Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bob_the_Theurge 01-24-07, 05:56 PM	The Circle has made changes to the PHB as follows: - St. Cuthbert is listed in the PHB as Lawful Neutral. The Circle's Deities Document contradicts this. This makes the following problematic changes to followers of Cuthbert who choose the (legal and PHB-listed) Destruction domain: - Their 3rd level domain spell, Contagion, is disallowed to them because it has [evil] descriptor. - According to Britt Frey, Circle member, "Inflict X Wounds" spells are "Evil" spells because they are channeling negative energy. Therefore, all "Inflict X Wounds" spells, as well as the spell Harm, are "evil" spells. Reference: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11277891&postcount=28 Therefore, a Cleric of Cuthbert, in the LG campaign, is not allowed to cast over half of his Destruction domain spells. I want my domain selection back. Other deities that have this problem: Shekinester (LG aspect).
Britt 01-24-07, 06:15 PM	The Circle has made changes to the PHB as follows: - St. Cuthbert is listed in the PHB as Lawful Neutral. The Circle's Deities Document contradicts this. This makes the following problematic changes to followers of Cuthbert who choose the (legal and PHB-listed) Destruction domain: - Their 3rd level domain spell, Contagion, is disallowed to them because it has [evil] descriptor. - According to Britt Frey, Circle member, "Inflict X Wounds" spells are "Evil" spells because they are channeling negative energy. Therefore, all "Inflict X Wounds" spells, as well as the spell Harm, are "evil" spells. Reference: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11277891&postcount=28 Therefore, a Cleric of Cuthbert, in the LG campaign, is not allowed to cast over half of his Destruction domain spells. I want my domain selection back. Other deities that have this problem: Shekinester (LG aspect). Actually, it's "according to the PH, inflict spells are evil". And harm isn't necessarily, since it doesn't say you "channel negative energy". I would probably count it as such, but it's not necessarily so. With inflict spells it's a very clear conclusion. And being evil does not bar them as an option for good clerics. Good clerics can cast spells that involve channeling negative energy; it's just an evil act, so they have to be careful not to tick off their god. The 3rd level spell issue has been a problem for St. Cuthbert clerics for years; that's nothing new. So, there's one spell for a cleric of St. Cuthbert, IF they choose Destruction, that they can't cast. Use your other domain spell for that level.
pedr 01-24-07, 06:19 PM	You might be right about Contagion... though there might be a replacement (there is for some other domains, I believe). But Inflict Wounds spells are not [Evil] spells - only spells tagged as [Evil] (including the variable ones such as Align Weapon and Summon Monster) are [Evil] spells. Casting Inflict Wounds is an evil act, which is different. All [Evil] spells are evil acts but not all spells which are evil acts are [Evil] spells. It is only [Evil] spells which are prohibited by a good cleric's deity. You can still cast Inflict Wounds spells - St. Cuthbert will grant them to you. They are, however, evil acts and you need to discuss with your triad what their approach to evil acts is. I imagine that an awful lot of casting of evil spells will be needed before a triad deems a character's alignment to have shifted to evil.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-24-07, 06:43 PM	Actually, it's "according to the PH, inflict spells are evil". And harm isn't necessarily, since it doesn't say you "channel negative energy". I would probably count it as such, but it's not necessarily so. With inflict spells it's a very clear conclusion. And being evil does not bar them as an option for good clerics. Good clerics can cast spells that involve channeling negative energy; it's just an evil act, so they have to be careful not to tick off their god. The 3rd level spell issue has been a problem for St. Cuthbert clerics for years; that's nothing new. So, there's one spell for a cleric of St. Cuthbert, IF they choose Destruction, that they can't cast. Use your other domain spell for that level. You just said it's an evil spell beforehand, and you weren't allowed to cast it at all for that reason, in that thread. Make up your mind. As for Harm: http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/theraven_stephenh/spells/Harm.html Says "negative energy" right in there.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-24-07, 06:47 PM	You might be right about Contagion... though there might be a replacement (there is for some other domains, I believe). The Circle has never "bothered" to fix the issue their changing of a deity (despite saying over and over that they "can't change things listed in the core rulebooks") created. There is no "replacement" spell available. This affects at least two deities. I might have missed some. There's a fairly easy answer, they could offer an alternative spell the same way they did when they put Disjunction on the restricted list. Or they could fix the alignment mess they started. Either way is fine with me, I'm just tired of seeing new players working with a PHB make war-clerics of Cuthbert and then find out around level 5, "oh by the way you can't cast this spell and this spell and this spell" because new players rarely have a copy of the Deities Doc when they create a character and when they do find out, it's Too Late to fix it.
Britt 01-24-07, 06:49 PM	You just said it's an evil spell beforehand, and you weren't allowed to cast it at all for that reason, in that thread. Make up your mind. As for Harm: http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/theraven_stephenh/spells/Harm.html Says "negative energy" right in there. No, I didn't say harm was an evil spell. I don't know where you're getting that idea. Yes, it says "negative energy", but not "you channel negative energy". It's a subtle difference, but makes a big difference when comparing sentences in the PH. Kind of like how something can be evil but not [evil]; those two brackets and "you channel" make a big difference. If you're going to challenge me, at least make sure you have correct info on what I said. *edit: Oh, you are referring to when I said I couldn't cast inflict minor wounds. That's because I was a paladin (Devoted Inquisitor), so I couldn't commit evil acts or I would lose my paladinhood.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-24-07, 06:53 PM	No, I didn't say harm was an evil spell. I don't know where you're getting that idea. Yes, it says "negative energy", but not "you channel negative energy". It's a subtle difference, but makes a big difference when comparing sentences in the PH. Kind of like how something can be evil but not [evil]; those two brackets and "you channel" make a big difference. If you're going to challenge me, at least make sure you have correct info on what I said. By that logic, the "Mass Inflict" spells aren't evil either. http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/theraven_stephenh/spells/Inflict_Light_Wounds_Mass.html And that's just getting silly now. Admit there's a goof, and fix it, and stop nitpicking?
Britt 01-24-07, 07:03 PM	By that logic, the "Mass Inflict" spells aren't evil either. http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/theraven_stephenh/spells/Inflict_Light_Wounds_Mass.html And that's just getting silly now. Admit there's a goof, and fix it, and stop nitpicking? No, that's not what I said. I said harm is not necessarily evil. It takes one step of induction to get to it being evil. It's a reasonable step, to be sure, but it's not a matter of deduction, like it is with inflict spells. So "by that logic", mass inflict spells are not necessarily evil. They probably are, and as I said before I would likely rule they are, but there is no deductive logic that says they are evil. There is no goof. "[Evil] = evil" and "inflict = evil" are matters of deductive logic that follow directly from very clear statements in the PH and BoVD, and they do not contradict any other rules or the spirit of the rules.
Akhamshyy 01-24-07, 07:39 PM	Please lets not get into that whole 'is evil evil?' string here. Destruction befits St. Cuthbert and his followers. They should be laying the smite down on the unworthy. That cudgel of theirs isn't for show like the pelorite's. It fits canon, flavor, and current rules. Just avoid using the naughtyness, this is St. Cuthbert, it could be a test of your PCs common sense and self control. As an aside, I sympathize with you Britt. You've had to put forward too much for such a simple concept. And then to have spells even more complicated by one sentence in a non-associative section of the core rulebook that arches over to cause all this, I don't even know what to call it...
clannagh 01-24-07, 07:59 PM	off topic but kinda relevant if evil acts are forbidden in LG wouldnt that mean that by default all neutral characters will gradually gravitate towards good as any good acts will shift the alignment abiet slightly.. in essence every character should be good by level 15
Howie23 01-24-07, 08:07 PM	off topic but kinda relevant if evil acts are forbidden in LG wouldnt that mean that by default all neutral characters will gradually gravitate towards good as any good acts will shift the alignment abiet slightly.. in essence every character should be good by level 15 Evil acts are not forbidden LG. Evil alignment is. Evil alignment (triad yanks your PC) may be the result of evil acts. You have the freewill to choose that course or source of anxiety. As for the shift toward good, I generally find my LN Ftr/Swsh drifting toward LG. I also find my CG ranger drifting toward NG, but the gradiant isn't as strong. So, yeah, I'd say there is a general pull in the direction of good, and also toward law. YMMV, as might your regional influence. David
Mommy was an Orc 01-24-07, 08:26 PM	I think a lot of people get confused by what's going on here: Clerics casting an Inflict spell spontaneously are not casting an evil spell, they are likely committing an evil act. And a very minor one. Good clerics are not prohibited from committing evil acts. Contagion is a different story, but no one is forcing someone to take Destruction, and even if they do, they've got another domain. Contagion is a lousy spell for a game like LG. Bestow Curse is much better, as you get to pick the effect you want and it is better for purposes of that combat. Characters do not exist in a vacuum. When you play core mod in the middle of nowhere and then journey back to your region to play a regional mod, events obviously happened off camera. If you're a Neutral character, this is a perfect time to explain how you're not too Good of a character. You're also not prohibited from doing evil acts, it just theorectically possible you get penalized for it. Unless the Triads are off their rocker, the casting of an [Evil] spell shouldn't represent anything too significant. The problem is if you cast lots of [Evil] spells every mod and then do X major evil act(s). There's a pattern of minor evil leading to big evil. You've obviously been corrupted by the use of these [Evil] spells. A character who only did the X major evil acts(s) might just get a warning, because there's not enough proof.
solbergb 01-24-07, 11:21 PM	There is no goof. "[Evil] = evil" and "inflict = evil" are matters of deductive logic that follow directly from very clear statements in the PH and BoVD, and they do not contradict any other rules or the spirit of the rules. Britt. BOVD is not a LG legal rules source. Either make this ruling part of LGCS or Dispel confusion or make the book a valid rules source. Or please, stop using it in rules discussions. You're circle. You don't have to go from a shaky foundation. You don't have to leave it open to individual interpretation. Until you do what is required to make the BOVD ruling LG legal, there is room for interpretation. As you said yourself in the latest dispel confusion. I happen to personally really despise this interpretation, as it somehow makes evil descriptor spells more "Alignment changing" than good, chaotic and lawful spells. Summoning a celestial bison and a fiendish ape should cancel out, by this interepretation but in LG they do not, because only the "evil" act is noted. So at my tables, because you have not yet done the necessary to make it LG legal, I as a judge will continue ruling on the topic the same as I always have. Players can cast or channel what they want, but trampling innocents with a celestial bison will get the evil act note, and using a fiendish ape to boost you into a tree to retrieve a lost kitten for a little girl will not.
