PDA

View Full Version : RAI is clear. Can we prove RAW? [3.5]



Zaq
2009-09-16, 09:35 PM
Okay, consider an Exalted Druid with Vow of Nonviolence. I won't even bother to defend RAI that she cannot use her Animal Companion to rip off someone's face. That's just kind of silly, really. However, I'm unsure as to whether we can prove this using RAW. Does anyone care to try?

I know, I know, trying to find sense or logic in A) RAW or B) Book of Exalted Deeds is a fool's errand. You don't need to tell me this. Still, I'm curious.

Zeta Kai
2009-09-16, 09:41 PM
Are you sure that you're not confusing RAW & RAI? Rules-As-Written are generally easy to prove; the words are right there on the page. Rules-As-Intended is trickier, largely up to interpretation, & ultimately unprovable without the designer's own words on the matter.

lsfreak
2009-09-16, 09:45 PM
Are you sure that you're not confusing RAW & RAI? Rules-As-Written are generally easy to prove; the words are right there on the page. Rules-As-Intended is trickier, largely up to interpretation, & ultimately unprovable without the designer's own words on the matter.

No, it's pretty clear RAI you can't sick your pet on someone and have it rip its face off without losing Vow of Nonviolence. But does RAW prevent you from doing this? [Just clarifying, I don't know enough about it.]

Zaq
2009-09-16, 09:45 PM
Are you sure that you're not confusing RAW & RAI? Rules-As-Written are generally easy to prove; the words are right there on the page. Rules-As-Intended is trickier, largely up to interpretation, & ultimately unprovable without the designer's own words on the matter.

Which is exactly the point. Normally I agree with you, but here I argue that in this case it's obvious that you're not intended to use your pet dinosaur to eat people so you don't have to get your hands dirty, but the hemming and hawing we see in what a VoNV character can and cannot do is squishy and indistinct. I'm wondering if someone cares to try to point out exactly what in the RAW would forbid you from doing this, or prove that RAW doesn't actually say you can't.

Milskidasith
2009-09-16, 09:48 PM
See, this is the problem with wording. In most cases, RAW is easy; shapechange lets you break things, gate lets you chain gate, mindrape can be used to do anything. RAI is harder for those; did the dev's intend you to mindrape a commoner into loving the BBEG truly, and then Love's Pain the BBEG to death?

In this case, the wording is just poor. It's like trying to argue the RAW of Streamers, or Iron Heart Surge, or the vague way that AMF is worded (you can shoot rays through it? If a fireball hits on one side, it appears on the other side if it has range?)

Kylarra
2009-09-16, 09:56 PM
If we quantify an animal companion as a weapon... :smalltongue:


random amusement, VoNV only technically applies to weapons or spells, which leaves a few other avenues of attack still open.

Zovc
2009-09-16, 10:00 PM
RAI is harder for those; did the dev's intend you to mindrape--

My train of thought stopped there. Is there a spell called Mindrape?

kjones
2009-09-16, 10:02 PM
My train of thought stopped there. Is there a spell called Mindrape?

Book of Vile Darkness. Basically lets you rewrite someone's mind like their brain was a hard drive.

Akal Saris
2009-09-16, 10:06 PM
It's your class feature, you have control over it. If you can prevent it from hurting (ie using lethal damage) or killing somebody, then you have the responsibility to do so because of your vow - no exalted character would actually swear not to harm creatures and then watch with a smile as his bear ravaged the kobold chieftain. The same would apply to a wizard with a familiar or a paladin with a mount.

I think the critical RAW part is that "you must not cause harm or suffering" - and commanding an animal to attack is clearly causing the attack. The same with training an animal to attack with lethal damage when it has a cue. Since there are options to train a pet to use nonlethal damage, you are obligated to do so, or simply to not use the animal companion.

Now, if there's a situation out of your control where the AC kills somebody (if you're asleep and it catches and kills a goblin, for example), then I'd say that it wouldn't cost the character his Vow, but that's another matter.

Don't get me wrong though - the BoED is all about RAI guiding gameplay, since it depends so much on a shared understanding between PCs and the DM of what "good" entails in a D&D game.

