|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, it always seemed to me that summoning good creatures and forcing them to do your bidding which will potentially cause them pain and get them banished from the prime material plane is a lot more evil than doing the same to an evil creature.
While there's no game ruling on it, one of my basic rules of thumb is that spells < gods. If you can summon a celestial (or powerful fiend), then the good gods (or archdevils or demon lords) whom that outsider works for must have already assigned them to 'answer the phones today' and that particular outsider is on 'summon duty' and isn't being snatched out of the shower, or dragged out of an important meeting, or whisked away from a crucial role in the Blood War.
So, more or less, the outsiders being summoned already signed up for that job (either volunteering to be on-call, or being told to 'stand there and wait for some schmuck to summon you' by their boss).
[It also explains why one never summons up a bone devil that was in the middle of a fight to the death and had six hit points left and was cursed, blinded and feebleminded at the time, or a celestial tyrannosaur that was in the middle of coitus with a hawt female celestial tyrannosaur, to the soul-searing horror of all viewers...]
And, again, while it's not terribly clear if this should be considered anything other than wild fanon, I've always seen summoned creatures as being kind of like the 'astral selves' of outsiders. Their real bodies are on the outer planes, and if the summoned self gets 'killed,' they just snap back home and maybe are left feeling a little queasy for a moment. "Yeah, I got burned in the face with some sort of acid spit that time. That's a sensation I could have lived without knowing..."
That doesn't really account for what happens when one directs an evil outsider to rescue a bunch of nuns and orphans from a burning building, or compels a hound archon to dig up a bunch of graves so that you can make a flesh golem out of them, but that sort of thing is just one of those parts of the game that makes ya throw your hands up and say, 'eh. alignment. what can ya do?'
Creative Director
|
No he wasn't. An evil act is an evil act whether your class loses anything from it or not. He gives the same responses to this in other threads as well, and also with regards to creating undead. It is always evil, but whether or not you can do it 5 or 5000 times is up to the GM.
I think James was thinking of clerics.
This.
How you run with it in your game, though, is up to your GM. It's not something that 30 + years of game-room arguments has yet answered in a way that every gamer can agree on, though, and as a result I doubt it'll be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction anytime soon.
The only sane option is to go with what your GM says is right.
Except for when it means not evil...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that when you cast a summon spell to summon an evil outsider that spell gains the "Evil" descriptor is what makes it an evil act.
There we go, it's official. I'm in shock.
Enslaving good celestials with planar binding is now OFFICIALLY a good action because it has the "good" spell descriptor.
Or do you wish to amend that statement JJ?
|
The fact that when you cast a summon spell to summon an evil outsider that spell gains the "Evil" descriptor is what makes it an evil act.There we go, it's official. I'm in shock.
Enslaving good celestials with planar binding is now OFFICIALLY a good action because it has the "good" spell descriptor.
Or do you wish to amend that statement JJ?
I would not call it official. There is no rule in the Core Book stating that casting a spell with an evil descriptor is an evil act. James statement is in regards to how he would adjudicate it not a rules clarification.
In other words i will believe that summoning an evil creature is an inherently evil act when i see a statement to that affect posted to the FAQ.
If I were the wizard, and the paladin in the party demanded I stop summoning devils, I would tell the paladin to shove it.
What gives him the right to tell me what I can and cannot summon? As a private magic user, it it is my right to cast summon monster X however I see fit, and am under no obligation to follow the paladin's sense of morality. A mage decides for himself what he should and should not do, not some pretty boy in armor and can choose for himself the moral consequences of his actions.
How dare a paladin try to force his worldview on everyone else!
Your right, he doesn't have the right to tell you to stop. But he does have the right, in fact an obligation, to say he will not adventure with you anymore as long as you continue to do things he perceives as evil. I'd rather not have to deal with inter party conflict at the table. Especially one that can be avoided by having the players communicate with each other during character creation.
Just saying.
Your right, he doesn't have the right to tell you to stop. But he does have the right, in fact an obligation, to say he will not adventure with you anymore as long as you continue to do things he perceives as evil. I'd rather not have to deal with inter party conflict at the table. Especially one that can be avoided by having the players communicate with each other during character creation.
