Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DragonDan 06-10-07, 01:52 PM	What happens? How is this handled? Example, my CG Rog/Wiz starts using Summon Undead V; not to fight peasants or good NPCs, but to fight evil baddies (fighting fire with fire so to speak). However I'm completely clueless as to the results of casting evil spells from a C.Good character. Thanks, Dan.
NobodyRemembersThis 06-10-07, 01:54 PM	Only spellcasters and multiclass spellcasters that have levels in ranger, paladin, or cleric are prohibited from casting spells opposite of your alignment. You are just fine. :)
JulesCARV 06-10-07, 01:55 PM	It works for a wizard. Generally, it's a matter of DM discretion and campaign setting whether casting evil spells is an evil act which "drags" a non-evil character toward being evil. Certainly this is the case in Eberron, and is stated in the Book of Vile Darkness as well, although there are no rules either confirming or denying this in core D&D.
Seeker95 06-10-07, 02:38 PM	Depends on how your DM views the "effect" on being willing to cast [evil] spells. In my world view (even within D&D), Good does not willingly do [evil]. So if your Good PC is willingly casting [evil] spells, it is not that the action changes his alignment, but rather, it indicates the alignment was not Good in the first place. Your DM may view this much differently.
DragonDan 06-10-07, 02:55 PM	So if your Good PC is willingly casting [evil] spells, it is not that the action changes his alignment, but rather, it indicates the alignment was not Good in the first place. Even when using evil spells to fight evil? Dan.
Muktar 06-10-07, 03:01 PM	Yep, I agree with Seeker on this. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just makes it more wrong. Also, as Seeker pointed out, that if the person was willing to do this evil act, he was always willing to do the evil act, therefore not playing his alignment.
Andorxor 06-10-07, 03:02 PM	And whats makes summoning undeads that are under the command of a good person evil-evil and not label-evil?
NobodyRemembersThis 06-10-07, 04:05 PM	Because, thanks to the evil descriptor, casting said spells are an inherently evil act. What the ramifications of knowingly casting an [Evil] spell are is to be decided by the DM. They could be bad (here's your new alignment bub!) to "slap on the wrist" (do that too much and yer evil, bub!). That's the DM's call.
Andorxor 06-10-07, 04:14 PM	So it is label-evil,the it-is-evil-because-i-say-it-is-evil
D.A.Dervish 06-10-07, 04:16 PM	Wizards are often a little touched to begin with. A lot of spell with the [Evil] descriptor are not really worthy of it, in my opinion. I personally judge alignment by intent and effect, not by means. That holds especially true in the case of a Chaotic Good character.
Seeker95 06-10-07, 05:31 PM	Even when using evil spells to fight evil?Yes. In my world view, even in D&D, Neutral is willing to use [evil] for non-evil ends. Good is not. It is one of the things that separates the good person from the Good person. Those who claim to be good (lowercase g) often find themselves explaining "but I'm a good person". The Good person (capital G) never need do such explaining. It is self-evident.
Seeker95 06-10-07, 05:34 PM	So it is label-evil, the it-is-evil-because-i-say-it-is-evilYes. That's called game rules.
Andorxor 06-10-07, 05:56 PM	If someone puts a definition of evil into the rules,i expect that every labeling that something is evil is based on this definition and that it isn't based on "I say it is".
Salla 06-10-07, 06:23 PM	Even when using evil spells to fight evil? Dan. Using Evil to accomplish Good equals Neutrality.
DragonDan 06-10-07, 06:33 PM	Yes. In my world view, even in D&D, Neutral is willing to use [evil] for non-evil ends. Good is not. It is one of the things that separates the good person from the Good person. Those who claim to be good (lowercase g) often find themselves explaining "but I'm a good person". The Good person (capital G) never need do such explaining. It is self-evident. Isn't the moto for a CG character "the ends justifies the means" when fighting evil? Do not CG PCs ignore society's definition of evil and use what ever means they can to defeat evil (evil defined by the PC) ? Don't CG PCs follow their own moral compass? Also are spells not simply tools? Just as swords, guns and clubs. Are guns evil or is the character using the gun evil? Dan.
