|
Changing alignment magically doesn't automatically change your personality.
Yes it does.
Normally your behavior and actions determine your alignment, because that's how you get an alignment in the first place.
Forcibly changing your alignment by magic would forcibly change your personality along with it, which is a lot of people don't do it.
If I remember correctly, you pretty much have to be 20th level to be as effective with this spell as a first level caster using Infernal Healing.There is also now celestial healing which is similar except duration and has holy water as an optional component (rather than the blood of a good outsider).
Kinda. Celestial healing by virtue of having scaling with no cap can be pumped to be significantly better than infernal healing.
|
|
Kinda. Celestial healing by virtue of having scaling with no cap can be pumped to be significantly better than infernal healing.If I remember correctly, you pretty much have to be 20th level to be as effective with this spell as a first level caster using Infernal Healing.There is also now celestial healing which is similar except duration and has holy water as an optional component (rather than the blood of a good outsider).
Ooo, I hadn't noticed that. Nice catch.
Like realistically there isn't much reason to actually use infernal healing now that celestial healing exists. The only exceptions are very low levels or if celestial blood counts as an expensive material component and you have a ton of devil killing to do.
Kinda. Celestial healing by virtue of having scaling with no cap can be pumped to be significantly better than infernal healing.If I remember correctly, you pretty much have to be 20th level to be as effective with this spell as a first level caster using Infernal Healing.There is also now celestial healing which is similar except duration and has holy water as an optional component (rather than the blood of a good outsider).
How? A first level caster who uses Infernal Healing will heal 10 points of damage. A caster who uses Celestial Healing will not exceed that amount of healing unless they are 22nd level. In fact they won't heal more than a single point, unless they are 4th level and above.
|
|
How? A first level caster who uses Infernal Healing will heal 10 points of damage. A caster who uses Celestial Healing will not exceed that amount of healing unless they are 22nd level. In fact they won't heal more than a single point, unless they are 4th level and above.Kinda. Celestial healing by virtue of having scaling with no cap can be pumped to be significantly better than infernal healing.If I remember correctly, you pretty much have to be 20th level to be as effective with this spell as a first level caster using Infernal Healing.There is also now celestial healing which is similar except duration and has holy water as an optional component (rather than the blood of a good outsider).
A combination of traits and feats and other boosters to caster levels.
But true CH by itself is eh, but Greater Celestial Healing....
Raising caster level is a bit harder than I remembered so it really only does pay dividends by the time you hit greater celestial healing. I was assuming there were still things around like consumptive field. Assuming +1 trait bonus, +1 mage's tattoo, +1 orange prism ioun stone, +1 gold optional component, +2 from special specialization means that even if you focus hardcore on it it doesn't break even until level 14. Though with spell perfection at level 15 means that 15 and above if you really care about it greater celestial healing becomes ludicrously cost effective, even if by that point such healing probably isn't that important.
Though I should point out that healing touch allows a sufficiently old character to outpace infernal healing with cure light wounds at level 2. Whether healing touch should be allowed for discussion is up for debate though.
|
|
Raising caster level is a bit harder than I remembered so it really only does pay dividends by the time you hit greater celestial healing. I was assuming there were still things around like consumptive field. Assuming +1 trait bonus, +1 mage's tattoo, +1 orange prism ioun stone, +1 gold optional component, +2 from special specialization means that even if you focus hardcore on it it doesn't break even until level 14. Though with spell perfection at level 15 means that 15 and above if you really care about it greater celestial healing becomes ludicrously cost effective, even if by that point such healing probably isn't that important.
Though I should point out that healing touch allows a sufficiently old character to outpace infernal healing with cure light wounds at level 2. Whether healing touch should be allowed for discussion is up for debate though.
*nods*
I like that Achievement Feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Changing alignment magically doesn't automatically change your personality.Yes it does.
Normally your behavior and actions determine your alignment, because that's how you get an alignment in the first place.
Forcibly changing your alignment by magic would forcibly change your personality along with it, which is a lot of people don't do it.
Is there any basis for this statement in the rules beyond specific examples that explicitly say so (which actually implies the opposite as a general rule)? Because I don't remember any.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Helm of Opposite Alignment. The most notable, most drastic way of altering one's alignment.
