Good does get nice things. A Good cleric can heal circles around an Evil cleric, even if that evil cleric is equipped with infernal healing. There's no Good answer to animate dead, or to lichdom, or being bitten by a werewolf.
That's sort of my point by saying "Good is dumb". They don't even get things to fight the things you mentioned. They also don't heal circles around evil. They would if they got bonuses to healing, but cure light wounds or restoration or healing are not good aligned. They're something both alignments get access too. Healing spells themselves are not innately good. They lack that descriptor.
The difference is that Good has to work for it:
Okay, what does that get me? Are you saying you need to purposefully deprive them mechanically to make evil look sexy and tempting and that good gets nothing out of it but what the GM gives him?
Or you could, you know, play a healer in that case?
because I don't want to be forced into the healer role? I carry around healsticks, and enjoy playing battlefield control and a bit of skillmonkeying around. Healing is a reactive playstyle I don't really like playing much, but I do carry around healsticks anyway.
Again, I didn't say anything about not liking PFS, so there really isn't a need to state that you don't have to play it if you don't like it...
That's sort of my point by saying "Good is dumb". They don't even get things to fight the things you mentioned. They also don't heal circles around evil. They would if they got bonuses to healing, but cure light wounds or restoration or healing are not good aligned. They're something both alignments get access too. Healing spells themselves are not innately good. They lack that descriptor.
That's true, but the Good cleric channels positive energy and can spontaneously cast cure spells. That lets him cure a hell of a lot more than an Evil cleric who has to prepare cure spells and channels negative energy.
Okay, what does that get me? Are you saying you need to purposefully deprive them mechanically to make evil look sexy and tempting and that good gets nothing out of it but what the GM gives him?
It doesn't get you anything. Not everything has to be equal and symmetrical. Part of this is the needs of the game: there are way more fiendish races than celestial ones, for instance.
Sometimes its philosphical. That is, to be more direct, life isn't fair. If Good got everything Evil did, then the decision to be Good is meaningless. (And it turns villians into puppy eating cartoons, since they have no motivation to actually be Evil instead of Good.) Good is based on altruism and selflessness, not 'what does it get me'.
'Good opposites' and 'evil opposites' can also be really dumb: Do you recall 'ravages' from the Book of Exalted Deeds? They were basically Good poisons/diseases, and they were awful because changing it's name doesn't make a poisoned blade any less wrong.
Sometimes its a little of both. I remember I had a long argument with James Jacobs once (in the unofficial Paizo chatroom) about there not being a fiendish over-race, the same way that celestials have Angels. He pointed out, rightly, that Angels mean less space devoted to high CR good creatures (that the party isn't going to fight anyway), and are also symbolic of the fact that Good can work together, while the flavors of Evil are always at each others throats.
|
ANd if you don't like PFS, don't play.I didn't say I don't like PFS in my post. Where are you getting your ideas from!?Let me point to it.
What's your point? I've had plenty of parties in PFS without anyone who can heal outside of infernal healing. Its pretty useful then!If you don't like the way PFS shoves random people and characters together, then don't play it. I don't like it, I don't play it.
Or you could, you know, play a healer in that case?
One of the issues I have with PFS is every time I've tried random people in random game under fixed subset of rules, I've ended up with selfish players who insist on playing only the one trick pony they bring to the table, and are unwilling to help fill out anything else. I do that in the games I play in now, I wait until everyone has picked, and then I choose something to compliment. I don't like playing with people who are 'me me me' all the time, and that's all I've ever run into with such organized play. :(
So, you're telling him to quit playing PFS or to play a healer when he's perfectly happy playing PFS with non-healer characters using his completely legal wand of Infernal Healing?
Interesting.
and are also symbolic of the fact that Good can work together, while the flavors of Evil are always at each others throats.
That is the most ridiculous, stereotypical, Saturday-Morning-Cartoon boneheaded 'logic' I have ever heard.
These are not huge monolithic entities. They are individuals. Just because you're both good doesn't mean you see eye-to-eye and agree on everything. Just because you're both evil doesn't mean you're both constantly plotting to stab the other in the back.
I'm not even sure this rises to the level of being a caricature. The only word I can think of to describe this is probably not allowed on this forum.
and are also symbolic of the fact that Good can work together, while the flavors of Evil are always at each others throats.That is the most ridiculous, stereotypical, Saturday-Morning-Cartoon boneheaded 'logic' I have ever heard.
