Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thorinXXX 02-19-07, 01:27 PM	A recent Dispel Confusion stated that casting spells with the Evil descriptor was to be considered an Evil Act. This was ommitted in the LGCS and the general rule for Dispel Confusion is that the rules are only valid until the next LGCS. Does this mean that the rule has been dropped? As the DC was rather recent I doubt that was the intent, but before confirming it think carefully about the consequences. The true name is not Evil Acts, but Character Removal Acts. So the question is do you want characters removed from the campaign for casting spells with the Evil descriptor. We know that burning down an orphanage with the orphans still inside has serious potential for removing a character from the campaign. Do you want summoning summoning a fiendish wolf to fight the villian to have the same consequences?
pedr 02-19-07, 01:38 PM	The logical flaw in your argument is equating 'evil acts' with 'character removal acts'. The new wording in the LGCS makes it absolutely plain, to my mind, that you can't get removed from the campaign for 'committing evil acts'. What gets you removed from the campaign is being evil, i.e. having an alignment that is not Good or Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. It is only if your triad believes that your character is actually evil, despite what is written on its character sheet, that it gets removed from the game. In a home game, a purportedly chaotic neutral druid (say) would have his druid powers removed by the DM if the DM decided that the character was now chaotic evil. In the same way, if the triad decides that the character's alignment, as evidenced by the sorts of acts the character has been committing, is now evil, and the circle rep agrees, the character is removed from the campaign. Seems very sensible, and quite clear to me.
jstorrie 02-19-07, 03:35 PM	Your DM doesn't have to note the evil acts unless they feel they are significant.
LGMoses 02-19-07, 03:44 PM	yes. a neutral wizard summoning some fiendish badger or something is hardly worth noting. Now, a LN cleric of St. Cuthbert breaking into several ships to search for slaves and nearly killing several guards when caught, yes, thats getting noted and you're going to need an atonement.
GreatSiron 02-19-07, 05:17 PM	What about casting Summon Undead I? (Yes I have access, I got it in the BK). Or Create Undead? (Again, have access to the scroll, though I don't think its NONC anymore).
jstorrie 02-19-07, 07:51 PM	Summon Undead: pretty evil, but potentially forgiveable. Try not to use it if Summon Monster will suffice? Create Undead: thoroughly evil, and ought to get you an Evil Act note every single time.
thorinXXX 02-20-07, 12:34 PM	The logical flaw in your argument is equating 'evil acts' with 'character removal acts'. The new wording in the LGCS makes it absolutely plain, to my mind, that you can't get removed from the campaign for 'committing evil acts'. What gets you removed from the campaign is being evil, i.e. having an alignment that is not Good or Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. It is only if your triad believes that your character is actually evil, despite what is written on its character sheet, that it gets removed from the game. In a home game, a purportedly chaotic neutral druid (say) would have his druid powers removed by the DM if the DM decided that the character was now chaotic evil. In the same way, if the triad decides that the character's alignment, as evidenced by the sorts of acts the character has been committing, is now evil, and the circle rep agrees, the character is removed from the campaign. Seems very sensible, and quite clear to me. The problem is that per the DC casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act by definition. Quantity of evil acts is grounds for character removal (turning evil). What do you think is going to happen when a character is reported by several judges for commiting evil acts. Unless people ignore the DC, a judge has no choice but to note it on the AR and contact the triad/circle. The character has commited an evil act, there is no room for judgement. That is the problem with the ruling in the DC.
solbergb 02-20-07, 12:49 PM	The LGCS overruled the Dispel Confusion. They don't contradict, as such, but we're back to the situation where the Judge can decide for himself how "evil" summoning a fiendish badger is. Only if he considers it "EVIL" will he cause an AR notation. For a judge like me, that will be never, because I consider such trivial evil acts easily cancelled out by any "good" spells or good deeds the PC does Massive use of evil spells (like he casts nothing else the whole adventure) and other signs of evil behavior might cause me to notice. But in general I'll be applying the same standard I always did - what is the intent and outcome of casting the spell? If it is "Evil" then the PC gets a warning, and a notation if he does it anyway. Other judges might treat each and every casting of an [evil] descriptor spell worth a notation. Such judges will warn your PC before taking the action (they have to) before annotating your AR based on your behavior.
pedr 02-20-07, 12:58 PM	The DC says casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act. Everyone agrees that this is now the rule for LG. You seem to argue that this makes casting [Evil] spells lead directly and inexorably to character removal. It is at this point that I disagree. The LGCS states what happens if a PC is about to commit any evil act. I posted a synopsis somewhere else but can't find it now. The DM must inform the player that what he's about to do is an evil act. At the end of the adventure the DM decides whether the quantity or severity of the evil act(s) requires reporting. There is, admittedly, room for significant table variation here, but as the report is then filtered through both the triad and circle rep, this will have little real impact. The actual question is: how much 'evil' does your triad believe you have to do before it is no longer accurate to describe your character as neutral or good? I believe that if every spell you cast is an [Evil] summon spell or an inflict wounds, you might get into trouble - and so you should, as that power is corrupting in the D&D morality. If you're less one-sided than that, you shouldn't have a problem at all. solbergb: note that you still have to warn, even if you don't consider one [Evil] spell to be worth reporting. You also don't have the discretion to say that evil spells are never worth reporting (as you admit) - a significant quantity of them must be reported, but you have the final decision on what you consider 'significant'.
Jay_Ibero_911 02-20-07, 01:18 PM	All this talk about character removal makes me wonder how many (if any) characters haver ever actually been removed from the campaign for being evil....
Britt 02-20-07, 01:35 PM	At least 6 in the BK. A table of experience LG players were playing an intro mod and did some pretty bad stuff, so we yanked the characters when we found out.
Munkwunk 02-20-07, 01:36 PM	So let me get this straight: What I"m hearing is that whether or nto someone gets reported for committing evil acts is left up to table variation? So anyone who casts Summon Monster regularly needs to check with his GM before selecting from roughly half of his options, because GM 1 may be cool with it while GM 2 may have a bug up his butt and report the guy for summoning a few Fiendish Crocodiles? I don't like the new fuzzy ruling. Life was a lot simpler when [Evil] was simply outlawed. Now we can't even cast Inflict Minor Wounds (which doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor but is said to be channeling evil energy) without making sure our Gm isn't a jerk about it. Character removal may still be dependant on Triad and/or Circle judgements, but it's still way too much of a hassle for everyone involved. What if one GM is particularly **** about evil spells and reports every summoner to his Triad? That causes a lot more work for them despite the matter being rather trivial.
Redfist 02-20-07, 01:38 PM	I have a LN wizard who once in a blue moon might decide to cast Wrack. I don't want to have to deal with issues/hassles around that. In 60 ARs, I've cast it once. If I get a nasty streak, it may be once every 5 mods. I'm not worried about turning evil...
KarmaInferno 02-20-07, 01:41 PM	How hard is it to just NOT DO THE EVIL THINGS? There's a massive amount of non-evil options for horribly mutilating the bad guys out there. use those, nobody cares about those. Hell, I saw a druid drain a bad guy to death with a pack of dire weasels. That's gotta be evil, in a non-evil sort of way. There's other ways to get your "evil" fix without tripping over the rules. Just be more creative. -karma
Britt 02-20-07, 01:42 PM	I don't like the new fuzzy ruling. Life was a lot simpler when [Evil] was simply outlawed. Now we can't even cast Inflict Minor Wounds (which doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor but is said to be channeling evil energy) without making sure our Gm isn't a jerk about it. Character removal may still be dependant on Triad and/or Circle judgements, but it's still way too much of a hassle for everyone involved. What if one GM is particularly **** about evil spells and reports every summoner to his Triad? That causes a lot more work for them despite the matter being rather trivial. Evil acts were never outlawed. You could always cast [Evil] spells and commit evil acts. After the DC issue, every casting of those spells had to be reported, which could (but didn't yet) cause problems. It is now up to the GMs whether the acts are evil enough to warrant being reported, then up to the Triad whether the total acts are evil enough to warrant a shift to evil, then up to the Circle to confirm if the Triad says yes.
solbergb 02-20-07, 01:44 PM	^^^^ Which is pretty much what we've always had in LG.
Munkwunk 02-20-07, 01:55 PM	Okay, perhaps it hasn't always been outlawed. The discussion of the matter has certainly been brought to the foreground since that DC article though. The thing that just bugs me is that one GM may be okay with a person casting Death Watch (because, honestly, there's nothing *harmful* about Death Watch, despite it now having the [Evil] descriptor) while another GM might report it. Either way it gets noted on the AR, but what guidelines do GMs have for determing what is "evil enough to report" and what isn't?
solbergb 02-20-07, 01:56 PM	Remember that the GM ALWAYS has to warn you if you are about to do something that causes an evil act notation. So he can't let you cast Deathwatch and then note it on the AR later. He has to tell you up front. (or he could say "that's an evil spell, a few are ok, but if you cast a dozen or more you'll get a notation." or whatever)
Munkwunk 02-20-07, 01:59 PM	Yeah, I understand it demands a warning either way. What's the guideline on how many you can cast though? 1? 3? 6? 12? That's up to the individual GM to determine how much is "too evil"?
Mattastrophic 02-20-07, 02:09 PM	Though I myself support some sort of system that discourages characters from casting [Evil] spells, sticking with a system of absolutes, I really have to say, injecting relativity back into that system by leaving "what is evil?" up to table variation is the wrong solution. I don't want Random Judge making notes about my own character, who walks the straight and narrow, and then report me because this particular judge thinks that my Charm spells are evil, for example, "because I'm stripping my victim of his will." Or that my Scorching Ray is evil, "because that burnt corpse obviously did not deserve such a gruesome and painful death." It's gotta be spelled out. Other than that, I'm a big supporter of discouraging stuff like Wrack. -Matt
pedr 02-20-07, 02:19 PM	So if you're likely to do a borderline significant amount of it, ask your DM first. Just like any other issue which you might have to check with your DM (such as how they rule on unclear rules). I find it hard to imagine that one or two castings of an [Evil] spell will be considered significant due to quantity (one of the criteria). Three or four might begin to, depending among other things on the time-scale of the adventure.
pedr 02-20-07, 02:25 PM	D&D always leaves the precise definitions of what is evil up to the DM. In the LG context the actual DM, the only one who can determine that your character is no-longer good or neutral, is the triad, supervised by the circle. A DM noting and reporting is meaningless if the triad doesn't agree with his analysis. So while it's not clear cut, and never can be, I don't quite see why people are getting so worried. Besides, if you don't trust your triad not to take away your character without good reason, don't play LG - that triad is also responsible for writing/editing the modules you play and if it wanted to eliminate you (either specifically or generally a lot of players) it would be quite easy for it to do so through the modules. I believe in acts having consequences. If you do something, you should be happy for it to be written on your AR or reported to your triad. If that 'something' is, for instance, blowing up an inn full of people (as happened in an Onnwal module, I believe) then there will be consequences (in that case, the character was removed from the campaign - I can't remember the IC consequences, quite possibly execution. If it's casting Death Watch, the triad is going to take a different view - and probably encourage the reporting DM to be a little more generous in his interpretation of 'significant'!
Mattastrophic 02-20-07, 02:27 PM	So if you're likely to do a borderline significant amount of it, ask your DM first. Just like any other issue which you might have to check with your DM (such as how they rule on unclear rules). By that logic, though, I would have to ask my judge about every possible thing my character may end up doing, becuase this guy might think it's evil to, say, use Bluff and tell a lie. I've played under some really bad judges, judges who would do this type of thing, btw. Relativity cannot enforce a system of absolutes. -Matt
pedr 02-20-07, 03:53 PM	Well, at least you get a warning. Remember, you always get a warning, and a choice whether to do it or not. If you disagree with the decision that it's evil you have a problem, but you will never ever be reported to the triad without knowing in advance that you will be reported if you continue with your action.
Munkwunk 02-20-07, 08:17 PM	That isn't the point. On a personal level, I'm not even trying to argue anything to be ruled in my favor; all of my characters are Good-aligned and don't bother "walking the line" anyway. The point is that there is no solid method of determing what is "evil enough" to get a person reported. What this means is that there are no guidelines for judges as to when they should consider talking to the Triad about a given character. If one judge feels that one "evil act" is worthy of reporting, he can do so; the fact that he gives you a warning doesn't change that whatsoever. There needs to be a guideline, especially as far as spells and various other quantifiable actions are concerned. It could be as simple as a ruling that states: "If 5 or more 'evil acts' are commited during the course of a single adventure, the judge should report the character to the Triad." With a set number, it informs all judges that they should report a character after 5 evil acts have been committed, regardless of whether the judge feels it is "too evil" or not. Obviously, there are situations -- like the orphanage burning scenario -- which should get a character reported regardless. But simple and minor evil acts are like misdemeanors; sure, they're bad, but they're not going to get you locked up for the rest of your life. Also, with a guideline about the number of permissable evil acts, there is no room for interpretation. GM 1 can't ignore the casting of Deathwatch more than 5 times, but GM 2 needs to wait until it has happened at least 5 times before he can waste the Triad's time to by reporting it to them. If it's not a crime that the Circle would want to bother making a ruling against, then it isn't a crime that the local Triads should be bothered with, which means it isn't a crime worth reporting. Both the Circle and the local Triad have much better things to do than listen to some petty judge's interpretation of what is and isn't "evil" and they shouldn't be bothered by it unless it really matters. Unless we have a guideline though, there is much more room for abuse.
