Casting an evil-descriptor spell is an evil act. A Cleric MIGHT get away with it, a paladin would not. But why would a cleric who can channel positive or a paladin who can lay on hands need to cast Infernal Healing?
imagine a paladin or a lawful good cleric that is devoted to a good deity, can she use a spell with evil description without any consequence? I am specifically interested in the spell infernal healing can she use that spell without harming his alignment?
A cleric literally can't try:
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.
A paladin would be instantly negated:
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
Casting evil spells is definitely committing an evil act - and keep in mind that infernal healing causes its recipient to be detected as an evil creature AND to be aware that it is affected by evil magic. That's pretty darn evil for a L1 spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is firmly in 'ask your GM' territory (unless it's for PFS in which case it's explicitly not an evil act).
There is nothing in the rules that states that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act, same as casting a [good] spell isn't inherently good. It;s very much about what you do with the spell that defines whether it is an evil act or not. For example casting holy smite in the middle of market day on innocent neutral peasants is most definitely not good, despite being a [good] spell.
The rules say this about evil spells:
Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
That and that clerics cannot cast spells of an opposite alignment is about it. So according to the rules a good Cleric is likely to have more issues than a Paladin in casting Evil spells.
|
Casting an evil-descriptor spell is an evil act. A Cleric MIGHT get away with it, a paladin would not. But why would a cleric who can channel positive or a paladin who can lay on hands need to cast Infernal Healing?
Edit: Ninja'd by dragonhunterq. He/She's got it down.
Edit2: I figured I should add my personal opinion. I firmly disagree with folk saying casting evil spells is considered evil. If I was playing at a table where a GM made my paladin fall due to my healing of an ally with Infernal Healing, I would immediately leave the table.
I'm still not sure it's right for a paladin *casting* the spell. I can see, perhaps, a good sorcerer casting it without the moral problem, but not a paladin who shouldn't be considering [Evil] means to good ends. Even in PF where they can - with serious caution-points attached - associate with evil characters.
|
|
I'm still not sure it's right for a paladin *casting* the spell. I can see, perhaps, a good sorcerer casting it without the moral problem, but not a paladin who shouldn't be considering [Evil] means to good ends. Even in PF where they can - with serious caution-points attached - associate with evil characters.
While I can agree that a Paladin may choose not to use it based on personal opinion or feelings, deeming it necessary to save a friends life should never been considered an evil act. Especially considering there are no long term defect on the recipient!
A cleric literally cannot cast an opposed alignment spell.
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.
Things get muddy if you take that last sentence as a general case rather than simply applying to clerics. Lots of these situations exist in the CRB as Paizo didn't super plan out their future materials. If a spell is associated with a particular alignment, then it does indeed become that thing. I would more quickly take Brock's ruling as a keep the peace measure for PFS rather than it indicating Paizo's design intent for the game overall. Otherwise, PFS's restriction on no evil characters would be pretty useless if you had to admit PCs are committing evil acts left and right and not having consequences for them. People would quickly lose characters, and, this, as they say, would rock the cradle. Further, there are no [evil] spells on the paladin's list. That is a very deliberate choice on Paizo's part and should be telling.
|
All that demonstrates is that you don't think like a paladin.I'm still not sure it's right for a paladin *casting* the spell. I can see, perhaps, a good sorcerer casting it without the moral problem, but not a paladin who shouldn't be considering [Evil] means to good ends. Even in PF where they can - with serious caution-points attached - associate with evil characters.While I can agree that a Paladin may choose not to use it based on personal opinion or feelings, deeming it necessary to save a friends life should never been considered an evil act. Especially considering there are no long term defect on the recipient!
At least some Paladins would still use it to save someone's life (if there is no other choice). They would also do so knowing full well that they will fall as a result.
And that is why it is firmly in the 'ask your GM' territory. There is nothing in the rules that helps, it is all down to interpretation. And there are already a number of conflicting opinions.
A paladin cannot use the ends to justify the means, but when the means isn't clearly an evil act...YMMV. Is casting Infernal Healing willingly associating with an evil character? What about if you are out of Lay on hands and the only way to save a life is using the handy wand of IH?
Let's look closer at the Paladins code. Healing someone isn't dishonourable. Casting IH falls under exactly the same restriction as lay on hands in respect of helping others. and punish isn't relevant.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
So the only way to say No to a paladin is to say casting IH is inherently evil - which is not supported by the rules.
I don't see why this would be such a quandary in a game like Pathfinder. Let them die and simply bring them back. This option quickly becomes viable past the very earliest of levels. Special restrictions in a non-Golarion setting or a trap the soul like effect would interfere with that plan.
