I was wondering: if a good character summons demons and fiendish creatures for combat purposes so that good creatures aren't getting put on the front line, is that still an evil act?
What about using bound demons for combat-related roles the same reason?
I'm not really interested in the RAW about this, I'm more interested in opinions. Is it really better to whisk away an angel from whatever good deed they're doing so they can fight for you than it is to call a demon from whatever evil it was up to so it can soak a few hits for the party?
|
Who says it's an inherently Evil act in the first place? Just because a spell has an [alignment] descriptor doesn't mean using it necessarily shifts the caster's alignment in that direction any more than casting lots of spells with a particular [elemental] descriptor will ever threaten to bestow the associated templates on the caster. Otherwise, think of Good magicians consorting with Evil monsters as similar to Good PCs adventuring alongside Evil PCs or collaborating in some manner with Evil NPCs - none of that necessarily has to shift the alignments of anyone involved (Remember, Kids: When the Abyss gazes into you, you gaze also into it).
It's up to the GM but they should tell you before the game starts.
Or just summon some good creatures to balance the scales and you're fine.
Then again if I'm a good caster, I always summon devils/demons when using them to check for traps or be meat shields, I'd feel bad doing anything else.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends a lot on metaphysical information we don't have.
Here are a few reasons it might be evil.
Let's Make a Deal:
Most mythological summoning requires some sort of deal with the creature before or afterwards. That isn't explicitly the case in Pathfinder, outside of the planar ally spells.
But there's a factor buried here. Summon Monster I is obviously enough to bring a being across the planes to you, so why do some creatures require Summon Monster IX?
Maybe it's not that they can't respond to a Summon Monster I, it's that their going rate is a 9th-level spell slot. We don't know what role those spell slots play in their lifecycle, but giving demons power seems like a bad idea.
Frayed Around the Edges:
So, you're casting these spells that pull something from the Abyss into the world for a few rounds, then send it back.
It's entirely possible it brings Abyssal energy with it or the spell draws that area closer to the Abyss. Either of these is problematic. Maybe with enough summoning, tears will begin to open, allowing demons to pass through on their own.
On the other hand, summoning something from the Heavens would do the opposite, spreading law and good.
Lingering Taint:
On a more personal level, using the spells might require the caster channel energy from that plane through themselves, leaving a mark on them.
Even if summoning demons isn't morally incorrect, that residue might make you detect as evil and even weigh your soul down for purposes of what afterlife you're sent to.
This opens the interesting question of people trying to cheat the system by summoning good outsiders, which I feel is a feature, but others might think is a bug. The good outsiders certainly might not appreciate it.
In The Mirror:
If a good wizard and an evil wizard both summon a dire rat, one is celestial and one is fiendish. The dire rat also matches their alignment. They have no choice in this, it's just the way it is.
The summonings are, in some way, a reflection of the caster's life and beliefs. What does it say about the caster when that reflection is a dretch or lemure?
Combat Experience:
Setting aside the mechanical consideration of XP for a moment, responding to summons would be a great way for outsiders to train for battle. You show up, often immediately into a fight, and if you die, it's only for 24 hours.
Given the choice between training the legions of Hell and the choruses of Heaven, the moral choice is pretty clear.
Cheers!
Landon
|
Landon puts it well; if it's an issue your game world can account for it in a variety of ways. I prefer the notion that a Summons involves an agreement between the mortal and an outer planar power wherein both gain something. The summoned creature can never be permanently destroyed (part of the agreement) and obviously gains something for its temporary service. It's up to your imagination what this may be, and the magic may be so old that no one alive remembers what that deal is.
As for morality, if there's an agreement, then the matter is moot other than whether a caster is making deals with the Abyss or Celestials. In fantasy literature, there's never a good reason to summon a demon to the mortal realms, even if you're absolutely sure it's "safe." There's always a price to pay, and if not today, another day. Perhaps the premise for a campaign idea...?
|
|
Since RAW isn't the issue ...
... from the real-world, Abrahamic perspective, it's invariably evil, for reasons both subtle and self-evident.
