Planar Binding - evil?

[Tiiba]

So let's say I'm a lawful good wizard, and for some reason I need a lantern archon to use as a lamp. So I call the thing, trap it in a magic circle, and then punch it until it budges.

But since I called an archon, the whole thing is lawful good. Or is it?

[AuraTwilight]

The MAGIC is Lawful Good; not the fact that you're physically abusing it to cooperate.

[ryu]

There are any number of ways to prevent the thing from winning its cha check. Several of which involve non-violent, non-harmful, and even beneficial methods. Any evil in that transaction is based on you punching an archon, not the spell.

[Tiiba]

What about the fact that it can't leave? That's false imprisonment.

[Silva Stormrage]

Do you need to use the magic circle spell? I was always under the impression that you COULD call a creature without it. The creature just isn't bound in any way what so ever.

[ryu]

What about the fact that it can't leave? That's false imprisonment.

Tell it up front that it can leave any time it wants with your goodwill and dismissal. The circle is merely a fail-safe against any summoned creature going rogue and deciding on random violence.

[Zanos]

Do you need to use the magic circle spell? I was always under the impression that you COULD call a creature without it. The creature just isn't bound in any way what so ever.
You do, actually:

Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act: to lure a creature from another plane to a specifically prepared trap, which must lie within the spell’s range. The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom.

Later in the spell text it explains the details of the trap, which is the inwardly focused magic circle. I've frequently had DM's houserule that you could bind something without a circle if you were willing to accept the consequences of summoning something powerful and potentially rather irritated.

[Anxe]

While Planar Binding isn't explicitly evil, I've never seen a character use it that wasn't evil.

[Chronos]

Note also that the magic circle you use to call a Lantern Archon must be either against law (a Chaotic spell) or against good (an Evil spell). So no matter how you do it, you're going to end up using spells of opposed alignments.

[Spore]

So let's say I'm a lawful good wizard, and for some reason I need a lantern archon to use as a lamp. So I call the thing, trap it in a magic circle, and then punch it until it budges.

But since I called an archon, the whole thing is lawful good. Or is it?

You do realize that those actions - while perfectly in the rules and possible - would make you the target of greater goods? Just because they are good doesn't mean they will not stop you from doing harm because you are good on paper.

"Look there it's Superman and he is killing little bunny rabbits!"
"The rabbits must be evil and purged then. Move along citizen!"

[Raven777]

While Planar Binding isn't explicitly evil, I've never seen a character use it that wasn't evil.

Look, [Xills + commoners = badass chest bursting alien army] is a fact of life that transcends Good and Evil. I like to think of it as the Radical Cool alignment.

[Tiiba]

Note also that the magic circle you use to call a Lantern Archon must be either against law (a Chaotic spell) or against good (an Evil spell). So no matter how you do it, you're going to end up using spells of opposed alignments.

I thought the magic circle is part of Planar Binding, and therefore has the same alignment? Otherwise, the spell description wouldn't specify it. I could trap a monster with Dimensional Anchor or Antimagic Field and a sturdy box, too.

And what sort of spell would be lawful good and chaotic evil at the same time?

[Raven777]

Not sure the binding would work if you try to make something appear inside an AMF.

[Tiiba]

Well, never mind. I read the description of Magic Circle, and it really is separate.

[ArcturusV]

Granted if it was a lantern archon, you could probably get away with making a subpar trap. Doesn't say you have to use a magic circle against good/law. Just use a Magic Circle against Evil. Call it. Say "Hey... I created this so you could see I"m a good guy, I'm not going to break your will. I just want some help."

I mean they're a servant of Lawfulness and Goodness. If you approach it right they shouldn't mind. No need to go face punching. Particularly since you're not asking for a dangerous service.

[Raven777]

So let's say I'm a lawful good wizard, and for some reason I need a lantern archon to use as a lamp. So I call the thing, trap it in a magic circle, and then punch it until it budges.

But since I called an archon, the whole thing is lawful good. Or is it?

The real question is why on earth ain't you casting Light or Dancing Lights?

[ArcturusV]

Fashion, my good man. Any pauper can have mage lights, but you know you're hanging with someone who has style when all the lighting comes from celestial beings of pure brilliant energy. :smallwink:

[Craft (Cheese)]

Fashion, my good man. Any pauper can have mage lights, but you know you're hanging with someone who has style when all the lighting comes from celestial beings of pure brilliant energy. :smallwink:

Plus they all get 2 ranged touch attacks for 1d6 damage per round. Have 30 or 40 of them in every room and you've got one hell of an anti-burglar defense...

[Coidzor]

So let's say I'm a lawful good wizard, and for some reason I need a lantern archon to use as a lamp. So I call the thing, trap it in a magic circle, and then punch it until it budges.

But since I called an archon, the whole thing is lawful good. Or is it?

Why on earth are you torturing a lantern archon in order to get it to use its continual flame powers?

You should just be able to pay the thing at about half the going rate.

