Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Qworg 02-09-07, 02:41 AM	The current Evil Acts section looks like this: Evil alignments are forbidden in LG. Evil acts are not forbidden; however, by committing evil acts your PC risks becoming evil. If your PC ever becomes evil, your PC immediately becomes an NPC and can never again be played as a PC. If you voluntarily attack another PC with the intent to do serious or permanent harm, without the other player’s permission, your alignment is automatically shifted to evil. You are allowed to defend yourself if necessary, such as if another PC is dominated, but you may not use lethal force unless unavoidable, at the GM’s discretion. This is a severe penalty and should be used with caution. As a GM, if you deem that a PC is about to commit an evil act, warn them as such. If you feel their actions are significantly evil, either due to severity or quantity, note the actions on the PC’s AR, along with any surrounding or extenuating circumstances. Contact your local Triad and inform them of the event(s); for areas without a region, contact the Circle. For out of region players, contact both Triads. The Triad(s) will review the situation and determine if the actions warrant shifting the PC’s alignment to evil. If they feel that such a shift is warranted, they will consult their Circle member(s) for confirmation of the decision. If the Circle member(s) agrees with the decision, the PC’s alignment is shifted to evil, it becomes an NPC, and can never again be played as a PC. In order to reduce confusion, can we please have the evil spells = evil acts language here as well? This new ruling definitely negatively impacts two of my characters (one Inflicter, one Alienist) and I'd like to have the rule in the rulebook if my characters might be pulled for it. Thank you. -Q
JamesMaissen 02-09-07, 02:49 AM	In order to reduce confusion, can we please have the evil spells = evil acts language here as well? This new ruling definitely negatively impacts two of my characters (one Inflicter, one Alienist) and I'd like to have the rule in the rulebook if my characters might be pulled for it. Thank you. -Q Phrases like 'your triad' seem ambiguous at best and probably should be avoided. That said I don't think the campaign needs to mandate what is and what isn't an evil act. There are alot more table variation events that probably would benefit from clarifications before that one. However, I would like to say that I think that options for atonements should be allowed so as to not remove the PC from the game. This is a very subjective issue and that would be a way to avoid differences of opinion from going to far. -James
Qworg 02-09-07, 02:54 AM	Phrases like 'your triad' seem ambiguous at best and probably should be avoided. That said I don't think the campaign needs to mandate what is and what isn't an evil act. There are alot more table variation events that probably would benefit from clarifications before that one. However, I would like to say that I think that options for atonements should be allowed so as to not remove the PC from the game. This is a very subjective issue and that would be a way to avoid differences of opinion from going to far. -James I would certainly like that - I'm still having trouble getting my head around such a big change in ruling without a rebuild opportunity. =/
Timlagor 02-09-07, 08:06 AM	I believe this language was deliberately changed so that it isn't necessary to report eveyr evil spell any more.
Mommy was an Orc 02-09-07, 08:15 AM	I believe this language was deliberately changed so that it isn't necessary to report eveyr evil spell any more. Where did you see that? Britt's been pretty adamant that evil spells = evil acts and therefore need to be marked up on the AR. It isn't as if the Dispel Confusion has been changed or an announcement made that it was changed.
pedr 02-09-07, 08:37 AM	I hadn't spotted it either but here's the reasoning. The draft text says this: As a GM, if you deem that a PC is about to commit an evil act, warn them as such. If you feel their actions are significantly evil, either due to severity or quantity, note the actions on the PC’s AR, along with any surrounding or extenuating circumstances. Contact your local Triad and inform them of the event(s); for areas without a region, contact the Circle. For out of region players, contact both Triads. The Triad(s) will review the situation and determine if the actions warrant shifting the PC’s alignment to evil. If they feel that such a shift is warranted, they will consult their Circle member(s) for confirmation of the decision. If the Circle member(s) agrees with the decision, the PC’s alignment is shifted to evil, it becomes an NPC, and can never again be played as a PC. So there's now a three-stage process. 1) If a DM notices that someone is about to commit an evil act (either something which is evil by rule, such as casting an [Evil] spell or which is evil in the opinion of the DM) he warns the player and the player can decide whether or not to do it. 2) If a DM feels that the evil actions warrant reporting due to quantity or severity, he notes the acts and their circumstances on the player's AR and reports them to the triad(s) or circle. 3) The triad reviews the case and determines if the PC's alignment ought to be shifted to evil. If so, they refer it to their Circle member for ratification. This does, in fact, mean that not all evil acts have to be noted on ARs or reported to triads. Which is a good thing :D
Timlagor 02-09-07, 09:56 AM	Pedr's got it but just to pin it down firmly: "If you feel their actions are significantly evil, either due to severity or quantity" There is no way but arbitrary opinion to judge the inherent severity of casting an evil spell and many judges will simply choose to ignore them unless there are a very large number of instances.
trollbill 02-09-07, 09:59 AM	The current Evil Acts section looks like this: In order to reduce confusion, can we please have the evil spells = evil acts language here as well? This new ruling definitely negatively impacts two of my characters (one Inflicter, one Alienist) and I'd like to have the rule in the rulebook if my characters might be pulled for it. Thank you. -Q Just out of curiosity, how does it affect your Alienist since Alienists are typically summoners of pseudonatural creatures, which are neither good nor evil.
