Mmmm ok so infernal evil is because u are casting the spell and not the effects of it? Meaning evil for casting and not because the effects are beneficial or harmful? Like how casting cure light wounds u are casting the same spell but its effects can either heal or harm depending on the target?
Also can anyone point out where healing by itself for whatever reason is considered a "good" act because ive always seen it as more nuetral than anything. I mean EVERYBODY heals themselves if its possible. Just never seen anything that actually labels healing someone a "good aligned" act. Can someone point this out to me? Because i have looked at all the spells and none of the spells that heal have a [good] beside them, only has (healing).
Mmmm ok so infernal evil is because u are casting the spell and not the effects of it? Meaning evil for casting and not because the effects are beneficial or harmful? Like how casting cure light wounds u are casting the same spell but its effects can either heal or harm depending on the target?
Also can anyone point out where healing by itself for whatever reason is considered a "good" act because ive always seen it as more nuetral than anything. I mean EVERYBODY heals themselves if its possible. Just never seen anything that actually labels healing someone a "good aligned" act. Can someone point this out to me? Because i have looked at all the spells and none of the spells that heal have a [good] beside them, only has (healing).
Infernal healing is usually doing a good thing because it is usually an altruistic act when used on someone else. When you heal someone that is injured you are making an effort to aid them which is is defined by the rules as being good (altruism).
If you cast it on yourself, you aren't being altruistic (and thus it's not good) but you are also not hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone. As a result it's not evil either.
Because of the subtype, the spell is treated as being cast by an evil character regardless of the character's alignment. This means that if you were to cast it on someone with protection from evil active they would get a +2 bonus to save against it (it has a will negates option) even if the caster isn't evil. It can be dispelled by dispel evil. If you cast detect evil the spell registers an particularly strong aura of evil that rises with its caster level.
All the alignment rules care about is what you're doing with it when it comes to your alignment. If you are healing yourself with cure spells it's not aligned. If you are healing someone with cure spells because it's your job it's not aligned. If you're healing someone with cure spells altruistically you are doing good. If you use cure spells to torture a dhampir you're doing evil.
|
The spell says the target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell.
Nothing in the spell says it affects the level of the aura.
Detect Evil only detects evil creatures of level 5 or above; or evil spells of caster level 6 or above.
Therefore a Paladin's Detect Evil ability will not ping on low level recipients of the spell.
As there is no obvious benefit of casting this spell at a high caster level, and a potential downside, then this spell will almost always be cast at minimum caster level (level 1), regardless of the casters actual level. It is usually from a wand in any case.
Cool. I found a second use for the rule that "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level." :-)
Therefore a Paladin's Detect Evil ability will not ping on low level recipients of the spell.
That depends on the level of the caster. In addition to infernal healing causing the target to detect as evil, it is an [Evil] spell. According to detect evil an aligned spell effect of 5th caster level or higher also has an aura.
So if the caster is 5th level or higher, the target will have an Evil aura regardless of their own HD.
This can mean the target has two active evil auras if they have more than 5 HD and the caster has more than 5 caster levels.
Mmmm ok so infernal evil is because u are casting the spell and not the effects of it? Meaning evil for casting and not because the effects are beneficial or harmful? Like how casting cure light wounds u are casting the same spell but its effects can either heal or harm depending on the target?
Also can anyone point out where healing by itself for whatever reason is considered a "good" act because ive always seen it as more nuetral than anything. I mean EVERYBODY heals themselves if its possible. Just never seen anything that actually labels healing someone a "good aligned" act. Can someone point this out to me? Because i have looked at all the spells and none of the spells that heal have a [good] beside them, only has (healing).
Infernal healing is usually doing a good thing because it is usually an altruistic act when used on someone else. When you heal someone that is injured you are making an effort to aid them which is is defined by the rules as being good (altruism).
If you cast it on yourself, you aren't being altruistic (and thus it's not good) but you are also not hurting, oppressing, or killing anyone. As a result it's not evil either.
Because of the subtype, the spell is treated as being cast by an evil character regardless of the character's alignment. This means that if you were to cast it on someone with protection from evil active they would get a +2 bonus to save against it (it has a will negates option) even if the caster isn't evil. It can be dispelled by dispel evil. If you cast detect evil the spell registers an particularly strong aura of evil that rises with its caster level.
