Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bitznarf 03-28-07, 04:44 PM	It appears that there are indeed times when the Circle (or at least Britt) will make rulings on Core Rules Issues: Is casting a inflict spell or chennaling negative energy a evil act? I have had sum DM's say it is and other say it is not. Yes, it is evil. It is up to the GM to determine whether it is significantly evil and whether to note it on your AR, but it is evil. Up till now, it was my understanding that it was up the DM to decide if casting a (some) inflict spell was always an evil act. Dare we hope for a 'trained for war' ruling?
Britt 03-28-07, 05:56 PM	It appears that there are indeed times when the Circle (or at least Britt) will make rulings on Core Rules Issues: Up till now, it was my understanding that it was up the DM to decide if casting a (some) inflict spell was always an evil act. Dare we hope for a 'trained for war' ruling? See the Dispel Confusion from a few months ago. Channeling negative energy is an evil act per the PH.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 06:00 PM	But Inflict Light Wounds (Mass) does not channel negative energy.
King Kashue 03-28-07, 06:00 PM	Can I just note the irony of listing "grammer" as the reason for editing a post? :D
bitznarf 03-28-07, 06:02 PM	Yes, you can note it, lol.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 06:06 PM	See the Dispel Confusion from a few months ago. Channeling negative energy is an evil act per the PH. I just looked at the last 4 Dispel Confusions. None of them mention negative energy. The only similar ruling I saw was on casting spells with the [EVIL] descriptor.
Britt 03-28-07, 06:09 PM	I just looked at the last 4 Dispel Confusions. None of them mention negative energy. The only similar ruling I saw was on casting spells with the [EVIL] descriptor. Sorry, I was confused. Look in the PH under turning and then look through these forums for the many arguments we've had on this subject.
King Kashue 03-28-07, 06:10 PM	I just looked at the last 4 Dispel Confusions. None of them mention negative energy. The only similar ruling I saw was on casting spells with the [EVIL] descriptor. The Channeling negative energy = evil is in the PHB p. 160. By the explicit text, inflict spells are evil by that rule. There's big disagreement over this, and personally, since it's under the rubric of "Neutral Clerics and Undead", I (and many others) think the intent was to deal only with that, not most of the inflict spells. But the LG ruling atm is "explicit rules say evil, so it's evil", and the judge needs to decide "significant or not".
bitznarf 03-28-07, 06:19 PM	But not for Inflict Light Wounds, mass. That one still lies entirely in the hands of the DM. This is what I am getting at. Britt's post seems to say that casting this spell is an evil act in LG. I am aware of the various threads that exist on this matter, including Britt saying that at his table Inflict Light Wounds, mass is evil. I'm fine with that. I don't like a blanket statement that is making this a rule at every table. Is it entirely possible that this was not Britt's intent with his answer? Yes. However not everyone reads the 'debate threads' and is aware of the distinction. :twocents:
LachlarlanIII 03-28-07, 06:27 PM	What a silly thing to say. Inflict Light Wounds channels negative energy. Mass Inflict Light Wounds by the very nature that it is a mass casting of a 1st level spell channels negative energy as well. Channelling negative energy in LG = Evil Act.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 06:34 PM	What a silly thing to say. Inflict Light Wounds channels negative energy. Mass Inflict Light Wounds by the very nature that it is a mass casting of a 1st level spell channels negative energy as well. I recommend you read one or 2 of the threads that discussed that aspect of the topic. In short ILW,M does not reference ILW. If you are going to apply a 'channeling negative energy is evil' rule across the board using the literal rules as written, then you must also use the literal rules as written in other aspects as well, such as ILW,M not channeling negative energy. It uses it, sure. But it doesn't channel it. (Okay so that wasn't very short, but still). Channelling negative energy in LG = Evil Act. This is the other part of what I was trying to say. The 'in LG' part of that statement tells me that this is a ruling made by the Circle, not by the core rule books.
LachlarlanIII 03-28-07, 06:38 PM	I recommend you read one or 2 of the threads that discussed that aspect of the topic. In short ILW,M does not reference ILW. If you are going to apply a 'channeling negative energy is evil' rule across the board using the literal rules as written, then you must also use the literal rules as written in other aspects as well, such as ILW,M not channeling negative energy. It uses it, sure. But it doesn't channel it. (Okay so that wasn't very short, but still). This is the other part of what I was trying to say. The 'in LG' part of that statement tells me that this is a ruling made by the Circle, not by the core rule books. Actually it does. It's in the damn name of the spell.
