggest x, but do whatever you want since it's not a rule or anything'. That takes up a lot less room in the book.
|
What methods are available for creating undead using the Animate Undead spell and not turning evil while doing it?
Simple. Cast Dominate Person on the Necromancer, then have them cast Animate Dead. You've not cast any spells with an alignment descriptor, so you are in the clear.
GM might oppose this route, but honestly I think the alignments shifting based on spell descriptors is faulty for the GM to rely on. Definitely a stupid system and not something I suggest players or GMs adopting for their games. If the GM wants to ban or limit specific spells from player use, that is reasonable, but going by descriptor is very impractical.
|
|
Actually you are wrong, since the section for traits opens withWhat they failed to do is #1 say they AREN'T available to anyone else or #2 have an actual prerequisite that requires you be from the area. What you quoted is no more than a suggestion, like 'look, here are some new traits that work well for characters from here'.The following traits are available to characters from Anuli.You HAVE to be from Anuli in order to take that trait.
They did both of those things by stating "The following traits are available to characters from Anuli." They did not say these traits compliment characters from Anuli or are inspired by Anuli, they flat out said they are available to characters from Anuli. Just because they don't waste wordcount putting "You have to be from Anuli" in every single trait does not mean that the header opening governing all the traits is meaningless flavor text.
By your reasoning you could use Armor Style feats in any type of armor, instead of only the armor that is required the the specific style because rather than repeatedly list that you had to be wearing the armor in every single feat in order to use said feat they put "Armor Style feats can be used only while wearing armor whose type matches the feat's armor proficiency prerequisite"
"The following traits are available to characters from Anuli."
This is not a meaningless suggestion the means absolutely everyone in the world can possess this trait but it's more flavorful for a person who comes from Anuli to have, it literally means you have to be from Anuli to take any of those traits.
For it to mean what you think it does, it would say "The following traits are available only to characters from Anuli" which it does not say.
That's not being clear, that's just being pedantic. You're splitting hairs to get the same outcome.
"The following traits are available to characters from Anuli."
"The following traits are available only to characters from Anuli"
Those both mean the same thing, the lack of the word only does not make the header read "available to characters from Anuli and elsewhere."
For example in the latest Qadira book the character options are prefaced by the header that reads:
Though developed by Keleshites, these character options can be selcted by foreigners as well.
A Good character casting a Good spell won't make him "better", specially when casting at random with no purpose (flower/rainbow spamming) just because it has a Good descriptor. That's why the most basic rule for alignment is the best: Leave the choice to the GM's hands.It should affect him as much as any other 'good act', just as an evil spell should affect them the same as an 'evil act'. That is my point, that the new rules equate the spells to an aligned act. It's saying feeding an orphan is the same as casting protection from evil. We can quibble about the exact formula [how many x spells/acts offset x spells/acts but that's what it boils down to.
The point of them making the spells themselves aligned acts is that in fact (flower/rainbow spamming) would be aligned independent of the intent of the spell. Spamming imps summoning to pass out pretty flowers is still going to make a paladin fall same as (flower/rainbow spamming] does the same for an Antipaladin....
A descriptor by itself does not enforce a Game changing effect:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts.. with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
An Evil descriptor doesn't necesarily make you more evil, as a Good descriptor doesn't necesarily make you more Good. What can have a Game Changing effect is the spell Interaction. Casting an aligned spell, while being an aligned act of that type, may not enforce an alignment balancing (game-changing effect) unless the GM rules it does.
If a character continuously spams aligned spells for the sole purpose of gaming the system (to change or stick to a specific alignment), then the GM should probably give a warning before making a more permanent decision. It's the player the one that CHOSE a specific alignment to start with, so that player should abide by the chosen alignment limits. If a player wants to use Evil spells, then that player should pick an alignment suited for those spells, or the GM may perfectly do that for the player. Also, the more alignment-sensible a character is, the more possible the interaction will have some sort of effect.
A completely different thing are class restrictions. A LG Oracle might "miasma-pop" an Evil spell with no effect, while a LG Cleric "miasma-popping" the same spell (if able to somehow) will probably lose al her powers immediately and might have to attone for the sin she commited. This is not because both did cast the spell, it's because the Cleric is way more heavily-aligned and also violated her class restrictions.
1-. "Rainbow/Miasma popping", having an interaction of zero (as said, casting on a turnip field where it makes no sense or where the effect will clearly have no use) may have a zero alignment balance effect. If the player keeps popping in order to obtaing game-changing effects, then he's more prone to a player scolding before a character alignment balancing.
2-. "Rainbow/Miasma popping", having some sort of alignment interaction with a third-party aligned creature/force, may have a game changing effect, but that effect does not neccesarily have to be an alignment balancing one ("Miasma popping" in front of a Paladin might perfectly end with the paladin scolding the caster, while "Miasma popping" in front of a Solar might perfectly end with the Solar mopping the floor with the caster).
