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.
Wait a second. You mean to tell me you had no way to tell who the bullies were at school? Or who the people that always offered to help other people out were. That is mind boggling.
|
I would probably make the paladin who refused to let wands of infernal healing be used on children to fall.
I can agree with this, however, to me it is also a no win situation for the paladin, because I believe casting the spell is an evil act, and a paladin who willfully commits an evil act, falls as per RAW...
But paladins are a whole different subject best left for another thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Real people deal with moral consequences for their actions. Compelling stories can come from someone realizing what they did was horribly evil and feel the need to repent.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.
That's fine. People should repent when they do something horribly Evil. The problem is that [evil] spells are often not at all Evil. You could use a lot of them for Evil, if you tried, but you could also use Holy Word for Evil if you just went around putting neutral people in comas for shits and giggles.
By what the rules actually say, there is nothing Evil about Infernal Healing except that tag. It's powered by Hell. So are Tiefling's racial abilities. Every time they resist cold damage, they're corrupting the universe. They should all just be dragged out in a field and shot, right? Tiefling Paladin casts Darkness via racial SLA? Insta-fall. The ends do not justify the means.
|
|
you seem to mean that as, "the player made me do it. Look at what his PC was wearing!"
But the player in this hypothetical did not make me do anything. The rules of alignment and the enforcement of them caused the change. I merely ruled that casting Infernal Healing is an evil action, and the hypothetical player continued to cast the spell anyway...
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.
But those spells do not have [fire] or [ooze] tags associated with them, but Infernal Healing does have a tag associated with it.
So I don't really agree with any part of your argument.
And you don't have to! My argument has never been that my interpretations of these rules are the RAW, just how I run my games...
Now I played in a game where there were factions:air,earth, fire, water where you belonged to a major faction and also a minor faction if you chose. And there was an axis of fire where casting fire spells definitly was fire aligned.
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.
Some would consider the bolded part a goal.
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.
I'm just guessing here, but do you also punish players who play unusual races by having shops overcharge them, or outright refuse to sell to them? If so, I think I understand the root of our disagreement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
A heal check prolongs suffering. If you resort to that instead of using the wand, then you performed a willing evil act. You intentionally made children suffer.
Your example was the heal check instead of healing all of their wounds in a minute.
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.But those spells do not have [fire] or [ooze] tags associated with them, but Infernal Healing does have a tag associated with it.
Fireball does have the [fire] tag...
So how do you justify fireball not being a fire action when infernal healing is an evil action?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Real people deal with moral consequences for their actions. Compelling stories can come from someone realizing what they did was horribly evil and feel the need to repent. It shows character development.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.
This part is exactly why I was saying that alignment can get in the way of good storytelling and character development. No complex or compelling character can have their morality summed up into two letters. Saying "I started out as Lawful Good, but made some hard choices and ended up Neutral" isn't compelling or a good example of development. Dealing with consequences should be based on your actions, not an arbitrary system of absolute moral and ethical categorization. If you murder someone, you face the consequences such as investigation of wrongdoing, potential for family or lover vengeance, facing imprisonment, or loss of property, and potential divine judgement. That a letter might change from G to N, or possibly E depending on severity of the murder, is not necessary to make an interesting story out of it, and can instead distract from focus on the compelling parts of such a story.
In short, someone seeking redemption isn't more compelling because they want to change their letter back to G. They're compelling because of the journey they undergo.
So how do you justify fireball not being a fire action when infernal healing is an evil action?
Actually, if you cast enough Fireballs in enough places within a short time, it COULD have a fiery detrimental effect on the world. That is mostly an extreme example because it would take an awful lot of them to affect the world as a whole, but not necessarily so extreme an example more locally, if you are in a dry forest or prairie . . . .
With respect to Infernal Healing:
1. Check this thread (which seems to have died) for ideas on how that could actually be Evil.
2. Sort-of-equivalent treatments on Earth: Radiation Therapy and some types of Chemotherapy -- might regress your cancer now, but give you a considerably higher risk of getting another cancer down the road even if the one they were treating doesn't come back (which it often does). Medicines containing stuff like Antimony, Arsenic, or Mercury. Transplants and other operations that may save you now, but require you to take some medicine for the rest of your life. In some cases these treatments are unavoidable (hence FDA approval, or the equivalent in other countries), but when they are, they definitely fall into the Necessary Evil category.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
But those spells do not have [fire] or [ooze] tags associated with them, but Infernal Healing does have a tag associated with it.
