The Stick's worst blunder: vote now!

[littlebum2002]

My other point was that positive and negative energy are both, essentially, hostile to life in large doses.

This quite literally describes everything. There is not one thing in the universe that is not lethal in a large enough dose. That being said, what point are you trying to make?

[Lacuna Caster]

....if you're trying to discuss actual morality as it pertains to the forces of Good and Evil in D&D, then I'm out.

This quite literally describes everything. There is not one thing in the universe that is not lethal in a large enough dose.

The point I'm making is that this makes positive/negative energy no different from any other blind, indifferent physical force, like magnetism or gravity. Whereas if you're going to slap an Evil label on something, I'd like to be because it actually performed concrete actions that led to the suffering, death, or coercion of conscious beings.

If, for example, every undead creature were the soul of a once-living person, torn from their rightful rest, powerless to resist the commands of it's summoner while wracked by the sensation of putrid or missing flesh (e.g, like Crystal), then I could get behind the idea of 'necromancy is evil'. (Or at least that fairly extreme circumstances are needed to justify it.)

But if all we're dealing with is tissue doing physical work, or a potential weapon like ice or fire, then the same ethical guidelines should apply as to anything else you might do to dead tissue, or with ice and fire. Good, bad, or indifferent, depending on how force is applied.

For the record, I'd actually slightly prefer the former option (or possibly the related idea of bargaining with damned souls called from a place they'd rather not be), since I think that's more... I dunno, consistent with the literature. But the point is that this defines evil in terms of suffering, death and coercion- not just arbitrary say-so.

[Keltest]

Given that the creating of undead will inhibit Resurrection spells, even ones that otherwise do not require access to the body, there certainly seems to be some indication that negative energy is Bad Stuff that you shouldn't be playing around with, and that it does something unspecified to the soul of a person that prevents it from returning to a body. Evil deities cause their clerics to channel it. Unlike positive energy, living beings are pretty invariably* damaged by it. The energy itself may not be evil on account of not having any capacity to choose how it is used, but given how generally nasty it and its uses are, I'm willing to call using it an Evil act.

*3.5 is large enough that you can probably find some example in a source book somewhere of negative energy not damaging a living being. My point is that its a pretty conspicuous pattern of behavior, not an absolute truth.

[Snails]

The point I'm making is that this makes positive/negative energy no different from any other blind, indifferent physical force, like magnetism or gravity. Whereas if you're going to slap an Evil label on something, I'd like to be because it actually performed concrete actions that led to the suffering, death, or coercion of conscious beings.

That I agree with. Negative energy itself and positive energy itself are not inherently good or evil in D&D, and never has been under D&D rules.

If, for example, every undead creature were the soul of a once-living person, torn from their rightful rest, powerless to resist the commands of it's summoner while wracked by the sensation of putrid or missing flesh (e.g, like Crystal), then I could get behind the idea of 'necromancy is evil'. (Or at least that fairly extreme circumstances are needed to justify it.)

But if all we're dealing with is tissue doing physical work, or a potential weapon like ice or fire, then the same ethical guidelines should apply as to anything else you might do to dead tissue, or with ice and fire. Good, bad, or indifferent, depending on how force is applied.

It is strongly implied by the impossibility of resurrecting a creature's whose body has become undead, that something has happened to the soul, other than find a proper and normal resting place. Under the circumstances, the reasonable presumption is that this is against the soul's will.*

Whether they are somehow tortured during this stint has not been spelled out in the rules. However, cultural traditions and literary traditions lean strongly towards, yes, it is an unpleasant experience.

For the record, I'd actually slightly prefer the former option (or possibly the related idea of bargaining with damned souls called from a place they'd rather not be), since I think that's more... I dunno, consistent with the literature. But the point is that this defines evil in terms of suffering, death and coercion- not just arbitrary say-so.

It has always been about suffering and coercion.** That was the reason, even if the rules did not delve into the details to spell this out.


* We do not really understand the ghost martyrs. Are they even undead? Are they magically compelled? The thing about paladins is, if they possessed complete volition, they are likely to choose to answer the call of the deceased founder of their order approximately 99.999% of the time. If one or two souls said "no, thank you" to Soon, we would not happen to know that.

** There are the outlier examples of Protection from Good and Blasphemy. But those are spells that are implicitly tapping pure Evil embedded in the fabric of the universe. BTW, a paladin who purposefully drinks a Potion of Protection from Good could Fall, under a strict technical reading of the rules -- I suppose that means to successfully invoke the power of the spell one must think very evil thoughts or similar.