Britt 01-24-07, 11:40 PM	What are you talking about "BoVD is not a LG legal rules source"? It's not a valid player resource, but it is a perfectly legal rules source. And it is not required for the ruling. The passages from the BoVD are used as explanations for the ruling; they are not necessary for the ruling. All you need to know is that [Evil] spells are evil. The passages from the BoVD are there to help you understand why. I'm of the opinion that communicating the why behind decisions to the players, but the why is not required for the decision. I'm going to be very blunt in the next section, because I think this needs to be said and I'm tired of this attitude from people trying to avoid rules they don't like. This is NOT a BoVD ruling; this is an LG ruling in the Dispel Confusion. There is no room for interpretation unless you are just wanting to avoid a rule that you don't like. The only people I have seen say that this is unclear and open to interpretation have also said they don't like the ruling. You are trying to find a way to avoid a ruling you don't like, and you are being intellectually dishonest about it. This IS a legal LG ruling. Consciouscly refusing to enforce a rule you don't like is illegal, unethical, and tantamount to cheating. If I ever find out that someone is intentionally not enforcing this rule, I will file a report with the RPGA. I'm not going to try to use my position to get special punishment or anything, but I will do what is supposed to be done when you know that RPGA rules are being violated. These campaigns have rules and DMs are required to uphold them. You can do whatever you want in a home game, but you cannot choose which rules you want to enforce in RPGA campaigns.
Arvagor 01-24-07, 11:40 PM	Edit: Britt's post hit before mine, and he said it better anyways...
bitznarf 01-25-07, 10:16 AM	Consciouscly refusing to enforce a rule you don't like is illegal, unethical... While on the subject of LG alignments, its not unethical, just chaotic.:cool: Please don't kill me now :hides::surrender
RedKnightofKet 01-25-07, 10:17 AM	Britt, I think the confusion (at least my confusion) has come from "negative energy=evil". If this is the case, it hampers those with the Destruction domain from their 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th level domain spells (to say nothing of losing their 3rd). The concern here, I think, is that there are DMs (and possibly Triads) who think 1 evil act=bye bye character. I think it is in the best interest of anyone who intends to periodically cast evil or negative energy spells to have a print off of that Dispel Confusion handy. Some people seem to think that ANY evil act is unacceptable, while the rules are not quite this harsh. Even so, I think it should be made clear (if I'm reading it clearly) that channeling negative energy is either not in itself evil, or it is a very small evil act, akin to cutting someone off in traffic :) I hope my rambling made sense... and PS - I will happily keep my domain selection - the smite alone makes it a great choice! :fight!: What are you talking about "BoVD is not a LG legal rules source"? It's not a valid player resource, but it is a perfectly legal rules source. And it is not required for the ruling. The passages from the BoVD are used as explanations for the ruling; they are not necessary for the ruling. All you need to know is that [Evil] spells are evil. The passages from the BoVD are there to help you understand why. I'm of the opinion that communicating the why behind decisions to the players, but the why is not required for the decision. I'm going to be very blunt in the next section, because I think this needs to be said and I'm tired of this attitude from people trying to avoid rules they don't like. This is NOT a BoVD ruling; this is an LG ruling in the Dispel Confusion. There is no room for interpretation unless you are just wanting to avoid a rule that you don't like. The only people I have seen say that this is unclear and open to interpretation have also said they don't like the ruling. You are trying to find a way to avoid a ruling you don't like, and you are being intellectually dishonest about it. This IS a legal LG ruling. Consciouscly refusing to enforce a rule you don't like is illegal, unethical, and tantamount to cheating. If I ever find out that someone is intentionally not enforcing this rule, I will file a report with the RPGA. I'm not going to try to use my position to get special punishment or anything, but I will do what is supposed to be done when you know that RPGA rules are being violated. These campaigns have rules and DMs are required to uphold them. You can do whatever you want in a home game, but you cannot choose which rules you want to enforce in RPGA campaigns.
Sutro 01-25-07, 12:15 PM	The answer is simple: don't choose the Destruction domain. You're absolutely right; there's regions, triads and DMs that WILL at least come close to yanking a character for doing such things. But that's part of our regional system and flavor. If you go around casting inflicts and other destructiony things in the Pale or in Veluna, you're as good as done once you hit the DM who has an accurate read of what the region's attitude toward such things is. I remember a cleric of Wee Jas in last year's Crackdown interactive in Veluna that had a particularly hard time, and one cleric character from the Bandit Kingdoms eventually got apprehended and removed from play for actions taken in that interactive involving an inquistor's face and stone shape. It also matters in those regions where you're doing these things. If you cast an inflict in the wilderness on a remorhaz, is a Raoist inquistor likely to hear it? No. If you cast it in a town while on an official mission for the Temple of Mitrik... But then you have places like the Bandit Kingdoms and the Yeomanry that have more rustic, chaotic feels to them, where the line is much more fluid. Again, there might be certain DMs that will raise an eyebrow, but I feel safe in saying that casting inflicts and doing a few naughty things in either one - at least, in the Yeomanry when you're not on highly supervised Grosspokesman business - is probably OK. I've certainly smacked around my share of Scarlet Brotherhood, even non-evil ones, and had absolutely no trouble with it in the Yeomanry. I've seen an entire community of humanoids slaughtered - at a table DM'd by a member of the Yeomanry triad - without an evil act being recorded (granted, they were evil humanoids, but we're talking men, women and children.) In short, be conscious of where you are - both region and location within the region - and you shouldn't have a problem.
Alpha_Nerd 01-25-07, 12:26 PM	Ok, I'm going to try and summarize this as a third party and see if I'm getting the right message. Channeling Negative Energy is an evil act, and thus any spell that requires you to do so is an evil act. Harm is not necessarily an evil act becuase it doesn't say "channeling negative energy", it just uses it in the spell. Casting Inflict Wound spells are marked as evil acts, but if your god has the spells in one of his domains, he probably won't care. If you just make sure the DM marks the evil acts as casting inflicts, and your triad asks you about the evil acts, almost always their common sense will kick in and they will agree with you that you character isn't doing anything that will warrant removal from the campaign. Bob thinks Harm should be considered an evil act because it's almost identical to inflict spells. I agree with Bob that it probably should be an evil act, but the exact wording leaves it up for variation. The fact that the mass inflict spells also do not use the word "channeled" I feel adds more support to his arguement, while the fact that you can't spontaneously cast Harm adds more support to the other side's arguement. Is there anything I'm missing or have incorrect?
jstorrie 01-25-07, 01:12 PM	The one thing not mentioned here is that a LG cleric of Cuthbert literally can't cast contagion - good clerics can not cast spells with the [Evil] descriptor. This is reason enough to ask for some sort of variant or change to the domain in the next LGCS. Clerics should be able to cast their domain spells.
Camden 01-25-07, 01:29 PM	Ok, I'm going to try and summarize this as a third party and see if I'm getting the right message. Channeling Negative Energy is an evil act, and thus any spell that requires you to do so is an evil act. Harm is not necessarily an evil act becuase it doesn't say "channeling negative energy", it just uses it in the spell. Casting Inflict Wound spells are marked as evil acts, but if your god has the spells in one of his domains, he probably won't care. If you just make sure the DM marks the evil acts as casting inflicts, and your triad asks you about the evil acts, almost always their common sense will kick in and they will agree with you that you character isn't doing anything that will warrant removal from the campaign. Bob thinks Harm should be considered an evil act because it's almost identical to inflict spells. I agree with Bob that it probably should be an evil act, but the exact wording leaves it up for variation. The fact that the mass inflict spells also do not use the word "channeled" I feel adds more support to his arguement, while the fact that you can't spontaneously cast Harm adds more support to the other side's arguement. Is there anything I'm missing or have incorrect? From Dispel Confusion Vol3.1 (The latest one) Q: Is casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor an evil act? If so, can I cast these spells? A: The Players Handbook is unclear on this issue, and it has led to much debate. Fortunately, the Book of Vile Darkness, the authoritative source on evil deeds, provides insight into this topic. Page 8 of this source lists casting evil spells as an evil act while page 77 indicates that spells with the evil descriptor are evil spells. While the Book of Vile Darkness is not an a player resource in the Living Greyhawk campaign, these statements provide a fairly definitive statement that casting spells with the evil descriptor is an evil act. That said, the Book of Vile Darkness goes on to say “[s]ometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction.” Player characters cannot have an evil alignment in the Living Greyhawk campaign, but occasional evil acts are not forbidden. Your PC can cast an [Evil] spell without necessarily becoming evil; however, we urge casters of evil spells not to cross over into true corruption, or one day you will be turned over to your Triad, and on that day you may become an NPC. My reading of this is Anyone who can cast spells is still free to. If you cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, that is considered an Evil act (by Campign ruling). If your Character performs an Evil Act, refer to the LGCS. PG64 LGCS states that if you perform an Evil act then it is noted in you play notes on the AR, then the DM refers it to the Triad. The triad(or Circle) then decides when to yank your Character from the Campign. The difference is Evil and [Evil] [Evil] is any spell with the Descriptor of [Evil] Evil is any act the DM believes is evil in nature, or an act ruled by the campign to be evil. For Example. Killing an Innocent = Evil Act as ruled by the DM at the Table. This is noted on your AR, and the Triad are notified. Casting 'Holy Word' on a group of people to find out which ones are good, as if they don't survive they must be bad. Holy word has the [Good] descriptor, but this is still an Evil Act (DM call) This is noted on the AR, and the Triad are notified. Casting Contagion - in any situation. Contagion has the [Evil] descriptor and therefore is considered an Evil act as ruled by the Campign (Dispel Conf 3.1). This is noted on the AR, and the Triad are informed. Casting Harm on an adversary. Non Evil as the spell even though draws on Negative energy (in it's description) does not have the [Evil] Descriptor. Casting Harm on someone for sh*ts and giggles - Evil Act as ruled by the DM on the Table. Noted on the AR and Triad are informed. The only spell on the Destruction Domain with the [Evil] descriptor is Contagion. So choose a different 3rd level spell from the other domains ? Or memorise it, cast it, get "Commited an Evil Act" written on your play notes, and an email sent to the Triad saying "<blah> commited an Evil act" Instead of leaving it solely to DM discretion, the Circle have ruled casting an [Evil] spell is automaticlly an Evil Act, where as 'Doing something Evil' is up to the DM to determine if it is or not. Sources http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgif/20070109a http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contagion.htm http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/harm.htm http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holyWord.htm And the LGCS (which I don't think is in a Hypertext format (but it should be ;) ))
Britt 01-25-07, 01:48 PM	The only spell on the Destruction Domain with the [Evil] descriptor is Contagion. So choose a different 3rd level spell from the other domains ? Or memorise it, cast it, get "Commited an Evil Act" written on your play notes, and an email sent to the Triad saying "<blah> commited an Evil act" *snip* And the LGCS (which I don't think is in a Hypertext format (but it should be ;) )) Well, a cleric of Cuthbert can't cast contagion even if they wanted to. A good cleric or a cleric of a good god cannot cast [Evil] spells. And I seriously doubt it will ever be in HTML format. WotC seems to favor PDFs. I'll ask, but I doubt it :)
pedr 01-25-07, 02:03 PM	There is an html version of the LGCS here: http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/lgcs/intro.html though it's obviously an unofficial reproduction.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-25-07, 04:50 PM	Well, a cleric of Cuthbert can't cast contagion even if they wanted to. A good cleric or a cleric of a good god cannot cast [Evil] spells. And since it's the Circle who screwed this one up by changing the alignment of the deity, it's their responsibility to do what's right and offer an alternative spell. Otherwise, this is just going to KEEP coming up, because any new player creating a cleric who follows Cuthbert - especially a battle-type cleric - is going to run into it, and the chance they have the Deities Doc on hand while making this decision is slim to none. Once again, it's a thing slipped into the campaign that the rules lawyers won't have any problem with but that flips the bird at new players. And that's not right.