Zeta Kai
2009-09-16, 10:11 PM
Alright, I read the thing (BoED, page 47). It seems that you can't really send your pet out to kill opponents without breaking the vow. It says "If you leave a helpless foe to be killed by your allies, you have broken your vow". The meaning is clear; your allies cannot kill helpless foes without ruining your day. Also, I'd say that your companion counts as an ally, & therefore feels remorse (along with the morale penalties) upon a kill.

It doesn't say that you can't bring enemies to the brink of death, though. You can technically order your pet to attack enemies without breaking your vow, via RAW. I wouldn't allow it though.

Kalirren
2009-09-16, 10:16 PM
Well, arguably you can't make true love happen with mindrape.

But there are so many other instances in which the use of RAW is just stupid. The OP's is one of them. No, I don't believe RAW will give you an out here. Devotion, Share spells...nothing really horrible.

The only "RAW" I can think of comes from reading the BoED as a whole text, which emphasizes the necessity of sensible moral interpretation that would pass a Turing test. But that's just saying that "RAW claims that RAW-interpretation ought to defer to RAI-interpretation." Even if that is the sensible way of doing things, good luck getting an adamant powergamer to swallow that line.

I hate it when RAW arguments are made when there are obvious RAI arguments to be made.

Tokiko Mima
2009-09-16, 10:31 PM
Well, arguably you can't make true love happen with mindrape.

Well, it wouldn't have to be "True Love," you just have to generate a person whose closest friend or dearest loved one is determined by you. So you just make them forget everyone else in their life and create false memories of the BBEG being their only friend (and therefore their closest.) Then they become a perfect conduit to deliver massive damage that the BBEG can only escape by being in an AMF at all times.

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-16, 10:49 PM
Well, it wouldn't have to be "True Love," you just have to generate a person whose closest friend or dearest loved one is determined by you. So you just make them forget everyone else in their life and create false memories of the BBEG being their only friend (and therefore their closest.) Then they become a perfect conduit to deliver massive damage that the BBEG can only escape by being in an AMF at all times.

On the subject of mindrape, that spell is possibly the most evil thing possible to do. Rewiring someone's mind like that is ... well ... worse than torturing and murdering someone and preventing resurrection. There are some minor things that could be done with it that could have beneficial results, but even altering someone like that in such a minor way is something that no Good character should even remotely consider. The "sanctify the wicked" and all that nonsense is completely out of line. Rewiring someone to be Good should be considered an act of extreme Evil, and rewiring for other results...much worse.

Kylarra
2009-09-16, 10:50 PM
Alright, I read the thing (BoED, page 47). It seems that you can't really send your pet out to kill opponents without breaking the vow. It says "If you leave a helpless foe to be killed by your allies, you have broken your vow". The meaning is clear; your allies cannot kill helpless foes without ruining your day. Also, I'd say that your companion counts as an ally, & therefore feels remorse (along with the morale penalties) upon a kill.

It doesn't say that you can't bring enemies to the brink of death, though. You can technically order your pet to attack enemies without breaking your vow, via RAW. I wouldn't allow it though.Keep in mind though, most people you fight aren't helpless unless they're being forcibly debuffed by a wizard. So you could, theoretically by RAW, take them out in straight up combat (with the AC).

MickJay
2009-09-17, 04:06 AM
On the subject of mindrape, that spell is possibly the most evil thing possible to do. Rewiring someone's mind like that is ... well ... worse than torturing and murdering someone and preventing resurrection. There are some minor things that could be done with it that could have beneficial results, but even altering someone like that in such a minor way is something that no Good character should even remotely consider. The "sanctify the wicked" and all that nonsense is completely out of line. Rewiring someone to be Good should be considered an act of extreme Evil, and rewiring for other results...much worse.

In the last discussion on StW, the consensus was more or less that it's effect goes against the Chaotic values, not Good ones (in terms of D&D, at least to the extent in which anything can be concluded from the conflicting evidence). "Respect for dignity of sentient beings" is about as close as Good values could be used against justifying StW, but we're not talking about some frivolous programmed amnesia here, it's about saving the being's soul and purifying it, at significant personal expense of the caster. It's very easy to conceive a LG character who would see it as his duty to save as many evil beings from the fate they are preparing for themselves. Of course, the more individualistic and less duty-driven modern society gets, the more StW will be seen as bad, but that's another pair of trousers.

Agreed that AC counts as either "ally", "weapon" or both, and can't be used to kill without violating the vow (to attack, yes, but only to subdue).

