Post/Author/DateTime	Post
atomic_chavez 12-21-05, 05:32 AM	If a spell is core, has an evil descriptor and I am neutral can I cast it without turning evil. I have looked and read everything I can get my hands on and haven't seen anything on the subject.
Puggle Halfwine 12-21-05, 07:41 AM	If a spell is core, has an evil descriptor and I am neutral can I cast it without turning evil. I have looked and read everything I can get my hands on and haven't seen anything on the subject. Short answer: Probably, but it depends on your DM. I'd allow it. If in doubt, write what you cast on your AR (and to whom). Long answer: I had a LN Priest of Wee Jas who regularly cast evil descriptor spells (namely, Deathwatch, Deathknell). Other PC's didn't like him, but that's ok. He was careful not to cast them around paladins and the like and stopped when requested so there were usually no dramas (although they made fun RP when they happened). The question I was most asked by DM's was, "Is that allowed?" and I'd reply, "There's nothing saying you cannot, but it's your call. If you don't want me to do it at your table, then you're free to rule that." I didn't have any DM's who flat out refused to let me cast anything, although some did write what I had cast on my ARs (IE: 'Deathknelled two unconscious NE NPC fighters'). I thought that was more than fair and that's how I encouraged DM's to deal with those spells. A word of warning; that character was later removed from the campaign at level 5 for commiting an evil act as part of a Perrenland Regional Module. The DM gave me notice that if I did this action it would be an evil act *that would remove me from the campaign*, I said I understood that completely, thought about it for a moment and said that I wished to do it anyway. Naturally I didn't contest the ruling, but had I done so my AR's would have been checked and these would have definately lent a strong voice towards a case towards a change to an evil alignment. The moral of this story is; if your DM does declare you 'evil on the spot', something which they have the power to do, your ARs will probably be your undoing. The simple solution to that is to not commit evil acts if you're casting evil spells all the time. Your triad will be looking for a trend towards evil, not a 'one-off' which could be attributed to just a bad day.
Herrbard 12-21-05, 08:17 AM	The DM gave me notice that if I did this action it would be an evil act *that would remove me from the campaign*, I said I understood that completely, thought about it for a moment and said that I wished to do it anyway. Naturally I didn't contest the ruling I just have to add my kudos for a fine bit of role-playing. You don't see many people who will lose a character just to play it true to its history.
solbergb 12-21-05, 12:25 PM	Actually a DM can not label you evil on the spot. It ALWAYS is up to the triad how many evil acts can remove you. What he can always do is write an "Evil act" on your AR, and he is supposed to report the act and circumstances to the triad. He is not allowed to take this step though, unless he warns you first (as happened in your case). Now if you want to voluntarily retire from the campaign for one evil act, that's your business as a player. Voluntary alignment shifts are always allowed. But the DM can't force it. He can only note your behavior and notify the triad. If the triad thinks you've "gone evil" then you'll lose the character.
JohnduBois 12-21-05, 01:15 PM	There are exceptions. Some modules (one currently available in Furyondy) directly say, "If a PC does this, they permanently lose their character." At this point, it's not up to the DM. I think about it as an easy way for triads to deal with certain irredeemably evil acts (like committing blatantly treasonous acts against a Lawful Good government). Since they've reviewed the mod, the permanent character loss is kinda pre-approved, like the high interest credit cards.
SgtHulka 12-21-05, 02:27 PM	I had always assumed that casting spells with the Evil descriptor was an evil act. I thought in the previous LGCS it said something to this effect (though perhaps I'm mistaken). Anyway, to complicate matters, there is an AR from a year 4 Core Mod that grants Player Character access to an Evil spell. This threw me for a loop, since it seemed wrong to bother granting access to a spell the a character can't use without being removed from the campaign. So I've since concluded casting an Evil spell can't be an Evil act.
SteveMND 12-21-05, 02:53 PM	Any number of things can potentially be an "evil act," including casting spells with said descriptor. However, as stated before, the DM can't arbitrarily remove you from the campaign for doing something like that; unless it's part of the mod or such, it's the responsibility of the Triad (or Circle, depending) to determine if such acts warrant removal. To my mind, there are "evil" acts (with a lower-case 'e') and then there are "Evil" acts (with a capital 'e'). Casting spells with the evil descriptor, for example, fall under my view of lower-case evil. Stuff like that might get a notation on the AR, but no further. Capital-E evil, such as killing an innocent peasant or other True Nastiness, would get a notation and a report to the Triad. Earlier LGCSes were unpleasantly vague on the subject of 'evil' in the campaign, but the most recent version was much more specific in that they definateively stated that no single act was automatically deemed 'evil' (like casting said spells) and it was the purview of the judge to make that definition (with appropriate warnings, of course). And yeah, a few people have stood up and promoted RP over mere statistics. When I was running Living Dragonstar, one of the players at my table decied that he would have to attempt to kill a PC for the greater good, despite the fact that such actions were an immediate removal of the character. We talked about the consequences for a few moments, and decided that it was still corrct for his character. He didn't succeed in the death, of course, but I have to give him credit for sticking to his guns.
