Clerics can can ANY Cleric spell from any book...right?

[Galgatha]

OK. I been playing D&D 3.5 for over 10 years, recently joined a new campiagn where the DM told me I've been playing clerics wrong all these years please help a brother out:



So, I'm Lawful Neutral Cleric. The DM says that I cannot cast both good and evil spells. This True? If so where does it say?



2nd, He also says I am restricted to general spells in the PBH and any spells that have the same descriptor as my Domains? I was under the impression that unless a spell goes against my alignment, I'm free to cast/prepare any spell, from any book (as long as it's under the cleric spell section of course). Am I wrong? If I have say the domains protection, travel, and divination am i not allowed to prepare say a necromancy spell? I guess to simplify, are there ANY restrictions to spells a cleric can prepare/cast from any supplemental book (other than casting one with a descriptor contrary to your alignment)? If so, where does it say that. Thanks guys!



Another Minor question: MY DM also says its considered a evil act to coup de grace a victim of one of my spells that paralyze/make helpless? Is there any merit to that?



Thanks again

[A Tad Insane]

You can totally cast both good and evil spells, and any spell with cleric x, although it is common practice for a dm to restrict the books in play

[Kaeso]

You can totally cast both good and evil spells, and any spell with cleric x, although it is common practice for a dm to restrict the books in play

Look under spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm). It says that clerics may be restricted from casting spells opposed to their own alignment. RAW they're not allowed to do that.

[Sayt]

By Raw, clerics cannot cast spells of alignments opposed to their own, so you cannot cast spells with the Chaotic, but normally you would be able to cast Evil and/or good spells.

As for restricted spell access, GM's generally have the right to ban any and all material they wish. As a balancing factor, GM's are not entitled to have players in their game.

As for CDGing.... you're intentionally killing a being which you could manacle or tie up, which certainly isn't good, unless they're irredeemably evil, and in some fashion unimprisonable in the long term, I'd say.

[eggynack]

Look under spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm). It says that clerics may be restricted from casting spells opposed to their own alignment. RAW they're not allowed to do that.
The thing you're citing very much supports the fact that a neutral cleric can cast good and evil spells, but your tone seems to imply the opposite. Just to be clear, a neutral cleric can very much cast good and evil spells, because neutral is opposed to neither evil nor good.

[A Tad Insane]

Look under spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm). It says that clerics may be restricted from casting spells opposed to their own alignment. RAW they're not allowed to do that.

Neutral isn't opposed to good or evil, so a lawful neutral cleric totally can, he just can't cast chaos spells

[Kaeso]

The thing you're citing very much supports the fact that a neutral cleric can cast good and evil spells, but your tone seems to imply the opposite. Just to be clear, a neutral cleric can very much cast good and evil spells, because neutral is opposed to neither evil nor good.


Neutral isn't opposed to good or evil, so a lawful neutral cleric totally can, he just can't cast chaos spells

Oh yeah, of course. Whoops!
In that case, playing a TN cleric would objectively be the best choice (though hard to roleplay, perhaps).

[eggynack]

In that case, playing a TN cleric would objectively be the best choice (though hard to roleplay, perhaps).
It is the best choice, though neutral clerics do lose access to a couple of things, like the ability to cast luminous armor on themselves, and access to exalted feats. Probably of less utility on a cleric than on a druid, but it's a thing of some kind.

[Zanos]

So, I'm Lawful Neutral Cleric. The DM says that I cannot cast both good and evil spells. This True? If so where does it say?

A LN cleric can cast both [Good] and [Evil] spells as long as they also worship a deity who is Neutral and the GE axis. You can't cast a spell that has an opposed component to your or your deity's alignment though, so [Chaotic] spells are out. This is with the description of the cleric class, as I recall.



2nd, He also says I am restricted to general spells in the PBH and any spells that have the same descriptor as my Domains? I was under the impression that unless a spell goes against my alignment, I'm free to cast/prepare any spell, from any book (as long as it's under the cleric spell section of course). Am I wrong? If I have say the domains protection, travel, and divination am i not allowed to prepare say a necromancy spell? I guess to simplify, are there ANY restrictions to spells a cleric can prepare/cast from any supplemental book (other than casting one with a descriptor contrary to your alignment)? If so, where does it say that. Thanks guys!

Nowhere. Clerics can prepare any spell that's on the cleric spell list or one of your domain lists as long as they have the slots and can cast it. Clerics have no method of learning spells, so if they couldn't prepare spells from the other sourcebooks they would have no way of acquiring them.



