Magic And Alignments


Rules Questions

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

@LazarX: I'm afraid I do not follow. Could you spell out what you think I'm saying and why you disagree with it?

===

I think Haladir hit a core part of an issue that crops up in 9/10 alignment threads, whether it is addressed or not. Some people believe that people interact differently with certain alignments.

In Haladir's case, we've learned that he subscribes to the Good is Hard trope. A great way of telling a story, one that is used extensively in certain settings such as Middle Earth and Ravenloft.

But in Golarion there is nothing that indicates that the cosmos is out of balance. That good is lesser than, or harder than evil. Indeed, Golarion, to me, seems to have moved away from the very caricatured Krynn alignments and into a world of mortal ambition and morality. Villains don't do things "for the sake of evil" in paizo published material, as they would in Dragonlance, but rather do it because they think they're ahead of the curve, or because they want something and don't care enough about others not to cut corners, in getting it.

Another example would be to look at Captain Wacky's contribution. Here we learn that evil can be corruptive and that you invoke certain powers and that they taint you with alignments, because of magic radiation or something. Its a good storytelling mechanic and could very well be foundation blocks for a setting, but there is no material to back it up in the Core Rules. I can only imagine this is because the rules are made so as to be usable with as many settings as possible, while remaining true(ish?) to their origin setting Golarion.

So remember that while these ideas are all cool and flavourful, they are not RAW. We're in the rules board. The OP wants to know about the rules(I should think O.o?). And the rules fail to indicate that alignment is affected by spellcasting. Likely so that GM's may rule that it IS, but then have to make all the adjustments to their campaign world themselves.

-Nearyn

EDIT: On a sidenote, which dilemmas have you been challenged with that you do not think the alignment rules can handle, Captain Wacky? It seems fairly robust to me.


Cardinal Chunder wrote:

"Good Versus Evil

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

From the CRB.

Says nothing about casting spells makes you good or evil. Considering that section deals with alignment I would assume if the intent was for that to happen it would be alluded to here, but it doesn't.
Keep spell casting out of ridiculous alignment rules.

"Changing Alignments
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.

Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much..."

Again nothing about casting Team Evil spells and making you change alignment. And once more I would suggest if the intent was if you cast spells with the Evil descriptor then you become part of Team Evil it would say so here. It doesn't anything else is a houserule.

We're not necessarily arguing from just the CRB. I linked the relevant page from the SRD. I don't have the book it's from so someone else will have to verify it but it does clearly state "Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement." Source: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

I think the book is specifically Champions of Purity like others have mentioned before but again I can't say for certain. I do generally trust that site; they haven't led me astray before.

And seebs, the wording ("in all likelyhood...") seems to me like a suggestion rather than a hard and fast rule. As a GM, you could make different call. I personally don't think that CN requires a dedication to the ideals of Chaos like The Dark Knight's version of the Joker or Littlefinger from A Song of Ice and Fire (nevermind they'd be CE rather than CN.) You could just be the wild card who keeps people guessing and ultimately plays for his own side. The difference with that character and the Joker would be methods and results. The CN wild card i.e. Jack Sparrow is selfish but doesn't actively seek to hurt good people to achieve his ends. The Joker revels in the corruption of good and the butchering of the innocent and guilty alike which is why he's evil. I will definitely concede that the debate over CN is a matter of opinion.


@Larkos: The passage you're referring to -is- from Champions of Purity, a Golarion specific book, and thus is an optional rule. If the Pathfinder system was employed to play in, say, Faerun, that source would not be valid.

-Nearyn

EDIT: Although you could argue that all rules are optional, on a table by table basis :)


I just think the suggestion that frequent alignment changes are "really chaotic neutral" is a very bad one, unless all the changes are to chaotic alignments. If you're not consistently-chaotic, you aren't chaotic neutral, you're just neutral-neutral.


Nearyn wrote:
On a sidenote, which dilemmas have you been challenged with that you do not think the alignment rules can handle, Captain Wacky? It seems fairly robust to me.

Me? I know where I stand on many issues, I personally have little difficulty telling good from evil. But that is from my point of view and no others.

Let me clarify my statment a bit.

There are no definate rules saying action A in situation B with outcome C is "good". Action X in situation Y with outcome Z is "evil". It's left upto the GM and players to decide. This makes the alignment system far more abstract than, say, shooting an arrow. You know you need to hit target A's AC. AC is composed of A+B+C. Alignment dosn't have that. You can't say "I cast a spell with the "good" descriptor that's one good point, plus it's healing a baby. That's 4 good points for me, moving my alignmnt into the good category 1 for the spell plus 1 for a bystander plus 2 because it was a baby.

