Gate Spell

[kbob]

So using only the following sources, what would be your best "summon" for a gate Spell if you were fighting a random PC (either a spell slinging murder machineor super magic resistant/immune melee bringer of death, one on one to the death? Sources:

-Core Rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM)
-Expanded Psionics Handbook
-The “Complete” Series (Arcane, Adventurer Champion, Divine, Mage, Scoundrel, Warrior)
-The “Races” Series (Destiny, Stone, Dragon, Wild)
-Player’s Handbook II
-Book of Exalted Deeds
-Book of Vile Darkness
-Dragon Magic
-The Book of Nine Swords
-Magic Item Compendium
-Spell Compendium

Thoughts?

[Mike Miller]

Do you want to kill the PC, have a decent battle, or have the PC show off how he strong he is by beating the gated creature?

[kbob]

Kill. It is a death match. PvP one off. Arena style.

[Kayblis]

What level? Gate lets you control a creature with HD up to twice your CL. If it's level 20, you could easily get CL 24(+2 from items, +2 from a swift spell) to summon a 48HD creature. More CL optimization opens up more monster possibilities.

A common end-level Gate summon is the Great Wyrm Gold Dragon - he's CR 27, has 41 HD, casts as a 19th-level Sorcerer, is Colossal and can hit pretty much anything not stacking AC on a 2. He's core, needs no templates and is 100% legal.

Edit: If you want to really focus on it, pick up Arcane Thesis(Gate) at 18 to cast it Extended and Imbued Summoning'd - that's double duration and you can apply a free buff up to 3rd level to it as a free action cast - that's free Haste or another good buff.

[kbob]

My CL is 20. ECL 20 as well but 2 of those levels come from paladin for the +14 to saves from my cha. The others, 7, Sorcerer, 7 IotSV, 4 fatespinner. Kobold with greater rite of passage and ioun stone (both give me the +2 CL). What item increases CL? We were given 750K to spend. It's all spent on stuff immunities and buffs. But perhaps I could change stuff. Or do you or someone else know of another max 40HD monster out of those sources that would be killer?

[Kayblis]

Get a Ring of Arcane Might, that's +1 to CL for 20k gold.

EDIT: There's also a spell in Spell Compendium called "Spell Enhancer". It's a 4th-level swift spell that lets you cast your next spell in the round with +2 CL and +1 DC(if it has any). That's CL 23 for your character.

[tyckspoon]

What level? Gate lets you control a creature with HD up to twice your CL. If it's level 20, you could easily get CL 24(+2 from items, +2 from a swift spell) to summon a 48HD creature. More CL optimization opens up more monster possibilities.

A common end-level Gate summon is the Great Wyrm Gold Dragon - he's CR 27, has 41 HD, casts as a 19th-level Sorcerer, is Colossal and can hit pretty much anything not stacking AC on a 2. He's core, needs no templates and is 100% legal.

Aside from a possible disagreement about whether you can Gate one due to not being a standard Outsider/non-Material Plane resident, this is probably the best you're gonna get from the available sources. Ideally you want access to the Epic Level Handbook critters or the Draconomicon, which contain Planar dragons that are indisputably valid as Gate targets, as well as a few potentially interesting other Outsiders and Elementals in the case of the Epic book.

[Lotheb]

Orange prism ioun stone gives another +1 caster level for 30,000 gp

[Buufreak]

Anything stopping you from chain gating the solar army?

[blackwindbears]

Anything stopping you from chain gating the solar army?

Doesn't work RAW, and if it did, would take 8 hours for the first solar to gate another solar.

[Jack_Simth]

Doesn't work RAW, and if it did, would take 8 hours for the first solar to gate another solar.

A Titan (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/titan.htm), on the other hand, has Gate as a 1/day spell-like at CL 20, and is an outsider with 20 hit dice.

[blackwindbears]

A Titan (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/titan.htm), on the other hand, has Gate as a 1/day spell-like at CL 20, and is an outsider with 20 hit dice.

This is the winner.

Now you get to immediately redo the whole thing with gate banned.

I suggest you just ask him to give you game 1.

[Jack_Simth]

This is the winner.

Now you get to immediately redo the whole thing with gate banned.

I suggest you just ask him to give you game 1.