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 04:11 AM
In the last discussion on StW, the consensus was more or less that it's effect goes against the Chaotic values, not Good ones (in terms of D&D, at least to the extent in which anything can be concluded from the conflicting evidence). "Respect for dignity of sentient beings" is about as close as Good values could be used against justifying StW, but we're not talking about some frivolous programmed amnesia here, it's about saving the being's soul and purifying it, at significant personal expense of the caster. It's very easy to conceive a LG character who would see it as his duty to save as many evil beings from the fate they are preparing for themselves. Of course, the more individualistic and less duty-driven modern society gets, the more StW will be seen as bad, but that's another pair of trousers.

And Mind Rape can be used to replicate Sanctify the Wicked! Ta-da! Exalted spell!

olentu
2009-09-17, 04:38 AM
Actually I could see some situations where using sanctify the wicked might be arguably more evil (or at least less good) then using another method if it was not evil to ever do an evil act ever for any reason ever.

MickJay
2009-09-17, 04:39 AM
Not exactly, the process, workings and requirements of the spells are completely different. Not that it makes much difference mechanics-wise, but if you're using BoED and/or BoVD, then you do want to pay attention to the game's fluff. You can't use mindrape and say "result justifies the means" when you have a much more subtle (and Good!) spell that allows to get similar result.

If anyone asked me, both of these spells (plus PA) should never have been included in the game anyway, Charm and Dominate are bad as they are. :smalltongue:

olentu
2009-09-17, 04:49 AM
Not exactly, the process, workings and requirements of the spells are completely different. Not that it makes much difference mechanics-wise, but if you're using BoED and/or BoVD, then you do want to pay attention to the game's fluff. You can't use mindrape and say "result justifies the means" when you have a much more subtle (and Good!) spell that allows to get similar result.

If anyone asked me, both of these spells (plus PA) should never have been included in the game anyway, Charm and Dominate are bad as they are. :smalltongue:

Oh come now spells that allow a caster to control another person are not inherently evil unless it has the evil descriptor by a reasonable reading and extrapolation of the rules.

Though mindrape does have the evil descriptor so by a reasonable reading and extrapolation of the rules it is evil to cast even if one is casting it on ones self to save all that is good in the multiverse.

MickJay
2009-09-17, 04:59 AM
But can you see the problem here? Controlling someone with magic is not evil, even though you're taking away their free will; and yet there are arguments that making someone change their mind with magic should be evil, even if it leads to the true and objective Good. If you do the same using diplomacy, no problem; if you cast a spell, it's no respect for dignity and ~evil~.

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 05:04 AM
Not exactly, the process, workings and requirements of the spells are completely different. Not that it makes much difference mechanics-wise, but if you're using BoED and/or BoVD, then you do want to pay attention to the game's fluff. You can't use mindrape and say "result justifies the means" when you have a much more subtle (and Good!) spell that allows to get similar result.

If anyone asked me, both of these spells (plus PA) should never have been included in the game anyway, Charm and Dominate are bad as they are. :smalltongue:

Well, then I'll gladly be evil and be doing good. Try to align me then. HA!

olentu
2009-09-17, 05:24 AM
But can you see the problem here? Controlling someone with magic is not evil, even though you're taking away their free will; and yet there are arguments that making someone change their mind with magic should be evil, even if it leads to the true and objective Good. If you do the same using diplomacy, no problem; if you cast a spell, it's no respect for dignity and ~evil~.

Oh I am not saying that casting mindrape for any reason what so ever is not an evil act by a reasonable reading of the rules or that controlling people is necessarily an evil act by the rules. Why would you think that I was saying that.

What I am saying is that if one is going to forcefully alter someones alignment there are situations where (leaving aside the fact that mindrape is a spell where the act of casting it is evil by a reasonable reading of the rules) mindrape could give a more desirable result then sanctify the wicked due to the mechanics of one spell versus the other.

raitalin
2009-09-17, 05:25 AM
Any one else reminded of the crux of DC's Identity Crisis?

Yuki Akuma
2009-09-17, 05:43 AM
There is the fact that Sanctify the Wicked doesn't do anything to the target's mind. It traps him in a bubble and makes him reflect on his evil and repent over the course of a year.

It works under the assumption that everything barring Evil outsiders has good in them, which is silly, but it doesn't screw with their minds any more than diplomacy does.

