PDA

View Full Version : The "Sanctify the Wicked" spell...



Alleran
2010-08-22, 03:50 AM
Can it be cast on, say, a Drow priestess, thereby turning them into a sanctified creature and also applying the sanctified template to them? Looking at the spell description, the target is "one evil creature" which a CE Drow Cleric of Lolth (for example) should qualify as.

Apologies if this sounds like a stupid question, but being able to redeem any evil creature (forcibly, at that) with Necromancy (which good characters supposedly avoid, according to the BoED, though it wouldn't be the only problem with it...) seems rather odd for a nominally "good" spell.

TaintedLight
2010-08-22, 03:53 AM
Can it be cast on, say, a Drow priestess, thereby turning them into a sanctified creature and also applying the sanctified template to them? Looking at the spell description, the target is "one evil creature" which a CE Drow Cleric of Lolth (for example) should qualify as.

Apologies if this sounds like a stupid question, but being able to redeem any evil creature (forcibly, at that) with Necromancy (which good characters supposedly avoid, according to the BoED, though it wouldn't be the only problem with it...) seems rather odd for a nominally "good" spell.

I would tend to agree with you. Forcing one's morality on another is an inherently oppressive act, and oppression is the demesne of evil. However, it could be argued that the redemption of one creature, even by oppressive means, to prevent a greater evil would be a good act. I would not call it exalted, but it could be argued that it is good.

ex cathedra
2010-08-22, 03:56 AM
Yes. It's a [Good] Mindrape, though it's not as versatile.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, no, from a purely Good standpoint, but D&D isn't known for how well it handles philosophy. I love the flavor on any sort of inquisitorial character, at least.

Coidzor
2010-08-22, 03:57 AM
Can it be cast on, say, a Drow priestess, thereby turning them into a sanctified creature and also applying the sanctified template to them? Looking at the spell description, the target is "one evil creature" which a CE Drow Cleric of Lolth (for example) should qualify as.

Apologies if this sounds like a stupid question, but being able to redeem any evil creature (forcibly, at that) with Necromancy (which good characters supposedly avoid, according to the BoED, though it wouldn't be the only problem with it...) seems rather odd for a nominally "good" spell.

Any evil creature. Drow are creatures. If a drow is a cleric of Lolth, well, that drow's gonna be evil.

So, the drow becomes an ex-cleric of Lolth after being imprisoned in a gem for a year.

Sanctify the Wicked has, well, it has problems. Hence the nickname "Holy Mindrape," it has received in certain corners of the internet.

BobVosh
2010-08-22, 06:48 AM
Any evil creature. Drow are creatures. If a drow is a cleric of Lolth, well, that drow's gonna be evil.

You can be a CN cleric of Lolth. Completely misses the point of it...but ya.

Also this has been discussed a lot before. Forced reeducation clockwork orange style? Very werid for a spell with a [Good] descriptor. However, there you have it.

FMArthur
2010-08-22, 12:44 PM
I do think the idea of a reformed and Lawful Good Balor is kind of hilarious, though. Since it is a being of purest evil, it is conceptually confusing, but less morally questionable to use your most evil [Good] spell on them.

Mando Knight
2010-08-22, 01:06 PM
I do think the idea of a reformed and Lawful Good Balor is kind of hilarious, though. Since it is a being of purest evil, it is conceptually confusing, but less morally questionable to use your most evil [Good] spell on them.

WotC had a Succubus Paladin in one of their articles...

Jack_Simth
2010-08-22, 01:07 PM
I do think the idea of a reformed and Lawful Good Balor is kind of hilarious, though. Since it is a being of purest evil, it is conceptually confusing, but less morally questionable to use your most evil [Good] spell on them.

Catch:
It's not legal to apply the template to a Balor. Even though they're a legal target for the spell. Have fun sorting that one out at the gaming table.

As for the nickname... D&D uses a lot of shortcuts in their mechanics for ease-of-play. If it's worth the bother of casting Sanctify the Wicked on a thing, it's likely a villian under the DM's control. There's little, if anything, in the way of mechanics for putting someone into counseling (well, there is a set, but you have to look a fairly long time to find it), and even with those, there's the problem of 'they don't have a choice in the matter once you make the check, so it's brainwashing'. Now, if the DM simply sticks his tounge out at you and says 'nu-uh' when you've built a character around convincing people to convert to the side of good, you'll get upset. So there does need to be mechanics for it. Sure, they're not very good mechanics, but some form of it is needed. So the target gets a saving throw. If you ignore the fluff, then yeah, it's a rather Lawful Evil spell (forces compliance). If you do not ignore the fluff, it's a [Good] spell.

Zaydos
2010-08-22, 01:15 PM
I always saw it as having the [Good] descriptor because it required you to channel holy energies. Unlike [Evil] descriptor spells casting a spell of the [Good] descriptor is not intrinsically a good-aligned act, only something that only good aligned clerics and druids can cast (strangely enough Favored Souls don't have such an alignment requirement).

Now as to why it's exalted... ... ... ... ... ... I can't answer.

Also can I get an atonement spell?

RebelRogue
2010-08-22, 01:41 PM
"When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man".

Anthony Burgess would certainly not approve of this spell.

WinWin
2010-08-22, 01:42 PM
Cast it on a mindflayer. They will starve to death.

Juhn
2010-08-22, 01:48 PM
There was an Exalted mindflayer in BoED, so evidently it is possible in some fashion.

WinWin
2010-08-22, 01:52 PM
Ring of sustenance. Actually in the statblock.

I was going to launch into an alignment tirade, but I thought better of it.

edit: I am sure I read something about the ring of Sustenenance. Need to get my eyes checked.

hamishspence
2010-08-22, 01:52 PM
Oddly, there's an Exalted Mindflayer in the same book.

How she gets around the "must eat brain of an intelligent being at least once a month or they start starving" rule in Lords of Madness- I'm not sure- probably only eats non-humanoid villains, since she has a Vow of Nonviolence, but not a Vow of Peace or a Vow of Purity.

EDIT: Ninjaed.

And she doesn't have a ring of sustenance, but a ring of protection +4.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-22, 01:59 PM
*sigh*

Sanctify the Wicked is not Mind Rape.

The spell works on the basis that all creatures that aren't inherently [Evil] have at least some good in them, that there is a Perfect Argument to reform them and make them repent. It's the logical extension of Rosseau Was Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousseauWasRight).

There's a reason it takes a year, while Mind Rape takes a few minutes.

nyarlathotep
2010-08-22, 02:01 PM
One of the ways I've found to make the spell less morally nasty as the DM is say that after all of the year long contemplation and self contemplation the creature still has the option of refusing to reform. In essence the spell is then one long drawn out period allowing the creature one last chance to change its mind and be righteous. Mind you refusing to change its ways after being shown just how evil it is will likely turn a creature from evil to vile; meaning that the spellcaster just made things worse.

hamishspence
2010-08-22, 02:11 PM
The spell works on the basis that all creatures that aren't inherently [Evil] have at least some good in them, that there is a Perfect Argument to reform them and make them repent. It's the logical extension of Rosseau Was Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousseauWasRight).

There's a reason it takes a year, while Mind Rape takes a few minutes.

True. The main oddity, is that it changes the ethical alignment to that of the caster, as well- so a CE red dragon sanctified by a LG caster becomes LG.

Also- sometimes creatures with [Evil] subtype turn out to have good in them too. The most dramatic case being the cambion demons from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits- as much as 10% of them are Neutral or Good. This is suggested to be due to the fact that their planetouched mother (usually a tiefling) was nonevil- InTheBlood (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InTheBlood), so to speak.

Juhn
2010-08-22, 02:13 PM
*sigh*

Sanctify the Wicked is not Mind Rape.

The spell works on the basis that all creatures that aren't inherently [Evil] have at least some good in them, that there is a Perfect Argument to reform them and make them repent. It's the logical extension of Rosseau Was Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousseauWasRight).

There's a reason it takes a year, while Mind Rape takes a few minutes.
...There are people on this forum who actually took the time to read the spell description? My faith in humanity has been restored.

I've gotten so tired of the "Sanctify the Wicked is [Good] Mindrape lol" that I've just started ignoring it.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-22, 02:14 PM
True. The main oddity, is that it changes the ethical alignment to that of the caster, as well- so a CE red dragon sanctified by a LG caster becomes LG.

Also- sometimes creatures with [Evil] subtype turn out to have good in them too. The most dramatic case being the cambion demons from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits- as much as 10% of them are Neutral or Good. This is suggested to be due to the fact that their planetouched mother (usually a tiefling) was nonevil- InTheBlood (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InTheBlood), so to speak.

Obviously, the Perfect Argument, from a Lawful Good caster's point of view, would make someone Lawful Good.

Demons can be good - in fact there's an infinite number of Lawful Good succubi - but Sanctify The Wicked won't work. They have to realise they want to be good and repent on their own. Sanctify The Wicked is for mortals who need a little extra push in the right direction.

A Lawful Good succubus is still [Evil] and [Chaos], and nothing can possibly remove those impulses from her. She has to learn to control herself and do good even though her basic nature screams at her to stop. No argument is going to remove the fact that she is literally composed of Chaos and Evil.



...There are people on this forum who actually took the time to read the spell description? My faith in humanity has been restored.

I've gotten so tired of the "Sanctify the Wicked is [Good] Mindrape lol" that I've just started ignoring it.

If I'm restoring someone's faith in humanity, something has gone horribly wrong.

hamishspence
2010-08-22, 02:20 PM
Are demons infinite in number, or do they just try and convince the rest of the planes that they are?

Demonomicon: Malcanthet in Dragon Magazine, does suggest that the existence of the few redeemed succubi is one of the few things that makes Malcanthet sad- and while she's fond even of succubi that seem to work against her interests, these are the few that "escape her fondness".

There's a ritual for adding alignment subtypes to PCs (and changing them) in Savage Species. If a demon were to submit to such a ritual, assuming it survived, it would no longer contain both [Chaos] and [Evil]- but it would still exist as a being- though not, technically, a demon.

So I think of subtypes as a big component of outsiders, but not absolutely vital to them- they can survive having their subtypes removed or changed.

olentu
2010-08-22, 02:21 PM
Obviously, the Perfect Argument, from a Lawful Good caster's point of view, would make someone Lawful Good.

That just puts the spell back to forcing an alignment change on the target.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-22, 02:23 PM
That just puts the spell back to forcing an alignment change on the target.

How do you figure? What about convincing someone to give up Chaos is worse than convincing them to give up Evil?

olentu
2010-08-22, 02:33 PM
How do you figure? What about convincing someone to give up Chaos is worse than convincing them to give up Evil?

Oh nothing is evil about using magic to change a creatures mind against their will. I mean the evilness of mind rape is presumably because of the descriptor rather then what the spell does. But it is still forcing an alignment change.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-22, 02:35 PM
Oh nothing is evil about using magic to change a creatures mind against their will. I mean the evilness of mind rape is presumably because of the descriptor rather then what the spell does. But it is still forcing an alignment change.

Did you miss my post earlier? Did you never read the spell description?

Mechanics are not the same as fluff.

olentu
2010-08-22, 02:37 PM
Did you miss my post earlier? Did you never read the spell description?

Mechanics are not the same as fluff.

The fluff that was talking about good and not law and chaos.

hamishspence
2010-08-22, 02:40 PM
There's at least one spell that's mindway between StW and Mindrape in capabilities- Programmed Amnesia, in Spell Compendium.

It doesn't have the [Evil] tag.

Main differences between it and Mindrape- It says 1 living creature, has a short range, takes 10 minutes to cast, and requires a material component worth 500 gp.

Mindrape says 1 creature, has a longer range, casts as a standard action, and requires no component.

Randel
2010-08-22, 03:14 PM
I would argue that Sanctify the Wicked would be a 'good' spell, at least from the standpoint of a culture that most DnD games take place in.

If you Sanctified every evil creature in the world before killing them then their souls shouldn't go to the evil afterlife, that not only robs the infernal planes of more souls but it also means these souls go to a better and nicer plane.

Yes, I'm arguing that Sanctify the Wicked is a Good spell because it saves the subjects souls from eternal damnation. But it makes sense because in DnD, eternal damnation is a real thing. There really are demons and devils that toy with the souls of the wicked and want to corrupt people. Plus, it seems that the guys in charge of what is considered 'good' or 'evil' include the gods.

Not only would it be Good, it would also be Lawful... namely because it imposes itself on the individual to provide a benefit for society as a whole. A Good Empire that constantly tracks down those of evil alignment and turns them Good would be pretty lawful and good (although kind of oppressive).

It sounds like the sort of thing that would be a useful tool for Lawful Good types who value society and the greater cosmology than the individual. It would likely offend some neutral types and people of chaotic alignment for that same reason.

Empire of Good: We will send our forces across the whole world and capture those of Evil alignement, we shall not kill them but instead convert them to the side of good. Thus, fewer creatures will die as Evil beings and thus fewer souls will go to the evil afterlifes and infernal planes. The cosmos shall shift to the side of good. A future full of good people and with more power in the hands of the Good-aligned gods would be worth far more than the cost of free-will impsed on the evil.

People of neutral or chaotic persuasion: You're imposing your will upon others! If you carry out your plan then the whole world will be stuck underneith your prudish rule and knight-templar attitude!

Empire of Good: Did you not hear the part where we only capture evil creatures? And we don't kill them? And we turn them into good creatures so they go to heaven instead of burning in hell for eternity when they eventually die? We fail to see how the results of such actions could be considered 'evil' while the alternative to kill the wicked or let them continue as evil beings due to unwillingness to do what has to be done could be considered 'good'.

People of neutral or chaotic persuasion: But... its not nice.

Empire of Good: We never said that good was nice or that lawful actions were pleasant. If you are evil you will be Sanctified, if you oppose us you will be stopped, if you kill us then we shall go on to our heavenly reward in an afterlife that we helped to make. Resistance is futile, the triumph of Good is inevitable, repent all evil deeds or face the consequences.

hamishspence
2010-08-22, 03:17 PM
Main problem with that is, rather than costing XP, it costs 1 level- which cannot be countered or avoided in any way. Plus, as a 9th level spell, not many will have access to it.

Chances are, the conventional Diplomacy method of redeeming villains (in the same book) will be more practiced.

Juhn
2010-08-22, 04:57 PM
If I'm restoring someone's faith in humanity, something has gone horribly wrong.

That was an (apparently failed) attempt at facetious exaggeration. "Restored my faith in people's ability to comprehend the things they've supposedly read" would be more accurate.


Oh nothing is evil about using magic to change a creature's mind against their will.

It's a good thing that's not what happens when the spell is cast, then, isn't it?

olentu
2010-08-22, 05:16 PM
It's a good thing that's not what happens when the spell is cast, then, isn't it?

