imply
[im-plahy]Synonyms
Examples
Word Originverb (used with object), implied, implying.
1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated:
His words implied a lack of faith.
2. (of words) to signify or mean.
3. to involve as a necessary circumstance:
Speech implies a speaker.
4. Obsolete. to enfold.
Evil is this.
There's a difference between implication and equivalence. Being lawfully eligible to vote in the United States implies that you're 18. Being lawfully eligible to vote in the US is not equivalent to being 18. Finally, being lawfully eligible to vote in the US is not defined as being 18.
Also, outside of formal logic, implies is generally used when there's a strong relationship, even if it's not 100%. Definitions, on the other hand, are not lax in that way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually what's really funny is that by their logic, binding an angel is a totes good thing to do.
Wunderbar, better start stocking up my dungeon with unwilling Angelic slaves. That'll cause chaos amongst the Paladins.
Cue evil laughter.
Yes, because an action can both be evil and good at the same time, having aspects of both hurting, oppressing, or killing, while also being altruistic, protective of life, concerned for the dignity of others, etc.
However, since you're intent on doing this.
evil
[ee-vuh l]Synonyms
Examples
Word Originadjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:
evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious:
evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous:
to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character:
an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.:
He is known for his evil disposition.
noun
6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:
to choose the lesser of two evils.
7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:
The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9. harm; mischief; misfortune:
to wish one evil.
10. anything causing injury or harm:
Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence:
the evils of alcohol.
12. a disease, as king's evil.adverb
13. in an evil manner; badly; ill:
It went evil with him.Idioms
14. the evil one, the devil; Satan.
Pathfinder trims it down though to a much simpler and more mechanically relevant definition.
Gonna take a break from the thread for a while. I need to work on some RPG stuff and it's too distracting, so in the name of productivity, I bid the farewell. :)
I'll be back later though. :D
The games mastery guide clearly says there are different ways groups can chose to play alignment. As a straight jacket of ideals or as a general indicator of behaviour. The game allows groups to define evil acts themselves, with some general indicators given in the brief alignment descriptions.
The games mastery guide also makes it clear that the alignment rules are a source of massive debate and contention. I then am extremely skeptical of any poster who states their personal opinions on a philosophical issue as facts.
Because we're talking about how interacting with metaphysical constructs affects alignment, the dictionary definition understandably doesn't take a side. The parts of the rules that talk about what's good and evil are about the outlooks of creatures, not defining narrowly what it means to be good or evil.
EDIT: And the alignment rules also note that it is not the lack of will to do evil but actively the will to do good that defines a good person.
Or all adventurers are evil. Because if it's about what you won't do, well, most adventurers aren't carebears.
EDIT 2: Well, except for the most hardcore metal adventurers like those mentioned by BLloyd607502. :)
Being unwilling to do evil is part of being good, but it's not all of it. The point I'm trying to get at is that if we take somebody with no other characteristics, if they're willing to do evil actions they're probably evil. If they're willing to do good actions, that doesn't really say anything about them.
On the other hand, if all I know about someone is that they're willing to sacrifice (as in self-sacrifice, not evil rituals) to do evil, they're bizarre. Also evil. If they're willing to sacrifice to do good, they're probably good.
As with everything, it's a balancing act. But just like stealing a dollar and gifting a dollar don't balance the scales, if casting [evil] spells is evil and casting [good] spells is good, there's much greater moral hazard from casting a bunch of [evil] spells than moral protection(?) from casting a bunch of [good] ones.
My statement is that alignment is not set in stone. Instead of quoting implications and words from sentences out of context I am merely saying that the games mastery guide specifically calls out that alignment is up for debate. I can find the quote if you haven't got the book.
I am saying that there are no hard and fast rules on evil acts. I'm not sure why there is such absolute surety that there is a right and wrong in this debate. Why is there not room for pluracy of opinions?
