What methods are available for creating undead using the Animate Undead spell and not turning evil while doing it?
Use the undead created to build kitty sanctuaries and look after orphan unicorns.
Cast protection from evil whenever you create undead.
Get a GM you can work with to come to a sensible working agreement.
Maintain a balance of good and evil for neutral overall. Sure, you desecrate the bodies and/or souls of creatures, but you can at least keep it restricted to animals that died of natural causes and/or people who gave informed medical consent before death (possibly for compensation to their family upon the signee's death). Then go about the usual good orphan-feeding and call it a day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Convince your GM that casting [evil] spells doesn't really effect your alignment
2. Convince your GM that casting [evil] spells alignment effects depend on the circumstances. Why did you do it? What are you doing with the animated undead? etc/
3. For every [evil] spell you cast, cast a [good] spell to balance you out
But seriously, to me while everyone wants to project the real world of moral ambiguity into the fantasy one, at the end of the day Pathfinder is a world of absolutes. The real world shades of gray have no place. Evil isn't subjective, it is always evil.
So using a evil spell for good ends is still an evil act. You take responsibility for it, and grab an atonement if you're truly repentant. Otherwise your drift toward the evil alignment. I think setting some number of castings as a bit silly. And how much you more towards an evil alignment should be a function of why but it remains an evil act.
But many disagree with that stance, and see that acts in and of themselves aren't evil and whether or not it is evil is subjective. Murder isn't evil if it is justified, or they were a "bad" person. But Pathfinder defined Animate Undead as evil. Always.
3rd-Tier Universal Path Abilities
You must be at least 3rd tier to select these path abilities.
Beyond Morality (Ex): You have no alignment. You can become a member of any class, even one with an alignment requirement, and can never lose your membership because of a change in alignment. If you violate the code of ethics of any of your classes, you might still lose access to certain features of such classes, subject to GM discretion. Attempts to detect your alignment don't return any results. If a class restricts you from casting spells with an alignment descriptor, you can cast such spells without restrictions or repercussions. If you're the target of a spell or effect that is based on alignment, you're treated as the most favorable alignment when determining the spell's effect on you. Any effects that alter alignment have no effect on you. If you lose this effect, you revert to your previous alignment..
Create a magic item that works similar to the False Resurrection spell
When you use the spell Animate Undead you don't use the soul that came from the body, instead you draw the animating force from an existing non-intelligent on the negative plane to the corpse you're animating.
Either your DM doesn't care about this rule or you can cast one good spell for every evil spell.
There is an inefficient way to "animate the dead" and bypass the animate dead spell (and more importantly the Evil descriptor), but it usually require your GM's permission, since it gets into some allowed/not allowed territory (depending on the reading of the spells/rules in question).
Convince your GM to let you use the Animate Objects spell on corpses.
And if your GM allows this, then convince him to let you "research" lesser or customized versions of the spell (basically mashing the two spells together into new version -> 4th/5th lvl spell with touch range, added material component 35G per hd, max Hd equal 2x cater lvl, maybe max size, using the creation rules from Animate Objects...something like that).
If you are neutral in regard to good and evil, prepare both Animate Dead and a Good spell of the same level each morning and be sure to use either both spells or neither spell while avoiding any other strongly aligned actions.
Yep, just cast enough Protection from Evil spells and you're free to raise an army of undead.
Casting Protection from Evil works as a counterbalance. If [Evil] spells shift you towards evil, then [Good] spells shift you towards good. If it doesn't work, then your GM is doing his or her own thing and you'll need to clarify what's actually going on at your table.
The reality is that there's a massive loophole in the RAW alignment system right now that allows many spellcasting classes to short-circuit their natural alignment by repeatedly casting harmless 1st level spells. I don't think Paizo particularly cares about this loophole and intends to ignore it, which means GM's are basically on their own as to how they want to handle this. That means players are going to have to talk to their GM's to figure out how this will be handled at their table.
Talk to your GM about it.
Some GMs creating undead is always evil, even if you try to use them to do good the influence is corrupting and you will eventually turn.
