Why is undead considered evil?

[Lucy_Valentine]

Ventnor wrote:

I can't think of any situation in which forcing mind-altering drugs on someone else isn't evil. That's essentially what Dominate spells do.

It could situationally be the lesser of available evils. Like how sometimes people are committed to psychiatric treatment against their will.

The werewolf example was a good one. If the options come down to dominate them, beat them unconscious, kill them, or allow them to maul people to death, then dominate is arguably the best option available.

Of course, in a PF context a prepared spellcaster having dominate on hand is a separate ethical question. :)

[Cyrad]

Undeath is an unhealthy state for the mind and soul.

Nevermind the fact your brain might literally rot inside your skull. Undeath degrades your psyche, erodes your soul, severs your connection with the living, and warps your perception of life and death. It also disrupts your soul's life/death cycle. These factors cause every undead to gradually degenerate into a creature of hatred and malice.

That's why undead and spells that create undead are generally evil.

[Seleena Duskmantle]

Lucy_Valentine wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

I can't think of any situation in which forcing mind-altering drugs on someone else isn't evil. That's essentially what Dominate spells do.

It could situationally be the lesser of available evils. Like how sometimes people are committed to psychiatric treatment against their will.

The werewolf example was a good one. If the options come down to dominate them, beat them unconscious, kill them, or allow them to maul people to death, then dominate is arguably the best option available.

Of course, in a PF context a prepared spellcaster having dominate on hand is a separate ethical question. :)

It wasn't PF but 3.5 but I aggree. She had it prepared for not so good ends. She had to prepare 1 enchantment spell each level but it could have been Greater Heroism (IIRC they are the same level).

I have never claimed the character wasn't evil at heart, but I don't think that dominating the Werewolf was an evil act. Not that I cared. Her robes weren't getting any darker.

By the way, I asked the player before casting Dominate on him anyway and he was cool with it. I am against casting this kind of spells on other PCs, but it was an special case.

[Euthyphro]

The undead aren't evil because they're undead. Evil is evil because it involves the undead.

[UnArcaneElection]

^Huh? Plenty of non-Undead Evil exists.

[Euthyphro]

Guilt by association.

[quibblemuch]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Huh? Plenty of non-Undead Evil exists.

Sorry. A joke that didn't land. Google the alias... they can't all be winners.

But this begs the question: is the joke unfunny because I made it, or did I make the joke because it's unfunny?

[PossibleCabbage]

quibblemuch wrote:

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Huh? Plenty of non-Undead Evil exists.

Sorry. A joke that didn't land. Google the alias... they can't all be winners.

Ironically, this is perhaps the most appropriate outcome since IIRC at the end of the Euthyphro, the eponymous character just up and leaves having failed to tell Socrates anything helpful that holds up to scrutiny.

[Isonaroc]

Indulging in the aside about compulsion always being evil:

While I get where folks are coming from, using compulsion isn't any more evil than imprisoning someone against their will. If you bind and gag the BBEG and throw him over the back of your horse to take back to town to face justice, you are functionally removing his free will just as surely as if you used dominate on him.

Yeah, the spell is more squicky, but it's any more or less evil.

[wraithstrike]

Isonaroc wrote:

Indulging in the aside about compulsion always being evil:

While I get where folks are coming from, using compulsion isn't any more evil than imprisoning someone against their will. If you bind and gag the BBEG and throw him over the back of your horse to take back to town to face justice, you are functionally removing his free will just as surely as if you used dominate on him.

Yeah, the spell is more squicky, but it's any more or less evil.

Stopping someone from doing something is not the same as mind control.

Dominate can force you to go kill your best friends. Gagging someone can't.

I do agree that compulsion is not automatically evil, but it still is not comparable to imprisonment.

[Isonaroc]

wraithstrike wrote:

Isonaroc wrote:

Indulging in the aside about compulsion always being evil:

While I get where folks are coming from, using compulsion isn't any more evil than imprisoning someone against their will. If you bind and gag the BBEG and throw him over the back of your horse to take back to town to face justice, you are functionally removing his free will just as surely as if you used dominate on him.

