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

[Artoomis]

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.

First, calling anyone's rules interpretations "House Rules" is frowned upon in this forum. I am sure you already knew this, but I thought I'd remind you before a system moderator does so.

Second, I thought I made it very clear that this is all about rules interpretations, and thus you can feel free to rule either way and feel you are within the "RAW," if that's important to you. Maybe I did not make that celar enough.

It's a bit silly to try and get to THE answer in cases like this.

edit: Naturally, I have my opinion, as do you.

 

[Arravis]

It's not an issue of interperting a rule... but interperting "hints" of a rule. I don't see how that could be anything other than a House Rule.

 

[Seeten]

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

How does Deathwatch, a spell that specifically enables better healing choices to be made, possibly do this? I dont get it.

 

[Artoomis]

It's not an issue of interperting a rule... but interperting "hints" of a rule. I don't see how that could be anything other than a House Rule.

??

The rules list [Evil] descriptors as being associated with the evil alignment.

That, on its face, is enough to make a valid ruled-based argument that casting such spells is an evil act. In fact it is hard for me to see how doing something "associated with the evil alignment" would NOT be an evil act.

Sure, you could argue that the alignment-association is for cleric and druids only (I completely disagree, but it is also rules-based), and therefore casting such a spell is not an evil act because it is not definately declared such in the rules.

Either way is a rule-based argument, so both are not "House Rules" per se. "House Rules," as used in this forum, means those things that are clear changes to the rules as opposed to rule interpretations.

Rules interpretions discusssions are encouraged on this forum, but attempting to shut them down by calling them "House Rules" is discouraged.

I think that's an accurate paraphrasing of some of this forum's rules. Let's stay within those rules and avoid the term "House Rules" as a way to try and shut down an opposing view, okay?

On the other hand, if you want to say my view is totally misguided, undefendable, and out there in the Twilight Zone, feel free. You won't hurt MY feelings. I'll just respond and demonstrate how my view is defendable within the rules.

 

[glass]

How does Deathwatch, a spell that specifically enables better healing choices to be made, possibly do this? I dont get it.

IMG, it doesn't, because I have housruled away the [Evil] descriptor from Deathwatch.

In D&D as written (if you go with the [Evil]=evil interpretation), because it increases the amount of evil in the world.


glass.

 

[Arravis]

My intent was not to "shut down" an opposing view, my apologies if it came across that way. I simply see no way it could legitimately be interpreted as an evil act by the RAW.

Glass: Where did you find it stated that casting [Evil] descriptor spells increases the amount of evil in the world?

 

[Infiniti2000]

I simply see no way it could legitimately be interpreted as an evil act by the RAW.

I don't understand why you don't consider the "act of creating evil" to be an "evil act." I have proven that when casting an [Evil] spell you are creating evil, so at what point do you disassociate the creation from the act? I fail to see your logic.

Note that I am not even going to the next step of how the [Evil] spell was used. The mere fact of casting the [Evil] spell is an evil act, per the RAW, based upon the evidence I've provided.

Yes, this also means deathwatch, but whether deathwatch should be an [Evil] spell is another question. I fully support the idea of houseruling away its (inappropriate) descriptor.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, IYO a paladin with UMD can use a scroll of protection from good to, say, ward off neutral summoned monsters?

If BoVD is not in play? Sure. I said something similar earlier - that I had no problem with a Paladin/Sorcerer casting Eyebite.

The aura thing doesn't convince me, because there are ways to have an evil aura without being evil.

Let's say our Exalted Neutral Good Wizard uses Shapechange to turn into a Spectre. Even under BoED rules, this is not an evil act - Shapechange doesn't take on descriptors based on what you're turning into, so it isn't an [Evil] spell. But the Exalted Neutral Good Wizard now has an evil aura.

-Hyp.

 

[glass]

My intent was not to "shut down" an opposing view, my apologies if it came across that way. I simply see no way it could legitimately be interpreted as an evil act by the RAW.

Then say that in the first instance.

Glass: Where did you find it stated that casting [Evil] descriptor spells increases the amount of evil in the world?

See I2k's post above.


glass.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The aura thing doesn't convince me, because there are ways to have an evil aura without being evil.

Merely having an evil aura is not what is happening. We're discussing the creation of evil. If I cast protection from good, this creates evil, even if only temporarily. In any case, based upon the evidence in detect evil, I'd say that shapechanging into a spectre (or any undead) or a creature with an Evil subtype (assuming that subtype), is an evil act. I might not have thought that way prior to this discussion, however, but I think the evidence supports that as the correct interpretation from the rules.

PS. I had to add "undead", "spectre", "Hypersmurf" and "shapechanging" to my Firefox dictionary.