So what truly constitutes an evil act?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Taken from the thread about the Nine Lives Stealer - what actually constitutes an evil act? AD&D is very clumsy on the subject. Let's look at a few examples.

The animate dead spell says:

"Casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil priests [or wizards] use it frequently."

- 2E PHB, pg. 208

Now there are several problems here. First, why is animating the bones or body of a dead being considered "evil"? I get it, sacrilege in a sense. But you're not harming the life force or soul. You're simply animating the physical remains of a being who has long since gone to his reward in the afterlife. But ok, let's say that it is evil, because it's sacrilege. You're disturbing the "rest of the dead" even though it's just a body. So why the mention of the word "frequently"? In other words, only evil priests cast the spell frequently, but good priests can cast it occasionally? As long as they don't make a habit out of it, it's not evil? Either it's an evil act or it isn't. Shouldn't matter how many times you do it.

But then we look at spells like energy drain. That spell sucks life energy levels, drains the life force, of its victim by opening a connection to the Negative Material Plane. It can even animate those killed by it as ju-ju zombies. Now I'm sorry, but if you ask me which I consider more evil - animating the remains of a dead person or draining that person's life force and turning him into an undead monster - the latter is by far the more evil of the two. So why doesn't the spell specify that? It's one of the most evil-oriented spells in the game!

What about magic jar? You're imprisoning a person's life force and taking over their body. Why no mention of the spell being evil?

And what about death spell? It "snuffs out the life force" if its victims, and only a wish can bring them back. The victim can't be raised or resurrected. Is that not evil? Or at least as evil or more evil than animating a body?

A reverse restoration (the "other" energy drain spell) sucks levels just like a wight. Isn't it more evil to drain life energy levels than to animate a dead body? After all, animating the dead does not bring back the spirit or soul as an undead. We know this because you can animate the bodies of things that have been dead far too long to even resurrect. The animated dead are animated by force from the Negative Material Plane.

Destruction (reverse of resurrection) is not mentioned as specifically an evil act (though it does require unholy water), even though it turns the victim to dust and wipes his life out.

I'm having a hard time finding another spell that specifically says it's use is evil as does animate dead. So why bother with labeling that one spell evil when so many other spells are clearly far more evil to use?

[FaerieGodfather]

Spells aren't labelled [evil] because casting them is inherently morally wrong. They're [evil] because the act of casting them corrupts your soul, making you more inclined to engage in evil behaviors later.

AD&D just doesn't have rules to govern that, so it tells the DM to slide your alignment and expects the player to roleplay it accordingly.

[Lyrwik]

I think this is touching on different forms of ethics. While I can never remember the names of the different schools of ethics, there are some which are along the lines of 'some acts are just inherently evil', while others might say 'this act is generally evil, but it's okay to do it if it's to avoid a greater evil'. A simple example being it's bad to lie, but should you lie to prevent a murder? According to the first school, the lie would still be evil/wrong, but according to the second, it wouldn't.

I think in the case of animate dead, it's suggesting that the animate dead spell is most often used for evil purposes, or without good justification (such as to prevent a greater evil). Meanwhile it doesn't mention it for the others because it assumes they're being used to defeat evil (such as that evil necromancer who keeps disturbing the resting dead), and is therefore less evil. However if a character were to use such a spell on someone who wasn't evil, then that act would, in itself, be evil.

Now, I'm not actually disagreeing with what you're getting at - I also like the idea of taking different approaches to necromancy in my games, where sometimes it's evil, but other times it's not. But I think this is the rationale the game was going for.

Alternatively - I think they just wanted to go with the theme that necromancy (animating dead) is bad mmm'kay.


