|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have a neutral cleric whose deity is Urgathoa--the back story is that Urgathoa has saved the character who was slain by an evil necromancer. Urgathoa believes that one day the necromancer will threaten her, so she saved the character and would empower him to exact vengance upon the necromancer who killed him--and his step mother and father. Thus a nuetral alignment for a nuetral evil diety.
I accept that I cannot cast spells with a "good" descriptor. But can I use a wand of protection from evil?
It is still on my spell list. And given the back story, there may be just enough wiggle room to permit it.
What do you all think?
It depends entirely on whether the restriction against casting the spell counts as removing it from your spell list or not.
As a GM, I would probably rule that it does count as being removed from your spell list and would require UMD.
However, as far as rules as written are concerned it only says you can't cast it. Which oddly means you could prepare it, but couldn't use it. I don't think that bit of the cleric class has ever really been evaluated this deeply before, though I could be wrong.
As for roleplaying issues, given your circumstance I would consider it just prudent action and your deity wouldn't be upset with your action.
The only requirements for using a wand are that the spell must be on your spell list, and you must be able to speak the wand's command word. For instance, a raging ranger/barbarian can use a wand of freedom of movement, even though a rage prohibits spellcasting. For the same reason, an evil cleric should be able to use a wand of a good spell like protection from evil.
|
Well it's mostly because cleric is one of these classes that is married to fluff. The act of preparing spells for cleric is asking for spells from your deity and basically, if the deity doesn't want to grant you x spell today...it just doesn't work. Thankfully most DM aren't too harsh about it.
Anyway, my point, the divine spell in the wand has most likely been cast by divine caster from another religion, so technically, yes a cleric could do it but depending on your DM (let's not kid ourselves here, basically the one playing your deity), it might have repercussion on future spellcasting.
I think if we consider that domain spells are on a class list, then prohibited spells are not.
RAW is, as others have said, pretty weak on this. I probably wouldn't allow it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason why a cleric of an evil god couldn't cast protection from evil. A cleric of an evil god would have as much to worry about from another evil cleric of another evil faith as they would from the clergy of a good faith.
Come to think of it, a cleric of a NE faith would have to also worry about members of his own faith as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason why a cleric of an evil god couldn't cast protection from evil. A cleric of an evil god would have as much to worry about from another evil cleric of another evil faith as they would from the clergy of a good faith.
Come to think of it, a cleric of a NE faith would have to also worry about members of his own faith as well.
That's because alignment is dumb.
RAW seems clear to me. You're not casting a spell, and nothing says the spells are removed from your class list. Using the wand is perfectly legal.
Hmm. It just occurred to me. It says you can't CAST a spell with the opposed alignment. It says absolutely nothing about not preparing it. Obviously, people would never do this because it'd just be this slot filled with a spell you can't cast, but it looks to be perfectly legal.
Protection from Chaos = Lawful spell
Protection from Law = Chaotic spell
Protection from Evil = Good spell
Protection from Good = Evil spell
These descriptor effect how these spell work with alignment.
A evil priest, using a wand of protection from evil, is still using good magic.
Ask, him how he is misusing the wand for evil proposes, how is he corrupting the intended use of the wand for the gain of evil.
...........................
If the player can not come up with a good reason, might be time for a Atonement spell. :|
...........................
Even then, the prolonged use of Good magic, in this manner might be a corrupting influence on the Cleric. It might have an effect on his connection with his deity. Even if his deity approves, then the good deity who created the wand, is just going to notice its misuse, and send Quests cleric/servants/ and other hazards the Evil cleric way.
If your an evil cleric, do you really want a Good Deity to take notice of you.
Ether way, great way to open up more stories elements, plot lines, and Adventures for your characters.
|
|
My character is a good character who has agreed to allow Urgathoa to be more of his partner than a deity, to allow him to exact his revenge--thus the neutral alignment. He would otherwise be chaotic good, but the mix of the well-intentioned and evil magic makes him neutral.
