Neutral Good

[Solace of Tides]

Sorry to bombard the board with questions again, but Google (yet again) has let me down.

I asked a question a while back regarding Neutral Clerics casting Evil spells (i.e. Clutch of Orcus).

My question today is slightly different, can a Neutral Good (or any Good) Cleric cast Evil spells?

I've been reading throught BoED and really contemplating picking up Sainthood, but I am currently L/N. Sainthood seems epic, but if I have to give up some of my cooler spells I may have to reconsider.

[GallóglachMaxim]

You can't cast spells opposed to your own alignment or your deity's alignment, so a good Cleric casting evil spells would be out. Someone may be able to suggest a workaround for that though.

[Kish]

No, no good cleric can cast spells with the Evil descriptor.

[eggynack]

Nope. To quote the cleric section about aligned spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm#chaoticEvilGoodandLawfulSpells), "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."

[Zweisteine]

A Good cleric may never cast Evil spells.

Also, your DM has to approve you having the Saint template. Actually, you're supposed to have to earn it (for doing something worthy of sainthood, i.e. you get it as a sotry event, not because you wanted it).

[Solace of Tides]

Awesome, thank you so much for all of the quick replies.

Assuming my DM was OK with the Sainthood temp being added on eventually, would the loss of all the Evil spells at my disposal be a worthwhile trade (and to clarify all [Death] descriptor spells would still be good to use? I could see maybe giving up Clutch of Orcus, but Slay Living and Destruction would be hard to get rid of). And that's assuming killing bad guys with those spells is not an evil act.

Thank you again for your wisdom and patience.

[The Trickster]

By RAW, a cleric cannot cast spells of opposing alignments. However, I could argue for a few spells that a good cleric should be able to cast (deathwatch being one, for example).

[GallóglachMaxim]

Assuming my DM was OK with the Sainthood temp being added on eventually, would the loss of all the Evil spells at my disposal be a worthwhile trade (and to clarify all [Death] descriptor spells would still be good to use? I could see maybe giving up Clutch of Orcus, but Slay Living and Destruction would be hard to get rid of). And that's assuming killing bad guys with those spells is not an evil act.

Per RAW, [Death] spells are not evil unless they also have [Evil], so that would be fine.

[eggynack]

Awesome, thank you so much for all of the quick replies.

Assuming my DM was OK with the Sainthood temp being added on eventually, would the loss of all the Evil spells at my disposal be a worthwhile trade (and to clarify all [Death] descriptor spells would still be good to use? I could see maybe giving up Clutch of Orcus, but Slay Living and Destruction would be hard to get rid of). And that's assuming killing bad guys with those spells is not an evil act.

Thank you again for your wisdom and patience.
I'd generally stick to neutral on a cleric. They're pretty heavy on the aligned spells, and heavy armor diminishes the blow of losing the ability to cast luminous armor on yourself. Sainthood actually diminishes the power of a cleric, because you lose two levels of cleric, so that's definitely not an incentive to go good. From a pure optimization perspective, I can't see much you get out of good, unless you need a specific PrC or something. This is in contrast to druids, who I think generally benefit from being good aligned, owing to fewer strong evil spells, and several powerful good-only options.

[Yogibear41]

I thought a good cleric of a neutral god could cast evil spells, I thought the restriction was only that good god cannot grant evil spells and vice-versa, although I could be wrong. Even if he could cast evil spells its not something he would want to do on a daily basis as it is still an evil act and will eventually shift his alignment to a least neutral, maybe even evil if he doesn't do anything good occasionally.

[Chronos]

One notable difference between clerics and druids, alignment-wise, is the summoning spells. A typical good cleric can only use somewhere between half and about a third of the Summon Monster lists, since most creatures on the list have either the Celestial or Fiendish template, and many of them have an ethical alignment that might also conflict with yours. By contrast, most of the creatures on the Summon Nature's Ally list are true neutral, and so can be summoned by any druid. Good druids still miss out on salamanders and evil druids miss out on unicorns, but they're the exception, not the rule.

[eggynack]

I thought a good cleric of a neutral god could cast evil spells, I thought the restriction was only that good god cannot grant evil spells and vice-versa, although I could be wrong. Even if he could cast evil spells its not something he would want to do on a daily basis as it is still an evil act and will eventually shift his alignment to a least neutral, maybe even evil if he doesn't do anything good occasionally.
The thing I quoted above was pretty explicit about good clerics not having evil spells. As for alignment shifting, I've gotta figure that you can manage alright if you also cast good spells. I've never really liked the whole idea of aligned spells much anyway. They just seem kinda pointless for the most part.

[Zweisteine]

Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells
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.

