|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys
so my players are slowly working through Crown of the Kobold King. My LG War Priest has succumbed to the kiss of a Vargouille.
Now the only solution I can see out of this situation is the Heartripper Blade at the end of the dungeon. But using he has to sacrifice a creature which I would consider an evil act
do you think that using it should have ramifications on his alignment/spells/abilities in some way?
I find it helps to bring some moral clarity to most alignment questions, and many might be best solved by a version of the Golden Rule.
Most alignment questions seem to boil down to this:
"This Player of mine is proposing to commit [X Action] against [Particular Character] to achieve [Supposed Good Result]. Is [X Action] an evil act under the circumstances?"
Just replace [Particular Character] with someone you love and care for deeply. Perhaps your spouse or life partner; perhaps your child; perhaps a sibling or dearest friend.
Now, if [X Action] were committed against your loved one in a real life situation, would you consider it a heinous act? Would it shatter your life, traumatize your and perhaps permanently ruin your psyche knowing such an act were committed against someone you loved and treasured so much? If the answer to any of these questions is yes...it is probably an evil action.
Sawing someone's heart out while they are still alive and devouring it to cure a life threatening illness is probably squicky when you are sitting around the table passing the chips and Mountain Dew. Now try to imagine that being done to your son or daughter. In my opinion, you can call the person who did that many things. Good is not one of them. Even if they claim "But I really, REALLY needed to do that! Honest!"
In my opinion, I think you made the right call, Dylan.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually we don't know how it looks, because there's no image of the item and no visual description added to it.
Note how I said look/feel. You imagine it as evil, so you call it evil.
To activate it's powers, you have to use it in "bloody sacrifice".
Do you think the beef for your hamburger was gotten bloodlessly?
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.
No, you're wrong. Animal sacrifices were FAR more prevalent than human ones. You find a history of it in christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism, taoism, santería and it was common throughout ancient Europe [greek, roman, ect].
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
All of the examples of historical examples of sacrifice don't have an inference of evil or human victims. You ignored the non-evil possibilities and jumped right it aztec human sacrifices.
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? That's a pretty weak leg to stand on. It's a generic personal pronoun to stand in for the unknown victim. Are you going to argue that "him" means that every victim MUST be male as the pronoun is masculine?
In old school grammar, you usually use a masculine pronoun when the subject is unknown. As such, I read nothing into the choice of 'him'.
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.
I find it a leap of logic. So far, I'm unconvinced that either point is valid as neither is conclusive and is highly subjective.
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 if a wand of cure light wounds had a "blasphemous" command word, using it to heal orphans is EVIL???
So yeah, there are some reasons why someone could have the idea that this is an evil item.
ALL we know is that some suggestive words were used. That's it.
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).
I find it hard to believe that others thought the RAW item was evil. If some wanted to house-rule it evil, they can, but I don't see why. If the DM rules that a particular sacrifice was evil, it wouldn't matter if that dagger or a rock was used. The dagger just happens to be better suited for it.
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.
I take exception to "ignore". I read, comprehended and weighed everything you brought up. I just 100% disagree with your conclusion on just about every level. You can make your own house-rule, just don't expect me to agree with you or agree that it MUST make logical sense that it's evil based solely on circumstantial and tenuous evidence you've given.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
No
The argument is there is literally no reason to try and guess the RAI because the RAW are not in anyway confusing, unclear or problematic.
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.
So your interpretation of blasphemy is based of that spell because of its name. Summon Monster II can summon a horse, does that mean horses are monsters? I don't think spell names are a good way to try to divine some unspoken ulterior definition of words. Tell me exactly how vengeance works in pathfinder based off Winds of Vengeance please.
Furthermore, with your understanding and holy word being good explicitly that means Evil people can't do anything holy yet they can have religions ... and good people can't physically blaspheme which is ridiculous.
I'll say this one more time, if the intention was that the dagger was evil it would have been incredibly easy to make this clear, we don't need to second guess things that are plane in black and white.
Not to mention the dude that wrote that spell didn't write that item so I doubt very much whether he had it in mind.
I find it helps to bring some moral clarity to most alignment questions, and many might be best solved by a version of the Golden Rule.
Most alignment questions seem to boil down to this:
"This Player of mine is proposing to commit [X Action] against [Particular Character] to achieve [Supposed Good Result]. Is [X Action] an evil act under the circumstances?"
Just replace [Particular Character] with someone you love and care for deeply. Perhaps your spouse or life partner; perhaps your child; perhaps a sibling or dearest friend.
Now, if [X Action] were committed against your loved one in a real life situation, would you consider it a heinous act? Would it shatter your life, traumatize your and perhaps permanently ruin your psyche knowing such an act were committed against someone you loved and treasured so much? If the answer to any of these questions is yes...it is probably an evil action.
