Hi, my party has the following:
Fighter
Rogue
Ranger
Cleric
I want to give the cleric some tools for casting damaging spells, for those enemies that have DR and situations like that. I wasn't sure if he could legally use an inflict wand.
Furthermore, maybe I am just going about it the wrong way and maybe the rogue is the one that should be putting ranks in UMD and handling this job.
Input is appreciated.
thanks!
Yes. they can also memorize inflict spells if they wish, they just can't spontaneously cast inflict spells the way they do with cure spells.
Since Inflict Wounds spells are not evil any longer the answer is yes, since the spell is on the cleric's spell list.
|
Absolutely. Neither the cure or inflict spells have an alignment descriptor, and both are on the spell list for all clerics, despite conjuring up positive or negative energy, so any cleric can cast either (or trigger them from scrolls or wands) without any sort of alignment considerations.
In 3e, I had much fun with a Magic/Death domain cleric who could, through the Magic domain, use a Wand of Spectral Hand, to channel his Inflict spells (and Death Touch, from the Death domain) at range. That's not an option in PF, but I'm sure there are ways to get around that (such as UMDing the Wand).
There are third-party sources, and some 3rd edition WotC sources, that define 'bringing negative energy into the world' as always evil, but that notion never made it into core, nor into Pathfinder, as inflict wound spells still do not have the [Evil] descriptor (and cure wounds spells still don't have the [Good] descriptor, which is nice for those evil clerics who want to be able to heal themselves and their minions without being kicked out of their evil churches for 'bringing positive energy into the world'!).
Try this
Burning Disarm
Source Cheliax: Empire of Devils 22
School transmutation (fire); Level cleric 1, druid 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Effect
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target held metal item of one creature or 15 lbs. of unattended metal
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex negates (object, see text); Spell Resistance yes (object)
Description
This spell causes a metal object to instantly become red hot. A creature holding the item may attempt a Reflex save to drop it and take no damage (even if it is not their turn), otherwise the hot metal deals 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4). Circumstances that prevent the creature from dropping the item (such as a locked gauntlet) mean the creature gets no saving throw. The heat does not harm the item, and it does not get hot enough or last long enough to ignite flammable objects. The item cools to its previous temperature almost instantly. If cast underwater, burning disarm deals half damage and boils the surrounding water.
Or this
Admonishing Ray
Source Taldor: Echoes of Glory 24
School evocation [force]; Level cleric 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Effect
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect one or more rays
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
Description
You blast your enemies with rays of nonlethal force. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels you possess beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of nonlethal damage. This is a force effect. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be fired simultaneously and aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other. The rays hit about as hard as a punch from a strong adult human, and can knock away unattended objects weighing up to 10 pounds if that amount of force could normally do so.
or this
Swipe
Source Pathfinder #5 62
School conjuration (teleportation); Level cleric 2, sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Effect
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one held item
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
Description
By flicking a finger in the appropriate direction and proclaiming ownership, you attempt to magically wrest an item from the target’s grip and summon it to your hand. To claim an object held by an opponent, you must make a grapple check against the target. Size modifiers are not factored into this grapple check and you use your Intelligence modifier rather than your Strength modifier on your CMB roll. Your target uses his Strength modifier as normal in their CMD. If you fail, the target retains his item and the spell fails. If you succeed, the item teleports into one of your free hands or comes to rest at your feet.
If the item wrested from your target’s hands is a weapon, you can cause it to make a single melee attack against the target. This attack is made using your base attack bonus and, if it hits, deals damage normal for the weapon plus your Intelligence modifier.
thanks guys!
Evil people can do good things pretty much with impunity.
That is a GMs call.
I beg to differ,channeling negative energy is an evil act in 3.0 and 3.5, this was indeed a core rule and can even be found in the 3.5 SRD under Conbat II, Turning the last line of the section on clerics ( before the paladin section) reads " Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil." Both Players handbooks have lines reading that same way.
Channeling negative energy is an evil act, I woul assume that some good gods would be more upset about this than others. However, Evil clerics would not care as with rare exception the most evil still want life and goodness for them and their minons. Evil people can do good things pretty much with impunity. Good people do not have the same luxury.
