3. Cleric's rping spells.

Cleric's rping spells.


  • Well, you have to remember that in FR you aren't dealing with relative or ultimate good or evil. You're dealing with CATEGORIES labeled Good and Evil. Frankly I wish they'd used less misleading terms. Let's do that right now for this post:

    Let FR Good = Burrito
    Let FR Evil = Nacho

    The gods of Burrito are not omnipotent or omnipresent or omnianything, and do not see every sparrow who falls, etc. To keep track of where everyone stands, they need a filing system to tell if someone is very good or very evil. Likewise the Nacho powers need a similar way.

    So they sort out all the things which are usually, by them, considered evil and file them under Nacho. That includes poisons. Using a cup of poison to kill a bad king may be an act of good, but it's also a Nacho act and you will get Nacho points for it. That's just how the divine system works. There's very few conditionals or rationalizations in it. In part this is to keep gods from poaching on each others' territory (if all acts can be reasoned as Burrito, the gods of burrito get stronger. If all acts can be reasoned as Nacho, the Nacho powers gain strength.).

  • M
    Legion

    @9f01a39299=LowerDenizen:

    Because when it comes to poisins, rather then delve into motivation and true consequence the assumption is instead that the person who is using the poisin is trying to do something or defeat something they could not otherwise deal with themselves.

    In essence, they are cheating. And cheating is wrong. Therefore, poisin is evil.

    Yeah… BUT ... the same could be said about divine powers.

    Couldn't we assume that a person is using the divine power of their god to defeat something that they couldn't otherwise deal with themselves?

    In essence, they're cheating and cheating is wrong. Therefore divine power is evil. 😉


  • Wouldnt the idea of calling it cheating by not allowing them to fight on equal grounds also make sneak attacks cheating? Or the use of a goblin grenade because all you have to do is toss and hope? Sneak attacks although are based on the skill of a person , tossing and hopeing the spash of a grenade though does not.

    But both still cause it to be "unfair". Also is it much different to use poison to throwing an acid bomb letting them be eaten alive? Wich last i checked use of such weapons is not evil.

    As a side note , as far as defeating something they could not overcome by them selves people tend to just bunch up and attack a single target that is to strong wich could also be called cheating if considerd to be unfair by it not being equal. Yet mobbing a single enemy is rarely looked down on.

    So im not sure why a single strategy should be seen as evil because it may not be fair in combat as we use many unfair and in some cases cruel ways to kill things and never think of them much.


  • Because when it comes to poisins, rather then delve into motivation and true consequence the assumption is instead that the person who is using the poisin is trying to do something or defeat something they could not otherwise deal with themselves.

    In essence, they are cheating. And cheating is wrong. Therefore, poisin is evil.


  • I think it's based on the concept of what we'd call nowadays "fair play".

    Fighting against an enemy with your skill against his, is a fair act per se, ignoring the motivations you have to do so.

    If you chop someone's leg while fighting, then you did so with your own skill. By using poison your taking advantage unfairly by crippling them, disallowing from fighting back in equal condition. Perhaps you're less skilled at fighting, but because your attacks cripple the rival, you're being unfairly unbalancing the fight.


  • Poison's a tricky one. Got into a long discussion about it on some forum once.

    As a 2E player I was on the side that it's evil. Going way back, using poison was counted an evil act because of the ability damage it does. Undue suffering and whatnot. But then you have stuff like Oil of Tagit - actually just puts someone to sleep - but is still a poison and its use still an evil act.

    The 3E people said that using poison is no longer evil by the rules as it was in previous editions, but added that the flavour text seems to imply that it's considered evil. Also had people plain out disagreeing, citing Ravages from BoED as proof (these do ability damage to evils).

    Then ofc the ic discussion - whacking someone with a sword hurts just as much as poisoning them.

    Using a poison arrow (1d2 dex or whatever) would indeed be an evil act.

    But how does that make sense when you'd be peppering them with arrows until they were dead in any case.

    There's an idea that in whacking at someone with a sword, they have a chance to fight back and they know who's attacking. That's not true of poison.

    Even looking at it from the pov that if the person who was poisoned lives and the attacker doesn't - why is it evil to leave someone with ability damage through poison and not evil to leave someone with ability damage from having hacked off their leg.

    Another one of these thorny d&d things.


  • @3fb3074b3d=Taerinn:

    As a note kids, NEVER Flamestrike orphans, puppies, kittens, or bunnies.
    Its just plain wrong.

    Speak for yourself 😉


  • @8ebfdeef50=Lagermane:

    Flame Strike doesn't have the evil descriptor either. But if you cast it on a group of orphans and puppies, it's an evil act and your goodly gods will be cranky.

    This reminds me of the Family Guy episode with the school full of bunnies that the plane crashes into Lager….which is most certainly E V I L.

    As a note kids, NEVER Flamestrike orphans, puppies, kittens, or bunnies.
    Its just plain wrong.*

    *Flamestriking gnomes however, has mixed results, try it at your own discretion.


  • Only spells with the Evil descriptor are always evil to use.

    That said, there are some spells your god may not approve of even if they aren't evil to cast, and some perfectly fine spells that you cast in a manner that is evil.

    For example, the spell Poison in 3E does not have the Evil descriptor. Clerics of Chauntea, devoted foe of Talona, who cast this can expect her deep disapproval. And if you cast it on a sentient being, it's evil anyway, since use of poison on other people is, in the FR world, an act tagged as evil by the gods.

    Flame Strike doesn't have the evil descriptor either. But if you cast it on a group of orphans and puppies, it's an evil act and your goodly gods will be cranky.


  • Froach hit the necromantic nail on the head…..some spells, despite "seeming" evil aren't...the rule of thumb I'd use is that if it feels "wrong for your cleric" such as the case of Slay Living for Rith, then don't do it....

    However, using them, since there is no "evil descriptor" to them won't cause an auto-fallen token, do be aware that using them -might- draw attention as to the consequences down the road.....

    :arrow: Bobby-Joe the cleric casts Slay Living on a bugbear that is trying to attack his friends....this wouldn't draw much in the way of a repercussion in my opinion.

    :arrow: Bobby-Joe the Cleric casts Slay Living on a Pixie, that although harassing the PCs, is causing them no harm, just being annoying. THIS would draw a repercussion in my opinion.

    Just keep in mind "why" you're using the spell after all....


  • afaik you're fine with it unless the spell has 'evil' in the descriptor. None of these three do.

    eg Create Undead
    Necromancy [Evil]
    "A much more potent spell than animate dead, this evil spell allows you…"

    http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createundead.htm
    You can look up the others there too.


  • Edit: There, Eluriel was more accurate than I, I think.

    Do not think that because a spell is from Necromancy school is unusable by good clerics. Afterall, Deathward or Raise Dead spells are Necromancy.