Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ezram 08-06-07, 06:43 PM	My character is a Lawful Good Cleric of a death god, and he can't cast evil spells, understandably. But if he was in a situation where he could use one to counterspell an evil cleric's magic (think necro-mancer), and neither dispel magic or Improved Counterspell are an option (the latter can't be earned for a while anyhow) could it somehow be justified? There is a healthy amount of DM leeway in this case. A player suggested using a scroll, so even though the act is evil, I can at least destroy an evil item in the process.
LeuktheSavior 08-06-07, 06:55 PM	i think so, but an act of atonement should follow. which is good for roleplaying potentials.
Cariyaga 08-06-07, 07:02 PM	Counterspells It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell. By doing so, you are using the spell’s energy to disrupt the casting of the same spell by another character. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane. How Counterspells Work To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing the ready action. In doing so, you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. (You may still move your speed, since ready is a standard action.) If the target of your counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level). This check is a free action. If the check succeeds, you correctly identify the opponent’s spell and can attempt to counter it. If the check fails, you can’t do either of these things. To complete the action, you must then cast the correct spell. As a general rule, a spell can only counter itself. If you are able to cast the same spell and you have it prepared (if you prepare spells), you cast it, altering it slightly to create a counterspell effect. If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results. It seems pretty clear that no negative energy, evil energy, etc. is released, from either of you. (slightly altered to create a counterspell effect)
JulesCARV 08-06-07, 07:13 PM	I'm sure that's what Jozan was doing on PHB 291, right? Right?
Nephlite 08-06-07, 09:39 PM	I'm sure that's what Jozan was doing on PHB 291, right? Right? No, Jozan started good and became nuetral. So he can now cast evil spells and it is okay.
Ezram 08-06-07, 09:48 PM	Off topic for this instance, but...your signature is bigger than your post :confused:
Kuroimaken 08-06-07, 10:56 PM	I suppose the scroll idea is a good call. Why your character would be walking around with evil spell scrolls is another matter entirely, though.
Ezram 08-06-07, 11:12 PM	Not that my character makes it a habit anyhow :) Though, isn't it better for the good hero to carry around the evil item to destroy in a situation where evil is being combatted than to leave it for someone else to pick up? :confused:
Cariyaga 08-07-07, 04:33 AM	Ugh, that's a conundrum no man (or woman...or hermaphrodite) should ever face. This is off topic, but the Alignment system, quite simply, sucks. Now, I'm not going to go into detail on anything, but... Really, is there any need for an alignment system? Spells that rely on it? Have the DM, with you, determine if it effects you or whomever it is cast upon.
Ezram 08-07-07, 04:53 AM	This is off topic, but the Alignment system, quite simply, sucks. And what does that say of those that use it? :confused: By the way, this will be the last post on the viability of the alignment system. I am playing in this game, the DM has set the rules and i'd like more sensible suggestions based on the parameters I put forth. Do not derail this thread.
Renvale999 08-07-07, 07:29 AM	Although "technically" by the rules, you cannot counter an evil spell with an evil spell if you are a good cleric, I've seen this work before. Your character doesn't WANT to do it, but it's the most effecient way to stop the necromancer from casting Finger of Death and killing your fellow party member. As a DM, I've come across this situation before and we simply roleplayed it out. The cleric memorized a Circle of Death spell since they knew the enemy loved to use that spell. When the time came he countered the spell and it was essential to the party victory. But right after he cast it, he became nauseated(his choice) and dazed for 2 rounds(my choice). He then proceeded to roleplay out feeling dirty and very guilty. Later on he spent the night in a holy place sacred to his god and prayed to his god for forgiveness. He awoke in the morning feeling better(he had a vision while he was sleeping of helping people and realized that his god was telling him that if he lent his hand to people in need he would feel better) and after two days of helping the local community(specifically the orpanage) he was back to his old self. Personally, I hate using things like atonement and such. I leave it up to my players to feel guilty and roleplay out what their characters might go through.
