| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good damage only effects evil creatures and evil damage only effects good creatures
I personally house rule to half both for neutral but that is just me. I have issues with the rule as written. Namely it discourages players from playing good aligned characters
I personally house rule to half both for neutral but that is just me. I have issues with the rule as written. Namely it discourages players from playing good aligned characters
I thought in houserule like this many times. The currently alignment mechanics just fells bad IMO. If you do a char that do some alignment damage this damage only works against the opposite creatures also allowing this to be used as a strange alignment detector. Also this turns most divine offensive spells into subpar spells in mostly cases also gives neutrals chars an clear advantage over other alignments and gives a very bad disadvantage to neutral gods being chosen.
I rule it as "pick 2 ignore 1"
Neutral damage affects creatures that don't have a neutral component in their alignment (LE, CG, LG, CE), Lawful damage affects neutral and Chaotic, evil damage affects neutr and good, etc etc.
It's still possible to pick some alignments that don't get affected but there's less, and it makes neutral gods less sucky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. You added neutral alignment as an alignment type instead of no-alignment. In fact I agree this makes the alignment effects far more useful and interesting.
A lot of the neutral deities have better spells or domains, which Paizo may or may not have factored in.
Also, I'm not against Good being a harder path than Neutral. That's been true throughout my gaming, even w/ superhero RPGs. Isn't that the way of such things? Of course my players, even newer ones, often realize that A. They prefer playing good folk and B. Goodness gets rewarded due to my own narrative sensibilities of poetic justice, karma, etc.
I think if I were running Warhammer (grim) or Midnight (GRIM!) fantasy settings, then mechanical changes might be necessary for balance, but I don't think PF2 in Golarion requires that. There are enough Good factions that could (should?) have better relations w/ Good PCs than neutral ones.
OT: This reminds me of a non-good, borderline PC from 20ish years ago who wasn't let in the presence of a pure-souled prodigy so didn't receive a very important blessing for the PCs' next incursion. Thankfully he realized this and hung back when others went through a deadly barrier that the Cleric was trying to coax him through since it was an "illusion". It wasn't. The Cleric's player was kind of dumb and hadn't connected the earlier blessing to them sustaining no damage going through. He himself went back and forth through it, not realizing he was depleting those defenses he'd need in the temple beyond. He died in the finale, pouted when he realized everybody had known he'd messed up earlier (as evidenced by the animal companion he killed by coaxing when others told him to leave it behind), then cheated and "recalculated" his damage to find his PC barely okay (which later led to his exodus). The non-good PC and a Barbarian buddy that stayed behind to protect him had their own hands full while the others wrapped up inside.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally house rule to half both for neutral but that is just me. I have issues with the rule as written. Namely it discourages players from playing good aligned charactersI thought in houserule like this many times. The currently alignment mechanics just fells bad IMO. If you do a char that do some alignment damage this damage only works against the opposite creatures also allowing this to be used as a strange alignment detector. Also this turns most divine offensive spells into subpar spells in mostly cases also gives neutrals chars an clear advantage over other alignments and gives a very bad disadvantage to neutral gods being chosen.
Best is playing a Neutral Cleric of a Good deity.
Remember though that Good damage not hurting Neutral creatures was done to avoid Good damage killing innocent Neutral creatures, such as babies.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, if you don't want to hurt babies you shouldn't cast aoe spells.
Anyways everyone knows babies are evil sociopaths, cast divine wrath in a nursery and it would light up like the 4th of July in there.
|
I've made plenty use of the standard rules where an AoO with Good damage doesn't hurt the sketchy but not quite officially evil rogue in the party.
Good damage is pretty good. Many neutral things are either: an animal that can be avoided or appeased with good or such; a golem that's immune to animal anyway; or someone who isn't actually a true bad guy and could be handled socially. 90% of the things that really have to be fought turn out to be perfectly susceptible to Good damage, making it more reliable than many other damage types.
Remember though that Good damage not hurting Neutral creatures was done to avoid Good damage killing innocent Neutral creatures, such as babies.
