Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bluangel1201 10-23-07, 01:13 AM	My character is: Class - Cleric Alignment - Choatic Good Deity - Corellon Larethian Domains - War and Protection I know I can't go against my alignment. But that in its self is the question. My DM and I are having a disagreement about the necromancy spells. I understand on my spontaneous spells I have to use cure. No problem there. He is saying for example that the spell Harm is going against my alignment just because it says necromancy in the descriptor. I say it doesn't say evil behind it so I should be able to use it. That it isn't going against my alignment since it doesn't say evil. Same for the Inflict Wounds spells. He says I can't use any of those. I am doing what he wishes but I would really like your thoughts on the whole thing. I would really like to know if my understanding of this is really off base or if it is him.
Merestil Haye 10-23-07, 06:56 AM	Your DM is misunderstanding the rules. The rules say that you cannot cast a spell of an alignment opposed to your own. The SRD's take on this :Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions. For a spell to be an evil spell, it must have the [Evil] descriptor. Death Knell and Blasphemy do have the [Evil] descriptor. You may not cast them. Inflict Light Wounds and Harm do not have the [Evil] descriptor. You may cast them. Fundamentally there's no real difference between subjecting a character to Harm and sticking a sword in them - they are both doing damage. Thus if casting Harm is evil, so is attacking something with a weapon. When all is said and done, your DM can rule how he likes. He is fully entitled to houserule - but should understand that it is a houserule and not what the rules actually say.
bluangel1201 10-23-07, 12:26 PM	Thank you very much for replying to my question. I truly do appreciate it. Thanks again.
Nephlite 10-23-07, 12:33 PM	My character is: Class - Cleric Alignment - Choatic Good Deity - Corellon Larethian Domains - War and Protection I know I can't go against my alignment. But that in its self is the question. My DM and I are having a disagreement about the necromancy spells. I understand on my spontaneous spells I have to use cure. No problem there. He is saying for example that the spell Harm is going against my alignment just because it says necromancy in the descriptor. I say it doesn't say evil behind it so I should be able to use it. That it isn't going against my alignment since it doesn't say evil. Same for the Inflict Wounds spells. He says I can't use any of those. I am doing what he wishes but I would really like your thoughts on the whole thing. I would really like to know if my understanding of this is really off base or if it is him. Your DM is probably thinking of the line: Channeling (spontanously) negative energy is evil. Which is basically saying why Good Clerics spoontanously cast Cure spells. If he does try to say this: Point out that a Evil Divine caster known as Blackguard gets Cure spells on spell list in DMG.
Eerongal 10-23-07, 12:49 PM	i think your DM is assuming [necromancy] = [evil]. It does not. There is nothing inherently evil about a necromantic spell. There is innate evil in an [evil] spell.
Axiomatic_vampire 10-23-07, 02:01 PM	Your DM is misunderstanding the rules. Fundamentally there's no real difference between subjecting a character to Harm and sticking a sword in them - they are both doing damage. Thus if casting Harm is evil, so is attacking something with a weapon. You could also say there's no difference between sticking a sword in someone and summoning a demon to do it for you, except there is a difference. Evil is being intentionally brought into the world. It comes down to the DM's view of what negative energy is. Are undead inherently evil, or just an example of using negative (neutral) energy to an interesting effect? There are decent arguments both ways. That said, if a DM is going to houserule that all negative energy is irrevocably evil, you get to know that upfront. Fair is fair.
JacobReed3 11-07-07, 09:24 PM	The question of weather or not your cleric can cast these spells is moot. The spell Harm for example is in the cleric, spell list and the [Evil] descriptor is not listed next to it. Thus a good cleric can cast Harm without braking any rules. But your DM is not totally out of place... Channeling or using negative energy is an evil act. Likewise channeling or using positive energy is a good act. This is listed in several areas of the PHB and DMG. It does not matter for what reason or how the energy is used it is an evil "ACT" to cast harm regardless of the alignment of the cleric. When a good PC often preforms evil "acts" , then they should expect to have their alignment shifted. A PC that constantly uses negative energy could even move to an evil alignment. Look at it this way. Think of something truly evil, slaughtering a child for example. There is no question that this is evil. A cleric knows channeling negative energy is evil. As a cleric is a preparation caster they choose what spells they wish to prepare for a day, basically holding the spell in their head until they are ready to cast it. In much the same way you could say, a good cleric preparing a harm spell is effectively holding the though of killing a child in their head. They are both evil acts and even if the PC does not cast the spell they have premeditated the act and are awaiting for the right time to use it. Now the level of evil is debatable, for example I would not consider 1 harm spell equivalent to child murder, but both acts are evil. Alignment changes are common and a good DM enforces them when they are needed. You could run your PC as a True Neutral cleric without problems. Corellon Larethian may not favor when your PC casts negative energy spells but so long as your PC does not shift to the evil alignments your PC should be fine. The best way to keep form shifting evil is to cast an equal or higher positive, energy or [Good] descriptor spell on a creature or NPC outside of your party. For example an injured farmer along the road or even better use positive energy to destroy undead. However this method should not work while in a good alignment. A good PC should not be aloud to rationalize an evil act based on their intent to preform a great good act or their history of good acts. The reason it is best to use your "balance" spell(s) on a NPC or creature outside of your party is that it shows your expending resources to maintain a neutral alignment rather then benefitting your PC by keeping the party heathy the same way an Evil villain would rationalize helping his underlings. Simply if your PC is a good cleric that preforms an evil act once every few weeks of game time there realy should not be a major problem. If you find your PC preforms an evil act most every game your PC should not be good. If you find your PC preforms evil acts all the time they should be evil. Jacob Reed
PhaedrusXY 11-08-07, 01:18 AM	Channelling negative energy = rebuking undead. That is all. It does not include casting Inflict spells. It is just one of those stupid, ambiguously worded things in the rules that should have either been further clarified, or left out entirely.
Neutronium_Dragon 11-08-07, 04:50 AM	> it is an evil "ACT" to cast harm regardless of the alignment of the cleric. It is not. If it was, Harm would have the [evil] descriptor. Channeling negative energy in the sense of turning/rebuking is evil. Creating an undead creature from it is evil. However, not all uses of negative energy are evil - most direct damage spells that use negative energy do not have the descriptor.
JacobReed3 11-08-07, 09:41 PM	I know my posts have focused on negative energy more so then necromancy. A friend form work indicated the issue revolved more around negative energy then the necromancy school. To my knowledge there is no one line or section that segregates or links evil and negative energy. There is however an immoderately, overabundant amount of references associating evil and negative energy. The negative energy plane is described as a barren, void of darkness without end that sucks the very life out of anything. Not exactly the bright ray sun shin that would be considered anything remotely good. In most descriptions of negative energy it is characterized as hostile, malicious, detrimental, or opposing good in some way. Evil is characterized as hostile, malicious, detrimental, or opposing good in some way. This is yet another example where people are interjecting an alternated interpretation of a narrative so as to change it’s meaning and make it fit an influenced need. Retrospectively what I am saying could be considered the same but stay with me on this. It is like saying halflings and half giants are hereditary related because they are both “half,” or assuming all half races are the product of human relations with another spices. This raises serious questions about centaurs. Although unlikely there is nothing saying an elf and a dwarf could not have a hideous child. What is lightly defined is determined fact through popular interpretation rather then the writers intent. Likely the Wizards Co. does not come right out and say “negative energy is evil” because negative is already a description of bad and evil in the real world. Check out your dictionaries negative describes evil. I can’t say why the writers did not described this consept in better detail but as a game writer myself I believe it is one of those things that just should not have to be scrutinized. Negative and evil both mean bad or doing wrong. English allows for alternate meanings of many descriptive words but if a game writer wrote what they meant by every, little description in a book then the PHB would be a 30lb book about two feet thick. If you do something negative to another person in real life did you preform a good act? Likely not. Likewise would you consider yourself a good person if your “good” actions or (spell casting) drew power form darkness, hostility, anger, or negative energy? If this is so then a neu/good hero who had to stop an evil army, in a desert setting, could poison all wells in the villages near the army. If you ignore the “how” the act of stopping the evil army was good? Alignments are a set of morals. Morals reflect not only the goal but the “how” part of getting to the goal. Cleric compose their spells list based on their alignment. They would not cast a spell that would be considered against their morals in part or whole. Additionally a good cleric would not cast any spell (good / bad) that would be considered participating in an evil act anymore then they would stand idle when doing nothing could be considered evil. Example; allowing a good NPC to die just because they want to save their spells in case they have to fight before the end of the day. The true answer is that your DM is not right and he is also not wrong. Ultimately if your DM makes the link between evil and negative then that is the way it should be. Since D&D did not define their description in an intricate detail then declaring negative and evil separate could be considered just as much a house rule as declaring them linked (according to some). A DM should always look at every issue both ways before declaring how an aspect of the game will effect their campaign. Another thing is your DM may have incorporated various, cultural differences and laws (all of which is allowed by the core rules and would not be considered a “house rule”). Several D&D story books have references to kingdoms that outlaw an entire school of magic (commonly necromancy or evocation) or even all forms of magic. When it comes to something that is not well defined like this the term “house rule” can be used as slander to say "This way is right and your way is wrong." Several people may be against a concept and arbitrarily dismiss it as a house rule rather then a campaign setting. :cool: Campaign settings are anything that is optional or not well defined (not against the rules). :P House rule is the dirty little classification to define things against the rules and your DM cross that line here. Your DM should look at all the facts and make the assessment that fits their campaign. Facts 1) The D&D rules do not directly link or segregate evil and negative energy in any one sentence or section. *to my knowledge* 2) The rules do associate evil and negative energy in an massive quantity! 3) There are negative energy spells that do not have the [Evil] descriptor. 4) Evil is summed up as doing something bad to another living things. 5) Negative energy is used to do something harmful to living things. 6) The word negative is defined as “opposing good” by the English speaking world 7) It is your DM’s world. 8) Cultural ideology or interpretations for the concepts of good and evil are not considered “house rules.” They are considered campaign settings. Jacob Reed Games are best when you can relate.
