Is casting Evil spells an evil act?

[Infiniti2000]

I prefer to deal with mindless things not being evil inherently, but being evil based on actions.

So, you rule that detect evil does not find anything on a Talisman of Ultimate Evil?

 

[Nail]

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).

Any idea on current sales of 3.5e PH, etc?

I'd be *very* surprised if the worldwide "active" gaming community exceeded 5 million. Very surprised indeed -- and delighted, BTW!

 

[KarinsDad]

Any idea on current sales of 3.5e PH, etc?

No. I suspect that it is considerably less than 3E PHB sales just due to the fact that it costs 3x as much.

I'd be *very* surprised if the worldwide "active" gaming community exceeded 5 million. Very surprised indeed -- and delighted, BTW!

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.

 

[Seeten]

So, you rule that detect evil does not find anything on a Talisman of Ultimate Evil?

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]

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.

 

[Nail]

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.

QFT

 

[TheEvil]

Guess I will ask the same question here that I asked on the other one:

If you think that casting an alignment typed spell is an alignment act, how many Protection from Evil spells can the BBEG cast to protect himself from his competitors before he risks becoming a BBNG?

 

[Crothian]

Guess I will ask the same question here that I asked on the other one:

If you think that casting an alignment typed spell is an alignment act, how many Protection from Evil spells can the BBEG cast to protect himself from his competitors before he risks becoming a BBNG?

"Two"

/Mr Owl

 

[WarlockLord]

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.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

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!