Spell that erases all memories and Leaves target as a blank slate.

[LaughingRogue]

Well I think that the title says it all, are there any spells in the 3.5 universe that do this anywhere?

Thanks for your help playground.

[Volthawk]

Programmed Amnesia is one. Also, Mindrape.

[LaughingRogue]

Programmed Amnesia is one. Also, Mindrape.

Programmed Amnesia will work fine, thanks for your help,

Laughing Rogue.

Edit: Actually that casting time makes it not feasible is there any spell that is feasible for in combat?

[Drachasor]

Clone + Animate Dead (subject must actually still be alive -- though I guess you could skip that part and the clone).

BoVD has Mindrape.

Hmm, why does it always seem there are so many questions on the forum in the form of "how can I do this horrendously evil thing?"

[LaughingRogue]

Clone + Animate Dead (subject must actually still be alive -- though I guess you could skip that part and the clone).

BoVD has Mindrape.

Hmm, why does it always seem there are so many questions on the forum in the form of "how can I do this horrendously evil thing?"

My current character is an enchanter and is obsessed with the mind and messing with it...is it really that much worse than killing them ;)


Edit: just looked up mindrape --- hope I can swing this with my DM --- he'll most likely want to edit out the "you know everything that the target does" part.

[Drachasor]

My current character is an enchanter and is obsessed with the mind and messing with it...is it really that much worse than killing them ;)


Edit: just looked up mindrape --- hope I can swing this with my DM --- he'll most likely want to edit out the "you know everything that the target does" part.

It's worse than killing them the same way killing someone and binding their tortured soul to their body as an undead is worse than killing.

[LaughingRogue]

It's worse than killing them the same way killing someone and binding their tortured soul to their body as an undead is worse than killing.

Oh now, all i want to do is make the evil guy who is attacking me forget everything all that he knows ... i'm not sure it's completely "evil" and i'm not sure it's on par with "killing someone and binding their tortured soul to their body as an undead"

and then maybe dominate him and use him like a thrall >.>

[Reaver225]

Oh now, all i want to do is make the evil guy who is attacking me forget everything all that he knows ... i'm not sure it's completely "evil" and i'm not sure it's on par with "killing someone and binding their tortured soul to their body as an undead"It's the equivalent of killing them. In a very real sense, their personality has been destroyed, unless you keep a backup somewhere. And that soul may or may not be affected after death by your action.

Ooh, there's a question: if you mindrape someone's mind entirely blank, but then mindrape a newly made clone to have an exact copy of that person's mind, is there any stat change, and what's the consequences in terms of souls and all that jazz? In a way, the copy hasn't done anything wrong.

EDIT: If you don't know everything the target knows, you can't edit someone's memories.

[LaughingRogue]

It's the equivalent of killing them. In a very real sense, their personality has been destroyed, unless you keep a backup somewhere. And that soul may or may not be affected after death by your action.

Ooh, there's a question: if you mindrape someone's mind entirely blank, but then mindrape a newly made clone to have an exact copy of that person's mind, is there any stat change, and what's the consequences in terms of souls and all that jazz? In a way, the copy hasn't done anything wrong.

EDIT: If you don't know everything the target knows, you can't edit someone's memories.

Good job you've successfully created life

Also with the Evil descriptor on mindrape I doubt I will be able to swing it with my DM and the 10 minute casting time on programmed amnesia seems to make it a pretty worthless 9th level spell/ it is an NPC spell --- oh well guess this is not going to work out

[Drachasor]

It's the equivalent of killing them. In a very real sense, their personality has been destroyed, unless you keep a backup somewhere. And that soul may or may not be affected after death by your action.

It's worse than just killing them, because you're having them live on in a twisted parody of what they once were. There's a reason the spell is called Mindrape. And it isn't like their soul isn't around and the spell is permanent, so on some metaphysical level, the person is probably aware of what is going on and how they are living in freakish misery.

It's not like this is an Accelerated Therapy spell, which would be ok (say this hypothetical spell speeds up the rate you can talk to and convince the person to change, so you could have years of work done in one evening).

Well, the Clone doesn't technically have a soul. If the original is alive, you just get a dead body -- which I think you could animate as a zombie, but not an intelligent undead, depending.