All the alignment rules care about is what you're doing with it when it comes to your alignment. If you are healing yourself with cure spells it's not aligned. If you are healing someone with cure spells because it's your job it's not aligned. If you're healing someone with cure spells altruistically you are doing...
Mmmm it would only ne an altrusic act if the person who cast it gain no benefits from casting it on someone who needed it per definition by webster. Meaning u cast it in the middle of a fight on a party member who needed it, its not altrusic because ur casting it with the intent to better that persons survival to better your own.
Im guessing the reason why certain spells have the good or evil beside the spell is thatbto cement whatever its used for its either good or evil is because every action can debayeable as far as morality. I mean u could have someone who spends life ss a doctor healing for free idnt under the altrusic because maybe the doctor id foing it for fame u know?
Mmmm it would only ne an altrusic act if the person who cast it gain no benefits from casting it on someone who needed it per definition by webster. Meaning u cast it in the middle of a fight on a party member who needed it, its not altrusic because ur casting it with the intent to better that persons survival to better your own.
That's entirely correct. This is also one of the reasons that bad guys and neutral-aligned healers aren't turning good for healing their allies / masters / etc. They're generally getting something out of it.
However, if they opted to heal someone just because they could? Totally good. If the evil cleric is wandering along and finds traveler near dead after fighting off a wild animal and the evil cleric expends a use of his cure light wounds he had prepared to heal the guy, and wasn't expecting payment or compensation for it (maybe he just felt sorry for the guy) the evil cleric did a good thing.
In the same way that a wizard who comes along and does the same with infernal healing is doing a good thing.
And the real kicker is that alignments don't change suddenly for doing the occasional thing that isn't a common trait among your alignment. So the cleric doesn't suddenly break some rule of being an evil cleric, nor does he suddenly become a neutral cleric. He's just a bad guy who did a good thing. If he makes a habit of doing good things maybe he'll end up as a neutral cleric as long as he's also doing bad things. If he slows down on the bad and keeps up on the good, eventually he'll be a good cleric.
It's actually really simple. It shows how usable the D&D/Pathfinder alignment system is. It really isn't as stupid as people make it out to be, nor is there any reason to spend a lot of time (especially in game) arguing about alignment. It's simple, fairly accurate, and works well for doing a very wide variety of character concepts (even if those concepts aren't archetypal).
For example, in Pathfinder it is entirely possible to play a do-gooding devil-blooded tiefling who makes the best of her hellborn powers. As part of her theme she's taken infernal healing and during the game she uses it to heal people out of a sense of altruism. She is an unusual good character, but a good character none the less.
Ok cool think we are on the same page on that.
so if someone uses infernal healing on themselves or to a party member to ensure thereselves survival because its an evil spell and they arent doing it for an altrustic motive, it would still be an evil act then since its got the evil type to it?
but if they are doing it outta compassion and wont receive any benefits from it though someone else would, the good would cancel out the bad?
I'd just like to point out, because it was implied earlier that the fact that the rules weren't rewritten after 3.x somehow made a difference: The Book of Vile Darkness (from 3.0 source material) includes on page 8 a notation that casting evil spells qualifies as an evil action, and on page 77 it reiterates that tapping into a source of evil power - be it through natural, extraordinary, supernatural, spell, or spell-like means - is evil, regardless of your reasons for doing so, or the outcome of the act. Finally, it states on page 9 that, "In the D&D universe...an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what good result it may achieve."
So not only did the source material from which Pathfinder came qualify the casting of an evil spell as an evil act, the designers of Pathfinder continue to qualify it as such.
There's a lot of talk in the thread about the ends justifying the means, and it's misleading re: RAW. It's true that healing someone altruistically is normally a good act; if you do so by drawing upon the powers of a dark god and then anointing them with demon blood (and in Pathfinder, Infernal Healing was originally a spell created by Asmodeus), then it's sort of like kicking a puppy because it makes a baby laugh.
Ok cool think we are on the same page on that.
so if someone uses infernal healing on themselves or to a party member to ensure thereselves survival because its an evil spell and they arent doing it for an altrustic motive, it would still be an evil act then since its got the evil type to it?
but if they are doing it outta compassion and wont receive any benefits from it though someone else would, the good would cancel out the bad?