atomic_chavez 12-21-05, 04:24 PM	thanks for all the feed back.... what i will prolly do is ask the judge at the begining of the mod, what he thinks about spells with the evil descriptor and adjust my spell list according to the inital response
Namarus 12-21-05, 05:11 PM	Going by what you have said though, GMs should also note down when you cast good spells or even good deeds! After all if you are playing a neutral character who follows the balance, his good and evil actions are all part of the balance, and thus maintaining his neutrality? If evil spells are not supposed to be cast by players, they should be disallowed in the campaign.
JamesMaissen 12-21-05, 10:31 PM	If a spell is core, has an evil descriptor and I am neutral can I cast it without turning evil. I have looked and read everything I can get my hands on and haven't seen anything on the subject. There is a difference between the evil descriptor of a spell and an evil act. The evil descriptor is merely a descriptor nothing more.. much like fire is a descriptor. In the case of clerics one cannot cast a spell with a descriptor that is opposed to thier own alignment or thier diety's alignment. Thus a good aligned cleric cannot cast protection from good nor could a cleric of a good deity but a neutral cleric of a neutral diety could do so with impunity. Now as far as a mechanically evil act goes the PhB delineates that channelling negative energy is an evil act. Had casting evil descriptor spells fallen under this mechanic it could have easily said so here (or elsewhere) but does not. Now an LG judge can warn you that an act that you are about to make will be considered an evil act. This is up to his descretion and he is trusted to be fair about this. It certainly is an area that he could abuse but LG trusts that he will not do so. Lastly the LGCS says that evil acts can mandate an alignment change to evil, while the PhB remains fairly silent on this. Why it limits itself to evil seems wrong imho. If this is to be taken seriously then other alignment changes could also be mandated (which could strongly matter in the case of clerics or other specific classes). Also if a 'trend' of evil acts is to be observed, then also a 'trend' of good acts should also be visible to take into context that the character perhaps doesn't really view either (but say rather is strongly lawful over chaotic, etc). It's an urban myth that Evil Descriptor spells are automatically evil acts. However like alot of rules in LG/D&D word of mouth can be stronger than what is printed in books, James
SteveMND 12-21-05, 10:42 PM	"Why it limits itself to evil seems wrong imho." Well, western culture is pretty rampant with stories and fairy tales, etc. that all focus on the fact that it is much, much easier to slide towards darkness than it is to redeem oneself. I think that's pretty much the reason -- if there were such a thing a a 'cosmic tally sheet,' it might take a hundred good acts to get a gold star, but just one evil one to slip a notch. Hence why noting good actions aren't particularly worthwhile. Plus, the LG campaign is supposed to be about playing the good guys. it's assumed the PCs are generally trying to be good; doing a good act is the norm, it's the rare evil act that stands out and can have repurcussions.
JamesMaissen 12-21-05, 11:01 PM	Well, western culture is pretty rampant with stories and fairy tales, etc. that all focus on the fact that it is much, much easier to slide towards darkness than it is to redeem oneself. I think that's pretty much the reason -- if there were such a thing a a 'cosmic tally sheet,' it might take a hundred good acts to get a gold star, but just one evil one to slip a notch. Hence why noting good actions aren't particularly worthwhile. Plus, the LG campaign is supposed to be about playing the good guys. it's assumed the PCs are generally trying to be good; doing a good act is the norm, it's the rare evil act that stands out and can have repurcussions. That's nice and all.. but say for example my LN cleric worshipping a LN diety should be more concerned with Law vs Chaos than good/evil. It just seems strange that you put in a mechanism for this but don't extend it to say having a Paladin fall from grace into Chaos but he can fall into Evil (but not even a moral neutral along the way)... As to the context.. if you only list bad things there isn't context, just prosecution, but all of this is an aside to the OP's question. -James
solbergb 12-21-05, 11:27 PM	As for the paladin fall from grace... I've never seen a case where a Paladin was about to do a code-defying act where the DM didn't warn him and the player wasn't ok with accepting the consequences if he chose to do so. Such an action would be noted on his AR unless he managed the requisite atonement etc at the table, in the "notes" section, same as getting lycanthropy or something else that might not kill you at the table but takes more than std lifestyle to remove. Maybe I just play with mature players for the most part :) Most players seem ok with consequences for their actions, but actual campaign removal of a character is a different consequence than any other setback. For deaths, the rule is "resolved at the table". For evil acts, you need a triad to agree (but of course a triad-approved module might be able to pre-determine this act, although that seems fairly heavy-handed given how different regions are, and that visitors to the region might not have a clue that massacring a stable of horse-colts in Ket is the same as eating human babies in other regions)
JohnduBois 12-21-05, 11:34 PM	I'm going to clarify. In the module I was referencing, it was REALLY CLEAR that this act was REALLY EVIL... willingly joining forces with an individual who directly states his intention like thirty seconds previously to overthrow a lawful good king is going to be character-removal evil in all but the most liberal opinions...