Just saying.
This is off topic, and I promise it is just one post.
Don't you wish that you could alternate between our two avatars based on the tone of the post we are writing?
Sorry everyone, we were discussing evil as per usual.
(Evil is subjective everyone, not objective!! Honest!)
This is off topic, and I promise it is just one post.
Don't you wish that you could alternate between our two avatars based on the tone of the post we are writing?
Sorry everyone, we were discussing evil as per usual.
(Evil is subjective everyone, not objective!! Honest!)
That would be devastatingly confusing.
I like it though.
(Evil is subjective everyone, not objective!! Honest!)
I dunno...this claim sounds rather objective.
The only sane option is to go with what your GM says is right.Indeed.
Which is why people need to stop saying '[Evil] spells are Evil acts' and start saying 'In my games, [Evil] spells are Evil acts'. :)
+1
This is off topic, and I promise it is just one post.Don't you wish that you could alternate between our two avatars based on the tone of the post we are writing?
Well, now I do.
The fact that when you cast a summon spell to summon an evil outsider that spell gains the "Evil" descriptor is what makes it an evil act.There we go, it's official. I'm in shock.
Enslaving good celestials with planar binding is now OFFICIALLY a good action because it has the "good" spell descriptor.
Or do you wish to amend that statement JJ?
Maybe you should be in shock. Doing evil is evil. News at 11:00. Bringing evil into the world is... evil. That's why it has the descriptor evil on summoning something evil. Bringing good into the world is good. Whatever your reason for doing so. You're exposing yourself and the world at large to a force for good (and vice versa).
As for "enslaving" / forcing the creature to do your will, that is less than nice as an action. That's not about the spell, it's about you being an evil @ss. Forcing some good celestial into a suicide mission, now that is evil.
On the other hand, you explain your reasons, bargain for it's services reward it for doing a good deed (and skip the suicide missions) and you may get off as less of an @ss. Somewhat anyway.
Why would JJ want to amend a statement that's based on the spell description?
(Evil is subjective everyone, not objective!! Honest!)
Human evil may be subjective. It may be a matter of degrees. I doubt demons and devils are "subjectively" evil. You might give one a good laugh by suggesting that though.
You can always make evil subjective in your game, but the game involves objective evil as well as the more mundane human type.
If I were the wizard, and the paladin in the party demanded I stop summoning devils, I would tell the paladin to shove it.
What gives him the right to tell me what I can and cannot summon? As a private magic user, it it is my right to cast summon monster X however I see fit, and am under no obligation to follow the paladin's sense of morality. A mage decides for himself what he should and should not do, not some pretty boy in armor and can choose for himself the moral consequences of his actions.
How dare a paladin try to force his worldview on everyone else!
Your right, he doesn't have the right to tell you to stop. But he does have the right, in fact an obligation, to say he will not adventure with you anymore as long as you continue to do things he perceives as evil. I'd rather not have to deal with inter party conflict at the table. Especially one that can be avoided by having the players communicate with each other during character creation.
Just saying.
The problem isn't the mage. Its the paladin. The class functionally restricts the actions of other characters in the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoning an evil outsider is an evil act.Got any rules reference for this?
So can you 'atone' for evil acts by simply summoning enough good outsiders (which ostensibly is a good act)?
But I'm still curious to see the rules reference as PF seems to have removed the only instances of purely mechanical evil acts (channeling negative energy) from the rules, and iirc added verbiage to the alignment selection to say that alignment was solely the DM's purview and that there were no such mechanics.
Am I misreading things here?
-James
The fact that when you cast a summon spell to summon an evil outsider that spell gains the "Evil" descriptor is what makes it an evil act. That's why clerics have the limitations described under "Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells" in their class description. Wizards don't care about alignments, really—a lawful good wizard that becomes chaotic evil doesn't have his class abilities affected at all, but a cleric would.
What we DON'T say is how many evil spells it takes to become evil (or how many lawful ones it takes to become lawful, and so on), because that's pretty much left to each GM to decide.
More to the point, if you're roleplaying your character's alignment properly, you'll be casting spells that match (or at the very least, don't directly oppose) your alignment.
