A summon spell is whatever alignment the monster summoned is (This applies to elements as well, when that is relevant).
Clerics and Druids cannot cast spells of opposed alignment.
Arcane casters can, but the long term implications of repeatedly casting [Evil] spells is up to the DM.
|
I imagine it's the same as 3.5. In other words, summoning a creature with an alignment type makes the spell have that type. So summoning angels is Good while summoning Fiendish creatures is Evil. You can do it, but doing to much of it will result in alignment issues. Obviously Clerics, who cannot cast spells of the opposite alignment, will still be restricted.
EDIT: Ninjaed
I imagine the Lantern Archons wouldn't take too kindly to that, and might report up the chain of command about it (so maybe a higher level Archon would go take him out).
However if they cast like a sorcerer, there's no prohibition.
As Ross pointed out, just Clerics and Druids have this class feature: "Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric/druid can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity’s."
|
Heheh. Can anyone explain this cute little evil High Gorgon[1] in my campaign that summoning en masse Lantern Archons to kill immobilized party members is GOOD?
I wonder if he is going to care about that aspect of the spell :)
Ah, but an evil creature summoning good creatures and forcing them to do evil things to other good creatures is just awesomely evil, even if it's [Good]. The *rules* might say that he's in danger of 'turning good' because he's casting [Good] spells, but I'm pretty sure that any DM who actually uses those rules has far, far bigger problems with D&D...
Similarly, if an arcanodaemon or rakshasa sorcerer uses Magic Circle vs. Evil (a [Good] spell) as part of a Planar Binding to call up some demons to send after a bunch of annoying do-gooders who are threatening his plans, I don't think it would really be in the spirit of the (kinda silly) rule for him to 'accidentally' turn good.
Although the very notion, that half of the fiendish spellcasters of the Blood War have 'accidentally turned good' by using evil-fighting spells against their evil demonic / devilish foes, would be a crowning absurdity. (and / or a totally wicked plot point, as spellcasters begin researching special spells with alignment descriptors that are really, really useful, and, being new, aren't *known* to have alignment descriptors, causing all of the people who use them to unwillingly change alignment!)
I imagine the Lantern Archons wouldn't take too kindly to that, and might report up the chain of command about it (so maybe a higher level Archon would go take him out).
However if they cast like a sorcerer, there's no prohibition.
As Ross pointed out, just Clerics and Druids have this class feature: "Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric/druid can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity’s."
I always kind pictured this the same way. While evil creatures really could care less about some of their lesser rank brethren being used for whatever, higher celestial beings are probably going to get really upset if their lower ranks are used for evil, and an appropriately powerful member of the choir is probably going to be visiting said evil spellcaster to keep if from happening again.
Ah, but an evil creature summoning good creatures and forcing them to do evil things to other good creatures is just awesomely evil, even if it's [Good]. The *rules* might say that he's in danger of 'turning good' because he's casting [Good] spells, but I'm pretty sure that any DM who actually uses those rules has far, far bigger problems with D&D...
Well, depending on how you look at it, the character has cast a "good" spell and thus has done a "good" act . . . but that's just the beginning . . .
If you use said "good" creature to attack someone that is essentially a "good" being in and of itself, you could argue that you just evened out your "good" act with an "evil" one.
Similarly, I would also say that forcing a "good" creature to attack another "good" creature, aside from the act of just attacking a good creature, is in and of itself a second evil act, meaning that your "good" action was just canceled out by attacking a good creature, and turns into a net evil act by using a good creature to do it.
I'd almost be inclined to say that a creature with an alignment subtype should have the same restrictions on spellcasting that a druid or cleric does.
|
|
I'd almost be inclined to say that a creature with an alignment subtype should have the same restrictions on spellcasting that a druid or cleric does.
Quite possibly, although it would be a bit of a bother for Blood War fans, since the demons and devils would be all over spells like Protection from Evil, which are the best defense against their common foes. (It's not like either of them really ever fights Celestials, in the genre or the fiction, being almost entirely devoted to their war against each other, so the Protection from Good spell is fairly useless to them.)
And really, what could be more 'evil' than summoning and binding good creatures and forcing them to do verybadawfulnogood things? :>
On the other hand, a good priest summoning evil critters and forcing them to do good deeds is probably still 'evil,' since it's just cruel. He should be summoning them up and sending them after his Paladin buddy, to accomplish the tripartate goal of;
A) getting the Paladin exp, so that he becomes a more powerful servant of good (and valuable demon-fighting experience, for that mission to the World Wound) and
B) weakening the forces of evil by summoning them to the material world to be killed off
C) incurring the ire of Asmodeus, which is like bonus 'good' coupons all by itself
Well, given the nature of the conflict, the devils are probably casting protection from chaos, and the demons protection from law . . .
