PDA

View Full Version : Negative Energy and Evil



Mystral
2008-08-25, 05:40 PM
Hiya, everyone.

I have a short, rather academical question.

Is the use of negative energy in itself an evil act? I'm not talking about raising dead, I'm talking about a wizard casting enervation and such things.

I've used the search function to look for debates about this topic, but found none. If anyone of you could point me to a helpfull debate, or, even better, an official statement from wotc, I would be very gratefull.

Mystral

Morty
2008-08-25, 05:44 PM
I'd say it isn't. Just like using plain damage spells, it depends on who do you cast it on.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-25, 05:46 PM
If a spell doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor, casting it is not an evil act in itself. Of course, it's still evil if you use it to blow up orphanages.

tyckspoon
2008-08-25, 05:48 PM
No, it's not. You/your DM's view may vary, but there is no question about it in the rules text. The Negative Energy Plane doesn't even have the [Evil] descriptor or evil-dominant traits. Any applications of Negative Energy that are tagged with [Evil] are that way for other reasons; they cause excessive suffering equivalent to inflicting torture, screw with somebody's soul, or other things that are not-nice beyond the usual adventurous killing and looting paradigm.. except Death Watch. Nobody knows why that spell is [Evil].

Tadanori Oyama
2008-08-25, 05:52 PM
I've always said it is.

You can't throw Force Lightning without touching the Dark Side. Negative Energy is anti-life and using it is evil. That said I don't think using it makes you can evil person as far as personality.

Someone using an Evil power for good purposes, such as adventuring heroes, is something I like to see my players struggle with.

Tokiko Mima
2008-08-25, 05:56 PM
Not really. There are several non-evil spells that utilize negative energy. However, you could also say that a majority of evil spells do use negative energy, so I suppose it depends on how you choose to catagorize it.

I'd say that the energy types in and of themselves are amoral, but negative energy has lots of properties useful to the more evil types, like reanimating the dead, draining levels and the like. So you'll see evil beings use it more often (especially undead, because it animates them and is their source of unlife.)

It's like asking which is more evil, nitrogen based fuels or carbon based fuels? Nitrogen based fuels make better bombs so you could say it's more "evil" in the same sense that bombs are more evil than carbon based gasoline. Ultimately, evil and good are something decided by an intelligent being choosing for themselves which purpose to use them for, IMO.

Jayngfet
2008-08-25, 06:00 PM
I never saw why making zombies in itself was evil, it's less destructive than a fireball and more environmentally friendly than mining or harvesting for most golems.

Tokiko Mima
2008-08-25, 06:02 PM
I never saw why making zombies in itself was evil, it's less destructive than a fireball and more environmentally friendly than mining or harvesting for most golems.

What if one of those zombies was your grandma?

The Rose Dragon
2008-08-25, 06:07 PM
She was dead. She wasn't coming back, since she died of old age. What else to do with the corpse?

Jayngfet
2008-08-25, 06:08 PM
What if one of those zombies was your grandma?

Or if you're using you're grandma's sword? Or if she said it'd be ok? You can torch an orphanige with a fireball or plant a farm for the sick with flesh golems.

Jaerc
2008-08-25, 06:16 PM
By the rules it is not evil.

By common sense it is not evil.

Using Negative Energy. Is. Not. Evil.

vicente408
2008-08-25, 06:24 PM
I assume the [Evil] descriptor attached to the raising of undead is placed there with the assumption that the deceased did not give express permission for the use of their corpse. It's possible, but in the majority of circumstances in which one finds someone raising undead, still a very rare event. It's also assumed that one would find the raising and servitude of a dead body to be a form of desecration of said corpse, which is generally considered a taboo, and "evil". If you want to have the act be morally neutral in your campaign world, and let the actions of the necromancer using the corpses determine his/her alignment, go right ahead. The default "evilness" of raising the undead is because the idea of zombies and skeletons being enslaved to do the bidding of their master is usually associated with evil in modern culture.

Yakk
2008-08-25, 06:27 PM
I never saw why making zombies in itself was evil, it's less destructive than a fireball and more environmentally friendly than mining or harvesting for most golems.
It is trivial to generate fluffy that explains why making undead is evil:

When you animate an undead, you wrap fragments of the dead bodies soul around a negative energy elemental, which animates the body. This gives the negative energy elemental the basic information needed to control the body and the instincts with which to use basic tools.

Thus, the zombie (which is necromatic) is distinct from the animated chair (with is transmutation). And the soul shreds that are part of your construct explain why the spell is evil.

Of course, the game doesn't go into that much detail about what about animating undead is that is [evil], but it does explicitly state that it is evil.

NecroRebel
2008-08-25, 06:30 PM
The Tome of Necromancy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562) addresses this point (and many others of and relating to necromancy and undead) quite well.

Essentially, the points they make in it boil down to these:

First, the 3.5e D&D books are extremely inconsistent on this point. There is good evidence for negative energy being evil and not evil, sometimes on the same page, so ultimately it comes down to the individual DM's and group's call.

Second, this decision leads to some logical conclusions that cause drastic changes to the RAW. In particular, if your group decides that negative energy is not, in itself, Evil, then any and all undead-animation spells do not have the [Evil] tag (unless used to animate Evil creatures) because they are not evil acts to cast. Further, this implies that mindless undead are also not Evil, since they cannot make moral decisions and are not, in fact, violations of the natural order or anything like that, and are essentially just golems with made from an unusual material with a different source of animation (there is even some evidence in this case that implies that skeletons and zombies are the least evil form of automaton, as standard golems require an elemental spirit to be bound to them, a form of slavery).

If your group decides that negative energy is in fact evil, then the negative energy plane has the Evil traits, since it is literally evil energy incarnate, all spells that deal with or channel negative energy are evil, and there is no such thing as a nonevil Undead.



However, you can get these points much more fully and in more detail if you follow the elegant and finely-crafted link at the top of this post and read the article therein.

SmartAlec
2008-08-25, 06:33 PM
Negative energy is often presented as a foundation of one of the elemental planes, so if the elemental planes are in your setting, using negative energy is simply elementalism. After all, positive energy can be damaging, too.