If you're playing a good wizard, you shouldn't cast evil spells because that's out of alignment and character. If you're playing a neutral wizard, that's not so much a concern.
James, please, please, please for the love of all that is holy tell me you didn't just misuse alignment! Alignment has never been something that dictates what your character does, but what your character does dictates alignment! Why, oh why, would you suggest that you shouldn't cast evil spells because you're good because your character is good? Why not just say that it means you will slip closer to neutral or something? Please, please, tell me you don't actually believe alignment is a strait-jacket. :o
"You can't do that, it's against your alignment" goes against everything is and ever will be roleplaying.
The problem isn't the mage. Its the paladin. The class functionally restricts the actions of other characters in the party.
The blame doesn't fall squarely in the lap of the paladin either. It's alignment too. It doesn't bring anything useful to the table. Now, the paladin is restrictive, I'll give you that. More restrictive than it needs to be even. But very nearly all problems that any group faces on the subject of morality can often be prevented by removing alignment all together and having the players talk to each other during character creation. Lack of communication is, I've observed, the root cause of most these sorts of debates.
That is so classically a stand of hubris. You're a proper mage all right all ego. If I heard that from a wizard in a story, I'd expect him to be heading off the rails eventually straight into evil.If I were the wizard, and the paladin in the party demanded I stop summoning devils, I would tell the paladin to shove it.
What gives him the right to tell me what I can and cannot summon? As a private magic user, it it is my right to cast summon monster X however I see fit, and am under no obligation to follow the paladin's sense of morality. A mage decides for himself what he should and should not do, not some pretty boy in armor and can choose for himself the moral consequences of his actions.
How dare a paladin try to force his worldview on everyone else!
Does kinda have a nice Raislin ring too it doesn't it.
Along with removing alignment, the Paladin and Anti-Paladin have to go as well. They're not rooted in a world of moral and ethical relativism... they're Avatars of Absolutes.The blame doesn't fall squarely in the lap of the paladin either. It's alignment too. It doesn't bring anything useful to the table. Now, the paladin is restrictive, I'll give you that. More restrictive than it needs to be even. But very nearly all problems that any group faces on the subject of morality can often be prevented by removing alignment all together and having the players talk to each other during character creation. Lack of communication is, I've observed, the root cause of most these sorts of debates.
The problem isn't the mage. Its the paladin. The class functionally restricts the actions of other characters in the party.
There are no absolutes.
Or if you prefer...
Only Sith deal in absolutes, making all Paladins evil ('cause the Sith are evil).
This has been a public service announcement. :P
I think the point is that there's a difference between a purported alignment and a depicted alignment. If you're playing a self-proclaimed Neutral Good wizard, yet your favorite spells are Summon Devil and Animate Dead, chances are you're probably not actually Good. You might be a fairly nice Neutral, especially if your sole vices are the undead and devils, but actually Good? I'd want to see some pretty good roleplaying and a convincing backstory for all this, like being part of a family of necromancers from Cheliax and you're the white sheep of the family. But that doesn't change the fact that using evil means to achieve good results ends up being gray magic at best. And it shouldn't change the fact that you should probably be tortured and tormented about the fact, especially if you have a friendly business relationship with some of those devils, which then brings up the question of how wicked are they and can you redeem a devil?
In other words, it starts to stray into GM territory. If your GM decides that Alignment is something other than an arbitrary membership badge you slap on your character and depict however you feel, then your alignment will change based on your character's actions whenever and wherever the GM chooses to inform you of this fact, the same as a paladin will lose his paladinhood wherever and whenever the GM feels that this is warranted.
Yes, the GM should make clear "This is what is Evil in my game" and "This is what is Good" and "This is what is Neutral"--and ditto with Law and Chaos--but once that's set up, the world is set, and you don't get to argue. If I decide that Carrie Nation has passed the test of the Starstone and ascended to divinity in place of Cayden Cailean, so be it--the Goddess of Prohibition and Temperance is Lawful Good and strongly opposed to the Chaotic Evil forces embodied by the Demon Rum and his henchling John Barleycorn. Alcohol is Evil and the only possible neutral use would be to use rubbing alcohol as a wound dressing. The easiest way to get a paladin to fall is to spike his drink. No, he won't fall immediately, but he'd have to atone pretty quick if he was tricked into it. And if trapped in a desert and forced to choose between dying of thirst and drinking the frosty mug of beer placed there to tempt him by John Barleycorn himself? There's only one clear choice for the paladin, and it's not drinking the beer.
