Can a good character cast an [Evil] spell? [3.5]

[gomipile]

Last night, a friend told the group that there is a rule in the 3.5 books that says that a character can't cast spells which have a descriptor opposed to his/her alignment. He pointed out that this is strange, since Deathwatch, which is a Necromancy [Evil] spell is on the Healer's spell list, yet Healers must be good aligned.

My question is, is there such a rule? I can't find it said anywhere, so far, except specifically for clerics and druids.

Edit: I adjusted the title to say what everyone knew I meant tin the first place.

[Apophis]

Unless there is something in the class description that says otherwise, like with Clerics and Druids, then they can.

[Tyndmyr]

A general rule? I don't think so. That said, I think the tags matter for taint/corruption scores and other variant rules I never bother with.


BoED has some good only spells, and I suspect the same is true of BoVD. Exalted/vile/whatever. They're exceptional, though.

[Doug Lampert]

Last night, a friend told the group that there is a rule in the 3.5 books that says that you can't cast spells which have a descriptor opposed to your alignment. He pointed out that this is strange, since Deathwatch, which is a Necromancy [Evil] spell is on the Healer's spell list, yet Healers must be good aligned.

My question is, is there such a rule? I can't find it said anywhere, so far, except specifically for clerics and druids.

The existence of a specific rule for clerics and druids makes no sense were it a general rule. I know of no such general rule.

[Sir_Ophiuchus]

You can. I've always thought of those descriptors as being guidelines at best - Deathwatch is a case in point. That being said, repeatedly using very evil spells without extremely good reasons may impact your alignment, but that's a roleplaying matter, not a rules matter.

[manyslayer]

Also, Deathwatch in 3.0 did not have the evil descriptor. Perhaps its a hold-over since Miniature Handbook was right around the 3.5 release.

Deathwatch is one of the spells that we houserule the alignment descriptor out. Seems more useful to healers (any one healing, not necessarily the class itself) than anyone else.

[HappyBlanket]

A Good character can certainly perform Evil spells without incurring any restrictions or penalties. And it wouldn't affect the character's alignment at all, even if it were to used a dozen times. So long as the character performs more Good or Neutral actions than Evil ones, that is.

[EvilJames]

I've never liked the idea of the balancing act. doing good acts doesn't erase the evil act (although from a roleplaying stand point it might make the character feel better) Now one evil act (or even a couple) normally doesn't make you evil (depending on severity, circumstances, intentions and a whole host of other factors left up to the player and DM). However if a character continuously uses an evil spell without so much as a really good reason, then the DM might want to require an alignment change.

The rule is that Evil descriptor spells count as evil acts. What that means is entirely up to the DM
for he most part though for clerics at least, good gods are not likely to grant them without good reason.

Alo neutral acts don't balance anything out by their very nature so you certainly can't fix it with them.

[Burner28]

Alo neutral acts don't balance anything out by their very nature so you certainly can't fix it with them.

Don't we all know that:smalltongue:

[Swooper]

I can't see how the player's alignment is relevant here. :smalltongue:

[Burner28]

Derailment again. Still why should magic have an alignment under D&D rules?:smallconfused:

[imperialspectre]

Any player good enough to cast spells in general can probably cast [Evil] spells.

[Volos]

Players can't cast spells, but characters might be able to (all depending on magical ability and whatnot). If you find a way to allow players to cast spells, regardless of alignment or other factors, please teach me your secrets. I have a few RL uses for D&D spells, specifically save or X and charm/compulsion spells.

Good characters cannot cast evil spells anymore than good players can kill an innocent baby. It will not work, as soon as such an act takes place the character is no longer good and is atleast nuetral at best evil at worse. Chaotic characters cannot become (standard) Paladins, and Lawful characters cannot become (standard) Barbarians. Anything that is such a drastic deviation from their alignment would cause a shift or be impossible. Either way the answer stands, a good character cannot cast an evil spell.

[Draculmaulkee]

I honestly think that the intent of the spell is more important than a [good] or [evil] descriptor. For some spells the [evil] descriptor doesn't even make sense (I'm looking at you, Deathwatch).

[Psyren]

Also, Deathwatch in 3.0 did not have the evil descriptor. Perhaps its a hold-over since Miniature Handbook was right around the 3.5 release.

Deathwatch is one of the spells that we houserule the alignment descriptor out. Seems more useful to healers (any one healing, not necessarily the class itself) than anyone else.

It is also present on Slayer of Domiel's spell list (an exalted PrC from BoED.)


A Good character can certainly perform Evil spells without incurring any restrictions or penalties. And it wouldn't affect the character's alignment at all, even if it were to used a dozen times. So long as the character performs more Good or Neutral actions than Evil ones, that is.

This is more Neverwinter Nights morality than it is D&D. I can't help 40 or even 400 old ladies cross the street to cancel out the murder I committed the night before. There are no paragon/renegade or open palm/closed fist "points" in a true simulation.

[Ytaker]

Derailment again. Still why should magic have an alignment under D&D rules?:smallconfused:

Black magic and white magic. They are long standing concepts in magic. Magic to harm, magic to heal. It's been a huge theme of magic for millenia. DnD is just reflecting reality.

[Arbane]

Isn't using Summon Monster (Whatever) to summon Fiendish critters [Evil]?

[Ashram]

It depends:

Arcane magic is more or less neutral, regardless of the descriptor. It's more a question of character flavor if the good wizard is forced in desperation to cast an [Evil] spell, or if an evil wizard casts a [Good] spell to do horrible things. There is no real restriction for this barring DM intervention or if your arcane casting class has some crazy alignment restriction on spells, which I imagine a handful of them do.

Divine magic however is pretty strict on this. A cleric CANNOT cast spells with an alignment descriptor opposite his deity's (A lawful cleric cannot cast chaotic-aligned spells, a good cleric cannot cast evil-aligned spells, and so forth) because that would be going against what his deity stands for. The only exception to this is a neutral cleric of a neutral deity, but then you're just cheating. :P

[Vladislav]

RAW is very clear on this:


A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.


Good Cleric or Cleric of Good deity can't cast [Evil] spells.

[Kyeudo]

A spell with the [evil] discriptor is not an evil spell. It is a mechanical tag that is used to tell you how the spell interacts with the spell lists of classes such as the Cleric, where they cannot cast a spell with an alignment discriptor opposed to their alignment or that of their god. The sole point of such discriptors is to prevent Clerics of Pelor from casting Animate Dead or Clerics of Nerull from casting Consecrate.

Whether a spell is actually an evil act or not depends ENTIRELY upon what yardstick you are using to measure morality. Are you going for moral objectivism? subjectivism? general common sense? That should be the measure of the spell, not some discriptor put in place to make the rules system work the way the designers felt it should work.

[Andraste]

There is a rule that clerics cannot cast spells of an opposed alignment. If there was a rule about this for every character, it would be pointlessly redundant to mention it specifically for clerics.

[CN the Logos]

Black magic and white magic. They are long standing concepts in magic. Magic to harm, magic to heal. It's been a huge theme of magic for millenia. DnD is just reflecting reality.

The problem is that traditionally, black magic meant "any magic used to inflict harm" and white magic meant "any magic used to prevent/undo harm." Deathwatch doesn't really fit anywhere under that definition. A more modern idea in occult circles (or at least a modern name for an old idea) is "gray magic," which as the name suggests is magic with a potential to hurt or harm depending almost entirely on usage. Based on effect alone, deathwatch is gray, you can use it to determine targets for a coup de grace or who to heal first.

That said, D&D adds the whole "good/evil energy" thing and that just throws everything off. A spell could feel a thousand starving orphans with no noticeable negative effect, and it would still be "evil" in D&D terms if it used negative energy to do it. Such is the RAW. My advice is to houserule that away; as one can see based on the Healer and exalted PrC, the designers certainly did.

[Thurbane]

If you want a Good aligned divine caster who can cast Evil spells with impunity, there's always the Hellbred race. Evil Exception was made for this.

[Havelock]

Actually, each casting of an evil spell counts as one act of corruption, 9 of these and you go to hell (if you also are lawful, mind you). Fiendish Codex II.