Sawing someone's heart out while they are still alive and devouring it to cure a life threatening illness is probably squicky when you are sitting around the table passing the chips and Mountain Dew. Now try to imagine that being done to your son or daughter. In my opinion, you can call the person who did that many things. Good is not one of them. Even if they claim "But I really, REALLY needed to do that! Honest!"
In my opinion, I think you made the right call, Dylan.
So every character thats ever stabbed anyone in pathfinder is evil? because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call anyone who stabbed my brother good.
|
Actually, animal sacrifice was more common than human. "Bloody" or otherwise.
I do agree that the description does imply sapient creatures though.
I'm not aware of animal sacrifices in which you ripped the heart out of the (still) living animal. That was what I meant with "specific kind of sacrifice". Generally, your right, of course and I didn't mean to claim otherwise.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.So your interpretation of blasphemy is based of that spell because of its name. Summon Monster II can summon a horse, does that mean horses are monsters? I don't think spell names are a good way to try to divine some unspoken ulterior definition of words. Tell me exactly how vengeance works in pathfinder based off Winds of Vengeance please.
Furthermore, with your understanding and holy word being good explicitly that means Evil people can't do anything holy yet they can have religions ... and good people can't physically blaspheme which is ridiculous.
I'll say this one more time, if the intention was that the dagger was evil it would have been incredibly easy to make this clear, we don't need to second guess things that are plane in black and white.
Not to mention the dude that wrote that spell didn't write that item so I doubt very much whether he had it in mind.
It's not just the one spell. You follow the first link, you'll see the word "Blasphemous" associated with the Book of the Damned (a compilation of evil outsiders) as well as a variety of specific devils, demons, and other fiends, and a handful of other evil creatures such as Minotaurs and Heracite, "a particularly blasphemous form of undead created via an obscure ritual of sacrifice, wherein a priest of an evil god offers up at least five worshipers of a nonevil deity to her own deity."
Similarly, a Holy Weapon is good-aligned while an Unholy Weapon is evil-aligned, Holy Water damages evil outsiders while Unholy Water damages good outsiders, "a sacred bonus (or penalty) stems from the power of good" while "a profane bonus (or penalty) stems from the power of evil," and Consecrate is a [good] spell, while Desecrate is an [evil] spell. It's a pretty strong pattern probably influenced by the Christian tradition in which evil is not an equal power but a corruption of good - and I agree it's not really appropriate in Golarion's mythology, but it's how the books are written.
I did find two instances of "blasphemy" being used in a way that is not associated with evil: the Godless Voids in Horror Adventures (created by blasphemy in general, can be aligned in non-evil directions) and the Totem of Angazhan. Notably, both of these are (a) newer than the usages of blasphemy as evil (b) newer than Crown of the Kobold King and (c) indicate a target of the blasphemy. Destroying the totem is explicitly blasphemy against Angazhan. The Godless Void can be created by "churches that fell from grace through the blasphemous deeds of corrupted worshipers" which implies that good-aligned godless voids could involve the blasphemy of evil churches against their own patrons. The description also states that "Good-aligned godless voids, or those aligned to law or chaos, are less common" than evil-aligned voids which suggests that the writers are aware that blasphemy is generally evil and don't want to entirely subvert that pattern.
So while it's possible for something to be blasphemous and not evil, it seems somewhat unlikely that the author would have been unaware of this context throughout PF and dating back to 3E, or that he would use that charged word casually in the description of a creepy but un-aligned sacrificial knife - because if it's not using "blasphemous" in the general PF sense of evil magic, who is it blaspheming against?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not aware of animal sacrifices in which you ripped the heart out of the (still) living animal. That was what I meant with "specific kind of sacrifice". Generally, your right, of course and I didn't mean to claim otherwise.Actually, animal sacrifice was more common than human. "Bloody" or otherwise.
I do agree that the description does imply sapient creatures though.
For one an extispicy or reading the entrails of an sacrificed animals, normally sacrificed sheep, cow, oxen and poultry, to divine the future. Now they tended to focus on the liver, but the heart, lungs colons were also torn out.
The theory of it was that the animal was absorbed into the deity offering a direct channel to it. The opening of the animal was a way to look into the mind of the god. It was practiced in ancient babylon, rome, greece and is STILL practiced by the Gurung in nepal and in Santeria/Vodun/Candomble to this day.
So an example of holy divination and not blasphemous killing of "sapient creatures".
EDIT: Weirdo, I checked/searched for the words blasphemous/blasphemy in pathfinder and the words really only come up a handful of times. For me it's hard to define a word bad/evil just from that sampling, especially as you point point some examples of it being used in a different light. Add to that, that it's common for authors add their own personal flair into an items description that doesn't translate into mechanics that it seems odd to now give it mechanical weight for this item.
An an aside, I'll agree that the game tends to see 'holy' as good and 'blasphemous' as evil based on our monotheistic world view. This is a poor way to look at a polytheistic world, as the terms are appropriate for all deities, not just those of particular alignments. For this reason, is things are meant to be aligned it should be explicit, as assuming everyone agrees 'holy = good, blasphemous = bad' is a bad assumption to make.
