Just because you can meta the f+*% out of your character's alignment doesn't mean your character's deity will forgive them.Heck
can't he just cast protection from evil 3 times after he uses itbring in all the weird alignment rules
Well like I already said I'm pretty sure there are some dietyies out their who would rather you sacrifice someone evil than let yourself die soooo
Would be good to know which god the PC likes.
He follows Sarenrae
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chromantic Durgon, I can understand why you are frustrated but you are no longer adding anything to the discussion.
We've already agreed that the knife doesn't explicitly say it's evil or that it requires a sentient sacrifice. We are currently arguing about the intent. If you want to add to that discussion - or argue that the RAW matters more than the intent - go ahead. Don't just repeat that the knife doesn't say it's evil.
by saying the knife doesn't say its evil, nor does the magic used to make it, nor does the language describing it I thought it was obvious I was suggesting I prioritized a RAW argument. Thats why I said that the RAI argument is baseless.
Also, your analogies are not identifying the real issues involved in this situation. In particular:The general assumption in PF is that animals are not sentient beings, with a few fringe exceptions (eg animal companions with an Int increase). Even awakened animals change type to "magical beast." The game and indeed the majority of real-world moral thinking does value human(oid) lives more than animals. I don't think that you can productively argue against that assumption in this forum.
I don't see why we would follow the general assumptions of pathfinder when we're actively ignoring the alignment influencing spell rule.
I'm a bit averse to the idea that nothing in the game can happen that might change the character as you envisioned it before the start, but that's a matter of preference so so if you don't like it, I won't do it.
this isn't about what the player is happy to change in their character though, this is the DM forcing them to change or die.
He follows Sarenrae
this changes things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chromantic Durgon, I can understand why you are frustrated but you are no longer adding anything to the discussion.
We've already agreed that the knife doesn't explicitly say it's evil or that it requires a sentient sacrifice. We are currently arguing about the intent. If you want to add to that discussion - or argue that the RAW matters more than the intent - go ahead. Don't just repeat that the knife doesn't say it's evil.
by saying the knife doesn't say its evil, nor does the magic used to make it, nor does the language describing it I thought it was obvious I was suggesting I prioritized a RAW argument. Thats why I said that the RAI argument is baseless.
Also, your analogies are not identifying the real issues involved in this situation. In particular:The general assumption in PF is that animals are not sentient beings, with a few fringe exceptions (eg animal companions with an Int increase). Even awakened animals change type to "magical beast." The game and indeed the majority of real-world moral thinking does value human(oid) lives more than animals. I don't think that you can productively argue against that assumption in this forum.
I don't see why we would follow the general assumptions of pathfinder when we're actively ignoring the alignment influencing spell rule.
I'm a bit averse to the idea that nothing in the game can happen that might change the character as you envisioned it before the start, but that's a matter of preference so so if you don't like it, I won't do it.this isn't about what the player is happy to change in their character though, this is the DM forcing them to change or die.
He follows Sarenraethis changes things.
I'm not suggesting that I'm forcing him to change or die. I am certainly open to other creative resolutions, I just couldn't see any. People have shown in this thread that there are other options and I appreciate that. I think I am going to leave it in the players hands, majority are also LG so I'm interested to see how they will respond to the situation. Either way I am actually really happy that this player got in this scenario, it has made the entire party super engaged in the game, our message thread has exploded and everyone is very excited for the next session, especially the new players. as a new Gm I'm really encouraged by this!
Thanks for all the help and suggestions I really appreciate everyone's opinions, I love this community!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a Sarenrea worshiper if your player was open to it and the dagger was in play then I think there is something interesting you could do (I would not do this personally as I think it could be seen as a DM laying a trap for a player, which is bad form)
Present the player with an evil creature they can kill and save themselves with the dagger.
If they do this they're saved, their is not alignment change, I maintain this is not an evil act (and even if it were one evil act does not evil make) but Sarenrea finds some means to communicate her disappointment. This does not require the atonement spell, let this be resolved purely within the narrative as their is nothing they have done wrong within the rules.
If they spare the evil thing they followed Sarenrea rule #1 forgive and redeem and for doing so Sarerea cures the player.
With other more militaristic good gods (Ragathiel and Vildeis) I believe they would expect the character to kill the evil (as they would themselves) and the fact that in doing so they spared themselves is of no consequence.
