Redeeming Evil Creatures

[atemu1234]

A spell in BoED lets you make a creature good. I'm wondering if I should let the PCs use it.

[shylocke]

A spell in BoED lets you make a creature good. I'm wondering if I should let the PCs use it.

Do it. Just make sure they don't cast it on anything too gnarly. Also if demons and devils are evil incarnate. What happens to them? Does a balor suddenly turn into a solar? Or would it just disappear?

[OldTrees1]

That spell is a immoral abomination. Rather than taint the player's attempt with such a spell, why don't you roleplay through the redemption process. Diplomacy to be convincing, Sense Motive to understand the person you are trying to redeem. Maybe using the core Atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) spell at the end (although if the person is an outsider, the Atonement shortcut will not work and they will have a longer road of atonement through good deeds).

[Brookshw]

I'm personally not a big fan of that spell and wouldn't allow it outside of an epic exhalted campaign. Ask yourself what type of a campaign you want then decide if it should exist.

[mucat]

I might let the spell exist in a campaign world, but lots of people would consider its use a highly evil act. Whether the Good gods, or Good-as-a-Cosmic-Force, would agree with that point of view, is an interesting question. (Possibly the kind of question that put good-aligned mortals in conflict with Good-aligned Celestials...which can be great story fuel.)

[Mikeavelli]

Do it. Just make sure they don't cast it on anything too gnarly. Also if demons and devils are evil incarnate. What happens to them? Does a balor suddenly turn into a solar? Or would it just disappear?

I like to think what happens In this episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Man_and_the_Lisa) would occur.

To sum it up, "You haven't changed at all! You're still evil.
And when you're trying to be good, you're even more evil!"

[Drachasor]

That spell is a immoral abomination. Rather than taint the player's attempt with such a spell, why don't you roleplay through the redemption process. Diplomacy to be convincing, Sense Motive to understand the person you are trying to redeem. Maybe using the core Atonement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) spell at the end (although if the person is an outsider, the Atonement shortcut will not work and they will have a longer road of atonement through good deeds).

No, Last Judgement is an immoral abomination. Blinding Beauty is equally bizarre, given the indiscriminate blinding on a [Good] spell.

This is just like therapy + prison reform on magical steroids.

Note that this doesn't erase past sins. Heck, Paladins don't have to change alignment to fall. All this does is make the person rethink their actions and moral outlook. Nothing inherently evil there. I just think they kind of flubbed on some of the actual mechanics.

Now I don't particularly like crazy mind-changing spells because they are crazy powerful. On the other hand, there's a lot of stuff in the game that's far more insanely powerful. So I can't really say it is out of line as far as power goes.

But yeah, seems like something better to roleplay rather than have a spell do all that for you.

[Eldonauran]

The morality behind that spell is highly debatible. My opinions on it are often at odds with most of the playground. I won't go into details on it because I don't want to argue about it.

I suggest you do NOT let the players have access to that spell unless every single player and yourself are on the same page about what it does and what it means.

[Slipperychicken]

This is just like therapy + prison reform on magical steroids.
.

This is basically what I think it's supposed to be. Basically a version of solitary confinement which actually reforms people instead of exacerbating their problems.

[Drachasor]

The morality behind that spell is highly debatible. My opinions on it are often at odds with most of the playground. I won't go into details on it because I don't want to argue about it.

Fair point. Debating morality on forums is rarely ever intellectually stimulating.

[OldTrees1]

No, Last Judgement is an immoral abomination. Blinding Beauty is equally bizarre, given the indiscriminate blinding on a [Good] spell.

This is just like therapy + prison reform on magical steroids.


Look at Sanctify the Wicked. Now look at Atonement. Now back to StW. Now back to Atonement. Sadly StW is not Atonement but if it didn't remove agency it could look like Atonement. Look down, back up, where are you? You are in an alignment thread with the spell StW could be like. -continue old spice reference-

Therapy + prison reform is not always effective and depends entirely on the subject's agency. It is best represented by atonement if you are seeking to maintain verisimilitude.

[Drachasor]

Therapy + prison reform is not always effective and depends entirely on the subject's agency. It is best represented by atonement if you are seeking to maintain verisimilitude.

It can actually be surprisingly effective the vast, vast majority of the time. You actually have to put serious effort in it -- unlike some RL places that we can't talk about due to forum rules. And that's with our limited understanding of psychology and the brain.

Beyond that, since I doubt debating free will would be worth my time, I'm just going to let this drop. And I don't really want to have a huge talk about how society and environment play massive roles in behavior, because that's usually just as uninteresting.

[OldTrees1]

It can actually be surprisingly effective the vast, vast majority of the time. You actually have to put serious effort in it -- unlike some RL places that we can't talk about due to forum rules. And that's with our limited understanding of psychology and the brain.

Agreed. The high but not perfect effectiveness and the serious effort are the reasons I suggest using skills followed by atonement as the representation.

Sidenote: I also agree with you about those places we cannot talk about due to forum rules.

[Psyren]

I'd say it's more to be used on PCs than by them. For instance "I want to play a Good Vampire/Mind Flayer/Rakshasa, help me write a backstory!" "Okay, this spell was cast on you in the past, now roll stats."

It's also good for NPC on NPC. An Apostle of Peace comes to the PCs for help - she has something nasty (a Great Wyrm black dragon maybe? An Elder Brain? A Drow Matriarch?) being rehabilitated in her gem, and a Drow assassin's guild/ the church of Tiamat/Illithid hive/ etc. is seeking to either rub her out or steal the gem and smash it, preferably both. This lets the PCs have an action-packed year without having to babysit every minute of that time.

[skyth]

I see absolutely no problem with the PC's having access to the spell. It's more flavor that instead of killing something, they changed it's outlook to good. It doesn't automatically give them an ally (I believe). It just changes their outlook.

[Clistenes]

Do it. Just make sure they don't cast it on anything too gnarly. Also if demons and devils are evil incarnate. What happens to them? Does a balor suddenly turn into a solar? Or would it just disappear?

Sanctify the Wicked doesn't work on Outsiders, I think.

[Brookshw]

Look at Sanctify the Wicked. Now look at Atonement. Now back to StW. Now back to Atonement. Sadly StW is not Atonement but if it didn't remove agency it could look like Atonement. Look down, back up, where are you? You are in an alignment thread with the spell StW could be like. -continue old spice reference-

Therapy + prison reform is not always effective and depends entirely on the subject's agency. It is best represented by atonement if you are seeking to maintain verisimilitude.

The celestial your demon could smell like.


Well played.

[Psyren]

Sanctify the Wicked doesn't work on Outsiders, I think.

Actually it does, just not [evil] ones. So you can Sanctify a Rakshasa or an Efreet just fine, even though they are "always" evil.

And actually, even for the [evil] ones it's a bit weird/unclear what happens if you try. Legally, demons and devils can be targeted by the spell, they just can't gain the template at the end.

