A Rebuttal to The "Hack" of Using Spells to Control Your Alignment

So, as we all know, Pathfinder now has rules in Horror Adventures that state expressly that casting spells with an alignment component can change your alignment. I covered this weeks ago in my Crunch post Horror Adventures Settles The Argument About Evil Spells and Alignments. However, as I've said before, absolutely no mechanic in gaming causes more vehement (and occasionally incoherent) arguments than alignment does. This was no exception. And the most common argument I heard for why this was a poor decision was that it meant spellcasters could now regulate their own alignment through the spells they used. Eaten too many babies? Don't worry, I'll just cast this good-aligned spell a few times, and there we go, back to neutral. Uh-oh, I used soul harvest as a way to get past a bad guy... guess I'll just use angel cuddle until I've been redeemed.

That's not how this works... that's not how any of this works...

Now, mechanically, that scenario (ridiculous as it is) is possible. However, by suggesting that's what players are going to do in order to somehow "game" their alignment ignores a lot of other facets.

Why This "Hack" is Pointless

In order for this sort of alignment maintenance to happen via spellcasting, it requires a spellcaster of a certain alignment to learn spells of an opposing alignment. If you're a good-aligned spellcaster, why would you learn animate dead, for example? And if you're an evil-aligned spellcaster, why would you learn celestial healing, particularly when infernal healing is an option? Perhaps a neutral spellcaster would know them both, and use them when appropriate, but why ensure that you cast an even number of good and evil spells? Because that's not, exactly, what "being neutral" means.

Seriously, this isn't a rhetorical question.

While it is possible for you to "atone" for your one evil spell with good spells, it's on the player to explain A) why the character would have spells from both ends of the spectrum, and B) why that character would feel the need to play one step forward, and one step back? Alignment is a meta concept, after all, which means that the characters are often unaware of where they sit on the spectrum without some form of highly-specific spell to tell them where they are.

More importantly, though, a player should ask why the character would even feel the need to bounce back and forth. Aside from the player's own, personal desire to fit squarely into a good or evil bracket that, as far as their characters know, doesn't even exist.

If a character is not a member of a class for whom alignment is important (such as a wizard, a magus, or even a bard), then there's no purpose to using spells to "cheat" the alignment rule that would make you good or evil for dipping your fingers into pools of liquid malevolence or beneficence. If a character is a member of a class for whom alignment is important (clerics, warpriests, inquisitors, etc.), then the question should be why would this person blatantly reach outside the alignment they're supposed to be maintaining to use tools that are outside their toolbox? This is particularly true for divine casters. Because while it's true that a good-aligned cleric could pray for spells with the evil descriptor, why would a good-aligned god grant those spells to them in the first place?

Roleplay Your Changing Alignment

The big question that playing footsie with your alignment by casting spells should ask, though, is what are the roleplay and story implications for that kind of flirtation? Does the wizard, who thought all magic was just a tool, develop a taste for true darkness? Does he begin relying on evil spells, even when he doesn't need them, just for the sickening rush of power? Will his reputation, and legacy, be twisted as he refuses to let go of his corruption?

Why did I change my seal? No reason, really.

The same is true from the other direction. What happens when the evil necromancer learns good-aligned spells in order to trick his opponents, but ends up seeing the light when he uses them too many times? Does he try to go back to his old ways, but the things he's done, and the person he was, are so revolting to him now that he can never understand how he once performed such awful acts without thought or care?

Lastly, it's important to note that a changed alignment doesn't wipe your slate clean as a character. For example, an evil character who, for some reason, becomes good-aligned through use of a good-aligned spell doesn't get to shirk responsibility for all the evil acts they may have committed. Their deeds were still done, and the enemies they made are still their enemies. There's also the question of what's going to happen when their masters find they've wandered off the proper alignment path. How hard will the character fight to maintain its new outlook on life when it knows that cult leaders, demon lords, and others have invested a great deal in them remaining evil?

Your alignment is an important aspect of your character, but it is not a get-out-of-jail free card. You can be good-aligned and still be wanted for crimes. You can be evil-aligned, and still find a way to never stray into illegitimate areas of the law. Finally, yes, you can alter your alignment by using good or evil spells... but the real question you should be asking yourself is what purpose does that kind of metagaming serve?

That's all for this week's Moon Pope Monday entry. Hopefully it helps some folks who've been grappling with this issue, and it stops some arguments at your tables. If you'd like to help support Improved Initiative, then drop by The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page to make a small donation. Donate at least $1 a month, and there's some swag in it for you! Lastly, if you haven't followed me on Facebook, Tumblr, or Twitter yet, well, why not start today?

