PDA

View Full Version : [Good][Evil] and Spells



Kyeudo
2009-09-02, 01:25 PM
Everyone's looked over the 3.5 PHB and noticed the collection of spells and abilities that have all sorts of alignment descriptors. Animate Dead is probably the one that first comes to mind, but Summon Monster and other commonly used spells have alignment destriptors as well. A common arguement is that casting a spell with the evil discriptor is an evil act. But is it really?

First, I am not aware of any statement in Core that specifies casting an [Evil] spell as an evil act. The only alignment based specification about such is that Clerics are not allowed to cast a spell with a discriptor opposed to the alignment of their deity.

Second, it is so very easy to use [Good] or [Evil] spells to the opposite ends. For example, an evil spellcaster can, by the RAW, summon an Avoral using Summon Monster VII and then command it to use its spell-like abilities to lightning bolt an orhpanage just for kicks and giggles. The spell cast has the [Good] discriptor, but does that mean that the spellcaster's act was good? (or even neutral?)

I would conclude that the [Good][Evil][Chaos] and [Law] discriptors instead exist as an easy mechanical 'fliter' for which spells Clerics are allowed to cast, thus preventing Clerics of Pelor from casting Animate Dead while preventing Clerics of Nerull from casting Consecrate.

Random832
2009-09-02, 01:29 PM
A common arguement is that casting a spell with the evil discriptor is an evil act. But is it really?

First, I am not aware of any statement in Core that specifies casting an [Evil] spell as an evil act.

Core doesn't go into significant detail about what is or is not an evil act - that's in Fiendish Codex II, and that's where that argument is coming from. (Also, any negative energy spell, e.g. the inflict line, are supposed to be evil IIRC)

Of course, if you're not using FCII, you're not using it - and it crashes head-on into cases like the Malconvoker - an explicitly non-evil class whose entire thing is summoning (Evil) creatures.

JeenLeen
2009-09-02, 01:33 PM
Of course, if you're not using FCII, you're not using it - and it crashes head-on into cases like the Malconvoker - an explicitly non-evil class whose entire thing is summoning (Evil) creatures.

Malconvoker is an exception, though, as it's Level 1 ability states that Good clerics or clerics of good deities can cast evil summoning spells. It also states, IIRC, that this is not considered an evil act or an act that impacts alignment--which applies that it normally is evil.

Lysander
2009-09-02, 02:18 PM
Wicked spells generally have wicked sources of power. It's like driving a car with a baby-powered engine. Sure you can use it to drive food to a soup kitchen, but you're still burning babies.

Keld Denar
2009-09-02, 02:23 PM
Oh man, who would even do that...just imagine the smell!!! Its ok to be unspeakably irredemably evil, but man, who would be able to stomach that for more than 5 seconds, if that!

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-02, 02:28 PM
Oh man, who would even do that...just imagine the smell!!! Its ok to be unspeakably irredemably evil, but man, who would be able to stomach that for more than 5 seconds, if that!

So you can smell your car burning its fuel?

You need to get your car checked, man.

Optimystik
2009-09-02, 02:53 PM
BoED and BoVD go more into depth on magic as it impacts alignment. In general, spells with one of the four alignment descriptors push your alignment in that direction when cast. So casting Dictum makes you more Lawful, Gating in a Balor makes you both more Chaotic and more Evil, etc.

Living Greyhawk specifically ties core to these two supplements, saying that they are the definitive sources in Greyhawk (the Core setting) for what constitutes Good and Evil acts.

hamishspence
2009-09-02, 02:54 PM
Core doesn't go into significant detail about what is or is not an evil act - that's in Fiendish Codex II, and that's where that argument is coming from. (Also, any negative energy spell, e.g. the inflict line, are supposed to be evil IIRC)


The second bit is a little iffy. While "Channelling negative energy is an evil act" according to PHB, and "channelling positive energy is always a good act" this applies purely to use of the Turn Undead class feature.

BoED explicitly states that casting healing spells (positive energy" is not "a good act by definition"

The same applies in reverse to casting Inflict spells, or Energy drain- not an evil act by definition, as long as the use is reasonable- Inflict spells in self-defense are no more evil than violence in self-defense is.

And a multiclass pladin-cleric would not Fall for casting Inflict spells in that sort of situation.

olentu
2009-09-02, 03:11 PM
Core doesn't go into significant detail about what is or is not an evil act - that's in Fiendish Codex II, and that's where that argument is coming from. (Also, any negative energy spell, e.g. the inflict line, are supposed to be evil IIRC)

Of course, if you're not using FCII, you're not using it - and it crashes head-on into cases like the Malconvoker - an explicitly non-evil class whose entire thing is summoning (Evil) creatures.

I would argue that the source is the book of vile darkness and not the fiendish codex 2 assuming I am remembering the passage from the book of vile darkness correctly.

hamishspence
2009-09-02, 03:45 PM
FC2 is the first to state, outright, that casting an Evil descriptor spell is Always Evil, and put a rating on it, using its Corrupt Act system.

its a 1 point corrupt act, as minor as a corrupt act gets, equal to "Intimidating torture" which is any torture that does no physical damage.

Such as hanging somebody out of a window and threatening to drop them, to get info- interestingly, an act both Crocodile Dundee and Roy Greenhilt have committed.

BoVD:
Evil spells may create undead, inflict undue suffering, harm another's soul, or produce any of a slew of similar effects.

Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction.

olentu
2009-09-02, 04:14 PM
FC2 is the first to state, outright, that casting an Evil descriptor spell is Always Evil, and put a rating on it, using its Corrupt Act system.

its a 1 point corrupt act, as minor as a corrupt act gets, equal to "Intimidating torture" which is any torture that does no physical damage.

Such as hanging somebody out of a window and threatening to drop them, to get info- interestingly, an act both Crocodile Dundee and Roy Greenhilt have committed.

BoVD:
Evil spells may create undead, inflict undue suffering, harm another's soul, or produce any of a slew of similar effects.

Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction.

I must contend that technically the list of corrupt acts are never listed as evil. They are listed as sinful but as sin can me a transgression of religious law rather then moral law the table of corrupt acts are not necessarily evil assuming I am not missing anything.

mostlyharmful
2009-09-02, 05:27 PM
there's also the crappy get out clause for ethically dodgey characters that just spend their down time casting holy word. if you're using spells with descripters as something that pushes you one way or the other then you can earn karmic brownie points by just going through the motions.:smallconfused:

It runs into the problem of people treating Evil as though it was just Good multiplied by minus one. The BoED and the BoVD both suck in terms of describing coherent moral systems of thought and action let alone something you can run reality bending magic through and hope to get less than five interpretations per observer.

Set
2009-09-02, 06:31 PM
Core doesn't go into significant detail about what is or is not an evil act - that's in Fiendish Codex II, and that's where that argument is coming from. (Also, any negative energy spell, e.g. the inflict line, are supposed to be evil IIRC)

While this is a popular house rule, that 'bringing negative energy into the world' is an evil act (despite negative energy being a neutral un-aligned force, no more malicious or sentient in nature than fire or acid or electricity), it would logically follow that bringing *positive* energy into the world would then be a *good* act, and that no Evil Cleric would ever be able to cast a Cure X Wounds, Close Wounds, Lesser Vigor or Heal spell.

*If* one wants to institute a rule that casting [Evil] spells 'turns you evil,' bear in mind that taking something of such an ephemeral deliberately-fuzzy DM-decided nature and reducing it to mechanics is going to allow the same spellcaster to then cast [Good] spells to 'turn good.'

