possible good applications for mind rape?

[Mystic Muse]

okay. before you say "no it's always evil no matter what." hear me out.

there are a few situations where I can see this being beneficial. the person just has to not go too far. (this is from what I read of the spell) apparently you can make people forget things and replace their memories with something else. couldn't this have good applications? one such application I can think of is army veterans who are constantly haunted by what it was like in wars.

I imagine this has been discussed already but I figured I'd post just in case.

[BobVosh]

Just the standard question of is it good to do something that is positive through negative means.

Also programmed amnesia from SC is mindrape - the word 'rape'. So that makes it lose the evil descriptor.

[tyckspoon]

If you're using it therapeutically, you should be able to get pretty much the same effect from either Modify Memory or Programmed Amnesia (like Mindrape, but takes 10 minutes to cast, isn't [Evil], and is Permanent instead of Instantaneous, so it can be dispelled/Broken/whatever.

[Tharivol123]

Looking over the description of the spell, it seems that while it could potentially be used for a good cause, the way it operates screams the word evil to me. It essentially allows you to do whatever you want to a person's mind and doing it by force (as is implied in spell) is not the way a good spell would work.
I would allow it to be used in such a way, but would question why a non-evil character would use it when there are better non-evil spells that would accomplish the same goal.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Mindrape is the Evil version of Programmed Amnesia. Sanctify the Wicked is the Good version of it. It's not any more or less morally wrong than either of those, just less limited.

[hamishspence]

Sanctify doesn't affect memories (and takes the targeted creature out of play for a year)- its not really much like it.

Mind Seed is the closest thing to "the evil version of Sanctify" because it completely replaces creature's personality with yours, whereas Sanctify replaces personality with "generic Good aligned personality matching your alignment"

Which is a little odd.

[T.G. Oskar]

Thing is, most people think of Sanctify the Wicked as a morally questionable spell since it can be used against the wishes of the target (though it receives a Will save, same as with Mindrape and Programmed Amnesia), and it forces the target to become good in the source of a year (with the caveat that if the diamond breaks, the target is freed and full to the brim of vengeance), without allowing the character to choose its new alignment. The fact that it always works even with evil outsiders makes it take the cake.

The really morally questionable part is that most people think of the spell less as a pumped-up Atonement and more of a complete(ly)(,) forced change of the creature's alignment. Which, at the sight of most people, shouldn't be something good people use: their argument is that it tampers with the creatures' free will, something that only evil does. The same people go and call the spell "Holy Mindrape", even.

If you want a non-evil version of Mindrape, Programmed Amnesia and Modify Memory are the ways to do it. Just consider that, in the eyes of most, a Good person won't do that (it'll work instead with solving the bad memories and such by toughing it up and simply facing the fears), but a Neutral person would work with that pretty fine.

In either case, if the qualms of Sanctify the Wicked is that it may seem forced, why not make it that it automatically fails if the character is unwilling or unconscious? Make it a willing-only spell. The ability to change a person's alignment through Diploma(n)cy is long, winded, and never works in always evil creatures and evil outsiders, so for those few weird ones that actively want to redeem, give them that choice.

However, that makes Mindrape (the real spell, which is actually a Wizard favorite!) quite unfair. If cast on virtually anyone (even a Good outsider, IIRC), it automatically becomes utterly evil. So, essentially, you can do anything from winning a battle to lose a friend (in real life)

[PId6]

The really morally questionable part is that most people think of the spell less as a pumped-up Atonement and more of a complete(ly)(,) forced change of the creature's alignment. Which, at the sight of most people, shouldn't be something good people use: their argument is that it tampers with the creatures' free will, something that only evil does.
Actually, with the alignment system the way it is, interfering with free will isn't evil, it's lawful. Evil is only harming others, and a lawful good person may believe they're helping someone by turning them good rather than killing them.

Consider that formians, creatures that make a habit of enslaving others, are considered always lawful neutral. In real world morality, taking away someone's free will is certainly evil, but by D&D alignments it's not.

[Salt_Crow]

Well, if it's by-request I can see how it might work out. Say, a repentant villain atones and wishes to 'start life anew', I think tempering with memory would work in a good way. Of course, since MR is an 'Evil' spell, Programmed Amnesia would be a more adequate way of doing things.

[PId6]

Of course, since MR is an 'Evil' spell, Programmed Amnesia would be a more adequate way of doing things.
Then you'd better hope they don't walk into a sufficiently strong dispel spell...

[Salt_Crow]

Then you'd better hope they don't walk into a sufficiently strong dispel spell...

Nay, I don't think PA can be dispelled. Can only be reversed by Wish/Miracle etc I believe.

[Saph]

Consider that formians, creatures that make a habit of enslaving others, are considered always lawful neutral. In real world morality, taking away someone's free will is certainly evil, but by D&D alignments it's not.