That's how I run my games, because animating the body of a creature into an undead affects the soul, trapping it from going to the normal afterlife into a state of "limbo" so to speak until the undead is destroyed. This is why raise dead is blocked completely if a creature has been turned into undead in my game world.
In my game world no amount of good deeds performed with the undead can completely counteract the corrupting influence of creating undead. In my world, if you make a habit of creating undead you will succumb to the corruption eventually.
However, not all GMs are like me and other will run it differently.
So this is less of an official rules questions and something you more need to address with your GM.
As for all the people suggesting the counterbalancing act of casting both good and evil spells...this is again something that should be discussed with the GM.
Again, when I GM I don't let this obviously meta action function to balance a character's alignment.
Talk to your GM about it.
Some GMs creating undead is always evil, even if you try to use them to do good the influence is corrupting and you will eventually turn.
That's how I run my games, because animating the body of a creature into an undead affects the soul, trapping it from going to the normal afterlife into a state of "limbo" so to speak until the undead is destroyed. This is why raise dead is blocked completely if a creature has been turned into undead in my game world.
In my game world no amount of good deeds performed with the undead can completely counteract the corrupting influence of creating undead. In my world, if you make a habit of creating undead you will succumb to the corruption eventually.
However, not all GMs are like me and other will run it differently.
So this is less of an official rules questions and something you more need to address with your GM.
I assume other spells that trap souls have the same effect even if they aren't [Evil]?
Yes, repeated use of trap the soul would likely turn you evil.
But it is slightly different, the spell itself isn't inherently evil. But trapping the soul of someone is usually evil (unless it's someone incredibly powerful that needs to be "incarcerated" in a more prolific way). Like if you used trap the soul on Karzoug to make sure he could never be revived so long as his soul was trapped, as a GM I wouldn't punish you for that.
But if you go around trapping a bunch of souls to sell to daemons you're going to turn evil so fast your head will spin.
I assume other spells that trap souls have the same effect even if they aren't [Evil]?
Claxon is running a house rule in that respect. Animate Dead has no effect on the soul by RAW. It would be entirely possible to separate a piece of the body prior to the creature becoming undead and then resurrect the creature without destroying the undead first. The problem preventing resurrection isn't that the soul is trapped, but rather that the vessel is damaged or in use by another entity.
Create Undead and other means of creating intelligent undead are trickier, and that one would depend on how you're handling it in your own game since it's not well established if and how the original soul of a body is affected by the creation of a free-willed undead creature. For mindless undead, however, the original soul has moved on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is meta, but I kind of like the idea that Protection from Evil can "protect" you from turning evil. The spell is just doing what it says on the label.
Yes, repeated use of trap the soul would likely turn you evil.
But it is slightly different, the spell itself isn't inherently evil. But trapping the soul of someone is usually evil (unless it's someone incredibly powerful that needs to be "incarcerated" in a more prolific way). Like if you used trap the soul on Karzoug to make sure he could never be revived so long as his soul was trapped, as a GM I wouldn't punish you for that.
But if you go around trapping a bunch of souls to sell to daemons you're going to turn evil so fast your head will spin.
So regardless of the quoted reasons why animate dead is so bad that nothing good can come of it your fine with a non-evil spell doing the same thing to a soul not corrupting the user if the purpose is good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As others have said, get a sensible GM who ignores the silly inherent alignment rule of certain spells
It is meta, but I kind of like the idea that Protection from Evil can "protect" you from turning evil. The spell is just doing what it says on the label.
I completely agree that the meta is really cool. I spent a long time on a thought experiment on the ramifications of this loophole on a fantasy setting. As applied to mortals it's pretty deep, and means alignment is a very shaky measure of morality. But then it hit me: if the loophole applies to mortals, why not gods? If mortals can play fast and loose to manipulate their alignment, can gods do the same? I eventually concluded that this would lead us to effectively run the radiant and shadow alternate alignment rules, where alignment is completely disconnected from ethics.
Couldn't the pre-erratum Juju Oracle do this?
So regardless of the quoted reasons why animate dead is so bad that nothing good can come of it your fine with a non-evil spell doing the same thing to a soul not corrupting the user if the purpose is good.Yes, repeated use of trap the soul would likely turn you evil.
