# Is casting a spell with the Evil descriptor an Evil act?



## Fat Daddy (Nov 18, 2006)

Just what the title asks.  If a caster casts a spell with the evil descriptor, is that an evil act?  
Example:  Summon Monster is used to summon a creature with the fiendish template, the spell gains the evil descriptor (maybe lawful or chaotic as well but that's irrelevant to my question).  
Example: Create Undead is a Necromancy[evil] spell.  Aside from the fact that many consider the creation of undead an evil act (that is not what I want to discuss).

Is casting these spells an evil act in and of itself.  Please give rules references.
Thanks


----------



## Scharlata (Nov 18, 2006)

Fat Daddy said:
			
		

> Is casting these spells an evil act in and of itself. Please give rules references.




Hi!

_Player's Handbook, 174 (Descriptor):_ The descriptors are ... evil .... Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with ... alignment, and so on.

_Player's Handbook, 32 (Cleric, Spells): _However, his alignment may restrict hom from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs.

_Player's Handbook, 33 (Cleric, ... Evil ... Spells):_ A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or hos deity's. For example, a good cleirc cannot cast evil spells.

_Book of Vile Darkness, 77 (Evil Spells):_ Spells that have the evil descriptor because they do one or more of the following things: they cause undue suffering or negative emotions; they call upon evil gods or energies; they create, summon, or improve undead or other evil monsters; they harm souls; they involve unsavory practices such as cannibalism or drug use.

HTH


----------



## Starglim (Nov 18, 2006)

I think the emphasis of the _Book of Vile Darkness_ text is suspect here. Few of the _PHB_ [Evil] spells focus on the mundane cruelty emphasised in this description. And .. drug use is [EVIL]? Wonder who was looking over the developer's shoulder that day.

A single casting of an [Evil] spell is not, in itself, an evil act. However, by their nature, the effects and entities produced by such spells tend to (or, given a choice, prefer to) weaken goodly creatures, enhance evil in the world, harm the innocent, cause undue suffering and generally corrupt the caster's moral position. A good-aligned wizard should be wary of using such effects too often.


----------



## isoChron (Nov 18, 2006)

Maybe they meant use drug on other people, so they become dependend and willing to do what they normally would not. 

Whatever, casting an evil spell is an evil act. If you call upon the forces of the abyss and bring terror to the world ... evil. If you drain the last inch of life from a dying creature to bolster your own abilities ... evil.

I think the evil descriptor is just a tool for the DM (and the players) to easily discern that you can't do good with this spell, whatever your intentions are. 
In my opinion there is a spell missing: dominate person/monster. Use an other persons body and push aside his mind is an evil act to the boot, but that would be to restricting for the players I think.


----------



## IamTheTest (Nov 18, 2006)

Id say that its one of the things that slowly changes the alignment of a PC.  Seems to fall under DM fiat.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 18, 2006)

isoChron said:
			
		

> In my opinion there is a spell missing: dominate person/monster. Use an other persons body and push aside his mind is an evil act to the boot, but that would be to restricting for the players I think.




I would agree about the dominate spells.  I wonder why they are not evil and yet the seemingly benign deathwatch is.


----------



## Fat Daddy (Nov 18, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I would agree about the dominate spells.  I wonder why they are not evil and yet the seemingly benign deathwatch is.



I would say it has to do with the spell description:


			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife...



  That sounds evil to me.  
I agree with most of the rationale here, and we have always house-ruled that casting an evil spell is an evil act (and functions according to IamTheTest's post).  I think that the rules _imply_ that it is, but what I can't find is anything stating that in the RAW.  That is what I am looking for, something in the RAW that says casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act.  Does anyone know where it is?  Does it not exist?
Thanks again


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 18, 2006)

Scharlata said:
			
		

> Hi!
> 
> _Player's Handbook, 174 (Descriptor):_ The descriptors are ... evil .... Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with ... alignment, and so on.
> 
> ...




Interestingly, this doesn't say what happens if a good-aligned Wizard casts a summon spell with an evil descriptor.  Good clerics basically CAN'T cast spells with Evil descriptors even if they wanted to, so there is no dispute there.  But for these quotes, it doesn't say anything about a Good Wizard casting such a spell.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Nov 18, 2006)

I was helping a fellow player the other day compile his Favored Soul spell choices onto a cheatsheet when I noticed that the spell Wave of Grief was EVIL.  It seems kind of strange that a spell that makes you sad is EVIL but a spell that burns you alive (Flamestrike) is cool with everyone.

I would say the actual result of a spell being used is what a GM should judge as good or evil, not the spell itself.

A high-level cleric raiding an orphanage and casting Holy Word (thus killing all the neutral folks in the building) is definatley not a GOOD act.

DS


----------



## Simm (Nov 18, 2006)

isoChron said:
			
		

> Whatever, casting an evil spell is an evil act. If you call upon the forces of the abyss and bring terror to the world ... evil. If you drain the last inch of life from a dying creature to bolster your own abilities ... evil.




This seems hypocritical to me. A spell with the good descriptor can easily be used for evil, harming innocents etc., but a spell with the evil descriptor is always evil. It is defiantly easier to commit an evil act with a evil spell than to do it with a good spell but that in no way precludes doing good with an evil spell. It is the intention of the doer that is important.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 18, 2006)

It's evil, that's why is says evil in the descriptor!!  

Note that D&D has very black and white and often times illogical definitions of what is good and what is evil.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 18, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It's evil, that's why is says evil in the descriptor!!
> 
> Note that D&D has very black and white and often times illogical definitions of what is good and what is evil.




What he said.  If casting an Evil spell wasnt an Evil act, then there wouldnt be a point to having an Evil descriptor in the first place, would there?  

That being said, casting one Evil spell wont automatically turn you Evil.  But doing it a lot probably should.  Summoning lots of demons should tend to corrupt ones soul a bit.


----------



## dog45 (Nov 19, 2006)

Well, in Ravenloft casting an Evil or Necromantic spell gets you a 1% per effective spell level chance of failing a powers check and starting down the path of corruption. For an Evil AND Necromantic spell, it's 2% per effective spell level.


----------



## Nareau (Nov 19, 2006)

Interesting.  I thought this _was_ RAW.  But I can see why it's not.  If a druid summons a Pixie to help slaughter all the children in an orphanage, I hardly think he's committing a good act.

Nareau


----------



## Crothian (Nov 19, 2006)

Nareau said:
			
		

> Interesting.  I thought this _was_ RAW.  But I can see why it's not.  If a druid summons a Pixie to help slaughter all the children in an orphanage, I hardly think he's committing a good act.
> 
> Nareau




Summoning the pixie is not evil.  But having it do that is evil.  On the other hand summoning a demon is evil.  Having the demon build the orphage would not be.  But that doesn't negate the fact that just summoning up a demon is evil.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Nov 19, 2006)

Fat Daddy said:
			
		

> If a caster casts a spell with the evil descriptor, is that an evil act?



It is when I'm the DM.

The "official answer" depends on what source you cite.  There is authority for both claims that (1) yes, it is by definition an evil act and (2) no, it depends on the caster's intent.

Personally, I like the idea that there is a "taint" that attaches to one who dabbles in the dark arts and corrupts his soul, regardless of how pure his intentions may be.  YMMV.


----------



## Delta (Nov 19, 2006)

It's Evil.


----------



## Fieari (Nov 19, 2006)

It's evil, except for Deathwatch, which I've houseruled to not be evil.


----------



## TheEvil (Nov 19, 2006)

Given what the RAW has to say on the subject, I am rather suprised that the opinions are not more balanced.  Put me down for 'Not an Evil act'.  I would keep an eye on them though....


----------



## gnfnrf (Nov 19, 2006)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> I was helping a fellow player the other day compile his Favored Soul spell choices onto a cheatsheet when I noticed that the spell Wave of Grief was EVIL.  It seems kind of strange that a spell that makes you sad is EVIL but a spell that burns you alive (Flamestrike) is cool with everyone.




Killing people is not inherently evil.  Obviously, or else most DnD adventurers would be out of a job.  Making people sad is not inherently evil.  Making people sad by channeling the dark powers of waves of grief IS inherently evil.  Not necessarily because of its effect, but because of the nature of the magical energies involved.



> I would say the actual result of a spell being used is what a GM should judge as good or evil, not the spell itself.
> 
> A high-level cleric raiding an orphanage and casting Holy Word (thus killing all the neutral folks in the building) is definatley not a GOOD act.




You have to balance the results and the means.  A high level good cleric who deliberately kills innocents is committing an evil act, regardless of the mechanism.

A high level good cleric who defends innocents by killing evil creatures with an evil spell, however, is committing an evil act, because the very nature of the magic is evil, regardless of the effect.  Actually, they're not because they can't cast the spell at all, but that just reinforces the point.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 19, 2006)

Yes, evil.

Spell says so.


----------



## Kurotowa (Nov 19, 2006)

Using an [Evil] spell is not by definition an evil act.  It is _often_ an evil act because many [Evil] spells have vile purposes.  But the [Evil] tag describes the spell's own nature, not the nature of its use.  There is nothing innately evil about casting Deathwatch or Protection from Good.  They _can_ be used for evil, and heavy use of [Evil] spells should be grounds for considering an alignment shift, but it isn't automatically so.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 19, 2006)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> Using an [Evil] spell is not by definition an evil act.




Who's definition is this?  Since when is evil not evil in D&D?


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 19, 2006)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> Using an [Evil] spell is not by definition an evil act.  It is _often_ an evil act because many [Evil] spells have vile purposes.  But the [Evil] tag describes the spell's own nature, not the nature of its use.  There is nothing innately evil about casting Deathwatch or Protection from Good.  They _can_ be used for evil, and heavy use of [Evil] spells should be grounds for considering an alignment shift, but it isn't automatically so.





So, the spell itself is Evil, but casting it isn't?  


I fail to see the logic in that.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 19, 2006)

Well the Book of Vile Darkness says this on [Evil] spells: "Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be." 

So using an [evil] spell is an evil act.


----------



## Kurotowa (Nov 19, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Who's definition is this?  Since when is evil not evil in D&D?




Because evil the alignment action is not the same as [Evil] the spell descriptor.  They're similar but not the same thing.  [Evil] is a spell quality, evil is not.

Look at it this way.  Magic Circle Against Evil has the [Good] descriptor.  But an infernalist wizard will be casting it all the time as he summons and binds evil creatures.  Can you really claim that the inferlanist is engaged in frequent good acts as part of this?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 19, 2006)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> Because evil the alignment action is not the same as [Evil] the spell descriptor.  They're similar but not the same thing.  [Evil] is a spell quality, evil is not.




I'm not saying that a single casting will turn the person evil, I'm saying using the spell is an evil act.  The descriptor means something to me.  The brackets don't mean anything.  



> Look at it this way.  Magic Circle Against Evil has the [Good] descriptor.  But an infernalist wizard will be casting it all the time as he summons and binds evil creatures.  Can you really claim that the inferlanist is engaged in frequent good acts as part of this?




Casting the spell is good.  Now after the spell is cast he might be doing evil, but that doesn't matter.  The spell doesn't look at what is being done or how it is being used; it is just always good.


----------



## Dross (Nov 20, 2006)

isoChron said:
			
		

> Maybe they meant use drug on other people, so they become dependend and willing to do what they normally would not.




So buying other people alcohol is an evil act?   

Man, I am SSOOOO evil.


----------



## GeorgeFields (Nov 20, 2006)

To put it simply, yes.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 20, 2006)

Watch out for that guy at the bar who seems nice buying everyone rounds of drinks!  He's an Evil bastard.  


The absurdity of poorly thought out rules made for the morally uptight can be astounding.  

I can only believe that drug use was declared Evil in the BoVD because of a command from the higher ups so some idiot didn't read the book and decide D&D promotes drug use because it didn't say it was evil.  

Us poor smokers.  We're all hopelessly Evil.  No hope for us at all.  Every cigarette is an Evil act.  One carton of Lucky Strikes and you're pretty much a Pit Fiend.  Might as well give in and go out slaughtering babies.


----------



## Land Outcast (Nov 20, 2006)

I'll try and answer with a question:

What's the [Evil] tag telling us?


----------



## Legildur (Nov 20, 2006)

Hey, Land Outcast, a little off topic here, but how did the situation in your sig pan out?  I'm guessing poorly


----------



## GeorgeFields (Nov 20, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Watch out for that guy at the bar who seems nice buying everyone rounds of drinks!  He's an Evil bastard.
> 
> The absurdity of poorly thought out rules made for the morally uptight can be astounding.
> 
> ...




What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Land Outcast (Nov 20, 2006)

*Sorry for the length...*

Well...
last game we were three chars (FR game, an elven wizard who you can't catch without cigars (son of one of the chars in our first campaign, in search for a captured elf to be receptacle of  the esscence of a demonic entity called Elf-Eater in FR), a samurai from Kara-Tur gone half-dragon in a quest for honor (Japan-esque land to the east, the half-dragon part is a curse acquired after slaying a pirate captain), and my character, a self-styled fiend hunter with a liking for vodka and a pending "meeting" with his father.

At the current we are trying to help a region (Implitur, former bastion of paladins... curious, we arrived there fortituously, just selected a city to stop by, it was a surprise even for the DM, but the cogs of the world are ever-grinding) conquered by a host of hobgoblins -under command of a death knight and a daemonic sorceress- supported by undead and called fiends.
The fiends were being brought through a gate at a mountain fortress... 

-> fastfoward... ->

Inside the fortress we arrived to a hole leading to a gigantic spherical room filled with webbings.
Through the small-ish hole on the ceiling we saw a dozen of said demons. Amazingly, Ryu's (the Samurai) Kiai Shout panicked about half of the creatures (some Lion Clan PrC [from Kara Tur, you know] improves his Kiai Shouts... vastly), who promptly used their planeshifting abilities to spirit away... and suddenly the floor gives off under our feet.

The remaining Beb's had damaged the ceiling (our floor) enough to destroy it, my character and the wizard fall down to the webbings in the chamber and are stuck there for some time... the samurai is left alone to face five demonic spiders...

Thanks to fire resistance, a scorching ray wasn't much of an issue, and allowed me to fall to the floor of the place (damn, it was big!), where I saw a hole on the base of the sphere, from where an unearthly light emanated. The way to the gate was there, for certain. But I hadn't the time to look around, Ryu was alone.
The Cape of the Mountenbak is a mighty useful item.
I fell directly over one of the creatures, sinking my cold iron greatsword (stolen from a member from the Knights of the Chalice I had to terminate... hey, I said fiend hunter, not paladin! the fact my father bound a fiend to my soul *might* have something to do with my objectives...) on its back before falling beside it.

