evil powers

[12owlbears]

The expanded psionics handbook says that the power mind seed is inherently evil. Now I agree that brain washing someone so they slowly become you is evil but is it really more evil then death urge, fuse flesh, assimilate, and true mind switch.

[Greenish]

The expanded psionics handbook says that the power mind seed is inherently evil. Now I agree that brain washing someone so they slowly become you is evil but is it really more evil then death urge, fuse flesh, assimilate, and true mind switch.Yes, yes, yes (if the target counts as dead), yes. Death Urge can, at worst, make you kill yourself. Fuse Flesh is a Save-or-Lose. Assimilate kills you (best I can tell). True Mind Switch merely triggers Freaky Friday.

Mind Seed overwrites you.

[AuraTwilight]

Generally, there's not a whole lot worse than completely erasing and replacing someone's very personality. Atleast death releases them to the afterlife. Few other abilities in D&D are so utterly INVASIVE.

[Crake]

Mind Seed overwrites you.

That's pretty much it. Mind seed is almost as bad as mind rape in how horrifically it affects a target. Being dead isn't a big deal in dnd, because you just travel to the outer planes and live as a spirit, big whoop. Mind seed literally erases who you are from the cosmos and replaces it with another copy of yourself. Iirc there's also no mortal magic that can recover you once the process is complete.

[Lanaya]

What counts as evil is incredibly inconsistent in D&D. Detecting someone's current HP? Evil. Controlling someone's mind utterly, turning them into your totally obedient slave? Sure, go ahead! Using poisons on evil creatures? Evil! Poisoning an evil creature with a specially crafted poison that only poisons evil creatures? Totally a good act. Slowly rewriting someone's mind so they become you in every respect? EVIL! Entirely reprogramming someone's memories in order to sculpt them into whoever and whatever you want them to be? Nothing wrong with that. Creating mindless, loyal servants? Evil. Creating mindless, loyal servants who aren't undead? Fine. Yanking a demon from its home plane and forcing it to feed the homeless and help out orphans? Crazy evil. Burning alive great swathes of your enemies? You're practically a saint.

[TuggyNE]

The expanded psionics handbook says that the power mind seed is inherently evil. Now I agree that brain washing someone so they slowly become you is evil but is it really more evil then death urge, fuse flesh, assimilate, and true mind switch.

Yes to all. Death urge is just a slightly mean way to say "you're dead now", and there are dozens of ways to make people dead that are not inherently evil. Fuse flesh makes you look gross and have trouble doing much of anything, but it's on about the same par as flesh to stone. Assimilate draws power from the body but does not affect the soul. True mind switch can be done with a willing subject — indeed, it is quite difficult to do it with an unwilling subject, considering the manifesting time — and in any case does no harm in itself to either party, though it is of course easy to use it for malicious ends.

Mind seed, though, metaphorically says "You know how the world would be better off? If there were none of you, and two of me, because I don't just want to make you leave me alone, I want you gone for good, and hey, why not add some more of the most important person while we're at it?" That right there is Evil: looking out for number one while kicking number two.

[(Un)Inspired]

What counts as evil is incredibly inconsistent in D&D. Detecting someone's current HP? Evil. Controlling someone's mind utterly, turning them into your totally obedient slave? Sure, go ahead! Using poisons on evil creatures? Evil! Poisoning an evil creature with a specially crafted poison that only poisons evil creatures? Totally a good act. Slowly rewriting someone's mind so they become you in every respect? EVIL! Entirely reprogramming someone's memories in order to sculpt them into whoever and whatever you want them to be? Nothing wrong with that. Creating mindless, loyal servants? Evil. Creating mindless, loyal servants who aren't undead? Fine. Yanking a demon from its home plane and forcing it to feed the homeless and help out orphans? Crazy evil. Burning alive great swathes of your enemies? You're practically a saint.

So so so true. I believe the Book of Exalted Deeds even includes a spell that just mind rape... only for Justice! So it's not evil. Sometimes it's very obvious that D and D is written by Folklore and Mythology students and not philosophers

[12owlbears]

Does mind seed really effect the soul. I thought that the soul and the mind were technically two different things in D&D. Would mind seed stop working on someone if they were killed and brought back as a sentient undead? And if the soul and mind are the same does that mean that some one under the effect of other mind spells like (dominate person) would still be effected when they reach the afterlife

[alex90lilb]

So so so true. I believe the Book of Exalted Deeds even includes a spell that just mind rape... only for Justice! So it's not evil. Sometimes it's very obvious that D and D is written by Folklore and Mythology students and not philosophers

Well, actually it's not inconsistent at all when you realize that good and evil, in the D&D-verse, are not metaphysical. Good and evil (as well as law and chaos) are physical energies that have actual material properties. It specifically says so in both the BoVD and ED. Whether or not you agree morally with a spell does not change how it is fueled.

Indeed, some classes in the D&D-verse realize this concept and use it to their advantage (i.e. Malconvokers)

[(Un)Inspired]

That still is like saying love isn't an abstract concept; instead it's a physical entity. Like you could have bricks of it. I have 24 love bricks

[alex90lilb]

That still is like saying love isn't an abstract concept; instead it's a physical entity. Like you could have bricks of it. I have 24 love bricks

New name for my Johnson.

[AuraTwilight]

Does mind seed really effect the soul. I thought that the soul and the mind were technically two different things in D&D. Would mind seed stop working on someone if they were killed and brought back as a sentient undead? And if the soul and mind are the same does that mean that some one under the effect of other mind spells like (dominate person) would still be effected when they reach the afterlife

They're functionally the same for everything that matters; dying and combing back, or becoming an undead, doesn't negate Mind Seed. It is a permanent alteration to your personality that only wishes and miracles can undo.

