[FAQ REQUEST] Infernal Healing Pricing


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 540 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Tali Wah wrote:

Then you just cast Celestial Healing a few times to cancel out casting infernal healing.

If one spell makes you evil the other should make you good.

Yes, casting Aligned spells and spells of Opposing Alignments would shift your alignment back and forth.


Unholy water is powered by negative energy. negative energy is not inherently aligned. Infernal healing (can be) powered by unholy water. Therefore, Infernal healing could theoretically be not inherently aligned.

Silver Crusade

The Sideromancer wrote:
Unholy water is powered by negative energy. negative energy is not inherently aligned. Infernal healing (can be) powered by unholy water. Therefore, Infernal healing could theoretically be not inherently aligned.

Negative Energy by itself might not be, but Unholy Water is created through the curse water spell, which is Evil.


Rysky wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Unholy water is powered by negative energy. negative energy is not inherently aligned. Infernal healing (can be) powered by unholy water. Therefore, Infernal healing could theoretically be not inherently aligned.
Negative Energy by itself might not be, but Unholy Water is created through the curse water spell, which is Evil.

Since arcane magic is learned (and thus its limits are campaign-specific), this was more to show that if you as GM wanted to remove [Evil] from infernal healing, you have precedent for doing so.

Silver Crusade

The Sideromancer wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Unholy water is powered by negative energy. negative energy is not inherently aligned. Infernal healing (can be) powered by unholy water. Therefore, Infernal healing could theoretically be not inherently aligned.
Negative Energy by itself might not be, but Unholy Water is created through the curse water spell, which is Evil.
Since arcane magic is learned (and thus its limits are campaign-specific), this was more to show that if you as GM wanted to remove [Evil] from infernal healing, you have precedent for doing so.

If the GM wanted to remove the [Evil] tag they already could, though I don't see how using Unoly water (or Arcane magic in general) would be a precedent.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Tali Wah wrote:

Then you just cast Celestial Healing a few times to cancel out casting infernal healing.

If one spell makes you evil the other should make you good.

Yes, casting Aligned spells and spells of Opposing Alignments would shift your alignment back and forth.

Yeah, that's what the advice says. I'd just have you sit at neutral. I really don't think goodness should be defined only in what spells you use.

And, since it doesn't seem to be mentioned: there is nothing evil about letting creatures die. Death is a normal part of life. A good character will admit when nothing good can be done, and just give them a proper send off.

If you can't accept death, try necromancy. Characters that can't accept death, often shift to evil.

And again, Treat Deadly Wounds. It's awesome. No magic required at all, and can be attempted untrained. Doesn't even require a healer's kit (though it really helps). The perfect unaligned healing option. And, reliably functions in an anti-magic field.


Saethori wrote:

If they begin to cast Protection from Evil, then the character has, presumably, a reason to perform a good act. If it is persistently cast, then they must be very inclined to do good.

Fighting evil is a good reason to cast Protection from Evil. So by your logic, demons are good because they spend a lot of time fighting evil creatures.


johnlocke90 wrote:
Saethori wrote:

If they begin to cast Protection from Evil, then the character has, presumably, a reason to perform a good act. If it is persistently cast, then they must be very inclined to do good.

Fighting evil is a good reason to cast Protection from Evil. So by your logic, demons are good because they spend a lot of time fighting evil creatures.

That... doesn't follow my logic at all. So don't say it's by my logic.

And when it comes to aligned spells, it's honestly stranger to me for Protection from Evil to be [good] than it is for Infernal Healing to be [evil]. But it is printed as such so that they both are, and that is the environment we're in.

It's not my logic you seem to have a problem with. It's Paizo's, and perhaps some of the writers of 3.5 as well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
Saethori wrote:

If they begin to cast Protection from Evil, then the character has, presumably, a reason to perform a good act. If it is persistently cast, then they must be very inclined to do good.

Fighting evil is a good reason to cast Protection from Evil. So by your logic, demons are good because they spend a lot of time fighting evil creatures.

This is my biggest bugbear with the 'aligned spells' issue. We always get bogged down with infernal healing, but the logical consequence of applying this rule cannot be taken seriously.

Lets take Joe, he's an evil spellcaster - he's not very good at conjuring, and doesn't know any [evil] spells. But he loves fireballing innocent villagers and magic missiling the local kitties at the kitty sanctuary. Now Joe works for a bigger eviller bad guy who also employs other evil spellcasters who are good at conjuring and they just love to thin out the competition with a summoned demon or two, so Joe takes to casting protection from evil every day so he doesn't get 'accidentally' caught up in a summoning incident - after 2 weeks he's suddenly having second thoughts about burning the local villagers and is thinking about building his own kitty sanctuary to save all those poor kitties...

really?!
I don't think so, but that is exactly what applying this rule means.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is peculiar that the 'protection from [x]' spells are aligned. But the way I always saw it was that you need to draw upon aligned, planar energy to protect yourself from other aligned, planar energy.

And if all of these aligned spells are drawing in energy from the planes (Infernal Healing DEFINITELY is), then it makes sense that they shift your alignment. You're literally letting the power of the lord of hell seep into you and this world.

Even if you're doing this for to save orphaned puppies or whatever, you're bringing hell's influence into the world and also giving its magic a little bite into your soul - and by extension, slowly changing the way you think and feel.

Scarab Sages

johnlocke90 wrote:
Saethori wrote:

If they begin to cast Protection from Evil, then the character has, presumably, a reason to perform a good act. If it is persistently cast, then they must be very inclined to do good.

Fighting evil is a good reason to cast Protection from Evil. So by your logic, demons are good because they spend a lot of time fighting evil creatures.

Yeah, this is why I wouldn't apply that alignment shift logic to spells clearly designed to just to opose alignment subtypes and religions. Using align weapon Evil, or protection from good, when the party runs afoul of some Archons (stealing bread, perhaps), doesn't make the characters evil, or even represent characters that balance good and evil on a scale, they are just players using generic spells to overcome the game mechanic (like alignment DRs or getting more AC).

