Question on how evil an action is.

[Belzyk]

So say I "gave" a cleric a red hand of doom scroll and the person in question that gave it to him was a cultist wanting it to be used. But told the cleric it was a incantation to stop a massive ritual. The scroll is ment to wipe out the entire small contenint they are on. If said cleric was to use it without even thinking about it. How evil of an act would it be. P.s. I have a plan for if they use it for them to get out. Its basically a crossroads for me I'm just wondering how evil an act it would be

[retaliation08]

I feel like you are asking "How evil is ignorance?"

[Venger]

Is the cleric activating it normally as a scroll, or is he somehow using the "activate blindly" function of umd? If the former, it's actually not possible for him to activate the scroll without knowing what spell it casts.

[Belzyk]

That and my action in being this mean as a dm

[Belzyk]

Is the cleric activating it normally as a scroll, or is he somehow using the "activate blindly" function of umd? If the former, it's actually not possible for him to activate the scroll without knowing what spell it casts.

Its a incantation and he actively reading the incantation that activates it

[Kelb_Panthera]

If he activates it thinking it is what he was told, not at all. Being duped into committing an atrocity isn't evil, deliberately committing one is.

[Belzyk]

If he activates it thinking it is what he was told, not at all. Being duped into committing an atrocity isn't evil, deliberately committing one is.

Would it make the cleric loose the gods favor?

[retaliation08]

It would seem a lot more straight forward for the cultist to simply read the incantation himself. Why would he risk giving the scroll to someone who may or may not use it?

[Belzyk]

It would seem a lot more straight forward for the cultist to simply read the incantation himself. Why would he risk giving the scroll to someone who may or may not use it?

The cultist is dieing at the moment and doesn't have the strength too finish reading it.

[Venger]

Its a incantation and he actively reading the incantation that activates it
Then as I said, this isn't possible. Step 1 of activating a scroll is reading the scroll to see what spell it is.

Would it make the cleric loose the gods favor?
There we go, you're trying to do paladin falls stuff. Don't do this.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Would it make the cleric loose the gods favor?

Maybe? Depends on the god. While they don't generally hand-pick clerics to gain power they -do- actively severe the connection if a cleric's actions draw their attention and ire. I would expect not in most cases unless the God foresaw the event and sent signs that were ignored. I can't imagine it would matter much unless the caster isn't also killed by the effect.

[Belzyk]

Then as I said, this isn't possible. Step 1 of activating a scroll is reading the scroll to see what spell it is.

There we go, you're trying to do paladin falls stuff. Don't do this.

No not trying to make him fall its just I'm planning for 2 different paths in my game. One he uses the bomb and the other is he finds out and stops the cultists and not uses the bomb. And so even reading the incantation he would have to know what the two spells in it do together?

[XionUnborn01]

No not trying to make him fall its just I'm planning for 2 different paths in my game. One he uses the bomb and the other is he finds out and stops the cultists and not uses the bomb. And so even reading the incantation he would have to know what the two spells in it do together?

Reading a scroll is kind of like reading a map. You have to know what map and route you have before you can follow it. Scrolls are read first before anything happens.

And I would say that it would be pretty rare for a god to get mad if someone was tricked into doing something terrible. If a postal worker delivered a package with a bomb, would anyone blame him for doing his job?

[Jay R]

I don't see what fun this is trying to provide for the players. Since I don't know the motivation, I can't comment on it.

Reading the scroll ought to let you know what it does. If the cleric finds out what it does, and doesn't immediately stop reading it, that's extremely evil.

If he can read it and destroy the continent by accident, that 's a horrible thing to do to him. The cultist is evil, and the cleric is a character would would never be fun to play again, for no good reason.

[Belzyk]

I don't see what fun this is trying to provide for the players. Since I don't know the motivation, I can't comment on it.

Reading the scroll ought to let you know what it does. If the cleric finds out what it does, and doesn't immediately stop reading it, that's extremely evil.

If he can read it and destroy the continent by accident, that 's a horrible thing to do to him. The cultist is evil, and the cleric is a character would would never be fun to play again, for no good reason.

Thanks for the input a lot.