Horror Adventures Settles The Argument About Evil Spells and Alignment

Anyone who's played Pathfinder (or any of its close relatives) knows that alignment causes more arguments than almost anything else in the entire game. A big part of why this happens is that no one agrees entirely on what's right, and what's wrong, and that leads to some serious head-butting. Especially because, as I pointed out in Absolute Good, Absolute Evil, and Alignment in RPGs, your character's opinions about whether an act is good or evil doesn't actually change whether that action is good or evil. Alignment is a meta-concept, and just like how characters are unaware that the watch commander has five levels of rogue, they're equally unaware that what they consider a correct, right, or socially acceptable action might, in fact, be evil. Because we, the people outside the game, are the ones who deem what is and isn't good and evil.

And, as is mentioned in the rules themselves, final arbitration of what constitutes a good or evil act, and something significant enough to alter your alignment, rests with the DM.

Of course you can do that. What was your alignment restriction, again?

Casting Evil Spells Is, In Fact, an Evil Action

One of the more divisive arguments surrounding alignment has been the use of spells that come from the other side of the axis. For example, how many times can a good character create undead minions before the inherent evil of the spell sinks into his soul? In the past, we had no answer to this question, so people instead focused on arguing that it's the intention of the spell rather than the spell itself that should be judged. Players argued repeatedly that raising the dead in this manner was only evil if you used them for evil ends; if you had your zombies and skeletons protect the innocent, or fight off greater evil, then you should get to maintain your good alignment.

Unfortunately, page 110 of Horror Adventures disagrees with those who hold this position.

No, Steve, I don't care if they're building an orphanage. You're violating their bodily autonomy.

The sidebar on this page makes it abundantly clear that the alignment descriptor of a spell isn't just flavor; it has actual effects on those who regularly use them. So, if you're a good-aligned character, but you just can't resist those evil spells, you won't be good-aligned much longer. In-character you may feel that what you did was justified, and that wielding fell powers is perfectly all right in the service of a greater good, but mechanically you are going to lose your good alignment.

How fast? Well, if you are casting these spells in relatively quick succession, then two is all it should take to move you from good to neutral. Three or more spells is all it takes to move you from non-good to outright evil. Generally speaking, the more time you wait between these spells (time that can be used in meditation, or just re-aligning your own internal beliefs and motivations), the more those numbers reset to zero. If a spell requires the sacrifice of a sentient being, though, that is an evil act, and typically shifts the caster's alignment straight to evil.

Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 gp.

Evil, is Evil, is Evil

A thing that should be stressed when it comes to the rules is that when an act is described as inherently evil, there is no wiggle room. The existence of angels and devils means that good and evil are not just opinions in this game; they are facts. Regardless of what you as a player think, or what your character thinks, there are forces in the universe that have decided what is, and what is not, an evil act. Those who commit those evil acts, regardless of the reasons they had for doing it, are still stained by the inherent evil of those acts.

And it goes the other way, too. Inherent goodness infects evildoers, guiding them out of the shadows and into the light. Good, is good, is good, in those circumstances.

And chaos is... chaos?

The key word in these statements is the word inherently. Evil magic is, by definition, evil. It does not matter why you put your hand in it, you are still tainted by it. There are very few actions that are listed as inherently good, evil, lawful, or chaotic. Most things that a character does will be open to interpretation and discussion with the DM. However, if the book expressly lists a given action as evil, then committing it is still an evil act.

You cannot maintain your lawful good alignment if you sacrificed an infant on an altar of the Old Ones. No matter how many lives you saved by doing it.

This week's Crunch post was a little short, but I have a feeling it will generate a lot of discussion among my readers, and their gaming groups. If you'd like to help support Improved Initiative, and keep content like this coming your way, then you should stop by The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page. For as little as $1 a month you can help me keep doing what I'm doing, and earn yourself some sweet swag in the process! Lastly, if you haven't followed me on Facebook, Tumblr, or Twitter yet, why not start today?

Absolute Good, Absolute Evil, and Alignment in RPGs

There is nothing more guaranteed to start a fight among tabletop gamers than talking about alignment. From paladins to necromancers, rogues to assassins, it seems that everyone has an opinion about the nine alignments used in Pathfinder, and in several editions of Dungeons and Dragons. However, while we can endlessly debate over whether or not raising the dead is inherently evil, or when killing someone is and isn't required, there is a bigger issue behind alignment that we rarely talk about.

Absolute good and absolute evil aren't just theoretical constructs in these games. They are genuine, universal forces.

Absolute is a good word. I'll add that to the contract.

Beyond Simple Morality

Morality, as we all know, is not universal. Morality is a construct that's made up of your past experiences, the values you were taught, the opinions you've formed, the religion you follow, the culture you're inundated by, and a thousand other facets. Two people, even people with similar backgrounds, who are faced with the same situation can have vastly different opinions on what the right thing to do is.

