eternal youth spell

[Wonder]

i'd like to thank everybody that already answered on my previous thread that i started on my native language ( i don't even know WHY i did that, sorry for my dumbness :smalleek: ).

as i read from the posts the spell steal life is probably the closest thing to what i wanted (i wasn't searching for a spell whose purpose was killing stuff).
Even the statistic advantage is secondary to me, i just want my characther to be an old human wizard that doesn't want to die, i want him obsessed and paranoic so he could even do evil things if needed to obtain it.

could a combination of permanency and alter self or polymorph prevent death by aging ?
what if i try to become young again using a wish or a limited wish ?

[Feralventas]

Permanent Alter Self or Polymorph would maintain the form you had, but I believe it would age after being it for a while. You could have an item without limted uses, at which point the spell could simply be re-cast over and over again as well.

Using Wish or Limited Wish is unwise for this as there are mechanically safe ways of doing so that Don't encourage the DM to play evil genie to your wording and requests.

You can go after prestige classes that grant the Construct, Undead, Elemental or Outsider templates so as to avoid standard mortality, though it does make it more difficult to resurect you if you die unnaturally.

I don't know if Trolls age, but if you take Toughness and Troll-blooded at 1st level you'd have Regeneration1 and potentially survive forever until someone hits you with fire or acid.

I believe that there's a 3rd part source that I don't know if it's safe to mention the name of on this board any more which has an eternal youth spell as an 8th or 9th level spell.

Polymorph Any Object cast twice will essentially be permanent on its own merits, and you can turn yourself into a Very Young gold dragon every couple thousand years to just keep a pattern going.

[Andion Isurand]

There is a sor/wiz 9 necromancy spell in Dragon 354 called Kissed By The Ages, which ties the life force of a living target (other than the caster) to the spell's focus.. a small item worth at least 4k that takes up an item slot.. like a ring or pendant. If magical, the item's magical properties are lost in the process. It takes 1 hour to cast and costs the caster 5k exp.

The spell is instantaneous but the affected item now radiates a strong aura of necromancy. The subject does not age while wearing the item. While it is not worn for whatever reason, the subject resumes aging as normal, but also suffers a -1 penalty to saves and a -2 penalty to saves against death effects.

While the subject lives, nothing short of a deity or harmful contact with an artifact can destroy the item, and the subject always knows where the item is if both are on the same plane.

[Maginomicon]

It's also heavily implied (if not explicitly stated) that by taking the Wedded to History feat in Dragon Magazine #354, you gain the Endless quality, which makes you not age. However, it's a character creation feat.

[EyethatBinds]

Psionics has a method. Using True Mind Switch and Polymorph any object can turn a commoner into your identical twin (though in your prime/youth) then swap brains with them. I did this with a Telepath in the epilogue of a game and wound up being the villain of the next game. Really wish I hadn't made him so bloody powerful.

[Wonder]

Really wish I hadn't made him so bloody powerful.

lol :smallbiggrin:

[erok0809]

If you're willing to use epic spellcasting, there's a use of the fortify seed that allows you to increase the length of whatever age category you're in. If you have a bunch of spellcaster friends, make it a ritual spell with them contributing like 9th level spells or something, you can get a few hundred years out of it without too much effort. You could also make it take 100 days and 11 minutes to cast to get another 110 years on it. I made this spell for myself, and if I ever reach epic levels, my sorcerer is definitely going to use it, so long as the DM says yes.

[Grim Reader]

It's also heavily implied (if not explicitly stated) that by taking the Wedded to History feat in Dragon Magazine #354, you gain the Endless quality, which makes you not age. However, it's a character creation feat.

Im fairly sure its neither implied nor stated. Its just a gateway feat.

[Glimbur]

Becoming undead is a stereotypical way for a wizard to become immortal. Lich or Necropolitan (from Heroes of Horror I think?) are the standard choices. Vampire has too much LA, many of the other undead are transformational i.e. you turn into a normal Wight.

You can also ride the Reincarnate train, because the spell brings you back as a young adult, but that requires a druid to help and it doesn't really fit your scheme.

As a DM, I would let Wish reduce your age, but it's not in the listed effects so it is up to your DM.

[Malroth]

Arcane Disciple: Luck to get Miracle which you can use to duplicate reincarnate without any druids necessary. tie with Contingency and you can off yourself and gaurantee revival in the safety of your own evil lair.

[Jack_Simth]

You can also ride the Reincarnate train, because the spell brings you back as a young adult, but that requires a druid to help and it doesn't really fit your scheme.There's ways around that. Last Breath (Spell Compendium page 130) is Druid-4. Limited Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/limitedWish.htm) can "Duplicate any other spell of 4th level or lower, even if it’s of a prohibited school." Craft Contingent Spell (Complete Arcane, page 77) lets you make spells that will go off on specific criteria. Base price spell level × caster level × 100 gp = 9100 gp and it takes ten days to craft, and costs 4,550 gp in materials... and you need to expend 664 xp (364 for the crafting, 300 for the XP component). But then you can kill yourself and come back in a randomly-chosen young adult body, using nothing but your own resources (and without losing a level).

[Rubik]

Arcane Disciple: Luck to get Miracle which you can use to duplicate reincarnate without any druids necessary. tie with Contingency and you can off yourself and gaurantee revival in the safety of your own evil lair.But then you might come back as an elf. Bleh.

