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

[moritheil]

Just what the title asks. If a caster casts a spell with the evil descriptor, is that an evil act?
Example: Summon Monster is used to summon a creature with the fiendish template, the spell gains the evil descriptor (maybe lawful or chaotic as well but that's irrelevant to my question).
Example: Create Undead is a Necromancy[evil] spell. Aside from the fact that many consider the creation of undead an evil act (that is not what I want to discuss).

Is casting these spells an evil act in and of itself. Please give rules references.
Thanks

Per BoVD, yes. Calling/summoning/animating evil things to/on the material plane allows them to do evil things, and so you are an accomplice to evil.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

Since we are picking nits...

Calling up a fiend to rescue orphans is good but not [Good]. Just doing a good deed with a spell doesn't make it [Good].

DS

 

[Hypersmurf]

Calling up a fiend to rescue orphans is good but not [Good].

Right. It's a good act, but a spell with the [Evil] descriptor.

-Hyp.

 

[pemerton]

Right. It's a good act, but a spell with the [Evil] descriptor.

If we accept this distinction, how do we explain these two things:

*Good gods forbid [Evil] spells;

*Beings that are very evil, like Fiends, cause spells that summon or conjure them to take on the [Evil] descriptor?

Is this connection between morality and metaphysics purely arbitrary? Is it mere co-incidence? Or is there some deeper correlation?

 

[Hypersmurf]

If we accept this distinction, how do we explain these two things:

*Good gods forbid [Evil] spells;

Do they forbid it? Or is it out of their control? We know that a good cleric or a cleric of a good deity can't cast an [Evil] spell, but we don't know the mechanics of that incapability.

*Beings that are very evil, like Fiends, cause spells that summon or conjure them to take on the [Evil] descriptor?

Well, a fiendish dire rat doesn't have the [Evil] subtype, but it still causes Summon Monster I to be a [Lawful] and [Evil] spell... so it's not very evil creatures, but any evil creatures that cause the spell to take on the [Evil] descriptor.

Which reminds me...

I agree that summoning a fiendish dire weasel is not an [Evil, Lawful] spell.

The PHB text (vs the SRD) under Summon Monster I states "When you use a summoning spell to summon an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type. For example, Summon Monster I is a lawful and evil spell when cast to summon a fiendish dire rat."

-Hyp.

 

[pemerton]

We know that a good cleric or a cleric of a good deity can't cast an [Evil] spell, but we don't know the mechanics of that incapability.

Surely one candidate explanation is this: good gods condemn evil, casting [Evil] spells is evil, and good gods therefore forbid their clerics from casting such spells.

In the absence of any other explanation for the incapability, doesn't the existence of the incapability offer some support for the view that casting an [Evil] spell is evil?

This is inference to best explanation, rather than a logical inference (in the strict sense), but it is an inference supported by the explicit text of the rules. Thus, those who say that the core rules support the contention that casting [Evil] is evil can hardly be accused of making it up, or of failing to pay attention to what the rules do and don't say.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Surely one candidate explanation is this: good gods condemn evil, casting [Evil] spells is evil, and good gods therefore forbid their clerics from casting such spells.

The good gods don't prevent the cleric from casting Flame Strike to wipe out an orphanage, however...

Again, it's not that the clerics don't have permission to cast the spells; rather, they don't have the ability to cast the spells.

-Hyp.

 

[pemerton]

The good gods don't prevent the cleric from casting Flame Strike to wipe out an orphanage, however...

Again, it's not that the clerics don't have permission to cast the spells; rather, they don't have the ability to cast the spells.

The distinction between "permission" and "ability" here is a little fine, I think. One way, after all, for a god to enforce a rule of prohibition on its clerics is to withhold a certain ability.

What you say about Flame Strike is controversial - it may be, after all, that Pelor would forbid such conduct, and therefore prevent the spell taking effect. Admittedly, such divine intervention in divine spell casting was emphasised in earlier additions of AD&D (I especially have in mind the 1st ed DMG) in a way that it is not in 3rd Ed, but you can hardly say that it is contrary to the rules of 3rd Ed for a DM to adjudicate divine spell casting in this fashion.

Sticking closer to rules literalism, the Flame Strike issue can be explained this way (as many posters above have done): the use of Flame Strike is not inherently evil, whereas (under the hypothesis I am exploring) the use of [Evil] spells is (either because of the powers they call upon, like Deathwatch and Summon spells, or the effects that they have, like Animate Dead and Contagion).

This does seem to leave some gaps - why is Energy Drain not [Evil]? - but (as I said above) no rules set is perfect.

The alternative interpretation, which divorces the concept of [Evil] from that of evil, likewise leaves gaps: it cannot explain why good clerics can't cast evil spells, and more generally leaves the relationship between morals and metaphysics, which is (and always has been) central to D&D, unexplained.

I'm not 100% sure that one or the other is the best way of going. The point I'm trying to make is that an interpretation of the rules which tries to maximise consistency with the text and minimise gaps and non sequiturs does not obviously favour your way of going against the alternative.

 

[Seeten]

The distinction between "permission" and "ability" here is a little fine, I think. One way, after all, for a god to enforce a rule of prohibition on its clerics is to withhold a certain ability.

What you say about Flame Strike is controversial - it may be, after all, that Pelor would forbid such conduct, and therefore prevent the spell taking effect. Admittedly, such divine intervention in divine spell casting was emphasised in earlier additions of AD&D (I especially have in mind the 1st ed DMG) in a way that it is not in 3rd Ed, but you can hardly say that it is contrary to the rules of 3rd Ed for a DM to adjudicate divine spell casting in this fashion.

Sticking closer to rules literalism, the Flame Strike issue can be explained this way (as many posters above have done): the use of Flame Strike is not inherently evil, whereas (under the hypothesis I am exploring) the use of [Evil] spells is (either because of the powers they call upon, like Deathwatch and Summon spells, or the effects that they have, like Animate Dead and Contagion).

This does seem to leave some gaps - why is Energy Drain not [Evil]? - but (as I said above) no rules set is perfect.

The alternative interpretation, which divorces the concept of [Evil] from that of evil, likewise leaves gaps: it cannot explain why good clerics can't cast evil spells, and more generally leaves the relationship between morals and metaphysics, which is (and always has been) central to D&D, unexplained.

I'm not 100% sure that one or the other is the best way of going. The point I'm trying to make is that an interpretation of the rules which tries to maximise consistency with the text and minimise gaps and non sequiturs does not obviously favour your way of going against the alternative.

I disagree with most of what you say here.

There are dozens of spells that use negative energy to do nasty things, that arent [evil]. Horrid Wilting, Enervation, etc. I believe [EVIL] is simply a descriptor for other spells to use and mark, and no different from every other descriptor. It tells you what spells you get +1 caster level to, which detects pick it up, etc. Nothing else.

 

[pemerton]

There are dozens of spells that use negative energy to do nasty things, that arent [evil]. Horrid Wilting, Enervation, etc. I believe [EVIL] is simply a descriptor for other spells to use and mark, and no different from every other descriptor. It tells you what spells you get +1 caster level to, which detects pick it up, etc. Nothing else.

My point is, that this interpretation leaves a gap in the rules: it leaves it unexplained why good clerics can't use [Evil] spells. That becomes a purely arbitrary rule. More generally, your interpretation makes the relationship between morals and metaphysics a seemingly arbitrary one.

The alternative interpretation - that using [Evil] spells is an evil act - likewise leaves gaps, namely, that (as you say, and as I noted in my own post) the list of [Evil] spells is incomplete.

The question is, which gap is a worse gap in the rules? The answer to this question is not obvious to me.