Why is creating undead Evil?

[Segev]

There remains no reason for these spells to have that side function. It is pointless. It's just there to make you wear the team jersey for no good reason. Hence: bad design.

[hamishspence]

It's worth remembering that the Kiss of the Vampire spell does not have the [evil] subtype despite the fact that it also "calls upon the powers of unlife" to a much greater degree than the Deathwatch spell does.


The Deathwatch spell basically changes your vision to "the vision of the undead".


The Kiss of the Vampire spell changes so much of you to undead that any spell designed to work on the undead works on you, you become vulnerable to Turn and Rebuke, and you gain a whole slew of vampiric powers.


I see Protection from Good as deserving of the [Evil] subtype because it relies on the fact that [evil] works best against [good].

The most effective way to repel good beings, magically speaking, is with [evil].

[Satinavian]

If one really wants to do that whole tainted by evil and evil energy is corruptive stuff, they should just use the taint rules from HoH. The regular alignment system is not meant for that. There is nothing in there that says having done evil compells people to do more evil or evil people have problems doing good or that only good people actually have free will.

[hamishspence]

BOVD's rules for "environmental evil" are more the "regular alignment system" than the Taint system.


Doing evil doesn't compel you to do more evil, no.

The following 3.0 to 3.5 sources suggest that casting [Evil] spells puts the character at risk of changing alignment or of going to the Lower Planes after death.


BoVD
Complete Scoundrel
Eberron Campaign Setting
Fiendish Codex 2
Champions of Ruin

[icefractal]

I think maybe the test for "does this evil justify itself in a non-arbitrary sense" could be:
If you renamed evil to a fake word like "Zoop", so certain spells had a the [Zoop] tag, we talked about lingering Zoop auras and Protection from Anti-Zoop, and so forth ...
Would someone reading the material get the impression "this Zoop stuff seems pretty evil" or not?

[Satinavian]

B
The following 3.0 to 3.5 sources suggest that casting [Evil] spells puts the character at risk of changing alignment or of going to the Lower Planes after death.

Yes, but the discussion has moved from that. To "the spell is evil because casting it makes the character more likely to do other Evil things". And that is not how most sources treat the alignments or the alignment tagged spels. And it is not a good direction overall.

[hamishspence]

I think maybe the test for "does this evil justify itself in a non-arbitrary sense" could be:
If you renamed evil to a fake word like "Zoop", so certain spells had a the [Zoop] tag, we talked about lingering Zoop auras and Protection from Anti-Zoop, and so forth ...
Would someone reading the material get the impression "this Zoop stuff seems pretty evil" or not?

If they read the whole list (and the list of things "Evil pollution" does in BOVD) I believe they would, even if for some individual examples, they'd look pretty arbitrary.

[Segev]

I see Protection from Good as deserving of the [Evil] subtype because it relies on the fact that [evil] works best against [good].

The most effective way to repel good beings, magically speaking, is with [evil].

For emphasis, I agree with this, and find it aligned with my "mindset" idea regarding the protection spells: you're protecting yourself from Good by deliberately taking what evil you can muster in your heart and using magic to magnify and shroud yourself in it and drive Good things back/hedge them from touching you. It requires you to foment evil in your mind and heart to make it work, thus requiring a real but minor evil act of self-corruption. I limit this, again, to the protection spells because I am thinking of specific acts to align spell's castings, not of universal singular causes for all aligned tags (beyond "you have to be doing something evil to cast an [evil] spell").

If they read the whole list (and the list of things "Evil pollution" does in BOVD) I believe they would, even if for some individual examples, they'd look pretty arbitrary.

Perhaps, but the fact that certain ones seem arbitrary would, if you didn't know it was a replacement for the word 'evil,' mean that you might doubt whether Zoop actually represented evil or not; the seemingly-arbitrary examples would be counter-examples to the notion that Zoop is evil. Zoop can, after all, be used for good without ever doing anything evil at all. You could have a fully-heroic, good, noble person using a whole heck of a lot of Zoop, even as his primary modus operendi, and not ever even suspect him of being anything but a shining paragon of morality.

[hamishspence]

The fact that all clerics with the Good domain, and all Good-aligned clerics, are incapable of casting [Evil] spells from their cleric slots, may be of interest.