I will have to talk it over with the GM and see what he thinks. But I think my take-aways are, that even though the spell is "good" and Urgathoa is neutral evil, that doesn't mean the spell is removed from my spell list; therefore, I could use a wand with a "good" spell; however, doing so could still make my deity unhappy to say the least--but that is all more of an RP opportunity than anything else.
Thanks for all the answers, comments, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it comes from a wand then you are not casting it, so you are good. However your deity still may not be happy about it.
Some spells such as the protection from ____ spells really should not have alignment descriptors
If it comes from a wand then you are not casting it, so you are good. However your deity still may not be happy about it.
** spoiler omitted **
yep. good and evil clerics can cure and cuase wounds. protection from X should be the same.
on a side note. if you know the target is cheotic or lawful evil. you can go with the protection from chaos\law. as i think you said yours is nutral evil diety.
will a fire diety be as upset if his cleric cast protection from fire?
From the Advanced Players Guide FAQ:
Cleric, Outsider Subdomains: How am I supposed to use the planar binding domain spell granted by these subdomains?
This is an error, in that there is an alignment incompatibility between the outsider subdomains and the magic circle spells needed to bind the respective types of outsiders. For example, a chaotic cleric with the Protean (Chaos) subdomain would need to cast a [lawful] magic circle against chaos domain spell to bind a chaotic protean, but her chaotic alignment prevents her from doing so (see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells in the Core Rulebook).
The solution is to allow the use of that planar binding domain spell without requiring the magic circle spell. (If the cleric wanted to create a calling diagram to improve her chances, she could enlist the aid of another caster to cast the required magic circle spell.)
This text will be updated in a future printing of the Advanced Player's Guide
I highlighted the relevant sections to this question - the answer is within RAW the only way to do what you want is either hire another cleric - or get a magic item with X/day castings (or permanent) - or carry around a cache of potions....
I have a neutral cleric whose deity is Urgathoa--the back story is that Urgathoa has saved the character who was slain by an evil necromancer. Urgathoa believes that one day the necromancer will threaten her, so she saved the character and would empower him to exact vengance upon the necromancer who killed him--and his step mother and father. Thus a nuetral alignment for a nuetral evil diety.
I accept that I cannot cast spells with a "good" descriptor. But can I use a wand of protection from evil?
It is still on my spell list. And given the back story, there may be just enough wiggle room to permit it.
What do you all think?
I would argue that if you can't cast a spell than it isn't really on your spell list. UMD would be required.
I would argue that if you can't cast a spell than it isn't really on your spell list. UMD would be required.I have a neutral cleric whose deity is Urgathoa--the back story is that Urgathoa has saved the character who was slain by an evil necromancer. Urgathoa believes that one day the necromancer will threaten her, so she saved the character and would empower him to exact vengance upon the necromancer who killed him--and his step mother and father. Thus a nuetral alignment for a nuetral evil diety.
I accept that I cannot cast spells with a "good" descriptor. But can I use a wand of protection from evil?
It is still on my spell list. And given the back story, there may be just enough wiggle room to permit it.
What do you all think?
My sorcerer hasn't learned magic missile, so he can't cast it. Does he need UMD?
As I noted above ... an evil cleric can prepare a good spell perfectly legally; he just can't cast it. Ergo, it MUST be on his spell list.
I would argue that if you can't cast a spell than it isn't really on your spell list. UMD would be required.I have a neutral cleric whose deity is Urgathoa--the back story is that Urgathoa has saved the character who was slain by an evil necromancer. Urgathoa believes that one day the necromancer will threaten her, so she saved the character and would empower him to exact vengance upon the necromancer who killed him--and his step mother and father. Thus a nuetral alignment for a nuetral evil diety.
I accept that I cannot cast spells with a "good" descriptor. But can I use a wand of protection from evil?
It is still on my spell list. And given the back story, there may be just enough wiggle room to permit it.
What do you all think?
My sorcerer hasn't learned magic missile, so he can't cast it. Does he need UMD?