I know having a Spell Component Pouch gives you access to all Material Components that don't have a gold piece value listed, but the Material Components for this spell (and the spell description text) aren't something normally associated with Good, or Paladin.
You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood or unholy water, giving it fast healing 1.
Paladin: Oh no, Bob the Cleric has fallen in a heated battle against the forces of evil! Let me anoint his unconscious body with the blood of devils, say a few words, and get him back in the fight!
Cleric: Thank you Paladin Jim! I thought I was a goner there for a minute, but your quick thinking and dripping devil blood on me (or that often misunderstood unholy water) was a huge win for the side of good!
Humor aside, Evil should be Evil to a Paladin. A dude that uses Evil as tool to fight Evil doesn't have an alignment restriction of Lawful Good.
|
|
All that demonstrates is that you don't think like a paladin.I'm still not sure it's right for a paladin *casting* the spell. I can see, perhaps, a good sorcerer casting it without the moral problem, but not a paladin who shouldn't be considering [Evil] means to good ends. Even in PF where they can - with serious caution-points attached - associate with evil characters.While I can agree that a Paladin may choose not to use it based on personal opinion or feelings, deeming it necessary to save a friends life should never been considered an evil act. Especially considering there are no long term defect on the recipient!
It is unfortunate that you feel that way. No where is the rules is the opposite supported and believing so leads to a cookie cutter characters and a class that many players are afraid to play because their GM will force them to lose their class abilities for doing exactly what the class is meant to do; Help People.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh? The spell has an 'evil' descriptor. What do you think that means with regard to the rules?All that demonstrates is that you don't think like a paladin.I'm still not sure it's right for a paladin *casting* the spell. I can see, perhaps, a good sorcerer casting it without the moral problem, but not a paladin who shouldn't be considering [Evil] means to good ends. Even in PF where they can - with serious caution-points attached - associate with evil characters.While I can agree that a Paladin may choose not to use it based on personal opinion or feelings, deeming it necessary to save a friends life should never been considered an evil act. Especially considering there are no long term defect on the recipient!It is unfortunate that you feel that way. No where is the rules is the opposite supported and believing so leads to a cookie cutter characters and a class that many players are afraid to play because their GM will force them to lose their class abilities for doing exactly what the class is meant to do; Help People.
While I can understand where you are coming from, friend, I don't believe casting and [evil] spell makes you evil any more than casting a [fire] spell makes you a fire elemental!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I can understand where you are coming from, friend, I don't believe casting and [evil] spell makes you evil any more than casting a [fire] spell makes you a fire elemental!
Interestingly, distinctions are only drawn with respect to alignment for the alignment descriptors. The assertion that a [fire] spell would make one a fire elemental if alignment descriptors were their respective act is truly fallacious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh? The spell has an 'evil' descriptor. What do you think that means with regard to the rules?
So by that logic using holy smite on an orphanage or kitty sanctuary is an inherently good act? within the rules?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not sure it's right for a paladin *casting* the spell. I can see, perhaps, a good sorcerer casting it without the moral problem, but not a paladin who shouldn't be considering [Evil] means to good ends. Even in PF where they can - with serious caution-points attached - associate with evil characters.
A chaotic evil cleric can atone a Paladin's and restore their powers. Let that one sink in for a bit.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment descriptors are an organizational tool for other rules to draw upon. They do not, of themselves, create any rules.
Good clerics cannot cast evil spells. Evil spells can be dispelled by Dispel Evil. Evil spells are detected by detect evil. There are probably other rules as well.
Point is, the descriptor doesn't do anything; other rules do things because of the descriptor. Alignment changing, near as I can tell, isn't one of them. Ironic though that may be.
wow so much controversy O.o, well I asked because there wasnt any rule that specified casting evil description spell to be considered an evil act... thats why the questioning
It's been a controversy for a rather long time. What's definitely known, regardless:
-Good clerics can't cast [Evil] spells. (A rather good reason for a paladin to consider not trying to.)
-Morally neutral clerics that worship good deities can't cast [Evil] spells (even if the deity's domain spells somehow include them.)
-[Evil] spells tend to either:
---Hinder and/or harm good creatures as a specific effect;
---Bolster and support evil creatures as a specific effect;
---Create, bolster, and/or manipulate undead creatures (which are intrinsically evil creatures, even if mindless);
There are edge cases. "Deathwatch," for example, was [Evil] in 3.5, even though all it does is tell the caster which nearby creatures are alive with high HP, alive with low HP, alive with critical HP, dying, dead, undead, or undetected (eg, constructs.) PF dropped [Evil] off of it, refluffing it as being "necromancy" as the source of the power rather than "the foul powers of unlife."
