Deathless in 5e

[Totema]

With everyone wondering how to run Eberron without Warforged or Changelings, I'm wondering instead how to handle another (albeit much smaller) part of the setting: the Deathless. With positive and negative energy being little more than a fluff descriptor, how can I adjudicate the differences between them and garden-variety undead? Or perhaps it's not even worth worrying about, and therefore I should just use ordinary undead instead while just calling them good-aligned?

Little disclaimer: I skipped 4e, and as I understand positive/negative energy was also heavily downplayed there too, so the same kind of rulings might apply to them here too, making this thread really simple to address. Or maybe not, since there might be other differences that also make it unclear.

[Inevitability]

I guess WOTC will eventually just make them undead. The whole 'undead are evil' stuff really has diminished.

Maybe say that Deathless can be healed by magic, unlike undead?

[AuraTwilight]

I guess WOTC will eventually just make them undead. The whole 'undead are evil' stuff really has diminished.

Well, except for how the Positive and Negative Energy Planes are directly overlaying the Upper and Lower Outer Planes, and thus implying an objective morality to them. :l

[HorridElemental]

Well, except for how the Positive and Negative Energy Planes are directly overlaying the Upper and Lower Outer Planes, and thus implying an objective morality to them. :l

Positive and Negative energy doesn't have to be good or evil. They can be but they don't have to be.

Think of it like heat and cold (though cold isn't real, just the absent of heat), both are neither bad nor good. Both can kill and both can save.

Pos and Neg are just oposite forces that balance and act against each other.

There have been evil positive energy undead before, back in 3.5.

Ooo I hope in 5e there is an evil undead that heals you with their touch and if they heal you too much then you explode... Just like how the positive energy plane would make you pop back in 3.5.

[Gnomes2169]

Is death by snusnu overhealing still a thing in 5e? Because if it is... New way to easy one-shot the Terrasque here.

And by "new way", I mean a way that's existed since you could lire a Terrasque into the positive energy plane... So 2e? 3e?

[SirisC]

There have been evil positive energy undead before, back in 3.5.

Mummies in 2nd edition were also positive energy undead and vampires were both positive and negative energy undead.


Like all undead creatures, vampires exist in both the Positive Material and Negative Material planes at the same time.

contrast with:


... taps into energy from the Positive Material plane and is transformed into an undead horror.
... Because of their magical properties, mummies exist on both Prime and Positive Material planes.

[HorridElemental]

Mummies in 2nd edition were also positive energy undead and vampires were both positive and negative energy undead.



contrast with:

I might have been thinking 2e, but its nice to see people with quotes!

[AuraTwilight]

Positive and Negative energy doesn't have to be good or evil. They can be but they don't have to be.

Think of it like heat and cold (though cold isn't real, just the absent of heat), both are neither bad nor good. Both can kill and both can save.

Pos and Neg are just oposite forces that balance and act against each other.

There have been evil positive energy undead before, back in 3.5.

Ooo I hope in 5e there is an evil undead that heals you with their touch and if they heal you too much then you explode... Just like how the positive energy plane would make you pop back in 3.5.

Doesn't really address my grievance that their place in the 5E cosmology implies a moral bent to them that never existed before.

[HorridElemental]

Doesn't really address my grievance that their place in the 5E cosmology implies a moral bent to them that never existed before.

But there is no moral bent to the negative and positive plane. People may assume there is but huge masses of humans tend to freak out over little things too (in setting people and real world people). For all we know the other name for the negative energy plane was Ticklefarts Energy plane and that got down voted cause no one wanted to say Ticklefarts (in game world btw).

The positive plane evil mofo mummy should have clued that one in.

[Gnomes2169]

For the most part, the plane of anti-life is going to be associated more with evil than the plane of... You know... Life. (Negative and positive planes respectively)

[da_chicken]

But there is no moral bent to the negative and positive plane.