I'm not saying something that granular would be a good thing, or even welcome. I'm saying there's no mechanic for it. Thus it's left solely up to the group to decide. This group can argue about what is "good" and what is not. If you need a 15 to hit a target with your arrow and roll a 14, you have nothing to argue against. The alignment system is left abstract, so to speak, which I like. But as stated before, there's no mechanic backing "good" and "evil".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We had epic debates about the alignment rules on Usenet back in the day.

General consensus:

The rules are most accurately described as providing a simple "team jersey" system. Good people are identified because they kill evil people. Evil people are identified because they kill good people. 90% of the time, that is all there is to it...

There's guidelines past that, but really it doesn't turn out to matter much most of the time; you rarely see a circumstance not adequately addressed by that simple rule.


Vildrean wrote:

I Have a Question, Does The Spells you cast defines your alignment?.

F/E: A wizard cast Ray Of Enfeeblement. The Wizard Necessarily becomes Evil, because it's a Necromancy spell?.

Another Example:

A Paladin cast on himself Bed Of Iron, Does he loss all his Paladin powers because it's a Necromancy Spell?.

I've been arguing about it for a couple of days with a friend because of that, i really appreciate the help.

Thank You.

Vildrean The Bard.

The long and short of it is that it is up to the GM when it comes to alinment related strangeness. Particularly when it comes to spells.

"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."

"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."

Quote directly from curent core book prd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Wacky wrote:


There are no definate rules saying action A in situation B with outcome C is "good". Action X in situation Y with outcome Z is "evil". It's left upto the GM and players to decide.This makes the alignment system far more abstract than, say, shooting an arrow. You know you need to hit target A's AC. AC is composed of A+B+C.

Well, we -DO- have the alignment rules, but I'll agree they involve no math. Also, while they are rather simple(they have to be), they -do- require a cursory glance by player and GM in certain situations. However for routine adventuring, the written rules do not even have to be looked at twice IMO.

Captain Wacky wrote:
Alignment dosn't have that. You can't say "I cast a spell with the "good" descriptor that's one good point, plus it's healing a baby. That's 4 good points for me, moving my alignmnt into the good category 1 for the spell plus 1 for a bystander plus 2 because it was a baby.

Very true, there is no point-system for the alignment of actions.

Captain Wacky wrote:
I'm not saying something that granular would be a good thing, or even welcome. I'm saying there's no mechanic for it. Thus it's left solely up to the group to decide. This group can argue about what is "good" and what is not.

This is usually not necessary though. The alignment rules are pretty clear on what actions are good and which are evil.

alignment rules chapter: on the topic of good and evil wrote:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

These are, as mentioned, very simple, but they are meant to be. The game has the Paladin class, and unfortunately, the Paladin class comes with a requirement that you do not, ever, under any circumstances, knowingly commit an act of evil, lest you fall from grace.

So when a Paladin commits an act that makes the party pause, the system has to be written in such a way, that the GM can open the CRB, look to the alignment chapter and decide whether the act is good or evil.

Lionell the Brave: "I charge forth, cleaving the orc in twain before he can strike at our scout"

Garret of the Greenwoods: "Isn't killing things evil?"

Lionell the Brave: "You know, I think I read something about that. Can we check? It seems contraintuitive that my class would not be able to kill anything. I know I'm not meant to be a killing machine, but ... yeah, can we check?"

Gamemaster: "Certainly... let's see. You attacked and killed the Orc. Killing is an evil act, not surprisingly. However, it says here that altruism is a good trait, and the reason you are here fighting orcs to begin with, is because they are killing villagers and travellers from Mirrorlake. So a good act and an evil act, none of which seem to be so amazingly good, or so amazingly evil that I have to give it special consideration. Well, in my book that should make your act neutral. Good and evil in equal measure. perhaps a smidge on the evil side of neutral. Next time you may want to consider dialogue with the orcs first, or perhaps open combat by offering them to surrender. Since talking is a free-action that can be taken out of turn, you can ask them before you make your attack, offering -them- a chance to end the conflict peacefully"

Lionell the Brave: "Thanks for the advice. And for clearing up the issue. Lionell will contemplate the nature of violence once this is done, for certain"

Gamemaster: "You're welcome. Now then... you were charging the orc, roll your to-hit with a +2 from the charge..."

etc etc.

