Why using Inflict when you can use Spiritual Weapon in all its "Neutralness"
No one ever answered you :(
Spirit. Wpn hits using normal BAB (bad) modified by your wisdom (good but not as good as a touch attack) and has to contend with DR. SR and damage reduction were listed as things the OP was trying to bypass.
I did the same, multiple times, with rules from D&D, which is all I ever claimed to be speaking of. I have repeatedly stated that Pathfinder may have taken out that rule and I do not argue that, I only ever stated that that was not the case in previous editions of D&D.
..
The Statement in both 3rd edition books is a clear, UNRESTRICTED statement, and it should be treated as such. If you want to restrict a statement you place modifiers around it, there are no such modifiers which limit the meaning of that sentence.
So... Everything you have had to say in this thread is basically off topic and has nothing to do with the Pathfinder RPG RULES and would in fact be only useful for something in the 3.5/OGL section?
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??
It is not a stretch at all in 3.5, it is simply the rule, one you apparantly don't like.
Channeling energy is directly tied to your spontanious casting in 3.5 ( which stopped neutral clerics from having the best of both worlds in 3.0 one could chose to spontaniously heal and rebuke undead, which is a sweet deal). So this is not like it isn't related at all, and the sentence does NOT say " When turning,channeling positive energy is a good act, channelling evil energy is an evil act." It says "even if a cleric is neutral, channelling positive energy is a good actand channeling negative energy is an evil act."
How ruling that this statment whcih is made without anykind of reservation is somehow only applicable in the narrowist of circumstances is bazzare to me. Channeling energy is an act which in and of itself has moral concequinces in D&D . It might as well say protecting the innocent is a good act and murdering the innocent is and evil act. it is not situational, murderingthe innocent is ALWAYS and evil act, so is channeling negative energy.
That said, I made no such claim about pathfinder, I only stepped in and disagreed with a statement about D&D.
Those same quotes I used in PF apply to 3.5. They are under the turning sub block because it only affects turning, and my last post explained why. By RAW an evil spell must have the evil descriptor. I can go and find quotes for that also. I actually found them for 3.5 before I did it for pathfinder. Like I said before at best you have a rule conflict, but since I have a list of quotes that support my stance, and you have one that might support yours, and since mine speaks directly about spells I think my spell based stance is stronger than your "may apply to spells" stance.
I just realized I am debating 3.5 rules in a pathfinder forum. Since the PF rule part is done I am done here also.
Did you actually READ any of my post, becuase I have repeatedly stated that I AM NOT argueing that. I have stated that since my first post on the subject. I simply responded to someone maing a statement about 3rd edition D&D and I stated that indeed in 3.0 and 3.5 it was not the case. I also have stated repeatedly that I did not know if that sentence had been removed in Pathfinder. But I have said that I think the link was made stronger by Pathfinders changing of turning to a burst of damage, clearly showing that the energy of an inflict spell was the same as the energy channeled by an evil cleric.
If channeling negative energy is not evil in Pathfinder, which I have readily conceded may be the case at least 4 times now, then I do not understand why good clerics cannot choose to do it? What if they are a war priest of some sort? Maybe hurting the enemy is more important that healing your friends... why is that not an option if it is not an evil action?
Yes I have, and I saw that you were talking about 3.5 rules, but yet you keep coming back here to the Rules section of Pathfinder and going on about rules from a completely different game. There is a place for that, and it isn't here, it is here. As I have just posted, basically everything you've had to say is completely off topic from what the OP asked concerning PFRPG and yet you have how many posts about how it worked that way in 3.5 and how the wording of PFRPG seems to make that a stronger connection? This isn't the place for 3.5 rules, this isn't the place to argue about how things worked in that other game, and yet as every one of us comes in and says in Pathfinder that isn't how it works or gives reasons why it doesn't work that way now, you keep going on about it. This particular forum is for PFRPG rules, not about the 3.5 rules and if someone said something about the previous games that you disagreed with you could have left it with a "I disagree (insert reason)." post and let it be at that because it doesn't really have anything to do at all with the question at hand, Pathfinder. Yet you refuse to do that and instead of leaving it be you are arguing a point that has nothing to do with anything that the OP inquired about, repeatedly.
Edit: I just double checked and the OP asked if a cleric could use a wand of inflict legally. The answer to that is yes, the cleric can use a wand of inflict XYZ wounds in Pathfinder.
As I said, I responded to a statement about those rules, and was continually pressed about those rules. When I conceded that PF indeed may have had a differant take, then any of those in contention could have said... "It does, there is no restriction on channeling negative energy in PF" and if they wanted to be helpful they could have even explained why "the cosmology of pathfinder is differant" or " they wanted to empower good clerics more." But not one did that, they attacked the quite simple statment I had mad about an older edition of the game and pressed it. I responded. I am not sorry I did so. You say I could have left the issue, your right I could have, so could any of those who chose to argue with me about it. Including you.
