Dr. Awkward said:
Orphans saved? Check.
Good done? Check.
Chain devil did some evil? Nope.
I don't see where the means need being justified, considering that the means don't do any harm. When one says, "the ends justify the means," they're saying, "a small wrong now will create a greater good later." But if there's no wrong committed, then the means don't need justification. Summoning a chain devil that can't do anything but what you tell it is essentially identical to summoning a modron that must likewise follow your commands. It can't do any evil unless directed to, and if it doesn't do evil then there's nothing to justify.
Presupposes that casting an [Evil] spell is not an evil action. Which, as the specific question under debate, isn't a valid argument. Not that, you know, anybody on either side has been paying attention to such things....
Dr. Awkward said:
By definition, casting an evil spell is an evil act. However, since evil is a normal english word and [Evil] is a game-mechanics term, casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act if one of the following conditions is true:
1. The purpose of casting the spell is to commit evil
2. There is a rule that states that [Evil] is evil
There's no need to define evil acts, because they're already defined, based on the definition of the word evil. However, since [Evil] is a term made up specifically for D&D, there is a need to define it. And the definition provided does not imply that [Evil] is always evil, just that it is usually so.
So the paladin burning down the orphanage is committing an evil act by virtue of the act being evil. But the paladin/sorcerer who casts Eyebite is not necessarily committing an evil act, so long as he does not satisfy conditions 1 or 2.
The problem with using the definition of the word evil, is that there's so many....
Google.com search result for define:evil said:
# morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds"
# morally objectionable behavior
# having the nature of vice
# that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare
# tending to cause great harm
# the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world"
# malefic: having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
(
emphasis added)
First three refer to morals. Which, depending on what school of thought is followed, are almost always one of:
Absolute: Actions are right/wrong based on a set of rules, regardless of consequences. Otherwise known as the "rights" perspective.
Utterly Consequential: Actions are right/wrong based on how things turned out in this instance. Otherwise known as the "results" perspective.
Various mixes between.
However, any such school of though relys on fundamental assumptions somewhere - be those "this book is correct", "people are the only things that have value in and of themselves" or whatever. Ultimately, however dressed up, any school of thought on morality will have some form of fundamental assumption underlying it - which, due to the nature of the thing, will be both unproveable and unargueable. Unfortunately, different fundamental assumptions produce vastly differing results. The definition of person vs. property triggered a civil war that nearly tore the United States of America in half in the 1860's, for an example.
Suppose the Paladin comes from a place where it is the noble's right to kill anyone not noble-born, the paladin is a noble, the orphanage is in the paladin's home country, and none of the orphans locked inside are noble born. From a rights perspective, then, the paladin has done nothing evil.
Now, I suppose technically this is campaign dependant, but generally, summoned demons have the nature of vice down pat......
Dr. Awkward said:
I'd agree that summoning a good outsider for frivolous reasons probably reflects poorly on your character. However, if you summon it to fight evil, you're upholding good, and that's good. And summoning and imprisoning or destroying evil creatures, or putting them to work for good, is also good, because you're interfering with the ability of those creatures to do evil.
In other words, if good gets done, and evil doesn't get done, you're fine.
Yes. You cast Summon Monster IX for a leonal (the cleric is unconscious and bleeding - you need the healing) and draw one off the front lines that had previously been perfectly balanced to a standstill.
Because of this, Evil breaks through the lines, and raids the celestial city full of the innocent petitioners that had gone there, killing many, dragging others off to be tortured eternally in the pits of the inferno.
The action you took to save one friend potentially has some pretty nasty consequences. It's even right there in the description of Conjouration(Summoning) that it comes from somewhere. Nothing says you get to specify where it came from. So it's the DM's call. If he's got an eternal war between good and evil on the upper/lower planes, such a scenario isn't overly unreasonable, if we're talking consequences.
You have absolutely no way, RAW, of determining where that critter you summoned came from. You're forcing the critter you summoned to do your bidding - it has no choice at all in the matter, due to the nature of Summoning spells. With a normal casting, it will be back in under two minutes. If it's killed in your service, it's not providing for it's family for a full 24 hours. How is that anything other than Evil, regardless of what critter you summon? For the most part, every time you cast the spell, you've forcibly enslaved a thinking being, if we're talking rights.
Either way, absurd as it is, it's possible to argue that casting a [Good] summon monster spell is an Evil action.
Maybe the above doesn't apply. Maybe there's some form of magical payment involved that makes everything "worth it" and then some for the critter you summon. Now, when you summon an Evil outsider, you've just strengthened the cause of Evil outsiders.... huh, an [Evil] spell, an Evil result. Funny.
RAW, nothing states that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil action. RAW, nothing states that casting an [Evil] spell is not an Evil action. As there are no hard and fast core rules for what is evil and what is not, like with anything social, it's up to DM arbitration. What does your DM say about casting [Evil] spells?