Neutral Cleric - "Okay, I cast Animate Dead today, that's four [Evil] points, which is bad. Tonight I'll cast my remaining two Protection from Evils and two Summon Monster II spells to summon up Celestial critters, and that will give me five [Good] points, so I'll be back to normal, and have a bank of +2 [Good] in case I want to Death Knell some fool tomorrow..."

IMO, having the casting of [Evil] and [Good] spells 'turn you evil' (or 'turn you good') cheapens the entire concept of alignment. It shouldn't be mechanical and 'game-able' in this manner, if it's to have any real meaning in the game.

It just reduces alignment to another score that you can manipulate on a daily basis by casting the appropriate spells, and Atonement is replaced by casting Protection from Evil four times a day...

Steward
2009-09-02, 07:08 PM
What about the terrifying magic of Deathwatch!? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm)

Using the demented powers of Hell, you can evilly determine whether or not someone is alive or dead. Yes, it's an Evil spell that allows you to do the magical equivalent of feeling someone's pulse. That has to be a deeply corrupt act, forcing your alignment into Chaotic Evil without possibility of atonement.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-02, 07:51 PM
Thing about Good/Evil in D&D. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828)

Very good and applicable, especially the part about summoning spells being tagged good and evil.

The fact of the matter is there are infinity Pitfiends out there, but even still, every time you use Greater Planar Binding to Bind a Pitfiend to the specific task of collecting firewood which you will then deliver an orphanage with another Bound Pitfiend, you are actually making sure that two Pit Fiends worth of small children go undevoured for just that much longer, and you are also collecting firewood for an Orphan.

You aren't using a Baby Powered Engine, you are taking a Baby Powered Engine away from someone who baby guzzles and not running it at all, but using it as a shelf in your garage.

That is a very very very good act. And calling and binding a Demon or Devil is a good act, if you don't use it for rampant murder.

Set
2009-09-03, 04:48 AM
That is a very very very good act. And calling and binding a Demon or Devil is a good act, if you don't use it for rampant murder.

This is probably how the Blood War started. A group of Malconvokers of Pelor (the nice Pelor, not the Burning Hate!) kept summoning up devils and demons and making them slaughter each other. The demons and devils had long memories, and long after the Malconvokers all died, they are still fighting each other over millenia-old grudges.

But the most *efficient* use of summoning demons and devils for good purposes is to bind them into weapons, to be used to fight *other* demons and devils. Just don't give them to Paladins. They get all picky. Any normal Lawful Good fighter will greatly appreciate that Greatsword that gives him many of the powers of the Pit Fiend trapped inside, 'though.

BobVosh
2009-09-03, 05:07 AM
What about the terrifying magic of Deathwatch!? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm)

Using the demented powers of Hell, you can evilly determine whether or not someone is alive or dead. Yes, it's an Evil spell that allows you to do the magical equivalent of feeling someone's pulse. That has to be a deeply corrupt act, forcing your alignment into Chaotic Evil without possibility of atonement.

It is called deathwatch! Not deathaction! All you did now is watch them die, not help heal them! Monster! Need you to see their magical pulse as it bleeds away to a simple white line as they lie unconscious...dying horribly.

Aotrs Commander
2009-09-03, 07:17 AM
Alignment descriptors in spells are a very grey area in D&D and by "grey" I mean "inconsistant to the point of stupidity". On the one hand, you have books like FC2 saying "[Evil] is Evil!" And on the other hand, you have books like heroes of horror and Libris Mortis having classes that specifically have Animate Dead (which is [Evil]) as a big class feature (Dread Necro and Pale Master specifically) which are allowed to be neutral in alignment. (Which is a bit stupid if that automatically means they're going to turn evil, no?)

Frankly, I think the only reason for people (and this includes the people at WotC as well; apparently the ones who wrote FC2 being among them) insisting [Evil] is Evil (because you rarely hear the inverse, do you?) is a half-assed attempt to prevent PCs playing with toys that are traditionally associated with the bad guys. (Even if there's no good reason for it.) After all, [Fire] spells don't make you more fiery, and I'm pretty sure [Mind-Affecting] spells don't make you more mental...

The answer is, within Core, alignment descriptors get no special treatment from no-alignment descriptors. Some other books, notable BoVD and BoED (and apparently FC2) say otherwise; sometimes in direct contradiction to what still other books say. As I say, I think most of the rationale behind the action is soley aimed at the DM (or that particular author) being able to say "I don't want my (predominately good) PCs casting that spell" with some credibility. And I agree with Set, allowing it actually promotes metagaming, rather than what alignment's preported intention is, which is to provide and aid to roleplaying. (Trouble is, that theory rarely works in practise!)

I have little wonder they removed alignments from 4E, since the additional alignment-based mechanics added to 3.x from AD&D might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but in the end, cause more problems than any one other element.

As usual, it's got to be up to the DM to make that decision; sadly, with the conflicting data from the rather-poorly written alignment books really doesn't help.

Lysander
2009-09-03, 08:53 AM
I think it might be a bit like the way modern warfare bans the use of certain weapons. All weapons, by definition, are evil because they're designed to inflict harm on another human being. You can argue that they can be used for good causes. But even with that general agreement some weapons are banned as too inhumane. Gas and biologicial weapons for instance, and flamethrowers.

So inflict spells are that. Wicked weapons that don't merely attack your body, they attack the very energy that makes up your life essence. Sure they could possibly be used for good causes, but they should definitely be the last option of any good person. A good cleric's options in order of preference should be A) Peace B)Healing the wounded B)Attacking with good spells C) Inflict spells as a last resort.

Irreverent Fool
2009-09-03, 09:23 AM
So you can smell your car burning its fuel?

You need to get your car checked, man.

Someone's never been stuck behind a diesel car.

I imagine the baby-burning car would smell a lot like bacon.

obnoxious
sig

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 01:00 PM
Given Deathwatch is on the class list of the "Must Be Good" healer, and the Exalted PRC Slayer of Domiel, the evil descriptor for it is probably an error, otherwise it wouldn't be on the class list of a prestige class that Falls if it ever commits an evil act.

The wording in FC2 is "Each act of evil that a PC commits adds to his corruption rating"

so, yes, Corrupt acts are Evil acts by definition.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-03, 01:13 PM
The wording in FC2 is "Each act of evil that a PC commits adds to his corruption rating"

so, yes, Corrupt acts are Evil acts by definition.

Assuming the consequent is bad and you shouldn't do it.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 01:20 PM
What is "assuming the consequent"?

If Corrupt acts cause your Corruption rating to go up, and Evil acts cause your corruption rating to go up, it is hard to get away from the logical deduction that Corrupt acts are Evil acts.

It goes on to say that "Notable real-world acts of evil are intentionally omitted from the table" possibly because this is not a Mature Audiences Only book.

By inference, from the way the chapter on corrupt acts is written. corrupt acts are acts of evil.

It even goes on to list a separate table for "tempting beings to the side of law"

EDIT:
If you mean the logical fallacy "affirming the consequent" then, yes, there may be a slight gap between the 2 statements in FC2:

"List of sinful acts, and their corruption ratings"
"Each act of evil adds to your corruption rating"

and the conclusion-

"Each of the sinful acts on this list is an act of evil"

But, its not a very big gap, and it is reasonable to infer, from the two phrases, that by "sinful acts" they mean "evil acts"

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 01:38 PM
Alignment descriptors in spells are a very grey area in D&D and by "grey" I mean "inconsistant to the point of stupidity". On the one hand, you have books like FC2 saying "[Evil] is Evil!" And on the other hand, you have books like heroes of horror and Libris Mortis having classes that specifically have Animate Dead (which is [Evil]) as a big class feature (Dread Necro and Pale Master specifically) which are allowed to be neutral in alignment. (Which is a bit stupid if that automatically means they're going to turn evil, no?)