Hold on, what kind of "Abrahamic" are you talking about, here? I have a feeling it's mainly modern (by which I mean, since around the Elizabethan era) Christian you're thinking of - Jewish, Islamic, and even 1st-millennium AD Christian occultism don't necessarily share that sentiment.
... within the game, it depends entirely on your god's perspective. If he or she permits it, why not? If not, well ... avoid it.If your character has no deity, then it's an amoral act—its morality dependent on intent and result.
It depends on whether we're talking about an arcane or divine magician - most divine magicians couldn't summon monsters of opposing alignments if they tried (remember, a Cleric casting summon monster is talking to their god and saying, "may I please borrow one of your monsters?"). An arcane magician, on the other hand, can worship a deity, but does not depend on them for their power, hence what you say about godless arcane magicians also applies to those among them who do gravitate toward a divine patron.
good outsiders certainly might not appreciate it.
In The Mirror:
If a good wizard and an evil wizard both summon a dire rat, one is celestial and one is fiendish. The dire rat also matches their alignment. They have no choice in this, it's just the way it is.The summonings are, in some way, a...
Exactly, that Fiendish LG Dire Rat vs that LE Celestial Dire Rat are a reflection of the caster... wait?
One rhing to realize is when a creature is following your orders how it follows them iz often left to the creature.
This means that glabrazu "under your controll" when told to kill someone might light them on fire and throw them into a orphanage.
For a lot of fights this isn't an issue but be aware of it they are evil and have their own goals they will push when they have a chance.
|
Depends on what you mean by Summoning. The Summon Monster spell line summons what amounts to a generic copy of the creature in question, thoroughly under control, for less than five minutes. Even a Summoner isn't doing more than 20 minutes. That sounds fine and pretty controllable, all things considered. Though even then some deities might find it inappropriate (I suspect Iomedae is going to frown on it, for example)...and I'd stick with RAW that Clerics of Good Gods can't use Cleric spells for this (the Gods might not strenuously object, but they're not providing the juice).
Planar Binding on the other hand, risks letting a creature of pure, malevolent, evil loose into the world, usually for some sort of personal gain...and is quite thoroughly Evil. Planar Ally, of course, just doesn't work to call anything that's not within a max of one step of your God's Alignment. The Antipaladin's Fiendish Companion would fall under the latter.
In my games any truck with Demons and Devils is an inherently evil act. It's part of the campaign tone. Once or twice, someone might get away with - but repeatedly generally causes an alignment shift- gazing into the Abyss means it gazes into you, and you start to be affected by the demons you summon.
But my games are very strong on the Good vs Evil axis, with each side having an almost palpable feel in the existence of the world. So that particular issue with summoning fits the world.
Same with Undead - you muck about with that, you go evil.
I've thought about using corruption points to model this sort of thing, but never really had to - my players roleplay that stuff out if it comes up. But then they buy into the world and it's themes when they start to play.
|
|
IIRC for most divine casters, it is just impossible.
For an arcane caster, bereft of any kind of divine guidance, it certainly seems like a good idea, for all the reasons you mentioned and then some.
Makes you wonder why the Good gods do not allow their Clerics to do so ;-)
In other words, a good example of the hubris typical of mortal arcane casters is believing that they are wiser than the gods :-))
Alignment is crap, that's my opinion. Ignore it and just play your character.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is crap, that's my opinion. Ignore it and just play your character.
Okay, this is bad advice. Not because Alignment is good, but because it's advising you to ignore a game rule and basic premise that everyone else is probably buying into.
If you're the GM and want to ignore alignment, that's fine, just tell your players.
If you're a player, that's doing the equivalent of saying "Oh, my Dwarf is actually an alien and comes from a floating city three miles from here." in Sandpoint, on Golarion (though admittedly quite a bit less severe). You're messing with the world's assumptions in a way that only the GM is supposed to do.
Now having your character not care about Alignment is another thing entirely, but not putting at least a smidgen of effort in out-of-character in a game that is using it is highly disrespectful to the rest of the group.
Just like insisting that you have an alignment and it must apply to things meaningfully would be disrespectful in a group that doesn't use Alignment.
The Character in question is a Drow wizard who's trying to be good but is still getting the hang of it. Also, she worships Pharasma if Deity is relevant.