Another Minor question: MY DM also says its considered a evil act to coup de grace a victim of one of my spells that paralyze/make helpless? Is there any merit to that?

There aren't many circumstances where killing your enemies are evil. You might want to check with your god's dogma regarding prisoners/justice though, since you're lawful. I doubt you're obligated to haul around every tom, ****, and harry you paralyze though.

[Galgatha]

Maybe I didn't post correctly. He's telling me that its a rule (Not a house rule mind you) That clerics are only allowed to cast spells from their deities domains. SO lets say I have a Deity that has protection, travel, good, and war. That means I would not be allowed to cast a necromancy spell because my God does not have that domain in his sphere. So, im pretty much restricted to spells that have the descriptor that are in the deities Domains. I know you can't cast a spell opposed to your alignment. I always thought any spell from any book was fair game, regardless of who your deity is (minus alignment issues) However, are there are other restrictions to spells a cleric can cast at all? If so where?

As to committing a coup de grace, What's the point of casting a paralyzing spell if you aren't going to coup de grace them. Especially if they are evil, I don't understand how that's evil while in battle.

Thanks guy!

[Alcibiades]

A cleric casts divine spells, which are drawn from the cleric spell list. However, his alignment may restrict him from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs; see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below. A cleric must choose and prepare his spells in advance (see below).


There is no mention of restrictions of any other kind than what's described above. If it's on the cleric spell list and there's no alignment conflict, a Cleric can prepare it.

Have you asked your DM what all the cleric spells that don't belong to a domain are for if nobody canc cast them?

[Melville's Book]

Coup de Grace on paralyzed opponent: Not a violation of Good, but it probably wouldn't fly for an Exalted character. Paralysis spells are still nice for temporarily lessening how many people you have to fight. Great for taking prisoners.

Can only cast spells from domains: Um, wat? Could you please have your DM show me where this rule is, tell me which spells on the Cleric list are of the Slime school, and if the answer to the above is "none, I mean domain spells" then why do other books even include new Cleric spells?

[Ziegander]

He's telling me that its a rule (Not a house rule mind you) That clerics are only allowed to cast spells from their deities domains.

That is in no way a rule that exists anywhere in any book.


I always thought any spell from any book was fair game, regardless of who your deity is (minus alignment issues) However, are there are other restrictions to spells a cleric can cast at all? If so where?

You are in the right. The rule the DM is mentioning is nowhere to be found in the rules of D&D 3.5.

[Sayt]

If he claims that there is an actual rule limiting the clerics spellcasting to only their deities' domain spells, ask him to show you it.

[Curmudgeon]

In that case, playing a TN cleric would objectively be the best choice (though hard to roleplay, perhaps).
There's an additional restriction on that.
A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.
If your DM takes this strictly, this choice means you must worship a TN deity (rather than a cause), and be restricted to the domains that deity offers. I'm not sure I'd consider that the best choice, though Xan Yae and Zuoken look like interesting Neutral deities.

[nyjastul69]

Your DM is misunderstanding the rules, or making house rules with this ruling. Out of curiosity: Does he let you prepare domain spells that are not on the Cleric spell list in a non-domain slot?

[Galgatha]

That's what I always thought. But the DM just looked at me like I was special when I tried to explain that. lol He said why wouldn't everybody be a neutral cleric, if they could cast any spell from any book they wanted! HAHA I cant think of a reason either :P

[Gavinfoxx]

That's what I always thought. But the DM just looked at me like I was special when I tried to explain that. lol He said why wouldn't everybody be a neutral cleric, if they could cast any spell from any book they wanted! HAHA I cant think of a reason either :P

Because sanctified spells exist, and interesting domains and devotions exist that preclude neutrality exist.

[nyjastul69]

Whenever I play a Cleric I play a Neutral one for that exact reason. The thing is, one can only be a Neutral Cleric of Neutral god. Neutral Clerics do not get the 'one alignment step' leeway. The list of Neutral gods is rather limiting.

[eggynack]

Because sanctified spells exist, and interesting domains and devotions exist that preclude neutrality exist.
Sanctified spells can only not be cast by evil characters, per the rules. Luminous armor can only target good-folk, which is why I mentioned it specifically, but you mostly get full access on a neutral cleric. Good wizards can even technically cast corrupt spells, incidentally. Weird stuff.