I do think Infernal Healing is intended to have consequences with use. If the alignment doesn't matter to the GM, they should restrict it another manner. I would definitely correct the use of Dose to refer to the full flask of unholy water, and I would not include devils blood as a 0-cost material component (I wouldn't give it a price, since I don't want vampire-like players mining the devils for their blood, but I would clarify that it doesn't count as a zero-cost item for spell component pouches). I think for spell components, I would allow Infernal bloodline sorcerers with eschew materials to count unholy water as a material component covered by that feat for the purposes of this spell. I would also allow characters with the Devil Subtype and Eschew Materials to do the same as the infernal sorcerers.

Scarab Sages

dragonhunterq wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Saethori wrote:

If they begin to cast Protection from Evil, then the character has, presumably, a reason to perform a good act. If it is persistently cast, then they must be very inclined to do good.

Fighting evil is a good reason to cast Protection from Evil. So by your logic, demons are good because they spend a lot of time fighting evil creatures.

This is my biggest bugbear with the 'aligned spells' issue. We always get bogged down with infernal healing, but the logical consequence of applying this rule cannot be taken seriously.

Lets take Joe, he's an evil spellcaster - he's not very good at conjuring, and doesn't know any [evil] spells. But he loves fireballing innocent villagers and magic missiling the local kitties at the kitty sanctuary. Now Joe works for a bigger eviller bad guy who also employs other evil spellcasters who are good at conjuring and they just love to thin out the competition with a summoned demon or two, so Joe takes to casting protection from good every day so he doesn't get 'accidentally' caught up in a summoning incident - after 2 weeks he's suddenly having second thoughts about burning the local villagers and is thinking about building his own kitty sanctuary to save all those poor kitties...

really?!
I don't think so, but that is exactly what applying this rule means.

Protection from good is EVIL aligned. Protection from evil is GOOD aligned. You have them backwards. I otherwise agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Saethori wrote:

If they begin to cast Protection from Evil, then the character has, presumably, a reason to perform a good act. If it is persistently cast, then they must be very inclined to do good.

Fighting evil is a good reason to cast Protection from Evil. So by your logic, demons are good because they spend a lot of time fighting evil creatures.

This is my biggest bugbear with the 'aligned spells' issue. We always get bogged down with infernal healing, but the logical consequence of applying this rule cannot be taken seriously.

Lets take Joe, he's an evil spellcaster - he's not very good at conjuring, and doesn't know any [evil] spells. But he loves fireballing innocent villagers and magic missiling the local kitties at the kitty sanctuary. Now Joe works for a bigger eviller bad guy who also employs other evil spellcasters who are good at conjuring and they just love to thin out the competition with a summoned demon or two, so Joe takes to casting protection from good every day so he doesn't get 'accidentally' caught up in a summoning incident - after 2 weeks he's suddenly having second thoughts about burning the local villagers and is thinking about building his own kitty sanctuary to save all those poor kitties...

really?!
I don't think so, but that is exactly what applying this rule means.

Protection from good is EVIL aligned. Protection from evil is GOOD aligned. You have them backwards. I otherwise agree.

Doh! meant protection from evil - edited to correct


Rysky wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Changing alignment magically doesn't automatically change your personality.

Yes it does.

Normally your behavior and actions determine your alignment, because that's how you get an alignment in the first place.

Forcibly changing your alignment by magic would forcibly change your personality along with it, which is a lot of people don't do it.

According to the developers, it isn't a forcible change in your personality. The alignment change is simply a result of your actions, not a forcible change in your behavior.

So you really can have an evil alignment while being altruistic, respecting life, and making sacrifices to help others.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1298?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Q uestions-Here#64899

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Changing alignment magically doesn't automatically change your personality.

Yes it does.

Normally your behavior and actions determine your alignment, because that's how you get an alignment in the first place.

Forcibly changing your alignment by magic would forcibly change your personality along with it, which is a lot of people don't do it.

According to the developers, it isn't a forcible change in your personality. The alignment change is simply a result of your actions, not a forcible change in your behavior.

So you really can have an evil alignment while being altruistic, respecting life, and making sacrifices to help others.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1298?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Q uestions-Here#64899

Read JJ's post again.

(He also REALLY doesn't like his responses being used as ammo as situations such as this, just an FYI).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
So you really can have an evil alignment while being altruistic, respecting life, and making sacrifices to help others.

You can't. Your alignment is based on your personality, according to the alignment rules. Your personality comes first (altruism, selflessness, kindness), and from it your alignment (Good, likely Neutral Good).

If such a selfless character is casting Evil spells, then one of the following must be true:
1) The character is undergoing a change in philosophy, and is ceasing to be good. In this case, their other good traits should gradually be undermined as well.
2) The character is doing what must be done by the circumstances for a good cause, and is using Evil magic only because there is literally no other choice. They may require atonement afterward, either personally or of the clerical variety.
3) They are acting drastically out of character. In this situation, the GM should pull the player aside and talk to them about their character, and what alignment best suits them.
4) The character somehow does not understand the gravity of the magic they are casting. Once informed, they can reevaluate their decisions, and either seek to atone and do better, or decide to dispense with such unnecessary morals.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Or the character could just have an ethical or moral outlook that doesn't quite line up with the standard. Alignment isn't so binary that the only reason someone might commit an (extremely minor) act of evil is desperation, ignorance or as an act of falling and it's a bit absurd to suggest that any such action otherwise must be "drastically" out of character. Or that reevaluating their life choices is the only valid decision otherwise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Infernal Healing makes a bit more sense, when we think about it as it was originally written...a setting specific spell created by Amadeus to corrupt good-aligned arcane casters.

Silver Crusade

Squiggit wrote:
Or the character could just have an ethical or moral outlook that doesn't quite line up with the standard. Alignment isn't so binary that the only reason someone might commit an (extremely minor) act of evil is desperation, ignorance or as an act of falling and it's a bit absurd to suggest that any such action otherwise must be "drastically" out of character. Or that reevaluating their life choices is the only valid decision otherwise.