My GM tends to be pretty good about these things, but I'm going to need to check in with him about some of the points made above.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Character in question is a Drow wizard who's trying to be good but is still getting the hang of it. Also, she worships Pharasma if Deity is relevant.
My GM tends to be pretty good about these things, but I'm going to need to check in with him about some of the points made above.
Well, RAW, summoning fiends gives spells the Evil descriptor, which makes casting them an Evil act. Just for the record.
Alignment is crap, that's my opinion. Ignore it and just play your character.Okay, this is bad advice. Not because Alignment is good, but because it's advising you to ignore a game rule and basic premise that everyone else is probably buying into.
If you're the GM and want to ignore alignment, that's fine, just tell your players.
If you're a player, that's doing the equivalent of saying "Oh, my Dwarf is actually an alien and comes from a floating city three miles from here." in Sandpoint, on Golarion (though admittedly quite a bit less severe). You're messing with the world's assumptions in a way that only the GM is supposed to do.
Now having your character not care about Alignment is another thing entirely, but not putting at least a smidgen of effort in out-of-character in a game that is using it is highly disrespectful to the rest of the group.
Just like insisting that you have an alignment and it must apply to things meaningfully would be disrespectful in a group that doesn't use Alignment.
Not really the same thing at all.
Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. You play a character, not an alignment. Do what's in-character, and your alignment will be what it will be, assuming your group still uses that.
And, if the GM approves your alien dwarf, then all good.
|
|
Not really the same thing at all.
Ignoring alignment is...at least as I'd define it.
Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around. You play a character, not an alignment. Do what's in-character, and your alignment will be what it will be, assuming your group still uses that.
Sure...but that's not ignoring alignment. That's not caring about Alignment, which is somewhat different. Ignoring it would involve something a bit more active, since Alignment has mechanical effects you can't ignore without significant effort.
If I don't make a backstory (or make a very generic one) and pay no attention to the setting, then I don't care about the setting (which is potentially a problem...but this is just an example). If I actively go against the established setting, despite knowing it, then I'm ignoring it.
We appear to mainly be having a difference of opinion in terminology, here...
And, if the GM approves your alien dwarf, then all good.
Well sure, the example is about if he or she doesn't.
Just to clarify: I don't have the alternative racial trait that lets Drow get a bonus dealing with Demons. I'm not trying to game the system, just to be flavorful.
I wouldn't go so far as to making it a breach of alignment, but it would be within the DM's rights to impose some consequences if you do it haphazardly.
If you summon a fiendish wolf in a lawful good temple, don't be surprised if you get a chewing out from the clerics "How dare you summon that THING in this holy place!"
What I would suggest now, since you can control what you summon is be careful about what you summon under what circumstances.
I wouldn't go so far as to making it a breach of alignment, but it would be within the DM's rights to impose some consequences if you do it haphazardly.
If you summon a fiendish wolf in a lawful good temple, don't be surprised if you get a chewing out from the clerics "How dare you summon that THING in this holy place!"
What I would suggest now, since you can control what you summon is be careful about what you summon under what circumstances.
Well, I do intend to use summoning VERY leniently (I'm an enchanter [manipulator], not a conjurer), and I plan to consider summoning demons a last resort rather than first option.
Well, RAW, summoning fiends gives spells the Evil descriptor, which makes casting them an Evil act. Just for the record.The Character in question is a Drow wizard who's trying to be good but is still getting the hang of it. Also, she worships Pharasma if Deity is relevant.
My GM tends to be pretty good about these things, but I'm going to need to check in with him about some of the points made above.
Yep. Usually you can justify the act if you're killing evil with evil minions because then it's like two birds with one stone.
Calling on the other hand is horribly evil whatever the motive behind it.
|
|
It all goes back to the power fueling a summons. If you feel it's a form of involuntary servitude, that the beings summoned are "forced" to fight for your amusement, then it doesn't really matter what alignment you summon - you're causing possible pain and suffering to benefit your own desires. This creates the premise that Summons are inherently selfish and mired in evil intent.