But it is slightly different, the spell itself isn't inherently evil. But trapping the soul of someone is usually evil (unless it's someone incredibly powerful that needs to be "incarcerated" in a more prolific way). Like if you used trap the soul on Karzoug to make sure he could never be revived so long as his soul was trapped, as a GM I wouldn't punish you for that.
But if you go around trapping a bunch of souls to sell to daemons you're going to turn evil so fast your head will spin.
I had some trouble understanding your sentence here, but I think after reading it a few times I got it.
Yes, animate dead (and other spells that create undead) are so terrible (because of how they effect souls) that they are inherently evil spells, and if used repeatedly will turn a user evil. No amount of "balancing spells" or good intentions can protect against it. A single casting wont turn you evil, but repeated use definitely will. I don't have a specific number of castings or anything like that. My players simply have the understanding that deciding to use undead is a path that leads to an evil character in my games. That doesn't mean you're out of the game necessarily though, just that you're evil.
As for why trap the soul is different, if that is the issue you're hinging on, it's because trap the soul doesn't "harm" the soul like animate dead does (for my game world). It's removing the soul from the natural order of things, but not in a "permanent" fashion like the creation of undead does. Edit: Just realized I may not have mentioned previously that for my game world animating undead both removes the soul from the natural cycle of souls and also leaves a taint on the soul which affects what happens to it in the afterlife, if/when the soul reaches the afterlife. Killing the undead frees the soul, but doesn't remove the taint of undeath.
And further, if you animate Karzoug and only Karzoug it would be an evil act mitigated (to some extent) by the good of removing him from the world. If you did not animate other undead, and didn't perform other evil acts you would be slightly more evil than you were before, but that sole act would be unlikely to change your alignment.
For me alignment and changing alignment are based on how I feel about the situation, I do not feel compelled to be bound to some rigid structure about how to adjudicate it. However, I do always warn my players about how their actions could affect their alignment before they ever take the action, so I'm not trying to play some gotcha game.
See that makes a bit more consistent sense. See I was working off the theory that destroying the undead would free the soul not end things permanently. And I assumed that you would be on the up and up with players. I am a stickler for consistency though if raising and undead is bad because it is desecrating a corpse and trapping a soul then i would assume that either of those actions independent of the other is also evil.
I am a stickler for consistency though if raising and undead is bad because it is desecrating a corpse and trapping a soul then i would assume that either of those actions independent of the other is also evil.
And they both are for my game world.
Removing souls from the natural order is bad, and pisses off a lot of non-evil outsiders. Even a lot of devils are against it since souls are how they get more devils, though there is a level of pragmatism that says "As long as I'm the only one doing it it's fine, but I can't let everyone do it".
If you only animate a couple undead in a lifetime you probably wont turn evil, same for trap the soul.
But if your solution to every problem is either of those you're going to end up evil.
I don't see how making an undead can be trapping a soul though. You could make an undead from a clone or from a creature that's already reincarnated. Neither has a soul and yet it works the same as a fresh corpse.
You can even make multiple undead from a single body. Someone could die and become a ghost and then you take their body and turn it into a skeleton or a zombie.
I don't see how making an undead can be trapping a soul though.
To be clear, Claxon is talking about his personal houserules. I'm not aware of any official source that has ever implied that mindless undead have any effect on the original soul that inhabited the body they were created from. Intelligent undead may be another matter, but that's unclear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AFAIR that is the case for Golarion which is why Pharasma is so opposed to undead.
I don't see how making an undead can be trapping a soul though.To be clear, Claxon is talking about his personal houserules. I'm not aware of any official source that has ever implied that mindless undead have any effect on the original soul that inhabited the body they were created from. Intelligent undead may be another matter, but that's unclear.
I wouldn't so much call it rules as much as setting, but yes. This is about how I run my games.
Many GMs have strong feelings when it comes to undead and alignment and how these things interact with one another. It's a good idea to talk to your GM rather than try to find any sort of "rules" on the subject.
AFAIR that is the case for Golarion which is why Pharasma is so opposed to undead.
My understanding is that is how James Jacobs runs it, who is the creative director but it may not be made clear in the rules at any point.