Again only if the player is open to this.
For a Sarenrea worshiper if your player was open to it and the dagger was in play then I think there is something interesting you could do (I would not do this personally as I think it could be seen as a DM laying a trap for a player, which is bad form)
Present the player with an evil creature they can kill and save themselves with the dagger.
If they do this they're saved, their is not alignment change, I maintain this is not an evil act (and even if it were one evil act does not evil make) but Sarenrea finds some means to communicate her disappointment. This does not require the atonement spell, let this be resolved purely within the narrative as their is nothing they have done wrong within the rules.
If they spare the evil thing they followed Sarenrea rule #1 forgive and redeem and for doing so Sarerea cures the player.
With other more militaristic good gods (Ragathiel and Vildeis) I believe they would expect the character to kill the evil (as they would themselves) and the fact that in doing so they spared themselves is of no consequence.
Again only if the player is open to this.
seems like a good idea, thanks :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although the Dawnflower is the goddess of healing and redemption, she is not a goddess of peace, and her followers are taught that combat may be the only way to ensure the safety of those who look to the faith for protection. In such situations, the faithful of Sarenrae are expected to end combat swiftly and efficiently, to avoid drawing out the pain and agony of battle. When one can end a battle without resorting to killing, the opportunity for redemption of the defeated foe still remains. The pages of Dawnflower’s Mercies teach methods by which those who serve Sarenrae as soldiers can vanquish enemies in combat without killing them, and encourage those who follow the teachings held within to offer those they take prisoner the chance to be welcomed into Sarenrae’s arms.
Fluffy stuff for reference
** spoiler omitted **...
Could you tell me where you found this? Thank you
link
thank you!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
am their light and their strength.
you cannot just let yourself die
I expect nothing for myself but that which I need to survive.
survive is a key word
The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not
This is not a fair fight and you will die which means you can't fight, which is bad.
I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.
If you try and fail to redeem the evil thing before using the knife its definitly fine.
I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when words are not enough.
I refer to the previous comment.
these lines suggest to me that even the Dawnflower would allow her warriors to use the knife to save themselves would that the thing they killed with it were evil.
EDIT: Didn't want to double post.
thing is chomantic there are many many ways said creature could be evil, they could have skimped out of some taxes for a few years and no one noticed
thats chaotic and depending on what the taxes are being used for arguably good. (an oppressive war, for example)
they could go out of their way to only hunt one specific kind of animal
I don't particularly think all deer hunters on Golorian are evil ...
if they're doing it maliciously thats a different matter, and they should be stopped.
they could have murdered some one
or many someone ones
they could have spat on some good aligned gods shrine
I'm not sure this would ping as Evil to me.
while not all weighted the same there are still plenty of ways a creature can become evil and killing a thing just cuz its evil is an evil act
nope. Many good gods both do this and explicitly encourage it.
and while i agree one single evil act would not make the character evil and i don't believe that he would need atonement for doing this one act i do believe that its still evil
So everytime a paladin kills an evil person they should fall? I don't think so, therefore I contest your argument that its an evil act.
Tax evasion isn't evil >_>, maybe unlawful and that's a big maybe. But not evil.
Murder (unjustified murder) can be evil. But there are good aligned gods of Vengeance so...
Spitting on a good shrine isn't really anything unless you're going out of your way to really deface / despoil the shrine.
To be evil take's more commitment than one off acts generally.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Basically you have to go out of your way to be a right terrible person to be evil
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also my name is Chromantic
not Chromatic or Chomantic (I mean what even is the second one O.o)
I squished Chromatic and Romantic together, hence the heart. Very witty I know. Hahaha.
#1 I see the dagger as one made for a sinister purpose, but it's basic functions aren't evil. For instance, if a building is covered with baleful and blasphemous artwork and accoutrements, resting there doesn't turn me evil...
#2 Remember Sarenrea can't abide evil and the player is turning into an evil creature... She also wants to to win the fight and seek perfection. Living to fight another day AND preventing an evil creature from being born sounds like her. ;)
tax evasion is greed, greed is evil
Or how about Taxes are theft, theft is evil.
It can go either way. I would bet a lot of people would cite Robin Hood as an example of a Chaotic Good Character... pretty sure he didn't pay taxes. :P
tax evasion is greed, greed is evilOr how about Taxes are theft, theft is evil.