[Crake]

Actually it does, just not [evil] ones. So you can Sanctify a Rakshasa or an Efreet just fine, even though they are "always" evil.

And actually, even for the [evil] ones it's a bit weird/unclear what happens if you try. Legally, demons and devils can be targeted by the spell, they just can't gain the template at the end.

Well, it's simple, the [evil] outsider adopts the good alignment, but is still influenced by their [evil] subtype, so unless they have continuous moral support, they will slip back into their evil ways

[The Insaniac]

I see absolutely no problem with the PC's having access to the spell. It's more flavor that instead of killing something, they changed it's outlook to good. It doesn't automatically give them an ally (I believe). It just changes their outlook.

The issue isn't one of balance. Sanctify the Wicked is (for balance) a save-or-lose that only works on evil things. The issue is one of morality. Most people on the forum that I've seen strongly object to the fact that it's a forced conversion with the [good] descriptor that effectively rewrites an unwilling subject's mind. That is, it's the spell mindrape with limitations and is an unquestionably good act in-game.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Personally I think it works best as a curse of the gods.

[Eldonauran]

The issue isn't one of balance. Sanctify the Wicked is (for balance) a save-or-lose that only works on evil things. The issue is one of morality. Most people on the forum that I've seen strongly object to the fact that it's a forced conversion with the [good] descriptor that effectively rewrites an unwilling subject's mind. That is, it's the spell mindrape with limitations and is an unquestionably good act in-game.

Yes, this is the debate I did not want to get into. The spell is fundamentally different than a mindrape spell simply because of the in-game assumptions on the nature of Good and Evil (and to the lesser extent, Law vs Chaos). Morale justification or rejection of this spell is nothing more than cleverly (or poorly, depending on your viewpoint) disguised real-world morality slipping into the game.

The spell converts, not rewrites, a creatures alignment. It doesn't change who, or what, they are. An evil creature converted is always going to be haunted by its past and more prone to return to it.

This spell is the ultimate form of Justice. It can not harm the innocent and does not take a life. From the target's viewpoint, I can understand its anger and resentment of a failed conversion. It's own flaws and evil nature was revealed to it in stark brilliance. It was naked before the hot, unrelenting ray of Good. Every tainted portion of its soul was laid bare and the light had the audacity to JUDGE it.

Talk about dirty laundry. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: To clarify, I am not willing to engage in a real world morality debate in the nature of Sanctify the Wicked. The reason draws on certain real world concepts we are forbidden to discuss. Without those, there is no defense and no common ground that can be met. :smallannoyed:

[OldTrees1]

Yes, this is the debate I did not want to get into. The spell is fundamentally different than a mindrape spell simply because of the in-game assumptions on the nature of Good and Evil (and to the lesser extent, Law vs Chaos). Morale justification or rejection of this spell is nothing more than cleverly (or poorly, depending on your viewpoint) disguised real-world morality slipping into the game.

The spell converts, not rewrites, a creatures alignment. It doesn't change who, or what, they are. An evil creature converted is always going to be haunted by its past and more prone to return to it.

If it converting instead of rewriting, it would look more like Atonement's Redemption/Temptation effect. Instead it is a save or be rewritten. (Including rewriting the L-C axis)

Hey Atonement is even more in line with the redemption fluff located in the early chapters of BoED.

[The Insaniac]

Instead it is a save or be rewritten. (Including rewriting the L-C axis)

That's the big one for me. I could definitely see fluffing it as "the will save represents the internal struggle between whatever causes the creature to be evil and the awe inspiring, glorious power of good that shows that no one is beyond redemption." That would make sense as a [good] spell. It would also fit with the ideas talked about earlier in BoED involving willing conversion.

The problem is that the creature is changed to your alignment. So it seems like you end up saying "you are now good. But not the good that you would probably believe in because of your ethical (law-chaos) beliefs. You now believe in my idea of good even if it's radically opposed to your ethical beliefs."

It doesn't really matter in the end though. Just make sure that all of your players are familiar with BoED or BoVD before you use them. I can't think of any other books that break the fanbase more.

[OldTrees1]

That's the big one for me. I could definitely see fluffing it as "the will save represents the internal struggle between whatever causes the creature to be evil and the awe inspiring, glorious power of good that shows that no one is beyond redemption." That would make sense as a [good] spell. It would also fit with the ideas talked about earlier in BoED involving willing conversion.

Yeah that doesn't sound like a Will save to me. Sounds like a skill challenge.

[Fouredged Sword]

Let them use it, let them decided that converting an evil creature to good is worth it.

I would do two things though.

First - Half of the "good" side ie, the chaotic good side, finds it morally abhorrent due to being VERY lawfully minded.

Second - It causes one level to be lost from a party member as it rips out part of their soul to fuel the transformation.

[Andezzar]

Well, it's simple, the [evil] outsider adopts the good alignment, but is still influenced by their [evil] subtype, so unless they have continuous moral support, they will slip back into their evil waysI don't see anything in the description of the [evil] subtype that it influences behavior:
A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the evil-aligned Outer Planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).
A non-evil fiend would have to live with the consequences of having the wrong alignment just as a creature with the aquatic subtype has to live with the consequences of getting out of the water. Neither creature though is in any from encouraged to commit or refrain from such a dangerous action. IN the end you will simply get the statistically insignificant (possibly even unique) non-evil fiend as mentioned in the description of "Always [Alignment]".

There are very few instances where alignment determines actions. Only Lycanthropy and the helmet of opposite alignment come to mind.

[Drachasor]

First - Half of the "good" side ie, the chaotic good side, finds it morally abhorrent due to being VERY lawfully minded.

It's not lawful or chaotic.

That's like saying using Diplomacy to convince someone to like you or do something you want is Lawful.

A LG or CG person could dislike the spell. Disliking it isn't about Law or Chaos.

[mucat]

First - Half of the "good" side ie, the chaotic good side, finds it morally abhorrent due to being VERY lawfully minded.
I wouldn't draw the line that sharply...a character's alignment doesn't dictate their exact stances or behaviors. There could be plenty of LG people who find the spell abhorrent, and CG people who, for various reasons, don't. Though I agree with you that objection to it would be especially common among Chaotic Good folks.

[OldTrees1]

It's not lawful or chaotic.

That's like saying using Diplomacy to convince someone to like you or do something you want is Lawful.

A LG or CG person could dislike the spell. Disliking it isn't about Law or Chaos.

Except StW is unilateral action. It is not a dialogue. It does not give the other person any consideration. It is Will save or be changed against your will.

At the very least this is extremely Lawful
At the worst this is Vile
Which depends on where you place "respecting agency of moral agents". I put it in the good camp. Others place it in the chaotic camp.

[Fouredged Sword]

See, I think of it as the ultimate expression of the logical result of true Lawful Good, taken to the level of terror.

You will be good.

[Drachasor]

See, I think of it as the ultimate expression of the logical result of true Lawful Good, taken to the level of terror.