Anyway, there doesn't need to be an answer to that question. Sometimes, some things are better than others. In fact, that's true nearly all the time. One choice being much better than another doesn't suddenly make the first choice not RAW-legal. Ask the DM to point out the place in the rules where it says this rule. If he asks you to point out a place that says the opposite, note the place where it says that cleric spells are pulled from the cleric list.

[Vhaidara]

Because roleplaying? Because you can only be a True Neutral Cleric if your deity is True Neutral, which significantly limits your domain choices? Because alignment spells aren't what makes clerics broken?

The closest thing I've seen to what your DM is saying the rule is was a cleric fix where your spell list is the list of spells in all of your deity's domains.

[Gavinfoxx]

The closest thing I've seen to what your DM is saying the rule is was a cleric fix where your spell list is the list of spells in all of your deity's domains.

Note this would be a homebrew cleric fix.

Also, 2e Clerics were MUCH more limited in what spells they could cast, along the lines of what your DM is thinking. He didn't start in 2e and just not realize that a rule didn't transfer over, did he?

[Thanatosia]

I'm not 100% on this, but I think I remember reading that even nuetral clerics can't freely cast both good and evil spells. I think they have to chose rather to turn undead or rebuke undead, and that choice also 'locks in' their ability to spontaneiously cast Heal or Inflict spells, and their ability to cast Good or Evil spells.

[Honest Tiefling]

That's what I always thought. But the DM just looked at me like I was special when I tried to explain that. lol He said why wouldn't everybody be a neutral cleric, if they could cast any spell from any book they wanted! HAHA I cant think of a reason either :P

Yeah, he's getting mixed up with second edition as others have pointed out. You can cast any spell. And yes, True Neutral is the go-to alignment of spellcasters for this reason.

[Galgatha]

He tried to tell me that it said at the cleric section of 3.5 that the spells a cleric can cast are on a certain page. So he thinks those are the only ones. and the other books are for deities spells. But you know the DM is right even when he's wrong :P And I looked up where it says neutral clerics must chose either rebuke or turn undead, didn't find anything about spells. but tell me the page # if im wrong.

[Honest Tiefling]

I really think you should play another class at this rate, if pointing out politely that he is plain wrong isn't working. Next he'll say that Turn Undead only makes them start break dancing or something.

[nyjastul69]

He tried to tell me that it said at the cleric section of 3.5 that the spells a cleric can cast are on a certain page. So he thinks those are the only ones. and the other books are for deities spells. But you know the DM is right even when he's wrong :P And I looked up where it says neutral clerics must chose either rebuke or turn undead, didn't find anything about spells. but tell me the page # if im wrong.

The choice a Neutral Cleric makes in regards to turn/rebuking defines what spells can be spontaneously cast. That choice has no bearing in regards to spells with an alignment descriptor. You are correct.

[eggynack]

I'm not 100% on this, but I think I remember reading that even nuetral clerics can't freely cast both good and evil spells. I think they have to chose rather to turn undead or rebuke undead, and that choice also 'locks in' their ability to spontaneiously cast Heal or Inflict spells, and their ability to cast Good or Evil spells.
This is all true up to the good/evil limitation.

He tried to tell me that it said at the cleric section of 3.5 that the spells a cleric can cast are on a certain page. So he thinks those are the only ones. and the other books are for deities spells. But you know the DM is right even when he's wrong :P And I looked up where it says neutral clerics must chose either rebuke or turn undead, didn't find anything about spells. but tell me the page # if im wrong.
You should probably ask for an actual citation. I'm not even entirely sure what rules chicanery we're working with here. As is, I think that I'm going to agree with Honest Tiefling. Just run a druid or something. They cover a lot of the same ground, like beat-stickery, and magic of various kinds.

[Kioras]

Yes, ask for a citation, is a house rule or is he just restricting spells to core to make it easier for himself.

Once you find out which way it is, decide if you want to keep you character or reroll into something else later.

[HunterOfJello]

I'm not 100% on this, but I think I remember reading that even nuetral clerics can't freely cast both good and evil spells. I think they have to chose rather to turn undead or rebuke undead, and that choice also 'locks in' their ability to spontaneiously cast Heal or Inflict spells, and their ability to cast Good or Evil spells.

Neutral Clerics must choose to:
1. Spontaneous Cure and Turn Undead
OR
2. Spontaneous Inflict and Rebuke Undead

Neutral Clerics can cast Good spells and Evil spells as much as they like. Also, the Cure spells do not have the [Good] subtype and the Inflict spells do not have the [Evil] subtype so any cleric can prepare both of them in their normal spell slots.