Caelic 08-07-07, 11:08 AM	I think, though, you're reeeaallly starting to stretch things when you start carrying around the evil scroll. Let's look at the character logic: 1. This is an evil item. 2. Evil items should be destroyed. So far, so good. But then we get to: 3. But it might be helpful to me at some point in the future to have this evil item. 4. Therefore I will keep the item. Hm. Well, that doesn't sound very palatable. So the line of reasoning continues to: 5. It's okay that I'm keeping the evil item, because I plan to destroy it...eventually...when it's beneficial to me to do so. Now, mind you: the only reason I think this is a problem is because the character thinks it's a problem. As a DM, I certainly wouldn't penalize a player for not destroying a scroll. However, if the character believes that the scroll is evil and should be destroyed and chooses to hang onto it anyway, that's where I think there's a problem. It's not the keeping of the scroll; it's the rationalization.
infideli 08-07-07, 12:51 PM	But if he was in a situation where he could use one to counterspell an evil cleric's magic (think necro-mancer), and neither dispel magic or Improved Counterspell are an option (the latter can't be earned for a while anyhow) could it somehow be justified? Counterspell dark with light, unhallow with hallow, inflict with cure... slay living with raise dead... summon (evil) with summon (good). Problem solved. Ask your DM about less specific cases... circle of death, for instance. You might have to use dispel. G
MrCustomer 08-07-07, 01:23 PM	He could certainly cast any sepll as a counter spell to stop an evil caster however, I beleive the rules are not so much that you can't cast an evil spell but that you cannot MEMORIZE an evil spell at the beginning of the day. To cast an evil spell as a counterspell would require that you have that spell memmed, that you have absorbed the evil power in the beginning of the day. The reason why you cannot cast an evil spell as a good alligned caster is not because of your principles, but because that spell is not available from your divine powersource, it isn't an option to mem, your god doesn't grant it. Possibly you could use a Wand or scroll to Cast these spells, I don't see the issue with that. Since you are using the power to cancel out evil and not to cause evil I don't think it would be considered an evil action. So long as you don't create nor commision the item it wouldn't be morally objectionable imo by any reasoning, in fact if you discovered such an item in a treasure roll, then I would consider this method of using up such a wand or scroll as a safe way to dispose of it. Personally my Mystic Thuerg, Wizard/Cleric, opted for the Divine Counterspell ability rather then the Turn Undead ability (I believe it is in Complete Divine) which allows me to attempt a couple of dispells a day, without having to know what spell is being cast, nor using any particular spell to do it.
MrCustomer 08-07-07, 01:35 PM	I think, though, you're reeeaallly starting to stretch things when you start carrying around the evil scroll. Let's look at the character logic: 1. This is an evil item. 2. Evil items should be destroyed. So far, so good. But then we get to: 3. But it might be helpful to me at some point in the future to have this evil item. 4. Therefore I will keep the item. Hm. Well, that doesn't sound very palatable. So the line of reasoning continues to: 5. It's okay that I'm keeping the evil item, because I plan to destroy it...eventually...when it's beneficial to me to do so. Now, mind you: the only reason I think this is a problem is because the character thinks it's a problem. As a DM, I certainly wouldn't penalize a player for not destroying a scroll. However, if the character believes that the scroll is evil and should be destroyed and chooses to hang onto it anyway, that's where I think there's a problem. It's not the keeping of the scroll; it's the rationalization. Not entirely. A really good character would always hesitate and question his concience over such matters, even if it was the right and correct thing to do. "Hmmm, the goblins are evil and a danger to the village, we must defend the innocent, but I feel horrible about killing the goblins like this" The person who finds a scroll like this and doesn't give a second thought to the dangers of an evil scroll, "awesome, I can't normally cast this so it will be very useful, I got a suprize for that Necromancer now" is in a far worse state or morality then the cleric who thinks "hmmm, this is an evil scroll. It would be useful but it should be destroyed. What is the right thing to do, would it be good to use this to dispell the evil spells of that necromancer we are going to fight or would that be wrong?...." Which of these two are more likely to grab that Evil Cursed Mace emiting evil that you find in the Necromancer's treasure after the fight? One is likely to pick it up and ask what it's stats are, the other is likely to cast detect evil and then debate on it's safety.
