Evil Wizards Live Forever as Liches... Good Wizards Live Forever as...?

[Lycanthromancer]

Originally Posted by olentu

Hmm, that would pose a question about what does that quote directly contradict. While I can not recall anything at the moment perhaps you would be able to as that would be your reason for stating such a thing.

For one, being a positive energy creature (ie, being alive, or a ravid, or a xeg...xag...whatever those floaty energy things with the tentacles are) doesn't carry the [good] tag, and neither does being a negative energy creature (see: ghosts). Also, cure and mass/heal spells are not inherently good actions, since they don't carry the [good] descriptor, and inflict and mass/harm spells are not labeled with [evil].

The positive and negative energy planes are inherently neutral. Why would channeling power from those planes carry a descriptor of any sort?

[AstralFire]

I think he was asking what other primary sources actually state that PE is good-tilted or NE is bad-tilted.

Their alignment neutrality has always puzzled me. Out of context, it makes perfect sense - IRL, doctors aren't necessarily Good by popular moral standards. But we're talking about a game that loves to give everything an alignment, even when it's nonsensical. Given the strong associations that healing has for good and harming has for evil, I've always found it odd that D&D opted to make PE and NE alignment neutral.

[olentu]

Originally Posted by Lycanthromancer

For one, being a positive energy creature (ie, being alive, or a ravid, or a xeg...xag...whatever those floaty energy things with the tentacles are) doesn't carry the [good] tag, and neither does being a negative energy creature (see: ghosts). Also, cure and mass/heal spells are not inherently good actions, since they don't carry the [good] descriptor, and inflict and mass/harm spells are not labeled with [evil].

The positive and negative energy planes are inherently neutral. Why would channeling power from those planes carry a descriptor of any sort?

Well disregarding the parts about the implications relating to creatures as I would not call that a direct contradiction I had forgotten that the cure and inflict line of spells do channel such energy. However there is not necessarily a contradiction, assuming that I am not forgetting something, as I do not remember any statement that all spells for which it would be an aligned action to cast necessarily carry the appropriate descriptor.

And as for why channeling energy from those planes would be aligned, the answer would seem to be because the rules say so.

Edit: I was only asking what part of the rules are directly contradicted by the piece of text that I quoted.

[Lycanthromancer]

Well, the healer class doesn't have to be Good (or even Neutral), and Evil isn't requisite for the dread necromancer. Healers tend to be Good, and DNs tend to be Evil(ish), but despite the fact that almost everything that one does is channel positive energy, and the other is almost completely negative, those descriptors are still nowhere in evidence.

The argument isn't that negative is Good or that positive is Evil, because they aren't. They're inherently Neutral. Which is why it's so strange that channeling either is considered Good or Evil at all (aside from circumstances, of course).

The text saying channeling them is G/E directly contradicts the fact that both energy sources are 100% Neutral in nature.

[olentu]

Originally Posted by Lycanthromancer

Well, the healer class doesn't have to be Good (or even Neutral), and Evil isn't requisite for the dread necromancer. Healers tend to be Good, and DNs tend to be Evil(ish), but despite the fact that almost everything that one does is channel positive energy, and the other is almost completely negative, those descriptors are still nowhere in evidence.

And yet I see no direct contradiction in such class alignment descriptions, though it might not matter in any case depending on what the books say about their relationships to previous sources.

Oh is is certainly strange but given the state of the alignment rules that does not really mean much.

I would not say that making channeling an aligned action necessarily means that the energies channeled would necessarily need to be aligned necessarily.

[BobVosh]

Originally Posted by AstralFire

I think he was asking what other primary sources actually state that PE is good-tilted or NE is bad-tilted.

Their alignment neutrality has always puzzled me. Out of context, it makes perfect sense - IRL, doctors aren't necessarily Good by popular moral standards. But we're talking about a game that loves to give everything an alignment, even when it's nonsensical. Given the strong associations that healing has for good and harming has for evil, I've always found it odd that D&D opted to make PE and NE alignment neutral.

This never bothered me...except for clerics. Why do you have to be Neutral or X alignment for cures/inflicts?

[Arakune]

Originally Posted by BobVosh

This never bothered me...except for clerics. Why do you have to be Neutral or X alignment for cures/inflicts?

It should be deity based instead of alignment, in my opinion.

[hamishspence]

Originally Posted by Lycanthromancer

Well, the healer class doesn't have to be Good (or even Neutral), and Evil isn't requisite for the dread necromancer. Healers tend to be Good, and DNs tend to be Evil(ish), but despite the fact that almost everything that one does is channel positive energy, and the other is almost completely negative, those descriptors are still nowhere in evidence.

Incorrect on the Healer- Miniatures Handbook makes it clear-
prerequisite: Good Alignment

Dread Necromancer has a "Any non-good" requirement.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Originally Posted by olentu

And as for why channeling energy from those planes would be aligned, the answer would seem to be because the rules say so.

Edit: I was only asking what part of the rules are directly contradicted by the piece of text that I quoted.

Dread Necromancer can't turn, only rebuke. You can run a neutral Dread Necromancer who worships Pelor and you still rebuke.

[Yukitsu]

I believe rebuke and turn are particularly as they are simply because they arbitrarily decided most undead are always evil (and thus making them run away is good, getting them to kill people is evil). I think that is based on the undead's natural tendancy to want to kill things, rather than there actual moral alignment. Pretty much any other case of positive or negative energy is just neutral though.