[VoxRationis]

Doesn't the core section on divine magic mention researching new spells? What's the point of having that if clerics also get all the non-core spells for free too?

[Gavinfoxx]

Doesn't the core section on divine magic mention researching new spells? What's the point of having that if clerics also get all the non-core spells for free too?

That lets you research spells not on the cleric list, or new spells that haven't been invented yet.

And yes, every splatbook that adds a cleric spell means that your cleric can now cast that, no questions asked.

You see why we always say that clerics are overpowered in this game, yes?

[Ziegander]

He tried to tell me that it said at the cleric section of 3.5 that the spells a cleric can cast are on a certain page. So he thinks those are the only ones. and the other books are for deities spells. But you know the DM is right even when he's wrong :P And I looked up where it says neutral clerics must chose either rebuke or turn undead, didn't find anything about spells. but tell me the page # if im wrong.

So, he's saying that because page 32 of the Player's Handbook, the book that came out before any other books with Cleric spells were written mind you, states that the Cleric spell list is found on page 183 of said Player's Handbook that means no other spells on are the Cleric spell list?

If so, then I'm not sure what to tell you. I never got the rules compendium, and I would be surprised if it addresses the subject honestly, but you might check there. You could point out that page 3 of the Spell Compendium states, "[...] Spell Compendium is easy to use. It works just like Chapter 11: Spells in the Player's Handbook." You could have him look at the Introducing Spells heading on the same page of the Spell Compendium. I can't find any book that strictly states anything like, "the following spells are added to the Cleric spell list," though, so your DM might not fully buy in. Books like Complete Adventurer and Complete Divine do, however, state, "the following spells supplement those found in Chapter 11 of the Player's Handbook."

[Galgatha]

Thanks guys. Hopefully, the DM will agree with all of us. If not, I probably will chose another class. Cuz the cleric would be weak sauce with all those limitations, unless I strictly stick to healer. I always thought the cleric was the most powerful class, gotta love divine metamagic feats from Complete Divine :)

[VoxRationis]

A cleric is hardly useless or weak, even with those limitations. "The general spells in the PHB" include a number of real hits. Plus in my experience clerics generally end up tanking better than the fighter.

[MirddinEmris]

Main source of Cleric power comes from his domains - the domain powers specifically and access to spells that are not on cleric list, so as cleric is allowed to be only on one step away from his deity on alignment chart, that means he wouldn't be able to worship certain deities and access their domains. Also, certain magic items require specific alignments (not just non-good or non-evil) for you to use them and when you will cast certain spell (like Holy Smite or other similar to it), you can damage and disable yourself.

So, while TN cleric will have some advantages, it's not always raining rainbows and chocolates for him :smallsmile:

[CrazyYanmega]

A cleric is hardly useless or weak, even with those limitations. "The general spells in the PHB" include a number of real hits. Plus in my experience clerics generally end up tanking better than the fighter.

Problem is, are those spells within his domains, and are they lawful? Because the impression I'm getting is that his DM says that clerics:

Can only use spells that MATCH their alignment
Can only use spells that ALSO are within their chosen deity's domains
Can only be found in the Players Handbook

You'd be REALLY limited on the spells you could use if this is the case.

[Yanisa]

He tried to tell me that it said at the cleric section of 3.5 that the spells a cleric can cast are on a certain page. So he thinks those are the only ones. and the other books are for deities spells. But you know the DM is right even when he's wrong :P And I looked up where it says neutral clerics must chose either rebuke or turn undead, didn't find anything about spells. but tell me the page # if im wrong.

To help your cause, I believe almost each book that adds spells states that those spells supplement the normal list of the rule book. At least Complete Divine does, cba looking trough all the books. Just check the spell section and probably says that he spells are added to the class spell list and thus are available like if they are on page [number] of the player's handbook..

A second argument is that the SRD doesn't reference to page numbers, obviously, and the SRD is the same thing as the core rules.

P.S. With that same argument you DM is making, a wizard cannot learn arcane spells outside core because they are not on his class list.

[The Prince of Cats]

Regarding the hold / Coup de Grace being evil; your character needs to worry more about Chaos / Law... If the local laws (or your deity's ethos) allow summary execution of any pre-judged person or group (i.e. the leader of the 'greenwood bandits', members of the 'greenwood bandits' or just 'any bandits') then it's all good and legal by the RAW.