You will be good.

So Chaotic Good characters don't believe in convincing evil creatures to be good?

[OldTrees1]

See, I think of it as the ultimate expression of the logical result of true Lawful Good, taken to the level of terror.

You will be good.

A level of terror is a good description. I would have used alien myself.

I was brought up believing that the agency of moral agents is important in that it is necessary for moral decisions and thus necessary for good. Hence I consider removing agency from the equation to run counter to the goals of the good.


So Chaotic Good characters don't believe in convincing evil creatures to be good?

Fixed that for you.

[Fouredged Sword]

Remember, it's a spectrum. It depends on where the person stands between chaos and good. Some of them will hold freewill over good and say that it IS wrong to changes someone else to conform to your sense of morality EVEN IF you know they are wrong.

Others will not see it that way. Even then, there is a great deal of fuzzy area between "Magic willsave VS rewritten alignment" to "Imprisonment and therapy" to "Talk to someone without controlling them" to "do nothing, no interference"

Then you balance that VS the evil the target represents, and you have a whole slew of mixed proprieties and tons of potential conflict between people who generally share the save values, but in different orders. Is it ok to use on a petty thief? How about a person who committed a single murder? Maybe an evil overlord? Evil god?

Where the line is will have lots of wiggle room for interesting roleplay. If you want to bring that into your game, have tons of fun with it.

EDIT - I like the "Alien" description. I could totally see this as a thing that a LG outsider would do to "fix" the problem of mortal morality.

[Andezzar]

So Chaotic Good characters don't believe in convincing evil creatures to be good?The problem is that the spell is not clear on whether it actually convinces the target to be good or if it compels the target to be good.


I was brought up believing that the agency of moral agents is important in that it is necessary for moral decisions and thus necessary for good. Hence I consider removing agency from the equation to run counter to the goals of the good.This belief makes creatures with the [Evil] subtype and to a lesser extent creatures that are "always evil" pretty much impossible.

[OldTrees1]

This belief makes creatures with the [Evil] subtype and to a lesser extent creatures that are "always evil" pretty much impossible.

Does it? I do not see how. Why do you think so?
[Evil] and "always evil" are extreme tendencies of the moral agent towards evil action. However numerous examples exist of moral agents from [Evil] or "always evil" that used their agency to not be evil. (Although the frequency is very small as expected)

[Drachasor]

Fixed that for you.

That's not a fix. There's nothing in the CG alignment that indicates they should be against convincing other people to be good.


A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Telling/Demanding someone do X is one thing. But it is quite different to talk to them about doing X or rather talk to them about not doing evil.

Or are you saying that it is a fair interpretation of the above that CG's can't/shouldn't ever say "You shouldn't go around killing children"?

This would basically confine CGs to either ignoring evil (oh wait, they can't) or just killing/beating up evil. That's a pretty hollow interpretation of the alignment, I think. There's no reason a CG can't believe in redemption or work towards redeeming someone.

I'm just saying CG should be at least as flexible as LG.


The problem is that the spell is not clear on whether it actually convinces the target to be good or if it compels the target to be good.

I see. CGs can try to convince someone to be good. But if they KNOW their attempt to convince the target will work, THEN they can't do it.

The spell is pretty clear the change happens because the target reconsiders their misdeeds.

[Psyren]

All I will say is that while it's valid to see Sanctify the Wicked as evil, you are applying real-world morality rather than Dungeons & Dragons morality and so you're not really talking about the default fluff in the books anymore. The game has chosen to accept Rousseau/Boethian philosophy and sees evil as a perversion rather than a valid state of being in its own right, much as Tolkien did - which is somewhat fitting since so many other aspects of the game are based on Tolkien.

In the context of the game, Sanctify the Wicked is just a very, very in-depth restoration-style scrubbing. Evil is a layer of dirt, with the only difference between one evil creature and another being how dirty they are.

[OldTrees1]

That's not a fix. There's nothing in the CG alignment that indicates they should be against convincing other people to be good.

Exactly. CG want to convince people to be good.


I see. CGs can try to convince someone to be good. But if they KNOW their attempt to convince the target will work, THEN they can't do it.

It is not a matter of certainty vs uncertainty. There is a difference between convince and compel. This difference is represented mechanically by the difference between Diplomacy and Dominate Person.

Curious: Are you willing to agree that the mechanics and fluff of StW do not fit together well? It seems like you are defending it based mostly on the fluff while I am attacking it based mostly on the mechanics.

[Drachasor]

It is not a matter of certainty vs uncertainty. There is a difference between convince and compel. This difference is represented mechanically by the difference between Diplomacy and Dominate Person.

Well, we could have a debate about whether CGs can use Charm or Compulsion spells....but Sanctify the Wicked is a Necromancy spell that's a bad comparison you are making.


Curious: Are you willing to agree that the mechanics and fluff of StW do not fit together well? It seems like you are defending it based mostly on the fluff while I am attacking it based mostly on the mechanics.

I think it does a decent job explaining all of that and fitting with the mechanics. More or less anyhow. It's at least average as far as spells go.

You should think of it more as magic taking care of a lot of Diplomacy checks -- not that they aren't getting done, but that the spell does all that heavy lifting. Spells do stuff like that all the time. It also does some mystic scrubbing of evil taint while it is at work (but that's clearly not telling people what to do, so no objections to that bit, I assume).

[OldTrees1]

Well, we could have a debate about whether CGs can use Charm or Compulsion spells....but Sanctify the Wicked is a Necromancy spell that's a bad comparison you are making.

Will save or significant mental change.

Yeah that describes a Compulsion spell to me. It is not labeled as such but since the fluff doesn't match the mechanics, I do not see a reason to count that against the criticism.

Yeah. I still prefer the Atonement spell's take on redemption.


Sidenote: Refluffing a Will save as a series of Diplomacy checks does not make sense to me. Refluffing should not be used to pretend one mechanic is another mechanic.

[Drachasor]

Will save or significant mental change.

Yeah that describes a Compulsion spell to me. It is not labeled as such but since the fluff doesn't match the mechanics, I do not see a reason to count that against the criticism.

Yeah. I still prefer the Atonement spell's take on redemption.


Sidenote: Refluffing a Will save as a series of Diplomacy checks does not make sense to me. Refluffing should not be used to pretend on mechanic is another mechanic.

The magic is doing it, so that's a will save. Honestly, it's not really different than a Diplomacy check. It actually makes MORE sense than Diplomacy mechanics -- a stronger will means it is harder to change your attitude. Diplomacy checks don't have that which is part of how they are messed up.

But I think most mechanics in the game for changing other people are pretty borked. This is far from the borkiest -- that's probably why I am fine enough with it.

I agree it is better done as an RP thing more than anything else. (With new and better rules for Diplomacy or otherwise changing someone).