Yeah, the spell is more squicky, but it's any more or less evil.

Stopping someone from doing something is not the same as mind control.

Dominate can force you to go kill your best friends. Gagging someone can't.

I do agree that compulsion is not automatically evil, but it still is not comparable to imprisonment.

Sure it is, it's just more palatable and less versatile. Either way it's suborning a creatures free will and preventing it from acting in accordance with its desires.

[wraithstrike]

Isonaroc wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Isonaroc wrote:

Indulging in the aside about compulsion always being evil:

While I get where folks are coming from, using compulsion isn't any more evil than imprisoning someone against their will. If you bind and gag the BBEG and throw him over the back of your horse to take back to town to face justice, you are functionally removing his free will just as surely as if you used dominate on him.

Yeah, the spell is more squicky, but it's any more or less evil.

Stopping someone from doing something is not the same as mind control.

Dominate can force you to go kill your best friends. Gagging someone can't.

I do agree that compulsion is not automatically evil, but it still is not comparable to imprisonment.

Sure it is, it's just more palatable and less versatile. Either way it's suborning a creatures free will and preventing it from acting in accordance with its desires.

No, it's not and if you don't see the wide gulf between being tied down, and being forced to murder people you love I don't know what to tell you.

[Isonaroc]

wraithstrike wrote:

Isonaroc wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Isonaroc wrote:

Indulging in the aside about compulsion always being evil:

While I get where folks are coming from, using compulsion isn't any more evil than imprisoning someone against their will. If you bind and gag the BBEG and throw him over the back of your horse to take back to town to face justice, you are functionally removing his free will just as surely as if you used dominate on him.

Yeah, the spell is more squicky, but it's any more or less evil.

Stopping someone from doing something is not the same as mind control.

Dominate can force you to go kill your best friends. Gagging someone can't.

I do agree that compulsion is not automatically evil, but it still is not comparable to imprisonment.

Sure it is, it's just more palatable and less versatile. Either way it's suborning a creatures free will and preventing it from acting in accordance with its desires.

No, it's not and if you don't see the wide gulf between being tied down, and being forced to murder people you love I don't know what to tell you.

The act of killing your loved ones is a consequence of compulsion, not the compulsion itself. The difference between being under compulsion and being under physical restraint is a matter of degrees, nothing more.

[Tectorman]

Isonaroc wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Isonaroc wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Isonaroc wrote:

Indulging in the aside about compulsion always being evil:

While I get where folks are coming from, using compulsion isn't any more evil than imprisoning someone against their will. If you bind and gag the BBEG and throw him over the back of your horse to take back to town to face justice, you are functionally removing his free will just as surely as if you used dominate on him.

Yeah, the spell is more squicky, but it's any more or less evil.

Stopping someone from doing something is not the same as mind control.

Dominate can force you to go kill your best friends. Gagging someone can't.

I do agree that compulsion is not automatically evil, but it still is not comparable to imprisonment.

Sure it is, it's just more palatable and less versatile. Either way it's suborning a creatures free will and preventing it from acting in accordance with its desires.

No, it's not and if you don't see the wide gulf between being tied down, and being forced to murder people you love I don't know what to tell you.

The act of killing your loved ones is a consequence of compulsion, not the compulsion itself. The difference between being under compulsion and being under physical restraint is a matter of degrees, nothing more.

To put it another way, what, functionally, is the difference between someone tying up your arm, putiing a gun in your hand, your finger in the trigger, the barrel aimed at a loved one, and then pulling a string on said finger forcing the gun to fire, and doing all that just via magical compulsion instead?

[Lucy_Valentine]

If you were dominated into killing someone you cared about, would you remember the sensations of doing it? Remember their expression, the sounds, the warm blood on your hands? The voice inside screaming to stop, but your body continuing?

Because that sounds pretty bad. Worse even than being helpless while someone else murdered them.