But the opposite isn't valid I don't see the same for Evil damage for many bad deities killing babies make sense.
Look, if you don't want to hurt babies you shouldn't cast aoe spells.
Also probably if a good deity believer tries to kill a baby with a good damage this instantly turns into an anathema and the caster can instant loose it's powers.
I've made plenty use of the standard rules where an AoO with Good damage doesn't hurt the sketchy but not quite officially evil rogue in the party.
Good damage is pretty good. Many neutral things are either: an animal that can be avoided or appeased with good or such; a golem that's immune to animal anyway; or someone who isn't actually a true bad guy and could be handled socially. 90% of the things that really have to be fought turn out to be perfectly susceptible to Good damage, making it more reliable than many other damage types.
Not only animals, many beasts can be neutral too.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember though that Good damage not hurting Neutral creatures was done to avoid Good damage killing innocent Neutral creatures, such as babies.But the opposite isn't valid I don't see the same for Evil damage for many bad deities killing babies make sense.
Look, if you don't want to hurt babies you shouldn't cast aoe spells.Also probably if a good deity believer tries to kill a baby with a good damage this instantly turns into an anathema and the caster can instant loose it's powers.
Not only animals, many beasts can be neutral too.I've made plenty use of the standard rules where an AoO with Good damage doesn't hurt the sketchy but not quite officially evil rogue in the party.
Good damage is pretty good. Many neutral things are either: an animal that can be avoided or appeased with good or such; a golem that's immune to animal anyway; or someone who isn't actually a true bad guy and could be handled socially. 90% of the things that really have to be fought turn out to be perfectly susceptible to Good damage, making it more reliable than many other damage types.
People can check the PF1 forums for the debates about Good damage killing Neutral creatures. IIRC it wasn't always pretty.
Granted, the PF2 rule opens yet another can of worms.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It still feels wrong to me that Detect Evil doesn't penetrate Undetectable Alignment but Divine Lance does.
Fun fact : in PFS, casting Divine Lance out of combat will earn you Infamy, same as doing a really evil act.
Yeah, going around casting offensive magic is certainly a wildly antisocial thing to do, but I have also met some player characters who were just wildly antisocial.
Fun fact : in PFS, casting Divine Lance out of combat will earn you Infamy, same as doing a really evil act.Yeah, going around casting offensive magic is certainly a wildly antisocial thing to do, but I have also met some player characters who were just wildly antisocial.
It's not like not taking damage is proof of the opposite alignment: temp hp, resistances, DR all ect could all result in the target taking no apparent damage but result in the person casting it having to deal with the consequences of attacking random people to detect alignments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Random people, no.
Weird monstrous creatures you meet in a dungeon that asks you to free it? Well divine lance is as good as it gets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Random people, no.
Weird monstrous creatures you meet in a dungeon that asks you to free it? Well divine lance is as good as it gets.
I don't think you'll win friends and influence people by attacking them even if it ends up not doing any damage: by the time you have nothing left but to attack them, you might as well just let them where they are as whatever creature you're dealing with has reasons to question YOUR alignment...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you'll win friends and influence people by attacking them even if it ends up not doing any damage: by the time you have nothing left but to attack them, you might as well just let them where they are as whatever creature you're dealing with has reasons to question YOUR alignment...Random people, no.
Weird monstrous creatures you meet in a dungeon that asks you to free it? Well divine lance is as good as it gets.
They will cast Divine Lance too. Just to be sure.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They will cast Divine Lance too. Just to be sure.I don't think you'll win friends and influence people by attacking them even if it ends up not doing any damage: by the time you have nothing left but to attack them, you might as well just let them where they are as whatever creature you're dealing with has reasons to question YOUR alignment...Random people, no.
Weird monstrous creatures you meet in a dungeon that asks you to free it? Well divine lance is as good as it gets.
Just stand very still. You have Recognize Spell right? No? Well this certainly is Divine Lance and not Disintegrate. If you feel a numbing sensation that's just a moral quandary, really.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I'm not against Good being a harder path than Neutral.