Britt 02-20-07, 08:24 PM	There will not be a guideline for how many evil acts require documentation. There are too many variables in any given situation to have a firm rule that can apply to all situations. Any rule we craft will be either under or over-inclusive. Some things require GMs to exercise discretion, and this is one of those things. GMs are not mindless automatons blindly applying rules; we trust them to make some adjudications, as should you.
copper_wyrmling 02-20-07, 09:37 PM	By that logic, though, I would have to ask my judge about every possible thing my character may end up doing, becuase this guy might think it's evil to, say, use Bluff and tell a lie. No, it's the judge's responsibility to tell you if he/she regards your PC's actions to be evil. You then have a choice whether or not to go ahead with it. If a particular judge is reporting a lot of people for "lying to Iuzian guards", "casting Deathwatch to see if there are undead in the area", "casting scorching ray on charging orc barbarians", then I suspect that (a) people will start avoiding that judge, and (b) he/she will get an email from the Triad asking them to please tone it down a bit. Incidentally, in response to an earlier question... there used to be a PC in Perrenland who regularly commanded undead and used them as minions (cannon fodder, crewing boats, etc) He also used Death Knell on unconscious prisoners whenever the opportunity arose. Everyone expected him to be removed from the campaign after he hit L5 and got access to Animate Dead, but as it happened he managed to get himself removed for a single big-time evil act before that (i.e. attempting to activate the Artifact of Ultimate Evilness, rather than destroying it).
Mattastrophic 02-20-07, 09:47 PM	No, it's the judge's responsibility to tell you if he/she regards your PC's actions to be evil. You then have a choice whether or not to go ahead with it. At that point, the judge is dictating how to play my character, though. And that's bad. Unfortunately, the current rule as it stands opens that door. -Matt
King Kashue 02-21-07, 12:28 AM	At least 6 in the BK. A table of experience LG players were playing an intro mod and did some pretty bad stuff, so we yanked the characters when we found out. And a couple put on the hand of Vecna at GenCon, they all got snatched. :D
King Kashue 02-21-07, 12:31 AM	How hard is it to just NOT DO THE EVIL THINGS? If you never do evil things, then you aren't playing a neutral character :P My oldest character is Chaotic Neutral and by the gods, he's earned it! :D (I've cut the tongue out of a NPC, and attacked a Neutral Good Cleric of Lydia before my party stopped me...They were both explicitly members of the Scarlet Brotherhood, and in Onnwal, that's reason enough for just about anything :D)
pedr 02-21-07, 06:51 AM	At that point, the judge is dictating how to play my character, though. And that's bad. Unfortunately, the current rule as it stands opens that door. -MattNo. He's saying: "If you do that, I think it's evil enough that in my opinion it would be evidence that your character would risk having changed alignment to evil. That means I have to report this to the triad, and if they agree with me you'll lose your character." If you care more about keeping your character in play than roleplaying your character the way you think your character would act (not a bad thing - this is a game, it's often more fun when you keep your character than when you don't) then you'll give this a lot of thought. If you think the DM's call is wrong and you believe your triad will not agree with him, or if you think acting the way your character would act is the most important thing even if that means your character is evil and will be removed (also not a bad thing - many characters teeter on that neutral/evil boundary and some players enjoy the fact that they might tip over one day even though they won't get to play them any more) then you'll carry on, and see what the consequences are. I honestly don't see what the major problem is here - which is why I keep posting! You cannot be of evil alignment. Only the triad can decide that you are of evil alignment. Doing evil things is evidence of a trend towards evil; doing enough, or serious enough, evil thigs is evidence of an evil alignment. The triads rely on DMs to report serious or significant quantities of evil acts so that they can decide whether a PC is acting in line more with an evil alignment than a neutral one. There is no problem with a DM reporting something if the triad won't agree with him.
Fleetfang 02-21-07, 12:42 PM	...Never mind.
dg8672 02-21-07, 01:23 PM	The problem I have with this kind of rule is that it open up the door for GMs to keep the PCs from doing things that might otherwise be considered normal...anything to keep people from walking a mod, right? I mean, LG allows cleric PCs to worship Neutral Gods and choose to channel negative energy. With the change in these rules, GMs will have the power to totally depower these PCs for entire game sessions, if they feel like it. We can say what we want, but Ive run into a LOT of vengeful judges whose sole purpose seemed to be to make sure the players lost. This just makes it easier. I've also seen judges whom during the course of a game, seem to have it out for one particular player. It's happened to me. I trivialized the first combat of a mod by having my sorcerer cast haste in the first round and then slow the next (all the bad guys failed their save), and then broke the next fight by casting mass fly, and none of the enemies had ranged attacks. For the rest of the mod, he gave me crap every time I tried to do something, whether it was role playing (like telling me that I was being thrown out of a bar because I flirted with the barmaid to get info...where on ANY planet does that happen?) or telling me that the bad guys had 'heard about me' because of what I did before and was suddenly a target in the 3rd fight. What would stop a ****** of GM to say "sorry, that spell is evil, because it would kill them. You have spells that wouldnt kill them and are not using them. Thats an evil act." That last example is a bit extreme, I know, but it HAPPENS. There needs to be more concrete rules for evil acts, or people will start finding any excuse to call something 'evil.' Just one man's opinion.
pedr 02-21-07, 01:34 PM	The problem I have with this kind of rule is that it open up the door for GMs to keep the PCs from doing things that might otherwise be considered normal...anything to keep people from walking a mod, right? I mean, LG allows cleric PCs to worship Neutral Gods and choose to channel negative energy. With the change in these rules, GMs will have the power to totally depower these PCs for entire game sessions, if they feel like it. <snip> Just one man's opinion.Please explain, step by step, how the LG rules (which haven't changed much in this revision) give GMs 'the power to totally depower' someone for a module? I don't see it, anywhere. All a DM can do is say 'I'm going to report that, if you do it.' So what? If you think it's acceptable and the DM's being silly, go ahead and do it. What does it matter that it gets reported? He can't do anything else - can't kick you from the table, can't say 'your PC's now an NPC', can't rip up your ARs. He can have NPCs arrest your PC/throw you out of a bar/whatever, but the long-term consequences will almost always be resolveable by your triad, so what's the problem?
dg8672 02-21-07, 01:50 PM	Please explain, step by step, how the LG rules (which haven't changed much in this revision) give GMs 'the power to totally depower' someone for a module? I don't see it, anywhere. All a DM can do is say 'I'm going to report that, if you do it.' So what? If you think it's acceptable and the DM's being silly, go ahead and do it. What does it matter that it gets reported? He can't do anything else - can't kick you from the table, can't say 'your PC's now an NPC', can't rip up your ARs. He can have NPCs arrest your PC/throw you out of a bar/whatever, but the long-term consequences will almost always be resolveable by your triad, so what's the problem? The truth is, players will often balk at doing something if the GM notes its an evil act and that he'll mark it as such - especially if that player is playing a GOOD PC. Things that 90% of judges find ok, 10% will say are evil - some of these will have, at least to them, a legitimate reason for doing so. Some will do so out of spite, and those are the situations I worry about. You're correct that a judge cant make your PC an NPC on the spot, but he can make on the spot rulings about what he considers a reportable or significant evil act. SO yes, maybe the Triad will eventually disagree with him and throw it out, but when you're at a table in the middle of a mod, do you really want to stop and ponder it? I know that, in my case, I'd usually just move onto the next option. Most players I've met would as well. So, what Im saying is that the vengeful or mean judge can use the 'its up to the GM to decide...' ruling to make the mod hell for his players, or a particular player. Concrete rules for stuff like this in a home campaign are not necessary, as the players and the GM set guidelines early on. In a Living Campaign, where your judge could be different every time you play, some standard is needed.
bitznarf 02-21-07, 02:08 PM	Okay, perhaps it hasn't always been outlawed. The discussion of the matter has certainly been brought to the foreground since that DC article though. The thing that just bugs me is that one GM may be okay with a person casting Death Watch (because, honestly, there's nothing *harmful* about Death Watch, despite it now having the [Evil] descriptor) while another GM might report it. Either way it gets noted on the AR, but what guidelines do GMs have for determing what is "evil enough to report" and what isn't? As I understand it the casting of spells with the [Evil] descriptor has nothing to do with the intent of the act, or how harmful it may or may not be (although evil intent would make the act worse). The reason the casting of such spells is Evil is that you are 'mucking' for lack of a better word with evil powers, you are bringing evil into you and then using it for a purpose, regardless of what that purpose is. This using of Evil power can corrupt even the most pure hearted soul, as explained somewhat in the BoVD. 'Evil', and for that matter all the alignments, have a force behind them; they are tangible. At least, thats my understanding of [Evil] in D&D.
Mattastrophic 02-21-07, 02:24 PM	The problem I have with this kind of rule is that it open up the door for GMs to keep the PCs from doing things that might otherwise be considered normal...anything to keep people from walking a mod, right? Took the words right out of my e-mouth. And I agree, this stuff does happen. I once had a very antagonistic judge TPK the table becuase he had some sort of problem with me. And what this new rule has done is offer these types of judges a new tool to further control their players' PCs with. It's so ambiguous that even Detect Evil can get you reported. My characters are all Good. One of them in particular adheres to very heavenly ideals. I do not want to be told one day that the same tactics that his goddess has supported all through his career are suddenly as evil as the fiends he smites. Yes, casting [Evil] spells is an Evil act. That is a very absolute statement. A system based on absolutes would be very effective at accomplishing what is sets out to do. But the system also supports judges who believe (or just claim to to be mean) that Magic Missile is Evil. Thus, that support needs to be removed by providing at least guidelines on "what is evil," because where D&D points to the absolute, the Circle is trying to rely on the relative. -Matt
solbergb 02-21-07, 02:24 PM	The way to deal with bad Judges is to give feedback (in convention setting, to organizers) or to the judge (if a friend) or indirectly (by not showing up to events he runs, not inviting him to run events). This is especially important when traveling, because you can't know if he's just having a bad day or his dog died or whatever or if he's really just a bad judge. But the convention organizer can know, or will learn from feedback that comes from people like you. An antagonistic judge can take ANY rule and twist it if he has it in for a PC. Keep your head down if you find yourself at such a table - and then give feedback. If I have a bad judge experience, how I react depends on what kind of bad experience it was. 1. Judge was unprepared or just didn't seem to know much about judging, the module or D&D. In this case I talk to the organizer. If the judge is new, I cut some slack. If the judge was unprepared, I try to get the story from the organizer on why and try to encourage the organizer to do better at preparing his judge in future. (some tact is required here, but the message needs to get through) 2. Judge has pacing problems on the "slow" side. I'm fairly sympathetic (this is a problem I had a lot early into LG judging and still have to constantly watch with complicated modules) and may talk to the judge one on one afterwards on tricks I use to speed things up. 3. Judge rushes through the mod. I'll give feedback to organizer that I felt like we didn't really get to play the whole module, and ask that he let the judge know some of his players were disappointed. (if I know the guy, I'll just have him slow down a bit at the table. Even if I don't, I might ask that "yes, can we please actually do the easy fight" or whatever, giving some reason like "the party needs to learn how to work together for the "tough fights" that are sure to come later.) 4. Judge is hostile. Keep your head down in the module, and give strong, negative feedback to the organizer. The first 3 are behavior that can be corrected with gentle, subtle feedback. The fourth, barring a really bad day for the judge, usually doesn't get fixed and the main remedy is to stop playing with that individual and stop giving him judging opportunities.
KarmaInferno 02-21-07, 03:55 PM	Concrete rules for stuff like this in a home campaign are not necessary, as the players and the GM set guidelines early on. In a Living Campaign, where your judge could be different every time you play, some standard is needed. Actually, in a mass campaign, the more concrete you make this kinda thing, the more you get folks walking that much closer to the edge since it's defined more clearly. A specific list of "what makes you go Evil" leads to the kind of mentality that deliberately adds up how how many evil acts you can do before going evil. And then does exactly that number of evil acts, because it's allowed by the rules. I'd much rather the cut off point be ambiguous and unclear, to keep people from pushing the edge. You might want to think that folks are good people and would voluntarily not abuse the mechanic, but in practice anything that can be abused will be abused til it screams. Ask anyone who's done game design for large player bases - the mob will always abuse every possible advantage. Always. -karma
thorinXXX 02-21-07, 04:23 PM	So, as it stands, a PC can be removed from play for casting Protection From Good to protect himself from the villian's summoned celestial critters. Is this an extreme case? Yes. Is it likey? No. But unlikely is not the same as impossible. What happens when this case catches the triad on a bad day? What happens when the only detail given was that the PC cast an Evil spell. What happens when the triad gets several notifications from different judges for casting Evil spells? The fact that this rule is subject to such abuse is proof that it is a bad rule. Any other evil act would require a much greater level of detail to justify it as an evil act.