Madfox11 12-22-05, 04:27 AM	The fact that 'evil' acts gets specific attention is because becoming evil changes a PC into a NPC. There are no such limitations with lawful and chaotic behaviour unless your character happens to be a divine spellcaster. Perhaps a remark should be entered that also mention alignment infractions for religious characters (and to a lesser extend bards, monks and barbarians) that are not evil, but clash on a different level, should be noted down as well. Personally I have warned players of paladins and clerics on a couple of occassions about chaotic acts.
Namarus 12-22-05, 11:09 AM	If a spell is core, has an evil descriptor and I am neutral can I cast it without turning evil. I have looked and read everything I can get my hands on and haven't seen anything on the subject. I've been checking my phb, and dmg on this. [Descriptor] 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. The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water. 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. A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher. So basically, casting spells with the Evil descriptor is no more an evil act, than casting a spell with the chaos descriptor is a chaotic act. The descriptor is just an explanation of how the spell interacts.
Madfox11 12-23-05, 08:58 AM	So basically, casting spells with the Evil descriptor is no more an evil act, than casting a spell with the chaos descriptor is a chaotic act. The descriptor is just an explanation of how the spell interacts. Except (quote SRD, highlights are mine): "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." So descriptors of spells do detail how a spell interacts with alignments. How the interaction goes is left to the DM, but as far as I can see a DM is free to rule it as an evil act which is interacting with alignments.
Fwib 12-23-05, 02:04 PM	Every time a character hurts or kills another creature, that is an evil act. (PHB p104, Good vs Evil, paragraph 3)
Namarus 12-23-05, 02:09 PM	Except (quote SRD, highlights are mine): "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." So descriptors of spells do detail how a spell interacts with alignments. How the interaction goes is left to the DM, but as far as I can see a DM is free to rule it as an evil act which is interacting with alignments. Actually no. Do you mean to tell me that a cleric casting Deathwatch is performing an evil act? No. By the same token a person casting a spell with the chaos descriptor is doing a chaotic act, and should have their alignment changed. A person casting a force descriptor spell is doing a "force" act, stupid I know but following your arguement logically that is what you are implying. The alignment interaction is simply a means of identifying spells which may or may not be cast by characters in certain situations due to alignment effects. For example you may not be able to cast spells with the chaotic descriptor on planes where the alignment is lawful, or Water descriptors on Planes that are aligned with Fire. At no point does the descriptor indicate that the spell itself is a good/evil/chaotic/lawful/sonic etc... Act.
Fwib 12-23-05, 03:51 PM	Protection from Good is a better example than Deathwatch, I think.
RLWilde 12-24-05, 12:47 AM	Do you mean to tell me that a cleric casting Deathwatch is performing an evil act? No. Why else would a good aligned cleric, or neutral cleric of a good aligned deity, be unable to cast the spell? I do think that casting spells with the "evil" or "chaotic" descriptor are "evil" and "chaotic" actions accordingly. However, I don't think that the mere act of casting the spell is sufficient to change alignment, either, unless spells of that descriptor were the vast majority of spells cast (and even then, I'm not completely convinced). What matters more is how the spells are used.
Fwib 12-24-05, 10:24 AM	Why else would a good aligned cleric, or neutral cleric of a good aligned deity, be unable to cast the spell?Flavour. [edit] ...and by flavour, I mean that it is just one of those things that makes it so that all clerics are not identical.
Namarus 12-25-05, 06:44 PM	I do think that casting spells with the "evil" or "chaotic" descriptor are "evil" and "chaotic" actions accordingly. Since LG has to be played by the rules, and no 'Opinions' do you think you could show some sort of sorting text to your arguement. I recently went through the whole PHB and LGCS, along with the DMG and Errata. I found no such entries anywhere that would support your arguement. Perhaps this is some sort of legacy rule from older versions of Dnd? However, I don't think that the mere act of casting the spell is sufficient to change alignment, either, unless spells of that descriptor were the vast majority of spells cast (and even then, I'm not completely convinced). What matters more is how the spells are used. I also agree that how you use the spell, just like how one uses one sword should determine whether an action is considered an evil act.