As I said in the other thread, the psychoactive skin of proteus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/universalItems.htm#skinofProteus) will do it. Constant Metamorphosis. Just refresh it every few decades and you should be fine. Of course, it has a ton of other uses as well.

[Seffbasilisk]

Craft Contingency + Sudden Maximize + Last Breath

[Wonder]

As I said in the other thread, the psychoactive skin of proteus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/universalItems.htm#skinofProteus) will do it. Constant Metamorphosis. Just refresh it every few decades and you should be fine. Of course, it has a ton of other uses as well.

Sadly me and my friends usually don't play with psions so that solution is probably out of our "world"

[Segev]

Looking at Last Breath, it brings you back to life; it isn't Reincarnate. How does it help, here?

[Gavinfoxx]

Looking at Last Breath, it brings you back to life; it isn't Reincarnate. How does it help, here?

Wrong Last Breath. Look at the other one.

[Segev]

Ah, found the SC version. ...that's quite a change, but fitting for a druid more than the other version(s).

[Slipperychicken]

You can just keep getting yourself killed before you die of old age, then rezzed with Reincarnate, or True Mind Switch into someone young and healthy with good physical stats.

[Phelix-Mu]

Frankly, while reincarnate is the most user-friendly method, and its upgrade to Last Breath, I find it to be the most abusive. But, then, I'm a druid by nature, and druids are pretty likely not to approve of this usage of the spell (not really natural). Other methods that are designed to grant an ageless/endless form seem more appropriate.

Just a note, DMs with players that are doing this kind of stuff pretty much get carte blanche to set up drawbacks, like the classic marut onslaught, or undead slayers (if undeath is being used). Major character objectives naturally make for good plot devices, and you should make sure to have your character research just who might come after him/her during the immortality quest, or just after.

In terms of personal preference, body-swapping via psionics is probably my favorite, but is obviously still highly morally questionable. Since psionics is out, I think one can still arrange a similar body swap via arcane magic, but I'm not sure exactly how.

[Slipperychicken]

In terms of personal preference, body-swapping via psionics is probably my favorite, but is obviously still highly morally questionable.

You're killing the guy just like normal, only you're sticking him in an old wizard body first. It's not even like you're leaving him to rot in the old body or causing extra suffering; he still gets to enjoy whatever afterlife he had coming to him, and the death is just as quick and painful as normal.

[Phelix-Mu]

You're killing the guy just like normal, only you're sticking him in an old wizard body first. It's not even like you're leaving him to rot in the old body or causing extra suffering; he still gets to enjoy whatever afterlife he had coming to him, and the death is just as quick and painful as normal.

Eh, depriving someone of their future, even given an afterlife, is still not a kind thing to do. You take their years and make them your own, and have no right to do so.

The morally questionable bit comes in in that there are ways to ensure that this isn't quite such a terrible deal. The main way to avoid the moral question is to not wait until your native body is old. Switch to a longer lived body early on.

Even more complicated schemes can be arranged that further muddy the waters.

In any case, averting the natural/unpleasant in favor of the desirable is often an indicator that someone should be checking the morality meter. Not saying it's evil, but it certainly isn't virtuous.

[Rubik]

Since psionics is out and you can't use the psychoactive skin, there's an item in, I believe, either the Arms & Equipment Guide or Savage Species, which grants constant Polymorph in a similar fashion, but only for a single alternate form. Does anyone know where and what it is? I'm going off of vague memories here.

Anyway, that would keep you forever young in your alternate form, since it wouldn't age, just like with the skin (but not nearly as awesomely).

[Slipperychicken]

Eh, depriving someone of their future, even given an afterlife, is still not a kind thing to do. You take their years and make them your own, and have no right to do so.


And how is this different from cutting a guy's throat in mortal combat? You're cutting the other guy's life short so you can live longer, it's more or less the same exchange, only you get more life out of it. Hell, if you were feeling generous, you could even make it a consentual arrangement where you rez the guy after taking his current body (and pay him for his trouble, of course).

[Phelix-Mu]

And how is this different from cutting a guy's throat in mortal combat? You're cutting the other guy's life short so you can live longer, it's more or less the same exchange, only you get more life out of it. Hell, if you were feeling generous, you could even make it a consentual arrangement where you rez the guy after taking his current body (and pay him for his trouble, of course).

Oh, so you were going to be killing/murdering the guy anyway. Well, I guess that's a separate moral issue.

To the resurrection thing, I don't think that works. Once the true mind switch is complete, your new body is the native body. So the shmuck who ended up in your old body, if you kill him, he will come back in your previous body. Pretty sure that's how it works. Please tell me if this is wrong, though, because this would be a nifty way to get multiple active copies of the same body (something that normally isn't that easy to do).

Now, I think there is probably a way around this, since there were enough psionics powers with similar but not identical effects. Sounds like something astral seed suicide-chaining could fix.

[Jack_Simth]

In terms of personal preference, body-swapping via psionics is probably my favorite, but is obviously still highly morally questionable.

