A New Reason Why Negative Energy Is [Evil]

[Lysander]

There are two major theories/DM options about how negative energy functions:http://community.wizards.com/go/thre..._of_Necromancy

I suggest reading that article but in summary:
#1) Crawling Darkness - Negative energy is inherently evil.
#2) Playing With Fire - Negative energy is dangerous, but not evil

I would like to present option number three:

#3) Disturbing the Natural Order

Is this model negative energy does not truly exist. It is merely a lack of life energy, the same way cold is merely a lack of heat and vacuum is merely a lack of air.

Life energy originates in the infinite wellspring of the positive energy plane, and is drawn from there by the infinite consuming vacuum of the negative energy plane. On its journey it passes through and enriches other planes. This actually makes the negative energy plane a good thing with an important function - without it life energy might never leave the positive energy plane, leaving the multiverse lifeless.

In this model necromancy isn't the release of negative energy. It's rerouting and redirecting life energy, like an engineer damming a river or diverting water into a canal. And much like a river, a poorly conceived or selfish project can harm all those downstream. A lot of necromancy involves diverting life from this metaphorical river into stagnant pools or private pipelines, unfairly hoarding it instead of letting it continue down the river through the rest of the plane and other planes, nourishing countless creatures and plants on its course to the negative energy plane.

In short necromancy isn't evil because of what you're using it for. It's because when you use it...plagues are a little more common. More children are born sickly or premature. The elderly die a few years younger than they might otherwise have. Grain doesn't grow quite as tall. The damage is subtle and spread out until necromancy is widespread. Then there is a brief period of prosperity as armies of skeleton slaves tirelessly build palaces and work the fields...until one day the grain won't grow. And mothers can't conceive children. And even the trees and grass wither and die. And for hundreds or thousands of years all that exists where these proud kingdoms once stood is a barren desert of windswept ruins, filled with the mournful rustling of the undead.

So in this system what are undead? It varies. Some, like skeleton or zombies are stagnant pools that unfairly hoard energy for eternity. [edit: better explanation is DragoonWraith's whirlpool analogy below] Others like vampires are siphons, that must forever steal energy from others and divert it into themselves.

Offensive negative energy attack spells like harm are the sudden diverting of energy, leaving stretches of the river dry. For a living creature this can be deadly, like a fish stranded on dry land. For an undead creature that exists outside the normal stream this is like an influx of stolen energy. Positive energy spells like heal are now conjuration spells for a good reason, they directly link to the positive energy plane to draw in fresh energy without stealing it from another being.

[WarKitty]

Hmmm...this could be interesting with a druid around. There's some actual RAW support here, since druids are supposed to be antithetical to the undead. It would definitely make the druid, rather than the paladin, the natural enemy of the undead and the necromancer.

[Ravens_cry]

If it is merelly an absence, then what is death? Not undeath, ordinary death.
And why does the 'nothing' heal undead ?
I never liked Undead as Evil personally, looking at magic as technology, a tool, whose evil purely depends on how it is used.

[Lysander]

If it is merelly an absence, then what is death? Not undeath, ordinary death.
And why does the 'nothing' heal undead ?
I never liked Undead as Evil personally, looking at magic as technology, a tool, whose evil purely depends on how it is used.

Death is the absence of life energy. Undeath is the misuse of life energy.

A harm spell is the diverting of energy. When a living creature is targeted it dismissed the ambient life energy of their body. When an undead creature is targeted they become the place ambient energy is diverted to.

In this system necromancy isn't necessarily evil. Just harmful to the universe if used frequently. It's use can be justified morally as long as the side effects are worth whatever you're using it for.

[Radar]

I love it!
It has a great RP potential and gives many possible ideas for world-building. It is also a very solid reason to consider necromancy a major crime.

[WarKitty]

If it is merelly an absence, then what is death? Not undeath, ordinary death.
And why does the 'nothing' heal undead ?
I never liked Undead as Evil personally, looking at magic as technology, a tool, whose evil purely depends on how it is used.

Ordinary death could be seen as your life energy returning to the earth. Which would fit - becoming a lich is evil because you are attempting to prolong your life unnaturally, thus separating yourself from the flow of nature that you are part of.

I might also allow for some types of undead to be non-evil under this system. Namely things like ghosts, renevants, etc. You could have certain forms of undead that are attempts at restoring the natural balance by avenging an "unnatural" death.