It's not just the one spell. You follow the first link, you'll see the word "Blasphemous" associated with the Book of the Damned (a compilation of evil outsiders) as well as a variety of specific devils, demons, and other fiends, and a handful of other evil creatures such as Minotaurs and Heracite, "a particularly blasphemous form of undead created via an obscure ritual of sacrifice, wherein a priest of an evil god offers up at least five worshipers of a nonevil deity to her own deity."Similarly, a Holy Weapon is good-aligned while an Unholy Weapon is evil-aligned, Holy Water damages evil outsiders while Unholy Water damages good outsiders, "a sacred bonus (or penalty) stems from the power of good" while "a profane bonus (or penalty) stems from the power of evil," and Consecrate is a [good] spell, while Desecrate is an [evil] spell. It's a pretty strong pattern probably influenced by the Christian tradition in which evil is not an equal power but a corruption of good - and I agree it's not really appropriate in Golarion's mythology, but it's how the books are written.
Yeah and a Bane weapon uses a conjuration effect to do extra damage, whilst Bane the Spell is a mind affecting enchantment effect. Not every author is aware of how every other author has used language in in other printed pathfinder material. Their is an archetype of the Arcanist called the Occultist which operates completely independently from the Occultist class. You're frankly giving Paizo too much credit for internal linguistic consistency.
Just because some authors used Blasphemous as a synonym for evil (which is frankly ridiculous given that pathfinder has gods of every alignment). Doesn't mean every author is aware of it or has abandoned its actual definition.
You know how they could have communicated that the weapon was evil? By saying so, in the rules, take your example of an unholy weapon for example, a explicitly evil item not exactly hard to communicate that if you want to. But they didn't. Normally when an item has a clear simple consistent none problematic function people don't go hunting through the flavor text to try and work out another secret intended version of the weapon.
I did find two instances of "blasphemy" being used in a way that is not associated with evil: the Godless Voids in Horror Adventures (created by blasphemy in general, can be aligned in non-evil directions) and the Totem of Angazhan. Notably, both of these are (a) newer than the usages of blasphemy as evil (b) newer than Crown of the Kobold King and (c) indicate a target of the blasphemy. Destroying the totem is explicitly blasphemy against Angazhan. The Godless Void can be created by "churches that fell from grace through the blasphemous deeds of corrupted worshipers" which implies that good-aligned godless voids could involve the blasphemy of evil churches against their own patrons. The description also states that "Good-aligned godless voids, or those aligned to law or chaos, are less common" than evil-aligned voids which suggests that the writers are aware that blasphemy is generally evil and don't want to entirely subvert that pattern.
So why is it that this definition that all the writers are being careful to not undermine hasn't been written down as a rule anywhere?
Because it isn't one. Also the examples you provide of the spell and the following uses of the term in that google search, were published after the heart ripper dagger (with the exception of the Balor) by different authors so I find it highly unlikely that they were trying to maintain some internal consistency with a piece of language used in an one items flavor text and was apparently some secret code for evil. Not that their is anything it the rules to even corroborate the existence of this secret code.Chances are they weren't even aware of it whilst they were writing it.
So while it's possible for something to be blasphemous and not evil, it seems somewhat unlikely that the author would have been unaware of this context throughout PF
given most the examples you gave literally didn't exist at the time of writing I'd say that its pretty likely he wasn't aware of them. there was 6 years between that dagger and that spell...
and dating back to 3E, or that he would use that charged word casually in the description of a creepy but un-aligned sacrificial knife - because if it's not using "blasphemous" in the general PF sense of evil magic, who is it blaspheming against?
You can blaspheme against anything sacred and evil things can be sacred so I'm just gonna go with. Could be anything.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, it says sunlight, not direct sunlight. So the light filtering down through the canopy from the sun should count unless there's wibbly-wobbly magic going on, no?
Or have I missed some rules text that states otherwise?
It's just, that in my imagination, the Darkwood forest is kinda like Middle-Earths Mirkwood (or like some of the forests in my home region, and it can get very dark there. But I certainly wouldn't insist on that if that was the solution the players chose.
Subdue foe + coup de grace them is not cold-blooded murder, it's much closer to execution.
By RAW, you're right. But again, I'm not talking about subdue foe +CDG, I'm talking about subdue foe + cdg + rip his heart out + eat it. And that all with a weapon that has obviously been created with evil intentions in mind
But I think I've had my say and nothing new to add. So in case you're honestly interested in my opinion, please use the PM function or just read my posts in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, you're right. But again, I'm not talking about subdue foe +CDG, I'm talking about subdue foe + cdg + rip his heart out + eat it. And that all with a weapon that has obviously been created with evil intentions in mind
But here is the thing: who the heck CARES what the intent was in creating it? If I made a bow with the intent of assassinating a king, is the bow evil? If I make a pitfall to kill paladins, is the trap evil? If a Decanter of Endless Water made to drown kittens evil? Does a torch made to burn down an orphanage evil?