Britt 02-09-07, 01:09 PM	I hadn't spotted it either but here's the reasoning. 1) If a DM notices that someone is about to commit an evil act (either something which is evil by rule, such as casting an [Evil] spell or which is evil in the opinion of the DM) he warns the player and the player can decide whether or not to do it. 2) If a DM feels that the evil actions warrant reporting due to quantity or severity, he notes the acts and their circumstances on the player's AR and reports them to the triad(s) or circle. 3) The triad reviews the case and determines if the PC's alignment ought to be shifted to evil. If so, they refer it to their Circle member for ratification. This does, in fact, mean that not all evil acts have to be noted on ARs or reported to triads. Which is a good thing :D This is correct. Under the old rules, you were forced to note every casting of an [Evil] spell or every channeling of negative energy. If you don't think the acts are significant by the end of the mod, you don't have to with the new system.
Qworg 02-09-07, 04:23 PM	Just out of curiosity, how does it affect your Alienist since Alienists are typically summoners of pseudonatural creatures, which are neither good nor evil. Ah, I was mistaken - I thought that pseudonaturals were automatically NE. I'm still worried about my cursing pirate of a cleric. =/ I'd prefer a better clarification in the LGCS proper.
solbergb 02-09-07, 05:25 PM	This is correct. Under the old rules, you were forced to note every casting of an [Evil] spell or every channeling of negative energy. If you don't think the acts are significant by the end of the mod, you don't have to with the new system. Britt - Thank you. Neatly solves the BOVD assertion that the spells are "Evil" but means the triads won't be flooded with mail unless the DM agrees that the spells are "Evil enough to merit a notation." I like this a lot better than the Dispel Confusion outcome.
Golorious 02-09-07, 06:41 PM	BOVD is not a core book. If you want to stay close to core rules then casting an evil spell is not an evil act by the way of the core rules. I'm a big believer in core rules and there isn't anything to support this in the core rule books. Which is my first an primary dislike of evil spells = Evil acts. This mostly affects things like Summon monster spells, and some of the necromancy spells and a few enchantment spells. The school of necromancy already has the lowest number of spells in it other than universal. Why limit it more? Second Dislike-- If you are going to instigate a rule that isn't core to begin with (I.e. there is no mention in PHB, DMG or MM) then should the rule not be consistent. I.e. good spell can change your alignment towards good? etc... How does a neutral person honestly stay neutral in this campaign where we are primarily doing good deeds? (I'll leave aside dyvers and BK :D ) There should be a method for balancing good and evil acts to remain neutral. Third Dislike I have a necromancer that casts spells with the evil descriptor. So far (except for one instance in Ket (I'm an elf)) he has only cast evil spells on evil people. I have done too many good deeds so I cast mean spells. It was my way of maintaining a belief in not supporting either good or evil but a positive commitment to balance. Like the description of neutral in the PHB. I know that there was always an awkward issue with evil spells as evil acts. So at that time (over two years ago) I talked extensively to the Triad of the Region I was playing in to see if this was a viable personality I was planning on playing. There answer was per core rules... there is nothing in the DMG, PHB, or MM that says casting a spell is an evil act. However, using any spell in an evil way will be considered an evil act no matter what descriptor it has. I.e. attacking the innocent, other players etc... This rule potentially means that after a few modules this character will be out of play. This will be a result I will live with if needed because I’m not changing his personality. It is a role playing game after all. It will suck and for reasons I don't agree with but the integrity of the personality is more important to play.
Britt 02-09-07, 06:48 PM	Golorious: have you read the Evil Acts section? It's been completely rewritten. Also, while there is nothing in the Core rulebooks that says [Evil] = evil, there is also nothing that says [Evil] <> evil. Either interpretation requires an assumption. There is a direct statement in another WotC book that says that [Evil] = evil, and that is the only evidence to support either assumption. Saying that sticking to Core rules is the best option does nothing to support a statement of [Evil] <> evil. Furthermore, it doesn't matter that much with the new Evil Acts section.
Golorious 02-09-07, 07:17 PM	I see what you are saying Britt. Yes it was re-written and I did read it. Thank you for re-wording it. I will just remind people that the newer LGCS superceeds the DC that was posted. Becasue I know that it will come up a lot because of that DC. Britt you are doing an amazing job. Sorry for adding to your stess. This LGCS is so much better then the last few. You do my meta-region Proud! Hopefully this POC of the Circle wont burn you out!