Just curious if some spells like Sorrow, wave of grief, etc were intentionally not given the evil descripter as they have in dnd or not.
i only realised this today so I thought i'd ask.
Spells and spell descripters
-
Yemin
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:08 pm
- Location: On the back of castle oblivion
Spells and spell descripters
I trained up double-edged bananas because the uber-plantain of doom I scored from the beehive quest was the best weapon in the game. Now it's being treated like a bug and they have gimped its damage! That's not fair! My character is ruined!
Re: Spells and spell descripters
And somewhat relatedly... Why nightmare is given an evil descriptor but phantasmal killer and weird aren't? They're pretty much just different strengths of the same effect.
It's like this in SRD, too, I've just never understood why.
It's like this in SRD, too, I've just never understood why.
Nascentes morimur, finisque ab origine pendet.
-
Yemin
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:08 pm
- Location: On the back of castle oblivion
Re: Spells and spell descripters
I believe akin to spell components, alignment descripters are more to do with OOC mechanics than IC sense. Just wasn't sure about the choice of leaving some alignment descripters behind here.
E.g. In dnd, sorrow and wave of grief are both a -3 which are terribly powerful minuses for level 1 and 2 considering things like crushing despair at higher levels imposes less. So they made it more exclusive and consequential with an alignment tag. Because a costly spell component would not be quite as applicable at levels 1 through 4 and the book they were released in: Book of vile darkness was probably meant to support evil parties / characters etc.
E.g. In dnd, sorrow and wave of grief are both a -3 which are terribly powerful minuses for level 1 and 2 considering things like crushing despair at higher levels imposes less. So they made it more exclusive and consequential with an alignment tag. Because a costly spell component would not be quite as applicable at levels 1 through 4 and the book they were released in: Book of vile darkness was probably meant to support evil parties / characters etc.
I trained up double-edged bananas because the uber-plantain of doom I scored from the beehive quest was the best weapon in the game. Now it's being treated like a bug and they have gimped its damage! That's not fair! My character is ruined!
Re: Spells and spell descripters
If they are "evil" spells, does that mean they would only be able to be cast by evil players?
Re: Spells and spell descripters
All PCs who know these sorts of spells can cast them--that is, the code doesn't stop them from doing so. The few exceptions to this I know of being the various clerical alignment-based spells like holy word and such, but those are for different reasons.
But generally speaking, most good-aligned characters shouldn't be casting things like flensing or nightmare even if code says they can. So, it's an RP decision largely. My neutral wizard has little problem with casting certain spells with the evil descriptor, for instance.
I think the more important thing these affect code-wise is resistances, because there are some spells/items that protect specifically against evil effects and whatnot.
But generally speaking, most good-aligned characters shouldn't be casting things like flensing or nightmare even if code says they can. So, it's an RP decision largely. My neutral wizard has little problem with casting certain spells with the evil descriptor, for instance.
I think the more important thing these affect code-wise is resistances, because there are some spells/items that protect specifically against evil effects and whatnot.
Nascentes morimur, finisque ab origine pendet.
Re: Spells and spell descripters
My true neutral cleric has a devil of a time because a lot of the higher level cleric prayers are alignment specific. And there is no "word of neutrality" as far as I know.
-
Yemin
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:08 pm
- Location: On the back of castle oblivion
Re: Spells and spell descripters
I think here like in dnd you can cast a spell of your opposing alignment, it just has alignment consequences for a wizard / bard, and most likely far more severe consequences for a cleric.
A Neutral cleric can cast the spells that are in line with their deity. If we're talking about Waukeen, then i'm not sure she really cares. But if we're talking about a goodly god that allows neutral priests, then casting blasphemy would reap some interestingly harsh rp in the end.
There's a line on the SRD I adore because it goes something like:
Alignment descripter: There is something involved in the casting of these spells that is inherently evil or good, lawful or chaotic, bla bla bla but in the end, In universe it makes little sense. for most spells that are hit with it. Just beware the tags and consequences.
A Neutral cleric can cast the spells that are in line with their deity. If we're talking about Waukeen, then i'm not sure she really cares. But if we're talking about a goodly god that allows neutral priests, then casting blasphemy would reap some interestingly harsh rp in the end.
There's a line on the SRD I adore because it goes something like:
Alignment descripter: There is something involved in the casting of these spells that is inherently evil or good, lawful or chaotic, bla bla bla but in the end, In universe it makes little sense. for most spells that are hit with it. Just beware the tags and consequences.
I trained up double-edged bananas because the uber-plantain of doom I scored from the beehive quest was the best weapon in the game. Now it's being treated like a bug and they have gimped its damage! That's not fair! My character is ruined!
