Alignment of Thralls?

[Forum Explorer]

I'm not sure if this goes here or in gaming but it was inspired by OotS so yeah.


Anyways when I was reading over Durkon summoning his Devil something occurred to me. Durkon was still under Malack's control at that point. Now since that moment has been used as proof that Durkon is now evil it's come up time and time again. However...

Durkon was under Malack's control and Malack is certainly evil. So which alignment applies at the time? Malack's or Durkon's?

And to extend the case further, well what about dominate person? Let's say you dominate a wizard or cleric and force them to use planar summoning. Does it summon by the caster's alignment or by the commanding person's alignment? I mean you effectively control their actions, therefore it's basically you controlling their actions, so shouldn't it be your alignment?



TL DR: Do mind controlled minions effectively have an alignment? Should they?

[Gift Jeraff]

It would use the mind controlled person's alignment and thus they wouldn't be able to conjure outsiders they're forbidden from conjuring.

It's not like Durkon was a mindless puppet as a thrall. He was able to ask the dumb question about the other pyramid, wander into the sunlight, request permission to conjure a devil, not use his indoor voice, etc.

[KillianHawkeye]

TL DR: Do mind controlled minions effectively have an alignment? Should they?

Yes, and yes.

At no point does the alignment of someone under mind control get overridden by the one who's controlling them. Vampiric thralls do not take on the alignment of their creator, their existing alignment merely switches to Evil (so, for example, a Chaotic Evil vampire who turned a Lawful Good character into another vampire would get a Lawful Evil vampire thrall, not a Chaotic Evil one).

[Heksefatter]

In D&D rules, you don't become evil from being mind-controlled by an evil being. Becoming a vampire almost always turns you evil, however. This includes being a thrall vampire, and the very few loopholes actually involves starting out as a free-willed vampire.

In short: Vampire thralls always or almost always evil. Dominated or otherwise mind-controlled thralls not eviller than they were before being taken over.

[Sir_Leorik]

TL DR: Do mind controlled minions effectively have an alignment? Should they?

I think we need to clarify your question. Are you referring to the victims of a Dominate Person spell or a Vampire's Dominating gaze? If so, the victim retains his original Alignment. For example, Yukyuk's Alignment did not change while he was under Vaarsuvius' mental control, nor did Belkar's Alignment change while he was under Malack's mental control.

On the other hand, Vampires created with the Create Spawn ability have their Alignment shifted to Evil, regardless of whether they become thralls. It is possible for a Vampire to Sire new Spawn, but not get new Thralls, if the number of hit dice of the new Thrall would increase the total Hit Dice of Thralls under the Vampire's control to more than twice the Vampire's Hit Dice. As was established, Malack had zero Hit Dice of Thralls (because Nale destroyed all of Malack's old Thralls), so Durkon became Malack's new Thrall. If Malack already had enough Thralls that he could not make any more, he would need to release some of the old Thralls to make room for Durkon, or Durkon would have risen from the grave as a free willed Lawful Evil Vampire!

[Kish]

Thanh was able to use Lay On Hands on Tsukiko; he did not become (even temporarily) Fallen as a result of being evil. Presumably, had she ordered him to Smite Evil Belkar, he would have been able to do so.

[King of Nowhere]

mind controlled people have alignments. only, those alignments do not reflect on their actions, because they are not responsible for those actions.

If you are tied up, you can't do any good or evil action, but you don't become neutral for it.

[Sir_Leorik]

mind controlled people have alignments. only, those alignments do not reflect on their actions, because they are not responsible for those actions.

If you are tied up, you can't do any good or evil action, but you don't become neutral for it.

Yes, but their Alignments can help them break free of the mind control. Thanh broke free of Tsukiko's Dominate Person spell because he thought he was about to murder Lord Shojo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html), which would violate not only his Alignment, but his Code of Conduct as a Paladin. Belkar attacked Durkon when under Nale's Charm Person spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0383.html) and under Malack's Dominating Gaze (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html) because he's Chaotic Evil and has no qualms about killing people. Since he failed his initial Saving Throw each time, Belkar was not entitled to a new Save because Nale and Malack's orders did not violate his Alignment. (Remember, Nale had to word his command to Belkar carefully in order to get him cooperate, even with the Charm Person spell, while Malack had no such constraints.)

