Is casting Evil spells an evil act?

[Kahuna Burger]

I don't know about that. I think the moral quandary invoked could make for intriguing roleplay. It's an evil act to call forth a horde of undead... but it will save lives. What do you do? This could leave to you wondering "why is this evil"? Perhaps its a matter of tangible supernatural evil not just a moral judgment... or perhaps, by calling back the dead, you are torturing their souls, or throwing off the balance of progression from life to death, and so far as the gods are concerned, doing that is worse than allowing a death...

Indeed, as I mentioned in the other thread, the interactions between "supernatural allignment" and "moral allignment" are quite fascinating from a storytelling perspective.... And its certainly not D&D that came up with the idea that using demonic powers for intended good ends can corrupt in the long term.

 

[Agamemnon]

I vote Yes, but I feel some spells should not be Evil in the first place. Deathwatch among them, since it provides only knowledge to the caster and doesn't do anything directly harmful to anyone.

 

[KarinsDad]

If there were 5,000,000 DMs in the world, I'd be very happy. ...and if there are, I'd be happy to start scolding them for apparently shafting Seeten so often.

When 3E came out, approximately 4 million copies of the original 3E PHB were sold worldwide.

So, I suspect the number of DMs worldwide is closer to 1.5 million or so (some people alternate being playing and DMing).

 

[Simm]

And finally: If animating the dead by binding the tortured souls of the damned to their own rotting corpses is not [Evil], then......

I have seen many people post this opinion but it is not supported within the rules.

The spell description says nothing about binding souls, the spell simply uses negative energy to create the appearance of life within the body, it is no more evil than casting animate object or creating a golem. In fact the description of both skeletons and zombies are described a mindless automatons.

Automatons:1. machine controled automaticly, robot. 2. person acting like a robot.

See the spells as written do not bind or torture souls which, provided the body is dead, which it has to be, have left the body and do not care what happens to it. After dying the soul doesn't care what happens to the body; it is travelling to whatever plane it will become a spirit of.

So no even createing undead is not inately evil.

 

[Hypersmurf]

See the spells as written do not bind or torture souls which, provided the body is dead, which it has to be, have left the body and do not care what happens to it. After dying the soul doesn't care what happens to the body; it is travelling to whatever plane it will become a spirit of.

Except that if someone's body is completely destroyed, you can bring them back with a True Resurrection.

If someone's body is animated as a zombie, you can't, as long as that zombie exists...

-Hyp.

 

[Jack Simth]

Except that if someone's body is completely destroyed, you can bring them back with a True Resurrection.

If someone's body is animated as a zombie, you can't, as long as that zombie exists...

-Hyp.

Yet, at the same time, Clone doesn't have that restriction. Sure, a lot of stuff hints towards a tortured spirit powering the undead... but there's contradictions, as well (e.g., if you've cast Soul Bind on the dead guy, nothing officially stops you from thereafter casting Animate Dead on his body).

Of course, a tortured spirit would kinda explain the [Evil] descriptor....

 

[Lopke_Quasath]

Perhaps by "tortured souls" they mean all the teasing those souls get from other spirits

"Dude, look what your body's doing now! Oh man, it totally ripped that fighters face off!"

"Guys, just shut up." Stupid necromancers, making me look bad in front of all the female souls.

 

[Nail]

I have seen many people post this opinion but it is not supported within the rules. ...(snip)...

So no even createing undead is not inately evil.

Try again.

Create Undead
Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Clr 6, Death 6, Evil 6, Sor/Wiz 6

 

[Fat Daddy]

I voted it is an evil act. That's how we house rule it. However, I tend to agree with Hypersmurf about the RAW

My answer depends on whether the BoV/ED are in play.

By the Core rules, I don't see anything that makes casting an [Evil] spell inherently an evil act.

By the BoVD rules, it's explicitly stated.

So my vote is "Not an evil act, unless the BoVD is being used"... which isn't an option on the poll

-Hyp.

 

[Li Shenron]

Based on another thread; is casting a spell with the Evil descriptor an evil act (e.g. casting contagion is evil), or are the alignment descriptors only involved in limiting spell access (e.g. good clerics can't cast contagion because it is evil, but casting the spell itself isn't evil).

In my opinion, yes casting a spell with Evil description must be considered an evil act per se, no matter if the players cannot properly explain why.

If you don't want casting a certain spell to be an evil act, then as a house rule remove the Evil descriptor for the spell. But if you leave it, then you should give some serious meaning to it.