|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I only consider what alignment is written on a player's character sheet in 2 specific instances. First, at character creation to help me get a sense of the character. After that, the characters actions is the clear indicator of their alignment. If the real alignment is drifting pretty far from the "stated" alignment, I'll have a talk and make sure they are aware of the path on which they are walking and of the consequences of that path. Secondly, when a characters class is bound by alignment, I.e. Pallys, Clerics, etc. The first action out of alignment, gets immediate repercussions, whether they realized it or not.
As for Infernal Healing, it's evil. In my campaign, if you worship a good-aligned god and you cast that spell, you just lost your cleric powers for the day and you will have some serious praying to do to get them back. The concept of using a "evil" spell to do a good "act" is Machiavellian. It is, at best, a neutral act. A good-aligned person does not use evil for any purpose. It corrupts the soul of both the caster and recipient. As a matter of fact, I'd make the recipient roll to resist the spell if it was a good-aligned NPC. If I was dying and someone offered to save me but only if I let satan into my being, I'd like to think I'd say, "no, thank you". I imagine (and hope) I'll never be tested in that manner.
Honestly, most people in the real world are probably neutral in their alignment. They want to be good, but in those moments of crisis they go into self-preservation mode... or begin the argument of the ends justifying the means. The good-aligned person would sacrifice themselves to protect others and to protect their own soul.
If you think the spell descriptor is fluff, you're right. But this is a role-playing game, and the designers are giving us material to role play. If you like the effects of the spell and want good aligned characters to be able to cast it, research a "celestial healing" spell, just as others have suggested. Or just ignore the descriptor, and have fun with the game. But arguing that doing an evil act, even with good intentions, is perfectly ok for a good person, is just wrong.
I don't get this whole thread. What really is the problem here?
When someone makes a character, he's probably thinking about who that character is and what he wants to do with his life. Yeah, for some people, a character is just a bunch of numbers on a sheet, but for most gamers it's more than that - it's a representation of a person who lives in a world and who had beliefs, ethics, morals, behaviors, goals, dreams, etc.
If a player has any inkling of that kind of stuff, that should right there suggest an alignment (and if he has no inkling, he should get one or he should go back to video games where it normally doesn't matter - I'm not bashing video games, I love those too).
For example, if you want to play an assassin who kills people for money, fine, but that should suggest an alignment that is definitely not good. If you want to play a sweet champion of purity holy warrior, that probably suggests an alignment that isn't evil.
Take it farther. Figure out your character. Think about who he or she is. Once you have that, pick an alignment that fits this character.
Vice versa, don't pick an alignment and then describe a personality that doesn't fit it.
In other words, your alignment is just one describing detail of your character and it should FIT IN with all the other details.
This is not a difficult concept.
Who creates a character like this: "Well, I want to be a wizard who summons demons and animates corpses so I can kill everyone and turn them into undead minions and rule the world! Oh, and I'm chaotic good."
Answer: Nobody. Well, nobody who understands roleplaying games and has any inkling of what alignment means.
Sure, that's an overly-dramatic example, but the OP's question is really just exactly the same thing on a bit of a smaller scale. What he's done is created a character concept that includes his character somehow being "good" but doing "evil" things.
This is mutually incompatible. One or the other needs to change. If he wants to keep doing evil things, then obviously the "good" alignment is an inaccurate description and should change to an alignment that is more accurate. Or, if the "good" alignment is accurate, then this character should abhor committing evil acts, especially repeatedly doing so.
TL;dr:
Your character is one package. Behavior is part of the package. Alignment is part of the package. Figure out what that package is and keep it internally consistent.
It really is that easy.
arguing that doing an evil act, even with good intentions, is perfectly ok for a good person, is just wrong.
That's an opinion. Morality and Ethics are highly subjective subjects. Healing someone is a good thing to do usually. Stabbing people is usually bad. Circumstances can change things wildly.
Your character is one package. Behavior is part of the package. Alignment is part of the package. Figure out what that package is and keep it internally consistent.
Yeah, but then you run into a weird thing like "I heal people, this makes me evil." Infernal healing is awkward like that. Raising the dead to conquer the world is usually pretty evil, selfish, and quite possibly malevolent. Raising the dead because the locals have no army and demons are invading is probably not as malevolent or selfish. Easily controversial or pragmatic however.
