|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
amen nosig (about the force-feeding infernal healing to someone who refused).
Shifty, I get what you are coming from with the jeopardy argument, but you need to accept some players will like to role play more than that. Their characters WOULD rather die than accept an infernal healing, and that is their prerogative. If they tell you at the beginning of the mod that they would like not to be poked with the devil stick, and you have THAT big of a problem with it, then the onus to leave the table is on you, not them.
My paladin, who is Oath of Vengeance, would probably accept it since it would allow him to take vengeance on whoever felled him. A Hospitaler Paladin of Saerenrae (who values REAL healing over all else) would probably never accept it.
I would allow the character being poked with infernal healing to not accept it under the PVP rule as well.
Contributor
|
people...
Using I.H. on someone who objects to it on religious grounds is like feeding pork to a Jew.
Don't do it. It's rude.
Oy. Unless they don't keep kosher, in which case, they wouldn't care.
Doing it when they are un-awair and unable to object? that would make it even worse in my book. Right up there with doing anything else to them that they would object to "heck, she'll never know, and it'll do her some good!"
This is the distinction there. Thinking about putting bacon bits in a salad when you have a Jewish or Muslim friend over? Ask them if that's a problem before you do it.
If you're going on a mission for the society with a Paladin, ask them their thoughts on the spell or spells like it before it becomes an issue. Yes, they might scan you with Detect Evil to make sure you aren't soliciting something their ethos won't allow them to work with, but since you can't be Evil alignment in PFS, that won't be an issue, aaaaand done - now you'll know, in-character and out-of-character, if it's ok or not.
My personal opinion is that cure (and wands of cure) spells should only be allowed to heal good or neutral creatures; and that wands of infernal healing should only be allowed to heal evil or neutral creatures. I realize that my personal opinion differs from the Pathfinder ruling.
Nuetral becomes even more powergamey then. Also infernal healing isn't the same as CLW. One of those doesn't heal you in combat so well, and one of those requires a material component. And one of those is on a few more spelllist. Not balanced and over complicates things.
If I had to ask the players what spells would be okay for me to use everytime I showed up... I'd have a very hard time picking my spells. More so if I had to ask the GM if he would make an issue everytime I cast a spell or swing my sword. That said, don't force it on them, and if they turn it into an issue because you used it while they were out cold and you wanted them to you know... survive, just apologize and move on. Good isn't a good reason to be a jerk to evil people(I see that mistake a lot though), but its easier to move on and drop it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They characters that we play in PFS are Pathfinders and supposedly have several years of training. They had at least basic tutelage from the Master of Spells; even if they were just a giant of a man with a greatsword.
Now the majority of my characters have no problem with Infernal Healing. There philosophy is, "It's going to keep me alive? Yes please". Now I do have a paladin that doesn't want to be touched by the spell. If it happened while she was unconscious then she would pay for an atonement even though it wasn't required in any way.
She is nearly sixth level and I think there was maybe one scenario she played in where no one in her group of Pathfinders had a wand of infernal healing. It has become pretty common. She has seen it used on other Pathfinders and how their wounds slowly heal up over time.
Now if she happens to get brought down low by an enemy someone could use it on her. Say she was down to -3 then by the fourth round of healing she will wake up. She's going to wake up, by the description of the spell, with a case of the evil heebie jeebies. She could possibly look down at a wound on her body and see it is slowly knitting up.
Now the paladin has seen the spell at work before on her allies. It's very doubtful that one of the evil cultist they were fighting leaned down to ruffle her hair and say, "You crazy kid. You worked so hard. Here's some healing". The paladin could certainly narrow it down to one of her fellow pathfinders who has used such magic before. It probably wasn't the rage ball of a barbarian or the fighter who appears content to stab people as fast as possible with two rapiers. They could figure it out.
What it comes down to is being respectful of choices of other players and their characters. The person who asks to not have the spell used on them won't smite your character. They are also happy. It works out for everyone.
honestly, I sometimes miss the days before infernal healing came along...
Eh, could you imagine what would happen if it was celestial healing and required angel's blood? Or how about if it was minor regeneration and had no components. Its just fluff.