As an aside - here's something I consider rather evil from a session I ran on the weekend. The PCs arrived at a castle in the middle of the jungle which they believed to be occupied by an ancient wizard (either currently or formerly). They were greeted by an elven maiden who after a short while allowed them inside and arranged for them to be served food. They later asked if they could stay there the night, and because until now they had been pleasant company in an area which usually didn't get many visitors, they were told they could and rooms were made up for them. Meanwhile, the reason they had actually come here is because they are looking for an amulet the wizard had made years ago, and had noticed that this elf maiden was wearing an amulet which fit the description perfectly. They also became suspicious that she wasn't really an elf, as she didn't seem to understand elvish. (In truth she was a shapechanged dragon, but the PCs were not aware of this). A while later, most of the PCs head off to their rooms while the bard remains and tries to seduce her and convince her to let him take a close look at the amulet (to hold it). She allows them to see it and holds it out, but is reluctant to let it go, because it's very precious to her (and also reasons of magic compelling her to not want to lose it, but the PCs don't know that). The bard then snatches it out of her hand, which naturally she gets really angry about (imagine shapechanged gold dragon angry) and demands they leave. The other PCs hear the commotion and decide that the appropriate course of action is for the rogue to apply a (rather strong) poison to an arrow and shoot her. They did that, he rolled a crit, did pretty substantial damage, enough to kill most humanoids (bearing in mind that they don't know that she's a shapechanged dragon). It's as though it just didn't occur to them that going into someone's house, partaking in their generous offering of food, a warm bed and bath, then attempting to steal their most prized possession and attempting murder when they don't appreciate it; is just plain evil.

[TigerStripedDog]

I generally ignore the books on this.

My definition of evil is: an assault upon the liberties of another through force, when not done in self defense or in the defense of another who is having their liberties unduly assaulted.

It is a very libertarian view.

Lawful Evil acts are acts which seek to systematically apply force. For instance, a lord raising taxes beyond what is needed for the defense and maintenance of the realm. Its legal, but it is still the application of force to remove the private property of one for the benefit of another (in this case, the lord)

Chaotic Evil acts are those which are done with wanton disregard for both the victim, and even the aggressor. I.E. - evil only for the purpose of evil. A murderer who murders for the pleasure of murdering, but not necessarily for material gain or advancement.

Neutral Evil straddles these two. The application of force upon another for personal gain - which need not be systematic, but can be occasionally.

So goodly players are still allowed to apply force - but only in self defense or in the defense of the liberties of another.

Tiger

[garhkal]

Spells aren't labelled [evil] because casting them is inherently morally wrong. They're [evil] because the act of casting them corrupts your soul, making you more inclined to engage in evil behaviors later.

AD&D just doesn't have rules to govern that, so it tells the DM to slide your alignment and expects the player to roleplay it accordingly.

True, but i DO agree with halster, that it is strange Animate dead, specifically called its use out as potentially being evil, while all those other spells don't..

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

FaerieGodfather wrote:

Spells aren't labelled [evil] because casting them is inherently morally wrong. They're [evil] because the act of casting them corrupts your soul, making you more inclined to engage in evil behaviors later.

AD&D just doesn't have rules to govern that, so it tells the DM to slide your alignment and expects the player to roleplay it accordingly.

Agreed. The point I was getting at was how sloppy some of the rules can be. So for example the spell description for animate dead claims it's an evil act (or at least it is if used regularly), but few other spells (I can't think of one offhand) are listed as being an evil act when cast. Which then brings up the question - how do we determine whether using a sword that sucks out the life force is evil? Or that simply kills or beheads its victims? I see no difference between killing an opponent via 4 or 5 normal sword cuts as opposed to one quick beheading via a vorpal sword. But should we consider using a sword that sucks out the soul as evil? How about one that drains levels? Plenty of room here, I think, for multiple DM interpretations.

[garhkal]

Which then brings up the question - how do we determine whether using a sword that sucks out the life force is evil? Or that simply kills or beheads its victims? I see no difference between killing an opponent via 4 or 5 normal sword cuts as opposed to one quick beheading via a vorpal sword. But should we consider using a sword that sucks out the soul as evil? How about one that drains levels? Plenty of room here, I think, for multiple DM interpretations.