Now, BoVD gives the following criteria for why a spell is evil, it is evil if any of these are fulfilled:
-They cause undue suffering or negative emotion
-They call upon evil Gods or energies
-They create, summon or improve undead or other evil monsters
-They harm souls
-They involve unsavory practises such as cannibalism or drug abuse.

Fluff text for deathwatch:
Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife...well, justified, considering the source of this power.

[Ytaker]

That said, D&D adds the whole "good/evil energy" thing and that just throws everything off. A spell could feel a thousand starving orphans with no noticeable negative effect, and it would still be "evil" in D&D terms if it used negative energy to do it. Such is the RAW. My advice is to houserule that away; as one can see based on the Healer and exalted PrC, the designers certainly did.

How would you feed a thousand starving orphans with a negative energy spell? Use it to animate skeletons and farm or hunt animals? Cast a mass negative energy spell on the forest to kill a load of game? I can't really imagine any harmless way to do it.

[Ravens_cry]

Farming sounds right. There is no mention how painful negative energy damage is, so it might be just like you fall asleep and never wake up. That would be a kinder way to kill a deer then arrows, bullets or spears.

[Infernalbargain]

How would you feed a thousand starving orphans with a negative energy spell? Use it to animate skeletons and farm or hunt animals? Cast a mass negative energy spell on the forest to kill a load of game? I can't really imagine any harmless way to do it.

Find a lich, bind it. Break off parts of it, sterilize the parts, feed.

[Ravens_cry]

Find a lich, bind it. Break off parts of it, sterilize the parts, feed.
If the pictures in the monster manual are any indication, Liches are pretty dried up looking, like jerky.
Hmmm . . .undead jerky. <insert Homer-esque drool sound here/>

[Pink]

That said, D&D adds the whole "good/evil energy" thing and that just throws everything off. A spell could feel a thousand starving orphans with no noticeable negative effect, and it would still be "evil" in D&D terms if it used negative energy to do it. Such is the RAW. My advice is to houserule that away; as one can see based on the Healer and exalted PrC, the designers certainly did.

K, a correction is needed here.

Negative energy and Positive energy are not alignment based. The Cure spells and the Inflict spells are both absent of alignment descriptions. Even Heal and Harm are neutral.

[Talakeal]

Good characters cannot cast evil spells anymore than good players can kill an innocent baby. It will not work, as soon as such an act takes place the character is no longer good and is atleast nuetral at best evil at worse. Chaotic characters cannot become (standard) Paladins, and Lawful characters cannot become (standard) Barbarians. Anything that is such a drastic deviation from their alignment would cause a shift or be impossible. Either way the answer stands, a good character cannot cast an evil spell.


Do you actually play the game that way or are you just trying to make a point? I have never heard someone claim that a single evil act, regardless of scale or circumstances, is enough to shift alignment. Does it work the other way as well?

[Thurbane]

I can see the argument for Animate Dead not always being "evil". Say a small village is attacked and sacked by a group of Orc marauders. After the battle, a Necromancer animates the bodies of the slain Orcs to help rebuild the damaged buildings, and bury the dead. After they are done, he uses another spell to destroy them.

Evil by RAW? Yes. Evil by common sense? Not so clear.

[No brains]

I can see the argument for Animate Dead not always being "evil". Say a small village is attacked and sacked by a group of Orc marauders. After the battle, a Necromancer animates the bodies of the slain Orcs to help rebuild the damaged buildings, and bury the dead. After they are done, he uses another spell to destroy them.

Evil by RAW? Yes. Evil by common sense? Not so clear.

One of the caveats I noticed that might make animate dead cruel if not evil is that a creature animated as an undead cannot be raised. While exactly why this happens is unclear, but it can be reasonable to assume that you are forcing the soul back into their dead body. Shoving soul back into its hideous corpse to parade around (or even discreetly use) as you slave is kinda bad, but the soul still might be aware that its body is being used not only as a prison for it, but also as a tool against its ideologies.

Sounds mean.

[Infernalbargain]

If the pictures in the monster manual are any indication, Liches are pretty dried up looking, like jerky.
Hmmm . . .undead jerky. <insert Homer-esque drool sound here/>

Take from Jack and the Bean Stalk, grind up the bones and make stew with it.


Shoving soul back into its hideous corpse to parade around (or even discreetly use) as you slave is kinda bad, but the soul still might be aware that its body is being used not only as a prison for it, but also as a tool against its ideologies.

I'm pretty sure that Animate Dead has nothing to do with the creature's soul. If that were the case, then it'd block all res effects as per some kind of soul binding spell that's somewhere. The PF version is Soul Bind.

[Forum Explorer]

I say raise dead prevents raise spells because the body is in use by negative energy and the positive energy to put the soul back won't mesh correctly. So a whole new body needs to be regenerated first then the soul put inside it. Like a clone spell.

[Cerlis]

its rather obvious. a spell in which you invoke the powers of good (such as protection from evil) is by nature good, because its literally good. its made of good energy. same goes for evil spells. Certian spells use literally evil energy, be it cus of the nature of the spell, or the energy of the spell (negative energy is always considered evil, so deathwatch is evil for that reason). Now a good cleric wouldnt be allowed to cast an evil spell, because his good deity wouldnt allow him to or perhaps the magic would taint his goodness. but he is still physically capable of doing it (such as if he became a favored soul and learned an evil spell). however if he did that then the moment he cast his evil favored soul spell he would jepordize his cleric spells.

the spell applies to spellcasters (and some other supernatural power characters) who basically "pick a side". if you do something of the other persons side then you risk getting kicked off the team.

there is nothing preventing any character whatsoever of using whatever spell they want. A paladin can kill babies all he wants and a cleric can cast evil spells all he wants. The actual act of doing it is not the same thing as suffering the consequences. the paladin can kill and the cleric can cast. they will just have to deal with the consequences.

[Volos]

Do you actually play the game that way or are you just trying to make a point? I have never heard someone claim that a single evil act, regardless of scale or circumstances, is enough to shift alignment. Does it work the other way as well?

I play the game that way and I am trying to make a point. I can do both, I'm just talented like that. And what do you mean by 'single evil act'? I could see something like stealing food for a starving child, breaking a minor law to uphold the more important law, helping someone to trick them into sacraficing themselves to a demon, or obeying a legitimate authority figure in order to get a chance to thumb your nose at the king himself as minor actions that would not change alignment or cause an alignment shift. But killing a baby, casting an opposed alignment spell, weilding an opposed alignment weapon, helping the paladins to create more restrictive laws against gambling, allowing a man to steal the entire market's food supply, or saving hundreds of lives are all major actions that have long lasting consequences and serious alignment implications. So yeah, I play the game that way.

[Kuma Kode]

As has been stated, the answer is "Yes" if you aren't a cleric. Only they carry that alignment prohibition. I would think they can't even prepare it; their god simply doesn't offer it.

However, the evil descriptor is not just for this reason, as was previously suggested. [Evil] spells are innately evil, and casting them is always an evil act, regardless of how you use it. D&D alignment tends to be more about actions than it is intent. Animate Dead is evil, even when used to farm and feed a city. The good of providing for so many people may offset the evil of the initial act, however, depending on your DM.

Though I would assume you could refluff deathwatch to be granted by positive energy instead of negative. Makes sense and drops the evil descriptor, which is all about fluff.

Also note that nowhere does it state HOW evil casting an [Evil] spell actually is. Is Deathwatch "laugh at a disabled kid" evil, "punch a nun in the baby" evil, or "what wine goes well with babies" evil?

[IthroZada]

I play the game that way and I am trying to make a point. I can do both, I'm just talented like that. And what do you mean by 'single evil act'? I could see something like stealing food for a starving child, breaking a minor law to uphold the more important law, helping someone to trick them into sacraficing themselves to a demon, or obeying a legitimate authority figure in order to get a chance to thumb your nose at the king himself as minor actions that would not change alignment or cause an alignment shift. But killing a baby, casting an opposed alignment spell, weilding an opposed alignment weapon, helping the paladins to create more restrictive laws against gambling, allowing a man to steal the entire market's food supply, or saving hundreds of lives are all major actions that have long lasting consequences and serious alignment implications. So yeah, I play the game that way.

