| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but it doesn't turn you evil.
Nor is being evil a requirement unless your class specifically demands it, as in the case of Druids and Clerics.
I may have missed it, but I don't see any such requirements for the Magus.
ask your GM. [evil] spells draw directly from evil powers. If I were your GM, I would allow you to cast an [evil] spell a handful of times if you really needed it. However if you began casting an [evil] spell on a regular basis, I would tell you your alignment has shifted to Neutral.
I probably would not force you to switch to an Evil alignment no matter how many times you cast the spell.. but some GMs might.
But in my opinion, Good characters do not cast [evil] spells. I'd bump you down to Neutral pretty fast.
Also, if it's your magus' viewpoint that Good and Evil are relative, he's not a Good magus to begin with. He's a neutral magus. That's like the definition of being neutral almost.
|
If you're going by core rules or Golarion (these are different things on occasion, though the Golarion setting usually matches the rules), then Ximen Bao has most of it. However, it bears some more detail.
For most spellcasters, the Magus included, it's okay to cast an Evil spell despite having a non-Evil (or having an outright Good) alignment. It is specifically an Evil act, though for most creatures doing one Evil act is not an immediate alignment change. In all likelihood, there would be little net effect upon the Magus for doing this spell a few times every so often.
Where it gets murky is what venue you're playing in. If it's Pathfinder Society, you're in luck; PFS specifically denotes casting Evil spells isn't an Evil act insofar as PFS cares.
A home campaign might take a more dim view of this behavior however, and a GM who strongly plays Alignment might start imposing some special results for the Magus using Evil spells a lot.
I also want to note that Arcane spells clearly can be concerned with absolute Good and Evil. The recent Player Companion "Champions of Purity" deals with several spells open to some arcane classes and labels them as Good spells, e.g. casting them is an inherently Good act provided they are not used for Evil ends. This is also part of the flavor behind certain Sorcerer and Bard types, such as the Celestial Bloodline Sorcerer (which isn't required to be Good, but their flavor text notes they're strongly pulled in this direction) and the Dawnflower Dervish Bard (which requires your character be an active worshiper of Sarenrae). So if you're concerned about how Core and/or Golarion handle it, there definitely is precedent for the idea that even some arcanists grasp morality and believe it applies to their spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casting [Evil] spells won't turn you evil(or neutral). There isn't a magical number of infernal healings that makes you unbelievably evil. Any concept of it turning you evil is fluff. Many [Evil] spells do malicious things mind you, but infernal healing isn't one of them. Evil Spells also can't be cast by good divine casters, nor good by evil divine casters. Arcane are can cast whatever though, they don't have that limitation.
Your GM may decide that there is a magical number that turns you evil(or neutral, I guess.), but really, that's something you need to talk about with him if its an issue, because that's a house rule and not something enforced by any rule. I can't say I think fondly of being turned spontaneously and magically evil by the GM's whim.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...deals with several spells open to some arcane classes and labels them as Good spells, e.g. casting them is an inherently Good act provided they are not used for Evil ends.
It's interesting that when talking about Good spells it feels natural to add the emphasized text, but the reverse is often argued against. I often see people saying that using an Evil spell for good ends is still an evil act, but no one argues that using a Good spell for evil ends is still a good act.
I wonder why that is?
Casting [Evil] spells won't turn you evil(or neutral). There isn't a magical number of infernal healings that makes you unbelievably evil. Any concept of it turning you evil is fluff.
That depends on if you regard the words of the creative director as relevant or not. James Jacobs have explicitly stated that casting an evil spell is an evil action (however, as you say, there is no set number that will make a person evil - that is up to the GM/group).
So it's not more of a house rule than "murdering babies will make you evil" is a house rule; both are evil actions. HOW evil they are is up to the GM, and I sure hope they aren't considered equal.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An appropriately silly question for a silly spell. The entire existence of the infernal healing spell seems like nothing so much as somebody's brazen attempt to topple the whole concept of "evil spells" - it's a healing spell with alignment-related limitations. If anything, the spell is more useful for Good characters than non-Good, since the types of damage it can't heal are types of damage Good characters don't normally have to worry about.
