Alignment damage and heavy alignment mechanics shouldn’t have carried over from 1e

[Temperans]

YuriP wrote:

Let put somethings clear.

Positive energy isn't good.
Negative energy isn't evil.
Positive energy can also harm and even kill (some living creatures can be killed with positive energy. Positive plane and some creatures can overload and kill material plane creatures).
Undeads can be cured by negative energy.
Undeads aren't necessary evil (playable undead ancestries exists).
But Create Undead for some reason has Evil trait (I understand if we had something like you are enslaving a soul or something like that but in practice nothing is said, only that you are animating a corpse).

Playable undead being any alignment is an exception to an exception. That Paizo has created after a decade of saying that you cannot have non-evil undead outside of Prana Half-Elves.

The ways to become any of the playable undead archetypes by their very nature would make those characters evil. The only reason they are not is because people would have given a ton of complaints about not being able to play a good skeleton or whatever.

The very lore used to say (I feel like they changed it) that living as an undead is so bad that even if they start out as good, they eventually will end up as evil given enough time.

[Lurker in Insomnia]

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

In reality, most people in the pathfinder world are likely neutral as they are not committed to either of the extremes. Only extra planar creatures are really tied to an alignment, and even that isn't 100% fixed.

I agree completely. I think you'd have to be pretty committed to being a right [PROFANTITY DELETED] to actually wind up Evil if you aren't picking a class devoted to the cause. Just making mistakes won't do it (unless you stop believing they are mistakes) and even having a slump where you aren't motivated probably won't do it. You'd need a serious lifestyle change to motivate you into a new world view.

A number of helpful spirits before a holiday probably does wonders.

[Rysky]

YuriP wrote:

But Create Undead for some reason has Evil trait

Because creating undead screws with the metaphysics of the universe, as I stated above. Thasa bad.

[Vasyazx]

In previous thread i suggested that divine lance can be used for detection of evil people in some situation and then being called evil psycopath who just want to murder and harm people for no reason or something like that but anywat i want to exaplain what i actually proposed.

I give example of war camp where demon disguised as one of the soldiers so my idea was:
1Allow some people to avoid long investigation if they go through divine lance test (they will face no danger for their life because they recive additional hit points and only first level version of cantrip will be used on them via wands and scrolls non-lethal metamagic will also be applied )
2.Those who refused to pass the test or pinged as evil during it will get full investigation of their potential demonhood

So Can you please tell where exactly i propose to kill or harm random people for no reason?

[Jared Walter 356]

Vasyazx wrote:

In previous thread i suggested that divine lance can be used for detection of evil people in some situation and then being called evil psycopath who just want to murder and harm people for no reason or something like that but anywat i want to exaplain what i actually proposed.

I give example of war camp where demon disguised as one of the soldiers so my idea was:
1Allow some people to avoid long investigation if they go through divine lance test (they will face no danger for their life because they recive additional hit points and only first level version of cantrip will be used on them via wands and scrolls non-lethal metamagic will also be applied )
2.Those who refused to pass the test or pinged as evil during it will get full investigation of their potential demonhood

So Can you please tell where exactly i propose to kill or harm random people for no reason?

Doesn't have to be random people for this to be evil, and doesn't have to include death, just potential harm.

You violate this standard of good: "They are also good if they value protecting others from harm". And embrace this standard of Evil: "Your character has an evil alignment if they’re willing to victimize others for their own selfish gain,"

[Rysky]

Vas, you gave more than one “example.

The illusion of choice and blasting people with a lethal spell.

If you don’t want to get your actions labeled psychopathic then don’t go around pushing these unhinged axe crazy scenarios as legitimate.

[Vasyazx]

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

Vasyazx wrote:

In previous thread i suggested that divine lance can be used for detection of evil people in some situation and then being called evil psycopath who just want to murder and harm people for no reason or something like that but anywat i want to exaplain what i actually proposed.

I give example of war camp where demon disguised as one of the soldiers so my idea was:
1Allow some people to avoid long investigation if they go through divine lance test (they will face no danger for their life because they recive additional hit points and only first level version of cantrip will be used on them via wands and scrolls non-lethal metamagic will also be applied )
2.Those who refused to pass the test or pinged as evil during it will get full investigation of their potential demonhood

So Can you please tell where exactly i propose to kill or harm random people for no reason?

Doesn't have to be random people for this to be evil, and doesn't have to include death, just potential harm.

