A very controversial spell [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

KillianHawkeye

2014-03-04, 04:57 PM

More like the wording of the spell is distasteful, as a basic reading really makes it seem like the evil creature is brainwashed into being good. If you remove free will from the picture, clearly it's a robot, not a good creature, and turning people into robots is not a good act. At least that is one of the arguments.

To expand on the brainwashing angle, I'm going to use as an example Blanka from the '90s so-bad-it's-good Street Fighter movie.

In the movie, Bison has his scientists transform a captured soldier into a super-strong freak while brainwashing him to be totally evil and without compassion. However, Dhalsim, who is working for Bison involuntarily, manages to sabotage the brainwashing program at the halfway point and replace it with happy thoughts.

The result is that Blanka's mind is filled with 50% evil and 50% good.

When Guile arrives and sees what has been done to his friend, he is about to mercy-kill Blanka, but he is stopped by Dhalsim who argues that Blanka deserves to live because he still has the capacity to choose a life of good or evil, just like a normal person.

I'm using this as an example because it illustrates the importance of free will. In the end, the thing that's important is that the evil brainwashing and the good brainwashing effectively balance themselves out, allowing Blanka to choose between the two extremes he's been implanted with. Note that Dhalsim, the voice of morality in this situation, would not have done a fully good brainwashing on someone if he had been given that choice. He only did it to counter the evil brainwashing that Bison had made him begin.

The Insaniac

2014-03-04, 04:58 PM

the turned soul is free to choose it's alignment along the lawful/chaotic spectrum.

The problem is that this is false.

After one year, the trapped creature's soul adopts the alignment of the spell's caster (lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good).

That seems to be the big objection with the spell. The creature doesn't simply become a good version of itself, it gains the ethical (law-chaos) outlook of the caster of the spell.

Werephilosopher

2014-03-04, 04:59 PM

It may not matter for game morality but generally taking away someones free will is considered a bad thing, even if they are evil...
Violating the sanctity of someones mind in that way is probably one of the most vile acts imaginable by the standards of modern society...

By the standards of MODERN society, yes. But isn't good for goodness's sake a good thing?

Zaydos

2014-03-04, 05:01 PM

The spell is theoretically defensible on the change to Good alignment, but the fact that it also grants your ethical (i.e. Law-Chaos) alignment makes it rather unethical and immoral (in the real world senses).

KillianHawkeye

2014-03-04, 05:01 PM

By the standards of MODERN society, yes. But isn't good for goodness's sake a good thing?

We live in modern society, and that is the lens with which we view things in this game. When the game's morality conflicts with our own morality, it causes a sense of cognitive dissonance that bothers people.

Misery Esquire

2014-03-04, 05:04 PM

But isn't good for goodness's sake a good thing?

Allow me to build you a stairway to heaven, so you can take the highway to hell.

In less referential statement ; The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Socksy

2014-03-04, 05:05 PM

Werephilosopher

2014-03-04, 05:06 PM

The problem is that this is false.

That seems to be the big objection with the spell. The creature doesn't simply become a good version of itself, it gains the ethical (law-chaos) outlook of the caster of the spell.

I admit that the creature affected by the spell conforms to the ethical alignment of the caster. When I said that "the turned soul is free to choose it's alignment along the lawful/chaotic spectrum," I should have said that it is free to do so AFTER the spell has taken effect. I'm genuinely sorry if I was misleading.

The thing is, it seems to me that the creature affected by the spell MUST be able to choose its own place on the Law-Chaos alignment. I know that, at first, the affected creature follows the ethical alignment of the caster; but what is preventing it from later changing it's ethical alignment?

MadGreenSon

2014-03-04, 05:07 PM

I don't actually have a problem with the spell as long as it's cast by a strongly Lawful caster. The spell itself reeks heavily of Law and only a little bit of good.

In 2E Planescape, the Harmonium would have been all over this. The Harmonium was very much Lawful-Good-Lawful, and so is Sanctify the Wicked.

As long as the caster is either LG(L) or maybe a nutcase dragon that attempted to emulate Io and embrace all points of view simultaneously (long story...) then I'm fine with it's use to make bad guys into good guys with laser vision.

I embrace a wider view of alignments. Thus it's possible in the good range to be Chaotic Good (Chaotic), Chaotic Good (Absolute), Neutral Good (Chaotic), etc.

Sanctify the Wicked is Lawful Good (Lawful) in how it works.

Lord Lemming

2014-03-04, 05:09 PM

Well, ‘controversial’ or ‘ambiguous’ doesn’t mean that something is automatically bad. It means that the community in question is divided on the issue such that there is no general consensus. I would say that pretty much everyone on this forum would agree that Hitler was evil. There’s no controversy or ambiguity there. A tiny minority of people might disagree with that statement, but with seven billion people on the planet, you’d be hard-pressed to find a viewpoint that isn’t represented by someone, somewhere.

On the other hand, when people debate the differences between different game systems (3.5e, 4e, Pathfinder, etc), that IS controversial, because different people have different opinions on what they like in a game system. And there’s nothing wrong with that. That is the definition of controversy, something that people do not agree on.

The spell in question is controversial because it impinges on the moral subject of free will. I, personally, think that everyone does/should have the right to make their own decisions, and that someone who attempts to take a person’s free will away from them is evil. Of course, freedom of choice does not mean choice without consequence. I could choose to use my free will to steal an old lady’s purse… but with that choice comes the consequence that the police will try their hardest to arrest me (and possibly that the old lady is packing heat and will shoot me dead.)

So I think that any spell that would force a person to change their alignment, taking away their free will, is evil. Maybe other people disagree with me, but that’s the beauty of a role-playing game: the rules of the game aren’t immutable. If you believe that this spell is evil, then in any game you play that has that spell, the definition can be changed to make it evil. If like me, you are uncomfortable with the idea that someone’s soul could be altered against its will by a simple spell, then perhaps the spell only controls the mind, instead of changing the soul, and once the enchantment is lifted, the person returns to their normal self.

My point is that you will rarely find a subject upon which there is absolutely no controversy. But when you’re playing D&D, you don’t need to. YOU are the masters of your own game, and if the others sitting at the table with you agree, you can change the rules to suit your beliefs.

(I was about to make a point using real-world American politics as the subject matter, but then I read the forum rule saying that real-world politics are a banned topic. How broad is that ban? Is it loose enough for me to point at the way a system works as an example supporting my argument, or is simply mentioning the phrase ‘real-world American politics’ an offense?)

(Jeez, I started writing this when there were no replies to the first post, and now look at it.)

Zaydos

2014-03-04, 05:09 PM

In 2E Planescape, the Harmonium would have been all over this. The Harmonium was very much Lawful-Good-Lawful, and so is Sanctify the Wicked.

Actually they might have had proto StW, as they used some magical means to turn people LG on the 2nd layer of Arcadia.

This being too Lawful and not Good enough for the Lawful-Good-Lawful plane is why there is no longer a 2nd layer of Arcadia.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-04, 05:11 PM

Actually they might have had proto StW, as they used some magical means to turn people LG on the 2nd layer of Arcadia.

This being too Lawful and not Good enough for the Lawful-Good-Lawful plane is why there is no longer a 2nd layer of Arcadia.

I thought they kicked the third layer into Mechanus not the second? Either way, good point!
Whole lotta LAW, little bit of good. That's how I see the spell.

Eldonauran

2014-03-04, 05:12 PM

The source behind the conflict is the inability for people to disassociate their own real world morality and adopt the morality of the D&D system, using it for its intended purposes.

Why is it morally suspect to use Sanctify the Wicked? I do not understand this question because I don't see anything morally suspect about the spell. Using the spell, you are targeting a creature that can not be "harmed" by the spell unless it is completely deserving of it. There is no way this spell can harm an innocent, you are sacrificing part of yourself in order to redeem another and denying the forces of evil one of their hard earned conquests.

Tell me, does an Evil creature deserve their own 'freewill'? Before you answer that, tell me ... How many others has that Evil creature harmed? Denied the 'freewill' of others? Devastated the livelihood and hope of others? If you can answer yes to that question, I can't help you understand. Someone that strips the rights of another in such a manner forfeits their own claim to such rights. They simply do not deserve them.

Is Sanctify the Wicked a morally suspect spell? No, I don't believe it is. It is an undeniably, nearly perfect method to rehabilitate Evil.

Zaydos

2014-03-04, 05:14 PM

I thought they kicked the third layer into Mechanus not the second? Either way, good point!
Whole lotta LAW, little bit of good. That's how I see the spell.

Third layer was a Formian colonization and what motivated the Harmonium to begin this tactic. Arcadia lost 2 whole layers.

Cirrylius

2014-03-04, 05:14 PM

Segev

2014-03-04, 05:17 PM

It boils down to a question of what failing the will save against the spell really means. Is it robbing you of your ability to choose to do evil, or is it presenting - magically - so good an argument and so magnificent an epiphany that you cannot force yourself/delude yourself into ignoring it and its greater truths?

The unfortunate implication ("unfortunate" from a D&D-cosmology and storytelling standpoint, at least) is that good IS a greater truth than evil.

Or, perhaps, it is simpler: it's a curse. A good-aligned curse cast upon wrong-doers who have long since crushed and silenced their own consciences. A curse which gives them a conscience. A sense of guilt for all the evil they do, and a sense of empathy for the needs and desires of others.

In that case, failing the will save is a matter of being unable to resist this nagging emotion and voice in your head, and choosing to do what feels good emotionally.

If there's no Compulsion aspect to the spell, there's nothing preventing the character from deliberately fighting against his new urges. He might find it difficult and unpleasant and unnatural, even "icky" on an emotional, moral, and ethical level, but if he wishes, he can fight it. After all, he can always fall back to evil. He just might feel bad about it until he gets over his alignment shift.

It can be fluffed in non-abhorrent ways. Some of the above may be more or less abhorrent than "brain-washing" to a given individual. Come up with your explanation. I tend to subscribe to "it's whatever you would normally do to redeem a bad guy, but faster and magical."

pwykersotz

2014-03-04, 05:18 PM

I would like to point out that it is not a brainwash.

The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness.

This is fully in line with the cause of good. The idea that goodness is the right way to do things, that everyone can be redeemed, and that this soul sees the right of things after sufficient penitence. It isn't brainwashing, it's enlightenment. It is, in fact, inevitable that a creature enlightened to the true cause of goodness will fail to embrace it. This isn't because of a brainwash, but because it is an inevitable truth of the universe.

The fact that the same could happen on any one on the alignment spectrums is beside the point. :smallbiggrin:

Werephilosopher

2014-03-04, 05:19 PM

The source behind the conflict is the inability for people to disaccociate their own real world morality and adopt the morality of the D&D system, using it for its intended purposes.

Why is it morally suspect to use Sanctify the Wicked? I do not understand this question because I don't see anything morally suspect about the spell. Using the spell, you are targeting a creature that can not be "harmed" by the spell unless it is completely deserving of it. There is no way this spell can harm an innocent, you are sacrificing part of yourself in order to redeem another and denying the forces of evil one of their hard earned conquests.

Tell me, does an Evil creature deserve their own 'freewill'? Before you answer that, tell me ... How many others has that Evil creature harmed? Denied the 'freewill' of others? Devastated the livelihood and hope of others? If you can answer yes to that question, I can't help you understand. Someone that strips the rights of another in such a manner forfeits their own claim to such rights. They simply do not deserve them.

Is Sanctify the Wicked a morally suspect spell? No, I don't believe it is. It is an undeniably, nearly perfect method to rehabilitate Evil.

Thank you very much. This is what I've been feeling, I've merely lacked the means to express it.

EDIT:

I would like to point out that it is not a brainwash.

This is fully in line with the cause of good. The idea that goodness is the right way to do things, that everyone can be redeemed, and that this soul sees the right of things after sufficient penitence. It isn't brainwashing, it's enlightenment. It is, in fact, inevitable that a creature enlightened to the true cause of goodness will fail to embrace it. This isn't because of a brainwash, but because it is an inevitable truth of the universe.

The fact that the same could happen on any one on the alignment spectrums is beside the point. :smallbiggrin:

Indeed, I feel the same way. Although I still welcome arguments to the contrary; otherwise there would be no reason to make this thread.

squiggit

2014-03-04, 05:20 PM

So, how would people generally feel about a slightly re-tweaked, refluffed version?

Say, if it functioned by (re)building the target's empathy, by showing them the consequences of each evil act done TO them, from the aggressor's perspective, and each evil act done BY them, from the victim's perspective, and then showing them the most likely course their afterlife would take?

What if the spell isn't smashing them apart and rebuilding the pieces, but guiding them into knowledge of HOW what they do is wrong. The higher the Will save, the more confident and prideful and entrenched the target's perspective it is, and the harder it is to encourage them to think differently about themselves in comparison to others.

Also lose the ethical conversion, of course.

That's sort of what the fluff for the spell is though: The victim of the spell is forced to confront the truth of their nature and redeems themself because of it.

The problem people have is the disassociation between the fluff (slowly showing the villain the error of their ways) and the crunch (guaranteed 100% conversion on a single will save).

Tell me, does an Evil creature deserve their own 'freewill'? Before you answer that, tell me ... How many others has that Evil creature harmed? Denied the 'freewill' of others? Devastated the livelihood and hope of others? If you can answer yes to that question, I can't help you understand. Someone that strips the rights of another in such a manner forfeits their own claim to such rights. They simply do not deserve them.
The problem is this just brings up another question of ethics (how much does the means justify the ends).

Jane_Smith

2014-03-04, 05:21 PM

Good can stuff itself. Evil, law, and chaos can as well. At the end of the day, the ability to think and live is all that matters to any sentient being, regardless of any alignment. Anything that stops either of those two functions is a threat, and should be either killed, dealt with, or avoided. There is no difference between dominate person, sanctify the wicked, modify memory, or mindrape to the person exposed to it - they only know its a threat to what makes them, well, them.

"I think, therefor I am." Remove or change the ability for them to think, then you might as well be killing them - and I think with an afterlife to go to upon death being evident in a fantasy universe, death would be preferable if you can keep your mind intact.

nedz

2014-03-04, 05:21 PM

Sanctify the Wicked is a morally ambiguous spell because:

It's Necromancy
It costs you a level
It has a Will save

Well these are reasons which people may dislike it and this may colour their opinions.

There is also the view that Good is not good, just the team which opposes Evil: StW is an archetype for this view of LG.

pwykersotz

2014-03-04, 05:22 PM

squiggit

2014-03-04, 05:23 PM

True Neutrality in a nutshell.

"Freedom before anything else" is chaos, not neutrality.

Jane_Smith

2014-03-04, 05:25 PM

"Being me and intact before anything else" is neutral.

pwykersotz

2014-03-04, 05:27 PM

"Freedom before anything else" is chaos, not neutrality.

I don't disagree, but I read that as aligning with the sentiment:

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

I may be wrong.

Segev

2014-03-04, 05:27 PM

"Being me and intact before anything else" is neutral.

Technically, that is neutral evil. Neutral still recognizes that "being me and intact" doesn't entitle one to harm others' rights to be themselves and intact, so some give and take is required. Evil is the only place for "me above all else," because it justifies proactive harm to others for your benefit.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-04, 05:28 PM

Third layer was a Formian colonization and what motivated the Harmonium to begin this tactic. Arcadia lost 2 whole layers.

You're right. Memory must be slipping in my old age. :smallyuk:

The moral-ethical alignment system can and should be just a bit more complex than is currently espoused. The way Planescape did it gave a lot of variation and depth to what is superficially very shallow.

That's why I generally do three part alignment rather than two. There can be a world of difference between Lawful Good (N) and Lawful Good (L) as an example or look at the possible variations for Chaotic Evil: Chaotic Evil (N), Chaotic Evil (Ab) or Chaotic Evil (C). Lots of room to make more depth-filled characters and makes more sense to me personally.

Sanctify the Wicked works exactly like something the Harmonium would come up with. It's very Lawful in it's approach far more than Good, but the Good is still present.
I can see similar spells for other ethical viewpoints too.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-04, 05:28 PM

Yeah, the Lawful/Chaos thing is dumb. And, if the poorly-worded spell wasn't a big enough problem, the spell is intimately tied to a not-spotless template as well.

To clarify my earlier post, I actually don't mind the spell, and have allowed characters to make use of it in the past, as well as had a couple npcs that were results of this spell. As long as the DM is up to ironing out the inconsistencies in the fluff and how the spell is presented, it's not a big deal. And it is a 9th level spell with a colossal sacrifice attached, so the DM should be carefully contemplating its use in the campaign in any case.

Knaight

2014-03-04, 05:30 PM

By the standards of MODERN society, yes. But isn't good for goodness's sake a good thing?

The context isn't good for goodness's sake. The context is whether it is acceptable to murder someone and hand their body over to a similar person with a completely different ethical outlook. Even from a purely utilitarian perspective, this tends to fail - Act Utilitarianism might consider it acceptable, but just about every other kind doesn't. Using Desire Utilitarianism as an example - is it beneficial to society to encourage the desire to murder people and replace them with better people? Somehow, I suspect the answer is no.

Werephilosopher

2014-03-04, 05:34 PM

MadGreenSon

2014-03-04, 05:36 PM

Yeah, the Lawful/Chaos thing is dumb. And, if the poorly-worded spell wasn't a big enough problem, the spell is intimately tied to a not-spotless template as well.

Are you sure you're not in the Harmonium?:smallbiggrin:

The Law-Chaos conflict is more fundamental than Good-Evil in D&D's long history see: The Blood War.

Ok. I don't mean to interrupt the debate over whether or not the spell itself is moral. But I want to add to the conversation: if the spell only made the target Good, and did not change the target's place on the Lawful-Chaotic axis, what then? Would the spell still be morally ambiguous?

The spell is not morally ambiguous (in the D&D meaning of the term) it's ethically ambiguous (again D&D terms) The spell creates Good and is therefore morally good. It does so through the application of structured re-alignment of a target's mind/soul, therefore it's heavily Lawful too.

Mrc.

2014-03-04, 05:37 PM

If there were a spell (and I don't think there is) that did the opposite, in that it auto changed any characters alignment to that of the caster on condition that the caster was evil, people would scream blue murder. Literally every paladin just became utterly useless. Adventuring parties have no inclination to actually stay together and now the "CN facade concealing CE" can be dropped eagerly. In short, it would destroy many parties.

Evil characters would most definitely make full use of a reversed version of StW because they would have none of the moral objections that good characters might have: extra minions and less enemies? Where do I sign up?

StW isn't like this, because the majority of players play good characters, and even in an evil campaign, I'd seriously consider making the DM inhale his own polyhedrals if he just pulled this trick on my character. The lack of control over your actions and the ability to just alter massive amounts of who he/she/it is takes away the input of the player into their character, and by doing that you effectively take over. If that's what you want, perhaps D&D isn't the right game for you.

Plus, it might not work out that well for you. Winter Soldier proved that much...

SiuiS

2014-03-04, 05:40 PM

Caveat: I do not, personally, have a problem with this spell. It is a necessary form to reconcile the fluff of being convincing through piousness, with the reality that many DMs will just veto that sort of thing and so mechanically you need assurance.

Being able to choose after the fact doesn't mean anything. A sanctified creature could well choose to go back to evil afterwards. The problem with the spell is it is a focused version of mindrape.

The context isn't good for goodness's sake. The context is whether it is acceptable to murder someone and hand their body over to a similar person with a completely different ethical outlook. Even from a purely utilitarian perspective, this tends to fail - Act Utilitarianism might consider it acceptable, but just about every other kind doesn't. Using Desire Utilitarianism as an example - is it beneficial to society to encourage the desire to murder people and replace them with better people? Somehow, I suspect the answer is no.

Why is that the question? The text makes it clear that over the entire period, the creature rethinks it's stance, rather than being brainwashed. In abstract this act would be clearly immoral. In specific however we can be certain this is not what's happening, so the entire murder parallel is worthless as a base for comparison.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-04, 05:41 PM

Also worth considering is that, in D&D, being good is substantially more difficult than in real life, because the protagonists have to deal with issues that often can't be fixed without some evil (the destruction of living, free-willed creatures being a common and rather integral part of the game). Good people are regularly forced to do some pretty despicable things in the game, and if they want better methods, they usually have to accept other undesirable realities (like time constraints, collateral damage, and so forth). Even a character dedicated to being a real saint will run afoul of huge complications and be generally oft-atoning in the average campaign (and in some campaigns that character is probably not even viable).

StW's intention, I think, is to streamline a realistically desirable process (conversion from evil to good) into a single, powerful, high-level magical effect in the arsenal of the good. They accidentally made it read like brainwashing and a couple other undesirable bits.

EDIT: Sorry, I meant the "Lawful/Chaos" clause in StW that makes you inherit the exact alignment of the caster. I assume the intent was to make it so that the caster and the target would be on the same side at the end of the spell (would suck to burn a level and then end up with someone that still doesn't agree with you...of course, morally, a good person should accept that as a potential outcome in any case).

Tanuki Tales

2014-03-04, 05:47 PM

Keep in mind that this is the same book that gave us "good diseases" and "good poisons" that Billy Batson level pure characters could use with impunity.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-04, 05:48 PM

EDIT: Sorry, I meant the "Lawful/Chaos" clause in StW that makes you inherit the exact alignment of the caster. I assume the intent was to make it so that the caster and the target would be on the same side at the end of the spell (would suck to burn a level and then end up with someone that still doesn't agree with you...of course, morally, a good person should accept that as a potential outcome in any case).

I understand where you are coming from, I just can't ever see a Chaotic Good character using the spell and I think it'd be pretty unlikely from most Neutral Good characters as well.

Zaydos

2014-03-04, 05:50 PM

Ok. I don't mean to interrupt the debate over whether or not the spell itself is moral. But I want to add to the conversation: if the spell only made the target Good, and did not change the target's place on the Lawful-Chaotic axis, what then? Would the spell still be morally ambiguous?