Also with the Evil descriptor on mindrape I doubt I will be able to swing it with my DM and the 10 minute casting time on programmed amnesia seems to make it a pretty worthless 9th level spell/ it is an NPC spell --- oh well guess this is not going to work out

Eh, there are plenty of times when you can use a 10 minute casting time spell. Do you never capture anyone alive? (Not saying this isn't a pretty bad act, generally speaking, but I wouldn't say the spell is worthless).

[hamishspence]

Well, the Clone doesn't technically have a soul. If the original is alive, you just get a dead body -- which I think you could animate as a zombie, but not an intelligent undead, depending.

In the Azure Bonds novel, the inanimate duplicates of the heroine all have souls- but what they don't have, is spirits- which is why they're still inanimate.

So- a not-quite-alive body, can have a soul.

[LaughingRogue]

we do but I feel that a ninth level spell should be applicable in most battles in order to take it.

[Diarmuid]

Why do you need to be able to erase their mind in the middle of combat? Just use whatever Standard action spells you already have to either incapacitate them or otherwise render them as a non-threat and then use Programmed Amnesia at your leisure.

[LaughingRogue]

yes but i would think that a 9th level spell should be applicable in combat and help us beat the encounter -- in order for me to justify taking it with (advanced learning (i'm using a beguiler)).

[FMArthur]

Reconstructing a person's mind with Mindrape or Mindrape-esques is not the same as killing them, nor is it as bad as killing them and binding their soul. It is much, much worse, because it effectively erases that person from existence. They don't live on in an afterlife. There is less chance of being restored than if their soul was simply imprisoned. For eternal souls in D&D, complete erasure of personality is a worse fate than just about anything.

[Drachasor]

yes but i would think that a 9th level spell should be applicable in combat and help us beat the encounter -- in order for me to justify taking it with (advanced learning (i'm using a beguiler)).

Well, I'd say that or have a lot of general applications, which I'd say these spells don't have. So I understand your reasoning given your limitations.

[Reaver225]

Well, the Clone doesn't technically have a soul. If the original is alive, you just get a dead body -- which I think you could animate as a zombie, but not an intelligent undead, depending.
1: Clone self
2: Polymorph Any Dead Clone into Living Clone (permanent Duration)
3: Programmed Amnesia entire mind into clone
3.5: Polymorph Any Living Clone into desired shape
4: Now neither of us will be virgins

5: Repeat ad infinitum

6: BEGUN, THE CLONE WARS HAVE

[LaughingRogue]

Reconstructing a person's mind with Mindrape or Mindrape-esques is not the same as killing them, nor is it as bad as killing them and binding their soul. It is much, much worse, because it effectively erases that person from existence. They don't live on in an afterlife. There is less chance of being restored than if their soul was simply imprisoned. For eternal souls in D&D, complete erasure of personality is a worse fate than just about anything.

I would have to disagree, I don't think that not caring if an evil individual lives on after he dies is evil.

I will agree though that it is a very unfortunate fate for an evil aligned being but *shrugs* oh well :smalltongue:

[Reaver225]

I would have to disagree, I don't think that not caring if an evil individual lives on after he dies is evil.Ergo, it's the equivalent of Trap the Soul.

[Drachasor]

1: Clone self
2: Polymorph Any Dead Clone into Living Clone (permanent Duration)
3: Programmed Amnesia entire mind into clone
3.5: Polymorph Any Living Clone into desired shape
4: Now neither of us will be virgins

5: Repeat ad infinitum

6: BEGUN, THE CLONE WARS HAVE

Well, there's that. Exactly where the soul/whatever enters is a matter of much debate, it seems. Much cheaper than a simulacrum army.

[Diarmuid]

yes but i would think that a 9th level spell should be applicable in combat and help us beat the encounter -- in order for me to justify taking it with (advanced learning (i'm using a beguiler)).

Not all spells are created equal. Learn it, Love it.

[Drachasor]

I would have to disagree, I don't think that not caring if an evil individual lives on after he dies is evil.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Ok, it is clearly NOT good. It is oppressing/hurting and worse than killing. It falls under "doing it without qualms if it is convenient." Unlike a neutral, you're going out of your way to screw with someone's mind not because it is needed or necessary, but because you can.

So yeah, I'd say it pretty easily falls into "evil." A neutral simply wouldn't be that depraved, imho. One could argue it is borderline, I suppose, but that's a difficult case.

