[evil] spells and eyebite

[der_kluge]

Am I missing something here?

I guess I have two questions -

what is it about a spell that requires the [evil] descriptor? I look at something like deathwatch and eyebite (both are [evil]) and just kind of shrug... ok. But then I look at vampiric touch, and enervation, and they are *not* evil?

What?

And in our campaign, the party found a scroll of eyebite. It was a treasure listed in a module I'm running.

"Cool", the player said, "a 6th level necromantic spell!" (he's a necromancer)

Then we read it. It totally sucks.

Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One living creature
Duration: 1 round per three levels; see text
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
Each round, you may target a single living creature, striking it with waves of evil power. Depending on the target’s HD, this attack has as many as three effects.
HD Effect
10 or more Sickened
5–9 Panicked, sickened
4 or less Comatose, panicked, sickened
The effects are cumulative and concurrent.
Sickened: Sudden pain and fever sweeps over the subject’s body. A sickened creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A creature affected by this spell remains sickened for 10 minutes per caster level. The effects cannot be negated by a remove disease or heal spell, but a remove curse is effective.
Panicked: The subject becomes panicked for 1d4 rounds. Even after the panic ends, the creature remains shaken for 10 minutes per caster level, and it automatically becomes panicked again if it comes within sight of you during that time. This is a fear effect.
Comatose: The subject falls into a catatonic coma for 10 minutes per caster level. During this time, it cannot be awakened by any means short of dispelling the effect. This is not a sleep effect, and thus elves are not immune to it.
The spell lasts for 1 round per three caster levels. You must spend a move action each round after the first to target a foe.


The only cool part is that you can target people for a couple of rounds. But, at our party's level (14th), everything they fight is going to have 10 or more HD. A 1st level Clerical Doom spell is nearly as effective.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Necromancy [Evil]
Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One living creature
Duration: 1 round per three levels; see text
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
Each round, you may target a single living creature, striking it with waves of evil power. Depending on the target’s HD, this attack has as many as three effects.
HD Effect
10 or more Sickened
5–9 Panicked, sickened
4 or less Comatose, panicked, sickened
The effects are cumulative and concurrent.
Sickened: Sudden pain and fever sweeps over the subject’s body. A sickened creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A creature affected by this spell remains sickened for 10 minutes per caster level. The effects cannot be negated by a remove disease or heal spell, but a remove curse is effective.
Panicked: The subject becomes panicked for 1d4 rounds. Even after the panic ends, the creature remains shaken for 10 minutes per caster level, and it automatically becomes panicked again if it comes within sight of you during that time. This is a fear effect.
Comatose: The subject falls into a catatonic coma for 10 minutes per caster level. During this time, it cannot be awakened by any means short of dispelling the effect. This is not a sleep effect, and thus elves are not immune to it.
The spell lasts for 1 round per three caster levels. You must spend a move action each round after the first to target a foe.

First up, determination of the [evil] descriptor is determined by 3 rounds of rock paper scissors.

I'd suggest that you never, ever use the [evil] descriptors of a spell to limit a wizard, or change his alignment. The [evil] descriptor is primarily a balance mechanic for clerics and druids, leave it that way. Furthermore, the actions of a character should (IMHO) influence his alignment far more than his spell selection. Otherwise you end up with guys who're good aligned because they cast 'protection from evil' a few times every day, then go perform heineous acts for the rest of it... Or summon celestial creatures to murder innocents.

Finally, eyebite used to have some (ahem) teeth.

