Can we ditch the nonsense with infernal healing yet?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 567 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

PossibleCabbage wrote:
But a 750 GP wand of infernal healing heals 6 HP per charge, but a 750 GP wand of CLW heals 2-9. On average, infernal healing comes out ahead, which is kind of absurd since "Available to Wizards/Sorcerers" should be the draw of the spell not "is more efficient than CLW on a wand".

Better than that. It's 10 hp/charge. 6 secs/round.

The only drawback is that it takes longer and that's usually not an issue on the "couple of minutes" scale.

Grand Lodge

Okay given all the arguing and nonsense in this thread, I can understand why most DMs ban infernal healing. It's insane how some here are trying so hard to have it work or not work.

I'd rather look elsewhere when it comes to allowing wizards/sorcerers some healing, or just keep such to divine casters since arcane heavy hitters can already do everything else.

Admittedly there is also Spheres of Power, which is a better solution all around.


Jonathon Wilder wrote:

Okay given all the arguing and nonsense in this thread, I can understand why most DMs ban infernal healing. It's insane how some here are trying so hard to have it work or not work.

I'd rather look elsewhere when it comes to allowing wizards/sorcerers some healing, or just keep such to divine casters since arcane heavy hitters can already do everything else.

Admittedly there is also Spheres of Power, which is a better solution all around.

It basically works one of four ways:

1. It doesn't affect your alignment and can be freely used.

2. It affects your alignment and it's perfectly fine to be evil.

3. It affects your alignment and it isn't fine to be evil, resulting in a soft ban.

4. Hahaha surprise! You're evil! Make a new character!

People seem to be okay with 1-3 and have made a thread arguing the virtues of 4.


woah wait this thread is about saying 4 is ok? Cause its definitely not


Baval wrote:
woah wait this thread is about saying 4 is ok? Cause its definitely not

Yeah, surprise rules are never okay.


3.5: it affects your alignment slowly, meaning that you use it on occasion but it isn't your SOP.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
3.5: it affects your alignment slowly, meaning that you use it on occasion but it isn't your SOP.

Yeah, 3.5 exists as long as there's a clear, accepted, quantifiable method of tracking (e.g. 5 casts per adventure causes evil shift, counter resets for next adventure, which limits use to 4 times per adventure, with the [evil] spell counter not being affected by other factors).

Otherwise it's just a trap into 4.


i disagree. theres no hard limit on being corrupted. Your PCs should not be able to go "ive used the wand 3 times today, if i do it again ill start eating babies, better wait till tomorow"

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Then you're basically playing "guess when I'm going to drop a hammer on you" with the GM. Which might be fun to you, but not to me.


I feel like "You are slowly being corrupted by evil forces and have to strive against it to create balance within yourself" is really a sort of story you're going to want to tell in certain kinds of games. So it's best to treat that "evil spells slowly change your alignment" thing from HA as an optional rule (or at least determine that "slowly" is "a longer time frame than the entire campaign.")

It's much like "You are now evil for murdering the children and elderly of the goblin tribe" is a reasonable turn of events for some games, but a lot of games just shouldn't have to deal with that stuff.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Then you're basically playing "guess when I'm going to drop a hammer on you" with the GM. Which might be fun to you, but not to me.

there is an in between. Its unlikely tbh that using a wand of infernal healing would ever actually turn you evil (though neutral is a possibility). However using infernal healing would open the door for other evil creatures to give you more items that are "beneficial, and only slightly evil"

next thing you know youre fully outfitted in evil gear and possibly eating babies


Baval wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Then you're basically playing "guess when I'm going to drop a hammer on you" with the GM. Which might be fun to you, but not to me.

there is an in between. Its unlikely tbh that using a wand of infernal healing would ever actually turn you evil (though neutral is a possibility). However using infernal healing would open the door for other evil creatures to give you more items that are "beneficial, and only slightly evil"

next thing you know youre fully outfitted in evil gear and possibly eating babies

True, but there's a big difference between that and casting the spell itself turning a character evil.

I don't think too many people would mind if evil spells just made the DM toss more evil temptation plot hooks the party's way.