Why an item was made doesn't make it evil.
Now let's look at it's basic features, removing the ambiguous and subjective text and leaving actual effects and mechanics:
Coup de grace removes hearts. This is a guaranteed kill and can be seen as providing a merciful death as other methods may not kill the target. Seems pretty non-evil.
then
Consume the heart to remove disease, restoration, and cure serious wounds effect.
or
Cause the heart to burst into flames, after which the Blade becomes a +2 flaming burst.
or
Cause the heart to boil and smoke, granting you the ability to use divination or scrying.
So is:
removing a heart evil [target alive or dead]? no
is eating a heart evil? no
is causing a heart to burst into flames evil? no
is causing a heart to boil and smoke evil? no
Even looking at real live, removing organs for divination is a practice that is happening to this day. I haven't heard of any modern organized religions chopping out hearts these days though...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
given most the examples you gave literally didn't exist at the time of writing I'd say that its pretty likely he wasn't aware of them. there was 6 years between that dagger and that spell...
I think you're looking at Mythic Blasphemy, which is new. The Blasphemy spell goes back to the 3E Core Rulebook. As do Holy vs Unholy weapons and water and sacred and profane bonuses. It's a bit harder for me to find other uses of the word "blasphemy" in the rest of 3E because most of the rules aren't online (at least officially) and google searches keep going back to the spell - which is apparently infamous as a party-killer - with a detour to the Fiend of Blasphemy prestige class for evil outsiders.
These are not minor, fringe things. It's not a handful of independent authors. It's a trend. Words like Bane and Occultist are used in a variety of places, but always used in a way that is consistent with their general useage. Blasphemy, Unholy, and Profane are used in a lot of places in ways that are similar, but contrary to their dictionary definition. That makes it noteworthy.
So why is it that this definition that all the writers are being careful to not undermine hasn't been written down as a rule anywhere?
...
You're frankly giving Paizo too much credit for internal linguistic consistency.
How could you say I'm giving Paizo too much credit for consistency and still expect that they be consistent enough to write down somewhere "blasphemous things are typically evil aligned"? Especially when they have in the past dragged their heels on officially confirming things like "casting [evil] spells is an evil act"?
You can blaspheme against anything sacred and evil things can be sacred so I'm just gonna go with. Could be anything.
You can blaspheme against anything. But you can't blaspheme against nothing - any specific action of blasphemy has blaspheme against a particular sacred thing. (Note here that we're using the dictionary definition of sacred, not the pathfinder definition.)
And when people use words, they are usually trying to communicate. So what do you think the author was trying to communicate by using that word? "This effect is blasphemous against... something. Could be anything, I'm not going to be specific"? Or "this weapon is evil, like the well-known spell Blasphemy"?
You know how they could have communicated that the weapon was evil? By saying so, in the rules, take your example of an unholy weapon for example, a explicitly evil item not exactly hard to communicate that if you want to. But they didn't. Normally when an item has a clear simple consistent none problematic function people don't go hunting through the flavor text to try and work out another secret intended version of the weapon.
A simple clear non problematic function doesn't include the requirement that you kill a helpless creature to activate the item. Given that effects with similar requirements are often evil, and the word "blasphemy" is often used in the context of evil magic, it makes sense to look at the item and say "hang on, is it possible this was intended to be evil aligned?" Yes, it should have been explicit. But I think odds are decent that if one of the developers bothered to look at this item they would say, like with the action of casting an [evil] spell, "oh, yeah, that's supposed to be evil."
Now, maybe you don't care. If you prefer the weapon to be non-aligned, that's fine. I agree that it's a bit sadistic of the AP author to write a horrific disease into the adventure in a place where the party wouldn't be able to access a cure, and then add a cure in the form of an evil-aligned item.
What I don't agree with is telling the OP that they should use the RAW version of the item even if they think the RAI is different and even if they think that their interpretation of RAI would improve their game.
But here is the thing: who the heck CARES what the intent was in creating it?I do.
But what about the follow up question on the other items intent? How does that intent make them evil? If you say that a torch made to burn down orphanage isn't evil, then you're not consistent. Or how about this. If it was a plain old +1 dagger that was made for sacrificing innocent, human victims, would said dagger be evil? What if it gave a +2 to coup de grace? evil? What if it draws out the blood of the victim, say for a vampire? evil now?
Where is the cut off where intent is translated into an alignment shift? If we're JUST looking at intent, ANY object that you find in the world could be evil depending on the creators of it...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey hey! No one here is demanding anyone to do anything...
It's just a little disagreement, which happens all the time with this alignment stuff. Probably because alignments are kind of hard to figur out, and the Gods aren't really helping on this front...
I mean, just look at the fact that it's a possibility for your average Calistria worshipping Anti-paladin to end up in Elysium upon death! Talk about a win-win(-win) scenario!