[Prodan]

So when you cast healing spells, kids are born healthier and old people live longer?

[shadow_archmagi]

Okay, so, when I use "Cause Serious Wounds" and it's exactly the opposite of "Cure Serious Wounds," rather than one firing life-energy and the other firing unlife-energy, they're both life, but one is "Inappropriately used"

???


They seem to be designed as polar opposites, not as different "styles" of the same thing

[Ravens_cry]

Argumentum ad naturam

Pah, I say again, pah.

[Lysander]

Okay, so, when I use "Cause Serious Wounds" and it's exactly the opposite of "Cure Serious Wounds," rather than one firing life-energy and the other firing unlife-energy, they're both life, but one is "Inappropriately used"

???


They seem to be designed as polar opposites, not as different "styles" of the same thing

A negative energy attack spell is the sudden removal of life. You're not adding unlife, you're merely taking away life. Think of it like heat and cold. There is no cold, just a lack of heat.

Argumentum ad naturam

Pah, I say again, pah.

It's not so much that anything unnatural is bad. It's that some unnatural things are bad. Cars for example are good overall. The pollution they cause is not. And a nuclear powered car that sprays radioactive waste behind it as it drives would be REALLY BAD even if it was a comfortable ride that got you where you wanted to go.

[erikun]

So is Positive Energy usage [Good] under this definition? Because it makes things grow better and live longer?

This logic seems to run into a few roadblocks, namely that there are some things you don't want healthy and thriving (diseases), even if anyone who dies from it gets "replaced" by a larger next generation. It would also imply that using Necromancy would be good if we wanted, or needed, to keep something "dead". Casting a lot of necromancy over the corpse of a Tarrasque, for example, to keep it from reviving.

Ultimately though, this just feels like Playing With Fire. Negative Energy is still a natural occurance, just the reason why it is dangerous is just slightly different.

[Lysander]

It is playing with fire, except here even if it goes well there are negative side effects. Call it "Playing with nuclear power"

[DragoonWraith]

I like it, from a flavor standpoint, and agree that this doesn't really constitute argumentum ad naturam.

Basically, the creation of undeath involves the creation of a link to the negative energy plane, which is basically a hole through which positive energy flows. Much like a whirlpool, positive energy flows through this hole instead of continuing downstream, animating the creature but denying those downstream its energy.

Normally dead creatures are simply objects - Positive Energy flows through them, but does not animate because it doesn't "hold", so to speak. The hole to the Negative Energy Plane essentially forces Positive Energy to siphon in large amounts through the dead body, and at those kinds of volumes enough of it 'sticks' to animate the creature.

A Harm spell works similarly to the animating ones - it opens a small, temporary opening to the Negative Energy Plane, through which your own positive energy flows - the hole isn't open long enough for your total positive energy to dip so low that you absorb it from your environment, but it does deprive you of some of your own. Over time, you'll heal thanks to homeostasis, but in the short term you're low. Sudden enough drop in positive energy results in death.

The Cure spell does the opposite - it opens a small opening into the Positive Energy Plane, not only infusing you with energy, but adding to the overall energy to be found on your plane. Since it's coming directly from the Positive Energy Plane (which is infinite), you don't have to worry about "over-using" it. Meanwhile, the magics that open such a hole would first close any hole to the Negative Energy Plane, thereby hurting the Undead.

Anyway, I really like this.

[PhoenixRivers]

The problem is that in D&D, there are certain differences in physics. Cold is not an absence of heat. It's an energy in its own right.

So too, does negative energy get its own type. It can't be misused positive energy, else positive energy would protect from it.

[Weezer]

Okay, so, when I use "Cause Serious Wounds" and it's exactly the opposite of "Cure Serious Wounds," rather than one firing life-energy and the other firing unlife-energy, they're both life, but one is "Inappropriately used"

???


They seem to be designed as polar opposites, not as different "styles" of the same thing

How about there are two different things that fall under negative energy, one is destroying someones life energy (harm, cause x wounds etc.) while others siphon it off for unnatural uses (animate dead, lichdom etc.)

[Nero24200]

I always thought the reason druids hated undead was because they were an unnatural conduit for negative energy. Negative energy isn't evil - inflict spells do not have the evil descriptor.