Interestingly, it doesn't say that "Once your corruption rating exceeds 9, your alignment is evil"

It simply says "once your corruption rating is 9, if you are lawful, your afterlife destination is Baator.

An example of corruption rating not being tied to alignment, would be a repentant villain who is not achieved atonement. DMG mentions that it is possible, though very rare, for an evil people to have a massive change of heart and become Good. If someone does so, and has not yet started atoning, their afterlife destination (assuming Lawful) remains the same.

Heroes of Horror also goes out of its way, in the case of the dread necromancer, to state that the ones who are solidly Neutral "balance evil acts with good intentions"

Since casting an evil spell is very low on the "corrupt act" table (right at the bottom) this would make sense with the "doing good with the powers of evil" concept- if the good a character does is sufficiently large, for alignmnet purposes, their evil acts don't move them into evil alignment.

Summoning a pit fiend is a tiny evil act. Ordering that pit fiend to save a thousand lives is a massive good act.

But they are separate acts- one, then the other, not the combined "summon pit fiend in order to save a thousand lives" act.




IMO, having the casting of [Evil] and [Good] spells 'turn you evil' (or 'turn you good') cheapens the entire concept of alignment. It shouldn't be mechanical and 'game-able' in this manner, if it's to have any real meaning in the game.

It just reduces alignment to another score that you can manipulate on a daily basis by casting the appropriate spells, and Atonement is replaced by casting Protection from Evil four times a day...

The corruption system actually negates this problem: no matter how many Protection From Evil spells you cast, this will not remove corruption points- only repentance, atonement, restitution will do that.

As for "evil acts turn you evil" BoVD says that for spells, but most of the other sources allow a certain latitude (possibly because casting an evil spell is much less evil than most other evil acts.)

Champions of Ruin, a Faerun source expanding on Book of Vile Darkness, says something similar for evil acts in general, that if a character is "most often resorting to evil acts" they should be given an evil alignment- whatever their objections.

Though "Neutral and even Good characters may be driven to them from time to time."

Thats the big difference, between Evil act in an emergency, and Evil Acts as standard operating procedure.

olentu
2009-09-03, 02:23 PM
What is "assuming the consequent"?

If Corrupt acts cause your Corruption rating to go up, and Evil acts cause your corruption rating to go up, it is hard to get away from the logical deduction that Corrupt acts are Evil acts.

It goes on to say that "Notable real-world acts of evil are intentionally omitted from the table" possibly because this is not a Mature Audiences Only book.

By inference, from the way the chapter on corrupt acts is written. corrupt acts are acts of evil.

It even goes on to list a separate table for "tempting beings to the side of law"

EDIT:
If you mean the logical fallacy "affirming the consequent" then, yes, there may be a slight gap between the 2 statements in FC2:

"List of sinful acts, and their corruption ratings"
"Each act of evil adds to your corruption rating"

and the conclusion-

"Each of the sinful acts on this list is an act of evil"

But, its not a very big gap, and it is reasonable to infer, from the two phrases, that by "sinful acts" they mean "evil acts"

This does not mean that only evil acts add to corruption rating only that all evil acts do add to corruption rating. So corrupt acts are not stated, outright as evil. As we were talking about direct statement and not possibly incorrect inference I must say that corrupt acts are not necessarily evil.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 02:34 PM
Still really a matter of semantics. Defining "the taint of sin" in such a way as to make the acts non-evil but corrupt, is tricky.

Since, in D&D, there are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic Good churches, an act defined by all three as "a sin" would be- an Evil act.

As written, the jutaxposition of "sinful acts" and "acts of evil" is such that it is very hard to believe that, by sinful acts, they do not necessarily mean acts of evil.

Given the "for gaming purposes" phrase, it would appear, that the Corrupt acts list, can also be taken as the "Evil acts" list, for the purposes of Paladins Falling (any evil act committed by a paladin causes them to Fall).

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 02:42 PM
This does not mean that only evil acts add to corruption rating only that all evil acts do add to corruption rating. So corrupt acts are not stated, outright as evil. As we were talking about direct statement and not possibly incorrect inference I must say that corrupt acts are not necessarily evil.

My personal take is that this wording is used to try and distinguish "real evil" from "game evil." That gives them a basis to condemn acts like animating undead that wouldn't be evil by themselves in our world.

olentu
2009-09-03, 02:46 PM
Still really a matter of semantics. Defining "the taint of sin" in such a way as to make the acts non-evil but corrupt, is tricky.

As written, the jutaxposition of "sinful acts" and "acts of evil" is such that it is very hard to believe that, by sinful acts, they do not necessarily mean acts of evil.

Given the "for gaming purposes" phrase, it would appear, that the Corrupt acts list, can also be taken as the "Evil acts" list, for the purposes of Paladins Falling (any evil act committed by a paladin causes them to Fall).

Well there are many things that I would find reasonable to conclude in the alignment system. However to do so in this situation I would consider being inconsistent given my earlier acquiescence and so I must hold to my position barring sufficient proof or a change in the terms of the discussion.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-03, 02:49 PM
Once again:

All evil acts increase your corruption.

All Corrupt acts increase your Corruption.

Therefore all Corrupt acts are evil acts.

Is logically equivalent too:

"An increase in casting stat increases spell DCs.

Spell Focus increases spell DCs.

Therefore, spell focus is an increase in casting stat."

X yields Y
Z yields Y
Therefore X=Z

is a logical fallacy, and you shouldn't use that as your argument ever for anything.

There could be plenty of corrupt acts that are not evil.

Athaniar
2009-09-03, 02:53 PM
(Also, any negative energy spell, e.g. the inflict line, are supposed to be evil IIRC)

Isn't there a good deity (Hieroneous or St. Cuthbert or someone) who is pro-Inflict?

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 02:53 PM
there is an exception to the "sins = evil acts" rule in Forgotten Reams Campaign Setting: for clerics, a sin is ignoring some portion of their deity's dogma, or offending against their deity.

For Cyric, altruism and forgiveness might be Sins.

However, in the context of FC2, it seems clear that there, by sins, they mean evil acts, not Chaotic ones.

Unless you try and create a intermediate category between "Evil act" and "non-evil act" called "non-evil sins" enough of which would send you to Nine Hells even if you never commit an act of evil.

However this idea seems like would be pointless in a D&D game- and would really annoy the players:

Player: "My paladin has died- where does his soul wake up?"
DM: "In the Nine Hells."
Player "Why? He's never done any evil acts- he died in full possession of his powers."
DM: "Doesn't matter- he has sinned enough to go to Nine Hells."
Player: "this idea is WRONG!"

The head of the chapter was titled "Corrupt acts"
Then "each act of evil adds to your corruption rating"
Then "the following sinful acts, along with the corruption points they earn, focus on activities adventurers are likely to engage in"

There is no reason to think that they are defining two separate categries of act that add to your corruption rating, evil acts and sinful ones, unless proven otherwise.

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 03:06 PM
There could be plenty of corrupt acts that are not evil.

Though improperly stated, intention matters here. And the fact is we don't know of any corrupt, non-evil acts.

Casting Evil spells, the basis of this thread, is revealed to be evil in other sources as well. Malconvoker's first ability: they can cast summoning spells with the [Evil] descriptor repeatedly without risking a change in alignment. Why would the text spell out this exception if the general rule were not "Evil spells degrade your alignment with repeated use?"

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 03:17 PM
Champions of Ruin, page 113, is the closest to an "all evil acts degrade your alignment with repeated use" source, by saying "the repeated, systematic use of these is the hallmark of an evil character."

Fiendish Codex 2 is more "Do these and fail to atone, and, regardless of your alignment, your afterlife destination is in danger" source.

