Can good clerics use evil spells from scrolls?

[mvincent]

Whether the cleric wishes to or not, whether he's defying his ethics or not, he is incapable of casting the spell.

I believe the same could be said of non-spellcasters... which leaves the UMD question.

Edit: my bad; no real question as Hyp actually agreed with this in his initial post

 

[Hypersmurf]

I believe the same could be said of non-spellcasters... which leaves the UMD question.

Right, and I indicated earlier that just as I'd let the Sorcerer/Cleric cast the [Evil] spell as a sorcerer, I'd also let the Cleric use UMD to cast a spell I otherwise wouldn't permit.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think it's fine to rule that the good multiclassed cleric/wizard cannot cast wizard spells with the [Evil] descriptor... as long as you also rule that the character can 'lose' any prepared wizard spell to cast a Cure spell of the same level or lower, that his prohibited schools as a specialist wizard apply to his cleric list, that the one additional spell of his speciality school per level each day can be prepared from either his wizard or his cleric list, and so on.

Either class features that affect 'spells' relate to the spells of that class, or they relate to the character. But when the language used is the same, it's inconsistent to say "This feature is specific, but this feature is global".

I don't agree it's inconsistent. An alignment restriction is an overarching limitation. It's not class-specific. Can you be a specialist, single-classed cleric? No. However, you can be any alignment of a wizard, just like a cleric. So, there's clear precedence that usage of any terms in the context of the rules we are discussing may be slightly different.

Additionally, a looser interpretation like you suggest in order to make things consistent cannot conflict with itself. When I suggest that a LG cleric/wizard cannot even cast [Evil] or [Chaotic] wizard spells, that is entirely conflict-free. However, when you suggest that the same character obtains 1 more spell per spell level, we're in a world of confusion when the max spell level for the wizard class > cleric. Can a 3rd specialist wizard / 1st level cleric prepare a specialist cleric 2nd-level spell? Doesn't this negate your assertion by (straw) example?

The spontaneous conversion of clerical spells is a slightly better argument. Howevever, it suffers from the fact that the type of conversion is tied into how the cleric turns or rebukes. I think the geomancer class, should you allow it, would 'prove' that you cannot do it (thus negating your point), but I do not have the class at hand to say that for sure, nor would I really want to hang my hat on it. I think that the relation to turning is sufficient.

 

[kirinke]

Let me ask you this? Why on earth would a good cleric cast an evil spell? If Evil spells are against a good cleric's particular set of beliefs, they simply won't even think to ask for such spells.

The only reasons why you'd want your good cleric to cast evil spells would either be for meta-game reasons or to turn your nice cleric naughty.

Which would happen in short order if he continued to try to circumvent his deities dogma.

 

[Zurai]

Let me ask you this? Why on earth would a good cleric cast an evil spell?

The multiply-mentioned evil cleric wanting to cast Protection From Evil before dealing with a demon or devil is a good example. PfE is a [Good] descriptor spell.

 

[Hypersmurf]

An alignment restriction is an overarching limitation. It's not class-specific.

Certainly. This isn't a restriction on alignment, though, it's a restriction on casting certain spells.

Can a 3rd specialist wizard / 1st level cleric prepare a specialist cleric 2nd-level spell? Doesn't this negate your assertion by (straw) example?

Potentially so, which would suggest that one must consider the word 'spells' in a class feature to be specific to the spells granted by that class, not to all spells the character might be able to cast.

And so, your example lends support to the cleric restriction applying to his cleric spells with the [Evil] descriptor, and not to his wizard spells.

I think the geomancer class, should you allow it, would 'prove' that you cannot do it (thus negating your point)...

If the geomancer proves that the reference to 'spells' in the cleric's spontaneous casting class feature refers only to cleric spells, that doesn't negate my point, it strengthens it - showing that 'spells' in a class feature description refers to the spells of that class.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Certainly. This isn't a restriction on alignment, though, it's a restriction on casting certain spells.

Well, sure, but that's what I meant.

Potentially so, which would suggest that one must consider the word 'spells' in a class feature to be specific to the spells granted by that class, not to all spells the character might be able to cast.

Admittedly, that's one interpretation, but it's a general conclusion. Instead, one could obtain a specific conclusion that the specialist wizard applies the bonus spell only to wizardly spells, not to sorcerer, cleric, or otherwise. This specific adjudication would have no bearing on other rules.

If the geomancer proves that the reference to 'spells' in the cleric's spontaneous casting class feature refers only to cleric spells, that doesn't negate my point, it strengthens it - showing that 'spells' in a class feature description refers to the spells of that class.

It negates your point about using the spontaneous casting as an example. Call it a "line item veto", if you will.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Admittedly, that's one interpretation, but it's a general conclusion. Instead, one could obtain a specific conclusion that the specialist wizard applies the bonus spell only to wizardly spells, not to sorcerer, cleric, or otherwise. This specific adjudication would have no bearing on other rules.

So you feel that the word 'spells' appearing in a class feature can mean 'spells deriving from this class' or 'all spells cast by the character', with nothing to distinguish which is intended?

That seems awfully sloppy of them.

-Hyp.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

You certainly could employ UMD to get around the restriction, but I consider this is outright begging to be an ex-Cleric.

I see this as no different from a Paladin/Rogue expecting to have no negative consequences from committing evil acts while only using his Rogue class abilities.

As for the evil cleric who wants to cast Magic Circle versus Evil...tough cookies. Yes, some ethical decisions have inconvenient consequences, and I would expect a high-level cleric to know better than to whine about that.

You may have thought that choosing the path of evil was a clever means of avoiding ethical chains, but the Gods seem to have a very different perspective on the matter. That your measly expendable life seems unnecessarily at risk is not very persuasive in their eyes.

 

[mvincent]

As for the evil cleric who wants to cast Magic Circle versus Evil...tough cookies.

Not just evil... CE. Do you profess to know what code CE gods will disapprove of their followers breaking?

"the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules" - Barbossa