Your character is one package. Behavior is part of the package. Alignment is part of the package. Figure out what that package is and keep it internally consistent.Yeah, but then you run into a weird thing like "I heal people, this makes me evil." Infernal healing is awkward like that. Raising the dead to conquer the world is usually pretty evil, selfish, and quite possibly malevolent. Raising the dead because the locals have no army and demons are invading is probably not as malevolent or selfish. Easily controversial or pragmatic however.
I thought this had already been answered. Paizo officially says it's evil to use the spell. Using evil for a good cause when absolutely necessary is ultimately justifiable, but any good individual would consider it a last resort.
Buy potions, wands, hireling healers, heal kits, whatever it takes. Don't use evil to handle routine problems. This is the path to evil. According to Paizo.
Raising the dead once, as a last resort, to defeat a demonic invasion (clearly a greater evil) can be justifiable, but raising the dead to routinely kill any old orc that wanders by would not be. Likewise, using Infernal Healing as a last resort to save an innocent might be justifiable, but using it routinely to heal any old injury any old time would not be.
Would not be justifiable to a "good" character.
Again, the character is a package. Behavior and alignment are two parts of the whole package. They need to be internally consistent. Saying "I'm good but I routinely do evil things and don't care" is an internally inconsistent description. One of those things needs to change, either the alignment or the behavior.
I am not saying which must change. That's up to the player to figure out his own character.
I'm not even saying that any of this applies to the OP's game, since ultimately his DM sets all these rules anyway, and it's perfectly within that DM's right to say "Infernal Healing isn't evil" or even to say "Gosh, it's perfectly fine for good people to evil things whenever they want to as long as their character sheet says they're good people", or whatever else.
But, outside of DM interpretation, following what Paizo has said and what they've printed in their books, the spell is evil, using it is evil, routinely using it is in conflict with being a good person, and the alignment you write on your character sheet should be a guideline for how your character would behave, hence, the OP wrote "good" and yet is not playing according to Paizo's established guidelines for "good".
If the DM doesn't make allowance for it at his table, then the OP is behaving in a fashion inconsistent with his chosen alignment.
Following up what I've been saying, I still don't see why this is a big deal.
If I were playing the magus in this game, and I as a player have decided that my magus wants to routinely use evil spells, AND I had "good" written in the alignment spot on my sheet, I would realize that I wasn't being "good" anymore and replace that "good" alignment with a "neutral" one.
It's as simple as that.
It would be like "Well, I started out thinking I was a good guy, and maybe I still am overall, but my attitude that the ends justify the means and my willingness to deliberately and routinely commit evil acts, even in the cause of eventual good, clearly means that I'm walking the gray area between good and evil, hence, I'm obviously neutral."
And that would be the end of it. No angst. No problem.
Following up what I've been saying, I still don't see why this is a big deal.
If I were playing the magus in this game, and I as a player have decided that my magus wants to routinely use evil spells, AND I had "good" written in the alignment spot on my sheet, I would realize that I wasn't being "good" anymore and replace that "good" alignment with a "neutral" one.
It's as simple as that.
It would be like "Well, I started out thinking I was a good guy, and maybe I still am overall, but my attitude that the ends justify the means and my willingness to deliberately and routinely commit evil acts, even in the cause of eventual good, clearly means that I'm walking the gray area between good and evil, hence, I'm obviously neutral."
And that would be the end of it. No angst. No problem.
Why is it a big deal to mess with a player's character sheet? Do you routinely change their race, age, and class? These are things that defined a character and are what the player created and owns. Its not walking the area between good and evil like someone who routinely does pragmatic acts of violence to resolve issues or someone who doesn't care for morality in the slightest.
There is always a chance at angst when you mess with someone's character sheet. More so over a single spell. I could understand if he was pragmatic in several areas, but one decision usually doesn't make you irrevocably neutral. Its like saying a lack of table manners makes you irrevocably chaotic, and therefore they can't be a monk. It takes one trait and blows it way out of proportion. Now when he starts saying other evil spells are okay, particularly the ones with the [pain] descriptor that are meant to torture, then its getting sketchy. I was pretty insulted when I heard a DM tell me he was going to rewrite my character as good(instead of neutral) because I didn't actively let my teammates die. Never mind the fact I would be a complete jerk as a player to not do anything. "I'm sorry, I can't do anything for you. I'm neutral." is not a good way to play I don't think.
He's saying that he, if he was the player, would do that once it became a regular occurrence (not that he, as the DM, would do it after one incident). Which I agree with, and would also have done in a similar situation.
