Pain and the [Evil] Descriptor


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Why do all spells that cause pain have the [Evil] descriptor? Causing pain is one of the fastest and most effecient ways to avoid a confrontation. I am house-ruling it out of my own game. I was just wondering why the designers would do it in the first place.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As I say with all of these threads;

Spells with the [evil] descriptor do not have the [evil] descriptor because of their effects. Sometimes their effects *seem* evil, like in the case of Create Undead, but that's just a correlation, it's not why the spells have the [evil] descriptor in the first place.

The reason that any spell has the [evil] descriptor is because it draws its power from an evil source.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

That's not even true. You can't tell me Magic Missile and Fireball don't cause pain.

It, like the rest of the alignment system, is just arbitrary and contradictory.


Descriptors can be pretty hit or miss. Just ask Boneshatter.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I think the spells that cause pain are there primarily for magical torture. Torture = evil so pain spells are evil.


The pain spells are there to cause suffering which is evil in fantasyland terms.

As for boneshatter, it was created before the pain descriptor was around.


awp832 wrote:

As I say with all of these threads;

Spells with the [evil] descriptor do not have the [evil] descriptor because of their effects. Sometimes their effects *seem* evil, like in the case of Create Undead, but that's just a correlation, it's not why the spells have the [evil] descriptor in the first place.

The reason that any spell has the [evil] descriptor is because it draws its power from an evil source.

This guy nailed it. Its why infernal healing has evil in it even though its not causing pain but actually healing u, is because of its source not the effect.


Redneckdevil wrote:
This guy nailed it. Its why infernal healing has evil in it even though its not causing pain but actually healing u, is because of its source not the effect.

Also why Zhayne nailed it when he said it was arbitrary. Not everyone agrees with it. Not quiet as cut and paste as fireball being [fire].


*shrugs* If you see it that way then I probably am not going to convince you. But the way I see it, all magic in Pathfinder has a source. The source of divine magic is usually obvious, it's granted to followers by the gods.

The source (or sources) of arcane magic are a little less defined. Dragons, fey, the Elements, demonkin, pretty much anything that is powerful might be a source for magic. These things probably don't even necessarily realize they are a source of magic. Some of these things, -take fire for example- might not even be a thing with any kind of sentience.

Nevertheless, magic draws on one (or oftentimes more than one) of these things to generate its power. A fireball draws on the power of fire. Infernal healing draws on the power of Hell. Painstrike might draw on the power of torture, or it could draw on the power of fiends as well, since they are well-known for inflicting pain.

Anyway, that's just how I think of it.


elijahmarcus wrote:
Why do all spells that cause pain have the [Evil] descriptor? Causing pain is one of the fastest and most effecient ways to avoid a confrontation.

.

.
The Empire Strikes Back wrote:

Luke: Vader... Is the dark side stronger?

Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

Causing pain intentionally, as the main goal, is Evil. A lot of times Evil is the fastest and most efficient way to do things. Is your neighbor's late-night guitar playing keeping you up? I'm sure an Evil solution would be the fastest and most efficient solution.

Also, I don't think I'd classify causing pain as avoiding a confrontation.


"It's more efficient/effective" is a common excuse used to rationalize evil. But 'efficient' is not the opposite of evil; GOOD is the opposite of evil.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why do all pain spells have the evil descriptor? ...well, they don't? Just some of them?

Pain spells with evil descriptor:
Agonize
Excruciating Deformation
Interrogation
Interrogation (Greater)
Pain Strike
Pain Strike (Mass)
Retribution
Symbol of Pain

Pain spells without evil descriptor:
Awaken the Devoured
Eyebite
Haunting Choir
Howling Agony
Persuasive Goad
Piercing Shriek
Repel Vermin
Transmute Blood to Acid

So, about half the pain spells I could turn up with a quick search have the pain descriptor, but certainly not all of them. Of course, you can certainly find the distinction between those with the evil descriptor and those out to be arbitrary...though in all honesty, if I was going to start complaining about the apparent arbitrariness of Pathfinder's magic categorization, can't say that's where I'd start...


MrSin wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:
This guy nailed it. Its why infernal healing has evil in it even though its not causing pain but actually healing u, is because of its source not the effect.
Also why Zhayne nailed it when he said it was arbitrary. Not everyone agrees with it. Not quiet as cut and paste as fireball being [fire].

You know what? Very true. Ill have to reiterate my opionion. Imo its a mix about the sourse and the result of said spell. Infernal healing is because of the sourse but spells like animate undead would be the end result or what u actually accomplished. In the end I think the spells with evil in them would be what I'm guessing the intent for the villians to use.

