Not evil to cause good. Just casting a spell to get healed. Does it shift your alignment?It's not the fact that you are healing someone, it is HOW you are healing them... So yes, I would rule that your alignment shifts slightly in the direction of evil, but not an actual change of alignment (you need to remain consistent in your evil actions for that to actually happen).
So a character consistently heals themselves in this fashion would suffer alignment chance eventually. Even if he didn't 'mean' it. But could not protect himself from that change or even change back by committing purposeful small acts of altruism?
So small and meaningless gestures of evil outweighs small purposeful and genuine gestures of good?
Basically the motive and method of the act matter if you commit acts of evil but not if you commit acts of good.
|
So if a True Neutral character healed after every battle using Infernal Healing, would you shift him to Evil? If yes, how many IH's does it take? If no, why not?
An evil action is an evil action no matter the alignment of the actor, so yes, that character's alignment would be shifted gradually direction of evil with every casting. How many castings would it take? I don't have an answer for that other than "it depends". It depends if he keeps casting it with the full knowledge that it is evil to do so, because while it is one thing to perform an evil action out of naivety, it is another to do so willfully...
|
|
So small and meaningless gestures of evil outweighs small purposeful and genuine gestures of good?
That's the thing... I do not think it is meaningless. Now it can be done out of naivety, but it is still evil. And to continue to perform an action after learning it is evil, makes matters worse.
As for doing good to "erase" evil actions, I've stated previously in this thread that I think that genuine actions of good will shift one's alignment back in the direction of good, and that mindless actions of good are hollow and meaningless and do nothing for one's alignment.
I have also stated (again, in this thread) that I think that the climb uphill (towards good) is harder than the decent towards evil; meaning that one needs to work hard to make amends for their evil actions (no matter how small they think they were or their intent behind those actions)...
But how is Infernal Healing Evil? It's just Evil because of the tag? Then it is as meaningless an 'Evil' action as Protection From Good. It's Evil because of the material component? Sorcerers.
If you have to fabricate some grand cosmic consequences and call in the gods themselves to make IH's [evil] tag make sense, then it doesn't really make sense right now, huh?
For Infernal healing to be evil, it does not need cosmic consequences. IH could change how your thought-processess work to make Evil actions seem more reasonable in your mind.
|
|
But how is Infernal Healing Evil? It's just Evil because of the tag? Then it is as meaningless an 'Evil' action as Protection From Good. It's Evil because of the material component? Sorcerers.
Actually, because of the edition I play, alignment tags on spells are meaningless to me. What makes that particular spell evil to me are the material components. Fiends from the lower planes and everything associated with them are evil, as is the use of unholy water - period...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...The edition you play.
If we're not even playing the same game, then this conversation never needed to happen, sir. That would have been nice to know before hand.
For Infernal healing to be evil, it does not need cosmic consequences. IH could change how your thought-processess work to make Evil actions seem more reasonable in your mind.
But it doesn't. That's the thing. If you have to make things up to make it Evil, then it shouldn't have the [evil] tag as is.
|
|
...The edition you play.
If we're not even playing the same game, then this conversation never needed to happen, sir. That would have been nice to know before hand.
I have stated from the start that I play 2nd edition AD&D...
However, that does not mean I do not or cannot have an opinion on this topic. I have played both Pathfinder and 3rd edition from their respected starts (having only switched back to 2nd edition about two years ago).
Regardless, my views of good and evil transcend edition; so it does not matter whether I am playing Pathfinder or 2nd edition AD&D. To me, good and evil are not equally balanced. And most everything that I have said thus far has applied to my campaigns when I was playing Pathfinder (and would continue to apply if Pathfinder had remained my go-to game of choice)...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if a True Neutral character healed after every battle using Infernal Healing, would you shift him to Evil? If yes, how many IH's does it take? If no, why not?An evil action is an evil action no matter the alignment of the actor, so yes, that character's alignment would be shifted gradually direction of evil with every casting. How many castings would it take? I don't have an answer for that other than "it depends". It depends if he keeps casting it with the full knowledge that it is evil to do so, because while it is one thing to perform an evil action out of naivety, it is another to do so willfully...
