Alignment - Action As Intent

[Nifft]

If preparing and casting spells the way a cleric does incorporates the feature, why does the druid have it as a separate entry?

You may be giving the editors too much credit. It's far more important to screen for misinformation than to eliminate all redundant information -- and I think they've done the former more than the latter.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Brentos]

Hmmmm..

It's my opinion that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act, but the only place I can find rules to back this up is in the BoVD. Anyone got a Core quote?

Thanks, -- N

I always thought I had read that somewhere too, but cannot find it. In fact, in the Book of Yummy Goodness (sorry don't have the page handy right now) it mentions that a character summoning undead who loses control of them has unleashed evil into the world (not the act of summoning itself). It also hints at the possibility of good necromancers. Weird. I'll have to do more research.

 

[Nifft]

I always thought I had read that somewhere too, but cannot find it.

Book of Vile Darkness, p.8 has a small section on casting Evil spells. Doing so is defined as an Evil act; the BoVD mentions that a Good character can probably get away with casting a few without changing alignment, but that casting any is an Evil act.

However, that's the BoVD, and not the SRD. Perhaps the PHB has it in a flavor-passage (which is missing from the SRD).

Cheers, -- N

 

[green slime]

It's my opinion that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act, but the only place I can find rules to back this up is in the BoVD. Anyone got a Core quote?

Thanks, -- N

No, but that has always been my reading as well.

Secondly, on the Ranger/Paladin lack of specific prohibition against casting spells contrary to deity alignment, I've always assumed it was just one of things easily removed for space reasons, given that their primary role is not that of spellcaster anyway.

 

[jmucchiello]

I only just found this thread....

Q: Both your spouse and child are drowning, and you only have time to save one. What do you do?

A: Die trying to save both.

So the possibility of leaving your child an orphan doesn't contribute to the equation?

P.S. What is the category of this thread Pirates!?

 

[jmucchiello]

You know what? This whole argument, with respect to the dragon example, it moot. A hundred villagers offered up a virgin for sacrifice to an evil dragon. My paladin says, "Screw 'em. I'm saving the girl."

By the definition of "evil" that everyone seems to agree with, the villagers are evil. They're willing to kill an innocent to better themselves. They're lucky if my paladin doesn't burn the village down himself.

This blew me away. One cool variant on the dragon sacrifice is that there is a human agent getting a kickback from the dragon and so he convinces the village to go along with sacrificial virgins rather than trying to hire adventurers to kill the dragon. Who needs the dragon. An evil illusionist could fake the first dragon attack, convince the town to do the sacrifice (along with a suitable bribe of gold, too). He volunteers to take the girl to the dragon so no one else is at risk. After a few sacrifices and bribes, he just skips town. Perhaps the dragon moved on.

Turning it up a notch, have there be a devil/demon instead of or working with the illusionist. The outsider's agenda is to foster evil in the town and he uses this little scam for his own great amusement.

 

[Nifft]

So the possibility of leaving your child an orphan doesn't contribute to the equation?

Sadly, self-sacrifice doesn't account for niggling little details like children.

P.S. What is the category of this thread Pirates!?

There wasn't a category called "Endless Flame War".

Cheers, -- N

PS: If anyone has more concrete examples, I'd like to see them. If not, I'll try to think of some. It seems like we all agree about the basic definitions, so examples will be the most useful way forward.

Actually, I'll start:

PC shoots hostage-holding villain; misses, hits hostage instead. NOT BAD.

PC shoots into obscuring mist which he knows contains both villains and civilians. BAD.

Discuss.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

PC shoots hostage-holding villain; misses, hits hostage instead. NOT BAD.

PC shoots into obscuring mist which he knows contains both villains and civilians. BAD.

Discuss.

Well, you've perfectly described one of my problems with your proposed system. In both cases you are doing something that you mostly hope will hurt the villain but recklessly accepting the risk of hurting a civilian instead. It's entirely possible that you are more likely to hit the hostage than the civilians in the mist, but because you can express your action as a mechanical intent to hit the villian it's "NOT BAD". No thanks.

 

[maddman75]

Actually, I'll start:

PC shoots hostage-holding villain; misses, hits hostage instead. NOT BAD.

PC shoots into obscuring mist which he knows contains both villains and civilians. BAD.

Discuss.

Disagree. Good (and this goes back to the dragon/village argument) does not prevent foolishness. Firing at the hostage so they're out of the equation (will be hurt, might be killed) would be bad. Being reckless is not the same as being evil.

 

[Nifft]

Disagree. Good (and this goes back to the dragon/village argument) does not prevent foolishness. Firing at the hostage so they're out of the equation (will be hurt, might be killed) would be bad.

Ah, let me clear it up then. The original example had more detail -- forgiveness granted for not reading that far back, it's been a long thread and all that.


Firing at bad guy using hostage for cover: ??? (not discussed yet)

Firing at bad guy, missing, and hitting hostage behind bad guy: NOT bad.

Firing into fog cloud where you know there are also innocent civilians: BAD.

Firing into fog cloud where invisible innocent civilians have wandered beyond your knowledge: NOT bad.

Deliberately killing an innocent civilian (being used as cover) while killing the bad guy, and then paying the cost for a resurrection on the innocent civilian: ??? (not discussed)

Cheers, -- N