So how exactly do Ice Assassin shenanigans work?

[AnonymousPepper]

If I am a high-level Wizard and I wanna start running around with equal-level duplicates instead of just half-level Simulacra, what exactly is the methodology behind acquiring compliant Ice Assassins?

I've always wondered this.

[Troacctid]

"The ice assassin is under your absolute command."
—From the spell description.

[AnonymousPepper]

I'm aware of that, but if you want to make one of *yourself* to do things like guard duty...

The ice assassin possesses all the skills, abilities, and memories possessed by the original, but its personality is warped and twisted by an all-consuming need to slay the original.

[flappeercraft]

I'm aware of that, but if you want to make one of *yourself* to do things like guard duty...

The ice assassin possesses all the skills, abilities, and memories possessed by the original, but its personality is warped and twisted by an all-consuming need to slay the original.

It's still under your absolute command so order it to do nothing and then follow up with a Mindrape spell.

[tyckspoon]

I'm aware of that, but if you want to make one of *yourself* to do things like guard duty...

The ice assassin possesses all the skills, abilities, and memories possessed by the original, but its personality is warped and twisted by an all-consuming need to slay the original.

It's still under your command. It can hate you and desire your destruction all it wants, it can't act against your commands. Sure, it's a twisted and horrifying existence, but if you cared about that kind of thing you wouldn't be using Ice Assassin.

[AnonymousPepper]

It's still under your command. It can hate you and desire your destruction all it wants, it can't act against your commands. Sure, it's a twisted and horrifying existence, but if you cared about that kind of thing you wouldn't be using Ice Assassin.

Fair enough. I'm running a good-aligned wizard, though, so I'd feel bad about that.


It's still under your absolute command so order it to do nothing and then follow up with a Mindrape spell.

This, however, solves the problem.

I feel really dumb for not realizing that.

[Doctor Awkward]

Fair enough. I'm running a good-aligned wizard, though, so I'd feel bad about that.



This, however, solves the problem.

I feel really dumb for not realizing that.

Mindrape is explicitly described, in its own description, as one of the most vile and evil spells ever printed. Just some food for your good-aligned wizard's thought.

[druid91]

I mean, just look at the name.

[flappeercraft]

Mindrape is explicitly described, in its own description, as one of the most vile and evil spells ever printed. Just some food for your good-aligned wizard's thought.


I mean, just look at the name.

In that case it could be replaced with Programmed Amnesia. It's not as good for this purpose but it would suffice.

[AnonymousPepper]

I refuse to buy that using Mindrape to remove something as vile as an unstoppable urge to kill is actually evil. In this case I'm just using it as Rapid Therapy or something.

In any case, this is a high-epic 3.PF game wherein I took Beyond Morality...

[Seneschul]

Is it evil to force someone to abide by your choices?
That is to say, taking away their free will and agency, and replacing it with your own?



The caster enters the mind of a creature, learning everything that creature knows. The caster can erase or add memories as she sees fit and alter emotions, opinions, and even alignment. When the caster is done, she can leave the creature insane (as described in the insanity spell) or seemingly unaffected, without any memory of the intrusion.


Yes, you could insert memories that are therapeutic.
Perhaps your DM will allow you a series of diplomacy rolls to try and maintain your good alignment while using a spell that, by it's very definition, changes the integral nature of a sophont.

As a DM, I'd want some pretty amazing roleplay to go with those dice rolls.
Cause taking away free will is evil.
Either kill or banish or bind or end.
But mental subversion by force?
Evil.

Edit:
Therapy is a two way street. The wording of this spell does not imply a two way street. Even if you're inserting a therapeutic memory, it's all about you in that memory creation, not a shared change.

As a DM, I'd see it as evil, since the thing you are removing is an integral aspect of the creature itself (as per the Ice Assasin text)

Evil for a (possibly) good reason, but still evil.

[RoboEmperor]

I refuse to buy that using Mindrape to remove something as vile as an unstoppable urge to kill is actually evil. In this case I'm just using it as Rapid Therapy or something.

In any case, this is a high-epic 3.PF game wherein I took Beyond Morality...

Sanctify the Wicked is a good spell and it does what you want.

Mindrape has the Evil tag so no matter how you use it it's evil.

[Quertus]

Is it evil to force someone to abide by your choices?
That is to say, taking away their free will and agency, and replacing it with your own?

Of course not. It's Lawful.


Yes, you could insert memories that are therapeutic.
Perhaps your DM will allow you a series of diplomacy rolls to try and maintain your good alignment while using a spell that, by it's very definition, changes the integral nature of a sophont.

As a DM, I'd want some pretty amazing roleplay to go with those dice rolls.
Cause taking away free will is evil.
Either kill or banish or bind or end.
But mental subversion by force?
Evil.

Edit:
Therapy is a two way street. The wording of this spell does not imply a two way street. Even if you're inserting a therapeutic memory, it's all about you in that memory creation, not a shared change.