Fireball does have the [fire] tag...
So how do you justify fireball not being a fire action when infernal healing is an evil action?
Because "Fire" is not an alignment? Some of the tags on spells are alignment related. Not all of them...
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.
Real people deal with moral consequences for their actions. Compelling stories can come from someone realizing what they did was horribly evil and feel the need to repent. It shows character development.
This part is exactly why I was saying that alignment can get in the way of good storytelling and character development. No complex or compelling character can have their morality summed up into two letters. Saying "I started out as Lawful Good, but made some hard choices and ended up Neutral" isn't compelling or a good example of development. Dealing with consequences should be based on your actions, not an arbitrary system of absolute moral and ethical categorization. If you murder someone, you face the consequences such as investigation of wrongdoing, potential for family or lover vengeance, facing imprisonment, or loss of property, and potential divine judgement. That a letter might change from G to N, or possibly E depending on severity of the murder, is not necessary to make an interesting story out of it, and can instead distract from focus on the compelling parts of such a story.
In short, someone seeking redemption isn't more compelling because they want to change their letter back to G. They're compelling because of the journey they undergo.
Changes in alignment are simply labeling the stages in that journey. Doesn't change it. Tracking / using alignment is a tool to reflect the characters journey. Things get quantified in games that don't in books or real life. That's to give the GM and players a handle on what is going on and the potential consequences. Properly applied, changing alignment reflects the characters actions over time. Dramatically speaking, the "letters" don't matter.
Dramatically speaking, the "letters" don't matter.
Broadly speaking, I would agree.
In my experience, they (nor the system they represent) don't contribute to or improve storytelling.
| 2 people 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.
...
If you are on the rollplay side, just cut out alignment if you only look at it like something on a balance sheet. It serves no purpose for you. It's a story builder.
I really like the morals-made-reality aspect of alignment too, but yes, trying to reframe the debate as a 'rollplay vs roleplay' issue is absolutely wrong. And seeing how alignment was in part inspired by the red army vs. blue army rules of miniature war games, it's rather revisionist as well as insulting to other role players.
At best, alignment is completely orthogonal to character development. At worst, alignment is antagonistic to character development when there are alignment restrictions or other rules threatening to punish players for role playing their characters outside of whatever narrow role the game casts them in.
That's why there are so many role playing games completely devoid of alignment, including those of the fantasy genre; many many gamers role play without alignment better without than with. In fact I'm kind of amazed that this very fact didn't have you rethinking your whole premise before posting it on a public message board.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the tags on spells are alignment related. Not all of them...
How so?
Because by that logic enslaving angels via planar binding is a [good] action.
As someone pointed out, you could be killing orphans with these angels, but casting the spell is a good act and thus has consequences. Eventually you may turn good because enslaving angles is a good action.
That person looked at the inverse of doing good with evil spells, but logically the inverse must hold.
Wait a second. You mean to tell me you had no way to tell who the bullies were at school? Or who the people that always offered to help other people out were. That is mind boggling.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.
Bully =! evil.
You can be evil without telegraphing it to the whole world. Unless your suggesting that if someone casts Infernal Healing x number of times they grow a goatee and horns.
|
Dramatically speaking, the "letters" don't matter.Broadly speaking, I would agree.
In my experience, they (nor the system they represent) don't contribute to or improve storytelling.
On PCs? No, they don't. I agree.
However, I find them very useful on NPCs, especially pre-written NPCs, in order to give a general idea of said NPC's moral principles (or lack thereof). It's a good, simple, way of indicating that sort of thing, and spells detecting it are a good way for PCs to discern such information.
That being the case, and the number of rules based on them, tossing some on PCs seems reasonable, and not especially difficult to work with in creating your character's personality and morality (unless your GM is a dick, anyway).
So, IMO, it doesn't help PCs, but doesn't really hurt them either, and helps with NPC characterization. Plus removing it has some annoying rules interactions. That seems to be reason enough to keep it to me.
|
|
by that logic enslaving angels via planar binding is a [good] action.
As someone pointed out, you could be killing orphans with these angels, but casting the spell is a good act and thus has consequences. Eventually you may turn good because enslaving angles is a good action.
Well, as I have said before in this thread before, I do not think that good and evil are equally balanced. I've also stated that one cannot perform good actions without truly good intentions behind them and expect things to balance out because the act is hollow and meaningless. Conversely, I think that performing good actions with truly good intentions behind them would start to balance things out... Casting a [good] spell to do evil does not fit the latter criteria in my view.