Yes, you can hand wave it away because it's magic, but... isn't magic exactly what you're doing here in the first place?
A character inclined enough to infuse somebody with devil blood is acting with evil. If the character is persistent about it, then they are clearly an evil person.
If a player continues to act as if the character is good, then they are acting in opposition to their character's alignment, which was previously established to be evil due to the devil blood.
If they begin to cast Protection from Evil, then the character has, presumably, a reason to perform a good act. If it is persistently cast, then they must be very inclined to do good.
And since the character has "repented", infusing people with devil blood suddenly looks very out of character.
As for the topic of the wizard who continuously casts Protection from Evil and Chaos to become Lawful Good, with Chaotic Evil motives, the GM has every right to declare the aligned act insufficient. And if the player persists, the GM might just declare a random fluke lightning bolt from the blue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know it was way easier in 3.5 when the equivalent of celestial healing and infernal healing was neutral aligned and called vigor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Changing alignment magically doesn't automatically change your personality.Yes it does.
Normally your behavior and actions determine your alignment, because that's how you get an alignment in the first place.
Forcibly changing your alignment by magic would forcibly change your personality along with it, which is a lot of people don't do it.
Do you have a source for that?
The helm of opposite alignment explicitly say it does that, but I can't find anything that makes it a general rule.
"The effects of this infusion may have serious repercussions for a creature suddenly struggling with a new outlook. Many see it as little more than forced insanity, and some good faiths outlaw its use."
That is from the Change Alignment discovery and is the closest I could find right off. It is flavor text and could be taken a few different ways but it does imply that it forcefully changes how they think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
A character's personality is represented by their alignment. It mentions this twice, so I suppose it's relevant.
That means one's alignment originates from their attitudes, their preferences, their identity. For something to change one's alignment, it must also change their attitude, as the Helm of Opposite Alignment does.
This ends up being a little self justifying, but the effect amounts to the same. If the attitude shifts due to a change in viewpoint, then the alignment shifts with it. If the alignment is shifted, then either the attitude has to adapt, or the alignment shifts back. The quoted text seems to support this.
If an otherwise good character ends up wanting to cast Infernal Healing, which is actively stated earlier in the Alignment rules as a minor act of evil, then one of the following must be true:
1) The character's viewpoint is shifting, so that they no longer see casting the evil spell as taboo. In this instance, their alignment slips a little closer to evil.
2) The character is acting out of character. On occasion, this is fine; as the rules say, not everybody is consistent. Repeated infractions, however, mean the character is in fact acting evil on a regular enough basis that their viewpoint has to have shifted, thus resulting in outcome 1.
If a character regularly performs both a clearly evil action, and also good actions, they may be suffering from a severe mental problem, up to and potentially including disassociative personality disorder.
If a character regularly performs both a clearly evil action, and also good actions, they may be suffering from a severe mental problem, up to and potentially...
No, you just defined Neutral. You can't do good acts without a little evil or you can't stay neutral.
|
|
The thread has moved on, but i feel the need to point out that Force Lightning can be used without going to the dark side. (You'll likely be asked about it, but I think somebody uses it as a ranged stun and still sits on the Jedi Council)** spoiler omitted **Plo Koon was the council member, but even Luke has used it occasionally.
Source on internet
Ah, Plo Koon! I miss him, he was awesome.
"Force lightning ability was not restricted to dark-siders. Jedi and other light-siders who were strong of will and character could learn this power without falling to the dark side—but its use was viewed as inherently corrupting, and most Jedi Councils forbade its use."
For PK it also says he used the specific knock out version and had no plans to experiment with it further.
|
|
After the Iron Knight fiasco, i always thought the Jedi council occasionally veered into Lawful Stupid.The thread has moved on, but i feel the need to point out that Force Lightning can be used without going to the dark side. (You'll likely be asked about it, but I think somebody uses it as a ranged stun and still sits on the Jedi Council)** spoiler omitted **Plo Koon was the council member, but even Luke has used it occasionally.
Source on internetAh, Plo Koon! I miss him, he was awesome.
** spoiler omitted **
You could have just chopped everything out except "Jedic Council" and "Lawful Stupid" :3
|
|
Pathfinder has rules for mental issues and none of them talk about performing both good and evil actions.Someone could think evil spells are okay while otherwise being a good person. That isn't a mental problem, just a difference of philosophy.Except in Pathfinder it is.