I've seen alot of alignment debate, and it usually stems from people trying to fit their own morality or what they consider "normal western morality" on top of the game-world and the alignment rules. But the alignment-rules are fairly clear, and for most part, the only adjudication the GM needs to really do, is in cases where an act is balancing just~ between either being good/evil or neutral.

-Nearyn


Well I suppose as nearly all spells have no good/evil descriptor they are neutral and therefore all spellcasters would become neutral?

The Champions of Purity line "Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement." doesn't say "are committing" but says "consider" and I would also suggest that Champions of Purity applies to Good Clerics Inquisitors and Paladins and has nothing to do with Wizards/Bards etc.

Those suggesting a neutral wizard should have their alignment moved to evil because they cast Animate Dead are just wrong. There is nothing in the section about Changing Alignment to suggest it and using one line in a product designed for (literally) Champions of Purity is clutching at straws.


Nearyan> People trying to fit in modern western morality does seem to be a rather large source of the problem. Though the morality presented in the book is a patchwork of what people think middle-ages morality looked like and modern views.

I'll agree the alignment system is robust enough to determine what is "good and evil". But because there's no point value assigned to actions and motives (which would be ludacris), it leaves a lot of debate open for alignment change. It's soley up to the GM to determine "if you've been evil enough" to change alignment. Again, this is colored by the GMs personal views, unless the GM can divorce him/her self enough from them.

Now that I think about it the RPG "Stormbringer" had a point based alignment system that worked just fine. I'll have to see if I can find the book and look into it, further.

Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Well I suppose as nearly all spells have no good/evil descriptor they are neutral and therefore all spellcasters would become neutral?

Spells with no descriptor I think would be unaligned, like a rock would be unaligned instead of neautral.

Cardinal Chunder wrote:
The Champions of Purity line "Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement." doesn't say "are committing" but says "consider" and I would also suggest that Champions of Purity applies to Good Clerics Inquisitors and Paladins and has nothing to do with Wizards/Bards etc.

Firstly you're splitting hairs on the text and I think, misunderstanding it. The text was put there for a reason, you make it sounds like casting an evil spell is more of a faux pas.

Secondly the first word in the quote is "Characters" not "Divine characters" implying any who cast spells.
Thirdly it states that it requires atonement which reinforces my side of the argument. Good neutral and unaligned acts don't require atonement, but evil acts do. Thus, logically, if animating the dead requires atonment it must mean it is an act of evil.

Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Those suggesting a neutral wizard should have their alignment moved to evil because they cast Animate Dead are just wrong. There is nothing in the section about Changing Alignment to suggest it and using one line in a product designed for (literally) Champions of Purity is clutching at straws.

I never said that a single act of casting a spell is enough to change your alignment. A repeated casting with no good deed to counter balance it certainly should. But I think the current evolution of this thread has changed to "is casting an evil spell an act of evil?".

My conclusion that casting an evil spell over and over again (assuming no good deed had been performed) is a logical argument. Using Animate Dead as an example it has the "evil" descriptor, meaning that for all intents and purposes it is an evil spell. It creates skeletons and zombies, both of which have an evil alignment. So, you are casting an evil spell and creating (permanently until destroyed) evil beings. Your equasion is e+e=n, which looks odd to me. Mine is e+e=E.

I also, wasn't using the Champions of Purity book as a referance. The alignment rules don't cover every act of good and evil. It would be quite a long list if they did.


Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Well I suppose as nearly all spells have no good/evil descriptor they are neutral and therefore all spellcasters would become neutral?

The Champions of Purity line "Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement." doesn't say "are committing" but says "consider" and I would also suggest that Champions of Purity applies to Good Clerics Inquisitors and Paladins and has nothing to do with Wizards/Bards etc.

Those suggesting a neutral wizard should have their alignment moved to evil because they cast Animate Dead are just wrong. There is nothing in the section about Changing Alignment to suggest it and using one line in a product designed for (literally) Champions of Purity is clutching at straws.

For the last time, Casting Animate Dead is evil and should drop you down the good/evil axis because creating undead is itself inherently evil regardless of method. It's not casting the spell per se; it's what the spell does.

Your other two points were perfectly valid. Your first one shows how silly the whole argument of spells changing your alignment is. As for the second, you are right to point out that it is a suggestion but technically so are all the rules besides rule zero. As a GM, you could allow a TN wizard to cast hellfire ray because it's awesome and flavorful without immediately downshifting them to NE and I would totally agree with you. The next sentence is simply saying that not every evil spell is equal to another in terms of evil. Casting Interrogation because you *really* need the information is not same as perverting the cycle of life and death.