To ME, how we determine it, is in what manner it is using to kill..
Mundane weapons are by definition no evil or good..
One that severs limbs/heads, again, not evil or good.
IMO though, one that destroys your life force/drains energy is..

[JadedDM]

Is this related to the idea that several D&D editions held (all of them, maybe? I'm not sure) that using poison is an evil act?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

I think I'd agree there. Something that attacks the life force, sucking out souls, levels, or life force would instinctively seem to be something evil. How would you judge the following scenario though? Let's say the PCs are fighting an evil wizard and his minions. The ranger or paladin takes a sword from one of the fallen bodyguards of the wizard and uses it against him. It happens to be a sword of life stealing. Would that be an evil act on the part of the ranger or paladin? Would it matter whether or not he knew what the sword does? Would it only be an evil act if the sword actually sucked out a level, or would it still be considered against his alignment just for using it, even if it doesn't drain a level?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

JadedDM wrote:

Is this related to the idea that several D&D editions held (all of them, maybe? I'm not sure) that using poison is an evil act?

It wasn't, until you brought it up. I was actually intending to focus on the weirdness of why only animate dead is specifically considered an evil spell (and via that, the lack of designation of which spells are considered evil to cast), but I think the points everyone is adding to the conversation are all relevant and good. So I'm glad you thought to bring this up. I've always had a little bit of an issue with poison use being considered "evil". In 1E, clerics (non-evil), and paladins can never use poison. What's odd is that it's not prohibited for rangers. That seems odd since both paladins and rangers must be good. I can see the ranger being allowed to use it as he is an outdoors-man and the paladin would consider it beneath him and cowardly. But still, it seems to be based more on alignment. I'd disallow it for paladins and good clerics (since poisoning is considered devious and in many cases an exceptionally painful way to die), and possibly for monks since it would constitute an unfair (unlawful) advantage.

[Cole]

This is why I removed the alignment restriction on Rangers from the very beginning Hal.

Anyway, to your question;

I'm with FG above and TSD's definition is great. I hold people accountable for their characters actions alone. If they are using the spell in an evil way (and are good) then I punish them. I see why your questioning this Hal, but IMO, it is utterly the DM's discretion here and if HE feels the player is using a spell in an evil manner, then they are and should be punished either with an alignment shift (eventually or instantly in some cases), or have XP stripped for using it (usually at the end of the game session where I explain why they got less xp then everyone else).

I would also say it falls hard onto the realm itself. In my new realm, religion is at the forefront and simply raising dead/animating dead would be considered "evil" guaranteed (there is no excuse), however soul trapping, life draining spells etc would also be considered evil for the most part unless we are taking into consideration of what creature exactly is being banished etc. Sending the pit friend back to hell would be considered a "good" thing by the general population and that's what matter right? A pit friend, horde of undead, a demogorgon etc are all considered soulless and cursed beings and thus no harm to them can be done.

If a good mage is raising dead in my world to fight for good... well, that's a whole bundle of issues to deal with. Mages are already not trusted and thus clerics in my realm would automatically assume they are evil. So in their eyes, it's an evil act. Other classes in the party at the time may see this as a good act, helping saved the party perhaps, or using them to battle against other evils etc. However, once they return home, they may come to realize the mage's acts were indeed evil (or at least feel that way). It's all based on their judgement. Then ultimately it's up to the DM to decide if it was truly an evil act or not.

Overall, I'd agree though. Most of your examples above Hal would lead me down the path of accusing "evil" doings on the player. A good person isn't going to drain the life force of another in general. A good person isn't going to banish the evil man to hell for an eternity of torment etc. But this is why we have "Neutral" alignments right. Same goes for Paladins, they are NOT and would NEVER sneak up and stab someone in the back without warning. < yes I'm still hot on that subject)

Overall... it's simply up to the DM. Who used the spell, why they used it and what alignment were they. A specific example would be required to make judgment on each individual case Hal. Post some examples... and I will judge!

