just how evil is it? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

tyckspoon

2011-08-30, 10:44 PM

:smallconfused:

interesting.... I'll have to ask where my player got that particular tidbit.

I would presume it's from the Necromancy lable

necromancy = evil after all (in most people's minds at least)

so mayhap there was a misunderstanding on the player's part.

I shall look into this.
however, regardless of that, my question stands.

Either the Necromancy school, or he's convinced that Negative energy is inherently evil (channeling Negative energy, as in Rebuking Undead, is stated to be an evil act, but there's no given justification for *why.* And other applications of negative energy are generally not evil; the vast majority of negative-energy using spells are not marked with [Evil].)

For spells in general.. it depends on why it's been declared Evil. There are some spells that are basically only [Evil] because they're really unpleasant, but they don't invoke any Evil powers or beings. Those, I would either ignore being [Evil] completely for consistancy, because there are plenty of hideously grisly and unpleasant spell effects that aren't [Evil], or assign them the lightest possible weight, such that use of them would normally balance out against whatever presumably Good act you needed to employ them in.

Spells that summon, call, or create Evil-subtyped beings- which is the other major category of [Evil] spells- are much harder to justify using. These bring an absolutely malevolent being to the world that would otherwise not be there, and even if you use the Malconvoker defense most of the time you could have done just as well with a Neutral or Good aligned being. So this class of spells- especially Calling and creation- make the entire world just that little bit more Evil. If you wanted to say that Evil spells in general are 1 point, I'd make these.. oh, 1 point per (CR or HD, depending on how Evil you want it) of the resulting creature.

Coidzor

2011-08-30, 10:45 PM

:smallconfused:

interesting.... I'll have to ask where my player got that particular tidbit..

Probably the bit about channeling negative energy.

Drachasor

2011-08-30, 10:46 PM

Honestly, I'd say it would have to depend on the spell. Some spells don't even seem to remotely deserve the "Evil" descriptor. Others, like Mindrape, are pretty dang evil even if you do the minimum allowed with them.

Spells that summon, call, or create Evil-subtyped beings- which is the other major category of [Evil] spells- are much harder to justify using. These bring an absolutely malevolent being to the world that would otherwise not be there, and even if you use the Malconvoker defense most of the time you could have done just as well with a Neutral or Good aligned being. So this class of spells- especially Calling and creation- make the entire world just that little bit more Evil. If you wanted to say that Evil spells in general are 1 point, I'd make these.. oh, 1 point per (CR or HD, depending on how Evil you want it) of the resulting creature.

Eh, that's ridiculously harsh. So what if you bring a Hellhound into the world to attack your enemies for a bit over a minute. That's no worse than what a fire elemental or unicorn would do. It isn't like it actually does any evil, unless you have it do evil.

Unless this is a world where opening a little portal to the Hells leaks evil out all over the place because your stupid spell doesn't incorporate the standard sanitation procedures since you stupid magic school rushes into everything and doesn't bother considering the consequences until there's dangnable evil seeping all over the floors and in the bath and the sheets and everywhere and you have to burn and burn and burn it with fire over and over again burn it again and again until it stops screaming in your mind god I just want it to stop!

NNescio

2011-08-30, 10:50 PM

Honestly, I'd say it would have to depend on the spell. Some spells don't even seem to remotely deserve the "Evil" descriptor. Others, like Mindrape, are pretty dang evil even if you do the minimum allowed with them.

Deathwatch. Ah yes, triage is evil. Bah.

(Flavour text indicates that it's designed for 'assassination' purposes, but still.)

McStabbington

2011-08-30, 10:53 PM

It's your call as a DM. Generally speaking and without going into any serious ethical discussion, I would say that there are three factors you have to look at to assess how evil an act is: the intent, the means used and the ends sought. If you use lawful means to put a criminal in jail, generally speaking that's a good act, but people will (rightfully) stop thinking of you as a force for justice if you say that you only did it because you always had a grudge against the guy and wanted to see him raped in prison. Similarly, fulfilling your pure intent to save a puppy from being boiled alive looks a lot worse if you saved the dog by lobotomizing the evil dude with a rusty pickaxe after he was handcuffed. So means and intents factor into an assessment of "how evil was act x" every bit as much as the result does.

Spells with the evil descriptor strike me as being always evil in the "means" category. Simply put, magic gives you a lot of ways to skin a proverbial cat, and spells with the evil descriptor are uniformly the most vile and dark ways of doing so. Additionally, it's likely, although not necessary, that such spells be brought about by someone with a malign intent. Obviously, the worst kind of villainy is when someone does something for the wrong reasons, uses vile and nasty means to do it and achieves a contemptible result. But this gives you a sliding scale for varying shades of villainy.

Drachasor

2011-08-30, 10:59 PM

Deathwatch. Ah yes, triage is evil. Bah.

(Flavour text indicates that it's designed for 'assassination' purposes, but still.)

Well, fireball is intended to burn lots of people alive. That seems worse.

big teej

2011-08-30, 11:00 PM

Either the Necromancy school, or he's convinced that Negative energy is inherently evil (channeling Negative energy, as in Rebuking Undead, is stated to be an evil act, but there's no given justification for *why.* And other applications of negative energy are generally not evil; the vast majority of negative-energy using spells are not marked with [Evil].)

For spells in general.. it depends on why it's been declared Evil. There are some spells that are basically only [Evil] because they're really unpleasant, but they don't invoke any Evil powers or beings. Those, I would either ignore being [Evil] completely for consistancy, because there are plenty of hideously grisly and unpleasant spell effects that aren't [Evil], or assign them the lightest possible weight, such that use of them would normally balance out against whatever presumably Good act you needed to employ them in.

Spells that summon, call, or create Evil-subtyped beings- which is the other major category of [Evil] spells- are much harder to justify using. These bring an absolutely malevolent being to the world that would otherwise not be there, and even if you use the Malconvoker defense most of the time you could have done just as well with a Neutral or Good aligned being. So this class of spells- especially Calling and creation- make the entire world just that little bit more Evil. If you wanted to say that Evil spells in general are 1 point, I'd make these.. oh, 1 point per (CR or HD, depending on how Evil you want it) of the resulting creature.

I'm afraid I'm highly unlikely to make it a point per hit die.

the creator of the scale states that is based on the following ideas
the amount of points any given act can be worth is between -5 and 5
(negatives are evil/chaos points, positives are Law/good points)

so any given act is worth a net change of 1 and 5 points to ones alignment score.

he further states that the great majority of acts should only be worth 1-3 points, and values of 4 or 5 should only be assigned to the most heinous acts of evil, or the most righteous acts of good. (basically, if there is an act that's liable to shift your alignment all on its own, it's probably worth 5 points)

for example, an act I've used that I awarded 5 evil points for.
a Lawful Neutral Necromancer Cleric (who's stated concept of design was a "protector of the dead" necromancer, not a "I'm going to use and abuse dead people")

sold off 3 souls that were under her command/protection in exchange for +8 to charisma.

Flickerdart

2011-08-30, 11:06 PM

Similarly, fulfilling your pure intent to save a puppy from being boiled alive looks a lot worse if you saved the dog by lobotomizing the evil dude with a rusty pickaxe after he was handcuffed.
Is it less points if the pickaxe isn't rusty?

NNescio

2011-08-30, 11:08 PM

I'm afraid I'm highly unlikely to make it a point per hit die.

the creator of the scale states that is based on the following ideas
the amount of points any given act can be worth is between -5 and 5
(negatives are evil/chaos points, positives are Law/good points)

so any given act is worth a net change of 1 and 5 points to ones alignment score.

he further states that the great majority of acts should only be worth 1-3 points, and values of 4 or 5 should only be assigned to the most heinous acts of evil, or the most righteous acts of good. (basically, if there is an act that's liable to shift your alignment all on its own, it's probably worth 5 points)

for example, an act I've used that I awarded 5 evil points for.
a Lawful Neutral Necromancer Cleric (who's stated concept of design was a "protector of the dead" necromancer, not a "I'm going to use and abuse dead people")

sold off 3 souls that were under her command/protection in exchange for +8 to charisma.

So he can work off the karma debt by performing five random minor acts of good?

...

This is one of the reasons why I dislike a strictly points-based alignment system. It trivializes morality.

It also runs into the "Lawful/Chaotic Neutral Druid being forced to kick a few puppies to avoid losing his class features after doing too many good acts" issue. Which features prominently in CRPGs like Neverwinter Nights and is particularly hard to avoid since most acts performed by Heroes are by definition Heroic.

Arundel

2011-08-30, 11:12 PM

So he can work off the karma debt by performing five random minor acts of good?