Lamech
2009-09-17, 06:45 AM
On the subject of AC: Your allies are allowed to rip people's faces off for you. Now "leave a helpless foe" I do belive refers to physically moving away, as it comes right after the part about the allies getting a penalty for killing them. Of course, maybe your not allowed to make foes helpless for you allies, raw isn't quite clear. (But then you can physically leave... so...) AC is most certainly not a weapon, its an ally; kind of like a feebleminded warblade. So I think its fine if the AC ends up killing a enemy. All though I suspect its bad form if an you ask an ally to kill someone, and thats the same for the AC.

On the subject of mindrape being evil: There is an exalted class, Emissary of Barachiel, whose whole point is to forcibly change people's alignment to lawful good. Not just good, but lawful good. And its a mind-affecting ablity too so its really not just diplomacy. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that forcibly rewriting people's alignment is not evil.

Jack_Simth
2009-09-17, 07:12 AM
Any discussion of ethics and morallity between individuals will break down eventually - because ultimately, any discision of ethics and morality relies on some set of fundamental assumptions, which can be neither proven nor disproven (even Kant defended his definition of "person" with a question rather than rigorous logic). When you reach the point where it can no longer be argued, both sides will usually see the other as blatantly, obviously, mind-numbingly wrong, and wonder why the other doesn't see it that way when it is so clear.

Why is this relevant?

Well, D&D has considerably more than a single author. Any time one of the books is going over an issue of ethics and morality, it's being written by a small subset of D&D authors. So when you've got multiple books covering it, you'll occasionally get blatant contradictions between them because they were written up by people with different fundamental assumptions.

So ask your DM - he's the one arbitrating it.

Yora
2009-09-17, 07:16 AM
BoED seems to go with the assumption, that everything is good, if it's done by angels.
Using poison is evil. Using poison that only works against evil creatures is not.
Altering a creatures mind is evil, making it lawful good is not.

But can you see the problem here? Controlling someone with magic is not evil, even though you're taking away their free will; and yet there are arguments that making someone change their mind with magic should be evil, even if it leads to the true and objective Good. If you do the same using diplomacy, no problem; if you cast a spell, it's no respect for dignity and ~evil~.
By that logic, it would be the same thing if a begger asks for some coin or if he forcefully takes it from someone passing by? ;)
You probably see the flaw.

Salt_Crow
2009-09-17, 07:22 AM
I'd say Animal Companion is a part of the druid's class feature, therefore she cannot use it to rip things off for her if she's got the vow of nonviolence. Same goes for Cohorts I guess.

MickJay
2009-09-17, 07:54 AM
By that logic, it would be the same thing if a begger asks for some coin or if he forcefully takes it from someone passing by? ;)
You probably see the flaw.

Well, yes, that's precisely what I wanted to demonstrate :smallbiggrin:

Diplomacy vs. magic:
1) you are trying to affect someone to change their point of view
2) you do so against that person's will (if it wasn't that way, there would be no need for either diplomacy, nor magic)
3) if your diplomacy is high enough, its effectivness will be indistinguishable from magic; it will be faster, and it will not be subject to neither will save, nor magic resistance
4) D&D mechanics suck at representing social interactions, and the shortcuts provided by magic make it even worse
5) if you want to play campaigns where morality, good and evil count for much, pick any of the dozens of systems that are far superior to D&D in this respect
:smalltongue:

Cespenar
2009-09-17, 09:15 AM
Any discussion of ethics and morallity between individuals will break down eventually - because ultimately, any discision of ethics and morality relies on some set of fundamental assumptions, which can be neither proven nor disproven (even Kant defended his definition of "person" with a question rather than rigorous logic). When you reach the point where it can no longer be argued, both sides will usually see the other as blatantly, obviously, mind-numbingly wrong, and wonder why the other doesn't see it that way when it is so clear.

Why is this relevant?

Well, D&D has considerably more than a single author. Any time one of the books is going over an issue of ethics and morality, it's being written by a small subset of D&D authors. So when you've got multiple books covering it, you'll occasionally get blatant contradictions between them because they were written up by people with different fundamental assumptions.

So ask your DM - he's the one arbitrating it.

I foresee that this message is going to be the most ignored one, despite, no, because of its wisdom.

