|
Yeah! Spells that involve tearing off parts of people's souls and stuffing them in bodies to serve your will (create undead) or drinking someone's blood in order to learn their spells (blood transcription) aren't evil in the least!No more so then the spells that burn victims to death, spells that jerk the victim's skeleton around in their body, spells that enslaves free willed planar creatures to die for you, or spells that strip victims of their free will or agency. Let's real-talk for a moment here; a vast majority of the spells in the game has no place in a civil society since they are purely destructive, many of them horrifically so.There's a difference. F!*@ing with souls or cannibalism are Evil and that's tied into the spells.
Just being destructive isn't Evil, otherwise weapons would be Evil too.
Maybe with some of the fire spells; I would argue that a quick death by sword is far more merciful then burning the death but YMMV. You completely glossed over spells like mind control spells like possession and dominate person, torture spells like boneshaker or boneshatter, or enslaving spells like the summon monster line. Compared to spells like that, creating mindless undead seems rather tame.
|
There are countless ways you could have gotten permission to take that peice of somone's soul.
Indeed, imagine that a samurai desired to aid thier master, even in death, and gave permission to be raised as an undead for as long as thier master is alive.
Still evil, because of reasons.
Why would he do that when Raise Dead exists? Especially considering that necromancy is going to either make him a mindless undead that instinctively kills indiscriminantly when not directly controlled, or an intelligent undead such as a ghoul, that is just inherently evil. Plus his martial skill isn't likely to transfer over to undeath, as most undead lose their memories when they come back.
He could serve him as alot better via coming back with raise dead. And certainly such a loyal servant is worth the component cost.
You could also make the argument that only an incredibly selfish (and most likely evil) person would trap someones soul to serve after death rather than let them move on, regardless of their "permission" to do so.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a reminder...
Just like the [fire] descriptor means that actual fire is created by the spell, the [evil] descriptor means that actual evil is created by the spell (which is to say, particles from the evil outer planes). It has nothing to do with what you are using the spell for.
You can have the best reason (and the best actual results) for casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor, and it is still an evil act because you have increased the amount of evil in the world.
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Yeah! Spells that involve tearing off parts of people's souls and stuffing them in bodies to serve your will (create undead)
Weirdly enough none of what you wrote is actually evil. The evil part comes in that create undead involves dipping a soul into concentrated evil. Get rid of that part and bizarrely enough the church of Pharasma goes from wanting to murder you to eyeing you suspiciously.
Why would he do that when Raise Dead exists? Especially considering that necromancy is going to either make him a mindless undead that instinctively kills indiscriminantly when not directly controlled, or an intelligent undead such as a ghoul, that is just inherently evil. Plus his martial skill isn't likely to transfer over to undeath, as most undead lose their memories when they come back.
He could serve him as alot better via coming back with raise dead. And certainly such a loyal servant is worth the component cost.
You could also make the argument that only an incredibly selfish (and most likely evil) person would trap someones soul to serve after death rather than let them move on, regardless of their "permission" to do so.
Why would he do that when Raise Dead exists? Especially considering that necromancy is going to either make him a mindless undead that instinctively kills indiscriminantly when not directly controlled, or an intelligent undead such as a ghoul, that is just inherently evil. Plus his martial skill isn't likely to transfer over to undeath, as most undead lose their memories when they come back.
He could serve him as alot better via coming back with raise dead. And certainly such a loyal servant is worth the component cost.
You could also make the argument that only an incredibly selfish (and most likely evil) person would trap someones soul to serve after death rather than let them move on, regardless of their "permission" to do so.
Why is a ghoul always evil, again? Remind me.
It's a free willed creature, last I checked, yes?
It has an urge to consume human flesh, true?
But free willed creatures needn't act on thier urges, yes?
so, why is a ghoul always evil?
And a few reasons-
Your master is a wizard.
They cannot cast raise dead, and know no clerics of sufficient level to do so.
|
|
Weirdly enough none of what you wrote is actually evil. The evil part comes in that create undead involves dipping a soul into concentrated evil. Get rid of that part and bizarrely enough the church of Pharasma goes from wanting to murder you to eyeing you suspiciously.