@Captain Wacky and Nearyn Technically there is a numbers system for alignment in Ultimate campaign but it's only for forced alignment shifts and I think it's about how much the GM can shift it or something. All I know is that it gave me a huge headache when I tried to read it. I still think the GM should be able to intuit when and how much to change an alignment.

Not for nothing but evil descriptor spells usually have enough flavor text to show quite clearly why it is considered evil (ex. Vision of Hell says that "you overlay a realistic illusion of a terrifying hellscape upon an area.") If you character casts such a spell for selfish reasons then that's clear and premeditated act of evil which should absolutely affect your alignment even if you're not a champion of purity (unless you're already evil.)

I think the single act of casting a spell can totally change your alignment if it's evil enough. "I dominate a 5-year-old and tell him to jump in a vat of hydrochloric acid." Seems pretty evil to me and that's without the evil descriptor. Casting Blasphemy, which does have the evil descriptor, on a village in order to kill everyone in it is pretty capital "E" Evil. I wouldn't hesitate for one second to give you a one-way ticket to the deep end of the alignment pool. You'd also have to do some serious atonement to make up for that one.

EDIT: Thanks Nearyn for telling the sourcebook I was referencing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

None of those are the result of casting the spell, however, which is why it's dumb to have aligned spells.

Using spells to do evil things is Evil, period.

Using spells to do good things is Good, period.

That SHOULD be the extent of it.

But nooooo, we have to have some silly addition to the rules from a campaign setting book that says if I cast Animate Dead and use the creations for good purposes, I committed a minor act of Evil.

Which is dumb, plain and simple.


Quote:
Killing is an evil act, not surprisingly.

Uh. [citation needed].

1. If "killing is an evil act", then yes, it instagibs your paladin powers.
2. Nothing in the books says that killing is in and of itself an evil act.


Rynjin wrote:

None of those are the result of casting the spell, however, which is why it's dumb to have aligned spells.

Using spells to do evil things is Evil, period.

Using spells to do good things is Good, period.

That SHOULD be the extent of it.

But nooooo, we have to have some silly addition to the rules from a campaign setting book that says if I cast Animate Dead and use the creations for good purposes, I committed a minor act of Evil.

Which is dumb, plain and simple.

The three biggest reasons I can think of for adding the good/evil/lawful/chaotic descriptors are these:

1. Clerics can't cast opposed alignment spells i.e. good clerics can't cast evil spells. The descriptors make it clear which spells are banned for them.

2. Certain abilities are affected by good/evil spells i.e. the Aasimar FCB for sorcerers "Add +1/4 to the sorcerer's caster level when casting spells with the good descriptor."

3. As a guideline for GMs so they which spells probably aren't appropriate for people to cast. An CN oracle casting Arrow of Law probably shouldn't happen even without a strict restriction on Oracles like the clerics get.

"But nooooo, we have to have some silly addition to the rules from a campaign setting book that says if I cast Animate Dead and use the creations for good purposes, I committed a minor act of Evil.

Which is dumb, plain and simple."

Creation of the undead is not a "minor act of evil" even if you just use the zombies to do housework for an impoverished village. If you're wondering why, it's probably because of corpse desecration and creation of a permanent-until-destroyed, inherently evil being that could outlast you and then go on a rampage. If you, as GM, decide that these reasons aren't enough to have it considered an act of evil then that's cool but good/evil/lawful/chaotic descriptors aren't bad in and of themselves.


Rynjin wrote:

None of those are the result of casting the spell, however, which is why it's dumb to have aligned spells.

Using spells to do evil things is Evil, period.

Using spells to do good things is Good, period.

That SHOULD be the extent of it.

But nooooo, we have to have some silly addition to the rules from a campaign setting book that says if I cast Animate Dead and use the creations for good purposes, I committed a minor act of Evil.

Which is dumb, plain and simple.

Right. Because Undead are evil in and of themselves.

Using demonic power, even trying to do so for good purposes, is evil in and of itself.
There are various sources of power in the setting that are in fact evil. Using them is evil.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to use it in your setting or even in your home games in Golarion. It's a well established trope in the fantasy genre and while I wouldn't always use it, I like having it supported.

The idea of the wizard trying to use dark powers for altruistic purposes and finding himself twisted and corrupted by them is found throughout the genre. It's a fun thing to play around with sometimes.

