[3.5] Alignment woes: Is that horrible thing I just did Lawful Good?

[paddyfool]

Well that could be argued, but shooting somebody in the head isn't illegal, and poisons are.
What? I am incredulous.

He means as a weapon of war: guns are allowed, but chemical and biological warfare is illegal under international law.

[SiuiS]

He means as a weapon of war: guns are allowed, but chemical and biological warfare is illegal under international law.

I am incredulous for several reasons.

One; international law is politics. Knock it off and talk D&D before we get in trouble D=
And then I realized every other thing I said was talking politics. Dang!

[Scow2]

Poison isn't evil because it kills. If it did kill, it wouldn't be evil (Except in the "It's treacherous!" way, but it's no more treacherous than a monk's Quivering Palm)

That the damage isn't permanent isn't a problem either. The problem with poison is that it's an exceedingly and needlessly traumatizing experience to go through.

You don't use it on the battlefield because by the time most of them take their effect, the victim is no longer a threat (They're either out-of-commission by being wounded, or so badass they've already won the battle. Wars are fought under the assumption from the higher-ups that the grunts aren't bad people - those that die die out of the necessity of advancing their side's cause, but the survivors should still be able to go home/lead a normal life when they're not fighting.

... frankly, I wouldn't consider envenoming (Poison induced through injury) people to be evil and just merely a way to fight, but would consider actual poisoning to be so(Induced through consumption/inhalation). But, the evil of poisoning can be offset on a non-exalted/paladin if the victim is wicked enough. A minor evil act accompanying a greater good act is enough to hurt an exalted/paladin character, but won't change any Good person's alignment.

Fire isn't inherently evil because it's too Awesome.

[SowZ]

Poison isn't evil because it kills. If it did kill, it wouldn't be evil (Except in the "It's treacherous!" way, but it's no more treacherous than a monk's Quivering Palm)

That the damage isn't permanent isn't a problem either. The problem with poison is that it's an exceedingly and needlessly traumatizing experience to go through.

You don't use it on the battlefield because by the time most of them take their effect, the victim is no longer a threat (They're either out-of-commission by being wounded, or so badass they've already won the battle. Wars are fought under the assumption from the higher-ups that the grunts aren't bad people - those that die die out of the necessity of advancing their side's cause, but the survivors should still be able to go home/lead a normal life when they're not fighting.

... frankly, I wouldn't consider envenoming (Poison induced through injury) people to be evil and just merely a way to fight, but would consider actual poisoning to be so(Induced through consumption/inhalation). But, the evil of poisoning can be offset on a non-exalted/paladin if the victim is wicked enough. A minor evil act accompanying a greater good act is enough to hurt an exalted/paladin character, but won't change any Good person's alignment.

Fire isn't inherently evil because it's too Awesome.

Since lethal poison increases the odds of an insta kill, only lasts one minute, and can be the best option for a non lethal takedown, there's just no way the amount of suffering it causes makes it evil. Power Word Pain, blade of Pain and Fear, Pain Touch, Flensing Strike, Pain (the spell,) Wrathful Castigation, Twist the Knife, Nybors Gentle Reminder, Flay, Inflict Pain, Horrid Sickness, and Sickening Strike are all presumably far more painful because,
A. The pain is specifically described and is so bad it has mechanical effects, which the pain from poison doesn't.
B. The pain of a poison is a side effect. The pain is the intended goal of all these abilities designed to be as agonizing as possible. Pain isn't a side effect, it's the goal.

Yet all of this things are morally neutral in a vacuum and aren't good or evil except if they are used for that. No evil pre eras for the feats, no evil tags for the spell. If the pain of poison was as bad as having you spine twist and crunch and being flayed alive, pretty sure that would have some mechanical effect.

You could say, "Well, all these things should be always evil acts," or we could say that most D&D books accept that when people are trying to kill each other, intense pain is a legitimate tactic to immobilize your for. Or we could say the rules have zero consistency at all.

[Kelb_Panthera]

All texts under soul destruction, including sacrifice which destroys souls, necrotic tumor thingy whose name I don't recall (cyst?), the devourer, and any other effect which destroys souls. Any texts which talk about soul destruction in general, including those which explain why it is always heinous evil; because it is99% irrevocable.There's nothing under the sacrifice rules about soul destruction, the same is true of the entire necrotic cyst line of spells, there's nothing in the devourer's entry that suggests that a consumed soul can't be restored by normal magic.

There is no overarching rule that says a destroyed soul can't be restored. Unless you can show this to be false by highlighting the specific rule, you're just wrong.




Specific exception in exception based ruleset. Not contradictory.

No general rule to be excepted.




Discussion of souls throughout the texts. One of them says "a soul cannot be harmed by a sword or [...]".

Where is it?

As a counter argument, let's say for a moment that you were right about the idea that slaying an outsider doesn't destroy the soul because the body becomes an object and the body is the soul. The soul-body can then be destroyed by hacking away at it until -its- HP are depleted.

Even if you were right about the fact that an outsider's soul-body was somehow separate from the creature itself (seriously?) the soul can -still- be destroyed with normal weapon damage.


As an aside, please put line breaks between quotes and your responses? It makes this much easier for everyone.

I'm working from either a dinosaur of a computer or my phone on every post I make. Please forgive me if my formatting isn't always perfect.




Destroyed souls are gone forever, either beyond wish/miracle and requiring intervention of a great deity, or possible with wish miracle. It's also possible your invocation, depending on specific text, could not reconstitute a lost soul, you'll have to cross reference that.This point is in contention. As it is vital to your argument you really need to prove it. I've already highlighted at least one instance of this not being the case.




Specific exception in exception based ruleset. Not contradictory. "Using a soul as a spell component" is one of the few, and ONLY, listed ways to destroy a soul.

In addition, you must prove that larvae are souls still. This requires me to accept petitioners are souls in order for you to prove that my proof that petitioners aren't souls is false.



Specific exception in exception based ruleset. Not contradictory.

Allows ghosts to be used as if they were a soul, does not make a ghost a soul. Soul forgers(?, dwarven incarnum prestige class) can make magic items as if they had casting, does not mean they have casting.

There is nothing in the text in either of these cases to suggest that they are exceptions to a rule that you haven't even proven to exist.

Also, from magic jar, "only intelligent undead have or are souls."

If incorporeal undead can be used in the same manner as other forms of souls and some undead -are- souls, what is there to suggest that incorporeal undead -aren't- souls.




On the contrary, souls are listed as difficult to destroy, not destructible by conventional means, and given a set of conditions which destroy them. That is, they are given blanket immunity (meaning not extra methods, because there are no generic soul destruction methods) and the. Their destruction specifics are listed.

Again, you haven't actually proven this to be so. You keep saying that there is some rule that says souls are difficult to destroy and can't be destroyed by conventional attacks, but you haven't shown it to exist anywhere.




On the contrary, the opposite – that an outsider is a soul – has yet to be proven. Again, a stance in contention cannot be used as proof of itself; until you prove that outsiders are souls, rather than have souls that are also bodies, which you have not done, outsiders being souls is not the thing which stands and must be disproven. The burden of proof is on you. I'm just supplying supporting evidence which shows it.

Okay, try this. If a creature is not its soul and is not its body, what is it? You have contended that a creature is separate from both in your arguments.

You've also utterly failed to disprove that a soul cannot be destroyed through weapon damage, because it can. Even if an outsider was separate from its soul-body, that soul-body, the creature's soul, can be destroyed utterly by normal damage after it's killed.




That contrast does not create the case of a body being a soul meaning a creature with a body is a soul; it continues to support the case that a creature with a body that is a soul is a creature with a soul. It's right there, In English. Or math. I could render it into math for you. But you have not proven that possession of [thing] equates to being [thing]. I suspect you cannot. Which I why I am arguing, because I see how you could be interpreted to be correct in any given game but not by the rules as they stand. You are interpreting them as such, making this rules as interpreted. Which means not rules as written. Which means it's not the standard rule.

Again, if a creature is not its body or soul, what is it?




Specific exception in exception based ruleset. Not contradictory.

"Deities can do it" is not an argument, it's an edge case and specific exception. You'll note EVERY INSTANCE of soul destruction has that text, not "a handful".

You'll notice that one of your own examples, the only one that actually mentions soul destruction at all, lacks that text. That deities, creatures with extant stats and rules governing them within the system, can do it may be an edge case but it's not a specific exception because there is no rule that needs an exception.


There is one ability which removes a creature so thoroughly it cannot be brought back even by greater deities. It is in the epic level handbook. Which is?




A creature which has it's HP depleted is [destroyed]. It stops being a creature, it becomes an object, it is no longer alive. An object which has it's HP depleted is [destroyed]. It is no longer serviceable as an object. It cannot maintain structure and needs reparation before it can be used for anything. A soul which is [destroyed] is gone, beyond 99% of magic.

These conditions may all be called "destroyed" but they are not the same condition.

Alternatively, a creature is destroyed when its HP are depleted because its body is no longer serviceable in its function. That is, it's destroyed

In any case, I've unequivocally disproven your last point. A soul that is destroyed is only -sometimes- beyond mortal magic to recover and can be destroyed with a normal weapon under the right conditions.

[Amphetryon]

No general rule to be excepted.
Does this statement mean that you believe general rules cannot ever have exceptions?

[SiuiS]

There's nothing under the sacrifice rules about soul destruction, the same is true of the entire necrotic cyst line of spells, there's nothing in the devourer's entry that suggests that a consumed soul can't be restored by normal magic.

There is no overarching rule that says a destroyed soul can't be restored. Unless you can show this to be false by highlighting the specific rule, you're just wrong.


A'ight. I don't believe it but this isn't fun anymore, and it's affecting my everyday grammar.


Where is it?

As a counter argument, let's say for a moment that you were right about the idea that slaying an outsider doesn't destroy the soul because the body becomes an object and the body is the soul. The soul-body can then be destroyed by hacking away at it until -its- HP are depleted.

Even if you were right about the fact that an outsider's soul-body was somehow separate from the creature itself (seriously?) the soul can -still- be destroyed with normal weapon damage.

I would argue that if there's a specific method to destroying a soul, hacking a soulbody is not that method.



I'm working from either a dinosaur of a computer or my phone on every post I make. Please forgive me if my formatting isn't always perfect.


Come off it. I've done every post but this one here on my phone. The enter key isn't some arcane contrivance that is impossible from a smart device; it's two presses of thumb. Or forefinger, maybe, I don't know how you type.


Also, from magic jar, "only intelligent undead have or are souls."

Welp, that'll do it. Good game, then.

Hilariously, that line doesn't really need to be there, either; it has nothing to really do with the functioning of the spell as presented.


Does this statement mean that you believe general rules cannot ever have exceptions?

he is saying that the general rule I am citing his rule as an exception to does not exist, thus proving that his rule moves into the position of general ruling.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Does this statement mean that you believe general rules cannot ever have exceptions?

SiuiS is correct.

There is no general rule that souls are particularly difficult to destroy for any of the points she listed to be an exception to.

The entire premise of an exception based rule system is that it has a core set of general rules and a series of options that create exceptions to these general rules. D&D 3.X is a particularly complex example of such a system that has exceptions to the exceptions and, often, exceptions to those exceptions.

If a thing has a rule regarding it, that there is no more general rule for it to be an exception to, it's not an exception.

[Scow2]

Getting back on topic... I've actually changed my stance. What the character in question has done was the most horrific thing ever, though he(And his victims) didn't know it.

Nonexistance is incomprehensible for sapience. If I remember the cosmology correctly, the souls of Suicide victims are captured and carried by Soul Reapers to some lower plane to be tortured for eternity - Certainly not the fate the person who committed suicide to escape a bad situation was expecting.

The destruction of a soul - Defined as the spiritual aspect of a nonoutsider, though a Soul can be an outsider, such as petitioners - is a much worse fate than even that.

The destruction of a soul almost always involves turning the Essentia it is made from into infernal/arcane power - the essentia is effectively destroyed, never to come back. Any time a soul is destroyed, the universe is slightly undone. And that's just seeing the soul as an object.

Seeing the soul as a person, though? Destroying it rips it from linear existence. It cannot experience anything past the time it was destroyed, but sapience is ALWAYS experiencing something (Maybe. We have no idea what nonexistence is like because nobody doesn't exist and talks about it). So, that "Something" would be aspects of its life before its destruction: possibly a 'freeze frame" of its last moment, or as a constant loop of its life, or as some crazy cut+paste job of parts of its life all over the place... and as the life of the petitioner, not the original person (Because the soul was reformatted in conversion).