It can go either way. I would bet a lot of people would cite Robin Hood as an example of a Chaotic Good Character... pretty sure he didn't pay taxes. :P
LOL 'Greed? Heck no, I'm not giving 'the man' my hard earned money to fill the pockets of those 'fat cat' nobles!!!' :P
Not following the rules is chaotic, not evil...
Or is it pragmatic neutral? 'If I can get away with it why shouldn't I. My little bit of taxes isn't going to change anything and there are plenty of others that are paying.'
Or is it good? 'My taxes aren't going to the army that's going to march on that peaceful town of halflings just because they aren't human!".
Maybe it's even lawful! 'These guys have no right to tax us! Only the lord can do that. They're only doing this because the lord is away.'
Evil is about the hardest one to justify... It's like saying jay-walkers are evil...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, but after seeing all this discuss I cannot help but ask why place the paladin in a situation where he has to commit an evil act? As a DM, even if it appears that the party's, or more particularly the paladin, only choice is to commit an evil act I always have it that there is a third option if the player/character is determined or smart enough to find it. I never liked the idea of forcing my players into a no win situation.
Especially the sacrificing of an innocent. Sure, it can be done well, such as in the comic Looking For Group where Cale'anon Vatay, or Cale to his friends, is placed into a situation where he is forced to kill a child. Cale being an elven hunter/ranger but having a certain idealism or moral outlook very similar to a paladin. Yet how he takes on a more sulking state of mind after do what he did, doing nothing but staring upwards and when they are later asked for help, he surprisingly mutters that he will only help as long as he can be paid. Having taken on a more mercenary outlook.
Though this doesn't last long and he again returns more to his previous outlook, saying that he and his companions will aid the people. No matter the cost and without personal gain. Saying that they are not mercenaries and will do it because it is right. With him and Richard actually helping each other to have a shifting of alignment, Cale going from Lawful Good to Neutral Good and Richard from Chaotic Evil to Chaotic Neutral. The two surprisingly coming to respect each other, perhaps even unlikely friends.
Of any cause, I am still generally very weary of the idea of focusing a paladin to commit an evil and risking them to a fall. At least not without have other options available, even if the players/character must figure such out. It can be quite tiring actually to see DM constantly looking for ways to force a Paladin to fall, especially if they do not first discuss with a player if they want to add such an aspect to the campaign for the sake of potentially creating a more engrossing roleplaying experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think its a war priest not a paladin.
But I totally agree I think placing players in this position is pretty bad form.
Now that doesn't mean there can't be in character conflict like these issues but if they happen it should be player DM collaboration and probably in most cases should start with the player saying to the DM they want something to cause their character conflict.
Not to be hoodwinked into a situation like this.
|
I'm sorry, but after seeing all this discuss I cannot help but ask why place the paladin in a situation where he has to commit an evil act?
We're talking about a warpriest here. :)
For me, there are some things about my character I'm OK with changing and some things I'm not OK with changing. Usually I prefer to see my character change in ways I see as positive - such as discarding prejudice or gaining attachments, responsibilities, or self confidence. I am generally not interested in "fall arcs" - I find them depressing.
I get all that and I try my best not to force anything on the players they won't have. I should also clarify that my main aversion comes from players that didn't want to have any change at all. Because that changes of character are basically the most interesting part of roleplaying games to me personally (and naturally hereby heavily influence my style of running games)
|
|
*Sees a thread heavily discussing alignment and morality* Maybe I should just sit this one out....
Nah, that'd be boring.
So first off, as far as I can tell nothing by RAW says using the Heartripper Dagger's ritual is evil, so that's GM discretion, but I don't think it's unreasonable to make it so.
Additionally, to address the whole "how many casts of infernal healing make me evil/how many castings of protection from good make me good" question, it's GM discretion plain and simple. No need to argue our relative moral views on how many and what kind of good acts cancel out an evil act or vice versa.
Also, do we know the Warpriest's god? I didn't see it as I skimmed through the thread. Because I can think of plenty of good gods who probably wouldn't revoke powers for using the dagger's ritual on an evil creature to save yourself when you have no other option available.
|
|
Also, do we know the Warpriest's god? I didn't see it as I skimmed through the thread. Because I can think of a few good gods who probably wouldn't immediately revoke powers for using the dagger's ritual on an evil creature to save yourself when you have no other option available.