Consider that an execution is essentially a coup de grace on a bound target after all, which would make all executions evil acts. Now in our reality, that's a different matter, but a person who demands your money and tries to kill you for it is guilty enough to my mind; you know they are guilty of banditry and if the local laws permit it, you are upholding the law by executing a criminal.

If the local laws (or deity's ethos) require that all criminals stand trial, a coup de grace on a helpless target is a chaotic act. Self-defence is one thing, but breaking the law by choice when other options are open to you is not. On the other hand, hold person followed by the rogue stepping in to do what needs doing is fine; you are allowed to be relieved that they did it, you just can't do it yourself or condone it.

LN means never having to worry about whether an act is good or evil as long as it is lawful and justified. As long as you revere law above all else, you should be fine. Also, if the DM argues that an evil act will anger your deity, surely a good act (like healing the sick or giving money to the poor) will anger them just as much.

Personally, I think you could find yourself a better DM though...

[Galgatha]

Yea the problem I'm having with the coup de grace and my DM is he telling me that everytime I commit a CDG, I'm risking my neutrality and stepping toward evil. Which sucks, because I have like 3 spells that cause the subject paralyzed. And on top of that a lot of my offensive spells are evil. And he's telling me I'm also going to risk becoming evil if I continue to cast them, even if I'm casting the spells on evil people! So frustrating! I'm more used to being judged by my RP and not spells cast in battle when it comes to the DM judgeing my alignment. Sigh. But the DM is always right. :(

[georgie_leech]

Yea the problem I'm having with the coup de grace and my DM is he telling me that everytime I commit a CDG, I'm risking my neutrality and stepping toward evil. Which sucks, because I have like 3 spells that cause the subject paralyzed. And on top of that a lot of my offensive spells are evil. And he's telling me I'm also going to risk becoming evil if I continue to cast them, even if I'm casting the spells on evil people! So frustrating! I'm more used to being judged by my RP and not spells cast in battle when it comes to the DM judgeing my alignment. Sigh. But the DM is always right. :(

Wait, he doesn't think the Inflict line of spells is Evil does he? Despite the lack of any text suggesting it's Evil, and that the Negative Energy Plane is Neutral? :smallsigh:

Consider using spells like Flame Strike or Searing Light if that's the case; It's hard to argue that Divine Light from the Heavens is evil, after all.

[Galgatha]

No, Georgia leech. Im casting spells that do have the evil descriptor. Spells like wither limb and wrack. They are from the book of vile darkness (not corrupt spells) So, does it actually say in the book that casting evil spells can shift your alignment?

[Garagos]

Sounds like your DM needs to brush up on his knowledge of the rules. If he is unwilling to do this or continues to believe the way he is currently ruling spells is correct, you may want to find a new DM because who knows how many other awful mistakes he is probably making.

[Telonius]

No, Georgia leech. Im casting spells that do have the evil descriptor. Spells like wither limb and wrack. They are from the book of vile darkness (not corrupt spells) So, does it actually say in the book that casting evil spells can shift your alignment?


Evil spells may create undead, inflict undue suffering, harm another’s soul, or produce any of a slew of similar effects. Sometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction. Spells with corruption costs (see Corrupt Magic in Chapter 6) are so evil that they take a physical and spiritual toll on the caster.


Vitality leech is an evil spell, while ray of enfeeblement is not. Although the ultimate game effect is the same, the character in the game world faced with the two spells undoubtedly regards them differently. Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be.

So, from BoVD, yes, casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act. A non-evil character might be able to get away without an alignment shift, as long as it's not for an evil purpose and he doesn't make a habit of it; but it's an Evil act whether he likes it or not. I'm fairly sure there's some text in one of the Fiendish Codices that has a similar rule.

EDIT: Yeah, Fiendish Codex 2, p. 30, in the table. Using an Evil Spell gives you 1 Corruption point. Corruption and Obeisance Scores over 9 (upon death) will condemn them to Baator.

[hamishspence]

Yup- Fiendish Codex 2 - casting an [Evil] spell is a 1 pt Corrupt act.

This is pretty minor on that scale though.

Heroes of Horror suggests that the Dread Necromancer (which has more than a few [Evil] spells on its class list) can maintain a Neutral alignment if they balance their [Evil] deeds with good intentions.