Essentially, instead of giving someone release by destroying them in Carceri, you're damning them to suffer for an eternity beyond eternities in a Carceri that will never go away, and never be lessened. Even when the cosmic war is over and Good has finally triumphed over evil and Carceri has been shut down forever, those souls that have been destroyed there will still be suffering stuck in a past that cannot be revisited or changed.


...However, just because a soul is destroyed, doesn't mean it can never be restored (And, fortunately, a restored soul will have no memory/experience of the "Infinite suffering/death/etc" bug caused by being ripped from experiencing the proper flow of time)

[NichG]

ScoW, while I do like the philosophical investigations into the idea that a line of sensory experience can never be terminated, its probably inconsistent with things already present in D&D - e.g. souls being merged into the agglomerate existence of the various Outer Planes.

If, however, merging is an acceptable way to terminate a world-line, then conceivably someone aware of this issue could accomplish what the character in the OP was trying without the horrific ramifications by taking the entire 'ability to experience things' from the souls they're trying to give peace to. How to do that via D&D rules is not really clear to me though, but given the Psychic Sandwich trick and other psionic powers that can transfer around the manifester's mind, thats probably the place to look.

Also if one could definitively say there was an infinite-experiential loop, then all the OP would have to do to make it non-horrific would be to give them a very positive last moment rather than a very negative one. Hit them with Heart's Ease first, then kill them. Or wait for the very moment when they come to the realization that their eternal suffering is finally over, so they are stuck in an infinite moment of hope rather than pain.

[SiuiS]

ScoW, while I do like the philosophical investigations into the idea that a line of sensory experience can never be terminated, its probably inconsistent with things already present in D&D - e.g. souls being merged into the agglomerate existence of the various Outer Planes.

If, however, merging is an acceptable way to terminate a world-line, then conceivably someone aware of this issue could accomplish what the character in the OP was trying without the horrific ramifications by taking the entire 'ability to experience things' from the souls they're trying to give peace to. How to do that via D&D rules is not really clear to me though, but given the Psychic Sandwich trick and other psionic powers that can transfer around the manifester's mind, thats probably the place to look.

Also if one could definitively say there was an infinite-experiential loop, then all the OP would have to do to make it non-horrific would be to give them a very positive last moment rather than a very negative one. Hit them with Heart's Ease first, then kill them. Or wait for the very moment when they come to the realization that their eternal suffering is finally over, so they are stuck in an infinite moment of hope rather than pain.

It's not so discongruous.

Incarnum – the magical energy which comprises a soul – is a substance that retains the essence of memories and experiences. When the souls of valiant heroes on Celestia eventually fade into the tapestry of Heaven, they cease to be individuals, but their vague essence can be drawn forth and it bears the experiences, memories and skill (vaguely) of those heroes, allowing a meld shaper to benefit from it.

Necrocarnum is specifically the act of using whole souls, in a way that is torturous (although as presented, necrocarnum is not inherently torturous, it's just the people who use it are *******s), but there is no way to get ahold of entire souls so it's likely that a Necrocarnate creates basic, sentient entities to torture out of disparate soulstuff.


It also occurs to me that killing a petitioner on carceri might not be evil because kill petitioner, but it's definitely a jerk move – you are merging their essence and memories with carceri. Do this billions of times and you can begin changing the nature of the plane. Do it hundreds and you're just inserting the minds of the woeful into Hell itself.

[NichG]

It's not so discongruous.

I think ScoW's argument was actually more than just this. He was arguing that 'the transition from being to non-being is impossible.' The idea is that, once there is a center of perception, that line of perception cannot conceive of its own termination. There is no 'last moment', so anything that would force a 'last moment' instead creates an infinite loop. In principle this 'impossibility of an ending to perception' is what gives rise to the soul and afterlife and all of that other stuff in the first place. Within this philosophy, someone can't just 'end' when they die, their perception has to go somewhere else.

So the question is, what happens to that perception when a petitioner merges with a plane?

[Scow2]

I think ScoW's argument was actually more than just this. He was arguing that 'the transition from being to non-being is impossible.' The idea is that, once there is a center of perception, that line of perception cannot conceive of its own termination. There is no 'last moment', so anything that would force a 'last moment' instead creates an infinite loop. In principle this 'impossibility of an ending to perception' is what gives rise to the soul and afterlife and all of that other stuff in the first place. Within this philosophy, someone can't just 'end' when they die, their perception has to go somewhere else.

So the question is, what happens to that perception when a petitioner merges with a plane?It becomes a dreamlike state of lost identity, but perceiving everything about that plane (Or at least parts of the plane). Until such time they voltron into a Fiend/Celestial/other Outsider, at which point their consciousness becomes one with that entity.

They do not retain memories or their sense of "Self", though, until they get a new form. But the stream of consciousness remains intact in the timeline.

With this explanation, it becomes sort-of-clear that the only way to absolutely annihilate a soul is to transform it from Incarnum into Arcane energy (Such as a devourer's spells, or the enchantments on weapons and armor). Otherwise, "destroying" it causes the petitioner's soul to transfer from body to plane... which is STILL probably Evil because instead of being one soul being tortured for eternity, they're all the souls torturing all the souls for eternity.

[SiuiS]

I think ScoW's argument was actually more than just this. He was arguing that 'the transition from being to non-being is impossible.' The idea is that, once there is a center of perception, that line of perception cannot conceive of its own termination. There is no 'last moment', so anything that would force a 'last moment' instead creates an infinite loop. In principle this 'impossibility of an ending to perception' is what gives rise to the soul and afterlife and all of that other stuff in the first place. Within this philosophy, someone can't just 'end' when they die, their perception has to go somewhere else.

So the question is, what happens to that perception when a petitioner merges with a plane?

But we have a canonical answer.


It becomes a dreamlike state of lost identity, but perceiving everything about that plane (Or at least parts of the plane). Until such time they voltron into a Fiend/Celestial/other Outsider, at which point their consciousness becomes one with that entity.

They do not retain memories or their sense of "Self", though, until they get a new form. But the stream of consciousness remains intact in the timeline.

With this explanation, it becomes sort-of-clear that the only way to absolutely annihilate a soul is to transform it from Incarnum into Arcane energy (Such as a devourer's spells, or the enchantments on weapons and armor). Otherwise, "destroying" it causes the petitioner's soul to transfer from body to plane... which is STILL probably Evil because instead of being one soul being tortured for eternity, they're all the souls torturing all the souls for eternity.

This.

The components if experiential existence remain; you're saying that water, once a droplet, cannot conceive of not being a droplet again. I say that's crap. Specifically because I've been drugged before, for surgery and once when I drank too much. It is not until consciousness comes back online afterward that the downtime gains context, but it's still there.

The droplet merges with the ocean and is part and parcel to ocean during that time. Later, when a droplet is pulled back out, it can begin to contextualise what being one with the ocean was like. But the whole time, it's still water.

It's fun to note that a souls is made of magic and experiences, and is shaped more by the Mind than by being a soul. The soul is film and records life and though, but is not life and thought. Life and thought come from the mind. It's a very weird and poorly handled concept.

[Scow2]

The one thing that's always bothered me about the D&D afterlife is the loss of class features and memory on death - Those should fade over time and only be complete with the "Merging with the plane" aspect, which completely breaks Ysgard. ..I wouldn't mind if every plane had its own 'hiring process'.

The question I now have is what can restore a destroyed soul? I'd imagine that slaying the petitioner prevents most resurrections of that individual (Not by RAW, but RAW assumes that the afterlife of the person hasn't been interrupted). The alignment aspect of destroying a petitioner is a much amplified version of slaying a person, and is thus NOT to ever be taken lightly.

[NichG]

The components if experiential existence remain; you're saying that water, once a droplet, cannot conceive of not being a droplet again. I say that's crap. Specifically because I've been drugged before, for surgery and once when I drank too much. It is not until consciousness comes back online afterward that the downtime gains context, but it's still there.


Well as I said, its an interesting philosophy even if it isn't something I'd apply to real life - like many things in tabletop games. You could envision a world that works this way, and it has certain curious consequences. I'm not convinced its supported by anything in D&D, but I'm also not convinced its outright refuted by anything in D&D.

If you accept the premise - that is, if the core of a soul is 'perception' and not experiences/magic (and canonically it isn't experiences, given things like the Styx and in all souls being stripped of their memories during the transition to the afterlife through the astral) - then basically the way to humanely destroy a soul is to consume it and integrate it into your own world-line.

[Sith_Happens]

The question I now have is what can restore a destroyed soul? I'd imagine that slaying the petitioner prevents most resurrections of that individual (Not by RAW, but RAW assumes that the afterlife of the person hasn't been interrupted). The alignment aspect of destroying a petitioner is a much amplified version of slaying a person, and is thus NOT to ever be taken lightly.

I know that subsumption by the plane renders the soul unable to return, but I'm pretty sure that killing the petitioner before that doesn't.

...Which is further evidence that doing so doesn't irreparably harm that soul, although it also implies that killing a petitioner prevents them from ever being absorbed into the plane rather than accelerating it. Which in the case of the lower planes is probably a Good thing, although the OP's Carceri sounds like it's been houseruled to never absorb people.

[NichG]

As far as restoring things, True Resurrection seems to trump almost all forms of destruction - only death from old age and obscure things like Barghest Feast seem to beat it (as well as taking the soul captive I suppose).

There's also Revive Outsider, which explicitly restores a dead soul-body.

[Scow2]

I'd say destroying a petitioner - the soul of the person - would also trump most ressurection effects just as solidly as "Trap the Soul" does.

Destroying a petitioner is not something that should happen lightly - it's not like killing a mortal creature. When you "destroy" a petitioner, you reduce it back to unformed essentia without any form of identity - while it still leaves a 'stream of conscience" flowing through the essentia, the person/identity it was has been disjoined.

Traveling to the outer planes is NOT supposed to be a common occurrence, and killing someone then tracking down their soul and destroying it on the outer plane SHOULD stop most forms of resurrection. In D&D 3.5, there is a disconnect in the rules between resurrection magic/afterlives and how they interact with planar cosmology.

....on the other hand, it's possible that the parts of a petitioner destroyed before its time remain 'keyed' to the individual, so planes like Ysgard and Acheron can infinitely revive the petitioners slain on the field of battle.

[paddyfool]

Since lethal poison increases the odds of an insta kill, only lasts one minute, and can be the best option for a non lethal takedown, there's just no way the amount of suffering it causes makes it evil. Power Word Pain, blade of Pain and Fear, Pain Touch, Flensing Strike, Pain (the spell,) Wrathful Castigation, Twist the Knife, Nybors Gentle Reminder, Flay, Inflict Pain, Horrid Sickness, and Sickening Strike are all presumably far more painful because,
A. The pain is specifically described and is so bad it has mechanical effects, which the pain from poison doesn't.
B. The pain of a poison is a side effect. The pain is the intended goal of all these abilities designed to be as agonizing as possible. Pain isn't a side effect, it's the goal.

To be fair, pain can be the goal with a poison. But you do have a point that the blanket treatment doesn't make sense.

Basically, I'd put a lot of the above and poison into a category of "usually evil". It's not like we're talking Made-Of-Raw-Evil like fiends, here, or always-evil actions like torture (even though all of these, and poison, may be very apt tools for torture).

[SiuiS]

The one thing that's always bothered me about the D&D afterlife is the loss of class features and memory on death - Those should fade over time and only be complete with the "Merging with the plane" aspect, which completely breaks Ysgard. ..I wouldn't mind if every plane had its own 'hiring process'.

The question I now have is what can restore a destroyed soul? I'd imagine that slaying the petitioner prevents most resurrections of that individual (Not by RAW, but RAW assumes that the afterlife of the person hasn't been interrupted). The alignment aspect of destroying a petitioner is a much amplified version of slaying a person, and is thus NOT to ever be taken lightly.

It's not completely. I mean, when you die, you come into the afterlife through the plane; your petitioner has to form there, you don't just get a polymorphed soul teleported to a plane, souls don't have form. That body portion of soul body has to come from somewhere. Maybe you're fleshed of any depth during the rebirth?


