"good" mindrape

[geekintheground]

i've seen people refer to "Sanctify the Wicked" as a good version of mindrape before and it came up in 2 recent threads so i was wondering: why do people think this? StW only changes someones alignment, that doesnt mean theyll help you or tell you anything. mindrape is complete knowledge of and control over ANY person. StW costs you 10k and an entire level AND has a year during which all your work can become undone. mindrape is instantaneous and doesnt cost you anything... StW really only does a small fraction of what Mindrape can do.

(i realize the cost stuff might not be relevant, but i thought it important to point out all the ways the 2 are different)

[ArqArturo]

StW is sort of the good version of sending someone to a corner to contemplate how naughty they were.

[A Tad Insane]

I think by "good" I think they mean "as opposed to evil", not "a great tactic".

[Red Fel]

The reason that they are compared is that Sanctify the Wicked fundamentally alters a creature's mind, as Mindrape does.

In some ways, it can be argued that StW is even crueler. Mindrape lets you go in and rearrange memories, or drive someone insane, or alter their alignment - but it's a one-time thing, and it's curable with Break Enchantment, Atonement, Miracle or Wish. StW takes place over a year of imprisonment, after which you've destroyed a creature's body, altered its soul fundamentally, and made it glad that you did. Further, there is no language in StW about restoring these changes, as there is in Mindrape.

Mindrape is like hypnotizing someone. Sanctify the Wicked is like locking them in your basement until they get Stockholm Syndrome. Yet somehow, the latter is a Sanctified spell.

[The Glyphstone]

I think by "good" I think they mean "as opposed to evil", not "a great tactic".

Pretty much. STW and Mindrape both completely rewrite a person's personality and outlook on life, involuntarily - magical brainwashing. But one has the [Good] subtype, and the other is [Evil].

[sleepyphoenixx]

The reason that they are compared is that Sanctify the Wicked fundamentally alters a creature's mind, as Mindrape does.

In some ways, it can be argued that StW is even crueler. Mindrape lets you go in and rearrange memories, or drive someone insane, or alter their alignment - but it's a one-time thing, and it's curable with Break Enchantment, Atonement, Miracle or Wish. StW takes place over a year of imprisonment, after which you've destroyed a creature's body, altered its soul fundamentally, and made it glad that you did. Further, there is no language in StW about restoring these changes, as there is in Mindrape.

Mindrape is like hypnotizing someone. Sanctify the Wicked is like locking them in your basement until they get Stockholm Syndrome. Yet somehow, the latter is a Sanctified spell.

Good is not nice. Especially not in D&D. Real world (modern western) morality and D&D morality have some pretty significant differences, which is something people often forget in these debates.
In D&D morality taking an evil creature and turning it into a creature that goes out and does Good is a Good act. Because surely, everyone wants to be good. The evil ones just need to be "shown the right path", by force if necessary. Going out and killing evil creatures is also Good, because you're ridding the world of Evil.
Most people who are paragons of Good in D&D would be called zealots and fanatics in the real world, unless they're pacifists (which most are not).

On a totally unrelated note, most of my characters tend towards neutral alignment.

[Phelix-Mu]

Huge, very long threads have discussed this in the past, but here is my take on it.

An alignment change is not permanent. Nothing in the spell compels the person to remain in the same alignment as the caster. While they now feel an unusual (considering their past life) inclination to do so (the effect of the time spent reviewing past crimes in the crystal), they are as free-willed as ever.

Just like Johnny the Paladin can wake up one day and decide that being good is a cruel joke and that evil is the way to go, so can someone that is a target of StW. Indeed, a previously evil person is more likely to backslide toward evil than Johnny is. Being [whatever] Good is just a collection of tendencies and past actions. Since the StW subject has no actions to back up the alignment, it is just a tendency.

The typical response to this is "well then that is a terrible spell." My response is "yes, it kind of is." The normal redemption rules are rather more useful, but StW is a mechanical way to get a plot result, and if a character/npc invests in StWing someone, they would be well-advised to put effort into helping the subject stay on the straight and narrow.

There is no compulsion element to the spell. It forces an alignment change. But you can't force someone to stay in any alignment, nor force them into actions backing up good alignment without a compulsion effect.

Just my personal take on the matter. As ever, the RAW and fluff are mad-to-terrible, and the whole of BoED assumes a campaign where both DM and players are taking the considerations of virtue to the next level, well-beyond the ken of core.

[Duke of Urrel]

The notion that it's inherently Evil to force an alignment change by magic – even a change from Evil to Good – seems to me entirely out of place in the context of a game in which various modes of painful, lethal violence are commonly accepted, even by non-Evil creatures, as a means to achieve various other objectives, such as temporary peace, liberation of captives, restoration of property, personal vengeance, or simply acquiring fame, riches, or political power for oneself. Good creatures may have moral qualms about using lethal violence for some of these purposes, but why should they have moral qualms about using magic to force Evil creatures to become Good, while sparing their lives?

Moreover, the multiverse of D&D promises various rewards and punishments in the soul's afterlife as consequences for a creature's moral or ethical behavior in life. In view of this fact, I would like to ask: Whose inviolable, inalienable birthright is it to conduct one's life so as to condemn one's soul to an afterlife in Hades, Baator, or the Abyss? And if we force an Evil creature to change in such a way that its soul later arrives in Elysium, Celestia, or Arborea instead, who is the victim of this grievous crime? Do the ends justify the means? In the real world, maybe not. But this is the D&D multiverse we're talking about.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Exactly. There is no such thing as an "inviolable, inalienable birthright" in D&D. To most things you (and your immortal soul) are currency, meal or simply irrelevant. As long as you don't do it out of lower motives like greed/jealousy/etc. good can do pretty much anything it pleases.
Also, any soul you keep out of the hells is one less foot soldier for the demonic legions and one more foot soldier for the side of good.

[Hamste]

Remember kiddies, a paper cut on the tongue is irredeemably evil but a spell that causes an evil creature to murder his own allies and friends is good. So is a spell that calls down shards of light that pierce an evil creatures eyes and slice open it's skin in hundreds of places. Alignment based spells are weird like that, as long as it targets evil creatures it doesn't matter how brutal or non-good the spell may seem, it can and most likely is classified as good by D&D.

[holywhippet]

Kind of reminds of the ability Izanami in Naruto. When it is used on you are stuck in a loop inside of your own mind until you repent whatever foolish action you were undertaking.

Anyway, in the real world you put people who commit crimes in jail in the hope they learn their lesson. This is just a more effective version. It is kind of odd though as you can mostly get the same effect by using a helm of opposite alignment which takes less time and doesn't call for the cost of a level. It's also odd since most players would just kill anything they deem as being evil.

[Necroticplague]

Moreover, the multiverse of D&D promises various rewards and punishments in the soul's afterlife as consequences for a creature's moral or ethical behavior in life. In view of this fact, I would like to ask: Whose inviolable, inalienable birthright is it to conduct one's life so as to condemn one's soul to an afterlife in Hades, Baator, or the Abyss? And if we force an Evil creature to change in such a way that its soul later arrives in Elysium, Celestia, or Arborea instead, who is the victim of this grievous crime? Do the ends justify the means? In the real world, maybe not. But this is the D&D multiverse we're talking about.

Why do you say "condemn" like ending up in Hades/The Abyss is intrinsicly bad? To a person of evil bent, this places can actually be pretty awesome. All the power that you want, up to and including deific levels, is your for the taking if you're willing and skilled enough to get it. And heck, you even get the method based on what kind you used to be. The CE barbarian lord who lead a reign of terror under his gargantuan hordes? Now in a place with infinite land to take, a second shot (more, considering being but down will just make him re-form), and a whiole new pool of potential recruits. The callous merchant find his lifetime of sticking to exact letter of draconian contracts he formed to screw over everyone else now getting the chance to do that again, only now with higher stakes and rewards than he could have ever known about in life.

[Larkas]

Why do you say "condemn" like ending up in Hades/The Abyss is intrinsicly bad? To a person of evil bent, this places can actually be pretty awesome. All the power that you want, up to and including deific levels, is your for the taking if you're willing and skilled enough to get it. And heck, you even get the method based on what kind you used to be. The CE barbarian lord who lead a reign of terror under his gargantuan hordes? Now in a place with infinite land to take, a second shot (more, considering being but down will just make him re-form), and a whiole new pool of potential recruits. The callous merchant find his lifetime of sticking to exact letter of draconian contracts he formed to screw over everyone else now getting the chance to do that again, only now with higher stakes and rewards than he could have ever known about in life.

That just makes StW sound more Good, though.

[atemu1234]

They mean [Good], not good.

[Talar]

I thought the "good" mind rape was programmed amnesia? Though I tend to stay away from the alignment books on general principles.

[Jeff the Green]

Remember kiddies, a paper cut on the tongue is irredeemably evil but a spell that causes an evil creature to murder his own allies and friends is good. So is a spell that calls down shards of light that pierce an evil creatures eyes and slice open it's skin in hundreds of places. Alignment based spells are weird like that, as long as it targets evil creatures it doesn't matter how brutal or non-good the spell may seem, it can and most likely is classified as good by D&D.

I agree that D&D alignment is incoherent, but I also don't understand why brainwashing is Evil in this contex. Lawful, certainly. But in real life brainwashing is a horrible thing to do to a person because it involves severe pain and mental trauma and frequently leaves the person with mental issues for the rest of their lives. And it doesn't work so well.

