Post/Author/DateTime	Post
robertliguori 10-08-04, 11:33 PM	By the rules, it kind of has to be. Let's say you cast a corrupt spell on a demon, killing it horribly. According to the BoVD, you've slain a demon, which is always good. Conversely, you've cast an evil spell, which is always evil. Is there anything in the rules saying that things must be good OR evil?
Lord Stigius 10-08-04, 11:48 PM	According to the BoVD, you've slain a demon, which is always good. Not neccesarrily. Depends on what you wanted to achieve by killing this demon. Otherwise all Baator would have gone LG millenia ago.
robertliguori 10-08-04, 11:52 PM	Not neccesarrily. Depends on what you wanted to achieve by killing this demon. Otherwise all Baator would have gone LG millenia ago. BoVD, page 8, 2nd column, under Consorting With Fiends: "Destroying a fiend is always a good act." Hey, I didn't write this stuff. Plus, if I'm right, than killing a fiend is always good, but can be evil as well, and may well be more evil than good.
Hugin 10-09-04, 12:04 AM	Is there anything in the rules saying that things must be good OR evil? I think they call it "neutral" ;) . That's how I'd interpret it IMHO. I mean, a "good" person really shouldn't be casting a corrupt spell regardless of the end result; unless, this is where the law/chaos axis comes into play. *rubbing my head to soothe the pain* Call it neutral!
Shaftiel 10-09-04, 12:11 AM	Ah, the finer points of the D&D alignment system... If a CN character dedicates himself 100% to destroying a LN organization, is this a LN and a CN act? If a paladin eats a baby to save the world, is this a G and E act? I'd start with... ignore the BoVD and the BoED. Just go with the more general rules in the PHB. They require more thought, more finageling, and more judgement on the parts of both the players and the DM, but they generally avoid this problem. On the other hand, I generally shape the alignment rules to fit the campaign, so it would depend on the campaign. If it's a hard-core demon-slaying campaign thet runs like a hollywood blockbuster, it's a good act. If it's an angst-ridden moralistic indie film, it's both, as you suggested. And if it's one of those things that just kind of "happened" - they took the spell because it was efficient (rather than E-V-I-L) and they bumped off the demon because, well, he was there and they were adventurers, then I'd say it's mostly neutral. -Shaftiel
Master Agnald 10-09-04, 12:30 AM	Hummm... isn't there a thread somewhere about a guy wanting to play a good necromancer... this raises the same questions... raising the dead is evil... but he could be using them to, say, save little orphan children... so, I guess it'd be neutral... ...don't see it as an axis... see it as a donut.
nlumsden 10-09-04, 12:43 AM	The unfortunate problem with this question is that there is no right answer. We can debate all day long and not come up with a solid answer. The DnD alignment system is imperfect (and rightly so - note, I say imperfect, not broken). Like anything that deals with right or wrong, so much is dependent on the personal philosophy of the people engaging in the act and the people observing the act. Does the end justify the means? I don't know, no one can answer that question and be correct. That's one of those all-important questions that has been asked since the begining of rational thought. Some will tell you that the end can never justify the means. Others will say that it doesn't matter how you get from A to B, as long as you get to B. But I digress. The point I am attempting to make is that the DM needs to look at the situation objectively and decide for himself if the character was acting within the morales that constitute his philosophical perspective. i.e. did the character see the casting of a "bad" spell as the necessary means by which to rid the world of a "badder" being? Does the spell have any other "bad" effect beyond killing the demon? If not, then is the spell truly evil in that instance? Personally, in this case, I would probably rule that the act, in itself, was a good thing. P.S. And yes, there can be good necromancers. Rules for alignments can never be concrete because they can never foresee every possible situation. Along this same thought, there can be bad paladins as well.