Other than the fact that positive energy is healing energy, and negative energy is killing energy and healing and killing have moral connotations. And all good aligned deities are positive energy aligned and all evil deities are negative energy aligned, as proven by their clerical affiliations or domain affiliations: "The Life domain focuses on the vibrant positive energy [...] that sustains all life. [...] Almost any non-evil deity can claim influence over this domain[.]" And all undead, which are negative energy powered, are essentially universally evil with the exceptions being exceptions that prove the rule. Furthermore, essentially all good-aligned deities encourage the destruction of undead, while evil deities often freely employ their use. Now, in 5e, all good-aligned planes are positive energy aligned and all evil-aligned planes are negative energy aligned. Oh, and "Holy" spells deal radiant (aka, positive energy) damage, while "Unholy" spells deal necrotic (aka, negative energy) damage.

So positive energy is de facto good-aligned if not de jure, and negative energy is similarly de facto evil-aligned. There are tons of subtle reinforcements built into the system around this. The reason -- the only reason -- that this can't be strictly linked by the rules is because denying healing magics to evil makes the game incredibly stupid. That's why all the major "channel negative energy" spells in most editions of D&D are evil, and all the "channel positive energy" spells in most editions of D&D are neutral. That's also why good appears to be dumb, because they have no advantage over evil.

"It's just a basic fundamental force of the multiverse" doesn't really fly, particularly because good and evil are also basic fundamental forces of the D&D multiverse.

[AuraTwilight]

But there is no moral bent to the negative and positive plane. People may assume there is but huge masses of humans tend to freak out over little things too (in setting people and real world people). For all we know the other name for the negative energy plane was Ticklefarts Energy plane and that got down voted cause no one wanted to say Ticklefarts (in game world btw).

The positive plane evil mofo mummy should have clued that one in.

Then why the hell are they associated with the Upper and Lower planes more than they have been in every other edition?

Why were they separated from the Elemental planes AT ALL?

[hachface]

Then why the hell are they associated with the Upper and Lower planes more than they have been in every other edition?

Dude, they're not. You are looking at the plane diagrams incorrectly. Look at the first diagram again -- the one on page 300, which is intended to give a much clearer depiction of the relationship between the polar planes the rest. The Positive and Negative Planes are like hubcaps on the Great Wheel. Both touch every plane within the Great Wheel.

The diagram on p. 303 is a tad deceptive, because it's trying to cram a little too much information. Which is why they provided the more helpful diagram on p. 300, which shows you what the whole picture looks like from a different angle.

[AuraTwilight]

It's still a really unfortunate design choice.

[hachface]

It's still a really unfortunate design choice.

I'm actually totally unclear how it affects anyone's campaign in any way.

[AuraTwilight]

Well, there's a possibility that future supplements will increase the apparent connection I'm pointing out, for starters. OR countless GMs think it implies exactly what I thought it does and it effects the games they run thusly.

[da_chicken]

I still fail to see what's unfortunate about the design choice. Were Xeg-Yi and Xag-Ya that critical to campaign worlds? Or negative energy prisons/fortresses? I mean, it's a pretty insignificant change compared to 4e cosmology's bucket-o-planes known as Elemental Chaos. The best I can get out of your clarification is "either people will agree that it's unfortunate or they won't so it's a change with no upside?" Even ignoring the obvious problems with that statement, it still doesn't clarify why it's unfortunate or why there's a problem.

In any case, planar maps have always essentially just been diagrams for understanding the relationship of planes to each other. Each plane is, typically, an infinite realm on it's own, so there really isn't direction or orientation. Any given map could be as much a product of the being that created it as the actual relationship of the multiverse, and they could be made as much to make specific groupings to the reader important for purposes unrelated to actually describing the multiverse. It's not like you just go down Main Street and hang a left at the Texaco station and the Plane of Fire is the third door on the left. I mean, sure, Sigil is like that, but that's Sigil.

[AuraTwilight]

"Sorry, Necromancer, but the Paladin has decided to leave the party for your evil action of using your negative energy powers."