So if your a follower the Savored Sting, break out the cream sauce and dig in to those hearts, cause you're going to "heaven" every which way things pan out!*
Kind of makes you wonder if you made the right choice, when filling out that follower of a deity or universal philosophical concept (ie alignment) form, that Pharasma receives...
* I would just like to point out that I can't stand the taste, texture or smell of hearts, doesn't mean I wouldn't take a bite if the stakes where high enough though...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey hey! No one here is anyone to do anything...
It's just a little disagreement, which happens all the time with this alignment stuff. Probably because alignments are kind of hard to figur out, and the Gods aren't really helping on this front...I mean, just look at the fact that it's a possibility for your average Calistria worshipping Anti-paladin to end up in Elysium upon death! Talk about a win-win(-win) scenario!
So if your a follower the Savored Sting, break out the cream sauce and dig in to those hearts, cause you're going to "heaven" every which way things pan out!*Kind of makes you wonder if you made the right choice, when filling out that follower of a deity or universal philosophical concept (ie alignment) form, that Pharasma receives...
* I would just like to point out that I can't stand the taste, texture or smell of hearts, doesn't mean I wouldn't take a bite if the stakes where high enough though...
Hahaha!
Spineless as usual!
Elysium here I come!
given most the examples you gave literally didn't exist at the time of writing I'd say that its pretty likely he wasn't aware of them. there was 6 years between that dagger and that spell...I think you're looking at Mythic Blasphemy, which is new. The Blasphemy spell goes back to the 3E Core Rulebook. As do Holy vs Unholy weapons and water and sacred and profane bonuses. It's a bit harder for me to find other uses of the word "blasphemy" in the rest of 3E because most of the rules aren't online (at least officially) and google searches keep going back to the spell - which is apparently infamous as a party-killer - with a detour to the Fiend of Blasphemy prestige class for evil outsiders.
in the nicest possible way, do you think you could use less URLs in your posts, its making replying to them very confusing.
and you're right I am looking at the mythic, turns out that comes up when I search for blasphemy on the psrd, not sure why.
but even these examples prove my point
blasphemy, in that context, is explicitly evil, unholy, explicitly evil, Balor explicitly evil.
This dagger, not. So if you have such faith in their linguistic consistency (I do not share) then why not have faith that they'd have said it was evil if they meant this version to be evil?
These are not minor, fringe things. It's not a handful of independent authors. It's a trend. Words like Bane and Occultist are used in a variety of places, but always used in a way that is consistent with their general useage. Blasphemy, Unholy, and Profane are used in a lot of places in ways that are similar, but contrary to their dictionary definition. That makes it noteworthy.
it is however a group of authors that do not include the creator of the dagger which is also a minor fringe thing. Bane the spell is not obviously consistent with its general usage and the arcanist occultist is first and foremost a summoner, I don't see how thats in anyway particularly occult, yes Occultists summon things but so does a masses of the genre.
Also Blasphemy the spell is in now way consistent with this version of blasphemy because this one is completely undefined so I would contest noteworthy through consistency.
How could you say I'm giving Paizo too much credit for consistency and still expect that they be consistent enough to write down somewhere "blasphemous things are typically evil aligned"?
because making an explicit rule would remove the need for authors to use a secret paizo definition of a word they may not know. Because its an explicit rule. Just like holy and unholy, Sacred and Profane.
Especially when they have in the past dragged their heels on officially confirming things like "casting [evil] spells is an evil act"?
I am not aware that their was any question as to evil spell casting being evil.
And when people use words, they are usually trying to communicate. So what do you think the author was trying to communicate by using that word? "This effect is blasphemous against... something. Could be anything, I'm not going to be specific"? Or "this weapon is evil, like the well-known spell Blasphemy"?
I just got a general nasty vibe reading the flavor for this weapon (nasty, not evil) which Blasphemous added to. I did not think, oh Blasphemous, thats the authors secret code to me that the weapon is evil. Also I've just looked it over again, one doesn't even need to use the blasphemous bit to heal. Thought that was worth mentioning.
Therefore by your logic is not the only evil part of the dagger the divination or scry? since thats the bit that needs blasphemy?
A simple clear non problematic function doesn't include the requirement that you kill a helpless creature to activate the item.
actually no that is simple clear and no problematic. Coup De Grace are not evil, eating a heart is not evil, there is nothing unclear.
Given that effects with similar requirements are often evil
so take this item for what it is, an exception, don't try to make it fit when nothing about it mechanically does. Often, not always.
and the word "blasphemy" is often used in the context of evil magic, it makes sense to look at the item and say "hang on, is it possible this was intended to be evil aligned?" Yes, it should have been explicit. But I think odds are decent that if one of the developers bothered to look at this item they would say, like with the action of casting an [evil] spell, "oh, yeah, that's supposed to be evil."
