Hey y'all.
So, I'm running a game for a party of good/neutral (no bad boys) characters, among them a Magus (Neutral alignment) who, obviously, has access to Infernal Healing on his spell list. Now, to make things more interesting for the party and give them some "morality RP" opportunities, I did set them up with couple of Infernal Healing consumables (potions).
At this point, I'm not exactly asking for opinions - I already know how I'll be handling possible use of these items - but I was wondering how you'd treat good or neutral characters using Infernal Healing, either sporadically or regularly.
(Reference: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/infernal-healing )
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an old thread I started on the topic.
I'd just handle it as a casual effect. As for moral quandries? They can work themselves out. "Why are you after me for beating my wife? Like you've never done anything people call evil."
That said, good aligned divine casters should be severely chastised, and good aligned PCs should think twice about relying on it.
Depends on a lot of things.
- Do they KNOW it is evil?
- How often do they use it?
- What classes are they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I play infernal healing is that the recipient can feel the evil power course through its body, and for the duration of the spell has evil thoughts and images in its mind. The conflation of the feeling of evil and the pleasure of feeling one's wounds healing make for a dangerous combination to good-aligned recipients that "evil is pleasurable."
It also makes it very clear to the recipient that the spell is evil, even if it's doing something "good" like healing.
So, using such an effect on rare occasions isn't that big a deal, but once a PC starts to rely on spells with the [Evil] descriptor as a matter of course... that has alignment implications. At least in my game.
Sell the paladin "potions that will heal your wounds". When he drinks them, he discovers that they are not potions of CLW, as he'd thought, but potions of infernal healing. Wouldn't make him fall from that incident, but would be a nice roleplaying opportunity.
But yes, use of a spell with the evil descriptor is by default an evil act (note that i say 'by default', not 'always', as the surrounding circumstances should play a part). Repeated use should be at the very least distasteful to good-aligned characters. A paladin who knowingly relies on it frequently will be in trouble in my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. 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.
That. Extra tricky for sorcerers not using devil's blood or unholy water.
And again we are at the point where evil gives you candies and good a kick in the butt. Thanks for nothing.
|
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.
The target has no long-term affect, but the caster does. They are casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor. I think there should be sooner/harsher repercussions for good aligned characters than neutral, though.
I think there should be sooner/harsher repercussions for good aligned characters than neutral, though.
Ah, but a good character has more 'space' to fall through, so to speak...
So casting it is evil, but having it cast on you or using potions?
For you to get a potion someone else has to get his hands dirty so to speak.
Thats like saying: I don't beat women, I have underlings doing that for me.
So casting it is evil, but having it cast on you or using potions?
For you to get a potion someone else has to get his hands dirty so to speak.
Thats like saying: I don't beat women, I have underlings doing that for me.
When you use a wand, scroll, or potion, you are the caster. You are using a spell completion item, so it's you completing the spell. SO basically, you get two evils for the price of one. One to the guy who made the item, one to you for activating it. Evil loves these items, they get a two-for-one deal on sin.
Sort of like a doomsday weapon. The guy who builds it did evil. The guy who activated it and killed a country did evil.
|
In terms of Infernal healing,
I have a PFS Magus who owns a wand if Infernal Healing, and he has the spell in his book. He often keeps one memorized.
I do have a friend with a paladin who has nicknamed my character "Mithos, the Morally Ambiguous Magus". While playing together, i would often solicitously ask " sir Paladin Thou art Grieveously wounded...Mayhaps I could assist thee with this little wand....it will only hurt a little bit....." "no " "It is only one little spell" " i can heal myself" the paladin" would reply .
The only reason my character has this spell, is because it is the only healing spell available to an arcane caster. There have been times when I have played in parties with no healer, and no one who could use a cure light wounds wand. So what does that leave my character with? the infernal healing spell.
If the fluff were different about the spell, i would go for it in a heart beat.
In a home game, the simplest solution I could think of would be to change the fluff and the materiel component of the spell.
I am sure there are other powers that can heal.....
