Guaranteed Redemption: A Natural Consequence?

[Tinkermancer]

After being exposed to the Tippyverse, and the idea that the game world would unfold in certain ways depending, not on lore, but on the game rules themselves, I have occasionally encountered an aspect of the game that gets me thinking in those terms and makes me wonder.

Today's topic - Werebears and forcibly redeeming evil-doers! (Possible limited understanding of rules incoming)

Suppose a nation was slowly gravitating away from neutrality and into goodness, and grew tired of executing or locking away for life seemingly irredeemable Villain types. So they begin looking for a new, low-level way to turn these people into productive and beneficial members of society.

Enter the Werebear. Now, it's my understanding that when someone who is infected by the curse of lycanthropy decides to embrace their curse, they become the alignment of whatever were-creature they are cursed as. In the case of the were-bear, this places them on the good axis of alignment. From my reading, it is my understanding that the alignment change is retained even after Remove Curse is cast.

So, here is my vision. I'm seeing some sort of Maze Runner situation setup, where these evil villains are infected with the were-bear curse, and placed in a specially-designed habitat that can only be escaped if they work to embrace and control their curse, and accept a Remove Curse as the last step to escaping.

Is my thinking correct? And would this be a good act, at least in comparison to the death penalty or life imprisonment? After all, if they choose to never embrace the curse and escape, it's basically life imprisonment anyways. And, do you believe that this would be a natural consequence of the rules as written? Finally, is there a lower level way to basically guarantee converting an evil person into a good person?

EDIT : changed the thread title from forced redemption to guaranteed redemption. We aren't really forcing them to do anything. They have a choice. We are just guaranteeing that they are a good creature upon leaving the prison.

[Maxilian]

This is what happens when you let the Arch-druid join the town council :smallbiggrin:

Either way, yes it seens to work (Not sure if they stay with the alignment after the curse is removed, but i see no reason why it won't keep the alignment change if they accepted the curse.)

[ZorroGames]

Dead villains do not commit evil acts though undead ones might.

[Tinkermancer]

Dead villains do not commit evil acts though undead ones might.

True, but a society striving toward good would shy away from killing.

[Sigreid]

Ok, this is admittedly my own interpretation of the were bear description and not RAW. The MM says that were bears have just as beastial of impulses as the other weres. They are good because they actively police their kind and eliminate those who give in to their beastial impulses. Being a were bear doesn't make you good, if you aren't both good and disciplined they take you out.

[Tinkermancer]

Ok, this is admittedly my own interpretation of the were bear description and not RAW. The MM says that were bears have just as beastial of impulses as the other weres. They are good because they actively police their kind and eliminate those who give in to their beastial impulses. Being a were bear doesn't make you good, if you aren't both good and disciplined they take you out.

The rules for alignment conversion are at the beginning of the lycanthropy section. It states that if you embrace the curse, your alignment becomes that of the type of like of lycanthrope are cursed as. And keep in mind, this question is a question of the natural consequences of rules as written.

[Maxilian]

Ok, this is admittedly my own interpretation of the were bear description and not RAW. The MM says that were bears have just as beastial of impulses as the other weres. They are good because they actively police their kind and eliminate those who give in to their beastial impulses. Being a were bear doesn't make you good, if you aren't both good and disciplined they take you out.

Yes, but those that are left in "check" are normally those that have not accepted the Curse (making them quite dangerous and unpredictable), but after they accept it, they will most likely change alignment (as would with any other lycanthropy curse), though there are exceptions, and you may run into Evil Werebears that have accepted the curse.

[Unoriginal]

Is my thinking correct? And would this be a good act, at least in comparison to the death penalty or life imprisonment? After all, if they choose to never embrace the curse and escape, it's basically life imprisonment anyways. And, do you believe that this would be a natural consequence of the rules as written? Finally, is there a lower level way to basically guarantee converting an evil person into a good person?

Your thinking is incorrect. You cannot force redemption.


What you're proposing is basically a magic version of the Clockwork Orange treatment: modifying a person's mind through tormenting them until they conform.

Being a Werebear is a curse. It transforms your mind, and if you embrace the curse it means that you are surrendering your mind to be transformed until you're a different person. For a person who's already lawful good, the changes in behavior would be minimal, but they would still not be the same person.


Forcing that on another person is just as evil as putting them in jail for life unless they accept to become werewolves.



Finally, is there a lower level way to basically guarantee converting an evil person into a good person?

No. There is no high level way either.


True, but a society striving toward good would shy away from killing.

Not necessarily, no. Angels don't shy away from killing when needed.

[Maxilian]

Your thinking is incorrect. You cannot force redemption.


What you're proposing is basically a magic version of the Clockwork Orange treatment: modifying a person's mind through tormenting them until they conform.

Being a Werebear is a curse. It transforms your mind, and if you embrace the curse it means that you are surrendering your mind to be transformed until you're a different person. For a person who's already lawful good, the changes in behavior would be minimal, but they would still not be the same person.


Forcing that on another person is just as evil as putting them in jail for life unless they accept to become werewolves.


They do have to accept the curse to have the change apply.

I do agree that is a way to force people to change (so i wouldn't call that good), but i wouldn't call it evil either (cause its still a chance -they don't have to, also nor i think this should be applied to every criminal, most likely those that have "for life sentence" or "death sentence") so i guess it would be less, cruel than just taking someones freedom away.

[Tinkermancer]

Your thinking is incorrect. You cannot force redemption.


What you're proposing is basically a magic version of the Clockwork Orange treatment: modifying a person's mind through tormenting them until they conform.

Let's be careful not to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about torment.


Being a Werebear is a curse. It transforms your mind, and if you embrace the curse it means that you are surrendering your mind to be transformed until you're a different person. For a person who's already lawful good, the changes in behavior would be minimal, but they would still not be the same person.


Forcing that on another person is just as evil as putting them in jail for life unless they accept to become werewolves.

Is it really that different from forcing someone to remain in jail until they repent? That's exactly what probation is. We wait until someone has changed enough to be safe to be placed back into society before we release them. We are literally telling people they must become a different person than they were before we will release them. The only difference is, this assures that they've actually changed. And again, with the rules as written, when you except the change and embrace it, you become the alignment of the creature. The bit about there still being some evil were bears is fluff As there is no rules as written supporting that.

Furthermore, we're not forcing them to have a life as a were bear after they leave. The only thing we are forcing on them is a change of mindset to become a safe member of society. We would do this anyway without the were bear aspect.



Not necessarily, no. Angels don't shy away from killing when needed.

Well, then assume we are trying to be more noble than angels. After all, an evil creature that dies doesn't necessarily get a good afterlife. By converting them to a good alignment, we're also trying to give their eternity a good ending. If that's not a good act, I'm not necessarily sure good exists.

[Maxilian]

Is it really that different from forcing someone to remain in jail until they repent? That's exactly what probation is. We wait until someone has changed enough to be safe to be placed back into society before we release them. We are literally telling people they must become a different person than they were before we will release them. The only difference is, this assures that they've actually changed. And again, with the rules as written, when you except the change and embrace it, you become the alignment of the creature. The bit about there still being some evil were bears is fluff As there is no rules as written supporting that.

Well.... most jails actually do not try to "reintegrate people to society" (As they should), they just "separate people" that (are dangerous) from society (reason why many people get worse in jail).



Well, then assume we are trying to be more noble than angels. After all, an evil creature that dies doesn't necessarily get a good afterlife. By converting them to a good alignment, we're also trying to give their eternity a good ending. If that's not a good act, I'm not necessarily sure good exists.

Angels rarely go around killing evil mortal creatures. (They just do when that mortal is in something with something that is not mortal)

[Tinkermancer]

Well.... most jails actually do not try to "reintegrate people to society" (As they should), they just "separate people" that (are dangerous) from society (reason why many people get worse in jail).

Sadly, this is spot on. Assume we are trying to create a prison and reformation system that is FAR superior to ours then.




Angels rarely go around killing evil mortal creatures. (They just do when that mortal is in something with something that is not mortal)

QFT.

[Unoriginal]

Let's be careful not to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about torment.

Imprisoning someone, cursing them and having them periodically transform against their will into a beast they have no control over isn't torment?



Is it really that different from forcing someone to remain in jail until they repent?

Yes, it is. You're not tinkering with the person's mind until they fit your tastes, you're punishing them, and hope they'll change their mind on their own.


That's exactly what probation is.

It's not.



And again, with the rules as written, when you except the change and embrace it, you become the alignment of the creature.

Yes, you're becoming the creature, having your mind modified to accommodate it.



The bit about there still being some evil were bears is fluff As there is no rules as written supporting that.

There is no distinction between that kind of fluff and rules. It expresses a variant of the typical creature.



Furthermore, we're not forcing them to have a life as a were bear after they leave. The only thing we are forcing on them is a change of mindset to become a safe member of society. We would do this anyway without the were bear aspect.

So you think it's moral to curse someone into having the mindset you desire?



Well, then assume we are trying to be more noble than angels.

It's called hubris.

Not even all angels manage to fit the angel standards.


By converting them to a good alignment, we're also trying to give their eternity a good ending. If that's not a good act, I'm not necessarily sure good exists.

You're robbing them of their lives and creating a being from them that will get a good ending. You're not doing good, you're doing what people in 1984 would have nightmare about.

[Unoriginal]

Ghouls trace their origins to the Abyss. Doresain, the first of their kind, was an elf worshiper of Orcus. Turning against his own people, he feasted on humanoid flesh to honor the Demon Prince of Undeath. As a reward for his service, Orcus transformed Doresain into the first ghoul. Doresain served Orcus faithfully in the Abyss, creating ghouls from the demon lord's other servants until an incursion by Yeenoghu, the demonic Gnoll Lord, robbed Doresain of his abyssal domain. When Orcus would not intervene on his behalf, Doresain turned to the elf gods for salvation, and they took pity on him and helped him escape certain destruction. Since then, elves have been immune to the ghouls' paralytic touch.

This is how benevolent gods do redemption.

[Maxilian]

Imprisoning someone, cursing them and having them periodically transform against their will into a beast they have no control over isn't torment?

No, that's no torment, they just a) Dont remember anything but small dreams B) Not any different than the phicological torment that life in prison brings.



Yes, it is. You're not tinkering with the person's mind until they fit your tastes, you're punishing them, and hope they'll change their mind on their own.


