PDA

View Full Version : Good Cleric, Bad Domain



tenshiakodo
2009-06-23, 05:56 AM
A friend of mine is playing in another DM's homebrew campaign, which features a neutral-aligned Death God who boasts the Death Domain. He's playing a Neutral Good Cloistered Cleric, and naturally picked up Death as his choice.

Problem? Some of the spells on his Domain list are EVIL. Casting them would be evil acts, yet they are granted by a neutral God. Nevertheless, he's now wondering if he can use those spells or not.

Do you really get penalized by casting evil spells granted by your supposedly uncaring God? The rules are silent, and I realized a Cleric of a non-specific deity could be Good and acquire the Death Domain as well by RAW, yet nothing is said about this.

Good Clerics can't have the Evil Domain, but they can have Death; it makes no sense to me. Does this mean Good Gods can't have Death as a Domain?

The obvious solution would be to substitute the spells in question, of course, or put something like Repose or Renewal Domains into play, but I'm curious what other people think about this bizarre rules tangle.

sofawall
2009-06-23, 05:58 AM
Do the spells have to be with the cleric's alignment, or the gods? I forget.

As for Clerics of, say, Death (godless) that were good, it is true they wouldn't be able to cast any [Evil] spells.

TheCountAlucard
2009-06-23, 06:06 AM
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.

I think this statement is sufficiently vague enough in terms of interpretation that it could really go either way.

Talic
2009-06-23, 06:18 AM
I believe that or is inclusive, not exclusive. Thus, you must abide by both the deity and your alignments.

Rowsen
2009-06-23, 06:20 AM
If I remember correctly, one cannot have a true neutral god as his cleric's deity unless his character is also true neutral. Also, I think spells are restricted by alignment, not deity. I may be wrong though, I haven't read the PH in a while.

pingcode20
2009-06-23, 06:23 AM
Well, I'd say that if the Good Cleric is capable of taking the domain with Evil spells (ie. not actually taking the Evil domain), then the Cleric should be able to cast the spells on the domain list without issue. Normal Cleric Spells would still be barred, but given that the domain has been chosen, it should be no issue.

---
@Rowsen:

It's Cleric can't be TN unless Deity is TN, not the other way around.

Gaiyamato
2009-06-23, 06:27 AM
If he was playing a true neutral cleric he would have been fine.
His only other option is to be a hellbred from FCII.

Aside from that, nope he cannot cast evil spells if they are against either his or his own god's alignment. So for example a Neutral Good cleric of a Lawful Evil God (wtf? That isn't even allowed... but let us just SAY it is for this example!) could not do the following:

Cast Chaos spells because his god is lawful.
Cast Good spells because his god is evil.
Cast Evil spells because he is good. (Though strictly speaking he can, his alignment would change gradually however. Though there are absolutely no mechanics for that, it is entirely up to the DM.)

He may however cast lawful spells because the god allows them and he is neutral. If he was Lawful Good this would also be true.

To sum up. In order to cast an aligned spell or trigger an aligned item both his and his gods alignment cannot contain anything opposed on the appropriate axis. True Neutral clerics of a True Neutral God can cast whatever they damn please.

Avilan the Grey
2009-06-23, 06:28 AM
I think basically it's an obvious case of Rule Zero since the Alignment system is acting up again:

I think it would be perfectly obvious that a True Neutral god of Death (which to me is actually the logical alignment for such a god) could give his clerics any death-centered spell he likes.

...Maybe a balance act? How about this: Allow him all Evil spells he wants, as long has he picks the same amount of Good (is there any spells that are good in that domain?) or at the very least Neutral spells?

Gaiyamato
2009-06-23, 06:38 AM
Here is the death domain, which is actually slightly silly really:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm#deathDomain

Here is what I would use for a True Neutral God of Death:

Same power, power is fine as it is. Though it's uses would be more limited for a Good aligned character.

