# Can Clerics Cure Cancer?



## STARP_Social_Officer (Jun 28, 2006)

This stems from an argument with my players. Never mind why it came up. They weren't trying to cure cancer. None of them plays a cleric. It just sort of came up.
Anyway, one player reckons the remove disease spell removes cancer. The spell description says it removes all diseases from the subject, and also removes parasites like green slime. In the player's mind, given the physiology of cancer, he believes the spell will remove cancerous growth.
I disagree. I don't think it does. The spell to me seems designed to cure contagious diseases, viruses, strange bugs picked up from mummy tombs, maladies and so on. It doesn't seem within the spirit of the spell to have it cure cancer, or any other 'disease' that you don't directly contract from an outside source. You don't 'catch' cancer like you catch a cold - it develops pretty much on its own, though it can be stimulated by environment. I would have the same view about Alzheimers, or Parkinson's, or similar mental conditions. They're probably classified as diseases but I can't accept that a 3rd-level spell would get rid of any and all medical conditions a patient may be suffering from. Mind you, only two levels later is a spell to raise the dead, so maybe I'm being a bit zealous. What do people think? Can Clerics Cure Cancer?


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 28, 2006)

I would say no. I concur with your reasoning.

EDIT: Just a side note, this subject seems better aimed at getting responses in the General Forum than in the Rules Forum.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 28, 2006)

STARP_Social_Officer said:
			
		

> What do people think? Can Clerics Cure Cancer?



That's an impossible question unless you give us the game mechanics on cancer.  Two conflicting quotes that you can use to support either case:

1. Remove disease cures all diseases that the subject is suffering from.
2. Certain special diseases may not be countered by this spell or may be countered only by a caster of a certain level or higher.

So, give us the game mechanics and unless you specify a caveat based on #2, then #1 holds true and remove disease cures cancer.  Even then, if the caveat is level based, then the answer to your question is still yes.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 28, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> That's an impossible question unless you give us the game mechanics on cancer.  Two conflicting quotes that you can use to support either case:
> 
> 1. Remove disease cures all diseases that the subject is suffering from.
> 2. Certain special diseases may not be countered by this spell or may be countered only by a caster of a certain level or higher.
> ...



 One could claim that cancer is not a disease in the D&D sense so much as a disorder.  Would Remove Disease cure being an albino or having a birth defect?  How about sickle cell anemia or schizophrenia?


----------



## Sejs (Jun 28, 2006)

Even if Cure Disease doesn't cure cancer, I would certainly say that Heal does.  At that point in their career a cleric is a few levels past the point where they can bring people back from the _dead_.  Cancer should be less difficult to manage than death.

Anyway, as far as my personal take on would Cure Disease take care of cancer, I'd say that no, technically it doesn't.  Despite falling under the general category of 'malady' and being classified as a disease here and now, it's not a function of some hostile external agency setting up shop in your body.  Cancer is a function of your own body's operations going very, very wrong to the point where it's harmful to itself.

So yes, I would say that clerics can indeed cure cancer, etc - but with Heal rather than Cure Disease.


----------



## Sejs (Jun 28, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> One could claim that cancer is not a disease in the D&D sense so much as a disorder.  Would Remove Disease cure being an albino or having a birth defect?  How about sickle cell anemia or schizophrenia?




The measuring stick I'd use there is: were you born with it, or was it something that developed later on?  If you were born with it, sorry, it's integral.  If something happened later on that caused it to develop, then steps could be taken to set you right once more.


Again, using the Cure Disease vs. Heal comparison I spoke of above.


----------



## Vorput (Jun 28, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Even if Cure Disease doesn't cure cancer, I would certainly say that Heal does.  At that point in their career a cleric is a few levels past the point where they can bring people back from the _dead_.  Cancer should be less difficult to manage than death.
> 
> So yes, I would say that clerics can indeed cure cancer, etc - but with Heal rather than Cure Disease.




Intersting point... I'd say power wise, a spell two levels below bringing the dead BACK TO LIFE! certainly seems balanced, power-wise, as a cancer-curer.  And I think as per the mechanics, definetly.