Thats a huge price to pay for being healed btw. What is that, 8 PP everytime someone heals a measly 10 hitpoints? Completely unneeded and has nothing to do with the spell. Evil cultist can be good guys too. Some are crazy but I'd hate to dehumanize them... not that it matters because their NPCs.
|
|
Kind of like when a restaurant is using pork products in thier dishes and the local Synagogue tells thier friends at the Mosgue to avoid eating there.
pretty sure jews don't lose their jewish powers when they eat a pork chop.
Well all I can say is I am glad my Sorc (who hasn't class dipped) can use and cast CLW freely (within reason given resources)
until you roll a 1 on using that wand (unless you have a +19 or more on UMD)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Amen Tinculin,
Dexios, Rey and MAyim would all rather face the bone yard (Dexios, "Been there, done that, got the raise dead") then get infernal healing. None of them are Paladins.
If Ksenia were to get a wand, I'd ask the player if he has an issue, as she's really chaotic neutral and wouldn't consider the character's thoughts. She might offend characters, I'm not out of offend players.
On the same note, having an evil spell isn't a good reason to be a jerk to Paladins.
Didn't say that. I offer one then the other myself. Its a little silly, but I just see it go wrong too often. Usually we all carry CLW wands of our own so its not a problem. I was more infering that I can't do this for my whole spelllist and everytime I use it.
|
|
people...
Using I.H. on someone who objects to it on religious grounds is like feeding pork to a Jew.
Don't do it. It's rude.It's not cute, or cool, or even sneaky.
Doing it when they are un-awair and unable to object? that would make it even worse in my book. Right up there with doing anything else to them that they would object to "heck, she'll never know, and it'll do her some good!"
It's rude. If she's unable to object, it's past rude.
And the only thing I can do about it is only thing I have control over. If you are rude at a table with me - don't expect me to be at your table again. I try very hard never to play with rude people.
I view the issue as being more akin to the "do not resuscitate" badges that some people wear. I have never been in the situation where I have had to apply CPR. Much less in the case where I know they do not want to be resuscitated. But I do know that I would have a very hard time honoring that request if I were in that situation.
If it means the difference between a character dying and me honoring their request not to have this evil spell cast on them you can bet that I will be casting the evil spell. I would not consider it PVP even if they did need an atonement. 8 prestige is a lot easier to pay than 16.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would not consider it PVP even if they did need an atonement. 8 prestige is a lot easier to pay than 16.
Just don't assume that the other player feels the same way. My LG cleric was recently willing to walk to his death rather than do something which the GM flat-out stated would have no impact on his alignment. The only reason said cleric did not die is because the rest of the party volunteered to help despite being offered the chance to walk away and not risk their own safety.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
then there are the players who will follow the Paladin PC around, waiting for him to fall to -1, so that they can jump in ahead of the Clerics Channel to gleefully slap the I.H. on the Goodie. Notice I said Player, not PC. If it's a RP decision, discussed with the player before you do it, and it leads to some tearful RP session... that's a different thing. Talk it over with the Player. If she says "No!" what part of that is hard to understand?
Otherwise we run into the zone of "I'm not a jerk, I was just playing my PC!" ... not a good place to be.
This. If Seelah tells Ksenia not to use the wand of infernal healing on her, but the Seelah's player says "If I'm unconscious, do it." that's fine, and can lead to role playing.
If Seelah's player says "No" it becomes PVP, by the very definition of the rule.
- Ksenia.
|
|
Well in my opinion it would not be an alignment infraction as long as the character was not aware of the spell being cast, and would therefore not require an atonement. Now if the detecting as evil really is a problem I would just cast that handy dandy spell that lets you change around aura's. Or misdirection or disguise it some other way. I really don't like just letting players die if there was anything I could do to save them.
Edit: With what I would do I'm assuming there is not another way to get a point of healing on the character in question or guarantee a success at the heal check.
|
|
I really don't like just letting players die if there was anything I could do to save them.
