PDA

View Full Version : [D&D] Alignment Discussion



Kaulesh
2010-04-21, 11:14 AM
I just began reading the Book of Exalted Deeds. I don't agree with much of its stance on alignment, but that's outside the scope of this thread.

The Book mentions that lying is evil. A paladin that tells a fib should fall - committing a minor evil for a great good outcome is still evil.

Lying is evil (major premise).
Illusion spells "lie" to their subjects (minor premise).
Therefore, illusionists must be evil (conclusion).
This is a valid argument using a completely syllological method.

I realize that alignment in D&D is always hazy and subject to rule 0 and such. These are just some random thoughts that popped into my head. I've got a CG illusionist in a PBP here and we just covered syllogism a month or so ago in one of my college courses. Maybe I'm over-analyzing?

Before anyone digs up a thread on a similar subject, I did a search first and found nothing.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-21, 11:20 AM
If anything, lying is Chaotic. Lying in such a way that you knowingly cause grevious and unwarranted harm to the listener is borderline Evil (telling the Guard Captain that his target "went that way" only to lead him into an ambush, for example).

The BoED is ****ed up. Same with the BoVD. Really, Exemplars of Evil and Heroes of Horror did the whole alignment thing better (save for the Taint mechanic, but that got screwed up by a PrC and two creature types). 90% of the Bo(E/V)D should be taken with a grain of salt and a good vodka.

Kaulesh
2010-04-21, 11:25 AM
Really, Exemplars of Evil and Heroes of Horror did the whole alignment thing better (save for the Taint mechanic, but that got screwed up by a PrC and two creature types).

Thanks. I'll have to see if I can pick those two up.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-21, 11:27 AM
Thanks. I'll have to see if I can pick those two up.

EoE isn't that good a buy (pardon). The only reason to actually read it are a few feats, some small time spells, and maybe premade villain backstories.


Heroes of Horror is worth it though.

Coplantor
2010-04-21, 11:33 AM
MEh, the BoED is at least good in telling that almost every evil can be redeemed. There was a redeemed illithid monk somewhere there. And there was a nice web enhacement that had a sucubus turned paladin. Can I hear fan service? Oh yeah!

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-21, 11:42 AM
MEh, the BoED is at least good in telling that almost every evil can be redeemed. There was a redeemed illithid monk somewhere there. And there was a nice web enhacement that had a sucubus turned paladin. Can I hear fan service? Oh yeah!

But you could do that with Savage Species and Dominate Monster.

Coplantor
2010-04-21, 11:45 AM
Ah! But would that be real redemption?

Also, the "good" version of mindrape that locks away an evil person untill it turns good, is just, NO! They go on making a book about how important it is for a good person to respect other individuals and then they throw that spell? WHAT WHERE THEY THINKING?

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-21, 11:52 AM
Ah! But would that be real redemption?

Also, the "good" version of mindrape that locks away an evil person untill it turns good, is just, NO! They go on making a book about how important it is for a good person to respect other individuals and then they throw that spell? WHAT WHERE THEY THINKING?

I rather prefer the part where they say that Exalted characters do not cause prolonged suffering to their enemies, and then they print Sacred Damage within 5 pages.

Kaulesh
2010-04-21, 11:55 AM
I would say something about Apostle of Peace, but anything I could say has already been said.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-21, 11:58 AM
I would say something about Apostle of Peace, but anything I could say has already been said.

Oh god tell me about it. I ban VoN and VoPc on pure principle alone; that PrC just makes me balk.

Coplantor
2010-04-21, 11:59 AM
I rather prefer the part where they say that Exalted characters do not cause prolonged suffering to their enemies, and then they print Sacred Damage within 5 pages.

Hohoho, I completly forgot about that beauty of coherence. I mean, I must be one of the few supporters of the alignment system, but COME ON!
(it's ok to drop when you dont want the good vs evil universe stuff though)

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 12:03 PM
Illusion spells "lie" to their subjects (minor premise).

No, illusions mislead their subjects. What the subjects 'sees' is really there, as far as the visual representation of the magic. Whether or not the spell harms the subject is directly related how much the subjects believes the illusion is real.

Paladins can mislead another character without lying. Simply omitting certain things or not speaking on the subject at all are the best means of doing so without actually lying.

I do agree that lying is more of a chaotic act. Chaotic acts, however, do not immedaitely cause a paladin to fall. Only evil acts do so. At worst, lying would bend the code slightly and the paladin's alignment will slip a little closer to the chaotic axis. If it slips too much, the paladin simply has to attone for the minor breach.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-21, 12:04 PM
Hohoho, I completly forgot about that beauty of coherence. I mean, I must be one of the few supporters of the alignment system, but COME ON!
(it's ok to drop when you dont want the good vs evil universe stuff though)

It's a tad more irritating than their tedency to print a better magic item in under 2 pages (4E's Adventurer's Vault has one good example in the Boots section). There's a number of them in 3.5 though, just sift through the MiC to find them (Teleportation ones seem especially guilty of it).

Coplantor
2010-04-21, 12:05 PM
I do agree that lying is more of a chaotic act. Chaotic acts, however, do not immedaitely cause a paladin to fall. Only evil acts do so. At worst, lying would bend the code slightly and the paladin's align will slip a little closer to the chaotic axis. If it slips too much, the paladin simply has to attone for the minor breach.

You haven't played 2nd edition huh?:smalltongue:

Yeah, on the lying thing I have to agree that it is chaotic, using a disguise to enter the BBEG lair is lying, and I would hit any DM that goes :
"You just donned a mask! Say good bye to your special mount you fool!"

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 12:15 PM
You haven't played 2nd edition huh?:smalltongue:

Ah, yes I have in fact. I simply assumed we were talking about 3.x edition, seeing how the BOVD and BoED were mentioned. :smallamused:


Yeah, on the lying thing I have to agree that it is chaotic, using a disguise to enter the BBEG lair is lying, and I would hit any DM that goes :
"You just donned a mask! Say good bye to your special mount you fool!"

I wouldn't call a disguise 'lying'. Disguise are meant to mislead and conceal. However, I would also slap a DM in the face for causing a paladin to fall because of a disguise. A single act or half a dozen acts of chaotic alignment won't make a paladin fall. While lying is a violation of the code, it is not a gross violation and only gross violation of the code, a non-lawful alignment (usually caused by lots of chaotic acts) or an evil act cause a paladin to fall.

KillianHawkeye
2010-04-21, 12:17 PM
Also, the "good" version of mindrape that locks away an evil person untill it turns good, is just, NO! They go on making a book about how important it is for a good person to respect other individuals and then they throw that spell? WHAT WHERE THEY THINKING?

You're right, Good people should never put Evildoers in prison so they can pay their debt to society. They have to let them go so they can continue their evil ways. Oh wait, no they don't.

Coplantor
2010-04-21, 12:22 PM
Ah, yes I have in fact. I simply assumed we were talking about 3.x edition, seeing how the BOVD and BoED were mentioned. :smallamused:

I wouldn't call a disguise 'lying'. Disguise are meant to mislead and conceal. However, I would also slap a DM in the face for causing a paladin to fall because of a disguise. A single act or half a dozen acts of chaotic alignment won't make a paladin fall. While lying is a violation of the code, it is not a gross violation and only gross violation of the code, a non-lawful alignment (usually caused by lots of chaotic acts) or an evil act cause a paldin to fall.

A ha! But if said disguised paladin is asked about his identity says "I'm roger the plumber!"?:smalltongue:
Nah, really, I dont really understand why BoVD marked lying as evil when every other source book says it is not an inherently evil act.
The problem with 3.5 DnD alignment (and a lot of other stuff) is that there's a freaking huge amount of authors for suplemental material and it seems like most of them never checked the other books.


You're right, Good people should never put Evildoers in prison so they can pay their debt to society. They have to let them go so they can continue their evil ways. Oh wait, no they don't.

Prision is quite different to YOUR SOUL SHALL BE COMPLETLY ISSOLATED FROM REALITY UNTILL YOU TURN GOOD! Or, you know, mad... Anyway, ENJOY AN UNDEFINITVE AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE ETERNAL BLACKNESS OF THE UNIVERSE!

hewhosaysfish
2010-04-21, 12:22 PM
Lying is evil (major premise).
Illusion spells "lie" to their subjects (minor premise).
People who learn how to do evil things must themselves be evil. (other premise)
Therefore, illusionists must be evil (conclusion).
This is a valid argument using a completely syllological method.

:smalltongue:

EDIT: Sorry, I couldn't resist it.
A statement like "this is a valid argument using a completely syllological method" was just asking for it though.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-21, 12:25 PM
Nah, really, I dont really understand why BoVD marked lying as evil when every other source book says it is not an inherently evil act.

I can answer that: The Devs don't reference their own books outside of Core (sometimes not even Core). It's horrible, the sheer number of things they could have fixed by just opening up books with a similar concept and reading the effing text.

Coplantor
2010-04-21, 12:28 PM
I can answer that: The Devs don't reference their own books outside of Core (sometimes not even Core). It's horrible, the sheer number of things they could have fixed by just opening up books with a similar concept and reading the effing text.

