I wish our DMs did more of _____

[Kangleton]

A druid running around in metal armour and not having any real reason other then 'itz better ac lolz!11' should find that the animals of the woods and the land itself withdrawing from him.

Bahaha! I did that! I still would if I was playing. And you'll never know how I got away with it, because I'll never tell, ever, under any condition in the universe or the galaxy or Toronto, or any subdivision therein. Eat me.

But I think it would be cool if, when players cast evil spells while they have a good alignment or domain, they don't just get an alignment shift, but an IC occurence instead. If a good Cleric casts an evil spell, make an IC consequence, and not necissarily a negative one. Have a zaelot of the Cleric's faith attempt an assassination on him, for his poor use of divine power. Or have the local church judge the Cleric's actions and have a mini-trial of some sort.

These things actually make alignment change interesting, rather than an OOC "Oh shit, I kinda broke character...".

[sharringtonm]

For the most part evil and good spells now have a chance of something happening if your cross alignment and cast them. I couldn't begin to guess the effect, but its implemented. I've heard of one player already figuring this out the hard way. Poor guy.

[Jaeram]

I think this could be debatable. While I would agree with some kind of possibility, for a cleric or other divine caster who receives their powers from their deity, for someone who goes against their alignment having some sort of IC repercussions for casting evil or good spells (depending on alignment) other than an alignment shift. I do not think that arcane casters should have these repercussions though, because they are not deriving their powers from their deity, so they do not have to answer to anyone other than themselves i.e. only having an alignment shift would seem the only thing that is applicable. I know that Orrick is good, but he still normally keeps a Curse of the Putrid Husk spell (which is considered an evil spell) as one of his trump cards for serious situations, as well as an invisibility spell for running away. To him CotPH is just a really strong illusion though, he doesn't see it as evil, if someone is trying to take his life the nature of the spells he uses against them shouldn't be a factor. Now, if he initiated pvp with such a spell I would say maybe, but in fight or flight or self defense I don't think it should matter for arcane casters.

[Gairun]

I'm speaking more about the blatant OOC attitudes some players display instead of the characters they created.

An easy to follow example would be the classic Lawful good paladin I gave above abandoning his companions to get to that phat loot. A DM afterwards playing out that paladins loss of his class abilities would make for awesome rule/role-play enforcement, and an opportunity for the player to really make something out of the situation.

And yes Kang any druid can take heavy armour proficency, (Even at level 1) and I support this, however you should have a good IC reason as to WHY your character takes his feats other then 'lulz ac!11'. A good reason would be your druid follows the earthlord, Grumnbar I think (sp), as that specific sect is known to wear metal armour, rather then the 13 year old WoW kiddie attitude I pointed to above.

I also like Kangs idea of a Zealot showing up to rain holy smitings upon a cleric who has turned his back on his very churchs teaching. I mean why would you ever expect a god in the forgotten realms to grant you powers if you do not follow it's dogma? It is like a giant middle finger to the diety and should be treated as such, especially for a cleric.

Jaeram I believe your post is correct in theory and we could have endless discussions about what spells are inherently 'evil'. We've all seen that useless thread before in some DnD forum, with the standard question 'Isn't a fireball evil? I mean your burning your enemies alive to death'. However we need to remember that the Weave is an active place and even the most powerful mages can never be 100% certain what will happen when they meddle with powerful forces. Perhaps Shar takes an active intrest in an arcane caster if he dabbles too often in the darker sides of magic? I mean there is a reason for the Shadow Weave to exist. . .

[Dark presence]

Well, the problem with druids in metal armor is that A) some FR deities do allow it, B) There are few if any alternatives for druids to get the same AC in non-metal variants in Sundren, and C) Druid restrictions have always been completely arbitrary and make no sense whatsoever (Who remembers the clerics from 2nd edition being unable to use anything but blunt weapons 'because drawing blood is against their ethos'?).

I also wonder how this spell alignment thing works. This is FR afterall, and it is not an alignment-centric world, but deity-centric. Would it make sense for a good/evil or lawful/chaotic cleric of a neutral god to have any penalties whatsoever for casting spells of the opposite alignment? I don't see why. Should their alignment shift? Maybe. Should their deity give a damn? Not in the least.

Another problem with spell alignments is that it often is arbitrary and doesn't make a lot of sense. I have never been convinced about why animating dead is evil when it does not affect the soul in any way, it doesn't require any injury to a living being, and it is a creature fully controlled by the caster. And a lot of what comes out of some of the books (Vile Dead f.ex.) shares this arbitrariness. When fireballs burning people to death are not evil, yet some other spell that doesn't require anything special, but it kills and causes a lot of pain and suffering in the process and it is evil (Noting that the god of suffering in FR is lawful good).

Anyways, not disputing anything I have seen DMs do, but by and large there are a lot of inconsistencies and nonsense in the DnD and FR system that I'm not totally in favor of certain things.

Oh and a little nitpick from the post above, the Shadow Weave/using the Shadow Weave is not evil in itself.

[sharringtonm]

All I can say about evil and good spells in relation to PCs and their alignment is this:

Would your PC willingly and knowingly infliict this punishment on another living being?