In D&D, or at least in sanctify the wicked, none of this is true. There is an abrogation of free will, but that is not the same thing as harm.

And, of course, this is assuming it's truly brainwashing as opposed to "evil people are blinded by their own evil, so forcing them to actually consider their past deeds inherently leads to redemption".

[Vogonjeltz]

The reason that they are compared is that Sanctify the Wicked fundamentally alters a creature's mind, as Mindrape does.

In some ways, it can be argued that StW is even crueler. Mindrape lets you go in and rearrange memories, or drive someone insane, or alter their alignment - but it's a one-time thing, and it's curable with Break Enchantment, Atonement, Miracle or Wish. StW takes place over a year of imprisonment, after which you've destroyed a creature's body, altered its soul fundamentally, and made it glad that you did. Further, there is no language in StW about restoring these changes, as there is in Mindrape.

Mindrape is like hypnotizing someone. Sanctify the Wicked is like locking them in your basement until they get Stockholm Syndrome. Yet somehow, the latter is a Sanctified spell.

The distinction being that in sanctify the wicked the subject is genuinely changing, whereas in mindrape they would object later down the line.

It's a role play conceit, but that's the difference.

[The Insaniac]

The issue with sanctify the wicked is that it's based firmly in the idea that evil is unnatural. If you study the way the spell works, the saving throw isn't to avoid becoming good, it's to avoid being trapped in the crystal. In addition, the spell basically makes you good in six seconds since if the gem is broken before the century is up, there is no change in the creature's alignment. People also object to the spell because it changes your law-chaos alignment to the caster's. So it's not just making you good, it's making you good the way that some random wizard sees good. So it clearly overrides your entire way of thinking and not just the evil bits.

Another issue is that this somehow makes you a better person for casting it.

[The Glyphstone]

Why do you say "condemn" like ending up in Hades/The Abyss is intrinsicly bad? To a person of evil bent, this places can actually be pretty awesome. All the power that you want, up to and including deific levels, is your for the taking if you're willing and skilled enough to get it. And heck, you even get the method based on what kind you used to be. The CE barbarian lord who lead a reign of terror under his gargantuan hordes? Now in a place with infinite land to take, a second shot (more, considering being but down will just make him re-form), and a whiole new pool of potential recruits. The callous merchant find his lifetime of sticking to exact letter of draconian contracts he formed to screw over everyone else now getting the chance to do that again, only now with higher stakes and rewards than he could have ever known about in life.

The usual depiction of the Evil Lower Planes is that it's a terrible place even for Evil people. That CE barbarian lord/LE merchant, upon death, is stripped of all his class levels (and possibly his memories), transformed into a petitioner whose base form is even weaker than a human, and put at the mercy and whims of an infinite number of demons/devils who will cheerfully devour his soul for a snack or use it as currency. If he's lucky, he'll be transformed into a dretch/lemure, putting him at the very bottom run of a asymptotic ladder where everyone is frantically kicking downward as they try to climb. In very rare cases, a supremely evil soul (such as these examples) might warrant a direct promotion a few rungs up the ladder by becoming a higher rank of fiend at start.

TLDR: Like....a tiny fraction of a percent of Evil souls actually get the treatment you're describing after death - the overwhelming majority are eaten/enslaved/absorbed. It's just that every single one of them believes that they personally are the tiny fraction of a percent who will beat the odds and prosper.

[Jeff the Green]

This is sort of bleeding over into the other alignment thread, so I'm just going to repeat myself:

There's also the case that many people who would fall into the Evil afterlives aren't very good at taking into account future consequences for their actions.

In real life there's a famous study called the Marshmallow Experiment. Little kids were placed in a room and showed a marshmallow "If you don't eat this marshmallow," the experimenter told the child, "I'll come back in a little while with another marshmallow and you can have both." Then they left them alone for quite a while and recorded how long it took for the kid to break.

If that were the end of it this would be just your everyday toddler-torture that goes on in developmental psych labs all the time. But they followed the kids into early adulthood. The ones that were least able to delay their gratification and leave the marshmallow alone consistently had lower grades, lower test scores, and, importantly for this discussion, more incarcerations.

So even if you want to get into the Good afterlife, if you're really bad at delaying gratification it's going to be very hard to resist the urge to commit crimes that would provide pleasure now but damn you later, while your friend with more self control can, even if they feel the same urges, keep themselves from doing Evil things and force themselves to do Good things.

It's possible that part of the spell is making them able to see the long-term consequences of their behavior and giving the ability to delay gratification.

[Necroticplague]

It's possible that part of the spell is making them able to see the long-term consequences of their behavior and giving the ability to delay gratification.

If that was true, wouldn't if be an Enchantment spell, at least partially? Its not mind-effecting, and its necromancery, so there's no real indication it magics your brain like that. Instead, it appears to simply be twisting your soul for a year on end until is get stuck in a certain position. Anything less than the full duration, and the soul snaps back into its former shape.

Also, how the heck would this work for 'evil, but mindless' things like zombies and skeletons? They aren't physically capable of remembering anything beyond their instructions, or feeling guilt, and their already capable of delaying their actions indefinitely ('takes no initiative').

[DeltaEmil]

Sanctify the Wicked won't work on mindless undead like zombies and skeletons, as the spell traps the soul in a diamond to make it see the error of its ways and so on.

As per the spell Magic Jar, only sentient undead have souls, or are souls.

[Elderand]

TLDR: Like....a tiny fraction of a percent of Evil souls actually get the treatment you're describing after death - the overwhelming majority are eaten/enslaved/absorbed. It's just that every single one of them believes that they personally are the tiny fraction of a percent who will beat the odds and prosper.

Just like playing any sort of lottery mean you're going to lose money generally. Yet there are enough winner to keep the rest playing. It's not some weird thing that you have to suspend your disbelief over, it's basic human psychology.

[geekintheground]

i know they dont mean "good" as in "better" but "good" as in [Good] sorry if that wasnt clear. but for something to be called a different version of something i thought the 2 had to be more similar. this seems like having a blue screwdriver and a red swiss army knife and saying the screwdriver is "a blue swiss army knife"... or at least, thats what it seems like to me

[hamishspence]

Programmed amnesia is much closer to being "the nonevil version".

[mostlyharmful]

Programmed amnesia is much closer to being "the nonevil version".

Nah. That's just the Neutral-I'm-just-messing-with-your-mind version. The problem with StW is that it's explicitly not just [Good] but suuuper-uber-extra-[Good] ie, sanctified. And once it hits you there is no hope at all of resisting it, it just rewrites your soul. in a [Good] way. Which makes no moral or ethical sense at all.

Hence why the BoED is so stupid, it just treats Good as Evil divided by -1. Hence StW, good poisons, loving weapons of mass destruction, etc....

[Sith_Happens]

Kind of reminds of the ability Izanami in Naruto. When it is used on you are stuck in a loop inside of your own mind until you repent whatever foolish action you were undertaking.

Somewhat ironically, the sacrifice component on Izanami is actually quite a bit harsher than that of any sanctified spell (one of your eyes stops working and can never be fixed by any known mundane or magical means, no, not even then).


Anyway, in the real world you put people who commit crimes in jail in the hope they learn their lesson. This is just a more effective version.

Yup, the only reason it raises so many eyebrows is that it's also an extremely wonky version. Firstly, it assumes that for any sapient Evil creature there exists some therapy regimen that will successfully convince it to turn Good, an idea that to my knowledge is not echoed in any other book. Secondly, the particular therapy regimen implemented via the spell is, somehow, invariably an all-or-nothing one that absolutely must run its full duration down to the second in order to work (which, besides the strain in credulity, seems highly inefficient). Thirdly, it also affects the target's Law-Chaos component in a fashion determined by that of the caster, which is rather irrelevant to the actual purpose of the spell (that being the Evil -> Good part).

Of course, even treating the spell as a [compulsion] despite its fairly clearly not being one, most people then seem to forget that only the Law-Chaos axis cares all that much about free will in the first place.

As an aside, Mindrape being [Evil] is also a huge stretch, especially considering that (as previously mentioned) Programmed Amnesia is close to the exact same thing without having that tag.

[Phelix-Mu]

I continue to believe that the spell is basically a way to force an evil creature into a bit of good role play. While the evil-now-good creature will feel inclined to be good (like any good creature), that isn't a straitjacket. Any creature can undertake efforts to change their alignment if they decide to do so (though the amount of effort and degree of success will vary widely); StW alters this basic aspect of alignment not at all.

So there is no compulsion. It's not mind rape. It's a soft, very fluffy way to make an evil being consider and temporarily reap the benefits of being good, in hopes that they then decide to stay that way. Nothing forces them to remain so, at least not by my reading.

[...]

Remember kiddies, a paper cut on the tongue is irredeemably evil but a spell that causes an evil creature to murder his own allies and friends is good. So is a spell that calls down shards of light that pierce an evil creatures eyes and slice open it's skin in hundreds of places. Alignment based spells are weird like that, as long as it targets evil creatures it doesn't matter how brutal or non-good the spell may seem, it can and most likely is classified as good by D&D.

A paper cut on the tongue? What does that mean?

