If you're donating time to a charity rarely does someone want an explanation of your presence there.
Actually when I volunteer people always asked why I was there and so on. Not in a mean way, but in a casual way.
Your creating the hostile disposition yourself though so...
And its not greed. If everything useful was instantly equated with greed then you really couldn't do anything well without being greedy.
Edit: I should probably add there isn't actually anything inherently evil about infernal healing beyond what you give it. Unless healing hps is evil I guess.
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.
A doctor using infernal healing isn't actually hurting you, he's making you feel better. The idea that its always sadistic and cutting corners for profit are additional details. Another way to look at it is "This'll only hurt for a minute" is something you hear all the time when getting a shot isn't it? It also heals the person for more than a wand of CLW, meaning its actually better for them in the long run. Think of more as a benediction and benevolent and its a much different case.
Edit: This goes back to what I said 2 post up in the other edit, there isn't an inherent evil in its use. The evil is added by the GM and narration. A lot of the arguments for why its evil aren't focused on mechanics, but this sort of narration made up to excuse it being [evil].
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.A doctor using infernal healing isn't actually hurting you, he's making you feel better. The idea that its always sadistic and cutting corners for profit are additional details. Another way to look at it is "This'll only hurt for a minute" is something you hear all the time when getting a shot isn't it? It also heals the person for more than a wand of CLW, meaning its actually better for them in the long run. Think of more as a benediction and benevolent and its a much different case.
According to the spell, it's more like the doctor sutures up your knee. And while he's doing that, he has his nurse whip you with a cat of nine tails for one minute. Or alternately makes you let tarantulas crawl all over your torso while he's suturing.
According to the spell, it's more like the doctor sutures up your knee. And while he's doing that, he has his nurse whip you with a cat of nine tails for one minute. Or alternately makes you let tarantulas crawl all over your torso while he's suturing.
I didn't see the whipping or tarantulas in the spell description. I mean its vague, but I don't think 'sensing the evil of the magic' is the feeling of being whipped by a cat o' nine tails. Bit extreme dontcha' think?
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.
According to the spell, it's more like the doctor sutures up your knee. And while he's doing that, he has his nurse whip you with a cat of nine tails for one minute. Or alternately makes you let tarantulas crawl all over your torso while he's suturing.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.A doctor using infernal healing isn't actually hurting you, he's making you feel better. The idea that its always sadistic and cutting corners for profit are additional details. Another way to look at it is "This'll only hurt for a minute" is something you hear all the time when getting a shot isn't it? It also heals the person for more than a wand of CLW, meaning its actually better for them in the long run. Think of more as a benediction and benevolent and its a much different case.
The spell says nothing of the sort. Keep trying.
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.
Assuming your game world has gods, of course. It's not a requirement.
|
Assuming your game world has gods, of course. It's not a requirement.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.
As the spell is part of a book that speak of a specific game world, not one of the general books, yes, the world has gods. The spell limits are determined by the setting in which it is used. If you remove the specific setting for which it was created you change the spell power.
As the spell is part of a book that speak of a specific game worldAssuming your game world has gods, of course. It's not a requirement.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.
Not really, no. At best the book lays out a loose guideline of a world.
Fundamentally, the only real reason to use infernal healing is greed.
Haha, that isn't true. Wizards who want to heal anyone must use it. If someone is bleeding out and you don't have your cleric buddy with you, Infernal Healing is quite possibly the only option. Wizards have have low UMD at early levels, and expecting a wizard to do no healing but through potions he can't make is a little silly.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Fundamentally, the only real reason to use infernal healing is greed.Haha, that isn't true. Wizards who want to heal anyone must use it. If someone is bleeding out and you don't have your cleric buddy with you, Infernal Healing is quite possibly the only option. Wizards have have low UMD at early levels, and expecting a wizard to do no healing but through potions he can't make is a little silly.
Why is that silly? How is the wizard any more constrained in healing his injured friend than a fighter, barbarian, cavalier, or rogue? All these characters have non-evil options including potions, alchemical items, and the Heal skill.
As far as the idea goes that an (evil) spell, which causes the target to radiate real (non-illusionary) evil, isn't actually evil - I've got nothing. I can't even wrap my mind around the mental gymnastics required to get to that point. (Fire) spells use fire. (Mind affecting) spells affect the mind. (Compulsion) spells compel. (Evil) spells are evil. Descriptors tell you what the spells do and how they work.
The funny thing is, I like infernal healing. I like the fact that it sits there and is tempting. I like the fact that it's attractive to otherwise good characters and count it as a small win for evil every time a caster succumbs to its temptations. Appealing evil options are absolutely necessary if your players want to experience resisting temptation and perserverence in the face of crisis.