Fastfoward -> hits... potions... poison... ->

Only one demon standing, Ryu was fighting hand to hand with it (both him and I were badly battered, and poisoned). I charge onto its back with an amazing critical hit, almost splitting it in half... no use, still alive... Ryu hits for some damage, more daemonic claws rend our flesh...
I tumble back from the demon (now is when I'm at 4 hp and 1 Con, and the Samurai is at 6 hp)

Without sheathing the greatsword, with shaky hands unstopper the small vodka bottle, swallow it down, and hurl it at the still standing demonic spider while yelling "come and get me!" just to allow the samurai to get the edge (also known as AoO). 

When Dilgaard (the wizard) finally managed to disentangle himself, we stepped back for a "powersnack", we teleported back to -not the nearest, the nearest was under the hand of the dead king as wella s several in the region- a city, were we spent enough to recover our health and immediately managed to be teleported back (housrule: a spellcaster Detect Thoughts + Teleport can send you to a locale you know without much risk) so that no more demons sprouted from the gate to guard the place we just "cleaned".

Things didn't finish there, the hole at the bottom of the sphere led to an un-nice place...[offtopic/]


----------



## amethal (Nov 20, 2006)

I would rule that casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act, but I can't find any rules on it.

It doesn't normally matter - good clerics can't cast these spells anyway, and good wizards are probably not casting enough evil spells to give cause for concern about an alignment change.

It can cause problems if there is a paladin in the party though.


----------



## Goddess FallenAngel (Nov 20, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Well the Book of Vile Darkness says this on [Evil] spells: "Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be."
> 
> So using an [evil] spell is an evil act.





Ditto.


----------



## glass (Nov 20, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Summoning the pixie is not evil.  But having it do that is evil.  On the other hand summoning a demon is evil.  Having the demon build the orphage would not be.  But that doesn't negate the fact that just summoning up a demon is evil.



Just what I wanted to say (only better phrased, probably).


glass.


----------



## glass (Nov 20, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Us poor smokers.  We're all hopelessly Evil.  No hope for us at all.  Every cigarette is an Evil act.  One carton of Lucky Strikes and you're pretty much a Pit Fiend.  Might as well give in and go out slaughtering babies.



That paragraph just screams for a rules-violating response. Thankfully I mad my Will-save, this time. 


glass.


----------



## Wintergreen (Nov 20, 2006)

Is it worth looking at this issue from the opposite side.
Is casting a spell with the good descriptor a good act? Does it seem reasonable that a neutral character who frequently casts good spells for the benefit of her allies have their alignment change to good? Would the summoner who keeps on casting magic circle against evil before summoning various neutral creatures become an exalted saint for performing good acts so often?


----------



## werk (Nov 20, 2006)

Simm said:
			
		

> This seems hypocritical to me. A spell with the good descriptor can easily be used for evil, harming innocents etc., but a spell with the evil descriptor is always evil. It is defiantly easier to commit an evil act with a evil spell than to do it with a good spell but that in no way precludes doing good with an evil spell. It is the intention of the doer that is important.





Silly...you can kill somone with a fluffy pink bunny pillow, it doesn't make the pillow evil, just the act.  Now, if you had the death bunny pillow, with the poison, and disease, and the rusty nails sticking out all over...that pillow is evil, because you can't do anything 'good' with it.


----------



## Land Outcast (Nov 20, 2006)

> Silly...you can kill somone with a fluffy pink bunny pillow, it doesn't make the pillow evil, just the act. Now, if you had the death bunny pillow, with the poison, and disease, and the rusty nails sticking out all over...that pillow is evil, because you can't do anything 'good' with it.




OMFG! ROFML!


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 20, 2006)

Wintergreen said:
			
		

> Is it worth looking at this issue from the opposite side.
> Is casting a spell with the good descriptor a good act? Does it seem reasonable that a neutral character who frequently casts good spells for the benefit of her allies have their alignment change to good? Would the summoner who keeps on casting magic circle against evil before summoning various neutral creatures become an exalted saint for performing good acts so often?




Well, exalted saint is going a bit far, but, yes, casting a [good] spell is a good act.

A neutral character who goes out of his/her way to only cast [good] or [evil] spells certainly risks an alignment shift.

On the other hand, doing good things does not make one "good" necessarily.  It is just an indicator.


----------



## epochrpg (Nov 20, 2006)

Fat Daddy said:
			
		

> Is casting these spells an evil act in and of itself.  Please give rules references.
> Thanks




Sounds like somebody is trying to get away with something.  Just suck it up and stop looking for rules-lawyery loopholes.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 20, 2006)

Sure it's evil. Too bad there are no concrete rules on how PC actions affect their alignment.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 20, 2006)

Simm said:
			
		

> A spell with the good descriptor can easily be used for ...



 You can stop your analysis right there.  Regardless of what the spell is used for, it's very description labels it as evil.  Doing nothing more than casting the spell with, for example, an inappropriate target, is evil.  Using an Evil spell to commit more Evil is doubly Evil. 

So, it makes no difference what your intentions are or what you use the spell for.  The mere casting it is evil, with an "E".


----------



## billd91 (Nov 20, 2006)

In this case, think about both the tool and the use the tool is put to. Even a good tool can be put to an evil use, and an evil tool put to a good use. But the use the tool is put to does not negate the nature of the tool. It's just that you may be committing both evil and good acts virtually at the same time.

Casting an evil spell but putting it to a use that isn't inherently evil isn't something I would call a serious sin. There should be no real threat to the soul (or current alignment status) if the incident is isolated in the PC's general pattern of behavior. But if he's constantly using spells with an evil descriptor to do things, you should be able to expect the PC to warp under evil's influence. Seductive, the dark side is...


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 20, 2006)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Sounds like somebody is trying to get away with something.  Just suck it up and stop looking for rules-lawyery loopholes.




Personally, I hestitate to try and guess at the  motives for these questions.  Maybe a DM just wants to know the rules?


----------



## Crothian (Nov 20, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Personally, I hestitate to try and guess at the  motives for these questions.  Maybe a DM just wants to know the rules?




From my experience on these baords DM's don't hide their intentions, players do.  There are of course exceptions to that.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 20, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> From my experience on these baords DM's don't hide their intentions, players do.  There are of course exceptions to that.




Either way, I do not speculate on such things - it only tends to generate inappropriate personal-attack types of comments that Eric's Grandma would frown on.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 20, 2006)

This is the kind of situation where I think its worth distinguishing between moral and supernatural allignment. They obviously interact in D&D (do enough morally bad things and you will show up on a detect evil spell) but aren't always the same (be of morally nuetral allighnment and worship an evil god and you'll still buzz the detect evil spell). If you channel enough [evil] energy, your Supernatural Allignment will obviously tilt towards Evil. No point to the descriptors if that doesn't happen. Will that supernatural tilt poison your Moral Allignment, making Morally Evil acts seem more acceptable? I think it would, and in terms of storytelling its a common enough idea. 

As for all the "turn it arround" questions - yes, if a Morally Evil person regularly used [good] descriptor spells, it would tilt their Supernatural Allignment towards Good. This could be an interesting way for a villain to try to desguise his Moral Evil from supernatural detection. However, just as with the evil taint, the constant channelling of [good] energy could cause a Morally Evil person to begin questioning himself, weaking his ability to ack as ruthlessly as he used to.

So my answer would be that casting [evil] spells is definitly a Supernaturally Evil act, and even if you go into it for Morally Good reasons, in the long term it could have an effect on your Moral Allignment.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 20, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Either way, I do not speculate on such things - it only tends to generate inappropriate personal-attack types of comments that Eric's Grandma would frown on.




I don't think it does that.  I think knowing the intentions and the situation behind a question can really help get the question answered or at least give the discuss a nice and proper focus.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 20, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I don't think it does that.  I think knowing the intentions and the situation behind a question can really help get the question answered or at least give the discuss a nice and proper focus.




Sure it does - if you speculate.  If the poster is nice enough to tell us why he/she wants to know somethiung, sure it helps.

See thw differnce?  I refuse (generally) to specualte on such things - that leads to accusation of all kinds things the player may not be tying to do at all, and often can get less than friendly.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 20, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> See thw differnce?  I refuse (generally) to specualte on such things - that leads to accusation of all kinds things the player may not be tying to do at all, and often can get less than friendly.




I like to think one can speculate with out being rude or accusations.  And if there is a misunderstanding it can be pointed out and dealt with.  It doesn't always happen this way, but it can.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 20, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I like to think one can speculate with out being rude or accusations.  And if there is a misunderstanding it can be pointed out and dealt with.  It doesn't always happen this way, but it can.




It can, but often does not.  Even in this very thread someone (who shall remain nameless) was wondering, is "somebody is trying to get away with something."

and advised. "Just suck it up and stop looking for rules-lawyery loopholes."

That's a pretty negative tone and is why I do not participate in such speculation.

I certainly have asked players to declare their intentions before, and likely will again, as it does make it easier to help them.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 20, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I like to think one can speculate with out being rude or accusations.  And if there is a misunderstanding it can be pointed out and dealt with.  It doesn't always happen this way, but it can.



 Theoretically, yes.  In practice, no.  At least, it has not happened in the many years of the Internet's existence since Al Gore invented it.


----------



## isoChron (Nov 20, 2006)

I always try to compare it to present real life situations.
Now there are several types of weapon / ammunition banned by the international community because the community thought they are evil, cruel, aiming at civilists, whatever. 
Everybody can make a dum-dum bullet but it's evil.
Every mage can summon demons but it's evil.
See what I mean?

No matter what you do with a cruel tool, using it is the evil act in the first place.
That said I see that there are many different opinions about which spells are or should be evil. WotC just gave us a collection of some black and white spells but all falls apart if you try to look at all spells closer. Like the whole black/white evil/good alignment system. It's just an abstraction to keep the game going without the need to discuss about the alignment descriptor of every spell during a battle.

Ah, and I didn't mean alcohol or other lighter drugs in my previous post but some very heavy influencing substances like H or Sodiumpentatol or other truth serums. It was just a try to explain the authors point of view, not reflecting personal opinions.   

Bye


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 20, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Well the Book of Vile Darkness says this on [Evil] spells: "Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be."
> 
> So using an [evil] spell is an evil act.




My position is that if the Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds are in play, then casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is an evil act.  As is failure to accept a surrender from someone who's broken his parole fifteen times already.

If those books are not in play, then the Evil descriptor tells us that a/ druids and clerics who are Good or have Good deities cannot cast the spell, and b/ clerics with the Evil domain cast the spell at +1 caster level, and c/ the spell will be flagged by a Detect Evil spell.  That's about it.  (And, of course, if someone's demonstrated that when they surrender, they don't really mean it, there's no binding compulsion to let them get away with it twice!)

As I read it, if the BoVD isn't on the table, then a Paladin/Sorcerer can cast Eyebite without losing his paladinhood.  If the book's in play, he'd be advised not to try it

-Hyp.


----------



## werk (Nov 20, 2006)

isoChron said:
			
		

> Ah, and I didn't mean alcohol or other lighter drugs in my previous post but some very heavy influencing substances like H or Sodiumpentatol or other truth serums. It was just a try to explain the authors point of view, not reflecting personal opinions.
> 
> Bye




I thought that poison use was evil.  If you group drugs as poisons, like D&D does, then you get drugs=evil regardless.

Alignment is very important, just not important enough to get rules to support it.


----------



## green slime (Nov 20, 2006)

Crothian and I2K sum up my feelings.

Yes, it is an Evil act. Capital E. No lurking and trying to skive off. 

Doing one single act doesn't mean you have an irredeemable stain upon your soul, though. It just means that: You did some act, some one thing, that made the world a more evil place.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 20, 2006)

isoChron said:
			
		

> I always try to compare it to present real life situations.




I'm not sure there is a real life situation of a greater divine force (god) that grants specific spells to his/her clerics daily.  I don't think dum dum bullets comes close to being the same.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 20, 2006)

I like Evil spells. It lets a player run an evil character and do "evil thiings" without having to go burn orphanages and rape poodles.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 20, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> I thought that poison use was evil.




Not in the core rules.

To draw a connection with this thread, the Poison spell (unlike the Contagion spell) lacks the [Evil] descriptor.

A paladin cannot use poison because it is considered dishonourable (like lying and cheating), not because it is considered an evil act.

-Hyp.


----------



## Endur (Nov 20, 2006)

Fat Daddy said:
			
		

> Is casting these spells an evil act in and of itself.  Please give rules references.




The spell descriptor says it is "EVIL".  How much more of a reference do you need?

Eyebite is evil because you are cursing someone with the Evil Eye.  It is not the results of the curse that is the issue (sickened, etc.), but the fact that you are using this black magic.

Bestow Curse, although Necromantic, is not listed as evil.  Because Bestow Curse could be used for good, neutral, or evil purposes.

The Evil Eye (aka eyebite) is always evil.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If those books are not in play, then the Evil descriptor tells us that a/ druids and clerics who are Good or have Good deities cannot cast the spell, and b/ clerics with the Evil domain cast the spell at +1 caster level, and c/ the spell will be flagged by a Detect Evil spell.  That's about it.



 What about this quote, with my emphasis:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, *with alignment*, and so on.



While I suppose nothing here tells the DM/player that they _have _to do anything about it, surely this has relevance?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 20, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> What about this quote, with my emphasis:
> While I suppose nothing here tells the DM/player that they _have _to do anything about it, surely this has relevance?




It has lots of relevance.

How does the [Evil] descriptor interact with alignment?  It says so in the book - the spells cannot be cast by a cleric or druid with an opposed alignment, or with a deity of an opposed alignment.

In the core rules, that's how the [Evil] descriptor interacts with alignment.

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In the core rules, that's how the [Evil] descriptor interacts with alignment.



 And in no other way?  Are you suggesting that there are a/ no evil acts, b/ evil acts have no relevance, or c/ both?


----------



## Xanterith (Nov 20, 2006)

Well, this may be kind of a house rule hodge podge, but here is my explanation as to why casting an [evil] spell is evil.

First off, most of these spells are inherently evil, no question about it, mean, nasty, not very nice spells. But what about those ones on the border? What makes them "bad?"

All magic is energy shaped and converted by the wizard into the result he wants. Most spells draw this energy from other planes of existence. I see spells with the Evil descriptor drawing there energy from the negative plane, and the wizard casting the spell being a conduit to this energy. This will eventually have a negative effect on the mage, corrupting their soul and body. Also, they increase the amount of negative energy on the plane, thereby furthering indirectly the cause of evil. 

Also, you can rationalize why a good cleric would not be able to cast evil spells; their gods do not have access to this plane and can not transfer that power down to their servants.

Drugs are obviously powered by the negative plane as well, and therefore evil. They provide a similar high as positive energy, but with negative after effects. Drugs are bad M’kay? : P


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 20, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that there are a/ no evil acts, b/ evil acts have no relevance, or c/ both?




I'm suggesting that the way that the [Evil] descriptor interacts with alignment is defined in the Cleric and Druid class descriptions.

Casting an [Evil] spell (absent the BoVD) is or is not an evil act depending on its use, just as casting a [Fire] spell or a [Mind-Affecting] spell is or is not an evil act depending on its use.  Whether or not the spell is an evil act is not dependent on its descriptor.