[Rakoa]

Yes, but their Alignments can help them break free of the mind control. Thanh broke free of Tsukiko's Dominate Person spell because he thought he was about to murder Lord Shojo (htttp://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html), which would violate not only his Alignment, but his Code of Conduct as a Paladin. Belkar attacked Durkon when under Nale's Charm Person spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0383.html) and under Malack's Dominating Gaze (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0874.html) because he's Chaotic Evil and has no qualms about killing people. Since he failed his initial Saving Throw each time, Belkar was not entitled to a new Save because Nale and Malack's orders did not violate his Alignment. (Remember, Nale had to word his command to Belkar carefully in order to get him cooperate, even with the Charm Person spell, while Malack had no such constraints.)

A minor nitpick, though you're mostly correct, but it is due to their personality and not their alignment they received additional saving throws.

[Sir_Leorik]

A minor nitpick, though you're mostly correct, but it is due to their personality and not their alignment they received additional saving throws.

It's a combination of both, with Alignment and sense of honor being especially important in Thanh's case, while Belkar has been willing to attack his fellow party members before he even met them. :smallamused:

:belkar: "So who do I have to kill to get on the team?"...
:roy: "I don't want you to kill anyone!"
:belkar: "No matter how many times people tell me that, I never understand that."

[KillianHawkeye]

Thanh was able to use Lay On Hands on Tsukiko; he did not become (even temporarily) Fallen as a result of being evil. Presumably, had she ordered him to Smite Evil Belkar, he would have been able to do so.

Minor nitpick: The reason Thanh didn't fall was because he never "became Evil" in the first place, because being mind-controlled doesn't change your alignment.

That being said, Thanh would still fall if he committed any evil actions while dominated, because life sucks that way. The atonement spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) even has a clause about how it costs less if the evil deeds were done "unwittingly or under some form of compulsion." It is exactly these types of minor mistakes or things happening beyond one's control that are the very reason that spell exists.

[Kish]

"Minor nitpick: The entire point of what you are saying is correct"? Really? This board, I swear.

[Sir_Leorik]

"Minor nitpick: The entire point of what you are saying is correct"? Really? This board, I swear.

"Face it Kish, it's China Town the Giant in the Playground Forums."

:smallamused:

[KillianHawkeye]

"Minor nitpick: The entire point of what you are saying is correct"? Really? This board, I swear.

Well, obviously! If I had a serious disagreement, I wouldn't have labeled it as a nitpick to begin with. There was just a small thing in your post which needed correcting or elaborating upon (the particular phrase which I bolded), after which I went on to add my own thoughts on the subject. I'm not sure how else you would have preferred me to do that. :smallconfused:

[Rakoa]

Well, obviously! If I had a serious disagreement, I wouldnt have labeled it as a nitpick to begin with. There was just a small thing in your post which needed correcting or elaborating upon (the particular phrase which I bolded), after which I went on to add my own thoughts on the subject. I'm not sure how else you would have preferred me to do that. :smallconfused:

Unless Kish was referring to my minor nitpick, which I felt was an important distinction.

[Kish]

I wasn't, no.

[Prinygod]

Minor nitpick: The reason Thanh didn't fall was because he never "became Evil" in the first place, because being mind-controlled doesn't change your alignment.

That being said, Thanh would still fall if he committed any evil actions while dominated, because life sucks that way. The atonement spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) even has a clause about how it costs less if the evil deeds were done "unwittingly or under some form of compulsion." It is exactly these types of minor mistakes or things happening beyond one's control that are the very reason that spell exists.