No what it makes sense to do is assume weapons with the evil descriptor are evil and weapons without are not. You could give a flaming weapon the command word "f!~$ Sarenrea" its blasphemous, not evil. Not that the character in question would even need the blasphemous bit.
Why would it be supposed to be evil? nothing it does is evil, none of the spells it uses are evil, nothing it requires you to do is evil.
Now, maybe you don't care. If you prefer the weapon to be non-aligned, that's fine.
I prefer people use the rules as they're written whenever their is no reason to do otherwise. And no, getting a nasty vibe from a neutral weapon is not a reason to start ignoring the rules. What is is when something doesn't make sense or work, like Celestial healing.
What I don't agree with is telling the OP that they should use the RAW version of the item even if they think the RAI is different and even if they think that their interpretation of RAI would improve their game.
...
The OP asked for opinions, I gave mine. As it happens I pretty sure that about a page ago the OP said they liked my idea for how to handle the situation, so I'm pretty sure the OP is fine with that I said, you don't need to ride to their defense.
Also worth baring in mind what one person thinks will improve a game is useless without the other people in the games opinion, even if that one person happens to be the GM, its a collaboration after all.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you say that a torch made to burn down orphanage isn't evil, then you're not consistent.
Is this a magical torch, whose effects I can only activate by burning down orphanages? Then yes, pretty much evil. Normal torch, no not evil. But burning down orphanages is always evil, no matter which torch you use.
It's pretty consistent with what I think about +1 daggers, the Heartripper Blade and ripping a sentient humanoid's heart out to eat it.
And remember, I'm not talking about the intent of the item's creator ingame, I'm talking about the author/designer's intent when he wrote and put this item into the adventure. Though from an ingame perspective, I'd like to ask the question: When you could technically create the same item, having the same effects without having to kill someone, why would you add such a gruesome condition to activate those abilities? There is nothing in RAW nor in setting, that makes this necessary, if you just want to imbue the item with those abilities.
Is this a magical torch, whose effects I can only activate by burning down orphanages? Then yes, pretty much evil. Normal torch, no not evil. But burning down orphanages is always evil, no matter which torch you use.
That's some impressive goalpost moving there. The dagger in question and the torch are just sitting on a table. How is one evil and the other isn't
The magic dagger in question CAN be used in a non-evil manner. That includes using it's magic by using an animal to activate it. So it's EXACTLY like the that magic torch except it just sets fires: the target can be anything, orphanages or evil cult houses.
It's pretty consistent with what I think about +1 daggers, the Heartripper Blade and ripping a sentient humanoid's heart out to eat it.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. You added a words that doesn't belong there: "sentient humanoid's". It's meant to rip out hearts period. Take your torch example: the dagger doesn't activate ONLY with "sentient humanoid's" does it? WHy does your opinion change between them. You can use the dagger as intended in a non-evil way just like you can use the torch to light a campfire.
And remember, I'm not talking about the intent of the item's creator ingame, I'm talking about the author/designer's intent when he wrote and put this item into the adventure.
Assume we agree his intent was to create a dagger that could be used in a humanoid sacrifice. Why would we assume that is the ONLY way it was intended to be used? If anything, knowing the AP, why wouldn't add an item that could be used by the party [remove disease] that was also thematically appropriate to the AP? It's more interesting that just dropping a scroll of remove disease isn't it?IE: Why assume it only works on humanoids when it's scope isn't that narrow based on nothing really.
Though from an ingame perspective, I'd like to ask the question: When you could technically create the same item, having the same effects without having to kill someone, why would you add such a gruesome condition to activate those abilities?
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. You added a word again. "someone". A creature is what is required.
#1 As I said above, thematic.
Secondly, it's not something you can do without preparation. If you want to do it in a non-evil way so it limits access to remove disease, restoration, and cure serious wounds: There is a limit to creatures you can bring along/find.
3rd, there are non-evil gruesomeness all around pathfinder. Carrion Compass requires an undeads organ (typically the heart, the brain, or an eyeball) that you animate and it leads you to it's creator. Not evil. Icky doesn't equal evil.
There is nothing in RAW nor in setting, that makes this necessary, if you just want to imbue the item with those abilities.
Every item, ability, ect has fluff that isn't needed in it. In this case there is some fluff about the AP that this particular dagger was made to be used in human sacrifices.
Now let's do an experiment. There is nothing unique with the item so other could create it. Let's say a hunter from Realm of the Mammoth Lords makes this blade and the fluff is that he wants to take the strength of his prey, much like Inuit people doing it out of respect for nature and the idea that blood and energy flows from one living creature to another. This knife was made to be used on megafauna not humanoids: is it evil? And if it isn't, then you're saying it's alignment is based purely on the fluff then?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in the nicest possible way, do you think you could use less URLs in your posts, its making replying to them very confusing.
I can try to suppress my strong urge to cite sources.