I'm arguing that instead of making concrete statements that X is evil or X isn't evil we can acknowledge that there is room for other opinions.
Unfortunately for your argument, it is baseless.As noted before, if mindless things are evil, that means that when left to their own devices they will mindlessly do evil things. This goes beyond "find the nearest life source and kill it" because animals do that. Cats actively torture things for fun and they aren't evil. A golem could be told to act like an undead creature and it wouldn't make the golem evil. Mindless evil means that undead know, on an instinctive level, what the evilest thing they could do at any given moment is, and they do it. This knowledge has to come from some non-concious echo of intelligence that tells them things like the difference between something that is alive and something that is dead, and which end of a sword to hold.
Alignment is about intent and about action. Mindless things cannot have intent. That means all mindless undead must be driven to perform evil actions. They don't have to be commanded to kill babies. They have to be commanded not to.
If that is the case, then it makes perfect sense for animate dead to be evil since the caster is bringing into the world things who's sole purpose is to do things that are morally repugnant.
Of course, none of this explains why mindless undead are evil. It only describes what that means.
Alright then. How do you reconcile the concepts of 'mindless' and 'evil'
Vermin are mindless, but they're hungry so they have that motivation.
Skeletons and Zombies don't eat, at least not according to the rules. They don't have the hunger motivation. Shouldn't that mean they just stand around like golems and do nothing when they aren't being commanded?
In nearly every adventure ever published, mindless undead are a dangerous thing. Why would skeletons and zombies run around killing people if they arent controlled, don't need to eat and have no motivations?
If the answer isn''t "because they are evil" then what is it?
Is a hurricane evil because it kills people? Is an earthquake?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but the devil dunes of Hades or the flaywinds of Cocytus may be.
Skeletons are mindless but they have senses and they can react to what the PCs do. Skeletons may act on instincts but that instinct is to kill for no reason other than they can.
Natural disasters don't instinctively chase after people who try to get away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. In, say, the Abyss, hurricanes and earthquakes probably are evil.
Anyways, I'd assume that the Bestiary is actually correct in listing mindless undead as evil, rather than that being some sort of bizarre printing error - mindless undead are simply exceptions to the "mindless creatures are normally neutral" rule.
Just how that actually plays out is entirely up to the GM.
But I'd go with an uncontrolled skeleton or zombie always acting with unquenchable malice. They're mindless, so their malice can't really extend much further than "KILL EVERYTHING IN SIGHT" but that's exactly what they'll do. (They don't have imagination, so they can't conceive of committing torture or other more "refined" evils. All they can do is apply as much force as possible to the nearest living creature.)
Perhaps its a flaw in the re-animation process - negative energy-based mindless automatons actually default to murder-bot behavior, while mindless automatons created by other means (like animate objects) have no such malicious drive.
If you animate a corpse with animate objects and then let it "free," it will do nothing.
If you animate a corpse with animate dead and then let it "free," it will immediately try to kill the closest living creature.
Zombies are even explicit about it in their flavor text. For skeletons it's left as an exercise for the reader.
But again, none of these things addresses why mindless undeaad are evil. Negative enerrgy isn't evil. Intelligent undead don't neccessarily have to remain evil after they are created.
What is it about the process of animating the dead that always makes the resulting creature mindlessly do evil things?
Negative energy is not evil because negative energy isn't intelligent it is a force like gravity or radiation. However it does represent entropy, ending and nullification. Drawing on these powers could be considered evil.
But again, none of these things addresses why mindless undeaad are evil. Negative enerrgy isn't evil. Intelligent undead don't neccessarily have to remain evil after they are created.
What is it about the process of animating the dead that always makes the resulting creature mindlessly do evil things?
Pure, unadultrated Dev-Hate.
But again, none of these things addresses why mindless undeaad are evil. Negative enerrgy isn't evil. Intelligent undead don't neccessarily have to remain evil after they are created.
What is it about the process of animating the dead that always makes the resulting creature mindlessly do evil things?
