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

[Infiniti2000]

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.

I object to you separating this out. Casting the spell is creating the water. There's no other option. This is not analogous to (e.g.) casting a fireball and targeting either orcs (good act) or innocents (evil act). The casting of curse water creates unholy water. I agree that then using that water to injure a planetar is an evil act, but you cannot separate the casting from the creation.

The mere creation of unholy water (i.e. casting curse water) is an evil act, identified by the [Evil] descriptor.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The mere creation of unholy water (i.e. casting curse water) is an evil act, identified by the [Evil] descriptor.

I don't agree that it's the [Evil] descriptor that determines whether or not the act is evil.

If creation of Unholy Water is an evil act, then it is evil whether it is done by means of a spell with the [Evil] descriptor (Curse Water), or a spell without the [Evil] descriptor (Wish, to take an extreme example).

The descriptor makes no difference to whether or not the act of creating Unholy Water is evil. If creating Unholy Water is evil in and of itself, then it is the creation of the water, not the casting of the spell, that is the evil act, whether or not the spell used has the [Evil] descriptor. If creating Unholy Water is not evil in and of itself, then the casting of the spell is still not an evil act, whether or not the spell used has the [Evil] descriptor.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

By my reading, absent BoVD, casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is not an evil act (in and of itself) for a wizard. Neither would it be an evil act for a good cleric, but it is something he can't do, since it is prohibited.

I view it this way:

WotC 1: "Oh Shoot. We thought people would get it that evil is evil and good is good. But, we did not explicitly write it down that the Fire descriptor is the use of elemental Fire and the Evil descriptor is the use of Evil. Pure and simple."

WotC 2: "No problem. We are putting out BoVD and BoED. DMs will get it after they read them."

DM 1: "It is not core, so using an Evil descriptor spell is not an evil act because the PHB does not say so."

WotC: "Arrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!"

 

[Infiniti2000]

(Tangent...)

...or a spell without the [Evil] descriptor (Wish, to take an extreme example).

Doesn't "duplicate any spell" copy the descriptor, if not also the school, of the duplicated spell? If not, why can you not duplicate a spell from a prohibited school (beside the obvious fact of it saying so)?

(Back on topic...)
I'm not sure I have any further points to make, so if you think I've failed to respond adequately to something, let me know.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

How about if it doesn't blow away? Is casting curse water an evil act?
*snip*
If not evil, is the creation of unholy water a good or neutral act?

I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that unholy water can't be used for good purposes. In that case, it's evil to make unholy water. Not because the spell is [Evil], but because it's wrong to do so. Casting the spell is evil, and the spell itself also happens to be [Evil]. It didn't need to be [Evil] for every casting of the spell to be evil, and if there were good applications of the spell, casting it wouldn't necessarily be evil, even though it's [Evil].

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is provably not true. An evil aura explicitly indicates the presence of evil, specifically "creatures, objects, or spells." There is no other definition for "evil aura" outside of detect evil.

So you're saying the wizard is evil? That's also demonstrably not true. The spell isn't itself evil, since if you use it to turn into a bugbear, no evil is detectable. No objects that are present are evil. Perhaps the form is inherently evil, but that's not on the list of "creatures, objects, or spells."

So what evil creature, object, or spell is the Detect Evil spell detecting? Or does detect evil also detect [Evil]?

Also, is anyone else having that "this word doesn't look like it's spelled right" thing with "evil" after seeing it typed out so many times?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Apparently the very form the wizard has taken is evil.

Evil is present.

That would be my reading. But the real question is, and has been from the start, has the wizard committed an evil act simply by assuming the form of an undead creature? I don't think he has.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In that case, it's evil to make unholy water. Not because the spell is [Evil], but because it's wrong to do so.

You could make the same claim even if the rules explicitly said "casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act." So, I don't think you can just ignore the descriptor like that and consider the spellcasting wholly separately. I contend that the descriptor is a rule that defines the act. This is supported (not explicitly) by the cleric/druid restrictions.

Casting the spell is evil, and the spell itself also happens to be [Evil]. It didn't need to be [Evil] for every casting of the spell to be evil, and if there were good applications of the spell, casting it wouldn't necessarily be evil, even though it's [Evil].

I still contend that by being [Evil], every casting of the spell is an evil act, even if that evil act is used for ultimately/eventually good (or even neutral) purposes. The curse water is an interesting example because it does not require a secondary action after the casting (e.g. placing the effect against certain opponents or whatever). Now, granted, casting a fireball and placing it is still one combat Action, but I think the point is clear.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I view it this way:

WotC 1: "Oh Shoot. We thought people would get it that evil is evil and good is good. But, we did not explicitly write it down that the Fire descriptor is the use of elemental Fire and the Evil descriptor is the use of Evil. Pure and simple."

WotC 2: "No problem. We are putting out BoVD and BoED. DMs will get it after they read them."

DM 1: "It is not core, so using an Evil descriptor spell is not an evil act because the PHB does not say so."

WotC: "Arrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!"

The problem with this is that there are plenty of ways to do good acts using [Evil] spells. Therefore [Evil] |= evil. In the absence of a rule stating that casting [Evil] spells is evil (i.e. you're not using BoVD), the moral status of the act is determined in the same way as any other act. Was swinging that sword evil? Nothing about swinging a sword is inherently evil, so we must examine the circumstances under which it occurred, the intentions of the wielder, and the outcome of the act. The same goes for [Evil] spells with potentially good applications. Certainly some [Evil] spells are associated with evil acts based on the effects they have. That's why they were chosen to have the descriptor. Another reason they may have been chosen was to ensure that there was an [Evil] spell at that spell level.

Perhaps, however, this argument is the fault of WotC's policy of placing errata in supplements rather than in the errata list.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You could make the same claim even if the rules explicitly said "casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act." So, I don't think you can just ignore the descriptor like that and consider the spellcasting wholly separately. I contend that the descriptor is a rule that defines the act. This is supported (not explicitly) by the cleric/druid restrictions.

If there were such a rule, then there would be two reasons that casting the spell is evil, rather than one.