I do think that "a minor but real act of self-corruption" is the best way of thinking of all [Evil] spells though.

[Segev]

The fact that all clerics with the Good domain, and all Good-aligned clerics, are incapable of casting [Evil] spells from their cleric slots, may be of interest.

Sadly, we've already established that [good] and [evil] tags behave quite differently. [Good] spells don't "corrupt" you towards good by casting them, per the RAW.

do think that "a minor but real act of self-corruption" is the best way of thinking of all [Evil] spells though.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they should be copped out by saying "and it's 'cause they all leak cosmic evil into your soul and require nothing else from you."

The reason it works for protection spells is because the proposed "mindset" thing can thematically and realistically explain the ability to hedge out the opposed alignment. The reason it doesn't work for animate dead is because you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to justify why a "mindset" is specifically required for that, and that mindset has to be one of corruptive evil. It is better to have an overt act that is thematically related to necromancy, death, and/or animation which is itself the minor but real act of self-corruption, in the same sense that kicking a puppy just to get a spell effect is a minor but real act of self-corruption.

[hamishspence]

Sadly, we've already established that [good] and [evil] tags behave quite differently. [Good] spells don't "corrupt" you towards good by casting them, per the RAW.

True. But all 4 [tags] have one thing in common - a cleric of a deity with the tag, cannot cast spells from the opposing tag at all.


I figure it makes thematic sense for Good spells not "corrupting one to Good" because good respects free will, at least mostly.

For an Upper Planes portal, for example, to be turning Neutral creatures to Good without their consent (the way a Lower Planes portal does in BOVD) would come across as downright tyrannical.

[Segev]

True. But all 4 [tags] have one thing in common - a cleric of a deity with the tag, cannot cast spells from the opposing tag at all.


I figure it makes thematic sense for Good spells not "corrupting one to Good" because good respects free will, at least mostly.

For an Upper Planes portal, for example, to be turning Neutral creatures to Good without their consent (the way a Lower Planes portal does in BOVD) would come across as downright tyrannical.

The cleric thing is likely due to the sources of their powers, and the nature of their faith. Also, in both cases, I'd prefer it if the portals and the spells required you to willingly consent to the "corruption" (or, rather, in Good's case, be actively seeking purification) to use them.

But meh. I don't think I'm saying anything new here.

[mashlagoo1982]

Maybe an alternate version of the spell could be created that would help to remove all the objectives most people have towards the spell being evil?

From what I remember reading, the potential problems are below:
- Unnatural or mockery or life
- Uses Cosmic Evil / Negative / something similar
- Does not take into account desire of the deceased
- Can be easily taken control and used for evil purposes
- If left to own devices, will attack living
- Prevents the spirit from being brought back
- May cause pain or suffering to... something? (spirit, part of spirit, etc)
- Unpleasant to behold


Something like the following example spell (much of it needs work). It doesn't address everything, but it could be a step closer towards something acceptable.
I could see the spell below being used by more wealthy individuals to help with the grieving process or just assist a family in general.
I'm sure this is OP somehow and could be abused.

Animate Life
Conjuration [Good]
Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M, MF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Targets: One or more corpses touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Yes
Spell Resistance: Yes
This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into animated bodies that resemble the recently deceased in their peak physical condition.

The undead will behave in a manner similar to the individual that inhabited the body. The animated body does not house the soul of the deceased, but will contain all the memories of the deceased up to the point of death. The animated body will behave exactly like the original individual except where noted below. While this spell is in effect, the original spirit may not be returned to life through any method.

- The animated body knows what it is and will act accordingly.
- The animated body is not capable of attacking other individuals.
- The animated body is unable to use magic or spell-like abilities.
- The animated body, while displaying peak physical condition, is not physically very capable. Simple physical tasks can be performed, but nothing overly taxing as the body does not naturally recover from usage.

You can't create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate life. (The consecrate spell doubles this limit)

The undead you create retain their own control indefinitely and cannot be commanded through any magical methods.

Material Component
You must place a black onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per Hit Die of the undead into the mouth or eye socket of each corpse you intend to animate. The magic of the spell turns these gems into worthless, burned-out shells.