Both way are forced, in this way, we do not tinker with their mind unless they accept the change (the same could be said about "good" prisions) though i do understand where you are comming from, and i kind of agree (reason why i do not think this will be a "good" action, but mostly neutral).



So you think it's moral to curse someone into having the mindset you desire?


No, nor is life in prison, but something have to be done (sadly), also you don't trully change the mindset into something you desire (just something more acceptable, cause in the end, noone know how the person may end).




It's called hubris.

Not even all angels manage to fit the angel standards.


That depends, they may not be against the gods will (Even less the DnD gods will, you know how common is the "change the creature mindset -Alignment-" (basically trap any evil creature into any good realm, and they will, sooner or later, fail their save and change alignment).



You're robbing them of their lives and creating a being from them that will get a good ending. You're not doing good, you're doing what people in 1984 would have nightmare about.

So its with death penalty or life in prison, just different ways, the question is... what is more humane?

Note: Maybe it would be more humane to give the "prisioners" the option to opt out of the curse and just take the normal punishment (Life in prison or death -In the end, the desire of the creature shall be respect to some point, whatever its alignment may be.)

[Sigreid]

The rules for alignment conversion are at the beginning of the lycanthropy section. It states that if you embrace the curse, your alignment becomes that of the type of like of lycanthrope are cursed as. And keep in mind, this question is a question of the natural consequences of rules as written.
Yes, I'm aware of the rules. My opinion and how I would handle it is more based on the rest of the text in the section. I'm aware it isn't RAW, and have simply made a ruling for my world that takes the whole section into account.

[Tinkermancer]

Imprisoning someone, cursing them and having them periodically transform against their will into a beast they have no control over isn't torment?

All punishment is unpleasant to the punished. You are right in that no matter what, punishment is some form of 'torment'.


Yes, it is. You're not tinkering with the person's mind until they fit your tastes, you're punishing them, and hope they'll change their mind on their own.

WE aren't tinkering with their mind at all. We are punishing them for their crimes, and offering them an alternative to further punishment. Guarantee your repentance, and you can rejoin society. It's still their choice. Remain as they are and be punished. Change and adhere to our standards, and you won't. Not really very different. If we continue to disagree here, it might be better to assume we won't be able to reconcile our individual thought processes. And that's fine.


Yes, you're becoming the creature, having your mind modified to accommodate it.

Still your choice to embrace it knowing the outcome.


There is no distinction between that kind of fluff and rules. It expresses a variant of the typical creature.

I feel like this is a rabbit hole argument, but if you can show me RAW how to become a non-good werebear, I will accept this point.



So you think it's moral to curse someone into having the mindset you desire?

The curse does not result in the change in mindset. The choice to embrace it does. The curse is just part of the punishment. A punishment which results in no harm being done to the cursed, and only short term effects.





It's called hubris.

Not even all angels manage to fit the angel standards.

And it's wrong to aspire to greater?




You're robbing them of their lives and creating a being from them that will get a good ending. You're not doing good, you're doing what people in 1984 would have nightmare about.

By your logic, it is impossible to morally punish someone. There is no forced change of mind. You can still live out your life in prison, or adapt to the standards set to allow your release.

Like normal prison.

[Maxilian]

WE aren't tinkering with their mind at all. We are punishing them for their crimes, and offering them an alternative to further punishment. Guarantee your repentance, and you can rejoin society. It's still their choice. Remain as they are and be punished. Change and adhere to our standards, and you won't. Not really very different. If we continue to disagree here, it might be better to assume we won't be able to reconcile our individual thought processes. And that's fine.


I understand where he stands, its mostly that even though they embrace the outcome, they do not change on their own (not because they wish redemption "Like when asking redemption to a God", but because they may wish out of the punishment).



I feel like this is a rabbit hole argument, but if you can show me RAW how to become a non-good werebear, I will accept this point.


There are many ways:

1) Never accept the curse
2) Change your alignment once again after becoming a werebear (Go into any of the 9 planes of Hell and stay there for a while)

Note: In the end, this werebear thing, only assure you that they will be good when they accept the curse (humble for a while but who knows if that's going to stay like that), they are still free to do, once again, evil.




By your logic, it is impossible to morally punish someone. There is no forced change of mind. You can still live out your life in prison, or adapt to the standards set to allow your release.

Well sometimes have in mind that people don't really change their mindset, they just accept the standards (so is just like having an Lawful Evil Fighter working for a Good organization -He may be the best soldier, one of the most helpful in the group and still be evil -that depends on the mindset-)

Note: Again i don't think this is something BAD, but not something GOOD either, and it something that i can see a Lawful society do.

[LordCdrMilitant]

No.

A creature can only achieve redemption if it, of sound mind and constitution, elects to of its own free will and choice, under no compulsion to do so.

It is basically mind controlling the creature into being good. The creature, while under the mind-altering effects of the curse, is incapable of achieving redemption because of the whole mind-altering thing.

[Unoriginal]

Werebears are powerful lycanthropes with the ability to temper their monstrous natures and reject their violent impulses

AKA: the Werebear has the CAPACITY to not be violent and not act like a monstrous beast. It is not something they're obligated to do.

[Tinkermancer]

AKA: the Werebear has the CAPACITY to not be violent and not act like a monstrous beast. It is not something they're obligated to do.

I'm arguing from a rules standpoint -I.e. RAW. Yours is a fluff argument. That's fine, but it's not part of my intent here, and does not further the discussion as it does not accept the original premise.


Btw, I know we might disagree, but I HIGHLY appreciate your participation. Thank you.

[MadBear]

This is an interesting idea, and the whole topic is worthy of a good debate.

let's take the were-bear thing out of this for a second. Instead lets try a synonymous situation and see if we would agree that it's something we'd consider "good"/"moral".

I have a convict that I put in prison. He is not allowed out for the rest of his life, with 1 caveat.

He can accept a wizard using the wish spell to permanently alter his alignment to good. (for the sake of simplicity assume that this is within the wish spells purview.)

Is this ok? And is the resulting person still the same person.

[LordCdrMilitant]

This is an interesting idea, and the whole topic is worthy of a good debate.

let's take the were-bear thing out of this for a second. Instead lets try a synonymous situation and see if we would agree that it's something we'd consider "good"/"moral".

I have a convict that I put in prison. He is not allowed out for the rest of his life, with 1 caveat.

He can accept a wizard using the wish spell to permanently alter his alignment to good. (for the sake of simplicity assume that this is within the wish spells purview.)

Is this ok? And is the resulting person still the same person.

Or accept being under the effect of Dominate Person, forcing him to do good acts.

[Maxilian]

This is an interesting idea, and the whole topic is worthy of a good debate.

let's take the were-bear thing out of this for a second. Instead lets try a synonymous situation and see if we would agree that it's something we'd consider "good"/"moral".

I have a convict that I put in prison. He is not allowed out for the rest of his life, with 1 caveat.

He can accept a wizard using the wish spell to permanently alter his alignment to good. (for the sake of simplicity assume that this is within the wish spells purview.)

Is this ok? And is the resulting person still the same person.

Is this ok? Maybe (wouldn't say its good or evil)

Is the resulting person the same person? Yes (if not that would imply that going into a non-neutral plane may actually kill the YOU that went in)

[Maxilian]

Or accept being under the effect of Dominate Person, forcing him to do good acts.

Not the same at all, this one you are forcing people to do good act (against his will), the other change the person outlook completely (so that on his own will it may do good acts)

[MadBear]

Is this ok? Maybe (wouldn't say its good or evil)

Is the resulting person the same person? Yes (if not that would imply that going into a non-neutral plane may actually kill the YOU that went in)

well, if someone forcibly changes my personality, I'm not so sure that I am the same person. I'm a pseudo-copy of my original self. Nothing about what's happening, implies that the person is being convinced to change, it's another agent forcing a change.

[Maxilian]

well, if someone forcibly changes my personality, I'm not so sure that I am the same person. I'm a pseudo-copy of my original self. Nothing about what's happening, implies that the person is being convinced to change, it's another agent forcing a change.

You change all the time (by election and sometimes by force), just because you are not the same way you were before, does not make you stop being you.

Note: Have in mind, that the change of alignment only happen when the cursed target accept the curse (so its still a willing change) -The curse was indeed forced upon them but not the change per se- (so in some way, they are convinced to accept the change.)

[MadBear]

You change all the time (by election and sometimes by force), just because you are not the same way you were before, does not make you stop being you.

Note: Have in mind, that the change of alignment only happen when the cursed target accept the curse (so its still a willing change) -The curse was indeed forced upon them but not the change per se- (so in some way, they are convinced to accept the change.)

If I held a gun to your head saying "Donate all your wealth to charity or I'll shoot you" in what meaningful way did you have a choice?

You've put a person in a situation where it's to live imprisoned for the rest of their life with a curse, or to accept a forcible change to their personality for freedom.

[Unoriginal]

I'm arguing from a rules standpoint -I.e. RAW. Yours is a fluff argument. That's fine, but it's not part of my intent here, and does not further the discussion as it does not accept the original premise.


I'm arguing from the RAW. The whole entry is explaining how the curse work.

The text is clear: a Werebear still has the violent and destructive tendencies of the other were-something, they just can control that, apparently partially thanks to the help of a werebear teaching them how to do it.

[ZorroGames]

True, but a society striving toward good would shy away from killing.

Not sure that would be either accurate or true.

Edit: The end justifies the means in other words?

[GPS]

All punishment is unpleasant to the punished. You are right in that no matter what, punishment is some form of 'torment'.



WE aren't tinkering with their mind at all. We are punishing them for their crimes, and offering them an alternative to further punishment. Guarantee your repentance, and you can rejoin society. It's still their choice. Remain as they are and be punished. Change and adhere to our standards, and you won't. Not really very different. If we continue to disagree here, it might be better to assume we won't be able to reconcile our individual thought processes. And that's fine.



Still your choice to embrace it knowing the outcome.



I feel like this is a rabbit hole argument, but if you can show me RAW how to become a non-good werebear, I will accept this point.




The curse does not result in the change in mindset. The choice to embrace it does. The curse is just part of the punishment. A punishment which results in no harm being done to the cursed, and only short term effects.






And it's wrong to aspire to greater?





By your logic, it is impossible to morally punish someone. There is no forced change of mind. You can still live out your life in prison, or adapt to the standards set to allow your release.