Similarly, if an arcanodaemon or rakshasa sorcerer uses Magic Circle vs. Evil (a [Good] spell) as part of a Planar Binding to call up some demons to send after a bunch of annoying do-gooders who are threatening his plans, I don't think it would really be in the spirit of the (kinda silly) rule for him to 'accidentally' turn good.
The planar binding would be an [Evil] spell, and it's higher level than the magic circle. Net act is Evil.
|
|
The planar binding would be an [Evil] spell, and it's higher level than the magic circle. Net act is Evil.
And yet, if it's purely mechanical like this, could a NG Wizard cast Animate Dead and then Summon Monster V (celestial heffalump) to end up canceling out the 4 spell levels of Evil for Animate Dead? Does it have to be a higher level spell, specifically, or could he work it off by casting five 1st level [Good] spells, such as Protection from Evil?
Should he keep a flowchart of how many [Evil] spells he's cast, and just make sure to always stay a few levels ahead in [Good] spells?
That's kinda my problem with the whole Alignment subtype on spells thing. It cheapens the entire concept of alignment to have *mechanical* procedures by which one can tick off 'points' of alignment, either to accidentally 'slip' into evil, or, just as mechanistically, 'fall' into good.
If we must have an alignment system at all, must it be so terribly cheap and meaningless that a good person doing a good deed could turn evil because he cast Deathknell to do it? Does it do the concept of 'goodness' any favors by stating that a Succubus sorceress casting Protection from Evil over and over could *accidentally* turn into Gandhi? (Or, worse, a fiendish spellcaster be summoned by a bored wizard who *orders her* to cast [Good] spells over and over until her alignment changes! Wouldn't that be the plot-twist to end all plot-twists, for the evil bad-guy to capture your party and use Imbue With Spell-like Ability and some coercive techniques to give them Protection from Good spells and force them to cast them until they all turn evil and join him of their own free will! The Slave Lords merely took your armor and weapons away. The villain of the future is taking your *alignment* away, 'cause it's just another soulless metric, adjustable like the amount of gold pieces you've got or the number of cure light wounds that you've cast today, not something ephemeral and transcendent.)
|
I really wish that they would get the Alignment spells types out completely. I can understand some cases, like Animate Dead, but in others, like the summons and protection from good, it just makes the logic imposssibly broken and opens the door for either poor interpretation or little tricks that should not be possible. In my opinion, rather than having the alignment attached to a spell, (in most cases), it would be better to just have a little paragraph in the Magic section detailing how certain spells can affect casters if done over time, or sometimes, used at all.
This would also reenforce the idea of corruption, as in these cases, a good cleric could summon an evil creature, and it would involve some rping rather than no it is not possible. Maybe it comes from a different source the divine caster doesn't know about?
Rather than saying Animate Dead is a Necromancy [Evil] spell, it would be more under a general aegis for all similar magic that if a Good Cleric of a Good deity or Philosophy does this, they may offend their deity to the point that they are abandon.
The upside is, that a Good Druid, Cleric, and maybe even Paladin could cast say Protection from Good, under the right circumstances. An Archon is Dominated and ordered to hurt innocents or something.
|
|
I've also never understood DeathKnell. What is Evil about it? I can see plenty of uses for this spell for good characters, and even in 3.5 there are many good deities that grant it in Domains, but good Clerics, even with that Domain, could not use it.
If you take away (again) the fluff that you are looking through necrotic eyes to see life forces or whatever, it is a very good spell for healers to see who is most in need of treatment.
And yet, if it's purely mechanical like this, could a NG Wizard cast Animate Dead and then Summon Monster V (celestial heffalump) to end up canceling out the 4 spell levels of Evil for Animate Dead? Does it have to be a higher level spell, specifically, or could he work it off by casting five 1st level [Good] spells, such as Protection from Evil?
We've discussed this before, and I agree with you alignment descriptors on spells should not become some mechanic that says when your alignment changes. My point about spell levels is that using Magic Circle as part of a Planar Binding is a single act, and in that act what you summon is more important than how you bind it.
Alignment descriptors are hard limits for Divine casters, but for an arcane caster they really are just suggestions. (I don't know about you, but if I were a Good wizard, I'd rather summon an archon than a demon.) Casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act, but exactly what that means is up to the DM (unless you're a paladin.)
