[evil] spells and eyebite

[der_kluge]

But what about vampiric touch? Isn't that just as [evil] as Death knell?

Or, would there be too many sacred cows involved in changing that one?

 

[Saeviomagy]

I don't seem to recall saying that the impact was greater with [evil] spells. If I conveyed that impression, I'm sorry. That's not how I meant to describe it. In either case, using a spell of an opposing alignment will have a slight affect on the caster's own alignment. Neither will instantly nullify the many other choices a PC makes/has made regarding right and wrong. But they do add their small weight to that scale.This is not how I run it. I apologize if I gave that impression. When I said that a wizard could not be truly good by consistantly using [evil] spells, I meant a wizard who makes regular and strong use of such spells over their [good] alternatives. Of course a few here and there will mean little. No PC is required to act in accordance with his alignment in every decision he makes. But on the whole, if he's acting closer to another alignment, his own alignment will change to match. And constantly preferring to summon fiendish creatures over celestial ones, for instance, is a part of that.

I'm sorry - my quote was using your exact words, and it's from that that I got the idea that you would almost ignore the use of [good] spells and heavily punish the use of [evil] spells.

On a side note, though, I wouldn't have a problem with the scenario you mention. Traditionally, it's always been considered harder to remain pure than to slide into evil, harder to redeem oneself from evil than to fall from grace. So I could easily accept a campaign paradigm in which using [evil] spells was weighted more significantly than [good] spells.I don't know "why eyebite." It wasn't [evil] in 3.0, and I'm not sure why the designers felt a need to change it. I suppose because it's the closest thing 3.x has to giving someone "the evil eye" and they thought that should be an evil effect.Looking over the spells that you single out, it seems that all of them are strongly tied to pain, torture, and disease. All of which strike me as evil.

Symbol of Pain: "...each creature within the radius of a symbol of pain instead suffers wracking pains..."

Which IMHO is far more humane than causing them to suffer an untimely immolation. This spell says "no, don't go through the door, or bad things will happen". Glyph of warding shoots first and asks questions later.

Contagion: "The subject contracts a disease selected from the table below, which strikes immediately (no incubation period)."

Contagion I agree should be evil. It's so ineffective as a combat tactic that it's only possible use is to make someone ill for a long time. Fireball can kill people intending you harm - it has obvious uses aside from attacking innocents.

Eyebite: "Sudden pain and fever sweeps over the subject’s body."

Now check the 'poison' spell.

Nightmare: "You send a hideous and unsettling phantasmal vision to a specific creature"

Now check "phantasmal killer"

This all seems very evil. Now, while Feeblemind and Blindness/Deafness are certainly as mechanically debilitating, they are not nearly so evil in nature.

I disagree. There's a difference between sending someone a hideous phantasmal vision in their sleep and literally frightening them to death, and just incinerating them in an instant. One is torture, the other is just killing.

Like I said. Phantasmal killer.

Same with Symbol of Pain vs. something like, say, Power Word: Stun. Sure, at the end of the battle your opponent may wind up dead in either case, but with one spell your foe is incapacitated with "wracking pains" and with the other they're just held immobile.

The examples you gave only further illustrate the reason why spells are tagged [good] or [evil]. The lone exception is Planar Ally, which goes further to prove the designers weren't paying attention to that particular spell, than that [good] and [evil] spells weren't meant to have any bearing on alignment.

In regards to the discussion of paladins you commented:Weakening a creature through magic is the same level as using poison? Oi vey. We could get into another discussion on that alone, I think. I agree, I think we should leave paladins out of the discussion. It would only muddy the waters.

I'd agree. Personally however I can't imagine a reason for banning the use of poison which doesn't also preclude the use of magic to reduce someone's stats.

Oh, and my take on vampiric touch. It damages a currently active opponent. It's purpose is to help you out while harming a dangerous foe. Admittedly, like any other weapon, it could be used for killing an innocent, but that's clearly not the only purpose of the spell.

The only purpose of Death Knell is to cause further injury to someone who is no longer a threat to you, and furthermore empower you through his death.

This is also the case with contagion: It's uses in defending yourself are so limited that it's only real use is to cause someone long-term suffering.