Material Focus
You must acquire a legitimate legal binding contract that requests the body of the deceased be used for the purpose of this spell by an authorized authority (deceased, family, other authorized by deceased, etc). Upon casting the spell, this contract becomes a permeant focus of the magic animating the body. Destroying this contract will return the body to its state before the spell Animate Life was cast. The spirit of the deceased body may also destroy the contract at any time (without fail or error), thus causing the body to return to its pre-cast state.

[hamishspence]

in both cases, I'd prefer it if the portals and the spells required you to willingly consent to the "corruption" (or, rather, in Good's case, be actively seeking purification) to use them.

Evil trampling over free will, at least wherever it can, seems very in-character for Evil, to me.


It isn't using the Lower Planes Portal that causes N characters to become E - it's the mere presence of the portal. Though it is possible, from the way it is worded, that it is only at the moment the portal is finished, that Neutral people nearby are changed to Evil by a burst of Evil energy. The construction of the portal, rather than its presence per se.

[Eldonauran]

Personally, I don't see the problem with a fundamental force of [Evil] being capable of slowly (or quickly) overriding the alignment of creatures. Or any fundamental alignment force for that matter (though it make sense that if Good is the pinnacle of achievement, it wouldn't necessarily force change). Unlike Elemental forces that reside within the Inner Planes (and are part of what make up the Material Realm), like [Cold] [Fire] [Acid] [Electricity] [Negative] [Positive] etc, etc, alignment forces stem from the Outer Planes, a place that mortals typically only directly interact with after they have died and shed their mortal form (insert [magic] for exceptions). While elemental forces like [Fire] simply are what they are, alignment is something you attune yourself to through your choices and actions in the mortal realm (again, insert [magic] for exceptions).

In this manner, moral choices for Good and Evil are still moral choices and have actual meaning. They don't corrupt your body, they only shape the resonance of your soul and conscious ([magic] exceptions). However, once you bring in magic that calls on these forces, it shorts out the normal circuits of the system and exposes you directly to the unfiltered energies that are best left to the Outer Planes. Those energies easily interact with your soul and are concentrated enough to directly effect your body at that point.

Questions of personal agency at this point are really moot. Why? Because in the face of this energy, you either resist the power through your own will (you can FAIL at this) or you accept it (and yes, using that energy is accepting it). Just because you don't like what it can do to you doesn't matter. You are playing with fundamental forces, similar to and yet of a higher order than elemental forces. Fundamental forces that wrap even the gods into categories that align with them. The entire afterlife and cosmology revolve around these forces.

In the end, you may feel that Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are simply arbitrary standards set up by some being and don't really mean anything in the grand scope of things. To the end, you might even be correct. Morality and ethics are things we can't even agree about in the real world. Even our own standards of good and evil are subjective to a degree, because it all comes down to our personal feelings on the issues. Objectivity morality requires that there be an objective standard in which we measure ourselves against. It doesn't matter if that standard is one handed to us by an all powerful and (arguably) benevolent supreme being, or one that is agreed upon by all of us. It is still 'made up' by something in the end.

So, why does Animate Dead have the [Evil] tag? Yes, the authors thought it deserved it. Why? Because it is a spell that directly interacts with forces in the universe that diametrically oppose the natural order of things (life -> death -> afterlife) and create things who sole purpose is to consume the very energy that gives life to the universe (barring some rare exceptions), though things can be controlled to a degree. Perhaps the authors, in their 'wisdom' thought that this violation of the natural order would garner the attention of the [Evil] forces in the universe and allow it to lend its power to the spell, finding a short cut into the world through a ritual that disrupts the natural order already. Perhaps there is another reason. Or perhaps you just need to be willing to perform such a violation, which attunes your soul to the [Evil] in the universe a bit more, and that is why it radiates evil when you cast it. Perhaps that moral choice is that you KNOW that this spell calls on forces that want to feed off the living (again, exceptions), and even though you think you can control them and do a bit of good with those powers, you are still willing to risk these things getting out of control and doing what they do (un)naturally. Your intent is good but it is all about what you are willing to do to accomplish your ends. A basic moral issue.

[hamishspence]

And it goes right back to Gygax - even before spell subtypes existed, even when animated skeletons were Neutral, there was this idea that "only evil people cast Animate Dead regularly".