What if the person genuinely believes to be doing good by enslaving angels and using said enslaved angels to kill orphans?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the tilted slope/ imbalanced Good and Evil thinkers, I came up with a question that made me wonder: How do you square the existence of Neutral? In a tilted slope morality, there would be Good at one end of the slope (the pure water of a previous analogy), then everything else would be increasing degrees of Evil (increasingly more tainted water, eventually ink). Do you view Neutral as weak evil or evil-lite?
In a view where Good and Evil are not equal or symmetrical, and one is more seductive or consuming, a balance would seem impossible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if the person genuinely believes to be doing good by enslaving angels and using said enslaved angels to kill orphans?
In Pathfinder? They're wrong. Morality is objective in the world of Pathfinder, and their actions are monstrous and Evil. Their motivations might make it slightly less so than the guy who's doing for the evulz, but not enough to meaningfully change anything.
I hold a similar opinion of such actions in real life, but that's a bit more debatable.
But Planar Binding cast with the intention of catching an Angel is a Good action. The spell gains the Good descriptor when used to bind a good-aligned Outsider!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Planar Binding cast with the intention of catching an Angel is a Good action. The spell gains the Good descriptor when used to bind a good-aligned Outsider!
Right (in Golarion anyway)...but enslaving them is a much more Evil act than that could ever be.
Casting [alignment] spells is a rather minor act of the alignment in question. I don't think anyone would argue that either enslavement or murdering orphans are minor acts of Evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok so here's a problem I have with the whole "evil spells affect you more than good spells" idea
For the record, I too disagree with this idea. Aligned spells are minor acts of their alignment (at least in Golarion), but they're the same degree of act whatever alignment that is.
But Planar Binding cast with the intention of catching an Angel is a Good action. The spell gains the Good descriptor when used to bind a good-aligned Outsider!Right (in Golarion anyway)...but enslaving them is a much more Evil act than that could ever be.
Casting [alignment] spells is a rather minor act of the alignment in question. I don't think anyone would argue that either enslavement or murdering orphans are minor acts of Evil.
I think that's a reasonable position, but it does raise the question of whether it applies in reverse. If [evil] spells are only minor acts of evil, there are conceivable situations where the spell itself could do enough good to outweigh the evil of casting it. The preciously-mentioned examples of binding a devil to save children from a burning orphanage, or casting infernal healing to rescue a dying innocent.
Dramatically speaking, the "letters" don't matter.
Broadly speaking, I would agree.
In my experience, they (nor the system they represent) don't contribute to or improve storytelling.
I don't think they inhibit storytelling either. They're just a tool to let the GM and player know about where they are in the story.
Some of the tags on spells are alignment related. Not all of them...
How so?
Because by that logic enslaving angels via planar binding is a [good] action.
As someone pointed out, you could be killing orphans with these angels, but casting the spell is a good act and thus has consequences. Eventually you may turn good because enslaving angles is a good action.
That person looked at the inverse of doing good with evil spells, but logically the inverse must hold.
I'm not sure what logic you're imputing to me. Personally I don't find good / evil tags to be the same as a "fire" tag. One deals with ethics / morality and the other with energy type. Ymmv. Planar Binding does not have a tag iirc. Planar Binding traps a creature, it doesn't compel them to obey you. You have to "persuade" (in the spell description - Charisma checks w. modifiers) / bargain or otherwise get them to obey you. Good luck, no pun intended, in getting Angels to slaughter orphans.
Somewhere above I gave my take on alignment change and minor aligned actions. That they could push you to the edge but it would take a more significant act to push you over the edge. A minor aligned act pushes a character, slightly, one way or the other. People might careen back and forth within their chosen alignment. Unless they are riding the edge and perform a significant act. Then it's over the edge. That takes some work, or some pretty spectacular acts of good / evil.
I've always assumed good / evil and law / chaos to be relatively equal. A creatures culture / environment pushes them towards one or the other if they are not aligned by nature...
As in all things alignment related, ymmv.
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.Some would consider the bolded part a goal.
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.I'm just guessing here, but do you also punish players who play unusual races by having shops overcharge them, or outright refuse to sell to them? If so, I think I understand the root of our disagreement.
Only when they enter a town that is xenophobic. I like a world that is diverse and different. I want each new encounter to be a unique and rich experience. If they continue hang about said town, and do a lot of acts that are helpful to the town... guess what they end up with discounts too. And sometimes they odd race of a party will enter a town filled with their own species and are treated royally compared to their fellows. I actually put effort into my games.