And if you're not using it to create a metric buttload of Continual Flames, what on earth do you want it for as a light source? :smallconfused:

[Eldariel]

You do realize that those actions - while perfectly in the rules and possible - would make you the target of greater goods? Just because they are good doesn't mean they will not stop you from doing harm because you are good on paper.

By that logic greater goods would be busy stopping all evil that's going on. They're usually pretty busy with the actually evil contingent tho so they probably don't have the time to bother with mortals, let alone mortals who aren't all that evil (I mean, it's not like they stop liches from ending the world or whatever; this isn't quite on the same scale of severity).

So in short, no, no greater good would likely do anything about it. They've got more important stuff to do. The same creature might after being returned depending on how the ordeal went.

[Angelalex242]

Well, considering it might be a Lawful Good Wizard or a Lawful Good Sorcerer, he might be asking the Lantern Archon to be his familiar.

Or if he needs more muscle, he might be asking a Hound Archon to protect him from those evil guys over there.

Anyways, most Celestials have detect alignment at will, so they'll get you're not a nasty badguy on looking at you.

Still, 'binding' seems kinda nasty to do to a creature of goodness, it's just wizards don't have access to the ally spell.

Ideally, Planar Ally should be 'asking a creature with the same alignment for help', and Binding 'forcing a creature with the opposite alignment to help.'

But, it's not set up that way...

[Brookshw]

Fashion, my good man. Any pauper can have mage lights, but you know you're hanging with someone who has style when all the lighting comes from celestial beings of pure brilliant energy. :smallwink:

Nothing says good like mobile laser turrets :smallbiggrin:

You really should be able to discuss it in a non-violent manner. Personally as a dm I'd be fine waving away the circle requirement if you wanted. Good opportunity for player and dm to work together.

Or just summon the thing with a circle, break the circle, then state your request.

[Spore]

Ideally, Planar Ally should be 'asking a creature with the same alignment for help', and Binding 'forcing a creature with the opposite alignment to help.'

But, it's not set up that way...

No it shouldn't. It restricts roleplaying and that is bad. How about the evil demon worshiper who forces devils to gather information in the Abyss? How about a NG Wizard summoning a Hound Archon to attack town guards because the mayor is clearly evil (but defying him is also defying the law).

What about binding elementals that just HATE being summoned onto the material plane? Axiomatic and Protean creatures? There is more to the game and alignment setting than Richard Dastardly tormenting angels in his S&M cellar or Goody Two-Shoes forcing a Daemon to protect a church choir.

edit: Okay so saying **** is apparently a "bad word" (silly Americans), so I'd replace it with Richard. You destroyed a beautiful aliteration! Happy now?

[TuggyNE]

No it shouldn't. It restricts roleplaying and that is bad. How about the evil demon worshiper who forces devils to gather information in the Abyss? How about a NG Wizard summoning a Hound Archon to attack town guards because the mayor is clearly evil (but defying him is also defying the law).

What about binding elementals that just HATE being summoned onto the material plane? Axiomatic and Protean creatures?

Most of those are easily handled with a minor amendment to the suggestion: namely, the alignments must be opposed/same on at least one axis. Thus, a Good Cleric can ask for any Good creature as an ally, and a Good Wizard can bind any Evil creature; similarly, a Lawful Cleric allies with Lawful, and a Chaotic Wizard binds Lawful. The OP's Wizard would then be able to bind any Evil or any Chaotic creature, as they are both Lawful and Good.

Mind you, it's not a perfect system, but it's not nearly as bad as it sounded.

[Yuki Akuma]

Wizards having to bind outsiders with magical seals while Clerics can just request aid is thematically appropriate. Giving Wizards access to Planar Ally and Clerics access to Planar Binding (beyond domains) kinda ruins the theme.

It's based on 'real world' magical theories - primarily those found in the Key of Solomon. A layman (meaning, in this case, a person who isn't of the church) can't just call on the power of the divine or infernal. He has to force the issue, using wards and diagrams and special words of power.

[Tiiba]

Okay, so let's say I bind the archon with a circle against chaos. That's not evil - but it's still a slave. Exactly as if you bound it with a circle against good.

But I thought - D&D is a GAME. Games are for WISH FULFILLMENT. And my wish is to punch archons and get away with it. So screw the rules, I make them.

[Elderand]

Okay, so let's say I bind the archon with a circle against chaos. That's not evil - but it's still a slave. Exactly as if you bound it with a circle against good.

But I thought - D&D is a GAME. Games are for WISH FULFILLMENT. And my wish is to punch archons and get away with it. So screw the rules, I make them.

No, technicly the DM makes the rules. And any DM worth his salt who see your character punching a literral incarnation of goodness for no good reasons other than "because I wanted to" is going to make sure that Lawful Good alignement you have on your sheet changes to something more appropriate.

