Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Evil DM Mk3 06-03-07, 11:49 AM	No this is not a "is positive energy good and negative energy evil?" thread. In fact, look: First read this, please. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Energy_Plane#Energy_Planes) Now assuming this is correct, would that not make Positive energy a creative force and Negative energy a destructive force? If so then is creation (an action that orders relaity) not Lawful and destruction (an action that de-orders reality) not Chaotic? So if there is an alingment line up here, would Law/Chaos not be more fitting?
Rustmonster 06-03-07, 12:21 PM	They are simply energy. That means that they are a neutral force. Destruction isn't neccesarily chaotic (a planed demolition, for example) and creation isn't neccesarily lawful (it can screw up ecosystems, chaos beasts are created).
Toran_A_Sunder 06-03-07, 12:26 PM	No because even though positive heals, too much is a destructive force. And negative energy "heals" undead. They both land on both sides of the spectrum at some point or another. Giving an alignment to positive/negative energy is like giving an alignment to the four classic elements. Is fire evil cus it burns things? No. Cus it can also be used to create things. Is water good cus most creatures are made up of it? No, cus a tsunami is a very destuctive force. And non of them are lawful or chaotic by any definition, though you could argue that, for instance, fire is more chaotic and earth is more lawful. Stick with the lack of alignment when dealing with positive/negative energy. Its presense isn't going to affect your game all too much to matter
Evil DM Mk3 06-03-07, 12:30 PM	No I wasn't going to give them alignments, I was more confused with the way assosiations where built up. Why do EVIL clerics channel negative energy when if anything it is CHAOTIC. Oh and in terms of Order Vs Entropy, a controled demolition is CHAOS all the way.
Toran_A_Sunder 06-03-07, 12:37 PM	No I wasn't going to give them alignments, I was more confused with the way assosiations where built up. Why do EVIL clerics channel negative energy when if anything it is CHAOTIC. Oh and in terms of Order Vs Entropy, a controled demolition is CHAOS all the way. I would say that is all a matter of opinion. Nothing about negative energy strikes me as inherently chaotic. Nothing about positive really says "lawful" to me. But if you feel differently, go for it. The reason good clerics channel positive and evil clerics channel negative is this: A: more often than not, in the game we expect a good cleric to heal. Positive energy does this (when controlled). And negative energy harms, something we seem to assume an evil cleric would be more interested in. B: In matters related to undead, a cleric uses his channeling of positive energy to turn or destroy undead, while an evil cleric would most likely be trying to control the undead to his vile designs, and thus uses negative energy to control them instead of destroy them.
Dwarven_Fighter_DR20 06-03-07, 04:28 PM	I had a vivacious solar guarding an important quest item in my game. He showed up as a good-aligned character when the paladin in the group scanned him with detect evil. The players didn't think twice when he offered to heal them after their battle with adamantine golems only moments before. But when they drew their weapons and demanded that he give them the item in question, he didn't think twice- activating his positive energy aura, and causing the players to explode from a positive energy plane trait. In short, positive energy can be just as destructive (chaotic, evil) as negative energy. My players thought it was quite evil.
Mirtek 06-03-07, 04:38 PM	Negative Energy Plane Also called the Negative Material Plane (in 1st Edition), this plane is the home of stagnation, Positive Energy Plane Also called the Positive Material Plane (in 1st Edition), this is the plane of creation If you want to rate them according to this desription the negative plane is lawful while the positive plane is chaotic. Creation is chaos, while stagnation is law. Chaos creates while law preserves
sciborg2 06-03-07, 07:01 PM	There was a lizard like creature - a flying eel with a single hand from the Pos. that would would touch things and make them come to life ala animate object. You could get too much pos. energy and burn out and thus take damage. Someone once pointed out that uncontrolled positive energy might heal but could also lead to a spread of cancerous growths. Long, long ago in Dragon I believed they discussed whether the god granted healing spells were drawing on Positive energy or not. I once came up with a man who could channel positive energy. He would capture people and try to heal them of their sins, filling them with so much raw lifeforce they'd burn out. Basically he was a lunatic who thought Positive Energy was good....
TurnCloak_Kobold 06-03-07, 11:54 PM	I had a vivacious solar guarding an important quest item in my game. He showed up as a good-aligned character when the paladin in the group scanned him with detect evil. The players didn't think twice when he offered to heal them after their battle with adamantine golems only moments before. But when they drew their weapons and demanded that he give them the item in question, he didn't think twice- activating his positive energy aura, and causing the players to explode from a positive energy plane trait. In short, positive energy can be just as destructive (chaotic, evil) as negative energy. My players thought it was quite evil. o.o; that was in no way funny dwarf! i was the only one that didnt explode! then i have to go back and fight sej, your stupid evil living whip omega red wanna be of negitive energy blasting...thingy.
Naderion 06-04-07, 06:59 AM	Following Darwins theories, the Order in nature is the result of Chaos in nature. I would say, when it comes to alignment, creation and destruction aren't connected to any alignment, they aren't even opposites. Growth is the result of feeding and feeding is a process of destruction of food.
Dwarven_Fighter_DR20 06-04-07, 12:23 PM	o.o; that was in no way funny dwarf! i was the only one that didnt explode! then i have to go back and fight sej, your stupid evil living whip omega red wanna be of negitive energy blasting...thingy. That was great.:D
TurnCloak_Kobold 06-04-07, 03:10 PM	yeah it was..but that was beside the point, cause i had died like five minutes earlier in the first hit against to adam. golems if only i had been able t use my knights abilty, i coulda lived for 21 more rounds, plenty of time to get all healed up.
HellflameArcanite 06-05-07, 06:35 PM	Not necessarily. I think you are interpreting the idea (from WIKIPEDIA, of all places) that all life/unlife depending on the plane's balance (an interplanar status of law?) means that if the NEP wins, all will be destroyed. Now, let's ask ourselves, what happens when you are unprotected on the NEP? You die. But then you become an undead, and your structure, at least on the molecular level, is still intact. Assuming that the NEP gaining control would cause the entire multiverse to become like it, everyone would be dead, but inanimate objects might not be affected. Besides, aren't mindless undead the embodiment of law, perhaps even more than the Formians? They obey without question, they remain the same until acted upon (no need for sustenance, no aging), they are completely under the control of their creator and show no change with the passing of time. They don't even change by healing. So, if you were to assign Law/Chaos alignments to both planes, the NEP would be Law and the PEP chaos, because it causes things to violently explode in a way not possible on the Material Plane, and is very chaotic, a corruption of the natural order. When life is strengthened, death is the result. This is chaos, a complete breakdown of all natural laws. In summary, simply motivated/mindless undead are law, and death brought on by too much life is chaos. If we are to assign Law/Chaos alignments to them at all.
HellflameArcanite 06-05-07, 06:37 PM	Is fire evil cus it burns things? No. Cus it can also be used to create things. Show me something created (as opposed to changed, such as obsidian) by fire that isn't something like a fire elemental, and I'll show you a dime worth a million dollars.
sciborg2 06-05-07, 07:35 PM	Pine Trees whose cones explode in forest fires releasing their seeds. Show me that dime now...
HellflameArcanite 06-07-07, 09:11 AM	Um...it's in my other pants which are in a bag of holding right above a portable hole. And besides, it doesn't create it, it sets off a chain reaction that releases it.
omegalith 06-07-07, 09:24 AM	Creation and Destruction are both associated with chaos. Limbo and the Abyss are filled with examples of both. Law keeps things the way they are(after imposing some structure, addmitedly) Mechanus, Celestia and Hell all are nearly stacic and have a concrete system of rules.
Doom_Linnorm 06-07-07, 09:42 AM	Try this one on for size. Why are active volcanic islands so fertile?
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 06-07-07, 10:36 AM	Oh and in terms of Order Vs Entropy, a controled demolition is CHAOS all the way. Actually, if entropy is chaotic, it'd be on the law side. A pile of rubble is far more ordered than a skyscraper. Thermodynamic order and disorder are not the same as the normal usage.
