Why is Darkbolt an evil spell?

[tadkins]

Has it ever been explained? The vibe I'm getting from the spell description is simply "because it says so". Doesn't give any indication of the source of the energy itself, just that it gives off an "evil charge".

[Venger]

Has it ever been explained? The vibe I'm getting from the spell description is simply "because it says so". Doesn't give any indication of the source of the energy itself, just that it gives off an "evil charge".

your assessment of the situation is correct. basically [evil] spells in 5 seconds. there are a lot of spells like this, such as deathwatch.

[Honest Tiefling]

I like to think that the spell is literally smacking the enemy with physical evil. Probably not what is actually happening, mind you.

[Renen]

I think its kinda like "spell uses dark magic as power base".
So it IS "because it said so" but I guess they wanted to show that evil guys made some spells too. Those spells can be used for non evil stuff, but since they were made by bad guys who used "evil magic" to develop the spell, the spell is now always bad.

[Chronos]

Deathwatch is just a mistake, and everyone, including the game developers, ignores the [evil] tag on that one.

[eggynack]

Deathwatch is just a mistake, and everyone, including the game developers, ignores the [evil] tag on that one.
The problem is that a lot of those spells and effects seem like mistakes. Things like poison being evil and the spell poison lacking such an alignment, or claws of the savage, which is a spell that just gives you claws, being evil, or claws of the bebilith, a spell which just gives you claws that break armor, being frigging corrupt. It's just a messed up situation in general.

[Thillidan]

The problem is that a lot of those spells and effects seem like mistakes. Things like poison being evil and the spell poison lacking such an alignment, or claws of the savage, which is a spell that just gives you claws, being evil, or claws of the bebilith, a spell which just gives you claws that break armor, being frigging corrupt. It's just a messed up situation in general.

For one, spells that are based on dark magic, or designed for evil purposes are evil. If I use heart stop to kill an evil dragon, the magic is still evil. The darkness of the magic will still scar and corrupt my being.
Deathwatch is mostly used for necromantic purposes, and thus SHOULD be evil.
The developers put a lot of time and effort into making the spell list, and made sure that the spells branded with an alignment were deserving of it.

When I am a DM, any time a player uses an evil spell, I take note, and it adds to a corruption score, making them slowly evil. When the play reaches particular levels, they feel the corruption within them. If a player does not want to be branded 'evil' because of the magic they use, they should use magic that will not brand them so.
Follow the rules, and you'll be just fine. Don't complain about alignments on spells you like, because you want to play a good character. That's the bonus of being an evil character; Better Magic!

[OldTrees1]

WotC did a bunch of arbitrary "it is because it is" stuff with alignments. So the question "Why is ___ alignment ___?" is not a very helpful question to you. Better questions(depending on your true question) would be:

A: "What alignment ought it be? and Why?"
B: "Is it alignment ____ by RAW?"
C: "Why did WotC label it alignment ____?"

This division of 1 question into 3 questions is relevant for everything that has an alignment in the rules.

[eggynack]

For one, spells that are based on dark magic, or designed for evil purposes are evil. If I use heart stop to kill an evil dragon, the magic is still evil. The darkness of the magic will still scar and corrupt my being.
Deathwatch is mostly used for necromantic purposes, and thus SHOULD be evil.
The developers put a lot of time and effort into making the spell list, and made sure that the spells branded with an alignment were deserving of it.

When I am a DM, any time a player uses an evil spell, I take note, and it adds to a corruption score, making them slowly evil. When the play reaches particular levels, they feel the corruption within them. If a player does not want to be branded 'evil' because of the magic they use, they should use magic that will not brand them so.
Follow the rules, and you'll be just fine. Don't complain about alignments on spells you like, because you want to play a good character. That's the bonus of being an evil character; Better Magic!
The issue is that the designation is completely and absolutely arbitrary. I could have called claws of the bebilith "claws of the bear", and made it neutral, and no one would even look twice at it. Similarly, I could call fireball "fires of the tainted soul", and it'd have the same apparent evilness as most evil spells. As for deathwatch, who cares what it's mostly used for? If someone uses it to do an evil thing, then the character should be dinged for doing an evil thing. There's a very low level of value added by designating the spell itself evil. Finally, on complaining about the alignment on spells I like, I don't have a particularly strong positive opinion on any of these spells. I think these spells shouldn't have the evil descriptor because I think they shouldn't have the evil descriptor. No agenda beyond that at all.

Edit: Also, just pointing this out, evil characters get possibly the worst magic selection. A neutral character is fully capable of casting just about any spell an evil character can cast, and while good wizards can use corrupt spells, evil wizards cannot use sanctified spells. Moreover, sanctified spells are generally superior to corrupt spells. The real issue point is clerics, for whom going good blocks off access to necromancy, along with some other spell effects, but even then they'd be far better off picking neutral for access to both sides of the coin. Long story short, if they were trying to give evil characters better magic, I'd say they failed.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Thillidan, you are seriously overestimating the designers ability and forethought. A close examination of the larger system shows that they made -many- mistakes.

Deathwatch being tagged as [evil] is one such mistake. It has nearly no evil use and necromancy isn't inherently evil. It's not a fan favorite, in fact it's nearly useless, so that's not why people say this.