Salla 06-10-07, 06:38 PM	Isn't the moto for a CG character "the ends justifies the means" when fighting evil? Do not CG PCs ignore society's definition of evil and use what ever means they can to defeat evil (evil defined by the PC) ? Don't CG PCs follow their own moral compass? Also are spells not simply tools? Just as swords, guns and clubs. Are guns evil or is the character using the gun evil? Dan. No; nothing in the description of CG indicates any form of 'ends justify the means'. From d20SRD.org A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. And no, spells are not just tools. Some spells are neutral (these have no alignment descriptors), and some are inherently good or evil, regardless of the purpose to which they are put. Creating undead is an evil act in standard D&D cosmology.
Seeker95 06-10-07, 08:06 PM	Isn't the moto for a CG character "the ends justifies the means" when fighting evil? Don't CG PCs follow their own moral compass?No and No. The motto of the Chaotic character is probably "you do it your way, I'll do it my way". But the Good character knows there is a right way and a wrong way. The Chaotic Good character's moral compass is pointed directly at Good.
Muktar 06-10-07, 09:13 PM	The big difference between lets say a LG action vs a CG action is this. If a nation (non-tyrannical) says that you are not allowed to chase suspects of a crime, even if you witness it. A LG person will not chase them but instead go to the correct people to do it. A CG person will say, "Screw this red tape," and just chase the guy down. Both are good actions, just that CG guy has less need for rules. Also, being chaotic means that you have a strong tendency to do things without thoroughly thinking them through. You are a lot more spontaneous than the LG char and that you are more willing break your word. According to D&D rules, casting an evil spell is inherently an evil act. No if ands or buts about it. Think of it like this. If you have explain why an action was good and not evil. It wasn't good.
Vaelan 06-10-07, 09:57 PM	Depends on how your DM views the "effect" on being willing to cast [evil] spells. In my world view (even within D&D), Good does not willingly do [evil]. So if your Good PC is willingly casting [evil] spells, it is not that the action changes his alignment, but rather, it indicates the alignment was not Good in the first place. That seems a little excessive. Either you're holding Good people to incredibly high standards (same standards as a Paladin) or casting an Evil spell is a bigger deal than it seems it would be to me. Using Evil to accomplish Good equals Neutrality. Neutral people are neither Good nor Evil. They do not do Good or Evil things. Saying that using A Thing That Neutral People Don't Use to accomplish A Goal That Neutral People Don't Pursue makes you Neutral is simply nonsensical.
jimpaladin 06-10-07, 10:09 PM	Per the RAW it is evil why doesn't matter to the rules:D If I were the DM I would have pulled you aside and said that do it again and you become CN. If you wanted to keep the CG alignment then a trip to a CG temple is in order for a little down home cleric thumpin':P Also you may wish to talk to your DM to find out where he stands on the whole evil vs Evil thing. I could go on but it's a theological debate and I'm not going there on here:cool: :embarrass
Seeker95 06-10-07, 11:14 PM	That seems a little excessive. Either you're holding Good people to incredibly high standardsI do. Read on... or casting an Evil spell is a bigger deal than it seems it would be to me.It is. Read on... Neutral people are neither Good nor Evil.Most people are Neutral. Most people have done things in their lives to which eventually defend with "but I'm a good person." A Good person does not willingly act in a manner that would necessitate such a defense. Neutral people generally *want* to be good, or at least want others to perceive them as good. But they do not have the moral character, inner drive, or sense of rightness that allows them. They'll likely do all the right things when someone is looking, but Good is what you do when nobody can see.
runestar 06-10-07, 11:34 PM	Fiendish Codex 2 has this taint system, and casting evil spells slowly adds to this score. Thus, casting just 1 or 2 evil spells will not immediately turn you evil, and continued casting eventually will.:)
Someone 06-11-07, 12:00 AM	Yeah, because Robin Hood, the poster child of chaotic good, was renowned for conjuring unnatural mockeries of the living in his efforts to bring freedom and justice to England.[/sarcasm] Its about as strange as a CG wizard casting a [law] spell.