At the very least, there should be a 4th level spell to do it... and since restoration and neutralize poison don't seem to fit the bill, i'll go with RD.

Vorp


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 28, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> One could claim that cancer is not a disease in the D&D sense so much as a disorder.  Would Remove Disease cure being an albino or having a birth defect?  How about sickle cell anemia or schizophrenia?



 My answer would be exactly the same as for cancer, just substitute the words. 

Are birth defects diseases?  Is schizophrenia?  If so, then perhaps, depending on your answer.  If you give us the game mechanics on schizophrenia (a word apparently no longer used except in rare instances) and decide to call it a "disorder" and not a "disease" then you need to provide all the mechanics on disorders.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with that.  I would classify them all as diseases, because they are, and just specify that some birth defects and mental disorders cannot be cured by remove disease.  Perhaps schizophrenia requires a heal.  Etc.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 28, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> The measuring stick I'd use there is: were you born with it, or was it something that developed later on?  If you were born with it, sorry, it's integral.  If something happened later on that caused it to develop, then steps could be taken to set you right once more.
> 
> 
> Again, using the Cure Disease vs. Heal comparison I spoke of above.



 Yup.  Also, if you wanted to cure albinoism or sickle cell anemia, you'd have to actually physically alter the target's genome, so it would be a Transmutation spell rather than Conjuration.  How's that for a twisted mix of biology and spellcraft?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 28, 2006)

Vorput said:
			
		

> Intersting point... I'd say power wise, a spell two levels below bringing the dead BACK TO LIFE! certainly seems balanced, power-wise, as a cancer-curer.  And I think as per the mechanics, definetly.
> 
> At the very least, there should be a 4th level spell to do it... and since restoration and neutralize poison don't seem to fit the bill, i'll go with RD.
> 
> Vorp



 Well, there is precedent for natural degradation of the body being uncurable by magic--those who die of old age cannot be raised or resurrected.


----------



## jeffman (Jun 28, 2006)

*Viruses can cause cancer*



> don't 'catch' cancer like you catch a cold - it develops pretty much on its own




I'd just like to quickly add that a percentage and certain types of cancer are caused by viruses (something like 20%?)

Could do remove disease, and roll a percent die


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 28, 2006)

HPV, a virus, causes cervical cancer. Ergo, cancer is a disease. There are other examples, but this one is the most common.

Even if you don't think Remove Disease would cure it, Heal certainly would.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 28, 2006)

Twowolves said:
			
		

> HPV, a virus, causes cervical cancer. Ergo, cancer is a disease. There are other examples, but this one is the most common.
> 
> Even if you don't think Remove Disease would cure it, Heal certainly would.



 Huh?  How can you possibly claim that just because some cancers can be enabled by a disease that this means cancer is a disease?  That's like saying that because some people dye their hair blonde, blonde hair is unnatural.  

Cancer is the result of cells that have a genetic error that causes them to ignore the body's signals to perform apoptosis (Cell suicide) and to continue to duplicate rapidly despite any signals to the contrary.  This could be caused by a disease, by consuming carcinogenic substances, or just through natural degradation in the body's transcription mechanisms.


----------



## Dracandross (Jun 28, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Anyway, as far as my personal take on would Cure Disease take care of cancer, I'd say that no, technically it doesn't.  Despite falling under the general category of 'malady' and being classified as a disease here and now, it's not a function of some hostile external agency setting up shop in your body.  Cancer is a function of your own body's operations going very, very wrong to the point where it's harmful to itself.




Well it's not that strict. Cancer cells are your own cells, but they don't anymore react to body's regulation. Therefore they could be viewed as 'external' from body's point of view. Body's functions work, cells just wont respond to that. Anyway cell needs some external damage to change that way. If compared at DNA level, its different from other cells.

How would you classify virus that infects cell and changes it to do whatever it pleases. Cell is still 'yours' but its not working as intended.

And howabout mitochondrias, they are wieved as symbiotic and essential to you, but originating from different source than cell itself (same with plants chloroplasts).

