Does casting a spell with the Evil trait cause the caster to change alignment?


Rules Discussion


Spin-off from the discussion on alignment going on currently.

I vaguely remember some rule from 3.5/PF1 where casting certain spells would cause the caster to change alignment, but I don't see anything about that in PF2.

So was that something that was dropped and people are just having edition confusion on the matter?

Grand Lodge

To the best of my knowledge that has never been a thing.

Clerics were prohibited from casting spells of an alignment trait opposing their own, and that's where it stopped.

There is something similar in 2E where casting evil spells in Anathema to good clerics and visa versa.

Shadow Lodge

In the prior edition, casting an [Evil] spell was an evil act, and repeatedly committing evil acts should cause your alignment to shift towards evil, but the exact mechanics were largely left up to the GMs.

I'm not familiar with any such rule in PF2, but it's not exactly something I've gone looking for...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
In the prior edition, casting an [Evil] spell was an evil act, and repeatedly committing evil acts should cause your alignment to shift towards evil, but the exact mechanics were largely left up to the GMs.

3.0 specified it in one of their evil books. I remember in some of the communities I used to visit it was a big meme that casting Deathwatch (a spell that only told you if someone was dead or alive) like... 7 or 9 times would permanently condemn your soul no matter what you did with your life before or after.


Cleric Anathema CR p.118 wrote:

Acts fundamentally opposed to your deity's alignment or ideals are anathema to your faith. Learning or casting spells, committing acts, and using items that are anathema to your deity remove you from your deity's good graces.

Casting spells with the evil trait is almost always anathema to good deities, and casting good spells is likewise anathema to evil deities; similarly, casting chaotic spells is anathema to lawful deities, and casting lawful spells is anathema to chaotic deities. A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity isn't limited this way, but their alignment might change over time if they frequently cast spells or use abilities with a certain alignment. Similarly, casting spells that are anathema to the tenets or goals of your faith could interfere with your connection to your deity. For example, casting a spell to create undead would be anathema to Pharasma, the goddess of death. For borderline cases, you and your GM determine which acts are anathema.

If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity, or if your alignment changes to one not allowed by your deity, you lose the magical abilities that come from your connection to your deity. The class features that you lose are determined by the GM, but they likely include your divine font and all divine spellcasting. These abilities can be regained only if you demonstrate your repentance by conducting an atone ritual.

This section I bolded might be what you're looking for, but I posted a few more supporting quotes below too

Alignment CR p.28 wrote:
Keep in mind that alignment is a complicated subject, and even acts that might be considered good can be used for nefarious purposes, and vice versa. The GM is the arbiter of questions about how specific actions might affect your character’s alignment.

This is the first mention I can find of your PC's actions causing alignment shifts

Changing Alignment CR p.29 wrote:
Alignment can change during play as a character’s beliefs change, or as you realize that your character’s actions reflect a different alignment than the one on your character sheet. In most cases, you can just change their alignment and continue playing. However, if you play a cleric or champion and your character’s alignment changes to one not allowed for their deity (or cause, for champions), your character loses some of their class abilities until they atone (as described in the class).

This section only mentions changing alignment as if it's a conscious decision and not the consequences of actions

Incremental Alignment GMG p.184 wrote:
Changing character alignment can be extremely dramatic under the Core Rulebook rules. Sometimes, this comes as a surprise to the player, as they find out they and the GM had differing ideas on how their acts impact alignment. The incremental alignment variant breaks each axis of alignment into seven steps that reflect how close a character is to shifting alignments.

This is in the GMG, in the introduction of an optional rule, so not as many players see it

Horizon Hunters

Evil spells in 2e usually only have that trait for a few reasons:
1. They do evil damage. See Chilling Darkness
2. They animate the dead. See Animate Dead.
3. They enslave souls. See Bind Soul.
4. They are related to the Abyss/Abaddon/Hell. See Abyssal Plague, Imp Sting, Daemon/Demon/Devil Form.

Casting these spells is inherently evil, yes, but using them in good ways can lower the impact on your soul. It's all up to the GM in the end whether they will shift your alignment or not. Pharasma isn't going to like you raising undead or enslaving souls for any reason, but I wouldn't say casting Chilling Darkness would corrupt your soul, unless you were using it explicitly to kill Celestials or something, and the Form spells might corrupt you over time due to you emulating the planar essences of an evil realm (mostly Demon form due to how prone the Abyss is to corrupting souls).