For starters, none of what you are saying about aligned spells is backed up by the rules, and secondly, the wielding an opposed weapon is enough to change your alignment? That's not even close to correct. You are already punished for using opposed weapons by functioning at a lower level. You don't automatically get an alignment shift because the only weapon on hand to repel the demonic hordes just happened to be evil.

[Talakeal]

Casting a spell with an alignment descriptor being an act that affects alignment is never mentioned in core. It is mentioned in the (imo laughable) moral systems of the BoED and BoVD, but it clearly states that they are very minor acts on the alignment scale.
Also, negative energy is not evil. The negative energy plane does not have that sub type, outsiders from the plane do not have evil alignment, and most negative energy spells do not have the evil descriptor.

It makes me wonder though, what would happen to a water elemental that cast a fireball?

[John Campbell]

I've told this story a couple of times in other alignment threads, but:

A while back, I was playing a Neutral fighter/mage, and in the last battle of the campaign, the last-ditch attempt to stop the BBEG, whose insane evil plan was causing the plane, and possibly the entire cosmos, to fall apart, the BBEG dominated our paladin and directed him to kill us all. Then it was my turn, with the paladin up next. When his turn came, he would five-foot-step and full-attack our sorceress, almost certainly killing her (she was very much the stereotypical squishy arcanist, and none of us were near full health at that point), leaving the remaining PCs with basically no chance against the dominated paladin and a 20th-level evil enchantress and her demonic minions. This clearly would not do, and while I might have been able to drop the paladin before his turn came up, it wasn't by any means a sure thing, and would have been almost as bad as just letting him kill the sorceress.

So, basically, I needed to find a way to break the BBEG's control over the paladin that was guaranteed to work in one round, or we'd be facing a near-certain TPK and the subsequent destruction of the world. To exacerbate matters, it was the second way-over-our-CR encounter of the day, and there'd been a series of weaker ones in between, so, though I'd abused the hell out of Rary's mnemonic enhancer the night before to prepare a whole lot of extra spells, and had been sticking to just using my axe as much as possible to conserve magic because I knew we still had the big encounter ahead of us, I was still running low on options. And I was way on the other side of the (very large) room, and had already burned all of my tactical relocation magic.

I had dispel magic prepared, but it was literally impossible for me to knock down one of the BBEG's spells with it. I had protection from evil prepared, but it's a touch spell, and I couldn't cast it and still have time to cross the room to deliver it. I wasn't even close enough to move, carrying my familiar, cast it with my familiar holding the charge, and then drop him so he could use his move to cross and deliver the spell. I couldn't heal the sorceress, or buff her enough to give her any chance of surviving a full-attack from a primary melee PC. I didn't have anything that would keep them apart (I had web prepped, but no anchor points), or that would relocate either of them. I'd already burned all the charges on my belt of battle, so I couldn't cheat the action economy.

So... the only working option I could come up with... I had magic circle against good prepared. I'd looted it from the spellbook of a drow wizard we'd killed, and had never had the combination of time, money, and opportunity to get ...against evil or any of the other versions. We were at the level where the alignment-dependent effects (except the keeping-at-bay) were overlapped by our items anyway. I kept prepared it for just such eventualities. And while it's also a touch-range spell, it's a 10' radius emanation, and we were close enough that, if I cast it on my familiar directly, he could then run across the room and just get the paladin into its effect radius, thus suppressing the effect of the dominate and freeing the paladin.

Magic circle against good is, of course, an [Evil] spell. This means that, by the rules, by casting that spell, which freed a paladin from mind control by a patently evil villain and brought him back to the side of Lawful StupidGood (at least for a few more rounds, until he got power word: killed), saved the sorceress's life (at least for a few more rounds, until she got disintegrated), turned an almost-certain TPK into a victory by the skin of our teeth (we ended up with three party members dead, two alive but unhealably unconscious or otherwise taken out of the fight, and just me, the bard, and my familiar still up and fighting - and I was reduced to just hitting the BBEG with my axe while my familiar tried to bite her with his 1-point weasel bite), and, by so doing, saved the world and the lives of every single being in it, and possibly the entire cosmos... my character committed an Evil act, for which he is possibly condemned to the Lower Planes when he dies. (If he dies. He is a near-epic wizard.)

[Ytaker]

At levels that high you can afford atonement spells. It's easy enough to get forgiveness from your god for minor acts of evil. If you deliberately chose not to get forgiveness for spells which bring evil magic into the world, you're not that good. After you cast your magic circle against evil you should have cast atonement or found someone to cast it and done some quest like sprinkle holy water everywhere where you cast your magic circle against good.

Also, awesome story. :smallsmile:

[hamishspence]

Also note that nowhere does it state HOW evil casting an [Evil] spell actually is. Is Deathwatch "laugh at a disabled kid" evil, "punch a nun in the baby" evil, or "what wine goes well with babies" evil?

On [evil] spells- in Fiendish Codex 2, casting one is a 1 point Corrupt act.

For comparison
"humiliating an underling" and "engaging in intimidating torture" are 1 point Corrupt acts.
"Stealing from the needy"and "betraying a friend or ally for personal gain" are 2 point corrupt acts
"Causing gratuitious injury to a creature" is a 3 point corrupt act
"Inflicting cruel or painful torture" is a 4 point corrupt act
"Murder" is a 5 point corrupt act
"Cold-blooded murder" is a 6 point corrupt act
"murder for pleasure" is a 7 point corrupt act

BoVD says of evil spells "a nonevil character can cast a few, as long as they do not do so for an evil purpose, but the path of evil magic leads swiftly to corruption."
Complete Scoundrel's Malconvoker has a special rule- Unrestricted Conjuration, that allows those unable to cast conjuration spells of a particular alignment, to cast them, and,

"In addition, regular use of conjuration spells with the evil descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment"

By implication, a normal character who casts such spells regularly, is at risk of an alignment change.

In the section on Clerics, in Eberron Campaign Setting, it has the special rule that in this setting, clerics can cast spells of any alignment. However:

"casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric's alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells"

Heroes of Horror, in the introduction to Chapter 4- and in the description of the Dread Necromancer class later in the chapter, suggests that characters who, while committing evil deeds, do them toward good ends, and have good intentions, may possibly be able to maintain a Neutral alignment, describing them as "a flexible Neutral" or "can remain solidly neutral".

(That said, Champions of Ruin states that the repeated use of evil acts is normally the mark of an Evil character- so good intentions may only get one so far, if one's acts are evil enough and common enough.)

So- overall, it would appear that casting lots of Evil spells (even for good reasons) puts a Good character at risk of an alignment change (unless they're a malconvoker and the spells are conjuration). However, a few spells, more likely than not wouldn't.

And that a character who changes alignment to Neutral via casting Evil spells, probably isn't going to further change alignment to Evil- if they maintain their overall outlook- good intentions- desire to help others, etc.

[Kuma Kode]

Thorough dissection of my comment

Huh. Someone did his homework. So my previous comment was quite incorrect; the books do give repeated guidelines for how evil the spells actually are, and they seem to be relatively minor. That's what I suspected, but thanks for the citations.

Guess that means Volos is wrong, too, since it's going to take way more than one Deathwatch or Animate Dead to cause an alignment shift, if the rulesy fluff text is to be believed.

I am a little embarrassed not that I missed a reference to the evilness... but because of the sheer number I happened to miss. :smallfrown: Guess I need to catch up on my reading...

[hamishspence]

One way of looking at the "9 Animate Deads and the LN guy is going to Baator" issue with Corrupt acts, is to take the view that Baator doesn't just get LE guys- it gets LN and LG guys with high corruption as well.

That said, guys who die genuinely repentant, who would normally go to Baator, instead become Hellbred, getting a second chance at redemption.

So- you could have a regular animator- who is still some kind of Neutral alignment.

Given the aforementioned Slayer of Domiel, and Healer, I'd drop "deathwatch has Evil tag" entirely- due to the inconsistency.

[Callista]

"Evil" as a spell descriptor is not the same as "evil act".

