Neutral alignment

[werk]

My mileage *does* vary. Why is it not a good act? What makes it a neutral or evil act?

Fiendish creatures are summoned from an evil plane and must be evil in alignment.

Not enough? Let's look at the precedent set for clerics:
"A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions."

"Summon Monster I
Conjuration (Summoning) [see text]
...
When you use a summoning spell to summon an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.
...
Fiendish boar - - - - - - NE "

So, using summon monster for a fiendish boar is an EVIL spell which summons an EVIL creature that is completely FORBIDDEN for a GOOD cleric.

How's that?

 

[calypso15]

Fiendish creatures are summoned from an evil plane and must be evil in alignment.

Not enough? Let's look at the precedent set for clerics:
"A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions."

"Summon Monster I
Conjuration (Summoning) [see text]
...
When you use a summoning spell to summon an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.
...
Fiendish boar - - - - - - NE "

So, using summon monster for a fiendish boar is an EVIL spell which summons an EVIL creature that is completely FORBIDDEN for a GOOD cleric.

How's that?

I'm not denying any of that. I'm asking you why, logically and without regard to the rules, using a Fiendish Dire Boar to save children and nuns from a burning orphanage is an evil act.

Basically: I accept that, RAW, you are right. I'm having a discussion as to why the rules are that way.

Calypso

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I'm not denying any of that. I'm asking you why, logically and without regard to the rules, using a Fiendish Dire Boar to save children and nuns from a burning orphanage is an evil act.

Basically: I accept that, RAW, you are right. I'm having a discussion as to why the rules are that way.

Calypso

The intent of the rules, as I see it, is that a) evil exists as a real force in the world, not just a matter of opinion; and b) fiends ARE evil incarnate. That is the essence of what they are. True, loathsome, malicious, irredeemable evil beyond belief. The greatest atrocities the human mind can conceive of are pretty much a boring morning exercise for a fiend.

"Fiendish": it's more than a template, it's a way of life.

 

[wayne62682]

See this is exactly the problem I have with the D&D alignment system.. a few people in my group seem to believe that Chaotic Neutral (or even True Neutral) means that you can stab a beggar for no reason at all (evil) and then "balance it out" by donating money to an orphanage out of the kindness of your heart (good), thus staying Neutral.

 

[SorvahrSpahr]

IMO even Evil characters may do something good once in a very while. using the fiends example. let's say an evil cleric who left his home town for power, finds himself on a situation where, in order to save someone important to him he needs to summon a fiend of some kind. He summons the creature and helps that someone important. yes he used an evil spell, yes he summoned an evil creature, but he had a good reason to do it. even if he stabs the next beggar he sees only to create a new undead minion. the fact that he saved someone important to him means he did a good deed. one can be evil, but still do one or two good things. like an assassin who is assigned to kill a noble family, but decides to let the family's baby live.

So, no matter one's alignment. a good deed will always be a good deed. sure, you won't find the evil cleric helping an old lady cross the street. but that doesn't mean that, if he for some reason does help her, it's not a good deed just because he is evil

 

[Kragar00]

While opinions on alignment may vary greatly, I believe that those who wish to play neutral as the balancing of (good and evil) acts are going to quickly become evil....
I don't care who you are, willingly choosing to commit evil acts is evil... and if you're of the opinion that doing a good deed will redeam you in the eyes of your God or your moral compass, you are really just deceiving yourself and trying to trick the system.... which is definately not lawful, but in the moral scheme of things, really isn't good.....
Remember, pretending to be good doesn't mean you're good... it just means that you hope people won't be able to tell the difference...

 

[SorvahrSpahr]

I agree with Kragar00, and answering directly to the first post. if a neutral character starts doing evil things, and trying to fix them by doing something good next. than he should turn evil. not in the minute. but after a few evil stuff.
Our D&D clan plays like this. Considering the character's background and how he is acting when the campaign starts, we decide the alignment. But, as we move on the campaign if a character starts doing a lot of evil stuff, he ends up changing the alignment, the same applies for good. So, don't change his alignment right away. if you see he keeps doing evil stuff and right after it he does something good. give him a few rounds of it and than tell him he turned evil.


just my thoughts

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

See this is exactly the problem I have with the D&D alignment system.. a few people in my group seem to believe that Chaotic Neutral (or even True Neutral) means that you can stab a beggar for no reason at all (evil) and then "balance it out" by donating money to an orphanage out of the kindness of your heart (good), thus staying Neutral.

Evil is a tangible metaphysical force in the D&D universe. Intention and context do matter. Killing someone for no reason at all is one of the most vile possible acts that will inevitably bring alignment consequences is not properly atoned for, and this cannot be atoned for by trivial means.

Clerics have the spells Atonement and Mark of Justice for a reason. If this murderous PC is actually sincere about wanting to cleanse his soul of evil taint, he will surely be willing to prove it will to a skeptical Cleric, yes?

Neutral characters do some wiggle room when it comes to acts with a degree of ambiguity IMO. If my friend is murdered does killing the brother of the murderer make me evil? How about torturing an evil henchman for information? A Neutral character might indulge in such things under extreme circumstances, although a Good character would not.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm not denying any of that. I'm asking you why, logically and without regard to the rules, using a Fiendish Dire Boar to save children and nuns from a burning orphanage is an evil act.

It's an Evil act because you're drawing upon foul, terrible energies to bring something unholy into the world - even if it's just for a limited time.

What you do after that may or may not be Evil, but the initial casting of the spell certainly is.

In other words, unless your DM is an absolute dunce, it is eminently possible to perform Evil acts with a Good intention and still be Good (at least, until you start liking Evil for its own sake ...).

The real question for our wanting-to-be-good hypothetical boar summoner, however, is why did he choose a Fiendish Dire Boar when the same spell would have brough him a Hound Archon? Why did he choose the Evil path?

 

[calypso15]

The real question for our wanting-to-be-good hypothetical boar summoner, however, is why did he choose a Fiendish Dire Boar when the same spell would have brough him a Hound Archon? Why did he choose the Evil path?

Well, because it's not possible for an evil cleric to summon a good creature. If the only means of doing something good that you have, is through the use of an "evil" spell, is the act good, or evil?

Or, let us for example look at the Deathwatch spell. "Using the foul sight granted by the powers of unlife..." blah blah blah. Basically, it lets you see how wounded everyone is around you. Casting this spell is an evil act, even if you're using it to keep an eye on your comrades.

Consider that according to RAW, if a Paladin were able to and did cast Deathwatch, they would instantly lose their Paladin abilities.

Calypso