Removing Evil from Magic User Spells

[Thorulfr]

I've recently been editing the spell lists, putting the OD&D spells into a more Holmes-like format, and began to wonder why there were a number of spells that were really more appropriate to Clerics. You have, for example: Protection from Evil; Detect Evil; Protection from Evil, 10' Radius; and Contact Higher Plane.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make these strictly Clerical spells and keep the 'job descriptions' more separated?

[Stormcrow]

"Evil" means "intending harm toward me or my friends." It also means "enchanted or summoned creature." The names are poorly chosen, not the effects.

[zargon]

I think it kind of depends on how you personally see magic in your mind's eye. I read a spell and its description I try to imagine what the caster (be in MU or cleric) is actually doing/creating. I have no trouble imagining a MU tracing a pentagram on his palm and then muttering a few words while he holds his hand towards an ally (Protection from Evil). Because since he's not protecting against "evil" but more accurately "danger" he is warding and protecting his friends. I don't personally feel that his has to be a Cleric spell.

I generally look through the od&d and Ad&d spell lists and select the ones I find balanced and interesting, ascribing them to whichever class seems appropriate in my own vision of the spell.

So if you feel that Protection from Evil or Contact Higher Plane is more clerical than go ahead and ascribe it to your clerics and not your MU's

[Thorulfr]

I've actually been thinking of splitting the "Contact Higher Plane" spell into a Clerical spell (Contact Higher Plane), and a Magic User (Contact Lower Plane.) Not certain yet exactly what planes we are talking about, what sorts of entities answer the phone, or what questions they are each willing to answer; the idea is still in the larval stage.

[Mushgnome]

In my campaigns, magic-user/sorcerers sometimes must bargain with entities that even a chaotic cleric wouldn't touch with a 10' pole, so yeah, they need those spells.

[waysoftheearth]

While chaotic and lawful are define by example in the 3LBBs, the term "evil" is left to referee's interpretation. My own conclusion is that "evil" in the context of the various "....evil" spells means "unnatural".

"Unnatural" includes anything that is conjured, magical, or otherwise supernatural.

By my interpretation then, the various "....evil" spells will affect the undead, demons, elementals, invisible stalkers, spells cast by malicious magic-users and so on. They would not affect malicious men, nor orcs, trolls, and so on -- assuming that these are considered to be "natural" in your campaign.

[llenlleawg]

OD&D also echoes in this sense (and especially when not allowing the "reversed" versions of these spells) the traditional lore that did not see the supernatural world as fundamentally balanced. Rather, the forces of heaven/Law/etc. are of themselves beyond the power of mortals to command. The demons (and the fey, spirits, magical beings in general), however, are subject to certain supernatural limits which can be used as easily by good or wicked people to ward them off, or even compel them to obey.

Personally, I go along with waysoftheearth above and see "evil" to means supernatural evil, with the supernatural rather broadly understood. So, yes, I think that a mighty demon or vampire can be kept from touching a 1st level Magic User who has cast a Protection from Evil. In that sense, it is a powerful spell, not so much because of the spell's power, but because mighty supernatural evils (and even lesser or middling ones, like shadows) I take to have this Achilles' Heel. For my part, I don't see the need for parallel warding against good, even as anti-Clerics have no power against undead (unlike the later AD&D which made evil clerics able to command undead and, even more inexplicably, able to turn paladins!).

From a practical point of view, some version of Prot. from Evil is almost a necessity for any MU who wants to risk conjuring an elemental. If his concentration is broken, its about the best way to ward off the angry elemental making its way to pound/batter/buffet/incinerate him!

[Mushgnome]

Lamentations of the Flame Princess has a variant rule I quite like, whereby all magic users are chaotic, and are affected by spells like Protection From Evil! In other words it is impossible to practice magic without becoming tainted by it.

[aldarron]

Apr 2, 2012 18:35:51 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

"Evil" means "intending harm toward me or my friends." It also means "enchanted or summoned creature." The names are poorly chosen, not the effects.

Ditto. Protection from harmful intent and magical creatures, would be a more accurate, if less colorful name. The spells have nothing to do with alignments or religions.

[waysoftheearth]

Protection from Evil: This spell hedges the conjurer round with a magic circle to keep out attacks from enchanted monsters.

(M&M p23)

The only question here is what qualifies as an "enchanted monster"?

Personally, I assume any unnatural, supernatural, or genuinely magic-using monsters quality as "enchanted".

Detect Evil: A spell to detect evil thought or intent in any creature or evilly enchanted object. Note that poison, for example, is neither good nor evil.

(M&M p24)

Here "evil" means "maliciousness". This spell might, perhaps, be read as "Detect Malice".