It may be a silly cosmology, but if it's the one I've set up as GM, you have to roll with it and deal with the fact that there's only holy water, since by the definition of the universe, sacramental wine is evil.
Along with removing alignment, the Paladin and Anti-Paladin have to go as well. They're not rooted in a world of moral and ethical relativism... they're Avatars of Absolutes.
Exactly. You see, the funny thing is, even with moral relativism there are still going to be people in the campaign world that think in absolutes. The problem is that the paladin is forced into that lot. Paladin's are by their nature, zealots. That's really the sort of thing that a player should be able to decide for himself. And if he does want to play a zealot, he should talk to the party ahead of time about what will and will not be acceptable behavior.
|
Creative Director
|
The fact that when you cast a summon spell to summon an evil outsider that spell gains the "Evil" descriptor is what makes it an evil act.There we go, it's official. I'm in shock.
Enslaving good celestials with planar binding is now OFFICIALLY a good action because it has the "good" spell descriptor.
Or do you wish to amend that statement JJ?
Nope. Your GM might want to though.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
James, please, please, please for the love of all that is holy tell me you didn't just misuse alignment! Alignment has never been something that dictates what your character does, but what your character does dictates alignment! Why, oh why, would you suggest that you shouldn't cast evil spells because you're good because your character is good? Why not just say that it means you will slip closer to neutral or something? Please, please, tell me you don't actually believe alignment is a strait-jacket. :o
Folks who get all worked up about alignment on the internet could probably USE some alignment straight-jacketing.
But no.
How I deal with alignment in my games for PCs is that it's a reflection of your character and how that character behaves in the game. How you play that character sets the alignment of your character. If you roleplay your character according to your alignment, then your alignment doesn't change. If you do things that are out of keeping with your alignment, your alignment changes. I fail to see how that's a straight-jacket at all, since it's all about free will.
Swim in green paint, you'll come out green.
Do evil things, you'll end up evil.
Simple.
The fiend binder prestige class(tome of magic, 3.5), says that binding fiends (demons, devils, etc) to fight other evil creatures was not evil, but since binding them amounts to slavery, it is not good either.
With this in mind, I would say neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is a Paladin telling a wizard that if he commits an evil act or registers as evil during a unasked for scan, that the paladin will cut him down an evil act? It seems a lot like Tyranny to me. Such things make Asmodeus happy.
And I suppose if the threat of physical violence against a person who registers as evil to paladin is an evil act, is any use of the intimidate skill an evil act?
Sean Mahoney
Thats one place the book on good gods helps since it gives wider oaths for the paladin based on deity. Some are cool with even knee breaking in the name of justice or even lying. Others have a finer line to walk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fiend binder prestige class(tome of magic, 3.5), says that binding fiends (demons, devils, etc) to fight other evil creatures was not evil, but since binding them amounts to slavery, it is not good either. With this in mind, I would say neutral.
That would be all good and well if the Book of Vile Darkness didn't say the exact opposite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fiend binder prestige class(tome of magic, 3.5), says that binding fiends (demons, devils, etc) to fight other evil creatures was not evil, but since binding them amounts to slavery, it is not good either. With this in mind, I would say neutral.That would be all good and well if the Book of Vile Darkness didn't say the exact opposite.
I wouldn't know, I don't have the book of vile darkness. All I can do is quote what I have.
Folks who get all worked up about alignment on the internet could probably USE some alignment straight-jacketing.But no.
How I deal with alignment in my games for PCs is that it's a reflection of your character and how that character behaves in the game. How you play that character sets the alignment of your character. If you roleplay your character according to your alignment, then your alignment doesn't change. If you do things that are out of keeping with your alignment, your alignment changes. I fail to see how that's a straight-jacket at all, since it's all about free will.
Swim in green paint, you'll come out green.
Do evil things, you'll end up evil.
Simple.
