| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lord Bakunin |
Posted - 15 Jan 2014 : 12:33:31
As I understand, spells with the evil descriptor, such as Animate Dead, are inherently evil magic which corrupts the user and, in the case of the example I give, also brings harm to the victim's soul if I recall. Therefore, paladins who are able to access such spells through some other class aren't really supposed to be casting them, if they want to remain paladins.
But how about death and negative energy spells? Say, could a paladin cast Finger of Death or Ray of Enfeeblement? Or some spell that deals negative energy damage? If I had to guess, I'd say death spells are okay, since they are not evil and causing death through a spell is no different from causing death with a sword, but negative energy spells might not be so okay. But I'd rather hear from someone who knows, instead of speculating.
Can anyone enlighten me please?  |
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Jan 2014 : 18:57:23
Oh, and just to give a 3rd point... a paladin of Hoar that uses enchantment magic on someone who abuses enchantment magic on people in order to get them to be his body shields, and then sends said enchanted person to go fight and be killed by a dragon attacking a village probably wouldn't see it as wrong... probably neither would his deity. However, that's a special situation... the person was specifically getting affected by the same thing that they had done to others.
In my games, a person playing a paladin would have to be able to explain why they believe that their deity would be ok with their actions. In this instance, I try to think as that deity. If they can't convince me... then they get punished. This simple fact that they know "its up to the DM's whim" makes them more likely to follow the straight and narrow unless they truly believe that their god would definitely be fine with what they're doing. That being said, in all my years of DM'ing, I can't think of many players that actually chose to play paladins (in fact, I was the more likely person to be a paladin whenever they wanted to run a game). I've had more fighters, rangers, rogues, clerics and wizards than anything. Paladins, barbarians, bards, etc... were about as common as psions and psychic warriors. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 17 Jan 2014 : 18:46:09
In regards to paladins, always good on top, but law should always play into things. The codes of Chivalry as recognized by their deity should also come into play (and by that I mean that what's chivalrous to one god might not be so to another). I can see Tormites seeing enchantment magic which subverts a soldier from following his commands of his superior as absolutely wrong. The same thing would probably be seen as perfectly fine to a paladin of the Red Knight if it means he doesn't have to kill the man. Now, the same enchantment magic used to effectively kill the person enchanted should be seen as evil by both groups of paladins.
The illusion example is another good one. I don't see any having problems with actual illusions (i.e. mirror image, etc...) offhand (though there may be instances). However, spells that enable one to lie about who they are, or spells that enable one to falsify lawful documents, would probably be very strongly viewed as wrong by say a paladin of Tyr. If the same spells were used by a Mystran or Assuran paladin to infiltrate an organization and capture a person who has been using similar magics to cheat people out of their property. Again, both paladins seeking the end goal of good and law.
This idea is exactly what some would call "the end justifies the means". However, in matters of faith, if you ask one preacher what's right and asks another preacher what's right, you will often get different answers. For instance, if I asked some people "would it be right for a manager who has some bread that's going to go bad, if he divides up the bread and gives it as a bonus to his employees, is that wrong?", I'll get different answers and different reasons for those answers. Ultimately though, for a paladin, he is answerable to his deity... and so it matters what the deity thinks about his actions and whether he should be punished.
From this viewpoint, paladins of certain religions get a lot more freedom, but are probably not as socially respected by the community. Thus why groups like the Triad are given so much more credit and are probably trusted more. Cities are probably much more likely to allow a group of knights dedicated to Tyr, Torm, and Ilmater into their city before say knights dedicated to the red knight, Siamorphe, nobanion, Lurue, Helm, Hoar/Assuran, Mystra, Kelemvor, etc.... and even less so for paladins dedicated to deities who just don't seem to fit "paladin" ideals (i.e. Azuth, Savras, Mielikki, Milil, Sune, etc...). However, paladins taking these "more free" religions in order to get away with things more had best be careful. Gods are capricious, and any paladin that gets mad at their deity for punishing them for their actions would be seen much like we view a 4 year old whining back at us when we correct them. The same gods that are more strict in their viewpoints are probably also less likely to strongly reprimand their paladins as a first warning (i.e. Ilmater would general send a kind warning for nearly every infraction until it becomes a problem.... meanwhile the red knight/Hoar/Mystra may sit quietly before finally sending a lightning bolt as a "first warning").