Lord Stigius 10-09-04, 12:46 AM	Evil intent, good act (like giving alms to the poor to buy them for your nefarious cause) ==> whatever you do, it serves towards furthering the cause of evil. Unless you start liking helping the poor for the helping seke and turn away fron your evil plans in the meantime. Good intent, evil act, like in the example by the original poster ==> remember Tolkien's LOtR? Using the corrupt spell to overcome a demon is nothing far from (potentially) using The One Ring to overcome Sauron. Both eventuallu turn their user evil, and serve furthering the cause of evil in the world. If you think that an imbalance (both ways leading to more evil), than hard luck, IMHO! Nobody said being a hero is an easy thing.
nlumsden 10-09-04, 01:09 AM	Good intent, evil act, like in the example by the original poster ==> remember Tolkien's LOtR? Using the corrupt spell to overcome a demon is nothing far from (potentially) using The One Ring to overcome Sauron. Both eventuallu turn their user evil, and serve furthering the cause of evil in the world. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but your example is a little off. The properties of the One Ring actually corrupted the bearer over time. The use of a spell doesn't have that effect in DnD. I can cast evil spells at a stone wall all day long, it doesn't necessarily make me any more evil. However, your example does hit on a philosophical point - Why is the spell evil? Does it's use imply some evil doing? Or is the evil descripter only there because of it's intented use?
Dash Branaghan 10-09-04, 01:45 AM	What, a moral philosophy debate in a DnD forum? On Alignment even? :D Okay, enough of that, onto the issues. Nlumsden, excellent points. And and even better question. I tend to toss out the descriptor for spells (with the exception of the 8 schools of magic, which are more genus and species of the spells than descriptors IMO) because a good spell can be used for evil purposes, just as, in the OP, an evil spell can be used for good purposes. The way I see it, magic is power. And Power is just that...power. It is a neutral. It has no given point on the axis, and would be the hole in the doughnut. HOWEVER... What you do with that power makes it good or evil, again, IMO. Maybe some spells are evil in nature (like Necromancy), but again, how you use them is what counts. You don't give a spell an alignment, you give the person using it an alignment. At least, that is how I deal with it. In that sense, a spell is like a sword. The sword can be used to cleave evil in the name of justice, slaughter the good in the name of evil, or it can be used to do random acts of weirdness in the name of Chaotic Neutrality. But it is not the sword that is evil. Dash
NinjaHedge 10-09-04, 04:11 AM	According to the BoVD yeah, there's your problem. I'm sorry, I know it's an official book and everything, but it contridicts the PHB in many places, and in ways that make the game no longer make sense. I don't know why everyone takes it as the end all be all to alignment rules. The writer is known for completely screwing up what is otherwise a good game in his endevors.
Cantankerous 10-09-04, 04:34 AM	This is one of the reasons I usually dislike definitive "always" statements in rules books and loathe the alignment system, especially the way it is now interpreted. Hey, D&D, in all of it's incarnations, has had this problem because of the absolute artificiality of the concept of alignments. It's nothing new. It's up to the DM, with alot of input from his/her players, to determine those kind of things on a case by case basis. Corruption spells are intrinsicly evil as per the rules. Killing fiends is inherently good as per the rules. So is killings a fiend with a corruption spell good or evil? First, how did the PC come by the Corruption spell? Simply learning to cast the spell would be a declaration of the intention to possibly use it, thus floating it into the realm of an evil act. But reading it off of a scroll in extremis to destroy a fiend, without the intention of learning the spell is a potentially good act, as per the rules. Now, if you know no offensive spells and need this spell in order to combat a great evi,l like a fiend, (although how such a situation could arise is problematic) would also be a good, maybe even a noble act, if that was the reason for learning it. Most good and evil falls into the realm of intention. Killing for pleasure is evil. Killing to protect, when simple protection is the goal and not a side light, is usually seen as good. So, if a fiend is protecting another out of personal loyalty only, and this could happenwith the massive Charisma scores some of them have, would be a basicly good act, commited by a fiend. Isn't that an interesting concept? If the alignment system weren't so intricately woven into the game I would have done away with it decades ago in my campaigns, but it has such a spot light place in D&D it's nearly impossible to do so without imbalancing the game, so I've left it in place and simply do what a DM must: deal with it as best I can. Isshia
crazysamaritan 10-09-04, 02:52 PM	yeah, there's your problem. I'm sorry, I know it's an official book and everything, but it contridicts the PHB in many places, and in ways that make the game no longer make sense. I don't know why everyone takes it as the end all be all to alignment rules. The writer is known for completely screwing up what is otherwise a good game in his endevors. The same can be said about the BoED. My advice that applies to every product (wotc or otherwise): take what works and makes you happy, leave the rest.... I don't agree with alignments being artificial, but hey, I still see things as Black and White, so that's gotta be it :rolleyes: Way I see it, killing a fiend is what scale of 6 on the good act? Using corruption spell is what? more of a thing you'll always have so I'd say a pretty evil act, maybe a 7. More evil than it is good, but shouldn't force an alignment change. Do that a Number of times, and you'll get a Neutral-> evil trend, but I'm going on the one-time thing. Just because you're good/evil doesn't mean you can't change....