Morally questionable? There's only a short list of ways to do it in a manner that isn't pretty black:

1) Full knowledge of both parties.
You take your middle-aged body, and put up a very special want-ad; something like "Need healthy young man for a forever body-swap. We trade bodies, and I give you X,000 gp into the bargain. Inquire at ..." then you actually follow through on all details, make sure they know what they're getting. I suspect there would be people IRL that would be OK with trading 20 years of life expectancy for 20 million dollars or some such.
2) Condemned criminals (also applies anywhere else where killing the target would be justified normally). Note that this carries complications. You swap with someone who is condemned to die for good reason... and make sure everyone involved knows exactly what's going on, so that the right person receives the remainder of the sentence.
3) Stuff I haven't thought of.


Since psionics is out, I think one can still arrange a similar body swap via arcane magic, but I'm not sure exactly how.
It's a trick of casting and dispelling Magic Jar (or the regular Psionic mind switch) repeatedly.

1) You get a patsy, a target, and yourself. (Y(y), T(t), and P(p))
2) Get into the body of the target (cast magic jar and posses, cast Mind Switch and posses, whatever). (Y(t), T(y), P(p))
3) Use another casting (manifesting) of magic jar or mind switch to get into the body of the patsy. (Y(t), T(p), P(y))
4) Dispel the first casting (manifesting) of Magic Jar (or Mind switch). (Y(p), T(t), P(y))
5) Dispel the second casting (manifesting) of Magic Jar (or Mind switch). (Y(p), T(y), P(t)).

[Rubik]

Morally questionable? There's only a short list of ways to do it in a manner that isn't pretty black:
Honestly, if you're heading to Vileville explicitly to kill Mayor Unrepentantevil von Blacksoul, why not swap bodies with him during the fight after you've tossed some serious Contingent debuffs on your old body? If you can manage it, it's not any morally black than killing him normally, now, is it?

So long as you don't go around swap-killing people just for that reason you should be fine.

[ArcturusV]

I suppose the other eternal youth option is to use Clone. You create a copy of your own body at some point in time. Put it on ice (Shirt of Gentle Repose, or a friendly cleric to cast it, Wish to replicate it if you're desperate, etc) so it doesn't rot away. By the time you finally die, your soul snaps into the Clone body and activates it from Useless Meatbag to your younger self. Only problems with that? Get level 8 spells before you're old. Trivial really unless you wanted to start out as Old/Venerable for casting stat boosts or something. Having a secure place where you can store a body or two... also trivial at the point you can hash out level 8 spells, typically. Making sure you die of a proper end to be eligible, so if you hit venerable or something to Coup de Grace yourself to avoid dying of old age. Roleplaying wise desperate and probably going to leave a touch of madness to your character, but acceptable.

Plus having "Spare mes" in your basement is very mad scientist sounding, so bonus points in my book. Also unlike Reincarnation based, you still are still the same person. Which might be important as no one wants to lose their Racial Bonuses and for example, come back as a Half Elf, etc.

[Jack_Simth]

Honestly, if you're heading to Vileville explicitly to kill Mayor Unrepentantevil von Blacksoul, why not swap bodies with him during the fight after you've tossed some serious Contingent debuffs on your old body? If you can manage it, it's not any morally black than killing him normally, now, is it?... I take it you didn't see the parenthetical note in option 2 of my list?

[Andion Isurand]

Stasis Clone is sor/wiz 9 and can be found in Lords of Darkness.

[Segev]

You were gonna go slay that evil red dragon anyway, right?

...what? If you're gonna True Mind Switch, why do it with a boring old humanoid?

[Phelix-Mu]

So, I guess "morally questionable" regarding perma-body-swapping was bad phrasing on my part. What I meant to communicate was that you really have to try if you want a way to do it that isn't pretty darn evil.

More generally speaking, body-swapping is some pretty serious warping of the true nature of things, something that is often construed as the territory of evil. I gain tons at almost no personal cost, while depriving another of all of that possibility related to whatever they could have done with their abilities/remaining life had I not stolen them. At best, it's slippery slope, so potentially abusable that eventually one is likely to cross the line from "barely neutral" to "Blackity Black McBlack, from the village of Blacker-upon-Black in the county of 'Damn, that's Black'."

The workaround that I was thinking of probably involved something along the lines of a three part body swap, as per Jack's example. Still gonna be pretty complicated, though, and really doesn't eliminate the moral issue, just muddies it a bit. And, upon more reflection, not even sure it will work.

1.) Make a simulacrum of John Doe, the target body.

2.) Arrange to switch your mind into John's body, John's mind into his simulacrum's body, and the simulacrum's mind into your original body. Could be some RAW issues here, and obviously subject to you getting DM's to swallow this.

3.) Now the only one deprived of life is the simulacrum, which, as others have argued, isn't a totally real creature either.

For me, a neutral-leaning-evil character might try this, but this kind of simulacra use is personally distasteful.

But then so is the whole matter of using a trick to overcome death. If you want to beat death, do it with personal accomplishment and take a PrC that eliminates your death (there are several by RAW and others where its arguable or where one stands to live a very long time). Templating more or less amounts to the same thing; pay the price if you want the goodies. That's probably the route most of my characters would take if this were actually something that interested them.

More realistically, death is often a psychological necessity. Most mortal beings aren't cut out for an eternity on the Prime, and Time is a cruel and pitiless mistress. I think anything you can't accomplish in the first five millennia probably isn't worth doing.

[Raven777]

Why not just become a vampire? All of the sexy, none of the rot.

