Is Casting Spider Climb an Evil Act?

[NeoSeraphi]

I know the spider climb spell isn't [Evil], but...I just saw this in the spell description:


A drop of bitumen and a live spider, both of which must be eaten by the subject.

Emphasis mine. In order to cast this spell, you must take an innocent life. You sacrifice a creature in order to grant yourself power, similar to the extremely evil "villain" spells from Exemplars of Evil.

So, what are your thoughts on this? Does killing a creature just so you won't have to make Climb checks seem evil to anyone else?

[Circle of Life]

Down that path lies Exalted characters drinking through straws with straining mesh on one end lest they accidentally swallow a gnat. No good can come of this.

Alternately, how many nonintelligent insects does a Paladin have to accidentally step on before he falls?

[NeoSeraphi]

Down that path lies Exalted characters drinking through straws with straining mesh on one end lest they accidentally swallow a gnat. No good can come of this.

Okay, yes, it's thinking like that that led to Vow of Peace, I understand, but the difference here is it is completely intentional, not an accident. You're agreeing to kill a creature in order to grant yourself power.

Edit: It's not like you're consuming the creature out of a need to live, either. It's not the same as eating to survive, it's devouring a living creature just so you can move up walls more easily, like a vampire...

[Circle of Life]

Okay, yes, it's thinking like that that led to Vow of Peace, I understand, but the difference here is it is completely intentional, not an accident. You're agreeing to kill a creature in order to grant yourself power.

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose.

On the other hand, if you were traveling through the jungle and the DM suddenly shifted your alignment one step toward Evil for swatting your twelfth mosquito because you knowingly denied life to a creature for your own comfort, would you be okay with that?

[Mystify]

What if you add eschew material components?

[Drelua]

I kill spiders all the time when they're just walking around, trying to eat the annoying bugs. Same with flies and these really dumb little beetles. Does that make me evil? I don't really think vermin count as innocent lives. So is it evil? No. But it is nasty. That alone sounds like a good reason to take Eschew Materials. Besides, I'd say it's nicer to kill an innocent, essentially mindless creature to help vanquish evil than it is for me to do it to avoid being mildly annoyed, like I do pretty much every day.

Edit: Wait does this mean anyone that can cast this spell and doesn't have eschew materials has a bunch of spiders crawling around in their component pouch? That is messed up.

[NeoSeraphi]

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose.

On the other hand, if you were traveling through the jungle and the DM suddenly shifted your alignment one step toward Evil for swatting your twelfth mosquito because you knowingly denied life to a creature for your own comfort, would you be okay with that?

So you're saying that because these creatures are mindless, killing them isn't "as evil" as killing a sentient creature? :smallconfused:

And again, swatting a mosquito in order to keep it from harming you (however insignificantly) could be viewed as self-defense. This is just picking a spider out of a jar and eating it, in order to grant yourself power. How is that any different than sacrificing a minion to cast an EoE spell?

[ericgrau]

@ ^ B/C person > spider.

I missed the part about eating a spider... and tar too. Yet another reason to use scrolls and potions of spider climb, besides not wanting to flood my prepared spells with something I might not use today.

[GoatBoy]

No, because spiders are servants of Lolth, so killing one is striking a tiny blow against her tyranny.

And I think any transdimensional beings who are the judges of good and evil would pay closer attention to why you are casting the spell than the mere act of casting it.

And what if you were eating the spider for nutrition? Does this mean that anyone who isn't a vegetarian is evil?

[Circle of Life]

So you're saying that because these creatures are mindless, killing them isn't "as evil" as killing a sentient creature? :smallconfused:

I believe the finer points of morality are beyond the scope of the D&D system, but... yes. Depending on the insect in question, its 'brain' might be just a tiny bundle of nerves; they exist on instinct alone, not truly aware of the world around them and incapable of learning.

Is killing a construct with the same programming as a spider evil? They are very nearly the same thing, only one is made of metal and the other flesh. Neither has a soul, intelligence, the capability for learning, or any other trait necessary to trigger a blip on my morality compass.

Cue internet morality debate in 3... 2... 1...

[Vulaas]

Personally, I'm more distressed that per the rules you are carrying around X+1 live spiders in a spell component pouch that most spellcasters just put on a belt, IE next to some fairly precious bits of anatomy.

On a more serious note, the main difference is that spiders are Vermin, meaning mindless creatures. Sacrificing actual minions that generally are sentient is on a whole different level, to my eyes. Otherwise, you are equating swatting a cockroach with a rolled up newspaper (probably 3-4 times because they are tenacious and hard to kill) with beating a man to death with a baseball bat.