Perhaps the fey?
anyways,
Is the Infernal healing spell evil? yes its in the descriptor. Is it a "bad" thing to do? I suppose so, calling on the power of Asmodeus repeatedly cant be a good thing. How will it affect your character and his/her alignment over the long term?" Well that is up to the GM.
I personally rarely look at alignment when I DM. The way I see it alignment is known through how someone behaves and thinks, not how they self identify. I have one character that insists he is Neutral. He tells me until he is blue in the face that his character is neutral and provides a back story to back it, but he consistently plays him C/E.
I don't care how he self identifies. I know what he is, and I don't care. I DM in the moment based off his actions not his character sheet. I would love to see alignment removed. HOWEVER, there are too many alignment dependent components of the game for it ever to be removed.
The only time I look at it is if there is an alignment dependent ability/class (like paladin) or an alignment dependent weapon or spell. Then those casting or using need to show at least some small effort they are capable of using/casting that weapon/spell.
For everyone else I ignore it and just feed off their role playing. If a good character wants to drink an evil potion--hey, he has a weak will but he didn't create it.
I even let anti-paladins be L/E (changing the alignment spells of course) and don't even think about monk's and druid's alignment. No spells or skills for druids/monks/etc are based of the alignment. People play/are what they play/are.
Try, 'all spells' are based on alignment for Druids.
If they fall off the neutrality wagon, they lose their spellcasting abilities, et. al. And all of monks' niffy prowess is based on the discipline that is represented by lawful alignment.
I get the logic for the monk and the druid. I'm with ya. I understand where you are coming from Alitan, and frankly I have a hard time thinking of how to role play a druid or monk not as intended.
But the spells for the druid have no neutral descriptor under the spell itself, so I am not checking alignment. If a PC comes up with a character concept of a LG urban druid that is helping a city integrate into the environment in a healthy way, I am not going to tell him no because he is not neutral (If I created that character I would make him LN). I'm also not going to convince him or myself that he is really neutral, even tho he is helping to establish laws that helps the environment and serves people. As a DM I don't care. I'm not looking.
I have had a character build a hermit monk with incredible self focus, but he was on the fringe of society. He saw the laws of the land as being repressive to himself and the citizens. He was good. He played him very chaotic against the organized law of the land. As a DM I didn't care. I wasn't looking. We had a lot of fun.
In cases like that I am not going to look at RAW and say "no." That is what I mean by alignment not being important to me. He played his monk in a consistent way that fit his monk that wasn't RAW. Alignment is too arbitrary and fluid for me track.
Instead of doing mental gymnastics to "make it work" in my mind or setting up special rules or having a discussion, I opt not to care. However, when he got attacked by a lawful weapon, I rolled the additional damage and describe the effects. I explained why the lawful aligned weapon was so painful.
We have enough of a report (our group) that they trust how I run alignment and never had an issue. They appreciate having more options and accept my calls on how alignment based weapons/spells affect them. I always tell them what about their behavior made that spell/weapon more or less potent.
I get where you are coming from. I have read the books. That's just not me.
I should add I haven't done organized play or played with strangers. If I do, I understand RAW and would have a lot of fun playing strict RAW.
In those instances I would adjust my dm and play style. I have read the pdfs on playing the pathfinder society and liked what I read. I even got our group to move to the point buy system, and it surprisingly took a lot of hurt feelings and over/underpowered characters out of our campaigns.
I am not out to try and make everyone like me. I am just giving my personal thoughts on alignment. [EDIT] I wish there was no alignment, but because it is a discrete concrete force I recognize it is here to stay, so I keep it and modify how it affects our game as noted above.
And I can see how those specific cases would work. I'd probably still tell the urban druid, look, you still need to be neutral... and maybe neutral/good would work better for the character than lawful/neutral. Etc. the hermit monk; your personal discipline and adherence to your own, personal code that puts you against the law of the land still make you lawful.
But I'm generally content to work within the (admittedly clunky) alignment system as written. And I prefer guiding players into conformance rather than making spot-exceptions. But you're not having badwrongfun doing it your way, and it sounds like it's working fine for your group.