[Segev]

Morality and ethics are often agreed upon. The trouble with the arbitrary team jersey approach is that it invites a characterization that plainly violates agreed-upon morals and etics and still is fiat-labeled "lawful good."

Again, if you can relabel "cosmic evil" as "zoop," and then design a character who extensively uses zoop but is obviously a stand-up guy, you've failed in the design of cosmic evil. If you can re able "cosmic good" as "fwee" and have an aagonist who exclusively uses fwee things but is obviously horribly wicked, then fwee clearly is not good. Fwee is therefore a failure to implement cosmic good.

[Eldonauran]

Morality and ethics are often agreed upon. The trouble with the arbitrary team jersey approach is that it invites a characterization that plainly violates agreed-upon morals and etics and still is fiat-labeled "lawful good."

I touched on how morality and ethics are often agreed upon. That being so makes them no less subjective that someone else just making them up. In D&D, there is an objective alignment system. The universe itself literally enforces it. Our 'real world' morals and ethics need to take a backseat if you are ever going to get any kind of satisfaction from playing within the game system.

Again, if you can relabel "cosmic evil" as "zoop," and then design a character who extensively uses zoop but is obviously a stand-up guy, you've failed in the design of cosmic evil. If you can re able "cosmic good" as "fwee" and have an aagonist who exclusively uses fwee things but is obviously horribly wicked, then fwee clearly is not good. Fwee is therefore a failure to implement cosmic good.

I think the problem is you don't want to accept the basic paradigms that are built into the system. I get that you like the Animate Dead spell to have the [Evil] tag and want something moral to tie into the spell to satisfy an itch that just doesnt sit right with you. That is a personal preference that has no overall bearing on the fact that moral and cosmic evil are simply two different faces of the same thing. Using the power of Evil is going to make you Evil (generally) regardless of how much you pretend to be a stand-up guy, or delude yourself that you are still doing good. Your intentions and actions are not the only things that will change your alignment in this game. Exposure to [Evil] itself can do that. If you can't accept that, then you can't accept the reality that is built into the game.

[Segev]

I touched on how morality and ethics are often agreed upon. That being so makes them no less subjective that someone else just making them up. In D&D, there is an objective alignment system. The universe itself literally enforces it. Our 'real world' morals and ethics need to take a backseat if you are ever going to get any kind of satisfaction from playing within the game system.


I think the problem is you don't want to accept the basic paradigms that are built into the system. I get that you like the Animate Dead spell to have the [Evil] tag and want something moral to tie into the spell to satisfy an itch that just doesnt sit right with you. That is a personal preference that has no overall bearing on the fact that moral and cosmic evil are simply two different faces of the same thing. Using the power of Evil is going to make you Evil (generally) regardless of how much you pretend to be a stand-up guy, or delude yourself that you are still doing good. Your intentions and actions are not the only things that will change your alignment in this game. Exposure to [Evil] itself can do that. If you can't accept that, then you can't accept the reality that is built into the game.

We're actually talking past each other, here.

My point on objective morality needing to be non-arbitrary has more to do with how you determine something is evil. If your categorization rules for "what is evil?" need to include special cases that don't line up with any of the other rules, but say "this specific thing is evil, even though it wouldn't be without a rule covering it, specifically," then you have a bad categorization system.

My objection to this kind of arbitrary "objective" morality is that it means you don't really have an objective morality system; you have a legal system that is only as related to morality as the person who wrote it wanted it to be. And frankly, I've seen too many stories where the "holy" side is actually corrupt, evil, and cruel and the "unholy" side is just oppressed victims who are actually pretty nice. But the story tries to create some sort of moral dilemma in choosing to aid the "demons" because they're #defined EVIL. Often this is trying to make some sort of point about "too much good" being somehow a problem because it ... leads to bad things that, if it weren't "objectively good" doing it, would be unquestionably evil by just about any modern standard.

[137beth]

I think maybe the test for "does this evil justify itself in a non-arbitrary sense" could be:
If you renamed evil to a fake word like "Zoop", so certain spells had a the [Zoop] tag, we talked about lingering Zoop auras and Protection from Anti-Zoop, and so forth ...
Would someone reading the material get the impression "this Zoop stuff seems pretty evil" or not?

May I put this quote in my extended sig?

[Satinavian]

And it goes right back to Gygax - even before spell subtypes existed, even when animated skeletons were Neutral, there was this idea that "only evil people cast Animate Dead regularly".