Zathress 11-08-07, 10:57 PM	"Negative energy is not good or evil it is simply death, as positive energy is life, It is only natural for negative energy to destroy life it is its very fundamental nature. However powers of death are far more easily manipulated to evil then powers of life. It is when negative energy is used to twist life or make mockery of it that it becomes evil for you have defiled the nature of death. ” —Bob the Necromancer Count the necromancy spells(most often the ones using negative energy) in the PHB how many are evil? Animate dead create undead create greater undead. Eyebite Contagion Symbol of pain Notice a pattern, negative energy spells and necromancy are only evil when the spell involved the creation of undead or the infliction of pain. The vast majority of necromancy spells have no such alignment labels. Spells that simply damage, weaken or out right kill aren't evil. Its spells that cause pain, suffering and involve the creation or empowerment of undead that are evil. Following that spells that summon evil creatures and a few others. Negative energy is death energy of course it sounds bad. Negative energy was about as nice as they could put it.
BaseDeltaZero 11-08-07, 11:18 PM	Negative spells are not necessarily evil, nor is negative energy. It's the energy of decay and entropy, and many people think of it as evil, but it's really not - it's just a force. To my knowledge there is no one line or section that segregates or links evil and negative energy. There is however an immoderately, overabundant amount of references associating evil and negative energy. The negative energy plane is described as a barren, void of darkness without end that sucks the very life out of anything. Not exactly the bright ray sun shin that would be considered anything remotely good. In the likely event you haven't noticed, the Positive Energy Plane pretty much just vaporizes everything - pretty much all of the inner planes are not nice places to be for most people. Check out your dictionaries negative describes evil. I can’t say why the writers did not described this consept in better detail but as a game writer myself I believe it is one of those things that just should not have to be scrutinized. Negative and evil both mean bad or doing wrong Watch out for those evil anodes! Necromancy is the magic of death and life. Just because a spell is of the necromancy school does not make it an evil spell. However, if he's running an active deities campaign, and your god forbids it, you can't use it as a cleric.
okpokalypse 11-08-07, 11:37 PM	Wielding Negative Energy is not Evil, though it may be frowned upon by one's Deity. Channeling Negative Energy (as is used in Rebuking Undead) is considered Evil (PHB p.160). However, Spontaneous Casting in itself is not considered "channeling negative energy," it's "channeling stored spell energy into..." Spontaneously Casting Inflict Spells itself is not Evil, it's just that only Evil (Or Neutral) Deity's allow it. If it WERE an Evil Act, there would be no such thing as a Neutral Cleric as spontaneously casting would immediately sway them towards Good or Evil. However, a Neutral Cleric that does enough turning / rebuking will eventually see an alignment shift over time. Harm should be perfectly safe unless you're restricted from Necromancy Spells for some reason... And if your DM gives you issues with that, I suggest you liberally cast Last Judgment when you get Level 8 Spells. It only targets Evil Opponents (despite being Necromancy). Combined with a DMM Maximize, Maximize Rod or Sudden Maximize, it's the best Evil Enemy Killer out there. After all, how many enemies do you often run into that can take 18 Wisdom Damage (And that's if they MAKE the save) and either not be at 0 Wis (Unconscious) or Bereft of Spells (All Clerics / Druids)? And it's multi-target.
blade265 11-09-07, 02:20 AM	Q: Dear Sage Necromancy sounds evil. Are all the necromancy spells available to good-aligned spell casters? --Corey A:First of all, most necromancy spells aren’t considered “Evil,” at least as far as the game rules are concerned. The game rules only care whether a spell has the Evil descriptor, such as animate dead. That said, most spellcasters aren’t prevented from casting spells with the Evil descriptor, nor do they suffer any penalty or ill effect for doing so. Only certain classes have restrictions or ramifications involved with using spells with an alignment descriptor, and those are clearly spelled out in the class descriptions. For example, clerics and druids can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his or his deity’s (if he has one). A neutral good cleric of Moradin couldn’t cast spells with the Evil descriptor (because that’s opposed to both his and his deity’s alignment). Even though the cleric himself isn’t lawful, he also couldn’t cast spells with the Chaotic descriptor, because that’s opposed to Moradin’s alignment of lawful good.
Omegas 11-19-07, 09:56 PM	First of all many of you have not fully understood or even read what others have posted. Some of you are crossing the borders of (can something be done) with (would or should it be done) and then tying assuming that there is no ill effects when it is allowed. The sad thing is that most of this is spelled out in the Play’s Hand book. I’ll walk you all through this and I suggest you read it all and refer to the pages I point out. LOL If I am wrong I also suggest you find the page number and section(s) where it directly opposes what I am saying and prove it, otherwise your only blowing hot air up someone’s tail pipe. Also like me you are probably all just DMs or players and have not authored any D&D book(s). Acting as if you know the answer by play gating words and basing your statements on opinion gets you nowhere. Step up and prove what you say, this he said she said crap is (crap.) One thing I know really well is alignments and the way they effect a character. This thread hinges on alignments and it is that aspect which is being improperly represented. Too few DMs properly moderate character alignments with the acts the character preforms. This is how so many DMs fail their players in a major way. ______________________________ Lets start. What spells are truly restricted to a cleric? Are there good or evil spells that do not have good or evil in the descriptor? Are there any penalties for casting spells as part of a good / bad act? Lets start with what the Player’s Hand Books says. Pg 32 Spells “However, his alignment may restrict him from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs; see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below. A cleric must choose and prepare his spells in advance...” This sentence states that there are spells that a character will be restricted from due to their alignment. However the word “may” appears which indicates there are exceptions and his moral or ethical beliefs are brought forward as a factor of the restrictions. This is important and I will explain later in the How / Why section of my post. This also points out that the cleric is a preparation caster. Later I will explain why a cleric can not even prepare restricted spells. Pg 33 Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells “A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his or his deity’s. Spells associated with particular alignment are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptor in their spell descriptions." This defines that there are spells that are directly linked to an alignment and no matter how they are cast the outcome is considered alignment based. Now we have a direct list of spells that a cleric can not cast which are indicated by an alignment [disciptor]. But what about preparation and is this the whole limit of restricted spells? ______________________________ Preparation of Spells Pg 169 First paragraph, describing Mialee’s preparation of spells. “As she concentrates, she all but finishes casting each spell that she prepares.” Pg 32 Spells last paragraph “Clerics do not acquire their spells from books or scrolls, nor do they prepare them trough study Instead, they meditate or pray for their spells,...” In the example of Mialee it tells us preparing a spells is just like casting a spell. So this would prohibit a cleric form preparing a spell that is restricted to them. This point might seem foolish but if a cleric is restricted by more then [descriptor] spells then restricting the preparation of spells is a major point. The How / Why section will explain why. Also without determining this a cleric would be allowed to prepare even the spells restricted by a [descriptor], which could have it’s uses. The Spell section on page 32 only indicates that the method of preparing a spell differs. The cleric still all but completes each spell in the preparation, knowing it’s nature and effect in advance. Before determining weather or not a cleric is further restricted from casting some spells we must address the effects of alignments on a character. There are two very important but separate factors that have to be addressed, the rules behind alignment restricted spells and the rules behind the alignment of a character. ______________________________ The How / Why Pg 104 First Paragraph “Choosing an alignment for your characters means stating your intent to play that character a certain way. If your character acts in a way more appropriate to another alignment, the DM may decide that his alignment has changed to match his actions.” This passage indicates two points very specifically. A character’s alignment is the sum of a character’s current actions. It changes based on the (ACTS) the player has their character preform. Secondly the DM has the power to change a character’s alignment. This can be seen as a punishment, especially if it forces a character to leave an alignment that is a pre-requisite of a class their character is advancing in. Why is it important to monitor alignments? When a DM does not moderate alignments they allows a player to manipulate many items, spells, abilities, classes, and roll playing. This takes away from the game in a major way as characters are no longer restricted by their actions, giving them full rain to abuse the nature of their alignment. When completely ignored it is possible to see characters such as a paladin-assassin or a rogue-monk who can wielding several alignment restricted artifacts, just because they have a convenient change of heart as needed. Now this is an exaggeration, but when players are allowed to manipulate alignments in the smallest manner they can gain several abusive advantages. Just being unaware of these advantages can also create a hollow victory for the players. Characters that ignore their alignment by wearing it like an unimportant title instead of their moral and ethical beliefs are less than characters that have advanced while truly living up to their alignment. DM’s that don’t care about alignments just fail their players, it is as simple as that. To determine if an action should effect alignment you have to ask how and why it was preformed. How is the method of the action, basically the steps a character preforms to completer a goal. The why is the reason or purpose for performing the action. If either how or why opposes a characters alignment then a DM should note the action and keep track of