Good Afternoon Fellow Gamers,
When you use Infernal Healing, you gain some hit points, but also ping as evil.
Would you be subject to a paladin's Smite Evil ability for the duration of the spell?
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon
Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
Although it could be more clear, an evil creature for the purposes of smite evil is a creature with an actual evil alignment or who has the [evil] descriptor; see the emphasized portion in the above text. Infernal Healing does not alter the target's alignment, nor does it add the [evil] subtype to the creature.
So the Paladin would detect the target of Infernal Healing as having a mildly evil aura, but Smite Evil would not have an affect on the target (assuming of course that the target is not actually evil-aligned or does not have the [evil] descriptor).
It does present some interesting combat possibilities for an evil-aligned caster being chased by a Paladin: Run into a hospital and start healing everyone with Infernal Healing. :P Since they ping as evil I'd require a check for the Paladin to realize that they aren't actually evil beings, and it could cause him to waste some Smites, heh.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a Lawful Stupid paladin myself, when I do my rounds in the local hospital (going from ward to ward, detecting evil on individuals as a move action (or possibly a full-round action), murdering all those who register as evil, and laying hands on those who don't) I don't waste my smites. Most hospital patients are pretty easy to finish off. Even if they're not helpless, I can usually get in a surprise round.
Wouldn't healing people while on the run count as a selfless act? Possibly changing the caster's alignment? :D
Yes, but casting Infernal Healing is an evil act so it cancels out.
|
Wouldn't healing people while on the run count as a selfless act? Possibly changing the caster's alignment? :D
Is it really selfless if you are using the act as a shield to escape harm from an enemy that would otherwise detect you? It's called created a diversion. The intent is not to ease suffering or mend the sick, it is to escape by any means available...
|
|
Speaking as a Lawful Stupid paladin myself, when I do my rounds in the local hospital (going from ward to ward, detecting evil on individuals as a move action (or possibly a full-round action), murdering all those who register as evil, and laying hands on those who don't) I don't waste my smites. Most hospital patients are pretty easy to finish off. Even if they're not helpless, I can usually get in a surprise round.
This sounds like sarcasm but it's hard to tell being the interwebz. With that said, assuming it was in all seriousness, murdering even those to register as evil, would in itself be an evil act and should be handled accordingly.
|
Perhaps Infernal Healing works by sending that damage, in the form of torture, to suffering souls in some lower plane... Perhaps that's why Paladins and Good Clerics are not OK with it.
Ursula Le Guin wrote a famous short story with a similar theme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Infernal Healing transfers the injuries to an innocent soul trapped in hell. Every time you use it, it weakens the barriers protecting the world from a demonic invasion. Also, a kitten dies.
Infernal Healing transfers the injuries to an innocent soul trapped in hell. Every time you use it, it weakens the barriers protecting the world from a demonic invasion. Also, a kitten dies.
The spell doesn't say it does anything of the sort.
Plus, if the soul is in hell, doesn't that by definition mean it's not innocent?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Infernal Healing transfers the injuries to an innocent soul trapped in hell. Every time you use it, it weakens the barriers protecting the world from a demonic invasion. Also, a kitten dies.The spell doesn't say it does anything of the sort.
No, but it does say that it's evil.
You can figure out for yourself why it's evil -- MD just provided one possible reason.
if the soul is in hell, doesn't that by definition mean it's not innocent?
There are quite a few creatures in the Golarion who seem to be able to steal people's souls and sell them to evil outsiders - Night Hags and so forth. I wouldn't count on the afterlife being particularly just.
The subject of evil healing reminds me of the ethical paradox where there are four patients in a hospital, all dying because they need organ transplants and there aren't enough donors. Is it OK for their doctor to murder a hobo and harvest his organs in order to save four lives?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Infernal Healing transfers the injuries to an innocent soul trapped in hell. Every time you use it, it weakens the barriers protecting the world from a demonic invasion. Also, a kitten dies.The spell doesn't say it does anything of the sort.No, but it does say that it's evil.
You can figure out for yourself why it's evil -- MD just provided one possible reason.
Or, I can realize there's nothing evil about the spell and remove the descriptor because it makes no sense.
If you're discussing RAW, the concept of "the ends justify the means" and "you can't do evil to the willing" are false. There are certain actions in Pathfinder that are evil - period. It doesn't matter if taking the evil action would prevent some greater evil from occurring - the action is still evil.
Of course, I also think the alignment system tends to be bunk, but that's neither here nor there.
'Making someone regain hit points' would not seem to be one of them.
if the soul is in hell, doesn't that by definition mean it's not innocent?There are quite a few creatures in the Golarion who seem to be able to steal people's souls and sell them to evil outsiders - Night Hags and so forth. I wouldn't count on the afterlife being particularly just.