It's Sarenrae. Doesn't matter though, because no one even called for revoking the powers (I know that I didn't).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, to address the whole "how many casts of infernal healing make me evil/how many castings of protection from good make me good" question, it's GM discretion plain and simple. No need to argue our relative moral views on how many and what kind of good acts cancel out an evil act or vice versa.
To counter: Your 'self' is an important part of what you are - now it's possible for someone to change radically and overnight due to injury (brain tumors for instance are known to cause this) However adults (so most adventurers) have a set of morals and ethics they have settled into and the more they follow their own guideline as to 'right' and 'wrong' the more they re-enforce their own beliefs.
Spellcaster Bob (sorcerer) - doesn't know that a spell is [evil] - because he doesn't get to see the rulebook. To him he gets a spell that he doesn't even know the name to (because Sorc spells are just 'known' not learned) that heals someone.
You could argue that it needs an evil component - however he has eschew materials and as 'a drop of devils blood' has no cost he can cast the spell without knowing it's name - without needing a component - etc. Further Bob knows that some evil monsters (like Trolls lets say) are useful in making healing items (like a ring of regenerations say) that are considered precious and useful to even Paladins - so even if it needed a drop of devils blood - well without knowing the rules that in itself (based on the rest of the kinds of things needed for item making and spellcasting) doesn't make the spell evil.
So how does Bob know the spell is evil?
Because unlike other actions that Bob can take (which can only slowly change Bob if he keeps them up) when Bob casts that evil spell it really messes with his sense of self. So what does Bob the caster do in this case? Like mouthwash after a bad tasting medicine Bob casts that spell that makes him feel better about the world like protection from evil - because that feels like it heals his sense of self.
Was all that flavor?
Yes.
So it's not RAW? Nope - but meta-gaming the $#*# out of alignment is supported in game - if the alignment shift is enough that a few casts of a spell can change your alignment then your character should know - and if not I just gave you a good reason why - and if not then fall back on "Rules as written" - either you make up the fluff or you just run the rules either way reducing alignment to a number on a 'up or down' chart will get people to play with the numbers - especially when the core rulebook goes out of it's way to point out changing someone’s alignment against their will is as bad as taking away a wizards spellbook.
|
Additionally, to address the whole "how many casts of infernal healing make me evil/how many castings of protection from good make me good" question, it's GM discretion plain and simple. No need to argue our relative moral views on how many and what kind of good acts cancel out an evil act or vice versa.
To counter: Your 'self' is an important part of what you are - now it's possible for someone to change radically and overnight due to injury (brain tumors for instance are known to cause this) However adults (so most adventurers) have a set of morals and ethics they have settled into and the more they follow their own guideline as to 'right' and 'wrong' the more they re-enforce their own beliefs.
Spellcaster Bob (sorcerer) - doesn't know that a spell is [evil] - because he doesn't get to see the rulebook. To him he gets a spell that he doesn't even know the name to (because Sorc spells are just 'known' not learned) that heals someone.
You could argue that it needs an evil component - however he has eschew materials and as 'a drop of devils blood' has no cost he can cast the spell without knowing it's name - without needing a component - etc. Further Bob knows that some evil monsters (like Trolls lets say) are useful in making healing items (like a ring of regenerations say) that are considered precious and useful to even Paladins - so even if it needed a drop of devils blood - well without knowing the rules that in itself (based on the rest of the kinds of things needed for item making and spellcasting) doesn't make the spell evil.
So how does Bob know the spell is evil?
Because unlike other actions that Bob can take (which can only slowly change Bob if he keeps them up) when Bob casts that evil spell it really messes with his sense of self. So what does Bob the caster do in this case? Like mouthwash after a bad tasting medicine Bob casts that spell that makes him feel better about the world like protection from evil - because that feels like it heals his sense of self.
Was all that flavor?
Yes.
So it's not RAW? Nope - but meta-gaming the $#*# out of alignment is supported in game - if the alignment shift is enough that a few casts of a spell can change your alignment then your character should know - and if not I just gave you a good reason why - and if not then fall back on "Rules as written" - either you make up the fluff or you just run the rules either way reducing alignment to a number on a 'up or down' chart will get people to play with the numbers - especially when the core rulebook goes out of it's way to point out changing someone’s alignment against their will is as bad as taking away a wizards spellbook.