In the rules, it's not made explicit, so it's left for the GM/group to flavor as appropriate. From a strictly real-world perspective it's because the devs and designers thought it better fit their vision of what zombies and skeletons are for them to (1) be affected by things that oppose evil (e.g. holy smite and detect evil) and (2) go beyond standard mindless in what kind of threat they pose without actually being intelligent.
I have thought about a number of possible in-world answers for it. The one I like right now is that the flesh is properly a receptacle for positive energy. By filling it with the antithesis of what belongs there, it creates a dissonance that either drives it to stamp out the positive energy in others or, while animating it, leaves it with a craving for positive energy to become "right". The fact that it can't accept that positive energy doesn't affect its unconscious desire for it.
That's not quite true. Enervation, for example, has no alignment aspect to it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Negative energy is not evil because negative energy isn't intelligent it is a force like gravity or radiation. However it does represent entropy, ending and nullification. Drawing on these powers could be considered evil.
And drawing on the opposite could be considered the same.
Too much positive energy causes you to explode, cancer is caused by growth gone unchecked and nothing is as dangerous as something that cannot be stopped.A beginning nor an end are by their nature good or bad things.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
this is fairly logically sound. But using the same logic see my above point about casting holy word being good.You know what the [Evil] tag does?
Tells you clerics of Good deities can't cast it. That's it.
Not exactly. Good Clerics, even of Neutral deities, cannot cast it either.
Nowhere in the actual rules does it say "Spells with the Evil descriptor are Evil acts/spells/whatever". It's totally reasonable to say they are, but the rules don't actually do it.It is not written that specific way, but still :
"Her alignment, however, may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see chaotic, evil, good, and lawful spells." (PRD, Cleric class, section on Spells).
So, there are indeed evil spells and these spells are exactly those that a Good Cleric or Cleric of a Good deity cannot cast.
"Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions." (PRD, Cleric class too).
So, some spells do indeed have an alignment. The prohibition on casting them indeed checks if they are opposed to the alignment of the Cleric or his deity. And the association with an alignment is indicated by the alignment descriptor.
So, the rules do indeed tell us that spells with the indicator Evil are indeed evil spells.
They do not tell it like this because a CE spell (with descriptors Evil and Chaotic) is an evil spell, but also a chaotic spell. The wording used in the PRD (above) just uses less wordcount which has great value for designers and publishers ;-)
If Holy Word is a spell with the Good descriptor, then it is a Good spell.
Is casting Holy Word always a Good act ? I would say yes as far as just the casting action is concerned....
the point I was making earlier was that you could use holy word cast in the middle of an orphanage, killing a dozen babies and it be considered a good act
this is obviously rediculous
the point I was making earlier was that you could use holy word cast in the middle of an orphanage, killing a dozen babies and it be considered a good act
And once again, the horrors that are goblin babies come to the fore. Truly we live in dark times.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Stop trying to redeem Asmodeus, it takes 999 good aligned acts, have fun with that lads'.Well in the worlds where people play with rules that don't exist concerning casting spells with aligned subtypes that'd be pretty easy. Casting 999 protection from evil spells isn't even that hard. Hell, if you didn't mind snacking on a wand of mnemonic enhancer you could shave off 150 of them per day without even touching your actual daily spells.God that'd be a fun campaign.
Playing a bunch of Mythic characters pulling a hit and run invasion of hell, plunging the very depths of damnation itself.
Armed with the worlds largest stockpile of [Good] aligned spells, scrolls and wands alike, defeating and pinning down powerful Devils and forcing them to taste the g#$ d#%n rainbow son and convert to good, working your way up to eventually Care Bear'ing Asmodeus himself into redemption while the Empyreals themselves watch on and laugh at the sheer silliness of it all.