It doesn't matter what your abilities are or where they come from. What matters is what you do with them.
It's a healing spell. That's all it really does. It does nothing evil.
If the source matters, why doesn't EVERY cleric spell have the alignment descriptors of the god who grants it?
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. :)
A) So were a lot of other novels.
B) Aww man, now I have to dig them out of their boxes...
Hey, you finally got moved huh? How are you liking Colorado?
Someone tells me I feel like pure evil is rolling over me, and it lasts for one whole minute, I think that would feel like being whipped or covered in tarantulas or scorpions for a minute. Blech!
Wizards have have low UMD at early levels, and expecting a wizard to do no healing but through potions he can't make is a little silly.
They can use their intelligence for now at least, with a trait. 17 intelligence means they can start with +7 in it. I like taking pragmatic activator with Student of Philosophy myself.
Why is that silly?
Its silly for everyone imo.
As far as the idea goes that an (evil) spell, which causes the target to radiate real (non-illusionary) evil, isn't actually evil - I've got nothing. I can't even wrap my mind around the mental gymnastics required to get to that point.
Its actually really easy and doesn't require any mental gymnastics. One of the big difference between fireball being [fire] is that it actually uses fire, but evil isn't actually being used with infernal healing. That has a lot to do with evil being intangible and fire being fire mind you. Just being detected as evil isn't really that evil, or at least not enough to be 'radiating' this obvious evil and corrupting the world or causing direct harm. Now if your shooting lazers made of evil energy that send people to hell it would be a different case.
Can you like, not infer mental gymnastics are required to reach that conclusion btw? Little insulting there. Someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're going out of their way to create excuses.
Not really, no. At best the book lays out a loose guideline of a world.Assuming your game world has gods, of course. It's not a requirement.As the spell is part of a book that speak of a specific game world
Infernal healing is from Pathfinder Campaign Setting books, not the RPG books. It first appeared in Gods and Magic in the Asmodeus entry. It was reprinted in the Inner Sea World Guide and I think in the Asmodeus article in Pathfinder #29. It is not a setting-agnostic spell. It is directly associated with Golarion and the church of Asmodeus.
It doesn't matter what your abilities are or where they come from. What matters is what you do with them.
It's a healing spell. That's all it really does. It does nothing evil.
If the source matters, why doesn't EVERY cleric spell have the alignment descriptors of the god who grants it?
RAW disagree's. The source of your powers absolutely affects them. If you don't believe it, try to channel or convert to heal when you worship an evil deity.
You may not like the fact the game has [Good] and [Evil] in it's DNA. You can houserule it all you want.
But arguing that [Evil] is not Evil is just like arguing the sky is neon pink 24/7/365. It isn't, and it isn't.
Someone tells me I feel like pure evil is rolling over me, and it lasts for one whole minute, I think that would feel like being whipped or covered in tarantulas or scorpions for a minute. Blech!
Okay, but not what I think though. Certainly not what everyone thinks.
Hey, you finally got moved huh? How are you liking Colorado?We ended up deciding on Phoenix, actually. The worst part is the heat. But I start classes tomorrow, and we're getting a group together next week so I can inflict the Razor Coast on them. :)
I've worked out there before. Nice place, pretty, but hot and dry. God my allergies killed me (dust allergies).
But arguing that [Evil] is not Evil is just like arguing the sky is neon pink 24/7/365. It isn't, and it isn't.
Except the former is subjective and the latter is objective.
The spell heals. That's all it does. That's not evil, and this is not complicated.
RAW disagree's. The source of your powers absolutely affects them. If you don't believe it, try to channel or convert to heal when you worship an evil deity.
That applies to divine, not arcane.
RAW disagree's. The source of your powers absolutely affects them. If you don't believe it, try to channel or convert to heal when you worship an evil deity.That applies to divine, not arcane.
Though it's really stupid in either event. Neither Healing nor Inflicting Wounds is good or evil. There's no reason this should be alignment- or god-restricted.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter what your abilities are or where they come from. What matters is what you do with them.
It's a healing spell. That's all it really does. It does nothing evil.
Intent also matters. But, in the case of Infernal Healing, if your *intent* is to heal an injury, that's doing a good thing with good intent.
If your intent is to trick someone into radiating evil so that they get attacked by a Paladin or something (an extreme corner case that will require very good timing), then, yeah, you are doing evil.
If your intent is to do good (healing someone), if your end result is having done good (healing someone), and the only tool available to your magus, summoner, wizard was infernal healing, then, yeah, you done good, no matter if the descriptor was [evil], [fire] or [pomegranate].