As for darkbolt, it's probably a matter of the energy in question simply being concentrated evil unless the spell's flavor text, or some other part of its description, suggests otherwise.

[tadkins]

My only issue with the subject is that Darkbolt doesn't specifically go into the nature of the "evil" being unleashed.

Darkness itself is a neutral force. The Plane of Shadow, while unsavory, is a neutrally-aligned plane. Darkbolt can easily be powered by essence from that plane, and thus wouldn't be evil.

Now if Darkbolt said something about it using energy from Hades/the Abyss, or went into similar detail, there would be no question as to why that spell is evil.

[torrasque666]

However though, it is a divine spell, and most of the gods who grant the respective domain are​ evil gods.

[OldTrees1]

In the case of Darkbolt I would say that the specific spell named Darkbolt is evil because it specifies it uses an evil charge to cause the Stunning effect rather than using a cold charge like the spell Darakbolt*.

*Invented on the spot.

[tadkins]

However though, it is a divine spell, and most of the gods who grant the respective domain are​ evil gods.

They *all* are, actually. I double-checked. xD

Had me scratching my head.

[torrasque666]

They *all* are, actually. I double-checked. xD

Had me scratching my head.

So far I've found Ibrandul who gives it and isn't evil(CN).

[tadkins]

So far I've found Ibrandul who gives it and isn't evil(CN).

Ooh, interesting. My source must be incomplete/out of date. Where does Ibrandul come from?

[torrasque666]

Faiths and Avatars....... by TSR. He's not alive anymore, that's right...

[tadkins]

Bah, figures. The one deity that shares my views on what the true essence of darkness is...and he's dead!

[Sartharina]

The issue is that the designation is completely and absolutely arbitrary. I could have called claws of the bebilith "claws of the bear", and made it neutral, and no one would even look twice at it. And then the spell would lose its [Evil] tag/descriptor.
Similarly, I could call fireball "fires of the tainted soul", and it'd have the same apparent evilness as most evil spells. And doing so would give your new Fireball spell the [Evil] tag/descriptor.

Spells in D&D exist in the world, and are not divorced from the fluff given to them. [Evil] spells are made of raw evil magical power. They can't NOT be [Evil]. The effect is irrelevant. If you want a nonevil version, research a nonevil version of the spells. Yes, it's initially costlier - but you can recoup that expense by selling knowledge of the spell in books and scrolls!

If you're a DM, you can freely tweak spells and add them to your world with the tags you want. The stuff in the books are just samples.

If you're a player, you can research a version of the spell that's tweaked to your liking.

I really wish people would read the actual rulebooks, and not just the SRD.

[torrasque666]

Bah, figures. The one deity that shares my views on what the true essence of darkness is...and he's dead!

Still, he's also described on page 42 of Lost Empires of Faerun as an Ancient Deity.

[tadkins]

If you're a player, you can research a version of the spell that's tweaked to your liking.

I really wish people would read the actual rulebooks, and not just the SRD.

Isn't that dependent on the DM, though?

"Heya, I really like this spell but don't think it should be flagged Evil. I wanna research a non-evil one that's basically the same thing."

It would be solely up to the DM to allow this at that point, if I'm not mistaken.

[torrasque666]

Given that it is custom content, yes. All such content is at the DM's discretion.

[Sartharina]

Given that it is custom content, yes. All such content is at the DM's discretion.
Even non-custom content is at the DM's discretion. The entire goddamn game is at the DM's discretion.

[tadkins]

Figured. It's why I try to focus on already written and existing stuff, though. Just in case I wind up with a less-than-cooperative DM.

[torrasque666]

Even non-custom content is at the DM's discretion. The entire goddamn game is at the DM's discretion.

True, but you have a hell of an easier time convincing them to use printed material.

[eggynack]

And then the spell would lose its [Evil] tag/descriptor.And doing so would give your new Fireball spell the [Evil] tag/descriptor.
That was exactly my point, yes.


Spells in D&D exist in the world, and are not divorced from the fluff given to them. [Evil] spells are made of raw evil magical power. They can't NOT be [Evil]. The effect is irrelevant. If you want a nonevil version, research a nonevil version of the spells. Yes, it's initially costlier - but you can recoup that expense by selling knowledge of the spell in books and scrolls!
If the spells aren't evil because of anything they do, then it just seems completely empty. It's as if the developers just went through the books and just started randomly making some of them evil. Moreover, as I point out below, many of these spells don't actually have any fluff justification, beyond the self reinforcing justification that a spell with the evil descriptor must be powered by evil or whatnot.

I really wish people would read the actual rulebooks, and not just the SRD.
I read actual things plenty. How's about you point out the part of claws of the savage which justifies the spell's classification as evil. Or do the same for claws of the bebilith, without relying on only the title of the spell for justification, because a title is only fluff in the most limited way possible.

[Venger]

If the spells aren't evil because of anything they do, then it just seems completely empty. It's as if the developers just went through the books and just started randomly making some of them evil. Moreover, as I point out below, many of these spells don't actually have any fluff justification, beyond the self reinforcing justification that a spell with the evil descriptor must be powered by evil or whatnot.
well, yeah, that's exactly what's happened with 99% of [evil] spells.
.