[BassoonHero]

First, we have to look at this from the cleric's perspective. What does he know? What should he know? What obligations does he have, ethically speaking? How can he fulfill them?

Let's suppose that a cleric buys a scroll of true resurrection. The cleric knows that the scroll's desired effect is powerful and that magic of similar power can be terribly destructive. A ninth-level cleric spell can open a gate to hell. For the cleric to cast the scroll without verifying its contents would be grossly irresponsible. It would also be stupid, because those scrolls are expensive and you don't want to find out that it won't work at the wrong time.

In this case, the cleric has gotten a powerful, nonstandard scroll from an unknown source. It's not clear whether this cleric knows that the source was actually a cultist; even if he doesn't, the circumstances are unusual enough to warrant serious scrutiny. If the cleric casts the scroll blindly, then they are acting recklessly, wielding their divine power without due consideration of the consequences. Whether this is an evil act depends on the reason for this recklessness. If the cleric doesn't care that innocents might be harmed, then this is Evil. If it simply never occurs to the cleric to check, then this is merely unbelievably stupid, which could nevertheless justify divine revocation of their spellcasting.

But this is all in-character. What about the player?

If I was playing a cleric, and my character bought a scroll of True Resurrection, then I would assume implicitly that my character had verified what it was. Because not doing so would be stupid and irresponsible, I would assume that this is a normal part of buying magic items. If a DM later told me that it was actually a scroll of gate, then I would be angry; how would the cleric have failed to notice this? No, I didn't declare that the cleric looked over the scroll before leaving the shop, but are we really expected to specify every time we buy something that we spend a few seconds to perform basic common-sense verification?

This case is not quite the same. The scroll is not an ordinary spell scroll, the effect is specific and plot-relevant, and the source is suspect. But the same reasoning applies here; there is absolutely no reason why the cleric would not take the same bare-minimum precautions. That doesn't mean that the cleric will automatically get the information they need! Maybe the scroll is esoteric and difficult to interpret. Then, the cleric is faced with a real conundrum: is this the only way to stop the ritual or a subtle trap that will only further the cult's plan? But the cleric (and player) should be made aware of this conundrum long before the scroll is to be used.

Now, the party has meaningful choices. Do they use the scroll, or not? Hold it back as a last resort? Maybe they seek outside verification, accepting the risks of delaying their quest. Maybe they try divinations — speaking with the now-dead cultist, or casting commune. Do keep in mind that if you tell the player that it's not obvious what the scroll does, then they'll probably try the usual battery of identify and analyze dweomer. If those don't work, for some reason, then you should have a good reason why. If they seem to work but produce false results, then the players will not be happy with you; they'll feel like you cheated to produce a “bad ending”.

I've had personal experience with a very similar situation (as a player). Major Religion was performing some enormous ritual involving a central Component whose purpose was unclear, but not necessarily nefarious. Some Guys told us that it would have disastrous results, and gave us a Fake Component that we could swap out to sabotage the ritual. We had reason to distrust everyone's motives. In the end, the party swapped out the Fake Component for the real one and told Some Guys; then, the party cleric secretly swapped them back. In the end, the world was (basically) destroyed due to another complication that hadn't been adequately foreshadowed. That sucked. Don't do that to your players.

[Venger]

No not trying to make him fall its just I'm planning for 2 different paths in my game. One he uses the bomb and the other is he finds out and stops the cultists and not uses the bomb. And so even reading the incantation he would have to know what the two spells in it do together?

Yes, he would (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm)

[Belzyk]

First, we have to look at this from the cleric's perspective. What does he know? What should he know? What obligations does he have, ethically speaking? How can he fulfill them?

Let's suppose that a cleric buys a scroll of true resurrection. The cleric knows that the scroll's desired effect is powerful and that magic of similar power can be terribly destructive. A ninth-level cleric spell can open a gate to hell. For the cleric to cast the scroll without verifying its contents would be grossly irresponsible. It would also be stupid, because those scrolls are expensive and you don't want to find out that it won't work at the wrong time.