Understood. I don't like letting players die, either...or PCs, for that matter. ;-)
But, seriously, if the player of the PC in question tells you, "do not do this", and you do anyway, then you're stepping over the line.
|
|
people...
Using I.H. on someone who objects to it on religious grounds is like feeding pork to a Jew.
Don't do it. It's rude.It's not cute, or cool, or even sneaky.
Doing it when they are un-awair and unable to object? that would make it even worse in my book. Right up there with doing anything else to them that they would object to "heck, she'll never know, and it'll do her some good!"
It's rude. If she's unable to object, it's past rude.
And the only thing I can do about it is only thing I have control over. If you are rude at a table with me - don't expect me to be at your table again. I try very hard never to play with rude people.
I view the issue as being more akin to the "do not resuscitate" badges that some people wear. I have never been in the situation where I have had to apply CPR. Much less in the case where I know they do not want to be resuscitated. But I do know that I would have a very hard time honoring that request if I were in that situation.
If it means the difference between a character dying and me honoring their request not to have this evil spell cast on them you can bet that I will be casting the evil spell. I would not consider it PVP even if they did need an atonement. 8 prestige is a lot easier to pay than 16.
then there are the players who will follow the Paladin PC around, waiting for him to fall to -1, so that they can jump in ahead of the Clerics Channel to gleefully slap the I.H. on the Goodie. Notice I said Player, not PC. If it's a RP decision, discussed with the player before you do it, and it leads to some tearful RP session... that's a different thing. Talk it over with the Player. If she says "No!" what part of that is hard to understand?
Otherwise we run into the zone of "I'm not a jerk, I was just playing my PC!" ... not a good place to be.
Well the wand does take 1 full round to activate, during which the wand, as per the spell's description in the rules text of the spell, anoints the target with devil blood (it can't be unholy water or the wand would cost more), so the cleric still has a chance to channel and probably has a good reason to believe that something sketchy it happening even without Spellcraft unless the wand-user can explain away the blood.
|
|
While I am one who expects player wishes to be honored, I am a bit concerned that soo many in this thread seem to indicate the possibility of a paladin losing her powers if the recipient of an infernal healing. Now, my paladin would certainly object on grounds that it is a "tainted" spell based in evil, if he where unconscious and someone hit him with it anyway, I see nothing in the paladin's code that would require his powers being stripped...
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.
The concept of losing one's powers due to an involuntary event or an action performed by someone else is a hold-over from previous versions of the game. Even Faith's of Purity lacks any language that would indicate a paladin would lose her powers for an uncontrollable act. I would argue that even extends to acts performed while being controlled by someone else. A paladin below level 8 is still susceptible to charms and could be compelled to do something evil. Again, Pathfinder seems to have removed the clause that would strip the pally of her powers due to such an event. Of course, that is not to say a player won't CHOOSE to get an atonement for said actions as a role-playing tool.
|
|
@ Rogue Eidolon: Of course. Although I would not cast such a spell on a character who had objected if there was a cleric present. Even my most chaotic characters would not.
I guess what I am trying very badly to say is that in my opinion it is PvP to cast Infernal Healing on a objecting character if there is another option to save their life. If there is no other way to guarantee they do not die then I consider it PvP not to. Denying healing which you could give is not something I am willing to do just because a persons character might object. Now if the player really had a huge problem it I would probably just let them die, but I would also think they were giving permission for a PvP situation.
I have a bard who has a crazy high reflex save. In character I"m sure she doesn't like being the target of fireballs from the party's wizard. Out of character I tell the very chaotic wizard to go ahead because I know that she can easily pass the save. Then in character I have her get pissed at the wizard.
|
|
I wish we had a right to know what is being done to our charcters by the NPC's. Still smacks of Metagaming.
Just my 2 cents, but this is my thought: metagaming or not is not as important as everyone having fun, not being harassed (player or character), and being reasonably polite.
If the paladin or player of the paladin prefer to not have the spell cast on them, kindly agree. Would you bluff example work mechanically and storywise? Quite possibly. Should that serve as an excuse to cast spells on folks that prefer not to have them cast on them? Certainly not.