[Hamste]

A paper cut on the tongue? What does that mean?

http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-vile-darkness--37/slash-tongue--255/

[HaikenEdge]

But surely the evil character can do good anyways, if that's the character's desire. If I recall correctly, both the BoVD and BoED have stated outright D&D is not a consequentialistic setting; it doesn't matter what your ends are, if your means are evil, you're still an evil person if you achieve things for the greater good.

Basically, the evil character can already do good; their methodology might differ, but they're definitely capable of achieving the good.

And now I have no idea what the point I'm trying to make is.

[Phelix-Mu]

But surely the evil character can do good anyways, if that's the character's desire. If I recall correctly, both the BoVD and BoED have stated outright D&D is not a consequentialistic setting; it doesn't matter what your ends are, if your means are evil, you're still an evil person if you achieve things for the greater good.

Basically, the evil character can already do good; their methodology might differ, but they're definitely capable of achieving the good.

And now I have no idea what the point I'm trying to make is.

Evil people may indeed do good things, as the whole idea of evil is just give in to your own selfish impulses and self-centered desires. So, occasionally it is gratifying to do good, and the evil person may make an occasional exception and do good (just like the good person can do the occasional evil without instant alignment shift), but too much of that and they are now neutral.

The bigger issue is that doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still the wrong thing to do. The degree of evil may be mitigated by various circumstances, but evil is evil, and doing evil is something good people ideally avoid whenever possible (and maybe even more than that).

To the issue of StW, the now-good subject feels the inclination to be good of someone that has habitually been so, and the real guilt of someone that believes their past actions were at fault. If the subject makes a genuine effort to be evil, though, there is nothing in the spell that stops that.

In this way, the spell really just evens the playing field; normally, it's easy to go good->evil, and hard to go evil->good. StW makes both directions difficult to do, giving a creature an impulse to do good not backed up by their own actions (as normally being good isn't easy and is more difficult the more virtuous one wishes to be...only good habits mitigate this difficulty, and those are founded on good actions, which the subject of the spells has few to none of in their past).

[ShurikVch]

I continue to believe that the spell is basically a way to force an evil creature into a bit of good role play. While the evil-now-good creature will feel inclined to be good (like any good creature), that isn't a straitjacket. Any creature can undertake efforts to change their alignment if they decide to do so (though the amount of effort and degree of success will vary widely); StW alters this basic aspect of alignment not at all.

So there is no compulsion. It's not mind rape. It's a soft, very fluffy way to make an evil being consider and temporarily reap the benefits of being good, in hopes that they then decide to stay that way. Nothing forces them to remain so, at least not by my reading. Nah! It's a magical compulsion. Shatter the gem a half-second too early - and villain is back in full inglory!
If freaking half-second separate stunning success and total failure of redemption, then it's have nothing to do with "see the right way", and everything with brainwashing
Also, target automatically adopts the alignment of the spell’s caster. Not just "Good", but the exactly same alignment as caster! (I wonder, what's will happen if Lilitu UMD scroll of StW?)
And one successful cast of Call Forth the Beast (http://dndtools.eu/spells/heroes-of-horror--70/call-forth-the-beast--1431/) or Morality Undone (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-vile-darkness--37/morality-undone--166/) will shift target all the way back to evil permanently (unlike "real good" creatures, who's only affected 1 hour/level (CFtB) or 10 minutes/level(MU))


Anyway, in the real world you put people who commit crimes in jail in the hope they learn their lesson. Nope. We put them in jail to keep them from hurting good law-obedient people; and to scare those who inclined to crime but still not imprisoned and have no wish to. People tend to imitate behavior of their associates, so post-jailed people became (as general rule) even more criminal then before

[Phelix-Mu]

Where is the effect a compulsion on the subject's actions? Citation, please.

[ShurikVch]

Where is the effect a compulsion on the subject's actions? Citation, please. Do you mean "compulsion" as sub-school, as descriptor, as mention in description, or as some general context thing?
There is no "compulsion" subschool, because it's necromancy, not an enchantment
There is no "compulsion" in-text, but so is in RAW for Helm of opposite alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment)
And general context was just pointed early

[Phelix-Mu]

My point is that the effect of the spell has no power to compel any sort of action by the subject. Alignment is prescriptive, not proscriptive, and barely that. The template conferred can be lost voluntarily. No change made by the spell is permanent, and no specific outcome can be enforced. It's pretty much totally fluff. And in that respect a totally sub-par spell to be using, but since it generates a novel effect, it has its place.

[HaikenEdge]

Evil people may indeed do good things, as the whole idea of evil is just give in to your own selfish impulses and self-centered desires. So, occasionally it is gratifying to do good, and the evil person may make an occasional exception and do good (just like the good person can do the occasional evil without instant alignment shift), but too much of that and they are now neutral.

The bigger issue is that doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still the wrong thing to do. The degree of evil may be mitigated by various circumstances, but evil is evil, and doing evil is something good people ideally avoid whenever possible (and maybe even more than that).

To the issue of StW, the now-good subject feels the inclination to be good of someone that has habitually been so, and the real guilt of someone that believes their past actions were at fault. If the subject makes a genuine effort to be evil, though, there is nothing in the spell that stops that.

In this way, the spell really just evens the playing field; normally, it's easy to go good->evil, and hard to go evil->good. StW makes both directions difficult to do, giving a creature an impulse to do good not backed up by their own actions (as normally being good isn't easy and is more difficult the more virtuous one wishes to be...only good habits mitigate this difficulty, and those are founded on good actions, which the subject of the spells has few to none of in their past).

That's kind of my problem with StW as a [Good] spell. It's clearly doing something for the right reasons (to make a creature good), but it's doing it in a way I, as a DM, would rule to be evil. To me, it's not much different than an evil character saving a city from a vampire invasion by finding a way to quarantine them to the slums and then just burning those same slums to the ground, regardless of how many people made their homes there; sure, they did it for the greater good (so it's the right reasons), but the amount of lives lost in the endeavor, when there were possibly other (if more strenuous and/or less likely to succeed) methods.

Basically, it's my beef with StW as a [Good] spell. It's the wrong thing, done ostensibly for the right reason.

[Phelix-Mu]

But since it hardly does anything at all, it can't really be said to be doing the wrong thing. Being evil and becoming good is hard; this spell makes it easy, just like being good and becoming evil (from "Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu" enough times, to other RAW ways to fall so fast that you break the sound barrier on the way down). The only real affect is that the evil subject spends a year in prison, feels bad about everything (to no mechanical effect), and gets eye lasers if they want to keep them. It isn't evil to inflict some emotional hardship on a deserving person in hopes of (from the perspective of good) saving their soul.

Of course the evil person views it as an affront. That doesn't mean that it is. Especially by D&D standards, where straight up killing that evil person for their evil deeds is often considered an acceptable moral choice. StW is vastly superior to the typical treatment that evil individuals get in the game.

[Jeff the Green]

Of course, even if the fluff were explicitly "you force the evil creature to do good", according to D&D morality this is, at worst, a neutral act. Neither Good nor Evil puts much stock in free will; that's Chaos's shtick.

[lord_khaine]

I am seriously surprised and shocked by the amounth of drama regarding this spell though.

To start with it has nothing to do with mindrape, it does not change memories or implant false suggestions, all it does is to force a change of heart regarding morality.

And i really cant see the arguments for how this could be anything but good, by the casting of this spell you give a soul another chance at attempting damnation.

While the target of this spell suposedly already has enough atrocities on its concience to make it deserve death or simular, then its merciful to give it a chance to change its way.

I dont think anyone would blink an eye at the suggestion of killing a dragon who have burned a village to the ground, why is it suddenly worse to prevent that from happening again, by making sure the dragon would not want to do something like that again?
Does people think cutting off its head gives it more of a free choice?

[Coidzor]

IIRC, the general term is more often Holy Mindrape.

The spell, as written, is fairly problematic. There's ways to make it... less problematic, though, and if one wants to have it in one's game, I would heavily recommend houseruling it into nigh-unrecognizability. Maybe lowering the spell level too, to go with making it... function very differently.

Or at least having a lesser version that the greater version that works perfectly is supposed to be a step up from.


To start with it has nothing to do with mindrape, it does not change memories or implant false suggestions, all it does is to force a change of heart regarding morality.

Mindrape is mostly brought up because it's a very powerful/loaded term and covers the brainwashing angle as well. For instance, people'd have much less issue with it if it didn't touch the ethical axis at all. So a CE person would become CG, LE -> LG, and NE -> NG, instead of where a CE/NE/LE person would become whatever alignment the spellcaster had and agree totally with the ethics and morality of the individual caster of the spell.

That's been said ad nauseum in these sorts of threads already though.


Of course, even if the fluff were explicitly "you force the evil creature to do good", according to D&D morality this is, at worst, a neutral act. Neither Good nor Evil puts much stock in free will; that's Chaos's shtick.

Totally disregarding free-will and making people your slaves is pretty much LN because that's Formians, who somehow maintain an LN alignment despite being fairly Evil-lite in most of their depictions as antagonists.

[Hazrond]

-snip-


-snip


-snip


-snip-

doesnt the spell have an inbuilt clause for the whole "alignment slide" thing? i thought it had a sentence along the lines of "the creature abhors the idea of returning to its former alignment" somewhere in there, maybe i was thinking of the helm of opposite alignment...