Similarly, I'm finding it difficult to reply to things line by line so if I can instead summarize:
"Occult" basically means "supernatural or magical," often dealing with spiritual entities including what in PF would be termed Outsiders. Prior to Occult Adventures standardizing the PF meaning of the term, there was also a Dimensional Occultist witch archetype that got planar binding and contact other plane. So that's consistent. Bane is "a cause of great distress or annoyance" which fits with a spell that "fills your enemies with fear and doubt."
Yes, there used to be some confusion over whether evil spells are evil actions. Since I don't know how else to demonstrate that, here is a single link to a previous debate. The argument boiled down to "Of course casting [evil] spells is evil! It's right on the tin!" versus "But why would casting an [evil] spell make you more evil when casting a [fire] spell doesn't make you more fiery?"
Which is why I don't have faith that they'd remember to put the [evil] tag on the knife. They could have thought it was obvious in context.
I do not think that the fact that the word blasphemy only occurs in reference to the third power indicates that only that power is evil. That is because my argument is not based on a strict literal reading of the text ("Blasphemy means evil so the part of the item that is described as blasphemous is the evil part") but instead the idea that the author's use of words like "blasphemy" indicate their general image of the item as they wrote it.
Eating a heart is not always evil, just like the word blasphemy is not always used to mean something evil. However, in PF both the word and the action occur more commonly in evil than non-evil contexts.
It could be an exception, but in that case it is a misleading exception. You could make a non-evil item that has a blasphemous command word but what is the point? What does it add to the item? Is there any reason why someone would write an item designed to be really "nasty" sounding and not make it evil? If the point is that nasty =/= evil, then shouldn't it draw attention to the fact that the knife isn't actually evil? Especially given that the most common association with handling a sacrificial victim's "still-beating" heart is the Aztec human sacrifice and not divinations using animal organs?
Personally, if I intended PCs to be able to use this item without moral repercussions, I would have added a sidebar saying "despite its current use as a tool of human sacrifice the blade is not inherently evil and can be used on animals."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok I was gonna contribute some more but the argument has gotten way to abstract and I got bored so good luck people.
I can try to suppress my strong urge to cite sources.Similarly, I'm finding it difficult to reply to things line by line so if I can instead summarize:
Thanks for restraining yourself xD I address line by line because otherwise I think it can unclear which bits I'm addressing.
"Occult" basically means "supernatural or magical," often dealing with spiritual entities including what in PF would be termed Outsiders. Prior to Occult Adventures standardizing the PF meaning of the term, there was also a Dimensional Occultist witch archetype that got planar binding and contact other plane. So that's consistent. Bane is "a cause of great distress or annoyance" which fits with a spell that "fills your enemies with fear and doubt."
You'd think they'd use another name for the class then rather than one that they've been using as a general term because the Occultist is Dresden magic tokens much more than summoning.
But not with the boost in damage on a weapon, that weapon simply becomes the bane of a particular type of creatures life, but no fear. Because the terms are being used to denote a different effect. Like an evil one and a none evil one perhaps.
Yes, there used to be some confusion over whether evil spells are evil actions. Since I don't know how else to demonstrate that, here is a single link to a previous debate. The argument boiled down to "Of course casting [evil] spells is evil! It's right on the tin!" versus "But why would casting an [evil] spell make you more evil when casting a [fire] spell doesn't make you more fiery?"
XD who knew, well if you've been reading the thread you probably know how I feel about that debate.
Which is why I don't have faith that they'd remember to put the [evil] tag on the knife. They could have thought it was obvious in context.
I don't really buy that at all they didn't feel it was obvious unholy was evil, yet I'd say that was more obvious since it's explicitly anti good.
I do not think that the fact that the word blasphemy only occurs in reference to the third power indicates that only that power is evil. That is because my argument is not based on a strict literal reading of the text ("Blasphemy means evil so the part of the item that is described as blasphemous is the evil part") but instead the idea that the author's use of words like "blasphemy" indicate their general image of the item as they wrote it.
I think the way the author wrote and statted the item indicates what they wanted the item to be. None aligned. I find it very hard to buy because Blasphemy was a floating term we must assume the whole item is evil, when you totally use the item without even using the blasphemy clause.
Eating a heart is not always evil, just like the word blasphemy is not always used to mean something evil. However, in PF both the word and the action occur more commonly in evil than non-evil contexts.
I mean, I don't honestly know of any other instance where a PC will eat a heart...
but no eating a heart is none aligned evil things (I'm assuming its a thing a monster does) might do it, but that doesn't make the act evil
It could be an exception, but in that case it is a misleading exception. You could make a non-evil item that has a blasphemous command word but what is the point?
to use a word and adhere to its definition, as a none aligned act?
What does it add to the item? Is there any reason why someone would write an item designed to be really "nasty" sounding and not make it evil?
yeah, nasty isn't evil, thats a pretty good reason.