Infernal Healing is another one. Granting fast healing to a target is not evil. The spell is [Evil] because you cast it by anointing the target with unholy water or devil's blood - and the spell tells the target (and alignment-detection effects) that it's an evil spell.
--
In short, it appears that by rules as officially judged for PFS, casting [Evil] spells isn't evil, even for a paladin's specific interpretation of lawful good. However, do be sure to consider why your character - being a champion of good - would seek out that sort of power to start with, even if your GM would allow it. If it's just "fast healing is cool," you might do well to rethink what martial class you're using for the concept. :)
A chaotic evil cleric can atone a Paladin's and restore their powers. Let that one sink in for a bit.
Since RAW points to a GM judgement call as a condition, I'd ask you to find a GM willing to think that a lawful good ex-paladin can "be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds" while petitioning an evil cleric for atonement. (We'll leave aside the alignment problems of the cleric attempting it.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Minor point, but pretty much the only way a paladin is casting this is UMD'ing a wand, so the issue with material components is a bit of non-argument. Sir Goodly never needs to actually use demons blood or unholy water.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casting the spell would be a good act, destroying the orphanage would be an evil act. Since doing good does not balance doing evil for a paladin, the paladin would fall just like in the infernal healing example.So by that logic using holy smite on an orphanage or kitty sanctuary is an inherently good act? within the rules?Huh? The spell has an 'evil' descriptor. What do you think that means with regard to the rules?
Casting the spell is not a good act. It is an unaligned act. There is no rule anywhere that I can find that indicates casting aligned spells is automatically an aligned act. It's fine to play that way at your table, but the current forum name is "Rules Questions" not "General Discussion".
|
|
If it were unaligned, clerics would be able to cast opposite alignment spells without restriction.
Casting the spell is not a good act. It is an unaligned act. There is no rule anywhere that I can find that indicates casting aligned spells is automatically an aligned act. It's fine to play that way at your table, but the current forum name is "Rules Questions" not "General Discussion".
It is not an unaligned spell. Casting the spell is an unaligned act. These are different things.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember to ask your GM if Infernal Healing is right for you. Side effects of Infernal Healing are uncommon, and include alignment change, code violations, headache, sexual harassment from horny demons, message board discussions, and mild rash. infernal Healing is not right for everyone. Let your GM know if you're pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, or if you've lived in areas of Golarion or the Darklands where certain fungal infections are common.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Outsider creatures can be whatever alignment they want, totally independent of what alignment subtypes they have. Yes, that's right: the Devil with the Lawful and Evil subtypes can be any alignment under the sun. As per the rules (Bestiary, pages 311 and 312, specifically, the Chaotic, Good, Evil, and Lawful subtype entries), he will still register as Lawful and Evil, no matter what his alignment actually is.
But he can be any alignment he wants. The alignment descriptors have as much to do with the Devil's actual alignment as whether or not he's wearing a knitted hat (i.e., none whatsoever).
So I'd like to know why a being whose very essence is composed of pure Lawful and Evilness is less affected by the alignment forces acting on and making up his very being than the mere casting of an Evil-descriptor spell.
Ok, fine. A non-Devil Lawful Evil Outsider is still allowed to be whatever alignment he wants. Even if not a Devil, a Lawful Evil Outsider is still just as much composed of Lawful and Evilness as a Devil.
Everything he does is a blasphemy to the multiverse. He stood up, an action he could only take because of the Evil that imbues his being. An Evil action. He picked up a book. Vile monster. He takes a breath. Double blasphemy, since he doesn't actually need to breathe.
Literally everything he does is tainted by the Evil subtype he carries. But he can be any alignment. You meet this non-Devil Lawful Evil Outsider in an alleyway. What's his alignment? You've got a one-in-nine chance of guessing right. Cast a whole bunch of Detect Alignment spells at him? Your chances remain one-in-nine (actually, they do get better because while he WILL detect as Lawful and Evil no matter what, he will also detect as Chaotic and/or Good if he has them. So you can process of elimination narrow it down a little. But my point stands.)
Everything he does every second of the day carries the taint of Evil, but it carries approximately 0.0000001% weight as to what his alignment actually is. He could even be a Paladin, if his actual alignment is Lawful Good.
I.e., a non-Devil Lawful Evil Outsider Paladin picks up a Wand of Cure Wounds and heals his fallen ally. For no other reason than the fact that it's a Lawful Evil entity doing the action, the action is Evil. But he gets to do it anyway. His Evil subtype beats no weight.