That's a good explanation, but it only applies if it actually does mess with the person's sense of self, such as someone with an extreme alignment, but what the Neutrals? And even if does, would their new sense of self want to change back?
I don't understand why it would mess with their head to heal people, honestly aligned spells in general seem a bit pointless to me.
I mean Horrid Wilting's only purpose it to evaporate the life out of living things, it literally has no other function. Fireball can be used to set fires or to demolish stuff (its not very good at it but nevertheless its true) so I can see an extremely weak argument for that being none aligned.
Yet an infernal healing cast with Eschew material is evil and Horrid Wilting is fine. To be clear I'm not saying make Horrid Wilting evil, I just object to aligned spells generally
So yeah not really ever found aligned spells convincing.
I understand their basic mechanical function with clerics and war priests and stuff not wanting to cast spells of an opposed alignment but couldn't you just judge them on their actions and what they use the spells for?
I think its a case of a rule for something that didn't really need a rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just see it as another debuff where the fix happens to be a [Good] descriptor spell. In the same way remove disease or Cure light wounds is the answer to disease or hit point damage.
Rules of the universe and all that.
Also if you want a vicious non evil spell... boneshatter. Literally it's only purpose is to splinter a creatures bones and causes enough horrible pain to exhaust you (-6 str and con).
I just see it as another debuff where the fix happens to be a [Good] descriptor spell. In the same way remove disease or Cure light wounds is the answer to disease or hit point damage.
Rules of the universe and all that.
Also if you want a vicious non evil spell... boneshatter. Literally it's only purpose is to splinter a creatures bones and causes enough horrible pain to exhaust you (-6 str and con).
I bloody love boneshatter and its baby brother Boneshaker, I had an evil oracle of bones who used them :P
"Is this spell still aligned if I have Eschew Materials or something else and therefore don't use any aligned components?" is a great question to bring up with your GM on a case by case basis, since by RAW, no.
None of the game I play in have aligned magic.
Obviously once you have eschew materials it just becomes Ceslestial healing :P
Which side note, that spell needs the blood of a good outsider... but is a good spell. I wonder how one harvests that blood >_>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Celestial healing is a big ball of doesn't work.
First of all apparently carrying around angel blood is fine and it does nothing at all if you're level one.
|
|
Spellcaster Bob (sorcerer) - doesn't know that a spell is [evil] - because he doesn't get to see the rulebook. To him he gets a spell that he doesn't even know the name to (because Sorc spells are just 'known' not learned) that heals someone.
You could argue that it needs an evil component - however he has eschew materials and as 'a drop of devils blood' has no cost he can cast the spell without knowing it's name - without needing a component - etc. Further Bob knows that some evil monsters (like Trolls lets say) are useful in making healing items (like a ring of regenerations say) that are considered precious and useful to even Paladins - so even if it needed a drop of devils blood - well without knowing the rules that in itself (based on the rest of the kinds of things needed for item making and spellcasting) doesn't make the spell evil.
So how does Bob know the spell is evil?
Because unlike other actions that Bob can take (which can only slowly change Bob if he keeps them up) when Bob casts that evil spell it really messes with his sense of self. So what does Bob the caster do in this case? Like mouthwash after a bad tasting medicine Bob casts that spell that makes him feel better about the world like protection from evil - because that feels like it heals his sense of self.
I like this, could I perhaps steal this idea?
Quite a bit of flavor in it and could especially be interesting for an infernal blooded sorcerer trying to hold back the more darker impulses or desire that come from his blood and live a good life. Where he does not know exactly the healing spell that he is using, but that it does make the sorcerer feel uncomfortable when he needs to use it and thus leading him to use a spell that makes him feel better and more at ease to counteract it. A good spell to counteract the evil spell, though it being based more on how it makes him feel.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even without material components coming into it I would say Infernal Healing would still be evil due to the clauses in the spell.
You anoint a wounded creature withdevil’s blood or unholy waterawesome sorcery power, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a good explanation, but it only applies if it actually does mess with the person's sense of self, such as someone with an extreme alignment, but what the Neutrals? And even if does, would their new sense of self want to change back?