how often the character preforms similar actions. The exception to this is the neutral characters. Neutral character don’t always care (how) they accomplish an action. A neutral good character does not care weather or not their good acts where supporting lawfulness or chaoticness. It would only matter to their alignment if the action had a law/chaos goal (aka - why). The same is true of a chaotic neutral character. The character would not care weather their actions where preformed in a good or evil manor so long as the actions had chaotic end. There is no set number of acts or defined method of determining how far a player can abuse an alignment before it is time to change their alignment. It is left to the DM’s judgment to determine when a character has crossed the line. The only tool given the DM is to match the characters actions with one of the alignment description and find one that better fits the character. Pg 104 to 106 (NOT A RULE) Commonly Accepted Alternatives Most DM’s that monitor character alignments follow the concept of <(10)>. Ten acts that oppose your characters alignment move the character to neutral in respects of good vs evil and law vs chaos. Meaning if a character starts out as Lawful good and steals repeatedly they move to Neutral Good not Lawful Neutral. Usually only one act per day is applied to a characters alignment unless they go on a self-destructive rampage of opposing their alignment. While in the Neutral alignment 10 acts of good, evil, lawful, or chaos move the character into the alignment based on their actions. Neutral characters also cancel out opposing actions on a one for one basis. Also only the most dominate action of the day can be applied, even if it is in a direction the player is trying to avoid. Example so far a neutral character has commited 6 good acts. If they commit an evil act they now have 5 good acts instead of 6. If they commit a grater act of good then evil in the same day they increase the good instead. Not my first choice but it is simple and this is a very popular method. However your DM decides to draw the line it is completely up to them. Two more very important things to keep in mind, good players need to grasp the concept that they are not judge, jury, and executioner. They should attempt to bring villains to justice and not just slaughter them. Also not all villains are evil. A good character can oppose a good villain. Many times there are no good choices so we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, or simply good people can be forced to oppose you and it is very bad to kill them. ______________________________ Now applying alignments to casting spells. We can determine the (why) portion of alignment effects right now. When a neutral bard cast cure on an undead creature, they have preformed a good act. The goal was to destroy the undead aka [Good]. A good cleric cast cure on a villain to keep them form dying. This too is a good act. Preventing the death of living creatures aka [Good]. The (how), on the other hand, is more complicated as it also include any spell that is prepared or cast as part of an evil/good or lawful/chaotic act. [Descriptor] spells are obviously pointed out, but the most notable non [descriptor] spells are those that channel positive or negative energy. Pg. 160 Neutral Clerics and Undead “Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.” Although this is in the turning section of the Player’s Hand Book, it is making a bold statement about channeling positive or negative energy. So far this only applies when energy is being channeling but it is defined as a good / evil act and thus it can effects the players alignment. I can see why so many would want this to only apply to turning but as it is writen it applies to all forms of channeling. Those that say other wise only want it to mean something it does not, and if it had stated "when channed for turning" they may have been right but it doesn't. I looked into what it means to channel energy and this is what I found- Pg.32 Spontaneous Casting “A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that the cleric did not prepare ahead of time.” This is one of the few description of channeling. It described channeling as converting one spells energy into another spell energy, but it is still a form of channeling If we flip to the cure spell Pg.215 Cure light wounds “When you lay your hands upon a living creature, you channel positive energy...” This shows there is a link between casting and channeling and the conversion of energy is defined. All cure spells are positive energy. When not cast as a spontaneous spell it still channels positive energy. The inflict spells are the same way for negative energy on page 244. Pg.159 Turn or Rebuke Undead “Good clerics and paladins, and some neutral clerics can channel positive energy, with can halt, drive off (rout), or destroy undead.” This shows that channeling can be used for more then casting and converting spells but it also shows once again that channeling is energy and alignment specific. Pg.209 Chill Touch Spell “Each touch channels negative energy that deals...” This is an arcane spell not among the cleric spell lists. This would confirm that channeling is a vital element of casting spells, and it is not limited to only divine casters. As there are spells that use good/evil acts as part of the casting this points out the importance of why preparing a spell is the same as casting a spell. These spells violate the (how) of alignment acts and preparing them is the same as committing the act. When preparing spells that do not violate the (how) the caster can not know, ahead of time, weather or not they will use these spell in an immoral or unethical manor. It is also important to remember that the effect of alignment acts (not alignment spell restrictions) are limited to the character and not their deity alignment. ______________________________ Positive and Negative Energy Pg 316 & 317 Index “negative energy 159, 160" “positive energy 159, 160" When attempting to find information about a (term) the best explanation is given on the page numbers listed in the index. Many (terms) are included as part of another section that is not dedicated to the term. The only real description of positive and negative energy is given in the turn undead section on the pages listed in the index. Thought it does not directly state positive energy as being good or negative energy as being evil it does link the act of channeling the energy as a good or evil act. This accompanied with the tight restriction of the energy’s use based on a cleric’s alignment, and what we have learned from channeling, would indicate that the use of negative is an evil act and positive is a good act for the purposes of effecting alignment. However; the (why) of positive and negative energy use is the reason for not restricting these spells. You can use an evil act to accomplish something good. This does not make it a good act but the moral and ethical choice of why it is used is up to the character. Unlike the spells, abilities, actions that can not be used for any other reason (good, evil, law, & chaos) which are the ones that are restricted by [descriptors]. This is also why it is much easier to play a cleric in the neutral alignments. Morally and ethically a neutral cleric is not bound by good vs evil or law vs chaos. They balance their life with both (good /evil) or/and (lawful/chaotic) acts. Though personally I would restrict the conversion of positive to negative and negative to positive energy by a neutral cleric. Though this is not absolutely conclusive it is supported (in part) by the commonly asked questions. Good clerics have the choice to cast Harm, and Inflict spells. They are not restricted from these spells, but as I have pointed out with channeling, in bold print, there is a moral consequence associated to the act. ______________________________ Necromancy Pg 201 Astral Projection Can’t find anything inherently evil in this necromancy spell. Pg.210 Clone Again nothing directly evil. Here are two examples of necromancy spells, nether directly evil. This pose that necromancy can be used for good. There is however a very limited number of good uses of necromancy spells compared to the larger number of harmful effects. Cloning being illegal in the real world and the large number of harmful spells I can see why this is the most commonly outlawed school of magic. ______________________________ Conclusions A cleric may not cast/prepare opposing [descriptor spells] A cleric has the choice to cast/prepare spells that are part of an opposing alignment act. If a cleric cast/prepare these spells they take the risk of losing their alignment. There is always a risk of losing alignment for preforming any act opposing your alignment. Preparing spells is the same as casting spells, so it may effect your alignment. Channeling negative/positive energy is a good/evil act that may effect alignment. This applies to all forms of channeling. Alignment, spell restrictions and alignment acts are separated and connected in different ways. It is not directly stated that positive and negative energy is good or evil. It is suggested that they are. (DMs choice) Necromancy has not, thus far, be declared as evil. ______________________________ Final answer Learn to tell the difference between alignment restrictions and acting against an alignment. Learn what is considered an act that oppose alignment. Experiment with abusing alignment to see how powerful ignoring them can be. Read all 9 description of the alignments given on pages 104-106 for each player and ask yourself if this is how their character has been acting. Do the same for any questionable spell, ability, or item effect. Try to find a single good effect to negative energy or an evil effect to positive energy. Try looking at every argument in a different way before jumping to conclusions. And most immortally Prove your statements. When it comes to clerics they have a moral choice on what spells to prepare and cast. Most will protect their alignment by choosing and casting spells for reasons that are not opposing their moral beliefs. They can still oppose their alignment with any non [descriptor] spells, but at a risk. ______________________________ I have done my homework and I am tired of hereing Jacob rant about these BK mesage bourds, day in and day out. I have to work with him. Sorry Jacob. He is probubly one of the most insightful D&D know it all, I have ever met. DMs have been mucking up alignments for years. He is right you are wrong otherwise prove it. PROVE IT USING THE BOOKS. No more second guessing, prestent your text. And learn to read the whole post not just what you disagree with.
risner 11-20-07, 12:45 AM	Alignment - Choatic Good My DM and I are having a disagreement about the necromancy spells. I understand on my spontaneous spells I have to use cure. No problem there. He is saying for example that the spell Harm is going against my alignment just because it says necromancy in the descriptor. Your DM is confused. You can't cast spells listed as [EVIL] but you can cast Necromancy spells. Your DM is preventing you from using some useful spells: Astral Projection Gentle Repose Mark of Justice Speak with Dead Undeath to Death All of those spells are useful cleric spells of good aligned clerics.