Like normal prison.
A few things.
1. That's the definition of tinkering with someone's mind. They're not accepting an alignment, they're being forced into it by a curse. Your choice is to embrace it or to be tortured forever, as with all lycanthropy. Not much of a choice to force on someone.

2. That quote about aspirations just gave me the inspiration for a new villan. I'm stealing this for a sci-fi dystopian novel, "Plight of the Were-Bears"

3. There is a forced change of mind, this whole idea hinges on a sort of alignment-curse! There's a reason the dudes who do this are usually the villans of the story. "End justifies the means," ie. Evil for the greater good, is the oldest trope in the sci-fi playbook

[Maxilian]

A few things.
1. That's the definition of tinkering with someone's mind. They're not accepting an alignment, they're being forced into it by a curse. Your choice is to embrace it or to be tortured forever, as with all lycanthropy. Not much of a choice to force on someone.

2. That quote about aspirations just gave me the inspiration for a new villan. I'm stealing this for a sci-fi dystopian novel, "Plight of the Were-Bears"

3. There is a forced change of mind, this whole idea hinges on a sort of alignment-curse! There's a reason the dudes who do this are usually the villans of the story. "End justifies the means," ie. Evil for the greater good, is the oldest trope in the sci-fi playbook

I guess that character can easily be a villain or a hero, depends how he does it -and who talk about him- (but in general, a neutral character maybe)

[Maxilian]

If I held a gun to your head saying "Donate all your wealth to charity or I'll shoot you" in what meaningful way did you have a choice?

You've put a person in a situation where it's to live imprisoned for the rest of their life with a curse, or to accept a forcible change to their personality for freedom.

Ok, put death at a side, make it life in prison.

You do have a choice (with death MAY be the same, depends the person).

You had your choice with the action that put you there, and then you have the chance to opt for this change. (In the end, this change does not take away your free will, after it you may, change your ways and go back Evil if that's what the will of the creature is)

[Unoriginal]

Ok, put death at a side, make it life in prison.

You do have a choice (with death MAY be the same, depends the person).

You had your choice with the action that put you there, and then you have the chance to opt for this change. (In the end, this change does not take away your free will, after it you may, change your ways and go back Evil if that's what the will of the creature is)

You're captured by a mysterious figure. You're put in an underground cell. You are fed, but no one ever came close to rescuing you. This last a year.

After a year, the mysterious figure put a strange device with a button on it. If you press that button, you're told, it will change your personality and who you are, and you'll become someone who want to be a cop. It is the only way you'll be released.

Do you press the button, or stay there for the rest of your life?

[LordCdrMilitant]

Not the same at all, this one you are forcing people to do good act (against his will), the other change the person outlook completely (so that on his own will it may do good acts)

Yes, it is.

In both circumstances, the person's own though processes have been overridden and replaced with a programmed directive to do good. An alignment changing curse is mind control.


The fundamental problem here is that the 2-axis alignment chart isn't a particularly great model of anything, for anything, I guess.

[Unoriginal]

The fundamental problem here is that the 2-axis alignment chart isn't a particularly great model of anything, for anything, I guess.

It can be used well, but people are often very obtuse about it.

The point is that the curse is supposed to be: most were-being becomes evil because they surrender their mind and let themselves be bloodthirsty, sadistic killers, while the Werebear can actually suppress that part of themselves even if they embrasse the curse.

For some reason people are ignoring the "reshaping someone's mind with magic" part or think it's not a problem.

[8wGremlin]

Interesting perspectives from many sides here.

A few observations.
In the Netherlands in the real world they are having to close prisons as they don't have enough prisoners as they have a reintegration and education policy.

In 2nd edition there were a few alignment changing items. A mirror that you looked into turned you permanently LN with 11 for all your stats. Helmets of alignment change etc.

Also I remember a thread where a helmet of alignment change was placed on a Quasit and a Deva. Will try and dig it out.

[Unoriginal]

Previous editions had different ways of handling alignment.

Didn't help how they made people who didn't get alignment at all write a good chunk of the 3.X books on the subject.

[GPS]

Previous editions had different ways of handling alignment.

Didn't help how they made people who didn't get alignment at all write a good chunk of the 3.X books on the subject.

Well, in a sense they do get alignment, and you don't. They wrote the books and therefore changed the alignment system, so while their version is now the true version of alignment in 3.Xe for all time, yours is but a vestige. It's almost as if you had said, "the people who wrote the dictionary don't know language!"

[Unoriginal]

Well, in a sense they do get alignment, and you don't. They wrote the books and therefore changed the alignment system, so while their version is now the true version of alignment in 3.Xe for all time, yours is but a vestige. It's almost as if you had said, "the people who wrote the dictionary don't know language!"

If someone wrote a dictionary where the definition of the sky was "God's urine coloring his bedsheet", it would not be correct.

[GPS]

If someone wrote a dictionary where the definition of the sky was "God's urine coloring his bedsheet", it would not be correct.
Yes, but the alignment rules aren't just like any old dictionary, they're the only official rules for the edition. They're better compared to the only dictionary in existence, encompassing the entire current iteration of our universe's language.

Since my metaphor admittedly kind of sucked, I'll use a different one. Imagine if a character in a book series you liked did something you thought was "wrong" behavior for that character. The author wouldn't be wrong, you would, as the author writes the work of which you are a mere consumer. The actions the writer writes makes the character, not your desire. The author physically cannot be wrong, as they quite literally make the world.

Here's the bottom line. The people who publish a game can't be wrong about any aspect of it unless they say they are, they made it. The 2e guys aren't wrong, neither are the 3.Xe guys. They're all right about the rules of their specific editions, because that's how creation works. If you complain about the 3.Xe guys not knowing how alignment works, well, you're wrong. If a 3.Xe fan wants to say the 2e alignment system was wrong, they're also wrong. The 2e alignment system isn't wrong, but it is if you're playing another edition, as that edition becomes right. If you're looking at all editions side by side, none of the writers are wrong. They're each right for their own edition.

[Unoriginal]

If two writers working on the same franchise contradict each other, then one can be wrong.


If someone wrote a Star Trek episode where Captain Picard says he was born in England, when it was established he was born in France before, then that someone messed up.

If someone write a D&D book that contradict what's already established for the edition, or if the book itself is internally inconsitent, then that someone messed up.

As I said before, different editions handle alignment differently. But if a writer work on 3.5 and write a book about alignment that doesn't fit with the rest of the books about alignments or what the PHB/DMG/MM say about the subject, then this writer doesn't get alignments as defined by the edition.

[GPS]

If two writers working on the same franchise contradict each other, then one can be wrong.


If someone wrote a Star Trek episode where Captain Picard says he was born in England, when it was established he was born in France before, then that someone messed up.

If someone write a D&D book that contradict what's already established for the edition, or if the book itself is internally inconsitent, then that someone messed up.

Oh, what's already published for the edition? My bad, I thought you were talking 3.Xe vs. previous editions. Yep, they're wrong, unless it's a rules revision.

[Socratov]

This is an interesting idea, and the whole topic is worthy of a good debate.

let's take the were-bear thing out of this for a second. Instead lets try a synonymous situation and see if we would agree that it's something we'd consider "good"/"moral".

I have a convict that I put in prison. He is not allowed out for the rest of his life, with 1 caveat.

He can accept a wizard using the wish spell to permanently alter his alignment to good. (for the sake of simplicity assume that this is within the wish spells purview.)

Is this ok? And is the resulting person still the same person.

This is good idea and I have a great example for you guys to chew over. It may not be a 5th edition ting, but back in 3.5 you had this book called 'The Book of Exalted Deeds'. it featured this golden nugget:



Necromancy [Good]
Level: Sanctified 9,
Components: V, S, AF, 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.

Now my question is: is this humane?

[Unoriginal]

This is good idea and I have a great example for you guys to chew over. It may not be a 5th edition ting, but back in 3.5 you had this book called 'The Book of Exalted Deeds'. it featured this golden nugget:



Now my question is: is this humane?

This is exactly why I was talking about "people who didn't get alignment writing the 3.5 alignment books".

The Book of Exalted Deeds is a mess, this spell one of the most shinning exemple.

[Socratov]

This is exactly why I was talking about "people who didn't get alignment writing the 3.5 alignment books".

The Book of Exalted Deeds is a mess, this spell one of the most shinning exemple.

Right on both accounts. But pertaining to reforming evildoers you must admit that this spell, even while it, in fluff if successful, inflicts a whole lot of mental torment, it does not mechanically harm the target (if the spell fails in one way or another it restores the target with only an added hatred). If anything it's is more humane then imprisonment or a death sentence...

[8wGremlin]

In a galaxy far far away in a game a long time ago. Alignment was recorded as a kind of motivation. Greed, Vengence, Compassion I think there was around 12 to pick from. It worked well as the fundamental driving force of the character.

In games I have run when Alignment has come up I've gotten the other players to write down what they thought the other character's alignments were based on their actions in the game so far, without conferring.

It's been quite interest.

[Tinkermancer]

This is exactly why I was talking about "people who didn't get alignment writing the 3.5 alignment books".

The Book of Exalted Deeds is a mess, this spell one of the most shinning exemple.

Or it's possible that any judgment we make on the subject is merely opinion.

Edit - I feel like I was saying something here, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what I'm trying to say. Don't mind me. I'm on two hours of sleep LOL

[JeenLeen]

I think any arguments about whether this is good or not depend on the definition of 'good'. If we take good as meaning the objective force of Good in the D&D cosmology*, then a spell that forces someone to be Good seems legitimate as a means to an end. If we are employing Trippy-verse-esque logic, then the werebear scenario should work (assuming the OP read the RAW correctly); or, taking that out of considering, the wish or Sanctify the Wicked example would hold (assuming some equivalent works in 5e).

I could see someone argue that the person behind this 'redemption program' might slip into neutral, if you want to run your morality that way, but that doesn't mean that those who are redeemed are any less good. It might be abhorrent to the sensibilities of most players, but if the alignment truly shifts to good, well, it's now a good person.

