D&D 5E Can a Paladin Cure Addiction?

[Son of the Serpent]

Examples aren’t rules, bud. There isn’t an actual answer.

Everyone but you understands the thread.

There are several people who disagree about addiction counting as an addiction due to very clear RAI ruling it out. Not just @Maxperson , bud.

Also examples are often used as a means of showing the scope of what is considered appropriate by the rules. You are ignoring that this is the case.

 

[Maxperson]

There are several people who disagree about addiction counting as an addiction due to very clear RAI ruling it out. Not just @Maxperson , bud.

Also examples are often used as a means of showing the scope of what is considered appropriate by the rules. You are ignoring that this is the case.

It's a common tactic from those who can't back up their position with an actual argument. Attack and belittle those putting arguments forth instead of responding to the arguments.

 

[Azzy]

There are several people who disagree about addiction counting as an addiction due to very clear RAI ruling it out. Not just @Maxperson , bud.

RAI is NOT clear at all because the rules are entirely silent on addiction or other non-contagious diseases and how they function within the ruleset. That's fallacious logic.

 

[Maxperson]

RAI is NOT clear at all because the rules are entirely silent on addiction or other non-contagious diseases and how they function within the ruleset. That's fallacious logic.

The rules are entirely silent on whether a longsword detonates a nuclear strike, too. It only mentions 1d8 damage. Absence is not proof of existence. Are you arguing that RAI for a longsword is not clearly 1d8 only?

 

[Azzy]

The rules are entirely silent on whether a longsword detonates a nuclear strike, too. It only mentions 1d8 damage. Absence is not proof of existence. Are you arguing that RAI for a longsword is not 1d8 only?

Not even the same. There is no reason that one would rationally assume that a longsword could do such a thing because that's not how either reality or the type of fiction that informs D&D works.

The rules of 5e are deliberately non-exhaustive—they do not cover a lot of particulars. This is by design—the DM is supposed to use their reason and imagination to fill in the blanks. This is a blank, and here we can use reality to help us inform how to handle this blank—do we use reality's definition that addiction is a disease or do we make up a new definition that is rooted in something other than reality (a valid choice in a game with dragons and magic)?

Otherwise. there must be no cockroaches in D&D world because there are no rules for cockroaches.

 

[Maxperson]

Not even the same. There is no reason that one would rationally assume that a longsword could do such a thing because that's not how either reality or the type of fiction that informs D&D works.

The rules of 5e are deliberately non-exhaustive—they do not cover a lot of particulars. This is by design—the DM is supposed to use their reason and imagination to fill in the blanks. This is a blank, and here we can use reality to help us inform how to handle this blank—do we use reality's definition that addiction is a disease or do we make up a new definition that is rooted in something other than reality (a valid choice in a game with dragons and magic)?

Otherwise. there must be no cockroaches in D&D world because there are no rules for cockroaches.

It's not a blank. We have a robust set of examples of what diseases are in 5e. We have spells and abilities that cause mental effects and disabilities. None of those are diseases. There's no good reason to think that an addiction would be a disease and not just another mental effect/disability.

 

[Azzy]

It's not a blank. We have a robust set of examples of what diseases are in 5e. We have spells and abilities that cause mental effects and disabilities. None of those are diseases. There's no good reason to think that an addiction would be a disease and not just another mental effect/disability.

It's not robust at all, it's pretty sparse. Addiction has a physical effect and isn't just mental, so there is no good reason to think that it would be considered a mental effect/disability.

 

[Horwath]

I would say that Lay on hands could cure physical aspects and results of addiction.

Like curing liver cirrhosis or trashed immune system of drug users, but not underlying causes of becoming addict.

This would only give addicts an opportunity for a "fresh" start and then it would be up on them to make the best of it,

however, having an instant cure for damage caused by stupid behavior might just encourage more of said behavior as "new liver" is just around the corner, so knock yourself out...

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Reposted

 

[Iry]

It seems this thread has become unfriendly. In the spirit of linking kitten pictures to defuse negative feelings, I would ask for a paws of hostilities.