That is a very high probability scenario, but not the only possible scenario. Assuming for the moment that the Gated creature acts on the same turn you gate it in (voiding this would make chain gating finite), you could still lose: Two basic routes:
1) It's possible the other person will go first and instagib you before you can act (I'm sure you'll have defenses, but there's counters for counters for counters...)
2) If you're opponent is effectively immune to Chain Lightning (be that via SR, energy immunity, Evasion + high saves + rerolling 1's + a limited amount of physical space for new Titans to appear, or any other method), then only the last Titan in the chain has a useful action after you Gate the lot of them in. If the opponent survives that, and can get past the Wall of Outsiders, and is capable of instagibbing you, then you get instagibbed if your opponent survives an attack from a single titan.

[Doctor Awkward]

My CL is 20. ECL 20 as well but 2 of those levels come from paladin for the +14 to saves from my cha. The others, 7, Sorcerer, 7 IotSV, 4 fatespinner. Kobold with greater rite of passage and ioun stone (both give me the +2 CL). What item increases CL? We were given 750K to spend. It's all spent on stuff immunities and buffs. But perhaps I could change stuff. Or do you or someone else know of another max 40HD monster out of those sources that would be killer?

Add in +1 from Death Knell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathKnell.htm), a +4 from a Karma bead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#strandofPrayerBeads) from the Strand of Prayer beads, the aforementioned Ring of Arcane Might (+1), and use Limited Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/limitedWish.htm) to emulate the Consumptive Field spell from Spell Compendium, which caps at +10. This will get you a total caster level to 36, which is enough to Gate in an Elder Titan (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/titanElder.htm).

He has 70 hit dice, over 1,000 HP, casts as a 29th level cleric with the Magic and Knowledge domains, has the Epic Spellcasting feat with access to three epic spells, the Ingore Material Components feat, and Craft Contingent Spell, as well as a bunch of nifty spell-like abilities, like as Astral Projection and Contact Other Plane.

[Jack_Simth]

Add in +1 from Death Knell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathKnell.htm), a +4 from a Karma bead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#strandofPrayerBeads) from the Strand of Prayer beads, the aforementioned Ring of Arcane Might (+1), and use Limited Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/limitedWish.htm) to emulate the Consumptive Field spell from Spell Compendium, which caps at +10. This will get you a total caster level to 36, which is enough to Gate in an Elder Titan (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/titanElder.htm).

He has 70 hit dice, over 1,000 HP, casts as a 29th level cleric with the Magic and Knowledge domains, has the Epic Spellcasting feat with access to three epic spells, the Ingore Material Components feat, and Craft Contingent Spell, as well as a bunch of nifty spell-like abilities, like as Astral Projection and Contact Other Plane.

Neither Death Knell nor Consumptive Field work for the OP's build - they're Evil spells, and the OP has a few Paladin levels (for Divine Grace).

[Doctor Awkward]

Neither Death Knell nor Consumptive Field work for the OP's build - they're Evil spells, and the OP has a few Paladin levels (for Divine Grace).

Paladins are not restricted from casting [Evil] spells. Only good-aligned clerics and druids are.

[kbob]

Which book is Elder Titan in? I may have overlooked him but I don't see him in any of the listed books.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Paladins are not restricted from casting [Evil] spells. Only good-aligned clerics and druids are.

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." -PHB

Of course it'd depend on your DM, but I'm sure plenty would consider casting [Evil] spells to be an evil act. Especially if, y'know, they involve you using the ebbing life force of another to fuel your own power.

[Jack_Simth]

Which book is Elder Titan in? I may have overlooked him but I don't see him in any of the listed books.

That's because it is in the Epic Level Handbook. Also the SRD.

[Doctor Awkward]

Which book is Elder Titan in? I may have overlooked him but I don't see him in any of the listed books.

Epic Level Handbook, originally. The version found on the SRD is updated for v3.5.

I usually operate under the assumption that book lists are always appended with, "and the SRD" since everyone has access to it for free.


"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act." -PHB

Of course it'd depend on your DM, but I'm sure plenty would consider casting [Evil] spells to be an evil act. Especially if, y'know, they involve you using the ebbing life force of another to fuel your own power.

Basically, yeah. It's up to the DM.

There is no general rule that casting an evil spell is automatically an evil act. Even the Book of Vile Darkness says that non-evil characters can occasionally get away with casting evil spells depending on the cause for it.