ECOM 10-09-04, 04:47 PM	My understanding is that the spells with the evil discriptor do one of the following. Cause unnecisary suffering (not pain or damage but suffering) harm someones soul create or enhance undead use negative energy call upon evil gods or energys These are generally considered evil things Everybodys game is diferent. in the end you have to decide (do the ends justify the means) if they do then regardless of how good is acomplished the act has no meaning (doing bad to acomplish good is good) If the ends don't justify the means then regardless of the outcome use evil means is evil (doing bad to acomplish good is bad) some where in the middle. doing a little evil to acomlish a greater good is a good act or doing great evil to acomplish a good thing is a evil act.(doing a little bad to acomplish good is good but duing a lot bad to acomplish a little good is bad) adding law and chaos is even more complicated. but that is not the topic of this thread.
Lina_Inverse 10-09-04, 04:53 PM	By the rules, it kind of has to be. Let's say you cast a corrupt spell on a demon, killing it horribly. According to the BoVD, you've slain a demon, which is always good. Conversely, you've cast an evil spell, which is always evil. Is there anything in the rules saying that things must be good OR evil? this is too distinct actions.casting an evil spell,and slaying a fiend.now its impossible to claim slaying fiends is always a good act,fiends are at constant war with eachother(and unlike what the BoED claims the eladrin and archons have had there share of wars,law and chaos ARE more importent to the outer planes afterall)and hence would have all become LG,or a good chunk.theres plenty whos sole purpose is to slaughter demons.
Shard of Suzail 10-09-04, 06:42 PM	Well, i play a true neutral cleric who specialises in necromancy and use of negative energy. As a neutral cleric, with a death domain, i`m apparently evil as the nine hells, despite the fact that i`m neutral and that negative energy use (or positive) are the only choices for abilities I have. So i just wander about, doing my clerical thing, casting countless spells with the evil descriptor and using nasty negative energy, day in day out, to do goodly things. That way I end up as close to neutral as i can, being lumbered with abilities that are either end of the good/evil axis. Take this example. We played the old scenario "The Sylvan Veil" from dragonlance (though we were in the realms). We had to save an elven city whose living energies were being drained by a shield spell of theirs that had gone horribly wrong and that was now killing them and the forest around them. My character approached the elders of the city and asked if I could animate the bodies of their fallen heroes to help fight the force that was killing them all. The elders had a meeting and concluded that the heroes would want to help in this way and thus gave their blessing. So, the next day, I cast my desecrate spell on the tombs, opening a window to the realm of the dead. Then, with some impressive description from the GM (it was a big ritual) the God Chronepsis sent rays of energy down from the sky to animate the fallen elf heroes of old. The elders of the city, prayed for success and, perhaps due to their efforts, one of the skeletons rose up containing the actual hero's soul (whereas the others were just shells). He was a centaur, who actually had a connection in the past to the circumstances of the present (he had fought the same evil long ago). The upshot of all this was that I walked out of the city with myself, the party and a large throng of skeletal warriors, led by a named undead of great power. I cast two effectively evil spells to do it, one of which was a domain spell for me as a neutral cleric. We fought the force threatening the elves and saved the day. Once we were done, we returned to the city and the skeletons were released from my control and were destroyed, within the tombs that they originally came from. The named undead was smashed up in the battle with the end bad guy and he saved the lives of the party. While i animate the dead, i do make a point of releasing them from service once their task is done. It costs me a fortune in gems to keep casting that spell, but i see it as a fair thing to ask of them. I dont see any reason why they wouldnt want to return and protect their living descendents, even if it is just a fragment of them that lingers on to do it, bound together by my will. I`m hampered enough by the fact that i get prejudice from the locals and that many prestige classes and abilities are denied to me because i`m not evil. I would say that negative energy spells and negative energy itself are not evil things, despite what the descriptors and classes say. They are a natural part of the universe and, as such, can be used to goodly effect. It is not impossible, after all, for undead to have a good alignment and it puzzles me that the good cleric in our party treats all undead as vile, despite the fact that we have encountered some who had returned to do noble deeds and set things right again. Sometimes alignment can be a very blurry thing.