You see, this is why I make sure to keep myself as true neutral my way of minor spellcasting. Most restrictions only apply for opposed alignments.
I personally really dislike asymmetrical applications of the rules.
I'd just make the act of creating undead inherently evil. It's clear and simple. Otherwise it kind of feels like your trying to justify it by applying half a rule, and ignoring that rule when it's inconvenient - aligned spells either change your alignment or they don't.
If they do then pro evil washes out all the ugly stains.
|
I don't see how making an undead can be trapping a soul though.To be clear, Claxon is talking about his personal houserules. I'm not aware of any official source that has ever implied that mindless undead have any effect on the original soul that inhabited the body they were created from. Intelligent undead may be another matter, but that's unclear.
IIRC James Jacobs stated that creating a lesser undead from someone's remains does hurt the person's soul a little but nothing on par with becoming an intelligent undead
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since Mr. Jacobs came to the conclusions I did, apparently via the route I did, I agree with him. I am less than enamored with shades of gray than many though. I wouldn't say any of this is hard canon, but it occasionally generates rather a large emotional response from either viewpoint. As so many have said, talk to your GM, and be prepared for possible strong responses. A lot of this challenges people's basic assumptions, which is rarely appreciated. This is all a mix in-game and out of game social constructs. You are going to have to address that if you aren't on the same page as the GM. Don't expect a rules argument is going to sway anyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many android souls could have inhabited the same body over the course of millennia. So, if you make an undead from an android, which souls are affected?
Casting Protection from Evil works as a counterbalance. If [Evil] spells shift you towards evil, then [Good] spells shift you towards good. If it doesn't work, then your GM is doing his or her own thing and you'll need to clarify what's actually going on at your table.
The reality is that there's a massive loophole in the RAW alignment system right now that allows many spellcasting classes to short-circuit their natural alignment by repeatedly casting harmless 1st level spells. I don't think Paizo particularly cares about this loophole and intends to ignore it, which means GM's are basically on their own as to how they want to handle this. That means players are going to have to talk to their GM's to figure out how this will be handled at their table.
Unless your GM houserules that the Evil <-> Good alignment can be measured in a 0-100 scale, adding or removing points based on spells cast (something totally absurd), that's not how alignment works.
This is the basic alignment rule any GM should use:
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.
I'd say that no competent GM will allow a player to knowingly make an Evil act inside the game and knowlingly try to "meta" out of it by casting rainbows and flowers at random. An in-game aligned act should only be countered by another in-game aligned act, not by a "meta" aligned act.
If you're making an aligned act as a character and trying to meta out of that act's effects as a player, you totally know you're performing an evil act and are totally trying to protect form it's possible alignment effects. That actually means premeditation, and thus, I'd actually add extra bonus points towards alignment change depending on the game situation (so Raise Dead + "meta" PfE = bonus points towards alignment change; Summon Demon + "character" PfE to protect the player from being raped = common sense and normal points towards alignment change).
If you are "Good" and the GM sees you're constantly casting Evil spells... well, you're not "that" good then. The more aligned towards one side a character is, the more impact an Aligned act towards the opposite side should be, but the more the charazcter is found in a "gray" area (neutral), the less impact it should have unless the spell or act itself is clearly good or evil. This is the typical choice that must be left at GM's discretion. Casting a "minor" Evil Spell, specially if it's used sparringly, should not have severe alignmente changes, but a spell or act heavily considered as Evil (desecrating dead for example) will have consequences.
By that "counterbalance" rule of yours, most neutral characters in "hero" campaigns would probably end up Good in few levels because they're going to cast way more Protection from Evil and other Good aligned spells to protect them from their everyday baddies than they're going to cast Evil spells to deal with them.
Unless your GM houserules that the Evil <-> Good alignment can be measured in a 0-100 scale, adding or removing points based on spells cast (something totally absurd), that's not how alignment works.
Ultimate Intrigue added rules stating that casting several aligned spells in quick succession changes your alignment a step. I can't find the text right now though. Maybe someone else can post that.