Is the smiting of your opponent in this duel both necessary and just? :smalltongue:

[zlefin]

gibbering orb would be nice.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/gibberingOrb.htm

[Jack_Simth]

There is no general rule that casting an evil spell is automatically an evil act. Even the Book of Vile Darkness says that non-evil characters can occasionally get away with casting evil spells depending on the cause for it. "Can occasionally get away with". Not "it's not evil".

Also: Per the Book of Vile Darkness, page 77:
Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be.

So... no, it's RAW that casting an Evil spell is an Evil act. Paladins have a code of conduct which precludes that, so... no go there.

[Doctor Awkward]

"Can occasionally get away with". Not "it's not evil".

Also: Per the Book of Vile Darkness, page 77:

So... no, it's RAW that casting an Evil spell is an Evil act. Paladins have a code of conduct which precludes that, so... no go there.

We clearly have different definitions of what "getting away with" means.

In common vernacular that means taking an action for which you don't suffer consequences. At best BoVD is contradicting itself here. Again.

[Goaty14]

Slightly Off-Topic question: What prevents somebody from gating in an elder evil, provided that they have a high enough save DC? Y'know, besides dooming the plane to utter chaos, is it that bad of an idea?

[Telonius]

Slightly Off-Topic question: What prevents somebody from gating in an elder evil, provided that they have a high enough save DC? Y'know, besides dooming the plane to utter chaos, is it that bad of an idea?

I think this clause would probably apply:


Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord.

I'd think an Elder Evil counts as a unique being. If it's the sort of Elder Evil that wants to break through at the first opportunity, then it would probably go through if you asked it. But if it's not (either it's an uncaring force of nature, or has to wait until the Thousandth Eclipse, or whatever, before it can arrive) then the spell wouldn't work.

[Jack_Simth]

We clearly have different definitions of what "getting away with" means.

In common vernacular that means taking an action for which you don't suffer consequences. At best BoVD is contradicting itself here. Again.
Not really. Context, and specific overrides general.

The bit you were first looking at is pointing out that a rare evil act isn't going to affect alignment - when a LG Cleric of Pelor finds that the only way to get the location of the cult from the cultist who was collecting children for the sacrifice to bring about the destruction of the world is to slowly dig out the cultist's left eye... the LG Cleric of Pelor isn't falling if he only uses such methods to get the info the once. However: It's still an Evil act. The Paladin has a specific oath that says none of that.

[Mordaedil]

I wonder if the intent of those passages is simply that casting an evil spell is in itself an evil act, but using it for a good enough purpose could negate each other. Not that you could ignore spell descriptor entirely with no consequence.

[OgresAreCute]

Can't you spice it up with a sanctify/purify spell thing?

[Segev]

Gate in the PC you want to fight. No, seriously, use whatever temporary invulnerability shenanigans you like to protect your meat shell, and cast astral projection. Then, from the Astral Plane, cast gate to call the opponent.

Even if removing him from the battlefield doesn't count as a win by ring-out (remember, you're still in the arena, just unconscious...and you can possibly have your familiar share a magic jar to puppet your body if that's an issue), you now control him as long as your spell duration lasts, and can order him to return with you via plane shift and greater teleport and then announce his surrender.

[Doctor Awkward]

Not really. Context, and specific overrides general.

The bit you were first looking at is pointing out that a rare evil act isn't going to affect alignment - when a LG Cleric of Pelor finds that the only way to get the location of the cult from the cultist who was collecting children for the sacrifice to bring about the destruction of the world is to slowly dig out the cultist's left eye... the LG Cleric of Pelor isn't falling if he only uses such methods to get the info the once. However: It's still an Evil act. The Paladin has a specific oath that says none of that.

The bit I was first looking at was on page 8 and specifically in reference to casting [Evil] spells.

"Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting
a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an
evil purpose."

So which is it? Is it always an evil act? Or is it sometimes okay?
The real answer is still ask your DM. He's going to have to rule on it either way.

At worst you can argue that you aren't actually casting Consumptive Field. You are casting Limited Wish, an entirely neutral spell that is only creating a similar effect.



Can't you spice it up with a sanctify/purify spell thing?
The Purify Spell feat only adds the [Good] descriptor to the spell. It doesn't take away the [Evil] one and by RAW the two tags do not appear to be mutually exclusive.

[Jack_Simth]

The bit I was first looking at was on page 8 and specifically in reference to casting [Evil] spells.
Yes. In a giant section about gray areas and where lines are drawn. Consider the section on lying:
Lying is not necessarily an evil act, though it is a tool that can easily be used for evil ends. Lying is so easy to use for evil purposes that most knightly codes and the creeds of many good religions forbid it altogether.



"Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting
a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an
evil purpose."

So which is it? Is it always an evil act? Or is it sometimes okay?
"Yes." It's always an Evil act, but that's sometimes OK. Doesn't work out well for Paladins, though. Go ahead and read the Intent and Context section on page 6.

... or maybe just the core section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment) on alignment:

Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful-chaotic axis with the good-evil axis. Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts. (emphasis added)

Also from the descriptors section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor) of the magic overview:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on. (emphasis added)

So... yeah, pretty clearly an evil act, but most good-aligned folks can do an rare evil act without shifting alignment (which, for most, is "without consequence" if they're otherwise not caught). Paladins are an exception, not the norm.

[Doctor Awkward]

Go ahead and read the Intent and Context section on page 6.

Yeah, we can stop after the end of the first paragraph:

"So, does the objective definition of evil imply that intent
plays no part in determining what is good and what isn’t?
Only to a degree."

Nope.
That might be how real life works, but that's not how the rules for D&D work.

D&D operates on a scale of absolute morality, because it has a structured set of rules for which to run games. There are very clearly delineated lists of what constitutes good and evil. There are several entire outer planes that exist solely because of these rules.

Healing another's injuries is always good.
Animating the dead is always evil.
Altruism is good.
Selfishness is evil.
Peace is good.
Random violence is evil.


The text even contradicts itself again a few paragraphs later:

"A glabrezu convinces a good character that the
townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so the character
pours poison into the town’s water supply. Is that evil?
Probably not—"

Yes, it is.
Per the rules, using poison at all is enough to render an act evil. That's why ravages and afflictions exist.

The whole point of the absolute scale of black-and-white morality is that the circumstances and intent of your actions are irrelevant. This is why Miko lost her paladinhood for killing Shinjo. She fully believed she had been shown proof of a conspiracy that had corrupted her city and order from top to bottom. She had a confession of high treason and every good reason to believe he had rigged the system to prevent due process from finding fault in his actions, and a very good reason to believe his actions would lead to the deaths of every citizen of Azure City. Faced with what she "knew" to be true, she took the only action she could to stop him from hurting anyone else. Had she been right, her actions in killing such a horrendously evil being would have been absolutely justified. If D&D were not a system of absolute morality, she might have been forgiven for such a misunderstanding. But it's not, and she was wrong. And her reasons and intent was irrelevant.


So for the purposes of adjudicating the rules, casting an [Evil] spell is either an evil act, or it is not. The chapter on magic says it always is. The chapter laying out the nature of evil says, "Well not always..."

The answer is to ask your DM.

[Zanos]

Any Good character can commit an Evil act and still be Good.

The standard for Paladin abilities is higher. A Paladin can fall and still be LG, even.

Also FCII says that Evil subtyped spells corrupt your soul and stuff. Although I didnt think that casting a spell tagged as Evil being an Evil act would be particularly controversial in a cosmology where Evil is literally something you can touch.

[Boggartbae]

Yeah, we can stop after the end of the first paragraph:

"So, does the objective definition of evil imply that intent
plays no part in determining what is good and what isn’t?
Only to a degree."

Nope.
That might be how real life works, but that's not how the rules for D&D work.

D&D operates on a scale of absolute morality, because it has a structured set of rules for which to run games. There are very clearly delineated lists of what constitutes good and evil. There are several entire outer planes that exist solely because of these rules.

Healing another's injuries is always good.
Animating the dead is always evil.
Altruism is good.
Selfishness is evil.
Peace is good.
Random violence is evil.


The text even contradicts itself again a few paragraphs later:

"A glabrezu convinces a good character that the
townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so the character
pours poison into the town’s water supply. Is that evil?
Probably not—"

Yes, it is.
Per the rules, using poison at all is enough to render an act evil. That's why ravages and afflictions exist.

The whole point of the absolute scale of black-and-white morality is that the circumstances and intent of your actions are irrelevant. This is why Miko lost her paladinhood for killing Shinjo. She fully believed she had been shown proof of a conspiracy that had corrupted her city and order from top to bottom. She had a confession of high treason and every good reason to believe he had rigged the system to prevent due process from finding fault in his actions, and a very good reason to believe his actions would lead to the deaths of every citizen of Azure City. Faced with what she "knew" to be true, she took the only action she could to stop him from hurting anyone else. Had she been right, her actions in killing such a horrendously evil being would have been absolutely justified. If D&D were not a system of absolute morality, she might have been forgiven for such a misunderstanding. But it's not, and she was wrong. And her reasons and intent was irrelevant.


