| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You don't say, Horror Adventures?
Tldr: regardless of how saintly you are, no matter how many innocents you've clothed, fed, taken a beating for, etc., your alignment will shift to Evil with just 5 castings of a spell with the Evil descriptor. As far as I can tell, all alignment descriptors (Evil, Chaotic, Good, and Lawful) are equal in effective power (evil just comes up most often, because spells with the evil descriptor are the most fun), so I think we can assume that this note on changing alignments is only presented for Evil spells for the sake of saving space, and the rule does in fact exist for all alignment descriptors. So, inversely, no matter how despicable a person might be, how many children he's murdered, how many animals he's mutilated, or how much he openly and vehemently hates the concept of good, he's just 5 castings of Protection from Evil away from having a Good alignment. Meaning, he can shimmy right into that Paladin's house, beg him for a warm bed and meal, and that stupid a**hole won't even know that he's harboring a 20th-level serial killer!
Ahem...
not really sure what to do with this knowledge, beyond the above example. Maybe you could spam Protection from _____ to forego the UMD check to fool a magic item to think you're a different alignment? Any other ideas?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not quite true, as detect [alignment] spells look for active intent as well as your normal alignment.
Even if your alignment is normally "good" because you cast a lot of protection from evil spells each day, it will still register as evil if you are intending to perform evil at the time it is cast upon you.
It's in the detect spells; last sentence of the 8th paragraph:
""
So, better to rely on things like nondetection, misdirection, mind blank, or wear an iron circlet of guarded souls.
You might be right about fooling a passive item though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are also failing to consider that a character who is truly evil would never even consider casting [good] spells, or would do so only grudgingly. And, as ravingdork states, intent matters. And, should they change alignment to Good by doing this, they will be horrified at their past actions and should begin work to make amends for them. It is the player's responsibility to actually play according to the alignment they have written down on their sheet. Writing a big G on your sheet and then continuing to act evil doesn't mean your character is Good, it means your character sheet is lying.
Furthermore, those numbers are advice for GMs, and mean nothing unless your GM chooses to follow such advice. The exact same sentence you bolded begins with the words "The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, should they change alignment to Good by doing this, they will be horrified at their past actions and should begin work to make amends for them.
Alignment doesn't determine one's actions. One's actions determines alignment. Alignment has never been meant to be a straight-jacket for how one should roleplay their character. I'm pretty sure that's clearly spelled out somewhere in the rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does when you forcibly change it by performing Aligned actions, which Aligned spells are.
If you're Evil and you spam Good Aligned spells in quick succession with no other factors inbetween you are now Good, you're not Evil with a G scribbled on your sheet, you're actually Good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Horror adventures is my least favorite book to date because of this rule. You cant have a neutral character that just uses the best tool for the job now without flipping alignments like crazy.
Also, with the whole "you have to ACT evil if you're alignment shifts from spells" thing... No you don't. You're tainted with evil magic (or at least that's what I see as the most sensible explanation as it takes the least amount of agency from the players. The book sadly is very vague.), all forces that care about alignment just sense you as evil and vice versa. Its not a personality swap.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever this rule comes up I prefer to highlight where it says "The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes".
Thus, the example # of castings it gives are irrelavent because ultimately its GM discretion over anything else. And honestly I really wish they had just left it at "repeat castings change alignment" rather than give example numbers, because it leads people to think that they have to run it exactly that way because that's whats written
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cup,
Have you considered the possibility that if you actually made yourself Good, you might actually BE good, so you should play your character differently? If you are going to metagame it, don't do it halfway.
If you don't believe in good versus evil, the game is not built to your tastes. I appreciate the irreverence of it. At my tables this would end badly for you after playing around with it.
I would more draw from the card game here and hold to "the rules don't do what they don't say". As a GM, I would say it is nonsense to think that casting protection from evil over and over would actually turn you character good. Now casting protection from evil and going off and slaying other vile creatures threatening an innocent village; yes that is worthy of being good-aligned.
Also, as already mentioned, if you were truly evil then you wouldn't normally *want* to turn good. And if you truly turned good, then you wouldn't want to be evil.
It is also within the GMs right to allows a truly neutral character cast whatever they want and stay neutral, as long as they are actually staying neutral.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does when you forcibly change it by performing Aligned actions, which Aligned spells are.
If you're Evil and you spam Good Aligned spells in quick succession with no other factors inbetween you are now Good, you're not Evil with a G scribbled on your sheet, you're actually Good.