Nope, because there's nothing in the rules that says that casting an evil spell is an evil act. It has 0% effect on your alignment because the alignment rules make no considerations for anything other than whether you are hurting, oppressing, or killing someone.
However, because it has the evil subtype, for the purposes of alignment-based mechanics. It will always register as an [Evil] spell for detect evil. It is always treated as being cast by an evil caster for purposes like protection from evil. It can be dispelled by effects like dispel evil. It can't be cast by clerics who are unable to cast [Evil] spells (such as for Neutral Good clerics).
That's as far as the rules are concerned.
I'd just like to point out, because it was implied earlier that the fact that the rules weren't rewritten after 3.x somehow made a difference: The Book of Vile Darkness (from 3.0 source material) includes on page 8 a notation that casting evil spells qualifies as an evil action, and on page 77 it reiterates that tapping into a source of evil power - be it through natural, extraordinary, supernatural, spell, or spell-like means - is evil, regardless of your reasons for doing so, or the outcome of the act. Finally, it states on page 9 that, "In the D&D universe...an Evil act is an Evil act no matter what good result it may achieve."
The Book of Vile Darkness was an optional splatbook full of new optional rules. It and the Book of Exalted needs have never been part of the core rules and in both cases frame alignment in entirely different and often unusable ways. The themes of those optional splat books turn alignment on its head, focusing heavily on what something is rather than why. Suffice to say they were never the authorities on alignment anymore than Eberron was.
So not only did the source material from which Pathfinder came qualify the casting of an evil spell as an evil act, the designers of Pathfinder continue to qualify it as such.
The source material for Pathfinder (the 3.5 SRD) makes no such claim and never has. The Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds both came out as 3.0 books. When 3.5 was released they could have updated the core alignment rules to include aligned spellcasting making people more good or more evil or more lawful or more chaotic. They did not however.
Because if they did, then using Poison would probably be evil (the Book of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness claim using poison to be evil), and casting Deathwatch would be Evil (the Book of Vile Darkness made this spell [Evil] and the Book of Exalted Deeds put it on the spell lists of their Good-classes). Amusingly, in 3.5 Deathwatch was made an [Evil] spell but no stipulations about aligned spells changing your alignments.
Yes, this means that in 3.5 Deathwatch meant that while active you would ping on the detect evil as being under the effects of an Evil spell, but casting it doesn't make you a bad person.
Mmm okay then. Im looking at descriptor for spells in the core and this is what it says.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with ALIGNMENT, and so on.
That is all that i can find on descriptors of spells, but ill admit its pretty vague but it does says spells with good, evil, chaos, and lawful do interact/effect alignment. If it effects alignment mechanics, shouldnt it effect the alignment sourse? I mean from what u posted theres alot of being detected as evil, being treated as the caster was evil (wouldnt that right there means its an evil act right there if the spell is determined to be cast by an evil caster meaning that the caster did an evil act?), and so forth and how good clerics cant cast evil spells and so forth.
I mean it doesnt make sense to me if it has 0 impact on ur alignment to why the mechanics always point to it being evil effect, the person who cast it was evil, dispelled by dispell evil.
I am not trying to fuss or anything bc u really have me questioning what i believe to be is raw.
Bah, I consider it's like that: You use a spell granted to mortals by Asmodeus (You can find it in Gods and Magic IIRC), so incidentally you give some power to Asmodeus. It's like a little pact with the Devil.
It's MY logic... But it seems to be what the dev' support too.
Nope, because there's nothing in the rules that says that casting an evil spell is an evil act. It has 0% effect on your alignment because the alignment rules make no considerations for anything other than whether you are hurting, oppressing, or killing someone.
See, this is where I think you're confused Ashiel. Casting Infernal healing is indeed a Evil act. Sez so. But nowhere does it say that changes your alignment.
You can commit quite a number of Evil acts without becoming evil (unless of course you read the paladins threads here).
The DM is the arbiter. Sure, most DM's would allow you to cast Infernal healing day in & day out as a altruistic act without it changing your alignment (taking paladins and clerics aside), and no one is arguing that it should.
But how about this: Torturing a innocent, then using infernal healing to keep them alive for more torture?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find any place in the rules were it says that casting an evil spell is an evil act? Could you quote the rules there?