I would love to play that
probably would only enjoy it once thoughsomething as a break before I go back to my aristocrats, my explorers, my kingdom builders, my school children with magical power, my kingdom builders and my paladins in way over their heads
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Negative energy is not evil because negative energy isn't intelligent it is a force like gravity or radiation. However it does represent entropy, ending and nullification. Drawing on these powers could be considered evil.I don't think that is accurate.
The only way to get negative energy is to be evil, or pull it from an evil source (the evil part of a neutral god, or an evil god) meaning that there is something inherently evil in negative energy.
Maybe it is that negative energy destroys, while positive energy heals? (Unless you get too much of it anyway.)
So Energy has to be somehow flavored either at the source (Deity) or through the conduit (the Caster) gaining either a positive (Good) or negative (Evil) aspect.
Undead could be "evil" because they are animated by a force that, somewhere along the line, has to be "tainted" by evil in order to exist.
or you could be an oracle.
or a witchor a shamen
no alignment required for any of them
and correct me if I'm wrong but can't a regular good cleric of a good god prepare inflict spells regularly?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pure, unadultrated Dev-Hate.But again, none of these things addresses why mindless undeaad are evil. Negative enerrgy isn't evil. Intelligent undead don't neccessarily have to remain evil after they are created.
What is it about the process of animating the dead that always makes the resulting creature mindlessly do evil things?
and racism on the part of the single diety that decides your afterlife
I get that, but I just knew the conversation would get there sooner or later, so I wanted to just nip it in the bud early. Though I do think the game would've been better served had they deliberately made Pathfinder Golarion-only, if only to send a consistent message.Umm.... isn't one of the big points of Pathfinder and D&D so you can make your own stories and worlds and adventures.... I mean god, if PF was golarion-only then you couldn't even have clerics of religions that aren't deity based.
Many people like Golarion... but I know many groups in my area that would never have bought Pathfinder if it was just golarion, we'd'av' kept on 3.5ing.
Perhaps, but Paizo's main business is selling Golarion-setting material, the mechanics is just basic bread and butter which is why they give away the mechanics on the PRD.
They would also return to Neutrality in the current mechanics just like skeletons and zombies do by RAW.
Unfortunately no, there lack of intelligence means they cannot change their alignments according to the bestiary text that allows sentient undead to change their alignment to whatever they want.
The only way to get negative energy is to be evil, or pull it from an evil source (the evil part of a neutral god, or an evil god) meaning that there is something inherently evil in negative energy.
Neutral Cleric worships the concept of Peace, can still cast Animate Dead. Wizard casts animate dead. Celestial-Bloodline sorcerer casts animate dead. Psychic who gets his powers from friendship and casts Orb of the Void.
Lawful good cleric casts Orb of the Void, a ball of condensed negative energy that annihilates things.... they can cast inflict spells. Many negative energy spells are not evil.
Perhaps, but Paizo's main business is selling Golarion-setting material, the mechanics is just basic bread and butter which is why they give away the mechanics on the PRD.
The reason they give away the mechanics is because OGL means they basically have to. Any either way... so what? Doesn't change the fact groups from my area would have never picked up the game.
And the actual plane of negative energy is not in evil in any way.
But it seems to be a popular place for things such as undead shadows, liches, and other unsavory types to hang out. And the Phantom that's linked to a spiritualist is generally described as a spirit who escaped a descent to the negative energy plane where it would have become undead.
So maybe not inherently evil... but it's got a lot of baggage and associations in that are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A plane of existence that actively makes you stronger, heals you, empowers you, and makes you generally feel more awesome for existing there and unlike the opposing plane doesn't randomly murder you for being on it.
Why the hell would undead like wraiths, liches, and the like want to hang out on that plane.
This is a job for Sherlock Holmes for sure.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it seems to be a popular place for things such as undead shadows, liches, and other unsavory types to hang out. And the Phantom that's linked to a spiritualist is generally described as a spirit who escaped a descent to the negative energy plane where it would have become undead.
So maybe not inherently evil... but it's got a lot of baggage and associations in that are.