My house rule: casting spells with the evil descriptor does eventually turn you evil (intent matters). The same does not apply to spells with the good descriptor. Redemption isn't impossible, just exponentially harder than it is to fall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "a spell is evil" thing is really a bad concept, as only the intent can be evil or a part of casting the spell requires an actual evil act, like a sacrifice or a certain spell component. I get why there are good/evil descriptors in the game, but they should never affect alignment imho. If you cast infernal healing on a dying child, is it an evil act? Do it again for his also dying parents and your soul is doomed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cup,
Have you considered the possibility that if you actually made yourself Good, you might actually BE good, so you should play your character differently? If you are going to metagame it, don't do it halfway.
Right, but it's not Metagaming anymore. Alignment has always been a semi-tangible concept in-game, with alignment-based outsiders, but with this rule, there's now a hard cause-and-effect relationship between [alignment] spells and a character's own alignment. While your generic arcane caster probably won't notice this if they rarely cast [alignment] spells, and most Divine casters are simply forbidden from casting spells of their opposed alignments, it's obviously not "common knowledge" that a spell can permanently change your alignment. However, the evidence is there, and the means to studying such a phenomenon are easily available, to the point where if such a thing were questioned, it would be all-too-easy to figure out you just need to cast a few 1st-level spells to change how the universe sees you.
My enthusiasm in my original post was meant to be more sarcastic, but I guess I have a tendency to take it too far and forget to reel it in after I've made my point - which was that this ruling didn't take stuff like this into consideration and was poorly thought through. I don't WANT to be able to munchkin my alignment around, but this rule says I CAN, which is asinine. I know that most GM's would probably put a stop to it, but there are still some GM's who would see what I'm doing, read this rule, shrug, and say "well, I guess you're not doing anything wrong. Proceed."
And like Tinalles said, what does this rule mean for a group playing an evil campaign, where there's bound to be evil-on-evil fighting? I don't want my evil character to slowly become good, just because I'm using Protection from Evil to defend myself from evil people stopping me from doing evil things to THEM. Same thing for a chaotic character; Protection from Chaos is probably the next most used Protection from ________ spell, which is going to turn my chaotic character Lawful if he doesn't cut it out?
Protection spells aside - what about Magic Circle against ______ spells? Now as a Planar Binder, I'm limited to only calling Outsiders of the alignment opposite me, or I risk altering my alignment? Even if the rule WAS only intended to be applied to evil spells - now Good Outsiders are untouchable? That's extremely unfair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not quite true, as detect [alignment] spells look for active intent as well as your normal alignment.
Even if your alignment is normally "good" because you cast a lot of protection from evil spells each day, it will still register as evil if you are intending to perform evil at the time it is cast upon you.
It's in the detect spells; last sentence of the 8th paragraph:
""So, better to rely on things like nondetection, misdirection, mind blank, or wear an iron circlet of guarded souls.
You might be right about fooling a passive item though.
Good call, I did forget about intents actually showing up for Detect alignment spells. This actually throws another wrench into this rule, too. A person who's casting Raise Dead to protect a village from marauders has only good intentions, and is a good person, and is always acting in good ways. Wouldn't his constant good intentions just continue to take priority over their "true alignment?"
|
|
Regarding summoning, that's extremely offset by what you summon, since the summoning spell is the alignment of what you summon.
Protection from Evil = little bit of Good
Summon Babau Demon = whole lotta Evil
As for the Evil vs Evil idea there are other protection spells, and if you're Evil or playing an Evil campaign then you're probably doing a lot to offset the little bit of Good being brought in by the spell.
"it would be all-too-easy to figure out you just need to cast a few 1st-level spells to change how the universe sees you."
No, it would change how you see the universe.
"I don't WANT to be able to munchkin my alignment around, but this rule says I CAN, which is asinine."
No it doesn't. Your alignment changes according to actions, same as it ever was. If you're Good why are you suddenly doing Evil actions?
Intentionally spamming actions to force your alignment to change is a munchkiny thing to do, but people with that mindset regarding alignment were already doing that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This entire thread is a demonstration of the absurdity of alignments and alignment-spells in particular.
If casting an aligned spell is going to affect your alignment it should take into account spells that are actively aligned vs passively aligned. I would define a spell as passively aligned if it does not actively involve a aligned act. Spells like protection from evil would be considered passively aligned, where something like animate dead or summoning a demon would be actively aligned. Passively aligned spells should require a lot more castings to change your alignment. Maybe increase the number of casting by a factor of 10. This would require you to cast protection from evil 20 times before a shift, but 2 castings of animate dead would cause a shift.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you cast infernal healing on a dying child, is it an evil act? Do it again for his also dying parents and your soul is doomed.
A cleric of Iomedae might argue: You could have looked for a third, nonevil option. Choosing the simple path too often eventually leads to your doom.