Dispell Evil: allows a Cleric to dispell any evil sending or spell

(M&M p33)

As far as dispelling an "evil sending", the question is what qualifies as an "evil sending"? Personally, I take it to mean any conjured, summoned, or otherwise supernatural monster.

As for the second part, one could equally read it to mean; "allows the cleric to dispel any evil sending. Or spell.", or else; "allows the cleric to dispel any evil sending. Or any evil spell."

In the first reading, a spell is simply a spell.

In the second reading, whether a spell is inherently "evil" or not is one for the individual referee to decide. However, whether a spell is employed maliciously should be clearer.

[talysman]

Apr 14, 2012 19:14:39 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Dispell Evil: allows a Cleric to dispell any evil sending or spell

(M&M p33)

As far as dispelling an "evil sending", the question is what qualifies as an "evil sending"? Personally, I take it to mean any conjured, summoned, or otherwise supernatural monster.

As for the second part, one could equally read it to mean; "allows the cleric to dispel any evil sending. Or spell.", or else; "allows the cleric to dispel any evil sending. Or any evil spell."

In the first reading, a spell is simply a spell.

In the second reading, whether a spell is inherently "evil" or not is one for the individual referee to decide. However, whether a spell is employed maliciously should be clearer.

I partially agree with the first reading. To me, it's not just any spell, but any spell that is sent maliciously, similar to the conjured monsters. In other words, just like Detect Evil, Dispel Evil targets malicious actions towards the cleric or the cleric's party.

[jmccann]

Apr 2, 2012 19:33:19 GMT -6 zargon said:

I generally look through the od&d and Ad&d spell lists and select the ones I find balanced and interesting, ascribing them to whichever class seems appropriate in my own vision of the spell.

So if you feel that Protection from Evil or Contact Higher Plane is more clerical than go ahead and ascribe it to your clerics and not your MU's

I like this approach. By explicitly picking spells, renaming some, eliminating some and adding afew, a very different feeling can be given to your campaign with very little work. Look at how many of the new AD&D (those not present in OD&D) spells grew out of play - Mordenkainen's this & that, Bigby's blah blah and so on. Keep the obvious stuff (fireball, sleep) and change up some of the other spells.

Oh and you have an exalt now.

-- edited by jmccann for exaltation

[Necropraxis]

Apr 3, 2012 11:37:43 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

Lamentations of the Flame Princess has a variant rule I quite like, whereby all magic users are chaotic, and are affected by spells like Protection From Evil! In other words it is impossible to practice magic without becoming tainted by it.

I like this interpretation as well, though the similar LotFP rule that all elves are chaotic conflicts with the example alignments given in Men & Magic. So it requires some overruling if you are playing an LBB game; nothing wrong with that, of course.

[thedegenerateelite]

I think m/u spells need MORE evil in them.

How about:

Sleep of Evil - Magical sleep that affects 2-16, (up to 1+1 HD), 2-12 (up to 2+1 HD), 1-6 (up to 3+1 HD), and but 1 up to 4+1 HD of goody-two-shoes guards, townies, or players. Sleep is a nightmare blend of orgiastic succubi torture and the terror of enforced eunich servitude for centuries. Character awake in a fear filled haze, and must make a magic saving throw. Failure makes them curl into a fetal position and cry for 1d6 rounds. They may do nothing else while wimping out, including protect themselves from attack or make any further saving throws.

Light of Evil - A spell to cast light (of evil red Hammer Horrorishness) in a circle 3" in diameter, not equal to full evil light. Goody-two-shoes run to leave the circle of light while bats, fog, mist, bug swarms, and other evil special effects are drawn to the effected area. They gather so thickly that normal vision is impossible and the party would have been better off in the dark. Also resurrects dead vampires, regardless of the method of their destruction.


Levitation of Evil -- think I'll stop here.

[llenlleawg]

Apr 29, 2012 15:50:22 GMT -6 Necropraxis said:

Apr 3, 2012 11:37:43 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

Lamentations of the Flame Princess has a variant rule I quite like, whereby all magic users are chaotic, and are affected by spells like Protection From Evil! In other words it is impossible to practice magic without becoming tainted by it.

I like this interpretation as well, though the similar LotFP rule that all elves are chaotic conflicts with the example alignments given in Men & Magic. So it requires some overruling if you are playing an LBB game; nothing wrong with that, of course.

If you like this idea, but did not want to restrict alignment choices, you could modify it so that for the purposes of Know Alignment or other alignment-oriented effects, all MUs (and elves) count as Chaotic, and likewise that all MUs (and elves), regardless of their moral worth, count as "evilly enchanted creatures" for the purposes of, e.g. Detect Evil, Prot. from Evil, etc.