			
				Xanterith said:
			
		

> I see spells with the Evil descriptor drawing there energy from the negative plane, and the wizard casting the spell being a conduit to this energy. This will eventually have a negative effect on the mage, corrupting their soul and body. Also, they increase the amount of negative energy on the plane, thereby furthering inderectly the cause of evil.




"When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage..."

And yet Inflict Light Wounds does not have the [Evil] descriptor.

"You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes."

And yet Enervation does not have the [Evil] descriptor.

Negative energy doesn't automatically mean [Evil].

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm suggesting that the way that the [Evil] descriptor interacts with alignment is defined in the Cleric and Druid class descriptions.
> 
> Casting an [Evil] spell (absent the BoVD) is or is not an evil act depending on its use, just as casting a [Fire] spell or a [Mind-Affecting] spell is or is not an evil act depending on its use.  Whether or not the spell is an evil act is not dependent on its descriptor.



 I don't agree that the Evil in the descriptor is wholly separate from the Evil in one's alignment.  I think the word choice for the descriptor signifies more than simply confounding terms.  Keep in mind that I'm a big proponent for the concept that rules say what they mean and typically nothing more, but in this case I think the choice of using Evil (or Good/Chaos/Law) has more relevance than the interaction with cleric/druid alignment.

Obviously, my thoughts are "justified" based on the BoVD/BoXD, but regardless I think they stand on their own based only on the core rules.


----------



## Xanterith (Nov 20, 2006)

And for the most part in every campaign I've been in good clerics can't cast inflict, evil clerics can't cast cure.  I know it's not in the rules, hence the house rule part of my reply.

Evil =/= negative energy in the core rules

house rules evil = negative energy, good = positive

I think it's retarded that Wizards goes about the whole light/dark thing half way with no description as to why.  Some of it is intuitive, but not all.  This leads to angry wizards who can't summon demons cause the DM says so.  Stupid.  Simple fix = have a demon attack anyone of a good alignment who summons it.  If they can bind and control it, then they can keep it.  Vice versa for evil.   As for the other ones, put some kind of negative effect in with the spell if someone of opposite alignment casts it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 20, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I think the word choice for the descriptor signifies more than simply confounding terms.




Well, I'm on the "Darkness spell creates light" side of the Darkness debate; my reading is that the [Darkness] and [Light] descriptors, in the core rules, have essentially one effect - to describe how they interact with each other.  (Counters and dispels light spells of lower level, or whatever, as appears in certain spell descriptions.)

It's not necessary for a spell to have the [Light] descriptor to illuminate an area (see Flaming Sphere); nor is it a given that a spell with the [Light] descriptor _will_ illuminate an area (see Sunbeam).  As far as I can tell, the _only_ purpose of the [Light] descriptor is to flag interactions with spells with the [Darkness] descriptor.

So I don't see any contradiction with a spell with the [Darkness] descriptor illuminating an area.  The descriptor isn't telling us "This spell makes things dark"; it's telling us "This spell has a special interaction with certain spells that have the [Light] descriptor".

Similarly, I don't see any contradiction in saying "Casting an [Evil] spell is not automatically an evil act"; rather, I see the descriptor as a flag saying "Look for other rules that reference this descriptor, as they may come into play".

-Hyp.


----------



## GeorgeFields (Nov 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, I'm on the "Darkness spell creates light" side of the Darkness debate; my reading is that the [Darkness] and [Light] descriptors, in the core rules, have essentially one effect - to describe how they interact with each other.  (Counters and dispels light spells of lower level, or whatever, as appears in certain spell descriptions.)
> 
> It's not necessary for a spell to have the [Light] descriptor to illuminate an area (see Flaming Sphere); nor is it a given that a spell with the [Light] descriptor _will_ illuminate an area (see Sunbeam).  As far as I can tell, the _only_ purpose of the [Light] descriptor is to flag interactions with spells with the [Darkness] descriptor.
> 
> ...




I might be offbase, but I disagree. The descriptor tells us how some of the spells get their effects. [Light] spells get their effects from the same energy that the sun does. Hence, flaming sphere illuminates an area without having the [Light] descriptor, and the damage from sunbeam damages beings vulnerable to solar energy without actually illuminating an area.

The same applies to spells with the [Evil] & [Good] descriptors. We are told how they do what they do, not what they actually do by having them.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

GeoFFields said:
			
		

> [Light] spells get their effects from the same energy that the sun does.




I don't really see any connection between, say, Continual Flame and the sun, though.  Continual Flame certainly doesn't bother a vampire, for example.

-Hyp.


----------



## GeorgeFields (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't really see any connection between, say, Continual Flame and the sun, though.  Continual Flame certainly doesn't bother a vampire, for example.
> 
> -Hyp.




good point


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

h for goodness sakes!

Do the Rules specify that casting [Evil] spells is an evil act.  No, not is so many words - at least not the core rules.

However, good clerics can't cast them, nor good druids.

Also, in the cleric and druid class descriptions it says, "Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions."

That right there indicates the spell's descriptor IS associated with the alignement.

An [Evil] spell is, well.... evil.

So, is using something evil and evil act?

It's a judgment call, not a rules call.  I'd say of course it is - even if done with good intentions.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That right there indicates the spell's descriptor IS associated with the alignement.




Absolutely.  In what way are they associated?  They cannot be cast by clerics of the opposite alignment.

-Hyp.


----------



## TheEvil (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  In what way are they associated?  They cannot be cast by clerics of the opposite alignment.
> 
> -Hyp.




As usual, you are a voice of reason, Hyp.
To those who think casting spells with *Alignment* descriptor is an *Alignment* act, how many castings to change the alignment of the caster if the spell itself is not used in a particularly *alignment* fashion?  How many Magic Circles against Evil could a BBEG to protect himself from his competitors before he risks becoming a BBNG or even a BBGG?

I guess what I am asking is: If casting an *Alignment* spell is an *Alignment* action, what are the consequences?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> ...I guess what I am asking is: If casting an *Alignment* spell is an *Alignment* action, what are the consequences?




Ah, that's the crux of it. There are none, most of the item, anyway.  It's entirely a DM's call.

It's still an evil act,  but, so what?  Most of the time, there is no consequence.

There is nothing to stop a good character from casting an evil spell, but that does not keep it from being an evil act, however minor it may be.  At the same time, that does not mean there are consequences for doing so - that's up to the DM (like so many things).


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2006)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> I guess what I am asking is: If casting an *Alignment* spell is an *Alignment* action, what are the consequences?




Ask your DM.  Not everything is nor should it be spelled out in the books.  That's why we have a DM.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ask your DM.  Not everything is nor should it be spelled out in the books.  That's why we have a DM.




Yes indeedy!


----------



## Squire James (Nov 21, 2006)

Disclaimer:  this is how I treat things in my own game.  YMMV, and all that.

I am of the opinion that an Evil descriptor means that anyone who casts the spell is tainted by Evil.  Good-aligned clerics and druids are aware of this effect, so they don't use them.  Arcane casters are not necessarily aware of this (generally I let players decide this for their characters when they first cast a spell of an alignment opposing their own).

The degree of Evil should be decided for each spell.  For instance, I consider Deathwatch to be no big deal, definitely the Diet Coke of Evil (using this every day may have noticeable alignment-based side-effects over the course of several months).  Death Knell, on the other hand, is pretty much 100% Pure Evil Made from Concentrate (an immediate alignment move toward Evil, or all the way to Evil if used on an ally).

Good intentions act to mitigate the Evil, but it needs to outweigh the evil to be considered a Good act.  The Evil act most non-evil people want to get away with (in my experience) is using Animate Dead or Create Undead to help destroy some Evil guys.  While destroying Evil is Good, I don't rate it as Good as saving innocents, for example.  I don't think this is enough to justify possible eternal tying of souls to undead bodies (and figuring "they'd probably get destroyed in the fighting anyway" is even worse).


----------



## Fat Daddy (Nov 21, 2006)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Sounds like somebody is trying to get away with something.  Just suck it up and stop looking for rules-lawyery loopholes.



Ummm... no, but thanks for jumping to erroneous conclusions.  We house-rule that it is an evil act and the DM decides the consequences of repeated evil acts upon the character's alignment.  Our group is happy with that.  I am simply looking to see what the RAW says since I couldn't find anything definitive in the SRD.  By the way, I am currently DMing so there is nothing to 'get away' with.

Why is it that most of the time when I see someone looking for a rules clarification there is usually at least one person who chimes in with something like this?  Since when did wanting to know the rules become a bad thing?  Is wanting to know the rules an evil act?  I was under the impression that rules clarification type questions were specifically why we have a sub-forum named (appropriately enough) D&D Rules. [/rant]


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, I'm on the "Darkness spell creates light" side of the Darkness debate; my reading is that the [Darkness] and [Light] descriptors, in the core rules, have essentially one effect - to describe how they interact with each other.  (Counters and dispels light spells of lower level, or whatever, as appears in certain spell descriptions.)



 Well, see, then you're basically ignoring the opportunity to put alignment into play.  Sure, you might not use alignment, but if you do then it's up to you (presumably the DM) to adjudicate when an act is evil or not.  There is no explicit guidance in the core rules about what is evil or not (nor do I really think there should be), but I think that a spell defined as [Evil] is about as explicit as possible.

Is murdering an innocent baker an evil act?  That's as relevant a question as the OP asked and what is your answered based on the rules?  I see three choices:

a. No answer because the rules don't define it (thus giving up).
b. Not Evil because nothing in the rules say it's Evil.
c. Evil because you judge it to be evil.

IMO, the answer you give to this question should be, _must be_, identical to that of the descriptor.  In this case, you have nothing to back up (c), but I think everyone will choose (c).  In the case of the descriptor, you have evidence that lends more creedence to (c).

If you choose (a) then we are at an impasse because I refuse to give up.  If you choose (b) then you're saying that there are no evil acts possible in the game.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Is murdering an innocent baker an evil act?  That's as relevant a question as the OP asked and what is your answered based on the rules?  I see three choices:
> 
> a. No answer because the rules don't define it (thus giving up).
> b. Not Evil because nothing in the rules say it's Evil.
> ...




I think if you murder an innocent baker with a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, that is as evil an act as murdering an innocent baker with a spell with the [Light] descriptor, a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, or indeed a spell with the [Good] descriptor.

I think if you save an innocent baker with a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, that is as good an act as saving an innocent baker with a spell with the [Light] descriptor, a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, or a spell with the [Good] descriptor.

I think that in either case, determining whether or not murdering a baker is evil, or saving a baker is good, is as you say up to the judgement of the DM.  But the action 'cast a spell' should be judged, in any case, by its intent or its results, just like any other action.

-Hyp.


----------



## glass (Nov 21, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I'm not sure there is a real life situation of a greater divine force (god) that grants specific spells to his/her clerics daily.  I don't think dum dum bullets comes close to being the same.



I agree. There is nothing evil about shooting dum-dum bullets at a paper target (pointless maybe, but not evil).

In D&D, however, summoning devils to attack a paper target is evil (definitely if BoVD/BoED are in play, arguably with just the core rules).


glass.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I think that in either case, determining whether or not murdering a baker is evil, or saving a baker is good, is as you say up to the judgement of the DM.  But the action 'cast a spell' should be judged, in any case, by its intent or its results, just like any other action.



 So, IYO a paladin with UMD can use a scroll of protection from good to, say, ward off neutral summoned monsters?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I think if you murder an innocent baker with a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, that is as evil an act as murdering an innocent baker with a spell with the [Light] descriptor, a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, or indeed a spell with the [Good] descriptor.
> 
> I think if you save an innocent baker with a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, that is as good an act as saving an innocent baker with a spell with the [Light] descriptor, a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, or a spell with the [Good] descriptor.
> 
> ...




By that logic, murdering, in cold blood, the evil guy to save the village from future evil would be a good thing because it was done for a good reason.

Using a "good" spell is  good act.   Using a "good" spell for an evil reason is an evil act for sure.

Using an "evil" spell is an evil act.  Using an "evil" spell for a good rason is still an "evil" act, as the "end" does not justify the "means" if you are "good."

The deck is kind of stacked against the "good" folks - it's harder to be "good" than "evil."


----------



## Arravis (Nov 21, 2006)

I'm with Hypersmurf on this one. Since this is the Rules forum (not House Rules), the questions here deal with the core-rules only. By the rules as written, spell of the [Evil] descriptor are simply a rules clarfication for interactions with specific classes, other spells, etc. It is there for the same reason all other spell descriptors are, and there is no solid evidence in the RAW to indicate otherwise. The [Evil] descriptor is quite handy for players and DMs if there are good clerics in the party so you know what spells not to cast, if you're casting Dispel Evil to dispel spells with the [Evil] descriptor, etc.

The alignment section of the RAW is fairly clear on what it considers evil, how to define it, and what it involves:

"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

"Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose."

It seems clear that it's about one does, not what spells are cast, etc. Casting a [Evil] spell that does not do any of the above requirements for evil, is not an evil act. Casting an [Evil] spell, or any spell for that matter, that does, is an evil act. This may be simply through the nature of the spell (ie: one that causes unecessary agony, etc), or through its use in casting. But either way, it's not the spell itself which is acting on alignment, but the choices made by the individual.

I think part of the confusion is simply the choice of the word "evil" as a descriptor. If the word had been "negative energy", instead of "evil", this discussion would not be. The two words are being used in different contexts and have different uses in those contexts. Simply because it uses the word "evil" doesn't mean it affects alignment. It relates to it as much as being cold, relates to the [cold] descriptor. There are [cold] spells that don't actually make someone cold.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Another point is detect evil.  Note that the spell allows you to sense the "Presence or absence of evil."  This is not [Evil].  Specifically, on the second round, it senses the "Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present."  So, does protection from good, which is [Evil], have an "evil aura"?   Undeniably.

The question then because does having an evil aura, and not just having the [Evil] descriptor, make it an evil act? I think so, because bringing that evil aura into existence must be an evil act.  This shows a direct correlation between [Evil] and evil.  Fostering evil?  It's gotta be evil.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 21, 2006)

And yet playing the anti-hero, John Constantine style ends justifies the means type characters is not only fun, but a literary and fantasy staple.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Arravis said:
			
		

> It seems clear that it's about one does, not what spells are cast, etc. Casting a [Evil] spell that does not do any of the above requirements for evil, is not an evil act.



 I have shown that casting an [Evil] spell creates an evil aura.  There's a direct correlation between the descriptor and the alignment.  So, even if you rename the descriptor to something completely different (no term confounding), then the correlation still exists.  I think this shows a connection, based on RAW, that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> And yet playing the anti-hero, John Constantine style ends justifies the means type characters is not only fun, but a literary and fantasy staple.




Absolutely.  Such a character might do evil things for a good purpose, and such folks THINK they are good, but their souls are tainted.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 21, 2006)

How is having an evil aura, an evil act which changes alignment? Seems like a rather large leap to me.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Arravis said:
			
		

> How is having an evil aura, an evil act which changes alignment? Seems like a rather large leap to me.