[Galgatha]

This new DM is actually one of the best DM's I have had, plot wise and character development. I just don't think he's ever played a Cleric. So, it actually says casting a evil spell is an evil act? Do you know where exactly it says that? Does it go vice versa? Seems rather odd, that I'm doing a good deed by casting a protection spell on myself that happens to have the good descriptor.

[Dalebert]

I like my TN cleric of Obad-hai. One additional benefit of neutrality is being able to summon any monster in the Summon Monster list, fiendish or celestial.

Your DM's ruling is definitely not RAW. It also seem ridiculously overly restrictive as a house rule. Page 32 of the PHB:

A cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that he can cast spells of that level, but he must choose which spells to prepare during his daily meditation.

It also says in the same area that domain spells can ONLY be prepared in domain slots. That alone makes your DMs claim absurd. What would all your other slots be for if not non-domain spells?


No, Georgia leech. Im casting spells that do have the evil descriptor. Spells like wither limb and wrack. They are from the book of vile darkness (not corrupt spells) So, does it actually say in the book that casting evil spells can shift your alignment?

No, but if you're primarily behaving in an evil way (casting evil spells seems to fall under that) and not also being good sometimes enough to offset that, it is reasonable to eventually conclude that you're not behaving in accordance with your chosen alignment. And that can be a very bad thing for a cleric. Just pay attention to that. Be ready with ammo to counter him like "Remember when I healed all those villagers for free and that other time when I went out of my way to rescue that slave of the drow?" And then you should be able to get away with some non-chaotic evil stuph from time to time.

Are you a cleric of Wee Jas? If so, I would be inclined to give some extra leniency with some of the spells you mentioned as long as you were using them against legitimate enemies. It seems in line with her theme.

[hamishspence]

This new DM is actually one of the best DM's I have had, plot wise and character development. I just don't think he's ever played a Cleric. So, it actually says casting a evil spell is an evil act? Do you know where exactly it says that? Does it go vice versa? Seems rather odd, that I'm doing a good deed by casting a protection spell on myself that happens to have the good descriptor.
BoED says that casting [Good] spells has no redemptive effect on the caster - so, even if it might cause a multiclass Wizard/Paladin of Tyranny to "fall" if they cast a [Good] spell - it wouldn't change their alignment.

It isn't just the spells though - "channelling positive energy" (by Turning Undead) is considered a Good act, and "channelling negative energy" (by Rebuking them) Evil.

Casting positive and negative energy spells, on the other hand, aren't the same thing as "channelling" - so no worries about that.

[Galgatha]

Wow. ok. Just seems rather weird to me that a spell in combat can shift alignment. Dead is dead. Whether I cast Stop heart on you or use flame strike to burn you alive, seems like the result will be the same. I would think intentions would be the main factor.

[hamishspence]

"Black Magic" or "The Dark Side" having a corruptive influence on the user that takes a strong mind/will to resist, is a long-standing trope in fiction.

Think of [Evil] spells as that.

[bekeleven]

When you daze or stun an enemy they are no longer a threat. Your argument is that when you decide someone is a threat to you, you can neutralize them as a threat, and then afterwards serve as judge and executioner, condemning them to death for crimes real or imagined without any real process beyond deciding that you get to act as god, giving and taking life where you see fit?

Can't possibly imagine why killing helpless people all the time is considered bad...

[Agincourt]

When you daze or stun an enemy they are no longer a threat. Your argument is that when you decide someone is a threat to you, you can neutralize them as a threat, and then afterwards serve as judge and executioner, condemning them to death for crimes real or imagined without any real process beyond deciding that you get to act as god, giving and taking life where you see fit?

Can't possibly imagine why killing helpless people all the time is considered bad...

In D&D, it is generally assumed the the PCs are going to go out in the wilderness kill NPCs. It's a construct of the game and within that construct I disagree that killing helpless NPCs is necessarily an evil act. It potentially could be an evil act; NPCs that have never attacked the PCs nor given them any reason to fear for their safety, I can see the argument.

Orcs that were a few seconds ago charging with their greataxes and are now magically held via Hold Person, no I don't agree that is an evil act. Within the alignment system of D&D, there is no indication that this is evil.

If you start trying to impose modern day ethics on the fictional word of D&D, it falls apart. Adventuring in general would be forbidden since that involves mercenary killing. Many or most spells would be illegal to cast. Certainly any spells that involve direct damage, or are mind-affecting, or intentionally deceive the target.