It depends on the vindictiveness of the GM?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many a DM probably deserves Hell for their more questionable actions, which they surely defend with the excuse of having said actions be for the greater good of the party...
But how is Infernal Healing Evil? It's just Evil because of the tag? Then it is as meaningless an 'Evil' action as Protection From Good. It's Evil because of the material component? Sorcerers.
If you have to fabricate some grand cosmic consequences and call in the gods themselves to make IH's [evil] tag make sense, then it doesn't really make sense right now, huh?
Not only the setting but the spell components are in clear violation of what any paladin or priest what accept a wizard carrying with him (Unholy water).
I see a spell like that having definite use, as I have stooped into relying on it at key moments but I may be in the dark for thinking i've justified every IH cast as it has saved my PC and the life of other PC's the few times it saw use. For a true neutral character with few options to help the reason isn't so much to cause evil or a malignant effect but to help. On the other hand I like that sort of plot-hook that even a well-meaning arcane caster turns to corrupted magic for the sake of good and eventually loses his way
|
But how is Infernal Healing Evil? It's just Evil because of the tag? Then it is as meaningless an 'Evil' action as Protection From Good. It's Evil because of the material component? Sorcerers.
If you have to fabricate some grand cosmic consequences and call in the gods themselves to make IH's [evil] tag make sense, then it doesn't really make sense right now, huh?
Ultimate Magic pg. 137 in discussion of the evil descriptor: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or have the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
The evil descriptor means that spells like protection from good or infernal healing draw upon the literal metaphysical powers of evil to allow them to function. Protection from good requires that the caster channel that evil through themselves and allow that violation into the unsuspecting world around them. If you are a sorcerer you are pulling that evil from either the dark planes themselves or the evil in your heart, shining a light on it and bringing it to the front. Infernal healing requires that you do the same.
The other components probably reflect this as well. Protection against good probably has you spitting curses and blasphemes at the forces of good and infernal healing might call upon you to make the signs of the prince of darkness, invoking your fealty to him to garner access to that dark power.
From here you could feel free to apply this to any of the other alignment tags. Like chaos having to make the 8 pointed star of chaos or good spells calling upon you to look upon your deeds in your heart and announce your quest for repentance from previous sins.
|
Is it harder to go from Evil to Good than the reverse? Debatably, but only inasmuch as selflessness and altruism are harder than selfishness. Not in any other way.Selflessness and altruism are hard coded in actual real world human genetics. They're traits of a social species, and the reason that groups of people who band into clans, villages, cities, and nations survived. The guilt people feel when they refuse to help someone in need shows us that altruism is a natural impulse.
How many people do you think would ignore a child about to fall from a ledge?
I wish it were that simple.
For the very reasons you list (being a social, specifically tribal, species) people are hardwired to only easily really care about a certain number of people, or categories of people (what's sometimes called a 'monkeysphere'). They certainly go out of their way to help their fiends, family and others they see as 'one of us'...but strangers and those half the world away? Not so much. Which would default to Neutral in terms of Alignment, mostly anyway.
Yes, people will grab a child about to fall from a ledge. They may even risk themselves to do so, though not all will, but it requires more than an occasional spontaneous act to be Good. It requires a consistent pattern of altruistic behavior. And consistent patterns like that are harder to maintain than consistent patterns of selfishness, especially when you're used to the selfish pattern.
I'm not saying being good is impossible, or even particularly hard if you work at it (I certainly try to be a good person, and I usually manage despite zero natural aptitude), but developing the behavior pattern is a little more difficult than developing a more actively selfish one.
Kitty Genovese, March 13 1964. Urban Legend.There's a famous example about an assaulted woman in the late 60's or early 70's who spent two hours bleeding to death because an entire apartment building full of people ignored her cries because they didn't want to get involved , even to the point of calling the police.