1. Deathwatch: Reveals how near death subjects within 30 ft. are.
2. Status: Monitors condition, position of allies.
3. Speak with Dead: Corpse answers one question/two levels.
4. Death Ward: Grants immunity to death spells and negative energy effects.
5. Raise Dead: Restores life to subject who died as long as one day/level ago.
6. Undeath to Death: Destroys 1d4 HD/level undead (max 20d4).
7. Resurrection: Fully restore dead subject.
8. Symbol of Death: Triggered rune slays nearby creatures.
9. True Resurrection: As resurrection, plus remains aren’t needed.

Dhavaer
2009-06-23, 07:19 AM
Isn't Deathwatch [Evil]? It shouldn't be, but that's kind of the point of the thread, right?

Dixieboy
2009-06-23, 07:21 AM
I think basically it's an obvious case of Rule Zero since the Alignment system is acting up again:

I think it would be perfectly obvious that a True Neutral god of Death (which to me is actually the logical alignment for such a god) could give his clerics any death-centered spell he likes.

...Maybe a balance act? How about this: Allow him all Evil spells he wants, as long has he picks the same amount of Good (is there any spells that are good in that domain?) or at the very least Neutral spells?

Just gonna bump in and say that i would prefer LN for a death god.

That is all.

Gaiyamato
2009-06-23, 07:22 AM
Sorry, you are correct.

Swap it with Doom.

1. Doom: One subject takes -2 on attack rolls, saves, and checks.

But yeah, it shouldn't be. It should be a simple Necromancy spell. :P

Curmudgeon
2009-06-23, 08:23 AM
Don't change the rules. Just change the Cleric's alignment to match the deity's, which is required anyway (as Rowsen pointed out). No more problems. Neutral clerics can cast Good, Evil, Chaotic, and Lawful spells.

Gaiyamato
2009-06-23, 08:32 AM
Works as well. lol.

But I do like the idea of allowing a Good aligned God of Death still.

Roderick_BR
2009-06-23, 08:33 AM
This is complex, yeah. In theory, you shouldn't be getting evil spells from your neutral deity if you are good. See Cuthbert(sp?) from Player's Handbook, for example. He's Lawful Neutral, but with an inclination for Good (as an extra demand, his followers can't be evil, nor choose to convert spells into harm spells or rebuke/control undead). Death should be more of a neutral concept, even the Player's list a death god as neutral. In fact, I think that the death domain shouldn't give spells like animate dead/create undead, since a death god would see it as "cheating" death, even more than rise death/ressurrection.
Your DM could, as people pointed out, home brew a better spell list.

Blackjackg
2009-06-23, 09:15 AM
They made a special domain for just this situation. The Repose domain is exactly like the Death domain (including the same granted power), but without the evil spells. It's in Sandstorm, if you have access to it.

Alternatively, you're a cloistered cleric: you have two other domains to choose from. Just don't prepare the evil spells.

Another_Poet
2009-06-23, 09:17 AM
He is allowed to cast the spells, and doing so will shift his alignment toward True Neutral instead of Neutral Good.

tenshiakodo
2009-06-23, 09:23 AM
True that, but then they would continue, over time, to shift his alignment to Evil. Like I said, it's quite bizarre.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. It's easy to fix, it was just such a strange warp in the rules that I was suprised it hadn't been addressed previously. Sure, there's Repose, but come on, the Death Domain has been in Wee Jas's hands for how long? Just...odd.

RTGoodman
2009-06-23, 01:16 PM
They made a special domain for just this situation. The Repose domain is exactly like the Death domain (including the same granted power), but without the evil spells. It's in Sandstorm, if you have access to it.

I don't know if it's the exact same, but there's also a Repose Domain in the SRD.


Repose Domain

The Repose domain is similar to the Death domain, but is granted by good-aligned deities whose clerics are barred from casting evil spells.
Granted Power

The character may use a death touch once per day. The death touch is a spell-like ability that is a death effect. The character must succeed at a melee touch attack against a living creature (using the rules for touch spells). When the character touches, roll 1d6 per his or her cleric level. If the total at least equals the creature’s current hit points, it dies.

