Good casters and the Gate spell

[Hypersmurf]

Regardless of whether using a [Good] or [Evil] spell is a good or evil act, an Evil Cleric simply cannot cast any spells with the [Good] descriptor, nor can a Good Cleric cast spells with the [Evil] descriptor. It won't cause any sort of alignment change, because it can't happen.

Absolutely. Which is why people are talking about what happens when an evil wizard casts spells with the [Good] descriptor, or vice versa.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Ok, so for every Planar binding I cast, I can cast 10 or 100 protection from evil spells, and tip the scales in my favour?

And if you're going to say "no, because you're just doing that for personal gain", then you're basically saying "spells have no moral weightings, but their consequences and the motivation of the caster does". IOW you're arguing against yourself.

Please don't say what I'm "basically saying" without at least giving me a chance to say it first.

In any case, the scenario you describe is compelling. I could see an interesting character concept incorporating it. A wizard who plays with dark powers, then spends days bathing himself in positive energy, hoping to wipe away the taint of corruption on his soul.

Indeed, I think that fiends would encourage such thinking. Play with some [Evil] here, then just wipe it all away later with a few [Good] spells to balance it out. It's all good. Don't worry about possibly not having enough time to cleanse yourself occasionally, or biting off more than you can chew. No worries. A few Protection from Evils and you'll be singing with the angels again before you know it...

Yes, I think such a character would be fun indeed. For the DM, at least.

 

[LordAO]

I don't think that summoning an evil creature is in and of itself an evil act. Even the foulest demon can be commanded to perform a good act. And I can certainly see why a good caster would rather throw a demon into a battle rather than risk the life of a good outsider (after all, if the demon dies the entire universe was just done a favor, if an angel dies, that's bad).

 

[Hypersmurf]

And I can certainly see why a good caster would rather throw a demon into a battle rather than risk the life of a good outsider (after all, if the demon dies the entire universe was just done a favor, if an angel dies, that's bad).

"What mean 'expendable'?"
"It's like, if someone invites you to a party, and you don't show up... it doesn't matter."

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Consider how many ways the wording of a Wish can be perverted. Now, Demons might be useful for simple fights, but the Summon Monster spells are flexible -- would you really want a Demon to be your partner in a rescue mission?

-- N

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I don't think that summoning an evil creature is in and of itself an evil act.

In your campaign, maybe not. By the core rules it is. I rationalize this by asserting that [Evil] spells tap into Negative/Evil energy. Thus, you are using Dark Power to draw that Tanari'i out of the Abyss.

Even the foulest demon can be commanded to perform a good act.

If you compel a demon to save a child's life, the end result is that the child is saved, but the means to that end is Compulsion of a sentient creature. Where is the Good, and where is the Evil?

And I can certainly see why a good caster would rather throw a demon into a battle rather than risk the life of a good outsider

Of course, I'm partially playing devil's advocate here, but only because the topic interests me greatly. Is it Good to value an angel's life over a demon's? It may be pragmatic, but is it Good? What if it were an Evil man vs. a Good man? Is it any less evil to send an Evil man to his death against his will, than a good one?

(after all, if the demon dies the entire universe was just done a favor, if an angel dies, that's bad).

While Good and Evil are actual Forces in D&D, they are forces that embody certain virtues. IMO, the reverence of Life is one such virtue. That being said, does the force of Good truly rejoice when a demon dies? Or does it lament, that death had to occur at all? That said, a Good caster might decide, if death is necessary, to sacrifice a demon rather than an angel, knowing all the Good that angel might later do. But I'm not sure that makes the act of sacrifice itself a Good one.

 

[Spatula]

In your campaign, maybe not. By the core rules it is. I rationalize this by asserting that [Evil] spells tap into Negative/Evil energy.

Well, this isn't true. Not exclusively, anyway, since the spells that explicity tap into Negative energy, like the Inflict spells, aren't tagged as [Evil].

If you compel a demon to save a child's life, the end result is that the child is saved, but the means to that end is Compulsion of a sentient creature. Where is the Good, and where is the Evil?

Sooo... the Summon Monster spells are always evil, even when the spell is tagged as [Good].

 

[UltimaGabe]

I, personally, hate it when the rules say that doing a certain thing (using a certain spell, activating a certain ability, whatever) is ALWAYS an evil act. For example, I recently made a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Wee Jas, in a group of Neutral good and Chaotic good characters. One of the other characters is a Cleric, and there came a point where the two of us were up against a Mummy, and both of us whipped out our Holy Symbols and did whatever we could against it- needless to say, we were 4th level, so it did nothing- but we wondered how the Good Cleric would feel about my Cleric after that. As you know, Neutral Clerics of Wee Jas Rebuke rather than Turn, so we looked up the Rebuking entry in the Player's Handbook- and what did it say?

"Rebuking undead is always an evil act."

...?! What the heck?! Why exactly is Rebuking Undead always an evil act? My character, for one, definitely isn't evil (in fact, he's been leaning more towards Lawful Good than anything else), and the only times he's Rebuked Undead it was so that his buddies could pound them easier. (And there was one time I controlled a couple Shadows to help us take out a baddie coming up, but I promptly killed them afterwards.) But, according to the PHB, that's always an evil act. Not only do they spend half a paragraph explaining Rebuking (whereas Turning gets half a page), they go and say it's always an evil act. I just don't get it.

Some could say it's because it's dealing with Negative Energy. Where, then, is the [Evil] Descriptor around the Inflict spells? They use negative energy a LOT more directly than Rebuking, and they're not evil. You could also say that it's because you're controlling Undead, and Undead are supposed to be the epitome of evil. Well, what about the Control Undead spell? Does the exact same thing, but it isn't [Evil] either.

Basically, I hate it when the game says something is ALWAYS an evil act. A sword can be used to kill innocents, destroy property, and frighten people out of their minds. But is using a sword to slay an evil dragon an evil act? Of course not. With a sword, it depends on how you use it to determine whether it's an evil act. It should be the same with Rebuking. If you command an army of undead to attack a village, sure, it'd be an evil act. But commanding two zombies to kill each other, so that your buddies can concentrate on the Lich in the corner, shouldn't be evil.

 

[Nifft]

Fiends are smart and totally evil. They will try to mis-read your intent, if you intend to do good.

Mage: "Gelugon, I choose you! You're immune to flames, so save the orphans from the fire!"
Gelugon casts Cone of Cold. "None died by fire, master."

-- N

 

[Epametheus]

Hmm. Rebuking is always an evil act, but Turning isn't always a good act? I can guess which option neutral clerics are supposed to be taking...

The thing you get from a Summon Monster/Nature's Ally spell can't actually die, and returns home no worse for wear. Divine casters can't bring forth things displeasing to the boss, but wizards can Summon whatever they think can get the job done.

A wizard that summons a demon to save orphans is an idiot.

Now, Gate and the Binding/Ally spells are another matter. In the case of Ally, the cleric's diety, (a.k.a. the DM) picks what shows up, if anything. Gate's trickier, since it lets you control the creature that comes through, but unlike the Summon spells the creature can actually die. Calling in something for a suicide mission probably isn't good thing to do.

Binding is where it gets fun, since whatever you bring forth has been dragged into your summoning circle against its will, it can die, and you actually have to bargain with the thing. An evil wizard may well delight in binding a celestial to his will in order to combat some rival, while a good wizard might be reluctant to force the services of an upper-planar creature, and is walking on very thin ice if he hopes to bargain with a fiend.

Actually, Planar Binding seems like a spell that good-aligned wizards probably shouldn't be messing with (or that no wizard should messing with at all, depending on how the DM is).