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

[Infiniti2000]

It seems clear that it's about one does, not what spells are cast, etc. Casting a [Evil] spell that does not do any of the above requirements for evil, is not an evil act.

I have shown that casting an [Evil] spell creates an evil aura. There's a direct correlation between the descriptor and the alignment. So, even if you rename the descriptor to something completely different (no term confounding), then the correlation still exists. I think this shows a connection, based on RAW, that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act.

 

[Artoomis]

And yet playing the anti-hero, John Constantine style ends justifies the means type characters is not only fun, but a literary and fantasy staple.

Absolutely. Such a character might do evil things for a good purpose, and such folks THINK they are good, but their souls are tainted.

 

[Arravis]

How is having an evil aura, an evil act which changes alignment? Seems like a rather large leap to me.

 

[Infiniti2000]

How is having an evil aura, an evil act which changes alignment? Seems like a rather large leap to me.

I didn't say anything about changing alignment. I am saying that the creation of an evil aura (not just an [Evil] one) is an evil act. You're bringing evil into the world, fostering it, and that's not an evil act? I don't see that as a large leap at all, but the very next step in a logical sequence.

Cast [Evil] spell --> create evil aura --> evil act.

Obviously, nothing in the rules say "This is an evil act." so the goal here is to provide enough evidence to support that statement. If no evidence is enough, then I refer you back to the baker example.

 

[Arravis]

I still don't see why creating an evil aura is an evil act at all. It doesn't fit any of the requirements in the RAW for evil acts:
"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

It would seem that anything beyond the RAW, is simply opinion and a House Rule situation.

 

[Artoomis]

I still don't see why creating an evil aura is an evil act at all. It doesn't fit any of the requirements in the RAW for evil acts:
"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

It would seem that anything beyond the RAW, is simply opinion and a House Rule situation.

[Evil] spells hurt, oppress or kill others. There you have it.

 

[Arravis]

[Evil] spells hurt, oppress or kill others. There you have it.

Any spells have the potential to do so, not just [Evil] spells. As I stated before: if a spell, by its inherent nature, was a cruel act (such as the Flensing spell)... such a spell would be an evil act. But if an [Evil] spell did not inherently match any of the definitions mentioned in the alignment section of the RAW (such as Deathwatch, Protection from Good, etc), it is only evil when used in an evil way (again, as defined by the RAW).

People are just stuck on the word, and not seeing its context and use.

 

[Artoomis]

BUT...

You will not find clear, unambiguous guidance form the core rules on whether casting an [EVIL] will is an evil act.

BoVD says so, but that's not core, of course.

Ther are plenty of hints at it in core, but no absolute black and white stated rule.

 

[Artoomis]

Any spells have the potential to do so, not just [Evil] spells. As I stated before: if a spell, by its inherent nature, was a cruel act (such as the Flensing spell)... such a spell would be an evil act. But if an [Evil] spell did not inherently match any of the definitions mentioned in the alignment section of the RAW (such as Deathwatch, Protection from Good, etc), it is only evil when used in an evil way (again, as defined by the RAW).

People are just stuck on the word, and not seeing its context and use.

You are correct - using other spells for an evil purpose is evil. But evil spells have been declared evil by their very nature (see druid and cleric class descriptions, quoted earlier). Using them for ANY purpose is evil.

 

[Arravis]

The "hints" are very open to interpertation. You see them as pointing towards "evil act", I do not. Since it is unclear, the only course of action available is to follow the clearly stated rules. You may choose to interpert the "hints" as you will, but that's a House Rule.