Wait, so undead are evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil because negative energy is evil because the negative energy plane is home to undead that are seen as evil.
Neutral Cleric worships the concept of Peace, can still cast Animate Dead. Wizard casts animate dead. Celestial-Bloodline sorcerer casts animate dead.
Just like to point that pretty much no matter who animates an undead creature, unless they actually have an ability to makes them an exception (like the Serpent's Skull voodoo mystery), the caster (regardless of alignment or intentions) creates an unrelenting murder bot that can only be reigned in by magic.
Think of this way - perhaps the issue is a fundamental incompatibility - souls (which are produced by the positive energy plane) and negative energy don't mix together any better than lithium and water, and so when you combine those two things there has to be something special in play to prevent a catastrophic reaction.
And so raw negative energy by itself is "benign" in the same sense that fire is "benign" - it's just dangerous energy. But mix that negative energy with something that ever once was "contaminated" with a soul, and BAM, unrelenting murderbot that tries to destroy any living creature (i.e. anything with a positive-energy generated soul) it comes across.
Even if the act somehow isn't evil, reanimating the dead is still horribly irresponsible =P
So explain why literally anything in the universe dies when it stays on the Positive Energy Plane and Negative Energy gets the bad rep.
Just like to point that pretty much no matter who animates an undead creature, unless they actually have an ability to makes them an exception (like the Serpent's Skull voodoo mystery), the caster (regardless of alignment or intentions) creates an unrelenting murder bot that can only be reigned in by magic.
...
And so raw negative energy by itself is "benign" in the same sense that fire is "benign" - it's just dangerous energy. But mix that negative energy with something that ever once was "contaminated" with a soul, and BAM, unrelenting murderbot that tries to destroy any living creature (i.e. anything with a positive-energy generated soul) it comes across.
That's only zombies and mohrgs. Not ghouls, not skeletons, not mummies, not skeletal champions, not deathwebs, not etc.
Think of this way - perhaps the issue is a fundamental incompatibility - souls (which are produced by the positive energy plane) and negative energy don't mix together any better than lithium and water, and so when you combine those two things there has to be something special in play to prevent a catastrophic reaction.
Except there are living creatures with souls that are animated by negative energy so that is obviously not true.
Positive energy is where mortal souls come from, so that'd be a good start for why it has the "good" rep.
Also -- Sunlight and water are essential for life on Earth as we know.
Yet, what happens when you get too close to the Sun? Or receive a big dose of sunlight without all that atmosphere in the way? Or actually manage to drink too much water?
Just because you need something to exist doesn't mean you don't have an upper capacity for how much of it you can safely imbibe/receive.
(Also, when you re-animate a corpse with positive energy, also known as raise dead, reincarnate, etc., you don't normally create an unrelenting murder bot.)
Positive energy is where mortal souls come from, so that'd be a good start for why it has the "good" rep.
Why should rep even matter? Good and Evil are objective, not subjective.
(Also, when you re-animate a corpse with positive energy, also known as raise dead, reincarnate, etc., you don't normally create an unrelenting murder bot.)
This is also true of animating corpses with negative energy.
Just like to point that pretty much no matter who animates an undead creature, unless they actually have an ability to makes them an exception (like the Serpent's Skull voodoo mystery), the caster (regardless of alignment or intentions) creates an unrelenting murder bot that can only be reigned in by magic.
...
And so raw negative energy by itself is "benign" in the same sense that fire is "benign" - it's just dangerous energy. But mix that negative energy with something that ever once was "contaminated" with a soul, and BAM, unrelenting murderbot that tries to destroy any living creature (i.e. anything with a positive-energy generated soul) it comes across.
That's only zombies and mohrgs. Not ghouls, not skeletons, not mummies, not skeletal champions, not deathwebs, not etc.
Think of this way - perhaps the issue is a fundamental incompatibility - souls (which are produced by the positive energy plane) and negative energy don't mix together any better than lithium and water, and so when you combine those two things there has to be something special in play to prevent a catastrophic reaction.Except there are living creatures with souls that are animated by negative energy so that is obviously not true.