JacobReed3 11-20-07, 06:40 PM	Thanks for the complement but I would not classify myself as a “know it all.” There is always a different way to look at an issue. Plus I would not say I “rant,” I may not care for these message boards but I do not obsess over them. Spontaneously Casting Inflict Spells itself is not Evil, it's just that only Evil (Or Neutral) Deity's allow it. If it WERE an Evil Act, there would be no such thing as a Neutral Cleric as spontaneously casting would immediately sway them towards Good or Evil. However, a Neutral Cleric that does enough turning / rebuking will eventually see an alignment shift over time. Your being a little idealistic with this statement. Only just the one ability? Clerics are tied to good and evil acts. Turning undead is no less of a good act then sacrificing a spell to save someone’s life. Furthermore the basic rules of literature would disagree with you. The passage about channeling, on page 160 of the PHB, makes a statement that pertains to the act of channeling rather then just the turning undead ability. The syntax applies the statement to all forms of channeling. Actually Josh put the subject of “how and why” an act can change alignment, very well. He gave a good example of aligment shifting and how it effects neutral characters. He also posed the best example of why some spells have descriptors and other do not. “You can use an evil act to accomplish something good.” Simply stated but it is true. Morals play a large part of “why” we preform actions, or in this case “cast spells.” A spell that has any possibility of being used for a good act will not have an evil descriptor. What I would like to know is where some of you are getting this negative energy = death energy, nonsense. I have never seen any such reference. I looked through the Fiend Folio and Libris Mortis and a number of other books. I can not find any reference that would suggest that negative energy is a non-bias form of death energy. Every references I have found suggest evil. At one point negative energy was consider pure, malicious evil and positive energy was considered untainted, wholesome goodness. What baffles me is why this concept was ever question or changed. Was it only to satisfy the BK stature of popular demand on these boards? I would say that is a pathetic reason. If this is true, it would imply that there are too many lazy DMs who do not care or bother with their PC alignments. I have a few questions for you bluangel1201, Josh... I should refer to him as Omegas so that everyone knows who I am talking about. Omegas has not said anything bad about your game, infact he does the “rant” of glee being able to play again instead of being a DM, so it is hard to grasp the concept of your game. Does your DM roll play at all? Is there a story line that requires you to do anything other then fight? Jacob Reed Aspire to greatness, even if the greatness is only a quest to open the determined pickle jar.
okpokalypse 11-21-07, 01:45 AM	Your being a little idealistic with this statement. Only just the one ability? Clerics are tied to good and evil acts. Turning undead is no less of a good act then sacrificing a spell to save someone’s life. Furthermore the basic rules of literature would disagree with you. The passage about channeling, on page 160 of the PHB, makes a statement that pertains to the act of channeling rather then just the turning undead ability. The syntax applies the statement to all forms of channeling. I partially agree, but you're actually off on the rules literature. It specifically states, "Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil." Notice it says channeling positive energy, not wielding negative energy. Whereas Spontaneous Casting is concerned, "... channel stored spell energy into healing spells that the cleric did not prepare ahead of time." The same holds true for inflict. It's channeling stored spell energy - not channeling positive / negative energy. Now in the case of Harm, the description never actually states "channel negative energy" (it's "charges a subject with negative energy") - and I realize that's a lawyer trick because every other inflict / cure - including Heal itself has such verbage. However, when it really boils down to it, the use of energy itself should never be the deciding factor in something being a good or evil act. It's what's done with it. A Cleric who casts a Cure Minor on himself to heal his last HP (out of say, 150) and lets his companions slip deeper into negative HP as they lay unconscious has just committed a very selfish and potentially Evil act if those allies die when they could have been saved. A Cleric who Harms a Necromancer (who's been kidnapping townfolk, killing them and turning them into undead) has done an exceptionally good act. Now, would you say that a Necromancer is committing a good act by Healing a Blackguard? How about a Blackguard fighting a Paladin - who is protecting a bunch of little kids who the Necro wants to turn into zombies? It's sensical that channeling negative energy in the act of creating / commanding undead is evil. Undeath itself is defined as Evil. But at the same time, one can wield negative energy for a good purpose. I like to think of Negative and Positive energy in today's terms as a Bose-Einstein Chamber [Negative] and Nuclear Fusion [Positive]. Once is a great vaccuum of energy - the Bose-Einstein Chamber is cooled to nearly 0 Degrees Kelvin with 'klumpy atoms' in a pseudo-void and actually slows light to under 40 MpH. If one were to theoretically expose their flesh to it, it would likely sap all the heat and energy right from you - akin to what the concept of negative energy is. The other is something we're all more familiar with. Abundant energy that can power the universe. Without Nuclear Fusion we have no Sun - and thus no life within this Solar System. Through it's light and heat it imparts all the positive energy that make our existence viable. What I would like to know is where some of you are getting this negative energy = death energy, nonsense. I have never seen any such reference. I looked through the Fiend Folio and Libris Mortis and a number of other books. I can not find any reference that would suggest that negative energy is a non-bias form of death energy. Every references I have found suggest evil. Negative Energy is defined in the back of the PhB: "A black, crackling energy that originates on the Negative Material Plane. In general, negative energy heals undead creatures and hurts the living." As far as the energy goes, the Manual of the Planes is a good definition of it. Negative Energy is a void, drawing in all heat, light and life. It can never be quenched. Positive Energy is the opposite. Both are actually very hostile on their native planes. Imagine dying in the void of Space vs. being throw into the Sun. If you own the Book of Vile Darkness, I suggest you review the "Evil Acts" section. In particular, it lists... - Worshipping Evil Gods / Demons - Animating / Creating Undead - Casting Evil Spells It does not list the use of Negative Energy - which is how I've always played it. Of course, there's many other things listed. It's actually quite exhaustive, and at times, a bit nit-picky - listing things such as Greed, Vengeance and Lying. These are all things common "good" adventurers often do to get the job done. After all, do adventurers donate their loot back to the family it was taken from? Do they hunt down those who've done their brethern harm, often outside the law? Do they lie when it suits them, always for "the greater good." Hells yes they do! (This makes me believe the omission of channeling negative energy to the list - and adding animating / creating undead was very intentional) Again, this is why I find just the use of it as being evil as wrong. I'd almost like to talk to the guy who wrote that little blurb about channeling negative and positive energy on p160 of the PhB and simply say, "didn't you mean to add 'when it applies to undead' on at the end?" After all, is casting Chill Touch an act of Evil because negative energy is involved, but Magic Missile is just fine because it's force? And don't get me started on "Circle of Death" - which has no negative energy connotations and is not effectively evil - though it solely damage living creatures and is thus ineffective against undead?
MoltenDm 11-21-07, 04:46 AM	I'd think about this, YES they arent "Evil" spells but not being evil doesnt make them good..Poison for instance, the spell isnt evil but using poison is Evil sience suffering is involved and some may say sticking a sword is the same thing but we all know it isnt, SO the question is..Is it still ok to use them? After thinking about it i didnt feel comfartable using Poison with my Cleric of Heironeous even if it wasnt Evil to do so..Maximized Poison :weep: (in my case it took me an hour with Book of Exalted deeds to realize what was good and what wasnt) Your Elf may not be a Paladin but he is still good isnt he? Using Negative energy isnt evil?! Bah! we all know it is..Using evil energy against an evil creature doesnt make it good, show me a Heal vs a Lich! thats good, Using this type of methods against evil is a Neutral Pc's choice not a Good one IMO (even if it sucks)
okpokalypse 11-21-07, 09:58 AM	I'd think about this, YES they arent "Evil" spells but not being evil doesnt make them good..Poison for instance, the spell isnt evil but using poison is Evil sience suffering is involved and some may say sticking a sword is the same thing but we all know it isnt, SO the question is..Is it still ok to use them? After thinking about it i didnt feel comfartable using Poison with my Cleric of Heironeous even if it wasnt Evil to do so..Maximized Poison :weep: (in my case it took me an hour with Book of Exalted deeds to realize what was good and what wasnt) Your Elf may not be a Paladin but he is still good isnt he? Using Negative energy isnt evil?! Bah! we all know it is..Using evil energy against an evil creature doesnt make it good I was with you until you said the portion above that I bolded. You're not looking at it objectively. You've already made up your mind. You don't even call it negative energy - you just outright call it "evil energy" - which is wrong. Negative Energy is, in essence, a void. It sucks all heat, light and life into it. Think of it as Space, but even more intently, a Black Hole in Space. Positive Energy is, in essence, a star. I gives off heat, light and essentially, is the first step in the process of life. It's is the prime source of energy, before the elements are involved - when it's raw and untamed. Neither are inherently Evil or Good. They're just the opposites of one another. It's a very basic rationale to assume that which we like is good and that which we don't like is evil - but that's a mistake. Look at Matter v. Anti Matter. Are either good or evil? Absolutely not - but one is incredibly deadly to us and will annhiliate us (as matter) if we come in contact with it. Does that make it evil? No. show me a Heal vs a Lich! thats good, Using this type of methods against evil is a Neutral Pc's choice not a Good one IMO (even if it sucks) Umm, Show me Heal vs. a Demon or Devil... What's arguably more Evil? You're looking at it the wrong way. Just because Harm Benefits a Lich doesn't make it Evil. Harm also kill creatures from the lower planes as well as those who create undead (necromancers). Harm / Heal doesn't work for or against Good / Evil - they counteract Life / Undeath respectively. You're confusing Positive and Negative energies with Holy and UnHoly energies - which ARE Good and Evil. Holy Energy hurts all Evil Creatures, Evil Humans, Lower Planar Creatures and Undead alike. It doesn't hurt Good Creatures. It is, by nature, Good - because it's only effective against it's opposite. Holy & UnHoly energies originate from the Higher / Lower planes, not the Inner Planes - which is where Positive / Negative Energies as well as Elemental Energies come from. Negative Energy should be no more Aligned to Evil than Fire or Cold - which are a great parallel to Positive & Negative Energies. Cold, Like Negative Energy, does damage by draining heat (thus, life) from it's target. Fire, Like Positive Energy, does damage by adding excess heat to it's target. Show me Polar Ray vs. a Lich... It does nothing. Does that make Cold Evil?
