Inquisitor and Oracle alignment and spell choices?

[StreamOfTheSky]

I just noticed that Oracle and Inquisitor both lack text saying that their alignment restricts what spells they can cast, text cleric and druid both have. Was this oversight, or intentional? Considering it's explicitly called out for cleric and druid and not these two classes, along with the fact that oracle can pick free inflict or cure spells known with no mention of it being based on or impacting alignment, I'd have to think this was intentional. What do you think?

 

[Celtavian]

re

I thought I read the Inquisitor is alignment restricted. I'll have to check that one. Inquisitors worship a particular god, that is why they get a domain. And I do believe they have alignment restrictions on their spells.


The Oracle is not alignment restricted. You do not necessarily gain your power from a deity as an Oracle. Your power is innate much like a sorcerer. It is from a mysterious power source that might be a deity or it might be a supernatural power. I have a Life Oracle that worships no deity. She is empowered directly by the Positive Material plane. She flows with the power of life and that is what empowers her spells.

 

[paradox42]

I thought I read the Inquisitor is alignment restricted. I'll have to check that one. Inquisitors worship a particular god, that is why they get a domain. And I do believe they have alignment restrictions on their spells.


The Oracle is not alignment restricted. You do not necessarily gain your power from a deity as an Oracle. Your power is innate much like a sorcerer. It is from a mysterious power source that might be a deity or it might be a supernatural power. I have a Life Oracle that worships no deity. She is empowered directly by the Positive Material plane. She flows with the power of life and that is what empowers her spells.

Not what OP asked, if I read him correctly- I think the question was whether the Oracle and Inquisitor don't have to abide by the restriction against (for example) casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor, if they aren't themselves Evil-aligned.

Myself, I suspect it's erratta, and will be corrected at some point; every Divine caster I'm aware of that was introduced in 3.X had this restriction- and as was pointed out, Cleric and Druid do too in PF. Why would Oracle and Inquisitor (interesting clue here: the only two Divine spellcasters in APG) be different?

 

[Celtavian]

re

Maybe it's not in the APG.

But it's on this web site which I assumed is the official source document for Pathfinder.

Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells

An inquisitor can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity’s (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.

Inquisitor - Pathfinder_OGC

The reason the Oracle doesn't have the same alignment restrictions as the other classes I reiterate: they don't have to worship a deity to cast spells. They cast them innately. The source of their power can be non-aligned. It can be completely made up. You can be a Lawful Good Oracle and create a character that draws their divine power from the Negative Energy Plane if you so choose. And cast evil spells, but roleplay that you feel badly about doing it.

That is the flavor of the Oracle. I think it was very much intended that way. The Oracle is one of the more interesting flavor classes in the game. You can truly toy around with a lot of concepts when making an oracle as far as where there power comes from, how they use it, and what not.

And it's one of the few classes you can make an evil healer that is as effective as a cleric with. You can make an evil Life Oracle that works for an evil party. There are not alignment restrictions on the oracle or where his power comes from.

The Inquisitor I don't think was even intended to be divorced from a deity or alignment restrictions to the divine magic they cast.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Ok, Inquisitor I just plain missed because it's at the very end of the page. :embarassed: Why'd they do that?

Oracle is definitely strange, though. Probably is intentional, but it is amusing that you can be a Life Oracle and pick Inflict spells (probably better off in fact, if you pick cure spells you get robbed out of one of your mystery bonus spells) and alignment doesn't matter in either case. Only think you have to be weary of is using a certain alignment's spells too often and changing alignment perhaps. But even then I don't think you could possibly lose anything for the change, so... *shrug*
I do sort of like that, so long as your DM understands that your divine caster's following totally utterly different assumptions than a cleric and doesn't hold you to those.

 

[paradox42]

Fair point on the website. I kick myself for not having thought of it and checked.

The reason the Oracle doesn't have the same alignment restrictions as the other classes I reiterate: they don't have to worship a deity to cast spells.

Clerics don't have to worship a deity either. The class is written largely assuming they do, but then there's this little detail in the section on Domains:

If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval). The restriction on alignment domains still applies.

That's how it's been since before 3rd Edition, if you replace "Domains" above with "Spheres" for 2nd- and nothing at all for previous editions, since Clerics just had their own spell list back then with no ifs, ands, buts, or extensions.