Well as I said, its an interesting philosophy even if it isn't something I'd apply to real life - like many things in tabletop games. You could envision a world that works this way, and it has certain curious consequences. I'm not convinced its supported by anything in D&D, but I'm also not convinced its outright refuted by anything in D&D.

If you accept the premise - that is, if the core of a soul is 'perception' and not experiences/magic (and canonically it isn't experiences, given things like the Styx and in all souls being stripped of their memories during the transition to the afterlife through the astral) - then basically the way to humanely destroy a soul is to consume it and integrate it into your own world-line.

Read Magic of Incarnum. Memories aren't experiences. Memories are part of the mind, which is separate from the soul (since it has it's own powers and abilities which target it). Soulstuff is literally magical energy which bears the imprint of its experiences like a filmstrip. That's literally what it is.


I'd say destroying a petitioner - the soul of the person - would also trump most ressurection effects just as solidly as "Trap the Soul" does.

Why? They specifically fall under the Restore Outsider spell exception.

[Wardog]

So the wizard has a joker level obsession with the hero and has intentionally crafted this scenario soley for his own amusement. ...

There have to be exceptions for stuff like this, or the Good/Evil spectrum is 100% borked. By hurting no one and involving no one but the creator of the scenario, you can save millions of innocents from a horrible fate. Yet that is the evil choice. Bananas. I'm not calling you crazy, just the rules if they don't have more wiggle room than that. Clearly, all moral responsibility in this scenario for the Paladin using the poison should fall on the wizard and the paladin is also, I think, psychotic if he doesn't use the poison.

I argued in one of the Durkula discussions, I think situations like this are best explained/justified by remembering (and emphasising) that:


[Good], [Evil], [Law] and [Chaos] and not just moral judgments or philosophical categories, but actual cosmic energies or fundamental particles, detectable by various spells.
Certain planes and creatures are literally made of these energies/particles.
Certain spells, as well as certain mundane acts generate these energies/particles.


If a villain dumps a canister of radioactive waste in an orphanage, and you go in, pick it up, and carry it out, then you will probably end up radioactive. You have in effect become exactly what you were protecting the orphans from, and will probably have to be kept away from them. But hopefully you will be able to get decontaminated.

It is probably best to look on these "lesser evil options" as similar. If you use poison to save multiple innocent lives - you will become contaminated with [Evil] in the process. But it is still better to do so than let the greater evil go unopposed. And yes, if you are a paladin you will fall - not because the powers of Good are punishing you for "failing" an impossible test, but because the contamination interferes with your powers, and you will need to undergo a purification ritual (Atonement) to be decontaminated.

There are plenty of real-world cultures and religions that consider certain evil or taboo acts to result in spiritual impurity, for which you must undergo some sort of purification ritual to repair. (I won't give examples due to board rules).

[SowZ]

I argued in one of the Durkula discussions, I think situations like this are best explained/justified by remembering (and emphasising) that:


[Good], [Evil], [Law] and [Chaos] and not just moral judgments or philosophical categories, but actual cosmic energies or fundamental particles, detectable by various spells.
Certain planes and creatures are literally made of these energies/particles.
Certain spells, as well as certain mundane acts generate these energies/particles.


If a villain dumps a canister of radioactive waste in an orphanage, and you go in, pick it up, and carry it out, then you will probably end up radioactive. You have in effect become exactly what you were protecting the orphans from, and will probably have to be kept away from them. But hopefully you will be able to get decontaminated.

It is probably best to look on these "lesser evil options" as similar. If you use poison to save multiple innocent lives - you will become contaminated with [Evil] in the process. But it is still better to do so than let the greater evil go unopposed. And yes, if you are a paladin you will fall - not because the powers of Good are punishing you for "failing" an impossible test, but because the contamination interferes with your powers, and you will need to undergo a purification ritual (Atonement) to be decontaminated.

There are plenty of real-world cultures and religions that consider certain evil or taboo acts to result in spiritual impurity, for which you must undergo some sort of purification ritual to repair. (I won't give examples due to board rules).

I agree with this, actually, and have even argued it in this thread. But I'm arguing within the context that most people are assuming D&D is a virtue based ethics system and trying to show how little sense it makes and that Good and Evil actions are not good and evil, respectively. Poison is Evil, but not necessarily immoral.

Your version of atonement is a house rule, though. It require repentance.

[Slipperychicken]

Your version of atonement is a house rule, though. It require repentance.

Not quite. It's written in the spell description.


This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden. Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf.


I imagine that NPC spellcasters would be quite wary, especially since they lose XP when the atonement is cast to resolve willing misdeeds.

[NichG]

Yes, it seems like the only requirement is a desire to 'set right its misdeeds'. I know if I took a bath in radioactive waste to save someone, I'd be quite desirous of 'setting right' my radiation poisoning and I'd probably be wishing very fervently that I wasn't suffering the various symptoms.

[SowZ]

Not quite. It's written in the spell description.



I imagine that NPC spellcasters would be quite wary, especially since they lose XP when the atonement is cast to resolve willing misdeeds.

Naw, that's not it, because it says truly repentant. Meaning you have to feel guilt. Most things that require atonement are things you were victimized into doing. Meaning that, by RAW, the idea that victims of abuse should feel guilty is well ingrained as Goodness. Saying, "Well, you can be truly repentant of your misdeeds and do a suitable quest or penance while not feeling guilty and acknowledging you did nothing wrong," would be sheer rubbish.

[NichG]

Most things that require atonement are things you were victimized into doing.

How do you figure this? Most characters of good alignment don't have a Vow feat. Heck, most Paladins don't have a Vow feat. Before this, your argument was 'there are situations in which alignment has unfortunate implications w.r.t fault for unwilling acts'. However, that hardly equates to 'most times, this will be the case'.

If, for example, a Paladin has to speak heresies against their deity to infiltrate and destroy an evil organization, they can still be 'truly repentant' for speaking heresies while also not regretting destroying the evil organization. Even though they did so out of need, its not something they were victimized into doing.

This is in contrast with the case where someone has e.g. Vow of Chastity and is raped, or is sworn not to touch metal and has someone hit them with a metal object.

So while I might agree that there are situations in which this happens, I think saying 'this is most of all cases' is overstating things to the point where it damages the argument.

[SowZ]

How do you figure this? Most characters of good alignment don't have a Vow feat. Heck, most Paladins don't have a Vow feat. Before this, your argument was 'there are situations in which alignment has unfortunate implications w.r.t fault for unwilling acts'. However, that hardly equates to 'most times, this will be the case'.

If, for example, a Paladin has to speak heresies against their deity to infiltrate and destroy an evil organization, they can still be 'truly repentant' for speaking heresies while also not regretting destroying the evil organization. Even though they did so out of need, its not something they were victimized into doing.

This is in contrast with the case where someone has e.g. Vow of Chastity and is raped, or is sworn not to touch metal and has someone hit them with a metal object.

So while I might agree that there are situations in which this happens, I think saying 'this is most of all cases' is overstating things to the point where it damages the argument.

I was arguing within the context of the earlier argument, that things that require atonement aren't things you are guilty for but just a 'cleansing of the soul.' The illustration used was that of radioactive materials and that the gods atent upset and you did nothing wrong but need to be cleaned. But then you are supposed to feel bad about that thing? That's telling people to feel guilty about their situation and feel remorseful for doing the right thing.

[NichG]

I was arguing within the context of the earlier argument, that things that require atonement aren't things you are guilty for but just a 'cleansing of the soul.' The illustration used was that of radioactive materials and that the gods atent upset and you did nothing wrong but need to be cleaned. But then you are supposed to feel bad about that thing? That's telling people to feel guilty about their situation and feel remorseful for doing the right thing.

Well I think thats closer to my 'heresies' example. In the case of the 'radioactive sludge' in the context of the character's belief system, the sludge is actually something abhorrent to them. Touching it is 'degrading onesself', but the humility to do so in order to accomplish a greater good is a positive aspect all the same.

In the context of 'I have to remove radiation poisoning from myself' the way to do it is chemical baths, hydration, etc.

In the context of 'I have to remove pure evil from myself' the way to do it may be to pin down every horrible thought the stuff has made you have, every small cruelty it made you perform, and one by one excise those from your being.

[Blightedmarsh]

The problem with good and evil is that they are cosmic forces. They have absolutely nothing to do with morality except by coincidence. This morality runs into orange and blue territory in places. The right thing does not necessarily have anything to do with the good thing; the wrong thing does not necessarily have anything to do with the evil thing and neither have much to do with basic human nature.

[SowZ]

Well I think thats closer to my 'heresies' example. In the case of the 'radioactive sludge' in the context of the character's belief system, the sludge is actually something abhorrent to them. Touching it is 'degrading onesself', but the humility to do so in order to accomplish a greater good is a positive aspect all the same.

In the context of 'I have to remove radiation poisoning from myself' the way to do it is chemical baths, hydration, etc.

In the context of 'I have to remove pure evil from myself' the way to do it may be to pin down every horrible thought the stuff has made you have, every small cruelty it made you perform, and one by one excise those from your being.

And I think it is evil for 'Good' to tell someone they should feel guilty and repent for becoming infected especially if that corruption occurred in the service of Good. Atonement doesn't say, 'regret unfortunate circumstance,' but says 'repent for your misdeeds.' Anything requiring atonement is, in the eyes of universal Good, a misdeed requiring repentance and usually penance. It isn't a force of absolute righteousness as evident by outright evil it sometimes forces. It is completely incapable of judgement and so shouldn't be a basis for ethics.

[SiuiS]

I argued in one of the Durkula discussions, I think situations like this are best explained/justified by remembering (and emphasising) that:


[Good], [Evil], [Law] and [Chaos] and not just moral judgments or philosophical categories, but actual cosmic energies or fundamental particles, detectable by various spells.
Certain planes and creatures are literally made of these energies/particles.
Certain spells, as well as certain mundane acts generate these energies/particles.


If a villain dumps a canister of radioactive waste in an orphanage, and you go in, pick it up, and carry it out, then you will probably end up radioactive. You have in effect become exactly what you were protecting the orphans from, and will probably have to be kept away from them. But hopefully you will be able to get decontaminated.

This is how alignment actually works, yes.


It is probably best to look on these "lesser evil options" as similar. If you use poison to save multiple innocent lives - you will become contaminated with [Evil] in the process. But it is still better to do so than let the greater evil go unopposed. And yes, if you are a paladin you will fall - not because the powers of Good are punishing you for "failing" an impossible test, but because the contamination interferes with your powers, and you will need to undergo a purification ritual (Atonement) to be decontaminated.

This, however; does not willingly committing an evil act preclude atonement? Or, well, for paladins.

[auote]There are plenty of real-world cultures and religions that consider certain evil or taboo acts to result in spiritual impurity, for which you must undergo some sort of purification ritual to repair. (I won't give examples due to board rules).[/QUOTE]

This line of justification is dangerous, friend. Careful with it.


Not quite. It's written in the spell description.

I imagine that NPC spellcasters would be quite wary, especially since they lose XP when the atonement is cast to resolve willing misdeeds.

Ah, repentance, not penance. That is, you actually have to feel the desire for atonement as opposed to you have to pay the price.


Naw, that's not it, because it says truly repentant. Meaning you have to feel guilt. Most things that require atonement are things you were victimized into doing. Meaning that, by RAW, the idea that victims of abuse should feel guilty is well ingrained as Goodness. Saying, "Well, you can be truly repentant of your misdeeds and do a suitable quest or penance while not feeling guilty and acknowledging you did nothing wrong," would be sheer rubbish.

Not quite. Repentance means sincere regret or remorse. You can regret and bear spiritual burden of an act you are forced ("forced") into committing without feeling guilt. It's not victim blaming unless you frame it that way intentionally.

[NichG]

And I think it is evil for 'Good' to tell someone they should feel guilty and repent for becoming infected especially if that corruption occurred in the service of Good. Atonement doesn't say, 'regret unfortunate circumstance,' but says 'repent for your misdeeds.' Anything requiring atonement is, in the eyes of universal Good, a misdeed requiring repentance and usually penance. It isn't a force of absolute righteousness as evident by outright evil it sometimes forces. It is completely incapable of judgement and so shouldn't be a basis for ethics.

