Spell Components and RP

[Green Monster]

I mean if you're doing overtly evil stuff and other characters take note of it and react negatively, your RP isn't being ruined, it's being rewarded.

If you'd bothered to read my last post you'd know that the character who was accused of doing evil was not. At all. And the character of mine who has done it in the past was never called out on it.

[whatsittoya]

I mean if you're doing overtly evil stuff and other characters take note of it and react negatively, your RP isn't being ruined, it's being rewarded.

If you'd bothered to read my last post you'd know that the character who was accused of doing evil was not. At all. And the character of mine who has done it in the past was never called out on it.

I didn't miss that. I wasn't writing to you.

[Steve]

Btw, for the record, the character of mine who was ACCUSED of using Abyssal Might was my Invisible Blade and she was not using Abyssal Mi...so I really doubt this character was LG.

This, the above encounter, and how it is being talked about and how it was/was not resolved IN-CHARACTER and IN-GAME, is a matter for the DMs to take up and resolve, if there ever was one.

Keep in-character actions in-character.

... that the spell contacts the Abyss. So what? Making deals with devils, fiends, and angels alike is pretty cannon for wizards. You can harp on about the "evil descriptor" all you want but ANYTHING that contacts the abyss is going to be evil and isn't the same as killing a dwarven child.

Dealing with Demons is equally as bad as using a Dwarf Heart to cast a spell. Evil is Evil, and though there may be Evil by Degree, any mechanical parameters we might know OOC does not translate into direct IC use, or discussion, or lawyering.

On a personal note, I really think you should have contacted the Player of this "accuser character" and worked this IG issue out OOC.

[zhazz]

Suggestion, Part 4:
New Wizard-Only Feat, Arcane Conversion

...
...

There is no need for Wizards to have this. Wizards get many more options to put into their prepared spells, and can add more spells at will to their spellbook. If they want 2 Fireball spells, they need to prepare 2 Fireball spells out of the X total 3rd level spells they can prepare. Sorcerers have a much more limited arsenal, but do not need to prepare spells in advance. They get Y 3rd level spell slots per rest, which they can use to cast as many Fireball spells if they want to.

Sorcerers have more flexibility in how often they can cast each of their available spells, while Wizards have more flexibility in what spells they have available.




As for the whole Evil descriptor thing . . .

Casting any spell with an Evil descriptor, when in the company of people who actually care about morality, will get a hostile reaction no matter what, if they recognize the spell. Casting a spell without an Evil descriptor, in a given situation where the outcome is immoral, is also likely to get a hostile reaction from the characters who care about such.

E.g. casting Animate Dead on the farmer's dead wife so he can hug her again, even if he somehow knowingly agreed to that happening, is immoral regardless of the intent, as the spell itself has the Evil descriptor.

E.g casting a Fireball into the farmer's house to deal with his rodent infestation, is by most considered an immoral action regardless of the spell lacking the Evil descriptor.

Most of the time immorality stems from how a tool is used. But in some cases the tool itself is immoral. Barbed wire in our world is not an evil thing, but it can certainly be used that way. Mines, however, have been deemed immoral because they often linger beyond the battle and harm innocents, and so using them is a war crime.


The player in question, who called out your character/you for using an evil spell, when you might not have known about it, could have gone about the while thing in a better and more constructive way.




On whether or not the Evil descriptor is a rehash of the Team Evil thread . . .
It really isn't. It's a clear case of using an evil tool in a place where that tool is outlawed. It'd be no different from a Bhaalite preaching murder in the city of Baldur's Gate; or a follower of Ilmater preaching compassion in Menzoberranzan. Either is going to get a strong reaction.

[Ghost]

If you have a problem with another player, take it in PMs to the DM team. Public forums are not for this kind of public trash talking. This thread now is devolving into OOC drama and if this continues it will be locked.

I suggest people step back, take a breath, accept the lore presented and move on.

[Green Monster]

If you have a problem with another player, take it in PMs to the DM team. Public forums are not for this kind of public trash talking. This thread now is devolving into OOC drama and if this continues it will be locked.

I suggest people step back, take a breath, accept the lore presented and move on.

I have not named the character or player involved in the incident that inspired me to ask for better in game documentation of components, nor shall I. I only gave details here about the incident, sans the accusers name, because people were discussing it and seem to have an idea that any character willing to do any evil should be equally willing to commit all evil; a position that I find ludicrous in the extreme.

[Green Monster]

So, I have a particular neurological disorder that inspire me to give ALL THE CONTEXT every time I say anything, and then people think the context is the point. It isn't. So lets start over and remove the context, shall we?

My POINT is

1: Spell descriptions should have in-game details of components.

2: Saying the evil descriptor is all the guide we need implies that all evil is the same evil, and unless we start giving thieves and murderers the same prison sentences I think that's silly.