Can you quote anything cannon proving the "dipping a soul into concentrated evil thing"? Because I've never seen that published in any Paizo material, or mentioned by a Paizo employee.
I could be wrong however, and please correct me if I am.
Just a reminder...
Just like the [fire] descriptor means that actual fire is created by the spell, the [evil] descriptor means that actual evil is created by the spell (which is to say, particles from the evil outer planes). It has nothing to do with what you are using the spell for.You can have the best reason (and the best actual results) for casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor, and it is still an evil act because you have increased the amount of evil in the world.
so, protection from evil, then.
Remember to spam it every day-
It makes you somehow a good person because reasons.
Hmm.
Thst makes a good point, actually.
If creating undead is always evil because of evil energy-
Just cast protection from evil after. Problem solved.
|
|
Why is a ghoul always evil, again? Remind me.
It's a free willed creature, last I checked, yes?
It has an urge to consume human flesh, true?
But free willed creatures needn't act on thier urges, yes?
so, why is a ghoul always evil?
And a few reasons-
Your master is a wizard.
They cannot cast raise dead, and know no clerics of sufficient level to do so.
Eh, not all undead have to be evil, that's true. But as you can see from published Paizo material, its exceptionally rare for undead to come back as non-evil. Why this is, who knows? But it is true.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Soul enslavement is quite a bit different than using burning hands or boneshatter to kill an evil orc raiding a village.
Spells like charm person can be evil depending on how you use them, but aren't inherently so. Planar Binding isn't inherently either. Its certainly an inconvience to drag that outsider to you, but not inherently evil. Especially considerring any good aligned caster is going to bargain for its services, not simply try to enslave it.
Basically most of your examples have nothing inherently evil about them and are all about how you use them. Trapping a piece of someone's soul inside a corpse and forcing it to linger on is inherently evil though.
*shrug* I would say that Dominate Person is more inherently evil then Animate Dead. For example, I can animate an animal (animating humanoids is a suckers bet because they lose their class HD and are really weak) which eliminates this whole "soul" issue; Dominate Person ALWAYS strips a humanoid of their free will and turns them into a slave. It seems odd to be deeply concerned with the sanctity of ones liberty after death but not care all that much about it before death.
Eh, not all undead have to be evil, that's true. But as you can see from published Paizo material, its exceptionally rare for undead to come back as non-evil. Why this is, who knows? But it is true.Why is a ghoul always evil, again? Remind me.
It's a free willed creature, last I checked, yes?
It has an urge to consume human flesh, true?
But free willed creatures needn't act on thier urges, yes?
so, why is a ghoul always evil?
And a few reasons-
Your master is a wizard.
They cannot cast raise dead, and know no clerics of sufficient level to do so.
Rare, I'm fine with. Totally understandable.
But it's treated like a hard rule most of the time, it seems.
|
|
*shrug* I would say that Dominate Person is more inherently evil then Animate Dead. For example, I can animate an animal (animating humanoids is a suckers bet because they lose their class HD and are really weak) which eliminates this whole "soul" issue; Dominate Person ALWAYS strips a humanoid of their free will and turns them into a slave. It seems odd to be deeply concerned with the sanctity of ones liberty after death but not care all that much about it before death.
I certainly think that Dominate Person can be evil based on how you use it. Especially if you keep it up for its full duration just to have your own personal slave. But I think it certainly can be used in a non-evil way, such as using it on an evil necromancer with an army of undead and then having him force his army to stand down and surrender himself.
Also, I'm pretty sure animals have souls in Pathfinder. As far as I know Positive Energy creates all life and does so in the form of giving creatures souls.
But once again, I could be wrong about that.
|
|
Just a reminder...
Just like the [fire] descriptor means that actual fire is created by the spell, the [evil] descriptor means that actual evil is created by the spell (which is to say, particles from the evil outer planes). It has nothing to do with what you are using the spell for.You can have the best reason (and the best actual results) for casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor, and it is still an evil act because you have increased the amount of evil in the world.
so, protection from evil, then.