[garhkal]

I think I'd agree there. Something that attacks the life force, sucking out souls, levels, or life force would instinctively seem to be something evil. How would you judge the following scenario though? Let's say the PCs are fighting an evil wizard and his minions. The ranger or paladin takes a sword from one of the fallen bodyguards of the wizard and uses it against him. It happens to be a sword of life stealing. Would that be an evil act on the part of the ranger or paladin? Would it matter whether or not he knew what the sword does? Would it only be an evil act if the sword actually sucked out a level, or would it still be considered against his alignment just for using it, even if it doesn't drain a level?

If he just took it off the fallen foe and did NOT know what it did, imo, no he wouldn't be doing an evil act. IF he DID know what it was, and still used it anyway, it would be an evil act imo..

[Cole]

I agree with Gar.

The Pally could use detect evil on it though before hand ... but IF it was an instant thing to save himself or a party member, surely it wouldn't be considered an evil act. The pally may have to repent, the Ranger nada

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Cole wrote:

This is why I removed the alignment restriction on Rangers from the very beginning Hal.

So rangers don't have to be good in your campaigns?

I'm with FG above and TSD's definition is great. I hold people accountable for their characters actions alone. If they are using the spell in an evil way (and are good) then I punish them. I see why your questioning this Hal, but IMO, it is utterly the DM's discretion here and if HE feels the player is using a spell in an evil manner, then they are and should be punished either with an alignment shift (eventually or instantly in some cases), or have XP stripped for using it (usually at the end of the game session where I explain why they got less xp then everyone else).

Same here. I do the same thing. I just thought it was odd that only animate dead is marked as being evil to use. But what's really driving me crazy is that (like Gar) I thought the reverse of resurrection (destruction) was considered an evil act. But I can't find another spell that specifies the use of it being evil, as animate dead is. I could swear there were a handful, but now I can't find them.

I would also say it falls hard onto the realm itself. In my new realm, religion is at the forefront and simply raising dead/animating dead would be considered "evil" guaranteed (there is no excuse), however soul trapping, life draining spells etc would also be considered evil for the most part unless we are taking into consideration of what creature exactly is being banished etc. Sending the pit friend back to hell would be considered a "good" thing by the general population and that's what matter right? A pit friend, horde of undead, a demogorgon etc are all considered soulless and cursed beings and thus no harm to them can be done.

So true! How society decides on whats acceptable is in large part due to the alignment of the culture (overall).

Overall, I'd agree though. Most of your examples above Hal would lead me down the path of accusing "evil" doings on the player. A good person isn't going to drain the life force of another in general. A good person isn't going to banish the evil man to hell for an eternity of torment etc. But this is why we have "Neutral" alignments right.

Yeah, draining life force, sucking out souls...these are the sort of things I'd figure most societies would strongly condemn. There's something so fundamentally evil about it.

Same goes for Paladins, they are NOT and would NEVER sneak up and stab someone in the back without warning. < yes I'm still hot on that subject)

Oh good lord, I need a real warhammer for when people start arguing for backstabbing paladins, paladin/assassins, etc. I think I'd have to avoid that argument in person with those claiming it, for their own safety!

Overall... it's simply up to the DM. Who used the spell, why they used it and what alignment were they. A specific example would be required to make judgment on each individual case Hal. Post some examples... and I will judge!

Those spells I mentioned were the main examples. Again, I started the thread to highlight how the use of certain spells being considered evil was clumsy, but as I checked on it I realized that the only one I could find that was specifically labeled evil was animate dead. My head is still spinning from that one. Either it was an obscure reference somewhere, or my memory is going. But I could swear there were more spells mentioned as evil.

[garhkal]

I agree with Gar.

The Pally could use detect evil on it though before hand ... but IF it was an instant thing to save himself or a party member, surely it wouldn't be considered an evil act. The pally may have to repent, the Ranger nada

My issue there, is if you let 'good folks do evil' in extremis, then the players can (and often have) argued that anytime they are in combat, they are in extremis..