An ex-summoner of fiends, of lawful alignment, who has "become good" still has to "ransom his soul back from Baator" by atoning- just changing alignment is not enough.

Whether this is a good idea or not depends on your perspective- I like it, because it circumvents the "just cast an equal number of evil and good spells" problem. But I can understand not everyone might like the idea.

olentu
2009-09-03, 03:20 PM
Champions of Ruin, page 113, is the closest to an "all evil acts degrade your alignment with repeated use" source, by saying "the repeated, systematic use of these is the hallmark of an evil character."

Fiendish Codex 2 is more "Do these and fail to atone, and, regardless of your alignment, your afterlife destination is in danger" source.

An ex-summoner of fiends, of lawful alignment, who has "become good" still has to "ransom his soul back from Baator" by atoning- just changing alignment is not enough.

Whether this is a good idea or not depends on your perspective- I like it, because it circumvents the "just cast an equal number of evil and good spells" problem. But I can understand not everyone might like the idea.

It might however add the just cast a bunch of chaotic spells problem.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 03:24 PM
Solved by the addition of Obesiant acts- if you have "drifted to the side of law" you need to atone in the same way.

yes, its biased in favour of Law and Evil. But they never introduced comparable Chaotic and Good acts.

If they had- we'd end up with contradiction- preson "has to go to Nine Hells" and "has to go to other plane" simultaneously.

So, generally, we have "Corruption rating" and "Obesiant rating" which can override the normal afterlife destination of beings.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-03, 03:26 PM
Once again:

The Fiendish Codex 2 rules directly and explicitly contradict the core rules of D&D, and are also retarded.

The facts are:

1) We have two mutually exclusive definitions of things.
2) One of those is fundamentally bad for the game.

I have no idea why people actually want to play a game in which killing Pit Fiends is a lawful evil act. I cannot even understand for a second why we can't just accept that:

1) We live in a world without weapons that are evil to even touch, even if you don't use them to do anything.
2) We live in a world without readily identifiable people who wear signs that say "I eat babies" that are always 100% accurate.
3) D&D is a world with both those things.
4) When people try to write morality for a D&D game, they screw up a lot, because they can't fully comprehend all the implications of 3.
5) The 'Evil spells are evil' ruling is bad for a lot of reasons.
6) The Fiendish Codex rules about how everyone ever goes to Baator are even more incredibly stupid than that rule.

Random832
2009-09-03, 03:28 PM
6) The Fiendish Codex rules about how everyone ever goes to Baator are even more incredibly stupid than that rule.

Pragmatically, "everyone ever goes to Baator" is a good way to get a nice easy way to start a campaign set in Baator, which is probably something someone who buys FCII is likely to want to do at some point. You All Meet In A Cell (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouAllMeetInACell) to the Nth power, as it were.

You might even call it "You All Meet In A Hell". :smallbiggrin:

olentu
2009-09-03, 03:31 PM
Solved by the addition of Obesiant acts- if you have "drifted to the side of law" you need to atone in the same way.

Unfortunately the mechanics of those are ill defined. For example if they act exactly like corruption points then they also only work on characters of lawful alignment.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 03:32 PM
Its something of an exaggeration to say "FC2 rules force nearly everyone to go to Baator after they die"

And we are not saying "Killing pit fiends is a lawful evil act" we are saying that, by the rules, summoning pit fiends, or any kind of devil, is a minor Lawful Evil Act.

It goes out of its way to say "You have to commit evil acts to suffer the torments of Baator- thinking evil thoughts is not enough."

the "Evil spells are evil" makes just as much sense as the description of turn/rebuke undead "channelling negative energy is always evil"

More sense, if anything, given the number of spells that use negative energy that aren't evil.

The obesiant rules are phrased as allowing devils to claim the souls of demon worshippers that they wouldn't normally be able to claim.

Implying that they work for Chaotic Evil beings.

If Corruption ratings enable devils to claim Lawful beings "regardless of their actual alignment" then Obesiant ratings, by extrapolation, enable devils to claim Evil beings regardless of their alignment.

The hard question is- can the two be combined? Can a non-Evil, non-lawful being, with 9 or more in both ratings, be said to "be condemned to Hell regardless of their actual alignment"?

The closest thing to an answer on this is FC2 page 25:

"It is possible for a mortal to win their case (concerning the invalidity of a pact) only to be condemned to Baator on unrelated grounds if their corruption score or obesiance score equals or exceeds 9. Much diabolic laughter then ensues"

Yukitsu
2009-09-03, 03:41 PM
Considering how many exalted individuals do "corrupt acts" as defined by the corruption table, yes, it is far too inclusive. If it accounted for why actions were being done, and what harm they were doing, it would be a functional table, but as is, the FCII is basically a load of bunk, designed to send all adventurers to hell.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 03:43 PM
Which acts? Casting Evil spells? Murder? Torture? Betrayal? Perverting justice for personal gain?

It would be a pretty odd Exalted campaign if the characters were regularly doing these.

FC2 doesn't actually define murder. BoVD states what isn't murder, by its perspective- "The heroes who slay the green dragon are not murderers" but still doesn't define it.

Accounting for "why act was done" is not a regular feature in D&D- BoED follows the same trend, with "regardless of why you committed the evil act, you still lose your powers until you atone."

Basing the evilness of an act entirely on the motive is not consistant with D&D either.

Players Handbook 2 does make a nod to the needs of the many with, in paladin section:

"Aside from moral absolutes, an ethical code is based on the greatest good of the greatest number"

olentu
2009-09-03, 03:52 PM
Its something of an exaggeration to say "FC2 rules force nearly everyone to go to Baator after they die"

And we are not saying "Killing pit fiends is a lawful evil act" we are saying that, by the rules, summoning pit fiends, or any kind of devil, is a minor Lawful Evil Act.

It goes out of its way to say "You have to commit evil acts to suffer the torments of Baator- thinking evil thoughts is not enough."

the "Evil spells are evil" makes just as much sense as the description of turn/rebuke undead "channelling negative energy is always evil"

More sense, if anything, given the number of spells that use negative energy that aren't evil.

The obesiant rules are phrased as allowing devils to claim the souls of demon worshippers that they wouldn't normally be able to claim.

Implying that they work for Chaotic Evil beings.

If Corruption ratings enable devils to claim Lawful beings "regardless of their actual alignment" then Obesiant ratings, by extrapolation, enable devils to claim Evil beings regardless of their alignment.

The hard question is- can the two be combined? Can a non-Evil, non-lawful being, with 9 or more in both ratings, be said to "be condemned to Hell regardless of their actual alignment"?

The closest thing to an answer on this is FC2 page 25:

"It is possible for a mortal to win their case (concerning the invalidity of a pact) only to be condemned to Baator on unrelated grounds if their corruption score or obesiance score equals or exceeds 9. Much diabolic laughter then ensues"

Well all the conjecture about which alignments obeisance points use is just conjecture since the mechanics are not well defined.

However the section on page 25 has no bearing as winning the case and getting out of a faustian pact does not preclude lawful alignment or whatever alignment is ruled by the DM to work of obesiance points.

Yukitsu
2009-09-03, 03:54 PM
Several always good classes and creatures have evil spells as spell like abilities (Baelnorn, for example) and at the very least, the slayer of Domiel actively engages in murder, as per the definition of the word "murder". (All slayers of domiel are assassins, all assassinations are murder (as per definition of the word "Assassination") therefore, all slayers of domiel are murderers.) These creatures, despite being good aligned, are generally going to rather quickly become corrupt by this system. Generally, one that has engaged in one assassination in their life has a corruption rating of 6. Doing any more at all puts them at above 9. Or, they may cast deathwatch, a class spell, 3 times in their life, putting them above 9.