[Coidzor]

doesnt the spell have an inbuilt clause for the whole "alignment slide" thing? i thought it had a sentence along the lines of "the creature abhors the idea of returning to its former alignment" somewhere in there, maybe i was thinking of the helm of opposite alignment...

I believe there is, yes. I think that mostly that's generally part and parcel to alignment change borne out of beliefs changing, so it could be clarification of how alignment works ("No, a person who is Good would not want to start sacrificing babies until they turned Evil again.") or it could be a supernatural compulsion. *shrug*

[Phelix-Mu]

doesnt the spell have an inbuilt clause for the whole "alignment slide" thing? i thought it had a sentence along the lines of "the creature abhors the idea of returning to its former alignment" somewhere in there, maybe i was thinking of the helm of opposite alignment...

Just checked. No.

In fact, the Sanctified Creature template makes mention that it can be lost if the creature that gained it begins to act in evil ways once again. Once the template is gone, the creature is basically back to normal, minus one year of its life.

@Coidzor: I checked the spell. I don't see the line you are referring to, but perhaps I was skimming in haste. Could you quote me a sentence that says that or implies such?

[Coidzor]

Just checked. No.

In fact, the Sanctified Creature template makes mention that it can be lost if the creature that gained it begins to act in evil ways once again. Once the template is gone, the creature is basically back to normal, minus one year of its life.

@Coidzor: I checked the spell. I don't see the line you are referring to, but perhaps I was skimming in haste. Could you quote me a sentence that says that or implies such?

Hazrond is the one who was referencing a line. I just doublechecked the template and the spell myself and didn't find it so it appears I remembered that part erroneously, with the closest bit being the following paragraph from the Sanctified Creature template:
Many sanctified creatures feel a burning desire to purge their past evil deeds by performing selfless acts and heroic deeds. They pursue their newfound dedication to good with the zeal of an archon. Some strive to destroy evil where they find it, while others try to persuade other evil creatures to seek similar enlightenment. With their outlook having changed to good, many sanctified creatures feel compelled to take up arms to protect the good and the innocent. Sometimes they join with celestials and good-aligned adventurers to fight evil head-on.

That they have a new outlook alone should suggest that, no, they're not just going to immediately start sacrificing babies until they're Evil again as so frequently gets brought up in these threads, "Or Alignment Is A Strait Jacket."

Amusingly, Sanctified Creature template sorta contradicts the spell Sanctify the Wicked by not having the ethical axis of the creature's alignment change when the template is applied.

[Phelix-Mu]

All of the quoted parts seem to refer to potential outlooks that are largely down to the individual.

Contrast that quote with the next paragraph.

From Sanctified Creature Template, BoED:

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.

This, to me, implies that the sanctified creature can fall just fine. And if they want to do so, what stops them? A creature can have two conflicting desires; nothing RAW says a person of one alignment can't have some impulse to behave otherwise, or some driving compulsion to do the opposite. If they follow through on their desire to do something evil (or not be good), then alignment change likely follows.

The whole spell, and all the mechanics that it implies, are extremely weak from an optimization standpoint, because the caster can't really exert much in the way of concrete influence. It's all down to how the DM is going to have the newly-good creature react to being good, which is a role play-heavy, mechanics-lite issue.

Now, a cooperative DM in a campaign using BoED stuff (which pretty much has to be used with the help of a cooperative DM) would do well not to have the StW'd creature revert to evil instantly, since that pretty much spits in the face of a character that just made significant sacrifice to cast StW. But being good is hard, and being evil is easy; I see nothing to suggest that an StW'd creature that is left to their own devices and subject to the normal temptation to be evil (just like every sentient being ever is subject to), can't just undergo normal alignment change. A caster would do well to keep in close contact with the StW'd creature, using additional Diplomacy checks or other controls to make sure that creature doesn't revert to its evil ways (or a more chaotic soul could just let the creature live its own life...pretty much down to preference).

The spell is not about creating minions. It's really, really terrible at doing that.

[Malroth]

BoED villian with self repeating Sanctify the Wicked Traps that get used on everyone for every minor offence in the kingdom

[Red Fel]

If the creature is a non-Outsider, I acknowledge that, as a denizen of the Material, it has those delightful things like free choice and the ability to alter its fate through action. Although the Sanctified template strongly encourages it to remain Good, it is not required to. That said, I should note that the language of the template does strongly suggest that it would lack the desire to become Evil again, at least in the immediate future. I would compare it to the forced alignment change of a Helm of Opposite Alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment):
Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook.

. . .

Only a wish or a miracle can restore former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. (In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible.)

I note further that natives of the Material might lose the desire to return to their former alignment, but not the ability. Natives of the Material always have the ability.

Now, Outsiders are a different story. Note that Outsiders who receive the Sanctified template gain the (Good) subtype. That's major, because it means that being Good is now a fundamental part of the creature's being. It's not just a mental state; the creature is Good, inherently. Becoming non-Good would require a constant, active struggle. Consider the famous (in alignment discussions) illustration of the Succubus Paladin, a creature with the (Chaotic) and (Evil) subtypes who has embraced a life of Law and Good. Better yet, let's go to the videotape (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a):
Eludecia is a succubus who converted to good as a conscious act of will, and the tension of the continual effort to maintain her redemption makes her quite an interesting character in a roleplaying sense.
Eludecia knows that she can never purge herself completely of her evil nature without magical aid, but for now, she shuns such help because she is determined to "make it on her own." Thus, she must fight each and every day to avoid slipping back into her evil ways. Thus far, she has succeeded admirably.
A creature with the (Good) subtype would have to struggle valiantly against its nature to become Evil, and thus lose the Sanctified template. Possible, certainly, but much harder than it would be for a native of the Material.

[Phelix-Mu]

While the Helm of Opposite Alignment may be illustrative, it seems mostly irrelevant, because cursed items do present an ongoing effect that is inherently hard to get rid of. It's the curse, not the alignment change, that is creating the effect, in my mind ("the magic" is the source of the change in attitude, not the change in alignment).

I don't suggest that there is no effect at all, or that it is trivial. But it is far from the near-ironclad utility of mindrape, which allows much more versatility and much more mechanical effect to back up its permanency.

In a sense, I would actually see this as indicative of the difference between good and evil.

StW: A hope for good, requiring sacrifice by the good, but by no means certain.

Mindrape: A surefire way to get the effect you desire (assuming the effect lands), the only cost being the moral compromise of the caster (a cost most evil people don't even register). Oh, and whatever it was that the pre-casting target was, now gone...but that's also fairly acceptable to an evil person.

Good, difficult but hopeful; evil, quick and full of damnation. I think it works out okay if you look at it this way (and ignore the dumb fluff writing and inconsistency regarding the ethical axis, which doesn't make much sense).

[Coidzor]

This, to me, implies that the sanctified creature can fall just fine. And if they want to do so, what stops them?

Going out and sacrificing babies until you're evil again isn't organic. It's not falling. Falling generally needs to make some sort of sense, which is one component of why forcing Paladins to fall against their will is so tiresome as a D&D trope.

Yes, they can go evil again, that doesn't mean that they don't have to deal with the same baggage with going evil and needing an actual justification for such that a newly minted Good character would need to not just get accused of acting against character.

[Knaight]

Both of the spells basically take the target, kill them, stick somebody else in their body, and give that somebody else their memories. StW and mindrape are really pretty similar if that's what is being looked at; both are essentially ways to kill people while making it seem like they aren't dead and exploiting their remains for your own ends. When the system condemns the use of poisoned arrows, marking StW as good seems off.

[Sith_Happens]

That's a pretty loose definition of "basically."

[satcharna]

It might be loose, but it's also the only conclusion you can draw from it. A personality is formed from your experiences. The spell removes that personality and creates a new one.
If your definition of personhood is based strictly on the body, then the spell does indeed turn someone good. But by that definition a psion that uses mind swap isn't the same person any more, and raising a corpse as a zombie would be the same thing as casting a resurrection spell. If you instead define personhood as being a personality formed from memories and experiences, then this spell effectively kills someone, and then sticks a new personality in the body, but giving it access to the old memories. There is no way to refluff this spell as good, because what it does is fundamentally not. It kills someone, and then hijacks their body.

[Jeff the Green]

It might be loose, but it's also the only conclusion you can draw from it. A personality is formed from your experiences. The spell removes that personality and creates a new one.
If your definition of personhood is based strictly on the body, then the spell does indeed turn someone good. But by that definition a psion that uses mind swap isn't the same person any more, and raising a corpse as a zombie would be the same thing as casting a resurrection spell. If you instead define personhood as being a personality formed from memories and experiences, then this spell effectively kills someone, and then sticks a new personality in the body, but giving it access to the old memories. There is no way to refluff this spell as good, because what it does is fundamentally not. It kills someone, and then hijacks their body.

You are aware that forcing someone to sit through a lecture, even one that is perfectly effective, is entirely different from entirely rewriting their personality, right? StW changes only their alignment. Nothing else.

[Larkas]

Holy straw man, Batman!

Seriously, now, if that made any sense, you would be killing yourself every time you changed your mind about something.

[satcharna]

It takes effect the very last second after a full year has passed. Otherwise it is ineffective. It compels the character to retain their new alignment. That's not the same thing as gradually turning someone good by letting their personality develop in that direction in the first place. If it were to gradually turn the character good without any magical compulsions, it could be argued to be a good spell. As-is it's just a very slow version of mindrape.

