Orfamay Quest |
But in this case I wouldn't see how that type of alignment ding would not be counter acted by stopping evil in some form or fashion.
Because evil and good don't "counter act" in that way. I can't help little old ladies across the street until I build up enough 'good' that I can safely murder and cannibalize orphans.
Orfamay Quest |
But I am far from convinced that this is always true, nor that saving a orphan with infernal healing is ALWAYS evil.
You don't have to be convinced. You simply have to be literate. The rules SAY that saving an orphan with infernal healing is ALWAYS evil.
If you don't like them, you can always house rule that Saranrae comes around and gives you a hug and a baby kitten every time you animate a zombie, because Saranrae hates onyx. You can house rule whatever you like.
But if you're going to argue that you're not convinced that the rules say what they say,....
BigNorseWolf |
The rules frankly have very little meaning outside a RAW-based campaign like PFS. There does not appear to be a PFS penalty for casting [evil] descriptor spells, so the whole point seems moot.
A paladin, cleric Inquisitor, warpriest of a good deity, follower of a good deity, can't be granted them, and probably can't use them without losing their powers.
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
You don't have to be convinced. You simply have to be literate. The rules SAY that saving an orphan with infernal healing is ALWAYS evil.
Oh, I don't doubt you, Orfamy. I just can't find that rule. (Maybe I am illiterate.)
You know, I keep asking people for something in the core rulebook, maybe in the alignment section, that says that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act. So far, people have been reluctant to do that.
People have been quoting a James Jacobs messageboard post, from a couple years ago. People have been noting that the spells have an [Evil] descriptor, and that they interact with the alignment rules. Indeed: we all agree that champions of purity can't cast [Evil] spells, any more than clerics of corruption can cast [Good] aligned spells.
But none of that is saying what you want it to be saying.
Is using an unholy weapon an evil act? Not that I can tell. And while protection from good is an [Evil] spell, I'm still waiting for someone to support the position that the caster is evil, or that the casting of that spell, analogous to the use of an unholy weapon, is an evil act.
I'm sure it's in the rulebook somewhere. Every other person is claiming it is. I just with somebody would cite their evidence.
--
I agree with David: in PFS, a rules-as-written campaign, the use of [Evil] descriptor spells is not an alignment issue, per campaign guidelines. In any other campaign, the GM can make whatever rules she likes.
BigNorseWolf |
I agree with David: in PFS, a rules-as-written campaign, the use of [Evil] descriptor spells is not an alignment issue, per campaign guidelines. In any other campaign, the GM can make whatever rules she likes.
It is an evil act. Sean K Reynolds was quoted above.
That IS a problem for a few corner cases, say, a mystic theurge wizard of a good god who might be tempted to cast infernal healing or a paladin with use magic device.
Jokon Yew |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People seem to forget neutral. Maybe this is a good time to plug the new splatbook? There's a really good section describing each of the alignments as well as providing personality profiles common to those alignments.
Using an evil spell to heal an injured person is a neutral act. If I take the powers of the damned and save an orphanage with hellfire, I am neutral. Describing that event is just weighing the scales; it may be more good or more evil, but the net effect is neutral.
Killing an aggressive tribe of orcs to save a village from raiding and looting is neutral. A good character would seek redemption, negotiation, or other means of ensuring that all parties come out ahead. Failing to do so is not evil; if a paladin has no choice but to destroy the orcs then he commits an unspeakable act of neutrality, barring any specific conventions of his beliefs. Destroying the orcs because he can is evil.
Orfamay Quest |
Orfamay Quest wrote:Oh, I don't doubt you, Orfamy. I just can't find that rule. (Maybe I am illiterate.)You don't have to be convinced. You simply have to be literate. The rules SAY that saving an orphan with infernal healing is ALWAYS evil.
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil,
Michael Lehofer-Chavez 865 Venture-Lieutenant, Alabama—Huntsville |
In these cases where it causes a problem it is not a game breaking problem. James Jacobs even said the rule is more flavor than mechanical. If you need a way to not break the game in your mind for BigNorseWolf's example I would say use magic device is getting the spell power from another domain of spellcasting (divine power is different from arcane power).