Repose Domain Spells
1. Deathwatch
2. Gentle repose
3. Speak with dead
4. Death ward
5. Slay living
6. Undeath to death
7. Destruction
8. Surelife
9. Wail of the banshee

Oddly enough, it still has the [Evil] deathwatch, but it also has a unique spell found on no other list (surelife (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/surelife.htm)).

ericgrau
2009-06-23, 01:19 PM
Well that's a possible fix at least. It seems like yes those spells are okay with his god but no they're not ok with his alignment. The solution I suppose would be to take spells from your 2nd domain on those levels or substitute death with repose.

Another_Poet
2009-06-23, 01:40 PM
True that, but then they would continue, over time, to shift his alignment to Evil. Like I said, it's quite bizarre.


No, because presumably he acts Good otherwise and casts many spells with the [Good] descriptor (otherwise he wouldn't be Neutral Good to start with). So averaging out his overall good outlook & actions with use of some evil spells puts him squarely at True Neutral for the long-term.

Steward
2009-06-23, 01:50 PM
I think it's also fair for a DM to choose to disregard the fluff text or anything else designating a spell as "Evil" when it suits the story. For example, I have no idea why the spell "Deathwatch" is designated as evil; all it does is allow "you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell’s range." How is that evil? It's strikingly similar to the spell status (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/status.htm).

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-23, 03:02 PM
They actually replaced Death with Repose on Wee Jas's list of domains in Living Greyhawk. Someone mentioned in some thread that she actually hates the undead. I guess that the Greyhawk version of her with all the setting history and whatnot is a bit more distinct than the little paragraph in the PHB.

Anyway, Neutral death deities should grant the Repose domain instead instead of Death, since that's pretty much what it's there for.

I think it's actually some sort of standard setup to have a Neutral Evil god of death who loves the undead and a Lawful Neutral god of death who hates the undead. That basically seems to be the case in both Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms, anyhow.

Deathwatch shouldn't be [Evil]. It shouldn't have the rather stupid fluff that it has. There's nothing Evil or especially Evil-related about what it does, so just disregard that particular alignment descriptor.

hamishspence
2009-06-23, 03:26 PM
Plus, its on the list of the Healer (must be Good) and the Slayer of Domiel (Falls if it ever commits an evil act, and according to BoED, BoVD, and Fiendish Codex 2, casting such a spell is an evil act)

I just chalk it up to an error in the PHB which has been ignored by later writers.

Gaiyamato
2009-06-23, 06:37 PM
Plus, its on the list of the Healer (must be Good) and the Slayer of Domiel (Falls if it ever commits an evil act, and according to BoED, BoVD, and Fiendish Codex 2, casting such a spell is an evil act)

I just chalk it up to an error in the PHB which has been ignored by later writers.

That is all I do as well. There is nothing really evil about the spell. In fact for a healing focused good character it is really useful. Kind of turns you into a Battlefield 2 Style Medic. lol.

mikeejimbo
2009-06-23, 06:43 PM
I always thought it was silly that Deathwatch was Evil.

"I'm going to see your health condition - with EVIL."

If anything it sounds like a good spell for triage to me.

But yeah, um, I just wanted to throw that in there.

AstralFire
2009-06-23, 10:51 PM
I believe it's supposed to be a mistake.

Steward
2009-06-25, 03:55 PM
I guess it could be twisted in an evil way.

"Hehee, you are in so much pain! Thanks to the power of DeATHWatCH! I can revel in your SUFFERING!"

Assassin89
2009-06-25, 04:17 PM
This is complex, yeah. In theory, you shouldn't be getting evil spells from your neutral deity if you are good. See Cuthbert(sp?) from Player's Handbook, for example. He's Lawful Neutral, but with an inclination for Good (as an extra demand, his followers can't be evil, nor choose to convert spells into harm spells or rebuke/control undead).