[Rubik]

So, I guess "morally questionable" regarding perma-body-swapping was bad phrasing on my part. What I meant to communicate was that you really have to try if you want a way to do it that isn't pretty darn evil.

More generally speaking, body-swapping is some pretty serious warping of the true nature of things, something that is often construed as the territory of evil. I gain tons at almost no personal cost, while depriving another of all of that possibility related to whatever they could have done with their abilities/remaining life had I not stolen them. At best, it's slippery slope, so potentially abusable that eventually one is likely to cross the line from "barely neutral" to "Blackity Black McBlack, from the village of Blacker-upon-Black in the county of 'Damn, that's Black'."

The workaround that I was thinking of probably involved something along the lines of a three part body swap, as per Jack's example. Still gonna be pretty complicated, though, and really doesn't eliminate the moral issue, just muddies it a bit. And, upon more reflection, not even sure it will work.

1.) Make a simulacrum of John Doe, the target body.

2.) Arrange to switch your mind into John's body, John's mind into his simulacrum's body, and the simulacrum's mind into your original body. Could be some RAW issues here, and obviously subject to you getting DM's to swallow this.

3.) Now the only one deprived of life is the simulacrum, which, as others have argued, isn't a totally real creature either.

For me, a neutral-leaning-evil character might try this, but this kind of simulacra use is personally distasteful.

But then so is the whole matter of using a trick to overcome death. If you want to beat death, do it with personal accomplishment and take a PrC that eliminates your death (there are several by RAW and others where its arguable or where one stands to live a very long time). Templating more or less amounts to the same thing; pay the price if you want the goodies. That's probably the route most of my characters would take if this were actually something that interested them.

More realistically, death is often a psychological necessity. Most mortal beings aren't cut out for an eternity on the Prime, and Time is a cruel and pitiless mistress. I think anything you can't accomplish in the first five millennia probably isn't worth doing.There's nothing even vaguely "good" about dying. It's always bad for you if you die, unless you've got some sort of oddity like the jade phoenix mage that allows you to bypass it and use yourself as a tactical nuke.

Why would anyone want to die? Why should anyone be forced to do so? Sure, you're breaking natural law or whatever, but if you're a spellcaster, you do this all the time anyway.

The problem comes when you're so desperate to avoid death that you commit attrocities in the name of doing so. Otherwise, it's neither Good nor Evil. It's more of a Law/Chaos thing, I think, but really only because inevitables often get involved (and they're functionally insane anyway). Otherwise, depending on how you do so, it can be perfectly Neutral in the grand scheme of things, and assuming you don't try to Avada Kedavra a small child and his parents to get it, nobody in the multiverse but inevitables (and possibly whoever governs death) but you and your loved ones should even care.

[Maginomicon]

There's a variant of the Clone spell called "Stasis Clone"

From Lords of Darkness, page 189:

--------------

Stasis Clone

Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 9

As clone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clone.htm), except that if the original individual is still alive, the cloned body falls immediately into stasis and does not rot. If the original individual later dies, the soul transfers to the stasis clone, which leaves stasis and immediately begins to function as per the normal clone spell.

If multiple stasis clones exist for the same original creature when it is slain, the soul goes into the most recently created stasis clone.

--------------

I bring it up because I figured you'd want to know about this, since while it's not cheap (1000gp material component + 500gp focus) the cost isn't prohibitively expensive other than it being a level 9 spell.

It's how I handle "life insurance" in my regular game.

[ksbsnowowl]

Stasis Clone... Nice! I think I'll have to make use of that...

[Phelix-Mu]

There's nothing even vaguely "good" about dying. It's always bad for you if you die, unless you've got some sort of oddity like the jade phoenix mage that allows you to bypass it and use yourself as a tactical nuke.

Why would anyone want to die? Why should anyone be forced to do so? Sure, you're breaking natural law or whatever, but if you're a spellcaster, you do this all the time anyway.

The problem comes when you're so desperate to avoid death that you commit attrocities in the name of doing so. Otherwise, it's neither Good nor Evil. It's more of a Law/Chaos thing, I think, but really only because inevitables often get involved (and they're functionally insane anyway). Otherwise, depending on how you do so, it can be perfectly Neutral in the grand scheme of things, and assuming you don't try to Avada Kedavra a small child and his parents to get it, nobody in the multiverse but inevitables (and possibly whoever governs death) but you and your loved ones should even care.

Avoiding death can't be good, because you can't generalize the principle. If no one died, the population of the Prime would skyrocket and society would break down pretty quickly (not to mention the possible strain on the environment...Tippyverse would be required just to keep thing in check).

I can accept that it might be neutral, but again, it's kind of selfish. The normal way is for mortal things to die. The old goes away and the new replaces it. It's natural. I'm not saying it's a good thing that it is this way, but distortion of natural order heads quickly in the direction of evil.

On the micro scale, this is not a big deal, and as you say, spellcasters are all about messing with the natural order. But I think that it's a much darker shade of grey than many people make it out to be.

Even in D&D, it's kind of assumed that not every non-good archmage/high priest ever has gone to the not-so-difficult trouble of avoiding death. Some do, but I think the typical player experience of their character is an unfair representation of character psychology. At some point, some people reach a point in life where they've done the stuff they want to do, the world has changed and is no longer the place they grew up in, and many of their friends have passed on. This isn't well-represented in the game, because campaigns usually take place during the period of the character's life where they are still in their prime and busy doing stuff and being cool.

