PDA

View Full Version : Hmm.. Mindrape IS [Good]



Pages : [1] 2

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-14, 12:19 AM
I've been thinking a lot about alignment. Generally how Good vs Evil should be as important as Chaotic vs Lawful. So as to not derail my own thread in my second sentence, I'll cut to the chase.

I think using magic/psionics/whatever to make an evil person good is, in fact, a Good act. On the Good vs Evil axis you've certainly struck a blow for the good guys.

What makes this act repugnant to us playing the game is not that it is Evil. It's that it is on the scary side of Lawful. It's the casters order imposed on what they see as being detrimental.

This is mostly an "Oh crap, I hadn't thought of it that way" moment. I'm interested in knowing if anyone else has another perspective to add; I'd be eager to read it.

Kylarra
2010-04-14, 12:22 AM
We already have Sanctify the Wicked.

Optimystik
2010-04-14, 12:23 AM
And Programmed Amnesia is neutral.

Thus bringing moral relativism to D&D!

Mastikator
2010-04-14, 12:24 AM
Mindraping someone evil to be good violates their dignity. Good people have respect for the dignity of living beings. The end does not justify the means, in D&D ethics.
QED Mindraping someone evil to be good is still evil.

For turning evil to good, there is atonement.

Catch
2010-04-14, 12:29 AM
According cartoonish and declarative morality of of D&D, (e.g., the books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness, whose names nicely sum up the alignment system) punishing Evil creatures with Evil acts qualifies you as Chaotic Neutral.

Otherwise known as "pulling a Rorschach."

@V: I don't think it works that way. D&D is big on the value of innocence for the excuse or condemnation of violence. I mean, if there wasn't an easy out like "those Orcs had it coming," adventurers would actually be accountable for their actions. So, murdering wrongdoers is within the acceptable parameters of Good, but you're not allowed to cause undue suffering, or like it too much.

Silly, but dem's the rules, as written.

Coidzor
2010-04-14, 12:29 AM
Mindraping someone evil to be good violates their dignity. Good people have respect for the dignity of living beings.

So does killing them. Unless you think pooping one's self is dignified. And most if not all of the living things one kills as an adventurer will poop themselves after dying.

Anyhoo, I view Mindrape as basically killing the person, just leaving the body behind.

Trekkin
2010-04-14, 12:31 AM
Mastikator and Coldzior have a point. For the ethics and efficacy of forced, involuntary goodness, I refer you to a certain Clockwork Orange.

The whole point of atonement is that the villain chooses to be good (and promptly experiences a huge wash of self-loathing and other internal pain over his past actions). Funny how Good gods like pain too, just in self-inflicted form.

Mastikator
2010-04-14, 12:39 AM
So does killing them. Unless you think pooping one's self is dignified. And most if not all of the living things one kills as an adventurer will poop themselves after dying.

Anyhoo, I view Mindrape as basically killing the person, just leaving the body behind.

Yes, if you just kill someone non-hostile out of the blue for absolutely no other reason than "they're evil", then yes, it violates their dignity and you're evil.
Killing is only acceptable in self-defense or in defense of others. Note that even then it's not "good". Otherwise demons and devils would be good.
D&D morality is black and white like that.

Raven777
2010-04-14, 12:46 AM
So does killing them. Unless you think pooping one's self is dignified. And most if not all of the living things one kills as an adventurer will poop themselves after dying.

You'd think it's a really good argument until you realize it's about the Dead. Pooping. Themselves.

Anyway, on the serious side, it once again all boils down on Objective Alignments VS Relative Alignments. If you consider the struggle of Good against Evil on a rigid cosmic scale with deities and whole civilizations on either sides, then yes, slaying or converting Evil through any mean will always tip the scale towards the Good end of the Universe's alignment bar. Mind Raping people into goodness is therefore a good act. A very lawful, even tyrannic act, but benevolent nonetheless.

Do not forget that Good is about generosity, self sacrifice, all that jazz. Free will is the province of Chaos, not Good.

Coidzor
2010-04-14, 12:49 AM
You'd think it's a really good argument until you realize it's about the Dead. Pooping. Themselves.

Because in this case, YOU Killed them. You killed all of the younglings!
I don't know why, but I didn't see the potential humor until I read your post. I am now lolling like crazy.
Dead creatures are still creatures too! They're not objects to be fabricated willy nilly! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147307&highlight=fabricate)

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-14, 12:49 AM
Mindraping someone evil to be good violates their dignity. Good people have respect for the dignity of living beings. The end does not justify the means, in D&D ethics.
QED Mindraping someone evil to be good is still evil.


So does killing them. Unless you think pooping one's self is dignified. And most if not all of the living things one kills as an adventurer will poop themselves after dying.


This, basically. It's not any worse than most adventurers would do anyway. And since any Good character can go into an evil humanoid layer and kill them with no moral quandaries (within reason; I'm referring to the normal kobold/goblin/etc starter fantasy quest, not an orphanage) why not Mindrape them when you are capable of it? They get to live. Their children get to keep their parents. The livelihood of the community, if tied to the individual, is not in jeopardy.


Mastikator and Coldzior have a point. For the ethics and efficacy of forced, involuntary goodness, I refer you to a certain Clockwork Orange.

I would argue that there is nothing Evil about it. Yes, in the book they debilitate the poor guy and destroy his ability to live a life of any means, basically. However, the magical substitutes have no such flaw. Heck, he could learn to be an adventuring paladin if he really wanted to.

The mental freedom to do what you wish to do is not Good or Evil, it is Chaotic.

WildPyre
2010-04-14, 12:52 AM
So does killing them. Unless you think pooping one's self is dignified. And most if not all of the living things one kills as an adventurer will poop themselves after dying.

Anyhoo, I view Mindrape as basically killing the person, just leaving the body behind.

This is why I highly recomend disemboweling your foes. :smallbiggrin:

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 12:55 AM
Yes, if you just kill someone non-hostile out of the blue for absolutely no other reason than "they're evil", then yes, it violates their dignity and you're evil.
Killing is only acceptable in self-defense or in defense of others. Note that even then it's not "good". Otherwise demons and devils would be good.
D&D morality is black and white like that.

No, it's not.

RAW for D&D morality is that if you kill an evil creature for the purpose of ridding the world of evil? It's a "Good" act.

If you kill an evil creature for the purpose of taking its stuff? It's a "Neutral" act.

If you kill an evil creature as a sacrifice to an evil god? It's an "Evil" act.

The reason makes a difference, but killing evil creatures CAN be "good".

As for dignity? Meh. Many cultures believe in a dignity in death. For instance, the ancient japanese used seppuku to wipe away the blemish of dishonor and allow someone to die with dignity.

Dignity is more about ridicule, the cruel and unusual, belittling. Dignity is lost not because a prisoner is dominated and forced to fight his comrades. Dignity is lost when that prisoner, while dominated, is forced to consume his own offal.

Dignity's more about respect than it is about life or death. Torment and inhuman acts are the hallmarks of it.

Mental Control over others smacks of evil to us because most hold that a person's freedom is inviolate, on a basic level.

Freedom. It's an assault on freedom.

Freedom is a hallmark of Chaotic characters. The support of freedom and personal choice over order.

It's brute force order on its most basic level, and most people feel it's wrong. That doesn't qualify it for evil, in and of itself. The OP is right. Others are attempting to justify personal opinions of right and wrong into a good and evil context.

Yes, I believe it's WRONG as well. It's just not evil. It's entirely too much order. But mental control isn't evil (unless the spell description says it is).

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-14, 01:00 AM
Eloquent retelling of my point.

Thank you, sir, for clarifying my point. This is one of the reasons I posted in the first place; You spoke exactly what I had thought, however I'm not terribly good at putting what I thought of into text.

Mastikator
2010-04-14, 01:04 AM
Don't "meh" at dignity. The respect for dignity is one of the prime pillars that define good. If you don't respect the dignity of sapient beings, you're not good. Period.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Bazinga! No random killings. Life and dignity is too important. It says so in black and white.

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-14, 01:11 AM
Dignity: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dignity?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

I'm going to assume they're speaking of the respect and honor that is due to the person that it is due.

For example;

No skipping over your unstable dieing foe. It could mean a quick death, it could mean stabilization. As long as you accord them respect.

Usually getting picked to join a team is a sign of respect (at the least for your abilities), especially if the team trying to recruit you is a rival. This seems at least on par with most other likely outcomes in terms of honorifics. Welcome to team "Good".

EDIT: What specifically about changing a character from X Evil to X Good harms the creatures' dignity?

Gametime
2010-04-14, 01:20 AM
I would argue that there is nothing Evil about it. Yes, in the book they debilitate the poor guy and destroy his ability to live a life of any means, basically. However, the magical substitutes have no such flaw. Heck, he could learn to be an adventuring paladin if he really wanted to.

The mental freedom to do what you wish to do is not Good or Evil, it is Chaotic.

Except the point is that taking away his personal choice is, in and of itself, evil. The horrible things that happen to Alex are just hammering the point home, combined with a bit of a revenge fantasy on the part of the author.

The main point still stands: If you aren't being given a choice in the matter, the things you do don't count as "good." Now, there's a lot of grey area here and endless debates to be had about what sort of influences count as acceptable. Is education okay? Medication for what we think are illnesses? Does the very fact of making something illegal remove some of the choice involved in making a truly moral decision? Does the individual's choice matter more than the safety of the collective, and can we find an effective balance?

These are all very difficult questions. Mind raping someone to conform to your standards of goodness does not fall into this grey area.

I could see the argument for it being a good act by RAW (assuming you used a Good-Approved [TM] substitute for Mind Rape, which is always evil because it has the Evil descriptor). By any standard of common sense? No.

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-14, 01:27 AM
Except the point is that taking away his personal choice is, in and of itself, evil. The horrible things that happen to Alex are just hammering the point home, combined with a bit of a revenge fantasy on the part of the author.

The main point still stands: If you aren't being given a choice in the matter, the things you do don't count as "good." Now, there's a lot of grey area here and endless debates to be had about what sort of influences count as acceptable. Is education okay? Medication for what we think are illnesses? Does the very fact of making something illegal remove some of the choice involved in making a truly moral decision? Does the individual's choice matter more than the safety of the collective, and can we find an effective balance?

These are all very difficult questions. Mind raping someone to conform to your standards of goodness does not fall into this grey area.

I could see the argument for it being a good act by RAW (assuming you used a Good-Approved [TM] substitute for Mind Rape, which is always evil because it has the Evil descriptor). By any standard of common sense? No.

What you just offered was a very good Chaotic argument against mindrape. You also brought up some very good points. If I mindrape EvilKobold into volunteering at an orphanage he is not committing a good act. He has no choice in the matter. However, -I- committed a Good act by mindraping him out of random/planned evil.

The only reason the book tries to convince you that losing freedom is evil is because we generally view Freedom and Good as intertwined. Whereas DnD does make this distinction. The priest in the book was complaining about it not being good because it would have been absurd for the hard hitting point to have been "It's too Lawful!"

EDIT: To be clear, I agree that it is horrifying. To put it in DnD terms, I'm probably neutral, leaning toward chaotic good. This is the worst thing I could imagine happening to me. But in DnD, where alignments can be rather clear cut, you can Mindrape for goodliness.

Milskidasith
2010-04-14, 01:28 AM
Except the point is that taking away his personal choice is, in and of itself, evil. The horrible things that happen to Alex are just hammering the point home, combined with a bit of a revenge fantasy on the part of the author.

The problem is, D&D evil is strictly defined, and free will is neither good nor evil. Free will is more chaotic, less free will is lawful. Mind rape has horribly lawful effects by raw no matter what you do (or at the very least, strangely neutral if you're mind raping people to think freedom is awesome, but then you're a very hypocritical character), but it's not evil unless you use it to do something evil.


The main point still stands: If you aren't being given a choice in the matter, the things you do don't count as "good." Now, there's a lot of grey area here and endless debates to be had about what sort of influences count as acceptable. Is education okay? Medication for what we think are illnesses? Does the very fact of making something illegal remove some of the choice involved in making a truly moral decision? Does the individual's choice matter more than the safety of the collective, and can we find an effective balance?

But this isn't about the now good-ified mind rapee being good or not, it's about the caster. Making somebody do good actions through force is very lawful and possibly good, but doing good acts certainly isn't evil.


These are all very difficult questions. Mind raping someone to conform to your standards of goodness does not fall into this grey area.

Because of two things: One, mindrape has the evil descriptor so it is automatically evil, and two, it just fits the D&D standards of lawful very well for removing free will, but good or evil is not appropriate.


I could see the argument for it being a good act by RAW (assuming you used a Good-Approved [TM] substitute for Mind Rape, which is always evil because it has the Evil descriptor). By any standard of common sense? No.

Common sense isn't RAW.

Ravens_cry
2010-04-14, 01:32 AM
Common sense isn't RAW.
No. No it isn't. But if something bugs you in the rules, just change them. It's okay, you can stop hyperventilating. No one is going to arrest you if you all agree to change something because it's making the game not fun. This power can be used for evil, and for good,so be careful.

awa
2010-04-14, 01:33 AM
not just the what but the how the spells called mindrape i imagine it's rather more violating then its neutral counterpart even if you use it to get the same effect.

Besides a person is the sum of their memories and personality a drastic overwriting destroying every thing they once valued and held dear is far more traumatic then just killing them.

And just to shoot this down before it even starts the good version (see this is the how again) dosent forcibly change their alignment it forces them to confront the evil of their own deeds and when that happens they realize they should in fact be good so and then change of their own free will

Gametime
2010-04-14, 01:41 AM
Common sense isn't RAW.

...which is basically exactly what I said. RAW, it is not an Evil act to force someone to do Good things. I agree.

I do, however, think it is an evil act to force someone to do good things if we are using any moral system other than the admittedly bare one vaguely described by the Player's Handbook.

For what it's worth, the Book of Exalted Deeds says that charm and compulsion effects are "not inherently evil." It also, however, says this:


Sword-point conversion might be a useful political tool, but it is
almost entirely without impact on the souls of the “converts.”
Worse, it stinks of evil, robbing the victim of the freedom to
choose and echoing the use of torture to extract the desired
behavior.

It seems pretty clear that while chaos cares more about freedom than good does, it isn't completely irrelevant to the side of good. Depriving others of their freedom is, at the very least, morally suspect.

(The book also says that an evil act is always an evil act, no matter how good the outcome. Take from that what you will.)

Gametime
2010-04-14, 01:42 AM
Besides a person is the sum of their memories and personality a drastic overwriting destroying every thing they once valued and held dear is far more traumatic then just killing them.



Technically, it wouldn't be traumatic at all because they'd have no idea it happened.

Of course, this is a pretty poor justification for doing it, but trauma, by it's very nature, isn't really a concern for the up-and-coming Mind Rapist.

Coidzor
2010-04-14, 01:43 AM
Except the point is that taking away his personal choice is, in and of itself, evil. The horrible things that happen to Alex are just hammering the point home, combined with a bit of a revenge fantasy on the part of the author.

Alex? :smallconfused:

Gametime
2010-04-14, 01:46 AM
Alex? :smallconfused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_clockwork_orange

awa
2010-04-14, 01:48 AM
just becuase you don't remember the trauma doesn't mean it never happened

Coidzor
2010-04-14, 01:49 AM
^: Yes, but for the purposes of magic, the same magic that causes the change can in fact erase any and all negative impacts of the change.

On the other hand, it can leave the trauma intact and set up a whole bunch of rough contradictions and edges in the mind of the mind-raped that they lose structural integrity.

Basically, it's like a scalpel for the mind. Used skillfully it can promote wellness. Used irresponsibly or hamfistedly and it will create worse problems than a bullet.


And just to shoot this down before it even starts the good version (see this is the how again) dosent forcibly change their alignment it forces them to confront the evil of their own deeds and when that happens they realize they should in fact be good so and then change of their own free will

To exactly the alignment and philosophy of the caster... :smallwink::smallwink:*nudge, nudge*

taltamir
2010-04-14, 01:49 AM
Mindraping someone evil to be good violates their dignity. Good people have respect for the dignity of living beings. The end does not justify the means, in D&D ethics.
QED Mindraping someone evil to be good is still evil.
Pfft, they have no dignity... I think you meant dignity as in fundamental rights though... But its still not why it is bad. It isn't enough to say "it violates their rights", you have to explain how it does so, and why, and why it is wrong.

Mind rape fundamentally destroys what makes them... them. The ID, the uniqueness, the soul is fundamentally altered.
You are better off killing them... you haven't redeemed anyone, you have destroyed them and replaced them with a doppleganger who happens to have whatever memories you wish for it to have.

But it could be used surgically on the willing though. EX: A victim of horrid abuse might actually PAY you to use mindrape and remove the memory of it from his/her mind. Not to mention it is a highly efficient way to teach magic...
"you can spend 80 years trying to master wizardry... or I can mindrape you into being an epic wizard in 6 seconds"


For turning evil to good, there is atonement.
Atonement does not alter one's alignment, atonement merely restores your magical powers if they were lost, by breaking the seal your god placed on them (even a god cannot take away vested power)

Example, Jozen has been vested to be a cleric of palor by a higher level cleric via a secret ritual (RAW), making him a first level cleric. At level 10 he commits a crme against pelor by helping is new girlfriend, a vampire priestess of baal and pelor seals his ability to prepare spells. Jozen still has all his currently prepared spells available for casting. If Jozen atones for his mistake, a cleric of pelor or another good god must cast atonement on him to break the seal on his powers (no, palor isn't going to do it).
If Jozen wishes it, he may instead join the church of baal where a cleric of baal must cast atonment on him to unseal his clerical power (making him a 10th level cleric of baal).

Yes it makes very little sense... but thats how it works. It gets wonkier if he had worshipped an ideal before, or worships an ideal later... plus... atonement scroll + UMD = win.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 01:54 AM
just becuase you don't remember the trauma doesn't mean it never happened

Mental trauma consists in the aftereffects of a stressful event, and the damage associated with it come as a result of being unable to cope with the emotions and memories associated with that event. Merely not being able to remember an event might not remove any possibility for trauma, but magically having the event wiped from both your conscious and subconscious mind would, by definition.

This is, again, not to condone the act of mind rape. Arguing that it's wrong based on the trauma it causes is merely a flawed argument, since it can't result in trauma unless the person's mind is restored later.

In a similar vein, death would undoubtedly be a very traumatic event if we could remember it afterward. Most people would agree that the fact that we can't experience any trauma from it doesn't detract from the evil of murder.

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-14, 01:54 AM
not just the what but the how the spells called mindrape i imagine it's rather more violating then its neutral counterpart even if you use it to get the same effect.

Ok, ignore the name of the spell. Obviously, as you mention later in your post, it could be called anything else for the good side. Like lovepillows. Lovepillows makes you good. And I'm assuming you mean it's more violating because the fluff describes it that way, yes? Well, Lovepillows does the same thing but without the violence. Personally, I don't think it changes the act one iota whether you are violent or not, you still fundamentally changed a person. Likely against their will. And I'm pretty sure some people would find that violation at least as deep as a sword to the gut.


Besides a person is the sum of their memories and personality a drastic overwriting destroying every thing they once valued and held dear is far more traumatic then just killing them.

Maybe. Can you tell me from personal experience how traumatic death is? I figure it's pretty darn bad. Or not. I have no personal experience of my own. And you're not overwriting their memories. It's like when you grow up and go "Wow, I wish I hadn't stolen that candy bar when I was young." Well, except it happens rather more quickly.


just to shoot this down before it even starts the good version (see this is the how again) dosent forcibly change their alignment it forces them to confront the evil of their own deeds and when that happens they realize they should in fact be good so and then change of their own free will

Well, all I have to say is that it still does the exact same thing. Now, if I made an Evil spell that confronts you with all of the opportunities you missed because you were good/charitable and at the end it makes you Evil does that make it any better? Absolutely not.

As previously stated this is Lawful. HORRIBLY HORRIBLY Lawful. But I could see an extreme Lawful Neutral country use this as a punishment.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 01:55 AM
Atonement does not alter one's alignment, atonement merely restores your magical powers if they were lost, by breaking the seal your god placed on them (even a god cannot take away vested power)

Example, Jozen has been vested to be a cleric of palor by a higher level cleric via a secret ritual (RAW), making him a first level cleric. At level 10 he commits a crme against pelor by helping is new girlfriend, a vampire priestess of baal and pelor seals his ability to prepare spells. Jozen still has all his currently prepared spells available for casting. If Jozen atones for his mistake, a cleric of pelor or another good god must cast atonement on him to break the seal on his powers (no, palor isn't going to do it).
If Jozen wishes it, he may instead join the church of baal where a cleric of baal must cast atonment on him to unseal his clerical power (making him a 10th level cleric of baal).

Yes it makes very little sense... but thats how it works. It gets wonkier if he had worshipped an ideal before, or worships an ideal later... plus... atonement scroll + UMD = win.

Atonement can alter one's alignment. The caster needs to be of that alignment, and the recipient must be willing.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 01:55 AM
Preface: This is based on D&D's objective morality system, and does not reflect my personal beliefs of right or wrong. Only "Good", "Evil", "Lawful", and "Chaotic", from the standpoint of the D&D alignment system.


Don't "meh" at dignity. The respect for dignity is one of the prime pillars that define good. If you don't respect the dignity of sapient beings, you're not good. Period.

Bazinga! No random killings. Life and dignity is too important. It says so in black and white.

My "meh" was not at dignity. It was at your interpretation of freedom as dignity. If that were the case, all law would be evil.


(n.) The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.
(n.) Inherent nobility and worth: the dignity of honest labor.

A concern for the dignity of sapient beings. A concern for a sapient being's worthiness of esteem or respect. That does not mean that sapience in inviolate. Just as an evil creature's life may be ended, and it may be a good act, so too may their sapience be replaced. Respecting a sapient's being's dignity does not mean holding their sapience inviolate. Just as respecting life does not mean you can never take it.

Altering someone's thoughts to suit you does not conclusively violate a respect for a sapient being. That's your opinion, and is not backed up my any evidence.

But as long as "good" characters in D&D are allowed to kill, then ending something cannot be construed to be a lack of respect. Because good creatures, as you so eloquently stated, respect life. If they're allowed to end it?

Then ending a creature's sapience is not conclusively a lack of respect, just as ending life isn't. The reasons and circumstances surrounding it define that.

