Post/Author/DateTime	Post
crowclub 04-19-07, 02:10 PM	If a Neutral aligned character casts a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is that an evil act? If in a party of say, Fighter Paladin Cleric Wizard one of the spell casters (that has a Neutral God and is neutral on the Good~Evil axis) casts say, Summon Undead to summon a Mummy to help out in a fight against evil creatures. Is/should the Paladin think ..we're all on the same side united against these evil creature (and therefore ok-ish with the Mummy helping out, in the knowledge it's a summoned being on his side being controlled by a party member).... OR ..Hell thats an undead critter, be gone you evil foul thing (and attack the summoned mummy as well as the bad guys in no particular order) ??
wrecan 04-19-07, 02:14 PM	There's no clear answer to that, although I believe the Book of Exalted Deeds does say that. It's entirely up to the DM.
Matthew77 04-19-07, 02:16 PM	I realize this is unhelpful to you, but both reactions are well within the range of possibilities for a Paladin character. I would suggest to the Cleric that if he anticipates using summon spells to bring forth evil creatures, he should have a quick discussion with the Paladin to make sure no mistakes occur in the heat of combat.
crowclub 04-19-07, 03:54 PM	Ok, thanks guys :)
tos_shai_hulud 04-19-07, 04:01 PM	I don't know where I have seen it, but I am pretty sure that casting an Evil spell is an evil act.
Finarin Panjoro 04-19-07, 04:21 PM	It may be an evil act, but I don't think this is the kind of thing that warrants an alignment change for the character (if that's also a concern). It's kind of like a victimless crime. I've always played it that if you can reasonably debate the evilness of an act (summoning an evil creature to do a good deed) it should probably be considered a neutral act. If the character ever takes an explicitly evil act (murdering an innocent, torturing some one, bargaining with an evil power for personal gain, etc) then this is when a paladin would definitely step in to prevent or avenge the act.
tos_shai_hulud 04-19-07, 04:38 PM	I think the idea is that the spell is evil, and casting enough evil spells eventually changes you from the evil spell energy running through you. No matter how noble your intentions, the power itself corrupts. A character could conceivably have an alignment change from casting evil spells. It is not a victimless crime. The caster is the victim.
Evil DM Mk3 04-19-07, 05:10 PM	As a rule there are VERY FEW ACTS IN DEED that warrant an alignment change on their own. It is the compound effect you need to watch. Once? Fine, Twice? OK, Thrice, Hang on a moment here guys...
meabolex 04-19-07, 05:36 PM	I think the paladin should definitely not like the summoning of undead. But it shouldn't turn the paladin into a mindless savage either. The paladin can voice his concern that he doesn't like it, but that doesn't force the paladin to start cutting down the wizard. The more broad issue is if the paladin would attack an undead creature if it just appeared before him and started attacking the paladin's enemy. Assuming the paladin is somewhat intelligent, he won't attack an "enemy" that is actively attacking his enemy. Summons act on the turn they're summoned, so the question of intent is fairly straightforward. Of course there's some gray area here that can complicate things. For instance, what if the undead, on the turn that its summoned, moves through the paladin's threatened squares. Does the paladin take an AoO on an undead creature that just appeared moving by him? I'd say it depends on the paladin and intra-party communication.
crowclub 04-19-07, 06:27 PM	I think the idea is that the spell is evil, and casting enough evil spells eventually changes you from the evil spell energy running through you. No matter how noble your intentions, the power itself corrupts. A character could conceivably have an alignment change from casting evil spells. It is not a victimless crime. The caster is the victim. Maybe if you're using the Tainted rules from Heroes of Horror but otherwise I think thats a little too strong. Sure if all the spells the PC prepared were evil then you've got grounds to question his true alignment but being neutral does allow some grey areas. I think, the important thing to remember here is, do you note every non-evil (or good) act you make? Probably not.
Aminvelos 04-19-07, 07:35 PM	It could really go either way but keep this in mind. The school of necromancy is considered to be far darker than any other for a reason. Have you ever seen the "good guys" FORCE undead to commit a good deed for a good cause? The key word here is force. Is using spells with the evil descriptor an evil act? Usually. Will the paladin attack the defiled creature to stop the unnatural thing? Probably, because forcing another's body to do something without consent is basis for defilement. Also it's just creepy!