It isn't super-well defined, but
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says, the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.
Emphasis mine.
Also, see Sean K Reynold's posts in this thread.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that always amuses me about these infernal healing discussions is that if the spell weren't better than cure light wounds at out-of-combat healing, no one would care. The main reason people argue so strenuously that casting an Evil spell isn't an Evil action is so they can retain access to efficient healing on their "good" characters.
My belief is that a good character shouldn't want to cast Evil spells. The ones I play don't. Sure, my friends' wounds seal up, but what darknesses am I empowering by using such fell magics to effect this recovery? It's like selling your soul to the devil to cure your family member's cancer - Evil wouldn't make the deal if they weren't getting something in return, though what they get with infernal healing remains nebulous.
Golarion setting-wise, Asmodeus created this spell and gave it to his followers for a reason, and that reason was almost certainly not so that goody two-shoes parties can have no-strings healing.
That having been said, all alignment matters are GM calls anyway. If your group wants to treat infernal healing as a neutral or even good act, and you have fun playing that way, more power to you and enjoy. But also don't look down on those of us that enjoy a game where spells like infernal healing retain their status as temptations to lure good people into darkness.
Well said, ryric!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find any place in the rules were it says that casting an evil spell is an evil act? Could you quote the rules there?
I've given everyone like 2 days time to casually and at their leisure quote the part of the rules that says casting an aligned spell is an aligned action or is otherwise corrupting in any way. I wonder why no one has quoted such a thing. I mean, DrDeth and others are sooooooo insistent that it is the rules and is there that they should know good and well exactly where it is in the rules, right?
The thing that always amuses me about these infernal healing discussions is that if the spell weren't better than cure light wounds at out-of-combat healing, no one would care. The main reason people argue so strenuously that casting an Evil spell isn't an Evil action is so they can retain access to efficient healing on their "good" characters.
1. Healing is healing and infernal healing is a wizard/sorcerer spell and one that is quite fitting. As with the aforementioned devil-blooded sorcerer it's one of many spells that has cool flavor.
2. I personally am arguing for two reasons: A) Because people keep tossing around a rule that doesn't exist and acting like it does, B) because it makes the alignment system stupid. If you changed the spell to requiring a drop of angel blood and gave it the [Good] descriptor and suddenly declared that casting this spell was innately a good act any more than casting cure light wounds is it would be just as stupid.It's stupid to suggest that standing around and casting protection from evil on yourself over and over again results in you going to heaven. Because if you're always doing Good things then you're alignment becomes good. This sort of nonsense is what leads people to have problems with the alignment system and makes it completely nonsensical.
That having been said, all alignment matters are GM calls anyway. If your group wants to treat infernal healing as a neutral or even good act, and you have fun playing that way, more power to you and enjoy. But also don't look down on those of us that enjoy a game where spells like infernal healing retain their status as temptations to lure good people into darkness.
Doesn't that actually explain why Asmodeus would hand out this spell to his followers? I mean, didn't he sweet in and position himself as the new deity of the people who formerly worshiped Aroden and establish himself as the patron beneficiary of those people?
Even if the spell doesn't actually make you evil and there are people actually being super good-guys while basically wearing the Evil aura on them like a mantle, doesn't that further his cause in the extreme? I mean it makes it harder for his enemies like Paladins to tell who exactly needs a good smiting and who doesn't. Likewise it makes the usage of spells that register as that alignment far more prevalent which means that it muddies the waters for his would-be detractors, especially when he has effectively gifted the entire world with a boon as if to say "Look, I'm not so bad and there's more where that came up?"
Of course it also creates wonderful RP opportunities for characters to boot (such as the aforementioned fiend-blooded sorceress), or for misunderstood characters, or for evil bastards pretending to be good guys and pulling the wool over people's eyes because with his simple gift Asmodeous has desensitized the general populace from fearing people just because they cast spells that radiate with evil alignments.
That said, I'd be on this side of the conversation if we replaced infernal healing with protection from good as well, because it has nothing to do with a love of infernal healing but an appreciation for logic, the alignment system, and the freaking rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are looking for a quote printed in the Pathfinder resource, and that is all that you accept as RAW, then no one can provide you one. That doesn't make you 'right', it just means you have an inaccurate concept of what "RAW" is.