For the obvious more modern take, why should a Jedi be turned to the Dark
Side just for using his anger. Shouldn't it only be what he does with the anger that matters?


The descriptors aren't the problem. They were around before the ruling that they actually had an important impact on mechanics.

Much like alignment itself, it's good for a quick reference but is absolute inconsistent garbage when it comes to interacting with literally anything that isn't itself.

Quote:
Creation of the undead is not a "minor act of evil" even if you just use the zombies to do housework for an impoverished village. If you're wondering why, it's probably because of corpse desecration and creation of a permanent-until-destroyed, inherently evil being that could outlast you and then go on a rampage.

[Citation Needed]

They never give a reason, just "it is".

And they're never going to give a reason, and if you ask why they'll just say "Because we made it that way".

The fact that you have to come up with a justification by yourself to validate the existence of this rule is proof enough it wasn't very well thought out at all.

Thankfully though, it was in a silly splatbook and isn't actually binding rules text from one of the core books, so I can safely ignore that junk and get on with my day.

Until someone reminds me it exists again and I become re-frustrated.

thejeff wrote:


For the obvious more modern take, why should a Jedi be turned to the Dark
Side just for using his anger. Shouldn't it only be what he does with the anger that matters?

As far as I know, per the Expanded Universe stuff this is the case. I'm not a big Star Wars fan (far from it, really...) but IIRC it's clarified that simply using anger is not enough, it must be tempered into pure baseless hatred and then used for despicable acts before you're truly fallen to the Dark Side.

Even classically Dark Side powers (like Force Lightning and Choke) can be safely used by Light Side people as long as they realize that they're merely tools for a purpose...and that tool is not at all universally applicable.


seebs wrote:
Quote:
Killing is an evil act, not surprisingly.
Uh. [citation needed].

You should probably go back and read the post again mate. You'll find that citation has already been provided.

seebs wrote:
2. Nothing in the books says that killing is in and of itself an evil act.

*cough*


Larkos wrote:
I think the single act of casting a spell can totally change your alignment if it's evil enough. "I dominate a 5-year-old and tell him to jump in a vat of hydrochloric acid." Seems pretty evil to me and that's without the evil descriptor. Casting Blasphemy, which does have the evil descriptor, on a village in order to kill everyone in it is pretty capital "E" Evil. I wouldn't hesitate for one second to give you a one-way ticket to the deep end of the alignment pool. You'd also have to do some serious atonement to make up for that one.

Well, the above, yes. But I was distinguishing between simply casting a spell and action taken with said spell. Simply casting a dominate spell isn't evil. Dominating a 5 year old to throw themselves into a vat of acid is, but that's the ation you take with the spell and not the spell in and of itsself.

By contrast I'm stating that casting Animate Dead is, in and of itsself, an act of evil, even if you do good with it and the good you do with it outweighs the bad, it is still an act of evil.

I'm not suggesting at all that a singular casting of an evil spell, by itsself, should shift your alignment. I'm saying repeated casting of evil spells plays (or should) a role in overall alignment.

For example casting an evil spell to take down an Orc to save the life of a child? I'd say overall you did a good thing, you used an evil spell (minor evil act) in order to save a kid (large good act).


Larkos wrote:
For the last time, Casting Animate Dead is evil

Larkos... why would you write this, when I've already informed you that casting a spell is not an aligned action according to the core rules?

The alignment descriptor, by the rules, have no significance other than for interaction with Protection spells and Cleric magic. All significance outside of that is at GMs discretion and thus houserule territory.

The rule that [evil] casting is an evil act is an optional rule specific to the Golarion setting. Why do I even have to repeat that?

It is not appropriate to tout that "For the last time, Casting Animate Dead is evil" as if it's actually a rule out of the alignment chapter. Because it's not.

-Nearyn


Rynjin wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the obvious more modern take, why should a Jedi be turned to the Dark Side just for using his anger. Shouldn't it only be what he does with the anger that matters?

As far as I know, per the Expanded Universe stuff this is the case. I'm not a big Star Wars fan (far from it, really...) but IIRC it's clarified that simply using anger is not enough, it must be tempered into pure baseless hatred and then used for despicable acts before you're truly fallen to the Dark Side.

Even classically Dark Side powers (like Force Lightning and Choke) can be safely used by Light Side people as long as they realize that they're merely tools for a purpose...and that tool is not at all universally applicable.

Not to turn this into a Star Wars debate... but.