[Jasdoif]

That I agree with. Negative energy itself and positive energy itself are not inherently good or evil in D&D, and never has been under D&D rules.

When it comes up, I like to think of it as the result of divine cartels: The Good deities collectively have a monopoly on magical manipulation of positive energy, the Evil deities collectively have a monopoly on magical manipulation of negative energy; and there's a specific scheme in place that defines exactly what effects can be used without being subject to involuntary licensing by the Good or Evil collective.

It comes off very convoluted and specific to the setting...much like the idea that positive and negative energy are inherently Good or Evil.

[Snails]

Personally, I have always found the Negative Energy and Positive Energy stuff to be dissatisfying. There is nothing obvious about undeath being Negative Energy instead of manipulated Positive Energy applied toward a corpse/spirit. Furthermore, unlike the classic Four Elements, it is difficult to imagine Positive or Negative beings that are not both too bizarre and too boring.

[Peelee]

it is difficult to imagine Positive or Negative beings that are not both too bizarre and too boring.

I would disagree with this, since I have difficulty grasping how a thing can be simultaneously too bizarre and too boring.

[Jasdoif]

Personally, I have always found the Negative Energy and Positive Energy stuff to be dissatisfying. There is nothing obvious about undeath being Negative Energy instead of manipulated Positive Energy applied toward a corpse/spirit. Furthermore, unlike the classic Four Elements, it is difficult to imagine Positive or Negative beings that are not both too bizarre and too boring.

I rather suspect the oddity was the point, one that wasn't pulled off very well: The contradiction that there's some sort of exotic energy out there that's ludicrous to make absolute sense of in the underlying framework (seriously, exposure to the Positive Energy plane heals you...until it makes you explode) yet pervasive enough to run into without needing esoteric scenarios. Like a classical elements' version of quantum mechanics.

[Snails]

I would disagree with this, since I have difficulty grasping how a thing can be simultaneously too bizarre and too boring.

Perhaps my words are a bit muddled. Just sticking with "boring" probably describes it well enough.

Positive energy creatures sounds exciting at a superficial level, but it seems there are a few creatures with [Vivacious] templates and golems (who avoid the relevant "physics" by their physiology), and very little else. Boring.

[Aedilred]

I'm inclined to say the whole fiasco with the Empire of Blood, from the point they entered the city onwards. With specific reference to their failure to acquire the proper paperwork, through simple oversight, resulting in the arrest of Roy and Belkar, and separating the party, and the inexplicable reaction on the part of V, Haley and Elan to discovering Thog was alive which exposed the party to attack by the rest of the Linear Guild, though those are just the obvious highlights.

[Lacuna Caster]

That I agree with. Negative energy itself and positive energy itself are not inherently good or evil in D&D, and never has been under D&D rules.

It is strongly implied by the impossibility of resurrecting a creature's whose body has become undead, that something has happened to the soul...

I think the strict wording just implies that it can't revive an undead creature for the same reason it can't revive a golem- they were never alive to begin with. The cultural and literary traditions you're talking about, in any case, definitely make it more explicit than an obscure rules-technicality. So no, I'm not going to say it's the same thing.

* We do not really understand the ghost martyrs. Are they even undead? Are they magically compelled? The thing about paladins is, if they possessed complete volition, they are likely to choose to answer the call of the deceased founder of their order...

I imagine they are. My point is that is that the ethical concerns here are no different from choosing to return as a moaning corpse, and trivial compared with sending them to die in the first place.

[Doug Lampert]

I think the strict wording just implies that it can't revive an undead creature for the same reason it can't revive a golem- they were never alive to begin with. The cultural and literary traditions you're talking about, in any case, definitely make it more explicit than an obscure rules-technicality. So no, I'm not going to say it's the same thing.


I imagine they are. My point is that is that the ethical concerns here are no different from choosing to return as a moaning corpse, and trivial compared with sending them to die in the first place.

Eh, True resurrection, which you link, says: "This spell functions like raise dead, except that..." and "... You can revive someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed."

Raise dead says "A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell."

Note. True Resurrection, your link, makes an EXCEPTION to the complete inability to revive someone made undead. But does so ONLY if the undead creature has been destroyed.

There is no method in the rules that will bring someone back while a zombie of their body exists.