To play this game requires a level of metagaming. Otherwise let's cast all our fort save stuff on giants, and reflex stuff on rogues and monks.
|
|
They characters that we play in PFS are Pathfinders and supposedly have several years of training. They had at least basic tutelage from the Master of Spells; even if they were just a giant of a man with a greatsword.
Are you suggesting that we now all have 1 rank in Spellcraft and Know:Arcane?
I guess the one common thread from all of this is simply don't bring up IH in conversation, and that way the Paladin won't pre-emptively object.
That said, after 10 rounds the 'bad feelings' dissipate, I wonder if having 'evil bad feelings' hurts the Paladins more than the massive axe wound spilling their blood and gore on the floor as they go into shock from blood loss?
Would it be PvP leaving the Paladin to certain death and not healing him even whilst it is clearly within the party's ability to save them?
Like I mean, twiddling your thumbs and watching the dude bleed out when you could drop a charge off a wand really easily, or leaving your unconscious friend on the floor to the rats while you wander off looking for treasure seems far more 'Pvp/Jerky'.
|
|
They characters that we play in PFS are Pathfinders and supposedly have several years of training. They had at least basic tutelage from the Master of Spells; even if they were just a giant of a man with a greatsword.Are you suggesting that we now all have 1 rank in Spellcraft and Know:Arcane?
I guess the one common thread from all of this is simply don't bring up IH in conversation, and that way the Paladin won't pre-emptively object.
That said, after 10 rounds the 'bad feelings' dissipate, I wonder if having 'evil bad feelings' hurts the Paladins more than the massive axe wound spilling their blood and gore on the floor as they go into shock from blood loss?
Would it be PvP leaving the Paladin to certain death and not healing him even whilst it is clearly within the party's ability to save them?
Like I mean, twiddling your thumbs and watching the dude bleed out when you could drop a charge off a wand really easily, or leaving your unconscious friend on the floor to the rats while you wander off looking for treasure seems far more 'Pvp/Jerky'.
It's not the either/or you make it out to be. Even if you've intentionally built a party to be as bad at helping the paladin without an evil wand as possible (7 Wisdom), you still have a 1 in 5 chance of stabilizing the paladin each round. Now you might say--well what if the paladin is going to bleed out on her very next turn? Wouldn't infernal healing be the right move? In this case, even less so, as the one round casting time of the wand ensures the paladin's demise; it can't possibly finish in time. By the time the wand finishes casting, three 10 Wisdom PCs with no access to divine magic or healing potions would have had an 88% chance to stabilize the paladin with heal checks.
|
|
Great, but now we have a stabilised Paladin laying around, now what?
He still isn't up and operational, much easier to tap him one and get him mobile and back to doing his job.
Frankly I'd like to see a Good version of the spell, 'Angels Kiss' or the like, make it a D4 up front and then 1/rnd for 4 rounds or something... not fussed, but seems odd that there is no 'Good' analogue to IH, which is a very good (no ironic pun) spell.
When it comes to getting a wand, I buy IH over CLW, as my non-casters get better mileage out of it.
I don't mind players having particular biases, but really, being impractical and putting strain on the party's ability to do its job because you don't like the taste of Evil for 60 seconds is a bit self indulgent.
Your 'needs' < Party needs.
|
|
Great, but now we have a stabilised Paladin laying around, now what?
He still isn't up and operational, much easier to tap him one and get him mobile and back to doing his job.Frankly I'd like to see a Good version of the spell, 'Angels Kiss' or the like, make it a D4 up front and then 1/rnd for 4 rounds or something... not fussed, but seems odd that there is no 'Good' analogue to IH, which is a very good (no ironic pun) spell.
When it comes to getting a wand, I buy IH over CLW, as my non-casters get better mileage out of it.
I don't mind players having particular biases, but really, being impractical and putting strain on the party's ability to do its job because you don't like the taste of Evil for 60 seconds is a bit self indulgent.
Your 'needs' < Party needs.
Well, now she's alive, which is all that matters to counter the either/or of whether it's a jerk move to let your friend die instead of use the wand. Your other argument about the paladin needing to carry her weight is much stronger, however.