Obviously, these "always evil" acts can be used by the highest paragons of good for good reasons, and frankly, they can be. Saying that certain actions are evil just for the sake of easily shoving actions into categories without any consideration of the broader issues and considerations is a gross simplification of a frankly very complex question.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 03:55 PM
Given that Obesiant points involve "temptation to the side of law" it is reasonable to see it as capable of sending non-lawful characters to Baator in the same way as Corruption points can send non-evil characters to Baator.

Just as a non-evil character with enough Corruption points is in danger, so a non-lawful character with enough Obesiance points is in danger.

Or, more likely, Deathwatch is not an Evil spell, its just been labelled as one in PHB, in error.

As for murder- if "killing an Always Evil monster" is not murder, then "assassinating an Always Evil monster" is not murder, letting them out- if they specialize in killing fiendish infiltrators of society

Assassination can be carried out in wartime- sneaking up on an enemy general and killing them, is both assassination, and Not Murder.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-03, 03:57 PM
Pragmatically, "everyone ever goes to Baator" is a good way to get a nice easy way to start a campaign set in Baator, which is probably something someone who buys FCII is likely to want to do at some point. You All Meet In A Cell (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouAllMeetInACell) to the Nth power, as it were.

Pragmatically, a "All lawful evil people go to hell" is a good way to start a campaign in Baator.

It also doesn't magically make having a campaign in the abyss or pandemonium or carceri impossible.


And we are not saying "Killing pit fiends is a lawful evil act" we are saying that, by the rules, summoning pit fiends, or any kind of devil, is a minor Lawful Evil Act.

Actually, that's exactly what you are doing.

A good Wizard using Greater Planar Binding to Call a Pit Fiend, and then kill him, circumventing normal paths to permanently decrease the evil in the world by a pretty darn good amount is committing an evil and lawful act.

Meanwhile, an Evil Wizard who Calls Planetars to murder their face and use their sweet lovely blood to keep his skin nice and fresh is committing a good act.

Meanwhile, an Evil Crazy Wizard who spends all his time walking into small towns, buying a room, then Planar Binding a Glabrezu and releasing him on the town without asking for any services is committing a 'corrupt' act that somehow damns him to Baator.

This is all different kinds of stupid, and needs to be expunged from D&D with a Flamethrower.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 04:00 PM
A good Wizard using Greater Planar Binding to Call a Pit Fiend, and then kill him, circumventing normal paths to permanently decrease the evil in the world by a pretty darn good amount is committing an evil and lawful act.


BoVD: "Killing a fiend is always a good act. Allowing one to exist is clearly evil"

This bumps up against the problem that fiends kill fiends all the time.

Still, if killing a fiend is a vastly good act, whereas summoning a fiend is only a very minor evil act, you could have the good act be the act of atonement for the evil act.


Meanwhile, an Evil Wizard who Calls Planetars to murder their face and use their sweet lovely blood to keep his skin nice and fresh is committing a good act.

The murder of planetar vastly outweighs any Good done by summoning it.

Committing good acts does not remove Corruption.


Meanwhile, an Evil Crazy Wizard who spends all his time walking into small towns, buying a room, then Planar Binding a Glabrezu and releasing him on the town without asking for any services is committing a 'corrupt' act that somehow damns him to Baator.

Interestingly "Casting a Lawful spell" isn't on the Obesiant act list- suggesting that it might only be Evil Spells that shift afterlife destination.

A Chaotic Evil person committing Corrupt acts is in no danger of going to Baator- only if they commit Obesiant acts is there any chance of that happening.

olentu
2009-09-03, 04:03 PM
Given that Obesiant points involve "temptation to the side of law" it is reasonable to see it as capable of sending non-lawful characters to Baator in the same way as Corruption points can send non-evil characters to Baator.

Just as a non-evil character with enough Corruption points is in danger, so a non-lawful character with enough Obesiance points is in danger.

While I can understand where one can derive the implication it unfortunately still requires DM adjudication.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 04:09 PM
Sounds about right.

The simplest way is to copy the phrase for Corruption, substituting the appropriate words:

"Any evil character who dies with an Obesiance rating of 9 of higher goes to Baator, regardless of how much Chaos he did in life."

This works well with "condemned to Baator on unrelated grounds if Corruption or obesiance score is 9 or higher"

Combining the two is much more speculative:

"Any character who dies with both a Corruption and Obesiance rating of 9 of higher goes to Baator."

Yukitsu
2009-09-03, 04:10 PM
Or, more likely, Deathwatch is not an Evil spell, its just been labelled as one in PHB, in error.

Raise dead, a racial feature of positive energy liches and Baelnorns (always good) are also considered always evil, however. They, however, are considered always good. Handwaving a necromancy evil spell as "a typo" doesn't seem honest in this situation. I don't believe handwaving away blatant exceptions to the rules is convincing support for the corruption rules.


As for murder- if "killing an Always Evil monster" is not murder, then "assassinating an Always Evil monster" is not murder, letting them out- if they specialize in killing fiendish infiltrators of society

Assassination can be carried out in wartime- sneaking up on an enemy general and killing them, is both assassination, and Not Murder.

An assassination is by definition murder, even during war time. That's simply what the word means. As well, slayers of domiel can kill evil examples of creatures that are not tagged as "always evil", such as a powerful yet corrupt politician via assassination. As well, a good creature, in accordance with the ideals of redemption etc. should not unjustly kill always evil creatures either. Killing always evil creatures is just as much murder as killing anyone else is. It just so happens that always evil creatures tend to be engaged in acts that justify killing it in all senses. Typically self defense. However, since assassination occurs when an individual is not engaged in such an activity, you cannot give it the same moral implications. Even if it is an always evil outsider.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 04:15 PM
there is also "writs of outlawry" in DMG2. enabling people to seek out the outlaw and kill them, without legally committing murder.

Assassination, and Murder, usually coincide, but not always. "Assassinating" the enemy general is not legally murder.

Plus, BoVD "Murder is killing for a nefarious purpose" if the Slayer killings are, in some way, not nefarious, they may be exempted.

Deathwatch was not evil in 3.0. I'm not sure why they made it evil in 3.0, especially when the first new classes (Miniatures Handbook) for the edition included the "Must be Good" healer with the spell on its class list.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-03, 04:17 PM
Ham, I think you entirely missed the point.

Summoning a demon 9 times is enough to ban you to Baator.

It says "All people with 9 Corruption go to Baator" it doesn't say anything about being chaotic.

All evil people who commit evil acts go to Baator. That means that all chaotic evil people who commit chaotic evil acts (like repeatedly summoning demons) go to the Lawful Evil place for being evil.

That is beyond dumb. That is the dumbest rule any person could ever possibly think of.

And once again, you didn't address the Pit Fiends at all.

Why is choosing to devote your life to killing the most evil beings in the universe an evil act? Why is enlisting in the special "We hunt down baby killers" division of the police force an evil act?

Why is being an FBI counterterrorist special ops member an evil act which damns you to terrorist hell?

EDIT: And now I see you are contending that A Paladin who commits 9 lawful acts is banned to Baator for the crime of being lawful...

Yeah. You are wrong. That is the worse possible thing you could ever do for the game.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 04:20 PM
Actually, it states (FC2 page 30) "Any lawful person who dies with a Corruption of 9 or higher goes to Baator."

This is very clear.

I am contending that:

a Lawful person who commits 9 points of Corrupt acts goes to Baator
(explicitly stated in the rules)

an Evil person who commits 9 points of Obesiant acts goes to Baator
(extrapolated from the description of Obesiant acts condeming demon worshippers)

and possibly (not confirmed by the rules, speculation)

a Person who has committed 9 points of Corrupt and Obesiant acts goes to Baator.

