@MrSin
Nope, just the right honesty MrSin.
I feel the same way about the way they decided the FAQ on Negative Energy Affinity, I think it was a lousy decision, and when it comes up, I state so. But I don't constantly b%&%+ and moan about it. Your position, while I think is contrary to the RAI and RAW, at least you would accept the ruling and then house rule it as you like (which everyone can do in their own games).
@Zhayne
And that would be why it's useless to argue with you. You will not accept anything other than your own way. Reminds me of the House of Representatives.
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.
If I was a wizard who through casting a useful spell had darkness and corruption enter my mind, but who could counteract that with an opposing spell, I would. I would first try to find an alternative spell I can ca- wait, that doesn't exist. Making the alignment system that mechanical is asking for it to be gamed anyway, so don't complain when it is. This is exactly the reason the rules don't define alignment shifts in more detail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Well, food for thought. Compare infernal healings to inflict serious wounds, a non evil spell that is used for malevolent purposes 99% of the time, to parasitic soul. Blasphemy and hellfire ray are both far more evil than infernal healing is and hard to argue otherwise. It also makes sense for evil clerics/outsiders to cast blasphemy or hellfire ray. Blasphemy and Hellfire Ray definitely have long term effects and only serve to hurt others.
The descriptor really doesn't mean much apparently. If it doesn't mean the spell is actually any sort of evil. You would think evil spells would be a sort of evil or malevolence like parasitic soul, but for some reason an act of benevolence is evil. I'd at least feel more comfortable if the act wasn't more evil than using it to heal injured innocents and allies.
There's also a thing where mind control doesn't always translate well in tabletops like it does literature. Control over your character is a big part of tabletops appeal. Removing that really stings, and if its done by force you really took something away from the player. Works best if you talk things out, but its definitely something to think about.
My two cents anyway.
@MrSin
Nope, just the right honesty MrSin.
I feel the same way about the way they decided the FAQ on Negative Energy Affinity, I think it was a lousy decision, and when it comes up, I state so. But I don't constantly b%#%* and moan about it. Your position, while I think is contrary to the RAI and RAW, at least you would accept the ruling and then house rule it as you like (which everyone can do in their own games).
Yeah, I think most of us play with house rules. I never mean to say your having badwrongfun if I ever come off like that to you. I do however prefer an open design where the game is like a toolkit and things are actually built and clearly optional. There are just a lot of people I've played with who see "Always <alignment>" or such and think that's the only way to do things from that point on. Maybe its my age group or something, but once that gets written down and becomes law there isn't much I can do. If it were a little more clear its okay to be different and the game won't explode I'd probably be happier. I also think it gives more options over all to players. There are a few more details, but I don't want to bore you with a textwall or anything.
@MrSin
Nope, just the right honesty MrSin.
I feel the same way about the way they decided the FAQ on Negative Energy Affinity, I think it was a lousy decision, and when it comes up, I state so. But I don't constantly b#@#+ and moan about it. Your position, while I think is contrary to the RAI and RAW, at least you would accept the ruling and then house rule it as you like (which everyone can do in their own games).
@Zhayne
And that would be why it's useless to argue with you. You will not accept anything other than your own way. Reminds me of the House of Representatives.
I've had the same feeling about you for some time now. So, by all means, feel free to stop. I sure won't miss you.
Good thread, great food for thought.
Reminds me that I really want to see more Law vs. Chaos stuff in PF.
Odd to see Ross talking in a thread and someone ELSE removing posts.
Reminds me of the House of Representatives
Wow, that was low! :)
Appreciate both sides on this as I'm actually somewhat undecided.
I originally thought of it as another aspect of "evil is not two-dimensional", but can also get behind the "evil is subtle".
A good aligned version sounds bad to me, I can see every BBEG stocking up on wands so that Paladin smites don't work on them for 10 rounds.
-TimD
The road to evil is paved in good intentions doesn't involve mind control usually. Its actually a lot weaker of a trope if its about mind control because the person didn't have control and didn't actually fall to temptation because they didn't have the free will at a certain point that makes the trope so powerful. One of the strongest things about the trope is meeting the moral event horizon, where the character is forced to look back at what they've done and make a decision about who they are. Under the idea that they were magically turned evil they dive in and its a lot weaker than the struggle that would otherwise happen. The actual chance to look back and say "What I have done!" is also a really strong part of the trope.
