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

[Lonely Tylenol]

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....

So provide a rule citation that indicates that [Evil] = evil. Otherwise, you're going to have to demonstrate that even in the absence of such a rule, the equivalency holds. In this particular argument, I'm saying that you can't call using an [Evil] spell to do good an "ends justifies the means" situation, because there's no means that need justifying, since no evil is committed. If we're going to start speculating about the consequences of snatching outsiders away from their appointed tasks on the outer planes, I would have to assume that stopping a chain devil from doing whatever it was doing for any amount of time, especially in order to force it to do a good deed, can only be a good thing. Whatever it was doing was probably evil.

The problem with using the definition of the word evil, is that there's so many....

I tend to think that citation of dictionary definitions in a discussion about ethics is tantamount to Godwinning the thread. At least, that's what I've observed in the past.

 

[Jack Simth]

So provide a rule citation that indicates that [Evil] = evil. Otherwise, you're going to have to demonstrate that even in the absence of such a rule, the equivalency holds. In this particular argument, I'm saying that you can't call using an [Evil] spell to do good an "ends justifies the means" situation, because there's no means that need justifying, since no evil is committed. If we're going to start speculating about the consequences of snatching outsiders away from their appointed tasks on the outer planes, I would have to assume that stopping a chain devil from doing whatever it was doing for any amount of time, especially in order to force it to do a good deed, can only be a good thing. Whatever it was doing was probably evil.

You did see the "on either side" (which you quoted), right? Or how I outlined a method by which a DM could say Summoning an Evil critter is an Evil action, and Summoning a Good critter is an Good action, or summoning a Good critter is an Evil action, or an Evil critter is a Good action, just based on consequences and how the campaign is set up? Or how I called casting [Evil] spells like other things "that aren't spelled out, up to DM arbitration"?

I tend to think that citation of dictionary definitions in a discussion about ethics is tantamount to Godwinning the thread. At least, that's what I've observed in the past.

Hate to break it to you, but you were the one that said there was no need for the book to define evil actions because evil was already defined. I just escalated that a hair by actually pulling it up and showing how it doesn't necessarily seem to support your position. Shucks, I even called using definitions a "problem" in such cases.

You know what? You don't seem to be reading what I post, so there's not much point in arguing. Have a nice day.

 

[Artoomis]

I think that D&D alignments are set up so that using something evil is an evil act, regardless of the purpose. The consequence of doing so is pretty muich entirely up to the DM, though, so a game defintion of "evil acts" is absolutely not required - though better guidance for Paladins, in particular, might be nice - but they are supposed to have a "code" that defines such things anyway.

Bottom line?

As I read it (and I do have clear, if not convincing, rules support), casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act, though it does not really matter as those for whom it might create real problems ("good" divine casters) cannot cast them and others have no actual RAW consequences for commiting evil acts anyway.

 

[robertliguori]

Evil is a term of art in D&D. It refers to a universal metaphysical force. Certain things (magics, creatures, actions, spells) are Evil, to one degree or another, just like the magics have a spell level, the creatures have armor classes, etc.

Evil is the force. In our world, we call things like murder and slavery evil, usually because they harm folk. In D&D, these acts are evil even if they harm no one, or actually do a great deal of good.

So, calling up a fiend to rescue orphans from a burning building would be a deed that was simultaneously Good and Evil, just like casting a Born of the Three Thunders lightning both is both Sonic and Electric.

Now, the result of this line of thinking is that Good and Evil mean extraordinarily little in terms of actual morality. Evil is just a force. If you Animate a bunch of horse skeletons and run a great deal of food to a famine-wracked community, you've created Evil creatures with Evil magics...and saved a bunch of lives, and caused no secondary harmful effects to anyone. End result of this tends to be quite a few adventurers who, in their desire to actually help folk, end up fighting off all of the four alignment extremes simultaneously.

Also, you can rule that casting Evil spells have concurrent side effects that are such that any casting of them are a net evil. However, if you do so, you'd better have one doozy of a set of side effects when high-level clerics start casting Holy Word in nurseries for kicks.

 

[TheEvil]

Evil is a term of art in D&D. It refers to a universal metaphysical force. Certain things (magics, creatures, actions, spells) are Evil, to one degree or another, just like the magics have a spell level, the creatures have armor classes, etc.

Evil is the force. In our world, we call things like murder and slavery evil, usually because they harm folk. In D&D, these acts are evil even if they harm no one, or actually do a great deal of good.

So, calling up a fiend to rescue orphans from a burning building would be a deed that was simultaneously Good and Evil, just like casting a Born of the Three Thunders lightning both is both Sonic and Electric.

Now, the result of this line of thinking is that Good and Evil mean extraordinarily little in terms of actual morality. Evil is just a force. If you Animate a bunch of horse skeletons and run a great deal of food to a famine-wracked community, you've created Evil creatures with Evil magics...and saved a bunch of lives, and caused no secondary harmful effects to anyone. End result of this tends to be quite a few adventurers who, in their desire to actually help folk, end up fighting off all of the four alignment extremes simultaneously.