MickJay
2009-09-17, 01:18 PM
There's nothing in it to argue against, which in practice means lack of visible reactions. Most readers will go "huh, he's right", and will continue making other, more specific points. After all, the GMs participate in the discussions as well, and if they're making final decisions; they should be convinced to make the right decisions, no? :smallwink: General observations and statements, no matter how wise or true, don't get much (visible!) attention.

Jack_Simth
2009-09-17, 07:05 PM
There's nothing in it to argue against, which in practice means lack of visible reactions. Most readers will go "huh, he's right", and will continue making other, more specific points. After all, the GMs participate in the discussions as well, and if they're making final decisions; they should be convinced to make the right decisions, no? :smallwink: General observations and statements, no matter how wise or true, don't get much (visible!) attention.

Well, if we wanted to get more specific on it, I'd point out how, say, when Fiery Diamond was saying
On the subject of mindrape, that spell is possibly the most evil thing possible to do. Rewiring someone's mind like that is ... well ... worse than torturing and murdering someone and preventing resurrection. There are some minor things that could be done with it that could have beneficial results, but even altering someone like that in such a minor way is something that no Good character should even remotely consider. The "sanctify the wicked" and all that nonsense is completely out of line. Rewiring someone to be Good should be considered an act of extreme Evil, and rewiring for other results...much worse.

Why such an extreme stance? Well, at first appearances, it's a matter of priorities: The mind/soul/personality/whatever you want to term it is significantly more important than the body. Manipulating someone's head is Capital-E Evil, while hurting/killing their physical form is lowercase-e evil. Capital-E Evil shouldn't be done, period, even for a good cause (which, as a side note, suggests that Fiery Diamond's also got a dose of "the ends do not justify the means" in there, although lowercase-e evil can sometimes be excused for a good cause).

Vs. Eldariel's

Well, then I'll gladly be evil and be doing good. Try to align me then. HA!
Which gives the appearance of being based on "the ends do justify the means", and/or seeing manipulating someone's head as lowercase-e evil, rather than Capital-E Evil.

The two will never agree. Whether or not the ends justify the means is not provable. The relative ethical/morality value of the mind/soul/personality/whatever you want to call it compared to the ethical valuation of the body is not provable. Both make fundamental assumptions in those regards, and so will never agree. Ethics/Morality is not math. That is, while we can use the established and (essentially) universally agreed-to rules of math to prove (A+B)*3=(A+B)+(A+B)+(A+B)=A*3+B*3, there is no such framework for Ethics/Morality.

Random side-note: In most philosophical circles, Ethics are the rules of behavior, while Morality is how well they're followed. So you can have an extremely moral assasin, if his Ethics are to always get his mark and to never cheat a client. In common discourse, the two are usually used interchangably.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-17, 07:31 PM
Her AC (or allies) can't kill around you. But they can freely do lethal as long as foes don't die.

Jothki
2009-09-17, 07:44 PM
You're already engaging in massive hypocrisy by taking an Exalted feat. If you truely are incredibly Good, circumventing it when needed can only be a good thing.

ZeroNumerous
2009-09-17, 08:27 PM
I foresee that this message is going to be the most ignored one, despite, no, because of its wisdom.

Actually, it'll probably be ignored because the question is a theoretical one rather than a practical in-game one.

Knaight
2009-09-17, 09:21 PM
Why such an extreme stance? Well, at first appearances, it's a matter of priorities: The mind/soul/personality/whatever you want to term it is significantly more important than the body. Manipulating someone's head is Capital-E Evil, while hurting/killing their physical form is lowercase-e evil. Capital-E Evil shouldn't be done, period, even for a good cause.

Killing someone is going to permanently destroy their mind, just like mind-rape and similar spells. The difference is that in the second case you are creating someone else exactly how you want them. The keys to the body just got handed over. Its murder.

I agree hugely on the priorities by the way. I would consider damaging somebodies body, when compared to damaging someones mind the same as damaging someones car or bike when compared to damaging someones body. The body is a glorified vehicle for the mind, and while it sucks to be stuck without it you still have yourself.

Xenogears
2009-09-17, 09:44 PM
Killing someone is going to permanently destroy their mind, just like mind-rape and similar spells. The difference is that in the second case you are creating someone else exactly how you want them. The keys to the body just got handed over. Its murder.