However, one campaign I was in had the DM view negative energy as not evil, as such; just spiritually harmful. Using negative energy didn't turn you evil, but channelling it often and in too-large quantities was potentially damaging to a character's soul, which usually resulted in a character being more susceptible to evil influences or impulses. This was his in-universe explanation of why even well-intentioned wizards that dabbled in necromancy often became a bit Dark.

SurlySeraph
2008-08-25, 06:46 PM
Negative energy is not inherently evil. However, evil uses it more than good does because evil prefers destruction to creation, and negative energy is inherently destructive.

Ellisthion
2008-08-25, 07:20 PM
Not Evil.

Reasoning:

An Evil Cleric can run around using Positive energy to heal people. No one complains they're being "Good". The energy type is a means to an end.

Thus, A Good person should be able to run around using Negative energy, without being accused of being Evil. The energy type is a means to an end.

Irreverent Fool
2008-08-25, 07:50 PM
Not Evil.

Reasoning:

An Evil Cleric can run around using Positive energy to heal people. No one complains they're being "Good". The energy type is a means to an end.

Thus, A Good person should be able to run around using Negative energy, without being accused of being Evil. The energy type is a means to an end.

I disagree with this. The whole problem with evil is that it is not bound by the rules in the way good is. For example, a good person won't go around stabbing people in the throat, and will instead pet kitties.

An evil person will pet kitties WHILE stabbing people in the throat. Being evil does not prevent you from doing 'good' things if you find some reason to. Being good does prevent you from doing evil things as long as you intend to remain good.

As referenced above, I prefer one of the stances presented in the Tome of Necromancy. Negative energy is the antithesis of life and anything animated using it will have to be kept in constant check. This isn't necessarily saying that the creation of undead is an evil act, but it's generally not a good idea.

That said, it is largely a matter of preference for you and your group. I recommend addressing it at the beginning of any campaign. The most important factor, I think, is how it is viewed by the society within the game.

snoopy13a
2008-08-25, 08:01 PM
I disagree with this. The whole problem with evil is that it is not bound by the rules in the way good is. For example, a good person won't go around stabbing people in the throat, and will instead pet kitties.

An evil person will pet kitties WHILE stabbing people in the throat. Being evil does not prevent you from doing 'good' things if you find some reason to. Being good does prevent you from doing evil things as long as you intend to remain good.

As referenced above, I prefer one of the stances presented in the Tome of Necromancy. Negative energy is the antithesis of life and anything animated using it will have to be kept in constant check. This isn't necessarily saying that the creation of undead is an evil act, but it's generally not a good idea.

That said, it is largely a matter of preference for you and your group. I recommend addressing it at the beginning of any campaign. The most important factor, I think, is how it is viewed by the society within the game.

However, stabbing someone in the throat is not evil if done in self-defence or to protect innocents. It is the context of the action, not the action itself. A paladin defending an innocent is not evil even though he must stab someone in the throat. Likewise, a cleric using negative energy for a good cause isn't evil.

Shazzbaa
2008-08-25, 08:25 PM
Partially depends on why you're asking. If you're trying to figure out whether or not the Good cleric can cast a spell that uses negative energy, then I'd say this is the best interpretation:

No, it's not. You/your DM's view may vary, but there is no question about it in the rules text. The Negative Energy Plane doesn't even have the [Evil] descriptor or evil-dominant traits. Any applications of Negative Energy that are tagged with [Evil] are that way for other reasons; they cause excessive suffering equivalent to inflicting torture, screw with somebody's soul, or other things that are not-nice beyond the usual adventurous killing and looting paradigm.. except Death Watch. Nobody knows why that spell is [Evil].
...since it sticks closest to the rules as they stand.

If you want to change it around for your own campaign to make more sense, then it's largely up to you.

Jayabalard
2008-08-25, 09:39 PM
Personally, I've always seen it that Evil was a manifestation of negative energy rather than the other way around. So while Negative energy isn't necessarily evil, there is a close tie between the two.


I never saw why making zombies in itself was evil, it's less destructive than a fireball and more environmentally friendly than mining or harvesting for most golems.Since it's evil, there is obviously something more involved than what appears on the surface. Since someone cannot be resurrected if they are are raised as an undead, it seems pretty obvious that making zombies interferes with the souls/afterlife of those you raise as undead in a rather unpleasant way.

In general, D&D tries not to directly state such things in order to be kind of kid/family friendly.

Collin152
2008-08-25, 09:41 PM
Since it's evil, there is obviously something more involved than what appears on the surface. Since someone cannot be resurrected if they are are raised as an undead, it seems pretty obvious that making zombies interferes with the souls/afterlife of those you raise as undead in a rather unpleasant way.

They can be Ressurected.
But not Raised.
The same can be said of burning the corpse.
Is fire evil?

Prophaniti
2008-08-25, 09:54 PM
The manuals are vague on this, so as to accomadate multiple approaches, which in turn is no help if you don't know what approach you want to take.

Basically you have two options:

1)Negative energy is Evil. No exceptions or excuses. Anything involving Negative energy is Evil. If you use this one, Undead, again without exception, are also Evil. No tragic angsty vampires for you. Also, skeletons, zombies, and other mindless undead, when uncontrolled, would naturally seek out life and attempt to destroy it.

2)Negative energy is just another natural force out there. Harmful to life, but then so are other forces when uncontrolled. In this option, Negative energy is merely a tool, and its use is what makes it good or evil. Undead are not universally Evil under this option, and neither is the Negative Energy Plane (though it remains harmful to life, as are many of the outer planes). This is the one to take if you want the aforementioned angsty tragic vampires in your setting. In this one, mindless undead are merely automatons made of corpses, and will take no action unless controlled, making them tools whos use determines their alignment (interesting corollary: in this one, golems are more evil than mindless undead, since they involve the capture and imprisonment of an Earth Elemental).

You can try a middle ground, but then everything just becomes situational, and you make snap judgements whenever a new situation comes up. These are the two ways to make big, sweeping categorizations to base everything else off of.