Honestly, if I was the paladin, there's no way in Hell (pun intended) I'd let you cast this on me. Almost half of my characters won't let you cast it on them, I think. Let me see--Lasair, Cordelia, Agravaine, and Memory of Dreams would not. Fasch would be way for it. Lazeril would say use whatever is most efficient, and it's IH. Aria wouldn't care. Kato, Iakhovas, and Malik would be against it but would agree in a tight spot (maybe not Malik, I haven't played him yet).
But that means if I see a party without Use Magic Device or anyone who can activate a divine wand with the only healing, should I drop, being an arcanist with IH, it's completely on me to make sure I have a CLW potion or two that you can feed me and bring me to positive (and then I can use the CLW wands again). This is true even if there isn't an arcanist with IH--the person with the ability to activate healing, if the only person, should have a contingency available to wake themselves up in an emergency like the one you described. If the paladin not only isn't letting you use your only healing on her, she also is refusing to bring an alternative, then it's her fault. If you won't use the healing potions she bought on her to wake her up for some reason, then it isn't her fault.
|
|
Most players are pretty good at brining wands along.
Almost every session is a bit of a horse trade where wands are passed to the various people who can use them by people who can't, and its nice to see people investing the 2pp into a wand to help out and do their part.
Where I found this whole IH argument as being strange was that:
Players are objecting to IH on behalf of their unconscious Paladin who cannot speak.
Players are suggesting that their unconscious Paladin would know all about IH, even lacking Spellcraft or Know:Arcane - which is pretty Meta, and despite so many Paladins with dump stat mental abilities. Different story if they HAD those skills - assuming they were alert and not 'sleeping'.
People are suggesting that IH could 'cause the Paladin to fall', which appears to be solidly grounded in the impartiality of personal bias.
People feel that it is a dick move to IH the Paladin, but that the Paladin to lay about on the floor 'sleeping on the job' is legit.
(Would it be a dick move to let the Paladin kick the bucket, then animate dead his corpse to make a Zombie with? Hey at least he's up and back in the front line now)
Yes the past part was tongue in cheek.
There seems to be a lot of knee jerk and flailing of hands over what is a slightly unpleasant but high utility healing spell.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most players are pretty good at brining wands along.
Almost every session is a bit of a horse trade where wands are passed to the various people who can use them by people who can't, and its nice to see people investing the 2pp into a wand to help out and do their part.
Where I found this whole IH argument as being strange was that:
Players are objecting to IH on behalf of their unconscious Paladin who cannot speak.
It's not without precedent in PFS. Your unconscious character also gets a say in whether the wizard throws a fireball that hits and kills you but also wins the encounter.
Players are suggesting that their unconscious Paladin would know all about IH, even lacking Spellcraft or Know:Arcane - which is pretty Meta, and despite so many Paladins with dump stat mental abilities. Different story if they HAD those skills - assuming they were alert and not 'sleeping'.
The paladin might have seen IH in a past adventure. The paladin might have good Sense Motive. Another party member that didn't use the wand might tell the paladin if the paladin asked them honestly what happened to make them feel evil.
People are suggesting that IH could 'cause the Paladin to fall', which appears to be solidly grounded in the impartiality of personal bias.
Agreed. If it's against your wishes and without your consent, you wouldn't fall. Using the spell on purpose, violates the dogma of Iomedae flagrantly and Sarenrae as well. Even so, having it cast on your unconscious body isn't going to make you fall. You still could RP wanting an atonement though. In my games, I will make a note of it if your character is a cleric of Iomedae or Sarenrae (or any other class that loses its powers for violating the deity's dogma) and you are doing something egregious like buying one of these wands yourself and using it while proselytizing how much more cash efficient it is than CLW.
Now, that's only what I would mark on your sheet for--really a good cleric or paladin of almost any good deity (and many other good-aligned characters) wouldn't be allowing this spell to be used on them except in dire circumstances, depending on their personality and value system. In the world of Golarion, there's things a lot worse than death, and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Asmodeus knows this--it's why he offers up such a useful spell: to tempt mortals into using it.
