Inflict & Harm spells - Evil??

[jerichothebard]

According to the SRD:

Neutral Clerics and Turning Undead
...
Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.

Aaaannnddd....

Inflict Light Wounds
When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

So, even though inflict spells and Harm are not listed with the evil descriptor, is casting them an evil act?


By extension, is casting a cure spell or Heal a good act?

 

[hong]

No.

NEXT!

 

[Caliban]

According to the SRD:


Aaaannnddd....



So, even though inflict spells and Harm are not listed with the evil descriptor, is casting them an evil act?


By extension, is casting a cure spell or Heal a good act?

They don't have an Evil descriptor, they are not evil. That's just flavor text.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Don't mind hong. Being abrupt makes him feel superior. Also, answering in one-liners up his post count when he has to explain further later. In general, the words "channeling positive/negative energy" means a turn/rebuke undead attempt, so inflict spells shouldn't be evil. It should be clearly explained in the books so no-one gets the wrong idea, though.

 

[Sejs]

They don't have the [Evil] tag, so no. Not evil.

 

[Artoomis]

"Channeling" positive or negative energy refers to turning checks only.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Personally, I believe that the "Turning is always a good act" and "Rebuking is always an evil act" rule is a load of CRAP. According to that rule, a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Wee Jas rebuking a horde of zombies so that his allies can destroy them before they overtake the unsuspecting town is ALWAYS an evil act, according to the PHB. Controlling two skeletons and making them attack each other so that your party doesn't have to expend resources as they approach the Evil Necromancer's tower is an Evil act as well.

Some people claim that anything dealing with Undead, or more specifically, Controlling Undead, is inherently an evil act. However, the Control Undead spell, which does pretty much the exact same thing as Commanding Undead, is NOT an evil act.

 

[SteelDraco]

Note that if Inflict spells were [Evil], then logically Cure spells would have to be [Good]. And that would mean that evil clerics can't cast healing spells.

That's the game mechanics explanation that's always made the most sense to me.

 

[jerichothebard]

Personally, I believe that the "Turning is always a good act" and "Rebuking is always an evil act" rule is a load of CRAP. According to that rule, a Lawful Neutral Cleric of Wee Jas rebuking a horde of zombies so that his allies can destroy them before they overtake the unsuspecting town is ALWAYS an evil act, according to the PHB. Controlling two skeletons and making them attack each other so that your party doesn't have to expend resources as they approach the Evil Necromancer's tower is an Evil act as well.

Some people claim that anything dealing with Undead, or more specifically, Controlling Undead, is inherently an evil act. However, the Control Undead spell, which does pretty much the exact same thing as Commanding Undead, is NOT an evil act.

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.

 

[Spatula]

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,

D&D evil and the dark side of the force are not the same thing. Unless you want to argue that emotions are evil in D&D, which you won't find much (if any) support for in the rule books.