As I noted above ... an evil cleric can prepare a good spell perfectly legally; he just can't cast it. Ergo, it MUST be on his spell list.
The FAQ I quoted seems to disagree otherwise why not just indicate the use of a wand in the FAQ? I'll agree however that there isn't anything explicit that you can't prepare the spell - the question really comes down to - do you want your game to have the very paradoxical situation of a deity infusing the power of a spell against their alignment into a cleric and then refusing to let them cast that spell?
If so I suppose it's on their spell list - RAI I'd say it's 100% against what the rules are trying to enforce. I do agree with others however that the magic circle and protection spells shouldn't be aligned.
Since alignment is stupid, yes. The deity doesn't even really factor into the decision; the player determines which spells he prepares. There is no clause in the rules saying the GM can interfere with this procedure that I can find (nor should he). What spells a cleric preps shouldn't matter; how he uses them should.
There's also the fact that you don't need a deity to be a cleric, of course.
There's also the fact that you don't need a deity to be a cleric, of course.
Strictly speaking true, but setting can override this. You have to worship a deity in Golarion, even.
I'll point to the Legend of Drizzt for RP precedence, a Menzoberranyr Cleric of Lloth used a cure spell on a Dwarf to keep it alive to torture. That wasn't even from a spell, it was straight up an evil act so an evil goddess granted the magic, which she normally wouldn't do. If you have a genuine RP beef with this guy, I'd rule as a DM that you could use the spell FROM YOUR OWN SPELL LIST, let alone to be able to use a wand of it. Now, if you tried it again on someone or something else, I'd wipe your spells per day in half as divine retribution. Don't push your luck too far with it. But since you're doing your diety's will, as a GM I'd say to go for it. (I might also discretely boost your enemy to account for the unexpected, so that it was the same combat but you *felt* like you'd done something awesome, which is the point.)
They used more 2nd edition rules when they used the rules at all. IIRC playing baldur's gate which was also based on 2nd edition I had evil clerics casting sure spells.
I'll point to the Legend of Drizzt for RP precedence, a Menzoberranyr Cleric of Lloth used a cure spell on a Dwarf to keep it alive to torture. That wasn't even from a spell, it was straight up an evil act so an evil goddess granted the magic, which she normally wouldn't do. If you have a genuine RP beef with this guy, I'd rule as a DM that you could use the spell FROM YOUR OWN SPELL LIST, let alone to be able to use a wand of it. Now, if you tried it again on someone or something else, I'd wipe your spells per day in half as divine retribution. Don't push your luck too far with it. But since you're doing your diety's will, as a GM I'd say to go for it. (I might also discretely boost your enemy to account for the unexpected, so that it was the same combat but you *felt* like you'd done something awesome, which is the point.)They used more 2nd edition rules when they used the rules at all. IIRC playing baldur's gate which was also based on 2nd edition I had evil clerics casting sure spells.
I thought clerics of any alignment could cast cure or inflict - the only thing the alignment did was restrict spontaneous conversion.
Cure and inflict by themselves aren't aligned.
I'll point to the Legend of Drizzt for RP precedence, a Menzoberranyr Cleric of Lloth used a cure spell on a Dwarf to keep it alive to torture. That wasn't even from a spell, it was straight up an evil act so an evil goddess granted the magic, which she normally wouldn't do. If you have a genuine RP beef with this guy, I'd rule as a DM that you could use the spell FROM YOUR OWN SPELL LIST, let alone to be able to use a wand of it. Now, if you tried it again on someone or something else, I'd wipe your spells per day in half as divine retribution. Don't push your luck too far with it. But since you're doing your diety's will, as a GM I'd say to go for it. (I might also discretely boost your enemy to account for the unexpected, so that it was the same combat but you *felt* like you'd done something awesome, which is the point.)They used more 2nd edition rules when they used the rules at all. IIRC playing baldur's gate which was also based on 2nd edition I had evil clerics casting sure spells.I thought clerics of any alignment could cast cure or inflict - the only thing the alignment did was restrict spontaneous conversion.