Just technically Id allow cure disease to cure cancer because 5th level cleric is already quite rare. And there's nothing fitting below 5th. Of course that would mean paladins are immune to cancer too.

-Dracandross


----------



## Corsair (Jun 28, 2006)

Dracandross said:
			
		

> Of course that would mean paladins are immune to cancer too.




Immune to cancer, special mount...


Gimme a hat, and my next paladin will be the Marlboro Man.


----------



## Felix (Jun 28, 2006)

> Gimme a hat, and my next paladin will be the Marlboro Man.



HA!


----------



## STARP_Social_Officer (Jun 28, 2006)

I think the people who said a heal spell would definitely cure cancer are right. I just don't think _remove disease_ is the right way to go. Plus, as Dracandross pointed out, if _remove disease_ works on cancer then paladins are immune from it, and that strikes me as _definitely _not the intention. I don't know about you, though.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 28, 2006)

First off what the D&D equivalent of cancer and mental conditions needs to be defined.

Part of this definition needs to be how they work.

Then how to "treat" and "cure" the two needs to be addressed. Since the game has magical means of performing just about anything, including overcoming death then there needs to be a magic means of "treating/curing" these two.

If you have introduced "cancer" into your game without having a predetermined means of handling/treating/curing it then you have created a huge "Catch 22" and probably deserve it. Sorry, but when something "new" is introduced the DM needs to evaluate all the issues revolving around it first.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 28, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Huh?  How can you possibly claim that just because some cancers can be enabled by a disease that this means cancer is a disease?  That's like saying that because some people dye their hair blonde, blonde hair is unnatural.
> 
> Cancer is the result of cells that have a genetic error that causes them to ignore the body's signals to perform apoptosis (Cell suicide) and to continue to duplicate rapidly despite any signals to the contrary.  This could be caused by a disease, by consuming carcinogenic substances, or just through natural degradation in the body's transcription mechanisms.




I know exactly what cancer is and how it works, moreso than just about anyone who posts on these boards I'd think, since both my wife and I are scientists that work in the field and both have parents that have/have had cancer. But do you honestly think that in a fantasy world where the concept of cancer is pretty much unknown, and the idea of a virus is unheard of, that a magical cure for "diseases" wouldn't automatically be geared to also fix "this disease Shirley got after having a lot of sex"?

Like it or not, cancer is a disease, no matter what the cause, and no matter how communicable it is. Any semantics that say "well, it's not like you can get it by someone coughing on you" is a strawman arguement. It is not a genetic defect (although susceptibility to it is definately genetic), you (usually) aren't just born with it, you get it from exposure to harmful agents from the environment. And if your society can't understand the difference between "carcinogen" and "germ", then how would that 5th level cleric know the difference?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 28, 2006)

Corsair said:
			
		

> Immune to cancer, special mount...
> 
> 
> Gimme a hat, and my next paladin will be the Marlboro Man.




Now that is a funny concept, a Paladin that drinks and smokes a lot, knowing full well they won't ever get cancer or liver disease from it.  So they take advantage of it.


----------



## werk (Jun 28, 2006)

My opinion is that the designers took care to not address any real world diseases in the game...and I do the same.  You don't catch rabies, you get filth fever.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 28, 2006)

D&D treats all diseases the same and even some things that are not properly diseases get thrown in there.  So, I'd allow cancer to be cured with a cure disease spell.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 28, 2006)

Judging by how DnD handles insanity (from the Unearthed Arcana rules), I'd say Resotration and Lesser Restoration cause a cancerous growth to reduce in size, stalling the spread of the illness. Heal wipes it out completely.

Even if Cure Disease doesn't cure cancer, it can work on certain side effects of it.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 28, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Now that is a funny concept, a Paladin that drinks and smokes a lot, knowing full well they won't ever get cancer or liver disease from it.  So they take advantage of it.



My PC in Sagiro's game operates under this philosophy. 

While it wouldn't remove a genetic predilection for cancer, I'd say that _remove disease_ or _heal_ would certainly cure cancer. I don't see why not; cancer is a huge medical boogyman in our own world, but there's no reason it would have to be in a D&D world.