Lets say I have an ethical system where it is always bad to take a life, but it is also always bad to allow a life to be taken. I then kill someone to defend 100. In that ethical system, I have committed two 'ethically charged' acts - one is a misdeed, the other is a good deed. I can regret having to kill someone to accomplish the good deed without diminishing the good deed.

Edit:
This is fundamentally different than something like 'it is bad to allow someone to touch you' -> 'I regret allowing myself to be touched', because in the first example it is a willful choice for the greater good, whereas in the second example it is an unwillful choice. I don't see any problem with having to regret a willful compromise, but I do see a problem with having to regret something imposed upon oneself. Conflating the two weakens the overall argument.

[icefractal]

The problem with good and evil is that they are cosmic forces. They have absolutely nothing to do with morality except by coincidence. This morality runs into orange and blue territory in places. The right thing does not necessarily have anything to do with the good thing; the wrong thing does not necessarily have anything to do with the evil thing and neither have much to do with basic human nature.Is that actually a useful way for them to work in a given campaign though? I mean, I could definitely see a setting where people were caught between cosmic forces that cared nothing for human morality, but I wouldn't call them "good" and "evil", in that case.

[Scow2]

Is that actually a useful way for them to work in a given campaign though? I mean, I could definitely see a setting where people were caught between cosmic forces that cared nothing for human morality, but I wouldn't call them "good" and "evil", in that case.They were originally called "Law" and "Chaos" :smallwink:

[NichG]

Well, much of this discussion has become about RAW theorycraft - in practice, any given table has no reason to adhere strongly to things that seem silly if it doesn't suit their tastes. I get the feeling its more about 'can we construct a consistent image behind RAW alignment' at this point rather than 'what should we do for an actual campaign'.

I tend to go by 'only [Descriptor]'d outsiders actually have observably non-neutral alignments, and all alignment-based class/spell/etc requirements go away' in my own campaigns.

[Scow2]

Well, I've constructed a response declaring the action as "Unwittingly evil" using pure fluff and RAI - nobody can really give "informed consent" to have their soul destroyed, because they do not have even the first clue of what that experience is like... and it COULD possibly be the most horrific thing to ever happen (Such as a constant back+forth replay of their time in Carceri forever because they're no longer in the normal flow of time)

It's also possibly "Almost always evil, unless it's a very VERY good reason" because destroying a petitioner/soul destroys that person's identity (One of the reasons I consider Mind Rape to be an "Always Evil" spell - at least Programmed Amnesia can be dispelled, and Sanctify the Wicked still has the person know who they were, and merely reject it as much as anyone who changes their outlook on life does), even if it doesn't destroy the essentia they are made of. Merely killing someone leaves their identity and experiences intact.

Destorying Essentia is Evil because it permanently increases the entropy of Life, which will eventually lead to an entire planar cosmology incapable of supporting intelligent life - and Evil is enough of a **** that a lose for Good is always a Win for them, even if they "lose" just as much.

[SiuiS]

Is that actually a useful way for them to work in a given campaign though? I mean, I could definitely see a setting where people were caught between cosmic forces that cared nothing for human morality, but I wouldn't call them "good" and "evil", in that case.

Cosmic Good is the force which allows good things to happen. It's an investment in the future, as much as cosmic evil is. If cosmic food went away, there would be no goodness to happen. It may be vast and incomprehensible, but it's trickle down effect is so vital that you cannot have a worthwhile world without it. Like nuclear force. Sure, it doesn't matter to you that stars are churning furnaces of nuclear reactions, but I'm sure you enjoy being made of matter, and that's nuclear force at work.

Imagine that you are a human being. You need to move three molecules, specific ones, in formation from the left side of your screen to the right. You can't; the scale difference is too vast. You cannot possibly care for the intimate details of those molecules or their subtle dances and arrangements even as you care for the outcome of their existence. But for some reason, this molecular shift has to happen to allow good things to continue happening. So you use intermediaries. It doesn't matter what exactly, it only alters that they work, and that they achieve what they need to – these are angels and such. Archons. Eladrin. Good outsiders. They move these molecules. The molecules are tragically uprooted from their homes and families, forced out, possibly traumatized – but the continued production of computer monitors and all of existence, the tapestry in which this goodness the molecules now lack and feel bereft of, hinges on this product, this one monitor being good enough that more are produced.

You don't do Evil. You cannot; evil is beyond you, beyond your agents. But sometimes you do things on the micro scale that are interpreted as bad because they are less good and temporarily diminish goodness. You cut short a song because the solo is out of place and harms the tapestry of the orchestral piece, say. But that doesn't make you not good. It doesn't mean you don't do good things and propagate good. These are all just things molecules, being so small in relative scope, cannot understand. But if the molecules got their wish, and you went away and don't bother them, their entire existence would fray, decay, and become some nasty, inverted thing.

[Blightedmarsh]

Is that actually a useful way for them to work in a given campaign though? I mean, I could definitely see a setting where people were caught between cosmic forces that cared nothing for human morality, but I wouldn't call them "good" and "evil", in that case.

I would say that they don't call themselves "good" or "evil" in any case. These are just lables that sentient minds have given to concepts beyond sentient understanding. I would call those cosmic forces "player" and "DM" myself.

Dnd isn't always well written, alinements notoriously so; if that wasn't the case we would hardly keep having these discussions would we. For me its an excuse to just rewrite the whole alinement system as best fits my sensibilities. I think that the problem is that real world morality seems subjective; different people have different ideas of what is or is not moral. Wizards of the cost and Gygax before them tried to write a system that was both objective and specific; one that tried to satisfy everybody but in the end was confounding to everybody.

If it were up to me I and I were tasked to write an objective system then I would say that "good" and "evil" are objectively opposed cosmic forces. Anything that supports or invokes "good" and opposes "evil" is morally good. Anything that supports or invoke "evil" and opposes "good" is morally evil. Unless the forces of "good" or "evil" are specifically invoked then all mortal agencies and actions are cosmically neutral.

[NichG]

Cosmic Good is the force which allows good things to happen. It's an investment in the future, as much as cosmic evil is. If cosmic food went away, there would be no goodness to happen. It may be vast and incomprehensible, but it's trickle down effect is so vital that you cannot have a worthwhile world without it. Like nuclear force. Sure, it doesn't matter to you that stars are churning furnaces of nuclear reactions, but I'm sure you enjoy being made of matter, and that's nuclear force at work.

Imagine that you are a human being. You need to move three molecules, specific ones, in formation from the left side of your screen to the right. You can't; the scale difference is too vast. You cannot possibly care for the intimate details of those molecules or their subtle dances and arrangements even as you care for the outcome of their existence. But for some reason, this molecular shift has to happen to allow good things to continue happening. So you use intermediaries. It doesn't matter what exactly, it only alters that they work, and that they achieve what they need to – these are angels and such. Archons. Eladrin. Good outsiders. They move these molecules. The molecules are tragically uprooted from their homes and families, forced out, possibly traumatized – but the continued production of computer monitors and all of existence, the tapestry in which this goodness the molecules now lack and feel bereft of, hinges on this product, this one monitor being good enough that more are produced.

You don't do Evil. You cannot; evil is beyond you, beyond your agents. But sometimes you do things on the micro scale that are interpreted as bad because they are less good and temporarily diminish goodness. You cut short a song because the solo is out of place and harms the tapestry of the orchestral piece, say. But that doesn't make you not good. It doesn't mean you don't do good things and propagate good. These are all just things molecules, being so small in relative scope, cannot understand. But if the molecules got their wish, and you went away and don't bother them, their entire existence would fray, decay, and become some nasty, inverted thing.

In the context of this, there is no justification to blame the Paladin for committing some small evil acts in service of a perceived greater good. Much like this 'Cosmic Good', the Paladin is looking at a larger picture and committing harmful acts on the small scale in order to optimize the larger picture.

Similarly, one may posit some even-larger-than-cosmic scale picture of which the Cosmic Good is unable to factor into its decisions, such that its 'actions for the greater good' actually fly in the face of even longer term goals.

This is, in fact, an argument against using cosmic alignment in practice in campaigns - its so far outside of the scale of individuals acting in the campaign, that no one would actually care about it except madmen. From the point of view of the greater cosmos, maybe having an entire world burned to ash is 'for the best', but from the point of view of that world sacrificing themselves for another world, a billion generations into the future, its irrational.

Consider something like human life in the real world. Every time we eat food, we accelerate the heat death of the universe by a little bit. Each of our lives increases universal entropy, because life is basically a machine that turns coherent energy (sunlight, food, whatever) into heat in order to propagate itself and survive. From the point of view of delaying the heat death of the universe for as long as possible, every living thing would be 'evil' - but that is not a point of view that can rationally be held by living things.

Edit: This is also why trying to use the same ethical system for mortals and gods can get weird, especially when you have beings (PCs) who effectively make the transition from one end to the other over the course of their careers. At some point, the relevant scale of a powerful character increases, and there will be tension between the impact of even their small decisions and their individual morality. This tends to manifest in the 'fork' style situations people posit where someone is blamed for their inaction as much as their action (if the heroes decide to take on this bad guy instead of that bad guy, they're basically choosing who lives and dies).

[Blightedmarsh]

One forgets that the divine and infernal entities are sentient being in their own right. They have their own agency, their own agenda, their own sense of aesthetics and ethics. The cosmic forces of good and evil may not care for the fate of the mortal universe but those actors who dominate the worldly use and distribution of that energy clearly do. They give us our interpretation of what good and evil is because since they are made of the stuff they must be a accurate representation of their nature.

If it where up to me then I would say that a cleric or a paladin is in some respects similar to warlock. They draw on the strength and power of an outside patron in return for acting as its agent in the world. As part and parcel of this pact it is not unreasonable to expect the patron to impose riders and limitations on the use of their power; things the user may or may not do. For example a Fey patron forbidding their client from lying or oath breaking because they personally find it offensive.

These codes of conduct could well be seemingly arbitrary and contradict the teachings of similarly alined divinities. I would write this as differing perspectives on some the same underlining concepts; things that are at once ephemeral and universal. Things that are more felt than thought and do not readily translate to mere words; things that are no more comprehensible to the gods than to mortals. In three words; broad brush stokes.



Edit: This is also why trying to use the same ethical system for mortals and gods can get weird, especially when you have beings (PCs) who effectively make the transition from one end to the other over the course of their careers. At some point, the relevant scale of a powerful character increases, and there will be tension between the impact of even their small decisions and their individual morality. This tends to manifest in the 'fork' style situations people posit where someone is blamed for their inaction as much as their action (if the heroes decide to take on this bad guy instead of that bad guy, they're basically choosing who lives and dies).

In the end good V evil is a sum to zero game; there is no such thing as the "greater good" only local fluctuations in the background. On the cosmic scale the difference between the fate of a single individual and the fate of an entire world is insignificant. Everybody dies and in the end even gods fade away. Its just a matter of time.

I would also counter that no paladin nor even a god could ever truly see the "big picture" as it were without going irrevocably insane.

[Scow2]

One forgets that the divine and infernal entities are sentient being in their own right. They have their own agency, their own agenda, their own sense of aesthetics and ethics. The cosmic forces of good and evil may not care for the fate of the mortal universe but those actors who dominate the worldly use and distribution of that energy clearly do. They give us our interpretation of what good and evil is because since they are made of the stuff they must be a accurate representation of their nature.
The cosmic forces DO care about the fate of the mortal universe, because the mortal universe allows each other's opposite to exist - which is a state neither can permit. Good and Evil are inherently intolerant of each other(And no, tolerance is not inherently "Good" - it's inherently "human", which is neutral.)

Of course, the universe-as-we-know it wouldn't be livable if either True Good or True Evil reign supreme: Good has no room for mortal foibles, and evil is, well, Evil.

[Wardog]

Your version of atonement is a house rule, though. It require repentance.

I don't think that changes anything.

Having the "Atonement" spell cast on you is the "purification ritual" (or part of it). In order for the purification to work, you have to be truely repentant.

I would interpret this to mean (in the poison case, for example) that they have to actually regret that the use of poison was necessary, and that doing so was an act of last resort. As opposed to doing it because its easy, and they know that they can just [Atone] and so negate the negatives.

As to why this is so - maybe it is a cosmic failsafe, to prevent people comitting [Evil] lightly.

Or maybe it is just that [Evil] particles are metaphysically "sticky", and in order to remove them it is not enough to just have the intervention of someone casting the spell, but the atoner must also generate an opposing force of [Good] to repell or negate them by genuinely repenting.