[hamishspence]

Adventurers resident in a kingdom can be thought of as a mixture of police and army. Thus, they might have privileges above and beyond those of the normal citizen.

When there's a bandit problem - whether the bandits are hiding in forests or in a dungeon - adventurers are sent to put a stop to it.

However - they still have general rules to follow. If a bandit surrenders - they should take that bandit back for trial - some countries might execute bandits, others sentence them to hard labor.

[DarkSonic1337]

Don't forget that many of these effects that make things "helpless" (as the condition) are temporary (and mostly short duration). The threat is not neutralized just because hold person landed, it is just TEMPORARILY removed. PCs can often have valid reasons to still feel threatened even in front of a temporarily stunned/sleeping/immobile target.

Maybe they don't have to tools or the TIME to properly bind the creature. Maybe they can't afford to let this minion tell the BBEG what they're up to. Maybe there's reason to suspect that if released the creature will hunt the PCs down (and is obviously capable of doing so).

While CDGs don't often register as GOOD to me, they also don't often register as EVIL when considering the kinds of lives adventurers lead.

[bekeleven]

However - they still have general rules to follow. If a bandit surrenders - they should take that bandit back for trial - some countries might execute bandits, others sentence them to hard labor.

And, of course, an immobilized/paralyzed/helpless enemy is often unable to communicate surrender.

I'm currently playing a chameleon in a campaign. The character concept is someone who was once evil, but now pursues extremist goals using nonlethal methods. Typical combat spells prepared include sanctuary (Lv1), Glitterdust, Darkbolt (Lv2), Shockwave, Stinking Cloud, Mold Touch (Lv3), Sandform, Friendly Fire (Lv4), Feeblemind, Wall of Force, Possess (lv5), Malevolent Tentacles, Overwhelm, Freezing Glance (Lv6). Also, Flesh to X is fun and somewhat reversible.

It's harder to play a nonlethal adventurer, but certainly possible, although your gameplay options are more limited. If you start as a stock martial character, whose gameplay options are already incredibly limited, you won't have a good time.

It's far more feasible to build a character with nonlethal options that can be used when expedient. Like when an enemy is helpless and you have at least one or two rounds out of combat. For a martial character, this could be as little as manacles, a sap and a few ranks in use rope.

[Galgatha]

Ok so just to follow up:

A cleric is in fact allowed to cast/prepare any spell from any supplemental book as long as it doesn't contradict his alignment or the spell specifically says other wise. This seems to be something everyone agrees on.

Casting Evil spells does in fact seem to be able to shift your alignment. Not everyone seems to agree on this, but most agree. Unfortunately for me.

Coup de grace a helpless character that you cast a spell on isn't evil (at least stated in any of the books) However, it seems everyone is split down the line on this controversy. Best just to take submit to the DM on this factor.

Not happy with those last two rulings, but the first one was the most important :) I havnt been playing a cleric wrong all these years, and the cleric is still one of the most powerful classes because of it :)

Let me know if Im missing something or you have any comments.

[eggynack]

A cleric is in fact allowed to cast/prepare any spell from any supplemental book as long as it doesn't contradict his alignment or the spell specifically says other wise. This seems to be something everyone agrees on.
Yes.


Casting Evil spells does in fact seem to be able to shift your alignment. Not everyone seems to agree on this, but most agree. Unfortunately for me.
Pretty much, but not immediately. Just also cast good spells, perhaps in equal quantities. You don't just suddenly become the alignments of the spells you cast.

Coup de grace a helpless character that you cast a spell on isn't evil (at least stated in any of the books) However, it seems everyone is split down the line on this controversy. Best just to take submit to the DM on this factor.
I don't know where such a rule is. It looks like doing this is against the knight's code (PHB II, 27), but that's more dishonorable than evil, and you're not a knight. As before though, even if this is evil, just also do some good stuff. Neutral characters are very much not bound to never do an evil thing. That's why you're neutral, and not good. Hell, even a good character can do evil things. They just have to do more good things.

Not happy with those last two rulings, but the first one was the most important :) I havnt been playing a cleric wrong all these years, and the cleric is still one of the most powerful classes because of it :)
Indeed, especially the thing about clerics being super powerful.

[Galgatha]

Sweet Thanks. Let me know if anyone else has input!

[Incanur]

He's telling me that its a rule (Not a house rule mind you) That clerics are only allowed to cast spells from their deities domains.

