Reverse Engineering

This is the section from Cook Expert (X11) about reversible spells. I’ve read this before, but hadn’t thought about all the ways it can open up amusing plot fodder.

“Clerics can reverse a spell simply by reversing the required words and hand gestures. However, using reversed spells is looked upon with disfavor by the powers the cleric serves, and may result in penalties (or even an alignment change) if overused. Lawful clerics use the normal form of the spell and should use the reversed form only in life-or-death situations. Chaotic clerics normally use the reversed forms and will only use the normal forms to benefit those of the same alignment or those directly serving the same power. Neutral clerics will have either the normal or the reversed form available, depending on the nature of the power they serve. No cleric should have both forms available.”

Let’s look at each of these points in turn:

• “Clerics can reverse a spell simply by reversing the required words and hand gestures.” Unlike magic-users, they don’t need to decide ahead of time which version they will prepare, which makes sense when you look at the next parts.
• “...using reversed spells is looked upon with disfavor by the powers the cleric serves, and may result in penalties (or even an alignment change) if overused.” This is the sort of thing that has been bandied about my games over the years but has rarely been explored as an actual consequence. Granted, I haven’t seen a lot of reversed casting, but it has happened occasionally. I could see a great deal of playing material generated from a cleric switching from L to C and having to find a new divine power to follow. Either that, or some sort of atonement/penance. Not to mention the potential difficulties of the next part with “good guy” party members.
• “Chaotic clerics normally use the reversed forms and will only use the normal forms to benefit those of the same alignment or those directly serving the same power.“ So if a party’s lawful cleric suddenly finds himself chaotic, he’s not supposed to cast things like Cure Light Wounds except on other chaotics and the like.
• “Neutral clerics will have either the normal or the reversed form available, depending on the nature of the power they serve.” Now this is very interesting. To me, it assumes a level of detail about clerics and religion that is not really spelled out in BX. I’ve seen campaigns where clerics are simply described as followers of Law or Chaos and are played accordingly. But when you start talking about different powers a cleric may serve within Neutrality, then your cosmology gets more complex.
• Lastly, “No cleric should have both forms available.” I interpret this as simply underscoring what was said before. Not that the opposite versions are unavailable, but that using them should not happen without consideration and consequence.

By using these guidelines for clerics’ spell availability, the DM could also nudge a party to seek out different temples or priestly types. Your go-to NPC may be fine for you quick healings, but maybe he’s not so comfortable with casting some spells that are restricted by his faith.

Granted, this may not come up all that often. After all, when we look at the clerical spell list, there are a total of 34 spells, of which only ten are reversible:

1. Cure Light Wounds
2. Light
3. Remove Fear
4. Bless
5. Continual Light
6. Cure Disease
7. Remove Curse
8. Cure Serious Wounds
9. Quest
10. Raise Dead

For some of these, the alignment caveats make more sense to me than others: Reversed castings like Finger of Death or Cause Disease are pretty nasty magic! But others seem fairly tame in terms of reversals. Sure, casting Darkness isn’t sunshine and puppies, but it’s not like it’s actually dealing damage or anything. In the case of Remove Quest, you could actually be helping someone enchanted by a chaotic cleric. DM judgement applies as always, I should think.