 I didn't say anything about changing alignment.  I am saying that the creation of an evil aura (not just an [Evil] one) is an evil act.  You're bringing evil into the world, fostering it, and that's not an evil act?  I don't see that as a large leap at all, but the very next step in a logical sequence.

Cast [Evil] spell --> create evil aura --> evil act.

Obviously, nothing in the rules say "This is an evil act." so the goal here is to provide enough evidence to support that statement.  If no evidence is enough, then I refer you back to the baker example.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 21, 2006)

I still don't see why creating an evil aura is an evil act at all. It doesn't fit any of the requirements in the RAW for evil acts:
"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

It would seem that anything beyond the RAW, is simply opinion and a House Rule situation.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Arravis said:
			
		

> I still don't see why creating an evil aura is an evil act at all. It doesn't fit any of the requirements in the RAW for evil acts:
> "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
> 
> It would seem that anything beyond the RAW, is simply opinion and a House Rule situation.




[Evil] spells hurt, oppress or kill others.  There you have it.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> [Evil] spells hurt, oppress or kill others.  There you have it.



Any spells have the potential to do so, not just [Evil] spells. As I stated before: if a spell, by its inherent nature, was a cruel act (such as the Flensing spell)... such a spell would be an evil act. But if an [Evil] spell did not inherently match any of the definitions mentioned in the alignment section of the RAW (such as Deathwatch, Protection from Good, etc), it is only evil when used in an evil way (again, as defined by the RAW).

People are just stuck on the word, and not seeing its context and use.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

BUT...

You will not find clear, unambiguous guidance form the core rules on whether casting an [EVIL] will is an evil act.

BoVD says so, but that's not core, of course.

Ther are plenty of hints at it in core, but no absolute black and white stated rule.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Arravis said:
			
		

> Any spells have the potential to do so, not just [Evil] spells. As I stated before: if a spell, by its inherent nature, was a cruel act (such as the Flensing spell)... such a spell would be an evil act. But if an [Evil] spell did not inherently match any of the definitions mentioned in the alignment section of the RAW (such as Deathwatch, Protection from Good, etc), it is only evil when used in an evil way (again, as defined by the RAW).
> 
> People are just stuck on the word, and not seeing its context and use.




You are correct - using other spells for an evil purpose is evil.  But evil spells have been declared evil by their very nature (see druid and cleric class descriptions, quoted earlier).  Using them for ANY purpose is evil.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 21, 2006)

The "hints" are very open to interpertation. You see them as pointing towards "evil act", I do not. Since it is unclear, the only course of action available is to follow the clearly stated rules. You may choose to interpert the "hints" as you will, but that's a House Rule.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Arravis said:
			
		

> The "hints" are very open to interpertation. You see them as pointing towards "evil act", I do not. Since it is unclear, the only course of action available is to follow the clearly stated rules. You may choose to interpert the "hints" as you will, but that's a House Rule.




First, calling anyone's rules interpretations "House Rules" is frowned upon in this forum.  I am sure you already knew this, but I thought I'd remind you before a system moderator does so.

Second, I thought I made it very clear that this is all about rules interpretations, and thus you can feel free to rule either way and feel you are within the "RAW," if that's important to you.  Maybe I did not make that celar enough.

It's a bit silly to try and get to THE answer in cases like this.

edit:  Naturally, I have my opinion, as do you.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 21, 2006)

It's not an issue of interperting a rule... but interperting "hints" of a rule. I don't see how that could be anything other than a House Rule.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> [Evil] spells hurt, oppress or kill others.  There you have it.





How does Deathwatch, a spell that specifically enables better healing choices to be made, possibly do this? I dont get it.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Arravis said:
			
		

> It's not an issue of interperting a rule... but interperting "hints" of a rule. I don't see how that could be anything other than a House Rule.




??

The rules list [Evil] descriptors as being associated with the evil alignment. 

That, on its face, is enough to make a valid ruled-based argument that casting such spells is an evil act.  In fact it is hard for me to see how doing something "associated with the evil alignment" would NOT be an evil act.

Sure, you could argue that the alignment-association is for cleric and druids only (I completely disagree, but it is also rules-based), and therefore casting such a spell is not an evil act because it is not definately declared such in the rules.

Either way is a rule-based argument, so both are not "House Rules" per se.  "House Rules," as used in this forum, means those things that are clear changes to the rules as opposed to rule interpretations.

Rules interpretions discusssions are encouraged on this forum, but attempting to shut them down by calling them "House Rules" is discouraged.

I think that's an accurate paraphrasing of some of this forum's rules.  *Let's stay within those rules and avoid the term "House Rules" as a way to try and shut down an opposing view, okay?   *

On the other hand, if you want to say my view is totally misguided, undefendable, and out there in the Twilight Zone, feel free.  You won't hurt MY feelings.      I'll just respond and demonstrate how my view is defendable within the rules.


----------



## glass (Nov 21, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> How does Deathwatch, a spell that specifically enables better healing choices to be made, possibly do this? I dont get it.



IMG, it doesn't, because I have housruled away the [Evil] descriptor from Deathwatch.

In D&D as written (if you go with the [Evil]=evil interpretation), because it increases the amount of evil in the world.


glass.


----------



## Arravis (Nov 21, 2006)

My intent was not to "shut down" an opposing view, my apologies if it came across that way. I simply see no way it could legitimately be interpreted as an evil act by the RAW.

Glass: Where did you find it stated that casting [Evil] descriptor spells increases the amount of evil in the world?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Arravis said:
			
		

> I simply see no way it could legitimately be interpreted as an evil act by the RAW.



 I don't understand why you don't consider the "act of creating evil" to be an "evil act."  I have proven that when casting an [Evil] spell you are creating evil, so at what point do you disassociate the creation from the act?  I fail to see your logic.

Note that I am not even going to the next step of how the [Evil] spell was used.  The mere fact of casting the [Evil] spell is an evil act, per the RAW, based upon the evidence I've provided.

Yes, this also means deathwatch, but whether deathwatch should be an [Evil] spell is another question.  I fully support the idea of houseruling away its (inappropriate) descriptor.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> So, IYO a paladin with UMD can use a scroll of protection from good to, say, ward off neutral summoned monsters?




If BoVD is not in play?  Sure.  I said something similar earlier - that I had no problem with a Paladin/Sorcerer casting Eyebite.

The aura thing doesn't convince me, because there are ways to have an evil aura without being evil.

Let's say our Exalted Neutral Good Wizard uses Shapechange to turn into a Spectre.  Even under BoED rules, this is not an evil act - Shapechange doesn't take on descriptors based on what you're turning into, so it isn't an [Evil] spell.  But the Exalted Neutral Good Wizard now has an evil aura.

-Hyp.


----------



## glass (Nov 21, 2006)

Arravis said:
			
		

> My intent was not to "shut down" an opposing view, my apologies if it came across that way. I simply see no way it could legitimately be interpreted as an evil act by the RAW.



Then say that in the first instance.



			
				Arravis said:
			
		

> Glass: Where did you find it stated that casting [Evil] descriptor spells increases the amount of evil in the world?



See I2k's post above.


glass.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The aura thing doesn't convince me, because there are ways to have an evil aura without being evil.



 Merely having an evil aura is not what is happening.  We're discussing the creation of evil.  If I cast protection from good, this creates evil, even if only temporarily.  In any case, based upon the evidence in detect evil, I'd say that shapechanging into a spectre (or any undead) or a creature with an Evil subtype (assuming that subtype), is an evil act.  I might not have thought that way prior to this discussion, however, but I think the evidence supports that as the correct interpretation from the rules.

PS. I had to add "undead", "spectre", "Hypersmurf" and "shapechanging" to my Firefox dictionary.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> In any case, based upon the evidence in detect evil, I'd say that shapechanging into a spectre (or any undead) or a creature with an Evil subtype (assuming that subtype), is an evil act.




I don't agree that Protection from Good creates evil; it creates something that a Detect Evil spell can detect.  Not identical.  In our shapechanged wizard example, Detect Evil is detecting someone who is not evil; evidence that not everything Detect Evil detects is actually evil.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 21, 2006)

I thought the definition of Descriptors handles this question:



> The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
> 
> Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, *with alignment*, and so on.




Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful would appear to have to interact with Alignment.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't agree that Protection from Good creates evil; it creates something that a Detect Evil spell can detect.  Not identical.  In our shapechanged wizard example, Detect Evil is detecting someone who is not evil; evidence that not everything Detect Evil detects is actually evil.
> 
> -Hyp.




What is an "evil aura" if not evil?



			
				Detect Evil said:
			
		

> You can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
> 
> 1st Round
> Presence or absence of evil.
> ...




If something is detectable by Detect Evil it is evil.  It says so right at the beginning of the spell description - the "presence of evil."

This is a simple as it gets for a rule, isn't it?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't agree that Protection from Good creates evil; it creates something that a Detect Evil spell can detect.  Not identical.  In our shapechanged wizard example, Detect Evil is detecting someone who is not evil; evidence that not everything Detect Evil detects is actually evil.



 Detect evil explicitly detects the "Presence or absence of evil."  Thus, everything that registers with the spell is, by definition of the spell, evil.  Even a good undead creature can _stun_ a good spell caster who uses detect evil when, and I quote, "the strongest evil aura’s power is overwhelming."  It even goes on to further say "evil creature."  It doesn't say "evil or undead creature" or any other wording that would make it as seemingly innocuous as the [Evil] descriptor.


----------



## Xanterith (Nov 21, 2006)

Ok, from what I can tell the whole problem with [evil] can be shown in one spell:

Deathwatch

On the surface, for a good cleric, this looks like a great spell.  Let's you know who is hurt and how bad, basically come up with a strategy on how to keep people alive.  

I can see that.  Looks good on the outside.  But what is the spell actually doing?  Let's not just look at the ends and say "Oh that spell is good because it tells me who to heal" but rather look at the entirety of the spell, it's full function, purpose and result.

"Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife"  -  ok...that sounds pretty darn evil.   What foul powers of unlife would grant this ability to those who would use it to preserve life?  Instead I would think that they would grant it to those who most want to deal death....evil people....So in this case perhaps it is not the deity blocking the good cleric from using the spell, but rather the evil powers not granting it.  

The spell then goes on to describe the different levels of near death.  Pretty mundane there.  But the last line says that it grants the ability to see through feign death.   What person in need of healing would fake being dead?  Instead, this would allow an evil person to tell that someone was a faker and needed to get put over.  That is the function of the last part.

After reading the spell and thinking about it, this spell is DEFINITELY a good candidate for the evil descriptor, and while does not directly do anything evil, it sure as hell is not on the good side of the fence.

I think instead of looking at spells with the [evil] descriptor and saying "My good cleric should be able to cast that spell because it has a good result" or "My good mage would have no problem casting that because I can use it for good" we should more be saying "Why is it evil and why shouldn't I use it?"  I think the answer to that question is a lot easier to come up with than trying to patch something together to explain the first for each instance of the [evil] descriptor.

After looking at what I wrote, I now can without uncertainty see why this spell has the [evil] descriptor, if as I have hypothesized above the purpose of this spell is for the caster to determine the weakest person in the AoE with the intent of slaying them, then this spell is in direct support of what defines a person as evil:



> “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.




Saying there is not fault in the spell is very similar to many arguments used by others that state the responsibility of the action lies on the shoulders of the person doing, and any ends that they use to reach this goal are not responsible, an argument I wholeheartedly disagree with.  I think that responsibility does, in part, lie with the actual means and I think the [evil] descriptor in a small way tries to flag this.  

Good and Evil in DnD are not like Good and Evil in the real world.   In DnD Good and Evil are quantitative forces, and therefore have direct effects.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> What is an "evil aura" if not evil?




Something radiated by undead, clerics of evil deities, evil creatures, evil outsiders, and evil spells and items, that can be detected with Detect Evil.  



> If something is detectable by Detect Evil it is evil.  It says so right at the beginning of the spell description - the "presence of evil."




I disagree.  If something is evil, it can be detected by Detect Evil.  It says so right at the beginning of the spell.

But in the middle of the spell, it also states that it detects evil auras... and we know that those may be possessed by things that are not evil.

Example: Magic Missile states that "A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip".  Does this mean that later in the spell, when it describes the ability to gain additional missiles, the text is in error?  Additional missiles are not "_a missile_ of magical energy", after all!

But no; the first sentence is true, but it is not comprehensive.  A missile of magical energy darts forth, but in addition, more missiles may also dart forth.

Detect Evil detects the presence of evil.  This is true.  It also, however, detects the strength and location of evil auras, whether or not those evil auras result from the presence of actual evil, as defined further on in the spell than the first sentence.

You can't read the first line of a spell and stop.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful would appear to have to interact with Alignment.




And they do, as laid out in the Cleric and Druid class descriptions.

-Hyp.


----------



## Xanterith (Nov 21, 2006)

The possesor of the evil aura may not be evil, but the aura is.

A good person can be possesed by a demon and radiate evil.  This doesn't change the the alignment of the person, but does indicate the PRESENCE of evil.  Presence is the key word, and that fact that evil can be measured in DnD.  Basically it means evil is here, and this is how much, but has absolutely no reading of how much or how little good is also there.

In order for the spell to function, evil has to be there, or something that is trying to look like evil and fool the spell, but the purpose of the spell is to...detect evil.  Let's not overthink this too much.


*There was something here, I retract it as it was stupid, or the rules are stupid, one of the 2.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 21, 2006)

Land Outcast said:
			
		

> I'll try and answer with a question:
> 
> What's the [Evil] tag telling us?



That a good-aligned cleric cannot cast the spell, and the spell effect shows up when you use Detect Evil.  Apparently, not much else.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> That a good-aligned cleric cannot cast the spell, and the spell effect shows up when you use Detect Evil.  Apparently, not much else.




Don't forget the Evil Domain Granted Power!

-Hyp.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I didn't say anything about changing alignment.  I am saying that the creation of an evil aura (not just an [Evil] one) is an evil act.  You're bringing evil into the world, fostering it, and that's not an evil act?  I don't see that as a large leap at all, but the very next step in a logical sequence.
> 
> Cast [Evil] spell --> create evil aura --> evil act.
> 
> Obviously, nothing in the rules say "This is an evil act." so the goal here is to provide enough evidence to support that statement.  If no evidence is enough, then I refer you back to the baker example.



IMC casting spells with any alignment descriptor cause you to have an alignment aura for a short duration of time, but no amount of Protection From Good spells will turn you evil.  You're tapping into an effect that is itself aligned, in that weird way that D&D turns ethics into metaphysics, and the effect is that you get some alignment on you.  Your alignment doesn't change, but it's like walking through an Evil cobweb.  After a minute or so it blows away, and your aura returns to normal.