That . . . doesn't necessarily follow. Formians are Lawful Neutral, and formians enslave others, but that doesn't mean that enslaving others is always Lawful Neutral. Neutral characters can do evil things too.

- Saph

[PId6]

That . . . doesn't necessarily follow. Formians are Lawful Neutral, and formians enslave others, but that doesn't mean that enslaving others is always Lawful Neutral. Neutral characters can do evil things too.
Well their entire shtick is about expanding their empire and dominating all living things. That sounds pretty consistent to me. And I don't really see them doing any good things to balance it out. Then again, the alignment system is borked so...

[Coidzor]

^: Obviously they're from the A rather than the Im school of morality.

Getting a date on saturday night if you're a wizard with Cha as your dump stat...

quickly eliminating a major enemy who is too dangerous to kill or any other conventional means of elimination.

[quick_comment]

Consent makes all the difference here. If someone desires that the spell be cast on them (e.g. to get rid of PTSD, or in an 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' scenario), then the act of casting it is not necessarily evil. Of course, just ripping people's memories out of them is a rather crude solution to their problems -- it might be pretty unpleasant to have "memory holes" or faked memories.

Actually, because the spell can change personalities so radically, I'd say that you also need to inform the transformed personality of what has happened to them. Even if the untransformed personality wanted to forget the process and why it was initiated, it's possible that the transformed personality would no longer agree, so it's unethical to deceive them.

Of course, if the casting is consensual the name is pretty inaccurate.

[Geddoe]

The thing is, who would really trust anybody to use the spell responsibly? You have a charisma 24 nymph come in because she wants to forget the horrors of the war in her woods and the killing she had to do to defend it. The wizard knows she will voluntarily fail her save on the casting. What is to stop him from preparing it twice and turning her into his slave for a few hours, then casting the spell again to make her forget the day and the war(as his slave, she will not try to resist the second casting either). He is a wizard after all, he can probably think of ways to trick the alignment detectors and even people watching to make sure he isn't up to any evil.

Yes the example is a little over the top, and has more in common with Japanese animated porn than I would like, but it does show the great power(and greater responsibility) of the spell.

[Nero24200]

Taking away someones free will is evil.

Using mind-effects to out-right remove or alter memories is evil, and also silly if you expect it to end well. It can be argued that some good can come from any evil act.

When someones robbed in a dark allyway they aren't just left with a little less money and a bad memory, they're left with the knowledge of the event. This might cause them to act more cautiously, avoiding other dark allies, and as such could potentially save the person from future robberies. It may be hard, and in quite a few more traumaitc cases it may be harder to see, but there can be a little good in most things.

Deciding to erase someones memories to "protect" them, to me at least, sounds like you're trying to take on the role of God (or other sutible interpretations from other religions) by deciding for yourself what's right and what's wrong. Why should you be allowed to decide if it's okay for a person to forget this or that? And even if you don't decide, how can you really tell if the person actually wants the memory gone? Or if they only think they do.

You know...when I think back to some of the things in my life, like the last big relationship I broke up from, I just wanted it all gone, to be forgotten. But well...without that experience and those memories I don't think I'd be the same person that I am today. If givn the choice just now, I would keep those memories, however painful they were, but back then, in my rashness, I would take such an offer... despite that I prefer being the person I am now to back then.

[GoatToucher]

So I am a good person, faced with a violent evil person who intends to do harm to others.

I have several options:

1: Kill him, either in combat or as a lawful punishment for his crimes.

2: Imprison him as a lawful punishment for his crimes.

3: Perform mind altering magic on him to make him behave like a good person in order to spare his life, afford him freedom and protect the innocent.

The argument here seems to be saying that altering an evil person's mind against their will is an evil act, whereas killing them is pretty standard, and lacks any moral quandary.

Let's think about this again, shall we?

[Mystic Muse]

Taking away someones free will is evil.

Using mind-effects to out-right remove or alter memories is evil, and also silly if you expect it to end well. It can be argued that some good can come from any evil act.

When someones robbed in a dark allyway they aren't just left with a little less money and a bad memory, they're left with the knowledge of the event. This might cause them to act more cautiously, avoiding other dark allies, and as such could potentially save the person from future robberies. It may be hard, and in quite a few more traumaitc cases it may be harder to see, but there can be a little good in most things.

Deciding to erase someones memories to "protect" them, to me at least, sounds like you're trying to take on the role of God (or other sutible interpretations from other religions) by deciding for yourself what's right and what's wrong. Why should you be allowed to decide if it's okay for a person to forget this or that? And even if you don't decide, how can you really tell if the person actually wants the memory gone? Or if they only think they do.

You know...when I think back to some of the things in my life, like the last big relationship I broke up from, I just wanted it all gone, to be forgotten. But well...without that experience and those memories I don't think I'd be the same person that I am today. If givn the choice just now, I would keep those memories, however painful they were, but back then, in my rashness, I would take such an offer... despite that I prefer being the person I am now to back then.


sorry. I meant if somdebody consented to it. IF somebody consented to having a horrible memory erased then it could be considered good. if not though then I can see why it's evil.