solbergb 01-25-07, 04:59 PM	BOVD is not a rules source. It is a player resource. The rules sources are the Dispel Confusion, LGCS, FAQ, and the 3 core rules books and that is all. The LGCS expliciltly allows a couple other things, such as weaponlike spell rules from CA. Britt, you know this. Lets not split hairs here. You made a ruling you thought was perfectly clear in the dispel confusion. It obviously was not, since I and others read it to still leave us some discretion in spite of what is now obviously your intent. Please incorporate the ruling in the LGCS in a way where your intent can not be misunderstood. First spell it out mechanically. Then add your reasons if you wish. If you lead with "in BOVD it is this way so I think judges should do something" you will be ignored by anyone who doens't like that ruling unless BOVD bcomes a legal RULES source, not just source for PRC, items, spells and feats if given out on an AR. Rulings that are not popular must be unambiguous and stated as simply as possible.
Akhamshyy 01-25-07, 05:09 PM	Hey there. It was WotC that changed Cuthbert's alignment to fit their compass. No one screwed any one, as it wasn't a conscious thing like 'let mess things up for people' by anyone in the circle. Your down some spells in a domain, you do have two. They don't need to make you a new destruction domain. It simple enough for me to wrap my head around it, there are some spells I can't use and some I shouldn't. And as far as new players are concerned, if anyone intends to play a caster in D&D they need to be on the ball with rules. Period. New or old players alike. They need the deities doc to use the deity and the domains properly, just like they need the LGCS, and any errata, FAQs and so on to play LG properly. Otherwise they shouldn't be playing that character. And people, please stop trying to find reasons to ignore the rules. It really grates that you can't come to terms with it and are causing all this havoc. And for what; to continue to be told what the rules are by the very people who run this campaign. And since it's the Circle who screwed this one up by changing the alignment of the deity, it's their responsibility to do what's right and offer an alternative spell. Otherwise, this is just going to KEEP coming up, because any new player creating a cleric who follows Cuthbert - especially a battle-type cleric - is going to run into it, and the chance they have the Deities Doc on hand while making this decision is slim to none. Once again, it's a thing slipped into the campaign that the rules lawyers won't have any problem with but that flips the bird at new players. And that's not right.
RedKnightofKet 01-25-07, 06:39 PM	snip If you go around casting inflicts and other destructiony things in the Pale or in Veluna, you're as good as done once you hit the DM who has an accurate read of what the region's attitude toward such things is. I remember a cleric of Wee Jas in last year's Crackdown interactive in Veluna that had a particularly hard time, and one cleric character from the Bandit Kingdoms eventually got apprehended and removed from play for actions taken in that interactive involving an inquistor's face and stone shape. It also matters in those regions where you're doing these things. If you cast an inflict in the wilderness on a remorhaz, is a Raoist inquistor likely to hear it? No. If you cast it in a town while on an official mission for the Temple of Mitrik snip Umm, this seems to conflict with the way the whole "evil" thing is spelled out in the latest Dispel Confusion: Player characters cannot have an evil alignment in the Living Greyhawk campaign, but occasional evil acts are not forbidden. Your PC can cast an [Evil] spell without necessarily becoming evil; however, we urge casters of evil spells not to cross over into true corruption, or one day you will be turned over to your Triad, and on that day you may become an NPC. Where I see a difference in this is that your evil acts are based on what you do, not what is considered evil in the region your playing in. It shouldn't matter what region you play, where you a from, who sees you doing the evil act. If you kill an innocent commoner in the woods, it's just as evil as doing it in the city. If you cast a negative energy spell on the bad guy in Veluna, it's as evil as doing it in the Bandit Kingdoms. I'm not trying to take away the authority of where the game happens, but I think evil needs to be determined more fairly across the board. If I were the PC cleric from the Bandit Kingdoms, I would appeal what happened to the Bandit Kingdoms Triad for a ruling. They would be able to provide a more reasonable decision on the "evil-ness" of his acts, based on his own background (his actions in the home region, etc). All in all, this is a very convoluted issue, which could possibly have Triads from different regions overruling each other.... but as written, that is how it should work. Like Britt said, the easiest way to avoid problems is avoid evil acts. My cleric with the Destruction domain hasn't, and likely never will, commit any evil acts. I will, however, ask the DM before the game if he considers inflict spells to be evil, since that was not part of the DC, but something Britt has stated after the fact.
Arvagor 01-25-07, 07:55 PM	The rules sources are the Dispel Confusion, LGCS, FAQ, and the 3 core rules books and that is all. The LGCS expliciltly allows a couple other things, such as weaponlike spell rules from CA.If you believe that is the case, then I hope you don't have any casters that make regular use of spells with a casting time of 1 swift or 1 immediate action -- swift and immediate actions are not defined in any of the sources you list above; therefore by your logic, they must not be allowable rules in LG, and ergo, no one can cast spells or take actions that are executed as a swift or immediate action.
solbergb 01-25-07, 09:31 PM	Those rules have been reprinted in the FAQ. Also the Feat and spells themselves are rules sources obviously, that describe only themselves. But we aren't (thank god) forced to use the improvised weapon rules in the Complete Warrior that are the key to the Hulking Hurler abuse that does billions of dice of damage (table scales linearly after a certain point, where carrying capacity increased geometrically. Using monster size increases as a guideline for scaling really large objects would have made much more sense) I do not think it is to much to ask to hold the people who write the campaign houserules for a campaign with thousands of players to be as unambiguous as possible in their rulings. We can forgive WOTC for having grey streaked all through their rules because they aren't writing for us, they're writing for a campaign where one DM just makes stuff up to cover any inconsistencies or grey areas, and the players don't have to worry about the universe shifting each time they play because of different interpretations. We have no reason not to do better ourselves...we KNOW there isn't a GM to smooth it all over. Anything not spelled out WILL be interpreted by a judge to fit their own prejudices. Britt has stated his point of view much more clearly since the Dispel Confusion came out. Adding two lines to the next dispel confusion or LGCS that makes it impossible to misinterpret is all I ask. At that point I will do what he intended rather than what he wrote. (see the polymorph ruling, see the size changing ruling...those are good, very hard to misinterpret houserules that stop cold lots of problems. many don't like the rules but they obey them. I hate this particular evil rule, but I'll obey it if I have to). There are two problems with the ruling. One is the whole "it's easy to be bad, hard to be good" idea that is contrary to PHB alignment ethos, but ok, they can make it a house rule for the campaign if they want. I'm annoyed but I don't care, it really doesn't affect me in any way, my characters don't do evil acts. The other is the unfairness of only noting evil spells without noting good/chaotic/lawful spells. Britt has said he'd do it if asked, but if he does not WRITE THE RULE to do that, no player can have any assurance that his judge will do the same, since all the rule says is that he has to write down evil spell use. (actually it doesn't quite say that yet. It just implies it if you combine with other rules, as Britt has done in prior responses. But I'm trying to make the point that if it DID say that, or alternately we just rule to his intent instead of what he wrote..there are still issues). Britt...I like your writing in the BK, I visited and had fun with the mods you wrote. I like most of what you're doing early in your tenure as a circle member. I dislike this ruling, but I am an adult and know that people will rule against my opinions often, and that's cool. My beef is that you did it sloppy, and I know you can do better than that. Be precise, say exactly how you want it to work and include the other stuff that you think is obvious, but someone with different context/worldview wouldn't think of. (like "of course you should also note [good] spell use too" perhaps or "this is a very LITTLE evil act, you'd have to cast hundreds of [evil] spells for inoccuous purposes before it would rate with ice storming a playground as an Evil act - so the triads would know how much to care and there would be some consistency)
Camden 01-25-07, 09:36 PM	If you believe that is the case, then I hope you don't have any casters that make regular use of spells with a casting time of 1 swift or 1 immediate action -- swift and immediate actions are not defined in any of the sources you list above; therefore by your logic, they must not be allowable rules in LG, and ergo, no one can cast spells or take actions that are executed as a swift or immediate action. You could also add in the bit about casting of Quicken spells is no longer a free action, they are Immediate actions (since the introduction of Swift and Immediate spells)
Camden 01-25-07, 10:10 PM	No one is stopping you memorising 'Contagion' and casting it. IF you cast it, a note is passed to *your* Triad. They keep track of how many 'black marks' that Character has. They *may* drop you an email and say "Erm, dude, you got alot of these evil acts. Wanna tone it down a little ?" IF they think you are being a tad too evil, then they can remove your character. It is up to *your* Triad to remove that character, or a member of the Circle. If you are a Good character (LG, NG, CG) you can't cast [Evil] spells at all. So you would of wasted that spell anyway if you were a LG cleric of St. Cuthbert. If you are a LN cleric of St Cuthbert, then you may cast Contagion, but will get a black mark against your name. The BOVD is a 'Campign Resource' not a Players Resource. It can be used by Authors/Writers etc for material and rules to draw upon. Just like when they introduced the BrightLands Plot Arc. The rules from SS were used (and printed in the modules where needed iirc). Using a 'Campign Resource' the Circle decided that casting [Evil] spells is an Evil Act. You can still do it, but it is Evil. Just like aimlessly killing people in the street for No Reason. Why is [Evil] evil ? Because it is the force/power/mystical/hocus pocus/goobe energy that you are using is the essence of Evil (or thereabouts ;) ). And that means if you do it, you get a black mark against your name on the Triad list of Naughty People. If a Character decides to walk into a bar, locks the door, kill everyone in the pub. Then it is up to the DM to decide wether that act is Evil. If it is, the character gets a black mark against his name. Personally if I did that, I would expect a black mark against my name. All the Circle have done is relied upon a 'Campign Resource' to take away any abiguity(sp?) over "So if I cast an [Evil] am I committing an Evil Act ?" They looked at the BOVD (the main book about evil things) and used that 'Campign Resource' to show the logic and meta mechanics to support their ruling. If you do something in self defence then that is a matter of opinion, and morals and what you actually did (Such as Cast Harm/Inflict on the big bad guy who just blasted you with his Max, Empower, Energy Admixtured AcidBall). If you snuck up on him and blasted him, before he blasted you, then is it pre-emptive self defence ? All a matter of opinion. But if you use something created from Evil, hence the [Evil] Descriptor, then you are commiting an Evil Act (and getting black marks against your name).
