PDA

View Full Version : Positive Energy Reanimation? Do the Undying make sense?



Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 12:04 AM
This is something that has bothered me for awhile though it was the 'vampire' thread that inspired me to actually address it.

Positive energy heals wounds and can even resurrect the dead. It is pure undiluted life force?

Negative energy is the opposite of positive energy. It inflicts injury and can reanimate the dead. It is pure undiluted death?

So, given the nature of positive energy, how can you have 'positive energy' undead and have it make any sense? Why would 'positive energy' reanimated corpses be anything other than living?

monty
2008-10-01, 12:06 AM
They aren't undead. They're deathless. They're different from normal creatures because they're literally made of positive energy, rather than simply thriving on it.

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 12:10 AM
Deathless... Okay... How are the "Deathless" different from the "Undead" aside from the whole vague powered by positive energy? Why are their bodies gaunt? If they are powered by pure life force, why aren't they perfect living specimens?

Eldariel
2008-10-01, 12:15 AM
They're some ridiculous attempt to have the "two sides of a coin" for everything. Just like Ravages and Afflictions. Don't take 'em seriously (this goes for much of Book of Exalted Deeds - the only reason the "good" thing is even needed is because something that isn't evil is inexplically classified as evil). They're meant for little more than comic relief.

Spiryt
2008-10-01, 12:16 AM
It seems that being of pure positive energy can't exist normally.

In other words, this whole life is harmful. The more of it you have - the worse.
I always thought so. :smalltongue:

BobVosh
2008-10-01, 12:16 AM
Because they don't have bodies. Just energy. Even life energy isn't alive. Or something.

monty
2008-10-01, 12:18 AM
Deathless... Okay... How are the "Deathless" different from the "Undead" aside from the whole vague powered by positive energy? Why are their bodies gaunt? If they are powered by pure life force, why aren't they perfect living specimens?

Deathless are the opposite of undead. Just like death is the opposite of life, undead are beyond death and deathless are beyond life. They aren't perfect because they aren't living.

Lemur
2008-10-01, 12:20 AM
"Make sense"? What's that? Oh, you mean like perception checks. Sure, the Undying can make spot and listen checks like everyone else.

You had me confused for a moment there. I don't usually think about things "making sense" in D&D. ;)

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 12:49 AM
Deathless are the opposite of undead. Just like death is the opposite of life, undead are beyond death and deathless are beyond life. They aren't perfect because they aren't living.

Reanimated corspes are "beyond life" but not "beyond death"? Why aren't they called "Lifeless" then?

Another thing...
Why are the Inflict spells Necromancy? The Cure spells were made Conjuration(Positive Energy) to explain why Wizards couldn't cast them (only gods can provide 'new' hitpoints). Necromacy is the manipulation of life energy, so it works with existing life force in a system. Since the Inflict spells are identical to the Cure spells they should be Conjuration(Negative Energy) bringing negative energy into a system.

jcsw
2008-10-01, 12:52 AM
I thought they were Conj(Healing) because you were conjuring new skin, flesh, veins etc where they were missing...

Eldariel
2008-10-01, 12:53 AM
Inflict-spells are probably necromancy 'cause they, y'know, destroy lifeforce... As you can spontaneously convert them, they can be little more than channeling negative energy.

MeklorIlavator
2008-10-01, 12:56 AM
I think originally, it was because both lines were in Necromancy, but Wizards apparently felt it Necromancy y should be the Evil school, so moved the spells, with the argument that the healing spells are conjuration positive energy. Of course, that doesn't explain why the inflict spells aren't in conjuration as well. In fact, most of the spells in Necromancy would fit into the Conjuration school with that argument, so its pretty much "because they said so", just like a lot of things. Like why undead are evil, why mind raping/dominating someone isn't, etc.

Pronounceable
2008-10-01, 12:56 AM
"Make sense"? What's that? Oh, you mean like perception checks. Sure, the Undying can make spot and listen checks like everyone else.

You had me confused for a moment there. I don't usually think about things "making sense" in D&D. ;)

Quoted for universal applicability.