I wouldn't really call learning, collecting the evil componets for, and then casting infernal healing an "extremely minor" act of evil.

Silver Crusade Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Infernal Healing makes a bit more sense, when we think about it as it was originally written...a setting specific spell created by Amadeus to corrupt good-aligned arcane casters.

As an addendum to this, note that - unlike animate dead - infernal healing has never appeared in a world-neutral product.


Generally speaking of ideas, I think divination is actually probably the spell school most ripe for evil corruption of otherwise good people. Particularly if a devil or demon designed a spell that was just a little bit too useful. Like one that allows you to know a creature's "vulnerabilities" which covers the game's definition of vulnerabilities, but also their emotional and personal vulnerabilities. It'd work even during non-combat social interactions. So it's always whispering to you "he sincerely loves his kids, take them hostage", "This one was abused as a child, here's how to trigger a panic attack base on that", "Tight lipped guy is a recovering alcoholic, make of it what you want".

Silver Crusade Contributor

Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Generally speaking of ideas, I think divination is actually probably the spell school most ripe for evil corruption of otherwise good people. Particularly if a devil or demon designed a spell that was just a little bit too useful. Like one that allows you to know a creature's "vulnerabilities" which covers the game's definition of vulnerabilities, but also their emotional and personal vulnerabilities. It'd work even during non-combat social interactions. So it's always whispering to you "he sincerely loves his kids, take them hostage", "This one was abused as a child, here's how to trigger a panic attack base on that", "Tight lipped guy is a recovering alcoholic, make of it what you want".

Interestingly, Blood of Fiends had a couple of options - the Sin inquisition and the Dance of Kindled Desires bardic masterpieces - along these lines. They're a little more sin-focused, admittedly, but you're clearly on the right track. ^_^

Ultimate Intrigue also helpfully gives us the detect desires and detect anxieties spells. Good times.


Police officer, it was not my fault, I was drunk on evil.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't forget that the "negative" aspect of Infernal Healing is little different from a lawful good character thinking selfishly for a bit too long.

Ultimate Intrigue wrote:
"The second thing to keep in mind is that creatures with actively evil, good, chaotic, and lawful intents register as that alignment if they have enough Hit Dice, regardless of their actual alignment. So a selfish merchant whose heart is moved by an orphan’s plight into an act of largesse would register as good at the time, and a loyal knight forced to kill an innocent child to stop a war could appear evil while she formulates and executes the deed. The f inal thing to consider is that alignment detection is exceptionally easy and cheap to foil in the long-term."

And coating someone in devil blood is not an evil act. Unless using a melee weapon against a devil is an evil act, as most forms of melee attack would require you be splashed with their blood. So, you are splashing yourself after every attack. The good outsides who routinely slaughter devils on sight will disagree with the logic that splashing devil blood is an evil act.

Also, the assumption that the material component somehow "empowers" the spell with the source of the component is baseless. Fireball uses guano and sulfer because that's what you need to make black powder. That makes the ingredient thematic, but not a form of power. Raise dead uses a diamond. Are diamonds so powerful that they can bring back the dead? No. But it is an example of costly sacrifice. Components are thrown on there because they sound good, for one reason or another. And unless they are costly components they should not matter. Components are nearly meaningless in any argument of "is it powered by evil?". The spell description gives you that.

But, having thrown out three arguments why you should call Infernal Healing an evil spell... it is still obviously evil because those it is cast on can feel "the evil of the magic". This supports the evil tag.

I still feel that it should not be an evil spell for reasons, but as it is written now it most certainly is.

But I also know that it is ridiculous to have the Protection From X spells be aligned if casting one(multiple times) will change your alignment. Example, Bob the Devil Summoner[LE] wants to summon a devil. He casts Protection From Evil on himself and his assistants in case there is an accident. Oops, Bob has made himself lawful good. Overnight [almost]all summoners of evil outsiders suddenly become good creatures for doing what [almost]all evil outsider summoners regularly do as this rule takes hold in the universe.

Silver Crusade

Getting splashed with blood while fighting and annointing someone with it are two very different things.

The same with the components, none of the examples you gave are Evil, or even aligned.

Devil's Blood is Evil.

Unholy Water is Evil.

The spell they power is Evil.

And you're assuming Bob the Evil Summoner assumed would go around casting the spell on all his assistants rather than telling them to get the f!~$ out of the room. Or if they're actually assisting in the summoning then they are capable enough to cast the spell themselves. In which case the whole summon a devil thing overrides the single casting of PfE.

Scarab Sages

Rysky wrote:

Getting splashed with blood while fighting and annointing someone with it are two very different things.

The same with the components, none of the examples you gave are Evil, or even aligned.

Devil's Blood is Evil.

Unholy Water is Evil.

The spell they power is Evil.

And you're assuming Bob the Evil Summoner assumed would go around casting the spell on all his assistants rather than telling them to get the f!~% out of the room. Or if they're actually assisting in the summoning then they are capable enough to cast the spell themselves. In which case the whole summon a devil thing overrides the single casting of PfE.

First, because you did not seem to address it in your response... I did say the spell was evil. I only said that 3/4ths of the evidence given was bupkiss. But 1/4th of the evidence is good evidence.

About the blood, this is true, but so what? If the issue is that devil blood is just evil then there is no difference at the end. But if the issue is how it is applied... then we have a completely different conversation than the one being had here.

Does it matter if they are evil or aligned? Or do you only consider "aligned" components as the only material components used for "powering" a spell? Material components work like material components no matter the component, no matter where they come from; good, evil, non-aligned. They do not "power" a spell. No where does it say they do. My point stands here.

I assumed Bob the summoner was smart enough to have assistants who wouldn't challenge his power but could still possible be controlled by mental magics during a devil breakout.
Of course, you make the assumption that it makes sense that Bob the summoner has to think to himself; "Oh, geez, I better not cast this protection spell too much or I'll accidentally become good while trying to bring evil and damnation on the material plane." Or that Bob would be foolish to have some physical brutes to stand between him and an escaped devil, which would need the protection too.
Do you think it makes sense that the method the game has employed for the BBEG to call and control evil creatures... can accidentally make them good? And at best leaves them neutral?