But since summons are not described as such, it's more likely again as suggested (in role-playing terms, not game mechanics and not a rule-as-written since not every rule needs a written description), that the Summons is a preset agreement. Alignment exists because D&D and Pathfinder are based around simple concepts of hero vs. villain rather than the real-world notion of everything is grey. Summon enough evil and you're infusing yourself with evil. Remember, the game is meant to take place in a fantasy world, not a reflection of modern mores and morality. As such, those who summon good creatures are likely furthering an agenda that favors good-aligned agendas (which perhaps occur on some Outer Plane over a period of centuries) rather than an evil-aligned agenda (which might involve as described strengthening evil combatants or any number of agendas for the Blood War or something more nefarious).
Just because the caster cannot comprehend (in role-playing terms) does not mean there isn't a consequence.
|
|
I look at spells & alignment with the 'intent' of the spell, and there are examples that the rules do too.
Animate Dead is an evil spell, but Skeleton Crew isn't. Why is that?
I always figured it was because of the basic intent of the spell.
Animate dead, you create an unintelligent undead that you can attack people with. While the intent of Skeleton Crew is to man a boat.
As a DM, I would say if you cast animate dead to make a skeleton to push a mill stone around in circles it wouldn't be an evil spell. Likewise if you cast skeleton crew and had them attack farmers it would be evil.
I thought so too at first, then someone pointed me to the Dirge Bard's Dance of the Dead ability. Where you can use undead to attack but it is not Evil.
It seems that the deciding factor is that those undead are NOT permanent, as opposed to those created through Animate Dead.
What you do with the undead you created is another matter completely.
It is an evil act, but casting it once may not change your alignment. It is up to the GM how evil it is. The idea of it comes from media that has people summoning evil monsters, even with good intentions, and it not going well.
Nothing in RAW says its evil and casting any particular spell doesn't effect alignment RAW. Suggesting that it does or should is junk. Such descriptors are attached to spells as a mechanic to make them sync with other alignment mechanics.
What you do with that Demon is what defines the morality of summoning it in relation to the artificial game construct that is alignment.
Nothing else.
Creatures on Table: Summon Monster marked with an "*" are summoned with the celestial template, if you are good, and the fiendish template, if you are evil. If you are neutral, you may choose which template to apply to the creature.
This leads me to believe that the alignment of the creature isn't something most people can choose to begin with.
You reach out into the astral plane with your essence, and the nature of that essence determines what you get. So I don't think summoning an Evil creature is an inherently evil act, because most characters don't get a choice.
However, I DO make it illegal to summon fiends anywhere magic is known in my games. It would be like walking around town with nail bat (fiend) as opposed to walking around town with a shovel (celestial). You could just as easily kill someone with one as with the other, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
Nothing in RAW says its evil and casting any particular spell doesn't effect alignment RAW. Suggesting that it does or should is junk. Such descriptors are attached to spells as a mechanic to make them sync with other alignment mechanics.
What you do with that Demon is what defines the morality of summoning it in relation to the artificial game construct that is alignment.
Nothing else.
RAW, spells that have the Evil Descriptor are evil acts. Descriptors categorize spells under something. Are you saying that [Acid] means it's not acid? Designer side.
The spells casting affecting your alignment isn't exactly RAW, but in concern to whether it is an evil act or not...
It is undeniable evil act to cast a spell with the [Evil] Descriptor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW, spells that have the Evil Descriptor are evil acts. Descriptors categorize spells under something. Are you saying that [Acid] means it's not acid? Designer side.
The spells casting affecting your alignment isn't exactly RAW, but in concern to whether it is an evil act or not...
It is undeniable evil act to cast a spell with the [Evil] Descriptor.
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment.
From the CRB on changing alignment. Bolded section talks about effects on targets ie descriptors attached as a mechanic to make them sync with other alignment mechanics.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Again from the CRB. And I am not seeing anything regarding casting spells with an evil descriptor.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
Again nothing about changing alignment. How it interacts with alignment, yes but that isn't to do with the caster but the target.
Again there is nothing in RAW saying that casting any spell will change your alignment. If there was it would be in the "Changing Alignment" or "What is Evil" bits in the CRB. If it was the intent of the design team it would be there in black and white and it isn't.
|
|
Nothing in RAW says its evil and casting any particular spell doesn't effect alignment RAW. Suggesting that it does or should is junk. Such descriptors are attached to spells as a mechanic to make them sync with other alignment mechanics.