I've also never understood DeathKnell. What is Evil about it? I can see plenty of uses for this spell for good characters, and even in 3.5 there are many good deities that grant it in Domains, but good Clerics, even with that Domain, could not use it.
If you take away (again) the fluff that you are looking through necrotic eyes to see life forces or whatever, it is a very good spell for healers to see who is most in need of treatment.
Death Knell is a 2nd level spell used to kill dying creatures and absorb the power that is released from their deaths to buff the cleric...
Deathwatch on the other hand is a first level spell that lets you see people's state of health.
|
|
Death Knell is a 2nd level spell used to kill dying creatures and absorb the power that is released from their deaths to buff the cleric...
Deathwatch on the other hand is a first level spell that lets you see people's state of health.
I always get those two spell names confused...
Evil tag or no, Death Knell's pretty much evil. Deathwatch, on the other hand, could be used to save as many lives as possible in a triage situation or fine-tune torture methods so as to prolong agony and not accidentally kill the victim. It's less 'evil' than Inflict Light Wounds or Magic Missile, which have *no* applications other than to hurt people (they can't even target items, being purely life-killing forces!).
Burning Hands can at least start a fire to help people stay warm.
|
And yet, if it's purely mechanical like this, could a NG Wizard cast Animate Dead and then Summon Monster V (celestial heffalump) to end up canceling out the 4 spell levels of Evil for Animate Dead? Does it have to be a higher level spell, specifically, or could he work it off by casting five 1st level [Good] spells, such as Protection from Evil?We've discussed this before, and I agree with you alignment descriptors on spells should not become some mechanic that says when your alignment changes. My point about spell levels is that using Magic Circle as part of a Planar Binding is a single act, and in that act what you summon is more important than how you bind it.
Alignment descriptors are hard limits for Divine casters, but for an arcane caster they really are just suggestions. (I don't know about you, but if I were a Good wizard, I'd rather summon an archon than a demon.) Casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act, but exactly what that means is up to the DM (unless you're a paladin.)
I don't recall ever seeing a rule that says if you cast a Good spell you become Good and if you cast an Evil spell you become Evil. I think it is a matter of roleplaying and GM judgement here.
An evil sorcerer who summons angels to kill good characters is likely to just have dipped further into evil for being so nasty to use Good against itself. Same with Evil. I don't recall ever seeing a set score of "this number of good/evil spell levels will change your level."
And someone mentioned above about the Blood War meaning the fiends are always fighting each other and not Angels... That is one reason I hated the Blood War. Glad to see it gone.
|
|
I've also never understood DeathKnell. What is Evil about it? I can see plenty of uses for this spell for good characters, and even in 3.5 there are many good deities that grant it in Domains, but good Clerics, even with that Domain, could not use it.
If you take away (again) the fluff that you are looking through necrotic eyes to see life forces or whatever, it is a very good spell for healers to see who is most in need of treatment.Death Knell is a 2nd level spell used to kill dying creatures and absorb the power that is released from their deaths to buff the cleric...
Deathwatch on the other hand is a first level spell that lets you see people's state of health.
Your right, my mistake. I always say Death Knell and think Deathwath because this seems like the only mechanical evil use for deathwatch (besides going around and poking dying people).
|
|
I don't recall ever seeing a rule that says if you cast a Good spell you become Good and if you cast an Evil spell you become Evil. I think it is a matter of roleplaying and GM judgement here.
It was not really a specific rule, but it is in the sections on how morality works in the D and D setting. I know there is some in PHB and DMG, but it really goes into it early in the Book of Exalted Deeds. Basically, certain acts are good or evil, just by their nature. Undead, as part of their being, are evil. Period. No matter what they do, what their alignment, or how much good they do, the very fact that they exist causes the world trouble and/or pain and suffering. No matter what the ends are from summoning evil outsiders, you are bringing evil into the world, so it is an evil act.
By the same token, by summoning good outsiders, even for evil purposses, you are also releasing both small amounts of bunnies, butterflies, rainbows, and Churches Chicken into the world, as well as the outsider, which is a good act.
An act, can be good and evil at the same time. Like summoning a good outsider and ordering it to slaughter. They do not cancell each other out, it is a good act to cast the spell, but it is an evil act in what you do, (you are directly responcible for whatever anything you summon, dominate, or order to do).
|
|
I don't recall ever seeing a rule that says if you cast a Good spell you become Good and if you cast an Evil spell you become Evil. I think it is a matter of roleplaying and GM judgement here.