Anyway, that's my viewpoint. Others may differ. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 17 Jan 2014 : 03:15:06
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bakunin
I'm sorry if I missed a more concrete answer, but I still have doubts about this issue.
I don't think there is a concrete answer, at least not without getting much more specific.
One question is which is more important: Law or Good? Sometimes you can't promote both equally.
When Law is on top, its champions don't shrink away from compulsions, illusions, threats, or following through on those threats in the pursuit of enforcing law. People don't have "rights" -- privacy, free speech, and other liberties are not offered by Lawful governments. This is not objectively evil. It's just a set of priorities. Law is more important in this case than making sure everyone feels appreciated and valued and respected.
When Good is stronger than law... well, I'm American and I've never lived in a society like that so... *zing!*
I think "liberal" and "socialist" ideas appear in societies where Good is allowed to triumph over Law occasionally. Those are in quotes because they're real-world and nebulous and a lot of people misuse them and have knee-jerk responses to them. Caring about your fellow humans (and animals, and the planet) is Good, rather than Lawful. Respecting people not for their position of authority but in the belief that people inherently deserve to be respected... that's Good, not Lawful.
So... I think we all have to decide for our own characters and campaigns, and on a per-religion basis as already noted, whether Law or Good is more important for paladins (and clerics, and other followers). |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 23:43:57
D&D players are inclined to be utilitarian, viewing magic as just a tool. Like a sword, or even a gun, magic wielded as a weapon can be used for good or ill. At least, they often tend to maintain this outlook in terms of what their PCs can accomplish with magic.
Strictly speaking, even a humble +1 Longsword grants an “unfair“ advantage over an opponent whose sword is not magical. But nobody has a real problem with this, it‘s much like real life where some people have better stuff than others.
I would think that paladins are (or should be) less inclined to such utilitarian “end justifies the means“ thinking; they‘re supposed to strive to be Lawful and Good, do the right thing, live as an example, let faith be their guide. The party‘s paladin should be the last person in the group willing to take shortcuts and follow the letter of the rules, the requirements of his class are best suited to those people who strive for the highest standard in upholding their righteous ideals.
If player and DM have no problem with unwholesome magics being used to pave the road to Hell with the best intentions, that‘s cool, have fun. If not, because either questions the ethical technicalities, then the PC should be a lawyer instead of a paladin. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 23:16:26
Followers of the Adama (a religious philosophy prevalent in the Shining Lands) believe that illusion magic is MORE moral than any other school since in order to be harmed by it, one must first believe in the illusion. |
| Lord Bakunin |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 23:14:36
What you guys have been saying is pretty much what I suspected. However, I'm still not quite clear on the use of some death spells, the ones that simply kill and have no other nasty effects, be it at hand or later on in the afterlife. What are your opinions regarding that specifically? I'm sorry if I missed a more concrete answer, but I still have doubts about this issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The argument could be extended to spells like Emotion, Charm Person, actually pretty mujch the entire school of Enchantment - these magics all subvert the target‘s mind and free will, forcing the target to set aside normal thinking in compliance with the caster‘s imperatives. Most Good deities (even crusty old Tyr) place great value on personal freedom from domination, it could be argued they would frown on Enchantment magics.
I suppose one could argue that Illusion magics are all based on deception, thus every Illusion spell is fundamentally just a magically-empowered lie. I wouldn‘t go so far, personally, but the thought is there.
Regarding that freedom from domination, many paladin-supporting deities are lawful good; wouldn't they, under certain circumstances, allow a paladin to resort to such spells in order to temporarily enforce obedience to the law, or something like that? As I understand, that's one of the differences between being lawful and chaotic: lawful temperaments find it acceptable to enforce a code of law upon others who refuse to follow it (in the case of lawful good, it would be done in the name of good principles), while chaotic temperaments expect such good conduct to come voluntarily from within at most, if not all times (this is not to say that chaotic good characters wouldn't fight evil too). |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 22:39:00
The argument could be extended to spells like Emotion, Charm Person, actually pretty mujch the entire school of Enchantment - these magics all subvert the target‘s mind and free will, forcing the target to set aside normal thinking in compliance with the caster‘s imperatives. Most Good deities (even crusty old Tyr) place great value on personal freedom from domination, it could be argued they would frown on Enchantment magics.