Fleetfang 02-21-07, 04:35 PM	I find it highly, highly unlikely that an entire Triad, who we have to assume does have some good judgement or they wouldn't have been trusted with the job, would all be having such a bad day that they would boot a PC without going to the trouble of finding out all the details of an alleged 'evil act.' The Sage actually addressed the question of channeling negative energy in the latest Dragon Mag. Not an evil act, as the negative energy plane doesn't have the evil descriptor. Nor do the inflict spells. Rebuking undead, I believe by implication if not explicit mention in the Sage's answer, is an exception to the non-evil use of negative energy. But apparently, that has more to do with controlling the dead than it does with the negative energy involved. I have to second KarmaInferno's sentiment, as well.
pedr 02-21-07, 05:14 PM	Remember that the DM must report the circumstances of the act as well, per the LGCS. Remember that the triad's decision has to be ratified by the metaregion's circle member. I'm still seeing a lot of people getting worried over very little. Even the worst judge in the world will find it easier to remove your character by engineering an unrecoverable death than by falsely claiming something was so evil that your character is clearly evil, not neutral or good. Remember, again, that it is not doing evil things that gets you removed. It's being evil that gets you removed.
Munkwunk 02-21-07, 05:29 PM	but the long-term consequences will almost always be resolveable by your triad, so what's the problem? The problem, a point I have been trying to get across, is that the judges who report people for stupid things will be taking up the Triad's valuable time with petty nonsense. Who knows? It may nto ever come up and will never be a problem. I'd hate to be a Triad member of a region with a "problem judge" though.
Britt 02-21-07, 05:47 PM	I'm also having a very hard time seeing what the problem is here. The previous rules, for several years, required the GM to report you for any act that was evil. They also allowed a GM to remove a character from play without appeal to the Triad if the GM felt it was sufficiently evil. The new rules give the GM some latitude to not report acts that are insignificant and took away the right to pull a character from play. Triads now also have to get approval from the Circle before pulling characters. All that has been done is reduce the number of instances of reporting by giving GMs the ability to not report and increase the oversight on removal of characters. How is this being seen as a change that will increase reports and threaten characters more than the previous rules? That doesn't make any sense.
MatteBlack 02-21-07, 05:56 PM	The largest problem I see is that there only appears to be a mechanism for recording evil acts. Presumably, most character are doing a fair amount of good too but, does it get reported? How do you play a neutral character if you are only recording the black marks. I recently had a character risk a near party wipe because I chose to save some villagers in a burning building. That is something that seems like it would offset some inflict castings but, it goes unrecorded. I am fine with some spells being evil but, they need to have a value against your characters soul and the good they have done as well. Lee
Britt 02-21-07, 06:08 PM	That would fall under "note the actions on the PC’s AR, along with any surrounding or extenuating circumstances."
King Kashue 02-21-07, 10:17 PM	So, as it stands, a PC can be removed from play for casting Protection From Good to protect himself from the villian's summoned celestial critters. Not the best examples, since any Prot spell will prevent summoned creatures from getting to you :P More seriously, Britt's comments are dead on. The new rules are not more free, they are actually giving DMs less power, it's just that people didn't pay enough attention to the rules previously, so it seems like a big change.
LGMoses 02-21-07, 10:26 PM	what I want to know is what CAN Judge do: I know we can't remove characters from the game w/o triad authorization. Can we decide when clerics need to get an atonement? Do we decide when paladins have violated the code of conduct? someone help me with this plz
jstorrie 02-22-07, 03:43 AM	Yes, the judge decides when the cleric needs an atonement or when the paladin violates their code of conduct. Given that your interpretation of Dungeons and Dragons morality may differ from your players', though, you should generally warn them first and explain why.
Redfist 02-22-07, 09:56 AM	Ever since going to the Pale (PAL5-03), my wizard has a bit of darkness creeping into him. Having just received access to Night's Caress (SpC) he is awfully tempted to cast it - just once. 1. He's neutral so casting evil spells on rare occasion shouldn't be a huge issue. 2. He's a spell collector - loves 'em! He buys spellbooks even if the spells contained within are crap. 3. He's a knowledge monkey. How better to know what a spell does than to cast it and experiment? Greater Invis. Move towards foe. Night's Caress - touch. Move away. --Gordon
catsclaw 02-22-07, 11:10 AM	The alignment system in D&D is intentionally vague, out of necessity. First, WotC doesn't really want to get into moral arguments (e.g., Why is X evil but Y isn't?). Second, because D&D exists in a world where there are literal embodiments of "good" and "evil", there's another whole level of complication on top of that. There clearly is an objective morality in Greyhawk (because people ping as "good" and "evil" regardless of the beliefs of the pinger) but at the same time the gods are portrayed as having conflicting goals, which strongly implies a subjective morality. Since these ideas are incompatible, WotC just doesn't fill in much of the details. Of course, as a recent thread-which-shall-remain-nameless demonstrated, people have wildly divergent ideas of what "good" and "evil" mean in LG. Even Triad members have wildly divergent ideas. Since LG is a shared campaign, there really ought to be better guidelines on adjucating alignment disputes. Don't hold your breath on seeing any. Lacking those good guidelines, about the best you can do is require warnings from judges before you commit an evil act, provide flexibility on what gets reported to a Triad, require oversight on any decisions to remove characters from the campaign, and raise a stink whenever any interpretation of the alignment system goes too far beyond the pale. Which is pretty much exactly the situation we've got now.
thorinXXX 02-23-07, 01:21 PM	Not the best examples, since any Prot spell will prevent summoned creatures from getting to you :P More seriously, Britt's comments are dead on. The new rules are not more free, they are actually giving DMs less power, it's just that people didn't pay enough attention to the rules previously, so it seems like a big change. Reread the spell, good summoned creatures walk right through a Protection From Evil spell. The way it is worded only a Protection From Good spell will keep them at bay, hence the example. In every other instance of an evil act, context is important in determining whether or not an act is actually evil. In the case of spells with the Evil descriptor context is not relevant. The mere act of casting the spell is an evil act by definition. Thus it is on par with burning down an orphanage. So, back to my original question. Is it the intent to have characters removed from the campaign simply for cating spells with the Evil descriptor? If yes, fine; but be forthright about it. If no, then the rule needs to go, because that will be the effect.
bitznarf 02-23-07, 01:26 PM	The mere act of casting the spell is an evil act by definition. Thus it is on par with burning down an orphanage. It is? Silly me, here I thought that according to the LGCS not all evil acts have to be reported: If [the judge] feels their actions are significantly evil, either due to severity or quantity, note the actions on the PC’s AR... This tells me 2 things: 1: in LG not all evil acts are equal in severity 2: not all evil acts need to be reported So, back to my original question. Is it the intent to have characters removed from the campaign simply for cating spells with the Evil descriptor? If yes, fine; but be forthright about it. If no, then the rule needs to go, because that will be the effect. As described above, I don't think either of these 2 options presented are needed. Edit: On the other hand if you as a judge feel that cast a spell with the [EVIL] descriptor is on par with burning down an orphanage, feel free to warn the player before it is cast, and note it on the AR if the PC proceeds with the action as described in the LGCS.
King Kashue 02-23-07, 02:10 PM	Reread the spell, good summoned creatures walk right through a Protection From Evil spell. The way it is worded only a Protection From Good spell will keep them at bay, hence the example. Whoops, brain fart. Though prot law/chaos will usually work though. In every other instance of an evil act, context is important in determining whether or not an act is actually evil. In the case of spells with the Evil descriptor context is not relevant. The mere act of casting the spell is an evil act by definition. Thus it is on par with burning down an orphanage. As mentioned, an evil act only needs to be reported if it is "significantly" evil. The DC says evil spells are evil acts, it does not say they are significantly evil. If no, then the rule needs to go, because that will be the effect. Have you met a judge who plans to report every casting of evil spell descriptor spells? Have you met a judge who even plans to report 1/10 of them? Because I have yet to meet a judge who is planning to report them at all in and of themselves (and that's of the dozens of judges I've asked). And to remove a player from the campaign, not only do you need a judge to report a single casting of an evil descriptor spell as a "significant evil act", you will also need a triad that agrees. Most folks seem to think that's exceedingly unlikely...
Lupo 02-23-07, 02:45 PM	Whoops, brain fart. Though prot law/chaos will usually work though. no, read the spells CAREFULLY ;) Protection from Chaos Abjuration [Lawful] <snip>This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks from chaotic creatures, and chaotic summoned creatures cannot touch the subject. Protection from Evil Abjuration [Good] <snip>Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect. Protection from Good Abjuration [Evil] <snip>This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks from good creatures, and good summoned creatures cannot touch the subject. Protection from Law Abjuration [Chaotic] <snip>This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks from lawful creatures, and lawful summoned creatures cannot touch the subject. so "protection from evil" works against any creatures that are NOT good, while the three other "protection vs. alignment" spells only work vs. ONE specified alignment.;) so you must cast "protection from good" to be warded against good aligned creatures, none of the other wards will work. so the good guys get the better end this time :) and my little druid is happy to summon neutral animals against all the bad spellcasters, there is no "protection from neutral". ciao martin m.
King Kashue 02-23-07, 06:15 PM	no, read the spells CAREFULLY ;) How about you read my post carefully :D I said "usually work" As in, most of the creatures on the summoning lists are either chaotic or lawful (few Neutral), so those spells will usually have use against a summoned celestial. so you must cast "protection from good" to be warded against good aligned creatures, none of the other wards will work. As I said, protection from law sure will protect against LG, and protection from Chaos from CG...Just got to watch out for those Celestial Bison. In any case, the example isn't great to begin with (not even considering the "how many judges are likely to report it/triads to agree?" issue), because how many casters are memorizing Prot. Good? Half of the Clerics in LG can't even cast it, and who is so worried about summoned celestials that they take it over something else?
Hariman 02-26-07, 12:39 AM	The DC says casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act. Everyone agrees that this is now the rule for LG. You seem to argue that this makes casting [Evil] spells lead directly and inexorably to character removal. It is at this point that I disagree. The LGCS states what happens if a PC is about to commit any evil act. I posted a synopsis somewhere else but can't find it now. The DM must inform the player that what he's about to do is an evil act. At the end of the adventure the DM decides whether the quantity or severity of the evil act(s) requires reporting. There is, admittedly, room for significant table variation here, but as the report is then filtered through both the triad and circle rep, this will have little real impact. The actual question is: how much 'evil' does your triad believe you have to do before it is no longer accurate to describe your character as neutral or good? I believe that if every spell you cast is an [Evil] summon spell or an inflict wounds, you might get into trouble - and so you should, as that power is corrupting in the D&D morality. If you're less one-sided than that, you shouldn't have a problem at all. solbergb: note that you still have to warn, even if you don't consider one [Evil] spell to be worth reporting. You also don't have the discretion to say that evil spells are never worth reporting (as you admit) - a significant quantity of them must be reported, but you have the final decision on what you consider 'significant'. Inflict spells are Necromancy. There's nothing inherently evil about injuring an enemy. Heck, Fireball is much more efficient than Inflict Serious Wounds. As for the subject at hand: I can see the conversation now: Morality as it stands isn't wholly black and white. You can do a "good" deed by casting a summon spell and summoning a fiendish dire weasel to bite an evil enemy spellcaster. (Bypassing protection from good.) You're still comitting evil by summoning the fiending dire weasel. But it's GOOD to attack evil, so the ends justify the means, right? I don't think the ends do justify the means, do they? I mean, I wouldn't cast a spell like Wrack (Spell Compendium), not even on an evil enemy, because it's such an evil spell. Why not? If he fails to resist the spell, he's easy pickings. But it's still evil, and if you keep casting evil spells; What's to stop you from committing more evil acts in the name of good? My faith shall guide me on the path of righteousness! I shall not waver in my duty to my god! One of the worst blackguards in history said something just like that. And he said it five years before he turned from the light of good. And many of our greatest heroes have said something like that too. I shall not turn from the light like the traitor did. There were times that the traitor said he wasn't turning from the light too. .... Conversation ends. Yes, it would be nice to have concrete rules on evil acts. But evil in D&D is like sex. You know it when you see it. If a character is trying to do good with an evil descriptor spell, then it might not be noted. (Bypassing Prot evil with a fiendish summon). But any character can commit an evil act, like murdering someone who wasn't a threat. Or taking an innocent hostage to save himself. Or torturing an enemy. It's up to the judge to warn the player that the act will be considered evil. (Which, in the case of evil descriptor spells, is now clear cut.) It's also up to the judge to take into account the severity, frequency and circumstances of an evil act. Oh, and as a side note. Judges also need to check their ego at the door. Targeting one character who uses excellent tactics to reduce the difficulty of one or two fights isn't kosher. Unless the mod states that the enemy has spies watching and any PC that stands out will be targeted later because of that. Which I doubt that mod said. D&D is supposed to be fun, and judges have to remember that singling out one PC or deliberately trying to kill a party ruins the fun.
King Kashue 02-26-07, 12:55 AM	Inflict spells are Necromancy. There's nothing inherently evil about injuring an enemy. Yes, it would be nice to have concrete rules on evil acts. It is actually explicit (at least for the moment)... Inflict Light Wounds spell description text (PHB p. 244) "When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage..." (PHB p. 160) "Even if a Cleric is Neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is an evil act" Now, as many people, I think that the use of "channeling" in the spell description was originally intended not as a technical term referring to the passage on p. 160, but instead as a general descriptor, however the current ruling (unless I've missed one) is that the passage on p.160 applies to the spell description. Still doesn't make it "significantly" evil though, which (as evidently needs to be continually emphasized) is the operative issue.
pedr 02-26-07, 03:55 AM	According to the Sage in Dragon 353, negative energy is not inherently evil. Some of his reasoning for this statement: some spells which use negative energy are [Evil], many are not; the Negative Energy Plane has no alignment traits; creatures native to that plane do not usually have the Evil subtype. To what extent this ought to reduce the extent to which casting inflict spells is considered evil, I don't know. The first point isn't very strong: it's quite possible for using negative energy to be the sort of evil which good deities do not prohibit their clerics from committing - so it isn't an [Evil] spell, which good deities never grant to their followers, but it is still evil. It's clearly nice and confused, as always!
