Is Bestow Curse Spell Good Or Evil?

[Bartmanhomer]

I want to know goo the Bestow Curse Spell good or evil because if a wizard or sorcerer cast this spell with a reason to do curse or hex his or her enemy then does this spell consider good or evil?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Like most magic, it's neither in and of itself. It's what you do with it that determines if casting it is a good act, an evil one, or neither. It would be quite difficult, however, to construe most of the effects listed as being in any way beneficial to anyone targeted with the spell so making a convincing argument that it was a good act to cast it will be an uphill battle at best.

[Jack_Simth]

Like most magic, it's neither in and of itself. It's what you do with it that determines if casting it is a good act, an evil one, or neither. It would be quite difficult, however, to construe most of the effects listed as being in any way beneficial to anyone targeted with the spell so making a convincing argument that it was a good act to cast it will be an uphill battle at best.

If you dig through sourcebooks for alternate uses of Bestow Curse, there's things it can explicitly do that folks might want under some circumstances - it's a permanent (removable) contraceptive, for instance.

However: In general, it's a harmful spell. In D&D Morality, working to kill bad creatures is a good thing (as long as the methods aren't [Evil] or [Vile]). As a 5th level Cleric or a 7th level Wizard, it's a useful debuff to attempt, as there's very little that's immune (range may be problematic for the Wizard; Slow is better for most battles). In that sense, casting it can be a good thing: Just like Fireball or Lightning Bolt or Flesh to Stone or [Mass] Inflict [X] Wounds or Harm or whatever. So if you use it in battle with the intent to kill evil things, it's a good act.

[Crake]

However: In general, it's a harmful spell.

That's not quite right, I would call it debilitating, not necessarily harmful. Getting -6 to strength or dexterity for example, isn't harmful, but it is debilitating.

[Pex]

I used Bestow Curse as a buff spell once playing a high level Pathfinder Oracle. The party knew we were to fight advanced troglodytes. We had fought them before, and their stench ability proved problematic for us since not many could resist it. For this next encounter I thought outside the box. For those who were vulnerable to the stench I Cursed them. The effect was to lose your sense of smell. The troglodytes' most potent weapon was rendered useless, and the party wiped them out. Of course I also had the Remove Curse spell for afterwards. Obviously it took a good number of my spell slots, but it was worth it. I still had plenty.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Note that bestow curse and its greater version can be used for effects of the same power level. Also note that a bonus is the same strength as an equal penalty.

Cast it a few times and have fun with your +6 untyped bonus to all six ability scores...

Also, the spell can be used to change the target's sex, according to the BoVD (I believe). Very useful and beneficial if the target has gender dysphoria. Might even give you a chance with someone whose sexual orientation doesn't match yours, assuming they don't mind, anyway.

[Crake]

Note that bestow curse and its greater version can be used for effects of the same power level. Also note that a bonus is the same strength as an equal penalty.

Citation please.

Cast it a few times and have fun with your +6 untyped bonus to all six ability scores...

Would you ever actually expect that to fly at a table? I wouldn't.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Citation please.

It's called "math." |+6| = |-6|

[Crake]

It's called "math." |+6| = |-6|

Which requires more effort? Sitting in bed and atrophying (-6str)? Or going to the gym every day and getting swol (+6str)? More effort required = more powerful. That's called "Common Sense".

Also, y'know, bonuses aren't curses and all that.

[Ravens_cry]

It's called "math." |+6| = |-6|

Except simple math is not all that is at work here. Let's say you cast Giant's Strength on a Wizard. Not likely to be much use, yet a -6 penalty might put their strength so low they can't carry their gear. Depending on the situation, a penalty might be worse than a benefit is good or even contrariwise.

[Valmark]

I want to know goo the Bestow Curse Spell good or evil because if a wizard or sorcerer cast this spell with a reason to do curse or hex his or her enemy then does this spell consider good or evil?

I'm guessing, in general, that if you use it to defend yourself or to protect others or even to help the party in a clever way (like the one who said that it was used to seal the party's sense of smell) it's either good or neutral, while tormenting others would generally be evil.

Note that bestow curse and its greater version can be used for effects of the same power level. Also note that a bonus is the same strength as an equal penalty.

Cast it a few times and have fun with your +6 untyped bonus to all six ability scores...

I mean, tecnically it works, in practice I don't think any DM would let someone use a spell who's example effects are all debuffs and is harmful by name and definition to buff himself or the others.
But if there is then awesome for the player and the monsters who might use it.

[ekarney]

Note that bestow curse and its greater version can be used for effects of the same power level. Also note that a bonus is the same strength as an equal penalty.

Going off other inverse uses of bestow curse, what's the chances of getting a 50% chance to act normally or take double actions?

