A slightly different Infernal healing take.

[Dexios "Dex" Luxan]

OOC: Yes I know that there's no penalty from accepting infernal healing even for Paladins. I'm not challenging the rules, just a longer answer from Saturday when we were short on time. Dex wouldn't shut up.
Recently, a fellow Society member asked me why I would refuse infernal healing. She thought it strange that as a hellspawn, I’d not want to ‘benefit’ from this spell. Our time was short, so I simply deferred it as a personal choice. If I had time to elaborate, I’d have told her the following:

Spoiler:

Little Summer-Kin, it matters not what form one’s soul walks their life in, the highest celestial can fall, the lowest from the pit can rise. What matters is what we do. That is what Pharasma judges us on, not how light or dark your skin is, not if you are human or gnome, tiefling or aasimar. Some see my serving the Lady as a mockery of her faith; others see me as inspiring, defying my ‘nature’ to serve the forces of the light. Neither is true. The Lady accepts my service, and grants me her gifts, regardless of whatever ‘dalliances’ my ancestors may have indulged in. I am no more bound to the infernal in my blood than you are to the song of the first world thrumming in your veins.

Would it be easier to be as others expect me to be? To be the devil inside as well as out? Maybe, the easy path is not often the correct one.

Now to that end, why would I accept infernal healing? Why would I taint my soul, even temporarily with the blood of devils, or water blessed by a priest of the pit? The Lady might forgive me, but could I forgive myself? Or worse, what if I accept the profane gift, and still die before I can repent the action. Can one truly repent the actions that one actively took, knowing the consequences?

“But the evil is only a temporary thing. It doesn’t last.” I hear many of my fellow Pathfinders, even those who serve the Lady in all her forms, say the same. Folly I say. How can anyone believe that accepting a taint, willingly, eagerly, does not have any lasting effect? Because the spell comes from wizards? Feh, I say. Why does it matter where the spell comes from, when it is founded by the Lord of Lies? Many a Pathfinder has refused to do things they find objectionable, considering who the orders came from.

So in the end, my companion, I will not take the ‘blessings’ from the Lord of Lies, whether it be from priest or wizard. Will it shorten my time on the mortal plane? Maybe, for can any see the future since Aroden’s death? Will it allow me to meet the Lady in the next life and truthfully say I lived up to her ideals? Yes.

Just wondering how many people turn down infernal healing for character reasons? It's like not doing Chel missions in season 0-1 scenarios because you're Shadow Lodge and you draw the line.

[Mahtobedis]

I turn it down, but I do so because it is against the edicts of Serenrai. She seeks for the redemption of evil, not the acceptance of it.

[Fromper]

I have 3 PFS characters who can't use wands of Cure Light Wounds, and they all carry wands of Infernal Healing instead, but they're also all neutral. Actually, the barbarian carries both types of wands, and just hands them to whichever caster can use them, but he's high enough level to be able to afford to carry lots of wands around. In the case of my two neutral sorcerers with IH wands, they make a point of avoiding using IH on anyone think is enough of a "goody two shoes" to get upset about it.

My good aligned characters all carry CLW wands to heal themselves. My two LG Silver Crusade members would adamantly refuse to let anyone heal them with IH, but I'm not so sure how some of the others would react. Because they can heal themselves with CLW and other class abilities, it just hasn't come up.

[Captain collateral damage]

Honestly, I really don't like infernal healing in general. The idea of a wizard with a healing spell isn't right.
But yeah, almost all the characters I've ever made probably wouldn't accept it, unless in absolutely dire circumstances.
For instance, say you are a paladin, and an orphanage is being attacked, and you have almost no hp. Do you take infernal healing, or try to defend the orphanage without it, and likely die, along with all the orphans?

[RealAlchemy]

I have seen the druidic argument that casting infernal healing is simply using all the parts of your defeated prey, and thus honoring it as is appropriate.

[Captain Temπ Ænaut Fugit]

After a gain from infernal healing, devils transfer from the fallen still ripe for stealing.

From captive soul, nearly a twin in compatibility,
they take and give, heal through harm
in a colossal malevolent accounting farm;
did you really expect anything less from infernal policy.

And devils aren't total fools, figure someone else's loss may beget a gain.
After all, the coins of hells are forged from guilt and anguish and pain.

Maybe those sacrificed earned to play their part.
But with untroubled shifts in history,
I'd know within my heart,
that the unwilling donor, we can plainly see,
could have been and might still one day be, unwitting me.

So let me speak plainly so as to deter where you might be headed.
It's better to conjure from nothingness than to borrow from the tormented.

[BretI]

I have one character that tells everyone about how "Zarta has assured me it is perfectly safe." Another really doesn't care nor give it much thought.

I also have a Bloodrager that is probably the most adamant against it. "Why would I want to taint my bloodline? Perhaps you want an Abyssal sorcerer or a Tiefling child. I do not."

I find it is more fun if you have characters on both sides of the issue.

[Righty_]

Infernal healing on both sides.

Sometimes you feel like a devil
Sometimes you don't

My lawyer adores the spell.
My dentist abhors it.
My Chelaxian travel agent promotes it.
My tactician refuses to fall to the long game.

Heals Great
Less Evil

Ha ha ha ha