Gygax has done a lot with alignment that we ditched over new editions and books. And i hardly ever see anyone wanting it back, not even for retroclones.

[hamishspence]

The point is that it's not a case of 3.0e or 3.5e introducing something new that contradicts everything said before.

[mashlagoo1982]

Would it be helpful to analyze the descriptors themselves?

I have done some basic research and found little to no information about them.

Segev, you bring up other examples of what would be assumed to be opposing descriptors (water & fire).
However, I see no rules for the descriptors that suggest their should be a problem.
I would expect these two would come into conflict, but it doesn't seem to be because of the descriptors.

It seems that the descriptors are just that... descriptive and not prescriptive. (<-- please correct me if I am wrong and note source)
The weird exception to this seems to be when the game calls them out like alignment rules.
The more I look into them the more I think this part of the game serves little to no purpose.

Side Note: Fun little question... if it existed, how would you classify an elemental if it was made of lava?
Other Side Note: Elementals don't seem to use descriptors. The closest is that Fire Elementals can't move on bodies of water or other nonflammable liquid. I expected fire to at least receive extra damage from spells with the [Water] descriptor.

Lucky for me, they have not really come up in my games... so my lack of understanding has been of no impact.

There are some old threads that discuss this topic as well (not going into thread necro... that would be [Evil]).

I have included the full list of descriptors I found (PHB 174).
Acid
Air
Chaotic
Cold
Darkness
Death
Earth
Electricity
Evil
Fear
Fire
Force
Good
Language-Dependent
Lawful
Light
Mind-Affecting
Sonic
Water

Can anyone provide more clarification?

[Segev]

Segev, you bring up other examples of what would be assumed to be opposing descriptors (water & fire).
However, I see no rules for the descriptors that suggest their should be a problem.
I would expect these two would come into conflict, but it doesn't seem to be because of the descriptors.

It seems that the descriptors are just that... descriptive and not prescriptive. (<-- please correct me if I am wrong and note source)

It is likely they were largely used like that, and some (like the [evil] tag) got extra prescriptive rules applied.

You'll note that my own preferred setting/mechanics tie-in for the [evil] descriptor is descriptive, not prescriptive, as well. My entire point has been that a spell that has the [evil] descriptor needs to, because of what that descriptor describes the spell as doing, have some sort of evil act associated with casting it. And that evil act needs to not simply be "casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor," because that would make the descriptor prescriptive rather than descriptive.


It's been mentioned that the book that introduces "corruption points" for various grades of evil act has casting an evil spell be the lowest possible rating, and that "causing intentional harm to a creature" is actually much higher on the scale. What other acts are, by this table, on the same level as "casting an [evil] spell?"

[Doctor Despair]

It's been mentioned that the book that introduces "corruption points" for various grades of evil act has casting an evil spell be the lowest possible rating, and that "causing intentional harm to a creature" is actually much higher on the scale. What other acts are, by this table, on the same level as "casting an [evil] spell?"

I haven't seen the table recently, but is unintentionally causing harm to a creature on there?

[Eldonauran]

My objection to this kind of arbitrary "objective" morality is that it means you don't really have an objective morality system; you have a legal system that is only as related to morality as the person who wrote it wanted it to be. And frankly, I've seen too many stories where the "holy" side is actually corrupt, evil, and cruel and the "unholy" side is just oppressed victims who are actually pretty nice. But the story tries to create some sort of moral dilemma in choosing to aid the "demons" because they're #defined EVIL. Often this is trying to make some sort of point about "too much good" being somehow a problem because it ... leads to bad things that, if it weren't "objectively good" doing it, would be unquestionably evil by just about any modern standard.

I think that there is a simple explanation/solution to this problem. It is quite possible that many of these stories where the 'holy' side is corrupt, evil and cruel are simply just wrong in their portrayal of such topics. Often writers like to be edgy and reverse stereotypes. They like to tell stories that make people think, cause them to turn their expectations on their heads and perform a kind of inner self-evaluation on their beliefs (see: deconstruction). Other times, they might harbor internal biases against a certain kind of stereotype and wish to just make that stereotype into a bad guy so that they can vicariously fight back against it.