MatteBlack 02-26-07, 01:02 PM	Oh, and as a side note. Judges also need to check their ego at the door. May I add that everyone should be checking their egos at the door.
Britt 02-26-07, 01:04 PM	When you check your ego, do you get an ego claim ticket? And where is the ego closet? I've never seen one.
MatteBlack 02-26-07, 01:50 PM	When you check your ego, do you get an ego claim ticket? And where is the ego closet? I've never seen one. I am not sure but, I have met some folks whose egos would require 2 hangers.
LGMoses 02-26-07, 03:00 PM	"Why I think inflict spells are evil" by LGMoses 1. channeling negative energy as said in phb pg 160 2. negative energy = undead why wasn't inflict marked with the [evil] descriptor to prevent argument? "Why it wasn't branded as evil" 1. if inflict spells are branded as evil and all good casters can no longer cast them, then verisimilitude demand that cure spells be off limits to evil clerics. The spells weren't branded with the descriptor so that evil clerics can heal themselves in combat.
King Kashue 02-26-07, 04:18 PM	According to the Sage in Dragon 353, negative energy is not inherently evil. Some of his reasoning for this statement: some spells which use negative energy are [Evil], many are not; the Negative Energy Plane has no alignment traits; creatures native to that plane do not usually have the Evil subtype. To what extent this ought to reduce the extent to which casting inflict spells is considered evil, I don't know. The first point isn't very strong: it's quite possible for using negative energy to be the sort of evil which good deities do not prohibit their clerics from committing - so it isn't an [Evil] spell, which good deities never grant to their followers, but it is still evil. It's clearly nice and confused, as always! For LG, it's not nearly that confused... The answer isn't in the FAQ, therefore it's not official, therefore it can't contradict the explicit rules in the core books. :D
Hariman 02-26-07, 11:04 PM	It is actually explicit (at least for the moment)... Inflict Light Wounds spell description text (PHB p. 244) "When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage..." (PHB p. 160) "Even if a Cleric is Neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is an evil act" Now, as many people, I think that the use of "channeling" in the spell description was originally intended not as a technical term referring to the passage on p. 160, but instead as a general descriptor, however the current ruling (unless I've missed one) is that the passage on p.160 applies to the spell description. Still doesn't make it "significantly" evil though, which (as evidently needs to be continually emphasized) is the operative issue. Um, the section that you are pointing out is under "Neutral Clerics and Undead" in the turning section of the PHB. The passage does not specifically include the inflict spells. The inflict line of spells don't have the "evil" descriptor. Therefore they are not evil. The passage that you are referring to in said in relation to turning and rebuking undead only. The word "Channeling" in the inflict light wounds spell description doesn't make a rule for one ability apply to another ability. Technically, that little passage makes rebuking undead an evil act. In practice, a neutral cleric that rebukes will have to use that ability, so it can't be listed as an outright evil act, can it? I think that even if rebuking undead is "evil" it shouldn't be an "AR note" evil act, as it is a crucial part of many characters, and a staple of the game.
Britt 02-26-07, 11:11 PM	The inflict line of spells don't have the "evil" descriptor. Therefore they are not evil. That does not follow. You would have to have an unstated premise in the middle that says that no spell without the [Evil] descriptor is ever an evil act. That would mean that fireballing an orphanage is not evil an evil act because fireball does not have the [Evil] descriptor. That is obviously false; hence, the premise is false and your conclusion does not follow. They may have not intended for the inflict spells to be evil acts, but the words in the PH say that they are. You have to inject your own interpretation of intent to such an extent as to override the explicit language of the PH in order to say the inflict spells are not evil. It may be true, but it's not clear, nor is it probable.
Hariman 02-27-07, 12:09 AM	That does not follow. You would have to have an unstated premise in the middle that says that no spell without the [Evil] descriptor is ever an evil act. That would mean that fireballing an orphanage is not evil an evil act because fireball does not have the [Evil] descriptor. That is obviously false; hence, the premise is false and your conclusion does not follow. They may have not intended for the inflict spells to be evil acts, but the words in the PH say that they are. You have to inject your own interpretation of intent to such an extent as to override the explicit language of the PH in order to say the inflict spells are not evil. It may be true, but it's not clear, nor is it probable. Casting a Necromancy spell that does not have the "evil" descriptor is not an inherently evil act. Casting a Conjuration:Healing spell does not have the "good" descriptor, so casting it is not a good act. The passage in question is in the "neutral clerics and undead" section. The rules of turning and rebuking undead should not be applied to the flavor text of a spell from the magic section. Applying the rules from turning and rebuking to spells will cause a massive rules headache. All evil NPC clerics would NEED "tomb tainted soul" simply to heal themselves. (Healing spells would become GOOD acts, unusable by evil) All rebuking characters would need a rebuild because they couldn't use an inflict spell without risking character removal. Although that would still leave the problem of whether or not rebuking undead would be considered an evil act. (For LG purposes.) Which, it probably will be. Hariman PS: Ego closets are well hidden, invisible, and automated for your convenience.
Britt 02-27-07, 12:23 AM	Applying the rules from turning and rebuking to spells will cause a massive rules headache. All evil NPC clerics would NEED "tomb tainted soul" simply to heal themselves. (Healing spells would become GOOD acts, unusable by evil) All rebuking characters would need a rebuild because they couldn't use an inflict spell without risking character removal. Evil clerics and clerics of evil gods cannot cast [Good] spells. They can cast spells that are inherently good. Good clerics and clerics of good goods cannot cast [Evil] spells. They can cast spells that are inherently evil. It doesn't cause any headaches unless you want to roleplay them. Again, it might have been the intent of the designers that inflict not be an inherently evil act, but the text of the PH clearly says that it is. You can point to indicators of designer intent, such as location of the rules referenced, but none of it proves that the designers intended one interpretation over another. Yet it is very easy to prove that the text of the PH definitely says that it is inherently evil to cast inflict light wounds.
Hariman 02-27-07, 12:42 AM	Evil clerics and clerics of evil gods cannot cast [Good] spells. They can cast spells that are inherently good. Good clerics and clerics of good goods cannot cast [Evil] spells. They can cast spells that are inherently evil. It doesn't cause any headaches unless you want to roleplay them. Again, it might have been the intent of the designers that inflict not be an inherently evil act, but the text of the PH clearly says that it is. You can point to indicators of designer intent, such as location of the rules referenced, but none of it proves that the designers intended one interpretation over another. Yet it is very easy to prove that the text of the PH definitely says that it is inherently evil to cast inflict light wounds. So how does this relate to LG, using uses of rebuke undead, and evil acts in general? My impression from this response is that everything will be at a the "status quo" for the time being. (IE: Barring an official announcement that Inflicting/rebuking = AR note level evil act.) Which would basically leave characters where they are now, with good characters able to inflict and evil characters able to heal. And with neutral characters able to rebuke without fear of character loss. Or, in a few less words: Inherently evil does not mean AR note/character removal evil. But it's not good. Or neutral either.
Britt 02-27-07, 12:45 AM	Or, in a few less words: Inherently evil does not mean AR note/character removal evil. But it's not good. Or neutral either. Correct. Deathwatch is inherently evil but not likely to be noted on an AR anywhere.
Hariman 02-27-07, 01:17 AM	Correct. Deathwatch is inherently evil but not likely to be noted on an AR anywhere. Cool. Pretty handy too.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-27-07, 02:43 AM	Correct. Deathwatch is inherently evil but not likely to be noted on an AR anywhere. Additionally, note that even if it was noted on an AR doesn't necessarily any more/less evil than a PC without it. That's up for the triad to determine. This reminds me of a question I had. Suppose as a DM, I witness an action(s) by a PC that I do not feel warrants a shift to evil alignment based on a singular action, but a history of doing so might. I feel in this case I should warn the player beforehand, note it on the AR after, and contact the triad; but in the triad contact, note that I do not feel a shift is warranted but I wanted to create a trail/history of such actions in the event that said PC is repeatedly doing said action. As an example, last year in Highport (retired mod) our party survived an ambush and the leader was unconscious at the end. We held an impromptu trial, found him guilty, and executed him. We didn't want prisoners (hostile city), the local officials wouldn't have cared, and none of us were comfortable with letting him go. I think the execution was sufficiently evil to at least question our alignment, but nothing so dire as to automatically shift it. Had I been DMng, I would have explained my position to the players prior to execution, noted it on the ARs, and contacted the triad (with details), fully expecting that nothing more would come of it unless any of the PC had a history (or future) of executing prisoners without athority. So am I off in my methodology, or is the reporting only for events that you feel would shift someone's alignment based on the singular event?
frupton 02-27-07, 03:24 AM	I am not sure but, I have met some folks whose egos would require 2 hangers. 2 hangers? Pshaw. I've met egos that would create an astral rift if you placed them in a portable hole.
mustafathered 02-28-07, 02:20 PM	If a LN cleric of Wee Jas went around the land and rebuked all undead he saw and made them stand still while his travelling associates pounded them back to the proper state of death, would he eventually be removed from LG because of this?
Britt 02-28-07, 02:22 PM	If a LN cleric of Wee Jas went around the land and rebuked all undead he saw and made them stand still while his travelling associates pounded them back to the proper state of death, would he eventually be removed from LG because of this? If that's all he ever did, probably someday. If he also did a bunch of good acts, he would probably be fine.
gomeztoo 02-28-07, 02:40 PM	The truth is, players will often balk at doing something if the GM notes its an evil act and that he'll mark it as such - especially if that player is playing a GOOD PC. I have been at a several ocacsons where my CG PC was about to commit an evil act (kill a prisoner). At one occasion, the Dm ddin't pay attention and noticed it too late, and thus didn't note it down. At another, the other PCs stopped my PC. If they ahden't, she would have gone on. Ilm not scared of evil acts being noted down. My PC is 'good' enough that an occasional slip-up (due to a skewed mindset) should not be a problem. And if, for some reason, a triad decides that it is, she'd make a heck of a NPC. Btw, can this behavior make a Good PC Neutral? What if you're a dragon disciple? Gomez
Hariman 02-28-07, 10:36 PM	If that's all he ever did, probably someday. If he also did a bunch of good acts, he would probably be fine. So the Clerics of Weejas who command undead to attack enemies (who are typically not good, more often evil) are probably just as safe. And the "inflicter" clerics probably don't need to worry too much if they're not harming innocents/the good guys. I just had an idea for a Augmented Healer cleric of weejas who memorizes nothing but healing spells. With Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus (Necromancy) for good measure.
LGMoses 02-28-07, 11:16 PM	If healing spells are inherently good does that mean that I get + 1 to my caster level when using cure light wounds if I have the good domain?
Britt 03-01-07, 12:07 AM	If healing spells are inherently good does that mean that I get + 1 to my caster level when using cure light wounds if I have the good domain? Inherently X <> [X]
Mommy was an Orc 03-01-07, 12:17 AM	Yet it is very easy to prove that the text of the PH definitely says that it is inherently evil to cast inflict light wounds. Using that same text, it is very easy to prove that PH definitely says that cure/inflict light wounds are also turning attempts.
Britt 03-01-07, 12:31 AM	Using that same text, it is very easy to prove that PH definitely says that cure/inflict light wounds are also turning attempts. I have yet to see it done.