Also, Good in D&D isn't nice. Killing (at least active and powerful) evil beings is an accepted thing; hence adventurers attacking evil cultists, murderous bandits, goblin raiding camps, etc. Those people don't get a choice in being dead or alive. I don't think it's really that different to not have a choice between being 'werebear'ed (or its equivalent) and being killed/imprisoned. Eh, I may have lost my train of thought a bit, but the gist of it is: if it's not evil to kill an evil bandit, it's not evil to forcefully turn them good via magical means. I personally would go so far to say that, in D&D cosmology, such is a Good act, but I can see others ruling differently.

*the last in-depth reading I did of such was 3.5, so I might be off a bit with 5th edition.

[Tinkermancer]

I think any arguments about whether this is good or not depend on the definition of 'good'. If we take good as meaning the objective force of Good in the D&D cosmology*, then a spell that forces someone to be Good seems legitimate as a means to an end. If we are employing Trippy-verse-esque logic, then the werebear scenario should work (assuming the OP read the RAW correctly); or, taking that out of considering, the wish or Sanctify the Wicked example would hold (assuming some equivalent works in 5e).

I could see someone argue that the person behind this 'redemption program' might slip into neutral, if you want to run your morality that way, but that doesn't mean that those who are redeemed are any less good. It might be abhorrent to the sensibilities of most players, but if the alignment truly shifts to good, well, it's now a good person.

Also, Good in D&D isn't nice. Killing (at least active and powerful) evil beings is an accepted thing; hence adventurers attacking evil cultists, murderous bandits, goblin raiding camps, etc. Those people don't get a choice in being dead or alive. I don't think it's really that different to not have a choice between being 'werebear'ed (or its equivalent) and being killed/imprisoned. Eh, I may have lost my train of thought a bit, but the gist of it is: if it's not evil to kill an evil bandit, it's not evil to forcefully turn them good via magical means. I personally would go so far to say that, in D&D cosmology, such is a Good act, but I can see others ruling differently.

*the last in-depth reading I did of such was 3.5, so I might be off a bit with 5th edition.

Let me ask you this: is it better than the alternatives?

Is it less good for someone to spend life in prison because you can't be sure they've changed?

Is it less good to kill them?

Is it less good to allow them to die and go to one of the many negative after lifes, than for them to have a better chance of going to one of the good ones?

Bottom line, is this a better alternative, a more good alternative, to current methods? If you had to choose between this and the current method, would you feel better about yourself for having done so? Would society feel better about what you've done?

[GPS]

Let me ask you this: is it better than the alternatives?

Is it less good for someone to spend life in prison because you can't be sure they've changed?

Is it less good to kill them?

Is it less good to allow them to die and go to one of the many negative after lifes, than for them to have a better chance of going to one of the good ones?

Bottom line, is this a better alternative, a more good alternative, to current methods? If you had to choose between this and the current method, would you feel better about yourself for having done so? Would society feel better about what you've done?
Again, it's definitely an effective solution, no one's arguing against that, but it's also classic "means justified by the ends" style evil.

[Unoriginal]

I think any arguments about whether this is good or not depend on the definition of 'good'. If we take good as meaning the objective force of Good in the D&D cosmology*, then a spell that forces someone to be Good seems legitimate as a means to an end. If we are employing Trippy-verse-esque logic, then the werebear scenario should work (assuming the OP read the RAW correctly); or, taking that out of considering, the wish or Sanctify the Wicked example would hold (assuming some equivalent works in 5e).

I could see someone argue that the person behind this 'redemption program' might slip into neutral, if you want to run your morality that way, but that doesn't mean that those who are redeemed are any less good. It might be abhorrent to the sensibilities of most players, but if the alignment truly shifts to good, well, it's now a good person.

Also, Good in D&D isn't nice. Killing (at least active and powerful) evil beings is an accepted thing; hence adventurers attacking evil cultists, murderous bandits, goblin raiding camps, etc. Those people don't get a choice in being dead or alive. I don't think it's really that different to not have a choice between being 'werebear'ed (or its equivalent) and being killed/imprisoned. Eh, I may have lost my train of thought a bit, but the gist of it is: if it's not evil to kill an evil bandit, it's not evil to forcefully turn them good via magical means. I personally would go so far to say that, in D&D cosmology, such is a Good act, but I can see others ruling differently.

*the last in-depth reading I did of such was 3.5, so I might be off a bit with 5th edition.

In 5e, the good alignement is not about following or obeying a supposed capital G Good force. It's simply a way to describe the individual's typical behavior.



A typical creature in the worlds of DUNGEONS & DRAGONShas an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral),and the olher describes altitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral). Thus, nine distinct alignments define the possible combinations. These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.


Also, because it apparently needs to be spelled out:



For many thinking creatures, alignment is a moral choice. Humans, dwarves, elves, and other humanoid races can choose whether to follow the paths of good or evil, law or chaos. According to myth, the good-aligned gods who created these races gave them free will to choose their moral paths, knowing that good without free will is slavery.


Forcing others to be good is not being good.


Again, it's definitely an effective solution, no one's arguing against that, but it's also classic "means justify the ends" style evil.

It's only an effective solution if you're ignoring the MM entry.

[Tinkermancer]

In 5e, the good alignement is not about following or obeying a supposed capital G Good force. It's simply a way to describe the individual's typical behavior.



Also, because it apparently needs to be spelled out:



Forcing others to be good is not being good.

No one is forcing anyone to be good. These are people we would either lock away forever or execute. You feel like offering the choice and the chance to see the light of day for the rest of their existence is immoral?

And it doesn't need to be 'spelled out'. You are enforcing your view of the issue on the rest of us and then acting like 'we don't get it'. It's not that we don't get it. We DISAGREE. There is zero need to be condescending here.




It only an effective solution if you're ignoring the MM entry.

As there is no definitive rule spelling out how you can become anything other than neutral good when choosing to embrace your lycanthropy, anything that goes against that is not rules as written and is therefore invalid for this discussion. Unless you can prove with a rule that I would convert to any other alignment, it's not rules as written. Fluffing the existence of other alignments is not rules as written.

[GPS]

It's only an effective solution if you're ignoring the MM entry.
Wait what? I thought were-bears automatically turned neutral good, but still had the violent were-form. OP's solution removes the lycanthropy after they give into the curse...
Wait! The alignment comes with the curse. Since they're only embracing the curse to stop the psychological torture, they'd likely revert back to evil immediately after, especially with that strong resentment they'd harbor when the good alignment forced on them by inhumane means was lifted by the curse.

[Unoriginal]

No one is forcing anyone to be good. These are people we would either lock away forever or execute. You feel like offering the choice and the chance to see the light of day for the rest of their existence is immoral?

That's like saying "we're not forcing anyone to sell their organs.We're just going to pardon the prisoners that do so. These are people we would either lock away forever or execute. You feel like offering the choice and the chance to see the light of day for the rest of their existence is immoral?"

Or "we're not forcing anyone to accept our contract. We just go to desperate people who are going to die without our intervention and offer them to save their live in exchange."



And it doesn't need to be 'spelled out'. You are enforcing your view of the issue on the rest of us and then acting like 'we don't get it'. It's not that we don't get it. We DISAGREE. There is zero need to be condescending here.

There is a statement on the issue in the book. Are you disagreeing with that statement?

I'm not being nice about it, true. And for this I apologize. But it doesn't change that what I'm presenting isn't only my opinion, it's the lore of the game on which this issue is based.

The fact is that in 5e, good beings would rather allow the risk of evil that comes with free will than impose good.



Fluffing the existence of other alignments is not rules as written.

The way the curse operates is clearly explained. Do you disagree with that?

[NNescio]

No. There is no high level way either.

Repeated upcasting of Modify Memory might work, similar to how Mindrape (yes, that's what the spell was called in BoVD) was used in 3.5e, Tippyverse style. Granted, 3.5e Mindrape explicitly lets you change the target's alignment while Modify Memory doesn't necessarily let you do so (and Mindrape lets you add or erase memories in the plural, while 5e Modify Memory only modifies one memory in the singular), but it is arguable that repeated casting and modification of a target's earlier memories during his formative year might be sufficient to 'brainwash' him into having a good alignment (or at least not be so villainous).

[ATHATH]

I'd say that making this prison is a Lawful Good act. Note that I said Lawful Good, not just Good.

Make of that what you will.

[Tinkermancer]

Still highly appreciative of the conversation. I may not agree with you, but I respect your position. Voice to text shenanigans in coming, so beware.


That's like saying "we're not forcing anyone to sell their organs.We're just going to pardon the prisoners that do so. These are people we would either lock away forever or execute. You feel like offering the choice and the chance to see the light of day for the rest of their existence is immoral?"

Or "we're not forcing anyone to accept our contract. We just go to desperate people who are going to die without our intervention and offer them to save their live in exchange."

I get your point. I don't know that, with any level of honesty, you could really say that what we're doing here is the equivalent though. Once you've gone so far as to do something that earns the death penalty, you've given up a lot of your rights. That's the whole point of imprisonment and the death penalty. It's a cessation of free will.

Now, it does us no good either to take someone spleen and release them into the world. That's doesn't solve the problem of why they're in there. Here's the gist, and what we will tell them. "You, as you are and due to your actions, are not suitable to exist outside of a prison. Should you wish to leave this prison, and potentially avoid the death penalty, we are going to need some assurances that letting you out isnt going to shoot us in the foot. Now, you can choose to stay in here for the rest of your life as a result of the crimes you committed, or, You can allow us to help you become the kind of person that deserves to be in society. The person you are now does not deserve to be in society, let alone even live. You will need to become someone else to be free from those burdens you have put up on yourself. It's up to you. Experience the justice your actions have wrought, or become someone undeserving of the punishment and be free to go. What do you choose?"

This is basically the exact same thing that we do to people before we offer them parole. I can literally copy and paste the above quote for a parole board meeting. The only difference is, one is a guaranteed change. Now, you can tell me that I'm not offering a choice all day long, but I am. They don't have to agree with it. They can stay in jail. The same exact thing is going to happen if you go up for parole in real life. You want to keep being the jerk who killed people and got life in prison? No problem! Stay in jail. Do you want to be someone different who actually deserves to be on the outside? Then you are forced to change and become someone different.




There is a statement on the issue in the book. Are you disagreeing with that statement?

Very difficult to have a discussion if you don't actually tell me what you're talking about.


I'm not being nice about it, true. And for this I apologize. But it doesn't change that what I'm presenting isn't only my opinion, it's the lore of the game on which this issue is based.