Kesuk2k5 06-07-07, 10:58 AM	No I wasn't going to give them alignments, I was more confused with the way assosiations where built up. Why do EVIL clerics channel negative energy when if anything it is CHAOTIC. Oh and in terms of Order Vs Entropy, a controled demolition is CHAOS all the way. If you weren't going to give them alignments, don't say that "negative energy if anything is chaotic". Evil clerics channel negative energy because it harms living things and heals undead. Undead are evil. End of story.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 06-07-07, 10:59 AM	Undead are evil. End of story. No, they aren't.
Doom_Linnorm 06-07-07, 11:09 AM	He obviously hasn't read the whole thread, else he wouldn't say that. (Unless he doesn't believe in common sense, because a sword is just as deadly as negative energy, but swords aren't evil are they?)
Sim_antix 06-07-07, 11:14 AM	He obviously hasn't read the whole thread, else he wouldn't say that. (Unless he doesn't believe in common sense, because a sword is just as deadly as negative energy, but swords aren't evil are they?) Or he could be going off of the RAW which clearly states that Positive and Negative energy is tied to alignment. Thats why good clerics can only channel positive and evil clerics can only channel negative while neutral clerics can choose one or the other and then have to stick with that choice.
sciborg2 06-07-07, 01:16 PM	Or he could be going off of the RAW which clearly states that Positive and Negative energy is tied to alignment. true, but the rules are idiotic.
Mirtek 06-07-07, 01:54 PM	Or he could be going off of the RAW which clearly states that Positive and Negative energy is tied to alignment. But the RAW only says they're tied to alignments without being aligned themselves. And even with the "tied to alignments" part does the RAW contradict itself on many things.
Doom_Linnorm 06-07-07, 02:43 PM	Sometimes it should be like this. Us: Hello RAW, say.. what's up with alignments and positive/negative energy? RAW: Positive is good, cus it heals stuff and kills undead and things... oh and only good clerics can channel positive energy, cus they is all about the butterflies and stuff. Negative is icky, I mean evil, cus it hurts things and undead like it, and we all know undead are the most heinous evil thingies imaginable... well not exactly cus microsoft is, but hey. Us: Right, that makes absolutely no sense at all, we all give you the finger and use our own brains instead to handle positive/negative energy in a more logical way. Don't get me wrong, most D20 rules make sense to me (on either a reality or game-mechanical level) but this doesn't make sense either way.
ArcTan 06-08-07, 12:49 AM	No this is not a "is positive energy good and negative energy evil?" thread. In fact, look: First read this, please. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Energy_Plane#Energy_Planes) Now assuming this is correct, would that not make Positive energy a creative force and Negative energy a destructive force? If so then is creation (an action that orders relaity) not Lawful and destruction (an action that de-orders reality) not Chaotic? So if there is an alingment line up here, would Law/Chaos not be more fitting? That's not what Law and Chaos mean in D&D, and you know it. The most recent books we have on the matter actually claim that creation *comes* from Chaos, i.e. from the Abyss, and even though this is clearly self-serving propaganda on the part of the Demons it still makes sense. If anything, it makes more sense to say that creation and destruction alike are the realm of Chaos and Law is the realm of keeping things the same -- which is the duality of Shiva and Vishnu as deities in Hinduism, which is where a lot of this Chaos/Law stuff we have in modern fantasy comes from.
ArcTan 06-08-07, 12:50 AM	No I wasn't going to give them alignments, I was more confused with the way assosiations where built up. Why do EVIL clerics channel negative energy when if anything it is CHAOTIC. Oh and in terms of Order Vs Entropy, a controled demolition is CHAOS all the way. Chaos isn't entropy. Chaos can involve the reversal of entropy through the application of energy from outside the system as much as it can involve the increase of entropy. Entropy is Negative Energy, which is not defined as aligned in and of itself, but is frequently associated more with Evil than it is with Good in the rules.
ArcTan 06-08-07, 12:52 AM	Sometimes it should be like this. Us: Hello RAW, say.. what's up with alignments and positive/negative energy? RAW: Positive is good, cus it heals stuff and kills undead and things... oh and only good clerics can channel positive energy, cus they is all about the butterflies and stuff. Negative is icky, I mean evil, cus it hurts things and undead like it, and we all know undead are the most heinous evil thingies imaginable... well not exactly cus microsoft is, but hey. Us: Right, that makes absolutely no sense at all, we all give you the finger and use our own brains instead to handle positive/negative energy in a more logical way. Don't get me wrong, most D20 rules make sense to me (on either a reality or game-mechanical level) but this doesn't make sense either way. It makes sense if you push it one way or the other. One way to make it make sense would be to rip out all the rules about Good getting cure spells and Evil getting inflict spells and Undead being detected by detect evil and whatnot. The other way would be to simply say that the NE Plane and PE Plane have the evil-aligned and good-aligned traits. *Either way* would make it make more sense -- it doesn't make sense right now because we're hovering in between the two possibilities.
ArcTan 06-08-07, 12:53 AM	No, they aren't. Well, yes they are. It just isn't the end of the story. (Can we please get off this "Undead aren't Evil, it just so happens that almost all of them are Evil" tack? It's obvious that the designers *meant* Undeath to at least be Very Strongly Associated with Evil.)
sciborg2 06-08-07, 03:09 AM	I don't care what the 3e designers meant. If I needed to pushed to ignore just about anything they do with alignment, I'd take a look at the BoED and try not to vomit...again...
Sim_antix 06-09-07, 07:23 AM	I don't care what the 3e designers meant. If I needed to pushed to ignore just about anything they do with alignment, I'd take a look at the BoED and try not to vomit...again... Ok we can all agree that the RAW is really just guidelines and you can use your own rules for any and everything. That being said by RAW negative energy is evil, if anyone can show me something from the RAW that contradicts that I would like to see it.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 06-09-07, 10:25 AM	Well, yes they are. It just isn't the end of the story. (Can we please get off this "Undead aren't Evil, it just so happens that almost all of them are Evil" tack? It's obvious that the designers *meant* Undeath to at least be Very Strongly Associated with Evil.) Almost every single monster of any type is evil. Does that mean that every damn type in the game is meant to be very strongly associated with evil?
Sim_antix 06-09-07, 10:38 AM	Almost every single monster of any type is evil. Does that mean that every damn type in the game is meant to be very strongly associated with evil? Hello Raymond. I am not wishing to "get into it" but I would like to know what if any rulings there are that show that RAW states that negative energy is not evil. I personally am undecided as to how to handle it in my campaign and would like to know what RAW explicity states because so far everything I have seen indicates that it is indeed an evil force. Good Gaming.
HellflameArcanite 06-09-07, 01:16 PM	But the RAW only says they're tied to alignments without being aligned themselves. And even with the "tied to alignments" part does the RAW contradict itself on many things. I believe that the reason neutral clerics must choose between one or the other is because it says, for channeling positive or negative energy, that good or evil clerics are more adept at channeling said energy type. It's like choosing school specialization.
HellflameArcanite 06-09-07, 01:24 PM	Almost every single monster of any type is evil. Does that mean that every damn type in the game is meant to be very strongly associated with evil? A lot of monsters in the MM are meant to be either opponents for the PCs, which is easier if they are black-and-white evil, or freakish, monstrous things that are so alien that they cause the readers of said books to lose their lunches. However, the MM also lists all kind of benevolent beings, most notably good-aligned outsiders, neutral beings, and generally non-evil things. Perhaps your party encounters more evil creatures than nonevil ones, or maybe the evil ones are meant to be the most memorable.
HellflameArcanite 06-09-07, 01:27 PM	Perhaps you are right. Come to think of it, an endless void is completely uniform and ordered, or lawful, as there is nothing that disturbs that uniformity. Conversely, a diverse world, filled with many elements, matters, energies, lives, etc., has the diversity and difference that may be the signature of chaos.