3: Until the in game descriptions are updated people should keep their PnP spell component info out of this MMORPG.


The stuff about new wizard feat and spell foci etc are tangents that came into my head while typing and lets just ignore them for now.

[zhazz]

1: Spell descriptions should have in-game details of components.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this one. It's even been noted by the developers that it is something they will be working on, if they aren't already.

3: Until the in game descriptions are updated people should keep their PnP spell component info out of this MMORPG.

As long as it doesn't prevent people from role-playing the components of their own spells. Saying it should be kept out out of the game entirely is just as bad as enforcing it to always be in the game.

That being said, there aren't that many spells that have the Good/Evil descriptor. Wherefore I'd be more in favor of anyone wanting to cast a Good/Evil spell in a place where it is frowned upon, should look up why it is Good/Evil. That is no different than someone wishing to play a Cleric/Paladin/Favored Soul of some deity, and needing to do at least a little home-work on that deity.

2: Saying the evil descriptor is all the guide we need implies that all evil is the same evil, and unless we start giving thieves and murderers the same prison sentences I think that's silly.

This one I do not agree with at all. While I do agree with the argument being made: that not all Good/Evil is equal, there is still no situation where a spell with a Good/Evil descriptor would ever be considered anything but Good/Evil. Spells have such descriptors because it's a cosmological constant for them to be Good/Evil.

Some deities, fey, other-worldly entities, and even people simply do not care one way or another about the cosmological nature of Good/Evil spells — to them they are simply tools to be used — while others care a great deal about such. Navigating when and where to cast a Good/Evil spell is something the caster of the spell must do, and make their decision based on the environment they are in.


The Good/Evil descriptor therefore is everything that is needed. What an appropriate response would be, however, is based on the character observing the casting. A paladin casting Holy Sword in Baldur's Gate will likely only get approving nods of awe, while casting it in Menzoberranzan will likely have every drow pile upon the heathen. The reverse is true for a wizard casting Animate Dead on a dead beggar to get a tireless servant to carry the wizard's shopping basket.

[Green Monster]

That being said, there aren't that many spells that have the Good/Evil descriptor. Wherefore I'd be more in favor of anyone wanting to cast a Good/Evil spell in a place where it is frowned upon, should look up why it is Good/Evil. That is no different than someone wishing to play a Cleric/Paladin/Favored Soul of some deity, and needing to do at least a little home-work on that deity.

. While I do agree with the argument being made: that not all Good/Evil is equal, there is still no situation where a spell with a Good/Evil descriptor would ever be considered anything but Good/Evil. Spells have such descriptors because it's a cosmological constant for them to be Good/Evil.

Some deities, fey, other-worldly entities, and even people simply do not care one way or another about the cosmological nature of Good/Evil spells — to them they are simply tools to be used — while others care a great deal about such. Navigating when and where to cast a Good/Evil spell is something the caster of the spell must do, and make their decision based on the environment they are in.


The Good/Evil descriptor therefore is everything that is needed. What an appropriate response would be, however, is based on the character observing the casting. A paladin casting Holy Sword in Baldur's Gate will likely only get approving nods of awe, while casting it in Menzoberranzan will likely have every drow pile upon the heathen. The reverse is true for a wizard casting Animate Dead on a dead beggar to get a tireless servant to carry the wizard's shopping basket.

*big, heavy sigh*
See, this is why I always give too much context, cause there's always someone who will make up hypothetical context to prove their own point and you've chosen extreme examples of good and evil.

What actually happened was a NEUTRAL character was (wrongly) accused of doing an EXTREMELY evil thing by a character who was also probably NEUTRAL (judging from the fact that the accuser was hanging out in Soubar with two known evil characters). So, THIS is why it's important that we know EXACTLY HOW EVIL a spell is before we cast it. Because some non-good characters still have lines they won't cross, and rightly so. Therefore... wait for it...... the good/evil descriptors in the spell descriptions are not enough info.


But thank you for siding with me on 1 and 3. And no, I don't object at ALL if someone with deep knowledge of PnP uses that knowledge to RP the actual spell components they're using themselves, I think that's delightful. I just don't agree with pouncing on someone else's RP with that info when that pounced upon person just wants to relax and play a game without having to do homework first. Or at least without sending a tell and letting the other person know what the components are and asking if they want to retcon the spell or go cast the spell privately.

[Grendunor]

[Rhifox]

Spells do not mention their RP components because Bioware/Obsidian went very barebones on their spells and including spell components was not considered a fun mechanic for spellcasting. The game was a game first, and built that way. Bioware/Obsidian largely didn't care about including lore in their game in general. This is the same reason so many classes have extremely basic descriptions, why deity entries are just a couple of lines instead of actually telling you anything about the deity, and so on.

