|
The better question is why not? We don't have an explanation as to why animated a wolf skeleton is evil. Skeletons make very good minions or even simple manual labor.Unless your class that gets its spells from a Deity then there isn't an alignment requirement to cast aligned spells (unless it calls it out in the spell itself).Agree. But the question I was addressing is, "why a good aligned character would even know a spell like animate dead." A NG druid with the Death Domain, in example, would know animate dead, even if they be very unlikely to ever cast it. Though I have considered that to Druids, Animate dead, and create undead, could be reskinned as "Animate Potting Soil" and "Create Mobile Potting Soil." Zombies only, of course. More a joke than a serious thing.
I can also picture a Good aligned wizard wanting to learn evil spells just to understand their limitations and how to better counter them. More of a role playing reason.
Because creating undead is evil.
Always has been.
Thats the metagame explanation, but how would my character know that? Remember, we are talking about why a good aligned wizard wants to learn "evil" spells. Heck, he may only be vaguely aware that "alignment" is even a thing.
My neutral good wizard doesn't have a copy of the Core Handbook to tell him this spell has the evil descriptor or of Horror Adventures to tell him casting spells with the evil descriptor causes his alignment to shift. He just goes on casting Animate Dead and helping people.
You notice when you cast alignment spells. You definitely feel it. A Good person casting an Evil spell would feel something wrong. An Evil person casting an Evil spell would feel meh, or right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't there an entry somewhere that says that everyone aside from those kids that get tossed into the wild and are raised by animals know creating undead is an evil act?
I take offense to this! One of my characters was literally tossed into the wild and raised by animals and even she knows undead are evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got another one guys!Easy, wizard healing.It restores 10hp, which is great at low levels.I wonder the same thing about infernal healing all the time.
... why does a Good aligned person know animate dead anyway?
*cuts to scene of Wes sitting at his desk, wristing and cackling*
|
Horror Adventures arrived today. I was sold on it when I found it had new racial traits.
So, the note on page 110, regarding evil spells is not as clear cut as is being described in this thread.
Evil Spells
This section includes a large number of evil spells. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn't enough to change their alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won't turn evil, but will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character's alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evil spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater amount of the time between castings, the less likely the alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.Those who are forbidden from casting spells with an opposed alignment might lose their divine abilitiesif they circumvent that restriction (via Use Magic Device, for example), depending on how strict their deities are.
Though this advice talks about evil spells, it applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.
So, for starters, this entire bit is considered "advice" and is entirely up to the GM on wether it applies in each instance. In PFS, our FAQ clearly covers how the "GM" rules this one. This is not a contradiction of rules, this is their ruling as the GM regarding this advice.
For non-PFS, this does remain advice. It is clear, that merely casting an evil spell is not enough to infringe on an alignment, unless the casting of evil spells becomes excessive (either excessive in a short periord, or over time).
This also means that it's up the GM on wether characters can use aligned spells to alter/improve their own alignment.
Isn't there an entry somewhere that says that everyone aside from those kids that get tossed into the wild and are raised by animals know creating undead is an evil act?
Wizards are like scientists. Some degree of detachment is almost mandatory for the entire concept. And for a Wizard or a scientist, merely being told or having a gut feeling something is evil, isn't usually enough to get them to not test it. Now, if a long research document is published by a Wizard/Scientist that they trust, the Wizard/Scientist may be satisfied by that, and not require further testing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't there an entry somewhere that says that everyone aside from those kids that get tossed into the wild and are raised by animals know creating undead is an evil act?I take offense to this! One of my characters was literally tossed into the wild and raised by animals and even she knows undead are evil.
I have one too. She doesn't really understand good and evil, but she does understand that undead are f~+~ing wrong just by looking at them.
|
|
"Well. Seems like an awful lot of virgins blood just to get a house cleaning servant. But this paper was pretty official. Meh. Can't make an omelette, ?"
"Now, if a long research document is published by a Wizard/Scientist that they trust, the Wizard/Scientist may be satisfied by that, and not require further testing.
Exactly. A wizard that wants a spell to create servants would probably not even test Animate Dead if they read a trusted researcher's paper explaining why Animate Dead creates low quality sevants....
I think Transformation is what needs to be clarified, because having to look up if there is an established price somewhere in any of the books published could easily become disastrous. What about, say, Identify? "Components V, S, M (wine stirred with an owl's feather)" Now, I hope we can all agree on owl feathers being negligible until further notice, but not only does wine have an official price, it has multiple official prices for various kinds of wine. Or Howling Agony. Can it be cast even if you didn't stock up on those 5 SP needles?
Also, as far as why list two potential components, there's a few factors here. One is flavor. If you're playing a hellspawn tiefling or a devotee of Zon-Kuthon, that might well affect which one was a more fitting choice for your character. The other is for cases where, for whatever reason, you don't have a spell component pouch handy. Both of these are items that could reasonably realistically be obtained in the course of adventuring, if your spell component pouch was confiscated and left at that prison you just escaped from. It's not the only spell to have choices of material components, either, and I can see more practical justification for it as a matter of emergency availability than, say, Bull's Strength ("Components V, S, M/DF (a few hairs, or a pinch of dung, from a bull)"), if I have to go track down an actual bull anyway, I can probably get dung or hairs without too much variation of difficulty.
