| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The [Evil] descriptor does have a concrete effect. You can't cast it if you are a good cleric.
The spell has the additional effect of: "The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic".
It specifically states that this spell has no long-term alignment effect.
This is the rules-y part.
Any thing further you do with the [Evil] bit is table/campaign/DM specific.
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 should prepare cure light wounds instead right?
Protection from evil for no reason: no effect on anything. Like boiling an anthill for XP or shooting a squirrel.
Well by RAW its a good act because its casting a good spell, right? If I do it to protect from evil as a good person is it good? If I use to protect from evil as an evil person am I evil? Ideally an act would weight more heavily than a spell in my ideal world, ideally. There's a certain awkwardness in healing someone and being evil for your sacrifice.
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'm jealous of you here actually. I've never had that. Of my many groups most of them are very forceful about alignment, rather than discuss its a "my word is law" situation. Very often we disagree heavily on methodology and as to what is good and evil(they are subjective subjects after all). Because of this I actually run into a lot of trouble with the more arbitrary decisions. I've seen extremes on all sides, cold blooded murder for profit being neutral acts, and redemption being evil.
Imagine life for someone who isn't 'lucky' to game with a mature group, eh?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
So minor evil comes from casting a spell solely because of the [evil] descriptor, but no minor good comes from casting a spell with the [good] descriptor? Doesn't the evil intrinsic to Infernal Healing come from somehow channeling the very essence of evil to cast the spell? But the opposite isn't true? That's a double standard.
Furthermore, if I had Infernal Healing as an at-will SLA and used it to keep the effect constantly running, just in case, I'm sure you'd say I was being evil. Casting Protection from Evil in the absence of an evil threat apparently does nothing for my alignment, however.
Do you get XP for murdering a random guy in a bar?
Do you get XP for pouring scalding hot liquid on a basket of puppies?
Do you get an alignment change for casting an alignment spell for no reason other than the fact it's an alignment spell?
Which of these is not the same as the other three.
1. Maybe.
Sorry, should have prefaced that.
Assuming you are not playing an evil campaign...
Do you get XP for murdering a random guy in a bar?
Do you get XP for pouring scalding hot liquid on a basket of puppies?
Do you get an alignment change for casting an alignment spell for no reason other than the fact it's an alignment spell?
Which of these is not the same as the other three.
** spoiler omitted **
You're comparing apples to carburetors again.
BTW, the answers to all three are 'no'.
Infernal healing is quite literally using the powers of Hell to heal. It's right there in the name of the spell. In-game, the person who casts the spell is tapping into the powers of evil incarnate to heal. Let me repeat: You're using devil-granted, objectively evil powers of Hell to do something (i.e. heal someone). And the recipient can feel the evil of the spell coursing through his body.
I don't know what game the spell's defenders play, but that's an evil act!
It may be a small evil act, but it's still evil. That's why Asmodeus let the spell into the world in the first place!
As I said about 150 posts ago... I love the spell because of its delicious irony.
And you would NEVER find a good character that's true to his/her alignment either consciously using this spell or allowing it to cast upon him/her. There are always better alternatives in such a person's mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're healing people. Doesn't matter where the power comes from, matters what it does. And you're healing people.
The name of the spell doesn't matter. You can rename it to anything you like.
Again, if the source matters, why don't all cleric spells have the descriptors of the characters' god?
'True to your alignment' isn't even a thing. You play your character. Alignment comes from your actions, not vice versa.
Infernal healing is quite literally using the powers of Hell to heal. It's right there in the name of the spell. In-game, the person who casts the spell is tapping into the powers of evil incarnate to heal. Let me repeat: You're using devil-granted, objectively evil powers of Hell to do something (i.e. heal someone). And the recipient can feel the evil of the spell coursing through his body.
Where does it say your using a devil granted objectively evil power of hell?
And you would NEVER find a good character that's true to his/her alignment either consciously using this spell or allowing it to cast upon him/her. There are always better alternatives in such a person's mind.
I think that's an opinion.
Where does it say your using a devil granted objectively evil power of hell?
Well, 'infernal' is in the name for the first part, and the [Evil] descriptor for the latter part.
The Evil aura is also a hint, as is the inability to heal damage caused by Good or silver weapons (once again tying to the regeneration or DR of devils).
And it's also tied to Asmodeus in the books in which it appears.
Again, name doesn't matter. You're free to rename the spell as you desire.