All that controlling someone's thoughts or actions is? Definatively? Is Lawful.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 01:56 AM
Mental trauma consists in the aftereffects of a stressful event, and the damage associated with it come as a result of being unable to cope with the emotions and memories associated with that event. Merely not being able to remember an event might not remove any possibility for trauma, but magically having the event wiped from both your conscious and subconscious mind would, by definition.

It goes a step further, mindrape lets you completely rewrite a persons PERSONALITY...

You don't even HAVE To remove the trauma... you just make it so they don't CARE.
The spell could, by definition, allow you to make someone HAPPY to have suffered said trauma "If I wasn't raped and abused for months by those savages I would never have learned to truly appreciate life" and actually MEAN it when they say it with no compunction about it.


Ok, ignore the name of the spell. Obviously, as you mention later in your post, it could be called anything else for the good side. Like lovepillows. Lovepillows makes you good. And I'm assuming you mean it's more violating because the fluff describes it that way, yes? Well, Lovepillows does the same thing but without the violence. Personally, I don't think it changes the act one iota whether you are violent or not, you still fundamentally changed a person. Likely against their will. And I'm pretty sure some people would find that violation at least as deep as a sword to the gut.
Isn't the name of the spell freely changeably by the RAW? that is:
figthers don't know they are fighters... they might describe themselves as monks, wizards don't necessarily call fireball fireball, they might call it hakoshes flaming fist. etc...
by raw

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 02:03 AM
Isn't the name of the spell freely changeably by the RAW? that is:
figthers don't know they are fighters... they might describe themselves as monks, wizards don't necessarily call fireball fireball, they might call it hakoshes flaming fist. etc...
by raw

Yes. But the [Evil] descriptor is not. Mindrape is evil, because the game says it is. But other means of doing this? Not necessarily.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:03 AM
All that controlling someone's thoughts or actions is? Definatively? Is Lawful.

That bit I cited from the Book of Exalted Deeds seems to imply that some forms of control are evil. It doesn't really a draw a line, and another passage explicitly says that charm and compulsion effects aren't inherently evil. There's enough textual evidence to imply that some examples of control are evil, regardless of how good the outcome may be.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 02:06 AM
That bit I cited from the Book of Exalted Deeds seems to imply that some forms of control are evil. It doesn't really a draw a line, and another passage explicitly says that charm and compulsion effects aren't inherently evil. There's enough textual evidence to imply that some examples of control are evil, regardless of how good the outcome may be.

And there's enough textual evidence from the same book to show that rewriting someone's alignment and moral code does not fall into that. If you need to know where?

Sanctify the Wicked, which is actually GOOD.

In addition, removing memories isn't, as Programmed Amnesia isn't.

Turning someone into your personal puppet? Possibly. Probably. But altering someone's belief structure? Not by the RAW.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:10 AM
That bit I cited from the Book of Exalted Deeds seems to imply that some forms of control are evil. It doesn't really a draw a line, and another passage explicitly says that charm and compulsion effects aren't inherently evil. There's enough textual evidence to imply that some examples of control are evil, regardless of how good the outcome may be.

Poison is [evil]. always, for any reason...

Antibiotics are strong poison that does not harm the species it is meant to treat (which is why you should never give pets human antibiotics or vice versa btw).
When you take antibiotics is poisons and kills parasites and bacteria living in your body, while not harming your own cells (much). :P

Penicillin for example kills guinea pigs, but is harmless to humans and rats... had it originally been tested on guinea pigs instead of rats we wouldn't have it today.

Mouthwash is... alcohol. alcohol is a poison by DnD RAW and it is thus [evil]
Mouthwash, and mouth-washing, is [evil] by DnD RAW

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:12 AM
And there's enough textual evidence from the same book to show that rewriting someone's alignment and moral code does not fall into that. If you need to know where?

Sanctify the Wicked, which is actually GOOD.

Sanctify the Wicked explicitly works by gradually convincing an evil soul that goodness is totally awesome. It may work similarly to an alignment-changing Mind Rape, but the fluff makes it clear that the pertinent difference is that one involves choice.

Mind you, it's an inevitable choice, and you may be unimpressed by BoED's opinion that every evil person is secretly capable of turning good when shown the error of their ways, but in this case the fluff is integral to the judgments passed on certain actions.

So, apparently, changing someone's outlook without any decision made on their part? EVIL. Forcing someone to recognize what they have done and gradually change their perspective on it, apparently out of their own free will? Good.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:13 AM
shows how utterly ignorant, stupid, and clueless the authors of that book were

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 02:15 AM
Sanctify the Wicked explicitly works by gradually convincing an evil soul that goodness is totally awesome. It may work similarly to an alignment-changing Mind Rape, but the fluff makes it clear that the pertinent difference is that one involves choice.

Mind you, it's an inevitable choice, and you may be unimpressed by BoED's opinion that every evil person is secretly capable of turning good when shown the error of their ways, but in this case the fluff is integral to the judgments passed on certain actions.

So, apparently, changing someone's outlook without any decision made on their part? EVIL. Forcing someone to recognize what they have done and gradually change their perspective on it, apparently out of their own free will? Good.

Out of their own free will?

Really?

Is it possible for someone who fails that save to NOT be good? Is it their choice?

No. That is the caster forcing someone to relive their evil acts, and magically compelling a change. The caster makes the choice that someone else should be good. The target gets no such choice. The target has the choice to either:

A) Be imprisoned for a year, and become good
or...
B) Be imprisoned for a year, and become good.

It's the same thing. There's no choice.

By RAW, altering someone's outlook to good is not inherently evil.
By RAW, changing someone's moral outlook to a good one is not inherently evil.

By RAW, using Mindrape to simply change someone's beliefs to good, without impacting memory in any way, by altering how they feel about what they've done? Is akin to creating and using Shadows to find and stop a serial killer.

Evil act, for good ends.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:18 AM
nono... see the caster is making them UNDERSTAND their own evil acts and relive them... and they then CHOSE to abandon evil because the ONLY plausible way for anyone to EVER commit an evil act is because they do not UNDERSTAND what they are truly doing and the harm they are causing. Once they TRULY understand what they did they will become good. And it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who has been evil to NOT turn good when they understand what they have done.

(notice that good actually goes out of its way to help people, unlike neutral; so they don't just renounce evil, they become champions of righteousness)

The spell explicitly does not FORCE a change, but that makes it worse because the unfortunate implications are mindbogglingly stupid and insulting. (that is, the implications are what I said above)
If it wasn't bad enough, this is made doubly ridiculous because of how it interacts with other alignment shifting mechanisms.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:19 AM
Out of their own free will?

Really?

Is it possible for someone who fails that save to NOT be good? Is it their choice?

No. That is the caster forcing someone to relive their evil acts, and magically compelling a change. The caster makes the choice that someone else should be good. The target gets no such choice. The target has the choice to either:

A) Be imprisoned for a year, and become good
or...
B) Be imprisoned for a year, and become good.

It's the same thing. There's no choice.

It is a spell that inevitably makes the target decide to turn good. The fluff more or less makes it clear that the authors feel it is impossible for an evil creature, confronted with the horrors of his evil, to stay evil.

Again, this may seem ridiculous to you, but there is a choice involved. It's just a foregone conclusion. That doesn't make it not a choice. I could stop typing this message right now and instead use my laptop to bash in the skull of my neighbor. I won't, and I never will, but that doesn't make it any less of a choice when I choose not to do it.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 02:20 AM
nono... see the caster is making them UNDERSTAND their own evil acts and relive them... and they then CHOSE to abandon evil because the ONLY plausible way for anyone to EVER commit an evil act is because they do not UNDERSTAND what they are truly doing and the harm they are causing. Once they TRULY understand what they did they will become good.

(notice that good actually goes out of its way to help people, unlike neutral)

The spell explicitly does not FORCE a change, but that makes it worse because the unfortunate implications are mindbogglingly stupid and insulting. (that is, the implications are what I said above)

And mindrape can do that as well. It can leave them evil, but with total understanding of their evil acts. Bam, they become good on their own.

Mindrape can replicate the effects of that spell exactly, and faster.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:21 AM
By RAW, altering someone's outlook to good is not inherently evil.
By RAW, changing someone's moral outlook to a good one is not inherently evil.

By RAW, using Mindrape to simply change someone's beliefs to good, without impacting memory in any way, by altering how they feel about what they've done? Is akin to creating and using Shadows to find and stop a serial killer.

Evil act, for good ends.

Leaving aside the issue of Mindrape's own morality for a moment, an evil act for good ends is still evil, according to the BoED. Any evil action, no matter the good consequences, is still evil, and committing it is a terrible blow to the forces of good on a cosmic scale.

Or something.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:22 AM
And mindrape can do that as well. It can leave them evil, but with total understanding of their evil acts. Bam, they become good on their own.

Mindrape can replicate the effects of that spell exactly, and faster.

I guess reflecting on your evil doesn't work unless you do it for a year in a secluded demiplane.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 02:23 AM
Leaving aside the issue of Mindrape's own morality for a moment, an evil act for good ends is still evil, according to the BoED. Any evil action, no matter the good consequences, is still evil, and committing it is a terrible blow to the forces of good on a cosmic scale.

Or something.

Which is why I've never denied that Mindrape is [Evil]. However, what it does is not inherently evil, by RAW.

There are other spells which can alter memories to your whim that are not evil.

Coidzor
2010-04-14, 02:24 AM
nono... see the caster is making them UNDERSTAND their own evil acts and relive them... and they then CHOSE to abandon evil because the ONLY plausible way for anyone to EVER commit an evil act is because they do not UNDERSTAND what they are truly doing and the harm they are causing. Once they TRULY understand what they did they will become good. And it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who has been evil to NOT turn good when they understand what they have done.

See, all of that is just euphemisms for torturing the character the messy, long, drawn-out way.

It could never be a free choice because of the imprisonment thing anyway.

So, yeah. Programmed amnesia is obviously the superior option due to neither involving torture or gross mental destruction. It's just sending things to the mental recycling bin.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:26 AM
Which is why I've never denied that Mindrape is [Evil]. However, what it does is not inherently evil, by RAW.

There are other spells which can alter memories to your whim that are not evil.

Maybe altering memories is an inherently evil act, which is why Mindrape has an [Evil] descriptor, and although the other spells replicating that effect don't have the descriptor there is no conceivable use for them that would not constitute an evil act anyway.

As far as I can tell, it could go either way.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:26 AM
And mindrape can do that as well. It can leave them evil, but with total understanding of their evil acts. Bam, they become good on their own.

Mindrape can replicate the effects of that spell exactly, and faster.

yes, mindrape can duplicate good spells or non-evil-non-good-spells... so?
Besides... I am the one who is saying the authors of this book are mental. I just wanted it to be clarified that the spell sanctify the wicked does not actually involve any mind control...

mmm... actually i got a better retort...
sanctify the wicked does that without you violating their privacy (you know everything they know), and without you altering their mind...

actually now that I think about it... causing someone to experience something is the one thing mindrape can't do, you can alter their memories so that they THINK they have experienced something, and REMEMBER they experienced it, but they never actually experienced.
If you mind rape someone into believing that you hit him with a fireball 10 mintues ago and then healed him and magically fixed his clothes, it doesn't change the fact that in "reality" (lol) you never actually did so.

lord_khaine
2010-04-14, 02:26 AM
Mouthwash is... alcohol. alcohol is a poison by DnD RAW and it is thus [evil]
Mouthwash, and mouth-washing, is [evil] by DnD RAW

Actualy, everything is a poison in sufficient concentration or dose, since there are things in d&d raw that are not labeled poison, we are forced to conclude that the poison label only aplies when the dose and concentration are sufficient to inflict harm of some sort on a pc.

edit.

This means Mouthwashing isnt evil by d&d raw, thank the gods for that..

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 02:27 AM
According cartoonish and declarative morality of of D&D, (e.g., the books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness, whose names nicely sum up the alignment system) punishing Evil creatures with Evil acts qualifies you as Chaotic Neutral.

Otherwise known as "pulling a Rorschach."

Actually, most criticisms of BoED, seem to be based on the fact that it doesn't work that way- it states that destroying a village of evil orcs who are "doing no harm" is an Evil act.

So is torturing people- even Evil people.

And in Champions of Ruin (which expands on BoVD) repeatedly and deliberately committing evil acts is the mark of an Evil character.

The book which suggests "a character who commits evil deeds with good motives can be a flexible neutral" is not BoED- it's Heroes of Horror.

BoVD's "even killing an evil creature for profit is a neutral act" bit states very, very clearly, that this only applies to "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil"

I would say that the same applies to "killing an evil creature to stop it's depredations on the innocent"- if the only evidence you have of wrongdoing is that it detects as Evil. Killing intelligent creatures without just cause (even Evil ones)- can be deemed murder- which according to BoVD, BoED, and FC2, is evil.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:28 AM
See, all of that is just euphemisms for torturing the character the messy, long, drawn-out way.

It could never be a free choice because of the imprisonment thing anyway.

So, yeah. Programmed amnesia is obviously the superior option due to neither involving torture or gross mental destruction. It's just sending things to the mental recycling bin.

heh, interesting point... although I view torture as only evil in some circumstances, and good in others... it is evil not to torture under some circumstances..
Anyways, its incredibly ironic torture because they only get to re-experience the wrongs that they have inflicted unto others.


Actualy, everything is a poison in sufficient concentration or dose, since there are things in d&d raw that are not labeled poison, we are forced to conclude that the poison label only aplies when the dose and concentration are sufficient to inflict harm of some sort on a pc.

edit.

This means Mouthwashing isnt evil by d&d raw, thank the gods for that..

Let me correct you here.. I did not say alcohol is poison by IRL MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE.
I said alcohol is poison by RAW.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:30 AM
Actualy, everything is a poison in sufficient concentration or dose, since there are things in d&d raw that are not labeled poison, we are forced to conclude that the poison label only aplies when the dose and concentration are sufficient to inflict harm of some sort on a pc.



I prefer the (much sillier) interpretation that everything is evil.

True gods of darkness and agony spread their horrible dogma through caring for kittens and handing out lollipops! Little do the fools realize the extent of their nefarious, kitten-based plans! Muahahahahahaha!

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 02:30 AM
I view torture as only evil in some circumstances, and good in others... it is evil not to torture under some circumstances..

You might- but the alignment splatbooks all say otherwise.

"Ticking time-bomb scenarios" or "punishment of the deserving" aren't valid reasons in D&D.

Interestingly, Defenders of the Faith states that paladins can drink alcohol- but they may not drink it to excess, since it impairs their ability to fight evil.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:31 AM
Actually, most criticisms of BoED, seem to be based on the fact that it doesn't work that way- it states that destroying a village of evil orcs who are "doing no harm" is an Evil act.

So is torturing people- even Evil people.

And in Champions of Ruin (which expands on BoVD) repeatedly and deliberately committing evil acts is the mark of an Evil character.

The book which suggests "a character who commits evil deeds with good motives can be a flexible neutral" is not BoED- it's Heroes of Horror.

BoVD's "even killing an evil creature for profit is a neutral act" bit states very, very clearly, that this only applies to "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil"

I would say that the same applies to "killing an evil creature to stop it's depredations on the innocent"- if the only evidence you have of wrongdoing is that it detects as Evil. Killing intelligent creatures without just cause (even Evil ones)- can be deemed murder- which according to BoVD, BoED, and FC2, is evil.

One wonders how an intelligent creature became evil without ever committing any evil acts.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:31 AM
Maybe altering memories is an inherently evil act, which is why Mindrape has an [Evil] descriptor, and although the other spells replicating that effect don't have the descriptor there is no conceivable use for them that would not constitute an evil act anyway.

As far as I can tell, it could go either way.

maybe it has the [evil] descriptor because it involves you violating their privacy and knowing everything they have ever known (which is interesting because this means you now recall every bad experience of their life... make sure you don't mindrape any victims of really bad stuff or you will have nightmares)


One wonders how an intelligent creature became evil without ever committing any evil acts.

it was created evil, magically made evil, or contracted a magical disease like lycantrophy that changed its alignment...
it also might have done something that is technically [evil] often... such is constant use of poison.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:32 AM
You might- but the alignment splatbooks all say otherwise.

"Ticking time-bomb scenarios" or "punishment of the deserving" aren't valid reasons in D&D.



Nor in much modern political philosophy, for what it's worth.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:33 AM
I prefer the (much sillier) interpretation that everything is evil.

True gods of darkness and agony spread their horrible dogma through caring for kittens and handing out lollipops! Little do the fools realize the extent of their nefarious, kitten-based plans! Muahahahahahaha!

cats ARE evil... they are very CUTE... but they are pure unadulterated evil... and I am not being sarcastic here.

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 02:34 AM
They might be committing "internal evil"- with the orc parents bullying their children, and the orc children bullying each other.

Not all evil acts are ones that warrant on-the-spot execution.

Plus, its quite possible for an intelligent creature to be evil without committing evil acts- a Good person who has had a Helm of Opposite Alignment forced on them. Or a newborn chromatic dragon (born evil- but might change later, though it's very rare.)

Coidzor
2010-04-14, 02:34 AM
Actualy, everything is a poison in sufficient concentration or dose, since there are things in d&d raw that are not labeled poison, we are forced to conclude that the poison label only aplies when the dose and concentration are sufficient to inflict harm of some sort on a pc.

edit. This means Mouthwashing isnt evil by d&d raw, thank the gods for that..

Mouthwash has a sufficient quantity of alcohol in it to be considered a drink if one were to drink it (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0816/is_1993_March/ai_13913959/). There are rules for alcohol as a consumed poison in the Arms and Equipment Guide. For beer, wine, and spirits.


.Most parents don't realize that mouthwash can contain more alcohol than beer or wine. Popular brands of mouthwash are 6.6% to 26.9% alcohol. Beers are usually 5% to 7% alcohol, wine s 12% to 14%. Alcohol is also in perfumes, cough syrups, and aftershaves, but these products aren't as dangerous to children because they don't taste as good and aren't as colorful as mouthwash. Mouthwash is sold in large containers which hold enough to be fatal to young children.

Alcohol in Mouthwash
Listerine 26.9%
Scope 18.9%
Signal 14.5%
Cepacol 14.0%
Listermint 6.6%


though, I must LOL at the idea of mouthwash tasting good enough to want to drink. Especially with the alcohol's burn.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:36 AM
well... its like those fruity girly drinks... alcohol + sugar.

but yea, I also laugh at the idea of children enjoying swallowing that and stomaching the alcohol burn...

besides, unless you are REALLY trying hard, you will puke and pass out before giving yourself alcohol poisoning. Alcohol poisoning requires chugging...

but i can see a kid "daring" another to chug a whole bottle of mouthwash.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 02:37 AM
Maybe altering memories is an inherently evil act, which is why Mindrape has an [Evil] descriptor, and although the other spells replicating that effect don't have the descriptor there is no conceivable use for them that would not constitute an evil act anyway.

As far as I can tell, it could go either way.

I'd say that there are sources that disagree with you. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindwipe.htm)

Here's a second. And implanting false memories or erasing memories doesn't have evil uses? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/modifyMemory.htm) How about implanting a belief that an innocent man killed his wife? You know, the one you just whacked?

Nor is violating mental privacy. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindProbe.htm)

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:37 AM
Mouthwash has a sufficient quantity of alcohol in it to be considered a drink if one were to drink it (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0816/is_1993_March/ai_13913959/). There are rules for alcohol as a consumed poison in the Arms and Equipment Guide. For beer, wine, and spirits.



though, I must LOL at the idea of mouthwash tasting good enough to want to drink. Especially with the alcohol's burn.

"WHAT? You mean you've never tried the unadarlturated joy that is mouth warsh (http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/Listerine)?"

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:38 AM
I'd say that there are sources that disagree with you. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindwipe.htm)

Here's a second. And implanting false memories or erasing memories doesn't have evil uses? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/modifyMemory.htm) How about implanting a belief that an innocent man killed his wife? You know, the one you just whacked?

Nor is violating mental privacy. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindProbe.htm)

WOTC has NEVER been consistent about alignment... not even within the same book or by the same author.
What we meant is that maybe that was their REASONING for making it evil, despite certainly contradicting something a WOTC author wrote somewhere else.

Emmerask
2010-04-14, 02:38 AM
I've been thinking a lot about alignment. Generally how Good vs Evil should be as important as Chaotic vs Lawful. So as to not derail my own thread in my second sentence, I'll cut to the chase.

I think using magic/psionics/whatever to make an evil person good is, in fact, a Good act. On the Good vs Evil axis you've certainly struck a blow for the good guys.

What makes this act repugnant to us playing the game is not that it is Evil. It's that it is on the scary side of Lawful. It's the casters order imposed on what they see as being detrimental.

This is mostly an "Oh crap, I hadn't thought of it that way" moment. I'm interested in knowing if anyone else has another perspective to add; I'd be eager to read it.


Problem with that is that on the good side the ends do not justify the means. Using evil acts to have some good come out of it in the end is evil no matter how you spin it around :smallwink:

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:41 AM
I'd say that there are sources that disagree with you. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindwipe.htm)

Here's a second. And implanting false memories or erasing memories doesn't have evil uses? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/modifyMemory.htm) How about implanting a belief that an innocent man killed his wife? You know, the one you just whacked?

Nor is violating mental privacy. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindProbe.htm)

My point was that not every spell which is only possible to be used in an evil way has the [Evil] descriptor.

There are two possibilities: one is that the descriptor is arbitrary, and one that it is not.

If it is, then Mindrape doesn't say anything about D&D morality.

If it isn't, then every conceivable use of Mindrape is evil for some reason. It could be because of the effect (massive mental changes and so on) or because of the method (presumably intrusive, privacy-invading). Regardless, something about it makes it innately evil. Whatever that quality is, any spell that shares it is going to be an evil act to cast, even if it lacks the [Evil] descriptor.

Personally, I find the explanation that the method of Mindraping someone is the innately evil part to be the most internally consistent, but the whole system is pretty borked anyway.

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 02:41 AM
Wasn't poison being Evil a holdover from 1st edition, where it was exceptionally effective- but was ruled Evil so that non-evil adventurers couldn't use it, because it was overpowered?