Magic, as you said, changes some psychology away from the normal world, as does popular knowledge of a factual afterlife. That said, few are born with the power to avoid death; it's an acquired trait. All in all, it's a complicated discussion, but I feel that it's really hard to just say it's possible and not automatically evil, so go ahead and do it.

Anyway, much of that is IMHO. See the bit below about me being a druid.

[Rubik]

A world in which all people are granted immortality (and can be raised if they are killed) is one in which nobody will have to worry about their loved ones passing on. And a factual afterlife (which you can actually go visit if you want) spread amongst planes of infinite variety and infinite space means that if you're tired of this world you can simply head to the next one for new adventures. If your soul is eternal anyway, you might as well keep your body as well. If someone decided they DID want to die, they should probably be put down anyway, since that person is probably psychotic and a danger to himself and others.

[Phelix-Mu]

But not everyone is granted immortality. These tricks only work for the extremely powerful and self-interested. If your character is charitable enough to want to eliminate death entirely, then these tricks probably aren't the way to go about it.

If no one died, judgement would never be passed on souls. The afterlife is only functional if final accountability is made (the living can change their alignment in many ways, but for the dead its terribly difficult), and continuing to live prevents this from happening. So everyone can visit the afterlife, but may or may not be welcome there. Devils and demons would be particularly disappointed with this setup, since they'd need to hire a lot more assassins to hunt down their debtors and other sinners, since those miscreants wouldn't be dying of their own accord.

If your character's personal view is that no one should ever die, starting with himself or herself, that is fine. Not too far off from the concept of eliminating suffering, starting with raising oneself to a level where life doesn't suck so much. But this isn't a belief that can or should be popularized. Others are free to believe as they like, and many do believe that dying is part of an important process, a stepping stone on the journey of the soul.

Viewing death as an entirely negative thing is just something most of my characters wouldn't agree with. A combative view of one of the most fundamental forces underpinning activities on the Prime seems...well, not my style, in any case.

The one character that I had who became effectively immortal did it through a PrC capstone/plot device in which she was chosen to be the druid protector of a whole continent during an epic clash between gods and this elder evil type thing. Her mission was to ensure that the Prime, and Nature, survived. She became an elemental, and didn't have to worry about getting old any more. On the other hand, in her new position and given the titanic responsibility she was handed, her death became much, much more likely. As an elemental, she also became more resistant to resurrection and such, and she had plot-related trouble traveling to aligned planes, since her soul tended to get pulled in the direction of the plane's alignment trait (very dangerous on any of the extremist planes, since she could lose her druid casting if she became, say, LG).

Totally my opinion, though. Everyone has their own view on these things, and the game provides an excellent area to explore interesting moral issues. Thanks for the discussion, by the way.

[Raven777]

I tend to not agree with Kantian universalization. Through nature and nurture, living beings are inherently unequal. Some should achieve objectively more because they are objectively better. Eternal life being an example. That fact is not good, but certainly not evil. That simply is the way the world works. That is textbook neutrality.

[Phelix-Mu]

I tend to not agree with Kantian universalization. Through nature and nurture, living beings are inherently unequal. Some should achieve objectively more because they are objectively better. Eternal life being an example. That fact is not good, but certainly not evil. That simply is the way the world works. That is textbook neutrality.

I don't even know if Kantian universalization comports with neutrality at all, but that's an entirely different matter that D&D is somewhat self-contradictory about. The game certainly isn't a rigorous exercise in morality.

To your point, though, the world doesn't care who is better or who is worse. What people should be capable of, for whatever reason, is often not at all connected with what actually happens. So if you're pointing at innate inequality and saying that it's justification for why the way things are the way they are, I think that is kind of assuming a rhyme and reason to things. The world regularly spits in the face of rhyme and reason. Lousy people that never did anything get lucky and have power and privilege, while great people of character and quality (and good breeding) get hit by a bus crossing the street (or a stray crossbow bolt).

I suppose if you assume that this chaotic nature is also one of those laws leading to inequality, then I guess that's fine. But I'm not sure you can actually determine anything about anyone at any given moment, because you've just assumed that the occasional randomness of life is also a factor in objective judgements of quality or deserving this or that.

Sorry if I've made incorrect assumptions about your point. As always in these morality debates, I just want to provoke more discussion; no personal attack is implied.:smallsmile:

Man, I do love a good morality debate!

[Raven777]

the world doesn't care who is better or who is worse.

But if the world doesn't care, isn't it then entirely irrelevant whether we care about it in return? You spoke about a natural order and a final judgement of the soul, but what is it to us, when we are so little compared to the greater maelstrom of the universe? What is spitting in the eye of the cosmos when the cosmos won't even blink? I say man might not claim to change the wind's course, but it damn well can adjust his boat's sails. And so I surmise that "natural order" considerations shouldn't matter in a discourse about the good or evil nature of a subject. At best, it would be a matter of order or chaos.

In the same way, what others can or can not achieve should not matter in good or evil considerations either. Others are outside of me. I have little ability to change them for better or worse, and little ability to grant or crush their desires. What matters is the precious little sphere of things I actually can change. That being out of the way, and excluding ways to achieve immortality that involve morally weighted components, immortality in itself will not make me a better person. It will not make me a worse person either. It will make me strictly the same person I was before.