I suppose one could argue that Illusion magics are all based on deception, thus every Illusion spell is fundamentally just a magically-empowered lie. I wouldn‘t go so far, personally, but the thought is there. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 21:21:09
I agree that the paladin's intent matters, and as long as it meshes well with the appropriate power's portfolio/personality/approach then divine repercussions should be few and minor. Social consequences might be a separate concern, but a paladin is more concerned with the divine anyway.
I read Lord Bakunin's last query to be aimed at disabling a target so that the paladin can kill the target without suffering any counterattacks... I guess it would be a coup de grace, if the disabling were totally effective. But there are definitely other possible situations.
|
| sleyvas |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 20:56:51
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bakunin
Edit: I mean using disabling magic with the intent to actually fight the target, and not just disabling him to prevent violence from his side and leave it at that.
Rendering an opponent defenseless for the purpose of getting "free hits" seems pretty dishonorable to me.
The religion here may also weigh more heavily into how much punishment the paladin would receive. If they didn't kill the individual, then paladins of the red knight might get a simple warning from their deity (because she would respect the tactics of the situation). Meanwhile, paladins of Ilmater, Torm, Tyr would all definitely frown upon this heavily (possibly requiring atonement) in probably any situation. If this prevented the individual from harming others in the vicinity, then paladins of Helm may agree with the action, especially if this made the person weak enough that they could easily be restrained and less likely to try to escape. A paladin of Hoar might be forgiven if he was acting in the name of vengeance AND the individual had himself taken joy in disabling people and harming them (and he himself didn't administer the revenge, but rather the wronged parties were allowed to with the intention of healing the mental scars left on them).
I know some of what I just wrote, some people are going to have problems with. My answer to that is that all of the end goals above were for the good and with the intent of upholding law. They may be a bit unsavory and unromantic (especially the paladin of Hoar), but that's holding this up to our society's standards. If in your games, all paladins are romantic chivalrous, that's fine, but I personally feel that the specific religion of a paladin should play into some of his personal codes. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 20:29:15
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Or very smart, depending on your perspective.  
I won't argue with that, but paladins aren't supposed to be smart.
Meaning, just to be clear, that efficiency is rarely priority #1 for a paladin. If they were all about doing things the smart way, they couldn't be Lawful... and might not be seen as Good either. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 19:03:34
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bakunin
Edit: I mean using disabling magic with the intent to actually fight the target, and not just disabling him to prevent violence from his side and leave it at that.
Rendering an opponent defenseless for the purpose of getting "free hits" seems pretty dishonorable to me.
Or very smart, depending on your perspective. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 18:50:26
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bakunin
Edit: I mean using disabling magic with the intent to actually fight the target, and not just disabling him to prevent violence from his side and leave it at that.
Rendering an opponent defenseless for the purpose of getting "free hits" seems pretty dishonorable to me. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 17:43:12
One of the splat books did introduce a Paladin spell that allowed them to temporarily bring dead comrades back so that they could help him defeat whatever killed them. It could potentially be used to get them to a cleric instead.
Avasculate is in the Spell Compendium. Don't have the source on me right now or I'd give you the page ref too. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 14:00:46
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I love the reference in the old REF3 "Lords of Darkness" accessory where Ed mentions an undead paladin. Food for thought.
-- George Krashos
Yeah, that's why I stated earlier that the answer was (it depends). I could see times when using even a spell that destroys a soul and prevents resurrection might be allowed (say if the being is known for seeking out a new body somehow after he's killed, resulting in the death of another individual). If a paladin needed to animate his friend's dead bodies in order to escape a dragon's lair with them, such that he could have them resurrected later.... but if he had a bag of holding he could have used his god will look unkindly upon him for not utilizing other methods. Making such a decision for a paladin should not be done lightly, and just because you do something for good reasons doesn't mean you won't have to atone for it. After all, the Paladin Ralgorax, "The Sword of Tyr", may just be atoning for the sin of letting himself be turned into a skeleton warrior bound to the will of the wielder of his circlet, all while seeking adventurers to free him from the wielder's tyranny. |
| Lord Bakunin |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 08:17:55
@xaeyruudh
I think you misunderstand. When I mentioned Animate Dead, it was as an example of a spell that clearly should not be cast by paladins. My doubts come when we're dealing with spells that simply cause death and might have the death descriptor, though not the evil descriptor. Finger of Death, for example. I also mentioned Avasculate, which I thought was not an evil spell, but it turns out that it is, so that clarifies it.