From a game perspective, though, I want some insanity that isn't curable by _heal._  I want bibbling, ranting bad guys who can't necessarily be instantly brought back to sanity. I also want some who can be. Right now I just handle this on an ad hoc, 'just cause' basis. It hasn't been a problem, although it feels a little inconsistent.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 28, 2006)

STARP_Social_Officer said:
			
		

> I just don't think _remove disease_ is the right way to go. Plus, as Dracandross pointed out, if _remove disease_ works on cancer then paladins are immune from it, and that strikes me as _definitely _not the intention.



Thats is not correct, a Paladin *does not* recieve immunity to all things _remove disease_ cures. Notably _remove disease_ also kills parasites, including green slime and others. The paladin has to use of his cure disease spells on those.

I say treat cancer as a mutation.  Though I suspect d20 Modern would actually allow for Remove disease to affect cancer.

I think a happy medium of the Remove disease removes the lumps but cannot stop the body if it wants to make more lumps. But I am real cruel and say even Heal does not cure the body's own disposition to developing cancer if it has one.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 28, 2006)

Flavorwise I would think that longterm wasting diseases such as most cancers, insanity, and certain permenant crippling injuries would be perceived as the kind of things easily cured by a "real living saint" -- therefore they would fall under Heal.

I would be inclined to restrict Cure Disease to those things that are communicable diseases.

BTW, it came up in gameplay whether alcoholism could be cured.  Our DM ruled that Cure Disease would relieve the deleterious physical symptoms, but the habit of mind remained so the person would easily fall into the habit again if the opportunity arose.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Jun 28, 2006)

Anyone have Liber Mortis? Im pretty sure there was a bunch of spells creating unnatural cysts or sentient cancers in that book.  Heal destroyes the cyst but im not sure about RD. 

From what I remember Cancer is a slow (in d&d terms) killer its the treatment that causes most of the damgage we are used to associating with cancer.   So RD would stop the growth, but the damage it did before it was noticed would continue.  A lesser restoration a day can hold nearly any D&D disease at bay.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 28, 2006)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> A lesser restoration a day can hold nearly any D&D disease at bay.



6 out of 10 of the ones in the DMG.

Mummy rot negates the Lesser Restortion unless the caster can make a DC 20 caster level check. And Mummy rot tranfers by contact so caution is advised with touch based spells.  

Devil chills and Slimy Doom both often do permanent drain. Slimy doom is contact transferable as well.  

Blinding sickness needs another 2nd level spell as well sometimes.


----------



## STARP_Social_Officer (Jun 29, 2006)

I love this forum. Only here does this debate go on...except for around my gaming table, of course.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 29, 2006)

Cancer isn't in my PHB.

Neither is physiology or biology.

Science is a house rule.


----------



## green slime (Jun 29, 2006)

_Remove Disease_ removes diseases. Cancer is a disease. It would work IMC. IF anyone ever got cancer, that is.


----------



## Dracandross (Jun 29, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Now that is a funny concept, a Paladin that drinks and smokes a lot, knowing full well they won't ever get cancer or liver disease from it.  So they take advantage of it.




But that would be violation of their code most likely, besides hevily alcoholized paladin couldnt perform his duties anyway.

-Dracandross


----------



## IamTheTest (Jun 29, 2006)

I dont know about you...but I get a bit of an aura of courage after a few chilly beverages.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 29, 2006)

A paladin isn't immune to drunkeness, because it's a disease. Alcohol is a poison you drink voluntarily, and it damage Dex and Wis.

RttToEE has a Paladin that spends his days drinking at the local tavern while waiting for Heironeous to send him a vision.


----------



## Ambrus (Jun 29, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> From a game perspective, though, I want some insanity that isn't curable by _heal._  I want bibbling, ranting bad guys who can't necessarily be instantly brought back to sanity. I also want some who can be. Right now I just handle this on an ad hoc, 'just cause' basis. It hasn't been a problem, although it feels a little inconsistent.



