I am interested in feedback on this as the corruption of evil influences on this character was something I had been interested in for some time. How would a party of good characters react over time to one of their members becoming more and more evil?
Have fun. Turn evil slowly then Ohoh!
I have an archivist character. He is neutral good, but his study (coupled with his dark knowledge class ability) is of evil. Since his ability to cast divine spells comes from study and not from prayer, it seems fitting that learning evil spells would be something he would do. Now, casting the spells, how should that affect him? Let's assume he casts "stop heart" for the good of the party, would that in some way bend him toward evil alignment over time?
There are basically three options, but it's up to your DM how things work in his campaign universe. Also, these options are not mutually exclusive, in many cases different ones will apply to different spells and/or fall under more then one. You may or may not be able to find out how it works through research and talking to the DM.
1. Spell is considered evil because it has few or no good uses. For instance, a spell that poisons a target has a lot of ways to misuse and few good uses but isn't in any way inherently evil. As long as you take care to use it for a good cause it's OK.
2. Spell is considered evil because the spell does something evil. In some situations it might still be the right choice if you do more good then evil, but it's harder to justify. An example here might be a spell that drains an foes life force. Used against a ruthless villain it might be justified, particularly if you don't have any other way of hurting him effectively.
In some cases spells that fall into this category are there because of side effects or risks involved in using them, not the spell itself. Some inter dimensional travel spells weaken the fabric of reality. It doesn't do anything evil directly, but it sets up dangerous effects down the road.
The degree of risk and danger controls has evil these spells are considered. Demon summoning may not be inherently evil if you bind the demon to serve some good cause, but the risks and dangers are huge. One mistake will lead to massive damage and is very likely to take out bystanders, making such bindings evil in most peoples eyes.
3. The spell is evil because to warps the very soul of the user. Think dark side of the force. Spells like this are so inherently evil that using them makes the user evil, they become less caring of others and more likely to use such dark magic in the future.
There is a lot of range in this category on just how misguided and dangerous a spell is. Some are just addictively powerful, others are outright addictive themselves, the worst actually stain the souls of those that use them.
I am interested in feedback on this as the corruption of evil influences on this character was something I had been interested in for some time. How would a party of good characters react over time to one of their members becoming more and more evil?
That is up to the party. But at some point they would have to step in and at least expel, if not stop, the character who is becoming evil. Or they fail to be good themselves.
Jay
There are basically three options...
This. Which option/s apply is up to the DM, so you need to ask him/her.
4. Spells being inherently evil is stupid.
Not so. In the case of Stop Heart, it is stupid to attach the [evil] tag to it unless I'm forgetting some extreme material component or requirement like "must be a vassal of Asmodeus." But certain magics being inherently evil is a classic fantasy trope, and not in fact inherently stupid. The DM just has to have a reason why certain things are always evil like "creating undead is always evil because mortal-created undead always end up maniacal homicidal monsters, no matter the caster's or the recipient's intent."
TS
Not so. In the case of Stop Heart, it is stupid to attach the [evil] tag to it unless I'm forgetting some extreme material component or requirement like "must be a vassal of Asmodeus." But certain magics being inherently evil is a classic fantasy trope, and not in fact inherently stupid. The DM just has to have a reason why certain things are always evil like "creating undead is always evil because mortal-created undead always end up maniacal homicidal monsters, no matter the caster's or the recipient's intent."
True, although animated dead do remain under your control unless your stupid enough to go over the limit, which is hardly the fault of the spell.
It was a homebrew scroll inspired by the BoVD, and I decided that his casting this spell would require him to seek divine help or continue having nightmares. Every tenday without seeking a temple of his god (Corellon) would mean another tick off his moral clock. I kept throwing in hints that something evil was interested in him, and it got to the point that he was being followed by demons that only he could see before he realized that he was going to be asked to pay a price for that infernal "bail out".
It was fun RPing!
4. Spells being inherently evil is stupid. I mean, I suppose if it had "Material Component: A live puppy" then yeah, but stopping a bunch of kobold's heart is no more evil than bursting into a room, casting sleep and coup de' gracing them.
Technically speaking, wouldn't a spell like Animal Growth have the animal(s) as its material component?
Draining your life force away is evil, but hurling balls of fire at you until you burn to death is in no way considered evil, nor is brutally hacking at you with a sword. I always treat it as context, unless the spell specifies you become evil it all depends on how you use it.
Exactlty, look at summoning spells.
Summon Fiendish Spiders to entangle your foes (a nonlethal way to end a battle) is evil; but summoning a Celestial dog to kill someone is good?