------
I am not familiar with details of the Death Spell in 2ed, but, to my knowledge, Finger of Death does not prevent resurrection or cause torment of any kind to the victim in the afterlife. Am I wrong?
Thinking about what has been said about chivalrous behaviour and fair duels, I now have another question:
How proper is it for a paladin to cast magic at all in combat, then? Like disabling magic such as Hold Person or Web, which pretty much annihilates any chance the opponent might have to defend himself, should he fail the save. Would this sit well with a paladin? Edit: I mean using disabling magic with the intent to actually fight the target, and not just disabling him to prevent violence from his side and leave it at that. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 01:23:19
I love the reference in the old REF3 "Lords of Darkness" accessory where Ed mentions an undead paladin. Food for thought.
-- George Krashos |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 16 Jan 2014 : 01:12:10
All just my opinions, and probably off-topic in places.
1. The existence of baelnorn, archliches, and other varieties of undead which are not inherently evil argues against animation of the dead being inherently evil. A counterpoint might start with "The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely" (from the PH 3.5 description of animate dead) and add that the bones aren't able to say no, and then equate animation with slavery. However, there's nothing in the animate dead description that suggests it pulls souls back from the afterlife and rebinds them to their bodies... on the contrary, it can apparently only be used to create nonintelligent (and unaligned) undead. We infer that negative energy is used to animate the dead since it's in the necromancy school, and perhaps that was the intent, but a skeleton can be animated using telekinesis, or whatever procedures go into creating a golem, or even a ball of twine and a morbid sense of humor. To me, what you do with the bones says more about you than the means you use to animate them. Furthermore, negative energy is not evil; positive energy is not inherently good and there are no obvious chaotic/lawful equivalents so (in my opinion) no alignment should be attached to the energy types.
Obviously, animate dead has the evil descriptor. It's right there in black and white. I'm just saying that it might be a result of the designers' thoughts and/or moral compass, a judgment call might have been made because of a particular aspect of the spell rather than its overall effect, and there are probably some compelling "on the other hand" arguments to be made.
If a paladin were to cast animate dead at "my" table, I wouldn't immediately start talking about trading his paladin levels for blackguard levels. I'd look at why he wants to animate the dead.
2. I'm with Kentinal, I think. I would use the good/evil/chaos/law descriptors for detect/dispel/protection spells. Detect good, protection from evil, and dispel evil are [good] spells. They're categories, like tags on a blog post. Using an aligned spell shouldn't really imply anything about the caster's alignment, because then casting an [earth] spell should make you dirty.
3. Now that I look at it in this context, death spell had a couple of problems, and its replacement in 3e with the simpler (and nerfed) circle of death is easier to understand. I wasn't a fan before, and I still think "death spell" is a better name for it.
4. Bouncing off of Ayrik's advice-to-paladins, I think strongly aligned characters get into trouble when they start pushing the envelope. Gray areas and extremes are all bad for alignment-dependent characters.
Obviously a wide array of situations come up during play, and I'm not attacking or assuming anything about you Lord Bakunin. I'm just wondering why a paladin would even think of animating the dead as an option to deal with anything. It seems far more likely to come from someone else in the party, and then the paladin would have to weigh the situation.
And that would lead a paladin to ponder not just the deific consequences for himself and his companions, but also the public perception of the spectacle. Forget the "real" answer to the question of whether it's evil to animate the dead. If you walk through a small fishing village trailing skeletons and zombies behind you, people will assume that you and your friends are working for darkness rather than light. Murphy's Law exists in game worlds too, and states clearly that whenever you're doing something "questionable" there's always somebody watching. So affiliating with the undead tarnishes the reputation of the paladin's god... and that should likely prevent the paladin from allowing it.
Even if nobody sees it, that fact doesn't make it okay. Disregarding sex for a moment (which shouldn't be difficult while we're talking about undead) if you can't do it in front of your parents, or the head of your church, or a crowd of children, then you shouldn't be doing it. And neither should anybody you're traveling with. 'Tis the curse of the paladin... they're horrible party-poopers.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 15 Jan 2014 : 22:45:00
The Death spell “irrevocably snuffs out the life force of the target“, preventing Raise Dead, Resurrection, and even Limited Wish from bringing the target back - which seems to me to be a really bastard thing to do to someone.