They cast them innately. The source of their power can be non-aligned. It can be completely made up. You can be a Lawful Good Oracle and create a character that draws their divine power from the Negative Energy Plane if you so choose. And cast evil spells, but roleplay that you feel badly about doing it.

There is potential debate about whether the Negative Energy Plane really is Evil-aligned, but I won't start that up here. You are correct that the Oracle has that flavor, though this alone does not mean that powers granting Good-aligned spells would grant them to an Evil character. It is an interesting direction to explore, but it breaks all precedent to suggest that aligned Divine spells can be cast by opposed-aligned characters.

And it's one of the few classes you can make an evil healer that is as effective as a cleric with. You can make an evil Life Oracle that works for an evil party. There are not alignment restrictions on the oracle or where his power comes from.

I've seen this example used before and it always begs me to point out: Healing spells are not aligned, either Good or Evil, and they never have been except when GMs house-rule it. I see no contradiction whatsoever in an Evil-aligned Oracle of Life- nor would I see a contradiction in an Evil-aligned Cleric of Healing- as long as there's a Neutral or Evil god who grants that Domain, it's all good (so to speak).

The thing that makes an Evil Oracle who's a good healer work is that Evil Oracles are allowed to pick the "Cure" spells as added to their spells-known list, above the "Inflict" ones, if they want to. And this, too, is not inconsistent with older versions of priests and Divine spellcasting; the whole notion that only Good-aligned Clerics can spontaneously cast Cures (and Evil can only spontaneously cast Inflicts) has only been around since 3rd Edition- before then there was no such rule or conflict.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The thing that makes an Evil Oracle who's a good healer work is that Evil Oracles are allowed to pick the "Cure" spells as added to their spells-known list, above the "Inflict" ones, if they want to. And this, too, is not inconsistent with older versions of priests and Divine spellcasting; the whole notion that only Good-aligned Clerics can spontaneously cast Cures (and Evil can only spontaneously cast Inflicts) has only been around since 3rd Edition- before then there was no such rule or conflict.

In 3E inflict and cure aren't aligned, it's just a matter of which you can spontaneously convert. They use "positive" and "negative" energy, but the cleric text never tries to equate those with "good" and "evil."

Sidenote: My last game that was an evil campaign, I was a gestalt cleric. Healing is very useful to keep torture victims from "escaping your grasp" or going unconscious...

 

[paradox42]

In 3E inflict and cure aren't aligned, it's just a matter of which you can spontaneously convert. They use "positive" and "negative" energy, but the cleric text never tries to equate those with "good" and "evil."

Sidenote: My last game that was an evil campaign, I was a gestalt cleric. Healing is very useful to keep torture victims from "escaping your grasp" or going unconscious...

My point exactly. What 3E did was to link Positive energy clearly with Good-aligned Clerics, and Negative energy clearly with Evil-aligned. The link is exactly that Good Clerics can only spontaneously cast Cures, and Evil can only spontaneously cast Inflicts. Many GMs (myself included) would have no problem house-ruling that link away, and your example of fixing up torture victims for the next round is a perfect one for explaining why. There was no link between Positive/Negative energy and alignments at all, in prior editions.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I hope in future editions they let clerics spontanously cast both inflict and cure spells. Hamstrings evil clerics using the normal rules. You would think the designers would see that good or neutral clerics casting cures overpower evil or neutral clerics casting inflicts thus making evil clerics far weaker than curing clerics.

Every time I see an evil cleric in a party and I'm supposed to play him as fearsome, I sigh. Because the simple math shows that the use of inflict spells and channel negative energy is a waste of power for the evil cleric because the opposing group gets saves for half damage and yet healing spells will always have their full effect. Which when it comes down to a damage race makes the good cleric's healing ability far more effective than the evil cleric's inflicting ability which I assume was intended to offset healing. Which it doesn't do well at all.

To balance this in our campaign we house ruled no saves for Inflict spells and channel negative energy. Thus making evil clerics fearsome and a real challenge since they can cancel healing with their damage and thus even the playing field.


I like also like the addition of spells like Fester in the APG which can help counter healing and make other classes like the Witch and Inquisitor viable healer/counter-healer types for enemy NPC parties.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

To be fair, rebuke/command undead is just plain better than turn/destroy undead. Both solve your undead pest control problem, but only the former adds numbers to your side.

So I always saw spont. cures being a generally better deal than spont. inflicts to be the counterpoint to that.