OK I will try to keep this as brief as possible and still provide enough back ground to understand all the issue. Due warning Page numbers and rules will be cited this is a rules lawyer area.
During the latest game session my DM actually read the description of the clerics holy/unholy symbol under the equipment section on page 130 of the 3.5 players handbook. He is doggedly hanging onto the passage under unholy symbols where it says (or by neutral clerics who want to cast evil spells or command the undead)
Now by his reasoning any neutral cleric that chooses to command or rebuke the undead has alligned themselves with the forces of evil/darkness/kitten killers etc. and should not under ANY circumstances be allowed to cast spells with the Good descriptor.
I as the cleric in the party that is affected by this sudden rules change argue that on page 33 under the descriptions of chao/evil/Good/Law spells it says that a cleric can't cast any spells vs his or his deities alignment so I as a lawful neutral cleric can cast any seplls along the good/evil axis but am only stopped by the chaos vs law. Meaning I can never cast chaos spells.
My charecter is 14th lvl Lawful Neutral cleric of Wee Jas, naturally I have no choice but to command because it says so in the book again page 33 under turn/rebuke undead.
My DM is actually a very good friend and will be reading the responses here so lets please keep the discussion polite. I'm asking for rules clarification and opinions not insults.
I think that a neutral cleric should be able to cast spells like bless water, holy word, holy aura etc but because I use an UNHOLY symbol of a NEUTRAL deity my DM says they will no longer work.
I argue that the holy/unholy symbol is important for turn/rebuke NOT for general spell casting.
This is not a "please help me overrule my DM" type post.He and the rest of my group will be reading the responses so we can lay this to rest.
The solution of my charecter changeing alignment has come up but we are trying to avoid that if possible, if not, one quick attonment spell and he's brain washed to be as right thinking as a pelorite.
thanks in advance for your helpful responses.
|
Neutral clerics can cast spells with either descriptor on that axis.
Your LN cleric can cast both Evil and Good spells.
Nothing in the Holy/Unholy Symbol description alters that.
A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.
An unholy symbol is like a holy symbol except that it focuses negative energy and is used by evil clerics (or by neutral clerics who want to cast evil spells or command undead).
Note that it states that an unholy symbol is like a holy symbol, except that it focuses negative energy. That's it. Nothing more.
Neutral clerics can cast spells with either descriptor on that axis.
Your LN cleric can cast both Evil and Good spells.
Nothing in the Holy/Unholy Symbol description alters that.A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.An unholy symbol is like a holy symbol except that it focuses negative energy and is used by evil clerics (or by neutral clerics who want to cast evil spells or command undead).Note that it states that an unholy symbol is like a holy symbol, except that it focuses negative energy. That's it. Nothing more.
That's my way of thinking too TriOmega. Thanks for the input.
|
Here's how I would rule:
1) As a LN cleric of Wee Jas, you have chosen to command/rebuke undead (read: channel negative energy). {This is perfectly legal.}
2) In order to do so, you must possess an unholy symbol. {No difference so far. All sides are in agreement.}
3) If you command/rebuke undead, you also spontaneously cast inflict spells instead of cure spells. {This wasn't brought up, but hopefully it has been enforced.}
4) You cannot cast Chaotic spells because of your alignment/deity alignment. {True.}
{Here's where things begin to change, based on what you said in the first two paragraphs.}
5) As a Neutral cleric, you may cast Good or Evil spells - focusing too much on one type may affect your alignment.
6) In order to cast Good spells you must have a holy symbol. This would be in addition to your normal (unholy) symbol.
Here's how I would rule:
1) As a LN cleric of Wee Jas, you have chosen to command/rebuke undead (read: channel negative energy). {This is perfectly legal.}
I kindda had to but yes your correct.
2) In order to do so, you must possess an unholy symbol. {No difference so far. All sides are in agreement.}
Correct.