[Blightedmarsh]

The cosmic forces DO care about the fate of the mortal universe, because the mortal universe allows each other's opposite to exist - which is a state neither can permit. Good and Evil are inherently intolerant of each other(And no, tolerance is not inherently "Good" - it's inherently "human", which is neutral.)

The rub of it is I don't think good an evil is about us at all. My thought is that mortals and gods both are simply carriers of something older and more primal. Good and evil conflict not for control nor for victory; they conflict simply because it is their nature to do so, like positrons and electron drawn to mutual annihilation. That their dance will continue for long aeons after the mortal universe has been reduced to dust spinning in the dark. To these forces we are nothing more than lively dust that doesn't yet know to stop where it settles.




Or maybe it is just that [Evil] particles are metaphysically "sticky", and in order to remove them it is not enough to just have the intervention of someone casting the spell, but the atone must also generate an opposing force of [Good] to repell or negate them by genuinely repenting.

Or it could be that the angel you called down wont work his magic unless you are willing to play by his rules.

Question how does the universe know its supposed to contain thinking life? How does a cosmic force know that its supposed to know anything at all?

[SiuiS]

In the context of this, there is no justification to blame the Paladin for committing some small evil acts in service of a perceived greater good. Much like this 'Cosmic Good', the Paladin is looking at a larger picture and committing harmful acts on the small scale in order to optimize the larger picture.

On the contrary, the existence of Paladins is specifically to interface with the mortal scale because the cosmic forces cannot.

[SowZ]

This is how alignment actually works, yes.



This, however; does not willingly committing an evil act preclude atonement? Or, well, for paladins.

[auote]There are plenty of real-world cultures and religions that consider certain evil or taboo acts to result in spiritual impurity, for which you must undergo some sort of purification ritual to repair. (I won't give examples due to board rules).

This line of justification is dangerous, friend. Careful with it.



Ah, repentance, not penance. That is, you actually have to feel the desire for atonement as opposed to you have to pay the price.



Not quite. Repentance means sincere regret or remorse. You can regret and bear spiritual burden of an act you are forced ("forced") into committing without feeling guilt. It's not victim blaming unless you frame it that way intentionally.

I don't think the language could be more clear that for atonement to work, there has to be a degree of guilt and shame. If someone got raped and got some disease and some Priest said, "You should atone for your misdeeds and make proper penance and then repent and G-d may heal you." there isn't a person on the planet who wouldn't think he was trying to make her feel guilt. They may be crappy enough to think she should feel guilty, but it couldn't be more clear that's shaming. Calling being raped a misdeed and something that requires true repentance and penance isn't only victim blaming if you approach it from a certain mind-set. It is blatantly telling the person to feel guilt. I can't come up with any phrase that would better display that other than the rules blatantly saying, 'the universal force of Good is victim blaming.'

It goes for all sorts of blaming for being victimized, including being mind controlled into doing something evil and requiring atonement, but rape is just the most flagrant example.


Lets say I have an ethical system where it is always bad to take a life, but it is also always bad to allow a life to be taken. I then kill someone to defend 100. In that ethical system, I have committed two 'ethically charged' acts - one is a misdeed, the other is a good deed. I can regret having to kill someone to accomplish the good deed without diminishing the good deed.

Edit:
This is fundamentally different than something like 'it is bad to allow someone to touch you' -> 'I regret allowing myself to be touched', because in the first example it is a willful choice for the greater good, whereas in the second example it is an unwillful choice. I don't see any problem with having to regret a willful compromise, but I do see a problem with having to regret something imposed upon oneself. Conflating the two weakens the overall argument.

Well, if it is both Good and Evil at the same time, it is another piece of evidence that the forces of Good and Evil have zero sense of judgement and shouldn't be a basis for morality.


I don't think that changes anything.

Having the "Atonement" spell cast on you is the "purification ritual" (or part of it). In order for the purification to work, you have to be truely repentant.

I would interpret this to mean (in the poison case, for example) that they have to actually regret that the use of poison was necessary, and that doing so was an act of last resort. As opposed to doing it because its easy, and they know that they can just [Atone] and so negate the negatives.

As to why this is so - maybe it is a cosmic failsafe, to prevent people comitting [Evil] lightly.

Or maybe it is just that [Evil] particles are metaphysically "sticky", and in order to remove them it is not enough to just have the intervention of someone casting the spell, but the atoner must also generate an opposing force of [Good] to repell or negate them by genuinely repenting.

Yeah, and you have to be truly repentant if you use poison by no fault of your own but are mind raped into doing it,if we are consistent with how the universal force of Good judges people. It's complete garbage.

[Scow2]

Who the heck said anything about being mind-raped into doing something? We were talking about someone resorting to poison/other unpleasant activity under their own power and will. Guilt and penance ward off the "Slippery Slope" - once you stoop once, it becomes MUCH easier to let your morals slide in the future.

The other situation you'd need to atone is if you do something willingly but unwittingly/acting out of ignorance, such as Sir Lancelot's disruption of Prince Herbert's wedding.

[NichG]

Well, if it is both Good and Evil at the same time, it is another piece of evidence that the forces of Good and Evil have zero sense of judgement and shouldn't be a basis for morality.


Or that the ends may sometimes justify the means, but the price is always present as a counter-factor. If I pay $5 for something that earns me $50, it doesn't mean that the $5 thing didn't have a cost - I have both black and red on my ledger.

[SowZ]

Who the heck said anything about being mind-raped into doing something? We were talking about someone resorting to poison/other unpleasant activity under their own power and will. Guilt and penance ward off the "Slippery Slope" - once you stoop once, it becomes MUCH easier to let your morals slide in the future.

The other situation you'd need to atone is if you do something willingly but unwittingly/acting out of ignorance, such as Sir Lancelot's disruption of Prince Herbert's wedding.

People were saying Atonement is just a cleansing spell and doesn't need guilt associated. They also said that in the case of someone having to, say, atone for an unwillingly violated Vow of Chastity, atonement isn't necessarily rape shaming. I brought in mind controlled into doing Evil actions and needing atonement since it is the same thing.


Or that the ends may sometimes justify the means, but the price is always present as a counter-factor. If I pay $5 for something that earns me $50, it doesn't mean that the $5 thing didn't have a cost - I have both black and red on my ledger.

But that is a good investment. It isn't simultaneously a good and bad investment.

[Scow2]

People were saying Atonement is just a cleansing spell and doesn't need guilt associated. They also said that in the case of someone having to, say, atone for an unwillingly violated Vow of Chastity, atonement isn't necessarily rape shaming. I brought in mind controlled into doing Evil actions and needing atonement since it is the same thing.Well, it does depend on how much control you have in the "Mind Controlled" phase - if you're charmed, you still have full control of your actions. Being compelled shouldn't count, though.




But that is a good investment. It isn't simultaneously a good and bad investment.Unless the investment tanks and you don't get the 50. Just because this situation paid back 50 doesn't mean it's okay to always spend 5 freely, especially if their are ways to get that 30 that don't involve spending 5.

[SowZ]

Well, it does depend on how much control you have in the "Mind Controlled" phase - if you're charmed, you still have full control of your actions. Being compelled shouldn't count, though.



Unless the investment tanks and you don't get the 50. Just because this situation paid back 50 doesn't mean it's okay to always spend 5 freely, especially if their are ways to get that 30 that don't involve spending 5.

But no individual investment both turns a profit and a negative in the end at the same time. I like the analogy for my viewpoint, actually. Certain actions are evil sometimes and good others. Just like spending 5 bucks is stupid sometimes and smart others.

[SiuiS]

I don't think the language could be more clear that for atonement to work, there has to be a degree of guilt and shame. If someone got raped and got some disease and some Priest said, "You should atone for your misdeeds and make proper penance and then repent and G-d may heal you." there isn't a person on the planet who wouldn't think he was trying to make her feel guilt. They may be crappy enough to think she should feel guilty, but it couldn't be more clear that's shaming. Calling being raped a misdeed and something that requires true repentance and penance isn't only victim blaming if you approach it from a certain mind-set. It is blatantly telling the person to feel guilt. I can't come up with any phrase that would better display that other than the rules blatantly saying, 'the universal force of Good is victim blaming.'

First, please be cautious. Taking an O out doesn't make that a non-religious comment. It actually makes it seem far and away like a real world religious discussion. No one cares what a priest will say; he's not casting the spell. Clerics do that. Maybe paladins.

Second;

This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden. Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf.

Repentant has the definition of 'expressing or feeling sincere regret or remorse'. You have to actually feel bad, you don't have to actually feel guilty. Do you feel bad about being raped? Yes. Do you want that feeling gone? Yes. You qualify for Atonement. No guilt involved.



Yeah, and you have to be truly repentant if you use poison by no fault of your own but are mind raped into doing it,if we are consistent with how the universal force of Good judges people. It's complete garbage.

So you're saying atonement should work for people who are mind controlled into poisoning someone but don't regret it and like that they poisoned someone? Because that's the only class of people excluded.


Or that the ends may sometimes justify the means, but the price is always present as a counter-factor. If I pay $5 for something that earns me $50, it doesn't mean that the $5 thing didn't have a cost - I have both black and red on my ledger.

Yup.


People were saying Atonement is just a cleansing spell and doesn't need guilt associated. They also said that in the case of someone having to, say, atone for an unwillingly violated Vow of Chastity, atonement isn't necessarily rape shaming. I brought in mind controlled into doing Evil actions and needing atonement since it is the same thing.

And I still say it's not rape shaming unless you specifically frame it that way. Because it's not.



But that is a good investment. It isn't simultaneously a good and bad investment.

But it is still a worse investment than paying $0 and getting $50. You're still $5 down from that. And if your evil deed was actually $10 worth you'd only be $40 up, which is a fully fifth less beneficial.

[SowZ]

First, please be cautious. Taking an O out doesn't make that a non-religious comment. It actually makes it seem far and away like a real world religious discussion. No one cares what a priest will say; he's not casting the spell. Clerics do that. Maybe paladins.

Second;


Repentant has the definition of 'expressing or feeling sincere regret or remorse'. You have to actually feel bad, you don't have to actually feel guilty. Do you feel bad about being raped? Yes. Do you want that feeling gone? Yes. You qualify for Atonement. No guilt involved.



So you're saying atonement should work for people who are mind controlled into poisoning someone but don't regret it and like that they poisoned someone? Because that's the only class of people excluded.



Yup.



And I still say it's not rape shaming unless you specifically frame it that way. Because it's not.



But it is still a worse investment than paying $0 and getting $50. You're still $5 down from that. And if your evil deed was actually $10 worth you'd only be $40 up, which is a fully fifth less beneficial.

No, a rape victim should never have to feel repentant or remorseful or bad or in need of performing penance ever. They may very well may feel that way, but they shouldn't have to. That shouldn't happen, and I don't think you should defend that mentality.

Also. Repentance means to apologize or to feel sincere remorse about ones own wrongdoing. That's what the word means.

Oh, that's not why I remove the O.

[Scow2]

No, a rape victim should never have to feel repentant or remorseful or bad or in need of performing penance ever. They may very well may feel that way, but they shouldn't have to. That shouldn't happen, and I don't think you should defend that mentality.Unless they're not actually a 'victim'. And yes, I do have someone at my table who would play a character with Vow of Chastity and get around the entire point of it by seeking out his idea of what drow are like, or satyrs, or minotaurs (as he thinks they should be), or orc warbands, or... yeah. I don't know if that's what the feat's wording was SUPPOSED to try to discourage, but it is something.

[SowZ]

Unless they're not actually a 'victim'. And yes, I do have someone at my table who would play a character with Vow of Chastity and get around the entire point of it by seeking out his idea of what drow are like, or satyrs, or minotaurs (as he thinks they should be), or orc warbands, or... yeah. I don't know if that's what the feat's wording was SUPPOSED to try to discourage, but it is something.

If the feat was meant to discourage that, it's even worse, because it's giving DMs the authority to say, "Oh, she wanted it."

[SiuiS]

No, a rape victim should never have to feel repentant or remorseful or bad or in need of performing penance ever. They may very well may feel that way, but they shouldn't have to. That shouldn't happen, and I don't think you should defend that mentality.