There's also a thing where mind control doesn't always translate well in tabletops like it does literature. Control over your character is a big part of tabletops appeal. Removing that really stings, and if its done by force you really took something away from the player. Works best if you talk things out, but its definitely something to think about.My two cents anyway.
I was going to say 'no one is advocating mind control', but I realized I shouldn't speak for everyone else in this thread. I'm not advocating mind control. That is, I'm not saying anyone's alignment should be changed without their consent.
I was just saying that infernal healing is sort of like taking the lesser of two evils. Some characters are pragmatists and will take that trade wholeheartedly. Other characters are idealists and will refuse the bargain. And which they chose tell you a lot about the character. No mechanical consequences, just character/roleplaying ones.
And to have those interesting results, it needs to actually be infernal healing, and not trollish vigor or whatever.
I was just saying that infernal healing is sort of like taking the lesser of two evils. Some characters are pragmatists and will take that trade wholeheartedly. Other characters are idealists and will refuse the bargain. And which they chose tell you a lot about the character. No mechanical consequences, just character/roleplaying ones.
So long as it carries a mechanical impact of turning you evil that isn't how it works though. I'm actually completely fine with no mechanical consequences but involving roleplay and characterizations. That's how I've always run it. In that way its more about the actions than the fact you cast the spell in the first place I think. The pragmatic character stays neutral, good guy who has turned to the dark side yet I still good, etc. Puts more control in the players hands imo, which is where I want to keep that sort of thing.
I think trollish vigor could still have some RP value, but its definitely something different. It could have a lot of narrative for body horror or resemblance to steroids, or some other analogy. Just making the only option infernal healing definitely makes it a harder option, but I think if you also had celestial healing and you just dropped an infernal healing in a room you'd still have a good RP moment without forcing every group ever to go through the same scenario.
I keep having to change what I write as you edit!
|
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'.
Sure, since they'd be adding that rule to the game. Wouldn't effect my game in the slightest, but at least I could stop arguing about it on the forums.
Except that there is a mechanical consequence for certain classes. Paladin and Anti-Paladin. Whether you agree with it or not, the actual core rules have that [Evil] and [Good] are those types of actions, no matter how small or large. So using UMD to cast Infernal Healing if you are a Paladin, no matter what your reasons, is still a violation of your code (willingly committing and evil act), and the same for casting Protection from Evil for the Anti-Paladin.
It might only require a simple atonement spell without cost, and might not even require GP expenditure, depending on why you did it. But, continued use of such spells would require repeated atonements, and eventually cost money and then the atonements simply wouldn't work (you obviously aren't sorry you're calling on Heaven/Hell to help you in spite of working for Hell/Heaven).
Beyond that, the spells, as far as I can tell from RAW, are ways of helping the GM indicate whether he should look at someone's alignment. A good character that constantly casts Infernal Healing because it's convenient probably is tending toward Neutral, not good. Good doesn't traffic with evil regularly, neutral does. And it's highly unlikely anyone calling on Hell to help them regularly is not also doing acts that are more pragmatic than good. Note that shifting to neutral is not going evil. It just means you're less loyal to Good than you are to what is convenient.
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'.Sure, since they'd be adding that rule to the game. Wouldn't effect my game in the slightest, but at least I could stop arguing about it on the forums.
:)
|
|
Except that there is a mechanical consequence for certain classes. Paladin and Anti-Paladin. Whether you agree with it or not, the actual core rules have that [Evil] and [Good] are those types of actions, no matter how small or large.
Actually, the rules only say that Good clerics/paladins/inquisitors cannot cast [Evil] spells. You are only inferring that the casting of the spells are evil acts, when there are no rules stating so.
A good aligned version sounds bad to me, I can see every BBEG stocking up on wands so that Paladin smites don't work on them for 10 rounds.-TimD
If they were still evil, the smites would work. They'd just have a good aura.
For example, if someone cast Infernal Healing on a LG fighter, he'd have an evil aura (just like a Neutral Cleric would have an Evil Aura if he worshiped an evil god). Neither of them would be affected by a Smite Good if a Paladin unloaded on them.