For an NPC - I could see a good story being made around not wanting to change back.
For a player I'd argue that they should be the ultimate arbiters of what their characters want. I try to stay away from stuff that takes the players agency from them - unless it's short duration (dominate for example) or the player is on board already. I do think it's ripe for roleplay potential - consent is a good word to use with such a story.
I like this, could I perhaps steal this idea?Quite a bit of flavor in it and could especially be interesting for an infernal blooded sorcerer trying to hold back the more darker impulses or desire that come from his blood and live a good life. Where he does not know exactly the healing spell that he is using, but that it does make the sorcerer feel uncomfortable when he needs to use it and thus leading him to use a spell that makes him feel better and more at ease to counteract it. A good spell to counteract the evil spell, though it being based more on how it makes him feel.
Oh feel free I'm honestly flattered you find it useful :)
I can't take all the credit honestly "The Wheel of Time" does (I think) a very good job of what it's like to use magic that is tainted by evil - and the slow slide into madness that follows (along with the self doubt and paranoia, and perhaps fear that you will hurt those you love).
|
|
Oh feel free I'm honestly flattered you find it useful :)
I can't take all the credit honestly "The Wheel of Time" does (I think) a very good job of what it's like to use magic that is tainted by evil - and the slow slide into madness that follows (along with the self doubt and paranoia, and perhaps fear that you will hurt those you love).
Thanks, I am always glad to find myself inspired by the members on Paizo Forums.
I may take the idea a step farther, not only having them be an infernal blooded sorcerer but a tiefling and the idea they have to work all the harder to prove himself given how many will be suspicious or judgmental of him simply because of his appearance/blood.
Thus, with his powers come spells that he really doesn't enjoy using. Spell that bring uncomfortable feelings or desires, but finds himself needing to use them at times even though he wishes to avoid such moments. How he tries to counter this ill feelings as best he can by doing that which bring comfort as well spells just feel right.
|
Evil spells are... weird. I think you can justify them in a variety of ways but it really depends on whether you use deontological or consequentialist ethics, and how much you think a player should be in control of the character's actions.
Some people - Rysky? - are just fine with "evil spells draw on evil powers, so they're evil, end of story."
Others like Chromantic Durgon feel that what should matter is what you do with a spell and that it can't be evil to heal an innocent person even if you use the power of hell to do it. One way to deal with this is to add some clear metaphysical consequence to using these spells, eg "every time you cast Infernal Healing it strengthens Asmodeus' power to influence the material plane." Consequentialists might feel justified to use the spell in an emergency, but there's a clear reason why they wouldn't want to do so lightly.
As already discussed the temptation interpretation is an option (with or without mechanics) but YMMV on whether weakening the player's control over their character's future actions is a good thing.
by saying the knife doesn't say its evil, nor does the magic used to make it, nor does the language describing it I thought it was obvious I was suggesting I prioritized a RAW argument. Thats why I said that the RAI argument is baseless.
But why is it baseless?
For a Sarenrea worshiper if your player was open to it and the dagger was in play then I think there is something interesting you could do (I would not do this personally as I think it could be seen as a DM laying a trap for a player, which is bad form)
Present the player with an evil creature they can kill and save themselves with the dagger.
If they do this they're saved, their is not alignment change, I maintain this is not an evil act (and even if it were one evil act does not evil make) but Sarenrea finds some means to communicate her disappointment. This does not require the atonement spell, let this be resolved purely within the narrative as their is nothing they have done wrong within the rules.
If they spare the evil thing they followed Sarenrea rule #1 forgive and redeem and for doing so Sarerea cures the player.
I like this idea. To work best the creature would have to be clearly evil enough that the character could justify killing them, but also clearly redeemable such that they should be able to guess that Sarenrae would want them to show mercy.
But why is it baseless?
The reason it's called evil is because it LOOKS/FEELS evil without any tangible concrete evidence that it is.
What would happen if you used the same standard on an NPC? Is the paladin fine assuming someone with a baleful or blasphemous looking item is evil and it's ok to hack them down becuase that HAVE to be evil... [for the sake of argument, assume the paladin doesn't have detect evil like a holy gun or oath vs undead].
