Can a neutral cleric of a neutral deity cast good/evil lawful/chaotic spells?

I would first ask you to define your "true neutrality". Are you not a partisan in conflict? I would question your motive to be an adventurer then. Are you a person seeking balance in life, to know the "light" and the "dark" in equal measure? Are you one who seeks to balance the scales of the world, doing good where there is much evil, and doing evil where there is much good?

From there, were I your DM, would I determine if you could use good or evil spells. If your goal is balance, I would say that you could not prepare/use more than half (rounded down) your spells of any level on good or evil spells. (if there is an odd-number of spell slots, that slot much be occupied by a non-aligned spell). If your goal is to be non-partisan, I would deny you all aligned spells. If you are seeking to balance the scales of the world, I would limit you based on your use, ie: if an area had a lot of good in it, you would find yourself unable to prepare good-aligned spells. Etc....

Personally though, I question an adventurer who is truly unaligned, with anything at all. What motivates you? What drives you to adventure away from home? Why do you take quests? Why do you stay with the party. I mean, I get chaotic neutral, they're the definition of "do what I want because I can!" types. I don't get true neutral types except as sort of strange, extra-dimensional arbiters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes, that is my argument, the problem is not having the source material to back it up.

If it helps, his argument is that Fharlanghn would not be able to provide the spell in the first place because he doesn't have the appropriate domains. Essentially, Pelor can provide good spells because one of his Domains is Good.

He's making a bad argument there. If a deity doesn't have the healing domain, does that now mean he or she can't provide healing spells?

Neutral has the advantage of using any aligned spells because neutrality isn't in opposition to any of those descriptors (as Nagol pointed out above - good opposes evil, lawful opposed chaotic and vice versa). However, neutral is also not completely immune to alignment targeting spells either like chaos hammer or holy smite.
 
Last edited:

Well, I repeat: if a Cleric of Poseidon (or other similar water deity) gets Firestorm, and a Cleric of Amaterasu (or other sun deity) gets Earthquake, then I think non-opposing alignment spells are fine.
Honestly, I still think 3.5’s rules about Clerics to be rather… odd. I’ll read AD&D 2e, so I *hope* it’s something more tasteful.
Don’t tell me the answer! Not yet.
 

If it helps, his argument is that Fharlanghn would not be able to provide the spell in the first place because he doesn't have the appropriate domains. Essentially, Pelor can provide good spells because one of his Domains is Good.
Perhaps would be able. But it's not the same as able and willing.
I'd rule that aligned spells are not completely unavailable, but are to be... discouraged. Except when needed specifically as protection or to oppose entities to whom it's inimical and who annoy the deity (i.e. if Lawful Evil creatures try to overrun the place, let 'em eat Word of Chaos. "Just don't overdo it.")
 

I don't get true neutral types except as sort of strange, extra-dimensional arbiters.
I think Gygax describes TN fairly well (DMG p 23, PHB p 33; by way of contrast, I don't think the 3E description makes much sense at all):

Absolute, or true, acreatures view everything which exists as an integral, necessary part or function of the entire cosmos [and] looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things.

Each thing exists as a part of the whole, one as a check or balance to the other, with life necessary for death, happiness for suffering, good for evil, order far chaos, and vice versa. [E]ach aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially.

Nothing must ever become predominant or out of balance. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be. Within this naturalistic ethos, humankind serves a role also, just as all other creatures do.​

So True Neutrality is a naturalistic ethos, which holds that nature cannot be improved upon, but equally will prevail and ensure that things are as they are meant to be, provided deliberate human action does not unbalance the "wheel" of nature.

A true neutral person obviously isn't indifferent to suffering vs wellbeing - like everyone else, s/he thinks it is better to be happy than sad, and unlike evil people s/he is not ready to run roughshod over others to get what s/he wants.

But unlike those of the good alignments, s/he does not think that human action can actually make the world a better place. Rather, human action is a threat to wellbeing because it destabilises the natural order.

In real life, this sort of outlook is exemplified by Stoicism and some similar classical philosophies, and also some versions of Taoism and Buddhism. I think it's clever of Gygax, and imaginative, to extend it to druids as nature priests. (And I think it shows a lack of imagination not to allow TN monks: consider eg the Jet Li character in Tai Chi Master.)