No, they have rules for various Psychosis.
A "Good" person who thinks Evil spells are okay doesn't sound all that together to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, complex characters aren't allowed. Either you are 100% good/evil all the time, or you are crazy.If a character regularly performs both a clearly evil action, and also good actions, they may be suffering from a severe mental problem, up to and potentially...No, you just defined Neutral. You can't do good acts without a little evil or you can't stay neutral.
A person does not need to be 100% one thing. If you act in a neutral manner, you are Neutral. This can mean both doing good and evil characters. A neutral merchant can do volunteer work on the side of his job, and also occasionally try to price gouge customers of races or ethnicities he dislikes, without his alignment meter taking overall hits.
If you act in a heroic manner, as if Good, but also consistently perform Evil, capital E actions, you have problems. If Captain Justice, Protector of the Innocent decides that one of the best ways to protect the innocent is to summon a loyal legion of undead soldiers, he is in every bit deserving of the "What the hell, hero?" that is to follow.
If a wizard is, on a regular basis demanding service from both angels and demons, he is what an earlier poster coined as "aggressively Neutral", which is certainly unusual. If he has a good (lowercase) reason for it, then he can exist perfectly fine as Neutral. If his motivation is "if I summon too many of one type, I might become that alignment", then things are dubious and the player may warrant a book thrown at them.
|
|
Is there any basis for this statement in the rules beyond specific examples that explicitly say so (which actually implies the opposite as a general rule)? Because I don't remember any.Yes it does.
Normally your behavior and actions determine your alignment, because that's how you get an alignment in the first place.
Forcibly changing your alignment by magic would forcibly change your personality along with it, which is a lot of people don't do it.
The Helm of Opposite Alignment.The Helm of Opposite Alignment explicitly calls out that it changes your behavior, which was what Snowblind pointed out ("beyond specific examples that explicitly say so.") And, as Snowblind said, Helm of Opposite Alignment is evidence of a general rule that magic alignment change doesn't affect your behavior/personality/whatever, because if it did there wouldn't need to be an exception clause in the item description.
It explicitly calls out the alignment change because it is instaneous, rather than gradual change through aligned acts. There is nothing in it to suggest that it's the only case of alignment change by magic. Aligned spells cause your alignment to change because they're aligned acts. They've always been that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder has rules for mental issues and none of them talk about performing both good and evil actions.Someone could think evil spells are okay while otherwise being a good person. That isn't a mental problem, just a difference of philosophy.Except in Pathfinder it is.No, they have rules for various Psychosis.
Psychosis is a specific type of mental condition. Pathfinder lists it as a specific type of insanity, which funnily enough actually makes people Chaotic Evil aligned and explicitly forces them to behave that way if they don't pass a save. Most of the other insanities don't qualify as a type of Psychosis.
A "Good" person who thinks Evil spells are okay doesn't sound all that together to me.
Probably not, since the concepts of Good and Evil are more or less tautological under an objective morality system like Pathfinder's. Thinking you are Good when you break one of the really important axioms of being Good (more important than actually being a good person, apparently) reeks of denial or ignorance. That's not the sort of person we are talking about though.
What about a person who is exceedingly generous, constantly wants to help others, would gladly give their own life to save others, and casts Infernal Healing to heal the poor as a part of their willing service to others? They don't give a damn about being Good, but they match all of the things that Good is associated with, aside from casting Evil spells. That is the sort of character we are talking about. There is nothing in the rules which prevents an Evil character from having all the traits associated with Good characters and only one trait associated with Evil ones...well, there was the whole "pick which alignment matches your character best" thing, but aligned spellcasting overrides that by giving very definite numbers as part of a "Guideline"*.
Because of rules like this, being a "good person" doesn't strictly line up with being a "Good person" or even a "non-Evil person" under most normal standards of morality that exist on Earth when you don't accept the "Good is good, Evil is evil" tautology. Ditto for "evil Good people" and so forth(yay prot/evil). As a natural consequence of this, some good people won't be Good people. A few of them will be Evil people, despite being unambiguously good by earth standards. The "5 castings of Prot/Good and you are a morally bankrupt monster" guideline makes this category of "should be good but actually Evil (or the equivalent in other alignments)" extend to anyone who casts aligned spells more than very, very rarely. Since Blue and Orange morality isn't particularly popular when you are supposed to pretend that it is totally reasonable and something you would follow, the aligned spellcasting rules naturally upset a lot of people who dislike when alignment lurches into blue and orange territory.