Honestly, the best thing a BBEG could do is hire some neutral grunts, cast 'aura' on them to make them radiate evil, and send them to go attack the Paladin, and get him to waste all his smites before attacking himself. :)
Except that there is a mechanical consequence for certain classes. Paladin and Anti-Paladin. Whether you agree with it or not, the actual core rules have that [Evil] and [Good] are those types of actions, no matter how small or large.Actually, the rules only say that Good clerics/paladins/inquisitors cannot cast [Evil] spells. You are only inferring that the casting of the spells are evil acts, when there are no rules stating so.
That's not what I said TOZ. I said, if, as I and Ross and may others (including SKR) are correct that the Dev's intent is that [Evil] means it's an Evil act to cast those spells (or [Good] means good act), then there is a 100% solid mechanical result to that, and that is that willingly casting those spells is an Evil/Good act, which is forbidden by the specific codes of the Paladin/Antipaladin.
A paladin is specifically forbidden from 'willing committing an evil act', and vice versa for AntiPaladin.
EDIT : Sorry, the original wasn't as clear as I thought it was, it was meant in reply to MrSin's comment about there being no mechanic game effect even in the situation where casting [Evil] is Evil, etc.
it's logical that the only way to subvert the power of the gods is by dipping a bit in the evil pool.
There's actually an Arcane Discovery from faiths of purity that gives you a bonus for spells shared with a divine casters list. I don't think its innately evil to cast a divine spell through arcane, particularly not to heal someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So long as it carries a mechanical impact of turning you evil that isn't how it works though. I'm actually completely fine with no mechanical consequences but involving roleplay and characterizations.
I agree with you completely.
That's how I've always run it. In that way its more about the actions than the fact you cast the spell in the first place I think. The pragmatic character stays neutral, good guy who has turned to the dark side yet I still good, etc. Puts more control in the players hands imo, which is where I want to keep that sort of thing.
Still pretty much in agreement.
I think trollish vigor could still have some RP value, but its definitely something different. It could have a lot of narrative for body horror or resemblance to steroids, or some other analogy.
You're right, troll healing does have RP potential - It's just a different potential. I really like the idea of it as a druid spell.
Just making the only option infernal healing definitely makes it a harder option, but I think if you also had celestial healing and you just dropped an infernal healing in a room you'd still have a good RP moment without forcing every group ever to go through the same scenario.
This is the part where I disagree. I think if celestial healing were a spell a lot of the dramatic tension of infernal healing would evaporate - the pragmatic or tempted-by-the-dark-side characters wouldn't have a choice to make, they can just take the one fueled by angel feathers and completely sidestep an ethical quandary.
I do agree that, now that the seal has been broken, some other kind of healing should be available to wizards, but it should be different than infernal healing. Better in some ways, worse in others. Symmetry makes game design easier, but things that are not the same shouldn't have to be reflections of each other. StarCraft (with three sides with different mechanics) is a deeper game than WarCraft (1 & 2, where the two sides were essentially re-skins of each other.)
Do you play Magic the Gathering? I kind of think of class spell lists as like the colors of Magic. There are certain things each color can and can't do, and there are certain things each class can and can't do. But Magic designers are clever bastards who find roundabout answers to this.
Black cards can't destroy enchantments, for example. But they can force you to sacrifice a card of your choice, which might happen to be an enchantment.
Wizards aren't supposed to heal, but they can do lots of other things that are like healing in the end (like false life and various defense/buff spells.) Granting fast healing is the way of sidestepping the 'no healing' limit.
The difference is that in Magic, these sidestep cards are usually so weak that they're only used as a last resort. And when they are so good they overshadow the colors that are supposed to be good at something, the format rotates eventually so they leave play. Historical example, Swords to Plowshares was a card that made White, the 'good' color, better at killing creatures than Red (the fire color) or Black (the necromancy color).
In Pathfinder/D&D, the only thing that makes spells or feats or whatever go away are GM fiat and edition resets. Infernal healing is better healing than Wizards should get, but unlike Swords to Plowshares, it isn't going away.