King Kashue 03-28-07, 06:38 PM	What a silly thing to say. Inflict Light Wounds channels negative energy. Mass Inflict Light Wounds by the very nature that it is a mass casting of a 1st level spell channels negative energy as well. Channelling negative energy in LG = Evil Act. Not according to the explicit text (which is the only method of interpretation that allows a passage under the rubric "Neutral Clerics and Turning" to apply universally, anyhoo). Mass inflict does not say you "channel negative energy" nor does it say "this spell functions like inflict light wounds". Therefore, it does not explicitly fall in the same category.
King Kashue 03-28-07, 06:40 PM	Actually it does. It's in the damn name of the spell. That's not a reference to another spell. "this spell functions like SPELL NAME" is the necessary reference, and that is entirely lacking. As a counterpoint, Cure light wound mass does say you channel positive energy. Sure, it's being exceedingly precise with the explicit rules, but so is universally applying a rule under a specific and limited rubric.
Redfist 03-28-07, 06:49 PM	Can we PLEASE not get into this old tired debate again? It's been hashed out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and OVER again. Britt is not some hypocritical Circle guy throwing out rules yet claiming not to. Dispel Confusion articles talk about the particulars of channeling negative, etc. Yadda yadda yadda. Please stop the insantiy!!!!! :P
King Kashue 03-28-07, 06:54 PM	Britt is not some hypocritical Circle guy throwing out rules yet claiming not to. Agreed... Dispel Confusion articles talk about the particulars of channeling negative No, it doesn't :P
bitznarf 03-28-07, 06:57 PM	Can we PLEASE not get into this old tired debate again? It's been hashed out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and OVER again. I didn't intend to restart the debate over 'channeling negative energy' = evil. Britt is not some hypocritical Circle guy throwing out rules yet claiming not to. From my experience Britt is a pretty fair and reasonable guy. That doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes. Nor does it mean that something he writes can't be read to mean the opposite of something that he has said in the past. And this is without twisting words in any fashion. Dispel Confusion articles talk about the particulars of channeling negative, etc. Yadda yadda yadda. Please stop the insantiy!!!!! :P Where is this DC you speak of?
Redfist 03-28-07, 07:06 PM	See the Dispel Confusion from a few months ago. Channeling negative energy is an evil act per the PH. Referring to Britt's statement.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 07:07 PM	Referring to Britt's statement. Sorry, I was confused. Look in the PH under turning and then look through these forums for the many arguments we've had on this subject. ;)
Britt 03-28-07, 07:09 PM	Clarification: anything that says "you channel negative energy" is necessarily an evil act by the letter of the rules and possibly by the spirit of the rules. So for ILW,M, you are not necessarily committing an evil act by the letter of the rules., but you possibly are by the spirit of the rules.
Redfist 03-28-07, 07:14 PM	My original point though is... Do we really need a 27th thread about this topic? lol. I hope not.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 07:53 PM	My original point though is... Do we really need a 27th thread about this topic? lol. I hope not. But this one is about the Circle telling us 'this is the way this core rule works in LG'. Clarification: anything that says "you channel negative energy" is necessarily an evil act by the letter of the rules and possibly by the spirit of the rules. So for ILW,M, you are not necessarily committing an evil act by the letter of the rules., but you possibly are by the spirit of the rules. Does this mean that we are back to the way things were prior to your post? Ie. table variation with regards to this, as was asked about in the LG Questions/Answers thread.
jhorred 03-28-07, 08:07 PM	I agree with Britt that the letter of the spell may not say it but I believe strongly in this case, that the spirit covers it. ILW= evil act but ILW,M = isn't evil even thought it says it works in the same fashion as ILW. IMHO, that's a good bit of weaseling.. As a GM I'd say since ILW,M says re: ILW, I'd read that spell too and it would aqual evil act.
Britt 03-28-07, 08:10 PM	Does this mean that we are back to the way things were prior to your post? Ie. table variation with regards to this, as was asked about in the LG Questions/Answers thread. Since the LGCS 597 came out, there is no unintended table variation. The only table variation should be whether the judge feels that an act is significantly evil to warrant a note on the AR and contacting the Triad. There is no feasible way to cover every possible situation with rules; we have to rely on GM adjudication to cover this issue.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 08:22 PM	I agree with Britt that the letter of the spell may not say it but I believe strongly in this case, that the spirit covers it. ILW= evil act but ILW,M = isn't evil even thought it says it works in the same fashion as ILW. IMHO, that's a good bit of weaseling.. As a GM I'd say since ILW,M says re: ILW, I'd read that spell too and it would aqual evil act. Thats just fine, at your table. I have no problem with that. I am trying to find out if a judge that believes the core rules lie the other way is actually breaking the rules of LG.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 08:23 PM	Since the LGCS 597 came out, there is no unintended table variation. The only table variation should be whether the judge feels that an act is significantly evil to warrant a note on the AR and contacting the Triad. There is no feasible way to cover every possible situation with rules; we have to rely on GM adjudication to cover this issue. Right. And are you then as one of the DM's of this campaign, adjudicating casting ILW is an evil act at every table, regardless of what the judge may feel the rules say?