It's up to GMs. That's fine with me. Having it spelled out in specific mechanics would make it clunky.


Cordell Kintner wrote:

Evil spells in 2e usually only have that trait for a few reasons:

1. They do evil damage. See Chilling Darkness
2. They animate the dead. See Animate Dead.
3. They enslave souls. See Bind Soul.
4. They are related to the Abyss/Abaddon/Hell. See Abyssal Plague, Imp Sting, Daemon/Demon/Devil Form.

Casting these spells is inherently evil, yes, but using them in good ways can lower the impact on your soul. It's all up to the GM in the end whether they will shift your alignment or not. Pharasma isn't going to like you raising undead or enslaving souls for any reason, but I wouldn't say casting Chilling Darkness would corrupt your soul, unless you were using it explicitly to kill Celestials or something, and the Form spells might corrupt you over time due to you emulating the planar essences of an evil realm (mostly Demon form due to how prone the Abyss is to corrupting souls).

Small caveat here, but Animate Dead doesn't have the Evil trait. The ritual Create Undead does, however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Repeatedly casting them can cause a shift, if your GM cares at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:

In the prior edition, casting an [Evil] spell was an evil act, and repeatedly committing evil acts should cause your alignment to shift towards evil, but the exact mechanics were largely left up to the GMs.

I'm not familiar with any such rule in PF2, but it's not exactly something I've gone looking for...

Yep, it was very nebulous. Casting spells with aligned descriptors would technically over time change your alignment. But it was never spelled out by how much, or quantified in any way to say that it should happen after X casting and didn't account for any other actions you might take either.

To be honest, I preferred this because as a GM it gave me room to say "If you keep casting create undead your going to slip from neutral to evil" without having to get very specific about when or how. It was usually enough to get players to either use such spells very sparingly, or for them to commit to being evil pretty early on.


Baarogue wrote:
Cleric Anathema CR p.118 wrote:

Acts fundamentally opposed to your deity's alignment or ideals are anathema to your faith. Learning or casting spells, committing acts, and using items that are anathema to your deity remove you from your deity's good graces.

Casting spells with the evil trait is almost always anathema to good deities, and casting good spells is likewise anathema to evil deities; similarly, casting chaotic spells is anathema to lawful deities, and casting lawful spells is anathema to chaotic deities. A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity isn't limited this way, but their alignment might change over time if they frequently cast spells or use abilities with a certain alignment. Similarly, casting spells that are anathema to the tenets or goals of your faith could interfere with your connection to your deity. For example, casting a spell to create undead would be anathema to Pharasma, the goddess of death. For borderline cases, you and your GM determine which acts are anathema.

If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity, or if your alignment changes to one not allowed by your deity, you lose the magical abilities that come from your connection to your deity. The class features that you lose are determined by the GM, but they likely include your divine font and all divine spellcasting. These abilities can be regained only if you demonstrate your repentance by conducting an atone ritual.

This section I bolded might be what you're looking for, but I posted a few more supporting quotes below too

Alignment CR p.28 wrote:
Keep in mind that alignment is a complicated subject, and even acts that might be considered good can be used for nefarious purposes, and vice versa. The GM is the arbiter of questions about how specific actions might affect your character’s alignment.

This is the first mention I can find of your PC's actions causing alignment shifts

Changing Alignment CR p.29 wrote:
Alignment can change during play as a character’s
...

So Clerics can violate their Anathema by casting the wrong spells.

But I am not seeing anywhere else in any of those quoted rules that says that casting a spell with the Evil trait is actually an Evil act.

So an LG Witch that takes Lesson of Shadow could use the spell Chilling Darkness without risking their alignment as long as they use the spell to the same ends as all of their other damage dealing spells.

Lesson of Shadow doesn't end up being a trap option since the Lesson itself isn't indicated as being an Evil alignment only option - where non-Evil characters taking it end up with an unusable spell granted to them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a sidebar related to this topic in the Enchantment section of the Spells rules:

Magic and Morality wrote:

Magic and Morality

While magic allows you to perform wondrous acts in the game, it can be used for terrible purposes. While some spells are obviously vile or have the evil trait and a direct connection to the profane, other spells can be used for good or ill. Using magic does not free you from the morality of the outcome.

Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to enchantment spells, especially those used to compel a character to do something. These spells can remove the power of choice from a character and can very easily be used in ways that are evil. Dominating an ogre and forcing him to abandon his guard post is not necessarily evil, but using that same spell to force a merchant to give you all of his wares certainly is. Using a spell for an evil purpose can cause a player character’s alignment to shift to evil, with the ultimate judgment of whether a player is using a spell for an evil purpose left up to the GM.

Regardless of in-game effects, all players should take care when using such spells. These effects can negatively affect people at the table, as they might create situations that echo truly awful experiences players might have had, creating uncomfortable or hostile environments. Players and GMs should work to prevent these situations so everyone can focus on having fun at the table.


breithauptclan wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
Cleric Anathema CR p.118 wrote:

Acts fundamentally opposed to your deity's alignment or ideals are anathema to your faith. Learning or casting spells, committing acts, and using items that are anathema to your deity remove you from your deity's good graces.

Casting spells with the evil trait is almost always anathema to good deities, and casting good spells is likewise anathema to evil deities; similarly, casting chaotic spells is anathema to lawful deities, and casting lawful spells is anathema to chaotic deities. A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity isn't limited this way, but their alignment might change over time if they frequently cast spells or use abilities with a certain alignment. Similarly, casting spells that are anathema to the tenets or goals of your faith could interfere with your connection to your deity. For example, casting a spell to create undead would be anathema to Pharasma, the goddess of death. For borderline cases, you and your GM determine which acts are anathema.

If you perform enough acts that are anathema to your deity, or if your alignment changes to one not allowed by your deity, you lose the magical abilities that come from your connection to your deity. The class features that you lose are determined by the GM, but they likely include your divine font and all divine spellcasting. These abilities can be regained only if you demonstrate your repentance by conducting an atone ritual.

This section I bolded might be what you're looking for, but I posted a few more supporting quotes below too

Alignment CR p.28 wrote:
Keep in mind that alignment is a complicated subject, and even acts that might be considered good can be used for nefarious purposes, and vice versa. The GM is the arbiter of questions about how specific actions might affect your character’s alignment.

This is the first mention I can find of your PC's actions causing alignment shifts

Changing Alignment CR p.29 wrote:
Alignment can change
...

I'm not here to argue the rules on this, because there is no hard and fast rule. BUT the section I thought you'd find most relevant, the section I noted with bold text, beginning with 'a neutral cleric' notes that a neutral cleric is not restricted from casting such spells due to anathema, BUT MIGHT CHANGE ALIGNMENT IF THEY DO SO FREQUENTLY. sorry, caps got stuck on my iPad and I don't feel like backspacing to fix it. Anyway, a GM could rule that the same could happen to your LG witch example too, but as with all alignment changes due to PC actions, that's up to them and subjective to their judgement, as it says in the part beginning with 'the GM is the arbiter...'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baarogue wrote:
Anyway, a GM could rule that the same could happen to your LG witch example too, but as with all alignment changes due to PC actions, that's up to them and subjective to their judgement, as it says in the part beginning with 'the GM is the arbiter...'

Yeah, that is the conclusion I am coming to also. Which is pretty much what I was expecting.

I was just getting a bit confused in the thread about why we have alignment when people were talking about casting spells with the Evil trait. It was sounding like there was some hard and fast rule about the trait that would definitely cause alignment shift.

So yeah. I'm just making sure I'm not missing something.

Personally I think it depends on why the spell has the Evil trait and what the purpose of using the spell is. If the spell has the Evil trait because it deals Evil damage (Chilling Darkness), it probably doesn't affect alignment any more than other damage type spells. Using Fireball to nuke a playground in the middle of a city would be more of an Evil action than casting Chilling Darkness at a bandit that doesn't even take the Evil damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's probably the whole point though. Murdering innocents with a fireball is an indiscriminately evil act but the spell itself isn't evil. But memorizing and casting an evil spell, that's premeditated. The caster is choosing and planning to do harm to good beings or bring evil into the world


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So then the GM says "Sorry your witch is no longer Good" and you just... shrug and keep playing the character and nothing meaningful changes except you're no longer vulnerable to Evil damage.

I'm not sure what we really accomplish there.