Silver Crusade

Lorewalker wrote:
First, because you did not seem to address it in your response... I did say the spell was evil. I only said that 3/4ths of the evidence given was bupkiss. But 1/4th of the evidence is good evidence.
You said it was evil, and then gave reasons why you think it shouldn't be.
Lorewalker wrote:
About the blood, this is true, but so what? If the issue is that devil blood is just evil then there is no difference at the end. But if the issue is how it is applied... then we have a completely different conversation than the one being had here.
Agreed, there's very much a difference from getting splashed in battle to taking time to ritually annoint it. BIG difference.
Lorewalker wrote:
Does it matter if they are evil or aligned? Or do you only consider "aligned" components as the only material components used for "powering" a spell? Material components work like material components no matter the component, no matter where they come from; good, evil, non-aligned. They do not "power" a spell. No where does it say they do. My point stands here.
Um, yes they do. Why bother having them if they don't have anything to do with a spell it don't power it? A good portion comes from the caster's own energies but to say that the material components needed to cast the spell in the first place have no bearing on it is outright preposterous.
Lorewalker wrote:

I assumed Bob the summoner was smart enough to have assistants who wouldn't challenge his power but could still possible be controlled by mental magics during a devil breakout.

Of course, you make the assumption that it makes sense that Bob the summoner has to think to himself; "Oh, geez, I better not cast this protection spell too much or I'll accidentally become good while trying to bring evil and damnation on the material plane." Or that Bob would be foolish to have some physical brutes to stand between him and an escaped devil, which would need the protection too.
Do you think it makes sense that the method the game has employed for the BBEG to call and control evil creatures... can accidentally make them good? And at best leaves them neutral?

You're making this argument under the belief that Protection from Evil would move your alignment closer to Good than summoning a Devil would move it to Evil, which is false. Hilariously false.

As to Bob thinking about his spells, I would certainly hope so since he's the one using them, especially if he's a Wizard. He would be fully aware of tampering or channeling too much planar energy.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
First, because you did not seem to address it in your response... I did say the spell was evil. I only said that 3/4ths of the evidence given was bupkiss. But 1/4th of the evidence is good evidence.
You said it was evil, and then gave reasons why you think it shouldn't be.
Lorewalker wrote:
About the blood, this is true, but so what? If the issue is that devil blood is just evil then there is no difference at the end. But if the issue is how it is applied... then we have a completely different conversation than the one being had here.
Agreed, there's very much a difference from getting splashed in battle to taking time to ritually annoint it. BIG difference.
Lorewalker wrote:
Does it matter if they are evil or aligned? Or do you only consider "aligned" components as the only material components used for "powering" a spell? Material components work like material components no matter the component, no matter where they come from; good, evil, non-aligned. They do not "power" a spell. No where does it say they do. My point stands here.
Um, yes they do. Why bother having them if they don't have anything to do with a spell it don't power it? A good portion comes from the caster's own energies but to say that the material components needed to cast the spell in the first place have no bearing on it is outright preposterous.
Lorewalker wrote:

I assumed Bob the summoner was smart enough to have assistants who wouldn't challenge his power but could still possible be controlled by mental magics during a devil breakout.

Of course, you make the assumption that it makes sense that Bob the summoner has to think to himself; "Oh, geez, I better not cast this protection spell too much or I'll accidentally become good while trying to bring evil and damnation on the material plane." Or that Bob would be foolish to have some physical brutes to stand between him and an escaped devil, which would need the protection too.
Do you think it makes sense that the method the game has
...

You should either re-read my post to better understand the context or just believe me when I say I did not give reasons why it shouldn't be evil. I only said "I still feel that it should not be an evil spell for reasons, but as it is written now it most certainly is." in regards to my personal feelings on the issue. I said "reasons", as in "reasons I do not wish to go into and are unimportant for the discussion" and not "the reasons I have listed above".

And, there is no difference between being splashed with radioactive waste and being anointed with it if your question is "am I being exposed to radiation?". Just as there is no difference between being splashed or anointed with devil blood if the question is "am I being exposed to evil?". If the act is evil because the blood is evil, then both cases, splashed or anointed, is evil. But if the act is evil because "anointing someone with devil blood is evil", then whether the blood is evil or not does not matter. What matters is that you anointed someone with it. Or neither acts are evil. I favor this. As casting the spell is already evil and how you achieve the component conditions is counted separately on the moral tally.
Though, I suppose it would be arguable that casting infernal healing is just doubly evil.

Um, no, they don't provide power. They are used, yes. They are meaningful. Yes. They have a bearing on the spell. (Well, sort of. A little secret of the design processes is that many components are simply arbitrary) But they are not a power source(though I'm sure you can find a ritual or spell in text that specifically uses a component for power, my point is in general they are not). It isn't really a part of the Pathfinder universe. Pathfinder uses an old system of description of magic, where themes are just as important as power. Do you want a spell to do something related to explosions? Then include a component that is linked to explosions. Want to do something with a dragon theme? Throw in a dragon scale. A dragon isn't powering your spell though. Nor do bat butts power fireballs. Components are about links more than power.

If you find my assertions that it does not matter which alignment the spell is for how far it moves you to be hilarious, then you are finding Pathfinder's rules on the matter hilarious. Since it is in writing that the rules for one alignment should follow for each alignment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:
And, there is no difference between being splashed with radioactive waste and being anointed with it if your question is "am I being exposed to radiation?". Just as there is no difference between being splashed or anointed with devil blood if the question is "am I being exposed to evil?". If the act is evil because the blood is evil, then both cases, splashed or anointed, is evil. But if the act is evil because "anointing someone with devil blood is evil", then whether the blood is evil or not does not matter. What matters is that you anointed someone with it. Or neither acts are evil. I favor this. As casting the spell is already evil and how you achieve the component conditions is counted separately on the moral tally.