Britt 03-28-07, 08:26 PM	Right. And are you then as one of the DM's of this campaign, adjudicating casting ILW is an evil act at every table, regardless of what the judge may feel the rules say? You are ignoring the most important word that I keep including and even highlighting: significantly. Evil or not is not the deciding factor. Casting ILW is always evil. It is up to the GM to determine if it is significantly evil to warrant a note on the AR and contacting the Triad.
bitznarf 03-28-07, 08:36 PM	You are ignoring the most important word that I keep including and even highlighting: significantly. Evil or not is not the deciding factor. Casting ILW is always evil. It is up to the GM to determine if it is significantly evil to warrant a note on the AR and contacting the Triad. No, I'm not ignoring it. I am not addressing the reporting of evil acts. I am aware that not all evil acts must be reported. For the purpose of this discussion I don't care about the reporting of evil acts. I am addressing the evil act itself, the bit I highlighted. You appear to be saying that in LG, a core rule works in X fashion, despite multiple statements that the Circle can not make core issues rulings.
Mommy was an Orc 03-28-07, 08:50 PM	You are ignoring the most important word that I keep including and even highlighting: significantly. Evil or not is not the deciding factor. Casting ILW is always evil. It is up to the GM to determine if it is significantly evil to warrant a note on the AR and contacting the Triad. So if a Paladin/Sorcerer casts Chill Touch, then I am required to take away their Paladinhood? Even if I don't believe it is a core rule by either letter or spirit? And if the recent Sage ruling makes it into the FAQ, then I am required not to take away their Paladinhood if they cast Enervate unless I judge the actual act evil, but will still be required to do so for Chill Touch?
Britt 03-28-07, 08:58 PM	No, I'm not ignoring it. I am not addressing the reporting of evil acts. I am aware that not all evil acts must be reported. For the purpose of this discussion I don't care about the reporting of evil acts. I am addressing the evil act itself, the bit I highlighted. You appear to be saying that in LG, a core rule works in X fashion, despite multiple statements that the Circle can not make core issues rulings. We are not allowed to change how Core rules work or clarify something that is truly ambiguous, such as when there is no Core rule to cover how something works. In this case, there are rules and we have pointed them out. Some people don't like them, but that doesn't make them any less rules. The Core rules state that channeling negative energy is ALWAYS an evil act and that ILW causes you to channel negative energy. While people may not like it, without a clarification from R&D, the Core rules state that it is evil. With Trained for War, there is no Core rule that can be quoted that explains what it means. As a Core rules issue, we cannot invent a rule to cover that gap. That is the difference.
Britt 03-28-07, 09:03 PM	So if a Paladin/Sorcerer casts Chill Touch, then I am required to take away their Paladinhood? Even if I don't believe it is a core rule by either letter or spirit? And if the recent Sage ruling makes it into the FAQ, then I am required not to take away their Paladinhood if they cast Enervate unless I judge the actual act evil, but will still be required to do so for Chill Touch? 1. Chill touch lacks the phrase "you channel", so let's stick to ILW, as it is a cleaner argument. If a paladin willingly casts ILW, he willingly channels negative energy. If a paladin willingly channels negative energy, he willingly commits an evil act. If a paladin willingly commits an evil act, he loses all class abilities. Therefore, if a paladin willingly casts ILW, he loses all class abilities. Chill touch has an infinitesimally small space for argument, as it says "each touch channels negative energy", rather than "you channel negative energy." I think it's very clear what it means, but it is not a verbatim logical argument, so I would rather not get into it. 2. Ask me when the ruling you are talking about makes it into the FAQ. Until then, it is not important.
Mommy was an Orc 03-28-07, 09:34 PM	1. Chill touch lacks the phrase "you channel", so let's stick to ILW, as it is a cleaner argument. If a paladin willingly casts ILW, he willingly channels negative energy. If a paladin willingly channels negative energy, he willingly commits an evil act. If a paladin willingly commits an evil act, he loses all class abilities. Therefore, if a paladin willingly casts ILW, he loses all class abilities. Chill touch has an infinitesimally small space for argument, as it says "each touch channels negative energy", rather than "you channel negative energy." I think it's very clear what it means, but it is not a verbatim logical argument, so I would rather not get into it. I'm not asking how you would rule or how you would justify your ruling. I'm asking you if I believe that your argument has no merit on either RAW or RAI(which I do believe), am I required to take away his Paladin abilities?
