|
Wands are spell trigger items. The spell trigger activation method says "Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell."
Infernal Healing is on the Cleric spell list, but Clerics have the following restriction:
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 description.
Can a Good Cleric, or a Cleric of a Good deity, activate a Wand of Infernal Healing (an Evil spell)? (Without UMD).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the intention is that they not do that.
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.
The rules have consistently said that using items to cast spells does not actually count as "casting a spell" in terms of character abilities: You cannot use metamagics, feats, abilities, or anything else on the spell from a wand unless it specifically says so (e.g. Magus arcanas).
Therefore, yes, a cleric of good alignment can use a wand of Infernal Healing.
I think yes, but it's technically an Evil act.
I wouldn't use the "official" approach (3 Evil acts shifts alignment), but I would have some ramifications.
If you look on the wiki or on archivesofnethys most deities have a section about how deities show displeasure to their followers (remember that while the character would recognise the signs the player probably doesn't, so don't just say "your *armour looks rusty dispite guyour polishing", you need to add "which you recognise as a sign of Iomedae's dis-favour").
Also, while you can justify healing a peasant is a good act, casting an evil spell directly powers the negative planes (or whatever) and your Cleric has other ways to heal, so using it once might fly, but using it as your go-to healing wouldn't.
*Iomedae's displeasure isnsomething like that.
|
|
The rules have consistently said that using items to cast spells does not actually count as "casting a spell" in terms of character abilities: You cannot use metamagics, feats, abilities, or anything else on the spell from a wand unless it specifically says so (e.g. Magus arcanas).
The first sentence there would seem to be contradicted by the rule the Melkiador cited; though I agree completely with your second sentence. Can you cite anything that says "activating/using a magic item does not count as casting a spell"? Because I think that would cinch it for me.
I wouldn't allow it in a home game, but in my home games casting Evil spells does have consequences for your soul (and not the ridiculous "3 strikes" rule). Asking for PFS purposes though.
Whether they can do it from a wand or not is irrelevant IMHO. It's an evil spell. You're propagating evil magic/letting evil magic loose into the world. If your deity is good, they're not gonna be happy with evil spells. The wand is just a byproduct at that point.
Asking for PFS purposes though.
I think they never really clarified that. In my lodge, it's always left to the GM, but we're all leaning towards "no." Even my Paladin/Inquisitor multiclass wasn't allowed. It's technically on his spell list, so I thought it would be fine ("use what the enemy gives you" kinda deal), but it was shot down.
Basically, for unclear PFS rulings, we usually go with the most restrictive ruling. If it seems like it could be exploited/misused, then don't.
Can you cite anything that says "activating/using a magic item does not count as casting a spell"? Because I think that would cinch it for me.
I'm going with this FAQ:
Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?
No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.
|
I think people are misunderstanding the question (or I'm misunderstanding it), so I'm going to rephrase it a bit:
- Good Clerics and Clerics of Good Deities can not cast evil spells.
- Wands are spell trigger items, which "can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell."
- Do good clerics (who can't cast evil spells) still count as having a "class (that) can cast the corresponding spell" when trying to use a wand of infernal healing?
- Does the alignment restriction effectively take evil spells off the cleric spell list for good clerics (or clerics of good deities) and thus prevent the normal use of spell trigger items for those spells?
- Or is this something that the class as a whole can still do (even if you specifically can't) so the wand will function normally for you (like having a low ability score)?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are misunderstanding the question (or I'm misunderstanding it), so I'm going to rephrase it a bit:Basically,
- Good Clerics and Clerics of Good Deities can not cast evil spells.
- Wands are spell trigger items, which "can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell."
- Do good clerics (who can't cast evil spells) still count as having a "class (that) can cast the corresponding spell" when trying to use a wand of infernal healing?
- Does the alignment restriction effectively take evil spells off the cleric spell list for good clerics (or clerics of good deities) and thus prevent the normal use of spell trigger items for those spells?
- Or is this something that the class as a whole can still do (even if you specifically can't) so the wand will function normally for you (like having a low ability score)?
I agree that that is the whole point of the OP question.
