magnas_veritas
First Post
Hypersmurf said:
Then, one pays one's money and takes one's chances. If you live through it, temporary deafness isn't as bad as, say, being tiny little shreds.
Brad
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Holy Word and non-good casters
- Thread starter Hypersmurf
- Start date
Then, one pays one's money and takes one's chances. If you live through it, temporary deafness isn't as bad as, say, being tiny little shreds.
Brad
Kae'Yoss
First Post
hong said:
I just like that proverb (I had a lenghty discussion on a nother board whether that can be true. The other one - a helpless moron - came at me that a rule is a rule and if there are exceptions the rule is wrong. but I digress)
The spell doesn't explicitly state whether you are affected or not. Both things are possible.
Particle_Man
Explorer
Ambrose Bierce
Minor hijack warning
The original saying was "The exception TESTS the rule" (as in, puts the rule in a position to be tested, so that, if there is an exception, then the rule is not universal, and perhaps not even a rule at all). (See Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary")
The saying "The exception that proves the rules" is, strictly speaking, a contradiction. Exceptions don't prove rules. I don't prove that half-orcs lack darkvision by showing a half-orc with darkvision, nor do I prove that elves cannot fly by showing a flying elf (perhaps an elf with a magic item).
The saying seems to have devolved into some sort of mish-mash, and is often used as an excuse to ignore exceptions. So if one wanted to say "All two weapon fighters suck" and someone else said "what about this two weapon fighter...she doesn't suck" then the first person would say "that's just the exception that proves the rule...all two weapon fighters suck". So the saying has become an excuse to ignore legitimate exceptions.
Back to the thread...
Minor hijack warning
The original saying was "The exception TESTS the rule" (as in, puts the rule in a position to be tested, so that, if there is an exception, then the rule is not universal, and perhaps not even a rule at all). (See Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary")
The saying "The exception that proves the rules" is, strictly speaking, a contradiction. Exceptions don't prove rules. I don't prove that half-orcs lack darkvision by showing a half-orc with darkvision, nor do I prove that elves cannot fly by showing a flying elf (perhaps an elf with a magic item).
The saying seems to have devolved into some sort of mish-mash, and is often used as an excuse to ignore exceptions. So if one wanted to say "All two weapon fighters suck" and someone else said "what about this two weapon fighter...she doesn't suck" then the first person would say "that's just the exception that proves the rule...all two weapon fighters suck". So the saying has become an excuse to ignore legitimate exceptions.
Back to the thread...
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Re: Ambrose Bierce
No, it's not... but the problem is that "prove" has more than one meaning, and the one is most common use currently is not the one intended.
In the saying, "prove" is used in the sense of "to determine the quality of by testing".
But most people these days assume "prove" to mean "provide evidence for" or "establish validity of".
The first represents a test, the second represents a conclusion.
-Hyp.
No, it's not... but the problem is that "prove" has more than one meaning, and the one is most common use currently is not the one intended.
In the saying, "prove" is used in the sense of "to determine the quality of by testing".
But most people these days assume "prove" to mean "provide evidence for" or "establish validity of".
The first represents a test, the second represents a conclusion.
-Hyp.
Re: Ambrose Bierce
A clearer wording might be, "the exception that proves the rule exists." That is, in order for something to be an exception, you need to have a rule in the first place. If you point out a flying elf as unusual, that means the usual case (the "rule") is that elves don't fly. If there were no such rule, then all elves would fly, and the one you pointed out would not be an exception. Get it?
Back on topic...
The general rule is that the caster of a spell is not immune to its effects. If you drop a Fireball at your own feet, you get burned. The only exceptions are spells that explicitly say so (like Wail of the Banshee), or ones that imply it by their very nature. (Antilife Shell hedges out living creatures, and doesn't explicitly say the caster is immune. But because the caster is defined as the center of the effect, it's logically impossible for him to be outside it. Therefore the caster must not be affected.)
Holy Word does not state that the caster is immune, and nothing in the nature of the spell requires that the caster be unaffected. Therefore, it follows the general rule, and is able to affect the caster.
If you interpret it literally, then yes, it's a contradiction. But as a figure of speech, it means something slightly different than what it says.Particle_Man said:
A clearer wording might be, "the exception that proves the rule exists." That is, in order for something to be an exception, you need to have a rule in the first place. If you point out a flying elf as unusual, that means the usual case (the "rule") is that elves don't fly. If there were no such rule, then all elves would fly, and the one you pointed out would not be an exception. Get it?
Back on topic...
The general rule is that the caster of a spell is not immune to its effects. If you drop a Fireball at your own feet, you get burned. The only exceptions are spells that explicitly say so (like Wail of the Banshee), or ones that imply it by their very nature. (Antilife Shell hedges out living creatures, and doesn't explicitly say the caster is immune. But because the caster is defined as the center of the effect, it's logically impossible for him to be outside it. Therefore the caster must not be affected.)
Holy Word does not state that the caster is immune, and nothing in the nature of the spell requires that the caster be unaffected. Therefore, it follows the general rule, and is able to affect the caster.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Re: Re: Ambrose Bierce
Fireball, however, is designed to be cast at range. There's nothing forcing the caster to include himself in the area of effect. If he does, though, he's affected.