Eyebite
Transmutation [see text]
Level: Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: The character
Duration: 1 round/three levels (see text)
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: Yes
The character can meet the gaze of a creature and speak a single word to affect it with one of four magical effects: charm, fear, sicken, or sleep. The character selects one of these four possible gaze attacks when casting the spell. The character retains the gaze power for 1 round for every three caster levels and can use the gaze attack as a free action each round.
These effects do not affect undead creatures or extend beyond the plane the character currently occupies. The character is subject to the effects of a reflected gaze and is allowed any applicable saving throw. In the case of a reflected charm gaze, the character is held (as a hold monster spell).
The four versions of the spell are as follows:
Charm: The subject regards the character as a trusted friend and ally. If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by the character or the character's allies, however, he receives a +5 bonus on his saving throw.
Fear: The subject flees in blind terror for 1d4 rounds. Once it stops fleeing, the creature refuses to face the character for 10 minutes per the character's caster level. If subsequently confronted by the character, it either cowers or bolts for the nearest cover (50% chance of either). This is an enchantment, compulsion, mind-affecting effect; it can be negated by a Will save (SR applies).
Sicken: Sudden pain and fever sweeps over the subject’s body. An affected creature’s speed is reduced by half, it loses any Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and it suffers a –2 penalty to attack rolls. The creature remains stricken for 10 minutes per the character's caster level. The effects cannot be negated by a cure disease or heal spell, but a remove curse or successful dispel magic spell is effective. This is a necromancy effect; it can be negated by a Fortitude save (SR applies).
Sleep: The subject falls asleep. The creature sleeps for the character's caster level x 10 minutes but can be slapped awake. This is an enchantment, compulsion, mind-affecting effect; it can be negated by a Will save (SR applies).
Note: Each round, a gaze attack automatically works against one creature within range that is looking at (attacking or interacting with) the gazing creature.

Now THAT's a 6th level spell.

I'd suggest for the current one changing it to a free action each round, that should make it viable. Oh, and strip the [evil] tag. It's a fairly simple combat debuff that doesn't have a particularly long lasting effect.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'd suggest that you never, ever use the [evil] descriptors of a spell to limit a wizard, or change his alignment. The [evil] descriptor is primarily a balance mechanic for clerics and druids, leave it that way. Furthermore, the actions of a character should (IMHO) influence his alignment far more than his spell selection. Otherwise you end up with guys who're good aligned because they cast 'protection from evil' a few times every day, then go perform heineous acts for the rest of it... Or summon celestial creatures to murder innocents.

While I don't suggest that you keep a tally on the wizard's spells ("Hrmm....that's 7 [Evil] spells, minus the 6 Protection from Evil spells cast yesterday, making the wizard Neutral Evil!") I do think that it's important for the DM to have a general sense of what spells a wizard is choosing, and to take that into account regarding alignment. A wizard who consistantly chooses to cast [Evil] spells is not a good wizard. He may be a neutral wizard, but his readiness to use [Evil] power precludes him from being truly good.

As for Eyebite, they seem to have nerfed it pretty good, but that's not surprising. Nerfing spells is practically the 3.5 motto.

 

[Saeviomagy]

While I don't suggest that you keep a tally on the wizard's spells ("Hrmm....that's 7 [Evil] spells, minus the 6 Protection from Evil spells cast yesterday, making the wizard Neutral Evil!") I do think that it's important for the DM to have a general sense of what spells a wizard is choosing, and to take that into account regarding alignment. A wizard who consistantly chooses to cast [Evil] spells is not a good wizard. He may be a neutral wizard, but his readiness to use [Evil] power precludes him from being truly good.

Sorry, don't think so. None of the alignments mention "does not cast good/evil/whatever spells". Further to that it's certainly possible to satisfy the entire text of an alignment and still cast all the [evil] spells in the book.

By your logic, A wizard who consistantly chooses to cast [good] spells is not an evil wizard. He may be a neutral wizard, but his readiness to use [good] power precludes him from being truly evil.

See a problem there? I do.

Leave alignment tags for what they're designed for: to detail the interactions of spells, and to restrict druids and clerics.

Determine alignment based on what the actual character does.

Oh, and probably a paladin (or even other heavily-aligned members of the community) wouldn't be able to stomach someone else casting [evil] spells, which creates some nice intra party conflict.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Sorry, don't think so.

No need to be sorry, since your opinion is no more "right" than mine, and I don't particularly care if you agree with me.

None of the alignments mention "does not cast good/evil/whatever spells". Further to that it's certainly possible to satisfy the entire text of an alignment and still cast all the [evil] spells in the book.

I believe you're incorrect here. Casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act, and commiting an evil act shifts a PC toward evil. Just because the alignment text doesn't specifically mention spells with the [Evil] descriptor does not mean that they are completely independent of the alignment system.