Remember to spam it every day-
It makes you somehow a good person because reasons.Hmm.
Thst makes a good point, actually.
If creating undead is always evil because of evil energy-
Just cast protection from evil after. Problem solved.
Well, depending on the particle ratios, sure, you are exactly right. For PFS that's pretty much how it works. In my home campaign it's more like 10 Protection from Evils = 1 Create Undead.
|
|
Just a reminder...
Just like the [fire] descriptor means that actual fire is created by the spell, the [evil] descriptor means that actual evil is created by the spell (which is to say, particles from the evil outer planes). It has nothing to do with what you are using the spell for.You can have the best reason (and the best actual results) for casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor, and it is still an evil act because you have increased the amount of evil in the world.
so, protection from evil, then.
Remember to spam it every day-
It makes you somehow a good person because reasons.Hmm.
Thst makes a good point, actually.
If creating undead is always evil because of evil energy-
Just cast protection from evil after. Problem solved.
Strange how alignment purists always get bent out of shape about trying to pull that stunt. "You casts too many Evil spells, you are now Evil!" "You can't become Good just by casting Good spells, it's doesn't work that way!"
|
|
Well, depending on the particle ratios, sure, you are exactly right. For PFS that's pretty much how it works. In my home campaign it's more like 10 Protection from Evils = 1 Create Undead.Just a reminder...
Just like the [fire] descriptor means that actual fire is created by the spell, the [evil] descriptor means that actual evil is created by the spell (which is to say, particles from the evil outer planes). It has nothing to do with what you are using the spell for.You can have the best reason (and the best actual results) for casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor, and it is still an evil act because you have increased the amount of evil in the world.
so, protection from evil, then.
Remember to spam it every day-
It makes you somehow a good person because reasons.Hmm.
Thst makes a good point, actually.
If creating undead is always evil because of evil energy-
Just cast protection from evil after. Problem solved.
IMO the worst thing Paizo has ever done is give a hard number on how many castings of a good spell or evil spell can shift your alignment. At least they had the sense to give it the caveat that they're just example numbers and ultimately the GM gets to decide if and when your alignment changes from it.
*adds a loyal beyond death samurai to the list of chsrecters to play when they have a game*Spiritualist - the dead samurai is the phantom.
I'm gonna go look at that.
The Phantom specifically isn't a typical undead and isn't evil, so I'd say go for it man!I'm gonna go look at that.*adds a loyal beyond death samurai to the list of chsrecters to play when they have a game*Spiritualist - the dead samurai is the phantom.
Aaaaand it's in the occult book witch I know none of the rules for and don't care enough to learn them on top of the rest of the heaping pile of rules.
(Much like the intrigue rules)
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the worst thing Paizo has ever done is give a hard number on how many castings of a good spell or evil spell can shift your alignment. At least they had the sense to give it the caveat that they're just example numbers and ultimately the GM gets to decide if and when your alignment changes from it.
I'm pretty sure that means it's not a hard number.
|
|
The Phantom specifically isn't a typical undead and isn't evil, so I'd say go for it man!I'm gonna go look at that.*adds a loyal beyond death samurai to the list of chsrecters to play when they have a game*Spiritualist - the dead samurai is the phantom.
Aaaaand it's in the occult book witch I know none of the rules for and don't care enough to learn them on top of the rest of the heaping pile of rules.
(Much like the intrigue rules)
Psychic Spellcasting actually isn't really that complex (imo it's simpler than arcane casting), and you could pick up the spiritualist class mechanics pretty quick.
I'm with you on intrigue rules though.
|
|
IMO the worst thing Paizo has ever done is give a hard number on how many castings of a good spell or evil spell can shift your alignment. At least they had the sense to give it the caveat that they're just example numbers and ultimately the GM gets to decide if and when your alignment changes from it.I'm pretty sure that means it's not a hard number.