So a good cleric may never cast [Evil] spells, no matter their deity, (even in Eberron, where clerics need not match their deity's alignment at all).

With very few exceptiong (i.e. Eberron*) a deity may not grant spells of an alignment opposed to their own either. As an example (from a Wizards article (All About Clerics, part 1), a neutral good cleric of a lawful good deity can not cast chaotic spells.


*maybe

[bekeleven]

Whole lotta people saying "never".

Hellbred race can ignore [evil]. Malconvoker can ignore it for summons.

I'm sure there are other workarounds (I know one in PF), but I'd have to dive to find them.

[eggynack]

Whole lotta people saying "never".

Well, y'know, specific trumps general and all that. If something says it lets you bypass that rule, then it does. Not too complicated.

[bekeleven]

Well, y'know, specific trumps general and all that. If something says it lets you bypass that rule, then it does. Not too complicated.

Well, sure.

But if someone asks if he can cast evil spells, and people say "you can't", then that doesn't satisfactorily answer his question.

It would be like someone asking how he could cast spells and everyone going "well, you can't cast spells," because taking a level in cleric is more specific than the general rule. Technically correct... but not really correct.

[eggynack]

Well, sure.

But if someone asks if he can cast evil spells, and people say "you can't", then that doesn't satisfactorily answer his question.

It would be like someone asking how he could cast spells and everyone going "well, you can't cast spells," because taking a level in cleric is more specific than the general rule. Technically correct... but not really correct.
Yeah, that makes sense, especially if there's a solution that's applicable to these saint-cleric circumstances.

[Spore]

How about in Eberron?

Would a NE Cleric of a NG deity be able to cast evil or good spells? Or both?

[Chronos]

Unless Eberron specifically changes that rule, too (it might; I dunno), then such a cleric can cast neither good nor evil spells.

[Greenish]

A cleric can cast spells of any alignment descriptor.Yay Eberron!

[geekintheground]

I'd generally stick to neutral on a cleric. They're pretty heavy on the aligned spells, and heavy armor diminishes the blow of losing the ability to cast luminous armor on yourself. Sainthood actually diminishes the power of a cleric, because you lose two levels of cleric, so that's definitely not an incentive to go good. From a pure optimization perspective, I can't see much you get out of good, unless you need a specific PrC or something. This is in contrast to druids, who I think generally benefit from being good aligned, owing to fewer strong evil spells, and several powerful good-only options.

actually, you can cast sanctified spells as a neutral cleric, since it only says evil aligned characters cant cast sanctified spells. although, that section heavily implies a "Good" alignment.

[eggynack]

actually, you can cast sanctified spells as a neutral cleric, since it only says evil aligned characters cant cast sanctified spells. although, that section heavily implies a "Good" alignment.
Neutral clerics (and druids) can absolutely cast luminous armor. They just can't cast it on themselves, as the target is listed as "good creature touched." Notably, corrupt spells lack even the restriction you've noted, so a good wizard can cast corrupt spells if they so desire. Anyway, long story short, the lack of self targeted luminous armor, along with a few other build related losses, like exalted wild shape, are the main reasons that I believe that neutral good is the optimal alignment for druids. The general lack of great evil aligned spells is also obviously a huge factor, but if you didn't get anything out of being good, druids would almost certainly default to neutral (once again, from an optimization perspective).

[geekintheground]

Neutral clerics (and druids) can absolutely cast luminous armor. They just can't cast it on themselves, as the target is listed as "good creature touched." Notably, corrupt spells lack even the restriction you've noted, so a good wizard can cast corrupt spells if they so desire. Anyway, long story short, the lack of self targeted luminous armor, along with a few other build related losses, like exalted wild shape, are the main reasons that I believe that neutral good is the optimal alignment for druids. The general lack of great evil aligned spells is also obviously a huge factor, but if you didn't get anything out of being good, druids would almost certainly default to neutral (once again, from an optimization perspective).

sorry, missed the "good creature touched"...

[eggynack]

sorry, missed the "good creature touched"...
Yeah, I made that mistake at first too, at least partially due to the idea that neutral is the optimal choice for casters with alignment restrictions on their spells. Also because of the rule you mentioned, which makes it look like all sanctified spells are accessible to neutral casters, which they are, but still. It's definitely a dominant force in druidic defenses, due to the fact that it stacks with crazy efficiency with wild shape and a monk's belt (but not VoP, which is a fact that I keep having to remind myself about), while it is a good but not great option in clerical defenses. I've been pushing a lot for the idea of neutral good druids as optimal lately, mostly as a result of, y'know, the stuff I'm talking about while doing that very thing now.