Possession: how evil is this?

[Brista]

The magic jar and psionic mind switch seem to me to be just a hair's breadth away from being Evil spells

Suppose I magic jar an enemy stronghold. I jump blindly into the first body I see and do as much damage as possible before it dies and I'm forced back into the jar. Jump into the next available body and use that up too. Rinse and repeat

Suppose that some of these are actually neutral, non-combatant or agents of Good?

I don't know. I have no way of knowing. In fact operating that way I clearly don't care

And in fact even if my opponents are all definitely Evil is this not a cowardly demeaning and brutal way of slaughtering them unfairly that should have alignment implications?

Can I simply shrug this off as "collateral damage"? And if I do save the world who will save it from me?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Animate dead (which doesn't mention torturing the souls of the targets, or any other such nonsense) is evil.

Contagion (a spell whose only possible purpose is to make your opponent suffer for a long time) is not evil.

That just shows you what the spell alignment system is like.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Animate dead (which doesn't mention torturing the souls of the targets, or any other such nonsense) is evil.

Contagion (a spell whose only possible purpose is to make your opponent suffer for a long time) is not evil.

That just shows you what the spell alignment system is like.

The book of vile darkness suggests adding the [Evil] descriptor to contagion, among other spells (page 77).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The spell itself is not inherently evil, but what you do with it may well be!

There are spells where it is evil merely to cast them, no matter what for. And there are spells that aren't evil by themselves, but have great potential for letting the caster do evil things.

Casting vampiric touch isn't evil by itself: If you cast that one in a fight, it is merely a good move. But draining innocent people of their life so you regain your health is evil. A fireball is no evil spell, but firing one into an orphanage is an evil act.

Also, casing magic jar is not evil. You can use it to possess the body of an evil lord, and then order his minions to free the prisoners. That's not evil.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, but I could also use Animate Dead to create an undead army that I send to kill the Evil Lord - possibly with the dead bodies of his victims, as their take on revenge ...

This way of argumentation does not really work, does it?

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The very act of disturbing the dead in their slumber is evil. The dead aren't to be messed with.

 

[nharwell]

You think Magic Jar might be evil? How about Dominate? Suggestion? Charm Person? All of these strip free will from their target -- arguably very evil. Thus all these powers are much more feared in my game than Animate Dead....

 

[Voadam]

Spells with the Evil descriptor taps into elemental Evil. Anything dealing with undead detects as Evil and gains the Evil descriptor. Anything opposed to elemental Good gains the Evil descriptor. Anything summoning creatures with the Evil descriptor tap into elemetnal Evil and gains the Evil descriptor.

Generally evil spells of torture and will suppression, though considered evil, do not tap into elemental EVIL supernatural power.

Under the core rules even neutral or good undead detect as evil.

You could substitute the term dark eldritch force for the evil descriptor and it might work out better in avoiding confusion with moral evil discussions.

 

[Brista]

That does seem a good way to handle it Nharwell but what me and the other GMs of our group are trying for is "standard DnD"

Yes, of course, if my country used techniques like that I would be one of the first to protest in the streets

But in DnD those spells are mainstream, used by Raistlin on Bupu in a rather charming (ho ho) way. Sweet even

Possession is worse than Charm. You are not clouding someone's mind so that they consider you a friend. You are kicking their soul out of their body so that you can use their body as a tool or a weapon.

Worse, the spell seems designed for you to indiscriminately grab monsters and fight to the death - it's blind, if the victim dies you get another go, some buffs probably carry over (raised in another thread)

I suppose that perhaps the answer is that while animating the dead is utterly evil, a crime against life, possessing a mind is not necessarily evil. Possessing the evil illithid to allow the helpless slaves to escape for instance. I do think however that the implied combat use of the spell - possess, fight to the death, repeat - is evil.

Part of my thinking is that it's just so unheroic, like poison

 

[Voadam]

And in fact even if my opponents are all definitely Evil is this not a cowardly demeaning and brutal way of slaughtering them unfairly that should have alignment implications?

Should being a strong heavily armed warrior with tons of hit points and superior armor have alignment implications when brutally slaughtering inferior opponents? How about archery or spellslinging of fireballs from a safe distance before the humanoids can close with you? Attacking from invisibility? Flanking you have to outnumber the opponent you are facing.

I wouldn't consider it an issue worthy of worrying about in running a D&D game.