I'd say it would actually be more ambiguous. You can point to the Law-Chaos bit as why it comes down on the black side instead of the white, and most arguments against that ignore the Law-Chaos thing entirely. Without it I can see arguments for it being good, but you're still effectively killing them and replacing them with another similar but different individual. In D&D terms you're also effectively obliterating the original entity's soul, as you're preventing it from passing on to its native afterlife and it from being revived.

Now I wouldn't say this makes the spell, or act of using it, automatically evil. I'd say it puts it very firmly in Lawful with the morality of its use being dependent upon circumstances. It's not even the Good tag that is bothersome (casting a [Good] spell is not a good act, it just interacts with certain magic in special ways and cannot be used by evil clerics). The fact that it's a Sanctified spell (casting which BoED calls out as a Good act) is bothersome.

veti

2014-03-04, 05:50 PM

Please, read the entire post before you respond.

No. Really. I've read too many posts on other threads that don't keep this in mind. As someone who is in college to research moral philosophy, I'd appreciate it if you find this important.

If you've studied the subject at that level, you can't be surprised that people's positions - even strongly held and passionately argued positions - are not necessarily logically coherent.

I guess what I'm trying to say here, is: why is sanctifying the wicked such a bad thing?

First off, what's the relationship between 'bad' and 'evil'? Are they synonyms?

Second, does your definition of Good require respect for free will? The SRD says good implies "altruism, respect for life, and concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Is it consistent with that framework to limit someone else's free will? I'd say "hell yes", but I admit I haven't thought through all the ramifications of that.

Short answer: some people take 'free will' very seriously indeed, view it as an absolute moral good and any infringement on it as automatically evil. Where, exactly, 'respect for free will' should sit in the hierarchy of 'good' things - alongside altruism, life, and 'respect for the dignity of sentient beings' - is a question that might be worth asking of those people.

squiggit

2014-03-04, 05:51 PM

Tanuki Tales

2014-03-04, 05:53 PM

Some would point out that free will could be considered part of the dignity that good should be respecting.

pendell

2014-03-04, 05:55 PM

WRT the original question, I strongly recommend the OP read "Second Foundation", by Isaac Asimov. In particular , the character of Captain Pritchard

The hero of the previous book, Foundation and Empire, now converted into a loyal servant of the Mule, the villain of this and the previous book

who suffers brainwashing and reprogramming -- twice -- during the course of the book.

The thing is, the Captain Pritchard we see through most of the book *isn't* really Pritchard. He may have Pritchard's memories and body, but he's not acting as Captain Pritchard would act if Captain Pritchard was in full control of himself -- he's acting according to a top layer of programming which forces him to be the loyal servant of his worst enemy.

That, to me, is the problem with something like "Sanctify the Wicked".

Does it make sense to punish a man for murder if he falls victim to a mind control ray , and is then compelled by its owner to commit a murder? If so, then why does it make sense to reward a man for saving a drowning child, under the control of that same ray? The evil -- or the good -- is in the hands of the ray's controller and is something the victim is not accountable for at all.

So the thing is ... what you're doing is taking a free-willed human being and turning him into a puppet to dance on strings. The control may be subtle, the puppet may not even be aware he is a puppet, but a puppet he is nonetheless.

And good -- in D&D, at any rate -- does not make puppets out of other peoples, even good puppets in a good cause. It is better to provide evil with the tools and influence so that it can make that conversion of its own choice -- or if not, that it be restrained, by violence if necessary.

After all, why not simply cast Sanctify the Wicked on every child in society at birth, renewing it on an annual basis, so that society will only be good all the time? Maybe society would have fewer murders and what not, but it's not a society of human beings. It's a society of zombies being controlled by some puppet master.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-04, 06:00 PM

I understand where you are coming from, I just can't ever see a Chaotic Good character using the spell and I think it'd be pretty unlikely from most Neutral Good characters as well.

Agreed. As written, I think the spell should have the Lawful tag, as it reads like some classic conversion by the sword method ("we were going to kill you, but this conversion is moral because, well...we were going to kill you.") LG, and stridently so, is really the group that feels, to me, like they are going to convert or purge the evil. NG is a little more live and let live, and CG probably doesn't like shutting the big-bad in mini-hell for a year; if it takes that much, just end the creature out of mercy and let the gods deal with it.

I really do like this discussion, by the by. Alignment discussions are really fun for me, and one of my guilty pleasures. I am actively procrastinating and hammering the refresh button, lol.

EDIT: I bears repeating that StW doesn't force one to continue being good. The Sanctified Creature template might, but that is a separate issue (templates based on behavior should be lost if behavior changes...duh).

shylocke

2014-03-04, 06:00 PM

Knaight

2014-03-04, 06:03 PM

nedz

2014-03-04, 06:03 PM

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-04, 06:07 PM

I see it like this. If sanctify the wicked is an evil spell, then how does a paladin get away with killing anything. If you kill a evil creature, you have taken away its free will also. And that would also mean that any sort of spell that forces an effect would be "evil". No troll will walk up to you can say" good day to you kind sir! Might you please cast a fireball at me?

Ah, the deeper issue! Killing things is evil. It may be the only possible way to prevent greater evil (the depredations of thoroughly evil creatures), but it's still a bad way to do things. A paladin that kills sentient, free-willed, evil beings should say prayers for the dead, for, ideally, every creature would be given time and space to realize the error of their ways. The world is not ideal, and when a paladin isn't working to make the world more ideal, he's fallen a bit short of his lofty goals. This is an awfully hard line to toe, though, and many a table relaxes things to avoid the brutal reality of good that BoED puts a spotlight on.

But, mechanically, there is little alignment effect in doing what must be done. Good people should strive for more, but live realistically and

Fitz10019

2014-03-04, 06:07 PM

Why stop at the Evil? Why tolerate the Neutral?

Who decides what is Good?

Also, consider the pantheon. Whenever you cross a line, you give permission to the opposition to do the same. StW is bad for the economy of g-n-e souls in flux.

Coidzor

2014-03-04, 06:08 PM

Eliminate the Law-Chaos shift. Add in tiered steps from Evil to Good over time that remain even if the gem is broken prematurely. Vile > Evil > Evil leaning towards Neutral > Neutral leaning towards Evil > Neutral > Neutral leaning towards Good > Good. Allow it to target anything from Vile to Neutral leaning towards Evil.

Either a Diplomacy check ala the BoED diplomacy rules for altering alignment or another Will Save for every alignment step. Make the check get progressively more and more difficult the more checks they've failed. Maybe allow for backsliding one step on a natural 20(no use of luck feats or "virtual 20s" allowed) or the equivalent of either a 01 or a 100 on a d%. Include something about the lost level being soul energy or raw goodness helping the innate spark of goodness find itself and be supernaturally empowered to guilt trip the creature.

Require something more for forcing a spark of goodness into creatures that wouldn't have a spark of goodness to model artificially forcing a conscience upon them. What sort of costs would be appropriate? Haven't the foggiest. Losing a level for a 9th level spell that does what Sanctify the Wicked does when Programmed Amnesia and Mindrape don't have that kind of cost seemed too steep to me to begin with.

Rewrite the ripping the soul out and destroying the body thing if you'd like to instead just have the whole creature in the gem-prison.

Anything else problematic remaining with taking the innate spark of goodness and making it a supernatural nag that can't be ignored or forcing an innately evil creature to have a conscience it can't ignore?

Why stop at the Evil? Why tolerate the Neutral?

Who decides what is Good?

Also, consider the pantheon. Whenever you cross a line, you give permission to the opposition to do the same. StW is bad for the economy of g-n-e souls in flux.

Bang for Buck, Time concerns.

The alignment system isn't a person. :smalltongue: This question is silly. The spell fails if you target something non-evil, and can't be argued against.

No, Evil is already crossing the line as much as it possibly can unless you're in a setting like Dragonlance where Evil is defined as cheating as much as possible and Good and Neutral never wising up to this fact and continually waiting until someone else exposes Evil's cheating before doing anything.

The thing is, the Captain Pritchard we see through most of the book *isn't* really Pritchard. He may have Pritchard's memories and body, but he's not acting as Captain Pritchard would act if Captain Pritchard was in full control of himself -- he's acting according to a top layer of programming which forces him to be the loyal servant of his worst enemy.

That, to me, is the problem with something like "Sanctify the Wicked".

Sanctify the Wicked doesn't change the top level programming though. It changes the fundamental values at play.

After all, why not simply cast Sanctify the Wicked on every child in society at birth, renewing it on an annual basis, so that society will only be good all the time? Maybe society would have fewer murders and what not, but it's not a society of human beings. It's a society of zombies being controlled by some puppet master.

Because if Sanctify the Wicked has any metaphysical basis casting it on a blank slate has no meaning or point so you're just demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the spell, mainly. (And if you're a Pre-Epic or Epic caster and you understand your spells so poorly, how'd you live long enough to get that high of a level? :smalltongue:)

Optimator

2014-03-04, 06:17 PM

One thing to remember in D&D is that there is nor moral ambiguity or gray areas. There are angels who will tell you what's up.

TypoNinja

2014-03-04, 06:21 PM

Some would point out that free will could be considered part of the dignity that good should be respecting.

Not necessarily, because if you have free will you can choose to be Evil. Good would oppose that.

From the BoED

Good is not nice, polite, well mannered, prudish, self-right-
eous, or naïve, though good-aligned characters might be some
of those things. Good is the awesome holy energy that radiates
from the celestial planes and crushes evil.

Good may not necessarily oppose free will, but depending on the flavor, they may not exactly be in favor of it either.

Chaotic Good would likely be in favor of free will, even fight for it, especially against an oppressor, but a sufficiently rigid Lawful Good could just as easily view free will as a liability.

Good in D&D has little to do with warm fuzzies. Its an elemental force of existence fighting for dominance against its anti-force.

Most (if not all) Good people would support free will becuase that good is being filtered through the persons view. But the Celestial Archons, and other Paragons of Good literally made from the essence of their plane, who embody the righteousness of their eternal conflict with evil?

Your free will is dangerous to them.

NichG

2014-03-04, 06:31 PM

The thing with D&D alignment is that it can often be quite tautological, which means that arguing something like 'is StW good?' can be misleading if its not clear what use of the term 'good' is meant here.

Is StW 'Good' in the D&D sense of the alignment? Yes, by definition, because it has the [Good] descriptor. But that answer is pretty uninteresting and its not really what people mean when they complain about it.

I think the core of the controversy with it (and some other BoED content) can be roughly grouped into two sets of problems:

1. Hypocritical Alignments: The StW spell seems to be hypocritical and in conflict with what Good claims to be philosophically in D&D.

To put this in context, this is what the SRD says about 'Good' and 'Evil' (emphasis mine):

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others

Arguably something which removes the agency for moral choice and responsibility and forces someone magically to abandon who they were is on shaky ground when it comes to having 'concern for the dignity of sentient beings', and if done for purely tautological reasons rather than behavioral ones (e.g. he is Evil, he should be Good, so we will make him Good; as opposed to 'he is doing awful things, so lets get him to stop by redeeming him') then its arguably a form of oppression as well.

Its interesting also that BoED itself, when talking about redeeming evil, explicitly comments that forcing redemption 'stinks of evil':

(about 'sword-point conversion')

Worse, it stinks of evil, robbing the victim of the freedom to choose and echoing the use of torture to extract the desired behavior.

So I think there is a solid argument that the StW spell is inconsistent with how 'Good' is claimed to work philosophically in D&D.

2. Moral Dissonance: The StW spell makes D&D Good appear to be at odds with real-life morality and moral thought, which causes dissonance and problems when people are playing nuanced characters who react to events and things in the world based on what they feel about them, not what the book says is right or wrong - e.g. the Paladin who decides to fight against the atrocities committed by Cosmic Good.

This becomes a much thornier issue to discuss, because everyone's views on morality are different and everyone will judge some things as more or less acceptable. This is the one that has big in-game consequences though and can cause a lot of grief (every Paladin fall debate ever...)

Jacob.Tyr

2014-03-04, 06:32 PM

I just view it as a very effective prison sentence. It is no more or less brain washing than sending someone to prison and having them come out rehabilitated. Maybe tack on a few free ranks in a profession skill if you want it to even more closely mirror prison.

The issue I have, though, is the thought that an evil creature deserves such a prison sentence. If it were possible to take everyone who is in prison right now and put them through this spell, ending their prison sentence once the year was up, would you do it? They'd never re-offend, and would then be free to go about living a good life from then on.

The Insaniac

2014-03-04, 06:37 PM

One thing about this is the context of the spell. Throughout the BoED it's hammered at you "good is not easy, good is not simple, the ends never justify the means." But then sanctify the wicked comes along and says "here's an easy button for good. The end (converting an evil creature) justifies the means (trapping it for a year and rewriting its moral and ethical framework). It always works, no matter how vile the creature. Oh, and it's unambiguously good." It just seems at odds with the message from the rest of the book.

Jacob.Tyr: It isn't a question of whether or not it makes the world safer. I don't think that anyone will disagree that turning that dragon into a good creature is better than leaving is to burn down villages. The question is: is the spell itself a [good] act? That is, is rewriting someones ethics and morality, no matter how much better it may be for the world, an unambiguously good act?

I don't think that people would object nearly as much if it weren't in the BoED (the book of utter and unsullied pureness) and it didn't have the [good] tag (casting this spell is unambiguously good and makes you a better person).

Tanuki Tales

2014-03-04, 06:39 PM

veti

2014-03-04, 06:41 PM

Some would point out that free will could be considered part of the dignity that good should be respecting.

Some would argue that, but it's far from self-evidently true. And if it is true, what are the other "parts" of dignity, and how do they all balance?

Edit: besides, the phrase is "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". That implies that it's something you need to consider, but it's not paramount, i.e. it can be overridden sometimes.

Tanuki Tales

2014-03-04, 06:46 PM

Some would argue that, but it's far from self-evidently true. And if it is true, what are the other "parts" of dignity, and how do they all balance?

Edit: besides, the phrase is "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". That implies that it's something you need to consider, but it's not paramount, i.e. it can be overridden sometimes.

One of the largest issues I have with the DnD alignment system, personally, is that Universal Good has more in common with Universal Law than it actually does with "Good".

squiggit

2014-03-04, 06:50 PM

Just as a note here, not trying to push either position: But the concept of "rewriting their moral framework" or "brainwashing" or "murdering them and replacing them with a new entity that has the same memories" is not within the spell's description. At all. The spell merely says that the villain is forced to "reflect" on their deeds and in turn finds goodness within themselves.

Fluff is malleable, and it's perfectly valid for someone to put their own spin on the story or discuss potential misgivings with the fluff (again, I don't like how automatic it is), but what the spell says it does and what people here say it does are two different things.

Yeah....BoVD and BoED were not high points of quality when it came to splats.

Most people I bump into at least like BoVD. ED gets a much worse rap though.

One of the largest issues I have with the DnD alignment system, personally, is that Universal Good has more in common with Universal Law than it actually does with "Good".
Only because we're looking at it from a prism where Chaos (or at least specific tenants of it regarding freedom) is considered Neutral. The idea here is that freedom is respected, but can be sacrificed when preserving it is dangerous (whereas lawful cares nothing for the concept).

georgie_leech

2014-03-04, 07:02 PM

I agree with Coidzor, in that a sliding scale makes quite a bit more sense than the all-or-nothing approach StW implies. If you break the gem the creature is imprisoned in 6 seconds before a year elapses, they're just as Evil as the day they were imprisoned. Break it exactly one year later, and they're a match to your alignment. I have a difficult time reconciling the fluff of a gradual epiphany due to being confronted by your misdeeds and the mechanical result of a sudden shift of 2+ alignment steps in the last six seconds.

Yukitsu

2014-03-04, 07:03 PM

Why stop at the Evil? Why tolerate the Neutral?

Because if you started fighting neutrals, you'd lose against evil because you just made yourself outnumbered like, 2-1 or 6-1 depending.

Who decides what is Good?

In D&D, it's an actual thing. Like, you can put it in a bottle and throw it at people. You can also detect it, you can see whether or not a person was evil when they die, and there are periapts that you can tack to your forehead that tell you.

Also, consider the pantheon. Whenever you cross a line, you give permission to the opposition to do the same. StW is bad for the economy of g-n-e souls in flux.

That was the 9 hells gig pretty much since the beginning of time. They spend most of their time tempting, tricking and converting mortals. Celestials having an equivalent isn't too surprising on the idea of balancing the scales.

Tanuki Tales

2014-03-04, 07:06 PM

Most people I bump into at least like BoVD. ED gets a much worse rap though.

True, but it still paints an almost cartoonishly simplistic view of evil.

Only because we're looking at it from a prism where Chaos (or at least specific tenants of it regarding freedom) is considered Neutral. The idea here is that freedom is respected, but can be sacrificed when preserving it is dangerous (whereas lawful cares nothing for the concept).

Ends justifying the means is still very much Law. So even if free will being respected wasn't more a Chaotic thing, I'd still see Universal Good as more Lawful than Good on those grounds.

squiggit

2014-03-04, 07:17 PM

True, but it still paints an almost cartoonishly simplistic view of evil.
After a fashion. I suppose though that's part of why I liked it. It was very.. indulgently bad with no strings attached and you could do with it what you will, but it's easy to see why that would annoy someone.

Ends justifying the means is still very much Law. So even if free will being respected wasn't more a Chaotic thing, I'd still see Universal Good as more Lawful than Good on those grounds.
Well in a certain way. It also sort of applies to Chaos (a chaotic character would be pretty flexible in their means too).

Part of the problem is that there's a lot more grey area and room for interpretation in each square of the alignment grid than the nature of the 9x9 grid necessarily implies. I think there's room for both someone who uses StW and someone who finds it disgusting in the good spectrum without even necessarily being able to point to law or chaos.

Similarly while enforcing goodness might seem more LG, you could also find a LG somewhere else who'd find StW to violate the sanctity of due process. Likewise while a CG might find the idea stripping someone's freedom abhorrent another CG might simply just disdain evil enough to feel like their freedom isn't worth protecting in the first place.

I still think though that the core issue isn't the nature of Good or Law or Chaos but the disassociative nature of the spell's mechanics and fluff. Fluff says the villain confronts their past deeds and finds goodness in their heart. Mechanics say once you're stuck in that thing you're alignment's changing no matter what (and as said before, all in the last 6 seconds of the spell's duration).

Loreweaver15

2014-03-04, 07:24 PM

Oooh, ooh, ooh! I just had this argument (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326547&page=2) with a bad paladin stereotype. Discussion starts at post #50.

Invader

2014-03-04, 07:26 PM

I feel like there's a problem with the degrees with which people are evil as well. Not every evil person is a psychotic murdering despot. By D&D standards you're evil if you're just generally an ass a little more often than you're nice.

HunterOfJello

2014-03-04, 07:28 PM

I really do love the spell Sanctify the Wicked, but the more I think about it the less I like how it was actually set up.

I think that there should be a spell like Sanctify the Wicked that should exist. However, the spell should not force you to become Good. It should force you to become permanently Lawful.

Forcing your will upon another living being so that it will permanently conform to a preset standard of morality and cultural interaction without ever deviating from those rules is a Lawful action. Whether that act is done with the intention of Good, Neutrality, or Evil and whether it ends up having consequences that are Good, Netural, or Evil are all possible.

Loreweaver15

2014-03-04, 07:33 PM

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-04, 07:37 PM

I would like to point out the following phrase in the Sanctified Creature template:

A sanctified creature that reverts to evil, deliberately or not,
loses all benefits of this template. Essentially, it is restored to its
state prior to becoming a sanctified creature.

Unambiguously, StW doesn't make one permanently good. You emerge from the spell free-will intact.

hemming

2014-03-04, 07:39 PM

By the standards of MODERN society, yes. But isn't good for goodness's sake a good thing?

Yes - in a binary system of good and evil. Less evil = more good

Free will in itself is neither good nor evil unless the character has a moral philosophy that equivocates free will w/ good - I think this is a valid but not necessary character choice for a good character

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-04, 07:45 PM

(In short, my contention is that reaching into another person's mind and changing things around to suit myself is an Evil act no matter which way the mind is getting rearranged. There is no consent, there is no justice, there is only the heinous crime inflicted upon another living soul.)

It's not to suit myself, though. The caster does it out of a concern for morality. Murdering the evil creature is evil. Helping it to realize that evil harms the evil creature in the long run is good (at least this is often the opinion of the good). Evil is viewed by the good to be as harmful to the evil person as others (as concern only for the self deprives one of the joys of virtue and other communal pleasures and so forth). Thus, convincing an evil person to be good is something to be desired.

The real problem is that the spell creates a flawless process of doing this "convincing." Also, the convincing is given a rather unfavorable spin.

I like to think that the lost level on the part of the caster is one level's worth of convincing. A 17th level character that spends a year and a fraction of their soul doing something should be able to achieve it (from a narrative perspective).

Loreweaver15

2014-03-04, 07:48 PM

The real problem is that the spell creates a flawless process of doing this "convincing." Also, the convincing is given a rather unfavorable spin.

And that's where the problem lies: that if the spell goes off, it changes somebody's mind, automatically. If it just made them confront their inner demons, that would simply be setting the stage for personal growth and change, which might not happen, but no--it says "Oh, hey, you've changed your mind because I said so."

squiggit

2014-03-04, 07:51 PM

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-04, 07:52 PM

And that's where the problem lies: that if the spell goes off, it changes somebody's mind, automatically. If it just made them confront their inner demons, that would simply be setting the stage for personal growth and change, which might not happen, but no--it says "Oh, hey, you've changed your mind because I said so."

Or, more precisely, because your Will save failed to resist the effect, which can be seen as a mechanical manifestation commitment to one's ideals. Note, that a whole bunch of potentially alignment changing things hinge on saving throws (though few are as blunt about it as StW).

MadGreenSon

2014-03-04, 07:56 PM

Sanctify the Wicked has it's good and bad points but it is not the part of BoED I take exception to. I take exception to the "Afflictions" and "Ravages" that kind of newspeak is just BS. If they have magical poisons and diseases that only effect evil, then just call them poisons and diseases. No need to BS around trying to sound more holy than you are.
I have no problem with magical chem and biowar especially if it can be targeted so precisely. Why the doubletalk? Shouldn't Good be at least, honest?

