Infiniti2000
First Post
So, you rule that detect evil does not find anything on a Talisman of Ultimate Evil?Seeten said:
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Is casting Evil spells an evil act?
- Thread starter lukelightning
- Start date
Nail said:
No. I suspect that it is considerably less than 3E PHB sales just due to the fact that it costs 3x as much.
Nail said:
Well, the worldwide active gaming community exceeds the worldwide active DND gaming community. Personally I know about as many gamers who play rpgs other than DND than ones that play DND (but I doubt worldwide that DND gamers amount to around 50%, that's just my personal experience).
I have heard figures of 1% of all people game, but I'm not sure about that worldwide. In the US, that would put it at 3 million people. So, 5 million worldwide for all types of rpgs is not out of the question.
Infiniti2000 said:
If the Talisman was never used for evil, and sat around in a drawer, I rule that its not evil, unless it falls under the Blackguard/Paladin rule of STRONG evil. But yeah, unless the Talisman slays by its very presence, or something, no dice.
Did I just nerf detect evil? Oh, darn. Whoops.
Infiniti2000
First Post
I don't view it as nerfing detect evil, I view it as eliminating a possible plot hook or some interesting RP and in general making the game less interesting. Literature is absolutely littered with the concept of evil objects and evil taints and so forth and arbitrarily removing that from the game can only be a bad thing in my opinion.
WarlockLord
First Post
My $0.02
I am going to reference a lot of stuff from the previous thread so you should read that first.
The [Evil] descriptor doesn't make much sense. I mean, there's a lot of contridiction. What is evil? Not negative energy, apparently, because inflict's ok. Contagion? There's some good spell "Affliction" that does the same thing, but only affects evil creatures.
Then there's the whole evil aura thing. I agree with Hyp. It is possible to give an evil aura to a nonevil creature, and how does having an evil aura hurt, oppress, or kill? Take a look at BoED. There's quite a number of good spells that do the same. I could use the sanctified spell hammer of righteousness and use it to attack a paladin.
I am going to reference a lot of stuff from the previous thread so you should read that first.
The [Evil] descriptor doesn't make much sense. I mean, there's a lot of contridiction. What is evil? Not negative energy, apparently, because inflict's ok. Contagion? There's some good spell "Affliction" that does the same thing, but only affects evil creatures.
Then there's the whole evil aura thing. I agree with Hyp. It is possible to give an evil aura to a nonevil creature, and how does having an evil aura hurt, oppress, or kill? Take a look at BoED. There's quite a number of good spells that do the same. I could use the sanctified spell hammer of righteousness and use it to attack a paladin.
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
Of course such casting is an evil act. The books specifically say so.
However, there is an escape clause. The books also state the evil descriptor can be removed or ignored, and the spells made a part of the general spell repetoire. In that case, casting the spells is not an evil act.
It's up to the DM to decide this matter, as usual.
Personally, I think the game is more fun if the vast majority of spells (including most with the evil descriptor) are in the general spell pool. But it is nastily entertaining if certain gruesome spells are restricted to the evil guys: that way, the party will know it's facing some serious stuff when they attack the evil cleric or evil wizard they've been hunting down.
For example, let us say there is an Evil spell that requires the sacrifice of a virgin elven girl, and grants an Autokill of a most messy nature in return. Now, unless it's an entirely evil party, I doubt any players are going to want to take this spell due to it's material component requirement. But if the NPC the party is after has this spell readied, the party knows they face a real problem if this guy gets the jump on them!
However, there is an escape clause. The books also state the evil descriptor can be removed or ignored, and the spells made a part of the general spell repetoire. In that case, casting the spells is not an evil act.
It's up to the DM to decide this matter, as usual.
Personally, I think the game is more fun if the vast majority of spells (including most with the evil descriptor) are in the general spell pool. But it is nastily entertaining if certain gruesome spells are restricted to the evil guys: that way, the party will know it's facing some serious stuff when they attack the evil cleric or evil wizard they've been hunting down.
For example, let us say there is an Evil spell that requires the sacrifice of a virgin elven girl, and grants an Autokill of a most messy nature in return. Now, unless it's an entirely evil party, I doubt any players are going to want to take this spell due to it's material component requirement. But if the NPC the party is after has this spell readied, the party knows they face a real problem if this guy gets the jump on them!