Jayabalard
2008-08-25, 09:55 PM
Is fire evil?Fire doesn't have the evil descriptor. If it did, we might be having a discussion of fluff reasons why that might be the case, instead of discussing why certain spells have a evil descriptor.

Since it doesn't, I'm not really sure what your point is.


The same can be said of burning the corpse.Not so; burning makes raise dead never work on it by destroying the body, while being an undead is a temporary block which is removed as soon as the corpse stops being an undead. Since there is nothing physical that would be preventing Raise dead from working, it much be something spiritual/metaphysical.

Combining the fact that raise undead has an evil descriptor with the fact that it imposes a spiritual block on casing raise dead, it seems pretty likely that the spiritual block is not something pleasant; I first saw that explanation in 1e AD&D, so this isn't something new.

Chronos
2008-08-25, 09:56 PM
They can be Ressurected.Only if the undead creature is first destroyed. While the zombie is still shambling around, there exists an impediment against even True Resurrection. Burning, disintegrating, etc. the body does not produce a similar impediment against True Resurrection. It's clear, then, that the casting of Animate Dead produces this impediment. And since it even works against True Resurrection (which produces an entirely new body and does not require any fragment of the corpse), that impediment must relate in some way to the soul.

Ellisthion
2008-08-25, 10:10 PM
However, stabbing someone in the throat is not evil if done in self-defence or to protect innocents. It is the context of the action, not the action itself. A paladin defending an innocent is not evil even though he must stab someone in the throat. Likewise, a cleric using negative energy for a good cause isn't evil.

That's how I see it. Killing != evil in certain situations. The negative energy is just a tool.

TeeEl
2008-08-25, 10:26 PM
That's how I see it. Killing != evil in certain situations. The negative energy is just a tool.

Yes, but it's an inherently evil tool, just as killing is an inherently evil act. Both can be justified as necessary evils in a good cause, but that doesn't make them automatically neutral.

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-25, 10:28 PM
Negative energy is the antithesis of life and anything animated using it will have to be kept in constant check. This isn't necessarily saying that the creation of undead is an evil act, but it's generally not a good idea.

I believe the original post was not referring to animation and undead were specifically ruled out.

If I fire off a Maximized Twin Ennervation and turn my enemy into a first-level weakling for a few hours, is that necessarily more evil then, say, burning and blasting him to death?


Secondly, if the spell did inflict harm on the original body's owner, why would there be absolutely no fluff to support that? For all we know theres simply a line of code in the universe that says when a person's body is animate the person is alive and therefore cannot be resurrected.

Recaiden
2008-08-25, 10:37 PM
There is no official statement. I would however, like to direct you here: Tome of Necromancy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562)

My opinion is that Negative energy is neutral. It is the opposite of life, but is not inherently evil, just as life is not always good. It has a greater tendancy towards evil, but it is a basic elemental force. Coincedentaly, I support the fact that in 4e, zombies are neutral.

Ellisthion
2008-08-25, 10:51 PM
Yes, but it's an inherently evil tool, just as killing is an inherently evil act.

Ah, but is it? Especially in a medieval fantasy world where adventurers run around and slay things but the dozen, killing is not and inherently evil act.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-08-25, 10:52 PM
Coincedentaly, I support the fact that in 4e, zombies are neutral.

Except that, in 4e, all undead are explicitly in the thrall of Orcus, so I'd imagine making more of his minions would be an Evil act.

Lyndworm
2008-08-25, 10:56 PM
I try to adjust the given fluff to meet up with logic and fun gameplay to some extent. In the campaign setting my players and I use there are two mirror-worlds to the main realm of existence. One is a secret, (lawlz) and the other is nearly identical but uses negative energy instead of positive energy. Nothing there is inherantly evil.

Positive and negative energy are neither good nor evil inherantly, they simply are. They're forces of nature somewhat akin to magnetism. In the main world life adapted to run off of positive energy, in the other life adapted to use negative energy.

Using the forces of one in order to damage the other is evil because you're inflicting harm upon a living creature, just as if you were attacking it with a sword. With complicated magics a corpse can be 'rewired' to run off of the opposite energy source. Such a ritual is not, in itself, evil, though it can be used for great evil.

I also use the logic of the "inherant code" mentioned by Archmagi.

That's my personal oppinion on the matter.

However, RAW, it's not inherantly evil unless it has the Evil subtype. So the majority of the Wizard spells like the one mentioned would be neither good nor evil.

Zack

NecroRebel
2008-08-25, 11:36 PM
Fire doesn't have the evil descriptor. If it did, we might be having a discussion of fluff reasons why that might be the case, instead of discussing why certain spells have a evil descriptor.

Since it doesn't, I'm not really sure what your point is.

The point he is making is that you appeared to claim that animation spells render the body unsuitable for return to life, and are thus evil. Using that same logic, anything that renders the body unsuitable for return to life is evil. Fire renders the body unsuitable to life, therefore it is evil.

If you disagree with that assessment, either we are misunderstanding your original statement, or the assumption that things that render the body unsuitable for return to life are evil is wrong.


Not so; burning makes raise dead never work on it by destroying the body, while being an undead is a temporary block which is removed as soon as the corpse stops being an undead. Since there is nothing physical that would be preventing Raise dead from working, it much be something spiritual/metaphysical.

Combining the fact that raise undead has an evil descriptor with the fact that it imposes a spiritual block on casing raise dead, it seems pretty likely that the spiritual block is not something pleasant; I first saw that explanation in 1e AD&D, so this isn't something new.

Undead have a... spirit, for lack of a better term, in them, in this case a negative energy animation force. That in itself probably blocks another spirit from inhabiting the body; one body, one spirit. Please, direct your attention to the Mind Switch line of effects; if a person switches bodies with someone else and then kills their original body, the person who's body the are now inhabiting cannot to my knowledge be raised or ressurected. This is evidence that there can only be one spirit in any body, supporting the supposition that the animating force in an undead prevents ressurection.