That said, a neutral person or even good can do evil acts. Just not regularly.

[LaughingRogue]

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Ok, it is clearly NOT good. It is oppressing/hurting and worse than killing. It falls under "doing it without qualms if it is convenient." Unlike a neutral, you're going out of your way to screw with someone's mind not because it is needed or necessary, but because you can.

So yeah, I'd say it pretty easily falls into "evil." A neutral simply wouldn't be that depraved, imho. One could argue it is borderline, I suppose, but that's a difficult case.

That said, a neutral person or even good can do evil acts. Just not regularly.


But i'm not simply doing it for the sake of doing it --- and I do have regard for what it is doing and I disagree that I am going out of my way to do such an action --- because the way i would do it is as such "Evil creature/person attacks me and I Take control of his mind and thoughts" --- the part that I don't like about the implications of what you're saying is, it makes a whole set of spells that are not evil ... evil ...

Such as Dominate ... Flesh to stone ... basically any spell that defeats the enemy without killing it is then deemed "evil"

[Sucrose]

But i'm not simply doing it for the sake of doing it --- and I do have regard for what it is doing and I disagree that I am going out of my way to do such an action --- because the way i would do it is as such "Evil creature/person attacks me and I Take control of his mind and thoughts" --- the part that I don't like about the implications of what you're saying is, it makes a whole set of spells that are not evil ... evil ...

Such as Dominate ... Flesh to stone ... basically any spell that defeats the enemy without killing it is then deemed "evil"

Neither of those erases the initial personality. Mindrape does. There is a reason the spell is in the Book of Vile Darkness.

[LaughingRogue]

Neither of those erases the initial personality. Mindrape does. There is a reason the spell is in the Book of Vile Darkness.

Programmed amnesia does basically the same thing, do you want to put the evil descriptor on that too?

[Sucrose]

Programmed amnesia does basically the same thing, do you want to put the evil descriptor on that too?

No, because it can be used less extensively. Remove the memory of a traumatic event right after it happened, with the person's consent, for example.

If you use it in the same way as you would Mindrape, then yes, it is a massively evil action, just as Fireballing an orphanage would be, despite Fireball not being an inherently evil spell.

[LaughingRogue]

No, because it can be used less extensively. Remove the memory of a traumatic event right after it happened, with the person's consent, for example.

If you use it in the same way as you would Mindrape, then yes, it is a massively evil action.

I guess then i will play my evil character a Normally good character that has no regard for life/well-being of evil beings --- seems fun

[Urpriest]

Reconstructing a person's mind with Mindrape or Mindrape-esques is not the same as killing them, nor is it as bad as killing them and binding their soul. It is much, much worse, because it effectively erases that person from existence. They don't live on in an afterlife. There is less chance of being restored than if their soul was simply imprisoned. For eternal souls in D&D, complete erasure of personality is a worse fate than just about anything.

Eh, the same thing arguably happens on death anyway. Most Petitioners have only dim recollections at best of their former lives. Anyone going to the Abyss or the Nine Hells is almost guaranteed to have no fragments of their former personality survive death.

[Drachasor]

But i'm not simply doing it for the sake of doing it --- and I do have regard for what it is doing and I disagree that I am going out of my way to do such an action --- because the way i would do it is as such "Evil creature/person attacks me and I Take control of his mind and thoughts"

You don't have to do it for the sake it doing it. You do it because it is convenient, and you reject it if it isn't.


--- the part that I don't like about the implications of what you're saying is, it makes a whole set of spells that are not evil ... evil ...

Such as Dominate ... Flesh to stone ... basically any spell that defeats the enemy without killing it is then deemed "evil"

Flesh to Stone at worst traps someone in time. It isn't like they experience what is going on. So it isn't bad. Dominate? You can certainly do many things that ARE evil with that spell. It's trickier than some spells, I'd say. You can ENSLAVE someone almost indefinitely with it...which is pretty dang evil. I don't think using it in battle is necessarily evil, though it can be a bit depraved to make someone kill their friends.

Dominate is honestly a pretty disturbing spell, don't you agree?


Programmed amnesia does basically the same thing, do you want to put the evil descriptor on that too?

Casting such spells isn't inherently evil. But you can easily do things that ARE evil by casting it and quite easily. You can also do good things, such as potentially blocking out a traumatic event that is giving someone PTSD (with the target's permission, of course).