Well you seemed to be implying that your character was their alignment (IE a character can't or won't do something because their alignment somehow doesn't allow it). However, you've said that isn't what you meant, so I'll buy that.
But I'm a bit curious. Why would a Neutral wizard become evil for using summoned fiends to do good? I mean, the entire basis of the understanding of the balance between good and evil in Pathfinder hinges on the idea that doing evil to evil things is somehow justifiable, and thus not an evil action. Otherwise a Paladin would fall for slaying a bandit because killing is evil, but because he's killing for good then it somehow makes it okay.
Would not a wizard who, for example, summoned an evil fiend with fire resistance to save someone from a fire be committing an evil act (summoning a fiend) to produce a good effect (saving a life) to produce an overall neutral reaction, therefor keeping his alignment very much at Neutral? Likewise, a character who summoned a fiend to fight a fiend (fighting fire with fire) would in effect be doing the same as the Paladin who kills an evil creature, and thus this would be at least a Neutral act; correct?
Ergo a Lawful Neutral wizard would ultimately remain lawful neutral. Just as a necromancer would do so by using undead.
Correct?
I think (though its not stated) that people look at the paladin like it sees evil and drives the nearest sharp object into it. A paladin for the most part would kill only if the chance of redemption isnt there. If the BBEG can't/Won't even consider listening or claims to change and then goes back to killing it has to be killed of but if it honestly can find redemption that would be the ultimate goal.
The blame doesn't fall squarely in the lap of the paladin either. It's alignment too. It doesn't bring anything useful to the table. Now, the paladin is restrictive, I'll give you that. More restrictive than it needs to be even. But very nearly all problems that any group faces on the subject of morality can often be prevented by removing alignment all together and having the players talk to each other during character creation. Lack of communication is, I've observed, the root cause of most these sorts of debates.
The problem isn't the mage. Its the paladin. The class functionally restricts the actions of other characters in the party.
+1
I agree completely, that is why I prefer an allegiance system, in which characters are loyal to the things they value most (which could be good and law, or their conception of it).
For some reason, this thread makes me think of Miko Miyazaki from OoTS. Now there was an awful good paladin!
I wouldn't know, I don't have the book of vile darkness. All I can do is quote what I have.The fiend binder prestige class(tome of magic, 3.5), says that binding fiends (demons, devils, etc) to fight other evil creatures was not evil, but since binding them amounts to slavery, it is not good either. With this in mind, I would say neutral.That would be all good and well if the Book of Vile Darkness didn't say the exact opposite.
Don't bother. The BoVD and the even worse Book of Exalted Deeds is terrible. They pretty much ruined every sense of logic and reason laid out in 3E and previous editions. It is because of the BoVD that stuff like Deathwatch was made [Evil], and the reason mindless undead are Evil instead of Neutral, and so forth.
The Book of Exalted Deeds is basically the book of flagrant hypocrisy. You will actually lose faith in all that is good in D&D for reading that book, contrary to what the Artifact in the DMG would suggest. It has some of the most unholy of attack methods, and good spells that actually torture your victim while imprisoning them in a gemstone for a year, until they are forced to match your alignment. And that's a [Good] spell.
Let's not forget the so called "Ravages" which are a good guy's poison (since the BoVD and BoED say poison is evil). The thing is, ravages are so many times worse than poisons, and their descriptions are horrible. One of them damages your mind and makes you feel insatiable sexual lust and frustration, but prevents you from attaining "release", causing you to go insane and slowly wither away. Another makes you lose your mind and stare into mirrors. Yet another makes you starve and feel insatiable hunger, but no matter how much you eat your body withers and starves to death.
Meanwhile, the Book of Vile Darkness has a spell that lets you use a mirror as a two-way window, and allows you to appear in the mirror as a person, or appear behind the person's reflection (merely creepy). It doesn't do a whole lot beyond that, but it has the [Evil] tag.
Meanwhile the spell Mind Rape got the evil tag apparently because of the fact it has "rape" in the name. Everything else in the spell is found in other sources that are either neutral (IE - dominate person) or even good (the aforementioned torture spell is worse). Furthermore, Mind Rape even has the opportunity to be used for good. Some poor girl is grabbed up by Mammy Graul and her sons and is subjected to horrifying indignities to which she will never be able to mentally overcome no matter the sheer amount of clerical healing done to her broken body when the heroes find her?