People are a complex mix of things, not a simple stew.
While this particular example is indeed an urban legend, and false, women in urban areas are still told to yell 'Fire!' instead of 'Rape!' because people will actually come towards the first to help, but not the second. There's a reason for that.
It depends on the vindictiveness of the GM?
I do not think that having consequences for a non evil character performing evil actions (even unintentionally) is vindictive.
As the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions...
There is a difference between consequence and telling people how to roleplay.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between consequence and telling people how to roleplay.
In my games, alignment means something, it's not just a "tool", it helps define who a character is. I do not tell my players how to roleplay their characters, but I do keep track of their character's actions. And actions have repercussions and consequences (which can be either good or bad depending upon the actions taken). And a good or neutral character taking an evil action carries the consequence of shifting the character's alignment towards evil (mind you, not enough to change the character's alignment provided the action taken is relatively minor in nature). Unlike Pathfinder however, the edition of the game I play, RAW, changing alignment means no XP until the change can be reconciled...
If you believe that enforcing alignment is telling you how to roleplay, that's fine; I don't think it is. I can tell you however, that I have repeated over and over on this thread that my views of good vs. evil are just that... My views, and not the RAW.
In my 30 years of anecdotal experience, I have not had a single player that has had a problem with my enforcement of the alignment rules.
YMMV...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, people will grab a child about to fall from a ledge. They may even risk themselves to do so, though not all will, but it requires more than an occasional spontaneous act to be Good. It requires a consistent pattern of altruistic behavior. And consistent patterns like that are harder to maintain than consistent patterns of selfishness, especially when you're used to the selfish pattern.
I disagree that it's more difficult to be altruistic. Sure distance, both physical and social can blunt the basic altruistic impulses of people, but people still feel guilt for ignoring suffering. How many people are completely unmoved when a commercial showing starving children in another country plays? For that matter, how many are not saddened by those animal ads with the Sarah McLachlan music? Guilt might not motivate them to act, but it can lead to cognitive dissonance. This will require them to rationalize the situation. Often these rationalizations will need to be reinforced or reexamined at some point. Other psychological issues may result. Really, it's hard work suppressing one's natural altruistic tendencies. Especially when considered against the potential psychological rewards of helping.
The means do not justify the end - which means that one cannot do an evil thing for a good purpose, and one cannot simply do a good deed to overcome an evil one without a genuine good intent behind the action...
Again, what you mean is "the ends do not justify the means". The end point, a good act, does not make the means, evil done to accomplish it, just.
Let's take the classic streetcar example, the man on the bridge variant. An out of control streetcar is heading towards a group of people that cannot escape in time, and we'll surely be killed. You're on a bridge over the tracks, and there is a large man with a heavy backpack nearby. If you push him off the bridge, it will stop the streetcar, but certainly kill the man. In this case, the means is "pushing the man to his death", and the end is "saving a group of people's lives". To say the ends do not justify the means is to say that saving the group of people's lives does not justify pushing the man to his death. To say, as you have written, that the means do not justify the end is to say that pushing the man to his death does not justify saving the people's lives.
|
|
I disagree that it's more difficult to be altruistic. Sure distance, both physical and social can blunt the basic altruistic impulses of people, but people still feel guilt for ignoring suffering. How many people are completely unmoved when a commercial showing starving children in another country plays? For that matter, how many are not saddened by those animal ads with the Sarah McLachlan music? Guilt might not motivate them to act, but it can lead to cognitive dissonance. This will require them to rationalize the situation. Often these rationalizations will need to be reinforced or reexamined at some point. Other psychological issues may result. Really, it's hard work suppressing one's natural altruistic tendencies. Especially when considered against the potential psychological rewards of helping.
And yet most people seem to do so.
I'm not saying people aren't more psychologically healthy when being altruistic (I think that's likely true of many people), I'm saying that most people don't live that way, and are difficult to convince to do so. Most people aren't completely selfish either, of course, but it's an easier lifestyle to slip towards without really paying attention, at least for most people.