Evil without an evil result or an evil intent is, frankly, not evil.
If my wizard casts summon monster V and sends a bunch of lantern archons to blast some orphans and nuns and puppies to death with their lazors of goodness (tm), he'd be intending evil and *doing* evil, and it doesn't matter a rat's butt if the spell had the [good] descriptor or the [doubleplusgood] descriptor or the [superholysacredawesome] descriptor, it would still be an evil act.
A [good] descriptor doesn't automatically equal a good act (or good intent) and it would be specious to claim that an [evil] descriptor automatically makes for an evil act.
Just being detected as evil isn't really that evil, or at least not enough to be 'radiating' this obvious evil and corrupting the world or causing direct harm. Now if your shooting lazers made of evil energy that send people to hell it would be a different case.
Not that Evil is still a little evil. It's a first level spell. Evil Lazers would probably be a bit higher.
It has the [Evil] descriptor: it says Evil right on the tin. Protection from Good is also an [Evil] first level spell, and it doesn't shoot Lazers that send people to hell either.
It doesn't matter what your abilities are or where they come from. What matters is what you do with them.
It's a healing spell. That's all it really does. It does nothing evil.
Intent also matters. But, in the case of Infernal Healing, if your *intent* is to heal an injury, that's doing a good thing with good intent.
If your intent is to trick someone into radiating evil so that they get attacked by a Paladin or something (an extreme corner case that will require very good timing), then, yeah, you are doing evil.
If your intent is to do good (healing someone), if your end result is having done good (healing someone), and the only tool available to your magus, summoner, wizard was infernal healing, then, yeah, you done good, no matter if the descriptor was [evil], [fire] or [pomegranate].
Evil without an evil result or an evil intent is, frankly, not evil.
If my wizard casts summon monster V and sends a bunch of lantern archons to blast some orphans and nuns and puppies to death with their lazors of goodness (tm), he'd be intending evil and *doing* evil, and it doesn't matter a rat's butt if the spell had the [good] descriptor or the [doubleplusgood] descriptor or the [superholysacredawesome] descriptor, it would still be an evil act.
A [good] descriptor doesn't automatically equal a good act (or good intent) and it would be specious to claim that an [evil] descriptor automatically makes for an evil act.
Thank Celestia, someone who gets it.
But arguing that [Evil] is not Evil is just like arguing the sky is neon pink 24/7/365. It isn't, and it isn't.Except the former is subjective and the latter is objective.
The spell heals. That's all it does. That's not evil, and this is not complicated.
No, Good is not subjective within the rules of Pathfinder. It is a concrete, tangible, absolute. Same with Evil. So Arguing that [Fire] is Fire but [Evil] is not Evil is like arguing that [Blue] is blue but [Red] is Green.
Just being detected as evil isn't really that evil, or at least not enough to be 'radiating' this obvious evil and corrupting the world or causing direct harm. Now if your shooting lazers made of evil energy that send people to hell it would be a different case.Not that Evil is still a little evil. It's a first level spell. Evil Lazers would probably be a bit higher.
It has the [Evil] descriptor: it says Evil right on the tin. Protection from Good is also an [Evil] first level spell, and it doesn't shoot Lazers that send people to hell either.
Which means it shouldn't have that descriptor.
No, Good is not subjective within the rules of Pathfinder. It is a concrete, tangible, absolute. Same with Evil. So Arguing that [Fire] is Fire but [Evil] is not Evil is like arguing that [Blue] is blue but [Red] is Green.
But arguing that [Evil] is not Evil is just like arguing the sky is neon pink 24/7/365. It isn't, and it isn't.Except the former is subjective and the latter is objective.
The spell heals. That's all it does. That's not evil, and this is not complicated.
Those rules are interpreted by people, and frankly, are not laid out in ANY degree of useful detail. It's COMPLETELY subjective, because a handful of game designers can't define something that people haven't defined in millennia of existence.
RAW disagree's. The source of your powers absolutely affects them. If you don't believe it, try to channel or convert to heal when you worship an evil deity.That applies to divine, not arcane.
So your argument is that Good/Evil only applies to Divine Magic, and nothing else in the world? Arcane Magic can be good or evil as well. That's what the [Good] and [Evil] descriptors are for. Kind of like how the [Law] and [Chaos] descriptors mean lawful or chaotic, or [Fire] means 'really freaking hot' and [Cold] means 'Really freaking cold!'.
But I'm done, you can't argue with people who look at a rule that says 'A = B' and say 'A = C'. It's like arguing with someone who is color blind about what color blue is.