3) If you command/rebuke undead, you also spontaneously cast inflict spells instead of cure spells. {This wasn't brought up, but hopefully it has been enforced.}
It has been although I never use it. I used the players option from The Complete Champion that lets me sack a 4th lvl spell permanently in order to channel positive energy for a Lay-on-hands ability. thus destroying the No cleric can channel pos. & negative rule.
4) You cannot cast Chaotic spells because of your alignment/deity alignment. {True.}
Yep.{Here's where things begin to change, based on what you said in the first two paragraphs.}
5) As a Neutral cleric, you may cast Good or Evil spells - focusing too much on one type may affect your alignment.
I have been forced to be lawful good before but after I tortured and did other stuff to an assassin that tried to kill me then threatened that if he ever crossed me again I would trap his soul into his body and then animate it as an undead minion under my control I sorta lost my Lawful Good alignment and went back to law neutral. (tongue in cheek) darn those DM's that enforce alignment restrictions.
6) In order to cast Good spells you must have a holy symbol. This would be in addition to your normal (unholy) symbol.
I as a player would be fine with this but my DM seems to think that it's breaking all kinds of rules/laws/universal whatever's.
Mind you all this is coming after 15 lvl's of me casting good/sanctified/whatever type of spells I had memorized since lvl 1 so this late into it I can't see the change but he's of the mind set that once we discover a rule we MUST implement the rule.
I don't see it and am more than willing to carry a holy and an unholy symbol if he would allow it.
thanks for your input.
6) In order to cast Good spells you must have a holy symbol. This would be in addition to your normal (unholy) symbol.
Is this actually a real rule? I know you often need a divine focus, but does it say anywhere that it must be a holy symbol in order to cast a good spell?
|
|
6) In order to cast Good spells you must have a holy symbol. This would be in addition to your normal (unholy) symbol.Is this actually a real rule? I know you often need a divine focus, but does it say anywhere that it must be a holy symbol in order to cast a good spell?
Holy Symbol, Silver or Wooden
A holy symbol focuses positive energy. A cleric or paladin uses it as the focus for his spells and as a tool for turning undead. Each religion has its own holy symbol.
Unholy SymbolsAn unholy symbol is like a holy symbol except that it focuses negative energy and is used by evil clerics (or by neutral clerics who want to cast evil spells or command undead).
The implication being that if you need an unholy symbol to cast Evil spells, you need a holy symbol to cast Good spells (with a holy symbol being understood to be the standard).
|
|
The implication being that if you need an unholy symbol to cast Evil spells, you need a holy symbol to cast Good spells (with a holy symbol being understood to be the standard).Holy Symbol, Silver or Wooden
A holy symbol focuses positive energy. A cleric or paladin uses it as the focus for his spells and as a tool for turning undead. Each religion has its own holy symbol.
Unholy SymbolsAn unholy symbol is like a holy symbol except that it focuses negative energy and is used by evil clerics (or by neutral clerics who want to cast evil spells or command undead).
That's how I read it...
Hmmm, ok, but then a good cleric can't use their holy symbol to cast inflict spells that they prepare (obviously a good cleric can't spontaneous cast inflict spells). The reason I say this is that in the holy symbol description says, "A holy symbol focuses positive energy." Inflict spells use negative energy so a holy symbol can't be used to cast them.
I think the distinction between unholy symbols and holy symbols is unnecessary and unhelpful (as this discussion serves to highlight). They are the same thing, really, and there's no reason why a cleric of an evil deity shouldn't just use a holy symbol - it's holy to him or her. There's no need for another term, as far as I can see. (We haven't even delved into what this means for lawful and chaotic clerics!)
So, to answer the original question, in my opinion all the stuff about negative energy and unholy symbols is just fluff, and can safely be ignored. Your lawful neutral cleric of Wee Jas (like every other cleric) has a holy symbol which he uses as the divine focus for casting his spells (and for commanding undead). He can't cast Chaotic spells, since those are opposed to his (and his deity's) alignment, but he can cast Lawful, Evil, or Good spells.
|
|
Nothing in the rules prevents it. In fact, to my knowledge NO Good aligned clerics are banned from casting Inflict spells, or Necromancy spells, for that matter.
