Recently some issues have come up that pose a bit of an ethical dilema. I'd liek some opinions, and some ruling references if they exist on a few topics:
Is using something like control undead an evil act if you are using the controlled undead to fight other evil creatures?
Is it an evil act to pass a Rune Curse on to an evil being (such as a Cleric of Asmodeus)?
As a wider question I guess the question is how pragmatic can a lawful good (not a paladin) be in terms of using the tools available?
In general, outside of PFS, these are table mores that come into play. Some play groups see this differently than other play groups.
By strict RAW some spells are listed as "evil" and as such should be viewed as dealing with the "dark side" in game. How far one can dabble in messing around with the "dark side" before it corrupts them is a very subjective issue in general, and should probably be different for different characters in specific.
There's more than one thread currently addressing the whole "animate dead to fight evil" question. We probably don't need another one.
Fair enough, drop the control undead question. No point in flogging a dead horse.
I'd still be interested in feedback about other quandries. The handing over a Rune Curse to an obviously evil NPC for example.
Solipsist, my response above still applies. If spells have an "evil" descriptor, then they should be viewed very carefully. Some groups prefer a more morally relative approach though, and their games tend not to care much about evil or good descriptors. It's a game style question you are asking and the only answer I can offer is that it depends on your gaming group. This is really a conversation that you should have as a gaming group to get everyone on the same page as you game. It really doesn't matter what the rest of the gaming community does. This isn't the "rules" forum, it's the "advice" forum, so my advice is to work this out with your group and consistently apply whatever standards you come up with.
Fair enough.
I was looking for a wider perspective before potentially taking up a lot of game time (we only meet occasionally), but you are right I'll clearly have to just talk it out with them.
FS, I looked for a really good guide that I read several years ago that would further explain AD's position. It broke up evil into I think 4 different sub categories that DMs should think about prior to the campaign. I based my campaign on the Banality of Evil category. In this case good and evil were never really clearly defined. The party, despite being mostly good, would interact with insanely evil beings on a regular basis and no combat would take place. Evil wasn't always actively evil and good wasn't always actively good in terms of immediate actions. It was sometimes hard to tell which was which.
At one point during the campaign a player had his LG monk coup de gras a little boy because he was both under direction from his superior and he thought it was for the greater good. No penalty was incurred for this action.
Some players would really not like this game, although I had about 5 tell me this was their favorite game they had ever played. Some people would much prefer X is always bad and Y is always good.
...I really wish I could find that article, it really explained the different options well.