Pocket Plane Group

BG2 Completed Mods => Virtue => Topic started by: Joe on October 28, 2004, 03:28:29 AM

Title: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Joe on October 28, 2004, 03:28:29 AM
I recently picked up the Book of Vile Darkness, and it discusses certain spells and why they are or aren't evil to use. Spells like Animate Dead, Horrid Wilting, Energy Drain, etc... strike me as being evil to use based on what is discussed in the book. I can elaborate if needed, but what do you guys think about that?
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Echon on October 28, 2004, 03:49:12 AM
If Animate Dead in BG was like the one in Player's Handbook, where you animate the bodies of slain enemies, I think it would be fair to have it affect Virtue but since it is basically just a summoning spell, I think it will be difficult to convince the player that he is doing anything particuarly evil.

-Echon
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Joe on October 28, 2004, 02:22:44 PM
Well, the spell apparently "creates" undead creatures to serve you which, regardless of your intentions, brings more negative energy to the world. That would be evil.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Echon on October 28, 2004, 02:37:54 PM
That may be a result of it. Similarly, running around in Amn fighting and killing creatures, even in the name of good, strengthens gods with the portfolios of war, murder, death, strife, etc. Is that evil?

-Echon
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: neriana on October 28, 2004, 03:35:22 PM
If Animate Dead in BG was like the one in Player's Handbook, where you animate the bodies of slain enemies, I think it would be fair to have it affect Virtue but since it is basically just a summoning spell, I think it will be difficult to convince the player that he is doing anything particuarly evil.

-Echon

Does is matter whom you're making into undead? You're raising somebody from the earth to throw at your enemies, I don't see why who they were has anything to do with it. I never have my good characters use it because it sure sounds evil to me.

Why would Horrid Wilting and Energy Drain would be considered evil though?
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Reverendratbastard on October 28, 2004, 04:11:50 PM
Why would Horrid Wilting and Energy Drain would be considered evil though?

 i suspect, at least in EDrain's case, that goes to the 'negative energy' argument, not to mention, what's it a symptom/symbol of?  first things that come to my mind are vampires and succubi.  offhand i can think of no non-evil creatures that inherently have this power.  hence the idea that achieving the same result through the 'indifferent' medium of magic is nevertheless >emulating< an 'evil power' . . . here begins the ends-justify-the-means debate . . .
 as for the wilting, well, it is horrid . . .  :P
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: SimDing0 on October 28, 2004, 04:20:12 PM
A corpse isn't a living object. Much like graverobbing, it's pretty disrespectful, but if you pick up and throw somebody's body at someone, it's not doing a world of harm to the dead guy. Presumably the same applies to magically animating a corpse, no?
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Reverendratbastard on October 28, 2004, 04:31:27 PM

  speaking as a dm/gm/st/whatevz, i would only consider animating the dead to be Bad if it was in direct violation of an actual cemetery or any consecrated space.  as opposed to, say, ancient battlegrounds, which would have a case-by-case basis as far as whether [Tempus] would take offense, whether the area was known for The Decisive Battle or Eternal Conflict or yada yada . . .
  keep in mind of course that this (on the face of it, anyway) is in no way influencing any non-corporeal part of the dead-in-question - unless of course they left a ghost tied to the corpse or some part of it - but is rather feeding Negative Plane energy into the shell.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Echon on October 28, 2004, 05:13:30 PM
Does is matter whom you're making into undead? You're raising somebody from the earth to throw at your enemies, I don't see why who they were has anything to do with it. I never have my good characters use it because it sure sounds evil to me.

What I mean is that to the player, it looks like any other summoning spell. It can used anywhere in game, including places that certainly do not have corpses lying around. If the penalties for using a spell cannot be found in the game but are related to something outside the game, I do not think there should be any.

-Echon
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Kish on October 28, 2004, 05:28:32 PM
It's pretty obvious to the player that the spell is animating skeletons.  That said, I agree with Sim--making corpses get up and attack enemies is tasteless, but not exactly evil.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Reverendratbastard on October 28, 2004, 05:59:25 PM
 
 "dammit, viconia, must you be so - tacky??!"
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: sotona on October 29, 2004, 09:17:16 AM
I recently picked up the Book of Vile Darkness, and it discusses certain spells and why they are or aren't evil to use. Spells like Animate Dead, Horrid Wilting, Energy Drain, etc... strike me as being evil to use based on what is discussed in the book. I can elaborate if needed, but what do you guys think about that?