Mind Rape and you can erase or remake that portion of her memory, but otherwise leave her whole. You could even give her a new memory, a pleasant one, where she was picking flowers or something. Give her her life back. It is one of those spells that has the potential for great abuse, but also for great good (more good than Fireball).
Honestly, you're better off not having the books.
You didnt even mention vow of poverty monks
I wouldn't know, I don't have the book of vile darkness. All I can do is quote what I have.The fiend binder prestige class(tome of magic, 3.5), says that binding fiends (demons, devils, etc) to fight other evil creatures was not evil, but since binding them amounts to slavery, it is not good either. With this in mind, I would say neutral.That would be all good and well if the Book of Vile Darkness didn't say the exact opposite.Don't bother. The BoVD and the even worse Book of Exalted Deeds is terrible. They pretty much ruined every sense of logic and reason laid out in 3E and previous editions. It is because of the BoVD that stuff like Deathwatch was made [Evil], and the reason mindless undead are Evil instead of Neutral, and so forth.
The Book of Exalted Deeds is basically the book of flagrant hypocrisy. You will actually lose faith in all that is good in D&D for reading that book, contrary to what the Artifact in the DMG would suggest. It has some of the most unholy of attack methods, and good spells that actually torture your victim while imprisoning them in a gemstone for a year, until they are forced to match your alignment. And that's a [Good] spell.
Let's not forget the so called "Ravages" which are a good guy's poison (since the BoVD and BoED say poison is evil). The thing is, ravages are so many times worse than poisons, and their descriptions are horrible. One of them damages your mind and makes you feel insatiable sexual lust and frustration, but prevents you from attaining "release", causing you to go insane and slowly wither away. Another makes you lose your mind and stare into mirrors. Yet another makes you starve and feel insatiable hunger, but no matter how much you eat your body withers and starves to death.
Meanwhile, the Book of Vile Darkness has a spell that lets you use a mirror as a two-way window, and allows you to appear in the mirror as a person, or appear behind the person's reflection...
...Wow...
The fiend binder prestige class(tome of magic, 3.5), says that binding fiends (demons, devils, etc) to fight other evil creatures was not evil, but since binding them amounts to slavery, it is not good either.
With this in mind, I would say neutral.
..I am sure you can dig up some nore sources telling you how evil it is to summon evil outsiders
Malconvoker actually made a point that by picking the prc you could summon evil without serious alignment complications, because of the very specific flavor of the prc. I am ok with that, I do not think it should be an excuse for every character to gain a slight mechanical benefit. If it is a major part of a character I'd go along with it, though the character should probably be neutral and not good aligned.
Having the spell be evil kinda prevents every saintly type of wizard from using it often, since it doesnt fit the concept of the typical good aligned wizard to summon demons into the world or raising the dead to fight on their side. So yea I am fine with it being evil, as to how evil it is your GM is free to decide, just don't expect good aligned clerics, paladins or other strongly aligned characters to appreciate the use of such spells in their presence.
Wizard might find it cool for their character to summon demons or maybe just because they are more useful, keep in mind other players as well, having a wizard summon demons might not stroke well with other players concept of their character.
|
Creative Director
|
But I'm a bit curious. Why would a Neutral wizard become evil for using summoned fiends to do good? I mean, the entire basis of the understanding of the balance between good and evil in Pathfinder hinges on the idea that doing evil to evil things is somehow justifiable, and thus not an evil action. Otherwise a Paladin would fall for slaying a bandit because killing is evil, but because he's killing for good then it somehow makes it okay.
My question would be: Why is that neutral wizard summoning fiends in the first place? Why not aeons or elementals or psychopomps? And for that matter, why is a neutral wizard trying to do good in the first place? He's not really neutral if:
1) He's working with fiends and letting them spread their influence (even if that means nothing more than being visible).
2) He's trying to do good deeds.
The argument is fundamentally flawed, as far as I can tell.
