Evil in D&D: as black and white as it seems?

I generally think that many of the people described under A would be evil aligned. IMO, you be evil and still have limits, still do some decent things. It's easy to be evil or neutral, and rather more difficult to be good. There's plenty of room in evil for the selfish and petty before you get to the really horrible stuff.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

WarlockLord said:
Then there's the whole "evil spells" thing. If a bad guy is about to burn down and orphanage, and you slay him with the evil spell darkbolt from BoVD, saving the kids, you have still committed an evil act. It doesn't matter that you saved the kids. You are still evil. Likewise, deathwatch can be used to heal, not harm, but it's still evil. Animate dead creates brainless automatons that follow the whims of their master. Who says they can't be used for good? But no. It's an evil spell.

And summoning? Enslaving angels is a good thing?

Agreed. Spells aren't evil, they are just following the command of their casters and many of the spells you've listed above can be used for good (or just neutral) purposes...

...so it really depends on what the GM chooses to do with them. It is safe to say that these spells are deemed evil because they were created by evil deities and this damns you in the eyes of good gods. Remember that the entire D&D pantheon/afterlife revolves around the fact that when you die, your soul goes to your deity or to the plane which closely matches your own alignment. By that, it's a god's choice where you go when you die (or is chosen by another, neutral force like the Celestial Beaureaucracy). If THEY view these spells as evil, that's a point off your good list and you don't get to live on the beautiful slopes of Mount Celestia. The GM may decide not to force an alignment change based on the casting of these spells, but it may affect you in the afterlife.

The same problem you mentioned goes for healing spells. Why can't evil clerics cast healing spells? Don't they want to live any more than good clerics? It's all in how you interpret the process of the healing spell. My theory is that healing spells are blessing from good deities who preach the tenet of Good - one of which involves sacrifice and helping others. When a cleric casts cure light wounds, where is the sacrifice? It comes from the diety itself, giving up some of its own essence to heal the wounded victim. Therefore, when an evil cleric prays to his god for a healing spell, the evil deity basically says "I'm evil. Why should I give something for this person... even if he is a cleric of mine? He should be grateful that I let him carry my name on his shoulder." It's all in the interpretation.

As for summoning spells, it once again falls to interpretation. Angels are good creatures are believe in giving aid to others. To them, maybe it isn't forced indenture but a means to prove their devotion to the cause. Evil fiends that are summoned see it as slavery - why should they help this puny mortal?
 


Victim said:
Umm, evil clerics can cast healing spells.

Sorry, what I meant was having access to the healing DOMAIN. Evil deities never list the healing domain.

And they can't spontaneously cast healing spells, but inflict spells.
 
Last edited:

WayneLigon said:
Not really, no. Your actions, not the end result, are the thing to look for. Your basic anti-hero will commit some pretty despicable acts to cause an eventual Good result. He damns himself in the process, but is still a hero in some eyes.

Umbran said:
B.) Can someone knowlingly commit evil acts in a good cause, and not be (or become) evil themselves?

If the evil acts are not the only thing they are doing, then yes. I find it helps to think about a character's overall "karmic balance" - the occasional miss-step (or well placed step) is usually not enough to move one to an alignment extreme. Generally, it requires a long-term and notable pattern of behavior to establish one as an extreme. So, if you're Good, you really are a pretty darned nice guy. To be Evil, you have to be rather thoroughly nasty.

Right. Why do people always forget about Neutral?
 

Nifft said:
Then he is about to perform an evil action. This is NOT your fault.

True. If you cut off your finger to save the world, you have one less finger. Actions have consequences. Live with them.

Think of it this way: if you stop a BBEG from destroying an orphanage by hurling an orphan at him (slaying both the BBEG and the orphan), you have saved most of the orphans. However, you have also killed one orphan.

Was your action good or evil?

I'd say unambiguously evil.

Cheers, -- N

So casting darkbolt is like killing an orphan? I don't get it. If a wizard uses shadoe spray, it's not evil, but darkbolt is? How is using an attack spell on a bad guy the same as killing an orphan?

EP said:
...so it really depends on what the GM chooses to do with them. It is safe to say that these spells are deemed evil because they were created by evil deities and this damns you in the eyes of good gods. Remember that the entire D&D pantheon/afterlife revolves around the fact that when you die, your soul goes to your deity or to the plane which closely matches your own alignment. By that, it's a god's choice where you go when you die (or is chosen by another, neutral force like the Celestial Beaureaucracy). If THEY view these spells as evil, that's a point off your good list and you don't get to live on the beautiful slopes of Mount Celestia. The GM may decide not to force an alignment change based on the casting of these spells, but it may affect you in the afterlife.