Libris Mortis had poison for the undead based on positive energy, they called it "positoxins" kind of a silly name, but at least reflective of what they are.

Also "Ravages and Afflictions" suck hard at what they're supposed to be doing anyway. If Good is gonna start doing chem and bio-war can't they at least hire a few Neutral experts to get started?

On Topic: Sanctify the Wicked probably needs some tweaks in the mechanics and fluff, but it's a passable Heavy LAW spell for Lawful Good types to use as far as I'm concerned.

Zweisteine

2014-03-04, 07:57 PM

Here's my 2cp:

Even if forcing an evil creature to rethink it's values is morally ambiguous, surely convincing it that it should follow good values is, by definition, good, right?
But you aren't forcing it to rethink its values. You're forcing its values to change to your own, without giving it the chance to think.

The spell is ambiguous because it strips a creature of its will, in order to pursue good.

The ambiguity comes in with a differentiation between "types" of good: "helpful good" (needs a better name) and "forceful good." The first is what is generally seen as good. The second is what makes stereotypical paladins have issues, and what makes Sanctify the Wicked have issues. Sure, trying to enforce goodness in everyone is good, but any objective that can be stated as "force everyone to..." is, at best, lawful neutral, and more likely, lawful evil. Even if you're forcing people to be good, the act of making them good against their will is not good in and of itself.

If you've read Goblins (http://www.goblinscomic.org/), you'll know of the "paladin" Kore. He is a paladin on a quest to destroy all evil. He will destroy anything tainted in the least, even a child kidnapped by monsters. Despite this, he manages to retain his paladin abilities. He is the type of person who would use Sanctify the Wicked.

Also,

There's a Psionic power, Mind Seed, which slowly turns the victim into you but eight levels lower, and I haven't seen a single argument about its' use.
Because the morality of mind seed is unambiguously evil.

Zaydos

2014-03-04, 07:57 PM

I wouldn't even necessarily have a problem with it if it wasn't a Sanctified spell.

I mean casting a [Good] spell is explicitly not a good aligned act. Just evil clerics (or clerics of evil gods) can't do it because those gods don't grant that power.

Casting a Sanctified spell, though, is automatically a good aligned act and somehow purifies the caster's soul... Ok I might have problems with that part of sanctified spells in general.

That and the Law-Chaos thing which just needs to be removed/ignored.

FireJustice

2014-03-04, 08:01 PM

Here is the controversy:
same spell can be "the last resource to redeem a wicked soul, to avoid destruction" OR "to brainwash someone, destroying it's personality and free will making a new one."

Here is the deal.
D&d uses an absolute scale of Good and Evil, and as many people mentioned it's hard to make the reality work that way.

"Good" spells can be (ab)used by Evil.
I can heal someone that i'm torturing to prolong it's pain.

and "Evil" spells can be used for Good.
There are many topics for using Undead labor to improve the life of the living ones. You can alter the mind of someone to remove childhood traumas (similitar to a shring).

good and evil are relative, there's the way of doing, there's the objective for doing. And you can question any step of it with.

Back to the problem, Good and Evil in d&d are absolute

otakumick

2014-03-04, 08:33 PM

Captnq

2014-03-04, 08:44 PM

Please, read the entire post before you respond.

Never! I refuse to read the rest of your post. I won't even read the other posts!

My answer: Yes, but only if you cover the subject with cheese first.

But seriously, I'm rather insulted by this. It's like saying, "yeah, you're all morons and you can't be trusted to read anything without having some sort of knee jerk responce that involves tooth gnashing and the hurling of insults." I understand if you've had bad experiences in the past, but my experience has been that most of these people are quite reasonable.

Except me. I'm a Tier 1 Jerk. I optimized being a jerk. I min/max my levels in jerk by taking the ACF Mystic Jerk then took Prestige Jerk from unearthed Arcana then used jerkomancer to double advance my jerking levels.

EDIT:
(Jerking levels... hrmm... Ya know what? That sounded better in my head.)

Eldonauran

2014-03-04, 08:48 PM

Tanuki Tales

2014-03-04, 08:49 PM

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-04, 08:54 PM

:smallsigh:

I knew IRL morality and justification would pose a problem. It always does. I'll just leave it at "I disagree with the majority of this thread".

I must be one of the few that thoroughly enjoys and welcomes what the BoED brought into the game, in its entirety.

Actually, aside from some bad editing and spell writing, I have also gained great pleasure from this book. One of the best characters that I ever DM'd for was (wait for it....)

(wait for it....)

An exalted VoP cleric spellscale with a love of sanctified spells and diplomacy. The campaign lasted like three years, and there were a couple of others that had exalted stuff, but this one character (with my support) was a really good example of how to integrate the concepts from the book into an interesting and enjoyable game.

Eldonauran

2014-03-04, 08:56 PM

I find it disingenuous to assert that the only reason that people find issue with DnD's alignment system is because they can't reconcile their own personal concepts of morality with the framework of a fictional universe.

Oh, I'm quite sincere in that statement. Or, more specifically, that people can't let go of their own personal concepts of morality and temporarily adopt those of a fictional universe. We are wired a certain way, whether by our personal convictions or the environment in which we are raised. There is no reconciliation needed. One accepts the alignment as it is written or tries to tear it apart because it doesn't reflect their own beliefs. Which do you think the rules were written to address?

Actually, aside from some bad editing and spell writing, I have also gained great pleasure from this book. One of the best characters that I ever DM'd for was (wait for it....)

(wait for it....)

An exalted VoP cleric spellscale with a love of sanctified spells and diplomacy. The campaign lasted like three years, and there were a couple of others that had exalted stuff, but this one character (with my support) was a really good example of how to integrate the concepts from the book into an interesting and enjoyable game.

:smallconfused:

... You know... You are my kind of person. I like you. :smallbiggrin:

squiggit

2014-03-04, 08:57 PM

I'm gonna have to agree with the common thread that this spell is very much LAWFUL Good. I don't think a neutral Good guy would be likely to use it, and a chaotic Good guy would throw up, a Chaotic Good guy wouldn't go near it and might just start fighting the Law boys using it.

A chaotic good Paladin of Freedom maybe, sure. But what about a chaotic good vigilante who balks the normal process of law to hunt down and destroy Evil on his own? There's nothing in the latter archetype that would balk at the idea of depriving someone of their freedom to suit his own ends. Someone like that is chaotic explicitly because they don't give a damn about the villain's rights.

Similarly while a Lawful Good "purge the unjust" character might be find the idea of brainwashing a villain to be an expedient way of dealing with him, you could just as easily have an LG who refuses such methods because it denies the subject of due process or any such shenanigans that exist in some lawful socieites.

Law/Chaos is not this cut and dry.

Though again, on its own there's nothing in StW's fluff or crunch that mentions depriving anyone of their own will or thoughts.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-04, 08:58 PM

Oh, I'm quite sincere in that statement. Or, more specifically, that people can't let go of their own personal concepts of morality and temporarily adopt those of a fictional universe. We are wired a certain way, whether by our personal convictions or the environment in which we are raised. There is no reconciliation needed. One accepts the alignment as it is written or tries to tear it apart because it doesn't reflect their own beliefs. Which do you think the rules were written to address?

It also bears mentioning that there is nothing wrong with anyone's actual beliefs. We don't want people extrapolating a disapproval for people's irl opinions or beliefs from this.

Eldonauran

2014-03-04, 09:01 PM

It also bears mentioning that there is nothing wrong with anyone's actual beliefs. We don't want people extrapolating a disapproval for people's irl opinions or beliefs from this.

Yes, that is a good point. Don't take this personally. :smallwink:

atemu1234

2014-03-04, 09:21 PM

I like the original wording of the spell, that the creature is locked into the crystal and it comes to the realization of its own evil on its own, and is penitent because of it. However, it's been interpreted as brainwashing. My major beef with it is the segregation between the story and actual gameplay. I always thought it should be used kind of as atonement for things with powers too evil to be redeemed, or to make an evil being the characters like redeem themselves. Someone on the cusp of being morally ambiguous or having a decent reason for their misdeeds could be made to "forcibly atone" as it were. But it turned into a way to brainwash mind flayers in the book itself.

Kaeso

2014-03-04, 09:23 PM

I think Sanctify the Wicked is generally considered to be evil because it robs the victim of its freedom, though others have already that it's because of the fact that it's a necromancy spell. To this, I simply have two things to say.

First of all, evil because it robs the victim of its will? We're talking about a game where a bunch of murder hobos go around slaying creatures who are already established to be objectively evil, and not killing them is considered the controversial option? I cannot even begin to wrap my head around how that works. I never see the alternative (ie. killing the baddies) being raised as a moral conundrum and absolute pacifism would make the game mostly obsolete (though it would be interesting. A wizard or a cleric that only uses peaceful means to subdue his opponents could be fun and challenging in his own way).

Secondly, the classification of DnD spells generally doesn't make sense. For example, conjuration contains a slew of spells that should, according to DnD's own logic, be considered evocation spells. The evil necromancy is the kind that messes with the balance of life and death. Nobody is going to sick the inquisition on you for casting ray of enfeeblement, right? Then why should sanctify the wicked (which, you know, sanctifies those who are wicked?) be considered a big no no?

I think the spell is very controversial when looked at from a modern, human rights perspective (where freedom trumps all, generally speaking). However, the spell should be looked at from an in universe perspective, where there's a clearly defined absolute good and a clearly defined absolute evil. Turning a creature that's objectively evil into a creature that's objectively good while sparing his life and mostly keeping him unharmed can only be considered good. Killing him (ie. the standard solution) is the solution that should be considered controversial.

EDIT: The spell has the necromancy [good] descriptor, which should make any kind of discussion by RAW moot.

Hazuki

2014-03-04, 09:30 PM

Oh, I'm quite sincere in that statement. Or, more specifically, that people can't let go of their own personal concepts of morality and temporarily adopt those of a fictional universe. We are wired a certain way, whether by our personal convictions or the environment in which we are raised. There is no reconciliation needed. One accepts the alignment as it is written or tries to tear it apart because it doesn't reflect their own beliefs. Which do you think the rules were written to address?I can do so adequately for a lot of settings, when the alternate morality is consistent and well-written. Not for D&D.

Coidzor

2014-03-04, 09:56 PM

There's a Psionic power, Mind Seed, which slowly turns the victim into you but eight levels lower, and I haven't seen a single argument about its' use. Sanctify the Wicked sounds a lot like the kind of thing an LG, Miko-esque extremist would use. Like, evil for the greater good, or something like that.

EDIT: Mind Seed has the [Evil] descriptor, yet turns the target's mind (therefore alignment) into yours even if you're good, so yeah.

Largely because it is acknowledged to be an evil thing to do. The manifester is killing someone by putting a piece of themselves into their victim to eat them from the inside-out like some kind of mental chest-burster.

I know that, at first, the affected creature follows the ethical alignment of the caster; but what is preventing it from later changing it's ethical alignment?

Inertia. Once you've got X alignment, it takes some other impetus to change it.

If like me, you are uncomfortable with the idea that someone’s soul could be altered against its will by a simple spell, then perhaps the spell only controls the mind, instead of changing the soul, and once the enchantment is lifted, the person returns to their normal self.

How is a 9th level spell that eats an entire level simple when a low-rank magical item already does so(Helm of Opposite Alignment) and has been a joke/trap since the beginning?

The problem is this just brings up another question of ethics (how much does the means justify the ends).

The real question given that premise is how killing someone's personality by altering it into a nearly identical one with different moral values is worse than just straight up killing them.

And then if it's a matter of degrees, at what rate of conversion does it become acceptable/unacceptable, since it can happen without magical aid in real time using a bunch of diplomancy checks.

TuggyNE

2014-03-04, 10:10 PM

How is a 9th level spell that eats an entire level simple when a low-rank magical item already does so(Helm of Opposite Alignment) and has been a joke/trap since the beginning?

I think most people give cursed items a free pass for some reason. Not sure why.

Eldonauran

2014-03-04, 10:38 PM

I can do so adequately for a lot of settings, when the alternate morality is consistent and well-written. Not for D&D.

I find the morality in D&D to be quite intuitive, even if it is not perfectly well-written. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I have a different opinion on the matter.

olentu

2014-03-04, 10:45 PM

Inertia. Once you've got X alignment, it takes some other impetus to change it.

This is probably the part of spell that I would consider the worst. It means that alignment restricts action and I have seen that view cause so very much trouble. Honestly, it would probably be better if it was really just mind control.

I think most people give cursed items a free pass for some reason. Not sure why.

Probably because the helm is magical mind control and is not given an association with a particular alignment. Would sanctify the wicked be such a problem point if it was a neutral mind control spell that could be used to change alignments, i.e. programmed amnesia with a few modifications.

veti

2014-03-04, 10:58 PM

Segev

2014-03-04, 11:09 PM

Yeah, the Helm is a cursed item meant to screw with a party doing traditional dungeon-delving; it isn't something introduced to the game for serious world-building consideration of the consequences.

squiggit

2014-03-04, 11:38 PM

Yeah, the Helm is a cursed item meant to screw with a party doing traditional dungeon-delving; it isn't something introduced to the game for serious world-building consideration of the consequences.

Says who? Thrown in at the right time it can make for some very powerful character drama.

The biggest problem with it is in games where your players hold their characters sacred and don't want any interference ( some players don't like anything about their character changing without their permission, so they don't like cursed items, madness rules, maiming, dismemberment, rolled stats, any form of mind control that lasts for more than a couple rounds, or games like Call of Cthulhu ).

And of course, it's really dickish when you're running with characters who have alignment restrictions on their classes (though honestly I think those are dumb in the first place).

Coidzor

2014-03-04, 11:46 PM

I think the Helm of Opposite Alignment "gets a pass" because it's self-evidently a joke. No[1] DM ever[2] included one of those in their campaign intending it to be used[3].

[1] ... that I've ever met
[2] ... as far as I'm aware
[3] ... where 'used' means 'actually benefit the PCs or further their goals'.

It's a cursed item, so it's supposed to be used against the players in order to steal their characters and possibly get them killed by the other players, yes.

The biggest problem with it is in games where your players hold their characters sacred and don't want any interference ( some players don't like anything about their character changing without their permission, so they don't like cursed items, madness rules, maiming, dismemberment, rolled stats, any form of mind control that lasts for more than a couple rounds, or games like Call of Cthulhu ).

And of course, it's really dickish when you're running with characters who have alignment restrictions on their classes (though honestly I think those are dumb in the first place).

No one likes being the one person sitting with their thumbs up their ass while they watch the rest of the group continue to play the game because of an at best questionable move on the part of the DM. At least, not unless they're waiting to see who dies next and it's part of the expectations of the game, like in Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia, though both of those, IIRC, have provisions for getting players back into the game in an expedited manner while all forms of D&D lack such until they're at the level where True Resurrections are thrown around like candy.

Agreed.

This is probably the part of spell that I would consider the worst. It means that alignment restricts action and I have seen that view cause so very much trouble. Honestly, it would probably be better if it was really just mind control.

Probably because the helm is magical mind control and is not given an association with a particular alignment. Would sanctify the wicked be such a problem point if it was a neutral mind control spell that could be used to change alignments, i.e. programmed amnesia with a few modifications.

Not really. It doesn't restrict action, but it does give some ideas as to general behavior without an external pressure in any other direction. A Lawful Good person is not generally going to just suddenly have the idea to go out and become Jack the Ripper without some external influence or the usual sorts of growth that lead to extremist LG types falling for being too extreme/violent/ends-justify-the-means.

Good question. Do people not care about Programmed Amnesia because it is reversible due to having a Permanent Duration or because it's not called out as Good? Or just because Mindrape and Holy Mindrape get top billing?

squiggit

2014-03-04, 11:56 PM

No one likes being the one person sitting with their thumbs up their ass while they watch the rest of the group continue to play the game because of an at best questionable move on the part of the DM. At least, not unless they're waiting to see who dies next and it's part of the expectations of the game, like in Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia, though both of those, IIRC, have provisions for getting players back into the game in an expedited manner while all forms of D&D lack such until they're at the level where True Resurrections are thrown around like candy.

I agree completely with the basic premise, it should be with players who have it in their expectations. If someone doesn't want me messing with their character trying to do so would be rude at best.

Though I really wouldn't call an alignment switch stealing their character and keeping them from playing.

Coidzor

2014-03-04, 11:58 PM

I agree completely with the basic premise, it should be with players who have it in their expectations. If someone doesn't want me messing with their character trying to do so would be rude at best.

Though I really wouldn't call an alignment switch stealing their character and keeping them from playing.

Part of the tradition seems to have been that a HoOA would lead to NPCification from earlier editions and some people continue this tradition, RAW be damned.

Granted, even if the player initially keeps control of the character, if the alignment situation isn't reversed(and the player isn't allowed to have any input on this), the character could be forced to leave the party anyway.

zionpopsickle

2014-03-05, 12:00 AM

I find the morality in D&D to be quite intuitive, even if it is not perfectly well-written. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I have a different opinion on the matter.

Random supposition but I am guessing your play group doesn't try to wander very deep into the waters of moral ambiguity/dilemma outside of the niche narrative framework of the core rulebooks.

The big problem with the DnD alignment system is that it attempted to be an objective, platonic system of morality. Unfortunately, the writers weren't all fully aware of what this means and how this would need to be implemented and thus you ended up with a lot of more modern ethical thought creeping in as important fluff/mechanics. So the system is essentially scatterbrained on whether good is actually a fully real 'thing' (as a lot of spells and magic items suggest) or a metaphysical ideal (as other spells and a lot of the alignment rules suggest).

I think the telling thing of this scatterbrained nature is that a number of different suggestions for homebrewing the spell in this thread seem to actually work within the DnD moral framework (at least as much as this is possible given the contradictory nature of said framework) whereas the spell as written only works if one considers only the platonic elements of alignment and leaves out other more utilitarian/criterial fluff.

olentu

2014-03-05, 12:25 AM

Not really. It doesn't restrict action, but it does give some ideas as to general behavior without an external pressure in any other direction. A Lawful Good person is not generally going to just suddenly have the idea to go out and become Jack the Ripper without some external influence or the usual sorts of growth that lead to extremist LG types falling for being too extreme/violent/ends-justify-the-means.

Good question. Do people not care about Programmed Amnesia because it is reversible due to having a Permanent Duration or because it's not called out as Good? Or just because Mindrape and Holy Mindrape get top billing?

Ah, so you are of the magical powers change out the character's personality for a new one interpretation. That is fine really, it is not like there is not magic that can force a new personality on someone. I had mistakenly thought you were going with the spell not being some sort of magical mind swap as I have sometimes seen argued. That alternate interpretation is the one that means alignment is a straitjacket.

I would assume it is like the fireball spell, merely a tool without any extra baggage. Since it has no alignment association it is not associated with the poorly chosen name of good, evil, law, or chaos and thus draws no parallel to the real wold use of those terms. But this is just an assumption given that I am of the alignment is random arbitrary and meaningless outside of the mechanical interactions position.

Segev

2014-03-05, 12:31 AM

Says who? Thrown in at the right time it can make for some very powerful character drama.

The biggest problem with it is in games where your players hold their characters sacred and don't want any interference ( some players don't like anything about their character changing without their permission, so they don't like cursed items, madness rules, maiming, dismemberment, rolled stats, any form of mind control that lasts for more than a couple rounds, or games like Call of Cthulhu ).

And of course, it's really dickish when you're running with characters who have alignment restrictions on their classes (though honestly I think those are dumb in the first place).

Oh, it can be used in a number of ways. The original use was as a trap. A cursed item in a dungeon. It has survived forward to this day, and its potential uses have evolved with the evolution of playstyles. I was just talking about what it originally existed for.

Coidzor

2014-03-05, 06:13 AM

Ah, so you are of the magical powers change out the character's personality for a new one interpretation. That is fine really, it is not like there is not magic that can force a new personality on someone. I had mistakenly thought you were going with the spell not being some sort of magical mind swap as I have sometimes seen argued. That alternate interpretation is the one that means alignment is a straitjacket.

I think it intends that there's a spark of goodness in all creatures that's part of some kind of Rousseau was right interpretation of personhood and that it may or may not just straight up create such a thing and then between guilt-tripping and nagging their alignment is changed and they're redeemed and they view the prospect of being evil again as ultimately abhorrent just like any other Good person would when confronted with the thought of doing Evil things like eating babies.

I also think that the writing of the spell is a horrible hodge-podge of 5-8 different interpretations of what's happening and what moral framework the universe is operating under and that it manages to include a statement about hating the caster of the spell regardless of whether they're successfully sanctified or not when they clearly intended for it to be a statement of the subject's unmitigated hatred for the caster if they're sprung prematurely.

So the biggest problem with the spell is that one is entirely justified in picking an interpretation and going with it rather than acknowledging that it's schizophrenic/frankensteinian/internally-mismatched, and, indeed, running the game and using it would basically require one to Pick One.

I don't normally think about the spell all that much, since it's one that I wouldn't actually use in game without re-writing the mechanics with at least some of my earlier suggestions and making the fluff consistent.

So yeah it's both re-writing the subject's personality while irresistibly also nagging them into being good.

I just don't view "Good people aren't the kind of people who want to eat babies randomly" as "alignment is a straitjacket," so much as people generally being internally consistent unless they're under some kind of stress that would cause them to be otherwise.

Killer Angel

2014-03-05, 07:08 AM

Loreweaver15

2014-03-05, 07:55 AM

Tell me, does an Evil creature deserve their own 'freewill'?

Yes.

I don't even have to hesitate, answering that.

Free will is a basic right of all sentient beings, part of that whole "respecting the dignity of sentient beings" schtick that makes up the D&D definition of Good, as well as a good portion of the real-world one. Reaching into somebody's brain and forcing them to think like you is a heinous crime. Imprisoning them for the choices THEY'VE made, or killing them if it's not workable to imprison them, is a judgment call made by one or more sentient beings about another sentient being, but the judged being still has the capacity to make decisions for themselves. However, if you reach into someone's brain and forcibly change how they think, that's no longer a sentient being. It's a fleshy sock puppet--your fleshy sock puppet--without true autonomy or sentience.