Didnt the rest of my post said that?

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 12:37 PM
Prision is quite different to YOUR SOUL SHALL BE COMPLETLY ISSOLATED FROM REALITY UNTILL YOU TURN GOOD! Or, you know, mad... Anyway, ENJOY AN UNDEFINITVE AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE ETERNAL BLACKNESS OF THE UNIVERSE!

I actually do not see what the big deal about that spell is. Since the spell can only be cast on an evil creature and evil creatures have no regard for the life of others beyond possibily their close friends and relatives, they are receiving their rewards for their actions.

When Good confronts evil, good must make hard decisions or be swallowed up by the evil. The spell requires a good character to cast and a sacrifice on one character level in order to do so. The character that casts the spell is paying a heavy price in order to cleanse the evil from the target.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-21, 12:39 PM
Didnt the rest of my post said that?

Didn't read past that part of the post. Once my mind starts up an idea for a new post, I need to type it up ASAP or I'll likely forget it. My short-term memory is terrible.

Coplantor
2010-04-21, 12:42 PM
I actually do not see what the big deal about that spell is. Since the spell can only be cast on an evil creature and evil creatures have no regard for the life of others beyond possibily their close friends and relatives, they are receiving their rewards for their actions.

When Good confronts evil, good must make hard decisions or be swallowed up by the evil. The spell requires a good character to cast and a sacrifice on one character level in order to do so. The character that casts the spell is paying a heavy price in order to cleanse the evil from the target.

I dont care about the price the caster pays, I care about what the victim of the spell gets. Jail is completely different from total issolation of the universe, that's torture, and torture is not a good act, at all.


Didn't read past that part of the post. Once my mind starts up an idea for a new post, I need to type it up ASAP or I'll likely forget it. My short-term memory is terrible.

It happens to me also, get ninja'd a lot, the worst part is when I forget I'm posting at all and leave the writing window open on a different tab for hours and when I get to it the topic had changed:smalltongue:

Nero24200
2010-04-21, 12:46 PM
I never like the whole "lying is evil" thing. I can understand particularly lawful or good characters not wanting to lie, but it shouldn't be evil.

Besides, where does it end? Should all paladins just strip Bluff form their skill list because they can't even imply an untruth? Make's sense why you see less swashbuckler-esc paladins since not being allowed to deceive at all means they also cannot feint in combat (both RAW and RAI, since the whole point of feinting is tricking your foes into thinking you're moving into one direction when you're moving to another).

Now fair enough, excessive lies or lies just for the sake of lying I could understand, but lying to save someones life could very well happen alot in D'n'D if the evil characters are the ones in control the most. If the D'n'D equivilent of Nazi's come into your house and start asking if you have and Jewish people hidding in the house, can you really call yourself "Good" if you give them up purely because "lying is naughty"?

But in general, BOED and BOVD doesn't explain alignments consistantly. I think the designers all had different views of what it should be evil/good/lawful/evil. I recall seeing something Monte Cook once wrote that pegs negative energy as being inhertily evil (and using that as the reasoning as for why udnead are always evil), but at the same time negative energy spells in the PHB don't have the evil descriptor (in fact, good aligned clerics can still cast them, which means they're theoretically getting evil spells from good gods).

hamishspence
2010-04-21, 12:47 PM
Nah, really, I dont really understand why BoVD marked lying as evil when every other source book says it is not an inherently evil act.

Technically, it didn't. It said "Lying is not inherently evil, but it's so risky that a lot of good faiths forbid it"


BoED's choice of that particular one was poor- its Risky rather than Always Evil.

Paladins fall for lying because it's against the code.

Negative energy- the reason given for Animate Undead and similar spells being evil was "creating undead brings negative energy into the world, making it a darker and more evil place"

Iffy. Libris Mortis's stuff on animated undead having malevolent spirits within them, made a bit more sense.

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 12:49 PM
I dont care about the price the caster pays, I care about what the victim of the spell gets. Jail is completely different from total issolation of the universe, that's torture, and torture is not a good act, at all.

I would never call a target of this spell a victim, they are never innocent. They are receiving justice. Do NOT have sympathy for evil. They would not have any for you. That is the hard decision. Evil deserves what it gets. As far as torture goes, no where in the description of the spell does it say what happens within the gem to the evil person, aside from finding a spark of good and reflecting on its life, only the result.

Now, don't involve real life with any part of this post. This is strictly in the D&D universe where the alignment system makes the rules on good and evil and the difference between the two. A character would not be evil if he had not done something to deserve the evil alignment. I do believe that this spell should only be used as a last resort, but I would not hesitate to use it myself if I had to.

Coplantor
2010-04-21, 12:52 PM
I was not involving real life here, torture is listed as an evil act, and that spell is psychological torture. I'm not having sympathy for the evil guys.
The spell can exists of course, but it's certainly not good.

As a second note, right now, the three most recently updated threads are:

Alignment
Monk
Fighter vs Wizard

How much time since a 4th ed vs 3rd ed comes up?:smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-04-21, 12:52 PM
Victims of a Helm Of Opposite Alignment. Newborn chromatic dragons.

Being Evil doesn't actually require you to have done evil things.

And (Eberron Campaign Setting emphasises this) not all evil characters are especially malevolent, some are spiteful, greedy jerks rather than murderous villains.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-21, 12:54 PM
Do NOT have sympathy for evil. They would not have any for you.

Not true. Evil can love, Evil can care. Stereotypical Evil may not. Shades of Grey Evil will.

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 12:54 PM
I was not involving real life here, torture is listed as an evil act, and that spell is psychological torture. I'm not having sympathy for the evil guys.
The spell can exists of course, but it's certainly not good.

Updated my previous post about that. You don't know its torture as the spell doesn't reveal what happens in the gem aside from reflecting on its life and finding a spark of goodness that flames to life. I would like to believe that once the evil person finds that spark of goodness, they want to be good, because it feels good to be good. Given the chance and no distractions, it finds the will to change itself.

But, as I said, no evidence to point towards torture.


How much time since a 4th ed vs 3rd ed comes up?:smalltongue:

Blech...

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 12:57 PM
Not true. Evil can love, Evil can care. Stereotypical Evil may not. Shades of Grey Evil will.

I was speaking in general, I am aware evil can love. Evil people need friends too. Its usually someone that means a lot to the character, like a friend, relative or lover. Generally, evil doesn't give a damn about other people.


Victims of a Helm Of Opposite Alignment. Newborn chromatic dragons.

Being Evil doesn't actually require you to have done evil things.

And (Eberron Campaign Setting emphasises this) not all evil characters are especially malevolent, some are spiteful, greedy jerks rather than murderous villains.

This is true, but which of these 'targets' are going to get hit with this spell? You have to have done some pretty horrible things in order to catch the attention of a level 17+ character willing to sacrifice a level in order to cleanse you. This spell should be used as a last resort only, when redeeming has not effect.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-21, 12:58 PM
Blech...

God the new chapter sucked.

Oh wait, wrong topic and not even the right word. :smalltongue:

druid91
2010-04-21, 12:58 PM
I would never call a target of this spell a victim, they are never innocent. They are receiving justice. Do NOT have sympathy for evil. They would not have any for you. That is the hard decision. Evil deserves what it gets. As far as torture goes, no where in the description of the spell does it say what happens within the gem to the evil person, aside from finding a spark of good and reflecting on its life, only the result.

Now, don't involve real life with any part of this post. This is strictly in the D&D universe where the alignment system makes the rules on good and evil and the difference between the two. A character would not be evil if he had not done something to deserve the evil alignment. I do believe that this spell should only be used as a last resort, but I would not hesitate to use it myself if I had to.

Evil+Evil=Good? Nope it equals the lesser evil shackled in eternal torment (or joining the good guys and thus becoming a weakling.) and the greater one becoming a new, worse, threat to the world.
I prefer the jedi style of good, always offer them the chance to turn good, but if they don't take it kill them quickly.


I was speaking in general, I am aware evil can love.



This is true, but which of these 'targets' are going to get hit with this spell? You have to have done some pretty horrible things in order to catch the attention of a level 17+ character willing to sacrifice a level in order to cleanse you. This spell should be used as a last resort only, when redeeming has not effect.

Not really, they could be in a bad mood, or be arrogant, or just plain have the levels to spare if they are epic enough.

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 01:02 PM
Evil+Evil=Good? Nope it equals the lesser evil shackled in eternal torment (or joining the good guys and thus becoming a weakling.) and the greater one becoming a new, worse, threat to the world.
I prefer the jedi style of good, always offer them the chance to turn good, but if they don't take it kill them quickly.

The spell is listed as sanctified, necromancy (good), so by D&D alignment, its a good spell. Second, no where does it state the evil target is being tortured. See one of my previous posts for more detail.

And as I've said before, this spell should be used as a last resort only, after redemtion is tried and failed.


Not really, they could be in a bad mood, or be arrogant, or just plain have the levels to spare if they are epic enough.

I'd love to see this happen.