ArcTan 06-09-07, 02:15 PM	Almost every single monster of any type is evil. Does that mean that every damn type in the game is meant to be very strongly associated with evil? Actually, that's not true. Go back and look again. I'm looking at d20srd.org's Monster Filter right now, and the only Type that comes close to Undead for being Evil is the Aberration Type, which, yes, is meant to be very strongly associated with evil. (Outsiders don't count because the Outsider Type belongs to Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic Outsiders.) There are a lot of Usually Evil Monstrous Humanoids and Giants and some Usually Evil Magical Beasts. However, Usually Evil is intentionally pretty different from Always Evil as an alignment. Moreover, I'm not just arguing from a statistical analysis of the monster entries with no backing. I mean, *come on*. If you think there's no association between Undeath and Evil then you haven't read *any* of the flavor in *any* of the books (BoVD, Libris Mortis, the PHB and MM).
ArcTan 06-09-07, 02:16 PM	I believe that the reason neutral clerics must choose between one or the other is because it says, for channeling positive or negative energy, that good or evil clerics are more adept at channeling said energy type. It's like choosing school specialization. Sure. And the statement "Being Good makes you more adept at channeling positive energy" is pretty much the same as "There's some kind of link between Good and positive energy".
ArcTan 06-09-07, 02:20 PM	Hello Raymond. I am not wishing to "get into it" but I would like to know what if any rulings there are that show that RAW states that negative energy is not evil. I personally am undecided as to how to handle it in my campaign and would like to know what RAW explicity states because so far everything I have seen indicates that it is indeed an evil force. Good Gaming. The Negative Energy *Plane* lacks the evil-aligned descriptor. However, this, despite what people say, is not the same thing as saying "negative energy is not evil". There are plenty of very evil places on the Material Plane that don't count as planar locations with the evil-aligned descriptor, and very evil people who don't have the [Evil] subtype, etc. The statement "negative energy is evil" doesn't actually have any meaning in the rules. There's *no way* to define whether negative energy is evil -- it's a flavor statement. That said, many, many spells that manipulate negative energy have the [Evil] descriptor, and many spells that manipulate positive energy have the [Good] descriptor. Good Clerics have an easier time using positive energy and Evil Clerics have an easier time using negative energy. The vast majority of creatures that survive on negative energy alone (the Undead) are Always Evil-aligned. The vast majority of creatures that survive on positive energy alone (the Deathless, the opposite of Undead) are Always Good-aligned. The vast majority of gods associated with Undeath and other uses of negative energy are Evil-aligned; the vast majority of gods opposed to Undeath and who manipulate positive energy are Good-aligned. The spell detect evil automatically detects Undead as a powerful evil aura; similarly, BoED's rules for Deathless causes the spell detect good to detect Deathless in the same way. The flavor *says* things like "the foul energies of unlife" and "the unspeakable evil of consorting with the undead" and so on. You can accept this or you can not accept it. You shouldn't ignore it or dismiss it, which is what a lot of people taking the other side of this argument do.
ArcTan 06-09-07, 02:22 PM	Perhaps you are right. Come to think of it, an endless void is completely uniform and ordered, or lawful, as there is nothing that disturbs that uniformity. Conversely, a diverse world, filled with many elements, matters, energies, lives, etc., has the diversity and difference that may be the signature of chaos. *Both* the Positive Energy and Negative Energy Planes are "endless voids" in 3e. The PE Plane is filled with endless glowing light and the NE Plane is filled with endless dark fog. But they're both known for their barren and empty natures compared to the Elemental Planes or any of the Outer Planes.
sciborg2 06-09-07, 07:40 PM	You can accept this or you can not accept it. You shouldn't ignore it or dismiss it, which is what a lot of people taking the other side of this argument do. What's the difference between dismissial and non-acceptance. I don't care what the rules say outright nor the flavor text trying to make Negative Energy Evil because it would ruin the campaign world I set up years ago...admittedly play in it is rare..
HellflameArcanite 06-10-07, 08:28 AM	Your campaign world is yours. For all I care, you can make fluffy bunny pink vampires evil and make walking cans of beer the dominant race. You're free to make anything you want, including a nonevil negative energy plane.
sciborg2 06-10-07, 12:57 PM	make walking cans of beer the dominant race Are you reading my mind. In any case, beats those whiny elves.
Sim_antix 06-10-07, 01:33 PM	Your campaign world is yours. For all I care, you can make fluffy bunny pink vampires evil and make walking cans of beer the dominant race. You're free to make anything you want, including a nonevil negative energy plane. And RAW is WotCs and they don't care if you want to make negative energy neutral or just a really misunderstood form of good, they still rule that its evil.
HellflameArcanite 06-10-07, 03:15 PM	They rule that it's evil in a typical campaign. You make the rules in your world.
Sim_antix 06-10-07, 03:21 PM	They rule that it's evil in a typical campaign. You make the rules in your world. Yes I understand that but the question is; by RAW is negative energy evil? The answer appears to be yes and if there is evidence to the contrary then I invite someone to post it, otherwise I think its best that we all accept that, although we, as always can do whatever we want in our own campaigns, RAW is that negative energy is evil and arguing about it isn't doing any good.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 06-10-07, 03:22 PM	And RAW is WotCs and they don't care if you want to make negative energy neutral or just a really misunderstood form of good, they still rule that its evil. No. They do not. There is no statement that negative energy is evil. Assuming that, because evil clerics channel negative energy, negative energy is evil, is a logical fallacy.
Sim_antix 06-10-07, 03:24 PM	No. They do not. There is no statement that negative energy is evil. Assuming that, because evil clerics channel negative energy, negative energy is evil, is a logical fallacy. they channel negative energy and only negative energy just as good clerics channel positive and only positive energy. Neutral clerics can choose either or but are locked in to that decision forever. I don't think it's a stretch in logic to say that positive and negative energy is tied to good and evil respectively. I plan on calling customer support tomorrow and I will get a definitive answer then.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 06-10-07, 03:25 PM	Hello Raymond. I am not wishing to "get into it" but I would like to know what if any rulings there are that show that RAW states that negative energy is not evil. It's quite simple. See, DnD follows a set of rules. If something is not in the rules, it's not there. If Negative Energy was Evil by the RAW, there'd be a passage somewhere saying so. There isn't. So it's not.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 06-10-07, 03:33 PM	they channel negative energy and only negative energy just as good clerics channel positive and only positive energy. Neutral clerics can choose either or but are locked in to that decision forever. I don't think it's a stretch in logic to say that positive and negative energy is tied to good and evil respectively. I plan on calling customer support tomorrow and I will get a definitive answer then. Actually, it is an enormous stretch in logic, because you assume that there are no other reasons for that to be the case. Negative energy, in small doses, has a detrimental effect when applied to life. Positive energy, in small doses, has a benefical effect when applied to life. In short, the former harms, and the latter helps. Evil, by the most basic definition, involves harming people. Good, by the most basic definition, involves helping people. That's why the energy is used. It's a tool for the job. More evil creatures than good creatures have fireball as a spell-like ability. That's not because fireball is evil. That's because it's more useful for evil because evil doesn't care about fireball's inability to discriminate. Also, Inflict Minor/Light/Moderate/Serious/Critical Wounds does not have the [Evil] descriptor, and Cure Minor/Light/Moderate/Serious/Critical Wounds does not have the [Good] descriptor, meaning that clerics of opposite alignments can use them without penalty. If negative energy was evil, then good clerics wouldn't be able to prepare and cast spells that use it.
Mirtek 06-11-07, 12:50 PM	I plan on calling customer support tomorrow and I will get a definitive answer then. You won't. The trick with asking the CustServ is to simply repeat mailing exact the same question until you get the answer you desire. You can then proceed to post them on some message board to prove your point. Usually you only need two mails to receive two opposed answers.
