Good casters and the Gate spell

[Hypersmurf]

Hmm. Rebuking is always an evil act, but Turning isn't always a good act?

According to Defenders of the Faith, it is.

Turning or Rebuking are the primary uses of the Cleric's ability to channel positive or negative energy. Defenders of the Faith states that channeling positive energy is a good act, and channeling negative energy is an evil act.

This suggests that while a Good cleric can cast Inflict Light Wounds (since it doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor), he probably shouldn't make a habit of it (since the spell description states that "you channel negative energy", which - according to DotF - is an evil act).

Likewise, an evil Cleric can cast Cure Light Wounds, but his Phylactery of Faithfulness might ping him when he does it.

-Hyp.

 

[Epametheus]

Blech. At least there isn't a double-standard in that ruling, Is that ruling not being official too much to hope for?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Blech. At least there isn't a double-standard in that ruling, Is that ruling not being official too much to hope for?

Well, it's not Core. It's from a WotC book, but not a Core book.

And one might make an argument that "channeling positive energy" only refers to making use of the Cleric Class Ability powered by Turn Attempts, and not to a spell that states "you channel positive energy". Which is... weak, but unfortunately entirely possible, given the inconsistent standard of the splatbooks.

-Hyp.

 

[Epametheus]

Yah, I've seen enough "inflict spells are evil but cure spells are neutral, so bad guys can use both but others can't" to be annoyed by it.

The biggest problem with that ruling is that neutral clerics that run into undead often enough are going to go sliding one way or the other. Neutral gods without neutral clerics must be a bitter lot.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Please don't say what I'm "basically saying" without at least giving me a chance to say it first.

In any case, the scenario you describe is compelling. I could see an interesting character concept incorporating it. A wizard who plays with dark powers, then spends days bathing himself in positive energy, hoping to wipe away the taint of corruption on his soul.

Indeed, I think that fiends would encourage such thinking. Play with some [Evil] here, then just wipe it all away later with a few [Good] spells to balance it out. It's all good. Don't worry about possibly not having enough time to cleanse yourself occasionally, or biting off more than you can chew. No worries. A few Protection from Evils and you'll be singing with the angels again before you know it...

The problem with this is it means that good and evil are no longer measures of morality, merely measures of an accumulation of good or bad energy.

Which, to me, is how they should be in the first place.

Unfortunately the way the alignments section of the rulebook is written, this isn't the case.

Although it would be cool to rewrite the alignments section as a sort of compulsions section - where especially good or evil characters are compelled to act as their alignments dictate, rather than having their actions dictate their alignment...