Positive Energy vs Negative Energy...good vs evil?

[Umbran]

Hm. Try this...

The point is not whether Positive and Negative energies are good or evil in and of themselves.

In the game, if you apply negative energy to a living creature, you do the creature harm and cause them pain. When you imbue a corpse with negative energy, it becomes undead, and undead almost always cause pain and suffering to living things.

Causing pain and suffering and needless death are evil. No matter about the energy itself, the effects of negative energy, the results of it's presence among the living are generally evil.

Conversely, the presence of positive energy generally helps and heals and makes life better. At least, in the small amounts normally seen on the mortal plane. The effects of positive energy are generally good.

If all the effects seen coming from a thing are evil, aren't you likely to call the thing evil in and of itself?

 

[Shemeska]

If all the effects seen coming from a thing are evil, aren't you likely to call the thing evil in and of itself?

Not if you know anything about it.

Take thalidomide for instance. A rather effective painkiller which has had renewed interest in chronic pain treatment for cancer and HIV patients. However it has the nasty trait of also being a horrific teratogen and in a few countries it caused severe birth defects when pregnant women used the drug. Thalidomide by itself isn't good and it isn't evil, it's just a wholly neutral chemical compound. The good or bad in it revolves solely around how it's used and in what context. Positive and negative energy in DnD are no different.

 

[HeavyG]

The planar traits of the Negative Energy Plane and Positive Energy Plane clearly indicate that neither is aligned in any way. Neither one has an alignment trait.

That is true. However Elysium, the plane of pure good is Positive aligned.

There are holes in the theory that Positive and Negative energy are neutral. They're just not big ones.

 

[Sejs]

That is true. However Elysium, the plane of pure good is Positive aligned.

There are holes in the theory that Positive and Negative energy are neutral. They're just not big ones.

Heh, much like pointing out that fire is hot, but not all things that are hot are on fire.

 

[Chorn]

It should be noted that according to the RAW negative energy by itself is not evil. Both negative and positive energy are neutral according to the rules. It's a common misconception that negative energy is evil because channeling it is an evil act. Afterall, Enervation is a negative energy spell that does not have the [Evil] tag.

 

[Khur]

It's a common misconception that negative energy is evil because channeling it is an evil act. After all, Enervation is a negative energy spell that does not have the [Evil] tag.

Not quite right. Channeling negative energy can be done by a neutral cleric serving a neutral deity (rebuke and command undead). This is evidence that channeling negative is not an evil act, in and of itself, as is the lack of the [Evil] descriptor on enervation and energy drain. These spells are used to harm one's enemies, much like fireball. The logic seems to be they harm a victim physically--since a dead soul doesn't take its Material Plane power with it to the afterlife in core D&D, instead becoming a petitioner. Harming one’s foes physically is not inherently evil.

In my own campaign cosmology, this isn't true, and casting energy drain, which can inflict permanent spiritual harm, is an evil act because it is unnecessarily brutal. Again, a DM needs to be clear about his or her cosmology if allowing some of these morally gray areas in the game (pretty much in defiance of the rules as written). Not to do so leads to misunderstandings like we have between the paladin and enlightened necromancer. Both the paladin and necromancer would know if they are in a cosmology that allows moral latitude, such as cultural differences on the concept of which acts are evil.

I acknowledge that (per PHB page 159) all of the language explaining rebuking undead refers to "evil" clerics. It's likely that this language is a matter of convenience for the designer, or even an oversight of the ability of neutral clerics to use the ability, but it could be used to condemn rebuking as an evil act as well.

It’s clear this debate isn’t really about the alignment nature of negative energy. It’s about the necromancer’s actions and the paladin’s interpretation of those actions. By the core D&D rules, the paladin is right to consider the necromancer’s actions evil. To quote Book of Vile Darkness, "Creating [undead] is one of the most heinous crimes…a character can commit. Even if they are commanded to do something good, undead bring negative energy into the world, which makes it a darker and more evil place."

(I don't necessarily agree with this assessment, but it is a supplement to the core rules. It also works within the cosmology set forth by the core rules.)