This is a rule specific to Turning/Rebuking. In 3.0/3.5 the verb "channel", as it applies to positive or negative energy, is never used, even once, to describe anything but Turning/Rebuking.
"By Asmodeus pen! My bodyguard is in trouble. Here, Draz, have some healing!"
Battle continues, and Draz eventually dispatches the heroic intruders.
"Smashing good job, Draz! Now, let's..."
"Sir, I wish to resign from my job as your bodyguard. I had no idea you were willing to compromise your ideals and resort to using positive energy. I can't serve someone who isn't dedicated to evil."
"But, but..."
"Bye, sir. Good luck with the godslaying."
|
|
I beg to differ,channeling negative energy is an evil act in 3.0 and 3.5, this was indeed a core rule and can even be found in the 3.5 SRD under Conbat II,
That's probably true, but since we weren't talking about channel energy, I didn't bother looking it up.
We were talking about cure and inflict spells.
But hey, differ away! Vive la difference!
|
I beg to differ,channeling negative energy is an evil act in 3.0 and 3.5, this was indeed a core rule and can even be found in the 3.5 SRD under Conbat II, Turning the last line of the section on clerics ( before the paladin section) reads " Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil." Both Players handbooks have lines reading that same way.
Channeling negative energy is an evil act, I woul assume that some good gods would be more upset about this than others. However, Evil clerics would not care as with rare exception the most evil still want life and goodness for them and their minons. Evil people can do good things pretty much with impunity. Good people do not have the same luxury.
I agree that Inflict Light Wounds isn't only for evil clerics anymore while channeling negative energy IS, because I think it's fair to distinguish between CLW and channeling energy.
The reason for not classifying Cause Light Wounds evil is that good clerics aren't necessarily pacifists - if they can use other spells to damage all creatures, then they can use CLW to damage creatures as well.
The difference between channeling positive and negative energy is NOT the fact that one cures and the other harms - they both do now. It just depends on whom the spell is aimed at. So, for example, channeling positive energy harms undead creatures, whereas channeling negative energy actually HEALS undead creatures. Since undead creatures are revived by Negative energy, then it would make sense that it wouldn't be within the power of a Good cleric to heal Negative creatures.
Also, I didn't necessarily like the game imbalance caused by nerfing evil clerics in older D&D, who couldn't use CLW to heal their party and could only use to CLW to do a touch attack that their weapons could deal anyway.
Let's just say I fervently disagree with the poster trying to stick negative energy spells into the rebuke undead mechanics. Sorry, but it doesn't have the Evil descriptor, it's not evil. The portion calling it evil is specifically about, and contained within, the rules for Turn & Rebuke Undead.
Likewise, it mentions evil characters using spells like Raise Dead, and a character knows if he's being restored by an evil cleric and can turn it down (since the evil cleric might be trying to revive him to interrogate/torture/ransom him).
Clercis can use both, but in either case one is more offensively minded and the other is more defensively minded (unless you're undead, then switch the roles).
I beg to differ,channeling negative energy is an evil act in 3.0 and 3.5, this was indeed a core rule and can even be found in the 3.5 SRD under Conbat II,That's probably true, but since we weren't talking about channel energy, I didn't bother looking it up.
We were talking about cure and inflict spells.
But hey, differ away! Vive la difference!
Channeling energy is bring it into the world.
Further Inflict spells specifically channel negative energy.
SRD:Inflict Light Wounds
Necromancy
Level: Clr 1, Destruction 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will half
Spell Resistance: Yes
When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).
Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it.I can't manage to copy from the PRD but here is a link
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/inflictLightWounds.html#inflict-l ight-woundsYou can see that in both cases the spells declare you are channelling negative energy. So if channelling negative energy is evil, and inflict spells channel negative energy, then casting inflict spells is evil.
Channeling for the class feature, and for the spell are used in different context. The spell is just fluff, and the other is just a name for a class feature. The two are not related. The inflict spell would have the evil descriptor if it was evil. At the least it would have verbiage similar to the summon spells that says the spells are evil when used a certain way.
I don't think it is. Evil people, agian with the rare exception, embrace good things for them and theirs. The definition of good involves respecting and nurturng life, assuming evil peopledon't default kil their own children in a GMs campaign, I think it is a given that Evil people can do good things. Howeveer, unless good people can kill their children in your campaign the same does nto apply. Good people are held to a standard of behavior in a way that evil epole are not.Evil people can do good things pretty much with impunity.That is a GMs call.