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-14, 02:42 AM
Problem with that is that on the good side the ends do not justify the means. Using evil acts to have some good come out of it in the end is evil no matter how you spin it around :smallwink:

Agreed, however what was my evil act? Aside from the [Evil] part of the spell descriptor, since we can come up with at least a couple other spells that do the same thing without it.

It's just a Lawful spell. Probably one of the most lawful spells. But not Evil in and of itself.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:43 AM
lol... I just read the ingredients on my equate (walmart brand) mouthwash:

{table]Active Ingredients:|Purpose
Eucalyptol 0.092%, Menthol 0.042%|antigingivitis, antiplaque
Methyl Salicylate 0.060%, Thymol 0.064%|antigingivitis, antiplaque[/table]

Inactive ingredients: water, alcohol (21.6%), sorbitol solution, flavoring, poloxamer 407, benzoic acid, zinc chloride, sodium benzoate, sucralose, sodium saccharin, FD&C blue no. 1

Its funny to see that alcohol is an "inactive ingredient" that does nothing to kill bacteria.

BTW... can mouthwash actually be drank safely?
EDIT: google to the rescue... apparently, to avoid tax, it is denatured alcohol... which means it is far more toxic then regular alcohol, and contains other alcohol compounds which are very harmful to you.

Coidzor
2010-04-14, 02:44 AM
^: I'm thinking it is, so long as you don't make a habit of it. At least, I've heard of people doing it with no lasting ill effects. I personally imagine it to be a bit hard on one's GI Tract with those other ingredients.

Not all evil acts are ones that warrant on-the-spot execution.

Yeah, it really harshed my vibe when I found out that evil is just thrown around willy-nilly in system just for being mean.


it was created evil, magically made evil, or contracted a magical disease like lycantrophy that changed its alignment...
it also might have done something that is technically [evil] often... such is constant use of poison.

I've always loved how using poison to kill makes one more likely to start eating babies than the fact that one is killing in the first place.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:45 AM
Agreed, however what was my evil act? Aside from the [Evil] part of the spell descriptor, since we can come up with at least a couple other spells that do the same thing without it.

It's just a Lawful spell. Probably one of the most lawful spells. But not Evil in and of itself.

There's textual evidence in BoED that forcing someone to do something is evil. I've already quoted it.

It might also be relevant that, when Complete Champion suggests domain feat analogues, "Liberation" is equated with "Good." While control is not in and of itself evil, we might agree that extreme control - call it tyranny - is.

Mindraping someone seems pretty tyrannical. It's definitely way beyond plain Lawfulness.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 02:48 AM
My point was that not every spell which is only possible to be used in an evil way has the [Evil] descriptor.

There are two possibilities: one is that the descriptor is arbitrary, and one that it is not.

If it is, then Mindrape doesn't say anything about D&D morality.

If it isn't, then every conceivable use of Mindrape is evil for some reason. It could be because of the effect (massive mental changes and so on) or because of the method (presumably intrusive, privacy-invading). Regardless, something about it makes it innately evil. Whatever that quality is, any spell that shares it is going to be an evil act to cast, even if it lacks the [Evil] descriptor.

Personally, I find the explanation that the method of Mindraping someone is the innately evil part to be the most internally consistent, but the whole system is pretty borked anyway.

Really? What about if you use a Mindrape spell to precisely duplicate the effects of Modify Memory. You go in and you erase a traumatic experience.

Do that with modify memory? Fine.
Do it with Mindrape? Evil.

See, when the more powerful spell can duplicate lesser spells with good applications? Not all of the applications are evil.

Now we're back at square 1. Why is mindrape evil?

Because it has the [Evil] descriptor. All of its seperate components are in nonevil spells and powers.


There's textual evidence in BoED that forcing someone to do something is evil. I've already quoted it.

There's RAW evidence in the Core set that it's not. Dominate Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) is not evil. And that is ALL about forcing someone to do something.

Coidzor
2010-04-14, 02:50 AM
Ahah! I've got it! It's because comprehensive, effective mental health care has to be evil and bad!

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:52 AM
Really? What about if you use a Mindrape spell to precisely duplicate the effects of Modify Memory. You go in and you erase a traumatic experience.

Do that with modify memory? Fine.
Do it with Mindrape? Evil.

See, when the more powerful spell can duplicate lesser spells with good applications? Not all of the applications are evil.

Now we're back at square 1. Why is mindrape evil?

Because it has the [Evil] descriptor. All of its seperate components are in nonevil spells and powers.



Which is, again, why I find the explanation that something in the act of Mindraping, specifically, is evil. An inherently intrusive experience that is not unlike it's physical namesake, which implies that the casting of the spell is inherently against the victim's will. (Unlike Modify Memory, which could conceivably be used at the request of the subject. If used against the subject's will, I'd be inclined to say that Modify Memory was being used evilly anyway, based on the whole "choice" thing.)

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 02:52 AM
Yeah, it really harshed my vibe when I found out that evil is just thrown around willy-nilly in system just for being mean.

I've always loved how using poison to kill makes one more likely to start eating babies than the fact that one is killing in the first place.

Personally I'm OK with Evil being "really mean" rather than "complete monster"- most splatbooks with Evil NPCs portray some of them that way.

On poison- the reason ability damaging poisons are evil is that they "cause undue pain and suffering" according to BoED.

But not all ability damage does.

Maybe alcohol is an ability-damaging substance that doesn't do that- hence, not covered by "poison is evil".

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:52 AM
Wait, they make sweet mouth wash? With sugar in it? :smallconfused: + :smallyuk:

Well, i meant sweetener.. its not real sugar but sucralose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose

what most people don't know is that its basically a sugar molecule bound to chlorine atoms (which is probably why I always thought it tasted like sugared pool water).
it is only "zero calorie" because one packet of it is 5 calories, while a packet of sugar is 9... well by law if it is 5 or under calories they can advertise it as ZERO calories.
it also triggers an insulin response meaning it can cause diabetes like sugar can, and it also make you fatter then not consuming it.

but technically its not really sugar.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:53 AM
There's RAW evidence in the Core set that it's not. Dominate Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) is not evil. And that is ALL about forcing someone to do something.

Yeah, my mistake. I already mentioned that compulsion effects are explicitly not inherently evil, and should've spoken with more precision just now.

D&D really can't make up it's mind about what is and is not evil.

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-14, 02:54 AM
There's textual evidence in BoED that forcing someone to do something is evil. I've already quoted it.

It might also be relevant that, when Complete Champion suggests domain feat analogues, "Liberation" is equated with "Good." While control is not in and of itself evil, we might agree that extreme control - call it tyranny - is.

Mindraping someone seems pretty tyrannical. It's definitely way beyond plain Lawfulness.

To use OOtS as an example, V Suggesting the Dragonish creature with a mace to sit on his hands is evil then? He didn't seem to have much choice in the matter.

And while I agree, out of the game, that extreme control is evil sometimes, in game it's just really Lawful. You can be the most controlling guy ever and still be Good, Evil or Neutral.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 02:54 AM
Personally I'm OK with Evil being "really mean" rather than "complete monster"- most splatbooks with Evil NPCs portray some of them that way.

On poison- the reason ability damaging poisons are evil is that they "cause undue pain and suffering" according to BoED.


Is that before or after they describe ravages and positoxins as wracking evil creatures with torment and pain, while causing ability damage to them?

taltamir
2010-04-14, 02:55 AM
To use OOtS as an example, V Suggesting the Dragonish creature with a mace to sit on his hands is evil then? He didn't seem to have much choice in the matter.

And while I agree, out of the game, that extreme control is evil sometimes, in game it's just really Lawful. You can be the most controlling guy ever and still be Good, Evil or Neutral.

well.. V has been officially welcomed to the deep side of the alignment pool by belkar :P

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:56 AM
Ahah! I've got it! It's because comprehensive, effective mental health care has to be evil and bad!

I'm not sure modifying your memory to pretend that a bad thing never happened is mental health care I'd be comfortable endorsing, any more than being lied to about government travesties is something I'd appreciate even if it guaranteed me peace of mind.


Ignore the above text, Comrade. Oceania is not at war with EurasiaEastasia. Oceania has always been at war with EastasiaEurasia.

Emmerask
2010-04-14, 02:57 AM
BTW... can mouthwash actually be drank safely?
EDIT: google to the rescue... apparently, to avoid tax, it is denatured alcohol... which means it is far more toxic then regular alcohol, and contains other alcohol compounds which are very harmful to you.

Actually denatured alcohol is still ethanol (what you normally drink) but with additional chemicals that make it taste bad.
The denatured part is just a nice word to avoid alcohol taxes :smallwink:
The fluoride on the other hand might not be good for your body ^^

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:58 AM
To use OOtS as an example, V Suggesting the Dragonish creature with a mace to sit on his hands is evil then? He didn't seem to have much choice in the matter.

And while I agree, out of the game, that extreme control is evil sometimes, in game it's just really Lawful. You can be the most controlling guy ever and still be Good, Evil or Neutral.

No, I spoke too strongly. The books explicitly say that mental control isn't necessarily evil. They also say that forcing someone to do things is, at the very least, morally suspect and hints at evil.

(I don't know what kind of DM would let you get away with that Suggestion, anyway - it wasn't worded as anything even resembling a reasonable request!)

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 02:58 AM
I'm not sure modifying your memory to pretend that a bad thing never happened is mental health care I'd be comfortable endorsing, any more than being lied to about government travesties is something I'd appreciate even if it guaranteed me peace of mind.


Ignore the above text, Comrade. Oceania is not at war with EurasiaEastasia. Oceania has always been at war with EastasiaEurasia.

Yep, that's order being used to enforce suffering and a lack of respect for human dignity. But the memory part and thought crime is, in and of itself, out of that.

Miyako
2010-04-14, 02:58 AM
The sword of truth and innocence:

All things (unless they are psychologically incapable) know the difference between morality and evil.

Mindrape is EVIL. This is a fact, {Scrubbed}

You are destroying free will and identity, memories, dreams; crushing the light of life. Far worse than simple murder. Imposing your superior power on others, you only prove you are not ready for, nor do you understand, power. Not to mention the world, and your place in it.
Knowing your place is about wisdom, enlightenment, mutual respect and dignity. It is never about oppressing others based on their rank or existence.

There are seven heavenly virtues: Faith, Hope, Charity, Fortitude, Justice, Temperance, and Prudence.

All things are in Balance. Yo and In, Active and Reactive, Sun and Moon, Day and Night. No force exists alone.

Law and Chaos are in balance so that Good can exist.
Without balance, you have the oppression of tyranny, or the brutality of existential anarchy. When the six other virtues are out of balance, Justice restores that balance.
Without morality as personal choice, there can be no responsibility, no dignity, and no growth. Justice cannot exist, and so the scales of life will fall in the chasm of the abyss.

Simple Truth
Using Mindrape makes you nothing greater than a big, fat bully.

{Scrubbed}

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-14, 02:59 AM
Just because and evil spell can be used for good doesn't change its nature, the implications of mind rape are that its mind rape. I'm D&D there is no question to the existence of the afterlife thus crimes against the soul are worse then murder.

And unlike say domination, charm or suggestion the alterations aren't permanent.

My old lawful evil cleric christof was all about "ends justify the means" for the greater good.

Killing an evil creature to stop it from committing evil, say the rampaging orcs or the necromancer who was raising an army of the dead to slaughter the living. Is perfectly acceptable in the vigilante world of D&D.
But your not harming his soul,

A creature mind raped to good also isn't really good, its artificial and can be broken say via break enchantment. Maybe you mind rape the evil wizard to good and he later becomes a loving family man. However years down the road he's attacked by something and has to cast break enchantment on himself to be rid of an affliction, in so doing he destroys the magic that made him good.

Even if you change the spell's name the description of what the spell does still sounds like mind rape to me. Its a very adeptly named spell.
I'd also question how long the mind raped creature would remain at its new alignment. Stories are full of heroes who have their memories altered to serve evil but come to realize they are actually good. So why shouldn't the same apply to villains.

Sanctify the Wicked essentially gives the evil creature the remorse and guilt it lacked that led it to be capable of being evil. Be it the chaotic evil serial killer finally given empathy or the lawful evil tyrant who learns that the "ends DON'T justify the means"
The most important thing is they genuinely feel bad about the evil they've done, you haven't simply erased their entire identity.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 02:59 AM
Yep, that's order being used to enforce suffering and a lack of respect for human dignity. But the memory part and thought crime is, in and of itself, out of that.

I'm pretty sure the entire point of the book was that controlling people's perceptions and memories is a terrible, terrible thing. The perpetual poverty wasn't why the constant, populace-wide mind rape was so deplorable.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 03:22 AM
I'm pretty sure the entire point of the book was that controlling people's perceptions and memories is a terrible, terrible thing. The perpetual poverty wasn't why the constant, populace-wide mind rape was so deplorable.

I have stated, several times, I find it WRONG.

From an objective standpoint, using the D&D moral code, it is not evil.

It is deplorable, it is wrong, it is extremist law in the worst sense.

But it's not evil. By the book.

Mindrape is. But its seperate components are not.

olentu
2010-04-14, 03:28 AM
As a note if using mindrape on yourself for good ends if might be prudent to see about removing the memory of using the spell just in case of the situation where you turn evil from casting it too much on yourself.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 03:31 AM
I have stated, several times, I find it WRONG.

From an objective standpoint, using the D&D moral code, it is not evil.

It is deplorable, it is wrong, it is extremist law in the worst sense.

But it's not evil. By the book.

Mindrape is. But its seperate components are not.

Ah. Okay.

I disagree. I think the books offer contradictory information as to what makes Mindrape evil or not evil, [Evil] descriptor aside.

But I see where you're coming from.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 03:41 AM
Actually denatured alcohol is still ethanol (what you normally drink) but with additional chemicals that make it taste bad.
The denatured part is just a nice word to avoid alcohol taxes :smallwink:
The fluoride on the other hand might not be good for your body ^^

I know what denatured mean thank you very much.

And those additional "chemicals" are alcohol compounds that result from the denaturization process. Please recall that alcohol is a chemical, so is water.
And those additional chemicals are toxic, they don't just taste bad.

as for fluoride... the hippies say it does everything, up to and including cause a tendency to crime (which is supposedly why the government puts it in water).
but it is not only one of the most basic elements, it is one of the elements REQUIRED by living organisms to sustain their life. So is chlorine and iodine. (just in very VERY small amount... large amounts WILL harm and even kill you, so don't go drinking bleach). Although I dislike having it in the water, you should be using it to brush your teeth then spit it out, not swallow it with the water. but it isn't the menace it is made out to be by some alarmists.


The sword of truth and innocence:

All things (unless they are psychologically incapable) know the difference between morality and evil.

Mindrape is EVIL. This is a fact, no stupid, twisted arguments about it.

You are destroying free will and identity, memories, dreams; crushing the light of life. Far worse than simple murder. Imposing your superior power on others, you only prove you are not ready for, nor do you understand, power. Not to mention the world, and your place in it.
Knowing your place is about wisdom, enlightenment, mutual respect and dignity. It is never about oppressing others based on their rank or existence.

There are seven heavenly virtues: Faith, Hope, Charity, Fortitude, Justice, Temperance, and Prudence.

All things are in Balance. Yo and In, Active and Reactive, Sun and Moon, Day and Night. No force exists alone.

Law and Chaos are in balance so that Good can exist.
Without balance, you have the oppression of tyranny, or the brutality of existential anarchy. When the six other virtues are out of balance, Justice restores that balance.
Without morality as personal choice, there can be no responsibility, no dignity, and no growth. Justice cannot exist, and so the scales of life will fall in the chasm of the abyss.

Simple Truth
Using Mindrape makes you nothing greater than a big, fat bully.

Stop saying stupid things to justify disgusting behaviour.

using bold font to call your opinions "simple truth" doesn't make them that, it is a SIMPLE TRUTH that they are still only your opinion. :P

Also you completely and utterly ignored everything everyone else has said and attacked strawmen of your own creation.

How is using mindrape on a willing subject to remove trauma from their memory "destroying free will and identity, memories, dreams; crushing the light of life" not to mention "Imposing your superior power on others, you only prove you are not ready for, nor do you understand, power. Not to mention the world, and your place in it."?

How about using it on YOURSELF?

Granted MOST uses of the entire school of enchantment are as evil as you said for many of the reasons you said, but not because of "heavenly virtues" or calling it Simple Fact or quoting religious texts about it.

But you did manage to have a few actual valid arguments there which are spot on, specifically:

You are destroying free will and identity, memories, dreams; crushing the light of life. Far worse than simple murder.
It is just that those only apply when you are actually using the spell to DO those things... you can use it to do other things too, such as casting it on yourself.

Thurbane
2010-04-14, 03:52 AM
Question: where in the rules does it say poison is evil? Is this in BoED?

taltamir
2010-04-14, 03:53 AM
Question: where in the rules does it say poison is evil? Is this in BoED?

IIRC it is the BoVD... I am sure its either BoVD or BoED... maybe in both.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 04:24 AM
Question: where in the rules does it say poison is evil? Is this in BoED?

From the BoED:


Poison and disease are generally the tools of evil monsters and
characters, implements of corruption and destruction. If snakes
and vermin are associated with evil, as they are in many cultures,
it is usually because of their venom that they are viewed in
such a negative light despite their neutral alignment. Using
poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes
undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an
opponent. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s
Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of
taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness.
Ironically, the poison favored by the evil drow, which causes unconsciousness as its initial damage, is also not inherently evil
to use.

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 04:29 AM
Defenders of the Faith said something similar about the reason lying, cheating, and using poison are forbidden to the paladin- because they breed weakness in those who use them, and lead to evil.

My guess is the main reason Mindrape is evil- is why its called Mindrape- because it's capable of leaving the target insane.

I think of it as- Doing it drives the target mad- but, you can choose to repair the damage you've done, leaving the target as sane before casting, as after.

But it doesn't change the fact that this damage was done.

on Sanctify the Wicked- it's worth remembering that spells with the Good descriptor can be used to do evil. Casting Holy Word on a crowd of low-level commoners will kill Neutral & Evil alike. (and it's possible the Evil people didn't deserve to be killed by it, either).

Hence, the fact that it has the Good descriptor doesn't mean casting it is always a Good act.

This does not apply to Evil spells- the alignment system is lopsided in that respect.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 05:15 AM
Defenders of the Faith said something similar about the reason lying, cheating, and using poison are forbidden to the paladin- because they breed weakness in those who use them, and lead to evil.

My guess is the main reason Mindrape is evil- is why its called Mindrape- because it's capable of leaving the target insane.

I think of it as- Doing it drives the target mad- but, you can choose to repair the damage you've done, leaving the target as sane before casting, as after.

But it doesn't change the fact that this damage was done.

The issue with that is that it doesn't say it does that. Look at it this way. Here's a hypothetical:

Say I break into your house. I'm looking for odds and ends that I can sell for cash money. You walk in on me. Now, I can leave you in a pool of blood. Or I can bolt out the back door, leaving you untouched.

Does this mean that you were definately, at any stage, in a pool of blood?

No. That's because the language used indicates a choice, two paths in the woods, and all that jazz.

If you take the path less traveled, they were never insane.


From the BoED:
And the very next lines:

Besides the curative abilities of clerics and paladins, the powers of good have their own answer to poison and disease: ravages and afflictions, magical traumas that turn the moral corruption of evil creatures into physical corruption that wracks their bodies. Ravages and afflictions affect only evil creatures, and are particularly debilitating to evil outsiders—despite the immunity to poison that is common among such creatures. Ravages function in a manner similar to poisons, dealing ability damage or even ability drain when the target is exposed to them through inhalation, injury, or ingestion, and additional damage or other effects 1 minute after the initial exposure.
But these are good, even though they
(1) Deal ability damage
and
(2) Cause undue suffering in the killing or incapacitating of an opponent.

This causes it to lose a bit of credibility in this department.

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-14, 05:40 AM
The sword of truth and innocence:

All things (unless they are psychologically incapable) know the difference between morality and evil.

Mindrape is EVIL. This is a fact, no stupid, twisted arguments about it.

You are destroying free will and identity, memories, dreams; crushing the light of life. Far worse than simple murder. Imposing your superior power on others, you only prove you are not ready for, nor do you understand, power. Not to mention the world, and your place in it.
Knowing your place is about wisdom, enlightenment, mutual respect and dignity. It is never about oppressing others based on their rank or existence.

There are seven heavenly virtues: Faith, Hope, Charity, Fortitude, Justice, Temperance, and Prudence.

All things are in Balance. Yo and In, Active and Reactive, Sun and Moon, Day and Night. No force exists alone.

Law and Chaos are in balance so that Good can exist.
Without balance, you have the oppression of tyranny, or the brutality of existential anarchy. When the six other virtues are out of balance, Justice restores that balance.
Without morality as personal choice, there can be no responsibility, no dignity, and no growth. Justice cannot exist, and so the scales of life will fall in the chasm of the abyss.

Simple Truth
Using Mindrape makes you nothing greater than a big, fat bully.

Stop saying stupid things to justify disgusting behaviour.

Can I have the DnD sources you cited? Page numbers and texts would be enough.

Oh, and I appreciate the implications that I somehow promote mindrape IRL. Just calling you out on it, that's all.

Extra points for the use of "stupid", I do not believe it's come up yet on this thread. It definitely lends credibility to your arguments.

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-14, 05:59 AM
Just because and evil spell can be used for good doesn't change its nature, the implications of mind rape are that its mind rape. I'm D&D there is no question to the existence of the afterlife thus crimes against the soul are worse then murder.

And unlike say domination, charm or suggestion the alterations aren't permanent.

My old lawful evil cleric christof was all about "ends justify the means" for the greater good.

Killing an evil creature to stop it from committing evil, say the rampaging orcs or the necromancer who was raising an army of the dead to slaughter the living. Is perfectly acceptable in the vigilante world of D&D.
But your not harming his soul,

A creature mind raped to good also isn't really good, its artificial and can be broken say via break enchantment. Maybe you mind rape the evil wizard to good and he later becomes a loving family man. However years down the road he's attacked by something and has to cast break enchantment on himself to be rid of an affliction, in so doing he destroys the magic that made him good.

Onto your wizard example. Is it then more good to go and plunge a sword into his chest until he stops being evil? Then he doesn't get the chance to break the enchantment, right? The world is more safe? That doesn't sound right. You could sit down with a person and talk to them until they understood the error of their ways. That's definitely a good way of handling it. However, that person could also revert to their previous behavior with less effort. All they have to do is "Screw this waiting in line crap." *Stab stab stab*. From what I gathered of your example, both of our scenario's have roughly the same amount of goodness to them. Except mine is magically reinforced. And it makes him WANT to be good.