[Andezzar]

Does it? I do not see how. Why do you think so?
[Evil] and "always evil" are extreme tendencies of the moral agent towards evil action. However numerous examples exist of moral agents from [Evil] or "always evil" that used their agency to not be evil. (Although the frequency is very small as expected)BoED unfortunately states that Fiends and possibly even some creatures that have the "always evil" alignment are irredeemable and thus can't have agency.


I see. CGs can try to convince someone to be good. But if they KNOW their attempt to convince the target will work, THEN they can't do it.

The spell is pretty clear the change happens because the target reconsiders their misdeeds.The problem is not that the caster knows the spell will work but the mechanics (WIL save or be changed) suggest that the target is compelled to change its alignment instead of convinced, as the description implies.

[Drachasor]

The problem is not that the caster knows the spell will work but the mechanics (WIL save or be changed) suggest that the target is compelled to change its alignment instead of convinced, as the description implies.

That's not what will saves mean. They are used for all kinds of things. And it is a "best fit" system. Clearly it isn't a Fort and Reflex save...so it needs to be Will. Seriously, there are a ton of spells that use Will saves and the vast majority of them are NOT Enchantments.

And that's a cleaner method then having the spell mandate a bunch of Diplo checks at a ridiculously high bonus automatically over the course of a year. Using Diplo would be inelegant here -- especially since Diplo is honestly far more messed up.

[Andezzar]

That's not what will saves mean. They are used for all kinds of things. And it is a "best fit" system. Clearly it isn't a Fort and Reflex save...so it needs to be Will. Seriously, there are a ton of spells that use Will saves and the vast majority of them are NOT Enchantments.

And that's a cleaner method then having the spell mandate a bunch of Diplo checks at a ridiculously high bonus automatically over the course of a year. Using Diplo would be inelegant here -- especially since Diplo is honestly far more messed up.Well there are spells, especially those that need negotiation, that use CHA checks.

I'm neither saying "OMG Sanctify the Wicked = mindrape" nor "the spell is a perfect tool for a good creature to keep an evil one from doing evil".

What is probably rubbing some people the wrong way is mostly the mechanics. The spell does not require the caster to do anything, which convincing would imply but the target has to resist the force of the spell, which is much more akin to resistig compulsion.

[Psyren]

The spell does not require the caster to do anything, which convincing would imply but the target has to resist the force of the spell, which is much more akin to resistig compulsion.

The spell doesn't require anything because the caster needs to be defending himself and his charge for a whole year. If you're converting someone important, you'll have your hands full fending off his associates/agents, and if you're not converting someone important then you probably didn't need Sanctify anyway or it's irrelevant and your DM can timeskip the year.

[OldTrees1]

BoED unfortunately states that Fiends and possibly even some creatures that have the "always evil" alignment are irredeemable and thus can't have agency.

Other sources contradict this and BoED doesn't take quite as strong a stance as that.
Ex: One of the planes (Nine Hells) is based on the principle that alignment subtypes do not prevent alignment change.
IIRC: BoED says it is naive/foolish to try to redeem Fiends and that Fiends cannot gain the sanctified template.

Sidenote: While I personally don't run my outsiders this way, some theologians have speculated that angels are not moral agents.


That's not what will saves mean. They are used for all kinds of things. And it is a "best fit" system. Clearly it isn't a Fort and Reflex save...so it needs to be Will. Seriously, there are a ton of spells that use Will saves and the vast majority of them are NOT Enchantments.

And that's a cleaner method then having the spell mandate a bunch of Diplo checks at a ridiculously high bonus automatically over the course of a year. Using Diplo would be inelegant here -- especially since Diplo is honestly far more messed up.

Did it need to be a save vs alignment change? Atonement has no saving throw. You could have made it be a reflex save vs imprisonment.

The skill check DCs of Diplomacy are messed up. However the idea of Diplomacy and Sense Motive checks fits the concept of redemption better, were used first, and were used more often.

Sure a single will save takes less time, but it is far from "cleaner". (If it were cleaner we would not have this thread)


The spell doesn't require anything because the caster needs to be defending himself and his charge for a whole year. If you're converting someone important, you'll have your hands full fending off his associates/agents, and if you're not converting someone important then you probably didn't need Sanctify anyway or it's irrelevant and your DM can timeskip the year.

You would not need to be defending yourself 24/7. Some of that time could be spent trying to convince the person you are trying to redeem. (As per non StW redemption)

[Drachasor]

Did it need to be a save vs alignment change? Atonement has no saving throw. You could have made it be a reflex save vs imprisonment.

The skill check DCs of Diplomacy are messed up. However the idea of Diplomacy and Sense Motive checks fits the concept of redemption better, were used first, and were used more often.

Sure a single will save takes less time, but it is far from "cleaner". (If it were cleaner we would not have this thread)

The Will Save is the same that Trap the Soul and other such spells use. So that's why it is probably there.

Beyond that, this is an 8th level spell with a hefty toll. At that point rolls autosucceed most of the time. Heck, you can go a LOT lower and find autosuccess in spells.

Why bother rolling when it's a huge bonus (MAGIC) over a long time (a year)? What's the point if it is a forgone conclusion due to that? There is no point, so the spell doesn't bother with it. No more than Wish requires a Craft check to get something mundane and complex.

Like it or not, that's how high level magic is, especially if they have a notable cost. Things that are hard or take effort for others get done with one spell. So I can't say the power is something out of line.

[Psyren]

You would not need to be defending yourself 24/7. Some of that time could be spent trying to convince the person you are trying to redeem. (As per non StW redemption)

Wouldn't you? We're talking endgame here - it's a 9th-level spell. As someone's sig pointed out, you don't get that high without being the luckiest, most paranoid or most thoroughly protected bastard around.

[OldTrees1]

The Will Save is the same that Trap the Soul and other such spells use. So that's why it is probably there.

Beyond that, this is an 8th level spell with a hefty toll. At that point rolls autosucceed most of the time. Heck, you can go a LOT lower and find autosuccess in spells.

Why bother rolling when it's a huge bonus (MAGIC) over a long time (a year)? What's the point if it is a forgone conclusion due to that? There is no point, so the spell doesn't bother with it. No more than Wish requires a Craft check to get something mundane and complex.

Like it or not, that's how high level magic is, especially if they have a notable cost. Things that are hard or take effort for others get done with one spell. So I can't say the power is something out of line.

8th is not that much higher than 5th and it already added a save or lose effect and reduced the casting time. No need to tie the alignment change to the save.

Also Diplomacy and Sense Motive probably should not be forgone conclusions at that level.

[Drachasor]

8th is not that much higher than 5th and it already added a save or lose effect and reduced the casting time. No need to tie the alignment change to the save.

Also Diplomacy and Sense Motive probably should not be forgone conclusions at that level.

8th is a lot higher than 5th. The difference in spells between 5th and 8th is massive. And there quite a few 8th level spells that just give auto-success. Mind Blank and Maze are two of them.