I suppose then that all creatures want at all times equally to be chaotic, neutral, and lawful.

Coidzor
2010-08-22, 05:19 PM
A Lawful Good succubus is still [Evil] and [Chaos], and nothing can possibly remove those impulses from her. She has to learn to control herself and do good even though her basic nature screams at her to stop. No argument is going to remove the fact that she is literally composed of Chaos and Evil.

Savage Species Rituals can remove the subtypes, IIRC.

So, I'm getting the impression that people who like this spell and defend it as reasonable rather than something to take amusement at are also of the mistaken idea that LG is more gooder than NG or CG.

Juhn
2010-08-22, 05:37 PM
I suppose then that all creatures want at all times equally to be chaotic, neutral, and lawful.

...What? :smallconfused: I have no idea what you're saying here, or what it has to do with the spell.


So, I'm getting the impression that people who like this spell and defend it as reasonable rather than something to take amusement at are also of the mistaken idea that LG is more gooder than NG or CG.

Admittedly I've less defended the spell as reasonable in this thread than been needlessly hyperbolic in just saying "if you read the spell description, then it's not actually unwilling on the part of the spell's target", but I'm of the opinion that all three Good alignments are pretty much equally Good. If I had to pick one alignment to be "more gooder" than the other two, I'd probably pick NG.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-22, 05:43 PM
So, I'm getting the impression that people who like this spell and defend it as reasonable rather than something to take amusement at are also of the mistaken idea that LG is more gooder than NG or CG.

...What gives you that idea?

If anything, Neutral Good is "more gooder" than Lawful or Chaotic Good.

olentu
2010-08-22, 05:46 PM
...What? :smallconfused: I have no idea what you're saying here, or what it has to do with the spell.

The change for law, chaos, and neutral is not given even the somewhat lacking explanation for good so far as I can tell. So unless all creatures wish to equally be any of lawful, chaotic, and neutral at all times the change can be unwilling on that axis. I mean at least for the good aspect they had some implication as to a reason.

NekoJoker
2010-08-22, 06:12 PM
This -as most morally related topics- teases my interest.
In mymind, the world of D&D was actually designed as a world of moral absolutes, Evil is EVIL and needs to be destroyed by the forces of good... however, the mechanics do not really relate to being a goody two shoes, since most of the whole experience relates to killing living intelligent beigns and then looting their dead bodies... so you can move on to kill more intelligent beigs and loot their lifeless bodies.

But that has already been discussed in other threads

I think that the Sanctify the Wicked spell is actually a really good thing, why? because just killing the thing will only feed the infernal hosts, whereas if you turn it to YOUR side, it is better on the long run.

Now that's just a matter of economy...

on the other hand i see the spell not as a resource to a character but a plot device, it's not something you can use freely on any encounter really, but something you should be able to use on a BBEG or at least on a Redeemable Dragon.

Turning people to the goodish side on the game may always look like you are brainwashing them instead of persuading them (I referr to the rules on the BoED about redeeming/converting an NPC... it really looks like you are just brainwashing the fella on a tone very similar to the one seen in the Clockwork Orange.

All in all I see it as a good and cool spell, wether it is a (good) mindrape, that's for the Dm and the Players to decide

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 02:34 AM
I tend to see it as a [Good] (but much weaker) Mind Seed.

Mind Seed is a psionic power that replaces a creature's entire personality with yours.

StW takes a year, to replace a creature's alignment with yours- and only works on evil creatures, and costs you one level.

Morithias
2010-08-23, 04:04 AM
My only question (Not adding to the debate), is how long it's going to take before the mods consider this an 'auto-lock' subject. It's been pretty overdone.

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 04:10 AM
as far as I know, the mods only lock topics (if the topic itself doesn't break the rules) that almost automatically lead to flamewars. Though if there are several identical topics on the same page, they may merge them.

Caustic Soda
2010-08-23, 04:14 AM
Is the BoED available in the SRD? I don't have access to the book itself, but I'm kinda curious about the description of Sanctify the Wicked.

The description of it I've read previously has it that the affected creature is imprisoned by a magical effect that also attempts to cajole them into Good-ness by prolonged, inescapable arguments.

I would consider that brainwashing but I simply don't know if that is waht it actually says.



My only question (Not adding to the debate), is how long it's going to take before the mods consider this an 'auto-lock' subject. It's been pretty overdone.

Even if they consider it, I doubt the mods will choose to ban the subject of Sanctify the Wicked. It leads to arguments, certainly, but so do Monk threads, ToB threads, alignment threads etc. It's probably one of the kind of thread that'll recieve mre than usual scrutiny, though

MickJay
2010-08-23, 04:27 AM
What it actually says is: "the subject reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness."

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-23, 09:55 AM
What it actually says is: "the subject reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness."

Or else it gets the hose again.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-23, 09:59 AM
*sigh*

Sanctify the Wicked is not Mind Rape.

The spell works on the basis that all creatures that aren't inherently [Evil] have at least some good in them, that there is a Perfect Argument to reform them and make them repent. It's the logical extension of Rosseau Was Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousseauWasRight).

There's a reason it takes a year, while Mind Rape takes a few minutes.
I'm not comfortable with a Magic Argument; a divinely-granted statement that causes any Evil creature to inexorably become Good just sounds too much like Mind Control. Plus, doesn't it cheapen the dignity of sentient beings for there to be a spell that will cause them to, ultimately, think a certain way?

It's kind of like a Magic Room 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_101), wouldn't you say?

Neon Knight
2010-08-23, 10:45 AM
*sigh*

Sanctify the Wicked is not Mind Rape.

The spell works on the basis that all creatures that aren't inherently [Evil] have at least some good in them, that there is a Perfect Argument to reform them and make them repent. It's the logical extension of Rosseau Was Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousseauWasRight).

There's a reason it takes a year, while Mind Rape takes a few minutes.

So, basically, it reveals to them the Lovecraftian truths behind the universe, which instead of being maddening revelations about the futility and worthlessness of human existence is instead Goodness?

....

I'd rather be Mindraped into being a fishman.



Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 10:53 AM
Plus, doesn't it cheapen the dignity of sentient beings for there to be a spell that will cause them to, ultimately, think a certain way?

You could say exactly the same about Programmed Amnesia- which doesn't have the Evil descriptor, despite being far more able to cause beings to think in certain specified ways of your choice, than StW is.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-23, 11:03 AM
Ah, my Alignment Nemesis :smalltongue:

You could say exactly the same about Programmed Amnesia- which doesn't have the Evil descriptor, despite being far more able to cause beings to think in certain specified ways of your choice, than StW is.
Despite lacking the description of Programmed Amnesia, I still doubt it.

One is messing with someone's memory, the other is changing their actual system of beliefs. The former is no less violative than causing physical wounds - something Good people should avoid, but is hardly Evil. The latter is much more like taking a life - specifically the life of the individual who had had the freedom to make their own decisions up to that point.

InkEyes
2010-08-23, 11:04 AM
Is the BoED available in the SRD? I don't have access to the book itself, but I'm kinda curious about the description of Sanctify the Wicked.

The description of it I've read previously has it that the affected creature is imprisoned by a magical effect that also attempts to cajole them into Good-ness by prolonged, inescapable arguments.

It's not OGL, so no, but I don't think quoting parts of the description without any relevant mechanics should be wrong. This really is all the relevant information in the description:


This spell tears the foul, corrupted soul from the body of an evil creature and traps it in a diamond receptacle.... Trapped in the gem, the evil creature undergoes a gradual transformation. The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness. Over time, that spark grows into a burning fire.

This is probably a huge part of why people have issues with Sanctify the Wicked. The entire spell description is three paragraphs long and only one paragraph goes into any detail about the process. If as much detail was paid to it as the redemption process for evil characters earlier in the book, I think we'd have have way less people comparing the spell to mind rape. I'd even like to hope the processes were meant to mirror each other, but with the seven to fourteen will saves vs. a diplomancer's skill check replaced with a longer redemption time and permanent level loss, but I guess we'll never know for certain.

The spell isn't like Mind Rape either, or Mind Seed, or Programmed Amnesia. All of those spells rewrite part or all of the subject's mind. Sanctify the Wicked is it's own unique brand of screwy; it forces an alignment change, but that doesn't replace the old memories and personality whole-cloth. I think, like many D&D books, the left hand wasn't paying any attention to what the right hand was doing and the readers were left with a weak product because of it.

shadow_archmagi
2010-08-23, 11:08 AM
If I recall correctly, Sanctify The Wicked seals them in a little box and then slowly converts them.

I like to think of it as being like that episode of Futurama


The robot company invents a better robot, and Bender takes offense. The gang takes him to be "upgraded" so that he'll like the new model, but as soon as the process begins he breaks free. Eventually, he's forced to work together with the super robot to save his friends, and decides that the new-bot is a hero.

Then it turns out that the entire episode was the upgrade sequence, and he never actually left the factory.

Robert Blackletter
2010-08-23, 11:19 AM
This spell tears the foul, corrupted soul from the body of an evil creature and traps it in a diamond receptacle.... Trapped in the gem, the evil creature undergoes a gradual transformation. The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness. Over time, that spark grows into a burning fire.

O.k let fluff a evil version


This spell tears the pure soul from the body of an good creature and traps it in a diamond receptacle.... Trapped in the gem, the good creature undergoes a gradual transformation. The soul reflects on past goods and see other taking advantage of it good nature its finds a spark of resentment. Over time, that spark grows into a burning fire of hate which lead the pure creature to fall.

HAve no idea why i did that just seemed fun.

InkEyes
2010-08-23, 11:25 AM
O.k let fluff a evil version



HAve no idea why i did that just seemed fun.

It's still not Mind Rape. Authoritarian reprogramming, yes, but I could see an extreme lawful good or maybe neutral-type use it. I could also see chaotic good characters use ravages. The BoED is very uneven. Water is wet.

Robert Blackletter
2010-08-23, 11:33 AM
Never claimed it was mind rape, It brain washing IMO but if thats evil is between you and the DM.

Morithias
2010-08-23, 11:38 AM
Ayi-yi-yi...it's not brainwashing. It's the equivalent of locking you into a prison cell and having you reflect on what you've done.

We do that don't we? We take minor criminals, put them in prisons, and overall try to help them change their ways?

This spell is basically a never-fail-year-long version of that. It doesn't 'brainwash' them, it gives them time to think and realize that *gasp* killing is wrong.

I'd take this spell over the alternative.

"Ok, since we don't believe in redemption and people changing their ways, we're just going to slaughter you and send you to Baator. You'll probably just end up a lemure anyways."

500 years later that random level 1 mook was a pit fiend....

InkEyes
2010-08-23, 11:48 AM
Never claimed it was mind rape.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you said that. But yeah, the spell is too broad for it's own good. Yes, I just made a bad joke. :smallbiggrin:

Robert Blackletter
2010-08-23, 11:51 AM
AS you said it never fails so assuming that it forces reflection and change otherwise if have a fail chance or you could replicate the spell in game merely by locking someone up for a year.

also prisons have a far from 100% success rate on redeeming our criminals and that involves active effort of social workers etc not just forced solitude

Also killing is wrong? In DnD?

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-23, 11:55 AM
Killing (most things) when there's another option isn't Good.

Ranos
2010-08-23, 11:57 AM
We do that don't we? We take minor criminals, put them in prisons, and overall try to help them change their ways?

This spell is basically a never-fail-year-long version of that. It doesn't 'brainwash' them, it gives them time to think and realize that *gasp* killing is wrong.

That's the thing, see. Never. Fails. You don't get a choice in the matter. Even if you want to keep being evil, you'll be converted all the same. Destroying a man's beliefs and convictions. That's called brainwashing.

And no, killing the guy is not the only alternative.

Robert Blackletter
2010-08-23, 12:05 PM
Killing (most things) when there's another option isn't Good.

But there always another option, killing is never a true last resort its a last thing I going to try resort

Morithias
2010-08-23, 12:05 PM
That's the thing, see. Never. Fails. You don't get a choice in the matter. Even if you want to keep being evil, you'll be converted all the same. Destroying a man's beliefs and convictions. That's called brainwashing.

And no, killing the guy is not the only alternative.

It never fails cause it's magical in nature. Basically it's suppose to be a spell version of the diplomacy checks.

Zaydos
2010-08-23, 12:07 PM
I can see a Lawful Good character using the spell as a last resort; but they better well have a good reason.

I can see a Lawful Neutral character using the spell quite often.

A Chaotic Good character is violating one of the important aspects of that alignment combination. At that point kill them, don't brainwash them.

Really though a good aligned character should have problems with brainwashing, regardless of their ethical axis.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-23, 12:12 PM
It never fails cause it's magical in nature. Basically it's suppose to be a spell version of the diplomacy checks.
That doesn't make it better - and the fact that there's a system for forcing Alignment changes makes it worse.

Alignment isn't supposed to be like HP - it's not supposed to change because of mundane effects. It represents the core beliefs of an individual; it's hard enough getting people to try a new edition on the Internet - how hard do you think it'd be to get someone to wholeheartedly embrace an entirely new way of life?

More importantly, Alignment is one of the core traits of RP - it states the underlying beliefs that guide the rest of your actions; creating a system that interferes with one of the least mechanically constrained portions of the game is madness!

I've always thought that Alignment Splatbooks were a bad idea; the more I hear about them, the worse they get!

Jayabalard
2010-08-23, 12:13 PM
That's the thing, see. Never. Fails.Yup, pure good works that way. "Love never fails" ... I'd quote more, but then we'd be delving into the whole "real world religions" area (besides, I'm an agnostic/atheist depending on what terminology you use).


Even if you want to keep being evil,But you don't, see the spell description. The change is done strictly internally, based on your own inner goodness.


Destroying a man's beliefs and convictions. That's called brainwashing.Not at all, brainwashing is something very specific, and there are lots of other ways to destroy a man's belief's and convictions.

Robert Blackletter
2010-08-23, 12:14 PM
It never fails cause it's magical in nature. Basically it's suppose to be a spell version of the diplomacy checks.

So the magic force you to change your mind? Also it not the magic verstion of diplomancy check as it possible to fail them (at least in theroy)

Edit :


Yup, pure good works that way. "Love never fails" ... I'd quote more, but then we'd be delving into the whole "real world religions" area (besides, I'm an agnostic/atheist depending on what terminology you use).
Then a double standard exist, if i was to say hate never fails and use that as my justification for my curppt the pure spell always working then most would not accept that


But you don't, see the spell description. The change is done strictly internally, based on your own inner goodness.
Accept you can't replicat the spell merely by locking a villein away for one year so the only conclusion is magical intervention from the spell itself forcing redemption (well a close proxy anyway)

InkEyes
2010-08-23, 12:29 PM
So the magic force you to change your mind? Also it not the magic verstion of diplomancy check as it possible to fail them (at least in theroy)

The spell allows a will save, and can be completely countered by breaking the diamond any time in the 364 days it takes to complete the spell. The diplomacy checks can be repeated as many times as you want until the target fails seven of them, and it only takes an hour of talk each day to trigger one.