Ravens_cry
2008-10-01, 01:03 AM
From what I understand, a Strong Positive plane is just as dangerous as a Strong Negative Plane. Someone said that if negative energy is decay, then positive energy is cancer. The only thing I see that would make an intelligent undead explicitly evil is the immortality. After a while, this changes your perspective, the concerns of the short lived living are as dust, to be carried away by the next wind. And since there concerns don't matter, what does it matter what happens to them. Oh they may make some noise, but they don't really have the. . . perspective an undead does. Who cares if a few die, there will always be more.
This immortality is something the 'deathless' share, no?
Then the deathless, would also be evil, no matter what 'powers' them.

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 01:06 AM
Inflict-spells are probably necromancy 'cause they, y'know, destroy lifeforce... As you can spontaneously convert them, they can be little more than channeling negative energy.


Conjuration
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you, actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane, heal, transport creatures or objects over great distances, or create objects or effects on the spot. Creatures you conjure usually, but not always, obey your commands.

"Conjurations bring...some form of energy to you" sounds a lot like channeling energy.


Necromancy
Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force. Spells involving undead creatures make up a large part of this school.

Necromancy is about manipulation, not channeling. It's the wrong school but, yeah, I guess they wanted an "evil" school and splitting up the negative energy spells would have hindered that.

sonofzeal
2008-10-01, 01:49 AM
From what I understand, a Strong Positive plane is just as dangerous as a Strong Negative Plane.
Death by Awesome! :smallbiggrin:

AslanCross
2008-10-01, 01:59 AM
It seems that being of pure positive energy can't exist normally.

In other words, this whole life is harmful. The more of it you have - the worse.
I always thought so. :smalltongue:

There's actually an Elder Evil in the Elder Evils book that is full of unfettered positive energy. Basically it causes things to evolve and grow so fast they explode. It comes to the material plane as a meteor, blows up, and rains down its giblets across the entire world. Each of these is so full of positive energy that it begins growing and seeking the main mass.

The bloody thing is hideous too.

Turcano
2008-10-01, 02:01 AM
From what I understand, a Strong Positive plane is just as dangerous as a Strong Negative Plane.

Specifically, you constantly gain temporary hitpoints and when they exceed your maximum, you make a Fort save every round or you go kablooie.

Ravens_cry
2008-10-01, 02:15 AM
Specifically, you constantly gain temporary hitpoints and when they exceed your maximum, you make a Fort save every round or you go kablooie.
The gross question is, what happens to your remains? Do they simply rot faster then normal? Or do the giblets keep wiggling and jiggling, after 'you' are gone, constantly rejuvenated by the positive energy?

sonofzeal
2008-10-01, 02:23 AM
The gross question is, what happens to your remains? Do they simply rot faster then normal? Or do the giblets keep wiggling and jiggling, after 'you' are gone, constantly rejuvenated by the positive energy?
......have you seen the movie "Beyond Reanimator"? There's a scene towards the end which is basically exactly how I imagine this happening. Basically, there's this serum which brings people back from the dead, plus or minus their soul/sanity. Towards the end, a compulsive junkie gets a hold of a big stash of the stuff, and starts injecting himself with it all over the place. After three or four doses, he explodes - face totally gone, chest cavity blown open, the works - and is still bouncing around demanding more in his annoyingly cheerful voice.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-01, 03:25 AM
So, given the nature of positive energy, how can you have 'positive energy' undead and have it make any sense?

You can't. It's a stupid concept that was done as padding for a quite ludicrously written "moral" rulebook. I'd suggest ignoring this particular book. I mean, bit.

Heliomance
2008-10-01, 03:58 AM
The gross question is, what happens to your remains? Do they simply rot faster then normal? Or do the giblets keep wiggling and jiggling, after 'you' are gone, constantly rejuvenated by the positive energy
What remains? They way I see it, you explode into a shower of sparks, body completely consumed.

Tempest Fennac
2008-10-01, 04:43 AM
I was having a conversation with a friend about the healing spells and Necromancy, and I agreed with them deciding that Evocation would be the best school for the Inflict and Cure spells due to how they are both basically energy manipulation (most of the other healing spells, excluding Regenerate and the Raise Dead line should ideally be Evocation as well in my opinion).