You violate this standard of good: "They are also good if they value protecting others from harm". And embrace this standard of Evil: "Your character has an evil alignment if they’re willing to victimize others for their own selfish gain,"

I am not forcing anyone to get harmed here anyone can refuse and just receive full investigation its just an option for some people to avoid investigation if they assured in their moral goodness if all people in camp refuse then so be it.

[Lurker in Insomnia]

When using a Holy Lance as a demon detector, the odds of murdering someone who has convinced themselves they aren't evil may be low, but not zero.

[Vasyazx]

Lurker in Insomnia wrote:

When using a Holy Lance as a demon detector, the odds of murdering someone who has convinced themselves they aren't evil may be low, but not zero.

I make all necessarily preparation to make lethality of spell equal to zero even for evil target(temp hp for target,first level version of spell and Nonlethal Spell metamagic)

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Rysky wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

arcady wrote:

Alignment is a bad construct from a bygone era. It was meant to describe people for what they ARE, rather than what they DO.

That's not really correct though. Evil characters are evil because they commit acts of evil.

It has been argued that simply having Evil thoughts or feelings counts as being Evil, even if they do not act upon them. So the idea that you have to commit acts of Evil to be Evil is debunked by this logic. (And before you ask, no, I don't agree with the premise, but it was brought up as a counterargument once, so feel free to take it up with that person.)

That is not what I stated, get better at lying.

Rysky wrote:

If the sheet has Evil on it, they are in some way evil, either they have done something or have evil thoughts and mindset but don’t act on it, or rather don’t act on Good/selfless acts and despise them.

Take your own advice.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

On the one hand, evil very often takes pains to sound reasonable, even justifiable. On the other, I've only seen half of this debate--what exactly are you hoping to prove? That there is an exceptionally niche set of circumstances where it is plausibly morally justifiable to blast people with holy powers to root out evil? That cheesy divine lance tactics make detect alignment spells unnecessary in a rare tailor-built scenario? To convince people that alignment is a farce and stop using it?

[Jared Walter 356]

Vasyazx wrote:

Lurker in Insomnia wrote:

When using a Holy Lance as a demon detector, the odds of murdering someone who has convinced themselves they aren't evil may be low, but not zero.

I make all necessarily preparation to make lethality of spell equal to zero even for evil target(temp hp for target,first level version of spell and Nonlethal Spell metamagic)

Again missing the point. You are intentionally causing harm to others. Doesn't matter if you have their permission, doesn't matter if it isn't lethal. Doesn't matter how you rationalize it, it fits pathfinders definition of evil.

On a more practical note, many normal soldiers may already be evil, but loyal to the king. Being Evil in and of itself is not sufficient grounds to cause them damage. Good can only cause harm in the defense of others or themselves.

This is a classic case of "the ends justify the means" thinking which many tales have been written about heroes falling into evil due to this rationalization.

[Vasyazx]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

On the one hand, evil very often takes pains to sound reasonable, even justifiable. On the other, I've only seen half of this debate--what exactly are you hoping to prove? That there is an exceptionally niche set of circumstances where it is plausibly morally justifiable to blast people with holy powers to root out evil? That cheesy divine lance tactics make detect alignment spells unnecessary in a rare tailor-built scenario? To convince people that alignment is a farce and stop using it?

It started as my argument that having tools that outright able to tell you that someone is good or evil is overall bad for system if you want to have moral ambiguity

but slowly succumb into debate whether it good or bad idea to use divine lance as tool of detection if there is no danger for target and you have their consent

[Rysky]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

arcady wrote:

Alignment is a bad construct from a bygone era. It was meant to describe people for what they ARE, rather than what they DO.

That's not really correct though. Evil characters are evil because they commit acts of evil.

It has been argued that simply having Evil thoughts or feelings counts as being Evil, even if they do not act upon them. So the idea that you have to commit acts of Evil to be Evil is debunked by this logic. (And before you ask, no, I don't agree with the premise, but it was brought up as a counterargument once, so feel free to take it up with that person.)

That is not what I stated, get better at lying.

Rysky wrote:

If the sheet has Evil on it, they are in some way evil, either they have done something or have evil thoughts and mindset but don’t act on it, or rather don’t act on Good/selfless acts and despise them.

Take your own advice.

Actually read what you quote, you missed the “evil mindset” part of that sentence.