I read actual things plenty. How's about you point out the part of claws of the savage which justifies the spell's classification as evil. Or do the same for claws of the bebilith, without relying on only the title of the spell for justification, because a title is only fluff in the most limited way possible.
especially since there are numerous spells functionally identical to claws of the savage, such as beast claws, claws of the beast, or claws of the beast (the psionic power)

[ryu]

That was exactly my point, yes.


If the spells aren't evil because of anything they do, then it just seems completely empty. It's as if the developers just went through the books and just started randomly making some of them evil. Moreover, as I point out below, many of these spells don't actually have any fluff justification, beyond the self reinforcing justification that a spell with the evil descriptor must be powered by evil or whatnot.
.
I read actual things plenty. How's about you point out the part of claws of the savage which justifies the spell's classification as evil. Or do the same for claws of the bebilith, without relying on only the title of the spell for justification, because a title is only fluff in the most limited way possible.

Ah the old evil spell threads. Should we also bring up that the ''evil energy'' from the plane of elemental neutrality doesn't make a wee bit of sense especially when other spells use it directly while being defined neutral? For that matter does anyone want to get into a thirty page argument on this topic followed by me making a new thread devoted to finding a working definition of what the hell it even means to be natural in this game?

[Larrx]

For that matter does anyone want to get into a thirty page argument on this topic followed by me making a new thread devoted to finding a working definition of what the hell it even means to be natural in this game?

Actually, yes Ryu. That sounds like fun :)

[Sartharina]

Ah the old evil spell threads. Should we also bring up that the ''evil energy'' from the plane of elemental neutrality doesn't make a wee bit of sense especially when other spells use it directly while being defined neutral?Negative energy is not inherently evil. It is, however, the most horrific thing in the world. It is anti-life. Everything about it is dedicated to snuffing out life. In its own plane, or on the nega-material plane where everything's dead/undead and life is an abomination, it's also fine. On the material plane, though,where everything's alive, it's an atrocity.


well, yeah, that's exactly what's happened with 99% of [evil] spells.And in a setting that has Good and Evil as cosmic forces defining the multiverse as opposed to moral philosophies trying to make sense of the world, it works!


especially since there are numerous spells functionally identical to claws of the savage, such as beast claws, claws of the beast, or claws of the beast (the psionic power)Functional in ultimate effect, yes, but not functional in 'how you get there'. Claws of the beast draw on neutral and natural power to achieve their effect. Claws of the Savage and Claws of the Bebilith are powered by evil magic. Evil is about more than just hurting others - evil merely implies hurting others. It's also about using Evil Stuff.

[nyjastul69]

This has always been good enough an explanation for me. ;)


http://youtu.be/F6X9KcrXHwg

[Deophaun]

If the spells aren't evil because of anything they do, then it just seems completely empty. It's as if the developers just went through the books and just started randomly making some of them evil. Moreover, as I point out below, many of these spells don't actually have any fluff justification, beyond the self reinforcing justification perfectly reasonable explanation that a spell with the evil descriptor must be powered by evil or whatnot.

FIFY

The morality-based magic is really the only true magic in the whole system. The act of research and replication makes most magic little more than science by another name. But the [Good] and [Evil] spells have a will behind them that actively works to impose a certain kind of world, no matter the ends to which they are used. The DM should play them accordingly.

And claws of the bebilith is [Evil] because it's a terrible and wicked thing to do to a 5th-level spell slot.

[Rater202]

FIFY

The morality-based magic is really the only true magic in the whole system. The act of research and replication makes most magic little more than science by another name. But the [Good] and [Evil] spells have a will behind them that actively works to impose a certain kind of world, no matter the ends to which they are used. The DM should play them accordingly.

And claws of the bebilith is [Evil] because it's a terrible and wicked thing to do to a 5th-level spell slot.

IMplying that magic sin't a science.

Also, very few of the [evil]Spells actually draw on evil energy-pretty much just the ones from the Fiendish Codices that involve drawing on the direct power of a Find, the summon fiend spells, and all of the "Protection From/MAgic Circle AGainst/Dispell Good" type spells.. The rest of them are either drawing on Negative energy, which is explicitly a neutral force and are thus evil for rather arbitrary reasons(Really, the Create a non sapient unread that in no way involves the original soul spells are a bad case of this-Reanimating a Body may be ethically wrong, but if the original person isn't harmed than there's nothing immoral about it.) or had it slapped on them again, aribitrarily-The BOVD has a spell called Mind rape that let's you completely rewrite someone's memories. Complete Arcane or Complete Mage has a spell called Programmed Amnseia that does literally the exact same thing, to the word, letter, and spirit. Mind rape does not draw on evil energies, so why is it automatically evil when Programmed Amnesia is not?

[Chronos]

Quoth Thillidan:

Deathwatch is mostly used for necromantic purposes, and thus SHOULD be evil.
To what necromantic purpose could you possible use Deathwatch? The only ways I know of to use it are to either figure out who's most in need of healing (hence why it's on the spell list of the Healer and of BoED classes) and to detect enemies. That's one use that's probably good, and one neutral use.

[Necroticplague]

It isn't. Darkbolt got re-updated in two places after BOVD (I think). In both places, they removed the [evil] descriptor. They, unfortunately, also made it so that it's only found in the Darkness domain, but there you go.