[Ckorik]

I'm amused that this thread considers Police officers to be committing Evil (with a capital E) acts when they put handcuffs on someone. Doctors strapping a patient down to a gurney - Evil.

Charles Manson (who never actually killed anyone - but brainwashed others into doing it for him) - no the brainwashing wasn't Evil - I guess giving the order to kill was... but...

really?

[Isonaroc]

Ckorik wrote:

I'm amused that this thread considers Police officers to be committing Evil (with a capital E) acts when they put handcuffs on someone. Doctors strapping a patient down to a gurney - Evil.

Charles Manson (who never actually killed anyone - but brainwashed others into doing it for him) - no the brainwashing wasn't Evil - I guess giving the order to kill was... but...

really?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm actually arguing the opposite. The act of restraining someone, in and of itself, is not evil: be it done with physical restraint, chemical restraint, or magical restraint. It's the context that matters.

Compelling someone to murder someone: evil.
Compelling someone to stop them from murdering someone: good.
Tying up a dangerous person to prevent them from hurting someone: good.
Tying up a family to prevent them from summoning the authorities while you rob their house: evil.
Giving someone in a psychotic episode a shot of B-52 to keep them from hurting themselves or others: good (or, at least, neutral).
Giving someone a dose of benzodiazepine to assault them: evil.

It's not hard.

[Kileanna]

I have to agree with Isonaroc on this: it's the use that you give to your abilities what defines them as an evil, good or neutral act. An unaligned ability can still be used for evil, but it isn't by definition evil.
Using an evil spell for a good action has two parts: an evil act which is casting and evil spell and a good act that is using it for doing a good thing. But you still have commited an evil act.

[Ckorik]

Isonaroc wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm actually arguing the opposite. The act of restraining someone, in and of itself, is not evil: be it done with physical restraint, chemical restraint, or magical restraint. It's the context that matters.

Until the rule that casting an evil spell turned you evil, this was always the case from AD&D 1e through Pathfinder.

These days context doesn't matter according to RAW - casting an evil spell turns you evil - casting a good spell turns you good. Make the devil cast protection from evil enough times and it turns good.

Context is - itself squicky. Most moral frameworks consider free will to be the only inviolate thing you can't take from someone else - making the removal of free will one of the most evil acts you can do.

Restraint is physical - most discussions of good and evil are spiritual and have to do with what happens to you in the afterlife, while I wouldn't assume real world morals on someone at their game, I think it would be dishonest to ignore that so many real world morality systems would consider the removal of free will as great an act of evil as murder - regardless of the intent or result of the removal.

[Isonaroc]

Ckorik wrote:

Until the rule that casting an evil spell turned you evil, this was always the case from AD&D 1e through Pathfinder.

Pretty sure none of the standard compulsion spells have the evil descriptor, leaving the good or evil of using them completely in hands of context.

Quote:

These days context doesn't matter according to RAW - casting an evil spell turns you evil - casting a good spell turns you good. Make the devil cast protection from evil enough times and it turns good.

Which would matter if dominate person had the evil descriptor. It doesn't, so it isn't. Swinging an axe is only an evil act if you're swinging it to evil ends. Same goes for compulsion, by RAW.

Quote:

Context is - itself squicky. Most moral frameworks consider free will to be the only inviolate thing you can't take from someone else - making the removal of free will one of the most evil acts you can do.

Except that most moral frameworks don't allow for magical compulsion because, y'know, it doesn't actually exist. So the discussion real world philosophers and ethicists have are largely purely academic. In point of fact, however, we limit free will in all sorts of ways every single day. For good or ill we strip people of their rights to make their own decisions all the time, we just implement it by physical means. Again, it is the context that matters.

Quote:

Restraint is physical

Or chemical. You can lump that in with physical, I suppose, but we generally differentiate the two. In either case, if we had access to Pathfinder style magic, if it was a part of daily life that our society had dealt with for centuries, do you really think that we'd really never implement it in ways benefiting society? No one would support laying a geas on someone to prevent recidivism? Casting hold person on a spree shooter? Using dominate person to safely remove someone who is a danger to themself or others from an escalating situation? Do you think our courts wouldn't be under a permanent zone of truth spell?

