| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A paladin casting an evil spell for a good purpose won't affect his alignment because it is a natural action. He is choosing to do something HE regards as vile and worthy of contempt so that good can come of it. Likewise, the reason that violence doesn't automatically make characters evil is because most of the time they are doing it for a reason (self-defense) or because diplomacy and threat-display have failed and it's the only way to stop a madman with a sword or a goblin about to wound someone. Even when they do so, most people that do it realize they are causing pain, that pain is bad, and that they would usually consider life sacred.
Casting an evil spell isn't an evil act, the objective you are trying to achieve with it is what matters. If casting an evil spell was always an evil act worthy of dropping a paladin to fallen status no matter the objective they were trying to reach, then they shouldn't bother with carrying a sword or being unwelcoming/intimidating to someone because oppression and hurt are evil.
This "paladin falls" BS is weak because that falling mechanic is there so that rules exist for a deity forsaking the paladin/anti-paladin when he starts dropping his morals like a rock for his own selfish ends/contemplating how life is sacred and not to be done away with so callously.
Actions aren't gerrymandered to be both good and evil at the same time because that would be stupid and would drag almost everyone to neutrality. That snake-faced lying hood is helping an old lady so that he can pickpocket/break into her house later? I guess he isn't evil but merely neutral because he did both a good act (helping the elderly) and evil act (pick-pocketing). Doesn't matter that he had his eyes on the prize the whole time, he might as well tear up his membership card now because the Neutral Evil clubhouse won't be letting him in anytime soon!
That paladin just slew an orc because he thought he would soon do harm with his brutal mace to a few innocent peasants? Put him in his place by taking away his divine abilities because the orc sure didn't consent to dying and he sure hurt the orc with his sword too! Nevermind that it was completely natural of him to do it (being a militant arm of the church and likely worshiping the crusader deity Iomedae) he did both a good act and evil act, so either he forks over 2,500 gold or he gets to tough it out in the mundane life.
"The end doesn't justify the means" is kind of a trap because on one hand it kind of makes sense (good ends are achieved with good means for best results) but on the other hand it totally robs paladins of their entire "divine killer" shtick and taken as a literal statement makes that deceiving thief scenario I mentioned earlier correct.
Finally, the reason the evil descriptor is there is because of this: evil magic is related to the evil planes and divine magic is given by gods/cosmic energy. When you are a good cleric, the evil god is not going to share his power sourced from his evil soul. When you are at least neutral, he might reconsider. When you are evil, the allfather of good won't give you his gift of benevolent healing and smiting because he feels that you are a waste of effort. That is why that subtype exists, to manage how it interacts with other magic and with the source that you get it from.
tl;dr:
using evil for good is natural.
using good for evil is natural.
evil spells come from an evil place. that is about it.
evil spells aren't objectively evil to use.
paladins fall when it is obvious to everyone that they should.
"the end doesn't justify the means" is very weak.
actions aren't both a good and an evil action at the same time.
most actions are natural, and those that aren't are usually neutral and only change alignment over time.