I don't see a reason to descibe the progression from "ech, I've got evil all over me" to "I'm evil" as "logical".  It seems to be two different things.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Don't forget the Evil Domain Granted Power!
> 
> -Hyp.



Right.  The point being, of course, that we have a discrete list of effects that interact with [Evil], not to be confused with evil.  A cleric with the Evil Domain might cast an evil spell, but if the spell is not also [Evil], he doesn't get the granted power bonus.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 21, 2006)

Xanterith said:
			
		

> Ok, from what I can tell the whole problem with [evil] can be shown in one spell:
> 
> Deathwatch
> 
> ...



You could use this same argument to argue that a large number of spells that don't have the [Evil] descriptor deserve to have it.  Someone mentioned Enervation, a spell that can only do harm and which, unlike Deathwatch, has no peaceful applications.  However, these spells don't have the descriptor, and so they act as a rebuttal to this line of argument.  Since they don't have the descriptor, being useful for evil or drawing on dark powers is not sufficient to bestow the [Evil] descriptor.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> After a minute or so it blows away, and your aura returns to normal.



 How about if it doesn't blow away?  Is casting curse water an evil act?


			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The point being, of course, that we have a discrete list of effects that interact with [Evil], not to be confused with evil.



 And yet there's a direct correlation between [Evil] and evil.


			
				Hyp said:
			
		

> Detect Evil detects the presence of evil. This is true. It also, however, detects the strength and location of evil auras, whether or not those evil auras result from the presence of actual evil, as defined further on in the spell than the first sentence.



 I don't agree.  The mere fact that those creature/objects/effects have evil auras is proof that they are evil.  Using your same argument, a creature can have a Lawful Good alignment will still possessing an evil aura and thus being evil.

I see no justification in your stance per the rules.  You seem to be merely disagreeing to hold on to your position.  So far you've said that [Evil] does not make something evil.  I've shown proof that it does.  Now, you're saying that an "evil aura" or the "evil creature" does not make something evil.

If not evil, is the creation of unholy water a good or neutral act?


----------



## Seeten (Nov 21, 2006)

Enervation even channels negative energy. Perhaps its not evil because its an "instant" effect, and doesnt last?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...But in the middle of the spell, it also states that it detects evil auras... and we know that those may be possessed by things that are not evil.




By default, an evil aura signifies the presence of evil.  Unless you can show that's not true, we have to assume that this is the case.  You have not shown an evil aura can exists for something non-evil.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> And they do, as laid out in the Cleric and Druid class descriptions.
> 
> -Hyp.




Nothing indicates that this relationship to alignment is resticted to only the class descriptions for druid and cleric.  There is no sort fo "for the purpose of..." statement or anything like that.

You argument seesm ratehr weak, Hyp.

From your argument I would agree that there is nothing *[]absolutely definitive*[/i] that states casting an [evil] spell is an evil act.  But that's as far as I'll go.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The mere fact that those creature/objects/effects have evil auras is proof that they are evil.  Using your same argument, a creature can have a Lawful Good alignment will still possessing an evil aura and thus being evil.




Huh?  A creature can have a Lawful Good alignment while still possessing an evil aura - I agree completely.  That does not make the creature evil.



> Now, you're saying that an "evil aura" or the "evil creature" does not make something evil.




An evil creature has an evil aura.  A creature with an evil aura, however, is not necessarily an evil creature.



> If not evil, is the creation of unholy water a good or neutral act?




I don't think the casting of the Curse Water spell is an evil act, but the use of the spell to create unholy water might be, depending on circumstances.

Similarly, I don't think the casting of the Summon Monster (Fiendish Dire Weasel) spell is an evil act, but the use of the spell to murder an innocent baker is.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> You have not shown an evil aura can exists for something non-evil.




I already gave you the example of the non-evil wizard with an evil aura!

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...I already gave you the example of the non-evil wizard with an evil aura!
> 
> -Hyp.




You proved the creature (the wizard) is not evil, not that no evil is present.  

I there is an evil aura, there is evil.   That's pretty simple.

Can you show that is not so?  Can you show how an evil aura is not connected to something evil?


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> You proved the creature (the wizard) is not evil, not that no evil is present.




I'll quote myself.    

A good/neutral character using an evil weapon: Detect evil.  After three rounds the aura can be located - presumably with enough accuracy to seperate out the weapon from the wielder.

If you detect evil because you are using an evil form, I would presume the aura could not be differentiated from you because the evil form you are using is inseperable from you.

So you would not be an evil creature, but evil exists in the form you are using.  Evil exists.


----------



## Neverwill (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Similarly, I don't think the casting of the Summon Monster (Fiendish Dire Weasel) spell is an evil act, but the use of the spell to murder an innocent baker is.




Does casting that spell even have an [Evil] descriptor?  I thought the reference to "evil" in the Summon Monster descriptions referred to the [Evil] creature subtype.  I realize the summoned weasel would have an evil alignment, but would it be an [Evil] creature?  I don't see anything in the Fiendish template.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

Neverwill said:
			
		

> Does casting that spell even have an [Evil] descriptor?




I believe so; I think that's the reason that the non-neutral summonable creatures all have alignments listed in the spell description... so that clerics know which ones they are incapable of summoning.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> You proved the creature (the wizard) is not evil, not that no evil is present.




I agree that an evil aura is present, but I don't agree that evil is present.  The evil aura is possessed by the wizard (not a spell on the wizard, or an item held by the wizard), and the wizard is not evil; therefore, the evil aura does not indicate, in this case, the presence of evil.

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I agree that an evil aura is present, but I don't agree that evil is present.  The evil aura is possessed by the wizard (not a spell on the wizard, or an item held by the wizard), and the wizard is not evil; therefore, the evil aura does not indicate, in this case, the presence of evil.



 This is provably not true.  An evil aura explicitly indicates the presence of evil, specifically "creatures, objects, or spells."  There is no other definition for "evil aura" outside of detect evil.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I believe so; I think that's the reason that the non-neutral summonable creatures all have alignments listed in the spell description... so that clerics know which ones they are incapable of summoning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Apparently the *very form the wizard has taken* is evil.  

Evil is present.


----------



## Neverwill (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I believe so; I think that's the reason that the non-neutral summonable creatures all have alignments listed in the spell description... so that clerics know which ones they are incapable of summoning.




I used to think that, but a more careful reading pushed me the other way.  A different justification for the table would be to tell you the alignment of the monster since the Fiendish template doesn't - it only specifies "Always Evil (any)".  How else is one to determine the alignment of a Fiendish Hawk?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Oops, nevermind.  Wrong creature.  

I agree that summoning a fiendish dire weasel is not an [Evil, Lawful] spell.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> This is provably not true.  An evil aura explicitly indicates the presence of evil, specifically "creatures, objects, or spells."  There is no other definition for "evil aura" outside of detect evil.




I'm reading "Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells)"; it's referring to creatures, objects, and spells that have evil auras, not stating that creatures with evil auras are evil.

To determine the aura power, we see the accompanying table, which includes entries for evil creatures and evil magic items/spells, but also for things which may not be evil - clerics of evil deities, and undead.

A Lawful Neutral cleric of a Lawful Evil deity is not an evil creature, yet he is detected by Detect Evil.  A Neutral Good spectre is not an evil creature, yet he is detected by Detect Evil.  Despite having an evil aura that can be detected, neither creature is evil.

A Paladin who is the subject of a Misdirection spell fixed on an Unholy sword will be detected by Detect Evil.  He is not an evil creature.

The presence of an evil aura does not always indicate the presence of evil.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

Neverwill said:
			
		

> I used to think that, but a more careful reading pushed me the other way.  A different justification for the table would be to tell you the alignment of the monster since the Fiendish template doesn't - it only specifies "Always Evil (any)".  How else is one to determine the alignment of a Fiendish Hawk?




If the fiendish hawk (somehow) attempted to wield a Holy battleaxe, would he incur a negative level?

-Hyp.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 21, 2006)

Never argue rules with Hypersmurf. It always ends in humiliation. LOL.


----------



## Xanterith (Nov 21, 2006)

> The presence of an evil aura does not always indicate the presence of evil.




That is pretty much the argument right there.  I think that statement is false, you think it's true.  

My personal belief is that in the DnD multiverse Evil/Good/Chaos/Law are all measurable forces.  Because of this spells,effects, creatures, etc that create a positive result in the Detect Evil spell contain a measurable quantity of this force/stuff/whatever it is.   Any spell with the [Evil] descriptor uses this as a part of the spell, and therefore is an evil act, regardless of if the spell summons pink bunnies with wands of healing that spread love and happiness and healing to all who come across their path or if the spells kills a million creatures outright - if it has the Evil descriptor, casting it is evil.  Now how evil, that is up to the DM.

There is more in the rules to show prove evil/good/law/chaos as an actual force than not.

Physics defines a force as an influence on a body or system, producing or tending to produce a change in movement or in shape or other effects.   Evil, Good, Chaos, Law are all forces that act apon the spiritual nature of a creature or being.  Opposite polls on this spectrum will repel each other or if forced to interact will cause a great disturbance - great law mixed with great chaos, evil with good, etc.   Mixing has detrimental effects on the stability of a creature's spiritual nature.  Again, just my opinion.  As for what Wizards intended, probably what you guys are saying - it's just a spell description for what it interacts with.  Maybe they should add "Bands with other Evil Spells" or some crap to it as well.


----------



## Seeten (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The presence of an evil aura does not always indicate the presence of evil.






			
				Xanterith said:
			
		

> That is pretty much the argument right there.  I think that statement is false, you think it's true.






			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A Paladin who is the subject of a Misdirection spell fixed on an Unholy sword will be detected by Detect Evil. He is not an evil creature.




I dont understand how this argument goes further, unless now we all think the Paladin is evil and loses his Paladinhood because someone misdirected an aura onto him.


----------



## Neverwill (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If the fiendish hawk (somehow) attempted to wield a Holy battleaxe, would he incur a negative level?




I suppose that depends if you think Holy special ability is referencing evil alignment or the [Evil] descriptor.

In Summon Monster I, how do you know that they mean evilly aligned creature and not [Evil] subtype creature?



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> When you use a summoning spell to summon an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.




Is the spell lumping in spell descriptors with alignment categories in the same sentence?  What context would you draw from if you decided the spell references [Air], [Earth], [Fire], and [Water] subtypes, but chaotic, evil, good and lawful alignment categories?


----------



## Xanterith (Nov 21, 2006)

Misdirection
Illusion (Glamer)

That aura is as real as an illusionary tree.  It is a glamer of an aura.  If the paladin picked up the Unholy sword and used it, he may well no longer be a paladin, even if the aura on the sword was misdirected as good.

Honestly I don't understand where the paladin arguement is coming from at all.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm reading "Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells)"; it's referring to creatures, objects, and spells that have evil auras, not stating that creatures with evil auras are evil.



 Perhaps I just don't understand your definition of evil aura.  It doesn't seem to jive with mine, which I got from the detect evil spell, the only place I know where it's given/used.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A Lawful Neutral cleric of a Lawful Evil deity is not an evil creature, yet he is detected by Detect Evil.  A Neutral Good spectre is not an evil creature, yet he is detected by Detect Evil.  Despite having an evil aura that can be detected, neither creature is evil.



 Sure, they are.  Both are evil.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A Paladin who is the subject of a Misdirection spell fixed on an Unholy sword will be detected by Detect Evil.  He is not an evil creature.



 Sure he is, as far as the spell caster of detect evil knows.  It's an illusion though, so it's not actually true.  This example is more of a straw man though because you're using an illusion.  You could make the same argument that a major image of a demon doesn't detect as evil, thus demons are not evil.  The example simply doesn't work.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The presence of an evil aura does not always indicate the presence of evil.



 Yes, it does.

Impasse, then?


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And they do, as laid out in the Cleric and Druid class descriptions.




So, Evil Descriptor spells are Evil for Clerics, but not for Wizards?

Or are they non-Evil even for Good Clerics, just prohibited?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, Evil Descriptor spells are Evil for Clerics, but not for Wizards?
> 
> Or are they non-Evil even for Good Clerics, just prohibited?




By my reading, absent BoVD, casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is not an evil act (in and of itself) for a wizard.  Neither would it be an evil act for a good cleric, but it is something he can't do, since it is prohibited.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Sure, they are. Both are evil.




So if you consider the Neutral Good wizard to be an evil creature, does he suffer a negative level from wielding a Holy dagger?



> You could make the same argument that a major image of a demon doesn't detect as evil, thus demons are not evil.




Hmm?  I'd argue that a major image of a demon doesn't detect as evil, therefore that particular major image of a demon is not evil.

I'd argue that if a particular demon detects as evil, he has an evil aura... but we don't know if that's due to an evil alignment, an evil subtype, his hypothetical status as a cleric of an evil deity, an undead nature, or a Misdirection spell.  Only one of those makes him an evil creature, and one of them causes him to be affected by spells and effects as if he were evil despite not being evil, and the other three could give him an evil aura even if he is not evil.

-Hyp.


----------



## Simm (Nov 21, 2006)

Xanterith said:
			
		

> Misdirection
> Illusion (Glamer)
> 
> That aura is as real as an illusionary tree.  It is a glamer of an aura.  If the paladin picked up the Unholy sword and used it, he may well no longer be a paladin, even if the aura on the sword was misdirected as good.
> ...




The paladin would not risk losing anything, at no time did he willfuly use the evil item, so no breach of paladin code is possible.

Besides I do not beleive that using an evil or [Evil] item is and evil act; it is simply more likely to be evil than good due to the nature of action it allows.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 21, 2006)

Neverwill said:
			
		

> I suppose that depends if you think Holy special ability is referencing evil alignment or the [Evil] descriptor.
> 
> In Summon Monster I, how do you know that they mean evilly aligned creature and not [Evil] subtype creature?




I think that the Holy ability says an evil creature gets a negative level, and Summon Monster says that if you summon an evil creature, it's a spell of that type.

So if the creature you summon gets a negative level from the Holy battleaxe, it's an evil creature, which means that Summon Monster was a spell of that type.



			
				Xanterith said:
			
		

> If the paladin picked up the Unholy sword and used it, he may well no longer be a paladin, even if the aura on the sword was misdirected as good.




Using an Unholy sword is not inherently an evil act, any more than using a non-magical sword is.  The paladin incurs a negative level, but he won't lose his status over it.

If he uses that sword to murder that unfortunate innocent baker who's having such a hard time in this thread, that's an evil act... but no more so than it would have been with a non-magical sword.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...Using an Unholy sword is not inherently an evil act, any more than using a non-magical sword is.  The paladin incurs a negative level, but he won't lose his status over it....-Hyp.




That's very game-specific.  It certainly could be considered an evil act to use any of the tools of evil, for whatever end.

This is all very DM-specific stuff here.


----------



## GeorgeFields (Nov 22, 2006)

Start a poll.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 22, 2006)

GeoFFields said:
			
		

> Start a poll.




 Like this?


----------



## GeorgeFields (Nov 22, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Like this?




You know it!