Maybe the alignment descriptor should be restricted to spells that revolve directly around alignment (protection from Good,Chaos hammer,holy aura, etc.), maybe just at least in the case of Good and Evil - I hate having stuff like animate dead get caught up in it. If Tim Burton movies have taught me anything, it's that being dead doesn't make you a bad person. :P
@MaxAstro: Good point.
...deals with several spells open to some arcane classes and labels them as Good spells, e.g. casting them is an inherently Good act provided they are not used for Evil ends.It's interesting that when talking about Good spells it feels natural to add the emphasized text, but the reverse is often argued against. I often see people saying that using an Evil spell for good ends is still an evil act, but no one argues that using a Good spell for evil ends is still a good act.
I wonder why that is?
Because most acts that people actually consider evil are more evil than most acts people consider good. Using a [good] spell to kill an innocent totals out to evil because casting the good spell does not make up for killing an infant. Using an [evil] spell to help an old lady over the street is more vague as helping someone over the street is a much lesser virtue.
Basically, I think actions can be both good and evil at the same time, or rather, several events that are tied together (for example the casting of an Infernal Healing and the saving of a life that comes with it) can be differently aligned and come out to either good or bad.
If someone uses infernal healing, coating a dying child in devil's blood to save it from dying, I think the evil in that event is much lesser than the good. If it's used regularly to patch up the fighter of random bruises, I think the evil is a bit larger than the good.
Personally, if I have a good-aligned PC/NPC, I would never cast an evil-descriptor spell. It would just be something most of those characters wouldn't dream of doing. Some may be tempted, which could be good for roleplaying purposes, and some of those may eventually be drawn towards those powers and be set upon the path towards neutrality or even downright evil.
That said, even paladins can sometimes work alongside evil for brief periods, so there are definitely grades of evilness. Casting an [evil] spell once or twice wouldn't immediately shift your alignment, but like was said above; if it becomes a regular act, then the character probably isn't truly good any more :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone here read the CRB section on Alignment and Alignment change? Has anyone read the Gamemastery Guide's additions?
Here's a few snippets, hopefully without over-quoting:
"Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil"
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity — it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."
"There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls."
"It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why"
"Characters also risk having their alignment changed if they continually act in accordance with an alignment other than the one they chose."
To summarize (not just the quotes but the whole thing), the first thing you should do when creating a character is figure out what his personality is like. From that, you can derive an alignment. You can even do this in reverse. You really should choose an alignment that matches the activities and actions your character will do. Picking a good alignment and then eating innocent babies with every meal makes no sense. Picking a lawful alignment and deliberately breaking every law in the land and defying authority makes no sense.
You can, actually, do these things, pick one alignment and write it down on your character sheet but then play him a totally different way. But what's the point? You put an alignment on your sheet as a guide for you to help you decide what actions fit his personality. What's the point of writing down a guide for yourself that has no bearing on what your character actually does - that's just a waste of character sheet space.
Clearly, casting this spell is a minor act of evil. The CRB says so.
If you created a character who is OK with committing evil acts, then maybe you should not think of your character as being "good". Maybe you should have written down a different alignment since you're not entirely playing him as a good character. In other words, the two things should go together, good characters should perform good acts and avoid evil ones, that's what being "good" means, more or less. It doesn't mean you must always be good and never do anything evil. But it does suggest that if you are OK with regular and frequent evil acts, maybe "good" is not a very accurate description of your character.
Note the last thing I quoted. You risk having your alignment changed if you continually act in accordance with an evil alignment, such as committing frequent acts of evil. Given this, any DM would be within the RAW if he determined that your continued use of this spell qualifies you for an alignment shift.
On the other hand, if you are bound and determined to play him as a "good" character, then this should be a spell he does not like to use because people who actually ARE good don't like doing evil things and don't like drawing power from infernal sources. So perhaps this might be a tool for only the direst of emergencies, because he should consider it evil and he should know that the path to becoming evil is continually acting in accordance with an evil alignment.
Is it RAW? Must a DM forcibly change your alignment because you use this spell? Of course not, I even quoted bits that show that it is not required to change your alignment. But it could be done, for no other reason than the fact that you repeatedly use this spell.