[Segev]

Ultimately, it's a slave only if your bargain was one that it would not have agreed to of its own free will. If the Lantern Archon says, "No, I don't want to; let me go," and you force the issue, you're enslaving it. If, on the other hand, you say, "What would you want in return?" and can come to an agreement, you've just got a binding contract. It's no more a slave than a LN hireling.

Note that the "opposed Charisma check" can represent a number of things. The classic "contest of wills to enslave it" is one, but it could also represent negotiation and befriending: if you win, you've convinced it that your bargain is a good one and it willingly agrees; if it wins, it's convinced you that you can't offer it enough and that you really should just let it go.

[Tiiba]

No, technicly the DM makes the rules. And any DM worth his salt who see your character punching a literral incarnation of goodness for no good reasons other than "because I wanted to" is going to make sure that Lawful Good alignement you have on your sheet changes to something more appropriate.

Aww COME ON!

[ryu]

Aww COME ON!

It's only fair. Evil in deed evil by name. That's a legitimate thing the game allows, but no you don't get to punch manifestations of good for fun and avoid the game calling you on your evil acts.

[Tiiba]

Next question. What about summoning? No negotiation, no payment, no save. The description does not even explicitly mention anything about "obviously suicidal acts". Still good.

[Yuki Akuma]

Summoned creatures aren't actually there. If they die they'll wake up back home, fit as a fiddle. Even their 'x per day' abilities aren't actually used up.

[Red Fel]

Next question. What about summoning? No negotiation, no payment, no save. Still good.

Summoning is itself a neutral act, like killing something, breaking wind, or riding a bicycle. (Summoning spells involving Good-subtype creatures are Good-typed.) And like killing something, breaking wind, or riding a bicycle, it is not the act itself that is determinatively evil or good, but what you do with it.

If you kill an Evil Outsider, that killing is Good. If you kill in self-defense, it is Neutral. If you kill an Orc Baby, it is Evil.

If you break wind in a field, it is Neutral. If you do it in a rowdy Dwarven pub, it is Good. If you do it in a small room with no air circulation, it is Evil.

If you ride a Bicycle to bring an old woman her groceries, it is Good. If you do it for fitness purposes, it is Neutral. If you are riding the bicycle away from the child from whom you stole it, it is Evil.

Summoning works the same way. The spell may have a Good-type if you use it to summon a Good-subtype creature, but what you do with it determines whether the act as a whole is Good or otherwise.

[Tiiba]

Look, the fact is that the leonal you summoned to beat that blackguard was in the middle of a meal. He damn near choked!

Remember how Haley summoned Celia? The glowing eyes, the threats?

[jedipilot24]

I have a question about Planar Binding; suppose that you are a Neutral Good Wizard playing the Red Hand of Doom and you use Planar Binding to call a Hound Archon to help defend Brindol.
Would that be considered evil?
For that matter, since defending the innocents is what Archons are all about, would you even have to pay anything?
Planar Ally allows payment to be waived if the requested action is within their alignment, but could this also be used for Planar Binding?

[Rubik]

I have a question about Planar Binding; suppose that you are a Neutral Good Wizard playing the Red Hand of Doom and you use Planar Binding to call a Hound Archon to help defend Brindol.
Would that be considered evil?
For that matter, since defending the innocents is what Archons are all about, would you even have to pay anything?
Planar Ally allows payment to be waived if the requested action is within their alignment, but could this also be used for Planar Binding?You're a Good character casting a Good spell to call a Good creature to perform a Good deed.

That's obviously Evil.

[Red Fel]

You're a Good character casting a Good spell to call a Good creature to perform a Good deed.

That's obviously Evil.

Of course! It's all part of the Master Plan! Nobody will suspect!

[Tiiba]

Well, yes. A master sending a good slave to fight the good fight is still a slaver.

[Yuki Akuma]

Look, the fact is that the leonal you summoned to beat that blackguard was in the middle of a meal. He damn near choked!

Remember how Haley summoned Celia? The glowing eyes, the threats?

No, really. Summoning doesn't pull a being from their home plane to you. It creates a duplicate of their body that they control while the summoning lasts. It's right there in the summoning subschool description.

[Rubik]

Well, yes. A master sending a good slave to fight the good fight is still a slaver.You never said slave, if you'll note.

Also note that you can have mutually beneficial agreements between caster and called creature. Feel free to use Diplomacy, offers of alliances, favors, or material possessions to convince it to do what you want. It can choose to forgo the Charisma check if it thinks it's a good deal.

So are you casting Planar Binding, buffing yourself, debuffing the creature, and Mindraping it into submission? Then it's probably enslavement.

Are you casting Planar Binding, offering it 10,000 gp in donations to orphanages and a holy avenger for its own use and setting it free to do what you asked it to do? Then it's probably not.

Context is everything.

[Red Fel]

Well, yes. A good master sending a good slave to fight the good fight is still a slaver.

There is a difference between the enslaving of a creature through force and mundane means, and the power of a magical contract. That's just one of those fundamental rules of the D&D universe, like the idea that Good and Evil are objectively quantifiable.