Evil DM Mark3
2008-10-01, 05:08 AM
Deathless can work, if you make sure they fit into the setting. Giving them gaunt appearance if right out but they work very well for "return to protect those how come after you" style entities. I infact prefer them in certain situations but the original Deathless we where given are a bad joke.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-01, 05:10 AM
I was having a conversation with a friend about the healing spells and Necromancy, and I agreed with them deciding that Evocation would be the best school

Interesting. I could also argue that Transmutation would be the fitting school, since you're actually altering a body by mending the wounds.

Bottom line is that necromancy really doesn't belong in the line of schools, since it's the only one that classifies things by effect ("anything related to death, undead, or generic evilness") rather than cause. And yes, the only reason why healing was removed from necromancy is that "healing = good, necromancy = evil".

Second bottom line is that "healing" is traditionally forbidden to wizards (in D&D, if nowhere else) but otherwise could have been the eighth school (since transmutation is big enough already - it could be split in life vs. matter; this is especially true if you look at the breadth of 2.0 or 3.0 transmutation).

Tempest Fennac
2008-10-01, 05:16 AM
I thought that as well about Transmutation, Kurald (I then changed my mind after my initially pro-Necromancy=healing fruend suggested using Evocation). I'll look into 2nd Edition Transmutation later thanks.

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 05:24 AM
Well, it depends on what hitpoints represent...

If hitpoints represent physical injury then the current rules don't make much sense and transmutation(polymorph) spells should restore hitpoints to full, every time.

If hitpoints represent a loss of life force then the current rules don't make much sense and conjuring fresh positive energy or life force into a being should heal them.

If hitpoints represent physical injury and a loss of life force then the current rules don't make much sense and...um...the whole things a mess.

Tempest Fennac
2008-10-01, 05:31 AM
I always saw HP loss as physical injury. I tend to think that the idea of physical injuries staying with someone who changes form makes sense, but I know Wildshape restores some HPs when the Druid shifts for some reason.

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 05:38 AM
If hitpoints are physical injury then changing your physical form on an atomic level should wipe away physical injury. If Polymorph Any Object can transform anything into anything else why can't the caster take the form of an unwounded human? It doesn't make any sense that transmutation can mend broken items but not wounded flesh if hitpoints represent only physical injury. Personally, I think hitpoints probably should only represent physical injury but I don't think that they do.

Tempest Fennac
2008-10-01, 06:04 AM
That is a good point. I'm assuming that the idea is that injuries are harder to remove as far as changing form goes.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-01, 06:41 AM
This is something that has bothered me for awhile though it was the 'vampire' thread that inspired me to actually address it.

Positive energy heals wounds and can even resurrect the dead. It is pure undiluted life force?

Negative energy is the opposite of positive energy. It inflicts injury and can reanimate the dead. It is pure undiluted death?

So, given the nature of positive energy, how can you have 'positive energy' undead and have it make any sense? Why would 'positive energy' reanimated corpses be anything other than living?

Whoa what made you think resuurect spells are positive energy?

Kurald Galain
2008-10-01, 06:45 AM
If hitpoints are physical injury then changing your physical form on an atomic level should wipe away physical injury.
You are not changing your form on an atomic level, unless you're really into killing catgirls. Rather, a shapeshifter has mutable flesh, but damaged mutable flesh doesn't shift as good as it should (and hence, remains painful and wounded until healed, although you can mask a wound or move it somewhere else). Assuming either conservation of mass, or conservation of narrativium, the same happens with regular polymorph spells.

This has a basis in fiction: Moonen-of-the-One-Eye is a shapeshifter, but regardless of what form he shifts into, it will still have only one functional eye (and a scar in place of the second). This is because shapeshifting isn't based in real-world physics.

PAO is such an uber-spell that it could be a plausible exception, though.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-01, 07:21 AM
You are not changing your form on an atomic level, unless you're really into killing catgirls. Rather, a shapeshifter has mutable flesh, but damaged mutable flesh doesn't shift as good as it should (and hence, remains painful and wounded until healed, although you can mask a wound or move it somewhere else). Assuming either conservation of mass, or conservation of narrativium, the same happens with regular polymorph spells.