So yeah, I think it makes plenty of sense for Infernal Healing to have negligible components.
|
|
Both of these are items that could reasonably realistically be obtained in the course of adventuring, if your spell component pouch was confiscated and left at that prison you just escaped from. It's not the only spell to have choices of material components, either, and I can see more practical justification for it as a matter of emergency availability than, say, Bull's Strength ("Components V, S, M/DF (a few hairs, or a pinch of dung, from a bull)"), if I have to go track down an actual bull anyway, I can probably get dung or hairs without too much variation of difficulty.
So yeah, I think it makes plenty of sense for Infernal Healing to have negligible components.
For starters, I think the spell component pouch is a horrible addition to any game, just because of how vaguely it functions.
I would personally rule that even neglibile cost items are not included in spell component pouches if the exclusive function of that item is to cast aligned spells. I would then have free "upgrade" options for aligned spell components to be added, but they would not be present by default.
The distinction is that if every spell component pouch contains devil's blood and the only application for it is to cast evil spells, then it is entirely reasonable to consider it contraband in good aligned cities and with good aligned law enforcement. So, the guard would take away the entire component pouch if it contained materials for evil spells (though only if the materials had exclusively evil applications). The modern exquivelent would be large drug possession being assumed intent to distrubute. You wouldn't have these components unless you intended to cast evil spells.
Likewise, good components in evil aligned cities. And so forth. It just seems that if the only application of a material is for aligned spells, and the aligned spell is opposed to the local alignment, then it does seem reasonable that it would be an illegal substance. And I don't think every spell component pouch should be illegal, but if you've added the aligned "upgrade" then that is the risk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently "over and over" is considered rules text now.Over and over means doing something more than once. This is immediately followed by how many "more" is needed.
Checking the sidebar myself (don't own a copy but there's a picture online), it is clearly separated from the sentence about the specific number.
A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won't turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character's alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evil spells move the caster from nongood to evil.
"Over and over again" isn't defined anywhere, nor is it possible to divine a meaning by using its English definition. There is no specific range which "over and over again" refers to - it is a range determined by the GM, with a guideline given for typical instances.
If it was, then we could assume that "reasonable limit" is clearly defined as "two free actions a round" as per the following:
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
If this were the case, whenever the phrase "over and over again" was used it would mean "2-3", and the phrase "reasonable limit" would always mean "2 free actions a round". This is not the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't there an entry somewhere that says that everyone aside from those kids that get tossed into the wild and are raised by animals know creating undead is an evil act?
I figure it's a laws-of-physics thing and instinct. You don't need to fall off a cliff to feel uneasy beside one. You don't need to be bit by a spider to fear them. Some world-truths are programmed in.
Tapping into negative energy in a world where such a thing exists very likely is like juggling poisonous spiders at a cliffside. Sure, some people can (and will) do it, but to most people the very idea is repulsive.
|
|
Apparently "over and over" is considered rules text now.Over and over means doing something more than once. This is immediately followed by how many "more" is needed.Checking the sidebar myself (don't own a copy but there's a picture online), it is clearly separated from the sentence about the specific number.
A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won't turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character's alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evil spells move the caster from nongood to evil."Over and over again" isn't defined anywhere, nor is it possible to divine a meaning by using its English definition. There is no specific range which "over and over again" refers to - it is a range determined by the GM, with a guideline given for typical instances.
If it was, then we could assume that "reasonable limit" is clearly defined as "two free actions a round" as per the following:
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).If this were the case, whenever the phrase "over and over again" was used it would mean "2-3", and the phrase "reasonable limit" would always mean "2 free actions a round". This is not the case.
If by separate you mean immediately following it, then yes, their recommendation for over and over is "separate".
|
|
Apparently "over and over" is considered rules text now.Over and over means doing something more than once. This is immediately followed by how many "more" is needed.Checking the sidebar myself (don't own a copy but there's a picture online), it is clearly separated from the sentence about the specific number.
A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won't turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character's alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evil spells move the caster from nongood to evil."Over and over again" isn't defined anywhere, nor is it possible to divine a meaning by using its English definition. There is no specific range which "over and over again" refers to - it is a range determined by the GM, with a guideline given for typical instances.
If it was, then we could assume that "reasonable limit" is clearly defined as "two free actions a round" as per the following:
As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).If this were the case, whenever the phrase "over and over again" was used it would mean "2-3", and the phrase "reasonable limit" would always mean "2 free actions a round". This is not the case.This is why I dislike alignment. Certain classes can just ignore it. Others have to regularly look to the GM for permission to do something without losing all their class abilities.