Yes, you have to temper it into hatred before you fall. Yes you can use anger and not fall. However, the Force controls the actions of Jedi and Sith as much as they control it. As you use it, so it changes you.

Dark side powers require anger and hatred to use, they're not just tools, they are extensions of your feelings. As you use them, those feelings get stronger until you fall. So, can you use dark side powers and not fall? Yes, once, maybe twice depending on the amount of anger in said Jedi. But it's Not safe or without consiquence, the taint of using your feelings in such a way leaves a stain that other Jedi and Sith can sense. The Force is apart of you and you apart of it. Using the dark side is accepting that darkness and inviting it in, you're allowing it to change you and become apart of you in order to use those powers.

Edit To expand on this a bit, force lightning, isn't electricity, it's raw dark side given form.


Captain Wacky wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the obvious more modern take, why should a Jedi be turned to the Dark Side just for using his anger. Shouldn't it only be what he does with the anger that matters?

As far as I know, per the Expanded Universe stuff this is the case. I'm not a big Star Wars fan (far from it, really...) but IIRC it's clarified that simply using anger is not enough, it must be tempered into pure baseless hatred and then used for despicable acts before you're truly fallen to the Dark Side.

Even classically Dark Side powers (like Force Lightning and Choke) can be safely used by Light Side people as long as they realize that they're merely tools for a purpose...and that tool is not at all universally applicable.

Not to turn this into a Star Wars debate... but.

Yes, you have to temper it into hatred before you fall. Yes you can use anger and not fall. However, the Force controls the actions of Jedi and Sith as much as they control it. As you use it, so it changes you.

Dark side powers require anger and hatred to use, they're not just tools, they are extensions of your feelings. As you use them, those feelings get stronger until you fall. So, can you use dark side powers and not fall? Yes, once, maybe twice depending on the amount of anger in said Jedi. But it's Not safe or without consiquence, the taint of using your feelings in such a way leaves a stain that other Jedi and Sith can sense. The Force is apart of you and you apart of it. Using the dark side is accepting that darkness and inviting it in, you're allowing it to change you and become apart of you in order to use those powers.

Well, I was more using it as an analogy and basing it on my vague pre-Expanded Universe memories, but I still think the analogy holds.

You can use evil spells without immediately changing alignment, even in the harshest interpretation of the setting rules. But they taint you and using them excessively will shift your alignment.


thejeff wrote:
You can use evil spells without immediately changing alignment, even in the harshest interpretation of the setting rules. But they taint you and using them excessively will shift your alignment.

Which is the point I was driving at... but in a much more, long-winded fashoin.


Nearyn wrote:
seebs wrote:
Quote:
Killing is an evil act, not surprisingly.
Uh. [citation needed].

You should probably go back and read the post again mate. You'll find that citation has already been provided.

seebs wrote:
2. Nothing in the books says that killing is in and of itself an evil act.
*cough*

No citation was provided, and the claim absolutely cannot be true. If killing is in and of itself an evil act, then any paladin who kills immediately loses their paladin powers, because they lose their powers if they perform any evil act.

I'm guessing you are engaging in the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent", which is to say, assuming that "A implies B" means "B implies A". The books do say that evil implies killing. That does not mean that killing implies evil.

Evil implies killing without qualms, and in particular, killing innocents. Good implies protecting innocent life, but not necessarily all life. Heck, I think the 3E DMG used "making a significant extra effort to make sure a hag gets killed and not merely driven off" as a good example of exceptionally-good behavior on the part of a paladin.

Like I said, if you have an actual citation for an official rule stating that killing is in and of itself inherently evil, I'd love to see it.


Nearyn wrote:
Larkos wrote:
For the last time, Casting Animate Dead is evil

Larkos... why would you write this, when I've already informed you that casting a spell is not an aligned action according to the core rules?

The alignment descriptor, by the rules, have no significance other than for interaction with Protection spells and Cleric magic. All significance outside of that is at GMs discretion and thus houserule territory.

The rule that [evil] casting is an evil act is an optional rule specific to the Golarion setting. Why do I even have to repeat that?

It is not appropriate to tout that "For the last time, Casting Animate Dead is evil" as if it's actually a rule out of the alignment chapter. Because it's not.

-Nearyn

Here's the thing... the spell itsself is marked as evil in the book. It says "evil" in the descriptor. Animate Dead (to use as an example again) brings evil things into the world. Things that will kill anyone they see if you're not there to control them. That can be considered a form of oppression because everyone is under threat of these things should something happen to you, whether it is your intent or not.

