[Lore] What's evil about Infernal Healing?

[Slipperychicken]

I noticed that the spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/infernal-healing/) has the [Evil] tag, it involves the use of devil's blood, and the target can "feel the evil of the spell", but I'm struggling a bit on why this spell is supposed to be morally wrong to use.

Does Pathfinder go with the negative-energy-pollution thing, where the use of anything labeled as evil subtly and imperceptibly shifts the cosmos' balance toward domination by the forces of darkness? Because I can get behind that if that's how the lore treats it.

[denthor]

lets start with the what we know

devils are evil they want to corrupt any way they can.

they themselves are corrupt anything that comes from there body would be tainted with there evil the drop of blood.

anything that devils give you is to make you evil a devils deal can be "if you let me live I will..." they would want something evil done so they cast a minor healing spell with a drop of blood. You now have an entity that can do quite a bit of damage if you do not honor your deal.

For more on this I summon RED FEL RED FEL RED FEL did I get it right oh one of Lawful Evil?

[Coretron03]

I'm pretty sure its evil because it uses devils blood/unholy water as a material component and since both of them are rather evil-ish the spells evil. It's probably also evil for "balance" reasons as it can both be casts by most arcane casters and heals quite a bit. It could also feel morally wrong because your empowering someone with devils blood which is like a very scaled down version of selling your soul for power.

There is a good version of the spell called celestial healing/vigor (can't remember) holy water/celestial blood as a material component but it's terrible, granting 1 fast healing for 1/2 your caster level rounds . Yes, you read that right, It takes a level 20 caster to equal a infernal healing spell.

[Sayt]

I think it's that you're specifically invoking dark powers for aid.

I'd also wager that celestial healing is, well, crap, is that evil is easy, or so the trope goes.

There was a two page spread in I think faiths and philosophies that was an Iomedaean chastisement of "faithless healers" (bards) and "tree kneelers" (druids) and "narcissists" (Irorans).

[Slipperychicken]

they themselves are corrupt anything that comes from there body would be tainted with there evil the drop of blood.

anything that devils give you is to make you evil a devils deal can be "if you let me live I will..." they would want something evil done so they cast a minor healing spell with a drop of blood. You now have an entity that can do quite a bit of damage if you do not honor your deal.


I would agree with this explanation, but the spell specifies that it has no long-term impact on the targets alignment, and I haven't seen such influence implied elsewhere.

[Eldariel]

It's just to remind you that good alignment is for chumps and masochists.

[Segev]

My bet would be that, theoretically, you'd have to be engaged in evil acts to convince a devil to share its blood with you. And taking it by force on a regular basis probably qualifies as evil on its own. There's also an argument to be made that infusing mortals with devil blood is corrupting. Though mechanics don't back this up.

Edit: Does "1 drop of devil blood" have a cost listed anywhere? I know the "or 1 dose of unholy water" hints that there should be an expensive material component, but I don't know of anything that gives a price for devil blood. Could that 1 drop be in your material component pouch?

[Psyren]

Just use Celestial Healing (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/celestial-healing/) and avoid all the side-eye.

[Firest Kathon]

Just use Celestial Healing (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/celestial-healing/) and avoid all the side-eye.
Except that Celestial Healing only catches up to Infernal Healing (in terms of amount of damage healed) at CL 20, due to its 1 round per 2 levels duration, comapred to the fixed 1 minute of the [evil] counterpart.

[Slipperychicken]

Just use Celestial Healing (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/celestial-healing/) and avoid all the side-eye.

I appreciate the suggestion. My character will more likely start at a level where CLW is a more efficient souce of healing.

Right now I'm just thinking about how to reconcile the idea of infernal healing being evil despite being a more efficient form of healing.

edit: To be concise, if someone were to ask in-character "Why don't you just cast infernal healing instead of cure light wounds? Infernal healing is generally more effective" I want to have a coherent lore-supported answer to that.

[Starbuck_II]

I appreciate the suggestion. My character will more likely start at a level where CLW is a more efficient souce of healing.

Right now I'm just thinking about how to reconcile the idea of infernal healing being evil despite being a more efficient form of healing.