You're doing that purposeful framing thing I keep talking about. Do you feel bad when bad things happen to you? If the answer is yes, that's remorse right there. Do you wish that bad thig didn't happen to you? If yes, that's regret. The end. No guilt. No feeling at blame. You're using connotation not denotation.

This is the definition of repentant, which I looked up days ago. Note the example is descriptive, not prescriptive, and illustrates a use of the definition without being part of it.



riˈpentnt/
adjective
1.
expressing or feeling sincere regret and remorse; remorseful.
"he is truly repentant for his incredible naivety and stupidity"
synonyms: penitent, contrite, regretful, rueful, remorseful, apologetic, chastened, ashamed, shamefaced, guilt-ridden More
antonyms: impenitent

It's very simple. The idea that you must feel like you are responsible or at fault or to be blamed to be repentant, comes from you, SowZ, and is your own bias and not part of the definition. Four dictionaries all have that definition, by the way, so I'm not cherry picking; I've yet to see your version show up.



Oh, that's not why I remove the O.

I still think, given what I've seen and heard of the rules and their enforcement, using a real-world (even nondenominational) example of religion is poor form and should be avoided.


If the feat was meant to discourage that, it's even worse, because it's giving DMs the authority to say, "Oh, she wanted it."

This would be pretty terrible, yes. I would find the player at fault too, however; there's all sorts of juvenile and creepy going on in playing a chaste religious figure and setting out to be raped. That's... Yeah.

[Wardog]

I don't really know the details of how it works, but from what is being discussed here, it sounds like with this specific issue, it is the Vow of Chastity that is the problem, not Alignment.

[The Fury]

...Maybe we should not talk about the Vow of Chastity anymore? Admittedly, some of the implications that come with the feat are creepy as all get out, though they've been explored elsewhere in this thread.

But yes-- atonement! As in Atonement the spell. I personally like the idea that Atonement needs the target to actually be repentant just because I can imagine scenarios where someone that could benefit from the Atonement might not want to.
Take your typical fallen Paladin-- she's done something that caused her to fall obviously, but what if she's convinced that what she's done ultimately caused more good than harm? What if she's right? What if some villain's lecture on how "Good" and "Evil" are just labels of two opposites that don't really mean anything is starting to get to her? Maybe she'll start to think that maybe she can do more good for the world without following her Paladin's code. After all, if the code gets in the way of helping people, what use is it?

[SowZ]

You're doing that purposeful framing thing I keep talking about. Do you feel bad when bad things happen to you? If the answer is yes, that's remorse right there. Do you wish that bad thig didn't happen to you? If yes, that's regret. The end. No guilt. No feeling at blame. You're using connotation not denotation.

This is the definition of repentant, which I looked up days ago. Note the example is descriptive, not prescriptive, and illustrates a use of the definition without being part of it.



It's very simple. The idea that you must feel like you are responsible or at fault or to be blamed to be repentant, comes from you, SowZ, and is your own bias and not part of the definition. Four dictionaries all have that definition, by the way, so I'm not cherry picking; I've yet to see your version show up.



I still think, given what I've seen and heard of the rules and their enforcement, using a real-world (even nondenominational) example of religion is poor form and should be avoided.



This would be pretty terrible, yes. I would find the player at fault too, however; there's all sorts of juvenile and creepy going on in playing a chaste religious figure and setting out to be raped. That's... Yeah.

A priest isn't a specific example of a religion. Dozens of religions have priests. But anyway.

The definition of repentance includes remorse. The definition for remorse is guilt over a wrongdoing. And anyway, yes, I would feel bad if I was raped. I would not feel bad for my misdeeds. Oh, here's the atonement text.


This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity

The spell removed the burden of evil acts or misdeeds. You can't
say, "It could mean the evil act committed by the rapist." Because the second sentence clarifies that it is talking about the target of the spells misdeeds.

It is semantically impossible for being raped with Vow of Castity to be anything other than a misdeed on behalf of the victim. Also, it always refers to the act as an Evil act. It also specifically mentions deeds under magical compulsion and still calls them Evil acts.

It isn't just Vow of Chastity, either. It is all the Vows plus any act committed under magical compulsion. According to D&D, it's Evil for you to do something wrong under magical compulsion. Just less Evil.


...Maybe we should not talk about the Vow of Chastity anymore? Admittedly, some of the implications that come with the feat are creepy as all get out, though they've been explored elsewhere in this thread.

But yes-- atonement! As in Atonement the spell. I personally like the idea that Atonement needs the target to actually be repentant just because I can imagine scenarios where someone that could benefit from the Atonement might not want to.
Take your typical fallen Paladin-- she's done something that caused her to fall obviously, but what if she's convinced that what she's done ultimately caused more good than harm? What if she's right? What if some villain's lecture on how "Good" and "Evil" are just labels of two opposites that don't really mean anything is starting to get to her? Maybe she'll start to think that maybe she can do more good for the world without following her Paladin's code. After all, if the code gets in the way of helping people, what use is it?

And in the realm of D&D, where it is okay to kill someone with a torturous spell and evil to paralyze them with a poison then nurse them back to health, and where using deathwatch to save as many people as possible, and where it is Evil to be mind raped into bad things, where Good and Evil don't actually correlate to right and wrong, that Paladin questioning the worth of universal Goodness is right!

[Scow2]

Just because a spell doesn't have an alignment descriptor doesn't mean its application doesn't fall into an alignment. Deathwatch For Good is using the power of evil for Good uses. The reason it's evil is because it draws upon the foul powers of undeath and necromancy.

Also, where are you getting the idea (Aside from the VoC, which may or may not have been written to deter rape fantasists). Also - mind control can still be fought. It's your fault if you don't have the willpower to resist.

[SowZ]

Just because a spell doesn't have an alignment descriptor doesn't mean its application doesn't fall into an alignment. Deathwatch For Good is using the power of evil for Good uses. The reason it's evil is because it draws upon the foul powers of undeath and necromancy.

Also, where are you getting the idea (Aside from the VoC, which may or may not have been written to deter rape fantasists). Also - mind control can still be fought. It's your fault if you don't have the willpower to resist.

Bull. That goes back into the realm of blaming people for being victimized, you may as well say people who are assaulted should have fought it off. It isn't your fault if you aren't strong enough to fight off attackers, mental or physical. Also, if VoC was written to deter rape fantasies, it's ten times worse since it was written in a way that encourages 'you wanted it' type thinking.

Oh, and Deathwatch for Good is still an Evil act. Which is why I say you can do more good by ignoring universal Good.

[Scow2]

Bull. That goes back into the realm of blaming people for being victimized, you may as well say people who are assaulted should have fought it off. It isn't your fault if you aren't strong enough to fight off attackers, mental or physical. Also, if VoC was written to deter rape fantasies, it's ten times worse since it was written in a way that encourages 'you wanted it' type thinking.

Oh, and Deathwatch for Good is still an Evil act. Which is why I say you can do more good by ignoring universal Good.How's it worse when it's true, though? It would only be worse if you assume:
1. the game is designed to reflect the reality of the situation for any victim other than my friend (And what few people are like him).
2. The DM is being deliberately antagonistic to the party.

Also, how many people get in trouble for stuff they do when drunk or caught up in the middle of a breakup or other situation where their judgement and capabilities are impaired?

[SiuiS]

A priest isn't a specific example of a religion. Dozens of religions have priests. But anyway.

Doesn't matter if it's a specific religion. Don't talk real world religion. Please.


The definition of repentance includes remorse. The definition for remorse is guilt over a wrongdoing. And anyway, yes, I would feel bad if I was raped. I would not feel bad for my misdeeds. Oh, here's the atonement text.

I quoted that exact same text earlier, I don't see why you think my view of it would be any different.

It is possible to regret someone else's actions. It is possible to feel unclean because of someone else's actions. And because of atonement, it is possible to have that feeling of being filthy because of something outside your control to go away. You don't have to read it that way, but nothing in the reading precludes that.

Atonement also lets you convert alignments! I always thought that was fun. I liked having villains invite competent Heroes to dinner, give them a pitch and the. Offer atonement as a means of switching teams.


The spell removed the burden of evil acts or misdeeds. You can't
say, "It could mean the evil act committed by the rapist." Because the second sentence clarifies that it is talking about the target of the spells misdeeds.


It is semantically impossible for being raped with Vow of Castity to be anything other than a misdeed on behalf of the victim. Also, it always refers to the act as an Evil act. It also specifically mentions deeds under magical compulsion and still calls them Evil acts.

Wow. That's... Uh... Terrible.

Man. I knew the sacred vow feats were crap, but I guess I blocked out how bad they were.


Just because a spell doesn't have an alignment descriptor doesn't mean its application doesn't fall into an alignment. Deathwatch For Good is using the power of evil for Good uses. The reason it's evil is because it draws upon the foul powers of undeath and necromancy.

Also, where are you getting the idea (Aside from the VoC, which may or may not have been written to deter rape fantasists). Also - mind control can still be fought. It's your fault if you don't have the willpower to resist.

What? No. No scow. Just... No.

[hamishspence]

Also, how many people get in trouble for stuff they do when drunk or caught up in the middle of a breakup or other situation where their judgement and capabilities are impaired?"Judgement impaired" is far from "under the control of someone else"

Suppose it was proven that a drug could make a person so suggestible that it would be impossible for them to resist a command?

And suppose their drink was spiked and they were ordered to kill someone, and did so?

Once they were arrested, and their drink-spiker arrested, both were put on trial.

Would one expect a jury to convict the killer, the drink-spiker, or both?

I think a fair case could be made that the person whose drink was spiked- could be proven to not have mens rea regarding the act- and possibly, that they were not in any way negligent either- since no-one expects to have their drink spiked (under normal circumstances).

[mistformsquirrl]

Damning or harming souls is an evil act according to BoVD, so yeah, it's evil by RAW.


Aside from that, I think that this is mercy. You're alleviating needless suffering. These people aren't getting rehabilitated, they aren't coming back, and they aren't going to do any more evil. The petitioners don't have any memories of the events which led them to Carceri. These people, however evil, were begging for death (well, destruction. whatever), and you freed them from eternal suffering. It's basically euthanasia.

If it was my decision, I think the "relieved from eternal suffering" bit would have outweighed the "destroying souls" bit, and thus had an overall positive impact on your alignment.

Agreed, I think you did the right thing.

[Angelalex242]

Back to topic:

I am still of the opinion you cannot kill souls with a mere sword, not even a sword +5. And even Epic weapons would need some sort of 'soul destroyer' enhancement before they qualified, and said enhancement would indeed be [Evil]

So the OP is fine.

[A Tad Insane]

Back to topic:

I am still of the opinion you cannot kill souls with a mere sword, not even a sword +5. And even Epic weapons would need some sort of 'soul destroyer' enhancement before they qualified, and said enhancement would indeed be [Evil]

So the OP is fine.

But what happens to the souls afterwards? Do they do the ghostwalk? Become part of the plane? If it's the latter, that would be an evil act, maybe unwitting if the paladin had no ranks in knowledge(the planes), yet the former is still moral debatable, as this thread has pointed out. Maybe they become a vestige, which would be a lateral change.

[Scow2]

But what happens if you then stab the vestige?

[A Tad Insane]

But what happens if you then stab the vestige?

Free level in binder! Form of a grinning hound!

[Angelalex242]

Since a soul cannot be destroyed by a sword (according to me), dispersing a petitioner form should...hmmm.

Become part of the plane sounds logical. In theory, if the OP had time to stab every single petitioner in the plane out of their misery, Carceri might double in size from all the extra souls now part of it, but those prison cells would be empty.

As an empty prison would thwart Carceri's prime function of providing a place of torment for imprisoned souls, making a double sized prison full of nothing isn't evil.

Gotta figure absorbing petitioners into itself is how the plane keeps up with population growth in the Prime, to have enough cells for every prisoner that could possibly be sent to it. But an empty prison torments nothing.

Actually extracting the souls from Carceri to put them elsewhere probably takes Tippy level shenanigans, which a mere Tier 5 Paladin can't pull.

[AMFV]

Since a soul cannot be destroyed by a sword (according to me), dispersing a petitioner form should...hmmm.


However since it's not answered in the rules we must assume that the default rules for outsiders apply, which allow them to be destroyed by souls.

[Scow2]

As "not fair" as I kinda feel that a sword can destroy a soul... having it "Not really hurt the soul" takes out the punch of campaigns where a party might kill someone, then track their soul down and destroy it a second time.