TL;dr:
I suggest that if this is a regular spell for you, then "good" is not an accurate description of your alignment and perhaps a more accurate alignment should have been chosen for your character in the first place. If "good" is accurate, then this would be a spell you would avoid at most (not necessarily all) costs. Not RAW, but well within the guidelines in these two books.
Talk to your DM, as others have said, and make sure you're on the same page.
|
ask your GM. [evil] spells draw directly from evil powers. If I were your GM, I would allow you to cast an [evil] spell a handful of times if you really needed it. However if you began casting an [evil] spell on a regular basis, I would tell you your alignment has shifted to Neutral.
I probably would not force you to switch to an Evil alignment no matter how many times you cast the spell.. but some GMs might.
But in my opinion, Good characters do not cast [evil] spells. I'd bump you down to Neutral pretty fast.
Also, if it's your magus' viewpoint that Good and Evil are relative, he's not a Good magus to begin with. He's a neutral magus. That's like the definition of being neutral almost.
As others have said, this is basically the GMs call.
If I was playing in awp832's game, I'd just play a Neutral magus in the first place, rather than get "bumped down" for committing what I consider to be a trivial act of evil.
I appreciate that "trivial act of evil" is a nonsensical phrase in the real world, (if it is trivial, it ain't evil!) but makes sense in a world where Good and Evil are objective forces and the universe reacts to you in different ways depending on which "team" you are on.
You can look on casting Evil spells in the same way as occasionally making sarcastic remarks that can be hurtful to sensitive people, or swatting flies.
Or you can look on it as the first step on the slippery slope, which potentially ends in a descent to the dark side.
Generally, I prefer the former approach, as it is not often that I feel like playing Pathfinder as some kind of moral drama, particularly where the rules of morality are established by someone else. It has the potential to not end well.
For an example of the most extreme approach :-
"Ok, you summon the (immune to fire) Devil and order it to enter the burning building to rescue the orphans. It curses at being called from the Pit for such a purpose, and vows revenge on you and your companions, but it has no choice but to obey. It dumps the two terrified children at your feet, and vanishes back from whence it came. They are badly burned by the experience, and you suspect they may die if they do not receive healing straight away.
"You cast infernal healing twice to save their lives [note - I have no idea if this spell can be used to heal others, but am assuming it does for the sake of argument]. That makes three Evil spells in a very short space of time. Your alignment has now changed to Evil, and I don't allow Evil characters in my campaign. Roll up a new character and I'll see when the next convenient point is for introducing him to the rest of the party."
For extra bonus points, assume this GM has no problem with PCs casting Cloudkill. (Read the spell description some time and consider what the reaction would be if someone cast it in the real world.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casting an [evil] spell once or twice wouldn't immediately shift your alignment, but like was said above; if it becomes a regular act, then the character probably isn't truly good any more :)
The problem with this argument is that nobody (least of all me) would accept it in reverse.
Darkbad the Necromancer wants to penetrate the Temple of Holiness, in order to steal the Heart of the Martyr for use in his latest experiment. He is aware that the temple's paladins regularly scan pilgrims, and deny access to those who detect as evil. It is said that they are alert to the various ways of fooling detect evil, and anyone caught entering the temple under an alignment hiding spell is subject to the death penalty.
He spends the next few days summoning lantern archons, to switch his alignment from NE to N ....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ask your GM. [evil] spells draw directly from evil powers. If I were your GM, I would allow you to cast an [evil] spell a handful of times if you really needed it. However if you began casting an [evil] spell on a regular basis, I would tell you your alignment has shifted to Neutral.
Is casting a spell with the good descriptor a good act? Do you likewise shift my alignment towards good for repeatedly casting a spell with the good descriptor?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with these Evil spells is that it's not made clear what is so Evil about them. Does it pollute the environment? Does it weaken the boundaries between earth and hell?
The problem with these Evil spells is that it's not made clear what is so Evil about them. Does it pollute the environment? Does it weaken the boundaries between earth and hell?
You call upon the powers of evil to power your spell. It's a metaphysical thing that has to do with the forces of good, evil, law and chaos (at least that's how i understand it).
Also there are some exception to the above, the most notable one is the animate dead spell where you don't only call the powers of evil you create an anethema to life.
