|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It is now, can the paladin cast infernal healing with no ramifications? IMO, the answer is no.So as long as your specific deity doesn't have any tenets more stringent than the default "don't commit evil acts", a PFS paladin can absolutely use IH without penalty.Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
I call it a violation of the Code of Conduct for a paladin itself.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
|
I would let the paladin use it without suffering an alignment infraction and/or falling from grace due to breaking there code.
mind you I would also be strongly suggesting it not be there go to healing source, but if you *need* some sure fire healing to stop someone ending up dead and they could use it and did not then that would be a bigger infraction then letting them use it.
Even if this was an evil act (and its not lets remember that) it would be covered under the clause below in cases like the above:
a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly enough, the paladin isn't explicitly disallowed to cast infernal healing if she managed to pick it up somehow.
A cleric casts divine spells which are drawn from the cleric spell list presented in Spell Lists. Her alignment, however, may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see chaotic, evil, good, and lawful spells.
A druid casts divine spells which are drawn from the druid spell list presented in Spell Lists. Her alignment may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells.
An inquisitor casts divine spells drawn from the inquisitor spell list. She can cast any spell she knows at any time without preparing it ahead of time, assuming she has not yet used up her allotment of spells per day for the spell’s level.
An oracle casts divine spells drawn from the cleric spell lists. She can cast any spell she knows without preparing it ahead of time.
A hunter casts divine spells drawn from the druid and ranger spell lists (see Chapter 10 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook). <snip> Her alignment may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells below.
A warpriest casts divine spells drawn from the cleric spell list. His alignment, however, can restrict him from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs; see the Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells section on page 62.
Beginning at 4th level, a ranger gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells, which are drawn from the ranger spell list presented in Spell Lists.
Beginning at 4th level, a paladin gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells which are drawn from the paladin spell list presented in Spell Lists.
So; non-evil cleric, druid, hunter and warpriest are restricted from casting infernal healing, while the ranger, oracle, inquisitor and paladin have no such restrictions written into their spellcasting.
|
|
I would let the paladin use it without suffering an alignment infraction and/or falling from grace due to breaking there code.
mind you I would also be strongly suggesting it not be there go to healing source, but if you *need* some sure fire healing to stop someone ending up dead and they could use it and did not then that would be a bigger infraction then letting them use it.
Even if this was an evil act (and its not lets remember that) it would be covered under the clause below in cases like the above:
a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil.
Actually, according to the FAQ, it's only not considered an evil act IF it doesn't violate a code, tenet of faith, or other such issue.
When it the act would violate a code, such as the paladin's code that does not permit willingly committing an evil act, it would revert back to the base Pathfinder rules, which is that casting and evil spell IS an evil act. And while a paladin may associate with evil to defeat a greater evil, they may never do evil themselves.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is now, can the paladin cast infernal healing with no ramifications? IMO, the answer is no.So as long as your specific deity doesn't have any tenets more stringent than the default "don't commit evil acts", a PFS paladin can absolutely use IH without penalty.Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.I call it a violation of the Code of Conduct for a paladin itself.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Something explicitly NOT an evil act somehow violates the "don't commit evil acts" code? How do you figure?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Actually, according to the FAQ, it's only not considered an evil act IF it doesn't violate a code, tenet of faith, or other such issue.
That is not what the FAQ says. You're taking the "if it doesn't violate a code" qualifier, ripping it out of the sentence it's in, and moving it over to a different sentence that the FAQ doesn't actually put any qualifiers on.
|
So as long as your specific deity doesn't have any tenets more stringent than the default "don't commit evil acts", a PFS paladin can absolutely use IH without penalty.
Paladins are held to higher standards.
This thread is proof positive of my previous point :
Expect major table variation.
I'm pretty sure that we won't convince Jiggy and I'm pretty sure he won't convince me (I could be wrong on that, mind). Nobody is "wrong" on this. Its just that opinions on alignment, paladins, and what a PFS judge should do wrt alignment differ wildly.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Who do you think they're talking about when they talk about the possibility of a code violation?
Clerics who are forbidden from casting spells of opposed alignments even if it's not an evil act to do so.
Druids who are required to revere nature and so would fall if the evil spell they cast debased nature, even if it wasn't an evil act.Paladins whose evil spell involved lying or using poison despite not being an evil act to cast.
There are a LOT of code violations that have nothing to do with committing evil acts, which may or may not occur as a result of casting a spell with the evil descriptor. That doesn't make the "it's not an evil act" line stop being part of the FAQ.
|
|
Fact: Infernal Healing is not an evil act.