So no problemo, eh?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
If I cast a spell with the [good] descriptor will that make me good aligned?
The target has no long-term affect, but the caster does. They are casting a spell with the [evil] descriptor.
No.
But if you cast Good spells regularly? Absent any other input, yes, you'll become a better person. Tapping into the powers of righteousness has an effect on you.
Using a evil spell too accomplish good, saving lives is a necessary evil or we could go too a very old philosophical point
Is a gun evil, a sword or spell?
No It is not, it is only a tool, that could be wielded In either case/cause.
A gun can be used too protect, a sword the same.
another analogy would be the fist or a open hand
a fist can shelter and protect,what is inside as well as hit. While a open hand can give aid to another, or can wound as well.
The whole gun thing works for us, because guns are manufactured from ore we dig out of the ground.
Now, what if you could only power firearms by grinding up the dried hearts of innocent newborns into a powder to fire them? Would they be 'Evil' weapons then?
The Demon Blood is, in itself, [Evil]. Demons are [Evil]. You're using something that was pulled from the very fabric of the reality that is [Evil] to regenerate someone's body.
So yeah, I can totally see that being the use of Evil. Even if you do good, Evil is being spread in the world, thus negating some or all the good act.
So... This was from 2012. Lots of threads on the same subject since then... Was it rezzed just for a buffy reference just now?
[Evil] spells accomplish their effects through the application of Evil energies, whether that be from devils or dark gods or what have you. Taking that kind of energy into yourself is eventually going to leave its mark.
As an RP concept I love Infernal Healing. It seems like just the kind of thing that Evil would do, offering healing to Good and Neutral PCs for "free." I can just see the devil that first taught the spell to mortals. "And the best part is...no strings attached!"
Riiiiiight.
Mechanically I hate Infernal Healing because there is no [Good] equivalent, meaning you're being mechanically penalized if you don't want to play a PC that skirts the line between Good and Evil.
Mechanically I hate Infernal Healing because there is no [Good] equivalent, meaning you're being mechanically penalized if you don't want to play a PC that skirts the line between Good and Evil.
Sure there is. Good ol' cure spells. Sure, they aren't [Good], but they come standard with Good aligned clerics and oracles.
It's like how there isn't a good-aligned succubus: just angels that are innately beautiful. Evil is seductive.
It's like how there isn't a good-aligned succubus: just angels that are innately beautiful. Evil is seductive.
Evil also happens to have exactly the same heals and evil just has one that makes a better healstick... So... its sort of like evil has everything you have... and moar! I mostly like the spell because its easier to heal with and doesn't' require constant rolling.
Anyways, its important to remember there's no magic number to turn evil with infernal healing. So its left to the GM's whim. That could go either direction and it isn't always the best way to handle things. It could lead to being told one day that you turned evil for healing orphans with it, or that your completely pragmatic CN devil binder turned evil for using it on himself, or even a three strike rule could be seen as evil. Best handle it by talking things out about expectations.
The spell itself doesn't turn you evil, but ideally [evil] spells turn you evil, so how it does so is really up to the GM. Personally, this one never struck me as being innately evil, and I know several people who would prefer it be about how you use the spell than making something arbitrarily evil.
You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1. 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.That. Extra tricky for sorcerers not using devil's blood or unholy water.
And again we are at the point where evil gives you candies and good a kick in the butt. Thanks for nothing.
You look like a smart chap, come step into my office I think we have lots to discuss.
I must say, randomly popping onto the board after extended absence to see my own thread zombified is hillarious :)
Also, players in both of my campaigns LOVE Infernal Healing as a dash of RPing spice. It is source of endless amusement to me to watch how characters deal wth brief moments of moral instability, and how they deal with temptation of easy, cheap healing as set against disturbing bits of dark thoughts that come with it.
One of my players (playing a priestess of Pharasma) even took it upon herself to whispe sultry, corruptive temptations at others as they availed themselves of Infernal Healing. A real treat!