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 04:22 PM
EDIT: And now I see you are contending that A Paladin who commits 9 lawful acts is banned to Baator for the crime of being lawful...

Yeah. You are wrong. That is the worse possible thing you could ever do for the game.

What? Baator is for LE, not L-Any.

olentu
2009-09-03, 04:22 PM
Sounds about right.

The simplest way is to copy the phrase for Corruption, substituting the appropriate words:

"Any evil character who dies with an Obesiance rating of 9 of higher goes to Baator, regardless of how much Chaos he did in life."

This works well with "condemned to Baator on unrelated grounds if Corruption or obesiance score is 9 or higher"

Combining the two is much more speculative:

"Any character who dies with both a Corruption and Obesiance rating of 9 of higher goes to Baator."

Er I would say that the simplest way is to copy the phrase and change nothing and simplest way that has obeisance points do something is to copy the phrase and change corruption to obeisance. This works just fine with "condemned to Baator on unrelated grounds if Corruption or obesiance score is 9 or higher" as one can be condemned to Baator based corruption or obeisance points as their values are separate.

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 04:24 PM
Er I would say that the simplest way is to copy the phrase and change nothing and simplest way that has obeisance points do something is to copy the phrase and change corruption to obeisance. This works just fine with "condemned to Baator on unrelated grounds if Corruption or obesiance score is 9 or higher" as one can be condemned to Baator based corruption or obeisance points as their values are separate.

You are condemned to Baator if:

1) You die LE.
2) You die Evil with Obeisance 9+.
3) You die Lawful with Corruption 9+.
4) You die with both Obeisance and Corruption 9+ regardless of alignment.

I really don't see the difficulty here.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 04:26 PM
the problem is that it doesn't make sense.

A Lawful Good person with 9 points of Obesiant acts has done nothing wrong.

A Chaotic Evil person with 9 points of Obesiant acts has done something very wrong- in the eyes of the Chaotic Evil gods- he is acting extremely Lawfully.



And once again, you didn't address the Pit Fiends at all.

Why is choosing to devote your life to killing the most evil beings in the universe an evil act?

Most D&D characters don't do this by casting summoning spells.


Why is enlisting in the special "We hunt down baby killers" division of the police force an evil act?

What have I said that suggests this?


Why is being an FBI counterterrorist special ops member an evil act which damns you to terrorist hell?

If these killings aren't murder, then it isn't.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 04:28 PM
You are condemned to Baator if:

1) You die LE.
2) You die Evil with Obeisance 9+.
3) You die Lawful with Corruption 9+.
4) You die with both Obeisance and Corruption 9+ regardless of alignment.

I really don't see the difficulty here.

Yes:

1 is confirmed in FC2
3 is confirmed in FC2

2 is logical extrapolation from 3- not confirmed, but there is a lot of evidence for it.

4 is my surmise.

DragoonWraith
2009-09-03, 04:29 PM
An assassination is by definition murder, even during war time. That's simply what the word means.
You are incorrect. Killing any military combatant during wartime is not murder, by the conventions of the human race. Assassination, by definition, means killing, but killing is not always murder.

Murder is defined as those killings which were unjustified and committed purposefully and intentionally by the murderer. The death penalty, at least in those areas that recognize it, is not murder. Self-defense is not murder. Killing of enemy combatants during war (note: I mean actual enemy soldiers and the like, not the Bush-ism "enemy combatants" which is a bastardization of this idea) is not murder.

An assassination is a purposeful, stealthy kill of a singular, important target, typically avoiding detection and minimizing collateral damage (though there have been "assassinations" that took the form of combat helicopters rocketing the target's car on the highway - this is stretching the typical definition, a lot), none of which has anything to say about whether or not the killing is justified. Self-defense is very difficult to argue as an excuse for assassionation, and the death penalty is impossible, but an ongoing war would certainly sanction the killing and thus prevent murder.

Of course, you can disagree with these sanctions (or even any sanctions) on killing, and so your definition of murder may include these things, but unless you equate killing and murder (which certainly no one in D&D does, and I doubt many in the real world do either), there is nothing about assassination that makes it murder by definition. It certainly usually is, but not always.

The other alternative is if you have agreed upon international laws for conflict. If declaring war does not carry with it the implied "we will attempt to assassinate your leaders" because the conventions of the time make assassination illegal in the context of a legal war, then the assassination is still murder. However, I really doubt that any such rule exists in the war between Heaven and Hell.

Thus, assuming that the forces of Good are in an ongoing war with the forces of Evil, a Slayer of Domiel assassinating a fiend would not be murder under these guidelines. Killing an evil politician? Murder, most likely, since it wouldn't be much of an assassination if the Slayer of Domiel was in a position where he could honestly claim self-defense. Unless, of course, the church that the Slayer of Domiel operates for declares open, formal war on the politician (or his country or whatever), in which case it would not be murder.

The Evil, always or not, status of the target has no bearing on this. It is the official declaration of war that shifts the assassination from murder to normal combat operations.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 04:33 PM
That is, pretty much, what I have been saying.

BoED does go out of its way to say its not your job to "Thwart the plans of vaguely sinister politicians", but to deal with great and vile evils.

This applies to Slayers too.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-03, 04:36 PM
1) So I see we are just going to completely ignore the part where Corruption Causes Lawful Good Clerics of Heironeous who commit their lives to killing the most evil beings in all the planes to be damned to hell for the crime of killing evil beings.

Why are we ignoring this? Why does anyone ever think that because a Chaotic Good Cleric can kill evil beings without being punished, so therefore it's perfectly fine that Lawful Good characters who do lawful good things are damned to hell for their lawful good actions in order to discourage future lawful good acts?

2) Why on earth would anyone want Baator to take precedence? Why should chaotic beings get mad at you for being chaotic and send you to hell, but lawful beings apparently don't mind if you act totally chaotically, as long as you have taken more than 18 actions of any kind in your entire life the lawful people will accept you?

What is this weird fascination with "Everyone goes to Baator" in direct contradiction of the actual rules of D&D presented in the Core books?

Why is committing one lawful act and eleven billion chaotic acts too lawful for the people with no rules?

olentu
2009-09-03, 04:38 PM
the problem is that it doesn't make sense.

A Lawful Good person with 9 points of Obesiant acts has done nothing wrong.

A Chaotic Evil person with 9 points of Obesiant acts has done something very wrong- in the eyes of the Chaotic Evil gods- he is acting extremely Lawfully.

Well if one is going to derive things base on fluff then I would say that deriving from the fact that corruption points are based on an agreement between the lawful gods and asmodeus obeisance points would be based on an agreement between the evil gods and asmodeus which does not fit with the pact primeval being an agreement between the lawful gods and asmodeus.

In any case this does not change the lack of definition in the obeisance rules.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 04:41 PM
Where does it say that "Most Lawful good clerics of Heironeous commit corrupt acts?"

I'm not sure why Chaos reacts to Lawful acts committed by their followers in the same way as Good reacts to Evil acts committed by their followers (and remember its only extrapolation)

But I can certainly see Lawful Good afterlives refusing to admit multiple murderers or torturers, who have not atoned.

Part of Lawful Good is being somewhat judgemental.

Concerning my extrapolation as to how obesiance works- its derived from page 31:

Some tricky devils pose as tanar'ri to hoodwink would-be demon worshippers into submitting to the infernal hierarchy.

Mortals drifting to the side of Law accumulate obesiance points, which function like corruption points. Obesiance points can be remobved through formal repentance aided by chaotic clerics.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-03, 04:47 PM
My personal take is that this wording is used to try and distinguish "real evil" from "game evil." That gives them a basis to condemn acts like animating undead that wouldn't be evil by themselves in our world.