Ramacass 03-01-07, 01:21 AM	Quote: Originally Posted by Hariman The inflict line of spells don't have the "evil" descriptor. Therefore they are not evil. [QUOTE=Britt;11602392]That does not follow. You would have to have an unstated premise in the middle that says that no spell without the [Evil] descriptor is ever an evil act. That would mean that fireballing an orphanage is not evil an evil act because fireball does not have the [Evil] descriptor. That is obviously false; hence, the premise is false and your conclusion does not follow.QUOTE] I think this actually undermines your argument here Britt. It basically states that casting a spell that doesn't have an evil descriptor is not an evil act in an of itself. However it can be an evil act depending on what it's cast for-here blasting an orphanage. So basically it puts a fireball on an even level as an inflict spell. Neither one has an evil descriptor and both can be used for evil, or law, or chaos, or heck even good. Fireballing an Evil orphanage for example.:D I think you have a strong argument(however I do disagree) I just don't think the above supports it. I think the argument boils down to "does what it says in the PHB under the "Evil Clerics and Undead" section on page 160 apply only to Turning or channeling negative energy in general" I believe it only applies to turning otherwise inflict spells would have an "evil" descriptor and healing spells a "good"
LGMoses 03-01-07, 08:51 AM	Inherently X <> [X] :twitch:
Fleetfang 03-01-07, 10:55 AM	Evil clerics and clerics of evil gods cannot cast [Good] spells. They can cast spells that are inherently good. Good clerics and clerics of good goods cannot cast [Evil] spells. They can cast spells that are inherently evil. It doesn't cause any headaches unless you want to roleplay them. Britt, this makes little to no sense and there's absolutely nothing to back it up. We must assume that spells that are [Evil] are inherently evil. That is why they have the evil descriptor. Their key defining characteristic is that they are evil. The same must be said of [Good] spells. They are --by definition-- inherently good, just as a Solar is inherently good. And just as a horned devil is inherently evil. I don't see how anyone can dispute that at all. So let's turn to the spells that do NOT have an [Evil] or [Good] descriptor... The alignment stucture is intentionally fuzzy, but it is widely accepted (and supported by various discussions on alignment in the books) that the 'evilness' or 'goodness' of many acts is subject to the circumstances surrounding the act. Sometimes even the lack of action can be construed as 'evil' or a violation of a Paladin's Code. Fireballs can be used to kill an Iuzian cultist, to wipe out swarms of vermin, or to level an orphanage. Acid orbs can be used to break the chains on a slave gang, to bring down a charging rhino, or to torture a helpless prisoner. Cure spells can be used to save the life of a Paladin so that he can save the Princess, or it could save the life of a serial murderer so that he can kill again. It is the result and the intention of the act that makes the act evil. Not the casting of the spell, and not the spell itself. A Holy sword can be used to cut off a spellcaster's fingers so he can't cast somatic components. Cruelly maiming someone when ropes might do just as well may be an evil act (or may not, under the circumstances -- that's a DM call), but that doesn't make the sword inherently evil (or [Evil]). And it doesn't even make attacking with the sword an evil act. It's the specific instance of use that makes the difference. For whatever reason, the designers did not see fit to make cure and inflict spells [Good] and [Evil] spells. We have to therefore assume that they are neutral tools to be used as the user sees fit. The flavor text of inflict light wounds uses the words "channel negative energy." In the section on Turning and Rebuking Undead, we are told that channeling negative energy is an evil act. Fair enough. But wouldn't this be a case of table trumping text? The spell stat block of inflict light wounds does not have the [Evil] descriptor. I think that evidence trumps the text of the spell description. The flavor text of fireball mentions firing a pea-sized bead out to a point in space where it explodes. It also explicitly states that if it hits something before reaching the prescribed range that it explodes early. Should we start demanding ranged attack rolls when people cast fireball? Do casters need to take a -4 to their attack when "dropping" a fireball into melee? And another -4 for cover? Soft cover? Hard cover? Shouldn't all of these things factor into placement of a fireball spell effect? I would say (and I think most people would agree) that no, you don't need an attack roll to place a fireball, even if you have to shoot it past 20 combatants and skim it over a barricade. Why not? The text describes a narrow slit as an example that would require such a touch attack, so why not for firing into melee? I think the obvious answer is, 'Because the stat block for the spell doesn't require one.' But it seems that the Inflict=Evil camp would argue that we need to pay attention to the description of the spell. If we are going to pay attention to the word "channel" (not described in the glossary, so not a technical term), then how can we overlook a full paragraph? And if you cross reference any other spell that describes a ray or any kind of projectile firing from a fingertip (which fireball undeniably does describe), that all ranged modifiers would apply to targeting. At which point we simply move on to the ranged attack rules and start stacking on the negative modifiers. Demanding ranged attacks for fireball spells is the logical extension of the "channeling is evil, ergo inflict is evil" argument. So it seems to me that our choices boil down to one of the following: A) Inflict spells are Evil acts, because of the descriptive text for the spell effect. Therefore placing a fireball spell requires an attack roll. -OR- B) Requiring an attack roll for placing fireballs is NOT required, because we ignore the text description for the spell. Therefore inflict spells should NOT be treated as Evil acts. Chew on that for a while. :)
Mommy was an Orc 03-01-07, 12:38 PM	I have yet to see it done. It is in the first paragraph. It gets better than that actually. Good clerics and paladins and some neutral clerics can channel positive energy, which can halt, drive off (rout), or destroy undead. Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy, which can halt, awe (rebuke), control (command), or bolster undead. Regardless of the effect, the general term for the activity is “turning.” i.e. when a good cleric channels positive energy or an evil cleric channels negative energy, the name for this activity is 'turning' regardless of the effect. Therefore the following interesting things happen: If a good cleric casts cure light wounds, he is channeling positive energy. He is therefore turning when doing it. Whether they meant that casting CLW requires a turning attempt or the act of casting CLW is a turning attempt is a little unclear - however, as the 1st option means a 6 Charisma Dwarf/Half-Orc Cleric can potentially only cast 1 CLW in a day, they must have meant the 2nd one. Either way, the act of casting a CLW is a turning attempt. Also, it notes who can channel positive energy - good clerics, paladins, and some neutral clerics. Therefore, others cannot. A neutral cleric who rebukes undead cannot channel positive energy and therefore cannot cast CLW. A Bard cannot either, so he can't cast CLW. A Wizard cannot cast Chill Touch or any other spell that requires channeling negative energy, because he is not an evil or neutral cleric. Perhaps the designers only meant for a Bard with a level of Cleric to be able to cast CLW? They don't contradict this in the spells section. ---- Yes, that's completely ludicrous. But it is the logical result of saying that the channeling of positive/negative energy in the turning section is the same thing as the channeling of the positive/negative energy in the spells section instead of more logically reading it as the act of channeling negative energy(in the context of turning which is the section we're in) is an evil act.
Fleetfang 03-01-07, 12:42 PM	:clap: Nice.
Mattastrophic 03-01-07, 12:55 PM	Bravo! Well researched! -Matt
Britt 03-01-07, 01:37 PM	Britt, this makes little to no sense and there's absolutely nothing to back it up. Actually, it's straight from the rules... PH, 33: "A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity's...Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions." So a spell with an alignment descriptor cannot be cast by a cleric of the opposite alignment, or that worships a god of the opposite alignment. Casting a spell might be "evil" but not [Evil] and, therefore, available to be cast by a good cleric. We must assume that spells that are [Evil] are inherently evil...I don't see how anyone can dispute that at all. I didn't think anyone was disputing that, at least not currently. It is the result and the intention of the act that makes the act evil. Not the casting of the spell, and not the spell itself. Not in D&D. Results are a different action from casting the spell, as I've said many many times in this thread. You have to be able to parse those two events or this conversation will go nowhere. You can also cast [Good] spells to commit evil acts and [Evil] spells to commit good acts. The casting is still good or evil, irrespective of the consequences. The consequences make for a separate alignment act. For whatever reason, the designers did not see fit to make cure and inflict spells [Good] and [Evil] spells. We have to therefore assume that they are neutral tools to be used as the user sees fit. For many very good reasons: if they had the alignment descriptor, about 50-75% of all characters could not cast either spell. No character that was evil or worhsipped an evil god could cast cure spells, which is ridiculous. No character that was good or worshipped a good god could cast inflict spells, which is somewhat less ridiculous, but still not very reasonable. This doesn't force us to view them as neutral spells in any way. Casting them still could be good or evil. Saying that they must be neutral is just begging the question. But wouldn't this be a case of table trumping text? No. There is nothing contradictory in the two cases (let alone is there even a table in this case). The flavor text of fireball mentions firing a pea-sized bead out to a point in space where it explodes. But it doesn't say you make a ranged attack or attack roll, so this is irrelevant to the current discussion. Arguing this is actually arguing the exact opposite (my side). My side is a textual argument, going with the letter of the rules. Your side is an intent argument, saying that the letter doesn't mean what it says. Saying that fireball shouldn't require an attack roll is a textual argument, since it doesn't say you have to make an attack roll. Saying that it should require an attack roll is an intent argument. A) Inflict spells are Evil acts, because of the descriptive text for the spell effect. Therefore placing a fireball spell requires an attack roll. -OR- B) Requiring an attack roll for placing fireballs is NOT required, because we ignore the text description for the spell. Therefore inflict spells should NOT be treated as Evil acts. False dilemma. As pointed out above, this is not how the options pair up. You actually have it backwards if you want to apply the style of arguments being used. If you group the textual arguments and the intent arguments, you get: a) Inflict spells are evil acts because the text explicitly says they do X and X is always evil. Fireball does not require an attack roll because it does not say that it does. XOR b) Inflict spells are not evil because the text did not intend for that result, despite what it says. Fireball requires an attack roll because the text intends that result, despite what it says.
Britt 03-01-07, 01:49 PM	Good clerics and paladins and some neutral clerics can channel positive energy, which can halt, drive off (rout), or destroy undead. Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy, which can halt, awe (rebuke), control (command), or bolster undead. Regardless of the effect, the general term for the activity is “turning.” i.e. Regardless of the effect, channeling energy to halt, drive off, destroy, control, or bolster undead is called "turning". "The activity" is referring to the previous two sentences, which refernce channeling energy to do things to undead. Saying "X can do Y to accomplish A" does not preclude "X can do Y to accomplish B", while at the same time saying "X doing Y to accomplish A is called Z" and "X doing Y to accomplish B is not called Z". You could be correct that all uses of positive or negative energy are called turning, but it is not necessary, as my reading (and several other people's) has always thought that referred to the type of use described in the previous two sentences. Furthermore, both interpretations are equally grammatically correct. Since your interpretation leads to the reductio ad absurdum of cure and inflict spells being turning checks, it is quite likely the incorrect one. Also, it notes who can channel positive energy - good clerics, paladins, and some neutral clerics. Therefore, others cannot. That does not follow. "A can do Y" does not preclude "B can do Y". If I say cats can be litter-box trained, that does not mean that no other creatures can. In a D&D example, there are plenty of entities that can turn or rebuke without being clerics or paladins.
Mommy was an Orc 03-01-07, 02:25 PM	i.e. Regardless of the effect, channeling energy to halt, drive off, destroy, control, or bolster undead is called "turning" That defeats your argument - either they are referring to global or local definitions, not both. Here, you're arguing that the definition of channeling energy should be local. With channeling energy being a good/evil act, you're arguing it should be global. You cannot have it both ways. If they are only referring to a very specific set of ways of channeling positive/negative energy, then they must continue to do so throughout the entire section unless they specify otherwise. Which would mean that channeling negative energy in the form of a spell is not inherently an evil act. This is a very reasonable position and the position I think most people would feel that the designers intended - that the act of harming or helping undead is inherently a good or evil act with no intent beyond that. i.e. Since your interpretation leads to the reductio ad absurdum of cure and inflict spells being turning checks, it is quite likely the incorrect one. You may feel it is absurd, but that's a judgment about the intent of the designers. If you're going to follow text literally, you cannot pick and choose when you'll follow intent. That does not follow. "A can do Y" does not preclude "B can do Y". If I say cats can be litter-box trained, that does not mean that no other creatures can. In a D&D example, there are plenty of entities that can turn or rebuke without being clerics or paladins. It actually does follow - if I write a book about dogs, cats, and squirrels and say cats can be litter-box trained and at no point mention that dogs and squirrels can be litter-box trained, it means dogs and squirrels cannot. It says nothing about whether or not say ferrets can be litter-box trained. Similarly, while entities outside PHB may be able to channel positive or negative energy, entities inside PHB cannot unless they are a cleric or a paladin. As a Bard is in PHB, they cannot channel positive energy and therefore cannot cast CLW without a level in Cleric or 4 in Paladin. Again, to emphasize this, you can either choose to be using a local definition or global definition. If you're going to use local, your argument has no weight on spells. If you're going to use global, you open up a whole slew of problems with designer intent.
Fleetfang 03-01-07, 02:45 PM	Actually, it's straight from the rules... PH, 33: "A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity's...Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions." So a spell with an alignment descriptor cannot be cast by a cleric of the opposite alignment, or that worships a god of the opposite alignment. Casting a spell might be "evil" but not [Evil] and, therefore, available to be cast by a good cleric. I didn't think anyone was disputing that, at least not currently. It sounded to me like you were disputing that very thing, B... You said: "Evil clerics and clerics of evil gods cannot cast [Good] spells. They can cast spells that are inherently good. Good clerics and clerics of good goods cannot cast [Evil] spells. They can cast spells that are inherently evil." That certainly sounds to me like you're making a distinction between [Evil] and 'inherently evil.' One they can't cast and the other they can? That's the part that didn't make any sense to me. As for my "For whatever reason.." and the alignment/intention debate, I was merely acknowledging the separate issue, and moving past it (read: "Regardless of their reasoning...") I then attempted to clarify that there isn't anything defined as an 'inherently evil' act (since everything is subject to circumstances)... with the very large exception of a spell that has the [Evil] descriptor. This is extremely relevant, since the cure and inflict spells do NOT have the [Good] and [Evil] descriptors. EDIT: While channeling negative energy to rebuke/command/bolster undead is a clearly defined Evil act, it is not a universally accepted given that it applies to the spell debate. You accept as a given that the text in the Turning chapter applies to the text of the spell description. MwaO, others, and I disagree on that point, so we call it debatable. So we move on for a moment... Therefore, if the descriptor is the defining characteristic of an evil act, and the inflict spells do not have this descriptor, they are not necessarily by definition evil acts, and thus up for debate... which I then proceeded to address by saying, "as for spells without the [Evil] or [Good] descriptor..." That was my way of attempting to 'parse the two events' as you put it. I thought my train of thought was clear, but apparently I derailed you into thinking I wanted to talk about an alignment-shifting issue. Which I do not. The table vs. text issue is relevant because yes, there is a "table." The table is the uniform statistics block that begins every spell description. It has school, subschool, descriptors (if applicable), range, effect, duration... that kind of thing. It's standardized on every spell, and while it may not have those nice lines and bars, it is a chart of sorts. And of course there is something contradictory happening. If the act of channeling negative energy in any way is a clearly defined Evil act, and that, as a direct result of that, casting an inflict spell is inherently Evil, then why doesn't the spell stat block have the [Evil] descriptor? This discrepancy is the only thing that makes this a debatable issue! Your side is an intent argument, saying that the letter doesn't mean what it says. Saying that fireball shouldn't require an attack roll is a textual argument, since it doesn't say you have to make an attack roll. Saying that it should require an attack roll is an intent argument. No. My 'side' is not an intent argument, not any more than yours is. I could say that by the letter of the rules, Inflict is not an [Evil] spell, so no matter what it says in the description, it's not inherently evil. This is what my 'side' is arguing. You are saying that regardless of the fact that it isn't an [Evil] spell, the description, cross-referenced to an entirely different chapter of the book, implies that it SHOULD be an [Evil] spell. But regardless of what you think that it 'should' be, it is NOT an [Evil] spell. No one can debate that point. It has no [Evil] descriptor. Thus casting it is not an inherently evil act. I am unwilling to concede the flavor text of inflict as having the same weight as the lack of [Evil] descriptor. furthermore, I'm not willing to accept that "channel negative energy" is a game term, since it isn't universally defined. So thus, it seems to me that you are giving more weight to the text... therefore it seems to me that you should start asking for attack rolls for fireball. Observe: My side: stat block says no [Evil] descriptor, ergo not evil act. My side: stat block doesn't call for attack roll, ergo no attack roll for fireball. Your side: Forget the inflict statblock. Spell text says channel negative energy. Turning text says channeling evil. Ergo, inflict is evil. Your side: (I presume) Forget the fireball stat block. Spell text says if it hits stuff on the way to the desired point, it blows up, and Ranged attack rules are subject to cover and Firing into melee penalties. Ergo, cover/melee penalties should apply to fireball. Common practice of casting fireball does not call for one. Therefore, the spell stat block trumps the implications in the fireball text description. Therefore, the spell stat block (and lack of [Evil] descriptor) trumps the implications in the inflict light wounds text description. That is my argument.