This has a basis in fiction: Moonen-of-the-One-Eye is a shapeshifter, but regardless of what form he shifts into, it will still have only one functional eye (and a scar in place of the second). This is because shapeshifting isn't based in real-world physics.

PAO is such an uber-spell that it could be a plausible exception, though.

Killing Catgirls is what happens when you try to explain magic... kill more catgirls quick they breed faster than goblins.

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 07:26 AM
You are not changing your form on an atomic level, unless you're really into killing catgirls. Rather, a shapeshifter has mutable flesh, but damaged mutable flesh doesn't shift as good as it should (and hence, remains painful and wounded until healed, although you can mask a wound or move it somewhere else). Assuming either conservation of mass, or conservation of narrativium, the same happens with regular polymorph spells.

I recently was playing a high level caster with PAO and Shapechange, so the high end of the polymorph subschool was on my mind. But on the low end I definitely see where you're coming from and that actually makes a lot of sense.


Whoa what made you think resuurect spells are positive energy?


Resurrection(PH p273)
<Conj(heal), VSM(holy water, 10,000gp diamond)/DF, 10Minutes, Touch>
Restores life to someone who died up to 10 years per level ago, assuming the spirit is willing. Subject cannot have died of old age.
When resurrected, the subject has all his/her hp and ability scores restored & is cured of diseases & poisons.
Subject looses a Non-Recoverable Level. This spells cannot be used on Constructs, Elementals, or Outsiders.

It's part of the Conjuration(Healing) subschool which I believe to be spells which channel positive energy to rapidly heal wounds despite claims that it could be summoning bits of fresh flesh from somewhere. Ewww....

Sebastian
2008-10-01, 07:39 AM
I think originally, it was because both lines were in Necromancy, but Wizards apparently felt it Necromancy y should be the Evil school, so moved the spells, with the argument that the healing spells are conjuration positive energy. Of course, that doesn't explain why the inflict spells aren't in conjuration as well. In fact, most of the spells in Necromancy would fit into the Conjuration school with that argument, so its pretty much "because they said so", just like a lot of things. Like why undead are evil, why mind raping/dominating someone isn't, etc.

Exactly, in 2nd edition "cure" spells were just the reversed version of "inflict" spell, they were the same spell that could be prepared in two different ways, some gods had access to only one of the form, and IIRC it was a necromantic spell, yes, on 2nd edition healing was necromantic, necromancers were even the only wizards with some (few and really weak) curative spells.

Danzaver
2008-10-01, 07:54 AM
This is something that has bothered me for awhile though it was the 'vampire' thread that inspired me to actually address it.

Positive energy heals wounds and can even resurrect the dead. It is pure undiluted life force?

Negative energy is the opposite of positive energy. It inflicts injury and can reanimate the dead. It is pure undiluted death?

So, given the nature of positive energy, how can you have 'positive energy' undead and have it make any sense? Why would 'positive energy' reanimated corpses be anything other than living?

Resurrect is a necromantic spell so it may or may not use negative energy. It tends to either restore life to your body in whatever shape or condition it is currently in, or remake you completely (as if someone took a photo of you in full health and then brought it to life - conjuration + necromancy?). But regardless, it doesn't seem to do any real 'healing' per se.

I don't believe negative energy is 'death' and positive energy is 'life'. Lets not forget that being overexposed to positive energy kills you just the same. I would say that life and death are very much the same force, and manipulating it is the aim of necromancy. It has nothing to do with positive or negative energy.

Positive energy is (or is created by, who knows) love happiness, etc. Negative energy stains a site where great evil or hatred takes place.

Living beings thrive off love and joy, which is why it heals them. To feel joy heals your mind, so it is no great leap of the imagination to have it heal your body in large concentrations.
By the same token, hate and anger turns rots people on the inside, and makes them unhappy and unpleasant, so in large concentrations it could harm.
Neither are particularly 'good' or bad' so much as 'good for you' and 'bad for you'.