The fact is that in 5e, good beings would rather allow the risk of evil that comes with free will than impose good.

To be clear, we ARE talking about opinion here. Mine and yours. Where we are disagreeing is on the level of 'imposing', I think. If I understand you correctly, you feel like just the idea of changing to a good alignment outside of self reflection and 100% conscious decision is cruel. I am arguing that we ARE offering them a choice to basically shortcut to a guarantee. We both get what we want. Bad guy gets out of jail. I get a productive member of society who is more selfless then selfish. I wasn't going to let him out anyways. But if I can guarantee that he would come out being a good person, I'm more than happy to set him free.

Should be very clear here, we are literally talking about baby killers and puppy kickers. I'm not talking about the guy who stole a loaf of bread from the merchant wagon. These are villains, the worst of the worst.

Now, if this is not actually where we disagree, I would like to know where the actual disagreement is. I would like to make sure that you and I are at least arguing on even grounds LOL


The way the curse operates is clearly explained. Do you disagree with that?

"Though most were bears are of good alignment, some are every bit as evil as other lycanthropes." MM 207

Yes, this line exists in the monstrous manual. However, this line does not describe what happens when you embrace the change, only that there is, in existence, many werebears of different alignments. This makes sense, as a person can fall or rise from their alignment at a later date. To find out what happens when you embrace the change, at the moment of embracing the change, we have to look for an actual rule. Later, on the same page we have this:

"if the character embraces the change, his or her alignment becomes the one defined for the lycanthrope."

Now, to be fair, this is only listed for characters. However, in lieu of an actual rule for NPCs, we must default to this. To me, it makes a little sense why a curse would affect an NPC differently than a PC, especially when it's not defined elsewhere.

Now, that being said, if you would like to say that because there is no defined rule for NPC's, we have no right to call that rules as written, I will concede that if that's the stance you want to take, however, I would be in disagreement. Since there would be no further way to prove anything, that would be a dead end argument and I will stop using it. I would argue that since it is the only actual rule we have, it is worthy of considering.


I'd say that making this prison is a Lawful Good act. Note that I said Lawful Good, not just Good.

Make of that what you will.

I'm curious. How so? I think you're the first person to agree with my idea of good.

[Vogonjeltz]

So, here is my vision. I'm seeing some sort of Maze Runner situation setup, where these evil villains are infected with the were-bear curse, and placed in a specially-designed habitat that can only be escaped if they work to embrace and control their curse, and accept a Remove Curse as the last step to escaping.

Is my thinking correct? And would this be a good act, at least in comparison to the death penalty or life imprisonment? After all, if they choose to never embrace the curse and escape, it's basically life imprisonment anyways. And, do you believe that this would be a natural consequence of the rules as written? Finally, is there a lower level way to basically guarantee converting an evil person into a good person?

"it avoids biting so as not to pass on its curse. Typically, a werebear passes on its lycanthropy only to chosen companions or apprentices, spending the time that follows helping the new lycanthrope accept the curse in order to control it."
"Though most werebears are of good alignment, some are every bit as evil as other lycanthropes." (MM 207)

Also:
"A lycanthrope can either resist its curse or embrace it. By resisting the curse, a lycanthrope retains its normal alignment and personality while in humanoid form." (MM 206)
PCs as Lycanthropes: "If the character embraces the curse, his or her alignment becomes the one defined for the lycanthrope. The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed." (MM 207)

Also, remove curse would restore the creatures original alignment. Which, presumably was quite evil.

Perpetuating lycanthropy deliberately, an uncontrolled curse that creates what is tantamount to an unstoppable killing machine...and gifting that on creatures considered irredeemably evil would be....pretty horrifically evil. And probably one of the last mistakes those poor fools ever made.


After being exposed to the Tippyverse, and the idea that the game world would unfold in certain ways depending, not on lore, but on the game rules themselves, I have occasionally encountered an aspect of the game that gets me thinking in those terms and makes me wonder.

The whole premise of the Tippyverse is fatally flawed, and more than a little bit hubristic.


Is it really that different from forcing someone to remain in jail until they repent? That's exactly what probation is. We wait until someone has changed enough to be safe to be placed back into society before we release them. We are literally telling people they must become a different person than they were before we will release them. The only difference is, this assures that they've actually changed. And again, with the rules as written, when you except the change and embrace it, you become the alignment of the creature. The bit about there still being some evil were bears is fluff As there is no rules as written supporting that.

Furthermore, we're not forcing them to have a life as a were bear after they leave. The only thing we are forcing on them is a change of mindset to become a safe member of society. We would do this anyway without the were bear aspect.

Jails aren't really about repentence but instead about restitution.

Effectively paying society for crimes by being locked away from society for a certain time period. Whether the person in question has remorse or not is often a factor in sentencing (and consequential to that, probation) but it isn't the primary purpose.

Insofar as justice for the original crime committed is concerned, it's irrelevant as to if the criminal repents on not.


No, that's no torment, they just a) Dont remember anything but small dreams B) Not any different than the phicological torment that life in prison brings.

Unrelated to actual imprisonment would be unintentional.

Also, I see no difference at all between these attempts of mind control and a lobotomy. It's utterly barbaric and a clear indicator of an unjust society.

Of course, Tinkermancer actually said as much in the original post:
"Suppose a nation was slowly gravitating away from neutrality and into goodness, and grew tired of executing or locking away for life seemingly irredeemable Villain types. So they begin looking for a new, low-level way to turn these people into productive and beneficial members of society."

Yeah, basically a lawful evil utilitarian society, doing whatever it thinks it can get away with, including enforced mind control. Resist and you'll be imprisoned for eternity, infected by a horrifying curse.


I guess that character can easily be a villain or a hero, depends how he does it -and who talk about him- (but in general, a neutral character maybe)

If you want to use morally neutral terms Protagonist or Antagonist are better choices. The character in question would be Evil, although they probably would try to rationalize their evil.

[ATHATH]

I'm curious. How so? I think you're the first person to agree with my idea of good.
You're increasing the amount of Good in the world while reducing the amount of Evil. By redeeming the prisoners instead of executing them, you (mostly) ensure that their souls will not be sent to the Lower Planes, where they can reinforce the armies of Hell, the Yugoloths, and the Abyss.

[Tinkermancer]

"it avoids biting so as not to pass on its curse. Typically, a werebear passes on its lycanthropy only to chosen companions or apprentices, spending the time that follows helping the new lycanthrope accept the curse in order to control it."
"Though most werebears are of good alignment, some are every bit as evil as other lycanthropes." (MM 207)

Also:
"A lycanthrope can either resist its curse or embrace it. By resisting the curse, a lycanthrope retains its normal alignment and personality while in humanoid form." (MM 206)
PCs as Lycanthropes: "If the character embraces the curse, his or her alignment becomes the one defined for the lycanthrope. The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed." (MM 207)

Also, remove curse would restore the creatures original alignment. Which, presumably was quite evil.

Nowhere that I can find makes the claim that removing the curse returns the alignment to the original. That being said, I've been arguing with myself about this part all day. Part of me wants to say that the change in alignment is an effect of the curse, but not actually the curse Itself. It's basically the choice to say 'I'm going to own this crap.' That might be playing towards what I want, but I'm not sure yet.


Perpetuating lycanthropy deliberately, an uncontrolled curse that creates what is tantamount to an unstoppable killing machine...and gifting that on creatures considered irredeemably evil would be....pretty horrifically evil. And probably one of the last mistakes those poor fools ever made.

But, it doesn't make them evil, not even the ones that don't embrace it. In fact, society in this prison during the full moon would be much better than it would be any other time. Theoretically, at least. The monstrous manual says that they maintain their original alignment when in their normal form. Now, this sort of implies that they adopt the alignment of their creature when they change, but as it doesn't flat out say it, we would need a sort of gentleman's agreement to go forward with that. Still, arguably not rules as written.

See? I'll play fair.


The whole premise of the Tippyverse is fatally flawed, and more than a little bit hubristic.

That's a fairly bold claim that most people on this board don't seem to support. I also don't agree with this statement.



Jails aren't really about repentence but instead about restitution.

Effectively paying society for crimes by being locked away from society for a certain time period. Whether the person in question has remorse or not is often a factor in sentencing (and consequential to that, probation) but it isn't the primary purpose.

Insofar as justice for the original crime committed is concerned, it's irrelevant as to if the criminal repents on not.

For the purpose of this discussion though, repentance is a central point. Our theoretical society isn't interested in restitution. They aren't letting these people out. And regardless of whether or not it's a central part of probation, it is still a part of probation. We are letting someone out that hasn't changed.


Also, I see no difference at all between these attempts of mind control and a lobotomy. It's utterly barbaric and a clear indicator of an unjust society.

That's a bit much. and the only thing clear is that it's not clear. Otherwise you wouldn't have other people advocating for a different position in this very thread.



Of course, Tinkermancer actually said as much in the original post:
"Suppose a nation was slowly gravitating away from neutrality and into goodness, and grew tired of executing or locking away for life seemingly irredeemable Villain types. So they begin looking for a new, low-level way to turn these people into productive and beneficial members of society."

Yeah, basically a lawful evil utilitarian society, doing whatever it thinks it can get away with, including enforced mind control. Resist and you'll be imprisoned for eternity, infected by a horrifying curse.

Yeah no. That doesn't even represent the spirit of my post. Even a little bit. I've said multiple times that these are irredeemable villains otherwise. The only thing you can do with them at this point is kill them or lock them up forever. That is literally the only thing this would be used for. Let's not try and play this down to be something it's not.

[JackPhoenix]

I've said multiple times that these are irredeemable villains otherwise. The only thing you can do with them at this point is kill them or lock them up forever. That is literally the only thing this would be used for. Let's not try and play this down to be something it's not.

And, apparently, torture and brainwash them, forcing them turn into violent monsters for the rest of their lives while still being imprisoned or have their mind magically twisted into something they are not. Which is, apparently, somehow a Good act.

Part of werebear NG alignment is that they avoid spreading their curse unless they are sure the recipient can keep it under control, and avoiding people, because they know that they are still violent monsters. NG werebear will still maul you if you meet him in the woods. A werebear who spreads the curse deliberately to a lot of evil people in hope they'll change their mind about their motives isn't good by any measure.

