Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zog_Jakome 04-14-08, 12:19 AM	I am sure this has been asked before but... Harm uses negative energy and my cleric is an extremly positive cleric (with levels in radiant servant of pelor). I know it's not considered evil because it does not have an evil descriptor, but would Pelor frown on those who pray for Harm even if it is being used to harm evil creatures (no pun intended).
SolEiji 04-14-08, 12:23 AM	I don't believe so. Take it as praying for fire to scorch your enemies (Flame Strike), or the power to crush your enemies (Implosion). It's going to be violent and messy weather it's burned by fire or sudden decayed by negative energy. So unless he's taken a vow of peace (the feat or just in game) it should be fine.
Seeker95 04-14-08, 08:32 AM	would Pelor frown on those who pray for Harm even if it is being used to harm evil creatures (no pun intended).No problem in my world. Your Pelor, however, may have a much larger stick up his prayer request line. :D
Mad_Jack 04-14-08, 03:49 PM	It's an interesting quirk of religion that no matter how peaceful or benevolent a god is, praying for the power to lay the smack down on infidels is never a bad thing...:D If there's an issue of the negative energy thing conflicting with the character concept, think of it from the perspective of each person having a balance of positive and negative energy within them - rather than put negative energy into them, you're sucking the positive energy *out* of the targets (denying them Pelor's warmth/blessing/love/whatever), thereby causing them to suffer because they're imbalanced, and now have "excess" negative energy in them. If your DM doesn't have a problem with you casting the spell as a cleric of Pelor, he or she shouldn't have a problem with tweaking the flavor of it a bit to better represent your character's positive energy focus.
pigknight 04-14-08, 07:21 PM	Harm is going to come to the guy anyway, so might as well be through a harm spell.
SolEiji 04-14-08, 10:07 PM	If there's an issue of the negative energy thing conflicting with the character concept, think of it from the perspective of each person having a balance of positive and negative energy within them - rather than put negative energy into them, you're sucking the positive energy *out* of the targets (denying them Pelor's warmth/blessing/love/whatever), thereby causing them to suffer because they're imbalanced, and now have "excess" negative energy in them. That's.... quite an awesome way to look at it. :D And, just to support that idea, positive energy can be baneful to the living as well. Take a trip to the Positive Elemental Plane and see what happens when you have excess life force. All the more reason to argue that living beings need a bit of negativity in them to keep them solid and stable, so negative energy is not only not evil, but natural in order for life to be.
Zog_Jakome 04-14-08, 10:11 PM	Harm is going to come to the guy anyway, so might as well be through a harm spell. well put... I am the DM and as the DM I am unsure if I would let a cleric like this pray for the harm spell. even though I control the cleric meaning I roll the dice for him and move him and talk for him, pray for his spells, the players usually have some influence over him. Who gets the divine favor? or the healing. or the benefit or woe of the spells I cast. it's kind of like rubbing a cat the wrong way, they don't like it but they don't do anything about it therefore you see nothing wrong with it. (at least my cat doesn't do anything about it.) I have no choices for other good 6th level spells anyway so it might as well be this one.
JulesCARV 04-14-08, 10:28 PM	I would take the view that an extremely pious, devout cleric of Pelor probably won't cast harm except in very unusual circumstances... but a typical "good enough," rough-and-tumble, treasure-seeking, ogre-smashing, adventurer cleric of Pelor is probably fine with it. Pelor understands that some people can walk a path of pure devotion and principle, but others must be pragmatic (without crossing the line into ruthlessness). Better to get your boots muddy than let weeds overrun your garden, even if it would be nice if you could keep your boots clean all the time.:)
Salla 04-14-08, 10:50 PM	I am sure this has been asked before but... Harm uses negative energy and my cleric is an extremly positive cleric (with levels in radiant servant of pelor). I know it's not considered evil because it does not have an evil descriptor, but would Pelor frown on those who pray for Harm even if it is being used to harm evil creatures (no pun intended). Can't see why he'd complain. Postive and negative energy are not inherently good or evil (notice how exposure to too much positive energy kills you too).
groveborn 04-15-08, 03:07 AM	Harm cannot kill. Flame Strike can. How is Flame Strike any less evil than Harm? Negative energy just kills things, and grants unlife. Since you're not granting unlife, kill things effectively. The rules, which govern the gods themselves, indicate that the character may do this, even if the character is disinclined to do it.
zeratulcraft 04-15-08, 03:37 AM	Harm can kill easily, it's 3.0 harm that left you with 1d4 HP.
