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

[Hypersmurf]

I think the word choice for the descriptor signifies more than simply confounding terms.

Well, I'm on the "Darkness spell creates light" side of the Darkness debate; my reading is that the [Darkness] and [Light] descriptors, in the core rules, have essentially one effect - to describe how they interact with each other. (Counters and dispels light spells of lower level, or whatever, as appears in certain spell descriptions.)

It's not necessary for a spell to have the [Light] descriptor to illuminate an area (see Flaming Sphere); nor is it a given that a spell with the [Light] descriptor will illuminate an area (see Sunbeam). As far as I can tell, the only purpose of the [Light] descriptor is to flag interactions with spells with the [Darkness] descriptor.

So I don't see any contradiction with a spell with the [Darkness] descriptor illuminating an area. The descriptor isn't telling us "This spell makes things dark"; it's telling us "This spell has a special interaction with certain spells that have the [Light] descriptor".

Similarly, I don't see any contradiction in saying "Casting an [Evil] spell is not automatically an evil act"; rather, I see the descriptor as a flag saying "Look for other rules that reference this descriptor, as they may come into play".

-Hyp.

 

[GeorgeFields]

Well, I'm on the "Darkness spell creates light" side of the Darkness debate; my reading is that the [Darkness] and [Light] descriptors, in the core rules, have essentially one effect - to describe how they interact with each other. (Counters and dispels light spells of lower level, or whatever, as appears in certain spell descriptions.)

It's not necessary for a spell to have the [Light] descriptor to illuminate an area (see Flaming Sphere); nor is it a given that a spell with the [Light] descriptor will illuminate an area (see Sunbeam). As far as I can tell, the only purpose of the [Light] descriptor is to flag interactions with spells with the [Darkness] descriptor.

So I don't see any contradiction with a spell with the [Darkness] descriptor illuminating an area. The descriptor isn't telling us "This spell makes things dark"; it's telling us "This spell has a special interaction with certain spells that have the [Light] descriptor".

Similarly, I don't see any contradiction in saying "Casting an [Evil] spell is not automatically an evil act"; rather, I see the descriptor as a flag saying "Look for other rules that reference this descriptor, as they may come into play".

-Hyp.

I might be offbase, but I disagree. The descriptor tells us how some of the spells get their effects. [Light] spells get their effects from the same energy that the sun does. Hence, flaming sphere illuminates an area without having the [Light] descriptor, and the damage from sunbeam damages beings vulnerable to solar energy without actually illuminating an area.

The same applies to spells with the [Evil] & [Good] descriptors. We are told how they do what they do, not what they actually do by having them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

[Light] spells get their effects from the same energy that the sun does.

I don't really see any connection between, say, Continual Flame and the sun, though. Continual Flame certainly doesn't bother a vampire, for example.

-Hyp.

 

[GeorgeFields]

I don't really see any connection between, say, Continual Flame and the sun, though. Continual Flame certainly doesn't bother a vampire, for example.

-Hyp.

good point

 

[Artoomis]

h for goodness sakes!

Do the Rules specify that casting [Evil] spells is an evil act. No, not is so many words - at least not the core rules.

However, good clerics can't cast them, nor good druids.

Also, in the cleric and druid class descriptions it says, "Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions."

That right there indicates the spell's descriptor IS associated with the alignement.

An [Evil] spell is, well.... evil.

So, is using something evil and evil act?

It's a judgment call, not a rules call. I'd say of course it is - even if done with good intentions.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That right there indicates the spell's descriptor IS associated with the alignement.

Absolutely. In what way are they associated? They cannot be cast by clerics of the opposite alignment.

-Hyp.

 

[TheEvil]

Absolutely. In what way are they associated? They cannot be cast by clerics of the opposite alignment.

-Hyp.

As usual, you are a voice of reason, Hyp.
To those who think casting spells with *Alignment* descriptor is an *Alignment* act, how many castings to change the alignment of the caster if the spell itself is not used in a particularly *alignment* fashion? How many Magic Circles against Evil could a BBEG to protect himself from his competitors before he risks becoming a BBNG or even a BBGG?

I guess what I am asking is: If casting an *Alignment* spell is an *Alignment* action, what are the consequences?

 

[Artoomis]

...I guess what I am asking is: If casting an *Alignment* spell is an *Alignment* action, what are the consequences?

Ah, that's the crux of it. There are none, most of the item, anyway. It's entirely a DM's call.

It's still an evil act, but, so what? Most of the time, there is no consequence.

There is nothing to stop a good character from casting an evil spell, but that does not keep it from being an evil act, however minor it may be. At the same time, that does not mean there are consequences for doing so - that's up to the DM (like so many things).

 

[Crothian]

I guess what I am asking is: If casting an *Alignment* spell is an *Alignment* action, what are the consequences?

Ask your DM. Not everything is nor should it be spelled out in the books. That's why we have a DM.

 

[Artoomis]

Ask your DM. Not everything is nor should it be spelled out in the books. That's why we have a DM.

Yes indeedy!