Evil people can do good things pretty much with impunity.
That is still a GMs call.
Evil characters can certainly show kindness and magnanimity.But an evil cleric or anti-paladin cannot do so without the risk of incuring its patron's wrath. "With impunity" is a stretch in my book.
EDIT: In the example you refer to the cleric is just making a sound tactical choice, whether it can even be defined as a good act is up to debate.
Another example is, a cleric of Urgathoa arrives at a plague contaminated village. Upon seeing all the sick villagers she feels compasion for them and decides to heal the all with her magic.
Would Urgathoa be annoyed? I think she would.
So, in 3.5, a cleric of the core god St. Cuthbert, who picked the Destruction Domain, (one of the 4 allowed domains for this god) Could not use a good chunk of his domain spells, because St. Cuthbert does not allow channeling negative energy nor evil clerics?
Let's just say I fervently disagree with the poster trying to stick negative energy spells into the rebuke undead mechanics. Sorry, but it doesn't have the Evil descriptor, it's not evil. The portion calling it evil is specifically about, and contained within, the rules for Turn & Rebuke Undead.
Likewise, it mentions evil characters using spells like Raise Dead, and a character knows if he's being restored by an evil cleric and can turn it down (since the evil cleric might be trying to revive him to interrogate/torture/ransom him).
Clercis can use both, but in either case one is more offensively minded and the other is more defensively minded (unless you're undead, then switch the roles).
They fact that they do not have a discriptor is meaningless, channeling the power is defined, in the rules, as evil.
I find it funny that in a game with such simple concepts of good and evil there is such a desire by players to circumvent the rules and let good people do bad things and then say it isn't bad.Evil people can indeed heal, as I said, there is no restriction on healing from an alignment point of view as doing it helps only those they want to help, there is no conflict with this and an evil alignment. But the reverse is in conflict with good alignment ideals becuase even if that guy is really bad, one is bringing more negative energy into the world.
The rules are that in order for a spell to be evil it has to have the descriptor. I explained earlier the word channeling is not all encompassing. Channel energy, and channeling for the spell are not related. Casting inflict wounds is a lot less damaging than many of the necromantic alternatives, so from a rules, and simulation point of view it makes no sense to call it out as evil. I would rather lose a few hp than get hit with enervation which basically sucks your life force away.
|
|
So, in 3.5, a cleric of the core god St. Cuthbert, who picked the Destruction Domain, (one of the 4 allowed domains for this god) Could not use a good chunk of his domain spells, because St. Cuthbert does not allow channeling negative energy nor evil clerics?
Destruction domain not only includes quite a few inflict spells, but it also has contagion as a 3rd level spell. Contagion has the [evil] descriptor.
However, your characterization of St. Cuthbert is in error. There is no prohibition on channeling negative energy. A LN cleric of St. Cuthbert could choose to channel negative energy and could cast contagion (all of this regardless of the channel negative energy debate). Maybe you're thinking of campaign specific rules for St. Cuthbert; Living Greyhawk had modified rules for St. Cuthbert.
This is a rule specific to Turning/Rebuking. In 3.0/3.5 the verb "channel", as it applies to positive or negative energy, is never used, even once, to describe anything but Turning/Rebuking.
A single counter example will suffice. The spell chill touch channels negative energy.
Please show me where it says that, that nothing is evil unless it has the evil...The rules are that in order for a spell to be evil it has to have the descriptor. I explained earlier the word channeling is not all encompassing. Channel energy, and channeling for the spell are not related. Casting inflict wounds is a lot less damaging than many of the necromantic alternatives, so from a rules, and simulation point of view it makes no sense to call it out as evil. I would rather lose a few hp than get hit with enervation which basically sucks your life force away.Let's just say I fervently disagree with the poster trying to stick negative energy spells into the rebuke undead mechanics. Sorry, but it doesn't have the Evil descriptor, it's not evil. The portion calling it evil is specifically about, and contained within, the rules for Turn & Rebuke Undead.