[Knaight]

You are aware that forcing someone to sit through a lecture, even one that is perfectly effective, is entirely different from entirely rewriting their personality, right? StW changes only their alignment. Nothing else.
If by "lecture" you mean "brainwashing", then sure. You're only changing the titanic aspect that is their moral opinions and resultant actions. It's not quite as thorough as mindrape, it's substantially more extensive than actual brainwashing tends to be.


Holy straw man, Batman!

Seriously, now, if that made any sense, you would be killing yourself every time you changed your mind about something.
Hardly. Putting aside how the whole matter of continuity of personhood and what personhood is is a messy business, it doesn't follow that the complete rewriting of a persons memories being the destruction of the person means that a tiny change in opinion on one thing is. This is like claiming that someone dies every time they get a cut, because the blood they lose dies and it's part of them.

[Larkas]

Hardly. Putting aside how the whole matter of continuity of personhood and what personhood is is a messy business, it doesn't follow that the complete rewriting of a persons memories being the destruction of the person means that a tiny change in opinion on one thing is. This is like claiming that someone dies every time they get a cut, because the blood they lose dies and it's part of them.

Exactly! You seem to be missing the part where StW doesn't rewrite anyone's memories (that would be mindrape), it merely changes that persons reactions to their own memories.

The fact that StW only takes effect after one year, being effectively useless before that, seems more like a mechanics shortcoming than a fluff one. Fortunately or not, regular D&D doesn't have NWN's alignment scale (there's something similar in a Dragon issue, but it's always subjective), and hence you can't just say that "every 3 days spent in the crystal moves the creature one point closer towards Good. Once the creature reaches maximum Good, the crystal shatters and the creature is released".

[Jeff the Green]

If by "lecture" you mean "brainwashing", then sure. You're only changing the titanic aspect that is their moral opinions and resultant actions. It's not quite as thorough as mindrape, it's substantially more extensive than actual brainwashing tends to be.

Right. So in all of the stories, real or imagined, where someone who has lived a life of iniquity hears a sermon, realizes that their life up til then has been empty, and converts on the spot, what really happened is that they died and someone else took over the helm. I mean, I know they're prone to calling themselves "Born Again", but that's supposed to be figurative.

[ryu]

If by "lecture" you mean "brainwashing", then sure. You're only changing the titanic aspect that is their moral opinions and resultant actions. It's not quite as thorough as mindrape, it's substantially more extensive than actual brainwashing tends to be.


Hardly. Putting aside how the whole matter of continuity of personhood and what personhood is is a messy business, it doesn't follow that the complete rewriting of a persons memories being the destruction of the person means that a tiny change in opinion on one thing is. This is like claiming that someone dies every time they get a cut, because the blood they lose dies and it's part of them.

Just gonna point out that continuity of personhood as a given for continuing to exist via uninterrupted stream of events is silly. Most every person you have ever met or will ever meet has their continuity interrupted every day by sleep. None of that memory of dreams stuff works either. People literally remember tiny fractions of what they dream at best. Not only that dreaming only occurs for a hilariously small fraction of the actual sleep period.

[Elderand]

Right. So in all of the stories, real or imagined, where someone who has lived a life of iniquity hears a sermon, realizes that their life up til then has been empty, and converts on the spot, what really happened is that they died and someone else took over the helm. I mean, I know they're prone to calling themselves "Born Again", but that's supposed to be figurative.

Except such a sermon would use, wait for it, diplomacy.

This spell isn't changing someone's mind gradualy or with a check, or offering a save. What it is doing is building up a charge for nearly a year and then zap you in the brain to not only make you good but the exact same type of good the caster was.

It's not convincing someone to do better, it's merely a somewhat reversible magical lobotomy.

[Dalebert]

Sanctify the Wicked is like locking them in your basement until they get Stockholm Syndrome. Yet somehow, the latter is a Sanctified spell.

Oooooh, like when

Sam tied up Crowley in a church and repeatedly injected him with his blood.

[Jeff the Green]

Except such a sermon would use, wait for it, diplomacy.

This spell isn't changing someone's mind gradualy or with a check, or offering a save. What it is doing is building up a charge for nearly a year and then zap you in the brain to not only make you good but the exact same type of good the caster was.

It's not convincing someone to do better, it's merely a somewhat reversible magical lobotomy.

If you were giving the sermon, sure. If a magical construct that could probe a creature's thoughts to figure out the perfect argument and impart that argument directly to the creature's brain without the need for imperfect language were the one doing it, then no, it wouldn't.

The fact is that the spell is entirely devoid of fluff indicating that it is or isn't brainwashing. I've made a suggestion that is consistent with both its effects and its tags, which is enough justification for the spell's coherence.

(And, to preempt quibbles about the duration, maybe the spell needs time to work out and impart the argument. Maybe the argument is only a seed and it requires time of peaceful contemplation which the outside world cannot provide to bear fruit. Maybe the spell needs to prepare the creature for the argument that will eventually convince it of the truth by replaying key parts of the creature's life from an objective point of view.)

[Hecuba]

i've seen people refer to "Sanctify the Wicked" as a good version of mindrape before and it came up in 2 recent threads so i was wondering: why do people think this? StW only changes someones alignment, that doesnt mean theyll help you or tell you anything. mindrape is complete knowledge of and control over ANY person. StW costs you 10k and an entire level AND has a year during which all your work can become undone. mindrape is instantaneous and doesnt cost you anything... StW really only does a small fraction of what Mindrape can do.

(i realize the cost stuff might not be relevant, but i thought it important to point out all the ways the 2 are different)

The StW= MR equivalence always seems to my eye to be the result of missing some important context. It is, however, context that is not included in the book and not particularly compatible with the existence of naturally Evil entities in a setting.

The fluff of Sanctify the Wicked ("The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness") seems to point generally in the direction of the idea that the natural state of people is goodness and that, if they had true understanding, evil people would become disgusted with themselves and seek redemption.

This position is grossly incompatible with the rest of the D&D alignment system: it can't be readily reconciled with the existence of non-Good outsiders nor with the existence of any Evil creatures that are truly wise (since this presumes that evil is folly).

[Desiani]

If the creature is a non-Outsider, I acknowledge that, as a denizen of the Material, it has those delightful things like free choice and the ability to alter its fate through action. Although the Sanctified template strongly encourages it to remain Good, it is not required to. That said, I should note that the language of the template does strongly suggest that it would lack the desire to become Evil again, at least in the immediate future. I would compare it to the forced alignment change of a Helm of Opposite Alignment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment):

I note further that natives of the Material might lose the desire to return to their former alignment, but not the ability. Natives of the Material always have the ability.

Now, Outsiders are a different story. Note that Outsiders who receive the Sanctified template gain the (Good) subtype. That's major, because it means that being Good is now a fundamental part of the creature's being. It's not just a mental state; the creature is Good, inherently. Becoming non-Good would require a constant, active struggle. Consider the famous (in alignment discussions) illustration of the Succubus Paladin, a creature with the (Chaotic) and (Evil) subtypes who has embraced a life of Law and Good. Better yet, let's go to the videotape (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a):
A creature with the (Good) subtype would have to struggle valiantly against its nature to become Evil, and thus lose the Sanctified template. Possible, certainly, but much harder than it would be for a native of the Material.

So does this mean you could use this on a pit fiend or even A Lord of Hell/Abyss to make them a Good Creature if they fail the save to make it into the crystal?

[Red Fel]

So does this mean you could use this on a pit fiend or even A Lord of Hell/Abyss to make them a Good Creature if they fail the save to make it into the crystal?

Well, here's the confusing part. On the one hand, you have this language from the Sanctified Creature template:
“Sanctified creature” is an acquired template that can be added to any evil creature except for outsiders with the evil subtype (referred to hereafter as “base creature”).

On the other hand, two sentences later, you get this:
Outsiders gain the good subtype and lose any of the following subtypes: baatezu (devil), tanar’ri (demon), and yugoloth.

Now, I don't know how many creatures have the (baatezu), (tanar'ri), or (yugoloth) subtypes and don't have the (evil) subtype. I note, for example, that the Devils listed on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm) have the (evil), (lawful), and (extraplanar) subtypes, but not the (baatezu) subtype. So there ought to be some overlap, but doesn't seem to be.

But the explicit RAW is that it doesn't work on Evil Outsiders. The template "can be added to any evil creature except for outsiders with the evil subtype[.]" So, no, you can't apply the template to a Pit Fiend.

The problem becomes compounded when you look at the Sanctify the Wicked spell. The target is "one evil creature," not "one evil creature except for Evil Outsiders," so the spell can be used on an Evil Outsider. If successful, the spell forcibly changes the target's alignment. However, this is independent of the Sanctified Creature template, and therefore could be applied to an Evil Outsider (whose inherently Evil being would likely override its new alignment before too long).

But then the spell says that the target is transformed into a Sanctified Creature. Boom. Well, what do you do if the spell says "turn it into a Sanctified Creature," and the template says it can't be applied?

I have no idea.