The Evil subtype on a monster usually means the monster has an Evil alignment. But, in rare cases, usually related to divine or saintly intervention, these creatures can switch alignments to Good. They still have the Evil subtype and still ping on a Detect Evil spell.

Aligned planes can be Evil-aligned; but the plane is not acting and those who visit it or live there are not committing an evil act.

Remember that in D&D, Evil is more like a force or a law of nature than an immaterial philosophical concept. (Or, rather, the philosophical concept is the thing that generates or supports the real Evil in the multiverse.) Like a force or law of nature, it can be used in many different ways--some of which are not Evil-aligned.

Odd, yes. But a natural consequence of divorcing Evil subtypes, Evil spell descriptors, Evil-aligned planes, etc., from the moral/philosophical label you can tag characters with.

Think of it like this... When you commit an Evil act, you strengthen the forces of Evil. When you cast an Evil spell, you use the forces of Evil; but if in doing so you do not commit an evil act, you do not further strengthen the forces of Evil...

The "forces of Evil", in the D&D world, being of course the Evil-aligned planes and their Native Outsider inhabitants, which are pretty much made of all the soul-stuff of Evil-aligned mortals.

[hamishspence]

"Evil" as a spell descriptor is not the same as "evil act".

True- but as mentioned- there is some precedent to suggest that casting such a spell is treated as an evil act for various purposes.

The Eberron statement, the Malconvoker reference, etc.

If you're playing a multiclass paladin wizard (wizard who has taken levels in paladin) and that wizard casts an evil spell, do their paladin powers cease to function?

The above examples would imply- yes they would.

[Callista]

Possibly, yes. If paladins draw their powers from the upper planes, then an [Evil] descriptor spell might be enough to disrupt it even if it wasn't an evil act, similar to the way a Good-aligned pit fiend would still give the paladin a migraine. I'd want to depend on DM ruling for that one, though.

[Set]

it can be reasonable to assume that you are forcing the soul back into their dead body.

If a 5th level Cleric can tear a soul out of the afterlife, and trap it in it's rotting corpse (where it apparently remains utterly unaware of this, since it's mindless), then the assumptions of the game world change *hugely.*

Made a contract with Asmodeus for power, with the character's soul as the cost? No big. When he dies, have an ally cast animate dead and snatch his soul away from Asmodeus to bind into his body, and then bury the body, leaving the soul forever free of the torments of the Nine Hells. Since the undead remains mindless, the soul literally *cannot* be aware of it's imprisonment in its flesh, and so, from eternal torments of the justly damned to eternal peaceful dirtnap, with one third level spell.

And Asmodeus can't do jack, because for animate dead to be usable in this fashion, the spell has to be able to wrest souls away from Pelor, and Mystra, and Thor, and Cthulhu, and *everyone.* Asmodeus isn't more powerful than every other diety in the setting, and if he could make a special exception to prevent souls promised to him exempt from being snatched back by the animate dead spell, you can bet your butt that every god in the setting would make the same exception for their followers, leaving animate dead un-castable, since there wouldn't be any souls not already protected and 'off-limits' by the power of whatever afterlife they have ascended/descended to.

Since there is no write-up in the animate dead spell saying that the spell fails on worshippers of X, or people who have bartered their souls away, or people who have been subject to magic jar or trap the soul or soul bind effects, this assumption, that the 3rd level animate dead spell is more powerful than every god in the setting, doesn't seem to be reflected by the rules, as there would be large swathes of creatures that animate dead would simply fail to work upon, including 1st edition elves, who had no souls, or outsiders, whose souls and bodies are 'one thing' and not divisible.

Further, if it did work that way, in a setting where dieties explicitly *want* souls for whatever reason, dieties would encourage their followers to run around casting animate dead on the bodies of rival diety's worshippers, to tear their souls out of their rival's afterlife. Clerics of good gods would be denying the gods of evil the power of their worshippers souls by animating the bodies of fallen orcs, hobgoblins, drow, etc. and then just locking them away in magical tombs, keeping their souls forever away from their evil gods. The bodies of the faithful would *always* be cremated, as soon as possible, so that the souls of paladins and champions and clergy can't be stolen from the heavens by some 5th level evil cleric.

And, since zombies and skeletons, as of 3.5 are always evil, if the souls of the dead were within them, the souls would have to be evil (particularly if the soul is higher level than the zombie or skeleton, which, by itself wouldn't be high enough level to radiate an aura of evil). A 15th level Paladin of Heironous, in this paradigm, could be torn out of Celestia by a 5th level Cleric of Hextor, and his soul would *immediately turn evil.*

One round later, the Cleric of Hextor would then just beat the skeleton to death with his morningstar, and the soul of the 15th level Paladin would go to the Hells, as it would no longer be a good soul, but an evil one, instantly assigned an evil alignment by the circumstance of having had animate dead cast upon his corpse.

The very notion that animate dead can trump the power of any diety, any archdevil, and utterly change one's alignment with a single casting, and would lead to churches animating the bodies of followers of antithetical faiths willy-nilly to deny power to their rival gods (while burning the bodies of their own dead), seems, to me, ludicrous, but that's how the game would work if animate dead could steal souls out of the afterlife and cause them to become the animating force of an undead creature that is otherwise completely mindless.

[hamishspence]

Hmm- would "casting an [evil] spell counts as a (minor) evil act in itself" be an Eberron-only rule, or would it be reasonable to extrapolate from it to other settings?

[Kuma Kode]

Deathwatch has the evil descriptor because it calls upon evil powers (undeath). The Book of Vile Darkness does say that calling upon evil powers is an evil act in and of itself; ergo, casting Deathwatch is inherently evil. A paladin who casts it (if somehow able, such as multiclassing) immediately loses his powers because he committed an evil act.

While only "calling upon evil gods or powers" is specifically called out in the text, the idea is that any spell with such a descriptor is inherently evil because of what it does. Casting spells with the evil descriptor is inherently evil. If not explicitly stated in big bold letters, it is heavily implied by how they're treated.

[hamishspence]

Deathwatch has the evil descriptor because it calls upon evil powers (undeath). The Book of Vile Darkness does say that calling upon evil powers is an evil act in and of itself; ergo, casting Deathwatch is inherently evil. A paladin who casts it (if somehow able, such as multiclassing) immediately loses his powers because he committed an evil act.

The problem being, that Exalted feats (and PRCs) have exactly the same rule- and yet the Slayer of Domiel gets it.

Hence it would probably be better to just drop Deathwatch as evil altogether- "unofficial errata".

Other spells with the [evil] tag, should generally retain it unless a similar case can be made

[Ytaker]

Undead are bodies with a shard of negative energy bound into them. They do not have souls. Only higher undead have souls. Manual of the planes notes intelligent soul'd undead as beings who never went to heaven or hell.

[FelixG]

Fun thing to piss of some DMs:

They say your undead can not be good because they are "always evil"

you point out "always evil" creatures have 5% of their population that are neutral and good, the undead you raise are just part of that 5% :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

In Complete Divine, it discusses souled undead (page 126).

Some are "twisted toward evil" by the transformation- if they died in specific ways- suicides sometimes (not always) coming back as allips, those "destroyed by absolute evil" sometimes coming back as bodaks, etc.

Others (spawned undead, like vampires, spectres, ghouls, wights, etc) don't have the soul being in charge of the body. Instead it's:

"trapping the soul of the deceased in a body animated by negative energy and controlled by a malign intelligence"-

raising the question of where the malign intelligence comes from.

Libris Mortis mentions

"malicious spirits, bodiless and seeking to house themselves in flesh, especially recently vacated vessels. Such spirits are often little more than nodes of unquenchable hunger, wishing only to feed. These comprise many of the mindless undead."

It goes on to mention that sometimes the creature is more intelligent, retaining some personality or memories from the deceased. However

"this being is not truly inhabited by the spirit of the original creature, which has left to seek its ultimate destiny in the Outer Planes. This amalgamation is something entirely new".

As to what percentage of "always evil" creatures aren't evil- it can vary. Some might be unique, or one in a million (according to Savage Species) Others might be a slightly higher percentage.