Leilond 04-20-07, 03:17 AM	My opinion 1) Not for paladin (and sometimes cleric) The act is evil, because you bring evil energy corruptin the world. But not so evil to change your alignement nor to make your character take to much consequence By the way, if you use [evil] spell every day, that evil energy can start to corrupt your soul and the DM can tell you that something strange is happening to you (disscussing out-game if you want to "stop casting so much [evil] spell or you prefer to role-play a slowly and very interesting corrupting alignement change" 2) Paladin A paladin cannot cast [evil] spell... except pheraps in desperate situations, but still will be required a well role-played desperation of the paladin, that had to do something evil (probably with a mission to purify his soul)
Brehon 04-20-07, 02:12 PM	Casting an [Evil] spell is not an evil act any more than casting a [Good] spell is a good act. Spell descriptors exist purely to determine how the spell mechanically interacts with other effects. If you allow spell descriptors to initiate alignments changes, you are opening a can of worms. Imagine that one of your players casts a bunch of Summon Undead spells over the course of an adventure. Those are [Evil] spells, so you notify him that his alignment is shifting (or in danger of shifting). His response is to spend all of his downtime casting Summon Monster spells to summon only celestial creatures, thereby giving the Summon Monster spell the [Good] descriptor. He continues doing so until he swings his alignment back the other way. Absurd, isn't it? But if you allow [Evil] spells to affect alignment, by what rationale do you prohibit [Good] spells from doing the same? By doing this, you turn alignment into an equation where the players have a mechanical way of "balancing the books."
tos_shai_hulud 04-20-07, 02:56 PM	Casting an [Evil] spell is not an evil act any more than casting a [Good] spell is a good act. Spell descriptors exist purely to determine how the spell mechanically interacts with other effects. If you allow spell descriptors to initiate alignments changes, you are opening a can of worms. Imagine that one of your players casts a bunch of Summon Undead spells over the course of an adventure. Those are [Evil] spells, so you notify him that his alignment is shifting (or in danger of shifting). His response is to spend all of his downtime casting Summon Monster spells to summon only celestial creatures, thereby giving the Summon Monster spell the [Good] descriptor. He continues doing so until he swings his alignment back the other way. Absurd, isn't it? But if you allow [Evil] spells to affect alignment, by what rationale do you prohibit [Good] spells from doing the same? By doing this, you turn alignment into an equation where the players have a mechanical way of "balancing the books." Doesn't sound absurd to me, at all. If a character has inundated himself with evil energy, he might need to cleanse himself. A person knowledgeable in the arcane arts might even understand that. Casting Evil Spells Evil spells may create undead, inflict undue suffering, harm another's soul, or produce any of a slew of similar effects. 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. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction. That seems precisely what you are claiming is absurd. What makes it absurd? That balance should be maintained or alignments will tend to shift? That seems logical, not absurd. If the character wants to spend his time casting good spells during downtime to make up for evil spells he casts during adventuring, then he is not spending those spell slots selling his spellcasting. How is he making money? Is he living off of his adventuring? There is plenty to do during down-time, and if a character wants to spend his time promoting self-balance (as much as he can), I think that is a noble goal!
wrecan 04-20-07, 03:13 PM	As the intorduction of the Book of Vile Darkness describes that book (and its companion) are written for a variant campaign in which evil is darker and good is brighter. It is a campaign of extremes, and has little bearing in a campaign that doesn't incorporate those books.
tos_shai_hulud 04-20-07, 04:20 PM	As the intorduction of the Book of Vile Darkness describes that book (and its companion) are written for a variant campaign in which evil is darker and good is brighter. It is a campaign of extremes, and has little bearing in a campaign that doesn't incorporate those books. While the introduction does contain information for a variant campaign, it also has general guidelines: Evil in your game: The objective approach This is the straightforward approach taken in the D&D game, and it is the one stressed in this book as well. From this frace of reference, evil can be judged objectively. The evil nature of a creature, act, or item isn't relative to the person observing it; it just is evil or it isn't. This clear-cut definition allows spells such as holy smite to work. Conversely, an objective definition of evil exists because the detect evil spell works. Want to know what's evil? Don't study a philosophy book, just watch who gets hurt when the cleric casts holy smite. Those creatures are evil. Much of the Book of Vile Darkness is general information that pertains to any campaign setting. They do, however, introduce variant rules: The Relative Approach (Variant) ... I am not going to bother quoting it, but that is the information about Evil that is relevant to making it darker and Good that makes it brighter.