As it saysChaotic, 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.
not "they can cast spell opposite of their alignment, but it has negative consequences", I would say that that the spell with an opposite alignment isn't in your class spell list anymore, exactly as archetypes adding/removing spells from the list add/remove those spells from your spell list.
Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell.
The character cleric class can cast that spell? No.
A generic, nonaligned cleric could, but that specific character with the cleric class "Cleric: deity Iomeade, alignment LG" (to make an example) can't, nor any other character with that specific class combination.
I think people are misunderstanding the question (or I'm misunderstanding it), so I'm going to rephrase it a bit:Basically,
- Good Clerics and Clerics of Good Deities can not cast evil spells.
- Wands are spell trigger items, which "can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell."
- Do good clerics (who can't cast evil spells) still count as having a "class (that) can cast the corresponding spell" when trying to use a wand of infernal healing?
- Does the alignment restriction effectively take evil spells off the cleric spell list for good clerics (or clerics of good deities) and thus prevent the normal use of spell trigger items for those spells?
- Or is this something that the class as a whole can still do (even if you specifically can't) so the wand will function normally for you (like having a low ability score)?
It is technically on their list, they're just not able to cast them, as stated by OP's quoted message. Just like how I technically should be able to lick my elbow, but physically can't.
The FAQ Theaitetos quoted specifically stated abilities don't modify the base spell: Augment Summoning doesn't enhance the creature, Spell Focus doesn't increase the DC, evokers don't add damage, and so on. They don't count as casting it, as they're essentially relying on a third party to supply them. Someone pre-cast a summon spell, and so on, they're just releasing it. That's got nothing to do with a Cleric's alignment; that doesn't alter the base spell.
IMHO, however you manage to get the spell, I don't think Clerics are able to cast it. Be it from preparing it themselves, or using outside help like wands or staves. They're forbidden from making it happen.
EDIT: the difference is purely academic at this point, but I'd like to clarify that my stance is that yes, it is on their spell list, but they cannot cast it. Which is effectively the same as it not being on their spell list. I personally think the wording just isn't strong enough (normally, descriptions say stuff like "removes spell X from their spell list," which this doesn't say), but that could be just my interpretation or poor initial phrasing.
|
|
Taja's restatement is helpful. That is the nub of the problem as I see it.
Theaitetos' FAQ link also helps, in a different way. The last part of the FAQ statement says "not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting." Plus the FAQ specifically addresses the use of "feats and abilities" that modify spellcasting. The Cleric's proscription on opposed alignment spells is neither a feat nor an ability, but a class feature. The FAQ is really answering a different question.
I think I am coming down in the same general area as Quentin, but I am open to be persuaded differently if there is evidence.
The Cleric's proscription on opposed alignment spells is neither a feat nor an ability, but a class feature. The FAQ is really answering a different question.
The FAQ explicitly adresses the evoker's ability to add extra damage, which is a class feature of the Wizard (Arcane School class feature: Evocation: Intense Spells), and bloodlines, which is a class feature of the sorcerer.
How do you get from there to "the FAQ doesn't address class features"?
Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?
No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time this argument comes up it always seems to be an attempt to use (possible) vagueness in the definition of "casting a spell" to make an end-run past the clear reasoning behind the prohibition:
Her alignment, however, may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see chaotic, evil, good, and lawful spells.
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.
Clerics can't cast spells of alignments opposed by their deity or their own alignment. Because it's a moral or ethical obligation. Putting the spell in wand form doesn't change your morals.
|
|
I can see a potential equivalence between "feats and special abilities" as the FAQ puts it and "class features", Theaitetos; but not a definite equivalence. Some class features are undoubtedly "special abilities" like those listed in the FAQ and in your post.
But I have difficulty in seeing the Cleric's proscription as a "feat [or] special ability". And, the FAQ answer is saying "feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting [not items]", and it seems clear to me that the Cleric's proscription is not "modify[ing] spells you cast", rather its preventing you casting at all. That's why I say the FAQ is answering a different question.
Lelomenia's point is a good one. Thassilonian specialists explicitly can't use spell trigger items for example, and their prohibited schools count as not being on their spell lists.