By your logic, A wizard who consistantly chooses to cast [good] spells is not an evil wizard. He may be a neutral wizard, but his readiness to use [good] power precludes him from being truly evil.

See a problem there? I do.

I don't. A wizard that consistantly chooses to use good means to accomplish his goals over evil ones is indeed less evil than one who chooses evil means toward evil ends. Whether he would become Neutral or not depends on the degree in which he favors [Good] spells, and the magnitude of his other evil acts, but it's certainly possible for his preference for [Good] spells to help purify his soul, just as [Evil] spells would invariably corrupt it.

Leave alignment tags for what they're designed for: to detail the interactions of spells, and to restrict druids and clerics.

You assume that's what they were designed for. I disagree. I think the [Evil] and [Good] descriptors are meant to provide the DM with a means of recognizing those spells which have a moral consequence attached to their use. That, incidentally, is why certain clerics cannot use them. A Good diety will not provide evil spells, and those spells are marked with the [Evil] descriptor.

Determine alignment based on what the actual character does.

Absolutely. And part of "what the actual character does" is choose whether to invoke the power of evil, or to abstain from using evil magic.

Oh, and probably a paladin (or even other heavily-aligned members of the community) wouldn't be able to stomach someone else casting [evil] spells...

And why exactly is that, if the spells themselves have no bearing on alignment? The reason why a paladin would object to the use of [Evil] spells is because making use of such spells is an evil act. Casting Animate Dead is evil, and that is what a paladin would object to.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I don't. A wizard that consistantly chooses to use good means to accomplish his goals over evil ones is indeed less evil than one who chooses evil means toward evil ends.

Whether he would become Neutral or not depends on the degree in which he favors [Good] spells, and the magnitude of his other evil acts, but it's certainly possible for his preference for [Good] spells to help purify his soul, just as [Evil] spells would invariably corrupt it.

See that's the thing - somehow a preference for [evil] spells 'invariable corrupts', but a preference for [good] spells only 'helps purify his soul'.

It sounds very much like using the slightest bit of [evil] makes you not good, but it takes a significant use of [good] to make you not evil... It assumes that somehow being good is a harder state to achieve than evil, and that the entire alignment system is skewed for that exact purpose. That's usually why I disagree intensely with people who take your stance - they want their cake (ie - to be good you must be truely good to the core in every action, word and deed), but eat it (but to be evil it just takes the slightest bit of a slip, and no, killing evil monsters because it's the easiest solution isn't a slip).

You assume that's what they were designed for. I disagree. I think the [Evil] and [Good] descriptors are meant to provide the DM with a means of recognizing those spells which have a moral consequence attached to their use.

So why eyebite?

Protection from Good
Magic Circle against Good
Animate Dead
Contagion
Nightmare
Symbol of Pain
Create Undead
Eyebite
Create Greater Undead
Blasphemy
Curse Water
Death Knell
Deathwatch
Desecrate
Dispel Good
Unhallow
Unholy Aura
Unholy Blight
Summon monster
Planar binding

are all the evil spells in the core rules. Of those, all except symbol of pain, contagion, eyebite and nightmare have direct and obvious impacts upon ones alignment - their sole uses are the combating of good, the increase of your personal power at the expense of the life force of another, association with evil creatures or the creation of undead (who's automatic evil alignment - even when mindless and therefore incapable of making any form of moral decision - I disagree with entirely, but I'll leave it for now).

Symbol of pain, contagion, eyebite and nightmare all have non-evil analogues which are at least as bad, if not worse. Symbol of pain, eyebite and contagion cause debilitation for a while. Bestow curse , feeblemind, or blindness/deafness however can cause a lifetime long disability. Other symbol spells (punishing for disturbing an object) which maim and kill escape the [evil] tag.

Nightmare kills people (not necessarily good or evil people) in their sleep from a distance. In this manner, it's objectively not any more evil than just fireballing them in bed. In fact the spell 'demand' could potentially have the same effect, yet it escapes the alignment tag. Additionally, demand can't really have any use except to force someone to comply with your wishes over a long distance.