I think its a good idea. Casting something like Horrid Wilting on the streets should be penalised.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: SimDing0 on October 29, 2004, 09:20:00 AM
Why specifically on the streets? Breaking the law is not necessarily evil.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: sotona on October 29, 2004, 09:53:18 AM
Why specifically on the streets? Breaking the law is not necessarily evil.

I'm trying to say that casting 'evil spells' is evil, according to the ad&d rules AND common sense :)
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: SimDing0 on October 29, 2004, 10:59:29 AM
What defines an evil spell? Horrid Wilting kills your enemies, but then so does Holy Smite. It's not as simple as saying "well the name has 'horrid' in, so it must be evil".
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Is Ignorant on October 29, 2004, 11:09:36 AM
Excuse the name and fact, but why is Horrid Wilting so evil? Does it require the blood of small children as a material component, perhaps? Does it cause the caster to consider going into politics as a fall-back career? Is it called Wilson?

All I can see is that it kills things in an efficient manner. Machiavellian and effective. Is radical dehydration really so evil? Why is incinerating, petrifying, imprisoning, poisoning or exploding someone not considered as evil? Really, virtually any spell that is intended to cause harm could be rationalized as 'evil'. Perhaps a component that penalizes the party for every point of damage done to anyone/thing? :P
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Reverendratbastard on October 29, 2004, 01:26:57 PM
 if it kills innocent bystanders (which it certainly will if there are any in the area of effect) then there's no need for a 'circumstantial' penalty.
 if there aren't innocent bystanders to kill, who cares?  8)
 
 the only technically 'evil' spells in 2e have the word 'unholy' in them.  however, it'd be hard to argue that one should >gain< virtue for casting 'holy smite' or 'holy word' - so why be penalized for the opposite?  (good-aligned priests don't even have the option to cast those, correct?)

 indeed, as a rule it looks like it should be about the results of the casting (which has already been implemented, ne?), and not the casting itself.
 
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: jester on October 29, 2004, 02:47:37 PM
As one of those innocent bystanders: Is this book some mod conent or a rulebook?
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Kish on October 29, 2004, 04:24:04 PM
if it kills innocent bystanders (which it certainly will if there are any in the area of effect)
Actually, no.  Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting only hurts enemies of the caster.  That's a major factor in it being one of the best spells in the game.

The Book of Vile Darkness is a 3ed D&D rulebook.  It, and its counterpart the Book of Exalted deeds, have a lot of dodgy ideas.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Andyr on October 30, 2004, 08:38:49 PM
In 3E at least, a lot of Good and Neutral aligned deities hold that the creation of Undead is an Evil act (Lathander, Kelemvor and some others).
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: jester on October 30, 2004, 08:44:53 PM
Should these gods grant their priests the spell Animate dead at all, if it is deemed an evil spell? I lost track of the access spheres, but the cleric of Lathander has it IIRC.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Andyr on October 30, 2004, 08:57:39 PM
Actually...

If someone has a concrete pnp answer to that one, then we'll change spell access for Cleric Remix for them.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: CamDawg on October 30, 2004, 09:01:42 PM
Oh, good thinking. We already adjust the existing alignment-dependent spells (Holy Smite/Unholy Blight) to depend on deity alignment so this falls right in line with that.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Caedwyr on October 30, 2004, 09:21:47 PM
The funny thing about Kelmvor's specialty priest is that even though he hates undead and those who create undead, he has several special spells granted to his clergy which summon and create undead beings.  ???
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Kish on October 30, 2004, 11:32:53 PM
Should these gods grant their priests the spell Animate dead at all, if it is deemed an evil spell? I lost track of the access spheres, but the cleric of Lathander has it IIRC.
So does Aerie--and I'd say that's fairly indicative of it not being considered an evil spell, since Aerie, alone of all the clerics in the game, can't cast Unholy Blight.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Caedwyr on October 30, 2004, 11:57:02 PM
I agree that within the BGII game mechanics, its just another summoning spell (of course you can always question the morality of summoning spells in the first place).  However, according to the description in the 2nd Edition Priests Spell Compendium, "...Casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil priests use it frequently." What isn't exactly said, is what is so evil about casting this spell, other than disturbing corpses, since it is a magical force animation and not the binding of soul/spirit to the animated remains.