The only thing that keeps it in check is the ethical dilemma. Because in-game alignment is an objective construct that has to rely on subjective real-life interpretations, means it works better for some groups than others. Zhayne's interpretation is valid as far as ethics goes (I don't agree with it, but that doesn't make it logically invalid - it just comes from different assumptions about how alignment works.) However, under Zhayne's interpretation infernal healing is broken because it changes a baseline assumption of the game, notably that cure light wounds from a cleric is the most efficient source of hit points.
Adding a mechanical alignment thing to the spell might be better for the spell, but would be worse for the game as a whole.
I keep having to change what I write as you edit!
Sorry, I keep having to edit because I think of more things.
Speaking of which, Edit: In a universe where infernal healing was never printed, celestial healing would just be obviously broken. People would complain it was overpowered, but not in the same way as infernal healing. I think one of the reasons infernal healing rubs people the wrong way is they see something broken, that they kind of want (or hate on sight), but doesn't fit their character (or they see people changing their character to get.) They feel punished for being Good (or seeing other players rewarded for making morally ambiguous characters for purely mechanical reasons), which sparks entirely different fights than, say, Antagonize did.
Similarly, it leads certain GMs to use in-universe answers ('You're going straight to hell') instead of just being honest and asking players not to take it the same way they would with Antagonize.
Sorry, I keep having to edit because I think of more things.
Its all good, just had to say what I did for humor's sake. You agreed with what I cared about most, so can't complain too much.
Do you play Magic the Gathering? I kind of think of class spell lists as like the colors of magic. There are certain things each color can and can't do, and there are certain things each class can and can't do. But Magic designers are clever bastards who find roundabout answers to this.
This immediately settled a lot of things in my mind. I actually don't play Magic competitively, but for fun I run a black vamp deck. One of my favorite cards in the deck is Sign in Blood, pay two life, draw two cards.
More on point, remembering that kind of settled the idea of cost for benefit, and the capabilities of certain spells. It surprised me when I initially found Infernal Healing, because it gave Wizards a method to heal, something that I always thought should be strictly removed from arcane magic. However, it's scope was very limited, and the Evil descriptor made it something that some people might shy away from.
the reason i propose celestial healing, which uses angel tears
is so good parties have a viable healing option
devil's blood can be acquired from Tiefling PCs, and angel's tears, from Aasimaar PCs.
i doubt that is an issue.
the reason i propose celestial healing, which uses angel tears
is so good parties have a viable healing option
devil's blood can be acquired from Tiefling PCs, and angel's tears, from Aasimaar PCs.
i doubt that is an issue.
Likely it wouldn't be, especially if your not interested in the tempted by evil gig.
Quite frankly I don't think that the drama of the game is well served by such an addition.
What if you don't want that drama?
It's a bad spell to put into the game because with it's utility and these provisos it would actually overshadow the clerical options.
Clerics can use it too though. It is a 'clerical option'. Hard to overshadow something with itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he means 'core cleric options'.
Celestial healing is power creep.
Infernal healing is dramatic tension. (Or just power creep if you're in a group or campaign that doesn't care for the dramatic tension.)
power creep.
I disagree, or at least I don't think its bad enough to blow up the game. 10 hps over 10 rounds is only out of combat healing really, which every group needs anyway.
If you're the DM... ban the spell. If you're the caster, don't use it.
That kind of dodges the question actually. I think the answer would be "Oh, then its just fine!" It was about adding celestial healing and if you didn't want the drama.
I disagree, or at least I don't think its bad enough to blow up the game. 10 hps over 10 rounds is only out of combat healing really, which every group needs anyway.
It's mostly power creep in giving healing to classes that don't have it already, not because it is orders of magnitude better than cure light wounds. And of course, some power creep is inevitable if new options are added without taking old options away. (Unless new options are always just worse than old options, but that will implode a game faster.)
If you're the DM... ban the spell. If you're the caster, don't use it.That kind of dodges the question actually. I think the answer would be "Oh, then its just fine!" It was about adding celestial healing and if you didn't want the drama.
Once again, I think some nuance is in order - If you think infernal healing isn't broken, but it you don't care for the drama of it being [Evil], introduce celestial healing.
If you think infernal healing is too much for wizards to have, regardless of alignment, ban it.
