|
I have a lawful evil Inquisitor of Asmodoues, who if he saw a Paladin
trying to cast infernal Healing would stop him from doing so unless he was trying to corrupt the goodie goodie
My reasiong is that the Paladin is commiting a non-laful act casting a spell with an evil discriptior [A spell that is inherantly evil} something that would damage the Paladin's ethos in the Inquistiors eyes. There for must be stopped. The inquistor would remind the Paladin of the sin that he was about to commit and remind him that he should purify himself for even contemplating casting such a spell.
[It's always fun to lecture Paladins and be right when you are doing it.] If the Paladin asked him to cast Infernal healing on the same person the Paladin was going to cast the spell on he probley would cast the spell on the poor soul as a favor to the Paladin.
You never know when healing for you may be nessary and having a Paldin on your side is always useful. Being a hell Knigtht of the order of the Scorge he might even offer to scorge the Paladin to drive the evil thoughts from his mind. Mahhaha
|
I'm not fond of the idea that evil and [evil] are unrelated.
I'd prefer if the spells with the [evil] subtype had an actual moral component to them, if using Infernal Healing, for instance, slid a bit of fiendish taint into the creature being healed, not just 'makes it detect as evil for a minute.'
Maybe the Infernal Healing knits up your wounds, and holds you together until your body would have naturally healed that damage (perhaps days later), and the devil taint remains there, that entire time, making you more susceptible to fiendish spellcasting, or allowing the fiendish patron who grants these spells (or his servants) to scry on your location and learn things about you or those around you, to service their later goals (sort of like you were carrying a Hag Eye around, so long as the devil-tainted 'healing' remains in your system). During that time, perhaps one is more susceptible to devil-possession, and might wake up somewhere after a bout of 'sleepwalking,' unaware of what your body has done while someone else was at the wheel...
Maybe those infected by the 'healing' of the Hells are more likely to sire tiefling children, who will have some ties to their 'real' parents, in the Hells.
Maybe those healed are subject to a geas-type obligation to pay homage to the devil who granted the healing, and if they don't do so within a timely fashion (30 days, say), the wound re-opens and becomes infected with devil chills.
Maybe there's a higher level spell that nobody outside of the church of Asmodeus talks about, that allows a cleric of Asmodeus to impose a suggestion or quest-like effect on someone who has received Infernal Healing, with the amount of infernal healing they've received over time affecting their save to resist these commands (and a cantrip level effect that allows a cleric of Asmodeus / Infernal Sorcerer / Diabolist Wizard to detect those who have received Infernal Healing, and would be subject to these commands).
It just feels like a cheapening of the concept of alignment for it not to mean anything, and for spells to be arbitarily [good] or [evil], despite having no real moral significance or consequences.
Similarly, I wouldn't mind if there was some actual significance to summoning fiends. Perhaps calling them up leaves weak points, that lesser fiendish creatures might be able to slip through, to cause unintended havoc. Perhaps there are some sort of nasty parasites, barely visible to the naked eye, that fall off of summoned fiendish wolves and have the ability to remain behind when the summoning ends, so long as they have leapt to a new host and bitten down, like fleas from hell, that lead to minor infestations and disease and whatnot, in the wake of fiendish-animal-conjurings.
Then again, this sort of stuff would just beg the question of why anyone turns to evil anyway, since good, pretty much since 1st edition, has always been the quick and easy and consequence-free route to power, and evil has generally been the hard, slow and dangerous path...
Then again, this sort of stuff would just beg the question of why anyone turns to evil anyway, since good, pretty much since 1st edition, has always been the quick and easy and consequence-free route to power, and evil has generally been the hard, slow and dangerous path...
Because the way of the game is to promote good, not evil. It doesn't make much sense in a real life context I guess but that's the way it is.
That's one reason I am loath to forbid my player's from using [evil] spells if they are not divine spellcasters.
If all boils down to interpretation anyway, but it really seems unreasonable to me to impose consequences on a good or neutral wizard casting infernal healing. In many ways, arcane magic is different to divine and wizards who are essentially "scientists" of magic would have no scruple in regards to [evil] spells. It's all tools for them anyway and they should not be penalized for trying to be efficient when there are no actual consequences of supposed evil.
Just like there are no actual moral consequences when an evil wizard summons a good creature even though he is doing a "good" act. the creature might be purest good but if he summoned it for evil purposes, that's an evil act to me.
While how you use the spell decides whether the overall result is good or evil, how [Evil] spells are described in each game makes that overall decision.
