Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1745408" data-attributes="member: 17296">Aww, you're not simple-minded, you're just differently abled...And they're not perversions of nature, they're the embodyment of recycling!Heh. Actually, a lot of people see it as evil, and if it's looked at in the way above, it IS evil to that person. If it's looked at differently, it might not be evil. As long as it's not actually harming or using a soul in any way, there isn't anything other than interpretation.Yea, D&D doesn't say why the spell is evil, it just is. Healing can, if looked at properly, be seen as a perversion of the natural order, a denial of life to later generations, a mockery of life itself powered by foul necromantic magics. And, even if they've attempted to disguise healing magic by calling it "conjuration", it's still by definition necromancy.But, this leads us down an interesting path. If healing is not necromancy, and raise dead is... well, why not make a spell that does the exact same thing (animates a corpse) but is conjuration (or some other justification of non-evil) instead?And Lo! It was done. Right in the very book that gave us the Vow of Poverty, and special "non-evil" poisons, which aren't poison, because poison is evil, but is something else that's exactly the same with no real (read: "good IMO")justification as to why the first was evil or why, really, this type of poison isn't... My point? It's evil because "they" say.Other things that are the exact same aren't because they don't want it to be.If you think that's unreasonable, say it differently. Simple. So simple it's already been done.Remember, though, you aren't evil. You're "differently aligned".</blockquote>

Verification