Quote:

- most discussions of good and evil are spiritual and have to do with what happens to you in the afterlife, while I wouldn't assume real world morals on someone at their game, I think it would be dishonest to ignore that so many real world morality systems would consider the removal of free will as great an act of evil as murder - regardless of the intent or result of the removal.

Again, we already remove people's ability to exercise their free will now, we just do it through non-magical means. Even in our system, intent matters. Intent is the difference between involuntary homicide and first degree murder.

EDUT: Also, I'd argue that plenty of discussions about good and evil happen outside the context of the afterlife, plenty of people are more concerned with how we treat each other in the here and now. However, the waters in Golarion are slightly muddied in this regard, given that any person with access to planeshift can go wander around the afterlife for a while.

[Diffan]

Kileanna wrote:

I have to agree with Isonaroc on this: it's the use that you give to your abilities what defines them as an evil, good or neutral act. An unaligned ability can still be used for evil, but it isn't by definition evil.

Using an evil spell for a good action has two parts: an evil act which is casting and evil spell and a good act that is using it for doing a good thing. But you still have commited an evil act.

The whole point was to contest the idea that an Animate Dead spell has the Evil descriptor. "Manipulating dark energies" is a pretty lame cop-out if it's used for altruistic purposes, just as manipulating fire energies can also have evil outcomes like burning down a orphanage OR have positive outcomes like stopping a war-band of Orcs from killing villagers.

So if a Spell like Dominate has no alignment descriptor because it can be used to compel people to stop hurting themselves and others (ie. the intent and use of the spell determines alignment) despite the gross possibility to do harm to others or make them do things against their will (like killing their family and laughing the whole time) THEN why does Animate Dead have an alignment descriptor when the exact same principal applies? Heck I'd go on to say that even if the soul was "Trapped" inside the body we've already established that compulsion and imprisonment isn't inherently evil (because Dominate)....

[The Sideromancer]

Diffan wrote:

Kileanna wrote:

I have to agree with Isonaroc on this: it's the use that you give to your abilities what defines them as an evil, good or neutral act. An unaligned ability can still be used for evil, but it isn't by definition evil.

Using an evil spell for a good action has two parts: an evil act which is casting and evil spell and a good act that is using it for doing a good thing. But you still have commited an evil act.

The whole point was to contest the idea that an Animate Dead spell has the Evil descriptor. "Manipulating dark energies" is a pretty lame cop-out if it's used for altruistic purposes, just as manipulating fire energies can also have evil outcomes like burning down a orphanage OR have positive outcomes like stopping a war-band of Orcs from killing villagers.

So if a Spell like Dominate has no alignment descriptor because it can be used to compel people to stop hurting themselves and others (ie. the intent and use of the spell determines alignment) despite the gross possibility to do harm to others or make them do things against their will (like killing their family and laughing the whole time) THEN why does Animate Dead have an alignment descriptor when the exact same principal applies? Heck I'd go on to say that even if the soul was "Trapped" inside the body we've already established that compulsion and imprisonment isn't inherently evil (because Dominate)....

And the last part only applies to sentient undead (that you can then ask for consent), since mindless undead explicitly do not have souls in them.

[Rysky]

Because it doesn't.

Dominate > take control of person (not inherently aligned) > make them do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

Create Undead > creates Undead (Evil) > make Undead do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

[PossibleCabbage]

It really seems like the ethics of Dominate are more or less the same as the ethics of Fireball.

Throw a Fireball into a crowd of orphans? Evil.
Throw a Fireball at a vampire in their caste? Fine.

Dominate someone into burning down the orphanage? Evil.
Dominating someone to let you out of your cell in the Vampire's Castle? Fine.

[Ventnor]

Rysky wrote:

Because it doesn't.

Dominate > take control of person (not inherently aligned) > make them do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

Create Undead > creates Undead (Evil) > make Undead do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

See, I disagree with that. Taking control of a person is inherently evil, since you are, in essence, hijacking their body without their soul's permission.