Cure and inflict by themselves aren't aligned.
I misunderstood your point.
Having read it again I see your idea as a "rule of cool" idea.
Not my point - just was saying cure/inflict aren't aligned - your response read like they were.
Our games (regardless of GM) play as the deity giving the spell to the cleric - it also alows the GM to give extra spells on occasion which is kind of nifty.
PRD - "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 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."
So you want to use a wand to cast a spell that is against your deities moral or ethical beliefs?
I would not want to be standing there between heaven and hell with my heart and a feather on the scale, trying to explain that "the wand was the one who did that not me."
That's precisely the point. YOU. ARE. NOT. CASTING. A. SPELL.
PRD - "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 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."So you want to use a wand to cast a spell that is against your deities moral or ethical beliefs?
I would not want to be standing there between heaven and hell with my heart and a feather on the scale, trying to explain that "the wand was the one who did that not me."
Deities in general will judge intention. You want Protection from Evil to storm hell? Yeah, that's a paddlin'. You want Protection from Evil to go kill a guy who wronged you? I can't see a deity getting too up in arms about it.
People tell me that the alignment system in PF is objective. If this is the case, then intent doesn't and can't matter; by definition, that's subjective.
This is (yet) another case that demonstrates that alignment is unworkable, contradictory, and a useless morass.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This particular good-aligned cleric of a good-aligned deity (Shelyn) has several times been viciously attacked, with murderous intent, by good-aligned outsiders. Sometimes they were summoned, sometimes controlled, sometimes stupid, and sometimes just misguided. It's silly that it's perfectly OK to kill them in self defense, but not possible to cast Protection from Good to defend against their attacks because that would be naughty.
The various Protection From X spells should not have an alignment subtype. Giving them an alignment subtype falsely assumes that beings of similar alignment are all one big happy family.
Its a bit of a dicey argument. First you have to argue that spell trigger activation does not count as casting a spell. You are then arguing that your class can cast it, even though your class prevents people like you from casting it.
You could reasonably take both of those positions as a technical reading of RAW, but not a sure thing.
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
As for the goddess approving or not, that's fairly irrelevant. Every evil cleric wants Protection from Evil, every power of evil would want their divine champions to get it. They just don't because of the way descriptors interact with alignment for clerics and druids. Cosmic alignment operates by its own rules, not the whims or desires of gods.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Sorry but "alignment system in PF is objective" cracked me up. Whoever told you that clearly haven't spent much time on this forum.People tell me that the alignment system in PF is objective. If this is the case, then intent doesn't and can't matter; by definition, that's subjective.
This is (yet) another case that demonstrates that alignment is unworkable, contradictory, and a useless morass.
Actually, it's several forum regulars who make that ridiculous claim.
This particular good-aligned cleric of a good-aligned deity (Shelyn) has several times been viciously attacked, with murderous intent, by good-aligned outsiders. Sometimes they were summoned, sometimes controlled, sometimes stupid, and sometimes just misguided. It's silly that it's perfectly OK to kill them in self defense, but not possible to cast Protection from Good to defend against their attacks because that would be naughty.
The various Protection From X spells should not have an alignment subtype. Giving them an alignment subtype falsely assumes that beings of similar alignment are all one big happy family.
No spells should have alignment descriptors. What the spell is doesn't matter, how you use it does.
People tell me that the alignment system in PF is objective. If this is the case, then intent doesn't and can't matter; by definition, that's subjective.
This is (yet) another case that demonstrates that alignment is unworkable, contradictory, and a useless morass.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Sorry but "alignment system in PF is objective" cracked me up. Whoever told you that clearly haven't spent much time on this forum. There are insane amounts of discussion about what the different alignments should mean. This part of the rules is probably the most subjective there is in this game and you should expect extreme table variance.
I don't find alignment useless exactly, but I will grant you that it is a huge mess. Personally speaking I'm fine with it because in the groups I play in we have come to an understanding about it (different for each group, but still).