Note that this is not actually changing anything about the body other than making it be "occupied" so to speak. In fact, this is not truly any different from when the original spirit occupied it, except that some people give greater levels of ownership to that spirit. Also, please note that negative energy, and by extension the quasi-spirits that animate undead, are not evil; many negative energy spells, including the Inflict line and Enervation which channel pure and undiluted negative energy, as well as many creatures from the Negative Energy Plane including that one thing that is essentially pure negative energy incarnate, and perhaps most importantly the Negative Energy Plane itself are not evil.

As to the Animate Dead line of spells being Evil... Well, why are they? It cannot be because they use negative energy, as it is not Evil. It cannot be because they create Undead, because logically mindless undead, being incapable of making moral decisions due to said mindlessness and the utter lack of any evil force powering them, are True Neutral the same as animals and mindless constructs are and for the same reasons (I will concede that those spells, used to make intelligent evil undead, do deserve the Evil tag). It also cannot be because it uses a corpse without permission, because otherwise anything and everything that uses a corpse without permission is Evil, such as eating or making leather armor or ropes from sinew or anything of that nature, and because it is entirely possible to get permission which RAW wouldn't remove the Evil tag.

This last paragraph sums up (pretty shortly, mind you) why some people have a problem with the Evil tag on the Animate Dead line, as well as why some people have a problem with mindless undead having Neutral Evil in their alignment bar. There is simply no obvious logical reason for them to be there. If one can be presented, that would perhaps be a good thing as it would perhaps clarify what the makers of the game were thinking when they did that, but no one has yet shown this to some of our satisfactions.

paladin_carvin
2008-08-25, 11:42 PM
First, evil is bound as much by rules as good- since, rules are part of a different axis (Law v. Good).

There are ways to use positive energy to do evil, even torturous evil. My favorite example? Tie someone up and then transport them to the elemental plane of positive energy. Since they won't be able to injure themselves to stop the constant healing they will get, once they get to double their hp BOOM they burst from the inside from too much life. Icky, but awesome. Even killing a bad person in such a way is in some sense evil. Negative energy can obviously be used for good purposes as well. There is a long list of necromantic spells that can be used for good reasons.

TeeEl
2008-08-25, 11:46 PM
Ah, but is it?

The fact that you actually have to ask is profoundly disturbing. Yes, killing is wrong. Maybe you didn't notice, but that's kind of a big thing for most systems of morality. The D&D rulebooks come right out and say so, although I wouldn't be surprised if this is contradicted elsewhere.

Being justifiable is not the same as being morally ambivalent. If a rampaging dragon or bloodthirsty orc horde is terrorizing the countryside, putting it down may be the most practical way to save lives and serve the greater good. By choosing the lesser of two evils, a net good can be accomplished.

Even if it can be justified, though, it's still pretty commonplace for adventurers to overstep the bounds of justifiable killing by a wide margin. Regardless of alignment adventurers are often virtual sociopaths who kill with little compunction. "That half-orc is jaywalking... and littering! I STAB YOU EVILDOER DIE DIE DIE." Most games will tend to gloss over this, partly since heroic narratives by their nature tend to overlook the protagonists' sins, and partly because hell it's a game and all good cathartic fun. "I totally changed that guy's attitude to Helpful via diplomacy" does not have the same visceral ring that "I charge for 82d6+47 damage!" does, after all. When you get down to it, though, it's still generally evil.

Naleh
2008-08-26, 01:02 AM
Negative Energy isn't evil.

However, spells with the [Evil] descriptor (and the destruction of orphanages) are evil.



As far as undead... It seems to me, as Jayabalard and others have said, that the creation of undead temporarily traps the target's soul. That's why they can't be raised, and that's why it's evil. NecroRebel's "necromantic spirit" idea is cool, but it wouldn't be evil, and hence it wouldn't be [Evil].

(Of course, if you house-rule it, the sky's the limit.)

Ellisthion
2008-08-26, 06:33 AM
The fact that you actually have to ask is profoundly disturbing. Yes, killing is wrong. Maybe you didn't notice, but that's kind of a big thing for most systems of morality.
[...] By choosing the lesser of two evils, a net good can be accomplished

No, murder is wrong in most systems of morality. Killing is not the same as murder.

If you kill for a good reason, to save life, why does that act have to be relegated to being a "lesser of two evils"? Why can the act not be classified as good? Our history is filled with examples of people who have gone to war, fought, and killed, and they are heralded as great heroes, not as regrettable embarrassments to civilisation and morality.

Is a sword, bow, or gun evil? No. Indeed, one can commit horrible atrocities with them, but so too can one perform great acts of heroism. The tool matters not: sometimes, acts of good involve killing. Be it blade, fire, or magic that can kill with but a touch, it is just a tool.

If fighting to save lives is not a good deed, then what is?

Tormsskull
2008-08-26, 06:51 AM
I think Negative Energy is evil, simply because it makes for a more dramatic game that way. You get the tantalizing "Dark Side"-esque feel, can easily paint a villian as EEEEEvil when he lashes out with dark powers, etc.

That, and I especially can't stand the "I want to be a hero who uses all the tools of the enemy" character, as that is neither original or interesting. Its been over done.

Maroon
2008-08-26, 07:50 AM
In a world where spraying someone with acid, burning his skin off in an explosion, sending lightning through his body or choking him on mustard gas isn't inherently evil, why should purely destroying life be? I'd say it's quite humane compared to what wizards generally get up to. True, negative energy is icky, but so are oozes, aberrations and vermin.

There is a difference between murder and kill, and between torture and death. For the clueless: it's not negative energy.


"I totally changed that guy's attitude to Helpful via diplomacy" does not have the same visceral ring that "I charge for 82d6+47 damage!" does, after all.My bard would like a word with you.

Jayabalard
2008-08-26, 08:03 AM
In a world where spraying someone with acid, burning his skin off in an explosion, sending lightning through his body or choking him on mustard gas isn't inherently evil, why should purely destroying life be? I'd say it's quite humane compared to what wizards generally get up to. True, negative energy is icky, but so are oozes, aberrations and verminNone of those destroy life force itself though; they just end your life and move you on to the afterlife. It's much like a referee removing a player for "‘unnecessary roughness." On the other hand, Negative Energy attacks the life force itself so it's is something that can potentially cause something much more permanent (true death).