Personally, I don't think the use of spells should have any Virtue effect unless they are obviously evil and take extra care in being unnecessarily painful or degrading.  When it comes down to it, spells are a tool.  Its how they are used which determines good vs. evil.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: rreinier on October 31, 2004, 02:42:53 AM
Wouldn't Imprisonment be evil, regardless of the target?
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: jester on October 31, 2004, 08:56:09 AM
Let's assume there was a spell 'Create Golem'. Is this spell evil? Where does the spirit/soul in the golem come from? Is it an extension of ourself like 'Animate Broom'? My question would be, if the original owners of the skeleton are summoned or just their remains while they dwell on some higher plane and have a game of Bingo or Aquarobic. Point is would they care? As said before my guidebooks 'have nothing to say to me' on that topic. One spell from IWD2 directly slays your enemies and creates undead for you to use in combat which is obviously against their will. This would be evil.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Twit on October 31, 2004, 09:36:43 AM
Wouldn't Imprisonment be evil, regardless of the target?

I would think so, however I'd happily change my mind if I possessed a few scrolls for use at my younger sibling's birthday parties. :D
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: sotona on November 02, 2004, 09:56:37 AM
What defines an evil spell?  Horrid Wilting kills your enemies, but then so does Holy Smite. It's not as simple as saying "well the name has 'horrid' in, so it must be evil".

I think commoners should fear the Undead walking among them. Why they pay no attention to my Skeleton Warrior? And my Finger of Death spell? The poor bastards should flee in terror! Huh?  :)
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: SimDing0 on November 02, 2004, 11:05:27 AM
That's actually true. Considering I do an overhaul of the shout scripts anyway, I imagine I could include an optional component to modify commoner behaviour. What would everyone think about Ding0's Smarter Commoners? Or "Improved Commoners"... :)
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Caedwyr on November 02, 2004, 12:38:47 PM
That's actually true. Considering I do an overhaul of the shout scripts anyway, I imagine I could include an optional component to modify commoner behaviour. What would everyone think about Ding0's Smarter Commoners? Or "Improved Commoners"... :)

Only if we get to see a couple of Demi-lich commoners.  Of course everyone knows that most commoners are actually 18/25 kensai/mages, so they should behave as such. ;)


Other names suggestions include Ding0's Cognizant Commoners, Dingo's Intelligent Commoners.

Smarter Commoners sounds good though. :)
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Andyr on November 02, 2004, 01:15:04 PM
Conversely, Knights of the Radiant Heart would probably attack any summoned monsters or undead.

So how about:

Ding0's Intelligent Knights & Commoners?
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: SimDing0 on November 02, 2004, 01:29:22 PM
Ding0's Intelligent REGEXP ~.*\.cre~
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Reverendratbastard on November 02, 2004, 02:21:15 PM
 
 how about "Ding0's Commoner Sense"?
 
 really low average morale; is it possible to narrow down the possibilities for morale failure to only panic or running?
 
 i like how the imnesvale drunk attacks the paladin-stronghold bully baron fella's henchmage from his chair.  more of that stuff, definitely.  :P
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: sotona on November 03, 2004, 10:27:54 AM
That's actually true. Considering I do an overhaul of the shout scripts anyway, I imagine I could include an optional component to modify commoner behaviour. What would everyone think about Ding0's Smarter Commoners? Or "Improved Commoners"... :)

I like it! :)
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Caedwyr on November 03, 2004, 11:45:08 AM

 how about "Ding0's Commoner Sense"?
 
 

I feel somewhat embarrased that I didn't suggest that one, being a huge fan of bad puns and all.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Reverendratbastard on November 08, 2004, 04:44:36 PM

 how about "Ding0's Commoner Sense"?
 