Whenever it comes up on the forums people always treat it that way though. I can't count the number of times I've seen "but 3 evil spells makes you evil!". People tend to stop treating a subject as subjective once the publisher puts out their 2 cents on the matter.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever it comes up on the forums people always treat it that way though. I can't count the number of times I've seen "but 3 evil spells makes you evil!".IMO the worst thing Paizo has ever done is give a hard number on how many castings of a good spell or evil spell can shift your alignment. At least they had the sense to give it the caveat that they're just example numbers and ultimately the GM gets to decide if and when your alignment changes from it.I'm pretty sure that means it's not a hard number.
That's more an issue of people being terrible readers than Paizo doing the worst thing ever. A lot of people were asking and arguing about it in alignment threads before it was published, we just had less information. Now we know about what is appropriate and are free to deviate from a known value rather than make rules up completely.
|
|
Strange how alignment purists always get bent out of shape about trying to pull that stunt. "You casts too many Evil spells, you are now Evil!" "You can't become Good just by casting Good spells, it's doesn't work that way!"Just a reminder...
Just like the [fire] descriptor means that actual fire is created by the spell, the [evil] descriptor means that actual evil is created by the spell (which is to say, particles from the evil outer planes). It has nothing to do with what you are using the spell for.You can have the best reason (and the best actual results) for casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor, and it is still an evil act because you have increased the amount of evil in the world.
so, protection from evil, then.
Remember to spam it every day-
It makes you somehow a good person because reasons.Hmm.
Thst makes a good point, actually.
If creating undead is always evil because of evil energy-
Just cast protection from evil after. Problem solved.
I have no problem with this whatsoever. Of course, most of the time, players just want to *say* they'll do that, but then never actually spend the resources to do it. But I heartily endorse this method. I think of it as pollution remediation.
But it's totally not a thing in PFS, and this *is* the PFS forum...
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Weirdly enough none of what you wrote is actually evil. The evil part comes in that create undead involves dipping a soul into concentrated evil. Get rid of that part and bizarrely enough the church of Pharasma goes from wanting to murder you to eyeing you suspiciously.Can you quote anything cannon proving the "dipping a soul into concentrated evil thing"? Because I've never seen that published in any Paizo material, or mentioned by a Paizo employee.
I could be wrong however, and please correct me if I am.
Yeah its been the entire stick of undead since the beginning and is cited as what the Spiritualist does. It stops the ghostie from becoming evil as it descends into the Negative Energy Plane.
|
|
Yeah its been the entire stick of undead since the beginning and is cited as what the Spiritualist does. It stops the ghostie from becoming evil as it descends into the Negative Energy Plane.Weirdly enough none of what you wrote is actually evil. The evil part comes in that create undead involves dipping a soul into concentrated evil. Get rid of that part and bizarrely enough the church of Pharasma goes from wanting to murder you to eyeing you suspiciously.Can you quote anything cannon proving the "dipping a soul into concentrated evil thing"? Because I've never seen that published in any Paizo material, or mentioned by a Paizo employee.
I could be wrong however, and please correct me if I am.
So I found the relevant text in the Spiritualist Class.
When a creature dies, its spirit flees its body and begins the next stage of its existence. Debilitating emotional attachments during life and other psychic corruptions cause some spirits to drift into the Ethereal Plane and descend toward the Negative Energy Plane. Some of these spirits are able to escape the pull of undeath and make their way back to the Material Plane, seeking refuge in a psychically attuned mind
Which has nothing to do with creating undead, only natural forming undead.
However, when you're using animate dead you are in fact ripping a piece of that creatures soul and forcing it back into a dead body. You're literally enslaving a soul to create mindless undead under your control. So yeah, I'd say that you're still doing something evil.
|
|
Really, why can't the Necromancers actually take us Pallies into consideration instead??Because they lose half their functionality when they do, while the Paladin gets to enjoy all of their class features.
Depends on the GM. I've had some try to make me fall for working with necromancers or evil characters in general before.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its a three way street
the paladin has to not smite the undead
the necromancer can't make the ghoul twerk the paladin going "yanyah can't hit me..."
and the DM can't make the paladin fall for abiding by the metagame considerations that he wants to play his character.
|
|
Its a three way street
the paladin has to not smite the undead
the necromancer can't make the ghoul twerk the paladin going "yanyah can't hit me..."
and the DM can't make the paladin fall for abiding by the metagame considerations that he wants to play his character.