Fact: Paladins' codes do not forbid them from casting evil spells, only from performing evil acts.
Conclusion: Therefore, Paladins may utilize evil spells (from items, presumably) without falling, so long as the evil spells are not used to commit an evil act.
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
|
|
Casting an evil spell still is an evil act, it's just doesn't cause a PFS alignment infraction.
Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
|
|
Casting an evil spell still is an evil act, it's just doesn't cause a PFS alignment infraction.Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, , tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Casting an evil spell still is an evil act, it's just doesn't cause a PFS alignment infraction.Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example:
What codes are you implying the healing spell breaks? The one about not committing an evil act? Because healing is still not an evil act
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
Casting an evil spell still is an evil act, it's just doesn't cause a PFS alignment infraction.Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
Hmm, I think they tried to prevent repeating alignment infraction and used evil act.
IMHO PFS FAQ should read:
Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members does not cause an alignment infraction.
|
|
Clerics who are forbidden from casting spells of opposed alignments even if it's not an evil act to do so.
Thats not a code violation (or well its not JUST a code violation) They simply cannot cast such spells.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
Druids who are required to revere nature and so would fall if the evil spell they cast debased nature, even if it wasn't an evil act.
Really?
Paladins whose evil spell involved lying or using poison despite not being an evil act to cast.
Poison use itself is not an evil act, but its a code violation. This is the same thing.
That doesn't make the "it's not an evil act" line stop being part of the FAQ.
Not arguing its an illegal act, I'm arguing its a code violation. If you need to save the orphan and this is your only healing spell around then yeah sure, go for it. But the pinnacle of mortal virtue does not inject themselves with the blood of demons just to save a few gold on CLW sticks.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Paladins whose evil spell involved lying or using poison despite not being an evil act to cast.Poison use itself is not an evil act, but its a code violation. This is the same thing.
So just to make sure I'm following you correctly, when you say "this is the same thing", you're saying that a paladin casting IH is NOT an evil act, but IS a code violation?
If so, then can you please point to the part of the code it's violating? Because the only part anyone's cited so far is "don't commit an evil act", which (if I understood you correctly) you just admitted IH doesn't qualify as. So what part of the code does it violate?
Not arguing its an illegal act, I'm arguing its a code violation. If you need to save the orphan and this is your only healing spell around then yeah sure, go for it. But the pinnacle of mortal virtue does not inject themselves with the blood of demons just to save a few gold on CLW sticks.That doesn't make the "it's not an evil act" line stop being part of the FAQ.
Well, I'd further argue that 99% of good-aligned characters would just categorically reach for CLW instead of IH, not just paladins. But that's a different topic from whether or not an explicitly non-evil act is in violation of the paladin's code.
|
|
If so, then can you please point to the part of the code it's violating? Because the only part anyone's cited so far is "don't commit an evil act", which (if I understood you correctly) you just admitted IH doesn't qualify as. So what part of the code does it violate?
A paladin does not associate with evil. You cannot even travel with an evil companion without a reaaaaly good reason. What on earth would make it ok to use a spell that actually turns you evil according to the paladins own sense?
That doesn't make the "it's not an evil act" line stop being part of the FAQ.
Or the part about being a code violation. Paladins are THE class when it comes to code violations. How many threads do you see on paladin code violations vs druid or cleric code violations?
Well, I'd further argue that 99% of good-aligned characters would just categorically reach for CLW instead of IH, not just paladins.
I would as well. But the episodic nature of PFS means that the good character doing so "just this one time" has no effect. Even if they do it every time. Its a concession to the realities of organized play.
|
|
If so, then can you please point to the part of the code it's violating?
I won't speak for others, but I have always believed the flavor text is also very important in understanding paladins. And I'd claim that a character who is "to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline." would not throw an evil spell.
I'd also say that if 99% of good characters wouldn't do it for ethical reasons then a paladin CAN'T do it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A paladin does not associate with evil. You cannot even travel with an evil companion without a reaaaaly good reason. What on earth would make it ok to use a spell that actually turns you evil according to the paladins own sense?
If so, then can you please point to the part of the code it's violating? Because the only part anyone's cited so far is "don't commit an evil act", which (if I understood you correctly) you just admitted IH doesn't qualify as. So what part of the code does it violate?
There's a difference between "not okay" and "insta-fall".
For example, a paladin falls for committing a single evil act, but would have to commit enough chaotic acts to merit a full-on alignment shift before earning a fall. Evil acts are insta-fall, but chaotic acts are merely not okay.