You're also assuming that "accepting the curse" is as easy as saying "all right, I guess I'll be a werebear", and suddenly you're NG. To me, it sounds more like you have to actually work on changing your mindset and alignment to similar to the lycanthrope before you master the curse... Why would werebears be described as being extremely careful about choosing who to turn otherwise? If the criminal doesn't want to go through the process, congratulation, you've just given superpowers and night-invulnerability to a villain! Even if the villain accepts the curse, nothing prevents him from going "Well... this new lifestyle is boring, I had much more fun as an evil rectum before, I should do that again... oh, and I'm way more powerful now."

And then, something like what happened during Eberron's Lycanthrope Purge happens, even normally "good" were-beasts turn evil and violent, and start spreading the curse even if they are afflicted and not natural lycanthropes themselves....

[Tinkermancer]

And, apparently, torture and brainwash them, forcing them turn into violent monsters for the rest of their lives while still being imprisoned or have their mind magically twisted into something they are not. Which is, apparently, somehow a Good act.

I've always thought it interesting how two people can look at the same thing and get a completely different feel from it. It's good that we have someone here who is willing to advocate on behalf of the villains. But, I'm more interested in advocating on behalf of the rest of the world, and you know, not damning people to an eternity of pain and ACTUAL torture when I see another option available. So yes, the ends do justify the means. I just don't agree that the means are evil.


Part of werebear NG alignment is that they avoid spreading their curse unless they are sure the recipient can keep it under control, and avoiding people, because they know that they are still violent monsters. NG werebear will still maul you if you meet him in the woods. A werebear who spreads the curse deliberately to a lot of evil people in hope they'll change their mind about their motives isn't good by any measure.

In the Werebear entry, "Werebears are powerful lycanthropes with the ability to temper their monstrous natures and reject their violent impulses." - MM 207.

This entry contradicts your quoted point.



You're also assuming that "accepting the curse" is as easy as saying "all right, I guess I'll be a werebear", and suddenly you're NG. To me, it sounds more like you have to actually work on changing your mindset and alignment to similar to the lycanthrope before you master the curse... Why would werebears be described as being extremely careful about choosing who to turn otherwise? If the criminal doesn't want to go through the process, congratulation, you've just given superpowers and night-invulnerability to a villain! Even if the villain accepts the curse, nothing prevents him from going "Well... this new lifestyle is boring, I had much more fun as an evil rectum before, I should do that again... oh, and I'm way more powerful now."

Because that's EXACTLY what the rules say, and as I'm only interested in coming at this from a RAW position, I'm sticking to that. It's that simple. Rules state that when someone embraces the change, their alignment changes. It doesn't say they have to meditate on it. It doesn't say they have to agonize over the decision. It JUST says embrace the change. What does that mean? Nothing more than what it says, because embellishing over and above what the book says wouldn't be RAW.

I know RAW discussions can be difficult for some, because it so blatantly goes against the spirit of the game and disregards a lot of fluff, but RAW is the premise of the thread.

Now, what if they refuse to go along? Yeah, super-powered villain around other villains in a controlled prison environment once every 28 days where they have no control over themselves and barely any memory of what happened. AND? If they do embrace it, their alignment changes and then the lycanthropy curse is removed before they can leave. (It is arguable that they would return to their old alignment upon receiving the remove curse, but it doesn't spell that out, so I'm on the fence here)


And then, something like what happened during Eberron's Lycanthrope Purge happens, even normally "good" were-beasts turn evil and violent, and start spreading the curse even if they are afflicted and not natural lycanthropes themselves....

The only increase in were-population is in a secure prison environment, and they can't control it. And the ones that can don't want to hurt people or society. And one story line does not make RAW. It's a story.

Sure, but what if they ESCAPE??? They can't. I'm the DM and they are NPCs. But what if the PLAYERS break them out??? Sounds like an interesting story to play through.

[JackPhoenix]

In the Werebear entry, "Werebears are powerful lycanthropes with the ability to temper their monstrous natures and reject their violent impulses." - MM 207.

This entry contradicts your quoted point.

Not at all. It doesn't say if the ability to "temper their monstrous nature and reject their violent impulses" is natural part of werebear curse or trained. In fact, the mere mention that their nature is monstrous and they have violent impulses points at the later.


Because that's EXACTLY what the rules say, and as I'm only interested in coming at this from a RAW position, I'm sticking to that. It's that simple. Rules state that when someone embraces the change, their alignment changes. It doesn't say they have to meditate on it. It doesn't say they have to agonize over the decision. It JUST says embrace the change. What does that mean? Nothing more than what it says, because embellishing over and above what the book says wouldn't be RAW.

Actually...
"Some individuals see little point in fighting the curse and accept what they are. With time and experience, they learn to master their shapechanging ability and can assume beast form or hybrid form at will. Most lycanthropes that embrace their bestial natures succumb to bloodlust, becoming evil, opportunistic creatures that prey on the weak."

"A were bear is a loner by nature, fearing what might happen to innocent creatures around it when its bestial nature takes over."

"Typically, a were bear passes on its lycanthropy only to chosen companions or apprentices, spending the time that follows helping the new lycanthrope accept the curse in order to control it."

Emphasis mine. So it's definitely learned ability, not just snaping your fingers and saying "I'm NG werebear now". Also, werebear's nature is still bestial and they usualy avoid people because they apparently can't control it (even with their NG alignment) and would propably maul innocent if they are nearby. Spreading the curse to criminals and telling them "change to productive members of society or you can rot in prison as a cursed monster" certainly doesn't fit with typical werebear behavior, and it's definitely not anywhere close to good. Now, skipping the curse part and working on turning them to good through normal means, i.e. talking to them and having them change their behavior on their own (which the werebear would have to do anyway to make embracing the curse work)? That's actually Good, and it doesn't involve any curses or making the criminal more dangerous. If the villain is trully iredeemable, the curse won't change that


If they do embrace it, their alignment changes and then the lycanthropy curse is removed before they can leave. (It is arguable that they would return to their old alignment upon receiving the remove curse, but it doesn't spell that out, so I'm on the fence here)

"The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed." strongly suggests that, a) it's the alignment change, not the curse of lycanthropy itself, that turns the character to NPC, and b) when the curse is removed, the reason for DM control over the character (i.e. alignment change) has passed. Perhaps it's just bad wording, but you wanted RAW, here you have RAW


The only increase in were-population is in a secure prison environment, and they can't control it. And the ones that can don't want to hurt people or society. And one story line does not make RAW. It's a story.

So, you curse them to turn into monsters, and then you still leave them rot in prison after you brainwash them (because that's what "change your personality to what I want or else" is)? Or do you release them back into society once they are NG werebears (which is a terrible idea- yes, the storyline isn't RAW, but it's a warning of possible consequences)


Sure, but what if they ESCAPE??? They can't. I'm the DM and they are NPCs. But what if the PLAYERS break them out??? Sounds like an interesting story to play through.

Honestly, if your argument boils down to "I'm the DM and everything works how I want it to work" in the end, what's there to discuss?

[Tanarii]

You're missing something. Nothing says a creature can't change its alignment willingly by changing its attitudes and associated behavior.

So even after the alignment change from embracing the curse, they could change it back. Especially if the curse is removed. It's reasonable to assume that accepting the curse goes hand in hand with choosing to embrace the necessary associated attitudes and behavior, so they'd possibly stay there as long as they continue to embrace the curse. But once it's gone there's nothing to keep them there if they choose to revert to old ways.

[Sigreid]

You're missing something. Nothing says a creature can't change its alignment willingly by changing its attitudes and associated behavior.

So even after the alignment change from embracing the curse, they could change it back. Especially if the curse is removed. It's reasonable to assume that accepting the curse goes hand in hand with choosing to embrace the necessary associated attitudes and behavior, so they'd possibly stay there as long as they continue to embrace the curse. But once it's gone there's nothing to keep them there if they choose to revert to old ways.

I think an argument could be made for a person going through stages. Stage 1, ignorance of what is happening to them. Stage 2, "Oh my god, I'm a Monster! Stay away from me for your own safety. Stage 3, accept the beast you have become. Stage 4, revel in the freedom that comes from accepting the beast. Stage 5, remorse. Stage 6, the quest for redemption. Stage 7, peace between man and beast.

I also think it would be a reasonable position for a campaign that what is really different about the were bear is that when one of them bites someone they take it upon themselves to guide their prodigy through the seven stages, mitigating the damage they might do and destroying those who don't progress fast enough.

[No brains]

Isn't there a first level spell in a UA that can change alignments? I think it requires a 'willing' target, so you just have to find a (perhaps unsavory) way to get a being to comply with an alignment change.

It also raises the question if alignment is descriptive or prescriptive. Am I good because I do good or do I do good because I am good? All that spell might do is change how I am affected by certain spells for a while until my natural proclivities even back out.

[Tanarii]

It also raises the question if alignment is descriptive or prescriptive. Am I good because I do good or do I do good because I am good? All that spell might do is change how I am affected by certain spells for a while until my natural proclivities even back out.
Neither, unless I misunderstand the question. It's a RP tool that comes with a typical behavior description that the player (or DM for NPCs) uses along with the rest of personality traits to make choices for how to play the character the way she wants to, according to the personality (including alignment) chosen for the character. In the case of 'forced' alignment change, assumedly the player must therefore be willing to go along (or lose the character to being an NpC in the case of lycanthrope).

The in-game result is the character typically, but not always nor consistently, ends up behaving within the typical behavior described. The character doesn't even need to view themselves as the Alignment. Ie they make think they're Good in-game, even though the character sheet says LE and the player plays them accordingly. Similarly a were bear might view themselves as accursed evil, but actually be played by the player in accordance with the good alignment on the character sheet.

Edit: the spell in question is effective meaningless, since generally a player can just change their character alignment and start playing them accordingly. However, it certainly gives a good in-game explanation/reason for such a radical personality shift as (say) going from LE to LG suddenly. Ditto for lycanthropy ... it's an in game reason for a radical alignment shift.

[staylost]

I'm trying to imagine if I were the villain of the type you are presenting. This character raped your significant other before torturing and murdering her or him. They are sick and they know it. They may be unable to empathize. They love the feeling of crushing the skulls of children in front of their parents.