The general argument of those opposed to StW is that recreating their mind with magic is WORSE than murder because in DnD if you merely kill the body the mind/soul goes on to an afterlife (if you worship an evil diety and did great deeds in their name you might even get a pleasent afterlife) but rewriting their mind destroys them permanently.

The main counterargument is that mindrape can under some circumstances be broken by a remove curse spell so it implies that it is not destroying your mind only drawing on it or something. And that StW actually only causes them to contemplate their actions for 1 year and repent.

Of course both sides make judicious use of assumptions (that can be logically argued either way for the most part) and the whole debate is pointless. Nevertheless people will continue to debate because for some people (myself included) it is fun to argue.

quick_comment
2009-09-18, 12:03 AM
Is fireball evil? No, it is a tool, and can be used for good or evil.

Is a spell that deals 1d6 fire damage/level (max 10d6) in a radius burst with reflex save for half at long range, but does this by drawing body heat from captured angels in the abyss evil? Hell yeah. Mechanically, its exactly the same as fireball though.

olentu
2009-09-18, 12:18 AM
Is fireball evil? No, it is a tool, and can be used for good or evil.

Is a spell that deals 1d6 fire damage/level (max 10d6) in a radius burst with reflex save for half at long range, but does this by drawing body heat from captured angels in the abyss evil? Hell yeah. Mechanically, its exactly the same as fireball though.

Well if one could go to the abyss and measure the temperature change in the angels then it is not exactly the same.

Kylarra
2009-09-18, 12:20 AM
Is fireball evil? No, it is a tool, and can be used for good or evil.

Is a spell that deals 1d6 fire damage/level (max 10d6) in a radius burst with reflex save for half at long range, but does this by drawing body heat from captured angels in the abyss evil? Hell yeah. Mechanically, its exactly the same as fireball though.On the other hand, we know Black Mage's hadouken is unquestionably evil.

Xenogears
2009-09-18, 01:30 AM
On the other hand, we know Black Mage's hadouken is unquestionably evil.

Technically we only know it is evil if we assume that love is good and therefore removing it is evil. Not that I'd ever argue that love is anything but awsomely good but the point being its like how making undead is clearly evil as long as we assume that negative energy is evil. I'm sure there is someone somewhere who truly believes that love is evil and that therefore the Hadoken is the holiest of all fake spells.

Kylarra
2009-09-18, 01:42 AM
Technically we only know it is evil if we assume that love is good and therefore removing it is evil. Not that I'd ever argue that love is anything but awsomely good but the point being its like how making undead is clearly evil as long as we assume that negative energy is evil. I'm sure there is someone somewhere who truly believes that love is evil and that therefore the Hadoken is the holiest of all fake spells.Well to learn it he had to kill orphans or somesuch, so ... yeah.

Xenogears
2009-09-18, 01:49 AM
Well to learn it he had to kill orphans or somesuch, so ... yeah.

A) He has frequently been shown to do this even while completely unneccessary so in all likelyhood he had to do nothing of the kind and chose to for sheer joy and B) just because he had to learn it that way does not make the spell evil unless no one can learn it without killing orphans. If say now that he knows it and he can teach it to anyone then the fact that orphan murder allowed him to learn it has no bearing on the morality of other people who did not commit infanticides using the spell.

Kylarra
2009-09-18, 01:54 AM
A) He has frequently been shown to do this even while completely unneccessary so in all likelyhood he had to do nothing of the kind and chose to for sheer joy and B) just because he had to learn it that way does not make the spell evil unless no one can learn it without killing orphans. If say now that he knows it and he can teach it to anyone then the fact that orphan murder allowed him to learn it has no bearing on the morality of other people who did not commit infanticides using the spell.Well he's explicitly said that he did it in order to learn the spell, so barring word of god saying otherwise...

Xenogears
2009-09-18, 02:12 AM
Well he's explicitly said that he did it in order to learn the spell, so barring word of god saying otherwise...

Cuz lord knows good old BM would never lie. Certainly not about murdering orphans.

Sarcasm aside do you happen to recall when Sarda [B]literally[B] spent an eternity trying to convince BM that by sacrifice he didn't mean stab your friends and it still didn't work? Yeah so I figure there's a good chance this is the same thing and whoever gave him that spell wanted him to "Sacrifice your time for orphans" "Huh? Sacrifice orphans? Sounds fun." "NO.....gone already." or some such better written stuff.