[NeoSeraphi]

And I think any transdimensional beings who are the judges of good and evil would pay closer attention to why you are casting the spell than the mere act of casting it.

If that were true, no spell would be Good or Evil. But we have two entire books of Evil spells and one book of Good spells. It doesn't matter if you're casting animate dead in order to resurrect a skeleton to save a burning orphanage, it's still an Evil act.


And what if you were eating the spider for nutrition? Does this mean that anyone who isn't a vegetarian is evil?

As I said already, I think eating a creature in order to survive is far different than eating a creature in order to grant yourself power.

[Mystify]

Is killing a spider normally evil?
If yes, then most people are evil.
If no, then why does gaining power from it make it evil? Why would killing something for power be more evil than killing it without gain? If anything, I would argue that killing someone with no gain is more evil.

[TuggyNE]

Edit: Wait does this mean anyone that can cast this spell and doesn't have eschew materials has a bunch of spiders crawling around in their component pouch? That is messed up.

Yes. Yes it does. Actually, it's worse: pretty sure all spell component pouches have them whether you can cast the spell or not. Spell component pouches are messed-up little leather bags of horror, IMO. :smalltongue: :smallsigh:

[Cespenar]

Meh. If we're considering a spider, why not consider plants? They are alive as well. Why not microorganisms, bacteria, etc.? By the simple act of living, we kill god knows how many of them every second.

Alignments. Stupidest system I've ever seen in my life.

[tyckspoon]

Yes. Yes it does. Actually, it's worse: pretty sure all spell component pouches have them whether you can cast the spell or not. Spell component pouches are messed-up little leather bags of horror, IMO. :smalltongue: :smallsigh:

Fortunately unless you're actually casting the spell with the unsavory components, you never have to *touch* anything other than the particular component you're looking for; there's no time allotted for 'digging around muttering to yourself and wondering where you put the incense OH GODS THAT'S THE SPIDER BAG ARRRGH', and you couldn't cast Swift spells with material components if you had to spend any time doing that.. so you don't. You just grab out exactly the item you wanted (this property of component pouches is probably what the Handy Haversack is based on.)

[Tyndmyr]

Personally, I'm more distressed that per the rules you are carrying around X+1 live spiders in a spell component pouch that most spellcasters just put on a belt, IE next to some fairly precious bits of anatomy.

Agreed. I specifically have specified that, in the instance of ever being granted magical D&D powers, nobody in my group is to engage in anything to do with the spell Spider Climb. Or anything else having to do with spiders.

[Civil War Man]

Edit: Wait does this mean anyone that can cast this spell and doesn't have eschew materials has a bunch of spiders crawling around in their component pouch? That is messed up.

Of course. Where else would you expect to carry swarms of live spiders? The most logical choice is in the component pouch with bits of string and bat guano.

[Coidzor]

No, it's fairly out there to even consider it in the first place in comparison with the rest of what we let Good adventurers get away with.

[Voyager_I]

It doesn't matter if you're casting animate dead in order to resurrect a skeleton to save a burning orphanage, it's still an Evil act.

Some of us would consider that a flaw in the system.


Kinda like Deathwatch.

[Igneel]

Sure the spider is considered 'mindless' as it has the vermin type along with - Int, but then we are arguing about the act of taking something's (no matter how mindless) life. Unlike the mindless construct brought up earlier, it can be argued that despite both being mindless and going off instincts/orders at least the spider supposedly has a soul that can be taken. This is part of the basis of using the Greater Consumptive Field spell near lets say a ant hill. A worker giant ant has exactly 9 hp, so one can only assume a normal ant work-queen will more then likely have less then that. Despite the fact that Lloth, along with any other evil deities affiliated with spiders and other vermin have dominion over the vermin doesn't necessarily mean that all spiders listen to the whispers of Lloth.

A construct supposedly doesn't have a soul to be taken, which is why I believe the majority of necromancy spells and the like rarely if ever effect them. Alot of them are typically being powered by a Elemental, so I suppose that part of them could still be considered having some sort of soul. But even then its not even their soul, but rather the imprisoned Elemental's. So would killing a Construct (which is assumed to mean killing the Elemental since there isn't anything to state they are 'freed') be considered evil as you killed a prisoner that was being forced against its will?