Undead are a perversion of life, a mockery of living beings. Therefore, hate sustains and heals them, while love is poison. Anyone who uses undead, even for good (or neutral - like opening and closing a door) purposes will have to face up to this fact sooner or later, as even the silent skeletal doorman will seem to resent you for your joy and life, as if in its eyes you were doing some terrible and foul evil.

I don't believe that a positive energy undead is feasible, and no matter how you gift-wrap it, messing with life or death is the domain of necromancy, not positive or negative energy. Just my take on it though.

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 08:15 AM
Resurrect is a necromantic spell so it may or may not use negative energy. It tends to either restore life to your body in whatever shape or condition it is currently in, or remake you completely (as if someone took a photo of you in full health and then brought it to life - conjuration + necromancy?). But regardless, it doesn't seem to do any real 'healing' per se.



Whoa what made you think resuurect spells are positive energy?


Resurrection(PH p273)
<Conj(heal), VSM(holy water, 10,000gp diamond)/DF, 10Minutes, Touch>
Restores life to someone who died up to 10 years per level ago, assuming the spirit is willing. Subject cannot have died of old age.
When resurrected, the subject has all his/her hp and ability scores restored & is cured of diseases & poisons.
Subject looses a Non-Recoverable Level. This spells cannot be used on Constructs, Elementals, or Outsiders.

It's part of the Conjuration(Healing) subschool which I believe to be spells which channel positive energy to rapidly heal wounds despite claims that it could be summoning bits of fresh flesh from somewhere. Ewww....

Resurrection is a conjuration(healing) spell. I'm not quite sure why it's thought of an necromancy...though I think it might have been back in AD&D.


Positive energy is (or is created by, who knows) love happiness, etc. Negative energy stains a site where great evil or hatred takes place.

Sailor Moon will defeat the Negaverse with the powers of love and hope!


Living beings thrive off love and joy, which is why it heals them. To feel joy heals your mind, so it is no great leap of the imagination to have it heal your body in large concentrations.

By the same token, hate and anger turns rots people on the inside, and makes them unhappy and unpleasant, so in large concentrations it could harm.

Neither are particularly 'good' or bad' so much as 'good for you' and 'bad for you'.

Well, I was going to make fun of your point but that's actually an interesting take on it. I don't think it's the correct one for Dungeons and Dragons as it is described but it would make for an interesting model. Then, no model really fits Dungeons and Dragons because it tries to be too many things at once.


Undead are a perversion of life, a mockery of living beings. Therefore, hate sustains and heals them, while love is poison. Anyone who uses undead, even for good (or neutral - like opening and closing a door) purposes will have to face up to this fact sooner or later, as even the silent skeletal doorman will seem to resent you for your joy and life, as if in its eyes you were doing some terrible and foul evil.

It reminds me very much of... Some old vampire thing I read or saw, I can't really remember what it was, in which it was explained that Vampires are repulsed by what a cross signifies (redemption and true eternal life) rather than some sort of magical power innate to the cross.

AstralFire
2008-10-01, 08:19 AM
The idea of creatures transformed by positive or negative energy equally makes little sense to me. My only issue with Deathless is that they're visually identical to Undead, yet the force animating them is the essence of life energy.

monty
2008-10-01, 09:12 AM
Positive energy is (or is created by, who knows) love happiness, etc. Negative energy stains a site where great evil or hatred takes place.

Uh, no. They're both explicitly neutral forces.

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 09:16 AM
The idea of creatures transformed by positive or negative energy equally makes little sense to me. My only issue with Deathless is that they're visually identical to Undead, yet the force animating them is the essence of life energy.

Ironically, the idea of creatures getting transformed by positive energy into aberrations makes sense to me. Though I agree that the idea of corpses being transformed into undead by negative energy makes next to no sense.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-01, 09:33 AM
Uh, no. They're both explicitly neutral forces.

Exactly, look at Animated Object. You use positive Energy.

Deathless are the logical conclusion of that spell when used a corpse.