[LaughingRogue]

If you use it in the same way as you would Mindrape, then yes, it is a massively evil action, just as Fireballing an orphanage would be, despite Fireball not being an inherently evil spell.

Right but I would argue that if:

You can use spells that are not evil in an evil way

then it you should be able to do the inverse.

that argument is probably full of holes.

[Drachasor]

Right but I would argue that if:

You can use spells that are not evil in an evil way

then it you should be able to do the inverse.

Mindrape automatically has you learn everything the victim knows. Any embarrassing facts, secrets, whatever. It's a complete and utter violation of privacy that is unavoidable. That's why it is evil.

[Sucrose]

Right but I would argue that if:

You can use spells that are not evil in an evil way

then it you should be able to do the inverse.

that argument is probably full of holes.

Indeed so.

[LaughingRogue]

Mindrape automatically has you learn everything the victim knows. Any embarrassing facts, secrets, whatever. It's a complete and utter violation of privacy that is unavoidable. That's why it is evil.

then any spell that allows a subject to read another's mind is just evil --- i completely disagree as there are non-evil spells that do just that and they are not evil.


and the entire class Mindbender should just be evil, which is not the case and the capstone gives you a thrall which I believe negates your assumptions about dominate or it is a massive oversight in creating the class.

[Arundel]

It erases a person from existence. Its wrong, its horrible, (ok I will go there) its Nazi wrong. You are twisting someones soul for your own ends. By RAW definition, a spell that harms souls is explicitly evil (BoVD p. 77).

Twisting a soul is one of very few irrevocably and undeniably evil acts in DnD.

Also, you're not reading their mind you're destroying it. Mindrape is mechanically and inherently evil. Casting it, regardless of use, is an evil action.

[LaughingRogue]

It erases a person from existence. Its wrong, its horrible, (ok I will go there) its Nazi wrong. You are twisting someones soul for your own ends. By RAW definition, a spell that harms souls is explicitly evil (BoVD p. 77).

Twisting a soul is one of very few irrevocably and undeniably evil acts in DnD.

the spell mindrape doesn't mention the word soul and it could be argued that it doesn't even imply it

[Diarmuid]

Well now you're just getting metaphysical about it.

If you dont think it's Evil, talk to your GM about it. As always, the rules are intended to be guidelines and not every rule will apply the same in every game.

Most here will agree that Mindrape is inherently Evil, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. If your DM is the same opinion, woohoo for you.

[LaughingRogue]

Well now you're just getting metaphysical about it.

If you dont think it's Evil, talk to your GM about it. As always, the rules are intended to be guidelines and not every rule will apply the same in every game.

Most here will agree that Mindrape is inherently Evil, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. If your DM is the same opinion, woohoo for you.

Oh no, you misunderstand --- I like devils advocate --- and I also like discussing the implications on

"If X is evil , then why isn't XY and Z"

[Diarmuid]

Unfortunately, none of us wrote the books in question. We only have the RAW to work within and once you get into RAI then it completely just devolves into one person's opinion vs anothers and those generally spiral out of control when two people with conflicting opinions start going back and forth.

[LaughingRogue]

Unfortunately, none of us wrote the books in question. We only have the RAW to work within and once you get into RAI then it completely just devolves into one person's opinion vs anothers and those generally spiral out of control when two people with conflicting opinions start going back and forth.

you don't like to hear other people's opinions on RAI?:smallfrown:

[Arundel]

the spell mindrape doesn't mention the word soul and it could be argued that it doesn't even imply it

It has an evil descriptor. That means it does at least one of several things:


Causes undue suffering or negative emotions
Calls upon evil gods or energies
They create, summon, or improve undead or other evil monsters
They harm souls
They involve unsavory practices such as cannabilism or drug use.


You could argue the first one but the usage you are talking about doesn't leave them with emotions so that is out. The only one left is harming souls. I will also hark back to the plethora of effective statement on the first page about the nature of a soul.

[LaughingRogue]

It has an evil descriptor. That means it does at least one of several things:


You could argue the first one but the usage you are talking about doesn't leave them with emotions so that is out. The only one left is harming souls. I will also hark back to the plethora of effective statement on the first page about the nature of a soul.

I would be more inclined to think it's the last one "involving unsavory practices" --- while the examples don't seem to match , a good argument could be made that it is still within the "unsavory practices" area.

