Exalted and mind control?

[CyberThread]

If you are exalted, and you do a mind control or mind altering spell, does book of exalted deeds explain or help layout how one should interact or the leeway given mechanically , and hopefully not be at the mercy of a DM?

[AMFV]

If you are exalted, and you do a mind control or mind altering spell, does book of exalted deeds explain or help layout how one should interact or the leeway given mechanically , and hopefully not be at the mercy of a DM?

There are sanctified mind altering spells. Ergo, I assume it's probably okay. Some LG folks might even be okay with using Sanctify the Wicked or various Geas as a matter of course to evil people, it'd definitely lower recidivism.

[OldTrees1]

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


The aura is a mind-affecting, supernatural compulsion.

Consider these quotes.

Sure looks like the authors of BoED were conflicted over whether Mindrape was Vile or Exalted.

I personally think that action must be voluntary for it to be virtuous. Destroying the potential for virtue (via removing the freedom to choose otherwise) is probably not Exalted.

[Flickerdart]

Obviously threatening people is evil, but literally rewiring their minds is Exalted.

[Phelix-Mu]

Influencing people toward goodness, even magically, is not evil, and it is superior to killing them. Sanctify the wicked treads a fine line in my view, but I generally feel that nonlethal compelling evil to do good is just punishment for evil deeds. On the other hand, it shouldn't be perpetual (as the person needs a chance to actually atone/learn their lesson) and perpetual imprisonment is also generally a bad thing.

So, I'd say it's mixed. Things not to do:

- dominate someone into suicidal activities. this is sadistic.

- force someone to do evil so that the exalted character doesn't have to get their hands dirty. being exalted is about taking responsibility and shouldering burdens, which is hard to do if a bunch of charmed soldiers are out there doing the sketchy.

- use it on non-evil people for sheer convenience. truth is an important part of virtue, and if all your relationships are based on false pretenses/charms/suggestions and so forth, then that isn't a very virtuous way to live in my view.

Obviously, as in all things BoED, great power is given to the DM to adjudicate just where the lines get drawn in a given situation. Which is kind of the case in most things dealing with alignment, but doubly so with Exalted things.

[Craft (Cheese)]

WARNING! PERSONAL OPINION!!

My rule of thumb for compulsion magic and alignment is, if it'd be okay for you to kill someone, it's okay for you to dominate them. Don't make them do anything you wouldn't be willing to do yourself.

[Psyren]

BoED does give guidance on domination:


Also within the context of respectful relationships, good characters exercise caution in the use of compulsion magic to force others’ behavior. Spells such as dominate person, geas, and suggestion allow a caster to control another person, robbing that person of free will. This may not be an inherently evil act, but it certainly carries a tremendous ethical responsibility. Forcing anyone to commit an evil act, of course, is evil. Furthermore, a creature under compulsion should be treated the same as a helpless prisoner, since that creature no longer poses a threat, at least for the duration of the spell. Once an enemy is dominated, for example, he should not be killed, but shown mercy and treated the same as a prisoner who had willingly surrendered. (The same holds true for charmed and compelled creatures.)

Also, note that Good clerics can use quest, and paladins can use mark of justice.

[TuggyNE]

Consider these quotes.

Sure looks like the authors of BoED were conflicted over whether Mindrape was Vile or Exalted.

I personally think that action must be voluntary for it to be virtuous. Destroying the potential for virtue (via removing the freedom to choose otherwise) is probably not Exalted.

VoPe is not sword-point conversion by any stretch of the imagination. It's a magical compulsion to reduce fighting, nothing more or less.

You can doubtless come up with various inconsistencies in the books, but that's not a good example of one at all.

[AMFV]

Consider these quotes.

Sure looks like the authors of BoED were conflicted over whether Mindrape was Vile or Exalted.

I personally think that action must be voluntary for it to be virtuous. Destroying the potential for virtue (via removing the freedom to choose otherwise) is probably not Exalted.

Freedom to choose isn't good though in D&D terms, that would be probably chaotic. Freedom is not presented as a virtue of goodness, much as Western Americans tend to believe it is and many philsophical points in the real world don't consider freedom to be good.

I think that it would be possible to justify both viewpoints, depending on what your philosophy on good was, what you believed mind control actually entailed (does losing free will mean that any net change isn't your own?) It's a complicated roleplay question and most characters could have different opinions of it. Two CG characters could even have completely contrasting opinions on this issue and still be equally good.