As to the Animate Dead line of spells being Evil... Well, why are they? It cannot be because they use negative energy, as it is not Evil. It cannot be because they create Undead, because logically mindless undead, being incapable of making moral decisions due to said mindlessness and the utter lack of any evil force powering them, are True Neutral the same as animals and mindless constructs are and for the same reasons. It also cannot be because it uses a corpse without permission, because otherwise anything and everything that uses a corpse without permission is Evil, such as eating or making leather armor or ropes from sinew or anything of that nature, and because it is entirely possible to get permission which RAW wouldn't remove the Evil tag.You're looking at it the wrong we; we know that it's evil, it's defined that way. So if none of the things that you can come up with based on "logic" explain that, you are either missing something, they unintentionally or intentionally left the description out (possibly because they tried to keep the game more kid friendly), or your logic is faulty, or some combination.

I've already given examples of fluff that may have been left out of the books, and a reason why, so I'm not going to repeat that.

A couple of quick counter examples for your logic:
"It cannot be because they use negative energy, as it is not Evil. " Not true; many uses of negative energy are marked as evil and there isn't really any justification for it beyond the fact that you're using negative energy. Evil clerics are closely tied to negative energy in several ways, so the fact that negative energy lacks the evil descriptor doesn't really indicate that negative energy is neutral just that it's not always evil; it may be "mostly evil". So cannot" is not correct.

"It cannot be because they create Undead," A corpse is mindless and isn't capable of moral thought, but making a corpses can indeed be an act of evil. This is the case except under special circumstances. So "Cannot" is not correct.

"It also cannot be because it uses a corpse without permission" For intelligent humaniods, you're wrong; eating them is defined as evil in one of the books. Even in the case of animals there are cultures that believe that you have to ask the animals permission to use it. So, again, "Cannot" is not correct.

NecroRebel
2008-08-26, 11:08 AM
None of those destroy life force itself though; they just end your life and move you on to the afterlife. It's much like a referee removing a player for "‘unnecessary roughness." On the other hand, Negative Energy attacks the life force itself so it's is something that can potentially cause something much more permanent (true death).

Cite your sources; is there any evidence that claims that negative energy attacks the life force more directly than flame or frost? If so, I do not recall seeing it. In fact, the fact that natural healing and cure spells both work equally well against both slashes and inflict spells strongly implies that negative energy's effects are purely physical in nature.


You're looking at it the wrong we; we know that it's evil, it's defined that way. So if none of the things that you can come up with based on "logic" explain that, you are either missing something, they unintentionally or intentionally left the description out (possibly because they tried to keep the game more kid friendly), or your logic is faulty, or some combination.

I've already given examples of fluff that may have been left out of the books, and a reason why, so I'm not going to repeat that.

I am attempting to show that, if a person desires a game with versimillitude, the Evil tag should not logically always be on the Animate Dead line of spells any more than it should be on Deathwatch. If you cannot come up with any counter to this claim based on logic, either you are missing something, they made a mistake, your logic is faulty, or some combination.

As to the fluff that may have been left out of the books... Well, that explanation doesn't hold much water to me. You claim that it must interfere with the souls/afterlife in some way that is unstated, but A) by the RAW you can technically Plane Shift to the various afterlives and talk to the deceased even when their body is undeadified (difficulty identifying the spirit notwithstanding), and B) there are many instances (Mind Switch, Magic Jar, Trap the Soul, Barghests, and others) where the books directly state that nasty things happen to the souls of the dead that are not left out of the books. If it was the case for undead, why would they leave it out here?


A couple of quick counter examples for your logic:
"It cannot be because they use negative energy, as it is not Evil. " Not true; many uses of negative energy are marked as evil and there isn't really any justification for it beyond the fact that you're using negative energy. Evil clerics are closely tied to negative energy in several ways, so the fact that negative energy lacks the evil descriptor doesn't really indicate that negative energy is neutral just that it's not always evil; it may be "mostly evil". So cannot" is not correct.

"Many uses of negative energy are marked as evil" proves nothing. Many humans are marked as evil, and in many of those cases there isn't really any justification for it at all (perhaps beyond the fact that they are human), so by your logic humans are Always Neutral Evil.

Close ties to negative energy on evil clerics' parts also proves nothing. Positive energy (which is also strictly neutral) is closely tied to good clerics, after all.

Oh, and you utterly failed to address my actual evidence for negative energy being neutral - the Negative Energy Plane itself, which has all of the qualities negative energy has and none that it doesn't, is Neutral, as are most of the spells and effects using it, as are creatures composed of nothing but negative energy (Xeg-Yi), as, in fact, are many undead!


"It cannot be because they create Undead," A corpse is mindless and isn't capable of moral thought, but making a corpses can indeed be an act of evil. This is the case except under special circumstances. So "Cannot" is not correct.

You put that word "can" in your first sentence. This actually helps prove my point, as we can replace the word "corpse" with "zombie," not change the meaning of the sentence at all, and see the truth of the matter: making a zombie can (but is not necessarily) indeed be an act of evil. Perhaps this is the case except under special circumstances, but even that would immediately mean that making undead is not necessarily evil.


"It also cannot be because it uses a corpse without permission" For intelligent humaniods, you're wrong; eating them is defined as evil in one of the books. Even in the case of animals there are cultures that believe that you have to ask the animals permission to use it. So, again, "Cannot" is not correct.

Primary source rule. For alignments, the primary source is the PHB, which trumps all other books if they contradict it, and by saying that eating something is Evil they contradict the PHB, where it explicitly says what is and is not Evil, where eating does not fall under the category of Evil. However, we've had this particular conversation before in a previous thread, so I'm just gonna drop this part.