As for plants, lets take a look from the point of view of a Treant, Woodling or other intelligent plant-based life form. Would cutting down an entire tree just for a few choice pieces of wood for a fire as opposed to hunting down whatever has fallen naturally be considered evil to them? Would a human eating a vegetable be like a dragon eating a human is to us?

Unfortunately the Alignment system is about as messed up as ethnic outlooks on life in that even if one culture views something as alright, another will have a different opinion. While yes, in my opinion taking the life of even a mindless creature like a spider can be thought of being evil there will be people that think otherwise just because its a 'mindless' creature. If you are going to go with the Exalted point of view, this would be falling into something similar to the Buddhist religious point of view in that even insects should be respected their opportunity at life which is what I believe they were basing the Vow of Peace/Nonviolence off of.

In short, if your doing it on purpose as opposed to on accident (gnat strainer example here) then I can see it easily being just as evil as using the Consumptive Field spell. But that's my opinion.

[JoshuaZ]

I know the spider climb spell isn't [Evil], but...I just saw this in the spell description:



Emphasis mine. In order to cast this spell, you must take an innocent life. You sacrifice a creature in order to grant yourself power, similar to the extremely evil "villain" spells from Exemplars of Evil.

So, what are your thoughts on this? Does killing a creature just so you won't have to make Climb checks seem evil to anyone else?

Is eating meat when you don't need to Evil? Is someone hunting rabbits or birds for sport Evil? If these are Evil acts in your campaign setting, then you may have some argument.

[candycorn]

So you're saying that because these creatures are mindless, killing them isn't "as evil" as killing a sentient creature? :smallconfused:


By D&D rules, absolutely.

[NeoSeraphi]

Is eating meat when you don't need to Evil? Is someone hunting rabbits or birds for sport Evil? If these are Evil acts in your campaign setting, then you may have some argument.

The first is obviously not the same thing. Consuming a creature in order to give yourself nutrients is not necessarily "evil". However, if by "when you don't need to", you are saying "when you are already full" as opposed to "when there are non-sentient sources of food nearby such as seeds or grapes", then I would have to question that, as that is gluttonous, which might be considered by some as a minor evil act.

The second is much more of a gray area. Killing creatures for sport is...well...I don't know. I mean, if you had an orc tribe who was going around hunting humans for no reason, you'd call that Chaotic Evil without a second thought. So I suppose yes, hunting animals for sport would also be Evil at least in terms of D&D, not the real world.

[Psyren]

They're not sapient. It's fine.

[Coidzor]

The second is much more of a gray area. Killing creatures for sport is...well...I don't know. I mean, if you had an orc tribe who was going around hunting humans for no reason, you'd call that Chaotic Evil without a second thought. So I suppose yes, hunting animals for sport would also be Evil at least in terms of D&D, not the real world.

:smallconfused: Why are you overthinking this anyway?

[NeoSeraphi]

:smallconfused: Why are you overthinking this anyway?

Dunno. I just came across it and I thought "Wow, I never realized I actually had to kill things to use my spells". Didn't think WotC ever wanted to be that dark, at least, not in core.

[Marnath]

Hunting animals is not evil. Killing animals if you're not going to use them for anything is bad and wasteful, but not evil. Abusing animals is evil.


*edit:
Dunno. I just came across it and I thought "Wow, I never realized I actually had to kill things to use my spells". Didn't think WotC ever wanted to be that dark, at least, not in core.

Eating a spider does not count as "dark." :smallconfused:
Pulling the legs off one by one would be "dark."

[Psyren]

You want dark in core? Apparently, checking on your patients (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm) is magic of the vilest and most foul sort, but leeching their life force (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/energyDrain.htm)/imprisoning their souls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/soulBind.htm) is not.

[mikau013]

Spell components are just bad jokes. You eat a spider because you get spider climb. Yeah I'm not laughing either, that is why they are bad jokes.

[Jeraa]

Don't look at the Book of Vile Darkness... Because of the spells in that book, all spell component pouches contain:

a fresh or preserved portion of another creatures brain/flesh (Absorb Mind/Absorb Strength)
the heart of a dwarf child (Abyssal Might)
artifacts (usually Good ones corrupted for this; Apocolypse from the Sky)
dead fish (Befoul)
a bone from a still-living child (Boneblast)
severed hand of a good-aligned cleric (Crushing Fist of Spite)
zombie eyes (Eyes of the Zombie)
heart of an elf child (Hell's Power)
urine-soaked holy symbol (Nether Trail)
tongue of a speech-capable creature (Tongue of Baalzebul)
handful of bloody teeth (Whirlwind of Teeth)

Compared to that kind of stuff (which are all found in infinite amounts in any spell component pouch), a few live spiders in your bag are nothing.