A refusal to accept a designer quote as RAW - effectively, "the law" - is akin to a refusal to accept a decision by the Supreme Court as law: You're welcome to live that way in the privacy of your own home, and you probably won't run into any problems as long as that attitude does not bring you into conflict with the authorities, but the moment that you do come into such a conflict, an obstinate refusal to accept legal precedent as "how things work" is not a valid defense. In this case, not only do you have the ruling of the game's effective Supreme Court, you also have had references to 'common law' - D&D source material - that shows how the rules were intended to work.
What you are doing is just one step down from arguing that an official FAQ is not RAW because you happen to disagree with the decision: It doesn't alter the RAW, it simply makes you look rather silly by presenting a house rule as something official when you aren't in any position to make such a statement with any official validity.
If you are looking for a quote printed in the Pathfinder resource, and that is all that you accept as RAW, then no one can provide you one. That doesn't make you 'right', it just means you have an inaccurate concept of what "RAW" is.
RAW = RULES AS WRITTEN. This isn't rocket science.
Also still waiting on that rule quote. Have you found it yet?
If you are looking for a quote printed in the Pathfinder resource, and that is all that you accept as RAW, then no one can provide you one. That doesn't make you 'right', it just means you have an inaccurate concept of what "RAW" is.RAW = RULES AS WRITTEN. This isn't rocket science.
Also still waiting on that rule quote. Have you found it yet?
Ross gave it to you.
Again, no one is saying that even tho casting an evil spell= an evil act, that does not necessarily mean that evil act changes your alignment. That's entirely up to the Dm, based upon other factors.
Your personal dislike to the Alignment system doesn't make the rules wrong.
If you are looking for a quote printed in the Pathfinder resource, and that is all that you accept as RAW, then no one can provide you one. That doesn't make you 'right', it just means you have an inaccurate concept of what "RAW" is.RAW = RULES AS WRITTEN. This isn't rocket science.
Also still waiting on that rule quote. Have you found it yet?
See here as well as the link within.
If you are looking for a quote printed in the Pathfinder resource, and that is all that you accept as RAW, then no one can provide you one. That doesn't make you 'right', it just means you have an inaccurate concept of what "RAW" is.RAW = RULES AS WRITTEN. This isn't rocket science.
Also still waiting on that rule quote. Have you found it yet?
Please pay me the courtesy of reading my posts, since I answered your question in the first paragraph of my last one. Thanks.
If you are looking for a quote printed in the Pathfinder resource, and that is all that you accept as RAW, then no one can provide you one. That doesn't make you 'right', it just means you have an inaccurate concept of what "RAW" is.
And you're right, it's not rocket science: The designers have stated, in numerous threads, exactly how the rules as written work. You dislike that and claim that it's stupid (and frankly, I agree with you on that point); the difference is that I recognize that the designers are the ultimate authority on RAW, and so what they say is RAW, and recognize that my stance on it is a house rule, whereas you are bound and determined to reject that reality and (with no authority to do so outside your own table) substitute your own.
@Fretgod99: If you haven't determined it yet, unless you can quote a specific page that says, "The casting of spells with an [Evil] descriptor are always evil acts," then Ashiel isn't going to accept it. It's obvious that Sean's statement references back to those rules, but since it's not explicitly stated, then apparently it's not RAW (even though it clearly is, and has been as far back as 3.0, where it was stated explicitly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See here as well as the link within.If you are looking for a quote printed in the Pathfinder resource, and that is all that you accept as RAW, then no one can provide you one. That doesn't make you 'right', it just means you have an inaccurate concept of what "RAW" is.RAW = RULES AS WRITTEN. This isn't rocket science.
Also still waiting on that rule quote. Have you found it yet?
You are aware that each of the items listed under Descriptor refers to rules elsewhere in the book, right? It does not define new rules, it gives you a brief description of what effects a descriptor might have. "With alignment" must refer to something elsewhere in the book. All that exists, from my knowledge, is cleric alignment determining what spells they can cast and whether an effect is a valid target for spells such as dispel evil and protection from evil.
As Ashiel said above, you're welcome to search for a rule to support your point. One has not yet been provided.