Fwib 12-25-05, 07:05 PM	Since LG has to be played by the rules, and no 'Opinions' do you think you could show some sort of sorting text to your arguement. I recently went through the whole PHB and LGCS, along with the DMG and Errata. I found no such entries anywhere that would support your arguement. Perhaps this is some sort of legacy rule from older versions of Dnd?Looking at the LGCS 4.2 (Chapter 8, During the Game) It seems to say that GMs are allowed to interpret the grey areas in the rules so long as they follow the spirit of the game and fairness etc. [edit] Having said that, I'm not sure that this qualifies as a grey area - ruling that casting [Evil] spells is an evil act, rather than what you do with your spells specifically seems to be making stuff up or house-ruling...
TheBlackFlail 12-27-05, 04:31 AM	On evil spells and acts: [I really would like an official ruling for the benefit of all on this, what follows is just my opinion, not dogma] It's EVIL! (Evil spells drawing on evil power to produce and evil effect): Unhallow, desecrate, summon planar ally (for a fiend), blasphemy, et cetera... (no possible redeeming value, except by the most twisted of contortions) It might be evil (Evil spells drawing on evil blatantly evil power, effect might not be so evil): Planar Binding*, Summon Monster, Dispel Good, et cetera... Society says it's evil (Evil spells that produce evil effects, without drawing on an obvious evil source): Deathknell, Symbol of Pain, Contagion (some societies view disease/plague as an impersonal , not an evil force)... Skip Williams said it's evil (why? I dunno, no obvious evil source, no obvious evil effect): Death Watch, Eyebite... * Almost wholly good use for planar binding: I have finally found the truename of fiend X that has done atrocity Y, his destruction will undo terrible curse Z. Shall I take off to Nessus to confront him in his lair of power, or use magic to bring him here and bind him for ease of destruction? Why am I even asking myself such a question? <Casts Planar Binding>...
TallGuy 12-27-05, 08:26 AM	There are exceptions. Some modules (one currently available in Furyondy) directly say, "If a PC does this, they permanently lose their character." At this point, it's not up to the DM. I think about it as an easy way for triads to deal with certain irredeemably evil acts (like committing blatantly treasonous acts against a Lawful Good government). Since they've reviewed the mod, the permanent character loss is kinda pre-approved, like the high interest credit cards. My Chaotic Good Holy Liberator will gladly depose a Lawful Good king following Heironeous though, if said King finds it necessary to be too lawful. There's nothing inherently evil about it even, although it is most definately a Chaotic act. I don't know the specifics of this module seeing how I haven't actually played it, but I would actually contest me loosing my character if all that was being done was betraying a lawful good government. A lawful good government can be just as oppressing as a lawful evil one (see what happens if you steal a loaf of bread... ;) ) Bas Vermeulen Player of Cohen the Barbarian, Holy Liberator of Trithereon.
Simpi 12-27-05, 09:23 AM	My Chaotic Good Holy Liberator will gladly depose a Lawful Good king following Heironeous though, if said King finds it necessary to be too lawful. There's nothing inherently evil about it even, although it is most definately a Chaotic act. I don't know the specifics of this module seeing how I haven't actually played it, but I would actually contest me loosing my character if all that was being done was betraying a lawful good government. A lawful good government can be just as oppressing as a lawful evil one (see what happens if you steal a loaf of bread. My own personal opinion is that only thing that matters is the end result of the act, not the method. As DM I have enough on my hands without being an 'alignment police' for every little thing that PCs do. If a monster is killed by greatsword or death touch (ahem, Repose domain), does it really matter? Some modules do have strange situations which say 'This is an evil act' while my morale compass or common sense cannot find a single justification for it. Then again my real life alignment switches daily between LN/NG/N/LE/NE so it's probably me.... S.H, the guy from Naerie P.S: Bas, the thing mentioned above is probably something along the lines of 'Killing babies and drinking their fresh blood from the cups made of their parents skulls' or 'Kneeling in front of Dread God Tharizdun and becoming his loyal servant' as usually is the case with straight removals:)