I would advise multiclassed paladins simply maintain civilized Lawful Good behaviour at all times. Having another class doesn‘t remove their paladin requirements, nasty spells powered by evil or chaos are just as inexcusable as poison and dirty fighting. Consider a character who is a vanilla fighter/mage; he has access to spellcasting, and is trained to wear armour, but still cannot normally do both together.
Much depends on situation and the paladin‘s true intent. Besides, smart evil NPCs can easily protect themselves from such attacks by challenging the paladin PC to a “fair“ duel. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 15 Jan 2014 : 22:22:49
The SRD can be your friend. It does not include all factors of splat books, however is a good base reference for 3.5 (There still might be out there the 3.0 SRD as well).
quote:
[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor
While this resource has a limited list of permitted spells there does not appear directly any thing that spells without Evil certainly can not be cast by a multiclass character.
|
| Lord Bakunin |
Posted - 15 Jan 2014 : 22:01:49
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Use the flavour text for such spells to determine whether a spell is inherently evil or not. Good and evil are very subjective and the nature and technicalities of both have been the cause for massive RPG forum arguments.
In my opinion, spells that kill are no more evil than swinging a sword (though it might be argued that the wielder of a sword can hold back from the killing blow, whereas spells that allow no saving throw don't and could then be considered evil).
Ray of Enfeeblement is not an evil spell. Avasculate however, has the [evil] descriptor and since it forces the victim's body to evacuate it's vital fluids through the skin, I agree with that descriptor (it's unnecessarily gory like you'd expect with a scientist, say, who wants to observe a particularly violent method of death).
I had no idea that Avasculate had the evil descriptor. Which book is it described in? If that's what it does, then there is no question about it.
Regarding your comparison between a killing spell and a sword, that's also what I thought and, in the same way that you can hold back the killing blow with your sword, you can also choose not to cast a killing spell if you don't want your opponent dead. Does this make sense to the rest of you?
Ray of Enfeeblement, not having the evil descriptor, can also be used in a number of different ways. Maybe a follower of Loviatar would use it to bring devastating weakness to someone, but a paladin could use it to weaken a strong brute and keep him from preying on the innocent without having to kill him. It could actually serve both the practical purpose of stopping the attacker dead in his tracks, and the moral purpose of giving him a lesson in humility, I think.
What do you all think?
Edit: Of course, there are many different kinds of paladins. I could see a paladin of Hoar taking certain liberties that other paladins might balk at (not casting evil spells, though). |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 15 Jan 2014 : 17:04:54
Use the flavour text for such spells to determine whether a spell is inherently evil or not. Good and evil are very subjective and the nature and technicalities of both have been the cause for massive RPG forum arguments.
In my opinion, spells that kill are no more evil than swinging a sword (though it might be argued that the wielder of a sword can hold back from the killing blow, whereas spells that allow no saving throw don't and could then be considered evil).
Ray of Enfeeblement is not an evil spell. Avasculate however, has the [evil] descriptor and since it forces the victim's body to evacuate it's vital fluids through the skin, I agree with that descriptor (it's unnecessarily gory like you'd expect with a scientist, say, who wants to observe a particularly violent method of death). |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 15 Jan 2014 : 15:07:22
Paladins and antipaladins (at least in most d20-based RPGs) tend to be paragons of Good and Evil, respectively. I could see a paragon of Chaos or Law (in addition to the obvious Evil) using some of those spells, but probably not a class that is considered a paragon of Good. I personally think that a Lawful Neutral knight of balance (probably between life and death) could be really fun to play. |
| Lord Bakunin |
Posted - 15 Jan 2014 : 13:48:02
I guess that makes sense. What do you think of Ray of Enfeeblement and Avasculate, in particular? |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 15 Jan 2014 : 13:33:42
As with many such things, it comes down to "it depends". For instance, if the death spell were to make the soul unresurrectable (and some do), then it could be argued that you are destroying their soul. Also, a spell that insta-slays someone could be thought of as ripping the soul from the body, which many good religions may have problems with. Also, some may have problems with this type of magic just from a chivalrous standpoint (its a dishonorable almost assassin-like attack). Still, there might be some situations in which a god may forgive use of this spell rather than other equally useful and less distasteful magics. |
|
|