[Naomi Li]

Using dominate spells against a person and forcing them to fight against their companions, especially lethally, should probably be considered a lawful evil action. Dominating them and forcing them to surrender/stand down/retreat, on the other hand, is perfectly fine, and certainly superior to killing them. (Provided you don't shoot them in the back or something, of course)

Personally, I'm inclined to consider law a constant adversary (chaos too, but to a much lesser extent), with many aspects of it being morally abhorrent to me. And regardless of the alignment of forced conversions, I would definitely consider them to be ludicrously immoral and grounds for lifelong confinement with parole available if people are genuinely convinced that they won't ever do it again.

[AMFV]

Using dominate spells against a person and forcing them to fight against their companions, especially lethally, should probably be considered a lawful evil action. Dominating them and forcing them to surrender/stand down/retreat, on the other hand, is perfectly fine, and certainly superior to killing them. (Provided you don't shoot them in the back or something, of course)

Personally, I'm inclined to consider law a constant adversary (chaos too, but to a much lesser extent), with many aspects of it being morally abhorrent to me. And regardless of the alignment of forced conversions, I would definitely consider them to be ludicrously immoral and grounds for lifelong confinement with parole available if people are genuinely convinced that they won't ever do it again.

And I would consider lifelong confinement ridiculously immoral. Far more immoral than corporal punishment. I would argue that both are standpoints of good.

It would be hard to argue that dominating a person and using him to fight against his companions is any more evil than killing them yourself, or incapacitating them yourself. Certainly not inherently good, but it's not inherently evil unless the intent is to cause psychological trauma, otherwise it's just using resources effectively.

As you can see it is easy to create strong viewpoints for both sides, good is not exactly one thing or another in D&D as is evidenced by the sections of the BoED where it describes the multifaceted aspects of good. You could even make an argument for it being good if you were forcing them to fight their companions as a start on the path to redemption, I mean certainly not very freedom oriented, but again freedom isn't presented as good, but rather chaotic.

[cakellene]

I guess I am in minority, but I view any spell or effect that removes ability of an entity to decide what actions it will commit as evil. Spells that influence others, but don't remove choice such as charm spells would be neutral at best.

[Nettlekid]

Sanctify the Wicked and the Emissary of Barachiel's Calling->Conversion ability are clear cut, "I am ripping apart the personality of who you are and replacing it with what I want you to be" style abilities. Conversion will even work on Good characters, Neutral and Chaotic, so it's not even "If you're Evil you deserve to have your mind wiped," it's outright "If you don't think exactly like me, you deserve to have your mind wiped."

That sounds pretty evil.

But they're Exalted. So it's Gooder than Good.

[OldTrees1]

Sanctify the Wicked and the Emissary of Barachiel's Calling->Conversion ability are clear cut, "I am ripping apart the personality of who you are and replacing it with what I want you to be" style abilities. Conversion will even work on Good characters, Neutral and Chaotic, so it's not even "If you're Evil you deserve to have your mind wiped," it's outright "If you don't think exactly like me, you deserve to have your mind wiped."

That sounds pretty evil.

But they're Exalted. So it's Gooder than Good.

Makes me think that the BoED was penned by Pelor of the Burning Hate rather than by an Angel.

[Deophaun]

I guess I am in minority, but I view any spell or effect that removes ability of an entity to decide what actions it will commit as evil.
Mind-affecting spells do not necessarily have to work that way. They might give the subject a strong desire to act in a certain way, with the subject's ability to resist temptation represented in the Will save.

In some ways, the need of Paladins to seek atonement for acts they committed while under magical influence reflects this. But then it applies to things like dominate, where you pretty much are a puppet, so obviously there's not much mileage there.

That sounds pretty evil.

But they're Exalted. So it's Gooder than Good.
Powers get the [Morality] descriptors not just because they're objectively [Moral] things to do, but often because of the nature of the powers they are invoking. It doesn't mean that the use of a [Good] spell can never be Evil, or vice versa. It's entirely possible an Exalted character could fall for using sanctify the wicked.

[awa]

people keep saying sanctify the wicked is basically mind rape, and im convince that most people have never actually read the spell. Its not tearing away part of there personality and rewriting it it's sit in a corner and think about what you've done until you decide that golly gosh hurting people is bad i should stop being bad.