Only when they enter a town that is xenophobic. I like a world that is diverse and different. I want each new encounter to be a unique and rich experience. If they continue hang about said town, and do a lot of acts that are helpful to the town... guess what they end up with discounts too. And sometimes they odd race of a party will enter a town filled with their own species and are treated royally compared to their fellows. I actually put effort into my games.
Wouldn't the users of [evil] spells also gain the "hey, he's not so bad" effect if they stick around an area and help people?
Effort is good. After some of the experiences I've had in games, I value consistency more.
Wait a second. You mean to tell me you had no way to tell who the bullies were at school? Or who the people that always offered to help other people out were. That is mind boggling.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.Bully =! evil.
You can be evil without telegraphing it to the whole world. Unless your suggesting that if someone casts Infernal Healing x number of times they grow a goatee and horns.
This is true, and those people are treated like normal citizens. Murder hobos tend to be talked about. Word gets around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the tilted slope/ imbalanced Good and Evil thinkers, I came up with a question that made me wonder: How do you square the existence of Neutral? In a tilted slope morality, there would be Good at one end of the slope (the pure water of a previous analogy), then everything else would be increasing degrees of Evil (increasingly more tainted water, eventually ink). Do you view Neutral as weak evil or evil-lite?
In a view where Good and Evil are not equal or symmetrical, and one is more seductive or consuming, a balance would seem impossible.
Good question.
The slope for me evens out in the neutrality zone. As long as they are truly neutral and not hiding the evil within. Using both prot evil/good at appropriate times. helping others one moment being selfish at another moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
A heal check prolongs suffering. If you resort to that instead of using the wand, then you performed a willing evil act. You intentionally made children suffer.
Your example was the heal check instead of healing all of their wounds in a minute.
If you see the spell as I do, the mixing of demons blood with the childs blood corrupting that child, then a heal check to get them out of danger and then the next day magical healing that is pure and good isnt a bad that thing.
Delaying the healing of child while its not in any immediate danger is much better than corrupting its soul.
Your opinion is different than mine and that is allowed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does Infernal Healing corrupt the soul if Asmodeus doesn't exist in my setting?
Only when they enter a town that is xenophobic. I like a world that is diverse and different. I want each new encounter to be a unique and rich experience. If they continue hang about said town, and do a lot of acts that are helpful to the town... guess what they end up with discounts too. And sometimes they odd race of a party will enter a town filled with their own species and are treated royally compared to their fellows. I actually put effort into my games.Wouldn't the users of [evil] spells also gain the "hey, he's not so bad" effect if they stick around an area and help people?
Effort is good. After some of the experiences I've had in games, I value consistency more.
Again its the intent plus the action that needs to be considered. A person who uses evil aligned spells to help people would be neutral.
But evil often hide their character behind acts of good. Pedophiles commonly use good acts to insinuate themselves into the lives of their next victims.
Does Infernal Healing corrupt the soul if Asmodeus doesn't exist in my setting?
Your decision if the spell carries the tag or not. You can just rename the spell fast healing. Heck. For all I care take alignment descriptors away entirely.
Planar Binding does not have a tag iirc.
The spell: "When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type."
You use your force of personality to force outsiders to do your biding. Which includes making angels murders orphan. Which if spells are moral actions, would be a good action.
If you see the spell as I do, the mixing of demons blood with the childs blood corrupting that child, then a heal check to get them out of danger and then the next day magical healing that is pure and good isnt a bad that thing.
Delaying the healing of child while its not in any immediate danger is much better than corrupting its soul.
Your opinion is different than mine and that is allowed.
Except that the spell explicitally has no long term effect on alignment. Said paladin's ignorance of the spell's mechanics does not justify them in delaying the alleviation of suffering.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you see the spell as I do, the mixing of demons blood with the childs blood corrupting that child, then a heal check to get them out of danger and then the next day magical healing that is pure and good isnt a bad that thing.
Delaying the healing of child while its not in any immediate danger is much better than corrupting its soul.
Your opinion is different than mine and that is allowed.
Except that the spell explicitally has no long term effect on alignment. Said paladin's ignorance of the spell's mechanics does not justify them in delaying the alleviation of suffering.
Again you and I see it differently. Play your way. Your not wrong and neither am I.