To solve your dilemma simply use the rules for taint from Heroes of Horror. Depravity points will make a character more and more unstable/insane while making the condition more or less incurable since once taint takes ahold it's very hard to get rid of. The best heroes can do is try to keep it from getting any worse. Other mental illnesses that aren't related to taint can be fixed instantly with a Heal spell though. Voila, problem solved.


----------



## ceratitis (Jun 29, 2006)

Corsair said:
			
		

> Immune to cancer, special mount...
> 
> 
> Gimme a hat, and my next paladin will be the Marlboro Man.




i think he actually did die of cancer in the end 
Z


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 29, 2006)

Dracandross said:
			
		

> But that would be violation of their code most likely, besides hevily alcoholized paladin couldnt perform his duties anyway.
> 
> -Dracandross




Unless it was unique to that paladin I don't see how it voids the requirements that all paladin's codes share (well the LG variety anyway).




> Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
> Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.




Besides I could see a dwarven paladin with a racial fondness for ale.


----------



## boolean (Jun 29, 2006)

> Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
> Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, *not using poison*, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.




Does drinking alcohol count as using poison? How about buying somebody else a drink?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 29, 2006)

Cleric: (to the paladin) You're drunk!! You can't get drunk, you're a paladin!
Paladin: There's nuttin' in the *hiccup* . . . There's nuttin' in the *hiccup* . . . There's nuttin' in the scriptures against drinkin', is there?
Cleric: Well, no, but . . .


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 29, 2006)

ceratitis said:
			
		

> i think he actually did die of cancer in the end
> Z



Psht. You're not supposed to tell this! 


Spoiler



Don't you fear the wrath of the tobacco industry


----------



## Sejs (Jun 30, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Cleric: (to the paladin) You're drunk!! You can't get drunk, you're a paladin!
> Paladin: There's nuttin' in the *hiccup* . . . There's nuttin' in the *hiccup* . . . There's nuttin' in the scriptures against drinkin', is there?
> Cleric: Well, no, but . . .




Paladin: Then wheresh the problem?  LESH GO SCHMITE SHOME EVIL! WOOOO!!


----------



## Fieari (Jun 30, 2006)

If the Cancer Mage from the BoVD is any indication, cancer would be damaged by a remove disease spell, but not nessesarily destroyed instantly.  That's the closest I can see to an actual printed rule on the subject...


----------



## Dracandross (Jun 30, 2006)

irdeggman said:
			
		

> Unless it was unique to that paladin I don't see how it voids the requirements that all paladin's codes share (well the LG variety anyway).
> Besides I could see a dwarven paladin with a racial fondness for ale.




Im not meaning some drinking but as one suggested pally that smokes and drinks like theres no tomorrow because he cant catch cancer (pancreas or lung in this case). Laying wasted every day in the nearest corner isnt really way to go.

-Dracandross


----------



## saucercrab (Jun 30, 2006)

Dracandross said:
			
		

> Im not meaning some drinking but as one suggested pally that smokes and drinks like theres no tomorrow because he cant catch cancer (pancreas or lung in this case). Laying wasted every day in the nearest corner isnt really way to go.
> 
> -Dracandross



And a paladin that smokes constantly could cause cancer in others, via second-hand smoke.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 30, 2006)

To me, alcohol overuse, heavy smoking, and casual sex would all fall under the heading of acts that violate personal discipline, and thus are "chaotic" in nature. I can see how others might disagree, but this is certainly one of the ways in which I see the lawful-chaotic axis IMC.

As for what cures cancer: I'd say heal does it. It's one level higher than _raise dead_, and as Ridley's Cohort said, it fits with clerics... er, saints being able to heal things like lameness and leprosy.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 1, 2006)

saucercrab said:
			
		

> And a paladin that smokes constantly could cause cancer in others, via second-hand smoke.



He needs to use those useless _remove diseases_ on *something.*


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 1, 2006)

I would run with Remove Disease, but I would impose a minimum level on the cleric/paladin removing the disease.

Leprosy and the Black Death are identified as Dread Diseases in my homebrew, requiring a Heal spell - going beyond the normal limits of disease, and being thought a judgement from God. The Crab is not quite so feared - it does not so easily spread to those you hold dear.

