Feat: See no Evil 3.x?

[Cipher Stars]

Just a quicky.


See no Evil:
You simply don't see how something is evil, like Necromancy. "Whats so wrong about animating dead flesh? You animate fire and earth all the time."
A person with this feat may not see something as evil, and use it normally without fear of corruption and it just doesn't effect your overall personality and characteristics. No alignment changes from casting evil spells, and you can count as evil when beneficial such as meeting prerequisites for a class or prestige.
Benefit: You can use [evil] spells and abilities normally and without shifting alignment and count as evil when beneficial.
Special: doesn't effect god-given powers such as divine spellcasting in which you don't have a say in whether or not you can take a spell. Neither does it effect otherwise evil acts such as killing innocents, or making a pact with a demon.

[jiriku]

Casting [evil] spells already has no effect on your alignment?

From BoVD: "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."

From BoED: "Good spells don't have any redemptive influence on those who cast them, for better or worse."

From PHB: "A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells." This implies that neutral clerics of neutral deities can cast both [good] and [evil] spells.

[Cipher Stars]

Casting [evil] spells already has no effect on your alignment?

From BoVD: "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."

From BoED: "Good spells don't have any redemptive influence on those who cast them, for better or worse."

From PHB: "A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells." This implies that neutral clerics of neutral deities can cast both [good] and [evil] spells.

This is for abilities, commonly found in homebrew, that force alignment change for using some ability at a lame excuse for balancing that I'm pretty sure I've done plenty of as well. maybe. And for campaigns in which DM's have such a flaw.

[jiriku]

Ah, well then, grab yourself a bag of rats and a persistent greater consumptive field, and make merry!

[sonofzeal]

I totally have a character who already has this....

[137ben]

Cool. I hate abilities that make you instantly change alignments, so a feat that specifically counters this is perfect (unless you are playing an archer/two-weapon-melee-character/other build with no feats to spare).

[NeoSeraphi]

I wonder how this would work with your PrC between the Tendersoul and the Voidsoul? (Can't remember the name) Guess you'd automatically be Judged as Good at the end of it.

By the way, I like your new avatar

[Cipher Stars]

I wonder how this would work with your PrC between the Tendersoul and the Voidsoul? (Can't remember the name) Guess you'd automatically be Judged as Good at the end of it.

By the way, I like your new avatar

All it does is prevent the semi-foolsh "Oh, you used xxx, sorry but your evil now."
Using the Tornsoul as an example, you'd still get Sin points for performing a evil spell/ritual/ability. you just wont see it as evil and as such it will have no effect on your alignment for using it.

[Shadow Lord]

Tornsoul is awesome. Nice feat you've got here. Does it allow people with codes to break their codes and retain their powers?

[Cipher Stars]

Tornsoul is awesome. Nice feat you've got here. Does it allow people with codes to break their codes and retain their powers?

Thats not determined by them, but by they're order or what not. And as for Vows, your already vowing against something, so no there as well.

[Yitzi]

Does this allow a good cleric (or cleric of a good deity) to channel negative energy (since that probably doesn't come from the deity)?
Should it allow a good cleric of a neutral deity to cast [Evil] spells?

[SowZ]

Seems like it would be easier just to have a looser interpretation of alignment then some. I'm not sure why you would need a feat to have a certain outlook on life. /:

[Cipher Stars]

Does this allow a good cleric (or cleric of a good deity) to channel negative energy (since that probably doesn't come from the deity)?
Should it allow a good cleric of a neutral deity to cast [Evil] spells?

Yes, a good should be able to Rebuke undead and channel Inflict spells (I think thats more a representation of channeling negative energy, and not god-given power)

And no, I already said it wont change god-given powers, namely good clerics being given evil spells.

[deuxhero]

Eh, DM's call to allow homebrew, and if they don't have a problem with it, they should just axe the stupid restrictions in the first place.

[Yitzi]

And no, I already said it wont change god-given powers, namely good clerics being given evil spells.

The question is whether you meant it won't change god-given powers that are banned because the god in question doesn't like them, or even includes god-given powers that the god in question has no problem with.

[Elboxo]

Conscecrate spell - p79 Complete Divine [ Adds good Descriptor to spell, uses a spell slot higher than normal ]
Combined with easy metamagic - [ Reduce cost of metamagic by one spell level ] Can't remember source, my DM uses and allows this... might be from Dragon mags..

All spells now have good descriptor, be a real bastard and get Spell Focus [Good] from p46 BoED to get +2 DC on all spells with the good descriptor.....

[Cipher Stars]

Eh, DM's call to allow homebrew, and if they don't have a problem with it, they should just axe the stupid restrictions in the first place.

Much simpler and something I'd already do unless the player wants such an object for fluff.
However some DM's like "Hard Copies"

[Yitzi]

Much simpler and something I'd already do unless the player wants such an object for fluff.
However some DM's like "Hard Copies"

How may of those allow homebrew material?

[hamishspence]

Casting [evil] spells already has no effect on your alignment?

From BoVD: "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."

From BoED: "Good spells don't have any redemptive influence on those who cast them, for better or worse."

From PHB: "A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells." This implies that neutral clerics of neutral deities can cast both [good] and [evil] spells.

This is more for the short term.

The malconvoker PRC in Complete Scoundrel specifically states that the class, as a special ability, is immune to alignment change from repeatedly casting [Evil] summoning spells.

Hence, the default position is that if a character repeatedly casts [evil] spells they are, at least, "at risk" of changing alignment.

The Eberron Campaign Setting states that while all clerics can cast spells of any alignment, clerics are "still" at risk of changing alignment for casting [evil] spells repeatedly.