Technically I do agree with you Belafon. I have a specific problem as a PFS GM. The campaign ruling is that casting Evil spells doesn't cause an alignment infraction, and that's ok I suppose, but the real problem area is this Cleric class proscription and its interaction with items.
I may just have to run it past the online VCs.
not that horror adventures is an ideal source, but kind of takes away from my initial view that ‘there’s no official language anywhere against clerics using magic items with forbidden spells’“Those who are forbidden from casting spells with an opposed alignment might lose their divine abilities if they circumvent that restriction (via Use Magic Device, for example), depending on how strict their deities are.”
That actually supports the point that cleric's are able to circumvent the forbidden part by using magic items. For if it were impossible rule-wise, they couldn't circumvent their deity's order that way.
Otherwise this is just a reference to in-game results of the deity, not a statement about rules.
Clerics can't cast spells of alignments opposed by their deity or their own alignment. Because it's a moral or ethical obligation. Putting the spell in wand form doesn't change your morals.
Yes, this. This is exactly what I was trying to say, but more elegantly.
Can a Good cleric murder an innocent child? Or is that against Pathfinder rules?Every time this argument comes up it always seems to be an attempt to use (possible) vagueness in the definition of "casting a spell" to make an end-run past the clear reasoning behind the prohibition:
Her alignment, however, may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see chaotic, evil, good, and lawful spells.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.Clerics can't cast spells of alignments opposed by their deity or their own alignment. Because it's a moral or ethical obligation. Putting the spell in wand form doesn't change your morals.
This is going away from the original question, and a slippery slope. Technically, Good Clerics aren't explicitly forbidden from murdering and eating their own party members. It's just that, at some point, RAW stops somewhere and common sense starts there.
I can see a potential equivalence between "feats and special abilities" as the FAQ puts it and "class features", Theaitetos; but not a definite equivalence. Some class features are undoubtedly "special abilities" like those listed in the FAQ and in your post.
But I have difficulty in seeing the Cleric's proscription as a "feat [or] special ability". And, the FAQ answer is saying "feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting [not items]", and it seems clear to me that the Cleric's proscription is not "modify[ing] spells you cast", rather its preventing you casting at all. That's why I say the FAQ is answering a different question.
My earlier post clarifies this, I think. Basically, that FAQ states spells from outside sources can't be modified (no higher DC, no bonus damage, no metamagic). Cleric's alignment doesn't modify the base spell. That's the easiest explanation I can give without opening other cans of worms.
it suggests that the mechanical implementation of the spells being ‘forbidden’ is by them not being on the character’s class spell list, which would cleanly answer the OP.not that horror adventures is an ideal source, but kind of takes away from my initial view that ‘there’s no official language anywhere against clerics using magic items with forbidden spells’“Those who are forbidden from casting spells with an opposed alignment might lose their divine abilities if they circumvent that restriction (via Use Magic Device, for example), depending on how strict their deities are.”
That actually supports the point that cleric's are able to circumvent the forbidden part by using magic items. For if it were impossible rule-wise, they couldn't circumvent their deity's order that way.
Otherwise this is just a reference to in-game results of the deity, not a statement about rules.
Hypothetical: if a Good cleric multiclasses into Wizard, can he then cast Infernal Healing? It's then on his spell list again. I think you're arguing for a mechanical explanation, while I'm advocating a moral explanation. For me, it's simply that God says "no" and takes away your powers, rather than saying, "okay, you found a loophole, well done."
|
|
not that horror adventures is an ideal source, but kind of takes away from my initial view that ‘there’s no official language anywhere against clerics using magic items with forbidden spells’“Those who are forbidden from casting spells with an opposed alignment might lose their divine abilities if they circumvent that restriction (via Use Magic Device, for example), depending on how strict their deities are.”
That actually supports the point that cleric's are able to circumvent the forbidden part by using magic items. For if it were impossible rule-wise, they couldn't circumvent their deity's order that way.
Otherwise this is just a reference to in-game results of the deity, not a statement about rules.