Finally - deathwatch is just absurd. Because the flavour text describes seeing the life forces as people in an evil way, the spell is obviously [evil], despite having equally good and evil uses.

Next up: good spells

Protection from Evil
Magic Circle against Evil
Bless Water
Consecrate
Dispel Evil
Hallow
Holy Aura
Holy Smite
Holy Sword
Holy Word
Summon monster
Planar binding

Hmm, every single one of them deals with... fighting evil. Well, except for the two which summon good creatures and then compel them to do the will of the caster.

So - apparently sending evil people bad dreams is evil, but having some good-aligned 3rd party fight your battles for you is not.

That, incidentally, is why certain clerics cannot use them. A Good diety will not provide evil spells, and those spells are marked with the [Evil] descriptor.Absolutely. And part of "what the actual character does" is choose whether to invoke the power of evil, or to abstain from using evil magic.And why exactly is that, if the spells themselves have no bearing on alignment?

Because the casters are dedicating themselves to a higher level of devotion to a cause than mere alignment?

Because the gods have alliances that mean that they will mutually not oppose each other within certain spheres (ie - the spreading of good, law, chaos or evil).

Because they're inscrutable?

Because it's a balancing factor? Because it contributes flavour?

Who knows? Explain how you will. It doesn't really matter. I've shown above that the distinction between good spells and evil spells isn't really as simple as "this one does bad stuff and this one does good stuff" - therefore applying moral consequences on the basis of the [evil] or [good] tags seems more than a little off.

The reason why a paladin would object to the use of [Evil] spells is because making use of such spells is an evil act. Casting Animate Dead is evil, and that is what a paladin would object to.

Because almost all of the spells mean that you're allying with evil creatures (prohibited in his code) or acting dishonorably (weakening a creature through magic is presumably at the same level as using poison, and attacking someone in their sleep is not an honorable tactic).

edit: I'd expect the paladin to oppose certain uses of the [good] and nonaligned spells too, but when measured up to the code, all the [evil] spells fail the test.

However the paladin's code is NOT the normal standard for a good alignment.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

See that's the thing - somehow a preference for [evil] spells 'invariable corrupts', but a preference for [good] spells only 'helps purify his soul'.

I don't seem to recall saying that the impact was greater with [evil] spells. If I conveyed that impression, I'm sorry. That's not how I meant to describe it. In either case, using a spell of an opposing alignment will have a slight affect on the caster's own alignment. Neither will instantly nullify the many other choices a PC makes/has made regarding right and wrong. But they do add their small weight to that scale.

It sounds very much like using the slightest bit of [evil] makes you not good, but it takes a significant use of [good] to make you not evil... It assumes that somehow being good is a harder state to achieve than evil, and that the entire alignment system is skewed for that exact purpose. That's usually why I disagree intensely with people who take your stance - they want their cake (ie - to be good you must be truely good to the core in every action, word and deed), but eat it (but to be evil it just takes the slightest bit of a slip, and no, killing evil monsters because it's the easiest solution isn't a slip).

This is not how I run it. I apologize if I gave that impression. When I said that a wizard could not be truly good by consistantly using [evil] spells, I meant a wizard who makes regular and strong use of such spells over their [good] alternatives. Of course a few here and there will mean little. No PC is required to act in accordance with his alignment in every decision he makes. But on the whole, if he's acting closer to another alignment, his own alignment will change to match. And constantly preferring to summon fiendish creatures over celestial ones, for instance, is a part of that.

On a side note, though, I wouldn't have a problem with the scenario you mention. Traditionally, it's always been considered harder to remain pure than to slide into evil, harder to redeem oneself from evil than to fall from grace. So I could easily accept a campaign paradigm in which using [evil] spells was weighted more significantly than [good] spells.

So why eyebite?

I don't know "why eyebite." It wasn't [evil] in 3.0, and I'm not sure why the designers felt a need to change it. I suppose because it's the closest thing 3.x has to giving someone "the evil eye" and they thought that should be an evil effect.