solbergb 01-25-07, 10:23 PM	Sorry to be pendatic but... Campaign resources are NOT rules resources that bind the campaign. I can not take BOVD to the table and make a judge accept a rule in it or win a SR Gm appeal with it. I can do that with the core 3, the FAQ, dispel confusion and LGCS. I am asking that when campaign resources become campaign houserules that the circle add to LGCS, or do what they did in the BS series and write a document saying what is included and what is not. (a lot of Sandstorm stuff is NOT LG legal even for BS characters). I don't object to what Britt did, saying "The campaign will go with a rule along the same lines as BOVD." What I object to was him not saying explicitly the rule and what a judge is supposed to do with it, and with the other aligned spells, and what a triad is supposed to do with it, when weighted against other evil acts. Is it a "big" Evil or a "little" Evil. Can a casting [good] spells cancel out evil acts? It is a huge ball of worms and in the space he spent explaining where he got the ruling, he would have been better served to actually think through the consequences and spell it out, to avoid unfair table variation and regional variation. That was after all, the goal of the exercise. Am I being passive aggressive when I assert that what they wrote leaves room for judge interpretation, and I as a judge will interpret it so as to write down the least number of Evil acts for [evil] spells? Yes, but if thats the lever that will encourage him to spell out what he means, get it out of his head and into our rules set, then I'm willing to play the bad guy this round. If me being a jerk about it gets the rule better for everyone, then it's worth doing. If not, well, then I've registered my protest and I'll let my local triad and judge community decide if as a judge I need to toe the line based on the rules as written. It'll never come up as a player. None of my concepts involve the kind of folks who have any use for [evil] descriptor spells, and all the bruhaha about channeling neg energy killed any idea that I'd ever run an inflict-cleric in LG years ago.
Camden 01-25-07, 10:53 PM	Kinda snipped... Sorry to be pendatic but... Campaign resources are NOT rules resources that bind the campaign. I can not take BOVD to the table and make a judge accept a rule in it or win a SR Gm appeal with it. I can do that with the core 3, the FAQ, dispel confusion and LGCS. I am asking that when campaign resources become campaign houserules that the circle add to LGCS, or do what they did in the BS series and write a document saying what is included and what is not. (a lot of Sandstorm stuff is NOT LG legal even for BS characters). I I agree. Campign Sources are not rules that bind that Campign. The rules that the Campign adhears to are PHB, DMG MM, FAQ, DC, and LGCS. If I sat down at a table and the ref started running rules that weren't in any of these documents, then I would question that ref (quietly of course), Maybe have a word with Snr DM, and go from there. The [Evil] evil act thing is in a Rules Binding Document. January's DC. They came to that ruling by consulting a 'Campign Resource' aggreeing with how the rules were presented there in regards to [Evil] spells, and published their ruiling in DC. Same thing for SS. They looked at the rules presented in SS (as a Campign Resource) for desert type adventures, and then choose to implement the rules they thought were best suited. The same happened in Races of <blah> and Complete <blah> etc. They looked at the material within those books (as Campign Resource) and choose what material (PrC, equipment) to allow, what Races to allow (or not) etc. The whole book wasn't bought in. Just the selected material. The same has occoured from BOVD in regards to the [Evil] spells/acts. They looked at BOVD as a Campign Resource and adopted to use this ruling from it, and then they published the ruling in a Campign Rules Document, citing the source they used.
Samwise 01-26-07, 01:28 AM	Sorry to be pendatic but... Campaign resources are NOT rules resources that bind the campaign. I can not take BOVD to the table and make a judge accept a rule in it or win a SR Gm appeal with it. I can do that with the core 3, the FAQ, dispel confusion and LGCS. I am asking that when campaign resources become campaign houserules that the circle add to LGCS, or do what they did in the BS series and write a document saying what is included and what is not. Except this isn't a house rule. It is a rule from the PHB - casting spells with the evil descriptor is an evil act. The phrasing in the PHB is just that people might not think that is what is intended. All the BoVD is being used for is as a supporting reference to the intent of what is written in the PHB. (Given some time, they could also refer to the Complete Scoundrel for this as well.) And actually, if you have campaign documentation, you can take the BoVD to a table and require a DM to accept a rule from it. That's how you would use a feat or spell or item from it that you had access to. I don't object to what Britt did, saying "The campaign will go with a rule along the same lines as BOVD." What I object to was him not saying explicitly the rule and what a judge is supposed to do with it, and with the other aligned spells, and what a triad is supposed to do with it, when weighted against other evil acts. But they do say explicitly: treat it like any other action the DM thinks is serious enough to warrant being noted on the character sheet and passed along to the Triad, and from there the Triad considers it like any other report of evil acts. This is how evil acts have always been dealt with in the LG rules. This is not a change, merely a clarification of what what always was, even if people never realized it before.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-26-07, 09:04 AM	Hey there. It was WotC that changed Cuthbert's alignment to fit their compass. No one screwed any one, as it wasn't a conscious thing like 'let mess things up for people' by anyone in the circle. Your down some spells in a domain, you do have two. They don't need to make you a new destruction domain. It simple enough for me to wrap my head around it, there are some spells I can't use and some I shouldn't. And as far as new players are concerned, if anyone intends to play a caster in D&D they need to be on the ball with rules. Period. New or old players alike. They need the deities doc to use the deity and the domains properly, just like they need the LGCS, and any errata, FAQs and so on to play LG properly. Otherwise they shouldn't be playing that character. Way to be an elitist snob. New players join all the time. Many join at pick-up games at conventions. Most of the time they create their characters all together to play an intro mod at once. We recommend balanced parties (cleric, fighter, rogue, mage, +2). You're of the opinion that players brand-new to LG, if not to D&D 3.5 in general, people should be beat up by the rules lawyers for not having spent 100+ hours reading all the dead trees we can muster before they sit down to game. I'm against that, because I'm not an elitist snob. I want LG to be MORE accessible to new players, because that will help it grow.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-26-07, 09:13 AM	No one is stopping you memorising 'Contagion' and casting it. ... If you are a LN cleric of St Cuthbert, then you may cast Contagion, but will get a black mark against your name. You're wrong. Since the Circle messed with Cuthbert's alignment making him Lawful Good, and since the PHB specifically says that a LN cleric of a LG deity still will not be granted the use of [Evil] descriptor spells, the campaign has effectively screwed clerics of Cuthbert for a spell.
Alpha_Nerd 01-26-07, 10:08 AM	I know a couple clerics of St. Cuthbert in my area and they don't seem to be complaining too much. If something as small as one third level spell can make you this angry at the circle, you should probably talk to a professional. I'm serious.
Mortepierre 01-26-07, 10:12 AM	You're wrong. Since the Circle messed with Cuthbert's alignment making him Lawful Good.. Actually, they didn't. What they did was rectify an error. Prior to 3e, St-Cuthbert had been described as LG(N), thus Lawful Good but leaning towards Lawful Neutral. For some weird reason, WotC decided to mess up both his alignment and his portfolio when they included the deity in the 3e PHB. Thus, making SC a LG deity once again was simply a smart move to make him more "hawkish" (so to speak)
Camden 01-26-07, 10:14 AM	You're wrong. Since the Circle messed with Cuthbert's alignment making him Lawful Good, and since the PHB specifically says that a LN cleric of a LG deity still will not be granted the use of [Evil] descriptor spells, the campaign has effectively screwed clerics of Cuthbert for a spell. My bad, thought he was still LN... Ok, so you can't cast Contagion (if your a Cleric of St. Cuthbert), but now I'm curious... Why wait till this ruling ([Evil]=Evil) came out and voice your objection (and demand your domain choice again ? The Deities Document has been released since March05 (nearly 2 years ago) so you shouldn't of been able to cast it at all over this period anyway. Is your Objection due to the 'Alignment shift' of St Cuthbert from the PHB printed Alignment that came in nearly 2 years ago(ish) and possibly causing confusion to new players) ? or Is your Objection the Alignment shift stopping a Cleric of St Cuthbert casting an [Evil] spell (which also came into effect 2 years ago(ish) ? or Is your Objection due to the [Evil] being an evil Act but your worshipping an LG God ? (which has only been in for 2 weeks or so ?
bitznarf 01-26-07, 10:44 AM	I will, however, ask the DM before the game if he considers inflict spells to be evil, since that was not part of the DC, but something Britt has stated after the fact. For the sake of accuracy, this is in fact not quite what happened. Its a case of the RAW stating that such spells are evil, rather then the circle stating this. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/LGDMs/message/12340 http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/zeif/message/1778
RedKnightofKet 01-26-07, 11:11 AM	Thanks for pointing me in the right direction - finally, someone spells it out. You've now put me in the other camp of the confused, though. Do good acts balance out with evil acts? Will good acts convert my character to good? If that's the case, my cleric may stop healing his allies so much. :P Must keep the balance :emp: For the sake of accuracy, this is in fact not quite what happened. Its a case of the RAW stating that such spells are evil, rather then the circle stating this. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/LGDMs/message/12340 http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/zeif/message/1778
Camden 01-26-07, 11:16 AM	For the sake of accuracy, this is in fact not quite what happened. Its a case of the RAW stating that such spells are evil, rather then the circle stating this. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/LGDMs/message/12340 http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/zeif/message/1778 http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#neutralClericsandUnde ad States 'Even if a Cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channelling negative energy is an evil act.' If you Channel Neg energy (not have the capability, but perform the act) for any reason it is an Evil Act (and you get a black mark against your name, triad informed <blah>. Has been for awhile now - just not alot of people knew about it. If a spell says you 'Channel' Neg energy, that is an evil act http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/inflictLightWounds.htm If a spell says you use/charge negative energy, that is not an Evil Act. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/harm.htm The emphasis is on Channel.
bitznarf 01-26-07, 11:22 AM	nothing to see here... carry on..
