|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 17, 2012 21:36:27 GMT -6
The most recent comments in the cleric scrolls thread reminded me about an issue I briefly talked about on my blog, but which might be a good topic for more detailed discussion here. What is the reversed, anti-cleric version of Protection from Evil?
First, of course, we note that the Law/Chaos alignment system in OD&D is loosely interpreted as Good/Evil, but it's not a hard equivalence. The Detect Evil spell makes this clear: the evil it detects is evil thought or intent, not an evil "taint". A cruel warlord who kills on a whim would not show up as "evil" if he is currently thinking about a good meal and a relaxing evening. So, if "evil" is an intent to harm another, my contention is that there can be no Detect Good spell, since that would be "detect good thought or intent". A desire to help others? Why would this spell even be considered?
(AD&D of course changes this interpretation, as does Holmes, since there is a Good/Evil axis to deal with. But I'm focusing on the pre- Good/Evil alignment system.)
Second: The Magic-User version of Protection from Evil isn't reversible. It seems to mainly be intended as protection from enchanted monsters or mundane enemies (lowercase "evil".) Chaotic M-Us have to use Protection from Evil. Likewise, there is no reversed version of Detect Evil; Chaotic M-Us can't cast Detect Good, whatever that might be.
My suggestion is that the reverse of Detect Evil is Conceal Evil ("hide evil thought or intent from a Detect Evil spell".) But what would the reverse of Protection from Evil be, then? Vulnerability to Evil, a spell that strips magic protection? Or should there be no reversed form of the spell? Or is the best response to suck it up and switch to a Holmes/AD&D interpretation of alignment?
|
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 17, 2012 22:02:35 GMT -6
But what would the reverse of Protection from Evil be, then? Vulnerability to Evil, a spell that strips magic protection? Or should there be no reversed form of the spell? My inclination would be to say there is no reversed version, as protection from evil is seems to be a classic "warding circle" as used by diabolists ("this spell hedges the conjuror round with a magic circle"). Perhaps, if one really wanted a reversal, something like a "counter" to the warding circle would work. Maybe call it "transgression" and have it be used to destroy magical wards. Not exactly the same thing as vulnerability, more like anti-protection, if that makes sense (as it would have no effect if there was no magic circle or equivalent). |
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 17, 2012 22:04:38 GMT -6
My suggestion is that the reverse of Detect Evil is Conceal Evil ("hide evil thought or intent from a Detect Evil spell".) By the way, I like that. I saw when you mentioned it on your blog too, but didn't get around to commenting yet. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 17, 2012 22:17:17 GMT -6
The term "evil" is certainly an interesting one in the context of lawful/chaotic alignment system  We've discussed it previously, and I think we (or at least "I") decided it can be interpreted as meaning either "malice" and/or "supernatural" in the various contexts throughout the 3LBBs. The Detect Evil spell could therefore be read as "Detect Malice". Delving Deeper (when it ultimately appears) has the reversed form as (effectively) "Conceal Malice" -- this being useful for concealing chaotically aligned magic swords from detection, assassins, doppelgangers, and so on. This is pretty much what Talysman suggested above, too. The Protection from Evil spell could be read as meaning "Protection from Malicious Supernaturals", which would generally include most magic-using, conjured or enchanted chaotic types -- including chaotic clerics and magic-users, and (possibly) magic item effects triggered by other chaotics. The reverse form could therefore be read as "Protection from Benevolent Supernaturals", which would generally include most magic-using, conjured or enchanted lawful types -- including lawful clerics and magic-users, and (possibly) magic item effects triggered by other lawfuls. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 17, 2012 23:17:07 GMT -6
The term "evil" is certainly an interesting one in the context of lawful/chaotic alignment system We've discussed it previously, and I think we (or at least "I") decided it can be interpreted as meaning either "malice" and/or "supernatural" in the various contexts throughout the 3LBBs. The Detect Evil spell could therefore be read as "Detect Malice". Delving Deeper (when it ultimately appears) has the reversed form as (effectively) "Conceal Malice" -- this being useful for concealing chaotically aligned magic swords from detection, assassins, doppelgangers, and so on. This is pretty much what Talysman suggested above, too. Yeah, there might be a miniscule difference, but that's basically what I meant. But: The Protection from Evil spell could be read as meaning "Protection from Malicious Supernaturals", which would generally include most magic-using, conjured or enchanted chaotic types -- including chaotic clerics and magic-users, and (possibly) magic item effects triggered by other chaotics. The reverse form could therefore be read as "Protection from Benevolent Supernaturals", which would generally include most magic-using, conjured or enchanted lawful types -- including lawful clerics and magic-users, and (possibly) magic item effects triggered by other lawfuls. I'm thinking malice = intend to do harm to the protected individual, and that Protection from Evil (Malice) covers attacks by hostile Lawfuls as well. I suppose you *could* say that Protection from Evil also keeps Chaotic enchanted creatures at bay regardless of intent, and thus the reverse would protect against all hostiles + Lawfuls regardless of intent. Untimately: I pretty much intended "Vulnerability" to mean the same thing as your "Trangression", in other words, "Remove Protection from Evil". |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Jul 17, 2012 23:56:20 GMT -6
I've always equated the "Evil" in "Protection from Evil" with "Sorcery" or "That Which Should Not Be." Its reversed form would be something like "Holiness" including angels, blessed weapons, summoned servants of lawful gods, and clerical magic.