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 22, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't think the casting of the Curse Water spell is an evil act, but the use of the spell to create unholy water might be, depending on circumstances.



 I object to you separating this out.  Casting the spell is creating the water.  There's no other option.  This is not analogous to (e.g.) casting a fireball and targeting either orcs (good act) or innocents (evil act).  The casting of curse water creates unholy water.  I agree that then using that water to injure a planetar is an evil act, but you cannot separate the casting from the creation.

The mere creation of unholy water (i.e. casting curse water) is an evil act, identified by the [Evil] descriptor.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 22, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The mere creation of unholy water (i.e. casting curse water) is an evil act, identified by the [Evil] descriptor.




I don't agree that it's the [Evil] descriptor that determines whether or not the act is evil.

If creation of Unholy Water is an evil act, then it is evil whether it is done by means of a spell with the [Evil] descriptor (Curse Water), or a spell without the [Evil] descriptor (Wish, to take an extreme example).

The descriptor makes no difference to whether or not the act of creating Unholy Water is evil.  If creating Unholy Water is evil in and of itself, then it is the creation of the water, not the casting of the spell, that is the evil act, whether or not the spell used has the [Evil] descriptor.  If creating Unholy Water is _not_ evil in and of itself, then the casting of the spell is still not an evil act, whether or not the spell used has the [Evil] descriptor.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 22, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> By my reading, absent BoVD, casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is not an evil act (in and of itself) for a wizard.  Neither would it be an evil act for a good cleric, but it is something he can't do, since it is prohibited.




I view it this way: 

WotC 1: "Oh Shoot. We thought people would get it that evil is evil and good is good. But, we did not explicitly write it down that the Fire descriptor is the use of elemental Fire and the Evil descriptor is the use of Evil. Pure and simple."

WotC 2: "No problem. We are putting out BoVD and BoED. DMs will get it after they read them."

DM 1: "It is not core, so using an Evil descriptor spell is not an evil act because the PHB does not say so."

WotC: "Arrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!"


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 22, 2006)

(Tangent...)


			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...or a spell without the [Evil] descriptor (Wish, to take an extreme example).



 Doesn't "duplicate any spell" copy the descriptor, if not also the school, of the duplicated spell?  If not, why can you not duplicate a spell from a prohibited school (beside the obvious fact of it saying so)?

(Back on topic...)
I'm not sure I have any further points to make, so if you think I've failed to respond adequately to something, let me know.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 22, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> How about if it doesn't blow away?  Is casting curse water an evil act?
> *snip*
> If not evil, is the creation of unholy water a good or neutral act?



I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that unholy water can't be used for good purposes.  In that case, it's evil to make unholy water.  Not because the spell is [Evil], but because it's wrong to do so.  Casting the spell is evil, and the spell itself also happens to be [Evil].  It didn't need to be [Evil] for every casting of the spell to be evil, and if there were good applications of the spell, casting it wouldn't necessarily be evil, even though it's [Evil].


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 22, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> This is provably not true.  An evil aura explicitly indicates the presence of evil, specifically "creatures, objects, or spells."  There is no other definition for "evil aura" outside of detect evil.



So you're saying the wizard is evil?  That's also demonstrably not true.  The spell isn't itself evil, since if you use it to turn into a bugbear, no evil is detectable.  No objects that are present are evil.  Perhaps the form is inherently evil, but that's not on the list of "creatures, objects, or spells."

So what evil creature, object, or spell is the Detect Evil spell detecting?  Or does detect evil also detect [Evil]?

Also, is anyone else having that "this word doesn't look like it's spelled right" thing with "evil" after seeing it typed out so many times?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 22, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Apparently the *very form the wizard has taken* is evil.
> 
> Evil is present.



That would be my reading.  But the real question is, and has been from the start, has the wizard committed an evil act simply by assuming the form of an undead creature?  I don't think he has.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 22, 2006)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> In that case, it's evil to make unholy water.  Not because the spell is [Evil], but because it's wrong to do so.



 You could make the same claim even if the rules explicitly said "casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act."  So, I don't think you can just ignore the descriptor like that and consider the spellcasting wholly separately.  I contend that the descriptor is a rule that defines the act.  This is supported (not explicitly) by the cleric/druid restrictions.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Casting the spell is evil, and the spell itself also happens to be [Evil].  It didn't need to be [Evil] for every casting of the spell to be evil, and if there were good applications of the spell, casting it wouldn't necessarily be evil, even though it's [Evil].



 I still contend that by being [Evil], every casting of the spell is an evil act, even if that evil act is used for ultimately/eventually good (or even neutral) purposes.  The curse water is an interesting example because it does not require a secondary action after the casting (e.g. placing the effect against certain opponents or whatever).  Now, granted, casting a fireball and placing it is still one combat Action, but I think the point is clear.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 22, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I view it this way:
> 
> WotC 1: "Oh Shoot. We thought people would get it that evil is evil and good is good. But, we did not explicitly write it down that the Fire descriptor is the use of elemental Fire and the Evil descriptor is the use of Evil. Pure and simple."
> 
> ...



The problem with this is that there are plenty of ways to do good acts using [Evil] spells.  Therefore [Evil] |= evil.  In the absence of a rule stating that casting [Evil] spells is evil (i.e. you're not using BoVD), the moral status of the act is determined in the same way as any other act.  Was swinging that sword evil?  Nothing about swinging a sword is inherently evil, so we must examine the circumstances under which it occurred, the intentions of the wielder, and the outcome of the act.  The same goes for [Evil] spells with potentially good applications.  Certainly some [Evil] spells are associated with evil acts based on the effects they have.  That's why they were chosen to have the descriptor.  Another reason they may have been chosen was to ensure that there was an [Evil] spell at that spell level.

Perhaps, however, this argument is the fault of WotC's policy of placing errata in supplements rather than in the errata list.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 22, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> You could make the same claim even if the rules explicitly said "casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act."  So, I don't think you can just ignore the descriptor like that and consider the spellcasting wholly separately.  I contend that the descriptor is a rule that defines the act.  This is supported (not explicitly) by the cleric/druid restrictions.




If there were such a rule, then there would be two reasons that casting the spell is evil, rather than one.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 22, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> (Tangent...)
> Doesn't "duplicate any spell" copy the descriptor, if not also the school, of the duplicated spell?




I'm not using 'duplicate any spell'; I'm using 'Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000gp in value'.  To duplicate Curse Water, I'd need a flask of water.  I'm doing this out of thin air.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Also, is anyone else having that "this word doesn't look like it's spelled right" thing with "evil" after seeing it typed out so many times?




The worst example I've had of that - on multiple occasions - is talking about Touch spells, and touch spells in combat, and the difference between 'range: touch' and 'ranged touch', and using a touch spell on up to six friends, and holding the charge on a touch spell...

By the time the thread has gone on for a page, and you've typed 'touch' several dozen times, it starts looking real weird...

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 22, 2006)

Well, we could start spelling it eavle.


----------



## green slime (Nov 22, 2006)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that there are plenty of ways to do good acts using [Evil] spells.  Therefore [Evil] |= evil.  In the absence of a rule stating that casting [Evil] spells is evil (i.e. you're not using BoVD), the moral status of the act is determined in the same way as any other act.  Was swinging that sword evil?  Nothing about swinging a sword is inherently evil, so we must examine the circumstances under which it occurred, the intentions of the wielder, and the outcome of the act.  The same goes for [Evil] spells with potentially good applications.




No. because in a world with absolutes, that sword in and of itself is *not* inherently evil. Yet a spell with the descriptor [Evil] is. (Thereof the descriptor) No matter what use that spell is put to, the spell itself will always be evil. Using that spell makes the world a darker place. It corrupts ever-so-slightly the soul of the caster. Its use will provoke distaste and mistrust of the caster amongst those who consider good to be something worthwhile. While you can always try to use something [Evil] for a good purpose, Evil will usually find a way to subvert and undermine those intentions. The path to hell is lined with good intentions.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 22, 2006)

green slime said:
			
		

> No. because in a world with absolutes, that sword in and of itself is *not* inherently evil. Yet a spell with the descriptor [Evil] is. (Thereof the descriptor) No matter what use that spell is put to, the spell itself will always be evil. Using that spell makes the world a darker place. It corrupts ever-so-slightly the soul of the caster. Its use will provoke distaste and mistrust of the caster amongst those who consider good to be something worthwhile. While you can always try to use something [Evil] for a good purpose, Evil will usually find a way to subvert and undermine those intentions. The path to hell is lined with good intentions.




Now if there was only something defined in the rules which stated exactly what you just did.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 22, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> WotC 1: "Oh Shoot. We thought people would get it that evil is evil and good is good. But, we did not explicitly write it down that the Fire descriptor is the use of elemental Fire and the Evil descriptor is the use of Evil. Pure and simple."
> 
> WotC 2: "No problem. We are putting out BoVD and BoED. DMs will get it after they read them."




Of course, this scenario would be more convincing were it not that the BoVD was released _before_ the 3.5 Core Rules.

If they thought it was an important clarification, they could have put it in the PHB.

As it stands, it only seems to be important for games dealing with Vile and Exalted concepts...

-Hyp.


----------



## werk (Nov 22, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Well, we could start spelling it eavle.




How about Evel, like Evel Knievel?

[sblock]After the birth of his first son, Kelly, Knievel realized that he needed to come up with a new way to support his family. Using the hunting and fishing skills taught to him by his grandfather, Knievel started the Sur-Kill Guide Service. He guaranteed that if a hunter signed up with his service and paid his fee that they would get the big game animal that they wanted or he would refund their money. Business was very brisk until game wardens realized that he was taking his clients into Yellowstone National Park to find their prey. As a result of this poaching, Knievel had to shut down his new business venture. Having few options, he turned to a life of crime, becoming a burglar. It is rumored that Knievel bought his first bike after breaking into the safe of the Butte courthouse.[/sblock]


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 22, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Of course, this scenario would be more convincing were it not that the BoVD was released _before_ the 3.5 Core Rules.
> 
> If they thought it was an important clarification, they could have put it in the PHB.
> 
> As it stands, it only seems to be important for games dealing with Vile and Exalted concepts...




Actually, I think it is a matter of them laying down a good foundation for what evil and good are within BoVD and BoED and then allowing the vanilla game to not have that level of detail or restrictiveness. After all, good acts are really the antithesis of almost all DND-like rpging where PCs go into a lair, *kill* creatures, *steal* their loot, rinse and repeat.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 22, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, I think it is a matter of them laying down a good foundation for what evil and good are within BoVD and BoED and then allowing the vanilla game to not have that level of detail or restrictiveness.




So in the vanilla game, [Evil] spells aren't restricted to being evil acts?

Sounds right to me!

But the publication order thing crops up in a couple of other places; Skip Williams' house rule about flanking and invisible creatures, for example.  It wasn't in the 3E Core Rules; it was in the 3E FAQ.  If it had subsequently appeared in the 3.5 Core Rules, no problem, but it didn't... so it hurts the credibility of the same mechanic when it appears in a RotG article.  If it was supposed to be a rule, they'd have adopted the FAQ answer when they revised the rules!

-Hyp.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 22, 2006)

Why does no one worry about casting spells with a [Good] descriptor being a Good act?  Or lawful/chaotic acts?


----------



## werk (Nov 22, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Why does no one worry about casting spells with a [Good] descriptor being a Good act?  Or lawful/chaotic acts?




It's the same argument.


----------



## green slime (Nov 22, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Now if there was only something defined in the rules which stated exactly what you just did.




Yes, now why don't we define the entire language used with the rules while we are at it.

We'll start but defining the words "if", "but" and "maybe".

At some level, you have to start accepting that the words used in the game actually mean to mean exactly what common sense would have you expect them to mean.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 23, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> It's the same argument.




Of course.  But I'm just wondering why the only discussion you ever see is about the evil side of things.

Were I a LG cleric, I'd also be concerned about chaotic acts.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 23, 2006)

green slime said:
			
		

> Yes, now why don't we define the entire language used with the rules while we are at it.
> 
> We'll start but defining the words "if", "but" and "maybe".
> 
> At some level, you have to start accepting that the words used in the game actually mean to mean exactly what common sense would have you expect them to mean.



Perhaps, but when you isolate a regular word by putting square-brackets around it, you're specifically saying, "this isn't the regular word.  This is a game mechanics term.  It is not intended to be used as a regular word, but as an indicator of how the rules interact with one another."  When you use the word evil when talking about alignment, it's just the regular word evil with its regular use.  However, [Evil] isn't about alignment.  It's a spell descriptor.  It happens to be associated with spells and spellcasters that are generally evil.  But it doesn't follow--and there is no rule outside of BoVD that states--that [Evil] necessarily indicates evil...in exactly the same way that [Darkness] and [Light] do not necessarily indicate darkness and light, respectively, as Hypersmurf pointed out.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 23, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Of course.  But I'm just wondering why the only discussion you ever see is about the evil side of things.
> 
> Were I a LG cleric, I'd also be concerned about chaotic acts.



It's because no DM has ever told the player of a chaotic character "you've been too consistent and supportive of authority lately.  I'm changing your alignment to neutral."  But because of the personal feelings people have about the good/evil alignment axis, DMs are always looking for violations of goodness.  Law, Chaos, and Evil are much less scrutinized in practice, which is why Good is always the subject of these discussions.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 23, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So in the vanilla game, [Evil] spells aren't restricted to being evil acts?




Are [Fire] spells restricted to being energy?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 23, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Are [Fire] spells restricted to being energy?




That's not the same argument.  A better question would be, "Are [Fire] spells restricted to being fiery acts?"


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 23, 2006)

green slime said:
			
		

> Yes, now why don't we define the entire language used with the rules while we are at it.
> 
> We'll start but defining the words "if", "but" and "maybe".
> 
> At some level, you have to start accepting that the words used in the game actually mean to mean exactly what common sense would have you expect them to mean.




I'm sorry, but when you say things like:



> No matter what use that spell is put to, the spell itself will always be evil. Using that spell makes the world a darker place. It corrupts ever-so-slightly the soul of the caster. Its use will provoke distaste and mistrust of the caster amongst those who consider good to be something worthwhile. While you can always try to use something [Evil] for a good purpose, Evil will usually find a way to subvert and undermine those intentions. The path to hell is lined with good intentions.




Without any hard core rules support to back up your assumption, yet you are assuming this is the norm, it is almost as if you are saying "It's obvious this is what the [Evil] descriptor is meant to do, and if you don't follow this logic, you are playing wrong".  I am sorry if I don't subscribe to a LG Wizard casting Summon Monster to summon a fiendish creature to do good acts, and not penalizing that Wizard by making him change alignment to evil.  If there WERE rules to this effect in the book (which is why I mentioned it), then this arguement would have some validity.