If that was my life and I was arrested, my crimes brought to light, and sentenced to death/life in prison/werebear timeout, I think turning me into a werebear as punishment would not be an evil act. I think it would be largely welcomed even if forced, moreso if I was offered the choice. Neither prison nor death are "good" options. One is a sentence to eternal hell, the other is torture of the most painful kind - living with myself awaiting eternal hell. The werebear option is a chance at going to the upper plains when I die. I will stop enjoying hurting other people. I will go though an ordeal that will allow me to partly feel like I am getting duly punished. I will be normal at the end of it all. And if I'm the evilest of evil who must preserve my true evil self from any goodiness - well, I definitely believe this whole thing is only a minor setback that I WILL overcome once released and then I can get back to murdering your children while you cry out in grief.

I find that your idea both fits my understanding of RAW and would not be an evil or even neutral act.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'm trying to imagine if I were the villain of the type you are presenting. This character raped your significant other before torturing and murdering her or him. They are sick and they know it. They may be unable to empathize. They love the feeling of crushing the skulls of children in front of their parents.

If that was my life and I was arrested, my crimes brought to light, and sentenced to death/life in prison/werebear timeout, I think turning me into a werebear as punishment would not be an evil act. I think it would be largely welcomed even if forced, moreso if I was offered the choice. Neither prison nor death are "good" options. One is a sentence to eternal hell, the other is torture of the most painful kind - living with myself awaiting eternal hell. The werebear option is a chance at going to the upper plains when I die. I will stop enjoying hurting other people. I will go though an ordeal that will allow me to partly feel like I am getting duly punished. I will be normal at the end of it all. And if I'm the evilest of evil who must preserve my true evil self from any goodiness - well, I definitely believe this whole thing is only a minor setback that I WILL overcome once released and then I can get back to murdering your children while you cry out in grief.

I find that your idea both fits my understanding of RAW and would not be an evil or even neutral act.

You don't need to be a werebear to reform and do good, though.

A honest desire for redemption and commitment to both righting your wrongs and doing further good, and carrying through on that commitment, is required to be admitted to the 7 heavens.

[Tinkermancer]

You don't need to be a werebear to reform and do good, though.

A honest desire for redemption and commitment to both righting your wrongs and doing further good, and carrying through on that commitment, is required to be admitted to the 7 heavens.

This is correct. Honestly, the Werebear thing was more to guarantee a change so society could feel safe about releasing them.

To be fair, enough of an argument has been made that my impression of the RAW situation is incorrect that I don't think it would work.

[pwykersotz]

It works if you say it works as the GM, but gosh it's a monstrous thing to do. Heck, you might even be circumventing the Pact Primeval here.

At a basic level, you are using a magical curse to brainwash people. Taking their choice out of the matter. As much as you say it's the same as any other type of punishment, it's not. Other types of punishment don't dig at that nebulous 'free will' concept we all love so much. Even if this whole thing was just a Helm of Opposite Alignment from a previous edition, it's not any better.

Worse, you're going to start getting to a slippery slope. That murderer was transformed and made good, so how about that person who is suspected of being a murderer, just to be safe? What about that thief who stole the greatest treasure in all the land? What about that thief who stole your moneypouch? What about Jean val Jean?

What about Miranda? (http://firefly.wikia.com/wiki/Miranda)

Now the cosmically bad part is that if you do this, you might actually be sneaking undeserving souls through the heavenly gates. The Pact Primeval was set up to punish evil and reward good. You notice that even the gods, who have the power to do so, don't circumvent free will. It's a uniquely mortal flaw to attempt it. Now the Pact is obviously a screw job to the gods of good. They thought they would be getting back those rehabilitated souls, but they never did. Now what you're supposing to do is sneak them in with a flawed mortal contrivance (a curse) without them being truly rehabilitated. You're going to stain the halls of heaven as the greatest of sinners pour into heaven. Either as sleeper agents for darkness, or as evil zealots as the alignment shift cracks away, or worst of all, as someone who straight up caused a violation of a pact between the gods and the lord of hell because souls which earned an evil afterlife aren't getting their due.

I don't know what Asmodeus or the gods of good do to violators of the pact, but I'll bet it isn't pretty.

Of course, as this is just a discussion of RAW, the most boring and useless term on these forums, the above is just pesky 'fluff' and 'consequences' that can probably be ignored.

Edit: Okay, that last line was a bit snarky for my tastes. I don't mean to demean the problem. Just criticize it.

[Tinkermancer]

It works if you say it works as the GM, but gosh it's a monstrous thing to do. Heck, you might even be circumventing the Pact Primeval here.

At a basic level, you are using a magical curse to brainwash people. Taking their choice out of the matter. As much as you say it's the same as any other type of punishment, it's not. Other types of punishment don't dig at that nebulous 'free will' concept we all love so much. Even if this whole thing was just a Helm of Opposite Alignment from a previous edition, it's not any better.

Worse, you're going to start getting to a slippery slope. That murderer was transformed and made good, so how about that person who is suspected of being a murderer, just to be safe? What about that thief who stole the greatest treasure in all the land? What about that thief who stole your moneypouch? What about Jean val Jean?

What about Miranda? (http://firefly.wikia.com/wiki/Miranda)

Now the cosmically bad part is that if you do this, you might actually be sneaking undeserving souls through the heavenly gates. The Pact Primeval was set up to punish evil and reward good. You notice that even the gods, who have the power to do so, don't circumvent free will. It's a uniquely mortal flaw to attempt it. Now the Pact is obviously a screw job to the gods of good. They thought they would be getting back those rehabilitated souls, but they never did. Now what you're supposing to do is sneak them in with a flawed mortal contrivance (a curse) without them being truly rehabilitated. You're going to stain the halls of heaven as the greatest of sinners pour into heaven. Either as sleeper agents for darkness, or as evil zealots as the alignment shift cracks away, or worst of all, as someone who straight up caused a violation of a pact between the gods and the lord of hell because souls which earned an evil afterlife aren't getting their due.

I don't know what Asmodeus or the gods of good do to violators of the pact, but I'll bet it isn't pretty.

Of course, as this is just a discussion of RAW, the most boring and useless term on these forums, the above is just pesky 'fluff' and 'consequences' that can probably be ignored.

Edit: Okay, that last line was a bit snarky for my tastes. I don't mean to demean the problem. Just criticize it.

That's definitely one way to look at it. That's not the way that I see it, and I feel like it misrepresents my position in many places. But that's happened a lot during this thread, so no sweat.

[Sigreid]

Just a thought here. In most D&D worlds wouldn't most people be ignorant of alignments? The would see some people and creatures as good and some as evil or self serving, but few would know "lawful good" was a thing. And it would seem odd to me if it was common knowledge that were wolves are always evil but were bears are always good. I think at its best the concept is really meta gamey.

[pwykersotz]

That's definitely one way to look at it. That's not the way that I see it, and I feel like it misrepresents my position in many places. But that's happened a lot during this thread, so no sweat.

Yeah, my imagination may have created a lot of things that spiraled off the central point. I didn't mean to say that you meant to implicate those things. I guess if I had one central criticism of your point, it would be this. You value forced alignment change over death. Is that really better? There's a lot that goes into that question, including what happens in the afterlife and such, but I don't think it's an easy question to answer.

[No brains]

Is there a Pact Primeval in 5e? I thought that got screwed up in the transition from 3.5 to 4 that eliminated 4 alignments entirely. That's if there's an edition timeline at all.

[Tinkermancer]

Yeah, my imagination may have created a lot of things that spiraled off the central point. I didn't mean to say that you meant to implicate those things. I guess if I had one central criticism of your point, it would be this. You value forced alignment change over death. Is that really better? There's a lot that goes into that question, including what happens in the afterlife and such, but I don't think it's an easy question to answer.

I do value that. And again, I don't believe it is forced. I believe it's guaranteed, but not forced. The fact is, just like changing their alignment manually, they have to choose to embrace the change. I would personally rather someone spend an eternity in heaven then an eternity in hell.

[pwykersotz]

I do value that. And again, I don't believe it is forced. I believe it's guaranteed, but not forced. The fact is, just like changing their alignment manually, they have to choose to embrace the change. I would personally rather someone spend an eternity in heaven then an eternity in hell.

With regards to heaven versus hell, totally. I was just conjuring ideas for unintended consequences.

So I see what you're saying. You don't see it as forced, just expedited and reliable. Questions about the inherent morality of the process aside, I'm not sure it IS very reliable, even by RAW. People change alignment all the time. You're right in that it's a guaranteed initial change, but I think odds are that it's equally or less effective in the long term for keeping them that way.

See, all that expediency comes with a cost. They don't have to actually wrestle with their demons, they're simply passed over. So when the changed person is reminded of their demons, there's no strength to the wall that holds them back. And you've removed the curse, so the strength of magic is gone too. Many would simply buckle right back to the way they were before.

[Tinkermancer]

With regards to heaven versus hell, totally. I was just conjuring ideas for unintended consequences.

So I see what you're saying. You don't see it as forced, just expedited and reliable. Questions about the inherent morality of the process aside, I'm not sure it IS very reliable, even by RAW. People change alignment all the time. You're right in that it's a guaranteed initial change, but I think odds are that it's equally or less effective in the long term for keeping them that way.

See, all that expediency comes with a cost. They don't have to actually wrestle with their demons, they're simply passed over. So when the changed person is reminded of their demons, there's no strength to the wall that holds them back. And you've removed the curse, so the strength of magic is gone too. Many would simply buckle right back to the way they were before.

This is where I'm worried my plan falls apart. I'm not certain that they would keep their new alignment after Remove Curse is cast due to the wording of the book being ambiguous. And if it doesn't, the plan is shot. It COULD be an interesting setting where all the members of an elite squad of do-gooders are made up of reformed super-villains with were-bear powers though. I might do something with that.

As for people changing alignment all the time, I'm not sure that furthers the discussion any. NO solution would be good by that argument.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I do value that. And again, I don't believe it is forced. I believe it's guaranteed, but not forced. The fact is, just like changing their alignment manually, they have to choose to embrace the change. I would personally rather someone spend an eternity in heaven then an eternity in hell.

The Angels and Devils might not though.

At least the way I see it, you don't automatically get accepted into Heaven or Hell for having an alignment, but by the strength and conviction of your actions. Becoming TG just before your die doesn't exempt you from being measured for your vile deeds done while you were CE the rest of your life.

You have to not only accept the alignment change, but devote the rest of your life to a path of unerring good, and leave the world a better place than the way you entered it.

