Morality of LG spellcasting

[GreatLemur]

What the penguin herder said. If Fireballing someone and hitting them with a sword is acceptable, a lot of the spells you guys took out should be too.

Yeah, exactly. I mean, harm is arguably a much nicer spell than direct damage ones: It cannot kill people. The fact that it's from the necromancy school doesn't seems like a logical reason to call it evil.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yeah, exactly. I mean, harm is arguably a much nicer spell than direct damage ones: It cannot kill people. The fact that it's from the necromancy school doesn't seems like a logical reason to call it evil.

It doesn't have to be logical, or it doesn't have to appear that way to an 'outsider'.

For example, there is a whole civilisation's worth of magi in the Birthright setting who swear a binding oath never to use Necromantic magic. It doesn't have to 'make sense' - it can still add flavour, when combined with other things.

So I'd say go for it. Reason it out, the way you have been, according to how the society works, its history, mores, fears, shared ideals, and so forth.


However, if you are simply talking generic LG, I agree, just use the RAW, unless you have a particular reason for doing otherwise.

 

[robertliguori]

In the coarse of my campaign our party has, in the face of great evil, all come to worship Heironeous. Since none of us have much history of playing lawful good characters, it has developed into some interesting discussions.

The most recent of which are, what spells would be forbidden (or limited) to spell casters (arcane and divine). With the exception of use in warfare, or within the legal framework of a LG community.

This is a list my group came up with of (core) spells which would be forbidden:

Animate Dead, Bane, Binding, Blasphemy, Choas Hammer, Circle of Death, Cloak of Chaos, Contagion, Create (Greater) Undead, Crushing Despair, Curse Water, Death Knell, Deathwatch, Demand, Desecrate, Destruction, Dispel Good, Dispel Law, Eyebite, Finger of Death, Harm, Insanity, Magic Circle against Good, Magic Circle against Law, Mind Fog, Nightmare, Phantasmal Killer, Protection from Good, Protection from Law, Slay Living, Symbol of Death, Symbol of Insanity, Symbol of Pain, Unhallow, Unholy Aura, Unholy Blight, Wail of the Banshee, Word of Chaos.

These spells were chosen because they were either evil, choatic, inflicted pain or suffering, or desecrated the dead.

Mind altering spell would be illegal except against evil or during a "Crisis of Faith" (a period of persecution of large numbers of church members for their faith). Even during this period their use are only allowed when they would save lives or hide the identities of church members from hostile factions.

Charm Person, Charm Monster, Detect Thoughts, Dominate Monster, Dominate Person, Modify Memory, Speak with Dead.

Speak with dead is considered desecrating a corpse. In our opinion, Contact other plane would be preferred (except if it would require contacting an evil outsider). Why ask a corpse when you can talk to the soul?

I was wondering what the community's take on this is, and if they would have any suggestions or comments to share.

For one, laws against eighth and ninth level spells strike me as putting up a "T-51B Shiva Main Battle Tanks Not Permitted In Store" sign; if someone capable of disobeying the law/sign shows up, then whether or not the law/sign is obeyed has jack-all to do with the law.

That being said, I also think that LG should tend away from the simple-and-absolute codes and more towards ways to help people and maintain order simultaneously. For instance, there should be reams of legal code concerning intent; stopping a mugger with compulsion magic should not be seen as a crime, while using illusion magic to defraud people should be.

Furthermore, Heironeous is a god of war. A majority of his devoted followers inflict grevious bodily harm on fellow humanoids; He is inherently understanding of bad (but nonevil) things done for Goodly ends. I think it would be an interesting wrinkle if Heironeous were alone among the good gods in allowing Evil (and Chaotic) magic for Good ends.

If you were to allow such, then there would be extreme restrictions on the use of evil magic. You would probably be required to undergo periodic moral evaluation to determine that you hadn't been tempted into other malicious behavior by your repeated castings of Deathwatch. Some magic (like Animate Dead) would probably be so layered in restrictions, codas, necessary safety precautions, and the like that it would be easier to craft golems and have done with it; others (like Feast of the Barghest) would be always-and-forever restricted.

'This spell has the wrong alignment bit and is therefore prohibited; use of the spell that does the exact same thing but with the bit flipped is encouraged' strikes me as LN, not LG. In general, you should be asking what people's responses would be if you accomplished the same effect without magic. Wail of the Banshee or Slay Living, for instance, are fairly close to killing someone horrifically enough that you can't Raise or Ressurect them; if you would have no issue with a mob of axe-wielding berzerkers killing someone, then you shouldn't have any problem with death effects. Likewise, the effect of using a Magic Circle against Law to ward off mental influence is the exact same effect as using a Magic Circle against Evil; its only when you start using it to hedge out Lawful outsiders going about the execution of their duties that you should start getting into penalties.

I'd also think really hard about outlawing Chaotic magic for being Chaotic. I would expect a supernaturally-inclined LG legal system to state flat-out "The right of individuals to maintain a Chaotic alignment shall not be infringed.", because persecuting people for no good reason is bad juju for LG. Outlawing antisocial behavor? Check. Outlawing the majority of strongly-Chaotic behavior? Acceptable. Outlawing being Chaotic? Not so much.