Yeah correct not as cut and paste. I don't think its arbitary though but that's just me.


awp832 wrote:

As I say with all of these threads;

Spells with the [evil] descriptor do not have the [evil] descriptor because of their effects. Sometimes their effects *seem* evil, like in the case of Create Undead, but that's just a correlation, it's not why the spells have the [evil] descriptor in the first place.

The reason that any spell has the [evil] descriptor is because it draws its power from an evil source.

How do you rationalize spells with the [mind-affecting] and [language dependent] descriptors?


elijahmarcus wrote:
How do you rationalize spells with the [mind-affecting] and [language dependent] descriptors?

With something more objective than good and evil?

Shadow Lodge

Distant Scholar wrote:
Causing pain intentionally, as the main goal, is Evil.

Pain isn't the goal. Pain is the means. The goal is avoiding a more destructive fight.

Distant Scholar wrote:
A lot of times Evil is the fastest and most efficient way to do things. Is your neighbor's late-night guitar playing keeping you up? I'm sure an Evil solution would be the fastest and most efficient solution.

I am walking at home alone at night in a bad neighborhood and am accosted by someone who threatens to harm me. I have a gun and a can of pepper spray. Should I shoot, or try the pepper spray and hope it causes the assailant to back off?

Or if I'm a wizard and my two prepared spells are Fireball and Pain Strike, which should I cast, the one that might kill someone (including a bystander I didn't notice) or the one that hurts like the dickens but won't cause permanent damage?

Distant Scholar wrote:
Also, I don't think I'd classify causing pain as avoiding a confrontation.

Avoiding is the wrong word, but it can shut down a confrontation if you cause enough pain that an aggressor decides it's not worth it. EDIT: see pain compliance. Not a perfect tactic but it has its uses.

Calybos wrote:
"It's more efficient/effective" is a common excuse used to rationalize evil. But 'efficient' is not the opposite of evil; GOOD is the opposite of evil.

Efficient isn't the opposite of good, either.

Triage = the assignment of degrees of urgency to wounds or illnesses to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties AKA the most efficient way to help lots of injured people.


Weirdo wrote:
Pain isn't the goal. Pain is the means. The goal is avoiding a more destructive fight.

Thanks. Your whole post explains exactly what I meant.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
I am walking at home alone at night in a bad neighborhood and am accosted by someone who threatens to harm me. I have a gun and a can of pepper spray. Should I shoot, or try the pepper spray and hope it causes the assailant to back off?

Depends on who/what the assailant is and who/what I am (with). I'm alone and it's some punk with an attitude and nothing else ? Pepper spray.

I'm with my niece and it's some punk with a katana ? FNP-9, thank you.


elijamarcus; not *all* descriptors necessarily describe a source of magic, [mind-affecting] is one of them, which describes how the spell funcitons mechanically. However, for the [evil] descriptor it does say that the spell draws upon an evil power. I did not just make that up.

pfsrd wrote:
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.

Weirdo; you're setting up a false dichotomy. You rigged the game, so to speak. You made it sound like fireball and pain strike were the only two options, where they are not. Firstly, why is the wizard preparing Pain Strike in the first place? It's ignoring all the other options that a 5th level wizard has at his disposal. Hold Person would be particularly effective, not evil, and do no permanent damage. There's always sleep and color spray too. I'm not going to go over every spell, but suffice it to say that probably 75% of the wizard's other prepared spells would do a better job of dealing with this situation that either pain strike OR fireball.

You could also, you know, try talking to the assailant and resolving the situation with words or a few coins.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SlimGauge wrote:

Depends on who/what the assailant is and who/what I am (with). I'm alone and it's some punk with an attitude and nothing else ? Pepper spray.

I'm with my niece and it's some punk with a katana ? FNP-9, thank you.

I respect your decision to use the amount of force necessary to protect your loved ones. I think you agree with my point, though, that causing pain can be the morally correct choice in some situations. You also raised another good point - causing pain isn't always the easy way out, since trying to dissuade an attacker using pain is riskier than maiming or killing them.

awp832 wrote:
Weirdo; you're setting up a false dichotomy. You rigged the game, so to speak. You made it sound like fireball and pain strike were the only two options, where they are not. Firstly, why is the wizard preparing Pain Strike in the first place? It's ignoring all the other options that a 5th level wizard has at his disposal. Hold Person would be particularly effective, not evil, and do no permanent damage. There's always sleep and color spray too. I'm not going to go over every spell, but suffice it to say that probably 75% of the wizard's other prepared spells would do a better job of dealing with this situation that either pain strike OR fireball.

I'm not trying to prove that Pain Strike is the best way to deal with the situation, just that it's better (more moral) than Fireball, which doesn't have the [evil] descriptor (putting aside for a moment the "drawing on evil sources" point).