The problem with this spell is that, if it goes off, it forces the evil character to become Good. There is no choice, there is no free will, there is only your will imposed on another person's mind. if the spell just forced them to reflect on what they've done and come to their own conclusions, that would be perfectly fine, but it's controversial because it's basically a spell that brainwashes people into doing what you want by RAW without a choice.

Sith_Happens

2014-03-05, 08:23 AM

Free will is a basic right of all sentient beings, part of that whole "respecting the dignity of sentient beings" schtick that makes up the D&D definition of Good

The bolded is a weak "maybe" at best. Free will is fundamentally a Chaos thing, not a Good thing.

Raven777

2014-03-05, 08:27 AM

I would like to point out that it is not a brainwash.

This is fully in line with the cause of good. The idea that goodness is the right way to do things, that everyone can be redeemed, and that this soul sees the right of things after sufficient penitence. It isn't brainwashing, it's enlightenment. It is, in fact, inevitable that a creature enlightened to the true cause of goodness will fail to embrace it. This isn't because of a brainwash, but because it is an inevitable truth of the universe.

The fact that the same could happen on any one on the alignment spectrums is beside the point. :smallbiggrin:

... and he loved Big Brother.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-05, 08:45 AM

The thing to remember is that D&D worlds are not our world. Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are real, tangible, detectible forces in that universe.

At their heart, in their purest forms, they are also alien to mortal life. In our world there is more room for moral/ethical speculation and argument, you can't point to things that are provably, objectively Good, or Evil.

In D&D worlds, you can.

But in their purest forms they are not nearly so... easy. Good has no innate need to respect free will. Free will is an aspect of Chaos, not Good. Law absolutely does not respect or value free will, look at the Formians or other inhabitants of Mechanus for some of that.
Chaos, absolute chaos, embraces free will with such passion that it'll make you crazy, just ask the Slaadi.

Good is about what's for the best, what creates more joy, goodness ,etc. Not about what makes any particular individual happy, but what is good for the whole. Shades of good and individuality get introduced when absolute Good is leavened with Law and Chaos.
Goes the same way with Evil.

So no. Your right to choose to be Evil means nothing to Good, if Good can change your mind. Law certainly does not give half a damn about your free will either. These tangible, real forces in the cosmos of D&D are exactly like that and it's only when sapient beings mix them together that you get things like "freedom is a good thing" or "your right to choose is sacred".

Maybe to you. But the Moral and Ethical Forces of the universe do not have to agree.

Raven777

2014-03-05, 08:49 AM

I would also like to add that nothing makes any single one of these forces objectively right. You are, in fact, allowed to argue with Angels.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-05, 08:50 AM

I would also like to add that nothing makes any single one of these forces objectively right. You are, in fact, allowed to argue with Angels.

I absolutely agree.

cakellene

2014-03-05, 08:53 AM

I would also like to add that nothing makes any single one of these forces objectively right. You are, in fact, allowed to argue with Angels.

I do all my arguing with a Souldrinker.

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 08:59 AM

I don't think D&D assumes the existence of Free Will. But beyond that...

Chaos, absolute chaos, embraces free will with such passion that it'll make you crazy, just ask the Slaadi.

I don't see how Chaos embraces the idea of "Free Will" in D&D. They might claim self-determination, but certainly CN forces aren't going to like a bunch of people choosing to live in an orderly society or even choosing to live their own lives in a highly ordered manner.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-05, 09:03 AM

I don't think D&D assumes the existence of Free Will. But beyond that...

I don't see how Chaos embraces the idea of "Free Will" in D&D. They might claim self-determination, but certainly CN forces aren't going to like a bunch of people choosing to live in an orderly society or even choosing to live their own lives in a highly ordered manner.

Chaos claims self determination, but does not hold it sacred. You can choose to live an orderly life just like Mr. CN can choose to blast your orderly life to chaos in whatever manner he chooses.

Freedom is innately Chaotic in it's extreme, Limbo is total freedom, it's also total chaos and anarchy.

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 09:07 AM

Chaos claims self determination, but does not hold it sacred. You can choose to live an orderly life just like Mr. CN can choose to blast your orderly life to chaos in whatever manner he chooses.

Freedom is innately Chaotic in it's extreme, Limbo is total freedom, it's also total chaos and anarchy.

Freedom might be somewhat aligned with chaos, but when you go pure chaos it gets rather tyrannical. There are things the extreme Chaotic will dislike and be against even if people choose it. That's true with CGs too.

Remember that Chaos is about "unfettered personal freedom", and so naturally will be against those who decide to fetter themselves.

So it's for freedom in a very particular sense.

Coidzor

2014-03-05, 09:08 AM

... and he loved Big Brother.

Even well-written spells can't survive a deliberately hostile reading. :smalltongue: And snark? This *is* Tabletop Gaming we're talking about... Snark is its kryptonite...

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 09:15 AM

Loreweaver15

2014-03-05, 09:31 AM

Law does not have to respect Free Will, but it is not also Good unless it allows for free will.

Kaeso

2014-03-05, 10:27 AM

but it is not also Good unless it allows for free will.

So just to get everything straight: you believe that good would mean respecting the free will of other beings and thus not using spells like Sanctify the Wicked which (debatably) infringe their right to free will, right?

Let's say there's a murderous orc chieftain on the loose and a high level wizard is the only one who can stop him because said chieftain is just that badass. You would obviously be opposed to the more peaceful solution of sanctifying him, but what about the good ol' fashioned solution of throwing fire at him until he stops moving. Would you be opposed to that, since an infringement on someone's right to life is more severe than an infringement to someone's right to free will? If so, a very large portion of DnD has been made moot and you're automatically forced to play a character who's neutral at best. The only characters who could be classified as good, under this logic, are the pacifists who just roll over once the aforementioned Chieftain burns their homes.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-05, 10:31 AM

Law does not have to respect Free Will, but it is not also Good unless it allows for free will.

The Plane of Good, untainted by Law or Chaos, The Blessed Fields of Elysium, does not allow for free will unless it is your will to stay in Elysium and live there in harmony with your surroundings forever.
Elysium will do that to you, it will make you want it, and then you will be a petitioner.
No where in that is a choice to not stay. It takes real will to leave Elysium once exposed to it. Once it has you, you will not want to leave, ever. All memories of your previous life will fade away and it will take a Wish or Miracle to restore you.

Good explicitly does not have to allow for free will.

Loreweaver15

2014-03-05, 10:32 AM

So just to get everything straight: you believe that good would mean respecting the free will of other beings and thus not using spells like Sanctify the Wicked which (debatably) infringe their right to free will, right?

Let's say there's a murderous orc chieftain on the loose and a high level wizard is the only one who can stop him because said chieftain is just that badass. You would obviously be opposed to the more peaceful solution of sanctifying him, but what about the good ol' fashioned solution of throwing fire at him until he stops moving. Would you be opposed to that, since an infringement on someone's right to life is more severe than an infringement to someone's right to free will? If so, a very large portion of DnD has been made moot and you're automatically forced to play a character who's neutral at best. The only characters who could be classified as good, under this logic, are the pacifists who just roll over once the aforementioned Chieftain burns their homes.

You've misunderstood my argument.

Free will is what makes us people, and removing somebody's free will is tantamount to removing their personhood--only worse, because it's not a medical affliction that goes away when you die, but a magical one that affects the very soul. Yes, I believe sanctifying that orc chieftain is far, far more evil than simply killing him. Sanctifying him is not a peaceful solution; it's a magical lobotomy of the soul.

Self defense is fine. It does not, however, justify removing somebody's personhood.

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 10:38 AM

You've misunderstood my argument.

Free will is what makes us people, and removing somebody's free will is tantamount to removing their personhood--only worse, because it's not a medical affliction that goes away when you die, but a magical one that affects the very soul. Yes, I believe sanctifying that orc chieftain is far, far more evil than simply killing him. Sanctifying him is not a peaceful solution; it's a magical lobotomy of the soul.

Self defense is fine. It does not, however, justify removing somebody's personhood.

I do not believe D&D assumes the existence of "free will." Please provide a citation if you know otherwise.

Also, the spell description doesn't really support your interpretation as a "magical lobotomy of the soul." Not remotely. Nor does the game's alignment system support really what you are saying.

Loreweaver15

2014-03-05, 10:43 AM

I do not believe D&D assumes the existence of "free will." Please provide a citation if you know otherwise.

Also, the spell description doesn't really support your interpretation as a "magical lobotomy of the soul." Not remotely. Nor does the game's alignment system support really what you are saying.

I'm going to continue assuming the existence of free will in D&D universes, because the whole concept of good and evil is predicated on the notion that we're individually sentient and can make choices that have consequences. If everyone's just a robot acting out a part, there is no Good ro Evil, no Law or Chaos, because there are no people.

So, yeah, the very fact that we're having this discussion means that we've put the notion that D&D allows for free will on the table. From there, it's a series of simple logical steps; removing free will removes agency and your ability to operate independently; doing so removes personhood; removing somebody's personhood is a magical lobotomy of the soul.

Now, there are plenty of people who recognize what's wrong with the way Sanctify the Wicked is set up, and change how it works in their own settings, but in RAW they've botched it horribly because they've set up a thoroughly Evil spell as being a Good thing.

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 10:47 AM

I'm going to continue assuming the existence of free will in D&D universes, because the whole concept of good and evil is predicated on the notion that we're individually sentient and can make choices that have consequences. If everyone's just a robot acting out a part, there is no Good ro Evil, no Law or Chaos, because there are no people.

Making choices doesn't require free will. Your computer makes decisions. You can roll dice to make decisions. Robots make decisions. Very, very, very complex systems can similarly make decisions without needing such a nebulous concept.

Good and Evil doesn't require it either. People suffering still has meaning and is bad without free will. Happiness still has meaning. Good and Evil still have meaning.

Your argument simply doesn't make sense. Unless perhaps you assume it is correct, but that's fallacious reasoning.

Segev

2014-03-05, 10:48 AM

Now, there are plenty of people who recognize what's wrong with the way Sanctify the Wicked is set up, and change how it works in their own settings, but in RAW they've botched it horribly because they've set up a thoroughly Evil spell as being a Good thing.

You're right in that there is "something wrong" with it, but you're wrong in your claim as to what that is. What's wrong with it is that it is, as noted by others, somewhat schizophrenic about how it treats the idea of spiritual redemption. But there are a number of "how it works in their own campaign" options are just selections of which of those fluff examinations they choose to go with.

It is not "thoroughly evil" unless you interpret it one very specific way (which, as noted, is a flaw of the spell that you can interpret it that way).

But here, the Will save is all about whether or not you're persuaded to goodness. It's not mind-control; it's persuasion. Or is anybody who is converted to a new religion under evil mind control? Anybody who is persuaded to change their political views?

Is Rin brainwashing Seishoumaru in Inuyasha?

Elderand

2014-03-05, 10:50 AM

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 10:51 AM

But here, the Will save is all about whether or not you're persuaded to goodness. It's not mind-control; it's persuasion. Or is anybody who is converted to a new religion under evil mind control? Anybody who is persuaded to change their political views?

Actually, I think the Will Save is probably just the entrapment effect. At least that's how I see it. Trap the Soul is the same way.

The rest is just Super Therapy, which because of high level magic knows exactly how to treat someone to change their mind from being evil. Therefore it automatically works. Or you could think of it as using the redemption rules, but the Diplomancy checks automatically succeed because this is high powered magic.

And yet I am sure that people who defend this spell will bitch and moan to high hell the minute something similar happens to force their character to act in any way shape or form that goes contrary to how their character should act.

It's all fun and game until it happens to you.

There's a bit of a difference in a game from NPC agency and Player Agency. So it isn't really a double standard.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-05, 11:21 AM

And yet I am sure that people who defend this spell will bitch and moan to high hell the minute something similar happens to force their character to act in any way shape or form that goes contrary to how their character should act.

It's all fun and game until it happens to you.

Y'know what? I've never had a character forcibly brain-changed before. It might be a kick. I think I'd roll with it.

Especially if it came with laser eyes. :smallbiggrin:

One point a lot of people seem to miss is that in the D&D universe Good and Evil are not the results of actions or choices, they are objective states, fundamental forces of the universe, and will exist even if no people, free will or beings with agency exist at all.

Put another way: they are not the effect, they are the cause.

Free will is irrelevant to absolute Good or Evil as can be demonstrated by looking at the write ups for Elysium or Hades.
Choice exists in the D&D universe, but choice is not an inherently moral or immoral thing.
Thus taking away choice is not inherently moral or immoral in the D&D universe.

Elderand

2014-03-05, 11:25 AM

Y'know what? I've never had a character forcibly brain-changed before. It might be a kick. I think I'd roll with it.

Especially if it came with laser eyes. :smallbiggrin:

One point a lot of people seem to miss is that in the D&D universe Good and Evil are not the results of actions or choices, they are objective states, fundamental forces of the universe, and will exist even if no people, free will or beings with agency exist at all.

Put another way: they are not the effect, they are the cause.

Free will is irrelevant to absolute Good or Evil as can be demonstrated by looking at the write ups for Elysium or Hades.
Choice exists in the D&D universe, but choice is not an inherently moral or immoral thing.
Thus taking away choice is not inherently moral or immoral in the D&D universe.

The truth is, the only reason sanctify the wicked exist is not because it fits DNd cosmolgy, it's because mind rape exist and whoever wrote BoED made damn sure to copy all the cool part of BoVD and just switch the [evil] for [good]. No matter how little sense it made.

NotAnAardvark

2014-03-05, 11:26 AM

And yet I am sure that people who defend this spell will bitch and moan to high hell the minute something similar happens to force their character to act in any way shape or form that goes contrary to how their character should act.

It's all fun and game until it happens to you.

That's like calling a player hypocritical for my liking their an characters getting killed even though they kill nameless goblins by the dozen. It's a silly and pointless equivocation.

Now, there are plenty of people who recognize what's wrong with the way Sanctify the Wicked is set up, and change how it works in their own settings, but in RAW they've botched it horribly because they've set up a thoroughly Evil spell as being a Good thing.

By RAW the spell forces the villain to confront their actions and the villain finds goodness within themselves after analyzing what they've done. Realize all the stuff about "magical lobotomies" is essentially homebrew (Nevermind that nothing forces the character to remain that alignment).

Though I still disagree with your fundamental pretense. Good in D&D probably prefer free will, but in a situation where freedom leads to evil and destruction, taking it away is by far better choice for a Good character.

But, again, this is strayed away from the actual text of StW.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-05, 12:18 PM

The truth is, the only reason sanctify the wicked exist is not because it fits DNd cosmolgy, it's because mind rape exist and whoever wrote BoED made damn sure to copy all the cool part of BoVD and just switch the [evil] for [good]. No matter how little sense it made.

That may or may not be true. Doesn't matter. It does fit the cosmology.

And really? Mindrape was one of the cool parts of BoVD? it's much less flavorful than Sanctify, all it's got is a "shocking" name.

The nipple clamps were cooler. Where are the good nipple clamps?

Augmental

2014-03-05, 12:30 PM

But here, the Will save is all about whether or not you're persuaded to goodness. It's not mind-control; it's persuasion. Or is anybody who is converted to a new religion under evil mind control? Anybody who is persuaded to change their political views?

If you persuade them to change their religion/political views by locking their soul in a crystal and showing them traumatic images for a year, then yes, that is mind control.

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 12:34 PM

If you persuade them to change their religion/political views by locking their soul in a crystal and showing them traumatic images for a year, then yes, that is mind control.

If it was really traumatic, they'd get PTSD. Nothing says it is traumatic. The text says "reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness."

Somehow I think people tend to look at this as being used on non-evil Bob down the street, rather than the Jack the Ripper.

Sith_Happens

2014-03-05, 12:47 PM

The nipple clamps were cooler. Where are the good nipple clamps?

Page 119, "Redeeming Evil Magic Items.":smallwink:

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 12:59 PM

Alright, so I'm stepping away from real-life Good/Evil/Law/Chaos for a moment, and talking about the D&D use of those terms. Overlap probably exists, but we can discuss that elsewhere.

1.) Both evil and good are seductive in D&D. Several others on this thread and similar threads have pointed out how Elysium basically brainwashes visitors into staying forever if they aren't careful, even to their direct detriment (it doesn't kill them, but it makes them forget all their other problems). Others have made the point that, once someone is made to be good (via StW or otherwise), then they won't want to be evil anymore, and will want to continue being good, even if the parts of their personality that originally made them evil are still there (and, arguably, the spell doesn't change personality apart from alignment).

2.) Good and Evil as forces don't get on well. But lots of good and evil people coexist all of the time, for the simple reason that most people don't realize their exact alignment (even if it is objectively verifiably, it's not mundanely verifiable, and can change in a relatively short period of time). Also, most people aren't one or the other by very much.

3.) Since most people aren't particularly evil or good, switching them to the opposite alignment may or may not be hugely noticeable. Take Johnny the local bartender. He's evil because he gets a kick out of abusing his employees, the occasional unwanted sexual contact (but nothing aside from aggressive harassment), and he gladly makes a living out of knowingly selling pathetic addicts booze at wholesale prices because it makes his business look more successful. He is selfish and conceited, crude and loutish, but all of this is rather pennies in the Big Bad World of D&D. He hurts people and enjoys it, and is minorly evil. Probably NE (N).

If we take Johnny and StW him, let's say he becomes NG for argument's sake. Now he's NG. He is selfish and conceited (because NG people can be this way too), but he feels bad about it sometimes. He hurts people (because people with bad habits don't lose them just because of an alignment change), but now he considers them bad habits, as opposed to a bit of fun. He may want to stop. Or maybe not. The good in him makes him feel repugnant, and the idea of StW is that he will value virtue enough and dislike evildoing enough to stick to being good. In D&D, being good is seductive (and hard work).

If Johnny is left to his own devices, his old habits and the harshness of real life might make him feel like his new virtue is a sham. Just like any good person, he can eventually slide into neutrality, and from there he's just a good bit of serial sexual harassment away from his old little league evil.

Of course, if the caster of StW pays attention, they can help the evil-addict avoid their evil ways and stay good. Alignments are more tendencies; while anyone's current alignment is objectively verifiable, it's always in flux; tomorrow, it may ping some other value. But, like all patterns of behavior, repeated actions become habits, and habits are hard to break. Both good and evil rely heavily on the difficult nature of change in real life. Small adjustments are easy, but major alignment changes require work.

Hmm. Rambled on quite a bit there. Now reflecting on whether I originally had a point or not.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-05, 01:15 PM

Page 119, "Redeeming Evil Magic Items.":smallwink:

And now my journey toward the good side is complete! My nipple clamps of exquisite pain can be a good thing! :smallbiggrin:

Or would that be Exquisite Joy? Either way, win!

Eldonauran

2014-03-05, 01:17 PM

Random supposition but I am guessing your play group doesn't try to wander very deep into the waters of moral ambiguity/dilemma outside of the niche narrative framework of the core rulebooks.

Your guess would be incorrect. We just don't allow our understanding of the D&D alignment system to be colored by the setting.

Loreweaver15

2014-03-05, 01:32 PM

You're right in that there is "something wrong" with it, but you're wrong in your claim as to what that is. What's wrong with it is that it is, as noted by others, somewhat schizophrenic about how it treats the idea of spiritual redemption. But there are a number of "how it works in their own campaign" options are just selections of which of those fluff examinations they choose to go with.

It is not "thoroughly evil" unless you interpret it one very specific way (which, as noted, is a flaw of the spell that you can interpret it that way).

But here, the Will save is all about whether or not you're persuaded to goodness. It's not mind-control; it's persuasion. Or is anybody who is converted to a new religion under evil mind control? Anybody who is persuaded to change their political views?

Is Rin brainwashing Seishoumaru in Inuyasha?

Let's look at how StW works for a second. You get a Will save--not to avoid a successful change, but to avoid the spell itself--and if you succeed on that, nothing happens. If you make your save, there is no conscience in your ear trying to persuade you to do good and failing; you just continue on your way. If you fail your save, however, it automatically converts you to good without fail. That's what I'm basing the mind control argument on; it's not a redemption spell, it's an insidious mind trap that changes your mind whether you're legitimately convinced or not, which means there is no convincing, only an outside force molding your brain into something it chooses.

I would have absolutely no problem with the spell if it just forced the character to confront themselves, and had a chance of going either way, but it doesn't; it either does nothing at all or auto-succeeds.

Augmental

2014-03-05, 01:34 PM

Of course, if the caster of StW pays attention, they can help the evil-addict avoid their evil ways and stay good.

That might be kind of difficult...

The creature retains the memory of having been trapped in the gem, and it regards the spell's caster as a hated enemy who must be destroyed at all costs.

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 01:39 PM

Let's look at how StW works for a second. You get a Will save--not to avoid a successful change, but to avoid the spell itself--and if you succeed on that, nothing happens. If you make your save, there is no conscience in your ear trying to persuade you to do good and failing; you just continue on your way. If you fail your save, however, it automatically converts you to good without fail. That's what I'm basing the mind control argument on; it's not a redemption spell, it's an insidious mind trap that changes your mind whether you're legitimately convinced or not, which means there is no convincing, only an outside force molding your brain into something it chooses.

I would have absolutely no problem with the spell if it just forced the character to confront themselves, and had a chance of going either way, but it doesn't; it either does nothing at all or auto-succeeds.

Plenty of spells auto-succeed at things that would otherwise be difficult.

The spell explicitly states that the target gets convinced. So your objection is that the spell is too convincing? It's too good at igniting the spark of good? That seems like a pretty lame argument considering all the other auto-success spells at high levels (and even some at lower spell levels). It's no different than using the redemption rules and auto-succeeding on the diplomacy checks -- and auto success on such things is certainly something an 8th level spell with a big sacrifice should be capable of.

In real life do you also object to therapy that works? If we knew enough to individually tailor therapy to the needs of the individual so it always worked, would you declare that mind control?

