Mummy Dust!

[*Artifice]

Also from the players handbook

"“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

So if you want to bring up 'liberal' boogeymen again, read the rules first.

:)

Edited to add:

Well, the full quote is...

"“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. "

I'd instead suggest it's your own personal interpretation and politics that leads you to suggesting the mass murder of beings is approved of by D&D. You're right, it is black and white ethically, but in favour of a robust outlook on what is right and wrong. We're talking about the game where the Planewalker's Handbook said you can never play a demon because it is immoral, and where the forces of the Upper Planes don't crusade against the lower planes. The only upper planar faction in Planescape that does crusade are the Order of the Planes Militant, and the fact that they do crusade makes people spread rumours that they and Raziel the Crusader are corrupted by the forces of Baator. But that's a tremendous digression that's amazingly off topic.

... I just came here to post some on topic quotes and see what people make of them...

[*Grendel]

The difference being that most Divination spells are lacking the Evil descriptor; the presence of that descriptor signifies that the very usage of the spell is an evil act or corrupting in nature. Any spell can probably be perverted and used in an evil manner; Ray of Frost could be used to torture someone, but their usage is generally not the same as those with the Evil descriptor.

Certainly one could use a number of scrying spells for evil purposes, but their regular function isn't sufficiently evil as others are.

[*Itikar]

Who thought Astral Projection was such an evil spell...

[*Nimiane]

(But I will say removed from my previous post that it's pretty funny that you'd argue that cursing people, poisoning people or killing people could ever not be evil acts.)

D&D is NOT based on a cozy modern liberal mentality.

In this multiverse is perfectly A-ok for the people like angels, priests or paladins to wage a crusade against the evildoers calling all kind of divine punishment upon them in the best Old Testament style.

And it'd be counted as a good act because they're thinning down ranks of the Evil...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3dbd2YyeN0

D&D is NOT based on a cozy modern liberal mentality.

Bringing politics into a Dungeons and Dragons debate is a great way of making your opinion valid. /s

Causing unnecessary suffering is evil, no matter how much you twist the definition. There's nothing heroic, valiant or moral in poisoning, cursing, or permanently crippling your opponents; which is why almost all Good abilities boil down to pure damage that can end a confrontation quickly or painless effects like losing a sense or two.

The whole point of Good is that you're trying to be better than Evil, and sinking down to your enemy's level by employing their vile methods is not something any character you just listed would do.

I can really only comment on paladins, but just to add to this I think it's important to note (without getting too far off-topic):

"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladinÂ’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." - Players Handbook 3.5, page 44.

"An honorable paladin conducts himself with integrity regardless of circumstance. He behaves in a morally sound manner even when heÂ’s by himself or when no one else will know of his actions. ItÂ’s an admirable act to comfort a dying friend, but an act of honor to comfort a dying enemy. Honor also involves respect, not just for the paladinÂ’s peers and superiors, but for anyone sharing the paladinÂ’s commitment to goodness and justice. The paladin shows mercy to the repentant, and refuses to inflict undue suffering even on the vilest evildoer." - The Complete Paladin's Handbook, Ethos, Page 37.

Paladin are sworn to ethos of honor and courtesy, to behave in any manner that violates this is a direct breach of the vows they have made. Of course, there are some instances more strict than others (for example, many will forgo use of 'deceptive' spells such as mirror image or invisibility that go against what is considered honorable in fair combat) but the bottom line, really, is that "to a paladin, courtesy involves more than merely following rules of etiquette. ItÂ’s also an attitude, a way of presenting himself to the world." - The Complete Paladin's Handbook, Ethos, page 34.

[*Embersworn]

Also from the players handbook

"“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

So if you want to bring up 'liberal' boogeymen again, read the rules first.

:)

I think I miiight have rules well enough.

Evil hurts others for its own gain and for selfish motivation.

Good is required to stop Evil from hurting the innocents even if it involves plainly hurting or killing the Evil so it is no longer a threat to anyone.

Unfortunately, there's no place for pacifism in the Planes. Fiends or goblins won't stop without being hurt or killed. It's only debiliate them or kill them and it depends from the PC which way they consider the best.

But by the common sense incapacitating someone is less drastic than to kill them once and for all. Just saying.

By the literal interpretation there are no Good characters in D&D at all, especially not any adventurers.

Because by modern standards there's absolutely nothing laudable in a pack of adventurers who are clearing a goblinoid lair to protect a local village given how it involves moving down every adult there and very likely having either to kill the cubs too... Or to leave a lot of orphans. And that's a fairly standard D&D scenario.

Also you might check the rules twice because IIRC most of the debiliating spells that can be cast without the "evil" descriptor aren't even permanent so they're essentially a fantasy equivalent of shooting someone with a tear gas or a rubber bullet.

Book of Exalted Deeds is also plenty full of examples of the Good-aligned divine wrath that is plain creepy if not cruel, like perfect dopplegangers stalking evildoers just to assassinate them... Or asuras who are a class of celestial beings existing only to hunt transgressors.

That's what the Good in the Planes is often standing for.

"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladinÂ’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Players Handbook 3.5, page 44.

"An honorable paladin conducts himself with integrity regardless of circumstance. He behaves in a morally sound manner even when heÂ’s by himself or when no one else will know of his actions. ItÂ’s an admirable act to comfort a dying friend, but an act of honor to comfort a dying enemy. Honor also involves respect, not just for the paladinÂ’s peers and superiors, but for anyone sharing the paladinÂ’s commitment to goodness and justice. The paladin shows mercy to the repentant, and refuses to inflict undue suffering even on the vilest evildoer." - The Complete Paladin's Handbook, Ethos, Page 37.