As the title implies, can my good magus cast "evil" spells (infernal healing is the spell in question) without being evil? I mean, its arcane, and according to arcane (well, the way I see it at least) is that good and evil are relative. Advice?
The spell is fueled with the blood of devils. From a story perspective there is almost no "good" way to obtain that. Sure you could summon a devil and beat the tar out of it, but don't you think the agents of Hell consider this possibility. No matter what you do you are playing into their hands.
This spell is the perfect temptation for arcane spell casters with the "best of intentions". Before you know it you will be raising zombies to prevent a group of orcs from killing innocent villagers. Your trip to the dark side will be done for all the right reasons... just using the wrong means.
: )
One evil act will not alter your alignment. If you begin to make a habit of it and do it repeatedly, your GM has the option to require a shift in alignment.
From a personal perspective (and Patricius is aware of my feelings on this, heh) I dislike applying the [Evil] descriptor to most spells, but from a RAW perspective, it is what it is.
|
|
The spell is fueled with the blood of devils. From a story perspective there is almost no "good" way to obtain that.
It's worth pointing out that it's fueled by the blood of devils OR unholy water. That seems to be left off a lot of times. Not that the creation of unholy water is a good thing either, but it certainly doesn't sound as bad as smearing devil blood on someone. And I imagine it is much easier to obtain.
I've also run into confusion about where the spell comes from. I've had GMs who believed it was only available to worshippers of Asmodeus, because they assumed it came from the Cheliax book. It's in the inner sea guide (and an older book, I think).
<edited-I meant devils, not demons>
The spell is fueled with the blood of devils. From a story perspective there is almost no "good" way to obtain that.
My last character could have supplied you with gallons of the stuff, acquired while saving the world.
|
|
My last character could have supplied you with gallons of the stuff, acquired while saving the world.The spell is fueled with the blood of devils. From a story perspective there is almost no "good" way to obtain that.
One of my current characters could supply a modest quantity, through personal sacrifice.
She might be a little upset about the request for gallons.....
I've also run into confusion about where the spell comes from. I've had GMs who believed it was only available to worshippers of Asmodeus, because they assumed it came from the Cheliax book. It's in the inner sea guide (and an older book, I think).
It was originally printed in AP issue #29, in the article on Asmodeus, and was part of a section of spells specific to Asmodeus-worshippers.
Later printings have omitted the deity-specificness (like a few other such spells from other deity-articles, when reprinted).
Casting [Evil] spells won't turn you evil(or neutral). There isn't a magical number of infernal healings that makes you unbelievably evil. Any concept of it turning you evil is fluff.That depends on if you regard the words of the creative director as relevant or not. James Jacobs have explicitly stated that casting an evil spell is an evil action (however, as you say, there is no set number that will make a person evil - that is up to the GM/group).
So it's not more of a house rule than "murdering babies will make you evil" is a house rule; both are evil actions. HOW evil they are is up to the GM, and I sure hope they aren't considered equal.
Yes, the creators houserule is a houserule. Killing babies usually infers you were evil in the first place, however we know that when goblin baby slaying comes up it creates a mile long thread of its own. Killing babies also has the immediate consequence of dead babies and angry/happy parents/society. Infernal healing has the immediate consequence of healing the wounded. Its awkward to say healing people makes you evil, beyond fluff. Following just mechanics, it will not turn you evil ever.
My last character could have supplied you with gallons of the stuff, acquired while saving the world.
I think this spell is a great opportunity for story. Whether the spell components are acquired through good means or just unholy water (which yes, I forgot about) a [evil] spell that heals is just an awesome temptation.
There was a Vampire storyteller game that I was a part of where the storyteller (GM) provided a character an opportunity to learn infernal spells that weren't infernal... they just did the exact same thing as the infernal versions of the spell. The NPC said so... so it must have been true, right? Yeah... it didn't quite work out that way and before long the character was at odds with the entire city.
