Is Bestow Curse Spell Good Or Evil?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

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.

Err... It's usually "barely restrained" by the fact that it will do nothing whatsoever for eternity unless explicitly commanded to do something, and it will continue doing that thing forever unless commanded otherwise.

Eeeeeevil, I tell you!

[Kelb_Panthera]

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)

Libris Mortis has a bit about that and BoVD has a similar bit about areas with high concentrations of evil. Bit of overlap there.

[RatElemental]

Err... It's usually "barely restrained" by the fact that it will do nothing whatsoever for eternity unless explicitly commanded to do something, and it will continue doing that thing forever unless commanded otherwise.

Eeeeeevil, I tell you!

Well it does depend on DM a bit, but one of the raw ways to play a mindless uncontrolled undead is that they wander in search of life to destroy, and then destroy it, until they are themselves destroyed.

The other way to play them is they just keep doing whatever they were doing forever. So the skeleton chopping wood clear cuts the forest, and the zombie plowing the fields uproots the entire valley.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Well it does depend on DM a bit, but one of the raw ways to play a mindless uncontrolled undead is that they wander in search of life to destroy, and then destroy it, until they are themselves destroyed.

Well, of course a DM can Rule Zero it, but the Monster Manual is very clear on how skeletons function:

Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, mindless automatons that obey the orders of their evil masters. A skeleton is seldom garbed in anything more than the rotting remnants of any clothing or armor it was wearing when slain. A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative.

Zombies don't explicitly have this limitation, though they are just as mindless.

[tiercel]

Well, of course a DM can Rule Zero it, but the Monster Manual is very clear on how skeletons function.

So if one is ruling on skeletons in a pedantically RAW way, skeletons won’t necessarily obey the commands of a nonevil master because of the “that obey the orders of their evil masters” clause?

[RatElemental]

Well, of course a DM can Rule Zero it

I said RAW. There is an actual algorithm for how to play an uncontrolled mindless undead printed in one of the books (libris mortis, I believe) that details everything down to what search pattern the undead uses when they can't currently see any living creatures to attack and how to react to undead attacking other undead creatures.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

So if one is ruling on skeletons in a pedantically RAW way, skeletons won’t necessarily obey the commands of a nonevil master because of the “that obey the orders of their evil masters” clause?

Apparently. Of course, only an "eeeeevil" master would have a mindless automaton working for him/her/it.

I said RAW. There is an actual algorithm for how to play an uncontrolled mindless undead printed in one of the books (libris mortis, I believe) that details everything down to what search pattern the undead uses when they can't currently see any living creatures to attack and how to react to undead attacking other undead creatures.

RAW is that skeletons do nothing, and the Monster Manual is 100% primary source on that. Any other source that isn't errata or explicitly says it overrides Core? Nyet.

[Bartmanhomer]

What does skeletons and zombies have to do with this thread? I know that animated zombies and skeletons are at the same Necromancy school as Bestow Curse but they're unrelated for what I'm talking about. So I guess in conclusion that the Bestow Curse is a neutral spell, correct?

[Kelb_Panthera]

What does skeletons and zombies have to do with this thread? I know that animated zombies and skeletons are at the same Necromancy school as Bestow Curse but they're unrelated for what I'm talking about. So I guess in conclusion that the Bestow Curse is a neutral spell, correct?

Yup. Like any other spell that lacks an alignment tag, bestow curse is only a tool with which to do good or evil. It is not either in itself.

[Bartmanhomer]

Yup. Like any other spell that lacks an alignment tag, bestow curse is only a tool with which to do good or evil. It is not either in itself.

Ok thank you and everybody else for telling me about it.

[Crake]

Apparently. Of course, only an "eeeeevil" master would have a mindless automaton working for him/her/it.

RAW is that skeletons do nothing, and the Monster Manual is 100% primary source on that. Any other source that isn't errata or explicitly says it overrides Core? Nyet.

I dunno, the monster manual is the primary source on monsters, but libris mortis would be the primary source on undead. Specific trumps general.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I dunno, the monster manual is the primary source on monsters, but libris mortis would be the primary source on undead. Specific trumps general.

Only if Core doesn't conflict, in which case Core wins. LM obviously conflicts with original source, since it says that skeletons are actively malicious, while the MMI entry says they just sit there unless commanded, then never waver from the commands given.

Core is always primary source (except for errata). If the skeleton entry didn't conflict, then you could go with LM as an expansion, but it most definitely does, so MMI wins. DMs may choose to use LM as an alternate, but RAW, LM is wrong.