Strange, I played a cleric of Cuthbert with the ability to convert spells into harm spells or rebuke/control undead. My DM ruled that Cuthbert prefers good to evil only because evil is more inclined to break the law.

Yora
2009-06-25, 04:20 PM
I'd say the neutral deity offers all his clerics to cast some evil spells. If they use them, it's an evil act. and doing evil acts will turn a character evil over time. As the deity is neutral, he doesn't care if his clerics turn evil.

mistformsquirrl
2009-06-25, 04:20 PM
I think it actually says exactly that in one of the books Assassin89. >.< At least I'm fairly sure I remember reading that line.

CockroachTeaParty
2009-06-25, 04:51 PM
Yeah, I've always been puzzled by Deathwatch. I never even looked at the spell until I noticed it was a 0 level spell on the Healer spell list.

Yes, the underpowered Healer, which is about the gentlest, most pacifistic class in 3.5, can cast the irredeemably evil Deathwatch spell. Yet another brilliant mistake by WotC, and evidence perhaps that the [Evil] descriptor on the spell isn't necessarily Rules as Intended?

Curmudgeon
2009-06-25, 07:50 PM
I'd say the neutral deity offers all his clerics to cast some evil spells. If they use them, it's an evil act. and doing evil acts will turn a character evil over time. As the deity is neutral, he doesn't care if his clerics turn evil. As long as they stay partly neutral (within one step of the deity's true neutral alignment), that should be true.

Rizban
2009-06-26, 01:39 PM
I generally play with undead destroying spells in place of the undead creation spells in my Death domain. Then, I flavor it as being a "true death" domain, a god who ensures that the "natural course" is observed, invoking his powers to make sure all die at their appointed time, and you, as his herald, are his tool for doling out that death. You could very well be a good cleric with the death domain, who seeks out those who would pervert the natural order by indulging in vile undeath, sending them to their proper rest. A good cleric wouldn't willingly kill a living creature unless his god deemed it was the appointed time for the creature to die; however, he would defend himself if attacked, but he wouldn't use his Death powers in mere self defense.


Anyway, I make the following spell substitutions when we use the Death domain:

3. Speak with Dead: Corpse answers one question/two levels.
6. Undeath to Death: As circle of death, but affecting only undead.
8. Devastate Undead: Target undead must save or be destroyed; caster takes damage or heals 5 hit points fer HD of destroyed undead.

hamishspence
2009-06-26, 01:44 PM
Remember that casting a spell like Animate Dead, Gate (for fiends) etc is not a very evil act in its self- its the least evil of the corrupt acts- less evil than stealing from the needy or perverting justice for personal gain.

Equal to "intimidating torture" that is, torture that does no damage. Possibly playing on somebody's phobias- hanging a person off a tall building and faking dropping them, a la Crocodile Dundee II.

I couldn't find any errata confirming Evil descriptor for Deathwatch is a mistake- which book is it in?

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-26, 03:07 PM
The way you play a character should be the first and only guide to alignment. Your Alignment should not be the guide to how to play your character.

Silly Spell Descriptors. If he wants to play a Good Cleric who cast's arbitrarily Evil spells, let him do so and tell him not to worry. If it's some kind of huge cosmic problem, let the Gods worry about it.

Curmudgeon
2009-06-26, 07:38 PM
Silly Spell Descriptors. If he wants to play a Good Cleric who cast's arbitrarily Evil spells, let him do so and tell him not to worry. If it's some kind of huge cosmic problem, let the Gods worry about it.
You mean, let the DM worry about it. That's a pain in the neck, because following the rules means the PC loses all spellcasting capability. It's much better to start with a neutral alignment, stay within the rules, and avoid the whole nest of snakes. A shift of one step away from the deity's alignment due to persistent use of a certain type of spell isn't going to screw over the character, but a shift of 2 steps is. If you're even thinking about casting Evil spells at character creation, there's just no way the character can be Good-aligned.