awroe 03-01-07, 02:51 PM	It actually does follow - if I write a book about dogs, cats, and squirrels and say cats can be litter-box trained and at no point mention that dogs and squirrels can be litter-box trained, it means dogs and squirrels cannot. It says nothing about whether or not say ferrets can be litter-box trained. An animal's ability to be litter-trained can be either 'Yes', 'No', or 'Undefined'. Saying cat's can be litter-trained puts cats in the 'Yes' category, but says nothing about any other animal at all - they are all still 'Undefined'. If the book claims to cover all possible things and leave nothing undefined, then it is the case that dogs and squirrels must be in the 'No' category. Otherwise they are still 'Undefined'. You may assume they should be in the 'No' category, but that doesn't make it the case. If the book talks about my ability to take Dogs for a walk and doesn't mention Cats, do I assume that it is impossible to put a lead on a Cat and walk it?
bitznarf 03-01-07, 02:56 PM	Add in the fact that according Britt's reading of the rules (unless I am missing something) cast Inflict Light Wounds, Mass is not an evil act while casting Inflict Light Wounds is. From the SRD http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/inflictLightWoundsMass.htm: Negative energy spreads out in all directions from the point of origin, dealing 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +25) to nearby living enemies. Like other inflict spells, mass inflict light wounds cures undead in its area rather than damaging them. A cleric capable of spontaneously casting inflict spells can also spontaneously cast mass inflict spells. Nowhere in the spell description is 'channeling negative energy' mentioned. Thus, according to Britt's reading of the text casting Inflict Light Wounds is an evil act, while casting Inflict Light Wounds, Mass is not an evil act.
awroe 03-01-07, 02:58 PM	One thing to remember when involving large amounts of logic is that it is highly likely that the DnD ruleset is inconsistent, and thus we would be able to eventually prove anything.
Mommy was an Orc 03-01-07, 03:00 PM	f the book talks about my ability to take Dogs for a walk and doesn't mention Cats, do I assume that it is impossible to put a lead on a Cat and walk it? If the writer is postulating a set of absolute rules, yes.
Mattastrophic 03-01-07, 03:03 PM	Saying cat's can be litter-trained puts cats in the 'Yes' category, but says nothing about any other animal at all - they are all still 'Undefined'. I see what both of you mean, but let me clear it all up. Let's go back to the text... "Good clerics and paladins and some neutral clerics can channel positive energy, which can halt, drive off (rout), or destroy undead. Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy, which can halt, awe (rebuke), control (command), or bolster undead. Regardless of the effect, the general term for the activity is “turning.”" The language here clearly indicates that "Regardless of the effect [of channeling positive/negative energy,] the general term for the activity is 'turning.'" Thus, "Channeling positive/negative energy" = "Turning." (A = B) Clerics and Paladins have Turning. (C = B) Thus, Clerics and Paladins can channel positive/negative energy. (C = A) Bards and Druids do not have Turning. (D != B) Thus, Bards and Druids cannot channel positive/negative energy. (D != A) And so, if "Casting Cure/Inflict Light Wounds" = "Channeling positive/negative energy" (E = A) Then Clerics and Paladins can channel cast Cure/Inflict Light Wounds. (C = E) But Druids and Bards cannot. (D != E) Thus, if casting cure/inflict spells = channeling positive/negative energy, then MWaO is correct. -Matt's college logic class is coming back to him.
Britt 03-01-07, 03:09 PM	Thus, according to Britt's reading of the text casting Inflict Light Wounds is an evil act, while casting Inflict Light Wounds, Mass is not an evil act. Is not necessarily evil. At that point it is a matter of interpretation.
bitznarf 03-01-07, 03:09 PM	Oddly enough Cure Light Wounds, Mass does channel positive energy while Inflict Light Wounds, Mass does not channel negative energy. Very odd.
Britt 03-01-07, 03:11 PM	Thus, "Channeling positive/negative energy" = "Turning." (A = B) Except this is not the only valid reading of the sentence. You have an ambiguous reference that could either refer to all channeling of energy or to all channeling of energy to do things to undead. I read it as channeling negative energy to do things to undead, which contradicts your first premise and negates the entirety of your argument. Since most players would define "turning" as something involving undead, and since interpreting it as applying to all channeling ends up with very unusual results, my interpretation is more likely.
bitznarf 03-01-07, 03:12 PM	Is not necessarily evil. At that point it is a matter of interpretation. The act of casting is not an evil act, the consequences being a separate matter. What I'm trying to nail down is if according to your interpertation of the RAW (intent be dammed) casting ILW (regardless of consequences) is an evil act, while casting ILWM is not an evil act in and of itself.
Britt 03-01-07, 03:19 PM	EDIT: While channeling negative energy to rebuke/command/bolster undead is a clearly defined Evil act, it is not a universally accepted given that it applies to the spell debate. You accept as a given that the text in the Turning chapter applies to the text of the spell description. MwaO, others, and I disagree on that point, so we call it debatable. So we move on for a moment... I don't dispute that some people don't accept that reading. Some people think that the intent is clearly contradictory to the text. I don't. Therefore, if the descriptor is the defining characteristic of an evil act Is A defining characteristic. There are other things that can make something evil, but the [Evil] descriptor always makes something evil. All cats are animals does not preclude other creatures from being animals. And of course there is something contradictory happening. If the act of channeling negative energy in any way is a clearly defined Evil act, and that, as a direct result of that, casting an inflict spell is inherently Evil, then why doesn't the spell stat block have the [Evil] descriptor? There is nothing that says all evil acts are spells with the [Evil] descriptor. That is one place where we are having a major disconnect. There are plenty of evil acts that are not spells with the [Evil] descriptor. No. My 'side' is not an intent argument, not any more than yours is. I could say that by the letter of the rules, Inflict is not an [Evil] spell, so no matter what it says in the description, it's not inherently evil. Except there is nothing in the rules that says all evil acts are spells with the [Evil] descriptor, so you could not argue that from a textual standpoint. You are saying that regardless of the fact that it isn't an [Evil] spell, the description, cross-referenced to an entirely different chapter of the book, implies that it SHOULD be an [Evil] spell. No, I am saying that channeling negative energy is always an evil act, and that not all evil acts are spells with the [Evil] descriptor. I am not saying anything about whether inflict spells should have the [Evil] descriptor. No one can debate that point. It has no [Evil] descriptor. Thus casting it is not an inherently evil act. Again, this does not follow. There are plenty of evil acts that are not spells with the [Evil] descriptor. Lacking the [Evil] descriptor does not mean it is necessarily not evil.
Britt 03-01-07, 03:20 PM	The act of casting is not an evil act, the consequences being a separate matter. What I'm trying to nail down is if according to your interpertation of the RAW (intent be dammed) casting ILW (regardless of consequences) is an evil act, while casting ILWM is not an evil act in and of itself. Casting ILW, according to the RAW, is inherently evil. Casting ILWM, according to the RAW, has ambiguous alignment content and it is, therefore, up to the GM to determine if it is inherently evil. As a GM, I would say it is, based on the relation to ILW being inherently evil, but that is an extrapolation, not a necessity according to the RAW.
Britt 03-01-07, 03:26 PM	That defeats your argument - either they are referring to global or local definitions, not both. Here, you're arguing that the definition of channeling energy should be local. With channeling energy being a good/evil act, you're arguing it should be global. You cannot have it both ways. That is absurd. You can definitely use two different scopes in a conversation. In this case you have a reference with an unclear antecedent; the reference is either to channeling energy or to a particular type of channeling. The common understanding of players and the fact that your interpretation leads to absurd results indicates that my interpretation is more likely. There is nothing contradictory about that. I have never made the claim that any reference to any type of channeling of energy must also include all types of channeling of energy; that would be a ridiculous claim. I am arguing that the reference is to a different set than you claim. With the "channeling is always good/evil" and ILW premises, there is no unclear antecedent. You may feel it is absurd, but that's a judgment about the intent of the designers. If you're going to follow text literally, you cannot pick and choose when you'll follow intent. Except when you have two equally valid readings. Then you must choose an intent. When one is more ridiculous, it makes more sense to choose the other. Again, to emphasize this, you can either choose to be using a local definition or global definition. If you're going to use local, your argument has no weight on spells. If you're going to use global, you open up a whole slew of problems with designer intent. If we had equivalent situations you would be correct, but these are two entirely different interpretive situations. One is an unclear antecedent, while the other is a situation where people don't agree that the connecting premise should connect.
Mommy was an Orc 03-01-07, 03:35 PM	Except this is not the only valid reading of the sentence. You have an ambiguous reference that could either refer to all channeling of energy or to all channeling of energy to do things to undead. I read it as channeling negative energy to do things to undead, which contradicts your first premise and negates the entirety of your argument. Since most players would define "turning" as something involving undead, and since interpreting it as applying to all channeling ends up with very unusual results, my interpretation is more likely. Britt, you're using both interpretations, depending on where it is convenient to your particular argument. I'm merely pointing out how that if they meant all channeling of negative energy is evil, then they must similarly be using it the same way in the 1st paragraph. If they meant the much more likely interpretation of all channeling of energy to do things to undead, then they meant it the same way when they said channeling of negative energy is an evil act. i.e. channeling negative energy to control/help undead is an evil act.
Britt 03-01-07, 03:44 PM	Britt, you're using both interpretations, depending on where it is convenient to your particular argument. I'm merely pointing out how that if they meant all channeling of negative energy is evil, then they must similarly be using it the same way in the 1st paragraph. If they meant the much more likely interpretation of all channeling of energy to do things to undead, then they meant it the same way when they said channeling of negative energy is an evil act. i.e. channeling negative energy to control/help undead is an evil act. Except one is an interpretation and one is not. Saying "channeling negative energy" = "channeling negative energy" is not an interpretation. Saying "the activity" = "channeling energy to do things to undead" is interpretation. These are not two mutually exclusive readings; they are different interpretive situations. It's like you're trying to say 'Britt, you can't say that "cat" means "cat" and "the animal" means "dog"! That's arguing two sides of the same argument!'
Mommy was an Orc 03-01-07, 03:46 PM	With the "channeling is always good/evil" and ILW premises, there is no unclear antecedent.. You're choosing to say that it is clear that they meant channeling of energy as regards only undead in the 1st paragraph, because the results are absurd if you don't. There's your antecedent for why it is not only possible, but likely, that they're only talking about channeling of negative energy as regards undead in that paragraph, too. Just to be clear, I think you're right on the 1st paragraph and that's why I think you're wrong on the evil paragraph. I have never believed otherwise.
Mommy was an Orc 03-01-07, 04:07 PM	Except one is an interpretation and one is not. Saying "channeling negative energy" = "channeling negative energy" is not an interpretation. Yes, it is. If I have a section on how do cars work and it says engines have 4-8 cylinders in the 17th or so paragraph, does that mean all engines have 4-8 cylinders? Or do you assume that it meant all car engines have 4-8 cylinders? Especially after you insist that the 1st paragraph is only about car engines and not all engines?
awroe 03-01-07, 04:52 PM	Yes, it is. If I have a section on how do cars work and it says engines have 4-8 cylinders in the 17th or so paragraph, does that mean all engines have 4-8 cylinders? Or do you assume that it meant all car engines have 4-8 cylinders? Especially after you insist that the 1st paragraph is only about car engines and not all engines? It means what it says: 'engines' have 4-8 cylinders. Unfortunately, the context of the word 'engine' is unclear - as there are many different groups of items it could refer to - it could be talking about any of a number of options - all engines, all car engines, most car engines (except for the few we don't mention because they are different), at least one engine. You are free to assume a particular context based on the surrounding text, but your assumption may not be correct - the wording may mislead you into assuming something that is not actually stated. Unfortunately, while we try and treat the rules as logical texts, they are not written in a consistent fashion such that we can assume the meaning of a phrase is constant - take all the discussions about 'in Melee'.
