D&D 5E Can a Paladin Cure Addiction?

[doctorbadwolf]

Spoilers for DragonLance novels:

Spoiler

I'm pretty sure Flint, from the OG DragonLance trilogy, dies of a heart attack.

Definitely a world where Paladins and Clerics are extremely rare, to be fair.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Definitely a world where Paladins and Clerics are extremely rare, to be fair.

I think you are starting to treat clerics as if they are modern doctors, which they're not really.

If a family sees one of their own getting sick, do they take him to the local priest and hope his faith heals his malady? Sure. This is pretty common in the typical settings like Forgotten Realms (not as common in setting with less magic like Greyhawk, but enough).

But heart attacks happen for lots of underlying reasons, that the typical person would not gt treated for with a cleric. A peasant doesn't go to his local priest to have his blood pressure checked, and the priest recommending he have less red meat and more exercise. And a priest may be able to stop a heart attack with lesser restoration, but probably doesn't cure the underlying issues that caused them.

Same goes for something like addiction; a peasant family with a gambling addict patriarch does not go to a priest to have it "cured." The reason is although we with modern science know addiction is partly genetic, medieval peasants certainly don't think that. A priest would turn them away, saying that gambling is a personal failure (although he might encourage them to pray for his wellbeing, being a cleric and all).

Essentially, what you keep doing is applying modern interpretations of medicine to typically medieval settings. These settings, even with magic, do not interpret these "diseases" the same way we do, which is why they wouldn't even try to use magic to cure these things.

EDIT: A setting like Eberron however does have enough modern takes that some modern facets of medicine, partnered with magic, may be applied.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think you are starting to treat clerics as if they are modern doctors, which they're not really.

I think you’re jumping to conclusions and should avoid putting words in other folks mouths.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I think you’re jumping to conclusions and should avoid putting words in other folks mouths.

These are your words;

If so, if a Paladin can cure a disease that is at least partly psychological, can they cure disorders that we don't define as diseases, in the modern world? Can they cure ADHD? What about Anti-Social Personality Disorder (Psychopathy/Sociopathy), or Schizophrenia?

If that's not you treating clerics as modern doctors, please reword your question. These are all modern terms, and you yourself use the term "modern world."

In a medieval setting, these are all things a cleric would not believe are diseases. They would consider them personal failings, or madness. So they would not truly be treatable by a lesser restoration if we are going by a strict following of the RAW.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I figure a geas spell is probably about as close as you get in 5e to modeling addiction, and lay hands wouldn't end that spell, but it would cure some of the damage.

Hmmm, an addiction demon (that casts geas) wouldn't be too kosher in general, but with the right party.....

 

[Beleriphon]

I'd consider this to be more in the capabilities of Greater Restoration rather than Lay On Hands.

Paladins can also cure disease or neutralize one poison by spending 5 HP worth of healing from lay on hands. So at first level they can heal up to 5 points of damage, or cure one disease, or neutralize one poison.

I figure a geas spell is probably about as close as you get in 5e to modeling addiction, and lay hands wouldn't end that spell, but it would cure some of the damage.

Hmmm, an addiction demon (that casts geas) wouldn't be too kosher in general, but with the right party.....

Geas is also possible for 14th level and higher paladins.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

These are your words;

If so, if a Paladin can cure a disease that is at least partly psychological, can they cure disorders that we don't define as diseases, in the modern world? Can they cure ADHD? What about Anti-Social Personality Disorder (Psychopathy/Sociopathy), or Schizophrenia?

If that's not you treating clerics as modern doctors, please reword your question. These are all modern terms, and you yourself use the term "modern world."

In a medieval setting, these are all things a cleric would not believe are diseases. They would consider them personal failings, or madness. So they would not truly be treatable by a lesser restoration if we are going by a strict following of the RAW.

Well, no. The clerics belief about them would be entirely irrelevant. Detect Poison and Disease would simply tell the cleric what they are.

DnD is not the real world, modern or medieval.

