Good sorcerers can't cast [Evil] spells!

[Vegepygmy]

I recently came across this argument on another messageboard. I know it's wrong, but I'm not a skilled enough grammarian to succinctly articulate why, and I don't want to spend the hours it would take for me to explain it "the long way." Would anyone who paid closer attention in their 8th-grade English class than I did care to take a stab at doing so (or alternately, just decimate it with your own Rules Fu)?

Here it is:

Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells.

A ranger prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does, though he cannot lose a prepared spell to cast a cure spell in its place.

A multiclass character gets all the class features of all his or her classes but must also suffer the consequences of the special restrictions of all his or her classes.

[1] Clerics cannot cast spells of an opposite alignment.
[2] Rangers have all of the same spellcasting restrictions as a cleric.
[3] Rangers therefore cannot cast spells of an opposite alignment.
[4] A multiclass sorcerer/ranger has all of the casting restrictions of his ranger class.
[5] A multiclass sorcerer/ranger therefore cannot cast sorcerer spells of an opposite alignment.

Once again, I know this is wrong. What I want to know is: assuming you were so inclined, how would you explain that fact to the person advancing this argument?

 

[hong]

The "special restrictions" applies to ranger spells only, for the same reason that a cleric/wiz suffers arcane spell failure when casting wizard spells, but not cleric spells.

 

[Corsair]

What kitten guy said. ^^

 

[Li Shenron]

What I've always played is that all divine caster classes have the alignment restrictions on their class spells, while the arcane caster classes have no restriction. This is connected with the fact that divine casters get their spellcasting powers from a deity or another divine source, while arcane casters learn to cast spells "by themselves".

Under my assumptions, in our games a Cleric/Wizard (of a Good deity) is not even allowed to prepare a Cleric(Evil) spell (I treat it as not being on his spell list, although this is probably not exactly what the rules say) just because it's not part of the powers he is granted by the deity.

He is allowed to prepare and cast a Wizard(Evil) spell since this power is not under direct control of his patron deity, however the deity still judges his behaviour, and will probably consider casting an arcane Evil spell as an Evil act, which may mean that the deity could decide to strip his clerical powers.

 

[TheGogmagog]

Before I begin, this discussion requires a lot of interpetation (and probably some extrapolation). So the final decision is up to the DM, that is to say I doubt you would find a solid case either way.

He is allowed to prepare and cast a Wizard(Evil) spell since this power is not under direct control of his patron deity, however the deity still judges his behaviour, and will probably consider casting an arcane Evil spell as an Evil act, which may mean that the deity could decide to strip his clerical powers.

I disagree that he CAN cast Wizard(Evil). Note the original quote again. (I didn't look it back up, but assumed this is the PH text.)

A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells.

So a Neutral diety that has no problem granting (Evil) spells, Yet a Good Cleric of which CAN'T (not shouldn't) cast (Evil) spells.

I do believe the alignment restrictions of being a cleric do extend across any other classes the character has, just as a druid's armor restrictions would cross over.

Back to the original post however, I don't believe the cleric alignment restrictions apply to the ranger. Personally, I just don't see the ranger as an ethos driven caster. I wouldn't be suprised or disapointed to see a DM rule otherwise though. So the ranger/sorc wouldn't be restricted in spell selection in my campaign.

 

[pallandrome]

I agree with Li Shenron on this one. Clerical speels get handed down directly from a diety, and I've always proceeded under the concept that, since clerics cast spells largely through a connection with their god, the spells have to be something within one alignment step, much like the clerics themselves. However, a Cleric/Wizard is just a cleric that learned that if he waves his hands around just so, and says a fourteen syllable word ending in xvzzchng, then magic happens. That it not tied to his cleric, since the effect is a direct result of his intelligence, not his wisdom. But as wil Li Shenron, dude'll have to get atonement sooner, rather than later, for trying to circumvent his god.

I rule Rangers as "Druid lite" and as such, they must be within one step of a neutral alignment for their spells to work.

 

[wayne62682]

I would just like to add the following:

1) I agree that a clerical restriction has no bearing on an arcane spell. The restriction is there to prevent a so-called "good" cleric from using evil-aligned spells. One would not try and say that a cleric suffers ASF on divine spells just because they suffer them on Arcane spells, thus why would one apply a restriction on one class to another? It's not something like the Paladin's Code or the Monk thing that you need to maintain in order to remain in that class.

2) Nowhere in the RAW does it say that casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act. Now, sure, if you're a cleric of a Good deity and cast an [Evil] descriptor spell your god isn't going to be too happy with you.. but it's not really an evil act, per se. That and, as we all know, certain spells are branded [Evil] for no real reason (Deathwatch, I'm looking at you) so I would actually question the logic and validity behind the entire mechanic based upon this fact alone.

 

[Tiberius]

I rule Rangers as "Druid lite" and as such, they must be within one step of a neutral alignment for their spells to work.

Why would this ruling be necessary? Any alignment is within one step of a neutral one:

LG LN LE
NG N NE
CG CN CE

 

[RigaMortus2]

I do believe the alignment restrictions of being a cleric do extend across any other classes the character has, just as a druid's armor restrictions would cross over.

The problem with this analogy is that if you are a Cleric of a good deity, you have no option to cast (Evil) Cleric spells. There is no consequence, because there is no choice. If you are a Druid, you always have the choice to wear any armor you want, even metal. Because of this choice, you suffer the consequences of a Druid wearing metal armor.

When looking at restrictions such as these, they always affect the class they are listed under.

 

[takasi]

The grammar is tough to think of off the top of my head. I can try to point out the assumptions though.

#1 assumes that the statement "A cleric can't cast spells..." applies to all spells, whether they are arcane, divine or acquired from another class. Does this mean he cannot cast them at all (even if he wanted to) or does it mean he loses his class abilities? Unlike other descriptions of class restrictions (paladin, monk, druid) there is no wording here, so one can assume he cannot cast them at all even if he wanted to. Does this make sense in game? No. It would seem that this is how the rules are written though.

#2 includes the word "all". That is a major assumption. The exact wording is "prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does". Does this mean a druid or ranger has all of the restrictions? The term "the way" is important here, as it implies a similar (and not necessarily exact) method. If you take into account the layout and positioning of the text in the ranger and druid descriptions you'll see they are both at or near the last paragraph of the spells section. Here is the last paragraph for cleric spells. I would assume you can substitute the word cleric with ranger or druid:

"Clerics do not acquire their spells through books or scrolls, nor do they prepare them through study. Instead, they meditate or pray for their spells, receiving them through their own strength of faith or as divine inspiration."

Here's a question to ask in this discussion. A new class, let's call it the Prayermage, does not acquire its spells through books or scrolls. Instead the Prayermage meditates for its spells, receiving them through strength of faith. Could you (with proper grammer) now say that the Prayermage prepares spells the way a cleric does? Not the same way a cleric does, but the way a cleric does?

These are the most important items to resolve in this argument IMO.