That is the thought that crossed my mind too. If I had a player sell souls for personal gain they would fall straight to evil. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

No brains

2011-08-30, 11:25 PM

Necromancy primarily deals with manipulating life forces (unlife included). Before 3rd edition, all healing spells were also in the Necromancy school.

I thought that would make sense! Why the change? Anybody know?

Deathwatch. Ah yes, triage is evil. Bah.

Crap like that is the reason God gave us the ability to spam swears in video games.

Optimator

2011-08-30, 11:26 PM

It's a minor evil act. Minor.

Drachasor

2011-08-30, 11:30 PM

I thought that would make sense! Why the change? Anybody know?

Seems to me like they wanted it to be more like the person is bringing force the grace of the god(s/dess(es)) or whatever. Making it a conjuration means you are bringing force a power from elsewhere. Necromancy or Transmuation means you are pretty much doing it yourself...well, more so than conjuration. Makes it more religious/spiritual.

That was always my thought, anyhow. Seemed pretty lame and anti-necromancy to me.

tyckspoon

2011-08-30, 11:34 PM

big teej

2011-08-30, 11:35 PM

That is the thought that crossed my mind too. If I had a player sell souls for personal gain they would fall straight to evil. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

my bad, wasn't thinking when I posted.

they did in fact, fall all the way to evil, and then took the 5 points on top of it.

allow me to clarify.

the point-system I use is to handle things that are not worth an auto-shift.
so everyday mundane occurences arn't worth a point at all. (a LG character would net 0 points for helping the old lady across the street, that should be a given occurence for them)

Neutral Good character makes an issue over a minor injustice (somebody steals the sign off a shopkeepers hovel)

that'll be worth 1-2 points, (especially if it's not a plothook)

the "protecter of the dead" bargaining away the souls of her charges
insta drop to evil.

this same cleric narcing on the cult she's there to help INSTANTLY when captured
insta drop to chaotic.

.... the player was........ not suited to playing Lawful Neutral.

Callista

2011-08-30, 11:44 PM

In my game it totally depends on the circumstances. Sometimes it's not evil at all; in a few cases, it could be evil enough to drop a Good character straight to Evil (and also probably very out of character if they had been RP'd as Good up to that point).

Evil spells usually cause unnecessary suffering, or they encourage the caster to align himself more with Evil, or they step all over the rights of sentient creatures. If you're hurting people or you're corrupting yourself or someone else, then that's Evil-aligned.

If, in your setting, casting an Evil spell inevitably corrupts the caster, turning him to Evil whether his intentions are good or not, then you might say that all Evil spells are evil acts. I don't use that rule, though some people might. If you use it, tell your players before they start throwing magic around.

But here's a good rule of thumb: If the same thing, done without magic, would be evil, then doing it with a spell is evil, too.

I guess the big question is: In your setting, is magic a neutral tool, or is it inherently moral? You can play it either way. You just have to stay consistent.

big teej

2011-08-30, 11:49 PM

since I'm being to lazy to dig up the link... allow me to summarize the system I use.

every alignment component has an alignment score

Law and good are both 85

Neutral is 50

Chaos and Evil is 15

so a newly created Neutral Good character would have an alignment score of 50 and 85 respectively.

lets say this neutral good character commits a Chaoticly Evil act that is worth 5 chaos and 5 evil points (but somehow, not bad enough to cause an auto-shift)

the player would roll a % against his neutral score, if he rolls lower, his law/chaos score would decrease by 5 points (bringing it to 45) if the same happend to his good/evil score, it would drop to 80

conversely, lets say that this character did an excessively Lawful Good act, worth + 5
it would be as with evil, except he would need to roll higher.

Arundel

2011-08-30, 11:51 PM

Drachasor

2011-08-30, 11:56 PM

The problem is some spells just cannot be anything but irredeemably evil. For example, look up Abyssal Might in BoVD. Material Component? Heart of a dwarf child

Non-evil Method 1:
The child was already dead.

Non-evil Method 2:
Anesthesia, Regenerate, optional willing participation, and the Clone spell.
The child isn't even dead for this one.

MesiDoomstalker

2011-08-31, 12:11 AM

Any spell can get the [Evil] descriptor with enough fluff and reasoning.

Example 1:
An epic level NG Druid is concerned with the urban expansion and its effects on plantlife in a magitec industrial revolution setting. He researches a spell that allows plants (and anything else that uses photosynthesis) to function without Carbon Dioxide and endure toxins, and it works. He travels the world exposing all kinds of plants to his spell preserving them from the pollution. He quickly discovers this is far too time consuming, and instead creates another epic spell that makes plants especially viral to propagate his resilient strains. Also a success but an unforeseen consequence. The new plants are tougher than old plants and spread quickly. Competition for resources begins and the magically treated plants win out. 10 years later, the world is being overrun with extremely resilient, quickly reproducing plants that don't produce oxygen. Metropolises covered in foliage. Regular plants are sparse and small in number. The planets oxygen supply is running out and fast. Top Wizards discover that the use of [Fire] spell consume an inordinate amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, as does mundane fire. The use of such spells and heat sources are quickly banned across the planet. Social stigma against flames is established in a few years. BOOM! Fireball: Evocation [Evil] because you intentionally bring the entire planet that much closer to extinction.

Caveat: Due to the imabalance of the atmosphere on the material plane, the Gods of Air seal off the Elemental Plane of Air in fear that the atmosphere of the Material plane will corrupt it (this was before the druid, so that shows how bad the urban sprawl was)

Example 2:
An evil god of Undeath with close ties to the Negative Energy plane hates all life. With the assistance of his undead cult (with an Epic level Necromancer), the god works powerful magicks on the Positive Energy plane. In effect, he restricts the boarders of the plane to a finite space. The once infinite plane of life now only has limited resources. But not all is lost, as the resources recycle. As someone dies, the positive energy within them returns to the plane and when someone is born, positive energy is implanted in them. Its balanced system. But, using any Conjuration (Healing) or any other positive energy effect takes away some of the planes now finite resources. For several hundred years, the use of such effects is not halted. The plane is still vast and plenty of energy to go around. Eventually, the plane starts to run dry. Not enough energy is left for recycling life. Babies go unborn as there is not enough energy to for it to be born and for the plane to continue to exist. Now, any positive energy effects are [Evil] as it will literally limit the amount of life possible on the Material plane.

MesiDoomstalker

2011-08-31, 12:13 AM

Non-evil Method 1:
The child was already dead.

Non-evil Method 2:
Anesthesia, Regenerate, optional willing participation, and the Clone spell.
The child isn't even dead for this one.

Desecrating the body of a Dwarven child, regardless of who or what killed it, is pretty evil.

And method two, because of Regeneration's casting time and how long it takes for full effect on a removed body part, the child would still die.

Crasical

2011-08-31, 12:16 AM

Is creating undead evil because it manipulates negative energy, or because it defiles corpses/somehow affects souls in the afterlife? If I'm an 'environmentally conscious' necromancer who creates his undead minions from Stone-to-Flesh'd statues, that never had owners or souls, is it still evil?

Starbuck_II

2011-08-31, 12:19 AM

So he can work off the karma debt by performing five random minor acts of good?

...

This is one of the reasons why I dislike a strictly points-based alignment system. It trivializes morality.

It also runs into the "Lawful/Chaotic Neutral Druid being forced to kick a few puppies to avoid losing his class features after doing too many good acts" issue. Which features prominently in CRPGs like Neverwinter Nights and is particularly hard to avoid since most acts performed by Heroes are by definition Heroic.

Whoa, why is selling a soul evil act?
Stealing a soul isn't aligned (trap the soul isn't aligned). Stealing it from a innocent person is evil.
But that is due to you harming an innocent, nothing to do with the soul stealing itself.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 12:19 AM

Desecrating the body of a Dwarven child, regardless of who or what killed it, is pretty evil.

And method two, because of Regeneration's casting time and how long it takes for full effect on a removed body part, the child would still die.

A body is just a body. Doing stuff to it? Really depends on the culture if that's considered bad. Is it any worse than organ donation? I don't think so. Let's assume all the proper paperwork was filed by the child and the family.

As for method two, well, the regeneration is just to quickly regrow the tissue sample. You need one to grow a clone. From the clone you can get as many samples as you want. The clone has no life, since the original boy never died. You never take the heart from the original, just the clone. Cure spells would probably work fine too.

MesiDoomstalker

2011-08-31, 12:21 AM

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 12:22 AM

Whoa, why is selling a soul evil act?
Stealing a soul isn't aligned (trap the soul isn't aligned). Stealing it from a innocent person is evil.
But that is due to you harming an innocent, nothing to do with the soul stealing itself.

I prefer to consider it soul borrowing myself...

As for the selling, depends on who you sell it to. Sell WMDs to a terrorist, and it is an evil act. Sell a soul to a demon that is going to shape it into a vile weapon, yeah, evil act. Gotta do your due diligence here. There's a reason for all those laws about this sort of thing.