Samwise 01-26-07, 02:45 PM	Way to be an elitist snob. New players join all the time. Many join at pick-up games at conventions. Most of the time they create their characters all together to play an intro mod at once. We recommend balanced parties (cleric, fighter, rogue, mage, +2). You're of the opinion that players brand-new to LG, if not to D&D 3.5 in general, people should be beat up by the rules lawyers for not having spent 100+ hours reading all the dead trees we can muster before they sit down to game. I'm against that, because I'm not an elitist snob. I want LG to be MORE accessible to new players, because that will help it grow. Contagion is a 3rd level spell. In order for a new player to use it, he should have to play at least 16 adventures/rounds. If you play for 64 hours, it is rather reasonable to expect someone to be aware of this. But . . . That doesn't address the issue of the experienced players who are there when these new players show up and are making their characters. Are all of them equally excused from knowing about this? Are all of them completely beyond casually mentioning this to the new players? Since you do actually need to refer to the LGCS for character creation, and have since the campaign began, how will these people not be aware of the various rules? No, new players don't have to have every single campaign rule memorized before they can be allowed to play the game. But they do need to have some basic awareness of the campaign rules. That isn't being "elitist" or "snobbish" any more than requiring characters to use the PHB and WotC supplements only is "exclusionary" to everyone who wants to play a character from Ptolus or Arcanis. And really, you would think that someone interested in getting new players into the game might actually inform them of little quirks like clerics of Cuthbert not being able to use half of the Destruction Domain spells rather than letting them casually pick it then springing it on them later along with a condemnation of the campaign for having such rules. I fail to see how that would encourage people to play.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-26-07, 03:34 PM	My bad, thought he was still LN... Ok, so you can't cast Contagion (if your a Cleric of St. Cuthbert), but now I'm curious... Why wait till this ruling ([Evil]=Evil) came out and voice your objection (and demand your domain choice again ? The Deities Document has been released since March05 (nearly 2 years ago) so you shouldn't of been able to cast it at all over this period anyway. Is your Objection due to the 'Alignment shift' of St Cuthbert from the PHB printed Alignment that came in nearly 2 years ago(ish) and possibly causing confusion to new players) ? or Is your Objection the Alignment shift stopping a Cleric of St Cuthbert casting an [Evil] spell (which also came into effect 2 years ago(ish) ? or Is your Objection due to the [Evil] being an evil Act but your worshipping an LG God ? (which has only been in for 2 weeks or so ? I've complained since they made this change. The Circle hasn't cared enough to do anything yet, but that won't stop me from shining a light on their error till they fix it. My objection is: - The PHB is contradicted by the Deities Doc, thus causing confusion for new players, in a manner which could easily be corrected without PUNISHING new players to the campaign. - Prior to 3e, this wasn't a problem either, because Contagion was Necromancy but lacked the [Evil] descriptor. The Circle was remiss in NOT ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CHANGE DOMAINS DURING CONVERSION in this regard. That's TWO basic errors by the Circle so far. They screwed up, I'd like it fixed.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-26-07, 03:43 PM	Contagion is a 3rd level spell. In order for a new player to use it, he should have to play at least 16 adventures/rounds. If you play for 64 hours, it is rather reasonable to expect someone to be aware of this. If you've only played for 1 hour, and all of it character creation, no, not the case. And by the time you reach the 16 adventure mark, remember, you chose domains AT FIRST LEVEL. But . . . That doesn't address the issue of the experienced players who are there when these new players show up and are making their characters. Are all of them equally excused from knowing about this? Are all of them completely beyond casually mentioning this to the new players? Since you do actually need to refer to the LGCS for character creation, and have since the campaign began, how will these people not be aware of the various rules? The LGCS lists Cuthbert at Lawful Good. It lists only five domains for him (of the 7 actually allowable by Deities Doc). And it doesn't mention the "problem" of the Destruction domain at all to give new players warning. Again, the chance of a brand-new player to the game having the Deities Doc around, AND someone who will remember this while helping multiple people create characters? No, new players don't have to have every single campaign rule memorized before they can be allowed to play the game. But they do need to have some basic awareness of the campaign rules. That isn't being "elitist" or "snobbish" any more than requiring characters to use the PHB and WotC supplements only is "exclusionary" to everyone who wants to play a character from Ptolus or Arcanis. This isn't "basic awareness." This is a hidden bit of info that screws players later, and especially new players who aren't rules lawyers. And that IS elitist snobbery that should be fixed. And really, you would think that someone interested in getting new players into the game might actually inform them of little quirks like clerics of Cuthbert not being able to use half of the Destruction Domain spells rather than letting them casually pick it then springing it on them later along with a condemnation of the campaign for having such rules. I fail to see how that would encourage people to play. Again, the number of people who pay attention to these little "hidden quirks" - except for our small contingent of killer DM's and rules lawyers? You're right. It DOES discourage people from play. It can screw a player out of a good number of his domains spells. "But you have another domain, blah blah blah insert meaningless elitist platitude here." Small comfort, bub. Most Clerics get two domains, they get to find out - after they started the character - that they're screwed out of what other Clerics get without question. Not. Cool.
MichaelTLH 01-26-07, 04:05 PM	EDITED: I like Samwise's response below better!
Samwise 01-26-07, 04:06 PM	My objection is: - The PHB is contradicted by the Deities Doc, thus causing confusion for new players, in a manner which could easily be corrected without PUNISHING new players to the campaign. In what way does this punish new players? The LGCS also contains this alignment note, and players are required to refer to this during character creation. There is no reason a player should not know about the difference in alignment for Cuthbert, or take that into account when choosing a domain. - Prior to 3e, this wasn't a problem either, because Contagion was Necromancy but lacked the [Evil] descriptor. The Circle was remiss in NOT ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CHANGE DOMAINS DURING CONVERSION in this regard. Except they did allow people to change domains during conversion. So this complaint is completely invalid. That's TWO basic errors by the Circle so far. They screwed up, I'd like it fixed. Actually, that's two basic errors by you so far. The Circle didn't screw up, and they have nothing to fix. You however are now without any basis for your complaint. If you've only played for 1 hour, and all of it character creation, no, not the case. And by the time you reach the 16 adventure mark, remember, you chose domains AT FIRST LEVEL. So? The fault there is with the Core rules, giving such a lousy domain to Cuthbert in the first place. Again, the chance of a brand-new player to the game having the Deities Doc around, AND someone who will remember this while helping multiple people create characters? Having the LG deities document is irrelevant. The alignment is noted in the LGCS. All that remains is the person not having access to the other domains. As for remembering to comment on it, if you are helping the person create the character you should be aware of the domains they are picking. This isn't "basic awareness." This is a hidden bit of info that screws players later, and especially new players who aren't rules lawyers. And that IS elitist snobbery that should be fixed. It is basic awareness. If you know the rules you can check and see that Contagion is evil, and that a cleric of Cuthbert won't be able to cast it. Again, the number of people who pay attention to these little "hidden quirks" - except for our small contingent of killer DM's and rules lawyers? Why do you have such an attitude about people who know the rules? Would you prefer people who don't know the rules to run games? I'm sure if some "killer DM" decides that you are automatically surprised in every encounter, you'd want some "rules lawyer" telling him that isn't right. Apparently you just don't want a DM to ever tell a player that no, he can't break some rule just because he never bothered to read it. You're right. It DOES discourage people from play. It can screw a player out of a good number of his domains spells. "But you have another domain, blah blah blah insert meaningless elitist platitude here." Small comfort, bub. Most Clerics get two domains, they get to find out - after they started the character - that they're screwed out of what other Clerics get without question. Not. Cool. No, it isn't cool for you to take our your disagreement with campaign decisions by driving people away from the campaign. If you don't want to play then don't, but you don't have to deliberately sabotage new players just to try to "prove" some point, especially when you have made errors in knowing what the rules are in the first place.
Akhamshyy 01-26-07, 04:26 PM	As someone who's brought several waves of 10, 11, and 12 year olds into D&D, I take high offense at being called such names. When i run games for new youngsters I provide access to my library of WotC, LG, and RPGA materials so they know what's going on. I don't leave new players ignorant of rulings or rules they need to know. They don't need to know all of it but they do need access to it. I've even given away an LGCS after a session so the kids had what they needed. Even the best of us has to refer back to a rule in whatever book now and again. Unfortunately as far as snobbish elitism I feel the truth here is that you are acting in such a fashion. And to detract attention from it you take to calling other people what you yourself really are. All because you want your domain back. This is a community, and when a community works as a whole it does some dang good things. If you wanted to adjust some things it would best have been done when the community took it's annual look at the rules we use and decided what we needed to change. Instead you've taken to attacking the people who give of themselves so we can all enjoy this campaign. Way to be an elitist snob. New players join all the time. Many join at pick-up games at conventions. Most of the time they create their characters all together to play an intro mod at once. We recommend balanced parties (cleric, fighter, rogue, mage, +2). You're of the opinion that players brand-new to LG, if not to D&D 3.5 in general, people should be beat up by the rules lawyers for not having spent 100+ hours reading all the dead trees we can muster before they sit down to game. I'm against that, because I'm not an elitist snob. I want LG to be MORE accessible to new players, because that will help it grow.
