Positive and Negative, Good and Evil [Archive] - Wizards Community

Positive and Negative, Good and Evil [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Leonis472
07-09-07, 10:02 PM My question pertains to clerics and the casting of cure and inflict spells. How many times a day—or, for that matter, per month or even year—may a cleric channel energy opposed to his or her faith and alignment before atonement? I cite the following excerpts for reference:

From PH3.5, top left of page 160:

Even if a cleric is neutral, channelling positive energy is a good act and channelling negative energy is evil.

From PH3.5, at the lower right of page 215, Cure Light Wounds' spell description:

When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel positive energy . . .

From PH3.5, at the center of page 244, Inflict Light Wounds' spell description:

When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy . . .

Is this negligible? The cure and inflict spells of every magnitude are not labelled with the good or evil descriptors, respectively. One would think atonement would be required after so much channelling of diametrically opposed energies. Thoughts? And thank you.
Kouk
07-09-07, 11:49 PM I would think there is no game effect whatever of casting spells without alignment descriptors, so it would be extremely negligible. Consider how often a cleric casts healing spells compared to how often he casts inflict spells - almost 90% of clerics (good OR evil) cast cures more than they cast inflicts. Also consider how many other spells channel specific energy types.
Androcus Divinicus
07-10-07, 12:40 AM I would think there is no game effect whatever of casting spells without alignment descriptors, so it would be extremely negligible. Consider how often a cleric casts healing spells compared to how often he casts inflict spells - almost 90% of clerics (good OR evil) cast cures more than they cast inflicts. Also consider how many other spells channel specific energy types.

Right. So, consequently, then, would an evil cleric not have to atone because he's channeled so much more positive energy (a good act) than negative energy (an evil act)? I think this was the point of the question.

Personally, I think this just highlights some of the silliness inherent in linking the positive and negative energy planes to alignment (and, some might say, within the alignment system itself), and I wouldn't impose such a ruling (that channeling a certain amount of positive or negative energy can affect your alignment, or standing with your deity) on the players in my campaign.

Regards,
Justin.
Leonis472
07-10-07, 08:55 AM Excellent thoughts, all. However in keeping with verisimilitude I think it might raise significant issues. Turning or rebuking undead both are not spells, but the channelling of divine energy associated with a cleric's deity. If a cleric channels positive energy to turn undead, would it not be evil to call upon the very same powers which animate undead to inflict injury to living beings? Surely the good powers that be don't need their servants to deal with devils.

As a counterpoint, and again keeping with verisimilitude, a good cleric can cast an inflict spell to cause harm a creature of evil alignment who's terrorizing a town. An evil cleric or blackguard can cast cure spells to heal living allies of darkness. In the former case, would it not be a good work? In the latter, would it not be an evil one? They seem not in and of themselves wrong or right, but right or wrong in context.

So far these have all been outward repurcussions, but what about internal ones? Compare energy channelling with water channelling, or rivers. The earth which forms the river's bed and banks is moist for a time after the water has left. In like manner, I imagine that any divine spellcaster who channels energy in the form of a cure or inflict spell first must take that energy into himself before he can cast it out. Even an evil cleric using positive energy in this way has physically and spiritually taken in something which his life is devoted to opposing, as if they've poisoned themselves or become "unclean." I appreciate the help, guys, and see your points, but I still haven't quite made up my mind yet.

As an aside, I would only impose such a rule if a divine spellcaster was known for almost never casting spells which channel his patron's energy. You're right about potentially overdoing it.
Leilond
07-10-07, 09:01 AM But we are in a word of energies
The rule can simply be
When you cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, you're bringing into the material plane Evil energy, that will make the people all over the world a bit more evil
Thus, when you cast "animate death" to save a city from an evil guy, you think you're making "a good act" but the effect of that spell can be a big evil disaster in another part of the world; and YOU KNOW that it can happen, because YOU KNOW that you're casting a such spell... so you're guilty of what happened somewhere in the world, your act was evil. How many times evil grow up from good intention
I don't mean I agree with one or the other position, only that "logic" cannot be used to justify any of the two position, because I can easly find a way to justify MAGIC in the way it fit my interpretation

So, the rules say it is an Evil act. You must choose if you accept it, or if you want to "house rule it" because you don't like
Androcus Divinicus
07-10-07, 12:11 PM So far these have all been outward repurcussions, but what about internal ones? Compare energy channelling with water channelling, or rivers. The earth which forms the river's bed and banks is moist for a time after the water has left. In like manner, I imagine that any divine spellcaster who channels energy in the form of a cure or inflict spell first must take that energy into himself before he can cast it out.