Is it a well written spell? no. I dislike it on a number of levels and i don't think it works well both fluff wise and mechanically but that does not change the fact that it's not mind rape for good guys.
edit
"The soul reflects on past evils and slowly
finds within itself a spark of goodness"

[Naomi Li]

Awa, considering what the results of it being broken in mid-transformation are and how it shifts them on the law/chaos scale to that of the caster, I am exceptionally sceptical of your interpretation.

Really, it seems like a "cut them off from all sensory input and slowly brainwash them into having the same basic beliefs as I have" than anything else.

[awa]

like i said i don't think it represents mechanically what it's trying to do very well
but it should be clear from its fluff that it is not supposed to be brain washing.

Its only brain washing if you think being forced to confront your past actions and think about what you have done is brainwashing.

[Kuulvheysoon]

people keep saying sanctify the wicked is basically mind rape, and im convince that most people have never actually read the spell. Its not tearing away part of there personality and rewriting it it's sit in a corner and think about what you've done until you decide that golly gosh hurting people is bad i should stop being bad.

Is it a well written spell? no. I dislike it on a number of levels and i don't think it works well both fluff wise and mechanically but that does not change the fact that it's not mind rape for good guys.
edit
"The soul reflects on past evils and slowly
finds within itself a spark of goodness"


Awa, considering what the results of it being broken in mid-transformation are and how it shifts them on the law/chaos scale to that of the caster, I am exceptionally sceptical of your interpretation.

Really, it seems like a "cut them off from all sensory input and slowly brainwash them into having the same basic beliefs as I have" than anything else.

I feel like awa's got a solid grip of what the designers intended, but Naomi Li's reading what's actually written.

[awa]

I completely agree that some aspects of the mechanics most notably what happens when you break the gem before the durations up don't work well.

But just becuase it does not model what it's trying to do well doesn't mean it's trying to model something else and for some bizarre reason it bugs me a lot more then it should when people call it good mind rape.

[Coidzor]

Depends on what you do with the mind control, as normal.


- force someone to do evil so that the exalted character doesn't have to get their hands dirty. being exalted is about taking responsibility and shouldering burdens, which is hard to do if a bunch of charmed soldiers are out there doing the sketchy.

Indeed, not only is that not keeping their hands clean, from what I recall of the rules for being Exalted that's an auto-fall, do not pass go, do not retain the ability to retrain your now lost feats.


- use it on non-evil people for sheer convenience. truth is an important part of virtue, and if all your relationships are based on false pretenses/charms/suggestions and so forth, then that isn't a very virtuous way to live in my view.

Basing all of one's relationships upon mind-controlling people isn't quite the same thing as using mind control out of convenience. Using it out of convenience would more be using mind control to bypass bureaucracy or something.

[Psyren]

As I've said before on this topic, BoED is based on Rousseau philosophy, i.e. good is the default state and evil is a perversion/corruption. If you believe that then StW will make sense, but if you don't then it won't. I'm not certain it even applies to the rest of D&D but it's certainly an assumption for BoED.

[Red Fel]

With regard to Sanctify the Wicked, it is brainwashing if you assume that reflecting on your past wrongs makes you good. Not everyone looks back on their misdeeds and repents them. For some of us, it makes us nostalgic. My villains, for example, look back with a warm chuckle. "Ah, yes, the orphanage. That was a fine time to be an arsonist."

I think the point is that if you force someone, against their will (e.g. at knifepoint) to do something, it is evil; but if you change their will so it's what they really want to do anyway (i.e. Sanctify the Wicked) it's not evil, since they were obviously going to do it anyway.

Because logic.

[awa]

I definitely agree with Psyren its part of why i don't care for the book becuase i disagree with the philosophy, but it seems clear to me that is what they are trying to represent however badly they put it into play.

edit
See book of exalted deeds disagrees with you it say like psyren said that good is the natural state so if you are not a demon being made to look at your evil deeds makes you feel bad and stop being bad. You can think it's stupid and unrealistic (i do) but that does not turn sanctify the wicked into good mind rape.

[Kuulvheysoon]

With regard to Sanctify the Wicked, it is brainwashing if you assume that reflecting on your past wrongs makes you good. Not everyone looks back on their misdeeds and repents them. For some of us, it makes us nostalgic. My villains, for example, look back with a warm chuckle. "Ah, yes, the orphanage. That was a fine time to be an arsonist."

I think the point is that if you force someone, against their will (e.g. at knifepoint) to do something, it is evil; but if you change their will so it's what they really want to do anyway (i.e. Sanctify the Wicked) it's not evil, since they were obviously going to do it anyway.

Because logic.