I agree, blake. IMO, it's a big deal because: metagaming.
Infernal healing is one of the cheapest and easiest ways to get hp back. particularly wands of infernal healing which are on average, twice as effective as wands of cure light for healing out of combat. People want to be able to benefit from Infernal Healing and are using the fact that it's healing as an excuse to try to preserve their alignments.
People want to be able to benefit from Infernal Healing and are using the fact that it's healing as an excuse to try to preserve their alignments.
If we start blaming power gaming this conversation can only go south.
|
|
If we start blaming power gaming this conversation can only go south.People want to be able to benefit from Infernal Healing and are using the fact that it's healing as an excuse to try to preserve their alignments.
I prefer to blame pragmatism.
A group of adventurers is going to use what works and question the source afterwards.
Pragmatism tends towards true neutral.
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.Yes, the creators houserule is a houserule.The statement "killing babies is evil" is just as unsupported by the rules as "casting evil spells is evil".
Following just mechanics, it will not turn you evil ever.Neither will massmurdering babies. There is no mechanic to turn anyone evil AFAIK, apart from Atonement (and that requires willingness) and helmet of opposite alignment, if that is still in PF.
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
Seconded like crazy. The idea that subjective, abstract, unquantifiable things like 'good' and 'evil' can be measured is absolutely ridiculous to me. To use a buzzword, it breaks my immersion.
|
|
Seconded like crazy. The idea that subjective, abstract, unquantifiable things like 'good' and 'evil' can be measured is absolutely ridiculous to me. To use a buzzword, it breaks my immersion.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
The denizens of several of the "lower" planes of existence agree with you.
Daemons are not evil, they just have a different moral center.
Seconded like crazy. The idea that subjective, abstract, unquantifiable things like 'good' and 'evil' can be measured is absolutely ridiculous to me. To use a buzzword, it breaks my immersion.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
That's why I say its arbitrary when that magic number that turns you evil happens. Its hard to measure beyond whim. The moment you start hard coding what is evil or good, you have a good chance to infringe on someone's or a cultures personal ideas.
Did someone just infer someone is a daemon?
is casting "Infernal Healing" any more evil than "Not using a crosswalk" is chaotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@OP:
The rules
By the rules alignment-descriptors have no effect on your character, at all. It may determine what spell you can cast, if you're a cleric, but that is all. It is NOT an evil action to cast an [Evil] spell, it does nothing to your alignment.
The other sources
JJ has stated that using an [Evil] spell is an evil action, however that does not stop a good character from doing it.
My opinion
Arguing that descriptors affect your character is utterly ridiculous. If an [Evil] spell is gonna make me evil, a [Good] spell should make me good, a [Lawful] spell should make me lawful, and a [Chaotic] spell should make me chaotic. Not gonna happen.
In about 7 out of 10 cases, I consider the argument that descriptors should affect characters, weak, poorly thought out whining by bad DMs who're afraid that their players employ evil magic, thereby taking a slightly less heroic approach to the DMs railroad plot, and threatening the DMs predetermined narrative.
I say that if casting [Evil] magic makes me evil (even if it happens over a loooooong time), then casting a [Fire] spell should make me more fire. And slowly my character should turn into an elemental, and gain the outsider template after his 500th fireball. And people who cast [Cold] spells should get colder, and start sneezing and spewing snot everywhere, and frequent users of [Acid] spells should turn more acidic, and start burning a hole into the ground where they stand, just slowly sinking into the core of Golarion.
It would make about as much sense as [Evil] turning you evil or [Good] turning you good.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, SKR has stated it as well, and has gone on to state that spells with the Lawful, Good, Chaotic, etc. descriptors count inherently as Lawful, Good, Chaotic, etc. actions - as does actually using a magic item with a specific alignment\descriptor (simply possessing it does not).
From a designer RAI perspective, using Infernal Healing is an evil action, even if you're doing it because it's the only way to save the life of the holiest man in Golarion; using an [Evil] sword to defeat the Lord of Hell, who is about to eat an entire convent of nuns, because it's the only weapon at hand, is still an evil action.
So while I agree with your overall sentiment (but not necessarily the way you phrased it; more than a bit abrasive there), apparently the designers are "bad DMs" since they're making the arguments themselves. If the "weak, poorly thought-out" arguments are being used by the designers to justify how the descriptors are intended to function, I'd question why you're bothering to play the game they created?