Some people are just wonderfully nice by nature, and some are complete monsters by nature (though both can be raised and/or choose to act against that...genetics are not destiny), but most people aren't either, and have to work at it to become a really good person...or a really bad person. But the work to become a really bad person just involves acting even more selfishly than usual, something that's not actually that much work once you set out to do it. Being a really good person is a bit more effort than that, most days.
I disagree that it's more difficult to be altruistic. Sure distance, both physical and social can blunt the basic altruistic impulses of people, but people still feel guilt for ignoring suffering. How many people are completely unmoved when a commercial showing starving children in another country plays? For that matter, how many are not saddened by those animal ads with the Sarah McLachlan music? Guilt might not motivate them to act, but it can lead to cognitive dissonance. This will require them to rationalize the situation. Often these rationalizations will need to be reinforced or reexamined at some point. Other psychological issues may result. Really, it's hard work suppressing one's natural altruistic tendencies. Especially when considered against the potential psychological rewards of helping.Yes, people will grab a child about to fall from a ledge. They may even risk themselves to do so, though not all will, but it requires more than an occasional spontaneous act to be Good. It requires a consistent pattern of altruistic behavior. And consistent patterns like that are harder to maintain than consistent patterns of selfishness, especially when you're used to the selfish pattern.
The thing is, not acting to help someone in need is the same as ignoring them. Guilt means they should have done something. A good person does something, a neutral person feels guilty about not helping. An evil person is the one who laughs at what is happening, is the one causing the damage, or is the one that helps because he has alterier motives that will allow him to work some evil.
|
|
In my games, alignment means something, it's not just a "tool", it helps define who a character is.So when I use my wand of cure light wounds it cancels out the infernal healing loss. They are equal actions and if I'm neutral I have to split it or suffer an alignment shift.
Heck as a N cleric of abadar I cast cure light wounds and lost all of my class features swaping to NG. I MUST by all rights cast an equal number of infernal healings to equal out my good actions or else lose all class features.
This is why casting spells with descriptors effecting your alignment is absurd. Because the mandatory CLW feature of this game.
Uh...CLW is not a [good] spell, so this whole post makes no sense.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Still worth repeating.
While this particular example is indeed an urban legend, and false, women in urban areas are still told to yell 'Fire!' instead of 'Rape!' because people will actually come towards the first to help, but not the second. There's a reason for that.
Funny, because i'm pretty sure that's ALSO an urban legend!
Ninja'd by TriOmegaZero and Deadmanwalking... like getting run over by two cars going opposite directions :)
At least this thread has pulled back from the rather rude posts it had suffered. I was wondering whether there was a discussion still in here that didn't involve sarcasm, aspersions against someone's intelligence or honesty. Glad to see things being debated politely...
|
|
While this particular example is indeed an urban legend, and false, women in urban areas are still told to yell 'Fire!' instead of 'Rape!' because people will actually come towards the first to help, but not the second. There's a reason for that.Funny, because i'm pretty sure that's ALSO an urban legend!
And that's just some of the first few hits on a search. You can certainly argue it's ineffective, you may be right, but it says something about people's likelihood of responding to cries for help that the advice is even offered. Which was my point.
The third link talks about a number of stories of bystanders doing nothing as well. They're wrong about Kitty Genovese (who they mention in passing, having not done their research as in-depth as they might've), and may be wrong about some of the others...but stuff like this absolutely does happen.
|
|
Well, your 'mandatory cure light' facet doesn't, at least.CLW doesn't have the [Good] descriptor.Substitute protection from evil. Still stands.
Yeah. That's what I was mainly disputing there. There are no mandatory aligned spells in the game, and there's a reason for that.
I do also disagree with the basic idea in question...but I've gone into that in detail in several previous posts and I'm not repeating myself at any length.