In the same sense that it would be self-defeating for an Evil deity to prevent his clerics from using cure spells. It's one of those "we overlooked this" rules that a DM used to be able to handle before everything was codified.
The crux is really the word "channel" in the inflict spells, if that read "creates" or anything else, it would be easier to reconcile.
Channel energy to rebuke undead (Evil act), requires an unholy symbol.
Spontaneously channel negative energy to cause wounds, requires unholy symbol.
Casting an Evil spell, unholy symbol.
Casting a non-Evil but negative energy spell, any symbol.
From the spontaneous casting perspective, I guess because the negative energy is actually being directed through the cleric and the unholy symbol, rather than the spell.
And I would argue that holy/unholy symbols are vastly different, even moreso than a steel longsword is from an adamantine longsword. Just think of the difference between the rituals needed to create one...
Nothing in the rules prevents it. In fact, to my knowledge NO Good aligned clerics are banned from casting Inflict spells, or Necromancy spells, for that matter.
Well the ones without the [Evil] descriptor anyway.
|
|
There should not have been holy and unholy bonuses/energy, it should have been divine, covering both sides.
Well the ones without the [Evil] descriptor anyway.
But again, that's not a ban on Necromancy spells, it's a ban on spells with the [Evil] descriptor. Some Necromancy spells happen to be [Evil] is all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick update. After reading the posts my DM has decided that it was indeed a poorly worded description and has gone back and allowed my cleric to cast any good descriptor spells which he cares to memorise.
Thanks a bunch to everyone for their comments.
There should not have been holy and unholy bonuses/energy, it should have been divine, covering both sides.
Well the ones without the [Evil] descriptor anyway.But again, that's not a ban on Necromancy spells, it's a ban on spells with the [Evil] descriptor. Some Necromancy spells happen to be [Evil] is all.
True, but Necromancy has a disproportionate number of spells with that descriptor.
|
Knowing the poster as I do, I think a little more information of the situation should be illuminated for clarification. While he has posted a Lawful Neutral Alignment for his character, in fact that is the alignment the character started with, his alignment has shifted from Lawful Good, for acts of great goods deeds, which resulted in the DM in allowing him to use spells and powers from the Book of Exalted Deeds. This was argued to still be in the tenants and faith of Weejas, and the GM allowed this. Furthermore, I believe during this period the GM allowed him to utilize positive energy channelling. Then the character performed reprehesible acts and continued to engage in this fashion, forcing the GM to recognize that the character's alignment had been shifted. The case was argued that Weejas as a LN deity would still accept him, as it was his "path to power", so his deity still allowed him to draw power from him and has given him access to powers and spells from the book of vile darkness. The player has enjoyed these powers for a few levels, however they've reached a point in the Shackled City that is leaning more to the need that he should draw once again on the powers of good. Hence his desire to "change alignment" again. The true question that should be asked here is whether or not his spellcasting and powers should depend on his character's alignment or his deity's alignment. As to the idea of his using attonement to change his character's alignment back to Good, this issue here is that he can not cast it on himself and none of the other caster's high enough in the city that are left alive at this point are likely to be able to cast it for him, as in the spell's description it requires the character to be truly repentant, and he's already suggest out of character that as soon as he felt the need for the good powers were over he'd return to his old ways.
Holy Symbol, Silver or Wooden
A holy symbol focuses positive energy. A cleric or paladin uses it as the focus for his spells and as a tool for turning undead. Each religion has its own holy symbol.Unholy Symbols
An unholy symbol is like a holy symbol except that it focuses negative energy and is used by evil clerics (or by neutral clerics who want to cast evil spells or command undead).
Thinking about this some more, technically it only says that if a neutral cleric wants to cast evil spells, then they need to use a unholy symbol. That doesn't mean that to cast good spells you need a holy symbol. In effect, this would really only be an issue for a neutral cleric that channeled positive energy. In that case they would need both a holy and an unholy symbol (holy to cast most of their spells and channel, an unholy symbol to cast evil spells).