I think the real problem here is why aren't evil gods more worried about a legion of bards converting the world and throwing the balance of good and evil way out of whack?

Edit- It's worth noting that the redemption rules aren't in the variant rule section either, that means Wizards expects you to use these rules, right?

Robert Blackletter
2010-08-23, 12:38 PM
The spell allows a will save, and can be completely countered by breaking the diamond any time in the 364 days it takes to complete the spell.
Then what's the problem? sorry I only read the fluff supplied early in this thread and got the impression that it was an auto-convert if it not then while i got problem with the fluff being just plain dumb, the spells itself is cool.


The diplomacy checks can be repeated as many times as you want until the target fails seven of them, and it only takes an hour of talk each day to trigger one.

Well it still possible to get multiple fails and there hundreds of reasonwhy that hour of talking would be unable to happen.



I think the real problem here is why aren't evil gods more worried about a legion of bards converting the world and throwing the balance of good and evil way out of whack?

Who says there nopt doing the same, and hell what a campaign idea , legions of good and evil bard travel the world convert cities to there cause, you are an elite band of neutral trying to stop the mass brain washing bard

Ranos
2010-08-23, 12:41 PM
Yes, high level diplomancy is pretty much mind-control as well, you can make people into fanatics by talking to them for all of 6 seconds, we know that. Just because diplomancy is mindrape as well doesn't make the spell any less mindrape.

Robert Blackletter
2010-08-23, 12:52 PM
The spell allows a will save, and can be completely countered by breaking the diamond any time in the 364 days it takes to complete the spell. The diplomacy checks can be repeated as many times as you want until the target fails seven of them, and it only takes an hour of talk each day to trigger one.

Also one will save over seven is not a fair




Edit- It's worth noting that the redemption rules aren't in the variant rule section either, that means Wizards expects you to use these rules, right?
Just read them and it describes a basic form of brain washing

InkEyes
2010-08-23, 12:59 PM
Yes, high level diplomancy is pretty much mind-control as well, you can make people into fanatics by talking to them for all of 6 seconds, we know that. Just because diplomancy is mindrape as well doesn't make the spell any less mindrape.

Sanctify the Wicked reeks of authoritarian mind control, but it does not function like the spell Mind Rape. Does the very nature of the spell involve violating the private mind of a random evil monster? Yes, and so do many other spells, and then the thread descends into a debate about whether mind-effecting spells in general are evil.

I'm just saying there's a division between the spells the completely wipe and reboot your mind and Sanctify the Wicked. It's is own independent confederacy of screwed-upness, and touches on shades of gray in a morality system that doesn't allow that. Get the Book of Exalted Deeds for the little goodies it gives Bards, don't get it because you actually want cohesive moral codes.


Just read them and it describes a basic form of brain washing

Yes, it is. I guess the issue now becomes whether or not brainwashing is inherently evil, but I don't know if it's worth going in that direction.

Christopher K.
2010-08-23, 01:03 PM
If it's kindling a "spark of goodness" in the target, does that mean that instead of rewriting their beliefs and morality, they're simply encouraging the more minor aspect of the personality through contemplation?

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 01:04 PM
Ah, my Alignment Nemesis :smalltongue:

Despite lacking the description of Programmed Amnesia, I still doubt it.

One is messing with someone's memory, the other is changing their actual system of beliefs. The former is no less violative than causing physical wounds - something Good people should avoid, but is hardly Evil. The latter is much more like taking a life - specifically the life of the individual who had had the freedom to make their own decisions up to that point.

Programmed Amnesia is capable of changing beliefs, alignment, knowledge- everything. Exactly like mindrape. But unlike StW.

if taking a life is not automatically evil- why is changing the alignment of a person "an unacceptable violation of their dignity"?

I would agree that using StW on someone who doesn't already warrant the death penalty, is dubious though.


If it's kindling a "spark of goodness" in the target, does that mean that instead of rewriting their beliefs and morality, they're simply encouraging the more minor aspect of the personality through contemplation?

That's what's implied- the assumption that all beings have good in them, and the spell boosts the good aspect of the person massively.

Unlike the spells Programmed Amnesia and Mindrape- you don't gain access to the target's memories, and you can't change anything about them other than their alignment.

Ranos
2010-08-23, 01:08 PM
if taking a life is not automatically evil- why is changing the alignment of a person "an unacceptable violation of their dignity"?

Well, this is a bit worse than taking a life. More like destroying his soul. Not that he wouldn't already get that done in hell, I guess.

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 01:12 PM
Very few spells or effects destroy the soul. StW may modify whatever traits of the target's mind determine their alignment, but their soul is still present.

Even [Evil] spells like Mind Seed do not destroy a soul- only a personality, completely replacing it. StW doesn't completely replace the personality.

If, for example, a person was scared of heights, or liked the taste of apples, they'd probably have the same traits after the spell, even if the caster doesn't have those traits.

InkEyes
2010-08-23, 01:14 PM
If it's kindling a "spark of goodness" in the target, does that mean that instead of rewriting their beliefs and morality, they're simply encouraging the more minor aspect of the personality through contemplation?

I think in a perfect world the spell would nurture an inherent good, but the spell is left unsatisfyingly vague and it raises legitimate concerns about how "good" it is.

Jayabalard
2010-08-23, 01:16 PM
General Question: out of curiosity, does the spell say anything about the subjective time experienced by the individual targeted by the spell?


Then a double standard exist, if i was to say hate never fails and use that as my justification for my curppt the pure spell always working then most would not accept thatI don't want to come across as rude, but seriously: you might want to do at least a little checking with a spell checker and make sure you're using the right words.

I fail to see a double standard; "love never fails" is a well known quote, not just something I made up, and it's part of the ideologies that is at the heart of how sanctify the wicked is supposed to work. But unfortunately, we can't discuss that further in depth because of the ban on real world religions. That restriction makes talking about some of the assumptions in BoED difficult, because there are certainly places where the BoED draws on real world religions.

Besides, you're argument here reeks of fallacious logic; if you were to make a corruption spell based on a piece of ideology that people actually hold to, say "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" then would be suprised if you found many people who would have a problem with having a single will save to avoid being turned.


Accept you can't replicat the spell merely by locking a villein away for one year so the only conclusion is magical intervention from the spell itself forcing redemption (well a close proxy anyway)Another fallacious argument; this one is a false dilemma fallacy; there are lots of other possibilities. The only thing that you can assume is that there is indeed something more going on than simply locking you away, but that doesn't mean that you are being forced to do anything.

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 01:21 PM
I think in a perfect world the spell would nurture an inherent good, but the spell is left unsatisfyingly vague and it raises legitimate concerns about how "good" it is.

The limitations on the spell mean that the idea of people converting everyone who's evil with it has serious problems- it's 9th level, and anyone who casts it automatically sacrifices 1 level.

I would agree that, just as not everyone who is evil deserves to be attacked by adventurers (Eberron Campaign Setting) so not everyone who is evil deserves to have StW cast on them- especially considering that some might choose to be nonevil without it.

dsmiles
2010-08-23, 01:27 PM
Another fallacious argument; this one is a false dilemma fallacy; there are lots of other possibilities. The only thing that you can assume is that there is indeed something more going on than simply locking you away, but that doesn't mean that you are being forced to do anything.

I'd personally like to add my own bit of fluff to that part of the spell. You know, the part about reliving past misdeeds, a la Ghost Rider's "Penance Stare." Except that, instead of coming away insane, you come away with "a changed world view/morality."

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 01:32 PM
"A spark of goodness- which becomes a raging fire" was the original phrase- but "A spark of goodness- which becomes a whole new outlook on life" is probably an equally valid interpretation of the phrase as well.

In Savage Species- the Chaotic/Accepting viewpoint, is that monsters are evil primarily because of bad experiences (being brought up by other evil monsters) and psychological disorder- and suggests that even the vilest demons are "the victims of their own psychoses"

StW might, in this paradigm, cure a person of this. A bit like, if a person is brain-damaged and vicious toward others, fixing the damage.

Robert Blackletter
2010-08-23, 01:35 PM
I don't want to come across as rude

Too late, a little pm and I would have gone back and corrected it. I do suffer from learning difficulties(dylexisa among other) so don't always spot spelling mistake and unfortunately i was posting from my phone so was unable to use a spell check. A P.M would have been sufficient rather then be rude.

O.k now to your argument. Yes BoED draws from real world religions but that dose not stop me from adapting quotes for my use. Also I did explain that I was labouring under the impression that it was auto-change no save as I only just learnt about the spell.(something that others here seem to believe)


Another fallacious argument; this one is a false dilemma fallacy; there are lots of other possibilities. The only thing that you can assume is that there is indeed something more going on than simply locking you away, but that doesn't mean that you are being forced to do anything.

According to the spell fluff given in this thread, it merely locks away the for a year. If nothing magical is happening then replicating the conditions with out the spell should give the same result, so it not the false dilemma fallacy it what the peer reveiw system and modern science rest on

dsmiles
2010-08-23, 01:35 PM
"A spark of goodness- which becomes a raging fire" was the original phrase- but "A spark of goodness- which becomes a whole new outlook on life" is probably an equally valid interpretation of the phrase as well.

The penance stare (in the comics, at least) kinda looked like a spark...

InkEyes
2010-08-23, 01:38 PM
The limitations on the spell mean that the idea of people converting everyone who's evil with it has serious problems- it's 9th level, and anyone who casts it automatically sacrifices 1 level.

I would agree that, just as not everyone who is evil deserves to be attacked by adventurers (Eberron Campaign Setting) so not everyone who is evil deserves to have StW cast on them- especially considering that some might choose to be nonevil without it.

I agree, too. I'd honestly prefer an evil creature to go the route suggested by Soon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) than any spell or skill roll.

We should have a contest: Who can best rephrase X weird statement made by X D&D rulebook?

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 01:42 PM
I see "reflects on their misdeeds and finds a spark of goodness" as basically similar to what Soon said.

That is- they accept what they did was wrong, and desire to seek forgiveness and atone. This is what causes the spark to "grow into a raging fire" and by the time they come out, they are fully good, and with a strong desire to right the wrongs they did in the past- or if they can't be righted, at least apologize to those wronged.

The other odd feature of the spell, is that if you shatter the gem as little as one day before the year is up- the creature comes out almost exactly as it was when it went in. With a strong dislike of the caster added.

dsmiles
2010-08-23, 01:45 PM
With a strong dislike of the caster added.

I think "strong dislike" may be the understatement of the day. I'd personally go with, "Hates the caster with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns."

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 01:49 PM
Sounds likely. Even an Evil character who has no respect for free will (an evil Thrallherd or Mindbender) is likely to feel wronged by the attempt at altering them- even if the choice was between that and executing them.



According to the spell fluff given in this thread, it merely locks away the for a year. If nothing magical is happening then replicating the conditions with out the spell should give the same result, so it not the false dilemma fallacy it what the peer reveiw system and modern science rest on

It locks away the subject's soul for a year, not their body. This can't be replicated without a spell.

That said, none of the other soul-imprisoning spells have the effect- so it's different in at least some way.

dsmiles
2010-08-23, 02:02 PM
Sounds likely. Even an Evil character who has no respect for free will (an evil Thrallherd or Mindbender) is likely to feel wronged by the attempt at altering them- even if the choice was between that and executing them.

My last 3.5e character was an evil telepath on the way to becoming a thrallherd; you are absolutely correct in your assumption that he would not want his own free will taken away. He just has no respect for anybody else's free will.

Enixon
2010-08-23, 02:10 PM
I see "reflects on their misdeeds and finds a spark of goodness" as basically similar to what Soon said.

That is- they accept what they did was wrong, and desire to seek forgiveness and atone. This is what causes the spark to "grow into a raging fire" and by the time they come out, they are fully good, and with a strong desire to right the wrongs they did in the past- or if they can't be righted, at least apologize to those wronged.

The other odd feature of the spell, is that if you shatter the gem as little as one day before the year is up- the creature comes out almost exactly as it was when it went in. With a strong dislike of the caster added.

Maybe time flows oddly in the diamond, there's nothing in the actual in book fluff about that but, hey I've seen weirder. Like some kind of day-outside-year-inside-but-only-if-it works-right kind of thing.... maybe.....

:smallannoyed: I had a point at one point here but I think I lost it.....:smallannoyed:

Oh I got it the spell is like a year's worth of free counseling sessions and breaking the gem early effectively jips the creature of the rest of his or her free sessions which really angers them because.... I dunno... they were all zen like and stuff which the creature found neato or something. Oh, and there mad at the caster personally because, well dang if someone stuck you in a gem for reformation and then lost the gem you'd be mad too... hmm kinda makes you wonder how a pokemon would feel if it's pokeball got lost with them in it....

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 02:15 PM
The question is- how important is Free Will, to the lawful and chaotic good?

Is taking someone's free will away temporarily (via Dominate Person) worse than killing them?

How about permanently?

PCs generally have no problems stopping the villains from doing what they want by killing them- so what makes magicking them to stop doing it worse?

Do CG characters feel differently compared to LG characters?

And given that "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" (under certain circumstances) does the use of magic to alter someone's personality, constitute "always an unacceptable level of oppression"?

dsmiles
2010-08-23, 02:21 PM
Personal opinion follows:

I feel like the LG person would actually be more likely to use this (like my Tau say), "for the greater good." Not so much oppression, per se, but preventing this individual from causing further (and possibly worse) evil. I actually built a LG state around this spell as punishment for the most heinous of crimes, forcing them to live with the regrets, and the possibility of "parole" in the form of maybe getting forgiven by the wronged party/family of the wronged party.
The CG person is more about free will, and choice, as in, "you made your bed, now you have to lie in it." He/she seems more likely to kill the offender than try to reform him/her.

olentu
2010-08-23, 02:23 PM
Hmm now that I think of it until I can check does any one remember if the template happens to have a mind control section or is the spell doing anything just based on alignment determining actions.

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 02:25 PM
The CG person is more about free will, and choice, as in, "you made your bed, now you have to lie in it." He/she seems more likely to kill the offender than try to reform him/her.

The Avenger PRC in Dragon 310 is the CG variant paladin in that issue (but unlike the Paladin of Freedom, it has an Aura of Chaos and Smite Law. Still falls for Evil acts rather than all Lawful Acts.)