[LurkerInPlayground]

okay. before you say "no it's always evil no matter what." hear me out.

there are a few situations where I can see this being beneficial. the person just has to not go too far. (this is from what I read of the spell) apparently you can make people forget things and replace their memories with something else. couldn't this have good applications? one such application I can think of is army veterans who are constantly haunted by what it was like in wars.

I imagine this has been discussed already but I figured I'd post just in case.
Then by definition, it is no longer mind "rape." It isn't intrusive and it absolves pain rather than causing it.

It's similar to the difference between abusing morphine and using it as a painkiller.

[FMArthur]

So I am a good person, faced with a violent evil person who intends to do harm to others.

I have several options:

1: Kill him, either in combat or as a lawful punishment for his crimes.

2: Imprison him as a lawful punishment for his crimes.

3: Perform mind altering magic on him to make him behave like a good person in order to spare his life, afford him freedom and protect the innocent.

The argument here seems to be saying that altering an evil person's mind against their will is an evil act, whereas killing them is pretty standard, and lacks any moral quandary.

Let's think about this again, shall we?

The thing is that it is almost equivalent to killing him anyway. Corrupting a person's mind - which is the only part of one's self that matters - is such a cruel mockery of free will that I can't see it ever being good under any circumstance. I wouldn't trust Pelor himself to use Mind Rape responsibly, let alone any ordinary caster.

[Teron]

3: Perform mind altering magic on him to make him behave like a good person in order to spare his life, afford him freedom and protect the innocent.
Freedom? You've taken his very thoughts, opinions and beliefs from him. This is monstrous, period.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

So I am a good person, faced with a violent evil person who intends to do harm to others.

I have several options:

1: Kill him, either in combat or as a lawful punishment for his crimes.

2: Imprison him as a lawful punishment for his crimes.

3: Perform mind altering magic on him to make him behave like a good person in order to spare his life, afford him freedom and protect the innocent.

The argument here seems to be saying that altering an evil person's mind against their will is an evil act, whereas killing them is pretty standard, and lacks any moral quandary.

Let's think about this again, shall we?Killing him is better. In standard D&D, there is proof of an afterlife. He will be getting the deserved punishment for his crimes for the rest of eternity, and he'll still exist. Mindrape/Sanctify/Programmed Amnesia/Helm of Opposite Alignment/Mind Seed all make him literally no longer exist as himself, but instead as a new person with his same abilities and your preferred personality and morals in his place. I'd prefer death even without knowlege of an afterlife, let alone in Greyhawk/FR.

[Lewin Eagle]

In a world with an afterlife I would prefer death over getting mindraped. Actually I would prefer it in any world.
I agree with Teron, I wouldn't call that freedom. Sure you can do what you want after being mindraped, but the caster completly changed what you want to do

[Indon]

Well their entire shtick is about expanding their empire and dominating all living things. That sounds pretty consistent to me. And I don't really see them doing any good things to balance it out. Then again, the alignment system is borked so...

Formians are neutral because they do not function on the moral axis, for the same reason animals are always neutral on both the moral and ethical axes. Formians have ethics (the structure of the hive mind), but not morals.

Couldn't such an abilities' user concievably target themselves? I hardly imagine that would be an evil act.

[MissK]

Just to insert a little real-world creepiness to this discussion -- the US Army is researching a drug that causes short-term memory loss. Specifically, according to what I have read, taking the drug makes you forget what you have just done, yet feel vaguely good about it nonetheless. The possible applications of this are horrifying.

[AstralFire]

I'm the only person here who would be perfectly A-OK with someone I trusted using Programmed Amnesia to remove a horrific experience from my memory, then?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Just to insert a little real-world creepiness to this discussion -- the US Army is researching a drug that causes short-term memory loss. Specifically, according to what I have read, taking the drug makes you forget what you have just done, yet feel vaguely good about it nonetheless. The possible applications of this are horrifying.

Alcohol and marijuana already do that.

[Milskidasith]

MissK, those drugs already exist, and are used medically for victims of rape. I also don't see how using such a drug to make a soldier forget that, say, his best friend was shot right in front of him would be evil.

[hamishspence]

Star Trek V (not a very good film) raises the possibility of using a mental power to remove the emotional effects of a traumatic memory.

While Spock and McCoy undergo it, Kirk stresses "My pain is part of me- I don't want it taken away."

Maybe it has relevance?

[FlawedParadigm]

Amusingly, none of you point the gun at yourselves here. Allow me to illustrate;

One evening, you go out to the pub and get drunk with your adventuring buddies. You overdo it, and later end up stumbling your way home. On your way, a friend's spouse you've always felt affection for aids you home. What happens next...well, you meant to show gratitude, but you were drunk...so it ended up being kind of a forced situation...