Kylarra
2009-09-18, 02:29 AM
Cuz lord knows good old BM would never lie. Certainly not about murdering orphans.

Sarcasm aside do you happen to recall when Sarda literally spent an eternity trying to convince BM that by sacrifice he didn't mean stab your friends and it still didn't work? Yeah so I figure there's a good chance this is the same thing and whoever gave him that spell wanted him to "Sacrifice your time for orphans" "Huh? Sacrifice orphans? Sounds fun." "NO.....gone already." or some such better written stuff.We can hypothesize all we want, but there's no reason to assume that he's lying unless given a reason to. Otherwise we've got nothing to go on ... at all.

Xenogears
2009-09-18, 02:38 AM
We can hypothesize all we want, but there's no reason to assume that he's lying unless given a reason to. Otherwise we've got nothing to go on ... at all.

Except that he is well-known for lying, unneccessary murder, thinking murder is important when its not, murder, murder, oh and the fact that based soley on the facts given we have no reason to assume he can't teach it to someone without them having to murder anyone so it once again goes to even though BM is evil, got hadoken using evil means, and uses it for evil purposes these facts do not prove that the spell itself is in fact evil.

On the other hand I'm like 99% sure that no one besides the two of us cares about this argument and it's fairly off topic (although I'm pretty sure that the OP was pretty much answered anyway and I like arguing and coming up with niche situations to explain a convoluted theory that even I don't believe...)

ZeroNumerous
2009-09-18, 02:53 AM
... the point being its like how making undead is clearly evil as long as we assume that negative energy is evil.

Actually, undead could be evil just because they crave human flesh.

And generally: Yes, if you get a spell with an evil means that makes the spell itself evil. Particularly since any misunderstanding on BM's part about sacrificing orphans would result in failure to get the spell.

olentu
2009-09-18, 04:12 AM
Actually, undead could be evil just because they crave human flesh.

And generally: Yes, if you get a spell with an evil means that makes the spell itself evil. Particularly since any misunderstanding on BM's part about sacrificing orphans would result in failure to get the spell.

I do not really see the necessary connection between the method used to get the spell and the spell's alignment descriptor.

Cespenar
2009-09-18, 04:21 AM
Actually, it'll probably be ignored because the question is a theoretical one rather than a practical in-game one.

Right now, people are talking about what's good or evil. I pretty much figure that the boundary between theory and practice is invisible in this one.

MickJay
2009-09-18, 05:24 AM
One last thing about StW, it's supposedly Good by both RAW and RAI - why do you insist it has to be evil? If there was such a thing in RL as StW, then we could have an interesting debate on the subject of using it, but within D&D universe it's objectively Good. It's one of the most explicitly Good spells there are (if not the "best" spell), there's hardly an action you can take that could be compared with StW in the terms of Goodness, RAW and RAI (and it's one of the few places where there is no real ambiguity in the text). You can well disagree with it and make its use questionable, but then you're ignoring a very clear-cut part of the setting. The objections made against StW are not valid in D&D terms, precisely because StW is so good (and in this case, it's not even circular logic, because "good" is arbitrary anyway).

Riffington
2009-09-18, 05:56 AM
One last thing about StW, it's supposedly Good by both RAW and RAI - why do you insist it has to be evil? If there was such a thing in RL as StW, then we could have an interesting debate on the subject of using it, but within D&D universe it's objectively Good. It's one of the most explicitly Good spells there are (if not the "best" spell), there's hardly an action you can take that could be compared with StW in the terms of Goodness, RAW and RAI (and it's one of the few places where there is no real ambiguity in the text). You can well disagree with it and make its use questionable, but then you're ignoring a very clear-cut part of the setting. The objections made against StW are not valid in D&D terms, precisely because StW is so good (and in this case, it's not even circular logic, because "good" is arbitrary anyway).

The wording of StW is actually unclear because it never quite says how it works. It is clearly Good. But how? It's possible that it's Good because it's a genuinely good thing (it puts someone in a perfectly rehabilitative place, and they elect of their own free will to be rehabilitated, and they do have a choice, it's just that given all that information and help, everyone chooses good). The evidence for this is that there aren't two separate saves, and the year it takes.
It's also possible that it's Good despite being a genuinely evil thing (it takes away the target's free will, which is evil), but the spell's creator figured out a way to play with the laws of morality to magically turn it Good anyway. The evidence for this is that the victim turns into the same law/chaos as the caster, and that the victim doesn't appear to actually have a choice.