As a GM I would ensure that any good character who was willing to cast this spell had lots of opportunities to learn other spells that seem helpful but corrupted the soul. I might even have beneficial devils show up and aid the character from time to time. The more the character gave into the benefits of all these additional options... the more they would slip toward evil. It could even be done not so gradually... as long as they were working toward good ends... but as soon as they used all these new-found powers for their personal ends BANG you're evil.
|
|
I've also run into confusion about where the spell comes from. I've had GMs who believed it was only available to worshippers of Asmodeus, because they assumed it came from the Cheliax book. It's in the inner sea guide (and an older book, I think).
It was originally printed in AP issue #29, in the article on Asmodeus, and was part of a section of spells specific to Asmodeus-worshippers.
Later printings have omitted the deity-specificness (like a few other such spells from other deity-articles, when reprinted).
That explains it, then. Thanks. Didn't know that.
Is casting a spell with the good descriptor a good act? Do you likewise shift my alignment towards good for repeatedly casting a spell with the good descriptor?
..does a bear crap in the woods?
You're darn right I would shift your alignment! Typiccally though, those PCs who are going to be casting a lot of [good] spells are arlready good. Likewise I would expect that if you were casting a lot of [evil] spells you would already be evil. and if you were not, you best be damn sure I'd push you in that direction.
I hope this answers amenethal's objection too. I *absolutely* consider casting a [good] spell to be a good act. I dont see why that is hard to accept. I accept it readily. Casting good spells is like doing a good deed for the world.
Tangent about Star Wars: Hey, why doesn't Luke just call upon the powers of the Force and zap the emporer right back. Why can't he do the whole force lightning thing? Or if not Luke, how about Yoda? Surely that's within his skill level. Why doesn't he make use of Force Lightning? It's just a spell, surely using it to defeat evil isn't any different than defeating evil with your lightsaber, right? WRONG!!!!! Yoda doesn't use force-lightning because Force-lightning is EVIL. It draws its power from hatred and the dark side of the force, and Yoda don't play that way. Repeatedly casting force lightning would turn yoda evil. It is exactly the same situation here.
Is casting a spell with the good descriptor a good act? Do you likewise shift my alignment towards good for repeatedly casting a spell with the good descriptor?
..does a bear crap in the woods?
You're darn right I would shift your alignment! Typiccally though, those PCs who are going to be casting a lot of [good] spells are arlready good. Likewise I would expect that if you were casting a lot of [evil] spells you would already be evil. and if you were not, you best be damn sure I'd push you in that direction.
I hope this answers amenethal's objection too. I *absolutely* consider casting a [good] spell to be a good act. I dont see why that is hard to accept. I accept it readily. Casting good spells is like doing a good deed for the world.
Tangent about Star Wars: Hey, why doesn't Luke just call upon the powers of the Force and zap the emporer right back. Why can't he do the whole force lightning thing? Or if not Luke, how about Yoda? Surely that's within his skill level. Why doesn't he make use of Force Lightning? It's just a spell, surely using it to defeat evil isn't any different than defeating evil with your lightsaber, right? WRONG!!!!! Yoda doesn't use force-lightning because Force-lightning is EVIL. It draws its power from hatred and the dark side of the force, and Yoda don't play that way. Repeatedly casting force lightning would turn yoda evil. It is exactly the same situation here.
Which is silly, but them's the rules.
...deals with several spells open to some arcane classes and labels them as Good spells, e.g. casting them is an inherently Good act provided they are not used for Evil ends.It's interesting that when talking about Good spells it feels natural to add the emphasized text, but the reverse is often argued against. I often see people saying that using an Evil spell for good ends is still an evil act, but no one argues that using a Good spell for evil ends is still a good act.
I wonder why that is?
Alignment based Bigotry.
|
|
I *absolutely* consider casting a [good] spell to be a good act. I dont see why that is hard to accept. I accept it readily. Casting good spells is like doing a good deed for the world.
Cheers, I appreciate people who are consistent about this issue.
My problem with this approach is that it trivialises Good and Evil, and divorces them from actual morality. They might as well be Blue and Red. Summoning lantern archons to slaughter innocents is not morally better than summoning dretches to slaughter innocents. Not in the slightest. Yet the latter act is more [Evil] (and [Chaotic]) and the former act is more [Good] (and [Lawful]).
Casting a [Good] spell is nothing like doing a good deed for the world. In itself it benefits nobody.