Even if you change the spell's name the description of what the spell does still sounds like mind rape to me. Its a very adeptly named spell.
I'd also question how long the mind raped creature would remain at its new alignment. Stories are full of heroes who have their memories altered to serve evil but come to realize they are actually good. So why shouldn't the same apply to villains.

Sanctify the Wicked essentially gives the evil creature the remorse and guilt it lacked that led it to be capable of being evil. Be it the chaotic evil serial killer finally given empathy or the lawful evil tyrant who learns that the "ends DON'T justify the means"
The most important thing is they genuinely feel bad about the evil they've done, you haven't simply erased their entire identity.

So it's ok to GIVE someone emotions but it's bad to take them away? Or is it only ok with guilt and remorse, because I can totally make those emotions damage a person.

It's the EXACT SAME SPELL sans the [Evil] descriptor. Theoretically I could research the exact same spell but change the Fluff text to read "It tells you about Capitalism and makes you realize what you're missing out on and makes you Eeeeeeevvvviiiilll" and short of a very poor effort on the part of the fluff itself, the spell functions the same! Is this different in any way? You still force the person to become another alignment. Except the good version tortures them for a year! You like cities and chatting with people or, gods forbid, your family? Too bad, go off and meditate.

If magic can make you "genuinely feel bad" for being Evil in the past, then magic should be able to make you "genuinely feel good" about it as well. And those should also make you feel genuinely about the other alignments as well.

And again, I'm reinforcing the point I'm trying to make because there seems to be an incredible amount of hate on this subject. Dungeons and Dragons has 2 axis. Good vs Evil and Chaos vs Law. This subject is on the Chaos vs Law axis because it imposes someone else's order upon you, whether the caster wish the spell to be [Evil] or [Neutral] or [Good]. This is EXTREME Law. I've yet to see someone actually argue against that point. Mostly people say I'm incorrect and then say that "it's quite Evil to take over someone's mind and let them continue living/letting their family have a father/let the brilliant man who is also mayor of town continue steering the community; Best stab them until they're dead. It's more Good." Or even better, having people say "Sanctify the Wicked" is more good because it makes them feel bad. The only rebuttals seem to be that it's "always evil because.." and then go on to explain extreme Lawfulness always tainted with evil, as opposed to the beneficent uses of the spells. Since you can use it in any of the three ways, it means that the spell itself is on a different axis. That is my point, it's Lawful. Not Evil. (In DnD terms)

Dada
2010-04-14, 06:33 AM
If we accept that D&D consists of two seperate axis, which have no relation to each other, then I agree that, except for the [evil] descriptor, mindrape is not anymore evil than, say, magic missile to the face.

If we turn to real-life philosophies for a moment, it seems that everything, when taken to an extreme, leads to evil. No matter which philosophy, relgion or political ideology you follow, taking it to the extreme will lead to evil and suffering.
Note: This is only my opinion, not an universal truth - I will not support it with examples, since that would probably lead the thread into lockable topics.

Back to D&D - I don't view the two moral axis as completely seperate. It seems to me that, as you go towards the extremes of the Law vs. Chaos axis, you will also move towards Evil. If you imagine the two axis as a cross, then I imagine that the endpoints of the Law/Chaos axis bends downwards towards evil.

Again, this is only my interpretation of the D&D moral system.

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 07:07 AM
Thats an interesting way of looking at it- and not that implausible, in context.

Law utterly without allowance for mercy, might be the code of the devils, and chaos without allowance for mercy, the method of the demons.

My guess is that, for mindrape, the reason it has the evil descriptor, is that it inflicts a great deal of suffering. You can choose to delete the subject's memories of it- but it's still there.

In D&D novels (such as Silverfall), descriptions of "forcing information from someone magically" stress that it's a painful, agonizing process that can leave the target mentally damaged.

Sounds like a description of the mindrape spell, before BoVD was printed.

I agree with the idea that poison being evil is silly- primarily because real poisons don't always inflict large amounts of suffering. Sometimes, they are painless. In the ancient world, poisoning with the less painful ones, was considered a merciful method of execution.

Castaras
2010-04-14, 07:11 AM
And this is why I prefer games where there's no hard and fast alignment system...

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 07:17 AM
Going by the splatbooks, Evil is hard and fast, but Good is much looser.

Acts which would normally be Good, are Neutral if done for selfish motives.

Spells with the Good descriptor, can be used to do evil things.

And so on.

Thus- Good acts can easily be downgraded to Neutral or worse (by motive, context, etc) but Evil acts can't be upgraded to Neutral or better.

Doc Roc
2010-04-14, 08:02 AM
Mindraping someone evil to be good violates their dignity. Good people have respect for the dignity of living beings. The end does not justify the means, in D&D ethics.
QED Mindraping someone evil to be good is still evil.

For turning evil to good, there is atonement.


Actually, technically, that's not the case. Respect for dignity isn't a pre-requisite for being Exalted, for example, and in fact, nothing about the D&D verses I have seen suggests a net appreciation for human dignity. It is the fate of most paladins, for example, to eventually become "kind" feudal lords.

So yeah, honestly, I'm with the OP here. Mindrape isn't [Evil], or shouldn't be. It would be in the real world, but in D&D, right and wrong are strictly objective by RAW and Fluff. There literally is a definite Good and a definite Evil, so it's not like you're just forcing your views on them. You're forcing Good on them. I wouldn't suggest this is a good act, necessarily, but it's better then killing them, and feeding one more petitioner to the lower planes.

Kaiyanwang
2010-04-14, 08:03 AM
My guess is that, for mindrape, the reason it has the evil descriptor, is that it inflicts a great deal of suffering. You can choose to delete the subject's memories of it- but it's still there.


Copypasted.

Mindrape enters in the deep part of essence of oneself. Does not simply command, changes, and, in a different way than other spells, because taints the self in a violent manner (mindRAPE).

This makes, IMHO, the spell evil.

And don't compare it to the spell in BoED: that's sort of a repentance, with powerful means. Once the creature is out, it can fall again if that's his/her nature, IMHO.

Doc Roc
2010-04-14, 08:04 AM
Copypasted.

Mindrape enters in the deep part of essence of oneself. Does not simply command, changes, and, in a different way than other spells, because taints the self in a violent manner (mindRAPE).

This makes, IMHO, the spell evil.

And don't compare it to the spell in BoED: that's sort of a repentance, with powerful means. Once the creature is out, it can fall again if that's his/her nature, IMHO.

In the balance of things, however, it is more reliable, and it's certainly better than killing, isn't it? Sanctify has a darn good chance of just not working. I mean, funnily enough, if you could get to one of the Lords of the Nine, and stick the spell, MindRape would Just Work.

Would you argue that mindraping Mephistopheles would be Evil?

quiet1mi
2010-04-14, 08:07 AM
In this world Killing someone is a bad thing to do... Mind Rape removes the threat without killing....

Ignore what follows and you have a good way of dealing with troublemakers...

I SAID, "IGNORE WHAT FOLLOWS!!!!"

Riffington
2010-04-14, 08:20 AM
Actually, technically, that's not the case. Respect for dignity isn't a pre-requisite for being Exalted, for example, and in fact, nothing about the D&D verses I have seen suggests a net appreciation for human dignity.
"Good implies... a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"



It is the fate of most paladins, for example, to eventually become "kind" feudal lords.
How is being a kind feudal lord inconsistent with a respect for human dignity?

/maintains that Sanctify the Wicked is a spell with the magical power to make itself [Good]. That's what makes it a 9th level spell; an [Evil] version would be lower level.

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 08:40 AM
In Defenders of the Faith- on the issue of a paladin's duty to help others- it mentions that helping others must be balanced by concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

If a paladin goes too far into paternalism, treating others as children who must be helped, but not as adults- might that be a case of lack of concern for the dignity of others?

Doc Roc
2010-04-14, 08:52 AM
Defenders of the Faith is a superseded source.

;)

Kaiyanwang
2010-04-14, 09:03 AM
In the balance of things, however, it is more reliable, and it's certainly better than killing, isn't it? Sanctify has a darn good chance of just not working. I mean, funnily enough, if you could get to one of the Lords of the Nine, and stick the spell, MindRape would Just Work.

Would you argue that mindraping Mephistopheles would be Evil?

In the D&D world, it isn't. Barring what I said above, (that IMHO remains valid):

1) The spell is likely to take its power from evil himslef (remember, evil in D&D is real, you can touch it) so it's evil eve use it - this does not mean that could lead to interesting characters, but the use is evil.

2) You didn't converted the Lord of Nine, you used him as a puppet. Congratulations, you are worse than Asmodeus.

2b) Of course, if you manage to screw Amsodeus in this way, it's because is part of his plan. Once you see Asmodeus, he already scammed you 3 times :smallwink:

Zovc
2010-04-14, 09:07 AM
So does killing them. Unless you think pooping one's self is dignified. And most if not all of the living things one kills as an adventurer will poop themselves after dying.

Anyhoo, I view Mindrape as basically killing the person, just leaving the body behind.

IIRC, Mindrape is evil because it is worse than killing the subject. Instead of sending them to deal with the deities, you are essentially replacing their eternal being with one of your own design.

Doc Roc
2010-04-14, 09:20 AM
In the D&D world, it isn't. Barring what I said above, (that IMHO remains valid):

1) The spell is likely to take its power from evil himslef (remember, evil in D&D is real, you can touch it) so it's evil eve use it - this does not mean that could lead to interesting characters, but the use is evil.

2) You didn't converted the Lord of Nine, you used him as a puppet. Congratulations, you are worse than Asmodeus.

2b) Of course, if you manage to screw Amsodeus in this way, it's because is part of his plan. Once you see Asmodeus, he already scammed you 3 times :smallwink:

If that's evil 'round here, then that's just fine with me. Ain't no fall like a righteous one, so for me, I figure evil's good enough. However, Mindrape does have an escape clause, if I remember correctly.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-14, 09:35 AM
Mindrape is evil because it is in the BOVD. This is the only reason.

Sanctify the Wicked is exactly what happened in A Clockwork Orange.

I think I agree that using Mindrape in such a way as to change as little as possible, merely forcing the target to realise that what he was doing was "bad, mmkay?" is significantly less morally dubious than just killing them. If the Target has the ability to go on to help the situation or to in some way make things less Evil in the neighborhood, then all the better.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 09:40 AM
Sanctify the Wicked is exactly what happened in A Clockwork Orange.



No, no, no, no, and no.

The book tells you exactly what Sanctify the Wicked does. It confronts someone with the horrible truth of their actions and causes them to repent. Whether this seem implausible to you or not isn't the point; that is what the spell does.

What happens in A Clockwork Orange is completely different. Alex isn't confronted with his actions; he's shown generic scenes of violence and sexuality. He doesn't feel guilt; he feels a chemically-induced sickness. He doesn't develop an aversion to violence; he becomes physically incapable of performing acts of violence because the association causes him to become violently ill.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 09:41 AM
So yeah, honestly, I'm with the OP here. Mindrape isn't [Evil], or shouldn't be. It would be in the real world, but in D&D, right and wrong are strictly objective by RAW and Fluff. There literally is a definite Good and a definite Evil, so it's not like you're just forcing your views on them. You're forcing Good on them. I wouldn't suggest this is a good act, necessarily, but it's better then killing them, and feeding one more petitioner to the lower planes.

But there are contradictory statements in the Book of Exalted Deeds about whether controlling someone's actions are good or evil or permissible.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 09:44 AM
But these are good, even though they
(1) Deal ability damage
and
(2) Cause undue suffering in the killing or incapacitating of an opponent.

This causes it to lose a bit of credibility in this department.

Hey, I never argued that the BoED is internally consistent. Someone asked for textual evidence that poison is evil and I provided it.

I'm guessing the ravages are "justified" because it's okay to do things to evil creatures that wouldn't be permissible to do to good creatures. You know, like killing them.

Also, the fluff for the ravages specifies that it works off of their guilt, or something like that. I dunno. I guess anyone evil enough to be affected deserves their punishment? :smallconfused:

Kaiyanwang
2010-04-14, 09:45 AM
Sanctify the Wicked is exactly what happened in A Clockwork Orange.


I disagree here. StW is not a brainwash.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 09:48 AM
I disagree here. StW is not a brainwash.

Indeed. The cosmology of D&D sort of assumes that Good is a natural result for anyone unfettered by lies, ignorance, lack of empathy, or natural disposition (sorry, evil outsiders!). An Evil person is, in some way, flawed on a cosmic scale. Sanctify the Wicked confronts them with this flaw, and the person will slowly and gradually become good at a result of seeing how terrible their outlook is.

Now, that may be an overly simplistic view of "good" and "evil," but that is how it works. By RAW, Sanctify the Wicked does nothing but show the evildoer why they suck, and their slowly mending soul takes care of the rest.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-14, 09:53 AM
No, no, no, no, and no.

The book tells you exactly what Sanctify the Wicked does. It confronts someone with the horrible truth of their actions and causes them to repent. Whether this seem implausible to you or not isn't the point; that is what the spell does.

What happens in A Clockwork Orange is completely different. Alex isn't confronted with his actions; he's shown generic scenes of violence and sexuality. He doesn't feel guilt; he feels a chemically-induced sickness. He doesn't develop an aversion to violence; he becomes physically incapable of performing acts of violence because the association causes him to become violently ill.


I disagree here. StW is not a brainwash.


You are locked away, and forced to watch a series of (Assumedly horrific) images until you are inevitably forced to change at a fundamental level.
Sounds both exactly like a brainwash and spookily similar to Clockwork Orange to me. What does it matter if the processes are magical or not, or that the footage is generic?

It's not like simply knowing about what they've done explains on it's own why they'd change so starkly. After all, they were present the first time round. Are all Evil People amnesiacs?

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-14, 10:00 AM
You are locked away, and forced to watch a series of (Assumedly horrific) images until you are inevitably forced to change at a fundamental level.
Sounds both exactly like a brainwash and spookily similar to Clockwork Orange to me. What does it matter if the processes are magical or not, or that the footage is generic?

It's not like simply knowing about what they've done explains on it's own why they'd change so starkly. After all, they were present the first time round. Are all Evil People amnesiacs?

I've indulged in sins before. I remember a lot of them because I knew to do better yet decided against it. I'm pretty sure on a lot of them I would choose the same thing again. Now, the thing about this spell is that you cannot do that. I cannot be "Well, I'm happy with how it turned out." I HAVE to choose repentance and atonement. But hey, it's Good-flavored, right? So it must be good.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 10:06 AM
You are locked away, and forced to watch a series of (Assumedly horrific) images until you are inevitably forced to change at a fundamental level.
Sounds both exactly like a brainwash and spookily similar to Clockwork Orange to me. What does it matter if the processes are magical or not, or that the footage is generic?

It's not like simply knowing about what they've done explains on it's own why they'd change so starkly. After all, they were present the first time round. Are all Evil People amnesiacs?

Two things.

1. The spell does not work that way.


Trapped in the gem, the evil soul undergoes a gradual transformation. The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness.

That's it. You reflect on past evils. No horrible images. No torture. Nothing. Just self-reflection. Whether the magic assists in, or is conducive to, the transformation? Not clear. But when you say that StW is torture, you're basically making things up.

The spell just forces you to reflect on what you did. If you think that's unbelievable as a method for conversion, well, so do I. But that's what the game says it does.

2. Torture or not, that's not how the sequence works in A Clockwork Orange. Alex enjoys the violent images. It's only when he becomes violently ill, due to a drug they'd administered previously, that he starts to look terrified. Even then, he doesn't have a mental aversion to sex or violence. He tries to approach the naked girl they show him before being overwhelmed by illness, and near the end of the movie he demonstrates that he's retained all his penchant for cruelty and manipulation. (The book has a different ending, but retains that scene, at least.)

If anything, A Clockwork Orange would better serve you as an example of a torture technique that actually produces results, as opposed to the "Now sit there and think about what you did!" imposed by Sanctify the Wicked.

Riffington
2010-04-14, 10:21 AM
I've indulged in sins before. I remember a lot of them because I knew to do better yet decided against it. I'm pretty sure on a lot of them I would choose the same thing again. Now, the thing about this spell is that you cannot do that. I cannot be "Well, I'm happy with how it turned out." I HAVE to choose repentance and atonement. But hey, it's Good-flavored, right? So it must be good.

Well, the theory is that you actually wouldn't if you *Knew*. You have imperfect knowledge. You don't understand what Goodness truly is or what Evil truly is just by having done bad things. You just know their pale shadows. Once you truly *knew*, pretty much nobody would choose evil (such people need not be named by the spell because they are rare exceptions).

The main problem with this theory is "why does it change your law/chaotic axis to the caster's?"

Kaiyanwang
2010-04-14, 10:25 AM
You are locked away, and forced to watch a series of (Assumedly horrific) images until you are inevitably forced to change at a fundamental level.
Sounds both exactly like a brainwash and spookily similar to Clockwork Orange to me. What does it matter if the processes are magical or not, or that the footage is generic?

It's not like simply knowing about what they've done explains on it's own why they'd change so starkly. After all, they were present the first time round. Are all Evil People amnesiacs?

Is not a brainwash. It puts you before yourself - it makes you realize what you are really. And heal your soul. Maybe one could object that this assume that everybody is good deep in himself (:smallamused:) but the meaning of the spell is this one.

CO brainwash make you feel sick if you make something (kill, rape, pick up flowers...) Has nothing to do with your morality. Is just able to make you feel sick if you do something.




The main problem with this theory is "why does it change your law/chaotic axis to the caster's?"

This is a point. Maybe it incites you to follow the "kind of good" followed by the caster, but I admit that I'm stretching the thing.

Thurbane
2010-04-14, 10:26 AM
From the BoED:
Well that's stupid...goes back to the "bad old days" of 1E, and only Evil characters being allowed poison.

It's OK to immolate an enemy with Alchemists Fire, or melt his flesh with flasks of acid, but poison is "eeeevil". :smallconfused:

Gametime
2010-04-14, 10:30 AM
Well that's stupid...goes back to the "bad old days" of 1E, and only Evil characters being allowed poison.

It's OK to immolate an enemy with Alchemists Fire, or melt his flesh with flasks of acid, but poison is "eeeevil". :smallconfused:

Yeah, the fact that it's immediately followed up by a section on poisons that are okay because they only work on evil characters makes the whole thing pretty laughable.

At least they acknowledge that knocking someone out with a "poison" isn't an evil act. One has to wonder, though, why ability damage is considered unnecessarily cruel. What about all the spells that deal ability damage? And why is taking someone prisoner after paralyzing them more cruel than just killing them?

D&D ethics are borked all around.

Taelas
2010-04-14, 10:43 AM
Casting Mindrape is an Evil act because it has the [Evil] descriptor.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 10:53 AM
No, no, no, no, and no.

The book tells you exactly what Sanctify the Wicked does. It confronts someone with the horrible truth of their actions and causes forces and compels them to repent from a source outside of their own free will. Whether this seem implausible to you or not isn't the point; that is what the spell does.

Fixed that for ya.

But there are contradictory statements in the Book of Exalted Deeds about whether controlling someone's actions are good or evil or permissible.
And the come books supercede optional sourcebooks. Spells which exert total control over others are not evil.

If you judge BoED by its own standards? It's evil. Welcome to 1984, Mr Orwell.



That's it. You reflect on past evils. No horrible images. No torture. Nothing. Just self-reflection. Whether the magic assists in, or is conducive to, the transformation? Not clear. Is certainly true.

The spell just forces you to reflect on what you did and magically compels moral and alignment change. If you think that's unbelievable as a method for conversion, well, so do I. But that's what the game says it does.

Fixed that for ya too.

Free will is, simply put, the ability to choose.

Does an evil character, under the effect of this spell, have any option to choose anything except "Alignment matches the caster"?

If there is no other option, then that is forced. That removes free will. There is no argument, no reasoning, no explanation otherwise. Because of the spell, and directly because of the spell, and ONLY because of the spell, the character undergoes a radical moral shift, to that of the caster, without his/her consent or choice.

In fact, the fact that the spell does not always change you to the same alignment (law, neutral, chaotic) shows that there is not a universal constant that is true, and someone, upon reflection, will see it. No, it shows that you are being remade in his/her own image. The caster is pretending to have Divine Rank 0.

Il_Vec
2010-04-14, 11:08 AM
Killing is evil. Mindraping is evil. Removing the ability to do evil is good. Mindraping for good will never be Exalted, but it is actually less evil than taking one's life. Except there are people who value freedom of will above life. Those are called Chaotic.

Makes me think, really.

Riffington
2010-04-14, 11:12 AM
Yeah, the fact that it's immediately followed up by a section on poisons that are okay because they only work on evil characters makes the whole thing pretty laughable.

At least they acknowledge that knocking someone out with a "poison" isn't an evil act. One has to wonder, though, why ability damage is considered unnecessarily cruel. What about all the spells that deal ability damage? And why is taking someone prisoner after paralyzing them more cruel than just killing them?

D&D ethics are borked all around.

Mmm, ravages are borked. Poison-as-evil is not.
[note that it's not one of the "always evil no matter what" things, just a in-general this is evil thing]

Poisons are not exceptionally useful weapons for their initial damage. The ones that are, are a different matter. In general, they're good for the secondary damage - in other words to harm/cause pain/weaken the victim after a fight is over. This means that the poisoner is typically interested in harming someone who poses no immediate threat to himself. And in the case of poison - to do so in a pretty darn painful way.
Yes, you can come up with exceptions - just as you can come up with rare cases where it's Good or Lawful to steal, or Chaotic to honor tradition.

Doc Roc
2010-04-14, 11:35 AM
Casting Mindrape is an Evil act because it has the [Evil] descriptor.

In the end, this and only this.

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 11:40 AM
On dominate, charm, control, etc, the fluff in BoED seems pretty clear:


Spells such as dominate person, geas, and suggestion allow a caster to control another person, robbing that person of free will. This may not be an inherently evil act, but it certainly carries a tmedous ethical responsibility. Forcing anyone to commit an evil act is, of course, evil. Furthermore, a creature under compulsion should be treated the same as a helpless prisoner, since that creature no longer poses a threat, at least for the duration of the spell. Once an enemy is dominated, for example, he should not be killed, but shown mercy and treated the same as a prisoner who had willingly surrendered. The same holds true for charmed and compelled creatures.