The reason why you see some books saying "It's evil" even though rules (such as the inflict spells) or other books say it's not is because theres a distinct lack of comminication between WOTC employees. Even if the mechanics don't mesh well, alot of the more unusal splats would have been far better if the fluff was at least consistant.

[hamishspence]

In Black Wizards (book 2 in the Moonshae trilogy) the prescence of undead seems to cause plants to wither, and animals to flee in terror.

In this case, the druids appear to have a very strong antipathy for it.

[Realms of Chaos]

This is a very interesting view-point from a perspective of flavor. However, there's one point that seems to beg asking.

I understand how raising the undead in this variant redirects life-force from elsewhere into the undead to keep it animated, weakening life around it.

However, on the opposite side of the spectrum we get spells like harm, which would simply banish someone's life-force from their body. Wouldn't this sudden ejection of life-force increase the ambient supply in the environment, making things better?
Actually, I could imagine desperate necromancers using death effects on commoners as a last-gasp attempt to maintain crops and life within their domains.

[PhoenixRivers]

This is a very interesting view-point from a perspective of flavor. However, there's one point that seems to beg asking.

I understand how raising the undead in this variant redirects life-force from elsewhere into the undead to keep it animated, weakening life around it.

However, on the opposite side of the spectrum we get spells like harm, which would simply banish someone's life-force from their body. Wouldn't this sudden ejection of life-force increase the ambient supply in the environment, making things better?
Actually, I could imagine desperate necromancers using death effects on commoners as a last-gasp attempt to maintain crops and life within their domains.

To paraphrase a Slipknot song title, "Commoners=Fertilizer"

[TheMadLinguist]

But then how do you have elementals made of negative energy?

[oxybe]

negative energy isn't naturally more evil then fire is. i mean, do you call the "-" side of a battery evil? last i checked, regardless of how you use it on a human, dog, cat, goblin or griffin 1d6 fire will hurt the creature as much as 1d6 negative energy.

though i'm in a weird boat. i honestly don't see zombies or skeletons as "evil" creatures... IMO they're entirely neutral since they're mindless with no real intent of their own behind their actions. left to their own devices they can be destructive if left unattended in a population of squishy humans, but the same can be said of a tiger running amok or rats spreading the plague... neither does that because they have an intent to cause harm, they just want to eat and reproduce. zombies and skellies are closer to vermin in how they act.

i feel it should be repeated... how does this theory work with the fact that negative energy heals undead? if the use of negative energy consists of the removal of life force, how does this interact with a zombie's open stomach wound? a skeleton's chipped skull? a vampire's emo whining? going by your theory (if i understand correctly), an undead has no "true" life energy to begin and just hoards it upon creation with so there is no real life energy there to interact with when trying to "heal" an undead using Inflict Wounds... truthfully going by your theory the IW type spells should actually hurt the undead by redirecting it's current pool of stagnant energy somewhere else.

On energy types: yeah, energy in D&D is weird. [Cold] is [Cold] and not the absence of heat. electricity does [Lighting] damage instead of burning you. an [Acid] spell doesn't deal less damage if cast while submerged (and thus diluted) in water. based on the descriptions alone few [Fire] spells actually light things on fire (fireball VS wall of fire, for example). the only consistent thing is "it's magic"

[Optimystik]

Don't Druids get their share of Necromancy too? Including Finger of Death, Miasma of Entropy, Blight...

Hmmm...this could be interesting with a druid around. There's some actual RAW support here, since druids are supposed to be antithetical to the undead. It would definitely make the druid, rather than the paladin, the natural enemy of the undead and the necromancer.

I always considered them more opposed to constructs and aberrations myself.

[Lysander]

i feel it should be repeated... how does this theory work with the fact that negative energy heals undead? if the use of negative energy consists of the removal of life force, how does this interact with a zombie's open stomach wound? a skeleton's chipped skull? a vampire's emo whining? going by your theory (if i understand correctly), an undead has no "true" life energy to begin and just hoards it upon creation with so there is no real life energy there to interact with when trying to "heal" an undead using Inflict Wounds... truthfully going by your theory the IW type spells should actually hurt the undead by redirecting it's current pool of stagnant energy somewhere else.

I think DragoonWraith really nailed the mechanics of how spells and creatures would work under this system. Thinking of undead as a whirpool to the negative energy plane is the best analogy.