It's a vigilante- and takes revenge on those the law cannot touch, punishing them in ironic ways that suit the crime- but Avengers still respect life, and don't kill all evil adversaries, but only the most heinous and vile.

Avengers might see StW as an acceptable punishment- since they are very big on punishing crimes and evil deeds.

CG heroes with the "Chaotic-Accepting" viewpoint from Savage Species, might also feel that evildoers should be redeemed rather than killed wherever reasonably possible.


Hmm now that I think of it until I can check does any one remember if the template happens to have a mind control section or is the spell doing anything just based on alignment determining actions.

The spell StW is a necromancy spell- it doesn't mention it being mind-affecting.

olentu
2010-08-23, 02:30 PM
The spell StW is a necromancy spell- it doesn't mention it being mind-affecting.

Thus my question on the template and not the spell.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-08-23, 02:33 PM
Forcing a drow cleric of lolith to be come good is probably kinder then killing her and sending them to lolith.

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 02:34 PM
The Sanctified template doesn't say much about mind-affecting powers- but if a Sanctified creature reverts to Evil- all the abilities of the template are lost.

It has one rather odd paragraph stating subtypes like tanar'ri, yugoloth, and baatezu are automatically lost by creatures gaining the template- but then says the template cannot be applied to Outsiders with the [Evil] type.

I suppose a fiend which lost the evil subtype via the Savage Species ritual (so it qualifies for the template), that was still evil aligned, that was then subjected to the spell, would lose the other subtypes too.


Forcing a drow cleric of lolith to be come good is probably kinder then killing her and sending them to lolith.

Probably. Even a dead drow who has become a yochlol demon (in the novel Windwalker) has a hint of despair when speaking of "the glory of Lolth" and leaps at the opportunity to be brought back to life.

dsmiles
2010-08-23, 02:35 PM
It has one rather odd paragraph stating subtypes like tanar'ri, yugoloth, and baatezu are automatically lost by creatures gaining the template- but then says the template cannot be applied to Outsiders with the [Evil] type.

I suppose a fiend which lost the evil subtype via the Savage Species ritual (so it qualifies for the template), that was still evil aligned, that was then subjected to the spell, would lose the other subtypes too.

Me too. I'm pretty sure that it would have to work that way, since I don't know any other methods to lose the [Evil] subtype.

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 02:38 PM
I suppose a straight Wish or Miracle would work- in the Dragon article on the church of Wee Jas, she's served by a succubus who she has altered to have the Law subtype.

She captured the succubus, held it prisoner for a while- and then made it an offer- be changed, and serve her.

olentu
2010-08-23, 02:40 PM
The Sanctified template doesn't say much about mind-affecting powers- but if a Sanctified creature reverts to Evil- all the abilities of the template are lost.

It has one rather odd paragraph stating subtypes like tanar'ri, yugoloth, and baatezu are automatically lost by creatures gaining the template- but then says the template cannot be applied to Outsiders with the [Evil] type.

I suppose a fiend which lost the evil subtype via the Savage Species ritual (so it qualifies for the template), that was still evil aligned, that was then subjected to the spell, would lose the other subtypes too.

Well then is guess it is the other way. That is quite unfortunate but I suppose I should not have expected anything else.

dsmiles
2010-08-23, 02:41 PM
Doesn't seem like much of an offer, but, still,one an evil creature can relate to.


"Be changed and serve me, or else."

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 02:41 PM
Well then is guess it is the other way. That is quite unfortunate but I suppose I should not have expected anything else.

What other way are you speaking of?


Doesn't seem like much of an offer, but, still,one an evil creature can relate to.

I think it was a case of Wee Jas being unwilling to force the succubus to do anything against it's nature- solution- change its nature.

Not sure why it was captured in the first place- possibly for attacking her clerics?

The offer was "be changed, or stay in jail"

Jayabalard
2010-08-23, 02:43 PM
According to the spell fluff given in this thread, it merely locks away the for a year.There's more given in this thread about the fluff of what happens.


If nothing magical is happening then replicating the conditions with out the spell should give the same resultIt's not really possible to rip someone's soul out and imprison it in a gem without the spell.


so it not the false dilemma fallacy it what the peer reveiw system and modern science rest onI'm really unsure of what you mean here, so I'm going to guess, and if I get it wrong I apologize.

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "false dilemma fallacy". By that I mean that you're presenting two options as if they encompass all of the possibilities for the situation, pointing out the flaw(s) in one and then asserting that the other is true. The problem with this is that there are more possibilities than the two you present, so pointing out flaws in one doesn't actually give any support to the other.

So, in your example, you assert that either:
Statement A. You should be able to replicate the effects of the spell by simply locking the villain away. ("Accept you can't replicat the spell merely by locking a villein away for one year")
or
Statement B. Magic is forcing redemption. ("so the only conclusion is magical intervention from the spell itself forcing redemption (well a close proxy anyway)")

You assert (with no backing) that Statement A is false, and in the same sentence claim that this means that Statement B is true.

The problems with this:

The spell effects are not just simply locking the body away; it rips the soul from the body, and locks it away in a prison that isn't physical, and in a prison where subjective time is not defined (but may be running faster or slower than normal time), and then do something rather vaguely defined to encourage the soul to reflect on past evils and find their spark of goodness. (the spell text is back on page 2 of this thread). So your example of how to recreate the situation without the spell is flawed.
There are more possibilities than the two you present; there are many things that magic could be doing that aren't forcing redemption but can't be replicated without a spell. These are fairly vaguely defined, and all we know is that something happens so that the imprisoned creature finds their spark of goodness, from deep inside, and that spark is fanned into flame.

Enixon
2010-08-23, 02:50 PM
Basically the idea here is
:smallfurious:"How dare you teach that poor murderous soul-devouring demon to be good!"


Because sending them to the corner to think about what they did is less humane than hacking them to bits.....

olentu
2010-08-23, 02:52 PM
What other way are you speaking of?

Well if the template does not happen to force a change the actions of the creature as in a helm of opposite alignment then it seems that alignment must dictate a persons actions as otherwise one could just go out and do some evil to remove the bothersome template and reverse the alignment change at least on the good and evil axis.

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 02:53 PM
Sadly, it's not clear if the spell works on demons. Maybe it changes their alignment, but doesn't give them the Sanctified Creature template.


Well if the template does not happen to force a change the actions of the creature as in a helm of opposite alignment then it seems that alignment must dictate a persons actions as otherwise one could just go out and do some evil to remove the bothersome template and reverse the alignment change at least on the good and evil axis.

Most good beings don't want to do evil- but a Sanctified creature is certainly capable of eventually doing evil.

Actions tend to follow from alignment- but even a Celestial is capable of doing evil, and becoming evil- given the right reasons.

Morithias
2010-08-23, 02:54 PM
Here's a test.

Part 1: Find the highest will save of any evil creature in the monster manuals that is non-epic

Part 2: Find the most max/mined diplomacy build in existance (I think the record is like 200+ at level 20 or something)

Part 3: Compared, short of rolling a natural 20 is there ANY possibility of you passing the will save?

Part 4: Look at the diplomacy skill.

One, it is NOT mind controlling. You are basically saying talking to someone is mind control. If I have a student that I'm tutoring and is basically a bad student, and talk him into changing his ways and studying and such, am I mind controlling him? NO!

But from what it sounds like, a lot of people who are against the diplomacy for redemption are saying "don't talk to the kid, BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF HIM! THAT'S THE WAY OF THE GOOD GUY!"

In fact I propose that. Next time there is a way, I say we march our troops in and genocide the whole country. That's not evil at all now is it...no it's just the proper way to teach people how to be good.

InkEyes
2010-08-23, 03:01 PM
But from what it sounds like, a lot of people who are against the diplomacy for redemption are saying "don't talk to the kid, BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF HIM! THAT'S THE WAY OF THE GOOD GUY!"

Actually, I don't think anyone has offered an alternative solution for redemption. As far as I can remember, talking is usually how it's done (without someone dying in the process). Using a will save vs. a diplomacy roll seems a bit unfair though, but I guess that's just the nature of that particular skill.

dsmiles
2010-08-23, 03:01 PM
The offer was "be changed, or stay in jail"

I probably would have left it as, "or else." It's a little more intimidating. :smallbiggrin:

Enixon
2010-08-23, 03:09 PM
....
One, it is NOT mind controlling. You are basically saying talking to someone is mind control. If I have a student that I'm tutoring and is basically a bad student, and talk him into changing his ways and studying and such, am I mind controlling him? NO!

But from what it sounds like, a lot of people who are against the diplomacy for redemption are saying "don't talk to the kid, BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF HIM! THAT'S THE WAY OF THE GOOD GUY!"

In fact I propose that. Next time there is a way, I say we march our troops in and genocide the whole country. That's not evil at all now is it...no it's just the proper way to teach people how to be good.

Amen!

Frankly I wonder what the villains are like in some of the people here's games...

Villain: Muhahahaha! Fool you have fallen into my trap! Now face my wrath!
Paladin: What villainy have you planned, fiend?!
Villain: Why I'm going to make you read this story book to orphans!
Paladin: Huh? Is it an evil story?
Villain: Hmm.... do you consider "See Spot Run" evil?
Paladin: No, not really, fairly innocent really.
Villain: Then, NO! It is Not and evil story.
Paladin: Well that doesn't sound so bad.
Villain: But I'm going to use Dominate Person on you first!
Paladin: YOU MONSTER!!

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 03:42 PM
Actually, I don't think anyone has offered an alternative solution for redemption. As far as I can remember, talking is usually how it's done (without someone dying in the process). Using a will save vs. a diplomacy roll seems a bit unfair though, but I guess that's just the nature of that particular skill.

They do get to add their level to their Will Save (more if the creature is "Always X Evil" or a blackguard/cleric of an evil deity) and the Diplomacy check can only be made once per day.

They have to fail the check 7 times in a row to change alignment by one step toward Good.

So it takes a minimum of 14 days to change an Evil Creature to Good through BoED diplomacy use.

Whereas you can change a hostile creature to fanatically loyal to you, in one round (if your check is high enough).

WinWin
2010-08-23, 03:45 PM
I think the whole concept of the spell is flawed. The idea that all creatures have a 'Moral Human' buried inside them, waiting to come out is stupid.

An evil monster is probably not evil because it has not stopped to think about it's life. It is probably just acting according to it's nature.

Mind Flayers eat brains because they are hungry. They view most sentient beings as food. It does not wake up one day and decide to eat people. Eating people is an intrinsic part of it's nature.

So really, what happens when one is subjected to Sanctify the Wicked? Does it suddenly lose it's appetite? How good does it have to be to stop regarding people as happy-meals with legs?

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 03:48 PM
I probably would have left it as, "or else." It's a little more intimidating. :smallbiggrin:

The offer was basically "be changed into her lawful-aligned servant, or remain unsummoned and her prisoner until the end of time"- pretty grim offer. The succubus, lonely and bored, agreed.

She got the succubus as an offering from a wizard who had enslaved it, and wanted to trade it for knowledge about a spell he was trying to research. The wizard had bound it to a magical talisman, which sat in Wee Jas's treasure vaults for 500 years before she decided she could make use of the demon.

Wee Jas is LN with LE tendencies though- so more ruthless than the average LN deity. This may be why her LN clerics cannot turn undead, only rebuke them.



So really, what happens when one is subjected to Sanctify the Wicked? Does it suddenly lose it's appetite? How good does it have to be to stop regarding people as happy-meals with legs?

In the splatbook Underdark, there's a CN illithid which lost 3 of its tentacles to a disease, no longer eats brains, and is curious about the non-illithid world- no longer seeing humanoids as merely prey

This was written prior to Lords of Madness suggesting that illithids start to die of malnutrition if they don't extract at least one brain a month though.

The Exalted illithid in BoED was never subjected to StW- she turned to good out of gratitude for the kindness she was treated with after she was freed from slavery to the duergar. It's not clear how she gets sustenance, since she doesn't have a Ring of Sustenance.

Mind-flayers are, however, modified people with a parasite in.

Mikeavelli
2010-08-23, 04:27 PM
In the splatbook Underdark, there's a CN illithid which lost 3 of its tentacles to a disease, no longer eats brains, and is curious about the non-illithid world- no longer seeing humanoids as merely prey


Honestly, if you lost three tentacles to a disease, you wouldn't be so keen on sticking the remainder in any random hussy's face either.

subject42
2010-08-23, 04:31 PM
Mind you refusing to change its ways after being shown just how evil it is will likely turn a creature from evil to vile; meaning that the spellcaster just made things worse.

That is an awesome plot hook. My players are going to find an abandoned monastery soon thanks to you.

Morithias
2010-08-23, 04:39 PM
Of course the mind flayer is stated to have to eat 'brains' not 'intelligent brains'.

In the Libra Morris book there are examples given on how undead like vampires who need food CAN live in societies that accept them without getting into trouble, by doing things like sucking the blood out of livestock they buy/keep/whatever.

Seriously, how many societies today eat the brains of our livestock? No really, when McDonalds make a hamburger, i'm pretty sure they don't include the brain as part of the meat.

So there you go, mind flayer who is good but needs brain, eats cow brain instead of human.

Problem solved.

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 04:43 PM
Of course the mind flayer is stated to have to eat 'brains' not 'intelligent brains'.

In the Libra Morris book there are examples given on how undead like vampires who need food CAN live in societies that accept them without getting into trouble, by doing things like sucking the blood out of livestock they buy/keep/whatever.

Seriously, how many societies today eat the brains of our livestock? No really, when McDonalds make a hamburger, i'm pretty sure they don't include the brain as part of the meat.

So there you go, mind flayer who is good but needs brain, eats cow brain instead of human.

Problem solved.

that was true until Lords of Madness- which clarified that it's only intelligent brains that contain the required nutrients- and that mind flayers get most of the bulk content of their diet from ordinary meat, but without at least some living, intelligent brain, they start to starve.

Which effectively means that the CN illithid's days are numbered.

I'm not sure how the Exalted illithid would cope- maybe eat the most evil villains, who would be executed anyway.

Morithias
2010-08-23, 04:47 PM
that was true until Lords of Madness- which clarified that it's only intelligent brains that contain the required nutrients- and that mind flayers get most of the bulk content of their diet from ordinary meat, but without at least some living, intelligent brain, they start to starve.

Which effectively means that the CN illithid's days are numbered.

I'm not sure how the Exalted illithid would cope- maybe eat the most evil villains, who would be executed anyway.

Hmmm...I never read that book, but that is a problem....well..

Ok this is going to seem like a REAL jackass thing to suggest, but what if you ate the brains of those who died naturally? Basically if someone died from getting run over by a bull or something, the morgue guy basically slips you the brain once a month to keep you sane.