Nezkrul 04-15-08, 09:19 AM	if it doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor, then casting the spell is not an evil act. The manner in which it is cast, or the situation that warranted its need, is what dictates whether it was an evil act, or a neutral act. Pelor's fine with neutral acts, afterall, he is NG.
Eerongal 04-15-08, 09:25 AM	in my opinion, pelor is probably one of the hardest deities to justify a harm spell, since pelor greatly hates the undead, which are animated by negative energy, which harm of course is. However, I'm sure pelor with his mighty deific brain can understand that even the most devout follower needs to smite sometimes. Now, if it was Heironeous, he'd probably be like "smite away, my child"
groveborn 04-15-08, 12:51 PM	Ah, I never noticed the fine line there. If the creature saves, then it can't be killed by harm. Nice. Still, no worse than Disintegrate.
StruckingFuggle 04-15-08, 01:40 PM	It's an interesting quirk of religion that no matter how peaceful or benevolent a god is, praying for the power to lay the smack down on infidels is never a bad thing...:D Heh. Nevermind that Pelor is an angry and smitey martial god that is neither peaceful nor benevolent when it comes to laying the smack down on evil, especially upon undead, too. :P in my opinion, pelor is probably one of the hardest deities to justify a harm spell, since pelor greatly hates the undead, which are animated by negative energy, which harm of course is. Granted, but Harm doesn't create undead. Undead != Negative Energy. Sure, you can't have the undead without the Negative Energy, but you can easily have Negative Energy without having or even coming close to having or creating Undead. It'd be kind of like a god who dislikes electric cars being against lightning bolt. Personally, I see no problem with it at all. Harm's not [evil], and it's not really any more "evil" then Flame Strike. Though by the way, if you're going to do that with Harm, you'll need to do it with the Inflict spells, too.
mvincent 04-15-08, 03:35 PM	in my opinion, pelor is probably one of the hardest deities to justify a harm spell, since pelor greatly hates the undead, which are animated by negative energyOddly, I would've thought Pelor would take more issue with a darkness spell. Also, the following spells are all Necromatic (and likely manipulate negative energy in some sort of manner): - Undeath to Death - Blindness/Deafness - Gentle Repose - Mark of Justice - Death Ward
pigknight 04-15-08, 06:43 PM	What about cure spells those are so necromancy (how to you conjure health).
Zog_Jakome 04-15-08, 07:42 PM	thank you for all of your input but I was not really talking about whether casting harm is an evil act. I was more worried about the negative energy part. The way I see it there are two kinds of good (besides chaotic and lawful) one good uses good means to take out an evil creature, they are extremely positive and would never utilize the things evil creatures use against us on them. the other good utilizes evil means to take out an evil creature mostly because in their eyes evil things hurts evil creatures more than good does. They justify becoming undead to take out a powerful evil creature. They sacrifice themselves to destroy evil. most good creatures are the former because it is what is expected of them. sometimes good people don't care what is expected of them and do whatever it takes to destroy evil. My cleric is the former kind of cleric, only holier, gooder, or what have you. hmmm maybe I should reconsider, I just realized destruction is also in the same boat and I have been using that for a while now. but I justified that by saying destruction does not use negative energy. basically let me put it this way, you must be evil (or neutral) to use negative energy to rebuke the undead and spontaneously cast inflict spells. does this information change anything?
groveborn 04-15-08, 08:28 PM	thank you for all of your input but I was not really talking about whether casting harm is an evil act. I was more worried about the negative energy part. The way I see it there are two kinds of good (besides chaotic and lawful) one good uses good means to take out an evil creature, they are extremely positive and would never utilize the things evil creatures use against us on them. the other good utilizes evil means to take out an evil creature mostly because in their eyes evil things hurts evil creatures more than good does. They justify becoming undead to take out a powerful evil creature. They sacrifice themselves to destroy evil. most good creatures are the former because it is what is expected of them. sometimes good people don't care what is expected of them and do whatever it takes to destroy evil. My cleric is the former kind of cleric, only holier, gooder, or what have you. hmmm maybe I should reconsider, I just realized destruction is also in the same boat and I have been using that for a while now. but I justified that by saying destruction does not use negative energy. basically let me put it this way, you must be evil (or neutral) to use negative energy to rebuke the undead and spontaneously cast inflict spells. does this information change anything? Evil done in the name of good is always evil. This is spelled out not only in real world literature, but also in D&D rules. Channeling negative energy isn't evil by nature, it's just not "good". The good ones prefer to heal. Since this is a question about D&D rules, by RAW, no spell not of [evil] is evil, unless used to do evil. It's just not a problem.