While certainly not RAW, this would go a long way toward balancing the cleric. :smallwink: It'd still be at least high tier 3 and probably tier 2.

[Galgatha]

I'd be willing to agree with you, if you also seriously restrict the wizard and to a lesser extent the druid.

[CrazyYanmega]

Out of curiosity, what does he think the domain spell slots are for?

[SiuiS]

This sounds like the DM telling you houserules. No amount of book search will fix that.

A lot of this is rules text from 2e, though. Maybe that's what confused him?

[RedMage125]

One more note in here (sorry for thread necromancy line-toeing):
A cleric is unable to cast any spell with an alignment opposite her own alignment or her deity's.

So if your LN cleric is of a LG deity, you may not, in fact, cast Evil spells, by RAW. Conversely, a LG cleric of a LN deity may not do so, either, but a LN or LE cleric of the exact same deity can do so.

Furthermore, clerics radiate an alignment aura respective to their deity's alignment (non-deity clerics only get an aura if they take an alignment domain). So a LN cleric of a LG deity radiates an aura of Good. Also, a LE cleric of a LN deity does NOT radiate an aura of Evil.

Cleric is, in fact, the PHB class with the most strange restrictions and rules built into it. A human may not be a cleric of Moradin. The silliness regarding auras. The prohibition on spellcasting alignment sells, which trigger off your own alignment OR your deity's, whichever is more restrictive.

[Grayson01]

I really think you should play another class at this rate, if pointing out politely that he is plain wrong isn't working. Next he'll say that Turn Undead only makes them start break dancing or something.

That would acctually be pretty cool and reminds me of MJ Moonwalker for Sega lol.

[Grayson01]

As to the argument of killing a held NPC. There is a valid argument for it not being an evil act. If the Target was just attacking you or others you spell has a finite duration and the target could still be a threat after the spell expires to you are others. Allowing the said target to live could put others in danger. If you believe the target to be legitmit threat to after the spell expires killing the target would not be evil. Minus the whole spell portion that was part of the ROE we had in Afganistan even if the target was precived to be a threat no or could be a threat to life if allowed to escape leathal force was authorized. Now there are some important differences, mainly this was for feeling subjects the main concept still applies.

[tomandtish]

OK. I been playing D&D 3.5 for over 10 years, recently joined a new campiagn where the DM told me I've been playing clerics wrong all these years please help a brother out:



So, I'm Lawful Neutral Cleric. The DM says that I cannot cast both good and evil spells. This True? If so where does it say?

As many others have said, the restrictions on casting alignment-based spells are determined by you/your deity. You certainly cannot cast chaotic spells. Since you are LN, if your deity is LG you cannot cast evil spells. If he/she is LE, you cannot cast good spells. Otherwise, go to town.



2nd, He also says I am restricted to general spells in the PBH and any spells that have the same descriptor as my Domains? I was under the impression that unless a spell goes against my alignment, I'm free to cast/prepare any spell, from any book (as long as it's under the cleric spell section of course). Am I wrong? If I have say the domains protection, travel, and divination am i not allowed to prepare say a necromancy spell? I guess to simplify, are there ANY restrictions to spells a cleric can prepare/cast from any supplemental book (other than casting one with a descriptor contrary to your alignment)? If so, where does it say that. Thanks guys!

Remember, unless it is a Domain spell only, they are all general spells if it is on a clerical list. So you can cast any of the general cleric spells and any from your deity's domains. If it says Cleric (4), then any cleric can cast it as a 4th level spell if not alignment restricted. Since your DM is not letting you cast anything that isn't specifically listed under the domain something is wrong. The same rule applies for spells from supplemental material IF your DM chooses to allow it. This is certainly discretionary, as even when a particular supplement is reasonably balanced, there may be problems when too many are brought in. Supplement A may be balanced with core, and Supplement B may be balanced with core, but they aren't balanced with each other.




Another Minor question: MY DM also says its considered a evil act to coup de grace a victim of one of my spells that paralyze/make helpless? Is there any merit to that?



Depends on circumstances. Performing one on the evil assassin who just killed two of your party (and you can't take time to tie him up because you have to chase after his henchmen who kidnapped babies to eat)? Not evil. Performing one on the orphan child who stole a loaf of bread out of your pocket and got caught by your spell? Well… Yes these are exaggerated examples, but the point remains. Did the punishment (death) fit the circumstances? If a Coup becomes your Go-To move in all situation, you may be on that slippery slope.

[/QUOTE]