[WarKitty]

If this is evil, I want to know about the SNA line of spells...

Also, I just always assumed that component pouches didn't contain anything until you reached in for something.

[Namfuak]

Also, I just always assumed that component pouches didn't contain anything until you reached in for something.

This would be my assumption on that end. Because of that, it isn't evil to eat the spider if you pulled it from the spell component pouch for two reasons:

1. If you weren't going to cast the spell, the spider wouldn't exist anyway (this could be countered by saying that the spider is now alive, regardless of why, but it should be mentioned)

2. The spider is manufactured, so it can be considered a construct for sake of morality

[Drelua]

Also, I just always assumed that component pouches didn't contain anything until you reached in for something.

I just assumed that you ignore your character's gathering of supplies, in the same way you ignore certain bodily functions. It's the only explanation that really makes sense. I mean, thing's like a still living child's bone can't just be created. Unless it poofs a bone out of the closest kid, you must have gotten it somewhere. Besides, if it just created them, that would make component pouches powerful magic items instead of just a pouch for nasty stuff like spiders and bat poop. They'd also have to be able to create life in the case of Spider Climb.

[Hiro Protagonest]

If this is evil, I want to know about the SNA line of spells...

You might want to check your facts.

Summoning
A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.
It delays them, sure, but it doesn't kill them.

[deuxhero]

Remember how the components themselves were meant to be jokes? The fact that the pouches holding them are what makes people laugh is amusing.

[WarKitty]

You might want to check your facts.

It delays them, sure, but it doesn't kill them.

See, the passage you quoted makes sense for most summoning spells, but SNA? We're summoning real wolves and bears here. What's all this stuff about other planes? And anyway, having a summoned animal take 24h out of its life to reform could still cause a lot of problems.

[Hiro Protagonest]

See, the passage you quoted makes sense for most summoning spells, but SNA? We're summoning real wolves and bears here. What's all this stuff about other planes? And anyway, having a summoned animal take 24h out of its life to reform could still cause a lot of problems.

The part I quoted never mentioned planes. The entire thing, not just the bolded part.

[Psyren]

See, the passage you quoted makes sense for most summoning spells, but SNA? We're summoning real wolves and bears here. What's all this stuff about other planes? And anyway, having a summoned animal take 24h out of its life to reform could still cause a lot of problems.

There are animals on other planes too - it's not just outsiders and elementals. Likely they all come from Beastlands.

I highly doubt any druid or even coven of druids could summon and kill enough creatures in a short enough time to cause any problems either.

[ithildur]

This thread is a joke. :smallwink:

People sure do get confused easily about morality these days.

[Coidzor]

Spell components are just bad jokes. You eat a spider because you get spider climb. Yeah I'm not laughing either, that is why they are bad jokes.

Indeed, we mostly just handwave away the dumb jokes.

[DeAnno]

Also, I just always assumed that component pouches didn't contain anything until you reached in for something.

This is an interesting idea. It's almost like the component and the spell are a matter/antimatter pair where the energy used to create the component comes out of nowhere; and then it goes back to nowhere when you cast the spell.

[Coidzor]

Also, I just always assumed that component pouches didn't contain anything until you reached in for something.

Have I mentioned how much I adore you today?

And by that I mean

*YOINK!*

[Ormur]

I don't think the comparison with eating meat when you don't have to is inaccurate. If you can argue that easier access to more tasteful nutrients is sufficient justification for killing something then casting a spell that may save your life or make your life much easier must be equivalent.

Even if you're just using it as a party trick and never ever for anything useful it's still just comparable to hunting for sport.

I think the distinction of a blatantly evil act must depend on whether you acknowledge the inalienable existential right of non-sapient creatures or not.

I think you can in fact argue for that but then you're going to have to award evil points for rich adventurers ordering meat at the tavern.

[Voyager_I]

Also, I just always assumed that component pouches didn't contain anything until you reached in for something.

So are we talking about Schrodinger's Spider?

[JackRackham]

If no one else will say it, I'll say it: "In Metropolis, spiders bite YOU to give you Spider Climb!"

[Gnome Alone]

Yes. Yes it does. Actually, it's worse: pretty sure all spell component pouches have them whether you can cast the spell or not. Spell component pouches are messed-up little leather bags of horror, IMO. :smalltongue: :smallsigh:

This gave me the idea to make a spell component pouch out of a miniature bag of holding. About ten seconds before I saw War Kitty's thing about just assuming that's what they are anyway, but I still think it's an awesome idea. OTOH, just about everyone I've ever played with has ignored the crap out of spell components, completely.