Also this is society and I would expect that leadership would overrule a GM making a paladin fall for playing in a game with necromancer. That is kinda BS and really not in the spirit of organized play. Funny part is, there is plenty of paladin codes that do not focus on killing anything that radiates an evil aura. It is unfortunate so many play paladins as lawful stupid zealots instead of thoughtful exemplars of their deity.
|
This entire thread should have been locked after the opening post. A joke that was going to lead to arguments over alignment.
Sad as it is, I really never see them coming. And the thread topic wasn't a joke, though it is funny. I figure if the necromancer goes the extra mile to make it visually clear which skeletons are PFS allied skeletons, they've done their part for PFS cooperation.
And regarding alignments, remember that undead can be generated in PFS without an evil alignment or an evil spell.
Regarding Paladins and Necromancers, I'm running an Oath Against Undeath Paladin, but I still wouldn't allow that oath to get in the way of my oath to the pathfinder society, to cooperate with my fellow pathfinders. I'd still probably lecture the necromancer about the wrongness of their ways, but only as fun roleplaying joke between players.
All in all, the Oath against Undeath Paladin and the Necromancer probably have a lot shared interests, even if the motives differ. Should be able to get along for long enough finish their mission for the pathfinder society.
Depends on the GM. I've had some try to make me fall for working with necromancers or evil characters in general before.
This is PFS. If a PFS GM is making you fall because you attempt to Cooperate with your fellow pathfinders, you need to complain on the forums regarding that GM. It's one thing to expect role playing of your class, it's another to expect you to automatically fail your paladin code because you are following the PFS rules for organized play. You don't need to role play being happy about it, of course.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Yeah its been the entire stick of undead since the beginning and is cited as what the Spiritualist does. It stops the ghostie from becoming evil as it descends into the Negative Energy Plane.Weirdly enough none of what you wrote is actually evil. The evil part comes in that create undead involves dipping a soul into concentrated evil. Get rid of that part and bizarrely enough the church of Pharasma goes from wanting to murder you to eyeing you suspiciously.Can you quote anything cannon proving the "dipping a soul into concentrated evil thing"? Because I've never seen that published in any Paizo material, or mentioned by a Paizo employee.
I could be wrong however, and please correct me if I am.
So I found the relevant text in the Spiritualist Class.
When a creature dies, its spirit flees its body and begins the next stage of its existence. Debilitating emotional attachments during life and other psychic corruptions cause some spirits to drift into the Ethereal Plane and descend toward the Negative Energy Plane. Some of these spirits are able to escape the pull of undeath and make their way back to the Material Plane, seeking refuge in a psychically attuned mindWhich has nothing to do with creating undead, only natural forming undead.
However, when you're using animate dead you are in fact ripping a piece of that creatures soul and forcing it back into a dead body. You're literally enslaving a soul to create mindless undead under your control. So yeah, I'd say that you're still doing something evil.
The problem with your argument is that there are necromancy spells that fit your criteria of not evil but are considered just as evil. It's because of the concentrated evil part.
|
|
The problem with your argument is that there are necromancy spells that fit your criteria of not evil but are considered just as evil. It's because of the concentrated evil part.
I was responding specifically to when you said that nothing that I wrote was actually evil. I described animating the dead via create undead and you said it wasn't evil. Which it is. For reasons I've explained over multiple posts now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was responding specifically to when you said that nothing that I wrote was actually evil. I described animating the dead via create undead and you said it wasn't evil. Which it is. For reasons I've explained over multiple posts now.
The problem with your argument is that there are necromancy spells that fit your criteria of not evil but are considered just as evil. It's because of the concentrated evil part.