ArcTan 06-16-07, 04:29 PM	Actually, it is an enormous stretch in logic, because you assume that there are no other reasons for that to be the case. Negative energy, in small doses, has a detrimental effect when applied to life. Positive energy, in small doses, has a benefical effect when applied to life. In short, the former harms, and the latter helps. Evil, by the most basic definition, involves harming people. Good, by the most basic definition, involves helping people. That's why the energy is used. It's a tool for the job. More evil creatures than good creatures have fireball as a spell-like ability. That's not because fireball is evil. That's because it's more useful for evil because evil doesn't care about fireball's inability to discriminate. But Good Clerics don't *choose* to spontaneously cast cure spells as a tactical decision. (In that case, an organization of Good Clerics might choose to mostly cast cure spells but pick one or two "defenders" or "enforcers" to spontaneously cast inflict spells.) It's a fundamental part of being a Good Cleric that you can't choose to change, at least by core RAW. Also, Inflict Minor/Light/Moderate/Serious/Critical Wounds does not have the [Evil] descriptor, and Cure Minor/Light/Moderate/Serious/Critical Wounds does not have the [Good] descriptor, meaning that clerics of opposite alignments can use them without penalty. If negative energy was evil, then good clerics wouldn't be able to prepare and cast spells that use it. That's the whole problem with asking the question "Is negative energy evil?" It doesn't have a clear meaning, and people come into it with preconceived meanings that create an obvious answer. If the question is "Is negative energy something that Good characters inherently can't use or touch or interact with in any way at all ever?", then the answer is no, of course not. That's *not the same question*, though. FWIW, I think saying that cure and inflict spells are all minor, near-instantaneous usages of positive and negative energy and therefore less of a big deal than casting hallow or unhallow, or bolt of glory and eyebite -- and therefore the latter have alignment descriptors and the former don't -- makes perfect sense, and fits with the vague, generic statement "Negative energy is evil". If you don't think so, fine, whatever.
Nerana 06-16-07, 06:01 PM	I was actually looking into this recently, myself; checking the PHB, the statement is that /channeling/ positive energy is good, and /channeling/ negative energy is evil. Personally, I'd say that this largely applies to the material plane, and I'd further say that this doesn't mean that positive and negative energies themselves are aligned; however, channeling the energies of destruction into a balanced world would be considered evil, yes. Rules as written don't say that the energies themselves are aligned, simply their uses. In fact, rules as written say that the energies themselves are /not/ aligned, by virtue of the fact that the Energy planes aren't aligned. This can have very interesting connotations, depending on your game.
Sim_antix 06-17-07, 12:52 PM	I was actually looking into this recently, myself; checking the PHB, the statement is that /channeling/ positive energy is good, and /channeling/ negative energy is evil. Personally, I'd say that this largely applies to the material plane, and I'd further say that this doesn't mean that positive and negative energies themselves are aligned; however, channeling the energies of destruction into a balanced world would be considered evil, yes. Rules as written don't say that the energies themselves are aligned, simply their uses. In fact, rules as written say that the energies themselves are /not/ aligned, by virtue of the fact that the Energy planes aren't aligned. This can have very interesting connotations, depending on your game. That is essentially what is being argues though. It isn't a case of "Is negative energy evil?" as much as it is "Is using negative energy evil?" Yes, yes it is.
ArcTan 06-19-07, 03:59 AM	Specifically, the PHB -- as noted -- specifically says that "channeling negative energy" -- using the Rebuke Undead ability -- is Evil, and using the Turn Undead ability is Good. Similarly, many of the more involved negative-energy spells have the [Evil] descriptor, which means *something* (and if you read Book of Vile Darkness and the Eberron Campaign Setting, means what you'd *think* it means -- casting them is an Evil act).
tridiak 06-21-07, 02:26 AM	+ve & -ve energy are unaligned. Most effects of +ve energy are good & most effects of -ve energy are evil. Healing someone is generally regarded as a good thing (no debates on this please). You can't heal using -ve energy. Cure Disease is generally regarded as a "good" spell. But it's effect is to "kill" disease. Virii and bacteria are living things. +ve energy wouldn't kill them, it would help them. Cure Disease in all likelihood is a -ve energy spell.
Sim_antix 06-21-07, 02:33 AM	+ve & -ve energy are unaligned. Most effects of +ve energy are good & most effects of -ve energy are evil. Healing someone is generally regarded as a good thing (no debates on this please). You can't heal using -ve energy. Cure Disease is generally regarded as a "good" spell. But it's effect is to "kill" disease. Virii and bacteria are living things. +ve energy wouldn't kill them, it would help them. Cure Disease in all likelihood is a -ve energy spell. :uh-huh: Are you joking?
Saurus33 06-21-07, 02:50 AM	I think tridiak has a point there, but I think it's more likely that cure disease uses positive energy to reinforce the body's own immune system, which then destroys the offending microbial organism.
Doom_Linnorm 06-21-07, 05:57 AM	I'm not to sure about that, Cure Disease removes plenty of infections that you can't even roll a fort save to prevent. (Certain supernatural diseases for example.) Obviously it kills the infections rather then boost immunity else it wouldn't remove some of the aforementioned afflictions.
ChaosVirus 06-21-07, 11:18 AM	I was actually looking into this recently, myself; checking the PHB, the statement is that /channeling/ positive energy is good, and /channeling/ negative energy is evil. Personally, I'd say that this largely applies to the material plane, and I'd further say that this doesn't mean that positive and negative energies themselves are aligned; however, channeling the energies of destruction into a balanced world would be considered evil, yes. Rules as written don't say that the energies themselves are aligned, simply their uses. In fact, rules as written say that the energies themselves are /not/ aligned, by virtue of the fact that the Energy planes aren't aligned. This can have very interesting connotations, depending on your game. I agree with this. Personally I would not say the pos and neg plains are good or evil. But the uses people use them for are. Negative is only evil because the intentions of the users are. The use of negative energy does have more evil uses, but that does not make it evil itself. Though I agree neg should be law aligned with neg, and chaos with pos. But those are my personal opinions. I myself am writting a goddess and a god, who both are lawfull aligned, and both have a slight alignment to good. But they believe in law more then good, and see negative as a place without sin or chaos. Being barran equates to it being perfect. It depends on the view of the charecter ou are writting. In some ways pos and neg, can almost equal a third alignment choice. lawfull good - lawfull good +
Sim_antix 06-21-07, 03:21 PM	Ok this is getting a little out there with some of this "logic" and I do use the word loosely. Cure disease does NOT use negative energy. Positive energy heals and restores living beings, even to the point of removing harmful diseases and other effects. Period.
Sim_antix 06-21-07, 03:25 PM	I agree with this. Personally I would not say the pos and neg plains are good or evil. But the uses people use them for are. Negative is only evil because the intentions of the users are. The use of negative energy does have more evil uses, but that does not make it evil itself. Though I agree neg should be law aligned with neg, and chaos with pos. But those are my personal opinions. I myself am writting a goddess and a god, who both are lawfull aligned, and both have a slight alignment to good. But they believe in law more then good, and see negative as a place without sin or chaos. Being barran equates to it being perfect. It depends on the view of the charecter ou are writting. In some ways pos and neg, can almost equal a third alignment choice. lawfull good - lawfull good + I disagree completely. Positive energy is used to heal and sustain life. This is good because it supports growth and life. Negative energy is used to harm and destroy life. This is evil because it supports destruction and death.
Purkake 06-21-07, 06:19 PM	I disagree completely. Positive energy is used to heal and sustain life. This is good because it supports growth and life. Negative energy is used to harm and destroy life. This is evil because it supports destruction and death. So the fertilizer is good because it supports plant life? And fire is evil because it can harm and destroy life? Ookay...