[WarKitty]

There are animals on other planes too - it's not just outsiders and elementals. Likely they all come from Beastlands.

I highly doubt any druid or even coven of druids could summon and kill enough creatures in a short enough time to cause any problems either.

I wasn't actually thinking of wide-scale problems primarily. Just things that might cause problems for the animal. How detailed are these spells at finding animals that are in positions where they can be summoned away for 24h without any harm?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I for one am offended that the case for spider eating = evil has been taken this far. You're starting to flirt with Peta's commercial chicken farm = nazi death camp territory.

Also you're eating it so it's not even wasteful. As for not being full and it being glutenous, it's a spider weighing a gram or so if that's glutenous eating the last grape from a bunch is too if one less grape was enough.

[TuggyNE]

I for one am offended that the case for spider eating = evil has been taken this far. You're starting to flirt with Peta's commercial chicken farm = nazi death camp territory.

OSNAP Godwin.

Honestly, while I can see a certain logic in the idea that killing a spider for no reason other than to have a spell component could be evil, I don't think D&D cares about non-sentient creatures in its official definitions. (Although it is admittedly somewhat ambiguous, and my interpretation may well be colored by my own opinions.)

[Gotterdammerung]

If consuming something intentionally to gain power = evil, then everyone in the game is evil, except people who do not need to eat (sustenance like abilities, or just a body that doesn't need to eat like a construct),

In the real world, something has to die on a regular basis to not only keep you alive, but give you the "power" to move. In D&D this still holds true for the majority of players.

Also, moral debates don't work so well in D&D because all of the mysteries are known. We usually know who the gods are, the history of the world and its creation, and the spells specifically tell us if they are evil.

Eating a spider is explicitly not evil. If it was, spider climb would have the evil descriptor. It does not have the evil descriptor. Ergo, eating a spider is not evil.

You can say all living things are equal. You can believe it an live it. As long as you are in reality. Once you enter D&D, your beliefs on this issue cease ot be important and are immediately undermined by the reality of D&D RAW. (Unless of course you are the DM, then you can impose your morality on your players until the cows come home.)

[Berenger]

Since you seem to be so concerned about ethical issues involving the use of animals, I'd like to ask you a question that bothered me for a while now. I do believe that whaling is inherently evil, since it kills these majestic, beautiful creatures and the gathered cetaceum is used to fuel lamps - lamps that grant the unneeded, demon-like ability to see in the dark. On the other hand, I also believe that the right of self defense and aiding others in the defense of their life is inherently good. Now I ask mself: if a pregnant paladin whaler harpoons a pregnant sperm whale, that was in the process of killing off a pregnant giant octopus, which is among the most intelligent creatures known on earth, could this act be considered good and evil at the same time and would it help if said pregnant paladin whaler, as a penance, would go on to smite the pregnant, widowed mage (with four children which she cares for by herself) that used spider climb just to go up on the rigging of the whaler ship to spot that sperm whale in the first place? Does it help if the pregnant paladin whaler makes a level while smiting the pregnant widowed mage, enhancing her ability to fight Evil in the future?


A question which I also ponder is whether unnecessary mountaineering is inherently evil because sometimes you will squish a spider or an bug by stepping on it. Do you think this could also be applied to a scenario in which a paladin, running armored to save a child from a fire, steps on a cockroach?

[ahenobarbi]

Okay, yes, it's thinking like that that led to Vow of Peace, I understand, but the difference here is it is completely intentional, not an accident. You're agreeing to kill a creature in order to grant yourself power.

Like when you kill (or have killed) animals and plants in order to get power to survive :smalltongue:

[Rubik]

Thread lockdown in 5...4...3...2...

[georgie_leech]

Fortunately unless you're actually casting the spell with the unsavory components, you never have to *touch* anything other than the particular component you're looking for; there's no time allotted for 'digging around muttering to yourself and wondering where you put the incense OH GODS THAT'S THE SPIDER BAG ARRRGH', and you couldn't cast Swift spells with material components if you had to spend any time doing that.. so you don't. You just grab out exactly the item you wanted (this property of component pouches is probably what the Handy Haversack is based on.)

Heh, and suddenly that's a possibility in my games when a wizard gets drunk: 20% chance to pull out the wrong spell component.