 

I feel somewhat embarrased that I didn't suggest that one, being a huge fan of bad puns and all.

  such fandom can make it difficult to come up with a GOOD pun such as mine.  8)
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD on December 08, 2004, 10:40:35 PM
D&D waffles back and forth on whether or not animating the dead can be considered an Evil act. Back in 2E the Necromancer's Handbook labled it as "Gray Necromancy", with no real alignment. Come 3E, it's clearly designated as an evil spell-- and with good reason. It doesn't just violate the body-- it violates the soul. It has the Evil descriptor, with a big E. Which seems appropriate-- there's already an Animate Objects spell, which is of an entirely different spell school, several spell levels higher, and produces a weaker 'zombie'. But at least it isn't evil.

In BG2, though? That spell doesn't exist, the game is 2E based, and it really functions like a pretty generic Summon. So.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Avenger_teambg on December 31, 2004, 04:00:07 AM
A corpse isn't a living object. Much like graverobbing, it's pretty disrespectful, but if you pick up and throw somebody's body at someone, it's not doing a world of harm to the dead guy. Presumably the same applies to magically animating a corpse, no?
Uh Sim, i doubt it is a virtuous act to animate corpses. It isn't a virtuous act to open a coffin!
Creating undead is definitely evil and pure necromancy.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Kish on December 31, 2004, 04:05:44 AM
Pure necromancy?  Healing spells are pure necromancy.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Lord Kain on December 31, 2004, 08:54:32 PM
The animate dead spell summons undead it does not create. That means the undead brought forth by the spell had been created by someone else. Your just borrowing it. Once the spell expires or the undead is destoryed it returns to where it came from.

Kish makes a good point that healing spells are under necromancy
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: SixOfSpades on December 31, 2004, 10:26:46 PM
Back in 2E the Necromancer's Handbook labled it [Animate Dead] as "Gray Necromancy", with no real alignment. Come 3E, it's clearly designated as an evil spell-- and with good reason. It doesn't just violate the body-- it violates the soul. It has the Evil descriptor, with a big E.
Not to derail the thread, but I'd like some more information on this. One of the NPCs I've designed is a LN Fighter->Necromancer, who worships Kelemvor and utterly despises liars and law-breakers of all kinds, especially Illusionists like Jan. I was told that he would refuse to cast Animate Dead because it violates everything that Kelemvor stands for: Having a proud Warrior's remains forcibly yanked out of their peaceful repose to serve as a lackey/enforcer for some random Wizard is quite an insult, even if that Wizard happens to have utmost respect for the Lord of the Dead.
The character is a perfectly nice guy, his main flaw is that he's quick to criticize others for practices that he finds dishonest. He wants to join the Cowled Wizards, but at the same time condemns their corruption.
Is there any way that this character could be logically roleplayed?
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Kish on December 31, 2004, 10:45:56 PM
You don't need to cast Animate Dead to function as a necromancer, so that would be simple enough.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Lord Kain on January 01, 2005, 01:41:13 AM
My necromancer character has some thing to say.

"blasted fools they know nothing. Necromancy is not the study of undead. No, it is the study of death, the creation of undead is only a byproduct of the art. Others force the life out of a foe by sword or by fire. We necromancers simply force the life to leave directly. Some frown on how we steal the life out of others to heal our selves. So what if we do. They would have been hurt just the same by magic missile or fireball. Does it matter I instead used vampiric touch to heal myself at the same time I hurt my enemies? I supposed I've done nothing to open your eyes ignorant fools often stay ignorant fools"
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Murdane on January 01, 2005, 01:46:17 AM
He needs to relax. ;)

But yeah, I basically agree.  I've heard different interpretations of the Animate Dead spell.  Perhaps you are just summoning the creatures, perhaps you are just re-animating bones, or perhaps you are indeed calling a person's soul out of reverie simply to fight for you.  I tend to think of the spell as evil and I never have good characters use it, but at the same time I think people should be free to use their discretion.  I don't think a Virtue penalty is needed here.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Andyr on January 01, 2005, 08:43:02 AM
In pnp it is defnitely an evil spell, in 3E+ it even has the [Evil] subtype. ;)

In BGII it is not so clear, because in pnp you actually need a corpse to animate, while in BGII it behaves more like a summoning spell.