For example I would allow a chaotic cleric to use "protection from good" to shield his undead minions against turning attempts and holy water attacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 18, 2012 14:39:52 GMT -6
.... The reverse form could therefore be read as "Protection from Benevolent Supernaturals", which would generally include most magic-using, conjured or enchanted lawful types -- including lawful clerics and magic-users, and (possibly) magic item effects triggered by other lawfuls. Think so too. It wards against lawful types. |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Jul 18, 2012 16:14:05 GMT -6
I would avoid the logical trap of assuming evil=chaotic and good=lawful, for purposes of these spells. For example a summoned elemental is neutral-aligned, but I would certainly consider it an "enchanted creature" for purposes of this spell. Likewise I do not think a human/demihuman player character would ever be affected by this spell. (Maybe a balrog PC...)
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 18, 2012 17:38:18 GMT -6
I like to think of magic-users (including PCs) as "enchanted" types, and therefore subject to swords versus enchanted or magic-using creatures, for example, and also the protection from evil spell.
Protection from evil should therefore (in my mind, at least) protect the players from an evil magic-user's sorcery. That is pretty much what it is for.
Imagine this scenario... the company of 1st level PCs burst into a grisly chamber of human sacrifice to confront the bad buys, and bam! The evil sorcerer casts a sleep spell at them, and the PCs are either captured or their throats cut. Or, if they had used a protection from evil spell, the foul sorcery might have been annulled, and they could lurch in and give the bad guys a thrashing.
Same goes in reverse, of course. An anti-cleric accompanying a mob of orcs could use protection from good to nullify the PC wizard's sleep spell. Fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Jul 18, 2012 17:53:59 GMT -6
I agree with your analysis waysoftheearth (as usual) although I would personally rule it is the magic and not the caster that is affected. Protection from Evil might ward against a sleep spell, but not against mundane attacks from a magic-user, for example I would not consider flaming oil to be "evil" and would therefore not grant the bonus. Likewise I would not consider an orc trying to stab you "evil" (but a balrog or vampire, definitely).
|
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 18, 2012 19:56:06 GMT -6
I agree with your analysis waysoftheearth (as usual) although I would personally rule it is the magic and not the caster that is affected. I agree in general, though I like the idea that the line becomes blurred as the magic-user gains in level. By the time a magic-user becomes a "wizard", perhaps they can start to be considered almost inherently enchanted. I don't think there's any suggestion of that in the rules anywhere, but I like how it works. |
|
|
|
Post by aher on Jul 18, 2012 21:44:12 GMT -6
But what would the reverse of Protection from Evil be, then? Vulnerability to Evil, a spell that strips magic protection? Or should there be no reversed form of the spell? Or is the best response to suck it up and switch to a Holmes/AD&D interpretation of alignment? You could adopt the simplest possible interpretation of "evil" possible: If your cleric is under attack, then the attacker is by definition evil. No need for any kind of deep theological or philosophical analysis of evil is necessary. And no need to adopt an additional Good-Evil alignment axis, orthogonal to the original Law-Chaos axis. Likewise, you could adopt the simplest possible explanation of "enchanted" possible: If the attacker is magical or acting under a spell, then it is by definition enchanted. After these simplifications, we're still left with the ambiguity of the term "reverse." You could keep the ambiguity, and allow the anti-cleric to choose between either of two different modes of using his reverse Protection from Evil spell, namely: - An anti-cleric's reverse Protection from Evil spell negates a cleric's Protection from Evil spell, i.e., it's a counterspell. The cleric does not get the +1 to saves or the -1 from hit dice from opponents. Furthermore, the cleric's magic circle, which would have kept-out attacks from enchanted [= magic-using OR under-a-spell (e.g., charmed)] monsters, vanishes.