Well ... again. I'm of the view that there simply are no internal effects of channeling positive or negative energy. I reject the argument that justifies equating positive energy with good and negative energy with evil. Positive and negative energy, in my opinion, are like guns in the modern world. In and of themselves, they're just tools, neither inherently good nor bad ... but they can be used to great effect by either side. I guess I'd just make a minor tweak to the sentence on p. 160 of the PHB like this: "Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy to turn or destroy undead is a good act and channeling negative energy to rebuke or command undead is an evil act." And I would be done with it at that.

J.

P.S. I've just come back and seen that mvincent commented shortly after I did. He makes an excellent point with respect to observing the context within which the statement about positive/negative energy and good/evil is made.
mvincent
07-10-07, 12:15 PM Let's put this back into context. The turning rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#neutralClericsandUnde ad) say:
"Neutral Clerics and Undead
A cleric of neutral alignment can either turn undead but not rebuke them, or rebuke undead but not turn them. See Turn or Rebuke Undead for more information.

Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil."

The last sentence is specific to the turning rules, and (in context) does not appear to be intended as a blanket statement covering all uses of positive and negative energy.

By this statement, a neutral cleric that frequently turns or rebukes undead may have to worry about an alignment shift away from neutrality. The exact details on this are left to the DM.
Leonis472
07-10-07, 03:15 PM True: but I read the context before reading the sentence I cited. My objections came from trying to read an underlying principle into that one sentence. It half makes sense, but I think you're all right. The purpose of an act determines the morality of that act, and it is ridiculous to impose something legalistic based on reading to much into that sentence.
Kouk
07-10-07, 07:33 PM Maybe you are thinking about Turning the wrong way. Keep in mind that Turning is not just channeling energy, but you are doing something with that energy.

Undead are just bad, period. 99.999 percent of undead are evil, and created as such. If you Rebuke/Control them, you are channeling negative energy (which has no inherent effect) and then using that energy to bend an unnatural creature to your will, or make it stronger, which is where the evil comes in.

Channeling positive energy (which has no inherent effect) to hinder or destroy undead is good, since undead are evil, so it is a good act by default.

You might also consider that Turning or Rebuking is a power granted by a god, so presumably only an evil god (or one who doesn't really care what you do) would allow a follower to channel energy to Rebuke.

Just being from a Divine source doesn't necessitate being from a "god", druids and rangers can heal as well without needing to worship a deity.

For healing and harming energies, you can use your "guns are not inherently evil" argument. You can determine whether acts are good or evil in and of themselves, such as healing evil characters or creatures, or harming bad ones.

Another point to consider is perhaps the "channeling" of Turning is not the same as the energies used in casting most spells. You Conjure the energies of Positive or Negative in most cases, but Turning might be opening a doorway straight to the relevant plane of energy and drawing it through yourself, rather than just having it go through the medium of magic. Casting most spells does not stain your "soul" the way being the funnel for pure planar elements might. It is possible spells with the descriptors function similarly to this channeling, such as the summons.

Usually, alignment descriptors (as opposed to Energy descriptors) are assigned to effects which persist for some time, so that you are actually causing the extraplanar energies from strongly aligned planes to exist in the material plane and altering it slightly. Magic and all...
Leonis472
07-11-07, 08:45 AM Quite so. In and of themselves, the spells are not wrong, as I've come to agree (which was the purpose of this thread, heh).

Just being from a Divine source doesn't necessitate being from a "god", druids and rangers can heal as well without needing to worship a deity.

Even clerics do not always worship deities. If you read the cleric's entry it says something akin to representing an abstract ideal such as goodness itself, in essence "worshipping" an alignment pole. It is clear for any cleric, however, that something is regarded as divine, (edit) and that something's power fuels channelling and defines its type, the familiarity with which allows for spontaneous curing or inflicting. Finally, whatever is regarded as higher than the self imposes limitations to daily life, how one ought to behave. This thread was to determine whether such imposed limitations stretch to govern the touching of the divine something's opposed energy, and I think it's sufficiently answered. (/edit)
Legdiwena
07-11-07, 06:50 PM It's not whether you cast cure/inflict. It's what you use it for. Cleric casting cure to heal a blackguard to let him continue evil deeds has just cast an evil spell. Same cleric casting inflict to stop said blackguard has cast a good spell.
mvincent
07-12-07, 11:45 AM It's not whether you cast cure/inflict. It's what you use it for. Cleric casting cure to heal a blackguard to let him continue evil deeds has just cast an evil spell. Same cleric casting inflict to stop said blackguard has cast a good spell.That is incorrect. While those could be labeled good/evil acts, the actual spells themselves would not have the [good] or [evil] descriptors (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor).

Conversely, deathknell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathKnell.htm) (for instance) is always an [evil] spell, even if it was cast on a blackguard. A good cleric wouldn't even be able to cast it.
H4w00dJ48l0m3
07-23-07, 10:31 PM Does a sorc/wiz get burned from fireball?...