And that might simply refer to the alignment they're born or created with- it doesn't refer to the amount that can change alignment.

[Quietus]

Fun thing to piss of some DMs:

They say your undead can not be good because they are "always evil"

you point out "always evil" creatures have 5% of their population that are neutral and good, the undead you raise are just part of that 5% :smallbiggrin:

And the DM points out the pointy end of a flying rulesbook.

[No brains]

If a 5th level Cleric can tear a soul out of the afterlife, and trap it in it's rotting corpse (where it apparently remains utterly unaware of this, since it's mindless), then the assumptions of the game world change *hugely.*

Made a contract with Asmodeus for power, with the character's soul as the cost? No big. When he dies, have an ally cast animate dead and snatch his soul away from Asmodeus to bind into his body, and then bury the body, leaving the soul forever free of the torments of the Nine Hells. Since the undead remains mindless, the soul literally *cannot* be aware of it's imprisonment in its flesh, and so, from eternal torments of the justly damned to eternal peaceful dirtnap, with one third level spell.

And Asmodeus can't do jack, Set, Imma let you finish, but Asmodes CAN do jack! Namely kick the soul thief's ass and smash his skeleton. Plot Petard!


...as there would be large swathes of creatures that animate dead would simply fail to work upon, including 1st edition elves, who had no souls, or outsiders, whose souls and bodies are 'one thing' and not divisible.
1st E elves actually adapted specifically to spite undead. The reason Elves aren't subject to ghoul paralysis is because early play tests had cheap ghouls murdering expensive elf units. So maybe it's a reasonable hook? Also, if an outsiders soul IS its body, than you can just skip the retrieval part and animate it from there.


Further, if it did work that way, in a setting where dieties explicitly *want* souls for whatever reason, dieties would encourage their followers to run around casting animate dead on the bodies of rival diety's worshippers, to tear their souls out of their rival's afterlife. Clerics of good gods would be denying the gods of evil the power of their worshippers souls by animating the bodies of fallen orcs, hobgoblins, drow, etc. and then just locking them away in magical tombs, keeping their souls forever away from their evil gods. The bodies of the faithful would *always* be cremated, as soon as possible, so that the souls of paladins and champions and clergy can't be stolen from the heavens by some 5th level evil cleric.
Except that the good guys wouldn't animate dead bad guys because its evil AND as you say below, it would guarantee that animated souls would be damned.

In Races of The Wild Elves once again spite undead by having a custom spell that disintegrates a corpse specifically so they can't be reanimated, backing up that little theory of yours.


And, since zombies and skeletons, as of 3.5 are always evil, if the souls of the dead were within them, the souls would have to be evil (particularly if the soul is higher level than the zombie or skeleton, which, by itself wouldn't be high enough level to radiate an aura of evil). A 15th level Paladin of Heironous, in this paradigm, could be torn out of Celestia by a 5th level Cleric of Hextor, and his soul would *immediately turn evil.*

One round later, the Cleric of Hextor would then just beat the skeleton to death with his morningstar, and the soul of the 15th level Paladin would go to the Hells, as it would no longer be a good soul, but an evil one, instantly assigned an evil alignment by the circumstance of having had animate dead cast upon his corpse.
Thanks for making the case that Animate dead is in fact an effective tool of evil. Even if they don't have a slave who may be in a dreamlike state of awareness but helplessness, evil can steal souls by animating a skeleton! And they get free lackeys until the skeleton gets destroyed protecting their butt!

The very notion that animate dead can trump the power of any diety, any archdevil, and utterly change one's alignment with a single casting, and would lead to churches animating the bodies of followers of antithetical faiths willy-nilly to deny power to their rival gods (while burning the bodies of their own dead), seems, to me, ludicrous, but that's how the game would work if animate dead could steal souls out of the afterlife and cause them to become the animating force of an undead creature that is otherwise completely mindless.
Evil doesn't always cooperate, so that could be a valid power dynamic. In fact, this makes the whole issue of skeletons and zombies a lot more juicy!

I'm sorry to have replied in a snarky way,but I do have to thank you for your input into this discussion. It's good to finally get some answers as to why skeletons are evil rather than neutral like most other mindless creatures, except Lemures, which are also mindless and evil! We may be on to something!:smallsmile:

[No brains]

Fun thing to piss of some DMs:

They say your undead can not be good because they are "always evil"

you point out "always evil" creatures have 5% of their population that are neutral and good, the undead you raise are just part of that 5% :smallbiggrin:

Except you now have 19 enemies for every 1 undead you raise... Maybe not such a smart move...:smallbiggrin:

[Mordokai]

Either way the answer stands, a good character cannot cast an evil spell.

Yes, they can. Wizards themselves said that clearly in Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, on page 98. I quote the relevant part.


(Remember that wizards of any alignment can cast spells with the evil descriptor without ill effects.)

The spell in question is dread word, which, iirc, allows you to use the very Dark Speech. It doesn't get any more evil than that. And yet, as said by WotC themselves, a lawful good wizard can cast it without repercussion. Sure, the spell effect itself will probably effect him, but not the fact that he is casting an [Evil] spell.

[Dalek-K]

The reason why a CG Cleric can't cast spells of the LE variety isn't because of the energy type in itself. Clerics (and Druids)of the C/L E/G get their powers from their gods and those gods justcan't send down spells that they don't have.

So if a CG cleric somehow moon lighted for a neutral god then he/she could then use a evil or lawful spell because the god can then send those spells down to their little magical conduit.

[hamishspence]

The spell in question is dread word, which, iirc, allows you to use the very Dark Speech. It doesn't get any more evil than that. And yet, as said by WotC themselves, a lawful good wizard can cast it without repercussion. Sure, the spell effect itself will probably effect him, but not the fact that he is casting an [Evil] spell.

Casting an [Evil] spell is a very minor evil act- certainly not one that will result in immediate alignment change.

But (going by that Eberron reference, the Complete Scoundrel reference, and the BoVD reference) it is likely that, eventually, character alignment will change if the character keeps doing it.

[Mordokai]

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that Good characters can cast [Evil] spells, which Volos suggets isn't possible.

[hamishspence]

Definitely. While the DMG does suggest that there are exceptions to the general principle that alignment change is gradual, typically taking a week or so, I doubt very much that "casting an evil spell" could be one of those exceptions.

When a good character commits an evil act (especially a minor one) they are still good- only after several evil acts are they "in danger of changing alignment" normally.

[Dalek-K]

Hmmm

Would a good character even want to use an evil spell. Sticking in character why would a good character think "hey I want to learn this evil spell". It would seem more likely that a good character would automatically shy away from evil spells.. I mean as a good person doesn't go around kicking pupies just cause they can... They feel bad doing evil things and I would think a good person would feel awkward or bad for using an evil spell.

[HalfDragonCube]

Find a lich, bind it. Break off parts of it, sterilize the parts, feed.

Feeding pieces of undead to orphans now counts as good?:smalleek:

[hamishspence]

Hmmm

Would a good character even want to use an evil spell. Sticking in character why would a good character think "hey I want to learn this evil spell". It would seem more likely that a good character would automatically shy away from evil spells.. I mean as a good person doesn't go around kicking pupies just cause they can... They feel bad doing evil things and I would think a good person would feel awkward or bad for using an evil spell.

This was one reason:


So... the only working option I could come up with... I had magic circle against good prepared. I'd looted it from the spellbook of a drow wizard we'd killed, and had never had the combination of time, money, and opportunity to get ...against evil or any of the other versions. We were at the level where the alignment-dependent effects (except the keeping-at-bay) were overlapped by our items anyway. I kept prepared it for just such eventualities.

because the spell was available- provided a benefit, and there hadn't been an opportunity to get a nonevil version.

[Friv]

Hmmm

Would a good character even want to use an evil spell. Sticking in character why would a good character think "hey I want to learn this evil spell". It would seem more likely that a good character would automatically shy away from evil spells.. I mean as a good person doesn't go around kicking pupies just cause they can... They feel bad doing evil things and I would think a good person would feel awkward or bad for using an evil spell.