[Rysky]

Ventnor wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Because it doesn't.

Dominate > take control of person (not inherently aligned) > make them do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

Create Undead > creates Undead (Evil) > make Undead do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

See, I disagree with that. Taking control of a person is inherently evil, since you are, in essence, hijacking their body without their soul's permission.

And yet it is not. And nothing in the rules backs that up. If it was inherently evil it would be tagged as such.

Also I don't really know how their soul would even give permission...

[Tarik Blackhands]

Plus if high jacking someone's body without the soul's permission is evil, then I guess forcibly ejecting a person's soul from their body and sending it to the Boneyard without permission (also known as killing them) is an evil act too.

The whole train of logic gets ridiculous in a hurry.

[Lady-J]

they should just remove the alignment tags on all spells and be done with it or if not that add the tags to every spell

[Talonhawke]

Rysky wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Because it doesn't.

Dominate > take control of person (not inherently aligned) > make them do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

Create Undead > creates Undead (Evil) > make Undead do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

See, I disagree with that. Taking control of a person is inherently evil, since you are, in essence, hijacking their body without their soul's permission.

And yet it is not. And nothing in the rules backs that up. If it was inherently evil it would be tagged as such.

Also I don't really know how their soul would even give permission...

I think we can agree that there are probably several spells that should get the evil tag that don't have it. Now Dominate being one of them I personally don't think so.

[Rysky]

Talonhawke wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Because it doesn't.

Dominate > take control of person (not inherently aligned) > make them do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

Create Undead > creates Undead (Evil) > make Undead do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

See, I disagree with that. Taking control of a person is inherently evil, since you are, in essence, hijacking their body without their soul's permission.

And yet it is not. And nothing in the rules backs that up. If it was inherently evil it would be tagged as such.

Also I don't really know how their soul would even give permission...

I think we can agree that there are probably several spells that should get the evil tag that don't have it. Now Dominate being one of them I personally don't think so.

Yeah, there's that Zon-Kuthon torture dimension one that is sadly lacking the [Evil] tag...

[Isonaroc]

Rysky wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Because it doesn't.

Dominate > take control of person (not inherently aligned) > make them do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

Create Undead > creates Undead (Evil) > make Undead do stuff (could be any aligned actions)

See, I disagree with that. Taking control of a person is inherently evil, since you are, in essence, hijacking their body without their soul's permission.

And yet it is not. And nothing in the rules backs that up. If it was inherently evil it would be tagged as such.

Also I don't really know how their soul would even give permission...

Failing their save deliberately, maybe? Eh, regardless, still not evil.

Ventnor wrote:

See, I disagree with that. Taking control of a person is inherently evil, since you are, in essence, hijacking their body without their soul's permission.

And subduing someone and tying them up is also hijacking their body, just physically instead of magically. Plus it's weird to claim that controlling someone to prevent them from doing bad things is somehow worse than killing them, which adventurers do all the time without being evil.

EDUT: Ninja'd

Double EDUT:

Lady-J wrote:

they should just remove the alignment tags on all spells and be done with it

I largely agree with this.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Animate Dead is Evil because it makes Evil. That simple. It traps the soul after death (you can't resurrect someone turned into an undead even with True Resurrection until the undead they've become is destroyed) but you could already do that (Trap the Soul). You need to mess with a corpse but that's Law/Chaos, not Good/Evil. They're forced to obey you but Dominate does that (and they're mindless anyway). So the only difference is that one creates a mobile, shambling murder machine (who exists only to kill).

...wait, why is this a debate again?

If you want a labor force without the Evil it's called Animate Objects. If you insist on zombies you're going to eventually have to deal with them getting lose and murdering everything. That's what free-willed zombies do. And making something that does that is Evil.

[Ckorik]

Rysky wrote:

And yet it is not. And nothing in the rules backs that up. If it was inherently evil it would be tagged as such.