Camden 01-26-07, 04:40 PM	I've complained since they made this change. The Circle hasn't cared enough to do anything yet, but that won't stop me from shining a light on their error till they fix it. My objection is: - The PHB is contradicted by the Deities Doc, thus causing confusion for new players, in a manner which could easily be corrected without PUNISHING new players to the campaign. - Prior to 3e, this wasn't a problem either, because Contagion was Necromancy but lacked the [Evil] descriptor. The Circle was remiss in NOT ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CHANGE DOMAINS DURING CONVERSION in this regard. That's TWO basic errors by the Circle so far. They screwed up, I'd like it fixed. The LGCS overwrites 'core rules' for the Campign. Cost of Strand of Prayer Beads. LGCS price45k, DMG price 20k. This has not been addressed in the DMG errata, or the FAQ Polymorph/alter self Death and the effects it has (nowhere in the DMG does is say that you lose the last level you took) Campign ruling says you lose the last level you took When a Character is generated you would refer to the Character Creation Guidelines fron the LGCS. pg13 has the entry for Deities (Inc St Cuthbert) on that list, and is listing him as LG. New players to LG (but Not D&D) should realise that they cannot cast [Evil] spells, and may be aware that casting Inflict is 'An Evil act' (see previous post with links), but anyone helping them could point this out to them. New players to D&D and LG should have some help anyway, having things like why having a Con 8 is kinda bad for a fighter, as well as "Dude before you choose your domains, do you want to have a look at what they do <hand PHB to player>" And you could change domains. Taken from LG_595CY_Conversion_v2.pdf pg 2 Characters retaining cleric levels may change domains. See the LIVING GREYHAWK deities document. So by your argument there should be no house rules that contradict the the main core books for the Campign (by your first objection) as this 'may' confuse new players. Still trying to work out your 2nd objection...
Britt 01-26-07, 05:05 PM	Cost of Strand of Prayer Beads. LGCS price45k, DMG price 20k. This has not been addressed in the DMG errata, or the FAQ Mostly unrelated side note. This was addressed in the leather bound DMG, but still isn't in the DMG FAQ. I'm going to point this out to anyone I can, but who knows if it will do any good.
Camden 01-26-07, 05:33 PM	Mostly unrelated side note. This was addressed in the leather bound DMG, but still isn't in the DMG FAQ. I'm going to point this out to anyone I can, but who knows if it will do any good. Never checked in that copy of the DMG - :doh: The v3.5, the errata, the online srd, never the latest printing though...
SYB 01-26-07, 06:21 PM	I think the dead horse has been beaten badly enough. In fact, the equine abuse is getting so bad he is close to coming back as an undead horse and kicking all of our butts. The sad thing is there is apparently no reason for it. The question has been answered and re-answered. As best I can tell, the only reason Bob posts on these boards is to denigrate the RPGA and/or WotC (Do you work for White Wolf, Bob?) and to get attention. He seems more than willing to settle for negative attention as long as he can belittle someone else or something else in the process. Thank you to all who answered the question. Thank you Britt for both answering the question and absorbing the undeserved abuse. And, in all seriousness, is there any way to get abusive posters like Bob banned from these boards? -SYB
Starfox_SFX 01-26-07, 06:26 PM	You see, to me this is a case of something taken completely out of context and applied to an area where it shouldn't be. That entire section is talking about turning/rebuking undead. Everything in that section is refering to aspects of a cleric's ability to turn/rebuke undead which is tied to channeling positive/negative energy. It doesn't make any sense to me to apply this to anything outside of the domain of effecting undead. Channeling positive energy is good and negative energy is evil in the context of turning undead which is the specific set of rules being discussed. In that section channeling an energy type has a very specific meaning, but then trying to apply that to a spell's flavour text where channeling has no definition doesn't make sense. Inflict light "channels negative energy", inflict light mass "spreads negative energy"... one is an evil act, one isn't? Enervate "releases negative energy", is that the same as channeling? Why is a good cleric restricted from casting [evil] spells, but allowed to cast (by the current definition) evil negative energy attacks? http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#neutralClericsandUnde ad States 'Even if a Cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channelling negative energy is an evil act.' If you Channel Neg energy (not have the capability, but perform the act) for any reason it is an Evil Act (and you get a black mark against your name, triad informed <blah>. Has been for awhile now - just not alot of people knew about it. If a spell says you 'Channel' Neg energy, that is an evil act http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/inflictLightWounds.htm If a spell says you use/charge negative energy, that is not an Evil Act. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/harm.htm The emphasis is on Channel.
Arvagor 01-26-07, 07:38 PM	Mostly unrelated side note. This was addressed in the leather bound DMG, but still isn't in the DMG FAQ. I'm going to point this out to anyone I can, but who knows if it will do any good.There's little things like that all over the leather-bound editions (and the non-leather-bounds that came after). The most recent printings of the PHB, for example, have removed the the crocodile as a 1st level animal companion for druids (it's still valid for 4+), but I still see players asking to bring one to the table (so to speak) when playing aquatic adventures... I think WotC has given up on issuing any more electronic errata...
JamesMaissen 01-27-07, 12:23 AM	Except this isn't a house rule. It is a rule from the PHB - casting spells with the evil descriptor is an evil act. The phrasing in the PHB is just that people might not think that is what is intended. Four questions: First, where does it say this in the PhB? All I can find that is mechanically channelling negative energy is an evil act (while channelling positive energy is a good act). Second, if casting inflicts and cures are indeed channelling in that respect then does that mean that an evil cleric (who cannot channel positive energy) cannot cast those cure spells? Third, is the campaign ruling just that [evil] spells are evil acts or that all alignment description spells are acts of that alignment? Shouldn't they all be tracked if one is? And lastly, where in 3rd edition (or 3.5) does it say that these acts of differing alignment will forcibly change your alignment? This idea seems more like a holdover from prior editions than a rule I can find now. Thanks, James
Samwise 01-27-07, 12:35 AM	Four questions: First, where does it say this in the PhB? All I can find that is mechanically channelling negative energy is an evil act (while channelling positive energy is a good act). It is implied. Since the interpretation is in question, how could we determine the spirit and intent of the rules? The simplest method would be to refer to other books. Doing so, we discover it explicitly stated in the BoVD, and implicitly stated in the Complete Scoundrel. With this, we can reasonably conclude that indeed it is an evil act, and proceed accordingly. Second, if casting inflicts and cures are indeed channelling in that respect then does that mean that an evil cleric (who cannot channel positive energy) cannot cast those cure spells? Actually, this would mean good clerics couldn't cast inflict spells. Since the rules clearly state otherwise, we must conclude that using spells in this fashion is merely a good or evil action, and not a prohibited action. Third, is the campaign ruling just that [evil] spells are evil acts or that all alignment description spells are acts of that alignment? Shouldn't they all be tracked if one is? This has been answered. Only an evil alignment will result in removal from the campaign, therefore it is the only alignment tracked. Since this seems to be such an issue, let me ask a question: Would you be satisfied if Law and Chaos were tracked as well, and DMs could deny people the ability to gain levels as a monk or rage? And lastly, where in 3rd edition (or 3.5) does it say that these acts of differing alignment will forcibly change your alignment? This idea seems more like a holdover from prior editions than a rule I can find now. Page 104 of the PHB: Choosing an alignment for your character means stating your intent to play that character in a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions. We can find this interpretation supported in the Complete Scoundrel.
Britt 01-27-07, 01:27 AM	Here's a repost of a breakdown I typed up on the LGDMs list, slightly modified since there's no conversational context here. "Clerics CAN channel the opposite type of energy. They just can't channel it to do turning/rebuking. Casting inflict or cure specifically channels the type of energy listed, as the spell text says. I just reread the turning and channeling sections and it does not say that you cannot channel the opposite type of energy. It only says what type you channel for turning/rebuking. The only restrictions are what you do with your Turn/Rebuke ability and what types of descriptor spells you can cast. As cure and inflict spells neither have a descriptor nor involve turning/rebuking, you can do them no matter your alignment or turning/rebuking choice. So, here's a breakdown of the rules: Cure Spells: - Channel positive energy and are, thus, good acts - Do not have the [Good] descriptor - Can be cast by any alignment - Excessive casting could contribute to an alignment shift towards good or loss of granted powers from an evil deity Inflict Spells: - Channel negative energy and are, thus, evil acts - Do not have the [Evil] descriptor - Can be cast by any alignment - Excessive casting could contribute to an alignment shift towards evil or loss of granted powers from a good deity Turn Undead/Spontaneous Cure: - Channels positive energy and is, thus, a good act - Only good and neutral clerics may do this (subject to deity restrictions) Rebuke Undead/Spontaneous Inflict: - Channels negative energy and is, thus, an evil act - Only evil and neutral clerics may do this (subject to deity restrictions) Good Clerics: - Can't cast [Evil] spells - Channel positive energy to Turn Undead and spontaneously cast cure spells - Can cast both inflict and cure spells Neutral Clerics: - Can cast both [Good] and [Evil] spells (subject to deity alignment) - Either channel positive energy to Turn Undead and spontaneously cast cure spells, or negative energy to Rebuke Undead and spontaneously cast inflict spells (subject to deity restrictions) - Can cast both inflict and cure spells Evil Clerics: - Can't cast [Good] spells - Channel negative energy to Rebuke Undead and spontaneously cast inflict spells - Can cast both inflict and cure spells"
Mithreinmaethor 01-27-07, 01:47 AM	Britt please quit feeling like you have to answer every attack on this ruling. it has been ruled upon. This is the way things will be people live with it. If you lose your character I dont feel sorry for you. You have been told of the ruling and would from this point on hold your characters LG life in your hands. If you do things to get your character yanked there wont be no tears from me or many others I would bet. But as a suggestion how about a report form so that those of us that GM games can fill it out and turn it in to the triad ?
Britt 01-27-07, 01:55 AM	No worries; I'm not responding to the basic [Evil] topic anymore. The topic had strayed into inflicts and channeling negative energy, so I thought I'd x-post that list ^
rockondon 01-27-07, 02:30 AM	does this mean the argument is over? I just finished making the popcorn and everything :pbbbtt:
RedKnightofKet 01-27-07, 03:24 AM	Rock, just take it over to the Stupidly Titled Thread - we'd love some popcorn over there! :D does this mean the argument is over? I just finished making the popcorn and everything :pbbbtt:
scon40 01-28-07, 12:26 PM	As a side note to this discussion, there is another reason why we emphasize tracking Evil acts rather than all alignment acts. Evil acts have more of an effect on alignment then Lawful/Chaotic/Good acts do. Read the definitions of alignments in the PHB. I think it's fairly clear from the description of Neutrality that the slope from Neutral to Good/Lawful/Chaos is different than the one to Evil. A Neutral character who does both good and evil acts does not do so in equal numbers. If their evil acts are in the same number as their good ones, they've moved towards evil significantly. You can do good acts without having much of an effect on your alignment. But doing evil acts moves you down towards evil pretty quickly. They're "more powerful" than other acts.