Because the spell has the potential for significant non-evil usage? Animate Dead can create labourers to help a town threatened by natural disasters, or soldiers to defend innocents from attacking monsters with no risk of losing people who matter. Contagion could allow you to resolve a fight without killing someone, by weakening them enough that they surrender. Deathwatch could tell a healer who needs his help the most urgently. A Planar Binding could trap a demon that you know is on the loose, and so on.

If you're Good, none of those are spells you're likely to use all the time, but any of them has enough situations where they could be critical that a wizard might study them. At higher levels, it doesn't cost much to have an extra spell in your book.

[gomipile]

Players can't cast spells, but characters might be able to (all depending on magical ability and whatnot). If you find a way to allow players to cast spells, regardless of alignment or other factors, please teach me your secrets. I have a few RL uses for D&D spells, specifically save or X and charm/compulsion spells.

Good characters cannot cast evil spells anymore than good players can kill an innocent baby. It will not work, as soon as such an act takes place the character is no longer good and is atleast nuetral at best evil at worse. Chaotic characters cannot become (standard) Paladins, and Lawful characters cannot become (standard) Barbarians. Anything that is such a drastic deviation from their alignment would cause a shift or be impossible. Either way the answer stands, a good character cannot cast an evil spell.

Of course, the means don't justify the ends either. "But we only used [Good] spells" doesn't make up for 50 children dying because you wouldn't use an [Evil] spell.

[Talakeal]

Of course, the means don't justify the ends either. "But we only used [Good] spells" doesn't make up for 50 children dying because you wouldn't use an [Evil] spell.

If only that was true. But, unfortunately, the BoED and BoVD present an extreme black and white moral system where the means are all the matters and the ends are irrelevant. IMO any character who is exalted by the D&D standards would be a pretty lousy person under most real world moral systems.

[Infernalbargain]

Feeding pieces of undead to orphans now counts as good?:smalleek:

Compared to the alternative of them starving. Granted the lich probably won't like it too much, but he's probably evil anyways.

[Dalek-K]

Because the spell has the potential for significant non-evil usage? Animate Dead can create labourers to help a town threatened by natural disasters, or soldiers to defend innocents from attacking monsters with no risk of losing people who matter. Contagion could allow you to resolve a fight without killing someone, by weakening them enough that they surrender. Deathwatch could tell a healer who needs his help the most urgently. A Planar Binding could trap a demon that you know is on the loose, and so on.

If you're Good, none of those are spells you're likely to use all the time, but any of them has enough situations where they could be critical that a wizard might study them. At higher levels, it doesn't cost much to have an extra spell in your book.

Sooo I have/find a nuke (evil spell)... And since I'll be able to save someone with it I should keep it around just in case I can help someone? That logic doesn't really stand. I shouldn't keep something like that around just because I think it may come in handy...

If you use the logic you are presenting then this thread doesn't apply to your character since you will most likely be X/neutral.

[FelixG]

Feeding pieces of undead to orphans now counts as good?:smalleek:

Funny how the alignment system works!

Raise an undead to defend children? EEEVVVIIILLL

Feed an undead to children? GGGOOODDD

:smallbiggrin:

Edit: I just decided, whenever the players in my game try to figure out good and evil I am going to have them make san checks :smallwink:

[Cogidubnus]

I think this all depends on your group's playstyle. For example, I would say that casting an Evil spell is not necessarily evil (I might be inclined to call undead morally grey at best), but I would say a Paladin can't do it, because he's the epitome of Good and can't, say, kill a baby to save a village.

But most of the time, I reckon the intent, rather than the spell descriptor, is my personal way of deciding if something's good or evil. After all, healing your allies, or killing your enemies, is something all alignments do, but healing or killing strangers isn't.

[Cerlis]

If only that was true. But, unfortunately, the BoED and BoVD present an extreme black and white moral system where the means are all the matters and the ends are irrelevant. IMO any character who is exalted by the D&D standards would be a pretty lousy person under most real world moral systems.

I think thats a bad example.

Exalted feats are for people who are all 100% good. Meaning they have to be the epitome of good. not an example of it. they literally have to body and soul be goodness. thats why a paladin falls easier than a cleric. he gets his power from not a source a good , but by being a source of good. the essence of good. he cant have good in him as a primary attribute, he has to be literally Good, not a good outstanding person who is good in almost every way we care about on a day to day basis..

while a character can be good by doing stuff good and evil. the issue is when they think they are doing something for good and they end up doing it subconciously out of fear or hate and use good as an excuse.

the issue is mostly about remembering that Good and Evil in DnD arent just philosophies , they are concrete energies. you can literally fill a vial full of goodness. you can go to a plane of existence where everything is made out of molecules made out of Good Energy. When you do something generous you do something that is literally good. now the motivation and consequences determine if its philosophically good. that is how a Apostle of Peace can keep his powers, and how a paladin can loose his powers. they embody pure goodness, they become closer to that outsider state of being a being of pure good. if they taint their molecular makeup with energy that is anti good it screws it up. However a fighter or whatever who is making neutral, good, and evil decisions and we are trying to figure out which he is, it represents strong mental decisions, soul scaring and healing that takes place over a while. one can remember the Moral Event Horizon. when a character makes a decision that represents their soul snapping and them becoming an irredeemable creature of evil. this is a philosophical progression of someone's alignment turning evil. Now if they stayed at one end or the other, and built on that and became a blackguard or paladin, they would continue to nurture that goodness or evil, to the point where it affected their soul and they because a being of good or evil. this is evident by the fact that a paladin has an aura of good equal to his paladin level. while a good fighter would have to be several times that level to give off the same aura. a high level fighter has a strong soul and because it is good, such a strong soul eminates pure goodness equal to the lower level paladin.

now a paladin using an evil spell is like taking blue playdo and putting it into red play-do. you can never get the blue playdo out. ever. you have tainted the vessel. a paladin can never become pure without divine intervention (an attonement spell) and the red playdo can never be pure red again.

while a good fighter is like playdo that you want to look red. it doesnt have to be pure red. so even if you get blue playdo in it, you can cover it up, or even mix in more red playdo and make the ration such that you dont notice the blue at all, its just a slightly darker red. which is ok , cus you wanted anykind of red.


-----------------

there is no real issue, its just a matter of defining the difference betwen a fake source of energy, and a real form of philosophy.

ps.

I just thought of something. Holy Word kills any nongood creature with less hitdice than their caster level-10. that means its literally possible to use Pure Good Energy to murder people. but that would be an evil act! I think this proves it. Good Energy is entirely different from good philosophy. the two arent the same.

[Set]

If only that was true. But, unfortunately, the BoED and BoVD present an extreme black and white moral system where the means are all the matters and the ends are irrelevant. IMO any character who is exalted by the D&D standards would be a pretty lousy person under most real world moral systems.

Thank Pelor that the BoED and BoVD are non-core, 'cause they are chock full of crap that contradicts core assumptions about alignment, or just is flat out lame (poisons are always evil, so here's a bunch of good alternatives to poisons! Ugh.).

And +whatever to the argument that Deathwatch shouldn't be [Evil].

I'm not a reductionist, who believes that alignment is all about ticking items off of a chart, but that intent matters (so I wouldn't allow a LE wizard to summon a hound archon and order it to torture a bunch of nuns and orphans to death and call it a [Good] act just because it's a [Good] spell, and if someone cast animate dead to save a bunch of townsfolk from orcs, and then had them return to their graves afterwards, I wouldn't ding him with having done an [Evil] deed).

Such mechanical 'checklist' assumptions about good and evil suggest that someone could cast animate dead (4th level [Evil] spell) and, at the end of the day, cast 2 protection from evils (2 1st level [Good] spells) and summon monster 11 - celestial bee (2nd level [Good] spell) and 'cancel it out.'

If alignment is to mean anything to the game setting, it shouldn't be this shallow and meaningless and mechanical. It should be weighted by choice and intent and consequence. It's enforced by dieties, after all (and adjudicated by a game master), not by some flowchart on page XX that dictates how many times you can cast an [Evil] or [Good] spell before changing alignment, or adjudicated by a computer.