So- the See No Evil feat, is basically a homebrew version of the Malconvoker special ability, only better- it affects all [evil] spells and powers, rather than just summoning ones.

[peacenlove]

Hellbred's racial ability, Evil excempt, lets him use evil items and spells without penalties or fear of alignment shift, as long as he doesn't break his class oaths (example: a paladin). That should be a good balancing factor since racial abilities are almost always weaker than a feat.

[Yitzi]

This is more for the short term.

The malconvoker PRC in Complete Scoundrel specifically states that the class, as a special ability, is immune to alignment change from repeatedly casting [Evil] summoning spells.

Hence, the default position is that if a character repeatedly casts [evil] spells they are, at least, "at risk" of changing alignment.

The way I understand it, casting an [evil] spell is an evil act, so just like someone who constantly steals from orphans would be of evil alignment, so too someone who constantly summons demons is of evil alignment (in both cases it's circumstance-dependent, of course.)

[hamishspence]

Indeed. It's much less evil than stealing from orphans though-

the Corrupt act list in Fiendish Codex 2 lists "stealing from the needy" as a 2 point corrupt act- whereas casting an [Evil] spell is 1 point- comparable to "humiliating an enemy" or "intimidating torture" (torture that does no damage).

And Heroes of Horror suggests that while Dread Necromancers are built around committing Evil acts (casting Evil spells, slowly transforming oneself into an undead) they can balance evil acts with good acts and good intentions, and remain solidly Neutral.

It says the same about "the antihero" who is "probably neither Good or Evil but a flexible Neutral" for the same reasons.

So it probably falls into "Evil, but not enough to guarantee an evil alignment, if the rest of their behaviour is generally Good".

[SowZ]

The way I understand it, casting an [evil] spell is an evil act, so just like someone who constantly steals from orphans would be of evil alignment, so too someone who constantly summons demons is of evil alignment (in both cases it's circumstance-dependent, of course.)

Evil spells aren't morally wrong. I think just about any player could come up with countless examples of it being good. And why would summoning zombies to kill an evil threat be any different then stabbing that threat, ethically?

[NeoSeraphi]

Evil spells aren't morally wrong. I think just about any player could come up with countless examples of it being good. And why would summoning zombies to kill an evil threat be any different then stabbing that threat, ethically?

Summoning undead isn't evil. Creating undead is very evil. The two are different. Creating an undead involves desecrating remains, as well as forcing an unwilling soul into a decaying body and forcing it do your bidding...it's like saying "turning someone into a mummy is kind of evil, but not so evil that it's EVIL evil. Same thing with Trap the Soul and Dominate Person. But if you put them all together...well...that's pretty evil, actually"

[Yitzi]

Evil spells aren't morally wrong. I think just about any player could come up with countless examples of it being good. And why would summoning zombies to kill an evil threat be any different then stabbing that threat, ethically?

Congratulations, you've just taken this feat!

The idea, though, is that it calls upon profane powers or negative energy or the like (Symbol of Pain seems to be an exception, and I really have no clue why it has the Evil descriptor when it is actually a viable combat option.)

Essentially, the question (for creating undead) becomes "why is negative energy linked to evil?" And the answer boils down to "because that's how the setting is." You could just as easily make a setting where positive and negative energy are morally neutral, and then undead creation would not have the Evil descriptor.

[hamishspence]

Summoning undead isn't evil. Creating undead is very evil. The two are different. Creating an undead involves desecrating remains, as well as forcing an unwilling soul into a decaying body and forcing it do your bidding...it's like saying "turning someone into a mummy is kind of evil, but not so evil that it's EVIL evil. Same thing with Trap the Soul and Dominate Person. But if you put them all together...well...that's pretty evil, actually"

Technically all the Summon Undead spells have the Evil descriptor.

And the Corruption system in FC2 doesn't specially specify undead creation as being more evil than simply casting evil spells.

So, as written, all evil spells have the same (very low) corruption rating.

There's some support for the notion that a neutral character can create undead, turn themselves over time into an undead- and still stay Neutral- the description of the Dread Necromancer class.

According to Complete Divine, turning a body into a skeleton, zombie, or various other undead, doesn't actually affect the victim's soul- it stays in the afterlife doing what it's already doing.

A few undead (especially ones with a Spawn ability) do have a trapped soul, though. Shadows, wights, wraiths, vampires, and so forth.

Others have a soul in full control of the body (liches, mummies).

[Analytica]

IIRC, there is a FR feat for clerics of Cyric that does this. They are convinced that they are not evil, despite doing evil things. Not sure where it was from, maybe Champions of Ruin?

I would also let this feat make you count as Evil for prerequisites whenever it is beneficial to you. I.e. you could take Ur-Priest levels or such without having an Evil alignment. What you do with those levels might still make you Evil, but you do not have to be Evil to start dabbling.

[hamishspence]

Veil of Cyric is in either Champions of Ruin or Waterdeep- City of Splendours.

It also causes a character to detect as not evil- within certain limitations.

There's also a feat that causes characters to detect as Neutral (or rather, not detect as aligned), without those limitations, that can be taken by characters of any alignment- in Exemplars of Evil.

[Blue Ghost]

So... would this feat allow exalted characters to cast evil spells?

[hamishspence]

The way it's written it's a bit ambiguous. "Doing evil deeds without fear of corruption" or "Doing evil deeds without risk of changing alignment" doesn't change the general principle that Exalted powers are lost if the Exalted character commits an evil deed.

Maybe it should be worded so that it does?