There are certain spells that using them would absolutely turn you evil if not right away then eventually. 3.5s Liquid Pain for example. But Infernal healing isnt one of them


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nonsense Healing
Components: V, S, M (A printed forum thread over 300 posts long)
Grants fast healing 1, may make characters say and do weird things that may or may not result in alignment related schisms.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
3.5: it affects your alignment slowly, meaning that you use it on occasion but it isn't your SOP.

But does it affect the alignment of the caster, the target, or both?


Klorox wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
3.5: it affects your alignment slowly, meaning that you use it on occasion but it isn't your SOP.
But does it affect the alignment of the caster, the target, or both?

caster definitely, target if hes aware of whats happening and allows it


So unconscious targets and beneficiaries who freak out when they get what was done to them get a safe pass, ok.

Grand Lodge

Essentially the way I look at it is this.

The only way that I'd allow Infernal Healing is after discussing the use of evil spells and equipment with the players. For those good or even neutral alignment, even if it may be mechanically more powerful, it would be strongly discouraged that the character make use of such unless the player is willing to understand and accept that it will effect and change their character overtime

That they are willing to see such as a roleplay opportunity in that while the casting of the spell itself may not lead their character's alignment to be changed to evil by itself... It can lead their character down the path of accepting addical temptations that could lead to such. The consideration of a small act that is merely questionable leading to a bigger acts that slowly become less justifiable.

My thoughts being much like that of Warhammer 40K when it comes to radical inquisitors making use of demonic or xenos technology, weapons, or rituals in their fight against such, toeing the line of what is acceptable by their peers or outright hiding such but evenually going too far and being branded a heretic.

The idea that using evil to fight evil can eventually find themselves become evil or monstrous themselves even if they used such originally for good intentions.

As it is said the path to hell is often paved with good intentions.
---------------

If on the other hand the player insist against such and merely wishes to use the spell for its mechanical superiority, Then yes, I would offer either a soft or full ban as the player is not willing to use the spell as I feel intended.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would argue that using an evil spell doesn't so much change a character's alignment as show what a character's alignment already is. A character who is actually good simply wouldn't cast such a spell, or knowingly allow it to be cast on them. A neutral character would only do so in extreme circumstances. The only character who would use such a spell often is one who is evil, because it is evil to cast such a spell.


Jader7777 wrote:

Nonsense Healing

Components: V, S, M (A printed forum thread over 300 posts long)
Grants fast healing 1, may make characters say and do weird things that may or may not result in alignment related schisms.

That component has no value, so there are an infinite amount of them in a component pouch.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Redelia wrote:
I would argue that using an evil spell doesn't so much change a character's alignment as show what a character's alignment already is. A character who is actually good simply wouldn't cast such a spell, or knowingly allow it to be cast on them. A neutral character would only do so in extreme circumstances. The only character who would use such a spell often is one who is evil, because it is evil to cast such a spell.

Do you think a neutral character would only cast a [good] spell in extreme circumstances?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Redelia wrote:
I would argue that using an evil spell doesn't so much change a character's alignment as show what a character's alignment already is. A character who is actually good simply wouldn't cast such a spell, or knowingly allow it to be cast on them. A neutral character would only do so in extreme circumstances. The only character who would use such a spell often is one who is evil, because it is evil to cast such a spell.
Do you think a neutral character would only cast a [good] spell in extreme circumstances?

one of the defining traits of neutral is being willing to use good and evil when they deem it necessary. Good does not have that trait

a better question would be do you think an evil character would cast a [good] spell only in extreme circumstances? To that the answer is more complicated. Your average evil? Probably wouldnt care about casting it. A demon? Might be more hesitant depending on the spell.

Grand Lodge

So I'm surprised this thread has died down, is there nothing left to discuss? I had considered there might be a few that contended my post on the subject, but no one reply to it. Is there really nothing more to discuss?
-------------------------

On the subject of whether or not an evil character would use good aligned spells, my consideration would be why would they want to?

Though this may not technically be the case in all situations in Pathfinder and D&D proper, my thoughts would be that most general use and evil spells would be a far greater interest and practicality to evil then those supposed to specifically for the good.

The general idea of those which are evil is that they are selfish and care not for the lives of others unless of course they have a particular use for them. Now of course there's always the consideration that they might use good spells to deceive, to give the impression that they are that which they are not but apart from that I cannot see such spells being much interest.