I think he means 'core cleric options'.
Celestial healing is power creep.
Infernal healing is dramatic tension. (Or just power creep if you're in a group or campaign that doesn't care for the dramatic tension.)
Celestial healing is no different from Infernal healing on a mechanical level with the exception of being the good equivalent to an evil spell
and it really isn't power creep either way
for double the average healing
it takes 10 times longer
which cuts into buff durations
and it doesn't stack with itself
Celestial healing is no more power creep than Infernal healing
both trade healing speed, for a bit of extra healing
by healing more, you are sacrificing time
and i rate time more precious a resource.
Infernal Healing is a far more interesting spell because of the issues it raises.
And the same is true of
- Interrogation
- Blood Transcription
- Animate Dead
- Symbol of Pain
- Hellfire Ray
right? And that's only a fraction of the list. Why is good stupid? Why can arcane magic tap the power of evil and not good? Wizards shouldn't get healing for mechanical reasons? Fine. Let them have something [good]. It is this "dramatic tension" that makes me feel silly playing a character with 30 int and apparently no ability to choose alignment, because Team Evil not only has more nice things, they have all the exclusive things. After 40 years of Animate Dead being evil, I think we get it. This mentality is now holding back the roleplaying of anyone who wants to break this "good is stupid" mold.
There is a prestige class focused on arcane magic empowered by good. They have an ability that boosts spells they cast with the [good] descriptor. Of which there are three.
Infernal Healing is a far more interesting spell because of the issues it raises.And the same is true of
- Interrogation
- Blood Transcription
- Animate Dead
- Symbol of Pain
- Hellfire Ray
right? And that's only a fraction of the list. Why is good stupid? Why can arcane magic tap the power of evil and not good? Wizards shouldn't get healing for mechanical reasons? Fine. Let them have something [good]. It is this "dramatic tension" that makes me feel silly playing a character with 30 int and apparently no ability to choose alignment, because Team Evil not only has more nice things, they have all the exclusive things. After 40 years of Animate Dead being evil, I think we get it. This mentality is now holding back the roleplaying of anyone who wants to break this "good is stupid" mold.There is a prestige class focused on arcane magic empowered by good. They have an ability that boosts spells they cast with the [good] descriptor. Of which there are three.
my issue with the alignment system, and alignment descriptors on spell is
good has no exclusive spells
all the alignment exclusive spells are evil
good gets
protection from evil
magic circle against evil
consecrate
holy smite
summon monster (good monsters)
and 2 of those are cleric exclusive
evil gets
infernal healing
animate dead
blood transcription
interrogate
hellfire ray
symbol of pain
create undead
summon monster (evil monsters)
desecrate
protection from good
magic circle against good
blasphemy
and that doesn't even scratch the tip of the iceberg
good needs some toys too
how about celestial healing? and a good aligned version of animate dead that reanimates corpses with diamonds worth 25 gold per HD.
evil not only has all of good's toys
they have all their own exclusive toys
Toys? Those things you have fun with? What do you think this is, some sort of game for your amusement?
Toys? Those things you have fun with? What do you think this is, some sort of game for your amusement?
Pathfinder is a tabletop roleplaying Game. Games are an activity performed for entertainment and amusement
by Toys to play with, i mean Tools to work with.
Evil's toolkit is way too developed compared to good
Good isn't even the superior healing alignment
because evil has access to more guaranteed to work but more time consuming methods of healing.
why can't good characters capitalize on good versions of a few evil exclusive toys?
Toys? Those things you have fun with? What do you think this is, some sort of game for your amusement?Pathfinder is a tabletop roleplaying Game. Games are an activity performed for entertainment and amusement
Twas a joke referring to that fact, yes.
why can't good characters capitalize on good versions of a few evil exclusive toys?
I've seen quiet a few reasons named in the thread. Apparently "Life isn't fair", "Being good is supposed to be hard", "To create drama", and "Because good is dumb" are all responses(I may have missed a few). The spaceball's reference is probably my favorite of the lot.
Of all the toys you would want to do better, benevolent healing would be in my top list of things to give good guys.