Summoning a creature and giving its image a task to perform is an ordinary magical interaction. Not inherently evil. Even Planar Binding, which forces the creature to act on your behalf, is not inherently evil. The subject can refuse to serve you, and wait out the duration of your Magic Circle. It is an agreed-upon exchange, albeit one heavily weighed in your favor - immediate freedom from the circle in exchange for a task, or wait awhile and punch the caster in the face for his audacity. A choice.

By contrast, if you were to Plane Shift to Celestia (or any other plane), seize a native by force, and bind them against their will into your service, that would be slavery, and evil. No choice, no options, just servitude.

[Tiiba]

A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.

When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells.

What of that implies that the creature is duplicated? Or that the clone wants to die for you?

[Porthos]

Look, the fact is that the leonal you summoned to beat that blackguard was in the middle of a meal. He damn near choked!

Remember how Haley summoned Celia? The glowing eyes, the threats?

Technically, she wasn't Summoned. If she had been Summoned, she wouldn't have had to worry about dying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarAllyLesser.htm).


A nonhazardous task requires only half the indicated payment, while an especially hazardous task might require a greater gift. Few if any creatures will accept a task that seems suicidal (remember, a called creature actually dies when it is killed, unlike a summoned creature). However, if the task is strongly aligned with the creature’s ethos, it may halve or even waive the payment.

As for the larger point about Summoning things that are in the middle of eating dinner and what not, a Dragon Magazine OotS strip (collected in Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tales) decided to take a look at one of the implications of this. :smallwink:

[Tiiba]

So you're saying,

CALLED PEOPLE DIE IF THEY ARE KILLED! (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people-die-if-they-are-killed)

Yeah, I know it was calling, even though she called it summoning. It didn't really matter then, though, since she wasn't in danger and didn't expect to be in danger. The point is, it's not about the danger, or the promise of reward, or being able to leave immediately. The initial teleportation is involuntary. Maybe it's not demonically evil, but it's rude at least.

[Angelalex242]

So what about that Lawful Good Wizard who wants the Lantern Archon to be his familiar? (Which the book of Exalted Deeds encourages, and they even have a feat called Exalted Familiar, I believe...)

(Which is the good equivalent of the LE wizard getting himself his very own imp.)

[Tiiba]

So what about that Lawful Good Wizard who wants the Lantern Archon to be his familiar? (Which the book of Exalted Deeds encourages, and they even have a feat called Exalted Familiar, I believe...)

(Which is the good equivalent of the LE wizard getting himself his very own imp.)

I take it that placing a classified ad doesn't have the right undertone of personal violation for you? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html)

[Red Fel]

There are nicer ways to get a familiar than pulling an Outsider into the Prime involuntarily and holding it there until it agrees to be helpful. By taking Celestial Familiar as a feat, for example, you can fluff the methodology as appropriate, but I guarantee you that an Exalted character won't use force to acquire a Celestial as a familiar. Chances are, he won't even need to - being Exalted means that the Powers That Be recognize you to be a shining beacon of goody-goodness, such that Good-aligned Outsiders would probably be glad to stop by for a cup of tea, a chat, and a friendly game of Smite-the-Heathen.

As I said, fluff it as you like. Perhaps the spellcaster spent a long time in contemplation of Goodness, and was visited by a Celestial who offered to tag along. Perhaps the spellcaster initiated contact with the Higher Planes, or perhaps the Celestial volunteered. Perhaps - try this one - the Celestial, knowing the frailty of mortals and the great potential for one who is Exalted, offered to tag along in order to ensure that the spellcaster remained Exalted. Gives you a literal angel on your shoulder.

The point is, a Celestial familiar is there because it wants to be. It chooses to serve. It isn't there because it's forced to be.

[Angelalex242]

Hmmm. Maybe the Exalted Feat just causes a Lantern to be Gated to you courtesy of the nearest Solar. As it's more then a little silly to assume taking an exalted feat somehow violates something's free will.

Solar:Hmmm, a wizard just took an exalted feat, who wants to be his familiar?

Lantern:Me! Memememe!

Solar:Okay, here's a gate, have fun!

[Rubik]

Note that, as I alluded to earlier, Planar Binding does not automatically force the bound creature to do anything but show up and stick around until you release it or the time limit expires. It allows you to attempt to force the creature to do something, but it's not automatic. All the exalted character needs to do is to prepare and cast the spell, apologize for interrupting whatever it was the archon was doing, and then make it an offer. If it refuses, he can just thank it for its time and release it.

No slavery or undue punishments at all.

It's kind of like being a Jehova's Witness, really, except you can't slam the door in their face.

[Kyeudo]

People read far too much into the alignment descriptors of spells. Casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is not a evil act. Likewise for all the other alignment descriptors. Those descriptors are for determining how the spell interacts with Clerics and other spellcasting classes with alignment-based restrictions and, IIRC, detection spells like detect evil.