Mommy was an Orc 01-28-07, 09:21 PM	No worries; I'm not responding to the basic [Evil] topic anymore. The topic had strayed into inflicts and channeling negative energy, so I thought I'd x-post that list ^ By the way, I disagree with the inflicts/channeling negative energy. The section which calls it an evil act is referring to the act of turning - a Good cleric is implied to be unable to channel negative energy in the turning section. There's a number of spells that use the word 'channel' and it appears to be flavor text(Dark Nagas can cast Ray of Enfeeblement from their hands, there is flavor text in spell descriptions) - is Chill Touch really an evil act, but Enervation is not? I'm saying this with never having actually seen a cleric cast an inflict spell in an LG mod in over 100 mods, but...
Mithreinmaethor 01-28-07, 11:56 PM	By the way, I disagree with the inflicts/channeling negative energy. The section which calls it an evil act is referring to the act of turning - a Good cleric is implied to be unable to channel negative energy in the turning section. There's a number of spells that use the word 'channel' and it appears to be flavor text(Dark Nagas can cast Ray of Enfeeblement from their hands, there is flavor text in spell descriptions) - is Chill Touch really an evil act, but Enervation is not? I'm saying this with never having actually seen a cleric cast an inflict spell in an LG mod in over 100 mods, but... Umm have you read the description of the Inflict spell itself ? Here is Inflict Light Wounds for example: "When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it." I dont think that it gets much clearer than that.
Arvagor 01-29-07, 12:51 AM	I dont think that it gets much clearer than that. I think you're missing Mommy's point somewhat... Inflict uses the "channel" term, while a spell like enervation does not. Inflict deals hit point damage, while enervation actually causes the victim to gain negative levels (which can cause the victim to die, if he gains at least as many negative levels as he has HD). IMO, most would probably agree that negative levels are actually more harmful than hit point damage, yet by the "channel = evil" argument, the enervation spell is not evil because it doesn't use the channel syntax anywhere in the spell description. Same goes for energy drain, whereby the negative levels can become permanent -- nope, no "channel", so not evil... There is also nothing preventing a Good cleric from casting any of the aforementioned spells -- while they may belong to the Necromancy school, none of them have the [Evil] descriptor, so a Good cleric can cast them just as easily as an Evil (or Neutral) caster can... I think we're just going around in circles at this point... :whatsthis Edit: FWIW, I can only find two spells in the PHB/SRD that use the word "channel" anywhere in their text and have alignment descriptors -- Holy Sword (Evocation [Good]), and Order's Wrath (Evocation [Lawful])
JamesMaissen 01-29-07, 12:53 AM	As a side note to this discussion, there is another reason why we emphasize tracking Evil acts rather than all alignment acts. Evil acts have more of an effect on alignment then Lawful/Chaotic/Good acts do. Read the definitions of alignments in the PHB. I think it's fairly clear from the description of Neutrality that the slope from Neutral to Good/Lawful/Chaos is different than the one to Evil. A Neutral character who does both good and evil acts does not do so in equal numbers. If their evil acts are in the same number as their good ones, they've moved towards evil significantly. You can do good acts without having much of an effect on your alignment. But doing evil acts moves you down towards evil pretty quickly. They're "more powerful" than other acts. I think you are contradicting yourself in your post. You are saying that a neutral character needs to do more good acts than evil acts to maintain his alignment. But if only evil acts are tracked how is anyone to know if this is achieved? So since casting [evil] descriptor spells is now preforce an evil act, how many summonings of fiendish guppies does it take to force one to be evil? If it's not a fixed number, why isn't it? What factors, if any, should and would go into this call? -James
Britt 01-29-07, 01:13 AM	Inflict uses the "channel" term, while a spell like enervation does not. Inflict deals hit point damage, while enervation actually causes the victim to gain negative levels (which can cause the victim to die, if he gains at least as many negative levels as he has HD). IMO, most would probably agree that negative levels are actually more harmful than hit point damage, yet by the "channel = evil" argument, the enervation spell is not evil because it doesn't use the channel syntax anywhere in the spell description. Same goes for energy drain, whereby the negative levels can become permanent -- nope, no "channel", so not evil... One clarification (not going back into the whole argument): lacking the phrase "channel negative energy" does not mean a spell is not evil. Having the phrase means that it is an evil act, but that is not the only way for it to be evil. For example, if I say all cats are animals, that doesn't mean that dogs aren't animals; dogs are very much still animals.
Mommy was an Orc 01-29-07, 01:28 AM	Umm have you read the description of the Inflict spell itself ? Here is Inflict Light Wounds for example: "When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). I dont think that it gets much clearer than that. The problem with treating D&D as a law text is that the writers of the text are not lawyers(or at least not in most cases) - you're assuming they mean the same thing, when they're used differently. And in this case, I think they're doing that. "Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy." is on page 159. If Inflict Light Wounds is referring to the act of channeling negative energy, then not just some neutral clerics can channel negative energy - all of them can. In fact, good clerics can too. That means one of two things is true: The statement on page 159 is false. The writer wrote that for no reason other than to be difficult or he didn't realize there were other ways for clerics to channel negative energy. The statement on page 159 is true. He was referring to the act of channeling negative energy in the form of a turning attempt and did not mean the much broader use. Either way, and this is important, I strongly think the intent of the writer on page 160 of PHB was to have the act of doing a rebuke turning attempt be evil. I don't think he intended to catch any other things in that web. The problem here is that he used the same descriptive words for two different things. Enervate isn't evil, because the writer used the word ray instead of channel. What that suggests is that when the writer uses the word 'channel' in spellcasting, he's using it in another way to describe the act of touching an opponent.
Mommy was an Orc 01-29-07, 01:37 AM	One clarification (not going back into the whole argument): lacking the phrase "channel negative energy" does not mean a spell is not evil. Having the phrase means that it is an evil act, but that is not the only way for it to be evil. For example, if I say all cats are animals, that doesn't mean that dogs aren't animals; dogs are very much still animals. Yes, but if you say some dogs are animals, then there's a problem when you look at someone and say, "I don't know where you thought I implied some dogs aren't animals." In order to allow "channel negative energy" to be used in such a manner, you have to assume the writer pulled something similar to that.
Britt 01-29-07, 01:59 AM	You left off part of the text from your quote of page 159, where the sentence continues to describe that evil and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy for a particular use. The text in that section does not ever state that good clerics cannot ever channel negative energy or that evil clerics cannot ever channel positive energy. The text only states that clerics can channel a particular type of energy to perform certain acts, not that those are the only ways that energy can be channeled. As I have said in other threads, you might be right that the authors did not intend for the two passages to interact in such a way; however, with exactly matching specific language, you need more than a hunch that the writers didn't mean what they said. Without something more, the argument is not very persuasive. It might be the case that you are right, but there is nothing to support your position other than the fact that it might be right. That does not compare favorably to specific language that says exactly what you want to deny.
Britt 01-29-07, 02:00 AM	Yes, but if you say some dogs are animals, then there's a problem when you look at someone and say, "I don't know where you thought I implied some dogs aren't animals." In order to allow "channel negative energy" to be used in such a manner, you have to assume the writer pulled something similar to that. I don't understand this at all. Could you clarify what you mean so I can respond?
Madfox11 01-29-07, 04:10 AM	Beware the fluff texts that... The real problem though is that it is really hard to decide what is fluff and what is not. Deathwatch and waves of grieve are evil due to the description of the spell since both work with evil energies even though these spells are really not more or less evil than status and bane in appliance. So did the designers: (a) forgot their own rule about channeling negative energy being evil? (b) did they changed their mind about the use of inflict wounds and some other necromancy spells and removed the descriptor without removing all the fluff texts? (c) did they never thoroughly check fluff text with descriptors?
Mithreinmaethor 01-29-07, 04:22 AM	Or as its been posted previously in this thread. This is the way that the Circle has Ruled on it. So trying to guess the mind of the original writer is rather moot. The Circle has ruled and until they change their ruling this is the way it will be. Sounds pretty simple to me.
RedKnightofKet 01-29-07, 10:04 AM	So, what's the exchange rate for good acts vs evil acts? If I cast 10 cure lights, does that negate one inflict? 20 to 1? 50 to 1? Where is the line drawn? I'm actually more inclined to believe that the designers the turning reference is meant to refer to turning itself, and shouldn't apply to spells that channel negative energy. Of course, I'll ETV everytime.... As a side note to this discussion, there is another reason why we emphasize tracking Evil acts rather than all alignment acts. Evil acts have more of an effect on alignment then Lawful/Chaotic/Good acts do. Read the definitions of alignments in the PHB. I think it's fairly clear from the description of Neutrality that the slope from Neutral to Good/Lawful/Chaos is different than the one to Evil. A Neutral character who does both good and evil acts does not do so in equal numbers. If their evil acts are in the same number as their good ones, they've moved towards evil significantly. You can do good acts without having much of an effect on your alignment. But doing evil acts moves you down towards evil pretty quickly. They're "more powerful" than other acts.