The Auld Grump, Ring Around the Rosie, a Pocket Full of Posies....


----------



## Sejs (Jul 1, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> He needs to use those useless _remove diseases_ on *something.*




Mental image forming... FR... paladin of Sune...

It's all about the love, baby.


----------



## saucercrab (Jul 1, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> He needs to use those useless _remove diseases_ on *something.*



But if he's causing cancer in others, wouldn't that be grounds for losing his paladinhood, or at least having to atone?


----------



## saucercrab (Jul 1, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Mental image forming... FR... paladin of Sune...
> 
> It's all about the love, baby.



Or a paladin of freedom of Sharess even more.


----------



## STARP_Social_Officer (Jul 2, 2006)

This discussion has gone past the Point of No Relevance...


----------



## Sejs (Jul 2, 2006)

STARP_Social_Officer said:
			
		

> This discussion has gone past the Point of No Relevance...




That's what happens when paladins enter into the discussion.  Heh, it's just One Of Those Things.


----------



## saucercrab (Jul 2, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> That's what happens when paladins enter into the discussion.  Heh, it's just One Of Those Things.



So, in this thread, paladins are a cancer? Because they've functioned as a corruption, a contagion, of the original subject? Weird. Or ironic. :\


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Apr 12, 2018)

Didn't notice this came up because of necrospamming.  No point in leaving a response.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 12, 2018)

spam reported

Looks like a spam-bot necro'd the thread


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 12, 2018)

Kind of ironic...”Raise Thread” _here_.


----------



## haakon1 (Apr 13, 2018)

I asked Gary Gygax on here if it's possible to cure being development disabled with a spell.  He said only Wish-type magic, not healing magic.

That said, I think Cure Disease should cure cancer . . . or certainly that Heal should work.

And Keoghtom's Ointment absolutely can in my game.  It was named after a friend of Gary's who died young -- Tom Keogh, who Keoland in Greyhawk is also named after, according to Gary's bio  -- so it definitely cures any fatal disease, in my game at least, in tribute to game's creator and his friend.


----------



## Eltab (Apr 16, 2018)

STARP_Social_Officer said:


> You don't 'catch' cancer like you catch a cold - it develops pretty much on its own, though it can be stimulated by environment. I would have the same view about Alzheimers, or Parkinson's, or similar mental conditions.



Casting _Cure disease_ might put cancer &c into remission.  Over generations the clergy has learned what you have to do / avoid, to make it less likely that the cancer will come back.  Or make circumstances very unfavorable for the cancer so the symptoms come back slowly and fainter.
This makes the spell an opportunity to get out of a pit but not a guaranteed result.

P.S. By coincidence, as I type this, the ad along the right-hand column on my screen says "We're not just fighting cancer.  We're outsmarting it."


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 16, 2018)

Considering exactly what Cleric spells can do the answer must be: Confirmed Clerics Can Cure Cancer.


----------



## steeldragons (Apr 16, 2018)

Cancer is a disease. The spell is Cure Disease. Yes it cures cancer.

Additionally, it's 3rd level spell. There's aren't necessarily 5th or higher level casters running around making sure there's no disease anywhere on the planet. And, as noted in your original reasoning, cancer just kind of happens when/where it wants...so it's not like, even if you HAD 5th+ level casters everywhere in every community, keeping every single person disease free at all times...it's still going to occur and require healing.


----------



## Greenfield (Apr 17, 2018)

D&D doesn't mention casual illness.  It also doesn't mention outhouses, or the bodily functions that make them necessary.  I'm pretty sure all of these occur anyway.

People catch the cold or flu if they don't look out.  People get Typhoid when they put the outhouses too close to the well.

What the rules do mention is that spell casting services cost money.  Yes, even from the church: Not all churches are Lawful Good, but all churches hBut   ave expenses.

It's in the best interest of the church, and the local nobility and/or wealthy class not to have highly contageous plagues running around, so things like Black Death probably get dealt with, one way or another.  But something like cancer, that isn't contageous?  Will that be cash or charge?


----------



## KenNYC (Apr 21, 2018)

I think, as per Expedition To The Barrier Peaks, the short answer is "no".