But you have a point - players shouldn't shift around at the alignment table for minor reasons...
The point of "some magic can be True Evil" has to do with the esoteric nature of magic and the soul, in my opinion, a really good reason this was introduced in Horror Adventures.
We're talking about a source book with roots in Lovecraftian horror which, among other things, introduces readers to the idea of knowledge itself that is "alien", that merely by knowing a thing you can become infected by it.
It's the idea that not only are there things unseen, there are things we don't *want* to see and things which even the powerful magic users of the Pathfinder universe are unprepared for.
Think of it in terms of a god-like entity so evil and so powerful that they left their mark on the universe, an unwholesome scar, which, among other things, results in a new set of incantations who, by the very act of invoking them, puts one's ephemeral self in touch with an evil so great that one becomes tainted by the very act of association.
It goes beyond simple right and wrong, good (lower case) and evil (lower case) and is more like accidentally brushing up against Evil (upper case) and coming away with some of it still clinging to your soul.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my games alignment spells don't shift a caster's alignment. The alignment tags only effect things that directly refer to them (such as whether or not a cleric can cast them), and that's all they do.
It's a simple fix that gets rid of the entire mess. I realize that, that doesn't really solve the core problem, but it's an easy solution that I highly recommend for other tables.
The point of "some magic can be True Evil" has to do with the esoteric nature of magic and the soul, in my opinion, a really good reason this was introduced in Horror Adventures.
We're talking about a source book with roots in Lovecraftian horror which, among other things, introduces readers to the idea of knowledge itself that is "alien", that merely by knowing a thing you can become infected by it.
It's the idea that not only are there things unseen, there are things we don't *want* to see and things which even the powerful magic users of the Pathfinder universe are unprepared for.
Think of it in terms of a god-like entity so evil and so powerful that they left their mark on the universe, an unwholesome scar, which, among other things, results in a new set of incantations who, by the very act of invoking them, puts one's ephemeral self in touch with an evil so great that one becomes tainted by the very act of association.
It goes beyond simple right and wrong, good (lower case) and evil (lower case) and is more like accidentally brushing up against Evil (upper case) and coming away with some of it still clinging to your soul.
So it's not really evil, unless it's "evil evil?"
That is dangerously close to the rational of school children.
So it's not really evil, unless it's "evil evil?"
That is dangerously close to the rational of school children.
No, just that the justification for the [Evil] descriptor on a spell and the impact of just casting it on your alignment, as described in Horror Adventures, presumably has roots in Lovecraftian horror where merely knowing a thing can cause you to devolve into insanity.
Having one of Nyarlathotep's tendrils in your mind will have a far greater effect on someone than plundering the city's gold supply for your own greedy purposes. The latter is an extension of who you are. The former changes who you are.
|
|
so I think we can assume that this note on changing alignments is only presented for Evil spells for the sake of saving space, and the rule does in fact exist for all alignment descriptors. So, inversely, no matter how despicable a person might be, how many children he's murdered, how many animals he's mutilated, or how much he openly and vehemently hates the concept of good, he's just 5 castings of Protection from Evil away from having a Good alignment
That assumes that it's just as easy to become good as it is evil, this is not necessarily true.
so I think we can assume that this note on changing alignments is only presented for Evil spells for the sake of saving space, and the rule does in fact exist for all alignment descriptors. So, inversely, no matter how despicable a person might be, how many children he's murdered, how many animals he's mutilated, or how much he openly and vehemently hates the concept of good, he's just 5 castings of Protection from Evil away from having a Good alignmentThat assumes that it's just as easy to become good as it is evil, this is not necessarily true.
It's harder to do the right thing. It's harder to resist temptation. It's harder to stay disciplined in these ideals for a long period of time. It's NOT harder to cast a spell with the Good descriptor than it is to cast one with the Evil descriptor; but you're saying a spell infused with Good is weaker than the exact same spell infused with Evil? The alignments are meant to be separate but equal; the only reason one might be conceived as better is entirely based on the present societal values of them.
The alignments are meant to be separate but equal; the only reason one might be conceived as better is entirely based on the present societal values of them.What is this based on? Remember, Pathfinder is a moral-absolutes game; it doesn't deal in relativism.
You want me to site my sources for my claim that Good is equal/opposite to Evil and Law is equal/opposite to Chaos?
I think on of the problems with the Ultimate Horror guidlines is the spell they were thinking of in their example. Animate Dead isn't necessarily like other evil spells, in that both the spell is considered evil, and animating the dead is also considered an evil act independent of that (yes, I know people hate this, but you are making an evil thing, descrating a corpse etc. etc. In Golarion this is considered bad.)