So, yes, an Exalted character can use dominate person, or some other similar spell- but they must be aware of the responsibility they are taking on.

That said, while adventurers killing prisoners who have surrendered is usually described as Evil or "out of the question for a character pursuing the exalted path of good"- it also states "execution is not evil".

Maybe the default rule is, no normal adventurer has the right to sentence and execute prisoners on their own- execution is the purview of the authorites.

~LuckyBoneDice~
2010-04-14, 11:52 AM
Mindrape essentially is painfully wiping the memories of the target, which is evil in the sense you basically lobotomize them... Do you see how that's evil. However, I ran a Hellbred Paladin who could cast Mindrape, because he has the Evil Subtype

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 11:55 AM
As written, you could choose to do nothing at all to the target after successfully casting it on them- which may be why all the queries of why its evil in the first place.

Either way, in the description, of the spell, it said that once all editing of alignment, memories, opinions, etc (if any) is done, you can:

"leave the target insane, as the insanity spell, or choose to have them seemingly unaffected"

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 12:16 PM
Mindrape essentially is painfully wiping the memories of the target, which is evil in the sense you basically lobotomize them... Do you see how that's evil. However, I ran a Hellbred Paladin who could cast Mindrape, because he has the Evil Subtype

This is the most distorted view of mindrape yet.

Where to start...

1) Nothing in the spell description implies pain is caused. And this is not a book that shies away from the discussion of pain, with such gems as "Eternity of Torment".

2) You list ONE use of mindrape as what it does absolutely. It's like me saying that driving cars is essentially driving them over pedestrians. Yes, they CAN be used to do that. They can also be used to (a) read a mind, altering nothing, (b) introduce new memories, (c) selectively erase parts of memory, (d) render a suject insane.

In fact, you didn't mention one thing about mindrape that's accurate other than "it's evil". And it is. Because it has the [Evil] descriptor.

taltamir
2010-04-14, 12:24 PM
1. the problem with the "it can leave the target insane" theory is:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolofinsanity.htm
Insanity spells are not evil.

2. the problem with the whole "it causes undue pain" is that somehow using poison is horrible torture that is completely unnecessary and done only to make the other suffer, while stabbing them 12 time with a sword is a pleasant sensation... Besides which, many poisons can have a numbing effect so they are the exact opposite of undue pain and suffering.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 12:25 PM
Free will is, simply put, the ability to choose.

Does an evil character, under the effect of this spell, have any option to choose anything except "Alignment matches the caster"?

If there is no other option, then that is forced. That removes free will. There is no argument, no reasoning, no explanation otherwise. Because of the spell, and directly because of the spell, and ONLY because of the spell, the character undergoes a radical moral shift, to that of the caster, without his/her consent or choice.

In fact, the fact that the spell does not always change you to the same alignment (law, neutral, chaotic) shows that there is not a universal constant that is true, and someone, upon reflection, will see it. No, it shows that you are being remade in his/her own image. The caster is pretending to have Divine Rank 0.

Sanctify the Wicked is not a compulsion spell. Nothing in the description seems to imply that the subject is under a compulsion to change alignments. The spell is not prescriptive - it is descriptive. It says this is what will happen when you contemplate your evil acts.

There is no compulsion there. There is no removal of choice. There is an inevitable outcome, but the subject isn't forced into it. They naturally and freely become good, every single time. Why? Who knows. It's a silly spell. But the spell description says nothing about forcing. The spell descriptors lack any charm or compulsion components. Nothing in the rules supports your opinion that this spell forces a change in alignment.

Just because you have the ability to choose doesn't mean you won't make a certain choice every single time. According to the BoED, the situation set up by Sanctify the Wicked will always lead the evil subject to choose good. That's not compulsion. That's just a really weird cause-and-effect that applies to everyone who fails a will save.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 12:29 PM
In the end, this and only this.

I don't think the [Evil] descriptor is necessary for an act to be evil, though, which is what the debate has been about the entire time anyway.

Since non-[Evil] analogues to Mindrape exist, is Mindrape arbitrarily evil? Situationally evil? Necessarily evil?

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 12:34 PM
Its possible that the meant the spell to be understood as what the Mind Rape trope usually is- but didn't write detailed fluff to make it seem that way.

An insanity spell doesn't involve forcing your way into somebody's mind- though it's still pretty nasty.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 12:38 PM
Sanctify the Wicked is not a compulsion spell. Nothing in the description seems to imply that the subject is under a compulsion to change alignments. The spell is not prescriptive - it is descriptive. It says this is what will happen when you contemplate your evil acts.

There is no compulsion there. There is no removal of choice. There is an inevitable outcome, but the subject isn't forced into it. They naturally and freely become good, every single time. Why? Who knows. It's a silly spell. But the spell description says nothing about forcing. The spell descriptors lack any charm or compulsion components. Nothing in the rules supports your opinion that this spell forces a change in alignment.

Just because you have the ability to choose doesn't mean you won't make a certain choice every single time. According to the BoED, the situation set up by Sanctify the Wicked will always lead the evil subject to choose good. That's not compulsion. That's just a really weird cause-and-effect that applies to everyone who fails a will save.

Just like fireballs don't actually burn peasants, but rather engineer a situation where those peasants choose to burn themselves every single time? Darn those weird cause and effects that apply to everyone that fails a reflex save.

Your argument falls apart on 1 ground. It doesn't change someone to the same alignment, every single time. When a Lawful good character casts it, then that person's reflectionspell always makes them Lawful good. When a chaotic good person casts it, then that person's reflectionspell always makes them Chaotic good. The alignment that the person ends up at depends on an external force (the caster's alignment). Thus, it CANNOT be an internal choice.

Taelas
2010-04-14, 01:38 PM
I don't think the [Evil] descriptor is necessary for an act to be evil, though, which is what the debate has been about the entire time anyway.

Since non-[Evil] analogues to Mindrape exist, is Mindrape arbitrarily evil? Situationally evil? Necessarily evil?

Arbitrarily, just like many other spells with an alignment descriptor.

~LuckyBoneDice~
2010-04-14, 01:45 PM
However, sometimes, evil should be fought with another kind of evil.

I once ran a Hellbred Paladin with only evil subtype spells, using them only to do good, therefore never leaving my code

ArcanistSupreme
2010-04-14, 02:21 PM
Is it possible to simply research the spell without the [evil] descriptor?

Riffington
2010-04-14, 02:37 PM
Thus, it CANNOT be an internal choice.

Well, it can be; it's just confusing.


Is it possible to simply research the spell without the [evil] descriptor?

Of course. But since it's messing not only with the subject but also with the morality of the Universe, and it's already a 9th level spell, it's going to have to be slightly less powerful in some other regard.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-14, 02:49 PM
Most spells lack an alignment descriptor because the good or evilness in the act of how its used. Casting fireball into a crowd of commoners is an evil act obviously, but casting fireball into a horde of orcs coming to slaughter a crowd of peasants is not.
In D&D the commandment would be "thou shalt not murder" not "thou shalt not kill"[theologists argue over which translation in correct in the real world]

But for the sake of D&D its "thou shalt not murder" the difference being fireballing horde of orcs about to slaughter innocent people wouldn't be considered murder.

So when the party of heroes is out fighting evil[insert name] here the way would determine the goodness of the act or lack of it. So the morality of killing a subject depends on the circumstances. Most people agree for example that killing in self-defense isn't wrong, or in defending another's life.
And its usually considered acceptable for soldiers to kill each other in war.

Essentially that is what the heroes in D&D are doing, or should be doing. The forces of evil are going to war for some foul purpose and the good guys are there to stop them.

Evil spells are evil simply by casting them, because their very power or nature is evil. No example of how an evil spell can be used for good changes the alignment of the spell. Its very nature or the source of its power is evil.
Deathw

Mindrape is probably the ultimate violation of a subject's mind. As I said before even if you change the spell's name. Its description of effects still sounds like you rape the subjects mind. Rape=Evil no argument there
So mindrape is evil because of how it does what it does.

As for sanctify the wicked, well it probably shouldn't exist as written, it should simply swap the evil axis alignment for good, one could say that as you must sacrifice one character level to cast the spell. The subject becomes good because you impart some of your own goodness into their heart.

Indon
2010-04-14, 02:51 PM
Yeah, the fact that it's immediately followed up by a section on poisons that are okay because they only work on evil characters makes the whole thing pretty laughable.

At least they acknowledge that knocking someone out with a "poison" isn't an evil act. One has to wonder, though, why ability damage is considered unnecessarily cruel. What about all the spells that deal ability damage? And why is taking someone prisoner after paralyzing them more cruel than just killing them?

D&D ethics are borked all around.

Well, to be fair, many ability damage or save-or-suck sources would be against the Geneva Convention and other international laws governing warfare, but many gruesome sources of HP damage (including some firearms and explosives, which are hella messy and not nice at all) are just fine.


Your argument falls apart on 1 ground.
His argument isn't based on the mechanical effects of the spell, but based on what the spell is described as doing, which is much more in-depth.

And your qualm is fairly easy to deal with: Sanctify the Wicked is like a really really good argument for the caster's alignment. If you made the save, the argument wasn't going to convince you. If you failed the save, it means it will.

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 03:02 PM
That's probably a major reason why poison's evil in BoED- I think there are rules banning the use of poisoned weapons in warfare, as well as the use of disease as a weapon.

Same with rules governing the correct treatment of prisoners.

And rules about targeting civilians in a combat zone.

In fact, it seems like BoED goes out of its way to define as evil, the sort of things that are usually banned by international law (like torture, or slavery).

Why spells that do Strength damage don't have the evil descriptor, but using poisons that do strength damage, is considered an evil fact, I don't know.

Maybe D&D poisons aren't like real ones, and inflict so much pain as to be considered "beyond the pale".

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 03:13 PM
Well, it can be; it's just confusing.
No, it can't. If a result is based on an external stimulus, it is not wholly internal.


His argument isn't based on the mechanical effects of the spell, but based on what the spell is described as doing, which is much more in-depth.

And your qualm is fairly easy to deal with: Sanctify the Wicked is like a really really good argument for the caster's alignment. If you made the save, the argument wasn't going to convince you. If you failed the save, it means it will.
But that's NOT what it says it is. It says it's personal reflection. And then you see your own inner goodness. And then you become good.

So, what we've seen the spell does:
1) Puts you in time out.
2) Makes you think about what you've done
3) Forces a spark of good that was disregarded by your own life's choice to be awakened.
4) Changes your alignment.


Trapped in the gem, the evil soul
undergoes a gradual transformation. The soul reflects on past evils and slowly
finds within itself a spark of goodness. Over time, this spark grows into a burning fire. After one year, the trapped creature’s soul adopts the alignment of the spell’s caster (lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good).

1) The soul undergoes a transformation, by the stated effect of the spell. Thus, part of the stated spell's effects are to transform the soul.

2) The soul reflects on evils, by the stated effect of the spell. Thus, part of the stated spell's effects are to force specific thoughts. The soul isn't free to plot revenge, or calculate the most efficient temperature to roast sapient flesh. It's thoughts are being controlled.

3) The soul finds within itself a spark of goodness. Assuming all creatures have this, it was that creature's choice to disregard that. That choice is being trampled and disregarded. This isn't consequences for behaviour. This is "I don't like your behaviour, so look until you see a part of you that thinks my way". And the spell enforces this finding.

4) After a year, the soul adopts the new alignment, by the stated spell's effects. Thus, part of the effects of the spell is altering the soul's alignment and moral outlook.

Nowhere in this spell does it state that the soul does so under no duress. Nowhere does it say that the spell has no role in it, and that the soul automatically does this.

When a fireball spell says "deals 10d6 fire damage" we don't assume that the inherent desire of the atmosphere to burn is being enacted, and that the spell has no actual part in the fire damage. Why? Because 10d6 fire damage is part of the spell's listed effects.

The soul changes alignments is part of THIS spell's listed effects. What isn't? Good arguments, either from the spell, or from you. Arguing that Sanctify the Wicked does not change a creature's alignment by the listed text of the spell is like saying that water isn't wet. It does! In the listed text of what the spell does, changing a creature's alignment is right there!

There is no justification, no argument, no rationale or reasoning, that will change that. That is pure, dispassionate, fact.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 03:22 PM
Arbitrarily, just like many other spells with an alignment descriptor.

I had never thought of it that way, but your reasoned discourse on the subject has thoroughly convinced me.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 03:31 PM
3) The soul finds within itself a spark of goodness. Assuming all creatures have this, it was that creature's choice to disregard that. That choice is being trampled and disregarded. This isn't consequences for behaviour. This is "I don't like your behaviour, so look until you see a part of you that thinks my way". And the spell enforces this finding.



Emphasis mine. The bolded section is something you have no basis for. Few people are fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Few people are perfectly rational. Few people are perfectly self-aware. It is a massive leap in logic to say that all evil creatures are aware that they are evil and fully knowledgeable of the arguments against being evil.

If Sanctify the Wicked was a compulsion, it would be a compulsion. It isn't. If your will isn't strong enough, you will be convinced of the error of your ways. That isn't compulsion, any more than a person being shown a proof that 1 + 1 = 2 is compelled to accept that as truth. It takes a uniquely strong mind to willfully ignore logical truths, and (apparently) a uniquely strong mind to ignore the pull of goodness in D&D.

It doesn't make much sense, but that's how it works.

Or we could just agree that the system of morality espoused by various D&D books leads one to conflicting and occasionally contradictory conclusions.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 03:32 PM
However, sometimes, evil should be fought with another kind of evil.

I once ran a Hellbred Paladin with only evil subtype spells, using them only to do good, therefore never leaving my code

Using evil spells for good ends is still evil, according to RAW.

You should've fallen. Well, under the rules. I think that sort of character is cool, and would totally allow it. But the rules don't approve.

Ashiel
2010-04-14, 03:37 PM
This is one of the major reasons I hate the BoVD/BoED. In the case of the BoED, I find myself having an aversion to utter BS that is almost sickening to read; grossly hypocritical; and more often than not justifying evil as good in some way.


Oh undead are evil, because negative energy is neutral, and so we have deathless which are just like undead except powered by positive energy which is also neutral.
Oh, assassins are evil for no logical reason other than they kill like 99% of adventurers do. Here's an assassin that does the same thing, but it's a good assassin.
Poison is evil, because. However, here's poison you can use 'cause it's not.
Blah-blah-blah free will. <i>Sanctify the Wicked</i>.
Horrible mechanics that don't even do what they're supposed to do. Like Vow of Poverty.
More free will, soul, and dignity stuff. I see that and raise you Words of Creation (which have little use other than pressing others into your will, and other indignities).
The absolutely insane interpretations of what is good; where virtually everyone ever, unless following these insanities, are likely very evil. Made more humorous when in practice these "good" characters appear more evil and heinous than their non-exalted brethren.


In the case of the BoVD:

It's kind of gross. No really; a lot of the stuff in that book just isn't something I'd really want at my gaming table.
Some things being evil "just 'cause". The mindrape spell, despite having a multitude of good uses just is. Also, having an undead lover (even your wife) apparently makes you quite vile for no apparent reason. Contrast to the Nymph's love feat from BoED, where apparently having <i>relations</i> with a nymph makes you blessed...well, you're <i>blessed</i> but that's not what I think that should mean. For the record; if you're married to a Baelnorn (those good liches, then you're an evil bastard and you're totally going to through nine).
In the BoVD's credit, I must say that they're at least honest about it. <i>Most</i> of the stuff in that book is quite evil. Honestly. They have a weapon that's sole purpose is to slay angels and such. Sacrificing innocents, that sort of thing. At least it's not like the BoED where you constantly commit evil in one form or another and then lie about it.


Then again, I think the thing I hate the most about them (and later 3.5's alignment system); is their stupidly black/white nature of morality, which while making no sense even in its own context, doesn't hold up in actual game-play either. What they did to undead in 3.5 I feel is an extension of this non-sense.

Honestly, I preferred it when it wasn't so insanely black and white. I also preferred 3E rules for stuff like alignment (where stuff was Neutral if it was mindless; so no neutral-evil skeletons and zombies), and alignment was more internally consistent. Fix something somewhere, break it somewhere I guess.

-----

As to the actual topic; yeah. Mindrape isn't evil in D&D terms; not even by the BoVD/BoED definitions. It's squarely neutral in the same way that other compulsions, dominations, or sword-to-face things are. It can be used for good, it can be used for evil; but then so can all things. The only reason people make up arguments for it in an attempt to justify the [Evil] descriptor with stuff that isn't actually in the spell. Or because the spell is called Mindrape. Should the spell be called Mental-Rearrangement and lack the arbitrary [Evil] subtype, then this wouldn't pop up as much (if at all).

It's the same as people trying to make out like mindless skeletons, when left uncontrolled, must seek out babies to eat - despite being mindless, uncontrolled, and inert. It's just a bad way of trying to justify a bad mechanic; and it always falls apart under logical scrutiny.

Anyway, that's my 3coppers.

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 03:40 PM
Using evil spells for good ends is still evil, according to RAW.

You should've fallen. Well, under the rules. I think that sort of character is cool, and would totally allow it. But the rules don't approve.


Specific trumps general: a property of the Hellbred is:

Evil Exception (Ex): Regardless of alignment or class restrictions, a hellbred can cast spells with the evil descriptor and never gains negative levels while wielding evil magic items, such as unholy weapons or demon armour. This ability does not shield a hellbred from losing access to class features if he violates a class's code of conduct. For example, using a +1 unholy longsword to slay orcs would not violate a hellbred paladin's code of conduct, though using the weapon to kill another paladin would.

If you take "Regardless of alignment or class restrictions, a hellbred can cast spells with the evil descriptor" as meaning

"casting spells with the evil descriptor is an exception to the normal class restriction of paladins- for a hellbred"

then it can be done.

(On the other hand, if you take "does not shield a hellbred from losing access to class features if he violates a class's code of conduct" as meaning that they can't cast evil spells without Falling- then it wouldn't work.)

Malconvokers in Complete Scoundrel have a rule saying-

"regular use of summoning spells with the Evil descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment"- but it's not clear if the spellcasting actually ceases to count as evil acts or not.

Ashiel
2010-04-14, 03:41 PM
Emphasis mine. The bolded section is something you have no basis for. Few people are fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Few people are perfectly rational. Few people are perfectly self-aware. It is a massive leap in logic to say that all evil creatures are aware that they are evil and fully knowledgeable of the arguments against being evil.

If Sanctify the Wicked was a compulsion, it would be a compulsion. It isn't. If your will isn't strong enough, you will be convinced of the error of your ways. That isn't compulsion, any more than a person being shown a proof that 1 + 1 = 2 is compelled to accept that as truth. It takes a uniquely strong mind to willfully ignore logical truths, and (apparently) a uniquely strong mind to ignore the pull of goodness in D&D.

It doesn't make much sense, but that's how it works.

Or we could just agree that the system of morality espoused by various D&D books leads one to conflicting and occasionally contradictory conclusions.

On a side note; I think that it actually requires a particularly weak mind to ignore logical truths. I've never found it a trait of the strong willed, or strong minded. Merely that of those incapable of accepting rational thought and being to weak to handle anything but their own ideas of things.

Purely anecdotal; but by this reasoning you should become good by succeeding on your Will save; not failing it. :smalltongue:

Gametime
2010-04-14, 03:44 PM
Oh, assassins are evil for no logical reason other than they kill like 99% of adventurers do. Here's an assassin that does the same thing, but it's a good assassin.


To be fair, indiscriminately murdering people for money does seem fairly evil. Any adventurer that does that should be called evil, too, and any assassin that doesn't shouldn't.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 03:45 PM
Emphasis mine. The bolded section is something you have no basis for. Few people are fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Few people are perfectly rational. Few people are perfectly self-aware. It is a massive leap in logic to say that all evil creatures are aware that they are evil and fully knowledgeable of the arguments against being evil.Such spells, with costs of a level, and at the highest level of magic, are not going to be used against the thug that stole grandma's pearls.

This is a spell designed to steal the choice from exemplars of evil. From the paragons of their beliefs. It's hard to argue that they're all not self aware. Moreover, even if that choice is unwitting, it is their choice.


If Sanctify the Wicked was a compulsion, it would be a compulsion. It isn't. If your will isn't strong enough, you will be convinced of the error of your ways.So, if your will to resist isn't strong enough, you have to be good?

Much like if someone's will isn't strong enough, they have to obey the vampire? My friend, you split hairs.


That isn't compulsion, any more than a person being shown a proof that 1 + 1 = 2 is compelled to accept that as truth.Only if the spell that does it says, "The creature accepts it as truth." Then, yes, they were forced... compelled... to accept it.

It takes a uniquely strong mind to willfully ignore logical truths, and (apparently) a uniquely strong mind to ignore the pull of goodness in D&D.Except this isn't the pull of "good". This is the pull of "the caster's alignment". It's NOT internal. It's NOT a proof or a logical reasoning. The spell does NOT impart any special knowledge or reasoned debate into the creature. Why not?

Because the spell makes no mention of any of that. What it DOES mention is controlling thoughts, and forcing an alignment change. And you're trying to weasel out of it.


It doesn't make much sense, but that's how it works.No, that's not. Show me ONE PART of that spell where it states that the spell makes a reasoned argument with the victim to convince them.

That's unsupported.


Or we could just agree that the system of morality espoused by various D&D books leads one to conflicting and occasionally contradictory conclusions.Which was my point.

It's evil because the book says it is. It's good because the book says it is. There is no further justification for it. None. All that nonsense that was just said about logical proofs and reasoned debate with a spell?

Worth the paper it's written on.

Oh, wait. No paper here.

Ashiel
2010-04-14, 03:45 PM
To be fair, indiscriminately murdering people for money does seem fairly evil. Any adventurer that does that should be called evil, too, and any assassin that doesn't shouldn't.

To be fairer, "assassin" is a skill set, and even the word doesn't imply killing only for money. The assassin prestige class has the special requirement, likely, just to justify their evil alignment requirement.