[Mordorandor]

Apr 14, 2012 19:14:39 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Dispell Evil: allows a Cleric to dispell any evil sending or spell

(M&M p33)

As far as dispelling an "evil sending", the question is what qualifies as an "evil sending"? Personally, I take it to mean any conjured, summoned, or otherwise supernatural monster.

As for the second part, one could equally read it to mean; "allows the cleric to dispel any evil sending. Or spell.", or else; "allows the cleric to dispel any evil sending. Or any evil spell."

In the first reading, a spell is simply a spell.

In the second reading, whether a spell is inherently "evil" or not is one for the individual referee to decide. However, whether a spell is employed maliciously should be clearer.

I'm now reading Three Hearts and Three Lions, by Poul Anderson, and recently came across this scene:

---------------------

"When they made camp, it was high on a slope overgrown with pines.
Holger lopped two saplings with his sword and made a cross of them, which he planted near the bonfire they’d keep going all night. Hugi’s precautions were more pagan, a ring of stones and iron objects laid down with incantations."

....

"[Holger] woke with a jerk. Alianora was shaking him. In the restless light he saw her eyes grown enormous. Her voice was a dry whisper. “List! There’s summat out there!”


He got up, sword in hand, and peered into the gloom. Yes, he could hear them too, the pad-pad-pad of many feet; and he saw the light gleam off slanted eyes.


A wolf howled, almost in his ear. He leaped and slashed with his sword.


Laughter answered, shrill and nasty. “In nomine Patris,” he called, and was mocked by the noises. Either those things were immune to holy names, or they weren’t close enough to be hurt. Probably the former. As his eyes adapted, he saw the  shadows. They glided around and around the charmed circle. They were monstrous.


Hugi crouched by the fire; his teeth clapped in his head. Alianora moaned and crept into Holger’s free arm. He felt how she shuddered. “Take it easy,”
he said.


“But the sendings,” she gasped. “Night-gangers on every hand, Holger! I’ve never erenow been under their siege. I canna look.” She buried her face against his shoulder. Her fingers tightened on his arm till the nails bit."

------------------------

I then came across this thread in my search for any discussion on evil sendings. I'm aligned with Ways on the interpretation, though I take it one degree further to interpret evil as Chaotic, to align strongly with a Poul-ine version of the eternal struggle.

Hugi's "pagan" [non-Lawful?] circle of protection made of stones and iron was able to hedge out the "sendings" from the Chaotic-aligned Faerie. The sendings were "night-gangers," things that seemed wolf-like, with some intelligence.

If Holger the paladin was of sufficient (8th) level, he would have been able to dispel the evil [Chaotic] sendings.

[retrorob]

"Protection from Evil" has 2 effects: grants bonus against "evil" attacks and hedges from "enchanted monster"; these monster don't need to be evil. Recently I'm more and more inclined to identify Chaotic as Evil. For example a cleric can cast "Protection" that keeps out a Balrog (evil demon), "Dispel Evil" works as an exorcism, sending demons back to hell etc.

BTW "Three Hearts and Three Lions" is awesome!

[tetramorph]

I interpret "evil" as "hostility," rather than "chaos."

Law vs. chaos is just exactly NOT good vs. evil. I take that as the point.

I take evil here to be a relative term: evil to the character. That is to say, hostile.

So whenever an MU or CL casts it, it grants bonuses against and hedges enchanted beings who are hostile to them, regardless of alignment.

Thus it never need be a "reversible spell."

---

I have thought of running a campaign or sub-campaign where the spells are more clearly delineated between arcane / clerical. (The thread is somewhere, but I am really bad at finding old threads).

I've also thought of taking away damage dealing spells from MUs, as that is fighting-man (FM) territory. I know, it would be a serious "nerf." But I would explain that it was a low fantasy, S&S setting and ask them to just get into it. It would certainly change play -- no fireball, no lightening bolt, no "death," (but, yes disintegrate!).

MU only charm, no hold. Hold is a CL spell.
MU no continual light. It is a CL spell.
MU no detect evil, CL only.
CL no detect magic, MU only.
MU no remove curse, CL only.
CL dispel evil does NOT remove magic, only MU dispel magic does that.
Fireball becomes create flame. So the MU could set things on fire. (Be careful!)
Lightning bolt becomes control electro-magnetism. If there is a source of electricity, like a thunderstorm or a tesla coil, the MU can control it. Likewise, the MU could use a magnet to grab iron objects, etc.
Cloud kill becomes create fog or smoke -- impenetrable and -4 to attacks, etc. Smoke inhalation damage possible, I suppose.
Control weather with control electro-magnetism could creates some pretty intense lightning-bolt situations!
In place of death spell, conditional sleep, e.g., until kissed by prince, etc. Hits any one person-like monster that can sleep at any level without save!
Almost every clerical spell that could be reversed can be.