MoltenDm 11-21-07, 03:17 PM	I said Evil energy on porpuse actually, i had refered to it as negative energy before but I said evil energy because it is to me and that was my point. The Heal vs Lich comment was to show that a good character doesnt have negative energy at his disposal but rather positive energy that effects the foulest creatures and thats their Harm, using Positive energy to damage Evil creatures is the way to go for a Good character and if it isnt undead well though luck find another way, D&d tends to make it simple enough it doesnt really go objectively unless you want it to and they were the ones that tied Shadow and Negative energy as evil i think - even if its only a life sucking source :rolleyes: But when you're right you're right Okpakalypse I guess negative and positive just go as black/white, Holy/Unholy in my book, that is my simple outright way to play dnd and it doesnt really mean i think so, just my character's way of thinking, thats why i asked him to put himself in place of his character which can be less subjective when living in a world of literally Good and Evil.
Omegas 11-26-07, 05:52 AM	You don't even call it negative energy - you just outright call it "evil energy" - which is wrong. Negative Energy is, in essence, a void. It sucks all heat, light and life into it. Think of it as Space, but even more intently, a Black Hole in Space. Positive Energy is, in essence, a star. I gives off heat, light and essentially, is the first step in the process of life. It's is the prime source of energy, before the elements are involved - when it's raw and untamed. Neither are inherently Evil or Good. They're just the opposites of one another. It's a very basic rationale to assume that which we like is good and that which we don't like is evil - but that's a mistake. Only if you intentionally overlook how it is used. Again without proof you assume it is non-bias through your own interpretation or omission of a factor. There is no positive effect to how negative energy is used. In all uses of negative energy a harmful outcome occurs. In your example you are describing the inner plains. Positive Energy is, in essence a star??? That is not the discription I got. If it where a non-bias form of energy, then by your example evil could manipulate it to be detrimental. Lets apply bacteria to your interpretation. We live symbiotically with a host of outright, deadly things. On average every human being has 3 to 13 non-hazardous illnesses all the time. The determining factor that makes these illnesses passive is that our immune system is either outright stronger or it simply works faster then the bacteria. Now by your definition, a deranged caster could create a spell that used positive energy to surpass our immune system by making the bacteria stronger. If Positive energy was non-bias it would not care which life it enhanced, but positive energy is not used that way. There are evil spells such as eye bite and contagion that create or fester illnesses but unlike these spells positive energy has never been used in this way. Positive energy is bias or at least the use of positive energy is. There is no example of positive & negative energy being non-bias. If there is prove it. Point out the page and section. Also your point on heat and cold being linked to positive and negative energy is unfounded and distorted. You might as well be linking sonic and force energy to positive and negative energy. You need examples that are directly linked to the issue. If your example was to compare energy properties you would have a point but your trying to link two energies. By your standard we don’t need heat/fire energies/damages its all summed up in positive energy. It specifically states, "Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil." Notice it says channeling positive energy, not wielding negative energy. Whereas Spontaneous Casting is concerned, "... channel stored spell energy into healing spells that the cleric did not prepare ahead of time." The same holds true for inflict. It's channeling stored spell energy - not channeling positive / negative energy. Now in the case of Harm, the description never actually states "channel negative energy" (it's "charges a subject with negative energy") - and I realize that's a lawyer trick because every other inflict / cure - including Heal itself has such verbage. Right here I can tell you did not read ALL of my post. Ok lets address the spontaneous casting first. When I gave the example of spontaneous casting it was to point out a description of channeling, but lets roll that ball now that your on it. Granted spontaneous casting does channel [spell energy] and not the for mentioned positive or negative energies, but into what???? The book says cure and inflict spells, and as you pointed out they channel negative and positive energy. There is no lawyer trick to it is written in black and white. However, when it really boils down to it, the use of energy itself should never be the deciding factor in something being a good or evil act. It's what's done with it. Why not? Lets look an example I heard. Say a caster created a spell that is a “cure all” to every ailment and could remove any detrimental effect from a character while restore them to full heath, even replaced severed limbs or bringing them back to life. If part of the spell required the caster to twist the head off a kitten and paint a rune on the victim’s forehead with the kitten’s blood, could the spell be consider [Good] or part of a good act. Saving lives is good but I would like to get the opinion of the kitten before determining if how the spell is cast can be considered good. How any action is preformed is just as important as why. If you think otherwise ask anyone in prison who willingly committed a crime for a good reason. How many murders where to prevent the victim form abusing someone. Newspaper, 3 nights ago, mother of 4 kills husband for beating her children in a drunken rage. Why - She saved her kids, how - by murdering her husband. How may scenarios do I have to give before you all grasp that how you do something is just as important as why. I can do this all day. Your also confusing Choas vs Law with Good vs Evil. That alignment grid goes 4 directions that is why there are 3 good, 3 evil, 3 choatic, and 3 lawful alignments. I once again suggest you read the aligment section in the players hand book. Good people do lie, lawful people not so much.
DiceGolem 11-26-07, 11:05 AM	Why not look at it from another angle? Positive energy is not good. Demons can get cured by their cultists all day, and the cultists won't have a change of heart. An evil cleric can cure his blackguard accomplice with no fear of feeling all goody-goody. Creating undead is evil. Summoning fiends is evil. These are specifically listed by the [Evil] descriptor in the spell description. Casting a cure spell is neutral, because it is not inherently a good or evil act. A cure spell is used for the betterment of life, whether or not that life is good or evil. If a cure spell is not a [Good] spell, then an inflict spell cannot be an [Evil] spell because they are diametrically opposed. Choosing which of the two energies to infuse yourself with is a good or evil action because you are choosing how you will interact with undead. Creating and maintaining undead is evil. Choosing to rebuke undead is evil. Choosing to spontaneously cast inflict spells is evil. Casting an inflict spell is neutral. Negative energy destroys or harms life. So does any number of energies. Storm of Vengeance is not an evil spell, it's just destructive. Similarly, Implosion is not an evil spell. Both effects are hostile, dangerous, and extreme ways of bringing ruin down upon someone, but they are not inherently evil in themselves. Using a Storm of Vengeance to destroy the approaching demonic hoards is a good act. Using a Storm of Vengeance to destroy the approaching celestial forces is an evil act. When there is no [Good] or [Evil] descriptor to the spell, the circumstances of each spells use dictate whether or not it's a good or evil act. Casting Harm on a lich is an evil act, because it furthers evil in the world. Casting Heal on a Demon is just as evil, because you're still furthering the forces of evil in the world. Casting Harm on schoolchildren is an evil act, just as is casting Flame Strike instead. Casting Harm on the demon, however, is definitely a good act. Dominate Person is not an [Evil] spell, and casting it does not bring evil into the world, but it has the potential for causing evil deeds. Dominating a good character to help old women cross the busy street is, arguably, a good act. Negative energy is not evil, although, like dominating, it has the potential to do evil things. Casting inflict is not an evil act, but who you target with the inflict may swing it either way. Mass inflict light wounds is just as evil as Whirlwind Attack.