Unless casting [Good] spells somehow tips the cosmic balance in favour of team [Good]? Anyone know if this idea is supported in the RAW anywhere?
I don't want to get into an in depth discussion of Star Wars morality, which is even more messed up than that of D&D, but Yoda does not deal in terms of good and evil. He deals in light side and dark side; you might think they are the same as good and evil, but they are not. Anger, for instance, is of the dark side but it is not evil.
|
|
Is casting a spell with the good descriptor a good act? Do you likewise shift my alignment towards good for repeatedly casting a spell with the good descriptor?
..does a bear crap in the woods?
You're darn right I would shift your alignment! Typiccally though, those PCs who are going to be casting a lot of [good] spells are arlready good. Likewise I would expect that if you were casting a lot of [evil] spells you would already be evil. and if you were not, you best be damn sure I'd push you in that direction.
I will ensure my true neutral character summons lantern archons at least as often as he uses infernal healing.
I agree with the guy, who proposed reskinning. Name it "Celestial Rejuvenation" and give it the "Good" descirptor.
I agree with the guy, who proposed reskinning. Name it "Celestial Rejuvenation" and give it the "Good" descirptor.
Sounds like a fair homebrew... maybe use the tears of angels freely given as the material.
Evil is insidious. History is full of examples of people doing horrible things for "good" reasons. That doesn't make them less horrible. History also has examples of people doing good things for bad reasons, that doesn't make them good.
Of course, the current topic is about using an [evil] spell that heals people, that happens to use the blood of a foe you slay on a regular basis and is inherently evil. Does this qualify as recycling?
Evil is insidious. History is full of examples of people doing horrible things for "good" reasons. That doesn't make them less horrible. History also has examples of people doing good things for bad reasons, that doesn't make them good.
That presumes, of course, that in reality the concepts of "good" and "evil" are as static and objective as they are made in the game - and they're really not. They are artificial labels created by humans to describe acts that please or displease them based on their own subjective moral codes.
Which is (I suppose) why I find the mostly black-and-white alignment system so grating. :P
Evil is insidious. History is full of examples of people doing horrible things for "good" reasons. That doesn't make them less horrible. History also has examples of people doing good things for bad reasons, that doesn't make them good.Of course, the current topic is about using an [evil] spell that heals people, that happens to use the blood of a foe you slay on a regular basis and is inherently evil. Does this qualify as recycling?
You either have to corrupt yourself with the taint of Hell or smear the corruption over your comrade in order to heal them. Even using Unholy Water as the component instead isn't any better... you are using raw negative energy to heal their flesh at the expense of corrupting their soul. The details of how the spell is [Evil] are left up to the DM, but whatever it is the DM should be encouraged to be creative and allow this spell to be a corrupting influence in the game.
DM should be encouraged to be creative and allow this spell to be a corrupting influence in the game.
That's an opinion. Your text was flavor text added by you, not by the spell itself. The spell is as evil as you make it, yes, but in turn it also can be entirely not evil. It is not smearing "The corruption" or "corrupting their soul", it has no long lasting effects on the person you use it on.
Again, I'm not keen on calling a spell that heals the wounded evil enough to turn you evil. Unless your using it for evil reasons of course, but I'm not sure how you do that beyond some weird flavor about letting evil into the world or such, but that's more of a setting specific fluff than a spell mechanic. Mechanically the spell doesn't turn you evil at all. I really can't stress that enough.
Hmmm, why does this spell use the blood of demons? They'll give it freely to corrupt a spellcaster, and good heroes are shedding demon blood all the time so it isn't hard to come by through good means.
This spell would be more obviously evil if it had the Evil descriptor and required the blood of celestials as a component - no way a celestial would give its blood freely so you could cast an evil spell and not many ways you could get that blood yourself short of hurting/killing celestials, not really any way to package that without it being an evil act.
I smell a houserule coming in my games...
Again, I'm not keen on calling a spell that heals the wounded evil enough to turn you evil. Unless your using it for evil reasons of course, but I'm not sure how you do that beyond some weird flavor about letting evil into the world or such, but that's more of a setting specific fluff than a spell mechanic. Mechanically the spell doesn't turn you evil at all. I really can't stress that enough.
Casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. Using an [evil] item is an evil act.
SKR seems to disagree. Like any minor evil act, repeating it enough will shift your alignment.
Now, your GM might rule otherwise, but that would be a house rule in this case.
On that point, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, because I prefer a more relativistic view of alignment. From a pure RAW perspective, a spell with the [evil] descriptor is mechanically an evil act and will contribute to shifting your alignment toward evil if you perform evil acts often enough.
|
|
This spell would be more obviously evil if it had the Evil descriptor and required the blood of celestials as a component - no way a celestial would give its blood freely so you could cast an evil spell and not many ways you could get that blood yourself short of hurting/killing celestials, not really any way to package that without it being an evil act.
I don't see why an aasimar could not choose to use her own blood.
Like any minor evil act, repeating it enough will shift your alignment.
Now, your GM might rule otherwise, but that would be a house rule in this case.
On that point, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, because I prefer a more relativistic view of alignment. From a pure RAW perspective, a spell with the [evil] descriptor is mechanically an evil act and will contribute to shifting your alignment toward evil if you perform evil acts often enough.
I agree with Xaratherus's assessment here. An evil act by itself should not immediately turn a character's alignment evil. However, it could impact a paladin pretty negatively.
Again, I'm not keen on calling a spell that heals the wounded evil enough to turn you evil. Unless your using it for evil reasons of course, but I'm not sure how you do that beyond some weird flavor about letting evil into the world or such, but that's more of a setting specific fluff than a spell mechanic. Mechanically the spell doesn't turn you evil at all. I really can't stress that enough.Casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. Using an [evil] item is an evil act.[url="http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oap5&page=1?Is-the-use-of-a-spell-with-an-evil-descriptor"SKR seems to disagree[/url]. Like any minor evil act, repeating it enough will shift your alignment.
Now, your GM might rule otherwise, but that would be a house rule in this case. On that point, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, because I prefer a more relativistic view of alignment - but from a pure rules perspective, a spell with the [evil] descriptor is mechanically an evil act and will contribute to shifting your alignment toward evil if you perform evil acts often enough.
Missed my point. There isn't a magical number of evil spells cast that turns you evil. Nothing about the spell is evil beyond the [evil] descriptor. If he turned you evil for healing people something is horribly wrong from a meta perspective. Many things are evil acts, but most things don't turn you evil. The point at which you turn evil is DM's discretion, which is all dependent on the table and house rules. Some GMs will turn you evil for not tipping a waitress, others won't do it until you do something truly vile such as reveling in wanton destruction. Turning evil, unless its an actual mechanic such as a magical trap or curse such as the helm of opposite alignment, is a house rule and cannot be measured or described by the books. Maybe its a difference in our definitions.
This spell has always been awkward and brings up threads often. Is it the only [evil] spell that doesn't spread pain or blight in some fashion? The only reason I can find it to be evil (mechanically) is that it affects the way you detect the person.
Nothing about the spell is evil beyond the [evil] descriptor.
Assuming that the description on the SRD is accurate, then that's inaccurate. The spell says, "The target detects as an evil creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the evil of the magic..."
The spell itself is evil. The blood of the demon might or might not be evil, anointing (which can mean anything from putting a drop on the forehead to pouring it over the person's head) with it isn't necessarily evil, but the very essence of the spell apparently is.
Now, from a perspective of "What changes your alignment?" you're right that it's purely up to the GM when that might occur. For a majority of classes, it's not terribly punishing from a mechanics perspective even if you do become evil.
If I were running strictly by RAW (which I wouldn't do in this case), a character using Infernal Healing repeatedly could - would - eventually find his alignment shifting toward evil. If the character using it were seen by paladins, they'd likely confront the caster. People healed by it might be less than thankful for the caster's aid. And if the caster were divine in nature, even if she performed no other 'evil' acts, she would still wake up one day with a stern note from her god telling her that she's cut off.
Missed my point. There isn't a magical number of evil spells cast that turns you evil.
I think we can all agree that there is no magic number here. It is totally up to the GM how they want to implement this.
To the original poster's question... it is up to your GM how casting [Evil] descriptor spells will affect your character. It is up to him/her how casting this spell with noble intentions will affect your character.