crazysamaritan 10-10-04, 02:04 AM	Looks to me that you would qualify as a neutral character. On the verge of evil, but still neutral. If you changed goals from balancing things (by using evil to do good) to doing good by using evil, then you would change alignment. By the mere fact that you know that you are inbetween the two, and that you seek a balance between them, shows that you should be neutral, not evil. It should be mentioned: NEGITIVE ENERGY IS NOT EVIL. ty.
Cantankerous 10-10-04, 07:01 AM	Personally, irregardless of the nature of the spell enrgies being used, the actions undertaken in their use are neutral at worst. They are not good simply because of the basicly universal taboo concerning desicrating graves. This harkens back to the example I responded to of using decidedly evilly intentioned spells for a good end. I agree with CS that the spell energies themselves are not eil in and of themselves, but in the game (at least in 2E) Negative Planar energies were considered evil because they were "anti-life" and the way D&D previous to 3E was structured, and it still seems to be this way now in 3E as well (but I'm no expert on 3E), life energy is Postive energy and considered to be what empowers "Good". Thus Negative Planar energiy could be seen to be the energy that empowers "Evil". All of this goes to say that in game terms the use of Negative planar energies would be considered to have a corrupting effect, the tending (but not forcing) the user more and more towards Evil. Were I the DM in this situation your alignment would be well balanced. The enrgies you use have a corrupting effect, but the end result achieved by their use is positive and the intentions are positive. Yes, I too would have Paladins, for instance, distinctly uncomfortable about dealing with you, irregardless of your results and your intentions, simply because they, as paladins, have been conditioned to equate Negative (anti-life, thus evil) energies with Evil character traits. That is simply an unfortunate fact of "life" in such a world of absolutes. They would probably also be very surprised, if a detect evil was used, to find that you had only the vaguest traces of evil and intelligent or simply thoughtful Paladins would be intrigued by that too; maybe even to the point of forming or keeping an already formed relationship with you to find out more about how a person so "steeped in evil" (from their POV) could remain so untouched by it. SoS, I love such characters as yours. They present limitless RPing possibilities. Isshia
Lord Stigius 10-10-04, 07:44 AM	nlumsden I don't want to sound like a jerk, but your example is a little off. The properties of the One Ring actually corrupted the bearer over time. The use of a spell doesn't have that effect in DnD. I can cast evil spells at a stone wall all day long, it doesn't necessarily make me any more evil. See, 'casting evil spells' is an evil act, at least according to the BoVD (not so bad book IMHO as some folks claim). Now, if commiting evil acts does not make you evil, I dont't know what does. Why are they evil, while a fireball , being quite painful to it's victims, is not evil? Well, because fire, being just an element, is neutral. While tapping in dark powers, like negative energy, corrupts the user. Just like The One corrupted the wearer/user. Most likely the change is slower - The One Ring would be an artifact by D&D standards, and Inflict Minor wounds is... well, we all know what it is. And the truth is, if the game designers want negative energy spells be evil, the whole Negative Plane should get Evil alignment trait. But the more D&D books, the more contradictions. :confused:
king_of_evil007 10-10-04, 11:29 AM	Fireball is not an evil spell. It can be used for evil, however, and that would be an evil act. Same thing with nearly any weapon. Heck, what if you cast Heal (a good spell IIRC) on an evil person? Or just any good support spell on an evil person? You're aiding evil using good powers. On the BoVD's "Destroying a fiend is always a good act" it's a good act if it's done for good. That's how I'd rule it. The demons & devils fighting each other are doing so out of hate and rivalry, for control, whatever, not for the same reason that a Paladin might go smite a demon/devil. That's why they aren't all good.