Nephlite 11-26-07, 01:22 PM	Why not look at it from another angle? Positive energy is not good. Demons can get cured by their cultists all day, and the cultists won't have a change of heart. An evil cleric can cure his blackguard accomplice with no fear of feeling all goody-goody. Blackguards can cast cure spells so there goes them being aligned.:D
okpokalypse 11-26-07, 03:03 PM	Only if you intentionally overlook how it is used. Again without proof you assume it is non-bias through your own interpretation or omission of a factor. There is no positive effect to how negative energy is used. In all uses of negative energy a harmful outcome occurs. In your example you are describing the inner plains. Positive Energy is, in essence a star??? That is not the discription I got. If it where a non-bias form of energy, then by your example evil could manipulate it to be detrimental. The bias you're inferring is incorrect. You state that "there is no positive effect to how negative energy can be used." Well, that's just perposterous. Harming a Demon or Devil? You don't get more Evil than lower-planar creatures, and something that destroys them is in fact doing good. By the same token, an Evil Cleric can Heal his Demon Cohorts all day long. Lower planar creatures benefit from Heal just fine - and they will continue to do more Evil because of it. Remember, that willingly Aiding and Abetting Evil is in itself Evil. Heal therefore can be used for Evil There is no example of positive & negative energy being non-bias. If there is prove it. Point out the page and section. You're right - there is a bias, but it's not Good v. Evil. It's towards Life / Death. Life is not always Good, just as Death is not always Evil. It's a common assumption - but an incorrect one. That's why Harm will injure Demons, but acts as a Heal for the Undead. Because they're creatures of UnDeath, in essence, dead creatures powered by Negative Energy in a Mockery of Life. If you want Aligned Energies, again, look towards Holy & UnHoly. They ARE what you assume Positive and Negative Energy to be. Also your point on heat and cold being linked to positive and negative energy is unfounded and distorted. You might as well be linking sonic and force energy to positive and negative energy. You need examples that are directly linked to the issue. If your example was to compare energy properties you would have a point but your trying to link two energies. By your standard we don’t need heat/fire energies/damages its all summed up in positive energy. I never linked them, I said they're parallel, as in... "anything parallel or comparable in direction, course, nature, or tendency to something else." I don't know what your background in physics is, but the definition of how Positive and Negative Energies act upon creatures in D&D are quite similar to how Heat and Cold act upon matter. From the Manual of the Planes: Positive Energy It is power incarnate. It is radiance beyond compare. It is life realized to the fullest. The Positive Energy Plane is best compared to the heart of a star. It is a continual furnace of creation, a domain of brilliance beyond the ability of monal eyes to comprehend. Its very being wavers and ripples as new matter and energy is born and swells to full power like a bursting fruit. It is a vibrant plane, so alive with itself that travelers themselves are empowered by visiting it. Negative Energy It the blackest night. It is the heart of darkness. It is the hunger that devours souls. The Negative Energy Plane is a barren, empty place, a void without end, and a place of empty, endless night. Worse, it is a needy, greedy plane, sucking the life out of anything that is vulnerable. Heat, fire, and life itself are all drawn into the maw of this plane, which hungers for more. Positive Energy is Life. Negative Energy is the Absence of Life. It draws all Life Energy to it just like Cold draws Heat into it. Cold doesn't really exist (in a physical sense), it's just how we rationalize the absence of Heat. The parallel between positive / negative energies and heat / cold should be quite clear. Taking enough Heat (Life) from a living Creature damages it and will eventually kill it. Similarly, taking enough Life from a Living Creature will eventually kill it. This won't affect a creature of UnDeath because it is not Living. Too much Heat in great abundance upon a living creature acts similarly to how the Positive Energy Plane does towards foreign inhabitants... "Despite the beneficial effects of the plane, it is one of the most hostile of the Inner Planes. An unprotected character on this plane swells with power as positive energy is forcefed into her. Then, her mortal frame unable to contain that power, she immolates as a small planet caught at the edge of a supernova. Visits to the Positive Energy plane are brief, and even then travelers must be heavily protected." Right here I can tell you did not read ALL of my post. Ok lets address the spontaneous casting first. When I gave the example of spontaneous casting it was to point out a description of channeling, but lets roll that ball now that your on it. Granted spontaneous casting does channel [spell energy] and not the for mentioned positive or negative energies, but into what???? The book says cure and inflict spells, and as you pointed out they channel negative and positive energy. There is no lawyer trick to it is written in black and white. The Hoover Dam "channels" Water Energy into Electricity. If you live on the West Coast, chances are you're using "Water" Energy channeled into Electricity to power your PC. To the Contrary, if you live in the NorthEast you're using primarily Coal power, which is "Fire" (Heat) channeled into Electricity. How we utilize the Electriciy does not dictate the channeling of Water or Fire energy into it as Good or Evil (although, perhaps our environmental morality does). Similarly, one can take Electricity and use it as Electric Current, or utilize implements that channel it into Heat (Fire) or use it to break down Chemical Elements and harness them to create various forms of Acid (Earth). One can use Electricity to start a Fusion Reaction (Positive Energy) or power a Bose-Einstein Condensate Chamber (Negative Energy). Why not? Lets look an example I heard. Say a caster created a spell that is a “cure all” to every ailment and could remove any detrimental effect from a character while restore them to full heath, even replaced severed limbs or bringing them back to life. If part of the spell required the caster to twist the head off a kitten and paint a rune on the victim’s forehead with the kitten’s blood, could the spell be consider [Good] or part of a good act. Saving lives is good but I would like to get the opinion of the kitten before determining if how the spell is cast can be considered good. How any action is preformed is just as important as why. If you think otherwise ask anyone in prison who willingly committed a crime for a good reason. How many murders where to prevent the victim form abusing someone. Newspaper, 3 nights ago, mother of 4 kills husband for beating her children in a drunken rage. Why - She saved her kids, how - by murdering her husband. How may scenarios do I have to give before you all grasp that how you do something is just as important as why. I can do this all day. I don't know how this became part of the discussion quite honestly... All I said was "It's what's done with it" as it pertained to energy use being Good or Evil. Sorry I didn't say "what and how" - silly me, I thought all the standard questions were implied by the singular what. Let me expand the thought in case you want to address it further... It's not the energy one wields, but the how, what, when, where, why and for and/or against whom one might use it that determines if it is Good or Evil. Better?
JacobReed3 11-27-07, 09:58 PM	You could not be more wrong. The bias you're inferring is incorrect. You state that "there is no positive effect to how negative energy can be used." Well, that's just perposterous. Harming a Demon or Devil? You don't get more Evil than lower-planar creatures, and something that destroys them is in fact doing good. By the same token, an Evil Cleric can Heal his Demon Cohorts all day long. Lower planar creatures benefit from Heal just fine - and they will continue to do more Evil because of it. Remember, that willingly Aiding and Abetting Evil is in itself Evil. Heal therefore can be used for Evil It is obvious you understand that the outcome of an action has effects on alignment but you have failed completely to understand that it is just as important to alignment how you preform that action. Your stance is based on an assumption that someone can justify any action if the outcome is within an alignment. You really need to get your facts strait. Your example of using harm on a devil is a prime example of "preposterous." Plus you spelled preposterous wrong. I have to wonder what the word "good" means in your mind. According to D&D, and most of the world, it means the respect of life. As asked, in this thread, I will prove it for you. Lets see... PHB - Page 104 good vs evil bottom left of the page. "Good" Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Evil implies hurting, oppression, and killing others. Some evil characters have simply no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Skipping ahead - People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Lets investigate your devil example by asking, how good could a PC be if they killed a weak and helpless devil? Take it a step further, like Omegas' examples, helpless baby-devils or how about helpless, baby devils protected by an innocent human. I suppose by your standards it would have been better to kill Hellboy as a baby. Good people do not handout punishments based on the possibility of something doing evil acts in future. Your morals are your own and you are allowing them to distort the D&D alignments. Good characters do everything in there power to avoid killing. They only kill, or in your words "destroy," when there is no other option. I know exactly what Omegas was talking about with the kitten example. Any action, considered to be good, that was born of an evil act can not be considered good regardless of the outcome. I will simplify it for you, you can do something bad in order to do something good. It is evil to kill anyone even a Necromancers bent on turn children into undead. Let me put your opinion into an example. Your walking along and see an old man with a bag of cookies. As you walk a little further you see a hungry child living on the street. According to you, it would be alright to mug, even kill, the old man just to give the hungry child cookies. The outcome = Feeding the hungry and homeless child How = You did not care. You have my pity, if you can not see the flaw in this simple example. Both Omegas and I have pointed out the basic (core rules) of alignment. I think we both showed you several reasons why you need to read or re-read the alignment section of the PHB. Your assumptions about alignment are poking holes in your posts about the rules. This is a fictional game and we are restricted my the core rules. Your assumptions are not rules and in order to make a point you need to find the link that connects your opinion to the actual rules. Your examples of positive and negative energy are nothing more then examples of the positive and negative inner plains. BaseDeltaZero called me out on this one, and he is right. An inner plain is not a description of an energy of the same name. As Omegas pointed out you have failed to "prove it." Your entire stance is based on assumptions and opinions. Your not providing any viable evidence. The Hoover Dam "channels"??? LOL This is what we call a mental botch. Hydroelectric and Coal power are both forms of kinetic energy. We harness the movement of stored energy in both forms. We do not change water into electricity. Try plugging in your tv into your bathtub. LOL If your going to use physics get your facts strait. Better yet in your case avoid using physics as examples, your hurting your argument. Cold and heat are factors in sustaining life but heat does not create life. Our vulnerabilities are not the forces that create life though they are strong factors in our deaths. Heat is nothing more then a byproduct of movement, and cold is the lack there of. Life can exist anywhere above freezing and below boiling, in many forms. Positive and negative energies are not connected to fire and cold energy in D&D. If they where, Burning hands would channel positive energy. Pertaining to the rules of literature, I assure you, every English book that has ever been printed is on my side. I am the son of an English professor. When I met my wife she taught the history of literature. I have well over 100 books just about the English, written word. Do you really want me take you back to the fifth grade and re-educate you? Jacob Reed
Omegas 11-27-07, 11:23 PM	Jacob Grrrr. I was just about to send a reply and you beat me to the punch. That was a waste of a hour. The Hoover Dam "channels"??? LOL This is what we call a mental botch. Jacob Reed Funny I notest this one too. Ill handle other two. Why not look at it from another angle? Positive energy is not good. Demons can get cured by their cultists all day, and the cultists won't have a change of heart. An evil cleric can cure his blackguard accomplice with no fear of feeling all goody-goody. A Neutral cleric of a neutral god can choose the good side of the force and be able to turn undead and Spon cure spells all day yet cast evil descriptor spells without effects until the end of time. This example is not proof of non-alignment effects it is proof that you overlooked the point. Cure can be used for evil but it is a good act none the less, because the caster has a choice of why. [Descriptor] spells no matter how or why they are used have a good/evil/law/chaos effect. A Black Guard that walks around curing every little henchman or NPC is not acting evil they are "goody-goody." A Black guard that cures a victim only to torture them further is being evil. Channeling positive energy may sicken and annoy a Black Guard but they can us the spell as part of an evil act. This is (why) they can use it an why it has an alignment effect. Black guards can not Spon cast cure spells or turn undead. They are forced to choose to prepare these spells. They have to morally choose to prepare cure spells. This is the root of all alignments. Repeatedly opposing your alignment means you loose it. Black Guards can cast cure spells and you missed the point. As Jacob said, your using assumption and opinions rather then facts. Follow my example and prove it. You have not provided opposing proof. Sorry to anyone getting this point the second time some people refuse to read.