Asmodeus made this spell because it is the most efficient. Eschew materials will qualify for cost (as devil's blood drop has no cost).
In Pathfinder society it doesn't turn you evil.

[Necroticplague]

I noticed that the spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/infernal-healing/) has the [Evil] tag, it involves the use of devil's blood, and the target can "feel the evil of the spell", but I'm struggling a bit on why this spell is supposed to be morally wrong to use.

1. [evil] tag, to the best my knowlege, just means that it uses [evil] energy. in the cosmos, [evil] is just as much a thing as [fire]. In this case, you're using it.
2. To the best of my knowlege, PF lacks the explicit wording from 3.5 that says casting [evil] spells is evil, so it's not.
3. I assume that 'feel the evil of the spell' is referring to the energy, just like how one can feel the fire of a fireball, or the electricity of a lightning bolt. So basically, they detect as evil because of the energy of the spell (this would be true even without it explicitly saying so, due to Detect Evil's mechanics), and they're aware of the fact.

[Coidzor]

Arcane casters having access to healing magic goes against the natural order and using fiend blood is icky?

[Firechanter]

Answer: the [Evil] tag.
The end.

...
It doesn't really make any sense. Spilling a devil's blood is Good in my book. ;)

P.S.: to the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing as "evil energy", likewise no "good energy". There's positive and negative energy, yes, but these are clearly defined and Infernal Healing doesn't appear to use either.

[Slipperychicken]

1. [evil] tag, to the best my knowlege, just means that it uses [evil] energy. in the cosmos, [evil] is just as much a thing as [fire]. In this case, you're using it.
2. To the best of my knowlege, PF lacks the explicit wording from 3.5 that says casting [evil] spells is evil, so it's not.
3. I assume that 'feel the evil of the spell' is referring to the energy, just like how one can feel the fire of a fireball, or the electricity of a lightning bolt. So basically, they detect as evil because of the energy of the spell (this would be true even without it explicitly saying so, due to Detect Evil's mechanics), and they're aware of the fact.

#1 sounds good to me. An imperceptible contribution to the forces of evil is a pretty solid reason to avoid using something. I guess it's kind of like littering, only instead of pollution it's the empowerment of demons and such.

For lore I'm less worried about exact wording than what seems to make the most sense.

[TheifofZ]

AFAIK, it's the fact that you're using the blood of a Devil (Or Unholy Water), albeit in ridiculously small amounts;
Remember that Devils are literally the embodied, distilled essence of Evil (and Law), as they are outsiders native the plane of Lawful Evil.
Unholy water, likewise, is enchanted with powerful magic to be the distilled essence of Evil in a convenient-to-carry form.
Using something like that for any purpose can, at best, be a neutral act (depending on circumstances and so on.) in a manner similar to a lot of other 'Evil, but with extenuating circumstances' situations. Like murderhobo-ing.

The reason it's mechanically better than the celestial version is because Evil Is Bad, and so the fact that it's suppose to literally slowly change your alignment to Evil is a (supposedly) major downside. And therefor it's (supposedly) balanced.
Also the [Evil] tag means that clerics, paladins, and other alignment based classes can't touch it if their alignment is stuck in Good territory.

But mostly because Evil is easier than Good, and because people that write an expansion focused on evil don't talk to the people that do the same for good. So while they both create similar spells, one of them is just plain bad, and the other is excellent but [Evil].

[Serafina]

It's yet another instance of "Cosmic Force of Evil" - the notion that evil is actually some real thing present in the universe.
Which is clearly the case in Pathfinder and most D&D-settings.

The real question is "why would people care".
Why would being metaphysically evil matter? A ton of acts that are tagged "Evil" don't harm anyone - heck, Infernal Healing outright heals people! At no price, given that the materials could be eschewed or taken from a slain devil! And quite a few Evil spells only really deal hitpoint-damage, and are as such not really worse than a common fireball.

The answer to that is best provided by spells such as Detect Evil, and other such things.

Because you can register as Evil to them for two reasons:
- because you used Evil-tagged spells, or other such things
- because you actually committed evil acts, such as murdering innocents, torture, or just selfish crime
And Detect Evil can not tell the difference!
So if Detect Evil, and similar effects, are at all used in a society - then sooner or later it'll be a really good idea to stay away from Evil-tagged spells and such. Because you will be treated the same way as a serial killer, or at least a bandit, because some magic can't tell the difference.