[Phelix-Mu]

But if the world doesn't care, isn't it then entirely irrelevant whether we care about it in return? You spoke about a natural order and a final judgement of the soul, but what is it to us, when we are so little compared to the greater maelstrom of the universe? What is spitting in the eye of the cosmos when the cosmos won't even blink? I say man might not claim to change the wind's course, but it damn well can adjust his boat's sails. And so I surmise that "natural order" considerations shouldn't matter in a discourse about the good or evil nature of a subject. At best, it would be a matter of order or chaos.

In the adjustment of my own sails, my appraisal of all about me forms me. If I accept that all I can change is myself, then that's fine. But the fact is that change itself, the only constant in the universe, is made up of the amalgam of all the diverse actions and interactions of nothing more than each individual electron, and person, determining their spin. I may not control much, but to suggest that actions are of no consequence is not the case. The web of interaction defies each of us, but is made up of everyone. Nothing is insignificant. Chaos theory itself bears this out; the smallest of things can extrapolate infinitely.

In the same way, what others can or can not achieve should not matter in good or evil considerations either. Others are outside of me. I have little ability to change them for better or worse, and little ability to grant or crush their desires. What matters is the precious little sphere of things I actually can change.

I think our thoughts converge here, if only briefly. Every person affects every other. If each person is, through both nature and nurture, unequal, then some things made them that way. I postulate that I can and do influence people every day. How much can I change in the grand scheme? Can I turn lead into gold? I'll never know, because my sphere of comprehension is finite, but the very fact that everything matters, even if it's impossible to know how, means that I can and should care about how I act. Some actions will improve myself, and possibly the world around me. But as you say, I can only be sure of what affects me. Everything I do affects me.

That being out of the way, and excluding ways to achieve immortality that involve morally weighted components, immortality in itself will not make me a better person. It will not make me a worse person either. It will make me strictly the same person I was before.

I think this is our strongest point of non-agreement. Leaving aside how changing major aspects of ones own nature changes oneself, if one of a person's major goals was to remove the threat of death, how can achieving that goal not mark a change in the person. Major accomplishments can and do change people all of the time. Maybe not right away, maybe not in expected ways, but if you change the input variables, there's a tendency for the output to change as well.

Now, a given individual might not change. Maybe this person always assumed they would succeed. By removing death, the fear of which is one of the biggest motivating drives out there, I tend to think that eventually that change in emotional baseline would change a person. Maybe a given individual is without fear, or is somehow an anomalous quantity, something the equation doesn't predict well (this equation known as life does tend to do that).

But I think you are heading back in the direction of false generalization when you suggest that, because someone is convinced that all they can control is themselves, that somehow that person only changes when they will it. Case by case, perhaps, but the level of flux observable in reality suggests that the scope of a person's ability to perceive and understand the factors that influence them is strictly limited. I may believe that I won't change, I might intend not to change. This has precious little bearing on what actually happens (see your own nature and nurture postulate).


Wow, well, we are close to hijacking the thread at this point. The initial discussion has petered out a bit, but we may want to continue this via PM, barring the OP's consent, or move it to another thread.

My view so far was initially inspired by what I believe would be game for characters that I role play. This last bit is more what I believe is personally defensible, and more reflective of my irl views than those of my characters. If I were a character, I'd be NG (though I have a primal, emotional enjoyment of chaos...a little bit of this for order, as I do love science/math, but you get the idea...I'm NOT LG).

Just my own views, of course, and I highly respect everyone's right to disagree (in fact, I kind of really enjoy it:smallwink:).

[Wonder]

Well the topic kind of flew away but the conversation was interesting :)
Btw for this characther of mine fall to the evil side to achieve is own immortality is an available option and i find it funny to play. I'd gladly accept even to die for a marut as a part of the play in a time or another.
Maybe i won't even reach lvl 8/9 spells and immortality but the search for it is the road i would like to roleplay.
Furthermore penetrating ur conversation i think that the evil beings who gains immortality won't share it but keep it jealously secret, so the possibility of a world of immortals is not the case in a tipical DnD World.

[Cirrylius]

In the adjustment of my own sails, my appraisal of all about me forms me. If I accept that all I can change is myself, then that's fine. But the fact is that change itself, the only constant in the universe, is made up of the amalgam of all the diverse actions and interactions of nothing more than each individual electron, and person, determining their spin. I may not control much, but to suggest that actions are of no consequence is not the case. The web of interaction defies each of us, but is made up of everyone.

Except that every decision you make is also the result of the amalgam of everything that's come before; every decision you make, every change you enact, no matter how grand or insignificant, is as inevitable and beyond your control as the vectors of the primordial particles that eventually brought us here. If actions and consequences were billiard balls, you aren't the pool player making the best of a set number of possible moves; you're the pool cue dreaming it's the player. The actual player is the sum total of all actions that have occurred in the universe since time began.

This is the philosophy that has gone a long way towards ruining my life:smallannoyed:

[Phelix-Mu]

In the adjustment of my own sails, my appraisal of all about me forms me. If I accept that all I can change is myself, then that's fine. But the fact is that change itself, the only constant in the universe, is made up of the amalgam of all the diverse actions and interactions of nothing more than each individual electron, and person, determining their spin. I may not control much, but to suggest that actions are of no consequence is not the case. The web of interaction defies each of us, but is made up of everyone.