People feel that it is a dick move to IH the Paladin, but that the Paladin to lay about on the floor 'sleeping on the job' is legit.
(Would it be a dick move to let the Paladin kick the bucket, then animate dead his corpse to make a Zombie with? Hey at least he's up and back in the front line now)Yes the past part was tongue in cheek.
I've covered this--the paladin should have a potion or two if she's the only one capable of healing without IH. Then she can get back on her feet.
|
|
What I am saying is that you may not be a wizard but you might have some idea about spells if you see them a lot. A paladin would recognize if his wizard companion cast a light spell. I, as the GM, am not going to have the paladin make a spellcraft check to figure it out. Just as if they see someone else cast infernal healing a lot, using the same gestures and words, then they might recognize it if they see it. Just like if I am running a game and Babaus show up then I will not make a player roll a knowledge planes if the party has fought them before. Point is the spell says you get the heebie jeebies. If you wake up from being unconscious with that feeling then you probably have a good guess what happens. I don't think it's that much of a problem to be respectful of wishes that are not going to break the game.
I personally provide a spring loaded wrist sheath and a wand of cure light wounds to a spell caster to use on my paladin as needed. That way I make things go as smoothly as possible.
They characters that we play in PFS are Pathfinders and supposedly have several years of training. They had at least basic tutelage from the Master of Spells; even if they were just a giant of a man with a greatsword.Are you suggesting that we now all have 1 rank in Spellcraft and Know:Arcane?
I guess the one common thread from all of this is simply don't bring up IH in conversation, and that way the Paladin won't pre-emptively object.
That said, after 10 rounds the 'bad feelings' dissipate, I wonder if having 'evil bad feelings' hurts the Paladins more than the massive axe wound spilling their blood and gore on the floor as they go into shock from blood loss?
Would it be PvP leaving the Paladin to certain death and not healing him even whilst it is clearly within the party's ability to save them?
Like I mean, twiddling your thumbs and watching the dude bleed out when you could drop a charge off a wand really easily, or leaving your unconscious friend on the floor to the rats while you wander off looking for treasure seems far more 'Pvp/Jerky'.
|
|
as per the spell's description in the rules text of the spell, anoints the target with devil blood (it can't be unholy water or the wand would cost more), so the cleric still has a chance to channel and probably has a good reason to believe that something sketchy it happening even without Spellcraft unless the wand-user can explain away the blood.
Ok, so the wand requires anointing them with devil blood, however, what if it's not a wand being used?
My Razmiran Priest for example has Infernal Healing as one of her spells, even better she has False Focus thanks to being a Razmiran Priest - so the target doesn't even know that the spell isn't cure light wounds until they begin to feel evil, would that make someone think that something sketchy is going on? And as a Razmiran Priest, I wouldn't point out the source of my healing, I would claim that the Infernal Healing was actually a cure spell and likely try to convince anyone who complained that they felt evil that it was just heartburn, possibly relying on bluff.
Now, I understand that some people wouldn't want IH cast on their characters period, and I have out of character asked before casting (the character isn't a very high level yet, so it hasn't been cast much). But if the character is the one who would oppose the Infernal Healing, would my Razmiran Priest be able to convince them that there was nothing wrong with the healing I gave them?
|
|
Barring spellcraft or knowledge(arcana), which most paladins don't have, the only way that a paladin is not going to know the alignment repercussions of infernal healing is if they detect evil on themselves while the spell is active. Otherwise it really is metagaming.
I understand it is because there are an unfortunate number of DMs who are eager to make a paladin fall for involuntarily receiving the spell. That seems to me like "I am going to correct this thing that I find imbalanced by the only DM fiat I can get away with in PFS."
Which is a problematic attitude for a great number of reasons.
But if the character is the one who would oppose the Infernal Healing, would my Razmiran Priest be able to convince them that there was nothing wrong with the healing I gave them?
You could always lie, but ooc they might not like that. Respecting opinions ooc is sometimes more important than ingame perspectives.