----------



## Jack Simth (Nov 23, 2006)

Other than perhaps poison use and the channeling negative/positive energy under the Turning entries, there aren't any hard, core, rules on alignment.  Thus, a Paladin can burn an orphanage (as it's not defined as an evil act) with all the orphans inside, and so long as he punishes himself later (degree undefined - he can slap his own wrist) he's not inviolation of the paladin's oath.  He keeps all class features (unless the DM feels like doing some Fiat).

Core, prove me wrong.  Please.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 23, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> That's not the same argument.  A better question would be, "Are [Fire] spells restricted to being fiery acts?"




I fail to see how using a [Fire] descriptor spell is not manipulating fire.

I fail to see how using a [Evil] descriptor spell is not manipulating evil.


----------



## Philip (Nov 23, 2006)

In D&D: evil is not what evil does.

Evil is what has the [evil] descriptor, regardless of consequences, intentions, misuse etc.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 23, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Are [Fire] spells restricted to being energy?




I don't think so.  If I Summon an Azer, I'm not manipulating fire.  I'm casting a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, but what I'm doing is summoning a creature.

If I cast Blasphemy, there's no sonic damage dealt; rather, the [Sonic] descriptor tells us that the Silence spell provides a defence against it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 23, 2006)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> Thus, a Paladin can burn an orphanage (as it's not defined as an evil act) with all the orphans inside, and so long as he punishes himself later (degree undefined - he can slap his own wrist) he's not inviolation of the paladin's oath.  He keeps all class features (unless the DM feels like doing some Fiat).
> 
> Core, prove me wrong.  Please.




Doesn't this come under 'destroying innocent life' from 'Good vs Evil', PHB p104?

As I see it, if someone Summons a Bralani Eladrin and has it burn the orphanage with all the orphans inside, he's destroying innocent life; evil, per p104.

If someone else Summons a Chain Devil and has it carry those orphans to safety, he's protecting innocent life; good, per p104.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 23, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't think so.  If I Summon an Azer, I'm not manipulating fire.  I'm casting a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, but what I'm doing is summoning a creature.




This sounds like semantics. If your deity is a cold deity and dislikes Fire (but does not prohibit it) and you Summon an Azer, you are manipulating fire and your deity should be annoyed at you. You are not directly manipulating fire, but you are using fire nonetheless.

Ditto for [Evil] spells.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 23, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This sounds like semantics. If your deity is a cold deity and dislikes Fire (but does not prohibit it) and you Summon an Azer, you are manipulating fire and your deity should be annoyed at you. You are not directly manipulating fire, but you are using fire nonetheless.




That's between you and your deity, rather than between you and the rules; Fire vs Cold is not prohibited to a generic cleric the way Good vs Evil is.

And wouldn't the same principle apply to your Cold worshipper if he cast, say, Prismatic Spray - a spell that deals fire damage without the [Fire] descriptor?  Shouldn't the deity be just as mad at him as for summoning an Azer?

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Nov 24, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If someone else Summons a Chain Devil and has it carry those orphans to safety, he's protecting innocent life; good, per p104.



Which maybe RAW, but it smacks of 'the ends justifies the means' type of argument.  In my mind, a cleric that did such a thing would probably be balancing out the two effects - the saving of life versus the summoning of an evil creature.  Merely by summoning the chain devil, the cleric has increased the presence of evil amongst all kind, and surely that is not a 'good' thing?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 24, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Which maybe RAW, but it smacks of 'the ends justifies the means' type of argument.  In my mind, a cleric that did such a thing would probably be balancing out the two effects - the saving of life versus the summoning of an evil creature.  Merely by summoning the chain devil, the cleric has increased the presence of evil amongst all kind, and surely that is not a 'good' thing?




It's under his complete control, and it vanishes in under two minutes, saving a dozen orphans in the mean time.  Where's the problem?

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Nov 24, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's under his complete control, and it vanishes in under two minutes, saving a dozen orphans in the mean time.  Where's the problem?



I'm sure that similar arguments have been used throughout history... the greater good and all that   

Besides, things can, and do, go wrong.  I'm not saying that the deeds aren't in balance, I'm saying that it isn't 'saintly' behaviour.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 24, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Besides, things can, and do, go wrong.




No more than they could by summoning an Eladrin to do the same thing.

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Nov 24, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No more than they could by summoning an Eladrin to do the same thing.



So true. <shrug> But is still tastes _wrong_.  But I agree with your analysis that it can be done.  Errata!! Or better yet, FAQ!  That trumps errata, right?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 24, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Which maybe RAW, but it smacks of 'the ends justifies the means' type of argument.



To me it sounds more like a "the intention is what's important, not the outcome" type of argument.  The intention is "save the orphans".  The outcome is that the orphans are saved by a chain devil.


----------



## Jack Simth (Nov 24, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Doesn't this come under 'destroying innocent life' from 'Good vs Evil', PHB p104?
> 
> As I see it, if someone Summons a Bralani Eladrin and has it burn the orphanage with all the orphans inside, he's destroying innocent life; evil, per p104.
> 
> ...



That's listed as things that evil people do. Nowhere are those listed as actually being evil actions.  You're extrapolating from something in the rules (description of the types of things Evil people do) and turning them around (doing these types of things is evil).  Strictly speaking, it isn't logically valid.


----------



## TheEvil (Nov 24, 2006)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> To me it sounds more like a "the intention is what's important, not the outcome" type of argument.  The intention is "save the orphans".  The outcome is that the orphans are saved by a chain devil.




Actually, the outcome is that the orphans are saved.  I think you are confusing the outcome with the means.  A better way to say it is that the ends justify the means.


----------



## TheEvil (Nov 24, 2006)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> That's listed as things that evil people do. Nowhere are those listed as actually being evil actions.  You're extrapolating from something in the rules (description of the types of things Evil people do) and turning them around (doing these types of things is evil).  Strictly speaking, it isn't logically valid.




Not even as logically valid as the premise that casting a spell with an evil descriptor is an evil act?  Or are you trying to make a point?


----------



## Jack Simth (Nov 24, 2006)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Not even as logically valid as the premise that casting a spell with an evil descriptor is an evil act?



Well, nowhere in the core rules do they say casting an Evil spell is an Evil act....


			
				TheEvil said:
			
		

> Or are you trying to make a point?



Just another Rules-As-Written absurdity, using the same basic logic.  Was I not clear enough?  

Theoretically, you could argue that summoning an Evil creature to do battle for you is a good act, as it draws a minion away from the eternal war between good and evil, weakening evil for a short time.  You could likewise argue that summoning a Good creature to do battle for you is an evil act, as it draws a minion away from the eternal war between good and evil, weakening good for a short time.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 24, 2006)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> Well, nowhere in the core rules do they say casting an Evil spell is an Evil act....




Do the core rules say what an evil act is?  Is there a list somewhere telling people what specifically is an evil act and what is not?


----------



## Jack Simth (Nov 24, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Do the core rules say what an evil act is?  Is there a list somewhere telling people what specifically is an evil act and what is not?



Exactly.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 24, 2006)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Actually, the outcome is that the orphans are saved.  I think you are confusing the outcome with the means.  A better way to say it is that the ends justify the means.



Orphans saved?  Check.
Good done?  Check.
Chain devil did some evil?  Nope.

I don't see where the means need being justified, considering that the means don't do any harm.  When one says, "the ends justify the means," they're saying, "a small wrong now will create a greater good later."   But if there's no wrong committed, then the means don't need justification.  Summoning a chain devil that can't do anything but what you tell it is essentially identical to summoning a modron that must likewise follow your commands.  It can't do any evil unless directed to, and if it doesn't do evil then there's nothing to justify.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 24, 2006)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> Well, nowhere in the core rules do they say casting an Evil spell is an Evil act....




By definition, casting an evil spell is an evil act.  However, since evil is a normal english word and [Evil] is a game-mechanics term, casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act if one of the following conditions is true:
1. The purpose of casting the spell is to commit evil
2. There is a rule that states that [Evil] is evil

There's no need to define evil acts, because they're already defined, based on the definition of the word evil.  However, since [Evil] is a term made up specifically for D&D, there is a need to define it.  And the definition provided does not imply that [Evil] is always evil, just that it is usually so.

So the paladin burning down the orphanage is committing an evil act by virtue of the act being evil.  But the paladin/sorcerer who casts Eyebite is not necessarily committing an evil act, so long as he does not satisfy conditions 1 or 2.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 24, 2006)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> Theoretically, you could argue that summoning an Evil creature to do battle for you is a good act, as it draws a minion away from the eternal war between good and evil, weakening evil for a short time.  You could likewise argue that summoning a Good creature to do battle for you is an evil act, as it draws a minion away from the eternal war between good and evil, weakening good for a short time.



I'd agree that summoning a good outsider for frivolous reasons probably reflects poorly on your character.  However, if you summon it to fight evil, you're upholding good, and that's good.  And summoning and imprisoning or destroying evil creatures, or putting them to work for good, is also good, because you're interfering with the ability of those creatures to do evil.

In other words, if good gets done, and evil doesn't get done, you're fine.


----------



## Jack Simth (Nov 24, 2006)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Orphans saved?  Check.
> Good done?  Check.
> Chain devil did some evil?  Nope.
> 
> I don't see where the means need being justified, considering that the means don't do any harm.  When one says, "the ends justify the means," they're saying, "a small wrong now will create a greater good later."   But if there's no wrong committed, then the means don't need justification.  Summoning a chain devil that can't do anything but what you tell it is essentially identical to summoning a modron that must likewise follow your commands.  It can't do any evil unless directed to, and if it doesn't do evil then there's nothing to justify.



Presupposes that casting an [Evil] spell is not an evil action.  Which, as the specific question under debate, isn't a valid argument.  Not that, you know, anybody on either side has been paying attention to such things....



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> By definition, casting an evil spell is an evil act.  However, since evil is a normal english word and [Evil] is a game-mechanics term, casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act if one of the following conditions is true:
> 1. The purpose of casting the spell is to commit evil
> 2. There is a rule that states that [Evil] is evil
> 
> ...



The problem with using the definition of the word evil, is that there's so many.... 



			
				Google.com search result for define:evil said:
			
		

> # morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds"
> # morally objectionable behavior
> # having the nature of vice
> # that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare
> ...



 (emphasis added)
First three refer to morals.  Which, depending on what school of thought is followed, are almost always one of:
Absolute: Actions are right/wrong based on a set of rules, regardless of consequences.  Otherwise known as the "rights" perspective.
Utterly Consequential: Actions are right/wrong based on how things turned out in this instance.  Otherwise known as the "results" perspective.
Various mixes between.

However, any such school of though relys on fundamental assumptions somewhere - be those "this book is correct", "people are the only things that have value in and of themselves" or whatever.  Ultimately, however dressed up, any school of thought on morality will have some form of fundamental assumption underlying it - which, due to the nature of the thing, will be both unproveable and unargueable.  Unfortunately, different fundamental assumptions produce vastly differing results.  The definition of person vs. property triggered a civil war that nearly tore the United States of America in half in the 1860's, for an example.    

Suppose the Paladin comes from a place where it is the noble's right to kill anyone not noble-born, the paladin is a noble, the orphanage is in the paladin's home country, and none of the orphans locked inside are noble born.  From a rights perspective, then, the paladin has done nothing evil.  

Now, I suppose technically this is campaign dependant, but generally, summoned demons have the nature of vice down pat......



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I'd agree that summoning a good outsider for frivolous reasons probably reflects poorly on your character.  However, if you summon it to fight evil, you're upholding good, and that's good.  And summoning and imprisoning or destroying evil creatures, or putting them to work for good, is also good, because you're interfering with the ability of those creatures to do evil.
> 
> In other words, if good gets done, and evil doesn't get done, you're fine.



Yes.  You cast Summon Monster IX for a leonal (the cleric is unconscious and bleeding - you need the healing) and draw one off the front lines that had previously been perfectly balanced to a standstill.

Because of this, Evil breaks through the lines, and raids the celestial city full of the innocent petitioners that had gone there, killing many, dragging others off to be tortured eternally in the pits of the inferno.

The action you took to save one friend potentially has some pretty nasty consequences.  It's even right there in the description of Conjouration(Summoning) that it comes from somewhere.  Nothing says you get to specify where it came from.  So it's the DM's call.  If he's got an eternal war between good and evil on the upper/lower planes, such a scenario isn't overly unreasonable, if we're talking consequences.  

You have absolutely no way, RAW, of determining where that critter you summoned came from.  You're forcing the critter you summoned to do your bidding - it has no choice at all in the matter, due to the nature of Summoning spells.  With a normal casting, it will be back in under two minutes.  If it's killed in your service, it's not providing for it's family for a full 24 hours.  How is that anything other than Evil, regardless of what critter you summon?  For the most part, every time you cast the spell, you've forcibly enslaved a thinking being, if we're talking rights.

Either way, absurd as it is, it's possible to argue that casting a [Good] summon monster spell is an Evil action.

Maybe the above doesn't apply.  Maybe there's some form of magical payment involved that makes everything "worth it" and then some for the critter you summon.  Now, when you summon an Evil outsider, you've just strengthened the cause of Evil outsiders.... huh, an [Evil] spell, an Evil result.  Funny.  

RAW, nothing states that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil action.  RAW, nothing states that casting an [Evil] spell is not an Evil action.  As there are no hard and fast core rules for what is evil and what is not, like with anything social, it's up to DM arbitration.  What does your DM say about casting [Evil] spells?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 25, 2006)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> Presupposes that casting an [Evil] spell is not an evil action.  Which, as the specific question under debate, isn't a valid argument.  Not that, you know, anybody on either side has been paying attention to such things....



So provide a rule citation that indicates that [Evil] = evil.  Otherwise, you're going to have to demonstrate that even in the absence of such a rule, the equivalency holds.  In this particular argument, I'm saying that you can't call using an [Evil] spell to do good an "ends justifies the means" situation, because there's no means that need justifying, since no evil is committed.  If we're going to start speculating about the consequences of snatching outsiders away from their appointed tasks on the outer planes, I would have to assume that stopping a chain devil from doing whatever it was doing for any amount of time, especially in order to force it to do a good deed, can only be a good thing.  Whatever it was doing was probably evil.



> The problem with using the definition of the word evil, is that there's so many....



I tend to think that citation of dictionary definitions in a discussion about ethics is tantamount to Godwinning the thread.  At least, that's what I've observed in the past.


----------



## Jack Simth (Nov 25, 2006)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> So provide a rule citation that indicates that [Evil] = evil.  Otherwise, you're going to have to demonstrate that even in the absence of such a rule, the equivalency holds.  In this particular argument, I'm saying that you can't call using an [Evil] spell to do good an "ends justifies the means" situation, because there's no means that need justifying, since no evil is committed.  If we're going to start speculating about the consequences of snatching outsiders away from their appointed tasks on the outer planes, I would have to assume that stopping a chain devil from doing whatever it was doing for any amount of time, especially in order to force it to do a good deed, can only be a good thing.  Whatever it was doing was probably evil.