EDIT: Such blatent misuse of this spell would make my day as a DM

megabyter5
2010-04-21, 01:03 PM
Ah yes, Sanctify the Wicked. The amazing spell that seals the target's soul and forces it to feel empathy for the victims of every evil thing they've ever done, inflicting psychological torment the likes of which no one could endure with their sanity intact, and then plops them back out as good guys! And somehow, they don't kill themselves out of horror and/or shame. Plus, you can't forget how well it works on those who normally can't change alignment!

"Hi there, Mr. Cthulhu! I haven't seen you in a long time. Are you here to eat the universe?"

"Not today, friend; I'm a Good Guy now! Some adventurers came to punch me out, but instead they cast a spell, and then we had a tea party!"

"How nice!"

hamishspence
2010-04-21, 01:06 PM
I was speaking in general, I am aware evil can love. Evil people need friends too. Its usually someone that means a lot to the character, like a friend, relative or lover. Generally, evil doesn't give a damn about other people.

Except when it's someone like The Operative (Firefly) or Ozymandias (Watchmen) who will do terrible things, out of a belief that what they are doing is "For The Greater Good"

In this case, the evil guy cares a lot about people as a whole, but rationalizes the evil things they do to individuals.

druid91
2010-04-21, 01:11 PM
The spell is listed as sanctified, necromancy (good), so by D&D alignment, its a good spell. Second, no where does it state the evil target is being tortured. See one of my previous posts for more detail.

And as I've said before, this spell should be used as a last resort only, after redemtion is tried and failed.



I'd love to see this happen.

EDIT: Such blatent misuse of this spell would make my day as a DM

They still end up as a weakling. they can't use all there evil dark magics that they have spent their entire life learning anymore. Just from that its messed up, kill the guy for being evil but don't reduce him back to the starting point and then say everything is okay.

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 01:11 PM
forces it to feel empathy for the victims of every evil thing they've ever done, inflicting psychological torment the likes of which no one could endure with their sanity intact

Nothing but assumptions. Nowhere does it state any kind of torture. All it states is:


... The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness. Over time, this spark grows into a burning fire...

Where does it say the creature goes mad, or is inflicted harm, or is tortured. Nothing but assumptions.

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 01:14 PM
Except when it's someone like The Operative (Firefly) or Ozymandias (Watchmen) who will do terrible things, out of a belief that what they are doing is "For The Greater Good"

In this case, the evil guy cares a lot about people as a whole, but rationalizes the evil things they do to individuals.

This is outside of D&D alignment system and has no place in the arguement. Even if it did have a place, an evil act was done to promote the greater good. The act is still evil, though the character may not be. Commonly referred to as actions of a neutral alignment.


They still end up as a weakling. they can't use all there evil dark magics that they have spent their entire life learning anymore. Just from that its messed up, kill the guy for being evil but don't reduce him back to the starting point and then say everything is okay.

The new character wouldn't want to use those magics anymore, especially if it was good. But this is just a possible outcome to the spell. It doesn't matter if the character has to start over or if the DM grants alternate stuff, this is outside the scope of the spell.

druid91
2010-04-21, 01:19 PM
This is outside of D&D alignment system and has no place in the arguement.



The new character wouldn't want to use those magics anymore, especially if it was good. But this is just a possible outcome to the spell. It doesn't matter if the character has to start over or if the DM grants alternate stuff, this is outside the scope of the spell.

It isn't really outside of the d&d alignment system, those characters are horrible people, they know that they are horrible people. this doesn't change the fact that in there mind they believe it will all be worth it.

And you have still stolen years of someones life in an attempt to subvert their free will that may cause them to go mad and commit suicide or effectively become a person more to your liking. Mind rape with a free conscious.

Telonius
2010-04-21, 01:19 PM
I think the biggest problem with BoED is that they tried to graft Kantian ethics almost full-scale onto D&D, when several existing things about D&D violate Kantian ethics. That's why they have lying as evil.

Short version: Kant thought that a definition of good and evil could be gotten at by logic. His idea was the "categorical imperative." Basically, if you're thinking about doing something, imagine if everybody did that something, always. If you're thinking of lying, imagine if everybody always lied. Society wouldn't work. It would all end up in chaos and backbiting. If you come up with that sort of result, the action is evil. Same way with murder and theft.

Now try grafting that onto a game that differentiates between Law and Good, and Chaos and Evil. It just doesn't work very well, but that's what BoED tried to do.

EDIT: Sanctify the Wicked is another example of Kantian shenanigans. Kant thought that the good is also the rational, the evil is the irrational. So if you could only educate the evildoer, they would change their ways. The spell is basically supposed to be a fast-tracked eternal correctional institution. But it comes out as though it were a "good Mindrape."

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 01:46 PM
And you have still stolen years of someones life in an attempt to subvert their free will that may cause them to go mad and commit suicide or effectively become a person more to your liking. Mind rape with a free conscious.

From the spell description; Where are years stolen from the character? Where is free will subverted? Where is the madness or commiting suicide? Where is the mind rape? There are ample opportunities to get away from the spell. Breaking the gem before a year is up stops it.

The spell is vague on what happens in the gem but let us suppose the character was tortured. The spell would not have the sanctified or the good descriptor. You can not assume something happens a certain way because you can't imagine the other possible ways from which the outcome might have been brought.

Don't bring the ravages into this either, I don't agree with those at all, even if the little evil buggers deserve it.

Is it so hard to believe that good is the correct state of mind/alignment to be in? Have you ever done a good deed and felt good about it and about yourself for doing it? Perhaps the evil creature experiences this and wants to change. Perhaps the spell only opens the eyes of the creatures and lets it see itself for the first time. The fact is, we do not know. Trust the damn spell to do what it says and stop trying to analyze it to pieces.

Kaulesh
2010-04-21, 01:54 PM
BoED's choice of that particular one was poor- its Risky rather than Always Evil.

Paladins fall for lying because it's against the code.


I could have (and likely did) misread that section because of wonky wording.



With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a verygood end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe?

In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood.


Anyway, moot point. I know not to take this book with a grain of salt, so I will blissfully ignore pretty much everything in it.

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 02:05 PM
Anyway, moot point. I know not to take this book with a grain of salt, so I will blissfully ignore pretty much everything in it.

That makes me sad... :smallfrown:

The BoED is a beautiful book if you take the time to understand it. Certain things make little sense even after a lot of study but such is the nature of man. We are always bound to make mistakes.


Paladins fall for lying because it's against the code.

No, paladins fall for grossly violating the code or changing alignment. That is one evil act (no matter how small) or multiple violations (lying, cheating, etc, etc) will grossly violate the code.

druid91
2010-04-21, 02:20 PM
From the spell description;
1.)Where are years stolen from the character?
2.)Where is free will subverted?
3.)Where is the madness or commiting suicide?
4.) Where is the mind rape?

1.) If this spell is used on an evil arch-cleric, who has worked hard for years to get all his power, this spell comes along changes his alignment, twisting his mind into a parody of its former self, and removes those powers from him, therefore stealing all those years he worked at to gain them.

2.) As noted above you are not giving them a choice in the matter. They can try to stop it but if they fail they have no more options.

3.) If they were an evil monster for they're entire life and then magically forced to feel pity for all those they harmed, would they not go a bit crazy?
there are only two alternatives at that point, become good and betray their family and friends or destroy yourself as they don't want to cause evil anymore.

4.) You are taking a fundamental part of someones very being, something so intrinsic that it is a determiner as to whether or not certain types of magic affect you and bending or breaking it into a form you see as better. while this may not seem to be as bad as mind rape to you it seems worse to me as it leaves the caster with a clear conscious about what they have done.

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 02:46 PM
1.) If this spell is used on an evil arch-cleric, who has worked hard for years to get all his power, this spell comes along changes his alignment, twisting his mind into a parody of its former self, and removes those powers from him, therefore stealing all those years he worked at to gain them.

2.) As noted above you are not giving them a choice in the matter. They can try to stop it but if they fail they have no more options.

3.) If they were an evil monster for they're entire life and then magically forced to feel pity for all those they harmed, would they not go a bit crazy?
there are only two alternatives at that point, become good and betray their family and friends or destroy yourself as they don't want to cause evil anymore.

4.) You are taking a fundamental part of someones very being, something so intrinsic that it is a determiner as to whether or not certain types of magic affect you and bending or breaking it into a form you see as better. while this may not seem to be as bad as mind rape to you it seems worse to me as it leaves the caster with a clear conscious about what they have done.

1) While having your powers stripped away like that would be an inconvience, why are you pitying the cleric and not the many creatures he's tortured, killed, etc, etc, in order to gain all that power. The cleric has no right to that power as it was built on a foundation of blood and evil.

2) As noted above, they have no right to that power and should not get a choice in having it stripped away. The clerics victims did not get an choice in the matter, so why should the Good aligned character, sacrificing a part of themselves, give the cleric a choice? If this spell is used as a last resort, as intended, the cleric had already been given a choice to repent and had chosen not to. His choice was made.