Unhallow, also marked as evil makes a year long Magic Circle Against Good (among other things). Any Evil can use this to their advantage, which aids people who are predisposed to kill, oppress and hurt others. If it's your spell, guess who aided them, even if it wasn't your intent (can you guess what road is paved with good intentions?), you still brought evil into the world.

The thing is, even if none of these things happen, the skeletons never hurt an innocent life, the Unhallow never aids a single bad guys, you are still opening it up for opportunity. You are giving it another avenue.


The spell is aligned-with-evil, but it's not necessarily the case that this makes it An Evil Act. Although come to think of it, I think 3E did have a specific rule that casting a spell with an alignment descriptor counted as an act of that alignment.

Pathfinder seems to have rationalized-away the "but what if an outsider [evil] is converted" by declaring that if a devil were to cease being lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil. Which turns out not to help because it doesn't tell you what creature type it then is or what traits it has. But I think undead still work. Powerful undead detect as evil even if they are good-aligned.


Bitter and rude response to seebs:
O-kay. I did not want to have to do this but...

seebs wrote:
No citation was provided,

Lie. Just... just a plainfaced lie. No misunderstanding, no anythings. You're lying to yourself and to me. Please stop.

seebs wrote:
and the claim absolutely cannot be true.

Tough. It is.

seebs wrote:
If killing is in and of itself an evil act, then any paladin who kills immediately loses their paladin powers, because they lose their powers if they perform any evil act.

Again, you demonstrate a formidable lack of ability to read things to its completion. Have you forgotten the rest of the post or do you just scan my post for bits you disagree with?

I provided an example, that was well within rules and reason, that showed how killing is an evil act, but can be undertaken as part of a good act. It takes only the slightest amount of thinking from hereon in to figure that the act could then be neutral.

seebs wrote:
I'm guessing you are engaging in the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent", which is to say, assuming that "A implies B" means "B implies A". The books do say that evil implies killing. That does not mean that killing implies evil.

You are grasping at straws :(

Of course killing is evil. Killing has always been evil. That is why the heroes defeat the villain and send him off to jail, rather than kill him, whereas the villain kills those he wish. In the end the villain either reforms, is nullified as a threat, or is killed by a hero(or antihero) who is willing to do what he thinks is needed.

seebs wrote:
Evil implies killing without qualms, and in particular, killing innocents.

So now we're just seperating bits and pieces of the text and taping it together so it fits our own interpretation? Enjoy that when you're houseruling your homegames.

alignment rules wrote:


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

See how it all takes on an entirely different meaning when you read the whole thing, and don't just take out the bits, you want to use to string together a convinient argument to support your subjective position?

seebs wrote:
Good implies protecting innocent life, but not necessarily all life.

Correct. That is what the text says.

seebs wrote:
Heck, I think the 3E DMG used "making a significant extra effort to make sure a hag gets killed and not merely driven off" as a good example of exceptionally-good behavior on the part of a paladin.

This is Pathfinder. Also welcome to the rules forum. We discuss rules here.

seebs wrote:
Like I said, if you have an actual citation for an official rule stating that killing is in and of itself inherently evil, I'd love to see it.

Has been provided. Denial is not a valid counterargument. If I sound miffed, that's because I am.

*grumble*telling me I don't provide citation, please. >:[ *grumblegrumble*

What a bitter outburst. Your comment ticked me off more than I should have allowed it to. If you took offense to what I wrote, sorry.

Instead I'll just say: I respectfully disagree with your points and encourage you to accept that a rules citation has been provided, and that perhaps it is not as bad a rule as you might think it is.

Have a nice day.

-Nearyn


Nearyn wrote:
Of course killing is evil. Killing has always been evil.

To who?

Not the majority of the world for the majority of human recollection, it hasn't.

Nearyn wrote:
That is why the heroes defeat the villain and send him off to jail, rather than kill him, whereas the villain kills those he wish.

Well yeah if you ignore 99% of mythology, stories like Conan the Barbarian, Indiana Jones, James Bond, etc., and really ANYTHING except superhero comics/cartoons.


If you want to have a real alignment discussion, we should probably pick a different thread, and we should start by making sure everyone involved knows what "deontological", "teleological", and "virtue-based" ethical systems are. Otherwise, there's simply no point in trying to have the conversation.