[eggynack]

FIFY

The morality-based magic is really the only true magic in the whole system. The act of research and replication makes most magic little more than science by another name. But the [Good] and [Evil] spells have a will behind them that actively works to impose a certain kind of world, no matter the ends to which they are used. The DM should play them accordingly.
But that effect isn't really a function of the game's mechanics, at least as far as I can see (with the possible exception of corrupt spells), and in the end, as I said, it's just completely arbitrary. Sure, give good and evil spells a will, but there needs to be some justification outside of that, "Because I say so," logic. Or, at least there should be. Because I gotta say, spraying your opponents with liquid evil, which stuns them, and having that be an evil act, just comes across as silly.

[Deophaun]

IMplying that magic sin't a science.
If it was a science, it wouldn't be magic. By definition.

Also, very few of the [evil]Spells actually draw on evil energy
Deathwatch does. It's in the very first line.

But that effect isn't really a function of the game's mechanics, at least as far as I can see
True, but it's rather difficult to have an explicit mechanical effect that influences plot.

Sure, give good and evil spells a will, but there needs to be some justification outside of that, "Because I say so," logic.
No, there doesn't. You're arguing that it's fine for objects to fall, but you need a justification besides "gravity" logic. If the spell is a portal for Evil to enter the world and exert its will, then it deserves the [Evil] tag. Period. Even if the surface function is to summon a bunch of cute puppies.

[Agincourt]

If the spell is a portal for Evil to enter the world and exert its will, then it deserves the [Evil] tag. Period. Even if the surface function is to summon a bunch of cute puppies.

I agree with this point. I don't need a justification for why Cone of Cold has the [Cold] tag. It just is cold. The authors could have a multitude of effects wherein the spell does 1d6 points of damage per caster level, but they chose [Cold]. Yes, it is arbitrary. Having made the decision to have it be a literal cone of coldness, it makes sense for it to have the [Cold] tag.

As Necroticplague pointed out, the authors of Spell Compendium changed to fluff so it is no longer literal evil springing from the caster's hand. Having made the change, the spell lost the [Evil] tag.

[eggynack]

If it was a science, it wouldn't be magic. By definition.
Then I guess magic isn't magic. Or, rather, what we call magic in this system isn't magic. The magic system, as it stands, is one where identical inputs have identical outputs, where that identical nature can include probabilistic difference in certain cases. It is one where, as a result of that, everything can be researched and tested, and sometimes is researched and tested. If this magic were a part of our world, it'd be called physics.


True, but it's rather difficult to have an explicit mechanical effect that influences plot.

Possibly, but then they should have just not done it. Taking a half measure where we can come to the vague understanding that evil has warping effects just seems like a bad move. It's not even really implied that what you're saying is accurate, to my knowledge.

[Deophaun]

Then I guess magic isn't magic. Or, rather, what we call magic in this system isn't magic.
You say this as if it's not true. I've long stated that the way Wizards are portrayed makes D&D magic not magic. It's just sufficiently-advanced technology.


Possibly, but then they should have just not done it.
This is 3.5 we're talking about. There are lots of things they should have just not done.

And yes, it is implied: that's the entire point of telling you that the spell invokes the powers of a demon or whatever.

[Necroticplague]

If it was a science, it wouldn't be magic. By definition.
'the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.'
It seems that as long as spells are part of the physical and natural world (or else interact with it), you can make a science out of studying magic. In our world, magic is separate from science because, essentially, magic doesn't exist (if it existed, it could be studied and incorporated into our knowledge of the world). In DnD, where Cold and Fire are physical forces, things are much different. It seems more like dnd's magic really isn't such.


Deathwatch does. It's in the very first line.
'Granted by the power of unlife' seems to connect it more to negative energy than any kind of evil energy (giving how the evil planes I know of are all teeming with life).


No, there doesn't. You're arguing that it's fine for objects to fall, but you need a justification besides "gravity" logic.
Funny you should mention science and this in the same post. Actually, attempts HAVE been made to look for a 'why' behind things falling beyond just simply 'gravity exists'. It gravity a result of bends in space-time that scale proportional to the mass of the object? Is it such, except the bending lies with the alteration of vibrations along realities weave?

[Deophaun]

'Granted by the power of unlife' seems to connect it more to negative energy than any kind of evil energy (giving how the evil planes I know of are all teeming with life).
Come come now. Don't be so selective in your quoting: "Using the foul sight granted by the powers
of unlife..."

Funny you should mention science and this in the same post. Actually, attempts HAVE been made to look for a 'why' behind things falling beyond just simply 'gravity exists'.
Funny I didn't simply say "gravity exists." I said "gravity." Any explanation from space-time curvature to the higgs boson falls within an appeal to gravity, such that if I said you had to reference more than just gravity to explain objects falling, you would be left with nothing.

[Flickerdart]

BoVD has paragraph about what makes a spell evil or vile and it's - you guessed it - got nothing to do with what it actually does, but rather what its power source is. IIRC the example is gives is something like "a spell that deals damage isn't evil, but a spell that summons an imp for one moment so it can deal the same amount of damage is evil because the imp is involved."