Oframay I have not seen in the rules how good actions or evil actions act in the way you describe. The fact that an action can change a character's alignment from any alignment to another gives me the impression that the alignment tool is as I think it is only with a GM weight rather than a predetermined weight on actions. I'm sorry I need to be convinced that a rule is a rule when I haven't seen that rule. Luckily I am pretty easily convinced since all I need is a quote of the rule or send me to the forum where a developer says this is how it is. No "well the developer said this and you should believe me," though, not to be offensive but we are all internet dwellers and are words are only as good as we can prove them.
Michael Lehofer-Chavez 865 Venture-Lieutenant, Alabama—Huntsville |
People seem to forget neutral. Maybe this is a good time to plug the new splatbook? There's a really good section describing each of the alignments as well as providing personality profiles common to those alignments.
Thanks Jokon! This is exactly what I was looking for in what the rules say as well as what I was more thinking the rules leaned towards.
Michael Lehofer-Chavez 865 Venture-Lieutenant, Alabama—Huntsville |
So as a morally neutral character, how do you avoid—or
blend—moral extremes? Do you steer carefully between
good and evil, never touching either? Or do you simply
decide to not see past your own relatively benign selfinterest?
A neutral character may willfully ignore both
sides of the good-evil paradigm. She may instead treat
these paths as two equally useless philosophies. Or she
might not even recognize a distinction between the two.
Page 4 of Champions of Balance
I will be investing more in these rules in the future. These rules help clear up the short section on alignment in the core rulebook.
Michael Lehofer-Chavez 865 Venture-Lieutenant, Alabama—Huntsville |
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil.
"Champions of Purity", yes? (The same book that supposedly outlaws my human paladin of Torag.) From a page that isn't in the PFS Additional Resources, yes?
Thank you, Orfamy. I had been concerned that there might have been something in the Core Rulebook that I was missing.
Alexander_Damocles |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil.
"Champions of Purity", yes? (The same book that supposedly outlaws my human paladin of Torag.) From a page that isn't in the PFS Additional Resources, yes?
Thank you, Orfamy. I had been concerned that there might have been something in the Core Rulebook that I was missing.
The sarcasm and smug attitude don't much help your case, mate.
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
I'm Hiding In Your Closet |
Against my better judgement, I check in here again, and what do I see since my last post? A complete rerun of ground that's already been extensively covered. Talk about using necromancy for Evil....
The sarcasm and smug attitude don't much help your case, mate.
No, but everything else does, as does the word "smug" - see my earlier post. ^_^
@BigNorseWolf: I have to say I'm AMAZED. You're a broken record - the best hard evidence you can come up with is one or two snippets, which we're able to "meet or beat" in each case, we give you mountains and mountains of counterarguments, yet you seem to ignore pretty much all of it (you certainly don't bother to respond to it), and you're still just sitting there saying the same thing you originally said as though it's a self-evident fact. It ISN'T.
I'm washing my hands of this thread with strong embalming fluid (which gives me 2d4 temporary hit points and a +1 bonus to AC - sure hope that guy finds his journal). I'd sign off with a certain Gene Wilder routine, but that would be too harsh - instead, I'm calling a victory for Team Danse Macabre: Maestro!
David Bowles |
Chris Mortika wrote:I agree with David: in PFS, a rules-as-written campaign, the use of [Evil] descriptor spells is not an alignment issue, per campaign guidelines. In any other campaign, the GM can make whatever rules she likes.It is an evil act. Sean K Reynolds was quoted above.
That IS a problem for a few corner cases, say, a mystic theurge wizard of a good god who might be tempted to cast infernal healing or a paladin with use magic device.
But no problem at all for a neutral good necromancer, thanks to PFS magic.
David Bowles |
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil.
"Champions of Purity", yes? (The same book that supposedly outlaws my human paladin of Torag.) From a page that isn't in the PFS Additional Resources, yes?
Thank you, Orfamy. I had been concerned that there might have been something in the Core Rulebook that I was missing.
How are human paladins of Torag outlawed?
Michael Lehofer-Chavez 865 Venture-Lieutenant, Alabama—Huntsville |
I hate to see some of the rage on here. The reason I seek the wisdom of you guys, even the ones I disagree with, is because we all miss stuff in the rules. I've assumed I knew a rule and had it challenged on me and when I read it I was surprised to see I was wrong. When I ask something like if an idea of mine would be PFS legal I really mean is there a rule I have overlooked or maybe misunderstood. I recommend we all keep an open mind with other people's takes on the rules and ask for credible references to better understand the rules.