Behavior and consequences should weigh heavier on alignment changes. So if one is inclined to keep casting evil spells, a GM should make it clear that those have consequences. Like a witch casting final sacrifice. If a GM shows that the next time your familiar shows up, it is fearful of you, it's a lot more impactful than nothing happening but you still change alignment.

Liberty's Edge

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

To the best of my knowledge that has never been a thing.

Clerics were prohibited from casting spells of an alignment trait opposing their own, and that's where it stopped.

Paizo did introduce rules for this in PF1's Horror Adventures, which were ... not great, in my opinion. I think the right choice here is definitely to not put mechanics to these shifts - it should be narratively appropriate, not because a specific counter was reached. The Horror Adventures rules are as follows:

Horror Adventures p110 wrote:

Evil Spells

This section includes a large number of evil spells. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.

Those who are forbidden from casting spells with an opposed alignment might lose their divine abilities if they circumvent that restriction (via Use Magic Device, for example), depending on how strict their deities are.

Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep... A wizard using a Wand of Infernal Healing 5 times "typically" changes alignment from Good to Evil... Yeah... I don't know anyone that followed that... 'suggestion', especially when what was Evil was pretty hit or miss as you'd have some pretty horrific spells unaligned and you'd have some innocuous spells that were Evil and/or quit similar to spells that weren't Evil.

Liberty's Edge

And similarly, you could take any outrageously evil character, get them to cast Celestial Healing 5 times, and you'd "typically" change their alignment from Evil to Good - it's pretty absurd advice, and I'm glad it has stayed back in Horror Adventures.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That's kind of wild. I mean "repeatedly tapping into eldritch forces has a corruptive effect" is kind of a common media trope that's very fitting for a horror book, but two and three spells is a really low number. That's not a slow fall from grace so much as yoyoing between alignments with a snap of the fingers.

You can be every alignment on the grid in as few as 19 spells (if you start in a corner). That's under two minutes if you can cast them in a round or less!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "issue" is people divorcing Alignment from their character's personality and just treating it like a letter on their character sheet with no bearing whatsoever on their character.

To reiterate "repeatedly tapping into eldritch forces has a corruptive effect"... would have a corruptive effect, look at any other media where this happens, the character doesn't stay exactly the same, if your character used corruptive magics enough to turn evil... they would be evil now.

Saying your character is evil now and not changing anything is the same with people who made LG Paladins and played them as depraved murderhobos. It's only nonsensical in this whole eat cake and have it too in regards to disregarding alignment impact and matters at your leisure.

"You can be every alignment on the grid in as few as 19 spells (if you start in a corner)." you can also have your characters kill themselves for no reason, it's not a failing of mechanics if the players are being silly.

The real issue was the Evil tag not being applied thoroughly (what was that one torture entrapment spell?) and the amount of castings being disagreed with, I can understand why they gave an exact number, because the book can't take into account context and every scenario whereas a GM can and can adjudicate on that.

Which brings u to the current take which encourages the GM to adjudicate as needed.


The thing that's really out of whack is that casting spells of your alignment DON'T counteract your alignment move as it only talks about moving away from your alignment: good acts don't maintain your alignment or counteract evil ones. As such, 2 evil spells in 1 year could turn you neutral no matter how many good spells you cast but once you're neutral, any 2 castings of good spells change you back... It really makes no sense and is best forgotten.

Silver Crusade

That's a very poor reading of how that worked.

Grand Lodge

Arcaian wrote:
Jared Walter 356 wrote:

To the best of my knowledge that has never been a thing.

Clerics were prohibited from casting spells of an alignment trait opposing their own, and that's where it stopped.

Paizo did introduce rules for this in PF1's Horror Adventures, which were ... not great, in my opinion. I think the right choice here is definitely to not put mechanics to these shifts - it should be narratively appropriate, not because a specific counter was reached. The Horror Adventures rules are as follows:

I stand corrected. I have never used the horror adventures.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
The "issue" is people divorcing Alignment from their character's personality and just treating it like a letter on their character sheet with no bearing whatsoever on their character.

To be fair, while the rules do state that alignment is "a creature’s fundamental moral and ethical attitude", that's something I believe should completely be ignored.

Simply for the reason that the opinion on ethics and morals of players at the table are not and cannot be perfectly in sync.
Alignment has too much mechanics tied to it to be the source of trolley problem issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mer_ wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The "issue" is people divorcing Alignment from their character's personality and just treating it like a letter on their character sheet with no bearing whatsoever on their character.

