D&D 5E Can a Paladin Cure Addiction?

[doctorbadwolf]

Anyway, strictly speaking, the Paladin can remove a disease. DPaD can detect and identify diseases. If a chemical addiction is a disease, the Paladin can detect and cure it. If it isn't, they can't. But the rules don't give us an answer, which is why it's a discussion.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Your habit of dodging 95% of a post to hyper-focus on a single word or phrase in a post makes is frustrating to engage with you.

shrugs I don't like disagreeing with every single point in a long comment (because I often don't disagree with every single piece). I find the piece I want to respond to, and respond to that.

Anyway, strictly speaking, the Paladin can remove a disease. DPaD can detect and identify diseases. If a chemical addiction is a disease, the Paladin can detect and cure it. If it isn't, they can't. But the rules don't give us an answer, which is why it's a discussion.

It's important to remember there is a distinction between a chemical addiction and addiction in general. I see no issue with the lesser restoration curing the symptoms of chemical addiction, directly caused by usage of the chemical.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

shrugs I don't like disagreeing with every single point in a long comment (because I often don't disagree with every single piece). I find the piece I want to respond to, and respond to that.



It's important to remember there is a distinction between a chemical addiction and addiction in general. I see no issue with the lesser restoration curing the symptoms of chemical addiction, directly caused by usage of the chemical.

Which would include the rewriting of the user’s brain into that of an addict.

And I don’t really care about the restoration spells, here. They aren’t the topic.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Given Mr Badger's attempts to cure Toad, I would say the answer to the OP is "no".

 

[uzirath]

I'd say a better angle to approach this from (as a DM) is, "Do I want cure disease to fix addiction?" If so, sure, it's a disease. If not.... then it isn't. . . . A lot of this boils down to, "Just how powerful do I want cure disease to be?" I would argue that it's a low-level effect and should be treated as such.

This is the approach I would take, too. Magic gets thorny when one tries to rationalize or mechanize it too much. I prefer to think about what I want the results to look like and then adjust the rules of magic (or the gods) accordingly. I like a world with addiction, mental illness, congenital disorders, heart disease, and lots of clerics and paladins roaming about. Therefore, cure disease doesn't normally affect such things. Even so, it is a world-changing ability (heck, that would be true even if it only cured influenza).

In most of my fantasy campaigns, illness (whether mental or physical) is the result of either spirits or divine influences. Physical illnesses, therefore, might be the result of bad spirits (who congregate in swamps, cesspools, on rusty nails, etc.) or gods of death and decay. Cure disease is one spell that can help balance things, but many afflictions might be too powerful for it or other standard spells. Plenty of mumbo-jumbo and handwaving, but it usually turns out to be pretty evocative and fun in play. No cleric would be so bold as to say that one of their spells will always work against some condition. The answer is always, something like, "let's see if I can overcome the evil spirits." If it doesn't work, a further quest might be in order, or you may be attempting to tamper with the will of the gods. This would be my answer to most congenital disorders... a person was born that way because of divine will, and that can't be undone by minor miracles.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Anyway, strictly speaking, the Paladin can remove a disease. DPaD can detect and identify diseases. If a chemical addiction is a disease, the Paladin can detect and cure it. If it isn't, they can't. But the rules don't give us an answer, which is why it's a discussion.

So a DM either creates a definition of disease that works for them, or they leave it as a judgement call in each case. "No official answer," pretty much makes those the options. Not much then to discuss except WHY a particular DM rules a particular way, which is going to amount to, "I don't want it to fix this/that," or, "I do want it to fix this/that, or just don't care enough to say no."

In my book, most of what real-world science/medicine would call a mental illness or disorder would be something that D&D would classify as insanity strictly for purposes of spells and effects. Disease would cover anything and everything that in the real world would stem from bacterial or viral infection as well as most other stuff not directly resulting from physical injury or inherent defect - even if real-world science and medicine would NOT necessarily lump it into that category. Mostly that's just to keep healing of hit points a separate mechanic from other "cure" spells and effects. More structure than that is simply BEYOND the normal scope of the game and anyone trying to push that envelope should be accepting that they are solidly into house-rules territory.

In short, if you feel you need a definition of disease - make one. If you want a list of what cures what (or doesn't cure it...) then make one. D&D is FAR from a medical simulation and indeed is closer to a wacky fantasy and pre-medieval superstitious idea of health and medicine. D&D uses frickin' spells to cure diseases AND mental illnesses as well as CAUSE them. Real-world sensibility went out the window with using rituals and magic potions to heal people. Don't try to force it to actually make sense.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Real-world sensibility went out the window with using rituals and magic potions to heal people. Don't try to force it to actually make sense.

This part, I will never agree with. You may not enjoy applying real world knowledge and sensibilities to dnd, but there is nothing wrong with doing so.

As to the rest, yep. That’s basically what I said in the OP and since then. I’m curious what others would do in their games if it came up, and why, and discussing the reasoning behind those things, in large because the game doesn’t actually answer the question, which I see as an opportunity.


For instance, I have absolutely no interest in treating dnd and it’s worlds as taking place in a universe where medieval ideas of biology and toxicology are objectively correct, outside of maybe a one-off or a weird setting where that’s a thing. IMO, the standard for dnd for most people is that a cold is caused by a virus, not by an evil spirit.

But other people love that stuff!

 

[Maxperson]

Does 5e have a strictly defined set of parameters that determine what a disease is? I rather doubt it, given how 5e is written. Instead, I’m 99% sure the DM has to do some amount of personal decision making using their own judgement.

It doesn't define disease, but they are universally contagious in 5e. What's the DC to catch an addiction from someone?

 

[Bohandas]

in 3.5 addiction used a cross between the poison rules and the disease rules... so maybe if you can cure both

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It doesn't define disease, but they are universally contagious in 5e. What's the DC to catch an addiction from someone?

Source?