A big problem is that D&D tries to have the Outer Planes as both, an "Eternal reward" for people, AND a place where mortals can go adventure in: It kinda screws up immortal paradise when a bunch of mortals can just planeshift in and wreck your day... though there IS precedent of storming Hell/Hades to rescue one of the damned.

[paddyfool]

It's very simple. The idea that you must feel like you are responsible or at fault or to be blamed to be repentant, comes from you, SowZ, and is your own bias and not part of the definition. Four dictionaries all have that definition, by the way, so I'm not cherry picking; I've yet to see your version show up.

Uh... what?

Have you even read the definition you quoted? Here, read it again:


Originally Posted by re·pent·ant

riˈpentnt/
adjective
1.
expressing or feeling sincere regret and remorse; remorseful.
"he is truly repentant for his incredible naivety and stupidity"
synonyms: penitent, contrite, regretful, rueful, remorseful, apologetic, chastened, ashamed, shamefaced, guilt-ridden More
antonyms: impenitent

Note the bold in the synonyms. Regretting that something happened isn't enough: to be repentant means that you also accept blame for it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Since a soul cannot be destroyed by a sword (according to me), dispersing a petitioner form should...hmmm.

Become part of the plane sounds logical. In theory, if the OP had time to stab every single petitioner in the plane out of their misery, Carceri might double in size from all the extra souls now part of it, but those prison cells would be empty.

As an empty prison would thwart Carceri's prime function of providing a place of torment for imprisoned souls, making a double sized prison full of nothing isn't evil.

Gotta figure absorbing petitioners into itself is how the plane keeps up with population growth in the Prime, to have enough cells for every prisoner that could possibly be sent to it. But an empty prison torments nothing.

Actually extracting the souls from Carceri to put them elsewhere probably takes Tippy level shenanigans, which a mere Tier 5 Paladin can't pull.

How, exactly, does any warrior manage to kill things with a sword at a rate comparable to 1/17 of the death rate of the material plane?

Seriously, hundreds if not thousands of people die every minute. Even a 17th of that horribly outweighs a warrior's ability to deliver death blows, even if he had several turns worth of actions every round.


As "not fair" as I kinda feel that a sword can destroy a soul... having it "Not really hurt the soul" takes out the punch of campaigns where a party might kill someone, then track their soul down and destroy it a second time.

A big problem is that D&D tries to have the Outer Planes as both, an "Eternal reward" for people, AND a place where mortals can go adventure in: It kinda screws up immortal paradise when a bunch of mortals can just planeshift in and wreck your day... though there IS precedent of storming Hell/Hades to rescue one of the damned.

Actually, there are mortal natives to the outer planes as well, normal creatures with the celestial, fiendish, axiomatic, and anarchic templates.

[icefractal]

Yeah, the afterlife / normal plane with native inhabitants mash-up has always felt odd to me. I think that in future campaigns, I might do something like this:

* After dying, the soul is at the same plane and location as the body. For [some period of time], it is ultra-incorporeal, not affected by anything except things that specifically target it (soul trapping gems, for instance), and likewise not able to have any effect on the normal world.
* Souls can easily go from their currently plane to the Astral plane, and then with some travel, to another plane.
* After [some period of time], the soul stops being ultra-incorporeal, and forms a body - what kind of body depends on what plane it's in. On the Material or Ethereal planes, the body is a Ghost (or some kind of lesser ghost, since D&D Ghosts are pretty badass to give out automatically). On other planes, you get other types of bodies.
* Once it has a body, it's a creature again. If killed, it will turn into a soul as normal. Being killed repeatedly might increase the period of time spent ultra-incorporeal.

So, the planes are just places. But some of them are the destination for a lot of souls, either because they're awesome and people want to go there, or because a demon with a soul-net came along, scooped them up, and dragged them there.

[SiuiS]

Since a soul cannot be destroyed by a sword (according to me), dispersing a petitioner form should...hmmm.

Become part of the plane sounds logical. In theory, if the OP had time to stab every single petitioner in the plane out of their misery, Carceri might double in size from all the extra souls now part of it, but those prison cells would be empty.

As an empty prison would thwart Carceri's prime function of providing a place of torment for imprisoned souls, making a double sized prison full of nothing isn't evil.

Gotta figure absorbing petitioners into itself is how the plane keeps up with population growth in the Prime, to have enough cells for every prisoner that could possibly be sent to it. But an empty prison torments nothing.

Actually extracting the souls from Carceri to put them elsewhere probably takes Tippy level shenanigans, which a mere Tier 5 Paladin can't pull.

Planes spawn their own inhabitants from that energy, though. They don't just grow. For every X petitioners dissolved you generate Y fiends.


Uh... what?

Have you even read the definition you quoted?

Yes, I have. And I explained it concisely several times. Synonyms are not definitions, otherwise someone who goes insane becomes a bird and a clock variant.

I say again, the definition of the words repentant, remorse, regret, do not always imply guilt on your part. If you want to feel guilty for things you didn't do, go ahead. But don't tell other people they're playing wrong when you can't prove it. And having to go to examples and a thesaurus to prove a definition? That's pretty much giving up on the dictionary definition backing you up.

[A Tad Insane]

In regards to atonement:
Everyone knows wizards have very bad vocabulary. I do think someone with a vow of chastity who got it broken against his or her will would need an atonement spell, not at all because they did something wrong, but because they are not long, for lack of a better word (if someone has a better word, please tell me), "kosher" (note: this is my opinion, not RAW, nor RAI, but I think it makes more sense than either.)

[hamishspence]

Sounds about right.

Just because the vow was broken, doesn't mean that "breaking the vow" was any kind of Evil act- it's just that the feat no longer functions.

For example, If an Exalted character with multiple exalted feats, including VoC, fell in love and made the decision to break that Vow, all of their other Exalted feats would still function- just not that one.

[Scow2]

Actually, there are mortal natives to the outer planes as well, normal creatures with the celestial, fiendish, axiomatic, and anarchic templates.Yes, but the afterllife would be boring if there were only a bunch of old dead dudes around.

[SowZ]

Sounds about right.

Just because the vow was broken, doesn't mean that "breaking the vow" was any kind of Evil act- it's just that the feat no longer functions.

For example, If an Exalted character with multiple exalted feats, including VoC, fell in love and made the decision to break that Vow, all of their other Exalted feats would still function- just not that one.

Except the rules specifically call being raped a misdeed on behalf of the victim. Atonement only works on misdeeds and evil acts. Also, it has already been pretty well established that atonement only works if you are experiencing guilt and blame.

[Scow2]

If we don't get off of the rape-shaming subject, I'm going to hunt you all down, kill you, then chase your souls into the afterlives and kill the petitioners that form from your souls, then try to Resurrect you guys to see if it works. If it does, I apologize. If it doesn't, this argument is over forever.

[hamishspence]

I can't recall those precise words in BoED.

All I can find, in the text of every vow, is

"If you break your vow as a result of magical compulsion ("or otherwise unintentionally" is mentioned in one case) you lose the benefit of this feat until you perform a suitable penance and receive an atonement spell"

Nothing that says "Breaking a Vow is an unintentional evil act".

And on page 10, it states that Vows of Chastity, Poverty, etc are "rooted in the belief that giving up the enjoyment of a good and natural thing can have positive spiritual benefits."

[paddyfool]

I say again, the definition of the words repentant, remorse, regret, do not always imply guilt on your part. If you want to feel guilty for things you didn't do, go ahead. But don't tell other people they're playing wrong when you can't prove it. And having to go to examples and a thesaurus to prove a definition? That's pretty much giving up on the dictionary definition backing you up.

OK, here's the Oxford English Dictionary for you on repentance. Straight from the original authoritative source:

"To review one's actions and feel contrition or regret for something one has done or omitted to do; (esp. in religious contexts) to acknowledge the sinfulness of one's past action or conduct by showing sincere remorse and undertaking to reform in the future.""

Accepting culpability may not be a necessary part of the definition for regret or remorse, but it is part of the definition for repentance.

[hamishspence]

Returning to the original topic

"is it nonevil in D&D to kill someone who has requested death and has good reason to make that request"

- since killing is not evil in itself, if freeing them is impossible (and possibly dangerous to the public if it was possible) killing them may end up being the option most "merciful" and "respectful of the dignity of sentient beings" (specifically, the beings who want to die rather than suffer.)

[AMFV]

OK, here's the Oxford English Dictionary for you on repentance. Straight from the original authoritative source:

"To review one's actions and feel contrition or regret for something one has done or omitted to do; (esp. in religious contexts) to acknowledge the sinfulness of one's past action or conduct by showing sincere remorse and undertaking to reform in the future.""

Accepting culpability may not be a necessary part of the definition for regret or remorse, but it is part of the definition for repentance.

True but definition in this case, from the Meriam Webster:

1
: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life
2
a : to feel regret or contrition
b : to change one's mind

Turning from sin and amending one's life does not speak to culpability. Feeling regret doesn't, and 2B in this case doesn't particularly apply. So that's repentance without necessary wrongdoing as per a different dictionary. I'd say that two equally authoritative sources having a difference of statement makes this a judgment call.

[hamishspence]

It's also worth remembering that all alignments have the Atonement spell- and there's even nonaligned things like "nature" for druids.

Atonement isn't just a spell for "Good".

[SowZ]

I can't recall those precise words in BoED.

All I can find, in the text of every vow, is

"If you break your vow as a result of magical compulsion ("or otherwise unintentionally" is mentioned in one case) you lose the benefit of this feat until you perform a suitable penance and receive an atonement spell"

Nothing that says "Breaking a Vow is an unintentional evil act".

And on page 10, it states that Vows of Chastity, Poverty, etc are "rooted in the belief that giving up the enjoyment of a good and natural thing can have positive spiritual benefits."

The game calls anything requiring atonement a misdeed in the spell itself.


If we don't get off of the rape-shaming subject, I'm going to hunt you all down, kill you, then chase your souls into the afterlives and kill the petitioners that form from your souls, then try to Resurrect you guys to see if it works. If it does, I apologize. If it doesn't, this argument is over forever.

Well, as long as people keep defending it, I'll keep saying, "no."

[hamishspence]

It also mentions "Reverse Magical Alignment Change" and "Offer a creature a chance to change its alignment to match yours".

The fact that it only mentions at the start of the spell description "evil acts" & "misdeeds" (and only later, "acts against the creature's alignment") as well as "transgressions" (against a deity or against the druid code) - does not mean that all such acts must fit into the category "Misdeed" or the category "Transgression".

[Scow2]

The game calls anything requiring atonement a misdeed in the spell itself.THat's because that's the spell's standard function. Other calls for Atonement are nonstandard and apply to that situation only, with Atonement being a formality... there are a few other spells like this, that have their obvious function, but also interact with other spells/effects in ways nearly completely divorced from that function.

[SiuiS]

Except the rules specifically call being raped a misdeed on behalf of the victim. Atonement only works on misdeeds and evil acts. Also, it has already been pretty well established that atonement only works if you are experiencing guilt and blame.

This is flat out misinformation. I have the book open right now.

The feat says if you're forced or compelled to break the magical sacred promise, you need to perform a suitable penance and get atonement cast on you.

We've gone round and round, and nothing conclusive in the definition for repentance, regret, remorse or atonement can even be considered up to third degree of rules text which implies alignment shift on the part of the feat bearer at all.


OK, here's the Oxford English Dictionary for you on repentance. Straight from the original authoritative source:

Authoritative? Definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, and no one dictionary has any greater authority than any other. That's why I went through five, and only one of them has this stuff down here. Let's go through it shall we?



"To review one's actions and feel contrition or regret for something one has done or omitted to do; (esp. in religious contexts) to acknowledge the sinfulness of one's past action or conduct by showing sincere remorse and undertaking to reform in the future.".

Contrition: the state of feeling remorseful and penitent.
Remorseful: filled with remorse; sorry
Remorse: deep regret or guilt

So we have one fifth of the definition showing by four degrees that maybe you're supposed to feel guilty for bad things happening to you before the magic divine power can make the spiritual burden ease.

Except that requires a single circumstantial technical application of compiled computerized logical wording by ignoring contextual clues of language and application, which is stupid.

Both sides have linguistic merit. The issue is the asinine assertion that the more reasonable interpretation is OMG SO WRONG because then you can't unilaterally complain about how terribad and slut shaming and victim blaming the rules are.