So why do Generic Outsiders get to completely ignore their alignment subtypes while the casting of an Evil subtype spell does carry weight?
Ok, fine. A non-Devil Lawful Evil Outsider is still allowed to be whatever alignment he wants. Even if not a Devil, a Lawful Evil Outsider is still just as much composed of Lawful and Evilness as a Devil.
Yes; any creature that has the [Lawful] and [Evil] subtypes inevitably smells like lawful evilness. Holy and anarchic weapons will burn in his hands even if he's chaotic good.
Everything he does is a blasphemy to the multiverse. He stood up, an action he could only take because of the Evil that imbues his being. An Evil action. He picked up a book. Vile monster. He takes a breath. Double blasphemy, since he doesn't actually need to breathe...
So why do Generic Outsiders get to completely ignore their alignment subtypes while the casting of an Evil subtype spell does carry weight?
Because an [Aligned] creature doesn't channel its alignment subtypes into every single action. [Aligned] creatures are [aligned] for the same reason elementals and genies are [elemental]: they are composed of the very essence of that property. Everything they do is not influenced by the subtype; a better way to look at it is that the subtype is an extreme addiction, continually calling to the outsider's basest instincts.
When you cast an aligned spell, you are channelling aligned energy. While you can use that energy however you want (blasting an orphanage with Holy Word, for example,) you're still channelling aligned energy.
Think of it like a Jedi using force lightning. Are there non-evil applications for force lightning? Absolutely. But force lightning is steeped in the power of the Dark Side, and it will slowly corrupt you as you keep doing it.
In the same way, an [Evil] spell is steeped in evil power. Are there non-evil uses for it? You betcha. But using it will slowly corrupt you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Think of it like a Jedi using force lightning. Are there non-evil applications for force lightning? Absolutely. But force lightning is steeped in the power of the Dark Side, and it will slowly corrupt you as you keep doing it.
In the same way, an [Evil] spell is steeped in evil power. Are there non-evil uses for it? You betcha. But using it will slowly corrupt you.
I just gotta chime in here and say that Jedi Master Plo Kloon has historically used force lighting (later calling it "Electric Judgment") which made his fellow Jedi Masters nervous. He reflected on it and decided he did not think it a dark side power as he was not acting within the dark side and decided it a non-dark side technique.
In Jedi Knight Academy, you're taught that there is no innately light/darkside powers (which makes pretty good sense actually since Sith Sorcery is actually very good at healing for example) and the force traditionally seems to care about things like anger, rage, fear, and other powerful emotional instincts.
Naturally a force power like lightning that is offensive and inflicts great pain when used on someone is very likely to come with dark-side influences. Using it as a force-taser on the other hand, not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So why do Generic Outsiders get to completely ignore their alignment subtypes while the casting of an Evil subtype spell does carry weight?If they were able to 'completely ignore' their alignment subtypes, then most of them would not be aligned with their plane of existence. Only ~1/9th of them would happen to be so aligned, with the rest randomly distributed among the other alignments.
Obviously, that's not even remotely true. The vast majority of outsiders are aligned with their plane, just not every last single one of them. So the rules describe what happens when you find one of those unique outsiders with a different alignment. Trying to use the existence of these rules as evidence that plane alignment is the exception rather than the rule is kind weird.
So basically like orcs. Gotcha.
I thought the book on Chelaix said something about cast spells with evil descriptor could over time change ones alignment? I believe that was the only time it was mentioned and also I think it was in the "fluff" writing and not actual rules.
Regardless, neutral is the default alignment, so the burden of proof is on you to show why something is non-neutral.
First, good clerics can't cast infernal healing, by explicit rule: they can't cast spells of [Alignment] opposed to their own or their deity's alignment(s).
Second, the spell is not a simple fast healing spell that gives fast healing 1 for 10 rounds, doesn't have a side effect, and requires troll's blood or an alchemical extract of cure light wounds (for example.) It's a fast healing spell that gives fast healing 1 for 10 rounds, is known by the recipient to be evil, causes the recipient to register as evil through alignment-detection effects, and requires devil's blood or unholy water. Also, it doesn't heal damage dealt by [Good] spells, good (eg, holy) weapons, or silver weapons (which get around certain evil creatures' DR.)
So it's an effect that could have been simple fast healing, but instead fails to heal damage from [Good] sources.
It could have had no side effects, but instead causes the recipient to detect as evil, and also to know that the magic is evil.
It could have used troll's blood, but uses devil's blood or unholy water.
If it's not intended to be evil despite being [Evil], I don't see it.