Ramacass 03-02-07, 04:42 AM	Add in the fact that according Britt's reading of the rules (unless I am missing something) cast Inflict Light Wounds, Mass is not an evil act while casting Inflict Light Wounds is. From the SRD http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/inflictLightWoundsMass.htm: Nowhere in the spell description is 'channeling negative energy' mentioned. Thus, according to Britt's reading of the text casting Inflict Light Wounds is an evil act, while casting Inflict Light Wounds, Mass is not an evil act. The Argument that the line under the turning undead section refers to spells and not just channeling positive/negative energy for turning undead really falls apart when looking at ILW and ILWM. To think that the people who designed the game would mean to have inflict light wounds be inherently evil and inflict light wounds mass not inherently evil is just silly. A big red flag goes up there and it becomes clear, at least to me, that inflict spells are no more evil than a fireball. 1)Spells that are inherently evil have the evil descriptor,2) inflict light wounds does not have the evil descriptor, 3) inflict light wounds is not inherently evil Does that hold up Britt? if not? where is the hole in that logic? I suppose you could say that there are spells that are inherently evil that don't have the evil descriptor. But then what is the purpose of the good and evil descriptors if not to lable a spell as inherently evil or good. Now I totally understand that there are lots of evil acts that don't have an evil desriptor, no disagreement there, but who (lets see a show of hands) who thinks that casting Inflict light wounds is an automatic evil act and casting inflict light wounds, mass is not an automatic evil act.
pedr 03-02-07, 06:38 AM	The hole in the logic is at point 1. There is no justification for that statement. It might be a sensible idea, but note that for quite a long time people were arguing that spells with the evil descriptor were not inherently evil. You need to prove that all spells that are inherently evil have the evil descriptor for your logic to work. And that can only be assumed, not proved. My pov is that it is a perfectly logical rules option for good deities not to grant a set of spells which are evil ([evil] spells) but to nevertheless grant access to a few other spells which are evil (inflict spells etc). This logic is even stronger when applied to evil deities and good spells. Even if cure light wounds is just as good as summoning a celestial creature, evil deities would grant the cure spell for pragmatic reasons while restricting the use of the summoning spell. I can't prove that this was the intent. But it is a viable reading of the rules, one which Britt favours and one which does make sense. It might have to be revised if the Sage's comments in the latest Dragon make it into the FAQ, though he doesn't necessarily answer the direct point, merely comments that negative energy itself isn't evil. Part of his reasoning is that the inflict spells aren't "evil" spells (the quotation marks are his). How you interpret "evil" is important. If he meant "[Evil]" (my quotation marks) then that's self-evident. If he meant something wider than "has the evil descriptor" then perhaps we have to rethink whether the inflict spells are evil at all. Hmm.
awroe 03-02-07, 07:54 AM	Now I totally understand that there are lots of evil acts that don't have an evil desriptor, no disagreement there, but who (lets see a show of hands) who thinks that casting Inflict light wounds is an automatic evil act and casting inflict light wounds, mass is not an automatic evil act. ILW,M doesn't state it channels negative energy. It also doesn't state that it *doesn't* channel negative energy. Thus it is entirely plausible to reason that as it is a modified form of ILW it is still automatically evil - the text neither supports not contradicts this. So I would class either of them as an automatically evil act. However, if used for a good purpose, this is unlikely to result in me marking them up on an AR. Indeed, Neutral casters would be expected to do some evil acts, otherwise they would be good.
Mommy was an Orc 03-02-07, 09:41 AM	My pov is that it is a perfectly logical rules option for good deities not to grant a set of spells which are evil ([evil] spells) but to nevertheless grant access to a few other spells which are evil (inflict spells etc). That doesn't hold up. For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells. Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good and law descriptors in their spell descriptions If Inflict is an inherently evil spell, a good cleric cannot cast it. It is evil. PHB does not say that a cleric cannot cast a spell with the evil descriptor. It said a good cleric cannot cast evil spells. The writer might have meant to imply that only evil spells with an evil descriptor counted, but that's not quite what he said.
pedr 03-02-07, 10:23 AM	You're right to an extent - I was slightly sloppy in my terminology. I'll rephrase: My pov is that it is a perfectly logical rules option for good deities not to grant a set of spells which are evil ([evil] spells) but to nevertheless grant access to a few other spells which the casting of which is inherently evil (inflict spells etc). As the quoted passage says, 'Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the ... descriptors.' So that passage only applies to spells so noted. Just because a spell isn't 'associated with' evil doesn't mean that casting it isn't always an evil act. Yes, this is a thin hair to split, but it is a valid distinction. No-where does it say that spells without the evil descriptor are not evil to cast. One might assume that this is so, but the passage linking the channeling of negative energy to evil suggests otherwise. For clarity, and because this might change what I've already said slightly, I'm not saying that the inflict spells are evil spells. I'm saying that casting them is (or, actually involves) an evil act. So a good cleric can do them because she isn't casting an evil spell (one with the evil descriptor) but is still committing an evil act because she is channeling negative energy and that is evil. I have sympathy with those who disagree with 'channeling negative energy = evil' because of the context but I agree with Britt that the RAW makes that the best interpretation. Whether the Sage's recent comments weaken that or not I'm not sure and is, currently, irrelevant.
Fleetfang 03-02-07, 12:24 PM	Heironeous gets up in the morning and checks his prayers... "Hmm... Looks like Johnny Heroseed is praying for Inflict Light Wounds... Oh, Johnny, that's an inherently evil spell! I know it doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor on there, but it channels negative energy! Evil clerics channel negative energy when they rebuke undead, and as we all know, channeling negative energy is an evil act! The act of casting Inflict Light Wounds would be a blight on your soul, Johnny. Every time you cast it, you take a step in the direction away from my teachings and toward the path of darkness, depravity, and evil that every word of my litany speaks out against, that every fiber of my Lawful Good being was created at the dawn of time to do war with. If you keep committing evil acts, then you may fall away from my teachings! Your alignment could shift, and on principle, I simply wouldn't be able to grant you spells! You would be a fallen Cleric, Johnny Heroseed! I am Goodness personified, and ANY channeling of negative energy is an EVIL ACT!" "Hm. Well, on the other hand it might be useful for you to have on tap.... Here ya go!" "What's that, Johnny? Mass inflict Light Wounds? Well, lemme check... hmm... No [Evil] descriptor... Nothing about channeling negative... Well, sure! You're good to go. How many do you want?" ======================================== ===== Meanwhile, in the lower planes, we find Hextor... "Sally Angelbane! You moron! What kind of cleric are you?? Of COURSE you have to pray for Cure Light Wounds! You need to keep my minions alive, don't you??" "What? What's that? It channels positive energy? So what? You can do that, can't you?" "Oh. The books say that evil clerics channel negative energy to rebuke undead, huh? Well, I've seen evil clerics cast cure spells before.... Does it say anywhere that you CAN'T channel POSITIVE energy for stuff when you need to? No? Well, great. You're fine then. Go prep some cure spells." "huh... i don't think it says anything about evil clerics NOT being able to turn undead. it just says good clerics do this, and evil clerics do that. nothing that says they can't to the other thing too. I mean, 'cats lick their fur, and dogs chase cars' doesn't mean a NO cats chase cars and NO dogs lick their fur... JEEZ! What is it now, Sally? I'm in the middle of a Guild run here." "Hm... that is a problem. If channeling positive energy is always an inherently Good act, and if you channel positive energy when you cast CLW, then casting it too many times means you'll drift into becoming a Good Guy! Hell! I was created at the dawn of time as a nigh-omnipotent embodyment of Evil Incarnate whose sole purpose is to wage a neverending battle against Righteousness and Light. I can't have my most devoted followers doing Good Acts! That's treason! If you do too many Good Acts, then you're batting for the other team, Sally! At that point, not only will I have to stop granting you spells, but I'll have to put you on my "To-Kill" List... But, MAN! You've gotta prepare some cures! You can't cast them spontaneously or anything, you know." "Hmm. Wouldn't it be simpler if we defined chanelling positive energy to turn undead as a Good act, but using it for other purposes isn't good or evil? Yeah, I think that's simpler. I'll get the battalion of Osyluth attorneys working on that one. I think we've got a case." "In the mean time, just go do your Good acts, which are an affront to everything that I embody, and well, uh, I'll find you some puppies to drown later, okay? Now get outta here and do my vile bidding!" "...Mental note: Sally is dabbling in Goodness. Destroy her."
MaxDog 03-02-07, 12:40 PM	JEEZ! What is it now, Sally? I'm in the middle of a Guild run here." I knew it.... playing World of Warcraft is and EVIL act!
LGMoses 03-02-07, 12:42 PM	I knew it.... playing World of Warcraft is and EVIL act! :rofl:
Mattastrophic 03-02-07, 02:54 PM	Looks like there's one thing we can all see eye-to-eye on... The 597 LGCS is too ambiguous to be effectively utilized when working with such a sensitive and important topic as CHARACTER REMOVAL. "Just leave it to table variation" is unacceptable. -Matt thus declines to report any acts, good or evil. Britt told us to trust our judges; I'm comfortable with trusting my players to adjudicate their own descents into evil or ascensions towards good.
Britt 03-02-07, 03:02 PM	Looks like there's one thing we can all see eye-to-eye on... The 597 LGCS is too ambiguous to be effectively utilized when working with such a sensitive and important topic as CHARACTER REMOVAL. "Just leave it to table variation" is unacceptable. -Matt thus declines to report any acts, good or evil. If you do that and I find out about it, I will report you through the RPGA process for cheating. You MUST follow the rules of the campaign. You don't get the option of ignoring rules you don't like. Table variation does not govern character removal. If a GM notes an act, he must note the surrounding circumstances and any extenuating circumstances. The Triad then reviews reported acts and makes a decision. If they decide to remove a character, they must have the decision vetted by the Circle. There is no table variation problem here, people! This entire conversation is entirely academic. GMs don't have to report every evil act, just acts they feel are significant. If people would read the rules, they wouldn't have such a problem with this.
Mommy was an Orc 03-02-07, 03:17 PM	This entire conversation is entirely academic. It isn't actually entirely academic - Paladins are not allowed to commit evil acts and some Paladins have levels in other caster classes. Is a Paladin 2/Cleric 16/Hierophant 2 of Hieroneous not allowed to pick Blast Infidel despite there definitively being an option for Lawful Good users?
bitznarf 03-02-07, 03:23 PM	IThis entire conversation is entirely academic. GMs don't have to report every evil act, just acts they feel are significant. If people would read the rules, they wouldn't have such a problem with this. From a rules standpoint, perhaps (as MwaO pointed out). From a RP standpoint however, it *is* important. If a character wishes to try to never commit an evil act, it is important to know if casting 'x' spell is inherently evil. By your reading of the rules as written (unless I am missing something) casting ILW is evil, while ILW,M is not. Thus, a character striving to avoid evil acts could cast ILW,M without worries (in this regard, circumstances not-withstanding) while ILW would be avoided as evil. This is absurd.
Fleetfang 03-02-07, 03:58 PM	More absurd is the way that some readers have "fixed" this inconsistency. In order to remove the absurdity created by this disparity, we must make an assumption that MILW works the same way as ILW and is therefore an evil act. We basically have to pluck that out of the air. The thing is, by the time you get around to 'proving' that MILW is an evil act, you've essentially inserted new text into the spell description based on another spell's description, based on what is said in another chapter on Turning/Rebuking. It just seems like a long way to go to make sure that everything makes sense under a predetermined theory, and to me begins to echo other instances where people have made up their minds and then only paid attention to facts that support their end goal.
Mattastrophic 03-02-07, 04:23 PM	If you do that and I find out about it, I will report you through the RPGA process for cheating. You MUST follow the rules of the campaign. You don't get the option of ignoring rules you don't like. Strangely enough, you've just supported my point. That same ambiguity also prevents what you're saying, as it's entirely up to the GM whether he wishes to follow it. Which means that I or anyone else cannot choose to "cheat" by not following it. -Matt
Britt 03-02-07, 04:27 PM	As I have said multiple times, MILW is not necessarily evil based on the rule we are disputing. That does not mean it is inherently not evil. It could very well be evil still, even if this rule does not apply. And to say that it is not evil because it lacks the phrase "channel negative energy" is reading into the spell as well, as there is no rule that says "anything that lacks the phrase 'channel negative energy' is inherently not evil." Personally, I would rule that MILW is evil as well, since it is just a mass version of a spell that is evil. That does not mean, however, that it is necessarily evil by the rules.