I know it seems low and pretty vile, but what is it? Take one brain from dead body, or have a CR 7 monster running around the town randomly killing people.

Or does the brain have to be fresh?

Edit: Oh and if can suggest something. Everyone go to Linkara's blog and watch his "Power Rangers in Space" season review. The first parts are largely just plot, but at the end where he covers the complex story about whether or not you can just 'be' evil, or if you have to be raised that way.

Although if you can just be evil, that creates a few nutty things in my opinion, does that mean in some circumstances if you have like a day old child that just 'is' evil, that the right thing to do is basically kill it?

It's a really good season, and a pretty deep review, I'd check it out. He's a smart guy.

Makiru
2010-08-23, 04:49 PM
Mindflayers just need specific enzymes the brain produces that they don't due to technically not having a brain. Theoretically, they could eat animal brains, but there wouldn't be any "flavor" from abstract thoughts and experiences that would be gotten from sentient creatures.

Now, as far as the topic of the thread is concerned, I thought StW was pretty clear on how it worked: it makes the creature slowly reflect on all its sins, find the good aspects of its life, and essentially "repent". This would be why it doesn't actually work on outsiders, as they are completely made of Evil and have no Good to amplify.

As far as the "break the gem early and lose all progress", if you've actually had counseling, it's a bit easier to understand. I used to have terrible anger issues, but I had long-term therapy to fix it. Changing something that is fairly intrinsic to the nature of an individual, even if they're willing, is a long and arduous process. Real change cannot begin without a strong foundation of ideals to build off of. With that in mind, Sanctify the Wicked is like a one person Alcoholics Anonymous. For someone that isn't completely evil, evil is their alcohol. Going through the StW "program" the whole way is like getting your one-month chip: you've proved to yourself that you can go without your vice and can keep it up without help. Breaking StW early is pulling them out of the "program" before they have any confidence and are thus likely to relapse into their former patterns, probably blaming their "counselor" for falling back into their rut.

Also, nobody brings up that even if a creature goes through StW completely, they can still relapse into evil. Good falling to their own corruptions and vices is both a large part of fantasy and real life (in a less heroic sense). Nothing about the spell makes a creature stay good for the rest of its existence, so it is far from foolproof and not even close to a "Mindrape" as people seem to keep comparing it to.

Morithias
2010-08-23, 04:53 PM
Also, nobody brings up that even if a creature goes through StW completely, they can still relapse into evil. Good falling to their own corruptions and vices is both a large part of fantasy and real life (in a less heroic sense). Nothing about the spell makes a creature stay good for the rest of its existence, so it is far from foolproof and not even close to a "Mindrape" as people seem to keep comparing it to.

You know, I never actually realized that until now. That's actually correct. There is nothing stopping the person from falling again. Meaning from what I can tell, it's basically an atonement spell you can cast as a standard action, but takes longer to work. Instead of the other one (which has no save too I might add) which takes 10 minutes of casting (meaning you virtually HAVE to tie the evil guy down to use it).

FMArthur
2010-08-23, 04:54 PM
This would be so much more fun if it were a Paladin spell. I mean, Sanctify the Wicked has all sorts of moral implications, but in terms of the game itself there isn't really a consequence to whether it's evil or not - confining debate mostly to out-of-game chat and internet. Now imagine your brainwashing spell in the hands of someone who falls and loses all of their powers if they do something bad. Ordinary games might frequently erupt into violent disagreements. The spell would be legendary for ruining friendships. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 04:55 PM
I know it seems low and pretty vile, but what is it? Take one brain from dead body, or have a CR 7 monster running around the town randomly killing people.

Or does the brain have to be fresh?


It says "must be devoured directly from the skulls of living creatures" on page 74 of Lords of Madness.

Brains are the only source of digestible psychic energy, which illithids can't survive without. I think the brains of animals might supply some, but not enough long-term.


This would be so much more fun if it were a Paladin spell. I mean, Sanctify the Wicked has all sorts of moral implications, but in terms of the game itself there isn't really a consequence to whether it's evil or not - confining debate mostly to out-of-game chat and internet. Now imagine your brainwashing spell in the hands of someone who falls and loses all of their powers if they do something bad. Ordinary games might frequently erupt into violent disagreements. The spell would be legendary for ruining friendships. :smalltongue:

An Epic Paladin who has taken Improved Spell Capacity enough times to gain access to 9th level spells, can indeed cast it.

Morithias
2010-08-23, 04:57 PM
This would be so much more fun if it were a Paladin spell. I mean, Sanctify the Wicked has all sorts of moral implications, but in terms of the game itself there isn't really a consequence to whether it's evil or not - confining debate mostly to out-of-game chat and internet. Now imagine your brainwashing spell in the hands of someone who falls and lose all of their powers if they do something bad. Ordinary games could erupt into violent disagreements. :smalltongue:

One thing I don't like about the paladin mostly is that it's too easy to resolve legal plots.

Like in one of the never winter nights games. You're on trial for apparently slaughtering a village, but think about it if you're playing a paladin. Why the hell can't you just point out that you still have your powers?

It basically ruins a lot of plot concepts. Then again, one they printed those legal rules in the DMG2 it ruined the whole point of roleplaying the thing out.....


It says "must be devoured directly from the skulls of living creatures" on page 74 of Lords of Madness.

Brains are the only source of digestible psychic energy, which illithids can't survive without. I think the brains of animals might supply some, but not enough long-term.

Ok I call BS on that. I cannot name any other creature in existence, not even in dnd that actually needs to eat their food while it's alive.

Plus if you're using Lords of Madness, which states the Mind Flayers are suppose to be from the future and the ultimate form of evolution, my question is HOW DOES THAT WORK. How do you evolve a trait that actually makes you weaker? I can see needing the psychic powers that might only be in brain cells, but I cannot see evolving in a way that you can't store or do anything like that. That's just.....biology DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 05:03 PM
On [Good] spells- it's certainly possible to commit Evil acts with them. Same really applies to any Good tool.

It's well within the remit of the DM to say that casting StW on the relatively innocent evil peasant who has, as far as you know, done little in the way of truly evil deeds, but is just an extreme jerk, is oppression, and have the character lose access to Exalted feats.

Same might apply to someone who commits murder with a Ravage (Celestial Lightsblood, when ingested, does CON damage on a failed save) or with a Holy Word spell.

"Good" weapons used to commit evil deeds, don't make those evil deeds nonevil.



Ok I call BS on that. I cannot name any other creature in existence, not even in dnd that actually needs to eat their food while it's alive.

Plus if you're using Lords of Madness, which states the Mind Flayers are suppose to be from the future and the ultimate form of evolution, my question is HOW DOES THAT WORK. How do you evolve a trait that actually makes you weaker? I can see needing the psychic powers that might only be in brain cells, but I cannot see evolving in a way that you can't store or do anything like that. That's just.....biology DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Lords of Madness had lots of good ideas, but "all mind flayers cannot survive without extracting living brains" is a bit mean.

Zaydos
2010-08-23, 05:04 PM
It says "must be devoured directly from the skulls of living creatures" on page 74 of Lords of Madness.

Brains are the only source of digestible psychic energy, which illithids can't survive without. I think the brains of animals might supply some, but not enough long-term.

I call self-contradiction on that as the same book has an item (Brain Jar) originally made to prevent illithid brains from rotting before being returned to the Elder Brain, but which is also used to keep food fresh.

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 05:13 PM
I call self-contradiction on that as the same book has an item (Brain Jar) originally made to prevent illithid brains from rotting before being returned to the Elder Brain, but which is also used to keep food fresh.

The jar doesn't just keep brains fresh- it keeps them still living.

So it's probably an exception to the general rule.

The precise text was:


No matter how the mind flayers encourage necessary trade with other races, no one should ever forget that illithids must devour brains directly from the skulls of living victims to survive. How do they maintain a sufficient supply?

A mind flayer must have a minimum of one fresh brain per month. Any less than that and it suffers physical debilitation, becoming so weak that it could die. Its ideal diet is one brain per week. A mind flayer that consumes one brain per week does not feel deprived. It can eat more than that for enjoyment and for the psychic boost, and it will do so if brains are plentiful.

Typically, mind flayers consume somewhere between the minimum of one brain per month and the ideal of one brain per week, averaging one brain every two weeks and supplementing their diet with other foods.

on page 62 it explains that, because of the process by which an illithid is created (parasite inserted into, and metamorphing, a humanoid body) it cannot produce critical enzymes, hormones, and psychic energy. Other foods, especially internal organs, supply enzymes and hormones, but only brains supply the psychic energy.

Slightly further down page 74, it explains why their thrall slaves generally aren't enough:

"A thrall has few true experiences to remember, and even fewer emotions, which are the "meat and potatoes" of a nourishing, fulfilling mind"

Morithias
2010-08-23, 05:24 PM
There's got to be a way....you can't use awaken on the animal cause that makes it an intelligent creature.

Wait...

Brains are food....and technically the create food spell or whatever, never says what kind of food.

Could you use a spell to summon up a brain to eat?

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 05:31 PM
Possibly. Might even be living. But a brain with no experiences, has less "meat and potatoes" so to speak.

Might compare to living off junk food. Same would probably be true of animal brains.

Or, you could just disallow that part of Lords of Madness. Another option might be- the experiences and emotions fuel the growth of the newly transformed mind flayer, but an "adult" mind flayer can get by without them- living off animal brains.

the StW morality discussion seems to have derailed a little- but thats OK as long as the original topic gets mentioned every now and then.

A notable case of a creature that must eat the flesh of intelligent creatures to survive- lizard kings (half-fiend lizardfolk) in Serpent Kingdoms. Must eat the flesh of one intelligent humanoid per week, or take 1 point of CON damage, which cannot be negated by any means other than wish, limited wish, or miracle.

Makiru
2010-08-23, 05:32 PM
There's got to be a way....you can't use awaken on the animal cause that makes it an intelligent creature.

Wait...

Brains are food....and technically the create food spell or whatever, never says what kind of food.

Could you use a spell to summon up a brain to eat?

I like this train of thought and highly endorse it. Although then we get into the issue of whether the magically-created brain was ever really alive.

Naturally, there wouldn't be any "experience" in the brain, either, so the junk food analogy is pretty apt: all filler, no substance, and no quality.

Randel
2010-08-23, 05:49 PM
If you need a source of brains:

1. The Clone spell lets you grow extra bodies of people by taking a sample of their flesh. Take a sample of a wizard, use healing magic on him, grow a clone or two or seven, keep the clones fresh with gentle repose until they are ready to serve and there you go. Technically the bodies are inanimate unless the cloned person dies, so I'm not sure if they would have brain waves or something to make the brains tasty.

Perhaps some sort of animating spell could give the clone a bit of a jolt to jump-start the brain waves.

2. Stone to flesh, either make a big statue of a brain or cast the spell on a big mass of rock and specify that brains are a type of flesh.

3. Polymorph any Object can make people out of pebbles, toss some PaO at any of the above brain-foods to turn them into living brains.

4. There are spells like Owls Wisdom or Foxes Cunning that magically boost the intelligence of people. Get some brain boosting spells or magic items, use them on the artificial brains you cook up and give your mindflayer pal some food. Maybe a 'plate of greater wisdom' that grants all sorts of psychic energy and intelligence to the brains you cook up.

5. Or... use some psychic powers to boost the brains. I think there are crystals psionic items that can generate psychic energy. Just generate alot of psychic energy (either from psionic items or a team of Psions) and then use psychic powers to infuse then into the artificial brains to make them nutritious.

hamishspence
2010-08-23, 05:54 PM
Spells like Programmed Amnesia could be cast on the newly-created brains to create artificial memories and experiences.

Does raise the question of "are you creating sapient beings- with rights that shouldn't be violated, in the process?"

Real brains have no nerves- so can't feel pain when being eaten. So they're not exactly going to suffer. Especially if sleep is cast first.

There's also the "cannibalism (defined as eating sentient beings) is morally dubious" issue in BoVD- though mind flayers have little choice.

Ranos
2010-08-23, 05:57 PM
Like in one of the never winter nights games. You're on trial for apparently slaughtering a village, but think about it if you're playing a paladin. Why the hell can't you just point out that you still have your powers

Because those powers can be faked. Lay on hands ? Summon an animal ? Thousands of ways to do that, so it can't really work as a proof in a court of law.

Talakeal
2010-08-23, 06:22 PM
This may seem like a dumb question, but if a creature is unwilling to change to good, is there anything to stop this spell's victim from simply becoming evil again?

If they truly "prefer" to be evil why don't they just go around forcing them self to "act evil" until their alignment shifts back to its normal state.

Yuki Akuma
2010-08-23, 06:33 PM
Because the spell actually makes them Good?

Yeah, you were right in that first sentence there. :smalltongue:

Talakeal
2010-08-23, 06:49 PM
I meant dumb from a rules perspective.

You are aware people can make a conscious decision to act against their nature, right?
If the being in question was truly happier being evil, or believes that evil is superior to good, there is nothing stopping them from committing evil acts from a role-playing perspective. Just like a good character might force them self to commit an evil act "for the greater good" or an evil creature can commit a good act as part of some scheme or to avoid punishment detection, even though doing so is against their nature.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-23, 06:54 PM
Okay, a few points;
I spend some time researching a new spell;
It tears the target's soul from it's body and traps it in a flawless diamond for an entire year. The body crumbles to dust and is destroyed.
After a year, the spell ends and the soul is returned to it's body, and the target can carry on their merry way.

What alignment are they?

Also, Sanctify the Wicked doesn't simply foster the natural goodness inside the target. It specifically changes the target's morality system into your own. The Caster. Whoever you cast it on, just so happens to have a spark of Good and Lawfullness / Neutrality / Chaoticness buried in them. Yep. No, but it's their choice, really. Purely a coincidence that their true inner alignment happens to unfailingly match your own.

From everything I've heard on the subject of Lords of Madness, I have concluded that it is bilge-water of the lowest quality. I do not consider it the final word on any subject, nor as the most recent and authoritative source for any information.

Riffington
2010-08-23, 07:37 PM
Okay, a few points;
I spend some time researching a new spell;
It tears the target's soul from it's body and traps it in a flawless diamond for an entire year. The body crumbles to dust and is destroyed.
After a year, the spell ends and the soul is returned to it's body, and the target can carry on their merry way.

What alignment are they?

Presumably the same alignment as they were before, but also presumably a sixth level spell?
Sanctify the Wicked [Evil] should probably be an 8th level spell.
The extra spell level is to make the spell [Good].

The Glyphstone
2010-08-23, 07:39 PM
From everything I've heard on the subject of Lords of Madness, I have concluded that it is bilge-water of the lowest quality. I do not consider it the final word on any subject, nor as the most recent and authoritative source for any information.