3) Where does the spell say the monster is forced to feel pity? That is an assumption. Sorrow or pity is a feeling inherent to a creature when it realises it has done wrong. All the spell does is find a spark of goodness within the creature and helps nurture it to life (my words). The creature could even feel relief that it no longer feels the urges to do harm to others. The spell description does not say it is forced to do anything.

If the creature does become good, how would it betray its friends or family? Sure, its alignment is different and it is no longe rprone to evil actions, but its love and devotion could still be there. You might have just created a paladin of a evil race that will eventually bring the light to its race.

4) Bending and breaking? Again, not in the spell description. The spell states 'finds a spark of goodness and over time, it grows into a bonfire'. The goodness is already inside of the creature, the spell only brings it out and empowers it. Every creature is capable of good and evil, that's free will. If a creature did not have it, they would be mindless beasts.


I think, when confronted with the goodness within, the creature would choose to be good rather than evil.

Telonius
2010-04-21, 02:46 PM
Assume Sanctify the Wicked doesn't exist. How would a very evil character be redeemed, if not by taking (over a longer course of time) the same sorts of steps that the spell outlines? Realizing what they did is wrong, realizing why it's wrong, feeling empathy for the victims, feeling shame and remorse, then working to correct those errors.

If those steps are too much, then wouldn't it be less evil for the Evil Tyrant to stay an Evil Tyrant, instead of turning good?

EDIT: I do think that the biggest problem with the spell is that it seems to force the issue. But if you're viewing it from a Kantian perspective* it's more like teaching them the difference between right and wrong (which do exist in the D&D universe) than it is like taking away their freedom.

*note that I don't personally fully agree with Kant, for various reasons - but this bit isn't inconsistent within his system.

2xMachina
2010-04-21, 02:50 PM
Paladin of Evil

Sanctify the Wicked

Congrats. You made him fall.

JonestheSpy
2010-04-21, 02:52 PM
Man, I really do wonder why Sanctify upsets so many people.

Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. Evil is not a "choice" like a political party, not is it an inherent quality except in some extraplanar beings and a few monsters (I realize that the creatures aspect of his makes it tricky in a DnD world, but let's assume we're talking about people - human, drow, ogre, whatever, people). Evil is a character flaw, a weakness, a mental disorder. Whether we're talking about a greedy bastard who casually hurts other people in order to enrich himself or a sociopath who has no feelings of empathy at all, there's something wrong with that person.

In that respect, Sanctify the Wicked is not a mindrape equivalent, it's a cure. Once the evil person has been redeemed, they have complete free will and can act as they see fit.

If you want some examples, well, there's the whole Star Wars series - you know, that bit about how easy it s to give in to negative emotions and fall into the Dark Side? Or even better, Rich Burlew's humorous little illustration of my point (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html).

2xMachina
2010-04-21, 02:55 PM
I'm more of a Balance/Non-interference TN.

They have a right to be evil. Not too much, or we'll have to help them tone it down. Else, freedom.

druid91
2010-04-21, 02:57 PM
1) While having your powers stripped away like that would be an inconvience, why are you pitying the cleric and not the many creatures he's tortured, killed, etc, etc, in order to gain all that power. The cleric has no right to that power as it was built on a foundation of blood and evil.

2) As noted above, they have no right to that power and should not get a choice in having it stripped away. The clerics victims did not get an choice in the matter, so why should the Good aligned character, sacrificing a part of themselves, give the cleric a choice? If this spell is used as a last resort, as intended, the cleric had already been given a choice to repent and had chosen not to. His choice was made.



1.) Because the cleric is the acceptable target here, you seem to be suffering from "It is evil you have no right to do that" syndrome. And why does he have no right to that power? if he got his power by destroying an undead army that was going to sack the good kingdom? he did it for selfish and evil reasons but it still benefited the good kingdom. and even if he did gain it by killing and torturing, how is that much different then your average "lawful good " adventuring party?

2.) Neither did those kobolds that were just sitting in their living room practicing their spearmanship. and the adventurers stay good.



Evil is a character flaw, a weakness, a mental disorder. Whether we're talking about a greedy bastard who casually hurts other people in order to enrich himself or a sociopath who has no feelings of empathy at all, there's something wrong with that person.

In that respect, Sanctify the Wicked is not a mindrape equivalent, it's a cure. Once the evil person has been redeemed, they have complete free will and can act as they see fit.


No it is enforcing your own morals upon another.

Kaulesh
2010-04-21, 03:19 PM
No it is enforcing your own morals upon another.

I was thinking this. It's not a shift from, say, CE to CG, it's a shift from CE to whatever the caster is. I think the spell could be slightly improved by eliminating the law axis and just say an evil creature realizes its wrongs and "turns" good.

Morithias
2010-04-21, 03:24 PM
Think about it though, if the spell wasn't used on the cleric, he'd probably just end up in Baator or the Abyss, and be tormented forever or have his soul ripped apart.

Personally I hate the spell because it's like "ok you killed 500,000 people. I cast this spell, follow with an atonement, you die a week later of old age, and you get into Heaven cause you're LG even though you spent 70+ years of your life doing evil"

Yeah...I hate Karma Houdinis.

druid91
2010-04-21, 03:26 PM
Darth Vader got to be a force ghost instead of being sealed away.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-21, 03:27 PM
It's not even that. The person who refused to repent of his own accord doesn't exist anymore. You destroy the mind, you destroy the person.

This is one way to kill someone, but I think a sword through the guts is cleaner, less resource-exhaustive, and less hypocritical. He chose Baator, let his soul go to Baator---the gods gave humans free will (including the the free will to do evil) and disrespecting it isn't just egotistical, it's blasphemous.

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 03:28 PM
1.) Because the cleric is the acceptable target here, you seem to be suffering from "It is evil you have no right to do that" syndrome. And why does he have no right to that power? if he got his power by destroying an undead army that was going to sack the good kingdom? he did it for selfish and evil reasons but it still benefited the good kingdom. and even if he did gain it by killing and torturing, how is that much different then your average "lawful good " adventuring party?

2.) Neither did those kobolds that were just sitting in their living room practicing their spearmanship. and the adventurers stay good.

1) If he got his powers from killing an undead army, fine, but his powers are still being drawn from an evil (or neutral) deity and using those powers for evil purposes. Someone who has no respect for another's life deserves the same. And the reason its different than the average 'lawful good' party is one of two ways: A lawful good party would not go about killing anything without just reasons and they certain would not torture anyone.

2) If the kobolds are being hunted, they did something to deserve it. And when I say this, I am speaking as if this is in a real setting where alignment plays a big role, not some hack and slash dungeon that is just for passing the time.

3 & 4) I assume you agreed with my previous numbered posts if you did not respond to them.


No it is enforcing your own morals upon another.

No it isnt. Its allowing the goodness within the creature to come out. The alignment changing to match your own may be due to a number of different reasons, one of which might be the creature trying to emulate you since you were the one who redeemed it, out of gratitidue. Who knows. The spell doesn't give a reason why.


It's not even that. The person who refused to repent of his own accord doesn't exist anymore. You destroy the mind, you destroy the person.


I disagree. The person is still there but has a different outlook on life. Have you ever had an epiphany or some revelation that altered your prespective on life? Its similar. You remember everything you did before and can see how some of those were wrong.

JonestheSpy
2010-04-21, 03:30 PM
No it is enforcing your own morals upon another.

Oh come on. We're not talking about about someone's dating habits or fashion choices.

You're saying that there's nothing inherently wrong with Evil - it's just a matter of opinion.

I suspect there's some confusion about this issue because so much of the time in real life things are labeled 'Evil' when what they really are is Different. And yes, I agree that trying to enforce conformity of behavior in issues that have nothing to do with harming others is totally wrong.

But that's not what we're talking about here. I suppose it's a philosophical assertion - I believe that people who deliberately harm others - whether for profit, amusement, whatever - and do so without regret, have something seriously wrong with them. And no, I don't mean soldiers fighting for causes they think are just or whatever, I mean folks who know they are harming others and do so for they're own benefit. Or they are so motivated by hate, rage, envy, etc that they do terrible things that don't really benefit them in any way other than the pleasure they get from giving in to their darkest urges. They have something broken inside them, and StW fixes it.

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 03:34 PM
Oh come on. We're not talking about about someone's dating habits or fashion choices.

You're saying that there's nothing inherently wrong with Evil - it's just a matter of opinion.

I suspect there's some confusion about this issue because so much of the time in real life things are labeled 'Evil' when what they really are is Different. And yes, I agree that trying to enforce conformity of behavior in issues that have nothing to do with harming others is totally wrong.

But that's not what we're talking about here. I suppose it's a philosophical assertion - I believe that people who deliberately harm others - whether for profit, amusement, whatever - and do so without regret, have something seriously wrong with them. And no, I don't mean soldiers fighting for causes they think are just or whatever, I mean folks who know they are harming others and do so for they're own benefit. Or they are so motivated by hate, rage, envy, etc that they do terrible things that don't really benefit them in any way other than the pleasure they get from giving in to their darkest urges. They have something broken inside them, and StW fixes it.