Now, would you rather your punishment be:
A) Losing your hand for touching another's spouse - probably with a legal degree or enchantment preventing you from getting the hand regenerated. A permanent, crippling injury that may possibly end your days as an adventurer, or at least make them much more difficult.

B) Ten years in prison, denied freedom. Not to mention public shame and revulsion in at least the whole town the incident occoured it, let alone anywhere else word has traveled.

C) The matter being handled quietly, before word spreads far, by you having your memory of the event removed and replaced with a total aversion to alcoholic beverages and a vague unease whenever in the presence of another's spouse. Chances are, this will prevent such an episode from happening again.

Now, I admit that the number of situations in which this would be a morally acceptable thing to do are perishingly small, even without considering how trustworthy someone must be to administer such a punishment, especially if the terms of the spell/ability you're using to do it don't require to state what you're altering out loud. However, there are still situations where it can be preferable to alternatives.

Really, when you get down to it, there is no such thing as an evil act, only evil motives. Even murder has its place, in the case of tyrants or sufficiently dangerous fiends (literal or elsewise.)

[T.G. Oskar]

So I am a good person, faced with a violent evil person who intends to do harm to others.

I have several options:

1: Kill him, either in combat or as a lawful punishment for his crimes.

2: Imprison him as a lawful punishment for his crimes.

3: Perform mind altering magic on him to make him behave like a good person in order to spare his life, afford him freedom and protect the innocent.

The argument here seems to be saying that altering an evil person's mind against their will is an evil act, whereas killing them is pretty standard, and lacks any moral quandary.

Let's think about this again, shall we?

Either kill or bind/imprison him. Offer a chance to surrender, then do as you please if it says no. Instead of just consuming your turn, ready your action to charge/cast a spell/do something to stop him.

Performing mind-altering magic may be a choice, but only to incapacitate him. A Charm would be something favorable, but you know it's temporary: you can convince the new "friend" to listen to you, and then lure him so as to not do harm. Or perhaps, not harm others but harm a stone or something. Dominate is less favorable, since it makes it your effective slave, but it's effective if you use it to take him to justice (after all, you're binding the guy and removing his freedom; Dominate makes it easier for you to do that) Programmed Amnesia, however, as well as Modify Memory, aren't choices since you're effectively changing the guy against his or her will. If you want the guy to change his ways, get him to justice, get his punishment, and then offer leniency as an equivalent punishment. Atonement works nicely to do that, although perhaps you'll have to give a quest or something. PA/MM much less, and would be the morally neutral way to work it (considering the guy is Lawful, otherwise, the Chaotic Neutral would just PA/MM the other guy after a bluff or something)

Mindrape...well, not even a chance. It makes the other guy evil, so to speak, and can't be done willingly IIRC. Maybe I'm wrong on that one, but it seems that it ain't a choice.

[Milskidasith]

Amusingly, none of you point the gun at yourselves here. Allow me to illustrate;

One evening, you go out to the pub and get drunk with your adventuring buddies. You overdo it, and later end up stumbling your way home. On your way, a friend's spouse you've always felt affection for aids you home. What happens next...well, you meant to show gratitude, but you were drunk...so it ended up being kind of a forced situation...

Now, would you rather your punishment be:
A) Losing your hand for touching another's spouse - probably with a legal degree or enchantment preventing you from getting the hand regenerated. A permanent, crippling injury that may possibly end your days as an adventurer, or at least make them much more difficult.

B) Ten years in prison, denied freedom. Not to mention public shame and revulsion in at least the whole town the incident occoured it, let alone anywhere else word has traveled.

C) The matter being handled quietly, before word spreads far, by you having your memory of the event removed and replaced with a total aversion to alcoholic beverages and a vague unease whenever in the presence of another's spouse. Chances are, this will prevent such an episode from happening again.

Now, I admit that the number of situations in which this would be a morally acceptable thing to do are perishingly small, even without considering how trustworthy someone must be to administer such a punishment, especially if the terms of the spell/ability you're using to do it don't require to state what you're altering out loud. However, there are still situations where it can be preferable to alternatives.

Really, when you get down to it, there is no such thing as an evil act, only evil motives. Even murder has its place, in the case of tyrants or sufficiently dangerous fiends (literal or elsewise.)

Mixing how alcohol works in the real world with the D&D setting and laws that don't exist in either is a terrible way to get your point across.

[MissK]

Forgetting that your friend was shot is great -- but how long will it take before the Army makes you forget that they ordered you to shoot a town full of civilians?

[Milskidasith]

Forgetting that your friend was shot is great -- but how long will it take before the Army makes you forget that they ordered you to shoot a town full of civilians?

Using the slippery slope fallacy is a great way to argue your point effectively! Especially considering the drug still wouldn't force you to do it, nor has any case in the real world forced somebody to take the drug against their will!