Jack_Simth
2009-09-18, 06:40 AM
Her AC (or allies) can't kill around you. But they can freely do lethal as long as foes don't die.
Sorta.

As written up, the only restrictions that Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace put on your allies is that they can't kill "helpless or defenseless" opponents. So they can't Coup De Grace that goblin you took down with a Sleep. However, if that same goblin instead makes the save and charges the party Fighter, the Fighter can kill the goblin with an AoO using a reach weapon without suffering consequences - officially, anyway.

MickJay
2009-09-18, 07:35 AM
(it takes away the target's free will, which is evil)

I'd still argue that this would fall under "lawful" (in the sense of being "contrary" to Chaotic, which is all about exercising free will), rather than "evil". Restraining, or going against someone's free will is perfectly acceptable and seen as good in RL in certain circumstances - e.g. stopping someone from commiting suicide, restraining mentally ill who would harm themselves or others, not letting children do dangerous things. At least some of the source materials for D&D justify treating Evil in this way (as being foolish, or corruption of the original Good, or both - and in any case, "treating" someone from Evil prevents much harm and suffering, both to the no-longer-Evil person and their potential victims).

Xenogears
2009-09-18, 09:30 AM
I'd still argue that this would fall under "lawful" (in the sense of being "contrary" to Chaotic, which is all about exercising free will), rather than "evil". Restraining, or going against someone's free will is perfectly acceptable and seen as good in RL in certain circumstances - e.g. stopping someone from commiting suicide, restraining mentally ill who would harm themselves or others, not letting children do dangerous things. At least some of the source materials for D&D justify treating Evil in this way (as being foolish, or corruption of the original Good, or both - and in any case, "treating" someone from Evil prevents much harm and suffering, both to the no-longer-Evil person and their potential victims).

I'm going to try to explain why, even though as written StW doesn't magically compel the target to alter themselves, it is still forcing them to. Because the mechanics say that (paraphrasing) the target thinks of their sins and repent. Always. No matter how evil. Only takes a year. Always.

See after reading that part whenever I think of StW I am reminded of when my Psych class was talking about Sensory Deprivition and as an example the teacher gave us a passage from a book (I forget which one....) that had people using a suped up sensory deprivation chamber to force a spy to switch back to their side. They described it as torture with no physical marks.

So when I picture the BBEG in the StW realm I picture him slowly going insane from the complete and utter lack of any sensory imput until he finally cracks. Then when he finally is freed he views the caster as a savior and thus adopts his alignment.

Neither the mechanics or Fluff are at odds with my interpretation and from where I am standing it explains a lot of the oddities about it. It also makes it an evil spell wether the game designers thought so or not.

huttj509
2009-09-18, 05:10 PM
Random side-note: In most philosophical circles, Ethics are the rules of behavior, while Morality is how well they're followed. So you can have an extremely moral assasin, if his Ethics are to always get his mark and to never cheat a client. In common discourse, the two are usually used interchangably.

"The Ethical man knows he shouldn't cheat on his wife, while the moral man actually doesn't."

-Dr. Mallard, NCIS

Dixieboy
2009-09-18, 05:21 PM
Book of Vile Darkness. Basically lets you rewrite someone's mind like their brain was a hard drive.

There's even a holy version!

Riffington
2009-09-18, 08:15 PM
Random side-note: In most philosophical circles, Ethics are the rules of behavior, while Morality is how well they're followed. So you can have an extremely moral assasin, if his Ethics are to always get his mark and to never cheat a client. In common discourse, the two are usually used interchangably.

Interesting. The way I usually see it:
ethics are professional rules of behavior (don't sleep with your client, avoid conflict of interest, etc) whereas morality is what is right and wrong (regardless of what legal/professional rules may exist)

MickJay:

I'd still argue that this would fall under "lawful" (in the sense of being "contrary" to Chaotic, which is all about exercising free will), rather than "evil". Restraining, or going against someone's free will is perfectly acceptable and seen as good in RL in certain circumstances - e.g. stopping someone from commiting suicide, restraining mentally ill who would harm themselves or others, not letting children do dangerous things.
You have restrained their free action, not their free will. Totally different.