Prismatic Sphere, Repulsion, MDJ are spells which can only be cast centred on the caster. He has no choice but to include himself in the area. These spells - either by explicit text or by logic - don't affect the caster.
So we have two precedents :
1. Unless stated otherwise, most area spells affect the caster if he is in the area.
2. Spells centred on the caster tend not to have adverse effects upon him.
I think the "Cast it and suffer the consequences" ruling makes sense. But this is the train of thought that prompted me to pose the question.
-Hyp.
Fireball, however, is designed to be cast at range. There's nothing forcing the caster to include himself in the area of effect. If he does, though, he's affected.
Prismatic Sphere, Repulsion, MDJ are spells which can only be cast centred on the caster. He has no choice but to include himself in the area. These spells - either by explicit text or by logic - don't affect the caster.
So we have two precedents :
1. Unless stated otherwise, most area spells affect the caster if he is in the area.
2. Spells centred on the caster tend not to have adverse effects upon him.
I think the "Cast it and suffer the consequences" ruling makes sense. But this is the train of thought that prompted me to pose the question.
-Hyp.
DreamChaser
Explorer
Re: Re: Ambrose Bierce
You know, I've always hated this phrase...but now I think I get it
On topic, I think that I wouldn't allow a neutral deity to grant "Holy Word" and I don't allow neutral clerics of good deities (saves headache), so for me this would never come up. But since it has for you, I'd say the cleric has to take it if he wants to dish it out.
Hypersmurf said:
You know, I've always hated this phrase...but now I think I get it
On topic, I think that I wouldn't allow a neutral deity to grant "Holy Word" and I don't allow neutral clerics of good deities (saves headache), so for me this would never come up. But since it has for you, I'd say the cleric has to take it if he wants to dish it out.
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Ambrose Bierce
Maybe I'm going a bit too strictly by the book, I dunno. I could see a DM ruling either way, but IMO leaving the caster unaffected would be a house rule. IMO, that is.
My point is that #2 is not actually a precedent, just a set of special cases. It's true that many self-centered spells specifically except the caster, but that doesn't mean we can assume such an exception for all spells of that type.Hypersmurf said:
Maybe I'm going a bit too strictly by the book, I dunno. I could see a DM ruling either way, but IMO leaving the caster unaffected would be a house rule. IMO, that is.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Re: Re: Re: Ambrose Bierce
By the rules, it's evil clerics or clerics of evil deities who can't cast spells with the [Good] descriptor.
Would you allow a neutral deity to grant Protection from Evil, or a neutral cleric to summon a celestial badger?
-Hyp.
By the rules, it's evil clerics or clerics of evil deities who can't cast spells with the [Good] descriptor.
Would you allow a neutral deity to grant Protection from Evil, or a neutral cleric to summon a celestial badger?
-Hyp.
Particle_Man
Explorer
musings on neutral clerics
minor hijack warning (in a different direction, at least)
Y'know, back in 1st ed AD&D all clerics had to be good or evil (and all "alignment" spells were either good or evil oriented.
Druids had to be (true) neutral.
I kind of like the idea of not allowing a caster to cast a spell that has an effect that her alignment does not share, but in that case, there should be some (true) neutral spells so that (true) neutral casters do not get hosed. Also, there should be more neutral critters to summon with the various spells.
But all that would be just an application of rule 0.
In general, I would lean towards invoking a rule such as "all casters are immune to their own spells, unless a spell specifically says that they ain't" simply because it gives players more options (and allows villains more latitude for deception (the slaadi cleric villain posing as a good character)). I suppose that the use of Holy word and its 3 cousins, in succession, could be used as a form of know alignment.
Or one could modify the general rule as follows "if the spell's area of effect allows the caster to be either in or out of the area of effect, then the spell can affect the caster, but if the spell's area of effect requires the caster to be in the area of effect then the caster is immune to the spell (if the effects are harmful) or affected (if the effects are beneficial) unless for some reason he does not want to be affected." (whew!)
minor hijack warning (in a different direction, at least)
Y'know, back in 1st ed AD&D all clerics had to be good or evil (and all "alignment" spells were either good or evil oriented.
Druids had to be (true) neutral.
I kind of like the idea of not allowing a caster to cast a spell that has an effect that her alignment does not share, but in that case, there should be some (true) neutral spells so that (true) neutral casters do not get hosed. Also, there should be more neutral critters to summon with the various spells.
But all that would be just an application of rule 0.
In general, I would lean towards invoking a rule such as "all casters are immune to their own spells, unless a spell specifically says that they ain't" simply because it gives players more options (and allows villains more latitude for deception (the slaadi cleric villain posing as a good character)). I suppose that the use of Holy word and its 3 cousins, in succession, could be used as a form of know alignment.
Or one could modify the general rule as follows "if the spell's area of effect allows the caster to be either in or out of the area of effect, then the spell can affect the caster, but if the spell's area of effect requires the caster to be in the area of effect then the caster is immune to the spell (if the effects are harmful) or affected (if the effects are beneficial) unless for some reason he does not want to be affected." (whew!)
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content