The "undue" part pretty much implies that you should stop when they stop, not that you should not be hurting them at all. Otherwise you're finding yourself in a place where you can't even draw a sword at someone and even turning an Outsider IS causing suffering.


IIRC the curse spell are also on a cleric and druid lists, not the paladin's one.

[*Mr_Otyugh]

Historically speaking, necromancy used to be relatively neutral, the spellschool was more stigmatized by its users (necromancers), than being strictly speaking evil. 3rd edition changed that and undead too were made pretty much evil by standard too. For comparison sake:

2nd edition skeleton vs 3.5 edition skeleton

And I know Mezzy already dappled in the topic, but figured to repeat it.


As for the spellschool with most potential for evil ^{(without being strictly speaking evil by descriptor)}? It'd definitely have to be enchantment. Force people to do your bidding barring the things most against their beliefs, that still leaves a lot of leeway. Chuck a confusion into a busy carnival area and watch civilians tear each other up. Oh good guy is coming after you? Always have a couple dominated or charmed civilians to try to stop them, that the good guys might sometimes misinterpret as genuine allies rather than magically bound actions, and causing them to potentially do something they'll regret. In DnD it's how you treat the strangers that is roughly the stick measure of what your alignment is, and enchanters can control and manipulate those strangers to really test people. That to me is great potential for evil.

Also really? Alignment argument? After decades still. DnD has always been vague and allowed quite a bit of interpretation. So if you're going to say "modern liberal views have no place", actually wrong. They too get placed in the alignment system, because they must, DnD revolves a lot around the alignment and these editions ^{(2nd, 3rd and 3.5, the ones we're mostly using)} don't have "unaligned" in any other form than true neutral. Black and white morality also exists, but DnD has been moving a lot away from that, and thank reason for that. Black and white morality was early editions excuse for being a gratified tactical dungeon crawler, where you just wanted to kill stuff and not think about the ramifications of it. As time moves on, it becomes ever more clear how that kind of view just doesn't work in practice and actively breaks suspension of disbelief.

At the same time, it's relatively pointless to worry about what your characters alignment is. It's not a boundary that prevents you from playing your character. It's a fluid system, planescape has done a good job at acknowledging it, since even areas and layers can change in alignment, not just characters. It doesn't change the areas themselves, they may just find themselves in another plane suddenly. Alignments only matter if you're adamant that you absolutely must be alignment X, and use that alignment X as a reasoning why your characters actions are justified. Though I think only thing people should worry about "Is this in character?" and let others worry about the categorization, don't get too invested in alignments, pick a pattern of behaviors and let your alignment shape around that, not the other way around. Keeps things much simpler.

[*Ariella]

So just to chime in quickly. If the spell has the descriptor "Evil" it is evil, If it does not have the evil descriptor the spell is not evil its how and why your character uses it that defines it. There are many goodly groups that support mass murder and or torture. Because of the numerous settings we use there are even paladin orders that support it (Cleanse by holy fire!).

Example -

Cleric A casts inflict wounds in attempt to slay the evil doer for the crimes he has committed or to protect an innocent. This action is good.

Cleric B casts inflict wounds in an attempt to torture information out of an innocent. This action is evil.

Inflicting wounds is no more evil they say setting alight your opponent with a fireball or playing with their mind through enchantment. While relatable to modern day views Embersworn has a point. Society has grown and matured to the point most actions done in DnD would be considered unethical to the current masses. It is easier to compare it to the middle ages when combat is a suitable solution to a problem. To the things like poison and so forth, Using poisons by its self is not an evil action. Once more it is depending on the intent. The reason a paladin would not use poison is because it is underhanded tactics. That said a neutral or chaotic good character would be more then happy to employ it to end a tyrant.

The reason some spells are inherently evil and thus have an evil descriptor is because the ends do not justify the means, Or they require the target to commit a grave sin. Such as reanimating the dead and playing with a persons soul. Other evil spells such as avasculate (yes this is one despite nwn2 version) cause undue suffering. This spell violently purges blood and other vital fluids through the targets skin, Creating enough pain to stun the target. It cannot kill the target so ultimately it is a painful means of torture.

[*rapsam2003]

If the argument is whether Summoning Undead is evil or not, then it's not in Planescape. Plain and simple. We have an entire faction that uses the Undead, and the Dustmen are NOT evil by any means. (That's half their point, getting more and more towards neutral as one advances in Dustment faction rank.) Furthermore, this server used AD&D2 lore, not the silly 3rd edition lore that made necromancy automatically evil.

[*edmaster44]

If the argument is whether Summoning Undead is evil or not, then it's not in Planescape. Plain and simple. We have an entire faction that uses the Undead, and the Dustmen are NOT evil by any means. (That's half their point, getting more and more towards neutral as one advances in Dustment faction rank.) Furthermore, this server used AD&D2 lore, not the silly 3rd edition lore that made necromancy automatically evil.

Any argument about necromancy in a 2ed + Planescape is sort of moot :P , I know alignment don't really apply here that much.

[*rapsam2003]

If the argument is whether Summoning Undead is evil or not, then it's not in Planescape. Plain and simple. We have an entire faction that uses the Undead, and the Dustmen are NOT evil by any means. (That's half their point, getting more and more towards neutral as one advances in Dustment faction rank.) Furthermore, this server used AD&D2 lore, not the silly 3rd edition lore that made necromancy automatically evil.

Any argument about necromancy in a 2ed + Planescape is sort of moot :P , I know alignment don't really apply here that much.

Well, people are arguing necromancy is evil. Which it actually isn't in AD&D2... so... :P