@Xaratherus
By definition for something to be rules as written it needs to be written down somewhere. If you've got a 3.x reference from the Player's Handbook or DMG (I don't believe one exists since the chapters are the same as they are in the Pathfinder CRB, but you can look if you like) I'd like to see it- since it would be interesting- but it would have no bearing in a discussion of Pathfinder.
Similarly, Sean's house rules are interesting, but useless for this discussion.
See here as well as the link within.If you are looking for a quote printed in the Pathfinder resource, and that is all that you accept as RAW, then no one can provide you one. That doesn't make you 'right', it just means you have an inaccurate concept of what "RAW" is.RAW = RULES AS WRITTEN. This isn't rocket science.
Also still waiting on that rule quote. Have you found it yet?
You are aware that each of the items listed under Descriptor refers to rules elsewhere in the book, right? It does not define new rules, it gives you a brief description of what effects a descriptor might have. "With alignment" must refer to something elsewhere in the book. All that exists, from my knowledge, is cleric alignment determining what spells they can cast and whether an effect is a valid target for spells such as dispel evil and protection from evil.
As Ashiel said above, you're welcome to search for a rule to support your point. One has not yet been provided.
Did you read the link within? I feel like you didn't read the link within.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you read the link within? I feel like you didn't read the link within.
I did. I feel like you didn't read my post, since it includes why the text under Descriptor doesn't mean what you think it means. :P
@Fretgod99: If you haven't determined it yet, unless you can quote a specific page that says, "The casting of spells with an [Evil] descriptor are always evil acts," then Ashiel isn't going to accept it. It's obvious that Sean's statement references back to those rules, but since it's not explicitly stated, then apparently it's not RAW (even though it clearly is, and has been as far back as 3.0, where it was stated explicitly).
Oh I know. I just felt like painting a big red X on it. Thought it might be fun.
By the way, I enjoyed your Supreme Court analogy. It works. I may have gone with 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but minor quibbling. I think making FAQs equivalent to SCOTUS draws the analogy together quite nicely. So a Developer post directly on point fits CoA territory nicely.
Regardless, I'm belaboring. Well done, good sir.
Did you read the link within? I feel like you didn't read the link within.I did. I feel like you didn't read my post, since it includes why the text under Descriptor doesn't mean what you think it means. :P
Ah, well I was curious because the bit about it being relevant only to Cleric alignments was discussed pretty heavily.
Regardless, carry on!
It does not define new rules, it gives you a brief description of what effects a descriptor might have.
That block of text defines what mind-affecting and language-dependant do. That is where those things are defined. They are not defined elsewhere in the book. Therefore that text has defined new rules.
Did you read the link within? I feel like you didn't read the link within.I did. I feel like you didn't read my post, since it includes why the text under Descriptor doesn't mean what you think it means. :P
Even though you have two designers (one directly, one referenced) in the thread who said that's exactly what it means?
How about this, from Ultimate Magic, talking about when to attach descriptors to new spells:
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
Infernal healing doesn't conjure Evil creatures, so one might have to assume it draws upon evil powers.
And before you leap on me, I am aware that these are guidelines for new spells, not hard and fast rules for existing spells. But that doesn't mean it can't be informative.
@Xaratherus
By definition for something to be rules as written it needs to be written down somewhere. If you've got a 3.x reference from the Player's Handbook or DMG (I don't believe one exists since the chapters are the same as they are in the Pathfinder CRB, but you can look if you like) I'd like to see it- since it would be interesting- but it would have no bearing in a discussion of Pathfinder.Similarly, Sean's house rules are interesting, but useless for this discussion.
Dismissing Sean's quote is, to be honest, insulting to the designers, and 'moving the goalposts' in the discussion. Sean is\was generally very good about stating when he was not speaking ex officio. To hand-wave them away as "house rules"? It was a statement written by one of the designers in the game in answer to a question on the rules forum; if that is insufficient to qualify for RAW by your standards, then at the very least it indicates the official RAI.
As to the 3.x source material, I am referencing The Book of Vile Darkness, (which apparently is dismissable because it was a 'splatbook' and therefore optional), which mentioned in numerous ways that an act defined as evil is always evil regardless of circumstance, that the ends do not justify the means in the D&D universe, and specifically that spells and abilities that have the evil description and\or are stated to draw on evil powers are evil acts to use.