Oh, but I didn't mention eating intelligent humanoids. I just said eating corpses, which includes cow corpses and bird corpses :smallwink:

Oh, and the "there are cultures that believe" thing is a variant of the classic Bandwagon Fallacy; you're essentially claiming that because many people believed it to be wrong that it is wrong, which does not, in fact, follow logically. I can make the same argument for slavery being morally right, after all, but in most modern moral systems that is something abhorrent, so you can make the exact same argument for slavery being morally wrong.

Jayabalard
2008-08-26, 11:36 AM
Cite your sources; is there any evidence that claims that negative energy attacks the life force more directly than flame or frost? You seem to hung up on the RAW for a specific Edition of D&D, while I'm talking about something much more general (since the thread doesn't have a 3e or even a D&D tag). If you want to argue RAW, you'll need to talk to someone else.

Pure Negative energy attacks attack the life force itself; someone who's been killed purely with negative energy leaves a corpse with no trace of injury... they're just dead. Just being on the Negative Material plane causes a living being's life force to drain away. They don't sustain any injuries. Certain types of negative energy can drain away the soul entirely and leave nothing (ie, permanently draining all of someone's levels)


You put that word "can" in your first sentence. This actually helps prove my point, as we can replace the word "corpse" with "zombie," not change the meaning of the sentence at all, and see the truth of the matter: making a zombie can (but is not necessarily) indeed be an act of evil. Not really; we know that there are cases where creating a copse is non-evil. We don't have any agreement that there are such cases for creating zombies, which means that those words are not interchangeable... so that doesn't really help your point.

Mystral
2008-08-26, 12:01 PM
Wow. First of all, I want to thank all of you for expressing your opinion.

But I want to state that you are moving away from the question I tried to ask rather quickly. ;)

My question is not: Is animating corpses evil, but is using negative energy evil?

I have a sorcerer with the spells Enervation, Spirit Wall, Ray of Sickness and Vampiric Touch (amongst others) who recently turned good after prolonged contact to fey. Her magical powers stem from a pinch of fey blood in her heritage, to specify, the blood of a glaistig, a chaotic neutral fey who substains itself by sucking blood. (Monster Manual 2 or 3 I think). I thought that those spells would fit the concept nicely.

A few weeks ago, my GM confronted me with an excerpt from the players handbook stating that "channeling negative energy is an evil act". As such, he told me that good characters do not use negative energy, and that my new alignment was rather questionable.

This question is more or less academic because we (GM and I) decided to change the fluff of those spells to not using negative energy while keeping their functionality. Still, the issue makes me wonder, and it would be nice to know this for sure.

Once again, thank you for all your help, and I'm looking forward to read more, because this thread, and the link to the tome of necromancy, were very enlightening. :)

Person_Man
2008-08-26, 12:05 PM
This issue is best handled in the same fashion as discussing the D&D economy, or poison, or whether a Druid can hurt animals, or how the Fidelius Charm works, or why monsters seem to wait in a stationary location their entire lives until the PCs find them. With a hand wave (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HandWave). In a fantasy world, things don't make sense unless you sit down and chart out everything about them. And even then, they sometimes don't make sense. Spend a few weeks studying history or sociology, and you'll soon realize that even reality isn't very consistent. D&D was created (and is still being written) by many different authors over the course of decades. Vagueness happen.

The beautiful part is that you can re-fluff things however you like. Or you can just say that its Evil. It's not like Good clerics will be nerfed without it.

monty
2008-08-26, 12:07 PM
The beautiful part is that you can re-fluff things however you like. Or you can just say that its Evil. It's not like Good clerics will be nerfed without it.

Oh no! No inflict spells? Whatever will I do?

TeeEl
2008-08-26, 12:31 PM
Is a sword, bow, or gun evil? No. Indeed, one can commit horrible atrocities with them, but so too can one perform great acts of heroism.

Yes, but funny thing: people always seem to have the darnedest time coming to an agreement on which acts are atrocities and which acts are heroism. It seems you get different answers depending on who you ask. History is in fact filled with examples of people who have gone to war, fought, and killed, and been heralded as great heroes and also demonized as regrettable embarrassments to civilization and morality.


The tool matters not: sometimes, acts of good involve killing.

Yes. Sometimes acts of good involve using the methods of evil.

Murder is evil. Because killing is evil, and murder is a subset of killing. Killing is sometimes an acceptable, even a necessary evil; it's still evil, and forgetting that fact is the first step towards committing atrocities, whether you do it in the name of heroism or not.

Stormageddon
2008-08-26, 12:38 PM
Just really ask you DM. It's could go either way.

monty
2008-08-26, 12:40 PM
Yes, but funny thing: people always seem to have the darnedest time coming to an agreement on which acts are atrocities and which acts are heroism. It seems you get different answers depending on who you ask. History is in fact filled with examples of people who have gone to war, fought, and killed, and been heralded as great heroes and also demonized as regrettable embarrassments to civilization and morality.

There's the saying: If you kill one man, you're a murderer. If you kill a thousand men, you're a hero. If you kill all the men, and still have spell slots left over, you're a druid.


Yes. Sometimes acts of good involve using the methods of evil.

Murder is evil. Because killing is evil, and murder is a subset of killing. Killing is sometimes an acceptable, even a necessary evil; it's still evil, and forgetting that fact is the first step towards committing atrocities, whether you do it in the name of heroism or not.

On the other hand, if killing is evil no matter what (in D&D at least), wouldn't a paladin fall for killing something, regardless of circumstances? Kind of makes it hard to be a holy warrior if you can't fight anything.

Tormsskull
2008-08-26, 12:54 PM
A few weeks ago, my GM confronted me with an excerpt from the players handbook stating that "channeling negative energy is an evil act". As such, he told me that good characters do not use negative energy, and that my new alignment was rather questionable.


I recall that excerpt, it is from the Turn Undead ability regarding channeling negative energy to command undead and such.



Still, the issue makes me wonder, and it would be nice to know this for sure.


Honestly, you will never know for sure. It all depends on the kind of world that the DM is trying to portray. Personally I love those worlds where dark, evil, wicked magic is acutally more powerful than regular magic, but it has some nasty side effects to its use.

