Can a Neutral God give a Good Cleric an Evil Spell?

[Cisturn]

Hey playgrounders, I have a question for you.

One my players is playing a Good Aligned Cleric of a Neutral Deity. The Cleric wants to take an Evil spell (animate dead). The cleric character neutral good, and the god is true neutral. So he shouldn't violate the one step rule. Thoughts?

[Caelestion]

A good cleric cannot cast evil spells. P33 of the PHB - clear as day.

[Nifft]

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.


The cleric is Good, therefore the cleric's own alignment restricts what spells he or she can cast.

The god can grant whatever the god wants, but the cleric can't cast it.

[hamishspence]

Yup. Eberron is one of the few exceptions to this rule restricting spells castable.

[Pleh]

From the SRD:


Spells
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....

I've always read this as Clerics may prepare any spell on their list, but can't cast spells of opposing alignment.

Thus, neutral god can give a good cleric an evil spell if it is asked for, but that doesn't allow the cleric to use the spell.

[KillianHawkeye]

I've always read this as Clerics may prepare any spell on their list, but can't cast spells of opposing alignment.

Thus, neutral god can give a good cleric an evil spell if it is asked for, but that doesn't allow the cleric to use the spell.

Hmm... I wonder if there are any good reserve feats that this might enable that an aligned cleric wouldn't otherwise have access to if they didn't think of preparing spells they can't cast?

[Pleh]

Hmm... I wonder if there are any good reserve feats that this might enable that an aligned cleric wouldn't otherwise have access to if they didn't think of preparing spells they can't cast?

Maybe it would allow an evil cleric to prepare a Cure Spell and use the healing hands reserve feat to get some limited healing power.

[Venger]

Hey playgrounders, I have a question for you.

One my players is playing a Good Aligned Cleric of a Neutral Deity. The Cleric wants to take an Evil spell (animate dead). The cleric character neutral good, and the god is true neutral. So he shouldn't violate the one step rule. Thoughts?
Are you playing a good setting like eberron? clerics can cast whatever they want there. if you're in fr, then as mentioned, you can't cast spells with opposing alignment descriptors

what do you mean "take" a spell? clerics have access to their whole lists. they do not have to learn spells like sorcerers.

Maybe it would allow an evil cleric to prepare a Cure Spell and use the healing hands reserve feat to get some limited healing power.
Evil clerics can cast cures if they want to, they're not [good] spells

[Goaty14]

Evil clerics can cast cures if they want to, they're not [good] spells

Channelling positive energy is not a good act, as per the BoED. Likewise, channelling negative energy is not an evil act.

[hamishspence]

Channelling positive energy is not a good act, as per the BoED. Likewise, channelling negative energy is not an evil act.

PHB says that they are, and it's a "primary source".

SRD version of the PHB quote:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#turnOrRebukeUndead


Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.



BoED was talking about spells primarily. Casting positive energy spells is not automatically a good act.

[Warchon]

Depending on how your DM plays, your idea of spending a feat on it seems reasonable, and asking your DM to allow a custom feat to let your character cast this sounds very fair.
It's pretty much a lateral move from the Heretic of the Faith feat.
Alternatively, you could ask for (or earn, through an ingame quest!) a custom version of the spell that lacks the Evil tag.
My own DM is playing with the idea of allowing my Dread Necromancer to summon Deathless instead of Undead in limited circumstances, because the flavor matches up.
Just some food for thought on the matter. :)

[Zombulian]

PHB says that they are, and it's a "primary source".

SRD version of the PHB quote:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#turnOrRebukeUndead


Wow that's... really dumb. That's like how killing fiends is always a good act, so obviously the most exalted beings in the multiverse are Blood War veterans.

I hate how D&D treats positive and negative energy, it seems more reasonable that they would be neutral forces with different descriptors, like different kinds of magnetic charges.

[Inevitability]

Wow that's... really dumb. That's like how killing fiends is always a good act, so obviously the most exalted beings in the multiverse are Blood War veterans.

I hate how D&D treats positive and negative energy, it seems more reasonable that they would be neutral forces with different descriptors, like different kinds of magnetic charges.

My personal theory is that at their core, the energies are completely neutral like you say. However, when the gods came to first inhabit the great wheel, they naturally created their domains places that fit their philosophies.

For most Evil gods, who favor destruction over creation and pain over pleasure, that meant their domains would be somewhere on a plane bordering the negative energy plane, whereas for Good gods it'd be the other way around. The few exceptions to this rule (like Luthic) can be explained away by not wanting to have domains surrounded by enemy gods.

Now, when a cleric calls positive energy from that plane, it naturally moves past a number of divine domains: negative energy past Evil ones, and positive energy past Good ones. This 'rubs off' on the energy, giving it a slight taint of Good or Evil.