Breetai 08-07-07, 01:48 PM	Ugh, that's a conundrum no man (or woman...or hermaphrodite) should ever face. This is off topic, but the Alignment system, quite simply, sucks. Now, I'm not going to go into detail on anything, but... Really, is there any need for an alignment system? Spells that rely on it? Have the DM, with you, determine if it effects you or whomever it is cast upon. D&D is at it's core a Good vs Evil combat system. Roleplaying is mostly seecondary flavor. That said if you do away with Alighment you pretty much may as well do away with Angels and Devils too. Remember this is a game world where religion is a proven fact not some abstract concept.
Caelic 08-07-07, 05:29 PM	Not entirely. A really good character would always hesitate and question his concience over such matters, even if it was the right and correct thing to do. "Hmmm, the goblins are evil and a danger to the village, we must defend the innocent, but I feel horrible about killing the goblins like this" Well, here's the thing, MrC: we're talking about an action here that doesn't really have an inherent morality attached to it beyond that which the character ascribes to it. Using an evil spell is certainly an evil act. Not destroying a scroll which happens to have an evil spell on it? Not a particularly evil act. Perhaps an unwise one--that spell could come back to haunt you later, after all--but I certainly wouldn't consider a character to be slipping towards evil simply because it didn't occur to him to break out the flint and tinder. Now, if it DOES occur to the character--if the character thinks about it, decides that it IS an evil act not to destroy a scroll with an evil spell, and then refrains from destroying it--that's a different story. He has knowingly chosen to avoid what he considers the good course of action and at least skirt the grey edges of immorality.
setekh 08-07-07, 05:36 PM	There are domains that allow Good Clerics to cast Evil spells for this purpose, Repose (A good version of the death domain in every form but name) is the best example I can think of.
Meikle_641 08-07-07, 05:53 PM	D&D is at it's core a Good vs Evil combat system. Roleplaying is mostly seecondary flavor. That said if you do away with Alighment you pretty much may as well do away with Angels and Devils too. Remember this is a game world where religion is a proven fact not some abstract concept. ...Except for the fact that fiends and celestials have nothing to do with most religions in D&D. It just happens that Angels and Fiends inhabit certain planes of existence, much like humans or elves on the Prime. Besides, Knowledge: Religion doesn't even tell you about either, K: Planes does. What does that tell you? Unrelated. That said, of course religion is a proven concept in D&D; after all, you can see actual results from the servants of a given deity. It's just that alignment has little to do with it, outside of who can worship what.
LCD2YOU 08-07-07, 06:24 PM	Which is why I disagree with spells, like any tool, being evil. It really matters what you do with them. Take a 100 megaton nuke. Use it. You're evil, right? What if you used it to deflect an asteroid long before it could hit the Earth? Is that still evil? Tools are neither good nor evil. Their application is what makes it so. What's the difference between a rock and a cruise missile? Using a rock will take longer to kill 1000s of people and knock down buildings. Casting an evil spell is an evil act in DnD. I am proud to say that is one of the first things I discarded in my game.
Cariyaga 08-07-07, 06:25 PM	Sorry about derailing this, Ezram. Guys, talk it over in PM.
Breetai 08-07-07, 07:10 PM	Take a 100 megaton nuke. Use it. You're evil, right? What if you used it to deflect an asteroid long before it could hit the Earth? Is that still evil? Tools are neither good nor evil. Their application is what makes it so. . On the one hand I totally Agree. On the other. No. Divine spells are part of the god granting them.
wizarddog 08-09-07, 12:51 AM	There are other spells that counter those evil death spells. Like Deathward. That would have been a more appropriate spell for the good cleric to cast. :P