Except that's not remotely what's happening, but whatever. Sayonara.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except there is no rule that says characters who are cold cannot cast spells with the [Fire] descriptor.
There is a rule that characters cannot cast spells with descriptors opposite their alignment. But there is no rule that those spells are actually that alignment.
You're welcome to infer that, but not claim it as written.
So your argument is that Good/Evil only applies to Divine Magic, and nothing else in the world?
No, I was saying that the whole power source thing only applies to divine in your example.
I agree that you can use arcane for good or evil too. You can do things like heal people with arcane too! You can also use it to send people straight to hell, summon demons or angels, all sorts of crazy things. You can even summon an angel to burn down an orphanage or a demon to help an old lady across the street. Luckily we usually avoid the moral ambiguous ones like the ones I just mentioned.
I could argue [fire] or [cold] are a lot more obvious and tangible. Those things are you can touch and feel in the real world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which means it shouldn't have that descriptor.
And perhaps it doesn't need it. But it DOES have it, and wishing that it wasn't actually written there is not an argument for it not being there.
I personally find the fact that infernal healing has convinced so many people that there is nothing actually wrong with using it is a perfect example of how it is working as intended, but that's getting a little meta.
Which means it shouldn't have that descriptor.And perhaps it doesn't need it. But it DOES have it, and wishing that it wasn't actually written there is not an argument for it not being there.
I personally find the fact that infernal healing has convinced so many people that there is nothing actually wrong with using it is a perfect example of how it is working as intended, but that's getting a little meta.
Because there is nothing wrong with using it. Never was. It's a healing spell. It heals. That's all it does.
Read Set's excellent post above.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Can you like, not infer mental gymnastics are required to reach that conclusion btw? Little insulting there. Someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're going out of their way to create excuses.
Apologies if you were insulted - I just really don't understand what seems to be your base position. If the (evil) descriptor doesn't mean the spell is or uses evil, then what does it actually mean?
As far as I can tell, the position seems to be that the (evil) descriptor is meaningless and therefore shouldn't be included in any spells - but that seems to me to be a contradiction, as the descriptor does exist and must therefore not be meaningless. Thus the mental gymnastics line.
Remember in the assumed setting for Pathfinder, evil is as much a tangible, manipulable thing as fire. There are entire alternate realities (planes) where both are dominant concepts, and ones where they are almost entirely lacking.
|
|
I personally find the fact that infernal healing has convinced so many people that there is nothing actually wrong with using it is a perfect example of how it is working as intended, but that's getting a little meta.
That's because you're adding your own idea of the consequences of the spell to the rules. Which is fine when you're GMing, but you can't tell me that's how I have to run it in my games. Because it is not in the rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you like, not infer mental gymnastics are required to reach that conclusion btw? Little insulting there. Someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're going out of their way to create excuses.Apologies if you were insulted - I just really don't understand what seems to be your base position. If the (evil) descriptor doesn't mean the spell is or uses evil, then what does it actually mean?
It means good aligned clerics are not granted the spell.
That's it.
The spell has the Evil descriptor because of a completely arbitrary, contradictory and nonsensical decision on the part of the creators, and their attempt to objectify something completely subjective.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's awesome about the whole evil descriptor thing is that there are also spells with the good descriptor (if not quite as many).
So every time you cast infernal healing, just be sure to cast protection from evil, so that you bring an equal amount of goodness into the world. As long as 'evil' is just some cheap mechanical descriptor that literally has *nothing* to do with intent or results, then it *logically* shouldn't matter at all that you are casting protection from evil with gamist facetious intent and no good results whatsoever (since you are just wasting the spell, not actually protecting anyone), since, if intent and results are *meaningless* for evil, then they must *also* be completely meaningless for good.
This sort of intent/results mean nothing logic goes both ways. If a 1st level evil descriptor spell counts as 'evil' no matter how it's used, then a 1st level good descriptor spell should balance it out precisely no matter how it is used.
Summon those archons and set them to killing orphans. By the logic that decrees that infernal healing is evil 'because it's evil' (even if both intent and result were benign) the archon-slaughter will count as good 'because it's good,' no matter how wicked and cruel your intent and results.
It's absurd and illogical and a bit maudlin, and *people are arguing for it to be absurd.* Go team!
Continue to dig that hole deeper and fight for alignment to be utterly meaningless and have nothing to do with intent or results. I'll even give you a spare shovel to dig that hole.
Set? I love you.
Can you like, not infer mental gymnastics are required to reach that conclusion btw? Little insulting there. Someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're going out of their way to create excuses.Apologies if you were insulted - I just really don't understand what seems to be your base position. If the (evil) descriptor doesn't mean the spell is or uses evil, then what does it actually mean?