[3drinks]

Actions aren't good or evil, so much as the person behind them and the motives for invoking the actions.

[Psyren]

Which requires more effort? Sitting in bed and atrophying (-6str)? Or going to the gym every day and getting swol (+6str)? More effort required = more powerful. That's called "Common Sense".

Also, y'know, bonuses aren't curses and all that.

Just to pile on here, compare Ray of Enfeeblement (avg. 4-6 str penalty, ranged, untyped, 1st-level) to Bull's Strength (+4 Str bonus, typed, melee, 2nd-level) and you clearly see there's more than "math" that goes into these calculations.

[GrayDeath]

I want to know goo (??) the Bestow Curse Spell good or evil because if a wizard or sorcerer casts this spell with a reason to do curse or hex (?) his or her enemy then does this spell consider (The spell doesnt consider anything, its a spell, it has no mind) good or evil?

I resisted my urge to do this for many of your posts, but I had to do it this time. (Blame my inner grammar and spelling nazi^^)
Please, puleeease read what you write before pressing send (or at least spend a little more time to translate vague ideas into less vague sentences).
This sentence-mish mash is truly atrocious on both grammar and spelling Levels.
Doing it better will surely help (not just my headache, but also likely provide more people willing to answer your questions, dont you think?^^).



That aside, as others have said, neither.
Unless a Spell is specifically called out as Evil or Good, it is neither.
Whatever you DO with it however still might qualify as an Evil or Good ACTION.

[Bartmanhomer]

I resisted my urge to do this for many of your posts, but I had to do it this time. (Blame my inner grammar and spelling nazi^^)
Please, puleeease read what you write before pressing send (or at least spend a little more time to translate vague ideas into less vague sentences).
This sentence-mish mash is truly atrocious on both grammar and spelling Levels.
Doing it better will surely help (not just my headache, but also likely provide more people willing to answer your questions, dont you think?^^).



That aside, as others have said, neither.
Unless a Spell is specifically called out as Evil or Good, it is neither.
Whatever you DO with it however still might qualify as an Evil or Good ACTION.

Sorry about the bad grammar. I guess my Grammarly app is on the fritz.

[denthor]

If used to say subdue your enemy, to bring them in alive. Useful spell.

If used to say subdue someone just to rob them of a life they care for in front of them why they are helpless to do anything evil.

Not the spell itself the actions afterwards and intent are what determines the good or evil

[Ravens_cry]

I honestly dislike the whole 'Good and Evil' spells thing in D&D. Even healing spells can be used for evil, for example using them to keep a subject alive longer so you can keep torturing them, and you could use Animate Dead to resurrect a draft horse, so a village's harvest can be brought in on time. It's all in how and why you use it.
Anyway, officially, no.

[JeromeKCog]

If we deem the inverse effects to be no more powerful than the normal effects of Bestow Curse then we would end up with everyone who has access to a 5th level Cleric or 7th level Wizard running around with a permanent +6 (untyped) bonus to all ability scores, +4 (untyped) bonus on attack rolls, saves, ability checks and skill checks, and potentially the 50% chance of taking double the number of actions on each of their turns. As a DM I doubt I would let that fly and I don't think I know anyone who would.

I think it's fairly ludicrous to suggest that those inverse effects are remotely equal in power to Bestow Curse's normal effects. However it would also create a world where Remove Curse and Break Enchantment would be used offensively which I find quite amusing.

[Jack_Simth]

If we deem the inverse effects to be no more powerful than the normal effects of Bestow Curse then we would end up with everyone who has access to a 5th level Cleric or 7th level Wizard running around with a permanent +6 (untyped) bonus to all ability scores, +4 (untyped) bonus on attack rolls, saves, ability checks and skill checks, and potentially the 50% chance of taking double the number of actions on each of their turns. As a DM I doubt I would let that fly and I don't think I know anyone who would.

I think it's fairly ludicrous to suggest that those inverse effects are remotely equal in power to Bestow Curse's normal effects. However it would also create a world where Remove Curse and Break Enchantment would be used offensively which I find quite amusing.

The argument could also be made that you only get one option from the list, thanks to one of the Stacking Effects clauses:

Same Effect with Differing Results

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

Which would mean that you can effectively only be under the effects of one "curse" at a time (you can have multiples on you, but only the most recent one has an effect).


Also of note is that Greater Bestow Curse is Cleric-7 and Sor/Wiz-8, has the same logic, and stronger options.

[JeromeKCog]

Which would mean that you can effectively only be under the effects of one "curse" at a time (you can have multiples on you, but only the most recent one has an effect).

Good point, I had completely forgotten about that clause. With that in place, you still should be able to 'benefit' from one Bestow Curse, and one Greater Bestow Curse though right?