*Guideline in this case means "the designers and developers at paizo, who should know how to run better games than most GMs, advice that you should handle aligned spellcasting this way outside of exceptional conditions". GM side guidelines exist to guide GMs into running their games better, which I don't think this guideline does at all (and so it is a failure on every level that matters).
The Helm of Opposite Alignment.The Helm of Opposite Alignment explicitly calls out that it changes your behavior, which was what Snowblind pointed out ("beyond specific examples that explicitly say so.") And, as Snowblind said, Helm of Opposite Alignment is evidence of a general rule that magic alignment change doesn't affect your behavior/personality/whatever, because if it did there wouldn't need to be an exception clause in the item description.
That's kind of a weak argument. Pathfinder text duplicates itself needlessly all the time. Unless something highlights that its an exception, you can't really say it is without some prior guidance. There is woefully little such guidance in the system. That it's an effect that explicitly does change your alignment and states it changes your behavior leans towards the opposite of your conclusion based on a preponderance of such statements in the game as there are so few.
Another effect that explicitly can change alignment is atonement. If a behavioral change doesn't result from atonement, then it significantly reduces the personal reasons to actually "atone" for something outside of the meta reason of being a player wanting to use your class abilities.
|
|
Psychosis is a specific type of mental condition. Pathfinder lists it as a specific type of insanity, which funnily enough actually makes people Chaotic Evil aligned and explicitly forces them to behave that way if they don't pass a save. Most of the other insanities don't qualify as a type of Psychosis.
Ah, my apologies, I should have indeed used Insanities rather than Pyschosis.
What about a person who is exceedingly generous, constantly wants to help others, would gladly give their own life to save others, and casts Infernal Healing to heal the poor as a part of their willing service to others? They don't give a damn about being Good, but they match all of the things that Good is associated with, aside from casting Evil spells. That is the sort of character we are talking about. There is nothing in the rules which prevents an Evil character from having all the traits associated with Good characters and only one trait associated with Evil ones...well, there was the whole "pick which alignment matches your character best" thing, but aligned spellcasting overrides that by giving very definite numbers as part of a "Guideline"*.
They would find a different spell to use other than infernal healing then. Or the amount of good they're would do, if they otherwise act as good as you claim, would outweigh the evil of the spell.
Because of rules like this, being a "good person" doesn't strictly line up with being a "Good person" or even a "non-Evil person" under most normal standards of morality that exist on Earth when you don't accept the "Good is good, Evil is evil" tautology. Ditto for "evil Good people" and so forth(yay prot/evil). As a natural consequence of this, some good people won't be Good people. A few of them will be Evil people, despite being unambiguously good by earth standards. The "5 castings of Prot/Good and you are a morally bankrupt monster" guideline makes this category of "should be good but actually Evil (or the equivalent in other alignments)" extend to anyone who casts aligned spells more than very, very rarely. Since Blue and Orange morality isn't particularly popular when you are supposed to pretend that it is totally reasonable and something you would follow, the aligned spellcasting rules naturally upset a lot of people who dislike when alignment lurches into blue and orange territory.
This mentality only works if you completely disassociate Alignemnt and Behavour.
*Guideline in this case means "the designers and developers at paizo, who should know how to run better games than most GMs, advice that you should handle aligned spellcasting this way outside of exceptional conditions". GM side guidelines exist to guide GMs into running their games better, which I don't think this guideline does at all (and so it is a failure on every level that matters).
Paizo put in that guideline because it was repeatedly asked for, instead of people leaving it up to their GMs.
Aligned spells have always been aligned acts, but there were people who agreed with that but complained on the "how many", when in truth it's varies, and short of putting out a MASSIVE chart of which normal acts and which spells move your alignment so many points certain ways it's what you got.
|
Evil Spells
This section includes a large number of evil spells. Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn't enough to change their alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won't turn evil, but will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character's alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evil spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater amount of the time between castings, the less likely the alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance.Those who are forbidden from casting spells with an opposed alignment might lose their divine abilitiesif they circumvent that restriction (via Use Magic Device, for example), depending on how strict their deities are.