On an unrelated note, I'm not sure how evil feels but I'd think it would feel good. I'm not sure if heartburn is the closest equivalent. A warm hug maybe?
|
|
Barring spellcraft or knowledge(arcana), which most paladins don't have, the only way that a paladin is not going to know the alignment repercussions of infernal healing is if they detect evil on themselves while the spell is active. Otherwise it really is metagaming.
To be fair, the spell specifically states that those under it's effects feel the evil of the magic. Now, this doesn't mean they will know exactly what effect is upon them without proper skill checks, past experiences, ect.
But it does mean that any character at all would definitely feel an aura of evil about them while it is in effect. You don't need to know exactly what is happening in order to not want that to happen.
|
|
I guess I should outline the scenario where I would disregard a party members request not to have infernal healing cast on them.
1. No wands of cure light wounds/potions/ability channel/healing spells in the party. (I have been in a group that met these requirements)
2. The Paladin will bleed out in two turns (assuming he has not acted this turn.)
I would start casting infernal healing on my turn so that if no one is able to stabilize him I could do so with the infernal healing. This would be the on time any of my characters would ignore the paladin's request.
Notably I don't ever purchase wands of infernal healing, or prepare it ever. This is too much of an issue to try and deal with at the table. Besides I use up my quota of evil actions with no alignment change casting blood transcription. Mmmmm spells.
|
How is healing a fellow party member PvP?
I call it PvP when your unconscious Paladin insists on laying on the ground and jeapordising the party because he refuses to be healed.
If your Paladin is obstructing the party and ruining its fun because he insists on being unconscious and non-productive, doesn't this breach the don't be a jerk rule?
As others have stated, hopefully such a paladin(or any other good character that rejects IH) would bring along their own healing items and make arrangements at the start of the session, which seems to be a standard for many here.
Regarding IH making unwilling paladins fall, I am strongly against such a judgment. But even then many players would still be entirely against IH being used on their characters.
Can't help but wonder if some paladin of Shizuru somewhere has seppuku'ed over it.
|
|
... If it means the difference between a character dying and me honoring their request not to have this evil spell cast on them you can bet that I will be casting the evil spell. ...
It all comes down to whether you respect others who do not share your views.
For example, how would you feel if you were playing at a table where the GM did not share the same interpretation of a rule that you did? You knew that you were right, but the GM would not take your word for it and chose to continue with the game rather than take time to look up the rule. The ruling affected your character significantly.
It's not the same situation, but the player whose wishes you ignored by saving their character with a spell they did not want cast on their character would feel pretty similar.
Of course, all this requires the GM to allow this level of disrespect. So it should be a relatively rare occurrence.
|
|
Well the wand does take 1 full round to activate, during which the wand, as per the spell's description in the rules text of the spell, anoints the target with devil blood (it can't be unholy water or the wand would cost more)
i would like to point out that it can be unholy water. the spell description does not dictate an entire vial of it (ie it does not list a cost for the component), therefore there is no mechanical difference between the small vial of devil blood, or a small vial of unholy water. either will work, since they are both to be considered part of a spell component pouch.
|
Where I found this whole IH argument as being strange was that:
Players are objecting to IH on behalf of their unconscious Paladin who cannot speak.
Consider it from this perspective: Players who are both conscious and able to speak are the ones objecting, and the players are real people to boot. It doesn't matter is the character can't object or even be aware of the action because it's not the character you are playing the game with.
Players are suggesting... [stuff].
From a pure role-playing perspective, it's up to the GM what the character knows and can figure out. But this isn't about role-playing, it's about respecting the people you are playing with.
Ultimately, if a character (any character) is going to die without the use of a spell that takes a full round to cast and won't get the character back into a fight until it's long over, something far beyond what that spell can remedy has taken place. IE doesn't put a character back into a fight, and stands a far greater chance to get someone killed than if you had just let them bleed out for a round or two until someone could make a Heal check. IE is great for out of combat recovery, and much more cost efficient than CLW, but if you aren't in combat anymore, you likely have far more options than just cast IE or die.