This has happened in earlier editions for a looooot of groups, if this forum's any indication. And now someone can have the much more easily justified position of thinking Positive and Negative Energy have a moral component due to their relationship to the planes having been changed. Whether it's a valid interpretation or not isn't the point, it's that it's an unnecessary diagram change that raises potential issues at tables.

[Falka]

I guess WOTC will eventually just make them undead. The whole 'undead are evil' stuff really has diminished.

Maybe say that Deathless can be healed by magic, unlike undead?

Undead are still evil by default.

[Fwiffo86]

"What if C.A.T. really spelled Dog?"
- Ogre, Revenge of the Nerds 2

[hachface]

"Sorry, Necromancer, but the Paladin has decided to leave the party for your evil action of using your negative energy powers."

This has happened in earlier editions for a looooot of groups, if this forum's any indication. And now someone can have the much more easily justified position of thinking Positive and Negative Energy have a moral component due to their relationship to the planes having been changed. Whether it's a valid interpretation or not isn't the point, it's that it's an unnecessary diagram change that raises potential issues at tables.

I guess that might happen, if your DM is a loon. In which case you have more pressing problems, like: how can I find a better gaming group?

[GreatWyrmGold]

But there is no moral bent to the negative and positive plane. People may assume there is but huge masses of humans tend to freak out over little things too (in setting people and real world people). For all we know the other name for the negative energy plane was Ticklefarts Energy plane and that got down voted cause no one wanted to say Ticklefarts (in game world btw).

The positive plane evil mofo mummy should have clued that one in.
You're misreading. He's complaining about the implied morality of putting the Positive Energy Plane with the objectively-good Outer Planes, and the NEP with the objectively-evil Outer Planes.


-snip-
While the good/evil deity thing is a fair point, the "Positive is good because it heals, Negative is evil because it hurts" bit bugs me. On balance, it's better to heal than to hurt, but in unusual circumstances, hurting the right people or healing the right ones could be as good or evil as healing the right ones or hurting the wrong ones. And when was the last time magic was ever used in a usual circumstance?


I guess that might happen, if your DM is a loon. In which case you have more pressing problems, like: how can I find a better gaming group?
Generally speaking, rules/pictures which facilitate bad gaming groups are bad rules/pictures.
Just saying.

[Totema]

One thing I have to ask for further clarification - do we as of yet have a comprehensive list of common traits for undead creatures? Porting Deathless to 5e might be easier than I first thought.

[hachface]

Generally speaking, rules/pictures which facilitate bad gaming groups are bad rules/pictures.
Just saying.

The new planar cosmology in no ways "facilitates" bad gaming groups. If your DM is punishing players through the completely insane, convoluted logic that AuraTwilight posited above, then I promise you that no arrangement of the setting fluff would be able to save you.

[AuraTwilight]

I was using an extreme example to illustrate a point. An otherwise perfectly sane, competent, and reasonable DM could make the misconception that positive and negative energy have moral attributions to them and thus run games with that assumption taken for granted.

For f*ck's sake, the Death Domain is reserved for the DMG precisely because it's typically for evil characters.

[pwykersotz]

I was using an extreme example to illustrate a point. An otherwise perfectly sane, competent, and reasonable DM could make the misconception that positive and negative energy have moral attributions to them and thus run games with that assumption taken for granted.

For f*ck's sake, the Death Domain is reserved for the DMG precisely because it's typically for evil characters.

You're not wrong. I assumed this when I started gaming.

But yes, I like my forces of creation and entropy unaffected by ideology. Creating a beast which draws the life force out of everyone around to itself like a beacon to gorge itself can be positive energy aligned and probably evil, and forging a spear of pure entropy to slay the ancient red dragon who has been terrorizing the kingdom is neutral or good. It's the use that is good or evil, and unfortunately undead are a twisted mockery of the natural order. It's pretty tough to have a truly good one.