Dowjin 04-21-07, 05:02 AM	If anything with an evil descriptor is used, its an evil act. Circumstances will determine -how- evil of an act it is, and it is possible to use an evil descriptor for good, thus making it a good act. Its all circumstantial. But, generally, if you use an evil spell, you've just commited an evil act. Because guess what, its EVIL.
Lilinthra 04-21-07, 08:03 AM	It really depends on the campaign rules and the spell itself. There's a big difference between casting Blasphemy and casting Deathwatch.
Lazaro 04-21-07, 11:55 AM	Ok here's a something that popped up in one of my last gaming sessions. The group consisted of the following: Wizard(TN) Unseen Seer(CG) Cleric of Aureon(CG) Fighter(Deceased) The characters arrived at a church to attend the funeral of their friend Perto. During the ceremony the cleric went up to the body to perform "last rites" when out of no where he says "I cast Animate Dead on the fighter". So all of a sudden the fighter's corpse bursts forth and starts "mingling" with the morners. When I asked why he did this he says "It was Perto's last wish, and I had to honor it". Alittle backstory on this. The Seer had a phobia of undead. The fighter and cleric thought it would be hilarious to do this just to get a reaction. I argued after the event that doing such a thing went against the teaching of his god. And that his powers would be stripped. He argued that since it was the fighters last wish "to be animated to scare the seer", that he was honor bound to keep this promise. And even though the spell is "evil" he did it for a good cause. What would you have done in this situation? Was I wrong in stripping him of his powers?
tos_shai_hulud 04-21-07, 12:05 PM	Well, he is a good cleric. He cannot cast evil spells. It is in the class description. Regardless of how hard he tries, he channels good energy. As a good cleric, evil spells are not on his spell list. So, he was not capable of casting Animate Dead. Alternatively, if you are playing Eberron--Aureon is a god in Eberron, so I am assuming that you might be--he could be an evil cleric worshipping a good deity and not lose his powers. So long as he believes that he is following the tenets of his religion, he is safe. If a cleric of the Silver Flame (supposed to be Lawful Good) decides that a massacre of a town will prove his conviction to the cause of the Silver Flame (a very chaotic evil act), he will not lose his powers. Clerics in Eberron do not gain their powers from their deities. They gain their powers through their faith. Since he believes that he is proving his faith through this slaughter, his powers are in fact reinforced by the act, regardless of the alignment of the church. In Eberron, only a Paladin would lose his powers for acting against his alignment, but that is only because he has taken an oath and has a code. By violating his code, he is assumed to have broken his faith, and it is the breaking of faith that causes one to lose their abilities. For more information on a cleric's spell restrictions: Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.
Thiez 04-21-07, 12:06 PM	Ok here's a something that popped up in one of my last gaming sessions. The group consisted of the following: Wizard(TN) Unseen Seer(CG) Cleric of Aureon(CG) Fighter(Deceased) The characters arrived at a church to attend the funeral of their friend Perto. During the ceremony the cleric went up to the body to perform "last rites" when out of no where he says "I cast Animate Dead on the fighter". So all of a sudden the fighter's corpse bursts forth and starts "mingling" with the morners. When I asked why he did this he says "It was Perto's last wish, and I had to honor it". Alittle backstory on this. The Seer had a phobia of undead. The fighter and cleric thought it would be hilarious to do this just to get a reaction. I argued after the event that doing such a thing went against the teaching of his god. And that his powers would be stripped. He argued that since it was the fighters last wish "to be animated to scare the seer", that he was honor bound to keep this promise. And even though the spell is "evil" he did it for a good cause. What would you have done in this situation? Was I wrong in stripping him of his powers? The cleric is of good alignment. As such, he is unable to cast [Evil] spells, making this situation impossible.