MesiDoomstalker

2011-08-31, 12:26 AM

Whoa, why is selling a soul evil act?
Stealing a soul isn't aligned (trap the soul isn't aligned). Stealing it from a innocent person is evil.
But that is due to you harming an innocent, nothing to do with the soul stealing itself.

I think the difference is that it wasn't the character's soul but the souls of the ones he was "protecting".

Lord.Sorasen

2011-08-31, 01:28 AM

Desecrating the body of a Dwarven child, regardless of who or what killed it, is pretty evil.

And method two, because of Regeneration's casting time and how long it takes for full effect on a removed body part, the child would still die.

Wait no I'm convinced we can do this. I have a plan: Polymorph the child into a troll. Remove the child's heart. Troll heart grows back. Polymorph ends. Now you have a dwarf child heart.

Now the first part I very much disagree with. See, way I see it, if a person dies and they requested it (or rather didn't not request it) their organs will be donated to people who need them. While of course saving another life is worth a lot more than casting a single spell (unless that spell also saves lives), there are clearly times when it's okay to remove the heart of a person.

Now, admittedly, finding dwarven child-hearts from natural causes would be very difficult to do. It's definitely more a theoretical scenario.

Coidzor

2011-08-31, 01:46 AM

Do dwarven hearts have a listed price?

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 01:49 AM

Do dwarven hearts have a listed price?

They're a dime a dozen in the spell component pouch, that's not the point.

Now, admittedly, finding dwarven child-hearts from natural causes would be very difficult to do. It's definitely more a theoretical scenario.

That's why you go with cloning. I mean, ideally you'd develop mutant clones that have a hundred dwarf-child hearts per clone,* but that's up to the DM whether he'll let you do that research. It's all ethical mind, as long as you make sure the original dwarf child remains alive.

*RAW implies something like this is done to get the costs low.

hamishspence

2011-08-31, 04:46 AM

Given that some "Good alignment only" classes and PRCs in 3.5 have access to Deathwatch, which wasn't evil in 3.0, I'd say giving it the Evil descriptor was a mistake. I've seen it suggested that it should have been Death Knell, right next to it, that got the descriptor.

In FC2 casting an Evil spell is a 1 pt Corrupt act. As evil as "intimidating torture" (torture that does no damage) or "humiliating an underling". Less evil than, for example, stealing from the needy.

In Heroes of Horror, it suggests that classes that cast a lot of Evil spells, like the Dread Necromancer, can maintain a Neutral alignment if they "balance evil deeds with good intentions".

So while these deeds might be evil, they might not be alignment-changing.

In Champions of Ruin, it points out that repeatedly, consistantly doing Evil deeds is the mark of an Evil character- but this may apply more to major evil deeds than minor ones.

On souls, BoVD mentions that "harming souls" and "destroying souls" is so exceptionally evil, that only Evil characters will be doing it.

big teej

2011-08-31, 11:25 AM

Whoa, why is selling a soul evil act?
Stealing a soul isn't aligned (trap the soul isn't aligned). Stealing it from a innocent person is evil.
But that is due to you harming an innocent, nothing to do with the soul stealing itself.

the cleric had bargained with these 3 dead individuals, stating her purpose and her reason for bringing them "back to life" as intelligent undead minions.

they agreed to serve her, thus putting their souls in her hands.

she traded these three souls to a greater fiend in exchange for a + 8 bonus to charisma.

you really wanna try and tell me that's not evil? :smallconfused:

I believe thats the fluff dividing line. Is it just the defile corpses/souls part or the negative energy part or both?

I tend to run it as "maniuplating negative energy, AND causing discomfort to the former residing spirit"

I think the difference is that it wasn't the character's soul but the souls of the ones he was "protecting".

*she

naturally I've been heavily ninja'd by now, but I'll deal with that after class.

Grendus

2011-08-31, 12:55 PM

Spells with the evil descriptor strike me as being always evil in the "means" category. Simply put, magic gives you a lot of ways to skin a proverbial cat, and spells with the evil descriptor are uniformly the most vile and dark ways of doing so. Additionally, it's likely, although not necessary, that such spells be brought about by someone with a malign intent. Obviously, the worst kind of villainy is when someone does something for the wrong reasons, uses vile and nasty means to do it and achieves a contemptible result. But this gives you a sliding scale for varying shades of villainy.

I'm inclined to agree with this. It's the reason a dread necromancer can remain neutral even though the bulk of his spells are evil - casting evil spells for good reasons balances out to a fairly neutral act. So summoning an evil creature, for example a hell hound, to fight other evil creatures is probably -2 evil, but battling something evil is probably +2 good, making it neutral. Now summoning the same hell hound to fight off some neutral wolves is a -2 evil act. You could have just as easily summoned a celestial bison (heck, it probably would have been more powerful, celestial bison hit like trucks for their CR) for the same effect without consorting with evil outsiders.

Also note how powerful an outsider they're summoning. Hell hounds are fairly dim, they probably won't cause any havoc on the prime material. A Chain Devil, though, might work some mischief while he's here, be it gathering information or trying to corrupt you/offer you a deal (he's bound to help you, but nothing in the rules that I'm aware of says he can't talk to you).

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 01:55 PM

Wait no I'm convinced we can do this. I have a plan: Polymorph the child into a troll. Remove the child's heart.

So… removing someone's innards is more ok than removing other someone's when he is also a child?

Callista

2011-08-31, 01:57 PM

I think they're saying that because the troll can recover from it; the child can't. So, yeah--it's less evil. Better use anesthesia, though, or it's torture.

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 02:03 PM

I think they're saying that because the troll can recover from it; the child can't. So, yeah--it's less evil. Better use anesthesia, though, or it's torture.

Assuming child is still unwilling I fail to see any difference. Imaging that humans can grow lost limbs in 1 minute max. Is it not evil to slice off some limbs off strangers when you need them? They can regrow them anyway, right?

Coidzor

2011-08-31, 02:11 PM

Assuming child is still unwilling I fail to see any difference. Imaging that humans can grow lost limbs in 1 minute max. Is it not evil to slice off some limbs off strangers when you need them? They can regrow them anyway, right?

But only about as evil as ordinary assault as opposed to murder.

How can you not see the difference between killing something and not killing something? :smallconfused:

Spells with the evil descriptor strike me as being always evil in the "means" category. Simply put, magic gives you a lot of ways to skin a proverbial cat, and spells with the evil descriptor are uniformly the most vile and dark ways of doing so.

Deathwatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm) is the only way to replicate what deathwatch does, the only thing that comes close is detect undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectUndead.htm), which only covers the use for separating out undead that might be hiding amongst the dead and/or dying. As has been said, this mostly just makes triage evil, which is especially funny since the BoED put it on several exalted good classes' spell lists, IIRC.

Animate Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) is the only way to magically obtain permanent minions at low levels.

So, I'm not seeing the lots of ways to skin the proverbial cat argument.

Sure, once you get up there, there's things like Mindrape vs. Programmed Amnesia which do pretty much the exact same thing, just one is described as slightly meaner and even Holy Mindrape(AKA, Sanctify the Wicked) + a plane with the fast time trait which results in most of the same over all results. But those are more few and far between than common place by my reckoning.

Starbuck_II

2011-08-31, 02:26 PM

the cleric had bargained with these 3 dead individuals, stating her purpose and her reason for bringing them "back to life" as intelligent undead minions.

they agreed to serve her, thus putting their souls in her hands.

she traded these three souls to a greater fiend in exchange for a + 8 bonus to charisma.

you really wanna try and tell me that's not evil? :smallconfused:

Oh, yeah, I see.
He betrayed loyal minions. That is evil.

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 03:30 PM

How can you not see the difference between killing something and not killing something? :smallconfused:

Evil is still evil. You fall very fast. However climbing out of evil is hard.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 03:33 PM

Evil is still evil. You fall very fast. However climbing out of evil is hard.

Again, this is why you use the Clone spell.

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 03:37 PM

Again, this is why you use the Clone spell.

Yes, I'm not arguing about that. It does not make other options legal though.

Coidzor

2011-08-31, 03:47 PM

Evil is still evil. You fall very fast. However climbing out of evil is hard.

Except that's not what you said. Further, murder, assault, and compulsory surgery are three different things.

Yes, I'm not arguing about that. It does not make other options legal though.

Was anyone arguing that it did make them legal? :smallconfused:

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 03:54 PM

Yes, I'm not arguing about that. It does not make other options legal though.

Well, for the troll-polymorph-plan I'll say that it isn't necessarily evil, imho.

If it will save a bunch of lives and the kid volunteers (or heck, insists) because he wants to help save lives, is it still evil? It's not like he dies or anything.