Just because you have explained it multiple times, doesn't mean it is a satisfactory explanation. The truth is, it is declared evil because the authors say so. That is a supremely unsatisfactory answer but, hey that's life. Fortunately house rule can override that, as is the case in PFS. The PFS rule is, basically, "It doesn't matter, shut up and play nice." and that's a rule I can live with.
|
|
Just because you have explained it multiple times, doesn't mean it is a satisfactory explanation. The truth is, it is declared evil because the authors say so. That is a supremely unsatisfactory answer but, hey that's life. Fortunately house rule can override that, as is the case in PFS. The PFS rule is, basically, "It doesn't matter, shut up and play nice." and that's a rule I can live with.I was responding specifically to when you said that nothing that I wrote was actually evil. I described animating the dead via create undead and you said it wasn't evil. Which it is. For reasons I've explained over multiple posts now.
The problem with your argument is that there are necromancy spells that fit your criteria of not evil but are considered just as evil. It's because of the concentrated evil part.
Aight I guess I'm done then. If you can't see anything inherently evil with tearing a piece of someones soul off and stuffing it into a corpse that you command to do your bidding, then nothing I say is gonna convince you.
|
|
Aight I guess I'm done then. If you can't see anything inherently evil with tearing a piece of someones soul off and stuffing it into a corpse that you command to do your bidding, then nothing I say is gonna convince you.Just because you have explained it multiple times, doesn't mean it is a satisfactory explanation. The truth is, it is declared evil because the authors say so. That is a supremely unsatisfactory answer but, hey that's life. Fortunately house rule can override that, as is the case in PFS. The PFS rule is, basically, "It doesn't matter, shut up and play nice." and that's a rule I can live with.I was responding specifically to when you said that nothing that I wrote was actually evil. I described animating the dead via create undead and you said it wasn't evil. Which it is. For reasons I've explained over multiple posts now.
The problem with your argument is that there are necromancy spells that fit your criteria of not evil but are considered just as evil. It's because of the concentrated evil part.
You have two issues on why you are unpersuasive here:
First, you assert that your description of what happens is fact, but you have shown no evidence to back that up. You have merely asserted it without context over and over again. I can counter assert that create undead in fact does not involve a soul and instead fills the corpse up with necromatic energy that is capable of basic ability to follow specific instruction. If you have any evidence backing up your position, then show it; otherwise what is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Second, quite a few members of the community (including myself) ascribe to the Consequentialist based model of alignment (that consequences of ones actions are what determine morality), rather then the Deontological based model (where right and wrong follow rigid black and white rules). Even the game itself is confused on which model it wants to use and switches back and forth in places, like the CG Succubus from a certain AP (possible in Consequentialist, impossible in Deontological) vs Animate Dead is always evil (possible in Deontological, impossible in Consequentialist). Long story short based on a rigid Deontological view the following scenario is true: Using Animate Dead to animate a dead lion to protect helpless villagers from bandits is an Evil act because it is an Evil spell. Personally, I reject that logic and fortunately so does PFS.
|
Im just going to point how disengenous that argument is since neither of those actions are one single act so it's a false premise right from the start.
Animate Dead = Evil
Saving Villgers from Bandit = Good
Casting Holy Word (if your Deity even lets you in this situation) = Good
Killing Villager A = Evil
Killing Villager B = Evil
Killing Villager C = Evil
Killing Villager D = Evil
Killing Villager E = Evil
Killing Villager F = Evil
Killing Villager G = Evil
And so on...
|
|
Im just going to point how disengenous that argument is since neither of those actions are one single act so it's a false premise right from the start.
Animate Dead = Evil
Saving Villgers from Bandit = Good
*Shrug* I disagree that the means and the result are two separate acts, they are inexorably linked. The discussion on means vs ends is one that humanity has grappled with for almost as long as it has existed.
Casting Holy Word (if your Deity even lets you in this situation) = Good
Killing Villager A = Evil
Killing Villager B = Evil
Killing Villager C = Evil
Killing Villager D = Evil
Killing Villager E = Evil
Killing Villager F = Evil
Killing Villager G = Evil
And so on...
In retrospect it was a strawman, I've since removed it. A better example would be using a Cure spell to save the life of a known villain, and that villain then goes on to kill more people.
|
|
Im just going to point how disengenous that argument is since neither of those actions are one single act so it's a false premise right from the start.