Short version: Doing Alignment as an accounting game is silly, whether you throw spells in or not, and such Alignment accountancy is, in fact, not an inherent part of [alignment] spells being aligned acts.
If you believe that enforcing alignment is telling you how to roleplay, that's fine; I don't think it is. I can tell you however, that I have repeated over and over on this thread that my views of good vs. evil are just that... My views, and not the RAW.
The issue is you are advocating for the GM to inflict his idea of good and evil mechanically via some sort of alignment point slider onto the player. You are then using this pseudo mechanical abstraction as way for your world to have consequence. But if alignment is suppose to define your actions, and then you change someones alignment for arbitrary actions, then suddenly their normal behavior does not align with their alignment.
By changing someone's alignment, you are telling them to immediately roleplay differently. Not because of some in world consequence, but because you as a GM were unsatisfied with their actions.
This becomes more irksome when using Infernal Healing to save orphans will at some point change your alignment so that saving orphans is no longer acceptable, but using the spell is. It's nonsense.
|
|
Well, your 'mandatory cure light' facet doesn't, at least.CLW doesn't have the [Good] descriptor.Substitute protection from evil. Still stands.Yeah. That's what I was mainly disputing there. There are no mandatory aligned spells in the game, and there's a reason for that.
I do also disagree with the basic idea in question...but I've gone into that in detail in several previous posts and I'm not repeating myself at any length.
Short version: Doing Alignment as an accounting game is silly, whether you throw spells in or not, and such Alignment accountancy is, in fact, not an inherent part of [alignment] spells being aligned acts.
To build a little off of what Deadman is saying if you are worried about alignment from casting protection there are a dozen other spells that fill that niche for players (sans maybe the possession part) that would work for a neutral cleric without impugning his neutrality. But if he does want to spam spells with alignment components then that is the risk you have to take. A N cleric has chosen to walk the path of moderation rather than extremism in terms of alignment which means they must balance those alignment components equally, either through abstaining from their use or by using both in equal measure. Trying to be a true neutral cleric of nethys and only using good spells sparingly while not using evil spells doesn't make you neutral it makes you good leaning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably wrong here but this feels like it is coming to a roleplay vs rollplay issue. One side uses alignment for story and character development and world immersment, and the other just sees it as a resource to be monitored through a profit/loss system.
Some of us who oppose the idea of aligned spells shifting alignment oppose it because we see it as getting in the way of storytelling and development. In fact some who oppose alignment in general see it as an impediment to telling stories about characters that feel real or compelling.
To build a little off of what Deadman is saying if you are worried about alignment from casting protection there are a dozen other spells that fill that niche for players (sans maybe the possession part) that would work for a neutral cleric without impugning his neutrality. But if he does want to spam spells with alignment components then that is the risk you have to take. A N cleric has chosen to walk the path of moderation rather than extremism in terms of alignment which means they must balance those alignment components equally, either through abstaining from their use or by using both in equal measure. Trying to be a true neutral cleric of nethys and only using good spells sparingly while not using evil spells doesn't make you neutral it makes you good leaning.Well, your 'mandatory cure light' facet doesn't, at least.CLW doesn't have the [Good] descriptor.Substitute protection from evil. Still stands.Yeah. That's what I was mainly disputing there. There are no mandatory aligned spells in the game, and there's a reason for that.
I do also disagree with the basic idea in question...but I've gone into that in detail in several previous posts and I'm not repeating myself at any length.
Short version: Doing Alignment as an accounting game is silly, whether you throw spells in or not, and such Alignment accountancy is, in fact, not an inherent part of [alignment] spells being aligned acts.
It actually doesn't mean anything because you have given no context as to how those spells were used. What you actually use the spell to do is what determines what kind of act it was. That's what I'm trying to say.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, I think having an [evil] tagged healing spell with no obviously evil consequences is a misstep on Paizo's part. Otherwise it creates moral messiness within the system. Is it an evil act to use Infernal Healing to save an innocent life? Does that mean that it's more righteous to let them die when you have the means of saving them readily available?