Likewise, it mentions evil characters using spells like Raise Dead, and a character knows if he's being restored by an evil cleric and can turn it down (since the evil cleric might be trying to revive him to interrogate/torture/ransom him).
Clercis can use both, but in either case one is more offensively minded and the other is more defensively minded (unless you're undead, then switch the roles).
They fact that they do not have a discriptor is meaningless, channeling the power is defined, in the rules, as evil.
I find it funny that in a game with such simple concepts of good and evil there is such a desire by players to circumvent the rules and let good people do bad things and then say it isn't bad.Evil people can indeed heal, as I said, there is no restriction on healing from an alignment point of view as doing it helps only those they want to help, there is no conflict with this and an evil alignment. But the reverse is in conflict with good alignment ideals becuase even if that guy is really bad, one is bringing more negative energy into the world.
I said spells are not evil without the descriptor, not nothing. There is a huge difference between the two.
If spells could be evil without the descriptor there would be no "need" for the evil descriptoer. To be clear I am not saying spells cant be used for evil acts, but a spell is not inherently evil unless the descriptor is there. Since no spells are evil by default it would take a rule to make them evil. That rule is the evil descriptor.Now I will give you the rules quotes you may be looking for.
Spells: A cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list presented in Spell Lists. Her alignment, however, may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see chaotic, evil, good, and lawful spells. A cleric must choose and prepare her spells in advance.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
Inflict Light WoundsSchool necromancy; Level cleric 1
I see a school, but no descriptor. The spell is legal.
Thank you, I was just going to bring up contagionSo, in 3.5, a cleric of the core god St. Cuthbert, who picked the Destruction Domain, (one of the 4 allowed domains for this god) Could not use a good chunk of his domain spells, because St. Cuthbert does not allow channeling negative energy nor evil clerics?Destruction domain not only includes quite a few inflict spells, but it also has contagion as a 3rd level spell. Contagion has the [evil] descriptor.
However, your characterization of St. Cuthbert is in error. There is no prohibition on channeling negative energy. A LN cleric of St. Cuthbert could choose to channel negative energy and could cast contagion (all of this regardless of the channel negative energy debate). Maybe you're thinking of campaign specific rules for St. Cuthbert; Living Greyhawk had modified rules for St. Cuthbert.
This is a rule specific to Turning/Rebuking. In 3.0/3.5 the verb "channel", as it applies to positive or negative energy, is never used, even once, to describe anything but Turning/Rebuking.A single counter example will suffice. The spell chill touch channels negative energy.
Another spell that channels energy by your definition, but is not evil. It seems that the Class ability and the spells are not in line after all. Contagion which does not channel is evil.
Of course a Good cleric can cast inflict X wounds. The spell is not [evil]. That is the only way a generic Good cleric or a Neutral cleric of a generic Good deity would be unable to cast a spell: if it has the [evil] descriptor. Any other argument is sheer imagination or sophistry.
Note that specific deities may prohibit other spells; for example, clerics of Pharasma will not be able to cast animate dead, because their deity would never grant them that spell.
Yet the rules say channeling negative energy is an evil act, and that inflict spells channel negative energy.
Please cite me two rules from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook?
- The rule which states that channeling negative energy is always an evil act.
- The rule which states that Good clerics or clerics of a Good deity cannot commit evil acts.
I can find neither rule in my rulebook or the PRD.
Yet the rules say channeling negative energy is an evil act, and that inflict spells channel negative energy. The rules do indeed say that a cleric cannot memorize spells with an opposing descriptor, but it does not say that ALL spells must have that discriptor to indeed be evil.
I realize that it seems a useless rule if it is not so, however devclaing that the spell channels negative energy AND that channeling negative energy is evil seems uselss as well if it was not intended to be so.
Futhermore, the whole idea that clerics can spontanously cast only the spell assosiated with the type of energy they channel is another piece of evidence supporting the tie between the two. This was not true in 3.0 but is in 3.5.
I see no pathfinder rules that say channeling is evil. Even if such rules exist, the best case scenario for your argument is that you have a rules conflict, but as of now I don't see any conflict.
As to 3.5
Neutral Clerics and Undead:
A cleric of neutral alignment can either turn undead but not rebuke them, or rebuke undead but not turn them. See Turn or Rebuke Undead for more information.
Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.
The quote is for the sake of turning, dealing with undead. It is not a general statement, which does not matter because it never carried over to pathfinder anyway, so even in a 3.5 game the header limits the application of your argument. If it was meant to be a general statement it would have been in the class feature section.
Hello
So are we talking about ""Spontaneous Casting"" 3.5 PHB = which is based of the cleric alignment, which determines which spells said cleric can turn into Spontaneous Spells ??
Are we talking about "" Spells "" 3.5 PHB = which is not dependent on cleric alignment due to not being flagged as Good or Evil (Cure/Inflect). Which can be cast by any cleric.
---------------------------------
So why do cleric get both cure/inflect spells if memorized as spells =
1) D&D = clerics could use both.
2) AD&D 1st ed = Cleric could use both.
3) AD&D 2nd ed = Cleric could use both = but = this was not always the case due to which sphere they had access to. Which sphere good and evil clerics had did not always make sense, and by time Forgotten realms gods came out, i would even say this was blow out of the water by that point.
4) AD&D 3rd ed = well they added spontaneous casting, got rid of spell spheres, and went back to most spells fall under general, and a few spell were selected as domains spells to represent differences in gods.
5) Game balance = This lets good clerics do damage, while letting evil cleric still be able to heal. A cleric is still intended to be able to both heal their friends and harm there enemy's regardless of alignment.
Yet the rules say channeling negative energy is an evil act, and that inflict spells channel negative energy. The rules do indeed say that a cleric cannot memorize spells with an opposing descriptor, but it does not say that ALL spells must have that discriptor to indeed be evil.
I realize that it seems a useless rule if it is not so, however devclaing that the spell channels negative energy AND that channeling negative energy is evil seems uselss as well if it was not intended to be so.
Futhermore, the whole idea that clerics can spontanously cast only the spell assosiated with the type of energy they channel is another piece of evidence supporting the tie between the two. This was not true in 3.0 but is in 3.5.
Elthbert, you can feel free to run it however you want in your games, but as has been brought up the spell (and spell line) in question do not operate like you seem to believe they do as per the rules. I think you are being hung up on the spell's flavor text. As flavor text has absolutely NO bearing on the rules as written your stand that the spell channels negative energy isn't backed by the rules. Flavor text is always trumpted/ignored when the actual game rules conflict.
Ok.. Were and what page number in D&D PHB v 3.5 are you getting this from??
Saying that that is flavor text is like saying the the part of flamestrike does 2 types of damage is flavor text. The fact that the damage is negative energy is directly cogent to the spell, it is not untyped damage, it is negative energy damage... It is not flavor text at all, it is rule text,if the damage was not negative energy damage, i would agree with you, but it is, thus it IS channeling negative energy, and fits perfectly within the rules. YOU are saying one rule trumps another, and I am saying the fact that it does not have the evil discriptor just means it is not imposible for a good cleric to use, not that it is not an evil act. The rules say plainly in clear concise English that channeling negative energy is an evil act, they also say plainly that inflict spells channel negative energy, and then base their effects on that fact, I don't see why this is such a hard concept to understand.
The spell doesn't have the [Evil] Descriptor, it has the [Necromancy] descriptor. The pertinent information about the spell is that it deals X damage modified by level and that this damage is of negative energy type. The fact that it says "channel" is a part of flavor text. There are no rules that say when you deal damage with negative energy that this is somehow an EVIL act as you are insisting. As a matter of fact I just searched the entire PFRPG pdf for "channel" and out of all the results there is nothing that states that channeling negative energy is an evil act. So, with that I would have to say that your statement "The rules say plainly in clear concise English that channeling negative energy is an evil act," is not true and that you need to go and read the pertinent rules to clarify your understanding of what is being addressed.
To put it another way, there are no rules that state channeling negative energy is an evil act in the PFRPG and if somehow there is something in the PFSRD stating that such was the case, it was incorrectly placed and should be changed. As there are no rules stating what you are insisting, that is probably why you are having such a hard time understanding why this concept appears so hard for the rest of us to get. As I said before, if you wish to run it that way in your game feel free, but this happens to be the rules forum for PFRPG and the written rules of the game do not say what you are saying is true and it is best to check the sources before writing things as that can lead to confusion for new players or people not as familiar with the rules who read things here. If you could come up with a book/page number backing your take on the subject I will happily conceed you are right but I was unable to find anything of the sort just now in the core book I am just going to state again that you seem to have a problem with the flavor text of the spell and a house rule that doesn't exist in the core game.