To quote:
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
That's admittedly a bit ambiguous (though 'drawing upon evil powers' sure sounds like an Evil act to me), but if you go to the link mentioned above you'll see that it being Evil is the official position.
Now, you don't need to agree with that (I don't, entirely...as I noted in my first post with Summon Monster spells), but that's clearly how the rules work officially, according to the folks at Paizo, and it seems wise to warn players of this (GMs can just change things). Perhaps RAW was slightly inaccurate, given the corebook's ambiguity, but, to reiterate, it's certainly the official position.
You're throwing "morals" and "Demons" in the same sentence, and expecting it to be a positive (or not-negative) thing?
I'd have to say the silliness of your question answers the question you proposed. In this game, Demons are bad, always have been, always will be, and nothing changes that. A Demon is a Demon is a Demon, and quite frankly, summoning one is never a good thing, and it most certainly will lead to bad things.
|
|
Also Champions of Purity states quite clearly that casting a spell with an Evil descriptor is an evil act ;-)
Oooh! I could've sworn I'd seen that in print somewhere, just couldn't remember where. Yep, that definitely makes it RAW. To quote:
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil, though using spells to create undead is an even more grievous act of evil that requires atonement.
So yeah.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the PFSRD:
Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil...
and:
Characters also risk having their alignment changed if they continually act in accordance with an alignment other than the one they chose. For many characters, this matters little, but in the case of characters bound to a specific alignment for rules-related purposes, an alignment change might mean having to reimagine their entire character.
If you find yourself consistently performing evil acts, that's going to affect your alignment. Summoning a devil to save children from a burning building with its resistance to fire would be an evil act, followed by a good act. A character who routinely performed actions like this would probably be considered neutral, which is where most people fall anyways.
*Ninja'd! XD
Arcane casters and Oracles as Oracles can quite happily cast spells of any alignment. As oddly enough can Paladins as their class write up does not include the alignment limitation. Now on the face of it that isn't an issue as their class spell list includes no evil or chaotic spells. However the unsanctioned knowledge feat would allow them to take such a spell. Casting it could of course be a code violation.IIRC for most divine casters, it is just impossible.
In other words, a good example of the hubris typical of mortal arcane casters is believing that they are wiser than the gods :-))
It would be a violation since it is an evil act. The devs have said such spells are evil.
I believe the scenario itself is highly implausible: He's really willing to select a 1st-level Spell as a permanent addition to his spell list, which he cannot remove or change back, that is Evil in all manner and forms to combat his allies, just so he doesn't physically harm these immortal Angels, in this single instance?
I'm sorry, but there's a fine line between a Paladin having to do something he doesn't want to do because it's right, and a Paladin being a munchkin with his code. That example you gave falls into the latter. "I know, I'll just use what the Bad Guys use against us! They won't suspect a thing, and my deity will praise me for doing what the Bad Guys do!" And then the Ban Hammer comes down on poor mister Paladin. Greetings, Sir Featureless! Welcome to the even more gimped version of the Fighter!
At best, that is a Neutral act, since you're using the Bad Guys' abilities against your own friends and comrades, just so you aren't having to physically harm them. (I'll also point out that essentially banishing your friends to their planes is a much more harmful thing to do than, say, punch them in the gut a couple times or swing a sword across their chest.)
To be honest, the Paladin doesn't have to slaughter the Angels. He doesn't have to do anything to them, considering he has the same immunities and abilities as they do. A smarter idea would be for the Paladin to be casting PFE on his Angel friends, having them set free from the mind control, and then they all go to town on the stupid goobers who foolishly controlled them; they capture them, bring them to their god's chapel/church/temple/whatever, and let them sort it out. Problem solved, and no code or assumed alignment is being breached.
And there we see the idiocy of the alignment system which works in absolutes rather than, say, looking at intention.
Lets say our putative Paladin has chosen unsanctioned knowledge in order to gain access to protection from good. Protection from good is an evil spell. Our Paladin has chosen it because his enemies, a cabal of despicable conjurers, bind and summon good aligned outsiders precisely to make life more difficult for the paladins who oppose them (in particular they are obviously smite proof). Our Paladin, preferring not to slaughter angels, uses the spell to hedge them out so he can avoid them while attacking his despicable enemies.