[MissK]

Using the slippery slope fallacy is a great way to argue your point effectively! Especially considering the drug still wouldn't force you to do it, nor has any case in the real world forced somebody to take the drug against their will!

The CIA, in cooperation with MI6, forced unsuspecting people to take LSD and truth serum and exposed them to Sarin nerve gas. This is a slippery slope we've been down long ago.

[AstralFire]

Speaking of slippery slope, let's not get this thread into OOH! MY TRALALA territory and avoid politics.

[Ehra]

Nevermind. You're right, Astral. I'll just lol and move on.

[FlawedParadigm]

Mixing how alcohol works in the real world with the D&D setting and laws that don't exist in either is a terrible way to get your point across.

So...we're having a discussion about the effects of *mind-altering magic* in a setting with *dragons, demons, and xorns*, and you're seriously attacking the *realism* of my point?

I'm not even sure what you mean by "mixing how alcohol works"; most of us know how it works, and if you choose, in your game, to run it any differently, that's on you. I've never met anyone who ran a game where it worked in a logically inconsistent fashion (although, sometimes, in an exaggerated one, especially if the GM themselves has never partaken), regardless of the gaming system or what rulebooks said, excepting in settings where things like sobriety pills exist.

As to the laws, I was simply using things comparable to the earlier example. I simply switched death to the loss of a hands because the actual penalty that probably would have been carried out (castration, or as it was referred to at the time, gelding), doesn't apply to females and I wanted the scenario to be gender-neutral. Ten years imprisonment is, at least where I am, the minimum real-world law punishment. The third example was included because it's the topic of the thread, and if you change the term "adventuring buddies" to "friends", it's the only part that isn't real-world applicable. I crafted the example that way on purpose - not to illustrate that anyone should seek to experiment with any part of it in the real world, but so that the reader could see where, if the choice were applied to them, the usually-morally-questionable solution is probably the one they'd pick for themselves.

Even so, when you think about it, the third option isn't too far from a real-world option either; but it's called "extensive therapy" instead of "mind-altering magic."

So...are you actually going to answer the question? 'Cause I notice no one's jumping to have the courage to do that. It's not such an easy thing when it's you at stake, is it?

[Seffbasilisk]

The only 'good' application of this spell that I can find, would be merely to read another persons thoughts and complete memories, even bits that they'd overlooked. Like a powerful wizard zapping a spy with it to know EVERYTHING that they know. Even that is a bit of a stretch, but as long as they don't mess around in the mind, it should keep it Good.

[Lamech]

I think this spell could be used for education and learning. Get a intelligent magic item to download large amounts of memories, and then you can upload them to whoever. It could be called the Voice of planet. Humanity.

It could be used to remove unwanted memories.

It could be used as an alternative to weaker mind control spells. (Or are you arguing compulsions are evil?)

It could be used against non-innocent life. (Whatever that means.)

[Lewin Eagle]

So...are you actually going to answer the question? 'Cause I notice no one's jumping to have the courage to do that. It's not such an easy thing when it's you at stake, is it?
Oh it's easy I choose b. Though I'm sure many will choose the mindrape cause you choose an example where you doesn't change much which the spell. Losing the memory from one evening doesn't matter (and alter memory can do that). I wouldn't take it because of the alcohol thing (though I almost never drink anyway), but it's only a minor change.
In my opinion minor changes can be non evil. I'm sure many people would like an easy way to stop smoking
Changing from good to evil or from evil to good on the other hand doesn't work without fundamentally changing someone personality and if you do that against someones will I will always call it evil. (Note: If he wants that you do it then go ahead. It's his mind.)
edit: Ah I forgot two things.


B) Ten years in prison, denied freedom. Not to mention public shame and revulsion in at least the whole town the incident occoured it, let alone anywhere else word has traveled.
The public shame thing, if you take c how does it prevent the town from knowing about it if they only change your memories?

And about this "Losing your hand for touching another's spouse"--- So it only applies if you do it to someone who is married? That law sucks.

[Gnorman]

Personally, I like to leave my enemies a broken shell, frantic and gibbering. I make sure to include frequently occurring waking nightmares that cause them to fear each and every possible thing around every corner. I will leave them so disconnected from reality that they will lash out violently at their former comrades and friends. They will know that their lives are meaningless, flickering shadow plays in the void. They will know that they mean absolutely nothing, and that no one will remember or mark their passing.

I make them think that all of their loved ones have abandoned them and betrayed them, and that they are so hideously ugly and stupid and horrible that they will never have any loved ones again.

I will leave the good memories of their significant others (if they have one), but I will ensure that they believe that the love of their life left them so callously and cruelly by belittling their appearance, intelligence, and sexual prowess. Plus, I will make sure they believe that their former best friend is the one who stole their love.

If they have children, I will make them think that their children have been plotting their own death simply to take what little inheritance they might get out of it. I will make sure they know that it is their own inept parenting that has led to such spoiled, greedy, rotten little children.