I would have rathered "Casting an evil/good spell instantly shifts your alignment one step towards evil/good". At least then it would be easy to tell what the consequences of your actions are.
No class is like that (barring divine classes outright unable to cast opposed spells). You do not need permission to something, you can do something and risk losing your class abilities, yes, but you do not need permission.
"If you do that your alignment is probably gonna shift" is the sign of a benevolent GM.
"That's not something your character/alignment/race would do so you can't do it" is the sign of a bad GM.
Isn't there an entry somewhere that says that everyone aside from those kids that get tossed into the wild and are raised by animals know creating undead is an evil act?I figure it's a laws-of-physics thing and instinct. You don't need to fall off a cliff to feel uneasy beside one. You don't need to be bit by a spider to fear them. Some world-truths are programmed in.
Tapping into negative energy in a world where such a thing exists very likely is like juggling poisonous spiders at a cliffside. Sure, some people can (and will) do it, but to most people the very idea is repulsive.
Nonono, I mean that your pig farmer knows that magic can make a zombie and making a zombie is objectively evil. The kid who got tossed in the woods doesn't know what evil is, they just know that the undead thing is bad and are likely to either freak out and run or freak out and start attacking it like crazy when they see it.
Nonono, I mean that your pig farmer knows that magic can make a zombie and making a zombie is objectively evil. The kid who got tossed in the woods doesn't know what evil is, they just know that the undead thing is bad and are likely to either freak out and run or freak out and start attacking it like crazy when they see it.Isn't there an entry somewhere that says that everyone aside from those kids that get tossed into the wild and are raised by animals know creating undead is an evil act?I figure it's a laws-of-physics thing and instinct. You don't need to fall off a cliff to feel uneasy beside one. You don't need to be bit by a spider to fear them. Some world-truths are programmed in.
Tapping into negative energy in a world where such a thing exists very likely is like juggling poisonous spiders at a cliffside. Sure, some people can (and will) do it, but to most people the very idea is repulsive.
Gotcha.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as the price of a Infernal Healing wand is commonly accepted as 1*1*750GP, I don't see this FAQ request going anywhere.
I think the main problem is misreading the components line...
Components V, S, M (1 drop of devil blood or 1 dose of unholy water)it's the "or" that gets you.
The cheapest option is chosen for book(standard) price. Since devil blood has no price it's assumed to be free. If you've played the game creatures with the [devil] or [evil outsider] type get killed a lot. There's a lotta blood being spilt. Imp[devil] is a wizard familiar. Lemure[devil] is accessible via Summon Monster 2.
Secondly, a dose is undefined, you are assuming that it's a flask. I don't know why the odd word was used but I'd assume it was an attempt to leave it up to the GM. Wording in spells is particularly vague at times or just misleading. You have to use some common sense. The game is not uniformly consistent nor will it ever be.
"Commonly accepted" doesn't automatically the negate the need for the FaQ.
Is there any wands of infernal healing listed in print anywhere at that price?
And yeah the problem is the fact of "dose" being undefined, because a specific does could mean anything.
as the price of a Infernal Healing wand is commonly accepted as 1*1*750GP, I don't see this FAQ request going anywhere.
I think the main problem is misreading the components line...
Components V, S, M (1 drop of devil blood or 1 dose of unholy water)it's the "or" that gets you.
The cheapest option is chosen for book(standard) price. Since devil blood has no price it's assumed to be free. If you've played the game creatures with the [devil] or [evil outsider] type get killed a lot. There's a lotta blood being spilt. Imp[devil] is a wizard familiar. Lemure[devil] is accessible via Summon Monster 2.
Secondly, a dose is somewhat undefined, you are assuming that it's a flask (and it's a reasonable assumption). I don't know why the odd word was used but I'd assume it was an attempt to leave it up to the GM. Wording in spells is particularly vague at times or just misleading. You have to use some common sense. The game is not uniformly consistent nor will it ever be.
The "odd" wording is there because Paizo assumed that people would know that dose is not for sale and go with it being free. Things such as costly components are not left to GM discretion. That is not the same as me saying Paizo forbids GM's from making houserules.
|
|
The "odd" wording is there because Paizo assumed that people would know that dose is not for sale and go with it being free. Things such as costly components are not left to GM discretion. That is not the same as me saying Paizo forbids GM's from making houserules.as the price of a Infernal Healing wand is commonly accepted as 1*1*750GP, I don't see this FAQ request going anywhere.
I think the main problem is misreading the components line...
Components V, S, M (1 drop of devil blood or 1 dose of unholy water)it's the "or" that gets you.
The cheapest option is chosen for book(standard) price. Since devil blood has no price it's assumed to be free. If you've played the game creatures with the [devil] or [evil outsider] type get killed a lot. There's a lotta blood being spilt. Imp[devil] is a wizard familiar. Lemure[devil] is accessible via Summon Monster 2.