If all it takes is casting animate dead to turn evil, then, logically, all it takes is casting four protection from evil spells to counter-balance that and keep an even keel and stay 'not evil.' Indeed, as long as it's as cheap and meaningless as 'cast spell X and move X steps towards that alignment,' a spellcaster that doesn't want to suffer the consequences of being evil could simply blow all of his remaining spell slots at the end of each day casting protection from evil or summoning celestial critters, building up +10,000 points of [Good], so that he can cast all the [Evil] spells he wants.

And if it 'doesn't work that way,' then good. I didn't want it to work that way anyway! Three cheers to the more thoughtful game, where turning good, *or evil,* takes more intent than just using the wrong spell.

Animate dead is no more evil than a handgun, even if, like a handgun, it's far more likely to be used to do evil than good.

[Friv]

Sooo I have/find a nuke (evil spell)... And since I'll be able to save someone with it I should keep it around just in case I can help someone? That logic doesn't really stand. I shouldn't keep something like that around just because I think it may come in handy...

If you use the logic you are presenting then this thread doesn't apply to your character since you will most likely be X/neutral.

So if I'm an adventurer who always charges in to save innocents, who gives half of his earnings to the local orphanages and accepts every quest that poor farming villages offer, who puts his life on the line every day to save other people...

But I know Animate Dead, and a few times a year when orc raiders are threatening some farm, I've been known to animate the corpses of the first people to attack a village because I can't be everywhere at once and people are going to die...

I'm not a good person?

That's a pretty insanely strict way of looking at alignment.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes.

They can.

They might not want to make a habit of it though.

Edit: There really needs to be some mechanical difference between "mortal Good and Evil" and "planar Good and Evil". Because, seriously... While casting an [Evil] spell might push the multiverse slightly closer to Evil, it shouldn't make a good person instantly less of a good person if he did it for a good reason.

[EvilJames]

A spell with the [evil] discriptor is not an evil spell. It is a mechanical tag that is used to tell you how the spell interacts with the spell lists of classes such as the Cleric, where they cannot cast a spell with an alignment discriptor opposed to their alignment or that of their god. The sole point of such discriptors is to prevent Clerics of Pelor from casting Animate Dead or Clerics of Nerull from casting Consecrate.

Whether a spell is actually an evil act or not depends ENTIRELY upon what yardstick you are using to measure morality. Are you going for moral objectivism? subjectivism? general common sense? That should be the measure of the spell, not some discriptor put in place to make the rules system work the way the designers felt it should work.

Actually according to the rules it is an evil act to cast a spell with the evil descriptor, because they are in fact evil spells. However the DM is free to remove said tags or just ignore them as he /she sees fit, as you apparently do.(Heroes of Horror suggests doing just that for certain types of games, particularly if you want the rightness or wrongness of the heroes actions to be somewhat murky) It's also possible that the spell that the OP mentions has the descriptor as a typo, but I can't say that for certain.

Also on the subject of animate dead. If I understand correctly the idea of it being evil stems partially from it's general unnaturalness an from the idea that to use it is too corrupt the bodies of it's victims in some abstract way (can't be raised if you were undead) This goes doubly so for the undead creation spells that make intelligent undead because then you are binding the spirit as well as the body (assuming your undead is corporeal). But in your game if you remove the latter problem and say it's not corrupting anything and that your intelligent undead are either a new creature with a new or artificial spirit/sentience, then making undead is a neutral act at worst, rather than at best.

[Psyren]

It's simple logic really. If repeatedly casting [Evil] spells can make you evil, then you must be able to cast them while you are not evil. Otherwise, there'd be nothing to shift your alignment from.

Also, [Evil] spells are Evil - it's not just a descriptor, as Kyeudo said - the problem is that lots of spells don't have the tag that should, and several have the tag that shouldn't.

I would for instance say that, if you make a habit of Dominating sapient beings, you would at the very least stop being Good after a while - even if you limit yourself to unsavory characters.

[Talakeal]

Going to post my list of common misconceptions about necromancy, it seems relevant to this thread.

Core rules never say that casting alignment spells changes your alignment*. Some of the supplements claim that is a minor evil act. Other supplements claim that casting [evil] spells is not an evil act, or give [evil] type spells to classes which must be good.

Negative energy is not evil. The plane does not have the evil dominant trait, negative energy based outsiders do not have evil alignment, and most spells that directly channel negative energy are not [evil].

Animating dead does not trap the soul. This is implied in the descriptions of Trap soul and Magic Jar, and outright stated in Libris Mortis.

Mindless undead do not go out of their way to perform evil acts, they are totally mindless and do NOTHING if not commanded to. They are only given the evil alignment in 3.5 so that paladins can smite the evil necromancers minions and clerics can use protection from evil / holy word against them.

Creating undead might be considered evil because it is disrespecting someone else's body, spreading disease, using someone else's body without their permission, disrupt the natural order / god's will, or frightening people. However, the rules don't outright say this, and there are plenty of spells that do all those things directly without the [evil] tag. In addition there are the deathless and undead like baelnorns, who do all those things but are still considered good.

*Some people claim that it is only logical that casting a spell with a descriptor changes your alignment. However, following that logic, that would mean that an evil character could become good by simply casting good spells, or you could balance them both out by casting roughly equal amounts and keeping your current alignment. Also, following this logic to its natural conslusion you could say that a cleric who casts spells outside their domain changes gods, a wizard who casts too many spells of one school becomes a specialist, or a water elemental who casts fireball too much becomes a fire elemental, all of which are clearly ridiculous.

[GeminiVeil]

It's simple logic really. If repeatedly casting [Evil] spells can make you evil, then you must be able to cast them while you are not evil. Otherwise, there'd be nothing to shift your alignment from.

Also, [Evil] spells are Evil - it's not just a descriptor, as Kyeudo said - the problem is that lots of spells don't have the tag that should, and several have the tag that shouldn't.

I would for instance say that, if you make a habit of Dominating sapient beings, you would at the very least stop being Good after a while - even if you limit yourself to unsavory characters.

A neutral character could cast evil spells and go towards evil and the 'rule' for not being able to cast opposing alignment spells would still be satisfied. :smallsmile: Just my 2 copper.

[John Campbell]

Sooo I have/find a nuke (evil spell)... And since I'll be able to save someone with it I should keep it around just in case I can help someone? That logic doesn't really stand. I shouldn't keep something like that around just because I think it may come in handy...
When you're going up against an extremely powerful enchantress whose current course of action is going to result in the destruction of the entire world, and who has a proven habit of mind-controlling innocents to use as weapons against you, and you find a spell that will interrupt her control of her victims in a 10' radius, which you do not currently have a means of doing, are you going to throw it away because it says "evil" on the wrapper?

Are you going to refuse to use it when the moment comes, because it says "evil" on it, and thus doom every single creature in the entire world to death in order to selfishly preserve your alignment status and right to an afterlife in the upper planes, or are you going to take one for the team, save the lives of everyone everywhere, and possibly be damned to Hell for it? (And willingly - all your appropriate Knowledge skills are high enough that you know what the consequences are.) Which of these is the Good thing to do? Which of these is the right thing to do?

Again, these are not hypothetical questions. I know my answer - or at least Ageirr Jarnhamarr's answer - to them, because I had to answer them for him.


If you use the logic you are presenting then this thread doesn't apply to your character since you will most likely be X/neutral.
Ageirr was... well, I hate the alignment system with a deep and enduring passion, and am firmly convinced that it's the single worst, most RP-hostile, concept that has ever been introduced to role-playing. But if forced to stuff him into a box, he was basically Neutral Indifferent, leaning either Neutral Good or Chaotic Good (depending on the point in the campaign... there was an event around the midpoint that wound up with him telling off a major Lawful Good deity to his face over the god's concept of "justice", which affected his general outlook) when he could be bothered to care. It wasn't that he was a bad person, or wishy-washy; he was just more interested in the Craft (and it was never clear whether he meant magic or metalworking when he used that term, or if he even made a distinction) than in people.

