Regardless, neutral is the default alignment, so the burden of proof is on you to show why something is non-neutral.
This is an interesting assertion. There are a ton of things where the default assumption is not neutral. The only things explicitly neutral are things like animals, forces of nature, etc. Other than that there's a general "people average to be neutral" thing for the Golarion setting. I'm unsure why you can make blanket assumptions everything is neutral in the system where there are strongly drawn lines over alignment all over the place, case in point: whole races of outsiders.
Nope.
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.
So the alignment energy of an outsider does not dictate the alignment of its actions, it just coincidentally happens to be there. Its "being there" is not the final say on the alignment of the action.
Ok. By that logic, the alignment energy of an alignment subtype spell also coincidentally just so happens to be there. So why would its "being there" be the final say for the alignment of that action when we just established that that's not how it works.
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.
And that's why I no longer play Star Wars Saga Edition.
"So you just ambushed that Imperial convoy?"
"Yes, yes, we did."
"Did you explore alternative means to achieve your goal?"
"Nope."
"Did you fire the first shot?"
"Yes, I did. I'm sure a Special Edition accounting will dispute who shot first, but trust me. It was me."
"Well, that sounds like aggression to me. Not knowledge and defense, but attack. So tell me why I shouldn't slap a Dark Side Point on you for it."
"Because I was using a blaster, not the Force."
"Ah, well. No worries then. The ultimate cosmic morality only cares about whether or not you use the Force for heinous deeds. Never mind the Dark Side Point."
People can be plenty evil no matter what means they use. All that matters is the power you have and how you use or misuse it.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
"With great power comes great responsibility."
It's not specific to magic power. It's not solely with great military power that great responsibility must come. Nor with great power in the Force, or political or financial power. You're responsible for what you can do and what you do or fail to do with your ability. And possessing that power, no matter where it stems from, carries the potential for corruption.
In like fashion, I refuse to buy the notion that said corruption is guaranteed to happen. It's a struggle no matter how it manifests, and I'll buy Evil-subtype spells carrying greater potential, but a guarantee? No more so than any other form of power.
No. You can use Force Lightning for evil ends, but you can also use it for good ends. I refuse to buy the ridiculous motion that a Light Side Force-user, Goodiwan Kenoble, who is solely motivated by altruistic concerns, will spontaneously wake up one morning wanting to drink the blood of infants just because he allowed himself to use Force Lightning, showing appropriate concern for the use of said ability just like every other ability he has and is also responsible for.
Considering such characters as Master Plo Koon, Galen Marek (post-redemption but still busting out the Force Lightning), and Adi Gallia, I'm comfortable in my refusal.
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.
Nature AND nurture. The vast majority of generic aligned Outsiders are the same alignment as their home planes (not 1/9, but most) because that's the environment they come into being in.
Just like Orcs. They're not born evil, but if they grow up among a whole bunch of evil Orcs, a lot of them will buy into that culture and belief system and turn out evil. A self-fulfilling prophecy. Not because of their nature but because of their nurture (as far as the term carries, anyway).
So yes. They are able to completely ignore their alignment subtype. Completely ignore their alignment subtype AND completely ignore the surrounding environment and other beings and the associated constant push to adopt a similar mindset? No.
Also, the spell specifically says that the recipient's alignment is not affected by the casting of the spell.
Any idea why they didn't say the same about the caster? ;)
Because the recipient is getting, however temporarily, what amounts to an alignment subtype. It calls into question what his alignment will ultimately be due to being the recipient of this spell, ergo, they spell out that this will not impact his alignment.
The caster doesn't even get an alignment subtype for the duration of the spell, so there is less reason to wonder what's happening to his soul.
Not only that, the spell only has one target: the guy getting the healing. When I cast a Personal Range spell, how the spell affects a character at Long Range is a non-question in my mind, because it was already answered before it was asked by the specification in the spell that it is Personal.
Infernal Healing is Range Touch with a target of Creature Touched. Unless the caster casts the spell on himself, it has no effect on him.
Also, the spell offers a Will save and a check for spell resistance. Next to both of those is the word Harmless. To my mind, the only way imbuing someone with the taint of Pure Evil has the possibility of being harmless (and in the case of Infernal Healing, it's not possibly harmless, it's guaranteed harmless) is if Pure Evil energy, by itself, is just a tool. One that, like Force Lightning, does not constitute a final say on the alignment of the action of the casting of the spell solely by its mere presence.
"Why" matters. "Why" HAS to matter. Context has to matter. The day morality becomes a binary computer program is the day we fail as a species.
If Pathfinder follows 3.5 by intention the evil spells are evil actions, but no rule directly says that so it will always depend upon the GM until Paizo puts something in writing. Some GM's say they are evil and the means NEVER justify the ends, and some GM's say the intent is all that matters.
That's only for the Golarion setting. It's pretty much the default for many Pathfinder games, but it's more than a fair distance from being a core rule.
Designer commentary.
That answers the wrong question. No-one is disputing the spell is [evil], it's whether casting the spell is an evil act. As is commented downthread an [acid] spell doesn't make you more acidic. It's nothing more than a tool to interact with the rules.
