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

[Squire James]

Disclaimer: this is how I treat things in my own game. YMMV, and all that.

I am of the opinion that an Evil descriptor means that anyone who casts the spell is tainted by Evil. Good-aligned clerics and druids are aware of this effect, so they don't use them. Arcane casters are not necessarily aware of this (generally I let players decide this for their characters when they first cast a spell of an alignment opposing their own).

The degree of Evil should be decided for each spell. For instance, I consider Deathwatch to be no big deal, definitely the Diet Coke of Evil (using this every day may have noticeable alignment-based side-effects over the course of several months). Death Knell, on the other hand, is pretty much 100% Pure Evil Made from Concentrate (an immediate alignment move toward Evil, or all the way to Evil if used on an ally).

Good intentions act to mitigate the Evil, but it needs to outweigh the evil to be considered a Good act. The Evil act most non-evil people want to get away with (in my experience) is using Animate Dead or Create Undead to help destroy some Evil guys. While destroying Evil is Good, I don't rate it as Good as saving innocents, for example. I don't think this is enough to justify possible eternal tying of souls to undead bodies (and figuring "they'd probably get destroyed in the fighting anyway" is even worse).

 

[Fat Daddy]

Sounds like somebody is trying to get away with something. Just suck it up and stop looking for rules-lawyery loopholes.

Ummm... no, but thanks for jumping to erroneous conclusions. We house-rule that it is an evil act and the DM decides the consequences of repeated evil acts upon the character's alignment. Our group is happy with that. I am simply looking to see what the RAW says since I couldn't find anything definitive in the SRD. By the way, I am currently DMing so there is nothing to 'get away' with.

Why is it that most of the time when I see someone looking for a rules clarification there is usually at least one person who chimes in with something like this? Since when did wanting to know the rules become a bad thing? Is wanting to know the rules an evil act? I was under the impression that rules clarification type questions were specifically why we have a sub-forum named (appropriately enough) D&D Rules. [/rant]

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, I'm on the "Darkness spell creates light" side of the Darkness debate; my reading is that the [Darkness] and [Light] descriptors, in the core rules, have essentially one effect - to describe how they interact with each other. (Counters and dispels light spells of lower level, or whatever, as appears in certain spell descriptions.)

Well, see, then you're basically ignoring the opportunity to put alignment into play. Sure, you might not use alignment, but if you do then it's up to you (presumably the DM) to adjudicate when an act is evil or not. There is no explicit guidance in the core rules about what is evil or not (nor do I really think there should be), but I think that a spell defined as [Evil] is about as explicit as possible.

Is murdering an innocent baker an evil act? That's as relevant a question as the OP asked and what is your answered based on the rules? I see three choices:

a. No answer because the rules don't define it (thus giving up).
b. Not Evil because nothing in the rules say it's Evil.
c. Evil because you judge it to be evil.

IMO, the answer you give to this question should be, must be, identical to that of the descriptor. In this case, you have nothing to back up (c), but I think everyone will choose (c). In the case of the descriptor, you have evidence that lends more creedence to (c).

If you choose (a) then we are at an impasse because I refuse to give up. If you choose (b) then you're saying that there are no evil acts possible in the game.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Is murdering an innocent baker an evil act? That's as relevant a question as the OP asked and what is your answered based on the rules? I see three choices:

a. No answer because the rules don't define it (thus giving up).
b. Not Evil because nothing in the rules say it's Evil.
c. Evil because you judge it to be evil.

IMO, the answer you give to this question should be, must be, identical to that of the descriptor. In this case, you have nothing to back up (c), but I think everyone will choose (c). In the case of the descriptor, you have evidence that lends more creedence to (c).

I think if you murder an innocent baker with a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, that is as evil an act as murdering an innocent baker with a spell with the [Light] descriptor, a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, or indeed a spell with the [Good] descriptor.

I think if you save an innocent baker with a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, that is as good an act as saving an innocent baker with a spell with the [Light] descriptor, a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, or a spell with the [Good] descriptor.