Sure, with Use Magic Device, or with items that don't require anything more than a command word.
Can you cite anything that says "activating/using a magic item does not count as casting a spell"? Because I think that would cinch it for me.I'm going with this FAQ:
Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?
No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.
The problem is that the FAQ asks a general sounding question, but then gives an extra specific case answer.
Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.
The cleric limit doesn't modify a spell and so isn't covered by the FAQ.
|
|
Sure, with Use Magic Device, or with items that don't require anything more than a command word.not that horror adventures is an ideal source, but kind of takes away from my initial view that ‘there’s no official language anywhere against clerics using magic items with forbidden spells’“Those who are forbidden from casting spells with an opposed alignment might lose their divine abilities if they circumvent that restriction (via Use Magic Device, for example), depending on how strict their deities are.”
That actually supports the point that cleric's are able to circumvent the forbidden part by using magic items. For if it were impossible rule-wise, they couldn't circumvent their deity's order that way.
Otherwise this is just a reference to in-game results of the deity, not a statement about rules.
Just to be clear, the cleric can activate the magic item. That doesn't mean that doing that will not have consequences for him.
From what I get, there are no real consequences in PFS as the slate is cleared after each session, but in standard play, the GM will play the role of the cleric deity and apply whatever consequence he thinks is appropriate.|
|
Activating with UMD is an entirely different consideration for me. I have no doubts that activating with UMD works - just pass the skill check and you 'convince' the item to do what it's intended to do.
Activating via the spell trigger method is what is contentious. It must be either possible (and the usual expected consequences of angering your deity are generally not a consideration in PFS), or not possible in which case I must advise a player that UMD is the only way to go.
|
|
For anyone interested, the PFS online VOs (responsible for such things) have ruled that a Good Cleric can indeed activate an Infernal Healing wand, the reasoning being that activating a wand is not the same as "casting a spell" for the purpose of the Cleric's class proscription.
(Whilst I would rule differently in a home game, I am satisfied that a ruling has been made).
It is entirely a moral/ethics issue for the user of the magic device in question. Otherwise, Paladins would create armies of undead with Animate Dead scrolls and still remain Lawful Good, which is absurd.
Fwiw, Good Clerics *can* cast a spell that is considered Evil if it's for the greater good, and if it's a 1-time occurrence, without changing their alignment. If they made a seasonal habit of this behavior, their alignment would most likely change to Neutral, though. And if they made a daily habit of this behavior, their alignment would undoubtedly change to Evil.
|
|
Fwiw, Good Clerics *can* cast a spell that is considered Evil if it's for the greater good, and if it's a 1-time occurrence, without changing their alignment. If they made a seasonal habit of this behavior, their alignment would most likely change to Neutral, though. And if they made a daily habit of this behavior, their alignment would undoubtedly change to Evil.
Maybe good clerics can use an item to cast an evil spell, but they can't cast it as a prepared spell.
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.
As the restriction has its own paragraph and is not part of the spell feature I would say that it apply to all method that can be used to cast a spell, but, as we have seen, other people think differently.
Fwiw, Good Clerics *can* cast a spell that is considered Evil if it's for the greater good, and if it's a 1-time occurrence, without changing their alignment. If they made a seasonal habit of this behavior, their alignment would most likely change to Neutral, though. And if they made a daily habit of this behavior, their alignment would undoubtedly change to Evil.Maybe good clerics can use an item to cast an evil spell, but they can't cast it as a prepared spell.
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.As the restriction has its own paragraph and is not part of the spell feature I would say that it apply to all method that can be used to cast a spell, but, as we have seen, other people think differently.
Re-read the first sentence of my last post until you understand that I'm not talking about prepared spells.
|
|
Re-read the first sentence of my last post until you understand that I'm not talking about prepared spells.Fwiw, Good Clerics *can* cast a spell that is considered Evil if it's for the greater good, and if it's a 1-time occurrence, without changing their alignment. If they made a seasonal habit of this behavior, their alignment would most likely change to Neutral, though. And if they made a daily habit of this behavior, their alignment would undoubtedly change to Evil.Maybe good clerics can use an item to cast an evil spell, but they can't cast it as a prepared spell.