Whether the act of casting a spell is good or not is dependant upon the purpose of the spell. Trying to sort this out "objectively" requires far more philosophical examination of the underpinnings of a particular setting than is sane, so the DM should make the call and stick with it.

[Angelalex242]

Actually, by Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness both, casting a spell with an alignment counts as an act of that alignment. Thus, any Paladin or good aligned cleric or exalted character who casts a spell with the evil descriptor automatically falls, no matter his reasons. NO EXCEPTIONS. No, not even not that one. Not even that really good one you were thinking of.

(That is, by the way, why Paladins only have pro evil and pro chaos on their spell list. Cause their deities don't give them the option of being idiots and casting the spells they shouldn't...pro law and pro good.)

[Kyeudo]

Actually, by Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness both, casting a spell with an alignment counts as an act of that alignment. Thus, any Paladin or good aligned cleric or exalted character who casts a spell with the evil descriptor automatically falls, no matter his reasons. NO EXCEPTIONS. No, not even not that one. Not even that really good one you were thinking of.


So both Books of Inconsistent Morality get something wrong. Call me shocked. This sort of retardedness means that using animate dead to help defend a town from an invading army is always evil, while using planar binding to make an angel torture puppies is always a good act.



(That is, by the way, why Paladins only have pro evil and pro chaos on their spell list. Cause their deities don't give them the option of being idiots and casting the spells they shouldn't...pro law and pro good.)

The point has more to do with Clerics than anything else. Their list is generic across all alignment options.

[ArcturusV]

Well... not quite. Sure there's a rule out there saying a Cleric can't cast spells opposed to their alignment. So the only one with really open season, blank check to cast any alignment, would be True Neutral.

[Elderand]

Well... not quite. Sure there's a rule out there saying a Cleric can't cast spells opposed to their alignment. So the only one with really open season, blank check to cast any alignment, would be True Neutral.

And arcane caster who in general don't care about a spell alignement.

[Angelalex242]

So both Books of Inconsistent Morality get something wrong. Call me shocked. This sort of retardedness means that using animate dead to help defend a town from an invading army is always evil, while using planar binding to make an angel torture puppies is always a good act.



The point has more to do with Clerics than anything else. Their list is generic across all alignment options.

Funny thing about that:Casting Animate Dead to defend the town is in fact evil, because ends do not justify means. Making the angel torture puppies is also very evil, because means do not justify ends either. Only the right spell for the right reasons is good. Most other things will end up evil. The path to evil is broad. The path to good is narrow.

Wizards don't get their powers from alignment, it's true, but an exalted wizard will still fall for casting animate dead. And their alignment will shift towards evil if they cast a lot of evil spells. "Hmm, you sure have been casting pro good a lot...what's your alignment?" "Lawful Good." "Not anymore. Erase good, write neutral."

[Eldariel]

Doesn't that one Salvatore Cleric, Cadderly or something, specifically cast Planar Binding on evil creatures constantly to extort information out of them without losing anything?

[Rubik]

Funny thing about that:Casting Animate Dead to defend the town is in fact evil, because ends do not justify means. Making the angel torture puppies is also very evil, because means do not justify ends either. Only the right spell for the right reasons is good. Most other things will end up evil. The path to evil is broad. The path to good is narrow.

Wizards don't get their powers from alignment, it's true, but an exalted wizard will still fall for casting animate dead. And their alignment will shift towards evil if they cast a lot of evil spells. "Hmm, you sure have been casting pro good a lot...what's your alignment?" "Lawful Good." "Not anymore. Erase good, write neutral."A lot of "Evil" spells really aren't. Most can be cast for capital-G Good purposes, and have nothing to do with elemental Evil. They don't draw on it, they don't lead to it. Animate Dead is one such example, though such spells do tend to require more forethought put into them to prevent you from inadvertently doing something evil with them. Only spells that actually draw on an elemental alignment itself should have an alignment descriptor. Nothing else makes sense.

I say, if you're not actually committing evil aside from casting a so-called [Evil] spell, ignore the alignment change, tell the DM to sod off, and keep being Good regardless.

[Karnith]

Doesn't that one Salvatore Cleric, Cadderly or something, specifically cast Planar Binding on evil creatures constantly to extort information out of them without losing anything?
I'm pretty sure that Cadderly has done that and not been punished for it, yes. He's even a Chosen of Deneir.

A lot of "Evil" spells really aren't. Most can be cast for capital-G Good purposes, and have nothing to do with elemental Evil.
Hello Deathwatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm).

[ArcturusV]

Well... except the Animate Dead example kind of shows that there's a justification for the Evil. As there are bits that say the negative energy used to create undead is sort of a harmful radiation to the prime material plane. And if you think about the updated Taint rules I seem to recall some of the taint involves "Thar were undead here, yo!".

So by creating undead you're tainting a location which corrupts all life around it which isn't exactly in the "Good" ballpark no matter what you use the undead for.