So, by using these spells to save lives, you're evil and should go to hell? And these are the good gods?

Also: is it me, or do clerics and paladins remind other people too of the Spanish Inquisition? Powers to root out heretics (even a spell entitled 'sense heretic' on the paladin list)? The branding of other religions as evil? (I daresay not all of the worshipers of an 'evil god' partake in human sacrifice and so forth). Or am I just nuts?
 

WarlockLord said:
So casting darkbolt is like killing an orphan? I don't get it. If a wizard uses shadoe spray, it's not evil, but darkbolt is? How is using an attack spell on a bad guy the same as killing an orphan?

So, by using these spells to save lives, you're evil and should go to hell? And these are the good gods?

It's not using an attack spell. There are tons of other of attack spells casters can use without undo moral hazard. If you need to kill some baddy, you don't need Darkbolt. To pick Darkbolt over all those methods is to pick evil, to tap into spiritual corrosive powers.

Since Darkbolt isn't even that great, its greatest draw is that it's an EVIL!!! attack anyway.
 

WarlockLord said:
If a wizard uses shadoe spray, it's not evil, but darkbolt is? How is using an attack spell on a bad guy the same as killing an orphan?
Because one is evil, and the other isn't. (We don't have weapons in real life that have the Evil descriptor, so analogy is going to fail us at some point.) Casting an evil spell and killing an orphan are similar in that both actions are evil.

WarlockLord said:
So, by using these spells to save lives, you're evil and should go to hell?
Again, if you cut off your finger to save the world, you have one less finger. If you sell your soul to the devil in order to save the world, your soul is still owned by the devil.

Cheers, -- N
 

A) Yes.

B) No, assuming the "Evil actions for a Good purpose" constitute the pattern of your life. Obviously, even a Good person can occasionally slip without being automatically branded Evil.

C) I'm not sure there's such a thing as being irredeemably Evil, especially in a world with Helms of Opposite Alignment. It is, however, certainly possible to be Evil without knowing it.
 

WarlockLord said:
This is why I hate D&D morality. With all the 'detect evil', 'smite evil', 'evil as a supernatural force', 'evil domain', it is impossible not to know that you are evil.
So you'd rather have it that all morality in D&D be gray, with no guidelines or rules governing it, and no universal forces of good, evil, law, or chaos?

That's fine but it doesn't really evoke the kind of game that D&D tries to provide, which is heroic fantasy. And in heroic fantasy you kind of need clear-cut good and evil. Otherwise how do you act heroically, if every single damned enemy you face has to be meticulously analyzed to determine whether or not he really deserved to be slain for getting in the way of your goals?

Adventurer: "Oops, I'm sorry, I couldn't just cast Detect Evil to see if you were just being a jerk right now and not a bad guy at all, sorry I killed you Mr. Orc. So I figured that since you were getting in my way and seemed to be guarding the dragon that everyone's been having trouble with, I figured you must be his evil henchman and deserved to die. So sorry. Gee, now I feel all un-heroic for having killed a decent guy that was just trying guard the lair that he was forced to do under threat of death. I shoulda just stricken to subdue. Too bad it's hard to hit things without risking serious injury, like in the real world."

D&D has personifications of good, evil, law, and chaos. D&D has universal forces of alignment that dictate 'this is good, and that is bad, so now you know where you stand'. D&D promotes heroic fantasy rather than grim and gritty over-realistic gray morality Warhammer-Fantasy-Roleplay-esque adventuring in a world that sucks (mind you, I like WFRP's setting, but you gotta admit that most people living in that world would think life sucks). Tough noogies. Heroic fantasy is D&D.

How many evil clerics have the evil domain? This is dumb. Most evil creatures don't see themselves as evil in reality, but how do you deny it in D&D?
Easy. Most people don't have access to spells that detect their alignment, and the ones who do are usually too busy to spend all their time scanning the streets for evil people and calling down the wrath of Pelor or what-have-you upon those folks. Most evil people in D&D won't know that they're 'evil' and will generally consider it a false decree or conspiracy if some random priest calls them 'evil'.