Um - there is nothing in the rules that back that up - the evil descriptor isn't a morality descriptor - it has to do with where the power of the spell comes from.

Not having an evil descriptor doesn't automatically rule out that casting it may itself be an evil act.

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.

A spell (depending on what it did) could be inherently evil and not have the evil descriptor because it fails this test.

For example: Inflict Pain

[Rysky]

If it's not tagged [Evil] then it's only Evil in how you use it, if no matter what every casting was Evil then it would be an [Evil] spell.

If it's inherently Evil then it has the [Evil] tag, something like Inflict Pain or Fireball can become aligned in how they are used. In the middle of a fight against someone trying to kill you? Not evil. Against someone who is helpless/hasn't done anything wrong? Evil cause it's torture/murder.

[Ckorik]

Rysky wrote:

If it's not tagged [Evil] then it's only Evil in how you use it, if no matter what every casting was Evil then it would be an [Evil] spell.

I quoted the rules - they do not say this.

[Rysky]

Ckorik wrote:

Rysky wrote:

If it's not tagged [Evil] then it's only Evil in how you use it, if no matter what every casting was Evil then it would be an [Evil] spell.

I quoted the rules - they do not say this.

They do.

Evil Spells wrote:

Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.

There is also nothing that backs up your claim that certain spells without the [Evil] tag are always evil acts to use no matter.

[captain yesterday]

Rysky wrote:

If it's not tagged [Evil] then it's only Evil in how you use it, if no matter what every casting was Evil then it would be an [Evil] spell.

If it's inherently Evil then it has the [Evil] tag, something like Inflict Pain or Fireball can become aligned in how they are used. In the middle of a fight against someone trying to kill you? Not evil. Against someone who is helpless/hasn't done anything wrong? Evil cause it's torture/murder.

So, when my brother's wizard fireballed the dragon and the only Paladin I ever made twenty seven years ago and the dragon didn't die but my Paladin did, he should've turned evil.

I want a do over!

Of course, if I'd had made a Paladon that wouldn't have even happened. :-)

[Rysky]

captain yesterday wrote:

Rysky wrote:

If it's not tagged [Evil] then it's only Evil in how you use it, if no matter what every casting was Evil then it would be an [Evil] spell.

If it's inherently Evil then it has the [Evil] tag, something like Inflict Pain or Fireball can become aligned in how they are used. In the middle of a fight against someone trying to kill you? Not evil. Against someone who is helpless/hasn't done anything wrong? Evil cause it's torture/murder.

So, when my brother's wizard fireballed the dragon and the only Paladin I ever made twenty seven years ago and the dragon didn't die but my Paladin did, he should've turned evil.

I want a do over!

If he knew he was blasting you then yeah I would say so.

[Ckorik]

Rysky wrote:

There is also nothing that backs up your claim that certain spells without the [Evil] tag are always evil acts to use no matter.

No - what you quoted was about the [evil] tag being an evil act.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

Rysky wrote:

If it's inherently Evil then it has the [Evil] tag,

Nothing in the rules backs this up - your quote doesn't say this - the rules do not say this.

[Rysky]

Ckorik wrote:

Rysky wrote:

There is also nothing that backs up your claim that certain spells without the [Evil] tag are always evil acts to use no matter.

No - what you quoted was about the [evil] tag being an evil act.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

Rysky wrote:

If it's inherently Evil then it has the [Evil] tag,

Nothing in the rules backs this up - your quote doesn't say this - the rules do not say this.

Yes there is, look at every spell with the [Evil] tag, it is inherently evil or uses evil in somme form or fashion.

Conversely there is absolutely nothing to back up your claim that a spell can be inherently Evil and not have that tag (barring that one spell I mentioned), there is absolutely no spell without that tag that states "casting this spell is an Evil act".

That is what you would need in order to back up your claim that a spell can be inherently evil and not have that tag.

[Ckorik]

Rysky wrote:

Yes there is, look at every spell with the [Evil] tag, it is inherently evil or uses evil in somme form or fashion.