Symbol of pain, contagion, eyebite and nightmare all have non-evil analogues which are at least as bad, if not worse. Symbol of pain, eyebite and contagion cause debilitation for a while. Bestow curse , feeblemind, or blindness/deafness however can cause a lifetime long disability. Other symbol spells (punishing for disturbing an object) which maim and kill escape the [evil] tag.

Looking over the spells that you single out, it seems that all of them are strongly tied to pain, torture, and disease. All of which strike me as evil.

Symbol of Pain: "...each creature within the radius of a symbol of pain instead suffers wracking pains..."

Contagion: "The subject contracts a disease selected from the table below, which strikes immediately (no incubation period)."

Eyebite: "Sudden pain and fever sweeps over the subject’s body."

Nightmare: "You send a hideous and unsettling phantasmal vision to a specific creature"

This all seems very evil. Now, while Feeblemind and Blindness/Deafness are certainly as mechanically debilitating, they are not nearly so evil in nature.

Nightmare kills people (not necessarily good or evil people) in their sleep from a distance. In this manner, it's objectively not any more evil than just fireballing them in bed.

I disagree. There's a difference between sending someone a hideous phantasmal vision in their sleep and literally frightening them to death, and just incinerating them in an instant. One is torture, the other is just killing. Same with Symbol of Pain vs. something like, say, Power Word: Stun. Sure, at the end of the battle your opponent may wind up dead in either case, but with one spell your foe is incapacitated with "wracking pains" and with the other they're just held immobile. There is a significant difference here. The means, not the ends, are the reason the [evil] tag is being applied.

Finally - deathwatch is just absurd. Because the flavour text describes seeing the life forces as people in an evil way, the spell is obviously [evil], despite having equally good and evil uses.

I have to agree with you on Deathwatch. It's shiny new 3.5 [evil] tag seems misplaced. I suppose they may have merely wanted to make a flavor differentiation between good and evil clerics: forcing good ones to use Status while evil ones can feel more evil by using the now [evil] Deathwatch. *shrug* It doesn't bother me overly for the spell to be [evil] since Status is just as good, though I could see a DM removing the [evil] tag and have no problem with it.

Hmm, every single one of them deals with... fighting evil. Well, except for the two which summon good creatures and then compel them to do the will of the caster.

Interesting. I think the designers made a mistake using this clause in the Planar Binding spells. As you point out, the compulsion effect of Planar Binding changes the tone of the spell dramatically over, say, Planar Ally. My guess is that the designers just didn't consider the drastic difference in approach between Planar Binding and Planar Ally, which also contains the same clause.

I've shown above that the distinction between good spells and evil spells isn't really as simple as "this one does bad stuff and this one does good stuff"

You've done nothing of the sort. The examples you gave only further illustrate the reason why spells are tagged [good] or [evil]. The lone exception is Planar Ally, which goes further to prove the designers weren't paying attention to that particular spell, than that [good] and [evil] spells weren't meant to have any bearing on alignment.

In regards to the discussion of paladins you commented:

Because almost all of the spells mean that you're allying with evil creatures (prohibited in his code) or acting dishonorably (weakening a creature through magic is presumably at the same level as using poison, and attacking someone in their sleep is not an honorable tactic).

Weakening a creature through magic is the same level as using poison? Oi vey. We could get into another discussion on that alone, I think.

However the paladin's code is NOT the normal standard for a good alignment.

I agree, I think we should leave paladins out of the discussion. It would only muddy the waters.

 

[Sejs]

Protection from Good
Magic Circle against Good
Animate Dead
Contagion
Nightmare
Symbol of Pain
Create Undead
Eyebite
Create Greater Undead
Blasphemy
Curse Water
Death Knell
Deathwatch
Desecrate
Dispel Good
Unhallow
Unholy Aura
Unholy Blight
Summon monster
Planar binding

Ooh, one of these things is not like the others...
/sing, sing.

 

[Sejs]

...to think about it some, Contagion probably shouldn't be [evil] either. Disease isnt evil, it just is.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

...to think about it some, Contagion probably shouldn't be [evil] either. Disease isnt evil, it just is.

I think the sudden affliction of disease on someone is pretty darned evil...