Nephlite 04-15-08, 08:54 PM	thank you for all of your input but I was not really talking about whether casting harm is an evil act. I was more worried about the negative energy part. The way I see it there are two kinds of good (besides chaotic and lawful) one good uses good means to take out an evil creature, they are extremely positive and would never utilize the things evil creatures use against us on them. the other good utilizes evil means to take out an evil creature mostly because in their eyes evil things hurts evil creatures more than good does. They justify becoming undead to take out a powerful evil creature. They sacrifice themselves to destroy evil. most good creatures are the former because it is what is expected of them. sometimes good people don't care what is expected of them and do whatever it takes to destroy evil. My cleric is the former kind of cleric, only holier, gooder, or what have you. hmmm maybe I should reconsider, I just realized destruction is also in the same boat and I have been using that for a while now. but I justified that by saying destruction does not use negative energy. basically let me put it this way, you must be evil (or neutral) to use negative energy to rebuke the undead and spontaneously cast inflict spells. does this information change anything? Blackguards use cure spells: they love postive energy. Only spontanousity cure/inflict and turning care about negative energy in that way. D&D doesn't outside that sphere.
zeratulcraft 04-15-08, 09:05 PM	Oddly, I would've thought Pelor would take more issue with a darkness spell. Also, the following spells are all Necromatic (and likely manipulate negative energy in some sort of manner): - Undeath to Death - Blindness/Deafness - Gentle Repose - Mark of Justice - Death Ward Undeath to Death strikes me as one that would be a permanent in a Pelorian clerics list.
Zog_Jakome 04-15-08, 10:22 PM	Undeath to Death strikes me as one that would be a permanent in a Pelorian clerics list. undeath to death is a really weak spell for clerics, by the time you get it the undead you fight are immune to it and anything under that can be easily destroyed by fighters or can be turned by you and destroyed. only if you plan on fighting hordes of weak undead would this spell be useful. and even then at this level I would much rather choose something else and use mass heal or sunburst. anyway this isn't a rules question I know by rules there is no problem it's more of the moral thing would a cleric that channels positive energy via class abilities pray for a spell that channels negative energy?
pigknight 04-15-08, 10:28 PM	Cure/Inflict spells are not good are evil. You can heal the BBEG and you can also hurt him.
Salla 04-15-08, 10:42 PM	anyway this isn't a rules question I know by rules there is no problem it's more of the moral thing would a cleric that channels positive energy via class abilities pray for a spell that channels negative energy? Neither positive or negative energy are inherently aligned, so there is no moral issue. All that matters is the purpose to which you put said energy.
SolEiji 04-16-08, 12:47 AM	On the mention of rebuking vs turning.... As I understand it turning is "scaring them/destroying them with a show of positive force". And rebuking would be "awing them/controlling them with a show of negative force". If you accept the argument that it's not the type of energy that matters but how you use it, the problem is shown that you've using life energy to make those evil undead your loyal followers, or at least really impressed. And you're not trying to win their favor, which is what rebuking is to me, you're trying to smite the hell out of them. Winning the favor of such inherently evil beings seems like it would be a bad thing to me, and unrelated if you used negative energy to achieve said result.