And not the "optimizing/munchkinery" kind of nasty side effects that are eliminated by taking the right feat or PrC or correct item or whatever. With that in mind, I rule that negative energy is evil and will slowly turn a good character to neutral, and then even more slowly to evil.

NecroRebel
2008-08-26, 12:58 PM
You seem to hung up on the RAW for a specific Edition of D&D, while I'm talking about something much more general (since the thread doesn't have a 3e or even a D&D tag). If you want to argue RAW, you'll need to talk to someone else.

Did I mention an edition? Cite your source.


Pure Negative energy attacks attack the life force itself; someone who's been killed purely with negative energy leaves a corpse with no trace of injury... they're just dead. Just being on the Negative Material plane causes a living being's life force to drain away. They don't sustain any injuries. Certain types of negative energy can drain away the soul entirely and leave nothing (ie, permanently draining all of someone's levels)

There is no fluff that I'm aware of for what negative energy actually does to a creature. The closest thing to negative energy in 4E is necrotic damage, which explicitly causes living things to whither and boil, as in the real-life form of injury known as necrosis (where cells die while still on the body). Presumably, negative energy is something similar... Which, now that I think about it supports your view of things.

However, permanently draining levels is to my knowledge impossible; you always get a save to make temporary negative levels nonpermanent, I cannot think of any way to give permanent levels without this delay and save, and if you are drained to 0 levels you immediately die, leaving you capable of being raised or ressurected, at which time you no longer have those negative levels. The ways that do exist to drain away the soul entirely are not fluffed as negative energy though.

Also, draining someone to 0 levels isn't always Evil :smallsmile:


Not really; we know that there are cases where creating a copse is non-evil. We don't have any agreement that there are such cases for creating zombies, which means that those words are not interchangeable... so that doesn't really help your point.

I perhaps could have phrased that better. We agree that there are cases in which making a corpse is non-evil. I claim that there are cases in which making a zombie is non-evil. You are correct in that that doesn't really help my case, but I will expand to this: Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Making a zombie does not imply hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Therefore, making a zombie is not evil.

Tadanori Oyama
2008-08-26, 01:16 PM
And not the "optimizing/munchkinery" kind of nasty side effects that are eliminated by taking the right feat or PrC or correct item or whatever. With that in mind, I rule that negative energy is evil and will slowly turn a good character to neutral, and then even more slowly to evil.

Your the only other person I've found who did the same thing I did. Cool.

The problem was I then considered that an evil Cleric who did alot of healing would eventually turn himself neutral and then good... which is kinda funny really.

mostlyharmful
2008-08-26, 01:26 PM
Yes, but funny thing: people always seem to have the darnedest time coming to an agreement on which acts are atrocities and which acts are heroism. It seems you get different answers depending on who you ask. History is in fact filled with examples of people who have gone to war, fought, and killed, and been heralded as great heroes and also demonized as regrettable embarrassments to civilization and morality.

Morality is complicated. It's contextual, socially enforced and based on a multiplicity of different, sometimes mutually exclusive, motives and values which is both why people can disagree about virtually any ethical dilema and also why it isn't helpful to have such set, inflexible judgments on ethics.

It's a complicated world and if you start with a set of unchanging rules and try to apply them to life you are bound to squeeze people inbetween the cracks, there are times when killing isn't wrong, in fact I can think of several instances when it would in my opinion be unethical NOT to kill anouther person.


To the OP, there are plenty of spells that use Negative Energy that don't have the Evil tag. Given that and that there is an evil tag in the first place, and that some spells that channel this particular type of energy have it and some don't its a bit of a stretch to say that allllll uses of negative energy are inherently evil.

paladin_carvin
2008-08-26, 01:29 PM
Well, I guess the 'is negative energy evil' comes down to a few things.

Firstly, channeling negative energy seems to be mildly associated. But neutral clerics can do it as well, so it isn't 'depraved' so to speak. But, outside that cleric power there are cleric spells that are negative energy that can be used by good clerics without penalty; thus, negative energy doesn't seem to be a depraved act. I'd say it goes along the lines of 'taint' for the games that use that thought. It's a matter of surrounding your life with it that may be associated with evil.

There also are many negative energy spells that are clearly evil while I don't think there are any that are clearly good (at least, none with a [good] type). Again, this is far from damning.

When you get into the broader area of things, you could consider all necromancy to be negative energy. I'd say this is true, though I can't find anything saying this specifically. I remember a book talking about how weird it would be for someone to be a necromancer and be lawful good- it is entirely possible though. Nothing says a necromancer can't be LG. And there certainly many good things necromancy spells do.

Telonius
2008-08-26, 01:40 PM
I usually think of the flip side of this.

Is using Positive Energy necessarily a good act? Would a Cleric of Hextor get in trouble with his god just for using some healing spells on himself or his minions? I would say, probably not. Now if he started to go around and cure the sick and be all benevolent, there might be issues.

Same way with Positive Energy. Inflict Wounds doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor. A Cleric of Hieroneous could prepare and cast it without getting in trouble with his god. But if he started casting it on every orphan and puppy that he came across, there would be a problem.

EDIT: Also, many of the Inflict spells are in the Destruction domain. Are there any good gods that grant this domain? Bast, according to Deities and Demigods. Also a couple of Neutral gods (St. Cuthbert, Dionysius).

Tokiko Mima
2008-08-26, 01:53 PM
Negative Energy really can't be good or evil because it would imply that it has an intelligence or agenda beyond simply existing and interacting with the world. It's like a nuclear (or chemical, biological, ballistic, explosive, etc.) weapon isn't innately evil or good until it's set to a purpose. People choose the morality of their actions, and it's simple chance that negative energy works best for things that more evil people tend to do.

Tormsskull
2008-08-26, 02:47 PM
Negative Energy really can't be good or evil because it would imply that it has an intelligence or agenda beyond simply existing and interacting with the world.

I don't think that's true in D&D. A weapon can be evil without having Intelligence. A mindless undead can be evil (at least, according to 3e and up). Spells can be evil without having any intelligence. And so on.