To be fair, while the rules do state that alignment is "a creature’s fundamental moral and ethical attitude", that's something I believe should completely be ignored.

Simply for the reason that the opinion on ethics and morals of players at the table are not and cannot be perfectly in sync.
Alignment has too much mechanics tied to it to be the source of trolley problem issues.

The ethics and morals of a group of random people are rarely going to be in sync, but I don't see how that has any bearing on alignment reflecting the actions and motives of the characters.

The characters that have mechanics most affected by alignment are the ones that thematically should be most consistently acting in a way that aligns with their required alignment anyway. They should, if they follow the edicts and anathema of their deity (because this mostly applies to clerics and champions) generally be using it as a guideline to make decisions by default even without actually taking alignment itself into account.


For clerics following their deity's edicts and anathema and paladins following their cause's code, there is no problem, play as it is written.
But while that's very close to the alignment system, it's distinct.
What rubs me the wrong way is the assumption that alignment should interface with your personality because it relies on deciding that some personality traits are aligned in a certain way and that's the first step to an unwanted philosophical debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
That's a very poor reading of how that worked.

It's a 100 percent correct and accurate read. Please point out where it ever tells you that good acts offset evil ones when you are good. Or for that matter that good and evil offset each other when you're neutral... It's not my fault that they left that out of the section. All and all, it's quite poorly thought out IMO. It's a "very poor reading" if you invent parts that aren't mentioned to make it work like you think it should.

Silver Crusade

Right at the end

Quote:
Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.

Maybe actually read what you’re talking about instead of immediately jumping to accuse others of lying just because they disagree with you.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
The "issue" is people divorcing Alignment from their character's personality and just treating it like a letter on their character sheet with no bearing whatsoever on their character.

Disagree. The issue is trying to turn alignment into a prescriptive mechanism based on concepts that are arbitrary and hard to intuit.

"The things I have done have changed my outlook on the world" is a compelling narrative.

"I healed someone twice and now have a fundamentally different perspective" is less so... and a GM compelling someone at their table to play their character differently as a result of the latter can come across as bad form.

Quote:
Saying your character is evil now and not changing anything is the same with people who made LG Paladins and played them as depraved murderhobos.

But in that case, changing someone's alignment is changing a descriptive aspect of their character sheet in order to match their behavior.

We're doing the opposite here, which is why it's not a great rule.

Quote:
"You can be every alignment on the grid in as few as 19 spells (if you start in a corner)." you can also have your characters kill themselves for no reason, it's not a failing of mechanics if the players are being silly.

It's an extreme example, but no, I think it absolutely is a failing of mechanics to treat a character's fundamental perspective and behavior so flippantly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Right at the end

Quote:
Though this advice talks about evil spells, it also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.
Maybe actually read what you’re talking about instead of immediately jumping to accuse others of lying just because they disagree with you.

Oh, I DID read that and it's 1000 percent meaningless and a moot point as a counterargument to what I said... You FAILED to point out where there is an offset for good spell casting on your alignment shift for casting evil spells. I'll wait... No matter how many times I look at it, there isn't a mention of that, only how many evil spells you cast moving the alignment dial: so 10000 good spells in NO way counteracts a single evil spell by the rules as you ONLY count the number of evil spells and the reverse would be true if we were talking about a evil alignment and what affect casting good and evil spells would have.

Liberty's Edge

Rysky wrote:
To reiterate "repeatedly tapping into eldritch forces has a corruptive effect"... would have a corruptive effect, look at any other media where this happens, the character doesn't stay exactly the same, if your character used corruptive magics enough to turn evil... they would be evil now.