I will say that if the childs guardian is present, then the Paladin should acquiesce to the guardians wishes. If the paladin prevents the casting of the spell against the guardians wishes, I would then penalyze the paladin.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all these examples I always wonder why our hypothetical good character is even carrying around a wand of infernal healing such that it is the only option to heal these poor dying children. That's like carrying around a torture kit "just in case." A normal CLW wand provides all the orphan saving you could ever need for these situations and doesn't have the [evil] tag.
I suppose you could contrive a situation where there is absolutely no magical healing in the party, and they just happened to find a potion of IH, and no one has the heal skill or a good Wisdom, so we have to use it or the child will die. Let's not pretend that's a normal situation.
Once again, it's entirely consistent to rule that aligned spells are minor acts of their alignment. How many castings of infernal healing does it take to turn evil? How many stolen tips from the tip jar does it take? How many business owners do you have to shake down for protection money to turn evil? How many weapons do you need to knowingly sell to bandits? Like all alignment issues it's simply part of an overall pattern. It's not a math equation. It's not like the 25th infernal healing suddenly tips you over, it's more like "willing to use minor evil to achieve their ends" is a facet of your character. Combine that with enough other non-good facets and that's when you slide to neutral.
Similarly casting good spells "to become good" might get you "performs minor meaningless acts of contrition" as a facet of your character. Again, it does nothing by itself, but when looking at the whole character it may have an effect.
|
|
I think that's a reasonable position, but it does raise the question of whether it applies in reverse. If [evil] spells are only minor acts of evil, there are conceivable situations where the spell itself could do enough good to outweigh the evil of casting it. The preciously-mentioned examples of binding a devil to save children from a burning orphanage, or casting infernal healing to rescue a dying innocent.
Right. Those are indeed both acts that come out Good in total...but it's slightly less Good than if you did it a different way, and if you start using spells like that a lot when it's not an emergency like that you'll eventually start drifting vaguely toward Evil absent other Good acts.
Does Infernal Healing corrupt the soul if Asmodeus doesn't exist in my setting?
Infernal Healing as such doesn't exist without Asmodeus.
If you import it to your setting, you could have some other corruption-oriented Devil or God create it, or come up with another explanation for its existence, likely change its material component and name, and scrap the [evil] tag. Of course, that makes it a pretty different spell...
What if the guardian is secretly an evil person and wants the child healed, but to also feel the power of evil within so they can associate evil with feeling healthy thus corrupting them? I know there is now way to know that and I am just play devil's advocate but...I just gave myself a story idea there. Person uses infernal healing to make people be ok with evil and more open to it, thus letting more and more evil energy in. Ok nevermind, I'm thinking of the dark power in Ravenloft who do that sort of thing.
That also fits Asmodeus's modus operandi pretty much perfectly...
In all these examples I always wonder why our hypothetical good character is even carrying around a wand of infernal healing such that it is the only option to heal these poor dying children. That's like carrying around a torture kit "just in case." A normal CLW wand provides all the orphan saving you could ever need for these situations and doesn't have the [evil] tag.
I suppose you could contrive a situation where there is absolutely no magical healing in the party, and they just happened to find a potion of IH, and no one has the heal skill or a good Wisdom, so we have to use it or the child will die. Let's not pretend that's a normal situation.
Well, a Wizard without UMD, on his own, can have a wand of Infernal Healing but not one of CLW. Or the party might be tapped out on healing aside from a found wand of Infernal Healing. Or several other circumstances. It's a slightly odd situation, but it could definitely come up.
I agree with the rest of your post entirely. :)
Once again, it's entirely consistent to rule that aligned spells are minor acts of their alignment.
There is no rule that says that nor is it consistent at all.
By that logic, binding angels to kill orphans is a good act. Since outlining the deal is part of the spell. Therefore because it has a [good] descriptor, you are saying killing orphans is a good act.
Once again, it's entirely consistent to rule that aligned spells are minor acts of their alignment.There is no rule that says that nor is it consistent at all.
By that logic, binding angels to kill orphans is a good act. Since outlining the deal is part of the spell. Therefore because it has a [good] descriptor, you are saying killing orphans is a good act.
Actually, by "that logic," casting binding an angel is a (minor) good act, regardless of instructions. I'd actually argue that it's more of a neutral act, since you're using a Circle of Protection from Good for your binding, which would be a minor evil act.
Your instructions (to kill presumably innocent orphans) are gravely evil. Forcing an angel to commit murder is gravely evil. Even the most legalistic bookkeeping of 'good and evil points' (which I think is a bad idea) scores this as highly evil (actually more evil than using a Fireball to kill the same orphans, since using a Fireball doesn't violate an angel's nature).