[Urpriest]

In any case, if you're an enchanter the [Evil] descriptor doesn't matter, Wizards aren't penalized for casting [Evil] spells. Casting one is an [Evil] act, but most adventuring parties will do a few of those on occasion.

[LaughingRogue]

In any case, if you're an enchanter the [Evil] descriptor doesn't matter, Wizards aren't penalized for casting [Evil] spells. Casting one is an [Evil] act, but most adventuring parties will do a few of those on occasion.

I like the way you think Urpriest, but my DM just might not allow me to take it if it's evil... which it is :P

[FMArthur]

There really are a lot of unaligned Enchantment effects whose most common usage might be cruel, demeaning or sometimes outright evil to do. The fact is that WotC designers were not all on the same page about:
what alignment in general is
what each specific alignment represents
what things should affect alignment
what affect your alignment has

Sometimes the answer isn't "this argument is illogical because the rules do something different here, here and here", but simply "they made mistakes writing the game".

In places it's not even so much a flaw of the game designers' invention but the very fantasy archetypes they are working with. Fey "romance" with humans in particular is one thing in fantasy that is not often depicted as being exactly as disturbing as it should be.

[LaughingRogue]

Unfortunately, none of us wrote the books in question. We only have the RAW to work within and once you get into RAI then it completely just devolves into one person's opinion vs anothers and those generally spiral out of control when two people with conflicting opinions start going back and forth.

[Vandicus]

The ends justify the means. Antiheroes can do just fine using evil means to accomplish a good end(lets not get drawn into an argument over ethics here, this is undeniably an existing character archetype). Sure people won't like you as much, but you're still saving the world, which in the end is all that really matters right?

On a side note, I also question the evil descriptor of the Mindrape spell. In the popular game Mass Effect 2, which uses a somewhat similar morality system, it was considered good(Paragon) to rewrite the minds of a couple million sentient beings to change their fundamental beliefs and evil(Renegade) to kill them all instead(these being the only two options). Sure it can be used for evil(or good or even neutral acts), but it is not necessary to do something inherently evil, and isn't even defined as one of the inherently evil acts in the Book of Vile Darkness(such as raising the dead).

[Sucrose]

The ends justify the means. Antiheroes can do just fine using evil means to accomplish a good end(lets not get drawn into an argument over ethics here, this is undeniably an existing character archetype). Sure people won't like you as much, but you're still saving the world, which in the end is all that really matters right?

On a side note, I also question the evil descriptor of the Mindrape spell. In the popular game Mass Effect 2, which uses a somewhat similar morality system, it was considered good(Paragon) to rewrite the minds of a couple million sentient beings to change their fundamental beliefs and evil(Renegade) to kill them all instead(these being the only two options). Sure it can be used for evil(or good or even neutral acts), but it is not necessary to do something inherently evil, and isn't even defined as one of the inherently evil acts in the Book of Vile Darkness(such as raising the dead).

The fact that the character archetype exists does not mean that the characters are all of good or neutral alignment. The Punisher, for example, swings wildly between being Lawful Good and Lawful Evil, depending upon just how far his writers decide he's willing to push his war on crime.

The ends do not always justify the means, and the fact that an evil act may be necessary does not change the fact that it is evil, and therefore that you are, at best, walking a very fine line between neutrality and evil, and will fall to evil the instant that you begin considering such a monstrous weapon in cases where it is not strictly necessary.

Paragon and Renegade don't map precisely to good and evil; it's more 'Picard' to 'Kirk'. That said, the Mass Effect devs were not D&D designers, so their opinions are irrelevant for the purposes of RAI, and they are not experts on real-world morality, making their opinions not particularly compelling from a practical play perspective.

[Vandicus]

The fact that the character archetype exists does not mean that the characters are all of good or neutral alignment. The Punisher, for example, swings wildly between being Lawful Good and Lawful Evil, depending upon just how far his writers decide he's willing to push his war on crime.



I didn't suggest the player wouldn't be evil by the D&D alignment system. My point was that it really didn't matter. A person can play a heroic character who is evil aligned by the D&D system but doesn't try to destroy the world and isn't out to profit himself. He shouldn't worry so much about being on a certain side of the alignment chart, but rather create a char concept and play it.