:P
I totally agree that it could have been phrased in a much more diplomatic fashion. I made sure to include that it was just my opinion, but I have yet to see an argument 'for' descriptors affecting characters, that I can agree with. I remember reading the thread where SKR mentioned what you said, and I remember Ashiel shooting him down, hard. Like, just wrecking the argument, and people jumping on SKRs side, and I thought: why?!, because I saw 0 compelling arguments FOR it, and and alot of good points made against it.
I really, genuinely don't believe it makes a lick of sense. I get it that its cool if evil leads to evil, but I believe there are better ways to employ that narrative than going all Krynn on the system, and enforcing silly caricature alignments and having them stick to the magic system like treesap. I'm always afraid that it leads to the resurgence of "The Black Robes of EVUL!", y'know?
Oh, and I play Pathfinder because I think it's an awesome system, and basically what D&D had needed for quite awhile :), So while I sometimes agree with the designers, the whole [Evil] is evil nonsense, is a point where they and I shall never agree, until such a day that someone, somewhere, makes a compelling argument that it should be a part of the rules.
Sorry if my language in the above post rubbed you the wrong way :)
-Nearyn
you know when it gets ugly
ig you are neutral good magus with a NG black blade and you start casting infernal healing. it might now want to fight for you anny more. i mean drinking a pint of blood.... it might just not want to fight for you any more !!
Except that doesn't make any sense. If you're doing something that harms no one and the end results are good, how does that result in a neutral act? Heck, when one reads the alignment descriptions, they describe what makes people good, neutral, and evil. "Spell Choice" isn't there, but what the character VALUES is. So how is regularly casting a spell that HELPS people and not changing one's good VALUES somehow make someone neutral or evil?
I've always found evil spells turning you evil almost entirely arbitrary. I get that there's a fluff behind it, but I'd rather be judged by what the spell does and what I do with the spell, than by an arbitrary tag. Infernal healing is easily one of the more absurd examples.
has it always been like that?
I just throw it in the same pile as the other silly "Inherently evil acts" bits of nonsense, alongside "Drinking blood is okay, but if you gain any power from it it's EEEEEVIIIILLLL!!!!!!" and "Hitting Neutral babies with Holy Smite and killing them increases your Good quotient, good on ya, mate!" and other such bull-hockey.
Except that doesn't make any sense. If you're doing something that harms no one and the end results are good, how does that result in a neutral act? Heck, when one reads the alignment descriptions, they describe what makes people good, neutral, and evil. "Spell Choice" isn't there, but what the character VALUES is. So how is regularly casting a spell that HELPS people and not changing one's good VALUES somehow make someone neutral or evil?I've always found evil spells turning you evil almost entirely arbitrary. I get that there's a fluff behind it, but I'd rather be judged by what the spell does and what I do with the spell, than by an arbitrary tag. Infernal healing is easily one of the more absurd examples.
has it always been like that?
Yes, though it never should have been.
Am I the only one who looks at infernal healing as intentionally desecrating a living being with the foul blood of a being of pure evil? Never mind the direct immediate effect of the spell, there's no way that that isn't some black magic right there.
D&D isn't a morally relativistic reality, Good and Evil are demonstrably real as are the divine beings that embody them.
I'll also argue that "pragmatic" is an excellent descriptor for a neutral character. Someone who uses evil spells - or commits other evil acts - in the process of trying to achieve some greater good is a neutral character. That doesn't mean that that character isn't interesting or enjoyable to roleplay; but he's not one of the really Good people in the world either.
D&D isn't a morally relativistic reality, Good and Evil are demonstrably real as are the divine beings that embody them.
That however is all dependent on who is making the setting. The god of breathing says breathing is evil, should you stop breathing? Or would you deem it arbitrary and just take the morals you like? Its as morally relativistic as you make it.
Explain to me going by the alignment section how Infernal Healing is evil or how using it for Good makes one neutral.
There isn't a good reason beyond arbitrary fluff and titles. Healing 10 hps isn't evil unless you go out of your way to make it evil.
Edit: Why was this necro'd!?
People have said the same about surgery. Some might say the same about using maggots to clean a wound. Or the insertion of human waste to improve the digestive tract's bacterial balance.
That's true. But none of those things come from an objectively, tangibly evil source. And while real-world people may *believe* that something is demonic, they cannot demonstrate such - a Pathfinder NPC can show that devils, demons, and the incarnate Evil that is associated with them is real (in their reality).
