Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1651263" data-attributes="member: 707">No need to be sorry, since your opinion is no more "right" than mine, and I don't particularly care if you agree with me.I believe you're incorrect here.  Casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act, and commiting an evil act shifts a PC toward evil.  Just because the alignment text doesn't specifically mention spells with the [Evil] descriptor does not mean that they are completely independent of the alignment system.I don't.  A wizard that consistantly chooses to use good means to accomplish his goals over evil ones is indeed less evil than one who chooses evil means toward evil ends.  Whether he would become Neutral or not depends on the degree in which he favors [Good] spells, and the magnitude of his other evil acts, but it's certainly possible for his preference for [Good] spells to help purify his soul, just as [Evil] spells would invariably corrupt it.You assume that's what they were designed for.  I disagree.  I think the [Evil] and [Good] descriptors are meant to provide the DM with a means of recognizing those spells which have a moral consequence attached to their use.  That, incidentally, is why certain clerics cannot use them.  A Good diety will not provide evil spells, and those spells are marked with the [Evil] descriptor.Absolutely.  And part of "what the actual character does" is choose whether to invoke the power of evil, or to abstain from using evil magic.And why exactly is that, if the spells themselves have no bearing on alignment?  The reason why a paladin would object to the use of [Evil] spells is because making use of such spells is an evil act.  Casting Animate Dead is evil, and that is what a paladin would object to.</blockquote>

Verification