James Jacobs has said, in Golarion, that Infernal Healing munches on the soul of the person you're casting it on, and that spells that create undead yank the soul out of the line to the Boneyard and trap them in their decaying bodies. Those are evil acts. It doesn't matter if you send the skeleton to go get a child out out of a house fire and then destroy it right after or that you kept your best friend from dying with Infernal Healing at the cost of a sliver of his soul. You've messed around with people's souls in ways that can be very harmful to them.
Like so many alignment debates, it comes down to whether the ends justifies the means. Personally, I see it as Evil doing whatever they want/need to, Neutral doing evil acts for what they see as the greater "good" (for themselves or society), and Good as refusing to compromise themselves. Its easy to be evil and hard to be good.
As for spells with the Evil descriptor, I think James explanation of how it may or may not corrupt the caster is spot on. Evil spells are the Dark Side of magic, and while the occasional dip for good reasons isn't going to do much, the caster is stepping onto a slippery slope. If they cast it once without any problems when they had a really good reason, they're likely to use it again. Eventually they'll cast it without needing a good reason if they think it's expedient. They may start to apply that thinking to other areas, and so on and so forth. It isn't a guarantee and depends on the character as a whole, but once you no longer have a problem mangling someone's soul for a little healing, or enslaving them and shoving them into their corpses for an extra pair of hands, you're definitely not good anymore.
Evil spellcasters are also casting a lot of magic circles against evil [good] to bind their fiendish servitors. They all must be of good alignment before they reach level 15 it seems. :)
It would be an awesome power for good deities in Golarion I admit. If you want to call your evil minions you must do good acts. Damn, it's hard to be evil in D&D/Pathfinder. :)
Okay, this may be a bit off topic, but wouldnt this spell be a whole lot more evil if it made someone use celestial blood, not fiendish blood? IMO, I'd keep everything as it is and change the material component.
The reason it's [Evil] is the blood (or unholy water) is infused with the essence of Evil. It's sort of like a fireball, you can't have a fireball without having heat and burning things. You could cast a freezeball and have a wave of liquid nitrogen burst forth, but then it's not a fireball, even if you're using the same spell.
edit: I also noticed that the component is "(1 drop of devil blood or 1 dose of unholy water)". Why include unholy water in there? Devil blood has no listed cost and is a component, therefore its assumed to be in every spell pouch (which admittedly is stupid). Unholy water costs 25gp.
I'd say it's because Unholy water is easier to get than devil blood. Just because the component is not expensive doesn't mean it's easy to get. :) They leave that up to the GM. In order to avoid the issue of 'Why put a spell in the book if most GMs are going to make devil blood hard to get', they also added Unholy Water, which is at least just a flat out purchase. Besides, it's also a flavor thing, unholy water seems a valid thing to say could be used for an infernal spell component. :)
edit 2: And if the thing that makes this evil is tainting someone with an Evil Outsider's vitae, what about sorcerers-- they all have eschew materials!
Sorcerer's I'd say are even more in danger using it. The material components are, theoretically, lending their essence to the spell. A sorcerer is channeling the essence he needs into his spells, so he's personally channeling pure elemental Evil through himself into the target.
Sorcerer's I'd say are even more in danger using it. The material components are, theoretically, lending their essence to the spell. A sorcerer is channeling the essence he needs into his spells, so he's personally channeling pure elemental Evil through himself into the target.
edit 2: And if the thing that makes this evil is tainting someone with an Evil Outsider's vitae, what about sorcerers-- they all have eschew materials!
This is an interesting question I think, do you consider sorcerers with abyssal bloodline at constant danger of going evil whenever they use their powers ? They are not cited as [evil] but they are obviously abyssal in nature.
This is an interesting question I think, do you consider sorcerers with abyssal bloodline at constant danger of going evil whenever they use their powers ? They are not cited as [evil] but they are obviously abyssal in nature.
Sorcerer's I'd say are even more in danger using it. The material components are, theoretically, lending their essence to the spell. A sorcerer is channeling the essence he needs into his spells, so he's personally channeling pure elemental Evil through himself into the target.
edit 2: And if the thing that makes this evil is tainting someone with an Evil Outsider's vitae, what about sorcerers-- they all have eschew materials!
Nope, unless they are casting [Evil] spells and summoning [Evil] creatures all the time and generally doing evil things.
Everyone (to me) who is mortal has a Moral Freedom of Choice. That doesn't mean you aren't predisposed towards evil (Tieflings, Dhampyres, Fetchlings and Abyssal sorcerers for example) due to having been tainted by [Evil], but you still have the moral freedom to choose what you do. You can revel in your natural tendencies, or you can rise beyond them. The same applies to those with Good or Neutral tendencies (Aasimar or Elemental Bloodline Sorcerers or Elemental Humans from Bestiary II), they can follow their natural tendencies or go against them.
