Call Zelekhut question

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

This note is in regards to the spell Call Zelekhut, and the ramifications of its casting by a Druid.

The spell has the Lawful descriptor, presumably because a Zelekhut is a Lawful Neutral outside, specifically, an Inevitable that acts in pursuit of justice.

What are the consequences of a druid repeatedly casting this spell? Does that shift their alignment in the "Lawful" direction? For a druid that was Neutral Good or Neutral Evil, that would have severe implications.

Or, how would the spell actually work for a caster that wasn't Lawful Neutral? Would the
Zelekhut perform the task as requested? Could the Zelekhut turn on the caster?

On a side note, can someone provide a description of the outlook of druids of each of the five allowed alignments (N, NG, CN, NE, LN)?

Thx!

Tom Bitonti

 

[Tiberius]

I don't see a problem with the inevitable obeying the summons. After all, sometime chaotic people need the fundamental laws of the universe obeyed as well!

 

[Hypersmurf]

The druid cannot cast the spell if he or his deity are Chaotic.

Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells
A druid can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity’s (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.

By my reading, that's the only real interaction between the druid and the Alignment descriptor. A Neutral druid isn't going to 'turn Lawful' by summoning Zarakhuts.

But this is contentious... though normally people are concerned about the effects of casting [Evil] spells rather than [Lawful] spells The usual question is "Is casting an [Evil] spell an evil act?"

My answer is that it depends what you use it for. Casting an [Evil] spell in order to rescue helpless orphans is a good act. But others disagree... and if you use the BoVD, it's declared that it's an evil act.

-Hyp.

 

[Kafkonia]

But others disagree... and if you use the BoVD, it's declared that it's an evil act.

-Hyp.

I believe the BoVD uses some rather circuitous logic, though:

1. Casting spells [evil] spells is an evil act.
2. Why are they [evil]?
3. Because casting them is evil!

Personally, I think some spells designated evil should be (such as blasphemy) while others shouldn't be.

 

[shilsen]

Personally, I think some spells designated evil should be (such as blasphemy) while others shouldn't be.

I detect someone who has read the spell Deatwatch

 

[Kafkonia]

I detect someone who has read the spell Deatwatch

Actually, I had completely missed the fact that deathwatch is [evil] -- that's a really, really questionable designation there.

I was thinking of some of the summoning -- specifically, summon undead spells. I can understand the reasoning behind creating undead being [evil], what with the fact that you're being rather naughty with someone's dead body. But since a summon spell just grabs existing creatures, that doesn't seem so bad. Mind you, I suppose the same argument could be made for all summoning spells -- but I'm thinking specifically of those summoning mindless creatures.

Of course, another question arises -- where are these undead being summoned from? Is there some poor lich conqueror who keeps having skeletons and zombies disappear from his army?

Lich: "Onward, my undead slaves, to vic-- Oh, blast."

 

[Hypersmurf]

I detect someone who has read the spell Deatwatch

"It's a bit like Status. Only an eeeee-evil Status."

-Hyp.

 

[Starglim]

I really don't like the idea of an inevitable doing what the caster tells it to do or of a druid dealing with a zelekhut (a marut, definitely, no problem). I'd say that the idea of an absolute principle of justice is fundamentally not very compatible with druidism. Casting this spell often would conflict with the druidic ethos, not so much with alignment.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd say that the idea of an absolute principle of justice is fundamentally not very compatible with druidism. Casting this spell often would conflict with the druidic ethos, not so much with alignment.

Depends on the druid I played a Lawful Neutral druid devoted to Helm who would have fitted right in with a Zelekhut - he was originally conceived as loosely based on Gil Grissom, so the notion of hunting down those who escape justice matches nicely.

-Hyp.

 

[tomBitonti]

Meaning of descriptor

I believe the BoVD uses some rather circuitous logic, though:

1. Casting spells [evil] spells is an evil act.
2. Why are they [evil]?
3. Because casting them is evil!

Personally, I think some spells designated evil should be (such as blasphemy) while others shouldn't be.

There is definitely a thinness to the argument. But then again, D&D is thin on the whole alignment thing anyways.

My take on the matter is that, if casting a [Lawful] spell were not lawful, or if casting an [Evil] were not evil, what is the point of the descriptor? After all, Fireball is not evil, but casting a fireball into the town day care center to cause random grief definitely *is*. If it is only a matter of how the spell was used, then the descriptor is superfluous.

I'd definitely say that summoning a Zelekhut would be a lawful act, and would go against the druid ethos, unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Zelekhut: You have called me, but I see in your heart that you do not truly believe in law and justice.

Druid: That may be, but in these circumstances, our goals are the same. Has the Nefarious one not broken the great law of the druid circle by despoiling the sacred lands? You must assist me in bringing him to justice!

But later ...

Druid: I call one you again, servant of Law, to assist me against the foul minions of the Nefarious one.

Zelekhut: Though the minions of the Nefarious one have transgressed, and must be brought to justice, I must first attend to the Enlighted Follows of Palan, whom you allowed to pass through the sacred lands, yet they did not follow in full detail the ceremonial requirements as set forth by your Circle.

Druid: !?!