Exactly. That was very insightful. I thank you for the pleasure of reading this.

Morithias
2010-04-21, 03:38 PM
It's not even that. The person who refused to repent of his own accord doesn't exist anymore. You destroy the mind, you destroy the person.

This is one way to kill someone, but I think a sword through the guts is cleaner, less resource-exhaustive, and less hypocritical. He chose Baator, let his soul go to Baator---the gods gave humans free will (including the the free will to do evil) and disrespecting it isn't just egotistical, it's blasphemous.

The exact wording of the spell and I quote.

"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."

Sounds to me, like it's basically the equivalent of the "redemption through diplomacy" thing, except you only get one save, and it works on creatures with the evil subtype.

I wouldn't call "reflecting on your past evils" torture. I would call it enlightenment.

druid91
2010-04-21, 03:40 PM
1) If he got his powers from killing an undead army, fine, but his powers are still being drawn from an evil (or neutral) deity and using those powers for evil purposes. Someone who has no respect for another's life deserves the same. And the reason its different than the average 'lawful good' party is one of two ways: A lawful good party would not go about killing anything without just reasons and they certain would not torture anyone.

2) If the kobolds are being hunted, they did something to deserve it. And when I say this, I am speaking as if this is in a real setting where alignment plays a big role, not some hack and slash dungeon that is just for passing the time.

3 & 4) I assume you agreed with my previous numbered posts if you did not respond to them.



No it isn't. Its allowing the goodness within the creature to come out. The alignment changing to match your own may be due to a number of different reasons, one of which might be the creature trying to emulate you since you were the one who redeemed it, out of gratitidue. Who knows. The spell doesn't give a reason why.

It is "allowing" the goodness in a creature to come out about as much as extract water "allows" the water to come out of someone, as in it isn't a choice it is an attack.

the kobolds are pettily evil, they lie they cheat they steal, none of this has a major impact on anyone but the kobold tribe.

And you don't count being roasted alive by a fireball torture?



Someone who has no respect for another's life deserves the same.
So in other words you are saying that evil must be destroyed with evil?



I wouldn't call "reflecting on your past evils" torture. I would call it enlightenment.
What is enlightenment but destroying your old self in order for your new larger self to grow.


Oh come on. We're not talking about about someone's dating habits or fashion choices.

You're saying that there's nothing inherently wrong with Evil - it's just a matter of opinion.

I suspect there's some confusion about this issue because so much of the time in real life things are labeled 'Evil' when what they really are is Different. And yes, I agree that trying to enforce conformity of behavior in issues that have nothing to do with harming others is totally wrong.

But that's not what we're talking about here. I suppose it's a philosophical assertion - I believe that people who deliberately harm others - whether for profit, amusement, whatever - and do so without regret, have something seriously wrong with them. And no, I don't mean soldiers fighting for causes they think are just or whatever, I mean folks who know they are harming others and do so for they're own benefit. Or they are so motivated by hate, rage, envy, etc that they do terrible things that don't really benefit them in any way other than the pleasure they get from giving in to their darkest urges. They have something broken inside them, and StW fixes it.

Depends on how far you take your evil. and from ,to reference obi-wan "Your point of view."

I am not talking about different I am talking about evil, killing, stealing, and lying, While I would never condone any of these actions personally it hardly warrants the uber-magical soul sucking version of a time-out.

They benefited in that it made them happy. Is there really any other goal?

Telonius
2010-04-21, 03:45 PM
It's not even that. The person who refused to repent of his own accord doesn't exist anymore. You destroy the mind, you destroy the person.

This is one way to kill someone, but I think a sword through the guts is cleaner, less resource-exhaustive, and less hypocritical. He chose Baator, let his soul go to Baator---the gods gave humans free will (including the the free will to do evil) and disrespecting it isn't just egotistical, it's blasphemous.

Not really - the spell presupposes that there's no such thing as an irredeemable person, and that evil is merely error. The spell gives the character the opportunity to see and correct that error; all intelligent characters would be able to do so. (For reasons I stated above, I think this does not work particularly well when grafted onto the typical D&D setting, but it's not inconsistent within its own parameters).

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-21, 03:45 PM
Except that if the creature fails its save, it will always choose good. That's incredibly stupid. Not every creature is going to be or meant to be redeemed; otherwise there would have been no conflict between good and evil in the first place. When the gods created mortal creatures, they allowed them the choice to be evil; even the evil gods, when creating their children, gave almost all of them free will (hence the occasional good Orc, Drow, whatever). That means the ability to freely choose to embrace good or reject it is a divine imperative, something the gods gave to mortals they could have withheld if they just wanted a harmonious, squeaky-clean cosmos.

Morithias
2010-04-21, 03:48 PM
What is enlightenment but destroying your old self in order for your new larger self to grow.

To put it bluntly....yeah.

It's either enlightenment or redemption, but I would hardly call reflecting upon your crimes to be well....torture.

I know it might not be a good idea to bring Harry Potter into this. But wasn't that the only way Voldemort could redeem himself? If he truly felt sorry and regretted what he had done?

Edit: And if a person failed their save against it's unholy word spell, they would be dead. Your point?

Face it, a lot of people like being evil, that's true, but a lot of the time like say.... Redcloak, they think they're too far into to truly turn back.

Seeing how it costs the user a level, it's pretty clear they won't just use it on every evil NPC, unless they find a way to remove that cost.

And no, evil was not created via the gods originally, or are you forgetting the demons from beyond? Who eventually caused the fallen angels, and the corruption of the deities themselves?

None of the gods were Bad in the beginning, at least from my research.

druid91
2010-04-21, 03:54 PM
To put it bluntly....yeah.

It's either enlightenment or redemption, but I would hardly call reflecting upon your crimes to be well....torture.

I know it might not be a good idea to bring Harry Potter into this. But wasn't that the only way Voldemort could redeem himself? If he truly felt sorry and regretted what he had done?

It was also mentioned that doing so could in fact kill Voldemort.

If you reflect upon your crimes and feel bad about that it is a sort of mental torture, Imagine being belkar and suddenly realizing that the thousands you have killed all didn't deserve it and feeling horrible about each and every one. that would add up big time.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-21, 03:57 PM
What is enlightenment but destroying your old self in order for your new larger self to grow.

That's neither good nor evil, if we think of goodness as the Judeo-Christian idea of altruism; it's an inherently self-beneficial act. It's also completely unrelated to the existence of deities, good or evil, as is Buddhism. This is why IRL most Buddhists believe in Bodhisatvas.

Here's the thing: if you've got a guy like Voldemort who's incredibly powerful, incredibly dangerous, and a mass-murderer, you've got to dispose of him. You can't keep him around as a threat. So you futz with his brain to make him a dedicated public servant, friend to children, remorseful of his past and ready to use all his powers to serve others. Here's the thing, a guy like Voldemort clearly chose to be evil and set himself on the path to hell, and as a mortal you didn't have the right to step in and play God with his mind. We know this because the actual gods allow people to be wicked, and sometimes the wicked people die happy and wealthy and the good die impoverished, persecuted and unremrembered.

Morithias
2010-04-21, 04:00 PM
That's neither good nor evil, if we think of goodness as the Judeo-Christian idea of altruism; it's an inherently self-beneficial act. It's also completely unrelated to the existence of deities, good or evil, as is Buddhism. This is why IRL most Buddhists believe in Bodhisatvas.

Here's the thing: if you've got a guy like Voldemort who's incredibly powerful, incredibly dangerous, and a mass-murderer, you've got to dispose of him. You can't keep him around as a threat. So you futz with his brain to make him a dedicated public servant, friend to children, remorseful of his past and ready to use all his powers to serve others. Here's the thing, a guy like Voldemort clearly chose to be evil and set himself on the path to hell, and as a mortal you didn't have the right to step in and play God with his mind. We know this because the actual gods allow people to be wicked, and sometimes the wicked people die happy and wealthy and the good die impoverished, persecuted and unremrembered.

And yet, if we ignore all the time line what ifs and such, it would be a wrong thing to do this to say....tom riddle when he first comes to Hogwarts, and prevent Voldemort from ever existing?

I do not believe that redeeming a person is an evil act.

Telonius
2010-04-21, 04:04 PM
Except that if the creature fails its save, it will always choose good. That's incredibly stupid. Not every creature is going to be or meant to be redeemed; otherwise there would have been no conflict between good and evil in the first place. When the gods created mortal creatures, they allowed them the choice to be evil; even the evil gods, when creating their children, gave almost all of them free will (hence the occasional good Orc, Drow, whatever). That means the ability to freely choose to embrace good or reject it is a divine imperative, something the gods gave to mortals they could have withheld if they just wanted a harmonious, squeaky-clean cosmos.