Primarily, though, I mentioned it because that means we have designers in 3.x stating the exact same thing as the Pathfinder designers, and so it's rather disingenuous to me to pretend that that isn't the way it's been intended to work all along.
It does not define new rules, it gives you a brief description of what effects a descriptor might have.That block of text defines what mind-affecting and language-dependant do. That is where those things are defined. They are not defined elsewhere in the book. Therefore that text has defined new rules.
Ah, that's true. I suppose all I can say is that its interactions with alignment are undefined except for in those specific cases. I don't see any reason to believe that it has other, unwritten interactions.
Dismissing Sean's quote is, to be honest, insulting to the designers, and 'moving the goalposts' in the discussion. Sean is\was generally very good about stating when he was not speaking ex officio. To hand-wave them away as "house rules"? It was a statement written by one of the designers in the game in answer to a question on the rules forum; if that is insufficient to qualify for RAW by your standards, then at the very least it indicates the official RAI.
As to the 3.x source material, I am referencing The Book of Vile Darkness, (which apparently is dismissable because it was a 'splatbook' and therefore optional), which mentioned in numerous ways that an defined as evil is always evil, that the ends do not justify the means in the D&D universe, and specifically that spells and abilities that have the evil description and\or are stated to draw on evil powers are evil acts to use.
Primarily, though, I mentioned it because that means we have designers in 3.x stating the exact same thing as the Pathfinder designers, and so it's rather disingenuous to me to pretend that that isn't the way it's been intended to work all along.
Is it insulting? Designers are people too, they're allowed to be wrong about things. Especially when referring to rules that they had no hand in creating. Hell, the 3.x FAQ was often straight up incorrect about how the game worked. FAQs and designer posts are not rules. They can often give you insight on what was intended, but they don't change what's written in the book. That's what errata is for.
The Book of Vile Darkness was written for 3.0, after the Alignment chapter was published. Oddly enough, that (optional) rule wasn't carried forward into 3.5.
EDIT: And insight into what Sean believes is just that; insight into what Sean believes. He has no better understanding of the original intent for the rule than you or I.
EDIT: And insight into what Sean believes is just that; insight into what Sean believes. He has no better understanding of the original intent for the rule than you or I.
Sean has worked at TSR, Wizards of the Coast, and Paizo. I think he might have a little more insight into the people who originally wrote those words than you or I.
Just so you know that despite his avatar, Ashiel is a guy and certainly doesn't need anyone 'white-knighting" him as he (usually) argues very effectively on his own. Mind you, in this case, his dislike of the alignment system (which is a fairly common dislike) has blinded him to what the rules actually are pretty clear about.
And of course he's absolutely right in that casting Infernal healing in a altruistic manner on puppies and sick orphans should not change your alignment to Evil in a permanent manner.
Honestly, I think that spell needs to go bye-bye, but that's just me.
Fair enough. In any case, I think the original question ('What happens if I Smite Evil on a person affected by infernal healing?') has been covered fairly well.
Just so you know that despite his avatar, Ashiel is a guy and certainly doesn't need anyone 'white-knighting" him as he (usually) argues very effectively on his own.
I've not once been upset or angry in this entire conversation until now. Aratrok knows and has known my gender for a long time, and it makes me angry to have you sweep aside his commentary on the subject as "white-knighting". I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that again.
There is nothing in there that indicates casting a spell with the evil description is an evil act. Just that spells can interact with alignment, say for example how protection from evil interacts with creatures who have an evil alignment.
And Sean is not always correct, he makes mistakes from time to time and since the rules don't say anything of the sort, I don't think he is right on this one. If the developers want to change the rules so they work how Sean wants them to work, they can do that through a FAQ or errata.
Not that it really matters since changing your alignment is up to the player anyway, but still.
This. As Aratok has pointed out, the section quoted by Ross does not say what folks are saying it says. The descriptor section is correct. It does determine how these spells interact with things like alignment. In fact my entire argument draws on this premise.
What it does not say - EVER - is that casting a spell with a particular alignment descriptor is an aligned act, and I notice that none of you bothered to respond to my cleric with the anarchic mace comment when that comment throws a monkey wrench deep into the cogs of your arguments and the arguments of Sean K. Reynolds in thread that you had linked to.
So so far you guys have neither...
A) Provided a rule stating that casting an aligned spell as being an aligned act which is likely something worth actually mentioning in the alignment rules given the prevalence of aligned spells in the game.