But I agree, we don't need to tie the alignment switch to the save. Probably shouldn't. It's clearly just part of the "Trap the Soul" effect.

As for skill checks, sure, they might not (if you use house rules perhaps) be forgone conclusions at that level. But that's what magic does. It turns mundanes into jokes because a spell does something without fail that a non-caster would struggle with. Now I don't think that's great game design, but that IS how the game works and there are lots of spells like this. It is more and more common at higher spell levels.

[OldTrees1]

8th is a lot higher than 5th. The difference in spells between 5th and 8th is massive. And there quite a few 8th level spells that just give auto-success. Mind Blank and Maze are two of them.

But I agree, we don't need to tie the alignment switch to the save. Probably shouldn't. It's clearly just part of the "Trap the Soul" effect.

As for skill checks, sure, they might not (if you use house rules perhaps) be forgone conclusions at that level. But that's what magic does. It turns mundanes into jokes because a spell does something without fail that a non-caster would struggle with. Now I don't think that's great game design, but that IS how the game works and there are lots of spells like this. It is more and more common at higher spell levels.
Mechanically the save and the alignment switch are tied together. You could nerf the spell so they are not tied together (save vs imprisonment, 1 year later trigger atonement) but I suspect you would object to that.

They might(descriptive) but they should(normative) not.
DMs are told to assign DCs for sense motive. I combine this with a Diplomancy fix.

[Drachasor]

Mechanically the save and the alignment switch are tied together. You could nerf the spell so they are not tied together (save vs imprisonment, 1 year later trigger atonement) but I suspect you would object to that.

They might(descriptive) but they should(normative) not.
DMs are told to assign DCs for sense motive. I combine this with a Diplomancy fix.

Mechanically speaking, the save is only tied to the entrapment. The only thing tied to the alignment switch is time -- if broken out before a year happens, then no alignment switch. So in a technical sense, there's no save or ability to resist the alignment switch. You can only try to resist being caught.

[OldTrees1]

Mechanically speaking, the save is only tied to the entrapment. The only thing tied to the alignment switch is time -- if broken out before a year happens, then no alignment switch.

I disagree.
Input: Target & Will Save & Time
Output: Imprisonment,Time skip, & Alignment change

Unlike atonement
Input: Target
Output: Possible Alignment Change

[Deadline]

Yeah that doesn't sound like a Will save to me. Sounds like a skill challenge.

Oh, the Book of Awful Ideas has that covered for you as well. Look up the Diplomacy rules in there. It's basically the same thing (you can forcibly convert an evil character - easily), you just can't use it on Outsiders. So if you can subdue Grunthar the Baby Eater for a little while and talk at him real pretty, he'll suddenly repent his evil ways, and happily take up the cause of GoodTM!

I hate both the BoED and BoVD, aside from a couple of useful spells and feats, they are pretty much universally terrible.

[Drachasor]

I disagree.
Input: Target & Will Save & Time
Output: Imprisonment,Time skip, & Alignment change

Unlike atonement
Input: Target
Output: Possible Alignment Change

No, it's more like...

First Step: Will Save

Effect on Failed Save: Imprisonment
Effect on Successful Save: No Imprisonment.
Second Step: Rehabilitation For 1 year

Effect On Success: Alignment change
Effect on Failure: If broken out before 1 year, no alignment change (but the guy hates the caster).

[OldTrees1]

Oh, the Book of Awful Ideas has that covered for you as well. Look up the Diplomacy rules in there.

Yep. With a Diplomacy fix, those become a better design than StW. The Atonement spell was even precedent for this kind of redemption vs StW.

[Andezzar]

Second Step: Rehabilitation For 1 year

Effect On Success: Alignment change
Effect on Failure: If broken out before 1 year, no alignment change (but the guy hates the caster).The success or failure is not determined by the interaction of the caster or the spell with the target. It is only determined by the interaction of outside forces with the gem.

[Kish]

See, I think of it as the ultimate expression of the logical result of true Lawful Good, taken to the level of terror.
What would you call, "X Good taken to the level of terror"?

'Cause I'd call it "X Evil," personally. The fact that Elena Faith-Hold thinks she's still a paladin and everything she does is dedicated to promoting what she believes to be "good" does nothing to remove the words "Lawful Evil" from her character sheet.

[Drachasor]

The success or failure is not determined by the interaction of the caster or the spell with the target. It is only determined by the interaction of outside forces with the gem.

And your point is what?

Basically it's like a bunch of auto-success Diplo checks over a year inside the gem.

[Andezzar]

And your point is what?

Basically it's like a bunch of auto-success Diplo checks over a year inside the gem.The point is the auto-succes nature of the rehabilitation. The way you presented the procedure, looked to me that the rehabilitation could fail even without outside forces.

[Drachasor]

The point is the auto-succes nature of the rehabilitation. The way you presented the procedure, looked to me that the rehabilitation could fail even without outside forces.

I suppose I could have said "if the target is broken out..." rather than "if broken out..." to be clearer.

In any case, 8th level spells can easily make sure things out of what would otherwise be difficult or impossible. Magic is that ridiculously powerful in D&D. And honestly, this is far from the most powerful 8th level effect.

[Phelix-Mu]

Something that is also often overlooked is that the caster powers StW by sacrificing part of his own good soul; this should make the effect even more powerful than normal, as it amounts to rather more experience than any other spell besides wish (and possibly a lot more). Because of wording, I don't think this can be avoided through normal schtick. Also, because of poor wording, I think the caster might lose the level whether or not the spell succeeds.

[Psyren]

Something that is also often overlooked is that the caster powers StW by sacrificing part of his own good soul; this should make the effect even more powerful than normal, as it amounts to rather more experience than any other spell besides wish (and possibly a lot more). Because of wording, I don't think this can be avoided through normal schtick. Also, because of poor wording, I think the caster might lose the level whether or not the spell succeeds.

You do still lose the level even if your ward is broken out, just like you wouldn't get back a material component for a spell that fizzled.

[Phelix-Mu]

You do still lose the level even if your ward is broken out, just like you wouldn't get back a material component for a spell that fizzled.

The vagueness is that a sacrifice component is not paid until the duration of the spell expires. StW's duration says "see text." The text implies that the duration is one year, but it's actually any amount of time up to one year if interrupted. I agree that you probably still lose the level, but it seems pretty vague to me; convince the DM that it's vague and you might not lose the level unless it succeeds.

[tadkins]

BoED unfortunately states that Fiends and possibly even some creatures that have the "always evil" alignment are irredeemable and thus can't have agency.



I used to believe that. Then I saw this.

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a

[Andezzar]

I used to believe that. Then I saw this.

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824aOther publications (including the glossary in the MM) do contradict BoED. There is also a non evil lich. That does not change the fact that BoED claims:
Of course, good characters recognize that some creatures are utterly beyond redemption. Most creatures described in the Monster Manual as “always evil” are either completely irredeemable or so intimately tied to evil that they are almost entirely hopeless. Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naïve fool would try to convert them. Evil dragons might not be entirely beyond salvation, but there is truly only the barest glimmer of hope.