TallGuy 12-27-05, 10:02 AM	My own personal opinion is that only thing that matters is the end result of the act, not the method. As DM I have enough on my hands without being an 'alignment police' for every little thing that PCs do. If a monster is killed by greatsword or death touch (ahem, Repose domain), does it really matter? Some modules do have strange situations which say 'This is an evil act' while my morale compass or common sense cannot find a single justification for it. Then again my real life alignment switches daily between LN/NG/N/LE/NE so it's probably me.... S.H, the guy from Naerie P.S: Bas, the thing mentioned above is probably something along the lines of 'Killing babies and drinking their fresh blood from the cups made of their parents skulls' or 'Kneeling in front of Dread God Tharizdun and becoming his loyal servant' as usually is the case with straight removals:) There's a couple of different trains of thought here: The "Good and Evil are Absolute" train of thought, as used in for instance Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds. Casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is indeed evil, and there's this easy road to hell, paved with good intentions. The "The End Justifies the Means" train of thought; If you've got a choice between killing an innocent and thereby saving a nation, killing the innocent is not an evil act. The "Evil is Subjective" train of thought; Torturing and killing someone different is just fine, even if his only crime is being different, seeing how he's an evil fiend-worshipping b*stard (good aligned Geomancer with some interesting traits) anyways. Personally, I'm in the Evil Corrupts and is Absolute camp (#1). You may be able to get away with it (as I'll only note it on your AR, unless you're doing the actual killing of innocents yourself), but I will let you know that I believe you are overstepping a boundary here, and I will notify your triad (which can be me under certain circumstances). There may be others (especially the one that some people adhere to, namely that if you're not following the laws of the lands (eg, being Lawful) you are committing evil acts. That may be the way some people (especially clerics of Pholtus and St. Cuthbert) would like to see it, but that doesn't make it evil; Which is how I read the whole 'overthrowing the lawful good government' bit. Government can be good and equally oppressive, especially if the Law takes presedence over Good as is the case with for instance Pholtus and Heironeous. My Holy Liberator will campaign against any oppressive government, whether they are Good, Neutral or Evil. That may even have consequences (like removal from the campaign), but if it's because he is deemed 'evil' because of wanting to overthrow a government, I will contest that. Bas Vermeulen
Simpi 12-27-05, 10:49 AM	There may be others (especially the one that some people adhere to, namely that if you're not following the laws of the lands (eg, being Lawful) you are committing evil acts. That I don't subscribe to. My character will follow the law but some, like your holy liberator won't. There is really nothing wrong with that. Some things might lead to breach of alignment while not being evil act and that I understand as well. Cleric of Zilchus stealing from his own church deserves to be stripped of powers and requiring Atonement. I would never accept it if somebody told me it's an evil act to follow the law of the land and with law of the land I mean written declarations by king/magistrate/etc. that counts as 'lawful' and not CE* type 'Thog has axe, so Thog can take Thags stuff' law. S.H, the guy from Naerie * Crude example I know, as even most despicable societys tend to have some sort of rules concerning behavior.
gizmonster 12-27-05, 11:16 AM	There's a couple of different trains of thought here: Personally, I'm in the Evil Corrupts and is Absolute camp (#1). You may be able to get away with it (as I'll only note it on your AR, unless you're doing the actual killing of innocents yourself), but I will let you know that I believe you are overstepping a boundary here, and I will notify your triad (which can be me under certain circumstances). Bas Vermeulen You would notify my triad is I cast a Summon Monster I and choose a Fiendish Hawk, but not if I choose a Celestial Owl?
Fwib 12-27-05, 12:16 PM	Given that neutral clerics of neutral deities can cast spells with any alignment descriptor, if casting [alignment] spells was meant to change your alignment, (thus preventing the now-alignment-changed cleric from casting spells he previously could) you'd think that they'd mention that. Regarding what things are evil acts, the books are confused about that, philosophers have only been talking about it for several millennia, and they still can't make up their minds on if evil even exists, let alone what it is. On negative energy, some D&D books say that handling it is evil, and some say that negative energy is no more evil to handle than, say, fire.
Namarus 12-27-05, 01:35 PM	Personally, I'm in the Evil Corrupts and is Absolute camp (#1). You may be able to get away with it (as I'll only note it on your AR, unless you're doing the actual killing of innocents yourself), but I will let you know that I believe you are overstepping a boundary here, and I will notify your triad (which can be me under certain circumstances) Well I hope you also put a note on the ARs when players use good spells?? If not your obviously not putting forward a balanced view. Furthermore do you also make notes on the AR for Lawful characters who cast Chaotic spells??