[Rysky]

Vasyazx wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

On the one hand, evil very often takes pains to sound reasonable, even justifiable. On the other, I've only seen half of this debate--what exactly are you hoping to prove? That there is an exceptionally niche set of circumstances where it is plausibly morally justifiable to blast people with holy powers to root out evil? That cheesy divine lance tactics make detect alignment spells unnecessary in a rare tailor-built scenario? To convince people that alignment is a farce and stop using it?

It started as my argument that having tools that outright able to tell you that someone is good or evil is overall bad for system if you want to have moral ambiguity

but slowly succumb into debate whether it good or bad idea to use divine lance as tool of detection if there is no danger for target and you have their consent

No you’re trying to justify attempted murder via spamming divine lance and repeatedly yeeting the goalposts with these ridiculous defenses and justifications after the fact in order to be moral and right, when this entire thing is unhinged.

[Vasyazx]

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

Vasyazx wrote:

Lurker in Insomnia wrote:

When using a Holy Lance as a demon detector, the odds of murdering someone who has convinced themselves they aren't evil may be low, but not zero.

I make all necessarily preparation to make lethality of spell equal to zero even for evil target(temp hp for target,first level version of spell and Nonlethal Spell metamagic)

Again missing the point. You are intentionally causing harm to others. Doesn't matter if you have their permission, doesn't matter if it isn't lethal. Doesn't matter how you rationalize it, it fits pathfinders definition of evil.

On a more practical note, many normal soldiers may already be evil, but loyal to the king. Being Evil in and of itself is not sufficient grounds to cause them damage. Good can only cause harm in the defense of others or themselves.

This is a classic case of "the ends justify the means" thinking which many tales have been written about heroes falling into evil due to this rationalization.

Well then any action that can cause harm is evil by your logic for example using risky surgery is evil because target must first recive harm to be healed.

I also do not see how my action can be evil here i am not violating someones will.Soldiers wont recive any trauma or feel danger for their lives because any potential harm would be abrsorbed by temp hp and they can rejecte procedure if they have any concerns.

[Easl]

Vasyazx wrote:

In previous thread i suggested that divine lance can be used for detection of evil people in some situation and then being called evil psycopath who just want to murder and harm people for no reason or something like that

This is IMO primarily a setting and table-decision sort of issue (i.e. what sort of game does your group want to play?). IIRC the Kuni witchunters in the L5R ttrpg sometimes do exactly this: jade strike people they merely suspect of being corrupted, to see if it affects them. But that's a different game, a different setting, and it's only one small weird group of casters.

I'd mostly agree with your critics that that doesn't really fit well with *this* genre, or with how most people would want to play *this* game. I also agree with one or more of the posters that (the way I'd GM them) a lot of the good aligned Golarion deities would likely withdraw their favor from a mortal who abused their power that way. But OTOH I can certainly see campaign backgrounds where this happens. Say, where the campaign includes some more-lawful-than-good type of cult who thinks the ends of rooting out evil is worth the means of potentially harming innocents. Or some Moorecock-like lawful (presumtavely good) deity who turns out to care a lot less about individuals than their followers think they do. Or, say, a campaign where demonic infiltration is very common and a major threat to the realm, so that checking for it becomes normalized. You could even make a plot line over this: CG types and LG groups in the government/community being at odds over whether to use it, with the PCs getting to decide which to support.

But outside of some specific campaign reason for behaving this way? Yeah as a GM I'd try to steer player behavior way away from this, and I would likely not make my Good gods approve of it or my "good" police and investigative forces work like what you're proposing. And regardless of the PC's motive, if they independently chose to do this on random villagers they'd soon find themselves not welcome in the town, if not the target of an angry mob.

[Vasyazx]

Easl wrote:

Vasyazx wrote:

In previous thread i suggested that divine lance can be used for detection of evil people in some situation and then being called evil psycopath who just want to murder and harm people for no reason or something like that

This is IMO primarily a setting and table-decision sort of issue (i.e. what sort of game does your group want to play?). IIRC the Kuni witchunters in the L5R ttrpg sometimes do exactly this: jade strike people they merely suspect of being corrupted, to see if it affects them. But that's a different game, a different setting, and it's only one small weird group of casters.