Secondly, a dose is somewhat undefined, you are assuming that it's a flask (and it's a reasonable assumption). I don't know why the odd word was used but I'd assume it was an attempt to leave it up to the GM. Wording in spells is particularly vague at times or just misleading. You have to use some common sense. The game is not uniformly consistent nor will it ever be.
Or the dose could be referring to one whole flask, since a whole flask of holy/unholy is used when you attack with it then in that case one flask is a dose.
I think the biggest dumbest consequence of the alignment spells are in directions other than people turning evil. First off you have the issue of protection from law risking making paladins change alignment and fall because they're trying to say fight the forces of limbo or hell and got nudged into neutral good.
Alternatively and more hilariously you have say a lich who casts protection from evil every day to be safe while talking to his various bound demons. If he forgets to cast new summoning spells often enough does this somehow turns him good. This is particularly funny because protection from evil is among the staple spells for lists when it lists their casting actions in 2nd edition. Though in those instance I assume the gated in balor immediately afterwards puts them as a neutral balance due to itself being an evil act to summon.
|
|
I think the biggest dumbest consequence of the alignment spells are in directions other than people turning evil. First off you have the issue of protection from law risking making paladins change alignment and fall because they're trying to say fight the forces of limbo or hell and got nudged into neutral good.
Alternatively and more hilariously you have say a lich who casts protection from evil every day to be safe while talking to his various bound demons. If he forgets to cast new summoning spells often enough does this somehow turns him good. This is particularly funny because protection from evil is among the staple spells for lists when it lists their casting actions in 2nd edition. Though in those instance I assume the gated in balor immediately afterwards puts them as a neutral balance due to itself being an evil act to summon.
Correct,
Casting Protection from Evil = Good Act.
Summong Demons = Evil Act, moreso than the Protection being a good Act I would say.
So no, the Lich summoning demons everyday would have not to worry about his alignment slipping just from putting up safeguards.
I think the biggest dumbest consequence of the alignment spells are in directions other than people turning evil. First off you have the issue of protection from law risking making paladins change alignment and fall because they're trying to say fight the forces of limbo or hell and got nudged into neutral good.
Alternatively and more hilariously you have say a lich who casts protection from evil every day to be safe while talking to his various bound demons. If he forgets to cast new summoning spells often enough does this somehow turns him good. This is particularly funny because protection from evil is among the staple spells for lists when it lists their casting actions in 2nd edition. Though in those instance I assume the gated in balor immediately afterwards puts them as a neutral balance due to itself being an evil act to summon.
Correct,
Casting Protection from Evil = Good Act.
Summong Demons = Evil Act, moreso than the Protection being a good Act I would say.
So no, the Lich summoning demons everyday would have not to worry about his alignment slipping just from putting up safeguards.
So the Lich only has to put up safeguards if they start conjuring elementals or other non-evil, non-good creatures (FYI, you can bind any creature with a circle spell that doesn't oppose it, so prot/evil to bind (lawful/chaotic) neutral outsiders is legit)? Likewise if the Lich just wants to protect themselves against their erstwhile evil allies (as evil allies often are)?
Even if the lich switches to circle of prot/law or chaos, they can still "fall" despite the choice being a Morton's Fork.
The jist of the example still applies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
maybe not summoning demons every day, but you know just living somewhere that would make protection from evil a good idea. It's still silly that it's a possible consequence. Yes, generally th evil deeds should balance out I agree, but couldn't the same be said of PCs using infernal healing to fight evil. Yeah they're eating an evil cheeseburger but they're doing the good aligned workout enough that it shouldn't really ding the overall karma meter.
I think this might be helped by giving a lot more explicit and specific flavor to aligned spells. If say protection from evil involved taking on the blessing of an angel and drawing its attention it would make sense for evil folks to avoid it. If animate dead possessed the bodies with the spirits of minor fiends who would torture and kill and pillage if left to their own devices it would be a lot more obviously no go for good aligned folks. If infernal healing explicit began turning you into a devil and caused evil impulses akin to an intelligent magic item it'd be more palatable. As of right now it just changes a label on your character sheet and is overall too gamified. If alignment change via spell casting is so easily pinned down then it'd be trivial for someone to make some sort of dumb good/chaos/law/evil ledger-book for themselves. Which I guess would work in a comedic setting like Discworld, but breaks attempts to take the alignment system seriously.
Now I'm imagining a protean who spends all day casting Protection from Evil and Protection for Good just to switch alignments.
Now I'm imagining a protean who spends all day casting Protection from Evil and Protection for Good just to switch alignments.
But would they cast Protection from Chaos a few times just for &%$#s and giggles? That could get awkward, especially if you treat alignment spells as warping your mind (as some posters have suggested).
|
|
maybe not summoning demons every day, but you know just living somewhere that would make protection from evil a good idea. It's still silly that it's a possible consequence. Yes, generally th evil deeds should balance out I agree, but couldn't the same be said of PCs using infernal healing to fight evil. Yeah they're eating an evil cheeseburger but they're doing the good aligned workout enough that it shouldn't really ding the overall karma meter.
