Evil Spells

[Adindra]

In the current game im playing in im playing a LN goblin wiz/archivist and I wanted to grab some evil spells for my spellbooks and prayerbooks. (not ones with a corruption cost but with an evil descriptor)

What i was wondering is, how does casting evil spells actually affect your alignment if your using them for a good purpose (im not torturing people or anything like that its all in combat spells against evil creatures)

Also does me using evil spells have any effect on my party? One member is joining a prestige class that he made (based on the blade of heroineous or some such thing) and hes complaining saying he cannot adventure with me if i use them.

[Yora]

By RAW, there are no rules that say how many evil acts you have to do to make your alignment shift. It really comes down to when the GM says "You've been casting so many evil spells so often, your character is now evil."

If another player has made up a prestige class that is unable to be in a party with people who cast evil spells, than it was his own descision. The rules of the game say nothing about that.

The idea with evil spells is, that their effects are so horrible that you are performing an evil act by having another creatures suffer through them. Casting such spells is just like torturing your enemies.
However, there are some evil spells that don't do anything bad to anyone. Nobody knows why those spells are supposed to be evil.

[Adindra]

The idea with evil spells is, that their effects are so horrible that you are performing an evil act by having another creatures suffer through them. Casting such spells is just like torturing your enemies.
However, there are some evil spells that don't do anything bad to anyone. Nobody knows why those spells are supposed to be evil.

Thats what i was looking at to be honest. The spells i wanted to use almost regularly were the ones that make your hand turn into a spider to scout and things like that so i figured there shouldn't be a problem. :smallsmile:

[Yora]

It really comes down to the GM.

If he says using the spells is not evil, because it does in no way do any harm to other or creates unneccessary suffering that would be worse than burning your enemies alive or throwing them into pits of acid (both spells that are not evil), then everything should be fine.

If he decides your character turns evil because some editor tagged the word evil to the spell description, then there's nothing you can do.

[Serpentine]

I think with this one, it's pretty much just down to DM opinion. If it were my game... If you were making a habit of using - and specifically seeking out to use - [evil] spells, I would be watching your character very closely. But the intent is the main thing - why is your character choosing those sorts of spells? Is it because they're an effective way to fight evil? Because they're thematically appropriate? Because your character likes hurting people?
As a Neutral character, I'd be unlikely to give you a full-blown alignment shift just for using Evil spells. You might be on the Evil side of Neutral, but it would take more than that alone to tip you over. If you were a Good character, I would perhaps gradually shift you towards Neutral, but it wouldn't be a sudden process.

[FelixG]

I would tell the do-gooder to hit the road! :smallbiggrin:

But yes, there is no RAW on how evil spells affect your alignment, unless you get into some of the more questionable splat books.

[DoctorGlock]

actually, there is some RAW on evil spells. Fiendish Codex II states that casting 9 evil spells (spells with the evil descriptor) is enough to send you to the nine hells when you die. Yes, you cast something like deathwatch 9 times because you work in a hospitel, you are damned. By comparison, premeditated sadistic murder for enjoyment seems to be worth 7 on the damnation axis. Yes, our hypothetical medic is more evil than the murderer. D&D morality for you.

[Adindra]

I think with this one, it's pretty much just down to DM opinion. If it were my game... If you were making a habit of using - and specifically seeking out to use - [evil] spells, I would be watching your character very closely. But the intent is the main thing - why is your character choosing those sorts of spells? Is it because they're an effective way to fight evil? Because they're thematically appropriate? Because your character likes hurting people?

My character is essentially a collector of knowledge and magic and his goal is to learn all of the magic the world has to offer. The only evil spell he actually has right now is Heartache which makes an enemy helpless for one round because they are so sad (he doesn't finish them off that time is used for either tying them up or something to that theme) Almost all of his spells are of a control nature the only ones he has that are actually damaging are magic missile and orb of x

[Serpentine]

Meh, that sounds like a solidly Neutral motivation to me. If you were in my game, your alignment would change purely on the basis of further character development.