Really, some spells make little sense if they affect alignment to cast.
Beyond that, I usually flavor the spells so they feel evil enough to warrant the descriptor. The mere sight of evil spells makes commoners retch or run away in fear, a true source of nightmares. A fiendish spider isn't just a spider with spikes and a mohawk - acid that looks like blood leaks from it's maw, which contains an impossible number of teeth; tiny spiders crawl out of it and die with a shriek reminiscent of a newborn; all vegetation it comes near grows black and smells of burnt flesh. A celestial dog, on the other hand...well, it'll still probably make commoners cower in shame, a creature too terribly pure and impossibly beautiful to comprehend, let alone look at.
Of course, there aren't any mechanics to back this stuff up - I just like to think that the casting of such spells leaves at least temporary marks upon the world.
There are basically three options, but it's up to your DM how things work in his campaign universe. Also, these options are not mutually exclusive, in many cases different ones will apply to different spells and/or fall under more then one. You may or may not be able to find out how it works through research and talking to the DM.
1. Spell is considered evil because it has few or no good uses. For instance, a spell that poisons a target has a lot of ways to misuse and few good uses but isn't in any way inherently evil. As long as you take care to use it for a good cause it's OK.
2. Spell is considered evil because the spell does something evil. In some situations it might still be the right choice if you do more good then evil, but it's harder to justify. An example here might be a spell that drains an foes life force. Used against a ruthless villain it might be justified, particularly if you don't have any other way of hurting him effectively.
In some cases spells that fall into this category are there because of side effects or risks involved in using them, not the spell itself. Some inter dimensional travel spells weaken the fabric of reality. It doesn't do anything evil directly, but it sets up dangerous effects down the road.
The degree of risk and danger controls has evil these spells are considered. Demon summoning may not be inherently evil if you bind the demon to serve some good cause, but the risks and dangers are huge. One mistake will lead to massive damage and is very likely to take out bystanders, making such bindings evil in most peoples eyes.
3. The spell is evil because to warps the very soul of the user. Think dark side of the force. Spells like this are so inherently evil that using them makes the user evil, they become less caring of others and more likely to use such dark magic in the future.
There is a lot of range in this category on just how misguided and dangerous a spell is. Some are just addictively powerful, others are outright addictive themselves, the worst actually stain the souls of those that use them.
You missed one:
4. The spell is evil because some inherently evil act is a part of the spell casting. Whether it's a material component that cannot be obtained morally (I've heard it said that lich's brew includes the blood of an infant killed by the caster's own hand - Harry Potter and horcruxes anyone?) or a ritual action that must be prepared in advance (using a human soul as a material component, or requires you to have killed a helpless target within the last week; BoED has extreme good requirements for some spells, so I'd think BoVD has evil spell prereqs), some spells are impossible to cast without committing depraved acts. These spells are inherently evil.
But like JayM said, some spells aren't so "evil" when cast for good reasons.
Perhaps you could research an identical version of the spell with the tag removed.
Or maybe not, but it's a fun thought.
(*Steals this idea from himself to use in a campaign someday)
Perhaps those spells are evil because the original creator wrote them with something of a mind-virus inside the spell. Bits of malicious magic that break off from the memorized spell to infect the caster's mind directly and turn them towards the twisted philosophies that the spell's creator favours.
Perhaps you could research an identical version of the spell with the tag removed.
Or maybe not, but it's a fun thought.
(*Steals this idea from himself to use in a campaign someday)
Kind of like meta-physical DRM? I like that =J
Evil almost always comes with an excuse.
It might be revenge. It might be pride. But, for whatever reason, [Evil] actions are usually performed specifically b/c the character in question says something to the effect of... "Well... this time, there was a reason."
That's why evil is so powerful. It corrupts. What starts as simple, even highly plausible, excuses will eventually lead to increasingly violent, cruel, and heartless behavior. And every step along the way comes with an excuse.
Think Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. He was tempted by the Dark Side when he looked for a way to save Padme, but ultimately became so violent and paranoid that he attacked (and killed) the very person he intended to save.
Odd that he would destroy his own excuse...
It's worth noting that one [Evil] action (excusable or not) is not typically enough to quickly destroy one person's alignment. The [Evil] alignment is the end result of a long string of [Evil] actions, each increasingly sadistic, with thinner & thinner excuses.
A good character may cast an [Evil] spell, or even several [Evil] spells, but each action is one more step towards the [Evil] alignment. Each time they choose to cast such a spell, they are not doing 'the right thing.'
There's always an excuse not to do the right thing.