[Psyren]

Only if Core doesn't conflict, in which case Core wins.

By this "logic," the PHB (primary source on classes) states that there are eleven base classes, removing all the others.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

By this "logic," the PHB (primary source on classes) states that there are eleven base classes, removing all the others.

That wouldn't remove them from the game; it'd just make them no longer be considered "base classes." Not that that would change anything.

[Psyren]

That wouldn't remove them from the game; it'd just make them no longer be considered "base classes." Not that that would change anything.

Not being able to level up or multiclass is a pretty big change from where I'm sitting.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Not being able to level up or multiclass is a pretty big change from where I'm sitting.

Well, you have base classes, racial HD classes, and prestige classes, and you can multiclass amongst all of them. They're not base classes, and they're (mostly) not racial classes, so that means they're all PrCs. Most of them don't have prereqs, though.

[Psyren]

Well, you have base classes, racial HD classes, and prestige classes, and you can multiclass amongst all of them. They're not base classes, and they're (mostly) not racial classes, so that means they're all PrCs. Most of them don't have prereqs, though.

Okay, so you can take the core classes and then prestige class. No Tome of Battle, no Beguiler, no psionics, no incarnum, no warlock, no DFA... sounds fun and perfectly intended

But that was just one example, there are plenty more! The DMG is the primary source for treasure, so you there's no way to include items from MiC or other sources since they're not on the DMG tables. It's also the primary source for traps, so sources like Dungeonscape and SBG are out. It's also the source for the planes, so whole settings are out

Your reading is certainly interesting, but I'm happy I'll never have to use it.

[magic9mushroom]

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)

Libris Mortis has a bit about that and BoVD has a similar bit about areas with high concentrations of evil. Bit of overlap there.

Basically, what he said. Here's BoVD:

ANIMATING THE DEAD OR CREATING UNDEAD
Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity—are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most heinous crimes against the world that a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.

And LM:

While atrocity may serve as a trigger for unlife, it is not enough to bring about a transformation of this magnitude on its own. It requires the very energy that drives dark spirits and their unquenchable thirst for life. That which is dead has no vitality, so where does the energy of animation come from? Negative energy—a force that is marshaled, stored, and utilized mostly by evil creatures, malign deities, and their servants—provides the power for this metamorphosis.

VARIANT RULE: UNDEAD DENSITY
When too many undead are spawned (or gather on their own initiative), the concentration of undead within a given area rises. As the density increases, the influence of so many creatures suffused with negative energy can have real effects. Undead density is expressed in terms of the total Hit Dice of undead in a 100-foot-radius sphere (regardless of intervening walls or other barriers). If the total Hit Dice of undead in this area rises to 1,000 or higher, the saturation of negative energy effectively grants all undead in the area +4 turn resistance. An even higher undead density could grant greater turn resistance, but such density would be difficult to achieve due to space requirements and crowding.

Theoretically, there's a variety of ways negative energy "pollution" could conceivably cause problems, but this is the one that's actually spelled out.

[Thurbane]

According to the warped logic of BoED, poisons are eeevil because "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent.". One could make the same argument of a Bestow Curse imposing an ability score penalty, although a penalty isn't exactly the same as damage, I guess. Would an ability score penalty cause suffering?

Of course, then they go and throw that right out of the window by introducing Ravages, which inflict ability score damage - but it's OK, because they only work on evil targets.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

According to the warped logic of BoED, poisons are eeevil because "Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent.". One could make the same argument of a Bestow Curse imposing an ability score penalty, although a penalty isn't exactly the same as damage, I guess. Would an ability score penalty cause suffering?

Of course, then they go and throw that right out of the window by introducing Ravages, which inflict ability score damage - but it's OK, because they only work on evil targets.

By that logic, inflicting any suffering is evil, considering that most creatures can be incapacitated, therefore making it "undue suffering." Even undead can be brought to heel via Rebuke Undead and various spells like control undead.

Therefore, attacking any creature without the intent to subdue it nonlethally and non-painfully (so no nonlethal damage, since getting punched hurts) is eeeeevil. Even if it's to defend yourself from a sociopath serial killer or to save innocents from having their souls devoured by fiends.

BoED and BoVD are both stupid with a capital STUPID.

[Thurbane]

I know, right? Poisoning someone is evil, but burning them to death with a Fireball is completely humane.

[Bartmanhomer]

I know, right? Poisoning someone is evil, but burning them to death with a Fireball is completely humane.

The actions contradicts itself, does it?