In this case, the cleric has gotten a powerful, nonstandard scroll from an unknown source. It's not clear whether this cleric knows that the source was actually a cultist; even if he doesn't, the circumstances are unusual enough to warrant serious scrutiny. If the cleric casts the scroll blindly, then they are acting recklessly, wielding their divine power without due consideration of the consequences. Whether this is an evil act depends on the reason for this recklessness. If the cleric doesn't care that innocents might be harmed, then this is Evil. If it simply never occurs to the cleric to check, then this is merely unbelievably stupid, which could nevertheless justify divine revocation of their spellcasting.

But this is all in-character. What about the player?

If I was playing a cleric, and my character bought a scroll of True Resurrection, then I would assume implicitly that my character had verified what it was. Because not doing so would be stupid and irresponsible, I would assume that this is a normal part of buying magic items. If a DM later told me that it was actually a scroll of gate, then I would be angry; how would the cleric have failed to notice this? No, I didn't declare that the cleric looked over the scroll before leaving the shop, but are we really expected to specify every time we buy something that we spend a few seconds to perform basic common-sense verification?

This case is not quite the same. The scroll is not an ordinary spell scroll, the effect is specific and plot-relevant, and the source is suspect. But the same reasoning applies here; there is absolutely no reason why the cleric would not take the same bare-minimum precautions. That doesn't mean that the cleric will automatically get the information they need! Maybe the scroll is esoteric and difficult to interpret. Then, the cleric is faced with a real conundrum: is this the only way to stop the ritual or a subtle trap that will only further the cult's plan? But the cleric (and player) should be made aware of this conundrum long before the scroll is to be used.

Now, the party has meaningful choices. Do they use the scroll, or not? Hold it back as a last resort? Maybe they seek outside verification, accepting the risks of delaying their quest. Maybe they try divinations — speaking with the now-dead cultist, or casting commune. Do keep in mind that if you tell the player that it's not obvious what the scroll does, then they'll probably try the usual battery of identify and analyze dweomer. If those don't work, for some reason, then you should have a good reason why. If they seem to work but produce false results, then the players will not be happy with you; they'll feel like you cheated to produce a “bad ending”.

I've had personal experience with a very similar situation (as a player). Major Religion was performing some enormous ritual involving a central Component whose purpose was unclear, but not necessarily nefarious. Some Guys told us that it would have disastrous results, and gave us a Fake Component that we could swap out to sabotage the ritual. We had reason to distrust everyone's motives. In the end, the party swapped out the Fake Component for the real one and told Some Guys; then, the party cleric secretly swapped them back. In the end, the world was (basically) destroyed due to another complication that hadn't been adequately foreshadowed. That sucked. Don't do that to your players.

Thank you deeply. Very deeply. Its not world destroying and one of them have made a sort of friend with a 4k year old lich that runs a library lol. So they prolly will get it checked but thank you so much

[jqavins]

First, I agree with Venger that the premise is flawed, and with BassoonHero that the whole thing is a bad idea. That said:
Its basically a crossroads for me I'm just wondering how evil an act it would beAs others have noted, being duped isn't evil, but is probably only possible through gross negligence and/or stupidity, which may piss the deity in question off enough to cut the cleric off. What no one has mentioned is that this depends in large part on the deity's personality. Is s/he prone to fits of temper? Is s/he renowned for an extraordinarily forgiving nature? Probably something in between.

[Venger]

First, I agree with Venger that the premise is flawed, and with BassoonHero that the whole thing is a bad idea. That said:As others have noted, being duped isn't evil, but is probably only possible through gross negligence and/or stupidity, which may piss the deity in question off enough to cut the cleric off. What no one has mentioned is that this depends in large part on the deity's personality. Is s/he prone to fits of temper? Is s/he renowned for an extraordinarily forgiving nature? Probably something in between.

Fluffwise, what you're saying certainly makes sense.

However, the mechanics simply don't back this up. If the cleric is casting a spell from a scroll, it is not possible for him to not know what the spell on it is. Also the deity does not exist, it's just the gm deciding to arbitrarily make the cleric fall, so saying "oh, the deity's just being unreasonable" is not a legitimate defense.

[jqavins]

Fluffwise, what you're saying certainly makes sense.