A neutral cleric that channels negative energy should be fine just using an unholy symbol.
Now that might not be the interpretation that most people would infer, but the OPer did ask for some Rule Lawyering. ;)
|
|
A bunch of stuff that was omitted by the OP.
This sounds like munchkin skullduggery, though I don't think Wee Jas would care. Based on the PHB and DMG alignment descriptions, the DM should probably force the character to stick with a Neutral alignment (they have failed to make a long-term choice). In no case would I have allowed the OP access to Exalted Deeds or Vile Darkness with such behaviour...
|
|
Traditionally, a Necromancer is considered evil, and by thus extension necromantic spells are evil.
That is emphatically a house rule. I realize this is the point you are trying to make (each group can choose the way they want to play) but in the RAW: Necromancy =/= Evil.
Cure spells from AD&D were defined as Necromantic, but 3.5 very deliberately changed things so that they fall under Conjuration (Healing), in order to remove the necromantic stigma from them (further reinforcing the notion that necromancy is evil).
Despite the fact that for 20 years clerics used the power of necromancy to heal in most D&D campaigns.
My reading of the Turn/Rebuke section of the PHB suggests to me that a neutral cleric of a neutral god would have a neutral symbol, which can be used either way. A sort of deific symbol, as it were.
Except nowhere in any core book are such symbols mentioned (in fact, it explicitly states otherwise).
I can't imagine that a cleric of a neutral god would have two symbols for different purposes (holy and unholy). After all, a neutral god doesn't concern himself with good and evil, and so wouldn't likely have such differentiated symbols. Whatever you want to call it, the neutral god's symbol would be neither holy nor unholy, but something in between.
Don't you dare lump St. Cuthbert in with all those other ne'er-do-wells!
|
|
Thinking about this some more, technically it only says that if a neutral cleric wants to cast evil spells, then they need to use a unholy symbol. That doesn't mean that to cast good spells you need a holy symbol. In effect, this would really only be an issue for a neutral cleric that channeled positive energy. In that case they would need both a holy and an unholy symbol (holy to cast most of their spells and channel, an unholy symbol to cast evil spells).
A neutral cleric that channels negative energy should be fine just using an unholy symbol.
Now that might not be the interpretation that most people would infer, but the OPer did ask for some Rule Lawyering. ;)
I would not disagree with you here; the SRD never explicitly mentions Good spells requiring a holy symbol.
Off-Topic: How long until this thread mentions every core 3.5 deity?
Holy symbol and Unholy symbol are poor word choices. We should call them Divine focuses and each diety and cleric would have 1 and it would fulfill ALL needs for a divine focus (spellcasting, channelling energy/Turn rebuke undead).
True, but Necromancy has a disproportionate number of spells with that descriptor.There should not have been holy and unholy bonuses/energy, it should have been divine, covering both sides.
Well the ones without the [Evil] descriptor anyway.But again, that's not a ban on Necromancy spells, it's a ban on spells with the [Evil] descriptor. Some Necromancy spells happen to be [Evil] is all.
OK, I am the DM Steven is referring to. We have agreed to keep things as they were. I still have issues with the amount of things from the Book of Exhalted Deeds his character has done but, I'll just have to deal with it becauase I opened that door with him yet again. The main point of the post is the wording in the holy symbol description.
OK, I am the DM Steven is referring to. We have agreed to keep things as they were. I still have issues with the amount of things from the Book of Exhalted Deeds his character has done but, I'll just have to deal with it becauase I opened that door with him yet again. The main point of the post is the wording in the holy symbol description.
As a fellow DM, I can see why that bit of text would catch your eye. But the issue is that it's not mentioned anywhere else - specifically, in the places it really ought to be mentioned if it's intended as a rule, such as the cleric class description, or the sections on spell descriptions and divine spells. Really, the description of unholy symbols should read "An unholy symbol is like a holy symbol except that it focuses negative energy and is used by evil clerics (or by neutral clerics who want to spontaneously cast inflict spells or command undead)."