Speaking of rules, I have yet to see a link to an actual rule that states that casting an [evil] spell is evil. "I think I read something in an obscure splatbook somewhere" is a far from a compelling argument.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider it a quasi-evil act, even if cast from a wand. Maybe not enough to cause a fall from the grace of one's deity (depending on the deity), but there certainly should be repercussions.
Example: Cleric of Sarenrae UMD's a wand of IH to save a party member, or maybe to save his "big" healing spells for the next encounter.
Later that night the gods get together for a game of "Nobles and Savages" (Nobody likes Asmodeus because he will only play Nobles... the big baby). Asmodeus gives ole Sarenrae some friendly pointed jabs. "Hey Sar, you call yourself the Goddess of Healing? Weeeellll, one of your clerics (or Paladins) turned to me for healing power earlier today... Oh don't worry. It was my pleasure that part of my divine power could save one of your's. Oh, No need to repay me, I'll just jot this down for posterity's sake should the situation be reversed someday."
Understandably, this miffs Sarenrae. The next time the cleric prays for spells, he gets a full complement of CLW, CSW, and Cure Moderate Wounds. The cleric doesn't invoke his diety's wrath or cause an alignment change, but he should get a message he is skating on thin ice, nor should he find himself with a lack of healing spells in the near future...
As a GM you have other ways to equalize the situation short of alignment changes and atonement spells.
Time to bold the important bit:
I already said that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. The same correlation applies to the other alignment spells.
And casting a spell with an Acid descriptor slowly turns you into an Ooze.
From the PFS FAQ:
Doesn't that seem to disagree with what SKR is saying?Does casting evil spells cause an alignment infraction?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
That's a PFS houserule.
So the alignment energy of an outsider does not dictate the alignment of its actions, it just coincidentally happens to be there. Its "being there" is not the final say on the alignment of the action.
Ok. By that logic, the alignment energy of an alignment subtype spell also coincidentally just so happens to be there. So why would its "being there" be the final say for the alignment of that action when we just established that that's not how it works.
The [Evil] creature is free-willed, and can overcome that part of its nature with great effort.
The [Evil] spell has no will; it is a "packet" of evil energy, which a caster must draw through himself in order to cast it. And as described, this spell was intentionally created to be evil, and to be known to be evil to its target and alignment-sensing observers.
And that's why I no longer play Star Wars Saga Edition.
"So you just ambushed that Imperial convoy?"
"Yes, yes, we did."
"Did you explore alternative means to achieve your goal?"
"Nope."
"Did you fire the first shot?"
"Yes, I did. I'm sure a Special Edition accounting will dispute who shot first, but trust me. It was me."
"Well, that sounds like aggression to me. Not knowledge and defense, but attack. So tell me why I shouldn't slap a Dark Side Point on you for it."
"Because I was...
Even in Star Wars, ordinary violence against valid targets is not evil. And even ordinary acts of evil aren't usually Dark Side Points for non-Force users; it takes a lot of evil (such as being an Assassin), a major act of evil (such as using your warship lasers to destroy a town or even a whole planet,) or tapping into the Force for evil or violent ends (such as by using a Force point for such purposes.)
Jedi are more attuned to the karmic flow, which means they end up being affected by evil more than other people. In addition to ordinary temptations to choose the easy-but-wrong course, there are also evil Force powers. Even if they can be used for good intentions, they're still evil means and will draw a Jedi toward the Dark Side.
This is how it is with paladins as well. A pure sorcerer casting Infernal Healing is using evil means to bring about ?alignment?; but he doesn't have the same sort of "attunement" to good and evil that a paladin does, so it doesn't affect him as it would a paladin.
*roll eyes*
The developer commentary is right on target. You are invoking evil, creating evil, using evil, just like you are invoking acid, creating acid, using acid for [acid] spells.
When I use an acid arrow spell, I create acid and bring it into the world.
Now apply that idea to an [evil] spell.
Champions of Purity is an official Pathfinder rule set, not some 3rd part spatbook. There's plenty of routine stuff people use from that book, like summon good creatures, various feats, and a variety of spells.
Again, you can feel free to dismiss any rules that you want, but you don't get to pretend that these rules don't actually exist.
The point being made is that a setting specific book may have alternate rules than the general rules. That is why we cant assume a "Golarion" rule is also a "Pathfinder" rule.
Pathfinder just needs. Non-setting book to define the default position or at least something to say "this is what we intend.........." then maybe add a "feel free to do as you wish at home and since not all games are the same state your rules before the game begins.....".
That way the intention is clear and it serves as a reminder for people to not assume everyone runs evil like they do.
deeming it necessary to save a friends life should never been considered an evil act.
And yet it is. So here is the Paladin's conundrum: either he knowingly and willingly commits an Evil act, or he does not.
Using the wand is:- Evil; he falls from Grace.
- Good; he saves his friends.
- Honourable; he sacrifices his own purity for the benefit of others.
- Dishonourable; he lets his friends die.
So the Paladin's path is clear: he uses the Evil means to save his friends, falls from Grace and then seeks Atonement for his infraction. Which, given the circumstances, should be readily granted.
Mind you, he'd better be very, very sure that wand is the only way to save the day.