NotAnAardvark

2014-03-05, 01:40 PM

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 01:42 PM

That might be kind of difficult...

But that's only if they break out early. Am I wrong? *checks spell*

Yeah, that's all part of the clause if the gem is shattered early. A good creature emerging from the gem is good. That doesn't mean that they are flawless, and they will probably still have the personality elements that made them stray in the first place.

Remember, even with the sanctified template, alignment is just a tendency, not a straightjacket. If Johnny the Bartender was a weak-willed loser before the spell, he remains so after the spell (but now he has laser-eyes:smalltongue:).

EDIT: As written, Diplomacy probably should have the [Evil] tag.:smallwink:

Loreweaver15

2014-03-05, 02:00 PM

Plenty of spells auto-succeed at things that would otherwise be difficult.

The spell explicitly states that the target gets convinced. So your objection is that the spell is too convincing? It's too good at igniting the spark of good? That seems like a pretty lame argument considering all the other auto-success spells at high levels (and even some at lower spell levels). It's no different than using the redemption rules and auto-succeeding on the diplomacy checks -- and auto success on such things is certainly something an 8th level spell with a big sacrifice should be capable of.

In real life do you also object to therapy that works? If we knew enough to individually tailor therapy to the needs of the individual so it always worked, would you declare that mind control?

What therapist do you go to that reaches into your brain and forces you to make the choices they think are good for you?

All the ones I go to talk to me and try to lead me to a better place, but one where I choose to go.

Segev

2014-03-05, 02:05 PM

Let's look at how StW works for a second. You get a Will save--not to avoid a successful change, but to avoid the spell itself--and if you succeed on that, nothing happens. If you make your save, there is no conscience in your ear trying to persuade you to do good and failing; you just continue on your way. If you fail your save, however, it automatically converts you to good without fail. That's what I'm basing the mind control argument on; it's not a redemption spell, it's an insidious mind trap that changes your mind whether you're legitimately convinced or not, which means there is no convincing, only an outside force molding your brain into something it chooses.

I would have absolutely no problem with the spell if it just forced the character to confront themselves, and had a chance of going either way, but it doesn't; it either does nothing at all or auto-succeeds.That's all it does. The Will Save represents whether or not it works. Perhaps it's some sort of retroactive "I was not persuaded so the spell failed from the get-go" thing, or perhaps not, but the ultimate fact is that the "without fail" business is about the mechanics of the spell.

It's ultimately a game with rules doing their best to simulate certain things. The simulation in this case says "they are converted." At some point, such a determination must be made. Either it succeeds or fails.

Fluff it however you have to to make it not "evil mind control;" the mechanics are just that: mechanics to help determine success or failure of the end goal of changing a non-good person to good.

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 02:06 PM

What therapist do you go to that reaches into your brain and forces you to make the choices they think are good for you?

All the ones I go to talk to me and try to lead me to a better place, but one where I choose to go.

Maybe you should read the spell description again?

You seem to be broadcasting onto it what YOU want it to say so you can dislike it.

And if you are psychotic or have some other dangerous mental illness, the therapy takes a bit of a different tack. Naturally it is about getting the other person to be a willing participant in that, but the spell implies the same.

Again, this is no different from diplomacy.

NichG

2014-03-05, 02:27 PM

There's three standards here that are getting muddled:

- Is the ability/spell Evil or consistent with things ascribed to the Evil alignment?
- Is the ability/spell inconsistent with things ascribed to the Good alignment?
- Is the ability/spell inconsistent with things ascribed to BoED's 'exalted' status?

Something can be inconsistent with the standards of 'exalted' without going immediately to Evil. Something that, e.g., involves an imbalance of power being leveraged to coerce a conversion is perhaps not outright Evil, but its probably not 'exalted' in the sense of involving no compromise at all with any of the tenets of Good.

Good can sometimes be utilitarian and still maintain that alignment, but Exalted is explicitly not allowed to be.

I would say that conversion by successive Diplomacy checks when you clearly outclass the target is, while not necessarily Evil, probably inconsistent with 'exalted' status and possibly inconsistent with 'Good'. You are shooting a fly with a howitzer - whether you're using an actual sword or a force of will so strong that the universe does what you say, when you turn that on someone who has no ability to resist you then they have no real 'choice' in the matter.

The spell just makes it a lot more clear that there is no real choice, as it mechanically 'just works', always, without fail (once the soul is actually trapped, at least).

The thing that might 'save' Diplomacy is the argument that for characters in-universe, they're not aware they're using Diplomacy, they're just talking with the person like normal. In-character there's no concept of a 'skill check' or how Diplomacy has fixed DCs to make fanatics and things like that, so there's no way to be aware that there is something there that might be questionable.

The spell, however, leaves no doubt that a direct action is being taken to force a redemption, as it never fails.

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 02:33 PM

I would say that conversion by successive Diplomacy checks when you clearly outclass the target is, while not necessarily Evil, probably inconsistent with 'exalted' status and possibly inconsistent with 'Good'. You are shooting a fly with a howitzer - whether you're using an actual sword or a force of will so strong that the universe does what you say, when you turn that on someone who has no ability to resist you then they have no real 'choice' in the matter.

In all honesty I have to say that's idiotic.

That's like saying when stopping a villain from hurting someone, you need to give them a fighting chance to win....rather than, you know, just stopping them.

When talking someone down from killing someone, you have to purposefully not try your best because if you are too good at what you do then, that's not Exalted.

Pretty sure this is part of being Stupid Good, not Exalted.

Augmental

2014-03-05, 02:36 PM

That's all it does. The Will Save represents whether or not it works. Perhaps it's some sort of retroactive "I was not persuaded so the spell failed from the get-go" thing, or perhaps not, but the ultimate fact is that the "without fail" business is about the mechanics of the spell.

It's ultimately a game with rules doing their best to simulate certain things. The simulation in this case says "they are converted." At some point, such a determination must be made. Either it succeeds or fails.

Fluff it however you have to to make it not "evil mind control;" the mechanics are just that: mechanics to help determine success or failure of the end goal of changing a non-good person to good.

And there are lots of ways the mechanics could be changed to make it more sensible and less morally ambiguous. Involve diplomacy checks, have a sliding scale, etc.

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 02:43 PM

And there are lots of ways the mechanics could be changed to make it more sensible and less morally ambiguous. Involve diplomacy checks, have a sliding scale, etc.

Eh, why bother? An 8th level spell is perfectly capable of autosuccess on skill checks and other things.

The text is pretty clear the person inside is an active participant and changes through their own internal realizations.

Segev

2014-03-05, 02:43 PM

And there are lots of ways the mechanics could be changed to make it more sensible and less morally ambiguous. Involve diplomacy checks, have a sliding scale, etc.

Each of which eventually comes down to whether you roll high enough to succeed or fail.

You can say the mechanics model it poorly all you like, but the mechanics don't inherently make what they're modeling "evil."

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 02:45 PM

Eh, why bother? An 8th level spell is perfectly capable of autosuccess on skill checks and other things.

The text is pretty clear the person inside is an active participant and changes through their own internal realizations.

Nitpick: It's a 9th level spell. It's not really relevant, but you've said 8th a couple times now.

Pencil me in as neurotic.

Drachasor

2014-03-05, 02:47 PM

Nitpick: It's a 9th level spell. It's not really relevant, but you've said 8th a couple times now.

Pencil me in as neurotic.

Huh, me no read so goodz. :smallsigh:

Loreweaver15

2014-03-05, 02:49 PM

Each of which eventually comes down to whether you roll high enough to succeed or fail.

You can say the mechanics model it poorly all you like, but the mechanics don't inherently make what they're modeling "evil."

On the contrary, they failed to properly model a redemptive spell in such a way as to be, mechanically, an evil mind control spell. As modeled, it's an awful, intimate assault in no way related to anything just or appropriate.

You can mind-rape the villain to keep them from hurting people, sure, but there are much cleaner ways to do it, in that there are clean ways to do it.

NotAnAardvark

2014-03-05, 02:58 PM

Huh, me no read so goodz. :smallsigh:

I assumed you kept saying 8th to point out that lower level spells do it better or something to indicate the high success rate was necessary to keep it from being completely garbage.

On the contrary, they failed to properly model a redemptive spell in such a way as to be, mechanically, an evil mind control spell. As modeled, it's an awful, intimate assault in no way related to anything just or appropriate.

You can mind-rape the villain to keep them from hurting people, sure, but there are much cleaner ways to do it, in that there are clean ways to do it.

Just as long as you realize this interpretation is entirely homebrew. The spell says what t does and it says nothing about "assaulting" or "mindraping" anyone. The spell forces the villain to confront their evils and in a very Rosseau fashion the villain rediscovers their potential for good.

If you want to invent a new version of the spell that brainwashes the target into being your mindslave, more power to you. But it's not what the spell does.

Could it have been written or modeled better? Yes. Does the crunch not line up with the fluff as well as it should? Yes. Does that change what it does? No.

The beautiful thing about DnD is that fluff is malleable, so if you prefer the spell to be Good aligned Mindrape you certainly can!

hemming

2014-03-05, 03:03 PM

Character choices are all fluff

If your character wouldn't do it, don't do it - most RP decisions based on morality are based on the characters view, not the DMs view of alignment

But....If the DM needs to adjudicate for some reason and the rules don't provide an answer, respect that decision as long as they are consistent - if they are not consistent, players rights to call them out

Loreweaver15

2014-03-05, 03:06 PM

If the spell has a 100% success rate, no matter how vile or depraved the individual was, then what's it's doing is, logically, not merely forcing them to confront themselves, but automatically changing something about them, ie brainwashing them.

The fluff doesn't just not line up with the crunch, it's not even in the same area. I know it doesn't say anything about an assault, I'm not an idiot. What I'm saying is that what it does is an assault.

NotAnAardvark

2014-03-05, 03:10 PM

If the spell has a 100% success rate, no matter how vile or depraved the individual was, then what's it's doing is, logically, not merely forcing them to confront themselves, but automatically changing something about them, ie brainwashing them.

So now we're back to diplomacy mind control.

Also it doesn't have a 100% success rate. There's a will save.

I know it doesn't say anything about an assault, I'm not an idiot. What I'm saying is that what it does is an assault.
And I'm saying there's plenty to complain about with the spell in and of itself without having to worry about homebrew and personal refluffing.

NichG

2014-03-05, 03:11 PM

In all honesty I have to say that's idiotic.

That's like saying when stopping a villain from hurting someone, you need to give them a fighting chance to win....rather than, you know, just stopping them.

Not at all. Having the ability to choose who to be is distinct from having the ability to always succeed in one's aims. The former is generally called 'free will' (or a part of it). The later is not really called anything, because it's a strawman that never comes up.

When talking someone down from killing someone, you have to purposefully not try your best because if you are too good at what you do then, that's not Exalted.

Pretty sure this is part of being Stupid Good, not Exalted.

This is in essence the issue with high level characters being walking bastions of godlike power, and it can get pretty deep. If you, as a Lv20 character, decide to be street-corner-cop for Lv1 Town and use Diplomancy to make everyone into good citizens, solve all of their problems for them, etc, then there is something somewhat 'off' about it. Its not evil by any means. Its not even not-good.

But is it really the best way to respect those people's dignity as sentient creatures and their ability to choose and have meaningful lives? If you dismiss the concern out of hand, I'd say you aren't playing an exalted character. If you try to resolve that issue, take it seriously, etc, then even if your answer isn't perfect you can still be an exalted character.

Being an exalted character does mean questioning your own methods, asking how to wring out every last scrap of idealism from a situation.

Loreweaver15

2014-03-05, 03:14 PM

Also it doesn't have a 100% success rate. There's a will save.

Already addressed that; the Will save is for the spell to happen at all, not for the spell to happen and then succeed or fail to convince you.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-05, 03:19 PM

Look. The spell tilts your head back and makes you shotgun [Good] until you're shooting [Good] lasers from your eyes.

It's as morally ambiguous as Elysium, Celestia or Mechanus. It is a spell that draws the universal force of [Good] into a creature until [Good] is what they are.
The end.

Segev

2014-03-05, 03:21 PM

On the contrary, they failed to properly model a redemptive spell in such a way as to be, mechanically, an evil mind control spell. As modeled, it's an awful, intimate assault in no way related to anything just or appropriate.

You can mind-rape the villain to keep them from hurting people, sure, but there are much cleaner ways to do it, in that there are clean ways to do it.

Only by your chosen interpretation of the fluff, and willful disregard for any other interpretation.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 03:23 PM

But is it really the best way to respect those people's dignity as sentient creatures and their ability to choose and have meaningful lives? If you dismiss the concern out of hand, I'd say you aren't playing an exalted character. If you try to resolve that issue, take it seriously, etc, then even if your answer isn't perfect you can still be an exalted character.

Being an exalted character does mean questioning your own methods, asking how to wring out every last scrap of idealism from a situation.

This is the part that I think bears examining. The spell makes you good. Good people are perfectly free to decide that being good sucks and decide to be neutral or evil or whatever.

The spell grants an evil creature a chance to be a non-sucky good guy, something most evil creatures never, ever experience. There are benefits to being good, but most of them don't show up until way late in the game via normal redemption, especially for icons of evil that tend to run afoul of discrimination and other cruel realities of the unjust world (i.e., even if the orc is doing his best to be good, no one is likely to believe it right away).

Basically, it's like a moment in the shoes of a saint. If you like, fine, keep working at that virtue and goodness is your new life. If you don't like, well, guess what? Pazuzu is on line three.

Segev

2014-03-05, 03:50 PM

Pazuzu is on line three.

Pazuzu, you say?

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 03:54 PM

Pazuzu, you say?

And, of course, Wolfram & Hart would like to help you figure out just how much that despicable caster of sanctify the wicked owes you for in damages for your pain and suffering. They'll sue him so hard that hound archons will be showing up, saying those sweet words: "Settlement, please." Sign on the bottom line and they can put whole areas of the multiverse between yourself and that Sanctified Creature nonsense.

Just sayin'.:smallsmile:

Coidzor

2014-03-05, 04:08 PM

And yet I am sure that people who defend this spell will bitch and moan to high hell the minute something similar happens to force their character to act in any way shape or form that goes contrary to how their character should act.

It's all fun and game until it happens to you.

Well, yeah. Creating a new PC takes time and creating a new PC that the player cares about takes even more time and effort both in and out of play. NPCs are generally disposable.

Eh, why bother? An 8th level spell is perfectly capable of autosuccess on skill checks and other things.

The text is pretty clear the person inside is an active participant and changes through their own internal realizations.

Obviously they want Mindrape, Programmed Amnesia, and Sanctify the Wicked to be lower level spells.

I would say that conversion by successive Diplomacy checks when you clearly outclass the target is, while not necessarily Evil, probably inconsistent with 'exalted' status and possibly inconsistent with 'Good'. You are shooting a fly with a howitzer - whether you're using an actual sword or a force of will so strong that the universe does what you say, when you turn that on someone who has no ability to resist you then they have no real 'choice' in the matter.

What, cleaning up corruption and dens of iniquity ceases to be good as soon as one stops receiving XP for it? :smalltongue:

NichG

2014-03-05, 04:14 PM

This is the part that I think bears examining. The spell makes you good. Good people are perfectly free to decide that being good sucks and decide to be neutral or evil or whatever.

The spell grants an evil creature a chance to be a non-sucky good guy, something most evil creatures never, ever experience. There are benefits to being good, but most of them don't show up until way late in the game via normal redemption, especially for icons of evil that tend to run afoul of discrimination and other cruel realities of the unjust world (i.e., even if the orc is doing his best to be good, no one is likely to believe it right away).

Basically, it's like a moment in the shoes of a saint. If you like, fine, keep working at that virtue and goodness is your new life. If you don't like, well, guess what? Pazuzu is on line three.

I think most players would feel cheated if they StW'd a villain and then next session (1 year later...) he was back again, evil, and doing the same things he was doing before.

Granted, thats a player expectation issue, not a rules issue or morality issue, so it may not apply here at all.

Maybe the better way to put it is, how is StW functionally different than Atonement if this is the result? Atonement is the 'change the alignment of a willing target' spell, and what you're basically saying is that if the evil creature is unwilling to be good, it can just flip its alignment back to evil (so essentially someone who stays good after StW is effectively 'willing')

Coidzor

2014-03-05, 04:17 PM

This is the part that I think bears examining. The spell makes you good. Good people are perfectly free to decide that being good sucks and decide to be neutral or evil or whatever.

The spell grants an evil creature a chance to be a non-sucky good guy, something most evil creatures never, ever experience. There are benefits to being good, but most of them don't show up until way late in the game via normal redemption, especially for icons of evil that tend to run afoul of discrimination and other cruel realities of the unjust world (i.e., even if the orc is doing his best to be good, no one is likely to believe it right away).

Basically, it's like a moment in the shoes of a saint. If you like, fine, keep working at that virtue and goodness is your new life. If you don't like, well, guess what? Pazuzu is on line three.

Just ban the spell if that's going to be your interpretation of it and ban all other ability to change alignment save for atonement. ...Or at least vastly decrease the level to like... 3rd or 4th at most and get rid of the level loss.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 04:29 PM

Coidzor

2014-03-05, 04:37 PM

Alas, so the spell is either unacceptably too effective, or it doesn't do anything and we should toss it. I suppose that view is fine.

Frankly, if Johnny the Bartender wasn't convinced to give up his philandering ways by eye-lasers, he was probably a lost cause. Just because something isn't effective, doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying. That is the true meaning of goodness, after all. Do stuff on principle, not on results.

Unacceptably too effective for a 9th level spell that eats a level? When a 4K item does the same job and the equivalents are either strictly better and free or potentially reversible but with much more ability and an insignificant gold cost? :smalltongue:

It takes more than having casual sex to make someone evil. :smalltongue:

By the way, the Sanctified Creature template unambiguously notes that the creature can revert to evil. So this isn't really my view, it's actually how it works.

Alignment being capable of change =/= "Oh, I can just decide I don't like having the template and revert immediately." That's just saying that they still have whatever semblance of free will any other creature has to gradually drift in their alignment or shift dramatically in response to a dramatic stimulus.

olentu

2014-03-05, 04:43 PM

I think it intends that there's a spark of goodness in all creatures that's part of some kind of Rousseau was right interpretation of personhood and that it may or may not just straight up create such a thing and then between guilt-tripping and nagging their alignment is changed and they're redeemed and they view the prospect of being evil again as ultimately abhorrent just like any other Good person would when confronted with the thought of doing Evil things like eating babies.

I also think that the writing of the spell is a horrible hodge-podge of 5-8 different interpretations of what's happening and what moral framework the universe is operating under and that it manages to include a statement about hating the caster of the spell regardless of whether they're successfully sanctified or not when they clearly intended for it to be a statement of the subject's unmitigated hatred for the caster if they're sprung prematurely.

So the biggest problem with the spell is that one is entirely justified in picking an interpretation and going with it rather than acknowledging that it's schizophrenic/frankensteinian/internally-mismatched, and, indeed, running the game and using it would basically require one to Pick One.

I don't normally think about the spell all that much, since it's one that I wouldn't actually use in game without re-writing the mechanics with at least some of my earlier suggestions and making the fluff consistent.

So yeah it's both re-writing the subject's personality while irresistibly also nagging them into being good.

I just don't view "Good people aren't the kind of people who want to eat babies randomly" as "alignment is a straitjacket," so much as people generally being internally consistent unless they're under some kind of stress that would cause them to be otherwise.

Even if that was their intention the creature has already chosen to ignore that spark of goodness in the past based on its personality and so the personality must be changed by the spell or else the creature would do the same in the future. Or alternatively alignment is a straitjacket and that is why the creature can no longer do evil. Or I suppose the spell may just do nothing if the creature's personality is unchanged and actions are unrestricted by the chains of alignment so they can go back to doing all the evil they want.

Well yeah, it is no surprise that the spell is horribly written. Just look at the book it is in.

Personally I don't find it a problem that one interpretation needs to be picked. That kind of thing happens from time to time. My problem is that the spell is so written as to tempt people into picking the alignment as a straitjacket interpretation.

I don't see how alignment as a straitjacket necessarily requires characters that are not internally consistent. It just means that what a character would otherwise have chosen based on personality can be vetoed by the character's alignment. The only difference between that and another character that has to fight against some sort of evil impulses is that the alignment is the one that is suppressing things. Sure it is a terrible thing and one that goes against the description of alignment in the PHB but it would seem consistent.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 04:46 PM

Unacceptably too effective for a 9th level spell that eats a level? When a 4K item does the same job and the equivalents are either strictly better and free or potentially reversible but with much more ability and an insignificant gold cost? :smalltongue:

It takes more than having casual sex to make someone evil. :smalltongue:

Alignment being capable of change =/= "Oh, I can just decide I don't like having the template and revert immediately." That's just saying that they still have whatever semblance of free will any other creature has to gradually drift in their alignment or shift dramatically in response to a dramatic stimulus.

Nevertheless, the template does say that sanctified creatures can lose the template and become evil or whatever. If a person is inclined toward evil due to whatever (totally different discussion), the spell doesn't fix that.

Fact: The dragon enjoys the taste of manflesh. He also happens to be evil, and so this doesn't bother him.

Apply StW: The dragon enjoys the taste of manflesh. He is good, so this bothers him.

Whether the dragon is bothered enough by his new alignment to stay away from the manflesh is down to role play, like so many alignment issues.

All seems perfectly in line with the spell. Good people can find appeal in evil deeds (that's pretty much how evil works...it's often appealing). Good, on the other hand, works by not caring about the appeal and sticking to its guns. That doesn't mean good is immune to evil, whether it came about by StW or otherwise.

pwykersotz

2014-03-05, 04:50 PM

But is it really the best way to respect those people's dignity as sentient creatures and their ability to choose and have meaningful lives?

Yes. Yes it is. Pick your alignment. Any class. Level 20. Use a custom +30 Diplomacy item and every other bonus you have. There is nothing that contradicts your chosen alignment for using Diplomacy to influence others to be more like you. It may be a waste of your potential, but it does not disrespect people in the way you imagine.