Darth Syntax 04-21-07, 12:28 PM	Sense the cleric is devoted to Aureon (the Eberron god of Knowledge and Magic) casting the an evil spell should have not have any real consiquence or restrictions as a simple act. The clerics in Eberron need not hold to their alignments, nor their deity's. So I see no reason the cleric cannot cast the spell. As a side note: A CG priest of Aureon? I would be interested to know how the cleric's personality and personal values interact with his religion, what with Aureon being LN and all that.
tos_shai_hulud 04-21-07, 12:31 PM	The cleric is of good alignment. As such, he is unable to cast [Evil] spells, making this situation impossible. This is true for most settings, but the Eberron Campaign Setting says: A cleric can cast spells with any alignment descriptor. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, and a good cleric's alignment may begin to change if she repeatedly casts such spells, but the deities of Eberron do not prevent their clerics from casting spells opposed to their alignments. This rule supersedes the information in Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells on page 33 of the Player's Handbook. A cleric who violates the tenets of her church or deity might risk punishment at the hands of the church (though not necessarily, particularly in regions where the church is very corrupt), but risks no loss of spells or class features and need not atone. This rule supersedes the information under Ex-Clerics on page 33 of the Player's Handbook.
Nephlite 04-21-07, 12:34 PM	I think the paladin should definitely not like the summoning of undead. But it shouldn't turn the paladin into a mindless savage either. The paladin can voice his concern that he doesn't like it, but that doesn't force the paladin to start cutting down the wizard. The more broad issue is if the paladin would attack an undead creature if it just appeared before him and started attacking the paladin's enemy. Assuming the paladin is somewhat intelligent, he won't attack an "enemy" that is actively attacking his enemy. Summons act on the turn they're summoned, so the question of intent is fairly straightforward. Of course there's some gray area here that can complicate things. For instance, what if the undead, on the turn that its summoned, moves through the paladin's threatened squares. Does the paladin take an AoO on an undead creature that just appeared moving by him? I'd say it depends on the paladin and intra-party communication. However, if the summon of this undead offends the Paladin (depends on the Paladin) His Code states he must stop the Wizard or Cleric to stop doing so. Or he must leave the Party (the CoC states that he can't be with people whoconastantly offend code).
tos_shai_hulud 04-21-07, 12:43 PM	However, if the summon of this undead offends the Paladin (depends on the Paladin) His Code states he must stop the Wizard or Cleric to stop doing so. Or he must leave the Party (the CoC states that he can't be with people whoconastantly offend code). I don't get that from the reading of the CoC: Code of Conduct A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. What this does say is that if the character who travels with the Paladin continues to perform evil acts, the Paladin could withhold healing (as that healing would only be used to promote evil). An easy way to get around it is that the wizard or cleric has been interacting with undead, so they are unclean. It is against the Paladin's faith to touch something so unclean. It would not be out of line for daily lectures on the dangers of associating with evil creatures like the undead. After all, no less than the cleric or wizard's very soul is at stake.
Kuronue 04-21-07, 02:52 PM	Directly below that, tos: Associates While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.
tos_shai_hulud 04-21-07, 03:03 PM	Ah, good call. Reading other material, they loosened this restriction up a bit to allow for mixed alignment parties.
