Gods and Spells

[Ariella]

So i know in PnP a cleric can use any spell from their list that does not share a descriptor of an opposing alignment. The question is simply would a god or goddess care about the use of any other spell. A prime example is Destruction or Damnation, Neither are an evil spell so would Sune or Ilmater care if its used?.

My personal opinion is if it was used to destroy some supernatural or ugly evil, The god and Goddess would not take offence. However if it was a mortal who could change their ways and possibly find redemption, The gods would be angered.

What do other people think?.

[Steve]

I would ask the question: is the "prayer" granted, in form of a spell, the same for every Deity? Such as: is Bane's Destruction spell the same spell/prayer as that for Ilmater?

Though all Spells in NWN2 have absolute names, like in D&D PnP, magic is supposed to be somewhat individualistic, to the caster.

And that is how I prefer to play it, actually (within limits, of course...I try to not impose that upon others, but I also dislike commonly referring to a spell I see cast or emitting a vfx as ALWAYS the same name. Unless it is an actual names spell, like Mordainkanen's or something, then...I go with the assumption that there are key casting words/elements that are always recognizable to the learned).

So, would a Cleric of Illmater actually pray to receive the power of Destruction?!? Does casting a spell such as this—though it mechanically lacks the 'Death' descriptor—go against the Dogma of mercy?

I think much of this type of philosophical debate can easily be left up to the Player to decide, as long as the decision does not force another Player to abide by those self-rules (though it may be lots of RP fun to agree/challenge/debate the nitty-gritty of such RP choices!).

[kleomenes]

I think this does veer well into interesting fodder for IC RP between characters.

Steve's right that the manifestation of magic is specific to gods, and to individuals, in fact, and sourcebooks do go into this. Its also the case that clerics can pray for one thing, and get something else in return, or the spell not be granted at all, etc. It should be remembered that the prayers to gain spells are longwinded and faith specific, rather than just leafing through a menu.

That said, the magical basis of the spell Bless when its cast is the magic basis, despite any unique presentation and traits that might come with it, as I understand it.

On the question of "would God X grant this", its important to consider the breadth of the various gods, and the scope of their portfolios carefully. They are often a lot wider than is assumed.

I can discuss Ilmater in the most detail as its the one I've most extensively researched, but doing so is quite revealing. Firstly, his portfolio is endurance, suffering, perseverance. He takes a LG "mercy" slant to it and he is described as being the most merciful of beings (Although the word mercy does not appear in the dogma). Despite this there is scope in behaviour and here are some of the choicer examples:

- Notably, in first edition, he didnt even alleviate suffering - he just helped people bear pain. The ilmatari who actually healed people were a radical sub sect! (although this appears to have been retconned)
- Second edition speciality priests of Ilmater had a spell called Blast of Pain that inflicted agony on the target. It didnt actually work on those without nervous systems or who were immune to pain, thus Ilmater was literally creating and granting a spell to inflict suffering on mortals. Obviously, this is aimed at punishing those who cause suffering. While many Ilmatari are pacifists, and Ilmater considers them holy, he is not
- Ilmatari priests and paladins had a civil war over the tome of Torment, and neither side is mentioned as having "fallen" or lost spells. Indeed, the paladin that brings the fighting to an end is actually the most senior one on the "wrong" side.
- The instigator of that war, Bloirt Waelarn, even after he went mad and killed the people taking him to captivity, continued to be granted spells, and killing spells at that. Indeed Ilmater's judgment is to ressurrect (well, zombiefy) one of his victims and make that victim immune to magic, not to take Bloirt's spells (it could be someone else was giving Bloirt his spells, but he's mentioned as being mad in the text, not fallen from faith, and there's no mention of another divine patron. Who knows)
- The tome of torment has killing spells, and the writeup of it also mentions another artifact that literally whips foes of Ilmater magically
- The reference to Ilmatari priests attempting to prevent the sale of the Tome with killing spells
- The Companions of the Noble Heart are focused on punishing those who cause suffering proactively, including attacking and tearing down loviatan temples, killing all those inside.
- The whole idea of using adventuring priests to take ten-day "rests", freeing them of vows regarding honourable conduct so they can remove tyrants and the like somewhat makes using damage dealing spells seem less strange.

I go into such detail just to illustrate how even one of the most soft/pacifistic/"merciful" faiths, with a strong element of pacificism (The "crying god" after all!), has interpretations that allow for some quite rough behaviour amongst minority groups of faithful, and the incidence of the grant of killing spells.

Without a doubt though, the purpose of those spells matters. "Punishing the wicked" is in a different category to "murder". I think that we can see.

One might think Ilmater is judging intent, hence for example Bloirt gets his spells because he believes he is faithful, even though he is just mad. Same principle applies in the civil war over the tome.

Notably Destruction has the Death descriptor in PNP ? Personally I think despite this, its a spell open to use by faiths like Sune and Ilmater, but by both faiths it would be a significant thing, and indeed, some in the faith would disagree with its use. I know Ameris would have regarded destruction as a massive, significant step, and have been reluctant to consider paying for it. I don't think however we can draw a huge line between "magical death" generally and "death by swords" in FR.

Yet I suppose what I am saying in summary is that the motives and machinations of the gods are so complex and hard to understand that its best, instead of seeking OOC rules of spell usage (beyond Good deities not granting Evil spells and vice versa), to take it IC for the most part - again in agreement with Steve