Least there is that justification of the Evil Tag.

[ryu]

Well... except the Animate Dead example kind of shows that there's a justification for the Evil. As there are bits that say the negative energy used to create undead is sort of a harmful radiation to the prime material plane. And if you think about the updated Taint rules I seem to recall some of the taint involves "Thar were undead here, yo!".

So by creating undead you're tainting a location which corrupts all life around it which isn't exactly in the "Good" ballpark no matter what you use the undead for.

Least there is that justification of the Evil Tag.

Oh please tell me this isn't happening again. Okay do we need to go through the arguments and counterarguments for that evil tag fluff being nonsense when things like enervation and the plane of negative energy are neutral individually, or can we just openly state that neither side is going to be convinced by the other in any appreciable way? I mean that's totally a thing that can happen, but come on really? REALLY?

Do you all have that much time to waste?

[Rubik]

Well... except the Animate Dead example kind of shows that there's a justification for the Evil. As there are bits that say the negative energy used to create undead is sort of a harmful radiation to the prime material plane.Please don't use houserules to justify Animate Dead as being [Evil].


And if you think about the updated Taint rules I seem to recall some of the taint involves "Thar were undead here, yo!".

So by creating undead you're tainting a location which corrupts all life around it which isn't exactly in the "Good" ballpark no matter what you use the undead for.

Least there is that justification of the Evil Tag.Again, houserules.

[Zanos]

Please don't use houserules to justify Animate Dead as being [Evil].

BoVD has something to say about animating undead, actually.

ANIMATING THE DEAD OR
CREATING UNDEAD
Unliving corpses—corrupt mockeries of life and purity—
are inherently evil. Creating them is one of the most
heinous crimes against the world that a character can
commit. Even if they are commanded to do something
good, undead invariably bring negative energy into the
world, which makes it a darker and more evil place.
Many communities keep their graveyards behind high
walls or even post guards to keep grave robbers out. Graverobbing
is often a lucrative practice, since necromancers pay
good coin for raw materials. Of course, battlefields are also
popular places for grave-robbers—or for necromancers
themselves—to seek corpses.
Not that I agree with it, but there it is.

[Rubik]

BoVD has something to say about animating undead, actually.

Not that I agree with it, but there it is.And yet there are many undead that are NOT corrupt and evil.

Necropolitans and ghosts are two examples.

And negative energy is inherently Neutral; otherwise, EVERY spell that draws on it would be [Evil], as would the Negative Energy Plane itself.

The BoVD is flat-out wrong about undead and negative energy being auto-evil, or even bad.

[Angelalex242]

Since the BOVD is printed material and you're, well, NOT, I'd say that makes you the Houseruler.

Official stance is that it is, in fact, inherently evil. You're free to rule 0 as you like, of course.

[Zanos]

And yet there are many undead that are NOT corrupt and evil.

Necropolitans, ghosts, and mummies are three examples.

And negative energy is inherently Neutral; otherwise, EVERY spell that draws on it would be [Evil].

The BoVD is flat-out wrong about undead and negative energy being auto-evil, or even bad.
BoVD doesn't state that the undead themselves are evil, it says the act of creating them is evil since it brings more Negative Energy(which somehow makes everything worse) into the material plane.

Some undead being non-evil doesn't conflict with BoVD. I agree it's stupid, but it's not contradictory.

[Isamu Dyson]

Since the BOVD is printed material and you're, well, NOT, I'd say that makes you the Houseruler.

Official stance is that it is, in fact, inherently evil. You're free to rule 0 as you like, of course.

Agreed. You might not enjoy the ruling, but it is official.

[Rubik]

Since the BOVD is printed material and you're, well, NOT, I'd say that makes you the Houseruler.

Official stance is that it is, in fact, inherently evil. You're free to rule 0 as you like, of course.BoVD is also 3.0 and conflicts with 3.5 rules on negative energy and undead.

So yes, it's wrong.


BoVD doesn't state that the undead themselves are evil, it says the act of creating them is evil since it brings more Negative Energy(which somehow makes everything worse) into the material plane.

Some undead being non-evil doesn't conflict with BoVD. I agree it's stupid, but it's not contradictory.Bringing a Neutral energy into existence is itself inherently Neutral. Again, otherwise all negative energy effects would be [Evil], and they're not.

[ryu]

Since the BOVD is printed material and you're, well, NOT, I'd say that makes you the Houseruler.

Official stance is that it is, in fact, inherently evil. You're free to rule 0 as you like, of course.

Just like the official stance that the entire bloody plane the energy comes from is neutral? I'd consider that a lot more specific and powerful than the justification that bringing a bunch of neutral-aligned energy into the prime is evil.

[Zanos]

Is there a 3.5 source that states that Negative Energy is neutral, or that otherwise contradicts the BoVD statement?

[Brookshw]

I'd be curious as well. But I believe it was errata'd so not sure the 3.0 arguement flies.