It means someone arbitrarily chose to make it evil without making it actually evil. The reasons for why it is evil are made up by other individuals. If you stripped the descriptor from it, we'd be having a different argument. Its not a spell that sends people to hell, damns souls, or hurts people. Its one that heals their wounds, even if that's supposed to be evil its still healing that doesn't hurt anyone. One of the big things is that [fire] doesn't actually make you more fire(as cool as that would be...), but having your alignment changed can have impacts. Especially if your GM is the type to make you an NPC or punish you for it(like sending you to hell no save/no rez!). There is a much different mechanical impact for casting fireball[fire] and infernal healing[evil], if your using it to change alignments.
Another weird thing, protection from evil can't be cast by evil even though they're constantly fighting each other. You would think all that in fighting would let them do it or something. Oh wells.
Set had a pretty long post about descriptors above me.
|
|
Another weird thing, protection from evil can't be cast by evil even though they're constantly fighting each other. You would think all that in fighting would let them do it or something. Oh wells.
Even in evil campaigns like Way of the Wicked, protection from evil is still at least as useful for an evil PC as protection from good, if not more so. Evil *regularly* fights other evils.
For that matter, channel positive energy is hugely more useful than channel negative energy (and the nature of Selective Channeling and the four+ man party assumption, with assumed familiars, mounts, companions, etc. just makes positive energy channeling much *more* useful and much less limited, than negative energy channeling).
They say the path of evil is the quick and easy path, and yet, the options for good are often objectively mechanically superior.
Exceptions exist, such as the summon monster tables, which have more evil choices than good ones. Still, an imbalance in the other direction is hardly 'better,' as two wrongs don't make a right.
Even in evil campaigns like Way of the Wicked, protection from evil is still at least as useful for an evil PC as protection from good, if not more so. Evil *regularly* fights other evils.
Protection from Law/Chaos is useful here.
Exceptions exist, such as the summon monster tables, which have more evil choices than good ones. Still, an imbalance in the other direction is hardly 'better,' as two wrongs don't make a right.
Aye, well not sure who has the absolute upper hand. Personally I prefer when both sides are a bit more evened out. I'm fine with examples like angels having less characters than demons(I fight way more evil in games than good, games built for that isn't it?), but with examples like infernal healing its just... meh. Easily reversed and no harm done to the world. Also a few less arguments.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Set, the problem I see with your "infernal healing is the only healing available" example is that such a situation is almost entirely a fault of the character using the spell - a wizard who prepares it, a sorcerer who chooses it as a spell known, someone who buys a wand of it - they are all making a conscious decision to have an (evil) spell as an option, and in fact are doing so at the expense of choosing other options, whether in personal spell ability or money spent. Sure, intent and results matter, but by preparing to use the spell, the character is stating that they are deciding, in advance, to be willing to use evil means to achieve their good ends. And that informs something about the character. I fall into the camp of "alignment describes, but does not proscribe," and I would say that a character who chooses to have evil as an option to accomplish otherwise pure ends is being symptomatic of a low level of corruption - by itself not enough to switch to neutral, but worth watching. Luckily I game with a fairly experienced, mature group who are all (more or less)on the same page regarding alignment issues, so most alignment shifts are the result of a prearranged agreement bewteen GM and player to roleplay out such a change. I could easily see playing a character for whom infernal healing is in fact a "gateway drug" and have that character slowly slide into depravity.
For your examples involving (good) spells, I have this. Operating under the assumption that casting alignment spells is an act of that alignment, we get these results from your examples:
Infernal healing to heal a good person: healing itself is neither good nor evil. Minor evil + neutral = minor evil. If you then go on to accomplish something good your good is a little less due to your tarnishing it with evil.
Protection from evil for no reason: no effect on anything. Like boiling an anthill for XP or shooting a squirrel.
Summoning lantern archons to burn an orphanage: so a minor good + a great evil = still pretty evil, but less so than if you summoned, say, demons to do it. I'm okay with that. the archons would regret their actions and try to make amends once they had returned to their home plane. They would probably try to carry out your evil orders in the most humane way possible. Demons, on the other hand, would rveel in it. they would maximize the pain and suffering and laugh about for years to come.
I'm saying the "cheap mechanical effect" happens in addition to intent and results, not in place of it. Preparing or buying an (evil) spell speaks volumes about intent, btw.
Edit: I fully agree that any GM that would take away someone's character for catsing infernal healing is being a jerk. If you would do that just ban the spell.