Is casting Evil spells an evil act?

[Infiniti2000]

If you think that casting an alignment typed spell is an alignment act, how many Protection from Evil spells can the BBEG cast to protect himself from his competitors before he risks becoming a BBNG?

Because the DM runs the BBEG, the answer is obvious: whatever the DM requires to accomplish his objective.

 

[TheEvil]

Because the DM runs the BBEG, the answer is obvious: whatever the DM requires to accomplish his objective.

Think of this as a good for the goose, good for the gander sort of situation. If the PCs have to watch what they cast for their alignment, so should NPCs. Can't just have evil wizards going around casting good descriptor spells. Wouldn't be right. At least, not unless it was okay for good wizards to go around casting evil descriptor spells.

 

[GeorgeFields]

I voted yes. The descriptor is there for a reason. I agree that not all spells that have it should have it. By the same token, some spells that don't have it probably should.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Think of this as a good for the goose, good for the gander sort of situation. If the PCs have to watch what they cast for their alignment, so should NPCs. Can't just have evil wizards going around casting good descriptor spells. Wouldn't be right. At least, not unless it was okay for good wizards to go around casting evil descriptor spells.

Right. So, I don't have the BBEG casting protection from evil. Problem solved from my end. The only problem I see in this particular example is that the protection from * spells leave neutral characters in the lurch.

 

[Klaus]

If you think of Protection from Evil as being a request to the Powers of Good to defend you, the BBEG really shouldn't cast those.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you think of Protection from Evil as being a request to the Powers of Good to defend you, the BBEG really shouldn't cast those.

And if it's a cleric, it effectively is a request to the Powers of Good to defend you, and he can't cast it.

But if it's a wizard, it's bypassing the Powers of Good completely, and there's no problem.

Arcane/Divine split, and all that.

And then you've got the Archivist, who can quite happily cast divine spells opposed to his alignment.

-Hyp.

 

[Voadam]

I go with it being an evil act for alignment purposes but not necessarily for moral purposes.

If multiclass paladins cast [Evil] spells the supernatural [Evil] taints their holy aura [Good] and they must purify themselves of the supernatural evil taint before regaining their supernatural good powers.

"evil actions" are only relevant as a consideration for paladins IMO.

 

[Squire James]

As I said in the other thread... casting an Evil spell is an Evil act. The degree of Evil depends on the spell, and the intentions of the caster constitutes another act (perhaps further Evil, perhaps Good enough to cancel out that Evil act you just did).

Fortunately, there are no [Evil] spells on the Paladin list, so no problems there. Clerics and Paladins are probably aware that Evil spells corrupt, while arcane casters might not be aware (or not care).

As for summoning spells, I always allow any celestial or fiendish creature be summonable in either form. I fail to see why badgers from the Upper Planes are susceptible to being summoned and their counterparts from the Lower Planes are not!

 

[Anand]

And if you really want to cast a [evil] spell, you could research a new spell, similar, but [good] or with no descriptor. I don'ty remember how clerics "get" new spell in their spell lists, but you can use new spells as a compromise.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I would say a Talisman of Pure Evil would radiate evil. But a much more eloquent point about it's evil would be made when the good cleric tried to pick it up ... and melted into goo.
A sword +3 wouldn't radiate evil. But if that sword had been used repeatedly to sacrifice innocent people to Orcus, it most certainly would (and, it would now have intelligence, ego, and would attempt to possess whoever picked it up.)