EDIT: Which I also find to be incredibly stupid and stifling; and support it no more than anything out of those deity-forsaken books. :smallmad:

Gametime
2010-04-14, 03:49 PM
Specific trumps general: a property of the Hellbred is:

Evil Exception (Ex): Regardless of alignment or class restrictions, a hellbred can cast spells with the evil descriptor and never gains negative levels while wielding evil magic items, such as unholy weapons or demon armour. This ability does not shield a hellbred from losing access to class features if he violates a class's code of conduct. For example, using a +1 unholy longsword to slay orcs would not violate a hellbred paladin's code of conduct, though using the weapon to kill another paladin would.



Whoops! Forgot Hellbred had that ability. Now I want to play a character like that.


On a side note; I think that it actually requires a particularly weak mind to ignore logical truths. I've never found it a trait of the strong willed, or strong minded. Merely that of those incapable of accepting rational thought and being to weak to handle anything but their own ideas of things.

Purely anecdotal; but by this reasoning you should become good by succeeding on your Will save; not failing it. :smalltongue:

Yeah, Sanctify the Wicked is a silly, silly spell. Why locking away someone's soul turns them good at all is just bizarre in the first place.

What makes it worse is that there are already rules in the BoED for turning people good that I think are much more representative of the feel I think they wanted. You have to treat them exceptionally well, talk with them about goodness and such, and they can make will saves to avoid being persuaded. It has the same problems as any other Diplomacy checks, but at least the feel is right. (At least, for a world where "Goodness" is a tangible fact and not just an abstract value.)

At this point, I'm mostly just arguing to see how many more absurd alignment rules we can unearth. Shh! Don't tell anyone.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 03:53 PM
Only if the spell that does it says, "The creature accepts it as truth." Then, yes, they were forced... compelled... to accept it.

No, that would be if it said "The creature is forced to accept it as truth." Otherwise, it's conjecture to say they were forced. The spell description isn't heavy on the detail on that front.


Because the spell makes no mention of any of that. What it DOES mention is controlling thoughts, and forcing an alignment change. And you're trying to weasel out of it.

It does? :smallconfused:


No, that's not. Show me ONE PART of that spell where it states that the spell makes a reasoned argument with the victim to convince them.

You're right, my mistake. I should have said it is the inevitable result of their soul's self-reflection.

Riffington
2010-04-14, 03:57 PM
No, it can't. If a result is based on an external stimulus, it is not wholly internal.

When I was in high school, my Dad packed me a lunch every day and I ate it. I had free will to choose anything I wanted, but I kept choosing the brown bag because it was already there and paid-for.

Similarly, a *possible* explanation:
You are faced with the realization of what Evil really means, and inevitably you will want to repent. But how to turn your life around? Well, you could certainly pick any Good alignment and go that direction. If you had a role model. And here's a role model right here, spoon-feeding you the answers. Well, sure, there are a dozen others you coulda picked, but this one's right here, and you're going to pick it over the darkness. Later, when you have other role models around, you may well change your law-chaos axis... but right now you would rather any Good alignment than none.



Here's an assassin that does the same thing, but it's a good assassin.
If you're referring to the Avenger, that wasn't the BoED. That was an April Fool's joke.

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 04:04 PM
It also adds the Sanctified Creature template (since a new body has been created for the creature's soul)

Personally, I think one of the things both BoED and BoVD neglect, is redeemed fiends- or alliances with them against a greater threat.

(BoVD: "Destroying a fiend is always a good act. Allowing a fiend to exist, let alone summoning one or helping one, is clearly evil"

(BoED: "Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try and convert them")

Yet there is the Savage tide Adventure path in Dungeon (where the characters have to forge an alliance between fiends and celestials to thwart a greater threat- Demogorgon)

There is Planescape Torment's redeemed fiend Fall From Grace.

And there are Cambions from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits. Extraplanar Outsiders with the Evil subtype (hence fiends) but (thanks to the fact that they have some mortal blood), alignment-wise, 10% are Neutral or Good.

(BoED does mention alliances with evil creatures against worse threats- stating that it is permissible, but somewhat risky- but it's not clear if this overrides "best slain, or at least banished")




If you're referring to the Avenger, that wasn't the BoED. That was an April Fool's joke.


He's referring to the Slayer of Domiel. Which breaks the rather silly rule that the Deathwatch spell is Evil- by having it on it's list of spells.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 04:07 PM
No, that would be if it said "The creature is forced to accept it as truth." Otherwise, it's conjecture to say they were forced. The spell description isn't heavy on the detail on that front.Really?
Can they say no?

Then it's not conjecture.

It does? :smallconfused:The soul reflects on its evil actions. Yep. That's its thoughts, and it's being required to think about them. No choice on thinking about that last ham sandwich it had. Controlled thoughts.


You're right, my mistake. I should have said it is the inevitable result of their soul's self-reflection.
Nope. It's the listed effect of the spell, laid out in the section of the spell that outlines such. But you're right. It is your mistake.

When I was in high school, my Dad packed me a lunch every day and I ate it. I had free will to choose anything I wanted, but I kept choosing the brown bag because it was already there and paid-for.

Similarly, a *possible* explanation:
You are faced with the realization of what Evil really means, and inevitably you will want to repent. But how to turn your life around? Well, you could certainly pick any Good alignment and go that direction. If you had a role model. And here's a role model right here, spoon-feeding you the answers. Well, sure, there are a dozen others you coulda picked, but this one's right here, and you're going to pick it over the darkness. Later, when you have other role models around, you may well change your law-chaos axis... but right now you would rather any Good alignment than none.


Exactly, you could have chosen something else.

The victims of "Holy Roller's Mindrape" don't get that luxury. They're told what to think (by a spell), how to think (by a spell), and this is good.

Again, welcome to 1984, sir.

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 04:17 PM
The victims of "Holy Roller's Mindrape" don't get that luxury. They're told what to think (by a spell), how to think (by a spell), and this is good.

Again, welcome to 1984, sir.

It's not that different from putting a Helm of Opposite Alignment on somebody.

Is putting on of those on an Evil character, always an Evil act, because it takes away their "free will"?

Or is it only evil when they haven't really done anything to warrant it- they are "jerk evil" rather than "complete monster evil"?

Casting spells with the Good descriptor isn't always a Good act- using Holy Word to kill a whole bunch of Neutral people, would be an Evil act. It might even be evil if cast on a bunch of Evil people, if they are only mildly evil- killing people without just cause, even Evil people, might be an evil act.

Maybe the same would apply to Sanctify the Wicked- despite the Good descriptor, casting it is only Good if the circumstances warrant it's use

ArcanistSupreme
2010-04-14, 04:22 PM
I think that a faulty assumption going on is that any and all evil creatures will switch to good once they realize that what they are doing is evil. I'm sure that many of them are operating fully aware of the pain and suffering that they are inflicting, but to them, the benefits far outweigh the costs.

For example, take Dictator X. Dictator X rules his country with an iron fist, taking more than he needs for himself and his lieutenants. Sure, some people are starving, but he has a really nice house and a harem full of beautiful women. Does Dictator X understand why so many people refer to him as evil incarnate? Heck yes, he just feels like it's either screw or be screwed, and he takes action accordingly. If some monk goes up to Dictator X and explains how good it feels to be good, Dictator X will just point to all of his nice things and have the monk shot.

And if it's a matter of the afterlife, why would anyone worship Hextor, Erythnul, or Vecna if there is no reward after you die?

Kaiser Omnik
2010-04-14, 04:27 PM
If you believe that Sanctify the Wicked is not good then using diplomacy can be as bad, since it can turn simple peasants into fanatics, and they have no choice on the matter, thus robbing their free will!

Good has nothing to do with free will. In any case, Sanctify the Wicked isn't even a compulsion effect, as someone already pointed out. To me, the Will negates refers to the act of imprisoning the soul - nothing worst than Soul Bind. The fact that the imprisoned creature gains the alignment of the caster is a bit weird, so I houserule that it can choose between Lawful, Neutral of Chaotic on the ethical axis.

Mindrape is evil simply because this particular spell was designed by evil spellcasters to be abominable. A good character reading the incantations necessary for Mindrape would certainly be disgusted. That is why the Evil tag is there. Since there are other, neutral forms of mind control/brainwashing, I would personally allow a wizard to research a neutral version of the spell.

Ashiel
2010-04-14, 04:29 PM
If you're referring to the Avenger, that wasn't the BoED. That was an April Fool's joke.

I'm referring to the Slayer of Domiel prestige class, which is effectively an anti-evil assassin. It is highly similar to the assassin prestige class; being effectively a combat rogue with some spells, and a mechanic (albeit an iffy one) for insta-killing creatures (in this case just evil creatures).

Pg. 73 of the BoED.

hamishspence
2010-04-14, 04:32 PM
And if it's a matter of the afterlife, why would anyone worship Hextor, Erythnul, or Vecna if there is no reward after you die?

FC2 has an answer (more for devil worship than evil-god worship though)


One of the mysteries of the multiverse is why any person in her right mind would choose a lawful evil alignment and devil worship. Who wants to go to Baator and suffer horrible torments, only to be boiled down into expendable energy and used to spawn a pathetic, mindless lemure?

First of all, few inhabitants of a D&D world, even devil cultists, have access to accurate information about the afterlife. Most lawful evil characters envision the Nine Hells as a place much like the everyday world, except with higher, sharper mountains and a touch more brimstone in the air. One might have heard that souls are tormented there, but she assumes that her own special relationship with her local devils will somehow exempt her from such treatment. After all, high-ranking minions of evil universally regard themselves as special and indispensable.

Characters might also be aware that lawful evil souls become devils after death, but not that their indenties are painfully extracted and obliterated in the process. Arrogantly certain of their ability to scale the diabolical hierarchy, they reckon that they will quickly zoom to pit fiend status, retaining their earthly personalities and memories in the process. Neither evil kings nor fanatical cult leaders ever look at a lemure and imagine it to be their most likely eternal form.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 04:45 PM
Really?
Can they say no?

Then it's not conjecture.

Yes. Yes they can.

But they won't.

The game is making fundamental assumptions about the effects of soul-searching. According to this spell, it makes you good. But just because you'll always do something doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

I will never murder a baby. There is no way I will ever do it. No sequence of events could ever lead to me murdering a baby. I always still have the choice to murder a baby. Similarly, any evil person has the choice to not turn good after getting hit by a Sanctify the Wicked - but they won't.

Presumably, anyone who would reject the goodness succeeded on their will save.

Again, I don't agree with the idea that people will turn good if you sit them in the corner for a while. The game apparently does.


The soul reflects on its evil actions. Yep. That's its thoughts, and it's being required to think about them. No choice on thinking about that last ham sandwich it had. Controlled thoughts.

Ah, I see what you mean. Normally, when I hear "controlled thoughts," I think of someone forcing you to think something specific, instead of forcing you to think about a certain topic. The evil creatures aren't forced to think anything in particular about their evil deeds, hence my confusion.

I mean, when I tell you not to think about the pink elephant, I'm hardly controlling your thoughts.


Nope. It's the listed effect of the spell, laid out in the section of the spell that outlines such. But you're right. It is your mistake.

Wait, what? The spell says the creature reflects on its actions, then turns good. This is, apparently, inevitable. I rectified my earlier (incorrect) summary of the spell. In what sense am I still making a mistake?



Exactly, you could have chosen something else.

The victims of "Holy Roller's Mindrape" don't get that luxury. They're told what to think (by a spell), how to think (by a spell), and this is good.

Again, welcome to 1984, sir.

They could choose to remain evil, but they won't. In D&D, being trapped in a soul gem of shiny goodness will inevitably make you decide to be good. They don't get a "choice" represented by the DM or their player for the same reason NPCs don't get to decide when to ignore Diplomacy checks. It doesn't mean they've suddenly been deprived of free will.


I think that a faulty assumption going on is that any and all evil creatures will switch to good once they realize that what they are doing is evil. I'm sure that many of them are operating fully aware of the pain and suffering that they are inflicting, but to them, the benefits far outweigh the costs.



I agree that this is a silly and simplistic view of morality. As near as I can tell, however, it is the one supported by the game rules.

Ashiel
2010-04-14, 05:01 PM
They could choose to remain evil, but they won't. In D&D, being trapped in a soul gem of shiny goodness will inevitably make you decide to be good. They don't get a "choice" represented by the DM or their player for the same reason NPCs don't get to decide when to ignore Diplomacy checks. It doesn't mean they've suddenly been deprived of free will.

Except it works on players. Also, if you don't have a choice, then it's not a choice. The can't go "Nah, I like being a wicked, sinful, evil-incarnate; because at the end of the day, I hate the world and I want it to burn and my mother, my father, my bitch of a sister and everything they ever loved. I like the way this feels. I will rule the hells one day. I spit on Bahamut, and Pelor is my best friend. I've mulled over this for an entire year thanks to your imprisoning me and robbing me of my freedom; and I still like me. So I'll just say, no thanks and good work. I could use someone as twisted as you on my side sometime. You're a sick puppy, and I like that."

The fact it requires the creature - as per the spell effect - to always choose to be good, regardless of that creatures personality, background, reasoning, motivations, or even divine connection is a testament to both the idiocy of the spell, as well as the poor mechanical representation. Literally, it fails on the mechanical level, and doesn't even adhere to the existing rules. By being unable to choose not to be good, you are compelled; yet it's not technically a compulsion, so it's made of fail.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 05:15 PM
Yes. Yes they can.

But they won't.No, they can't.

They WILL do this. They DO adopt a new alignment. No. They cannot.


The game is making fundamental assumptions about the effects of soul-searching. According to this spell, it makes you good. But just because you'll always do something doesn't mean you don't have a choice.
No. YOU are making assumptions about soul searching, and about the extent of the spells.


I will never murder a baby. There is no way I will ever do it. No sequence of events could ever lead to me murdering a baby. I always still have the choice to murder a baby. Similarly, any evil person has the choice to not turn good after getting hit by a Sanctify the Wicked - but they won't.Wrong. They don't. The spell's effect does not allow them that choice.


Presumably, anyone who would reject the goodness succeeded on their will save.
Presumably, anyone who would reject the goodness is deprived of that my a prim and proper mindrape.


Again, I don't agree with the idea that people will turn good if you sit them in the corner for a while. The game apparently does.
Wrong. You SAY the game does. I can say that the game endorses AC that's better when it drops lower.

I'd be wrong. But I could say it.


Ah, I see what you mean. Normally, when I hear "controlled thoughts," I think of someone forcing you to think something specific, instead of forcing you to think about a certain topic. The evil creatures aren't forced to think anything in particular about their evil deeds, hence my confusion.However, they are forced to.

I mean, when I tell you not to think about the pink elephant, I'm hardly controlling your thoughts.Exactly. Because I'm thinking of the episode of Sanctuary that I'm watching.

See? I have a choice, and I exercised it. Because you don't control it. Now, if I were to have, say, been forced to? Then you would have.


Wait, what? The spell says the creature reflects on its actions, then turns good. This is, apparently, inevitable. I rectified my earlier (incorrect) summary of the spell. In what sense am I still making a mistake?The spell's EFFECTS are that the creature reflects on its actions, then turns good. That is an EFFECT of the spell. Just as fireballs burn, just as dominate controls, and just as See Invisibility lets you see the invisible.

The effects of the spell cause what you described. That's where you're wrong. It's not a voluntary choice. It's the effect of magic.

In other words? A sanctified wizard did it.


They could choose to remain evil, but they won't. In D&D, being trapped in a soul gem of shiny goodness will inevitably make you decide to be good. They don't get a "choice" represented by the DM or their player for the same reason NPCs don't get to decide when to ignore Diplomacy checks. It doesn't mean they've suddenly been deprived of free will.Actually, yes. Yes it does.


I agree that this is a silly and simplistic view of morality. As near as I can tell, however, it is the one supported by the game rules.
Which is why you're wrong. "As near as you can tell" is about as near to the facts as, say, cannibals are to a vegan ethos.

Riffington
2010-04-14, 05:57 PM
Exactly, you could have chosen something else.

The victims of "Holy Roller's Mindrape" don't get that luxury. They're told what to think (by a spell), how to think (by a spell), and this is good.

Again, welcome to 1984, sir.

But if you buy the (iffy) assumptions, that's not actually true. They are forced to: sit imprisoned for a year, and get access to some Truth. So far,it's not evil to make them do that, and they have the ability to choose whatever they want and think about whatever they want during that time. But they will nearly-inevitably choose to reject Evil entirely in favor of something else. And the nearby Good that they will nearly-inevitably reach for is the caster's Good.

I don't, as it turns out, think this is the most likely explanation. It requires some weird assumptions about the acceptability of diplomancy, among other problems. I think it's more likely that the spell just turns itself [Good] because 9th level spells are more than powerful enough to do that. But it's at least vaguely-plausible.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-14, 06:08 PM
The victims of "Holy Roller's Mindrape" don't get that luxury. They're told what to think (by a spell), how to think (by a spell), and this is good.

Again, welcome to 1984, sir.

I like "Time Out" spell. Which is what it is. You give them a year time out as punishment.
It worked for my parents when I was bad back in the day. It will work for villians.

Il_Vec
2010-04-14, 06:27 PM
The answer is in the School of Sanctify the Wicked. It is not a Compulsion. Or enchantment, or illusion. It's Necromancy. It deals with the nature of soul. Soul comes before conscient thought. Regardless of background, the Soul of said being changes. It is re-shaped to reject Evil. The spell makes no reference to the souls' "thinking".

Kaiser Omnik
2010-04-14, 06:36 PM
The answer is in the School of Sanctify the Wicked. It is not a Compulsion. Or enchantment, or illusion. It's Necromancy. It deals with the nature of soul. Soul comes before conscient thought. Regardless of background, the Soul of said being changes. It is re-shaped to reject Evil. The spell makes no reference to the souls' "thinking".

Indeed. It defeats the darkest side of the creature and lets the good side back in control, if you will. Look at this as eradicating a monster without damning or destroying the whole soul.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 06:43 PM
But if you buy the (iffy) assumptions, that's not actually true. They are forced to: sit be imprisoned for a year after their body is utterly destroyed, and get access to beaten with some Truth soul twisting morality shifting magic. So far,it's not evil to make them do that, and they have the ability to choose whatever they wantobligation to choose to become good and think about whatever they want the evil that they have committed during that time. But they will nearly-inevitably choose to reject Evil entirely in favor of something else the caster's alignment. And the nearby Good that they will nearly-inevitably reach for is the caster's Good.

Redacted and corrected for inaccurate information. There was a lot, I may not have gotten quite all of it.


Indeed. It defeats the darkest side of the creature and lets the good side back in control, if you will. Look at this as eradicating a monster without damning or destroying the whole soul.

Or it destroys a body, moves and imprisons a soul, and then returns its body to another receptacle. Aspects are reminiscent of Trap the Soul and Clone.

Riffington
2010-04-14, 06:57 PM
Redacted and corrected for inaccurate information. There was a lot, I may not have gotten quite all of it.

I think you may need to justify those changes. A year is a long time. Just because they do think about the evil they've done and end up wanting to change it doesn't mean they didn't have a choice in either of those regards. It's fine if that's how you want to play it, but the book is pretty non-specific.

ArcanistSupreme
2010-04-14, 07:12 PM
I think you may need to justify those changes. A year is a long time. Just because they do think about the evil they've done and end up wanting to change it doesn't mean they didn't have a choice in either of those regards. It's fine if that's how you want to play it, but the book is pretty non-specific.

A year forced to contemplate nothing but horrible atrocities and misdeeds? This sounds suspiciously like torture. Oh well, it's for a Good cause, so it must be good.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 07:13 PM
I think you may need to justify those changes. A year is a long time. Just because they do think about the evil they've done and end up wanting to change it doesn't mean they didn't have a choice in either of those regards. It's fine if that's how you want to play it, but the book is pretty non-specific.

The book is pretty specific about a few points:

This here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#descriptiveText). Quite simply, if it's in the descriptive text of a spell, it is a function of the spell.

The functions of that spell, as they are known:

1) Soul trapped for 1 year.
2) Creature thinks about its evil acts.
3) Creature finds within itself a bit of good.
4) That good is amplified.
5) Creature is released at the end of that time, and becomes good (matching the caster's alignment).

These are what the spell does. This is how the spell works.

Any attempt to obfuscate that by saying that "no the spell doesn't really do that, the character does that all on his own" is directly against RAW. If it is in the descriptive text of the spell, it is part of the spell's normal function. NOT the subject's.

Il_Vec
2010-04-14, 07:21 PM
The functions of that spell, as they are known:

1) Soul trapped for 1 year.
2) Creature thinks about its evil acts.
3) Creature finds within itself a bit of good.
4) That good is amplified.
5) Creature is released at the end of that time, and becomes good (matching the caster's alignment).


Again, this spell is a Necromancy. It is not Compulsion. It transforms the soul. The soul does NOT think. There is no reference to thinking in the spell. There is no reference to feeling. No reference to free will. Like most Necromantic spells, it deals with Life, Death, Positive and Negative energy manipulation.

Kaiser Omnik
2010-04-14, 07:23 PM
A year forced to contemplate nothing but horrible atrocities and misdeeds? This sounds suspiciously like torture. Oh well, it's for a Good cause, so it must be good.

Its their own atrocities and misdeeds they see, they are the only responsible for them. And if it was really torture it would be written like that in the spell. Don't mix your own peronal views with RAW.

Are some people here really defending the rights of demons or whatever? :smalltongue:

Riffington
2010-04-14, 07:24 PM
Quite simply, if it's in the descriptive text of a spell, it is a function of the spell.


Really?
So for instance, I've been playing that Gust of Wind creates a wind, and that the consequences are just the likely consequences. So if a tiny creature is chained to a tree, it is not actually blown 1d4x10 feet (that's not a spell effect, that's just likely physics of the spell effect which is to create a wind). Do you play that it's a real spell effect and that Gust of WInd frees all the tiny creatures from their chains?

Contact Other Plane says that powers "resent such contact". I always interpreted that resentment as sort of a "FYI, most powers resent being contacted". Are you saying it's actually a spell effect, and that in addition to contacting a deity, it's also magically annoying that deity?

ArcanistSupreme
2010-04-14, 07:28 PM
Its their own atrocities and misdeeds they see, they are the only responsible for them. And if it was really torture it would be written like that in the spell. Don't mix your own peronal views with RAW.

Are some people here really defending the rights of demons or whatever? :smalltongue:

Think of the worst thing that you have ever done in your entire life. Now think of it (and nothing else) for a year straight.