Six: Your character probably would refuse to cast Animate Dead, since Kelemvor despises the undead.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Murdane on January 01, 2005, 11:27:41 PM
In pnp it is defnitely an evil spell, in 3E+ it even has the [Evil] subtype. ;)


So I've seen. :) I *think* the spell really does make use of the souls of the dead, which to me is evil...so to be on the safe side I've never had anyone except Viconia cast the spell. However, I'm reluctant to really debate anyone on the subject because I don't know for sure how the spell works. :)
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: SixOfSpades on January 02, 2005, 12:44:44 AM
You don't need to cast Animate Dead to function as a necromancer, so that would be simple enough.
Yeah, except that Animate Dead is pretty much the quintessential Necromancy spell, the single most potent visual symbol of that branch of magic. Besides, Gordon is Levels 8 (Fighter) -> 2 (Mage) when you can first meet him (he lives just off Waukeen's Promenade), and it makes a lot of sense for Gordon to have self-motivated his studies by refusing to wear armor or use his sword until he has learned how to raise the dead. Of course, I could easily change that to Death Spell, another milestone in the necromantic reportoire, but that would put him at Levels 11->2, which is far more EXP than the party could have by that point.

As for the precise ethics of casting Animate Dead, it's worth saying that BG and D&D are two separate games (whether or not they should be is a thorny topic indeed), and that none of the spellcasters in the game, not even Aerie, show any compunction about the spell at all. I believe Valygar does in one of his banters, but then again I may have my signals crossed: I know I wrote an anti-Necromancy banter between Valygar and Gordon, but I'm not sure there's already one with an existing NPC.

BG2 is 2nd edition with touches of 3rd, and some mod content is even bringing in 3.5. In the interests of leaving NPCs like Gordon more possible, I'd like to keep Animate Dead as 'Gray' Necromancy, perfectly acceptable for Neutral characters to use.

Side note: What exactly does Turn Undead do to those Undead who are destroyed by its effects? Suppose Anomen calls up a few Skeleton Warriors to help him out, and when the battle is over he Turns them, so that they don't have to serve him any longer than necessary. Does this cause their souls any harm? Would dispatching them by hand be more humane?
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: jester on January 02, 2005, 04:54:02 AM
What happens to the animated undead, if the caster dies? I always read it as the corpses being animated and not the souls rejoined with their bodies. Which just now tells me that I don't know how FR handles the soul after burial. The berserker warrior you can summon with the Horn of Valhala should be considered an undead too. Correct?

I don't think anyone who chooses the path of a specialist mage school (Kish examples of necromancy for healing are more the cleric's domain) would refrain from exploring every aspect of it. After all I always believed there is a part of scientific background and schooling not unlike alchemy behind the mage specialisations.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Andyr on January 02, 2005, 07:22:08 AM
As far as I know, once enacted the spell is permanent. The death of the creator just means he can't give them any more orders. ;) The skeletons persist until destroyed.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: jester on January 02, 2005, 09:43:00 AM
Jes: Summoned creatures are drawn from a different plane. So they did exist before. When the spell expires, or when they are killed, they are returned unharmed to their home plane.

So summoning anything is not evil as it does not really harm the creatures involved. How about the souls of the animated undead? Aren't they moved by the extended will of the caster instead of their own souls?
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Andyr on January 02, 2005, 11:27:19 AM
Yes and no... The caster has complete control over them in that only he can order them to do anything.

Skeletons and zombies only understand very simple commands, though, and have no initiative. Similar to golems in that respect. ;)

So the caster's will tells them what to do any nobody else can. But the caster is not controlling their every action, and is not aware of them and what they are doing at all times.

The souls, as far as I know, are removed from the afterlife to sit helpless in the bodies.