Conversely there is absolutely nothing to back up your claim that a spell can be inherently Evil and not have that tag (barring that one spell I mentioned), there is absolutely no spell without that tag that states "casting this spell is an Evil act".

That is what you would need in order to back up your claim that a spell can be inherently evil and not have that tag.

No. I quoted the rules - they don't say this.

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.

The rules state that these things make a spell evil to cast, they offer no opinion on other spells unless they also have alignment descriptors. I gave an example of a spell that is evil to use. Here is another:

Waters of Lamashtu (no link - Inner Sea World guide - 297.

I can find more examples - because being evil isn't what makes the spell take on the descriptor - it requires the actual use of dark powers.

[Rysky]

Waters of Lamshtu say it functions exactly as Curse Water (an [Evil] spell) so the fact that it lacks the [Evil] tag itself is obviously an oversight.

Inflict Pain would not be Evil if used in a fight against someone trying to kill you, otherwise any damaging spell or use of weapons would be Evil since getting stabbed hurts. If you used it just to make someone suffer then it would be an Evil act.

[captain yesterday]

But that's up to the GM to decide. Not the spell.

[Rysky]

Water or Inflict? If Inflict Pain I agree with you.

[captain yesterday]

I'll go with Inflict for now, I haven't read the other spell and so can't comment on it.

Personally, unless it specifically calls it out as an evil act I don't sweat it.

But then, it's really not an issue for us as it might be for others. Kids generally go for Fly, Fireball or Lightning Bolt. I don't think we've ever cast either of those spells. Or created undead.

Although, if you want to see hilarious examples of Create Undead in use check out NobodysHome's Strange Aeons campaign journal. :-)

Edit: After having over fifty characters die in first and second edition I'm probably one of the most player friendly GM out there. :-)

[Ckorik]

Rysky wrote:

Waters of Lamshtu say it functions exactly as Curse Water (an [Evil] spell) so the fact that it lacks the [Evil] tag itself is obviously an oversight.

Inflict Pain would not be Evil if used in a fight against someone trying to kill you, otherwise any damaging spell or use of weapons would be Evil since getting stabbed hurts. If you used it just to make someone suffer then it would be an Evil act.

Umbral Infusion.

or a spell that only bolsters undead isn't evil?

Control Undead.

Just animating them is evil - controlling them isn't.

Possession (and Greater)

Forcing your soul into another body - nope not evil...

Spectral Saluqi

This is an interesting spell in that it creates a temporary undead - it's necromancy - and it says it creates an undead - but not evil.

Empower Undead

Whoops - this one is evil - I guess only some buff spells are ok because they are based on shadow and not evil (eyes Umbral Infusion above).

Repair Undead

Fixing undead - not evil

Magic Jar

Possession = not evil

Skeleton Crew (from Pirates of the Inner Sea)

- create undead from each corpse you touch - but not evil, because they just run a boat.

Baphomet's Blessing

here is one that based on the name and the fact that it's in Inner Sea God's comes from an evil source - but not evil.

Necromantic Burden

This one only exists to make undead harder to control or turn - no other reason for it to exist or be cast - yet it's not evil.

I can go on.

*edit*

I want to point out (for people who may have skipped posts) that this list is spells I would consider evil every time you cast time - yet don't carry the [Evil] descriptor - because the [Evil] descriptor takes more than 'the spell is an evil act' to apply.

That's the entire point here - not that I really believe that a spell like Necromantic Burden would ever be anything but an evil act to cast.

[Rysky]

Ckorik wrote:

Umbral Infusion.

or a spell that only bolsters undead isn't evil?

Control Undead.

Just animating them is evil - controlling them isn't.

Possession (and Greater)

Forcing your soul into another body - nope not evil...

Spectral Saluqi

This is an interesting spell in that it creates a temporary undead - it's necromancy - and it says it creates an undead - but not evil.

Empower Undead

Whoops - this one is evil - I guess only some buff spells are ok because they are based on shadow and not evil (eyes Umbral Infusion above).