To me, one of the things that makes Good Good is that if you put an archon and an eladrin in a room together, they will mutually agree that the other is a loyal and dedicated servant of Good, misguided as they might be in their feelings about the ethical alignment, and that the multiverse could use another three like them. To me, its important that the alignment axes mean more than just what planar energy you're using at the time, or whether you're spiky or feathery.

 

[Grithfang]

I've crossed out the ones which IMHO are neither evil nor chaotic.

Deathwatch has the evil descriptor.

I think that's a pretty fair list, though the Symbols might not really apply.

We included the symbols because of the method of implementation plus effects. Leaving symbols around that the innocent can stumble across seemed too random for a lawful being. A good being also strives not to cause pain and suffering for their own sake.

Yeah, I'd be careful of getting rid of spell access simply because it's unpleasant. You have clerics of Heironeous, a god of war. Sure, Contagion might be a bad, nasty spell, but it's a useful weapon in a fight, and is really no more evil than a siege (since, really, the point of a siege is to prevent supplies from reaching a place, and letting disease fester in a community) - and we all know how Heironeans see a siege, right?

Contagion has the evil descriptor, so Heironeous (at lest in my campaign wouldn't grant the spell) and the cleric casting it would have to atone. It is not the same.

Why would a devout mage forswear use of magic that can help him accomplish honorable goals? For a follower of Heironeous it is as much how you get there as when you arrive. There are many effective methods of police interrogation not allowed in modern times because it violates basic principles that we believe as a society.

It does not gimp a character not to have certain spells. It means they will find an ethical (by their point of view) way to accomplish what they need to, or else their ethics (alignment) will change.

 

[WayneLigon]

We included the symbols because of the method of implementation plus effects. Leaving symbols around that the innocent can stumble across seemed to random for a lawful being. A good being also strives not to cause pain and suffering for their own sake.

Oh, very true. Yeah, I would be very cautious about using them, then.

 

[Nifft]

Deathwatch has the evil descriptor.

Yep. And IMHO it does not deserve that descriptor.

We included the symbols because of the method of implementation plus effects. Leaving symbols around that the innocent can stumble across seemed too random for a lawful being. A good being also strives not to cause pain and suffering for their own sake.

How about wards against thieves? Not all stumblers are innocent; symbol spells are a good deterrent.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Jhulae]

Yeah, exactly. I mean, harm is arguably a much nicer spell than direct damage ones: It cannot kill people. The fact that it's from the necromancy school doesn't seems like a logical reason to call it evil.

Only if someone makes the save. If a PC or NPC doesn't make the save against Harm, it most certainly can kill. Unless you're talking about the 3.0 or earlier harm, which can't kill anything.

 

[Nifft]

Only if someone makes the save. If a PC or NPC doesn't make the save against Harm, it most certainly can kill. Unless you're talking about the 3.0 or earlier harm, which can't kill anything.

Harm charges a subject with negative energy that deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level). If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

It could be parsed either way. I go with the whole spell cannot kill.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Grithfang]

That being said, I also think that LG should tend away from the simple-and-absolute codes and more towards ways to help people and maintain order . . . A majority of his devoted followers inflict grevious bodily harm on fellow humanoids; He is inherently understanding of bad (but nonevil) things done for Goodly ends. . . . should be asking what people's responses would be if you accomplished the same effect without magic. [some spells] close to killing someone horrifically . . . if you would have no issue with a mob of axe-wielding berzerkers killing someone, then you shouldn't have any problem with death effects.

LG exactly tend to codes, that is the definition of law. A codified set of norms that the community believes in. It is the good that keeps the code from being inflexible. Heironeous, IMHO based upon the sources I have read, would understand that some creatures are implacable. Some enemies are unredeemable. In these situations violent confrontation is preferred. Only when it would be a just war.

He recognizes that not all situations fall in these categories. Some enemies can be redeemed, but death effects do not give them the opportunity to call for quarter. Honorable combat, with spell, sword or axe, is the application of force to change the behavior of the tyrant. It is not solely to kill him, but to change the offensive behavior. You mistake the war aspect for a desire to kill!

 

[kenobi65]

Some enemies can be redeemed, but death effects do not give them the opportunity to call for quarter. Honorable combat, with spell, sword or axe, is the application of force to change the behavior of the tyrant. It is not solely to kill him, but to change the offensive behavior. You mistake the war aspect for a desire to kill!

I'm not sure I see the distinction (and, just for reference, my primary Living Greyhawk PC is a paladin of Heironeous).

You seem to be assuming that the tyrant will not be killed by one (or even more than one) blow from your sword, and that, after taking some damage, he might repent. I disagree with this...I think, once you start applying lethal force (be it with a sword, a fireball, or a phantasmal killer), you need to be prepared for the fact that your next action very well may kill your opponent. You, as a PC, don't know how many HP your opponent has, nor do you know if the first blow you strike will be a killing blow. Even if it's "honorable combat", that doesn't mean it's not deadly.

If your interest in a combat is to "change offensive behavior", rather than kill your opponent, you ought to be using attacks that deal non-lethal damage.