Twylyght 06-11-07, 01:18 AM	This has always been a big problem with the idea of an alignment system. While I fully support the concept that casting spells aligned opposed to your own should have consequence, its certainly not instant or absolute. Saying a good person could never commit an evil act, and thus one who does was never actually good, is perhaps a little to black and white. Being good is indeed something one has to strive to do, but to say that a single act to the contrary means a person never was or ever could be good is holding to standards above even being human. For starters both law and good are relative to the perception of those involved. How many wars do you believe have been fought where one side believed itself to be the bad guy? Killing is not always an evil act, but never is it a good one. or All murders are kills, but not all kills are murders. An evil wizard has completed casting a spell, that in 1 round will consume the life of an innocent (and good aligned) child chained to the altar behind him, feuling a reaction that will destroy the world. The paladin slays him a fraction of a second to late and the magic is begining to consume the child. If the paladin uses his action to slay the child, the entire world.. minus this child, is spared death.. if he takes no action at all, the paladin willingly lets an entire world die through inaction. Would you rule that the paladin is automatically, unavoidably, and completely a nongood, or perhaps even evil character if he decides to save the world? Good. Evil. Context is key to the nature of an action. Situations like this is why I lean more towards a slide or taint system than the idea that any nongood act makes you nongood. Good people get put in bad situations.
sooperspook 06-11-07, 01:35 AM	This wouldn't be as much of a problem if people played Alignments as tendencies rather than straight jackets. Heck, IIRC even the PHb says that Alignments aren't meant to restrict character actions. Just suggest them It is perfectly normal for a Good person to do an evil act(little E) and still be good. Otherwise the only Good people would be Angels. And even THEY sometimes slip up! It's only if you consistently and continually do Evil acts that changing your alignment is justified.
Muktar 06-11-07, 03:45 AM	Twylyght, first that is the most convoluted scenario ever thought up. Second, he kills the real bad guy and then tries to find a cure for the kid. He is a paladin. The end NEVER justify the means to a paladin. He is a paragon of good and law. In D&D they clearly spelled out that there is no such thing as culturally based good vs evil. Check out BoED. We are talking about Chaotic Good. Answer this if the person was Chaotic good and they are the champions of freedom and life. Would they murder a child because the kid might do something? I use those terms specifically since you decided to use them. The child hasn't done anything yet. No good char would just outright just kill the kid. That is murder. PC's do little evils (small e) all the time. The spells that are marked with [evil] are the big Evils. Defiling a dead body by turning it into undead, sucking life force out of another individual. Those are just some of the big Evils. There is of course worse but that is in the BoVD. If you want a list of spells that aren't listed as [evil] but most certainly isn't good, is the spells that are the small "e" evils. PC's lie to bad guys all the time. PC's murder NPC's because they are affiliated with the bad guy, and I can continue on and on and on about the small 'e'vils that PC's do but I won't. You get the picture. I do agree with sooperspook to a point. It has to be a case by case basis. Would creating undead in my campaign be enough of an evil act to warrant an alignment change? Most likely because chances are the char has already done other questionable acts. Good people wouldn't think of defiling a corpse and torturing the spirit by turning it into undead. A good person would not think of killing a kid because some bad guy did something to him. Twylyght, I will say this again. If you have to explain why something is a good action, then it isn't.
Seeker95 06-11-07, 08:16 AM	Saying a good person could never commit an evil act, and thus one who does was never actually good, is perhaps a little to black and white.Saying such a thing is simply not only a little too black and white, but also a misrepresentation of what was stated. A Good person could never willingly commit an [evil] act; one who does was never actually Good. Circumstances may require making such a choice. But such an act would be done with reluctance, remorse, regret, or some such "I wish I didn't have to do this" indication. Key word: willingly Key mechanic: [evil] with the tag.