Don't you think that seems a bit extreme to do to anybody? Especially to minor thugs who maybe stole an old lady's purse?

Kaiser Omnik
2010-04-14, 07:29 PM
I get that people don't agree with the methods of Sanctify the Wicked. But in the context of the game world, it makes perfect sense. You must look only at what the spell actually does. Sanctify the Wicked is not torture because it's not the point of Good spells.

It is essentially used to turn an enemy into an ally. How is that worse than simply killing the creature? How is gaining an ally on the side of Good a bad thing? We're not talking about liberal rights here, but D&D morality. Of course it's black and white and restrictive. But in that context, Sanctify the Wicked is a good asset.


Think of the worst thing that you have ever done in your entire life. Now think of it (and nothing else) for a year straight.

Don't you think that seems a bit extreme to do to anybody? Especially to minor thugs who maybe stole an old lady's purse?

I am sure you well know that this spell is designed for great villains, chromatic dragons, fiends, evil mages, etc. A minor would "find his good side" much more quickly. The reason it takes so much time is because there is much evil to cleanse, if you will.

And yes, it's extreme. It's a radical spell. But it's not non-good, either. It seems to be torture to us. It's probably painful to feel all this guilt...but Good doesn't equal nice. The evil creature is the only one to blame for his crimes, in any case.

ArcanistSupreme
2010-04-14, 07:35 PM
You must look only at what the spell actually does.

Mindrape does the same thing, but faster.


It is essentially used to turn an enemy into an ally. How is that worse than simply killing the creature? How is gaining an ally on the side of Good a bad thing?

Again, see Mindrape.


I am sure you well know that this spell is designed for great villains, chromatic dragons, fiends, evil mages, etc. A minor would "find his good side" much more quickly. The reason it takes so much time is because there is much evil to cleanse, if you will.

RAW says a year, and it doesn't make exceptions for "less evil" beings.


And yes, it's extreme. It's a radical spell. But it's not non-good, either.

Simply because of the [good] descriptor.

Il_Vec
2010-04-14, 07:36 PM
Sanctify the Wicked has absolutely nothing to do with thinking! It is not mind-affecting, and works on creatures incapable of thought. (Not many of those are Evil, but it works nonetheless) The spell is clear, it transforms the soul. Said soul "reflects on past evils", what is hardly "obsessively thinks and regrets about her sins".

daa18
2010-04-14, 07:40 PM
I find it interesting that no one has pointed out that if the subject of sanctify the wicked is broken out of the crystal before the time is up, it remains evil.
One would think that if the spell really made them reflect on their actions you'd think that they might be neutral, or even good by time three quarters of a year has passed. Yet somehow, regardless of the time spent "reflecting", if it's less than a year the target ends up completely the same as before the casting.

Just my 2 cp

ArcanistSupreme
2010-04-14, 07:41 PM
I find it interesting that no one has pointed out that if the subject of sanctify the wicked is broken out of the crystal before the time is up, it remains evil.
One would think that if the spell really made them reflect on their actions you'd think that they might be neutral, or even good by time three quarters of a year has passed. Yet somehow, regardless of the time spent "reflecting", if it's less than a year the target ends up completely the same as before the casting.

Just my 2 cp

It's really that last second of reflection that does it. I know I don't change my mind unless I've reflected on it for an entire year.

Kaiser Omnik
2010-04-14, 07:42 PM
Mindrape does the same thing, but faster.



Again, see Mindrape.



RAW says a year, and it doesn't make exceptions for "less evil" beings.



Simply because of the [good] descriptor.

I understand all that. The point is that their descriptions are different, even if the actual, in-game effect is similar. Mindrape is evil because it was made by evil spellcasters for evil, probably abominable reasons. Think of it as the incantations and the process being so vile that it taints your soul (coming closer to an evil alignment).

Take Deathwatch for example. The effects aren't evil at all. The spell doesn't kill, harm, etc. Then why is it Evil? I would give the same reason as for Mindrape. This is the only justification that makes sense to me.

Anyway, IIRC, nothing stops a wizard from researching a neutral spell similar to Mindrape and Sanctify the Wicked, with a different justification. What's the problem, then?


I find it interesting that no one has pointed out that if the subject of sanctify the wicked is broken out of the crystal before the time is up, it remains evil.
One would think that if the spell really made them reflect on their actions you'd think that they might be neutral, or even good by time three quarters of a year has passed. Yet somehow, regardless of the time spent "reflecting", if it's less than a year the target ends up completely the same as before the casting.

Just my 2 cp

Limitation of the spell. We'll have to live with it.

ArcanistSupreme
2010-04-14, 07:51 PM
I understand all that. The point is that their descriptions are different, even if the actual, in-game effect is similar. Mindrape is evil because it was made by evil spellcasters for evil, probably abominable reasons. Think of it as the incantations and the process being so vile that it taints your soul (coming closer to an evil alignment).

Take Deathwatch for example. The effects aren't evil at all. The spell doesn't kill, harm, etc. Then why is it Evil? I would give the same reason as for Mindrape. This is the only justification that makes sense to me.

But, in your own words:
You must look only at what the spell actually does.


Anyway, IIRC, nothing stops a wizard from researching a neutral spell similar to Mindrape and Sanctify the Wicked, with a different justification. What's the problem, then?

This is a fair point. Seems like a pointless hassle, though...


Limitation of the spell. We'll have to live with it.

You go ahead. I'd prefer to correct the problem.

Geiger Counter
2010-04-14, 07:52 PM
According cartoonish and declarative morality of of D&D, (e.g., the books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness, whose names nicely sum up the alignment system) punishing Evil creatures with Evil acts qualifies you as Chaotic Neutral.

Otherwise known as "pulling a Rorschach."

lol wat?
What the heck does using evil against evil have to do with chaos?
Anyways Rorschach is clearly lawful and possibly evil.

Il_Vec
2010-04-14, 07:52 PM
Ahm, back to the threat, I really think Mindrape should just change name and lose the [evil] descriptor. It is really explicit about "changing memories as one sees fit" and leaving the creature"seemingly unnafected".

It can be used for good or evil.

Gametime
2010-04-14, 08:41 PM
Except it works on players. Also, if you don't have a choice, then it's not a choice. The can't go "Nah, I like being a wicked, sinful, evil-incarnate; because at the end of the day, I hate the world and I want it to burn and my mother, my father, my bitch of a sister and everything they ever loved. I like the way this feels. I will rule the hells one day. I spit on Bahamut, and Pelor is my best friend. I've mulled over this for an entire year thanks to your imprisoning me and robbing me of my freedom; and I still like me. So I'll just say, no thanks and good work. I could use someone as twisted as you on my side sometime. You're a sick puppy, and I like that."

The fact it requires the creature - as per the spell effect - to always choose to be good, regardless of that creatures personality, background, reasoning, motivations, or even divine connection is a testament to both the idiocy of the spell, as well as the poor mechanical representation. Literally, it fails on the mechanical level, and doesn't even adhere to the existing rules. By being unable to choose not to be good, you are compelled; yet it's not technically a compulsion, so it's made of fail.

Yeah, it's pretty absurd. Trying to defend the wackiness that is BoED was a fun exercise, at least. :smallbiggrin:




Which is why you're wrong. "As near as you can tell" is about as near to the facts as, say, cannibals are to a vegan ethos.

This seems unnecessarily rude.


Redacted and corrected for inaccurate information. There was a lot, I may not have gotten quite all of it.



I don't see anything about "beating" in the spell description.

It is odd that you would (rightfully) attack my and other's attempts to misrepresent the spell's effect by RAW, then turn around and employ a description utilizing exaggeration and outright falsehoods.

I'm convinced that you're right about Sanctify the Wicked, anyway. In that it does not differ from Mindrape, that is. It seems to me they should both be evil spells, along with Programmed Amnesia and pretty much every compulsion, but that's another topic. By RAW, you are correct.

Of course, I still disagree about the nature of free will, but since that debate was only tangential to your point about what Sanctify the Wicked does, it doesn't change much.

Geiger Counter
2010-04-14, 08:45 PM
I think mind rape is fairly evil because there already is a spell (geas) that allows you to limit a creature's behavior without fundamentally changing their nature.

It's like giving someone a lobotomy when you could put him on probation.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-14, 10:59 PM
Oh, just a thought; Devils and other outsiders are functionally immortal, right? So quite capable of just chillaxing for a year if forced to, what with the different outlook on time?

Yet if my poor mind is right, wasn't there a Succubus who was turned good by Sanctify the Wicked?

Yeah, simply sitting around for a year with nothing better to do, and a creature with the Evil subtype, a Demon and arguably a physical manifestation of chaotic evilness, decided without any magical compulsion that being nasty was a bad thing... :smallwink:

Ashiel
2010-04-14, 11:20 PM
Oh, just a thought; Devils and other outsiders are functionally immortal, right? So quite capable of just chillaxing for a year if forced to, what with the different outlook on time?

Yet if my poor mind is right, wasn't there a Succubus who was turned good by Sanctify the Wicked?

Yeah, simply sitting around for a year with nothing better to do, and a creature with the Evil subtype, a Demon and arguably a physical manifestation of chaotic evilness, decided without any magical compulsion that being nasty was a bad thing... :smallwink:

Actually, she was turned without Sanctify the Wicked if I recall correctly. Maybe an atonement spell, but she was entirely willing. She found herself attracted to an angel, who decided she was beautiful and spared her due to a combination of finding her beautiful and realizing he would score major brownie points by converting her to the light.

Seriously, I love the idea of a succubus Paladin, but the WotC writers are idiots. The angel in the story sounds like a complete douche-bag. :smallmad:

Coidzor
2010-04-14, 11:35 PM
Seriously, I love the idea of a succubus Paladin, but the WotC writers are idiots. The angel in the story sounds like a complete douche-bag. :smallmad:

Considering the Cosmology of the DnD Universe, that sort of thing probably describes a fair bit of the heavenly corps.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-14, 11:47 PM
Yeah, it's pretty absurd. Trying to defend the wackiness that is BoED was a fun exercise, at least. :smallbiggrin:I prefer people who represent their views over ones that attempt to disagree for personal amusement. I find such behaviour... distasteful, personally.

This seems unnecessarily rude.Not at all. I'm stating that your interpretation of the facts is pretty much, wholly wrong. If you find a belief that you're totally wrong to be rude, then I'm sorry that you feel that way.


I'm convinced that you're right about Sanctify the Wicked, anyway. In that it does not differ from Mindrape, that is. It seems to me they should both be evil spells, along with Programmed Amnesia and pretty much every compulsion, but that's another topic. By RAW, you are correct.

Of course, I still disagree about the nature of free will, but since that debate was only tangential to your point about what Sanctify the Wicked does, it doesn't change much.Actually, I think that Mindrape should be evil, only because it says it is. What is does is not inherently evil, just as what Sanctify does is not. It's not right, but it's not evil.

I believe that's an order/freedom issue, wholly removed from good/evil. They both have positive applications, when used on willing targets.


Really?
So for instance, I've been playing that Gust of Wind creates a wind, and that the consequences are just the likely consequences. So if a tiny creature is chained to a tree, it is not actually blown 1d4x10 feet (that's not a spell effect, that's just likely physics of the spell effect which is to create a wind). Do you play that it's a real spell effect and that Gust of WInd frees all the tiny creatures from their chains?If a creature under the effect of Freedom of Movement is hit with a Hold Person, the effect is reduced. Just because effects can be reduced, altered, or negated, does not mean that they are not part of the spell effect.

Contact Other Plane says that powers "resent such contact". I always interpreted that resentment as sort of a "FYI, most powers resent being contacted". Are you saying it's actually a spell effect, and that in addition to contacting a deity, it's also magically annoying that deity?Yes, by RAW, that is PRECISELY what I'm saying. It is magically creating a contact with a deity that is of a nature as to inspire resentment.

I don't care if it's the Deity of answering Contact Other Plane spells. If you contact that deity, it resents the contact, by RAW. Because that's what the spell does.

I find it interesting that people resort to disputing the logic of a rule when it's shown to be the way the game works. OF COURSE the logic is flawed. Shooting an arrow down a 1000 foot hole that's 1'x1' is possible in D&D, despite the fact that such an arrow would need to be moving at Mach 5+ to accomplish that. Logical? Nope. The way the game works? Absolutely.

In other words, you play Gust of Wind incorrectly, by RAW. By houserule, you're not doing so bad.

Any other questions?

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-15, 02:18 AM
It seems to me they should both be evil spells, along with Programmed Amnesia and pretty much every compulsion, but that's another topic. By RAW, you are correct.

I'm still not convinced they should be Evil spells. It still seems as though they should be [Law] spells. Taking away someone's freedom is not Evil or Good. It is Lawfulness (Order) at odds with Chaos.

hamishspence
2010-04-15, 02:32 AM
Its worth remembering that mindrape does something none of the other spells (Mind Probe, Programmed Amnesia, STW, and so on) do.

It ensures that you know everything the subject knows.

In one round.

And this is before any modification of the subject's memories, alignment, etc.

Plus, the phrasing "You can leave the subject insane, or seemingly unaffected, without any memory of the intrusion"- can be taken as implying:

"The intrusion is so traumatic, that if the subject retains memories of it, it always goes insane"

Not quite the same as simply casting an insanity spell- inflicting so much mental trauma on the subject that if they remember it, they go insane, is pretty appalling.

The ability to change the subject's personality, is a bit like the Mind Seed power- which also has the evil descriptor, and allows you to replace the subject's personality with yours.

That said, Mind Seed is worryingly similar to STW, with the main difference being, that the former replaces the subject's personality with yours, whereas the latter makes the subject's alignment the same as yours.

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-15, 02:36 AM
Plus, the phrasing "You can leave the subject insane, or seemingly unaffected, without any memory of the intrusion"- can be taken as implying:

"The intrusion is so traumatic, that if the subject retains memories of it, it always goes insane"



Not necessarily. If I could use some type of mystical hand as a metaphor; You have the option of dipping your hand into the head to siphon off the knowledge and then withdraw it with no ill effects. You also have the option of using your "spirit fingers" to wiggle about and muss up as much as possible as you withdraw the hand, thereby causing insanity.

And even if you choose to do the second option, it still says nothing of actual trauma. It could be as simple as flipping a painless switch. (Though, you'd think that application of Mindrape would be inclined toward Chaos. Hrmm.)

Coidzor
2010-04-15, 02:37 AM
Hamishpence: Re; Mindseed, StW...

Which, with the way many people play is fundamentally the same thing, with the whole alignment=persona=thought processes thing.

hamishspence
2010-04-15, 02:44 AM
Not necessarily. If I could use some type of mystical hand as a metaphor; You have the option of dipping your hand into the head to siphon off the knowledge and then withdraw it with no ill effects. You also have the option of using your "spirit fingers" to wiggle about and muss up as much as possible as you withdraw the hand, thereby causing insanity.

That is an alternative interpretation- but the first makes more sense in the context of the spell having the Evil descriptor. In this case-

You grab all the knowledge with the hand- then you carefully delete the memory of the grabbing, in order to prevent the subject going insane from the trauma.

on the similarities between StW and Mind Seed- true- but an STW'd victim still (as far as we know) retains all their memories, and basic personality traits not associated with any particular alignment.

Whereas for a Mind Seeded victim, everything's gone- and replaced with "you"

vp21ct
2010-04-15, 02:48 AM
There is, of course, a way around all the theoretical debate.

Throw out the [Allways Chaotic Evil] rules.

A great man once said, "Their more like guidelines, anyhow..."

Riffington
2010-04-15, 04:15 AM
In other words, you play Gust of Wind incorrectly, by RAW. By houserule, you're not doing so bad.

Any other questions?

Yeah. Actually I'm more interested in this one now, by RAW. I just realized that I couldn't find anything in the rules to say that a tiny creature is freed from bonds when moved. But clearly the Gust of Wind spell moves it.

So can I use Gust of Wind to move a castle? Just chain a tiny creature to the castle and fire away?

Taelas
2010-04-15, 04:52 AM
If one looks solely at Mindrape and Sanctify the Wicked's effects, a [Lawful] descriptor would be far better for both than either side of the good-evil axis. Taking away freedom? That's Lawful. The more extreme side of Lawful, sure, just like Anarchy is the extreme side of Chaos, but still Lawful.

Then again, Sanctify the Wicked can pretty much only be used for Good, since it is extremely limited in its capacity. (Maybe it is a failure of imagination on my part, but I cannot imagine a situation where turning someone Good is not a Good act, regardless of how forced it is.) Then again, surely it could have both descriptors.

Mindrape, despite the awful name, can be used for Good too, since you can pretty much copy the effect of Sanctify the Wicked (only, y'know, faster). Unlike Sanctify the Wicked, Mindrape can do Evil and Neutral stuff too, though, so ... yeah. [Lawful] seems far better.

Riffington
2010-04-15, 05:12 AM
(Maybe it is a failure of imagination on my part, but I cannot imagine a situation where turning someone Good is not a Good act, regardless of how forced it is.)
Well, if it didn't respect human dignity and/or wasn't altruistic...



Then again, surely it could have both descriptors.

For unclear reasons, WotC seems loath to do this often.

hamishspence
2010-04-15, 05:14 AM
(Maybe it is a failure of imagination on my part, but I cannot imagine a situation where turning someone Good is not a Good act, regardless of how forced it is.) Then again, surely it could have both descriptors.

If a character who is Evil, but only mildly evil, is in the process of changing (a thug who is gradually learning to be less thuggish)- pre-empting their choice to start moving away from Evil and toward Neutral can be pretty unjust.

But then, it's quite possible for [Good] spells to be used for evil purposes- Holy Word can be used to kill Neutral people, for example.


Mindrape, despite the awful name, can be used for Good too, since you can pretty much copy the effect of Sanctify the Wicked (only, y'know, faster). Unlike Sanctify the Wicked, Mindrape can do Evil and Neutral stuff too, though, so ... yeah. [Lawful] seems far better.

Most of the things it can do aren't really related to any particular alignment (learning small amounts of what somebody knows via Mind Probe, or modifying memories via Modify Memory, are Neutral rather than any other alignment.)

Even the ability to change a person's alignment isn't always evil.

However, as written, it seems like the only way to prevent a victim of it from going insane, is to delete their memories of it.

Which is why it comes across (to me) as a process so intrusive as to be evil.

D&D Novels (admittedly written before BoVD) sometimes show characters extracting info from their enemies via magic- and it generally looks a lot like this- victim is screaming, and at the end of the process, victim is a drooling husk.

FatR
2010-04-15, 05:29 AM
What makes this act repugnant to us playing the game is not that it is Evil. It's that it is on the scary side of Lawful. It's the casters order imposed on what they see as being detrimental.
No, what makes this act repugnant to us is the fact that we haven't seen Hell with our own eyes (unlike most characters who are powerful enough to cast Mindrape or Sanctify the Wicked) and have no irrefutable proof that any Evil creature will go there. Similarly, we have no creatures whose only purpose in life is to cause harm to everyone else.

hamishspence
2010-04-15, 06:35 AM
Similarly, we have no creatures whose only purpose in life is to cause harm to everyone else.

True- though, as written, demons (especially demons with some mortal blood) appear to be capable of overcoming this "purpose".

Cambions especially.


Take Deathwatch for example. The effects aren't evil at all. The spell doesn't kill, harm, etc. Then why is it Evil? I would give the same reason as for Mindrape. This is the only justification that makes sense to me.

I'd drop the descriptor entirely- primarily because the Slayer of Domiel (Falls if it ever commits an evil act) and the Healer (Must be of Good alignment) both have it on their spell lists.

Yzzyx
2010-04-15, 08:05 AM
When cast on a weak, neutral person, Holy Word and Blasphemy can have totally identical effects. The difference in in the fluff, in how they reach those effects: one works by invoking the heavens and speaking a word of such pure goodness that no one with an unpure heart is able to stand it, and the other works by saying a word of such primal Evil that only the most vile can hear it without cringing in horrible pain.

[Evil] spells can be used for good, and [Good] spells can be used for evil. It's an evil act to cast an [Evil] spell on an empty room and a good act to do the same with a [Good] spell. You can use StW to torture a soul (some say that's all it can be used for) or MR to remove a traumatic memory, but you're torturing the soul with the power of light and good and fluffy joyful happiness, and you're removing a traumatic memory by RAPING SOMEONE'S MIND. If Deathwatch is [Evil] (I firmly believe it's a printing error), then it's evil because how it works, not what it does (umm... you sell your soul to the cruelest of demons to be able to temporarily sense positive energy? I don't know). [Good] and [Evil] are almost entirely fluff things, and have little to do with the spells' actual effects.

As a side note, Mindrape is definately a Good spell. I had my doubts until someone cast it on me, but now I'm completely convinced. If you disagree, I only hope that you will be lucky enough to share my wonderful experience someday.

hamishspence
2010-04-15, 08:09 AM
[Evil] spells can be used for good, and [Good] spells can be used for evil. It's an evil act to cast an [Evil] spell on an empty room and a good act to do the same with a [Good] spell. You can use StW to torture a soul (some say that's all it can be used for) or MR to remove a traumatic memory, but you're torturing the soul with the power of light and good and fluffy joyful happiness, and you're removing a traumatic memory by RAPING SOMEONE'S MIND. If Deathwatch is [Evil] (I firmly believe it's a printing error), then it's evil because how it works, not what it does (umm... you sell your soul to the cruelest of demons to be able to temporarily sense positive energy? I don't know). [Good] and [Evil] are entirely fluff things.

Deathwatch actually says "You call upon the powers of unlife"

But I think it said the same in 3.0 when it had no Evil descriptor.
(BoVD had a recommendation, that it be given the Evil descriptor- looks like whoever upgraded 3.0 to 3.5, took it.)
However, subsequent writers appear to have ignored the 3.5 PHB change- by giving it to especially Good classes and PRCs.

Lamech
2010-04-15, 12:18 PM
With just the PhB, there isn't anything that says casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. Ditto for a [good] spell. I don't think that using planar binding on an angel would be a better option then on a demon. As has been pointed out casting holy word to kill a bunch of innocents would clearly be an evil act. So I really don't think the [x] dictates a if a spell is a good or evil act.