Really, I would say [evil] healing spells ought to working more along the lines of Vampiric Touch; the healing comes at someone else's expense.
|
|
It actually doesn't mean anything because you have given no context as to how those spells were used. What you actually use the spell to do is what determines what kind of act it was. That's what I'm trying to say.To build a little off of what Deadman is saying if you are worried about alignment from casting protection there are a dozen other spells that fill that niche for players (sans maybe the possession part) that would work for a neutral cleric without impugning his neutrality. But if he does want to spam spells with alignment components then that is the risk you have to take. A N cleric has chosen to walk the path of moderation rather than extremism in terms of alignment which means they must balance those alignment components equally, either through abstaining from their use or by using both in equal measure. Trying to be a true neutral cleric of nethys and only using good spells sparingly while not using evil spells doesn't make you neutral it makes you good leaning.Well, your 'mandatory cure light' facet doesn't, at least.CLW doesn't have the [Good] descriptor.Substitute protection from evil. Still stands.Yeah. That's what I was mainly disputing there. There are no mandatory aligned spells in the game, and there's a reason for that.
I do also disagree with the basic idea in question...but I've gone into that in detail in several previous posts and I'm not repeating myself at any length.
Short version: Doing Alignment as an accounting game is silly, whether you throw spells in or not, and such Alignment accountancy is, in fact, not an inherent part of [alignment] spells being aligned acts.
Ohh sorry, I meant that there aren't really any alignment spells that are mandatory/absolutely essential to every encounter in every game which is what I thought your original retort was echoing.
Second I was referring to how when you cast an aligned spell the context doesn't really matter as much. When you are casting a spell with an alignment you are literally channeling the protostuff of that alignment through you to cast that spell. When my wizard is casting infernal healing he is channeling the prince of darkness and the pit through his being and into another in order for it to do what I want. That darkness is an intrinsic part of the casting and potentially that of the person I am using it upon (in the case of infernal healing). Now if I'm using it for good ends like say saving a child who has been caught in the crossfire that's all fine but I am still filling his wounds with the horrid might of that dark entity. I am violating them in order to save them.
Take that an apply it to the other spells and it becomes pretty apparent how they can drag you down. All of these spells are left open for roleplay to describe your actions but they give instances that would make sense for these to come out. If I'm casting Pro Good I'm shouting slurs and blasphemes at the angels and good works of man to invoke evils protection, when I drop chaos hammer I draw the 8 pointed star of chaos to call it's mercurial whims to my aid. When I decide to cast Summon monster to call an lantern archon my caster focuses his mind on the power of law and the noble actions he has done or strives to do, he prays to them and offers himself to those cosmic forces so that he might succeed at his task.
I talk about this up thread but that's sort of the point of aligned spells, they draw upon those forces to do those actions and it is inherent as part of their casting. Hell it says it in ultimate magic that that's what they do. Now context might "help" you a little but by using an aligned spell you are still furthering the ends of that alignment. It's probably part of why clerics don't get to uses spells of the polar opposite alignment to them.
Another good source to kind of help illustrate this is to check out demons revisited or UM's section on binding or calling a planar ally where they lay out what offerings look like. You are likely doing the same things with the verbal, somatic, or mental focus you are using with any aligned spells you use.
Im not saying its true about you Scythia, but I have had players that don't even consider their alignment once after they mark it on their character sheet. Play how they want. And then I tell them they are in danger of a shift in alignment they get all uppity as if their alignment is all important to them.
