Evil wizard casting Protection from Evil on himself

[tomBitonti]

Another way of looking at it ...

What if casting Protection from Evil ... started ... with a gathering of good
essence, with the magic of the spell working with that essence to create
a barrier to evil. (Likewise, but reversed, for Protection from Good.)

Where the "gathering of good essence" were only possible with good intentions,
and with a willingness to allow good to enter into and flow through one's self.

That is, the casting of Protection from Evil ... requires ... a good act to start
the spell, and the protection part is an intended side effect.

Then Protection from Evil would definitely be a good spell, and generally
prohibited from evil creatures, and specifically prohibited if used for an evil
intent.

I have to say, there is a conflict between the black and white D&D style
of good and evil, where good and evil have definite abstract essences, and
the real world, where that is considered to be a fallacious view (Manichaism).
IMO, of the detractions of D&D, this is a big one.

 

[Voadam]

Nah, you just have to carry around a bunch of blind kobolds victims for sacrifice.

Whenever you cast such a spell, you quickly make a sacrifice to remove the taint.

Bye
Thanee

Pick up the free bride of a portable hole full of beer from EN Publishing at www.rpgnow.com . I wrote a cantrip of summon blind fiendish kobold in there.

 

[Voadam]

Casting a good spell taps [Good] power. The good descriptor is not relevant to the morality of the act. You can summon an angel and command them to attack babies, and they will do it. Most people would consider summoning angels to do evil as an evil act, not a morally good one.

However casting it detects as good under a detect good spell and does not show up under detect evil.

This makes sense if the good descriptor describes good as a source of power the same way that good is an actual force in the D&D universe.

Corrupt evil summoners would often delight in doing sending good to do evil and fight good I would think.

Conversely the morality of animating dead is independant of the Evil descriptor which simply means that the spell requires using physically evil power to work, which correlates with the fact that all undead detect as evil for the detect evil spell even if they themselves are not evil (a good ghost for example).

Here is the srd statements on descriptors:

[DESCRIPTOR]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.

So the closest is that a descriptor can govern how a spell interacts with alignment.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Book of Exalted Deeds has a list of things that are good.

The quote I'm looking for was from before BoED was written, but thanks - that'll do in the mean time.

Of course, BoED also says poison is evil, doesn't it?

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

I'm with Patryn here. Unless the player suggests that his or her character starts to feel different about the world due to constantly calling on the power of good, there's no reason to think it has an impact on character alignment.

BoED is pretty waffly on the "poison is evil" idea, because it presents "ravages" which are basically poisons that check for evilness before affecting someone. It's a goofy mechanic, to say the least. I don't see why a good-aligned druid who can cast the poison spell would avoid using actual poison in other situations.

Of course, paladins can't use poison, but that's because they have a code of conduct.

The quote I'm looking for was from before BoED was written, but thanks - that'll do in the mean time.

Of course, BoED also says poison is evil, doesn't it?

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

(from http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/magicOverview.html under "[Descriptors]")

So, spells "interact with" alignment, based on descriptor.

Moving out of the Core rules, check this quote from the BoVD (p.77):

Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself

-- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, spells "interact with" alignment, based on descriptor.

That's covered by Clerics, though. A cleric of good alignment cannot cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor. That's a rules-based example of descriptor interacting with alignment.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

That's covered by Clerics, though. A cleric of good alignment cannot cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor. That's a rules-based example of descriptor interacting with alignment.

See p.77 of the BoVD for the full text... sorry, I'm not up to typing it all here.

-- N

 

[Jack Simth]

You know, I'm so sure I saw it stated somewhere in 3E. I spent hours looking through DotF, the DMG, etc, for a passage I was convinced I'd seen.

But I've never found it again, so I can't point you at a rule anywhere that agrees that casting a [good] spell is a good act.

There's a note under Combat/Special Attacks/Turn or Rebukeundead/Neutral Clerics and Undead in the SRD that is similar:

Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.

that might be what you are thinking of.

 

[Quinnman]

The only point where you want to start shifting alignments is when a character:

1) Actually has a change of heart - Evil acts aren't just done when absolutely necessary, but as a matter of course, because the character actually enjoys using them, or

2) You've codified some sort of "taint" rules, whereby a character who commits certain acts actually has their soul modified by those acts, such that by performing Good acts your character's soul is modified to be more Good, whether or not you like it

2 is dangerous, because it involves the DM telling the player how to play a PC.

No. 2 is in fact exactly how we´ve allways played it ... guess we are just weird

What if casting Protection from Evil ... started ... with a gathering of good
essence, with the magic of the spell working with that essence to create
a barrier to evil. (Likewise, but reversed, for Protection from Good.)

Where the "gathering of good essence" were only possible with good intentions,
and with a willingness to allow good to enter into and flow through one's self.

That is, the casting of Protection from Evil ... requires ... a good act to start
the spell, and the protection part is an intended side effect.

Then Protection from Evil would definitely be a good spell, and generally
prohibited from evil creatures, and specifically prohibited if used for an evil
intent.

I have to say, there is a conflict between the black and white D&D style
of good and evil, where good and evil have definite abstract essences, and
the real world, where that is considered to be a fallacious view (Manichaism).
IMO, of the detractions of D&D, this is a big one.

Right on the money!

Anyway thanx for all the feedback - a lot for me to think about