The Blow Leprechaun
First Post
Yeah, I can see a CG caster refusing to cast it, too!werk said:
I think just about anyone of a good alignment could find reason to object to using this spell, but that doesn't necessarily make it an evil spell.
Magic Jar = evil or at least non LG?
- Thread starter rvalle
- Start date
I think just about anyone of a good alignment could find reason to object to using this spell, but that doesn't necessarily make it an evil spell.
Unless the spell has an alignment descriptor (And Magic Jar doesn't) it's not inherently aligned. It's not an Evil or Good spell, it's just a spell.
So there's really no reason to penalize a caster of any alignment for using the spell unless he performs evil acts with the spell.
The spell doesn't destroy the Soul it only traps it for a little while. So unless you deliberately set out to get the Host body killed I thnk it's no more Evil than Charm Person or Dominate Monster.
So there's really no reason to penalize a caster of any alignment for using the spell unless he performs evil acts with the spell.
The spell doesn't destroy the Soul it only traps it for a little while. So unless you deliberately set out to get the Host body killed I thnk it's no more Evil than Charm Person or Dominate Monster.
Hammerhead
Explorer
Is doing that somehow any different from just burning the flesh from his bones with an empowered scorching ray or similar? Or are good characters prohibited from doing any lethal damage whatsoever?
In my game Good people don't kill helpless opponents regardless of their Evil alignment. It's more of a Neutral or Evil standpoint IMO. That's why I'll usually tell people that are willing to play characters who kill Evil creatures by any means to play Neutral rather than Good characters. Good characters appeal to a higher ideal and non-Good characters, while often not actively evil, aren't concerned by such lofty ideals.
That being said, you or your GM's mileage may vary. Some people argue that Good character can, and should, destroy Evil creatures. That's also a fine way to play. In that case killing an Evil bad guy, regardless of the manner you kill him (and some would argue that Magic Jar is a pretty humane way to to kill since you're actually feeling all the pain rather than he is) is fine.
That being said, you or your GM's mileage may vary. Some people argue that Good character can, and should, destroy Evil creatures. That's also a fine way to play. In that case killing an Evil bad guy, regardless of the manner you kill him (and some would argue that Magic Jar is a pretty humane way to to kill since you're actually feeling all the pain rather than he is) is fine.
Dross
Explorer
For another example of "good" uses for forcing change on an oppoent I draw your attention to:
Mark of Justice. Clr 5, Pal 4, Necromancy school. (Currently on Order of the Stick's Belkar.)
Without an alignment descriptor, it depends on what you do with the spell.
A LG I can see being loathe to use it on anyone and everyone, but it's possible to have a CE person loathe to use it too.
Mark of Justice. Clr 5, Pal 4, Necromancy school. (Currently on Order of the Stick's Belkar.)
Without an alignment descriptor, it depends on what you do with the spell.
A LG I can see being loathe to use it on anyone and everyone, but it's possible to have a CE person loathe to use it too.
TheGogmagog
First Post
My 2cp to the OP;
If you are deciding whether your character would cast it, It's up to you and might be against your characters' sense of whatever. But that's you voluntarily adding a label or constraint for role play reasons.
If you are a DM mention it to your player as something to consider, then let him use it without alignment reprecusions if he feels his character would feel justified in using it. I've played different types of characters, some wouldn't want to cast any necromancy, and some that didn't see the difference beteween burning someone to death with fire, poision or negative energy.
If you are a player worried about what another player is doing, consider what your character would think. Does he know what's going on, would he also be opposed to the dominate monster spell? Outside that, it's between the DM and player.
If you are deciding whether your character would cast it, It's up to you and might be against your characters' sense of whatever. But that's you voluntarily adding a label or constraint for role play reasons.
If you are a DM mention it to your player as something to consider, then let him use it without alignment reprecusions if he feels his character would feel justified in using it. I've played different types of characters, some wouldn't want to cast any necromancy, and some that didn't see the difference beteween burning someone to death with fire, poision or negative energy.
If you are a player worried about what another player is doing, consider what your character would think. Does he know what's going on, would he also be opposed to the dominate monster spell? Outside that, it's between the DM and player.
Kolvin said:
Ahh, I think I can get behind that idea and is more in line with how I feel about it.
TheGogmagog said:
Here is the situation: I'm running the WLD for a group of friends. One player's characters are pretty much all variations of himself (fully half of all his characters over his many, many years of playing DnD knock out the teeth of his kills to make some sort of neckless). His characters are usually CG or LN.
Now, as the characters have ramped up in level he has decided he doen't want to play his current character (A rogue/monk/sorcerer/dragon deciple) anymore and wants to create a caster (one level of cleric pimping to get the two domain powers and the rest in sorcerer). He has her created but keeps going back in to change things (while we wait for his current character to go out in a blaze of glory).
I think he has become frustrated with the 'love' LG type characters get from some of the areas of the Dungeon... i.e. some traps don't effect them, some groups give them buffs, ect. So, I think the character started out with the usual CG alignment and picked her spells but then went back in and changed her alignment to LG to cash in on the goodies. I'm not sure the character will be played as LG so much as most his other charcters have been played and that had me questioning this spell.
rv
I don't think its more or less evil than dominate person. You're still stripping someones will from their body. It's just what you do after that that matters.
Such as the time I posessed one head of an Ettin that was attacking the party on a boat on a river. I fought with the other head and managed to topple overboard. We sank and then I started purposefully inhaling water. Good times
Such as the time I posessed one head of an Ettin that was attacking the party on a boat on a river. I fought with the other head and managed to topple overboard. We sank and then I started purposefully inhaling water. Good times
