Slay Living [Evil] ?

[Staffan]

Consider that, in D&D, the spell Flame Strike won't take on the [evil] descriptor even when used against an orphanage full of doe-eyed little bitty children, whereas the spell Summon Monster 1 (Fiendish Hawk) is [evil] even when the fiendish hawk is used to pluck a baby out of a burning building and bring it to safety.

The difference is that in D&D, certain tools are evil in and of themselves, which makes them unavailable to Good divine casters. Flame Strike and Slay Living are neutral tools (that can be used to commit evil acts), whereas summoning Evil things is considered an Evil tool.

 

[Pielorinho]

The difference is that in D&D, certain tools are evil in and of themselves, which makes them unavailable to Good divine casters. Flame Strike and Slay Living are neutral tools (that can be used to commit evil acts), whereas summoning Evil things is considered an Evil tool.

My point precisely.

Daniel

 

[Numion]

There aren't many save or die spells on the cleric list, period. Off the top of my head, Implosion is the only other one I can think of (although hold person comes close).

Except for the best cleric insta-kill: Destruction! Thats even better than Finger of Death.

 

[Larry Fitz]

In my campaigns Slay Living is an evil spell. Followers of the God of Justice will bring you before a judge or magistrate for casting it, even on a "bad" guy. The question is one of metaphysics. Using evil magic taps into evil powers. I do not let Good or Neutral Proests have that spell (Neutral are restricted from it only if they decide that they can default to "healing" instead of "inflicting" wounds). I have always dislike the idea that spells are just unusual equivalents of maces hammers and other weapons or tools. There are powers beyond our sphere of existence that spells contact and contract with, some intelligent some not so. That is how spellcasting works in my campaign. Evil magic involves opening yourself to the attention of malevolent forces and endangering your soul. Otherwise magic loses it sense of mystery and the forbidden, bleh....

 

[I'm A Banana]

Slay Living is the opposite (I believe) of Raise Dead or Resurrection or something like that...basically the complete opposite of a clerical restore-life spell.

So if Slay Living has the [Evil] descriptor than Resurrection should have the [Good] descriptor since it's doing the opposite thing.

Inflict spells should be Evil, Cure spells shuold be Good. Since they effectively tap the same energies and do the same thing.

Spells that inflict diseases are evil, spells that remove them are good.

There's nothing WRONG with this, per se. But the default, and the assumption I like best, is that curing and killing are not in and of themselves of any particular alignment or origin. Death and Life are neutral forces...one can be good and work for Death, or Evil and work for Life (imagine a growing substance of wickedness that regenerates, and an opposed crusader wielding negative energy against it...kinda like radiation vs. a tumor).

Like any other tool, they can be used for either end...but killing the wicked king outright is arguably LESS evil than bashing his head in until he bleeds to death.

It's because they're morally gray that they're not absolutely one alignment.

Summoning a fiend, on the other hand...or warping someone's soul into a shambling servant...those things turn you wicked just by doin' 'em.

 

[Technik4]

Seems like a good way to reign in Clerics. If a good cleric can't use negative energy to reubke undead, why should one use it to harm, slay living, or inflict wounds? What is "good" about any of those things (ok, I guess that would be making a case for why it should NOT have good descriptor, which it doesnt).

So D&D treats those spells above as "neutral" with regards to alignment. It just seems with more restriction based on alignment, clerics could be reigned in, while given bonus feats, and still be pretty powerful.

Or would people rather have the spell-savvy clerics we have now, without bonus feats?

Personally I see feats as "customization" more than "power".

Technik

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Seems like a good way to reign in Clerics. If a good cleric can't use negative energy to reubke undead, why should one use it to harm, slay living, or inflict wounds? What is "good" about any of those things (ok, I guess that would be making a case for why it should NOT have good descriptor, which it doesnt).

Doesn't this just force clerics into the "party medic" role that 3e tried to break them out of? By forbidding all the damage-dealing, save-or-die spells, all they're left with are healing and buffing. Personally, I like playing a cleric, but with changes like that I'd wind up avoiding it like the plague.