If you step in dog crap while picking up litter at the neighborhood park, by and large people are not going to fault you for it even if it's still gross and unsanitary. But if you collect a bunch of dog crap and roll around in it as a folk remedy to chicken pox, and encourage others to do the same, you're likely to be seen as somewhat of a deviant, and reasonably so. That's the difference, moreso than "is being exposed to devils' blood evil or not?", at least if you ask me.

Scarab Sages

Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
And, there is no difference between being splashed with radioactive waste and being anointed with it if your question is "am I being exposed to radiation?". Just as there is no difference between being splashed or anointed with devil blood if the question is "am I being exposed to evil?". If the act is evil because the blood is evil, then both cases, splashed or anointed, is evil. But if the act is evil because "anointing someone with devil blood is evil", then whether the blood is evil or not does not matter. What matters is that you anointed someone with it. Or neither acts are evil. I favor this. As casting the spell is already evil and how you achieve the component conditions is counted separately on the moral tally.
If you step in dog crap while picking up litter at the neighborhood park, by and large people are not going to fault you for it even if it's still gross and unsanitary. But if you collect a bunch of dog crap and roll around in it as a folk remedy to chicken pox, and encourage others to do the same, you're likely to be seen as somewhat of a deviant, and reasonably so. That's the difference, moreso than "is being exposed to devils' blood evil or not?", at least if you ask me.

Fair enough, but social stigma and objective alignment are separate things. There is a bit of context I did not explain. My statements on "Is the blood evil or is the use of the blood evil" is only in relation to objective evil, not subjective evil. Sure, the local cleric of Sarenrae may look down on you for using devil blood, but is it actually evil to find a use for it? Maybe but maybe not.

Basically, it doesn't matter whether you put a little feces on someone forehead or spray it all over people as a consequence of a separate action. If the problem is the feces getting on someone then you're causing a problem. Apply any noun to the issue. If material x is evil and touching someone with material x harms them because of its evil nature, touching someone with material x is evil regardless of your intention. Just as casting an evil spell is evil no matter the good it does. But if it is merely the usage of material x that is objectively evil, then the evilness of the material is immaterial.

For this matter we don't care what any person in the lore thinks about the usage. Nor do we care what any particular god thinks. Objective, multiversal rules claim "action x is evil" or "ritual p is good" and doing either affects your alignment.

The question is, "Does the ultimate overseer of aligned actions think utilizing devil blood is evil?". I haven't seen direct evidence for this yet. But there is some circumstantial evidence.

We do know casting Infernal Healing is evil. We know that a devil is a being of composite nature. Its matter is also its soul, and that matter/soul is made of the stuff of its plane of origination. (There is a weird tangent here about ex-evil outsiders who are now good aligned and are canon but that complicates things. Good aligned but made of evil matter?) So, you could argue they are literally beings made of objective evil if you don't want to get too deeply into specifics.

We also know that the spell components are checked separately from the spell when you decide on how aligned an action is. Such as the case where casting a spell is evil and the spell requires you to sacrifice someone as a component. That is a major evil action, instead of the more-than-minor evil action that casting an evil spell would normally be.

Now, we must ask is using the devil's blood as a component objectively evil?
If so, it has no bearing on the spell's evilness and would thus be a second evil action.

If not, then Infernal Healing is evil because it is described as evil and you commit one evil act in casting the spell.

I don't have 100% answer for that part yet.


The spell is evil due to the sum of its parts, not necessarily individual components being evil.

The devil's blood, or at least the alternative of unholy water, is evil. At the least there's not much objection here.

But they are not the sole reason the spell is evil, and we know this because ignoring the material component through False Focus or Eschew Materials doesn't change it being an evil spell, and doesn't change that the target "feels the evil of the spell".

Maybe doing the actions the spell requests aren't objectively evil. Maybe the process of anointing the target in devil's blood isn't objectively evil. But it is certain that the spell is evil, and the target can feel it. And it could be for no reason more than "Asmodeus wanted it that way".

It might be possible to research a not evil version. Maybe one using troll blood instead. But the one we have now is evil.

Scarab Sages

Saethori wrote:

The spell is evil due to the sum of its parts, not necessarily individual components being evil.

The devil's blood, or at least the alternative of unholy water, is evil. At the least there's not much objection here.

But they are not the sole reason the spell is evil, and we know this because ignoring the material component through False Focus or Eschew Materials doesn't change it being an evil spell, and doesn't change that the target "feels the evil of the spell".

Maybe doing the actions the spell requests aren't objectively evil. Maybe the process of anointing the target in devil's blood isn't objectively evil. But it is certain that the spell is evil, and the target can feel it. And it could be for no reason more than "Asmodeus wanted it that way".

It might be possible to research a not evil version. Maybe one using troll blood instead. But the one we have now is evil.

Firmly agreed.

Silver Crusade

Lorewalker wrote:
You should either re-read my post to better understand the context or just believe me when I say I did not give reasons why it shouldn't be evil. I only said "I still feel that it should not be an evil spell for reasons, but as it is written now it most certainly is." in regards to my personal feelings on the issue. I said "reasons", as in "reasons I do not wish to go into and are unimportant for the discussion" and not "the reasons I have listed above".

But you keep stating other reasons why it shouldn't be evil.

Lorewalker wrote:

And, there is no difference between being splashed with radioactive waste and being anointed with it if your question is "am I being exposed to radiation?". Just as there is no difference between being splashed or anointed with devil blood if the question is "am I being exposed to evil?". If the act is evil because the blood is evil, then both cases, splashed or anointed, is evil. But if the act is evil because "anointing someone with devil blood is evil", then whether the blood is evil or not does not matter. What matters is that you anointed someone with it. Or neither acts are evil. I favor this. As casting the spell is already evil and how you achieve the component conditions is counted separately on the moral tally.

Though, I suppose it would be arguable that casting infernal healing is just doubly evil.