So if you are thinking about animate dead, I would guess just a few castings could indeed turn you evil / demonstrate that you are evil however you want to think of it. Other spells, say protection from good for example, probably should have a much less dramatic effect.
I also certainly think that as well as any innate alignment effects a spell has, a characters motivations also matter (either to compound or militate the spell effect). So casting infernal healing to save a child might chock up a minor evil from the spell, but would also chock up a minor good from saving a child. Casting the same spell on yourself so you could continue your murder spree in the orphanage would have a more serious effect.
From this perspective, the 'protection from evil' to hide from a Paladin probably wouldn't work. Although the spell is good, the intention to deceive in order to continue one's wicked acts would be evil, probably at the least canceling out any good effect the spell would have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really hoping this "5 castings to reverse alignment" thing goes the way of the "4 free actions per turn" ruling.
I'm really hoping this "5 castings to reverse alignment" thing goes the way of the "4 free actions per turn" ruling.
I'm not sure that is has to. One thing to remember is the entirety of the Horror Adventures book is to provide new, optional rules that help to create that horror adventure feel.
Therefore, if you're not running a horror game, then the rule can be ignored entirely.
However, if you are running just such a game, then you should consider including it to better promote that sense of corruption that Quintessentially Me spoke of up thread.
I strongly suspect this is the way the game developers priginally intended it to be used, not as a straight up hard rule that effects any and all games, horror-themed or otherwise. In short, I think everyone here is overthinking it. Context folks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, the idea that some magicks are insidious enough that just using them changes your most basic beliefs, like brainwashing, is a pretty horrific concept. Now too much of this, especially going back and forth, would reasonably damage your sanity.
There is a strong emotional context here that many try to ignore. A lot of people do not want any other people, including the GM, to be able to judge what their characters do. Allignments and rules surrounding Allignments are very easily perceived as judgmental attacks. This is not just a rules issue, people who gleefully quote James Jacobs on other threads question his officialness when he writes that the act of animating Dead is an evil act. Animating Dead is my character's cool thing, you have no right to tell me it is bad and will hurt me in some way. I agree with James on this, as I have said, but I can see how it might be taken personally.
The onus is on YOU to prove that they are not equal, since you're the one making that claim.
The slippery slope/tilted scale view of good and evil (evil is easy, good is hard) is a foolish idea to invoke if you consider the ramifications. In a setting where that is the assumption, Good people will be nearly non-existent, neutral people will be a minority, and the vast majority of people will be Evil. The village that needs help? Evil. The farmer whose child was kidnapped? Evil. The head priest of the city? Neutral if you're lucky. Given that most people have ample opportunity for that sweet sinning, but lack the massive redemptive opportunity that adventures offer, the common folk will be unable to overcome the debt of wickedness.
Given the descriptions of Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos, I'd tend to expect the majority of the populace to be neutral, really.
Most people commit minor evils and minor good acts, which aggregate out at a neutral position on that axis - equally, the majority of people will follow along with sensible laws, but might do the Pathfinder equivalent of jaywalking, which would put them as neutral on that axis.
That's sensible, but that doesn't weight evil over good, or else that slow aggregation would push them out of neutral because those minor good acts can't equal the minor evil ones.
The slippery slope/tilted scale view of good and evil (evil is easy, good is hard) is a foolish idea to invoke if you consider the ramifications. In a setting where that is the assumption, Good people will be nearly non-existent, and the vast majority of people will be Neutral.
Fixed that for you. Being good is hard.
You want me to site my sources for my claim that Good is equal/opposite to Evil and Law is equal/opposite to Chaos?The alignments are meant to be separate but equal; the only reason one might be conceived as better is entirely based on the present societal values of them.What is this based on? Remember, Pathfinder is a moral-absolutes game; it doesn't deal in relativism.Correct. I don't know of any Paizo source that says the alignments are 'equal and opposite,' and that's the basis for claiming that "4-castings to become evil" is therefore balanced by "4-castings to become good."
The additional notion that "the only reason one might be conceived as better is entirely based on present societal values"... well, I have no clue where you're getting that.
I'd have thought that the fact that no one alignment plane is decidedly better/stronger, and the pantheon in general is basically a giant stalemate was proof enough. If Evil was stronger, why haven't the good planes been wiped out? Other than that, you've basically told me I need to site my sources when I say that left is equal to right; congratz, you got me, I can't.
As for the societal values part, I was referring to in-game societies. Growing up in Cheliax would certainly give you the impression that Chaos and Good are weaker alignments, because the city is predominantly Lawful Evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's sensible, but that doesn't weight evil over good, or else that slow aggregation would push them out of neutral because those minor good acts can't equal the minor evil ones.Given the descriptions of Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos, I'd tend to expect the majority of the populace to be neutral, really.