These are not huge monolithic entities. They are individuals. Just because you're both good doesn't mean you see eye-to-eye and agree on everything. Just because you're both evil doesn't mean you're both constantly plotting to stab the other in the back.
I'm not even sure this rises to the level of being a caricature.
A caricature it may be, but it's also how things are often portrayed in RPGs. Demon Lords squabble over territory. Archdevils scheme to take each others positions. The Blood War (in D&D). Daemons want to kill everything and be the last ones to turn out the light on the universe.
Archons and Azatas certainly disagree on what an ideal universe looks like, but they're way less likely to come to blows over it than a Demon and a Devil.
Well, until the pendulum swings back the other way and Law vs. Chaos becomes the dominant ethical battle again, instead of Good vs. Evil.
|
Well, until the pendulum swings back the other way and Law vs. Chaos becomes the dominant ethical battle again, instead of Good vs. Evil.
That would be cool. Take it in a Vorlon/Shadow direction, and have battles in which proteans and demons and qlippoth hordes crash against barely-able-to-stand-each-other armies of archons and devils, fighting to save creation from being torn back down into primordial chaos.
I'm also going to plug this excellent, two-year old post by Matthew Morris: What's truly Evil abount infernal healing (The first hit is free)
Well, until the pendulum swings back the other way and Law vs. Chaos becomes the dominant ethical battle again, instead of Good vs. Evil.That would be cool. Take it in a Vorlon/Shadow direction, and have battles in which proteans and demons and qlippoth hordes crash against barely-able-to-stand-each-other armies of archons and devils, fighting to save creation from being torn back down into primordial chaos.
In both Greyhawk (directly stated) and Golarion (implied, mostly in Asmodeus writeups) Law vs. Chaos was the meaningful alignment difference about until the emergence of mortals, which made Good vs. Evil more and more meaningful until it overshadowed Law and Chaos.
You have to figure on a cosmic timescale that Law and Chaos will return. And lord Asmodeus will smile, vindicated at long last. And the Kingdom shall be His.
|
|
Yeah, I'm big on the old school Law vs. Chaos stuff (or newer tweaks on the old idea). The Good vs. Evil well has been tapped and tapped again.
Golarion does have a few hints in that direction, such as the Hellknights, an order devoted to two LG, two LN and one LE god (and yet, surreally, more often associated with evil, despite some orders having Paladins *in their leadership*...). It's like some sort of memetic resistance going on to the idea of anything being more complicated than always black and always white.
I love the idea of spells that have other effects, of benefit to their creators, such as a vampire spellcaster creating a spell that inflicts bleed damage to foes in an area, and half of the blood lost is transported magically to the spells creator (not the spells caster!), wherever she is, encouraging her to spread her 'flensing blades' spell far and wide, because the more people cast it, the more delightful little pick-me-ups she gets. Spells such as Matt's Infernal Greed, which sends the material component to Mammon, is cool. I love the idea of Mammon creating spells that send him cash money when they are cast. It's perfect for him! (Plus the 'golden apple' nature of the spell is appropriately mythic.)
If Infernal Healing explicitly drew life-energy from others, blighting plants in the area, or causing larval creatures in the earth below to be snuffed out of existence, or even drew against one's own life-energy, so that after a casting of infernal healing, you did not recover hit points over night for 24 hours, that could help to justify the spell being evil other than the tautology of it 'being evil because it's evil.' If the material component was a small potential living thing, such as a handful of seeds or a fertilized egg, that are blackened and destroyed by the spell, the lives they represented snuffed out to fuel this accelerated healing, that could be another way to 'evil up' the spell.
The ultimate endcap 'evil healing' spell of this sort would be a fiendish resurrection that restores the person with an evil alignment, and also time-sharing their body with some sort of fiendish possessing spirit that gets to walk the earth so long as their new unnatural lease on life continues (leading perhaps to even their own allies being willing to kill them again, just to end the fiends reign of terror!).
As it is, it's just 'evil 'cause it's evil,' which reduces the game significance of good or evil to 'eh.'
If Infernal Healing explicitly drew life-energy from others, blighting plants in the area, or causing larval creatures in the earth below to be snuffed out of existence, or even drew against one's own life-energy, so that after a casting of infernal healing, you did not recover hit points over night for 24 hours, that could help to justify the spell being evil other than the tautology of it 'being evil because it's evil.' If the material component was a small potential living thing, such as a handful of seeds or a fertilized egg, that are blackened and destroyed by the spell, the lives they represented snuffed out to fuel this accelerated healing, that could be another way to 'evil up' the spell.