Rustmonster 06-21-07, 08:08 PM	I disagree completely. Positive energy is used to heal and sustain life. This is good because it supports growth and life. Negative energy is used to harm and destroy life. This is evil because it supports destruction and death. Okey, I know you're going to explode with rage with this, but just hear me out. Nothing says undead MUST be evil. If they start as evil, they can change their ways, just like any other sentient being. Now, lets say we have a good undead. A cleric casts Cure Serious Wounds on him. He gets destroyed. That's destruction. But, in your theory, this was a good act, as it was using positive energy. Even if the undead was crusading to help the world become a better place, in your veiw it was a good act to destroy him, because he is somehow not deserving to exist because he does not "live" the same way as you do. Just because they use a diffrent means to "live", one that you can't survive, doesn't mean that they are somehow evil. It's like a plant, they breath CO2, which doesn't help you. You breath O2, which doesn't help them. Should burn all the plants in the world because they use a different substance to live? Both types of energy can be used to hurt or heal, just on different creatures. That doesn't make one "Evil" and one "Good". If you were undead, you would probably call positive energy "Evil" because it hurts you. PS, I personally think clerics should be able to channel the energy type they want to, regardless of alighnment. I think it is silly that they don't get to chose how they channel. I also think it's strange that skelotons and zombies are "Always Evil", despite having no sentence, making them neutral.
ArcTan 06-21-07, 08:23 PM	I think tridiak has a point there, but I think it's more likely that cure disease uses positive energy to reinforce the body's own immune system, which then destroys the offending microbial organism. "Microbial organisms" may or may not exist at all in D&D. I tend to think that they don't, and that disease is a negative energy effect. (Which isn't a big deal -- *all* entropy and death is ultimately a negative energy effect.)
ArcTan 06-21-07, 08:25 PM	Okey, I know you're going to explode with rage with this, but just hear me out. Nothing says undead MUST be evil. If they start as evil, they can change their ways, just like any other sentient being. Not for the Always Evil Undead. Always Evil means that Evil is in their very nature and that changing their alignment is very rare. There can be exceptions, but those will be special, legendary exceptions. A Vampire is Always Evil, meaning he's Evil in the same way a Succubus is Evil. You *can* have a Good-aligned Succubus, or a Chaotic-aligned Pit Fiend, but it will be very, very, very rare. Now, lets say we have a good undead. A cleric casts Cure Serious Wounds on him. He gets destroyed. That's destruction. But, in your theory, this was a good act, as it was using positive energy. Even if the undead was crusading to help the world become a better place, in your veiw it was a good act to destroy him, because he is somehow not deserving to exist because he does not "live" the same way as you do. Just because they use a diffrent means to "live", one that you can't survive, doesn't mean that they are somehow evil. It's like a plant, they breath CO2, which doesn't help you. You breath O2, which doesn't help them. Should burn all the plants in the world because they use a different substance to live? Both types of energy can be used to hurt or heal, just on different creatures. That doesn't make one "Evil" and one "Good". If you were undead, you would probably call positive energy "Evil" because it hurts you. We're not talking about Good or Evil *acts*. We're talking about the association of the energy type itself with Good or Evil, which is different. You can of course use healing spells for Evil purposes, including using positive energy to heal an Evil-aligned mass murdering human so he can keep on murdering. Doesn't change the inherent association of the energy type with Good, just means you can use Good things for Evil purposes, like using the Mace of St. Cuthbert to bash an orphan over the head. PS, I personally think clerics should be able to channel the energy type they want to, regardless of alighnment. I think it is silly that they don't get to chose how they channel. I also think it's strange that skelotons and zombies are "Always Evil", despite having no sentence, making them neutral. Well, then you disagree with how the game is. And we're talking about how the game is, not how the game "should be".
Rustmonster 06-21-07, 08:34 PM	"Microbial organisms" may or may not exist at all in D&D. I tend to think that they don't, and that disease is a negative energy effect. (Which isn't a big deal -- *all* entropy and death is ultimately a negative energy effect.) Oh, yes, all death is a negative energy effect. Like how you can EXPLODE if you stay on the POSITIVE ENERGY plane too long because you absorbed too much POSITIVE ENERGY? And also, it is your opinion that there is no microbial organisms. This is in no way RAW. It's says that nowhere in any book, to my knowledge. In my opinion, only magical disieses are in any way, well, magical. Filth Fever is contracted from unfit living conditions. That tells you that it's something to do with filth spawning bacteria, not negative energy, especially since it says that if you make the Fort save, you ward off the "infection" (DMG). Plus, remember that a Celestial Dire Rat will still have Filth fever, even though they are "good", and by your standards that means that it would be positive energy, in your opinion of course.
Rustmonster 06-21-07, 08:43 PM	We're not talking about Good or Evil *acts*. We're talking about the association of the energy type itself with Good or Evil, which is different. You can of course use healing spells for Evil purposes, including using positive energy to heal an Evil-aligned mass murdering human so he can keep on murdering. Doesn't change the inherent association of the energy type with Good, just means you can use Good things for Evil purposes, like using the Mace of St. Cuthbert to bash an orphan over the head. Well, then you disagree with how the game is. And we're talking about how the game is, not how the game "should be". Well, then shouldn't a good cleric be able to animate dead if they use them for good? It's not an evil act. (And no, I don't mean raid a cemetary and raise everyone. I mean, say, if you killed a bugbear, why not animate him too? You had no objection to his death, I don't see why you would object to his body being used after his soul has left) PS, I never said this is how the game "should be". I said this is my opinion. That's why it was a PS, not in the actual post. This is different from you, who writes things like "I tend to think that they don't, and that disease is a negative energy effect", as an argument.
ArcTan 06-22-07, 01:09 AM	Well, then shouldn't a good cleric be able to animate dead if they use them for good? It's not an evil act. (And no, I don't mean raid a cemetary and raise everyone. I mean, say, if you killed a bugbear, why not animate him too? You had no objection to his death, I don't see why you would object to his body being used after his soul has left) Casting the spell itself is an Evil act. If the *effect* of the spell being cast is a Good act, then the two might cancel out, or the Evil might outweigh the Good (like animating a skeleton to bring an orphan a glass of water instead of doing it yourself), or the Good might outweigh the Evil. There's a lot of controversy over whether or not the idea that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act is true, but it was certainly true in Book of Vile Darkness, and the Eberron Campaign Setting assumes it to be true. My feeling is that the 3.5 designers thought that it was obvious that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act and didn't bother to spell it out, but if you want to split that hair, go right ahead. It doesn't change the fact that Clerics (whose magic is constrained by alignment in a way that Wizards' isn't), by the rules, cannot prepare or cast the spell animate dead if they are Good or if the deity they worship is Good. This has nothing to do with whether it's "good or evil" by an actual moral evaluation of the action. It's fantasy. Good and evil are physical substances, like positive and negative charge. Coming in contact with something evil corrupts your soul a little bit, even if you do it with the best of intentions. (At least, this is how I interpret the ample fluff about NE being associated with Evil.) PS, I never said this is how the game "should be". I said this is my opinion. That's why it was a PS, not in the actual post. This is different from you, who writes things like "I tend to think that they don't, and that disease is a negative energy effect", as an argument. Well, disease being a negative-energy effect or not is a purely flavor thing that doesn't even have any effect on alignment. It is a fact that the spell contagion is an [Evil] spell, and that an association between NE and disease makes flavor sense for why it's an [Evil] spell but the spell poison isn't. (Similarly, unholy blight, an Evil-based spell, grants the sickened condition, many Undead are tied to disease and have a form of disease specifically associated with them, like Mummies and Mummy Rot, and remove disease is a Positive Energy spell.)