JulesCARV 04-16-08, 02:56 AM	Okay. I think that we all see that this isn't an alignment issue. We've all told Zog_Jakome that harm isn't aligned plenty. The question is more specific to Pelor qua positive energy-obsessed sun god, not Pelor qua good-aligned deity. To use a different example, say that a bunch of gnolls are hiding in a dense jungle, occassionally raiding poorly defended settlements to abduct infants for sacrifice to Yeenoghu. Say you're not a cleric of Pelor, but of Ehlonna instead. Attempts to flush the jungle out have been met with failure -- the gnolls are masters of guerilla warfare. One approach would be to defoliate the area, leaving the gnolls no place to hide. In the open, the gnolls could be fought on terms more favorable, ending the raids and infant sacrifices. Good thing, right? Right. No alignment issues -- but Ehlonna isn't a generic NG deity; she's a goddess of nature, woodlands, etc. Defoliating a jungle to get rid of the hiding place of vicious gnoll murderers may be good, but it's antithetical to the wilderness and such. An NG cleric of Pelor might have no problems with that approach, but an NG cleric of Ehlonna might have big problems with it. Zog_Jakome's concern seems to be that, while some NG deities might have no problems with casting harm on evildoers, Pelor might. I think that this is a reasonable concern. I certainly don't think Pelor would strip a cleric's powers for using harm, but I think it does make a fair bit of sense to say that its use is looked down upon. Certainly, I think that there are many good level 6 cleric spells besides harm. Maybe the best solution would be to try to give up harm, in character and out, using other level 6 spells instead. If you find harm too useful you could relapse, in and out of character, into using it. It's not a mortal sin to use harm as a cleric of Pelor, but it's not desirable. Think of it as the equivalent of a health conscious person who can't stop smoking that last cigarette per day, especially under stress: it's not the worst thing in the world, but it does kinda suck, and might cause some anxiety and shame. Or at least that's my take.
Zog_Jakome 04-16-08, 04:10 AM	... Or at least that's my take. and it is my take as well thank you for clearing that up, couldn't have said it better myself. Also I asked my friend this very same question he has been a devout cleric of pelor before and he usually is the cleric and he has been playing longer than I etc etc, here is what he has to say... "Yes, he would. All priests are supposed to have some kind of "code of conduct", it's in the class description, not a lot of people follow it, but it is why the class kicks so much ass, people say it's unbalanced when they don't realize how easily a DM can put restriction on it and they should,, it makes the cleric fun to play and makes them all different, so every cleric is not the same." now with that said I think I am going to change my harm spell to word of recall it allows me and anyone/thing I touch to be teleported to a specific location, besides I have enough damaging spells.
Damned slayer 04-16-08, 09:19 AM	What about cure spells those are so necromancy (how to you conjure health). that was back in 2nd ed for the OP take a look at exalted (BOED) it might be what your looking for
WarpigX 04-16-08, 12:52 PM	now with that said I think I am going to change my harm spell to word of recall it allows me and anyone/thing I touch to be teleported to a specific location, besides I have enough damaging spells. Good call. The role playing of a character can be just as fun as playing the game itself. It took me a while to figure this one out. Clerics can be alot more fun when you develop an idea of how they wish to adventure within their alignment/religion. A real life example would be cheating on your spouse or on tests, etc. Is it illegal, no, but would you teach your children to live their life the same way? Would you like to be known as that type of person? Would the teachings of Pelor show his disciples how to use negative energy? Clerics of Pelor are the hated enemies of the undead. Though Negative Energy is not "evil", it is the life force of your enemy. Clerics of Pelor would use the forces of light and good to destroy them and set an example for others to follow. They would never preach or rely on negative energy, but take a higher road. Just my 2 cents.
Damned slayer 04-16-08, 01:32 PM	Good call. The role playing of a character can be just as fun as playing the game itself. It took me a while to figure this one out. Clerics can be alot more fun when you develop an idea of how they wish to adventure within their alignment/religion. A real life example would be cheating on your spouse or on tests, etc. Is it illegal, no, but would you teach your children to live their life the same way? Would you like to be known as that type of person? Would the teachings of Pelor show his disciples how to use negative energy? Clerics of Pelor are the hated enemies of the undead. Though Negative Energy is not "evil", it is the life force of your enemy. Clerics of Pelor would use the forces of light and good to destroy them and set an example for others to follow. They would never preach or rely on negative energy, but take a higher road. Just my 2 cents. do you infuse negative energy to your target or do you drain it's positive energy? Negative energy ain't about undead undead must have negative energy but about all debuff spells are negative energy in some way
Zog_Jakome 04-16-08, 07:07 PM	it says it in the spell description ... "harm charges a subject with negative energy"
zeratulcraft 04-17-08, 04:44 AM	Flavour is always mutable.