Same deal with IH. Since it's not an evil act, doesn't deal with poison, doesn't involve lying, etc; then it doesn't violate the code and therefore isn't an insta-fall. But like chaos, it's contrary to a paladin's ideals and should be avoided whenever possible.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If so, then can you please point to the part of the code it's violating?
I won't speak for others, but I have always believed the flavor text is also very important in understanding paladins. And I'd claim that a character who is "to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline." would not throw an evil spell.
I'd also say that if 99% of good characters wouldn't do it for ethical reasons then a paladin CAN'T do it.
So you believe that "adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline" is very important, but when those very laws are laid out in black and white in the class description, you'll set them aside in favor of your vague sensibilities of paladinhood? That doesn't sound much like "ironclad laws" to me.
If you're not going by what the code actually says, then your paladins aren't "adhering to ironclad laws of morality and discipline", in which case your claim to value that description rings hollow.
|
|
For example, a paladin falls for committing a single evil act, but would have to commit enough chaotic acts to merit a full-on alignment shift before earning a fall. Evil acts are insta-fall, but chaotic acts are merely not okay.
Gross code violations are also instafall. You are committing an act that makes you show up on your own detect evil. That is a warning sign directly from your deity that you shouldn't be doing that.
Same deal with IH. Since it's not an evil act, doesn't deal with poison, doesn't involve lying, etc; then it doesn't violate the code and therefore isn't an insta-fall.
The paladin code is more involved than that. Note the so forth in the code. No lying no cheating no poison etc didn't need to spell out no embracing the forces of darkness that you're supposed to be fighting.
But like chaos, it's contrary to a paladin's ideals and should be avoided whenever possible.
Which thanks to the episodic nature of pfs, would be carte blanche for use according to you.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The paladin code is more involved than that. Note the so forth in the code. No lying no cheating no poison etc didn't need to spell out no embracing the forces of darkness that you're supposed to be fighting.
Huh. Okay, so that's the part of the code that IH would violate. Alright, you've convinced me: IH is auto-fall. Thanks for the discussion. :)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, this issue is only a problem within PFS. The designers have stated numerous times that RAI is an evil spell is evil. Period. It does not matter how its used. The same rules apply to Infernal Healing as to Animate Dead. However, for the purposes of PFS and to accommodate cooperative play and more player options, we have the funky rule that evil spells, while evil, do not cause an alignment shift. This creates a rather strange gray area, where paladins can receive without it being a code violation. The fact that "using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act" is called out in the FAQ makes it clear.
However, as a paladin player, I do not allow my pally to receive Infernal Healing because it does make you temporarily evil and not something I would chose. In my pally's mind, it is a violation and therefore it is whether or not the game mechanics or the GM says so. I have voluntarily atoned for being the recipient of the spell.
IMO, a true paladin strives to adhere to the strictest reading of their code. They do not look for, nor accept apparent loopholes that would allow them to skirt the line between good and evil. They willfully try to push as far to the good as possibly. Call it zealotry, or unreasonable rigidness, whatever, but remember that paladins believe they were called to service by a higher power. Something soo powerful and pure that they spend their entire lives trying to shed the impurities of humanity (or whatever) and strive for what is likely an unattainable level of purity of soul.
So, while for game mechanic purposes Infernal Healing does not cause a paladin to fall, they should never accept it as okay. Hopefully, you are not playing with people who attempt to use it on you despite your feelings because that would lean towards "don't be a jerk."
In a home-game, I would never allow a paladin to use or be the recipient of Infernal Wounds without some kind of ramification up to and including a "fall."
However, like many gray areas, most of this is just my opinion and you should expect table variation.
|
|
So you believe that "adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline" is very important, but when those very laws are laid out in black and white in the class description, you'll set them aside in favor of your vague sensibilities of paladinhood? That doesn't sound much like "ironclad laws" to me.
I disagree that "don't commit an evil act" constitutes the entire "ironclad laws of morality" that they follow.
As I say, I believe a paladin is held to a higher standard. The part of the code in the rules text really does NOT hold them to a higher ethical standard. The flavor text is part if what defines a paladin as more than just a LG person
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Firstly, this issue is only a problem within PFS. The designers have stated numerous times that RAI is an evil spell is evil. Period. It does not matter how its used. The same rules apply to Infernal Healing as to Animate Dead. However, for the purposes of PFS and to accommodate cooperative play and more player options, we have the funky rule that evil spells, while evil, do not cause an alignment shift.