tyrecian 11-27-07, 11:29 PM	They have to morally choose to prepare cure spells. hehe, i like this idea, but it can also be a really easy choice, like say... he wakes up and realizes he is being pursued by an adventuring party and wants to be able to heal himself after he fights the wizard so he can club the barb... :) not really ambiguous, although your example is more focusing on him healing others:)
Omegas 11-27-07, 11:32 PM	On the side what devil or demon has a spell like ability = cure Show me one that has a spell list that includes cure or a tactic that states devil cures henchmen as needed.
Omegas 11-27-07, 11:40 PM	hehe, i like this idea, but it can also be a really easy choice, like say... he wakes up and realizes he is being pursued by an adventuring party and wants to be able to heal himself after he fights the wizard so he can club the barb... :) not really ambiguous, although your example is more focusing on him healing others:) True; but the point is the spell heals through a good act. This is the how. If inflict had a material component of a fresh, human heart would there be any question of the how? I do thing there would be. Everyone would accept it as an evil act even if it did not have and evil descriptor. Inflict does not require a human heart but it does channel negative energy and the book does state that channeling negative energy is an evil act.
okpokalypse 11-28-07, 01:33 AM	Your stance is based on an assumption that someone can justify any action if the outcome is within an alignment. You really need to get your facts strait. Your example of using harm on a devil is a prime example of "preposterous." Plus you spelled preposterous wrong. Firstly are you seriously calling out a spelling mistake where two letters were reversed due to quick-typing? Not being one to take the high road this late at night... "You really need to get your facts strait." I need to get my facts "a narrow passage between two bodies of water?" Oh my... Homonyms do pose quite a challenge, don't they? Also, nothing you stated prior to pointing out the misspelling is factual. It's nothing but your own opinion, which isn't exactly of the highest standard at the moment... Quick Clear Up: - I don't think ends justify means as it pertains to D&D. - I don't adhere to energies, even positive and negative, being aligned. - I do agree that spells can be aligned, and cures / inflicts are NOT. I adhere to the idea that the statement under the Turn Undead section of the PHB pertaining to Neutral Clerics channeling negative energy being an evil act, and channeling positive energy being a good act is referring to utilizing Turn Undead, and not spells that may use such energies. Nowhere else is it stated that such use of these energies are aligned, not even under the energy descriptions themseves. Furthermore, the spells themselves which utilize these energies may or may NOT be aligned. To infer a rule pertaining to the channeling of positive and negative energies under a Sub-Subheading of Neutral Clerics and Turning Undead and apply it to spells which do not have an alignment descriptor, but have "channel" in the flavor text is questionable at best. A mechanic from another section discussing Turning Undead should not be applicable and override an existing machanic for Spells (Alignment Descriptors) which already denotes if such a Spell is inherently Good or Evil. I have to wonder what the word "good" means in your mind. According to D&D, and most of the world, it means the respect of life. As asked, in this thread, I will prove it for you. Lets see... PHB - Page 104 good vs evil bottom left of the page. "Good" Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Thank you. Good, according to the PHB, has 3 Directives. 1. Altruism (Selflessness). 2. Respect for Life. 3. Dignity of Sentient Beings. What happens when any or all of these are in conflict with the casting of Heal? An Evil Conjurer Healing the Demon he summons, who is battling a Paladin, is not being questionably Altruistic at best. He is not Respecting Life, for the Demon is looking to Kill the Paladin, and will go on a Controlled Murderous Rampage afterward - directed by the Conjurer. He does not care for the Dignity of Sentient Beings, because if he did, he would send the Demon back to the lower planes, not Heal it. What about Evil? "“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others." Could I infer from that, a Paladin who willfilly kills another has committed an Evil act? Would he lose all his Paladin abilities? Lets investigate your devil example by asking, how good could a PC be if they killed a weak and helpless devil? See Below... Any action, considered to be good, that was born of an evil act can not be considered good regardless of the outcome. So killing a demon about to kill an innocent child, in your world, is not a good act - because it was accomplished by killing, which according to the almighty PHB, is an Evil act? It is evil to kill anyone ... You sir, are incorrect. At least if you're not keeping your "Core Only" blinders on pertaining to acts of Good / Evil. From the BoED, p8 under the heading "Redeeming Evil" Of course, good characters recognize that some creatures are utterly beyond redemption. Most creatures described in the Monster Manual as “always evil” are either completely irredeemable or so intimately tied to evil that they are almost entirely hopeless. Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naïve fool would try to convert them. Evil dragons might not be entirely beyond salvation, but there is truly only the barest glimmer of hope. On the other hand, a good character approaches every encounter with orcs, goblinoids, and even the thoroughly evil drow with heart and mind open to the possibility, however remote, that his opponents might some day be transformed into allies. Creatures that are “usually evil” can be redeemed. If you're adhering Core, yes, then I guess in your world, by your standards, a Paladin killing a Demon about to eat a Child will have committed a willing Evil act, and will lose his Abilities. Remind me never to play in a game you DM ;). Let me put your opinion into an example. Your walking along and see an old man with a bag of cookies. As you walk a little further you see a hungry child living on the street. According to you, it would be alright to mug, even kill, the old man just to give the hungry child cookies. The outcome = Feeding the hungry and homeless child How = You did not care. Good attempt at twisting the Logic, but I don't agree with your stance. It's also funny that you use the old man in there. Know why? Because the CG example in the PHB is a Rebel Stealing from an Evil Wealthy Baron - supposing to take care of the downtrodden and good. I guess that staple concept of CG is actually Evil in your eyes, because the "How" he helps people doesn't matter. He'll lie, cheat and steal from those who are Evil. He'll kill those who are Evil in defense of those that are good. Both Omegas and I have pointed out the basic (core rules) of alignment. I think we both showed you several reasons why you need to read or re-read the alignment section of the PHB. Your assumptions about alignment are poking holes in your posts about the rules. This is a fictional game and we are restricted my the core rules. Your assumptions are not rules and in order to make a point you need to find the link that connects your opinion to the actual rules. Both you and Omegas have a serious chip on your collective shoulders - and a largely unfounded one I'm finding out based on these discussions. I think we've hashed over alignments more than enough. It comes down to this: If you play PHB Core Rules Absolutionism Good & Evil, the game is nearly unplayable without a certain amount alignment leinency when it comes to Paladins or any other class / PrC with a required Code of Conduct that prohibits willful Evil Acts. You yourself have said, "It is evil to kill anyone even a Necromancers bent on turn children into undead." That means in your world, one cannot be a Paladin unless they do nothing but do subdual damage and take prisoners. What's the point? This is why I've been arguing for the use of BoVD and BoED in defining Good and Evil acts, and flushing out the alignments through their applications as actions dictating the behaviors of such. You know what my favorite change from PHB to BoVD is? Killing got updated to be Murder. Killing is one of the most horrible acts that a creature can commit. Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like. The heroes who go into the green dragon’s woodland lair to slay it are not murderers. In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act. THIS makes sense in terms of a fantasy game setting. Not just that "Killing is Evil." Your examples of positive and negative energy are nothing more then examples of the positive and negative inner plains. BaseDeltaZero called me out on this one, and he is right. An inner plain is not a description of an energy of the same name. As Omegas pointed out you have failed to "prove it." Your entire stance is based on assumptions and opinions. Your not providing any viable evidence. I hate resorting to statements like this, but are you really this dull? If you can't piece together that the Positive Energy Plane is akin to a giant Sun, and that Positive Energy is akin to Light, Heat and Life energy - then you're hopeless. Oh, and I see homonyms are still getting to you, as are the contractions... The Hoover Dam "channels"??? LOL This is what we call a mental botch. No, this is what we call relating to the subject matter. Please note I put channels in quotations - signifying the loose interpretation of the event taking place. You want to talk Physics - lets go. It was one of my 3 Majors in College. Hydroelectric and Coal power are both forms of kinetic energy. We harness the movement of stored energy in both forms. WHAT?!?!?!?! Your statement of Coal being Kinetic energy is so elementary-school it's almost painful. Coal plants first utilize Thermal Energy to produce Mechanical Energy (which consists of the sum potential & kinetic energies stored within the framework) and is then realized as Electrical Energy. Do you even know what Kinetic Energy is? Do you know that most Hydroelectric Energy actually harnesses the Potential