Baval wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Redelia wrote:
I would argue that using an evil spell doesn't so much change a character's alignment as show what a character's alignment already is. A character who is actually good simply wouldn't cast such a spell, or knowingly allow it to be cast on them. A neutral character would only do so in extreme circumstances. The only character who would use such a spell often is one who is evil, because it is evil to cast such a spell.
Do you think a neutral character would only cast a [good] spell in extreme circumstances?

one of the defining traits of neutral is being willing to use good and evil when they deem it necessary. Good does not have that trait

a better question would be do you think an evil character would cast a [good] spell only in extreme circumstances? To that the answer is more complicated. Your average evil? Probably wouldnt care about casting it. A demon? Might be more hesitant depending on the spell.

Two things. First, the person I was responding to suggested that a neutral character would only use an [evil] spell in 'extreme' circumstances, so I was wondering if they thought the same about a [good] spell.

Secondly, I could see a demon casting Protection from Evil in a heartbeat, if not quicker. They have just as many evil enemies as they do good enemies.

Grand Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Secondly, I could see a demon casting Protection from Evil in a heartbeat, if not quicker. They have just as many evil enemies as they do good enemies.

What are the demon casting protection of evil technically kick them out as well? The whole point of the protection spells his to repeal the element in which it is protecting from... Isn't it?


Jonathon Wilder wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Secondly, I could see a demon casting Protection from Evil in a heartbeat, if not quicker. They have just as many evil enemies as they do good enemies.
What are the demon casting protection of evil technically kick them out as well? The whole point of the protection spells his to repeal the element in which it is protecting from... Isn't it?

Um, no.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Jonathon Wilder wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Secondly, I could see a demon casting Protection from Evil in a heartbeat, if not quicker. They have just as many evil enemies as they do good enemies.
What are the demon casting protection of evil technically kick them out as well? The whole point of the protection spells his to repeal the element in which it is protecting from... Isn't it?
Um, no.

Personally I get the feeling RAI is that a demon(or evil character) fighting inside protection from evil is like a relatively immobile "bubble boy"... RAW I don't disagree with you though.


That is an interesting point, though. How many times does a demon have to cast Protection from Evil (to prevent other demons from mauling/assassinating them) to have their alignment shift?


Ventnor wrote:
That is an interesting point, though. How many times does a demon have to cast Protection from Evil (to prevent other demons from mauling/assassinating them) to have their alignment shift?

Not an issue.

Non-native outsiders do not have descriptive alignment in Pathfinder/Golarion (confirmed by James Jacobs) meaning they CANNOT act against their alignment without outside interference (usually divine intervention) so a Demon, a non-native outsiders that is Chaotic Evil, cannot cast Protection from Evil because that would require him/her to act against his/her proscriptive alignment.


On infernal healing...

I look at how it would be taught in-universe.

"This spell requires one to annoint their recipient with blood that carries the demon's taint. Doing so cloaks the recipient in a shroud of evil regardless of the truth of their soul. This spell opens the caster up to taint that may corrupt their moral core. The benefit, however, is that the target of the spell's body will begin to regenerate for the next minute."


HWalsh wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
That is an interesting point, though. How many times does a demon have to cast Protection from Evil (to prevent other demons from mauling/assassinating them) to have their alignment shift?

Not an issue.

Non-native outsiders do not have descriptive alignment in Pathfinder/Golarion (confirmed by James Jacobs) meaning they CANNOT act against their alignment without outside interference (usually divine intervention) so a Demon, a non-native outsiders that is Chaotic Evil, cannot cast Protection from Evil because that would require him/her to act against his/her proscriptive alignment.

Ahhhh Maaannn.

That seems enormously depressing.
I mean, finally you throw off those pesky mortal worries and, if you lucky, you have gotten a great power upgrade to boot. Then you get locked into a specific alignment for the rest of your existence, in whatever heaven/hell/other you ended up in. Toiling away at some task you were assigned by some higher up Outsider, or if you lucky, some deity. And your best hope for a change of pace is for either some deity/artefact/other to corrupt or redeem you for more of the same at their place?....
No freking wonder there is a huge sit-in somewhere in the Boneyard.