Though this advice talks about evil spells, it applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.
Been thinking about this advice and how/if I'd use it. For starters, seems like there are two types of alignment spells. We have spells like animate dead, which are generally evil in their application (I'd put infernal healing in this group). And then we have spells that having an alignment descriptor because the spell itself is in opposition of another alignment, like protection from evil.
I can see the arguement for alignment shift in regards to animate dead, infernal healing, create undead and so forth. Not positive I agree, but I understand it and can see the reasoning as logical. Seems like the intended application of these spells are evil, even if you are using evil for good reasons.
With regards to spells purely alignment based in opposition to other alignments, I don't really see that as something that should shift an alignment. In example, Protection from Evil or Align Weapon Good. These spells are too genaric to claim aligment shifting properties in my book. I don't think shielding yourself from evil or making your weapons bypass evil creature DR is enough to count as a Good spell for the purposes of alignment shifting.
I will also note that GOOD spells with purely combat applications are really walking a fine line in my book. Holy Smite or Holy Word are spells that could really harm innocent bystanders. Yeah, "non-good" innocent bystanders, but still. Despite the descriptor, these spells are GOOD spells only in regard to spell restrictions on alignment for divine casters. I would never consider these spells a GOOD act. They are at best neutral, and frankly boardering on EVIL acts, despite the descriptor.
They would find a different spell to use other than infernal healing then. Or the amount of good they're would do, if they otherwise act as good as you claim, would outweigh the evil of the spell.
This is what a lot of the problem boils down to, isn't it?
I don't know what the DC to know whether a level 1 spell exists is, but it has to be low enough DC to be something anybody without negative INT can Take 10 on, even if untrained.
The likelihood that somebody knows whether cure light wounds exists or not is very high. And if they know it exists, then suddenly an option to heal all those hurt orphans in the clinic exists other than injecting them with massive amounts of devil's blood. At this point, using devil's blood is no longer the best possible solution, and if somebody persists on using infernal healing even despite the existence of cure light wounds, what they are doing is certainly evil.
Even a wizard who doesn't get the spell can just run down to Sarenrae's temple and tell one of the clerics there that there is this hospital of injured orphans that need healing. This would do far more good, and more importantly Good, than trying to take matters into your own hands.
|
|
They would find a different spell to use other than infernal healing then. Or the amount of good they're would do, if they otherwise act as good as you claim, would outweigh the evil of the spell.This is what a lot of the problem boils down to, isn't it?
I don't know what the DC to know whether a level 1 spell exists is, but it has to be low enough DC to be something anybody without negative INT can Take 10 on, even if untrained.
I think if your character is to the point where they are weighing GOOD and EVIL actions against eachother, to try and stay more one way, that character is Neutral....
I'm in strong opposition to the idea that if you do enough evil, it outweighs any good actions you take (and vice versa).
As for knowing about spells, I'd do DC 10 + spell level, with any knowledge or spellcraft check (the information obtained would be related to the skill used). Mind you, knowing the spell exists doesn't mean you know how to cast it, when others are casting it, or how such a spell can be obtained, plus your probably don't know the spell's actual name. You've just heard of such a thing and are pretty sure it exists "somewhere" in the world. So it would be untrained to know about Cantrips, but first level spells would require a skill point spent for that DC 11 check.
|
|
They would find a different spell to use other than infernal healing then. Or the amount of good they're would do, if they otherwise act as good as you claim, would outweigh the evil of the spell.This is what a lot of the problem boils down to, isn't it?
I don't know what the DC to know whether a level 1 spell exists is, but it has to be low enough DC to be something anybody without negative INT can Take 10 on, even if untrained.
I think if your character is to the point where they are weighing GOOD and EVIL actions against eachother, to try and stay more one way, that character is Neutral....
I'm in strong opposition to the idea that if you do enough evil, it outweighs any good actions you take (and vice versa).
As for knowing about spells, I'd do DC 10 + spell level, with any knowledge or spellcraft check (the information obtained would be related to the skill used). Mind you, knowing the spell exists doesn't mean you know how to cast it, when others are casting it, or how such a spell can be obtained, plus your probably don't know the spell's actual name. You've just heard of such a thing and are pretty sure it exists "somewhere" in the world. So it would be untrained to know about Cantrips, but first level spells would require a skill point spent for that DC 11 check.