Good being a harder path than neutral is baked into the basic understanding of those concepts and works fine regardless.
The diegesis of it being preferable for a good deity to employ neutral agents to fight demons because of the asymmetrical advantages it gives them is where it starts to feel kind of silly to me.
They will cast Divine Lance too. Just to be sure.I don't think you'll win friends and influence people by attacking them even if it ends up not doing any damage: by the time you have nothing left but to attack them, you might as well just let them where they are as whatever creature you're dealing with has reasons to question YOUR alignment...Random people, no.
Weird monstrous creatures you meet in a dungeon that asks you to free it? Well divine lance is as good as it gets.
LOL Again proving that amoral is much better than evil.
"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" ;)
Good deity's believer caster with neutral alignment:
"OK I will you go with us but you need to pass in a little exam before. Will be just a little stick, and then it's over." kkkkkkkk
Well a good divine caster don't even need to much repent. If a good divine lance damages so, depending of how fanatic are you or your deity edits, plot or anathemas (Vildeis, Angradd, Cernunnos, Apsu) it's perfectly fine. But even if the caster is more "soft" he/she can still heal using the same divine power the heal the creature and them try to convert them or ate last make it repent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do the same as a few other folks here: alignment damage affects all targets not of the same alignment as the damage. So Evil damage affects all creatures not of evil alignment.
I don't want to fiddle with half damage calculations. And it really solves all my problems, since I don't allow evil PCs in my groups. We play heroic fantasy, not selfish "in it for yourself" fantasy. YMMV.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do the same as a few other folks here: alignment damage affects all targets not of the same alignment as the damage. So Evil damage affects all creatures not of evil alignment.
The only issue I see is area attack spells that deal alignment damage: at a church of Desna, Erastil, Cayden Cailean, Nethys, Brigh ect. there is no alignment you can pick that might not injure some of the followers, especially if every other alignment takes full damage. Divine Wrath/Decree damaging some of pious followers and fellow clerics when you are trying to defend against some demons just seems odd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do the same as a few other folks here: alignment damage affects all targets not of the same alignment as the damage. So Evil damage affects all creatures not of evil alignment.The only issue I see is area attack spells that deal alignment damage: at a church of Desna, Erastil, Cayden Cailean, Nethys, Brigh ect. there is no alignment you can pick that might not injure some of the followers, especially if every other alignment takes full damage. Divine Wrath/Decree damaging some of pious followers and fellow clerics when you are trying to defend against some demons just seems odd.
Those followers need to reconsider their life choices !
I see your point, I just wanted to be judgy ! :-p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are just... paying your sins! Because they aren't pure enough! kkkk
But IMO it's just a oddity of how "bad" the divine tradition represents a so large myriad of deyties that the game has. Because the divine tradition simplifies too much in alighment and positive/negative and is far from represent the deities nature at all.
I prefer Extreme Good and Evil rules myself: only residents of aligned Outer Sphere planes have an alignment! ;)
That's what Anathemas are for. And the custom restricted alignments. And both are something we didn't even have in PF1.
Arazni allowing exactly one adjacent alignment, two that are two steps away, and 1 that is three steps away is really the only thing I needed to see to sell me on this system.
A possible proposal:
1. Characters who do not have an alignment cannot do damage of that alignment. If a neutral character wields a weapon with a holy rune it does nothing.
2. If you receive power from a deity, your deity's alignment supersedes yours for all purposes related to alignment damage. A Lawful Neutral cleric of Abadar can use holy runes and takes evil damage.
|
A possible proposal:
1. Characters who do not have an alignment cannot do damage of that alignment. If a neutral character wields a weapon with a holy rune it does nothing.
2. If you receive power from a deity, your deity's alignment supersedes yours for all purposes related to alignment damage. A Lawful Neutral cleric of Abadar can use holy runes and takes evil damage.
I like sentence 1 of 1. I'd suggest a reword for sentence 2:
If a neutral (on the good/evil spectrum) character wields a weapon with a holy rune it does nothing.Similarly, I like sentence 1 of 2. I am confused as to why Abdar would special in this instance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, possibly picked the wrong name out of the hat or forgot in the moment that Abadar is also Lawful Neutral and so would in this interesting model only take chaotic damage and wield axiomatic weapons.