There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
In the end, the ultimate authority on alignment is with the GM and while I might argue on here (mainly so when you convince me the bruises remind me of the correct rule) I try to keep arguments with a GM to a minimum. And you guys have helped me understand alignment based spells better, I did not know James Jacobs said anything on evil spells.
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
Wyntr |
Disclaimer: My understanding is that spellcasters can cast aligned spells in PFS without ramification based on a specific FAQ for PFS play, so the question of what the RAW/RAI says is moot. In addition, I have no real opinion on this subject one way or the other. The following is just my experience of the various schools of thought that have been expressed around the casting of aligned spells.
The rules that generally come up for this argument are from the Spell Descriptors from the CRB; pulling the quote from there (don't have PDFs at the moment):
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says, the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.
I have bolded the part that is most often cited (by both sides) for this discussion.
The first school of thought holds that casting aligned spells is an aligned act due to this passage, because the alignment descriptor would be interacting with alignment. Proponents will further argue that just because an act is aligned does not undue all other alignment judgements that the GM would have to make. The GM should follow the same logic with the character who summons a good-aligned outsider with a [good] spell to have it murder innocents as they would apply to a character who pays restitution for burning down an orphanage (full of orphans) to make sure that they killed an evil villain - both cases may have had elements of good in them, but the totality of the circumstances should be evaluated by the GM to determine if this is a good act, a neutral act, or an evil act. There is still a question of what happens when characters cast many aligned spells over a long period in an effort to balance their alignment infractions.
The second school of thought holds that the bolded portion pertains to spells that call out that they function differently based on alignment. They hold that casting a [fire] spell does not make one fiery, so casting a [good] spell would not make one good. They would point to cleric alignment rules and other alignment-based restrictions as the alignment-based interaction that this portion of text refers to. Furthermore, some would claim that characters casting aligned spells repeatedly to influence their alignment is abuse and would indicate that their school of thought is correct.
BigNorseWolf |
Wynter: see if this changes your mind
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenets of faith, or other such issues.
Linky
(emphasis mine)
While I don't have the complete collection of the holy text "The fish was this big: Barside tales of Calden Cayden", I'm pretty sure as a good god he wants you to stay away from that stuff.
David Bowles |
" But simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself."
From the same link. This is the word from Mr. Brock, which applies directly to PFS. As far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the hand-wringing over this.
Obviously, in home brew, anything goes, so there is no point in discussing that.
Jeff Merola |
not "an alignement infraction", not "not an evil act" BIG difference
Um, he says both.
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues.
Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. Using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
I can't possibly define what every evil act could be. That is why I rely on GM discretion. But simply casting an evil descriptor spell is not an evil act in and of itself.
Michael Lehofer-Chavez 865 Venture-Lieutenant, Alabama—Huntsville |
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
David Bowles |
its still off the menu for worshipers of good gods. (neutral ones are fine though)
I think a necromancer could still worship a good god. There is no alignment opposition conflict with an arcane caster. Probably just not a good god adamantly opposed to undead. Although I'm fine being a neutral good guy worshiping a neutral god.
Wyntr |
Wynter: see if this changes your mind
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenets of faith, or other such issues.
Linky(emphasis mine)
While I don't have the complete collection of the holy text "The fish was this big: Barside tales of Calden Cayden", I'm pretty sure as a good god he wants you to stay away from that stuff.
I hadn't realized there had been any other limitations left in beyond that clerics were still limited by alignment... I could see interpreting it as still limiting characters worshipping good-aligned gods.
Jokon Yew |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The worst part of alignment arguments is that it's essentially meta-gaming. Without abilities that reveal and/or interact with alignment traits, it's completely invisible to most characters and NPCs. It's always a good idea to double-check with a GM regarding a sketchy course of action, but insisting that your character would or would not behave a certain way because of alignment is like saying you won't step into the color spray because you know you only have 3 hit dice.
At best, alignment is an awkward control for characters that have specific restrictions on how they're allowed to behave - a control that is essentially under the hand of the GM. As a player, you have no arbitration on what defines a good or evil act that's not explicitly defined by your character's abilities.