[Psyren]

If angels can fall - a fairly common trope - I see no problem with demons/devils that can rise, or at least shift to a more jaded neutrality rather than outright malice.

Sanctify won't work on them however because they can't gain the template - they have to change alignment another way.

[Brookshw]

StW on demons/devils is kinda fubarred from the start.

Okay, so they're immune to diplomacy redemption check. So we cast the spell. The spell specifies that it pulls the soul from the body. Here's the problem, demons and devils lack duality (distinct souls and bodies) it's one and the same, so the spell can't function on them the way it's described even though they're a valid target for it. Fun!

So then the spell specifies they gain the template which (as has been pointed out) it says there ineligible for. It does however say they lose their type (demon, devil, whatever), so they don't get the template, they just lose their status? Okay, works for me as a specific trumps general application but doesn't solve the first problem of what the spell actually does to them.

I wouldn't have a problem with (in exceedingly rare instances) a demon/devil being redeemed in a game, but the RAW for doing so a' 'la StW kinda sucks.

[hamishspence]

Soul Bind and the like work on outsiders.

As does True Resurrection, and unique spells like Raise Outsider.

I see it as the soul being slightly more "tied to the body" than with mortals - but not to the extent that slaying the body counts as "destroying a soul".

In Complete Divine - it says that the soul of a slain outsider rapidly dissolves into the plane - but True Resurrection and the like pull the bits back together.

[hemming]

You should let them choose to use it......

Its up to the DM to decide:

A)Free will is a good in itself and changing an alignment violates free will, making it an evil act (I find this problematic for D&D as it implies that killing or imprisoning evil people is also evil)

B)Free will is simply the ability to chose between good and evil and is not an inherent good in itself

C) Circumstantial adjudication: If an evil aligned character is an immediate threat to others around them, then removal of free will is just. If an evil aligned character does not present a threat to others, removal of free will is not justified as a good act. (i.e. the mundane evil baker that maybe occasionally spits in the dough or gives incorrect change)

Obviously option C is much more complicated than the bare lines laid in the example above, but I think it is how most DMs actually operate

[Drachasor]

You should let them choose to use it......

Its up to the DM to decide:

A)Free will is a good in itself and changing an alignment violates free will, making it an evil act (I find this problematic for D&D as it implies that killing or imprisoning evil people is also evil)

B)Free will is simply the ability to chose between good and evil and is not an inherent good in itself

C) Circumstantial adjudication: If an evil aligned character is an immediate threat to others around them, then removal of free will is just. If an evil aligned character does not present a threat to others, removal of free will is not justified as a good act. (i.e. the mundane evil baker that maybe occasionally spits in the dough or gives incorrect change)

Obviously option C is much more complicated than the bare lines laid in the example above, but I think it is how most DMs actually operate

That assumes "free will" is a thing. I don't believe the game has that as a core assumption.

[Coidzor]

The point is the auto-succes nature of the rehabilitation. The way you presented the procedure, looked to me that the rehabilitation could fail even without outside forces.

Well, yeah. They failed their will save and the caster is using a 9th level spell and one of their levels, with no way to obviate that cost except for maybe putting it into a trap/item if that's even legal.

Given that kind of cost, the possibility of failure would be obscene. ("I'm setting a level on fire for a mere *chance* to turn this guy good when I could just Mindrape him instead?")

And considering the spell is generally agreed to need a rewrite anyway, you can either add in that chance of failure or fix the fluff or both. (edit: Though I'd definitely recommend reconsidering the spell level if one limits it much more than it already is, even with the Sanctified Template being left intact or opened up to more possible creatures)

[georgie_leech]

That assumes "free will" is a thing. I don't believe the game has that as a core assumption.

If it didn't, the game would be a story.

Also, isn't this the third thread in like a week talking about this spell?

[hemming]

That assumes "free will" is a thing. I don't believe the game has that as a core assumption.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to get at - there are no game guidelines for dealing with the issue in the alignment system but the issue inevitably comes up in game. So the DM needs to decide how to deal...

If free will as a concept is irrelevant to the discussion of good and evil in the D&D alignment system, you chose option B and need not think anymore about it

[Drachasor]

If it didn't, the game would be a story.

Not at all. Complex deterministic systems can be unpredictable. They are also incapable of fully simulating (e.g. understanding) themselves.

It's not like it's remotely clear "free will" is a thing that exists in reality. Heck, just try to give it a solid and clear definition that distinguishes it from a decision-making algorithm that's deterministic.


I'm not sure the point you are trying to get at - there are no game guidelines for dealing with the issue in the alignment system but the issue inevitably comes up in game. So the DM needs to decide how to deal...

If free will as a concept is irrelevant to the discussion of good and evil in the D&D alignment system, you chose option B and need not think anymore about it

Because if Free Will does not exist in the game, then none of the options you outline are valid -- they all rest on a false premise. And Sanctify The Wicked would essentially be "Fix Programming Errors". Though like I said before, one could just consider it "Provide Proper Therapy in An Ideal Environment With an Absolute Understanding of Psychology." The latter is essentially how it is fluffed, after all.

[Coidzor]

If it didn't, the game would be a story.

Also, isn't this the third thread in like a week talking about this spell?

No, see, not even the PCs have free will, they're all at the mercy of extradimensional horrors known only as "the players." :smallamused:

[georgie_leech]

Not at all. Complex deterministic systems can be unpredictable. They are also incapable of fully simulating (e.g. understanding) themselves.

It's not like it's remotely clear "free will" is a thing that exists in reality. Heck, just try to give it a solid and clear definition that distinguishes it from a decision-making algorithm that's deterministic.

The game assumes that the PC's/Players will make choices, based on multiple instances of language such as "choose," "this choice," and "select." These terms are meaningless without being able to choose. Whether or not reality agrees with our perception of free will, the game operates under the assumption that such a thing is meaningful.

[Drachasor]

The game assumes that the PC's will make choices, based on multiple instances of language such as "choose," "this choice," and "select." These terms are meaningless without being able to choose. Whether or not reality agrees with out perception of free will, the game operates under that assumption.

Let's say you have 10 options and you make a list and roll a d10. That's made a choice, right? Is that Free Will?

Let's say when presented with a situation, you put the parameters of the situation into a computer program. This program then comes up with a number of options, compares them, and picks one. This process is 100% predictable if you know the inputs. Is that free will?

Making decisions doesn't imply Free Will anymore than traffic sensors adjusting the Traffic Light schedule does.

Edit: Hmm, I guess I am a bit bored tonight.

[georgie_leech]

Let's say you have 10 options and you make a list and roll a d10. That's made a choice, right? Is that Free Will?