Madfox11 12-28-05, 03:56 AM	Why do people constantly ask for written proof by the rules, while I just pointed out the one quote that COULD be interpretated in such a way? Descriptors of spells do interact with alignments, and changing a persons alignment is definitely interaction. Whether or not that is the interaction mentioned in that quote is of course the question. It is clearly one of those gray areas that is up to the DM. Personally, I would rarely note it down when a PC casts evil spells such a protection from good, death watch or summon monster (though the farmer around the corner -assuming he recognizes the beast as a fiend of course- better not see you summon fiends - it *is* illegal in virtually all LG regions). Some other spells though are much more evil, and I would note it down, though it would rarely be so evil as a need for a Triad warning. I will always warn the player in advance though. Side-note: contagion is one of the few evil spells that are *always* evil to use in my opinion. You give something a disease with which he can infect others. Those others can (a) be innocent and (b) it is a callous disrespect for life. Side-note: Good aligned clerics of neutral deities still cannot cast spells with the [evil] descriptor, so there is definitely some darkness attached to casting such a spell. Side-note: If a king is truly lawful good, then disposing of him better should be done very carefully by that CG holy liberator and preferably through non-violent ways. Killing innocents is an evil act, and lawful good people do tend to be innocent. Besides, Trithereon is a god of freedom. I love to play with this fact, and point out the irony of fanatic Trithereonites actually making life misserable for worshippers of Pholtus who freely choose to worship said god through scenarios.
Simpi 12-28-05, 04:36 AM	Besides, Trithereon is a god of freedom. I love to play with this fact, and point out the irony of fanatic Trithereonites actually making life misserable for worshippers of Pholtus who freely choose to worship said god through scenarios. To local players Trithereon servants are always associated with crazy armed militia men or equivalent 'anti-guvverment' guys living in backwoods and as such we just poke fun at them. :D S.H, the guy from Naerie
TallGuy 12-28-05, 04:45 AM	You would notify my triad is I cast a Summon Monster I and choose a Fiendish Hawk, but not if I choose a Celestial Owl? Yes. I am of the opinion that evil corrupts, even when used to do good. Now that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it myself (for instance with my CN Wizard), just that I believe it is necessary to note. If you do both in the same module, I'd probably note both to be thorough :) Bas Vermeulen
TallGuy 12-28-05, 04:54 AM	Side-note: If a king is truly lawful good, then disposing of him better should be done very carefully by that CG holy liberator and preferably through non-violent ways. Killing innocents is an evil act, and lawful good people do tend to be innocent. Besides, Trithereon is a god of freedom. I love to play with this fact, and point out the irony of fanatic Trithereonites actually making life misserable for worshippers of Pholtus who freely choose to worship said god through scenarios. I am aware of that, and am weaned by your scenarios to begin with. But a Lawful Good nation (especially the ones like Heironeans with their strong lawful bent) can be oppressive to the masses living in their country. If they are, my Holy Liberator will gladly help a revolt to depose him. When playing my Holy Liberator I've always tried to keep my fellow Trithereonites in check, by pointing out that freedom is supposed to be for everyone, including the lawful neutral Pholtites who choose to worship a wanker ;)
TallGuy 12-28-05, 04:57 AM	To local players Trithereon servants are always associated with crazy armed militia men or equivalent 'anti-guvverment' guys living in backwoods and as such we just poke fun at them. :D Yeah, yeah. Some of 'em are, but then, some of 'em work in different ways :) If I ever get to it, I'll try and write up a summary for you for a different kind of Trithereonite.
JamesMaissen 12-28-05, 09:05 AM	Why do people constantly ask for written proof by the rules, while I just pointed out the one quote that COULD be interpretated in such a way? Descriptors of spells do interact with alignments, and changing a persons alignment is definitely interaction. Whether or not that is the interaction mentioned in that quote is of course the question. It is clearly one of those gray areas that is up to the DM. Because you are basing it on a flawed premise. It is not clearly a grey area. The PhB explicitly says that channelling neg. energy is an evil act (and likewise channelling positive energy is a good act) and had they wished such absolutes to be extended to mere descriptor spells they certainly would and should have said so either under descriptors or when they detailed it was an evil/good act to channel neg/positive energy. Yet despite the ease in which they could have done so they do not. Personally I see [alignment] descriptor spells as being repugnant to those of the opposing alignment should they understand the nature of the spell. I would certainly expect NPCs and PCs to react unfavorably in such a setting, but mechanically it would not be an act of that alignment intrinsically. Now if it furthered such causes, just like any action, it could be an act of that alignment.. but by it's context and motivation rather than it's decriptor. This game is learned orally even though it exists in written form. The rules are both convoluted and obscured enough to motivate this. As such in a living system you can witness a propogation of errors based on a person witnessing one person and then a group missinterpreting a rule. In that area it then becomes accepted and unquestioned. It's actually a quite fascinating aspect of the LG experience (along with other local phenomenon). Naming can mean alot even if the meaning is not exactly in line with it. Evil descriptor is easily misconstrued as evil act and then such propogates by word of mouth into assumption of assurity(sp). Consider that in LG despite that 3.5 purposefully