Grand Lodge

HWalsh wrote:
Non-native outsiders do not have descriptive alignment in Pathfinder/Golarion (confirmed by James Jacobs) meaning they CANNOT act against their alignment without outside interference (usually divine intervention) so a Demon, a non-native outsiders that is Chaotic Evil, cannot cast Protection from Evil because that would require him/her to act against his/her prescriptive alignment.

Well I admit, I actually find myself disagreeing with this view. If this was true it would completely invalidate the idea of an Celestial falling to evil or, more rarely still, a demon ascending to good. Which goes against not only a couple of concepts I have for characters, but also my consideration of the true power of redemption when it comes to one of my favorite deities... Sarenrae. Especially one of my favorite tropes, Love Redeems.

The above not only suggests, but firmly seems to state, that you cannot have an outsider be anything but what their alignment is or make choices that could otherwise make for an interesting campaign or story. Having the choice of turning from the path you are on, whether for Good or for Evil, is far more rich then simply always having to continue on path because the universe says so. It may not be easy, it may even seem impossible, but I feel there would be those willing to try even if they fail.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jonathon Wilder wrote:


Well I admit, I actually find myself disagreeing with this view. If this was true it would completely invalidate the idea of an Celestial falling to evil or, more rarely still, a demon ascending to good. Which goes against not only a couple of concepts I have for characters, but also my consideration of the true power of redemption when it comes to one of my favorite deities... Sarenrae. Especially one of my favorite tropes, Love Redeems.

The above not only suggests, but firmly seems to state, that you cannot have an outsider be anything but what their alignment is or make choices that could otherwise make for an interesting campaign or story. Having the choice of turning from the path you are on, whether for Good or for Evil, is far more rich then simply always having to continue on path because the universe says so. It may not be easy, it may even seem impossible, but I feel there would be those willing to try even if they fail.

Nonsense! Redeeming (or corrupting) outsiders is as simple as planar binding and giving the outsider the task of "use five scrolls of Protection from (alignment of choice) consecutively." Once done, presto! Redeemed succubi! Fallen angels! Lawful proteans! It even works on demigods too if you can convince them properly!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Imp: excuse me. You seemed to have accidentally summoned me into what appears to be a giant blender..


Jonathon Wilder wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Non-native outsiders do not have descriptive alignment in Pathfinder/Golarion (confirmed by James Jacobs) meaning they CANNOT act against their alignment without outside interference (usually divine intervention) so a Demon, a non-native outsiders that is Chaotic Evil, cannot cast Protection from Evil because that would require him/her to act against his/her prescriptive alignment.

Well I admit, I actually find myself disagreeing with this view. If this was true it would completely invalidate the idea of an Celestial falling to evil or, more rarely still, a demon ascending to good. Which goes against not only a couple of concepts I have for characters, but also my consideration of the true power of redemption when it comes to one of my favorite deities... Sarenrae. Especially one of my favorite tropes, Love Redeems.

The above not only suggests, but firmly seems to state, that you cannot have an outsider be anything but what their alignment is or make choices that could otherwise make for an interesting campaign or story. Having the choice of turning from the path you are on, whether for Good or for Evil, is far more rich then simply always having to continue on path because the universe says so. It may not be easy, it may even seem impossible, but I feel there would be those willing to try even if they fail.

You can disagree but uh... That's how it works. It's not an opinion.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Jonathon Wilder wrote:


Well I admit, I actually find myself disagreeing with this view. If this was true it would completely invalidate the idea of an Celestial falling to evil or, more rarely still, a demon ascending to good. Which goes against not only a couple of concepts I have for characters, but also my consideration of the true power of redemption when it comes to one of my favorite deities... Sarenrae. Especially one of my favorite tropes, Love Redeems.

The above not only suggests, but firmly seems to state, that you cannot have an outsider be anything but what their alignment is or make choices that could otherwise make for an interesting campaign or story. Having the choice of turning from the path you are on, whether for Good or for Evil, is far more rich then simply always having to continue on path because the universe says so. It may not be easy, it may even seem impossible, but I feel there would be those willing to try even if they fail.

