Paladins and Use Magic Device

[Flying Elephant]

I have a couple of questions on paladins and UMD.

1. Can a paladin use an item that is evil/chaotic only? I.E. demon armor
2. Would faking an item that requires a specific race or classbe considered "lying" for a paladin that has vowed not to lie?

[Jasdoif]

1. A paladin could use UMD to avoid the negative level from simply wearing it, yes. However, contagion has the evil descriptor, and using an evil spell is an evil act, so using the armor's contagion-inflicting claws violates the code of conduct.

2. Not necessarily. Non-intelligent magic items aren't intelligent, you can't lie to them anymore then you can lie to a lifeless rock.

[Aquillion]

1. I would say usually no, not without falling, but it depends on the description of the item and why it's usually evil / chaotic only. An object that draws on evil powers is evil to use and can't be used by a Paladin without falling. On the other hand, if an insane wizard made a perfectly normal +1 sword with an enchantment on it that, for no valid reason, prevents it from being used by non-evil characters, I wouldn't have any problem with a Paladin using UMD to use it (assuming a negative answer to your second question, anyway). Most items that require an evil alignment, though, are clearly evil in nature and manifest abilities with the evil descriptor anyway... a Paladin can't knowingly use those things.

2. Er, no? This is such a silly question that the rules aren't going to address it anywhere, but I think most people will agree that normal magical items aren't people, and you are no more 'lying' to it than you would be if you, say, broke open the lock on your front door because you forgot your key. You're invalidating the warranty, but that's all. (I suppose sentient objects might be an exception, but then you'd probably be making a bluff check and not a UMD check anyway.)

[Hario]

you can use it, just wear a helmet of opposite alignment, and It'll be the smartest thing you ever done, besides you'll have a better PrC in another level anyways..

[Flying Elephant]

Ok, thanks.

[Rigeld2]

However, contagion has the evil descriptor, and using an evil spell is an evil act, so using the armor's contagion-inflicting claws violates the code of conduct.

Using an evil spell being an evil act is not RAW.

[Indon]

Using an evil spell being an evil act is not RAW.

If that's seriously not Rules As Written, then I would personally rule it as being a part of Rules So Obvious As To Not Need To Be Written.

Or RSOSTNNTEW for short.

[Assassinfox]

Using an evil spell being an evil act is not RAW.

Play a Ravenloft campaign and see how long you can keep your character while slinging around Evil spells.

[Telonius]

If you have access to the Book of Exalted Deeds, check it out. It provides some rules on "redeeming" evil items (Demon Armor is the example given, if I remember correctly).

EDIT: There's an article on Wizards that discusses the issue of Evil items here, though it's a little tangential to the topic.

[Jasdoif]

Using an evil spell being an evil act is not RAW.

Took me forever, but I finally found where I read it: Book of Exalted Deeds, near the beginning.

The use of evil spells, obviously, is not good even when the target is evil.

Admittedly not as clearcut as I'd have hoped....

[Aquillion]

Using an evil spell being an evil act is not RAW.

From the SRD:

Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.

...

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.

That could be clearer, but it still seems fairly straightforward to me. An alignment-based descriptor on a spell indicates that it 'interacts' with player alignment in that fashion when used; ergo, casting an evil-descriptor spell is an evil act.

...hrm, well. On second thought. It seems fairly absurd to suggest that casting a spell with a good descriptor is automatically a good act... now I don't know...

But, still. If the evil descriptor doesn't mean that a spell is evil to use, then what does it mean?

...in any case, the point is somewhat moot. 99% of the time, when a spell or ability has an Evil descriptor, that spell also has effects that are flatly evil, descriptor or no. Contagion is a case in point: Deliberately infecting people with diseases to win a battle is fairly evil (and is a grossly dishonorable way to fight, to boot.) Deliberately using something that casts Contagion would probably cause a Paladin to fall regardless of all other concerns.

Or, in other words: No, your Paladin cannot engage in biological warfare.

[Rigeld2]

That could be clearer, but it still seems fairly straightforward to me. An alignment-based descriptor on a spell indicates that it 'interacts' with player alignment in that fashion when used; ergo, casting an evil-descriptor spell is an evil act.