Let's say when presented with a situation, you put the parameters of the situation into a computer program. This program then comes up with a number of options, compares them, and picks one. This process is 100% predictable if you know the inputs. Is that free will?

Making decisions doesn't imply Free Will anymore than traffic sensors adjusting the Traffic Light schedule does.

You're missing my point. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care whether Free Will actually exists, but whether the game and by extension its rules assume it does. As previously mentioned, the game uses language that indicates that it does assume the existence of Free Will. Do you have arguments from within the rules that indicates the game doesn't assume Free Will?

[Drachasor]

You're missing my point. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care whether Free Will actually exists, but whether the game and by extension its rules assume it does. As previously mentioned, the game uses language that indicates that it does assume the existence of Free Will. Do you have arguments from within the rules that indicates the game doesn't assume Free Will?

Rules citation please.

I see the game talking about freedom and liberty. That's not the same thing.

[hemming]

Let's say you have 10 options and you make a list and roll a d10. That's made a choice, right? Is that Free Will?

Let's say when presented with a situation, you put the parameters of the situation into a computer program. This program then comes up with a number of options, compares them, and picks one. This process is 100% predictable if you know the inputs. Is that free will?

Making decisions doesn't imply Free Will anymore than traffic sensors adjusting the Traffic Light schedule does.

Edit: Hmm, I guess I am a bit bored tonight.

Of course, external and internalized constraints put limits on an individuals exercise of free will

Philosophical aspects aside:
If you are actually statistically modeling complex human behavior (rather than assuming an algorithmic, un-variable determination of human behavior) all you are modeling is the most likely course of action of those people included in your sample. Your statistical model will never predict 100% of the actions (or) contain a 100% representative sample (or) feature a perfect non-deviation from the mean

And I'm sure the same applies to sampling D&D player actions

[Coidzor]

You're missing my point. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care whether Free Will actually exists, but whether the game and by extension its rules assume it does. As previously mentioned, the game uses language that indicates that it does assume the existence of Free Will. Do you have arguments from within the rules that indicates the game doesn't assume Free Will?

For the players. Not the characters in the game. They're all pawns.


Oh, the Book of Awful Ideas has that covered for you as well. Look up the Diplomacy rules in there. It's basically the same thing (you can forcibly convert an evil character - easily), you just can't use it on Outsiders. So if you can subdue Grunthar the Baby Eater for a little while and talk at him real pretty, he'll suddenly repent his evil ways, and happily take up the cause of GoodTM!

Hey, gotta give the Diplomancer some love so that his pawns mindslaves friends can play nice with one another when he has to go take a leak. :smallamused:

[Drachasor]

Of course, external and internalized constraints put limits on an individuals exercise of free will

Philosophical aspects aside:
If you are actually statistically modeling complex human behavior (rather than assuming an algorithmic, un-variable determination of human behavior) all you are modeling is the most likely course of action of those people included in your sample. Your statistical model will never predict 100% of the actions (or) contain a 100% representative sample (or) feature a perfect non-deviation from the mean

And I'm sure the same applies to sampling D&D player actions

You seem to be confusing technological constraints with absolute constraints. The former doesn't imply anything about the latter.

[georgie_leech]

Rules citation please.

I see the game talking about freedom and liberty. That's not the same thing.

Language such as "choose," "select," and "choice," which are meaningless if the act of choosing is in fact impossible, which is what is implied by the lack of Free Will. For instance, those three words appear a total of 121 times on the SRD page for Feats. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm) Again, whether or not true choice is possible isn't what I'm looking at, but whether the game assumes it is, and such language clearly implies that.

[Drachasor]

Language such as "choose," "select," and "choice," which are meaningless if the act of choosing is in fact impossible, which is what is implied by the lack of Free Will. For instance, those three words appear a total of 121 times on the SRD page for Feats. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm) Again, whether or not true choice is possible isn't what I'm looking at, but whether the game assumes it is, and such language clearly implies that.

I already went over how many things can "select" and "choose" without "Free Will" being a necessary concept. I was quite explicit on this.

Also, most of that is about players making decisions.

Look if you don't want to talk about this, that's fine. But if you do, at least put some effort into it.

Though, thanks for reminding me why I avoid conversations like this most of the time.

[cakellene]

My view is frree will is a good trait. That does not mean imprisonment or death are evil, they are consequences of choices. Removing the ability to choose is an evil act to me.

[hemming]

You seem to be confusing technological constraints with absolute constraints. The former doesn't imply anything about the latter.

Can you explain please? I don't see how I'm confusing either

[Drachasor]

Can you explain please? I don't see how I'm confusing either

The human brain is an extremely complex thing. In 2007 the total computer power OF THE PLANET roughly equalled one human brain (maybe). Just one. We simply don't have the computational resources to model a brain accurately. So yeah, any model is going to be imprecise for that reason alone.

You were acting like our limited abilities with modeling a mind somehow meant that you couldn't do so accurately in principle. But there's no evidence that is the case. So far all evidence indicates that if we had the computing power and could measure a brain accurately, then we could model it accurately -- though we'd also need to model the surrounding environment too (as well as genetic factors, disease, hormones, other biological factors, and so forth).

It's probably going to be at least 50 years before that's possible.

Edit: That's not even getting into Chaos Theory; you can have completely deterministic systems that are so sensitive to initial conditions that you can't predict the outcome. The Solar System is like that if you try to predict past 200 million years or so -- a planet could or could not get flung off into space or the Sun for instance. Though, my naive suspicion is that evolution would probably weed out that sort of thing.

[hemming]

Oh ok - we'll just have to disagree. All of the evidence I see in predictive social statistics indicates my prior outlined point and I can leave it at that

[Drachasor]

Oh ok - we'll just have to disagree. All of the evidence I see in predictive social statistics indicates my prior outlined point and I can leave it at that

Again, you are making a statement based on the fact right NOW we only have very rough models of behavior. And then you take the situation now based on our current limits and are projecting out to the future that IT MUST ALWAYS BE SO.

That's just not valid reasoning. Especially when you look at the why and how of it which should at the very least cast your certain prediction into doubt.

It would be like saying in 1900 "we don't understand the orbit of Mercury, so it must be the case that we'll never understand it."

[SinsI]

So, how exactly do you redeem a vampire?

[Killer Angel]

So, how exactly do you redeem a vampire?

stakes? :smallbiggrin:


BTW, we have another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=335025) exactly on Sanctify the Wicked...

[Drachasor]

stakes? :smallbiggrin:


BTW, we have another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=335025) exactly on Sanctify the Wicked...

Hmm, that thread got started after this one.

[Killer Angel]

Hmm, that thread got started after this one.

Sorry, I wan't saying "hey, you create a duplicate", but more a "hey, in that thread there are also philosophical PoWs that are related to this thread and that can be of some interest"

[Drachasor]

Sorry, I wan't saying "hey, you create a duplicate", but more a "hey, in that thread there are also philosophical PoWs that are related to this thread and that can be of some interest"

Well, if I was really interested in ethical debates on a random forum I'd go to that thread I suppose. Overall though I don't find them all that interesting because there never seem to be enough people able to talk about it on a high enough level.

