NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khur" data-source="post: 1850105" data-attributes="member: 5583">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.)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.</blockquote>

Verification