As usual, evilbob already knows what I think about this, but I've done a little more research to support my position. Admittedly, there are typically two types of attack spells: Front-end damage (where the caster must make an attack, usually a touch attack, against the target and where no save is allowed) and back-end damage (where, in lieu of an attack by the caster, the target has to make a save to avoid some or all of the effect of the spell). You could also refer to them as "active" and "passive" respectively.However, not all spells fall into these categories. For example, touch of fatigue and temporal stasis both require a touch attack and allow a save (in these cases, a Fort save, same as ghoul touch). There are other examples that use different saves, most notably the cure wounds and inflict wounds series.
On the other hand, there are a few spells that neither require an attack nor allow a save (usually they're area effects). Most obvious of these is magic missile, but others include acid fog, black tentacles, waves of fatigue or exhaustion, and holy word (along with blasphemy, dictum and word of chaos).
So, while spells outside the front-end/back-end paradigm are not frequently seen, neither are they forbidden de jure. The problem with ghoul touch is that it is unclear what the notation "Fortitude negates" refers to. I personally think it refers to the primary effect of the spell, the same way that touch of fatigue and temporal stasis do. If the target resists the primary effect of the spell, not only is he not paralyzed, but others around him do not have to save to avoid being sickened. On the other hand, if the target fails his save, those surrounding him still get a chance not to succumb to his nauseating stench.
Whether that was the original intent of the spell, I don't know. But that does seem to be the way it works as written.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7prrWqKmlnF6kv6h706GpnpmUqHyotM6uo2asn6qwqXnMnpqhmZ6esLR50K6crKyZpLtvfZVyb3JpXw%3D%3D