That would make a bigger Evil watermark on it, but devil's blood is already a pretty strong clue. (Killing larvae and minor plant blights are not mechanical penalties. And stronger mechanical side effects rapidly become features, not bugs.) Mechanically speaking, it's still a tautology.
I also think it is telling that it is infernal healing, not abyssal healing, or fiendish healing, or voodoo healing. Sure, it ties to Regeneration being common for devils. But also the fact that Hell has always been willing to grant favors. Just not for free. I don't mind that it doesn't specify exactly what Asmodeus wants back. It doesn't have to. You owe Hell a favor, and they know it.
But as I said before, this only works if your group can deal with roleplaying limits. That is your GM isn't a jerk who condemns your soul to hell because you used infernal healing once, or changes your alignment because you copied it into your spellbook. It also requires the player not to be a jerk about using an Evil spell willy-nilly while ignoring the consequences just because the rulebook doesn't say exactly what they are. After all, according to the rulebook you only have to eat every third day, and sleeping in a tent is every bit as good as a room at a nice inn. Don't make your friends eat infinite oregano.
But as I said before, this only works if your group can deal with roleplaying limits. That is your GM isn't a jerk who condemns your soul to hell because you used infernal healing once, or changes your alignment because you copied it into your spellbook. It also requires the player not to be a jerk about using an Evil spell willy-nilly while ignoring the consequences just because the rulebook doesn't say exactly what they are. After all, according to the rulebook you only have to eat every third day, and sleeping in a tent is every bit as good as a room at a nice inn....
Don't forget the bit about being dead not actually spelling out that you, you know, can't do anything, you know, being dead. :)
|
|
I always thought it odd that the spell is "Infernal Healing". Demons and Devils don't *typically* have Fast Healing.
I'm not a fan of the aligned spells, or creatures who "Always" have a fixed alignment. I can totally see a NE Succubus, or even a CN one; N would be a bit less believable. Plus, it's always struck me as stupid that creating Skeletons is [Evil] and Creating Golems isn't, given that one is just negative energy and the other is the enslavement, improsonment, and subjugation of a living creature who has done nothing to you.
Anyways
Here's a non-aligned Arcane healing spell, just for fun.
Troll's Healing:
School [Transmutation] (Healing); Level Alchemist 1, Sorc/Wizard 1, Summoner 1, Witch 1
CASTING
Casting Time 1 round
Components (V, S, M), 1 drop of Troll's Blood.
EFFECT
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 minute
DESCRIPTION
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
You anoint a wounded creature with troll’s blood (or the blood of any other creature with fast healing or regeneration, giving it fast healing 1. This ability cannot repair damage caused by fire, or acid.
Troll's Healing, Greater
School [Transmutation] (Healing); Level Alchemist 4, Sorc/Wizard 4, Summoner 4, Witch 4
DESCRIPTION
As troll's healing, except the target gains regeneration 3 (acid or fire).
*shrug*
Why don't we just give the wizard all the spells then? And we can do away with all the other spell casting classes.
Sometimes its philosphical. That is, to be more direct, life isn't fair.
Which... is why you could give some mechanical balance or you go back to my earlier statement. It reminds me of what Helmet said, "Evil will always win, because good is dumb". There is no balance is a pretty simple way to put it.
I don't think the decision to be good or evil should be about getting punished for being good or getting more toys for being evil. I won't feel any more special because I get kicked in the face for playing good or because I get an extra slice of pizza for being good. Its actually less meaningful because it becomes something about mechanics, rather than completely on personal choice.
Why don't we just give the wizard all the spells then? And we can do away with all the other spell casting classes.
Hyperbole doesn't assist the conversation. No one suggest jumping over a slippery slope, nor that wizards should literally do everything and have every spell on the divine and arcane list in their spell book from the start of the game.
|
|
Why don't we just give the wizard all the spells then? And we can do away with all the other spell casting classes.Hyperbole doesn't assist the conversation. No one suggest jumping over a slippery slope, nor that wizards should literally do everything and have every spell on the divine and arcane list in their spell book from the start of the game.
And it really doesn't scan. There are plenty of games in which everyone can cast everything, like GURPS or Mage. d20 itself has multiple options for casters who can cast anything, like the Unearthed Arcana adept, or classes that can cast healing spells while also being arcane casters (Bard, Witch, etc.).