consolodated knowledge checks to types (rather than knowledge Baklunish dieties, etc) that LG felt the need to break up 'Knowledge: local' simply because of it's name. It is split it into metaregions, yet knowledges like Geography, History and Nobility are not! Had the name of the knowledge been 'Customs', 'Anthropology' or the like instead of 'Local' I doubt it would have been split up. Now deliniating something as an 'evil' act (or any 'alignment' act) is normally VERY subjective. The ONE exception is channelling energy which is given as mechanically an evil/good act (for neg/positive respectively).. everything else is up to honest interpretation rather than blanket fiat. There is a reason that these threads on 'morality' always degenerate.. no two people quite fully agree on it. We should thus be very leary of wielding 'evil act' with a blind eye. Doubt should be given to the player's side of things here. And in no case should we take it upon ourselves to add to what is automatically mechanically an evil act. Recording such things on an AR should be an extreme, not a norm lest you lessen or blur it's meaning. Also notice that there is no like mechanism to record other alignment acts despite thier impact on 'trends' and the like. Reserve it for the extremes where it would (and does) severely impact the game for all the players.. after all that seems to be the stem of the concern, right? -James
rogerd 12-28-05, 12:09 PM	If I am running the game, casting spells with an Evil descriptor is an evil act. The Book of Vile Darkness, page 8 specifically calls this out. It's only usable by authors and triads, but I'm convinced. If the purpose isn't evil, then I'd probably note that on the AR also. There's a couple of different trains of thought here: The "Good and Evil are Absolute" train of thought, as used in for instance Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds. Casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is indeed evil, and there's this easy road to hell, paved with good intentions. The "The End Justifies the Means" train of thought; If you've got a choice between killing an innocent and thereby saving a nation, killing the innocent is not an evil act. The "Evil is Subjective" train of thought; Torturing and killing someone different is just fine, even if his only crime is being different, seeing how he's an evil fiend-worshipping b*stard (good aligned Geomancer with some interesting traits) anyways. Note that there is no moral relativism in standard Dungeons & Dragons, which LG is based on. if your DM does declare you 'evil on the spot', something which they have the power to do Really? I looked in the LGCS, and I see that GM's are required to warn, note and report evil acts. Attacking other PC's is the only grounds I see for instant removal. I doubt that casting evil spells would cause character removal by the triad. Notice that alignment only matters for a fairly small number of classes - otherwise the player can set it how they want. A good GM should probably pay attention (and note) chaotic acts by Paladins and Monks, lawful acts by bards or barbarians, good acts by hexblades (!) and so forth. Since the campaign assumes all players are non-evil, the only ones that require the triad's involvement are the evil acts. Players are assumed to manage their own alignment. My half-orc chainfighter started as a neutral mercenary, drifted good and then discovered he hates slavery and started following Kord, so now I think he's chaotic good. (But I've fought hound archons twice!) No GM involvement, it was just me discovering the character, and my character discovering himself. Then again, it hasn't mattered much, since I haven't done any outright evil and my class doesn't have any alignment restrictions.
Namarus 12-28-05, 12:26 PM	Actually the book of Vile Darkness is not allowed as far as I have been able to tell. It's not listed in the LGCS, and the content of the book is 'Mature', one of the reasons that it is not allowed.
Simpi 12-28-05, 01:59 PM	Actually the book of Vile Darkness is not allowed as far as I have been able to tell. It's not listed in the LGCS, and the content of the book is 'Mature', one of the reasons that it is not allowed. Authors can use it. Then again, much of the stuff from it is "BWAHAHA!! Evil Overlord Bent on Destroying the World' stuff and not really necessary as feats/spells from other books can do same things quite nicely :) Only things I would want to use are various 'Disciples of X' prestige classes but they are not allowed in LG, which is strange because certain demon lords such as Demogorgon & Grazz't are very relevant for Greyhawk. S.H, the guy from Naerie
Fwib 12-28-05, 02:35 PM	Yeah, BoVD is 'Authors and Triads may use' so your triad may use it to declare that your action in casting an [evil] spell is an evil act, but your GM can't report it to them, since he can't use the book. Unless he's an Author or Triad, then you may be stuck... :) [edit] That said, I don't believe that section of the BoVD says that casting an evil spell is always an evil act, just that it should be looked at carefully - the 'evil acts' section contains quite a lot of stuff that isn't automatically an evil act, depending on context - lying and killing and revenge and greed and stuff... Although, as I said before, the PHB says ""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing and killing. ..." and while it doesn't explicitly name these acts evil (good for the paladin, who would otherwise be even more derided for weakness and unplayability than the bard :)), its a hint that an awful lot of the stuff that adventuring groups do could well be seen as evil, even in good-obsessed LG [edit more] I think a lot of the problems with alignment in D&D come from its schizophrenic character - on the one hand, a lot of text says that evil is relative and acts done for one reason or with one outcome can be good or evil while the same act done for different reasons or with a different outcome may not be and on the other hand, good and evil are not relative and subjective - they are also absolute - pure goodness and evil exist and are physically manifested. ...and don't let people get started on Law and Chaos....