yrogerg 06-22-07, 01:11 AM	Casting the spell itself is an Evil act. If the *effect* of the spell being cast is a Good act, then the two might cancel out, or the Evil might outweigh the Good (like animating a skeleton to bring an orphan a glass of water instead of doing it yourself), or the Good might outweigh the Evil. There's a lot of controversy over whether or not the idea that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act is true, but it was certainly true in Book of Vile Darkness, and the Eberron Campaign Setting assumes it to be true. My feeling is that the 3.5 designers thought that it was obvious that casting an [Evil] spell is an Evil act and didn't bother to spell it out, but if you want to split that hair, go right ahead. They do, in fact, spell it out explicitly in FCII, where the detail exactly what sorts of Evil and Lawful acts make you more likely to wind up in Hell, and casting [Evil] spells ranks pretty high up there. (In terms of Evil, not Lawful)
ArcTan 06-22-07, 01:13 AM	Oh, yes, all death is a negative energy effect. Like how you can EXPLODE if you stay on the POSITIVE ENERGY plane too long because you absorbed too much POSITIVE ENERGY? You're not "alive" anymore because you can't remain as an individual living being after absorbing too much PE. You, however, turn into pure living energy (the energy of the Postive Energy Plane), rather than a dead body. That's why that effect can't be warded off the way ordinary death effects can. Call it splitting hairs if you must. It is very strongly stated in all the flavor about PE and NE that NE is associated with entropy and death and PE with growth and life. Only being on the PE Plane itself allows you to kill a living being with Postive Energy this way. And also, it is your opinion that there is no microbial organisms. This is in no way RAW. It's says that nowhere in any book, to my knowledge. In my opinion, only magical disieses are in any way, well, magical. Filth Fever is contracted from unfit living conditions. That tells you that it's something to do with filth spawning bacteria, not negative energy, especially since it says that if you make the Fort save, you ward off the "infection" (DMG). Plus, remember that a Celestial Dire Rat will still have Filth fever, even though they are "good", and by your standards that means that it would be positive energy, in your opinion of course. Naw. A Solar who casts as a Cleric can still cast inflict spells or energy drain. Remember, I was the one who said it was misleading to ask this question as though it meant "Good creatures can't interact in any way with Negative Energy", which is clearly false. It may only be my opinion that there aren't any microbes, but I see no reason to assume that there *are* microbes just because microbes exist in real life. After all, microbes are a quite modern discovery, and D&D is based on a very pre-modern view of the world. There are *four elements*, for cripes' sake. There are dragons bigger than a house who can fly under their own power. It's not a realistic world. (This is the same argument I give to people who think that radioactive elements, or black holes, or whatever *must* exist in D&D because they exist in real life.) Saying that disease is just disease and not caused by microbes nicely sidesteps the so-called "contradiction" that curing a disease would mean "killing the microbes" causing the disease, and yet remove disease is a Conjuration (Healing) spell that uses Positive Energy. (There's no contradiction at all -- it's only because you assume diseases are caused by microorganisms, which is just as modern an idea as the idea that there are 92 natural elements rather than 4.)
Saurus33 06-22-07, 02:40 AM	About Negative/Positive energy and alignment..... I know that, RAW, Negative energy is strongly associated with evil. I really, really disagree with this. It is my theory that: 1.Positive and negative energy are intrinsically neutral. 2. They are directly opposed to one another, and cancel each other out. This is why inflict spells harm non-undead. 3.Living creatures are animated by positive energy(i.e. positive energy is life as we know it.) 4.People find undead scary and unnatural, and as undead are animated by negative energy, it is considered evil. 5.The reason undead often attack the living arbitrarily is due to the fact that the negative energy that animates them forces them to. 6.If the energy that animated living creatures was negative energy, things like deathless would be considered evil, and so would positive energy in general. 7.Negative and positive are just names, Like North and South. In actuality, The north=up idea is arbitrary, and north has no monopoly on up. Likewise, Positive has no monopoly on good, it is just because it heals living creatures, and we consider that sort of thing good. It all boils down to the perception that. Positive=healing=good and Negative=harming=evil
Rustmonster 06-22-07, 11:07 AM	You're not "alive" anymore because you can't remain as an individual living being after absorbing too much PE. You, however, turn into pure living energy (the energy of the Postive Energy Plane), rather than a dead body. That's why that effect can't be warded off the way ordinary death effects can. Saying that disease is just disease and not caused by microbes nicely sidesteps the so-called "contradiction" that curing a disease would mean "killing the microbes" causing the disease, and yet remove disease is a Conjuration (Healing) spell that uses Positive Energy. (There's no contradiction at all -- it's only because you assume diseases are caused by microorganisms, which is just as modern an idea as the idea that there are 92 natural elements rather than 4.) First off, Conjuration [Healing], is bull poop. It's necromancy. Get over it. The only reason it isn't stated as necromancy is because necromancy is "icky", and is therefore not suitable for healing. This is garbage, as it says in the PHB that "necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force." (pg174) Life force is positive energy. That means Cure spells should be necromancy. They just arn't because necromancy is for "evil" characters. This is also the reason behind clerics being restricted in channeling because of alighnment, and mindless undead being listed as "always evil". I know that this is my opinion, but I am not the only one who thinks that Wizards screwed up big time on this. It doesn't make sense, at all. Second, it says nothing in the DMG of turning into "pure living energy ", you just explode. And explosions kill you. Other examples I could have used: Killing with a sword doesn't use negative energy, killing with a fireball doesn't use negative energy, falling of a cliff and dieing doesn't use negative energy, etc. And finally, just because they didn't know about it doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Are you saying that in RL, that before we discovered microbes, they didn't exist? It says NOWHERE that disese is negative energy. Just because thats how you use it doesn't make it RAW.
ArcTan 06-22-07, 02:36 PM	I agree with this. Personally I would not say the pos and neg plains are good or evil. But the uses people use them for are. Negative is only evil because the intentions of the users are. The use of negative energy does have more evil uses, but that does not make it evil itself. Though I agree neg should be law aligned with neg, and chaos with pos. But those are my personal opinions. In the D&D setting as it has been presented to us, negative energy is associated with Evil and positive energy with Good. You are free to disagree or to houserule otherwise for your own game, but can people please stop saying this is "wrong" or not the way it "should be"? I myself am writting a goddess and a god, who both are lawfull aligned, and both have a slight alignment to good. But they believe in law more then good, and see negative as a place without sin or chaos. Being barran equates to it being perfect. It depends on the view of the charecter ou are writting. In some ways pos and neg, can almost equal a third alignment choice. lawfull good - lawfull good + No, not really. LG Clerics or LN Clerics of an LG god can't channel negative energy (Rebuke Undead), period, and many negative-energy spells are barred to them because they have the [Evil] descriptor. That's a fact. You can change it, but it's not "wrong".
ArcTan 06-22-07, 02:42 PM	First off, Conjuration [Healing], is bull poop. It's necromancy. Get over it. The only reason it isn't stated as necromancy is because necromancy is "icky", and is therefore not suitable for healing. This is garbage, as it says in the PHB that "necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force." (pg174) Life force is positive energy. That means Cure spells should be necromancy. They just arn't because necromancy is for "evil" characters. This is also the reason behind clerics being restricted in channeling because of alighnment, and mindless undead being listed as "always evil". I know that this is my opinion, but I am not the only one who thinks that Wizards screwed up big time on this. It doesn't make sense, at all. I don't think it matters that much. I wouldn't mind Conjuration (Healing) moving to another school, perhaps having one big school called "Theurgy" with the "Healing" or "Biomancy" subschool and the "Necromancy" subschool. The main problem with putting all the healing spells in "Necromancy" is that the word "necro" means "death". It was a kludge when they said healing spells were Necromancy back in 2e, and it was probably because they didn't want to come up with a new name for a new school of magic. Second, it says nothing in the DMG of turning into "pure living energy ", you just explode. And explosions kill you. Other examples I could have used: Killing with a sword doesn't use negative energy, killing with a fireball doesn't use negative energy, falling of a cliff and dieing doesn't use negative energy, etc. You don't just "explode", you turn into a "haze of color". You're clearly not exploding from physical force (since this effect kills plenty of things that can't be killed by blowing them up with physical force, like Trolls or other entities with Regeneration). And finally, just because they didn't know about it doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Are you saying that in RL, that before we discovered microbes, they didn't exist? It says NOWHERE that disese is negative energy. Just because thats how you use it doesn't make it RAW. Well, in real life, the world was never actually made of the four elements, Air, Water, Earth and Fire. People just thought it was -- and were wrong. However, in D&D it's *objectively true* that there are four elements. You can even go to the Elemental Planes and look at them. So yes, D&D is a fantasy game, and in D&D things are frequently objectively true that turned out to be false in our world. (In Greyhawk, for instance, the Earth is the center of the universe.) I'm not saying it's a *fact* that disease is caused by negative energy. I am saying that the only thing we know about disease is that it works according to D&D rules -- any *theory* of disease, whether a negative-energy theory of disease or a germ theory of disease, is just that -- a theory, with no proof one way or the other. However, the advantage of my theory is that it introduces no contradictions into the way remove disease works as a spell.