We could... but those pesky 'good gods' keep getting in the way. Honestly we are just trying to pry something that belongs to everyone away from those that would limit it to just those that have promised to be their slaves.
I mean look at it, you can use this spell -- heck I'll get it to you for free, it's covered under my goodwill expense account (yes I get expense accounts) and then use it however you will I don't care.
Whereas if you want to do the other you have to find a god then bribe them with your soul in order to get what your own hard work should give you on its own merits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which... is why you could give some mechanical balance or you go back to my earlier statement. It reminds me of what Helmet said, "Evil will always win, because good is dumb". There is no balance is a pretty simple way to put it.
I disagree, and draw the opposite conclusion from the same state of things. As I said, life is not fair. If there were perfect symmetry, life would be fair.
I don't think the decision to be good or evil should be about getting punished for being good or getting more toys for being evil. I won't feel any more special because I get kicked in the face for playing good or because I get an extra slice of pizza for being good. Its actually less meaningful because it becomes something about mechanics, rather than completely on personal choice.
Once again, I disagree, reaching the opposite conclusion from the same evidence. Good is about doing the right thing, even when it is hard. Evil is about taking the shortest, easiest path, even if it hurts others.
If there was a 'good opposite' of infernal healing, then its existence is meaningless, because infernal healing isn't a temptation. You'd just pick the one that matches the alignment you already wrote on your character sheet. Good needs to be willing to take a lesser benefit to remain Good. Evil, on the other hand, has no such restriction. They'll do something for 'the greater good' if the quest reward is right.
I'm not saying Good should NEVER get better toys than Evil: being Good isn't about being kicked in the face. But it's about being WILLING to get kicked in the face.
|
So why does the wizard need to heal better than the cleric with his first level spells? Why can't he just do what we've always done and use a wand of cure light? That UMD is great for other things, most wizards get it anyway.The first level spell doesn't actually heal better. At 5th level the average heal from a cure light wounds goes to 10.5, surpassing it. The cleric also has access to every pretty much every heal spell after that, plus infernal healing itself!
Its not a good idea to actually prepare infernal healing imo. You could prepare something like grease, or color spray. You put it on a wand.
9.5, the average of a d8 is 4.5.
So why does the wizard need to heal better than the cleric with his first level spells? Why can't he just do what we've always done and use a wand of cure light? That UMD is great for other things, most wizards get it anyway.The first level spell doesn't actually heal better. At 5th level the average heal from a cure light wounds goes to 10.5, surpassing it. The cleric also has access to every pretty much every heal spell after that, plus infernal healing itself!
Its not a good idea to actually prepare infernal healing imo. You could prepare something like grease, or color spray. You put it on a wand.
9.5, the average of a d8 is 4.5.
Stop interfering by putting facts in the way. :)
9.5, the average of a d8 is 4.5.
Blargh! My math fails me. At least its minute.
I disagree, and draw the opposite conclusion from the same state of things.
I think we run on a different philosophy for design and life.
** spoiler omitted **
Life isn't fair, and not just because of choices the people saying that made. I agree with what you are saying that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good: there are lots of things to be done that would make life MORE fair, even if it will never be ENTIRELY fair. That is 'life isn't fair' isn't a reason to stop trying.
But this is rapidly derailing into a different philosophical discussion than alignment.
In a world with so much divine intervention, it'd be pretty silly for Team Good to not incentivize people while Team Evil is doing exactly that. You have that much blatant Good and Evil running around fighting each other for countless millennia in an apparent deadlock while Good has relative disadvantage? Come on.
Mechanically, it kinda sucks actually. If you have a channel-capable class, Infernal Healing is completely outshone at any level. If you don't, then you kinda need the out of combat healing to limp along.
As a wizard, if I was *really* concerned with healing, I'd use one of the myriad ways to grab CLW off of the Bard/Witch lists so I could use it in combat as well.
9.5, the average of a d8 is 4.5.Blargh! My math fails me. At least its minute.
I disagree, and draw the opposite conclusion from the same state of things.I think we run on a different philosophy for design and life.
** spoiler omitted **
If life was 'fair' then WW2 would have never happened.
If life was 'fair' then WW2 would have never happened.
Its off topic, but the point was that people use the phrase as an excuse. In particular when the person telling you has control over it.
If life was 'fair' then WW2 would have never happened.Its off topic, but the point was that people use the phrase as an excuse. In particular when the person telling you has control over it.