Ideally, Team Good's toys would be unique but equal. That'll work about as well as separate but equal. Still, it's best I think to shy away from merely remaking evil spells into good versions.
if "good is supposed to be hard." and "evil is supposed to be fast and easy." then wouldn't most of the population logically follow the evil path because it is fast, easy, and rewarding?
it is like video games with alignment systems. nearly all the time, most players will do the evil run because it is faster, easier, and more rewarding, and the overall easier path, unless they truly sought a challenge.
|
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.
This thread show perfectly why balancing something on fluff don't work. People go to the SRD, say "cool" and don't care about where the spell/power/feat appeared and what were the implied limitations.
They go "there is not a explicit mechanical effect, so there is no effect".- * -
The protection from evil thing is limited by fluff in theory [in theory because in the third ed. and later versions of the is fluff].
"This spell wards a creature from attacks by evil creatures, from mental control, and from summoned creatures. It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot. The barrier moves with the subject and has three major effects."
If we take that literally (but the spell isn't an emanation around the target creature, like magic circle against evil) the protection from evil would affect the evil creature acts as much as that of his enemies.
Older editions made it clear that it was a barrier around the target, so it was clear that it worked both ways. As now emanations project from a corner of the creature square and not from the creature, making it an emanation is difficult.
|
|
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.
I still think that it is a too good competitor for CLW, even with the sickened condition. It should be at lest a second level spell.
If I was a wizard who through casting a useful spell had darkness and corruption enter my mind, but who could counteract that with an opposing spell, I would. I would first try to find an alternative spell I can ca- wait, that doesn't exist. Making the alignment system that mechanical is asking for it to be gamed anyway, so don't complain when it is. This is exactly the reason the rules don't define alignment shifts in more detail.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.
A wizard or sorcerer first level spell that do the exact same thing don't exist, but there are plenty of ways to get the same results.
Stabilizing a dying subject: the healing skill, bloodnlock, a CLW potion, CLW wand to name a few. They require some investment, but nothing terrible.
Out of combat healing: the healing skill, a CLW potion, CLW wand, summoning outsiders with healing capabilitie if you are willing to use the spell slot.
It all depend on your willingness to invest something into the ability to heal without using a [evil] spell. Especially for a spontaneous spellcaster, the willingness to learn a [evil] spell as a quick solution instead of investing in other methods (and choosing what spell you want to learn is a serious investment) is a sign of at least a gray morality.
Do note that casting Infernal Healing, or any spell with the [Evil] descriptor, is not an evil act in and of itself, unless you use the supplemental, setting-specific rule found in Champions of Purity.
By the core rules, there is no issue with alignment descriptors, unless the item/spell specifically calls out that its use is evil(I swear I will find that item that specifically says its use is evil, one day).
And -yes-, I know SKR and JJ have commented on this, and -no- their opinion is not RAW. And -no-, [evil] is not evil by the core rules, and also if it was they would have FAQ'ed/Errata'ed it long ago, instead of making it a tag-on paragraph about "Magic in Golarion", in Champions of Purity.
So as long as GMs ignore that one particular rule from CoP, the potential issues with infernal healing, and all the other [evil] spells that could be used for good, is not issues anymore. Just flavour that the players can use, and have their characters reflect upon, without it being a mechanical problem.
-Nearyn
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do note that casting Infernal Healing, or any spell with the [Evil] descriptor, is not an evil act in and of itself, unless you use the supplemental, setting-specific rule found in Champions of Purity.
By the core rules, there is no issue with alignment descriptors, unless the item/spell specifically calls out that its use is evil(I swear I will find that item that specifically says its use is evil, one day).
And -yes-, I know SKR and JJ have commented on this, and -no- their opinion is not RAW. And -no-, [evil] is not evil by the core rules, and also if it was they would have FAQ'ed/Errata'ed it long ago, instead of making it a tag-on paragraph about "Magic in Golarion", in Champions of Purity.
So as long as GMs ignore that one particular rule from CoP, the potential issues with infernal healing, and all the other [evil] spells that could be used for good, is not issues anymore. Just flavour that the players can use, and have their characters reflect upon, without it being a mechanical problem.
-Nearyn
There is a simple problem with that logic.
Infernal healing is setting specific and the setting is the same one in which CoP is set.
There is a simple problem with that logic.