[hamishspence]

By comparison, premeditated sadistic murder for enjoyment seems to be worth 7 on the damnation axis. Yes, our hypothetical medic is more evil than the murderer. D&D morality for you.

In practice, anyone who's committed "murder for pleasure" is likely to have committed other evil acts as well by the time they die.

And "higher corruption rating" doesn't necessarily mean "more evil".

Heroes of Horror discusses characters who commit evil acts (like casting Evil spells) for a "good cause" and points out that they can maintain a Neutral alignment.

So you could have a Neutral character with a Corruption rating that is very high, and an Evil character who has just crossed the line (with one exceptionally evil act) so has a fairly low Corruption.

Corruption does not determine alignment- only "afterlife destination" in the prescence of a Lawful alignmen.

[Yora]

And always keep in mind, that no two writers of D&D books ever have the same idea what alignment is and how it works! :smallamused:

[hamishspence]

Some things tend to be consistant though.

The idea that instant alignment change is the exception and gradual alignment change the rule- from DMG.

Or the idea that good characters who do evil deeds regularly don't tend to stay Good.

[Ravens_cry]

It works both ways too. Becoming good takes work. If anything, it is harder then becoming evil.

[hamishspence]

That said, the DMG does mention that it's possible (however unlikely) for an evil character to have a massive change of heart and leap straight to good.

After giving a more detailed example of a character slowly gravitating from evil to "Neutral, but well on the way to Good".

[Ravens_cry]

That said, the DMG does mention that it's possible (however unlikely) for an evil character to have a massive change of heart and leap straight to good.

After giving a more detailed example of a character slowly gravitating from evil to "Neutral, but well on the way to Good".
Yes, it also mentions sudden shifts to Evil as well I believe.
Whatever best fits the story, world, and characters I suppose.

[hamishspence]

Or whatever fits the needs of the DM.

In 2nd ed it was more explicit about "sudden shifts to Evil" than in 3rd ed- giving a detailed example (paladin burning a plague village in the hope of saving a country) and saying that "the DM is justified in instituting an instant change to Evil alignment".

[Deth Muncher]

Personally, I'd say that while it might not carry any explicit inherent alignment shift-worthy repercussions, if you cast an [Evil] spell around a [Good] character or creature, they'd probably notice. And probably not like it. And probably deem you Evil, even if you aren't.

[hamishspence]

Might work if they have an always-on Detect Evil spell.

Otherwise- might depend on how noticable the spell is.

Given that the Healer (must be Good) and the Slayer of Domiel (falls if they ever commit an Evil act) both have Deathwatch on their spell lists, a case could be made that it shouldn't have the tag, but should go back to the 3.0 style in which it didn't have the tag.

[Randomguy]

I think if you use evil spells for good causes, you'll stay neutral, as long as you don't use them too often, or for no good reason.

[NNescio]

Or whatever fits the needs of the DM.

In 2nd ed it was more explicit about "sudden shifts to Evil" than in 3rd ed- giving a detailed example (paladin burning a plague village in the hope of saving a country) and saying that "the DM is justified in instituting an instant change to Evil alignment".

Hmm... on a tangential note, did Blizzard read that example?

[hamishspence]

I think if you use evil spells for good causes, you'll stay neutral, as long as you don't use them too often, or for no good reason.

That's pretty much the way Heroes of Horror handles it.

[Ravens_cry]

Or whatever fits the needs of the DM.

Yes, but those should usually be mutually inclusive.


In 2nd ed it was more explicit about "sudden shifts to Evil" than in 3rd ed- giving a detailed example (paladin burning a plague village in the hope of saving a country) and saying that "the DM is justified in instituting an instant change to Evil alignment".
Practically speaking, I doubt that would work. Most people would survive and now you have a bunch of refugees, many who are probably sick, spreading the disease. If you could pull it off, a quarantine of some nature would work better and be much less, well, evil.