As far as who the dick is... the player who's character is casting IE on a character who's player has asked him not to is being a dick. A player asking someone not to use IE on his character while not providing an alternate method to heal him in place of it is also being a dick. If one player is being a dick, it won't make the other player less of a dick if he ignores his wishes.
|
|
After 60 seconds the difference between a character who got IH, and one that did not, is 10 hit points - and apparently in some cases a little case of hurt feelings. If it's the healing that's available, then that's what you are getting.
Perhaps it will encourage you to fight better next time and not get knocked out by the BBEG.
"Hold still, this might pinch a little"
/petition - Can we please have a non-evil version now?
|
|
After 60 seconds the difference between a character who got IH, and one that did not, is 10 hit points - and apparently in some cases a little case of hurt feelings. If it's the healing that's available, then that's what you are getting.
Perhaps it will encourage you to fight better next time and not get knocked out by the BBEG.
"Hold still, this might pinch a little"
/petition - Can we please have a non-evil version now?
Its an arcane healing spell. There should be... side effects.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many of the posters must think Iomedea is stupid and hates her Paladins
and that she does not know the diffrence between her chosen Paldin commiting an evil act and has ha benifical spell cast on Her servant to save thier life. She might even lay a slopy wet kiss on the Sorc that saved her Paladins life. Paladins are not a dime a dozen and the goddess does not cast aside her Paladins over minor actions commited by someone other than her servant.
Once the Paladun revives he may ritualy cleanse himself and after thanking the Sorc for saving his life point out to the Sorc of the pouch on his belt that contains sevearl poitions of diffrent cure wounds and ask him to use them on him in the future.
Neither Paldins or their Gods are stupid and they realize the even evil can be used for the cause of good and saving a Paladins life is always an act of Good and that Paladin will go out of way after that act of good by the Sorc to protect him and heal him when ever nessary. By his act of lifesaving kindness the Sorc just fond a friend and protector for life.
|
Contributor
|
Paladins are not a dime a dozen and the goddess does not cast aside her Paladins over minor actions commited by someone other than her servant.
This is my personal feeling on the matter as well. As a GM, if a Paladin PC either allows someone to use IH on them, asks for it, or uses it themselves (if they have a way to), I ask them if they have an IC justification for it. If they simply say "it's to help fight greater evil", or "my paladin's code doesn't prohibit this since even though the spell may be evil it helps someone who is good", or *anything* to that effect, I nod and say go ahead.
But, I will restate what I did 50+ posts ago...
Paladin characters/players out there are entitled to their own opinions on the spell. The GMs out there are entitled to their own opinions on the spell and its effects on Paladins (and any other alignment-dependent characters).
If the player of a Paladin doesn't want Infernal Healing to be used on them no matter what, doing it anyway without their permission falls under the PvP rule.
Not all GMs will accept a willing Paladin + Infernal Healing, and a player at that table shouldn't disrupt a game over what is most certainly a call a GM is allowed to make. Expect table variation. YMMV.
Do we really need to keep arguing?
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW, while playing Day of the Demon with my paladin of Iomadae, he went unconscious in the foyer of the manor. I had made it clear that he would not accept a IH. Once unconscious, one of the other characters just couldn't resist casting IH upon him. It brought my paladin back from the brink of death.
However, when my paladin awoke, he could feel the evil coursing through him. Did it cause him to fall? Certainly not. He didn't willingly commit an evil act and certainly couldn't object to accepting the IH at the time it happened due to being unconscious. The character who cast it celebrated quietly causing grief to my paladin. I accepted that for what it was. What I also did was make my paladin take the sickened condition the rest of the scenario. I made sure it was known to the rest of the party that if my paladin was hit with IH again, he would become nauseated for the remainder of the scenario, and be useless to the party. It got the point across quite clearly to the party, through in character actions and without OOC arguments, that casting IH on a holy warrior was unacceptable. Luckily, the party, and player casting IH, was smart enough not to do it again because they didnt want to cripple the party further with a lion share of the adventure to finish.
I try to take these kind of situations and try to turn them into a teaching situation. Yes, the player with IH was able to "get" my paladin character by casting IH on him. However, he hurt the party by making it tougher on my paladin for the remainder of the scenario.