[The Glyphstone]

IMplying that magic sin't a science.

Also, very few of the [evil]Spells actually draw on evil energy-pretty much just the ones from the Fiendish Codices that involve drawing on the direct power of a Find, the summon fiend spells, and all of the "Protection From/MAgic Circle AGainst/Dispell Good" type spells.. The rest of them are either drawing on Negative energy, which is explicitly a neutral force and are thus evil for rather arbitrary reasons(Really, the Create a non sapient unread that in no way involves the original soul spells are a bad case of this-Reanimating a Body may be ethically wrong, but if the original person isn't harmed than there's nothing immoral about it.) or had it slapped on them again, aribitrarily-The BOVD has a spell called Mind rape that let's you completely rewrite someone's memories. Complete Arcane or Complete Mage has a spell called Programmed Amnseia that does literally the exact same thing, to the word, letter, and spirit. Mind rape does not draw on evil energies, so why is it automatically evil when Programmed Amnesia is not?

AFB, but if I remember right, Programmed Amnesia is Duration: Permanent, but Mindrape is Duration: Instantaneous. This is actually a very important distinction because Permanent spells can be Dispelled, so PA can be reversed and return the person to normal. A Mindraped victim is gone/rewritten forever, barring divine intervention or possibly a Wish - their memories, personality, alignment, and attitudes are irrevocably changed to the whim of the caster. It's really one of the few spells in BoVD that I've never had a problem being [Evil], the problems came when things like Sanctify The Wicked were presented as [Good].

[eggynack]

You say this as if it's not true. I've long stated that the way Wizards are portrayed makes D&D magic not magic. It's just sufficiently-advanced technology.
My issue is really with the definition of magic rather than with the definition of science. I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, it's possible that the actual existence of magic in a given universe makes it science in that universe, which would mean that, by your definition, it's impossible to have magic in a universe at all. That might actually be a true thing, but it is a pretty odd result.


This is 3.5 we're talking about. There are lots of things they should have just not done.
Indeed. I think this is one of them. My general opinion is that, with the possible exception of spells which actively attack opposing alignments, the aligned magic system in use in this game shouldn't be a thing.


BoVD has paragraph about what makes a spell evil or vile and it's - you guessed it - got nothing to do with what it actually does, but rather what its power source is. IIRC the example is gives is something like "a spell that deals damage isn't evil, but a spell that summons an imp for one moment so it can deal the same amount of damage is evil because the imp is involved."
It's true that it's apparently method based, at least to some extent, though there's little explanation of what negative impact calling forth an evil being actually has. Actually, thinking about it further, the current aligned spells system would make a lot more sense were there no implication of an impact on the user's alignment. My issue, I suppose, is that I don't think that using an evil spell should be a necessarily evil act. That'd clear up some of the inconsistencies of the system, and lend the "evil as energy" position more credence. And, y'know, if the game already works like that in some fashion, it could be a lot more clear about it.

[Pinnacle]

Then I guess magic isn't magic. Or, rather, what we call magic in this system isn't magic. The magic system, as it stands, is one where identical inputs have identical outputs, where that identical nature can include probabilistic difference in certain cases.

That's not actually true, though.
A fighter can mimic the components of a spell, and nothing will happen. A wizard can mimic the components of a spell she hasn't properly learned, or that's too high a level for her, and nothing will happen.
A wizard can perform the components of a spell when she's out of spell slots, and nothing will happen.

There's a lot of conditions before that identical input will produce the identical output. Having the power to cast spells--and spells of that power and kind--is the first major condition.


Which... doesn't mean the scientific method can't be used to study it, of course.

[Fax Celestis]

You want the real reason darkbolt, deathwatch, sanctify the wicked, and similar "Why is this Evil/Good" spells are the way they are?

Designers are fallible. In the case of darkbolt and deathwatch, they were unimaginative and didn't consider uses beyond the narrow limitation they initially perceived. In the case of sanctify the wicked, not fully thinking through the ramifications of what the spell does in comparison to the alignment it purports to be.

[eggynack]

That's not actually true, though.
A fighter can mimic the components of a spell, and nothing will happen. A wizard can mimic the components of a spell she hasn't properly learned, or that's too high a level for her, and nothing will happen.
A wizard can perform the components of a spell when she's out of spell slots, and nothing will happen.

There's a lot of conditions before that identical input will produce the identical output. Having the power to cast spells--and spells of that power and kind--is the first major condition.
No, those are all just elements of having an identical input. If you have one wizard that has just learned a spell, and one fighter who is totally ignorant of magic, you're looking at very different inputs. The knowledge and particular talent are both fundamental parts of the physics of magic.

[OldTrees1]

Come come now. Don't be so selective in your quoting: "Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife..."

Moral Disgust is the fallacy of labeling the foul as immoral merely because you find it foul.
There is no non arbitrary reason for Deathwatch to be Evil. There is an arbitrary reason for Deathwatch to be Evil.

[eggynack]

Moral Disgust is the fallacy of labeling the foul as immoral merely because you find it foul.
There is no non arbitrary reason for Deathwatch to be Evil. There is an arbitrary reason for Deathwatch to be Evil.
I actually think the powers of unlife half is supposed to be the justification there, rather than the foul half. Fits in better with the BoVD depiction of evil spells. Still obviously arbitrary.