Energy of damned water? Hydro-Power schemes that utilize Kinetic Energy aren't nearly as efficient but in the most exceptional circumstances (read up on hydrokinetics). We do not change water into electricity. Try plugging in your tv into your bathtub. LOL If your going to use physics get your facts strait. Better yet in your case avoid using physics as examples, your hurting your argument. Pot, meet kettle. Before criticizing someone you should make sure what you're stating is marginally correct. Needless to say - it wasn't. Positive and negative energies are not connected to fire and cold energy in D&D. If they where, Burning hands would channel positive energy. Good Lord Man! I see your reading comprehension is about on par with your Physics knowledge. From my last post: I never linked them, I said they're parallel, as in... "anything parallel or comparable in direction, course, nature, or tendency to something else." I then explained the comprable tendencies. It is you who keep imposing links and connections. Daddy would not approve. Pertaining to the rules of literature, I assure you, every English book that has ever been printed is on my side. Wow - that's a pretty bold statement! Every English book that has ever been printed. Wow! I mean... WOW! I am the son of an English professor. When I met my wife she taught the history of literature. I have well over 100 books just about the English, written word. Do you really want me take you back to the fifth grade and re-educate you? Hey Buddy, just cause my dad was an Air Force chemical engineer who worked on the Apollo 11 project (he actually did - cool huh?) doesn't make me an expert in Chemical Engineering. My wife has a MA in South American & Hispanic Literature and taught at a University - that doesn't make me fluent in Spanish or understanding of their Literature. I am an expert in at least a few fields however. Those include: Philosophy as it pertains to Ethics and Logic (MA w/ Specializations) Computer Science (Algorithm Design Speciality) - 15 Years Experience. I am also very well versed in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and NCAA Football Stats. :p Though I would not classify myself as an expert on any of the latter. One thing I can tell you is that your argumentative style is atrocious. You'd have been laughed out of a debate for your repeated use of Straw Man, Appeal to Ridicule (which I now admit I'm guilty of myself because I just don't give a poop about trying to convince you anymore), non sequitur and cherry picking. You have yet to pose one truly convincing argument that positive and negative energy are aligned. Channeling them via Turn Undead may be aligned - but that does not state that the energies themselves are aligned. The definition of energies in the back of the PHB does not support them being aligned. You have yet to pose one truly convincing argument that Cures & Inflicts are aligned. The spells have no alignment descriptors - therefore the casting spells themselves are not aligned. The only thing that can align the act itself is how it is used, and we've exhausted that path with useless supposition and speculation.
okpokalypse 11-28-07, 01:42 AM	Cure can be used for evil Agreed! ... but it is a good act none the less, because the caster has a choice of why. [Descriptor] spells no matter how or why they are used have a good/evil/law/chaos effect. Cure spells don't have a descriptor. Look em up. That's why they're not Aligned. Look at Consecrate and Desecrate however. They both channel positive and negative energy and DO have alignment descriptors. I honestly don't get why people keep overriding this basic mechanic based on a blurb regarding Neutral Clerics in a Sub-Sub Section of Turning Undead. It's just daffy to me. ... A Black Guard that walks around curing every little henchman or NPC is not acting evil they are "goody-goody." I'd be hard-pressed to argue unless the henchmen was of an "always evil" alignment type. Then it's likely a neutral act at best. ... A Black guard that cures a victim only to torture them further is being evil. Channeling positive energy may sicken and annoy a Black Guard but they can us the spell as part of an evil act. Agreed in part. Why would it sicken him? Is that a mechanic, or are you just inferring the effect from a role-play standpoint?
okpokalypse 11-28-07, 01:54 AM	On the side what devil or demon has a spell like ability = cure Show me one that has a spell list that includes cure or a tactic that states devil cures henchmen as needed. Lilitu Demons have the Mock Divinity (Ex) power which allows them to prepare Cure Spells. The likes of Balors and Pit Fiends, the mightiest of the demonic hosts, do not have Cure/Heal spells, but neither do they have Inflict/Harms spells either.
okpokalypse 11-28-07, 01:45 PM	To infer a rule pertaining to the channeling of positive and negative energies under a Sub-Subheading of Neutral Clerics and Turning Undead and apply it to spells which do not have an alignment descriptor, but have "channel" in the flavor text is questionable at best. A mechanic from another section discussing Turning Undead should not be applicable and override an existing machanic for Spells (Alignment Descriptors) which already denotes if such a Spell is inherently Good or Evil. Yes, I'm quoting myself just to draw a parallel to the statement above. In the MM-I, a Core 3.5 Book, it states in the "Increasing Hit Dice" Section (Sub-Section "Size Increases"): "A size increase affects any special abilities the creature has that is affected by size, such as improved grab. Increased size also affects a creature's ability scores, AC, attack bonuses and damage values as indicated on Tables 4-2 and 4-3." Taking a small snip from Table 4-2, increasing from Medium to Large carries the following benefits: +8 Strength, +4 Constitution, -2 Dexterity, +2 Natural Armor, -1 Attack/AC. Now, when a Divine Caster employs Righteous Might, the spell functions as follows: "This spell causes you to grow, doubling your height and multiplying your weight by 8. This increase changes your size category to the next larger one, and you gain a +4 size bonus to Strength and a +2 size bonus to Constitution. You gain a +2 enhancement bonus to your natural armor." Now, are you saying that because there is another Core Mechanic to treat Size Increases a certain way, that the PC should get an additional +8 Str, +4 Con and +2 Natural Armor? Based on your logic in applying the text under "Turning Undead" Sub "Neutral Clerics Turning Undead" to be universal to all uses of Positive or Negative energy - be it via Magic Items, Spells or (as intended for the section) Turning Undead - it would fit that one should always benefit from the Size Increase Adjustment above in addition to the effects of the Spells themselves. Do you agree? Do you agree that this logic is right in making a Level 1 Spell (Enlarge Person) grant a cumulative +10 Strength, +4 Constitution and +2 Natural Armor for 1 Minute / Caster Level? I would hope you'd say no. Obviously, Spells that increase Size already take into account the Size Increase Factor as part of the spell's description. This is part of a Spell's Mechanics. The same thing applies to a spell's alignment descriptor when casting. Just because positive or negative energy is used via a spell does not make it good or evil - that mechanic has already been accounted for by way of spell descriptors. Examples of these are Consecrate and Desecrate being aligned, and Cures / Inflicts not being aligned.
DiceGolem 12-01-07, 02:46 PM	Anything with the [Evil] descriptor is evil to cast, regardless of circumstances. There are plenty negative energy effects that do not have the [Evil] descriptor, including all the Inflict spells and Harm. These spells are not evil. These spells, whose sole purpose is to call negative energy and infuse the target with it, are not evil. I agree with okpokalypse. Choosing to channel negative energy is a nongood act, but "channeling negative energy" only applies to a cleric's choice of spontaneous casting and turn-vs-rebuke. The spells already have their own system for determining which ones are good and evil. Circumstances tell us what is good and evil when the spell does not have an alignment descriptor. You can cause great suffering and harm with negative energy. Doing so is evil. But causing the same great suffering and harm with anything at all is the same evil. If the blackguard spends all his curing on his piddly minions it may be poor planning, but I wouldn't call it a good act! Without the circumstances to dictate, curing all those minions isn't D&D [Good]. What BBEG doesn't want their minions at full hit points when they fight the heroes? What BBEG doesn't want to make sure that their minions last for longer than their worth, drawing precious resources from his foes?
okpokalypse 12-02-07, 03:46 PM	Anything with the [Evil] descriptor is evil to cast, regardless of circumstances. There are plenty negative energy effects that do not have the [Evil] descriptor, including all the Inflict spells and Harm. These spells are not evil. These spells, whose sole purpose is to call negative energy and infuse the target with it, are not evil. I agree with okpokalypse. Choosing to channel negative energy is a nongood act, but "channeling negative energy" only applies to a cleric's choice of spontaneous casting and turn-vs-rebuke. The spells already have their own system for determining which ones are good and evil. Thanks DG. To me it's always been pretty clear, and once one starts to infer any Core sub-section's rules as globally applicable - the game gets ugly, and in some cases comes close to breaking (See the Size Increase thing a few posts above). I'm kinda disappointed that Jacob and Omegas have disappeared from this thread. I'd like to hear their take on that concept. Would they support using a Core Mechanic which causes Enlarge Person to grant +10 Strength and +4 Constitution in the same fashion they apply channeling negative energy to be universally applicable?
Eater_Of_Souls 12-03-07, 12:00 PM	Ban to use harm and others is there because your GM wants to limit clerics from coming too powerful, end of story. Anyway cleric has to follow the ethics of his god and last time I checked Corellion wouldn't mind having an orc "harmed" by one his priests.