So that's why you have a lot of pyrokineticist villains....

[Nettlekid]

The thing that makes Sanctify the Wicked more than just "make them think about what they've done" is that it works on things like Demons and Devils too (or, there's nothing that says it doesn't). These creatures are LITERALLY MADE OUT OF EVIL. The cells in their body are made of atoms that are created by the force of Evil in the universe given matter and form. They do not feel bad about Evil things they do. They will not reflect on their actions and feel sorry for those they have wronged. That's just not how they are. They can become Good no more than a human being who thinks that they were wrong for eating meat can convert all the meat of their own flesh into plant/vegetable matter because they're that regretful. Because Sanctify the Wicked makes even a Demon or Devil do that, it is changing them on some fundamental, unnatural level.

I'd also like to re-raise the Emissary of Barachiel's Conversion ability, which really is a forcible "You act different now" ability.

[Flickerdart]

The thing that makes Sanctify the Wicked more than just "make them think about what they've done" is that it works on things like Demons and Devils too (or, there's nothing that says it doesn't). These creatures are LITERALLY MADE OUT OF EVIL. The cells in their body are made of atoms that are created by the force of Evil in the universe given matter and form. They do not feel bad about Evil things they do. They will not reflect on their actions and feel sorry for those they have wronged. That's just not how they are. They can become Good no more than a human being who thinks that they were wrong for eating meat can convert all the meat of their own flesh into plant/vegetable matter because they're that regretful. Because Sanctify the Wicked makes even a Demon or Devil do that, it is changing them on some fundamental, unnatural level.
Except there is a canonical LG Succubus Paladin who converted on her own accord, so that's not true.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Isn't that pretty thin ice? IIRC, the Sanctified template says that it cannot be applied to any creature (or Outsider?) with the [evil] subtype, but it makes no mention of it in the spell text itself.

[Red Fel]

Except there is a canonical LG Succubus Paladin who converted on her own accord, so that's not true.

She converted because of love. Which is apparently a force beyond Good or Evil subtypes.

Because wuv, twue wuv.

[Vhaidara]

Mawwiage?

I feel that domination falls more under the law/chaos axis, since freedom is the embodiment of chaos, while hiveminding is the embodiment of law (modrons and formians spring to mind)

[Nettlekid]

Except there is a canonical LG Succubus Paladin who converted on her own accord, so that's not true.

See, that's a classic example of WotC going against its own pre-established fluff/worldbuilding for what sounds like a cool fluff thing in a very specific circumstance. There's really nothing to counteract that, because you're right, but according to everything else that WotC has ever written about the nature of Evil Outsiders that shouldn't have been possible.

[OldTrees1]

See, that's a classic example of WotC going against its own pre-established fluff/worldbuilding for what sounds like a cool fluff thing in a very specific circumstance. There's really nothing to counteract that, because you're right, but according to everything else that WotC has ever written about the nature of Evil Outsiders that shouldn't have been possible.

Is the LG Demon really WotC going against their pre-established fluff? Wasn't "always CE" always meant as "99% CE, 1% other alignments"? [I forgot which book the 99% quote is in.]

[Nettlekid]

Is the LG Demon really WotC going against their pre-established fluff? Wasn't "always CE" always meant as "99% CE, 1% other alignments"? [I forgot which book the 99% quote is in.]

As far as I'm aware, by what the two Fiendish Codexes describe (and not to mention the nature of the outer planes, as well as the process by which Outsiders are created of their planar material,) it's pretty cut and dry. But then again, Outsider biology has always been...inconsistent.

[cakellene]

With regard to Sanctify the Wicked, it is brainwashing if you assume that reflecting on your past wrongs makes you good. Not everyone looks back on their misdeeds and repents them. For some of us, it makes us nostalgic. My villains, for example, look back with a warm chuckle. "Ah, yes, the orphanage. That was a fine time to be an arsonist."

I think the point is that if you force someone, against their will (e.g. at knifepoint) to do something, it is evil; but if you change their will so it's what they really want to do anyway (i.e. Sanctify the Wicked) it's not evil, since they were obviously going to do it anyway.

Because logic.

Best villain ever.

[CyberThread]

We are outsiders baby, we live outside your rules.

[OldTrees1]

As far as I'm aware, by what the two Fiendish Codexes describe (and not to mention the nature of the outer planes, as well as the process by which Outsiders are created of their planar material,) it's pretty cut and dry. But then again, Outsider biology has always been...inconsistent.