Curse Of the Putrid Husk is a good example. Its a sleep spell for all intents and purposes, but because of the way it works, it tortures the mind of the person for a round before it actually knocks them out. Would your good character (wizard, cleric, or otherwise) choose to use that spell over say hiss of sleep or hold person instead?

It comes down to asking yourself, would my PC really use this spell? 99% of the good PCs will say no, and 99% of the evil PCs will say yes.

There are always exceptions, and they will be handled.

Regardless, no one is stopped from using the spells based on their alignment, just know that their CAN be consequences if you do. Like all things, its a risk vs reward determination. And the consequences are 100% handled on a case by case basis. So the effect on a cleric may not be the same as the effect on a bard or a wizard.

I'd like to know where everyone got the idea that the punishment is alignment shifting or diety anger? No DM has ever stated that. Its handled on a Case by Case basis, honest. It is. There is no guaranteed mechanic governing punsihment.

But if you really want to find out, spam casting them.

[nickbeat]

Part of the difference is that a fireball is not inherently evil, while summoning dark forces to control the bodies of the dead is the defniition of evil. See Evil Dead 2.

Ooh, that gives me an idea for an ASH character. But how to simulate the chainsaw hand...

[Gairun]

Well, the problem with druids in metal armor is that A) some FR deities do allow it, B) There are few if any alternatives for druids to get the same AC in non-metal variants in Sundren, and C) Druid restrictions have always been completely arbitrary and make no sense whatsoever.

A) I just said that in my post and used the Earthlord as a good example.

B) First this is wrong, with Elephant hide (+7 natural ac for ten minutes 3-5/day) druids have the ability to get the Highest AC on a low-medium magic PW, my current level 10 druid wearing studded leather armour +1 and dual weilding has an AC of 32. And secondly if all you care about is AC then maybe a Role-Playing server isn't for you.

C) Disagreeing with a rule is one thing, blatantly disregarding it is another.


And about the shadow weave, I never said it was evil. As I said in my post above however was that if you meddle with dark and mysterious powers sometimes bad things can happen.

[Gairun]

Again I'll say, arguing about the morality of spells is a dead-end street. Burning your enemies to death while they are still alive with a fireball, the hiss of smoke, the smell of burning flesh, the tortured screams as they die. Vs. Casting a Curse of the Putrid Husk can be argued to the end of time and really. . . I've never seen anything good come of it. So I would reccomend just going 'Ok, well thats the rule' and living with it, really it's good for you

[Dark presence]

Oh I agree, there are some spells that are very obviously evil based on their descriptions, however I think there are a lot more that are very questionable and at least debatable.

And in DnD, undead are animated by negative energy. This isn't an evil force at all.

[Jaeram]

The reason I used the spell example I did of Curse of the Putrid Husk is because when the DM's implemented this spell and some others the way this spell was described and classified (if I remember correctly) is as an Illusion, Fear, Mind-Affecting, Evil spell (not 100% positive about Fear and Mind-Effecting but I am about Illusion and Evil). While I do not necessarily disagree with the DM's for classifying a spell thusly, I just think the if I have a neutral good or even lawful good wizard I don't think any retribution with the possible exception of a small alignment shift should be applicable, that's all.

Yes I know classifying spells as good an evil could be very tiredly debatable, and could very much depend entirely upon it's use at the time, which is why I think most magic and Mystra are considered to be neutral. (i.e. fireball used to start a camp fire, probably not 'evil', use to kill something 'heavily debatable') So I just tried to focus on the way a certain spell was classified.

[sharringtonm]

Lets take it back to the old: Percieved Alignment.

Say you cast animate dead in front of the Sundren Militia. Does it matter what your character page says? How are they going to view you?

If a local lord asks you to put his brother to sleep with a spell so he can freely discuss sensitive information that he wants to keep private, and you use COTPH on him, how are you going to be viewed?

If a giant demon is rampaging thru the streets and you Call forth a Bolt of Purity to take a huge chunk out of it, how will the citizens view you?

Its really a percieved alignment. In the goblin caves soloing and you use COTPH to drop a goblin. Who cares? You were gonna kill it anyways. Sitting around the campfire and some loudmouth starts irritating you and you use COTPH on them. Yeah, you might have to explain your actions to a few polearms for that one.

Before you cast that highly sought after Abyssal Strength spell, think, how will the people around me feel about me summoning in dark energies of the abyss to make myself more physiclly impressive?

Percieved Alignment.

[Jaeram]

Right, I have to agree that I think just about everything alignment related has to be taken in context. I don't really think certain spells can be classified by simply what they do, as much as they can by the way they are used, I'm obviously not going to CotPH some random guy just so I can laugh at him writhing and then passing out and drooling on the floor, but if I have 3 guys cornering me and I can't run and I decide to reach out and drop their biggest buddy not only in an attempt defend myself and create an opening but to show them I can do it (albeit normally only once since I just keep it as a reserve, but they don't know that) may make them run away as well, and eventually their buddy will wake up, so I didn't have to kill him, that should be bonus points.

[nickbeat]

This discussion has gotten way off track people. DMs need to come to this thread to find suggestions on improvements right?

[Jaeram]

True, it has, apologies for my additions to the hijacking .