However, the mechanics simply don't back this up...
Yes, I agree with you that the mechanics are flawed, and I stated so. Belzyk, however, seems perhaps to be going ahead anyway, and also asked "Would it make the cleric loose the gods favor?" So the answer to that is completely one of fluff, even though it's a question that should never have had to be asked.
Also the deity does not exist...Yes, of course the deity exists, every bit as much as the cleric does. The DM is screwing the player, and the deity may or may not cut off the cleric.

[Venger]

Yes, I agree with you that the mechanics are flawed, and I stated so. Belzyk, however, seems perhaps to be going ahead anyway, and also asked "Would it make the cleric loose the gods favor?" So the answer to that is completely one of fluff, even though it's a question that should never have had to be asked.Yes, of course the deity exists, every bit as much as the cleric does. The DM is screwing the player, and the deity may or may not cut off the cleric.

Right, that's what I'm saying. The cleric is cutting off the god because the gm's made his mind to screw over the player, not the other way around.

[Zanos]

The atonement spell actually explicitly mentions unintentional violations of a deities creed, and unwitting Evil acts. You are still culpable for Evil acts performed while ignorant. Most cleric will fall for this and require an atonement, although it will not cost any XP.

As mentioned above I don't think the rules support this scheme. And in any case tricking a character so they lose their powers is generally a shirty move on the DMs part

[Belzyk]

OK the spell is a locate city bomb. This is what it does

Locate City (RoD) - 10 mile/level radius, finds a city

1. Apply Snowcasting (FB) - spell now has the cold descriptor
2. Apply Flash Frost feat (PHB2) - spell now deals 2 points of cold damage to all in area
3. Apply Energy Substitution (Electricity) (CArc) - spell now deals electricity damge
4. Apply Born of Three Thunders (CArc) - spell deals half electric, half sonic, but what is important is that it now requires a reflex save, allowing us to...
5. Apply Explosive Spell (CArc) - all creatures/things in area that fail their reflex saves are shunted to the outside of the area of effect (10 miles/level) and take 1d6 damage per 10' moved! And the cultist who made the spell is 20th lvl

I just wanted yaw to understand what is in the scroll is why I posted this. I know not everyone knows what locate city bomb is or red hand of doom.

[Belzyk]

Right, that's what I'm saying. The cleric is cutting off the god because the gm's made his mind to screw over the player, not the other way around.

Also not working to screw him over. He has the scroll they know there are ways to stop the cult. I just put this one in as a plot hook and am trying to get general feedback. I may just scrap it all because for the most part everyone agrees is a **** move. My groups cleric is the only caster also he worships wee jass

One last tidbit. I'm pretty sure the cleric is gonna ask his new best friend a 4k year old loch who runs a library about it. :( the pitch is very knowledge hungry

[Zanos]

Nobody is saying such a spell cant exist, but you can't activate a scroll without knowing what's in it.

[Belzyk]

Nobody is saying such a spell cant exist, but you can't activate a scroll without knowing what's in it.

Lol no no I just wanted to let the playground know what was in the scroll lol. Its just a amalgamation of spells. I was unclear on how scrolls work I'm still newer as a DM and I never worried about scrolls when I play I just make them and sell lol

[killem2]

Was the cleric given a chance to sense motive? Just curious.

[Kelb_Panthera]

My groups cleric is the only caster also he worships wee jass

The stern lady seems a likely goddess to cut off a cleric for a sufficiently bad screw up, just to avoid him doing it again if nothing else. The point others have made about scroll RAW means you basically -have- to scrap this plot-hook though.


One last tidbit. I'm pretty sure the cleric is gonna ask his new best friend a 4k year old loch who runs a library about it. :( the pitch is very knowledge hungry

Auto-correct got you pretty bad there, eh?

It was my understanding that Wee Jas merely tolerated undead while they serve some particular purpose that she at least wouldn't oppose. That lich doesn't exist simply for fear of death, I hope?

[Zanos]

IIRC Wee Jas has no problem with undead as long as you're lawful about it and the souls aren't unwilling. Lich shouldn't present a problem.