Andorxor 06-11-07, 09:33 AM	PC's do little evils (small e) all the time. The spells that are marked with [evil] are the big Evils. Defiling a dead body by turning it into undead, sucking life force out of another individual. Those are just some of the big Evils. There is of course worse but that is in the BoVD. If you want a list of spells that aren't listed as [evil] but most certainly isn't good, is the spells that are the small "e" evils. PC's lie to bad guys all the time. PC's murder NPC's because they are affiliated with the bad guy, and I can continue on and on and on about the small 'e'vils that PC's do but I won't. You get the picture. Summon undead doesn't defill a dead body or suck lifeforce out odf someone.
tui 06-11-07, 10:25 AM	It seems pretty clear to me... If you're a Lawful player, Good characters can't cast Evil spells without becoming evil themselves. If you're a Chaotic player, Good characters can cast Evil spells occasionally if it is for a very good cause. ;)
JulesCARV 06-11-07, 10:33 AM	I should note that whether casting evil spells is an evil act is not a closed question. I tend to lean toward yes, but many people claim that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor isn't an evil act -- it's just a descriptor for spells that get +1 to caster level for clerics with the Evil domain, can't be prepared by good clerics, etc.
foxtail 06-11-07, 10:50 AM	Evil (capital E), IMHO, isn't an ephemeral thing in D&D. It's a universal force, an element, the stuff that demons and devils are comprised of; in certain, albeit rare, situations, a character can actually hold Evil in his hand. [Evil] spells draw on this power, like a [fire] spell does elemental fire, and casting them pulls more of that force into the world. Which makes the world, and the caster, literally a fraction more evil. Of course, on the other hand, casting a lot of [fire] spells won't turn you into a fire elemental. Hm.
Seeker95 06-11-07, 11:26 AM	Of course, on the other hand, casting a lot of [fire] spells won't turn you into a fire elementalBut you are likely to get burnt. :mage:
tarkin 06-11-07, 12:15 PM	Look, there are some wizards that start out good but slowly research and are seduced by the dark side. This is one way to roleplay that. If you want to ignore it, fine, but that is part of the game. WHen it comes down to it, think of it this way. A wizard casting an [Evil] Spell is doing something a good cleric would not do. Similarly, having premarital sex is not exactly a big thing, but I expect a good cleric would not do it. Now, you can call the good cleric a namby pamby fool, or you can admit that maybe it is not such a great idea. Doing it once or twice should not be a real problem. You are not a cleric and don't intend to be. But in MY game, if you routinely cast [Evil] spells every single day, well, at the very least you get a reputation.
RobbyPants 06-11-07, 12:19 PM	Even when using evil spells to fight evil? Dan. This level of ethics really lies with how the DM views his own world. You could answer this either way and be "correct" depending on how good and evil are viewed in the world. One aspect could take an "the ends justify the means" approach, and could be perfectly valid. The idea is you're doing more good by a small evil act, so in the whole, you did a good act. Another aspect could say that the principle of the act is more important than the outcome. Casting an evil spell could be considered evil for that reason alone, regardless of whether or not it caused more good. Of course, then you could try to ask, "why is this an evil spell?" in the first place. This can be argued endlessly. The long and the short of it, ask the DM how he views good and evil in his world. Are they cosmic forces just as strong and predictable as gravity? Are they arbitrary concepts imagined by people for classifying actions? Are they arbitrary principles handed down to mortals by deities much more powerful than them? Any of these views can be "correct" depending on the campaign, so long as the DM is consistant with his ruling. Hope that political, fense-sitting answer helped :P