Personally, if an author portrays an organization (or character) as holy, good or righteous but does not actually have them act according to the expected understanding of those words, I have to immediately dismiss the assumptions about their righteousness or goodness and suspend my verisimilitude in order to re-categorize the powers or moral systems they are operating under as different than I expected. It does not cause me to doubt what I already know as righteous or good. If this happens with a D&D universe where Good and Evil are already heavily defined, I treat it as a deviation of what is RAW and leave it in the houserule territory where it belongs.

To be concise: I expect Good and Evil to actually mean something. If someone else wants to play fast and loose with their stories, I'll enjoy the ride with them but its all pretend anyway.

[mashlagoo1982]

It is likely they were largely used like that, and some (like the [evil] tag) got extra prescriptive rules applied.

You'll note that my own preferred setting/mechanics tie-in for the [evil] descriptor is descriptive, not prescriptive, as well. My entire point has been that a spell that has the [evil] descriptor needs to, because of what that descriptor describes the spell as doing, have some sort of evil act associated with casting it. And that evil act needs to not simply be "casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor," because that would make the descriptor prescriptive rather than descriptive.


It's been mentioned that the book that introduces "corruption points" for various grades of evil act has casting an evil spell be the lowest possible rating, and that "causing intentional harm to a creature" is actually much higher on the scale. What other acts are, by this table, on the same level as "casting an [evil] spell?"

Yeah, I was basically agreeing that the tag should be descriptive.

So, unless a table wants to use BoVD/BoED, casting Animate Dead itself isn't an evil act according to the Core Books.
It's just something Good character cannot do.

I would keep the Evil descriptor for such spells because it is placing restrictions on a sentient being.
They cannot be raised or resurrected until the animated corpse has been destroyed.
The body can also be used in a fashion that the individual does not approve.
Regardless of what the spirit wants, this seems evil and thus worth of the Evil descriptor.

If a spell was used like in my earlier post (Animate Life), I would not deem it evil because the rights and desires of the deceased are being taken into account and the deceased can end the spell at any time.

I would also hand-wave examples of regular Animate Dead (and the like) as not evil if similar steps were taken.
Ex. Caster contacts the deceased, works out fair terms, draws up a contract, regular contact with deceased to confirm approval, etc...

It's more work, but if a player doesn't want the Evil descriptor, they need to put in the effort to address the tyrannical behavior (however minor) they are inflicting.

[Doctor Despair]

Yeah, I was basically agreeing that the tag should be descriptive.

So, unless a table wants to use BoVD/BoED, casting Animate Dead itself isn't an evil act according to the Core Books.
It's just something Good character cannot do.

I would keep the Evil descriptor for such spells because it is placing restrictions on a sentient being.
They cannot be raised or resurrected until the animated corpse has been destroyed.
The body can also be used in a fashion that the individual does not approve.
Regardless of what the spirit wants, this seems evil and thus worth of the Evil descriptor.

If a spell was used like in my earlier post (Animate Life), I would not deem it evil because the rights and desires of the deceased are being taken into account and the deceased can end the spell at any time.

I would also hand-wave examples of regular Animate Dead (and the like) as not evil if similar steps were taken.
Ex. Caster contacts the deceased, works out fair terms, draws up a contract, regular contact with deceased to confirm approval, etc...

It's more work, but if a player doesn't want the Evil descriptor, they need to put in the effort to address the tyrannical behavior (however minor) they are inflicting.

That's an interesting thought, but we still have to explain spells like Deathwatch. :/

[mashlagoo1982]

That's an interesting thought, but we still have to explain spells like Deathwatch. :/

Yeah, Deathwatch always confused me.

Maybe it is considered an invasion of privacy?

If a caster got permission from the target, I would again hand-wave that instance as not evil.
This is assuming my memory of the spell is correct.

Update: I just reread the spell. I would be fine removing the Evil descriptor if proper permission was gained before casting the spell. I think the book assumes certain spells are more prone towards evil uses. This is one of those spells, but there are plenty of non-evil uses.

What Cleric WOULDN'T want to know the health of their allies? What ally wouldn't want their Cleric to know when they are in danger of dying?

[Doctor Despair]

It's also tricky because we have to answer "If casting a spell that uses lifeforce without consent is [Evil], then why isn't X [Evil]?"