Nonsense! Redeeming (or corrupting) outsiders is as simple as planar binding and giving the outsider the task of "use five scrolls of Protection from (alignment of choice) consecutively." Once done, presto! Redeemed succubi! Fallen angels! Lawful proteans! It even works on demigods too if you can convince them properly!

Love redeems! Which is why I have a half-orc Redeemer AT paladin of Arshea! She's out to redeem everyone she can.

Shadow Lodge

Baval wrote:
one of the defining traits of neutral is being willing to use good and evil when they deem it necessary. Good does not have that trait

I disagree. I would say that for Good, the bar for "deemed necessary" would be much higher, and alternatives would be much more sought after first, but doing so would not be 100% out of the question.

However, because of the way PF wrote Alignments, it is pretty open to interpretation.

Shadow Lodge

HWalsh wrote:
Jonathon Wilder wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Non-native outsiders do not have descriptive alignment in Pathfinder/Golarion (confirmed by James Jacobs) meaning they CANNOT act against their alignment without outside interference (usually divine intervention) so a Demon, a non-native outsiders that is Chaotic Evil, cannot cast Protection from Evil because that would require him/her to act against his/her prescriptive alignment.

Well I admit, I actually find myself disagreeing with this view. If this was true it would completely invalidate the idea of an Celestial falling to evil or, more rarely still, a demon ascending to good. Which goes against not only a couple of concepts I have for characters, but also my consideration of the true power of redemption when it comes to one of my favorite deities... Sarenrae. Especially one of my favorite tropes, Love Redeems.

The above not only suggests, but firmly seems to state, that you cannot have an outsider be anything but what their alignment is or make choices that could otherwise make for an interesting campaign or story. Having the choice of turning from the path you are on, whether for Good or for Evil, is far more rich then simply always having to continue on path because the universe says so. It may not be easy, it may even seem impossible, but I feel there would be those willing to try even if they fail.

You can disagree but uh... That's how it works. It's not an opinion.

This should probably fall into rare and uncommon acts/actions not automatically changing your Alignment.

As for outsiders with Alignment subtypes, this is true, but it does not mean they can not do things here and there that do not match their Alignment, they just can not do so to the point of actually changing their hard coded Alignment.

Grand Lodge

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Nonsense! Redeeming (or corrupting) outsiders is as simple as planar binding and giving the outsider the task of "use five scrolls of Protection from (alignment of choice) consecutively." Once done, presto! Redeemed succubi! Fallen angels! Lawful proteans! It even works on demigods too if you can convince them properly!

I would very much feel that would go completely against the concept of redemption, or even the idea in general because it forces such a change of an alignment. If it is forced, then it is not real or true but instead hollow.

----

HWalsh wrote:
You can disagree but uh... That's how it works. It's not an opinion.

Not in any of my campaigns will that be how it works, that I can and will say without question.

More, if I happen to join a campaign where I play a faithful of Sarenrae, or perhaps even in general, I will definitely try to discuss going against such idea with the DM and other players.
---

DM Beckett wrote:
This should probably fall into rare and uncommon acts/actions not automatically changing your Alignment.

Which is a detail I mentioned, as of course it would be a rare and uncommon occurrence but notably not impossible.

Silver Crusade

Becoming Good aligned =/= Redeemed

Grand Lodge

Rysky wrote:
Becoming Good aligned =/= Redeemed

Perhaps, but changing your viewpoint and behavior to the point where you can no longer be considered evil would be very much open to be considered such. Whether this be simply a change to Neutral or all the way to a Good alignment


Rysky wrote:
Becoming Good aligned =/= Redeemed

Wait... if you're objectively good, then you're not good?

Silver Crusade

Jonathon Wilder wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Becoming Good aligned =/= Redeemed
Perhaps, but changing your viewpoint and behavior to the point where you can no longer be considered evil would be very much open to be considered such. Whether this be simply a change to Neutral or all the way to a Good alignment

*nods*

Redeeming yourself would move you towards Good, but just deciding to be a good person or having your alignment forcibly changed to Good doesn't make you Redeemed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jonathon Wilder wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Nonsense! Redeeming (or corrupting) outsiders is as simple as planar binding and giving the outsider the task of "use five scrolls of Protection from (alignment of choice) consecutively." Once done, presto! Redeemed succubi! Fallen angels! Lawful proteans! It even works on demigods too if you can convince them properly!