[jmbrown]

Originally Posted by pendell

Guys,

It took me more than an hour to write last night. I don't have an hour now, so
I'm going to make this quick. I'll try to hit the major points. If I missed
something important, ping me and I'll try to get to it.

Major points in response to me:

1) You haven't given a coherent argument why immortality is evil.
2) It doesn't work that way in D&D -- the rules allow X and Y etc.


I screwed up. Let me amend my argument thus .. I will not argue that immortality in and of itself is wrong (too many traditional beliefs disagree) -- I'll instead argue that immortality *through lichdom* is wrong.

I know the rules allow things like Baelnorms. And I know there are rules in
Deities and Demigods that allow PCs to become gods without the permission of their
pantheons.

I would argue that -- if I am incoherent -- it is because D&D itself isn't terribly
coherent when it comes to these rules. This is because the game has been greatly
expanded to allow a lot of options to both good and evil players that didn't
exist (greyguards, blackguards, baelnorms) in the earlier editions. It's a system that allows you to model a
Lovecraftian world (where the creator is insane) or a Tolkienesque one
(where the creator is a good, omnipotent being) equally well. Of course
it's going to be incoherent when it comes to dealing with the supernatural.

But ... before the expansions, in old-school D&D, there were some fundamental
baseline assumptions. Paladins are always lawful and good. Liches are always evil.

Why is this?

In the case of Liches, because it's necromancy, which is a Black Art.

Why is this?

Becuase it's a crime against nature itself.

This is also why the argument 'it doesn't hurt anyone fails' -- it's not a crime
against one's fellow demihumans, but against the cosmos itself.

I'll quote from the Blurb
from the RPG Sorcerer:



See, this is the element that's missing from our discussions, and why I brought up
the idea of the occult -- that there are some things that are just *wrong*, that go
against the fundamental nature of the universe, a thing that requires a human of
incomparable arrogance and strength of will to do, because the entire universe recoils
when one sets out to do these things,and the words of power stick in your throat,
because the universe itself fights against this shameful deed.

In 30's fiction, *any* magic fell into this category. Which is why you rarely
meet a good wizard in Conan's world or in Lovecraft's.

Since then, 'magic' in fantasy has become more or less SF without the technology,
and the idea of 'forbidden' is now restricted to schools like necromancy.

And that's where the idea of hubris comes in as well .. the desire for power beyond the measure that allotted to mortals.

Tolkien is really your best resource to talk about this. In his silmarillion, he
described the Nazgul as originally being men who 'desired secret power beyond the
measure of their kind' -- and they received it, and it corrupted them. Because neither
Eru nor the Valar would grant power beyond the strict bounds placed by Eru, and only
evil beings would disobey that law.

Unearthed Arcana includes rules for incantations which is representative of old world magic where anyone who could do unnatural things was a "sorcerer" that bound demons to his service. I actually like the incantation rules and the idea of doing specific things like forcing a creature into your service in exchange for thirty-three pounds of red meat on the third thursday of the third week in the third month. It allows the DM to be creative.

[Starbuck_II]

Originally Posted by Yukitsu

I believe rebuke and turn are particularly as they are simply because they arbitrarily decided most undead are always evil (and thus making them run away is good, getting them to kill people is evil). I think that is based on the undead's natural tendancy to want to kill things, rather than there actual moral alignment. Pretty much any other case of positive or negative energy is just neutral though.

But Rebuking is stronger than turning. Rebuking means you can just attack them (they cower). Turn means they run away. And if you (cleric) approach a turned creature they are fine, but no issue with rebuking.

Now Destroying is sometimes better than Command, but turning to make them run in fear makes them harder to destroy.

Really, Rebuking helps you destroy undead. Turning shows off.
"Look, I can make them run".

[olentu]

Originally Posted by Sstoopidtallkid

Dread Necromancer can't turn, only rebuke. You can run a neutral Dread Necromancer who worships Pelor and you still rebuke.

I see no problem as, unless I am wrong, I remember that the deity alignment based turning restrictions were only for clerics.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Originally Posted by olentu

I see no problem as, unless I am wrong, I remember that the deity alignment based turning restrictions were only for clerics.

Right, I was just pointing out that even good gods(though Pelor is questionable) can grant rebuking, which makes the 'Rebuking is EBIL' thing a bit questionable.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Isn't DN an arcane class, meaning that whatever rebuking ability it has does not derive from your deity?

[Starbuck_II]

Originally Posted by Foryn Gilnith

Isn't DN an arcane class, meaning that whatever rebuking ability it has does not derive from your deity?

True, but either way, you can be non-evil and have rebuking.

[Foryn Gilnith]

You can be non-evil and have the ability to murder orphaned children. Doesn't comment on the alignment of the ability in question.

IMO positive/negative energy ought not to be aligned, but there's a decent RAW argument for it.

[Wereling]

Originally Posted by Foryn Gilnith

You can be non-evil and have the ability to murder orphaned children. Doesn't comment on the alignment of the ability in question.

IMO positive/negative energy ought not to be aligned, but there's a decent RAW argument for it.

RAI maybe, but the whole POINT of RAW is that it's a Rule's Layer's (or a Bunny Ears Lawyer's) dream for the loopholes it provides.

[Starbuck_II]

Originally Posted by Foryn Gilnith

You can be non-evil and have the ability to murder orphaned children. Doesn't comment on the alignment of the ability in question.

IMO positive/negative energy ought not to be aligned, but there's a decent RAW argument for it.

Holy Word? Yes, murdering them is a good act when Holy Word is used.