'Nuff said

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Leonis472 07-09-07, 10:02 PM	My question pertains to clerics and the casting of cure and inflict spells. How many times a day—or, for that matter, per month or even year—may a cleric channel energy opposed to his or her faith and alignment before atonement? I cite the following excerpts for reference: From PH3.5, top left of page 160: Even if a cleric is neutral, channelling positive energy is a good act and channelling negative energy is evil. From PH3.5, at the lower right of page 215, Cure Light Wounds' spell description: When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel positive energy . . . From PH3.5, at the center of page 244, Inflict Light Wounds' spell description: When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy . . . Is this negligible? The cure and inflict spells of every magnitude are not labelled with the good or evil descriptors, respectively. One would think atonement would be required after so much channelling of diametrically opposed energies. Thoughts? And thank you.
Kouk 07-09-07, 11:49 PM	I would think there is no game effect whatever of casting spells without alignment descriptors, so it would be extremely negligible. Consider how often a cleric casts healing spells compared to how often he casts inflict spells - almost 90% of clerics (good OR evil) cast cures more than they cast inflicts. Also consider how many other spells channel specific energy types.
Androcus Divinicus 07-10-07, 12:40 AM	I would think there is no game effect whatever of casting spells without alignment descriptors, so it would be extremely negligible. Consider how often a cleric casts healing spells compared to how often he casts inflict spells - almost 90% of clerics (good OR evil) cast cures more than they cast inflicts. Also consider how many other spells channel specific energy types. Right. So, consequently, then, would an evil cleric not have to atone because he's channeled so much more positive energy (a good act) than negative energy (an evil act)? I think this was the point of the question. Personally, I think this just highlights some of the silliness inherent in linking the positive and negative energy planes to alignment (and, some might say, within the alignment system itself), and I wouldn't impose such a ruling (that channeling a certain amount of positive or negative energy can affect your alignment, or standing with your deity) on the players in my campaign. Regards, Justin.
Leonis472 07-10-07, 08:55 AM	Excellent thoughts, all. However in keeping with verisimilitude I think it might raise significant issues. Turning or rebuking undead both are not spells, but the channelling of divine energy associated with a cleric's deity. If a cleric channels positive energy to turn undead, would it not be evil to call upon the very same powers which animate undead to inflict injury to living beings? Surely the good powers that be don't need their servants to deal with devils. As a counterpoint, and again keeping with verisimilitude, a good cleric can cast an inflict spell to cause harm a creature of evil alignment who's terrorizing a town. An evil cleric or blackguard can cast cure spells to heal living allies of darkness. In the former case, would it not be a good work? In the latter, would it not be an evil one? They seem not in and of themselves wrong or right, but right or wrong in context. So far these have all been outward repurcussions, but what about internal ones? Compare energy channelling with water channelling, or rivers. The earth which forms the river's bed and banks is moist for a time after the water has left. In like manner, I imagine that any divine spellcaster who channels energy in the form of a cure or inflict spell first must take that energy into himself before he can cast it out. Even an evil cleric using positive energy in this way has physically and spiritually taken in something which his life is devoted to opposing, as if they've poisoned themselves or become "unclean." I appreciate the help, guys, and see your points, but I still haven't quite made up my mind yet. As an aside, I would only impose such a rule if a divine spellcaster was known for almost never casting spells which channel his patron's energy. You're right about potentially overdoing it.
Leilond 07-10-07, 09:01 AM	But we are in a word of energies The rule can simply be When you cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, you're bringing into the material plane Evil energy, that will make the people all over the world a bit more evil Thus, when you cast "animate death" to save a city from an evil guy, you think you're making "a good act" but the effect of that spell can be a big evil disaster in another part of the world; and YOU KNOW that it can happen, because YOU KNOW that you're casting a such spell... so you're guilty of what happened somewhere in the world, your act was evil. How many times evil grow up from good intention I don't mean I agree with one or the other position, only that "logic" cannot be used to justify any of the two position, because I can easly find a way to justify MAGIC in the way it fit my interpretation So, the rules say it is an Evil act. You must choose if you accept it, or if you want to "house rule it" because you don't like