I would very much feel that would go completely against the concept of redemption, or even the idea in general because it forces such a change of an alignment. If it is forced, then it is not real or true but instead hollow.

I get that, I'm just having a bit of fun with the RAW.

That said though, the whole outsiders CANNOT act outside their alignment without something short of divine intervention is frankly a load of hogwash anyway. Erinyes are corrupted good outsiders, Peri have their own history with corruption, there's that whole Redemption Engine thing, etc etc. I doubt Asmodeus made every single Erinyes his own personal pet project so generally we can extrapolate there's some wiggle room for outsiders to corrupt/redeem themselves with sufficent prodding.

Now what IS virtually impossible without divine intervention is for an outsider to shift alignment and keep its original form. An angel that falls to LE doesn't stay an angel, it morphs into an Erinyes or similar. The same concept would go the other way, just with whatever the GM thinks is most fitting unless he has a deity on call for making sure your soon to be succubus waifu doesn't suddenly turn into a lillend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Jonathon Wilder wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Non-native outsiders do not have descriptive alignment in Pathfinder/Golarion (confirmed by James Jacobs) meaning they CANNOT act against their alignment without outside interference (usually divine intervention) so a Demon, a non-native outsiders that is Chaotic Evil, cannot cast Protection from Evil because that would require him/her to act against his/her prescriptive alignment.

Well I admit, I actually find myself disagreeing with this view. If this was true it would completely invalidate the idea of an Celestial falling to evil or, more rarely still, a demon ascending to good. Which goes against not only a couple of concepts I have for characters, but also my consideration of the true power of redemption when it comes to one of my favorite deities... Sarenrae. Especially one of my favorite tropes, Love Redeems.

The above not only suggests, but firmly seems to state, that you cannot have an outsider be anything but what their alignment is or make choices that could otherwise make for an interesting campaign or story. Having the choice of turning from the path you are on, whether for Good or for Evil, is far more rich then simply always having to continue on path because the universe says so. It may not be easy, it may even seem impossible, but I feel there would be those willing to try even if they fail.

You can disagree but uh... That's how it works. It's not an opinion.

I would much appreciate not only a link to this post, but a link to the FAQ/errata that added this opinion to the rules of the game. We've been told before that, unless it's from the PDT, that designer/developers posts are NOT to be considered actual rules.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:

You can disagree but uh... That's how it works. It's not an opinion.

You got a rule or errata to back up that claim? You havn't even provided a FAQ entry or developer quote.

At best, it sounds to me like one developer's opinion. At worst, yet another totally unsubstantiated claim on the internet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes those are the same thing.


As a bit of fun, I did a brief lookaround for outsiders that exist as fallen/redeemed forms of another or explicitely mention that along the way.

Peri (mention feeling guilt over fallen celestial ancestors)
Erinyes (typically made from good outsiders who strayed from good)
Asmodeus (previously a celestial)
Sahkil (previously psychopomps who decided to quit)
Oni (can potentially form from fallen Kami)
The Redemption Engine (forced redemption yielded fallen angels)
Shamira (heavily implied to be an ex-celestial or directly tied to Sarenrae)

Obviously not a lot of redeemed stuff in there, but that should give some concrete examples of outsiders who acted outside their purview of their own volition (irrefutably so for some like Sahkil)


Then there is the whole business of Arazni.
I like to think outsiders change only with a catalyst of some sort.
Exposed to something that acts as the catalyst for a change.
But they lack the ability to just "geez whiz I'm tired of office life in heaven, I'll get a motorcycle go to the abyss instead."


Envall wrote:

Then there is the whole business of Arazni.

I like to think outsiders change only with a catalyst of some sort.
Exposed to something that acts as the catalyst for a change.
But they lack the ability to just "geez whiz I'm tired of office life in heaven, I'll get a motorcycle go to the abyss instead."

Funny thing is Sahkil literally did the last part. "Darn, this judge office work is only propping up a doomed system. Lets go spread some terror boys!"

451 to 500 of 567 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Can we ditch the nonsense with infernal healing yet? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.