I think that in either case, determining whether or not murdering a baker is evil, or saving a baker is good, is as you say up to the judgement of the DM. But the action 'cast a spell' should be judged, in any case, by its intent or its results, just like any other action.

-Hyp.

 

[glass]

I'm not sure there is a real life situation of a greater divine force (god) that grants specific spells to his/her clerics daily. I don't think dum dum bullets comes close to being the same.

I agree. There is nothing evil about shooting dum-dum bullets at a paper target (pointless maybe, but not evil).

In D&D, however, summoning devils to attack a paper target is evil (definitely if BoVD/BoED are in play, arguably with just the core rules).


glass.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think that in either case, determining whether or not murdering a baker is evil, or saving a baker is good, is as you say up to the judgement of the DM. But the action 'cast a spell' should be judged, in any case, by its intent or its results, just like any other action.

So, IYO a paladin with UMD can use a scroll of protection from good to, say, ward off neutral summoned monsters?

 

[Artoomis]

I think if you murder an innocent baker with a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, that is as evil an act as murdering an innocent baker with a spell with the [Light] descriptor, a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, or indeed a spell with the [Good] descriptor.

I think if you save an innocent baker with a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, that is as good an act as saving an innocent baker with a spell with the [Light] descriptor, a spell with the [Fire] descriptor, or a spell with the [Good] descriptor.

I think that in either case, determining whether or not murdering a baker is evil, or saving a baker is good, is as you say up to the judgement of the DM. But the action 'cast a spell' should be judged, in any case, by its intent or its results, just like any other action.

-Hyp.

By that logic, murdering, in cold blood, the evil guy to save the village from future evil would be a good thing because it was done for a good reason.

Using a "good" spell is good act. Using a "good" spell for an evil reason is an evil act for sure.

Using an "evil" spell is an evil act. Using an "evil" spell for a good rason is still an "evil" act, as the "end" does not justify the "means" if you are "good."

The deck is kind of stacked against the "good" folks - it's harder to be "good" than "evil."

 

[Arravis]

I'm with Hypersmurf on this one. Since this is the Rules forum (not House Rules), the questions here deal with the core-rules only. By the rules as written, spell of the [Evil] descriptor are simply a rules clarfication for interactions with specific classes, other spells, etc. It is there for the same reason all other spell descriptors are, and there is no solid evidence in the RAW to indicate otherwise. The [Evil] descriptor is quite handy for players and DMs if there are good clerics in the party so you know what spells not to cast, if you're casting Dispel Evil to dispel spells with the [Evil] descriptor, etc.

The alignment section of the RAW is fairly clear on what it considers evil, how to define it, and what it involves:

"'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

"Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose."

It seems clear that it's about one does, not what spells are cast, etc. Casting a [Evil] spell that does not do any of the above requirements for evil, is not an evil act. Casting an [Evil] spell, or any spell for that matter, that does, is an evil act. This may be simply through the nature of the spell (ie: one that causes unecessary agony, etc), or through its use in casting. But either way, it's not the spell itself which is acting on alignment, but the choices made by the individual.

I think part of the confusion is simply the choice of the word "evil" as a descriptor. If the word had been "negative energy", instead of "evil", this discussion would not be. The two words are being used in different contexts and have different uses in those contexts. Simply because it uses the word "evil" doesn't mean it affects alignment. It relates to it as much as being cold, relates to the [cold] descriptor. There are [cold] spells that don't actually make someone cold.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Another point is detect evil. Note that the spell allows you to sense the "Presence or absence of evil." This is not [Evil]. Specifically, on the second round, it senses the "Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present." So, does protection from good, which is [Evil], have an "evil aura"? Undeniably.

The question then because does having an evil aura, and not just having the [Evil] descriptor, make it an evil act? I think so, because bringing that evil aura into existence must be an evil act. This shows a direct correlation between [Evil] and evil. Fostering evil? It's gotta be evil.

 

[Seeten]

And yet playing the anti-hero, John Constantine style ends justifies the means type characters is not only fun, but a literary and fantasy staple.