so my group was trying to justify that a NG cleric shouldn't cast necromancy skills and that it would be against my alignment. i think they are full of Cr*P. whats ur opinion?
|
so my group was trying to justify that a NG cleric shouldn't cast necromancy skills and that it would be against my alignment. i think they are full of Cr*P. whats ur opinion?
Well that depends on your concept and choice of deity I'd say. If you were, say, a worshipper of Iomedae, I'd say you couldn't. Your choice of religion would prevent that.
However, if your concept includes white necromancy, such as the elves in Eberron, then I'd be ok.
Just my two cents (I'd say kronur but they aren't worth much these days ;)
1: Clicky.
2: NEI. What's the whole situation? Do you mean no necromancy as in no Gentle Repose or Speak with Dead? Do you mean no necromancy as in no Bestow Curse or Cause Fear? Do you mean no necromancy as in no animating zombies? Do you mean no necromancy as in no animating mummies?
Do note that good-aligned Clerics are forbidden from casting spells with the opposing alignment descriptor, no [Evil] in this case, ruling out the zombie-making spells. However, most other necromancy spells are fair game.
2: NEI. What's the whole situation? Do you mean no necromancy as in no Gentle Repose or Speak with Dead? Do you mean no necromancy as in no Bestow Curse or Cause Fear? Do you mean no necromancy as in no animating zombies? Do you mean no necromancy as in no animating mummies?
Do note that good-aligned Clerics are forbidden from casting spells with the opposing alignment descriptor, no [Evil] in this case, ruling out the zombie-making spells. However, most other necromancy spells are fair game.
sorry, to specify, i have major ranks in use magic device, and was wanting some scrolls of spectral hand :) they say that since its necro its a no no. it isn't subtyped evil. and i'd probably use for good :)
There is nothing inherently evil about necromancy as a whole, and only a very small selection of the spells even have the [Evil] descriptor. Nothing in any source so much as implies an evil connotation to the school as a whole. Using a scroll of Spectral Hand is no more 'evil' than casting Gentle Repose and certainly isn't an alignment violation.
just want to double check that i can use spectral hand to cast healing spells from a distance right?
just want to double check that i can use spectral hand to cast healing spells from a distance right?
No reason why not. You can deliver whatever touch spell you want with the hand, up to level 4.
One cool thing about it is that it's incorporeal, meaning it can touch ghosts and whatnot without having to roll miss chance.
The only problem being that it's a Sorc/Wiz spell of level 2, making it somewhat hard to use for divine casters unless you mutliclass.
so i can't use Use Magic Device skill as said above to use a scroll of spectral hand?
Unless using arcane magic is frowned upon you should be able to cast spectral hand, there is no reason why a good cleric shouldn't be able to cast necromancy spells, unless they are infact [evil].
Clerics are quite capable of casting necromancy spells, being quite adept with necromancy, in some respects outstripping a wizard.
A wand with spectral hand might be a bit easier, the DC is 20 instead of 23 and you get a +2 bonus for having activated the wand at least once before.
Using Spectral hand however to get a free grope on a few women of good repute on the other hand...
Do you actually receive the "touch" sensations through a "Spectral Hand"?
If not I know that the book of exotic fantasy has a spell called grope that does...Using Spectral hand however to get a free grope on a few women of good repute on the other hand...Do you actually receive the "touch" sensations through a "Spectral Hand"?
Hmmmm ...
The more I hear about that book the more I think that I should pick it up.
A wand with spectral hand might be a bit easier, the DC is 20 instead of 23 and you get a +2 bonus for having activated the wand at least once before.
+2 bonus? What?
A wand with spectral hand might be a bit easier, the DC is 20 instead of 23 and you get a +2 bonus for having activated the wand at least once before.+2 bonus? What?
Yeah, this isn't right. I mean, you can take that +2 bonus if you've activated the item before, but only if you're shooting at that Activate Blindly DC of 25! Counterproductive for Wands (DC 20).
A wand with spectral hand might be a bit easier, the DC is 20 instead of 23 and you get a +2 bonus for having activated the wand at least once before.+2 bonus? What?
my bad I misread the section Use Magic Device, the part about activating an item blindly. ^_^
The rest still stands though, wand is easier to use, activates without any check aside from the UMD check usually.
Ninja'd by Robert =p
my bad I misread the section Use Magic Device, the part about activating an item blindly. ^_^
The rest still stands though, wand is easier to use, activates without any check aside from the UMD check usually.
Ninja'd by Robert =p
You had me rereading UMD. I so wanted that to be true for my Mephit familiar, who could really use that +2!
|
|
Necromancy spells are not inherently evil. There is nothing wrong with a "good" necromancer.
Note, however, that undead are inherently evil, as are spells that create them. As a good adventurer, you are generally obligated to destroy undead.
Nothing prevents you from hitting the skeletons with control undead and using them as battle fodder, as long as you smash them afterwards.
It's possible for a DM to rule that necromancy is always evil in a campaign. If a DM were to do that, you'd assume all necromancy spells were subtyped evil. Is it balanced? Probably not. . .necromancy is already pretty subpar compared to ridiculously powerful conjuration. Flavor-wise its fine.
Hmm maybe my next campaign should disallow the use of conjuration spells. . . that would be interesting -- and evil (:
Hmmmm ...
The more I hear about that book the more I think that I should pick it up.
That's still in print? Huh.
BoEF is probably the best book of its kind. Its a rare mature take on the matter when compared to the alternatives (Nymphology, the GUCK, Portable Hole Full of Beer), despite getting bogged down in fetishes at times. I'd certainly recommend it.
Add me in to the chorus that necromantic spells (with the exception of the [evil]modifier spells) are perfectly acceptable. Basically it's just manipulating one of the building blocks of the multiverse (negative energy) for various effects. Some like raising the dead are [evil] and others are neutral.
I personally wouldn't be opposed to houserules that made Magic Jar and Soul Bind [Evil] spells - possession and trapping people's souls typically are bad juju in literature but it would be a houserule variation.
In typical use I'd agree with magic jar and soul bind, however I can imagine soul bind being used on a powerful demon as the only way to contain the evil, in a diablo-like game setting. Certainly not an act for which I'd require an atonement.
In typical use I'd agree with magic jar and soul bind, however I can imagine soul bind being used on a powerful demon as the only way to contain the evil, in a diablo-like game setting. Certainly not an act for which I'd require an atonement.
Soul Binding a demon is one of those potential uses that would probably keep me from making soul bind a categorically evil spell. However the presence of Imprisonment in the spell list does offer many of the same effects and is probably less morally grey.
Further one [evil] act does not an evil person make. I could definitely see a reluctant Tenser (LG Wizard) being forced to cast soul bind on a demon prince like Fraz'urb'luu in order to stop him for a time.
It's not as if LG means you can't do the expedient yet morally dubious thing on occasion. By a similar token a evil creature can occasionally do a kind thing or be nice to certain groups. A NE assassin might be willing to kill adults all day long but draw the line and even be kind to kids.