[Desiani]

Well, here's the confusing part. On the one hand, you have this language from the Sanctified Creature template:

On the other hand, two sentences later, you get this:

Now, I don't know how many creatures have the (baatezu), (tanar'ri), or (yugoloth) subtypes and don't have the (evil) subtype. I note, for example, that the Devils listed on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm) have the (evil), (lawful), and (extraplanar) subtypes, but not the (baatezu) subtype. So there ought to be some overlap, but doesn't seem to be.

But the explicit RAW is that it doesn't work on Evil Outsiders. The template "can be added to any evil creature except for outskmiders with the evil subtype[.]" So, no, you can't apply the template to a Pit Fiend.

The problem becomes compounded when you look at the Sanctify the Wicked spell. The target is "one evil creature," not "one evil creature except for Evil Outsiders," so the spell can be used on an Evil Outsider. If successful, the spell forcibly changes the target's alignment. However, this is independent of the Sanctified Creature template, and therefore could be applied to an Evil Outsider (whose inherently Evil being would likely override its new alignment before too long).

But then the spell says that the target is transformed into a Sanctified Creature. Boom. Well, what do you do if the spell says "turn it into a Sanctified Creature," and the template says it can't be applied?

I have no idea.

Which is why I ask... I am playing a characther with access to the spell and I was trying to see of I could do this to turn the BBEGs best friend into a BBGG party friend... lol

pit fiend for a pet would be hilarious

[atemu1234]

Well, here's the confusing part. On the one hand, you have this language from the Sanctified Creature template:

On the other hand, two sentences later, you get this:

Now, I don't know how many creatures have the (baatezu), (tanar'ri), or (yugoloth) subtypes and don't have the (evil) subtype. I note, for example, that the Devils listed on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm) have the (evil), (lawful), and (extraplanar) subtypes, but not the (baatezu) subtype. So there ought to be some overlap, but doesn't seem to be.

But the explicit RAW is that it doesn't work on Evil Outsiders. The template "can be added to any evil creature except for outsiders with the evil subtype[.]" So, no, you can't apply the template to a Pit Fiend.

The problem becomes compounded when you look at the Sanctify the Wicked spell. The target is "one evil creature," not "one evil creature except for Evil Outsiders," so the spell can be used on an Evil Outsider. If successful, the spell forcibly changes the target's alignment. However, this is independent of the Sanctified Creature template, and therefore could be applied to an Evil Outsider (whose inherently Evil being would likely override its new alignment before too long).

But then the spell says that the target is transformed into a Sanctified Creature. Boom. Well, what do you do if the spell says "turn it into a Sanctified Creature," and the template says it can't be applied?

I have no idea.

Yeah, that's more my issue with the spell. Fluff can be debated. Fixing the crunch is important.

[Jeff the Green]

But then the spell says that the target is transformed into a Sanctified Creature. Boom. Well, what do you do if the spell says "turn it into a Sanctified Creature," and the template says it can't be applied?

I have no idea.

Specific over general? The template's obviously a mess, but the interaction with the spell seems clear.

[ShurikVch]

I don't think StW actually make creatures into good

I think it make fake "good" personality and stick it into the target
It's the main reason why new alignment so fast to stick on and so easy to break out

I can compare Sanctified creatures with "ensouled" vampires from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Angel may be good, but fake; Angelus is real. Truth can be ugly, but it didn't make it any less truth.

Occasionally, some evil character can turn good, but usually it's gradual slow process.
For example, let's take Drizzt Do'Urden. How much time it taken before he actually stopped being evil?

On the other hand, occasions of "villain turned good fast and easy way" usually happen as gag and doesn't last for long. Let's see: "Snugglejuice" Beetlejuice, Dr. Drakken (http://kimpossible.wikia.com/wiki/Drakken) in "Bad Boy"... They are 1) pathetic; 2) not stay in this mode for long
Even Zordrak (http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Zordrak) from Dreamstone in that situation looked... strange
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-UhViXwIOA
Damn it, even Belkar turned (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0058.html) non-evil for the whole five frames!

Anyway, Sanctified creature is a ticking bomb. One successful cast of Morality Undone - and it will get all it's evilness back

P. S. StW can turn "good" a Taint Elemental from Heroes of Horror - creature arguably more evil than anybody else - it literally made of evil

[sleepyphoenixx]

Anyway, Sanctified creature is a ticking bomb. One successful cast of Morality Undone - and it will get all it's evilness back

Which isn't much of an argument since Morality Undone turns everyone evil, not just redeemed former evil creatures.

[ShurikVch]

Which isn't much of an argument since Morality Undone turns everyone evil, not just redeemed former evil creatures. Everyone turn evil for 10 minutes/level, Sanctified creature - permanently

[lord_khaine]

I don't think StW actually make creatures into good

I think it make fake "good" personality and stick it into the target
It's the main reason why new alignment so fast to stick on and so easy to break out

You are of course welcome to house rule this, but its not what the official fluff says.



Everyone turn evil for 10 minutes/level, Sanctified creature - permanently

Where does this idea come from? There is nothing in the spell descriptions that support this idea.

[Elderand]

Where does this idea come from? There is nothing in the spell descriptions that support this idea.

It's from 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.

[Jeff the Green]

It's from 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.

"Essentially" is the key word there. That means it's a generalization or clarification. Being Good is an effect of StW, not just the template. So it loses the template but thereafter reverts to good when the spell ends.

[Sartharina]

"Sanctify the Wicked" is an ultimate "You don't have to be the bad guy" speech.

One of the postulates of this spell is that "Within even the blackest of souls, there is a Good person trying to get out". StW grabs that person, and, over the course of the year, allows them to free themselves from the evil encasing it.

... that said, I have no idea why it changes the Law/Chaos aspect of a person.
Except such a sermon would use, wait for it, diplomacy.Diplomacy does not work on all creatures.


This spell isn't changing someone's mind gradualy or with a check, or offering a save. What it is doing is building up a charge for nearly a year and then zap you in the brain to not only make you good but the exact same type of good the caster was.

It's not convincing someone to do better, it's merely a somewhat reversible magical lobotomy.That is a fluff/crunch disconnect on par with Drown Healing, not what's actually supposed to happen.

[Elderand]

"Essentially" is the key word there. That means it's a generalization or clarification. Being Good is an effect of StW, not just the template. So it loses the template but thereafter reverts to good when the spell ends.

That's not what essentialy mean

1. in a fundamental or basic way; in essence

it's not used to say there could be exception, it's used as emphasis.

And you're highliting another problem of sanctify the wicked. If the alignement change is separate from the template granted, then you can't actualy put the template on the creature at all. Because it's not evil anymore.

[Jeff the Green]

And you're highliting another problem of sanctify the wicked. If the alignement change is separate from the template granted, then you can't actualy put the template on the creature at all. Because it's not evil anymore.

Not a problem at all; specific trumps general.

[Sartharina]

That's not what essentialy mean

1. in a fundamental or basic way; in essence

it's not used to say there could be exception, it's used as emphasis.

And you're highliting another problem of sanctify the wicked. If the alignement change is separate from the template granted, then you can't actualy put the template on the creature at all. Because it's not evil anymore.
In figurative language, "Essentially" means 'Broad strokes" effect. That said - it's understandable how it happens, given that Magic is involved.

[Elderand]

In figurative language, "Essentially" means 'Broad strokes" effect. That said - it's understandable how it happens, given that Magic is involved.

Except that is clear that it is not used to mean "mostly".
And the "it's magic" or specific trump general arguments do not actually work in this case. Why ? Because the only way for a creature to gain this template, the sole way to get it, is to be hit by a sanctify the wicked.

The two are one and the same, therefore all limitation to the template apply to the spell as well.

So there is only one of two possibility, either the alignement change and the template are separate effect of the spell, in which case nothing can ever get the template, or the alignement change is a result of the template, in which case anything that will alter alignement toward evil, will make the creature return to evil permanently proving that the change of heart was not genuine.

[Ettina]

You are aware that forcing someone to sit through a lecture, even one that is perfectly effective, is entirely different from entirely rewriting their personality, right? StW changes only their alignment. Nothing else.

Are you implying that a character's alignment isn't fundamental to their personality? Because a Lawful Good Belkar would be a fundamentally different person, in my opinion.

Or, for another side, an alignment quiz pegged me as Chaotic Good. The traits it used to call me that were my sense of empathy for others (Good), my deep-seated fear of being controlled by others (Chaotic), my poor planning and impulsivity (Chaotic), my strong desire to change the world for the better (Good), and so forth. I can assure you that all of those traits are pretty fundamental to my personality. I would not be the same person if any of those changed.

[DeltaEmil]

Well, here's the confusing part. On the one hand, you have this language from the Sanctified Creature template:

On the other hand, two sentences later, you get this:

Now, I don't know how many creatures have the (baatezu), (tanar'ri), or (yugoloth) subtypes and don't have the (evil) subtype. I note, for example, that the Devils listed on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm) have the (evil), (lawful), and (extraplanar) subtypes, but not the (baatezu) subtype. So there ought to be some overlap, but doesn't seem to be.The SRD does not have the terms baatezu and tanar'ri, because these terms are the copyright of WotC. The Monster Manuals do have those names.

For example, Kytons and Hellcats are devils that do not belong to the Baatezu-devil race. Every baatezu is a devil, but not every devil (outsider with the lawful and evil subtype) is a baatezu.

Fiendish Codex 1 also added the loumaraand the obyrinths as two demon species.