You did see the "on either side" (which you quoted), right?  Or how I outlined a method by which a DM could say Summoning an Evil critter is an Evil action, and Summoning a Good critter is an Good action, or summoning a Good critter is an Evil action, or an Evil critter is a Good action, just based on consequences and how the campaign is set up?  Or how I called casting [Evil] spells like other things "that aren't spelled out, up to DM arbitration"?  



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I tend to think that citation of dictionary definitions in a discussion about ethics is tantamount to Godwinning the thread.  At least, that's what I've observed in the past.



Hate to break it to you, but you were the one that said there was no need for the book to define evil actions because evil was already defined.  I just escalated that a hair by actually pulling it up and showing how it doesn't necessarily seem to support your position.  Shucks, I even called using definitions a "problem" in such cases.

You know what?  You don't seem to be reading what I post, so there's not much point in arguing.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Artoomis (Nov 25, 2006)

I think that D&D alignments are set up so that using something evil is an evil act, regardless of the purpose.  The consequence of doing so is pretty muich entirely up to the DM, though, so a game defintion of "evil acts" is absolutely not required - though better guidance for Paladins, in particular, might be nice - but they are supposed to have a "code" that defines such things anyway.

Bottom line?

As I read it (and I do have clear, if not convincing, rules support), casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act, though it does not really matter as those for whom it might create real problems ("good" divine casters) cannot cast them and others have no actual RAW consequences for commiting evil acts anyway.


----------



## robertliguori (Nov 25, 2006)

Evil is a term of art in D&D.  It refers to a universal metaphysical force.  Certain things (magics, creatures, actions, spells) are Evil, to one degree or another, just like the magics have a spell level, the creatures have armor classes, etc.  

Evil is the force.  In our world, we call things like murder and slavery evil, usually because they harm folk.  In D&D, these acts are evil even if they harm no one, or actually do a great deal of good.

So, calling up a fiend to rescue orphans from a burning building would be a deed that was simultaneously Good and Evil, just like casting a Born of the Three Thunders lightning both is both Sonic and Electric.

Now, the result of this line of thinking is that Good and Evil mean extraordinarily little in terms of actual morality.  Evil is just a force.  If you Animate a bunch of horse skeletons and run a great deal of food to a famine-wracked community, you've created Evil creatures with Evil magics...and saved a bunch of lives, and caused no secondary harmful effects to anyone.  End result of this tends to be quite a few adventurers who, in their desire to actually help folk, end up fighting off all of the four alignment extremes simultaneously.

Also, you can rule that casting Evil spells have concurrent side effects that are such that any casting of them are a net evil.  However, if you do so, you'd better have one doozy of a set of side effects when high-level clerics start casting Holy Word in nurseries for kicks.


----------



## TheEvil (Nov 26, 2006)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Evil is a term of art in D&D.  It refers to a universal metaphysical force.  Certain things (magics, creatures, actions, spells) are Evil, to one degree or another, just like the magics have a spell level, the creatures have armor classes, etc.
> 
> *Evil is the force.  In our world, we call things like murder and slavery evil, usually because they harm folk.  In D&D, these acts are evil even if they harm no one, or actually do a great deal of good.*
> 
> ...




Okay, I have got to ask, exactly how does one commit murder without harming someone?


----------



## geosapient (Nov 26, 2006)

Simm said:
			
		

> This seems hypocritical to me. A spell with the good descriptor can easily be used for evil, harming innocents etc., but a spell with the evil descriptor is always evil. It is defiantly easier to commit an evil act with a evil spell than to do it with a good spell but that in no way precludes doing good with an evil spell. It is the intention of the doer that is important.




I recently learned of this adage...

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

I honestly had never heard this before until I played in the Castle Greyhawk Module. I have heard it since. So, even if you have good intentions when you cast an evil spell it is likely leading you down a path you don't want to tread.


----------



## geosapient (Nov 26, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Us poor smokers.  We're all hopelessly Evil.  No hope for us at all.  Every cigarette is an Evil act.  One carton of Lucky Strikes and you're pretty much a Pit Fiend.  Might as well give in and go out slaughtering babies.




_Aaron_ - That's an interesting name associated with the post. Aaron, the brother of Moses, tried to lead the Lord's flock astray with the creation of the golden calf idol while Moses was on top of the mountain receiving the 10 Commandments form God. One of which I think is 'Your body is a temple...' and which you would violate (ie. sin) every time you took a drag from a cigarette.

AHH HAHAHAHA! You're going to burn with every cigarette you light. OH, sweet irony!

Enough with the superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Do you ever smoke in the presence of a non-smoker? Have you ever not cared whether you were smoking in the presence of a non-smoker? And have you ever not cared that every time you smoke whether in the presence of non-smokers or not you are ultimately hurting someone.

I would say that willingly hurting others or even oneself should definitely be considered an evil act.

For the record I am not perfect, not lecturing and am oppsed to *ALL* organized religions.


----------



## WarlockLord (Nov 27, 2006)

Something about BoED & BoVD: I think they're getting phased out or something, because I was reading the Sage in Dragon and he said poison was not inherently evil, unlike the BoED.


----------



## hamishspence (Nov 27, 2006)

*Evil spells*

Deathwatch and Kiss Of The Vampire are a bit dubious. KOTV comes in several books, not of of which mention the evil descriptor. Deathwatch didn't have it in 3rd ed, only 3.5.
More importantly, at least one good aligned PRC gains it as a spell-like ability. 

Assuming a firm but not too firm DM, casting a evil spell should automatically move a Exalted character down to just Good, no matter the excuse. One can remain Good by minimising evil acts and maximising good acts (LG cleric of Wee Jas?) but never be Exalted.

Poison: Evil IF and ONLY if it does HP or Ability damage/drain "Unneccesary suffering"

so Drow Sleep Venom is NOT an evil poison. Have fun!


----------



## pemerton (Dec 10, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> [T]he Evil descriptor tells us that a/ druids and clerics who are Good or have Good deities cannot cast the spell, and b/ clerics with the Evil domain cast the spell at +1 caster level, and c/ the spell will be flagged by a Detect Evil spell.  That's about it.






			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Fire vs Cold is not prohibited to a generic cleric the way Good vs Evil is.
> 
> And wouldn't the same principle apply to your Cold worshipper if he cast, say, Prismatic Spray - a spell that deals fire damage without the [Fire] descriptor?  Shouldn't the deity be just as mad at him as for summoning an Azer?




There is a Platonic dialogue called The Euthyphro, in which Socrates debates the following question: Taking it for granted that God loves the good, does something become good in virtue of God loving it, or rather is it the case that goodness is logically prior to God's love, and God discriminates in favour of the good?

Socrates, and most philosophers since, answer in favour of the second option: goodness is logically independent of God's love, and God loves the good because of their goodness. The only major philosopher I know of who answers in favour of the first option is Hobbes, who takes the view that God's love is inscrutable, but he loves certain things, and in virtue of that we call them good, and better love them also if we are not to get smited by God!

I bring up this debate, because it seems relevant to Hypersmurf's comments quoted above. Bringing things back to D&D, why do Good gods forbid their clerics from using [Evil] spells? One natural answer is similar to Socrates answer above: because use of [Evil] spells is Evil, and Good gods forbid their clerics from doing Evil. This suggests an answer of "Yes" to the original question.

If Hypersmurf is correct, however, then the above thought is wrong, because the correct answer to the original question is "No". The reasoning, therefore, must instead go like this: There is a class of spells forbidden by Good gods to their clerics, and we label these spells [Evil] in virtue of this fact. Suppose we then ask, Why do the Good gods forbid these spells? As with Hobbes' treatment of the Euthyphro argument, no answer can be given. The Good gods have their own inscrutable preferences, by which their clerics are bound.

It is a reason in favour of the "Yes" answer - perhaps a weak reason, but a reason nevertheless - that it makes the motivations of the Good gods explicable rather than inscrutable.

Of course, as others have pointed out, a "Yes" answer also suggests that the [Evil] descriptor has not been applied as thoroughly and consistently as it could be. No roleplaying rules set is perfect, after all.


----------



## moritheil (Dec 10, 2006)

Fat Daddy said:
			
		

> Just what the title asks.  If a caster casts a spell with the evil descriptor, is that an evil act?
> Example:  Summon Monster is used to summon a creature with the fiendish template, the spell gains the evil descriptor (maybe lawful or chaotic as well but that's irrelevant to my question).
> Example: Create Undead is a Necromancy[evil] spell.  Aside from the fact that many consider the creation of undead an evil act (that is not what I want to discuss).
> 
> ...




Per BoVD, yes.  Calling/summoning/animating evil things to/on the material plane allows them to do evil things, and so you are an accomplice to evil.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Dec 11, 2006)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> So, calling up a fiend to rescue orphans from a burning building would be a deed that was simultaneously Good and Evil, just like casting a Born of the Three Thunders lightning both is both Sonic and Electric.




Since we are picking nits...

Calling up a fiend to rescue orphans is good but not [Good].  Just doing a good deed with a spell doesn't make it [Good].

DS


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 12, 2006)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> Calling up a fiend to rescue orphans is good but not [Good].




Right.  It's a good act, but a spell with the [Evil] descriptor.

-Hyp.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 12, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Right.  It's a good act, but a spell with the [Evil] descriptor.




If we accept this distinction, how do we explain these two things:

*Good gods forbid [Evil] spells;

*Beings that are very evil, like Fiends, cause spells that summon or conjure them to take on the [Evil] descriptor?

Is this connection between morality and metaphysics purely arbitrary? Is it mere co-incidence? Or is there some deeper correlation?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 12, 2006)

pemerton said:
			
		

> If we accept this distinction, how do we explain these two things:
> 
> *Good gods forbid [Evil] spells;




Do they forbid it?  Or is it out of their control?  We know that a good cleric or a cleric of a good deity can't cast an [Evil] spell, but we don't know the mechanics of that incapability.



> *Beings that are very evil, like Fiends, cause spells that summon or conjure them to take on the [Evil] descriptor?




Well, a fiendish dire rat doesn't have the [Evil] subtype, but it still causes Summon Monster I to be a [Lawful] and [Evil] spell... so it's not _very_ evil creatures, but _any_ evil creatures that cause the spell to take on the [Evil] descriptor.

Which reminds me...



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I agree that summoning a fiendish dire weasel is not an [Evil, Lawful] spell.




The PHB text (vs the SRD) under Summon Monster I states "When you use a summoning spell to summon an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.  For example, Summon Monster I is a lawful and evil spell when cast to summon a fiendish dire rat."

-Hyp.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 13, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> We know that a good cleric or a cleric of a good deity can't cast an [Evil] spell, but we don't know the mechanics of that incapability.




Surely one candidate explanation is this: good gods condemn evil, casting [Evil] spells is evil, and good gods therefore forbid their clerics from casting such spells.

In the absence of any other explanation for the incapability, doesn't the existence of the incapability offer some support for the view that casting an [Evil] spell is evil?

This is inference to best explanation, rather than a logical inference (in the strict sense), but it is an inference supported by the explicit text of the rules. Thus, those who say that the core rules support the contention that casting [Evil] is evil can hardly be accused of making it up, or of failing to pay attention to what the rules do and don't say.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 13, 2006)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Surely one candidate explanation is this: good gods condemn evil, casting [Evil] spells is evil, and good gods therefore forbid their clerics from casting such spells.




The good gods don't prevent the cleric from casting Flame Strike to wipe out an orphanage, however...

Again, it's not that the clerics don't have permission to cast the spells; rather, they don't have the _ability_ to cast the spells.

-Hyp.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 13, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The good gods don't prevent the cleric from casting Flame Strike to wipe out an orphanage, however...
> 
> Again, it's not that the clerics don't have permission to cast the spells; rather, they don't have the _ability_ to cast the spells.




The distinction between "permission" and "ability" here is a little fine, I think. One way, after all, for a god to enforce a rule of prohibition on its clerics is to withhold a certain ability.

What you say about Flame Strike is controversial - it may be, after all, that Pelor _would_ forbid such conduct, and therefore prevent the spell taking effect. Admittedly, such divine intervention in divine spell casting was emphasised in earlier additions of AD&D (I especially have in mind the 1st ed DMG) in a way that it is not in 3rd Ed, but you can hardly say that it is contrary to the rules of 3rd Ed for a DM to adjudicate divine spell casting in this fashion.

Sticking closer to rules literalism, the Flame Strike issue can be explained this way (as many posters above have done): the use of Flame Strike is not inherently evil, whereas (under the hypothesis I am exploring) the use of [Evil] spells is (either because of the powers they call upon, like Deathwatch and Summon spells, or the effects that they have, like Animate Dead and Contagion).

This does seem to leave some gaps - why is Energy Drain not [Evil]? - but (as I said above) no rules set is perfect.

The alternative interpretation, which divorces the concept of [Evil] from that of evil, likewise leaves gaps: it cannot explain why good clerics can't cast evil spells, and more generally leaves the relationship between morals and metaphysics, which is (and always has been) central to D&D, unexplained.

I'm not 100% sure that one or the other is the best way of going. The point I'm trying to make is that an interpretation of the rules which tries to maximise consistency with the text and minimise gaps and non sequiturs does not obviously favour your way of going against the alternative.


----------



## Seeten (Dec 13, 2006)

pemerton said:
			
		

> The distinction between "permission" and "ability" here is a little fine, I think. One way, after all, for a god to enforce a rule of prohibition on its clerics is to withhold a certain ability.
> 
> What you say about Flame Strike is controversial - it may be, after all, that Pelor _would_ forbid such conduct, and therefore prevent the spell taking effect. Admittedly, such divine intervention in divine spell casting was emphasised in earlier additions of AD&D (I especially have in mind the 1st ed DMG) in a way that it is not in 3rd Ed, but you can hardly say that it is contrary to the rules of 3rd Ed for a DM to adjudicate divine spell casting in this fashion.
> 
> ...




I disagree with most of what you say here.

There are dozens of spells that use negative energy to do nasty things, that arent [evil]. Horrid Wilting, Enervation, etc. I believe [EVIL] is simply a descriptor for other spells to use and mark, and no different from every other descriptor. It tells you what spells you get +1 caster level to, which detects pick it up, etc. Nothing else.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 13, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> There are dozens of spells that use negative energy to do nasty things, that arent [evil]. Horrid Wilting, Enervation, etc. I believe [EVIL] is simply a descriptor for other spells to use and mark, and no different from every other descriptor. It tells you what spells you get +1 caster level to, which detects pick it up, etc. Nothing else.




My point is, that this interpretation leaves a gap in the rules: it leaves it unexplained why good clerics can't use [Evil] spells. That becomes a purely _arbitrary_ rule. More generally, your interpretation makes the relationship between morals and metaphysics a seemingly arbitrary one.

The alternative interpretation - that using [Evil] spells _is_ an evil act - likewise leaves gaps, namely, that (as you say, and as I noted in my own post) the list of [Evil] spells is incomplete.

The question is, which gap is a worse gap in the rules? The answer to _this_ question is not obvious to me.


----------