Re: Spells and spell descripters
Are you sure they work? If your alignment is true neutral and you try to cast dictum does it do anything? I haven't tested this.Yemin wrote:
A Neutral cleric can cast the spells that are in line with their deity. If we're talking about Waukeen, then i'm not sure she really cares. But if we're talking about a goodly god that allows neutral priests, then casting blasphemy would reap some interestingly harsh rp in the end.
-
Althasizor
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 6:05 am
- Location: Ba Sing Se
- Contact:
Re: Spells and spell descripters
I'm not really sure if they were left out intentionally or not, but I'd definitely agree with it, if it was done by design. The SRD labels spells like Deathwatch as [Evil], too, even though it's arguably more useful to a healer. They seem more like guidelines, to be honest, and not totally necessary. I mean, you -can- chain lightning an orphanage, which is definitely evil, but it wasn't given that descriptor. (Slightly offtopic) I'm really interested to know why -so many- spells were given the [Evil] descriptor in tabletop, actually, if anyone knows?
What are you talking about? What, that guy?
That was like that when I got here.
That was like that when I got here.
-
Yemin
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:08 pm
- Location: On the back of castle oblivion
Re: Spells and spell descripters
The IC lore behind it isn't how the magic itself is used. The DM is free to shift your alignment if you chain lightning an orphanage because you attacked an orphanage.
Instead, there are some very loose rules that apply to some of these spells that are fluffed up in their source books but the most famous one is animate dead. Far as I've read, animate dead has the evil descripter not because you raise the dead, but because you dredge up negative energy from below and bind it into a construct. That is, as long as that skeleton is animate, there is negative energy supporting the soul or slivers of soul being trapped in it. Equals, reversing the flow of life from grey waste or the seperate realms of the gods back to prime material is fine, but reversing the flow of positive energy up top to negative down below gains the evil descripter because of some vague cosmic rule.
A spell also gains an evil descripter if a component is particularly evil to come buy. Again, has nothing to do with the magic itself or the casting of it. It's always an action involved *around* the magic, etc.
E.g. Animate dead evil because of cosmic rule, soul bind, perfectly fine because all it uses is a black sapphire, dominate monster / person is also perfectly fine because cosmos doesn't care about free will but DM cares about what you use it to get.
The explanation above however has too many vaguarities and exceptions. If you look at where the spells come from and what they do. I believe you'll end up seeing that their purpose designed to tailor who uses them. Their a plain enough way of limiting a caster's utility and power by alignment.
3.5 was wrought with a lot of powerful items that had strict alignment requirements or else. And at a guess because clerics are not as dependant on spells as say a wizard, a lot more spells on their list were made evil / good / law / chaos.
Oh and I'm not really suggesting anything be changed. I was simply curious if it was an oversight or not.
And to Ungtar, I'm 99% sure they'd work, dictum is kind of a finickity spell to test it but considering that a spell like magic circle is dependant on it's recipient whether it works or not and not the caster I'd be willing to make that educated guess.
Instead, there are some very loose rules that apply to some of these spells that are fluffed up in their source books but the most famous one is animate dead. Far as I've read, animate dead has the evil descripter not because you raise the dead, but because you dredge up negative energy from below and bind it into a construct. That is, as long as that skeleton is animate, there is negative energy supporting the soul or slivers of soul being trapped in it. Equals, reversing the flow of life from grey waste or the seperate realms of the gods back to prime material is fine, but reversing the flow of positive energy up top to negative down below gains the evil descripter because of some vague cosmic rule.
A spell also gains an evil descripter if a component is particularly evil to come buy. Again, has nothing to do with the magic itself or the casting of it. It's always an action involved *around* the magic, etc.
E.g. Animate dead evil because of cosmic rule, soul bind, perfectly fine because all it uses is a black sapphire, dominate monster / person is also perfectly fine because cosmos doesn't care about free will but DM cares about what you use it to get.
The explanation above however has too many vaguarities and exceptions. If you look at where the spells come from and what they do. I believe you'll end up seeing that their purpose designed to tailor who uses them. Their a plain enough way of limiting a caster's utility and power by alignment.
3.5 was wrought with a lot of powerful items that had strict alignment requirements or else. And at a guess because clerics are not as dependant on spells as say a wizard, a lot more spells on their list were made evil / good / law / chaos.
Oh and I'm not really suggesting anything be changed. I was simply curious if it was an oversight or not.
And to Ungtar, I'm 99% sure they'd work, dictum is kind of a finickity spell to test it but considering that a spell like magic circle is dependant on it's recipient whether it works or not and not the caster I'd be willing to make that educated guess.
I trained up double-edged bananas because the uber-plantain of doom I scored from the beehive quest was the best weapon in the game. Now it's being treated like a bug and they have gimped its damage! That's not fair! My character is ruined!