Roderick_BR
2008-10-01, 09:35 AM
This is an oversimplification on how these works, based on what I understood about the rules, so, correct me if I'm wrong:
Ressurrection: The magic heals and/or rebuilds the body, making it alive again, then puts the soul back into it.
Undead: A corpse is animated through magic. Animated as in, makes it walk, hold objects. Pretty much a dead energizer bunny, running on negative energy batteries, rotting like any good corpse does.
Deathless: A new body is created, made with pure positive energy, like a "solid hologram". Pretty much a construct made of energy, that the soul will inhabit for a while.

So, yeah, ressurrection is "I got better", undead is "let's poke it with a cattle prod to see if it moves", and deathless is "we can rebuild him, we have the technologymagic".

Edit: And as I just clicked "submit", I started to think... Spawn (Image Comics) is like a negative energy deathless :smalltongue:

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 09:40 AM
Exactly, look at Animated Object. You use positive Energy.

You do? I thought Animate Object was transmutat...


Animate Objects(PH p199)
<Trans, VS, 1StdAct, Medium-range, 1rnd/lvl>
Animates the equivalent of one Small-sized, non-magical, unattended (i.e., not carried or worn) object per level, which can be used to immediately attack an opponent. Use the Animated Object creature(MM p13) for the items effected by this spell.
The caster may change which objects are animated as a Move Action each round.
The caster may animate larger objects in place of a number of Small objects.
1 Medium = 2 Small 1 Gargantuan = 16 Small
1 Large = 4 Small 1 Colossal = 32 Small
1 Huge = 8 Small

Glancing at the Monster Manual, there's nothing in the Animated Object description about positive energy.


Deathless are the logical conclusion of that spell when used a corpse.

No, an animated object is the logical conclusion of that spell. Deathless and Undead are something else.

AmberVael
2008-10-01, 09:48 AM
The Undying do not make sense, but that's because (at least in 3.5) none of the schools and energy make any sense.

Necromancy is the worst school ever created. It ISN'T a school- it's just a ton of "spooky" spells thrown together. Look at its level one spells: Cause Fear? Enchantment. Ray of Enfeeblement? Transmutation. Chill Touch? Evocation.

Negative and Positive energies are likewise vague, shown merely to do generically "good" or "evil" sort of things dealing with wounds, death, and life. They may posit them as neutral forces, but don't deny that good and evil are the flavor they've been given through spells and the like.

If you want to make Magic and planar energies make sense in DnD, be prepared to either do a lot of BSing, or a lot of reworking.

AstralFire
2008-10-01, 10:42 AM
The illogic of schools in 3.5 is, I think, one of the biggest reasons I've never really enjoyed playing Vancian casters. The Psionic categories make more sense on the whole.

monty
2008-10-01, 04:50 PM
Negative and Positive energies are likewise vague, shown merely to do generically "good" or "evil" sort of things dealing with wounds, death, and life. They may posit them as neutral forces, but don't deny that good and evil are the flavor they've been given through spells and the like.

I won't get into undead, because that's probably worthy of several threads on its own, but other than that, there is no explicit good or evil to energy. They're just tools, and a tool is only as good as the person using it. Would you call a weapon evil because it can be used to kill people? Is medicine inherently good? No, but that's basically what negative and positive energy are (not exactly, but it's hard to find exact matches - the analogy is close enough). They create or destroy life, with moral implications entirely dependent on how you use them. Why do evil characters tend to use negative energy? Because it's easier to do evil with, just like it's easier to kill someone with a gun than with penicillin. Just because it's easier to do so doesn't mean it is automatically so.

Ionizer
2008-10-01, 07:06 PM
You do? I thought Animate Object was transmutat...



Glancing at the Monster Manual, there's nothing in the Animated Object description about positive energy.



No, an animated object is the logical conclusion of that spell. Deathless and Undead are something else.

The Ravid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ravid.htm) is a creature from the Positive Energy Plane that animates objects just by being near them because it literally exudes positive energy. That bit of it's description is more obvious in the actual MM entry instead of the SRD because the MM gives more flavor text.

Just saying, it's not a big jump to think that Animate Object spells/effects use positive energy.