[Kane0]

I'm having flashbacks to Sir Bearington.

Were-bear land druid with a 3 level bear totem barbarian dip and handle animal proficiency (in conjunction with Charm Animal for bear posse) leading an elite cadre of were-bear 'enlighteners'.

[hamishspence]

At least the way I see it, you don't automatically get accepted into Heaven or Hell for having an alignment, but by the strength and conviction of your actions. Becoming TG just before your die doesn't exempt you from being measured for your vile deeds done while you were CE the rest of your life.

You have to not only accept the alignment change, but devote the rest of your life to a path of unerring good, and leave the world a better place than the way you entered it.

There's an element of this in the way Fiendish Codex 2: Tyrants of the Nine Hells handles it - "alignment" is not the only factor - "deeds" matter as well - it's possible to not be LE, yet have Corruption and Obeisance ratings of 9+, and so go to the Nine Hells (unless one is genuinely repentant).

And being repentant doesn't get you off completely - it simply means you get reincarnated as a Hellbred, getting a second chance at changing their afterlife destination - that chance still has to be properly taken advantage of - by doing some major acts of Goodness and heroism, to "earn ones way free".

[Unoriginal]

I do value that. And again, I don't believe it is forced. I believe it's guaranteed, but not forced. The fact is, just like changing their alignment manually, they have to choose to embrace the change. I would personally rather someone spend an eternity in heaven then an eternity in hell.

If it's not forced, it's not more guaranteed than any other changes of heart.


The god of good had the option to make their creations naturally inclined toward benevolence. They didn't. Because they recognised that when you're good, you have to believe people can make the right choice on their own.

[Tinkermancer]

If it's not forced, it's not more guaranteed than any other changes of heart.


The god of good had the option to make their creations naturally inclined toward benevolence. They didn't. Because they recognised that when you're good, you have to believe people can make the right choice on their own.

For the purposes of getting out of prison it is guaranteed. Design trials and checkpoints that require being in control of your lycanthropy, ensuring that anyone who makes it that far HAS changed their alignment. Those that don't haven't changed their alignment and are stuck in the prison, thus guaranteeing that only those who are now neutral good emerge back into society.

[Tanarii]

For the purposes of getting out of prison it is guaranteed. Design trials and checkpoints that require being in control of your lycanthropy, ensuring that anyone who makes it that far HAS changed their alignment. Those that don't haven't changed their alignment and are stuck in the prison, thus guaranteeing that only those who are now neutral good emerge back into society.
So basically you're providing incentive to reform, then torturing them with a series of unwilling challenges to prove it, all because D&D 5e doesn't have Detect Good?

And it's torture. It's one thing to put someone in prison, it's another to run them through what's effectively a dungeon. That's what BBEG do to PCs, not a good society to its prisoners. Or did you think the society in Running Man was a good society?

[Socratov]

So basically you're providing incentive to reform, then torturing them with a series of unwilling challenges to prove it, all because D&D 5e doesn't have Detect Good?

And it's torture. It's one thing to put someone in prison, it's another to run them through what's effectively a dungeon. That's what BBEG do to PCs, not a good society to its prisoners. Or did you think the society in Running Man was a good society?

Well, to be honest, here is the thing: if you are enforcing repercussion on any kind of serious crime (as in serious enough to not get off with a minor fine or warning) you are in essence torturing:


You take away someone's resources: money, goods, other kind of possessions. You take away someone's ability to take core of himself, let alone for another. Criminal? BAM! Say goodbye to caring for your wife and kids because what you had suddenly is not yours anymore. Good luck!
You imprison someone: you take away someone's freedom to move about. You confine people to a cell of, well, however big it is. and let them subside on minimal amounts of food and drink. Keeping a person slightly malnourished and confined to a couple of square meters can certainly drive some people insane. doing so while guaranteeing that s/he will never get out, ever? Brutal.
You banish them. Never allow them to see their family, his place of birth, his whole history again. Oh and because you need to be able to recognise those banished, you obviously have to brand them as such. Ouch!
Killing them is ethically not really considered all that Good, but given the options above it might be more merciful, especially considering the next point:
social stigma. Except for death all the options include a healthy dose of social stigma. you now what happens to people who are burdened with social stigma? Well, they get bullied. Their loved ones get bullied and they will be considered less then human. This is the stuff that could drive a person to suicide.


If anything, the chance to run a gauntlet and redeem oneself might be the best option of all: you get a chance to redeem yourself and it's absolute: meaning you will be proclaimed reborn/reformed/remade and most of all fit for re-entry into society.

I'd say that considering wether or not a punishment is humane, the point of consideration does not rest with wether or not it's forced, but wether or not it's fair.

Rejecting the criminal is not fair: it creates not only stigma for the rejectee, but the ones close to him as well, even those who cannot help it.
Imprisoning someone for long periods (possibly the remainder of their life) is also not fair: one is kept alive without a chance at redemption. As an added bonus, the downsides of rejection are there as well.
Killing might be a mercy, but killing rather decidedly not good. Especially if the prisoner is, well, a prisoner which makes him defenceless. Which makes the killing not battle, but murder. Quite the evil act.
running the gauntlet is harsh, inflicting a curse, testing someone until you are sure they have reformed gives plenty opportunity for failure, but it also serves 2 purposes: it keeps the reformee away from society while s/he reforms, and most importantly it gives a chance at complete redemption.

With the right campaign fluff it could be an honour to be reformed and reformed criminals might not even want to be rid of their Werebear curse as it is not a mark of shame, but a mark of redemption. Leaving the Greater Restoration altogether.

Tl;dr - All punishment is forced and carries with it an element of unfairness, however, it could be fair if it gives a chance and this get-cursed-to-get-redeemed might not be so unfair after all.

[Tanarii]

If anything, the chance to run a gauntlet and redeem oneself might be the best option of all: you get a chance to redeem yourself and it's absolute: meaning you will be proclaimed reborn/reformed/remade and most of all fit for re-entry into society.There is a difference between being given (an honest) option to be cursed and running the gauntlet, or being unwillingly forced to, or even being indirectly coerced into accepting it by being given a harsh alternative.

Edit: And remember, we're talking about a society specifically trying to be good here, so 'harsh alternative' isn't likely to be something they would be willing to consider unless it's considered necessary.

Edit2:
I'd say that considering wether or not a punishment is humane, the point of consideration does not rest with wether or not it's forced, but wether or not it's fair. Missed this part. I'm not sure I agree with this assessment. I'll have to think about it.

[Vorpal Pete]

It would make a great Jurassic Park scenario. Oh no, the hired wizard just disabled the antimagic zones in your park full of werebear supervillains! While your ex-wife, the crown prince, and the pope were on a tour there!

[Vogonjeltz]

Nowhere that I can find makes the claim that removing the curse returns the alignment to the original. That being said, I've been arguing with myself about this part all day. Part of me wants to say that the change in alignment is an effect of the curse, but not actually the curse Itself. It's basically the choice to say 'I'm going to own this crap.' That might be playing towards what I want, but I'm not sure yet.

The section on PCs as Lycanthropes says "The DM is free to decide that a change in alignment places the character under DM control until the curse of lycanthropy is removed." (MM 207)

The removal of the curse undoes the alignment change, as it was the alignment change that was the basis of the character becoming an NPC, not the lycanthropy itself.


But, it doesn't make them evil, not even the ones that don't embrace it. In fact, society in this prison during the full moon would be much better than it would be any other time. Theoretically, at least. The monstrous manual says that they maintain their original alignment when in their normal form. Now, this sort of implies that they adopt the alignment of their creature when they change, but as it doesn't flat out say it, we would need a sort of gentleman's agreement to go forward with that. Still, arguably not rules as written.

See? I'll play fair.

It doesn't have to make them evil if they don't embrace the curse they turn into an unstoppable killing machine that has no self control whatsoever.

Creating such a creature, willingly, displays a callous and wreckless disregard for the safety and wellbeing of all other life. That's an extreme expression of evil by the society that created the prison in the first place.

On what basis do you think society would be better with a very large number of extraordinarily dangerous beasts running around on the full moon? How is that remotely better than having the original prisoner either killed or imprisoned permanently (both miscarriages of justice in this scenario, yet by comparison, not quite as bad as what is proposed).

The MM is giving general propositions. Werebears are generally neutral good because they historically have taken care NOT to pass the curse on willy nilly, but only providing it to other, equally minded creatures. The MM explicitly states that "Though most werebears are of good alignment, some are every bit as evil as other lycanthropes." (MM 207)

The proposed system is basically saying: Let's give every single criminal super powers because, statistically, some of them should become heroes instead of choosing to become super criminals.

Not a great plan.


That's a fairly bold claim that most people on this board don't seem to support. I also don't agree with this statement.

The premise purports that it's a consequence of taking the rules at face value, then it immediately contravenes that claim by stating the gods are mostly silent and there are no defenses against teleportation.

Neither one of those things has been true in any rules set.

It's inventive homebrew for sure, but that wasn't my critique.


For the purpose of this discussion though, repentance is a central point. Our theoretical society isn't interested in restitution. They aren't letting these people out. And regardless of whether or not it's a central part of probation, it is still a part of probation. We are letting someone out that hasn't changed.

Ah, that changes it to Neutral Evil (getting away with whatever they can).


Yeah no. That doesn't even represent the spirit of my post. Even a little bit. I've said multiple times that these are irredeemable villains otherwise. The only thing you can do with them at this point is kill them or lock them up forever. That is literally the only thing this would be used for. Let's not try and play this down to be something it's not.

1) Who is to make the judgment that they are irredeemable villains? I get that, objectively you as DM know the evil in their hearts, but within the society supposed, how do they know that the condemned is guilty, let alone irredeemable?

What crime is so awful that it's ok to try and brainwash them, but not ok to simply execute them? How does anyone in this society justify giving an irredeemable villain super powers and making them into an unstoppable killing machine? If these villains are so irredeemable, why do you think they would EVER go along with this plot by society to try and remake their minds?

Why wouldn't these villains just kill themselves so that a compatriot could have them resurrected at a later date/place? Also, no prison is inescapable, so...what happens when the inevitable prison break occurs and hundreds of deadly (and irredeemably evil) lycanthropes take to the countryside, slaughtering villages en masse?

Sounds like the start of an apocalypse.