I will make them think that their god despises them for being a pathetically weak and sniveling follower.

Plus, I'll include a trigger that makes them act like a chicken whenever I clap my hands twice. That one is just for my own amusement.

Erm. I might have a different definition of "Good" than the rest of you.

[GoatToucher]

The thing is that it is almost equivalent to killing him anyway. Corrupting a person's mind - which is the only part of one's self that matters - is such a cruel mockery of free will that I can't see it ever being good under any circumstance. I wouldn't trust Pelor himself to use Mind Rape responsibly, let alone any ordinary caster.

So the gods are okay with their servants killing evildoers, but not undermining their free will?


Freedom? You've taken his very thoughts, opinions and beliefs from him. This is monstrous, period.

Touche'. Still, it is more free than being dead.


Killing him is better. In standard D&D, there is proof of an afterlife. He will be getting the deserved punishment for his crimes for the rest of eternity, and he'll still exist. Mindrape/Sanctify/Programmed Amnesia/Helm of Opposite Alignment/Mind Seed all make him literally no longer exist as himself, but instead as a new person with his same abilities and your preferred personality and morals in his place.

So we can kill him and send him to his torturous eternal punishment, but not interfere with his mind?

incidentally, I am not talking about mindrape, but some good spell that was mentioned that does a personality switch to make evil people behave like good people.


Forgetting that your friend was shot is great -- but how long will it take before the Army makes you forget that they ordered you to shoot a town full of civilians?

You would have to be amoral enough to commit the act in the first place, which is, in fact, pretty unlikely.

FYI, the rule in the military these days is that it is illegal to obey an illegal order. In other words: If you are ordered to kill civilians, you are obligated to not only refuse, but to report whoever gave you that order. they drill that into you pretty hard during training. Military personnel are, after all, people, and most people would be unwilling to commit what they know to be atrocities.

/derail

[Teron]

Touche'. Still, it is more free than being dead.
It really isn't. I'm not sure how to elaborate on a point that seems so utterly self-evident to me.


FYI, the rule in the military these days is that it is illegal to obey an illegal order. In other words: If you are ordered to kill civilians, you are obligated to not only refuse, but to report whoever gave you that order. they drill that into you pretty hard during training. Military personnel are, after all, people, and most people would be unwilling to commit what they know to be atrocities.
Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) If people can torture a man to death at the insistence of a scientist paying them four dollars, I suspect they'll have a much harder time disobeying their superior in the military.

[Oslecamo]

You would have to be amoral enough to commit the act in the first place, which is, in fact, pretty unlikely.

FYI, the rule in the military these days is that it is illegal to obey an illegal order. In other words: If you are ordered to kill civilians, you are obligated to not only refuse, but to report whoever gave you that order. they drill that into you pretty hard during training. Military personnel are, after all, people, and most people would be unwilling to commit what they know to be atrocities.


Here's the trick.

Your superior won't tell you you're slaughtering inocents.

He's gonna tell you you're in a glorious mission to destroy a very dangerous rebel base.

And so the soldiers storm in, shoot/bombing run first, and then realize they just butchered a whole bunch of civilians. The very dangerous base was actually a field hospital wich hapened to help the rebels, just like it helped everybody else nearby. Or your superior intel services suck. Since we've seen the most advanced military in the world can't distinigish a weapon of mass destruction from a pile of useless scrap, this is quite possible.

And so they then give mindrape potions to the soldiers and everybody can have a nice night of sleep.

In reality this is called "propaganda". Has been used for millenia and is still used.

The first thing any country does before going to war is spreading stories about how the other side is a bunch of baby eating monsters. Then the soldiers won't feel any trouble blowing the hell up of them.

Heck, nowadays is even easier, because the bomber pilot has no real way to know if what he's blowing up. He has to trust his superior's orders blindly.

[woodenbandman]

Actually, it's spelled "Sanctify the Wicked."

[FlawedParadigm]

The public shame thing, if you take c how does it prevent the town from knowing about it if they only change your memories?


The matter being handled quietly, before word spreads far,

I addressed that for a reason.


And about this "Losing your hand for touching another's spouse"--- So it only applies if you do it to someone who is married? That law sucks.

I suppose I should have said "partner", although legally speaking you can't actually prove that such a relationship exists; it's all word vs. word at that point. And don't think someone wouldn't claim to be someone else's partner just to get someone else in more trouble. The actual relation is utterly irrelevant; the point is, the victim of your crime was not only unwilling, but with someone else on top of it.

But regardless of the word I used, I believe there's a term for the logical fallacy of choosing to nitpick someone's point (in particular, the semantics) rather than address it.

[GoatToucher]

It really isn't. I'm not sure how to elaborate on a point that seems so utterly self-evident to me.

Behavior modification a fate as bad or worse than death? I'm not sure you could.


Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) If people can torture a man to death at the insistence of a scientist paying them four dollars, I suspect they'll have a much harder time disobeying their superior in the military.

People in a room pressing a button vs men trained to know what they are and are not allowed to do in combat out in the field looking their would be victims in the eye and pulling the trigger.

Not the same.


Here's the trick.

Your superior won't tell you you're slaughtering innocents.

He's gonna tell you you're in a glorious mission to destroy a very dangerous rebel base.

And so the soldiers storm in, shoot/bombing run first, and then realize they just butchered a whole bunch of civilians. The very dangerous base was actually a field hospital wich hapened to help the rebels, just like it helped everybody else nearby. Or your superior intel services suck. Since we've seen the most advanced military in the world can't distinigish a weapon of mass destruction from a pile of useless scrap, this is quite possible.

Assuming the women and the children didn't tip them off, and assuming the fact that nobody was fighting back didn't tip them off, and assuming the rows and rows of wounded men didn't tip them off, they would them be obligated to report what happened.

We're not talking about the movies here. Nobody is going to slip on a banana peel and accidentally massacre a village. If we're talking about accidentally shooting a few men you thought were insurgents, then it is more reasonable, and the men involved would be held accountable. Mai Lai was, among other things, a huge blow to the public image of the American military. They take pains to ensure that that sort of thing won't happen again.


And so they then give mindrape potions to the soldiers and everybody can have a nice night of sleep.

In reality this is called "propaganda". Has been used for millenia and is still used.

The first thing any country does before going to war is spreading stories about how the other side is a bunch of baby eating monsters. Then the soldiers won't feel any trouble blowing the hell up of them.

Sure, because god knows our country has locked up popular support by portraying middle eastern folk and Muslims in general as a pack of ululating maniacs who will kill you as soon as look at you.

Have you seen any such propaganda in this war? Would you stand for it if you did? Would anybody but the most jingoistic inbred?

It'd be kind of tough to fight and die to being Iraqis a better life if you were being taught that they were sub-human, don't you think?


Heck, nowadays is even easier, because the bomber pilot has no real way to know if what he's blowing up. He has to trust his superior's orders blindly.

That is no doubt true, and I would not want that job precisely of how impersonal the destruction is. Ironically, it would be much like the Milgram Experiment Teron mentioned up th epost a bit. How easy must it be to allow your physical distance to divorce you from your actions. :shudder: That said, outside of bombers and artillery, most military fighters get close enough to know a hawk from a handsaw, so to speak.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

So the gods are okay with their servants killing evildoers, but not undermining their free will?

So we can kill him and send him to his torturous eternal punishment, but not interfere with his mind?Basically. IMHO, your body isn't you, your mind is. Your thoughts are the only thing that distinguishes you from another person. Change those, and you change who I am. That's no different from death IMHO. Just because the flesh survives doesn't mean the person does. And with D&D's guaranteed afterlife, you aren't just killing them, you're making them cease to exist. Killing them, their spirit would still be around. Sanctify them, and Baron von Evil is gone forever.

[ondonaflash]

Long hypothetical

See I find that interesting, because I'd really expect some punishment more along the lines of castration. And I've been a supporter of that punishment for that crime for a while.

And if I ever let myself lose control of myself to that degree, I'd deserve it.

[chiasaur11]

Behavior modification a fate as bad or worse than death? I'm not sure you could.



Easily.

Death takes away most freedoms, I grant.

All freedoms but one. Freedom to face the consequences for one's actions, the freedom upon which all others are based.

Guess what mind rape takes away?

[GoatToucher]

Basically. IMHO, your body isn't you, your mind is. Your thoughts are the only thing that distinguishes you from another person. Change those, and you change who I am. That's no different from death IMHO. Just because the flesh survives doesn't mean the person does. And with D&D's guaranteed afterlife, you aren't just killing them, you're making them cease to exist. Killing them, their spirit would still be around. Sanctify them, and Baron von Evil is gone forever.

Actually, by killing him I am sending him to an eternity of torturous suffering.

Better to Erase Baron von Evil, in hopes that simple Hank von Evil can live a better life and get on the path to redemption, or kill him and send him to his justly deserved punishment?



All freedoms but one. Freedom to face the consequences for one's actions, the freedom upon which all others are based.


...

Bwuh?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Actually, by killing him I am sending him to an eternity of torturous suffering.Which is exactly what he deserves, as ordained by the gods.
Better to Erase Baron von Evil, in hopes that simple Hank von Evil can live a better life and get on the path to redemption, or kill him and send him to his justly deserved punishment?So you eliminate BvE from existance? Infinite torture is better than that.

[GoatToucher]

Which is exactly what he deserves, as ordained by the gods. So you eliminate BvE from existance? Infinite torture is better than that.