Rustmonster 06-22-07, 03:17 PM	IYou don't just "explode", you turn into a "haze of color". You're clearly not exploding from physical force (since this effect kills plenty of things that can't be killed by blowing them up with physical force, like Trolls or other entities with Regeneration). It says nowhere that you turn into a "haze of colour", as far as I know. Please tell me what book this is from, and I might actually believe you. I am also aware that you don't explode from physical force. I was just saying you die. From positive energy. Earlier on, you (or perhaps someone else, pardon me if it wasn't you) said all death was from negative energy, or something to that effect. I also gave some other examples of things that are not negative energy killing things.
Rustmonster 06-22-07, 03:31 PM	In the D&D setting as it has been presented to us, negative energy is associated with Evil and positive energy with Good. You are free to disagree or to houserule otherwise for your own game, but can people please stop saying this is "wrong" or not the way it "should be"? No, not really. LG Clerics or LN Clerics of an LG god can't channel negative energy (Rebuke Undead), period, and many negative-energy spells are barred to them because they have the [Evil] descriptor. That's a fact. You can change it, but it's not "wrong". I am 100% okey with good clerics not being able to cast [Evil] descriptor spells. I personally think that this is not wrong. But what I do have a problem with is how Wizards threw an [Evil] descriptor to random spells. [Evil], [Good], [Chaos], and [Law] descriptors should be on spells that actually deal with alighnment. Protection from Good, [Evil] descriptor justified, as it makes sense to protect from the opossite alighnment. Other spells, however, like Symbol of pain, for example, works regardless of alighnment. It has nothing at all to do with alighnment, so it makes no sense to have an [Evil] descriptor. Yes, it can be used for evil, but it could also be used for good (ie, slow down the badguys). It doesn't matter what alighnment you are, it works the same. I am well aware that in RAW, Symbol of Pain is an [Evil] spell, but I'm just saying that it makes no sense. And NO, it has NOT been "presented to us" that -tive energy is EVIL and +tive is GOOD. Show me the exact part in a D&D book where it says SPECIFICLY "Negative energy is a DEFINATIVLY EVIL force, and Positive energy is a DEFINITIVLY GOOD force" and I will believe you. But until then, you are just talking about how it "should be".
ArcTan 06-22-07, 05:37 PM	I am 100% okey with good clerics not being able to cast [Evil] descriptor spells. I personally think that this is not wrong. But what I do have a problem with is how Wizards threw an [Evil] descriptor to random spells. [Evil], [Good], [Chaos], and [Law] descriptors should be on spells that actually deal with alighnment. Protection from Good, [Evil] descriptor justified, as it makes sense to protect from the opossite alighnment. Other spells, however, like Symbol of pain, for example, works regardless of alighnment. It has nothing at all to do with alighnment, so it makes no sense to have an [Evil] descriptor. Yes, it can be used for evil, but it could also be used for good (ie, slow down the badguys). It doesn't matter what alighnment you are, it works the same. I am well aware that in RAW, Symbol of Pain is an [Evil] spell, but I'm just saying that it makes no sense. It makes plenty of sense if you do believe that certain things, like negative energy, have soem sort of *association* with Evil despite not literally being the aligned force of Evil itself. And NO, it has NOT been "presented to us" that -tive energy is EVIL and +tive is GOOD. Show me the exact part in a D&D book where it says SPECIFICLY "Negative energy is a DEFINATIVLY EVIL force, and Positive energy is a DEFINITIVLY GOOD force" and I will believe you. But until then, you are just talking about how it "should be". Since the sentence "negative energy is evil" doesn't have a clear meaning, that's why I said way back at the beginning that in the end it's useless to argue over that sentence being true or not. It is true that, nonetheless, the Book of Vile Darkness describes negative energy as one of the possible indicators that something is Evil, and that a lot of [Evil] spells are [Evil] mainly because they deal with negative energy. (Animate dead and create undead are [Evil]; the opposite, create deathless, is [Good]. Undead show up on the detect evil spell regardless of their personal alignment. Hallow and unhallow are [Good] and [Evil] even though they mainly deal only with positive and negative energy rather than, say, aligned Outsiders. Undead are almost all Evil, and Libris Mortis describes this as being a result of the "hunger" felt by being powered by negative energy -- and, in contrast, their opposites, the Deathless, are supposed to be almost all Good.
ArcTan 06-22-07, 05:42 PM	It says nowhere that you turn into a "haze of colour", as far as I know. Please tell me what book this is from, and I might actually believe you. I am also aware that you don't explode from physical force. I was just saying you die. From positive energy. Earlier on, you (or perhaps someone else, pardon me if it wasn't you) said all death was from negative energy, or something to that effect. I also gave some other examples of things that are not negative energy killing things. All death is not *caused* by negative energy. However, all death *is* negative energy. Once you are dead, the fact of your death is a source of negative energy and adds to the Negative Energy Plane's dominance over the Positive Energy Plane. That's what negative energy literally *is* -- it's a substance that represents the idea of death, cooling, entropy, things coming to an end. Anything that's part of that is in some way linked to the NE Plane. (Just like shadows are caused whenever something sits in front of a light source and makes an outline, but aside from their mundane nature all shadows are still tied to the Plane of Shadow. And all thought is tied to the Astral Plane, and all combustion is tied to the Plane of Fire, etc.) My personal justification for the NE Plane being Neutral but all these different manifestations of NE being Evil is that the idea of death and endings isn't itself bad, but conscious entities attempting to speed up the process is. (Death is not listed as part of the PHB's definition of Evil, but "killing others" is.) By the way, the actual quote from the SRD is a "riot of energy", although I think Manual of the Planes goes into more detail about how this riot of energy appears as a rainbow-colored blast of light. It doesn't really matter, anyway.
Sim_antix 06-22-07, 06:05 PM	I don't think anyone said at any point that all death was tied to negative energy. If I am wrong please qoute and show me.
Rustmonster 06-22-07, 07:48 PM	All death is not *caused* by negative energy. However, all death *is* negative energy. Once you are dead, the fact of your death is a source of negative energy and adds to the Negative Energy Plane's dominance over the Positive Energy Plane. That's what negative energy literally *is* -- it's a substance that represents the idea of death, cooling, entropy, things coming to an end. Anything that's part of that is in some way linked to the NE Plane. (Just like shadows are caused whenever something sits in front of a light source and makes an outline, but aside from their mundane nature all shadows are still tied to the Plane of Shadow. And all thought is tied to the Astral Plane, and all combustion is tied to the Plane of Fire, etc.) I have never read in a D&D book that when you die you create negative energy. Please clarify where you take this information from. My personal justification for the NE Plane being Neutral but all these different manifestations of NE being Evil is that the idea of death and endings isn't itself bad, but conscious entities attempting to speed up the process is. (Death is not listed as part of the PHB's definition of Evil, but "killing others" is.) Apparently, killing others is not evil, as good characters do that all the time. Shouldn't they become evil then?
Rustmonster 06-22-07, 07:50 PM	I don't think anyone said at any point that all death was tied to negative energy. If I am wrong please qoute and show me. "Microbial organisms" may or may not exist at all in D&D. I tend to think that they don't, and that disease is a negative energy effect. (Which isn't a big deal -- *all* entropy and death is ultimately a negative energy effect.) There you are.