Twylyght 06-11-07, 02:02 PM	Twylyght, first that is the most convoluted scenario ever thought up. Second, he kills the real bad guy and then tries to find a cure for the kid. He is a paladin. The end NEVER justify the means to a paladin. He is a paragon of good and law. In D&D they clearly spelled out that there is no such thing as culturally based good vs evil. Check out BoED. We are talking about Chaotic Good. Answer this if the person was Chaotic good and they are the champions of freedom and life. Would they murder a child because the kid might do something? I use those terms specifically since you decided to use them. The child hasn't done anything yet. No good char would just outright just kill the kid. That is murder. PC's do little evils (small e) all the time. The spells that are marked with [evil] are the big Evils. Defiling a dead body by turning it into undead, sucking life force out of another individual. Those are just some of the big Evils. There is of course worse but that is in the BoVD. If you want a list of spells that aren't listed as [evil] but most certainly isn't good, is the spells that are the small "e" evils. PC's lie to bad guys all the time. PC's murder NPC's because they are affiliated with the bad guy, and I can continue on and on and on about the small 'e'vils that PC's do but I won't. You get the picture. I do agree with sooperspook to a point. It has to be a case by case basis. Would creating undead in my campaign be enough of an evil act to warrant an alignment change? Most likely because chances are the char has already done other questionable acts. Good people wouldn't think of defiling a corpse and torturing the spirit by turning it into undead. A good person would not think of killing a kid because some bad guy did something to him. Twylyght, I will say this again. If you have to explain why something is a good action, then it isn't. And I agree with most of that. The BoED is a great read, and while good and evil are not cutrally defined in D&D the BoED also goes into some depth about how many wars are fought without an evil side, and how evil forces and creatures often exist without knowing that they are evil. How evil acts, while never good, are sometimes taken by non evil characters, though do not make them evil characters. The key in defining good from evil characters is how it reacts to its own actions, does the character show remorse? Does he learn from the sitaution? Does he make efforts to attone? Alot more weighs into alignment than the direct result of any given action. Back to what I was presenting. Killing the kid would NEVER be a good act. The kid is doing nothing wrong, the kid is making no action of his own, and is innocent in the absolute sense one can be. Killing the kid is most certainly, itself, an act of evil. The kid is however is a victim, made a material component in a spell that is completing. The very evil spell will take one round to consume the soul of the innocent child, then the world will be destroyed. The paladin(or any other good character for that matter)has one single action to take. Slaying the child releases the soul before it can be consumed and saves the world. Not slaying the child allows the world to die. You dont have time to prepare. You dont have time to research a counter. You dont even have time to search through your gear. You have the sword already in your hand, and a single action. The childs death at this point is unavoidable with either course of action resulting in his death. Does slaying the child before the spell consumes his soul make you EVIL to spare the entire rest of the world, by simply being an evil act itself? Saying such a thing is simply not only a little too black and white, but also a misrepresentation of what was stated. A Good person could never willingly commit an [evil] act; one who does was never actually Good. Circumstances may require making such a choice. But such an act would be done with reluctance, remorse, regret, or some such "I wish I didn't have to do this" indication. Key word: willingly Key mechanic: [evil] with the tag. Exactly what I am getting at, what happens after, and along with, the action is just as important to answering the question as the action itself. Does the character set out to raise enough funds to raise the child? Does he pray to be forgiven? Does he understand how the action was evil? Does he strive to make sure it wont happen again? None of those would make killing the child a good action, ever. Those are the signs however, knowing that evil was commited, honestly regretting, and fully seeking attonement, that keep a good character good, in the face of evil action. Its the difference between "eh... well it couldnt be helped" and "Pelor forgive me my weakness, please guide me so that I will not fail you again" Situations can (and sometimes should) happen that force good characters into making uncomfortable choices, making them shouldnt automaticly force the character into a diffrent alignment or void everything they had been up to that point. It certainly should be a factor, it should carry weight in the campaign, and certainly should not be a one way trip. If the good acts can be tarnished so should the evil ones be redeemed.
