Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ADAM GRAY 08-27-03, 04:45 AM	I have a question one of my players asked me. If a good cleric (of say, Denier, Chauntea) prays for an inflict spell, is the use of these spells evil? The 3.5 PHB states this is channeling negative energy. If this is accurate, evil clerics (of say, Velsharoon, Bane) would be "smited" for casting cure spells (for channeling positive energy) I would like as many constructive replies before monday please. __________________
rmilsop 08-27-03, 04:50 AM	the word is "smoten" :D No, negative energy isn't evil. In someone else's thread it was said that there are actually some neutral beings who possess negative energy powers. Negative energy isn't itself evil (it is just energy, after all. It has no alignment), its just that it is better suited to evil powers than good - and vice versa for positive energy. Ultimately, how you use that power is what determines its nature.
ADAM GRAY 08-27-03, 04:55 AM	Thanks for your reply, rmilsop. also I may be technically incorrect but I love the word "SMITED!", Yell this during one of your groups combats, you'll see.
rmilsop 08-27-03, 05:07 AM	lol, I'll give it a try. "You think to strike me? Take that! For your impertinance you shall be SMITED!"
Darkmistress 08-27-03, 06:43 AM	Originally posted by rmilsop the word is "smoten" :D Er, actually, it's smitten. Smite: present tense; smote: past tense; smitten: past perfect tense.
Cunning Linguist 08-27-03, 07:01 AM	The use of negative energy is evil. Some neutral clerics use negative energy and looks at it as balance from the positive energy that other clerics use. However, even Bane sees that his followers must be healed, and does not stop them from channelling Healing spells.
Zanan 08-27-03, 07:34 AM	As has been said, clerics of either alignment are not barred from channeling the various types of energy unless the spell in question is not available due to a alignment descriptor. Inflict nor Cure spells are aligned and thus can be cast by any cleric - good, evil or neutral. Speaking of which, as long as there's no Mass Harm, there's no Mass Heal in my campaigns either ...
ADAM GRAY 08-27-03, 08:16 AM	Thanks all for your thoughts, I agree. my player and I think healing is necromancy, the channeling of positive energy and "inflicting" is the taking of this positive engergy, not quite negative energy. I agree every thing has its opposite in DnD just wanted some insight into pacifist, goodly, elven clerics casting inflict spells (with moderation) in combat.
Masakado 08-27-03, 09:16 AM	Originally posted by Zanan As has been said, clerics of either alignment are not barred from channeling the various types of energy unless the spell in question is not available due to a alignment descriptor. Amen. If the negative energy spell has the [Evil] descriptor, then casting it is an evil act. Otherwise, casting the spells which channel such energy is fine & dandy. Good clerics who had the Hierophant PrC would be gimped if all negative energy channeling was evil, because use of their Smite Infidel ability would always be an evil act due to the fact that the ability strengthens negative energy spells cast against their foes.
Gotrex 08-27-03, 09:48 AM	Also remember evil clerics are less likely to care about using the wrong type of energy good clerics have morals and ethics to get in there way so might not want to use negative energy were as an evil cleric probably has no such morals or ethics or at least considerably less so wont really care what he uses as long as he can use it to acomplish his evil purpouses
primemover003 08-27-03, 04:04 PM	Healing isn't necromancy it's conjuration. I mentioned the Xeg-yi (paladin/shadowdancer thread) was true neutral and a native of the negative energy plane. Any Cleric can use Cure or Inflict spells. However they can only spontaneously cast one type dependant on their alignment. Cunning Linguist you are seriously hindering characters in your campaign with your interpretation of what's Evil and what isn't. If it's a spell, it'll have the Evil descriptor on it. If it's a creature it will have the Evil subtype. Trust me the books let you know when something is "Evil." What isn't evil... Sneak attack, Coup de Grace, Ranged attacks from Hiding, using Hide, Surprise rounds. And with no facing, there is no such thing as attacking a creature from behind!!!
Thrudjelmer 08-27-03, 08:58 PM	Originally posted by Zanan Speaking of which, as long as there's no Mass Harm, there's no Mass Heal in my campaigns either ... Why must everything in D&D have an equal, balanced opposite? Having a mass heal spell only is not unbalancing to a campaign as clerics of any alignment may use it to heal their allies... not having a mass harm spell just prevents the caster from stepping too much on arcane casters' toes by having such effective "nukes."
rmilsop 08-28-03, 04:43 AM	Originally posted by Darkmistress Er, actually, it's smitten. Smite: present tense; smote: past tense; smitten: past perfect tense. I think this conversation is just as interesting as the actual purpose of the thread :angel: Of course, you are right. It further explains the use of smitten in such isntances as describing romance - "he was instantly smitten" I humbly apologise. Although it is suggested that "smote" could be used in its place, depending on circumstance. ...oh yeah, energy can't be evil.
ADAM GRAY 08-28-03, 05:02 AM	Wunderbar replied to this and reminded me the phrase "channeling" only appears in the books when refering to turning/ rebuking undead. thanks for all your thoughts.