Repeatedly tapping into evil magic having a corruptive effect is an interesting story, and absolutely something that should be possible to replicate in Pathfinder. The rules being discussed don't do it justice in the slightest. If a table were playing evil characters and wanted to get the heroic CG wizard opposing you to fall to evil, it'd feel like an utter cop-out if you just kidnapped them and threatened them with death if they didn't cast Infernal Healing on themselves five times and then they were suddenly chaotic evil. A much more satisfying story is you planning how you're going to put the hero in situations where they're willing to compromise on their morals and use evil magic. That leads to a character examination - what are they willing to resort to evil to protect/obtain? When they realise they're falling, do they embrace it, or do they try and address the issue? If they find out what your party is doing, are they now going to be completely unwilling to resort to evil magic regardless of the situation? This leads to a story, where you find out who the person is, and how they fall to evil. The first one leaves you with a million questions about how this works (how does their mindset change so much in the course of half a minute? if it doesn't change that much, are they just metaphysically evil but not evil in perspective?) and is narratively unsatisfying. The issue here is a rule that tries to apply granular detail to something that needs to be left at the behest of the narrative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people are forgetting that the rules in Horror Adventures are not the default. Those rules are specifically crafted to make the game darker and closer to a horror story than the game normally allows. Note that the rule specifically says "more time in between casting might mean it has no effect", that whole section is meant to show how a character starts using evil spells and if they don't control themselves they might become evil.

The most direct text talking about anything even closely related (not tied to horror adventures) is from Ultimate Campaign. There it tells the GM to track points and shift based on "how out of character" the action is. Here it specifically says that it is easy to move away from your alignment but hard to be solidly in it. Meaning that you cannot be extremely good by just doing token gestures, but you can easily become neutral from doing a bit of evil.

Everything else in both PF1 and PF2 is very much "the GM decides" and/or "the GM has final say".

Silver Crusade

Squiggit wrote:
"The things I have done have changed my outlook on the world" is a compelling narrative.

Annnnnnd "I directly channeled [aligned energy] to do x" doesn't fall under "things I have done" why???

Squiggit wrote:

But in that case, changing someone's alignment is changing a descriptive aspect of their character sheet in order to match their behavior.

We're doing the opposite here, which is why it's not a great rule.

No we're not.

"I'm doing Evil thing and thus become more Evil" is pretty cut and dry outside context.

Squiggit wrote:
It's an extreme example, but no, I think it absolutely is a failing of mechanics to treat a character's fundamental perspective and behavior so flippantly.

The only ones treating it flippantly are people armchair theorycrafting these stupid scenarios, so again, it's not a failing of the system because the player wants to be an obnoxious tool.

Graystone wrote:
Oh, I DID read that and it's 1000 percent meaningless

"It doesn't agree with me so I ignore it"

Shocking.
Graystone wrote:
You FAILED to point out where there is an offset for good spell casting on your alignment shift for casting evil spells.

You failed at English.

Temperans wrote:
I think people are forgetting that the rules in Horror Adventures are not the default.
I think people are forgetting that the rules in Horror Adventures are not the default.

They kinda are though, they're not cordoned off into their own little thing aside from not being published in the original core rulebook.

They're clarifications regarding casting Aligned spells springing from arguments that had gone on for years. There's also a sidebar in the book calling out that, yes, torture is evil. If someone tried to tell me torture isn't evil just because HA instead of the Core rulebook says that I'd laugh at them (and have done so with people saying that on these forums over the years).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems unlikely that I will seriously curb this debate from running fully off the rails, but if I understand what Rysky and Graystone are revolving around without exactly quite saying because it seems too incredibly obvious:

Rysky is saying that because the advice explicitly applies to all alignments (as per their quote), then casting a spell of any alignment will sway you eventually toward that alignment, the working the same as other aligned acts.

Greystone is saying that because the wording of the example only talks about changing alignment, these guidelines do not apply in particular to alignment descriptors one already has and thus no amount of aligned spells have any effect unless they pull away from your current alignment(s).


I'm kinda bored of the idea of aligned spells at this point. Let moral choices determine alignment shifts. Sometimes evil spells make more sense in context to shift alignments and that's fine. Like exploding a sentient creature that is subservient to you with final sacrifice. But we need to use our heads more than the strict rules here because they're awkward if taken too literally.


aobst128 wrote:
I'm kinda bored of the idea of aligned spells at this point. Let moral choices determine alignment shifts. Sometimes evil spells make more sense in context to shift alignments and that's fine. Like exploding a sentient creature that is subservient to you with final sacrifice. But we need to use our heads more than the strict rules here because they're awkward if taken too literally.

I mean the literal rule is exactly what you propose.

Paraphrase: "When it comes to alignment change the GM decides". With the obvious implication that the player is going to work/argue with the GM about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I mentioned earlier, there's already a sidebar under the Enchantment section of the Spells section that says the morality of certain spells even without an aligned trait can be determined by the intentions of the caster.

Just going to link that post here.