As for the good version of the spell, remember debate over Light vs Dark side of the Force: Is the Dark side more powerful? No, no, no! Quicker, easier, more seductive....
Is the Dark side more powerful? No, no, no! Quicker, easier, more seductive....
Have you seen their Jedi? Darth Sidious, Sion, and Nihilus were far from seductive... On the other hand, shooting lightning is pretty cool.
I always maintained Darth Brothers are nothing but razzle-dazzle and flim-flam. They serve dual purpose of enforcing reputations of Sith and distracting observers so the true agents of Dark side can operate without attracting attention...
Personally, this one never struck me as being innately evil, and I know several people who would prefer it be about how you use the spell than making something arbitrarily evil.
There's also the fact that, if this is the only 'evil' thing you're doing, the good you're doing will outweigh it significantly. Heck, just using the thing to keep your teammates alive is a good thing, so you wind up at neutral.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easy Houserule
Celestial Healing
School conjuration (healing) [good]; Level cleric/oracle 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, summoner 1, witch 1
CASTING
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S, M (1 drop of angel tears or 1 dose of holy water)
EFFECT
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 minute
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
DESCRIPTION
You anoint a wounded creature with angel’s tears or holy water, giving it fast healing 1. The target detects as a good creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the good of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment.
Celestial Healing, Greater
School conjuration (healing) [Good]; Level cleric/oracle 4, magus 4, sorcerer/wizard 4, summoner 4, witch 4
DESCRIPTION
As Celestial healing, except the target gains fast healing 4 and the target detects as a good cleric.
Houserule added
I like it Lumiere. BUT the problem is that healing has always been mostly a Divine niche, and that's better than CLW. So is Infernal healing, which is why it's so broken.
I like it Lumiere. BUT the problem is that healing has always been mostly a Divine niche, and that's better than CLW. So is Infernal healing, which is why it's so broken.
Cure Light Wounds doesn't require 25gp component.
So by this logic, isn't it reasonable top assume that
spells without a Good or Evil descriptor turn the character Neutral? If we're dealing with spells inherently having alignment, we might as well go all the way.
I like it Lumiere. BUT the problem is that healing has always been mostly a Divine niche, and that's better than CLW. So is Infernal healing, which is why it's so broken.Cure Light Wounds doesn't require 25gp component.
Neither do infernal healing... Just grab a random devil and bleed it dry. Unholy water is for evil characters anyway, while devils' blood can be acquired while fighting evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neither do infernal healing... Just grab a random devil and bleed it dry. Unholy water is for evil characters anyway, while devils' blood can be acquired while fighting evil.I like it Lumiere. BUT the problem is that healing has always been mostly a Divine niche, and that's better than CLW. So is Infernal healing, which is why it's so broken.Cure Light Wounds doesn't require 25gp component.
Wasn't the point. The point was, the suggested spell required something that cost 25gp, and was better than a spell from the same level that didn't.
Personally, in my game, getting devils blood is expensive unless you're fighting devils. So that puts this spell out of the use of people below a certain level, and even then it requires fighting them. You can always go to hell and fight some I suppose, but again, certain level, and the devils would get wise to you after awhile. Easier to make deals with them to get it. Oh wait.. pacts with evil creatures...
So by this logic, isn't it reasonable top assume that
spells without a Good or Evil descriptor turn the character Neutral? If we're dealing with spells inherently having alignment, we might as well go all the way.
No, it would be reasonable to assume that any spell with the [Neutral] descriptor had the potential to affect your alignment towards neutral. Same with [Chaotic] and [Lawful] affecting your alignment toward chaos or law respectively.
Again, any spell with [Alignment] is, inherently, calling forth the essence of that alignment to do it's job. Think of it as being infected with otherworldly bacteria if it helps. Are you going to catch the martian flu from 1 bacteria? No, probably not. How about from 10? 100? 1000? 100000? Eventually that bacteria is going to get strong enough to infect you. How much it takes depends on each person's health.