[Necroticplague]

Like when you kill (or have killed) animals and plants in order to get power to survive :smalltongue:

Thus, why Exalted characters eat only eat chemical-based dietary supplements and/or are geovores.

[drew2u]

If it works as an in-game storyline and plot hook to make the consumption of a still-living creature an evil act and thus banned by good-aligned clerics, etc. then by all means, have at it.
At the same time if it's a probable plot-hook in your game to have NPCs who view that as an evil act yet your, say, good-aligned Druid still retains his/her powers, then an in-game debate could well take place and shape as to the nature of morality versus those that just adhere to some codes and rituals.

At the same time if you want to really mess with your player, have him/her make a fort save against the spider's poison (who said they didn't pick a poisonous spider? Did they make a knowledge or survival check?).

[Particle_Man]

Heck in my campaign I let paladin PCs kill orc babies and retain their paladinhood, so guess which side of the debate I am on? :smallbiggrin:

[Douglas]

The Heroics spell must make life interesting for 15th level Fighters. How many different weapons and suits of armor does each one have to go through each year to supply all the world's spell component pouches? Especially considering it's only a level 2 spell, so there are lots of wizards able to cast it?

[hex0]

And what if you were eating the spider for nutrition? Does this mean that anyone who isn't a vegetarian is evil?

Food for thought: Hitler was a vegetarian.

But, honestly I wouldn't rule eating Vermin making you evil as they are mindless. They don't have sufficient sentience or sapience.

Now if it was Spider Monkey Climb, and you had to eat a live monkey...I'd call that evil.

[Douglas]

Now if it was Spider Monkey Climb, and you had to eat a live monkey...I'd call that evil.
I'd think the logistics involved in that would be a bigger concern in most circumstances.

[Coidzor]

Not to mention that it's just unsanitary to put that in your mouth.

[mikau013]

Then again some countries love monkey climb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_brains_%28cuisine%29)

[Coidzor]

Then again some countries love monkey climb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_brains_%28cuisine%29)

More like monkey's swiftness.

[Rubik]

More like monkey's swiftness.It only affects the party while they're running to pray to the porcelain god on his porcelain altars.

[Chambers]

No, because spiders are servants of Lolth, so killing one is striking a tiny blow against her tyranny.

/end thread

Seriously though, the spell doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor, therefore in D&D it's not evil.

[Necroticplague]

/end thread

Seriously though, the spell doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor, therefore in D&D it's not evil.

Neither does Trap the Soul, but according to BOVD, trapping a soul is highly evil.

[Ashiel]

Some of us would consider that a flaw in the system.


Kinda like Deathwatch.

Yeah, it didn't used to be like that. In older editions of D&D, it merely said that good clerics didn't cast animate dead without a good reason, and that you may have social repercussions if you are casting it in a city. Animating the dead to have them put out a fire (1 skeleton / caster level helping to douse fires would be handy) or to stop a march of hobgoblins from razing a village would be considered A-OK; since it wasn't just animating dead things for personal gain.

[Doorhandle]

Food for thought: Hitler was a vegetarian.

But, honestly I wouldn't rule eating Vermin making you evil as they are mindless. They don't have sufficient sentience or sapience.

Now if it was Spider Monkey Climb, and you had to eat a live monkey...I'd call that evil.

HA! I'm remebering that.

[Fiery Diamond]

So you're saying that because these creatures are mindless, killing them isn't "as evil" as killing a sentient creature? :smallconfused:

Erm... duh?

[Rossebay]

Ultimately, it comes down to this:

They didn't label it as an evil act. It isn't an Evil spell, doesn't have an Evil feeling behind it. It's just a spell.

If it was tagged as Evil, they would have meant for the killing of a spider to count as evil.

Looking any further into it is a case we can't resolve. Too many valid arguments.

[Knaight]

Food for thought: Hitler was a vegetarian.

The statement was "all people who are not vegetarian are evil". The opposite statement of that is "some people who are not vegetarian are not evil", and the statement makes no claims whatsoever about vegetarians, as such that is completely irrelevant from a logical perspective.

[Coidzor]

The statement was "all people who are not vegetarian are evil". The opposite statement of that is "some people who are not vegetarian are not evil", and the statement makes no claims whatsoever about vegetarians, as such that is completely irrelevant from a logical perspective.

Yes, but the assertion itself is so unfounded that it does not necessitate a logical response and instead draws lighthearted ribbing.

[Knaight]

Yes, but the assertion itself is so unfounded that it does not necessitate a logical response and instead draws lighthearted ribbing.

