I have recently been considering rolling an Inquisitor, and while I realize that an Inquisitor is not necessarily opposed to *all* magic, I am still somewhat worried about having one as a party leader from a roleplaying perspective.
I do intend to have mages in my party, most likely Xan and dual-classed Imoen in BG1, but a lot of the effective magic in the game(s) seems to be...Kind of evil, dishonourable and/or cruel. To use a few relatively low level spells as examples:
The mage's version of throwing sand in the opponent's eyes, but far more effective. Robbing someone of one of their most important senses for hours and then killing them while they're having trouble fighting back doesn't exactly seem like the domain of someone dedicated to truth, justice and the Tyrian way. (Or am I drifting into Tempus territory with rules of warfare here?)
Invades the mind of the target and manipulates it to do your bidding. Dishonourable as hell, and of grey morality at best even if used against evil enemies.
Melf's Acid Arrow:
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the use of poison kind of banned or heavily restricted for Good-aligned characters in P&P Dungeon's & Dragons? Using poison to win seems dishonourable, and the incredible agony Melf's Acid Arrow causes doesn't exactly seem benign, to say the least.
Stinking Cloud and Cloudkill:
There's a reason why we have the Geneva Protocol in our world. Using poison gas to win while you look at a webbed enemy dying in agony from a distance is not exactly the most righteous of paths.
Any thoughts on using such spells in a good-aligned party led by an Inquisitor (again, from an RP perspective), and if it would be viable to do a trilogy run without magic that my Inquisitor would see as distasteful at best?
How is magic treated in the P&P version of the game? I know that there's alignment restrictions on some weapons like the Dagger of Venom, but I've never heard anything about any magic being put under similar restrictions.