As a DM, I'd see it as evil, since the thing you are removing is an integral aspect of the creature itself (as per the Ice Assasin text)

Evil for a (possibly) good reason, but still evil.

See it as evil if you must.

OP, just remember to Mindrape yourself back to Good when you're done.

Oh, Mindrape, what problems can't you solve?

[Goaty14]

Sanctify the Wicked is a good spell and it does what you want.

Mindrape has the Evil tag so no matter how you use it it's evil.

Having a good alignment changes not "an all-consuming need to slay the original".

[Thunder999]

Huh, Mindrape really is the definition of lawful evil isn't it, absolute control and complete disregard for free will.

The solution to doing evil things is just to balance it out with good stuff, so get yourself an ice assassin of an efreeti (planar binding should get you the flesh, or you find a way around material components), then every time you do an evil thing you order it to use its wish SLA to resurrect an orphan's mother or magic up a stupid amount of gold and donate it to a good cause, simple. Or just submit fully to evil then help of opposite alignment yourself.

[tiercel]

Sanctify the Wicked is a good spell and it does what you want.

Because putting the [Good] tag on the violation of a creature’s sense of self, in order to remake them the way you want them to be, totally makes it okay.

[RoboEmperor]

{scrubbed}

[MaxiDuRaritry]

There's actually nothing at all inherently evil about mindrape, except for the name. I can think of a large number of things you can do with it that aren't even vaguely Evil, or even Neutral. It doesn't channel Evil energy, or energy from an Evil source.

Is curing someone of a longstanding, life-destroying mental illness evil?

Is instantly teaching someone a huge amount of information on the language of flowers evil?

Is removing the overpowering need to harm a generally good person from a constructed creature that didn't have free will to begin with* evil?

No, no, and no.

Mindrape is only "evil" because it's tagged as such mechanically. Remove the tag, and it's only as evil as the purpose to which you put it. Pretty much just like everything else that doesn't actively channel inherently-aligned energy.



*I mean, it's not like the ice assassin was ever going to have free will, because its very nature requires it to do your bidding.

[tiercel]

It's called rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation requires a choice — the active involvement of the person to be rehabilitated. That person may need to be involuntarily confined to separate him or her from society and to present, even urge, opportunities for rehabilitation.... but that person has to want to rehabilitate for it to be meaningful.

That’s a far cry from “I’m going to rip the soul out of your body, annihilate your body, and throw what’s left of you into magical sensory-deprivation solitary confinement that will drive you insane enough that I will get root access to your soul and force you to morally and ethically think like I do.” At that point we’ve pretty much rocketed right on through “A Clockwork Orange” territory and out the other side.

[RoboEmperor]

Rehabilitation requires a choice — the active involvement of the person to be rehabilitated. That person may need to be involuntarily confined to separate him or her from society and to present, even urge, opportunities for rehabilitation.... but that person has to want to rehabilitate for it to be meaningful.

That’s a far cry from “I’m going to rip the soul out of your body, annihilate your body, and throw what’s left of you into magical sensory-deprivation solitary confinement that will drive you insane enough that I will get root access to your soul and force you to morally and ethically think like I do.” At that point we’ve pretty much rocketed right on through “A Clockwork Orange” territory and out the other side.

The spell says it involuntarily confines the creature and brings out the spark of good inside of it. In other words that creature always had the potential for good and the spell makes it the dominant personality trait. Where is the mindrape part? There are no false memories. Hell there isn't even a real personality change. The creature's innate goodness becomes dominant so it was always that good, it was just pushed down deep inside its psyche because of its upbringing.

This is not a billion geas on the creature so it cannot perform evil even though it wants to which is what clockwork orange is.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Rehabilitation requires a choice — the active involvement of the person to be rehabilitated. That person may need to be involuntarily confined to separate him or her from society and to present, even urge, opportunities for rehabilitation.... but that person has to want to rehabilitate for it to be meaningful.

That’s a far cry from “I’m going to rip the soul out of your body, annihilate your body, and throw what’s left of you into magical sensory-deprivation solitary confinement that will drive you insane enough that I will get root access to your soul and force you to morally and ethically think like I do.” At that point we’ve pretty much rocketed right on through “A Clockwork Orange” territory and out the other side.Honestly, that sounds WAAAAAAY more evil than the mechanical description for mindrape.

[Jack_Simth]

Because putting the [Good] tag on the violation of a creature’s sense of self, in order to remake them the way you want them to be, totally makes it okay.
It takes a year to "make the perfect argument" for that specific creature. You get no control over the subject. You learn nothing about the subject. It just becomes good after a year of enforced self-contemplation (and doesn't work if it gets interrupted). The will save and such? They're mechanics shorthand, same as a diplomacy or bluff check would be. You can't exactly role-play out a year of forcing someone to self-contemplate, and it saves the DM the arguments about whether or not a given creature could potentially be talked into "coming around to the side of good". As opposed to Mindrape, which tells you everything about the subject and lets you rewrite the subject however you like in an instant - at least in terms of memories (skills, feats, and class features are debatable).