Pistols at dawn, good sir, pistols at dawn.:smallbiggrin:

Tsochari, Grell, and Neogi are awesome (even if they came from Spelljammer), and the Fleshwarper is the Best Prestige Class Ever.

Zaydos
2010-08-23, 07:42 PM
From everything I've heard on the subject of Lords of Madness, I have concluded that it is bilge-water of the lowest quality. I do not consider it the final word on any subject, nor as the most recent and authoritative source for any information.

It's actually a pretty good book with some interesting stuff on illithids. I will also point out that they have traditionally needed brains for sustenance although at least in 2e spelljammer they could get around that with brain fungus which was a hive mind fungus similar to brains, which became sentient in large enough quantity (normally it didn't reach that quantity, but it did on the spelljammer proper although they kept that secret).

olentu
2010-08-23, 08:09 PM
Most good beings don't want to do evil- but a Sanctified creature is certainly capable of eventually doing evil.

Actions tend to follow from alignment- but even a Celestial is capable of doing evil, and becoming evil- given the right reasons.

Eh it is still alignment determining actions rather then the other way around.


This may seem like a dumb question, but if a creature is unwilling to change to good, is there anything to stop this spell's victim from simply becoming evil again?

If they truly "prefer" to be evil why don't they just go around forcing them self to "act evil" until their alignment shifts back to its normal state.

Well it would have to be that alignment determines a characters actions so when you become say NG you can't do evil stuff because that would go against alignment. If this were not the case then a character turned good could just go and do some evil to change back.

Talakeal
2010-08-23, 08:31 PM
Eh it is still alignment determining actions rather then the other way around.

Well it would have to be that alignment determines a characters actions so when you become say NG you can't do evil stuff because that would go against alignment. If this were not the case then a character turned good could just go and do some evil to change back.

Tell that to all the DM's who told me repeatedly using death watch would make me lose my good alignment.

Jack_Simth
2010-08-23, 08:44 PM
This may seem like a dumb question, but if a creature is unwilling to change to good, is there anything to stop this spell's victim from simply becoming evil again?

If they truly "prefer" to be evil why don't they just go around forcing them self to "act evil" until their alignment shifts back to its normal state.
You might consider applying the restrictions to behavior from the Helm of Opposite Alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment): "...the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. (In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible.)"

olentu
2010-08-23, 08:45 PM
Tell that to all the DM's who told me repeatedly using death watch would make me lose my good alignment.

Well If they heard me I just did and will now just be telling you that the action is against alignment so you can not even attempt it.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-23, 08:46 PM
Tell that to all the DM's who told me repeatedly using death watch would make me lose my good alignment.

Can we DMG them upside the head instead? :smallbiggrin:

Talakeal
2010-08-23, 08:49 PM
Well If they heard me I just did and will now just be telling you that the action is against alignment so you can not even attempt it.

So attempting to heal good beings who are fatally injured is something a good character would never even consider doing?

Tell me, how does a player go about changing their alignment in your campaign if they can never commit an action contrary to their alignment? How do you even get players if you don't allow their characters a level of free will to explore moral dilemmas?

olentu
2010-08-23, 09:10 PM
So attempting to heal good beings who are fatally injured is something a good character would never even consider doing?

Tell me, how does a player go about changing their alignment in your campaign if they can never commit an action contrary to their alignment? How do you even get players if you don't allow their characters a level of free will to explore moral dilemmas?

Not if it requires evil because that would be evil and thus against alignment.



They don't except when exposed to mechanics that force such a change. What kind of a world would we live in if characters could just act with the motivations of a real person. Bah a terrible on that's what.

Well they can explore moral dilemmas intellectually if they want.

WinWin
2010-08-23, 10:35 PM
My point about mindflayers was to provide an example. Some creatures are by their very nature, defined as evil. All dragons are greedy and arrogant for example, but most of the metallic ones regard sentient beings as pets or wildlife that needs to be protected. Chromatic dragons are more likely to regard sentient beings as prey or livestock (my possibly incorrect interpretation of Draconomicon fluff).

Even if an evil monster such as a dragon were to succumb to an alignment change, their morality would still be skewed by their nature. A red dragon that suddenly becomes lawful good is not going to give her hoard of treasure to charity. Nor is she likely to regard sentient beings as her equal. She is still going to be as territoral as before the change, though she may deal with trespassers differently.

Set
2010-08-23, 10:59 PM
Possibly. Might even be living. But a brain with no experiences, has less "meat and potatoes" so to speak.

Might compare to living off junk food. Same would probably be true of animal brains.

MM states that the power isn't instantly fatal to multi-headed creatures like ettins and hydras. Wasn't there a half-troll / half-ettin critter back in 1st and 2nd edition? That might make a scary infinite food supply for a mind flayer community, some enslaved half-troll / half-ettins that can regenerate the heads / brains that have been devoured.

If there was some way to awaken a lernean hydra, that could also work.

Zaydos
2010-08-23, 11:03 PM
MM states that the power isn't instantly fatal to multi-headed creatures like ettins and hydras. Wasn't there a half-troll / half-ettin critter back in 1st and 2nd edition? That might make a scary infinite food supply for a mind flayer community, some enslaved half-troll / half-ettins that can regenerate the heads / brains that have been devoured.

If there was some way to awaken a lernean hydra, that could also work.

Yay for Savage Species it gives us the Multiheaded Template which includes a special improved version called Lernean. Now you can have a Lernean 2 headed dwarf for all your mind flayer food supply worries.

Edit: Also there was a "troll, 2-headed" in the 2e MM.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-23, 11:14 PM
WotC had a Succubus Paladin in one of their articles...

Yes, but that character turned good of her own free will due to falling in love with an angel. She didn't have this spell cast on her.

dgnslyr
2010-08-23, 11:41 PM
Hrm, given the description, it would seem that Sanctify the Wicked imprisons the target's soul for a year to receive counseling and some time to contemplate, with maybe a smidgen of magic nudging, not entirely unlike what prisons are supposed to do. It's because the spell convinces the target to willfully become good, in the end, and not forcing it to be good, a la Mindrape. The target's alignment matches yours because the "voice" that counsels the target during that year is based on your own goodness, giving the target the same alignment with the same tendencies in the end. I see this spell being quite liberally used in a Lawful Good society, with emphasis on Lawful, it being similar to imprisonment, though unfailingly effective. Likewise, the now-reformed target of the spell is free to revert to his previous alignment, but will have no particular urge to, being Good.

Now, if you targeted a Mindflayer with this, I'd expect it to eventually starve to death, lacking Evil brains to justly consume. However, since a Good Mindflayer exists, there must be some way to justly consume brains. I like the captured multi-headed troll idea, though attacking helpless creatures is generally frowned upon. I bet there's some kind of brain substitute in some book I haven't read, so it's not quite impossible.

hamishspence
2010-08-24, 02:36 AM
Tell that to all the DM's who told me repeatedly using death watch would make me lose my good alignment.

I still consider that a mistake in the PHB, since Miniatures Handbook has Deathwatch for the Healer (must be Good-aligned) and BoED has it for the Slayer of Domiel (falls if it ever commits an evil act).

The PHB has nothing saying a being cannot commit acts "against their alignment"- not even a being with Always X alignment, or alignment subtypes.

The MM mentions how, if a being's alignment differs from subtypes, the subtypes are what ping on Detect X Alignment spells.

The description of the Sanctified Creature template, includes a sample creature- Sanctified red dragon- who acts like most Exalted Good creatures- defending the innocent, looking for people to help. It doesn't say what draconic personality traits it retains. Though the DM can certainly say it retains territoriality and a sense of superiority.

Sometimes chromatic dragons raised by good beings change alignment- or they change alignment due to their life experiences. In The Fall of Myth Drannor, one of the good guys is a half-blue red dragon, who was raised from the egg by an elf.

Lord_Gareth
2010-08-24, 02:56 AM
Can't we all just agree that WotC's D&D division slept through the Philosophy and Ethics class that the M:tG writers passed with flying colors? These debates all stem from the flawed writing of whatever drunken monkeys pass as the Official Fluff department.

hamishspence
2010-08-24, 02:58 AM
I don't know- the writers of Champions of Ruin seemed to have a rough idea of it.

Riffington
2010-08-24, 05:51 AM
that the M:tG writers passed with flying colors?

I hope this sentence is there just for the pun.

lord_khaine
2010-08-24, 06:50 AM
Plus if you're using Lords of Madness, which states the Mind Flayers are suppose to be from the future and the ultimate form of evolution, my question is HOW DOES THAT WORK. How do you evolve a trait that actually makes you weaker? I can see needing the psychic powers that might only be in brain cells, but I cannot see evolving in a way that you can't store or do anything like that. That's just.....biology DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!


You could either considder the step from plant to animal, the previous can get by with sunlight, water and a bit of soil, while the later have to run around looking for food it can digest.

or you could compare a standart level 1 humanoids, with a standart CR 7 MF, and deside who is the superior lifeform there.

Morithias
2010-08-24, 07:54 AM
You could either considder the step from plant to animal, the previous can get by with sunlight, water and a bit of soil, while the later have to run around looking for food it can digest.

or you could compare a standart level 1 humanoids, with a standart CR 7 MF, and deside who is the superior lifeform there.

Considering that plants and animals are two completely different biological kingdoms, I'd question if animals evolved from them, but that's besides the point.

hamishspence
2010-08-24, 07:58 AM
LoM's "From the future" idea was dropped in 4E- they went back to "from the Far Realm" as a concept.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-08-24, 12:08 PM
Hrm, given the description, it would seem that Sanctify the Wicked imprisons the target's soul for a year to receive counseling and some time to contemplate, with maybe a smidgen of magic nudging, not entirely unlike what prisons are supposed to do. It's because the spell convinces the target to willfully become good, in the end, and not forcing it to be good, a la Mindrape. The target's alignment matches yours because the "voice" that counsels the target during that year is based on your own goodness, giving the target the same alignment with the same tendencies in the end. I see this spell being quite liberally used in a Lawful Good society, with emphasis on Lawful, it being similar to imprisonment, though unfailingly effective. Likewise, the now-reformed target of the spell is free to revert to his previous alignment, but will have no particular urge to, being Good.

Now, if you targeted a Mindflayer with this, I'd expect it to eventually starve to death, lacking Evil brains to justly consume. However, since a Good Mindflayer exists, there must be some way to justly consume brains. I like the captured multi-headed troll idea, though attacking helpless creatures is generally frowned upon. I bet there's some kind of brain substitute in some book I haven't read, so it's not quite impossible.

Actually in the BoED, which this spell comes from, there IS a good mindflayer (and she didn't even need the spell to convert). I think she subsists on the brains of evil people she takes down. But she's sworn to non-violence, so how that works, I don't know.

hamishspence
2010-08-24, 12:15 PM
She has a Vow of Nonviolence, not a Vow of Peace.

A Vow of Nonviolence only covers humanoids and monstrous humanoids- anything else is fair game (within the normal limitations of justified violence, of course).

Morithias
2010-08-24, 12:49 PM
She has a Vow of Nonviolence, not a Vow of Peace.

A Vow of Nonviolence only covers humanoids and monstrous humanoids- anything else is fair game (within the normal limitations of justified violence, of course).

Even then if you're with a party, there's no rules saying you can't eat the brains of the people the other guys killed. :D

hamishspence
2010-08-24, 12:59 PM
True- but the brain might not provide the needed "psychic nutrients" if the target is dead.

Vantharion
2010-08-24, 01:08 PM
"When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man".

Anthony Burgess would certainly not approve of this spell.

A man chooses, a slave obeys (Bioshock similarity of course)

I approve of your reference to Anthony Burgess.

Morithias
2010-08-24, 01:23 PM
True- but the brain might not provide the needed "psychic nutrients" if the target is dead.

If you did it quick enough though, would it create kinda a chicken with it's head cutoff thing?

hamishspence
2010-08-24, 01:26 PM
Probably. D&D "death" may be quicker than real life might imply- and a person slain through beheading, while dead, might (if real-life biology is applied) still have neurons firing.

Interestingly- the soul remains in the body during the remainder of the round in which a character dies, according to Complete Divine- this is why the Revivify spell works- it repairs the damage while the soul is still present in the dead body, bringing the body to life, and with no level loss.

Serenity
2010-08-24, 01:47 PM
It seems to me as simple as this: the D&D universe is inherently Good. This is especially true with the Exalted rules, but it holds true in Core as well due to the mere existence of the Paladin. Good is the natural state of the world--there is no such thing as 'necessary' evil, there is always a Third Option, and justice and righteousness can and should prevail. Evil exists as an animate and active force, but it is not a natural part of the fabric of reality, but an abberation actively working to pervert its design. If you're not literally made of evil, being evil is ultimately a choice, and ultimately, demonstrably the wrong choice. Even many evil outsiders were once celestials of some stripe. Sanctify the Wicked makes the target experience and know exactly what it is to be Good and exactly what it is to be Evil--and having been immersed in that experience for a full year, any intelligent being would choose Good. Is it a simplistic moral system? Yes, but only little more so than any other aspect of D&D. And if you don't believe that every creature has an inherent spark of good, then you shouldn't be using Exalted rules in the first place, so it's not an issue.

It probably shouldn't have an effect on ethical alignment, though, but even that doesn't really scream 'mind rape' at me. Just means that different good gods can make the Perfect Argument for Good from different perspectives. And I do like the idea of a small fraction of people going through it, rejecting it, and emerging vile. Like the spell Granny Weatherwax cast on the Duchess in Wyrd Sisters.

Randel
2010-08-24, 05:22 PM
Wait a second... if you have an Evil creature can't you just use the Helm of opposite alignment quicker and easier than a Sanctify the Wicked spell?

Plus, without the loss of level and the year wait then it cheaper and faster.

Which would be more 'ethical' to use? a Helm of Opposite Alignment or a Sanctify the Wicked spell? Or kill them or shove them in a dungeon/brainwashing session forever until they agree to become good?

JBento
2010-08-24, 05:53 PM
@Serenity: wait, what? The D&D Univers isn't inherently anything, except maybe Neutral - which is why stuff that doesn't/can't choose is Neutral.

"The mere existence of the Paladin," as you call it, makes nothing hold true except that the D&D devs were slightly bonkers, since it's a bad class in the worst sense: I'm not talking about mechanics here, I'm talking about the fact that, in a game about cooperative adventuring, they put on a class THAT LIMITS EVERYONE ELSE'S ACTIONS!:smallfurious:

Also, being Evil is NOT the wrong choice, and is just as valid in-game as being Good. Competent Evil folk actually get a pretty go- er, sweet afterlife. Incompetent ones don't, but I don't think incompetence should be rewarded anyway.