Personally I'd say doing it against the kid's will, but without pain (and potentially without him being aware of it), while still saving a ton of loves with the spell is at worst a gray area. I don't rank his objections and a minute's inconvenience over the actual lives of others.

MesiDoomstalker

2011-08-31, 04:00 PM

Well, for the troll-polymorph-plan I'll say that it isn't necessarily evil, imho.

If it will save a bunch of lives and the kid volunteers (or heck, insists) because he wants to help save lives, is it still evil? It's not like he dies or anything.

Personally I'd say doing it against the kid's will, but without pain (and potentially without him being aware of it), while still saving a ton of loves with the spell is at worst a gray area. I don't rank his objections and a minute's inconvenience over the actual lives of others.

All I'm seeing is a bunch of ifs in this scenario.

Coidzor

2011-08-31, 04:01 PM

All I'm seeing is a bunch of ifs in this scenario.

You really don't see how the scenario being changed would alter the morality of the action?

MesiDoomstalker

2011-08-31, 04:05 PM

You really don't see how the scenario being changed would alter the morality of the action?

It doesn't, just the practicality and probability of such a scenario. Especially when the DM variable is brought into the equation.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 04:08 PM

It doesn't, just the practicality and probability of such a scenario. Especially when the DM variable is brought into the equation.

Frankly, ethics is all about the circumstances.

Somethings taking a knife to a good person's flesh is evil. Sometimes not doing so is evil.

MesiDoomstalker

2011-08-31, 04:13 PM

Frankly, ethics is all about the circumstances.

Somethings taking a knife to a good person's flesh is evil. Sometimes not doing so is evil.

I'm not arguing ethics, I'm arguing practicality. I agree that such a situation would reduce the EVULZ-ness of a Dwarven Child Heart extraction but the possibility of such a situation happening are abysmally low.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 04:14 PM

I'm not arguing ethics, I'm arguing practicality. I agree that such a situation would reduce the EVULZ-ness of a Dwarven Child Heart extraction but the possibility of such a situation happening are abysmally low.

It's not THAT low in a D&D game. Innocents get endangered all the time.

MesiDoomstalker

2011-08-31, 04:16 PM

It's not THAT low in a D&D game. Innocents get endangered all the time.

Then you need a DM willing to make a Dwarf child that's altruistic enough to volunteer. Emphasis, "a DM willing".

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 04:17 PM

Then you need a DM willing to make a Dwarf child that's altruistic enough to volunteer. Emphasis, "a DM willing".

Like I said, a minute's inconvenience for an unwilling dwarf child is not more important than a dozen actual lives.

Assuming bad diplomacy checks.

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 04:21 PM

If it will save a bunch of lives and the kid volunteers (or heck, insists) because he wants to help save lives, is it still evil?

Well, I mentioned willingness in later post. It is not if he is willing. Assuming he isn't tricked or whatever.

Personally I'd say doing it against the kid's will, but without pain (and potentially without him being aware of it), while still saving a ton of loves with the spell is at worst a gray area. I don't rank his objections and a minute's inconvenience over the actual lives of others.

Personally, I don't think that greater good can justify the means. Although I admit necessary evil might be neutral (which I see as 'doing questionable things') by D&D standards.

@Coidzor, different shades of evils are still evil. At least that's what I intended to say.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 04:25 PM

Personally, I don't think that greater good can justify the means. Although I admit necessary evil might be neutral (which I see as 'doing questionable things') by D&D standards.

So if the only way to save the world is to turn a dwarf child into a troll, remove the heart, and use the heart for a spell, and the child is unwilling, then it is evil? Assume the procedure is painless.

What kind of ethics is that? Tyranny of the Minority?

Edit: We'll assume this one Dwarf Child is special in some way that doesn't make him part of the end of the world, but it does mean he'll survive it by being shunted to another dimension/plane/whatever.

MesiDoomstalker

2011-08-31, 04:26 PM

Well, I mentioned willingness in later post. It is not if he is willing. Assuming he isn't tricked or whatever.

Personally, I don't think that greater good can justify the means. Although I admit necessary evil might be neutral (which I see as 'doing questionable things') by D&D standards.

@Coidzor, different shades of evils are still evil. At least that's what I intended to say.

This. I'm not saying that doing it in the least painful way is still evil, it may not be. But "for the greater X" does not completely negate the means as being "Y". It is defiantly dubious. By the way, what does the spell in question do? It may not be as critical to save "arbitrarily large number" of people.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 04:31 PM

By the way, what does the spell in question do? It may not be as critical to save "arbitrarily large number" of people.

Well, for the actual purposes of this discussion, I think it is fair to say we're assuming the spell does something you can't replicate with other magic. Otherwise this conversation is a lot less interesting.

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 04:33 PM

So if the only way to save the world is to turn a dwarf child into a troll, remove the heart, and use the heart for a spell, and the child is unwilling, then it is evil? Assume the procedure is painless.

What kind of ethics is that? Tyranny of the Minority?

And alternative is…? As long as you can justify something for the sake of others it is not evil? Cool. Vampires and Mind flayers need those humans, you know.

Coidzor

2011-08-31, 04:34 PM

Then you need a DM willing to make a Dwarf child that's altruistic enough to volunteer. Emphasis, "a DM willing".

Well, if we're going to go that route then any discussion is meaningless, because there's no accounting for taste or DM capriciousness in the abstract.

This. I'm not saying that doing it in the least painful way is still evil, it may not be. But "for the greater X" does not completely negate the means as being "Y".

From what I gathered, what was under discussion was the changing of the means to obtaining the end of a dwarven child's heart altered the scenario such that it was not automatically evil to acquire a dwarven child's heart.

@Coidzor, different shades of evils are still evil. At least that's what I intended to say.

Considering the OP and the initial nature of the discussion of being entirely about different shades of evil, dismissing whether X was more or less evil than Y seems to run contrary to the point of the thread, wouldn't you agree?

MesiDoomstalker

2011-08-31, 04:39 PM

Well, if we're going to go that route then any discussion is meaningless, because there's no accounting for taste or DM capriciousness in the abstract.

From what I gathered, what was under discussion was the changing of the means to obtaining the end of a dwarven child's heart altered the scenario such that it was not automatically evil to acquire a dwarven child's heart.

Yes, but its still in a shade of grey. Doing evil for good is not as "good" as doing good for good.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 04:40 PM

And alternative is…? As long as you can justify something for the sake of others it is not evil? Cool. Vampires and Mind flayers need those humans, you know.

Well, maybe we should start at an inconvenience for one person that saves lives for a bunch of others, isn't evil even if the first person is unwilling. In fact, if anything his resistance is evil.

I mean, you're on the level of saying inflicting a papercut on a child to save the lives of a dozen people is wrong -- in fact the heart-gathering procedure that has been described is in many ways less annoying than a papercut.

In other words, are you saying the WHIMS of one person are more important than the lives of other people? If not, then under what circumstances is this not the case?

Yes, but its still in a shade of grey. Doing evil for good is not as "good" as doing good for good.

So a surgery, in your view, is a shade of grey, yes? Cutting into people is bad.

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 04:44 PM

Considering the OP and the initial nature of the discussion of being entirely about different shades of evil, dismissing whether X was more or less evil than Y seems to run contrary to the point of the thread, wouldn't you agree?

There was also talk about some things that marked as evil (evil spells) which might not be evil at all. I think that is relevant to that discussion. Assuming that wasn't out of place too.

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 04:49 PM

Well, maybe we should start at an inconvenience for one person that saves lives for a bunch of others, isn't evil even if the first person is unwilling. In fact, if anything his resistance is evil.

Really? So… let's see, those vampires I mentioned earlier.

I mean, you're on the level of saying inflicting a papercut on a child to save the lives of a dozen people is wrong -- in fact the heart-gathering procedure that has been described is in many ways less annoying than a papercut.

I'm not seeing how 'ripping off heart' counts as papercut. Care to enlighten me?

In other words, are you saying the WHIMS of one person are more important than the lives of other people? If not, then under what circumstances is this not the case?

Are you sure you aren't talking about tyranny yourself? You know, for the sake of my country you are to be obliterated and all that.

So a surgery, in your view, is a shade of grey, yes? Cutting into people is bad.
Now you are assuming things I have not said. EDIT: I failed at reading…

MesiDoomstalker

2011-08-31, 04:50 PM

Well, maybe we should start at an inconvenience for one person that saves lives for a bunch of others, isn't evil even if the first person is unwilling. In fact, if anything his resistance is evil.

I mean, you're on the level of saying inflicting a papercut on a child to save the lives of a dozen people is wrong -- in fact the heart-gathering procedure that has been described is in many ways less annoying than a papercut.

In other words, are you saying the WHIMS of one person are more important than the lives of other people? If not, then under what circumstances is this not the case?