The subject of evil healing reminds me of the ethical paradox where there are four patients in a hospital, all dying because they need organ transplants and there aren't enough donors. Is it OK for their doctor to murder a hobo and harvest his organs in order to save four lives?
The fact that you ask this question instead of knowing the answer, woke my paladin up from in between sessions. Despite the obvious proof you just produced he is scanning you with detect evil right now.
And yes he swift actioned a smite and took a 5 foot step in your direction and if I were you I'd start running or hiding because the pain is coming.But seriously: a doctor takes the oath of hippocrates which states 'Do no Harm' and are told next that sometimes you need to step back and realise if treatment is more damaging, then not treating a patient.
No way in hell does killing someone for the single purpose to harvest their organs ever agrees with the hippocratic oath.
Has anyone actually bothered to read the effect of Infernal Healing?
It doesn't heal you. It gives you Fast Healing 1 for ten rounds. Fast Healing that doesn't apply to damage inflicted by either Silver or Good aligned weapons. It has the 'Evil' descriptor & causes you to 'ping' mildly evil for a while afterwards because it is effectively splicing a small shard of Hell to you for the duration, granting you some of the physical qualities of a Devil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fast Healing is, by definition, healing (despite the fact that I'm not so sure about fast food). It's right there in the name, 'fast healing'.
As to your argument, well, assumes facts not in evidence.
'Making someone regain hit points' would not seem to be one of them.
This particular method of 'making someone regain hit points' is inarguably marked with the [Evil] descriptor, and the comments of several designers have indicated that makes it an evil action. So from a RAW perspective, you're flat wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but casting Infernal Healing is an evil act so it cancels out.
No, it isn't.
Or, I can realize there's nothing evil about the spell and remove the descriptor because it makes no sense.Infernal Healing transfers the injuries to an innocent soul trapped in hell. Every time you use it, it weakens the barriers protecting the world from a demonic invasion. Also, a kitten dies.The spell doesn't say it does anything of the sort.No, but it does say that it's evil.
You can figure out for yourself why it's evil -- MD just provided one possible reason.
The spell has the [Evil] descriptor because it adjusts how the spell interacts with other spells and such. A spell with the [Evil] descriptor is treated as though it was cast by an Evil creature regardless of the actual caster's alignment.
As a result it pings on detect evil as an evil spell, and it can be dispelled with spells like dispel evil.
It's entirely true that it's usually going to make your character good to be handing them out however.
Yes, but casting Infernal Healing is an evil act so it cancels out.No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. Even if you do it from a scroll (which I'm only pointing out because humorously you were the next comment in the thread where Sean stated it unequivocally, Ashiel).
Again, claiming that the casting of an [evil] spell is not an evil act is a house rule. There's no wiggle room on what the designer's intents were for the descriptor, and there's not really much wiggle room within the RAW to argue otherwise either; in that same thread Sean goes on to talk about that while it does describe how the spell interacts with alignments, that's how it interacts with all alignments - meaning no matter the intentions, a Good character casting a spell with the Evil descriptor has committed an Evil act.
With all that said, many people ignore that facet of the game as a house rule - but that's what it is, a house rule.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
If you are being altruistic, showing respect for life, and upholding the dignity of sentient beings you are being good.
If you are hurting, oppressing, or killing others, you are being evil.
More often than not, casting Infernal Healing is going to be a good thing to do, but it will always detect as evil because of its element. At the end of the day it is literally how you use something that determines what you are actually doing alignment-wise.
You can cast holy smite into a crowd of people and end up slaughtering most of them (it will kill virtually any neutral-aligned 1HD NPCs which is basically anyone who's a normal person). It'll shine like the greatest goodness while you're committing such wholly evil acts.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
If you are being altruistic, showing respect for life, and upholding the dignity of sentient beings you are being good.
If you are hurting, oppressing, or killing others, you are being evil.
More often than not, casting Infernal Healing is going to be a good thing to do, but it will always detect as evil because of its element. At the end of the day it is literally how you use something that determines what you are actually doing alignment-wise.
You can cast holy smite into a crowd of people and end up slaughtering most of them (it will kill virtually any neutral-aligned 1HD NPCs which is basically anyone who's a normal person). It'll shine like the greatest goodness while you're committing such wholly evil acts.
Reading over the rest of the thread I linked, I don't believe it's worth it to go into this in-depth; it's obvious you disagree, which is your prerogative, but you seem to be presenting your interpretation as RAW despite the fact that the people who wrote the rules very clearly say that your interpretation isn't correct. Suffice to say: If we're discussing RAW then we have the word of Sean (and James, and at least one other designer) that disagrees with you.