And the descriptor doesn't matter because it's nonsensical. See Set's posts.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
So Demacratus, what is the effect of the (evil) descriptor on an arcane spell?
MrSin, your description of the group you play with helps me understand your position a lot more. I'd be resistant to alignment related things too if they were being used to strangle fun instead of enhance it. All I can say is stick with it and eventually it may get better - I've had my share of terrible groups and only had consistent goodness with the 30+ age range.
Pandora's, I probably wouldn't consider using infernal healing to no effect to really be an evil act - my examples had that as a difference so I don't see a double standard. If you think (evil) spells can cause a shift to evil alignment, (good) spells should cause an opposite shift. Woe betide the assassin who uses too much protection from evil, I guess?
By the way, the "amount" of evil under consideration here is very small - cutting someone off in traffic or cutting in line level small. Stealing from the penny tray. Deliberatly telling offensive jokes. If that's all you ever do you're probably a jerk but not actually evil. I'm just of the opinion that someone who is actively trying to uphold the ideals of good wouldn't want to cast an (evil) spell, just as someone trying to prove their terrible depravity would probably be repulsed by the thought of casting a (good) one.
Obviously all this is very GM dependent. No one is having badwrongfun, and this doesn't apply to PFS anyway. I'm just enjoying the philosophical discussion.
Where does it say your using a devil granted objectively evil power of hell?Well, 'infernal' is in the name for the first part, and the [Evil] descriptor for the latter part.
Except it still doesn't do a single evil thing. Not one. How is healing people evil beyond a completely arbitrary decision?
Doesn't spell that out anywhere in the spell description. Its just inferring it from the name and descriptor. Again, its making up excuses for something that isn't there.
So minor evil comes from casting a spell solely because of the [evil] descriptor, but no minor good comes from casting a spell with the [good] descriptor? Doesn't the evil intrinsic to Infernal Healing come from somehow channeling the very essence of evil to cast the spell? But the opposite isn't true? That's a double standard.
Furthermore, if I had Infernal Healing as an at-will SLA and used it to keep the effect constantly running, just in case, I'm sure you'd say I was being evil. Casting Protection from Evil in the absence of an evil threat apparently does nothing for my alignment, however.
Exactly right.
It's harder to be good than it is to be evil. That's why so many good people turn bad: evil is a quicker, easier power to use.
For an act to be Good, both means and intent matter. Even if your intentions are pure, if you use an evil means, you're still taking an evil act. Likewise, you can use good means (e.g. casting a spell with a [Good] descriptor) with ill intent, and you're still taking an evil action.
Remember the adage: "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
And the descriptor doesn't matter because it's nonsensical. See Set's posts.
If you start throwing out evidence, you can reach whatever conclusion you like.
Do you get an alignment change for casting an alignment spell for no reason other than the fact it's an alignment spell?
Well, yes. If it's the alignment of the spell itself that is affecting your alignment, it doesn't matter why you cast it. It could be your favoritest spell ever so you cast it every night before bedtime, just because. Any other response would indicate that it was based on your intent rather than the act of casting the spell, and we don't want that.
It's weird that the people who say 'casting [Evil] spells make you turn evil!' generally do not agree that 'casting [Good] spells make you turn good!', isn't it? Kind of a double-standard there.
This is also why alignment should not be mechanical. When you make it mechanical, you can game it. "Yeah, I'm gonna cast (insert good spell here) even though I'm really an evil bastard until I don't ping as evil." Frag, I'm considering making my next character Chaotic Evil just so the clerical damage-based-on-alignments spells won't hit me as hard.
I've also noticed that it seems most people only 'fall' and never 'rise'. Nobody ever considers that whole 'doing good deeds' thing, even nonmagically.
Except it still doesn't do a single evil thing. Not one. How is healing people evil beyond a completely arbitrary decision?
Neither do most [Evil] spells, except for context.
Doesn't spell that out anywhere in the spell description. Its just inferring it from the name and descriptor. Again, its making up excuses for something that isn't there.
Both of those things are part of the spell description. Especially 'descriptor'. That's what it does. It describes things. That is why it is called a descriptor.
The devils did a real good job of convincing people that the infernal healing is just a healing spell.
Again, name doesn't matter. You're free to rename the spell as you desire.
And the descriptor doesn't matter because it's nonsensical. See Set's posts.
If you don't like the rules, that's fine, house rule it. But saying you think it's nonsensical is not saying it's not the rule in the book, it's saying you don't agree with the rule. So houserule it. But don't flame everyone else because they don't house rule it, and don't blame the devs for not kowtowing to your demanding a house rule be made a rule.