Starshade
2008-08-26, 03:12 PM
My view, is its a matter of game balance:

Negative energy is ok in my view, since gods of night, darkness, etc, dont NEED to be evil.
Raising zombies, i think are an anti rollplayer balance. Try to guess 3 times what might be possible, if zombies COULD be raised?

I think:
- You could get cleric and wizards making zombies out of their fallen PC buddies, and using them as cannon fodder until they get time to raise them properly. :smallamused:

Tokiko Mima
2008-08-26, 03:14 PM
I don't think that's true in D&D. A weapon can be evil without having Intelligence. A mindless undead can be evil (at least, according to 3e and up). Spells can be evil without having any intelligence. And so on.

Well, mindless undead are evil because they have an evil alignment and were created with evil spells as an evil act by a spellcaster. Just knowing a spell isn't an evil act, it's the casting that is.

An energy type is not a simple object that can be filled with evil like a sword, it's a universally pervasive force like fire, acid, cold, and electricity. Negative energy can be used evilly (and often is, as in spells and weapons) but it's the user that does that, not the energy type itself.

Ellisthion
2008-08-26, 08:23 PM
Morality is complicated. [...]

in fact I can think of several instances when it would in my opinion be unethical NOT to kill another person.

Indeed. And compiled on that the fact that we have a medieval fantasy world with paladins and good clerics maniacally running around killing people, without their gods getting upset, killing is, particularly in D&D, not inherently evil. Aaaanyway...

Let us compare the use of negative energy as a tool in killing, compared to, say, fire. Well, there are a ton of fire spells and several which cause ongoing damage, especially in 4E. Burning to death is apparently an incredibly painful way of dying: incendiary weapons are mostly phased out, now, for that reason.

But a Wizard, or even a cleric, is allowed to go around toasting people. No worries. No alignment issues. Throw some acid in and watch the foes die a rather nasty death. Still no worries.

So why should negative energy cause troubles? Now, we don't know what it feels like to get hit by negative energy, but if we're going to sit back, relax, and allow someone to slowly die from cloudkill inside a forcecage, why would we discriminate against negative energy, which can give a mercifully quick death?

And why would channeling negative energy be evil? Consider that the negative energy plane is just that, a plane, like positive, fire, earth, water, and air. There is no reason for someone to be tainted with evil, any more than someone should be tainted with good, fire, earth, water, or air.

mabriss lethe
2008-08-26, 08:53 PM
However, permanently draining levels is to my knowledge impossible; you always get a save to make temporary negative levels nonpermanent, I cannot think of any way to give permanent levels without this delay and save, and if you are drained to 0 levels you immediately die, leaving you capable of being raised or ressurected, at which time you no longer have those negative levels. The ways that do exist to drain away the soul entirely are not fluffed as negative energy though.

Also, draining someone to 0 levels isn't always Evil

But the thing that rises after being drained to 0 levels is alway Evil

Of course, depending on how those levels were lost, you have to beat what is sometimes a very fast clock. Remember, unless otherwise noted, a creature that dies in this fashion rises as a Wight the next night. If a wight itself is the source, it's...1d4 rounds? That can be a problem in the resurrection biz.

But to stay on topic. when it comes to negative energy,It's not specifically evil unless it's [evil]. sometimes the specifics don't make much sense, but that's the official wording.

paladin_carvin
2008-08-26, 09:51 PM
Negative Energy really can't be good or evil because it would imply that it has an intelligence or agenda beyond simply existing and interacting with the world. It's like a nuclear (or chemical, biological, ballistic, explosive, etc.) weapon isn't innately evil or good until it's set to a purpose. People choose the morality of their actions, and it's simple chance that negative energy works best for things that more evil people tend to do.

I would argue some weapons would be evil. While weapons are generally not intelligent, many are designed with specific intent in mind. For instance, biological weapons. Most biological weapons are designed with the intent of fear and when used to cause a long, agonizing death. Even a nuke, in theory, should be better (though, this depends on how many are in the zone of radiation poison as opposed to force or incineration, which would be death right out). On the other end, consider sleeping gas. It's a weapon that is designed so that you never injure your foe. Most non-lethal weapons are good, though not all. The cat of nine tails is an example of a weapon that would be difficult to kill with, but it was designed with torture and pain in mind. I would bet if I had time I could even think of weapons of law and chaos... but I can't at the moment.

Also, as to the Cleric of Hextor using cure spells, I think that is a good example. I'd go further to say that I think there are many evil deities that would not want their clerics channeling negative energy and encourage positive. Malar (Forgotten Realms, god of the hunt; CE I'm pretty sure) would probably hate the idea of the undead, for one. He's a nature deity, even if he is quite evil. While he might like the idea of having to touch the prey to kill it, negative energy would not fit him well. On the other hand, while Malar loves hunts ending in a gory bloody death, he recognizes that if there is nothing to hunt there will be no hunts. So, healing injured members of an endangered species would fit. Hell, he'd probably go with Nale's infamous line 'I'm going to kill you than hire a cleric to raise the body just so I can kill you again!'. A worthy prey would be worth keeping around, which needs positive energy.

On a side note, I just realized while explaining this that Malar would be the perfect god for Belkar.

hamishspence
2008-08-27, 03:16 PM
In second ed, animate spells were about the only spells with alignment referenced in them, since there was no "Evil" or "good" descriptors on any of the spells in PHB.

It said "animating dead is not a good act, and only evil clerics/wizards use this spell frequently"

In 3rd ed and 3.5 ed, all Evil spells have the same Corruption rating: 1 point, by Fiendish Codex rules. Anything from summoning an imp, to Gating in a pit fiend, same rating. Less evil than stealing from the needy, much less evil than Murder of any kind, about equal to humiliating an underling, or carrying out "Intimidating Torture" (torture that does no HP damage.)

Since many negative energy spells do not have alignment descriptor, they do not count as evil or good in themselves, so, in that sense, negative enrgy use is not automatically evil.

It does say that Channelling Negative energy (rebuke/command undead) is an evil act, in Vile darkness, but it does not have a rating, in Fiendish Codex 2.