When a devoted, high-level cultist of Asmodeus dies, he actually has a nice job awaiting him: that of lording over every devil that isn't as competent as he is.

Despite the thread I'm posting on, I utterly refuse to comment on the spell at hand, seeing as I find it to be an abomination of the highest ord - oh, damn :smallmad:

Ranos
2010-08-24, 06:06 PM
Well, the helm doesn't actually destroy your personality forever, it just subdues it with an enchantment, which can be reversed with the usual spells.

Morithias
2010-08-24, 07:35 PM
One thing I love is how the most debates and hot-hated thing in the whole game is not actually evil in nature. It's not from the book of evil, or a book about devils. It's actually from the book on how to be good.

Moral Guardians, you have it all wrong! It's the good things that make people fight! Evil is actually one big happen family! XD

fryplink
2010-08-24, 07:41 PM
Oddly, there's an Exalted Mindflayer in the same book.

How she gets around the "must eat brain of an intelligent being at least once a month or they start starving" rule in Lords of Madness- I'm not sure- probably only eats non-humanoid villains, since she has a Vow of Nonviolence, but not a Vow of Peace or a Vow of Purity.

EDIT: Ninjaed.

And she doesn't have a ring of sustenance, but a ring of protection +4.

maybe it eats the brains of the freshly dead? (natural deaths of course)

Maybe is could eat the brains of clones?

Edit: did not realize the thread was 6 pages long, wouldn't sorry 'bout the post

Kish
2010-08-24, 08:02 PM
It seems to me as simple as this: the D&D universe is inherently Good. This is especially true with the Exalted rules, but it holds true in Core as well due to the mere existence of the Paladin.

You realize that blackguards are also in Core 3.xed, right?

MickJay
2010-08-24, 08:36 PM
D&D morality is both inherently arbitrary and at the same time self-contradictory, due to the number of sources. The person (or people) who designed StW, however, had a fairly clear idea of what's Good, and it's rather self-evident from the spell's fluff - there's some Good in everyone, it's better to be Good than not, and if one is left in peace for a long enough time, a non-Good being will come to realize this on their own. The spell itself is not mind-affecting, it's hideously expensive to cast and its sole purpose is to make people or creatures Good.

One of the main counterarguments about StW not being good is its effectiveness (I was going to write efficiency, but sacrificing 17k+ xp for saving a single evil creature is hardly efficient) - but I have yet to see an alternative that would be better for dealing with Evil creatures. Faced with an overwhelmingly evil entity and being able to use StW, what would you rather do instead of using the spell? Alternatively, how would you rework StW in a way that would make it a "really" Good spell?

Coidzor
2010-08-24, 09:37 PM
Alternatively, how would you rework StW in a way that would make it a "really" Good spell?

Leave the ethical alignment axis alone. Either that, or have them infected with a piece of the user's soul, to explain the exorbitant cost and why they come out duplicates of the caster.

The rules in general would have to come out and say what the primordially good nature of the universe is, of course. Never heard of BoED actually doing that.

Morithias
2010-08-24, 11:11 PM
Leave the ethical alignment axis alone. Either that, or have them infected with a piece of the user's soul, to explain the exorbitant cost and why they come out duplicates of the caster.

The rules in general would have to come out and say what the primordially good nature of the universe is, of course. Never heard of BoED actually doing that.

Wasn't the whole point of the pathology and "Wheel" is that everything is in perfect balance? There is an equal amount of good, evil, law, chaos, etc.

Coidzor
2010-08-24, 11:34 PM
Wasn't the whole point of the pathology and "Wheel" is that everything is in perfect balance? There is an equal amount of good, evil, law, chaos, etc.

So, yeah, the wheel would need to get tossed out, at least as something that the side of good is interested in preserving at all.

Morithias
2010-08-25, 12:07 AM
So, yeah, the wheel would need to get tossed out, at least as something that the side of good is interested in preserving at all.

Didn't they do that in 4.0 anyways?

Coidzor
2010-08-25, 02:36 AM
Didn't they do that in 4.0 anyways?

Yes, but they killed magic in 4.0 and prossibly 4.4 as well. Literally AND figuratively, since they went ahead and made Faerun da default setting.

So, yeah, no Sanctify da Wickedkins anyvay, unless they included it as a ritual of some kinds, but, I doubts that.

Ennnyvay, dat's only tertiary to the tangent we're on.

hamishspence
2010-08-25, 02:50 AM
Leave the ethical alignment axis alone. Either that, or have them infected with a piece of the user's soul, to explain the exorbitant cost and why they come out duplicates of the caster.

The rules in general would have to come out and say what the primordially good nature of the universe is, of course. Never heard of BoED actually doing that.

Strictly, they only come out with the same alignment as the caster- personalities can vary a great deal within alignment.

In past editions, a lot of the things that now cost XP, were described as "costing some of the being's life force"- losing a level to a energy drain was described in these terms.

In Azure Bonds it's suggested that the soul is infinite- and that you can split it, and still have two infinite things. This is how the main character was created- a paladin was captured, his soul split, and part of it went into the body of the being intended to be brought to life.

PHB states "Good and evil are not abstract in D&D- they are the forces that define the cosmos"- I thought about that, noticed that some (not all) uses of negative energy are considered evil acts (Rebuke Undead), and some of positive energy considered good acts (Turn Undead) and hypothesised that the cosmic force of evil can be reached via certain ways of drawing on the Negative energy plane- reach deep enough, even at 1st level, and Evil Energy will come through.

BoVD does discuss how some evil acts are so powerful, that they cause evil to flood in and do things like grant the Corrupted template to everything within an area- even if all those beings were Good before. So, evil has powerful corrupting powers. Maybe the same applies to evil acts- each time one is done, a little Evil Energy floods into the doer's mind, warping it a little.

Malconvokers (Complete Scoundrel) are specifically immune to alignment change from [Evil] summoning spells- but it doesn't say the acts are not evil, only that the caster will never change alignment as a result- maybe the rituals are altered just enough to prevent any Evil Energy from affecting the caster's mind.

On Sanctify- it could be seen as flooding the target's soul with Good Energy- erasing all the corruption that Evil Energy does to a target's mind. How it does it, might be- by donating a little part of the caster's soul, which is so imbued with Good Energy, that it does this- and alters the target's personality slightly in the process, if the target had a different alignment on the Law-Chaos axis.

Serenity
2010-08-25, 03:40 AM
@Serenity: wait, what? The D&D Univers isn't inherently anything, except maybe Neutral - which is why stuff that doesn't/can't choose is Neutral.

"The mere existence of the Paladin," as you call it, makes nothing hold true except that the D&D devs were slightly bonkers, since it's a bad class in the worst sense: I'm not talking about mechanics here, I'm talking about the fact that, in a game about cooperative adventuring, they put on a class THAT LIMITS EVERYONE ELSE'S ACTIONS!:smallfurious:

Also, being Evil is NOT the wrong choice, and is just as valid in-game as being Good. Competent Evil folk actually get a pretty go- er, sweet afterlife. Incompetent ones don't, but I don't think incompetence should be rewarded anyway.

When a devoted, high-level cultist of Asmodeus dies, he actually has a nice job awaiting him: that of lording over every devil that isn't as competent as he is.

Despite the thread I'm posting on, I utterly refuse to comment on the spell at hand, seeing as I find it to be an abomination of the highest ord - oh, damn :smallmad:

It's not a matter of what they can get out of being evil. It's a matter of evil being, well, evil. Evil is never necessary, and as a philosophy or worldview, it is fundamentally, cosmically incorrect. It is a perversion, an abberation, a festering sickness, not a natural, healthy state. You don't have to agree with that philosophy, but if it doesn't hold true in your world, than, by definition, Exalted rules cannot exist there, and neither does Sanctify the Wicked, so you have nothing to complain about.

hamishspence
2010-08-25, 03:47 AM
Not to mention that Lawful Evil folk don't get a sweet afterlife- their souls are tortured to the point of destruction, and remade as mindless lemures.

In Pandemonium, Erythnul slaughters the souls of all that he finds. In Hades souls sit around till apathy consumes them and they melt into the plane. In Gehenna the souls of those corrupted by the yugoloths writhe forever, strung up on long spiked cables.

I'm not sure where "competent evil folks get a sweet afterlife" comes from- maybe Faerun, but generally not in core.

Ranos
2010-08-25, 05:42 AM
It's not a matter of what they can get out of being evil. It's a matter of evil being, well, evil. Evil is never necessary, and as a philosophy or worldview, it is fundamentally, cosmically incorrect. It is a perversion, an abberation, a festering sickness, not a natural, healthy state. You don't have to agree with that philosophy, but if it doesn't hold true in your world, than, by definition, Exalted rules cannot exist there, and neither does Sanctify the Wicked, so you have nothing to complain about.

What about the Vile rules ? Does them existing mean evil is the natural state of things and good is a perversion ? I don't really follow your logic there.



I'm not sure where "competent evil folks get a sweet afterlife" comes from- maybe Faerun, but generally not in core.
There have been a few corner-cases, powerful souls that had already negociated a contract with the devil entitled to them. If you didn't prepare any contingencies, you're screwed, competent or not.

hamishspence
2010-08-25, 05:49 AM
The Vile rules don't actually mirror the exalted rules. A being that has taken Vile feats doesn't lose any of them for commiting a Good act- they only lose Vile feats if they change alignment and become Neutral.

In a sense, a Vile character, is less committed to not doing Good, than a Paladin of Tyranny or a Paladin of Slaughter- both of which lose all their powers for committing a Good act.

Whereas all Exalted characters are held to the standard of "never commit an Evil act- or you lose all Exalted feats".

Coidzor
2010-08-25, 06:14 AM
There have been a few corner-cases, powerful souls that had already negociated a contract with the devil entitled to them. If you didn't prepare any contingencies, you're screwed, competent or not.

Just shows the idiocy of them, really. I mean, making level 6 anythings into mindless peons is a waste of all that XP, let alone level 10s or 15s that didn't invest in Knowledge: The Planes. Hmm...

I wonder when one would have enough cross-class ranks to figure out about the necessary contracts/rituals...

Or, for another thing, the Gods squander their followers power and use to them by letting anyone who isn't a commoner or something become Petitioners...

JBento
2010-08-25, 06:18 AM
It's not a matter of what they can get out of being evil. It's a matter of evil being, well, evil. Evil is never necessary, and as a philosophy or worldview, it is fundamentally, cosmically incorrect. It is a perversion, an abberation, a festering sickness, not a natural, healthy state. You don't have to agree with that philosophy, but if it doesn't hold true in your world, than, by definition, Exalted rules cannot exist there, and neither does Sanctify the Wicked, so you have nothing to complain about.

Except that, in D&D terms, is very clearly NOT. It's not any more cosmically incorrect than Good just because it stands as its opposite. In fact, according the Lore, the Evil of the Abyss is quite natural - it appeared without interference, and it spawns demons spontaneously. And the Evil of the Nine Hells IS necessary - it's what keeps the Evil of the Abyss from having a field day with... well, everything. Check Fiendish Codex: Tyrants of the Nine Hells (a book substantially better written and far less self-contradictory than the alignment books) for the foundation of the Pact Primeval.


I'm not sure where "competent evil folks get a sweet afterlife" comes from- maybe Faerun, but generally not in core.

I don't know much about Faerun workings - I despise the setting with a passion. However, high-level Evil mortal (i.e., the competent ones) are quite often reincarnated as mid- to high-ranking devils.

Yes, the low-level ones are lemures and are oh so very screwed - but Greedy McSwindler, the merchant who overcharges his food produce (some of which is practically rotten), is neither high-level nor has he done much to spread Evil, and is therefore not accorded any special privileges when the peasants overrun his stall and slice him to bits.

On the other hand, Warlord the Conqueror, who managed to put under his iron fist half a dozen countries before being slain by a bunch of meddling kids and their dog, is probably getting a nice little position as at least a Captain in the legions of Hell (he's still oh so screwed if he botches that, though).

Yes, it's easier to get a nice little afterlife if you're Good (except that, if you're Evil, you probably wouldn't like the Good afterlife anyways, so). It's called coddling, and it's probably WHY the forces of Good (despite having legions of stuff that can cast as a high-level cleric) couldn't hold the tide of Abyssal demons.

Wow, wall of text :smalleek:

hamishspence
2010-08-25, 06:22 AM
Yes, the low-level ones are lemures and are oh so very screwed - but Greedy McSwindler, the merchant who overcharges his food produce (some of which is practically rotten), is neither high-level nor has he done much to spread Evil, and is therefore not accorded any special privileges when the peasants overrun his stall and slice him to bits.

On the other hand, Warlord the Conqueror, who managed to put under his iron fist half a dozen countries before being slain by a bunch of meddling kids and their dog, is probably getting a nice little position as at least a Captain in the legions of Hell (he's still oh so screwed if he botches that, though).

Yes, it's easier to get a nice little afterlife if you're Good (except that, if you're Evil, you probably wouldn't like the Good afterlife anyways, so). It's called coddling, and it's probably WHY the forces of Good (despite having legions of stuff that can cast as a high-level cleric) couldn't hold the tide of Abyssal demons.

That's the thing though- according to FC2, even Warlord the Conqueror can expect to pass through the lemure stage. Though he might be promoted out of it early though. Going straight to devilhood without identity loss is virtually unheard of (though, at the discretion of the DM, it can happen anyway).

JBento
2010-08-25, 06:25 AM
I'm quite AFB, so I can't look it up, but I had the idea that you could have direct promotions. If I remember, I'll check this weekend :smallsmile:

Identity loss is pretty much a non-issue, since petitioners don't remember their past lives anyway, no matter where they end up (again, I'm pretty sure of this, but AFB).

hamishspence
2010-08-25, 06:29 AM
Soul shells, I think, are supposed to, unlike normal petitioners. But they get all their personality and memories ground out of them before being turned into lemures.

Direct promotions occur in Forgotten Realms, but are very very rare- occurs when a fiend successfully tempts a soul on the Fugue plane to join the Hells, and the soul bargains really well.

Direct promotions are mentioned in FC2- but as a very unusual exception- with suggestions that even great LE rulers don't generally get them.

Morithias
2010-08-25, 10:08 AM
Soul shells, I think, are supposed to, unlike normal petitioners. But they get all their personality and memories ground out of them before being turned into lemures.

Direct promotions occur in Forgotten Realms, but are very very rare- occurs when a fiend successfully tempts a soul on the Fugue plane to join the Hells, and the soul bargains really well.

Direct promotions are mentioned in FC2- but as a very unusual exception- with suggestions that even great LE rulers don't generally get them.

Not to mention said promotion would use up some of that precious energy, which obviously the devil could have other uses for. Like Asmodeous when he screwed over Levi to promote his daughter.