[ShurikVch]

Being Good is an effect of StW, not just the template. So it loses the template but thereafter reverts to good when the spell ends. Prove it.
Quotes, please

[Larkas]

Prove it.
Quotes, please

Prove that it isn't so.

Quotes, please.

[ShurikVch]

Prove that it isn't so.

Quotes, please.
If you ask...
Sanctify the Wicked
Necromancy [Good]
Level: Sanctified 9
Components: V, S, F, Sacrifice
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One evil creature
Duration: See text
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

This spell tears the foul, corrupted soul from the body of an evil creature and traps it in a diamond receptacle (the spell’s focus). The creature’s soulless body instantly withers or molders into dust.
Trapped in the gem, the evil soul undergoes a gradual transformation. The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness. Over time, this spark grows into a burning fire. After one year, the trapped creature’s soul adopts the alignment of the spell’s caster (lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good). Once the soul’s penitence is complete, shattering the diamond reforms the creature’s original body, returns the creature’s soul to it, and transforms the whole into a sanctified creature (see Chapter 8: Monsters).
If the diamond is shattered before the soul has found penitence, the evil creature’s body and soul are fully restored; the creature’s state is just as it was before the spell was cast. 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.
The diamond receptacle has a hardness
of 20 and 1 hit point.
Focus: A flawless diamond worth no less than 10,000 gp.
Sacrifice: 1 character level.
1) Please, point me, where it says it make creature good?
2) Duration of spell ends when someone shattered the gem

[hamishspence]

1) Please, point me, where it says it make creature good?

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

[kellbyb]

If you ask...

1) Please, point me, where it says it make creature good?

Sanctify the Wicked
Necromancy [Good]
Level: Sanctified 9
Components: V, S, F, Sacrifice
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One evil creature
Duration: See text
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

This spell tears the foul, corrupted soul from the body of an evil creature and traps it in a diamond receptacle (the spell’s focus). The creature’s soulless body instantly withers or molders into dust.
Trapped in the gem, the evil soul undergoes a gradual transformation. The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness. Over time, this spark grows into a burning fire. After one year, the trapped creature’s soul adopts the alignment of the spell’s caster (lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good). Once the soul’s penitence is complete, shattering the diamond reforms the creature’s original body, returns the creature’s soul to it, and transforms the whole into a sanctified creature (see Chapter 8: Monsters).
If the diamond is shattered before the soul has found penitence, the evil creature’s body and soul are fully restored; the creature’s state is just as it was before the spell was cast. 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.
The diamond receptacle has a hardness
of 20 and 1 hit point.
Focus: A flawless diamond worth no less than 10,000 gp.
Sacrifice: 1 character level.

Highlighted it for your convenience.

[ShurikVch]

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

[Larkas]

1) Please, point me, where it says it make creature good?

Sure, here you go:


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


2) Duration of spell ends when someone shattered the gem

And that is relevant how?


Once the soul’s penitence is complete, shattering the diamond reforms the creature’s original body, returns the creature’s soul to it, and transforms the whole into a sanctified creature (see Chapter 8: Monsters).

Care to try again?

[HaikenEdge]

So, let's say for argument's sake that Sanctify the Wicked is either (A) the ultimate "You don't have to be a bad guy" speech, or (B) helps a victim find the grain of good inside of them; how would it actually interact with a character who is without any good at all or is incapable of understanding good?

That's to say, as previously mentioned by other posters, if Sanctify the Wicked's premise is that evil is a folly, and the spell "helps" its victim(s) reflect upon their folly, how does somebody incapable of differentiating between good and evil, say, somebody so completely amoral they can't even tell the difference between the two? That's not to say a character with an intelligence so low it's incapable of understanding morality due to not being intelligent enough, but somebody who, on an intellectual level, does not accept the divide between good and evil, and believes at the very core good versus evil is itself a faulty premise, either due to their own logical conclusions, or due to some psychological trauma suffered previously, or somebody for whom good and evil just never registers on an intellectual level.

[Sartharina]

Flavor textRules Text. "Flavor Text doesn't count" is the absolutely most bull**** argument I've ever seen spewed on these forums.

That spell says exactly what the spell does, and how it does it. That is rules text, not something to be discarded.

So, let's say for argument's sake that Sanctify the Wicked is either (A) the ultimate "You don't have to be a bad guy" speech, or (B) helps a victim find the grain of good inside of them; how would it actually interact with a character who is without any good at all or is incapable of understanding good?

That's to say, as previously mentioned by other posters, if Sanctify the Wicked's premise is that evil is a folly, and the spell "helps" its victim(s) reflect upon their folly, how does somebody incapable of differentiating between good and evil, say, somebody so completely amoral they can't even tell the difference between the two? That's not to say a character with an intelligence so low it's incapable of understanding morality due to not being intelligent enough, but somebody who, on an intellectual level, does not accept the divide between good and evil, and believes at the very core good versus evil is itself a faulty premise, either due to their own logical conclusions, or due to some psychological trauma suffered previously, or somebody for whom good and evil just never registers on an intellectual level.There is absolutely no such thing as something that is without any good at all or completely incapable of understanding Good. Even the most vile of monsters have a spark of goodness in them somewhere (Just as even the most radiant of Good creatures has a speck of evil buried deep within itself)

[HaikenEdge]

There is absolutely no such thing as something that is without any good at all or completely incapable of understanding Good. Even the most vile of monsters have a spark of goodness in them somewhere (Just as even the most radiant of Good creatures has a speck of evil buried deep within itself)

That reads more like opinion than fact; it seems you believe that no good creature is incorruptible and no evil creature is irredeemable, but that's not really relevant to what I'm asking, because it's a completely different premise.

Basically, if Sanctify the Wicked is the ultimate therapy, how does it affect a creature that, from a completely rational standpoint, has decided and believes the line between good and evil is an entirely arbitrary constructed created by society to prevent the strong from dominating the weak and imploding upon itself, and has always believed this. To them, there is no good or evil, because to them, it's a nonexistent artificial construct they believe to be a logical fallacy, ie, like "Because I said so" does not make something a valid logical argument.

The victim of Sanctify the Wicked in this case doesn't even need to be an evil creature; it's simply a creature that denies, from a rational, fundamental standpoint, that good and evil even exists outside of being an arbitrary societal construct that they believe is entirely flawed, because it has no rational basis and is essentially based on "We said so, or we'll kill you."

[Reverent-One]

That reads more like opinion than fact; it seems you believe that no good creature is incorruptible and no evil creature is irredeemable, but that's not really relevant to what I'm asking, because it's a completely different premise.

Basically, if Sanctify the Wicked is the ultimate therapy, how does it affect a creature that, from a completely rational standpoint, has decided and believes the line between good and evil is an entirely arbitrary constructed created by society to prevent the strong from dominating the weak and imploding upon itself, and has always believed this. To them, there is no good or evil, because to them, it's a nonexistent artificial construct they believe to be a logical fallacy, ie, like "Because I said so" does not make something a valid logical argument.

The victim of Sanctify the Wicked in this case doesn't even need to be an evil creature; it's simply a creature that denies, from a rational, fundamental standpoint, that good and evil even exists outside of being an arbitrary societal construct that they believe is entirely flawed, because it has no rational basis and is essentially based on "We said so, or we'll kill you."

Same way it convinces someone who's evil to be good, by convincing them that they were wrong. That they came to the "there is no good and evil" conclusion via rational thought doesn't mean that it's the correct conclusion.

[HaikenEdge]

Same way it convinces someone who's evil to be good, by convincing them that they were wrong. That they came to the "there is no good and evil" conclusion via rational thought doesn't mean that it's the correct conclusion.

Also doesn't mean it's the incorrect conclusion either. And assuming it (there being no good and evil) is the correct conclusion, how does forcing the character into an incorrect conclusion rate on the good and evil level? Is it on the, "I told the lie to protect you" level of good?

[Reverent-One]

Also doesn't mean it's the incorrect conclusion either. And assuming it (there being no good and evil) is the correct conclusion, how does forcing the character into an incorrect conclusion rate on the good and evil level? Is it on the, "I told the lie to protect you" level of good?

If you can demonstrate that it is the correct conclusion in the D&D world, your argument has a point. Given how much talk of there being Good and Evil there is in both the fluff and mechanics of the system however, this seems fairly strongly to not to be the case.

[Larrx]

That reads more like opinion than fact; it seems you believe that no good creature is incorruptible and no evil creature is irredeemable, but that's not really relevant to what I'm asking, because it's a completely different premise.

Basically, if Sanctify the Wicked is the ultimate therapy, how does it affect a creature that, from a completely rational standpoint, has decided and believes the line between good and evil is an entirely arbitrary constructed created by society to prevent the strong from dominating the weak and imploding upon itself, and has always believed this. To them, there is no good or evil, because to them, it's a nonexistent artificial construct they believe to be a logical fallacy, ie, like "Because I said so" does not make something a valid logical argument.

The victim of Sanctify the Wicked in this case doesn't even need to be an evil creature; it's simply a creature that denies, from a rational, fundamental standpoint, that good and evil even exists outside of being an arbitrary societal construct that they believe is entirely flawed, because it has no rational basis and is essentially based on "We said so, or we'll kill you."

On a similar note, fluff-wise, how does StW act to change the alignment of an always evil mindless creature, like a zombie?