Except that every decision you make is also the result of the amalgam of everything that's come before; every decision you make, every change you enact, no matter how grand or insignificant, is as inevitable and beyond your control as the vectors of the primordial particles that eventually brought us here. If actions and consequences were billiard balls, you aren't the pool player making the best of a set number of possible moves; you're the pool cue dreaming it's the player. The actual player is the sum total of all actions that have occurred in the universe since time began.

This is the philosophy that has gone a long way towards ruining my life:smallannoyed:

I think that it is useful in this case to indulge in the eternal and joyous human pastime of ignorance. Even if you believe in this brand of fatalism, and many people do, feel free to have a little cognitive dissonance and also feel like your actions matter.

It's a simple fact that our emotional states can be influenced by a number of things. If the truth is very depressing to you, I'd advise ignoring it just enough that you aren't so depressed. Most of humanity engages in this behavior, to one extent or another, and it greases our interactions with each other and the world.

In particular, humans tend to be enamored of the illusion of control. That somehow I determine the life I lead, instead of the other way around. My past may determine my actions in the present, but my awareness of this influence can be decidedly impaired.

So, I don't know if I fundamentally disagree with your assertion of our "gears in a great clockwork"-ness, but I find that the past is often just a psychological burden that does little aside from detract from our awareness of the moment. I certainly am prone to these kind of histrionics, and they do tend to make me miserable. But I'd probably be less miserable if I just ignored all of that.

[Segev]

All I'll say to this philosophical exercise is that even believing that we know enough about reality to state with any surety that there is no free choice, that all is deterministic, requires a certain level of faith. In fact, it requires at least as much faith as just about any other major religion. Science is not complete, and there are far, far too many unanswered questions for any hypothesis of determinism or nihilism or fatalism to be properly tested.

Time's Arrow, itself, gives rise to questions of the reality of determinsm; if entropy dictates that the arrow must fly, then some "choice" is made that cannot be unmade when it is done.

Or, in short: There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[dascarletm]

My go-to is that one spell in the BoVD, Steal Life. Grab a few peasants every full moon and a full slot of 8ths devoted to that spell. 1week younger for every ability point drain.

[Segev]

Ah, the BoVD, which is nowhere near as evil as some more basic D&D stuff. True Mind Switch can be FAR more vile.

[Renen]

Permanent Alter Self or Polymorph would maintain the form you had, but I believe it would age after being it for a while. You could have an item without limted uses, at which point the spell could simply be re-cast over and over again as well.

Using Wish or Limited Wish is unwise for this as there are mechanically safe ways of doing so that Don't encourage the DM to play evil genie to your wording and requests.

You can go after prestige classes that grant the Construct, Undead, Elemental or Outsider templates so as to avoid standard mortality, though it does make it more difficult to resurect you if you die unnaturally.

I don't know if Trolls age, but if you take Toughness and Troll-blooded at 1st level you'd have Regeneration1 and potentially survive forever until someone hits you with fire or acid.

I believe that there's a 3rd part source that I don't know if it's safe to mention the name of on this board any more which has an eternal youth spell as an 8th or 9th level spell.

Polymorph Any Object cast twice will essentially be permanent on its own merits, and you can turn yourself into a Very Young gold dragon every couple thousand years to just keep a pattern going.

What 3rd party source? Im curious now... throw me a pm maybe?

[Drachasor]

All I'll say to this philosophical exercise is that even believing that we know enough about reality to state with any surety that there is no free choice, that all is deterministic, requires a certain level of faith. In fact, it requires at least as much faith as just about any other major religion. Science is not complete, and there are far, far too many unanswered questions for any hypothesis of determinism or nihilism or fatalism to be properly tested.

Time's Arrow, itself, gives rise to questions of the reality of determinsm; if entropy dictates that the arrow must fly, then some "choice" is made that cannot be unmade when it is done.

Or, in short: There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

All the evidence we have leads to the conclusion we are biological machines. There's literally nothing against it. At best you can toss in quantum mechanics, but that just means there's random dice rolling involved -- but it isn't clear this plays a notable role in decision-making. And sure, we can't be 100% sure, but that's true of gravity, evolution, etc, etc. We can be pretty darn sure, as there are mountains of evidence to support this conclusion.

That said, I really don't see what's so depressing about it. You are still you. Your actions still impact the world. You just aren't some sort of weird acausal thing. You're a biological decision-making engine within a biological meatsuit. Granted, we could stand to be a lot more durable, but there's nothing depressing about it other than that.

[Segev]

Nothing depressing. Speaking as a Computational Intelligence expert with a focus on neural networks, I can say with personal confidence that there is a great deal that goes on in our neurons that depends on some measure of that entropic "reduce many possibilities to one" that happens as time passes. To say that we are "biological machines" is akin to saying that a modern computer is just an "electronic abacus." On a certain level, it's true, but if you can tell me honestly that computers never seem to have a mind of their own, I envy your predictable, reliable computing experiences.

I'm not even talking about the usual "they do what you told them to do, and you just didn't quite properly predict the interaction of your instructions." I'm talking about the ways computers can "screw up" or "glitch" based strictly on the hardware limitations and micro-failures, based on the genuine over-complexities that NOBODY could predict (not even a computer) without full simulation. And which, due to pretty much chaos theory explanations, you couldn't reliably replicate if you tried.