This also gives us a clear origin for the Infernal Healing spell:
The forces of evil behind it (devils, obviously) clearly only want this spell to be used by those loyal to them, or at least not by the servants of good. By making this spell Evil-tagged, they ensure so - their own servants are already Evil due to, well, doing evil stuff, so the tag is no drawback to them. But it is to everyone else, good and neutral people, thus making the spell a major advantage to the evil forces.

[Coidzor]

AFAIK, it's the fact that you're using the blood of a Devil (Or Unholy Water), albeit in ridiculously small amounts;
Remember that Devils are literally the embodied, distilled essence of Evil (and Law), as they are outsiders native the plane of Lawful Evil.
Unholy water, likewise, is enchanted with powerful magic to be the distilled essence of Evil in a convenient-to-carry form.
Using something like that for any purpose can, at best, be a neutral act (depending on circumstances and so on.) in a manner similar to a lot of other 'Evil, but with extenuating circumstances' situations. Like murderhobo-ing.

The reason it's mechanically better than the celestial version is because Evil Is Bad, and so the fact that it's suppose to literally slowly change your alignment to Evil is a (supposedly) major downside. And therefor it's (supposedly) balanced.
Also the [Evil] tag means that clerics, paladins, and other alignment based classes can't touch it if their alignment is stuck in Good territory.

But mostly because Evil is easier than Good, and because people that write an expansion focused on evil don't talk to the people that do the same for good. So while they both create similar spells, one of them is just plain bad, and the other is excellent but [Evil].

Except Good is supposed to be better at healing and nurturing, as it comes naturally to them, so that argument about evil being easier doesn't work for healing.

Unholy Water is made with a low level spell, so it's not exactly powerful evil magic, either, just weak evil magic.

Edit: Heck, Curse Water (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/spells/curseWater.html) is another 1st level spell. For some reason I thought it was 2nd level.

Powerful, it ain't.

[Segev]

While the mechanics are vague to nonexistent in support of this, I always prefer any objective force to have an objective, tangible effect related to the tag associated with it. Having an [evil] spell that doesn't do anything ... well, evil ... is like having a spell that causes apples to turn into cherries that has the [fire] tag. Where's the fire?

To that end, I tend to view objective [evil] and [good] (and [law] and [chaos]) as not just names for energies, but things which do have tangible meaning in the colloquial senses of the terms. This is tricky with things like infernal healing, because it expressly says it doesn't affect the alignment of the healed target outside of the temporary detection alteration. I have a conflicting distaste for "gotcha" effects and "well, it increases the evil in the world just a tiny bit that you can't notice"/"evil pollution" add-ons to explain such things. They feel cheap and unconvincing.

For discussion purposes, I'll step away from spell tags and into creature subtypes. A [fire] subtype creature has literal elemental fire as some component of its being. It may not be 100% "made of fire," but fire is at least as much a part of it as, say, flesh and bone are of a human being. Perhaps its blood literally is fire, or it uses gaseous flame in its lungs the way we use air, or...any number of ways depending on the creature. Nevertheless, because D&D is a magical setting, literal elemental fire can be part of a creature's makeup.

Similarly, [good] and [evil] and other alignment-subtyped creatures literally are physically composed, in whole or in part, of that alignment. Aligned behavior sustains them, to some extent, whether their own or others'. Opposed alignment behaviors are like exposing a [fire] creature to water, or a human to less-than-ideal (or even outright hostile) environments - e.g. an open sewer. Unpleasant at best, potentially harmful if severe enough.

It isn't likely that a single act of kindness in a Dretch's presence is going to cause it harm, but it will find it...repulsive...in the same sense that watching a dog eat its own vomit is repulsive to most humans. It hurts mentally as it imagines the sensation of doing it, itself. And thus, DOING something Good is like actually eating that dog's vomit, itself. Disgusting and uncomfortable, potentially painful, and possibly harmful. But any harm is probably not IMMEDIATELY obvious.