tyrecian 06-11-07, 03:23 PM	you dont have to worry about this at all, according to core, because you are not a cleric/ranger/pally or FS, or anything that might have to concern yourself with it. The [Evil] spell descritpor is used to show that there is a line which can be drawn in the celestial and abyssal pantheon wars. A cleric of Pelor hates undead and therefore would not cast an [Evil] necromantic spell. His god wouldnt allow it, he cant get that divine power. It isnt a justification by the PC, he simply cannot pray for that spell. Its not real life, Jerry Falwell wasnt good, but jesus gave him plenty of power... this is D&D where gods are real. :) that being said, the wizzy doesnt adhere to that strict code of pantheonic interpretation. A wizard being Chaotic Good can cast spells that raise zombies. In fact, you could have a good elven necromancer. The pally might not want to adventure with him, but the spells are not [Evil] for the wizard, only for the Cleric, because the wizard doesnt have to concern himself with pantheonic alignment. The wizard can use necromancy to better himself, or his party, or even the town. An example might be in a nation where necromancy is not outright outlawed (strange concept, i agree) a wizard might be used to create undead crewmen to retrieve treasure from the bottom of the sea, where the king's ship was sunk by pirates. The captured pirates claim that the riches went down with the ship, only one way to find out.... search the ship, but depth makes it tough for anything to withstand the pressure. The necrmoancer might however be required by law to subject himself periodically to an alignment test to insure that he isnt tainted with evil necrmomancy by a priest of pelor, but the priest wouldnt directly interfere with his work, since its sanctioned by a power like the king. In this case the use of necromancy brings evil pirates to justice, and in the eyes of the wizard does no real harm to anyone. The cleric might feel differently sensing that shadow beings on this plane tip the balance to evil, and hate every undead that reaches the material plane, but that is his conundrum, his walk. The wizard simply binds the shadow energy to this plane to do his bidding, the creation matters not. Same thing with summons. A wizard summons what best serves him, and demands obedience and service. Demon or angel, they are there to serve the wizard through coersion. I.e. Planar Binding However the CLeric takes a different approach since his alignment restricts him to summon that which is idealogically pure with his motive. I.e. Planar Ally Imposing alignment restriction upon a wizard that were designed for clerics only reshapes the idea that the wizard is a neutral scientist. A wizard might be like a DuPont engineer. Totally destroying the land around his factory to make devestatingly pollutive products that the market demands. When he is done he goes home to his family that loves him, and a church that admires him. He is paid for his service. Are his acts evil? Perhaps if he were to become involved with a pantheon in reality and see the totality of his actions then he would have a battle of conscience. Can he in good will continue to support such loathsome activity knowing the destruction not only his work, but also his company support? But he doesnt see it that way, to him its just a job... does he turn evil over time? No he grows old and retires and loves his family which loves him in return. He is a good man, and when he dies noone will call him evil, except that one idealogically pure nephew he has that hated what he did, and always brought it up at family reunions.... that is the cleric v/s the wizard. A wizard can be elbow deep in undeath and demonic activity and still maintain a distance from it, he doesnt have to like the vrock to bargain with it. The undead are just labor to him. Digging up graves to get bodies is not evil, perhaps unlawful (officials can be bribed) but the bodies are dead already, no harm no foul. The good cleric could never do these things because in his heart he is pure. To the cleric and his gods, there is always a ramification, reflected by the alignment. The cleric and his spells are extensions, by the rules. The wizard walks a looser line, to him its just a job, his actions are far mor eimportant than his spell selection. Even a mad scientist who wants to blow up Venus might want it for the good of the world. At the end of the day, there are some classes which are far more alignment oriented than others. Paladins, monks, druids, clerics, barbs, etc.... these are the classes which must worry and constantly think in terms of alignment. The wizard, like the fighter, is better left to doing whatever they please, and only really sufferring when they completely screw the pooch, as in the CG wizzy makes hundreds of undead out of the goblin bodies that he helped the villagers destroy. The villagers are happy the goblins are dead, and are even happier to use the undead as guardians of their happy vale. One day, however, an evil party of adventurers comes through and using charm and suggestion make the wizard use his undead creations to destroy the village. "Oooooh what have i done?!?!?!" cries the wizard. "You played with forbidden nether energies!" cries the cleric of Pelor. "Now you must atone for your sins or die." So the wizard whose actions led to great death, though not necessarily by intention, must atone for his actions or suffer an alignment change... perhaps even a hanging, but it wasnt the act of casting the [evil] spells that got him in this predicament, it was the wisdom of it that landed him in hot water. what seemed like a great idea to an intelligent wizard, was a real bonehead move to the wise cleric. Hence the use of attributes to add to the argument. in my view wizards shall not be held to the standards of clerics. They may cast anything they want, whenever they want. That is why players chooses to play a wizard, so they have that freedom. Who needs a god anyways? apparently clerics (although some are alignment oriented, as a cheap copout)... At the end of the day, prayer is faith. A cleric must pray for his spells, thereby maintaining that he is in the 'faith' and that his spells reflect him and his ideologies. A wizard gets his spells from research. Using anything he finds necessary to meet his goals... because thats what he is.