The difference between you and I is, I was posting about rules particular to Pathfinder in the appropriate forum attempting to make sure the correct answer to the OP's question was found. You were bringing up rules from another game that contradicted the official rules and correct answer to the question. Can you see how that is off topic in the Rules forum as it pertains to 3.5 and not constructive to the OP as they are playing a PFRPG game? There doesn't need to be anything more said other than:
Clerics of any alignment can use inflict XZY wands in combat, legally by the rules.
As I said, I responded to a statement about those rules, and was continually pressed about those rules. When I conceded that PF indeed may have had a differant take, then any of those in contention could have said... "It does, there is no restriction on channeling negative energy in PF" and if they wanted to be helpful they could have even explained why "the cosmology of pathfinder is differant" or " they wanted to empower good clerics more." But not one did that, they attacked the quite simple statment I had mad about an older edition of the game and pressed it. I responded. I am not sorry I did so. You say I could have left the issue, your right I could have, so could any of those who chose to argue with me about it. Including you.The difference between you and I is, I was posting about rules particular to Pathfinder in the appropriate forum attempting to make sure the correct answer to the OP's question was found. You were bringing up rules from another game that contradicted the official rules and correct answer to the question. Can you see how that is off topic in the Rules forum as it pertains to 3.5 and not constructive to the OP as they are playing a PFRPG game? There doesn't need to be anything more said other than:
Clerics of any alignment can use inflict XZY wands in combat, legally by the rules.
Ok, i am agreeing with Skylancer4
I went ahead and erased my last two posts, since this was a pointless argument.
But the healing of them is still good, even if it is to serve a greater evil purpose.
No. Not really. It might seem as such, but as long as it is motivated by evil it is evil... even if incidentally beneficial to its recepients.
Le sigh
Hopefully the OP hasn't been chased away by all the annoying off topic-ness and has come back to get their answer.
But the healing of them is still good, even if it is to serve a greater evil purpose.No. Not really. It might seem as such, but as long as it is motivated by evil it is evil... even if incidentally beneficial to its recepients.
This is one of those things that is up to the DM to decide though. Is it okay to do "good things" in service of your evil deity? Just like what acts are considered "evil" and would upset your good deity. These are judgement calls and a part of the roleplaying, and could be a huge source of problems between players/DMs if they don't view things the same way. It is a large part of the reason many people don't care for paladins, the DM may view things one way (maybe super restrictive) while the player sees things another (less restrictive) - they player ends up being told how to play the character and that is never fun. It also works the other way, sometimes players see things more restrictive and play a paladin in a game that is less restrictive and it causes problems - the player uses the class as a way to cause problems. It is a safe bet that if the gamers don't see eye to eye on this topic problems will arise. For this reason there are few restrictions on many things regarding "alignment", some view it as an artifact and wish it was gone, others embrace it. To each their own and whatever works best for the group is what you should go with.
This is one of those things that is up to the DM to decide though. Is it okay to do "good things" in service of your evil deity? Just like what acts are considered "evil" and would upset your good deity. These are judgement calls and a part of the roleplaying, and could be a huge source of problems between players/DMs if they don't view things the same way. It is a large part of the reason many people don't care for paladins, the DM may view things one way (maybe super restrictive) while the player sees things another (less restrictive) - they player ends up being told how to play the character and that is never fun. It also works the other way, sometimes players see things more restrictive and play a paladin in a game that is less restrictive and it causes problems - the player uses the class as a way to cause problems. It is a safe bet that if the gamers don't see eye to eye on this topic problems will arise. For this reason there are few restrictions on many things regarding "alignment", some view it as an artifact and wish it was gone, others embrace it. To each their own and whatever works best for the group is what you should go with.
I wholely agree.
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!
By Pathfinder rules, a cleric can use inflict/cure spells (( and said wands )) regardless of alignment without penalty.
|
But the healing of them is still good, even if it is to serve a greater evil purpose.No. Not really. It might seem as such, but as long as it is motivated by evil it is evil... even if incidentally beneficial to its recepients.
I suggest healing your allies is a neutral action. It might irritate a deity of death, pain or destruction if you did it in preference to injuring someone else, but it wouldn't violate your evil alignment. Healing someone in order to prolong their suffering (for example, to extend a torture session) is most likely evil.
|
I suggest healing your allies is a neutral action. It might irritate a deity of death, pain or destruction if you did it in preference to injuring someone else, but it wouldn't violate your evil alignment. Healing someone in order to prolong their suffering (for example, to extend a torture session) is most likely evil.
Healing bad-guys, so that they can go out and do more bad things to good people, seems like a win for Team Evil to me.
Since positive energy is no more good than negative energy is evil, an evil cleric should be able to heal to his shriveled little heart's content.
Even healing nice people can have it's stormy lining;
Anti-Paladin "Wait, why are you healing that little kid?"
Evil Cleric "If she dies now, her little soul goes to Iomedae. You just killed her family and burned her village. She'll grow up hard and bitter, scourged by the sights she saw this day and filled with a lust for vengeance on those who have wronged her. By the time she comes for us, she'll be ripe for Asmodeus' plucking."
Anti-Paladin ".... Dayum! You are messed up!"