Hmm, possibly picked the wrong name out of the hat or forgot in the moment that Abadar is also Lawful Neutral and so would in this interesting model only take chaotic damage and wield axiomatic weapons.
That is, in fact, exactly what happened. Woops. Should have said Iomedae or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've made plenty use of the standard rules where an AoO with Good damage doesn't hurt the sketchy but not quite officially evil rogue in the party.
Good damage is pretty good. Many neutral things are either: an animal that can be avoided or appeased with good or such; a golem that's immune to animal anyway; or someone who isn't actually a true bad guy and could be handled socially. 90% of the things that really have to be fought turn out to be perfectly susceptible to Good damage, making it more reliable than many other damage types.
I agree with your assessment, but the weird thing is good damage is something you can proactively build into taking advantage of but barring that neutral alignment is just the better default for fiend fighting. Kind of like how intelligence and charisma are great stats of you're specifically building for them but are the best dump stats if you aren't.
I do the same as a few other folks here: alignment damage affects all targets not of the same alignment as the damage. So Evil damage affects all creatures not of evil alignment.The only issue I see is area attack spells that deal alignment damage: at a church of Desna, Erastil, Cayden Cailean, Nethys, Brigh ect. there is no alignment you can pick that might not injure some of the followers, especially if every other alignment takes full damage. Divine Wrath/Decree damaging some of pious followers and fellow clerics when you are trying to defend against some demons just seems odd.
Yep. That sort of issue should vary from religion to religion dependng on their philosophy. I mean I just play with the defaults but if I was making my own world with its own religions, its definitely something I would be customising.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's what Anathemas are for. And the custom restricted alignments. And both are something we didn't even have in PF1.Arazni allowing exactly one adjacent alignment, two that are two steps away, and 1 that is three steps away is really the only thing I needed to see to sell me on this system.
Fun fact : Divine Lance cast by a CG Cleric of Arazni will deal Evil damage.
Fun fact : Divine Lance cast by a CG Cleric of Arazni will deal Evil damage.That's what Anathemas are for. And the custom restricted alignments. And both are something we didn't even have in PF1.Arazni allowing exactly one adjacent alignment, two that are two steps away, and 1 that is three steps away is really the only thing I needed to see to sell me on this system.
Why check for non-Evil w/ a Good blast when you can check for Good w/ an Evil blast? :-) Neutrals waver too much anyway.
Half cooked idea: what if alignment damage worked on neutral, but not on members of the faith in good standing regardless of alignment? Instead of creating annoying meta incentives for determine alignment, you get a roleplaying opportunity. Given how many divine spells are provide buffs or healing, there's a certain logic to them working better on your own faithful as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. With enemies you know where they stand. With neutrals? Who knows.Why check for non-Evil w/ a Good blast when you can check for Good w/ an Evil blast? :-) Neutrals waver too much anyway.Fun fact : Divine Lance cast by a CG Cleric of Arazni will deal Evil damage.That's what Anathemas are for. And the custom restricted alignments. And both are something we didn't even have in PF1.Arazni allowing exactly one adjacent alignment, two that are two steps away, and 1 that is three steps away is really the only thing I needed to see to sell me on this system.
It sickens me.
|
|
Half cooked idea: what if alignment damage worked on neutral, but not on members of the faith in good standing regardless of alignment? Instead of creating annoying meta incentives for determine alignment, you get a roleplaying opportunity. Given how many divine spells are provide buffs or healing, there's a certain logic to them working better on your own faithful as well.
I like the general idea but I think I'd widen it a bit more. Because say, a Torag cleric might cast a holy smite on a crowd with some LN Abadar worshipers?
What if instead it didn't hurt anyone who's within the set of alignments that your deity likes? So since Torag's okay with LN, nobody with LN in the crowd is hurt by the good damage. But some N bystanders aren't protected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That kind of solution works pretty well for Good deities, but feels a little weird for other alignments.