Part of life is thinking and social interaction. Just because someone who believes in Solar Power (heh) and has a TON of evidence to back up why it is beneficial and provides no counterpoints to undermine his own argument has convinced a whole town to buy into it does not make him evil, good, or anything.

A 100% conversion rate does not imply evil, or any other alignment. It implies that the fundamental forces of the universe that try to affect all mortals are extremely powerful. Which they are. Using something which has only a non-zero chance of failure is the same thing, it implies you are more committed to your own causes and can sway weaker minds.

NichG

2014-03-05, 04:56 PM

So clearly there's a problem somewhere in the spell, be it the fluff, mechanics, whatever. Lets try to rewrite it to be both effective and less ambiguous and see what we get.

How about this for a first try:

Sanctify the Wicked [Good]
Sanctified 9
Sacrifice: 1 level
etc, etc

When cast, this spell captures the target's soul and puts its fate into its own hands. The major effect of this spell is that upon the death of the target, its soul will now go to the afterlife corresponding to its alignment, and cannot be seized up by/claimed by their deity as normal (at least at the moment of death - it does not preclude 'rescue operations' and the like).

As part of this process, the target's soul is sealed into a gem for a period of one year. The interior of the gem emulates the afterlife that the target would experience given their current alignment - they are, in effect, killed and sent to a faux version of the afterlife. However, rather than suffering/living in that environment for eternity, the target is given a choice for however long they remain in the gem. At any point, they may choose to alter their alignment and outlook towards the alignment of the caster (on both the moral and ethical axes). If they do so, the afterlife they experience in the gem changes correspondingly, as does the afterlife to which they will eventually go.

The target is made fully aware of the new status of its soul and so on.

If the gem is shattered before the year is up, then the target's soul regains its normal fate, whatever that might be.

There is a template associated with the 'alignment-destined' status of the sanctified soul which the creature gains, and which can be manipulated through the normal methods that interact with templates. It can also shoot good-lasers out of its eyes, because we all know thats the real reason for this spell.

Tl;dr - new version sends the target to a microcosm of its alignment-afterlife, and it can choose to change alignments towards the caster's to change its eternal reward. The change is binding, affects personality, affects afterlife destination, and is voluntary.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 05:01 PM

Tl;dr - new version sends the target to a microcosm of its alignment-afterlife, and it can choose to change alignments towards the caster's to change its eternal reward. The change is binding, affects personality, affects afterlife destination, and is voluntary.

Except evil people aren't going to like the heavenly afterlife; it's a reward for good people, why should they? Heck, I'm NG, and I don't even much care for the good afterlife. Afterlife sucks, only in less concentration and over infinitely more time than life sucks. (Still a big fan of life.)

The evil afterlife has more appeal to evil people. Sure, it sucks, but if you can suck it harder, there's a chance to be whatever you want. Lol, yeah, the odds are terrible, but Pride is chief among sins of the evil. They want a chance to piss on Asmodeus and prove that no evil is evil the way they evil.

EDIT: Otherwise, nice try. And total kudos for the effort, too; the rest of us just like debating, not fixing things. Much too practical.

Brookshw

2014-03-05, 05:28 PM

As someone who is in college to research moral philosophy, I'd appreciate it if you find this important.

I'm going to give you a different piece of feedback than what you've asked for. As someone who went to college especially interested in Moral and Ethical philosophy I learned very clearly that it's a varied subject, as this thread demonstrates, there's no quantifiable way to prove anything in it, and frankly, there's no job market for it after you leave. I could go on about this but doing so isn't of much value I expect.

Make that a minor and find a different major. I wish I had.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 05:32 PM

*casts bigby's invisible hand of the market*

Aw, let's not crush hopes and dreams. After all, a gainful employment is only one of many valuable outcomes that one might want after paying exorbitantly for the privilege of doing hard work and research and the resulting important piece of paper.:smallsmile:

Shining Wrath

2014-03-05, 05:35 PM

Segev

2014-03-05, 05:38 PM

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 05:55 PM

I'm personally more of a fan of the afterlife that promises you an eternity with your loved ones and eternal progression towards Godhood and ever-increasing potential beyond even that.

But that's me.

RAW citation? Does one of them actually work like that? Most petitioners are pretty much just petitioners until someone else decides otherwise. There was an entire other thread devoted to this very matter....

Plus, loved ones? So the evil guy gets to spend an eternity with...himself? Or, dear gods, with his loving parents?

Brookshw

2014-03-05, 05:58 PM

Aw, let's not crush hopes and dreams. After all, a gainful employment is only one of many valuable outcomes that one might want after paying exorbitantly for the privilege of doing hard work and research and the resulting important piece of paper.:smallsmile:

Oh its a very interesting field to study, I fully support that. Don't make it a sole focus though. Also there's something to be said for incessant arguing with people while there's no real way to establish what may be correct. the internet.

Coidzor

2014-03-05, 06:04 PM

RAW citation? Does one of them actually work like that? Most petitioners are pretty much just petitioners until someone else decides otherwise. There was an entire other thread devoted to this very matter....

Plus, loved ones? So the evil guy gets to spend an eternity with...himself? Or, dear gods, with his loving parents?

The very nature of petitioners makes most D&D Afterlives a fate worse than death, which is fitting since they're a fate after death.

Hanuman

2014-03-05, 06:04 PM

I consider hamispence (sp?) my authority for morality rules on the playground.

@OP
It's not an evil act, same as smite evil is not an evil act, but by using smite evil on anything you see you are enabling a judgement that one way of life is worthless, and in turn this spell judges that one's experience is without worth. The growth that allows a creature to come out of it is not needed... this is very grey.

Mind you this game is designed to begin play around age 10-14 so to expect children to understand these concepts, let alone all the kinds of personalities DnD draws in general is pretty far reaching.. so it's best to call it "blurry" and leave it at that.

Coidzor

2014-03-05, 06:06 PM

Do the ends justify the means?

Sanctify the Wicked is not pleasant.

Let's use the old rule of "treat other people as you would like to be treated", and let me ask you a question: Would you want to undergo StW if it made you a much better person in the end?

Nothing is pleasant if such is really going to come up. XD By the time 9th level spells are being cast at hostiles, pleasant has had time to get all the way out to the Oort Cloud at a snail's pace.

NichG

2014-03-05, 07:21 PM

Except evil people aren't going to like the heavenly afterlife; it's a reward for good people, why should they? Heck, I'm NG, and I don't even much care for the good afterlife. Afterlife sucks, only in less concentration and over infinitely more time than life sucks. (Still a big fan of life.)

The evil afterlife has more appeal to evil people. Sure, it sucks, but if you can suck it harder, there's a chance to be whatever you want. Lol, yeah, the odds are terrible, but Pride is chief among sins of the evil. They want a chance to piss on Asmodeus and prove that no evil is evil the way they evil.

Well thats the thing, right? If the spell is to actually allow freedom of choice, it has to actually allow freedom of choice. If the person truly wants to be evil deep down, and feels that it is the correct decision, then something that changes that 'deep nature' is going to raise all of the objections that the original StW did.

If, however, you believe that there is actually something fundamentally better about Good and that people who are Evil are just deluded (which is what the fluff of the original StW spell suggests) then you have to have some faith that actually showing people and making them fully aware of the consequences of their decisions would naturally redeem them.

Otherwise, you're going to have the 'aww, but I liked being evil. Well, screw you, Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu!' response, which neuters the spell.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-05, 08:44 PM

Do the ends justify the means?

In real life? Not usually, almost never really.

In D&D? Depends on your ends and your means.

Sanctify the Wicked is not pleasant.

I have never said otherwise. It is not pleasant, The caster shears off a piece of their own soul, obliterates the body of the target, trapping their mind and soul in a place where they will be faced with the worst of themselves while the best parts of themselves are nurtured and grown to allow them to see exactly how bad they've been.

After a year that might seem like an eternity, the imprisoned soul is released, their body reconstructed into a newer, arguably better form and they are given a new lease on life and a chance to be better than they were.

VERY not pleasant. But from at least a few points of view in the D&D universe, at least sometimes worth it.

Let's use the old rule of "treat other people as you would like to be treated", and let me ask you a question: Would you want to undergo StW if it made you a much better person in the end?

Truthfully? Maybe. I've never thought I was all that great a person, that often bothers me, if a year of concentrated contrition had a guaranteed 100% chance to make me a good person? I think I'd go for it.

Plus; EYE LASERS!!!!:smallbiggrin:

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 08:54 PM

Well thats the thing, right? If the spell is to actually allow freedom of choice, it has to actually allow freedom of choice. If the person truly wants to be evil deep down, and feels that it is the correct decision, then something that changes that 'deep nature' is going to raise all of the objections that the original StW did.

If, however, you believe that there is actually something fundamentally better about Good and that people who are Evil are just deluded (which is what the fluff of the original StW spell suggests) then you have to have some faith that actually showing people and making them fully aware of the consequences of their decisions would naturally redeem them.

Otherwise, you're going to have the 'aww, but I liked being evil. Well, screw you, Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu!' response, which neuters the spell.

Honestly, I wasn't serious about the Pazuzu bit. Clearly, I left my blue ink at home. My point was only to point out that the rules are abundantly full of ways for anyone, from a saint to Johnny the Bartender, from the king to the begger, to become evil in record time. Or there is a more long route.

Frankly, I find any suggestion that the newly good person is somehow totally unable to revert to evil way more offensive than the idea that they were forced to be good. It's totally a spell that just forces the bad guy to try on the good guy hat for a bit. It's not a life sentence to being good; and a good guy wouldn't want that life sentence imposed. Once BBEG has tried out the "Love and Peace" route, if it's not for them, well that's okay. Can't save 'em all.

The good guy is free to keep trying or to shore up the StW with mundane therapy, but if the alcoholic bad guy won't accept salvation, the good guy is well within rights to send him to hell with a sword in his back. The point about saving people is to have tried your best, not to have ultimately forced your will on them.

Again, the (poorly written) RAW pretty much supports what I just said. Sanctified Creature template says nothing about preventing the person from going back to evil, and says that, if they do, they lose the template (strongly implying that it does happen). Once the template is lost, the entire effect of StW is now just the alignment change, and nowhere in the spell does it say that the alignment change is irrevocable. It would ofc be a douche move by a DM to charge a player a level and have the BBEG revert immediately, but the player should be made aware in advance that alignment changes are never permanent, and unless you help that newly sanctified creature, they still face a very rocky road and can totally end up back where they started. (Which I believe is all spelled out in the redemption section of the rules in BoED, anyway.)

tl/dr: The RAW of the spell is already neutered. Alignment changes are not permanent and can't really be enforced (at least without evil means). The spell gives an evil person a chance to be good. Nothing more. (Aside from laser-eyes.):smallsmile:

NichG

2014-03-05, 09:12 PM

Frankly, I find any suggestion that the newly good person is somehow totally unable to revert to evil way more offensive than the idea that they were forced to be good. It's totally a spell that just forces the bad guy to try on the good guy hat for a bit. It's not a life sentence to being good; and a good guy wouldn't want that life sentence imposed. Once BBEG has tried out the "Love and Peace" route, if it's not for them, well that's okay. Can't save 'em all.

This is, I think, the core of the debate. Whether or not the good guy actually does want a life sentence imposed (or rather, whether imposing that life sentence is exalted, good, or non-good).

In that sense, there's tension between the spell being mechanically effective in the sense of 'its just an alignment change in name only' and being thematically exalted. If its 'too effective' then its basically a life sentence and there's a bit of horror associated with the idea of it. If its too ineffective then its not objectionable, but its kind of a let-down mechanically. So thats the challenge of writing it 'right'.

Sanctified Creature template says nothing about preventing the person from going back to evil, and says that, if they do, they lose the template (strongly implying that it does happen). Once the template is lost, the entire effect of StW is now just the alignment change, and nowhere in the spell does it say that the alignment change is irrevocable. It would ofc be a douche move by a DM to charge a player a level and have the BBEG revert immediately, but the player should be made aware in advance that alignment changes are never permanent, and unless you help that newly sanctified creature, they still face a very rocky road and can totally end up back where they started. (Which I believe is all spelled out in the redemption section of the rules in BoED, anyway.)

This comes down to 'what does a spell that forcibly changes a creature's alignment do to their personality' which isn't a mechanical question, but its still a question that really does need to be addressed to understand the spell I think.

If all it does is flip the alignment flag on the creature but their persona and behavior are unaffected, then there's nothing morally objectionable but the spell is kind of toothless. If it also alters the personality, thats where the objections start.

Coidzor

2014-03-05, 09:15 PM

This is, I think, the core of the debate. Whether or not the good guy actually does want a life sentence imposed (or rather, whether imposing that life sentence is exalted, good, or non-good).

In that sense, there's tension between the spell being mechanically effective in the sense of 'its just an alignment change in name only' and being thematically exalted. If its 'too effective' then its basically a life sentence and there's a bit of horror associated with the idea of it. If its too ineffective then its not objectionable, but its kind of a let-down mechanically. So thats the challenge of writing it 'right'.

There's gotta be some kind of middle ground between never changing alignment again and going "Nah, I don't like my alignment not being Evil, Pazuzu time" 6 seconds after getting out of the damned gem in the first place.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-05, 09:23 PM

If all it does is flip the alignment flag on the creature but their persona and behavior are unaffected, then there's nothing morally objectionable but the spell is kind of toothless. If it also alters the personality, thats where the objections start.

I agree with much of what you just said. That said, the diehard exalted caster that is tossing away levels for 9th-level sanctified stuff should be aware that being exalted is often about being "toothless." The fight is hard, evil is generally more effective, faster, and better by many measures, and life sucks even if you are a saint (though you may find ample joy amid the suck...take that, life!). The DM should reward this commitment, but should not, under any circumstances, make it seem like auto-win time; a good commitment to converting someone, StW or mundane, should be given decent chances of success based on how much role play work the player puts into it and the underlying evil-tendencies of the soul in question. The benefit of StW is that it gives the evil person actual proof that being good is a thing, even for them, and that it has some benefits (eye-lasers and...well, love and peace and stuff). Mundane conversion is pretty much just conjecture and convincing the evil guy you aren't totally making stuff up.

Of course, mechanically the spell is also totally expensive, rather inefficient time-wise, poorly written, and not even foolproof. It's a plot device, not a way to accomplish something concrete, 99% of the time. Let's not look for the good version of mindrape here (there isn't one...that's the point of mindrape); if the toolbox of the good were that neat, evil would lose a lot of its shine.

Anyway, I think that sums up my final position. Mindrape>> StW, but StW still [Good]. Just not flawless.

Augmental

2014-03-05, 10:00 PM

The benefit of StW is that it gives the evil person actual proof that being good is a thing, even for them, and that it has some benefits (eye-lasers and...well, love and peace and stuff).

What if you used StW on a beholder?

MadGreenSon

2014-03-05, 10:02 PM

What if you used StW on a beholder?

It would be a Good Beholder and have more eye lasers?

I think I just found my net character concept! :smallbiggrin:

olentu

2014-03-05, 10:15 PM

It would be a Good Beholder and have more eye lasers?

I think I just found my net character concept! :smallbiggrin:

I think it might be less eye lasers. As I recall a sanctified creature loses all spell-like and supernatural abilities.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-05, 10:38 PM

I think it might be less eye lasers. As I recall a sanctified creature loses all spell-like and supernatural abilities.

You're right! That's even better, it clears the way to be a Beholder Mage!:smallcool:

EDIT: considering that the Antimagic central eye would be disabled I don't think you'd even need to do the normal self mutilation to get started as a Beholder Mage.

LG Sanctified Beholder: Beholder Mage 5/Celestial Mystic 10

That'll mess with some heads. :smallbiggrin:

rmnimoc

2014-03-05, 10:54 PM

Let's use the old rule of "treat other people as you would like to be treated", and let me ask you a question: Would you want to undergo StW if it made you a much better person in the end?

In a heartbeat. It may hurt, but I think it's worth it. Being [Good] is good, and if there were some magic way that made it any easier at all with little to no effort on my part (aside from the year of confinement and pain) I'd take it. Instantly, few questions asked. Also, I'll be able to shoot freaking lasers from my freaking eyes. I GET EYE-LASERS! I can't guarantee that if someone offered me eye-lasers in exchange for getting mind-raped into [Evil] I'd say no. If you offered me eye lasers, but in exchange I'd have to turn into some eldritch horror with tentacles and angles that made no sense, I'd probably still say yes. Say it with me:

"I can shoot laserbeams out of my eyes." I was going to go on a rather long rant on how awesome that is, but I figured no one needed to be told how freaking awesome it would be to shoot freaking lasers out of their freaking eyes!!!!!!!!

Totally worth it. The whole "alignment change to good" is just icing on the laserbeam eye cake.

--------

I also view StW as a Lawful spell (not really a good one). I've played plenty of Paladins, Paladin-like Clerics, and Paladin-like whatevers, and any time I play a true [Good] character, I prefer to not kill someone given the choice. If StW has a good chance of ending the threat with minimal loss of life, then it is worth it. Personally, I'd use StW nearly every chance I get. On the same note however, I'd also try to get an atonement cast on me every time I've got a chance. I disagree with StW being a spell that makes you a better person just for casting it (though you might be able to argue that by doing so you are literally increasing the actual physical amount of good in the world, thereby making you responsible for making the world a better place, but I won't argue that). My groups almost always houserule it as a LLLG spell. Any good in it is totally overshadowed by some singlely LAWFUL it is.

If I can, anything evil gets Sanctified. If it converts back to evil, I sanctify it again. Then I kill it before it can reconvert to evil. Then I go see a cleric for atonement and spend a bit of time feeling deep remorse for my actions. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let evil continue to exist without doing everything in my power to stop it. If that everything includes a way to literally purge the evil from something, that is now my go to spell. Whenever I play a good character, I also make it a point to descend to the abyss and kill at least one demon for every evil creature I've slain, to ensure that my actions didn't shift the balance in their favor.

So in closing, cast StW on me already so I get laser-eyebeams of pure incorruptible goodness.

Drachasor

2014-03-06, 12:26 AM

Do the ends justify the means?

If we mean that in a very literally sense, where a given ends can be used to justify a narrow spectrum of means to reach it...then I'd say yes. Obviously a given ends doesn't justify ANY means though.

But locking people up is bad, right? Yet it is ok to lock them up if they'd hurt other people. In some cases we lock them up even if they won't hurt other people but did hurt other people in the past.

In a lot of cases you'll find that a given ends does indeed justify certain means to reach it. You'd be hard-pressed to actually run a civilization without allowing for this.

Let's use the old rule of "treat other people as you would like to be treated", and let me ask you a question: Would you want to undergo StW if it made you a much better person in the end?

You've obviously never seriously considered how to responsibly handle great power in a D&D setting. Or how to responsibly handle having 3 wishes. From a simulationist point of view anyhow. The initial process should always be to change yourself so you can handle such power responsibly.

It's just too bad you can't Sanctify a good character.

rmnimoc

2014-03-06, 12:46 AM

If we mean that in a very literally sense, where a given ends can be used to justify a narrow spectrum of means to reach it...then I'd say yes. Obviously a given ends doesn't justify ANY means though.

But locking people up is bad, right? Yet it is ok to lock them up if they'd hurt other people. In some cases we lock them up even if they won't hurt other people but did hurt other people in the past.

In a lot of cases you'll find that a given ends does indeed justify certain means to reach it. You'd be hard-pressed to actually run a civilization without allowing for this.

You've obviously never seriously considered how to responsibly handle great power in a D&D setting. Or how to responsibly handle having 3 wishes. From a simulationist point of view anyhow. The initial process should always be to change yourself so you can handle such power responsibly.

It's just too bad you can't Sanctify a good character.

Solution:
As part of your training to learn StW you have to put on a helm of opposite alignment and then get StW'ed.

Because moral responsibility.

Also, eyebeams.

Drachasor

2014-03-06, 12:49 AM

Solution:
As part of your training to learn StW you have to put on a helm of opposite alignment and then get StW'ed.

Because moral responsibility.

Also, eyebeams.

I am wary of any plan that involves turning yourself evil as a intermediate step.

On the other hand...eyebeams...

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-06, 12:49 AM

Solution:
As part of your training to learn StW you have to put on a helm of opposite alignment and then get StW'ed.

Because moral responsibility.

Also, eyebeams.

Whoa. You just blew my mind.

Coidzor

2014-03-06, 01:15 AM

I am wary of any plan that involves turning yourself evil as a intermediate step.

On the other hand...eyebeams...

Whereas I'm wary of any plan that involves potentially becoming an NPC, no matter how temporary that state is.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-06, 01:17 AM

Whereas I'm wary of any plan that involves potentially becoming an NPC, no matter how temporary that state is.

Dead people are npcs. Good thing that is such a temporary state in D&D lol.

NichG

2014-03-06, 02:18 AM

There's gotta be some kind of middle ground between never changing alignment again and going "Nah, I don't like my alignment not being Evil, Pazuzu time" 6 seconds after getting out of the damned gem in the first place.

Yeah, thats what I was trying for in my rewrite of the spell. The target has a choice. The target suffers an effect regardless of their choice. The effect does not remove their free will, but it does inform them of exactly the consequences of their choice.

Rather than strip away will, it strips away self-delusion. If the being that's left is still Evil, its because they decided to accept the consequences of that.

In a lot of cases you'll find that a given ends does indeed justify certain means to reach it. You'd be hard-pressed to actually run a civilization without allowing for this.

BoED, for better or worse, is actually pretty explicit on this. An evil act for a good cause is exactly as evil as an evil act for no cause - by RAW, the alignment effects are associated with the act, not the intent or consequences.

Not saying that's good, bad, workable, or not - just something to keep in mind when distinguishing D&D alignment from other moral systems.

Yukitsu

2014-03-06, 02:26 AM

Drachasor

2014-03-06, 03:13 AM

BoED, for better or worse, is actually pretty explicit on this. An evil act for a good cause is exactly as evil as an evil act for no cause - by RAW, the alignment effects are associated with the act, not the intent or consequences.