The mind alteration isn't dependent on an on-going enchantment, like Dominate Person would be. Once it's done, it's done, like a permanent creation spell.

[Rubik]

Mind seed is almost as bad as mind rape in how horrifically it affects a target.Um... Mindrape doesn't have to do anything bad to anyone. There are lots of uses that are beneficial. I don't count Mindrape as "evil" at all, though some uses of it definitely are.

Also, preventing someone from being affected by Mind Seed is also evil.

[Slipperychicken]

That still is like saying love isn't an abstract concept; instead it's a physical entity. Like you could have bricks of it. I have 24 love bricks

If that was a thing in D&D, some people would find themselves radiating auras of love, and there would be a spell called Detect Love.

Also, you know that someone would try to weaponize love bricks, whether by crafting them into weapons, or simply crushing people to death with them (which would have the side effect of generating several tons of irony).

[TuggyNE]

If that was a thing in D&D, some people would find themselves radiating auras of love, and there would be a spell called Detect Love.

You mean that's not already a thing? *coughthatsplatbookthatshallnotbenamedorreadcough*

[AMFV]

The expanded psionics handbook says that the power mind seed is inherently evil. Now I agree that brain washing someone so they slowly become you is evil but is it really more evil then death urge, fuse flesh, assimilate, and true mind switch.

Good thing using evil powers doesn't make you evil! Actually it has no effect on a Psion at all. You can use all the evil powers you want and be good. Same with a wizard and evil spells.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Good thing using evil powers doesn't make you evil! Actually it has no effect on a Psion at all. You can use all the evil powers you want and be good. Same with a wizard and evil spells.

I believe casting spells with a particular alignment does, in fact, count as an act of that alignment. There's nothing to prevent a Good Psion from manifesting Mind Seed, but doing so, as far as I am aware, will tilt the character away from Good.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That still is like saying love isn't an abstract concept; instead it's a physical entity. Like you could have bricks of it. I have 24 love bricks

That's exactly what it's like.

The outer planes and their native denizens are literally made up of the four alignments given physical substance. A demon is literally -made- of chaos and evil in addition to having a generally unpleasant personality.

Also of note, while I don't believe love exists in physical form, joy does. The alchemical substance ambrosia (BoED) is literally the joy of a sapient creature distilled and condensed into a physical substance. You could, theoretically, freeze a couple doses of ambrosia and make a joy brick.

[AMFV]

I believe casting spells with a particular alignment does, in fact, count as an act of that alignment. There's nothing to prevent a Good Psion from manifesting Mind Seed, but doing so, as far as I am aware, will tilt the character away from Good.


Nope. That is actually not listed any place, it is briefly suggested that it may change your alignment when they discuss evil spells, but there is no actually described method for it doing so.

The only actual described limitation for it is that clerics can't cast opposed spells.

I would encourage some kind of houserule, but that would give an opportunity to address a lot of the really dumb mislabeled ones and prevent this from being an issue.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Nope. That is actually not listed any place, it is briefly suggested that it may change your alignment when they discuss evil spells, but there is no actually described method for it doing so.

The only actual described limitation for it is that clerics can't cast opposed spells.

I would encourage some kind of houserule, but that would give an opportunity to address a lot of the really dumb mislabeled ones and prevent this from being an issue.

While I don't actually have the book, I seem to recall mentions of Heroes of Horror having such a rule, and possibly Fiend Folio 2 detailing some rather harsh consequences for the casting of Evil spells (I don't have that book either)?

[AMFV]

While I don't actually have the book, I seem to recall mentions of Heroes of Horror having such a rule, and possibly Fiend Folio 2 detailing some rather harsh consequences for the casting of Evil spells (I don't have that book either)?

Heroes of Horror does, in regards to taint, but taint is a variant rule and rarely sees play. I don't believe Fiend Folio 2 makes reference to it directly. Although it may. In either case it's not really explicitly stated in the rules, just implied.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Heroes of Horror does, in regards to taint, but taint is a variant rule and rarely sees play. I don't believe Fiend Folio 2 makes reference to it directly. Although it may. In either case it's not really explicitly stated in the rules, just implied.

I stand corrected, in that case.

To include some measure of discussion in this post, I would think that Deathwatch, a spell for determining - at a glance - how close a creature is to death, being marked with the [Evil] tag makes rather less sense than every spell whose primary purpose is death or damaging lacking it.
I've also always been somewhat unsatisfied by the basically arbitrary designation of undead as Evil, and therefore the spells to create them being so as well. Creatures without the capability to make moral decisions aren't supposed to have alignments other than True Neutral, and unintelligent undead, at least, will do nothing but defend themselves if left without commands. Further absurdity is added by the creation of a golem, involving the enslaving of an earth elemental, not having an alignment consequence. "Vegan" undead using Stone to Flesh-ed statues as bodies only increase the nonsense.

[AMFV]

I stand corrected, in that case.

To include some measure of discussion in this post, I would think that Deathwatch, a spell for determining - at a glance - how close a creature is to death, being marked with the [Evil] tag makes rather less sense than every spell whose primary purpose is death or damaging lacking it.
I've also always been somewhat unsatisfied by the basically arbitrary designation of undead as Evil, and therefore the spells to create them being so as well. Creatures without the capability to make moral decisions aren't supposed to have alignments other than True Neutral, and unintelligent undead, at least, will do nothing but defend themselves if left without commands. Further absurdity is added by the creation of a golem, involving the enslaving of an earth elemental, not having an alignment consequence. "Vegan" undead using Stone to Flesh-ed statues as bodies only increase the nonsense.

Yep and there's even some debate about what good and evil actually are. As the BoED lists many different things that are good, it makes defining an objective "good" virtually impossible. So we are forced to conclude that there are many facets to both good and evil.