Sim_antix 06-22-07, 08:03 PM	There you are. Hmmm I must have missed that. Well in any case we should all be able to agree that all death is certainly NOT a negative energy effect. That doesn't make negative energy any less associated with evil mind you, but at least its not the cause of all death. :P
Rustmonster 06-22-07, 08:10 PM	Hmmm I must have missed that. Well in any case we should all be able to agree that all death is certainly NOT a negative energy effect. That doesn't make negative energy any less associated with evil mind you, but at least its not the cause of all death. :P You know what, I'm willing to make a compromise. I will agree that GENERALLY SPEAKING, negative energy is seen as ASSOCIATED with evil. But, you have to agree that it is, infact, NOT DIRECTLY evil. Agreed?
Sim_antix 06-22-07, 10:06 PM	You know what, I'm willing to make a compromise. I will agree that GENERALLY SPEAKING, negative energy is seen as ASSOCIATED with evil. But, you have to agree that it is, infact, NOT DIRECTLY evil. Agreed? Without a doubt. It is not evil but is associated with evil.
ArcTan 06-22-07, 10:23 PM	Hmmm I must have missed that. Well in any case we should all be able to agree that all death is certainly NOT a negative energy effect. That doesn't make negative energy any less associated with evil mind you, but at least its not the cause of all death. :P It's not the *cause* of death. It's the *effect* of death. (I.e. when something dies, that is a source of negative energy, or an instance of negative energy.) That's why negative energy needs dead bodies to work on, and you can't just use animate dead on a pile of mud and stones (and, in general, Constructs are way harder to make than Undead).
ArcTan 06-22-07, 10:24 PM	You know what, I'm willing to make a compromise. I will agree that GENERALLY SPEAKING, negative energy is seen as ASSOCIATED with evil. But, you have to agree that it is, infact, NOT DIRECTLY evil. Agreed? It depends on what that even means. I think it's a meaningless question, but if it'll make you feel better, sure, negative energy isn't "directly evil". It doesn't hate people, it doesn't enjoy killing babies, it's not out to get you. It's just energy. However, the vast majority of manifestations of negative energy into the world around us (in D&D) result in evil things happening.
ArcTan 06-22-07, 10:27 PM	About Negative/Positive energy and alignment..... I know that, RAW, Negative energy is strongly associated with evil. I really, really disagree with this. It is my theory that: 1.Positive and negative energy are intrinsically neutral. 2. They are directly opposed to one another, and cancel each other out. This is why inflict spells harm non-undead. 3.Living creatures are animated by positive energy(i.e. positive energy is life as we know it.) 4.People find undead scary and unnatural, and as undead are animated by negative energy, it is considered evil. 5.The reason undead often attack the living arbitrarily is due to the fact that the negative energy that animates them forces them to. 6.If the energy that animated living creatures was negative energy, things like deathless would be considered evil, and so would positive energy in general. 7.Negative and positive are just names, Like North and South. In actuality, The north=up idea is arbitrary, and north has no monopoly on up. Likewise, Positive has no monopoly on good, it is just because it heals living creatures, and we consider that sort of thing good. It all boils down to the perception that. Positive=healing=good and Negative=harming=evil If you like this, fine. It's not a "theory", though, it's your homebrew description of negative energy. People keep forgetting that this is *fiction* and that there's no "real thing" it's describing -- no real negative energy in real life -- so the answers can't be "right" or "wrong" in this way. "Disagreeing" with the RAW doesn't make much sense, since the RAW is what it is. Deciding you *dislike* the RAW and want to rewrite the rules is perfectly legitimate, but it's not the same thing. FWIW, I think this concept has some discrepancies with how things work -- for one thing, Undead really are compelled to seek out and attack the living to survive (according to Libris Mortis) while living things have no such compulsion for the Undead. Humans don't have to drink a Vampire's blood to survive (or, more specifically, to continue functioning without going mad with hunger). Humans don't have to drink Vampire's blood at all. Humans can go their whole lives without even *seeing* a Vampire or any other kind of Undead and be perfectly happy. This is not true at all for most Undead. You could change that, of course, but the thing is that there's a lot of things you have to change, because the game really is focused on the idea that living is "normal" and Undeath is *not*, and that Undeath is opposed to life in a way that life isn't opposed to Undeath, and that negative and positive energy are *not* symmetrical (any more than beginnings and endings are).
Rustmonster 06-23-07, 09:07 AM	FWIW, I think this concept has some discrepancies with how things work -- for one thing, Undead really are compelled to seek out and attack the living to survive (according to Libris Mortis) while living things have no such compulsion for the Undead. Humans don't have to drink a Vampire's blood to survive (or, more specifically, to continue functioning without going mad with hunger). Humans don't have to drink Vampire's blood at all. Humans can go their whole lives without even *seeing* a Vampire or any other kind of Undead and be perfectly happy. This is not true at all for most Undead. You know what the funny part is though? Humans eat other living things. And it's tasty! I think one of the reasons that most people think undead are gross killing machines is that they assume that they only eat the sentiant. What if a peaceful undead raised (hehe, not like that, silly! Living ones!) cattle or chickens, and ate those? Then you'd just think he's a farmer, not a bloodthirsty monster. Actually, you know what the funny part is? What we have been disscussion for like, two pages is NOT THE TOPIC! Now that this little thing is settled (well, for me and Sim_antix at least), maybe we should go back to the OP's topic? I'm sure he'd like that.
ArcTan 06-23-07, 01:36 PM	You know what the funny part is though? Humans eat other living things. And it's tasty! I think one of the reasons that most people think undead are gross killing machines is that they assume that they only eat the sentiant. What if a peaceful undead raised (hehe, not like that, silly! Living ones!) cattle or chickens, and ate those? Then you'd just think he's a farmer, not a bloodthirsty monster. Actually, you know what the funny part is? What we have been disscussion for like, two pages is NOT THE TOPIC! Now that this little thing is settled (well, for me and Sim_antix at least), maybe we should go back to the OP's topic? I'm sure he'd like that. We already talked about the OP's idea. I think it's dumb. Other people may not. There's not that much to say about it. ("Creation" is not the same thing as "order", and "destruction" is not the same thing as "disorder". Even a few seconds' thought about the meaning of those terms will show you why. Getting blown up in a "riot of energy" on the PE Plane has nothing to do with becoming "more Lawful". Hell, the description of the PE Plane as a riotous shifting glowing mass of crackling energy has little to do with any vision of Law I can think of.)
Sim_antix 06-23-07, 03:06 PM	In my campaign Chaos creates life whereas Law shapes it into recognizable forms. (i.e. Elven, Human, etc)
Rustmonster 06-23-07, 05:35 PM	In my campaign Chaos creates life whereas Law shapes it into recognizable forms. (i.e. Elven, Human, etc) That makes sense.
Lina_Inverse 06-23-07, 07:00 PM	Creation=Change=Chaos Destruction=Change=Chaos Creation and destruction are just two ways to look at the same act. If you create something by definition you've destroyed something as well. There is a house, you destroy it creating a pile of rubble. There are building materials, you create a house destroying the building materials. Order wants all change to cease forever, it wants stagnation. Both creation and destruction have to go for that.
ArcTan 06-24-07, 09:44 AM	Well, I would say that Chaos is the *act* of change itself, and Law is the underlying constants that put the change in context. (Chaos is the fact that the house burned down -- Law is the fact that the house burns down according to strict and knowable chemical laws of combustion. Chaos is the fact that a revolution just took place in a country -- Law is the fact that the forces of economics and politics will make the new government end up acting pretty much like the old one. Etc.) Law doesn't exactly want to *stop* change. It's just that from Law's perspective, change is an illusion, something that only exists to illustrate the higher fact of what is constant. (Modrons move around, take actions, die off and get replaced, but to them all that this is is a way to show that *ultimately* nothing important about them changes.)