So a surgery, in your view, is a shade of grey, yes? Cutting into people is bad.

Surgery that removes major, life sustaining organs for the sole use in a single spell is evil. Reducing the pain to negligible and not killing the patient is dubious and only "justified" if used for good. The net result should not bring you closer to good, it should at best keep you stagnate. You over generalized my statement.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 04:56 PM

Really? So… let's see, those vampires I mentioned earlier.

Pretty simple analysis with vampires. Certainly if you can feed them without any remotely significant inconvenience to anyone else, then you have a moral obligation to do so. Assuming they aren't posing a critical danger to anyone else.

Mind Flayers are harder, of course. Certainly killing multiple people to keep one alive is going to be wrong in most cases. The lives of the Mind Flayers and Vampires don't have any more intrinsic worth than the lives of anyone else.

I'm not seeing how 'ripping off heart' counts as papercut. Care to enlighten me?

The papercut stays with you for a couple days. The effects of the heart removal only for a few minutes due to regeneration.

Are you sure you aren't talking about tyranny yourself? You know, for the sake of my country you are to be obliterated and all that.

Answer the question. Under what circumstances can you go violate the wishes of an individual? Do the number of lives at stake not matter?

Assume that it is known for a fact that NOT doing this will result in the deaths of those lives being considered.

Surgery that removes major, life sustaining organs for the sole use in a single spell is evil. Reducing the pain to negligible and not killing the patient is dubious and only "justified" if used for good. The net result should not bring you closer to good, it should at best keep you stagnate. You over generalized my statement.

Ok, so where did I go wrong?
Is cutting into people not evil? If not, why not?
Is it ok to cut into people if they give you permission?
Is it ok to kill someone if they give you permission?
If someone wants to be killed and eaten, is it then a good thing to do this?

Secondly, a troll has no major life-sustaining organs as far as cutting is concerned. So we certainly didn't remove any.

Would it also be evil if a surgical procedure removed a life-sustaining organ, which was then duplicated exactly, and the original was placed back and the new one was used to save a life?

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 05:15 PM

The papercut stays with you for a couple days. The effects of the heart removal only for a few minutes due to regeneration.

I read this as 'as long as you undo physical effects of your actions you are safe'. Am I right? Let me see, how about someone who torture people and later heal them and let them go? Or maybe he can even do that painless. Where is greater good? He is studying humans to heal them of Bad Disease of the Year™.

Answer the question. Under what circumstances can you go violate the wishes of an individual? Do the number of lives at stake not matter?

You are talking about necessary evil. It might be necessary, but it is still evil.

Ahem… again… I need to sleep more, I guess. Whatever, I'm hiding this under spoiler.

Is cutting into people not evil? If not, why not?
Is it ok to cut into people if they give you permission?
Cutting people include many different things, like you did with surgeon example. We were talking about ripping hearts last time I checked.

Is it ok to kill someone if they give you permission?
Willingness. I mentioned it before. If he wants that for some reason, it might be ok (well, laws can says you cannot, but that's not the point). However that depends on why exactly he wants it. i.e. it can be both.

If someone wants to be killed and eaten, is it then a good thing to do this?
You'll need to try hard very hard to justify why eating is important part of this. As for plain killing the one who wants it see above.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 05:29 PM

I read this as 'as long as you undo physical effects of your actions you are safe'. Am I right? Let me see, how about someone who torture people and later heal them and let them go? Or maybe he can even do that painless. Where is greater good? He is studying humans to heal them of Bad Disease of the Year™.

I reject that means inherently matter. The means only matter as they relate to other alternative means for the same end. The final result is ultimately far, far, far, far, far more important. If one potential final result has no deaths and another has many, then the one with no deaths is superior, even if it involves anesthesia and ripping out hearts that grow back in a few minutes.

In that vein, if one means to that better end involves cutting people open and another involves petting puppies, then the petting puppies one is far better. Note the results of a given means are part of the final result above, so killing people as means will mean the final result has dead people (unless they are somehow brought back to life).

You are talking about necessary evil. It might be necessary, but it is still evil.

So, according to you, under NO circumstances can you violate the desires of an individual without it being evil?

Cutting people include many different things, like you did with surgeon example. We were talking about ripping hearts last time I checked.

So? Is cutting out a heart special? What makes one organ more ethically significant than another if no long-term (heck, or even short-term really, given how fast it heals) damage is done?

Willingness. I mentioned it before. If he wants that for some reason, it might be ok (well, laws can says you cannot, but that's not the point). However that depends on why exactly he wants it. i.e. it can be both.

What do you by "might"? Give some examples. We are assuming the person wants to die here. No coercion by another or anything like that. They just want to die.

You'll need to try hard very hard to justify why eating is important part of this. As for plain killing the one who wants it see above.

It is part of their desires, so doesn't that matter? You seem to place a high premium on the wishes of individuals.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-08-31, 05:34 PM

Assuming child is still unwilling I fail to see any difference. Imaging that humans can grow lost limbs in 1 minute max. Is it not evil to slice off some limbs off strangers when you need them? They can regrow them anyway, right?

Well there is a difference as others are pointing out, in that the child will be alive afterwords. It's sort of a big difference. But that's already been said and re-said.

I just wanted to say that I never suggested anything such as an unwilling child. Taking the heart of an unwilling child would definitely be evil. And as I want to state now, we take the organs of strangers in society all the time. Organ donating is a big deal. Blood donations are much more common. Bone marrow donation is a very painful procedure but we do that too.

So considering a very important cause and a willing volunteer, I figure it's fine. It's not enough to give analogies. I want to hear why it would be bad.

I'm not arguing ethics, I'm arguing practicality. I agree that such a situation would reduce the EVULZ-ness of a Dwarven Child Heart extraction but the possibility of such a situation happening are abysmally low.

Would it be? With one willing child, considering the regeneration thing, we could get a ton of hearts all at once. It's worth mentioning that the spell in question would have to be one very specially requested and not available through a typical component shop.

So if the only way to save the world is to turn a dwarf child into a troll, remove the heart, and use the heart for a spell, and the child is unwilling, then it is evil? Assume the procedure is painless.

What kind of ethics is that? Tyranny of the Minority?

Edit: We'll assume this one Dwarf Child is special in some way that doesn't make him part of the end of the world, but it does mean he'll survive it by being shunted to another dimension/plane/whatever.

I can't speak for her justification, but I'll give my own: Kantian Ethics.

An evil act is an evil act. You cannot pick and choose which evil acts you'll commit based on what's convenient for you. In this case, you have options. Find another child. Find another similar component. Polymorph into a dwarven child, have someone else remove your heart, cast the spell before it polymorphs back, etc etc.

Examples of Kantian ethics in fiction include (spoiler tagged):

Gurren Lagann It's easy to think of Kamina as lawless, but he definitely had an amount of Kant in him. His detestation of the 100 man cap, even for the greater good, is not ok. Spiral King's actions weren't ok either. Neither were Rossiu's.

Actually that's all I want to do right now. But another example is of course the paladin's code of conduct. Don't commune with demons, even when a demon could help you in the current situation.

EDIT: Woah I was so swordsaged it's ridiculous.

Dire Reverend

2011-08-31, 05:37 PM

If someone wants to be killed and eaten, is it then a good thing to do this?
Correct me if I am wrong, but eating intelligent creatures (canabilism) is inherently evil in D&D. I believe that that bit of information was in the BoVD.

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 05:52 PM

I reject that means inherently matter. The means only matter as they relate to other alternative means for the same end. The final result is ultimately far, far, far, far, far more important. If one potential final result has no deaths and another has many, then the one with no deaths is superior, even if it involves anesthesia and ripping out hearts that grow back in a few minutes.

In that vein, if one means to that better end involves cutting people open and another involves petting puppies, then the petting puppies one is far better. Note the results of a given means are part of the final result above, so killing people as means will mean the final result has dead people (unless they are somehow brought back to life).

Well, we think differently I got that. I don't think anything can be done here further (^. ^)

So, according to you, under NO circumstances can you violate the desires of an individual without it being evil?
As long as the said individual is not doing bad evil things he need punishment for – no.

So? Is cutting out a heart special? What makes one organ more ethically significant than another if no long-term (heck, or even short-term really, given how fast it heals) damage is done?
If you are doing it for your own reasons without individual's saying it is evil. If he wants or allowed that himself – it is not.

What do you by "might"? Give some examples. We are assuming the person wants to die here. No coercion by another or anything like that. They just want to die.
People want to die for different things. Some more often than others. Example 1: person is suffering from incurable disease and it is quite bad already. It is not evil here. Example 2: person divorced and lost his job to boot. And that family was everything to him. He wants to die. Unrealistic? Well, things happen. It does not mean, however you should do as he wants to. He might be just overwhelmed. For a time.