B) Responded to the logical challenges that I issued that poke holes in your arguments.
We (I, Rikkan, Aratok, and a couple others) however have answered literally every challenge with logic, reason, and rule quotes, and have claimed nothing more than what is in the rules.
There is nothing in there that indicates casting a spell with the evil description is an evil act.
Based upon that only: “Deliberate use of a symbol of unholy command”, “using the witch hex Cook people” , “Bonding with the Skullsoul”, and “Feeding on unwilling intelligent creatures” are the only evil acts*. You are free to burn orphanages, torture, kill, loot, main, kick puppies and what not, but as long as you stay clear of those four things, you’re golden. Riiight.
The devs didn’t start actually using the term ‘evil act’ to say such & such was outright evil until later. They were (and this is obviously where they went terribly, horrible wrong) depending on this thing called ‘common sense” before that.
*AFAIK, based upon a rather short use of Search. ymmv. ianal.
A lawful creature wielding an anarchic mace suffers a negative level because the alignment of the weapon is diametrically opposed to the user's level. So it's not fair to say (as you did) that "any cleric of Serenae or Asmodeous can happily wield this weapon with no problems at all." Any such lawful clerics would suffer a negative level, not an insignificant penalty. And that's just wielding a weapon.
It stands to reason (to me, anyway) that actually channeling the energy through one's body as a caster or manipulating the energy around one as a caster does should probably carry with it an even more severe consequence.
An inability to draw on energy from sources diametrically opposed to your core personal attitudes seems fitting, honestly.
Is it insulting? Designers are people too, they're allowed to be wrong about things. Especially when referring to rules that they had no hand in creating. Hell, the 3.x FAQ was often straight up incorrect about how the game worked. FAQs and designer posts are not rules. They can often give you insight on what was intended, but they don't change what's written in the book. That's what errata is for.
Frankly, yeah, it is insulting. You seem to propose that even FAQs are not "official rules". Paizo disagrees. From the post at the top of the forum:
The FAQ system was built to allow players and GMs to draw attention to unclear, confusing, or incorrect parts of the game rules and get official answers from the designers.
It is not intended to create official rulings for every possible corner case or combination of the rules. Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters.
If you are dismissing even official FAQs as not being RAW, then we don't seem to have real basis for discussion.
We (I, Rikkan, Aratok, and a couple others) however have answered literally every challenge with logic, reason, and rule quotes, and have claimed nothing more than what is in the rules.
Really? Looking at one of the ultimate authorities on the game's rules - because that is what Sean is, he's a designer; the only authority higher than him is an official ruling by the Pathfinder Design Team (although Aratrok apparently does not even consider that as official enough to be RAW) - and then stating that they - what? - apparently don't have the authority to state, "This is how the rules as written are intended to work," is logical? No, sorry - not in the universe in which I reside.
As I mentioned, that's like disagreeing with what the Supreme Court says a law means; you're welcome to do so, but the simple fact is that they outrank you. That doesn't take away your ability to house rule things, but it does mean that running it differently . So no, you haven't been as logical as you're proposing; you've been discarding the official opinion of someone who belongs to the only group who can say what the RAW actually means and how it was intended to work because you disagree with it and think that it's stupid.
*AFAIK, based upon a rather short use of Search. ymmv. ianal.
Speaking of evil ...
What it does not say - EVER - is that casting a spell with a particular alignment descriptor is an aligned act...
Because they rarely use that term, ever. In fact even on the Changing alignment page they dont even say that "Extreme, deliberate acts, such as burning down an orphanage full of children just for the fun of it" is 'an evil act. They just say that "should push the character fully into that alignment."
So, no, they don't say "using an evil spell is an evil act' as they rarely use that term at all, and in fact I can't even find it anywhere in the core.
Therefore, what you're asking for doesn't exist as they simply didn't use that terminology. That doesn't mean that using a evil spell isn't 'evil' as they use that word right there. "EVIL".
Folks, we're pretty well into agree to disagree territory here. At least go spin off another thread. This question is answered.
Folks, we're pretty well into agree to disagree territory here. At least go spin off another thread. This question is answered.
Agreed. I'm done here; I should have stayed done back when I said I was originally going to be done, heh.