[HaikenEdge]

If you can demonstrate that it is the correct conclusion in the D&D world, your argument has a point. Given how much talk of there being Good and Evil there is in both the fluff and mechanics of the system however, this seems fairly strongly to not to be the case.

This is a bit of an ontological argument, but all the things that are considered morally reprehensible, are only deemed such so that society will have a justification to punish the offender; in fact, all of the things that are deemed evil in D&D are simply all things that would call society to implode if done on a large scale. In essence, good and evil exists in D&D to provide society with a justification system by which to condemn those who would exercise their powers over others, by calling them evil if they cannot be called unlawful, ie, the king who murders a bunch of peasants for giggles but does so by making a law allowing him to do so is, by definition, not unlawful, even if he is a tyrant. Something that could, if done on a large scale by numerous people, cause society to break down is not in itself evil; it's just disruptive to the existence of society, but that itself doesn't make it inherently evil, the same way something that, if done on a large scale by numerous people, would be beneficial to society does not make it inherently good.

And if the decision on what is good or evil itself is passed down from either deities or extraplanar creatures with the relevant subtypes, it makes it no less arbitrary than if it was decided by the sentient beings on the primes. Essentially, D&D morality comes down to, "Because we said so", which itself is not a rational conclusion of any line of reasoning, and even worse, there's no legal basis that can be rationally backed, ie, whereas murder is illegal because, if legal, the population in a society would drastically be reduced by even minor disagreements, and larceny is illegal because, if it weren't, then the superior would take from the inferior with no consequence, possibly leading to the deaths of the inferior due to a lack of resources and once again undermining the structure of society, there's no logical reason as to why murder and theft are evil. Basically, it's much easier to get something immoral made illegal, than to make something immoral on the basis of it being illegal.

That creatures have [Good] and [Evil] subtypes are irrelevant; the distinction between the two is merely a matter of perception within the D&D world; ie, a creature from a good society perceives themselves to be good because that's what they're taught to believe, while a creature from an evil society would likely perceive themselves as good because that's what they were taught to believe. Similarly, a character raised in no society, with nobody influencing their beliefs, would likely not form any opinion on good or evil, because it's essentially an artificial construct that does not exist outside of society, and that's one of the kind of individuals I'm asking about, the ones who have rationally come to the conclusion that morality is false or nonexistent, because it's essentially arbitrary, or those who don't even know of its existence, because they were raised outside of it.

This isn't so much a discussion about right and wrong, but about good and evil; an individual can believe something is wrong without believing it to be evil.

I'm not just asking about the moral or immoral being under the influence of Sanctified the Wicked, I'm also asking about the amoral. Also, D&D assumes intelligent creatures are raised in a society with a "normal" good/evil morality belief system, so how does the spell interact with those individuals from societies with different morality systems, assuming the fact that Sanctify the Wicked is indeed the best therapy in existence?

That's not to say I actually believe these, but, if I were to play a character in any of those perspectives, how exactly does Sanctify the Wicked work on such characters; I ask this because I find the "immoral" ("evil") and amoral characters the most interesting to play, and I'd like to know how exactly it'd work on those characters, if Sanctify the Wicked is being played out as therapy.

[Reverent-One]

*snip the long ontological argument*

That's all well and good for saying why one might think there is no Good and Evil in the D&D world, but it doesn't prove that Good and Evil don't exist in D&D world and that the amoral PC is right.


I'm not just asking about the moral or immoral being under the influence of Sanctified the Wicked, I'm also asking about the amoral. Also, D&D assumes intelligent creatures are raised in a society with a "normal" good/evil morality belief system, so how does the spell interact with those individuals from societies with different morality systems, assuming the fact that Sanctify the Wicked is indeed the best therapy in existence?

That's not to say I actually believe these, but, if I were to play a character in any of those perspectives, how exactly does Sanctify the Wicked work on such characters; I ask this because I find the "immoral" ("evil") and amoral characters the most interesting to play, and I'd like to know how exactly it'd work on those characters, if Sanctify the Wicked is being played out as therapy.

If the amoral person was actually Evil according to the alignment system (since the target must be Evil for the spell to be cast on them), it would be convinced of the merits of acting Good. I see no reason it couldn't either be played as A)coming to agree that Good and Evil exist and choosing to be Good or B)still thinking the "Good and Evil" debate is a load of crap but deciding to behave in a "right" manner for various reasons ("right" defined as matching the book defined precepts of the Good alignment). A character doesn't have to think they are Good/Evil to be Good/Evil in D&D.

[Hecuba]

That's not to say I actually believe these, but, if I were to play a character in any of those perspectives, how exactly does Sanctify the Wicked work on such characters; I ask this because I find the "immoral" ("evil") and amoral characters the most interesting to play, and I'd like to know how exactly it'd work on those characters, if Sanctify the Wicked is being played out as therapy.

From a RAW perspective? The character finds their inner spark of good (which the spell informs us is already there) and becomes good.

From a more broad perspective, the philosophical presumptions behind the spell (largely bastardized from Enlightenment era philosophy*) run counter to the premise of such a character (and also run counter to much of the rest of the treatment of alignment in D&D). They don't outright say that this is the premise of the spell, but the descriptive language used in the spell ("a spark of goodness" and "reflect on past sins") speaks volumes. In effect, StW runs on the presumption that Rousseau Was Right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RousseauWasRight)*.

The idea behind the spell is, to paraphrase Rousseau*, that all things are created good and only become evil through error and meddling.
If you accept the premise, then your immoral or amoral character actually has a goodness at their core waiting to be redeemed. If you don't, then ... well ... then you have to accept that the premise of the spell doesn't work.


*It should be noted that both StW and the general treatment of this position in most fiction is not particularly concerned with actual fidelity to Rousseau's actual philosophical points. In particular, they fail to make the distinction of innocent goodness and virtuous goodness that Rousseau uses.

[ShurikVch]

Rules Text. "Flavor Text doesn't count" is the absolutely most bull**** argument I've ever seen spewed on these forums.

That spell says exactly what the spell does, and how it does it. That is rules text, not something to be discarded. Do you aware this part is in direct contradiction with description of template?
Alignment: Always good. The sanctified creature’s chaos/law axis does not change.

[satcharna]

Do you aware this part is in direct contradiction with description of template?That just means that the template doesn't change the chaos-law axis. The spell still does.

[Phelix-Mu]

That just means that the template doesn't change the chaos-law axis. The spell still does.

Which is moderately dysfunctional, because the spell is the only way to get the template. So...


CE target of spell by LG caster.

Spell turns target LG.

Target falls back toward evil.

Template lost, resulting in return to...

LE.



Wait, what?

[atemu1234]

That reads more like opinion than fact

I'm just going to say this: The spell is first party and says all creatures have an innate spark of good. Therein it is not an opinion, it IS fact. Unfortunately, RAW is contradictory and this spell/template combo is far worse than most.

[ryu]

I'm just going to say this: The spell is first party and says all creatures have an innate spark of good. Therein it is not an opinion, it IS fact. Unfortunately, RAW is contradictory and this spell/template combo is far worse than most.

Specific trumps general. Whole swaths of creatures quite pointedly don't have said spark. As is demonstrable the spell is quite frankly wrong.

[Jeff the Green]

Which is moderately dysfunctional, because the spell is the only way to get the template. So...

Is this necessarily the case? The template references the spell, but it doesn't say it's the only way to get it. There are, if I'm remembering correctly, rituals in Savage Species to gain a template. Its also entirely plausible that a horribly Evil creature who repents on their own and becomes a paragon of Good might be blessed with the template.

In fact, this is the only way a number of issues with the template make sense. The spell affects any Evil creature, while the template can only be applied to an Evil creature that isn't an outsider with the Evil subtype. But then the template removes the Baatezu and Tanar'ri subtypes, which always go along with the Evil subtype. The only way you can reconcile these is if the template can be applied spontaneously or through rituals to any Evil except outsiders with the Evil subtype, but the spell, because specific trumps general, can also apply it to fiends.

[Phelix-Mu]

Is this necessarily the case? The template references the spell, but it doesn't say it's the only way to get it. There are, if I'm remembering correctly, rituals in Savage Species to gain a template. Its also entirely plausible that a horribly Evil creature who repents on their own and becomes a paragon of Good might be blessed with the template.

In fact, this is the only way a number of issues with the template make sense. The spell affects any Evil creature, while the template can only be applied to an Evil creature that isn't an outsider with the Evil subtype. But then the template removes the Baatezu and Tanar'ri subtypes, which always go along with the Evil subtype. The only way you can reconcile these is if the template can be applied spontaneously or through rituals to any Evil except outsiders with the Evil subtype, but the spell, because specific trumps general, can also apply it to fiends.

It seems you are right. But I think the problem I noted in my example still happens, but happens independently of the reason I noted (since the reason was wrong).

Despite my inability to nail one down, there are some inconsistencies in the spell and template pairing. While they may be resolved by specific v general (not entirely convinced that this will fly with every DM), the writing is terrible and the concept could be rendered much less controversial by some favorable and less antagonistic fluff.

My personal opinion is that the effect isn't permanent, and so the whole thing is potentially perilously close to accomplishing nothing at an extraordinarily high price. Of course, anyone committed enough and powerful enough to StW can probably make sure that the target isn't straying back toward evil (or as sure as one can be absent compulsion).