Like, there's a ton of infighting on the Evil and Chaotic ends of the spectrum: Demons vs Devils, everyone vs Daemons, Proteans vs Demons, Gorumites vs Everyone. Feel like they should be good at hurting each other.
Actually it should be part of traditional greetings between worshippers of Good deities.
I have to admit this is one of the reasons that Divine Lance as RAW seems problematic, as the above seems to be the completely relevant outcome of the existence of the spell as it is.
If it can't hurt anyone but someone who is 'natively evil' that means people would feel 'justified' in doing the damage, and so the spell creates that philosophical crisis. Honestly defining Evil within humans is simply a moral minefield.
I can understand people choosing to have only other-planner creatures have 'alignment' as an option. It helps push the problem to sets of creatures that you can 'justify' them being damaged easier. However, by reducing the set of creatures it affects so drastically, it also weakens its general power significantly.
I can see leaving 'Good' damage when it is 'add-on' damage being left as it is. But it does seem like to keep it from being a lower level alignment testing spell, it seems like it should have the capability to damage neutral targets as well.
I've contemplated the 1/2 damage base, and even thrown in no extra damage on a critical. (failure of save, or success of attack) Thus neutrals would get a chance to be hurt, but not as much.
Alternately, I've contemplated the idea that a Critical Failure by a Neutral entity might be treated as a regular failure (or critical hit by attack, treated as a regular hit).
That would make using it as an attack, something that has the potential of harming a neutral, even if that is not exactly as the spell is intended to.
So... I like to play my own Devil's Advocate... so I'll Divine Lance myself here... to see if my expectations make me evil. (can I explain away why it isn't used to be a lower level detect spell myself?)
It might be relevant that two people walking up to each other and accepting divine lancing of each other, divine lance is one spell... effect determined by source of power... not by variant of spell... so the tradition of walking up and allowing yourself to be divine-lanced by the other individual might result in both entities getting 'auto-critical' hits on one another, which one side might be expecting, while the other doesn't. So maybe it might be a tradition that if started, might have fallen back to only used by guards of the holiest of holy sites, and potentially only by the guard targeting the pilgrim. Or so it isn't done by a person... thereby having the potential 'moral' issue. Perhaps a temple door might be set with a Divine Lance trap that gets activated by opening the door, recharging each round or minute, the petitioner then having to subject themselves to the trap to enter the inner shrine?
There are some reasons why one might not feel comfortable accepting a complete stranger casting a spell you don't know if it will harm you or not. But it becomes a harder sale to explain when you consider someone of higher authority, and a presumed mentor, you might presume to know their source, and therefore the effect would not harm you, and thus be willing. And it is hard to consider casting an attack spell on a willing target highly unethical. So while targeting myself, I see there aren't some mitigations that might exist naturally, they don't seem to cover some of the edge cases.
As a parallel, let me compare it to something doing only positive damage. That as an attack, would do damage to any 'undead', even if the creature was not evil. In fact, it wouldn't only affect undead, but also anything under the effect of Negative Healing. So if used to attack an area with a baby that was born with a Negative Healing the baby would likely die from the spell. Now, guess what, it is easier to imagine people quickly exclude undead or negative healing aberrant as abominations of life... it might be easier to imagine such positive damage being blasted out indiscriminately, not being frowned upon as much. But it actually might strike a philosophical crisis if someone realizes a baby with such an affliction might otherwise be innocent.
I think fewer people would be as concerned about the Positive Damage thing as the Good Damage one, but again, I think that is because people naturally identify LIFE as good, nearly without question, and DEATH/UNDEATH with evil, without question, so the idea of doing positive damage might come off as 'good' by nature. Note that in 2nd edition, Positive energy is divided into Positive damage and positive healing. A dhampir doesn't take damage from a blast of positive healing. They however, do take damage, like undead, if someone blasts out with a blast of positive damage. I think that make a relevant/important distinction making blasts of healing safer, even around undead or negative healing souls, who aren't out to kill the living souls around them.