Again, there is very much a BIG difference from accidentally getting splashed and intentionally annointing it to use in a ritual.

You disagree with this logic, so there's not much else to be said there since we're not going to sway the other either way.

Lorewalker wrote:
Um, no, they don't provide power. They are used, yes. They are meaningful. Yes. They have a bearing on the spell. (Well, sort of. A little secret of the design processes is that many components are simply arbitrary) But they are not a power source(though I'm sure you can find a ritual or spell in text that specifically uses a component for power, my point is in general they are not). It isn't really a part of the Pathfinder universe. Pathfinder uses an old system of description of magic, where themes are just as important as power. Do you want a spell to do something related to explosions? Then include a component that is linked to explosions. Want to do something with a dragon theme? Throw in a dragon scale. A dragon isn't powering your spell though. Nor do bat butts power fireballs. Components are about links more than power.

This whole thing just contradicts itself. They're meaningful but they don't matter or power the spell? Yes they matter and yes they help form the spell so they do indeed power the spell. Don't have the components, can't cast the spell, not really that arbitrary.

Lorewalker wrote:
If you find my assertions that it does not matter which alignment the spell is for how far it moves you to be hilarious, then you are finding Pathfinder's rules on the matter hilarious. Since it is in writing that the rules for one alignment should follow for each alignment.

I don't find it hilarious, but I do disagree with it, and so does Pathfinder since the sidebar in HA goes to mention the nuances of differing amounts of Evil spells. So for the Alignment slide, Protection from Evil < Summon Evil Outsider.

Shadow Lodge

Personally, I'm starting to think it might be better off to remove, (at least from PFS) the Wand of Infernal Healing entirely.

As a flavor item (the spell), it actually fails very hard because there is no actual penalty/downside/repercussions for using it. That is, it doesn't actually cause anyone to become more evil or tempt anyone towards anything.

It tends to be better off that Cure Light Wounds in most cases, healing more in most cases, and not requiring a roll for effectiveness. I personally also see the overabundance of healing in the game as a very bad thing all around.

It really should be balanced against CLW, or even CMW, and in many cases, I think it blows the Cure spells out of the water.
* Effective against a greater range of targets, so you don't have to worry about accidentally harming an ally you didn't know was allergic to Positive Energy
* Accessible by a much, much wider range or casters
* Is outright a better/more efficient at party healing (wand or spell form) <the one real exception is for in combat critical healing, but even then Cure spells are risky and my very well be the worse option>

Even comparing it to Celestial Healing, it is just hands down the better, mechanically speaking, option, and I really feel that at the very least, these two spells should at least have pros and cons against each other, and flavor isn't enough to off set this.

If folks, especially in PFS are so build dependent on having free access to a Wand of Infernal Healing, then honestly that sounds like a very good reasoning to show that it is just way too good.

As far as Infernal Healing, and other Evil (or even questionably dark) magic turning you evil, I really don't see any issues with it, and kind of wish they would enforce that even more. Especially in PFS, (I know, a lot of paperwork) where it breaks the mood to hear players and characters talk about using Evil (or Evil-like) options willy-nilly and then expecting no one else to have an issue with that, or even just accept it because they are all Pathfinders.

Just my thoughts.

Scarab Sages

No, I'm not giving reasons it shouldn't be evil. Not even once. I think you may be seeing something you are looking for in my words which aren't there.

As for whether or not how it is used matters vs that it was used at all... well, there is a difference between splashing and anointing. But my point is... is it actually meaningful as far as objective alignment goes? There is no hard evidence for this.

It is not contradictory. You assume "is used by" means "is powered by". But a man in a rope drawn lift uses the lift but the lift is powered by him. He would not go up without the lift, but the lift provides no power. Just as a focus does not power a spell, nor does finger wiggling. They help the caster cast the spell, and the spell can not normally be cast without them... but they are, in the end, removable from the spell. Materials need not be uses, fingers need not be wiggled and voices need not be spoken. The spell is still powered and cast though. In a way you can think of them as magical crutches that, which with "training"(IE take the right feats) can be set aside.

The side bar is not that nuanced, nor long. I have read it, dissected it and discussed it at length. The only real "this infraction is less than that infraction" the side bar includes is that the GM is final arbiter of when an alignment changes. It says clearly that each alignment should follow the same set of rules as any individual alignment and that is all it really says about the difference between, say, summon mon[x] and prot opposite x.
It does include a "if you cast evil to do good, it might not affect you as much... but it still really affects you", but that more reinforces that casting spells for alignment is much stronger than performing normal actions.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
If folks, especially in PFS are so build dependent on having free access to a Wand of Infernal Healing, then honestly that sounds like a very good reasoning to show that it is just way too good.

Yeah but if you nerf infernal healing (and how can you? it heals only slightly more than CLW on average but takes ten times longer to do so) people will just go back to using wands of CLW instead. That just ultimately means making players take slightly longer to get the job done but ultimately have very little difference in overall effectiveness.

Quote:
Even comparing it to Celestial Healing, it is just hands down the better, mechanically speaking, option, and I really feel that at the very least, these two spells should at least have pros and cons against each other, and flavor isn't enough to off set this.

That seems more like an argument to improve Celestial Healing though, because that spell is astoundingly bad. Even if infernal healing didn't exist at all the spell wouldn't see much use, being literally inferior to CLW in every way until CL20.

As written it's not even clear if Celestial Healing does anything at all at first level.

Shadow Lodge

CLW heals between 2-9 HP, which averages at about half of what IH does (10-10). CMW is 2d8+3, which averages at just two points higher than Infernal Healing, but is a 2nd Level spell. That's really where the price of a Wand of Infernal Healing should probably be, and is a lot more balanced, as CMW might give you more and will do so faster, but you are more likely to waste some of that healing in a fight and Infernal Healing gives a set amount.

Infernal Healing is usable (without UMD) by a lot more classes, and also has the advantage of being healing of (a short) time rather than all at once. That means that if you are continuing to take damage, there is less chance that a portion of the healing will wasted.

