Is casting a spell with the Evil descriptor an Evil act?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Don't forget the Evil Domain Granted Power!

-Hyp.

Right. The point being, of course, that we have a discrete list of effects that interact with [Evil], not to be confused with evil. A cleric with the Evil Domain might cast an evil spell, but if the spell is not also [Evil], he doesn't get the granted power bonus.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ok, from what I can tell the whole problem with [evil] can be shown in one spell:

Deathwatch

On the surface, for a good cleric, this looks like a great spell. Let's you know who is hurt and how bad, basically come up with a strategy on how to keep people alive.

I can see that. Looks good on the outside. But what is the spell actually doing? Let's not just look at the ends and say "Oh that spell is good because it tells me who to heal" but rather look at the entirety of the spell, it's full function, purpose and result.

"Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife" - ok...that sounds pretty darn evil. What foul powers of unlife would grant this ability to those who would use it to preserve life? Instead I would think that they would grant it to those who most want to deal death....evil people....So in this case perhaps it is not the deity blocking the good cleric from using the spell, but rather the evil powers not granting it.

The spell then goes on to describe the different levels of near death. Pretty mundane there. But the last line says that it grants the ability to see through feign death. What person in need of healing would fake being dead? Instead, this would allow an evil person to tell that someone was a faker and needed to get put over. That is the function of the last part.

After reading the spell and thinking about it, this spell is DEFINITELY a good candidate for the evil descriptor, and while does not directly do anything evil, it sure as hell is not on the good side of the fence.

You could use this same argument to argue that a large number of spells that don't have the [Evil] descriptor deserve to have it. Someone mentioned Enervation, a spell that can only do harm and which, unlike Deathwatch, has no peaceful applications. However, these spells don't have the descriptor, and so they act as a rebuttal to this line of argument. Since they don't have the descriptor, being useful for evil or drawing on dark powers is not sufficient to bestow the [Evil] descriptor.

 

[Infiniti2000]

After a minute or so it blows away, and your aura returns to normal.

How about if it doesn't blow away? Is casting curse water an evil act?

The point being, of course, that we have a discrete list of effects that interact with [Evil], not to be confused with evil.

And yet there's a direct correlation between [Evil] and evil.

Detect Evil detects the presence of evil. This is true. It also, however, detects the strength and location of evil auras, whether or not those evil auras result from the presence of actual evil, as defined further on in the spell than the first sentence.

I don't agree. The mere fact that those creature/objects/effects have evil auras is proof that they are evil. Using your same argument, a creature can have a Lawful Good alignment will still possessing an evil aura and thus being evil.

I see no justification in your stance per the rules. You seem to be merely disagreeing to hold on to your position. So far you've said that [Evil] does not make something evil. I've shown proof that it does. Now, you're saying that an "evil aura" or the "evil creature" does not make something evil.

If not evil, is the creation of unholy water a good or neutral act?

 

[Seeten]

Enervation even channels negative energy. Perhaps its not evil because its an "instant" effect, and doesnt last?

 

[Artoomis]

...But in the middle of the spell, it also states that it detects evil auras... and we know that those may be possessed by things that are not evil.

By default, an evil aura signifies the presence of evil. Unless you can show that's not true, we have to assume that this is the case. You have not shown an evil aura can exists for something non-evil.

...

And they do, as laid out in the Cleric and Druid class descriptions.

-Hyp.

Nothing indicates that this relationship to alignment is resticted to only the class descriptions for druid and cleric. There is no sort fo "for the purpose of..." statement or anything like that.

You argument seesm ratehr weak, Hyp.

From your argument I would agree that there is nothing []absolutely definitive[/i] that states casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. But that's as far as I'll go.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The mere fact that those creature/objects/effects have evil auras is proof that they are evil. Using your same argument, a creature can have a Lawful Good alignment will still possessing an evil aura and thus being evil.

Huh? A creature can have a Lawful Good alignment while still possessing an evil aura - I agree completely. That does not make the creature evil.

Now, you're saying that an "evil aura" or the "evil creature" does not make something evil.

An evil creature has an evil aura. A creature with an evil aura, however, is not necessarily an evil creature.

If not evil, is the creation of unholy water a good or neutral act?

I don't think the casting of the Curse Water spell is an evil act, but the use of the spell to create unholy water might be, depending on circumstances.

Similarly, I don't think the casting of the Summon Monster (Fiendish Dire Weasel) spell is an evil act, but the use of the spell to murder an innocent baker is.

You have not shown an evil aura can exists for something non-evil.

I already gave you the example of the non-evil wizard with an evil aura!

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...I already gave you the example of the non-evil wizard with an evil aura!

-Hyp.

You proved the creature (the wizard) is not evil, not that no evil is present.

I there is an evil aura, there is evil. That's pretty simple.

Can you show that is not so? Can you show how an evil aura is not connected to something evil?

 

[Artoomis]

You proved the creature (the wizard) is not evil, not that no evil is present.

I'll quote myself.

A good/neutral character using an evil weapon: Detect evil. After three rounds the aura can be located - presumably with enough accuracy to seperate out the weapon from the wielder.

If you detect evil because you are using an evil form, I would presume the aura could not be differentiated from you because the evil form you are using is inseperable from you.

So you would not be an evil creature, but evil exists in the form you are using. Evil exists.

 

[Neverwill]

Similarly, I don't think the casting of the Summon Monster (Fiendish Dire Weasel) spell is an evil act, but the use of the spell to murder an innocent baker is.

Does casting that spell even have an [Evil] descriptor? I thought the reference to "evil" in the Summon Monster descriptions referred to the [Evil] creature subtype. I realize the summoned weasel would have an evil alignment, but would it be an [Evil] creature? I don't see anything in the Fiendish template.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does casting that spell even have an [Evil] descriptor?

I believe so; I think that's the reason that the non-neutral summonable creatures all have alignments listed in the spell description... so that clerics know which ones they are incapable of summoning.

You proved the creature (the wizard) is not evil, not that no evil is present.

I agree that an evil aura is present, but I don't agree that evil is present. The evil aura is possessed by the wizard (not a spell on the wizard, or an item held by the wizard), and the wizard is not evil; therefore, the evil aura does not indicate, in this case, the presence of evil.

-Hyp.