I'd mostly agree with your critics that that doesn't really fit well with *this* genre, or with how most people would want to play *this* game. I also agree with one or more of the posters that (the way I'd GM them) a lot of the good aligned Golarion deities would likely withdraw their favor from a mortal who abused their power that way. But OTOH I can certainly see campaign backgrounds where this happens. Say, where the campaign includes some more-lawful-than-good type of cult who thinks the ends of rooting out evil is worth the means of potentially harming innocents. Or some Moorecock-like lawful (presumtavely good) deity who turns out to care a lot less about individuals than their followers think they do. Or, say, a campaign where demonic infiltration is very common and a major threat to the realm, so that checking for it becomes normalized. You could even make a plot line over this: CG types and LG groups in the government/community being at odds over whether to use it, with the PCs getting to decide which to support.

But outside of some specific campaign reason for behaving this way? Yeah as a GM I'd try to steer player behavior way away from this, and I would likely not make my Good gods approve of it or my "good" police and investigative forces work like what you're proposing. And regardless of the PC's motive, if they independently chose to do this on random villagers they'd...

1 All things are table and setting dependent we currently just debate how things work by RAW

2 Possibly but i already give example of how gods are capable of bending their own rules via inquisitors if situation demands it
3 That is not something that i advocate for anyway

[Easl]

AIUI, there is no RAW debate to be had here; a PC with the spell is capable of casting it at NPCs. The question is how NPCs would react to you doing it.

But you did advocate doing it:

Quote:

In previous thread i suggested that divine lance can be used for detection of evil people in some situation...

Quote:

I give example of war camp where demon disguised as one of the soldiers so my idea was:

1Allow some people to avoid long investigation if they go through divine lance test...

That's advocating for it, for at least some circumstances. And, ironically, the only one breaking RAW here is you, because giving NPCs extra HP in order to make the spell less likely to kill them is certainly not RAW. I would absolutely not do that. If they want to go down this morally questionable path, then they should deal with the consequences of their choices.

Lastly, to be clear, when I brought up my examples (cult, deity, government), all of those were intended as campaign situations to confront the PC's *with*. As in: "NPCs are doing this: PCs, how will you react to it." Those examples were not intended as "hey PCs, to detect the demon in your camp why don't you...and as GM I will even make doing that more appealing by..."

[Vasyazx]

Easl wrote:

AIUI, there is no RAW debate to be had here; a PC with the spell is capable of casting it at NPCs. The question is how NPCs would react to you doing it.

But you did advocate doing it:

Quote:

In previous thread i suggested that divine lance can be used for detection of evil people in some situation...

Quote:

I give example of war camp where demon disguised as one of the soldiers so my idea was:

1Allow some people to avoid long investigation if they go through divine lance test...

That's advocating for it, for at least some circumstances. And, ironically, the only one breaking RAW here is you, because giving NPCs extra HP in order to make the spell less likely to kill them is certainly not RAW. I would absolutely not do that. If they want to go down this morally questionable path, then they should deal with the consequences of their choices.

Lastly, to be clear, when I brought up my examples (cult, deity, government), all of those were intended as campaign situations to confront the PC's *with*. As in: "NPCs are doing this: PCs, how will you react to it." Those examples were not intended as "hey PCs, to detect the demon in your camp why don't you...and as GM I will even make doing that more appealing by..."

1 i do not blame anyone on viloating the raw here we overall debate how using holy lance can be viewed in Golarion.Also characters giving temp hp to npc via splell or magic item is not viloating raw by any means

2.I am not trying make that method super appealing or only option i am just pointed that it can be legitimate way of detecting demons because it bypass any normal defence against alignment detection

[YuriP]

Temperans wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Let put somethings clear.

Positive energy isn't good.
Negative energy isn't evil.
Positive energy can also harm and even kill (some living creatures can be killed with positive energy. Positive plane and some creatures can overload and kill material plane creatures).
Undeads can be cured by negative energy.
Undeads aren't necessary evil (playable undead ancestries exists).
But Create Undead for some reason has Evil trait (I understand if we had something like you are enslaving a soul or something like that but in practice nothing is said, only that you are animating a corpse).

Playable undead being any alignment is an exception to an exception. That Paizo has created after a decade of saying that you cannot have non-evil undead outside of Prana Half-Elves.

The ways to become any of the playable undead archetypes by their very nature would make those characters evil. The only reason they are not is because people would have given a ton of complaints about not being able to play a good skeleton or whatever.

The very lore used to say (I feel like they changed it) that living as an undead is so bad that even if they start out as good, they eventually will end up as evil given enough time.