It's possible that the designers experimented with a rule that limited the casting of evil/good spells to characters with unholy/holy symbols, but - if so - it didn't survive into the finished set of rules (except in this fragment). It would make a perfectly reasonable house rule, of course.
|
|
Except nowhere in any core book are such symbols mentioned (in fact, it explicitly states otherwise).You cannot say that it "explicitly states otherwise". There is no mention whatsoever about it. There isn't even an implicit allusion to it.
My take on the rules is based on the implicit necessity of a neutral cleric to have some sort of symnbol of his god, which wouldn't be good or evil, by the god's very nature.
If a neutral cleric wants to cast an Evil spell, they need an unholy symbol. This directly contradicts the concept of a "Neutral" symbol capable of casting both Good and Evil spells.
That's not an implication, it's mutually exclusive. I guess I should have written "exclusively states otherwise."
The "explicit" part comes up in that the game only mentions two symbols (holy and unholy) - the concept of a neutral symbol is never implied.
The "explicit" part comes up in that the game only mentions two symbols (holy and unholy) - the concept of a neutral symbol is never implied.The implication of neutral symbols is in the description of Divine Foci:
Divine Focus (DF): A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character’s faith. For an evil cleric, the divine focus is an unholy symbol. The default divine focus for a druid or a ranger is a sprig of mistletoe or holly.The need for a holy or unholy symbol for spells that require a Divine Focus can also be obviated in the case of Arcane versions of the spell.
The implication of neutral foci (and by extension, symbols) is there. It just isn't explicitly stated.
And FWIW, a concept left out does not equate to anything "explicit". By definition, such an omission is invisible, and therefore "implicit". But semantics is the last refuge of a failed argument.
Oh, and I found the reference to neutral clerics requiring unholy symbols for evil spells in the equipment section, of all places.
No no, semantics defines the cage of an awesome, no holds barred, UFC-style cage-match argument!
I guess I've been house ruling all these years, but I've always played that each god has their own symbol, regardless of the cleric's alignment.
|
|
The "explicit" part comes up in that the game only mentions two symbols (holy and unholy) - the concept of a neutral symbol is never implied.The implication of neutral symbols is in the description of Divine Foci:
Divine Focus (DF): A divine focus component is an item of spiritual significance. The divine focus for a cleric or a paladin is a holy symbol appropriate to the character’s faith. For an evil cleric, the divine focus is an unholy symbol. The default divine focus for a druid or a ranger is a sprig of mistletoe or holly.The need for a holy or unholy symbol for spells that require a Divine Focus can also be obviated in the case of Arcane versions of the spell.
The implication of neutral foci (and by extension, symbols) is there. It just isn't explicitly stated.
And FWIW, a concept left out does not equate to anything "explicit". By definition, such an omission is invisible, and therefore "implicit". But semantics is the last refuge of a failed argument.
Oh, and I found the reference to neutral clerics requiring unholy symbols for evil spells in the equipment section, of all places.
Just so I'm clear, I'm not trying to argue the semantics of "explicit" vs. "implicit" - I admit I used the wrong word. And I concede that the implication of druid/ranger symbols is "neutral", but it doesn't seem to apply to clerics.
In the case of druid/ranger divine foci: there are no Evil druid spells requiring a divine focus (and no Evil ranger spells at all) - so that doesn't really add to the argument. Alternatively, the only Good druid spell is Hallow...which would seem to support the idea of a theoretical "neutral" symbol allowing Good spells.
This does seem to be a case where the edition change (symbols -> divine foci) got lost in translation to some degree.
Neutral clerics need some sort of divine focus. Whether we call it a holy or unholy symbol is semantics. I agree with hitdice, every deity has a symbol used as the divine focus for their clerics. I also see no restriction that says neutral clerics are barred from casting good/evil or Lawful/chaotic spells (depending on which axis they are neutral).