From a personal perspective, I tend to agree with your interpretation - but I also recognize that that is my house rule and not RAW. The RAW says, per the designers, that casting a spell with an [Evil] descriptor is always an evil act - even if you're using it to save the life of Golarion's Messiah. By designer ruling, the ends do not always justify the means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading over the rest of the thread I linked, I don't believe it's worth it to go into this in-depth; it's obvious you disagree, which is your prerogative, but you seem to be presenting your interpretation as RAW despite the fact that the people who wrote the rules very clearly say that your interpretation isn't correct. Suffice to say: If we're discussing RAW then we have the word of Sean (and James, and at least one other designer) that disagrees with you.
From a personal perspective, I tend to agree with your interpretation - but I also recognize that that is my house rule and not RAW. The RAW says, per the designers, that casting a spell with an...
Suffice to say: I don't actually care what Sean or James says unless they can quote me the rule. This goes doubly for rules that have not changed or received errata since 3.x, which is the alignment rules. No where in the entirety of the core rulebook does it say that casting an aligned spell is the same as doing that alignment. What it DOES say is that some creatures have regeneration that can only be bypassed by aligned effects, and spells like detect evil and dispel evil are connected to these spells.
I am quoting RAW. Claiming that imprisoning an angel with planar binding is Good is never once stated in the core rulebook in any way (because casting planar binding and trapping an outsider from a Good-aligned plane gives the spell the [Good] descriptor). Likewise, casting holy smite over and over is not going to make you into a good person. In the same regard, casting protection from chaos to provide protection against a succubus' charm monster SLA make you more lawful.
If you are really insistent upon pushing this, please provide the rule citation from the Core Rulebook where it says that casting a spell with an alignment descriptor is the same as acting in accordance with that alignment, because those words or words like them do not appear in the alignment rules nor anywhere else in the book. If you can find them for me I'd be most appreciative and impressed since nobody has yet been able to find a citation for that claim since 3E has been out.
Infernal Healing transfers the injuries to an innocent soul trapped in hell. Every time you use it, it weakens the barriers protecting the world from a demonic invasion. Also, a kitten dies.The spell doesn't say it does anything of the sort.
Plus, if the soul is in hell, doesn't that by definition mean it's not innocent?
People aren't 'innocent'...
They are 'innocent of'.
While the soul of a man who murdered his family might be in hell, and he isn't innocent of murdering his family... he is innocent of deserving everyone's papercuts for no reason. He is innocent of giving those papercuts.
So, yes, in the context of transferring this soul in hell all of the mortal world's injuries... it is innocent.
But seriously: a doctor takes the oath of hippocrates which states 'Do no Harm' and are told next that sometimes you need to step back and realise if treatment is more damaging, then not treating a patient.
No way in hell does killing someone for the single purpose to harvest their organs ever agrees with the hippocratic oath.
Unless they also took the hypocritic oath as well. Then it is all legit.
A Wizard healed my Paladin using Infernal Healing, and though he was hesitant, ultimately he could think of no objection to it. The magic may be described as "evil" but the act of healing itself is not. I don't imagine most other groups would've handled it this way, but we did.
Ashiel, if you cared to follow the links instead of ignoring them you could have actually read the quote. Is right here.
Beside, is common knowledge that good cleric can't cast spell with the evil descriptor. Why? Because is evil! They can't just cast it telling is going to save lives. They can't at all.
Sarenrae will not stand for one of his cleric casting Infernal Evil even from a scroll (since using a scroll is the same as casting the spell). And if even the god of healing will forbid his most faithfull servant from saving the life of some innocent by using such spell, it should give you some idea of the cold hard fact that when you cast an evil spell you are committing indeed an evil act, no matter the end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, if you cared to follow the links instead of ignoring them you could have actually read the quote. Is right here.
Beside, is common knowledge that good cleric can't cast spell with the evil descriptor. Why? Because is evil! They can't just cast it telling is going to save lives. They can't at all.
But a Paladin can. As can an Inquisitor. Clerics are the only class that are barred from casting spells with certain descriptors, and it has nothing to do with their deity either, since even if a deity actually provides those spells the cleric cannot cast those spells if her own alignment conflicts with the descriptor.
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
This means that a Lawful Neutral cleric of a Neutral deity cannot cast protection from law to ward against a Succubus' power even though her deity is handing out protection from law spells to the vast majority of her followers (all the ones without a Lawful alignment, including the Neutral Good, Neutral, Neutral Evil, and chaotic neutral followers).
Meanwhile, RAW, a Paladin drink a potion of infernal healing with no issues at all. A multiclassed Paladin/Sorcerer could even cast animate dead and again have no issues at all, because they do not have any class restriction against casting spells with certain subtypes, nor have you provided a rule citation saying that casting a spell with an alignment subtype is the same as acting in accordance with that alignment.