I could see it as very annoying for PFS with players/GMs you don't know or play with often because you will be told one thing at one table and another thing at another table and you wont be able to point to the rules and disprove either.
Objective does not mean that "there is no debate over it on the boards." It means that there is no debate over it in character. A paladin can tell you, with absolute certainty, that a particular person, place or thing is Evil. That's objective.
Compare Objective/Subjective.
In the real world, morality could be said to be subjective, as we often talk about what it means to be right or wrong, good or evil.
In Golarion, you can go to a beach whre the sand is Evil. Then you can swim in the Evil lake, and then play with the Evil, but mindless, larve.
No spells should have alignment descriptors. What the spell is doesn't matter, how you use it does.
There is no reason that both can't matter.
Consider the proverbial time-traveler that goes ad kills baby Hitler. The murder of a baby is an evil act. However, preventing the holocaust must be a good act (ignore the paradox problem. Say the time traveler solved it).
So is what the time traveler did a good or an evil act? you can't pick just one, because in that one action there were two acts. Spells are the same way. Summoning a devil is and evil act. Forcing that devil to work at the soup-kitchen is a good act. Whichever of those is metaphysically stronger in your world determines your character's alignment.
Would you not agree that summoning an angel to work your soup-kitchen is a more good act than using a devil?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No spells should have alignment descriptors. What the spell is doesn't matter, how you use it does....
The various Protection From X spells should not have an alignment subtype. Giving them an alignment subtype falsely assumes that beings of similar alignment are all one big happy family.
I counter with Create Greater Undead. Even if you have the best of intentions [Order of the Stick], it's clearly Evil. Just listen to Roy rationalizing allowing some evil (the vampire) to achieve a greater good (saving the world).
Would you not agree that summoning an angel to work your soup-kitchen is a more good act than using a devil?
All other things being equal, no. Both are providing X amount of soup over Y minutes to the needy. It's identical.
No spells should have alignment descriptors. What the spell is doesn't matter, how you use it does....
The various Protection From X spells should not have an alignment subtype. Giving them an alignment subtype falsely assumes that beings of similar alignment are all one big happy family.
I counter with Create Greater Undead. Even if you have the best of intentions [Oreder of the Stick], it's clearly Evil. Just listen to Roy rationalizing allowing some evil (the vampire) to achieve a greater good (saving the world).
How is it 'clearly evil'? You're just animating dead bodies. That is inherently, well, nothing. It's the purpose you put the bodies to that matters.
People tell me that the alignment system in PF is objective. If this is the case, then intent doesn't and can't matter; by definition, that's subjective.
This is (yet) another case that demonstrates that alignment is unworkable, contradictory, and a useless morass.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Sorry but "alignment system in PF is objective" cracked me up. Whoever told you that clearly haven't spent much time on this forum. There are insane amounts of discussion about what the different alignments should mean. This part of the rules is probably the most subjective there is in this game and you should expect extreme table variance.
I don't find alignment useless exactly, but I will grant you that it is a huge mess. Personally speaking I'm fine with it because in the groups I play in we have come to an understanding about it (different for each group, but still).
I could see it as very annoying for PFS with players/GMs you don't know or play with often because you will be told one thing at one table and another thing at another table and you wont be able to point to the rules and disprove either.Objective does not mean that "there is no debate over it on the boards." It means that there is no debate over it in character. A paladin can tell you, with absolute certainty, that a particular person, place or thing is Evil. That's objective.
Compare Objective/Subjective.
In the real world, morality could be said to be subjective, as we often talk about what it means to be right or wrong, good or evil.
In Golarion, you can go to a beach whre the sand is Evil. Then you can swim in the Evil lake, and then play with the Evil, but mindless, larve.
That's utterly ridiculous and a VERY good reason not to play in Golarion, where Saturday Morning Cartoon morality runs rampant.
Since what actions are and aren't evil is, by definition, subjective (and only actions matter), you can't go 'that guy's evil' because it depends entirely upon who you talk to if he is.