It is part of their desires, so doesn't that matter? You seem to place a high premium on the wishes of individuals.
I do. But you should think, that that person from example 2 might rethink his position. And he probably will, it is not unreasonable to expect. Wishes of others do not make you a doll either. Even if you think that someone's desire is reasonable you aren't forced to do it.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 05:52 PM

I can't speak for her justification, but I'll give my own: Kantian Ethics.

An evil act is an evil act. You cannot pick and choose which evil acts you'll commit based on what's convenient for you. In this case, you have options. Find another child. Find another similar component. Polymorph into a dwarven child, have someone else remove your heart, cast the spell before it polymorphs back, etc etc.

Yes, I know, this is why Kantian Ethics is full of fail.

Correct me if I am wrong, but eating intelligent creatures (canabilism) is inherently evil in D&D. I believe that that bit of information was in the BoVD.

They have a very specific sort of cannibalism in mind.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 05:56 PM

As long as the said individual is not doing bad evil things he need punishment for – no.

Alright. Let's examine that.

If you are doing it for your own reasons without individual's saying it is evil. If he wants or allowed that himself – it is not.

So if someone is brought into a hospital unconscious with no record, then cutting into them to save their life is evil, right?

People want to die for different things. Some more often than others. Example 1: person is suffering from incurable disease and it is quite bad already. It is not evil here. Example 2: person divorced and lost his job to boot. And that family was everything to him. He wants to die. Unrealistic? Well, things happen. It does not mean, however you should do as he wants to. He might be just overwhelmed. For a time.

Alright, so stopping that man in example 2 from killing himself would be evil, right?

I do. But you should think, that that person from example 2 might rethink his position. And he probably will, it is not unreasonable to expect. Wishes of others do not make you a doll either. Even if you think that someone's desire is reasonable you aren't forced to do it.

Ok, but stopping that guy from having himself killed and eaten would be evil according to you.

opticalshadow

2011-08-31, 06:05 PM

i personally, and urge my dms when im playing, do not actually align spells such as that. what i mean is while it might be an evil spell, its use is what dictates its alignment.

raise dead might be evil, but i fdoing so save the lives of thousands?

create water can be used to drown a innocent child, the cure line of spells can kill an undead, which themselves may not be evil (though rare)

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 06:13 PM

So if someone is brought into a hospital unconscious with no record, then cutting into them to save their life is evil, right?
You are overusing word cutting. That's not what I'm talking about. Which kind of cutting? This is important. I said that before, I think. Saving life is saving life, taking it is taking. Both can be 'cutting'. This proves… what exactly?

Alright, so stopping that man in example 2 from killing himself would be evil, right?
I think it is somewhat reasonable to assume, that he will be fine later. So, no. You are not allowing him to make a mistake he will not be able to correct. Although if he'll do it later anyway… well, you were wrong saving him after all. But you can't usually see future.
Not saving him, however, does not make you evil. There is this.

Ok, but stopping that guy from having himself killed and eaten would be evil according to you.
Is he making himself a voluntarily sacrifice to unspeakable evil so his town is forgiven? It will be then, as town is destroyed as a result. If you slaughtered unspeakable evil himself, well, the guy probably don't want to be a sacrifice anymore. Then no. If the monster was just 1 of 100 others like him? Well… unless you do something about it you are doomed town after all.

Another way. You punched him out of his place to make him move back home. He is not willing and intimidation did not help either. You have an option to move elsewhere or… force him the other, more direct way. Why could this be evil? Consequences. Will you take responsibility for this?

If he was plain mad, well… I'm not sure you can apply willingness as easy here.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 06:28 PM

You are overusing word cutting. That's not what I'm talking about. Which kind of cutting? This is important. I said that before, I think. Saving life is saving life, taking it is taking. Both can be 'cutting'. This proves… what exactly?

The person hasn't given the permission for someone to cut into them. That's the point. I thought that's what mattered, not the REASON why they are cutting into them. The reason why people might cut into the polymorphed dwarf child would be to save the planet, but that didn't matter there.

Or is it alright if the child is not capable of giving permission or refusing to give permission? Maybe he's in a coma for the next 50 days.

Does it matter if the child would die too when the world ended?

I think it is somewhat reasonable to assume, that he will be fine later. So, no. You are not allowing him to make a mistake he will not be able to correct. Although if he'll do it later anyway… well, you were wrong saving him after all. But you can't usually see future.
Not saving him, however, does not make you evil. There is this.

So if you determine that someone is "making a mistake" then violating their will is ok? Assuming you guess right. If you are next to someone about to jump off a building or bridge, then doing nothing and just watching is perfectly fine?

If someone is suicidally depressed, then letting them kill themselves is the right call? Afterall, they'll decide to do it later in all likelihood. Doing nothing while they kill themselves is also definitely not wrong?

Is he making himself a voluntarily sacrifice to unspeakable evil so his town is forgiven? It will be then, as town is destroyed as a result. If you slaughtered unspeakable evil himself, well, the guy probably don't want to be a sacrifice anymore. Then no. If the monster was just 1 of 100 others like him? Well… unless you do something about it you are doomed town after all.

No, we're talking about the guy in isolation. Him getting killed and eaten is simply what he wants. It doesn't affect anyone else.

Another way. You punched him out of his place to make him move back home. He is not willing and intimidation did not help either. You have an option to move elsewhere or… force him the other, more direct way. Why could this be evil? Consequences. Will you take responsibility for this?

I am not quite sure what you are describing here.

If he was plain mad, well… I'm not sure you can apply willingness as easy here.

Or you determine "madness" how? Because the person wants something some other person wouldn't want? Isn't that just saying if they don't think like other people, they are wrong and what they want doesn't matter?

Steward

2011-08-31, 06:34 PM

i personally, and urge my dms when im playing, do not actually align spells such as that. what i mean is while it might be an evil spell, its use is what dictates its alignment.

I agree. The only spell that I consider to be pure evil, with no potential ways to use it for anything other than absolute ultimate cruelty and viciousness, is this one (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm). Even reading the spell description on the SRD makes me want to puke. I don't understand why they put that spell in Core rather than in the Book of Vile Darkness (although even there it feels inappropriate -- kids play this game too, you know!)

Arundel

2011-08-31, 06:48 PM

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 06:52 PM

Can I point out that this whole rambling multipage debate is the result of deciding whether or not Abyssal Might is evil (note no one has gotten past the material component yet, read the description). Good thing I spent time scouring the book for the most heinous of all spells to put forth as an example.

Oh wait. I opened the spell section and it was the first spell I saw. It is the fourth spell in the chapter. Other fun ones from a quick glance:

The bones of a child that still lives
Dice made of human bone
The severed hand of a good aligned cleric
A corrupted good artifact
Heart of an elf child

That is only material components and only through the letter H.

Bah, most of that you can avoid doing evil and getting those materials.

And why is instilling yourself with evil energy from the abyss evil? After a nice hot shower it all washes off.

Arundel

2011-08-31, 07:00 PM

Bah, most of that you can avoid doing evil and getting those materials.

And why is instilling yourself with evil energy from the abyss evil? After a nice hot shower it all washes off.

Thank you successful troll. My keyboard is now made of coke.
I say troll in jest of course, the nice hot shower washing away evil is too perfect.

I suppose what I have seen the last two pages is the idea that it is possible, in the most convoluted of terms, to cast a evil descriptor spell and not have it be evil. While some of the examples make it true, its only true in the heck of a reach scenario it is proposed in. That is why we have a DM, for the things that don't fit the rules.

Tenno Seremel

2011-08-31, 07:04 PM

The person hasn't given the permission for someone to cut into them. That's the point. I thought that's what mattered
You thought wrong them.

The reason why people might cut into the polymorphed dwarf child would be to save the planet, but that didn't matter there.
And this is the same thing because…? You have other options here as was mentioned above. But you can't really fix a person by fixing some another person.

Does it matter if the child would die too when the world ended?
If child is not willing you are out of luck. You have options. Or you can force your way, you will save the would but you did something bad in the process. Do you feel you owe something that child afterwards? If you do, then you think you did something bad. And you can try to do something about it. If you don't, well…

So if you determine that someone is "making a mistake" then violating their will is ok? Assuming you guess right.
Assuming you aren't violating their will with ridiculous things like imprisonment, killing, ripping their brains, etc. Why not? Saving life is a good thing. Well, usually. But saving others by killing another does not magically make act of killing unwilling powerless person disappear. Your responsibilities do not disappear either. You can't do mind tricks with yourself and justify it some another way, like, it is a mistake because the world will die, too.

If you are next to someone about to jump off a building or bridge, then doing nothing and just watching is perfectly fine?
It is certainly not evil. Public morality might demand you to save him, but it is just that public morality, that is changing all the time.