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ripping the heart out of a helpless victim's chest with that blasphemous item and devouring it raw? You're gonna get some some stern questions at the least.
As has been already said MANY times:
#1 the 'victim' is never described past a creature.#2 people kill helpless animals ALL the time for breakfast lunch and dinner; this INCLUDES hearts.
So, let's go back to that example. Someone brings back a deer, cuts out it's heart and eats it before he then butchers the rest of the animal... Kill him that evil bastard???
We come back to the ITEM looking evil and that is the sole reason it's called evil. The weapon is a tool, nothing more or less. If someone did the same thing with a spoon, carving the heart out of a helpless victim, it wouldn't make the spoon evil... Paint it with baleful or blasphemous looking symbols and it STILL isn't evil.
It then boils down to the killing itself being evil or not as the tool used just makes the deed easier/harder.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We come back to the ITEM looking evil
Actually we don't know how it looks, because there's no image of the item and no visual description added to it. What we know is:
To activate it's powers, you have to use it in "bloody sacrifice". We know that this specific kind of sacrifice, as far as it actually happened in real history or in fiction, is basically never done with animals as the victim, but with human beings. So (and I'm not saying you must do that), it's quite logical to extrapolate from that the author might have intended for this item to be used in exactly this way
We also know, that the victim is, in the text, referred to as "his", a pronoun you generally don't use with objects or animals. So (and again, you mustn't do that), it's quite logical to extrapolate from that, that the author in fact had actual persons in mind, not animals.
Oh, and we know, that for the activation of the third power, you have to utter "blasphemous" words. Whis is surely not the nicest thing in the world to do.
So yeah, there are some reasons why someone could have the idea that this is an evil item. I know this for a fact, because I'm not the only one who had that idea, as I found out by a little research for this item. In fact, this might be the very first time that someone says otherwise (at least I didn't find any evidence to the contrary).
But yeah. By RAW, you can ignore all that and just use it on an animal or even an evil creature and live happily ever after. I know I won't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer they came up with was that certain powers required malice to use. To crush someone's body with the Force you had to hate them, you had to dredge up you negative feelings of fear, anger, and malice and literally focus those feelings on your target. That's just how the magic worked. The act of doing that changed you and made you more susceptible to those feelings in future. Do it too much and you fell to the dark side. It doesn't matter if you choke people who deserve it, with a gun to your head, or in service of the greater good, killing directly with the Force is bad for you.
I mean that works with the force because a direct connection has been established between emotion and the force and what powers manifest, not so much for Pathfinder.
Especially considering intelligence based casters who right their stuff down in a book, nothing indicates an emotional involvement in magic there.
Also if we're thinking intent and feeling behind action what other intent could there be behind a fireball or worse Horrid wilting than to kill someone, painfully?
How is that more evil than healing someone and what weird intent goes into an infernal healing xD
Others like Chromantic Durgon feel that what should matter is what you do with a spell and that it can't be evil to heal an innocent person even if you use the power of hell to do it.
that and a consequence of my degree (lit) is that I tend to be fairly skeptical of the written word, it almost never not someones biased opinion, therefore I don't need to agree with how it works just because its written down. Of course you have to be reasonable with that attitude in games like this otherwise they become unplayable because you tear apart all the rules, but when it comes to morality I feel more than at liberty to rip apart another persons opinion, especially if I'm told its right simply because its in print. See the definition of true neutral where by characters need to switch sides to the loosing team in every fight they're in to maintain balance. That is in print. Doesn't mean its right or a reasonable expectation in a team game.
One way to deal with this is to add some clear metaphysical consequence to using these spells, eg "every time you cast Infernal Healing it strengthens Asmodeus' power to influence the material plane." Consequentialists might feel justified to use the spell in an emergency, but there's a clear reason why they wouldn't want to do so lightly.
when you start sticking on extra fluff to make rules make sense I find it easier just to take away the rule in situations like this, werein someone will disagree with your new fluff and the rule itself is in no way essential.
But why is it baseless?
the lack of anything legitimate to base it on. The closest anyone's got is it says baleful in the description. If they were saying that might the weapon Lawful unpleasant they'd be write but they aren't so they're not. Baleful does not mean evil, it means violent and good can certainly be violent.