Some folks on this thread are implying that you can fold, spindle, or mutilate the Naughty to your heart's content, sending them to an eternity of agonies, the mere description of which would break the most stalwart of hearts, but you can't mess with their minds. The sanctity of free will, apparently, trumps the sanctity of life.

Man, can you imagine the roleplay you could get out of being a scoundrel that has been Sanctified into being a good person? Pretty neat.

Now if you want to argue that death is deserved, and circumventing this with Sanctify runs contrary to the will of the gods, well, that's a horse of another color.

[chiasaur11]

Some folks on this thread are implying that you can fold, spindle, or mutilate the Naughty to your heart's content, sending them to an eternity of agonies, the mere description of which would break the most stalwart of hearts, but you can't mess with their minds. The sanctity of free will, apparently, trumps the sanctity of life.


For a lot of people, yeah.

It kinda does. Heck, major religious orders hold that view.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Some folks on this thread are implying that you can fold, spindle, or mutilate the Naughty to your heart's content, sending them to an eternity of agonies, the mere description of which would break the most stalwart of hearts, but you can't mess with their minds. The sanctity of free will, apparently, trumps the sanctity of life.For me it does. If you asked me which option I preferred, it would always be the one that leaves my mind intact.
Man, can you imagine the roleplay you could get out of being a scoundrel that has been Sanctified into being a good person? Pretty neat. Not relevant to the debate, but yes.

Dammit, do I really need another Rogue/Paladin character?

[chiasaur11]

For me it does. If you asked me which option I preferred, it would always be the one that leaves my mind intact. Not relevant to the debate, but yes.

Dammit, do I really need another Rogue/Paladin character?

I still think a Moist Von Lipwig type would be more fun.

Con man who's still a fair bit dirty is somehow more fun.

[Callista]

Kinda depends on the way you assume Sanctify the Wicked works, doesn't it? If it's an against-your-will sort of thing, then it ought to be evil; but note that it offers a saving throw. If you were to interpret the will save as only succeeding if the creature truly wants to remain evil, then it makes a lot more sense as a good spell. Similarly, turning a creature evil with a spell also allows a saving throw. If you want to interpret the spell that way in your world, there's an opening for good "brainwashing", just like there's an opening for evil zombies if you assume the zombies' souls get bound to their rotting bodies and/or the zombie is automatically violent. A lot of the alignment stuff is all in the flavor text, and if you want the alignment the other way round, you just need a really simple houserule.

It's rather easy to defeat these sorts of spells if you get a Contingency cast on you, with some spell that easily stops you in your tracks until your companions can get to you--recommend Stone to Flesh, as it's easily reversed; also Teleport to a designated prison or at very high levels, you can target yourself with a spell that kills you and requires True Rez to bring you back (which your friends will obviously do). Trigger: "If I change alignment." Epics can tailor a spell to change the alignment right back. If you're very dedicated to either Good or Evil or you're fighting an enemy known to use corruption or redemption, then it's a good idea. You should also Contingency a communication spell to send for help so your friends know what's going on and can't be deceived by a newly good/evil you.

Oh, and this is also a very nice way to keep players from randomly redeeming your BBEG. They'll try it once, and once they lose the level for nothing, they stop trying.

[Coidzor]

For a lot of people, yeah.

It kinda does. Heck, major religious orders hold that view.

Except, on the other hand, every soul that ends up going to the lower planes is just one more thing building up to the inevitable destruction of the multiverse.

[Callista]

Oh, now you had to poke the "it's evil to destroy souls" hornet's nest, didn't you?

[Coidzor]

Actually, I'm not sure about the morality of destroying a soul. From what I recall it's a bit of a pain to do in any way other than converting it into magic items.

As far as I can tell, mindrape just rips pieces out, puts things in, and rearranges things, while keeping the most important part of the soul intact, it's relative strength(HD).

While I don't see Good characters doing it, I can definitely see LN Knights Templar types destroying the person (and replacing it with something suitably docile/servile/pliable to doing a suicide run on target X) of those deemed irredeemable in order to deny them to the abyss.

[Belobog]

You know, I remember reading that petitioners, after spending a fair time in the plane they're sent to, just fade back into the stuff that makes up the plane and cease to exist. So really, isn't arguing whether it's more right to kill the Baron and send him down, or redeem him and send him up, a little meaningless, since he'll eventually cease to exist anyway?

Also, Sanctify The Wicked is a Good Divine spell, so if it goes against the will of the gods, why would they be giving it out?

[FlawedParadigm]

See I find that interesting, because I'd really expect some punishment more along the lines of castration. And I've been a supporter of that punishment for that crime for a while.

And if I ever let myself lose control of myself to that degree, I'd deserve it.


As to the laws, I was simply using things comparable to the earlier example. I simply switched death to the loss of a hands because the actual penalty that probably would have been carried out (castration, or as it was referred to at the time, gelding), doesn't apply to females and I wanted the scenario to be gender-neutral.

It's almost like I took that into consideration.