This is all under the hypothetical situation that inverting Bestow Curse for benefits would somehow fly with the DM in question of course.

[gogogome]

It doesn't have the evil tag like deathwatch so no it's not evil.

[RatElemental]

It doesn't have the evil tag like deathwatch so no it's not evil.

Deathwatch itself is a bit of a can of worms, only there it's about what on earth the designers were thinking tagging it as evil.

[Crake]

The argument could also be made that you only get one option from the list, thanks to one of the Stacking Effects clauses:
Which would mean that you can effectively only be under the effects of one "curse" at a time (you can have multiples on you, but only the most recent one has an effect).

The stacking example there is in reference to times when mutliple casts of a spell override each other, using shapeshifting spells as the example. You can only polymorph into one thing at a time for example, a second polymorph will override the first. The fact that the specific examples are removed from the SRD makes this less understandable. The line missing from your quote belongs right smack bang in the middle: "For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others."

Note that nothing about future casts of bestow curse make previous castings irrelevant in any way, unlike with a polymorph spell.

[hamishspence]

Deathwatch itself is a bit of a can of worms, only there it's about what on earth the designers were thinking tagging it as evil.

I blame Monte Cook. His BoVD was the first source to recommend changing Deathwatch to Evil (it didn't have the tag in 3.0) and presumably when he was involved in the PHB update to 3.5, he got it changed.

Going by Miniatures Handbook and BoED,the earliest 3.5 splatbooks, both of which put Deathwatch on the spell list of Always Good casters (who might Fall for committing Evil acts) - his decision had not been publicised to other writers.

[Aldrakan]

Note that bestow curse and its greater version can be used for effects of the same power level. Also note that a bonus is the same strength as an equal penalty.

Cast it a few times and have fun with your +6 untyped bonus to all six ability scores...

Pretty sure it can be used for effects of the same power level as determined by GM discretion (as with most "it can also do unspecified other things" abilities), making this a very silly claim.

[magic9mushroom]

I honestly dislike the whole 'Good and Evil' spells thing in D&D. Even healing spells can be used for evil, for example using them to keep a subject alive longer so you can keep torturing them, and you could use Animate Dead to resurrect a draft horse, so a village's harvest can be brought in on time. It's all in how and why you use it.
Anyway, officially, no.

Healing spells aren't [Good], though.

The reason given for Animate Dead being [Evil] is basically that it's bad for the environment; a whole pile of negative energy around a region raises the likelihood of spontaneous reanimation. One casting might not have a direct effect, but statistically if you keep doing it you're going to increase the amount of random villagers eaten by ghouls, drained by allips/shadows/wights, killed by mohrgs, etc. and recklessly hurting random people is Evil.

[Jack_Simth]

The stacking example there is in reference to times when mutliple casts of a spell override each other, using shapeshifting spells as the example. You can only polymorph into one thing at a time for example, a second polymorph will override the first. The fact that the specific examples are removed from the SRD makes this less understandable. The line missing from your quote belongs right smack bang in the middle: "For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail. In this case, the last spell in the series trumps the others."

Note that nothing about future casts of bestow curse make previous castings irrelevant in any way, unlike with a polymorph spell.

"It can be argued" - in the same sense that "it can be argued" that Bestow Curse can give positive effects. One example does not a pattern make.

[Valmark]

Healing spells aren't [Good], though.

The reason given for Animate Dead being [Evil] is basically that it's bad for the environment; a whole pile of negative energy around a region raises the likelihood of spontaneous reanimation. One casting might not have a direct effect, but statistically if you keep doing it you're going to increase the amount of random villagers eaten by ghouls, drained by allips/shadows/wights, killed by mohrgs, etc. and recklessly hurting random people is Evil.

I don't remember this being said anywhere though (it's been a while since I red anything 3.5 related thought)? Or is it something the developers said without writing it down?

To my knowledge Animate Dead just... Animates dead, like the word says, with no real repercussions besides D&D society stigmatizing you (and possibly your party)

[RatElemental]

I don't remember this being said anywhere though (it's been a while since I red anything 3.5 related thought)? Or is it something the developers said without writing it down?

To my knowledge Animate Dead just... Animates dead, like the word says, with no real repercussions besides D&D society stigmatizing you (and possibly your party)

Most of the "wild" undead who rise spontaneously do so because the dead person felt very strong emotions at the time of death, we're subjected to a lot of negative energy shortly before during or after death, or were subjected to some sort of particularly bad tragedy. Or some combination of the three. Animate dead arguably does raise the ambient level of negative energy by creating what is essentially an ongoing link to the negative energy plane on the material.

I think the better argument for why animate dead could be called evil is that you're creating a barely restrained murder machine who will happily slaughter the whole village you have it plowing crops for the second your control slips, such as when you die.