Don't let your character forget that...
I am interested in feedback on this as the corruption of evil influences on this character was something I had been interested in for some time. How would a party of good characters react over time to one of their members becoming more and more evil?
I once did something similar, I played a Druid that was essentially designed to be an eco-terrorist whose path slowly took her down the path of evil and corruption. It wasn't so much the magic that was twisting her, it was the burning desire to kick the infiltrators out of her beloved Nature.
I remember describing the character concept to one of the other players, and he told me "that is so cool, your character will be awesome, and get powerful, but then of course we are SO going to have to kill you."
To which I responded "when you finally realize that I have passed that point, you won't be able to..."
I think they should try to support you and help you and keep you falling to the corruption, always knowing that there is a limit. And when you cross that limit they should TRY to put you down.
And then you open up some righteous hurt upon them! :D
Exactlty, look at summoning spells.
Summon Fiendish Spiders to entangle your foes (a nonlethal way to end a battle) is evil; but summoning a Celestial dog to kill someone is good?
Really, some spells make little sense if they affect alignment to cast.
The D&D universe is made of opposing forces. Good and Evil are forces of nature and not just moral opinions. It's more then just the intent or effect of the spell but also the source of the spell's power.
To cast an Evil spell requires and evil will and the magic used draws from an evil source. So doing so will no doubt stain the soul of the person using such magics.
4. Spells being inherently evil is stupid. I mean, I suppose if it had "Material Component: A live puppy" then yeah, but stopping a bunch of kobold's heart is no more evil than bursting into a room, casting sleep and coup de' gracing them.
No, it's not stupid. It might not be a moral philosophy you agree with, but in a fantasy setting, having a spell that taps pure evilness and channels it through the spirit of the caster is quite legitamate.
4. Spells being inherently evil is stupid. I mean, I suppose if it had "Material Component: A live puppy" then yeah, but stopping a bunch of kobold's heart is no more evil than bursting into a room, casting sleep and coup de' gracing them.
Maybe so, but who is to say that the latter tactic isn't evil?
Maybe so, but who is to say that the latter tactic isn't evil?
The designers said so referring to a Paladin. They say they can Coup De Grac without breaking code on their Website.
I have an archivist character. He is neutral good, but his study (coupled with his dark knowledge class ability) is of evil. Since his ability to cast divine spells comes from study and not from prayer, it seems fitting that learning evil spells would be something he would do. Now, casting the spells, how should that affect him? Let's assume he casts "stop heart" for the good of the party, would that in some way bend him toward evil alignment over time?
I am interested in feedback on this as the corruption of evil influences on this character was something I had been interested in for some time. How would a party of good characters react over time to one of their members becoming more and more evil?
If you cast spells that are inherently evil, your soul will eventually become tainted by the dark energies you manipulate. It depends really. Does he do good deeds to counteract the evil spells he uses? How often does he cast evil spells?
start it off lightly, but let fate conspire against him to force him into choosing between evils and eventually corrupt him. If you can pull that off as a DM, you are truly worthy of the job.
The designers said so referring to a Paladin. They say they can Coup De Grac without breaking code on their Website.
I think the issue there is less with the coup de grace and more with the breaking in and casting sleep first. Coup de gracing a foe you have beaten in combat and coup de gracing a foe rendered helpless by a spell before getting the chance to do anything are two slightly different things. It seems to me that a paladin would be able to more easily do the first than the second. Not that I would break a paladin's power for one offense in either case, but repeated use of the second tactic would give them more trouble in the end than use of the first.
As for casting evil spells....there are some wonky uses of the [evil] descriptor in the RAW. For example, deathwatch in 3.5 has that descriptor. It seems to me that knowing how bad off your allies are might be a useful ability for, say, a cleric to know so that spontaneous healing can be applied most judiciously?
Aside from some of that sort of thing though....I tend to agree that spells probably have the [evil] descriptor for a reason, considering that evil is a tangible thing that can be detected with a simple first level spell. And casting those spells on a regular basis, even with justification, is going to have an effect on one's soul (and/or alignment). The first time you might summon those fiendish spiders to control someone nonlethally, but that makes it easier for you to justify summoning them again....and again....and eventually letting them not just be a method of containment....or maybe moving up to something that isn't just going to contain....Little evils can lead to bigger ones, especially over the course of a campaign. That said, sounds like the OP is going to have a ball roleplaying out a gradual fall. Have fun!
The designers said so referring to a Paladin. They say they can Coup De Grac without breaking code on their Website.
They DID!?!