If someone is suicidally depressed, then letting them kill themselves is the right call? Afterall, they'll decide to do it later in all likelihood.
To do that conclusion you need to know the person in question. If he actually is like that, well, you might as well let them go. Unless you intend to be responsible for the said someone one way or another once in a while. You can save anyway, I guess, as saving life is usually a good thing, but if you do so by killing another one and showing how bad that looks… that's not good in any way.

Doing nothing while they kill themselves is also definitely not wrong?
It is not evil.

No, we're talking about the guy in isolation. Him getting killed and eaten is simply what he wants. It doesn't affect anyone else.
He is mad then, and willingness of mad ones is something I can't really evaluate(?). If he isn't, where that eating thing comes from?

Or you determine "madness" how? Because the person wants something some other person wouldn't want? Isn't that just saying if they don't think like other people, they are wrong and what they want doesn't matter?
Are you trying to generalize things even more and justify an action of heart-ripping by that? On the one thing you are saying "person wants something some other person wouldn't want" (which is many differenr things) and on the other "being eating" (a very specific and weird thing). I can understand desire to die but I don't consider desire to be eaten normal.

EDIT: I'm going to sleep, I guess. Have a nice day (^. ^)/

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 07:07 PM

Thank you successful troll. My keyboard is now made of coke.

I suppose what I have seen the last two pages is the idea that it is possible, in the most convoluted of terms, to cast a evil descriptor spell and not have it be evil. While some of the examples make it true, its only true in the heck of a reach scenario it is proposed in. That is why we have a DM, for the things that don't fit the rules.

I'm not trolling. I just meant to point out that "evil energy" is at best extremely ill-defined in the game, if not meaningless. I mean, what does that actually do? Does it corrupt you? Things around you? Anything? Nothing? What?

Some of the evil spells have absolutely nothing that seems evil about that, especially in a world where DOMINATING someone's mind isn't necessarily evil nor is lighting people on fire. There's some weird standard going on along the lines of "this spell gives me the willies".

NNescio

2011-08-31, 07:08 PM

Ah, utilitarianism. AKA the "／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ was right" philosophy.

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 07:29 PM

You thought wrong them.

To be fair, that's not really what you were saying before.

And this is the same thing because…? You have other options here as was mentioned above. But you can't really fix a person by fixing some another person.

The assumption is that there ARE no other options in the time remaining. In a world of magic, you certainly can save other people by doing things to one person. Heck, it works in the real world too.

If child is not willing you are out of luck. You have options. Or you can force your way, you will save the would but you did something bad in the process. Do you feel you owe something that child afterwards? If you do, then you think you did something bad. And you can try to do something about it. If you don't, well…

Ahh, ok, so if a child doesn't want a painless procedure done on him which will produce no long-term ill effects and this causes his death and the end of the world, then it is wrong to do it anyway? The rights, dreams, and hopes of everyone else living and all future dreams and hopes of the child itself don't matter then?

So if a kid doesn't want a vaccination shot, it is wrong to give it to him, right? The parents are evil for forcing it to happen, yes?

On that note, assume you give the kid a lollipop after the heart-thing, and that you make it so he doesn't see or feel what you are doing. Does some sort of petty act afterwards magically make it ok?

What if the kid demands all the toys in order to be willing? Does it matter if he refuses because he's a spoiled brat and doesn't care about other people? Does it matter if he doesn't really comprehend what is going on? Does it matter if he wants everything to end, even if he is in no way responsible for the cause of the world ending (other than his refusal to be part of the spell)?

Assuming you aren't violating their will with ridiculous things like imprisonment, killing, ripping their brains, etc. Why not? Saving life is a good thing. Well, usually. But saving others by killing another does not magically make act of killing unwilling powerless person disappear. Your responsibilities do not disappear either. You can't do mind tricks with yourself and justify it some another way, like, it is a mistake because the world will die, too.

Ok, so when you said:

So, according to you, under NO circumstances can you violate the desires of an individual without it being evil?
As long as the said individual is not doing bad evil things he need punishment for – no.

You didn't actually mean this. Please refine what you actually mean here. Because physically stopping someone from killing themselves when they want to die IS violating his desires.

It is certainly not evil. Public morality might demand you to save him, but it is just that public morality, that is changing all the time.

Ah, so watching people die and not giving a damn, being completely apathetic to the death and misery of others, is not evil according to you. It doesn't matter if merely lifting a finger or a single spoken word might stop it, I suppose.

Interesting.

To do that conclusion you need to know the person in question. If he actually is like that, well, you might as well let them go. Unless you intend to be responsible for the said someone one way or another once in a while. You can save anyway, I guess, as saving life is usually a good thing, but if you do so by killing another one and showing how bad that looks… that's not good in any way.

Not a big fan of mental health, I take it. Suicide watch? What's the point, eh?

And I never said anything about killing other people in this example. This is just about ONE person that is suicidally depressed. You know, something that could be treated -- though for the sake of being interesting ethically, let's say this person doesn't WANT to be treated, so you can't get their permission.

It is not evil.

Ethically permissible is the term. Still, that's a pretty harsh thing. A doctor can walk right by a little boy (or girl) bleeding out on the street and do nothing and that's not evil? Seems a bit backwards.

Sometimes not being evil means you actually have to ACT. Sometimes being evil can mean doing nothing when you could do something, imho. Like they say, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. But I guess enabling evil by not stopping it, no matter how easy it is, and allowing it to spread over the planet consuming all that is good and true isn't evil according to you.

He is mad then, and willingness of mad ones is something I can't really evaluate(?). If he isn't, where that eating thing comes from?

How do you reach the conclusion that someone is mad?

Are you trying to generalize things even more and justify an action of heart-ripping by that? On the one thing you are saying "person wants something some other person wouldn't want" (which is many differenr things) and on the other "being eating" (a very specific and weird thing). I can understand desire to die but I don't consider desire to be eaten normal.

Well, my actual intention is to show that you have a muddled and confused ethical system that you haven't really thought through. Hence it leads to some monstrous conclusions and other conclusions that just don't make much sense. (No offense intended by this. It is true of most people).

Drachasor

2011-08-31, 07:30 PM

This. I'm not saying that doing it in the least painful way is still evil, it may not be. But "for the greater X" does not completely negate the means as being "Y". It is defiantly dubious. By the way, what does the spell in question do? It may not be as critical to save "arbitrarily large number" of people.

How do you define what is "evil" then?

opticalshadow

2011-08-31, 07:52 PM

as far as that particular spell goes in question, you have to look directly at what alignment means, and chotic good best describes how to preform that.

"He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. "-chaotic good.

you could say in a comparision to a great act prefomred would be Ozymandias from the watchmen, kill millions to save billions is no worse then removing the hand of a living innocent elf. or murdering her outright, if doing so served the better good.

the problem with alignments is it boild down to argument, there is no set in stone what is good and what is bad because it really all comes down to how an individual precevies the action, and the PHB or SRD words it as vaguely to leave it up to as such. after all the actions of an evil creature are generally only viewed as evil though the eyes of what it sees as evil, the surface elves are no better then the drow, pending on who you talk to first.

and as far as deathwatch is concered, as someone brought it up, i can give on scenario which it could be used for good, a great disater such as volcanic eruption, a battle, or a building callapse occurs. their are bodies everywhere, and if anyone is left alive, they may only have moments before deaths takes them. Deathwatch in this case would allow the caster to quickly filter the area and locate the ones clerics could save, otherwise letting hundrads of people die while each corpse is checked.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-08-31, 08:24 PM

And as far as deathwatch is concered, as someone brought it up, i can give on scenario which it could be used for good, a great disater such as volcanic eruption, a battle, or a building callapse occurs. their are bodies everywhere, and if anyone is left alive, they may only have moments before deaths takes them. Deathwatch in this case would allow the caster to quickly filter the area and locate the ones clerics could save, otherwise letting hundrads of people die while each corpse is checked.

While there is much debate on whether certain spell components can be justified, I think it's sort of funny that until now we've sort of skimmed over whether the effects of spells can be justified.

For what it's worth, mindrape can be used as a tool for positive psychology. Memories all but completely forgotten can be retrieved, and if I remember correctly you could even insert things into the target's mind, sharing vast amounts of knowledge in a relatively short time!

I'm still not convinced animating the dead is inherently evil. I mean, D&D even explicitly states that the souls of the dead go the the plane of their god. If I was a knight, I imagine that I would gladly give my body to the service of my lord, even after death.

Also nonsense. Kantian ethics place the value of moral integrity above all else. Perhaps it is wrong to assume that all dilemmas can ultimately be solved without breaking moral integrity, but I can't help but find that every case of "doing lesser evil is the only way to do greater good" has been an excuse for taking an easier way out of a difficult problem.