Lets take this one to another thread, I sense fun here.
In a world with so much divine intervention, it'd be pretty silly for Team Good to not incentivize people while Team Evil is doing exactly that. You have that much blatant Good and Evil running around fighting each other for countless millennia in an apparent deadlock while Good has relative disadvantage? Come on.
Good recruits by having Good people do Good deeds: a cleric of Sarenrae wins a lot of hearts by healing, protecting, and generally being a positive influence on a community.
Evil recruits by offering temptations a little bit more directly. A cleric of Lamashtu makes a terrible evangelist. But voice whispering in your ear about the great power available if you only offer yourself to the Mother of Monsters...
Your example is, understandably, a cleric. There is much support for good clerics and evil clerics. There is much support for evil wizards... and not really any for good wizards. Thematically, this is silly. Mechanically, this is to prevent wizards from stepping on more toes. 1 HP/round does not step on any competent healer's toes.
Your example is, understandably, a cleric. There is much support for good clerics and evil clerics. There is much support for evil wizards... and not really any for good wizards. Thematically, this is silly. Mechanically, this is to prevent wizards from stepping on more toes. 1 HP/round does not step on any competent healer's toes.
Citation needed. The spell says nothing of the sort. This is your houserule/campaign at work, not RAW or even RAI by any stretch of the imagination.
I was describing how others had handled the spell, and how I understand it to work. There is no citation, as this is an interpretation.
Gandalf was a Divine character...
Gandalf was a Divine character...
Bard!
Gandalf was a Divine character...
Gandalf the Grey, an immortal being, is a wizard, one of the five Istari (i.e. “wise” in Kvenian) and a maiar. Before coming to Middle-earth (T.A. 1000) like any other maiar he was subject to the Volar. He can appear both in visible and invisible form.
Not sure how you can get a divine character from a wizard who casts flame and lightning bolt spells and never once talks about a god, casts a healing spell, or anything. Sheesh. Not sure it's worth bothering to debate with you anymore.
EDIT : Oh yeah, and one more thing, why would a divine caster not be wearing armor, and instead wizard robes and be using an arcane stave. Double sheesh.
Used a sword and staff, always encouraging everyone else, rarely direct, knew a lot about just about everything, most people liked him, and even those who didn't couldn't help but hear him out...
Bard, bard, bard, bard
Bard!Gandalf was a Divine character...
How long do you think an argument over what Gandalf was could go?
Gandalf the Grey, an immortal being, is a wizard, one of the five Istari (i.e. “wise” in Kvenian) and a maiar. Before coming to Middle-earth (T.A. 1000) like any other maiar he was subject to the Volar. He can appear both in visible and invisible form.
He's called a wizard, but he's an angel on earth so... He's a divine character. Didn't say what he cast. I've seen threads go on forever as to what he is in DnD. He also has druid spells on his list doesn't he? He also does a great job fighting with a sword and staff if I remember right. He could be or do a lot of things, but we definitely get a bit of imagery from the character.
Not sure it's worth bothering to debate with you anymore.
Well that's mature... Insults aren't welcome.
Well that's mature... Insults aren't welcome.
Actually, yes it is very mature. You and I are so far apart on this, it's like you are speaking a foreign language. I'm not sure there's any reason to waste your time or mine with a debate when we're speaking two different languages.
Again, if you want to take it as an insult, that is up to you. Again, completely different planes of existence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gandalf never cast much of anything at all. Whoever was playing him was a pretty awful whatever caster he was.
It occurs to me that [Good] actually does have a "perk" that [Evil] doesn't. Summoning spells used to summon [Good] creatures become [Good] spells, and one of the oft-touted strategies I've been seeing on the forums lately is the summoning of numerous Lantern Archons. Sure, an [Evil] summoner can do it, but then he's casting a [Good] spell. And if he does it too often, the warm radiance of the Celestial lights might get him to start thinking about consequences, and how his sister loved him...
I am suddenly less upset with Infernal Healing. There doesn't need to be perfect symmetry, I just needed [Good] to have some advantages that [Evil] doesn't. I think the Archons might be enough for me. :p
Why don't we just give the wizard all the spells then? And we can do away with all the other spell casting classes.Hyperbole doesn't assist the conversation. No one suggest jumping over a slippery slope, nor that wizards should literally do everything and have every spell on the divine and arcane list in their spell book from the start of the game.
even if the wizard's spell list were expanded so widely, they still only have so many slots to prepare with
and even then, druid and cleric, can also double as martials, unlike the wizard, have better defenses, and a better and more reliable means of dealing hit point damage.
