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

[Hypersmurf]

(Tangent...)
Doesn't "duplicate any spell" copy the descriptor, if not also the school, of the duplicated spell?

I'm not using 'duplicate any spell'; I'm using 'Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000gp in value'. To duplicate Curse Water, I'd need a flask of water. I'm doing this out of thin air.

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?

The worst example I've had of that - on multiple occasions - is talking about Touch spells, and touch spells in combat, and the difference between 'range: touch' and 'ranged touch', and using a touch spell on up to six friends, and holding the charge on a touch spell...

By the time the thread has gone on for a page, and you've typed 'touch' several dozen times, it starts looking real weird...

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, we could start spelling it eavle.

 

[green slime]

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.

No. because in a world with absolutes, that sword in and of itself is not inherently evil. Yet a spell with the descriptor [Evil] is. (Thereof the descriptor) No matter what use that spell is put to, the spell itself will always be evil. Using that spell makes the world a darker place. It corrupts ever-so-slightly the soul of the caster. Its use will provoke distaste and mistrust of the caster amongst those who consider good to be something worthwhile. While you can always try to use something [Evil] for a good purpose, Evil will usually find a way to subvert and undermine those intentions. The path to hell is lined with good intentions.

 

[RigaMortus2]

No. because in a world with absolutes, that sword in and of itself is not inherently evil. Yet a spell with the descriptor [Evil] is. (Thereof the descriptor) No matter what use that spell is put to, the spell itself will always be evil. Using that spell makes the world a darker place. It corrupts ever-so-slightly the soul of the caster. Its use will provoke distaste and mistrust of the caster amongst those who consider good to be something worthwhile. While you can always try to use something [Evil] for a good purpose, Evil will usually find a way to subvert and undermine those intentions. The path to hell is lined with good intentions.

Now if there was only something defined in the rules which stated exactly what you just did.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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."

Of course, this scenario would be more convincing were it not that the BoVD was released before the 3.5 Core Rules.

If they thought it was an important clarification, they could have put it in the PHB.

As it stands, it only seems to be important for games dealing with Vile and Exalted concepts...

-Hyp.

 

[werk]

Well, we could start spelling it eavle.

How about Evel, like Evel Knievel?

[sblock]After the birth of his first son, Kelly, Knievel realized that he needed to come up with a new way to support his family. Using the hunting and fishing skills taught to him by his grandfather, Knievel started the Sur-Kill Guide Service. He guaranteed that if a hunter signed up with his service and paid his fee that they would get the big game animal that they wanted or he would refund their money. Business was very brisk until game wardens realized that he was taking his clients into Yellowstone National Park to find their prey. As a result of this poaching, Knievel had to shut down his new business venture. Having few options, he turned to a life of crime, becoming a burglar. It is rumored that Knievel bought his first bike after breaking into the safe of the Butte courthouse.[/sblock]

 

[KarinsDad]

Of course, this scenario would be more convincing were it not that the BoVD was released before the 3.5 Core Rules.

If they thought it was an important clarification, they could have put it in the PHB.

As it stands, it only seems to be important for games dealing with Vile and Exalted concepts...

Actually, I think it is a matter of them laying down a good foundation for what evil and good are within BoVD and BoED and then allowing the vanilla game to not have that level of detail or restrictiveness. After all, good acts are really the antithesis of almost all DND-like rpging where PCs go into a lair, kill creatures, steal their loot, rinse and repeat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, I think it is a matter of them laying down a good foundation for what evil and good are within BoVD and BoED and then allowing the vanilla game to not have that level of detail or restrictiveness.

So in the vanilla game, [Evil] spells aren't restricted to being evil acts?

Sounds right to me!

But the publication order thing crops up in a couple of other places; Skip Williams' house rule about flanking and invisible creatures, for example. It wasn't in the 3E Core Rules; it was in the 3E FAQ. If it had subsequently appeared in the 3.5 Core Rules, no problem, but it didn't... so it hurts the credibility of the same mechanic when it appears in a RotG article. If it was supposed to be a rule, they'd have adopted the FAQ answer when they revised the rules!

-Hyp.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Why does no one worry about casting spells with a [Good] descriptor being a Good act? Or lawful/chaotic acts?

 

[werk]

Why does no one worry about casting spells with a [Good] descriptor being a Good act? Or lawful/chaotic acts?

It's the same argument.