Would you cause to him fall or atone for his actions?
The idea is that as a good person you will not use evil methods. You will take the more difficult route to avoid evil means. The idea is also based on media tropes about summoning evil beings, and how such actions are evil.
Personally I think protection from good should not be an evil spell. The fact that it is one, is based on the idea of black and white combat, and no shades of grey. Along with the fact that the early developers did not think of good fighting good, or evil fighting evil for the protection from evil spell.
To answer your question most alignment spells would cause a pally to fall in my games. Protection from good and evil and maybe a few others would have the alignment descriptor removed however. Actually I should make that into an actual houesrule in writing.
Fair enough, you made a good point with the PFE; though the example is still poorly thought out.
In addition, good luck getting an Angel to try and kill Paladins who are in their service. You overlooked something:
Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. If you ever roll a natural 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the spell's effect and can escape or attack you.
You summoned it, you try to command it to kill its own mortal servants, but you think it's going to bother, when it's a Celestial who will just come back on its own plane within a short amount of time, of which it will try and come back and kill you, with its ample friends? That request is absolutely unreasonable for it to follow, so it will never agree.
From there, it's only a matter of time until the binder either rolls a 1 and it escapes, brings friends, and shuts down their scheme, or the Paladins come in, break the door down on their little charade, and free the Angel in captivity. (The former of which making for an interesting plot twist for an Evil Campaign, the latter making for an awesome Good Campaign.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the scenario itself is highly implausible: He's really willing to select a 1st-level Spell as a permanent addition to his spell list, which he cannot remove or change back, that is Evil in all manner and forms to combat his allies, just so he doesn't physically harm these immortal Angels, in this single instance?
I'm sorry, but there's a fine line between a Paladin having to do something he doesn't want to do because it's right, and a Paladin being a munchkin with his code. That example you gave falls into the latter. "I know, I'll just use what the Bad Guys use against us! They won't suspect a thing, and my deity will praise me for doing what the Bad Guys do!" And then the Ban Hammer comes down on poor mister Paladin. Greetings, Sir Featureless! Welcome to the even more gimped version of the Fighter!
At best, that is a Neutral act, since you're using the Bad Guys' abilities against your own friends and comrades, just so you aren't having to physically harm them. (I'll also point out that essentially banishing your friends to their planes is a much more harmful thing to do than, say, punch them in the gut a couple times or swing a sword across their chest.)
To be honest, the Paladin doesn't have to slaughter the Angels. He doesn't have to do anything to them, considering he has the same immunities and abilities as they do. A smarter idea would be for the Paladin to be casting PFE on his Angel friends, having them set free from the mind control, and then they all go to town on the stupid goobers who foolishly controlled them; they capture them, bring them to their god's chapel/church/temple/whatever, and let them sort it out. Problem solved, and no code or assumed alignment is being breached.
Summon and calling spells are not mind control so PfE would not release them, but I do agree with your point. He should try to find another way to free them instead of adding a permanent spell to his list.
|
|
And there we see the idiocy of the alignment system which works in absolutes rather than, say, looking at intention.
Lets say our putative Paladin has chosen unsanctioned knowledge in order to gain access to protection from good. Protection from good is an evil spell. Our Paladin has chosen it because his enemies, a cabal of despicable conjurers, bind and summon good aligned outsiders precisely to make life more difficult for the paladins who oppose them (in particular they are obviously smite proof). Our Paladin, preferring not to slaughter angels, uses the spell to hedge them out so he can avoid them while attacking his despicable enemies.
Would you cause to him fall or atone for his actions?
Actually, the alignment system does take note of intention. I just does so systematically. Casting an evil spell is evil, and fighting angel-enslaving conjurers is good. The net result is that you've basically acted in a neutral fashion, i.e., committing an evil act for the sake of a good one. That still, however causes you to fall as a paladin, because you've willingly committed an evil act. It sucks, but that's what it's like being a Paladin: You don't get to take the easy way out.
Which is why Paladins suck.