The effects on alignment of any act undertaken by a PC are solely under the purview of the GM. Those are the RAW: they are deliberately designed to be subjective, which is why there are no "law points" or "evil points." The GM has to look at the character holistically, and make a judgement call. (Of course, it's good GMing to set expectations and ground-rules of how actions affect alignment before you start playing.)
Casting infernal healing, or any other spell with the [evil] descriptor is an evil act. It says so in RAW. How to interpret that specific evil act in the scope of the character as a whole is the GM's call.
I happen to love the spell infernal healing for its delicious irony. Casting this spell summons the power of evil incarnate to do something "good:" heal people! What I love is that this spell presents an inherent moral quandary: every time you cast the spell, and every time you receive the benefit of the spell, the magicks chew on your soul ever-so-slightly.
How I play this in my game: If you are under the effect of infernal healing, you feel both the physical pleasure of your wounds healing, but you also feel the rush of evil coursing through your body. You can't help but recall your grudges, your temptations, your schemes, and your ilicit desires-- they all come to the fore of your mind, and with them the realization that the same feeling of pleasure will come if you give in to your base desires. When the spell ends, the feeling fades... but that memory remains. This is how devils use infernal healing to tempt mortals into further acts of debasement.
Of course, that's fluff. Or, what I like to call "role-playing."
A good-aligned character who is true to her alignment would neither cast this spell nor would willingly accept the spell cast upon her. There are always alternatives: like the Heal skill, for starters. Or, rest.
If I were running strictly by RAW (which I wouldn't do in this case), a character using Infernal Healing repeatedly could - would - eventually find his alignment shifting toward evil. If the character using it were seen by paladins, they'd likely confront the caster. People healed by it might be less than thankful for the caster's aid. And if the caster were divine in nature, even if she performed no other 'evil' acts, she would still wake up one day with a stern note from her god telling her that she's cut off.
I think your adding your own flavor to it. Normal people don't have spell craft to know what healed them. Most people would be pretty thankful to be healed from a wound. At worst they might feel icky for a moment, but again that's flavor and not to do with the spell. Paladin's certainly don't scan everyone they see, and it takes 5 HD before you even pop up on the radar(and then your faint, and probably not "kill on sight" or "stern talking to", but that's another discussion). Your also committing a good act by healing someone. Divine casters can't use Infernal healing if they're good aligned. Neutral gods probably wouldn't care either way.
As Patricious said, its up to your GM because its all flavor and fluff. I'm usually against putting too much pressure on this sort of thing, because its feels more like something controlled by whim than anything else.
That explains it, then. Thanks. Didn't know that.I've also run into confusion about where the spell comes from. I've had GMs who believed it was only available to worshippers of Asmodeus, because they assumed it came from the Cheliax book. It's in the inner sea guide (and an older book, I think).
It was originally printed in AP issue #29, in the article on Asmodeus, and was part of a section of spells specific to Asmodeus-worshippers.
Later printings have omitted the deity-specificness (like a few other such spells from other deity-articles, when reprinted).
For the record, it was first printed in Gods & Magic, then reprinted in AP #29 - all Asmodeus specific. Then it was given to anyone under the sun in the Inner Sea Guide.
Normal people don't have spell craft to know what healed them. Most people would be pretty thankful to be healed from a wound. At worst they might feel icky for a moment, but again that's flavor and not to do with the spell.
The spell description that I quoted (and as I said, this is from the SRD; I don't have the source book in front of me, so the SRD's text could be wrong) says the target innately senses that what just happened to them was evil. I don't really see that as an opinion, just application of the spell as it's described.
As for paladins, Detect Evil is not the only way through which they could identify this; Spellcraft could identify the spell (and since they have healing capabilities themselves, I'd argue that an intelligent paladin might take an interest of seeing someone healing wounds through a method with which they're unfamiliar).
As Patricious said, its up to your GM because its all flavor and fluff. I'm usually against putting too much pressure on this sort of thing, because its feels more like something controlled by whim than anything else.
Well, like I said repeatedly, I wouldn't run it in such a strict manner either. I generally house rule away the [evil] descriptor on spells that aren't inherently evil in their method of casting or their results.