I'm in a fussy mood myself, so I'm going to refrain from observing the bitter-and-rude response, since I'd probably get snappish. If you can offer a citation for "killing is evil" that isn't just based on "evil implies killing", I'd be interested in seeing one. I've not yet found one, and I've been debating the D&D 3E/Pathfinder alignment systems with people for about 13 years now.


Rynjin wrote:
Nearyn wrote:
Of course killing is evil. Killing has always been evil.

To who?

Not the majority of the world for the majority of human recollection, it hasn't.

Nearyn wrote:
That is why the heroes defeat the villain and send him off to jail, rather than kill him, whereas the villain kills those he wish.
Well yeah if you ignore 99% of mythology, stories like Conan the Barbarian, Indiana Jones, James Bond, etc., and really ANYTHING except superhero comics/cartoons.

Valid observation.

-Nearyn


seebs wrote:
If you want to have a real alignment discussion, we should probably pick a different thread,

I can think of few things I want -less- than an alignment discussion :D

I actually think that right now I'd prefer seeing blood in my urine than another alignment discussion.

-Nearyn


You know, that is actually a fair and valid point.

Although I suppose we ought to ask "wait, whose blood?"


Nearyn wrote:
Larkos wrote:
For the last time, Casting Animate Dead is evil

Larkos... why would you write this, when I've already informed you that casting a spell is not an aligned action according to the core rules?

The alignment descriptor, by the rules, have no significance other than for interaction with Protection spells and Cleric magic. All significance outside of that is at GMs discretion and thus houserule territory.

The rule that [evil] casting is an evil act is an optional rule specific to the Golarion setting. Why do I even have to repeat that?

It is not appropriate to tout that "For the last time, Casting Animate Dead is evil" as if it's actually a rule out of the alignment chapter. Because it's not.

-Nearyn

I've also said that creation of the undead by any means is evil for several reasons. I have never said that casting is an aligned action. I'm saying that this specific spell because of what it does is inherently evil. Undead are inherently evil and making one can't be good. It's the reason why Vampires and Liches are also inherently evil. I grant you that the spell description doesn't explicitly state that it is evil except through the descriptor which you seem to reject offhand but how can creating something inherently evil be a good thing?

Hellfire ray to kill an orc that was about to murder a three-year-old? Fine. That's good. I would let you keep your alignment. Creating a permanent evil creature that seeks only to consume and destroy the living unless commanded otherwise? I can't let that be considered good. It's too much of a bad starting point to allow for anything to balance it out. Especially if there's any alternative. I can't imagine a situation where creation of the undead is the only option to achieve a good end.

Your point about killing is something I feel like I want to agree with but there are examples where killing isn't evil. Killing a villain that can be jailed safely and has surrendered to you is pretty evil. Killing a villain who's too powerful to be safely held by anyone is more morally grey. the paladin might not go for that but a LG fighter could probably get away with it without an alignment shift. Basically you're not right but you're not wrong either.


If the designers wanted casting spells with either good or evil descriptors to change PCs alignments surely it would have been stuck in errata and clearing it up once and for all rather than playing around with Crane Wing, Weapon Cords, Amulet of Might Fists, Brass Knuckles, etc...

Animate Dead is a very corner case at best as people have mentioned intent is much more important. I can remember an article waaaaaaay back in the depths of time saying even LG Clerics would be okay casting it for the purposes of training acolytes. Kinda leaving my body to medical science thing.

EDIT: Anyway none of this matters, we are all right and we are all wrong, its the internet. All boils down to "Ask your GM" :D


Vildrean wrote:


Another Example:

A Paladin cast on himself Bed Of Iron, Does he loss all his Paladin powers because it's a Necromancy Spell?.

A good hint is that you really, really don't expect to see a spell on a Paladin's spell list that will cause him to fall.

By the normal rules, there's nothing special about necromancy spells as related to alignment. The only spells that inherently interact with the alignment system are the ones with an alignment listed in their type. Now, in your GM's world all necromancy might be evil, and that's your GM's prerogative. But it's not that way by default. And if it is, your GM should remove any necromancy spells from the Paladin's spell list so there aren't any traps hiding in the wings.


It appears that James Jacobs has answered this question if anyone still cares.

It's question 16 on that huge list. I personally disagree but he is as close to Word of God as we're gonna get.


It's not entirely incompatible with the quasi-magnetism model of "alignment". Good alignment is what happens when you act in a way aligned with good a lot.

The Exchange

I suppose there comes a point where, if you really want to be Neutral Good, you have give up your plans to blow up the earth. Alas!

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magic And Alignments All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.