Britt 03-28-07, 10:31 PM	I'm not asking how you would rule or how you would justify your ruling. I'm asking you if I believe that your argument has no merit on either RAW or RAI(which I do believe), am I required to take away his Paladin abilities? You mean like saying: "If I believe that adding +1 to hit everytime BAB increases by 1 has no merit in the RAW or RAI, am I required to give that bonus?" Yes, if you for some reason have the inconsistent belief that the RAW have no merit in the RAW, you still have to follow them. I don't see how anyone can honestly deny that the rules say this, when the language is extremely clear. Intent is a nebulous area and can sometimes override the RAW. In this case, I have yet to see an argument (that I recall) that uses something other than preference to support an argument that the intent is contradictory to the RAW. In other words, there is no argument I recall that references some other section of RAW or stated principle. The best I've seen is "It's in an odd place, so it must not mean that", which is begging the question.
jhorred 03-29-07, 12:33 AM	removed as it was already answered
Mommy was an Orc 03-29-07, 01:01 AM	You mean like saying: "If I believe that adding +1 to hit everytime BAB increases by 1 has no merit in the RAW or RAI, am I required to give that bonus?" Yes, if you for some reason have the inconsistent belief that the RAW have no merit in the RAW, you still have to follow them. I don't see how anyone can honestly deny that the rules say this, when the language is extremely clear. Easily. The general activity of channeling negative energy is defined as being Turning. Which means by your argument with just as much RAW validity, the act of casting ILW is therefore Turning. Yes, that's absolute nonsense - that doesn't mean my result is any less or more valid than yours. And that's a big problem for your viewpoint of the RAW - either both are valid(which is silly) or neither are valid. This looms especially true given that your argument also leads to nonsense results(Waves of Fatigue is not evil, Touch of Fatigue is evil, Inflict Wounds is evil, Mass Inflict is not evil)...it isn't hard to say from a probability point of view that neither are valid. At which point, is there a very reasonable explanation for what is happening? In the turning section, is it possible they're referring to the act of channeling negative energy during the act of turning? (The RAW can be used to back this up in my view as the 1st paragraph defines the act of using negative energy as Turning) In that instance, the act of channeling negative energy always involves bolstering or commanding undead, a clearly evil act. The act of channeling positive energy always involves trying to destroy undead, a clearly good act. Let me be clear - I'm not offering this up for you to take apart, I'm saying I honestly regard your argument as fatally flawed, I've yet to see anything you say even touch the problems of it, and given the Mass/Waves vs Inflict/Touch problems, I don't know how you can stick to it. Normally, that's called Table Variation... Also, you're still not answering my question - am I required to take away the Paladinhood of that Paladin if I honestly believe that he did not commit an evil act either by RAW or RAI? Should be a simple yes or no here...
Dasher2k 03-29-07, 02:06 AM	If Wizards wanted the spell to be an EVIL act then they would have added the [EVIL] descriptor to the spell. By not having the [EVIL] descriptor the spell is therefore not EVIL? IF casting ILW is an EVIL act, then would casting CLW be a Good act? So all those bad guys who heal themselves are performing Good acts?
King Kashue 03-29-07, 02:46 AM	If Wizards wanted the spell to be an EVIL act then they would have added the [EVIL] descriptor to the spell. By not having the [EVIL] descriptor the spell is therefore not EVIL? No, because not having the [Evil] tag does not mean it is not evil by some other criterion. Your second question commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent. IF casting ILW is an EVIL act, then would casting CLW be a Good act? So all those bad guys who heal themselves are performing Good acts? According to a universally literal reading of PHB p. 160, yes, they are. As for the [Evil] and [Good] tags, it can be argued that WotC left those off because it would otherwise restrict evil clerics from ever casting a healing spell.
Bob_the_Theurge 03-29-07, 10:33 AM	1. Chill touch lacks the phrase "you channel", so let's stick to ILW, as it is a cleaner argument. If a paladin willingly casts ILW, he willingly channels negative energy. If a paladin willingly channels negative energy, he willingly commits an evil act. If a paladin willingly commits an evil act, he loses all class abilities. Therefore, if a paladin willingly casts ILW, he loses all class abilities. Chill touch has an infinitesimally small space for argument, as it says "each touch channels negative energy", rather than "you channel negative energy." I think it's very clear what it means, but it is not a verbatim logical argument, so I would rather not get into it. Right. So a Cleric/Paladin with Destruction domain? A Cleric/Holy Liberator? Argh. Interesting character concepts screwed because WotC can't get their act together. If casting Inflict in order to damage an obviously evil being, with a spell granted to you direct from your deity, is an Evil act - but beating them to death with a greatsword isn't, even if the result is just damage either way - sigh.