Repair Undead

Fixing undead - not evil

Magic Jar

Possession = not evil

Skeleton Crew (from Pirates of the Inner Sea)

- create undead from each corpse you touch - but not evil, because they just run a boat.

Baphomet's Blessing

here is one that based on the name and the fact that it's in Inner Sea God's comes from an evil source - but not evil.

Necromantic Burden

This one only exists to make undead harder to control or turn - no other reason for it to exist or be cast - yet it's not evil.

I can go on.

*edit*

I want to point out (for people who may have skipped posts) that this list is spells I would consider evil every time you cast time - yet don't carry the [Evil] descriptor - because the [Evil] descriptor takes more than 'the spell is an evil act' to apply.

That's the entire point here - not that I really believe that a spell like Necromantic Burden would ever be anything but an evil act to cast.

Umbral Infusion - it buffs undead, but it does by drawing energy from the Shadow Plane to meek them go berserk, don't really see it as Evil in and of itself.

Control Undead -same as dominate, this can have beneficial purposes.

Spectral Saluqi - this falls into the same situation as the Shadowdancer's Shadow, it's a ghost (so varied alignment) and takes on the alignment of the caster so I'd say the spell is aligned to the caster as well.

Empower Undead - where is this spell from? I can't find it anywhere.

Repair Undead - this is Inflict Wounds for Arcane Casters, Negative Energy in and of itself is not Evil.

Magic Jar - on the one hand this is abhorrent like Dominate and similar magics but I wouldn't consider it Evil since the displaced soul is harmed in the possession.

Skeleton Crew - this creates corporeal Undead and specifically references the Bestiary entry so this should definitely have the [Evil] tag.

Baphommet's Blessing - It is Nammed after Baphomet but it does not come from him, it doesn't have his name in parentheses like the spells that do which means you do not have to worship or even be affiliated with him to use it. It's basically a fancy name, just like Expeditious Retreat.

Necromantic Burden - break enchantment for Undead, again the same as Dominate and the like.

[Ckorik]

Quote:

Skeleton Crew - this creates corporeal Undead and specifically references the Bestiary entry so this should definitely have the [Evil] tag.

But it doesn't. And because it doesn't - means it's not evil. Other spells do 'evil' things and call out that they are an 'exception' as we see below.

Quote:

Empower Undead - where is this spell from? I can't...

Sorry - Empower was from the Advanced Bestiary - sometimes I forget that's not an official source (my bad). Bad example.

Control Undead - unlike Dominate - can't be protected from by protection from evil. I always find in these discussions it's interesting that everyone avoids mentioning that dominate is blocked by protection from evil..... almost like it's evil.

Necromantic Burden isn't like break enchantment - I'll link the non-official source because it's not a PRD spell but it matches my text:

Quote:

You make an undead creature more difficult for necromancers and clerics to control via effects such as Command Undead or control undead.

Here are more:

Grim Stalker - creates a haunt that kills - haunts are a type of undead - not evil.

Contact Nalfeshnee - not evil - seems like asking a (more powerful in the overall hierarchy of demons) demon for advice isn't a good act.

Speaking of Umbral Infusion - if investing undead with shadowstuff to make them tougher isn't evil - why is cloak of shadows evil? You only use the shadowstuff for a slight buff. Hard to reconcile. Shadow projection - also evil...

Agonize is evil - even though it does the same thing as inflict pain to an outsider (note that it doesn't have to be a 'good outsider' - just any outsider). Other pain spells that are evil - symbol of pain, wracking ray.

Slave to Sin sure does look evil to me.

Infernal Challenger summons a devil - but is specifically called as non-evil - leading to the 'it must be the intent' argument.

Skin Tag - you use a spirit to infect a host for your own use (it's a bit more complicated) - that seems like it should be evil every time - nope.

Maddening Oubliette - tentacle torture? Blasphemy? Not evil

[Isonaroc]

I think the lack of evil descriptors on many of those spells is less a commentary on their morality and more an issue of editorial oversight. Still, by RAW (unless there is errata) these spells are not evil in and of themselves.