Paladin and vampiric regeneration

[thids]

So we come back to this then: While vampiric regeneration is not inherently evil, would using it on a sentient being be considered an evil action?

[Baboonicorn]

Does it? Continuing on Mouse' butterfly example: Are butterflies threatening the balance?

And an equivalent comparison - does healing threaten the balance? If you find an old hermit in the woods, dying of plague, would you cure him and disrupt the natural balance of the things that are making him ill?

It's hard, being a druid.

So we come back to this then: While vampiric regeneration is not inherently evil, would using it on a sentient being be considered an evil action?

The action in itself is not evil, though it is distasteful. However, the intent of the person wielding the vampiric weapon is to steal the life-force of one person in order to nourish their own.

One of the AD&D definitions of an evil character is one that is willing to harm others in order to satisfy their own wishes. I'd say that makes it evil in intent.

[Nyeleni]

NO, in earnest: my druid would never use such a weapon, and not because it is evil, but because it threatens the balance

Does it? Continuing on Mouse' butterfly example: Are butterflies threatening the balance?

2) Some healers believe healing magic lets something good inside the people they heal (Exalted Deeds p6). With the same logic applied - that is if positive energy opens the way of good, negative energy opens the way of evil. Thus, negative energy should not be used.

On the other hand, educated healers (for instance with more about 5 lore...), know that positive energy can be just as harmful as negative energy, and that neither positive nor negative energy is inherently good or evil.

Further, the argument about "opens up for evil"? Any magic used for non-good means "open up for evil". Dominate can be very, very evil, for instance. That's enhancement and doesn't have an evil decriptor. Placing someone in an acid could without a chance to move is also very evil. That is conjuration and doesn't have evil descriptor either. Bottom line is: It depends on the use. Only magic with evil descriptor is inherently evil and will have a definite corrupting effect on the caster.

No, the butterfly is not evil as it is naturally equipped with such instincts. The person weilding the weapon is not, imo. It is therefore unnatural. But as Baboon wrote, it is really difficult to know what is natural and what not. That is why shadow druids exist to make it even more confusing .
They are evil, but they work for the Balance too, just another one than the usual druid I guess.

[Nomster]

As far as I can see, some things are open to the beliefs of our characters and were left that way deliberately. If we're playing a black and white game, negative and positive energy are neutral and it depends on the actions of the wielder whether their use is good or evil... but then, the example given in Exalted Deeds would be total nonsense, so why did they give it? Perhaps to flesh out our characters a little, add a bit of grey and question our character's action and matter surrounding them.

Meh

[Hitman Hard]

Also, ol' neutral evil Artemis Entreri used a vampiric dagger. Oops.

[Nyeleni]

Also, ol' neutral evil Artemis Entreri used a vampiric dagger. Oops.

yeah cause Salvatore's chars are so deep. and not white and black at all...

[Considerate_]

So we come back to this then: While vampiric regeneration is not inherently evil, would using it on a sentient being be considered an evil action?

Not any more than using a normal sword on a sentient being would be considered evil, no.

The Vampiric Touch spell does not have the Evil modifier. As such, its not considered evil so you'll never get an alignment change simply from using it..



Of course, players and NPC might take affront to it and consider it evil. Some foreswear the entire necromantic repertoire of spells. Some only damn those that rise the undead. etc. etc.
Players and NPC's aren't bound to only consider stuff with an evil modifier evil, after all

[Nyeleni]

No, some think Butterflies are evil. But thanks for summing it up: it is just muddled up, as RL is. And the fault lies in this stupid alignment system! It is totally bs, for real. Too bad Gygax and Arneson had to simplify things too much. And I blame Moorcock too. Silly author with is order/chaos duality . I think they just put that good evil and order chaos matrix together and now we have to deal with the fallout:
To specify an example, we all think drow are evil right? Because they backstab, are unpredictable, love to torture, sacrifice to their goddess, etc. etc. But if a society makes it work under such conditions and it survives for millenia, their way of life isn't evil at all, it is good, to them of course. And all other lifestyles are evil. It all depends on the perspective and traditions and customs and adapting to life.
That simple...

[Considerate_]

Evil and Good is universally defined in Forgotten Realms. There's very little leeway for interpretation and tinkering with grey areas. Though they do exist.

From a modern day philosophical point of view, it's correct that you can debate what is good and evil. But in a fantasy setting with god(s) who defines what's right and wrong, then that line of thinking becomes obsolete because it's not up to mortals to define any longer.

In your example, Lolth has the domain of Evil. She, and her followers, are proud of being evil. They don't sugar coat it. They don't make excuses. They revel in it. So yes, they're considered evil - even by themselves, the evil'er the better'er


That's how I see it anyway

[Nyeleni]

Exactly they just use "evil" as good and vice versa, or better said the creators of this system did that, simplifying without need imo.
Their "evil" is good for them. See what I did there? Good and evil are bereft from any meaning without content.... They are empty words.

For instance without the alignment system we would have much more freedom for class combos. Maybe too much freedom but still. An evil paladin? No problem, because the only thing that paladin would need to be is follow the law of his or her credo. A monk bard? Why not, who is to say a bard cannot become a monk? Or the other way around? A monk barbarian, mais oui! Etc. etc.

Of course there are combinations which should be avoided. PM comes to mind and certainly druid monk is "evil".

[Considerate_]

Hmm, the way I read what you've said, it only makes sense to me in a world where there aren't any universal defined concepts of good and evil.

That's not the case for Faerûn.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others.


There isn't any bending of the above simplified version. It's the universal law for all behaviour. Whether a single individual or group of individuals, or even all of the people on Aber-Toril agrees or disagrees is inconsequential in a world where gods dictate universal laws.

[Deathgrowl]

You're talking about the difference of subjective and objective alignment. Forgotten realms has both.

There are planes who are inherently evil and there are planes who are inherently good. The spell Animate Dead is evil, no matter your intentions. Demons and devils are created of objective evil, celestials of objective good.

I don't think the alignment system is as flawed as people say. You can easily put any character in fiction into an alignment (perhaps with tendencies leaning in one direction away from the alignment).

[Considerate_]

I'm curious, what is the subjective alignment system that Forgotten Realms have?

You can't torture someone in a subjective good way, to the best of my knowledge. Regardless of how pure your intentions are, it's always evil.

Same goes with Animating the Dead, there's no subjective interpretations to whether it's good or evil. You could save a single or a billion people, and it wouldn't change the fact it's considered evil.

[Baboonicorn]

I think that was Deathgrowl's point. Casting Animate Dead is always and objectively evil. Tana'ari are objectively chaotic and evil.

But not every creature with a variant of Evil on his/her/its character sheet is objectively evil. With sufficient motivation, evil characters are able to perform good deeds as well as bad. They may even do so when there is no immediate gain to themselves. A blackguard may have a sentimental attachment to his home village and still be evil.

[Considerate_]

Thank you for the clarification - I think I'd just misunderstood what was meant by subjective alignment system