Or... you could go with the provided rule that says clerics of a good alignment cant cast [evil] spells. See? It interacts with alignment, and is RAW.

...hrm, well. On second thought. It seems fairly absurd to suggest that casting a spell with a good descriptor is automatically a good act... now I don't know...

But, still. If the evil descriptor doesn't mean that a spell is evil to use, then what does it mean?

That clerics of good alignment cant cast them. Thats it.

Took me forever, but I finally found where I read it: Book of Exalted Deeds, near the beginning.

And if I dont use the BoED in my games...? Becuase I rarely do. Its not worth having someone think they can play an exalted character, screw up, fall, and bitch for the next 3 weeks because thier build is useless now.

[Latronis]

well it's not Core RAW

but it certainly should fall under
Rules So Obvious As To Not Need To Be Written (TM Indon)

And i ignore the book of exalted crap on principle, and the evil descriptor is thrown around far too often for my tastes

But when something is specifically designated as [EVIL] then it should be fairly obvious that the paladin at the least can't use it.

[daggaz]

I would say definitely that casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act. The spell is evil, it feels dirty, and it's use is almost always a negative thing (even if you are slaying an enemy, its a horrible way to die etc..).

On the other hand, I would say the same for spells with the good descriptor.

CORE only, what demon goes around consecrating or blessing water? Casting holy word (heh that one definitely will mess him up)? Dispel Evil anyone? Hallow or Holy Aura?

Tho you could always find some special circumstance where you could see it happening, evil on evil, still... generally its a good spell, and has good results, and is cast by good characters (or neutrals who lean a tad to good right there).

[Renegade Paladin]

you can use it, just wear a helmet of opposite alignment, and It'll be the smartest thing you ever done, besides you'll have a better PrC in another level anyways..

I am sick and tired of hearing this. If he wants to play a paladin (and his DM will let him), he can do so. There's no need to be counterproductive here.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Fiendish Codex II suggests that getting non-evil creatures to cast [Evil] spells is a measure used by Devils to corrupt these creatures and push them towards evil alignment.

[Belkarseviltwin]

I would say definitely that casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act. The spell is evil, it feels dirty, and it's use is almost always a negative thing (even if you are slaying an enemy, its a horrible way to die etc..).

What about Deathwatch? What's evil in finding out who needs healing first?

[Assassinfox]

What about Deathwatch? What's evil in finding out who needs healing first?

Every time you cast that spell, a baby gets SIDS.

Seriously, I think Wizards wasn't thinking when they gave Deathwatch the Evil descriptor.

[levi]

Using UMD simply to use an item without ill effects isn't evil. Using powers based on spells with the [evil] descriptor might be. The way I tack alignment is such that a single incident of this sort won't make you fall unless you where on the borderline already. Instead, it'll push you step towards that direction. But the system I use isn't RAW anyway so it's moot.

As for deathwatch having the evil descriptor, I'm stumped. My guess it that some overworked game designer saw necromancy, read the first line "Using the foul sight granted by the powers of undeath..." and slapped it on there. One more thing I need to house rule, I guess.

[Kantolin]

Contagion is a case in point: Deliberately infecting people with diseases to win a battle is fairly evil

But with poison the spell, it's perfectly okay. ^_^

[Fizban]

And while the poison spell is okay, actual poison is evil. You get special ravages that only hurt the bad people with unnecessary pain for it to be good. ^_^

[Mewtarthio]

Seriously, I think Wizards wasn't thinking when they gave Deathwatch the Evil descriptor.

For more Deatwatch fun, check out the Repose domain. "Granted by good deities whose clerics are barred from casting [Evil] spells." What's that first domain spell, they get, again?

"Here you go, good and faithful servantl!"
"Awesome! I'm a cleric now!"
"That's right! Here, have a domain spell!"
"Thank you, Lord! Let me try it out..."
"Blasphemous fool! How dare you perform such a vile deed!"
"But you--"
"I strip you of all your power! May you suffer in the deepest layer of the Abyss for the rest of eternity for this crime most foul!"

[Matthew]

That is hilarious. I have never noticed that before.