Also, you can rule that casting Evil spells have concurrent side effects that are such that any casting of them are a net evil. However, if you do so, you'd better have one doozy of a set of side effects when high-level clerics start casting Holy Word in nurseries for kicks.

Okay, I have got to ask, exactly how does one commit murder without harming someone?

 

[geosapient]

This seems hypocritical to me. A spell with the good descriptor can easily be used for evil, harming innocents etc., but a spell with the evil descriptor is always evil. It is defiantly easier to commit an evil act with a evil spell than to do it with a good spell but that in no way precludes doing good with an evil spell. It is the intention of the doer that is important.

I recently learned of this adage...

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

I honestly had never heard this before until I played in the Castle Greyhawk Module. I have heard it since. So, even if you have good intentions when you cast an evil spell it is likely leading you down a path you don't want to tread.

 

[geosapient]

Us poor smokers. We're all hopelessly Evil. No hope for us at all. Every cigarette is an Evil act. One carton of Lucky Strikes and you're pretty much a Pit Fiend. Might as well give in and go out slaughtering babies.

Aaron - That's an interesting name associated with the post. Aaron, the brother of Moses, tried to lead the Lord's flock astray with the creation of the golden calf idol while Moses was on top of the mountain receiving the 10 Commandments form God. One of which I think is 'Your body is a temple...' and which you would violate (ie. sin) every time you took a drag from a cigarette.

AHH HAHAHAHA! You're going to burn with every cigarette you light. OH, sweet irony!

Enough with the superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Do you ever smoke in the presence of a non-smoker? Have you ever not cared whether you were smoking in the presence of a non-smoker? And have you ever not cared that every time you smoke whether in the presence of non-smokers or not you are ultimately hurting someone.

I would say that willingly hurting others or even oneself should definitely be considered an evil act.

For the record I am not perfect, not lecturing and am oppsed to ALL organized religions.

 

[WarlockLord]

Something about BoED & BoVD: I think they're getting phased out or something, because I was reading the Sage in Dragon and he said poison was not inherently evil, unlike the BoED.

 

[hamishspence]

Evil spells

Deathwatch and Kiss Of The Vampire are a bit dubious. KOTV comes in several books, not of of which mention the evil descriptor. Deathwatch didn't have it in 3rd ed, only 3.5.
More importantly, at least one good aligned PRC gains it as a spell-like ability.

Assuming a firm but not too firm DM, casting a evil spell should automatically move a Exalted character down to just Good, no matter the excuse. One can remain Good by minimising evil acts and maximising good acts (LG cleric of Wee Jas?) but never be Exalted.

Poison: Evil IF and ONLY if it does HP or Ability damage/drain "Unneccesary suffering"

so Drow Sleep Venom is NOT an evil poison. Have fun!

 

[pemerton]

[T]he Evil descriptor tells us that a/ druids and clerics who are Good or have Good deities cannot cast the spell, and b/ clerics with the Evil domain cast the spell at +1 caster level, and c/ the spell will be flagged by a Detect Evil spell. That's about it.

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?

There is a Platonic dialogue called The Euthyphro, in which Socrates debates the following question: Taking it for granted that God loves the good, does something become good in virtue of God loving it, or rather is it the case that goodness is logically prior to God's love, and God discriminates in favour of the good?

Socrates, and most philosophers since, answer in favour of the second option: goodness is logically independent of God's love, and God loves the good because of their goodness. The only major philosopher I know of who answers in favour of the first option is Hobbes, who takes the view that God's love is inscrutable, but he loves certain things, and in virtue of that we call them good, and better love them also if we are not to get smited by God!

I bring up this debate, because it seems relevant to Hypersmurf's comments quoted above. Bringing things back to D&D, why do Good gods forbid their clerics from using [Evil] spells? One natural answer is similar to Socrates answer above: because use of [Evil] spells is Evil, and Good gods forbid their clerics from doing Evil. This suggests an answer of "Yes" to the original question.

If Hypersmurf is correct, however, then the above thought is wrong, because the correct answer to the original question is "No". The reasoning, therefore, must instead go like this: There is a class of spells forbidden by Good gods to their clerics, and we label these spells [Evil] in virtue of this fact. Suppose we then ask, Why do the Good gods forbid these spells? As with Hobbes' treatment of the Euthyphro argument, no answer can be given. The Good gods have their own inscrutable preferences, by which their clerics are bound.

It is a reason in favour of the "Yes" answer - perhaps a weak reason, but a reason nevertheless - that it makes the motivations of the Good gods explicable rather than inscrutable.

Of course, as others have pointed out, a "Yes" answer also suggests that the [Evil] descriptor has not been applied as thoroughly and consistently as it could be. No roleplaying rules set is perfect, after all.