[PF] Does casting Infernal healing make you evil?

[Renen]

Do you get alignment change from it?

[JusticeZero]

By the most reasonable interpretation of the system I know of, if it has an [evil] tag then yes, it does, but it doesn't affect how you act. You can still be an awesome do-gooder, but if you pop [evil] spells a lot, you need to make sure to stand way back when someone starts cracking off Holy Words. Some people try to make a lot more of that than I do. just think of it that some spells taint your soul on a magical level in ways that make the detectors go off erroneously. There is no rational moral argument involved.

[geekintheground]

you dont turn evil from a single cast, but casting an [evil] spell is a minor evil act, so (depending on DM) casting it enough will turn you evil unless you balance it out with one or more [good] spells.

edit: you do *detect* as evil during the duration though

[Snowbluff]

Healing is an evil act! :smalltongue:

[Steward]

The spell description mentions that you're putting a drop of devil blood in the person's body. It's enough to make them radiate evil (in the same way that wearing Xykon's crown made Roy Greenhilt radiate evil) but according to the description the target's alignment is unaffected though as has been noted earlier the caster is pushing themselves slightly closer towards darkness by using the spell.

[Fax Celestis]

Healing is an evil act! :smalltongue:
No it's not! That's why it got moved out of the Necromancy school!

[Keneth]

There is no RAW on how your alignment changes from using [evil] spells, and that's really all it boils down to. Consult your GM on how they want to handle the issue, or research a similar spell that doesn't use devil blood (use troll blood instead).

[Renen]

Yeh. Im mostly interested in raw. As long as it doesnt say i become evil...

[Fax Celestis]

The only RAW surrounding aligned spells is that divine casters can't cast aligned spells that oppose their alignment. Note: "oppose" does not mean "does not match", and it also doesn't include all divine casters. Druids, for instance, don't care about spell alignment.

[JusticeZero]

By RAW, it is an inherently evil act regardless of all circumstances. There is no moral rationality involved in it; the act of casting the spell shifts you a bit toward evil as far as the alignment system is concerned. People who are (G)ood can't use [evil] spells at all, and vice versa.

This only matters to certain supernatural effects, and has no bearing on the larger philosophical debate of whether or not you are a good (small G) person, only to whether you are a Good (large G) person. It is completely possible and reasonable in D&D to be a (g)ood person who detects as (E)vil, or an (e)vil person who detects as (G)ood.

Alignment is a physical and measurable property, like pH or temperature or electrical charge, which often but not always has some bearing on ones moral behavior.

Small-letter alignment is irrelevant to the system. Are you a good person? Do you help your neighbors? Do you help the poor and hungry? then you are (g)ood. You are likely also (G)ood, but not necessarily. It is ethically important and mechanically irrelevant.

What is relevant is large-letter alignment. Are you (G)ood? Do you detect as "Good" to Detect Alignment? Does a Holy Word damage you? Are you able to access the negative material plane when channeling power? Your actions affect this, but magic also has an effect here. Furthermore, the universe isn't really spending too much time debating this. It is mechanically important and ethically irrelevant.

[vegetalss4]

By RAW, it is an inherently evil act regardless of all circumstances. There is no moral rationality involved in it; the act of casting the spell shifts you a bit toward evil as far as the alignment system is concerned. People who are (G)ood can't use [evil] spells at all, and vice versa.

That's not raw.
It isn't written anywhere in the rules that a spell with the [evil] tag is an evil act*. It's a common conclusion and may (or may not) be RAI, but it certainly isn't RAW.
The only rules-effect of that (or any other) tag is that it interact with certain effects which state that they do.
One of those is that Clerics cannot cast spells an opposite alignment tag of their own alignment or that of their god.
Anyone else** is fully capable of doing so.


*In pathfinder. In 3.5 it said so in the Book of Vile Darkness if my memory serves.
**who doesn't themselves have the same special rule.

[geekintheground]

i dont know how to make quotes, but it DOES say that casting an [evil] spell is a minor evil act in the alignment section on the pathfinder SRD.
"Characters using spells with the evil descriptor should consider themselves to be committing minor acts of evil"

am i allowed to post that link?

[CRtwenty]

In D&D casting an [Evil] spell is considered an Evil act. No matter your intentions the magic itself is dark and has a corrupting effect on the person casting it. One cast isn't going to change your alignment, but frequent casting of these spells will do so gradually over time. This really only matters to Clerics and Paladins though. A Paladin casting an [Evil] spell would fall, and a Cleric may potentially lose casting powers and require an atonement depending on how the DM rules it.

[Keneth]

Let me just stress again that there are no specific rules dictating how the casting of an [evil] spell impacts a character's alignment, if at all. Ultimate Campaign further extends the alignment system with optional rules for changing alignments over the course of a campaign, but even it doesn't set any hard rules for how much any kind of action is worth on the cosmic morality scale. While casting an [evil] spell is, without a doubt, an evil deed (the rules do say as much), the GM might just as well rule that the intent of the spell outweighs its inherent nature, or that the effect is so minor that it has no chance of altering your alignment in contrast with the actual good deeds that you perform.

[grarrrg]

Healing is an evil act! :smalltongue:No it's not! That's why it got moved out of the Necromancy school!

...
Not sure how to interpret normal speaking voice reply to a normal speaking voice comment.


...Druids, for instance, don't care about spell alignment.

True, but Druids have alignment restrictions in place on the class itself, so that presumably takes care of things...or something...

[Raven777]

[Evil] spells do not make you any more evil than [Fire] spells make you more on fire. To clarify : even if RAW mentions [Evil] spells being in fact an evil act, there is no rule in place (beside Rule Zero) to force a character to change alignment. You can accumulate as many Dark Side points as you like, it won't change the gameplay.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Druids, for instance, don't care about spell alignment.

Actually, they do.


Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells

A druid 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 chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.

Was the same in 3.5, too. I never understood why, Druids were always more religiously detached and neutral-oriented and had plenty of specific code of conduct stuff already, tacking on the cleric's bs always seemed unnecessary.

[killem2]

I don't exactly know how PF handles it, but if it retains the basics of 3.5, you can cast it all day long as a wizard and go about your business with no ill effects.

You may not please many good divine casters in your presence but, otherwise you are good.