"I'm in strong opposition to the idea that if you do enough evil, it outweighs any good actions you take (and vice versa)."
How does this work, are people just locked into alignments in your games?As for spells I would do the same thing they do with Monsters, DC 5 + SL for common, DC 10 + SLfor uncommon, and DC 15 + SL for rare spells.
|
|
I'm in strong opposition to the idea that if you do enough evil, it outweighs any good actions you take (and vice versa).How does this work, are people just locked into alignments in your games?
I see your confusion. No, I don't mean they can't change alignment. I just mean that good and evil aren't determined on the scale. An action isn't good because the good in the action outweighs the evil.
I would refer to the entire idea of balancing actions based on weight as a Lawful Neutral practice. The idea that good and evil are measurable quanties that can be weighed against eachother strikes me as very lawful neutral in design.
As for how my system works, a present moment thing, alignment is. A good character tries to be good, now and in the future. Their past doesn't matter - the evil they've done in the past has no bearing on the good they can accomplish in the future. A good character doesn't believe that evil works, can work, or will work, now and in the future. A good character tries, in the present moment, to always be good. They are allowed to fail, but they should always be *trying* to be good.
So the idea that some evil can be justified if the good outweighs the evil is a non-good train of thought. It requires believing that evil works, that evil can work, and that evil will work, now and in the future. It's a trap argument, as believing that good can be weighed against evil means admiting that good and evil can be equal weight, and that they could both exist in the world together, balanced evenly. That's a neutral approach, not good.
A good character sees only weight in good actions. To a good character, only the lack of good on the scale could balance with evil, since evil is weightless on the scale. A good character tries to be good, for the sake of being good, because good is that only path that works in their eyes.
As for shifting alignment in play, I think you could shift alignments very quickly, since it is a present moment thing. A new one each session, if the player didn't try to stick with one. Could happen even more often, but I'd probably not bother unless it was a long session. As GM, I would give that "what alignment are you again?" question when they did something very out of alignment, so a character with a required alignment would be able to reconsider their actions.
Sticking to an alignment is a matter of role playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like realistically there isn't much reason to actually use infernal healing now that celestial healing exists. The only exceptions are very low levels or if celestial blood counts as an expensive material component and you have a ton of devil killing to do.
Celestial healing doesn't catch up to infernal healing until level 20! Hardly low levels.
A "Good" person who thinks Evil spells are okay doesn't sound all that together to me.
A good person who thinks "I have this really good healing spell that has no downsides or negative effects maybe I use it to save this person's life instead of letting them die even though it has a mostly meaningless tag on it" doesn't seem all that weird to me.
If they begin to cast Protection from Evil, then the character has, presumably, a reason to perform a good act. If it is persistently cast, then they must be very inclined to do good.
I'm fighting in the blood war alongside the demons, using Protection from Evil to keep myself safe from devils, daemons and, well, backstabbing demons. There is no altruistic behavior here at all.
I do this five times and my alignment does a violent 180 unless I commit some acts of evil to counterbalance it, which killing daemons doesn't exactly count as.
You don't need any inclination to do good to cast the spell. It just changes your alignment. Because spooky magic. Whether or not you're actually a good or evil person has literally no bearing here at all, and that's scary.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
A good person who thinks "I have this really good healing spell that has no downsides or negative effects maybe I use it to save this person's life instead of letting them die even though it has a mostly meaningless tag on it" doesn't seem all that weird to me.A "Good" person who thinks Evil spells are okay doesn't sound all that together to me.
These statements are false.
And if the caster believes them then they are deluding themselves.
These statements are false.
And if the caster believes them then they are deluding themselves.
Well, I guess you could count 'detecting as evil' for a minute as a negative effect, but it has no meaningful or longterm consequences. It even explicitly says so. I guess inflicting people with minor nuisances is a good reason to forcibly convert someone to evil though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good person who thinks "I have this really good healing spell that has no downsides or negative effects maybe I use it to save this person's life instead of letting them die even though it has a mostly meaningless tag on it" doesn't seem all that weird to me.A "Good" person who thinks Evil spells are okay doesn't sound all that together to me.