The devils did a real good job of convincing people that the infernal healing is just a healing spell.
And there are no side effects, so no problem.
Except it still doesn't do a single evil thing. Not one. How is healing people evil beyond a completely arbitrary decision?Neither do most [Evil] spells, except for context.
Doesn't spell that out anywhere in the spell description. Its just inferring it from the name and descriptor. Again, its making up excuses for something that isn't there.Both of those things are part of the spell description. Especially 'descriptor'. That's what it does. It describes things. That is why it is called a descriptor.
Even so, you did something good (healing someone). Even if the source was Evil, as comical as that concept is, then you've balanced it out.
If you don't like the rules, that's fine, house rule it. But saying you think it's nonsensical is not saying it's not the rule in the book, it's saying you don't agree with the rule. So houserule it. But don't flame everyone else because they don't house rule it, and don't blame the devs for not kowtowing to your demanding a house rule be made a rule.Again, name doesn't matter. You're free to rename the spell as you desire.
And the descriptor doesn't matter because it's nonsensical. See Set's posts.
I would like for the devs to be consistent, logical, and sensible (three words that have never been spoken about alignment). Good rules are clear, concise, and unambiguous (three MORE words that have never been spoken about alignment).
Didn't you say you were leaving?
Do you get an alignment change for casting an alignment spell for no reason other than the fact it's an alignment spell?Well, yes. If it's the alignment of the spell itself that is affecting your alignment, it doesn't matter why you cast it. It could be your favoritest spell ever so you cast it every night before bedtime, just because. Any other response would indicate that it was based on your intent rather than the act of casting the spell, and we don't want that.
Nope, and the reason is the same reason you don't get XP for murdering the random guy in the bar, but you do get XP for killing the plot point guy.
It's a game mechanic to keep people from using game mechanics to break the system.
I'm perfectly fine with a [Good] descriptor spell being a good act for an Evil Anti-Paladin. I'd even be ok with him losing his powers over doing a good deed by casting it. As long as he was casting it for some reason other than to affect his alignment. If he cast Protection From Evil from a Scroll because he didn't want the Evil Inquisitor to attack him while he ran off with the Inquisitor's favorite sword, I'd be absolutely fine with that being a minor good deed and him losing his Anti-Paladin abilities until he atoned, because he willfully commited a good act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's weird that the people who say 'casting [Evil] spells make you turn evil!' generally do not agree that 'casting [Good] spells make you turn good!', isn't it? Kind of a double-standard there.
For the record, I think both of those things are false.
I actually think the reverse is true: Casting an [Evil] spell doesn't make you Evil, but it is a red flag that perhaps you were already Evil, regardless on what is on your character sheet. Or to put it another way, [Evil] spells are a symptom, not a cause.
To make an example, using infernal healing is evidence that you are willing to traffic with devils, regardless of what you are using the spell for in the present.
Using animate dead is evidence that you are willing to defile and enslave the dead, regardless of if you're using them as construction workers.
This is also why alignment should not be mechanical. When you make it mechanical, you can game it. "Yeah, I'm gonna cast (insert good spell here) even though I'm really an evil bastard until I don't ping as evil." Frag, I'm considering making my next character Chaotic Evil just so the clerical damage-based-on-alignments spells won't hit me as hard.
That's exactly why there are no mechanics for what changes someones alignment, besides a few specific cursed items and atonement. And yet mechanics for alignment shifting seem to be the only things that would get everyone to accept that [Evil] spells are in fact evil.
Even so, you did something good (healing someone). Even if the source was Evil, as comical as that concept is, then you've balanced it out.
If I heal a Demon, did I do good by healing him?
So here's my question...
What happens when a sorcerer (who doesn't need the devil's blood material component) casts the spell? Is it still evil? My usual assumption is just yes, since it's an Evil descriptor spell, but I've had a player challenge me on it before, and it was food for thought.
I would like for the devs to be consistent, logical, and sensible (three words that have never been spoken about alignment). Good rules are clear, concise, and unambiguous (three MORE words that have never been spoken about alignment).Didn't you say you were leaving?
Why do you get to decide what is CLS?
And I tried to, the BS level reached critical mass, and the gravity pull from all the BS turning into a singularity pulled me back in. :)
MrSin, your description of the group you play with helps me understand your position a lot more. I'd be resistant to alignment related things too if they were being used to strangle fun instead of enhance it. All I can say is stick with it and eventually it may get better - I've had my share of terrible groups and only had consistent goodness with the 30+ age range.