(If, in PS, true neutral spirits maintain ledgers tallying their deliberately generous against their deliberately cruel actions, then something has gone pretty wrong, because this is exactly the opposite of the naturalistic outlook that Gygax describes. And it seems pretty silly to me - just as the 3E description of TN does.)
 

Perhaps would be able. But it's not the same as able and willing.
I'd rule that aligned spells are not completely unavailable, but are to be... discouraged. Except when needed specifically as protection or to oppose entities to whom it's inimical and who annoy the deity (i.e. if Lawful Evil creatures try to overrun the place, let 'em eat Word of Chaos. "Just don't overdo it.")

A neutral cleric casting a Word spell is one of those "it better be worth it" moments. He gets to take the effect as an improperly aligned creature in the area of effect. Luckily, most times his level is at least the caster level, but he better be really careful if he's using some caster level boosting abilities -- the penalties start to get nasty.
 

I think the rules of aligned planes may help here:

Mildly Aligned

Creatures who have an alignment opposite that of a mildly aligned plane take a -2 circumstance penalty on all Charisma-based checks.

Strongly Aligned


On planes that are strongly aligned, a -2 circumstance penalty applies on all Charisma-based checks made by all creatures not of the plane’s alignment. In addition, the -2 penalty affects all Intelligence-based and Wisdom-based checks, too.

The important thing to understand from this section is that there is a difference between "opposite" alignment and "not of the plane's alignment". If neutral is considered opposite of good, evil, law, and chaos, then these two clauses mean exactly the same thing. It seems clear to me this was not the intent.
 

Personally though, I question an adventurer who is truly unaligned, with anything at all. What motivates you? What drives you to adventure away from home? Why do you take quests? Why do you stay with the party. I mean, I get chaotic neutral, they're the definition of "do what I want because I can!" types. I don't get true neutral types except as sort of strange, extra-dimensional arbiters.

It's not that hard to imagine, really. A whole lot of the Conan-style adventuring works quite well with someone who's neutral and just doesn't care enough about philosophical or moral topics to take significant sides. Same with your average adventurer out to get a bit of money without concern for either doing good or inflicting evil.

For campaign stories that involve a bit more of taking sides between good and evil (or even law and chaos), I expect a neutral character needs a more personally relevant motivation since they're disinclined to take sides philosophically. Some of the Paizo adventure paths are pretty good at doing this. Take Curse of the Crimson Throne as an example. Each PC takes a trait that ties them to a particular motivation to start the campaign off. Then, once that is essentially resolved, an ongoing motivation is protecting their home city from the deteriorating situation it's in. Though it involves opposition to evil machinations, a neutral resident of Korvosa is well-motivated to get involved since it affects their home and neighbors.
 

I actually like 3rd Edition’s description. It includes both “I don’t care” with “balance of the universe”.
Thing is, the first one is very important, because neutrality, in both axis, as described by 3rd E, happens a lot. For Good and Evil, for example, it’s not that people want evil rulers, but they aren’t good themselves, and just want to live their lives. Like “I’ll not hurt people by choice, but I don’t want to get out of my way to help them”.
Of course, TN should also contain the “Balance of Fate” approach. It’s not only traditional, but also a natural variant of this alignment. However, having just that interpretation of neutrality leaves a lot of concepts without a proper stand. That’s why I like the “new” approach – basically, having the two of them together.

Honestly, if you aren’t really sure about how to get PCs into a quest, just offer them a big load of money. It always works here :D
 

The specific stance doesn't matter much - it's just that some neutrals consider extremes more of "sadly misguided" while others "dangerously misguided". The "balancing" type will be more eager to fight ice with fire, but both are not happy about having to resort to this.
A neutral cleric casting a Word spell is one of those "it better be worth it" moments. He gets to take the effect as an improperly aligned creature in the area of effect. Luckily, most times his level is at least the caster level, but he better be really careful if he's using some caster level boosting abilities -- the penalties start to get nasty.
as [MENTION=6682960]Grogg of the North[/MENTION] described on the previous page. Yep.
But it's not a bug, it's a feature. A priest uses a power that inherently doesn't sit well with him (or the deity, who gives it with caveats) and gets burned a little now and then.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top