[ryu]

I agree with this point. I don't need a justification for why Cone of Cold has the [Cold] tag. It just is cold. The authors could have a multitude of effects wherein the spell does 1d6 points of damage per caster level, but they chose [Cold]. Yes, it is arbitrary. Having made the decision to have it be a literal cone of coldness, it makes sense for it to have the [Cold] tag.

As Necroticplague pointed out, the authors of Spell Compendium changed to fluff so it is no longer literal evil springing from the caster's hand. Having made the change, the spell lost the [Evil] tag.

Now see I actually DO need such a justification. Does the spell used enough times on some arbitrary but reasonable amount of water freeze said water? If so it's probably cold. There are a number of other tests you can perform to find stuff like this out. Why? Unlike evil cold is an empirically definable and observable thing with immediate and testable consequences. None of this fuzzy make the world a worse place some day if you believe really hard and rub your lucky skeleton head.

[Sartharina]

Then I guess magic isn't magic. Or, rather, what we call magic in this system isn't magic. The magic system, as it stands, is one where identical inputs have identical outputs, where that identical nature can include probabilistic difference in certain cases. It is one where, as a result of that, everything can be researched and tested, and sometimes is researched and tested. If this magic were a part of our world, it'd be called physics. This is not true. Similar inputs have similar outcomes, but the places with all the fiddly differences is completely glossed over by the rules. Every spell has a ritual that requires part of an hour to prepare. This ritual is different for every individual person. It may be different from casting to casting. There are also a lot of 'black boxes' in magic - scrolls, the inks used to prepare spells, the materials consumed, and the like. And the results are NOT always the same. Some fireballs are devastating. Some are wimpy. Some explode. Some entangle. Magic is more of an art than a science. The way one wizard casts fireball is not the way another casts fireball - it's why wizards need to make spellcraft checks to read each other's work, and identify each other's spells. Unless you use magic. But there's no 'unified' theory. Otherwise, different inputs wouldn't be giving identical outputs (in the case of one person casting fireball with one set of somatic and verbal components, and another casting with a different set - or without a component), and identical inputs wouldn't give different outputs (in the case of two people casting fireball the same way, but one creates a bright orange conflageration, and the other has a burst of green blazing spirits).

Magic is magic, not science. The rules are just an abstract overlay and interface over the game that allows players to interact with the world through player characters. The rules are NOT the underlying concepts of the world. You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the GUI of a system and its processor.
Now see I actually DO need such a justification. Does the spell used enough times on some arbitrary but reasonable amount of water freeze said water? If so it's probably cold. There are a number of other tests you can perform to find stuff like this out. Why? Unlike evil cold is an empirically definable and observable thing with immediate and testable consequences. None of this fuzzy make the world a worse place some day if you believe really hard and rub your lucky skeleton head.Evil is ALSo an empirically definable and observable thing - it can be observed with a casting of Detect Evil, or simply observing which way the soul of the caster goes after he dies. Casting [Evil] spells increases your Corruption score. Don't say 'nobody's getting hurt by my casting of my [evil] spells', because someone is: You. And your soul, which is not your mind.

[ryu]

This is not true. Similar inputs have similar outcomes, but the places with all the fiddly differences is completely glossed over by the rules. Every spell has a ritual that requires part of an hour to prepare. This ritual is different for every individual person. It may be different from casting to casting. There are also a lot of 'black boxes' in magic - scrolls, the inks used to prepare spells, the materials consumed, and the like. And the results are NOT always the same. Some fireballs are devastating. Some are wimpy. Some explode. Some entangle. Magic is more of an art than a science. The way one wizard casts fireball is not the way another casts fireball - it's why wizards need to make spellcraft checks to read each other's work, and identify each other's spells. Unless you use magic. But there's no 'unified' theory. Otherwise, different inputs wouldn't be giving identical outputs (in the case of one person casting fireball with one set of somatic and verbal components, and another casting with a different set - or without a component), and identical inputs wouldn't give different outputs (in the case of two people casting fireball the same way, but one creates a bright orange conflageration, and the other has a burst of green blazing spirits).

Magic is magic, not science. The rules are just an abstract overlay and interface over the game that allows players to interact with the world through player characters. The rules are NOT the underlying concepts of the world. You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the GUI of a system and its processor.Evil is ALSo an empirically definable and observable thing - it can be observed with a casting of Detect Evil, or simply observing which way the soul of the caster goes after he dies. Casting [Evil] spells increases your Corruption score. Don't say 'nobody's getting hurt by my casting of my [evil] spells', because someone is: You. And your soul, which is not your mind.

No such thing as a corruption score in the standard basic rules. Just vague hinting that such behavior MIGHT eventually change alignment. Further if the reason the spell is justified as evil is simply that casting it messes with your alignment because it's evil that same reason is bunk due to being made out of circular reasoning.

[eggynack]

This is not true. Similar inputs have similar outcomes, but the places with all the fiddly differences is completely glossed over by the rules. Every spell has a ritual that requires part of an hour to prepare. This ritual is different for every individual person. It may be different from casting to casting. There are also a lot of 'black boxes' in magic - scrolls, the inks used to prepare spells, the materials consumed, and the like. And the results are NOT always the same. Some fireballs are devastating. Some are wimpy. Some explode. Some entangle. Magic is more of an art than a science. The way one wizard casts fireball is not the way another casts fireball - it's why wizards need to make spellcraft checks to read each other's work, and identify each other's spells. Unless you use magic. But there's no 'unified' theory. Otherwise, different inputs wouldn't be giving identical outputs (in the case of one person casting fireball with one set of somatic and verbal components, and another casting with a different set - or without a component), and identical inputs wouldn't give different outputs (in the case of two people casting fireball the same way, but one creates a bright orange conflageration, and the other has a burst of green blazing spirits).

Science allows for different inputs to have identical results. Issues only arise if identical inputs have different results, and in this case, that's not happening. The fact that wizard writing is incomprehensible to another wizard doesn't fit in with the sciences we currently have, but that doesn't automatically make it not an element of physics. The inputs aren't exactly different either, as you could generalize the input to particularly include the research/comprehension phase, and overall call the rules in the book the physics of magic.

We do have a unified theory of how magic works, after all, and it's called the RAW. Explosiveness, entangling, and wimpiness all have measurable sources, and so does a difference in how a given fireball looks (which can be sourced to the wizard's desire). Magic is unlike anything that exists in our world, by design, but that doesn't make it not a science.

Magic is magic, not science. The rules are just an abstract overlay and interface over the game that allows players to interact with the world through player characters. The rules are NOT the underlying concepts of the world. You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the GUI of a system and its processor.
There is no apparent extent to which they're not the underlying concepts of the world. In particular, if you're not capable of pointing to a rules source for this stuff, then it doesn't work that way, and if you are, then it does work that way, and the way it works can be codified and understood.

[The Insaniac]

The fact that wizards and archivists exist in the first place is evidence that magic can be understood empirically. If I can take a spell, and use my vast intellect to understand how and why the spell works the way it does and do so on a deep enough level to cast it. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that magic has a particular set of rules (maybe two if arcane and divine work by different rules) that it follows with few, if any, exceptions.

Even more, the fact that wizards and archivists can look at someone's spell/prayerbook and understand all of the diagrams and shorthand and personal interpretations of how he shapes magic and then translate that mess of lab notes into their own set of notes that allow then to do exactly the same spell seems to say that magic does follow scientific principles.

[eggynack]

Even more, the fact that wizards and archivists can look at someone's spell/prayerbook and understand all of the diagrams and shorthand and personal interpretations of how he shapes magic and then translate that mess of lab notes into their own set of notes that allow then to do exactly the same spell seems to say that magic does follow scientific principles.
Yeah, thinking about it further, the thing about not being able to read the notes of other people, and being able to reach the same result through different means, seems really close to real science/math to me. It's a rare thing that you can hand off a proof to someone, lacking in context or comment, and just have them perfectly understand the thing's operation. Understanding stuff at this complexity level takes time, and that time probably has to be multiplied some when dealing with arcane writing. By contrast, it's a relatively common thing that your proof and the proof of another will take on different form. Problems have multiple solutions, and people think things through differently.

[Rater202]

AFB, but if I remember right, Programmed Amnesia is Duration: Permanent, but Mindrape is Duration: Instantaneous. This is actually a very important distinction because Permanent spells can be Dispelled, so PA can be reversed and return the person to normal. A Mindraped victim is gone/rewritten forever, barring divine intervention or possibly a Wish - their memories, personality, alignment, and attitudes are irrevocably changed to the whim of the caster. It's really one of the few spells in BoVD that I've never had a problem being [Evil], the problems came when things like Sanctify The Wicked were presented as [Good].

Permanat or not, uterly rewriting someones mind should be one of those "Always Evil, no matter what" things.

If one spell is evil, both should be evil. Otherwise your just being arbitrary.

[Sartharina]

Permanat or not, uterly rewriting someones mind should be one of those "Always Evil, no matter what" things.The argument against this is "What if I want my mind rewritten?"

[Ettina]

I think the key thing is that in D&D, evil and good are physical forces, not philosophical concepts. So it doesn't matter what purpose you're using a spell for - it matters what force is used to power that spell. Even if you're using Deathwatch for triage as a cleric, you're still drawing upon elemental evil to do so.

Whether that has any effect on the caster is unclear. However, if you cast a permanent [evil] spell on an object or make a wand capable of casting [evil] spells, the object will ping under detect evil. And so forth.

[Rater202]

The argument against this is "What if I want my mind rewritten?"

If your mind is rewritten, then you won't be you anymore. For all intents and purposes, you will be dead and some other asshat will be walking around with your face anfter jacking your soul so you can't afterlife.

And really, the only people who'd benefit from mind rewrites are people with severe mental, psychological, or neurological disorders or disabilities, and if it's severe enough to actually be beneficial, then they will by no means be competent enough to consent in the first place

[hamishspence]

Deathwatch had no alignment descriptor in 3.0.

In BoVD, the spell section suggests that, as a variant rule, deathwatch and a few others, should have the [Evil] tag.

In 3.5 PHB it got the Evil tag. However, it would appear that the writers of Miniatures Handbook and BoED, two of the first 3.5 books, didn't get the memo, since the "Always Good" Healer class, and the Exalted (so, Falls if it ever commits an evil act) Slayer of Domiel PRC get it on their spell lists.

