Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Particle_Man" data-source="post: 696929" data-attributes="member: 892">musings on neutral clericsminor 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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!)</blockquote>

Verification