Eh.

Diabolic Sorcerers have (optional) bloodline spells with the Evil trait. Demonic ones don't, for some reason. They don't do anything particularly heinous besides channel aligned evil *energy*, and at the point you've got energy called 'evil' I think the trait is probably better off describing that as magic goes...?

If evoking Heavenly energy in an area can't somehow infect it with supernatural 'goodness', I don't really buy that using your link to Hell to explode a monster is an inherently evil act. The 'corrupt the land' stuff is separate...the 'corrupt the heart' stuff, moreso, and far beyond what the game ascribes to 'evil' the objective Pathfinder energy force. This is a fantasy game where it isn't custom to ask how absurd degrees of power isn't corrupting your good Lv 20 character to absurd degrees.

I'm glad Paizo errata'd the 'can't use these if you're opposite-aligned' language out, and I'm glad they don't codify any such alignment shift. They already use alignment in a rather stringent and weird way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Final sacrifice is weird anyway.
Using it on a homonculus is an evil act but killing the homonculus you get from shadow spy isn't.


Alfa/Polaris wrote:
Diabolic Sorcerers have (optional) bloodline spells with the Evil trait. Demonic ones don't, for some reason.

What are they and how sorcerer's bloodline spells could be optional?

Also, I see Abyssal plague for Demonic which is always evil, and Divine Decree and Aura for both bloodlines which could be evil if your deity is evil.
P.S. Ah, you meant focus spells. No, focus spells aren't optional even if you won't take feats for them: they are the only sorcerer focus spells Diabolic sorcerers can take.


I checked cause I was curious. Diabolic spell has 1 focus spell with the evil trait. While Angelic has 1 focus spell with the good trait.

Divine Decree and Aura are not "always evil" in fact their alignment is based on whatver deity you follow, not your own. They are also spells granted by the Angelic Bloodline.

So yeah the whole "oh but sorcerer are forced to use evil spell" is not the whole picture since Angelic Sorcerers are forced to use a good spell even if they are evil.


Temperans wrote:
I checked cause I was curious. Diabolic spell has 1 focus spell with the evil trait. While Angelic has 1 focus spell with the good trait.

Diabolic has 2 evil focus spells, both advanced and greater focus spells are evil. So they really could be problematic for non-evil characters. Even if the alignment itself was unimportant, the second spell would be very ineffective in most adventures with its half evil damage.

Also, even having a spell entry for a spell level in repertoire occupied with a useless spell is very painful for sorcerer (at least for me playing sorcerer). If Chilling Darkness was effective I'd use it left and right with my non-evil shadow sorcerer and I'd fight to ignore that 'evil' tag.
Though I do feel differently about Abyssal Plague for some reason. :)


Errenor wrote:
Temperans wrote:
I checked cause I was curious. Diabolic spell has 1 focus spell with the evil trait. While Angelic has 1 focus spell with the good trait.

Diabolic has 2 evil focus spells, both advanced and greater focus spells are evil. So they really could be problematic for non-evil characters. Even if the alignment itself was unimportant, the second spell would be very ineffective in most adventures with its half evil damage.

Also, even having a spell entry for a spell level in repertoire occupied with a useless spell is very painful for sorcerer (at least for me playing sorcerer). If Chilling Darkness was effective I'd use it left and right with my non-evil shadow sorcerer and I'd fight to ignore that 'evil' tag.
Though I do feel differently about Abyssal Plague for some reason. :)

My bad typed something wrong on the filter when I checked.

My point stands by my opinion that the trait being good or evil doesnt matter. The spell being actually useful on the hand is 1000x more important.


Errenor wrote:
Though I do feel differently about Abyssal Plague for some reason.

It's true, there is something about intentionally giving a person a disease that they will continue to suffer from for days after which is clearly a level more reprehensible than just shooting them in the face with a laser of unholy power. That's even before you take into consideration that the disease in question is actively stripping pieces of their soul away into the Abyss. A good character can shoot rays of unholy power and grip with the corruption it does to their soul if they wish, but a good character probably can't maintain the same struggle with intentionally afflicting creatures with a soul-siphoning disease.

I mean, for practical purposes it's a debuff that afflicts Drain for the few remaining minutes of their life, but there are limits to what a good character can do to their foes even so.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Does casting a spell with the Evil trait cause the caster to change alignment? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.