Sounds like the sermon from a True Neutral cleric. :smallbiggrin: But that is another problem with putting Kant into D&D. When Kant was writing his philosophy, he did not assume the existence of evil gods that created their own creatures. (What he did assume probably crosses the line into real world religions). For the spell to make sense within the D&D world, it would have to assume that, yes, every creature is *meant* to be redeemed. (Maybe by the over-deity, or maybe the evil gods are just fallen rebels against the regular divine contingent, or what have you). This isn't true in every D&D game.

druid91
2010-04-21, 04:05 PM
It is not redeeming them, it is only redemption if they choose it. they did not, it was thrust upon them in a ham-fisted manner.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-21, 04:07 PM
And yet, if we ignore all the time line what ifs and such, it would be a wrong thing to do this to say....tom riddle when he first comes to Hogwarts, and prevent Voldemort from ever existing?

I do not believe that redeeming a person is an evil act.

You can't redeem a person by forcing them to be good. That's what the spell does. If it didn't, then it would work with the same success/failure probability as your diplomacy check or whatever.

If we accept gods are omniiscient and possess perfect knowledge of past, present and future, we understand that our choices are inevitable. Actual philosophers IRL grappled for centuries with the question of how man can be responsible for his own sins if this is the case, and why in reality evil almost always triumphs over good. If people were destined to be good or evil before they were ever born, how can gods justify allowing anyone to go to the lower plains? The answer is that sequential time as we understand it is a mortal conception, a breakdown of infinity that our senses can withstand; we are the sum of our decisions and can be nothing else. We are still responsible for our actions.

If you "redeem" someone by stepping in and making their choice for them, they are alive in the sense an ant or a tree is alive, and nothing more. You might as well just kill them and send them to the eternal reward they chose. It respects their decision the way the gods respect the decision of people to be evil, and let them go on to the lower planes.

JonestheSpy
2010-04-21, 04:09 PM
I do not believe that redeeming a person is an evil act.

Certainly less morally compromised than killing them.

BTW, I do want to add be the spell is pretty screwed in that in makes te creature's alignment the caster's - the law-chaos axis has nothing to do with "redemption", so the spell's critics have a point there. But that's an easy fix, as opposed to claiming the changing of evil to good is in itself immoral.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-21, 04:14 PM
In a universe where dying as an evil soul merely sends you to the world you wanted all along, no it's not. Killing is still, of course, an evil act--one mitigated if it's done in self defense against evil, but a lesser evil nonetheless that should trouble any good person--but erasing someone's soul, undoing their choice? That's beyond the pale, not even the gods do that. If the gods didn't allow evil to be an option and thus inevitably flourish in the mortal world, then earth would probably be a nice place full of harmonious natural scenery and barely-sapient ape men, and nothing going on at all. You can't have intelligent life as we understand it without the freedom to make decisions which can harm others, taking away free will from even the vilest person robs them of their mind/soul/ego, whatever you want to call it, and that's a far more damaging and destructive act then just sending them to the hell they chose.

Telonius
2010-04-21, 04:19 PM
You can't redeem a person by forcing them to be good. That's what the spell does. If it didn't, then it would work with the same success/failure probability as your diplomacy check or whatever.

If we accept gods are omniiscient and possess perfect knowledge of past, present and future, we understand that our choices are inevitable. Actual philosophers IRL grappled for centuries with the question of how man can be responsible for his own sins if this is the case, and why in reality evil almost always triumphs over good. If people were destined to be good or evil before they were ever born, how can gods justify allowing anyone to go to the lower plains? The answer is that sequential time as we understand it is a mortal conception, a breakdown of infinity that our senses can withstand; we are the sum of our decisions and can be nothing else. We are still responsible for our actions.

If you "redeem" someone by stepping in and making their choice for them, they are alive in the sense an ant or a tree is alive, and nothing more. You might as well just kill them and send them to the eternal reward they chose. It respects their decision the way the gods respect the decision of people to be evil, and let them go on to the lower planes.

Agreed - but the spell stipulates that this isn't how it works. The person always makes the choice to be good. Unspoken is the assumption that it would literally be insane not to. It would be like a person who goes up to space, around the earth and back, and is still a flat-earther.

druid91
2010-04-21, 04:23 PM
Thats the problem really you are taking infinity on your diplomacy check.

JonestheSpy
2010-04-21, 04:28 PM
In a universe where dying as an evil soul merely sends you to the world you wanted all along, no it's not. Killing is still, of course, an evil act--one mitigated if it's done in self defense against evil, but a lesser evil nonetheless that should trouble any good person--but erasing someone's soul, undoing their choice? That's beyond the pale, not even the gods do that. If the gods didn't allow evil to be an option and thus inevitably flourish in the mortal world, then earth would probably be a nice place full of harmonious natural scenery and barely-sapient ape men, and nothing going on at all. You can't have intelligent life as we understand it without the freedom to make decisions which can harm others, taking away free will from even the vilest person robs them of their mind/soul/ego, whatever you want to call it, and that's a far more damaging and destructive act then just sending them to the hell they chose.

Well, you're completely failing to seem mine and others point - evil is a failing, not a "choice". That's just a different philosophical view that pretty much ends the discussion if you can't find some common ground there.

Oh, and btw, I'm not sure where that "In a universe where dying as an evil soul merely sends you to the world you wanted all along" meme came form. I know it's some sourcebook or something somewhere, but it strikes me an exceedingly lame. Aside from the completely amoral universe in purports, it also erases gigantic amounts of other material that show souls suffering on the lower planes and fiends actively torturing them.

Basically, that particular interpretation of the DnD cosmos strikes me as just yet another game designer's bad idea, and belongs in the same bin as the Planar Shepard.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-21, 04:29 PM
Evil is predicated upon an act of egoism. "I don't want to do things Pelor's way. My own way is just as good. Why should I do what he says? How does he know better than me?" So Pelor lets you go that way. He (and the other good gods) will not convert you at sword/burning-finger point and then watch you forever. You're totally allowed to cheat, lie, and murder and the gods won't stop you. Or you can be a somewhat noble person in your own right; let's say in 9 out of every 10 cases, you're the epitome of self-sacrifice, but you think all goblinoids should be expunged from the earth. You're still enshrining your own ego as an idol over the commandment of Pelor, "don't commit genocide," (we can just assume since Pelor is Neutral Good it's strongly implied in whatever his teachings are, at least).

But the gods, good and evil, will let you stand or fall on your own merits. Yeah, the Nine Hells are a place where you've got to cheat, wheedle and dominate constantly or you will be taken advantage of, used and possibly ground into the pulp of nonexistence. It's a place where even the most dedicated and powerful beings can be backstabbed and cast aside, and the system there actually encourages this. Guess what? That's the world these people prefer to live in. They may not consciously understand it (in fact, it's certain they must not), but every evil person at root must imagine that it is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven, and have the ego to believe that in hell he'll be one of the rulers.

So yeah, if you want to call them insane, then say they're insane. The gods respect their right to be insane. The gods will not force you to undergo any treatment. That's a fundamental right they set down when they gave you the choice to be insane in the first place.

EDIT:


Oh, and btw, I'm not sure where at "In a universe where dying as an evil soul merely sends you to the world you wanted all along" came form. i know it's some sourcebook or something somewhere, but it strikes me an exceedingly lame. Aside from the completely amoral universe in purports, it also erases gigantic amounts of other material that show souls suffering on the lower planes and fiends actively torturing them.

The world is an awful place. Seriously, every major philosopher and prophet pretty much ever up until the Enlightenment went and created the comfortable middle-class held this opinion. The Nine Hells and even the Abyss planes are far closer to earth and much more earth-like than any heaven; that's why the writers focus so much attention there, because trying to describe a fundamentally good world is pretty much impossible. Here's what's guaranteed when you're born in the Prime Material Plane: you will want things you can't have; you will feel unloved, even hated; you will feel lonely; you will be cheated and taken advantage of; you will be threatened; you will lash out against someone who didn't deserve it; you will lie and steal; you will attack someone. Even if you're the Prince of Corneria and you live the life of Reilly, you'll have at least a bit of all this. And if your world is a realistic feudal system, drudgery and abuse is going to be the order for a pretty huge number of your populace.

Look at our own history. A miserable record of wars, repression, plagues and disasters, and we didn't even have Orcs and Trolls running around trying to eat us. Obvoiusly the mortal world isn't all bad. Even people in the lowest pecking order will know happiness. There's heroism, and invention, and kindness and all of that. But evil people believe the first part is what's natural--how it's "meant to be," they can't conceive of a better world because that would force them to admit how rotten theirs is, and how rotten they are. That's the egoism of demons, devils, damned souls, and wicked people (but even the most perfect human must have a small part of it).

So yes, the Nine Hells is what wicked people would willfully choose if you sat them up and said "this door leads to Celestia, that to Baator," and you plainly informed them of what either was like. They just wouldn't get Celestia. They'd have to believe it was some kind of racket, that this Pelor guy is really just an overweening tyrant, or that he makes unreasonable demands on his petitioners, or something. It's the foolish choice, but they're allowed to make it.