Outsiders (in general) are made of what is made from what is made from souls.

Soul => Petitioner => The Plane => An Outsider [Manual of the Planes IIRC]

[cakellene]

So as Outsider (Earth), a Stonechild PC would be immune to StW conversion?

[Coidzor]

So as Outsider (Earth), a Stonechild PC would be immune to StW conversion?

IIRC, Rules Dysfunctions like this fall into "maybe, ask your DM" territory.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As I've said before on this topic, BoED is based on Rousseau philosophy, i.e. good is the default state and evil is a perversion/corruption. If you believe that then StW will make sense, but if you don't then it won't. I'm not certain it even applies to the rest of D&D but it's certainly an assumption for BoED.

I'll admit it's been a while since I last read the book from front cover to back but I never got that from my readings of BoED. In fact, sanctify the wicked is the only thing I can think of out of the book that even implies that.

Could you highlight some other points that shift things in that direction?

[GameSpawn]

BoED does give guidance on domination:



Also within the context of respectful relationships, good characters exercise caution in the use of compulsion magic to force others’ behavior. Spells such as dominate person, geas, and suggestion allow a caster to control another person, robbing that person of free will. This may not be an inherently evil act, but it certainly carries a tremendous ethical responsibility. Forcing anyone to commit an evil act, of course, is evil. Furthermore, a creature under compulsion should be treated the same as a helpless prisoner, since that creature no longer poses a threat, at least for the duration of the spell. Once an enemy is dominated, for example, he should not be killed, but shown mercy and treated the same as a prisoner who had willingly surrendered. (The same holds true for charmed and compelled creatures.)

Also, note that Good clerics can use quest, and paladins can use mark of justice.

This is the most relevant passage. In the section Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption, in the discussion of extracting information from prisoners there's also the following:


Fortunately for good characters, there are other ways of
making prisoners talk. Charm and compulsion spells such as
suggestion and charm monster can do the job admirably. An Intimidate
check can also cow a prisoner into disclosing the desired
information, even without the use of torture.

As far as I'm aware, those are the sections of the book that explicitly discuss the topic (as opposed to just discussing it by implication, which is always tricky).

[Red Fel]

This is the most relevant passage. In the section Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption, in the discussion of extracting information from prisoners there's also the following:

As far as I'm aware, those are the sections of the book that explicitly discuss the topic (as opposed to just discussing it by implication, which is always tricky).

I think the key translation for those quotes is "While brainwashing things isn't inherently evil, you have a responsibility to use the power ethically. Making things Moar Good is an ethical thing to do, because ethics are apparently morals now. Go nuts."

Yay, logic!

[hamishspence]

There's really nothing to counteract that, because you're right, but according to everything else that WotC has ever written about the nature of Evil Outsiders that shouldn't have been possible.

WoTC hasn't really written all that much about Evil Outsiders and how much they can change if at all.

TSR, however, has- in the Planescape books. And they make it clear that, just as Good Outsiders can fall, Evil Outsiders can rise.

[OldTrees1]

WoTC hasn't really written all that much about Evil Outsiders and how much they can change if at all.

TSR, however, has- in the Planescape books. And they make it clear that, just as Good Outsiders can fall, Evil Outsiders can rise.

Well WotC has Asmodeus and his ilk. LG outsiders that willingly converted to LE.

[Coidzor]

I think the key translation for those quotes is "While brainwashing things isn't inherently evil, you have a responsibility to use the power ethically. Making things Moar Good is an ethical thing to do, because ethics are apparently morals now. Go nuts."

Yay, logic!

Dominate isn't really brainwashing so much as making someone into a meat puppet. Charm person might count as temporary brainwashing, but even there it's not really a perfect fit.

You get rid of the brainwashing aspect of Holy Mindrape if you just throw the Perfect Argument at it and move on or actually adjust the text of the spell to be in line with its fluff. Or I suppose you could alter the fluff of the spell and the text to fit more in line with the interpretation that you actively want for it.

[CyberThread]

I think the simply term as mindrape, should be more then enough for an argument of if something is wrong or good.

[Yuki Akuma]

Freedom isn't a Good concept. It's a Chaotic concept.

Therefore, taking away someone's freedom is Lawful, not Evil.

D&D alignments aren't real world ethics, and people should stop treating them as such. Of course mind controlling an Evil person to do Good is a Good thing, because it strengthens the Objective Metaphysical Concept of Good while simultaneously weakening the Objective Metaphysical Concept of Evil.