Undead that aren't utterly hostile to the living in some way or another are pretty deliberate exceptions.
As I said, "there has to be something special in play to prevent a catastrophic reaction."
Exceptions like dhampirs certainly exist, but they are most definitely exceptions.
(And if you kill the dhampir and then reanimate it, you get your murderbot anyways!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Undead that aren't utterly hostile to the living in some way or another are pretty deliberate exceptions.
So... your saying that all of the undead that can animated in core except for zombies and mohrgs are deliberate exceptions? Does...that even really matter. I mean god, your suggesting the most standard undead that gets animated is an exception. Which means, even if it is an exception, it doesn't matter, because there are tonnes of undead being animated that aren't murderbots because skeletons are the standard undead that get's animated.
As said, "there has to be something special in play to prevent a catastrphic reaction."
Or... you could just animate mummies, ghouls, ghasts, skeletons, etc...
(And if you kill the dhampir and then reanimate it, you get your murderbot anyways!)
Where is that in the rules, I must have missed that crucial information.
And the actual plane of negative energy is not in evil in any way.But it seems to be a popular place for things such as undead shadows, liches, and other unsavory types to hang out. And the Phantom that's linked to a spiritualist is generally described as a spirit who escaped a descent to the negative energy plane where it would have become undead.
So maybe not inherently evil... but it's got a lot of baggage and associations in that are.
So does the plane of fire.
It kills you terribly, the main rulers are all evil aligned, Efreeti and the Queen of the Inferno, elementals from it are very fond of setting people on fire and its made of a force that consumes all given the chance without any moral inclination.In fact, all the elemental planes are ruled by elemental evils
Fire elementals? Not evil aligned for the most part and no one argues that fire is intrinsically evil, despite the fact all it can do is consume.
But if you respect it, make sure you're aware of the dangers and don't let it get out of hand, you can cook a chicken, warm a home and survive when otherwise you would die of the cold, with a fire.
All the same problems people have with Negative energy can be applied directly to fire and imagine where we'd be without fire.
Fire cooks food, provides warmth, and light and has generally been a part of every home for the previous 4,000 years.
How is the same applicable to negative energy? What possible benefit does negative energy provide other than killing things or making them cower in terror, or paralyse people, or drain their strength.
The positive energy plane represents creation and life, the negative energy plane represents destruction and death. These twin forces are the engine that keeps the multiverse spinning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fire cooks food, provides warmth, and light and has generally been a part of every home for the previous 4,000 years.
How is the same applicable to negative energy? What possible benefit does negative energy provide other than killing things or making them cower in terror, or paralyse people, or drain their strength.
The positive energy plane represents creation and life, the negative energy plane represents destruction and death. These twin forces are the engine that keeps the multiverse spinning.
These twin forces are the engine that keeps the multiverse spinning.
What possible benefit does negative energy provide other than killing things
I should say benefit to people that would equate negative energy to the tangible effects fire. Unlike yin and yang, I can't seen that negative energy has any redeeming qualities. It is described as being inimical to life.
This is like a certain sketch involving Romans! Nothing... Well apart from keeping the planes in alignment... Of course, but apart from that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is the same applicable to negative energy? What possible benefit does negative energy provide other than killing things or making them cower in terror, or paralyse people, or drain their strength.
Killing off bacteria and parasites to preserve food or bodies, clean corpses, repair undead and negative animated life, perpetual motion energy sources, ethical labour force that never needs to rest, extended lifespan, pest-control, self-defence, to stop the world being covered in immortal animals, structures that can defend themselves, surplus in food because of lack of people needing to eat, waste-removal, etc.
The the most part you have just given a list of the advantages of undead. That is like saying the advantages of the psotitive energy plane are [list all the things living creatures can do].
Pest control and self defence using negative energy is still killing things. Incidentally undead are imho a very unethical workforce.