AstralFire
2008-10-01, 07:07 PM
Good point, though I think that's more a case of "electricity and fire both create heat" than "all electricity is fire" if you know what I'm saying.

Still, good catch. I'd forgotten all about that.

AmberVael
2008-10-01, 07:10 PM
I won't get into undead, because that's probably worthy of several threads on its own, but other than that, there is no explicit good or evil to energy. They're just tools, and a tool is only as good as the person using it. Would you call a weapon evil because it can be used to kill people? Is medicine inherently good? No, but that's basically what negative and positive energy are (not exactly, but it's hard to find exact matches - the analogy is close enough). They create or destroy life, with moral implications entirely dependent on how you use them. Why do evil characters tend to use negative energy? Because it's easier to do evil with, just like it's easier to kill someone with a gun than with penicillin. Just because it's easier to do so doesn't mean it is automatically so.

This is all entirely true, but the fact remains that those things more often used by and for evil are related with evil, and those things more often used by and for good are related to good.
As such, doing things which are normally seen as evil are often explained away by association with that "terrible" negative energy. Hence the evil undead are negative energy powered, and the good undead are positive energy powered. *shrug*

AstralFire
2008-10-01, 07:15 PM
This is all entirely true, but the fact remains that those things more often used by and for evil are related with evil, and those things more often used by and for good are related to good.
As such, doing things which are normally seen as evil are often explained away by association with that "terrible" negative energy. Hence the evil undead are negative energy powered, and the good undead are positive energy powered. *shrug*

Meh, good, evil, I'm the guy with the turning class feature.

TheCountAlucard
2008-10-01, 08:13 PM
Y'know, this discussion is reminding me of the whole "magicality" discussion in the book The Unhandsome Prince.

But, yeah, deathless is to undead as ravages are to poisons. I don't use 'em.

Deth Muncher
2008-10-01, 09:30 PM
Meh, good, evil, I'm the guy with the turning class feature.

Only if that class feature can be purchased at the local S-Mart.

Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart.

Jothki
2008-10-02, 02:20 AM
I don't see why animating the dead with negative energy would make more sense than animating the dead with positive energy, anyway. If you're trying to turn once-living flesh into a twisted mockery of life, why would throwing more 'death' at it help? I'd think you'd have far more luck animating the body with positive energy, constantly regenerating it enough to keep it 'alive' despite the fact that its organs are rotting or completely missing and it's constantly decaying.

Ralfarius
2008-10-02, 02:43 PM
"It's just a showgame, I should really just relax" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra)
Undead are creatures powered by negative energy, and lacking the divine spark that gives them true life. By that token, a creature that is fueled by positive energy, but lacks the true divine spark, would be like a positive-energy undead. In a material plane where all life is the result of deific design, then something not specifically intended to be 'alive' by their design, would not be a true living creature.

Jayabalard
2008-10-02, 03:35 PM
Uh, no. They're both explicitly neutral forces.Not at all; they don't have explicit good or evil tags, which isn't the same thing as being explicitly neutral. You could make an argument that the lack of such a descriptor makes them implicitly neutral, though I don't think you're going to have much luck at convincing anyone who thinks otherwise; you might have a better chance at convincing people that they're not aligned (which is a different concept than neutrality).

And regardless of the lack of a good/evil descriptor, there are several explicit ties between good/positive enegery and evil/negative energy, which can be used to make the argument that positive and negative energy are implicitly good/evil respectively.

monty
2008-10-02, 05:11 PM
Not at all; they don't have explicit good or evil tags, which isn't the same thing as being explicitly neutral. You could make an argument that the lack of such a descriptor makes them implicitly neutral, though I don't think you're going to have much luck at convincing anyone who thinks otherwise; you might have a better chance at convincing people that they're not aligned (which is a different concept than neutrality).

And regardless of the lack of a good/evil descriptor, there are several explicit ties between good/positive enegery and evil/negative energy, which can be used to make the argument that positive and negative energy are implicitly good/evil respectively.

I already countered those arguments in a previous post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5027868&postcount=46). Also, neither plane has any alignment. If negative energy were evil, wouldn't an entire plane of it be at least mildly evil?