Yeah, I actually wish PFS didn't diverge on that point. Seems an unhelpful complication.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
The problem was that some GMs would concider a single casting of an evil spell (like summoning a fiendish dog) an alignment infraction that would turn you from neutral to evil. In a normal homegame a GM could keep track of these minor infractions and could demand atonement (or a few castings of summon celestial eagle?) to regain the balance.
So the rule was to allow a lawful neutral Cheliax devilbinder to stay in the campaign, not for a lawful good paladin to swear fealty to Asmodeus and his Hellish Hordes to gain fast healing for a few rounds.
|
|
So, how about my Chelaxian, Oath Against Chaos, paladin of Abadar?
How about the fact that he'll be taking Hell Knight levels starting in 2 XP?
From my perspective he'd have no problem with IH being cast on him. It's a right and proper application of infernal power, just like they do back home. Further, Abadar has no particular problem dealing with Infernal beings. Why should his paladin?
I'm considering having this character fall and transition to LN as a matter of character development, but I don't think accepting IH would be a contributor.
|
|
So, how about my Chelaxian, Oath Against Chaos, paladin of Abadar?
How about the fact that he'll be taking Hell Knight levels starting in 2 XP?
From my perspective he'd have no problem with IH being cast on him. It's a right and proper application of infernal power, just like they do back home. Further, Abadar has no particular problem dealing with Infernal beings. Why should his paladin?
I'm considering having this character fall and transition to LN as a matter of character development, but I don't think accepting IH would be a contributor.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Just know that there are many who would disagree. Be prepared for table variation.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish the most efficient and reliable out of combat healing spell didn't have this baggage that causes arguments whenever someone trots out the wand.
That baggage is the entire reason that an arcane healing spell was allowed to be the most efficient and reliable out of combat healing spell.
|
|
Firstly, this issue is only a problem within PFS. The designers have stated numerous times that RAI is an evil spell is evil. Period. It does not matter how its used. The same rules apply to Infernal Healing as to Animate Dead. However, for the purposes of PFS and to accommodate cooperative play and more player options, we have the funky rule that evil spells, while evil, do not cause an alignment shift.Yeah, I actually wish PFS didn't diverge on that point. Seems an unhelpful complication.
Its to stop the lawful neutral fighter or wizard from getting booted over to lawful evil after spamming their favorite devil or undead inspired spells.
|
|
Its to stop the lawful neutral fighter or wizard from getting booted over to lawful evil after spamming their favorite devil or undead inspired spells.
Then maybe those character concepts are not right for PFS? Certainly the core rules as described would mean the designers intend for that shift to happen if the character intentionally and repeatedly used an evil aligned spell such as infernal healing. The confusion is created when we create a loop hole in PFS that does not jive with what the designers intended.
|
|
Then maybe those character concepts are not right for PFS?
The society has more than its fair share of shady characters and ne'er do wells and I really like that about them.
Certainly the core rules as described would mean the designers intend for that shift to happen if the character intentionally and repeatedly used an evil aligned spell such as infernal healing. The confusion is created when we create a loop hole in PFS that does not jive with what the designers intended.
It exists in PFS because unless we come up with some sort of dark side points system to track there's no real way to tell if the infernal healing is an occasional dip into the deep end of the alignment pool or if someone's gleefully leaping in to the cry of "caaanooon baaaaaal".
|
|
I am seeing posts claiming "it's a code violation" when... there is no justification for this. The code does not preclude its use whatsoever. Can you quote the actual line in the description of the paladin's code which forbids performing non-evil healing actions?
The fact of the matter is that at least in PFS, the rules literally state that the specific spell we are discussing is NOT an evil act.
|
|
The society has more than its fair share of shady characters and ne'er do wells and I really like that about them.
I'm not making a value judgement, just stating the fact. PFS has created an exception to the "normal" rules for how evil is intended to work in the game. Whether or not you or I like the additional character options it creates does not negate the fact it creates unintended conflict regarding adjudication of things like paladins and infernal healing
It exists in PFS because unless we come up with some sort of dark side points system to track there's no real way to tell if the infernal healing is an occasional dip into the deep end of the alignment pool or if someone's gleefully leaping in to the cry of "caaanooon baaaaaal".
If you found it on a scroll as a one-off maybe, but when you're talking about obtaining wands with 50 charges or taking it as a spell in your spellbook or limited resource list (spells known), its hard to convinced anyone it won't see repeated use.
