• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Inflict & Harm spells - Evil??

Arilon

Explorer
Artoomis said:
"Channeling" positive or negative energy refers to turning checks only.

Actually, this is is not completely true. Clerics can channel positive or negative energy for other uses. I believe the DMG gives an example of a cleric channeling energy to open a magically sealed chamber or some such thing.

While the game doesn't really list other uses, channeling is not limited to turning undead.

All that said, that doesn't change the fact in this discussion that inflict/harm spells are not evil, and cure/heal spells are not good.

Mark
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Mac Callum

First Post
UltimaGabe said:
Personally, I believe that the "Turning is always a good act" and "Rebuking is always an evil act" rule is a load of CRAP.

Personally, I believe that channeling the powers of un-life, of Negative Energy is always evil. You can have 'good' reasons for using it - but it is an absolute evil. You have brought something into the world which should not be.


John Q. Mayhem said:
Don't mind hong. Being abrupt makes him feel superior.

Damn it John, don't you realize that just by aknowledging hong you just give him a new tagline? Don't feed the hong!

Dang - now I've done it. :\

Luckily my post count is low enough with this new screen name that I'm probably not important enough to bother putting in the tagline. :p
 

Sejs

First Post
Personally, I believe that channeling the powers of un-life, of Negative Energy is always evil.

That being the same logic that gave Deathwatch the [Evil] tag in 3.5. It harms none, and is easily used for good purposes as, if not more often than bad ones, but the flavor text says it deals with the powers of unlife and is therefor evil.


Frankly, I just don't get it.
 
Last edited:


jerichothebard said:
EMPEROR
From here you will witness the final
destruction of the Alliance, and the end of
your insignificant Rebellion.

Luke is in torment. He glances at his lightsaber sitting on the
armrest of the throne. The Emperor watches him and smiles,
touches the lightsaber.

EMPEROR
You want this, don't you? The hate is
swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon.
Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it.
Give in to your anger. With each passing
moment, you make yourself more my servant.




If Luke had given in to his anger, and struck down the Emporer, thus eliminating one of the greatest villians in the galaxy (not to mention cinema history!), would that have been good? Or evil? The emporer seemed to think it was evil, considering that he was encouraging Luke to do it... Yet, he would have rid the galaxy of a great evil...

using evil means, to accomplish good ends, is arguably an evil act.


You kinda forgot the part where Luke DID take his sabre, and attempted to strike the emperor down. And Vader deflected it.

The Emperor was in no danger of being killed, and he knew it. He was just trying to tempt Luke into using his anger, and it worked, for the record.

It's not germaine to this discussion, but I felt the need to point it out.
 


UltimaGabe

First Post
Mac Callum said:
Personally, I believe that channeling the powers of un-life, of Negative Energy is always evil. You can have 'good' reasons for using it - but it is an absolute evil. You have brought something into the world which should not be.

Let's say two twin brothers are born to a pair of happy parents. Those parents lived in a small town that valued magic and honored dead ancestors, and were natural followers of Wee Jas. The two brothers grew up, almost exactly the same, except that one of them believed that everyone should be especially compassionate, and fight for the weak. The other had almost the entirely same views, except that he believed that justice was slightly more important than compassion, although both were important. The first brother was, of course, Lawful Good, and the other was Lawful Neutral. Aside from that, their personalities were nearly identical. They both grew up in the church, and became Clerics of their deity to honor their parents. However, when the two of them finally finish their acolyte training, they get out into the field, and brandish their holy symbols.

One of these two twin brothers holds out his Holy Symbol and calls out the name of his deity, performing an inherently good act. The other holds out his Holy Symbol and calls out the name of his deity, performing an inherently evil act. Every single time. Make sense?

Basically, it's a load of crap to force neutral clerics of certain deities (the deities themselves being Lawful Neutral as well) to perform duties that are "ALWAYS evil". A Lawful Neutral cleric of Wee Jas, regardless of how much he's shifting towards good, performs inherently evil acts all the time, according to the PHB. If he's in a group with a Paladin, what should he do? Refrain from helping out in a fight against zombies by performing his deity's wishes because some book says that it's evil?

I'm aware that there are quite a few instances where Rebuling and Commanding undead can be used to further evil plots (specifically, anytime an evil cleric does it) but the fact that it's not ALWAYS done by evil clerics defeats the rule. Take a sword, for instance- a sword can be used for evil. You can use it to kill, you can use it to steal, you can use it to torture. It, itself, is unnatural- hence the fact that druids aren't proficient with them. Depending on your point of view, one might even say that swords are abominations of existence, and if you had an especially radical nature-aligned mentality, one could say that swords are evil. They definitely perform as much evil as they do good in the long run. And yet, nowhere in any of the rulebooks will you find it said that using swords is evil.

Swords can be used for good and bad, and therefore it is not inherently good or inherently evil to use one. Rebuking and Turning should be the exact same way. True, they're commonly used to do specific good or evil acts, but sometime they aren't, and sometimes there's no choice (as in the Lawful Neutral cleric of Wee Jas example). Nobody should be restricted to only being able to do evil just because the makers of the game wanted people to always prefer good over evil.
 

Will

First Post
In my campaign, rebuking undead, animating undead, and certain spells are inherently evil, no matter what.

That said, even good clerics do evil from time to time. They also occasionally curse or break vows, and must atone. Life's a bitch.

Book of Exalted Deeds, however, has a number of interesting ideas. First, it explains that cure and inflict do not have good/evil tags for a reason, and outline some of the spells that do and why. Some spells are not evil because of what they do, but how.

If you made the 'magic missile composed of tortured children's finger bones,' it's no different than a regular magic missile. But it's evil.

Another cool thing in Exalted Deeds is the deathless... _good_ undead. Very nifty concept, and one I had sort of written into my campaign. One of the cleric types have the ability to animate dead, but as a non-evil act. The dead must be willing and fellow faithful, however. The functioning of the Deathless works, so I'm rewriting it a little to cover them.

I find the idea that all undead are evil annoying, since it goes against a lot of ancestor beliefs. (Dia de los muertos, anyone?) So I was happy to see it.
 

hong

WotC's bitch
UltimaGabe said:
One of these two twin brothers holds out his Holy Symbol and calls out the name of his deity, performing an inherently good act. The other holds out his Holy Symbol and calls out the name of his deity, performing an inherently evil act. Every single time. Make sense?

Yep.

1) It's magic.

2) The guy who keeps rebuking undead should learn not to do it very often.

3) Wee Jas is the silly element in your example, not the turning/rebuking stuff. Other gods let the character choose whether they turn or rebuke, but this one is an exception.
 

Remove ads

Top