But we are an RP server. We care about the lore. And we are slowly adding pnp lore resources to the game as we move forward. As seen with many of the fluff background feats that have been added, the new descriptions for domains, and so on. Some of the deities and classes have received longer descriptions, too. And yes, this includes spells. While we have not done a full pass on every single spell description, we update spell descriptions (and class descriptions, and deity descriptions, and so on) as we get to them to include their proper lore and material components. Moving the server more towards RP, adding more external lore resources IG, is a longterm process that we are slowly working towards. But we are working towards it.

Material components are a core part of the spellcaster fantasy. All spells on BG are considered to have their proper pnp components. All classes are considered to have their proper RP requirements. Even spells that aren't available IG are sometimes available in DM events as long as you get permission from the DM. While, yes, it would be nice to have all of these things IG, and we are working towards that, it is a long term project that won't be realized right away. That doesn't mean the lore isn't still valid, only that it requires checking third party sources in the meanwhile, such as d20srd.org and dndtools.net. Eventually, ideally, we will have all of this available IG.

[Green Monster]

All spells on BG are considered to have their proper pnp components. All classes are considered to have their proper RP requirements. Even spells that aren't available IG are sometimes available in DM events as long as you get permission from the DM. While, yes, it would be nice to have all of these things IG, and we are working towards that, it is a long term project that won't be realized right away. That doesn't mean the lore isn't still valid, only that it requires checking third party sources in the meanwhile, such as d20srd.org and dndtools.net. Eventually, ideally, we will have all of this available IG.

I REALLY hope that spell components, among other things, will be evaluated in light of the changed circumstances. I really, really hope that it is not the team's intention to blindly apply rules that were written for 4 to 6 players when the internet was in its infancy onto an MMORPG with 30+ players at any given time, not without case-by-case thoughtful evaluation. As I mentioned, if every time Abyssal Might was cast a dwarven child had to die, there'd be a serious shortage of dwarves considering how many times I've seen it cast and Kraak Helzaak would be killing mages on sight.

I can understand a reverence for PnP rules similar to that of holy writ. After all, both were written by bearded middle aged dudes who needed to get out more; but I don't believe there's any infallible, timeless wisdom in PnP rules. The circumstances in which we're playing are vastly different from the circumstances for which those rules were designed and it's incumbent (I believe) upon the team to use the PnP rules as guidelines to be adjusted to the current environment. One dead dwarf baby per cast is one thing in a tabletop group that contains exactly 1 mage. It's an entirely different thing on a server with a dozen or more mages. And that's just one example. So, I very sincerely hope that third party sources of PnP rules will not necessarily reflect the final in-game details, merely be similar to. For example, going back to AM, perhaps it requires the heart of any sentient race child? Or perhaps the dwarf child's heart is not consumed in the spell but can be re-used? Or re-used a certain number of times? I really do like when the in-game rules actually make sense, it helps with immersion, and there having been a couple dozen dwarf baby deaths from my wizard alone doesn't make any sense at all given the lack of impact upon the dwarf population.

[DaloLorn]

One dead dwarf baby per cast is one thing in a tabletop group that contains exactly 1 mage. It's an entirely different thing on a server with a dozen or more mages.

Are you saying that your PnP settings have no evil NPC mages who might cast that spell? Neither minor background casters nor big bads? As a matter of worldbuilding, I somewhat understand your skepticism... but the same problem occurs whether it's PnP or BG. There's a lot more than one mage using the spell.

[Almarea90]

Hi everyone,

It's your friendly neighborhood moderator. Although the OP feedback is greatly appreciated and valid and it and the community is free to agree or not with it, I cannot stress enough the importance of remaining on topic, lest the topic turns in a ten pages long grievance.

Please stick to the original topic about material components and spell descriptions and avoid:

- Spiraling out on the situation of evil on the server. There is another topic for that where the views of the community have been made manifest;
- Airing grievances against other individuals. Even though no names are given, often giving out certain details alone is enough to identify the subject, or worse, giving way for rumors about people that might even be unrelated to the event. Any grievance against other players is to be brought to the DM team privately;
- As usual, if you believe someone's post is an attack or dislike the attitude do not respond in kind but rather report the post if you believe rules have been broken.

Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation.

[Green Monster]

One dead dwarf baby per cast is one thing in a tabletop group that contains exactly 1 mage. It's an entirely different thing on a server with a dozen or more mages.

Are you saying that your PnP settings have no evil NPC mages who might cast that spell? Neither minor background casters nor big bads? As a matter of worldbuilding, I somewhat understand your skepticism... but the same problem occurs whether it's PnP or BG. There's a lot more than one mage using the spell.

True, which only serves to prove my point that PnP rules are not the infallible, holy writ that some people seem to feel that they are. I think the team members here are smarter than some of the original authors of PnP rules and can do better than they did. For that reason, I'm afraid I have to disagree with using outside PnP sources for information. I think the team here can develop better rules while still using the original rules as guidelines.