[kardar233]

If your mind is rewritten, then you won't be you anymore. For all intents and purposes, you will be dead and some other asshat will be walking around with your face anfter jacking your soul so you can't afterlife.

That's subject for debate; a fairly common science fiction theme is self-directed mind editing.

[The Glyphstone]

Permanat or not, uterly rewriting someones mind should be one of those "Always Evil, no matter what" things.

If one spell is evil, both should be evil. Otherwise your just being arbitrary.

Not really, because the permanency is what makes all the difference in it being evil or not. One is a Manchurian Candidate spell - the original person isn't actually affected in any way, they just get a second artificial personality/set of memories layered on top of them...when it's dispelled, they are exactly the same person. The other is psychic murder - it destroys the original mind with no hope of recovery and replaces it with whatever the caster feels like. Worse than murder, in fact, since the alignment and outlook of a person affects the eventual destination of their soul in D&D.

[atemu1234]

Not really, because the permanency is what makes all the difference in it being evil or not. One is a Manchurian Candidate spell - the original person isn't actually affected in any way, they just get a second artificial personality/set of memories layered on top of them...when it's dispelled, they are exactly the same person. The other is psychic murder - it destroys the original mind with no hope of recovery and replaces it with whatever the caster feels like. Worse than murder, in fact, since the alignment and outlook of a person affects the eventual destination of their soul in D&D.

I love it still.
Possibly more, now.

[Sartharina]

Not really, because the permanency is what makes all the difference in it being evil or not. One is a Manchurian Candidate spell - the original person isn't actually affected in any way, they just get a second artificial personality/set of memories layered on top of them...when it's dispelled, they are exactly the same person. The other is psychic murder - it destroys the original mind with no hope of recovery and replaces it with whatever the caster feels like. Worse than murder, in fact, since the alignment and outlook of a person affects the eventual destination of their soul in D&D.

After playing Dust: An Elysian Tail, Knights of The Old Republic, and Planescape: Torment, I'm not sure that using a spell like Mind Rape on an evil person may necessarily be evil.

[Necroticplague]

Not really, because the permanency is what makes all the difference in it being evil or not. One is a Manchurian Candidate spell - the original person isn't actually affected in any way, they just get a second artificial personality/set of memories layered on top of them...when it's dispelled, they are exactly the same person. The other is psychic murder - it destroys the original mind with no hope of recovery and replaces it with whatever the caster feels like. Worse than murder, in fact, since the alignment and outlook of a person affects the eventual destination of their soul in D&D.

Except that mindrape can be undone. Says it right there, you can smash the big ones out with a break enchantment. The mention of atonement seems to imply that you are the same person though, since an atonement would only make sense if you were held responsible for acts commitee while mindraped.

[hamishspence]

Except that mindrape can be undone. Says it right there, you can smash the big ones out with a break enchantment.

It makes a point of saying subtle changes to memories and thoughts can't be undone as easily though.

[Venger]

If your mind is rewritten, then you won't be you anymore. For all intents and purposes, you will be dead and some other asshat will be walking around with your face anfter jacking your soul so you can't afterlife.

And really, the only people who'd benefit from mind rewrites are people with severe mental, psychological, or neurological disorders or disabilities, and if it's severe enough to actually be beneficial, then they will by no means be competent enough to consent in the first place

in D&D, it's reasonable to believe that given the existence of mindrape, some people might have in place a sort of "living will" type situation, saying stuff like

"if I'm ever blasted by one of those weird monsters with insanity as a su ability so it can't be dispelled normally, please mindrape me back to the way I was on date xyz. here's a diary with relevant facts and such"

since that way if you fight against a nightwalker or something later on and he blasts you with GDM, it won't dispel your programmed amnesia.

[atemu1234]

It makes a point of saying subtle changes to memories and thoughts can't be undone as easily though.

Meh, that just sets you up for really awesome roleplaying, really.

[Kelb_Panthera]

in D&D, it's reasonable to believe that given the existence of mindrape, some people might have in place a sort of "living will" type situation, saying stuff like

"if I'm ever blasted by one of those weird monsters with insanity as a su ability so it can't be dispelled normally, please mindrape me back to the way I was on date xyz. here's a diary with relevant facts and such"

since that way if you fight against a nightwalker or something later on and he blasts you with GDM, it won't dispel your programmed amnesia.

Anyone with that much knowledge of magic and monsters is almost certainly a spellcaster capable of defending himself against such and even if he's somehow not then he'd be extremely likely to know that wish is also a thing and willing to plop down the cash for a scroll of such that will get him back to -exactly- who he was before without any room for error that trying to reconstruct his mind from his diaries entails.

Seriously though, nearly nobody that's not a spellcaster would have the knowledge to even think of something like that. Casters are -rare- in spite of how magic rich the system is.

[jedipotter]

There are two Darkbolt spells.


The Darkbolt, that is the 5th level Darkness Domain spell, is not evil.

The Book of Vile Darkness/Lords of Madness Darkbolt spell is 2nd level and [Evil]. Lords of Madness does add the effect as the bolt is 'charged with evil'.