He is talking about the Neutral Clerics and Undead block, and trying to apply it to spells. I have already told him it was a stretch in 3.5, and since pathfinder does not support this at all he is 100% wrong now.Ok.. Were and what page number in D&D PHB v 3.5 are you getting this from??
Hi, my party has the following:
Fighter
Rogue
Ranger
ClericI want to give the cleric some tools for casting damaging spells, for those enemies that have DR and situations like that. I wasn't sure if he could legally use an inflict wand.
Furthermore, maybe I am just going about it the wrong way and maybe the rogue is the one that should be putting ranks in UMD and handling this job.
Input is appreciated.
thanks!
Just a quick question or two for other possible input, as the party seems to be very melee-centric is the cleric going more armored warrior type or more caster-ish? And is the reason you are looking for more ways to inflict damage because they seem to be stuck in the background or are being shown up by the melee classes?
If so I might suggest that they do a neutral cleric with channel negative energy, pump up their charisma for turn attempts and get the selective channel/extra channel feats. Buy the best armor/defensive gear they can get, put ranks into concentration and wade into combat. This will do at least 2 things; first they will be able to deal area of effect damage which the party seems to be lacking (even if the opponents save they still take half damage from the channel attempt and sometimes every little bit counts and you can fit quite a few targets in a 30' radius burst) and second, they will be able to be more involved with combat by being "in the thick" of things - with selective channeling they will be able to not hit the party (assuming a charisma modifier of +3). As a supernatural effect Channel Energy is a supernatural effect which allows it to bypass SR, it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity at all and will deal damage to pretty much everything but undead creatures.
Page 160 in the PH says it clearly, though I believe there are other referances to it, I'll see if I can find other references.Ok.. Were and what page number in D&D PHB v 3.5 are you getting this from??
When you channel negative energy for turning checks in 3.5 it allows you to control them using rebuke death. Having undead around as puppets is something I can agree with. Even in pathfinder if you are constantly using undead I can see how it is evil, but since the rule is not in pathfinder, the same way poison use is not presented as rule it does not apply. Actually your channel example was wrong before, but neither the channel nor the undead are valid now in any shape or form.
If you feel like it is an erroneous omission then hit the FAQ button, but as written a spell must have the Evil descriptor. I basically made a map a few post above that showed how the rules were on my side. Until you do the same with pathfinder rules you won't convince anyone.
If he is healing them out of compasion it probably would irratate his god, but if he is doing it to further his evil plan for the reater glory of his god, not so much. On the other handd a good cleric could not say infect an entire village with the plague for some great master plan to help his god.... becuase good and evil people are not playing by the same set of rules.
That is my point ;)
Page 160 in the PH says it clearly, though I believe there are other referances to it, I'll see if I can find other references.
Just to get this straight, you are arguing that because it says in the old WoTC 3.5 players handbook, that the same thing is true in the newer Pathfinder Role Playing Game?
1) PFRPG is based on the skeleton of the 3.5 system so I can see the possibility for confusion.
2) There are differences between the two games, sometimes subtle, sometimes glaring, but they are not the same. This is a particular point on which they are not the same. PFRPG does not say anywhere that using an ability that is negative energy is an explicitly EVIL act. As such, in this game, it is not an EVIL act even though in the 3.5 PHB it was. New game, new take on the rules.
I would suggest that you familiarize yourself more with the rules of this, the Pathfinder RPG game, before posting and arguing that a rule you use which isn't part of the game in question (PFRPG), but actually a part of another game (AD&D 3.5), is in effect. This is the RULES section of the forum for PATHFINDER, and you could in fact be causing confusion for new players or people who are maybe less informed about the rules than even you are. This is not a good thing. If you want to argue about it you can suggest something for errata (as Wraithstrike suggested) or maybe post in the houserules section, but this particular forum is for how the rules actually work in Pathfinder, not how you wish they worked.