Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
Not quite.

I am arguing that there is as much justification for a post-hoc "casting [good] spells increases the ambient good in the world" as there is for a post-hoc "casting [evil] spells increases the ambient evil in the world," when either is used to justify a spell being labeled [good] or [evil] because the actual effect of the spell (or requirements of its casting) fails to actually be good or evil.
First, even if the direct effects or requirements of a spell do not have a demonstrable moral impact, it is still possible that the indirect ones can, and that those effects can exist for spells that animate undead. That is the case here.

Second, however reasonable such equal justification may be to you, the designers have consciously chosen not to go with it, and so good spells have a different (i.e. weaker) impact on the world than evil ones do. It is a common fantasy trope that the path to evil is easier and faster, and it is an equally common trope that perpetrators of evil acts care less for the unintended or indirect consequences of their actions than those trying to do good, who need to take more factors into consideration.

Third and final, the issue here is not merely "[Evil]" spells. The line about making the world a darker and more evil place from BoVD does not actually apply to all [Evil] spells - rather, it focuses on the ones that create or animate undead. There is no corresponding [Good] spell that can counteract that effect by RAW, and spells that make undead are considered evil acts whether they have the descriptor or not, just like undead themselves detect as evil regardless of their alignment.