Also BoED has a prestige class, Emmisary of Barachiel, of which the whole purpose is to essential convert people to good by magical compulsion. Then make them lawful, by magical compulsion. So apperently stripping random good people of their free will isn't an evil act.

So if we ignore the [evil] descriptor, we can assume mindrape can be used for good.

Gametime
2010-04-15, 12:21 PM
I prefer people who represent their views over ones that attempt to disagree for personal amusement. I find such behaviour... distasteful, personally.

I suppose it's a good thing we have not and likely never will meet in real life, then. I study philosophy, and arguing about ethics is how I spend a fair amount of my time.

You seemed pretty into the argument. I don't see why my insincerity should detract from that. Either you enjoyed arguing yourself, in which case the reasons behind it shouldn't matter; or you were really invested in convincing me, in which case you might be peeved at wasting your time but should be relieved that I agree with you; or you're just really invested in being right, in which case I would imagine your reaction to be similar to the above.

If it helps, I originally was arguing for what I actually believed, before being convinced that my line of thinking was flawed. I'm sorry if I disappointed you, I suppose.


Not at all. I'm stating that your interpretation of the facts is pretty much, wholly wrong. If you find a belief that you're totally wrong to be rude, then I'm sorry that you feel that way.

I don't find a belief that I'm wrong to be rude. I find the way you phrased your belief that I am wrong to be rude, because your choice of words seemed condescending.

It is the same reason I would take less offense at someone telling me "Sir, I find you unattractive" than "Sir, your face is so repulsive a baboon would claw its own eyes out rather than be forced to endure looking at it."


Actually, I think that Mindrape should be evil, only because it says it is. What is does is not inherently evil, just as what Sanctify does is not. It's not right, but it's not evil.

I believe that's an order/freedom issue, wholly removed from good/evil. They both have positive applications, when used on willing targets.

I don't think that distinction holds up at the extreme levels. What makes, say, the Party of Oceania "bad?" Are they only evil because they torture people? Does their control of information only contribute to their lawfulness?

I think removing freedom is a Lawful act, but that doesn't mean it can't also be an Evil one. It depends on how it's done, and why, and to whom, but complete control of a person's actions seems Evil to me.

Gametime
2010-04-15, 12:22 PM
With just the PhB, there isn't anything that says casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. Ditto for a [good] spell. I don't think that using planar binding on an angel would be a better option then on a demon. As has been pointed out casting holy word to kill a bunch of innocents would clearly be an evil act. So I really don't think the [x] dictates a if a spell is a good or evil act.

Also BoED has a prestige class, Emmisary of Barachiel, of which the whole purpose is to essential convert people to good by magical compulsion. Then make them lawful, by magical compulsion. So apperently stripping random good people of their free will isn't an evil act.

So if we ignore the [evil] descriptor, we can assume mindrape can be used for good.

Well, yeah, if you ignore the rules then lots of new interactions become possible. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-04-15, 12:23 PM
With just the PhB, there isn't anything that says casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. Ditto for a [good] spell.

true- FC2 states casting an Evil spell is a Corrupt act (though it's the most minor of Corrupt acts).

Complete Scoundrel specifies that Malconvokers are special in that they aren't in danger of changing alignment for casting Evil spells, as long as they are Evil summoning spells.

And BoVD says "a nonevil character can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as they do not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads swiftly to corruption"

Nothing like this is said for Good spells though- maybe it's lopsided in that respect, with casting evil spells being always evil, but casting good spells being not always good.

PHB's "Channeling positive energy is a Good act, channelling negative energy is an Evil act" seemed sillier to me.

Ashiel
2010-04-15, 12:33 PM
true- FC2 states casting an Evil spell is a Corrupt act (though it's the most minor of Corrupt acts).

Complete Scoundrel specifies that Malconvokers are special in that they aren't in danger of changing alignment for casting Evil spells, as long as they are Evil summoning spells.

And BoVD says "a nonevil character can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as they do not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads swiftly to corruption"

Nothing like this is said for Good spells though- maybe it's lopsided in that respect, with casting evil spells being always evil, but casting good spells being not always good.

PHB's "Channeling positive energy is a Good act, channelling negative energy is an Evil act" seemed sillier to me.
Emphasis mine.

I agree. In my games, a cleric chooses what sort of energy they channel; regardless of alignment. Good - LIVING - clerics tend to choose positive energy because that's what they use to heal things with, with the reverse being true for negative energy. Also, reverse all of that again for good/evil undead clerics. Additionally we use the Pathfinder method for channeling energy; with the turn/rebuke stuff added as a secondary effect if you fail your saving throw; mainly because the 3.x turning is very stupid in retrospect. :smallsmile:

EDIT: I've mentioned before that, to me, one of the worst changes they made with 3.5 was dumbing down and screwing up the alignment system and how it works within the rules. Honestly...mindless creatures that are evil without the [Evil] subtype? Puh-lease. :smallyuk:

hamishspence
2010-04-15, 12:39 PM
It makes it hard to be a LN cleric of Wee Jas. All her clerics, Evil and Neutral, must rebuke undead rather than turning them.

Since Rebuke is an evil act, the player ends up with the issue of "how much can I do this and still be LN"

On 3.5 alignment mechanics changes, personally I thought removing the

"paladins who intentionally commit an evil act can't ever gain another paladin level again"

rule, was a good change.

Ashiel
2010-04-15, 01:00 PM
It makes it hard to be a LN cleric of Wee Jas. All her clerics, Evil and Neutral, must rebuke undead rather than turning them.

Since Rebuke is an evil act, the player ends up with the issue of "how much can I do this and still be LN"

On 3.5 alignment mechanics changes, personally I thought removing the

"paladins who intentionally commit an evil act can't ever gain another paladin level again"

rule, was a good change.

Yeah that was a good one. I honestly didn't even recall that one 'cause almost no-one I knew played a Paladin back then. I was referring mostly to stuff like morality (mindless = neutral, period).

To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that 3.5 was bad. More-so that while they fixed some things, they broke others; and this was one of the things I feel they took a sledgehammer to. :smalltongue:

Coidzor
2010-04-15, 01:28 PM
It makes it hard to be a LN cleric of Wee Jas. All her clerics, Evil and Neutral, must rebuke undead rather than turning them.

Since Rebuke is an evil act, the player ends up with the issue of "how much can I do this and still be LN"


And forget about using your turns or rebukes if you worship Obad-Hai. Can't even be one-step alignment with him, IIRC at least.

~LuckyBoneDice~
2010-04-15, 01:30 PM
I'll say that Mindrape is my fave [Evil] spell of all time ;3. Every PC who can use it (including my former Hellbred paly) does

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-15, 02:43 PM
I suppose it's a good thing we have not and likely never will meet in real life, then. I study philosophy, and arguing about ethics is how I spend a fair amount of my time.

You seemed pretty into the argument. I don't see why my insincerity should detract from that. Either you enjoyed arguing yourself, in which case the reasons behind it shouldn't matter; or you were really invested in convincing me, in which case you might be peeved at wasting your time but should be relieved that I agree with you; or you're just really invested in being right, in which case I would imagine your reaction to be similar to the above.This is the case.


I don't think that distinction holds up at the extreme levels. What makes, say, the Party of Oceania "bad?" Are they only evil because they torture people? Does their control of information only contribute to their lawfulness?Only because they don't respect the dignity of sapient life. They hold people in deplorable conditions, ensure that people outside of their control are in even worse conditions, and enact inhuman punishment on dissenters. It's not the order. It's how it's used.

Just as if you Dominate someone, and order them to follow you peacefully to town, where you will await trial. You feed them well, treat them well, and respect them. They just have no choice. That's a lawful action, but not evil. It's not good either, though respecting them, feeding them, and the like is. Heck, you could even ask them questions about their beliefs, and begin a redemption process.


I think removing freedom is a Lawful act, but that doesn't mean it can't also be an Evil one. It depends on how it's done, and why, and to whom, but complete control of a person's actions seems Evil to me.
Removing freedom is a lawful act. No more, no less. What is done when you control those actions is on you, just as dominating someone, and ordering him to kill everyone in an orphanage, is evil. But the domination isn't evil. It's the order that you gave, that was evil.

hamishspence
2010-04-16, 02:27 AM
Even giving that dominated someone an order to "do nothing" can be evil- if "do nothing" means they stand still until they die of starvation.

Dominating people "carries a tremendous ethical responsibility"- so it shouldn't be done casually or willy-nilly.

If a character routinely uses this kind of magic on people, without good reasons (say, they're just lazy and want someone to carry their gear for a few minutes) they may be slipping into "lack of respect for the dignity of others"

Even if they're not actually ordering them to do evil acts- it's not just the orders that matter, it's how justified casting the spell is.

Casting it on evil people to make arresting them simple and easy- justified.

Casting it on passers-by whenever you need a few extra hands to carry things for a while- not justified.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-16, 03:28 AM
If a character routinely uses this kind of magic on people, without good reasons (say, they're just lazy and want someone to carry their gear for a few minutes) they may be slipping into "lack of respect for the dignity of others"


Obviously how one uses magic effects if it is a good or an evil act, but when dealing with spell descriptors how a spell is used don't factor in.
A [fire] spell is always a fire spell no matter how you use it fire is simply its nature.

The same applies to an [evil] spell. The spell could be used for good or for evil. But that doesn't change the fact the spell is evil.

vp21ct
2010-04-16, 03:36 AM
I like to leave Good and Evil rather gray in my games, at least as far as spells are concerned. A good necromancer may well use volunteers, or the remains of known evil creatures, to gain his 'minions'.

What I like to do is have all those [good]/[evil] spells be switched to a [Life/Positive]/[Death/Negative] axis.

hamishspence
2010-04-16, 03:54 AM
Heroes of Horror has an element of this kind of grayness, but only an element.

Specifically, Dread Necromancers, who specialize in animating the dead, and finally turn themselves into a lich- can't be Good. But if they only cast their [evil] spells for good reasons, and focus heavily on doing good, they can be of Neutral alignments.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-16, 04:42 AM
Even giving that dominated someone an order to "do nothing" can be evil- if "do nothing" means they stand still until they die of starvation.
The problem with this is that the spell explicitly makes allowances for the person to carry on basic life processes, such as eating and sleeping.

Dominating people "carries a tremendous ethical responsibility"- so it shouldn't be done casually or willy-nilly.

If a character routinely uses this kind of magic on people, without good reasons (say, they're just lazy and want someone to carry their gear for a few minutes) they may be slipping into "lack of respect for the dignity of others"

Even if they're not actually ordering them to do evil acts- it's not just the orders that matter, it's how justified casting the spell is.

Casting it on evil people to make arresting them simple and easy- justified.

Casting it on passers-by whenever you need a few extra hands to carry things for a while- not justified.Depends. If you treat your dominated helping hands with respect while they are dominated, there's less of an argument. This includes compensation, of course.

"Dignity" is recognizing the inherent value in that life. The worth of it. Not necessarily recognizing the right to free will. There are real world ethical treaties that deal with the dignity of life. Charitable organizations, such as the Red Cross, oversee many of these.

For these, it's standards of treatment and standards of living that matter, not circumstances or reasons of capture. They're not concerned about the Law/chaos aspect, so to speak, only the preservation of human life and dignity. In that aspect, they are purely good.

The reasoning for poison being evil is based on that dignity. It's a bit of a stretch to invoke it for carrying luggage (which, in one ancient culture, soldiers could demand any citizen carry their gear for a mile... this isn't evil, and it doesn't convey a lack of dignity)

hamishspence
2010-04-16, 05:51 AM
Theres also the "slavery is evil" (BoED) "no good nation practices slavery" (Cityscape) (Ignored by FRCS, but that was 3.0 and written long before)

Dominating somebody for a short time, with compensation- isn't slavery, but doing so for a long time, without it, making them do tasks, seems very very close to the definition.

Making a person carry your luggage, for the rest of their life, in short.

If an individual uses dominate person to the point of actually enslaving other beings, it may be evil, even if those beings are not treated cruelly.

Taelas
2010-04-16, 06:29 AM
Slavery in and of itself isn't Evil. It is Lawful.

Depending on how said slavery is conducted, it can be Evil or even Good. (Mostly it's Evil.)

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-16, 06:31 AM
Theres also the "slavery is evil" (BoED) "no good nation practices slavery" (Cityscape) (Ignored by FRCS, but that was 3.0 and written long before)

Dominating somebody for a short time, with compensation- isn't slavery, but doing so for a long time, without it, making them do tasks, seems very very close to the definition.

Making a person carry your luggage, for the rest of their life, in short.

If an individual uses dominate person to the point of actually enslaving other beings, it may be evil, even if those beings are not treated cruelly.

That's a rather extreme example. Yes, if someone makes Joe Commoner carry his spellbook for 32 years, it's pushing it.

If someone makes Joe Commoner deliver messages for two weeks, and leaves him 3gp for his troubles? Not so much, even if he uses a different commoner every two weeks.

Riffington
2010-04-16, 07:39 AM
Slavery in and of itself isn't Evil

Are you getting back to your "unless you actually murder someone it's not Evil" theory?

Slavery is inimical to human dignity. Therefore it is Evil.
It is only Lawful if done in accordance with law and long-standing tradition.




If someone makes Joe Commoner deliver messages for two weeks, and leaves him 3gp for his troubles?

Did you bother to ask if he'd miss his daughter's birthday party? If his rutabagas would go bad? If there's anyone home to take care of grandma?

Imposing your will on others is not Lawful. Following tradition and law is Lawful.

CheshireCatAW
2010-04-16, 07:43 AM
That's a rather extreme example. Yes, if someone makes Joe Commoner carry his spellbook for 32 years, it's pushing it.

If someone makes Joe Commoner deliver messages for two weeks, and leaves him 3gp for his troubles? Not so much, even if he uses a different commoner every two weeks.

Considering these examples it would seem that this spell is also extremely lawful and depending on the application of it, could be tinted evil or good.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-16, 07:53 AM
Considering these examples it would seem that this spell is also extremely lawful and depending on the application of it, could be tinted evil or good.

The action could be, sure. The spell, not so much. That said, 32 years is 688 castings, at CL 17.

I've used Dominate Person in other ways to... Pure Law. Two people of power sign a short term contract. Both submit to being dominated, with the order of "Fulfill the terms of the contract you agreed to, within the time frame allotted by the contract."

Basically, a way for the wealthy to get assurances.

hamishspence
2010-04-16, 08:30 AM
Magic of Faerun had magical contracts, but I think they worked more along the lines of magically penalizing people for breaking the contracts.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-16, 08:34 AM
Magic of Faerun had magical contracts, but I think they worked more along the lines of magically penalizing people for breaking the contracts.

I prefer mine. It's more reliable.

hamishspence
2010-04-16, 08:37 AM
Slavery is inimical to human dignity. Therefore it is Evil.

That's one good reason. Another possible one is:

By definition, slavery involves oppressing others.

(Which fits in with PHB: "Evil implies oppressing, hurting, and killing others")

It doesn't really require all 3 though- any one of the three, done enough, and without valid justification, can be evil.

Killing/hurting with justification (such as self-defense) isn't Evil- but I'm not sure if there ever is a valid justification for Oppressing Others.

Riffington
2010-04-16, 08:42 AM
I've used Dominate Person in other ways to... Pure Law. Two people of power sign a short term contract. Both submit to being dominated, with the order of "Fulfill the terms of the contract you agreed to, within the time frame allotted by the contract."

Basically, a way for the wealthy to get assurances.

Yup, that one's pure law. They submitted to a contract and are bound by it. Contracts (and the obeying thereof) are Lawful.

Had you given one of them different orders than they'd agreed to, it'd be Chaotic (and possibly evil)

Indon
2010-04-16, 08:46 AM
I think removing freedom is a Lawful act, but that doesn't mean it can't also be an Evil one. It depends on how it's done, and why, and to whom, but complete control of a person's actions seems Evil to me.

Counterpoint: Parenthood. Acting in legitimate interest of another, you assume a high degree of authority for that individual. Without doubt both lawful and good, despite the Big Brother analogy.


Did you bother to ask if he'd miss his daughter's birthday party? If his rutabagas would go bad? If there's anyone home to take care of grandma?

Imposing your will on others is not Lawful. Following tradition and law is Lawful.

Agreed. I'd say domination indefinitely for any number of purposes is okay, but would require the informed consent of the dominated.

Otherwise, domination is a use of force, something that you use in order to avoid the use of greater force.

hamishspence
2010-04-16, 11:12 AM
Counterpoint: Parenthood. Acting in legitimate interest of another, you assume a high degree of authority for that individual. Without doubt both lawful and good, despite the Big Brother analogy.


Though generally, a parent can't control a child completely.

The amount of control with dominate person, might be compared, in fiction, to drugs that make a person exceptionally suggestible, or the Ceti eels in Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-16, 12:05 PM
Yup, that one's pure law. They submitted to a contract and are bound by it. Contracts (and the obeying thereof) are Lawful.

Had you given one of them different orders than they'd agreed to, it'd be Chaotic (and possibly evil)

(or possibly good).

Point: Two people agree to the safe transport of a pair of slaves. Once dominated, they are ordered to escort the slaves to a safe location, and release them.

In this case, different orders is GOOD. The spell's still lawful, though, even if it's used for chaotic ends.


Agreed. I'd say domination indefinitely for any number of purposes is okay, but would require the informed consent of the dominated.

Otherwise, domination is a use of force, something that you use in order to avoid the use of greater force.
Requiring permission defeats the point. You people and your rutabagas. You forget, we live in different times. The land that commoner works? His lord's. The plants he harvests? His lord's. The soldiers or other servants that demand his service? Done at the authority of his lord.

No consent is needed. Feudalism establishes a very firm pecking order. If the Rutabagas go bad because of his lord's edict? They are his lord's rutabagas to spoil. If he misses his daughter's birthday? The price he pays for the protection of his lord's troops.

Life in such times was not pleasant. It was a time when you could either suck it up, or live outside the town, and hope that you could fend off the barbarian raiders.

hamishspence
2010-04-16, 12:32 PM
You forget, we live in different times. The land that commoner works? His lord's. The plants he harvests? His lord's. The soldiers or other servants that demand his service? Done at the authority of his lord.

No consent is needed. Feudalism establishes a very firm pecking order. If the Rutabagas go bad because of his lord's edict? They are his lord's rutabagas to spoil. If he misses his daughter's birthday? The price he pays for the protection of his lord's troops.

Life in such times was not pleasant. It was a time when you could either suck it up, or live outside the town, and hope that you could fend off the barbarian raiders.

Going by BoED- standard D&D worlds aren't quite as grim as medieval times in certain respects, nor are the moral mores quite the same. Men and women being considered equal, for example.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-16, 12:37 PM
Going by BoED- standard D&D worlds aren't quite as grim as medieval times in certain respects, nor are the moral mores quite the same. Men and women being considered equal, for example.

BoED deals with supposed to be's. Remember it does feal with exalted deeds. So you are expected to treat women as equal, but society might not.
To be good requires you do.

Societies for most part I expect are nuetral so they won't.

hamishspence
2010-04-16, 12:53 PM
Which raises the question- why so many female adventurers, NPCs, powerful female leaders, and so on, in various campaign settings, especially Faerun?

Possibly because, playing a game with slightly more modern mores, is more fun for most of the players.

Riffington
2010-04-16, 01:06 PM
Point: Two people agree to the safe transport of a pair of slaves. Once dominated, they are ordered to escort the slaves to a safe location, and release them.

In this case, different orders is GOOD. The spell's still lawful, though, even if it's used for chaotic ends.
I agree that these ends are Good and Chaotic. There's nothing lawful about it. The spell is [Unaligned] and the ends are non-lawful.



Requiring permission defeats the point. You people and your rutabagas. You forget, we live in different times. The land that commoner works? His lord's. The plants he harvests? His lord's. The soldiers or other servants that demand his service? Done at the authority of his lord.

No consent is needed. Feudalism establishes a very firm pecking order. If the Rutabagas go bad because of his lord's edict? They are his lord's rutabagas to spoil. If he misses his daughter's birthday? The price he pays for the protection of his lord's troops.
This is not feudalism, this is slavery and oppression.
Feudalism says what a lord owes another lord. It has nothing to do with whether a lord is in charge of serfs, slaves, or peasants.
Demanding another person abandon his current activities and pick up new ones may be Lawful if you own him and are doing so according to the laws and customs of your area. It's still Evil if you aren't very careful.

Taelas
2010-04-16, 01:12 PM
Slavery is inimical to human dignity. Therefore it is Evil.
I disagree with your assumption. Many forms of slavery take human dignity into account. Prisons, just as an example. (Note: I am not saying all prisons are slavery institutions. If the inmates are put to work regardless of their own will, it is in my opinion slavery.)

It is very definitely a Lawful concept.

hamishspence
2010-04-16, 01:17 PM
The term "slavery" has a specific meaning. Hard labor, indentured servitude, etc are not slavery.

This is primarily because a slave is property, whereas an indentured servant, or a prisoner serving a term of hard labor, isn't.

Kaiyanwang
2010-04-16, 01:19 PM
This is primarily because a slave is property, whereas an indentured servant, or a prisoner serving a term of hard labor, isn't.

This. Good catch.

hamishspence
2010-04-16, 01:23 PM
There are people who define any kind of forced labor as slavery- however, generally, the "property" bit is usually considered the important one.

Taelas
2010-04-16, 01:33 PM
You need to define "property" in this context, because I don't see a difference.

hamishspence
2010-04-16, 01:36 PM
Something that can be: Bought. Sold. Traded. Inherited. And so on.

A prison can't sell it's prisoners to a rich company, for example.

Also, typically, the children of slaves are also slaves by law.

By contrast, if a pregnant woman prisoner has a child, that child is not the property of the prison.

~LuckyBoneDice~
2010-04-16, 01:49 PM
Something that can be: Bought. Sold. Traded. Inherited. And so on.

A prison can't sell it's prisoners to a rich company, for example.

Also, typically, the children of slaves are also slaves by law.

By contrast, if a pregnant woman prisoner has a child, that child is not the property of the prison.

tis true.

However, I prefer to crack open slavers' skulls personally with my Tibbit pawz ;3

Taelas
2010-04-16, 01:50 PM
Prisons can sell their slaves' labor, which amounts to the same thing. Many slave systems had restrictions on what could be done to a slave, similar to the protections inmates enjoy.

Not all slave systems enforced inherited slavery, either.

I don't see a difference.