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.As the restriction has its own paragraph and is not part of the spell feature I would say that it apply to all method that can be used to cast a spell, but, as we have seen, other people think differently.
Don't separate the text in two paragraph if you want to have it read as one.
Don't separate the text in two paragraph if you want to have it read as one.Re-read the first sentence of my last post until you understand that I'm not talking about prepared spells.Fwiw, Good Clerics *can* cast a spell that is considered Evil if it's for the greater good, and if it's a 1-time occurrence, without changing their alignment. If they made a seasonal habit of this behavior, their alignment would most likely change to Neutral, though. And if they made a daily habit of this behavior, their alignment would undoubtedly change to Evil.Maybe good clerics can use an item to cast an evil spell, but they can't cast it as a prepared spell.
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.As the restriction has its own paragraph and is not part of the spell feature I would say that it apply to all method that can be used to cast a spell, but, as we have seen, other people think differently.
I'll type however I like, tyvm. You seem to be the only one who is confused. Everyone else knows we're in a thread called "Can a Good Cleric activate Wand of Infernal Healing", not a thread called "Can a Good Cleric prepare an Evil Spell".
For anyone interested, the PFS online VOs (responsible for such things) have ruled that a Good Cleric can indeed activate an Infernal Healing wand, the reasoning being that activating a wand is not the same as "casting a spell" for the purpose of the Cleric's class proscription.
It really makes sense, actually. A Paladin can commit evil acts, but suffers the consequences. A good Cleric, however, is literally unable to cast evil spells. If it were a "moral or ethical obligation", as Belafon put it, they would be able to cast the spells, only it would make them lose their class features. But that's not the case. The only reasonable explanation for it being outright impossible for a good Cleric to cast evil spells is that their deity, which provides them with all their spellcasting, simply refuses to provides them with the magic to cast evil spells.
Of course, since for wands the deity doesn't have to do anything, a wand of an evil spell can be used by a good Cleric.
Organized Play allowed Evil spells to be cast without creating an Alignment infraction.
That was always what the actual rules said. The alleged rule from Horror Adventures was never more than advace on how to alter the normal alignment rules to make them better fit a horror themed game.
It's not an alleged rule if it's an actual rule. Likewise the book had an "alleged" rule for saying torture is Evil.
Pretty sure torture is Evil outside of Evil campaigns.
Debatable unfortunately since this is a game and skills like Sense Motive and Discern Lies exist. In the real world, we have no methods of discerning without a doubt what we're hearing is true unlike when magic is in play.
As for the topic at hand, really spells of the opposite alignment should be considered not on the Cleric's list since Clerics are unable to cast them. It makes more sense for a Good Cleric to need UMD to use an evil spell.
But RAW, activating a wand =/= The Cleric casting a spell
|
|
. . . A good Cleric, however, is literally unable to cast evil spells. If it were a "moral or ethical obligation", as Belafon put it, they would be able to cast the spells, only it would make them lose their class features. But that's not the case. The only reasonable explanation for it being outright impossible for a good Cleric to cast evil spells is that their deity, which provides them with all their spellcasting, simply refuses to provides them with the magic to cast evil spells.
Of course, since for wands the deity doesn't have to do anything, a wand of an evil spell can be used by a good Cleric.
I stand by my assertion that it’s attempt to make an end-run around the clear intention.
PETA: “Our members are ethically opposed to the raising of animals for food in factory conditions.”
ME: “Sign me up! I won’t raise any animals in factory conditions. But I’m going to buy my cheap bulk meat just like I always have because I am not the one doing the slaughtering.”
|
|
The text clarifies that casting a spell with the Evil tag is indeed an Evil act. Something that was the topic of many a heated thread before that rulebook. That part is a rule clarification.
Now, the advice is about how to implement alignment changes when someone casts an aligned spell, with a quantified system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We strongly support good clerics and other casters being able to use "evil" spells, items, and abilities free of retaliation by the gods or pesky paladins.
