Is casting Evil spells an evil act?

lukelightning

First Post

• Nov 20, 2006

• #1

Based on another thread; is casting a spell with the Evil descriptor an evil act (e.g. casting contagion is evil), or are the alignment descriptors only involved in limiting spell access (e.g. good clerics can't cast contagion because it is evil, but casting the spell itself isn't evil).

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Crothian

First Post

• Nov 20, 2006

• #2

I think it is evil. But the game really does a crappy job with alignments and what is and what is not a certain kind of act. That's why we have DMs!!

 

S

Seeten

First Post

• Nov 20, 2006

• #3

I voted no, because I think as the game sets it up now, to vote yes is less fun, and less interesting. (not to disparage others, but we play more grey games, with bad or selfish characters who arent instantly smitten by the DM for not being LG)

 

lukelightning

First Post

• Nov 20, 2006

• #4

I should have said I'm more interested in people's opinions than arguing about the rules; I can see both sides of the argument but I think casting Evil spells is an evil act.

 

S

Seeten

First Post

• Nov 20, 2006

• #5

If I cast Deathwatch, an [Evil] spell to determine who is most hurt so I know who to heal first(triage) I dont consider it evil, and dont consider negative energy inherently evil either.

If I cast an army of undead, in order to hold back the tides of Demons and Devils, and save the world, I dont call this evil either. Particularly if it means saving human, elf, and Celestial lives.

I just think much of D&D alignment and morality is silly, and I dont believe in any of it. Negative plane spells used to heal are evil, Positive plane spells used to murder are good, it makes no sense and I handwave it.

Its clear the RAW is on the side of my enemy, and that casting evil spells is evil, but I dont care, and handwave it anyway.

 

Crothian

First Post

• Nov 20, 2006

• #6

Seeten said:

I voted no, because I think as the game sets it up now, to vote yes is less fun, and less interesting.

Click to expand...

How is it less interesting? (I don't see one as being more interesting then the other) Casting an evil spell doesn't mean one's alignment suddenly turns evil. I would think that having spells that are good and evil acts would help define the gray area.

 

Last edited: Nov 20, 2006

Nail

First Post

• Nov 20, 2006

• #7

lukelightning said:

..is casting a spell with the Evil descriptor an evil act (e.g. casting contagion is evil)....

Click to expand...

Yes. Obviously.

 

Nail

First Post

• Nov 20, 2006

• #8

Seeten said:

Its clear the RAW is on the side of my enemy, and that casting evil spells is evil, but I dont care, and handwave it anyway.

Click to expand...

It is clear.

It is also clear you could stay within RAW: Just invent a spell that is like Deathwatch, but has a descriptor of [Good].

Done.

And finally: If animating the dead by binding the tortured souls of the damned to their own rotting corpses is not [Evil], then......

 

X

Xanterith

First Post

• Nov 20, 2006

• #9

make a spell just like it with the [Good] descriptor?

 

S

Seeten

First Post

• Nov 20, 2006

• #10

"just invent a spell" sounds great, unless you have one of the 5,000,000 DM's who would then make you retire the character for the year of spell research, tell you the raw doesnt support creating new spells, etc. I bet you yourself would tend to be included in their number.

Also, note Eberron succeeded in making positive charged undead. Scarred Lands has LN Necromancers, and I wholly approve. Hollowfaust is one of the most interesting thought projects of recent D&D memory.

RAW doesnt work for me, and requires I be the the DM to fix it, in these cases.