- An anti-cleric's reverse Protection from Evil spell conjures a magic circle which gives him +1 to saves and -1 to hit dice from opponents. Furthermore, the magic circle keeps out attacks from enchanted opponents.
I'll go further and say that adding AD&D's good-evil axis will only make things more complicated and difficult to adjudicate. After AD&D added the good-evil axis, confusion ensued. The "Sage Advice" column in the Dragon got lots of questions on how to adjudicate disputes arising out of alignment issues, and even Gary Gygax had problems with the advice that was dispensed, leading him to write an article entitled, "Good isn’t stupid, Paladins & Rangers, and Female dwarves do have beards!" on pp. 22-23 in The Dragon #38, June 1980. He begins that article with the words: There seems to be a continuing misunderstanding amongst a segment of Advanced D&D players as to what the term “good” actually means. This problem does cut both ways, of course, for if good is not clearly defined, how can evil be known? Moral and ethical precepts are based on religious doctrines, secular laws, family teachings, and individual perceptions of these combined tenets. Gygax considers three moral dilemmas in the article: (1) Can a lawful-good paladin force someone to convert at swordpoint and then immediately put him to death? (2) Can a paladin marry and have children? (3) Should a lawful-good ranger protect a wyvern that's been defeated and begs for mercy, or should he execute it on the spot? He answers yes, yes, execute. By what procedure does he arrive at these answers? After reminding us that lawful characters are altruists and chaotic characters are selfish, he then tells us that determination of good and evil must give primary weight to the character's deity, and secondary weight to the character's culture: Consideration of the character’s deity is of principal merit after arriving at an understanding of good. Thereafter, campaign “world” moral and ethical teachings on a cultural basis must rule. These concepts might be drawn from myth or some other source. What matters is that a definition of “good” is established upon intelligent and reasonable grounds. Viewpoints do differ, so absolutes (especially in a game) are both undesirable and impossible. So, for example, the paladin would be allowed to marry, if the character's deity holds matrimony and child bearing and rearing as holy and proper. But he would not be allowed to marry if his deity values celibacy. A worthwhile article to read, even if you aren't interested in the good-evil alignment axis. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Sept 25, 2018 17:26:48 GMT -6
My suggestion is that the reverse of Detect Evil is Conceal Evil ("hide evil thought or intent from a Detect Evil spell".) But what would the reverse of Protection from Evil be, then? Vulnerability to Evil, a spell that strips magic protection? Or should there be no reversed form of the spell? Or is the best response to suck it up and switch to a Holmes/AD&D interpretation of alignment? I like it - anti-clerics are deprived of the ability to protect themselves from enchanted creatures. This is a major downside of playing an anti-cleric, but it also makes them very deadly in combination with such creatures as PCs can't use protection/evil to keep themselves safe. It also might imply that anti-clerics keep magic-users in their retinue, or that enchanted creatures keep anti-clerics in their retinues! Based on the MM monster grouping, it appears "evil creatures" would be invisible stalkers, elementals, djinn, and efrit. Balrogs appear to be dragon-types based on their grouping in both the MM and U&WA, so its questionable as to whether they qualify as evil for the purposes of this spell. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2018 18:31:51 GMT -6
I've always equated the "Evil" in "Protection from Evil" with "Sorcery" or "That Which Should Not Be." Its reversed form would be something like "Holiness" including angels, blessed weapons, summoned servants of lawful gods, and clerical magic. For example I would allow a chaotic cleric to use "protection from good" to shield his undead minions against turning attempts and holy water attacks. opposite of protection from evil <-> accursed bless (or enhance or supercharge) evil being? |
|
