Negative Energy and Evil

[Mystral]

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]

I'd say it isn't. Just like using plain damage spells, it depends on who do you cast it on.

[Tengu_temp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

She was dead. She wasn't coming back, since she died of old age. What else to do with the corpse?

[Jayngfet]

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]

By the rules it is not evil.

By common sense it is not evil.

Using Negative Energy. Is. Not. Evil.

[vicente408]

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]

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]

The Tome of Necromancy 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There is no official statement. I would however, like to direct you here: Tome of Necromancy

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]

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.