Now, in my own world... Tieflings tend to be Neutral at best (say less than 10% good), while Aasimar tend to be Neutral at worst (say less than 10% evil). That's because people usually go with what's easiest, and it's not easy to fight a built in tendency toward anything (my father has a built in tendency toward alcohol abuse, and he has to fight it to avoid drinking). Most people with addictive personalities don't fight it.
I would say it wouldnt change alignments unless you wanted to. Ic ould cast good aligned spells 24/7 but its not going to just make me L/G unless its magically changing my personallity while im casting. This is kinda why alignments dont work very well.
|
|
James Jacobs has said, in Golarion, that Infernal Healing munches on the soul of the person you're casting it on, and that spells that create undead yank the soul out of the line to the Boneyard and trap them in their decaying bodies.
Actually, when asked that second thing, about the undead, he specifically said that animate dead did *not* yank souls away from Pharasma (or Iomedae, or Asmodeus, or out of the belly of Charon, or 'uncreate' celestials, devils or demons or *gods* that have progressed up the ladder from soul to petitioner to outsider).
It just does what the spell says it does, make corpses get up and boogie.
It's not a 4th level version of the 9th level soul bind spell that has been enhanced from range Close to range 'infinite, across other planes' *and* affects multiple targets *and* also creates a bunch of permanent bag-carrying minions.
James Jacobs has said, in Golarion, that Infernal Healing munches on the soul of the person you're casting it on, and that spells that create undead yank the soul out of the line to the Boneyard and trap them in their decaying bodies.Actually, when asked that second thing, about the undead, he specifically said that animate dead did *not* yank souls away from Pharasma (or Iomedae, or Asmodeus, or out of the belly of Charon, or 'uncreate' celestials, devils or demons or *gods* that have progressed up the ladder from soul to petitioner to outsider).
Right. Thanks for reminding me. I had meant Create Undead.
And he also pointed out that the nature of the Boneyard means that the soul hasn't passed on whenever it is being raised, which can make things a bit wonky. After all, if someone has been dead too long for me to raise with Raise Dead, but Bob, who is a higher level than me can, it implies that the soul has passed on at the point when I was trying to raise them, but had not passed on when Bob tried it at a later date.
This means that anything that does make more powerful undead is likely having the same effect as a Raising spell and yanking them out of the line.
Evil spells are the Dark Side of magic, and while the occasional dip for good reasons isn't going to do much, the caster is stepping onto a slippery slope. If they cast it once without any problems when they had a really good reason, they're likely to use it again. Eventually they'll cast it without needing a good reason if they think it's expedient. They may start to apply that thinking to other areas, and so on and so forth.People always take these kinds of rationalizations. My suggestion to them has always been to switch out '[evil]' spell for a '[good]' spell and take the same argument to a similar conclusion. Is it as palatable?
There is a special standard for [evil] spells that don't seem to apply to other alignments and certainly not [good] spells. Why is that?
Because, as LazarX said, evil and good aren't equally weighted. Because Corruption is easy, while Redemption is hard.
Most importantly, intention doesn't make an act good, but it can corrupt a good act.
For example, the old tyrant has been overthrown, but he still has surviving family. In 20 years, this could lead to civil war if his son grows up and decides to try and take back the throne or if someone else decides to use him as a figurehead for their own coup. Currently, the son is barely able to walk or talk and has had no involvement in anything his father did.
If you order the slaughter of the tyrant's entire family line, you stop a bloody civil war long before it ever happens. The outcome is good, but it doesn't change the fact that the act itself was utterly evil and morally reprehensible because what it boils down to is killing many for the sins of another as well as the murder of an innocent child.
So in the case of casting a good spell to do something evil, your intention keeps any alignment change away because there is no good result intended. On the other hand, good intentions cannot redeem an evil act. You can't kill an innocent or corrupt a soul and say that its fine because you meant well. What becomes telling as to whether it changes your alignment is just how big the act was and how easily you jump to it, rather than why you did it.
|
If all boils down to interpretation anyway, but it really seems unreasonable to me to impose consequences on a good or neutral wizard casting infernal healing. In many ways, arcane magic is different to divine and wizards who are essentially "scientists" of magic would have no scruple in regards to [evil] spells. It's all tools for them anyway and they should not be penalized for trying to be efficient when there are no actual consequences of supposed evil.
It's way too easy to slip into this sort of meta-game mentality about this. "There are no 'in game' consequences to casting this spell so it's not really evil to use it if I use it for good."
What are the consequences of that? Maybe having another person beholden to him strengthens Asmodeous' power. Or when you die that's just a little weight on your soul each time you cast it, bringing you slightly closer to his dominion. When you summon evil characters perhaps you make the gateways to the evil planes just a little thinner...
It doesn't matter exactly why, nor should it matter if there is a specific in game effect. If something is labeled 'evil' it is actually 'evil' in the game. That is why they have the label.
As James mentioned above the spell is deliberately just a little better than 'good' healing options because it's meant to be a tough choice. By isolating 'good and evil' to the meta-game realm of whether something has a rules based character concept you are cheapening that.
Speaking of cheapening, infernal healing in particular is not even a life saving, 'emergency' spell. Essentially the argument for picking up infernal healing isn't that it saves lives but that it's slightly cheaper than cure light wounds on a per hit point basis.
So your character is literally selling his soul to save a few coins...
But since it doesn't have any 'in-game' consequences it doesn't matter right?
I would treat continued exposure to this spell as I would treat continued exposure to the waters of Lamashtu. It corrupts you.
One or two does nothing noticeable, but if you rely on it for your entire adventuring career as your only form of healing, you will likely retire your character as a monster (or as a Sith-like psychopath with a distorted view of right and wrong).
|
Right, and I agree with your explanation of why the material components can lend the spell it´s [evil] tag (not that dissimilar from Neutral characters Summoning Evil Monsters)... I just don´t think the spell having that tag forces it´s Caster towards the Alignment per se, any more than Evil creatures casting Protection from Evil ([good] tag) move towards Good alignment.
Let's try this explanation:
1) poor child is badly burned;
2) caster use infernal healing on him (components: blood of evil outsider or unholy water)
3) spell text: "The target .....and can sense the evil of the magic". Unless I am failing my "Read English" skill check this mean that the target of the spell feel the evil power crawling over him while it is healing him, not that other people will feel it. That part is covered by "The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell".
[full text: This ability cannot repair damage caused by silver weapons, good-aligned weapons, or spells or effects with the good descriptor. The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.]
4) the target feel a positive sensation (his wounds being healed) combined with sensing the evil crawling over him.
Do it repeatedly and his mind will start associating a positive sensation with evil (think about drug addiction), so every time you use this spell the target is tempted by evil, seeing it as a positive force.
5) Your action make evil alluring for the target, endangering his soul, so it is an evil act.
|
|
There is a special standard for [evil] spells that don't seem to apply to other alignments and certainly not [good] spells. Why is that?In my mind it's because it falls short of being reasonable as the rules stand.
Its easy to see in this case that it is the context of the actions rather than merely the act of casting the spell. Meanwhile with other alignment descriptor spells it can be muddled.
-James
PS: To take your example and run with it-An evil wizard likes having lantern archons kill his innocent victims, so he summons them quite frequently. The spell has the [good] descriptor.
Mostly he does this while doing evil acts. Thus he had a 'really -evil- reason' so to speak.
But then he gets attacked by random neutral monsters attacking out of hunger. He falls back to his tried and true of summoning the archons. But merely defending himself which isn't really evil.
Is he starting to be good?
How wary of this should he be? Does it depend on how often he finds himself merely defending himself rather than getting the chance to indulge in his hobby of slaughtering innocents? Will he have to give up his hobby? It would be embarrassing to say the least- he's the president of his local chapter!
Doesn't seem quite right to me. It seems like a house rule/added mechanic is trying to be shoehorned here where it doesn't exist. And its motivated by the name choice of the descriptor. Using the name of things in D&D is not a good way to judge them as by tradition they tend to use the same names for multiple things. After all this is the game that uses 'level' like a bad speaker says 'umm'!
First, as least for earlier editions it wasn't a house rule, but an actual rule of the game. Applying it in Pathfinders has its reason.
Second: your summoning devils/archons example.
You are a evil wizard routinely summoning archons to do evil deeds.
You think no one will notice?
- If the word of your actions spread around in the mortal world you will become a preferred target for hordes or do gooders, even more than a evil spellcaster using demons.
- For sure the relevant deities will notice you using their servants for evil purposes and the archon themselves will recall that (it is a summoning spell: "A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.").
After doing it a few times your spellcaster will be the target of posses of outsiders seeking retaliation against him (and the same will happen summoning devils to do good acts).
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Meaning: 1) People who believe they are doing good can end up doing bad (the law of unintended consequences).
while I haven't read every post pretty much just the first page
it amazed me no one ever sought to bring up this referance
Fact Infernal Healing is an EVIL spell
Fact Caster was good alignment
suposition does one bad act cancel a life of good
I would say no BUT the path to evil is a slippery slope as DM I would have began a "Tally Mark" on how often this evil spell were cast and slowly either shift the characters alignment or start reducing his effect holy spells
Hmm, watch an orphan burn to death (or die of the burns being on fire causes) because you don't know how to heal him, and no one else is around to save him, OR Infernal Healing, which might stain your soul a little. Tough decision.
Hmm, watch an orphan burn to death (or die of the burns being on fire causes) because you don't know how to heal him, and no one else is around to save him, OR Infernal Healing, which might stain your soul a little. Tough decision.
There is only one GOOD thing to do in that situation, which is to get a little EVIL.
Hmm, watch an orphan burn to death (or die of the burns being on fire causes) because you don't know how to heal him, and no one else is around to save him, OR Infernal Healing, which might stain your soul a little. Tough decision.
Because exposure to the powers of Hell itself never hurt anybody...
Because exposure to the powers of Hell itself never hurt anybody...Hmm, watch an orphan burn to death (or die of the burns being on fire causes) because you don't know how to heal him, and no one else is around to save him, OR Infernal Healing, which might stain your soul a little. Tough decision.
I dunno about that.....but it can, in fact, heal them!
I dunno about that.....but it can, in fact, heal them!Because exposure to the powers of Hell itself never hurt anybody...Hmm, watch an orphan burn to death (or die of the burns being on fire causes) because you don't know how to heal him, and no one else is around to save him, OR Infernal Healing, which might stain your soul a little. Tough decision.
Which assumes that all healing is good. Further, you've tainted their soul to do it.
If you look at which lasts longer, the soul or the body, one has much further reaching implications than the other.
I dunno about that.....but it can, in fact, heal them!Because exposure to the powers of Hell itself never hurt anybody...Hmm, watch an orphan burn to death (or die of the burns being on fire causes) because you don't know how to heal him, and no one else is around to save him, OR Infernal Healing, which might stain your soul a little. Tough decision.
Which assumes that all healing is good. Further, you've tainted their soul to do it.
If you look at which lasts longer, the soul or the body, one has much further reaching implications than the other.
WOAH! Calm down there, Toby! Nothing about the spell says you've tainted their soul. In fact it specifically states it has no long term consequences for the target. This whole debate has been about CASTING it. No soul tainting on orphans. Just on nice guys who try to help orphans.
I dunno about that.....but it can, in fact, heal them!Because exposure to the powers of Hell itself never hurt anybody...Hmm, watch an orphan burn to death (or die of the burns being on fire causes) because you don't know how to heal him, and no one else is around to save him, OR Infernal Healing, which might stain your soul a little. Tough decision.
Here's a thought...
You are burned and in agony. I approach you, tell you I will help you. Either way, all the pain will go away.
Option A) One year from now, you will start to die again, and every day you will be in more and more agony. You will be unable to die or sleep to escape the agony. It will last 1000 years. But you get a free year of health.
Option B) I kill you now, quickly and painlessly with a slice to the throat. Your suffering will end in minutes.
Which option is Good, and which is Evil?
I dunno about that.....but it can, in fact, heal them!Because exposure to the powers of Hell itself never hurt anybody...Hmm, watch an orphan burn to death (or die of the burns being on fire causes) because you don't know how to heal him, and no one else is around to save him, OR Infernal Healing, which might stain your soul a little. Tough decision.
Here's a thought...
You are burned and in agony. I approach you, tell you I will help you. Either way, all the pain will go away.
Option A) One year from now, you will start to die again, and every day you will be in more and more agony. You will be unable to die or sleep to escape the agony. It will last 1000 years. But you get a free year of health.
Option B) I kill you now, quickly and painlessly with a slice to the throat. Your suffering will end in minutes.
Which option is Good, and which is Evil?
C) You cast Infernal Healing on me and I let you worry about your own soul while I feel better over the course of a minute with no long term problems.
C) You cast Infernal Healing on me and I let you worry about your own soul while I feel better over the course of a minute with no long term problems.
The person receiving the spell feels the power of evil flowing through them. They're the ones that get tainted. It's evil because you're tainting them, even though they are getting something out of it.
C) You cast Infernal Healing on me and I let you worry about your own soul while I feel better over the course of a minute with no long term problems.The person receiving the spell feels the power of evil flowing through them. They're the ones that get tainted. It's evil because you're tainting them, even though they are getting something out of it.
They don't get tainted, tho. After the minute is over, they feel fine. You, on the other hand, have casted a spell with the evil descriptor. You are the one getting tainted. Read the spell.