Infernal Healing isn't evil because it's healing, because of (or in spite of) the motivations for its use; it's evil because the source of the power is Evil.
D&D isn't a morally relativistic reality, Good and Evil are demonstrably real as are the divine beings that embody them.That however is all dependent on who is making the setting. The god of breathing says breathing is evil, should you stop breathing? Or would you deem it arbitrary and just take the morals you like? Its as morally relativistic as you make it.
Well, if you make a custom setting that is true. However, in all published first party settings for D&D and Pathfinder, morals are objective (though a little more uncertain in Eberron). Just like how the statement "pathfinder is a fantasy game" is all dependant on the setting.
The rules treat morals as objective though, and in those rules, Infernal Healing is objectively evil. That doesn't mean anyone who casts it is evil, or that the evil in casting it outweighs the good in saving a dying child through the healing it grants, it just means the casting itself has a taint of evil.
Explain to me going by the alignment section how Infernal Healing is evil or how using it for Good makes one neutral.There isn't a good reason beyond arbitrary fluff and titles. Healing 10 hps isn't evil unless you go out of your way to make it evil.
Edit: Why was this necro'd!?
The alignment section isn't the only section that deals with alignment though. As has been stated by the devs.
Also, all fluff and titles are to some degree arbitrary. It's a made-up game, everything has at one point or another just been decided "it is because it is", or "it is because some other reason we arbitrarily designed".
But let's say you use an evil power source to....build some aqueducts to provide water to a city. Is it evil just because the construction ran off the converted magical energies of a few demon horns?
Yes. In Golarion and all other worlds close to the PFRPG rules, using evil spells to good ends is still an evil act. It can be a good act at the same time, though, and the good may be larger than the evil (and HOW good or evil something is is up to the DM).
We only run with alignments in one of our games, but there for example, casting infernal healing is an evil act, but a wizard who used it often to save dying children - and never for other purposes - would probably be a good wizard (nothing else accounted for). Because saving the lives of children is a larger good deed than casting infernal evil is evil. One who continually and freely used it to heal himself would slowly slip towards evil, though.
It may not be the way you'd like the game to be - and feel free to change it in your home games, (we more often than not simply ignore alignments), but that's the baseline of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What it really comes down to is that Pathfinder has objective evil. Doing good with a spell or weapon that draws its power from an evil deity is evil; the moral platitude of "the ends justify the means" doesn't reign in Golarion, it's "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
For those of us who prefer shades of gray with morality, it will grate on our sense of immersion - and we'll probably toss it out.
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.
A touch from your hand, which glows with blue energy, disrupts the life force of living creatures. Each touch channels negative energy that deals 1d6 points of damage. The touched creature also takes 1 point of Strength damage unless it makes a successful Fortitude saving throw.
Soooo, you are saying healing somebody's wounds, who got injured while trying to save "the world" (like a paladin trying to stop the BBEG) with the spell "Infernal Healing" is an evil act. However, disrupting the lifeforce of a creature by using negative energy is not? How so?
By that line of reasoning the entire school of Necromancy should be [evil] per default...Vampiric touch is even worse as far as it's description goes: you are succing someone else's life away (not temporary) to give yourself a temporary life-bonus. I can't find any [evil] tag on that one either? Sounds a lot more evil to me then Infernal Healing...
It get's worse:
If you are successful, your life force occupies the host body, and the host's life force is imprisoned in the magic jar.
You take over (as in stealing) somebody else's body and imprison him in a damn crystal!!! How can this not be [evil]??? Why is this not tagged [evil]?
I'm all for saying it depends on what your goal is. You can't say "oh, he's evil because he killed one guy to save hundreds of lives".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You take over (as in stealing) somebody else's body and imprison him in a damn crystal!!! How can this not be [evil]??? Why is this not tagged [evil]?Well it definitely isn't as evil as merely projecting your consciousness into a shadow. I mean..come on, that's obvious!
My assumption? Because the [evil] tag isn't determined by the apparent 'morality' of the act, but from the source.
Infernal Healing isn't evil because you're smearing demon blood on someone; it's evil because it stems from Asmodeus' power.
Arcane spells with the [evil] tag (are there any?) would be a bit harder to determine.