Which would be really easy if that were the case since that would be a pretty big and major thing and would be located in the Alignment rules proper. It would be easy if it were there, but it's not.
So please, provide me a RULE CITATION. Not a link to Sean K. Reynolds trying to make an argument about how curing a kid with cancer can be evil when the protagonists never do anything evil.
Sarenrae will not stand for one of his cleric casting Infernal Evil even from a scroll (since using a scroll is the same as casting the spell). And if even the god of healing will forbid his most faithfull servant from saving the life of some innocent by using such spell, it should give you some idea of the cold hard fact that when you cast an evil spell you are committing indeed an evil act, no matter the end.
Please address the cleric issue I brought up above (noting that it's not merely a deity thing) and provide a rules quote, thank you.
I've provided my rules quotes and according to the ALIGNMENT RULES the only thing that matters is what you are doing, and if you are not hurting, oppressing, or killing someone you are not being evil. Likewise if you are not acting altruistically and such you are not doing good. Which isn't surprising because that makes sense.
A wizard is doing good when he casts Infernal Healing to save the life of a dying person, and you are not becoming a good person by standing around and casting planar binding to yank lantern archons out of their home plane.
EDIT: Meanwhile there is also another thing I'd like to bring up and that is the fact that it is only spells that the cleric cannot employ in her service to her deity. There is no restriction against using weapons with a different aligned-power source. A cleric of a Lawful Good deity has literally nothing stopping her from wielding a +1 anarchic mace to combat a devil, even though that mace is powered by chaos and harms the lawful. In fact, if she is a Neutral Good follower of her deity she doesn't suffer any drawback at all.
Meanwhile, the thread you linked to (instead of the rules) has Sean K. Reynolds trying to explain why using an item that was created with an Evil spell to save a kid with cancer's life or something is evil and badwrong, but let's look at the Anarchic mace for a moment.
Anarchic: An anarchic weapon is infused with the power of chaos. It makes the weapon chaotically aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against all creatures of lawful alignment. It bestows one permanent negative level on any lawful creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded.
Moderate evocation [chaotic]; CL 7th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, chaos hammer, creator must be chaotic; Price +2 bonus.
There is a big whole in the logical argument in this direction since any cleric of Serenae or Asmodeous can happily wield this weapon with no problems at all. They just can't cast spells with those subtypes because the rules say they can't (and it even notes a restriction even if those spells are not opposed to their deity).
There is a massive hole in the line of logic that you are attempting this from, so again, rule citation please.
You've been provided a quote of RAW. The designers are the final arbiters of what is RAW, and you've been provided a designer quote explaining this quite clearly. Your disagreement with it is, as I said, your prerogative, since as a GM you're always able to rule differently at your table; claiming that your disagreement with it somehow invalidates it as RAW, though, is itself invalid.
As I recognized earlier I don't see that there's a reason to continue the discussion, so I'd like to suggest that if there's anything further to be said on the original topic that we get back to that; that's the only topic I plan on responding to in the thread from here on out.
You've been provided a quote of RAW. The designers are the final arbiters of what is RAW, and you've been provided a designer quote explaining this quite clearly. Your disagreement with it is, as I said, your prerogative, since as a GM you're always able to rule differently at your table; claiming that your disagreement with it somehow invalidates it as RAW, though, is itself invalid.
I think you might not know what RAW stands for. Also the argument that the Paizo employees saying stuff on the message board is always right sounds pretty odd coming from anyone who has been on these boards for very long.
I don't care about the dev's own house rules. I only care what the actual rules say, not what the developers think the rules are this week.
Edit: Let me put this another way. This is the rules forum. This is where people come to ask questions about the rules. It serves nobody by not actually citing the rules or advice that we are giving out. If a statement is asserted, it should be backed up by RAW. Not Dev comments or advice for how to run it in your games but the actual RAW which is available to everyone.
Even the FAQ is not RAW. An FAQ is a helpful tool to understanding how something works when it is written strangely, or you need to have something broke down into a step by step explanation. However, the FAQ is not RAW and is not the place to add, remove, or revise the rules, and thus as far as RAW goes it trumps the FAQ because the FAQ is not the RAW the RAW is.
The fact that FAQs are often in flux is further evidence of this when the RAW is not. The alignment rules have not changed since 3E. They are functionally the same. The alignment RULES define alignment and when they are used as written you do not get all these nonsensical idiocies that is becoming a good guy by casting protection from evil over and over, and lacks the logical failings of the arguments that have been presented above (like the cleric rule which was shot apart by the fact they have no issues with aligned magic items).
So one is neither RAW and produces nonsensical results. The other is RAW and produces logical results that are functional. Seems like a no brainer.
EDIT 2:
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Sorry Ashiel, but as much as I despise it as well, unwritten rules are RAW.
;)
I <3 you so much BBT. (^.^)