Lol. So you have your "good" person that's cast the spell enough times to be sure it has no downsides or negative effects. Then you encounter a person in need of healing. So the "good" character whips out their silver power, and curses some water so it harms creatures of goodness. Then they cast Infernal healing on their injured person. The spell consumes the unholy water, as it seeps the target in evil energy, making them radiate evil as it heals their wounds.
The "good" character sighs, knowing the the two evil spells required to heal this one person, are FAR outweighed by the OBVIOUSLY good action they just undertook.
And we'll just assume that the character doesn't have the heal skill, and couldn't just treat deadly wounds...
|
|
These statements are false.
And if the caster believes them then they are deluding themselves.
Well, I guess you could count 'detecting as evil' for a minute as a negative effect, but it has no meaningful or longterm consequences. It even explicitly says so. I guess inflicting people with minor nuisances is a good reason to forcibly convert someone to evil though.
I guess we're in some bizarro land where leaving someone to die is the better thing to do.
And shifting your own alignment, and having to coat the person you're healing in either Devil's blood or cursed water.
No, the bizzaro land is where everyone knows inferna healing but no other ways to heal.
Well sure, the good outweighs the evil, but it's still an action of mixed good and evil and doing it repeatedly risks permanently tainting the character for doing nothing that has any actual evil implications.
|
|
Well sure, the good outweighs the evil, but it's still an action of mixed good and evil and doing it repeatedly risks permanently tainting the character for doing nothing that has any actual evil implications.
You're insistence that this is true means there's not really any point in debating this.
The spell is evil as all f%!$.
It's powered by Devil's Blood or Unholy Water.
It's Evil.
And shifting your own alignment
That's a tautology. Infernal Healing shifts your alignment because you're evil. Infernal Healing is evil because you switch your alignment.
and having to coat the person you're healing in either Devil's blood or cursed water.
Which isn't really fundamentally evil either. Pretty gross and kind of questionable, but getting devil blood on you isn't particularly an evil act... and frankly probably less morally questionable than rubbing someone down in the blood of angels.
But even if it was, what if the caster had eschew materials? Or false focus if you rule that you need 25 GP worth of materials for the unholy water? Because that takes the devil blood out of it entirely.
No, the bizzaro land is where everyone knows inferna healing but no other ways to heal.
It seems pretty reasonable for a wizard to not invest skill points in a really crappy skill but know a really good first level healing spell to me.
|
|
Well sure, the good outweighs the evil, but it's still an action of mixed good and evil and doing it repeatedly risks permanently tainting the character for doing nothing that has any actual evil implications.
And I dub this character, Neutral....
When evil and good are things that can be weighed against eachother to form balance, that means you are neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're insistence that this is true means there's not really any point in debating this.
The spell is evil as all f*%~.
It's powered by Devil's Blood or Unholy Water.
It's Evil.
Which is my problem with the spell. It's evil. Why is it evil? Because it's evil. There's nothing else to it. It's just evil. Because evil. It's like Deathwatch in 3.5.
I find the idea of 'fundamental' evil that is just so intrinsic that actual actions and behaviors no longer matter to be silly and cheapen the whole concept of alignment.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you just cast Celestial Healing a few times to cancel out casting infernal healing.
If one spell makes you evil the other should make you good.
|
|
And shifting your own alignmentThat's a tautology. Infernal Healing shifts your alignment because you're evil. Infernal Healing is evil because you switch your alignment.
Noooo, infernal healing shifts your Alignemnt because it's Evil.
and having to coat the person you're healing in either Devil's blood or cursed water.Which isn't really fundamentally evil either. Pretty gross and kind of questionable, but getting devil blood on you isn't particularly an evil act... and frankly probably less morally questionable than rubbing someone down in the blood of angels.
But even if it was, what if the caster had eschew materials? Or false focus if you rule that you need 25 GP worth of materials for the unholy water? Because that takes the devil blood out of it entirely.
That is a good question and one I've wondered about for awhile, probably deserves its own thread.
No, the bizzaro land is where everyone knows inferna healing but no other ways to heal.It seems pretty reasonable for a wizard to not invest skill points in a really crappy skill but know a really good first level healing spell to me.
So it's convenience. That's it.
It's also convenient to fireball border guards rather than sit around dealing with papers for hours.