A conspiracy by the churches of the so-called good deities to oppress and villainize those who don't share their views or pay them lots of money in 'donations' to garner their 'protection'. After all, who's going to say the priest of Pelor is lying when he calls someone 'evil'? Probably no one before he gets rid of the 'evil one'. A conspiracy by the clergy, yup. That's what an evil person in a D&D setting would see it as. It's really not hard, people in the real world come up with this kind of stuff about this or that all the time.

Then there's the whole "evil spells" thing. If a bad guy is about to burn down and orphanage, and you slay him with the evil spell darkbolt from BoVD, saving the kids, you have still committed an evil act. It doesn't matter that you saved the kids. You are still evil. Likewise, deathwatch can be used to heal, not harm, but it's still evil. Animate dead creates brainless automatons that follow the whims of their master. Who says they can't be used for good? But no. It's an evil spell.
You could have used a different spell, y'know, one that did not inherantly channel the powers of Evil, tapping into the energies of the Lower Planes or whatever. You can Scorching Ray or Disintegrate the bad guy instead, spells that just channel ordinary, natural, elemental forces or transmutive energies. But instead you chose to learn and use a spell that harnesses raw, primordial Evil, which in D&D is a force unto itself.

You could have cast Status to determine the health of nearby allies, rather than tapping into the darker energies of the world to cast Deathwatch and determine which allies death is creeping up to and which ones are healthy, just because Deathwatch is easier to cast, because the powers of darkness want to be invoked, want to get a hold on you....


You could have chosen to try Raising the Dead with their souls and wills intact, rather than desecrating their corpses by turning them into undead slaves of your will, through Animate Dead. You could have avoided calling on the powers of evil to empower those corpses and make them obey your commands as puppets on infernal strings. It doesn't matter that you just wanted to use the zombies to defend the city.

If you want to try making such zombies without calling on Evil to do it for you, you could try researching a new spell, one that most folks would not even conceive of, to channel positive energy and neutral forces to animate the dead as your servants, and simultaneously give their souls a chance to reject the animation of their former vessels, with the promise that you will only use the zombies for Good. It'll still be desecration but not too evil. And the spell would probably have to end its animation immediately if the zombies were ever given an evil order, or were about to strike an innocent person while carrying out an otherwise decent order.

Most people wouldn't even consider, though, using an army of their loved ones' or ancestors' corpses to defend the city from invasion. They would much rather you tried summoning angels or raising the dead back to life instead, to defend the city. Or at least called back their souls and asked them to cooperate with a process to turn them into positive-energy undead that could act independantly in defense of their progeny.

And summoning? Enslaving angels is a good thing?
Enslaving, no. Good thing that Summoning is not even anywhere close to enslavement. Let me quote you a line from the PHB and SRD, from the Magic chapter. Emphasis mine.
CONJURATION said:
Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation). Creatures you conjure usually, but not always, obey your commands.
Unlike a Calling spell, a Summoning spell does not transport the actual creature to you, but sends you a manifestation of some sort that resembles that creature and is a sort of doppelganger drawn from the essence of that creature's native plane. The duplicate obeys your commands, but is not the real creature. It's an artifice of magic on the plane it is summoned from, Mount Celestia or whatever sending you a temporary ally molded after one of its own common denizens.

And as it is a Good spell when you summon an angel, that means you are harnessing powers of good at that time, so it is a 'good' act. In time enough summonings of these quasi-real angelic duplicates will make you a better person, through changing your alignment, and ultimately Good will benefit from your acts once you accept the path of righteousness yourself.

If you abuse the spell though, and don't use it very often, you may remain evil or neutral, but others may try to punish you for using manifestations of Good to commit evil acts or whatever (which will still count as evil acts or whatever, as appropriate, on your part; in fact, if you use a Good summoning to commit evil, you're really committing a bigger sin than usual, so it's likely to be counted as doubly evil for that). Mount Celestia or whatever will continue sending you these manifestations if you keep summoning them, with the expectation that you will forsake your misguided ways at some point and see the light, because it is in the nature of Good to be hopeful and try to sway you toward goodness yourself.


Keep in mind also that only arcane casters can summon creatures that have an opposing alignment; clerics can only summon stuff that isn't offensive to their alignment/faith. An arcane caster of any alignment can choose to summon fiends, angels, elementals, and other stuff with impunity, but it does not change the spells' descriptors, so casting them can still impact your alignment. And at some point an angel, fiend, deity, or deific avatar may notice your abuses and decide to set you straight or bump you off the mortal coil.
 

Remove ads

Top