I dunno. I suspect that magically turning corpses into shambling undead horrors under my mental control would be considered evil by some.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 04:53 PM
its a common theme in modern fantasy to have zombie-raising be "Not evil by definition, but treated as evil by various prejudiced factions."

olentu
2009-09-03, 04:54 PM
Where does it say that "Most Lawful good clerics of Heironeous commit corrupt acts?"

I'm not sure why Chaos reacts to Lawful acts committed by their followers in the same way as Good reacts to Evil acts committed by their followers (and remember its only extrapolation)

But I can certainly see Lawful Good afterlives refusing to admit multiple murderers or torturers, who have not atoned.

Part of Lawful Good is being somewhat judgemental.

Concerning my extrapolation as to how obesiance works- its derived from page 31:

Some tricky devils pose as tanar'ri to hoodwink would-be demon worshippers into submitting to the infernal hierarchy.

Mortals driviting to the side of Law accumulate obesiance points, which function like corruption points. Obesiance points can be remobved through formal repentance aided by chaotic clerics.

While that stuff on page 31 is fine and I can see how one can derive such an extrapolation I could also come to the conclusion that the devils are actively attempting to convert people to a lawful alignment for the obeisance points to work.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-03, 04:54 PM
Where does it say that "Most Lawful good clerics of Heironeous commit corrupt acts?"

Killing Pit Fiends in the most efficient way possible is a 'Corrupt' act. If we assume that of every few million lawful Good Clerics and Wizards some do in fact dedicate themselves to killing pit fiends, I'm asking why killing Pit Fiends the best way possible is a corrupt act.

As for your Obesiance thing, it's a joke, and a bad one.

Chaotic Gods don't reject anyone. As per the official fluff of the DMG and Planar Handbook, the Abyss and Pandemonium are the dumbing grounds of everyone who does not fit someplace else.

That's the whole point. Chaos is the one that accepts everyone, and Law is the picky one. If an actual devil tempts you, that's one thing, but Chaotic characters by definition commit many acts that are deemed lawful by someone, or everyone. If they didn't they wouldn't be Chaotic.

And the idea that Chaotic characters have to undergo "Formal atonement" to be chaotic again is beyond crazy, since undergoing formal atonement is the best possible evidence that they aren't fit for chaos.

hamishspence
2009-09-03, 05:00 PM
Why do you consider it "the most efficient way possible" and "the best way possible"?

wouldn't most of these people be better occupied thwarting the devils more directly, rather than just summoning up random pit fiends? After all, Asmodeus bleeds pit fiends.

Its not the killing of fiends thats the problem here, but the summoning of them.

Why, I am not sure. Maybe whatever process allows the spell to summon up the evil creatures causes the caster to commit a minor evil, but always evil, act.

Regardless, thats just how the rules work.


If we assume that of every few million lawful Good Clerics and Wizards some do in fact dedicate themselves to killing pit fiends, I'm asking why killing Pit Fiends the best way possible is a corrupt act.


There are not "A few million wizards and clerics of Hieroneus capable of summoning pit fiends"

A Good cleric can't summon them- since they are unable to cast Evil spells.

A Neutral one can- but how many LN clerics of Hieroneous are there?

There are very few 17th level wizards and clerics, of any deity.



If an actual devil tempts you, that's one thing, but Chaotic characters by definition commit many acts that are deemed lawful by someone, or everyone. If they didn't they wouldn't be Chaotic.

Obesiance is strongly lawful- how exactly does:

"Chaotic characters must regularly commit strongly Lawful acts, otherwise they wouldn't be Chaotic"

make sense?

and what exactly is wrong with the idea of formalities for Chaos?


I could also come to the conclusion that the devils are actively attempting to convert people to a lawful alignment for the obeisance points to work.

Well, yes. But they don't need to do this to already Lawful people. The only people for whom "converting to law" leads to a rapid gain of souls, is evil people.

For Lawful people, they convert them to Evil, instead.

olentu
2009-09-03, 05:15 PM
Why do you consider it "the most efficient way possible" and "the best way possible"?

wouldn't most of these people be better occupied thwarting the devils more directly, rather than just summoning up random pit fiends? After all, Asmodeus bleeds pit fiends.

Its not the killing of fiends thats the problem here, but the summoning of them.

Why, I am not sure. Maybe whatever process allows the spell to summon up the evil creatures causes the caster to commit a minor evil, but always evil, act.

Regardless, thats just how the rules work.



There are not "A few million wizards and clerics of Hieroneus capable of summoning pit fiends"

A Good cleric can't summon them- since they are unable to cast Evil spells.

A Neutral one can- but how many LN clerics of Hieroneous are there?

There are very few 17th level wizards and clerics, of any deity.



Obesiance is strongly lawful- how exactly does:

"Chaotic characters must regularly commit strongly Lawful acts, otherwise they wouldn't be Chaotic"

make sense?

and what exactly is wrong with the idea of formalities for Chaos?



Well, yes. But they don't need to do this to already Lawful people. The only people for whom "converting to law" leads to a rapid gain of souls, is evil people.

For Lawful people, they convert them to Evil, instead.

I would agree that trying to convert lawful people to a lawful alignment would seem useless.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-03, 05:29 PM
Obesiance is strongly lawful- how exactly does:

"Chaotic characters must regularly commit strongly Lawful acts, otherwise they wouldn't be Chaotic"

make sense?

and what exactly is wrong with the idea of formalities for Chaos?

1) you need to look up the definition of Chaos.

2) Chaotic characters who don't commit certain kinds of acts because committing those acts is against the rules of chaos are not chaotic characters.

If a Chaotic character feels like enforcing the law because that's what he feels like doing right now, or because it's in his best interest, it's not lawful of him to commit an act which other people see as lawful.

Yukitsu
2009-09-03, 05:38 PM
there is also "writs of outlawry" in DMG2. enabling people to seek out the outlaw and kill them, without legally committing murder.

Assassination, and Murder, usually coincide, but not always. "Assassinating" the enemy general is not legally murder.

Plus, BoVD "Murder is killing for a nefarious purpose" if the Slayer killings are, in some way, not nefarious, they may be exempted.

Deathwatch was not evil in 3.0. I'm not sure why they made it evil in 3.0, especially when the first new classes (Miniatures Handbook) for the edition included the "Must be Good" healer with the spell on its class list.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assassination

Quite simply put, assassinations are always murder, by simple definition. As in, all assassinations are murder by definition of the term "assassination." This is true across most dictionaries, including my copy of Webster. Bringing a convicted outlaw to justice in a writ is distinct from assassination in that a court hearing of some sort is made when a government sanctioned bounty is placed, making it an execution, involving a court proceding without the presence of the defendant. I'd argue this is no less evil in practice than assassination, frankly.

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 05:42 PM
I dunno. I suspect that magically turning corpses into shambling undead horrors under my mental control would be considered evil by some.

"Considered evil by some" and "universally harmful to your alignment regardless of circumstance" are two very different things. As are animating the dead and calling up demons. Which brings me to:


Killing Pit Fiends in the most efficient way possible is a 'Corrupt' act. If we assume that of every few million lawful Good Clerics and Wizards some do in fact dedicate themselves to killing pit fiends, I'm asking why killing Pit Fiends the best way possible is a corrupt act.

You're making a huge assumption that pitting Devils against each other is the "best way" to kill them. Especially since you aren't actually killing them by doing that.


As for your Obesiance thing, it's a joke, and a bad one.

Chaotic Gods don't reject anyone. As per the official fluff of the DMG and Planar Handbook, the Abyss and Pandemonium are the dumbing grounds of everyone who does not fit someplace else.