[hamishspence]

The DMG has the Negative Energy Plane have no alignment.

However, the PHB, when describing how Neutral clerics have to choose whether to turn or rebuke undead, says that "channelling negative energy is an evil act" (and channelling positive energy is good).

[Brookshw]

The DMG has the Negative Energy Plane have no alignment.

However, the PHB, when describing how Neutral clerics have to choose whether to turn or rebuke undead, says that "channelling negative energy is an evil act" (and channelling positive energy is good).

Well, yes, negative energy is a natural part of life. Increasing it presence is another matter.

[Rubik]

Is there a 3.5 source that states that Negative Energy is neutral, or that otherwise contradicts the BoVD statement?The entry for the Negative Energy Plane does not have an alignment listed. Since it and everything native to it is composed of negative energy, and it's the ultimate source for all negative energy everywhere in the multiverse, it would be minor Evil-dominant at the very least if negative energy was even remotely Evil.

That, and the Manual of the Planes and the Planar Handbook both state that the plane is Neutral-aligned, and neither contradicts any other primary source on the subject, including Core.

[Kyeudo]

BoVD doesn't state that the undead themselves are evil, it says the act of creating them is evil since it brings more Negative Energy(which somehow makes everything worse) into the material plane.

Some undead being non-evil doesn't conflict with BoVD. I agree it's stupid, but it's not contradictory.

If Negative Energy (or increasing its presence anywhere) was evil, this would make the entire Necromancy school evil, Harm would be evil, Inflict Wounds would be evil, and so on. Further, doing the opposite would, by definition, be good. In this case that would be increasing the amount of positive energy in the world, making Heal, Cure Wounds, and a variety of other spells automatically good.

Neither of these are the case.

[Brookshw]

I'm not really on one side or the other but this is spelled out by raw. Whether we disagree doesn't change the written word.

Asserting that the negative energy plane being neutral means animate dead must be as well presents a false dichotomy, while its true the negative energy plane contains plenty of undead I can't recall anything that stipulates it creates undead naturally.

Hmmm, now I want to check my 2e material and see how it was treated previously. Anyone well versed in 4e know how they treat it?

Edit: 2e animate dead, "casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil priests use it frequently".

So onward to looking up gods of undead (domain/portfolio).

[ryu]

I'm not really on one side or the other but this is spelled out by raw. Whether we disagree doesn't change the written word.

Asserting that the negative energy plane being neutral means animate dead must be as well presents a false dichotomy, while its true the negative energy plane contains plenty of undead I can't recall anything that stipulates it creates undead naturally.

Hmmm, now I want to check my 2e material and see how it was treated previously. Anyone well versed in 4e know how they treat it?

Creating undead is explicitly only called evil because creating more negative energy is evil. For that premise to hold water the literal source of all negative energy in existence, past, present, AND future, must by definition be evil. If it's not the premise falls apart on a basic level.

[Brookshw]

Creating undead is explicitly only called evil because creating more negative energy is evil. For that premise to hold water the literal source of all negative energy in existence, past, present, AND future, must by definition be evil. If it's not the premise falls apart on a basic level.

Strikes me as a false premise, negative energy is the embodiment of entropy in the natural order, accounts for aging and death. And let's not equivocate a single spell with an entire inner plane that balances the prime.

[ryu]

Strikes me as a false premise, negative energy is the embodiment of entropy in the natural order, accounts for aging and death. And let's not equivocate a single spell with an entire inner plane that balances the prime.

Aging and death are neutral factors. Intentional murder without just cause is evil. Further entropy is CHAOS not evil. Further the prime is decidedly not the opposing force of the negative energy plane. That would be the positive energy plane which I'll be quick to remind you is hilariously deadly to pretty much anything that sets foot into it. Further it's a valid equivocation. An evil act becomes MORE evil when increased in scope, not less.

[Coidzor]

Official stance is that it is, in fact, inherently evil. You're free to rule 0 as you like, of course.

Official stance is... problematic and contradictory and considered by a not insignificant number of people in need of DM houseruling for consistency (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1059011). The Tome of Necromancy lays out the various bits fairly well, as I recall.

Though this seems... tertiary to the discussion of Planar Binding at best.

[Brookshw]

Aging and death are neutral factors. Intentional murder without just cause is evil. Further entropy is CHAOS not evil. Further the prime is decidedly not the opposing force of the negative energy plane. That would be the positive energy plane which I'll be quick to remind you is hilariously deadly to pretty much anything that sets foot into it. Further it's a valid equivocation. An evil act becomes MORE evil when increased in scope, not less.

I'd think entropy is order and push it more to law than chaos, but we're also crossing axis and the law vs. chaos nature isn't really relevant.

Yes, I'm aware that the positive energy plane is the opposite which is why I say that the negative energy plane balances the prime (I assume BOTH). Sorry if that was vague.

