Is casting a spell with the Evil descriptor an Evil act?

lukelightning · Nov 20, 2006

I like Evil spells. It lets a player run an evil character and do "evil thiings" without having to go burn orphanages and rape poodles.

Hypersmurf · Nov 20, 2006

werk said:
I thought that poison use was evil.

Not in the core rules.

To draw a connection with this thread, the Poison spell (unlike the Contagion spell) lacks the [Evil] descriptor.

A paladin cannot use poison because it is considered dishonourable (like lying and cheating), not because it is considered an evil act.

-Hyp.

Endur · Nov 20, 2006

Fat Daddy said:
Is casting these spells an evil act in and of itself. Please give rules references.

The spell descriptor says it is "EVIL". How much more of a reference do you need?

Eyebite is evil because you are cursing someone with the Evil Eye. It is not the results of the curse that is the issue (sickened, etc.), but the fact that you are using this black magic.

Bestow Curse, although Necromantic, is not listed as evil. Because Bestow Curse could be used for good, neutral, or evil purposes.

The Evil Eye (aka eyebite) is always evil.

Infiniti2000 · Nov 20, 2006

Hypersmurf said:
If those books are not in play, then the Evil descriptor tells us that a/ druids and clerics who are Good or have Good deities cannot cast the spell, and b/ clerics with the Evil domain cast the spell at +1 caster level, and c/ the spell will be flagged by a Detect Evil spell. That's about it.

What about this quote, with my emphasis:

SRD said:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

While I suppose nothing here tells the DM/player that they have to do anything about it, surely this has relevance?

Hypersmurf · Nov 20, 2006

Infiniti2000 said:
What about this quote, with my emphasis:
While I suppose nothing here tells the DM/player that they have to do anything about it, surely this has relevance?

It has lots of relevance.

How does the [Evil] descriptor interact with alignment? It says so in the book - the spells cannot be cast by a cleric or druid with an opposed alignment, or with a deity of an opposed alignment.

In the core rules, that's how the [Evil] descriptor interacts with alignment.

-Hyp.

Infiniti2000 · Nov 20, 2006

Hypersmurf said:
In the core rules, that's how the [Evil] descriptor interacts with alignment.

And in no other way? Are you suggesting that there are a/ no evil acts, b/ evil acts have no relevance, or c/ both?

Xanterith · Nov 20, 2006

Well, this may be kind of a house rule hodge podge, but here is my explanation as to why casting an [evil] spell is evil.

First off, most of these spells are inherently evil, no question about it, mean, nasty, not very nice spells. But what about those ones on the border? What makes them "bad?"

All magic is energy shaped and converted by the wizard into the result he wants. Most spells draw this energy from other planes of existence. I see spells with the Evil descriptor drawing there energy from the negative plane, and the wizard casting the spell being a conduit to this energy. This will eventually have a negative effect on the mage, corrupting their soul and body. Also, they increase the amount of negative energy on the plane, thereby furthering indirectly the cause of evil.

Also, you can rationalize why a good cleric would not be able to cast evil spells; their gods do not have access to this plane and can not transfer that power down to their servants.

Drugs are obviously powered by the negative plane as well, and therefore evil. They provide a similar high as positive energy, but with negative after effects. Drugs are bad M’kay? : P

Hypersmurf · Nov 20, 2006

Infiniti2000 said:
Are you suggesting that there are a/ no evil acts, b/ evil acts have no relevance, or c/ both?

I'm suggesting that the way that the [Evil] descriptor interacts with alignment is defined in the Cleric and Druid class descriptions.

Casting an [Evil] spell (absent the BoVD) is or is not an evil act depending on its use, just as casting a [Fire] spell or a [Mind-Affecting] spell is or is not an evil act depending on its use. Whether or not the spell is an evil act is not dependent on its descriptor.

Xanterith said:
I see spells with the Evil descriptor drawing there energy from the negative plane, and the wizard casting the spell being a conduit to this energy. This will eventually have a negative effect on the mage, corrupting their soul and body. Also, they increase the amount of negative energy on the plane, thereby furthering inderectly the cause of evil.

"When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage..."

And yet Inflict Light Wounds does not have the [Evil] descriptor.

"You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes."

And yet Enervation does not have the [Evil] descriptor.

Negative energy doesn't automatically mean [Evil].

-Hyp.

Infiniti2000 · Nov 20, 2006

Hypersmurf said:
I'm suggesting that the way that the [Evil] descriptor interacts with alignment is defined in the Cleric and Druid class descriptions.

Casting an [Evil] spell (absent the BoVD) is or is not an evil act depending on its use, just as casting a [Fire] spell or a [Mind-Affecting] spell is or is not an evil act depending on its use. Whether or not the spell is an evil act is not dependent on its descriptor.

I don't agree that the Evil in the descriptor is wholly separate from the Evil in one's alignment. I think the word choice for the descriptor signifies more than simply confounding terms. Keep in mind that I'm a big proponent for the concept that rules say what they mean and typically nothing more, but in this case I think the choice of using Evil (or Good/Chaos/Law) has more relevance than the interaction with cleric/druid alignment.

Obviously, my thoughts are "justified" based on the BoVD/BoXD, but regardless I think they stand on their own based only on the core rules.

Xanterith · Nov 20, 2006

And for the most part in every campaign I've been in good clerics can't cast inflict, evil clerics can't cast cure. I know it's not in the rules, hence the house rule part of my reply.

Evil =/= negative energy in the core rules

house rules evil = negative energy, good = positive

I think it's retarded that Wizards goes about the whole light/dark thing half way with no description as to why. Some of it is intuitive, but not all. This leads to angry wizards who can't summon demons cause the DM says so. Stupid. Simple fix = have a demon attack anyone of a good alignment who summons it. If they can bind and control it, then they can keep it. Vice versa for evil. As for the other ones, put some kind of negative effect in with the spell if someone of opposite alignment casts it.