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

[Hypersmurf]

Are [Fire] spells restricted to being energy?

I don't think so. If I Summon an Azer, I'm not manipulating fire. I'm casting a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, but what I'm doing is summoning a creature.

If I cast Blasphemy, there's no sonic damage dealt; rather, the [Sonic] descriptor tells us that the Silence spell provides a defence against it.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Doesn't this come under 'destroying innocent life' from 'Good vs Evil', PHB p104?

As I see it, if someone Summons a Bralani Eladrin and has it burn the orphanage with all the orphans inside, he's destroying innocent life; evil, per p104.

If someone else Summons a Chain Devil and has it carry those orphans to safety, he's protecting innocent life; good, per p104.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think so. If I Summon an Azer, I'm not manipulating fire. I'm casting a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, but what I'm doing is summoning a creature.

This sounds like semantics. If your deity is a cold deity and dislikes Fire (but does not prohibit it) and you Summon an Azer, you are manipulating fire and your deity should be annoyed at you. You are not directly manipulating fire, but you are using fire nonetheless.

Ditto for [Evil] spells.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This sounds like semantics. If your deity is a cold deity and dislikes Fire (but does not prohibit it) and you Summon an Azer, you are manipulating fire and your deity should be annoyed at you. You are not directly manipulating fire, but you are using fire nonetheless.

That's between you and your deity, rather than between you and the rules; Fire vs Cold is not prohibited to a generic cleric the way Good vs Evil is.

And wouldn't the same principle apply to your Cold worshipper if he cast, say, Prismatic Spray - a spell that deals fire damage without the [Fire] descriptor? Shouldn't the deity be just as mad at him as for summoning an Azer?

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

If someone else Summons a Chain Devil and has it carry those orphans to safety, he's protecting innocent life; good, per p104.

Which maybe RAW, but it smacks of 'the ends justifies the means' type of argument. In my mind, a cleric that did such a thing would probably be balancing out the two effects - the saving of life versus the summoning of an evil creature. Merely by summoning the chain devil, the cleric has increased the presence of evil amongst all kind, and surely that is not a 'good' thing?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which maybe RAW, but it smacks of 'the ends justifies the means' type of argument. In my mind, a cleric that did such a thing would probably be balancing out the two effects - the saving of life versus the summoning of an evil creature. Merely by summoning the chain devil, the cleric has increased the presence of evil amongst all kind, and surely that is not a 'good' thing?

It's under his complete control, and it vanishes in under two minutes, saving a dozen orphans in the mean time. Where's the problem?

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

It's under his complete control, and it vanishes in under two minutes, saving a dozen orphans in the mean time. Where's the problem?

I'm sure that similar arguments have been used throughout history... the greater good and all that

Besides, things can, and do, go wrong. I'm not saying that the deeds aren't in balance, I'm saying that it isn't 'saintly' behaviour.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Besides, things can, and do, go wrong.

No more than they could by summoning an Eladrin to do the same thing.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

No more than they could by summoning an Eladrin to do the same thing.

So true. <shrug> But is still tastes wrong. But I agree with your analysis that it can be done. Errata!! Or better yet, FAQ! That trumps errata, right?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Which maybe RAW, but it smacks of 'the ends justifies the means' type of argument.

To me it sounds more like a "the intention is what's important, not the outcome" type of argument. The intention is "save the orphans". The outcome is that the orphans are saved by a chain devil.