Continuing to explore this and looking into dieties with undead/undeath in their domains so far I've seen Afflux, Velsharoon and Kiaransalee, all of which are evil.

And no, that's rather why it's an equivocation, the act, creating undead, is the evil bit as defined by raw.

So I'm seeing historical precedence that creating undead is evil, those with the power over undead are evil, the spell is called out as evil, and the act is called out as evil.

Now, considering evil is not a primal force on the inner planes I suppose the next stopping point is looking for outer planes where belief is a stronger factor and seeing if there are negative energy traits on planes that aren't evil. Dig dig dig!

[Kyeudo]

Though this seems... tertiary to the discussion of Planar Binding at best.

The debate is over whether or not the [Evil] descriptor means a spell is evil. If it's planar binding or animate dead, doesn't matter.

[ryu]

I'd think entropy is order and push it more to law than chaos, but we're also crossing axis and the law vs. chaos nature isn't really relevant.

Yes, I'm aware that the positive energy plane is the opposite which is why I say that the negative energy plane balances the prime (I assume BOTH). Sorry if that was vague.

Continuing to explore this and looking into dieties with undead/undeath in their domains so far I've seen Afflux, Velsharoon and Kiaransalee, all of which are evil.

And no, that's rather why it's an equivocation, the act, creating undead, is the evil bit as defined by raw.

So I'm seeing historical precedence that creating undead is evil, those with the power over undead are evil, the spell is called out as evil, and the act is called out as evil.

Now, considering evil is not a primal force on the inner planes I suppose the next stopping point is looking for outer planes where belief is a stronger factor and seeing if there are negative energy traits on planes that aren't evil. Dig dig dig!

Because as we all know evil people and deities never use neutral tools due to their effectiveness and reliable lack of complaining about crippling pain and what would be lethal injuries right? No they must favor the undead because the undead are evil, and not because most of them easily created and controlled automations that do as they're told for less cost than straight up constructs right? I find it's always important to ask why something is the case, and not simply accept simple assertion of the same base premise again as a legitimate answer.

Why is creating undead evil again? I've only seen one justification for it, and that dubious little bit of chaff is the sole point of contention we're arguing.

A spell having an evil tag isn't legitimate cause for calling its casting an evil act. Do we need to bring up Deathwatch again?

[Coidzor]

The debate is over whether or not the [Evil] descriptor means a spell is evil. If it's planar binding or animate dead, doesn't matter.

So why are we discussing how borked necromancy and negative energy are instead of that? :smalltongue:

[Brookshw]

Because as we all know evil people and deities never use neutral tools due to their effectiveness and reliable lack of complaining about crippling pain and what would be lethal injuries right? No they must favor the undead because the undead are evil, and not because most of them easily created and controlled automations that do as they're told for less cost than straight up constructs right? I find it's always important to ask why something is the case, and not simply accept simple assertion of the same base premise again as a legitimate answer.

Why is creating undead evil again? I've only seen one justification for it, and that dubious little bit of chaff is the sole point of contention we're arguing.

A spell having an evil tag isn't legitimate cause for calling its casting an evil act. Do we need to bring up Deathwatch again?

You and I don't have to agree on this. Holding up a plane as defense is substantially weaker in my eyes. But are either of surprised there are questionable parts of the game and bad editing? I doubt it. I'd propose we work it out at our respective tables rather than pretend this debate will go anywhere.

[ryu]

You and I don't have to agree on this. Holding up a plane as defense is substantially weaker in my eyes. But are either of surprised there are questionable parts of the game and bad editing? I doubt it. I'd propose we work it out at our respective tables rather than pretend this debate will go anywhere.

You mean as I was literally saying last page when this whole thing broke out, and then attempted to hurry through the major elements to quell it all as fast as possible? Sure. That was the goal from the beginning. The post is even right their at the end of the page to prove intent.

[Brookshw]

You mean as I was literally saying last page when this whole thing broke out, and then attempted to hurry through the major elements to quell it all as fast as possible? Sure. That was the goal from the beginning. The post is even right their at the end of the page to prove intent.

:smalltongue:
Yup, exactly like that.

[Slipperychicken]

Shadowrun (at least in 5th edition. I didn't read the earlier ones) actually tackled this question, and the game's conclusion was that summoning is essentially slavery, since it's forced labor from sentient creatures. While a particularly abusive summoner (or one who botched his summoning) might expect to be attacked by angry free spirits, especially while traveling to the planes, a kind summoner who gives offerings, gifts, and decent conditions might get away without as much violence directed at him.


It's kind of ironic that some ethical questions get easier without the alignment system entering into it.

[Kyeudo]

So why are we discussing how borked necromancy and negative energy are instead of that? :smalltongue:

Because, if we decide that animate dead is not necessarily an evil spell, then using planar binding on a demon is not an evil spell or planar binding an angel a good spell.



It's kind of ironic that some ethical questions get easier without the alignment system entering into it.

All ethical questions get easier when you allow for subjective influences into moral actions.