Unless your GM houserules that the Evil <-> Good alignment can be measured in a 0-100 scale, adding or removing points based on spells cast (something totally absurd), that's not how alignment works.Ultimate Intrigue added rules stating that casting several aligned spells in quick succession changes your alignment a step. I can't find the text right now though. Maybe someone else can post that.
Not sure if it was on here or a rulebook but it was said creating a mythic undead automatically turned you evil.
By that "counterbalance" rule of yours, most neutral characters in "hero" campaigns would probably end up Good in few levels because they're going to cast way more Protection from Evil and other Good aligned spells to protect them from their everyday baddies than they're going to cast Evil spells to deal with them.
You're forgetting the spell infernal healing. You know, that EVIL, EVIL spell that lets you heal people with a 1st level spell slot?
Unless your GM houserules that the Evil <-> Good alignment can be measured in a 0-100 scale, adding or removing points based on spells cast (something totally absurd), that's not how alignment works.Ultimate Intrigue added rules stating that casting several aligned spells in quick succession changes your alignment a step. I can't find the text right now though. Maybe someone else can post that.
I believe it's from Horror Adventures, actually. I don't have my books in front of me right now to check the exact text, but that is the gist of it. If you cast enough spells with an alignment descriptor and your alignment shifts irrespective of any other factors. It's actually worse than a 0-100 scale in some ways. At least a 0-100 scale can take magnitude into account.
I don't think many GM's would allow this loophole in practice. Now, I actually do think following the RAW to their logical conclusion is kinda cool, but it functionally plays as a variant alignment rule that diverges substantially from the RAI so few groups would go for it. That means there's a lot of table variation on this matter and everyone needs to ask their GM how this will be handled at their table since there's very little in the way of consistency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that "counterbalance" rule of yours, most neutral characters in "hero" campaigns would probably end up Good in few levels because they're going to cast way more Protection from Evil and other Good aligned spells to protect them from their everyday baddies than they're going to cast Evil spells to deal with them.You're forgetting the spell infernal healing. You know, that EVIL, EVIL spell that lets you heal people with a 1st level spell slot?
Or, alternatively, tempts you to tap into infernal powers with only the best of intentions.
Since Mr. Jacobs came to the conclusions I did, apparently via the route I did, I agree with him. I am less than enamored with shades of gray than many though. I wouldn't say any of this is hard canon, but it occasionally generates rather a large emotional response from either viewpoint. As so many have said, talk to your GM, and be prepared for possible strong responses. A lot of this challenges people's basic assumptions, which is rarely appreciated. This is all a mix in-game and out of game social constructs. You are going to have to address that if you aren't on the same page as the GM. Don't expect a rules argument is going to sway anyone.
Absolutely this.
I am not a shades of grey GM. My games are pretty black and white, and you're there to be BIG DAMN HEROES™ (usually). I'm not looking to explore the nuances of alignment.
No amount of rules discussion will sway my opinion on how to run things.
The rules in Horror Adventures give the big caveat that they're just guidelines and its GM discretion all the way.
I think they also say that it's much easier to fall to evil than rise to good, but I could be wrong about that one.
This is a big thing for me.
Being good is hard, being evil is easy.
Falling from grace is easy, rising back up is difficult.
There is no atonement spell in my game. As a GM, I will warn you when your proposed actions might affect your alignment to confirm if you want to continue with them. So if you choose to act that way you are choosing evil (or whatever alignment). You have to ardently and truly repent for evil actions to become good in my game, not just cast some spells to work your way back.
Or, alternatively, tempts you to tap into infernal powers with only the best of intentions.By that "counterbalance" rule of yours, most neutral characters in "hero" campaigns would probably end up Good in few levels because they're going to cast way more Protection from Evil and other Good aligned spells to protect them from their everyday baddies than they're going to cast Evil spells to deal with them.You're forgetting the spell infernal healing. You know, that EVIL, EVIL spell that lets you heal people with a 1st level spell slot?
LOL It tempts you as much as a protect evil spell tempts you to be good... You figure that out and let me know. ;)
Also note I brought it up in response to the 'you'll be using prot evil more than evil spells'. An arcane healing spells could see as much use as prot evil IMO.
I think they also say that it's much easier to fall to evil than rise to good, but I could be wrong about that one.