Infernal healing is setting specific and the setting is the same one in which CoP is set.
That is actually a very good catch Diego.
While I see how you could opt to just include spells, items, feats and whatnot from supplemental books, you could not just say "We use CoP" and then not have Infernal Healing be evil. You'd have to specifically leave out the "Magic on Golarion" rule to do that.
-Nearyn
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm in the pro (evil)=Evil camp, GMs are perfectly allowed to pick and choose which "side" material is allowed in their home games. If the GM wants infernal healing to be cast without negative repercussions, and the players are having fun, they can do that thing. We can come on here and state why we think it's inadvisable, but at the end of the day their home game is thier own.
Edit: Conversely, it's not cool for the other side to come on here and tell us we're playing wrong or insulting the designers because we like to play the spell RAW and RAI as we see it.
This thread show perfectly why balancing something on fluff don't work. People go to the SRD, say "cool" and don't care about where the spell/power/feat appeared and what were the implied limitations.
They go "there is not a explicit mechanical effect, so there is no effect".
Honestly, this gets to more of a meta-issue with tabletop RPGs vs. video game RPGs. In a tabletop game, the GM has more flexibility to define how things like alignment works via nonmechanical tools like the deliberately-subjective alignment system, how NPCs and in-game authorities react, etc. In other words, "fluff," as some people derisively call it. The subjectivity of the system is a strength to tabletop gaming in my opinion. It adds the ability to use narration and storytelling for dramatic tension rather than combat stats.
In my game, infernal healing serves that role dramatically, mainly as a storytelling tool. Our party wizard found it in the spell book captured from a diabolist, along with several other spells with the [Evil] descriptor. He chose to copy all of them into his spellbook, and intends to use them all at least once. The character has a CG alignment, and the player is interested in exploring how dabbling in the forces of evil will change him. This is great role-playing, and a very fun plotline that couldn't happen with a hardcoded alignment system.
This thread seems to be heading into the same territory of "Why do paladins have to be lawful good?" from the opposite direction.
While I'm in the pro (evil)=Evil camp, GMs are perfectly allowed to pick and choose which "side" material is allowed in their home games. If the GM wants infernal healing to be cast without negative repercussions, and the players are having fun, they can do that thing. We can come on here and state why we think it's inadvisable, but at the end of the day their home game is thier own.
Edit: Conversely, it's not cool for the other side to come on here and tell us we're playing wrong or insulting the designers because we like to play the spell RAW and RAI as we see it.
I couldn't agree with you more on that!
it is like video games with alignment systems. nearly all the time, most players will do the evil run because it is faster, easier, and more rewarding, and the overall easier path, unless they truly sought a challenge.
Depends on your game really. Some don't care if your good or evil and some reward good. Bioshock for example gives more in the long run for being a good guy, but evil gets quick, but less results. There was one game I played where being good gave you... absolutely nothing, but being evil always gave bonus rewards. DA:O didn't seem to care either way and there weren't long term punishments anyway. PFS is pro evil in season 4 if I remember right. Opinions may vary on all of this.
Personally I prefer when neither side is more tempting or rewarding than the other. I think that's best to be something decided at a table level instead of a system level. I guess you could look at this thread to see what some people prefer.
Playing a good character is its own reward.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it is like video games with alignment systems. nearly all the time, most players will do the evil run because it is faster, easier, and more rewarding, and the overall easier path, unless they truly sought a challenge.Depends on your game really. Some don't care if your good or evil and some reward good. Bioshock for example gives more in the long run for being a good guy, but evil gets quick, but less results. There was one game I played where being good gave you... absolutely nothing, but being evil always gave bonus rewards. DA:O didn't seem to care either way and there weren't long term punishments anyway. PFS is pro evil in season 4 if I remember right. Opinions may vary on all of this.
Personally I prefer when neither side is more tempting or rewarding than the other. I think that's best to be something decided at a table level instead of a system level. I guess you could look at this thread to see what some people prefer.
Let's see:
- playing the different D&D games with variable alignment I always end as good, often Lawful Good.- playing Fallout I end with a lot of positive karma.
- playing Fables, good.
For me playing evil is a core, I should force myself to take the evil choices if I want to end as evil.