DragonDan 06-11-07, 03:27 PM	but many people claim that casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor isn't an evil act -- it's just a descriptor for spells that get +1 to caster level for clerics with the Evil domain, can't be prepared by good clerics, etc. This seems more in line with my thinking. IMHO spells are tools. It's not what they do, but rather why they are used. I need to read up on BoED and BoVD to get a better understanding of good vs evil in DnD.
dirkformica 06-11-07, 04:40 PM	Flippant comment: If you're going the purely mechanical route with the [Evil] spells and are worried about it, just learn from the Elder Scrolls games. Cast your [Evil] spells in combat. Keep track of how many you cast. During your down time, cast an equal number of [Good] spells. Hurray! You have balanced the mechanical scales of the alignment system.
Beware of Kobold 06-11-07, 04:46 PM	could someone please point me to the place in the srd where it says that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act because I can't seem to find it.
Muktar 06-11-07, 04:59 PM	it isn't in the SRD. Good and Evil are better explained in the BoVD and the BoED. To the op read BoVD pg 8. It explicitly says that creating undead no matter the cause is an evil act. You can get away with casting some evil spells to do good. Although, be wary of the DM. It says that if you do it for an evil end (ie out of revenge, selfishness, greed, and so forth) that it is an evil act.
Beware of Kobold 06-11-07, 05:05 PM	so everyone is basing their whole arguments off of rules from a secondary source? I hardly consider the Book of Vile Darkness a 'core' rulebook
Muktar 06-11-07, 05:18 PM	so everyone is basing their whole arguments off of rules from a secondary source? I hardly consider the Book of Vile Darkness a 'core' rulebook The core rulebooks do not cover the implications of good and evil and what constitutes it. They are RAW and therefore valid for argument. Just to be a smarta$$: Tell me where it talks in the core books about swift and immediate actions?
Beware of Kobold 06-11-07, 05:41 PM	swift and immediate actions aren't in the core rulebooks because nothing in them uses swift or immediate actions. :P
tui 06-11-07, 06:19 PM	Ok, how about from Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040803a): A cleric cannot cast a spell with the evil descriptor if the cleric's alignment is good or if the cleric is dedicated to a good deity. Note that it didn't say anything about a Wizard. I interpret this to mean that a Cleric physically cannot cast an Evil spell... it just isn't in their spell list. (And even if they could from another class, it wouldn't be permitted.) But a Wizard or whatever CAN choose to cast an Evil spell. This doesn't say anything about the effect it might have. And from the FAQ: Can a good-aligned ninja use poison without violating her alignment? In other words, is using poison considered an evil act? Nothing in the alignment information in the Player’s Handbook or the poison entry in the Dungeon Master’s Guide specifically describes the use of poison as an evil act. Of course, the purpose to which you put the poison might well be an evil act: Using poison to murder the local constable is just as evil as knifing him in a back alley. It’s possible that using poison might violate a character’s personal moral code, or the moral code of his faith or cause. For example, if local laws restrict the use of poison, its use would be considered an unlawful act, which would violate a paladin’s code (which includes “respect [for] legitimate authority”). The DM is the ultimate arbiter of what is or isn’t legal in his campaign. Remember, a character’s alignment isn’t a set of rules to follow—it’s a player’s declaration of an intent to play a character a certain way. Declaring your ninja is lawful good doesn’t mean she can’t act in a manner considered either unlawful or evil (or both). Repeated behavior of this sort can and should be construed as a decision on your part that your character’s actual alignment—that is, the way you’ve chosen to play the character—doesn’t match her stated alignment. In this case, the DM is fully within his rights to suggest or even impose an alignment change on your character. For most characters, this has minimal mechanical impact, although some classes impose alignment restrictions. That Ninja one obviously doesn't directly relate, but it is a nice summary of alignment, which I thought might add something to the discussion. I think it supports the slow-slide-to-alignment-change theory for Good Wizards casting Evil spells.