[OldTrees1]

So, how exactly do you redeem a vampire?

Step 1) Diplomacy and Sense Motive checks
Optional Step 2) Casting the Atonement spell.
Step 3) Then refer to this comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0939.html

[skyth]

So, how exactly do you redeem a vampire?

Curse him so that his soul returns, but that he loses it if he ever has a moment of true happiness ;)

I would think that the free will angle is more of a law versus chaos thing rather than good versus evil.

[hemming]

Again, you are making a statement based on the fact right NOW we only have very rough models of behavior. And then you take the situation now based on our current limits and are projecting out to the future that IT MUST ALWAYS BE SO.

That's just not valid reasoning. Especially when you look at the why and how of it which should at the very least cast your certain prediction into doubt.

It would be like saying in 1900 "we don't understand the orbit of Mercury, so it must be the case that we'll never understand it."

I love science fiction as much as the next guy - but I am not qualified to debate possible futures. Although I do have significant reservations about even the possibility of modeling on the level you suggest. To date, the human factor (the ability of individuals to act creatively given a set of variables) has always been a wrench in the gears of such modeling - even if it can meaningfully predict some aspects of behavior some of the time. There is no evidence that additional levels of technology will be able to accurately predict behavior - thats like looking at a car in 1950 and assuming we will all have flying cars by 1990.

[Drachasor]

I love science fiction as much as the next guy - but I am not qualified to debate possible futures. Although I do have significant reservations about even the possibility of modeling on the level you suggest. To date, the human factor (the ability of individuals to act creatively given a set of variables) has always been a wrench in the gears of such modeling - even if it can meaningfully predict some aspects of behavior some of the time. There is no evidence that additional levels of technology will be able to accurately predict behavior - thats like looking at a car in 1950 and assuming we will all have flying cars by 1990.

No evidence? We understand a lot more about how the brain works than we did 20 years ago. We can even estimate its processing and storage capabilities. We know the mechanisms by which individual neurons work to a decent level. And as far as we can determine creativity, personality, and everything else that makes someone comes from the brain.*

So in what sense do you say that there's no evidence our ability to model the brain won't improve?

This is completely different from looking at one invention X, and declaring we'll have another invention Y be commonplace in the future. It's more like saying invention Y will be POSSIBLE in the future. And indeed, there ARE flying cars. They are just very expensive and it wouldn't be safe for people to use them on a massive scale.

*With a certain amount of physiological influence from the rest of the body via hormones and such.

[hemming]

No evidence? We understand a lot more about how the brain works than we did 20 years ago. We can even estimate its processing and storage capabilities. We know the mechanisms by which individual neurons work to a decent level. And as far as we can determine creativity, personality, and everything else that makes someone comes from the brain.*

So in what sense do you say that there's no evidence our ability to model the brain won't improve?

This is completely different from looking at one invention X, and declaring we'll have another invention Y be commonplace in the future. It's more like saying invention Y will be POSSIBLE in the future. And indeed, there ARE flying cars. They are just very expensive and it wouldn't be safe for people to use them on a massive scale.

*With a certain amount of physiological influence from the rest of the body via hormones and such.

I am talking about modeling human behavior through statistics. You are talking about being able to predict human behavior (I think?) based on neurochemistry - which is an even less accurate predictor

New tools to model behavior can help develop better models (Boolean algebra, technology that enables you to more quickly collect and process data, etc.) - but they are all subject to the aforementioned pitfalls

EDIT: Regardless of this argument - D&D has no rules for dealing with free will as far as I know. If I was playing in a game with you as DM, I would accept how you dealt with it and any character/game repercussions. Based on my original post, you get option D? Free will doesn't exist

[MadGreenSon]

So, how exactly do you redeem a vampire?

Convert him to the worship of Evening Glory, goddess of Love, Beauty and Immortality? She has Good among her Domains so, that's redemption, right? Get that vampire paladin or cleric'd up and you're good to go!:smallcool:

[Drachasor]

I am talking about modeling human behavior through statistics. You are talking about being able to predict human behavior (I think?) based on neurochemistry - which is an even less accurate predictor

New tools to model behavior can help develop better models (Boolean algebra, technology that enables you to more quickly collect and process data, etc.) - but they are all subject to the aforementioned pitfalls

I'm talking about how the limit of complex modeling of physical systems (e.g. the human brain) is in large part one of computational power.

Saying "we'll never be able to do X" when we lack the computational power by several orders of magnitude is what I object to.


EDIT: Regardless of this argument - D&D has no rules for dealing with free will as far as I know. If I was playing in a game with you as DM, I would accept how you dealt with it and any character/game repercussions. Based on my original post, you get option D? Free will doesn't exist

Sounds reasonable.

[hemming]

Yeah, its two fundamentally different things. I personally don't see the predictive ability of a model of understanding the functioning of the human brain as being meaningful in understanding choices beyond instinct

For example: I believe neurochemistry will never be able to predict what someone is going to dream - statistics can now predict the likelihood of dream x, y and z within a given population. I also know the rate of error with statistics.

I don't believe neurochemistry will ever be able to predict how likely a person is to participate in a guerilla war - within given parameters, statistical models can reasonably do this now

[Drachasor]

Yeah, its two fundamentally different things. I personally don't see the predictive ability of a model of understanding the functioning of the human brain as being meaningful in understanding choices beyond instinct

For example: I believe neurochemistry will never be able to predict what someone is going to dream - statistics can now predict the likelihood of dream x, y and z within a given population. I also know the rate of error with statistics.

I don't believe neurochemistry will ever be able to predict how likely a person is to participate in a guerilla war - within given parameters, statistical models can reasonably do this now

Well, it would be more than just neurochemistry. It would be modeling the neurons, synapse firings, chemical reactions, connections between neurons, proteins, etc, etc, etc. Literally an exact model of a particular brain (assuming you could get it scanned in some fashion).

Of course, you'd need to then model the environment as well to make future predictions completely accurate -- and that's tricky.

But to say it is inherently impossible seems like saying the brain itself is impossible.

[hemming]

Well, it would be more than just neurochemistry. It would be modeling the neurons, synapse firings, chemical reactions, connections between neurons, proteins, etc, etc, etc. Literally an exact model of a particular brain (assuming you could get it scanned in some fashion).

Of course, you'd need to then model the environment as well to make future predictions completely accurate -- and that's tricky.

But to say it is inherently impossible seems like saying the brain itself is impossible.

I respect your argument, but I do think controlling for variables with 100% accuracy in predicting human behavior on a scale beyond physical reactions to stimuli is impossible - regardless of the computational power at hand.

The wonderful thing about the mind is its ability to adapt and respond in new ways to changing circumstances - the wonderful thing about the brain is that it facilitates this process.