Thanks. Means a lot to hear that actually. Its definitely why I usually put myself on the side of things I do.
I'm just enjoying the philosophical discussion.
To be honest I stopped enjoying it after the "Life isn't fair" thing.
I actually think the reverse is true: Casting an [Evil] spell doesn't make you Evil, but it is a red flag that perhaps you were already Evil, regardless on what is on your character sheet. Or to put it another way, [Evil] spells are a symptom, not a cause.
Are you high? Actions determine alignment, not the other way around.
I would like for the devs to be consistent, logical, and sensible (three words that have never been spoken about alignment). Good rules are clear, concise, and unambiguous (three MORE words that have never been spoken about alignment).Didn't you say you were leaving?
Why do you get to decide what is CLS?
And I tried to, the BS level reached critical mass, and the gravity pull from all the BS turning into a singularity pulled me back in. :)
Nobody to blame but yourself.
So here's my question...
What happens when a sorcerer (who doesn't need the devil's blood material component) casts the spell? Is it still evil? My usual assumption is just yes, since it's an Evil descriptor spell, but I've had a player challenge me on it before, and it was food for thought.
Yes - The material component is not the whole spell.
The spell isn't Evil because it uses unholy water, it's Evil because it summons energy from Hell. The blood or unholy water is just a way to open that gate. In the case of the sorcerer, there is something in the source of their magic that connects them to their spells. That's why they don't need material components, not guano to kickstart a fireball, and not devil's blood to summon infernal power.
Honest question to all the 'It is not evil' people. If the Developers put an FAQ in, just for you, that said 'Casting a spell with an [Evil] descriptor is an evil act, period, end stop'. Would you accept it? Or would you continue to say it wasn't an evil act?
If you would accept it, then this thread may still have some use.
If you would not, then this thread is pointless as it basically comes down to one half of the people saying 'The rules say X' and the other side saying 'I do not care what the rules say'. Which is a worthless thread.
If I heal a Demon, did I do good by healing him?
Even so, you did something good (healing someone). Even if the source was Evil, as comical as that concept is, then you've balanced it out.
A simple act of mercy can warm even the hardest heart. You've shown him compassion, and doing so may convince him to change his ways.
So, yes.
Nobody to blame but yourself.
I would like for the devs to be consistent, logical, and sensible (three words that have never been spoken about alignment). Good rules are clear, concise, and unambiguous (three MORE words that have never been spoken about alignment).Didn't you say you were leaving?
Why do you get to decide what is CLS?
And I tried to, the BS level reached critical mass, and the gravity pull from all the BS turning into a singularity pulled me back in. :)
yep, I should have bought those +2 BS deflectors when I had the chance. :)
Are you high? Actions determine alignment, not the other way around.
I actually think the reverse is true: Casting an [Evil] spell doesn't make you Evil, but it is a red flag that perhaps you were already Evil, regardless on what is on your character sheet. Or to put it another way, [Evil] spells are a symptom, not a cause.
Alignment informs actions, and actions determine alignment. (Like Einsteinian gravity - Matter tells space what shape to be, and space tells matter how to move.)
If I heal a Demon, did I do good by healing him?
Even so, you did something good (healing someone). Even if the source was Evil, as comical as that concept is, then you've balanced it out.
A simple act of mercy can warm even the hardest heart. You've shown him compassion, and doing so may convince him to change his ways.
So, yes.
So, I heal the demon, do a good act, and the demon keeps fighting the Paladin and takes him to negative hit points. Then I heal the Paladin enough that the demon can rip his intestines out again. And then I heal the Paldin again so the demon can do so again. Look at me! I'm committing good acts all over the place! YAY! I'm so virtuous!
So here's my question...
What happens when a sorcerer (who doesn't need the devil's blood material component) casts the spell? Is it still evil? My usual assumption is just yes, since it's an Evil descriptor spell, but I've had a player challenge me on it before, and it was food for thought.
Yes - The material component is not the whole spell.
The spell isn't Evil because it uses unholy water, it's Evil because it summons energy from Hell. The blood or unholy water is just a way to open that gate. In the case of the sorcerer, there is something in the source of their magic that connects them to their spells. That's why they don't need material components, not guano to kickstart a fireball, and not devil's blood to summon infernal power.