Optimator 06-11-07, 08:38 PM	So it is label-evil,the it-is-evil-because-i-say-it-is-evil Welcome to D&D
Neutronium_Dragon 06-11-07, 09:50 PM	Keep in mind that when you're using a spell to *summon* undead, you're not actually creating that undead creature; you're borrowing it from somewhere else. Even if you called an undead creature, you haven't actually created it. So it doesn't fall under the "creating undead is always evil" stipulation. That said, casting an [evil] spell is an evil act, but something like Summon Undead isn't sufficiently evil as to send the character's alignment careening off south across the Wheel. You'd have to make a regular habit of doing so and that assumes that there are no mitigating circumstances. What would be more the question and more likely to influence the alignment result is why he's choosing to prepare Summon Undead rather than Summon Monster. The fact that someone would freely choose to the former over the latter is more of an indication that they're tipping into non-good territory unless there's a really good strategic reason for using undead over any other kind of summoned creature. The Malconvoker PrC from Complete Scoundrel is one PrC which specifically lifts this limitation. "In addition, regular use of conjuration spells with the evil descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment." While this does confirm that using evil spells can push your alignment towards evil, it also clearly says "regular use". An occasional evil spell (especially in extenuating circumstances) isn't going to do it; you have to demonstrate a pattern of using them. It does sound like the character mentioned by the OP is making regular use of them, and thus he's going to start having problems sooner or later. Although if he's decided that this is really his shtick, then the Malconvoker is probably something that he should take a serious look at. (Especially if he's using them for good ends, which is the whole idea of the Malconvoker - trick the bad guys into doing good things.)
Andorxor 06-12-07, 12:29 AM	There is a good reason to use undeads instead of monsters.Monsters can feel pain/Undeads don't feel pain.
Optimator 06-12-07, 01:21 AM	I like to think about it like this: A wizard casting Evascular Mass is able to, but he feels uneasy and even bad about doing so if he's Good-aligned (or even neutral). A single spell of the [Evil] descriptor is probably only a very slight ping toward your alignment, if that.
Cariyaga 06-12-07, 04:27 AM	The thing is, that wizard would have had to have that spell in his spell book, and have prepared it that day. He must not feel too badly about it if he prepared it.
DragonDan 06-12-07, 07:50 AM	What would be more the question and more likely to influence the alignment result is why he's choosing to prepare Summon Undead rather than Summon Monster. From what I can tell, no monster listed on the Summon Monster V can match a Shadow from Summon Undead V.
Bihlbo 06-12-07, 11:50 AM	Descriptors do not indicate the inherant morality or philosophy of a spell. They just affect how the spell interacts with its environment. A spell with an [Evil] descriptor is no more evil in its morality than a spell with the [Law] descriptor follows set rules and rationality. If you start saying that a spell's descriptor determines the casting action's inherant value then a chaotic sorcerer would lost his alignment by summoning a modron, and a neutral character would no longer be neutral if she cast Protection from Chaos. If you can't mentally separate the descriptor on a spell from how the spell is being used in the world then you really need to do some studying of alignment and how affects a character.
Seeker95 06-12-07, 12:41 PM	If you can't mentally separate the descriptor on a spell from how the spell is being used in the world then you really need to do some studying of alignment and how affects a character.Equally, if you can't see the relationship between the descriptor on a spell, alignment, and how it affects a character, you really need to do some studying of how a spell is used in the world. Alignment is not a straight-jacket. It does not even "guide your actions". It is a label applied to your character based on your character's actions. If your actions are evil, then it doesn't matter what you *want* to write on your character sheet... you're evil. Using [evil] is something not likely to be engaged in by someone who is Good. Relationships are not absolutes. But they are relationships, nonetheless.