JonestheSpy
2010-04-21, 04:40 PM
Evil is predicated upon an act of egoism. "I don't want to do things Pelor's way. My own way is just as good. Why should I do what he says? How does he know better than me?" So Pelor lets you go that way. He (and the other good gods) will not convert you at sword/burning-finger point and then watch you forever. You're totally allowed to cheat, lie, and murder and the gods won't stop you. Or you can be a somewhat noble person in your own right; let's say in 9 out of every 10 cases, you're the epitome of self-sacrifice, but you think all goblinoids should be expunged from the earth. You're still enshrining your own ego as an idol over the commandment of Pelor, "don't commit genocide," (we can just assume since Pelor is Neutral Good it's strongly implied in whatever his teachings are, at least).

But the gods, good and evil, will let you stand or fall on your own merits. Yeah, the Nine Hells are a place where you've got to cheat, wheedle and dominate constantly or you will be taken advantage of, used and possibly ground into the pulp of nonexistence. It's a place where even the most dedicated and powerful beings can be backstabbed and cast aside, and the system there actually encourages this. Guess what? That's the world these people prefer to live in. They may not consciously understand it (in fact, it's certain they must not), but every evil person at root must imagine that it is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven, and have the ego to believe that in hell he'll be one of the rulers.

So yeah, if you want to call them insane, then say they're insane. The gods respect their right to be insane. The gods will not force you to undergo any treatment. That's a fundamental right they set down when they gave you the choice to be insane in the first place.

Well first, I'm not saying it's the same thing as insanity. Second, I think the logic in your argument is flawed.

No, gods don't go around forcing evil people to convert. But they don't kill them either - other mortals do. Pelor doesn't smite the orcs raiding the helpless villagers - his paladin does. Likewise Pelor does not decide that Evil Magician X should be redeemed and converted to Good - but his priest can.

And no, I don't think a lawful evil soul actually likes the 9 Hells. Just because there is an infintismal chance that a tortured soul could rise through the ranks of devils if it's evil enough and strong enough, that doesn't mean it's preferable to the pleasures of heaven for the vast majority of souls who end up there. Y'know, because despite their delusions when alive, they're not actually going to be ruling in Hell. Again, my interpretation - if you want the universe to be different in your game, you can do as you like.

druid91
2010-04-21, 04:42 PM
Oh, and btw, I'm not sure where that "In a universe where dying as an evil soul merely sends you to the world you wanted all along" meme came form. I know it's some sourcebook or something somewhere, but it strikes me an exceedingly lame. Aside from the completely amoral universe in purports, it also erases gigantic amounts of other material that show souls suffering on the lower planes and fiends actively torturing them.

This only happens to those who are too weak to defend themselves and rise up the ranks down there, So you would actually be more justified in using sanctify the wicked on small time evildoers then the big ones who are going to get along just fine in baator.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-21, 04:43 PM
Oh, they're miserable. They're not enjoying themselves. Even the people at the top, Graz'z't and Baal and whoever, they're not enjoying themselves. I doubt Asmodeus is happy where he is. But you've met people before who like being miserable, haven't you? It's what they understand, it's their comfort-zone, strange as it sounds to be plainly stated. They're not choosing Baator over Celestia because they like the thrill of constantly watching their backs. It's because constantly watching your back is just the way things obviously work to people like them. They don't imagine Celestia is really different, it's just a hypocrisy on the part of Pelor or whoever.

druid91
2010-04-21, 04:45 PM
Never said they were happy, just that they wouldn't be ground up for EXP. Saving someone from that fate might be ok.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-21, 04:47 PM
It's seriously not okay, actually.

druid91
2010-04-21, 04:49 PM
Okay would you rather be ground up into nonexistance, or be able to allow your back-up plan just in case something like this happens get raised and then have a helmet of opposite alignment shoved on your head?

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-21, 04:50 PM
You cease to exist as a functioning mind either way, so there's no difference.

druid91
2010-04-21, 04:52 PM
the helmet of opposite alignment fixes your temporary goodly insanity. and brings back your evil sensibilities.:smalltongue: Also I love how this morphed from "illusions are evil" to a debate over sanctify the wicked.

JonestheSpy
2010-04-21, 07:03 PM
The world is an awful place. Seriously, every major philosopher and prophet pretty much ever up until the Enlightenment went and created the comfortable middle-class held this opinion.

BTW, I can't help but point out that the above statement is really, really incorrect. The part of about the philosophers, anyway - whether the world is awful or not is clearly a matter of opinion.

Morithias
2010-04-22, 12:04 AM
Uh, whoever said that LE souls exist in hell as some kind of 'get and enjoy' that isn't how it works.

In the lower realms, souls are DESTROYED AND USED FOR ENERGY. You are food, fuel, etc. It isn't some kind of 'evil heaven' it's a fricken soul-electric dam.

To put it bluntly, if a cleric dies LE and goes to Baator in due time his soul will be processed and he will be turned into a devil......WITHOUT ANY OF HIS PAST EXPERIENCES.

So on one hand, we have making him regret his actions and turn good, so that when he dies he at least stays in the metaphysical world in a place of paradise.

Or we kill him, and he eventually gets erased from existence, and the good guys have another devil to fight.

I don't think I have to explain which one is better for him, it's just too obvious.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-22, 12:47 AM
Now you're arguing from a materialist standpoint. Souls are resources; we must deny the Nine Hells or Abyss any more resources in their war against the Forces of Good. In that case, yes, interrupting the natural course of things is the smart play. But materialism isn't Good. Goodness means a respect for the dignity of living beings. Materialism cannot even accept "dignity" as a qualifier. Materialism simply believes that feeding everyone, housing everyone, giving everyone an occupation and an education, will at the very least reduce selfishness and immorality to a very minor blemish on a quasi-utopic civilization.

Good in Dungeons & Dragons means respecting the self-determination of sapient beings. What usually gets said in answer to this is "but you can kill and imprison evil people, isn't THAT limiting their free will?" The answer is no. Being shut up in a prison cell does not necissarily affect the mind or soul of the criminal. That is still their own territory, a boundary that must be respected. Likewise being killed---whether the killed expected it or not--merely delivers that soul to the fate it was preparing for itself. Their will is not violated; it is satisfied. That is the merest and also the most fundamental act of respect the gods gave to mortals, and which all mortals must give to each other if they are to be god-like.

hamishspence
2010-04-22, 02:57 AM
That makes me sad... :smallfrown:

The BoED is a beautiful book if you take the time to understand it. Certain things make little sense even after a lot of study but such is the nature of man. We are always bound to make mistakes.

I tend to agree with this- it has a lot of good ideas and some not so good ones- the trick is spotting which is which



No, paladins fall for grossly violating the code or changing alignment. That is one evil act (no matter how small) or multiple violations (lying, cheating, etc, etc) will grossly violate the code.

True- and the example given did say "jeopardises paladin status" rather than "loses paladin status"

So it's always in question whether this particular lie is a gross violation or not.

MickJay
2010-04-22, 04:38 AM
We are putting people in prisons to 1. segregate them from people they could harm 2. attempt to reform them. It's rarely the case these days that it's also 3. let them suffer for what they did.

StW does exactly what 1 and 2 do, only more efficiently. And the spell was written with the assumption that Evil results from lack of understanding. Long before Kant, Socrates (according to Plato, at least) claimed that if one is truly wise, he is incapable of doing evil - if he was, it would only mean he didn't attain true wisdom yet. Being wise is understanding that being good is always better than being evil. While completely incompatible with D&D's concept of alignment, in D&D terms, it leads to an assumption that Evil people, regardless of their stats, are simply stupid, or deficient, and if only they're shown the Good way, they'll follow it of their own volition. Sure, you lock them up for some time, and show them what Good is, but they change (according to underlying assumption) because it's simply physically impossible not to become Good after finally understanding what Good really is.

As for dignity, using it as an argument against StW is like saying that stopping a child from putting its hand into fire violates the child's dignity and free will. Yes, you're taking an arbitrary action and yes, you act against someone's will, but only to prevent them from coming to harm. Again, it's not compatible with what D&D alignment system is about (or at least what majority of it is about), but when was the alignment system coherent anyway?

Riffington
2010-04-22, 04:59 AM
So yes, the Nine Hells is what wicked people would willfully choose if you sat them up and said "this door leads to Celestia, that to Baator," and you plainly informed them of what either was like. They just wouldn't get Celestia. They'd have to believe it was some kind of racket, that this Pelor guy is really just an overweening tyrant, or that he makes unreasonable demands on his petitioners, or something. It's the foolish choice, but they're allowed to make it.

This paragraph only makes sense if it's not a foolish choice. If Baator is actually preferable given their misaligned preferences (modulo their specific role in Baator).

hamishspence
2010-04-22, 05:04 AM
Its worth remembering that a large percentage of LE beings may be "well intentioned extremists"- who believe their actions, however evil, to be necessary for the preservation of society.

Such beings probably wouldn't choose Baator if it was an option. In the case of the most delude, they even may believe themselves to be LG and going to Celestia.

FC2 points out that even villainous LE types generally aren't aware of the true nature of Baator (the fact that their identities are painfully obliterated in the process of turning their souls into devils).