It was not really a specific rule, but it is in the sections on how morality works in the D and D setting. I know there is some in PHB and DMG, but it really goes into it early in the Book of Exalted Deeds. Basically, certain acts are good or evil, just by their nature. Undead, as part of their being, are evil. Period. No matter what they do, what their alignment, or how much good they do, the very fact that they exist causes the world trouble and/or pain and suffering. No matter what the ends are from summoning evil outsiders, you are bringing evil into the world, so it is an evil act.
By the same token, by summoning good outsiders, even for evil purposses, you are also releasing both small amounts of bunnies, butterflies, rainbows, and Churches Chicken into the world, as well as the outsider, which is a good act.
An act, can be good and evil at the same time. Like summoning a good outsider and ordering it to slaughter. They do not cancell each other out, it is a good act to cast the spell, but it is an evil act in what you do, (you are directly responcible for whatever anything you summon, dominate, or order to do).
Very interesting... in our games we tend to just ignore alignments all together. Protection from evil is essentially Protection from someone/something that intends you harm. Detect Evil is essentially the same thing, detecting is someone intends you harm. Smite just Smites whoever is the sucker being hit.
Heheh. Can anyone explain this cute little evil High Gorgon[1] in my campaign that summoning en masse Lantern Archons to kill immobilized party members is GOOD?
It's a good act, because you summon good creatures, but it's just a minor thing. The doing evil with it will more than make up for it (and, as others have said, you might get a stern talking-to by a celestial when the lanterns report you).
The descriptors, and the divine caster's restrictions on summoning spells, do make sense: You ask your deity for help. The deity will send you some members of his/her own personal divine host. If you're calling Asmodeus for backup, he won't send you a protean because he doesn't have proteans, he refuses to work with these punks, and they refuse to work with him.
|
|
Heheh. Can anyone explain this cute little evil High Gorgon[1] in my campaign that summoning en masse Lantern Archons to kill immobilized party members is GOOD?It's a good act, because you summon good creatures, but it's just a minor thing. The doing evil with it will more than make up for it (and, as others have said, you might get a stern talking-to by a celestial when the lanterns report you).
The descriptors, and the divine caster's restrictions on summoning spells, do make sense: You ask your deity for help. The deity will send you some members of his/her own personal divine host. If you're calling Asmodeus for backup, he won't send you a protean because he doesn't have proteans, he refuses to work with these punks, and they refuse to work with him.
That really depends on how directly the deities serve the Clerics. But on the other hand, it does not explain Neutral deities, or really any deity that is not the exact same alignment as the Cleric in question.
Personally, the one single thing I liked about the Craperron Setting was how they handled this for Divine Casters. There was no Alignment restriction for spells, but also for the Cleric. It was not a common thing, but this also made it posible for corrupt priests to spread the corruption without giving themselves away instantly, (why the Super Reverend High Father of Lawful Goodness always speaking those demonic sylibols whenever he blesses the wine).
Getting rid of Alignment effects for spells is the way to go so they just work against enemies.
As far as I know, a good deity won't grant evil spells, even if you're a neutral cleric and thus not forbidden to cast evil spells.
i.e. what I said.
A summon spell is whatever alignment the monster summoned is (This applies to elements as well, when that is relevant).
Clerics and Druids cannot cast spells of opposed alignment.
Arcane casters can, but the long term implications of repeatedly casting [Evil] spells is up to the DM.
The Short term ones are, too:
"Oh, look. Last round of duration for your summon spell and the evil creature grabs the loot and/or body of your foe and disappears back to it's home Plane of Nastiness. I'm sure it wont tell any of it's buddies back home about your stuffed with treasure sacks you were carrying either."
|
I imagine it's the same as 3.5. In other words, summoning a creature with an alignment type makes the spell have that type. So summoning angels is Good while summoning Fiendish creatures is Evil. You can do it, but doing to much of it will result in alignment issues. Obviously Clerics, who cannot cast spells of the opposite alignment, will still be restricted.
EDIT: Ninjaed
My personal solution for my home game, after reading all your posts is simply to mostly disallow it.
Why ? In an old Planescape supplement, it was stated somewhere that summon monster spells work like this : a sensor looking usually like a gem appears on the plane of the target creature, and if it feels like it, it picks it up and appears.
Using this, good creature would not want to pick up an evil sensor, and evil ones would either do the same, OR jump at any chance to do battle with anything outside the blood war.
Spellcasters using evil creatures repeatedly could then get visits from friendly succubi or erinyes offering them a "repeat client" discount, if they would just sign a few pacts ...