But I'm a bit curious. Why would a Neutral wizard become evil for using summoned fiends to do good? I mean, the entire basis of the understanding of the balance between good and evil in Pathfinder hinges on the idea that doing evil to evil things is somehow justifiable, and thus not an evil action. Otherwise a Paladin would fall for slaying a bandit because killing is evil, but because he's killing for good then it somehow makes it okay.My question would be: Why is that neutral wizard summoning fiends in the first place? Why not aeons or elementals or psychopomps? And for that matter, why is a neutral wizard trying to do good in the first place? He's not really neutral if:
1) He's working with fiends and letting them spread their influence (even if that means nothing more than being visible).
2) He's trying to do good deeds.
The argument is fundamentally flawed, as far as I can tell.
You seem to see it as if the wizard is trying to be neutral. It seems more like he is trying to be good, just going about it the wrong way. An 'anti-hero' as it were.
The fiend binder prestige class(tome of magic, 3.5), says that binding fiends (demons, devils, etc) to fight other evil creatures was not evil, but since binding them amounts to slavery, it is not good either.
With this in mind, I would say neutral...I am sure you can dig up some nore sources telling you how evil it is to summon evil outsiders
Malconvoker actually made a point that by picking the prc you could summon evil without serious alignment complications, because of the very specific flavor of the prc. I am ok with that, I do not think it should be an excuse for every character to gain a slight mechanical benefit. If it is a major part of a character I'd go along with it, though the character should probably be neutral and not good aligned.
Having the spell be evil kinda prevents every saintly type of wizard from using it often, since it doesnt fit the concept of the typical good aligned wizard to summon demons into the world or raising the dead to fight on their side. So yea I am fine with it being evil, as to how evil it is your GM is free to decide, just don't expect good aligned clerics, paladins or other strongly aligned characters to appreciate the use of such spells in their presence.
Wizard might find it cool for their character to summon demons or maybe just because they are more useful, keep in mind other players as well, having a wizard summon demons might not stroke well with other players concept of their character.
I used that prc as a published example (and the only published example that I knew of). It also states alignments, which makes it more of an out of game explanation than flavor text.
Don't bother. The BoVD and the even worse Book of Exalted Deeds is terrible. They pretty much ruined every sense of logic and reason laid out in 3E and previous editions. It is because of the BoVD that stuff like Deathwatch was made [Evil], and the reason mindless undead are Evil instead of Neutral, and so forth.
Most 3.5 books were a waste of time. I mean, sure the BoED is one of the worst, but I think of how much content I actually used or cared about in each book that I purchased (all of them) and I feel cheated. In the Complete series you were usually given 1 good class, 1 class that no body cared about, and another class that was insultingly bad. Out of ten thousand and one prestige classes you were lucky if there were more than a handful that were any good. Even the fluff usually sucked. The feats were the same way; a few gems in a pile of ass. Spells, items, races, monsters, etc. they were all that way.
The Book of Exalted Deeds is basically the book of flagrant hypocrisy.
Correction. It's "The Book of Flagrant Hypocrisy plus Furries" :P
Don't bother. The BoVD and the even worse Book of Exalted Deeds is terrible. They pretty much ruined every sense of logic and reason laid out in 3E and previous editions. It is because of the BoVD that stuff like Deathwatch was made [Evil], and the reason mindless undead are Evil instead of Neutral, and so forth.Most 3.5 books were a waste of time. I mean, sure the BoED is one of the worst, but I think of how much content I actually used or cared about in each book that I purchased (all of them) and I feel cheated. In the Complete series you were usually given 1 good class, 1 class that no body cared about, and another class that was insultingly bad. Out of ten thousand and one prestige classes you were lucky if there were more than a handful that were any good. Even the fluff usually sucked. The feats were the same way; a few gems in a pile of ass. Spells, items, races, monsters, etc. they were all that way.
Correction. It's "The Book of Flagrant Hypocrisy plus Furries" :P
The Book of Exalted Deeds is basically the book of flagrant hypocrisy.
I think Tome of Magic was one of the better ones, 2/3 of the book was usable.
BoED has furries?
Action, method and result ALL have an impact in reflecting a creature's alignment 'in practice'. Intent is of no consequence in comparison to the actions that are performed, the methodology of those actions and the results of those actions.