Yes in my created world spell choices are important. Especially when multiple spells or hard work can accomplish the same thing. Choosing an evil spell because its easier has a cost to it. I don't count how many times they use one spell over another, but I let them know when they choose a spell of an opposite alignment that it will affect their alignment. I wont require them to behave differently, but you can bet that the world around them will react differently to them. Shop keepers of opposing alignments will charge higher prices if they sell to them at all. Doors will be closed in their faces, while kept opened for their comrads. If they are new to an area, not so much. But if they stay in an area long enough. Word gets around. Neutral players do not get inhibited as much, as long as spell choices tend to be balanced.
|
|
To be honest, I think having an [evil] tagged healing spell with no obviously evil consequences is a misstep on Paizo's part. Otherwise it creates moral messiness within the system. Is it an evil act to use Infernal Healing to save an innocent life? Does that mean that it's more righteous to let them die when you have the means of saving them readily available?
Really, I would say [evil] healing spells ought to working more along the lines of Vampiric Touch; the healing comes at someone else's expense.
Not really. The spell says that the recipient not only reads as evil but can sense it about themselves. How many other times do you get that? Think of it like you are violating them, infernal healing implants a sick piece of the pit in them that wasn't there before and may never come out. Sure the wizard has saved them, but he's violated their fundamental nature with evil proto stuff to do it and they can feel it.
Oh by the by. A properly done heal check can keep a child from dying. That infernal healing isn't necessary to save their lives.
A proper heal check to make them stable. And maybe a cure light wounds later on if you need them conscious and moving on their own. Infernal healing is just begging to corrupt the child.
|
|
if alignment is suppose to define your actions, and then you change someones alignment for arbitrary actions, then suddenly their normal behavior does not align with their alignment.
By changing someone's alignment, you are telling them to immediately roleplay differently. Not because of some in world consequence, but because you as a GM were unsatisfied with their actions.
No, because the players actions have changed their character's alignment, and their actions that led to the change will now more accurately reflect the new alignment, otherwise, there would not have been a change of alignment in the first place...
This becomes more irksome when using Infernal Healing to save orphans will at some point change your alignment so that saving orphans is no longer acceptable, but using the spell is. It's nonsense.
As I've said before, I believe that using the spell is an evil action regardless of how or why the spell is used. So if a player, who after learning that using the spell is an evil action, continues to use it anyway, is now willfully committing an evil act (again, regardless of the why or how).
So the onus of any change of alignment is on the player, not the DM...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh by the by. A properly done heal check can keep a child from dying. That infernal healing isn't necessary to save their lives.
A proper heal check to make them stable. And maybe a cure light wounds later on if you need them conscious and moving on their own. Infernal healing is just begging to corrupt the child.
I would probably make the paladin who refused to let wands of infernal healing be used on children to fall.
Sorry, you don't get to prolong the suffering of children because you have a metaphysical objection. That is evil.
The only time I wouldn't call it evil is if a tiefling used infernal healing on themselves. If they did so on someone else is entirely another story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wont require them to behave differently, but you can bet that the world around them will react differently to them. Shop keepers of opposing alignments will charge higher prices if they sell to them at all. Doors will be closed in their faces, while kept opened for their comrades. If they are new to an area, not so much. But if they stay in an area long enough. Word gets around. Neutral players do not get inhibited as much, as long as spell choices tend to be balanced.
Most people have no way of knowing and no reason to find out. You sound like you're either making that up or you just give at-will detect evil to every commoner.
So the onus of any change of alignment is on the player, not the DM...
That is exactly what I am saying.
But you seem to mean that as, "the player made me do it. Look at what his PC was wearing!"
But yeah, RAW. Spells have no rule making them the action of their type. Fireball isn't a fire action. Casting acid splash doesn't turn me into an ooze. So I don't really agree with any part of your argument.
Oh by the by. A properly done heal check can keep a child from dying. That infernal healing isn't necessary to save their lives.
A proper heal check to make them stable. And maybe a cure light wounds later on if you need them conscious and moving on their own. Infernal healing is just begging to corrupt the child.
I would probably make the paladin who refused to let wands of infernal healing be used on children to fall.
Sorry, you don't get to prolong the suffering of children because you have a metaphysical objection. That is evil.
Umm again. As long as the Paladin as the ability to save them in another manner such as LOH, cure light wounds, channel energy, or I don't know... a heal check, that is rediculous.