As for why the wizard would prepare Pain Strike - he wants a method of dissuading an attacker that is nonlethal, can be dismissed to end the pain as soon as the attacker backs off, and gives you an explicit bonus on intimidate checks to tell the attacker to back off. Or maybe he found a scroll and has used up most of his prepared spells.

I think you're also overvaluing the alternatives. Hold person, for example, only works on humanoids (not native outsiders, normal outsiders, monstrous humanoids, fey, etc) and sleep and colour spray are both limited by HD of the target.

Extended discussion of spells:
A good portion of the wizard's available spells either do lethal damage or cause other potentially permanent damage (Blindness/Deafness), have noncombat use (ant haul or endure elements), are defensive and won't end a combat (mage armour), or rely on allies to provide offense (haste).

Among the spells that can shut down a combat without damage, many are limited in valid targets (charm person, hold person, suggestion which is language-dependent). Weapon-targeting spells (peacebond, heat metal) aren't much good at dealing with an attacker who has backup weapons, is trained in unarmed strikes, or has natural weapons.

As SlimGauge pointed out, you might have bystanders to protect. Any area spell used to hamper opponents - web, fog spells, pits, and the aforementioned sleep and colour spray - runs the risk of catching bystanders. Pits also run into the first problem since they don't work on flying or climbing opponents. Invisibility, Sanctuary, Expeditous Retreat, etc might help you make an escape, but don't help bystanders.

Merciful Spell is a common "I don't want to kill anyone" tactic but it has two disadvantages on Pain Strike: you don't get the intimidate bonus and you might accidentally overkill with the nonlethal damage - Pain Strike can be dismissed as soon as the target falls unconscious so you never risk accidentally killing someone.

About the only spells I can see of 3rd level or below that don't have serious limitations are Hideous Laughter (which still gives +4 to opponents of other types, which is risky), Oppressive Boredom, Charitable Impulse, and Ray of Exhaustion. Still, three of these are mind-affecting enchantments, which is a more common immunity than pain. And Ray of Exhaustion still doesn't give that +4 intimidate to say "back down and no one gets hurt."

I wouldn't prepare Pain Strike on a regular basis, since Deep Slumber have crowd control and immediate stopping power going for them, but I think Pain Strike would be suitable on a scroll for situations where the more common restraint spells would be difficult to use.

awp832 wrote:
You could also, you know, try talking to the assailant and resolving the situation with words or a few coins.

Let's assume this has been tried and failed. Morally speaking, violence of any kind should be plan B.

Pain compliance is a legitimate law enforcement tactic and is not in itself evil. It can easily be misused and turn into torture and brutality - this association is probably why the devs decided many pain spells should get the [evil] tag, meaning they come from evil sources.

GMs can disagree with the devs' assessments of some spells. If you feel that pain shouldn't spring from an evil source, remove the descriptor. If you feel that casting spells that draw on evil sources shouldn't be an evil act, don't treat it as one.

Personally, I've removed the [evil] tag from spells that animate the dead, since in my current campaign that magic isn't inherently evil, just frequently misused. On the other hand, I've kept Infernal Healing [evil] because casting it has a side effect of strengthening a LE deity, meaning that casters who rely on it frequently are not only accessing but also serving that evil power.

Silver Crusade

I just remove the [evil] tag from [pain] spells and let the motivations and applications decide whether or not it's evil. Especially when it serves as a reliable non-lethal option.

Hey, if it's good enough for Vildeis...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It's to keep good divine casters from getting thematically inappropriate spells. There are a handful of protective spells that protect you against Evil spells. That's basically it. In any game where you soften alignment, it would make sense to strip that descriptor from anything that doesn't involve demons, devils, or undeath.


RJGrady wrote:
It's to keep good divine casters from getting thematically inappropriate spells.

I always thought it was cool for people to have the ability to play against type personally. Lots of cool stories you can do with that.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sure. I was being descriptive, not prescriptive. I am not saying whether it is a good or bad design goal. As I said, in a game with softer alignment, I'd strip those suckers out left and right.


Weirdo wrote:
Distant Scholar wrote:
A lot of times Evil is the fastest and most efficient way to do things. Is your neighbor's late-night guitar playing keeping you up? I'm sure an Evil solution would be the fastest and most efficient solution.
I am walking at home alone at night in a bad neighborhood and am accosted by someone who threatens to harm me. I have a gun and a can of pepper spray. Should I shoot, or try the pepper spray and hope it causes the assailant to back off?

I was unclear in my post; when I capitalize Evil, I'm referring to the in-game concept of Evil, not real-world evil. There are actions in the game world that are Evil that I would not consider evil in the real world, and actions in the real world that I consider evil that the game world does not consider Evil.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pain and the [Evil] Descriptor All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.