Alextroy 10-10-04, 12:32 PM	By the rules, it kind of has to be. Let's say you cast a corrupt spell on a demon, killing it horribly. According to the BoVD, you've slain a demon, which is always good. Conversely, you've cast an evil spell, which is always evil. Is there anything in the rules saying that things must be good OR evil? An act can be good, evil, or neutral, but some acts are considered to always be good or evil. In those cases, you come to the question: can doing evil for a good reason be considered to not be evil? I would say no. Doing an evil thing for a good reason does not negate the fact that you still did an evil thing. That's the tricky part about evil. You can have pure intentions and still end up corrupting yourself. Otherwise you could have stupid things like Paladins running about committing evil acts as long as they were in conjunction with good acts. Alextroy
MrFloyd 10-10-04, 02:42 PM	I don't know if this been adress yet, but and evil act can never be good. It just that, the tenets of goodness, that the ends NEVER justified the means. In the case of using an evil spell for killing a fiend, yes, killing the fiend is good. But using evil spells bring power to the forces of evil and thus, everytime a spellcaster uses an evil spell, it bring the world that much closer the the evil of the lower planes. A good character will never sacrifice another being for the greater good and will try to save everybody. A neutral character might do it and an evil one will kill is allys to save himself, but not a truly good character. edit - to make things clearer I don't know if any of you have read the BoED but in there, there is a little section debating how you see evil in your game. Now, the basic rules assume that evil an objective concept. Thus some things are evil and some things are good, even if YOU don't see it like that. A killer running aroung eating babies is evil even if he thinks his doing good. That the easiest way to run things in game. It let the DM say "No, that's an evil act and that's that, no matter how much you debate on it". And then, there is the subjective concept. Evil acts are defined by the person doing/seeing them. The problem with this is that most of the game mechanics fall apart. How does smite evil works ? Detect good/evil won't work the same way. Two warring nations can see each other as being evil invaders. When to paladin from the opposing nation face on the field of battle, can they use their smite abilities on each other ? The best way is to go by the rules. Evil is evil and good is good, no "I don't see it like that".
crazysamaritan 10-10-04, 03:15 PM	An act can be good, evil, or neutral, but some acts are considered to always be good or evil. In those cases, you come to the question: can doing evil for a good reason be considered to not be evil? I would say no. Doing an evil thing for a good reason does not negate the fact that you still did an evil thing. Reverse it, and see if it still makes sense: Doing a good thing for an evil reason does not negate the fact that you still did a good thing. It's interesting, everyone seems to think of the acts together. He did a good act and an evil act. Is the evil act enough to make him evil? Is the good act enough to make him good? If he was doing both, to do good, I'd make him evil. Becasue the intentions are still impure. If he was doing good to do evil, I'd make him evil, becasue his intentions are impure. Since he is doing good and evil to remain neutral, the balance of power remains in balance. Evil is done to destroy evil. The balance is maintained. Active Neutrality.
Iyestorm 10-16-04, 09:24 PM	The answer is simple. Do not let your alignment define you. ...or you could use a chart, and do the math yourself.
TheDoomBringer 10-16-04, 10:18 PM	From a utilitarian view: Sum up the total good and bad produced by the action. If the amount of good produced (considering the fact that some outcomes couldn't be accounted for, and that intention is important) is high enough, its a good act. Slaying a demon almost always will reduce pain and suffering (because the demon is evil incarnate), thus almost always good.
Grox 10-17-04, 03:27 AM	The morality of the D&D system is "deontological". That is, the QUALITY of your act is all that matters . . . not the consequences. If you want a more "consequentialist" moral code IYC, that's okay too. IMPORTANT: Note that creatures, or their acts, if categorized by consequences, should only be categorized by FORESEEABLE consequences. Your campaign can 100% deontological, 100% consequentialist, 50-50, or have one of the two criteria be "prevalent" (i.e., all acts are judged deontologically unless the consequences are REALLY extreme, or all acts are judged consequentially unless their quality is REALLY extreme.) It doesn't really matter which you choose as a DM, as long as you are CONSISTENT with it and don't blindside the players too much.