Everything else is guessing off very nuanced interpretation of the origin or meaning of the language the author is using when the author seems to be using language loosely anyway. See Blasphemous, the dagger is not aligned to a god, nor is it opposed to one, so who exactly is the user meant to blaspheme against? Impossible to know, conclusion they used the word for the general feeling, not for some nuanced understanding of its original definition.
Ripping the heart out of a helpless victim's chest with that blasphemous item and devouring it raw? You're gonna get some some stern questions at the least.
its unpleasant but it aint evil, people sternly questioning you can go stuff off frankly, players trying to control other players - not cool. GM trying to screw players, still not cool. If you have a genuine issue with someone's play style address it outside the game in a reasonable manner, not with stern questions, this isn't a hearing, you're not their high school teacher.
And if the prompt for stern questions is, "they did a violent thing in DnD" then I think the one asking the questions is the one with the problem. Singling someone out on alignment because they're playing a priest isn't fair if you're letting the party wizard literally blow people up and their alignment go unquestioned.
To activate it's powers, you have to use it in "bloody sacrifice". We know that this specific kind of sacrifice, as far as it actually happened in real history or in fiction, is basically never done with animals as the victim, but with human beings. So (and I'm not saying you must do that), it's quite logical to extrapolate from that the author might have intended for this item to be used in exactly this way
Not really given that the author could have easily said that. Its more logical to assume the author said what they mean than to guess they meant more than they said. Ritualistic animal sacrifice is not that unheard of.
We also know, that the victim is, in the text, referred to as "his", a pronoun you generally don't use with objects or animals. So (and again, you mustn't do that), it's quite logical to extrapolate from that, that the author in fact had actual persons in mind, not animals.
again if the author had that in mind they could easily have said so, and if the dagger was intended solely for humanoid sacrifice would their not be some indicator in it somewhere that was more concrete than guess work? It really isn't hard to make this sort of thing clear. Or in fact listed the item as having an evil aura, a thing that happens, or have it be made by an evil spell, or require an evil crafter to maker it. The author uses the term Blasphemous in a completely unhelpful way so I don't really think we can justify this extremely nuanced reading of their language to find some none apparent searched out for meaning given their linguistic choices don't make much sense at times anyway.
there are plenty of ways to make it clear this dagger is only meant for people, none of them are difficult and there is one very clear reason why those ways would not be employed. Because it wasn't.
it isn't our job to guess what authors actually mean, that road leads to madness.
Oh, and we know, that for the activation of the third power, you have to utter "blasphemous" words. Whis is surely not the nicest thing in the world to do.
In Golorian the term Blasphemous is completely un aligned, you can blaspheme against Lamashtu as easily as Torag. Given the dagger has no religious alignment I find it extremely difficult to work out what it actually wants from the user to qualify as blasphemous. It could be as simple as "all gods are dicks" frankly. - not evil.
So yeah, there are some reasons why someone could have the idea that this is an evil item. I know this for a fact, because I'm not the only one who had that idea, as I found out by a little research for this item. In fact, this might be the very first time that someone says otherwise (at least I didn't find any evidence to the contrary).
the idea you think this thread is the first time anyone has ever had a different opinion to you over this item's function is staggering. Opinions don't exist exclusively online you know.
But yeah. By RAW, you can ignore all that
and by ignore you mean, by RAW there is literally nothing supporting your argument and we're not ignoring it, rather it simply doesn't exist in a RAW sense at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But why is it baseless?
The reason it's called evil is because it LOOKS/FEELS evil without any tangible concrete evidence that it is.
the lack of anything legitimate to base it on. The closest anyone's got is it says baleful in the description.
Ok, this is specific enough to work with. And to be even more specific, I think it's more an argument about whether there is evidence that RAI in this case is different from the RAW rather than that RAI doesn't matter.
Now, I agree that just because something feels evil isn't good grounds to conclude that it is evil / is meant to be evil (see again: Blood of the Martyr). However:
In Golorian the term Blasphemous is completely un aligned, you can blaspheme against Lamashtu as easily as Torag. Given the dagger has no religious alignment I find it extremely difficult to work out what it actually wants from the user to qualify as blasphemous.
This is not true. If you search the rulebooks, you find Blasphemy is pretty exclusively associated with evil creatures and magic. Prime example: the spell Blasphemy, an evil-aligned spell that serves as the mirror to Holy Word.