Not necessarily, remember that atonement can be used to change not only alignment but to restore classes like paladin for breaking their code. For example one might be able to force a paladin to break one code to preserve another. Or if he has an easy to break vow, say a dietary one, he could break his code completely unintentionally. Even if its not entirely his fault, he may need to atone because usually paladins are held to a higher standard. How ever it would be too much to say for example, that had he accidentally set off a trap to kill an innocent person, that he would have to atone to retain the good alignment.

Magical compulsion may need atonement for breaking ones code anyways, they don't gain outstanding saves for nothing.

[KillianHawkeye]

Not necessarily, remember that atonement can be used to change not only alignment but to restore classes like paladin for breaking their code. For example one might be able to force a paladin to break one code to preserve another. Or if he has an easy to break vow, say a dietary one, he could break his code completely unintentionally. Even if its not entirely his fault, he may need to atone because usually paladins are held to a higher standard. How ever it would be too much to say for example, that had he accidentally set off a trap to kill an innocent person, that he would have to atone to retain the good alignment.

Um... YEAH. Those are exactly the types of things I was talking about when I said "minor mistakes." :smallconfused::smallsigh:

[Prinygod]

Um... YEAH. Those are exactly the types of things I was talking about when I said "minor mistakes." :smallconfused::smallsigh:

Whats with this response? Is it sarcasm? Did you really reply to me with out having anything meaningful to say? If you had a problem with my examples, you could at least explain why you think I'm wrong.

Its not like "I" used a small portion of a specific spell to make an unequivocal statement about the alignment system as a whole.:smallsigh:

[KillianHawkeye]

Whats with this response? Is it sarcasm? Did you really reply to me with out having anything meaningful to say? If you had a problem with my examples, you could at least explain why you think I'm wrong.

Its not like "I" used a small portion of a specific spell to make an unequivocal statement about the alignment system as a whole.:smallsigh:

I seriously don't know what you're on about. :smallconfused:

I'm NOT disagreeing with you, YOU are disagreeing with ME even though we both hold the same position as far as I can tell. Why would you read my post about how your examples were exactly the sort of thing I was referring to and somehow come to the conclusion that I had a problem with your examples??? :smallsigh::smallannoyed:

Also, what is wrong with using the atonement spell, which specifically mentions that there are ramifications for committing evil deeds while under the effects of a compulsion, as evidence that a character in OOTS would have suffered the ramifications of commmitting an evil deed while under a the effects of a compulsion?!?! Seriously, explain what problem you have with this. :smallmad:

[Prinygod]

I seriously don't know what you're on about. :smallconfused:

I'm NOT disagreeing with you, YOU are disagreeing with ME even though we both hold the same position as far as I can tell. Why would you read my post about how your examples were exactly the sort of thing I was referring to and somehow come to the conclusion that I had a problem with your examples??? :smallsigh::smallannoyed:

Also, what is wrong with using the atonement spell, which specifically mentions that there are ramifications for committing evil deeds while under the effects of a compulsion, as evidence that a character in OOTS would have suffered the ramifications of commmitting an evil deed while under a the effects of a compulsion?!?! Seriously, explain what problem you have with this. :smallmad:

Sorry i had 2 points to make, but looking back i didn't clearly separate them. One was the notion that compulsion/=magical compulsion. That was what i had originally intended to write. That being dominated and forced to break your vows, is not the same as choosing to break your vows under coercion.

My second point was because i was tired, and accidentally read your post with the impression that you were saying that being dominated could change your alignment. So i was trying to make a distinction between using atonement for an alignment change, and one for breaking ones vow. This misunderstanding is why i took your sarcasm so harshly.

In other words from my point of view it didn't add anything new to the discussion, so seemed derisive just for the sake of it. I'm sorry for that, but that being said, had you shown sincere confusion instead of sarcasm, i would had realized my mistake sooner.

[KillianHawkeye]

had you shown sincere confusion instead of sarcasm, i would had realized my mistake sooner.

Perhaps you didn't see my :smallconfused:? That's how I denote confusion. Anyway, apology accepted. Everybody has a bad day sometimes.