On one hand, boosting Celestial Healing probably does need to happen so it can compete with Infernal Healing, but, on the other that would just mean that there are two spells that are just better than CLW.

The other issue is that if Celestial Healing is boosted to work like Infernal Healing, then why not just make them one spell, drop the then meaningless fluff and call it a day?

Scarab Sages

Lorewalker wrote:
And coating someone in devil blood is not an evil act. Unless using a melee weapon against a devil is an evil act, as most forms of melee attack would require you be splashed with their blood.

(1)Are you using the melee weapon against a helpless or innocent devil? Are you, perhaps, one of those genocidal clerics that wants all devils to die?

(2)Or are we talking about a devil which is presently threatening you, and the "only" means of escape is to cut them apart with your melee weapon?

If the answer is 1, then, yeah, totally evil. You can't attack people just because they are "evil" without it also being an evil act. It's also, usually, unlawful behavior.

Yeah, it's a devil, exercise reasonable caution. Maybe take out your holy water and draw your weapons, but just because they are a particular race, doesn't mean morality is suspended. Attacking people because you don't like what race they are, isn't good or neutral behavior, that's evil.

Scarab Sages

DM Beckett wrote:

CLW heals between 2-9 HP, which averages at about half of what IH does (10-10). CMW is 2d8+3, which averages at just two points higher than Infernal Healing, but is a 2nd Level spell. That's really where the price of a Wand of Infernal Healing should probably be, and is a lot more balanced, as CMW might give you more and will do so faster, but you are more likely to waste some of that healing in a fight and Infernal Healing gives a set amount.

Infernal Healing is usable (without UMD) by a lot more classes, and also has the advantage of being healing of (a short) time rather than all at once. That means that if you are continuing to take damage, there is less chance that a portion of the healing will wasted.

On one hand, boosting Celestial Healing probably does need to happen so it can compete with Infernal Healing, but, on the other that would just mean that there are two spells that are just better than CLW.

The other issue is that if Celestial Healing is boosted to work like Infernal Healing, then why not just make them one spell, drop the then meaningless fluff and call it a day?

Your logic is missing the fact that CLW will heal 1d8+5 by 5 which heals 6 min and 13 max. CMW will cure 2d8+5; 7 for sure and up to 21. Where IH will only heal 10. That makes CMW much better in combat, better out of combat(unless you have a decent amount of time between combats). CLW is much better in combat and about even out of combat. CMW continues to get better by CL. IH does not get better... so where is IH better? Except for out of combat 3rd level and below.

Don't forget IH is also a full round cast, as opposed to a standard.

Scarab Sages

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
And coating someone in devil blood is not an evil act. Unless using a melee weapon against a devil is an evil act, as most forms of melee attack would require you be splashed with their blood.

(1)Are you using the melee weapon against a helpless or innocent devil? Are you, perhaps, one of those genocidal clerics that wants all devils to die?

(2)Or are we talking about a devil which is presently threatening you, and the "only" means of escape is to cut them apart with your melee weapon?

If the answer is 1, then, yeah, totally evil. You can't attack people just because they are "evil" without it also being an evil act. It's also, usually, unlawful behavior.

Yeah, it's a devil, exercise reasonable caution. Maybe take out your holy water and draw your weapons, but just because they are a particular race, doesn't mean morality is suspended. Attacking people because you don't like what race they are, isn't good or neutral behavior, that's evil.

The attack was meaningless to the point. I was speaking on the issue of "is devil blood so evil that touching it is evil or is touching someone with it evil".

For the example we don't care about what kind of action the attack is. Since an evil act is an evil act, no matter how good the intent was.

But, I will say that killing a devil because it is a devil can not be an evil act. As there are plenty of good outsides who are known for doing just that. Objectively, in lore, it isn't evil. Of course, there are neutral creatures who are known to murder people because they create a portal to another plane or break a contract. So I don't know how much "is this objectively evil" you can pull out of the lore.

Scarab Sages

Sorry if I mistook your original point.

Lorewalker wrote:

The attack was meaningless to the point. I was speaking on the issue of "is devil blood so evil that touching it is evil or is touching someone with it evil".

For the example we don't care about what kind of action the attack is. Since an evil act is an evil act, no matter how good the intent was.

But, I will say that killing a devil because it is a devil can not be an evil act. As there are plenty of good outsides who are known for doing just that. Objectively, in lore, it isn't evil. Of course, there are neutral creatures who are known to murder people because they create a portal to another plane or break a contract. So I don't know how much "is this objectively evil" you can pull out of the lore.

The act of killing the devil, probably not evil, but the means and context you do it, yeah, that could be evil. Having your genocidal "good" cleric sneak into hell to murder all the devils in their sleep, that would be an alignment shift in my book. Might even give that cleric the evil subtype and consider him an outsider from that point on...


DM Beckett wrote:

CLW heals between 2-9 HP, which averages at about half of what IH does (10-10). CMW is 2d8+3, which averages at just two points higher than Infernal Healing, but is a 2nd Level spell. That's really where the price of a Wand of Infernal Healing should probably be, and is a lot more balanced, as CMW might give you more and will do so faster, but you are more likely to waste some of that healing in a fight and Infernal Healing gives a set amount.

Infernal Healing is usable (without UMD) by a lot more classes, and also has the advantage of being healing of (a short) time rather than all at once. That means that if you are continuing to take damage, there is less chance that a portion of the healing will wasted.

On one hand, boosting Celestial Healing probably does need to happen so it can compete with Infernal Healing, but, on the other that would just mean that there are two spells that are just better than CLW.

The other issue is that if Celestial Healing is boosted to work like Infernal Healing, then why not just make them one spell, drop the then meaningless fluff and call it a day?

I think all of the spells should be left as they are with Infernal Healing's alignment corruption factored in.