meabolex 04-23-07, 12:49 PM	However, if the summon of this undead offends the Paladin (depends on the Paladin) His Code states he must stop the Wizard or Cleric to stop doing so. Or he must leave the Party (the CoC states that he can't be with people whoconastantly offend code). You're right about the mechanical aspect of the Paladin code, but the reality is that this typically get swept under the rug to encourage party unity. Most DMs would prefer a group that works together. While the issue with undead summoning and paladins is touchy, there's no clean way for the paladin to "stop" the cleric/wizard from summoning without dialog and discussion. Sure, the wizard/cleric can cast another spell. But someone who focuses on summoning undead would probably not want to stop. In the case where repetitive game mechanics (casting some spells with the [Evil] descriptor), I'd tend to use restraint in emphasizing the alignment aspect unless it directly affects things beyond the game mechanic. While summoning an undead is evil, it's not quite as evil as slaughtering an innocent. If the summoned undead is used to slaughter an innocent, then that's definitely a reason to leave the party. I'd prefer the paladin code to encourage roleplay and discussion - not having people leave the party due to casting a summon spell over and over. (:
Brehon 04-24-07, 09:24 AM	Doesn't sound absurd to me, at all. If a character has inundated himself with evil energy, he might need to cleanse himself. A person knowledgeable in the arcane arts might even understand that. That seems precisely what you are claiming is absurd. What makes it absurd? That balance should be maintained or alignments will tend to shift? That seems logical, not absurd. If the character wants to spend his time casting good spells during downtime to make up for evil spells he casts during adventuring, then he is not spending those spell slots selling his spellcasting. How is he making money? Is he living off of his adventuring? There is plenty to do during down-time, and if a character wants to spend his time promoting self-balance (as much as he can), I think that is a noble goal! What makes it absurd is the process whereby you can counter genuinely evil acts by casting spells with the [Good] descriptor. It creates the possibility of a circumstance where a player can treat his alignment like a math equation. Suddenly it's okay to slaughter a bunch of innocent (or even good) folk as long as you cast the appropriate number of [Good] spells to counteract it. That is absurd to me, no matter what BoVD says. If you disagree, then we will not see to eye to eye on this subject.
tos_shai_hulud 04-24-07, 02:09 PM	What makes it absurd is the process whereby you can counter genuinely evil acts by casting spells with the [Good] descriptor. It creates the possibility of a circumstance where a player can treat his alignment like a math equation. Suddenly it's okay to slaughter a bunch of innocent (or even good) folk as long as you cast the appropriate number of [Good] spells to counteract it. That is absurd to me, no matter what BoVD says. If you disagree, then we will not see to eye to eye on this subject. Sounds like a plan. It is more than BoVD. The Eberron Campaign Setting says it, as well. I think I have also seen it on the WotC site, but I am not sure about that one. In any event, I agree that it is a math equation. Not everything in mathematics can balance. Not all acts carry equal weight. Not all acts carry the same weight every time they are performed. Which is more evil, poisoning a water supply because you find it fun to watch the entire population of an area die a horrible death, or poisoning a water supply because you were tricked by a demon who claimed that the town was filled with demons that are vulnerable to the particular poison you used? The second one, right? Now, if every day, the same thing occurred (a character poisoned a different water supply), would it become more evil or less evil? One could argue that it would be less evil the second time around. The reasons could be that word begins to spread about poisoned water supplies killing everyone. People would be wary of water and attempt to purify it before drinking it. True evil requires creativity, just as true good requires creativity. Now, let's say that a character casts ONLY spells with the Good descriptor every day of his life for the rest of his life. Mathematically, this may provide diminishing returns that eventually work out into a geometric progression. This would be a finite amount of good, even if the caster were to cast good spells ad infinitum. If the evil they have done outweighs the good spells they are casting, they are evil. Weighing good and evil acts is something that is already done. If a character slaughters a bunch of folks for pleasure, the character is clearly evil. No amount of casting Good descriptor spells will change that. Let's use numbers to illustrate this. I will assign arbitrary values to these things. Slaughter assesses one million points of evil to a character per person killed. A good spell assesses a good amount equal to the spell level. (These values are arbitrary, picked only to show that you cannot always balance the equation). Lets assume 10 people were slaughtered by a 10th level wizard with 18 Intelligence. He would be able to cast 55 spell levels of good spells (with 0th level spells counting as half each) per day. It would take 498 years to balance out the slaughter of 10 people with the casting of Good spells. Now, during those 498 years, if ten people were slaughtered every 400 years, the character would never reach goodness. So, allowing the casting of spells with alignment descriptors to be acts of their alignment, you are not creating a means to ignore any act you do by mathematically balancing it with spellcasting. Spellcasting can only do so much.