Most people commit minor evils and minor good acts, which aggregate out at a neutral position on that axis - equally, the majority of people will follow along with sensible laws, but might do the Pathfinder equivalent of jaywalking, which would put them as neutral on that axis.
Not quite. If you include a reasonable assumption that most people _want_ to be good, that pull can probably balance out the slow easy drift to evil leaving most people neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not quite. If you include a reasonable assumption that most people _want_ to be good, that pull can probably balance out the slow easy drift to evil leaving most people neutral.
Thanks Redelia, though there is somewhat of a progression here. At a certain point those falling into the degradation of evil are more concerned with appearing to be good. When they have fallen past that hope of that they settle for the appearance of power. Of course, hope is hard to totally kill off, so people do find the moral strength to Turn Away from Evil.
Regardless of the gamer desire for Good and Evil to be balanced, they aren't. Good is Larger Than Life, it is a frail old woman (or man) changing the world, sometimes only by example. Evil is Smaller Than Life, it is someone who has taken and encouraged every opportunity to lie, cheat and steal; all for personal aggrandizement, yet is unable to resist the slightest provocation or temptation. Evil is very, very adept at rationalization and self deception.
OK, let's assume for a second that many centuries of philosophers arguing on the natures of good and evil weren't as clueless and pointless as modern nihilism. Our very languages are shaped by this. You fall into evil ways, you climb out of them. Evil is giving in to temptations, good is resisting them. Either can appear powerful, or weak. Evil is internally weak, good internally strong, because it takes effort to be good, to not give in, and effort, like all exercise, builds strength. Giving in does not.
If the game had any semblance of reality, Evil would show as poor Will saves against temptations, Good would show as excellent will saves vs temptation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not quite. If you include a reasonable assumption that most people _want_ to be good, that pull can probably balance out the slow easy drift to evil leaving most people neutral.Thanks Redelia, though there is somewhat of a progression here. At a certain point those falling into the degradation of evil are more concerned with appearing to be good. When they have fallen past that hope of that they settle for the appearance of power. Of course, hope is hard to totally kill off, so people do find the moral strength to Turn Away from Evil.
Regardless of the gamer desire for Good and Evil to be balanced, they aren't. Good is Larger Than Life, it is a frail old woman (or man) changing the world, sometimes only by example. Evil is Smaller Than Life, it is someone who has taken and encouraged every opportunity to lie, cheat and steal; all for personal aggrandizement, yet is unable to resist the slightest provocation or temptation. Evil is very, very adept at rationalization and self deception.
OK, let's assume for a second that many centuries of philosophers arguing on the natures of good and evil weren't as clueless and pointless as modern nihilism. Our very languages are shaped by this. You fall into evil ways, you climb out of them. Evil is giving in to temptations, good is resisting them. Either can appear powerful, or weak. Evil is internally weak, good internally strong, because it takes effort to be good, to not give in, and effort, like all exercise, builds strength. Giving in does not.
If the game had any semblance of reality, Evil would show as poor Will saves against temptations, Good would show as excellent will saves vs temptation.
Honestly, I could argue that it takes effort to be evil as well (at least for the average joe). Most of the time, lying, cheating, and stealing wouldn't be considered Evil, just neutral. It's not evil to cheat on a Math test; it's not evil to lie to your spouse about the affair you had; it's not evil to steal gas; and it's certainly not evil to do those things more frequently. These are the things that average people need to deal with, and they're all closer to chaotic than evil. Murder, torture, embezzlement; these things take a strong resolve to follow through on, and most average people would back out if they ever found themselves on the precipice of committing them - whether because they were afraid of getting caught, or just because the thought made them sick. Though there's not really a label for the force stopping most people from being Good (laziness, maybe? Apathy?), Guilt is the force stopping most people from being Evil. So, just as it takes great resolve to be Good, so too does it take great resolve to be evil.
I think you're really confusing out-of-game resolve with in-game-resolve.; any PC surely knows that it's soooo easy to simply kill the guard barring you from entering the palace, or blackmailing or threatening him than it is to buy him a drink after his shift, befriend him, and get in tomorrow. Presented with this type of scenario out-of-game, however, I'd eat my hat if a person's go-to reaction was to hurt, scare, or otherwise directly negatively impact the guard in any way, and the fact that that person cheated his way through high school wouldn't effect the situation at all. So, no, it's not a simple desire to be good that stops people from simply becoming evil. The alignments are separate but equal, and there's separate but equal forces anchoring the average person to neutral.