Androcus Divinicus 07-10-07, 12:11 PM	So far these have all been outward repurcussions, but what about internal ones? Compare energy channelling with water channelling, or rivers. The earth which forms the river's bed and banks is moist for a time after the water has left. In like manner, I imagine that any divine spellcaster who channels energy in the form of a cure or inflict spell first must take that energy into himself before he can cast it out. Well ... again. I'm of the view that there simply are no internal effects of channeling positive or negative energy. I reject the argument that justifies equating positive energy with good and negative energy with evil. Positive and negative energy, in my opinion, are like guns in the modern world. In and of themselves, they're just tools, neither inherently good nor bad ... but they can be used to great effect by either side. I guess I'd just make a minor tweak to the sentence on p. 160 of the PHB like this: "Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy to turn or destroy undead is a good act and channeling negative energy to rebuke or command undead is an evil act." And I would be done with it at that. J. P.S. I've just come back and seen that mvincent commented shortly after I did. He makes an excellent point with respect to observing the context within which the statement about positive/negative energy and good/evil is made.
mvincent 07-10-07, 12:15 PM	Let's put this back into context. The turning rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#neutralClericsandUnde ad) say: "Neutral Clerics and Undead A cleric of neutral alignment can either turn undead but not rebuke them, or rebuke undead but not turn them. See Turn or Rebuke Undead for more information. Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil." The last sentence is specific to the turning rules, and (in context) does not appear to be intended as a blanket statement covering all uses of positive and negative energy. By this statement, a neutral cleric that frequently turns or rebukes undead may have to worry about an alignment shift away from neutrality. The exact details on this are left to the DM.
Leonis472 07-10-07, 03:15 PM	True: but I read the context before reading the sentence I cited. My objections came from trying to read an underlying principle into that one sentence. It half makes sense, but I think you're all right. The purpose of an act determines the morality of that act, and it is ridiculous to impose something legalistic based on reading to much into that sentence.
Kouk 07-10-07, 07:33 PM	Maybe you are thinking about Turning the wrong way. Keep in mind that Turning is not just channeling energy, but you are doing something with that energy. Undead are just bad, period. 99.999 percent of undead are evil, and created as such. If you Rebuke/Control them, you are channeling negative energy (which has no inherent effect) and then using that energy to bend an unnatural creature to your will, or make it stronger, which is where the evil comes in. Channeling positive energy (which has no inherent effect) to hinder or destroy undead is good, since undead are evil, so it is a good act by default. You might also consider that Turning or Rebuking is a power granted by a god, so presumably only an evil god (or one who doesn't really care what you do) would allow a follower to channel energy to Rebuke. Just being from a Divine source doesn't necessitate being from a "god", druids and rangers can heal as well without needing to worship a deity. For healing and harming energies, you can use your "guns are not inherently evil" argument. You can determine whether acts are good or evil in and of themselves, such as healing evil characters or creatures, or harming bad ones. Another point to consider is perhaps the "channeling" of Turning is not the same as the energies used in casting most spells. You Conjure the energies of Positive or Negative in most cases, but Turning might be opening a doorway straight to the relevant plane of energy and drawing it through yourself, rather than just having it go through the medium of magic. Casting most spells does not stain your "soul" the way being the funnel for pure planar elements might. It is possible spells with the descriptors function similarly to this channeling, such as the summons. Usually, alignment descriptors (as opposed to Energy descriptors) are assigned to effects which persist for some time, so that you are actually causing the extraplanar energies from strongly aligned planes to exist in the material plane and altering it slightly. Magic and all...
Leonis472 07-11-07, 08:45 AM	Quite so. In and of themselves, the spells are not wrong, as I've come to agree (which was the purpose of this thread, heh). Just being from a Divine source doesn't necessitate being from a "god", druids and rangers can heal as well without needing to worship a deity. Even clerics do not always worship deities. If you read the cleric's entry it says something akin to representing an abstract ideal such as goodness itself, in essence "worshipping" an alignment pole. It is clear for any cleric, however, that something is regarded as divine, (edit) and that something's power fuels channelling and defines its type, the familiarity with which allows for spontaneous curing or inflicting. Finally, whatever is regarded as higher than the self imposes limitations to daily life, how one ought to behave. This thread was to determine whether such imposed limitations stretch to govern the touching of the divine something's opposed energy, and I think it's sufficiently answered. (/edit)
Legdiwena 07-11-07, 06:50 PM	It's not whether you cast cure/inflict. It's what you use it for. Cleric casting cure to heal a blackguard to let him continue evil deeds has just cast an evil spell. Same cleric casting inflict to stop said blackguard has cast a good spell.
mvincent 07-12-07, 11:45 AM	It's not whether you cast cure/inflict. It's what you use it for. Cleric casting cure to heal a blackguard to let him continue evil deeds has just cast an evil spell. Same cleric casting inflict to stop said blackguard has cast a good spell.That is incorrect. While those could be labeled good/evil acts, the actual spells themselves would not have the [good] or [evil] descriptors (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptor). Conversely, deathknell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathKnell.htm) (for instance) is always an [evil] spell, even if it was cast on a blackguard. A good cleric wouldn't even be able to cast it.
H4w00dJ48l0m3 07-23-07, 10:31 PM	Does a sorc/wiz get burned from fireball?... 'Nuff said