Indeed. But still, for one to judge correctly, context is everything. Aside from very specific forms of magic, there's very little that can be considered 100% evil with no possible morally acceptable use. Mostly, consent is the deciding factor for these forms of magic, by most ethical standards.
It does? I mean, yes, Speak With Dead, and various revival spells, but that connection is likely sympathetic magic more than anything else. The Law of Contagion is an old, old idea, and can easily be applied to things other than those spells. It's seen as a factor in the material components for certain spells, for instance. So it's probably safe to assume that's the reason behind it.
In DnD, creating an undead prevents resurrection of this person.
No, it prevents using the body to revive them. You can still do it with the right spells. Or by breaking them out of whatever afterlife they ended up in, if you really want to.
What about the cases where you cannot get consent? Healing someone mentally impaired, freeing the soul imprisioned in an undead?
Nitpick: I used 'resurrection', not 'true resurrection' or 'wish'. It also prevents use of Reincarnate. But no one ever accused WotC of thorough proofreading.
Then it depends on whether they wanted to be fixed or freed. Basically, did they hate you for what you did afterwards, or did they thank you? On that one, you're risking making things worse, though I can't say I wouldn't be willing to risk that in those cases.
Oh, aye. If they did, 3.5 Truespeakers wouldn't be quite as sh*t as they are. My understanding is that there were a lot of typos in their section of the book they were in, as well as unclear writing.
And if the act of freeing them affects their mind?
... That was cruel. You made me remember. And inventing a mechanism that scales twice as fast for the enemy as for the character (monster CL versus Truespeak skill) for the main mechanic of the character ...
...The act of freeing them would unavoidably affect their mind, that's the point. Now, if you mean 'affects their mind in ways that makes them inclined to agree', that's inevitable. If you improve someone's situation, by their standards, they are going to thank you. If you threw in mind-affecting sh*t in addition to fixing the other stuff, then we run into that consent thing again. If all you're doing is resetting to the default position, then it depends on how they feel in the default position.
Tried to build one, did ya?
So, basically, best judgement call based on the morality(*) of the one performing the action. Where best judgment call is subjective.
Bought the book, read the section, thought 'why not', started reading the forums for the insane interaction you can get (or not), found the discussions ... I mean, I played multi-classed characters for rp reasons, but if the class mechanics actively stop you from using your class features - where's the point???
We're dealing with morality, so it's inevitably going to be somewhat subjective. Judgement calls are made, and you live with the results. Pretty much true of every scenario, really.
You will still find people telling you it's evil because principle (theirs). That might become problematic if you do blood magic in WH(40K or Fantasy) or soul magic on a plane where gods frown upon that.
You'll find people telling you that eating shrimp is an abomination, if you look hard enough.
Well, maybe if you got the bat guano by ripping it out of a sentient bat's digestive track while it was still alive, killing it in the process, they could be similar, but that's just nitpicking.
Torture is fairly ineffective for information gathering.
Possibly, possibly, yes barring legal authority, possibly, yes, the latter, yes, possibly, possibly, yes, everyone has those abilities so no, yes without legal standing but it may be a net good on balance, and four cases of the actual ethical question lying in the determination that the guard is a viable enemy target.
But the next poster's answers will differ, which is why ethics are fun!