Such creatures' presence also foments and enhances things in accord with the energies they exude. That [fire] creature probably makes fires light a little easier, burn a little brighter, last a little longer. (o/~ Longer with Big Red! o/~)

That [evil] creature, then, probably makes cruelties a little sharper but also a little more maliciously satisfying. Makes opportunities to profit from greed and corruption a little more obvious or likely to crop up. Makes kind acts a little more likely to backfire, and it less likely for "good deeds to go unpunished," as the aphorism goes. Anything they do is naturally going to be a little more likely to advance wickedness, even if they aren't deliberately trying, just as a [fire] creature's actions may well cause more heat without them even really trying.

But again, this isn't just "the taint of evil;" this is a vague skewing of likelihood with a much heavier reliance on genuine evil being their MO and nurturing them, such that they encourage it in natural (or at least natural-seeming) ways.

I apologize for the rambling. I'm trying to figure out how to work this concept back to typing of spells. In theory, an [evil] spell should inherently have some effect - or some requirement to pull it off - that advances the cause of evil inherently. A spell that requires the fresh heart of an elf maiden could be [evil] because it requires an active sacrifice of a sentient creature to cast it. A spell that transforms innocent children into pain-wracked mind-controlled minions could be [evil] because its effect is inherently such. Spells like these cannot be cast benignly, no matter how benignant the intent.

So, then, if infernal healing is [evil], it must somehow require inherently evil behavior/acts in its casting, or result in evil even when used with the most kind-hearted intentions for the target. Perhaps if the fast healing inflicted those wounds it heals on a random person who was too weak to resist the effect, somewhere. Or on a Petitioner in Hell. Or the target spends one minute as a Petitioner in Hell for every time he was affected by the spell, suffering these wounds again during that time, and only after the time is up are they released to their true afterlife. With possibility that some enterprising lower-planer power might find a way to keep them anyway.

[Sayt]

It's also worth noting that planetouched arise not just from interbreeding with outsiders, but also from association and contact.

Tieflings also have a societal and/or epigenetic (I'd prefer it be the latter, honestly) tendency towards evil alignments.

Rubbing your wounds down with devil blood seems like a really good way to have some pitborn descendants. Those descendants will have some inclination towards evil. Dying evil gets you sorted into the lower outer planes, which gives them more souls to turn into fiends.

[Slipperychicken]

To that end, I tend to view objective [evil] and [good] (and [law] and [chaos]) as not just names for energies, but things which do have tangible meaning in the colloquial senses of the terms. This is tricky with things like infernal healing, because it expressly says it doesn't affect the alignment of the healed target outside of the temporary detection alteration. I have a conflicting distaste for "gotcha" effects and "well, it increases the evil in the world just a tiny bit that you can't notice"/"evil pollution" add-ons to explain such things. They feel cheap and unconvincing.

I know what you mean. I think the explanations are unsatisfying because while PF has kept alignment going, there isn't a clear, consistent vision of what value alignment is meant to add to the game experience. They just kind of kept it around because they were mimicking 3.5 and wanted to make it more accessible to that game's holdout players after WotC dropped them. Even WotC has been gradually de-emphasizing alignment as they've come to understand its many flaws.


And I'm not sure why the developers thought the game needed so many first level healing spells anyway. They could have left it at CLW and that would have been plenty. Maybe one or two more for late-blooming partial casters that get their level one spells later, but not more than that.

[Starbuck_II]

I know what you mean. I think the explanations are unsatisfying because while PF has kept alignment going, there isn't a clear, consistent vision of what value alignment is meant to add to the game experience. They just kind of kept it around because they were mimicking 3.5 and wanted to make it more accessible to that game's holdout players after WotC dropped them. Even WotC has been gradually de-emphasizing alignment as they've come to understand its many flaws.


And I'm not sure why the developers thought the game needed so many first level healing spells anyway. They could have left it at CLW and that would have been plenty. Maybe one or two more for late-blooming partial casters that get their level one spells later, but not more than that.

Well, true, but fast healing isn't standard healing.

D&D 1st level spell: has favored healing (same religion heals double), Channel Cure Wounds, Lesser Vigor, Invest Light Protection (better battle heal as gives hp and DR), and goodberry.
2nd level: Mark of Judgement grants everyone Crusader healing stance.