Fleetfang 03-02-07, 04:31 PM	*sigh* :rolleyes:
Britt 03-02-07, 04:36 PM	Strangely enough, you've just supported my point. That same ambiguity also prevents what you're saying, as it's entirely up to the GM whether he wishes to follow it. Which means that I or anyone else cannot choose to "cheat" by not following it. No, it is up to the GM to decide if something is significant. It is not up to the GM to decide to whether to report significant acts. It is also not up to the GM to say he finds something to be insignificant just to avoid enforcing a rule that he doesn't like. You should not be encouraging people to violate the rules, saying that you are going to violate the rules, or advocating a position of violating the rules using semantics. The rest of this conversation is not important to me on more than a pedantic level, but this point is extremely important and non-negotiable. Cheating is not allowed, and it is not wholly encompassed by the letter of the rules. If you find yourself having to find a way to justify what you are doing, you are probably cheating. GMs have been trusted with a level of flexibility for many issues. If you abuse that trust, we will have to return to previous iterations of the rules where GMs were Judges, not GMs, and were not accorded any trust.
Mattastrophic 03-02-07, 04:43 PM	If you abuse that trust, we will have to return to previous iterations of the rules where GMs were Judges, not GMs, and were not accorded any trust. Honestly, if doing that leads to the end of "table variation," let's do it. -Matt
Hariman 03-03-07, 12:15 AM	Honestly, if doing that leads to the end of "table variation," let's do it. -Matt To be honest, I like LG the way it is now. I never experienced the earlier iterations of the rules that are mentioned here. I don't think I want to if the rules were changed to make the game more fun for all. The entire discussion is moot. I don't think any DM is going to mark down "evil act" on an AR just because a character cast an inflict spell or rebuked/commanded undead. Now randomly killing someone with an inflict spell or commanding the undead to kill innocents, those acts are evil. It's been pointed out before that inherently evil does not automatically mean that it is an AR note level evil act. And if I met a DM who wanted to "evil act" my character's AR for rebuking or inflicting in battle, I'd either appeal the decision to the Senior GM, the Regional Triad, or the Circle. Now cheating in LG? That IS evil. So please don't. Hariman
bitznarf 03-03-07, 02:51 AM	The entire discussion is moot. I don't think any DM is going to mark down "evil act" on an AR just because a character cast an inflict spell or rebuked/commanded undead. As pointed out by both myself and MwaO, it is not moot. Reading the rules by Britt's interpretation leads to logical inconstancies if we add nothing to what is written, IE. using the rules as written. If we want to talk intent, we can. On a side note I do believe that the rules do state that there is nothing inherently evil about negative energy. If need be I can find the passage and quote it; although I wouldn't mind if someone else does. I don't have all my books with me at the moment as I am out of town.
King Kashue 03-03-07, 03:14 AM	On a side note I do believe that the rules do state that there is nothing inherently evil about negative energy. If need be I can find the passage and quote it; although I wouldn't mind if someone else does. I don't have all my books with me at the moment as I am out of town. The only reference we found when first working through this issue was that the Negative Energy Plane itself is not an aligned plane. Honestly, it seems to me a matter of a very poor choice of language on the author's part. I don't think they intended for that passage to apply to the CLW/ILW spells. Unfortunately, the way it's phrased makes it an issue. The argument can be made that because the heading of that section is "Neutral Clerics and Undead", that the section only applies to that topic. However, because the statement is a separate paragraph, and does not follow in-line with the other statements, it can be interpreted as an axiomatic statement regarding any channeling of energy (this is the primary difference Mommy was overlooking in his analysis: a statement that follows in-line is far less likely to be an stand alone statement. He was treating them as substantively equivalent). That seems to me to be the best argument to move this to a "expect table variation" sort of situation (or even to a different general interpretation of intent). The heading for that section is "Neutral Clerics and Undead", therefore all statements within that section fall under that rubric, and are therefore not general statements. It's within the explicit text, it's what most folks expect (and how it was treated previously), and it is a narrow application of the rules (though I don't want to draw too many legal parallels :D) Since this is a reading that both works with the explicit content and organization of the text (i.e., the section rubric), and eliminates the logical inconsistency between ILW & MILW (among other issues), all without creating any new issues, it is the sort of solution that many folks (Britt included) tend to like...
LGMoses 03-03-07, 11:45 PM	This entire conversation is entirely academic. GMs don't have to report every evil act, just acts they feel are significant. If people would read the rules, they wouldn't have such a problem with this. I understand this Britt but here is my question: Who decides when paladins/clerics fall? Is that up to the judge or does that need to be mailed in to the Triad/Circle? Who decides when druids/rangers/etc have committed acts against nature and lose their spellcasting? What is the proper thing to do if... say a LN cleric of St. Cuthbert breaks into several boats during an adventure? Do I send an account of the events to the Triad for them to decide or is it up to me?
Britt 03-03-07, 11:56 PM	I understand this Britt but here is my question: Who decides when paladins/clerics fall? Is that up to the judge or does that need to be mailed in to the Triad/Circle? Who decides when druids/rangers/etc have committed acts against nature and lose their spellcasting? What is the proper thing to do if... say a LN cleric of St. Cuthbert breaks into several boats during an adventure? Do I send an account of the events to the Triad for them to decide or is it up to me? That's up to the GM, though a player could appeal it to the senior GM. Those situations don't cause the loss of a character, though.
copper_wyrmling 03-04-07, 01:47 AM	That's up to the GM, though a player could appeal it to the senior GM. Those situations don't cause the loss of a character, though. It would be nice if the GM had to warn the player first, though, same as for evil acts. These situations may not cause the loss of a character per se, but if you're playing APL 16 and your L15 cleric gets stripped of all spellcasting abilities, the module is over for them (and quite possibly for the rest of the group, as well, since they may not want to continue without their divine caster) - it's much more debilitating than death, and takes the PC out of action for much longer, since if I understand correctly you need to contact the Triad in order to arrange an Atonement.
Hariman 03-04-07, 02:51 AM	It would be nice if the GM had to warn the player first, though, same as for evil acts. These situations may not cause the loss of a character per se, but if you're playing APL 16 and your L15 cleric gets stripped of all spellcasting abilities, the module is over for them (and quite possibly for the rest of the group, as well, since they may not want to continue without their divine caster) - it's much more debilitating than death, and takes the PC out of action for much longer, since if I understand correctly you need to contact the Triad in order to arrange an Atonement. The "Special Mission Atonement" Rule. It really makes a paladin much harder to play. I understand that it's put in place to prevent abuses of paladinhood and clerichood/druidhood, but it's pretty brutal. Any decent DM will say "that will violate your paladin code" because it has such a dramatic effect on the character. All the DMs in my area give the players (of paladins) that courtesy.
JohnduBois 03-04-07, 08:29 AM	It would be nice if the GM had to warn the player first, though, same as for evil acts. These situations may not cause the loss of a character per se, but if you're playing APL 16 and your L15 cleric gets stripped of all spellcasting abilities, the module is over for them (and quite possibly for the rest of the group, as well, since they may not want to continue without their divine caster) - it's much more debilitating than death, and takes the PC out of action for much longer, since if I understand correctly you need to contact the Triad in order to arrange an Atonement. I think it depends. There are grey areas where the DM may want to warn people, but if your character acts in a manner that is a clear violation of the code of conduct (ranging from a paladin acting as judge, jury, and executioner when the NPC denies wrongdoing to a cleric of Heironeous making a deal with demons who serve the LE government worshipping Hextor), there is no reason you should get a warning unless the act is an evil act in addition to being a code of conduct violation. There are magic items that serve to provide such a warning (phylactery of faithfulness), and the existence of these items implies that the PC should exercise good judgement when making decisions.
copper_wyrmling 03-04-07, 12:01 PM	I think it depends. There are grey areas where the DM may want to warn people, but if your character acts in a manner that is a clear violation of the code of conduct (ranging from a paladin acting as judge, jury, and executioner when the NPC denies wrongdoing to a cleric of Heironeous making a deal with demons who serve the LE government worshipping Hextor), there is no reason you should get a warning unless the act is an evil act in addition to being a code of conduct violation. There are magic items that serve to provide such a warning (phylactery of faithfulness), and the existence of these items implies that the PC should exercise good judgement when making decisions. My biggest annoyance about the new MIC rules is that my cleric can no longer make herself a phylactery of faithfulness :weep: Would it have been so game-breaking to keep the "open access to wondrous items beneath 2500gp"? (She had CWI for exactly ONE game under the old rules.) And yeah, in 15 levels of adventuring, she's never seen access on an AR. *shrugs* The only time I've ever been in danger of losing my cleric's spellcasting powers was where a module specified that a certain act was a code of conduct violation for "any paladin or good-aligned cleric". Not, note, any cleric of a good-aligned god. I'd always assumed that since Joramy actually accepts Neutral Evil clerics, borderline evil acts were probably not going to get my cleric stripped of all spellcasting without warning, but not according to that scenario - and the act in question was not actually tagged as evil, just as an automatic code-of-conduct violation, so no warning was required. The GM was generous in that case and allowed a Knowledge (Religion) check to figure it out BEFORE my cleric went ahead with the act in question, so it was okay, but I'd rather not rely too much on GM generosity.
GreatSiron 03-04-07, 12:27 PM	The only time I've ever been in danger of losing my cleric's spellcasting powers was where a module specified that a certain act was a code of conduct violation for "any paladin or good-aligned cleric". Not, note, any cleric of a good-aligned god. I'd always assumed that since Joramy actually accepts Neutral Evil clerics, borderline evil acts were probably not going to get my cleric stripped of all spellcasting without warning, but not according to that scenario - and the act in question was not actually tagged as evil, just as an automatic code-of-conduct violation, so no warning was required. The GM was generous in that case and allowed a Knowledge (Religion) check to figure it out BEFORE my cleric went ahead with the act in question, so it was okay, but I'd rather not rely too much on GM generosity. This is why I always play neutral clerics of neutral gods. Nothing is an alignment violation. (It may be an evil act, but it's not an alignment violation.)
Mommy was an Orc 03-04-07, 12:37 PM	There are magic items that serve to provide such a warning (phylactery of faithfulness), and the existence of these items implies that the PC should exercise good judgement when making decisions. The problem is that you don't necessarily know your DM nor your senior DM. As an example, there's a now retired core mod where you get asked to assassinate this guy. If you don't agree to do it, you fail the mod. Say the party does what most parties do - pretend to go along with it and find out what is really going on. Now say the DM decides that any Paladin who would put up with such a charade or allow others to lie for him on his behalf loses their Paladinhood? Or say the PC, quite frankly in character, won't agree to do it unless he knows he won't lose his Paladinhood for doing so - making the party fail the mod. I think most DMs in that scenario would be reasonable about it, but I also know a few DMs that might not be.
Istaran 03-22-07, 07:39 PM	No, it is up to the GM to decide if something is significant. It is not up to the GM to decide to whether to report significant acts. It is also not up to the GM to say he finds something to be insignificant just to avoid enforcing a rule that he doesn't like. You should not be encouraging people to violate the rules, saying that you are going to violate the rules, or advocating a position of violating the rules using semantics. The rest of this conversation is not important to me on more than a pedantic level, but this point is extremely important and non-negotiable. Cheating is not allowed, and it is not wholly encompassed by the letter of the rules. If you find yourself having to find a way to justify what you are doing, you are probably cheating. GMs have been trusted with a level of flexibility for many issues. If you abuse that trust, we will have to return to previous iterations of the rules where GMs were Judges, not GMs, and were not accorded any trust. A DM is not cheating by not reporting evil acts that consist only of casting spells that are "inherently evil" (even [evil] acts) if they feel that casting "inherently evil" spells is not "significant". In the case of inflict spells the case seems especially strong, as they are not even inherently evil enough to earn the [evil] descriptor. So one judge might report an inflict minor wounds used by a cleric that was out of better attack options against a high AC enemy (the ability to actually hit might be worth the lower damage output, especially for a 6 str halfling cleric perhaps), or an enemy with DR that the cleric couldn't overcome. Not because the IMW was used for anything particularly evil, but only becase it is an "evil act" and the DM feels such things are always significant, or at least always significant when performed by a good cleric or a cleric of a good god. Another DM might let you profane boost and then maximized inflict critical wounds, laying the divine smackdown on some evil person with impunity as he conciders the context to make the evilness of casting an "inherently evil" spell to make it not significantly evil. Perhaps you could summon some fiendish creatures to keep the necromancer's undead busy while you inflict him to death. Is that significantly evil? Is either judge cheating by their highly inconcompatible judgement calls about what is significant?
King Kashue 03-22-07, 08:30 PM	No, it is up to the GM to decide if something is significant. It is not up to the GM to decide to whether to report significant acts. It is also not up to the GM to say he finds something to be insignificant just to avoid enforcing a rule that he doesn't like. A DM is not cheating by not reporting evil acts that consist only of casting spells that are "inherently evil" (even [evil] acts) if they feel that casting "inherently evil" spells is not "significant". Which would be what Britt said ;) Read it again.... -It is not up to the GM to decide to whether to report significant acts. -It is up to the GM to decide if something is significant. Britt warned against the potentiality of DM's merely ignoring all reporting by saying "Oh, killing a villiage of innocents isn't significant" when they almost certainly think it is, not of having genuinely different "standards of significance".
Timlagor 03-23-07, 07:09 AM	A Judge can report every incident of casting Inflict Minor Wounds but the only likely outcome of such reports will be a request to stop reporting such minor incidents. The judge who decides that [evil] spells are mostly no worth reporting is perfectly legitimate under current rules. I doubt many judges would fail to report someone prepares nothing but [evil] spells though. Spontaneously casting Inflict spells is clearly a legal option; casting nothing but inflict Spells and other [Evil] spells is likely to draw attention but I can see it being ok on a character who otherwise behaves more like a Good character than a Neutral one.