Its relatively clear the intent with regards to hard-core characters like paladins. They are not permitted to participate in or commit evil acts. Per the designers, Infernal Healing, as an evil-aligned spell, confers evil on its user. If said user is a paladin, then they have violated the code. There appears to be only one consequence for that. I suppose an argument could be made that being the recipient of the spell does not impose such a penalty, but I think most would disagree. Anything that taints you with evil, even temporarily, such as the IH spell would be taboo in the vast majority of games.
As I said before, we need to look at this from the prospective of the character not the player. If the character is as strict to their perceived beliefs as intended, they would not use an evil spell, be the recipient of said spell, or look for ways to skirt the line of permissibility so as to perform questionable acts and get away with it. They would look upon such things as aberrant and a personal failure to their hope of reaching purity of soul or true consciousness or whatever zealotry they espouse to.
This is all moot of course because PFS has created the loophole allowing paladins to use and or receive Infernal Healing. However, just because my paladin CAN do it, does not mean I will chose to play it that way. YMMV
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I am seeing posts claiming "it's a code violation" when... there is no justification for this. The code does not preclude its use whatsoever. Can you quote the actual line in the description of the paladin's code which forbids performing non-evil healing actions?
The fact of the matter is that at least in PFS, the rules literally state that the specific spell we are discussing is NOT an evil act.
Here is where BNW convinced me. Since I have a general PFS stance that rules lists in the form of "category (example1, example2, etc)" are not exhaustive, I want to be consistent and recognize that poison use and lying are not the only ways in which the paladin is required to "act with honor", and the GM must adjudicate what else goes in that category. Looking at it from that angle, I can very much understand categorizing the use of evil-aligned spells as failing to act with honor in most cases.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can very much understand categorizing the use of evil-aligned spells as failing to act with honor in most cases.
In general that is true except that in this case the FAQ specifically calls the spell out as not evil...
For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
Its hard to make a case for it being a problem when campaign leadership has specifically said its okay
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I can very much understand categorizing the use of evil-aligned spells as failing to act with honor in most cases.In general that is true except that in this case the FAQ specifically calls the spell out as not evil...
For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.Its hard to make a case for it being a problem when campaign leadership has specifically said its okay
I've been saying very nearly the exact same thing for most of this thread (at least, post-necro). I guess you missed that.
I also explained (in the very post you ripped that one line from) a rationale that your post fails to contradict, debunk, address, or even really be a reply to at all. I guess you missed that as well.
You've got a really nasty habit of commenting on things you haven't really read very closely. Please stop. Please. Please.
|
|
Just as a point of reference...
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
I guess you can make the argument that the only thing that will cause a paladin to lose their class features is if "she ever willingly commits an evil act." The following paragraph does not actually equate those violations with the penalty from the first paragraph, although I think the relation is implied.
Someone mentioned poison use, but that is a non-issue since it is specifically called out in the code as bad. And let's not even start with what an "innocent" is with regards to the last part. In PFS where PvP is not allowed, it is a hard thing to adjudicate what someone kills a restrained prisoner in the presence of a paladin
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I guess you can make the argument that the only thing that will cause a paladin to lose their class features is if "she ever willingly commits an evil act."
If you continue an inch further down the page to the "Ex-Paladins" section, it explicitly states that violating the paladin's code causes a fall.
|
|
Certainly so, but the issue is what constitutes a violation of the code. Most would posit that without the evil descriptor on the spell, there is nothing inherent that would cause "Infernal Healing" to be a problem. So in non-PFS play, the GM can easily make the call because evil is what it is. However, within PFS the spell was specifically called out as not influencing alignment, therefore it is legal for their use.
As I said before, I personally do not think a paladin should benefit from the spell, but I stop short of penalizing one who does because the campaign leadership has decided to allow it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
However, within PFS the spell was specifically called out as not influencing alignment, therefore it is legal for their use.
Not influencing alignment and not violating the code are two different things. As folks have repeatedly pointed out to me back when I was on the same side of the issue you're on now, the FAQ also includes the caveat that, despite not being an evil act, casting an evil-descriptor spell may still be a code infraction. Then BNW pointed out that the part of the code dealing with acting honorably is a bit open-ended, so any action deemed to run afoul of acting honorably—even if the act is not evil, such as casting IH—would violate the code and therefore cause a fall.
|
|
If the spell (for purposes of PFS) is not an evil act, then how can it be considered a violation of code? If you use a spell, that is not evil, to heal a injured party, including the paladin, how is that not acting honorably?
--EDIT--this discussion is hard to adjudicate because fundamentally I agree that using Infernal Healing SHOULD be a code violation, except that PFS provides the loophole