Kish
2010-08-25, 10:17 AM
Yeeahh. Even for the tiny number who do get to become fiends immediately, being evil almost always means that you're completely vulnerable to someone who, by definition, doesn't care about you. And when it doesn't, it means you're Asmodeus or Demogorgon, with everyone, especially those nominally on your side, wanting you dead.

Neither of those can be accurately described as "a sweet afterlife."

Morithias
2010-08-25, 10:55 AM
Yeeahh. Even for the tiny number who do get to become fiends immediately, being evil almost always means that you're completely vulnerable to someone who, by definition, doesn't care about you. And when it doesn't, it means you're Asmodeus or Demogorgon, with everyone, especially those nominally on your side, wanting you dead.

Neither of those can be accurately described as "a sweet afterlife."

Ironically there is probably one person who has a 'sweet afterlife' in baator and that's Fierna. She just has fun torturing people while her father does all the work, and somehow is still the tyrant of the 4th. Of course maybe she's just that good a chessmaster, and she really IS the 'power behind the power behind the power' or something like that. Knowing that if others think he is in charge they'll try to kill him instead of her.

Zaydos
2010-08-25, 11:01 AM
Yeeahh. Even for the tiny number who do get to become fiends immediately, being evil almost always means that you're completely vulnerable to someone who, by definition, doesn't care about you. And when it doesn't, it means you're Asmodeus or Demogorgon, with everyone, especially those nominally on your side, wanting you dead.

Neither of those can be accurately described as "a sweet afterlife."

Actually being Asmodeus seems pretty sweet. And most of the Lords of the 9 have it pretty good as long as they don't try and screw him over (note Levi is still being punished for that one). Only problem is if you really can't hold your ambition in check... oh wait you're LE.

Now the Abyss... lots of Balors have it fine. They want one thing, killing. They get one thing, killing. The balors aren't forced to fight in the Blood War they do it because they like it (lesser demons are forced by the molydeus). As for the Demon Lords, just make sure you don't have something that Demogorgon or one of the other big names want and are a fair distance from them. If you do those two you can rule a layer of the Abyss and still just be a balor, a unique fiend has it easy.

Morithias
2010-08-25, 11:10 AM
Actually being Asmodeus seems pretty sweet. And most of the Lords of the 9 have it pretty good as long as they don't try and screw him over (note Levi is still being punished for that one). Only problem is if you really can't hold your ambition in check... oh wait you're LE.


Bel the general is cursed with the facts he's fighting a war he will eventually lose (barring 4.0's Dues ex machina).

Dispater is in a constant state of paranoia.

Mammon was cursed in a freak snake like form.

Fierna is..like I said probably ok.

Levi is trapped in ice.

Glasya has to be worried about being used as a hostage for bargaining against Asmodeous, plus it's canon that Fierna's father hates their growing relationship and is planning against her.

Belzeebub is a giant fricken slug.

Mestopoles although is ok, has to plan against Asmodeous while somehow also, keeping himself from being demoted.

Asmodeous, has a whole bloody plane of his own design planning against him, the abyss hates him (blood war), the celestials hate him. Face it the only planes that don't have a reason to hate him are mechanus and the outlands.

Zaydos
2010-08-25, 11:22 AM
Bel the general is cursed with the facts he's fighting a war he will eventually lose (barring 4.0's Dues ex machina).

In 2e's box set on the Blood War they made it very clear that the Baatezu wouldn't be fighting the war if it was impossible to win. Even in 3.X the infinite amounts of the Abyss are questionable, and in FCI it states that only a few tanar'ri species actually occur without CE mortal souls being sent there, Balors and Molydeus not included. The Baatezu can win in multiple ways; 1) battle, the tanar'ri are limited by CE souls, ergo not likely to be infinite (and the official stance flip-flops on whether it is or not constantly; 2e used the sensible one: the tanar'ri claim to be, we don't know if they are), but that is unlikely; 2) killing off the Balor and Molydeus; the Demon Princes rarely care about the war, it's these two true tanar'ri species that propagate it; 3) stopping the flow of CE souls. Really Bel doesn't have to win the war, he just has to keep the tanar'ri occupied. We're dealing with a warmonger who wants glory in battle, an endless war is his paradise.


Dispater is in a constant state of paranoia.

Mostly his own mental problem. Although doesn't help that he betrayed so many people to get to this position.


Mammon was cursed in a freak snake like form.

Fierna is..like I said probably ok.

Levi is trapped in ice.

For both Mammon and Levi this is where the "don't betray Asmodeus" clause came from.


Glasya has to be worried about being used as a hostage for bargaining against Asmodeous, plus it's canon that Fierna's father hates their growing relationship and is planning against her.

Still a sweet gig.


Belzeebub is a giant fricken slug.

Again he had it fine until he tried to betray Asmodeus.


Mestopoles although is ok, has to plan against Asmodeous while somehow also, keeping himself from being demoted.

Why does he have to plan against Asmodeus? He chooses to and will cause himself trouble when he puts them into practice. That said if he was in Mount Celestia and tried to plan against the leader there he'd be in trouble then too. So not a problem of the afterlife so much as what he chooses to do with it.


Asmodeous, has a whole bloody plane of his own design planning against him, the abyss hates him (blood war), the celestials hate him. Face it the only planes that don't have a reason to hate him are mechanus and the outlands.

And he loves it. Also Mechanus and the Outlands do have reasons to hate him; he has used Modrons on loan from Mechanus as suicide troops or even corrupted them towards evil to pull bits of Mechanus closer to Baator, and has taken hunks of the Outlands into Baator as well. Also despite hating him the Archons are still willing to help him.

Coidzor
2010-08-25, 11:24 AM
I'm quite AFB, so I can't look it up, but I had the idea that you could have direct promotions. If I remember, I'll check this weekend :smallsmile:

Identity loss is pretty much a non-issue, since petitioners don't remember their past lives anyway, no matter where they end up (again, I'm pretty sure of this, but AFB).

Soul shells, I think, are supposed to, unlike normal petitioners. But they get all their personality and memories ground out of them before being turned into lemures.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineMinions.htm

On Mephistopheles, that's probably because Geryon, the one Lord of the Nine who remained loyal to Asmodeus was EATEN by him as his reward.

JBento
2010-08-25, 12:02 PM
No one is very sure of the "Geryon issue". Yes, Asmodeus wiped him (not totally, though - Geryon is a Vestige) and no-one knows the frikin' WHY!

Except, of course, Asmodeus.

Levistus didn't just betray Asmodeus - he actually killed his consort (and Glasya's mother), which is why he put him on ice. In hindsight, this is actually GOOD for Levistus, because Glasya would like nothing better than to kill him off... but she can't get to him due to the "constantly regenerating glacier" thing.

Most people also seem to be missing a very important point: most, if not all, devils LIKE their jobs. They really do. They enjoy the manoeuvring, political and military, required to maintain their positions and maybe, just maybe, advance them.

Let's face it: if you want personal power (and if you don't, why are you Lawful Evil in the first place?), you're better off in Baator than in any other outer plane.

hamishspence
2010-08-25, 12:08 PM
Except maybe for lemures- who get treated bdly be all the devils above them. The vast majority of LE souls start off as lemures.

On "why be LE?" if alignment is mostly about beliefs and attitudes to the world, rather than deeds:

http://www.mimir.net/essays/morals.html

then any of the attitudes consistant with Gehenna, Acheron, or Baator may make for an LE alignment. However, with FC2's corruption system, Baator may end up getting a lot of them.

Coidzor
2010-08-25, 12:15 PM
Let's face it: if you want personal power (and if you don't, why are you Lawful Evil in the first place?), you're better off in Baator than in any other outer plane.getting a decent intelligence score and items and retraining as a wizard.

Fixed that one for you.

Actually, I'd almost swear that the reason tippyverses don't occur is that the wizards who get high enough level to consider it are offered their own Lord Ao deal and due to their egos, universally accept it...

Hamish: Yeah, but the lemures are even worse than Petitioners. Petitioners may be amnesiacs, but lemures are just mindless. So, really, a lemure is pretty much the antithesis of ultimate suffering because that which cannot comprehend cannot suffer.

Of course, getting turned into one is utterly destroying of everything worthwhile about the metaphysical entity and instead getting an empty shell that might as well have been grown from a vat of protein... I mean, baator has those hell larva that crop up and try to turn into things but get culled by the current baatezu, and the abyss has its version that's more well known that gets twisted into proto-dretches and such...

hamishspence
2010-08-25, 12:19 PM
And in FC2, the process is- you become a petitioner (with at least some identity and memories in this case) you are put through torments until all individuality is wrung out, transformed into a lemure- and then somehow, as a lemure, you have to distinguish yourself from all the other lemures enough to receive a promotion.

So- not a happy afterlife at all for the LE that go to Baator.

Lemures go through physical suffering, even if not mental. I'm pretty sure anything that causes pain works on them, vermin, and some other "mindless" creatures.

EvilJames
2010-08-27, 11:58 PM
I had a thought on this spell. maybe it's been suggested, i don't know I really don't feel like reading through the whole thing.
What if the spell assumes that evil is kind of like insanity. If some one is insane they aren't thinking clearly they aren't perceiving things as they are. In many ways good and evil view each other as being the same way. When you cast StW you are lifting the fog of evil from their eyes and allowing them to see.
You could in many ways consider it a very potent heal spell that only heals the mind, and only of certain ailments (mainly evil and what ever ethical view you oppose, but mainly evil).

MickJay
2010-08-28, 08:46 AM
That seems to have been the underlying assumption for the author of the spell, yes (not insanity per se, perhaps, but the author clearly intended the spell as a means for the evil being to have time and inner peace to reflect on their life). Of course, this fluff contradicts some other fluff, hence all the arguments about the spell.

Runestar
2010-08-28, 09:20 AM
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I wonder if anyone has read the book "the empyrean Odyssey"?

I believe the protagonist, Alizza (that alu-fiend from war of the spider queen series) is effectively subjected to a "sanctified the wicked" spell. Her soul is stuffed into a gem by solars, and the bulk of the whole book seems to revolve her facing up to her past sins, her realising the error of her ways, and subsequently repenting.

So I suppose it would be more than just a "good" mindrape. :smallbiggrin:

JBento
2010-08-28, 11:49 AM
Except that StW doesn't make you repent: it forces you to change your alignment. The target of the spell is no more choosing to be Good than the target of an Imprisonment chooses to be entombed, or the target of a Dominate chooses to be subservient.

Zaydos
2010-08-28, 11:52 AM
StW would be an excellent plot device where you put them in and hope they change their minds. The problem is it doesn't translate into game mechanics well. It works as a DM decision, but then you have to trust your DM, work with him, and figure out if the target is something that will change if presented with all the evil it does/has done/will do if it continues.

Kind of like Scrooge in The Christmas Carol the ghosts didn't give him "save or be magically changed", instead he was shown his past, present, and possible future and role-played the change.

MickJay
2010-08-28, 11:54 AM
I'd argue that the change of alignment is a reflection of the repentance. That's what alignments, after all, are: they are the final result of the totality of past actions. The alignment change could be thus interpreted as a mere side effect of the genuine change of heart.

JBento
2010-08-28, 01:19 PM
But there is NO repentance - no real one, anyway. The target isn't CHOOSING to be Good, it's being FORCED to.

Anyway, your (MickJay's) post is contradictory: either alignment is the result of your past actions, or it's change represents a "change of heart." When the target of StW changes alignment, he hasn't actually done Good actions yet.

Reverent-One
2010-08-28, 01:28 PM
But there is NO repentance - no real one, anyway. The target isn't CHOOSING to be Good, it's being FORCED to.

The fluff implies that it is in fact choosing to be good, that fact that spell doesn't fail is simply because, as Yuki said as far back as the first page, it magics up the perfect argument for turning good.

JBento
2010-08-28, 02:49 PM
D&D fluffs implies (and states) a lot of things, like Fighters being good at fighting, Paladins being competent at being, well, fiction paladins, and Truenamers being a playable class. And while I'm sure we'd all like for stuff to work that way, the fact remains that the mechanics prove otherwise.

hamishspence
2010-08-28, 03:16 PM
But there is NO repentance - no real one, anyway. The target isn't CHOOSING to be Good, it's being FORCED to.

Anyway, your (MickJay's) post is contradictory: either alignment is the result of your past actions, or it's change represents a "change of heart." When the target of StW changes alignment, he hasn't actually done Good actions yet.

Neither has the villain in DMG who has "cast aside his evil ways" inspired by one of the PCs sacrificing themselves- and become "chaotic Neutral but well on the way to good"- this is given as one example of alignment change.

Actions are a big part of alignment- which is why a good person who does evil deeds, for whatever reason, changes alignment eventually- but they are not the only part.

"General moral attitudes" play a part too- genuine repentance, "renouncing the path of evil", as per the DMG example, can cause alignment change even without Good acts.

Zaydos
2010-08-28, 03:25 PM
Neither has the villain in DMG who has "cast aside his evil ways" inspired by one of the PCs sacrificing themselves- and become "chaotic Neutral but well on the way to good"- this is given as one example of alignment change.

Actions are a big part of alignment- which is why a good person who does evil deeds, for whatever reason, changes alignment eventually- but they are not the only part.

"General moral attitudes" play a part too- genuine repentance, "renouncing the path of evil", as per the DMG example, can cause alignment change even without Good acts.

But not directly to good (hence chaotic neutral). Just have to point out that one. Normally a direct change to good requires a redemption equals death style scenario (or close to it).

hamishspence
2010-08-28, 03:37 PM
in 2nd ed, a direct change to evil alignment could be accomplished with 1 big act.

The example given was burning down a plague village, in the hope of containing the plague.

Of course, a lot of people will insist that shouldn't be an evil act- that its OK to sacrifice many innocent, uninfected people to save more people from dying- but that was the example the 2nd ed PHB gave.

A sudden leap from Good to Evil without deeds, yous "renouncing the light/dark side and embracing the other ethos" should be very much the exception though. The Atonement spell has, in its description, a suggestion of how it may be an example that might justify such an extreme change- the person chooses their new alignment, and the atonement spell locks it.

So, one could change your attitude to the world a bit, go to an evil cleric, say "I wanna be neutral evil" - the cleric casts the spell, and that's your new alignment.

Kish
2010-08-28, 03:42 PM
It's substantially easier to think of single acts that make me go, "Someone who did that, and feels no remorse for it, is evil, and I don't need to know any more," than single acts that make me go, "Someone who did that, and doesn't regret it, is good, and I don't need to know any more."

(Actually, there are none of the latter, because the former overrides them.)

Evil being easier than good is only a problem when people approach it with the attitude that anything that is true of good should also be true of evil, and vice versa. They're different.