That's the whole point. Chaos is the one that accepts everyone, and Law is the picky one. If an actual devil tempts you, that's one thing, but Chaotic characters by definition commit many acts that are deemed lawful by someone, or everyone. If they didn't they wouldn't be Chaotic.

And the idea that Chaotic characters have to undergo "Formal atonement" to be chaotic again is beyond crazy, since undergoing formal atonement is the best possible evidence that they aren't fit for chaos.

Your argument is flawed. If Chaos "doesn't reject anyone," then why do barbarians and bards have alignment restrictions? By your logic, there should be no class or other feature that requires you to refrain from law, because the other alignments shouldn't discriminate.

Yukitsu
2009-09-03, 05:47 PM
You are incorrect. Killing any military combatant during wartime is not murder, by the conventions of the human race. Assassination, by definition, means killing, but killing is not always murder.

Military combatants are not the target of assassinations, however. Commissioned officers who relay orders etc. are targets of assassination, as are political non-combatants.


Murder is defined as those killings which were unjustified and committed purposefully and intentionally by the murderer. The death penalty, at least in those areas that recognize it, is not murder. Self-defense is not murder. Killing of enemy combatants during war (note: I mean actual enemy soldiers and the like, not the Bush-ism "enemy combatants" which is a bastardization of this idea) is not murder.

You don't assassinate soldiers, you simply kill them.


An assassination is a purposeful, stealthy kill of a singular, important target, typically avoiding detection and minimizing collateral damage (though there have been "assassinations" that took the form of combat helicopters rocketing the target's car on the highway - this is stretching the typical definition, a lot), none of which has anything to say about whether or not the killing is justified. Self-defense is very difficult to argue as an excuse for assassionation, and the death penalty is impossible, but an ongoing war would certainly sanction the killing and thus prevent murder.

Yeah, not pointed at soldiers.


Of course, you can disagree with these sanctions (or even any sanctions) on killing, and so your definition of murder may include these things, but unless you equate killing and murder (which certainly no one in D&D does, and I doubt many in the real world do either), there is nothing about assassination that makes it murder by definition. It certainly usually is, but not always.

The legal and dictionary definitions of assassination disagree. All assassinations are murders. Anything sanctioned specifically by a legitimate, recognized authority is considered an execution.


The other alternative is if you have agreed upon international laws for conflict. If declaring war does not carry with it the implied "we will attempt to assassinate your leaders" because the conventions of the time make assassination illegal in the context of a legal war, then the assassination is still murder. However, I really doubt that any such rule exists in the war between Heaven and Hell.

Slayers of Domiel are not limited to assassinating evil outsiders.


Thus, assuming that the forces of Good are in an ongoing war with the forces of Evil, a Slayer of Domiel assassinating a fiend would not be murder under these guidelines. Killing an evil politician? Murder, most likely, since it wouldn't be much of an assassination if the Slayer of Domiel was in a position where he could honestly claim self-defense. Unless, of course, the church that the Slayer of Domiel operates for declares open, formal war on the politician (or his country or whatever), in which case it would not be murder.

Most politicians are non-combatants, meaning that even during a war, it is murder by definition. Fiends are distinct because most are also combatants.


The Evil, always or not, status of the target has no bearing on this. It is the official declaration of war that shifts the assassination from murder to normal combat operations.

Yes, however you don't assassinate individuals that are combatants. Assassinations are generally of non-combatants, for the reasons outlined above. Perhaps there is no distinction in the war with heaven and hell, but given that they may assassinate individuals who are not fiends, this theory does not at all hold.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-03, 05:53 PM
You're making a huge assumption that pitting Devils against each other is the "best way" to kill them. Especially since you aren't actually killing them by doing that.

1) We are talking about Calling effects.
2) Preparing yourself, then Calling them in such a way that they cannot escape or attack first is a darn good way to kill things. Even better if Gate, since you can totally just Gate them in and give them the temporary order to not take any actions for the next CL rounds, then kill them.


Your argument is flawed. If Chaos "doesn't reject anyone," then why do barbarians and bards have alignment restrictions? By your logic, there should be no class or other feature that requires you to refrain from law, because the other alignments shouldn't discriminate.

Barbarians and Bards are not lawful because lawful people cannot be Barbarians and Bards, not because Barbarians cannot act lawfully. Every Barbarian who hands his sword to a legitimate authority instead of killing everything in sight to avoid wasting time on an investigation is not committing a lawful act which damns him to Baator.

Once again, the Abyss doesn't accept all evil people because it accepts everyone, it accepts all evil people who don't have anywhere else to go because the lawful people who wouldn't fit there already went somewhere else.

If you were supremely lawful and wanted to go to the abyss, say because for some Reason Vecna was having a party there and you worshiped him, you totally could, and the Abyss would not reject you for being lawful, but most people have somewhere else to go, like for example, Baator, if they are lawful.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-03, 06:56 PM
Most politicians are non-combatants, meaning that even during a war, it is murder by definition. Fiends are distinct because most are also combatants.

The President isn't. He is defined as a the Commander in cheif.
That makes him not an non-combatant. He is soldier even if unfit like certain current Presidents to be a soldier.


Yes, however you don't assassinate individuals that are combatants. Assassinations are generally of non-combatants, for the reasons outlined above. Perhaps there is no distinction in the war with heaven and hell, but given that they may assassinate individuals who are not fiends, this theory does not at all hold.

Just because some people don't assasinate combatants doesn't make all asssinasins against non-combatants.

Yukitsu
2009-09-03, 06:58 PM
And despite that, it is still legally defined as murder. Funny that.

Optimystik
2009-09-03, 07:48 PM
1) We are talking about Calling effects.
2) Preparing yourself, then Calling them in such a way that they cannot escape or attack first is a darn good way to kill things. Even better if Gate, since you can totally just Gate them in and give them the temporary order to not take any actions for the next CL rounds, then kill them.

Incorrect. It doesn't matter if they are summoned or called. They can only be killed fully if they die in Baator. (FC2, pg. 16 "Combat Tactics.") So your strategy doesn't do much besides wink them out for a time. It might even give them XP.


Barbarians and Bards are not lawful because lawful people cannot be Barbarians and Bards, not because Barbarians cannot act lawfully. Every Barbarian who hands his sword to a legitimate authority instead of killing everything in sight to avoid wasting time on an investigation is not committing a lawful act which damns him to Baator.

I'll clarify my statement. Of course Barbarians can be Lawful, just like Paladins and Monks can be Chaotic. What they cannot do is advance. But by your logic, only Law-restricted classes should care that much about what activities their members undertake; in other words, there should be no Lawless-restricted classes. But there clearly are.


Once again, the Abyss doesn't accept all evil people because it accepts everyone, it accepts all evil people who don't have anywhere else to go because the lawful people who wouldn't fit there already went somewhere else.

You're forgetting that there is a neutral alignment. Gray Wastes takes the NE souls, not the Abyss. The Abyss only wants CE.


If you were supremely lawful and wanted to go to the abyss, say because for some Reason Vecna was having a party there and you worshiped him, you totally could, and the Abyss would not reject you for being lawful, but most people have somewhere else to go, like for example, Baator, if they are lawful.

Going to your deity's plane is Faerun, not Greyhawk. In Greyhawk, you go to the plane of your alignment regardless of who you worshipped. Only the Corruption/Obeisance system can overwrite that. In Core, if I die LE I go to Baator whether I worshipped Vecna, Hextor or even Orcus.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-03, 08:39 PM
Incorrect. It doesn't matter if they are summoned or called. They can only be killed fully if they die in Baator. (FC2, pg. 16 "Combat Tactics.") So your strategy doesn't do much besides wink them out for a time. It might even give them XP.


Then it contradicts Core rules. Called creatures die for real.