I think this might be helped by giving a lot more explicit and specific flavor to aligned spells. If say protection from evil involved taking on the blessing of an angel and drawing its attention it would make sense for evil folks to avoid it. If animate dead possessed the bodies with the spirits of minor fiends who would torture and kill and pillage if left to their own devices it would be a lot more obviously no go for good aligned folks. If infernal healing explicit began turning you into a devil and caused evil impulses akin to an intelligent magic item it'd be more palatable. As of right now it just changes a label on your character sheet and is overall too gamified. If alignment change via spell casting is so easily pinned down then it'd be trivial for someone to make some sort of dumb good/chaos/law/evil ledger-book for themselves. Which I guess would work in a comedic setting like Discworld, but breaks attempts to take the alignment system seriously.
Hmm I've been curouis if a lot of the grar concerning aligned spells being aligned acts would go away if the Protection from Alignment spells were simply replaced with a Protection from Extraplanar spell or some such?
How is infernal healing used to "fight evil"? What makes it such a bastion of goodness compared to other spells? Cure Wounds don't have the Good subtype. Neither does Raise Dead or Resurrection. Or Restoration. Or Regeneration. The only Good healing spell that I know is Celestial Healing and that's due to the material components involved, similar to Infernal Healing.
The reasons there's not an explicit and specific flavor to each spell would be I assume due to different settings and for the ability to personally flavor your abilities how you choose, as long as that flavoring goes along with the mechanics.
Changes due to spellcasting also aren't easily pinned down, that's why it says "usually". Spells altering your alignment don't become the only thing altering your alignment if they exist, there's every other action your character takes as well.
|
|
Now I'm imagining a protean who spends all day casting Protection from Evil and Protection for Good just to switch alignments.But would they cast Protection from Chaos a few times just for &%$#s and giggles? That could get awkward, especially if you treat alignment spells as warping your mind (as some posters have suggested).
I could definitely see them casting PfG&E for s%@%s and giggles.
Protection from Chaos though? No, that would be an abomination onto their very being.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Rule Over Fluff.
Imagine the disappointment when this victory was backdoor crocked by attacking it through its allignment descriptor, which also attacks several other clever but sleazy flavorwise tricks.
Hmm I've been curouis if a lot of the grar concerning aligned spells being aligned acts would go away if the Protection from Alignment spells were simply replaced with a Protection from Extraplanar spell or some such?
How is infernal healing used to "fight evil"? What makes it such a bastion of goodness compared to other spells? Cure Wounds don't have the Good subtype. Neither does Raise Dead or Resurrection. Or Restoration. Or Regeneration. The only Good healing spell that I know is Celestial Healing and that's due to the material components involved, similar to Infernal Healing.
The reasons there's not an explicit and specific flavor to each spell would be I assume due to different settings and for the ability to personally flavor your abilities how you choose, as long as that flavoring goes along with the mechanics.
Changes due to spellcasting also aren't easily pinned down, that's why it says "usually". Spells altering your alignment don't become the only thing altering your alignment if they exist, there's every other action your character takes as well.
There is nothing especially virtuous about infernal healing but i also don't see anything particularly evil about it if you're using it between sessions of protecting villages from orcs and stopping the occasional demonic incursion. Similarly I figure devil blood is something that adventurers by their profession would have in much greater quantities than than angel's blood. I mean it just follows that if you're killing lemure all day there will be a lot of that blood around, but summoning an angel for their blood seems a bit suspect.
And do you see the weird dichotomy of flavor? Where there is just enough flavor to say that this spell is totes mcgoats evil, but not enough to say why. Undead always being evil is a very Golarion-centric idea. It isn't even a D&D centric one because up until 3.5 skeletons and zombies were listed as "always neutral" in OD&D, AD&D, and 3.0 they were mindless and thus inherently neutral. No one argued why mindrape or interrogation are evil because the results are self evidently evil. The results of infernal healing is "guy heals faster".
|
|
There is nothing especially virtuous about infernal healing but i also don't see anything particularly evil about it if you're using it between sessions of protecting villages from orcs and stopping the occasional demonic incursion. Similarly I figure devil blood is something that adventurers by their profession would have in much greater quantities than than angel's blood. I mean it just follows that if you're killing lemure all day there will be a lot of that blood around, but summoning an angel for their blood seems a bit suspect.
And do you see the weird dichotomy of flavor? Where there is just enough flavor to say that this spell is totes mcgoats evil, but not enough to say why. Undead always being evil is a very Golarion-centric idea. It isn't even a D&D centric one because up until 3.5 skeletons and zombies were listed as "always neutral" in OD&D, AD&D, and 3.0 they were mindless and thus inherently neutral. No one argued why mindrape or interrogation are evil because the results are self evidently evil. The results of infernal healing is "guy heals faster".
"Don't see anything particularly evil about it" You don't see anything evil about using magic to work with and inject Pure Liquid Evil (devil's blood) or Caffeine Free Diet Pure liquid Evil with Splenda (Unholy Water) into another person?