One being easier/harder is moot though as long as spells can move it. Even if it's 20 to 1, all I have to do is spend a day or two just casting good spells to clear off the evil of an evil spell. It's just a matter of how easy/hard it is. Now if only evil spells do anything and good don't, then that brings the while process into question.
By that "counterbalance" rule of yours, most neutral characters in "hero" campaigns would probably end up Good in few levels because they're going to cast way more Protection from Evil and other Good aligned spells to protect them from their everyday baddies than they're going to cast Evil spells to deal with them.You're forgetting the spell infernal healing. You know, that EVIL, EVIL spell that lets you heal people with a 1st level spell slot?
I didn't actually forget Infernal Healing... I actually was having that spell in mind when I said the "Casting a "minor" Evil Spell, specially if it's used sparringly..." sentence... :)
Here's a decent rule used for PFS Organized Play. I think it's a little "light" but still a good way to start.
My point as a GM would be this one:
If a character is "just aligned towards good/evil", that character should avoid using spells, items or doing acts from an opposed alignment unless it's a last resource or is needed for a clear purpose. IH is not a spell that character would normally learn or write on a spellbook, but still, if she has access to it, might use it here and there.
If a character is "heavily aligned" towards Good/Evil (Paladins, Clerics, Inquisitors...), that character should actually act in consequence of such spells being cast on her presence. A character like that would be an unwilling target for an Infernal Healing, for example, and would absolutely avoid to use one of such spell unless it's the last resort to save a life (for example), and would probably have to attone after such a "tainted act".
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.
Ultimate Intrigue added rules stating that casting several aligned spells in quick succession changes your alignment a step. I can't find the text right now though. Maybe someone else can post that.
Maybe is this one from Horror Adventures?:
Evil Spells:
This section includes a large number of evil spells. Casting an
evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting
such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this
only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or
if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over
a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create
guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will
if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether
the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two
evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and
three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood
to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings,
the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require
sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes
the caster evil in almost every circumstance.
Those who are forbidden from casting spells with an
opposed alignment might lose their divine abilities if
they circumvent that restriction (via Use Magic Device, for
example), depending on how strict their deities are.
Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies
to spells with other alignment descriptors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. That's the text. And nothing I've read makes those sound like alternative rules. So casting a few good spells around your evil spells, should keep you good.
Yeah. That's the text. And nothing I've read makes those sound like alternative rules. So casting a few good spells around your evil spells, should keep you good.
Well, if you do NOT use UI in your game, then those rules can be ignored.
Also, even if you do enforce these rules, there's still the difference between what could be considered a "light evil spell" (I'd say Infernal Healing fits), and a "major evil spell" (I'd say Raise Dead fits).
Even if you were allowed to meta the game by dropping a random rainbow here and there to "counter a minor spell", a major evil spell will immedistely drop your alignment, and depending on class you might even lose your spellcasting until you attone.
Yeah. That's the text. And nothing I've read makes those sound like alternative rules. So casting a few good spells around your evil spells, should keep you good.Well, if you do NOT use UI in your game, then those rules can be ignored. Many groups play with a specific set of rulebooks allowed to prevent having to cope with a couple million rules, classes, archetypes and changes.
Also, even if you do enforce these rules, there's still the difference between what could be considered a "light evil spell" (I'd say Infernal Healing fits), and a "major evil spell" (I'd say Raise Dead fits). Even if you were allowed to meta the game by dropping a random rainbow here and there to "counter a minor spell", a major evil spell will immedistely drop your alignment, and depending on class you might even lose your spellcasting until you attone.
Even if you were allowed to meta the game by dropping a random rainbow here and there to "counter a minor spell", a major evil spell will immedistely drop your alignment, and depending on class you might even lose your spellcasting until you attone.
Depends on the shift. If you are good and turn neutral from an evil act/spell, you may easily still want to turn good by casting a few good spells in succession, because neutral still appreciates good.
As for losing spell casting abilities, that's possible for some clerics if their alignments don't sync up well with their activities. But if you're a cleric of a good deity trying to do something like this, then you'll probably get in trouble for the evil spells regardless of what your alignment is at the end of the day.
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.