Shadow Lodge

Lorewalker wrote:

Your logic is missing the fact that CLW will heal 1d8+5 by 5 which heals 6 min and 13 max. CMW will cure 2d8+5; 7 for sure and up to 21. Where IH will only heal 10. That makes CMW much better in combat, better out of combat(unless you have a decent amount of time between combats). CLW is much better in combat and about even out of combat. CMW continues to get better by CL. IH does not get better... so where is IH better? Except for out of combat 3rd level and below.

Don't forget IH is also a full round cast, as opposed to a standard.

Sounds like we agree then, Wands of IH should be oriced accordling to a CL 5 Wand of CLW or a Wand of CMW.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:

Sounds like we agree then, Wands of IH should be oriced accordling to a CL 5 Wand of CLW or a Wand of CMW.

You can't just ignore speed though. IH does slightly less than double CL1 CLW's average healing, but it takes ten times longer to do so. If it was priced like a wand of CMW it'd be strictly inferior, because CMW does more average healing and does it instantly.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I think all of the spells should be left as they are with Infernal Healing's alignment corruption factored in.

Maybe give Celestial Healing a small push (I don't think one round/level is going to break it; by the time it outpaces Cure Light Wounds, you are high enough level that Cure Light Wounds is already nearly useless).

And wands of Infernal Healing become a lot less popular once people actually take into account that you can't even use half a dozen charges in PFS before your character falls to evil and has to be marked dead. I'd hope the efficiency of it over CLW wands are worth it for the prospective user...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Aligned spells don't alter your alignment in PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The PFS rule FAQ makes things nice and simple.

"Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?

Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act."

Rename the spell Slow Healing, make the components some herbs instead of blood or holy/unholy water, put it on every caster class's spell list, and be done with it.

Ditch both Infernal Healing and Celestial Healing. Solved.

Now the spell is functional for arcane casters, and can sub for divine casters when out of combat, and you won't have Paladins saying "Do not cast that on me" despite there being the FAQ for PFS.

Silver Crusade

JoeElf wrote:

The PFS rule FAQ makes things nice and simple.

"Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?

Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act."

Rename the spell Slow Healing, make the components some herbs instead of blood or holy/unholy water, put it on every caster class's spell list, and be done with it.

Ditch both Infernal Healing and Celestial Healing. Solved.

Now the spell is functional for arcane casters, and can sub for divine casters when out of combat, and you won't have Paladins saying "Do not cast that on me" despite there being the FAQ for PFS.

Or you can play the spell like it was intended.

And that PFS FaQ only applies to PFS, in no small part due to the nightmare it would be to track alignment infractions across multiple GMs and tables outside of "you did something really f!*$ing bad and now have to go pay for an indulgence."

Silver Crusade

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Sorry if I mistook your original point.
Lorewalker wrote:

The attack was meaningless to the point. I was speaking on the issue of "is devil blood so evil that touching it is evil or is touching someone with it evil".

For the example we don't care about what kind of action the attack is. Since an evil act is an evil act, no matter how good the intent was.

But, I will say that killing a devil because it is a devil can not be an evil act. As there are plenty of good outsides who are known for doing just that. Objectively, in lore, it isn't evil. Of course, there are neutral creatures who are known to murder people because they create a portal to another plane or break a contract. So I don't know how much "is this objectively evil" you can pull out of the lore.

The act of killing the devil, probably not evil, but the means and context you do it, yeah, that could be evil. Having your genocidal "good" cleric sneak into hell to murder all the devils in their sleep, that would be an alignment shift in my book. Might even give that cleric the evil subtype and consider him an outsider from that point on...

Thankfully we're not playing off the Fable alignment system of giving you brownie points for murdering something just because it exists.

An Angel comes across a Devil having tea doing nothing, and the Angel has never met or heard of said Devil before, the Angel isn't going to murder them just because they exist.

Challenge them to a duel maybe, or get into a philosophical debate.

Silver Crusade

Lorewalker wrote:
No, I'm not giving reasons it shouldn't be evil. Not even once. I think you may be seeing something you are looking for in my words which aren't there.

What am I supposed to be seeing then? Since you seem to be arguing against every reason for the spell to be evil in the first place.

Lorewalker wrote:
As for whether or not how it is used matters vs that it was used at all... well, there is a difference between splashing and anointing. But my point is... is it actually meaningful as far as objective alignment goes? There is no hard evidence for this.

Uh, yes, yes there is. The same with CDGing something to make sure it stays down vs desecrating the corpse.

Lorewalker wrote:
It is not contradictory. You assume "is used by" means "is powered by". But a man in a rope drawn lift uses the lift but the lift is powered by him. He would not go up without the lift, but the lift provides no power. Just as a focus does not power a spell, nor does finger wiggling. They help the caster cast the spell, and the spell can not normally be cast without them... but they are, in the end, removable from the spell. Materials need not be uses, fingers need not be wiggled and voices need not be spoken. The spell is still powered and cast though. In a way you can think of them as magical crutches that, which with "training"(IE take the right feats) can be set aside.

That pulley analogy is completely disingenuous and pointless to a topic of material components needed for spells.

Magical crutches? Not really the right term since Eschew Materials only does so much, and Metamgic lets you get around them for a bit but no, they are far from removable. If anything those abilities are for you to get around your crutches, not the spells.

Lorewalker wrote:

The side bar is not that nuanced, nor long. I have read it, dissected it and discussed it at length. The only real "this infraction is less than that infraction" the side bar includes is that the GM is final arbiter of when an alignment changes. It says clearly that each alignment should follow the same set of rules as any individual alignment and that is all it really says about the difference between, say, summon mon[x] and prot opposite x.

It does include a "if you cast evil to do good, it might not affect you as much... but it still really affects you", but that more reinforces that casting spells for alignment is much stronger than performing normal actions.
Evil Spells wrote:

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 her 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 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 evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely 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 abilities if 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 also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors

I'd say Summoning a Fiend falls under an "abhorrent act" as opposed to a simple protection from evil spell.

351 to 400 of 540 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / [FAQ REQUEST] Infernal Healing Pricing All Messageboards