The last statement in the quote can be confusing, but let’s analyze it. It’s not the negative energy that is evil. Negative energy is, however, antithetical to life. A sentient being that knowingly brings such energy into the world, especially in a somewhat permanent form (undead), is acting against life--as is a sentient being who suffers such creatures to continue in existence. This is neutral (selfish) behavior at best (and a basis for the argument that, even in core D&D, all negative energy spells should be given the evil descriptor).

One can philosophize about how positive energy might work and be seen in a negative-energy suffused world, but that misses the point. If positive energy were antihetical to life, its purposeful use in the world would be a careless act at least, and an evil on at worst. (While we're waxing philosophical, in such a world the names of the energies would likely be reversed for everyone except to a visitor from a positive-energy universe.)

That is true. However Elysium, the plane of pure good is Positive aligned.

There are holes in the theory that Positive and Negative energy are neutral. They're just not big ones.

This point, with all due respect to you, utilizes faulty logic. That Elysium has positive energy traits does not in any way link positive energy to the good alignment. That's putting the cart before the horse. It only links positive energy to Elysium itself, which has life-affirming traits due to its link with this neutral and primordial force. (In other words, positive energy is having an effect on Elysium. It does not issue, in any cosmological sense, from Elysium.) No logical (causal) link to good = no hole in the neutrality theory.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Negative energy does not = evil. Undead = evil (usually). Undead are not mindless constructs of bone...those are constructs. Undead are malevolent forces of wickedness. Creating undead requires negative energy. It's not the negative energy, it's what you do with it -- creating malevolent forces of wickedness.

 

[Umbran]

Not if you know anything about it.

Right, and how many actually know about it?

For characters in the game - the number of spellcasters who have the wherewithal to go and find out are small, and only some of those who could find out would choose to do so. And those that do tend to sit on their knowledge, what with the lack of mass-published media to spread teh word and all. Net result is that most don't know jack about it.

For players and DMs - the description of the positive and negative planes in the core rules are very short. Hardly to be considered comprehensive. They don't say one way or another. So, it'd be up to the DM. You don't know one way or another, because the rules don't stipulate.

All in all, the idea that, morally speaking, a thing and it's effects can be separated is a modern, scientific one. I'm not sure if that has much place in a pseudo-medieval world with magic and active gods and all.

 

[Zelgadas]

Personally, I'm a fan of Monte Cook's take on the dichotomy. Positive energy, or "The Green", is the energy of life and nature. Negative energy, or "The Dark", is the opposite of this. This is not a strict life/death dichotomy; note that negative energy does not always cause death, but is most often used to create undeath, a profoundly unnatural state of being. Death is an element encompassed by the Green; it is a part of the cycle of life, as evidenced by the fact that positive energy can, in fact, be used to kill (at least, it can in Arcana Unearthed; not sure about D&D). Now, does this make the Green good while the Dark is evil? Not necessarily. Nature is neither good nor evil, it simply is. Since the Green is the energy that drives nature, I would think that it is completely without moral or ethical alignment. I would argue that the same can be said of the Dark; it is neither good nor evil, it is simply the opposite of nature's driving force. That said, positive energy often appeals to those who would do good, because of its life-giving tendancies, and negative energy often appeals to those who would do evil, because it is a quicker road to power. This does not, however, make either force inherently good or evil.

 

[Will]

I would say raising dead as animate degenerate forms of the once-living is a mockery of life, and it's this that's evil. As others have noted, there doesn't seem to be any other signs that using negative energy is distinctly evil.

I'd rate this up there with defiling the statuary or temples of good gods, no matter what the excuse. You could have an elaborate, good reason to do this (or torture, or whatever). Doesn't deny the evil of the act, but on the whole the person can be non-evil (or even good).

That someone might feel that is the best way to accomplish a task doesn't matter. A paladin should avoid people who go beat up local merchants and steal their money, even if it's terribly convenient to do so.

I suspect a paladin would also have some problems with the legality of such tasks, but raise dead doesn't have the Chaotic descriptor. Presumably, it doesn't violate the laws of the cosmos significantly more than, say, resurrection.

Granted, I try to cleave to a fairly book-standard view of alignment. I think it comes down to 'how many evil acts can someone perform before being an evil character.'

While a paladin will object to evil acts by colleagues, the only people she will refuse to hang out with at all is characters who are evil.