[Shadowknight12]

I didn't suggest the player wouldn't be evil by the D&D alignment system. My point was that it really didn't matter. A person can play a heroic character who is evil aligned by the D&D system but doesn't try to destroy the world and isn't out to profit himself. He shouldn't worry so much about being on a certain side of the alignment chart, but rather create a char concept and play it.

I think the problem here is that there's always someone at the table that gets uppity about alignment. I've yet to witness a game (except the current solo game I'm running, but that one doesn't count because, well, it's a solo game) where nobody cares about alignment at all.

[LaughingRogue]

I think the problem here is that there's always someone at the table that gets uppity about alignment. I've yet to witness a game (except the current solo game I'm running, but that one doesn't count because, well, it's a solo game) where nobody cares about alignment at all.

Yeah I generally think that this is where the problem lies as well.

[Volthawk]

Well, "the ends justify the means" is around as a justification that villains use as well.

[Vandicus]

Well, "the ends justify the means" is around as a justification that villains use as well.

True, but the phrase doesn't automatically make one a villain. When a villain uses it, they're usually misinformed (lacking the knowledge that would let them understand why their plan does not in fact achieve a good end), insane, or not actually trying to achieve good.

Very few people actually consider what the phrase means anyways. By definition, a person who is using the statement correctly and who is justified in his belief(both based on the information available and the reality of the situation) that his actions are justifed by the ends will produce a result that is good.

Imagine if people went around doing things where the ends didn't justify the means?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html

[Drachasor]

True, but the phrase doesn't automatically make one a villain. When a villain uses it, they're usually misinformed (lacking the knowledge that would let them understand why their plan does not in fact achieve a good end), insane, or not actually trying to achieve good.

Yes, but some people also use it poorly when they interpret it as a good end justifies evil means when there are less evil or even good alternatives.

[LaughingRogue]

So what?..the choice you pick should always be in line with the way that is best and most fun for your character and if that happens to be the anti-hero route ...why is there an issue?


Just because the villan can use it as an excuse doesn't mean you can't and it also doesn't make you just llike them if you both do...

[Drachasor]

So what?..the choice you pick should always be in line with the way that is best and most fun for your character and if that happens to be the anti-hero route ...why is there an issue?

We were having an ethics diversion, I believe.

Certainly some brands of anti-heroes would have to be neutral or even evil. I'm not sure D&D handles them well within the alignment system, since that system can be a bit overly broad.

[LaughingRogue]

We were having an ethics diversion, I believe.

Certainly some brands of anti-heroes would have to be neutral or even evil. I'm not sure D&D handles them well within the alignment system, since that system can be a bit overly broad.

Sorry I'm following this via phone so I did not really notice

[Irbis]

On a side note, I also question the evil descriptor of the Mindrape spell. In the popular game Mass Effect 2, which uses a somewhat similar morality system, it was considered good(Paragon) to rewrite the minds of a couple million sentient beings to change their fundamental beliefs and evil(Renegade) to kill them all instead(these being the only two options).

Except, IIRC, what you did was erasing programming bug introduced by Saren. So, what you did really was canceling mindrape.


The fact that the character archetype exists does not mean that the characters are all of good or neutral alignment. The Punisher, for example, swings wildly between being Lawful Good and Lawful Evil, depending upon just how far his writers decide he's willing to push his war on crime.

Punisher was ever introduced as any good, much less LG? :smallconfused:

[Drachasor]

Except, IIRC, what you did was erasing programming bug introduced by Saren. So, what you did really was canceling mindrape.

It's also a BIT more complicated. You are changing how they think, but you aren't learning all their secrets and violating other aspects of their privacy like Mindrape does. You also aren't changing their ability to reach conclusions, and are arguably enabling them to think a lot more clearly. You are definitely changing them so that they aren't murderous monsters anymore -- to the best of your knowledge anyhow. It's a very specific, almost surgical change that pretty much alters one line of reasoning in their minds.

Further, you are empowering the Geth, who will be an enemy of the more or less Cosmic Horrors that are coming, and those bad guys might not even be stoppable. So you definitely need every edge you can get to save all the advanced civilizations in the entire galaxy.