And that's in the real world, where we don't have the capacity to re-shape reality with a thought, and devils don't offer you power in exchange for obedience. In a world with magic and monsters, where the gods and their servants walk the earth and take a visible hand in world events, things can get a lot more complicated quite quickly.

Except for dogs. Dogs have no alignment, and usually no morality.

This is where the ideas of absolute good and absolute evil come into the picture. It is important to remember in any discussion about alignment in games like Dungeons and Dragons, or Pathfinder, that the world isn't one big ball of gray areas like we have in reality. Good and evil are real forces in this world, and there are both beings and places that are wholly made up of those forces. This is a world where angels and demons aren't myths or ideas, but real beings that will likely show up in your adventure at some point.

The implication of that is that there are universal truths when it comes to good and evil. These truths aren't flexible, or subject to personal opinion or cultural translation. In order for there to be absolutes, there must be a scale of good to evil that everyone falls on, and which is determined based on rules applied unilaterally. It also means that in every situation you face there are good answers, and evil answers, and that they could be graded like a fill-in-the-blank test.

As a system for fairness, it leaves a lot to be desired. It's what these games use, though, so we need to make sure we get a handle on it.

Determine What is Good, and What is Evil, in Your World

If you are playing a game that uses the nine alignments, something you should do is sit down with your group, and answer any and all questions they have regarding the nature of absolute good and absolute evil in your world.

For example, which acts are inherently good, or inherently evil? Is murder for hire, a requirement for the assassin prestige class, an inherently evil act? Alternatively, is defending the innocent or weak inherently good, regardless of your motivations behind doing it? Are you concerned only with the actions taken by the characters, or also with the reasons those actions are committed, and the situations in which they were committed?

Do we have rules for that? Tell me there's rules for that!

Most of the time alignment is something that sits in the background, not bothering anyone. But given that there are spells, magic items, and other things that have different effects based on your character's alignment, it's important to think about these things. Not just for clerics and paladins, but for all the characters in the game, PCs and NPCs alike. Because if there is such a thing as pure good and pure evil, then it means there is a scale you can judge someone on, regardless of who they are and where they come from.

However, that doesn't make alignment simpler than morality. It just means that you're trading in the complicated web of morality as a societal and personal construct, for the complex network of how good and evil applies to a game world with varying cultures and a vast, rich history. And you still have to figure out what a culture's values and morals are as a secondary layer over the concept of alignment.

Big weights for your brain to lift.

Alignments Aren't Ironclad... Remember That

Most of this post was meant to address the idea that, if there are such things as absolute good and absolute evil, then there is a scale that exists outside of cultural influence, or personal opinion of right and wrong. That scale is kept purposefully vague, but in order for it to work we all have to agree about the big issues regarding what acts are, or aren't, inherently good or evil throughout the scope of our games.

However, it's equally important to mention that PCs aren't robots with rigidly-defined programming. They're real people (or at least they should feel like real people), which means that alignment is nothing more than a general rating of their personality. You still have to look at who they are, what their life experiences have been, what they value, what they've been taught, and what their own personal morality is.

In short, you have to define your character specifically, so that you know which of the big, general boxes they fit in.

I see you found the neutral evil box. Welcome.

Too often we hold to the idea of a rigid alignment that a PC has to stay within at all times. A single step outside that parameter, and we insist they're no longer playing the proper alignment. However, it's important to remember that alignment is a meta concept, and that it's fluid. It isn't meant to represent every action a character ever takes; it's simply a dipstick you can use to get a general feeling of who they are, and how they're likely to act.

Honor, and keeping your word, are concepts that fall on the lawful side of the coin. However, that doesn't stop a character with barbarian levels from keeping his word, along with his chaotic alignment. Especially if he banks on his promises as a form of social currency. Being flexible and adaptable to changing situations are generally associated with chaotic alignments, but that doesn't preclude a lawful character from being able to rapidly shift gears to meet a changing situation. Oppressing the free will of others is an evil characteristic, but that doesn't preclude an evil baron from being genuinely concerned for the welfare of his vassals within the scope of his own laws and proclamations. People are complicated, and there's no way to say for certain what someone will or won't do. Which is why it's important to think about their morality and personal motivations first, and to ask how those fit into the alignment scheme second.

Alignment can change and shift, often dramatically. But it's not something that typically happens all at once; you need to re-orient your motivations, beliefs, and actions so that you've leaped into another box.

As always, thanks for stopping in to check out this week's Moon Pope Monday update, even if it is Tuesday. Also, if you'd like to help support Improved Initiative, all you have to do is stop by The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page to become a patron today! As little as $1 a month can keep the content flowing, and I now have official swag I'm giving away to new members. Lastly, if you haven't done so yet, why not follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter?