I know it makes me detect as evil for its duration. What I'm curious about is if using a spell with an [evil] descriptor goes toward changing my character's actual alignment over a course of time. I feel like 3.5 had a ruling that using [evil] spells was an evil act, but I don't see it in Pathfinder. Am I missing it? What do y'all think?
"[Descriptor]
Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor.
The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says, the spell fails.
A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher."
So nothing in there about it corupting, just interaction with other abilities.
I would use it as a hook for a plot - all that evil blood and those trigger happy Paladins
I'm playing a character with a sort of Punisher (Marvel hero) complex who is, essentially, a good guy. However, he really believes in using whatever the most effective options are for ridding the world of bad guys. Infernal Healing is the exact type of thing he would co-opt for the cause of good and take a kind of perverse pleasure in knowing he was using something evil AGAINST evil.
I just want to make sure it doesn't actually turn him evil...
I saw that part you quoted in the rules, too, which leads me to believe I'm in the clear...but I just want to make!
Thanks for the reply!
It's really up to the GM and the game's playstyle. There's nothing mechanically that would force you to change your alignment, but your GM might say that it taints you. Or it might be the opening to something darker. But it's a RP-based change, not a rules-based one.
I wouldn't say that it makes you evil but it is an evil act. This may be splitting hairs, so let me explain.
You using infernal healing is not in an of it's self evil, you aren't harming someone or attacking the innocent or betraying a friend etc. However, the use of Demonic power to heal someone may be viewed in the non-meta sense as an evil act. For instance, the Paladin would refuse any healing from infernal healing, and would likely require an atonement even if he receives the healing w/o his knowledge (unconscious). Church officials or local rulers may view the use of infernal healing as a perversion and evidence of demonic influence and react accordingly.
I would say that the reaction of other characters around you (NPC and LG PC) should be similar to the actual evil action but from a game mechanics standpoint it won't necessarily hurt your alignment.
There's no official answer to this. The core rules specifically state that this is left up to one's GM, that there are no general rulings about changing alignment, other than the fact that it can happen.
Check with your GM, because what can change a character's alignment, if anything, is left up to the GM to decide.
|
Rules-wise, there's nothing evil about it, there's just something [evil] about it. However, I seem to recall a post from a developer (and this was a long long time ago, so I'm not going to go looking for a link) that suggested using an [evil] spell was an evil act in his games, which would not automatically cause an alignment shift or anything but could, over time, have an impact on the character's alignment. As others have stated, though, it's not a game rule at all, just something to be worked out between player and GM.
From a role-playing perspective, and particularly in the case of the "Punisher" style character you've described, I think it would be more interesting to consider it an evil act, and roleplay through the slow but steady impact such an action begins to have on his outlook (and alignment), until he eventually faces the choice of whether to become one of the monsters he has been fighting...
(I've been thinking about this a fair amount because I've been considering whether to make a character who uses pain strike or not.)
It won't. At least not in my game.
Example: A wizard casts infernal healing to save the children dying from fire. Obviously not an evil act even though the spell itself draws upon evil powers to produce it's effect.
Divine spellcasters are another matter.
I wouldn't say that it makes you evil but it is an evil act. This may be splitting hairs, so let me explain.
You using infernal healing is not in an of it's self evil, you aren't harming someone or attacking the innocent or betraying a friend etc. However, the use of Demonic power to heal someone may be viewed in the non-meta sense as an evil act. For instance, the Paladin would refuse any healing from infernal healing, and would likely require an atonement even if he receives the healing w/o his knowledge (unconscious). Church officials or local rulers may view the use of infernal healing as a perversion and evidence of demonic influence and react accordingly.
I would say that the reaction of other characters around you (NPC and LG PC) should be similar to the actual evil action but from a game mechanics standpoint it won't necessarily hurt your alignment.
Awesome. We don't have any LG or Paladins in the party (sadly!), but one of the big reasons I'm using the spell is to create a cool RP moment when the other characters in the party "feel the evil" of the spell (as the spell's description says) when I use it on them. It'll be interesting to see whose characters refuse to ever let me use it to heal them again, and whose characters agree with my rationale that using demonic powers to better fight evil is kosher....it'll also be interesting to see how their reactions to my character change going forward.
@Shisumo: That's the exact type of "Batman" or Punisher style devolution I'm aiming toward with the character. It is how I am going to play it over time. Ya know what they say about gazing into the abyss...
I would not say that using this on a regular basis itself would case any Alignment shifts.
And REALLY, bringing Paladins in the picture doesn´t help things here! :-)
Likewise, I don´t think theocrats and Clerics´ opinion or preference to the issue actually affects REAL ALIGNMENT CHANGES. Groups can like-wise ostracize the consumption of lasagna, that doesn´t mean it changes alignment.
What affects SHOULD it have?
Well, to start, saying that you ´can sense the evil of the magic´ is pretty vague.
You can assume this is on par to Detect Evil, but what does that mean when the recipient has never used Detect Evil. They know it is Evil, but in comparison to what, if they have never used Detect Good, for example? For convience sake, you can sense a vaguely malevolent power (if you are good), or (a respectable, unfettered power) if you are Evil. Neutral people probably wouldn´t care.
So how does that play out? I would say that during the effect, there are heavy RP ´enticements´ to submit to Evil compulsions. If you really wouldn´t do such a thing, you don´t do it, but if it something you might be 50/50 on, you are much more likely to indulge.
Long term, I would play it similarly, but perhaps less strong, just take the perspective that the character is being sub-consciously programmed that ´Evilness´ offers power and health, etc, and doesn´t really have to do any damage. Your alignment does not change except based on actually Evil acts, but it promotes a RP tendency to take those Evil acts in borderline cases. As an ongoing effect, that is not any ´direct´ effect of the spell itself, simply sub-conscious psychology at work, and that could be applied to any number of other things, such as Good characters (incl. Paladins) associating with Evil ones... Just in the consideration of your character´s RP, wallowing in Evil just happens to have a non-zero effect prodding YOU personally towards further Evil. No mechanics, just RP.
I think woth regards to this stuff you have to look at the big picture. if it's just occasionally interspersed with goofed acts it shouldn't be a problem but if it becomes the exclusive way he heals then that should be pertinent.
the use of an evil spell is pertinent it should be a tangible moral choice not one that is ignored as mere mechanics.
My take on it in my games.
An outsider has the [EVIL] subtype and is, at it's foundation, Evil. It is made up of the pure element of Evil, from the very fabric of Evil, in every cell of it's body. Per RAW. In my own game, I have that muted if they come to the material plane, as they are having to cloak themselves in stuff of the mortal world, which isn't Evil (same for [Good]). But that's besides the point for now.
To me, the [Evil] descriptor means you are literally calling on the power of primal [Evil] to perform the spell. This makes it inherently an Evil act. It doesn't matter if you're healing orphans or murderers, you're calling on Evil to do it.
Now, I've seen someone above say something to the affect that if you're using it to save children from a fire, then it can't be Evil. I would say that is wrong. Because it negates one of the biggest lures Evil has, the sliding slope and pathway to hell paved with those good intentions.
I see Infernal Healing as Evil's way of seducing you in. "Hey buddy, you're a good guy, that poor orphan is burned, he's not gonna survive, and you don't have a cleric around... But ya know, this here energy will heal him. Don't give me that look, yeah, it's Evil, but, it's a burning orphan, how wrong could that be?" Evil can be very subtle, and I see spells like this as Evil's way of luring you down the primrose path.
Now, I don't think one use of it should change an alignment. However, if you're casting it 6 times a week... over time... yeah, you're committing 6 evil acts a week. If the character were NG and went out and stole a silver piece from the orphans fund 6 times a week, it's 6 minor evil actions. Would you eventually change him to NN?
Now, I don't think one use of it should change an alignment. However, if you're casting it 6 times a week... over time... yeah, you're committing 6 evil acts a week. If the character were NG and went out and stole a silver piece from the orphans fund 6 times a week, it's 6 minor evil actions. Would you eventually change him to NN?
Gonna have to disagree with you on this one mdt. After all, the ability of good people to use evil actions and creatures for good purposes while maintaining their morality in all other regards was the core aspect of Malconvoker. The devil blood is a tool, and yes the magic may be suffused with evil. Your intentions with it, however, are not, and there is nothing in the spell that dictates a slippery slope temptation.
Gonna have to disagree with you on this one mdt. After all, the ability of good people to use evil actions and creatures for good purposes while maintaining their morality in all other regards was the core aspect of Malconvoker. The devil blood is a tool, and yes the magic may be suffused with evil. Your intentions with it, however, are not, and there is nothing in the spell that dictates a slippery slope temptation.
Now, I don't think one use of it should change an alignment. However, if you're casting it 6 times a week... over time... yeah, you're committing 6 evil acts a week. If the character were NG and went out and stole a silver piece from the orphans fund 6 times a week, it's 6 minor evil actions. Would you eventually change him to NN?
The malconvoker is an optional class from a 3.5 splatbook. Doesn't carry a lot of weight.
There's very very very few things in the system with [EVIL] subtypes. Just as there are very few things in the system with [GOOD] subtypes. Would a Paladin casting it lose his powers? He's invoked [Evil], an evil act, and he would need an atonement. Same for an Anti-Paladin casting a spell with the [Good] subtype.
Both are acts that are either evil or good. They are minorly evil or good, but even a minor evil/good act is anathema to a Paladin/Anti-Paladin. The fact that they would be in trouble for it though indicates it's an aligned act.
If you want to do away with alignment, or change it, that's fine. That's your game. I am VERY VERY against the idea of 'Ends justify the Means'. It's an argument that has been used by most of the most hideously evil people in human history. It's usually used by people who advocate such things as torturing people to make them repent and choose Christianity, because that will save the soul, and the soul is more important, and the ends therefor justify the means.
The ends never justify the means, especially in a world with 100% concrete Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. The means ARE the ends. Someone who goes through life torturing others to root out evil is going to be very surprised after death when they end up in an evil queue in the underworld. It is the means that differentiate Good from Evil, or at least, to my way of thinking, it should be. If not, then we need score cards to tell the players apart.
Here's an offshoot to my original question: The character who is going to be making use of the Infernal Healing spells wields a Holy weapon. Infernal Healing makes you detect as an evil creature, but does it make the character evil in terms of how it is affected by Holy weapons or other spells/abilities such as smite evil?
Gonna have to disagree with you on this one mdt. After all, the ability of good people to use evil actions and creatures for good purposes while maintaining their morality in all other regards was the core aspect of Malconvoker. The devil blood is a tool, and yes the magic may be suffused with evil. Your intentions with it, however, are not, and there is nothing in the spell that dictates a slippery slope temptation.
Well, this is a situation that isn't about rules, but how a GM runs a game. The rules specify that a character's alignment can change, but leaves the causes of such a change up to the GM to determine. This is a situation where everyone's opinion is correct. It's also one where no one here can help the original poster. The only one that can answer Sylvanite's question is Sylvanite's GM.
Here's an offshoot to my original question: The character who is going to be making use of the Infernal Healing spells wields a Holy weapon. Infernal Healing makes you detect as an evil creature, but does it make the character evil in terms of how it is affected by Holy weapons or other spells/abilities such as smite evil?
No, I don't think so. Smite Evil wouldn't work on him. However, a Paladin doing detect evil would sense him as evil and depending on the Pally might smite him. Whether he realized the mistake before he killed him or not is up in the air.
Here's an offshoot to my original question: The character who is going to be making use of the Infernal Healing spells wields a Holy weapon. Infernal Healing makes you detect as an evil creature, but does it make the character evil in terms of how it is affected by Holy weapons or other spells/abilities such as smite evil?
Now this is a rules question. The spell itself does not interfere with the use of a holy weapon. However, if you GM decides use of the spell effects your alignment, it might cause you to suffer the alignment-based penalties down the line.
Gonna have to disagree with you on this one mdt. After all, the ability of good people to use evil actions and creatures for good purposes while maintaining their morality in all other regards was the core aspect of Malconvoker. The devil blood is a tool, and yes the magic may be suffused with evil. Your intentions with it, however, are not, and there is nothing in the spell that dictates a slippery slope temptation.Well, this is a situation that isn't about rules, but how a GM runs a game. The rules specify that a character's alignment can change, but leaves the causes of such a change up to the GM to determine. This is a situation where everyone's opinion is correct. It's also one where no one here can help the original poster. The only one that can answer Sylvanite's question is Sylvanite's GM.
Well, yes and no. The rules do say that performing evil acts can change your alignment. What's fuzzy is whether casting an aligned spell is an aligned act. I believe the rules are fuzzy enough on the side of it being an aligned act to feel comfortable saying it is. Someone else can rule different.
What I would do in my game is actually have the blood used taint the person being healed. :) If a PC were using it and ran out of demon/devil blood, I'd even have a devil or demon hop out of the background when they next wanted to cast it but didn't have the blood and offer them a pint, fresh from the spigot. :)
EXCELLENT Questions!!! I was going to ask our DM about that too... I've got an Infernal bloodline Sorcerer that Infernal Healing would REALLY add some flavor to...
I dont' know if this actually HELPS or HURTS the concept, but their bonus spell is 'Protection from Good' and that also has an [evil] marker on it.
Admittedly, I've NEVER found a use for the spell... but if they give out bonuses that automatically make you evil.... that's kind of a jerk move on the developers ;)
That was the basis of MY argument anyway... :)
Well, yes and no. The rules do say that performing evil acts can change your alignment. What's fuzzy is whether casting an aligned spell is an aligned act. I believe the rules are fuzzy enough on the side of it being an aligned act to feel comfortable saying it is. Someone else can rule different.
Actually, the rules state that a character's alignment can change. They go on to state that it is up to the GM to decide what actions precipitate such a change. There are no general rules on the process, only permission for the GM to use this as he or she feels is appropriate.
Sylvanite's GM may very well decide to rule that the spell in question does cause an alignment shift. In such a case, nothing that has been said here matters. The core rules specifically give that freedom to the GM, both by not providing a process for such a shift to happen, as well as specifically stating this. This is a rare case where GM's are expected to tailor a process according to the specifics, rather than simply adjusting rules as desired.
Admittedly, I've NEVER found a use for the spell... but if they give out bonuses that automatically make you evil.... that's kind of a jerk move on the developers ;)
That was the basis of MY argument anyway... :)
Well, it wouldn't be a "jerk move" by the developers, as they go out of their way in the core rules to not state what can cause an alignment shift. Instead, it's a determination that falls to your GM.
@mdt: Actually, I think the "ends justifies the means" works BETTER in a world with concrete good and evil. That's the whole basis of the system. Otherwise, you could never run a game where PCs kill something just because it is evil. Murder that is not in self-defense is an evil act. The system falls apart largely if you get rid of "ends justifies the means" in a fantasy game. The fact that you KNOW the things you are murdering are evil is exactly what makes your actions acceptable...in short, the ends justify the means. In the real world you are correct that ends justifying means is/has been used to do naughty things. It is also used to do things many people would agree are worthwhile (Man...this discussion is a little to timely...)
As for rules wise, I'm pretty sure that both the spell and the section under descriptors do specifically say that there are no effects per any rules to using spells of certain subtypes.
-The spell specifies that it has no long-term effects on the TARGET's alignment.
-As people quoted earlier, the part on descriptors specifies "most of these descriptors have in impact on the game by themselves" it just governs the interaction with game elements.
I'm finding the whole discussion really interesting, though, and getting some cool ideas for the character's RP progression.
Would a Paladin casting it lose his powers? He's invoked [Evil], an evil act, and he would need an atonement. Same for an Anti-Paladin casting a spell with the [Good] subtype.
Both are acts that are either evil or good. They are minorly evil or good, but even a minor evil/good act is anathema to a Paladin/Anti-Paladin. The fact that they would be in trouble for it though indicates it's an aligned act.
I don´t really know about that...
Good Clerics and Paladins can´t personally Cast this spell, but that is because [alignment] spells are essentially excluded from the spell lists of opposed alignment Clerics, and it isn´t present on the Paladin spell list. Since Paladins CAN in fact associate with Evil, I have no problem with them accepting this Infernal Healing, or even using it via Wands or Scrolls.Other [Evil] spells like Undead Creation themselves constitute an Evil act, based on Cosmic Soul Cosmology.
There is nothing about this spell that gives any indication that by it´s ends OR means, it does evil.
How is this different than borrowing a Cure Serious Wounds Wand from an Evil character?
...Which a Paladin is in fact allowed to do.
So yeah, by using this spell, you by (magical) appearances appear to be Evil, but beyond that? I don´t see it.
Like I said, there´s TONS of RP opportunities here, with character´s sub-conscious barriers to [evil] acts being whittled down, and their actual actions swaying to evil, but I don´t see any mechanic enforcing that. The spell is typed [evil] because it is from an evil source, there is no illusion magic involved when you detect as evil during the duration. But since even Paladins can associate with evil, I don´t see mechanical repurcussions of this, any more than a Paladin potentially being swayed by evil companions, which is ultimately a RP issue.
----------------------------------
@Sylvanite: That would mean Clerics may be cut off from spell-casting and powers, right?
Paladins wouldn´t unless they actually violate their code.
I would say go with the conservative interpretation, you DETECT as Evil and that´s it.
This is similar wording to Magic Aura, letting an item/person DETECT as whatever Magic School,
but that doesn´t mean actual Necromantic (etc) magic is at work in that case...
If you ACTUALLY WERE EVIL for the duration, your own moral choices would be swayed as well, right?,
yet that isn´t the case at all... Some effects depend on what you really are, not on DETECTING what you are.
But if you have an Intelligent Magic Weapon which DOES depend on DETECTING, than this may well be in play...
Interesting point you bring up, Phantom. If I'm an evil character who is constantly fighting other evil characters (as is so often the case) and I use Protection from Evil, which has a [good] descriptor, will I be swayed over time to the Light Side? That seems implausible, though an interesting example alongside Infernal Healing.
As for rules wise, I'm pretty sure that both the spell and the section under descriptors do specifically say that there are no effects per any rules to using spells of certain subtypes.
-The spell specifies that it has no long-term effects on the TARGET's alignment.
-As people quoted earlier, the part on descriptors specifies "most of these descriptors have in impact on the game by themselves" it just governs the interaction with game elements.
These are not relevant rules citations for this discussion, though. All that matters in this case is that the RAW leave the determination of what actions result in an alignment shift up to a GM's sole discretion (emphasis mine):
Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
This is why finding rules that force a character to shift alignment are so rare. It's not that the developers are saying that action x doesn't result in an alignment change. It's that the developers are saying it's not their place to say that action x results in an alignment shift.
Developer
|
I've got an example that I think illustrates why there shouldn't be an alignment shift in this case, even if the casting of an evil spell is evil.
Say you've got a CE Warlord. The guy does very bad things to a great number of people and feels no remorse. Kills to get his way, burns down the homes of those who speak against him, kills families of opponents, the whole nine yards.
But he doesn't kill children. Not only does he not kill them, he protects those he feels are being abused, and cares for orphans as only the most loving father would.
He does this for every orphan (even those he causes to be orpahns). He cares for them, provides for them, and protects them from harm. These are good acts, and he does them often.
At the same time he's a force of destruction serving only himself when not dealing with his children. Death is merely a tool, and torture and slavery is all that await his defeated opponents he decides not to kill.
I feel that, though the villain does good things, and does them often, he would remain CE. Not CN, and certainly not CG. Doing things in accordance with an alignment, even doing them often, does not make you that alignment.
Alignment is not a straightjacket, it's a guideline for how your character usually would choose to act.
@mdt: Actually, I think the "ends justifies the means" works BETTER in a world with concrete good and evil. That's the whole basis of the system. Otherwise, you could never run a game where PCs kill something just because it is evil. Murder that is not in self-defense is an evil act. The system falls apart largely if you get rid of "ends justifies the means" in a fantasy game. The fact that you KNOW the things you are murdering are evil is exactly what makes your actions acceptable...in short, the ends justify the means. In the real world you are correct that ends justifying means is/has been used to do naughty things. It is also used to do things many people would agree are worthwhile (Man...this discussion is a little to timely...)
*sigh*
Ok, let's go round the mulberry bush. :)
The taking of a life can be a neutral act, a good act, or an evil act. Which one it is depends on the GM and the world.
Example 1 :
An enemy is wounded and cannot be saved (no healing spells or potions). He's on the ground, gut wounded, bleeding to death in agony. He begs to be killed. A good PC puts a hand over the man's eyes, and then slits his throat. Good, Neutral or Evil? He was helpless, and no threat, but I would rule Neutral. It was not good, it was taking the life of a helpless enemy. It wasn't Evil, you did it to help him. The two cancel out in my book and become Neutral.
Example 2 :
A small child is being held down by a gnoll who's about to start eating it alive. You put an arrow through the gnoll's eye and kill it. Good, Neutral, or Evil? In my book, it's a Good act. Even if the child was a Drow or Goblin or Dwarf. A child is an innocent until it can make it's own decisions and take on an alignment. You protected an innocent life by killing the thing about to eat it. Even if you could have stopped him some other way, unless the other way was much more likely to protect the child better, then killing it is a fine option.
Example 3 :
You are caught breaking into someone's house. You were low on adventuring funds and were hoping to steal some stuff to hock. You slit the woman's throat as she stands there shocked at seeing someone in her home. Then you go through and slit the throats of her husband and two children, because you can't afford any witnesses at this time. Good, Neutral, or Evil? In my book, Evil. You took another life purely for personal gain.
Example 4 :
An orc tribe is periodically raiding a human settlement. They hire you to go chase the orcs off. You go to the orc village and attack their guards, drawing out their warriors, and kill them too. The rest of the orcs flee. Good, Neutral, Evil? In my book, Neutral. The orcs had been attacking others. They weren't attacking you. However, you helped someone else and chased them off. It's not Good, you killed for money and reward. But you chose to attack someone who had been attacking others. Sum Zero, Neutral.
Good stuff
I agree completely with this. My earlier statement was to answer the question, is this an evil act. Not, will doing it make me evil. Like many other things a character does, it's a sum of all things. If he's doing 70% good and 20% neutral and 10% evil, then he's going to have a Good alignment (probably a NG alignment, as he's sort of ignoring some rules about traficking with evil). If he does 50% Good, 40% Neutral, and 10% evil, he's probably CG, he's ignoring all the 'rules' and just doing what he thinks is right.
It doesn't MAKE you evil. It's just a consequence of your evilness.
It doesn't MAKE you evil. It's just a consequence of your evilness.
I prefer to think of it as a pretty little gold plated paving stone on the road to hell. :)
Quickly, in regards to a paladin using this spell. The Paladin's code specifically allows the paladin to associate with evil temporarily as long as doing so ultimately advances the cause of good. Saving a dying orphan by using a scroll, wand, etc of this spell most definitely falls into that category. I wouldn't require an atonement in this case at all.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As with all spells that have the [evil] descriptor, casting infernal healing is indeed an evil act. How many [evil] spells it takes for you to cast before your alignment shifts toward evil is entirely left up to your GM. Could be immediate, could be after you cast the spell 100 times, could be never. Could be that as long as you cast the spell for good purposes and do enough good acts to balance out your karma that it'll NEVER have an effect.
The [evil] descriptor is mostly in the game so we can have other effects that bolster or diminish spells that are [evil], and to limit certain off-theme spells from spellcasters with alignment requirements. So if you're a good-aligned cleric... no casting of infernal healing for you!
Awesome! A developer reply! I don't mean to be insolent, but where does it say that casting spells with an [evil] descriptor is an evil act? I thought I remembered that from 3.5, but couldn't find it anywhere in Pathfinder, hence the thread.
Is there a reference I can use with my group, or is it just an implied thing in the rules or an intention?
Quickly, in regards to a paladin using this spell. The Paladin's code specifically allows the paladin to associate with evil temporarily as long as doing so ultimately advances the cause of good. Saving a dying orphan by using a scroll, wand, etc of this spell most definitely falls into that category. I wouldn't require an atonement in this case at all.I would. Because using Evil to achieve Good should always comes at a price. (I call it the Stormbringer Trope) It's the kind of thing that rogues and Anti-Heroes might do, but MUST tarnish the kind of person that would be made into a Paladin. I might not take all of his powers away, but what I would do to the Paladin involved would guarantee that he'd be motivated to try something else first.
Agreed.
Although, it's a moot point now. The Dev confirmed that casting an aligned spell is an act of that alignment. So, since the Paladin/Anti-Paladin knows the alignments of the spells, casting it is knowingly committing an aligned act, which is already in the code in the book and knocks out their powers immediately.
What I wouldn't do is charge them for the atonement in the save a dying orphan case, provided they had no other way to do it (such as not having access to healing and medicines, no lay on hands or convertable spells left, no access to other clerics/adepts). If they had another, non-evil, way to keep the orphan alive, then they have to pay for the atonement.
Quickly, in regards to a paladin using this spell. The Paladin's code specifically allows the paladin to associate with evil temporarily as long as doing so ultimately advances the cause of good. Saving a dying orphan by using a scroll, wand, etc of this spell most definitely falls into that category. I wouldn't require an atonement in this case at all.I would. Because using Evil to achieve Good should always comes at a price. (I call it the Stormbringer Trope) It's the kind of thing that rogues and Anti-Heroes might do, but MUST tarnish the kind of person that would be made into a Paladin. I might not take all of his powers away, but what I would do to the Paladin involved would guarantee that he'd be motivated to try something else first.Agreed.
Although, it's a moot point now. The Dev confirmed that casting an aligned spell is an act of that alignment. So, since the Paladin/Anti-Paladin knows the alignments of the spells, casting it is knowingly committing an aligned act, which is already in the code in the book and knocks out their powers immediately.
What I wouldn't do is charge them for the atonement in the save a dying orphan case, provided they had no other way to do it (such as not having access to healing and medicines, no lay on hands or convertable spells left, no access to other clerics/adepts). If they had another, non-evil, way to keep the orphan alive, then they have to pay for the atonement.
I can see where both of you are coming from. I guess the root problem I have with the entire discussion is the fact that a healing spell has an evil descriptor. When a game views killing as a tool (as in killing is not immediately immoral) it's hard for me to believe that a healing spell, even one that uses the blood of a devil, is evil in and of itself.
As far as the paladin example goes, I was leaving for work so I didn't have time to expound. I definitely agree that if the paladin had any of his own healing capabilities left or consumables that were NOT infernal healing, he would be obliged to use them first.
The [evil] descriptor is mostly in the game so we can have other effects that bolster or diminish spells that are [evil], and to limit certain off-theme spells from spellcasters with alignment requirements. So if you're a good-aligned cleric... no casting of infernal healing for you!
Well, more specifically, no using your (Good-Aligned) Cleric casting ability / spell-slots to Cast that spell. Wands and Scrolls via UMD (off spell-list I presume) seems fine to me by RAW. Basically, I don´t see Clerics here as THAT different from 3.5 Wizard Specialists / Opposed Schools.
I mean, imagine some trickster casts some high-level magic on a Good character, so that whenever they might realize Infernal Healing is [evil], their mind will block out that information. Said Good character goes on to do super-Good things, saving innocents, etc, using millions of wands of Infernal Healing along the way. Clearly, in addition to their other worthy Good acts, they have accomplished the moral results of Infernal Healing to the millionth power. Are they any more Evil? Is there soul any closer to going to Hell? Should they feel SORRY for anything they have done, if it is revealed what happened? If they do, who should they apologize to? How is the world a more Evil place by their actions? OR IN OTHER WORDS... Does EVIL require a victim, if only a potential or latent victim, or including your own self?
Again, this doesn´t rule out RP possibilities which have a chance to move Alignment towards Evil. If the character is using Infernal Healing regularly, then why not give them the chance to use other evil spells. Have them encounter NPCs using other Evil spells, with plausible sounding explanations about why they don´t really do much harm. These situations may even make a character DOUBT the morality of using Infernal Healing. But if the character truly has nerves of steel, and morals of adamantium, they CAN plausibly resist these opportunities to slide down the slope of evil... In which case, they shouldn´t be any more Evil for the course of things.
Personally, it seems like it makes the game richer for Devils and Hell at large to be able to ´sponsor´ spells like this, that indeed DON´T have any victims or alignment repurcussions at all, because it´s one more way that they can get mortals to not be able to say no to them... Giving them an ´IN´ for the RP possibilities outline above, while hard-wired mechanical effects make it easier to exclude their influence.
I just don´t see how a Paladin can indefinitely associate with Evil characters without inherently affecting his alignment, but Good characters risk becoming an evil soul by using this spell. The Paladin´s cohort can run around saying ´oh ho, Mr. Paladin, save your energies, let ME heal them´ (using Infernal Healing) and that is OK by RAW, but any Good character who CASTS the spell (including via wand or scroll) is allegedly closer to Hell? COME ON... Yes, SOME Good characters effectively have the spell removed from their own spell list, but beyond that, I don´t see much effects on Alignment.
When people bring up questions about undead, I see responses which give actual reasons why that is evil, preventing souls from freely completing their cycle, etc... Yet I haven´t seen any reason stated why this spell thru it´s ways or means is itself furthering the cause of evil, so to speak. MAYBE IT TRULY IS, maybe the spell is functioning off siphoning the pain of tortured souls into this healing and that´s why it´s evil alignment-inducing, but I haven´t seen anybody claim that or anything like it.
I can see where both of you are coming from. I guess the root problem I have with the entire discussion is the fact that a healing spell has an evil descriptor. When a game views killing as a tool (as in killing is not immediately immoral) it's hard for me to believe that a healing spell, even one that uses the blood of a devil, is evil in and of itself.
I think the reason the healing spell is [Evil] is that it's using the blood of an Evil outsider as power. You're basically powering your magic with the very essence of evil. I don't mean intention wise, I mean literally. An evil outsider is literally evil incarnate, the very fabric of deepest darkest Evil made flesh and blood. So that blood carries the taint of pure Evil, and you are using it to heal with.
Now, here's an interesting question, and only slightly off topic. If a wizard researched Celestial Healing, which would use the blood of a good outsider, and thus should logically have the [Good] subtype, it should follow the same rules but in reverse. :)
That opens up some interesting possibilities of evil creatures using the spell to gain a good aura to protect them from Paladin Detect Evil/Smite combos. :)
Of course, good characters could use the evil aura of Infernal Healing to infiltrate evil areas as well. :)
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.
...Re: the Smite thing, I´m not sure if it was extensively discussed, but it seemed that the spell only causes DETECTION as Evil, it doesn´t actually change whether effects like Smite work or not.
|
Creative Director
|
Awesome! A developer reply! I don't mean to be insolent, but where does it say that casting spells with an [evil] descriptor is an evil act? I thought I remembered that from 3.5, but couldn't find it anywhere in Pathfinder, hence the thread.