So one could argue that it is like super-quick and effective therapy on murderous beings that are a danger to others (and perhaps themselves). You could also argue it is a necessary edge. You could further argue that it is undoing manipulation by those Cosmic Horrors, and so in a sense setting them free. To be fair, Legion, a group of Geth, seems to reject this last interpretation, but that doesn't mean he's right. Lastly, it is do that or kill them forever, because it isn't like they have some aspect of them that will survive (like souls in D&D).

Overall I'd say the ethical situation is a BIT different than even moderately changing someone's mind.

[LaughingRogue]

It's also a BIT more complicated. You are changing how they think, but you aren't learning all their secrets and violating other aspects of their privacy like Mindrape does. You also aren't changing their ability to reach conclusions, and are arguably enabling them to think a lot more clearly. You are definitely changing them so that they aren't murderous monsters anymore -- to the best of your knowledge anyhow. It's a very specific, almost surgical change that pretty much alters one line of reasoning in their minds.

Further, you are empowering the Geth, who will be an enemy of the more or less Cosmic Horrors that are coming, and those bad guys might not even be stoppable. So you definitely need every edge you can get to save all the advanced civilizations in the entire galaxy.

So one could argue that it is like super-quick and effective therapy on murderous beings that are a danger to others (and perhaps themselves). You could also argue it is a necessary edge. You could further argue that it is undoing manipulation by those Cosmic Horrors, and so in a sense setting them free. To be fair, Legion, a group of Geth, seems to reject this last interpretation, but that doesn't mean he's right. Lastly, it is do that or kill them forever, because it isn't like they have some aspect of them that will survive (like souls in D&D).

Overall I'd say the ethical situation is a BIT different than even moderately changing someone's mind.

Invading one's privacy isn't evil or shouldn't even be considered near evil ---> there are tons and tons of spells that read minds and should not be considered evil.

once again this falls under the area of *depending on how you do it* --- if you go up to some random guy on the street and read his mind and then the next and the next and learn everyone's secret's --- yeah that's evil

reading the evil guys mind to learn how to save the world ... not evil

Fireballing random commoner = evil

fireballing BBEG = not evil

Now the part that probably is evil about the spell is when you do something to manipulate his thoughts and bend him to do basically anything you want --- yeah that's probably very evil

[RedWarrior0]

What is the most potent mind reading effect other than Mindrape that you know of? Does it give you complete, unrestricted access to every thought they've ever thought? Everything they've seen, heard, or felt? Every nuance of emotion they've experienced? Mindrape not only does that, it let's you change it. Sure, you can Mindrape them into being diehard pacifists, scions of Good, untemptable beings; this effect deprives them of free will and the power to choose one thing or another.

[olentu]

What is the most potent mind reading effect other than Mindrape that you know of? Does it give you complete, unrestricted access to every thought they've ever thought? Everything they've seen, heard, or felt? Every nuance of emotion they've experienced? Mindrape not only does that, it let's you change it. Sure, you can Mindrape them into being diehard pacifists, scions of Good, untemptable beings; this effect deprives them of free will and the power to choose one thing or another.

Eh they already have a sanctified spell for doing the holy mindrape.

[Zale]

Eh they already have a sanctified spell for doing the holy mindrape.

True. Very costly spell, though.

[Arundel]

If we are talking about Sanctify the Wicked then it is costly (swordsaged) and it also makes the target reflect upon their own misdeeds and atone for the crimes. It does not reshape their mind in your image, it makes them reshape their own. It takes a level, a year, and it can fail. Not exactly the gimme spell mindrape (I mean, its called mindRAPE, I feel dirty for typing it)

[Joxer t' Mighty]

It's funny, everyone goes on about Mindrape, but never the Mind Seed (http://dndsrd.net/psionicPowersGtoP.html#mind-seed) power. Not only do you erase their very personality, but you put yours in their place. You're not just erasing them, you're infesting them.

It's also only 8th level.

[olentu]

If we are talking about Sanctify the Wicked then it is costly (swordsaged) and it also makes the target reflect upon their own misdeeds and atone for the crimes. It does not reshape their mind in your image, it makes them reshape their own. It takes a level, a year, and it can fail. Not exactly the gimme spell mindrape (I mean, its called mindRAPE, I feel dirty for typing it)

Well since as I recall the target always and without fail takes the alignment of the caster, as opposed to say just changing the good evil axis, to some degree the spell must shape the target's mind to match that of the caster.

Sure perhaps not with such fine control as mindrape or programmed amnesia but it is there to a degree.