If cleric spells come from their deity, and that deity doesn't give them evils spells, how can they it "be on their list". The reason that that is important is that use of the wand is predicated on it being on their list. I agree that they can UMD it.
But clearly people see it that it's still on their list, so even though they can't cast the spell, they can complete it.
In my game, one of the player's (a cleric of Pharasma) got a wand of spiritual weapon, and the first time he activated it a scythe show up. He dropped the wand immediately and was all about destroying it. Personally, I don't see why a good cleric would use a wand of infernal healing and not actively look at destroying it. Evil should not be spread.
As the restriction has its own paragraph and is not part of the spell feature I would say that it apply to all method that can be used to cast a spell, but, as we have seen, other people think differently.not being part of their Spells class feature could be interpreted as not being able to cast evil spells from any Spells class feature, not just cleric. I agree that suggests the prohibition is broader than just cleric prepared spells, but it doesn’t help beyond that.
This is my stance - a multi-class cleric/wizard can't cast wizard spells that oppose their or their god's alignment. Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful spell is a class feature as strict as a Paladin's Code. A paladin/sorcerer doesn't get to betray their code (without consequence) when 'acting' as a sorcerer. A multi-class cleric doesn't get to cast opposed spells, period. And yes, it applies to items.
Obviously, not everyone agrees with that.
I entirely agree with the folks who don't care if a (good) cleric *can* use a wand of infernal healing - they shouldn't want to. And the vast majority of my characters will refuse to receive it either.
|
This is a rules question, posted on the rules question forum.
The two options are (as far as I can see, anyway) are either:
Evil spells are not on a good cleric's spell list, or
Evil spells are on a good cleric's spell list, but a good cleric can't prepare them.
The RAW isn't clear (obviously!) but I think the wording tends more towards the latter. However, since I prefer the former, that is what I use in my games - not that it has ever come up in practice.
This is my stance - a multi-class cleric/wizard can't cast wizard spells that oppose their or their god's alignment. Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful spell is a class feature as strict as a Paladin's Code. A paladin/sorcerer doesn't get to betray their code (without consequence) when 'acting' as a sorcerer. A multi-class cleric doesn't get to cast opposed spells, period. And yes, it applies to items.
I don't understand what you are saying here, due to the wonderful ambiguity of the English language - as the paladin in your example actually CAN cast an evil spell (with consequences), are you saying the cleric also CAN (with consequences) or are you holding the cleric to a higher standard than the paladin (she is literally incapable of doing it)?
I entirely agree with the folks who don't care if a (good) cleric *can* use a wand of infernal healing - they shouldn't want to.
This is a Rules Question thread. If it was an "advice on how I should roleplay my cleric?" thread then I'd agree with you.
The text clarifies that casting a spell with the Evil tag is indeed an Evil act. Something that was the topic of many a heated thread before that rulebook. That part is a rule clarification.
The only ones affected by that clarification are Paladins (multiclass ones, or if a UMD's wand/scroll counts as casting a spell). For anyone else, it being classified as an evil act has no affect, because an evil act could be negligibly minor.
You are arguing that memorizing 5 Infernal healing spells or learning it if you are a spontaneous spellcaster doesn't show a long period pattern?
First, it says "if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period." Have you actually read the sidebar? It says that a Wizard casting Animate Dead once isn't an issue, which means he must have prepared it. Second, yes, one day is not "a long period" (especially since it's potentially just 16 minutes).
Personally, I don't see why a good cleric would use a wand of infernal healing and not actively look at destroying it. Evil should not be spread.
Because it's evil in name only, and might help the Cleric fight actual evil that actually has a negative effect on the world. It depends on whether the deity cares more about effect or appearance.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful spell is a class feature as strict as a Paladin's Code.
This makes no sense, the CEG&L Spells class feature is a limitation what the Cleric is able to do, not what they're allowed to do; a Paladin's code is the exact opposite. Clerics do have a rule that can make them fall from grace, and it says "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features" - that is the part of the Cleric rules that is relevant for a multiclassed Cleric casting an opposite alignment-tagged spell. That rule part is certainly not as strict as the Paladin's, as it only talks about "gross" voilations.