hamishspence
2009-06-27, 08:24 AM
Unless you are playing Eberron. Where good clerics can cast evil spells and not lose their powers (mind you, its well nigh impossible for an eberron cleric to lose their powers)

Steward
2009-06-27, 09:18 AM
The DM could just ignore that part of the rules. Let's say your character is a combat medic; is using Deathwatch as part of a triage operation really that evil? I think a DM can choose to set aside the rules if they want to allow a character like that.

hamishspence
2009-06-27, 11:22 AM
or say "Homebrew errata- spell does not have Evil descriptor"

quick_comment
2009-06-27, 11:26 AM
Or just admit the fact that gods couldnt care about evil cantrips or 1st level spells.

Summoning abominations via gate? Maybe they take notice. But Pelor isnt going to mind a fiendish centipede.

hamishspence
2009-06-27, 11:30 AM
annoyingly, according to Fiendish codex 2, BoVD, and BoED, they do mind.

Since all evil spells have the same corruption rating (minimal) apparently gating then immediately dismissing a pit fiend, is exactly as evil as summoning a fiendish centipede.

Starbuck_II
2009-06-27, 11:49 AM
The way you play a character should be the first and only guide to alignment. Your Alignment should not be the guide to how to play your character.

Silly Spell Descriptors. If he wants to play a Good Cleric who cast's arbitrarily Evil spells, let him do so and tell him not to worry. If it's some kind of huge cosmic problem, let the Gods worry about it.

Sadly, what the PHB says and what it causes are two different things.

It shouldn't be a straight jacket, but in practice it is.

Callista
2009-06-27, 12:05 PM
How is it "penalizing" a NG cleric of a TN deity to let evil spells granted by that deity turn him evil? He wouldn't lose contact with the deity, or lose his status as a cleric, or anything of that sort. Unless you're talking about alignment change as a penalty in and of itself, which is kind of silly... your character's alignment changes when you choose to change it by having him start to act in different ways.

hamishspence
2009-06-27, 12:09 PM
By strict interpretation, he shouldn't be able to cast the spells at all.

PHB "Can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity's"

A Neutral cleric of a Neutral deity casting lots of deathwatches and being moved to Evil- penalty- detects as evil, with all sorts of consequences.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-27, 07:59 PM
Why not just ignore stupid parts of the rules? By which I mean both don't use dumb rules and also don't spend a lot of time arguing about whether something dumb is "RAW" or not, since it should be ruled against either way.

Jallorn
2009-06-27, 08:05 PM
Well he obviously can't use spells with the evil descriptor, but if they just seem evil, well it's all in how he uses them then. A sword kills yes, but that doesn't make it a murderer, it's the person wielding the sword who takes that responsibility. In the same way, a cruel spell can do good.

Callista
2009-06-27, 08:13 PM
Death Domain Spells

1 Cause Fear: One creature of 5 HD or less flees for 1d4 rounds.

2 Death Knell: Kill dying creature and gain 1d8 temporary hp, +2 to Str, and +1 caster level.

3 Animate Dead[M]: Creates undead skeletons and zombies.

4 Death Ward: Grants immunity to death spells and negative energy effects.

5 Slay Living: Touch attack kills subject.

6 Create Undead[M]: Create ghouls, ghasts, mummies, or mohrgs.

7 Destruction[F]: Kills subject and destroys remains.

8 Create Greater Undead[M]: Create shadows, wraiths, spectres, or devourers.

9 Wail of the Banshee: Kills one creature/level.

I've always houseruled the Deathwatch spell to be non-aligned. Why would it be evil to figure out whether somebody is close to dying or not? Seems more like magical triage to me, and ultra-useful to the party healer. (Why are we talking about this one? It's not in the domain.)

Whether creating soulless undead is evil depends on the story. Talk to your DM about that one. Usually I have it as evil, creating a creature that wants to kill and will do so if not controlled; but there are worlds where it might be more like creating a construct that won't kill unless commanded to. They're usually rather dark in style, though; imagine the creepiness of a field of grain being worked by zombie farmers...