As for why channeling spells with these energies has no alignment impact... maybe in such a case the energy is disproportionately exposed to the cleric's deity's domain, which rids it of these inherit impurities?

[Crake]

Wow that's... really dumb. That's like how killing fiends is always a good act, so obviously the most exalted beings in the multiverse are Blood War veterans.

I hate how D&D treats positive and negative energy, it seems more reasonable that they would be neutral forces with different descriptors, like different kinds of magnetic charges.

This is specific to turning/rebuking and everything that comes from/is based on turning and rebuking undead. Casting a heal spell is not "channeling" positive energy, and casting an inflict spell is not "channeling" negative energy.

Personally though, I do agree that turning/rebuking shouldn't really be aligned, which is why I homebrew it in my setting. I even have an evil deity who hates undead and allows their followers to turn undead instead of rebuke, and disciple of the sun is now just referred to as "improved channeling".

[Mystral]

Hey playgrounders, I have a question for you.

One my players is playing a Good Aligned Cleric of a Neutral Deity. The Cleric wants to take an Evil spell (animate dead). The cleric character neutral good, and the god is true neutral. So he shouldn't violate the one step rule. Thoughts?

He shouldn't even be able to be a cleric of a TN god with a NG alignment.

[hamishspence]

He shouldn't even be able to be a cleric of a TN god with a NG alignment.

A few TN gods are specifically called out as able to have clerics of any alignment- not just "one step". For example, Gond, god of crafts, from Forgotten Realms.

In any case, NG is within one step of TN - one step "up" - so it doesn't matter.

[SirNibbles]

He shouldn't even be able to be a cleric of a TN god with a NG alignment.

"Alignment
A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful-chaotic axis or the good-evil axis, but not both)."

[Pleh]

This is specific to turning/rebuking and everything that comes from/is based on turning and rebuking undead. Casting a heal spell is not "channeling" positive energy, and casting an inflict spell is not "channeling" negative energy.

Personally though, I do agree that turning/rebuking shouldn't really be aligned, which is why I homebrew it in my setting. I even have an evil deity who hates undead and allows their followers to turn undead instead of rebuke, and disciple of the sun is now just referred to as "improved channeling".

Well, the thread didn't specify 3.5 or PF, and while I haven't played much PF, what little I have played recently seems to contradict this statement. In PF, I believe they've lumped "Turn Undead" and "Spontaneous Cure Spells" into a single class feature labeled "Channel Positive Energy" with the Negative Energy counterpart doing the same thing. Clerics in PF seem to be the Super Mario Sunshine of the D&D healing clerics (just hose them all down, it'll work out).

[ShurikVch]

The cleric is Good, therefore the cleric's own alignment restricts what spells he or she can cast.

The god can grant whatever the god wants, but the cleric can't cast it.But what if the Cleric will dip in Malconvoker PrC, and get Unrestricted Conjuration?

[JeenLeen]

But what if the Cleric will dip in Malconvoker PrC, and get Unrestricted Conjuration?

I'm pretty sure that would be a case of "Specific trumps General", meaning that the specific ruling of Unrestricted Conjuration overrides the general restrictions about spellcasting. Thus, a Good cleric can summon demons. I don't remember the exact wording of the class feature, but if it allows any evil spells (not just Conjuration or a subset of it), then it seems that cleric would be able to cast evil spells.

Based on what others have posted, it does seem that a Good cleric could prepare [Evil] spells and simply be unable to cast them. But, like the others, outside of Reserve feats there doesn't seem to be a sound reason to do so.

[Psyren]

Channelling positive energy is not a good act, as per the BoED. Likewise, channelling negative energy is not an evil act.


PHB says that they are, and it's a "primary source".

SRD version of the PHB quote:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#turnOrRebukeUndead

BoED was talking about spells primarily. Casting positive energy spells is not automatically a good act.

Worth remembering that "Channeling energy" in that quote refers specifically to turning/rebuking, not to casting cure and inflict spells. While you could reasonably see little distinction between casting a positive energy spell and channeling positive energy to turn, the rules do nevertheless see them differently. This is why the likes of Redcloak (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1041.html) and Malack can manually prepare and cast healing spells, they just can't cast them spontaneously.

[Spore]

I hate how D&D treats positive and negative energy, it seems more reasonable that they would be neutral forces with different descriptors, like different kinds of magnetic charges.

Destruction is sometimes needed to make space for something. Killing a tyrant to make place for a democracy can be a good act even if it is murder.

In a similar vein, growth and healing can be make to overwhelm something otherwise good. Unchecked growth is cancerous (so far that BoVD recognizes it as not evil but vile) and healing a demon army is sure to make things difficult for the adversaries of evil.

(And honestly, RAW debates in D&D are incredibly stupid. This is the ruleswork for a game, not a law or constitution that has to be fit for a country. Sane interpretation is key to this)

[KillianHawkeye]

He shouldn't even be able to be a cleric of a TN god with a NG alignment.