The modern understanding of disease is relevant because it is superior to that of the medieval world. Most groups treat the world as working pretty much as modern science tells us that it does, except where magic changes it. That means that modern understanding of disease is relevant to a discussion of the truth of disease. Comparatively, the medieval world knew less than nothing. If we were to use that as a basis, Lay On Hands would be as likely to kill you as to cure you, and more likely still to just make you sick in a different way.

Thing is, I’m not treating Clerics like physicians of any era. I’m treating them as magical healers with access to an absolute ability to detect disease, and Paladins as magic healers with access to an absolute method of curing diseases and removing poisons.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, 30 ft, 10 minutes at a time, as a Ritual. Detects not only the presence of disease and poison, but also what kind each one is.

So, yeah, Clerics “by strict RAW” probably aren’t operating under medieval ideas of what diseases are, unless the DM has decided that those are the objective truth of the setting.

Since the premise of the thread includes the assumption that biology works as it does in the real world unless magic changes it or requires a change, then the question is simply whether a chemical addiction would register as a disease, andthe answer has nothing to do with medieval popular conceptions of anything at all.

IMO, the chances that this spell isn’t part of regular temple service is...small, anywhere that has a Priest or two capable of casting 1st level clerical rituals. Giventhe PHB assumptions on services available in small towns and cities, communication even in the real world amongst clergy of major faiths (even if it takes years, information and doctrine is being communicated)...the local priest knows that the village drunk has a disease, and that the physical components can be healed, of that is the decision of the GM as to what chemical addiction is as an objective truth, in the setting.

Again, the Cleric or Paladin or Druid or Ranger casting the spell knows that a person within 30ft has a disease, and what it is.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

So, 30 ft, 10 minutes at a time, as a Ritual. Detects not only the presence of disease and poison, but also what kind each one is.

So, yeah, Clerics “by strict RAW” probably aren’t operating under medieval ideas of what diseases are, unless the DM has decided that those are the objective truth of the setting.

Since the premise of the thread includes the assumption that biology works as it does in the real world unless magic changes it or requires a change, then the question is simply whether a chemical addiction would register as a disease, andthe answer has nothing to do with medieval popular conceptions of anything at all.

IMO, the chances that this spell isn’t part of regular temple service is...small, anywhere that has a Priest or two capable of casting 1st level clerical rituals. Giventhe PHB assumptions on services available in small towns and cities, communication even in the real world amongst clergy of major faiths (even if it takes years, information and doctrine is being communicated)...the local priest knows that the village drunk has a disease, and that the physical components can be healed, of that is the decision of the GM as to what chemical addiction is as an objective truth, in the setting.

View attachment 117179

Again, the Cleric or Paladin or Druid or Ranger casting the spell knows that a person within 30ft has a disease, and what it is.

Well look I think a cleric can cure a chemical addiction fairly easily; chemical addictions behave a lot like diseases in a stricter sense, as the subject is putting foreign substances into the body that cause ill effects. I see no reason why a lesser restoration can't cure an addiction to tobacco (although just because someone loses the ill effects of tobacco and it's withdrawal, I think they may very well return to it anyway).

So yes, lesser restoration should be able to cure the physical implications of chemical addiction, which are pretty similar to contracting a disease. It should not be able to cure the psychological effects of addiction; if a drunk was genetically predisposed to drinking before ever picking up alcohol, he will remain so after a lesser restoration. So he may become an addict again, or may not.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well look I think a cleric can cure a chemical addiction fairly easily; chemical addictions behave a lot like diseases in a stricter sense, as the subject is putting foreign substances into the body that cause ill effects. I see no reason why a lesser restoration can't cure an addiction to tobacco (although just because someone loses the ill effects of tobacco and it's withdrawal, I think they may very well return to it anyway).

So yes, lesser restoration should be able to cure the physical implications of chemical addiction, which are pretty similar to contracting a disease. It should not be able to cure the psychological effects of addiction; if a drunk was genetically predisposed to drinking before ever picking up alcohol, he will remain so after a lesser restoration. So he may become an addict again, or may not.

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.