Not saying that's good, bad, workable, or not - just something to keep in mind when distinguishing D&D alignment from other moral systems.

Pretty sure they say it can be justified, but the act itself is still evil. That doesn't mean that good characters can't do it. That doesn't mean it isn't the best option either. It just means that Exalted Characters can't. Big difference.

It's not like Utilitarianism says killing a kid to save a billion people is awesome. It just says that if it is the only option, then that's the one you are morally obligated to take.

And D&D has a bit more of a complicated ethical system. It's not like any traditional one per say. Killing a baby unknowingly is evil, but won't make you fall for instance. So it is not a deontological precisely, since an act can be bad even if you (as best you know) are acting correctly. Though you don't get hit with the negative karma (so to speak).

I general I think it is actually easier to parse it in Consequentialist terms. Killing people is bad. Saving people is good. If the end result is saving a bunch of people and that's better than the other options, then it is fair to say good won. Then you add a bit of a focused view on the individual and whether the steps in the action were good or bad. End result might be ok, but you can still get hit of a step was evil -- due to Evil and Good being real things in D&D.

And of course even in a consequentialist system you still need to judge individuals a separately to some extent. A person being good or bad is a different thing than their acts being good or bad. I think this works much better in D&D than other views as far as determining alignment goes. Intent matters in alignment a lot more than it does in judging acts (for an incompetent or misguided evil person might end up doing great good frequently, but that doesn't make them good or trustworthy).

All the ones with pills, which is the majority of them.

Technically therapists don't have pills, since they are psychologists in one form or another. A Psychiatrist would have pills. And certainly medication for a neurochemical issue in the brain can be a really good thing.

Again, for Sanctify the Wicked targets would should be thinking of people like Jack the Ripper, Stalin, etc. It is not "somewhat unscrupulous shopkeeper."

In real life you can have brain issues that really are a dominant factor in how you behave. D&D, judging by the existence of really evil and really good matter and forces, isn't different here. Cleaning that up and giving therapy at the same time seems pretty sensible.

Whereas I'm wary of any plan that involves potentially becoming an NPC, no matter how temporary that state is.

That too.

SiuiS

2014-03-06, 03:23 AM

I would also like to add that nothing makes any single one of these forces objectively right. You are, in fact, allowed to argue with Angels.

We've done that! We had a DM who decides the entire plot of the game was that good and evil were forbidden from being able to act in the world but evil somehow found a loophole. The angels asked our help (both paladins) and the straight paladin, who was played by a Christian rhetorical philosopher with a degree in some form of debatery just ripped that angel (and DM) apart. XD

I don't think D&D assumes the existence of Free Will. But beyond that...
I don't see how Chaos embraces the idea of "Free Will" in D&D. They might claim self-determination, but certainly CN forces aren't going to like a bunch of people choosing to live in an orderly society or even choosing to live their own lives in a highly ordered manner.

Sure they will! But respect != leave be.

As an allegory, celestial lions exist. They are intelligent. They are good. They survive by killing and eating other intelligent and good creatures (celestial fauna). They can respect the sanctity of life but still hunt.

The same freedom that a CN tribe respects that allows for others to be LN also allows for them to attack. Respect is not demonizing. Respecting your enemy doesn't mean you won't kill them. Everyone is free! Freedom is consequence. If you choose to be a sedentary town of order and law, the consequence is you're an easy target and an ideological target. If you're a tribe of CN marauders,the consequence is lacking the infrastructure and stability of a lawful society.

TypoNinja

2014-03-06, 03:32 AM

As soon as you embody or personify abstract forces like Good or Chaos free will goes out the window.

Free will means you get to choose not to side with them, and all of them think that's undesirable.

Remember there is a distinction between the people ascribing to moral or philosophical qualities, and the embodiment of that quality. The individual practice of a given quality is usually heavily diluted.

Good people support free will because the opposite is tyranny. But Good as an elemental force doesn't oppose tyranny if that tyranny is imposing Good ideals.

If Good and free will were inherently linked they'd sit back and do nothing about Evil because that's Evils choice.

NichG

2014-03-06, 04:43 AM

Pretty sure they say it can be justified, but the act itself is still evil. That doesn't mean that good characters can't do it. That doesn't mean it isn't the best option either. It just means that Exalted Characters can't. Big difference.

Yes, as I said there are three questions as to the controversy of StW:

- Is it evil?
- Is it non-good?
- Is it non-exalted?

I think its a consistent conclusion to say that an Exalted character should never use the spell as written, or that there may be many (most) situations in which it would be inappropriate for them to do so.

Is it non-good is a narrower line. I think it can be argued though, that again in many situations it may be non-good (this doesn't mean its evil, just that it should not automatically make you a more good-aligned person to use it). This fails under the 'concern dignity of sentient beings' heading because while 'having concern' isn't a proscription against violating that dignity ever, it does mean that violating that dignity without reasonable cause and appropriate proportion (e.g. disregarding it for expediency) would be non-good.

Is it evil? That's the hardest standard to argue in this case. I would say that use out of proportion is definitely an evil act - trapping Jimmy the Money-lender's soul in a gem for a year of constant psychological torture to make him a better person against his will is evil, even if he himself was sufficiently greedy to qualify as a target. This goes under the whole 'oppressing' aspect of Evil (as per the D&D definition) - exerting your power over someone just because you can is evil, even if there may be a small amount of good done on the side.

Using it proportionately and sensibly (redeem the king of a country who otherwise would run it into the ground) is probably not evil under D&D standards though.

It's not like Utilitarianism says killing a kid to save a billion people is awesome. It just says that if it is the only option, then that's the one you are morally obligated to take.

And D&D has a bit more of a complicated ethical system. It's not like any traditional one per say. Killing a baby unknowingly is evil, but won't make you fall for instance. So it is not a deontological precisely, since an act can be bad even if you (as best you know) are acting correctly. Though you don't get hit with the negative karma (so to speak).

I general I think it is actually easier to parse it in Consequentialist terms. Killing people is bad. Saving people is good. If the end result is saving a bunch of people and that's better than the other options, then it is fair to say good won. Then you add a bit of a focused view on the individual and whether the steps in the action were good or bad. End result might be ok, but you can still get hit of a step was evil -- due to Evil and Good being real things in D&D.

And of course even in a consequentialist system you still need to judge individuals a separately to some extent. A person being good or bad is a different thing than their acts being good or bad. I think this works much better in D&D than other views as far as determining alignment goes. Intent matters in alignment a lot more than it does in judging acts (for an incompetent or misguided evil person might end up doing great good frequently, but that doesn't make them good or trustworthy).

I think its probably a mistake to try to map real-world schools of philosophical thought onto the alignment system. Since we're talking about analyzing something as-written, there is a frequently made mistake that the system must be usable, reasonable, and make sense. But any static set of things written can have flaws, and those flaws are as much part of it as the parts that might make sense.

'This makes no sense' is actually a valid outcome.

In any event, D&D is explicitly non-consequentialist. Its morality is built out of the alignment of pseudo-atomic 'actions', which are ill-defined in most cases but in some cases are very precisely defined. Thus, casting Deathwatch always makes you more evil, no matter if you do it to save someone or not. Saving someone makes you more good, even if you had to kill babies to do it. Intent is not listed as a factor.

The real problem is that the formula to combine the alignment impacts of several of these 'atomic' actions is not given. That formula makes all the difference of ends versus means questions. For example, if acts add linearly, you get ends justifying the means. If acts combine via 'most evil act dominates', then good ends never justify evil means, but evil ends always justify good means.

If acts combine via 'most extreme act dominates' then it matters how things get sliced - killing an innocent is probably more evil than saving an innocent is good, because a person will on average only be killed 1.01 times in their life, but they may need to be saved 1.2 times in their life or something like that. Which means that if things are sliced on the individual level, it is never justifiable to kill an innocent to save any number of people; but if things are sliced in chunks, then you can kill 10 innocents to save 13 innocents and things like that.

So the problem basically boils down to, without having that addition formula explicitly stated, its always going to be a place where the personal morality of the person running it bleeds in since a choice often does need to be made.

rmnimoc

2014-03-06, 05:49 AM

Well I just had a face-palmingly obvious revelation. [Good], [Lawful] [Chaotic] and [Evil] are actually just "What most upper denizens would do", "What would most left(?) denizens do", "What would most right(?) denizens do, and "What most lower denizens would do". Actual morality in D&D is only mapped at all by the actions of the residents of the planes the people of the campaign view as embodying those traits. [Good] isn't good at all. People just saw angels and archons doing it and were like "We like those guys, they are bright and shiny and they make me happy". They then took the jump of logic to "We want to be like them. Therefore, what they do is the ideal. That makes it good."

I'm not really sure how in all my years playing that never actually clicked.

So StW is in fact [Good], because more upper planar creatures would use it than not, and using it makes you more like them by that logic. It also explains all those moral disconnects we see in D&D, like why is X considered [Good] when it obviously isn't, and why is Y considered [Evil] despite the fact it helps people.

I feel like smacking my head into the keyboard now.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-06, 05:53 AM

Well I just had a face-palmingly obvious revelation. [Good], [Lawful] [Chaotic] and [Evil] are actually just "What most upper denizens would do", "What would most left(?) denizens do", "What would most right(?) denizens do, and "What most lower denizens would do". Actual morality in D&D is only mapped at all by the actions of the residents of the planes the people of the campaign view as embodying those traits. [Good] isn't good at all. People just saw angels and archons doing it and were like "We like those guys, they are bright and shiny and they make me happy". They then took the jump of logic to "We want to be like them. Therefore, what they do is the ideal. That makes it good."

I'm not really sure how in all my years playing that never actually clicked.

So StW is in fact [Good], because more upper planar creatures would use it than not, and using it makes you more like them by that logic. It also explains all those moral disconnects we see in D&D, like why is X considered [Good] when it obviously isn't, and why is Y considered [Evil] despite the fact it helps people.

You have exactly figured out what I've been trying to articulate as well. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are forces, definable, measurable forces embodied in the Outer Planes. It all flows from that.

Drachasor

2014-03-06, 07:51 AM

Yes, as I said there are three questions as to the controversy of StW:

- Is it evil?
- Is it non-good?
- Is it non-exalted?

I think its a consistent conclusion to say that an Exalted character should never use the spell as written, or that there may be many (most) situations in which it would be inappropriate for them to do so.

I disagree on that conclusion. I don't think they should use it on just any evil. But the text doesn't imply suffering and in fact directly states it is internal enlightenment that the spell enables. Locking someone up and reforming them seems like a perfectly acceptable method for an Exalted Character -- certainly if there are no better options.

The main objection seems to be "if it always works, then it's too effective and good people can't use overkill". Well, I still don't see how that's an sensible argument. There's nothing wrong with a good or exalted character using sufficient power to be 100% certain the desired result is achieved.

Is it non-good is a narrower line. I think it can be argued though, that again in many situations it may be non-good (this doesn't mean its evil, just that it should not automatically make you a more good-aligned person to use it). This fails under the 'concern dignity of sentient beings' heading because while 'having concern' isn't a proscription against violating that dignity ever, it does mean that violating that dignity without reasonable cause and appropriate proportion (e.g. disregarding it for expediency) would be non-good.

I don't see how you can advocate this and also think it is ok to kill bad guys. Death is simply not dignified for anyone.

Is it evil? That's the hardest standard to argue in this case. I would say that use out of proportion is definitely an evil act - trapping Jimmy the Money-lender's soul in a gem for a year of constant psychological torture to make him a better person against his will is evil, even if he himself was sufficiently greedy to qualify as a target. This goes under the whole 'oppressing' aspect of Evil (as per the D&D definition) - exerting your power over someone just because you can is evil, even if there may be a small amount of good done on the side.

Emphasis added. It's hard to have a serious discussion if you project stuff onto the spell that isn't there. Nothing indicates it is psychological torture.

I think its probably a mistake to try to map real-world schools of philosophical thought onto the alignment system. Since we're talking about analyzing something as-written, there is a frequently made mistake that the system must be usable, reasonable, and make sense. But any static set of things written can have flaws, and those flaws are as much part of it as the parts that might make sense.

'This makes no sense' is actually a valid outcome.

Sure, but that doesn't mean "nothing makes sense" IS the outcome.

In any event, D&D is explicitly non-consequentialist. Its morality is built out of the alignment of pseudo-atomic 'actions', which are ill-defined in most cases but in some cases are very precisely defined. Thus, casting Deathwatch always makes you more evil, no matter if you do it to save someone or not. Saving someone makes you more good, even if you had to kill babies to do it. Intent is not listed as a factor.

Alignments aren't consequential, obviously. However, acts are pretty clearly consequetialist. A Paladin can perform an evil act and not fall -- because he didn't knowingly do it. Intention matters for the Paladin, but it doesn't matter when deciding if the act is evil. What matters is what the immediate consequence is (a dead innocent).

I think it is pretty clear in the rules that the alignment of an ACT from a universal perspective can be completely different from the alignment of the act as far as determining the alignment of an individual.

The real problem is that the formula to combine the alignment impacts of several of these 'atomic' actions is not given. That formula makes all the difference of ends versus means questions. For example, if acts add linearly, you get ends justifying the means. If acts combine via 'most evil act dominates', then good ends never justify evil means, but evil ends always justify good means.

You don't really need a formula to judge what sort of ethical system it is though. You'd only need it in performing calculations.

For what it matters, IIRC, the Book of Exalted Deeds says that Exalted people can't perform evil acts. It doesn't say thing having to do an evil act for a greater good is inherently wrong, however. Other good characters can do it and be fine.

What the Book of Exalted Deeds seem to be attempting to do, at least to me, is say that being Exalted doesn't mean everything you are allowed to do is always the Best thing. In other words, while [Good] is a thing, that doesn't always mean Good characters must be limited to [Good] acts without any other considerations. In fact, I'd say it would be entirely in keeping with the spirit of the book to say that an Exalted being, by striving to stay Exalted, could limit themselves and allow evil to win here and there. Ethics is allowed to be more complicated in the game than just aligning yourself with [Good] or whatever.

At least that's what I get out of it. But it has been a while since I read it.

Grek

2014-03-06, 07:58 AM

NichG

2014-03-06, 08:52 AM

I disagree on that conclusion. I don't think they should use it on just any evil. But the text doesn't imply suffering and in fact directly states it is internal enlightenment that the spell enables. Locking someone up and reforming them seems like a perfectly acceptable method for an Exalted Character -- certainly if there are no better options.

The main objection seems to be "if it always works, then it's too effective and good people can't use overkill". Well, I still don't see how that's an sensible argument. There's nothing wrong with a good or exalted character using sufficient power to be 100% certain the desired result is achieved.

The objection is, if it always works then it cannot actually depend on the mentality of the target. Which means that even if the target has good reasons for being evil, it overrides those. Or if the target has strong convictions about evil on a cosmic level. Or any other such thing.

Since the spell works equally well on Bob the Cruel and Vartoz, Emperor of Darkness and Faithful Servant of The God of Evility, it therefore bypasses conscious choice on the behalf of the targets and smacks of brainwashing.

The thing about exalted characters, as opposed to good characters, is that if the decision is between 'do something of questionable morality or fail and by failing allow great tragedy to occur', then doing the questionable thing loses exalted status.

The standards for exalted characters are not designed to actually be a philosophy that any person could reasonably live their life by - that is why they are 'supernaturally good'. A reasonable good person balances 'being good' with practical issues. An exalted good person holds their own adherence to never committing any misdeed above any pragmatic issue. That is what defines exalted as opposed to just 'good'. So it should be no surprise that it means they often cannot take actions which would be an effective resolution to an undesirable situation.

I don't see how you can advocate this and also think it is ok to kill bad guys. Death is simply not dignified for anyone.

The letter of the Good says 'concern for'. Not 'absolute protection of'. What would make it non-good is if the action were basically not called for proportionally to what it achieves. Note that 'non-good' is not the same as evil. Killing bad guys doesn't make you more good-aligned, but neither does it make you more evil-aligned. Its a neutral act in of itself.

Not everything that is 'acceptable' for a character of a given alignment has to actually further their alignment in their primary direction. There's no inconsistency here.

In the case of 'killing because you can't be bothered to take them prisoner', that tends to shade towards evil because its a callous disregard for life, which goes beyond a lack of concern. However, not using non-lethal damage in the fight because you might lose due to the -4 to hit would not be a callous disregard, because there actually is something in the balance - you aren't killing out of laziness, you're killing because of the severity of the situation and the difficulty of holding your blows in a life-or-death fight.

Emphasis added. It's hard to have a serious discussion if you project stuff onto the spell that isn't there. Nothing indicates it is psychological torture.

The spell text suggests that the soul 'reflects upon its misdeeds', which is pretty ambiguous. What isn't ambiguous is that if the creature is released at any point before the transformation is complete, it is imbued with a driving hatred of the caster.

Alignments aren't consequential, obviously. However, acts are pretty clearly consequetialist. A Paladin can perform an evil act and not fall -- because he didn't knowingly do it. Intention matters for the Paladin, but it doesn't matter when deciding if the act is evil. What matters is what the immediate consequence is (a dead innocent).

What causes a Paladin to fall is distinct from the way alignment is processed. Although thematically they're related systems, the causes of a Paladin's fall cannot be taken to imply anything about the causes of a change in alignment. This shouldn't be surprising, as there are a number of non-evil acts that cause a paladin to fall.

For example, BoED explicitly says 'working with evil beings towards good ends is acceptable even for exalted characters, so long as they do not permit evil to be done by those beings as part of the collaboration'. Whereas that would cause a paladin to fall. Different systems, different rules.

I think it is pretty clear in the rules that the alignment of an ACT from a universal perspective can be completely different from the alignment of the act as far as determining the alignment of an individual.

This is explicitly not the case in BoED in the section on Ends and Means.

You don't really need a formula to judge what sort of ethical system it is though. You'd only need it in performing calculations.

Different formulas (see examples in my previous post) can create an ends-justifies-the-means system or an ends-do-not-justify-the-means system. Obviously Exalted characters have an explicit formula - any evil act removes their status. But for Good, there is no explicit formula like that, so the type of morality you get is dependent on how the reader chooses to implement that implicit formula.

Essentially this is missing information which is needed in order to actually answer the question of ends vs means for non-exalted characters in D&D in an absolute manner.

For what it matters, IIRC, the Book of Exalted Deeds says that Exalted people can't perform evil acts. It doesn't say thing having to do an evil act for a greater good is inherently wrong, however. Other good characters can do it and be fine.

Yes, as I said, there are three different classifications that one can debate here: Is it non-exalted, is it non-good, is it evil. A is not B is not C.

In fact, I'd say it would be entirely in keeping with the spirit of the book to say that an Exalted being, by striving to stay Exalted, could limit themselves and allow evil to win here and there.

In fact, they can be required to in order to retain their Exalted status. This is not inconsistent, its just a consequence of the stringency of the status, which places emphasis on individual moral purity.

Putting aside real-life interpretations, if you had a status like 'has never touched blood before, including your own', that doesn't automatically imply 'oh, but this comes up a lot so theres a way around it'. If someone stabs you, you lose that status, just by rules text. Whether it would be good game design or not is a separate issue than 'what does the actual text say'.

Ethics is allowed to be more complicated in the game than just aligning yourself with [Good] or whatever.

Sure, because alignment actually doesn't have anything to do with an individual character's ethical and moral system. A character is permitted to have any sort of ethical system they want. The alignment system then measures their alignment based on their actions, which are not required to all be consistent with a single, well-defined alignment.

Nothing in D&D prevents you from having a character who earnestly believes that the highest good is for beings to reach the pinnacle of their potential, and is willing to commit atrocities to make this happen, while at the same time saving people who would be killed before they had a chance to shine and helping people grow and prosper. But that's a completely separate issue from how this one particular moral/ethical system called 'alignment' works.

Drachasor

2014-03-06, 09:03 AM

The objection is, if it always works then it cannot actually depend on the mentality of the target. Which means that even if the target has good reasons for being evil, it overrides those. Or if the target has strong convictions about evil on a cosmic level. Or any other such thing.

Since the spell works equally well on Bob the Cruel and Vartoz, Emperor of Darkness and Faithful Servant of The God of Evility, it therefore bypasses conscious choice on the behalf of the targets and smacks of brainwashing.

I don't see how that follows.

And what's a "good reason" for being evil? What does that mean? Are you saying there are people that have "good reasons" to be evil and are impossible to change no matter what? What aspects of the game mechanics indicate this?

As written it is a [spell that causes self-reflection that results in the target changing their mind.] As written, this is clearly tailored to the target, because it is their own past it is based on. So I don't see where you are coming from with the "works equally well on anyone means it is brain washing."

That is, unless you think the Converting rules using Diplomacy Checks are also brain washing. Fact is though, the game rules demonstrate that people can generally change their minds on even big issues. Are you saying that having a convincing argument is brain washing?

It seems like you are tossing in a tremendous number of assumptions on how the game world works. The rules simply don't seem to support what you are saying here.

Loreweaver15

2014-03-06, 10:00 AM

I don't see how that follows.

And what's a "good reason" for being evil? What does that mean? Are you saying there are people that have "good reasons" to be evil and are impossible to change no matter what? What aspects of the game mechanics indicate this?

As written it is a [spell that causes self-reflection that results in the target changing their mind.] As written, this is clearly tailored to the target, because it is their own past it is based on. So I don't see where you are coming from with the "works equally well on anyone means it is brain washing."

That is, unless you think the Converting rules using Diplomacy Checks are also brain washing. Fact is though, the game rules demonstrate that people can generally change their minds on even big issues. Are you saying that having a convincing argument is brain washing?

It seems like you are tossing in a tremendous number of assumptions on how the game world works. The rules simply don't seem to support what you are saying here.

Aw, for--how has this not come across yet? We're arguing that StW does not involve "presenting a convincing argument" at all. It, in point of fact, bypasses any actual "convincing" and just auto-converts. The Will save is not for resisting the argument; the Will save is for whether the spell hits you or not. If the spell hits you, you are brainwashed with no opportunity to resist the "convincing argument".