Animate Dead = Evil
Saving Villgers from Bandit = Good
*Shrug* I disagree that the means and the result are two separate acts, they are inexorably linked. The discussion on means vs ends is one that humanity has grappled with for almost as long as it has existed.
In retrospect it was a strawman, I've since removed it. A better example would be using a Cure spell to save the life of a known villain, and that villain then goes on to kill more people.Casting Holy Word (if your Deity even lets you in this situation) = Good
Killing Villager A = Evil
Killing Villager B = Evil
Killing Villager C = Evil
Killing Villager D = Evil
Killing Villager E = Evil
Killing Villager F = Evil
Killing Villager G = Evil
And so on...
That is a better, different example but it still follows what I've said. You saved their life, so Good act, but are you responsible for what they do after? That would depend on how everything plays out and your involvement, which would be up to your GM if it registers as you receiving Evil "points" rather than just guilt for what they do. Something that is far more complicated and made up of many more parts than the scenario you put forth.
|
|
That is a better, different example but it still follows what I've said. You saved their life, so Good act, but are you responsible for what they do after? That would depend on how everything plays out and your involvement, which would be up to your GM if it registers as you receiving Evil "points" rather than just guilt for what they do. Something that is far more complicated and made up of many more parts than the scenario you put forth.
I think it is far less complicated then you are making it out to be, especially if it is reasonable to foresee the results of your actions. It's the same thing that makes Batman so absurd; everybody knows what is going to happen when he saves the Joker's life only to throw him into Arkham Asylum: the Joker is going to escape and kill a bunch of people. In both cases, I think its not hard to argue that actively saving that life is evil.
The Phantom specifically isn't a typical undead and isn't evil, so I'd say go for it man!I'm gonna go look at that.*adds a loyal beyond death samurai to the list of chsrecters to play when they have a game*Spiritualist - the dead samurai is the phantom.
Aaaaand it's in the occult book witch I know none of the rules for and don't care enough to learn them on top of the rest of the heaping pile of rules.
(Much like the intrigue rules)
Psychic Spellcasting actually isn't really that complex (imo it's simpler than arcane casting), and you could pick up the spiritualist class mechanics pretty quick.
I'm with you on intrigue rules though.
So, looking into spirtualist...
As far as I can tell, it's basically summoner, but worse?
I haven't done too much looking, but that more or less seems to be the impression.
If that's the case, then why would anyone take it over summoner again?
|
|
That is a better, different example but it still follows what I've said. You saved their life, so Good act, but are you responsible for what they do after? That would depend on how everything plays out and your involvement, which would be up to your GM if it registers as you receiving Evil "points" rather than just guilt for what they do. Something that is far more complicated and made up of many more parts than the scenario you put forth.I think it is far less complicated then you are making it out to be, especially if it is reasonable to foresee the results of your actions. It's the same thing that makes Batman so absurd; everybody knows what is going to happen when he saves the Joker's life only to throw him into Arkham Asylum: the Joker is going to escape and kill a bunch of people. In both cases, I think its not hard to argue that actively saving that life is evil.
Tangent, but Bateman sends most of his Rogue's Gallery to Arkham cause they're insane and can benefit from help (depending on the writer), one issue recently was all about an orderly working there. Secondly while we the reader know the Joker is going to escape (the same way we know mainstays like Batman and Superman will come back from the dead if they're killed off) that doesn't apply in world. Reader knowledge =/= character knowledge.
As for the example, no I don't think you should take hits to your alignment just because you lock a criminal up and they end up escaping and doing [insert Evil Act here].
|
|
So, looking into spirtualist...As far as I can tell, it's basically summoner, but worse?
I haven't done too much looking, but that more or less seems to be the impression.
If that's the case, then why would anyone take it over summoner again?
Phantoms grant bonus feats while stored in your consciousness, you can cast touch spells through your phantom, and they can go incorporeal and scout around are the bonus I can think of off the top of my head. They are similar classes on paper but play differently in practice.