We may be "biological machines," but we're such complex, complicated ones with so many intricate interactions that there is not enough science established to make a declaration of "Determinism" wrt us. Not even in the way you imply, comparing it to the relative simplicity of gravity.

[Renen]

Guys... stop hijacking the thread.

[Drachasor]

As far as eternal youth goes, there are plenty of LA 0 species that live forever. Since a Wish can change your species back to "normal" (as per Reincarnate), I think most DMs would let it work to change your species to something else.

Heck, or even just not have you age anymore.

[Phelix-Mu]

On topic, there were also those rituals from Savage Species and PHB2, I think, that let you change your race/species. The dragonborn thing from Races of the Dragon is also a thing, though I'm not sure how useful it is from a more practical standpoint, as fighting evil for Bahamut actually tends to reduce life expectancy.

It's not entirely off-topic to debate the effects of eternal youth spells and psychology. Just mostly off-topic.:smalltongue:

[Cirrylius]

I think that it is useful in this case to indulge in the eternal and joyous human pastime of ignorance.
...which is more or less exactly how I am now required to live, yes. It gets old when you don't have the money, the contacts, or the experience to acquire the distractions that would distract you effectively.

...aaand last derail. Promise.

[Mithril Leaf]

Depending on just how immortal fey are in your campaign, Unseelie Fey is a +0 LA template that could make you immortal. Warforged get immortality for free as well.

[Randomocity132]

There are demonic pact feats that make you ageless.

There's also a feat called Eternal Youth that straight up makes you stop physically aging, so the penalties for going into older ages are treated as 1 tier lower.

You might also try the iron will, great fortitude, corruption and consumption feat line.

[Drachasor]

Worst case: A Simalcrum of a level 20 Druid for Reincarnate. Kills yourself now and then, and use Wish to restore your race. Though I imagine someone already mentioned this.

A DM might let Wish Contingency a Limited Wish for the Reincarnate effect, in which case you could do this via Wizard levels only.

[Jack_Simth]

I tend to not agree with Kantian universalization.... if Phelix-Mu is using the Kantian framework, though, then Phelix-Mu has already lost the point - as Kant basically said that the only thing of inherent value was intelligent creatures, and everything else is of value only in how it relates to intelligent creatures... which means anything that increases the number of intelligent creatures without violating intelligent creatures (like, say, keeping them from dying) is going to be a fundamentally good thing in that framework.

[Phelix-Mu]

... if Phelix-Mu is using the Kantian framework, though, then Phelix-Mu has already lost the point - as Kant basically said that the only thing of inherent value was intelligent creatures, and everything else is of value only in how it relates to intelligent creatures... which means anything that increases the number of intelligent creatures without violating intelligent creatures (like, say, keeping them from dying) is going to be a fundamentally good thing in that framework.

But simply increasing the lifespan/number of intelligent creatures, via say, eliminating death, often runs afoul of violating other intelligent creatures. Food comes from somewhere, and unless we are also eliminating all biological processes, then we must also provide for needing to feed a potentially unlimited number of intelligent creatures (certainly possible with magic).

Reproduction is probably going to continue among the immortal populace, unless everyone somehow was able to afford crucimigration (as reproduction is both a natural and desirable event for many creature types, irrespective of immortality). The creation of youth is problematic in a world where no one dies. In the existing order, the young inherit the world from their elders as time passes. But if the elders never die, what do the young do? They could carve out a place for themselves with their own talent, but that stands to be hard in a world full of people that have had centuries to rise to great prominence in every field imaginable.

While the only things of importance are intelligent creatures, the fact is that pretty much everything else has some impact on the lives of intelligent creatures. If one is going to change a significant aspect of intelligent life, many other things will change, and in return will change the lives of the intelligent creatures. The web exists whether we tinker with it or not, but when we do, we would do well to see that our actions will have consequences far beyond their immediate effects.

At least that is my view. I don't think my view of the interconnected nature of reality hinges on Kantian generalization, but I find that Kant's concept helps me see what is the conceivable worst end-product of a proposed course of action or choice. If the created situation seems untenable, then one should take another action, or take steps to ensure that the generalized eventuality or its side effects don't take place (a non-morally cohesive, but far more practical, approach).

In any case, it's a fantasy game. Any character doesn't need a coherent world view in order to pursue x or y (as desires and goals aren't always rational or intellectually derived). I just tend to play high-Int, high-Wis types that are usually trying to integrate their motives and choices into their overall world-view.

[Renen]

Please Stop Derailing The Thread!

[dascarletm]

Please Stop Derailing The Thread!

Welcome to GitP.:smallbiggrin:

[Phelix-Mu]

Please Stop Derailing The Thread!

We have already generated a fair amount of on-topic material, and more has been added just today. As the OP brings up some issues of alignment and the implications of certain methods in the OP, I don't see this as ranging too terribly far from the initial issue (which has been well-addressed).

I'm certainly sorry if the side-discussion has cause any distress or inconvenience in the community. I actually did move my discussion with one poster to PM, and only continued on the side issues once the thread had been dormant for a number of days and popped back up with the side discussion mentioned.

Again, apologies if this has caused problems.