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Apr 21, 2018)

If in D&D the resurrection is possible, or to create cloned body organs, why not healing cancer? But sometimes some diseases can't be healed by "ordinary" divine spells. Other times is a divine punishment or a last warning to a sinner after a life of bad actions. And the most of times the healing magic is too expensive for most of mortal civilians.


----------



## Greenfield (Apr 25, 2018)

I guess the base question is this:  Is cancer a "disease"?

If the answer is yes, then Remove Disease removes it.  So do Heal and Hero's Feast.

If cancer isn't a disease, what is it?  A curse?  A "condition"?   Some new and unnamed class of disability?

The text of the spell says that certain "specialized diseases" might not be subject to the spell.  As noted in another thread, specific tops general, so there can be exceptions.

Lycanthropy would be an example.  It specifically says that Remove Disease alone won't do the job.

There is nothing that makes Cancer, or Lupus or Multiple Schlerosis or Aids a "specific" example.

Lacking anything that cites them as exceptions in the rules, I'd say they're magically curable.


----------



## Wiseblood (Apr 29, 2018)

Cure disease. Don't overthink it.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 29, 2018)

Cancer doesn't exist in my fantasy game.

It's called "old age" or "curse from the gods" or something. 

Nobody expects Cure Disease to work against that kind of ailments, so nobody worries about it.

Especially since we're talking about a world where escaping death really does work. You just use other tools than medicine.

(Such as, idunno, necromancy or Reincarnate or Wish, or even more esoteric solutions)


----------



## Tywyll (Jul 11, 2018)

Of course it can. Cancer=Disease it's that simple.

A cleric can heal wounds at 1st level, poisons and diseases at 5th and bring back the dead at 9th. 

If you want it to not be curable by Cure Disease, then at worst you can cure it by 7th level with Cure Weirdly Specific But Not Quite Disease, a 4th level spell.


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 11, 2018)

Yeah, this thread seems a lot like, "Is two plus two always four?"


----------



## Henry (Jul 12, 2018)

Albeit a thread necro, I'd say one of three things should fix it, given the 3.5 or Pathfinder versions:

-Remove Disease
-Heal
-Greater Restoration

If I were GM, I'd go with "heal" could do it. Basically, as others said back in the day, if a cleric can cast 6th level spells, they're in "raise the dead" territory, so why not?

Besides, it's not like "Cancer" has ever been statted out in an official D&D product, so GM carte blanche!


----------



## Greenfield (Jul 13, 2018)

Greater Restoration?  That fixes stats, level drains and/or conditions like fatigue.

So, while Restoration might reverse some of the debilitating effects of a disease, making someone appear healthy, I don't see it actually removing the disease.

I figure that some debilitating diseases, like Cancer, kill by slowly draining stats, such as CON.  Multiple Schlerosis drains DEX.  Altzheimers drains INT, etc.  These can be reversed (but not cured) with Restoration effects. Other diseases may kill through toxic effects, or kill by driving a fever to a killing level.  

That's just my view, of course.  There aren't any real diseases described in the rules.


----------



## Empirate (Jul 13, 2018)

At level 1, Clerics can make flesh knit itself back together after injury (Cure Light Wounds).
At level 3, Clerics can cure hangovers (Lesser Restoration), as well as the blindness caused by that bootleg gin (Remove Blindness/Deafness).
At level 5, Clerics can cure any and all diseases (Remove Disease), UNLESS that disease's description specifically spells out that they can't (Lycanthropy etc.). Cancer has never received such a description, so it wouldn't be an exception so far as I can see.
At level 7, Clerics can Neutralize Poison and undo most of the damage it may have done (Restoration). They can also cure life force lost to unnatural horrors too horrible not to abhor.
At level 9, Clerics can cure death (Raise Dead). 
At level 11, Clerics can do any and all of the above at once (Heal).
Weirdly, it takes Clerics until level 13 to cure limb loss (Regenerate).


At no point ever can Clerics cure taxes.


(unless a generous DM allows that Miracle to happen at level 17)


----------