If Good and free will were inherently linked they'd sit back and do nothing about Evil because that's Evils choice.

That is a ridiculous conclusion. We've already established that there's a difference between "stop bad people from hurting other people" and "go into somebody's mind and rip out pieces of them". What we're saying is not that Good people allow others to do whatever they want; what we're saying is that Good people don't reach into somebody's soul and start ripping things out.

hamishspence

2014-03-06, 10:39 AM

And BoED points out that one of the reasons why "redeeming an evil being" is one of the Most Good acts a being can commit - is because it saves the soul from the torments awaiting it in the Lower Planes.

(With BoVD saying that "harming or destroying a soul" is one of the Most Evil acts a being can commit).

Thus - whatever StW does - it can't count as "harming a soul".

hemming

2014-03-06, 12:49 PM

I don't understand all the melodramatic takes on this spell but good people might trap an evil soul to reform it over time and apparently, in D&D, they do!

The spells descriptor is pretty clear - I'm turning into a Parrot now but its a Good spell. Thems the facts

It is valid to interpret the phrasing regarding the preservation of dignity to include "not trapping a soul in a gem and influencing its alignment over a period of time" - but there is no particular argument as RAW to do so, so other interpretations are just as valid

The crunch just isn't there - but take your interpretation and use it for your characters morality or as the DM in your game. Have it over-ride the spells descriptor - make it an evil spell - you do you

Zaydos

2014-03-06, 01:18 PM

Sanctify the Wicked is a [Good] spell. It has a subtype designating is as such. Casting the spell makes you more [Good] and is a [Good] deed in the same way as Planar Binding an Archon is a [Good] thing to do. The real question is whether [Good] is the same thing as right or just or virtuous.

Not actually true. Casting a [Good] spell does not make you more good or [Good], in fact evil wizards can do it, it's just that Evil gods and clerics/druids cannot use [Good] spells.

Now Sanctify the Wicked is a Sanctified spell which does make you more [Good]/good by casting it.

The idea that casting a spell can make you more good actually ends up being irritating to begin with.

MadGreenSon

2014-03-06, 01:21 PM

The idea that casting a spell can make you more good actually ends up being irritating to begin with.

Never gave that much thought, but it IS irritating. How do you keep track of how good you are? Points? Some kind of Anti-Taint?

That's a detail I'm happy to leave as fluff.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-06, 01:23 PM

And BoED points out that one of the reasons why "redeeming an evil being" is one of the Most Good acts a being can commit - is because it saves the soul from the torments awaiting it in the Lower Planes.

And I'd think redeeming an evil soul at great personal cost (one whole level...that's a steep cost right there, not like you are going to catch up very fast after 17th) is even more virtuous. Self-sacrifice in the defense of others, even if they don't welcome it, sounds pretty good.

But, I'd say that the destiny of souls in the lower planes is mainly evil because good creatures can't abide by the devaluation of the individual soul as they are turned into larvae/petitioners and then milled to the tune of whatever demon prince/archdevil/evil god is running the show. An evil creature might not view that destiny the same way (which may or may not be deluded). It's not like good is delusion-free, either. A good person will probably have trouble accepting how any informed individual would take Hell over Heaven (or variation thereof), but it seems likely that some have, given the numbers involved, and be deluded about the likelihood of success of conversion given time and effort.

EDIT: Evil druids can certainly use [Good] spells. There is no casting restriction related to alignment in the druid class. The only alignment issue druids have is that some portion of their alignment be neutral in order to use their spellcasting and Su stuff (I think those were the abilities affected).

TypoNinja

2014-03-06, 04:38 PM

That is a ridiculous conclusion. We've already established that there's a difference between "stop bad people from hurting other people" and "go into somebody's mind and rip out pieces of them". What we're saying is not that Good people allow others to do whatever they want; what we're saying is that Good people don't reach into somebody's soul and start ripping things out.

First off no there isn't. Embodiments of abstract forces don't deal in shades of grey. They are absolutes by definition. If your free will isn't furthering their cause it is at best irrelevant, if your free will represents an obstruction to their cause it will be actively opposed.

Secondly there is absolutely nothing in the spell that indicates you "go into somebody's mind and rip out pieces of them" or "reach into somebody's soul and start ripping things out."

The only part of the spell that deals with what happens is

The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness. Over time, this spark grows into a burning fire.

No ripping bits out, no messing with their mind, the creature itself is responsible for the changes.

There's even room for argument that it can't work on outsiders because of the resurrection rules, if a DM hates the idea of converting the "pure" Evil that most outsiders with alignment subtypes represent.

NichG

2014-03-06, 05:17 PM

I don't see how that follows.

And what's a "good reason" for being evil? What does that mean? Are you saying there are people that have "good reasons" to be evil and are impossible to change no matter what? What aspects of the game mechanics indicate this?

The game mechanics don't indicate this, but the fluff allows for it. Which is still part of the rules as written, even if most people refluff things.

Simple example - this guy is a cleric of a NE god. He has faith in that deity and can be within one step of his alignment. Becoming TN would still allow him to be a cleric of that god, but becoming NG would actually rob him of his faith. So he has a logical, rational, and intensely personal reason to want to retain his alignment, or at the very least resist the full effects of StW.

Another example - this guy has levels in Blackguard. If he were Sanctified, those levels would become dead levels and he would lose the ability to function in his position and in the conflicts within which he is enmeshed.

Another example - this guy truly believes at a deep level in the ideas of survival of the fittest and every man for himself. He has a strong ideological reason to be evil.

The spell treats all of these cases identically - its not convincing people, its altering people.

That is, unless you think the Converting rules using Diplomacy Checks are also brain washing. Fact is though, the game rules demonstrate that people can generally change their minds on even big issues. Are you saying that having a convincing argument is brain washing?

I do think they are, yes. I said as much earlier on. Actual real-life brainwashing is basically a form of 'convincing argument' that may involve conditioning like controlling the person's environment, sleep patterns, etc, but also may just involve knowing how to say things that bypass the target's higher reasoning. A sufficiently convincing argument can in fact be brain washing.

Loreweaver15

2014-03-06, 06:00 PM

First off no there isn't. Embodiments of abstract forces don't deal in shades of grey. They are absolutes by definition. If your free will isn't furthering their cause it is at best irrelevant, if your free will represents an obstruction to their cause it will be actively opposed.

Then you're saying we should believe in these abstract forces of "Good" because somebody labeled them as "Good"? Things exist in shades of gray, friend. Any abstract force of "Good" that only sees things in black and white? That's its failing, not ours, and if they try to strip a Good person of their free will just because they disagree on how to be Good, then not only has that "Good" superbeing ceased to follow any definition of "Good" that other sane individuals would recognize, that Good individual has every right to fight back.

To quote the first line of the paladin main character of a webcomic I'm working on:

"We don't believe because we follow, we follow because we believe."

Secondly there is absolutely nothing in the spell that indicates you "go into somebody's mind and rip out pieces of them" or "reach into somebody's soul and start ripping things out."

The only part of the spell that deals with what happens is

No ripping bits out, no messing with their mind, the creature itself is responsible for the changes.

There's even room for argument that it can't work on outsiders because of the resurrection rules, if a DM hates the idea of converting the "pure" Evil that most outsiders with alignment subtypes represent.

Okay, you don't appear to actually be reading what I'm saying, so I'm gonna try this one more time. Please pay attention.

The spell says that if the spell hits the target, the soul is trapped inside a gem, where it undergoes a period of forced reflection after which it pops back out of the gem as a Good alignment matching the person who Sanctified them.

Now, I agree that that seems okay on the surface, but here's where the horror sets in:

The spell says that its Will save is for the spell to happen at all. If the target succeeds, nothing happens to it; if the target fails, it is trapped in the gem. Trouble is, if the target is trapped in the gem, it has a 100% conversion rate. The spell cannot fail to convert the target unless it misses entirely.

This implies very directly that what is going on is not any form of 'convincing argument' or 'soul-searching redemption'. This implies that what's going on is a forced alteration of the target's mind--and, by alignment implications, its soul--to match an agenda and set of values matching the caster of StW.

That means that what's going on is something awful, something very much not Good. It means that what's going on is a forcible assault of the mind; a perversion of the soul; in short, reaching in and ripping out free will, replacing it with the caster's will.

Zaydos

2014-03-06, 06:06 PM

TypoNinja

2014-03-06, 06:41 PM

Then you're saying we should believe in these abstract forces of "Good" because somebody labeled them as "Good"? Things exist in shades of gray, friend. Any abstract force of "Good" that only sees things in black and white? That's its failing, not ours, and if they try to strip a Good person of their free will just because they disagree on how to be Good, then not only has that "Good" superbeing ceased to follow any definition of "Good" that other sane individuals would recognize, that Good individual has every right to fight back.

To quote the first line of the paladin main character of a webcomic I'm working on:

"We don't believe because we follow, we follow because we believe."

You've missed the distinction between good people and [Good]. Good people deal in shades of grey, [Good] does not.

A person might find certain ideas to be personally objectionable, even justified by the moral outlook they have choose (Good people don't X).

But their outlook is shaded by their nature. [Good] on the other hand is an absolute.

Okay, you don't appear to actually be reading what I'm saying, so I'm gonna try this one more time. Please pay attention.

The spell says that if the spell hits the target, the soul is trapped inside a gem, where it undergoes a period of forced reflection after which it pops back out of the gem as a Good alignment matching the person who Sanctified them.

Now, I agree that that seems okay on the surface, but here's where the horror sets in:

The spell says that its Will save is for the spell to happen at all. If the target succeeds, nothing happens to it; if the target fails, it is trapped in the gem. Trouble is, if the target is trapped in the gem, it has a 100% conversion rate. The spell cannot fail to convert the target unless it misses entirely.

This implies very directly that what is going on is not any form of 'convincing argument' or 'soul-searching redemption'. This implies that what's going on is a forced alteration of the target's mind--and, by alignment implications, its soul--to match an agenda and set of values matching the caster of StW.

That means that what's going on is something awful, something very much not Good. It means that what's going on is a forcible assault of the mind; a perversion of the soul; in short, reaching in and ripping out free will, replacing it with the caster's will.

Okay, you don't appear to actually be reading what I'm saying what the spell says, so I'm gonna try this one more time. Please pay attention.

The spell is a magically enforced Time Out, go sit in the corner and think about what you have done.

Like the supposed goal of a mundane prison sentence, incarceration gives one time to reflect on the nature of their misdeeds.

Any other false ideas you might have about how the thinking happens or why its effective, is entirely your own fabrication.

Loreweaver15

2014-03-06, 06:46 PM

Okay, you don't appear to actually be reading what I'm saying what the spell says, so I'm gonna try this one more time. Please pay attention.

The spell is a magically enforced Time Out, go sit in the corner and think about what you have done.

Like the supposed goal of a mundane prison sentence, incarceration gives one time to reflect on the nature of their misdeeds.

Any other false ideas you might have about how the thinking happens or why its effective, is entirely your own fabrication.

If that's all it does, why does it have a 100% success rate?

pwykersotz

2014-03-06, 07:02 PM

I tried to come up with something more insightful than what has already been written in this thread, but people on both sides have been pretty eloquent. So I'll just leave this here as food for thought.

‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.' - John Heywood, 1546

squiggit

2014-03-06, 07:05 PM

If that's all it does, why does it have a 100% success rate?

Because it's a 9th level spell with a material cost that costs you a level and requires a full year of time to pass to take effect.

Holy **** a spell with that many restrictions on it better be reliable.

This implies very directly

This is your problem here. Spells don't imply anything. They tell you what they do. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't (which is why the Pathfinder spell that reduces a target to raw protons, electrons and neutrons doesn't cause radiation or nuclear fission).

Again we're getting into the territory where you're devising your own homebrewed version of the spell.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-06, 07:06 PM

Alright, the spell doesn't say the Will save is to avoid being trapped in the gem. So the soul goes into the gem for a milisecond, if it is too evil/strong willed to be convinced, it immediately comes back out, and the spell fails to convert it.

Happy now? If we are going to read arbitrarily not present fluff into the spell, at least make it something that will cause less irritation.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-06, 07:13 PM

What if the spell was modified to allow two saves. One to avoid being sealed in the gem in the first place, and one to resist alignment change?

>>
I still think it shouldn't touch Law-Chaos axis and should have [Lawful] as well as [Good].
<<

As I just noted, nowhere in the spell does it say what the Will save to negate actually does. For all we know, only people who will be converted end up in the gem. For those that won't convert, the gem simply won't form (and the way to model who won't convert eventually is a Will save).

The spell totally shouldn't change the target's Law/Chaos axis. That's just some dumb idea they stuck in there. I think the logic was that the proceed of this spell should be someone that will actively cooperate with the spellcaster, and if there are LG caster and CG result, then there could still be some issues. Really, whatever the justification, it was a dumb idea.

TypoNinja

2014-03-06, 07:21 PM

If that's all it does, why does it have a 100% success rate?

Ahh I see, you are projecting some kind of horrible assumption upon the effects just because its effective.

On what basis are you making this assumption?

Erberor

2014-03-06, 07:21 PM

olentu

2014-03-06, 07:22 PM

Because it's a 9th level spell with a material cost that costs you a level and requires a full year of time to pass to take effect.

Holy **** a spell with that many restrictions on it better be reliable.

This is your problem here. Spells don't imply anything. They tell you what they do. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't (which is why the Pathfinder spell that reduces a target to raw protons, electrons and neutrons doesn't cause radiation or nuclear fission).

Again we're getting into the territory where you're devising your own homebrewed version of the spell.

Hmm, so by your second statement you advocate the interpretation where creatures can just immediately go back to being evil then. That seems at odds with your first statement.

squiggit

2014-03-06, 07:26 PM

Hmm, so by your second statement you advocate the interpretation where creatures can just immediately go back to being evil then. That seems at odds with your first statement.

Immediately? Probably not immediately, no (because that would be conceptually a bit odd). But they could slide back of course.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-06, 07:27 PM

I see I seriously poisoned the well with the Pazuzu comment. I am going to go back and blue that thing so blue that it'll...I dunno...[something clever and blue].

My point with the Pazuzu comment is not that someone emerging from the gem can immediately become evil. Just that any good person is subject to temptation, corruption, and so forth. StW doesn't somehow make it's subject evil-proof. Insinuation that it does is silly, because the spell says nothing of the sort (though the poorly written template may suggest otherwise).

olentu

2014-03-06, 07:29 PM

Immediately? Probably not immediately, no (because that would be conceptually a bit odd). But they could slide back of course.

Well, yes I suppose that even if the creature immediately starts back into doing evil acts they would probably not become evil for at least a part of a round which means it it technically not immediate. So change immediately to almost immediately then.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-06, 07:37 PM

Well, yes I suppose that even if the creature immediately starts back into doing evil acts they would probably not become evil for at least a part of a round which means it it technically not immediate. So change immediately to almost immediately then.

And this is exactly the point. A good person (like results from StW) might not want to engage in evil; being good or evil pretty much makes acts of the opposite kind seem distasteful or repugnant.

However, just because the creature might not see immediate appeal in evil does not mean they are any more immune to corruption or falling to evil than any other soul in the universe.

squiggit

2014-03-06, 07:38 PM

Well, yes I suppose that even if the creature immediately starts back into doing evil acts they would probably not become evil for at least a part of a round which means it it technically not immediate. So change immediately to almost immediately then.

Well, sort of by definition, someone who's LG wouldn't be inclined to immediately start performing evil acts.

olentu

2014-03-06, 07:42 PM

Well, sort of by definition, someone who's LG wouldn't be inclined to immediately start performing evil acts.

Ah, so you are going for the alignment as a straitjacket interpretation then. How dreadful.

Edit:
And this is exactly the point. A good person (like results from StW) might not want to engage in evil; being good or evil pretty much makes acts of the opposite kind seem distasteful or repugnant.

However, just because the creature might not see immediate appeal in evil does not mean they are any more immune to corruption or falling to evil than any other soul in the universe.

Or since it does not state it changes the personality we either have alignment restricts actions or the spell does nothing. Sure the spell implies that it changes the target's personality but as the post was condemning another argument for using implication that must be ignored.

squiggit

2014-03-06, 07:43 PM

Ah, so you are going for the alignment as a straitjacket interpretation then. How dreadful.

No, you just need to stop bouncing between extremes. There's a huge grey area between "alignment is an unmovable straitjacket" and "alignment means nothing I'm evil again in one round".

Characters with a certain alignment will tend to have inclinations toward certain forms of behavior (that's kind of the definition of alignment). A LG character will, again, by definition, tend toward lawful and good behavior.

Does that mean everyone who's LG acts in the same way? No, I've already covered a couple radically different characters in previous posts who would both still be LG. Does that mean an LG character will never commit an unlawful or ungood act? Of course not. Does that mean an LG character can't fall again because of certain habits or tendencies? No.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-06, 07:45 PM

Well, sort of by definition, someone who's LG wouldn't be inclined to immediately start performing evil acts.

But could easily fall prey to any of the normal ways by which LG people are corrupted. If a seductress shows up the second the spell ends and starts putting the moves on the LG guy as part of a careful process of corruption, it would have exactly the normal chances of working on any sanctified creature.

In case it wasn't clear before, there is nothing about the spell that prevents the subject from changing alignment at some later time via the normal ways that anyone can shift alignment.

olentu

2014-03-06, 07:45 PM

No, you just need to stop bouncing between extremes.

Since the spell does no more then imply that it changes the target's personality it does not by your own standard. Thus either alignment restricts action or the spell does nothing.

squiggit

2014-03-06, 07:47 PM

Since the spell does no more then imply that it changes the target's personality
Actually the spell says outright that it changes the targets alignment, which is only a single facet of a character's personality. It says nothing about changing a personality wholesale, only a certain outlook.

TypoNinja

2014-03-06, 07:48 PM

Well, yes I suppose that even if the creature immediately starts back into doing evil acts they would probably not become evil for at least a part of a round which means it it technically not immediate. So change immediately to almost immediately then.

I think its genuine conversion, not just an adjustment of alignment. I just re-read the Sanctified Creature template. I'd forgotten that it can't be granted to creatures with the [Evil] subtype.

This makes sense since beings with the [Evil] are literally made of Evil, they can't be redeemed because they posses no spark of good in them that may be fanned.

If the spell was simple brainwashing/mindcontrol it'd be entirely possible to manipulate an Evil creature into behaving the way you want, but actual redemption involves regret for your past behavior and a honest desire to change.

olentu

2014-03-06, 07:52 PM

Actually the spell says outright that it changes the targets alignment, which is only a single facet of a character's personality. It says nothing about changing a personality wholesale, only a certain outlook.

If the target's personality is such that they will do certain things under certain circumstances that is not changed unless alignment restricts actions. Sure they may not immediately go out and do evil if they would not have done so before the spell, but the spell won't keep them for doing so if they would have done so before. And given that they lose their spell like and supernatural abilities there is quite possibly a strong motivation for dropping the sanctified template as soon as is reasonably convenient.

I think its genuine conversion, not just an adjustment of alignment. I just re-read the Sanctified Creature template. I'd forgotten that it can't be granted to creatures with the [Evil] subtype.

This makes sense since beings with the [Evil] are literally made of Evil, they can't be redeemed because they posses no spark of good in them that may be fanned.

If the spell was simple brainwashing/mindcontrol it'd be entirely possible to manipulate an Evil creature into behaving the way you want, but actual redemption involves regret for your past behavior and a honest desire to change.

The problem with that position is that it relies on what the spell implies. Spells don't imply anything. They tell you what they do. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't.

Phelix-Mu

2014-03-06, 07:52 PM

And, as I mentioned several pages ago, this is exactly the point. The evil creature is not forced to remain good. They are just given a taste of what actually being good is like. A good person doesn't want to require someone to be good, but to choose it as a way of life in the long run.

The major problem that good people run into is that, for an evil person, a single good act is typically distasteful, and is only a pebble to the mountain of work necessary to break the habits of evil (being able to do whatever you want, thinking only of the self, indulging whatever desire whenever, no matter the consequence).

StW gives the evil person a leg up to the top of that mountain of work, allowing them to see and enjoy life as a virtuous person. Now the evil person is free of the weight of a lifetime of sin and can decide for themselves (at least this is the way the good people view the process).

But, in the end, any good person can still decide that being good is the balls and that it's a sham and whatever, and embark on alignment change. Or be corrupted slowly and unwittingly. Or just screw up being virtuous so badly that they go back to being evil.

NichG

2014-03-06, 07:58 PM

I thought I might say that the fierce respect and defense of free will as most people in "modern" society express may be more of a culture thing. We perceive free will as being fundamentally good, but that may not be the case, particularly in the context of D&D, where, as has been stated, good and evil are fundamental forces rather than philosophical ideals.

This is part of the distinction between Exalted and Good. BoED explicitly calls out exalted characters as often having morality that is more modern or 'ahead of its time' compared to the setting, and also explicitly objects to 'redemption at sword-point' types of measures.

The standards of what counts as 'exalted', 'good', 'non-evil', etc are all different in the D&D moral/ethical system. It's easy to conflate them and assume, incorrectly, that they must all be mutually consistent with each-other, but that is not actually a requirement.

The big question underlying this is, are they inconsistent with themselves? There are many cases where it appears so (poison is evil no matter who you use it on because it causes suffering, but at the same time ravages which work by causing suffering to evil are okay). Rather than argue in terms of personal morality, one can look at the fluff of the alignments as presented in the D&D sources and look for where it contradicts itself, which it often does.

What's the take-home message from all of that? Well, I'd say it's that controversy is inevitable and in any game where you want to take alignment seriously you're going to have to do some sort of patching up somewhere. Or in other words, everyone is going to modify RAW because in this case RAW gives multiple different answers to the same question, so it always comes down to individual taste and how people seek to resolve those inconsistencies.

In other words, it appears that it is actually impossible to separate our own views (or at least 'external views') from the moral/ethical/cosmic system D&D presents, because D&D's system has holes and inconsistencies, and how we choose to resolve those holes is guided by whatever external views we use to resolve the problem.