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

[Chorn]

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.

Quite right actually.

From the System Reference Document
Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.

The difference lies in the method. Channeling negative energy is [Evil] because the cleric takes that anti-life matter stuff and molds it into a form that's compatible with the unholy mockeries of life that are the undead. Enervation is not clerical channeling. There's no divine conduit to pass through before reaching the target. You can think of it as a standard energy ray that has negative energy in place of the regular energy types.

 

[Testament]

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."

That's most definetely true, our main argument here is about the necromancer's actions, and how they mesh with the pally's alignment and code. And yes, if our esteemed GM here is running alignments with the RAW, then they're both up the creek without a paddle.

But if we're running with the RAW, anything that isn't in the BoED or are cute fluffy bunnies are evil. Just see the excerpt from the SRD that Chorn posted. No matter how many times I see that thing, I want to punch my screen and light a fire. The single biggest load of dung in the core rules! So using the magical equivalent of anti-matter is evil? THEN WHY ARE NEGATIVE ENERGY SPELLS NOT EVIL? HOW CAN I BE AN LN CLERIC OF WEE JASS WHEN MY CHANNELING MAKES ME EVIL?!

 

[HeavyG]

This point, with all due respect to you, utilizes faulty logic.

Actually, it doesn't use logic at all. It's just another very minor point to consider. I'll explain myself more further in the post.

That Elysium has positive energy traits does not in any way link positive energy to the good alignment.

That is not quite true, though I see your point. It does link them together. It is, however, a very weak link (but then I already said that initially) and not necessarily a causal link.

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.

Ah, but Elysium is the manifestation of good itself. Everything it is, every aspect of its nature descends from that.

In other words, I doubt it's a coincidence.

But it's still a very weak link. Heck, the Gray Wastes aren't even negative energy aligned.

(In other words, positive energy is having an effect on Elysium. It does not issue, in any cosmological sense, from Elysium.)

Of course not. Positive energy issues from the positive energy plane.

No logical (causal) link to good = no hole in the neutrality theory.

I was not trying to poke holes.

My own pet theory is that positive energy and negative energy are neutral, but they lean slightly towards good and evil, respectively. Whether this is due to inherent qualities in the energies or primes' philosophical takes on them (i.e. life = good, death = evil) would be a mystery.

 

[HeavyG]

HOW CAN I BE AN LN CLERIC OF WEE JASS WHEN MY CHANNELING MAKES ME EVIL?!

If you are very generous (good) and cast evil spells (evil), then you are neutral.

 

[Staffan]

HOW CAN I BE AN LN CLERIC OF WEE JASS WHEN MY CHANNELING MAKES ME EVIL?!

Performing an occasional evil action does not make you evil.

 

[Khur]

Quite right actually.

Right you are. Thanks for the correction--helps me learn, which is one of the reasons I post here! I should learn to read more thoroughly before shooting my mouth off. (Turning has never been a strong point of mine. It's not used much in my campaigns. I have to look up the rules almost every time someone uses it. That could be because I don’t use undead so much, either.) For those without the SRD, Chorn's quoted SRD passage appears on page 160 of the Player's Handbook.

However, Chorn, I don't agree with your assessment of negative energy rays. You seem to be asserting that the channeling of negative energy is evil because it occurs through a divine conduit. That doesn't really seem to follow. In fact, I can’t really wrap my brain around what you could mean by that assertion.

If you are, instead, asserting that it it's evil because it's compatible with undead, you must remember that both enervation and energy drain are also compatible with undead. They heal undead struck by them. But, by the rules, those spells have no evil descriptor, as we’ve already agreed.

I agree with Testament on the idea of inconsistency insofar as the rules for negative energy are concerned. If channeling negative energy is evil, utilizing raw rays of the stuff should be too. What I think we're dealing with here is a possible slip in the rules. What I know we're dealing with is a situation where the rules attempt to make something simple (good/evil or black/white or binary; two choices = simple), but the exceptions cause confusion among obviously very intelligent and discerning players, like all of you here.

Less analytical minds (or those of us with much less time to read and blab) wouldn’t even notice.

I was not trying to poke holes.

My own pet theory is that positive energy and negative energy are neutral, but they lean slightly towards good and evil....(snip)

You did write earlier that the theory has "slight holes." That's what I was responding to. There is no hole in the theory of positive energy’s neutrality, regardless of conditions on Elysium. The "link" only exists in that positive energy effects appear on a good plane. That I can agree with.

Regardless of that, though, I agree with your philosophy, which seems to mirror that of Umbran to some degree. The results of an energy's use tend to color the way that energy is perceived by the common person. The results of negative energy use are oftentimes overly harmful and corrupting to the natural order of the Material Plane (evil). Positive energy is the reverse.

I also strongly agree with your (like Staffan's) great and simple definition of how a character can use evil means and still be neutral. I'd assert, a good character could resort to evil means every once in a while, but only very rarely. This also presupposes the good-hearted character doesn’t have a strict code of behavior.