The game calls anything requiring atonement a misdeed in the spell itself.

No, yor chosen, specific interpretation of the language in the spell, which is one of many and not the most linguistically staightforward says that.

Unlike with Kelb and petitioners as souls, this is just relying on obstinance. Unless there is something new to being to the table from the rules of the game about what the vow feat line does and does not do, I think we're done. Or at least, I am. Nothing new means nothing more to say.

[Amphetryon]

It seems to me the OED would be considered the "authoritative" source if 3.5 were clearly written in British English, rather than American English. I would be intrigued to see evidence indicating that this was the case.

[SowZ]

This is flat out misinformation. I have the book open right now.

The feat says if you're forced or compelled to break the magical sacred promise, you need to perform a suitable penance and get atonement cast on you.

We've gone round and round, and nothing conclusive in the definition for repentance, regret, remorse or atonement can even be considered up to third degree of rules text which implies alignment shift on the part of the feat bearer at all.



Authoritative? Definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, and no one dictionary has any greater authority than any other. That's why I went through five, and only one of them has this stuff down here. Let's go through it shall we?



Contrition: the state of feeling remorseful and penitent.
Remorseful: filled with remorse; sorry
Remorse: deep regret or guilt

So we have one fifth of the definition showing by four degrees that maybe you're supposed to feel guilty for bad things happening to you before the magic divine power can make the spiritual burden ease.

Except that requires a single circumstantial technical application of compiled computerized logical wording by ignoring contextual clues of language and application, which is stupid.

Both sides have linguistic merit. The issue is the asinine assertion that the more reasonable interpretation is OMG SO WRONG because then you can't unilaterally complain about how terribad and slut shaming and victim blaming the rules are.



No, yor chosen, specific interpretation of the language in the spell, which is one of many and not the most linguistically staightforward says that.

Unlike with Kelb and petitioners as souls, this is just relying on obstinance. Unless there is something new to being to the table from the rules of the game about what the vow feat line does and does not do, I think we're done. Or at least, I am. Nothing new means nothing more to say.


This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature...

Atonement makes a distinction between deliberate and unintentional misdeeds, specifically calling out unwillful actions as misdeeds. This isn't an accidental implication, but the vocabulary used. There is no other interpretation expect the unwillful deeds still being misdeeds.

Also...

re·pent·ance
riˈpentns/Submit
noun
noun: repentance; plural noun: repentances
1.
the action of repenting; sincere regret or remorse.

re·pent
riˈpent/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: repenting
1.
feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin.

re·morse
riˈmôrs/Submit
noun
1.
deep regret or guilt for a wrong committed.

sin
sin/
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

wrong·do·ing
ˈrôNGˌdo͞oiNG/Submit
noun
1.
illegal or dishonest behavior.



Any deed requiring repentance obligates guilt. That's what the word means.

[AMFV]

OK, here's the Oxford English Dictionary for you on repentance. Straight from the original authoritative source:

"To review one's actions and feel contrition or regret for something one has done or omitted to do; (esp. in religious contexts) to acknowledge the sinfulness of one's past action or conduct by showing sincere remorse and undertaking to reform in the future.""

Accepting culpability may not be a necessary part of the definition for regret or remorse, but it is part of the definition for repentance.


Atonement makes a distinction between deliberate and unintentional misdeeds, specifically calling out unwillful actions as misdeeds. This isn't an accidental implication, but the vocabulary used. There is no other interpretation expect the unwillful deeds still being misdeeds.

Also...

re·pent·ance
riˈpentns/Submit
noun
noun: repentance; plural noun: repentances
1.
the action of repenting; sincere regret or remorse.

re·pent
riˈpent/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: repenting
1.
feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin.

re·morse
riˈmôrs/Submit
noun
1.
deep regret or guilt for a wrong committed.

sin
sin/
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

wrong·do·ing
ˈrôNGˌdo͞oiNG/Submit
noun
1.
illegal or dishonest behavior.



Any deed requiring repentance obligates guilt. That's what the word means.

Several of those definitions don't necessarily indicate guilt on the part of the person repenting, furthermore as you can pray for other's sins, maybe it's possible to repent for the transgressions of others. This is outside of the scope of regular Atonement, but exalted characters are supposed to be better than regular good. So much so that being around evil deeds is painful to them. See the whole Nonviolence folks for evidence of that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is the text for VoC


Special:To fulfill your vow, you must abstain from any sexual contact with any other creature. If you intentionally break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it. If you break your vow as a result of magical compulsion, you lose the benefit of this feat until you perform a suitable penance and receive an atonementspell.

Note that the vow is only broken if it is a willing act or the result of magical compulsion. A VoC character that is assaulted has not broken her vow.

From the magic overview;


Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, some compulsion spells allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and others give you ongoing control over the subject.

A compulsion spell alters the subject's mind such that its acts -are- willing on a certain level.

It's not willingness on the highest level, where it would render the vow irrevocably lost, but willingness nonetheless; less rape than flawless seduction.

[SowZ]

Several of those definitions don't necessarily indicate guilt on the part of the person repenting, furthermore as you can pray for other's sins, maybe it's possible to repent for the transgressions of others. This is outside of the scope of regular Atonement, but exalted characters are supposed to be better than regular good. So much so that being around evil deeds is painful to them. See the whole Nonviolence folks for evidence of that.

That's really reaching. You can pray for another's sin. You can even do penance on behalf of it. You don't repent for them.

[Resident Fool]

I'm sure plenty of people have already touched on this, but there are way too many posts to read through. So I'm just going to toss my two cents in ; p

The main problems I'm seeing here are that 1: Good and evil are really subjective, and 2: "lawful" is a bit of a misnomer, I feel.

As far as number 1 goes, I feel that it was a good act. You were giving people what they wanted, and what they wanted did not harm anyone else. But many people feel that killing people is wrong unless if in defense - and none of those people you killed posed any threat to you. It's a large grey area to be sure, but since they were done in the name of mercy and only to those who willingly took up your offer, I'd say it still leans towards the good side of things.

As far as number 2 goes, lawful doesn't mean you uphold every law. If that were so, paladins everywhere would be hosed by a tyrannical kingdom. Would you expect a paladin in a situation like that to say "well, that guy's raping and torturing innocents because he's bored. But because it's a friday, and it is legally sanctioned to kill and rape on fridays, I will do nothing." Lawful means more, to me, that you uphold your own convictions, fulfill your promises, and believe in a firm, structured government and way of life.

Naturally, regardless of whatever alignment the actions were, you can very well expect a large group of NPC's to be pissed at you. Possibly even hunt you down and try to kill you, or imprison you in that very dungeon. You did, after all, supercede their law with your own and disrupt their prison structure. So expect a few new enemies.

[paddyfool]

Turning from sin and amending one's life does not speak to culpability.

How can you turn from sin if you aren't culpable for that sin in the first place, or amend your life if you've done nothing wrong?

I'm staying away from the whole stupid argument about rape, btw - just arguing linguistics here.

[AMFV]

How can you turn from sin if you aren't culpable for that sin in the first place, or amend your life if you've done nothing wrong?

I'm staying away from the whole stupid argument about rape, btw - just arguing linguistics here.

Well you could turn from sin caused by others. That's certainly linguistically possible. Amending your life could be fixing damages that were not caused by you, amending your life doesn't have to be fixing your own problems. Furthermore in the discussed argument those could both be a result of the pain caused by the crime against you.

[paddyfool]

Well you could turn from sin caused by others. That's certainly linguistically possible.

But that's not what's usually meant.


Amending your life could be fixing damages that were not caused by you, amending your life doesn't have to be fixing your own problems.

But usually that's what it does mean.

Anyway, this is all boring me now. I wonder how much of this is just a transatlantic miscommunication, based on different usages of such expressions.

[Hangwind]

My two cents? He DEFINITELY committed an Evil deed. I would honestly find it more defensible if he had killed someone bodily rather than killing their soul. Now, the idea of people who had committed small crimes being there is...interesting, but when I read his original post it mentioned they were there for limited amounts of time. NOT ETERNALLY. The exact example was when he said 500 years.

Now is it Lawful? No. Simply speaking, committing suicide is still a crime as is escaping jail. While the courts have never had to try anyone who committed suicide (for obvious reasons) it is still on the books as a crime in America and most other nations. I would assume that laws not specifically stated default to standard interpretations. If the law of his kingdom say it is fine then it might be lawful, but since the DM started looking at him funny, I would say probably not.

As to whether he deserves an alignment change? If you agree with the first two points, then yes, he does. A lot of people were saying he didn't because there would need to be a pattern, but I can't imagine a better pettern than HUNDREDS of people.

[AMFV]

But that's not what's usually meant.



But usually that's what it does mean.

Anyway, this is all boring me now. I wonder how much of this is just a transatlantic miscommunication, based on different usages of such expressions.

No, standard usage is close to the same here. But moral linguistics and philosophy becomes more complicated.

[Scow2]

My two cents? He DEFINITELY committed an Evil deed. I would honestly find it more defensible if he had killed someone bodily rather than killing their soul. Now, the idea of people who had committed small crimes being there is...interesting, but when I read his original post it mentioned they were there for limited amounts of time. NOT ETERNALLY. The exact example was when he said 500 years.

Now is it Lawful? No. Simply speaking, committing suicide is still a crime as is escaping jail. While the courts have never had to try anyone who committed suicide (for obvious reasons) it is still on the books as a crime in America and most other nations. I would assume that laws not specifically stated default to standard interpretations. If the law of his kingdom say it is fine then it might be lawful, but since the DM started looking at him funny, I would say probably not.

As to whether he deserves an alignment change? If you agree with the first two points, then yes, he does. A lot of people were saying he didn't because there would need to be a pattern, but I can't imagine a better pettern than HUNDREDS of people.He did it to hundreds of people with not merely their consent, but also their demands. Want to know what happens when those 500 years are up? The soul expires. All he did was hasten the process. He did what he was told was in the soul's best interest by the souls in question.

And, while it was hundreds of people, it was still One Incident. Had he been informed that destroying the souls was worse on 'the other side' and continued anyway, or had he destroyed souls that DIDN'T beg for destruction, or anything else, then there might be a case that it's a pattern... but this is a guy doing what he and his 'victims' thought best. If there's any evil committed, it's as a "Horrible mistake" - and Mistakes are not Evil.

[Wardog]

Now is it Lawful? No. Simply speaking, committing suicide is still a crime as is escaping jail. While the courts have never had to try anyone who committed suicide (for obvious reasons) it is still on the books as a crime in America and most other nations.

[citation needed]

It is illegal in some countries, and used to be illegal in Western countries, but that is no longer the case (including in most American states, at least according to According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation#History)).

And there have been lots of historic cultures where suicide was notseen as criminal, or even a bad thing. And despite the pseudo-medieval setting, D&D seems to be culturally closer to the Ancient or Classical world, where suicide was generally seen asmore acceptable.

Besides, I think the general interpretation (based on countless Alignment threads) is that "Lawful" does not mean "obeying the law of the whatever land you happen to be in". Especially if that land is Hell.

[SowZ]

My two cents? He DEFINITELY committed an Evil deed. I would honestly find it more defensible if he had killed someone bodily rather than killing their soul. Now, the idea of people who had committed small crimes being there is...interesting, but when I read his original post it mentioned they were there for limited amounts of time. NOT ETERNALLY. The exact example was when he said 500 years.

Now is it Lawful? No. Simply speaking, committing suicide is still a crime as is escaping jail. While the courts have never had to try anyone who committed suicide (for obvious reasons) it is still on the books as a crime in America and most other nations. I would assume that laws not specifically stated default to standard interpretations. If the law of his kingdom say it is fine then it might be lawful, but since the DM started looking at him funny, I would say probably not.

As to whether he deserves an alignment change? If you agree with the first two points, then yes, he does. A lot of people were saying he didn't because there would need to be a pattern, but I can't imagine a better pettern than HUNDREDS of people.

So what does a good person do? Ignore their suffering and say, "Sucks to be you, see ya?" It is clearly an unjust and Evil system causing needless suffering, so it is also not Good to ignore it. If you would force an alignment change, I would call you an incredibly unfair DM. People in no win scenarios, where literally all options are potentially Evil shouldn't have their alignments changed just because the player interprets the least evil option differently than the DM. That's just jerky DMing.