If we go with the theory that an undead creature has a link to the negative energy plane that sucks away life from the ambient area to power itself, a harm spell is just a spell that creates a brief link to the negative energy plane. In a living creature which has no link this just deducts some of their energy. In an undead creature which uses a link to power itself, the spell strengthens the link that's already there, healing the creature.

So when you cast healing spells, kids are born healthier and old people live longer?

To a small extent, but the overall side effects of a one time spell like heal or harm is far less than the constant permanent drain of energy caused by an undead creature.

[Ravens_cry]

However, on the opposite side of the spectrum we get spells like harm, which would simply banish someone's life-force from their body. Wouldn't this sudden ejection of life-force increase the ambient supply in the environment, making things better?
Actually, I could imagine desperate necromancers using death effects on commoners as a last-gasp attempt to maintain crops and life within their domains.

Hmm, that's actually a really neat idea. A lot of old timey traditions included sacrifices to make the crops grow, even human ones. What if it worked? It really adds a level of moral quandary. 'The good of the many out weighs the needs of the few'.

[Loxagn]

Zom the Neutral Good Necromancer takes offense to this theory!
Seriously. He's the nicest guy. He's just a mite zombie-happy.
In all seriousness however, this is a very well thought-out theory, and makes for great fluff. Good work.

[Lysander]

Zom the Neutral Good Necromancer takes offense to this theory!
Seriously. He's the nicest guy. He's just a mite zombie-happy.
In all seriousness however, this is a very well thought-out theory, and makes for great fluff. Good work.

Thanks. It's still possible for there to be good necromancers...but whatever they're using negative energy for would have to be worth it. An army of skeletons might be acceptable to save your world from an army of demons. It would leave the land barren for years but it might be morally superior to the alternative.

And of course on small scales its more neutral than evil. A necromancer with two or three skeleton servants by themselves isn't going to ruin the countryside. The harmful side effects only become apparent on a large scale. On a moral level using a small number of skeletons as guards or servants is kind of like building a factory that releases a lot of pollutants. The more skeletons you have, the more factories you have. At a certain point you end up with a toxic wasteland but that doesn't happen overnight.

[Mastikator]

I like the concept, but there's only one problem: It makes absolutely no sense

Why?
Because if negative-energy based magic re-routes life-energy, then shouldn't it make the land LESS barren? Since you're re-routing life-energy AWAY from the specific point you want to kill and INTO everywhere else?
This means that healing one person ultimately causes everyone else (nearby) to take the damage.
This means that negative energy based magic is [good] when used on evil because it re-routes life energy away from evil and into everything else, and positive energy based magic (such as, say heal) is [evil] because it re-routes life energy away from everything and into a small point.

Instead, you could make it so that negative energy based magic stops the flow of life energy, and positive energy based magic increases the flow.

[Lysander]

You're not rerouting energy to/from the surrounding area. You're either adding or removing it from the plane entirely.

So if you cast Harm on a person you're sending part of their life energy directly to the negative energy plane, not giving it to adjacent creatures. It's lost forever. If you cast Heal on someone you're not forcing ambient life energy into their body, you're importing entirely new life energy for them from the positive energy plane.

This actually makes a lot of sense because healing spells are conjuration spells. What are you conjuring? Life energy. Negative energy spells on the other hand banish life energy.

[Lord_Gareth]

Y'know, I've never quite understood the obsession with "proving" negative energy to be evil. Inflict is little different from ice storm in moral terms. Zombies are cheap labor that don't, y'know, need to consume anything, take breaks, or, frankly, do anything but work. WotC only knows what crackhead added the [Evil] descriptor to DEATHWATCH but not, I dunno, ENERGY DRAIN. Then again, I love gray morality, so I've always been a "playing with fire" kinda guy.

[Graymayre]

Perhaps positive and negative energy work like seperate magnetic poles. For all of their flash and posturing, under the skin they are both the same energy. Negative would be no more evil than Positive.

It would explain why they hurt each other, positive attracted to negative and negative attracted to positive. Positive damage on a zombie would be nothing but a piece of positive energy attracted to the negative creature (thus interferring with the strength of the negative pole).

It's always up to the definer to decide what is evil and what is not. If you say negative is evil then so be it. But it is rare to ever find something that is truly bifurcated.