Don't tell that to my DM, he will.... lets just say it won't be pretty.... :headexplo
....and I know it won't fly by him. If I made a Paladin and tried to coup de grace even the most vile scum from the darkest reaches of the Demogorgon's swamps in the Brine Flats; I would be spoken to ratherly sternly and off on all kinds of quests to redeem my soul.
I must say if this is true, my respect for the game designers has eroded, a little....
I must say if this is true, my respect for the game designers has eroded, a little....
It's really hard to execute people for their crimes in a humane manner if you can't coup de grace. Unless Paladins are supposed to hire other people for that sort of thing.
It's really hard to execute people for their crimes in a humane manner if you can't coup de grace. Unless Paladins are supposed to hire other people for that sort of thing.
Execution in a humane manner? Maybe a MORE humane manor? Certainly the latter can be true, but I have a difficult time seeing any execution as being humane for the subject of the execution.
However, to make my point...
A coup de grace, is a 'blow of mercy', or more specifically to end suffering, which is a bit different than an 'execution' for a criminal. In the context in which is was brought up in this thread it involved casting sleep upon someone and then killing them. Hardly puting them out of their misery, more like puting them out of your misery; and as you said more like an execution. These actions being perpetrated by a Paladin, I find...
just wrong. I have a hard time envisioning the great holy French Knight Roland of Charlemagne's Twelve Peers or Chretien's Perceval stealing away in the night, sneaking up under a tent flap and executing an enemy in their sleep. I would prefer to think they the noble and great Paladins, holy warriors for all that is good and true, do it on the battlefield with honor. :fight!: Now if the designers approve of the concept of a coup de grace in the sense of; we have just dueled and you, the enemy, are mortally wounded and suffering and I, the Paladin, honorably and swifty swing my sword to put you out of your misery. Then sure the coup de grace is okay. And I should probably pop on over and check it out to see what they are saying so I am not just raving mad (crazy not angry
) out of misinterpretation. 
But, if the skulking Paladin in the tent analogy above is okay, then all I can say again is... respect = eroded.
The gods could decide that eating sunflower seeds are evil, and it would be so.
Gods in 3E had no authority over alignments.
If you cast spells that are inherently evil, your soul will eventually become tainted by the dark energies you manipulate.
Just like he becomes more fiery by casting fireball repeatedly?
These are only two of numerous responses that have nothing to do with the 3.5 rules as they're written. God forbid people actually check the rules before answering these quetions.
Execution in a humane manner? Maybe a MORE humane manor? Certainly the latter can be true, but I have a difficult time seeing any execution as being humane for the subject of the execution.
However, to make my point...
A coup de grace, is a 'blow of mercy', or more specifically to end suffering, which is a bit different than an 'execution' for a criminal. In the context in which is was brought up in this thread it involved casting sleep upon someone and then killing them. Hardly puting them out of their misery, more like puting them out of your misery; and as you said more like an execution. These actions being perpetrated by a Paladin, I find...
Now if the designers approve of the concept of a coup de grace in the sense of; we have just dueled and you, the enemy, are mortally wounded and suffering and I, the Paladin, honorably and swifty swing my sword to put you out of your misery. Then sure the coup de grace is okay. And I should probably pop on over and check it out to see what they are saying so I am not just raving mad (crazy not angry
But, if the skulking Paladin in the tent analogy above is okay, then all I can say again is... respect = eroded.
Ridiculous.
Paladins usually won't use the Coup de Grace action, unless they've bested their foe in combat and need for the creature to stay down. This is particularly true for unredeemable evil, like evil outsiders, but also for other regenerative enemies. It's all well and good to eliminate evil creatures, but the soul will still be blackened and fuel the forces of darkness after death; converting evil is always the better solution.
Your alignment shouldn't be modified for the act itself, but consider what your character is doing and feeling when he stops his opponent's heart, and work from there. Is it in his nature to harm people, or is he doing it because he's been thrust into a situation in which he has to kill to protect himself or other people? Does he enjoy stopping his opponent's heart, or does that kind of power horrify him? Is it his weapon of last resort? Does he find the act attractive or repulsive?
If casting the spell doesn't give the character pause, or worse, makes him feel good, then an alignment shift happens. If it's not something he can bear to do except in defense of his friends, then he should use the spell when he feels he must, and struggle with his conscience.
Now check the PHB, Pelor is a NG god. However, in the Spells section, by the S, Jozan is casting Symbol of Pain (an EVIL spell). Of course, it has been debated that Pelor is really a Lord of the Abbyss and Greater Demon disguising himself as a NG god that cares about the common folk and all, but... meh.