Is there a reference I can use with my group, or is it just an implied thing in the rules or an intention?
Beyond common sense that a spell that's evil enough for us to specifically cite it as being [evil], and beyond the circumstantial evidence that clerics can't cast spells that don't match their alignment... no.
Your GM gets to decide how much casting [evil] spells impacts your alignment. Or [good] or [chaotic] or [law] spells for that matter.
|
Creative Director
|
Now, here's an interesting question, and only slightly off topic. If a wizard researched Celestial Healing, which would use the blood of a good outsider, and thus should logically have the [Good] subtype, it should follow the same rules but in reverse. :)
That opens up some interesting possibilities of evil creatures using the spell to gain a good aura to protect them from Paladin Detect Evil/Smite combos. :)
Of course, good characters could use the evil aura of Infernal Healing to infiltrate evil areas as well. :)
I suppose you could do that... but we won't be printing a "celestial healing" spell ever.
Infernal healing is one of many ways that we try to present "evil" as being sort of seductive. It's not intended to replace spells like cure light wounds. It's intended to be something that a devil lets you do but at the cost of a little bit of your soul.
Good creatures don't work that way. They'd just give you a fast healing spell, or a cure light wounds, or whatever.
This is another case where symmetrical design isn't necessarily good for the flavor of the game.
I suppose you could do that... but we won't be printing a "celestial healing" spell ever.
But, but but... it's the perfect set-up for a Marvin Gaye inspired tribute song... ~~And when I get sent reeling, I need celestial healing...~~
+1 to not needing everything to be symmetrical.
Now, here's an interesting question, and only slightly off topic. If a wizard researched Celestial Healing, which would use the blood of a good outsider, and thus should logically have the [Good] subtype, it should follow the same rules but in reverse. :)
That opens up some interesting possibilities of evil creatures using the spell to gain a good aura to protect them from Paladin Detect Evil/Smite combos. :)
Of course, good characters could use the evil aura of Infernal Healing to infiltrate evil areas as well. :)
I suppose you could do that... but we won't be printing a "celestial healing" spell ever.
Infernal healing is one of many ways that we try to present "evil" as being sort of seductive. It's not intended to replace spells like cure light wounds. It's intended to be something that a devil lets you do but at the cost of a little bit of your soul.
Good creatures don't work that way. They'd just give you a fast healing spell, or a cure light wounds, or whatever.
This is another case where symmetrical design isn't necessarily good for the flavor of the game.
I was more just thinking of an Evil apothecary carrying celestial blood so he could sell it to spellcasters along with scrolls with the spell on it that needed to infiltrate good societies. :) In other words, another arrow in Evil's efficient quiver. :)
|
This is a great debate, the spell is very tempting and I have a few characters who I would love to use it with...
The way I see it is your character literally strikes a deal with Asmodeous to get help. I just can't see any of my "Good" aligned characters doing this or even knowingly allowing the spell be cast on them. Neutral characters? Sure.
All that said... I think it's a tough call and if someone were to roleplay a character who is doing good but tempted by the tools of evil to accomplish those ends I wouldn't penalize him.
One other side effect here is there are a fair number of powers (I'm thinking of my inquisitor here) that are based on character alignment. I would think being under the influence of this spell would prevent an inquisitor from making his weapon Good Aligned... not sure how much that's a tentative house rule versus RAW though.
As usual... alignment issues are a bit of a mess, everyone has their own ideas.
+1 James...
@Ogre: Check my response @Sylvanite towards the top of the thread,
`Detecting` as an Alignment can`t reasonably be construed to count as BEING an Alignment,
and for effects like using Alignment-Dependent Class Abilities, there is no `DETECTION` involved,
Detection is pertinent to Divination type spells/effects for the most part.
|
|
+1 James...
@Ogre: Check my response @Sylvanite towards the top of the thread,
`Detecting` as an Alignment can`t reasonably be construed to count as BEING an Alignment,
and for effects like using Alignment-Dependent Class Abilities, there is no `DETECTION` involved,
Detection is pertinent to Divination type spells/effects for the most part.
In my eyes it's one of those things that's less about rules and more about flavor. I'm just not seeing Cayden kicking down lots of powers to his servants when they are hooking up with his Arch-nemesis.
Cayden is all about getting things done and would likely look the other way if you did it a few times but I doubt he'd be down with you doing it all the time.