Uh, if the rule was made in 3.5 then that means it was indeed sprung forth from a DnD centric idea, and not Golarion-centric.
"The results of infernal healing is 'guy heals faster'" by being pumped full of liquid evil.
Free use of Infernal Healing is the nearly definitive victory of Idealism Over Pragmatism.
...
Hey, Hey...
Fixed that for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually they're having liquid evil rubbed on their forehead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously though, you know what I find hilarious about Infernal Healing.
If Infernal Healing was genuinely harmless...if it was in fact completely fine for any character to use it as much as they wanted, and it wouldn't taint the character or their actions in any way...if the clergy of all these gods were getting upset at people doing morally reasonable things because of dogma, if they were trying to stop people helping other people because their ideals mattered more than those other people, if other characters had the choice of listening to the mouthpieces of "Good" gods or doing what they (correctly and demonstrably) knew was right, do you know what that would make Infernal Healing?
Asmodeus's Masterpiece.
What better way to beat Good than to turn its own intentions against itself, to make it hostile to its own because of the little flaws in its beliefs. After all, you know what they say....
The road to Hell is paved with Good intentions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Don't see anything particularly evil about it" You don't see anything evil about using magic to work with and inject Pure Liquid Evil (devil's blood) or Caffeine Free Diet Pure liquid Evil with Splenda (Unholy Water) into another person?
"The results of infernal healing is 'guy heals faster'" by being pumped full of liquid evil.
Then why not be more explicit about that in terms of rules and flavor. Take the demon blood addiction arc in Supernatural. If it just said "hey demon blood is hella addictive and changes your behavior in x way" that'd be a lot more compelling a reason that just "it's labelled evil and will make you evil". Evil is a nebulous enough term that if the writers cannot bother to write out the specifics I fail to see why we should include it ourselves. This is akin to deathwatch having the evil tag in the olden days before more sensible heads prevailed.
Uh, if the rule was made in 3.5 then that means it was indeed sprung forth from a DnD centric idea, and not Golarion-centric.
OD&D- Neutral
BECMI- NeutralRulecyclopedia- Neutral
AD&D- Neutral
AD&D2- Neutral
3.0- Neutral
3.5- Neutral Evil
4th- Neutral
4th Essentials- Neutral
5th- Lawful Evil
Them's not very good percentages for it being a "DnD centric" idea.
|
|
Seriously though, you know what I find hilarious about Infernal Healing.
If Infernal Healing was genuinely harmless...if it was in fact completely fine for any character to use it as much as they wanted, and it wouldn't taint the character or their actions in any way...if the clergy of all these gods were getting upset at people doing morally reasonable things because of dogma, if they were trying to stop people helping other people because their ideals mattered more than those other people, if other characters had the choice of listening to the mouthpieces of "Good" gods or doing what they (correctly and demonstrably) knew was right, do you know what that would make Infernal Healing?
Asmodeus's Masterpiece.
What better way to beat Good than to turn its own intentions against itself, to make it hostile to its own because of the little flaws in its beliefs. After all, you know what they say....
The road to Hell is paved with Good intentions.
Except it's not perfectly fine to use, and here we are.
|
|
"Don't see anything particularly evil about it" You don't see anything evil about using magic to work with and inject Pure Liquid Evil (devil's blood) or Caffeine Free Diet Pure liquid Evil with Splenda (Unholy Water) into another person?
"The results of infernal healing is 'guy heals faster'" by being pumped full of liquid evil.
Then why not be more explicit about that in terms of rules and flavor. Take the demon blood addiction arc in Supernatural. If it just said "hey demon blood is hella addictive and changes your behavior in x way" that'd be a lot more compelling a reason that just "it's labelled evil and will make you evil". Evil is a nebulous enough term that if the writers cannot bother to write out the specifics I fail to see why we should include it ourselves. This is akin to deathwatch having the evil tag in the olden days before more sensible heads prevailed.
Uh, if the rule was made in 3.5 then that means it was indeed sprung forth from a DnD centric idea, and not Golarion-centric.
OD&D- Neutral
BECMI- Neutral
Rulecyclopedia- Neutral
AD&D- Neutral
AD&D2- Neutral
3.0- Neutral
3.5- Neutral Evil
4th- Neutral
4th Essentials- Neutral
5th- Lawful EvilThem's not very good percentages for it being a "DnD centric" idea.
So it's only evil if it's addictive? Evil isn't nebulous, it's broad. [I]infernal healing is because it's powered by devils and/or unholy water. Those things are evil. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
"it just said 'hey demon blood is hella addictive and changes your behavior in x way'... you mean like how using a spell over and over will change your alignment and behavior?
Me calling it a DnD centric idea was in response you saying it wasn't and being Golarion-centric (one setting) when Pathfinder was built off of 3.5 which had numerous settings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously though, you know what I find hilarious about Infernal Healing.