But that's not to say that he didn't have very strongly held convinctions - see, again, standing in front of the avatar of a deity and telling him that what he's doing just isn't cutting it. Among those, he was utterly and implacably opposed to the use of mind control spells... hold person was as close as he ever came to casting one. I tolerated my allies using them on enemies, but... well, the bard used suggestion on the paladin one time, to get him to go along with the sensible plan instead of running off to be Lawful Stupid. I wasn't there for that session, but if I had been... I might not have actually killed the bard, but $#!+ would've gone down, and it would've been bad for the bard.

But if I captured a spellbook, or found a scroll, with any of those spells, they went into the Boccob's blessed book like everything else. Just in case. This is not a question of good and evil, or even right and wrong; it's idealism vs. pragmatism. Ageirr was, whatever else, very pragmatic.

[Talakeal]

Are you going to refuse to use it when the moment comes, because it says "evil" on it, and thus doom every single creature in the entire world to death in order to selfishly preserve your alignment status and right to an afterlife in the upper planes, or are you going to take one for the team, save the lives of everyone everywhere, and possibly be damned to Hell for it? (And willingly - all your appropriate Knowledge skills are high enough that you know what the consequences are.) Which of these is the Good thing to do? Which of these is the right thing to do?


That is a great moral argument in both real life and in core. The problem is that if you are playing with the BoED it specifically say's the ends never justify the means, and spells out in black and white that if you think the sacrifice of your alignment is worth it, you are wrong. It then goes on to say that in such a case it may seem like a good thing and a noble sacrifice to make, but your fall will cause a cosmic shift in the balance of good and evil, and in the long run cause far more harm than if you simply let the villain destroy the world.

It makes no sense, and is one of the many reasons I advise people to treat the BoED and BoVD in much the same manner a CoC PC would treat the Necronomicon, but that is the official stance on the subject.

[Psyren]

A neutral character could cast evil spells and go towards evil and the 'rule' for not being able to cast opposing alignment spells would still be satisfied. :smallsmile: Just my 2 copper.

There is no such rule, except for Clerics - that's what I'm getting at. And if you're a neutral cleric you can cast both [Evil] and [Good] spells without issue.

[GeminiVeil]

There is no such rule, except for Clerics - that's what I'm getting at. And if you're a neutral cleric you can cast both [Evil] and [Good] spells without issue.

Yeah, that's why I put 'rule' in quotes. Plus I think it depends on what books are allowed. If BoED and BoVD are in, then it would seem there is a rule that says that you will likely shift alignments for casting opposite aligned spells. But I do agree with you that I cannot find any rule, except under the clerics as discussed, that says 'no spells of opposed alignments EVAR!' :smallsmile:
Again, I am agreeing with you on the above point that there is no rule except clerics. But I do run my game that if you habitually cast evil spells, you take 'points' towards evil, unless the action of doing so negates the 'evil'. Obviously highly subjective, but I haven't encountered any problems in my own games with it. and everyone still has fun.
I would like to point out that I am not intending this to be a 'you must do things my way grrrrrr!' or anything. Just saying it's what I do, we have fun, and that's the point. :smallsmile: Probably won't work for everyone, but for my group it does.

[Psyren]

Not a problem at all, that's how I would do it too. Both occasional and habitual use are permitted, with the latter resulting in alignment shift.

[hamishspence]

Other supplements claim that casting [evil] spells is not an evil act, or give [evil] type spells to classes which must be good.

Can you cite any examples?

Complete Scoundrel has a class, with a special rule, that "repeatedly Casting [evil] conjuration spells does not threaten to change your alignment"- but it doesn't say anything about it not being an evil act.

A supplement (BoED) giving one [evil] spell to a PRC that cannot ever commit an evil act without Falling, isn't so much evidence that casting the spell is not evil, as evidence that the writers think that spell doesn't have the [evil] tag, IMO.


But I do run my game that if you habitually cast evil spells, you take 'points' towards evil, unless the action of doing so negates the 'evil'. Obviously highly subjective, but I haven't encountered any problems in my own games with it. and everyone still has fun.

If you go by Eberron Campaign Setting, this is the most "accurate" way of handling Evil spells.

[Killer Angel]

Hmmm

Would a good character even want to use an evil spell. Sticking in character why would a good character think "hey I want to learn this evil spell". It would seem more likely that a good character would automatically shy away from evil spells..

I learn summon monster, and I use it often. I'm good, but sometime, i need to summon an [evil] creature, 'cause it's more suited for the task i need.

[Kuma Kode]

The idea of [evil] spells being an evil act, without regards to the actual intended use, is similar to the example of red and blue playdough (which is a great way of putting it, and I'll use that to explain it to new players in the future). If you raise undead, you channel undeath and unspeakable energies. Even if you use these undead to save a town and then place them in their graves, you've become corrupted by the energies you channeled. They've changed you.

The trope that power can be addictive is common in fiction, and that's what the alignment tags are intended to represent. Characters who regularly summon fiends habitually channel evil power. That changes them. Likewise, an evil character who, in the example previous, summons a hound archon to torture people connects his mind and soul to the powers of good. That will change him, as well. He may start to feel guilt, a haunting shadow in his mind that what he's doing is wrong.

Extending the playdough metaphor, a character who casts animate dead, then two protection from evils and summon monster II does not "balance out"; if you mix red and blue playdough, you don't get nothing, you get purple playdough. A character who habitually tries to "balance out" would fall to neutral. While this seems coldly mechanical, such problem will result from any situation in which a character intentionally tries to maintain or gain a particular alignment. Aiming for a particular alignment breaks the fourth wall, as it represents character knowledge of mechanics. It's like those ridiculous 12 template stacks that could never occur without knowledge that it gives the best bonuses.

[Talakeal]

Sorry, can't cite anything right now my library is 2000 miles away, but I believe several posters in this thread have already mentioned some.

Kuma, your ideas are very well thought out, and may well be what the designers intended. However, we are frequently told that alignment is not a straight jacket and the actions determine alignment, not vice versa. Therefore, unless you are using some sort of optional system like HoH's taint, there is no actual effect on said characters personality. In such a situation you would have any character who uses the best tool for any given situation listed as neutral, whether they are a (formerly) good character using evil tools for the greater good or a villain using good tools for evil ends, both are listed as neutral. This makes the whole concept of alignment kind of silly in any realistic setting, as only mustache twirling bad guys and shinning paladins who are more concerned about their own purity than those around them will have non neutral alignments.

Also, it isn't only evil spells this applies to. There are plenty of things that non core books, primarily the BoED and BoVD point as always evil without good reason. Poisons are a big example of this.

Another thing which the BoED lists as extremely evil is assisting evil outsiders. One scenario I have had in my campaign is the CE Demons are going to take over the player's world. The LE Devils do not want this as they do not want the demons using it to gain an advantage in the blood war, so they offer to help the PCs fight the demons. The devils gain nothing from this save hurting the demons, and it could mean the destruction of their world should the PCs refuse the devils help, but if they take them up on the offer they are now beings of the most evil sort. Seems kind of messed up.

[Kuma Kode]

Good examples for what I'm about to say.

Wizards of the Coast doesn't seem to know how to work with alignment any more than we do. As this thread has shown, alignment is sometimes treated as being absolute, with no room for interpretation. As you just said, however, they've also claimed it's fluid and not to be interpreted as a straight jacket, then immediately follow it with examples of things that are objectively evil and big no-nos for heroes.

So while I've been arguing that it's mechanical, I perfectly understand ditching, reworking, or redefining it.

D20 Modern's allegiance system is commonly suggested as a more flexible but mechanically usable alternative.

[hamishspence]

The devils gain nothing from this save hurting the demons, and it could mean the destruction of their world should the PCs refuse the devils help, but if they take them up on the offer they are now beings of the most evil sort. Seems kind of messed up.

BoVD's "allowing a fiend to live, let alone helping it in any way, is clearly evil" was a bit odd- but it didn't say how evil helping a fiend was.

The later Savage Species suggested that fiends might be redeemable (in it's Chaotic/Accepting campaign model).

More subtle games (maybe with a Planescape theme?) might downplay the evilness of assisting a fiend- and might even make it nonevil under certain circumstances.

[NilsRichter]

I can't see how the player's alignment is relevant here. :smalltongue:

"Rule-Lawful" ?

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: can a good player cast Thread Necromancy?