WCH 10-17-04, 04:03 AM	Personally, for the case of destroying a demon with a corrupt spell, I'd seperate those into two actions. 1) You casted a corrupt spell, which is an Evil act. 2) You destoyed a demon, which is a Good act. Note that these are not parts of one action, but two seperate actions altogether, which just happen to happen as a concequence of each other.
zodiki 10-17-04, 01:12 PM	Destroying the fiend is a universally good act where casting the corrupt spell is a personal evil act only affecting the caster. It could even be argued (based on intentions) that using the corrupt spell to destroy the fiend is a form of self sacrifice, making the sum of the act more good than simply using a sword or a regular spell. Either way, I'd say in the final tally, it's more a good act than an evil act.
Alextroy 10-24-04, 03:15 PM	It could even be argued (based on intentions) that using the corrupt spell to destroy the fiend is a form of self sacrifice, making the sum of the act more good than simply using a sword or a regular spell. That is an Ends Justify the Means rationalization. Self-sacrifice should not be confused with committing evil or allowing yourself to be corrupted by evil. Casting a corrupt spell to kill a fiend is evil if not self-corruption. It fails to be self-sacrifice because you are actually being selfish by accepting forbidden power for what it will allow you to accomplish. Losing your righthand, your eye, or your life to kill the fiend is self-sacrifice. It is giving of yourself without compromising your convictions and morality to perform a noble goal. Alextroy
Paradoxism 10-24-04, 05:20 PM	Paradox: A statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. A good act that is intensively evil, or vice versa. Why. That's all you need to ask and all you need to know. To what purpose was the action(s) taken? I personally loathe alignment. I only use it because it makes life easier when dealing with certain spells, abilities, and items. I allow my characters to play their characters as they see fit, not as someone's writings dictate they should. They are allowed to walk their own paths... I just keep a close record of their actions. I tell my players to go ahead and a pick an alignment when they create their character. I write it down and keep it for my own records. Then I let them RP their character how they see fit. I take note of their actions throughout the sessions and make a personal determination of whether they are generally good, generally neutral, generally evil, or however they are according to societies general interpretations of those conducts. Only certain characters are bound to act certain ways: A Paladin has a code of conduct to follow. I make sure they stick with it, but I tell them if they don't like it they can easily change their character... choice makes life worthwhile. If a player is experienced I will sometimes coerce them into playing a type of character they are unfamiliar with, but only to broaden their potential/experience as a player. However, most of the time I allow the players to act as they see fit (or as their characters see fit, rather)... although for every action there is a reaction, so they are cautious not to act in a manner that is not conducive to the health and life of their characters. Maturity of the player also takes a large role in this. A good player can separate their personality with their characters personality.... thereby creating a unique personality independent of their own. The one thing that drives me crazy is the person that continually quotes the books concerning issues of good and evil. For all intensive purposes good and evil are just terms people assigned to certain actions to express personal opinions on them. Good actions and evil actions don't really exist. It's the why of the actions that determines their cause/outcome. Of course you have to be careful when applying realism to an unrealistic world. Else you take out the most important factor... fun. Hakuna Matata...
robertliguori 10-24-04, 07:42 PM	Reverse it, and see if it still makes sense: Doing a good thing for an evil reason does not negate the fact that you still did a good thing. It kind of does. If Xzisunth the Blackguard embarks on a diabolical scheme to cause a kingdom to founder by providing for the poor, thus removing their incentive to work their way out of poverty and eventually causing vast amounts of the kingdom to be forced to support the poor, this would not change the fact that he was still giving a great amount of charity. Good to do evil seems to be good.
crazysamaritan 10-24-04, 09:01 PM	It kind of does. If Xzisunth the Blackguard embarks on a diabolical scheme to cause a kingdom to founder by providing for the poor, thus removing their incentive to work their way out of poverty and eventually causing vast amounts of the kingdom to be forced to support the poor, this would not change the fact that he was still giving a great amount of charity. Good to do evil seems to be good. THat's tainted money. It's the same principle as poisoning food, then giving that food to the hungrey. Yes, its a good act, but you're doing a lot more evil at the same time. Anyway, the main reason I made that point (main, but not only) was actually because people seem to think if a good guy does evil, he turns evil. Not the case. Only if it worked the same the other way around.