Steward

2011-08-31, 10:01 PM

Honestly, I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation where using Deathwatch in and of itself is evil. I mean, I know the spell description says something about "foul powers of unlife" but honestly, it's not like you're tearing out someone's soul or draining out someone's life force, and it doesn't even require any disgusting-sounding spell components like a baby's pancreas or something.

As someone said earlier, not only is Deathwatch not evil, it's not even unethical. Quite frankly, a cleric who didn't use this spell to help with triage after a natural disaster (like the aforementioned volcanic eruption) would be extremely negligent.

Tenno Seremel

2011-09-01, 05:20 AM

@Drachasor

Actually this cunning abstraction 'cutting' that allows someone to use it in either 'surgeon' or 'killer' form as plot demands is not my doing. Ripping heart of an unwilling is pretty strighforward. 'Cutting' thing can mean anything and nothing in particular.

Are you seriously comparing ripping a heart with vaccination? Such analogies are bad exactly because they change something with another tamer version and judge from there.

And child is a spoiled brat because… he does not want to die for the sake of others? BS. He can't even be sure he will actually survive, you know. What you want from the child has nothing to do with whether he is spoiled brat or not. That's your desire, you are the one who is going to answer for it. It's it person's right to make a sacrifice of himself, however he is not bound to do it in any way, form or shape.

Also, I'm not arguing that in a world of magic it is not possible. You probably must do something, but it does not, however, make you above good and evil even if you have no other way. That's the point. The world is not fair sometimes. You can save the day but you can't claim moral high ground at the same time.

As for that lollipop thing, I'll pretend you weren't serious because if you were I'm not sure how to call that without getting second 1 year long warning on these forums. It is too obvious.

"As long as the said individual is not doing bad evil things he need punishment for – no." thing. I mean it. In the 'best approximation possible' sense. A basic premise. I'm not wise enough to list all possible ways things can go differently, world is kind of a big thing.

Ah, so watching people die and not giving a damn, being completely apathetic to the death and misery of others, is not evil according to you. It doesn't matter if merely lifting a finger or a single spoken word might stop it, I suppose.
Let me see, you are on your way home. You see one of the mentioned previously characters that intends to take his life. He might even has a weapon to do that. Will you actually say that the first thing you must do is to go toward him with your help? Armed (or maybe not) mentally unstable person. Can you handle him? Do you have those who depend on you, well, being alive? Is that person more important than them? And you aren't a seasoned adventurer, you are just another citizen. Some people can do it, some cannot. There is nothing inherently evil about it. It is not neccessary indifference either. Sometimes you physically cannot do things like that. And you aren't going to stand there watching people die as you dramatically presented, just leave them alone. Whether it is cowardice, common sense or something else it is not evil.

Ethically permissible is the term.
Well, the talk was about evil, so 'It is not evil.' is fine.

Sometimes being evil can mean doing nothing when you could do something, imho. Like they say, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. But I guess enabling evil by not stopping it, no matter how easy it is, and allowing it to spread over the planet consuming all that is good and true isn't evil according to you.
This is too broad too answer. Let's take 1 more example. If you see something bad happens through a window, then gunshots, you should call police, for example (and not doing so is pretty bad by itself), it does not mean you must do something unreasonable like going out and stopping gunshots by yourself. If you can do that, sure it's your life, but you aren't bound to do it.

How do you reach the conclusion that someone is mad?
Some people manage to do that. How do they do that?

Well, my actual intention is to show that you have a muddled and confused ethical system that you haven't really thought through. Hence it leads to some monstrous conclusions and other conclusions that just don't make much sense. (No offense intended by this. It is true of most people).
It does not. Your generalization on the other hand allows you to do things like: surgeons do cutting, surgeons are not doing anything bad, therefore cutting is not bad, therefore killing is not bad either since it is also cutting.

Oh, and if we go back to spells I don't think negative energy is inherently bad, neither do I think all spells marked as evil are actually always evil.

Coidzor

2011-09-01, 05:51 AM

Ah, utilitarianism. AKA the "／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ was right" philosophy.

Well, that series of symbols just hurt my brain trying to decipher them.

As someone said earlier, not only is Deathwatch not evil, it's not even unethical. Quite frankly, a cleric who didn't use this spell to help with triage after a natural disaster (like the aforementioned volcanic eruption) would be extremely negligent.

By RAW, if they're good they can't use it. Unless they can get it through a domain, then it's fuzzy.

hamishspence

2011-09-01, 06:29 AM

Healers (Miniature's Handbook), then- who get it on their spell list, and have to be good-aligned.

Or Slayers of Domiel (BoED).

Coidzor

2011-09-01, 06:34 AM

Indeed, the typo that they never fixed but thought they did does seem to be the most likely explanation.

Autolykos

2011-09-01, 07:40 AM

Actually it's rather easy: If doing it "for teh lulz" (or for money) would be considered evil, it's an Evil act, period. A good purpose could net you more "good points" than the evil act costs (which is pretty much the point of all those "saving the world with the heart of a dwarven child" scenarios), but it doesn't make the original act less evil. You could try to make the original act less evil (by anesthesia, the clone method, informed consent, etc), but it's probably still Evil.

Burner28

2011-09-01, 08:37 AM

How many evil points is killing in self-defense? What if the person killed was of good alignment and though you were evil (but killing him was the only way to stop him)?

Since when was killing in self defense Evil?

hamishspence

2011-09-01, 08:56 AM

By definition, you can't kill in self defence "for money" or "for the evulz". As far as I can tell neither BoED nor BOVD have ever had anything bad to say about killing in self-defence, whether the victim was evil-aligned or not.

mangosta71

2011-09-01, 09:57 AM

Can I point out that this whole rambling multipage debate is the result of deciding whether or not Abyssal Might is evil (note no one has gotten past the material component yet, read the description). Good thing I spent time scouring the book for the most heinous of all spells to put forth as an example.

Oh wait. I opened the spell section and it was the first spell I saw. It is the fourth spell in the chapter. Other fun ones from a quick glance:

The bones of a child that still lives
Dice made of human bone
The severed hand of a good aligned cleric
A corrupted good artifact
Heart of an elf child

That is only material components and only through the letter H.
How many of those components are too expensive for the spells to not be affected by Eschew Materials? The only one that jumps off the page as having too great a listed value is the corrupted good artifact.

If the component is the only morally objectionable part of the spell and you remove it, is casting the spell still an evil act?

hamishspence

2011-09-01, 10:13 AM

The [Evil] descriptor might have less to do with the component, than with "evil energy" which leaks into the caster when they use the spell, tainting them very slightly.

For the Malconvoker class, it has a special ability at 1st level "immune to alignment change from casting [evil] conjuration spells."

By implication therefore, non-Malconvokers who cast such spells are in danger of alignment change.

That said- just because it's an evil act, doesn't mean the character will inevitably reach Evil alignment. As mentioned, casting an [evil] spell is normally only a very minor Corrupt act. And according to Heroes of Horror, Neutral characters who only do Evil acts for good reasons, may be able to maintain Neutral alignment.

McStabbington

2011-09-01, 12:15 PM

But only about as evil as ordinary assault as
Deathwatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm) is the only way to replicate what deathwatch does, the only thing that comes close is detect undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectUndead.htm), which only covers the use for separating out undead that might be hiding amongst the dead and/or dying. As has been said, this mostly just makes triage evil, which is especially funny since the BoED put it on several exalted good classes' spell lists, IIRC.

Animate Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm) is the only way to magically obtain permanent minions at low levels.

So, I'm not seeing the lots of ways to skin the proverbial cat argument.

Sure, once you get up there, there's things like Mindrape vs. Programmed Amnesia which do pretty much the exact same thing, just one is described as slightly meaner and even Holy Mindrape(AKA, Sanctify the Wicked) + a plane with the fast time trait which results in most of the same over all results. But those are more few and far between than common place by my reckoning.

Well, we've already discussed how Deathwatch was probably a clerical (pun not intended) error.

As for animate dead, however, I don't see how you defeat my point. My general point was that if you want to avoid any deep reading of ethical theory, then you can break any action down into three elements and weigh the evilness of each in turn, with the three elements being the intent behind the act, the means used to accomplish the act, and the result. Saying that animate dead is the only way to accomplish a given means just confuses the ethics of the situation in two ways. First, it confuses the intent with the means: while it is true that animate dead is the lowest-level spell in the PHB that allows you to create permanent undead, creating permanent undead is an evil intent. Second, you're confusing necessity with moral goodness. It may become true that in order to end a war in victory, you have to murder an innocent child in order to destroy a bloodline. The fact that such an act was the only way to achieve a result, however just, does not change the fact that the means used were to murder an innocent child, and murdering innocent children is always evil.