Personally, in my game, getting devils blood is expensive unless you're fighting devils.
Awesome and flavorful, but not how the spell works RAW.
Again, any spell with [Alignment] is, inherently, calling forth the essence of that alignment to do it's job.
Okay, that's how it works in your game. GM's sort of have to find an excuse to make an aligned spell actually an evil/good act, so its different for everyone. Its not how it works RAW though. RAW its just an evil act because, which is why some people have an issue with it.
I like it Lumiere. BUT the problem is that healing has always been mostly a Divine niche, and that's better than CLW. So is Infernal healing, which is why it's so broken.
'Always has been' and 'always should be' are two entirely different things.
I like it Lumiere. BUT the problem is that healing has always been mostly a Divine niche, and that's better than CLW. So is Infernal healing, which is why it's so broken.Cure Light Wounds doesn't require 25gp component.
The spell only uses a dose of unholy water. There is no ruling for how much that is but the general rule for spells is that if the spell doesn't list a GP value for Material Components, it doesn't cost anything. "Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible."
Looks at spell... Looks like it's free to me. :)
Afraid not. The entry on the OGC, at least, lists Holy/Unholy Water together, meaning they both cost 25gp.
Afraid not. The entry on the OGC, at least, lists Holy/Unholy Water together, meaning they both cost 25gp.
The spell component however doesn't list any price... So... Freebie! Amazing what things you find in a component pouch.
Components V, S, M (1 drop of devil blood or 1 dose of unholy water)
Afraid not. The entry on the OGC, at least, lists Holy/Unholy Water together, meaning they both cost 25gp.
That's per flask, not vial or dose though.
Hmmm. Logical, and RAW, but feels sketchy to me on the RAI level. On the other hand, I think it works better this way.
How much holy water is one dose?
A dose of holy water is the amount you need to use to actually use holy water.
How much holy water does it take to normally use holy water (throwing it in a vampires face for example)? Oh, cool, it's one flask. So, one dose = one flask.
How much holy water does it take to normally use holy water (throwing it in a vampires face for example)? Oh, cool, it's one flask. So, one dose = one flask.
Is it? Because it never actually says how much un/holy water you need. It just says a dose. A dose could be anything. A dose could be a drop, just enough to dab on someone, or it could be a bucket. Your just using one example of the use of holy water to make your argument look stronger. In any case you can also use demon blood, which is definitely free and comes from your component poach. Along with bat guano, tuning forks for every plane, dragon scales, hourglasses, and several other hundred things simultaneously.
How much holy water is one dose?
A dose of holy water is the amount you need to use to actually use holy water.
How much holy water does it take to normally use holy water (throwing it in a vampires face for example)? Oh, cool, it's one flask. So, one dose = one flask.
I agree that one dose of unholy water is single vial produced with a single casting of curse water spell.
However, because it is optional component and not the priced component infernal healing would fall under Eschew Materials feat.
Infernal healing is more efficient spell than cure light wounds when it comes to out of combat healing, especially when looking for a happy stick-viable spell. Which means that when last man standing is a wizard or sorcerer, forces of evil have distinct advantage over force of good when it comes to healing...
How much holy water is one dose?
A dose of holy water is the amount you need to use to actually use holy water.
How much holy water does it take to normally use holy water (throwing it in a vampires face for example)? Oh, cool, it's one flask. So, one dose = one flask.
It's tempting to make logical jumps like these, but you're reaching here.
I'd say 'a dose' is however much you need for a particular need, which would vary according to the need. For instance when it comes to medication an appropriate dose for a large man could be dangerous or lethal to a child. The amount of water purification chemicals placed in a town's water supply is not the same amount that you want to use in the private well at your hunting cabin.
One flask might be the appropriate dose for throwing holy water at a vampire, but that doesn't mean it's the appropriate dose for the spell in question.
Considering there is no price placed on 'devil blood' and as such it's assumed to be in a basic spell component pouch, I wouldn't require a full flask of unholy water for this spell. If the spell was intended to have a costly spell component it would have stated so specifically in the spell description.