[Milo v3]

2. To the best of my knowlege, PF lacks the explicit wording from 3.5 that says casting [evil] spells is evil, so it's not.
Unfortunately they made it official last year (which is ridiculously stupid because now evil wizards can cast protection from evil a few times to change their alignment to good).

[Coretron03]

Unfortunately they made it official last year (which is ridiculously stupid because now evil wizards can cast protection from evil a few times to change their alignment to good).

On the bright side you can negate becoming evil by casting Protection from evil as many times as needed on downtime days. Or you know, ignore it because its stupid and use 3.5's lesser vigor/make celestial healing equal to it/ remove the evil tag and change the fluff.

[Ettina]

Unfortunately they made it official last year (which is ridiculously stupid because now evil wizards can cast protection from evil a few times to change their alignment to good).

Just because casting evil spells can make you evil doesn't mean that the reverse is true. Being evil is easy, being good is hard.

[Vhaidara]

Just because casting evil spells can make you evil doesn't mean that the reverse is true. Being evil is easy, being good is hard.

Actually, the same sidebar said that it's true for Good spells

[Slipperychicken]

Just because casting evil spells can make you evil doesn't mean that the reverse is true. Being evil is easy, being good is hard.

The SRD lists casting good-aligned spells as a possible act of penance, though it spends a lot of text urging players and GMs to have things make sense

[Necroticplague]

Just because casting evil spells can make you evil doesn't mean that the reverse is true. Being evil is easy, being good is hard.

Actually, according to the PFSRD entry I can find, it does apply to Good, as well as to Lawful and Chaotic spells.


Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her 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 he 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 evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely 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 abilities if 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 also applies to spells with other alignment descriptors.

[Telonius]

AFAIK, it's the fact that you're using the blood of a Devil (Or Unholy Water), albeit in ridiculously small amounts;
Remember that Devils are literally the embodied, distilled essence of Evil (and Law), as they are outsiders native the plane of Lawful Evil.
Unholy water, likewise, is enchanted with powerful magic to be the distilled essence of Evil in a convenient-to-carry form.
Using something like that for any purpose can, at best, be a neutral act (depending on circumstances and so on.) in a manner similar to a lot of other 'Evil, but with extenuating circumstances' situations. Like murderhobo-ing.

The reason it's mechanically better than the celestial version is because Evil Is Bad, and so the fact that it's suppose to literally slowly change your alignment to Evil is a (supposedly) major downside. And therefor it's (supposedly) balanced.
Also the [Evil] tag means that clerics, paladins, and other alignment based classes can't touch it if their alignment is stuck in Good territory.

But mostly because Evil is easier than Good, and because people that write an expansion focused on evil don't talk to the people that do the same for good. So while they both create similar spells, one of them is just plain bad, and the other is excellent but [Evil].

I think I'll call this the Winchester Argument.

[Coidzor]

So, then, if infernal healing is [evil], it must somehow require inherently evil behavior/acts in its casting, or result in evil even when used with the most kind-hearted intentions for the target. Perhaps if the fast healing inflicted those wounds it heals on a random person who was too weak to resist the effect, somewhere. Or on a Petitioner in Hell. Or the target spends one minute as a Petitioner in Hell for every time he was affected by the spell, suffering these wounds again during that time, and only after the time is up are they released to their true afterlife. With possibility that some enterprising lower-planer power might find a way to keep them anyway.

Except the problem with all of those is that they're woefully out of line with the power of a 1st level spell. Even one that's as powerful as a spell a level or two higher due to erroneous thinking on the part of the devs that the alignment lock somehow justifies this.

[Segev]

Except the problem with all of those is that they're woefully out of line with the power of a 1st level spell. Even one that's as powerful as a spell a level or two higher due to erroneous thinking on the part of the devs that the alignment lock somehow justifies this.

Eh, they likely have little to no game effect. From a game-balance standpoint, they're fluff. They offer no control to the caster over any of it. The only one that is narratively problematic, due to the caster being able to involuntarily do nasty things to a specified person, is the one where the recipient spends time in hell on death. So I'll agree that one's potentially a problem.