If Infernal Healing was genuinely harmless...if it was in fact completely fine for any character to use it as much as they wanted, and it wouldn't taint the character or their actions in any way...if the clergy of all these gods were getting upset at people doing morally reasonable things because of dogma, if they were trying to stop people helping other people because their ideals mattered more than those other people, if other characters had the choice of listening to the mouthpieces of "Good" gods or doing what they (correctly and demonstrably) knew was right, do you know what that would make Infernal Healing?
Asmodeus's Masterpiece.
What better way to beat Good than to turn its own intentions against itself, to make it hostile to its own because of the little flaws in its beliefs. After all, you know what they say....
The road to Hell is paved with Good intentions.
This is a very good idea that would make a compelling campaign. I just wish it's what was even just implied in the book itself.
OD&D- Neutral
BECMI- Neutral
Rulecyclopedia- Neutral
AD&D- Neutral
AD&D2- Neutral
3.0- Neutral
3.5- Neutral Evil
4th- Neutral
4th Essentials- Neutral
5th- Lawful EvilThem's not very good percentages for it being a "DnD centric" idea.
2 out of 9...argh, I used to be so good at this. It's a bit over 20% though, I know that much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's only evil if it's addictive? Evil isn't nebulous, it's broad. [I]infernal healing is because it's powered by devils and/or unholy water. Those things are evil. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
"it just said 'hey demon blood is hella addictive and changes your behavior in x way'... you mean like how using a spell over and over will change your alignment and behavior?
Yeah they should have written out the specifics or even just suggestions in the spell itself. After all given all the magic items that are "cast x spell y times per day" and nothing else I know those pages are kinda padded.
Like take familiars in Ravenloft. I have no problem with the idea that all familiars in Ravenloft are evil. The book specifically details that they are the spellcaster's shoulder devil and working to tempt them towards evil. Animate Dead in Ravenloft explicitly go about murdering folks and even the mindless ones have a "cruel intellect" in Ravenloft that causes them to turn on weak-willed wizards. Specifically wizards who animate more undead than their caster level can control. All shadow magic is explicitly evil or at least dangerous because the shadows of Ravenloft are the Dark Powers toy and they don't like other people playing with it. Even the upgraded version of phantom steed was evil because you were creating a creature whose existence was torturous and horrible. Etc
I don't have a problem with the thing being evil. I just have a problem with it being evil solely because "you touched an icky thing" and having an [evil] tag. Hell I was hoping Pathfinder would add something like Ravenloft's powers checks for when someone calls upon supernatural evil in Horror Adventures., but no such luck.
|
|
You are thinking about this way harder than the developers did. Unless there is a listed cost, specific spell components are just intended as a flavor thing carried over from 3.5. Everything beyond "do you have a pouch?" is supposed to be handwaived away.
They definitely didn't consider certain bits being contraband that wouldn't exist in cities based on alignments.
Look, Eschew Materials is a feat. If you want "costless" materials hand waived, it's worth a feat in the eyes of the developers. That "hand waive" is equal in worth to giving every non-sorcerer a bonus feat.
If you want to bring all the spell components for your spells around, like in a pouch, then you have to bring all the spell components. It isn't just a flavor thing. If you have a tenancy to cast evil spells, chances are pretty high that you've got some creepy materials in your spell component pouch. And if searched, they can probably determine your spell list based on your components, and even formulate a crime related to your premeditated plan to cast evil spells.
So it's only evil if it's addictive? Evil isn't nebulous, it's broad. [I]infernal healing is because it's powered by devils and/or unholy water. Those things are evil. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
"it just said 'hey demon blood is hella addictive and changes your behavior in x way'... you mean like how using a spell over and over will change your alignment and behavior?
Yeah they should have written out the specifics or even just suggestions in the spell itself. After all given all the magic items that are "cast x spell y times per day" and nothing else I know those pages are kinda padded.
Like take familiars in Ravenloft. I have no problem with the idea that all familiars in Ravenloft are evil. The book specifically details that they are the spellcaster's shoulder devil and working to tempt them towards evil. Animate Dead in Ravenloft explicitly go about murdering folks and even the mindless ones have a "cruel intellect" in Ravenloft that causes them to turn on weak-willed wizards. Specifically wizards who animate more undead than their caster level can control. All shadow magic is explicitly evil or at least dangerous because the shadows of Ravenloft are the Dark Powers toy and they don't like other people playing with it. Even the upgraded version of phantom steed was evil because you were creating a creature whose existence was torturous and horrible. Etc
I don't have a problem with the thing being evil. I just have a problem with it being evil solely because "you touched an icky thing" and having an [evil] tag. Hell I was hoping Pathfinder would add something like Ravenloft's powers checks for when someone calls upon supernatural evil in Horror Adventures., but no such luck.
Can I favorite this post multiple times? Please?
|
|
So it's only evil if it's addictive? Evil isn't nebulous, it's broad. [I]infernal healing is because it's powered by devils and/or unholy water. Those things are evil. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
"it just said 'hey demon blood is hella addictive and changes your behavior in x way'... you mean like how using a spell over and over will change your alignment and behavior?