Mommy was an Orc 01-29-07, 03:44 PM	you need more than a hunch that the writers didn't mean what they said. Without something more, the argument is not very persuasive. It might be the case that you are right, but there is nothing to support your position other than the fact that it might be right. That does not compare favorably to specific language that says exactly what you want to deny. It is a lot more than a hunch. Your position just causes all kinds of havoc that can't possibly be what was intended. There's four problems with your position: Any result which says that Mass Inflict Light Wounds/Enervate/Energy Drain/Harm are not evil acts, but Touch of Fatigue/Chill Touch/Inflict Light Wounds are clearly violates the spirit of the rules. We might not be exactly sure what the writer intended, but he most clearly did not intend that. Either they're all evil acts or they're not evil acts. Turning specifically says that channeling positive or negative energy can have other uses on page 160 - such as possibly opening a special door. If your position is correct, that's a writer being completely oblivious. Spells that channel negative energy would be logical... Inconsistent application of the rules - BoVD does not call the use of negative energy an evil act - if we're using BoVD to clarify Monte's intent on [Evil] = Evil, then we should surely use it for this case, no? You're forgetting that they also define the channeling of positive/negative energy as being 'turning'. By your position, if I'm a cleric, I should be able to cast Cure Light Wounds to make a Turning check - after all, I'm channeling positive energy, which the Turning section defines as Turning and the Turning section does not say you can't use spells to gain more Turning attempts. Yes, that's nonsensical and no rational DM in a home game would allow it, but that's a logical result of your position. Good clerics and paladins and some neutral clerics can channel positive energy, which can halt, drive off(rout), or destroy undead. Evil clerics and some neutral clerics can channel negative energy, which can halt, awe(rebuke), control(command), or bolster undead. Regardless of the effect, the general term for the activity is 'turning'
Mommy was an Orc 01-29-07, 03:49 PM	Or as its been posted previously in this thread. This is the way that the Circle has Ruled on it. So trying to guess the mind of the original writer is rather moot. The Circle has ruled and until they change their ruling this is the way it will be. Sounds pretty simple to me. Based on the language of the Dispel Confusion, I think I have some leeway ;)
Mommy was an Orc 01-29-07, 03:58 PM	I don't understand this at all. Could you clarify what you mean so I can respond? The book says some neutral clerics can channel positive energy. 'Some dogs are animals'. You're saying that further on in the book, because all clerics can cast cure X spells, therefore all neutral clerics can channel positive energy and therefore 'All dogs are animals' There's no reason for the writer to say that some neutral clerics can channel positive energy(and therefore by inference some cannot) unless he actually means that not all neutral clerics can channel positive energy as he is about to define it.
gbuchold 01-29-07, 04:14 PM	I think the strongest argument here lies with Mass Inflict, as Starfox_SX and others have pointed out. IE, Inflict Light Wounds contains the word "channel", but Mass Inflict Light Wounds does not. To say that the inclusion of the word "channel" is intentional in the first would imply that its absence is intentional in the second. Since a Mass-type spell is, by definition, the same basic spell as its non-Mass counterpart, this seems an absurd position. If this position is absurd, the alternate position - in this case, that the word's use or nonuse is unintentional - would have to be true. On the topic of alignment shifts, it seems somewhat silly to say that characters who use these spells will be removed from play, but a paladin who lies to everyone he meets about everything will never even worry about Atonement; but since lying is only a somewhat chaotic act and does not specifically require alignment change in the paladin's "Code of Conduct" section, it will never matter in LG. There is no mechanism for a DM to report a chaotic (or lawful, or good) act to their triad. Though I must admit, I enjoy the reducio ad absurdum quality inherent in the question, "How many CLW spells will force my LN cleric of Wee Jas to become a good character?" If the rules require you answer this question, perhaps a change in the rules might be in order. Might I suggest some clarification in the LGCS 7? ;)
Mommy was an Orc 01-29-07, 04:38 PM	I think the strongest argument here lies with Mass Inflict, as Starfox_SX and others have pointed out. On the topic of alignment shifts, it seems somewhat silly to say that characters who use these spells will be removed from play, but a paladin who lies to everyone he meets about everything will never even worry about Atonement Mass Inflict has the problem that maybe the writers meant for all negative energy spells to be evil acts, but didn't make it clear enough. Britt could be wanting to make this stronger ruling, but he's leaving it up to the DMs to make the judgment on the spirit of the rules as he's not really allowed to make that choice - I'm pretty sure that's his position based on what I've read and so arguing that Mass Inflict isn't channeling doesn't amount to much. I think the much stronger argument is that channeling positive/negative energy is the activity of turning as defined in PHB if we're going to be literalist about it. A Paladin who lies to everyone he meets is violating the Paladin CoC, btw...
solbergb 01-29-07, 09:43 PM	As a side note to this discussion, there is another reason why we emphasize tracking Evil acts rather than all alignment acts. Evil acts have more of an effect on alignment then Lawful/Chaotic/Good acts do. Read the definitions of alignments in the PHB. I think it's fairly clear from the description of Neutrality that the slope from Neutral to Good/Lawful/Chaos is different than the one to Evil. A Neutral character who does both good and evil acts does not do so in equal numbers. If their evil acts are in the same number as their good ones, they've moved towards evil significantly. You can do good acts without having much of an effect on your alignment. But doing evil acts moves you down towards evil pretty quickly. They're "more powerful" than other acts. I read the same text and come up with the idea that Neutral is easiest, and anything extreme is hard. What is easy is failing code of conduct with a single act (Paladinhood or any flavor of divine caster). But the direction of the failure doesn't matter. A priest of Hextor is just as hosed with is deity for doing a highly Chaotic Good act as a priest of Hieroneous is hosed for doing a highly Chaotic Evil act. But I'm not Circle, so I don't get to impose my opinion on the campaign. I do think if you are going to take this attitude in a campaign like this, you need to give at least rough weights though. Because the way the tracking rules are written now, one evil act undoes an infinite number of good acts, because good acts aren't tracked, so they might as well not even happen. There also isn't any distinction between casting deathwatch and sacrificing your wife to Demogorgon. Some rough guide on just HOW evil the two mechanical actions (casting an XXX level [evil] spell or spont casting a level [x] inflict or rebuking undead - I don't buy the other examples as mechanically sound by PHB rules, so you'd better spell them out if you expect everyone to follow the ruling) are weighed compared to the kind of "Evil act" that we used to put on AR's would be nice. I can totally imagine a triad in one region treating Deathwatch = Contagion = Eyebite = Sacrificing Wife to Demogorgon and another triad treating it like Deathwatch < Contagion < Eyebite < Sacrificing Wife to Demogorgon. And a third treating all casting as miniscule, no mateter what level compared to Sacrificing Wife To Demogorgon, so you might need thousands of "I cast an evil spell" entry to actually get you evicted with triad #3, but only about 6 castings for triad # 1. There must be something in your head that you are imagining when making this ruling. I'd like it shared. I don't need exact formulas, just a sense of order of magnitude. Does spell level matter? That's an obvious one. Spont Inflict Minor shouldn't be as serious as Spont Mass Inflict Serious" (and both are only "evil" because you are channeling neg energy to SPONT cast them. Prepared castings aren't evil by RAW as near as I can tell)
Mithreinmaethor 02-05-07, 05:07 PM	I did have one more question about the clarification upon the evil acts and negative energy. (I probably could wait the couple of days for the LGCS but wanted to ask) All of the conversation in this thread have been around basically Divine casters and negative energy. But what about Arcane casters (Necromancers in particular) and negative energy. I only ask because I have a friend that has a Necromancer and this could really affect his character.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-06-07, 11:39 AM	I did have one more question about the clarification upon the evil acts and negative energy. (I probably could wait the couple of days for the LGCS but wanted to ask) All of the conversation in this thread have been around basically Divine casters and negative energy. But what about Arcane casters (Necromancers in particular) and negative energy. I only ask because I have a friend that has a Necromancer and this could really affect his character. Not speaking as Triad, Circle or anything else, but reading from previous statements made by Circle and Triad... you're boned.
pedr 02-06-07, 12:45 PM	Grr... It's quite simple, and what many people thought the rule was before. An [evil] spell is an evil act. I can't think of any necromantic spells which specifically say they are channeling negative energy. If there are any, they are evil acts even if they aren't [Evil] spells. But not all evil acts are equal, and the performing of evil acts is in no way whatsoever prohibited in the campaign. What is prohibited is being evil. And only the campaign staff can determine when someone becomes evil. A significant amount of evil-doing may eventually tip your character's alignment into the prohibited evil, but that is something which you will have to discuss with your triad. Edit: Sorry, the 'Grr' above was not directed at the question or its poster, but at the unhelpful and provocative response.
Dominick 02-06-07, 01:02 PM	This is not a good source at all for the meaning of this ruling. I would say the LGDMs list did NOT ratify this in any way. I would also say this is not a transcription from the LGDMs list, it is written in a way that only supports Britts position. Nothing like this should be used unless your Triad hands this to you as a document. Here's a repost of a breakdown I typed up on the LGDMs list, slightly modified since there's no conversational context here. (Snip)(a lot more than slightly modified)
zoinks69 02-06-07, 01:04 PM	Apologies for not reading *every* post, but I thought I'd chime in at the end... I've played a Cuthbertite cleric for a while now (currently 14th level with 1 death). I've never cast Contagion. It just never seemed like a great option vs. Magic Vestment (Strength domain). That said, I'm not sure why there's such a debate as LN is an option (and a better one, imo). You'd still have to turn undead and therefore channel positive and thus get into the "evil act" debate that's been discussed. [However, it's never really come up for me -- casting Inflict is a poor option because it allows a save whereas a Cure spell on an ally always works.] Being LG is inherently more difficult but there's always options.
Japangirl 02-06-07, 01:13 PM	I think a problem is for LN clerics of Wee Jas, because she's special and her LN clerics spontaneously Inflict and Rebuke instead of Cure and Turn. Because they can't turn, what happens when they take control of undead encounters (like people hope a cleric will)? It seems a little unfair to me, but it is also a specialized case. It is also a problem for people who are Neutral worshipping deities whose domain spells fall under the [Evil] descriptor, like TN worshippers of Joramy with the Destruction domain. They lose one of their domain spells, well not lose but are unable to cast without an Evil Act notation. It might not be a great spell (I generally don't think Contagion is a very good spell, for example), but it's still an option lost. Obviously a Good cleric of Joramy couldn't cast Contagion anyways, so nothing lost there.
Eric Anondson 02-06-07, 01:52 PM	It is also a problem for people who are Neutral worshipping deities whose domain spells fall under the [Evil] descriptor, like TN worshippers of Joramy with the Destruction domain. They lose one of their domain spells, well not lose but are unable to cast without an Evil Act notation. It might not be a great spell (I generally don't think Contagion is a very good spell, for example), but it's still an option lost. Obviously a Good cleric of Joramy couldn't cast Contagion anyways, so nothing lost there.I have been playing a TN cleric of Joramy for a few years now. Brb1/Clr7 [Fire/Destruction] actually. Looking through the LG Deities document, I came upon Joramy and I just wanted a cleric that could cast burning hands, that's the entire inspiration for me. I tell everyone I play with that she is not a healing cleric, she's a holy warrior of Joramy. I play up her affinity with fire, anger, and argument... trying to keep it playful as well. She loves her visits to Highfolk, so many burnable things... Anyway I made her TN, and declared she would channel negative energy because that meant she would spontaneously inflict wounds. Not a healer. Get her angry and expect a stinging spanking. Fits her theme. With the Destruction domain, the only use I have gotten out of it has been Smite and the shatter spell, contagion is just so underwhelming. I also never ever actually channel negative energy in any way except to power Divine Might. So, when she expends a rebuke attempt to power Divine Might, is she channelling negative energy to do this? Then, is every time she powers Divine Might an [Evil] act?