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

[green slime]

Now if there was only something defined in the rules which stated exactly what you just did.

Yes, now why don't we define the entire language used with the rules while we are at it.

We'll start but defining the words "if", "but" and "maybe".

At some level, you have to start accepting that the words used in the game actually mean to mean exactly what common sense would have you expect them to mean.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

It's the same argument.

Of course. But I'm just wondering why the only discussion you ever see is about the evil side of things.

Were I a LG cleric, I'd also be concerned about chaotic acts.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes, now why don't we define the entire language used with the rules while we are at it.

We'll start but defining the words "if", "but" and "maybe".

At some level, you have to start accepting that the words used in the game actually mean to mean exactly what common sense would have you expect them to mean.

Perhaps, but when you isolate a regular word by putting square-brackets around it, you're specifically saying, "this isn't the regular word. This is a game mechanics term. It is not intended to be used as a regular word, but as an indicator of how the rules interact with one another." When you use the word evil when talking about alignment, it's just the regular word evil with its regular use. However, [Evil] isn't about alignment. It's a spell descriptor. It happens to be associated with spells and spellcasters that are generally evil. But it doesn't follow--and there is no rule outside of BoVD that states--that [Evil] necessarily indicates evil...in exactly the same way that [Darkness] and [Light] do not necessarily indicate darkness and light, respectively, as Hypersmurf pointed out.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Of course. But I'm just wondering why the only discussion you ever see is about the evil side of things.

Were I a LG cleric, I'd also be concerned about chaotic acts.

It's because no DM has ever told the player of a chaotic character "you've been too consistent and supportive of authority lately. I'm changing your alignment to neutral." But because of the personal feelings people have about the good/evil alignment axis, DMs are always looking for violations of goodness. Law, Chaos, and Evil are much less scrutinized in practice, which is why Good is always the subject of these discussions.

 

[KarinsDad]

So in the vanilla game, [Evil] spells aren't restricted to being evil acts?

Are [Fire] spells restricted to being energy?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Are [Fire] spells restricted to being energy?

That's not the same argument. A better question would be, "Are [Fire] spells restricted to being fiery acts?"

 

[RigaMortus2]

Yes, now why don't we define the entire language used with the rules while we are at it.

We'll start but defining the words "if", "but" and "maybe".

At some level, you have to start accepting that the words used in the game actually mean to mean exactly what common sense would have you expect them to mean.

I'm sorry, but when you say things like:

No matter what use that spell is put to, the spell itself will always be evil. Using that spell makes the world a darker place. It corrupts ever-so-slightly the soul of the caster. Its use will provoke distaste and mistrust of the caster amongst those who consider good to be something worthwhile. While you can always try to use something [Evil] for a good purpose, Evil will usually find a way to subvert and undermine those intentions. The path to hell is lined with good intentions.

Without any hard core rules support to back up your assumption, yet you are assuming this is the norm, it is almost as if you are saying "It's obvious this is what the [Evil] descriptor is meant to do, and if you don't follow this logic, you are playing wrong". I am sorry if I don't subscribe to a LG Wizard casting Summon Monster to summon a fiendish creature to do good acts, and not penalizing that Wizard by making him change alignment to evil. If there WERE rules to this effect in the book (which is why I mentioned it), then this arguement would have some validity.

 

[Jack Simth]

Other than perhaps poison use and the channeling negative/positive energy under the Turning entries, there aren't any hard, core, rules on alignment. Thus, a Paladin can burn an orphanage (as it's not defined as an evil act) with all the orphans inside, and so long as he punishes himself later (degree undefined - he can slap his own wrist) he's not inviolation of the paladin's oath. He keeps all class features (unless the DM feels like doing some Fiat).

Core, prove me wrong. Please.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's not the same argument. A better question would be, "Are [Fire] spells restricted to being fiery acts?"

I fail to see how using a [Fire] descriptor spell is not manipulating fire.

I fail to see how using a [Evil] descriptor spell is not manipulating evil.

 

[Philip]

In D&D: evil is not what evil does.

Evil is what has the [evil] descriptor, regardless of consequences, intentions, misuse etc.