True. However, when this particular brand of ribbing is brought out all the time as if it were a logical response, and when fake statement-converse pairs that don't resemble actual statement-converse pairs get brought out successfully all the time that sort of pseudo-logic needs to be swatted.
Also: Hyphens.

[Kaeso]

:smallconfused: Do some people actually use the spell components in roleplay? Even the strictest GMs I've had merely demand that I buy a spell component pouch and don't pay any attention to it afterwards. Then again, I only play PbP games.

[mikau013]

Well


Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don’t bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

But anyway spiders don't care for human morality, so why should humans care about eating them :smalltongue:

[Kaeso]

Well



But anyway spiders don't care for human morality, so why should humans care about eating them :smalltongue:

Point.
But IMHO spell components are a stupid idea anyway. It makes no sense for spontaneous casters because it doesn't match the fluff of the sorcerer who suddenly discovers he can cough fire, by changing it into "I suddenly discovered I can cough fire, but ONLY if I'm holding a ball of batsh1t".
It doesn't make sense for clerics, because they're supposed to be blessed by the gods.
It doesn't make sense for wizards, who are supposed to get their magic from study and study alone.
:smallsigh: I wouldn't blame any DM who ignores spell components all together.

[Cogidubnus]

Fortunately unless you're actually casting the spell with the unsavory components, you never have to *touch* anything other than the particular component you're looking for; there's no time allotted for 'digging around muttering to yourself and wondering where you put the incense OH GODS THAT'S THE SPIDER BAG ARRRGH', and you couldn't cast Swift spells with material components if you had to spend any time doing that.. so you don't. You just grab out exactly the item you wanted (this property of component pouches is probably what the Handy Haversack is based on.)


Don't look at the Book of Vile Darkness... Because of the spells in that book, all spell component pouches contain:

a fresh or preserved portion of another creatures brain/flesh (Absorb Mind/Absorb Strength)
the heart of a dwarf child (Abyssal Might)
artifacts (usually Good ones corrupted for this; Apocolypse from the Sky)
dead fish (Befoul)
a bone from a still-living child (Boneblast)
severed hand of a good-aligned cleric (Crushing Fist of Spite)
zombie eyes (Eyes of the Zombie)
heart of an elf child (Hell's Power)
urine-soaked holy symbol (Nether Trail)
tongue of a speech-capable creature (Tongue of Baalzebul)
handful of bloody teeth (Whirlwind of Teeth)

Compared to that kind of stuff (which are all found in infinite amounts in any spell component pouch), a few live spiders in your bag are nothing.

Combine these two ideas.

"Now where's that string...oh blast, spider up my sleeve again...eurgh, now my hand's going to smell of urine all day. Blast that holy symbol...really need to swap that for a fresher fish...I don't even want to know what that bit of meat was...AH NO, it's the cleric's hand again!...phew, calm, nearly there...OH GODS BE GOOD I JUST SQUEEZED A ZOMBIE'S EYEBALL!"

No wonder wizards all go mad sooner or later.

[Mystify]

Point.
But IMHO spell components are a stupid idea anyway. It makes no sense for spontaneous casters because it doesn't match the fluff of the sorcerer who suddenly discovers he can cough fire, by changing it into "I suddenly discovered I can cough fire, but ONLY if I'm holding a ball of batsh1t".
It doesn't make sense for clerics, because they're supposed to be blessed by the gods.
It doesn't make sense for wizards, who are supposed to get their magic from study and study alone.
:smallsigh: I wouldn't blame any DM who ignores spell components all together.

Sorcerers: makes less sense. That is why sorcerers get eschew materials for free in pathfinder. I don't think it makes 0 sense.
Clerics: Generally speaking, unless it has a costly material component, they just need a divine focus, i.e. their holy symbol. And those can easily be explained as sacrifices.
Wizards: makes perfect sense.They study magic to learn how to use it. Using it happens to involve material components in certain spells. they don't just "get" magic from studying. They learn how to use it.

It is more advanced to cost the spells in such a way that you do not need the material components, hence the feat. You can make the arguement that sorcerers should do that intuitively, which ends up with the pathfinder solution of giving them the feat.

[Necroticplague]

Combine these two ideas.

"Now where's that string...oh blast, spider up my sleeve again...eurgh, now my hand's going to smell of urine all day. Blast that holy symbol...really need to swap that for a fresher fish...I don't even want to know what that bit of meat was...AH NO, it's the cleric's hand again!...phew, calm, nearly there...OH GODS BE GOOD I JUST SQUEEZED A ZOMBIE'S EYEBALL!"