So for the purposes of adjudicating the rules, casting an [Evil] spell is either an evil act, or it is not. The chapter on magic says it always is. The chapter laying out the nature of evil says, "Well not always..."

The answer is to ask your DM.

Intent is neither negligible in determining whether an action is evil, nor is it the be-all and end-all. That's what the first paragraph is saying, and that's why being tricked into poisoning the town is only "probably not evil", and not "definitely not evil".

Also, while morality in DnD is much more black-and-white than it is in the real world, I don't think it's as extreme as you think it is. For instance, the BoED say this about healing wounds on page 83:


Is casting a healing spell a good act? Often, it is: it relieves the suffering of another creature, promoting the life and well being of that creature. Healing spells do not carry the good descriptor, however, because their moral weight depends heavily on circumstances. Healing a blackguard so he can continue to fight a good party is not a good act at all. Like most spells, healing spells can be used for good or evil purposes, so they are not inherently good.

So intent matters, unless it's an evil spell, since the BoVD says this on page 77:


Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be

So if you summon a demon to protect an orphanage, then you are committing an evil act and a good act at the same time, since you are drawing on evil power to protect innocents. Individual actions can be categorized into good and evil, and then the net result of everything that you do will determine your alignment. Paladins are a special case, though, because none of the individual acts they can take can be evil.

[Doctor Awkward]

Intent is neither negligible in determining whether an action is evil, nor is it the be-all and end-all. That's what the first paragraph is saying, and that's why being tricked into poisoning the town is only "probably not evil", and not "definitely not evil".

Also, while morality in DnD is much more black-and-white than it is in the real world, I don't think it's as extreme as you think it is. For instance, the BoED say this about healing wounds on page 83:



So intent matters, unless it's an evil spell, since the BoVD says this on page 77:



So if you summon a demon to protect an orphanage, then you are committing an evil act and a good act at the same time, since you are drawing on evil power to protect innocents. Individual actions can be categorized into good and evil, and then the net result of everything that you do will determine your alignment. Paladins are a special case, though, because none of the individual acts they can take can be evil.

If there is any book that has an even more feeble grasp on the fact that D&D is first a set of rules for playing a game and a set of deontological ethics in a distant second than the Book of Vile Darkness, it's the Book of Exalted Deeds.

For starters, their logic in that quote is operating on a faulty premise. The reason healing spells are not tagged with the [Good] descriptor is because if they were, evil clerics couldn't cast them, and the bad guys would be largely incapable of recovering from the damage that the party inflicts on them in battle. I guarantee that the morality of healing wounds did not even enter the designer's mind when that decision was made.

And the debate is not about the balance of character actions and how evil acts themselves have an overall affect alignment. It's about whether or not casting an [Evil] spell is itself an evil act, something on which the rules offer contradictory advice.

[Boggartbae]

For starters, their logic in that quote is operating on a faulty premise. The reason healing spells are not tagged with the [Good] descriptor is because if they were, evil clerics couldn't cast them, and the bad guys would be largely incapable of recovering from the damage that the party inflicts on them in battle. I guarantee that the morality of healing wounds did not even enter the designer's mind when that decision was made.

That's an assumption you're making though.


And the debate is not about the balance of character actions and how evil acts themselves have an overall affect alignment. It's about whether or not casting an [Evil] spell is itself an evil act, something on which the rules offer contradictory advice.

I know, that's why I included the quote from the magic section of book of vile darkness.


Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be

If you read the whole of page 77 of the BoVD, its pretty clear that fluff plays a big role in defining evil spells

Finally, pages 7-8 of the same book list "Casting Evil Spells" under "Evil Acts", so it's pretty unambiguous that casting an evil spell is an evil act unto itself, and therefor paladins can't use them without losing class features.

[Doctor Awkward]

Finally, pages 7-8 of the same book list "Casting Evil Spells" under "Evil Acts", so it's pretty unambiguous that casting an evil spell is an evil act unto itself, and therefor paladins can't use them without losing class features.

Right... only to then immediately state that "Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose."

Hence, the inconsistency.

[Lapak]

Right... only to then immediately state that "Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose."