Madfox11 12-29-05, 05:34 AM	The PHB book *litterally* states spell descriptors may interact with alignment. It never defines how it interacts, and for all we may know that simple statement only refers to the divine spellcaster, his alignment and spells with an alignment descriptor. It never says that either btw, hence my belief that it is a gray area. So lets please keep regional misconception out of it. I really have given alignments more thought then that and I have been involved in countless alignment discussions of the past 15 years that I have been playing this game. This is also one that reoccurs once every 3 months or so. Note - even though the PHB states that channeling negative energy is an evil act, it contradicts itself immediately by not adding any alignment descriptors to the various inflict spells, ray of enfeeblement, enervation and so on. Why is channeling evil, but channeling the same energy through spells is not? .
JamesMaissen 12-29-05, 11:27 AM	The PHB book *litterally* states spell descriptors may interact with alignment. It never defines how it interacts, and for all we may know that simple statement only refers to the divine spellcaster, his alignment and spells with an alignment descriptor. It never says that either btw, hence my belief that it is a gray area. So lets please keep regional misconception out of it. I really have given alignments more thought then that and I have been involved in countless alignment discussions of the past 15 years that I have been playing this game. This is also one that reoccurs once every 3 months or so. Note - even though the PHB states that channeling negative energy is an evil act, it contradicts itself immediately by not adding any alignment descriptors to the various inflict spells, ray of enfeeblement, enervation and so on. Why is channeling evil, but channeling the same energy through spells is not? . Who says that's the case? You are presupposing your conclusion here. If alignment descriptor spells have no relation on alignment acts then there is no contradiction here at all, is there? So if nothing else, doesn't this make a decent case for the other side here? We have the two sides being that either the PhB never defines how alignment descriptor spells interact with alignments and then goes on to contradict itself on the one part where it is clear on what is mechanically a good/evil act, OR the PhB does define how alignment descriptor spells interact with alignment (via the cleric class) and does not contradict itself. It seems fairly reasonable not to try to add this unstated requirement on alignment descriptor spells. -James
solbergb 01-01-06, 12:18 PM	I feel constrained to point out that all sources of rules other than LGCS, FAQ, PHB, DMG and MM can be used only for ACCESS (item/feat/spell/prc) not for RULES, except as those items/feats/spells/prc apply to a character than has them, unless explicitly called out by the LGCS or circle ruling. As an example, the weaponlike spell rules are explicitly allowed per LGCS, but nothing else in CA is. (swift/immediate actions are repeated in the FAQ, and would be "part of spells etc" that have them). There are intermediate areas (all of the expanded skill uses in the various Races/Complete books are subject to whether a judge feels like allowing them AND require a copy of the rules at the table, per circle ruling) There are good reasons for this. I would be really leery of trusting any rule from an author-only book that didn't directly apply to some effect/item/monster in that book used in an adventure (and in that case the module must reprint the rule in an appendix). "Evil spell = evil act" is a Libris Mortis Rule. It is just as irrelevant for LG as the latest Skip Williams "Rules of the Game" article or a list of my houserules for an ancient world campaign.
mendahu 01-02-06, 02:24 AM	One idea to sway towards the "evil corrupts" attitude (ie. casting an evil spell is an evil act) is the case of Darth Vader! He wanted to save his love, but all he could do was use the dark side (ie. evil spells). Good intentions, sure, but he never really did turn out so good. -Jake Robins Edmonton, AB
solbergb 01-02-06, 02:32 PM	Darth Vader lives in a world where multiclassing monk/barbarian is an Evil act (let the anger flow through you Luke, draw on its power) rather than a decision to abandon Law for not-Law. Pretty much using "the force" with an angry heart made you evil. George Lucas's universe had ideas that are pretty incompatable with the D&D 9-way alignment chart.
GreatSiron 01-06-06, 07:07 PM	The way I see it, evil spells are probably evil acts, but many of them aren't really worth noting. Some however (animate dead, unhallow) are very evil, and probally will get you in serious trouble.