[Jarmen4u]

Lol no no I just wanted to let the playground know what was in the scroll lol. Its just a amalgamation of spells. I was unclear on how scrolls work I'm still newer as a DM and I never worried about scrolls when I play I just make them and sell lol

This is from the SRD page about scrolls:



Activation
To activate a scroll, a spellcaster must read the spell written on it. Doing so involves several steps and conditions.

Decipher the Writing
The writing on a scroll must be deciphered before a character can use it or know exactly what spell it contains. This requires a read magic spell or a successful Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level).

Deciphering a scroll to determine its contents does not activate its magic unless it is a specially prepared cursed scroll. A character can decipher the writing on a scroll in advance so that he or she can proceed directly to the next step when the time comes to use the scroll.

[Mordaedil]

You can apply metamagic to a scroll? I've never done that before.

[hamishspence]

Being duped into committing an atrocity isn't evil, deliberately committing one is.



As others have noted, being duped isn't evil, but is probably only possible through gross negligence and/or stupidity, which may piss the deity in question off enough to cut the cleric off.

As Zanos mentions, "unwitting evil acts" are a thing:


The atonement spell actually explicitly mentions unintentional violations of a deities creed, and unwitting Evil acts. You are still culpable for Evil acts performed while ignorant. Most cleric will fall for this and require an atonement, although it will not cost any XP.



although this kind of contradicts BoVD, which portrays poisoning an entire village of innocent people as

"probably not evil, if you were lied to - told everyone in the village was a demon."

BOVD sometimes contradicts Core in its fluff descriptions though. For example Chromatic Dragons are not "irredeemable evil" regardless of what it says.

It might depend on how negligent and over-trusting you were.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic:

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

The implication here is that an act that would normally be Evil becomes NonEvil if the circumstances are right.

[BassoonHero]

The problem here is that the D&D 3.5 alignment system defines "Good" and "Evil" strictly but not clearly. When dealing with any issue more complex than "protect innocent people" versus "murder innocent people", you're basically on your own (as a player or DM). But the book assumes that whatever the correct answer is, that answer is an absolute moral fact, and the DM is expected to impose mechanical consequences accordingly.

As a result, roleplaying around alignment-based mechanics is inevitably a source of tension and often a source of out-of-game conflict. This tension stems not from the players' investment in their characters' decisions, but in the players' disconnection from the world in which they live. Whether an action is Good or Evil is an objective property of the characters' world, but from a metagame level that objective property is determined by highly subjective and often-contentious interpretation. This leads to situations in which characters are punished because their players lack information that the characters must surely possess.

It doesn't really help to say that the characters don't know either. For instance, to say that an act is good or evil depending on its consequences, regardless of the characters' knowledge of those consequences, leads inevitably to unfair "traps". This is one of the failure modes of the paladin's code: the character does something that seems to be a Good act, but because of external factors the player didn't know, it's deemed Evil instead, and the paladin loses their powers. The usual advice is that players shouldn't ever play a paladin in such a game. Grappling with alignment as a player in such a system is like arguing with a rules lawyer when you haven't read the books: you're going to lose, you won't really understand why, and you're not going to enjoy it.

As an aside, I do think that you could make a reasonable game out of such a system, though it might look very different from the "standard" high fantasy setting. The gods wrote the laws of morality at the beginning of time, and they remain in full effect -- but mortals possess them only in fragmentary translations. In mortal comprehension, the laws seem capricious and unfair, but to reject them carries yet greater penalties. Will they ally themselves unquestionably with the forces of Good, no matter how awful the consequences may sometimes seem, or will they accept the label of Evil and all of the travails and approbation that go with it? The natural dramatic conclusion for this game would be the overthrow of the ancient gods and their inscrutable dictates. Now, replace "ancient gods" with "the DM", and you have a problem!

[Jay R]

"Mistaken" and "evil" are not synonyms.

Great DMing about a moral choice is putting the character in a position where the player has to make a difficult choice with serious consequences on the PC's alignment. You're skipping the difficult choice and going straight to the consequences. But making the choice is the player-action part of the game.

I urge you not to do it. Find some way to let the PC know what the scroll is, and then (ideally) give him or her a hard choice to make.