You take over (as in stealing) somebody else's body and imprison him in a damn crystal!!! How can this not be [evil]??? Why is this not tagged [evil]?Well it definitely isn't as evil as merely projecting your consciousness into a shadow. I mean..come on, that's obvious!My assumption? Because the [evil] tag isn't determined by the apparent 'morality' of the act, but from the source.
Infernal Healing isn't evil because you're smearing demon blood on someone; it's evil because it stems from Asmodeus' power.
Arcane spells with the [evil] tag (are there any?) would be a bit harder to determine.
Infernal Healing IS an arcane spell. Shadow Projection IS an arcane spell. I believe we've only been talking about arcane spells here.
This is almost only an arcane issue, since only arcane casters can cast spells tagged with an alignment opposed to their own.
Untrue. Inquisitors and Oracles are divine casters that lack the alignment restriction text in their spell-casting section. Infernal Healing (specifically) appears on the Oracle spell list.
As someone pointed out earlier, Infernal Healing originally came about as a spell only available to worshipers of Asmodeus (Gods and Magic, pg. 7) - so in that particular instance, it's a divine or arcane spell that stems from a divine source.
In this case, I think "minor act of evil" means "It's evil enough you can't get this power by being a good cleric." Nothing in the spell description suggests that if the spell is used judiciously, even casually, it will cause an alignment shift so long as you are scrupulous about the source of the devil blood. Using this spell as a casual necessity is, in the balance, a neutral act (evil act of casting the spell balanced by the good act of healing someone) and no number of essentially neutral acts is going to turn a good person evil, or even neutral, provided they are still Good when the chips are down.
The only person who is both capable of and who cares about this "minor act of evil" is either a paladin with one level of sorcerer, or someone who has problems with increasingly less minor acts of evil in the first place.
It is possible that the spell is Evil because it requires you to learn it at the feat of an archdevil, but it doesn't actually say that.
As someone pointed out earlier, Infernal Healing originally came about as a spell only available to worshipers of Asmodeus (Gods and Magic, pg. 7) - so in that particular instance, it's a divine or arcane spell that stems from a divine source.
That's not how arcane works last I checked. Arcane magic is learned or comes from people, if you have a setting with no divine magic you can still cast infernal healing, or Nethys's channel the gift. Arcane spells limited to certain deities don't really make much sense...
As someone pointed out earlier, Infernal Healing originally came about as a spell only available to worshipers of Asmodeus (Gods and Magic, pg. 7) - so in that particular instance, it's a divine or arcane spell that stems from a divine source.Noop. Not how arcane magic works. If I cast "detect magic" as a wizard, it isn't coming from a god just because a cleric gets their detect magic from one.
Nothing in Detect Magic hints at the power coming from a divine source, but there's a lot of spell effects that are dependant on outside sources. For example, the monster you summon with summon monster stems from an actual creature outside of the wizard, and the answers you get from a Contact Other Planes stems from an outside (sometimes divine) source.
There are loads of power sources that arcane casters use. In its original printing, it is implied that infernal healing to some degree has a divine source (much like the answers from a contact other planes) in that only worshippers of Asmodeus can cast the spell.
Also, there are tons of arcane spells with alignment tags. Well, maybe not TONS, but a lot.
There are quiet a few. I'm actually not sure if the cleric or the wizard has more. Some make more sense, like spreading plague has very few uses for good that I would know, but others make less, like infernal healing or shadow projection. As someone said earlier, most of necromancy should be evil by the standards some people have them at(Enervation and vampiric touch for instance.)
|
I like that casting this spell is considered a minor evil act, but being the recipient (even receiving it 1000 times) is not in the least bit evil.
If the descriptor makes it an evil act (even though it's being cast to save someone's life), it's good to know that casting holy smite (regardless of intent) will move my alignment meter just a smidgen to the good side.
Yay! Now I can depopulate whole villages full of neutral peasants with repeated holy smites, all in my quest to be uber good!!!
Or, maybe I can do something truly meaningless like cast protection from evil on random goats just to get me back on the righteous path...
|
Oh, here's something even better. When a Lawful Good [Evil] outside helps an old lady across the street, is there [Evil] going on there? We're using [Evil] stuff to do good things, yes? And that's a pretty minor one. (Rules say [Evil] critters can be good, after all -- it's just rare). Since such a character is using his [Evil] body to do things, doesn't that impinge on everything he does? Maybe doing good can overwhelm it, but it would seem if he....brushed his teeth or ate his dinner then those would be evil acts. By similar reasoning to the spells. Oh, and let's not forget that any attack he makes is [Evil!]. So if he goes hunting to eat some rabbit for dinner, then he evils it up.
