Is there any reason bestowing a curse is not considered evil? Numerous third party supplements talk about the nature of curses, channeled by spite with the intention of maiming or crippling the target.
What comes to mind is the Book of Vile Darkness and the Ravenloft Player's Guide. The former talks about other unique curses, greater curses, bloodline curses, etc.; the latter mentions death curses, and the act of cursing someone causes a powers check.
Is it fair to say that curses have a proclivity to be a tool of evil, but are not inherently evil themselves?
Curse in that context is used more to mean "misfortune" than anything necessarily evil, I believe. So you're creating a hindrance to your opponent's ability to fight or accomplish whatever task it is attempting. That's not any more evil than pretty much anything else you can do to your opponents in this game, it just has that implication because of the connotations of the word "curse".
Honestly, is "You suffer -4 on [pretty much all] relevant d20 checks" any more evil than "You are now blind forever"?
From my understanding, evil is more the flavor of what happens.
Mechanically, summoning a quasit is similar to summoning a lantern archon. One is good, the other is evil. This opens up the character to corruption.
Being blind forever vs. suffering a -4 penalty on all d20 checks both impose penalties, I admit, and both suck. But how did it happen? An archon with an aura of menacing that imposes a -4 penalty is a lot different than a spell that causes an opponent's eyes to burst acid in a 10 foot cone, rendering the subject blind. To turn it around, looking upon a nymph and being rendered blind (that image being permanently imprinted upon the subject's inner eye) is a lot different than a wracking curse that causes the subject to experience shooting pains that result in a -4 penalty on all checks...
I suppose the same would apply to curses. If one specifies how the curse is inflicted, one curse could certainly be more evil than another...
*edit* for grammar...
Curses are used by bad people to do mean things to others. But they are also used by good people to either punish or teach a lesson.
The word "Curse" does carry negative connotations. Perhaps another word would be better. But the name is a leftover from an earlier era of D&D where the PCs were essentially 'murder hobos'.
So good outsiders can disguise themselves as beggars and the like, and curse evil-hearted lords in a tropey fashion.
Your cleric can call upon [good deity] to punish the evildoers who are seeking to create disruption and chaos in the peaceful hamlet. They have been "cursed" and find themselves unable to will their bodies to action regularly.
Or, a wizard casts the spell and it permanently saps the strength of the BBEG Ogre or whatever by killing off or impairing skeletal muscle tissue in some fashion (because magic).
Neither of those necessarily involve anything evil. Evil needn't be the flavor of what happens simply because the word "curse" is used. That's the only part that causes confusion because of connotation. If it were called something like "Grave Misfortune" or "Great Adversity" instead, it'd be mechanically the exact same. "Bestow Curse" is fine, it just calls upon a less common usage of the word "curse".
It's definitely something to chew on... bestow adversity just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Character-building exercise?
handicapability?
How does one punish the wicked, if every spell available to do so, is somehow evil?
The forces of good need not take the pacifist approach to all enemies.
Even in legend, gods of good have punished those committing grave, evil deeds.
Bestow Curse is well suited, as a nonlethal punishment.
You're probably right, bbt. Again, this is probably just the connotation of the word curse, which doesn't truly do the intent of the spell/action justice.
Why doesn't Bestow Curse have the "good" descriptor?
Though this is not strictly in the Pathfinder RPG, I usually turn to the Book of Exalted Deeds qualifier for good spells:
- Good spells call upon good deities or energies.
- Good spells summon or improve celestials or other good creatures.
- Good spells involve a personal sacrifice to help another.
- Good spells inspire hope, joy, or similar positive emotions, or they alleviate suffering.
|
The concept of good and evil has always fascinated me, and the different ways people interpret good and evil acts in fantasy games even more so.
You defaulted this post's subject to, "Why doesn't bestow curse have an evil descriptor?" rather than, "Why doesn't bestow curse have the good/evil descriptor?"
I just find that fascinating.
|
Curses are used by bad people to do mean things to others. But they are also used by good people to either punish or teach a lesson.
The word "Curse" does carry negative connotations. Perhaps another word would be better. But the name is a leftover from an earlier era of D&D where the PCs were essentially 'murder hobos'.
When did PCs stop being murder hobos?