Your list represents a kind of dystopian pragmatic society. Maybe that would work well for a kingdom like Nex.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should say benefit to people that would equate negative energy to the tangible effects fire. Unlike yin and yang, I can't seen that negative energy has any redeeming qualities. It is described as being inimical to life.
This is like a certain sketch involving Romans! Nothing... Well apart from keeping the planes in alignment... Of course, but apart from that.
Imagine a world without death. It'd be a horrific place. All mortal life sustains itself by consuming others. With death gone, you'd have endless starvation, over population, nothing but misery. Decay allows for plant life. Animals kill plants, kill each other, some plants kill animals too. All to survive. Very little can subsist without killing. The most basic of entities at best. Only outsiders can exist without it entirely as they aren't much more than energy beings made usually solid. What energy varies.
Hell come to think of it, without cell death everyone would be a horrific mass of ever growing flesh, trapped in a hellish existence. I think WotC made an Elder Evil based on this idea. A creature of pure life, without restraint. Real body horror stuff.
Ironically in such a world of no death, many undead would have a fairly peaceable existence since only some are reliant on causing death to continue existing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pest control and self defence using negative energy is still killing things..
Fire cooks food
no, dude. cmon.
I should say benefit to people that would equate negative energy to the tangible effects fire. Unlike yin and yang, I can't seen that negative energy has any redeeming qualities. It is described as being inimical to life.
This is like a certain sketch involving Romans! Nothing... Well apart from keeping the planes in alignment... Of course, but apart from that.
Imagine a world without death. It'd be a horrific place. All mortal life sustains itself by consuming others. With death gone, you'd have endless starvation, over population, nothing but misery. Decay allows for plant life. Animals kill plants, kill each other, some plants kill animals too. All to survive. Very little can subsist without killing. The most basic of entities at best. Only outsiders can exist without it entirely as they aren't much more than energy beings made usually solid. What energy varies.
Hell come to think of it, without cell death everyone would be a horrific mass of ever growing flesh, trapped in a hellish existence. I think WotC made an Elder Evil based on this idea. A creature of pure life, without restraint. Real body horror stuff.
Ironically in such a world of no death, many undead would have a fairly peaceable existence since only some are reliant on causing death to continue existing.
Good point, well made.
Fire cooks food, provides warmth, and light and has generally been a part of every home for the previous 4,000 years.
How is the same applicable to negative energy? What possible benefit does negative energy provide other than killing things or making them cower in terror, or paralyse people, or drain their strength.
The positive energy plane represents creation and life, the negative energy plane represents destruction and death. These twin forces are the engine that keeps the multiverse spinning.
And before we realized its uses and how to tame it, fire was one of the greatest fears of our ancestors, it was the death that consumed all and left the land barren. In fact its still one of the most dangerous things we use in our every day lives while also being one of the most useful. Just because you haven't found a use for something now doesn't mean it won't be useful in the future.
For example, cancer (Positive energy related) can only be killed by cell death, if you consider that radiation is probably negative energy associated since its a direct result of entropy, then yeah, radiotherapy is incredibly useful and thousands of cancer survivors will lay witness to that.
On a more philosophical level? Death is a part of life, you survive every day only because of the deaths of other things on your behalf, the plants you eat, the meat you consume, the constant genocide of anything that lives in the water we drink that is our digestive system.
Is a farmer evil because he slaughters cows and cuts short the lifetime of wheat?
As for the world without decay thing, that was actually a part of history. The Carboniferous period (Which is where most coal comes from) was caused by the evolution of Lignin, which sealed out decomposing bacteria, so wood would just remain where it fell.
Edit: Basically what I'm saying is, in a grand, round-about and cosmic way, negative energy stops global warming. On a more serious note imagine all the benefits that Negative energy would have in our world, there's a low level spell that kills all insects within a radius by using Negative energy.
Can you imagine how incredible such a thing would be in areas beset by Malaria?