Skeppio
2010-04-22, 06:13 AM
Regarding BoED, I just point out Chapter 1 where it details how to be good without being a dumbass or an amoral *******. The rest of the book can be safely ignored, since every page contradicts every other page. And why the hell is Sanctify the Wicked a [Good] spell?. It's Trap the Soul crossed with Mind Rape plus a solid year of imprisonment! Wow...

hamishspence
2010-04-22, 06:16 AM
It doesn't work much like Mind Rape.

As written "change alignment to that of player" it has a bit more in common with the psionic power Mind Seed.

Which also has the evil descriptor.

Chapter One has most of the good stuff- but some of the later chapters make references to torture being evil, or to it being OK to team up with evil beings against a greater threat (as long as you don't just let them do evil things).

MickJay
2010-04-22, 07:47 AM
It's Trap the Soul crossed with Mind Rape plus a solid year of imprisonment! Wow...

Only if don't take what the spell description actually says at face value, decide to ignore the author's explanation of how it works and come up with your own interpretation of the spell's workings that rejects all the fluff that's already there. :smalltongue:

Coplantor
2010-04-22, 07:52 AM
Keep him locked and isolated untill a spark of good turns into a burning fire? And it's most useful for the particualry wicked and gone? The EVIL not the evil?
Yeah, and then they decide to go on with their new lives instead of jumping off a bridge because they can totally live with their hideous acts of the past.

It also reminds me of the Clockwork Orange brainwash somehow.

MickJay
2010-04-22, 08:01 AM
Since there's nothing in the spell description about possible problems afterwards, it's only reasonable to assume that they simply aren't there. Perhaps the whole process also allows the formerly Evil being come to terms with itself? Perhaps it gives it a way of dealing with its past? For a year, the soul is freed from distractions and temptations and is finally able to reach enlightenment. This is pretty much what the spell is meant to do, why is it so difficult to accept that in the setting of ridiculous morality and with an alignment system that is completely insane, a spell that works like StW can actually exist as intended by whoever wrote it?

Coplantor
2010-04-22, 08:09 AM
I dont know, I never found the alignment system insane, nor do we have problems regarding it within my gaming group (except for the guy who thinks that CG means I can do all the evil stuff I want and smite evil wont affect me, but he got better).

But this particular spell seems weird, one of the things that's related to good is the respect for someone else's free will, yet it's effect seems much more radical than just throwing someone to jail.

I cant remember well beause I dont have the book here with me, but the duration is 1 year right? It means it doesnt fail, in one year it will turn anyone from evil too good, seems a bit forced to me.

hamishspence
2010-04-22, 08:09 AM
One problem here is that "achieve enlightenment" ends up incorporating "become same alignment as caster"

Changing an alignment in one year is a bit less radical than in one round (as Helm of Opposite Alignment would do) though.

The Diplomacy rules in BoED also don't take that long to kick in.

So one year isn't so bad.

Another oddity in the spell- smash the gem on day 364 or earlier, and the creature will come out exactly as it was when the spell was cast- and full of hatred for the caster.

Raising the question of just what happened to that slow process of redemption- did it just get wiped from the mind of the being?

Morithias
2010-04-22, 09:22 AM
Only if don't take what the spell description actually says at face value, decide to ignore the author's explanation of how it works and come up with your own interpretation of the spell's workings that rejects all the fluff that's already there. :smalltongue:

Pretty much. Far as I see it, it's purgatory in a spell. There are some examples I've seen on the net where the person has to stay for a year to redeem themselves.

I'm somewhat sure that is what the creator of the spell was going for.

2xMachina
2010-04-22, 09:54 AM
You can still duplicate the StW spell into a evil version by:

Trap the Soul
Some illusion to make them repent their 'goodly ways' through preaching
Mindrape after 1 year if it fails to break them

Then, enjoy your new minion.

Or, heck, StW in another way:

Trap the Soul
Some illusion to make them repent their 'evil ways' through preaching
Mindrape/Programmed Amnesia after 1 year if it fails to break them

hamishspence
2010-04-22, 09:59 AM
Programmed Amnesia after 1 year if it fails to break them

Can programmed amnesia actually change alignment? Or does it just modify memories?

2xMachina
2010-04-22, 10:03 AM
Wouldn't it be based on your memories? Plant memories to make choose the alignment.

hamishspence
2010-04-22, 10:09 AM
Odd- I can't find Programmed Amnesia, only Modify Memory.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/modifyMemory.htm

Maybe it's book-only.

Changing memories, under normal circumstances, won't change alignment. If the memory is "wrong" enough, it may break the effect.

2xMachina
2010-04-22, 10:15 AM
Yes, not in SRD.

There's a part: Persona rebuilding. Build a new person, with any alignment.

hamishspence
2010-04-22, 10:16 AM
Good point.

Which does raise the question of why Mindrape's evil and that isn't. Maybe it's just that "getting into the person's head" via Mindrape is far more traumatic.

2xMachina
2010-04-22, 10:23 AM
Mindrape is a slow Programed Amnesia (with less options). (Or maybe BoVD didn't bother to explain what else you can do)

So, I presume: Fast = Evil, Slow = Good.

(Given, StW is the slowest, PA is midway, MR is fast)

hamishspence
2010-04-22, 10:30 AM
So, I presume: Fast = Evil, Slow = Good.


"Is the Dark Side stronger?"

"No, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive."

Could be. It would give the character time to absorb the lessons required (in the case of StW, which doesn't so much create a new personality, as modify the old one)

Still, going from CE to LG (if the caster was LG) probably wouldn't leave all that many personality traits still in place.

BoVD's one says "you can leave the character insane, or withiout any memory of the intrusion"- does this mean that the intrusion is guaranteed to drive them instantly mad unless memories of it are deleted?

2xMachina
2010-04-22, 10:51 AM
Wow, didn't read it that way, but it does sound possible RAW. (Given that RAW can be unintended.... I'm not sure if it is).

hamishspence
2010-04-22, 02:02 PM
I keep forgetting Programmed Amnesia isn't a psion power- it's a wizard spell in the Spell Compendium.

It seems to work like Mindrape- only with a 10 minute casting time, the options explained in detail instead of outlined, and no "leave the target insane, or with no memories of the experience" clause.

Morithias
2010-04-22, 02:08 PM
I still fail how making a person reflect upon their past is some kind of torture. If the ability to feel sorry about hurting people is actually painful to a person, I think I'd cast Necrotic Termination on them instead.

NeoVid
2010-04-22, 03:31 PM
I have no problem with the alignment system in general, and a big problem with most of the official rulings on it. So, lying is on the Always Evil list, but slavery isn't, as far as I can remember. Yeah.

Though this does bring up the possibility of a paladin seeing it as his duty to own slaves and serve as a good example to other slave owners...

Hmm. (Writes that down in setting notes)

hamishspence
2010-04-22, 03:36 PM
I have no problem with the alignment system in general, and a big problem with most of the official rulings on it. So, lying is on the Always Evil list, but slavery isn't, as far as I can remember.

Other way round, if you ignore that one poorly phrased BoED paragraph.

Yes, a paladin who lies jeopardises their paladin status, as it states- but they don't automatically lose it (since it's a code breach and possibly a minor one).

Lying is Not Always Evil according to BoVD.

Slavery is Always Evil according to BoED.

Cityscape also confirms this with

"The institution of slavery should always be regarded as an evil by any good-aligned characters in the campaign"

(Which does raise the question of how the paladin-ruled empire of Mulhorand in the Forgotten Realms copes with the issue- but maybe theirs is much less oppressive.)

druid91
2010-04-22, 04:32 PM
I still fail how making a person reflect upon their past is some kind of torture. If the ability to feel sorry about hurting people is actually painful to a person, I think I'd cast Necrotic Termination on them instead.

You seem to be missing the point, it is not physically painful no, Say you went to bed one night and woke up the next morning after having a vivid dream of killing everyone you know. Now imagine you discover that you actually did this, you would feel pretty bad right? multiply it by about a hundred for the number of honest hardworking people your average big bad has killed, maimed, dominated, sold into slavery, etc.. you really don't think that would be torture?

hamishspence
2010-04-22, 04:40 PM
If the villain starts to feel compassion, and that compassion is accompanied by remorse, that might mean a bit of emotional pain.

But that's to be expected. Isn't one of the ideals of rehabilitation, that the prisoner develops remorse for their actions, to the extent of being unwilling to act like that ever again? Are psychologists "torturing" murderers, if they, through therapy, trigger their consciences?

Sanctify is like that, just as the use of Diplomacy on a villain, would (one expects) produce the same remorse when the villain changes alignment.

Causing someone to feel remorse, is not exactly torture.

Turning a person from a conscienceless villain, into a fully developed personality, is, in a sense, fixing the damage inflicted on their minds in the past (by themselves, or the people that brought them up, or the gods that created them, if they are a member of an Always Evil monster race).

Morithias
2010-04-22, 07:13 PM
Hamishspence, pretty much sums it all up right there. Nice job mate.

hamishspence
2010-04-23, 02:44 AM
Of the four possible "world viewpoints" in Savage Species, one (Chaotic/Accepting) took the view that in general, evil monsters, even demons, are the victims of their own psychoses.

However, that doesn't mean this viewpoint is valid for all D&D worlds.