It would make more sense to limit the casting of alignment tag spells to people OF that alignment. Suddenly they mean something, angels will not obey the summons of someone too selfish (like neutral) and only the evil can call on the powers of a devil.
They already are limited. Divine casters can't cast spells of the opposing alignment. Arcane doesn't have the same worry, but to be fair it would be arbitrary. Limiting actions because "my alignment wouldn't do that" leads to a boring predictable game imo. A lot of the personal choice is removed.
I am suddenly less upset with Infernal Healing. There doesn't need to be perfect symmetry, I just needed [Good] to have some advantages that [Evil] doesn't. I think the Archons might be enough for me. :p
If this is the perk for being Good, why does it make me feel so dirty?
And has nothing to do with the discussion as this is not Middle Earth the RPG.
A) LoTR was a major influence on D&D.
B) Go reread your Kobold Quarterlies TOZ, you'll get the joke then. :)
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I am in the camp that casting an (Evil) spell is indeed an evil act, even if only a minor one in the case of a 1st level spell. Pretty much every counterargument sounds to me like, "I want the increased power infernal healing provides, so here's my rationalization for why it's okay." I am enjoying these rationalizations - I am saving them up for the next time one of my NPCs wants to tempt a good guy to do evil "in the service of the greater good." So many of them are textbook rationalizations used by evil individuals to justify why they aren't actually bad people.
As to why most people would say (evil) spells can make you evil while (good) spells might not make you good, I have my "mountain of alignment" hypothesis. Basically, in many people's conception of morality, "perfect good" is like the peak of a mounatin or slope - it's easy to slide down, difficult to climb back up. The "it's hard to be good" mentality is pretty common and says something about most people's view of humanity in general. Personally, I'm okay with (good) spells making you slowly slide towards good in the exact same way.
That having been said, anytime you have to justify why your actions aren't evil turns on my scepticism right away. I'm not saying that having to justify means the action is inherently wrong, just that it's one of the symptoms.
That having been said, anytime you have to justify why your actions aren't evil turns on my scepticism right away. I'm not saying that having to justify means the action is inherently wrong, just that it's one of the symptoms.
You expect people to not justify anything they did when questioned or something?
I'm also going to plug this excellent, two-year old post by Matthew Morris: What's truly Evil abount infernal healing (The first hit is free)
It's pure BS.
*shrug*
Why don't we just give the wizard all the spells then? And we can do away with all the other spell casting classes.
*blows whistle*
Slippery Slope, 15 yard penalty, loss of down.For the record, though, I'd be fine with that, IF the wizard's access to spells was limited. For example, at 1st level, you get access to two schools, period. You are unable to cast spells outside these two schools. If you want access to more schools, you have to spend some character currency (feats, etc), and/or take a penalty of some sort (say, each school you open past the first two lowers your maximum spell level by 1 or 2).
I'm also going to plug this excellent, two-year old post by Matthew Morris: What's truly Evil abount infernal healing (The first hit is free)It's pure BS.
Its called the Slippery Slope Fallacy. Not a big fan of "if you do a little evil you do a lot!" or "evil is easier than good!" idealisms because I've never found them to be true, philosophically speaking.
Edit: You totally used the term while I was putting up the url!
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
That having been said, anytime you have to justify why your actions aren't evil turns on my scepticism right away. I'm not saying that having to justify means the action is inherently wrong, just that it's one of the symptoms.You expect people to not justify anything they did when questioned or something?
I'm saying if your actions require justification, they are already suspect. It doesn't mean they are wrong, but innately good actions rarely result in questioning/justification. If you're donating time to a charity rarely does someone want an explanation of your presence there.
Fundamentally, the only real reason to use infernal healing is greed. It's a slow method of healing so it's not useful in a time crunch, but it is the cheapest gp to hp conversion available. You could achieve the same effect (hp healing) with potions of CLW (or wands, or scrolls), but it costs more so you rationalize using a spell with the taint of evil to save a buck. That's greed, and that is considered evil in many ethical systems.
If a sadistic doctor caused his patients a little extra pain while saving their lives, and managed to save some money cutting corners in the process, we would consider that doctor to be a monster. I don't see much difference in choosing infernal healing over CLW - you are causing extra disconfort to save some money when there is a viable alternative available.