That's pretty much what I said. His argument was that with a lot of spells, the Evil or Good descriptor came from either the material you had to use, or the act you were performing. He said that healing himself shouldn't be considered evil if he didn't have to use devil's blood. My response was that he was still channeling the power of the devil, he just didn't need the blood to harness that power.
Honest question to all the 'It is not evil' people. If the Developers put an FAQ in, just for you, that said 'Casting a spell with an [Evil] descriptor is an evil act, period, end stop'. Would you accept it? Or would you continue to say it wasn't an evil act?
If you would accept it, then this thread may still have some use.
If you would not, then this thread is pointless as it basically comes down to one half of the people saying 'The rules say X' and the other side saying 'I do not care what the rules say'. Which is a worthless thread.
No, we're saying 'the rules don't say what you think they say' because the other half keeps adding crap to the spell that it simply doesn't do. Also, we're generally saying 'this rule makes no sense' and trying to figure out why the hell it's there.
"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." Period.
No 'condemning your soul to hell'.
No 'alignment change even if you do many more good deeds'.
It heals you, and it maybe feels a little creepy while it does it. That's IT.
If you think (evil) spells can cause a shift to evil alignment, (good) spells should cause an opposite shift.
This is fair.
For an act to be Good, both means and intent matter. Even if your intentions are pure, if you use an evil means, you're still taking an evil act.
This is not. Devils can go around healing babies with Infernal Healing with their alignment intact? That makes no sense.
I guess I'd be a whole lot more ok with the idea that [evil] spells shift the alignment's of arcane casters if there was a way for arcane casters to be good with their spells. Search for [good] descriptor on the sorc/wiz lists yields 3 results, all alignment protection effects. Search for [evil] yields 43 results, many of which are incredibly potent. This game is set up for an interesting moral battle between divine casters, but arcane casters are either evil or subpar, and therefore stupid. I'm frustrated enough by the good is stupid ideology in real life without it reflecting in a game with powerful and overt forces of good everywhere.
You are ignoring the question.
Is casting the spell an Evil act? Yes or no.
If yes, why are we arguing? The alignment system handles what happens if you go around doing both good and evil acts.
If no, then the question remains, if the Devs did a special FAQ just for you, and said 'YES, THIS IS AN EVIL ACT' would you accept it, or would you continue to say 'NO THIS IS NOT AN EVIL ACT'.
No 'condemning your soul to hell'.
That sounds like overkill for ten hit points and a first level spell.
No 'alignment change even if you do many more good deeds'.
That sounds like those 'mechanics for alignment change' you were just saying were always bad. You can't have it both ways.
If there are no rules for alignment change, then all alignment descriptors are arbitrary and should be removed from the game.
If there are rules for alignment change, then they can be gamed in ways clearly opposing the way they are intended.
Maybe, just maybe, there is a middle ground here, which is [Evil] spells are Evil (maybe a little, maybe a lot), which may or may not be able to be countered by doing Good deeds (like healing the Fighter so he can go back to killing Demons), and the long term effects are up to your playgroup?
You are ignoring the question.
Is casting the spell an Evil act? Yes or no.
If yes, why are we arguing? The alignment system handles what happens if you go around doing both good and evil acts.
If no, then the question remains, if the Devs did a special FAQ just for you, and said 'YES, THIS IS AN EVIL ACT' would you accept it, or would you continue to say 'NO THIS IS NOT AN EVIL ACT'.
I would continue to say no, because the Devs can be (and obviously have been) W-R-O-N-G.
I have a homebrew non-evil arcane healing spell in my campaign...
Troll Healing
School conjuration (healing); Level alchemist 1, bard 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting time 1 round
Components V, S, M (1 dram of fresh troll's blood)
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 minute
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance Yes (harmless)
You imbue the target with some of the regenerative properties of a troll for the duration of the spell. As part of the casting, the target ingests a dram of fresh troll's blood as an immediate action. The spell grants Fast Healing 1 to the target. As the troll's blood courses through the target's body, the target is also sickened for the duration of the spell plus an additional 1d4 minutes. This spell cannot heal fire or acid damage.
If no, then the question remains, if the Devs did a special FAQ just for you, and said 'YES, THIS IS AN EVIL ACT' would you accept it, or would you continue to say 'NO THIS IS NOT AN EVIL ACT'.
Likely I'd say it was an arbitrary decision and I didn't like it personally. I might even argue with people on the forum about it for a little bit and drop it over time and argue about it when it comes up but accept some people will play one way and I'll play another like I always do.
Am I being too honest?
Troll healing seems more like a transmutation spell to me, Haladir.