Death Knell, though... Yeah. That's evil. It's not so much that you mightn't kill the dying creature anyway, especially if it has regeneration or if there's a cleric on the other team ready to heal it so it can bash your skull in; but... well, it's the idea of profiting from your enemy's death like that, which can so easily tempt you into killing more often. Killing isn't inherently evil; but that spell is such an easy temptation to kill for benefit.

I doubt there's anyone who will debate that binding people's souls to their dead bodies and turning them into evil creatures with insatiable desires to kill is anything but evil.

MCerberus
2009-06-27, 08:16 PM
Necromancy as a whole has this weird "It's evil because we say so" thing going on. I personally like to get rid of the evil descriptor for anything other than making zombies.

It just seems odd that (non-lethally mind you) debilitating your enemy with a sickness is evil while killing people with their own personal interpretation of the most horrible thing that ever existed, instantly eating away the victim's sanity causing the brain to shut down is just another illusion spell.

Callista
2009-06-27, 08:23 PM
Oh, I can answer that one: Using sickness is evil because the sickness can spread and you could kill a whole lot of innocent peasants.

It's poison use I have issues with. How in the world is that evil? I can see chaotic (dishonorable), but not evil.

MCerberus
2009-06-27, 08:31 PM
Oh, I can answer that one: Using sickness is evil because the sickness can spread and you could kill a whole lot of innocent peasants.


I don't think potential of collateral damage should be a factor. Fireballs can cause a village to burn down if they've got thatched roofs. If you're trying to cause horror, you can get much better results using metamagic to destroy a city. I think you can also get a wight army using some variant of that.

Callista
2009-06-28, 11:58 AM
Yes, but you know where you're throwing a fireball. If you're throwing it in the middle of a thatched-roof village with a bunch of civilians in it, you're probably playing an evil character; that kind of disregard for life can't be anything but. If you're out in the middle of the square and nobody else is in the radius, then there's no problem.

The thing with disease is, it's invisible and you don't know where it goes after you let it loose. If you use it and your enemy gets away, you've just created a D&D-style Typhoid Mary that you can't control. There's just no way a good aligned character would take that kind of a risk. What ever happened to draining their ability scores the regular way?

Steward
2009-06-28, 02:24 PM
True, but the thing about fire is that it doesn't just stay where you throw it. It's not a bullet. You can create a wildfire entirely by accident, and I could argue that using fire as a weapon in almost all circumstances is too reckless. In fact, I would say that the Fireball spell is far more evil than DeathWAtch

tenshiakodo
2009-06-28, 03:23 PM
The best theory I've heard is that deathwatch allows you to sense life the same way the undead are supposed to (ie, how a skeleton can "see" you). Unfortunately, that's apparently not true, since MM undead do not have this ability. Though it might be interesting if they did...

But by this theory, Deathwatch is evil because you're drawing upon the powers of undeath.

Devils_Advocate
2009-06-28, 04:37 PM
"Evil" is supposed to mean "hurts, harms, or oppresses others", though. Even if deathwatch does "draw on the powers of undeath", it's not clear how it hurts anyone.

Sure, it's easy to say that it does. It's easy to say that of any spell. You could have light work by draining the essence from lantern archons and killing them. There's nothing inconsistent about that; it's just ridiculous, that's all. Likewise, any way of making casting deathwatch an evil act is gonna be at least a little ridiculous. And for what purpose, I ask you?

It's on the Healer spell list. Healers are divine spellcasters who are required to be Good. It's also on the Repose domain spell list. The Repose domain's whole point is for it to be different from the Death domain in not containing [Evil] spells.

Seriously, that deathwatch even has the [Evil] descriptor is clearly some sort of goof! You shouldn't need official errata to tell you that they made a mistake there. Just disregard it. Make it an Official House Rule OMG that the spell isn't [Evil] if that makes you feel better about it. But unless you're playing a very specifically "by the RAW" sort of game, some things really shouldn't even need house rules (e.g. "Starvation can kill someone").