Interesting.

This may help explain why the undead playable ancestries are as they are today, that the lazy mechanics are perhaps not just for ease of balancing, but also why there was no intention of putting undead races in the beginning and that changed later and had to adapt.

[Rysky]

YuriP wrote:

Temperans wrote:

YuriP wrote:

Let put somethings clear.

Positive energy isn't good.
Negative energy isn't evil.
Positive energy can also harm and even kill (some living creatures can be killed with positive energy. Positive plane and some creatures can overload and kill material plane creatures).
Undeads can be cured by negative energy.
Undeads aren't necessary evil (playable undead ancestries exists).
But Create Undead for some reason has Evil trait (I understand if we had something like you are enslaving a soul or something like that but in practice nothing is said, only that you are animating a corpse).

Playable undead being any alignment is an exception to an exception. That Paizo has created after a decade of saying that you cannot have non-evil undead outside of Prana Half-Elves.

The ways to become any of the playable undead archetypes by their very nature would make those characters evil. The only reason they are not is because people would have given a ton of complaints about not being able to play a good skeleton or whatever.

The very lore used to say (I feel like they changed it) that living as an undead is so bad that even if they start out as good, they eventually will end up as evil given enough time.

Interesting.

This may help explain why the undead playable ancestries are as they are today, that the lazy mechanics are perhaps not just for ease of balancing, but also why there was no intention of putting undead races in the beginning and that changed later and had to adapt.

you not liking a mechanic does not make it lazy.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Rysky wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

arcady wrote:

Alignment is a bad construct from a bygone era. It was meant to describe people for what they ARE, rather than what they DO.

That's not really correct though. Evil characters are evil because they commit acts of evil.

It has been argued that simply having Evil thoughts or feelings counts as being Evil, even if they do not act upon them. So the idea that you have to commit acts of Evil to be Evil is debunked by this logic. (And before you ask, no, I don't agree with the premise, but it was brought up as a counterargument once, so feel free to take it up with that person.)

That is not what I stated, get better at lying.

Rysky wrote:

If the sheet has Evil on it, they are in some way evil, either they have done something or have evil thoughts and mindset but don’t act on it, or rather don’t act on Good/selfless acts and despise them.

Take your own advice.

Actually read what you quote, you missed the “evil mindset” part of that sentence.

Adding it or removing it doesn't change much, if anything, as it's focusing on something that is practically identical to what I was arguing against. It's at-best trying to sidestep a response taking it head-on, and at-worst a contradiction to the ideal of "Actions determine alignment, not simply existing," an argument stated against the "Kill Goblin Babies" debate. (Which also has its exceptions, in the way of fiends and undead.)

At best you can argue that it's people with an idealism that's Evil should count as being Evil, but again, if it's actions, not thoughts, that determine alignment, having Evil idealisms doesn't make you Evil until you act upon them. If anything, this is the logic behind the Good aligned people arguing on the behalf of redemption, that you aren't Evil until you commit Evil acts.

[keftiu]

With the news that Alignment is gone from PF2 Remastered, I’m looking forward to less headaches like these :)

[Jacob Jett]

keftiu wrote:

With the news that Alignment is gone from PF2 Remastered, I’m looking forward to less headaches like these :)

I read that thing twice and didn't see that bit of news. Beyond saying some things are going to change, the announcement had no specifics that I could see. Is there a specific part of it that discussed alignment? #askingforafriend

EDIT: ...and nevermind. I found it. Most interesting.

[Fumarole]

Fewer headache-inducing threads would indeed be nice.

[HumbleGamer]

It was the only way in order to stop clerics from divine lancing random people to find out the evil one.

[Sanityfaerie]

HumbleGamer wrote:

It was the only way in order to stop clerics from divine lancing random people to find out the evil one.

Sooo many dead lvl 1 shady merchants.

Also, CG priests and priestesses of Arazni found themselves in a kind of weird place.

Personally, I'm hopeful that this means that the Divine spell list is going to finally get a halfway decent attack cantrip that both has range and works on most targets. It would be nice to no longer have "Ancestry cheese for Electric Arc" being mandatory.

[arcady]

So...

Alignment is being removed in the Remaster books.

This entire discussion will be moot soon, though we'll be back to arguing as soon as we know the new method for handling spells that "used to do" alignment damage.

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Locked to deal with flags.