Note more powerful undead (ghouls, wights and onwards) are sentient and free-willed, but you don't get them with the BG2 spell. In pnp, these are created by other spells such as the aptly-named Create Greater Undead. :)
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD on January 02, 2005, 01:21:57 PM
Grey Necromancy and Animate Dead specifically are fine for use by neutral characters in general. They aren't so much for followers of Kelemvor, who considers the undead to be, without exception, an abomination. Despite this, you could still create this character-- and one very similar to him is described in the Necromancer's Handbook. There was even a Lichslayer Necromancer Kit, though I don't believe you'd be able to replicate that within the BG2 engine. What you could replicate are the various White Necromancy spells. White Necromancy generally contained two types of spells: Healing spells (which worked through health transfer-- the caster gives up hitpoints to heal someone else), and anti-undead spells (which are rather self-explanatory).
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Lord Kain on January 02, 2005, 09:00:36 PM
Andyr right now we are speaking of the Baldur's gate animate dead. The PnP animate dead means nothing. Zero, nota single thing.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Andyr on January 03, 2005, 10:02:32 AM
I know we are talking about BGII. :) But I don't think this makes the pnp rules meaningless. I would say that the thought behind the spell still makes it Evil, even though in BGII you don't need a corpse to cast it on.

Why not, then, just cast one of the Animal or Monster Summoning spells if you don't want a Virtue hit?
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Lord Kain on January 03, 2005, 07:25:59 PM
Animate Dead is more powerful then the summon animal or any of those monster summoning spells.

If you summon an animal or a monster, they may not remember it but they did feel pain as the fault for you. Isn't that more evil then summoning an evil undead which would feel no pain anyways? If we are going to have a virtue hit on spells. What about the ones that call uncontrolled fiends to the battle field.
Releasing an uncontrolled creature upon the area intentionally is evil.

Your not going to hurt anyone by casting BG's animate dead. The spell expires in 8 hours sending the summoned undead back to where they came form. Even if it did animate the dead as named they are only animated for 8 hours then there souls would be free. Raise dead won't bring them back to life they'd need more powerful magic but so what.

Finally if I have to take  a virtue hit to use the most powerful summoning spell (high level abilities aside) then I won't update virtue ever again. Clerics may have restrictions on what spells they can cast based on alignment but wizards do not. Except for Krynn.




Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Murdane on January 03, 2005, 07:49:18 PM
Those are some good points, but is using someone's soul for 8 hours (without their permission) really all that fair?
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: SimDing0 on January 03, 2005, 07:50:50 PM
Are you using their soul, though? I'd be inclined to say it just animated the body.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Murdane on January 03, 2005, 07:53:51 PM
Are you using their soul, though? I'd be inclined to say it just animated the body.

Well, like I said, I'm not sure, so I'm not really going to debate this, nor am I going to insist that people get Virtue penalties for using the spell. :) I said before, I consider the spell evil (and how it is portrayed in pnp does matter to me), but I think it's best to leave it a gray area and let people use their discretion.

However, I also must point out that if using summoned creatures from another plane and making them fight for you is morally wrong, I don't see how that is much worse than using someone else's soul, if it really *is* the soul that's being used for the spell.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: SixOfSpades on January 03, 2005, 08:23:02 PM
If Skeletons and Zombies don't have intelligence ("Take what you will, we might as well be nothing more than mindless skeletons") of their own, can Animating them really cause pain or harm to the souls of those who once resided in them?

[ADD] Oh yeah. If a Virtue penalty of -1 is applied for Skeleton Warriors, that would necessitate a drop of -2 for the various Demon / Fallen Planetar / Fallen Deva summonings, which must then be balanced with +2 bonuses for summoning their non-Fallen versions. So a Sorcerer abusing Project Image could jump from a 1 to a 20 in about two minutes.
Title: Re: Virtue penalty for spell usage?
Post by: Murdane on January 03, 2005, 09:43:46 PM
I think it's the fact that you are playing fast and loose with other peoples souls that would make it wrong.  Souls are considered to be important, and they belong entirely to one person.  I'm not saying it should have a Virtue hit (we haven't even decided if there really are souls inside the skeletons), I'm just saying that it doesn't seem all that ethical to use other people's souls in such a manner, even though it doesn't cause them any pain (and maybe it does, how do we know it doesn't?).