[Coidzor]

I think the simply term as mindrape, should be more then enough for an argument of if something is wrong or good.

Considering it's being used facetiously and is a commonly used alternate name rather than the actual proper name and the context of who I was answering and their particular concerns... :smallwink:

[Vedhin]

Freedom isn't a Good concept. It's a Chaotic concept.

Therefore, taking away someone's freedom is Lawful, not Evil.

D&D alignments aren't real world ethics, and people should stop treating them as such. Of course mind controlling an Evil person to do Good is a Good thing, because it strengthens the Objective Metaphysical Concept of Good while simultaneously weakening the Objective Metaphysical Concept of Evil.

This. So much very this.

In D&D, Good is Good, Evil is Evil, Law is Lawful, and Chaos is Chaotic.
In D&D, Good is not good, Evil is not evil, Law is not lawful, and Chaos is not chaotic.
The confusion arises from the alignments being based on real-world opinions and beliefs, and given real-world names.
Basically, good is subjective. Your definition of good and mine almost certainly vary. However, Good is objective. It is a cosmic force associated with a set of beliefs. Spells like sanctify the wicked are Good, despite the fact that for many people they ring up as evil. The reason for this is that sanctify the wicked decreases the amount of Evil and increases the amount of Good. It shifts the multiverse towards Good, thus it is a Good act. It's essentially a tautology.

I agree it's senseless and confusing, but this is how things have been done.

[Yuki Akuma]

In a perfect world, D&D would have been written to take into account how alien some extreme forms of Good can be. Alas, we don't live in a perfect world.

[Psyren]

I'll admit it's been a while since I last read the book from front cover to back but I never got that from my readings of BoED. In fact, sanctify the wicked is the only thing I can think of out of the book that even implies that.

Could you highlight some other points that shift things in that direction?

The entire redemption section should tell you that. It literally says "there is hope for anything that isn't a fiend, i.e. literally made of evil." (And as the Succubus Paladin shows, even they have a chance.) That is textbook Rousseau.


I think the simply term as mindrape, should be more then enough for an argument of if something is wrong or good.

The problem is that a term like "rape" is heavily loaded (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion), and so trying to label anything in a debate that way is only going to derail any attempt at rational discussion.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The entire redemption section should tell you that. It literally says "there is hope for anything that isn't a fiend, i.e. literally made of evil." (And as the Succubus Paladin shows, even they have a chance.) That is textbook Rousseau

See, I interpreted that section as meaning every intelligent creature can choose their own beliefs rather than that good is the natural state of being and almost any creature can return to it.

I mean, look at the succubus paladin. Here we have a creature who is literally made of evil. That is, evil is the creature's natural state and there's simply no way around that. Yet even it can -choose- to be good if it wishes. (Whether it can -stay- good is another matter altogether.)

[Vedhin]

(Whether it can -stay- good is another matter altogether.)

The Gormeel Slaad from Dragon #306 are Always Lawful Neutral with the Chaotic subtype. They can stay Lawful pretty well, despite being made of Chaos.
They exist because all Slaad being Chaotic would be predictable, and thus nonChaotic. Thus, their Lawful nature is a product of Chaos.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The Gormeel Slaad from Dragon #306 are Always Lawful Neutral with the Chaotic subtype. They can stay Lawful pretty well, despite being made of Chaos.
They exist because all Slaad being Chaotic would be predictable, and thus nonChaotic. Thus, their Lawful nature is a product of Chaos.

That makes a weird sort of sense in an orange/blue ethics sort of way. Are they also half-mad?

[Vedhin]

That makes a weird sort of sense in an orange/blue ethics sort of way. Are they also half-mad?

Yes. The other half is also mad. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

See, I interpreted that section as meaning every intelligent creature can choose their own beliefs rather than that good is the natural state of being and almost any creature can return to it.

But there are no corresponding rules in BoVD for corrupting/seducing/tempting someone with a series of Diplomacy checks. FC2 lets you offer them things, and they risk shifting their alignment if they accept any - but if they're super-enlightened or whatever and don't want what you're selling, you're SOL. You can even possess them or infect them with taint, but those things don't actually change their alignment, even if they change how the creature detects temporarily.

In other words, the fact that you can literally talk someone out of being evil (offering them nothing in exchange but faith), but not the reverse, is indicative of that philosophy. Evil requires piling baggage onto their soul, while Good involves slowly removing it - textbook Rousseau.