No wonder wizards all go mad sooner or later.

I like to think that spell component pouches are really just tiny portals to The Plane of Spell Components (located where the etheral, shadow, prime material, and far planes meet).

On a related note about eating spiders for spell components: Does this allow some people to insta-kill spiders? If you use Swallow Whole, then you have eaten the spider, so just add in the drop of bitumen, and cast. Since material components are consumed, the spider is now dead, with no trace of its body.

[2xMachina]

Food for thought: Hitler was a vegetarian.


And thus, vegetarians are Evil! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar)

[Mystify]

I like to think that spell component pouches are really just tiny portals to The Plane of Spell Components (located where the etheral, shadow, prime material, and far planes meet).

On a related note about eating spiders for spell components: Does this allow some people to insta-kill spiders? If you use Swallow Whole, then you have eaten the spider, so just add in the drop of bitumen, and cast. Since material components are consumed, the spider is now dead, with no trace of its body.

human bite damage is easily enough to kill a spider.

[hex0]

Yes, but the assertion itself is so unfounded that it does not necessitate a logical response and instead draws lighthearted ribbing.

Which is why I made the joke.

[Zombulian]

I'd like to direct all o' ya'll to THIS. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2393#comic)

[Necroticplague]

human bite damage is easily enough to kill a spider.

Yes, but what about becoming a Purple Worm, then Swallowing a Huge monstrous spider and using it as a spell component (this is pretty much what I intended to say, I'll admit that didn't come across too well).

[Jeraa]

Yes, but what about becoming a Purple Worm, then Swallowing a Huge monstrous spider and using it as a spell component (this is pretty much what I intended to say, I'll admit that didn't come across too well).

RAW, that should work. Spider Climb just calls for "a live spider" to be eaten. A huge monstrous spider would qualify as a live spider. The spider would disappear like all other material components once the spell is cast.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

I'd like to direct all o' ya'll to THIS. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2393#comic)

Nice.

But in terms of is eating a live spider to gain power evil? I direct you to the above posts mentioning Loth and that eating is gaining power and if you eat anything you gain power.

[Fax Celestis]

Seriously though, the spell doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor, therefore in D&D it's not evil.

Agreed. :smallconfused: Why is this even a point of contention?

[TuggyNE]

Agreed. :smallconfused: Why is this even a point of contention?

Because alignment debates are just that stupid-making? :smallwink:

(Seriously, I suspect trying to talk about alignment reduces applied intelligence in some subtle way.)

[mikau013]

Because alignment debates are just that stupid-making? :smallwink:

(Seriously, I suspect trying to talk about alignment reduces applied intelligence in some subtle way.)

Just run a dnd world without any humans in it then -> no more alignment :smalltongue:

[Necroticplague]

Just run a dnd world without any humans in it then -> no more alignment :smalltongue:

That just runs into different alignment issues, not no alignment limitations. Are undead evil? Is their a difference between the "evilness" of intelligent and unintelligent undead? Is eating a sapient species for food to survive evil? At what point does a focus on efficiency over societal norms become evil?

[mikau013]

That just runs into different alignment issues, not no alignment limitations. Are undead evil? Is their a difference between the "evilness" of intelligent and unintelligent undead? Is eating a sapient species for food to survive evil? At what point does a focus on efficiency over societal norms become evil?

Nono, here look at vermin in the MM


Alignment: Always neutral. Vermin are not governed by a human sense of morality.

See no humans = no morality :smalltongue:

[Necroticplague]

Nono, here look at vermin in the MM



See no humans = no morality :smalltongue:

I can quote things selectively to support my point too



Alignment: Always neutral. Vermin are not governed by a human sense of morality.


The inclusion of the word "human" implies that their are other senses of morality, one of which being those that the vermin follow. He don't know what they are because we aren't spiders and rats and centipedes, but they are there.

[JadePhoenix]

Emphasis mine. In order to cast this spell, you must take an innocent life. You sacrifice a creature in order to grant yourself power, similar to the extremely evil "villain" spells from Exemplars of Evil.

A spider is mindless. It does not count.


So you're saying that because these creatures are mindless, killing them isn't "as evil" as killing a sentient creature? :smallconfused:
Yes, that's RAW.

[Andre]

The spider rolls in bitumen and jumps from your spell component pouch to your mouth as part of casting the spell, so it counts as suicide.