Hence, the inconsistency.There is no inconsistency, as others have said. Some non evil spellcasters can get away with a few Evil acts. Paladins, having a specific rule that trumps general ones, cannot.

[Silly Name]

Right... only to then immediately state that "Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose."

Hence, the inconsistency.

The inconstency is there only if you ignore the fact that a paladin is not just any nonevil spellcaster, but the holy knight whose powers derive from being a living incarnation of the ideals of Law and Good every waking moment (and probably even in their sleep).

Most people are allowed to mess up, they get some leeway with their actions and benefit from grey areas. Paladins do not, because they are held to an higher standard than most people, even clerics who serve the same deity as them.

The line you're quoting means that casting one single spell with the [Evil] descriptor doesn't make your alignment switch to Evil. But paladins can fall even without an alignment switch.

[Doctor Awkward]

There is no inconsistency, as others have said. Some non evil spellcasters can get away with a few Evil acts. Paladins, having a specific rule that trumps general ones, cannot.

get away with
phrasal verb of get
escape blame, punishment, or undesirable consequences for (an act that is wrong or mistaken).


The inconstency is there only if you ignore the fact that a paladin is not just any nonevil spellcaster, but the holy knight whose powers derive from being a living incarnation of the ideals of Law and Good every waking moment (and probably even in their sleep).

Most people are allowed to mess up, they get some leeway with their actions and benefit from grey areas. Paladins do not, because they are held to an higher standard than most people, even clerics who serve the same deity as them.

The line you're quoting means that casting one single spell with the [Evil] descriptor doesn't make your alignment switch to Evil. But paladins can fall even without an alignment switch.

You know this how? I don't see "except for paladins" anywhere in that text. It is specifically about nonevil spellcasters which certainly includes paladins.

This isn't about grey areas or a question of morality. It's about the binary nature of the D&D ruleset. As noted, the rules are suggesting that you straight up suffer no consequences so long as your heart is in the right place.

It's precisely "because paladin" that casting an [Evil] spell cannot be both and evil act and "sometimes okay". For their purposes it must be one or the other.

The correct answer is still ask your DM

[Jack_Simth]

You know this how? I don't see "except for paladins" anywhere in that text. It is specifically about nonevil spellcasters which certainly includes paladins.
It doesn't have to put it there. It's the in Paladin entry. Sort of like how Earthquake targets an area... except for a certain golem.

[Segev]

Remind me: is this a thread on the gate spell, or on alignment rules? I know there is some overlap, but I fear we've left that overlap zone behind on the last page somewhere.

[Jack_Simth]

Remind me: is this a thread on the gate spell, or on alignment rules? I know there is some overlap, but I fear we've left that overlap zone behind on the last page somewhere.

Doctor Awkward suggested casting Death Knell and Consumptive Field for caster level boosting to get a really good critter for Gate (see #14) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23369007&postcount=14), and when I pointed out that doesn't work for the OP's specific case because Paladin levels, Doctor Awkward got very insistent that it's ambiguous, and that casting [Evil] spells to gain a temporary boost so you can lay the smack down on someone isn't necessarily an evil act to cause a Paladin to fall. Basically everyone else is saying "Paladin would fall".

But I suppose it is about at the point of dropping it as off-topic.

[Boggartbae]

If we're getting back to Gate, then I have a question: Can you apply templates to things you call with calling spells? If so, then I'm sure that the "best" creature you can get would be very silly.

[Jack_Simth]

If we're getting back to Gate, then I have a question: Can you apply templates to things you call with calling spells? If so, then I'm sure that the "best" creature you can get would be very silly.
Sorta. Calling spells bring real creatures to you, and has no real list of things you can call - it's just set by hit dice and type. So you can call things with templates. That said, there's two big limitations to that:
1) Gate calls real creatures - which means they must exist for you to call them. It's very, very simple to say "no, that 300 template monstrosity doesn't exist in my campaign world, thank-you-very-much" without any actual house rules - it's just world building, same as when he names the King of "Happy Fluffy Bunnyland" "Evil McPuppyKicking MurderMaster the Fifty-sixth"
2) Gate can't compel unique creatures. So even if that "300 template monstrosity" exists, it's equally within the rules for the DM to say "Sure, it exists. Turns out there's only one, though, so you can't control it when it arrives... and it doesn't really like uppity mortals that think they can control it..."
... well, three big limitations: Rule 0 is a thing, after all.