There's a story in here, and I'm going to use it.
I always viewed spell descriptors as affecting the target of the spell rather than the spell caster.
For example [Fire] spells typically release heat into the target of the spell, so an [Evil] spell would release "evil" energies into the target of the spell. If anyone is going to have a chance for an alignment change it would be the target of the spell rather than the caster as the infernal healing repairs the target's body but darkens their soul.
That's all fluff of course, but if alignment based spell descriptors actually had an effect that's how I'd see it.
Nothing in Infernal Healing, Shadow Projection, or Summon Monster hints that it comes from a Divine Source.
Note that with "divine source", in this case, we don't mean as in divine magic - just that the spell in question has effects that are linked to an outside power/creature/whatever, that in this case happens to be divine (the original writeup of the spell stating that it is only usable by the faithful of Asmodeus).
Neither shadow projection nor summon monster does this, though summon monster has is linked to specific existing creatures. So when using summon monster to summon a deva, it's linked to that very deva - likewise, infernal healing in it's original writeup is linked to Asmodeus somehow. That Asmodeus happens be divine is more or less a coincidence.
If one wants to have the rules make sense, it's thus very easy to explain it by extrapolating on this connection; for example, by assuming that it's connection to Asmodeus is in that for example Asmodeus blesses the blood in question, and that bringing this blessing into the world empowers Asmodeus directly, thus explaining why the spell is evil.
Some spells just are by their very nature. Why is Burning Arc a [fire] spell? Because it's a _burning_ arch. Why is Infernal Healing an [evil] spell? Because it's infernal.
Saying that it makes no sense that infernal healing is an [evil] spell and makes targets evil is a bit like saying it makes no sense that burning arc is a [fire] spell and causes fire damage. It might as well have been an acid arc or a mushroom arc - the decision is completely arbitrary, just like in this case. Either we can extrapolate the fluff from the rules or just decide the rules aren't up to the job and change them; but I don't see the usage in saying they "don't make sense".
Why is burning arc a fire spell? It doesn't make sense! Well it deals fire damage, but why does it do that when it could have dealt acid damage? It doesn't make sense! etc etc etc
Using Demon Blood to do some healing doesn't mean some god is helping you out. The spell does nothing to indicate otherwise. And of course the text changed when it became arcane, because the divine source part wasn't guaranteed anymore.
Putting your consciousness into your own shadow and animating it to move about has no hint of anything divine.
Grabbing some dudes from the outer planes as day laborers using magic doesn't require any entity on the plane to sign off on it.
Contact other plane? Talking to some dude with a lot of mojo ain't good or evil man. On this the book agrees; no alignment tags. Granted, most those fellows be jerks -- needs a [Kick Me] tag.
Arcane casters don't power spells from divine sources. If they did, those spells would be divine spells. That's the definition of...
Going back to the older part of this thread...
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 ....
And also...
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?
Within the world of D&D and PF, this makes a lot more sense than it seems. [Good] is "Whatever the Good Deities say it is," same as [Evil] is "Whatever the Evil deities are involved in." It's picking a team.
Where does alignment matter? It only matters in two cases of which I am aware: 1) Asking one of those deities (or their servants) for a favor; 2) When someone detects your alignment, or uses another spell or effect that is alignment based, such as "Protection from X". There is a proxy war going on for the Prime Material plane in most of these settings. Older settings like Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms are rather direct in having the Gods attempt to come down directly and take part, while other settings have more subtle interplays (I haven't read up on Golarion, so I can't comment on how overt the war is there), but make no mistake -- the Deities are doing their thing to gain worshipers and influence over the Prime Material Plane in order to accrue whatever Deity Points they use to keep score. More points is more power and grants some advantage to that side somewhere.
Now, certain acts adhere to the ideals of one of those sides. Those acts will color your aura, and they grant points to the associated Deity. Certain spells use energy from one of those planes -- drawing in Infernal Power™ will grant additional influence to the Evil side over the Prime Material. It is inherently Evil, and also colors your aura towards that side. So Darkbad? If he can cast enough [Good] spells, he might cloud up his aura enough with lingering Good energy to slip into the Paladin Temple. He'd also be scoring points for the other side while he did it, and the Deities in question might not approve.