You have it backwards. Clerics (of a deity) cannot be TN unless their god is TN.


A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.

[Deadline]

Hey playgrounders, I have a question for you.

One my players is playing a Good Aligned Cleric of a Neutral Deity. The Cleric wants to take an Evil spell (animate dead). The cleric character neutral good, and the god is true neutral. So he shouldn't violate the one step rule. Thoughts?

I think the Hellbred race's "Evil Exception" would work here. The deity can grant the spell, and a Good aligned Hellbred cleric of said deity can cast the spell thanks to "Evil Exception".

[CrazyNoob]

Cure / influict spells are neutral spells.

If you go check out each individual spells themselves, they don't have either descriptors next to the spell. but if you look at the spell deathwatch, protection of good, summon monster 1* or curse water. Similarly bless water, protection from evil spells in the SRD has the good descriptor.

Evil clerics can cure and good clerics can inflict if they so choose.. but their own alignment tendency would suggest them to follow their alignment.

[Necroticplague]

Yes, they can

Grant Spells
A deity automatically grants spells and domain powers to mortal divine spellcasters who pray to it. Most deities can grant spells from the cleric spell list, the ranger spell list, and from three or more domains. Deities with levels in the druid class can grant spells from the druid spell list, and deities with paladin levels can grant spells from the paladin spell list. A deity can withhold spells from any particular mortal as a free action; once a spell has been granted, it remains in the mortal’s mind until expended.
There's no restriction on a god granting a spell relative to their alignment. The cleric's alignment restricitions, however, would render them unable to cast it.

[JeenLeen]

I think the Hellbred race's "Evil Exception" would work here. The deity can grant the spell, and a Good aligned Hellbred cleric of said deity can cast the spell thanks to "Evil Exception".

I'm away from books, so forgive the ignorance, but does Hellbred's racial feature enable them to do certain Evil things without it impacting alignment (such as cast Evil spells), or does it say something special in general about counting as Evil alignment?

If the former, I'd think it still doesn't let them cast the spell because, although casting the spell would no longer hurt their alignment, the cleric spellcasting restrictions still restrict it according to alignment.
I could see a cleric who has Grey Guard (or whatever paladin PrC gives flexibility in morals) being able to cast a spell, maybe, but again it might not since the feature doesn't interact specifically with the cleric restrictions.

All that said, I can definitely see a DM houseruling that something like that lets a cleric cast an [evil] spell.

[Necroticplague]

I'm away from books, so forgive the ignorance, but does Hellbred's racial feature enable them to do certain Evil things without it impacting alignment (such as cast Evil spells), or does it say something special in general about counting as Evil alignment?
Neither. It’s about being able to cast evil spells and use evil items without negative levels. It doesn’t stop their actions from being evil.
Evil Exception (Ex): Regardless of alignment or class restrictions, a hellbred can cast spells with the evil descriptor and never gain negative levels while wielding evil magic items, such as unholy weapons or demon armor. This ability does not shield a hellbred from losing access to class features if he violates a class's code of conduct. For example, using a +1 unholy longsword to slay orcs would not violate a hellbred paladin's code of conduct, though using the weapon to kill another paladin would. so they very explicitly can cast evil spells despite cleric restrictions, though it would still be an evil act.

[Psyren]

It says "regardless of class restrictions, {they} can cast spells with the [Evil] descriptor." This says to me that they are in fact allowed to cast those spells even if their own alignment doesn't match as it overrides the cleric class's prohibition.

[Acanous]

Yeah from how I’m reading it, Hellbred and Malconvoker both bypass your alignment’s spell restrictions- just for conj in the case of the malconvoker. They don’t actually allow you to take those spells if the deity is opposed to them, but in the case of the malconvoker any summon monster or planar binding spell is neutral when granted and only becomes typed when used to summon or call a creature of that type.

In both cases you’re good to go in the scenario you’ve written out above, but without such a class or racial feature your neutral god can grant you the spell but you cannot cast it.

[hamishspence]

Yeah from how I’m reading it, Hellbred and Malconvoker both bypass your alignment’s spell restrictions- just for conj in the case of the malconvoker. They don’t actually allow you to take those spells if the deity is opposed to them, but in the case of the malconvoker any summon monster or planar binding spell is neutral when granted and only becomes typed when used to summon or call a creature of that type.

I got the impression from the wording:

"For the purposes only of casting conjuration spells, you can ignore any restrictions that forbid you from casting spells of certain alignments."

a good malconvoker cleric of a good deity like Pelor (the one in the quote) could take (and cast) even spells that specify a fiend in their name.

So, using Spell Compendium, you could take spells like Summon Babau Demon, Summon Bearded Devil, etc.