If the point is that nasty =/= evil, then shouldn't it draw attention to the fact that the knife isn't actually evil? Especially given that the most common association with handling a sacrificial victim's "still-beating" heart is the Aztec human sacrifice and not divinations using animal organs?
well the blasphemous bit of the item does seem to be calling back to the divination animal organs function/trope, a none aligned trope.
Personally, if I intended PCs to be able to use this item without moral repercussions, I would have added a sidebar saying "despite its current use as a tool of human sacrifice the blade is not inherently evil and can be used on animals."
Nothing in the item says it has to be used for human sacrifice though. So that sidebar is unnecessary. Also you could have a human bane sword, that wouldn't be an evil sword. Despite being intended to kill humans, so I still don't think that line would be necessary.
|
|
That's some impressive goalpost moving there.
Actually it's just correcting your wrong analogy to better fit what I am saying since my very first post.
Apart from that (and this will be the last thing, I'll say about this topic): I told my view about this item and it's use, as I see it. You can disagree with me as much as you want to, and I'm absolutely fine with it, but basically it comes down to what is a fundamental disagreement about RAW, RAI, their importance for the game and the relationship between them.
Also I'm not that familiar with the scenario but would you allow him to sacrifice an item instead of a person something important to him.
In real life, there was a long standing tradition of making sacrificial feast where the meat of the animal living being sacrificed to the gods was eaten by the participants afterwards, or taken home to be eaten later. Sacrifice or not, meat was expensive commodity not to be wasted.
Also I'm not that familiar with the scenario but would you allow him to sacrifice an item instead of a person something important to him.In real life, there was a long standing tradition of making sacrificial feast where the meat of theanimalliving being sacrificed to the gods was eaten by the participants afterwards, or taken home to be eaten later. Sacrifice or not, meat was expensive commodity not to be wasted.
I think you quoted the wrong post. but I know which one you meant I think and someone else already filled me in but thank you.
|
|
Chromantic Durgon, I don't mind you replying line-by-line. I usually do it myself, but it's getting to be too many lines for me to handle.
I don't think Occultist is a great name for the class either, but it's still within the realm of "magical or supernatural" and Outside Contact is reminiscent of previous' archetypes outsider-stuff. Doing extra damage to something, like filling it with fear and doubt, is also "a cause of great distress or annoyance." Again, in this case these words are consistent with general usage as compared to consistent with some specific in-game meaning.
I don't like how evil spells are handled in PF either but it does give us some hints as to likely RAI.
Eating a heart is not always evil, just like the word blasphemy is not always used to mean something evil. However, in PF both the word and the action occur more commonly in evil than non-evil contexts.I mean, I don't honestly know of any other instance where a PC will eat a heart...
Ah, this is my fault. I meant to refer to the action of consuming a creature's body or life force in order to achieve a magical effect. Again, Blood Drinker, Cook People, and Death Knell, the last of which notably does not require a sentient victim.
well the blasphemous bit of the item does seem to be calling back to the divination animal organs function/trope, a none aligned trope.
Divination with animal organs is non-aligned BUT it's also something that makes much more sense when associated with sacred concepts than with profane/blasphemous ones, in the dictionary definitions of those words. If the item was non-aligned I would expect it to be a "baleful knife used in bloody sacrifice with a sacred command word" or even a "baleful knife used in bloody sacrifice with an occult command word."
Honestly @Weirdo I think we're going to talk around this subject in circles, you don't have enough to convince me of anything and I obviously am not going to convince you.
I don't think one colorful linguistic choice undermines how an item works or justifies trying to find an alternative ruling on the item. You do. Thats all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it helps to bring some moral clarity to most alignment questions, and many might be best solved by a version of the Golden Rule.
Most alignment questions seem to boil down to this:
"This Player of mine is proposing to commit [X Action] against [Particular Character] to achieve [Supposed Good Result]. Is [X Action] an evil act under the circumstances?"
Just replace [Particular Character] with someone you love and care for deeply. Perhaps your spouse or life partner; perhaps your child; perhaps a sibling or dearest friend.
Now, if [X Action] were committed against your loved one in a real life situation, would you consider it a heinous act? Would it shatter your life, traumatize your and perhaps permanently ruin your psyche knowing such an act were committed against someone you loved and treasured so much? If the answer to any of these questions is yes...it is probably an evil action.
So, This Player of mine is proposing to kill a rat and eat its heart in order to not turn into a horrible monster that will eat all my friends. Is [X Action] an evil act under the circumstances?"= NO!
Hey guys
so my players are slowly working through Crown of the Kobold King. My LG War Priest has succumbed to the kiss of a Vargouille.
Now the only solution I can see out of this situation is the Heartripper Blade at the end of the dungeon. But using he has to sacrifice a creature which I would consider an evil act
do you think that using it should have ramifications on his alignment/spells/abilities in some way?
No.
One evil act, unless it's absurdly heinous (like destroying an entire city) doesn't shift alignment. Unless your character is a paladin or cleric, it wouldn't have any effect on his abilities either.
Of course, alignment is stupid anyway, but whatevs. :)