|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
But, again, as for literally every part of the game, the GM is final arbiter.
I don't mean a 'rule zero means anything goes' way. I think the DM's role in alignment is different from the DM's role in recovery of spells or healing or...anything else - even though they can run any aspect of their game however they like, only with alignment is that an inherent part of the mechanics.
That quote I gave was literally from the CRB alignment section. Including a little more, for context:
In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation - the only thing a GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment - unike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
A few years later they published Horror Adventures and presented some advice on evil aligned spells. People spoke about it at the time as if it were a black-and-white thing, but even the section in question says "generally" and what that means is not spelled out - that doesn't make it superfluous.
I think it's over-reading that sidebar to suggest that the casting of aligned spells trumps the DM-fiat nature of alignment. My take on 'generally' is that it means "absent any further, relevant information derived from this specific case" ie if there's no moral dimension to the situation then casting an evil spell will move you towards evil (I think it then goes on to say that if you routinely use evil means to achieve good results then you'll also become evil).
Surely "advice" presented in a sidebar of a genre book expansion of the game shouldn't trump the rules in the CRB on alignment (which explicitly make it a subjective-no-hard-and-fast-rules thing)?