Yeah they should have written out the specifics or even just suggestions in the spell itself. After all given all the magic items that are "cast x spell y times per day" and nothing else I know those pages are kinda padded.
Like take familiars in Ravenloft. I have no problem with the idea that all familiars in Ravenloft are evil. The book specifically details that they are the spellcaster's shoulder devil and working to tempt them towards evil. Animate Dead in Ravenloft explicitly go about murdering folks and even the mindless ones have a "cruel intellect" in Ravenloft that causes them to turn on weak-willed wizards. Specifically wizards who animate more undead than their caster level can control. All shadow magic is explicitly evil or at least dangerous because the shadows of Ravenloft are the Dark Powers toy and they don't like other people playing with it. Even the upgraded version of phantom steed was evil because you were creating a creature whose existence was torturous and horrible. Etc
I don't have a problem with the thing being evil. I just have a problem with it being evil solely because "you touched an icky thing" and having an [evil] tag. Hell I was hoping Pathfinder would add something like Ravenloft's powers checks for when someone calls upon supernatural evil in Horror Adventures., but no such luck.
Ravenloft has setting specific reasons for why all those things are evil when they aren't normally in other settings.
" I just have a problem with it being evil solely because 'you touched an icky thing' and having an [evil] tag"
"All shadow magic is explicitly evil or at least dangerous because the shadows of Ravenloft are the Dark Powers toy and they don't like other people playing with it"
How do these two statements not contradict each other?
You touched a shadow thing and having a [Dark Powers] tag
Better question, how is it Devil's Blood and Unholy Water is NOT Evil?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ravenloft has setting specific reasons for why all those things are evil when they aren't normally in other settings." I just have a problem with it being evil solely because 'you touched an icky thing' and having an [evil] tag"
"All shadow magic is explicitly evil or at least dangerous because the shadows of Ravenloft are the Dark Powers toy and they don't like other people playing with it"
How do these two statements not contradict each other?
Quote:You touched a shadow thing and having a [Dark Powers] tag
Better question, how is it you Devil's Blood and Unholy Water as NOT Evil?
Each of the shadow spells explicit spells out how and why the spell goes wrong and each of them is different. Sometimes it's because say shadow requires a saving throw or the summoned creature turns on you, or the shadow engine spell creates little shadow undead that attack you if it breaks, or creeping shadow (a spell used to see around corners by looking through your shadow) risks your shadow animating and attacking you. Worse still if you kill your own shadow it means you lose it forever which NPCs will immediately take as evidence of you being a sinister evil creature such as a vampire. Alternatively if you lose the fight with the shadow it will possess you and force you into the shadow and try to convince the other party members to kill the shadow transformed original.
All of these add storytelling rather than being a big sign for the GM to write their own stuff, but only stuff in this general vague direction. It's as bad as summoning magic in 5th edition to just hang a big "ask your GM" sign over the place where rules and flavor are supposed to complement one another.
See in the Ravenloft example the shadow steed created by shadow magic is in constant agony. I say creating a thing that is always in pain is an evil act. I'm assuming the shadow spells all have in depth descriptions of what sort of horrors go on when they're cast. It's not evil because it's evil, it's evil because it's doing bad things.
|
|
Ravenloft has setting specific reasons for why all those things are evil when they aren't normally in other settings." I just have a problem with it being evil solely because 'you touched an icky thing' and having an [evil] tag"
"All shadow magic is explicitly evil or at least dangerous because the shadows of Ravenloft are the Dark Powers toy and they don't like other people playing with it"
How do these two statements not contradict each other?
Quote:You touched a shadow thing and having a [Dark Powers] tag
Better question, how is it you Devil's Blood and Unholy Water as NOT Evil?
Each of the shadow spells explicit spells out how and why the spell goes wrong and each of them is different. Sometimes it's because say shadow requires a saving throw or the summoned creature turns on you, or the shadow engine spell creates little shadow undead that attack you if it breaks, or creeping shadow (a spell used to see around corners by looking through your shadow) risks your shadow animating and attacking you. Worse still if you kill your own shadow it means you lose it forever which NPCs will immediately take as evidence of you being a sinister evil creature such as a vampire. Alternatively if you lose the fight with the shadow it will possess you and force you into the shadow and try to convince the other party members to kill the shadow transformed original.
All of these add storytelling rather than being a big sign for the GM to write their own stuff, but only stuff in this general vague direction. It's as bad as summoning magic in 5th edition to just hang a big "ask your GM" sign over the place where rules and flavor are supposed to complement one another.
*nods*
I'm perfectly fine with spells being spelled out why they're (and to me infernal healing is since it uses devil's blood or unholy water as a component) but the examples you just gave mention how a spell can go wrong, not how it's evil (aside from the creating shadows thing, but that's a give, not necessarily unique to those spells).