3-. Aligned spellcasting, having an "aligned effect" itself, may perfectly have an alignment balancing effect. The stronger aligned the effect is, the more prone to an alignment change.
|
|
The rules say that evil spells are evil acts. The rules say that evil acts change alignment. The rules say that the GM determines when alignment changes. The text suggests a number close to 2, but that is by no means a "rule".The rules also state that changing alignment is left up to the player.Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement offers a method for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.
Yeah, the same player that is choosing to perform Evil acts, such as casting Evil spells.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the same player that is choosing to perform Evil acts, such as casting Evil spells.The rules say that evil spells are evil acts. The rules say that evil acts change alignment. The rules say that the GM determines when alignment changes. The text suggests a number close to 2, but that is by no means a "rule".The rules also state that changing alignment is left up to the player.Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement offers a method for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.
The GM tells the player where the line is, and the player chooses to cross it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM tells the player where the line is, and the player chooses to cross it.Yeah, the same player that is choosing to perform Evil acts, such as casting Evil spells.The rules say that evil spells are evil acts. The rules say that evil acts change alignment. The rules say that the GM determines when alignment changes. The text suggests a number close to 2, but that is by no means a "rule".The rules also state that changing alignment is left up to the player.Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement offers a method for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.
Bingo.
What methods are available for creating undead using the Animate Undead spell and not turning evil while doing it?Simple. Cast Dominate Person on the Necromancer, then have them cast Animate Dead. You've not cast any spells with an alignment descriptor, so you are in the clear.
GM might oppose this route, but honestly I think the alignments shifting based on spell descriptors is faulty for the GM to rely on. Definitely a stupid system and not something I suggest players or GMs adopting for their games. If the GM wants to ban or limit specific spells from player use, that is reasonable, but going by descriptor is very impractical.
Evil actions alter may alter alignment at DM's discretion.
In this case, not only have you engaged in the evil act of causing undead to be created, you've subjected another creature's free will in the process.
Evil actions don't require a spell descriptor, or any magic at all, to shift your alignment. If the DM rules the actions evil, he has the option to shift your alignment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually you are wrong, since the section for traits opens withThe following traits are available to characters from Anuli.You HAVE to be from Anuli in order to take that trait.What they failed to do is #1 say they AREN'T available to anyone else or #2 have an actual prerequisite that requires you be from the area. What you quoted is no more than a suggestion, like 'look, here are some new traits that work well for characters from here'. It's much like the AP player guider that suggest feats, archetypes, ect that would fit well into the adventures. For it to mean what you think it does, it would say "The following traits are available only to characters from Anuli" which it does not say.
For instance I can say someone from Tian Xia has the Improved Initiative available to them, but that doesn't mean ONLY they can use it. To be clear, the trait is neither region or religion trait and does not have the prerequisites Anuli or Asmodeous.
If that was so, they would not even need to mention Anuli, would they ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this (Anuli stuff) is allowed in PFS, probably via a boon, Then I rather suspect that only Anuli could have it. Now, since this isn't a PFS forum, there is a long tradition of racio-cultural abilities being allowed outside their normal character types, at the GM's discretion. I might allow it at my table, if you came up with a good back-story and you stuck to it well. This could easily go very bad for a character if the player handled it poorly, or tried to use it as an excuse to get away with allignment stretching BS.
This IS Asmodeas we are talking about, and if any god would experiment in branding and market expansion, it would be him. As to the male female thing, well there is no law against gender fluidity, and he(she?) has shown that he is not of the patriarchal sexist mindset. Now, I seriously doubt that he would be at all forgiving of a character that defamed his pilot project by example.
|
|
What methods are available for creating undead using the Animate Undead spell and not turning evil while doing it?Simple. Cast Dominate Person on the Necromancer, then have them cast Animate Dead. You've not cast any spells with an alignment descriptor, so you are in the clear.
GM might oppose this route, but honestly I think the alignments shifting based on spell descriptors is faulty for the GM to rely on. Definitely a stupid system and not something I suggest players or GMs adopting for their games. If the GM wants to ban or limit specific spells from player use, that is reasonable, but going by descriptor is very impractical.
Evil actions alter may alter alignment at DM's discretion.
In this case, not only have you engaged in the evil act of causing undead to be created, you've subjected another creature's free will in the process.
Evil actions don't require a spell descriptor, or any magic at all, to shift your alignment. If the DM rules the actions evil, he has the option to shift your alignment.
I agree that evil actions don't require a spell descriptor to cause alignment shifts.
That said, if taking a creature's free will via magic was evil, the Dominate spell would have the evil descriptor. That spell only does one thing.
As for indirectly creating undead being evil, that's up to GM. As GM, I would be very cautious about alignment shifts due to indirect actions, as that can really spiral quickly and cover much more than the alignments are intended to cover. In addition, telling a necromancer to animate undead is like having a toaster make toast - it's what they do.