[deuterio12]

There's actually nothing at all inherently evil about mindrape, except for the name. I can think of a large number of things you can do with it that aren't even vaguely Evil, or even Neutral. It doesn't channel Evil energy, or energy from an Evil source.

Is curing someone of a longstanding, life-destroying mental illness evil?

Is instantly teaching someone a huge amount of information on the language of flowers evil?

Is removing the overpowering need to harm a generally good person from a constructed creature that didn't have free will to begin with* evil?

No, no, and no.


Yes, yes and yes since you're completely removing the key element of choice from the target. It's the difference between torture and a consensual BDSM session. Doing something for somebody that they don't want is basically a definition of evil. Yes, it is tragic that they have murderous urges, but if they explicitly want to have those murderous urges and refuse treatment, then the good solution would be to keep them locked or just put them out of their misery, not to rewrite them into your vision of good, which would inevitably lead to a dystopian scenario.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Yes, yes and yes since you're completely removing the key element of choice from the target.That's Law, not Evil.

Law taken to extremes is indoctrination and slavery. Chaos taken to extremes is anarchy. Good taken to extremes is the complete sublimation of the self for others, with no thought as to whether said others deserve it. And Evil taken to extremes is pointless cruelty and torture for its own sake writ large.

Altering someone's mind against their will is the first of those. Mindrape doesn't cause pain; in fact, it can easily be used to heal, to spread knowledge, and to help prevent torment and suffering.

If you can't think of any ways to help someone with it, you really need to exercise your imagination more. I came up with a few above, in fact -- which you called evil. And anyway, how is it taking away someone's free will if they come to you to learn something and you oblige them? Nothing about mindrape forces you to use it against people's will. Fireball is more evil than mindrape, because there's nobody who would ask to be subjected to one, unlike mindrape.


It's the difference between torture and a consensual BDSM session. Doing something for somebody that they don't want is basically a definition of evil. Yes, it is tragic that they have murderous urges, but if they explicitly want to have those murderous urges and refuse treatment, then the good solution would be to keep them locked or just put them out of their misery, not to rewrite them into your vision of good, which would inevitably lead to a dystopian scenario.How is teaching someone something they want to learn or curing them of something causing them pain taking away their free will? Sure, you can use it for that, just like you can cast cure light wounds on someone who doesn't want you to (which means it's also EEEEEEVIL!), but like I said, it's all in what you do and why you do it that makes it evil.

[tiercel]

Honestly, that sounds WAAAAAAY more evil than the mechanical description for mindrape.

Right? I realize it’s in the spin, but it doesn’t take THAT close a reading of StW to recognize obvious Unfortunate Implications.


It takes a year to "make the perfect argument" for that specific creature. You get no control over the subject. You learn nothing about the subject. It just becomes good after a year of enforced self-contemplation (and doesn't work if it gets interrupted). The will save and such? They're mechanics shorthand, same as a diplomacy or bluff check would be. You can't exactly role-play out a year of forcing someone to self-contemplate, and it saves the DM the arguments about whether or not a given creature could potentially be talked into "coming around to the side of good". As opposed to Mindrape, which tells you everything about the subject and lets you rewrite the subject however you like in an instant - at least in terms of memories (skills, feats, and class features are debatable).

But it’s an “argument” you always win, modulo a single Will save (which you can and almost certainly will debuff first), without knowing or caring about anything about your victim other than “lights up red on my Evil-dar, so my ‘Good’-torture is TOTALLY JUSTIFIED.”

In that sense, not even learning anything about your victim and just brute-force rewriting their moral/ethical outlook regardless is just a different flavor of violation. There’s no consideration of how the Evil happened or how to get the person to willingly reconsider it or genuinely choose to repent or how to give that person a chance to avoid falling into the same trap, it’s just strap on the eyehooks and see things my way.

[RoboEmperor]

Right? I realize it’s in the spin, but it doesn’t take THAT close a reading of StW to recognize obvious Unfortunate Implications.



But it’s an “argument” you always win, modulo a single Will save (which you can and almost certainly will debuff first), without knowing or caring about anything about your victim other than “lights up red on my Evil-dar, so my ‘Good’-torture is TOTALLY JUSTIFIED.”

In that sense, not even learning anything about your victim and just brute-force rewriting their moral/ethical outlook regardless is just a different flavor of violation. There’s no consideration of how the Evil happened or how to get the person to willingly reconsider it or genuinely choose to repent or how to give that person a chance to avoid falling into the same trap, it’s just strap on the eyehooks and see things my way.

Maybe I need to quote this


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).

So
1. the creature finds the goodness inside of it
2. That goodness becomes the dominant personality trait.

So how exactly is this similar to clockwork orange? No really, please explain. How are eye hooks and forcing a human to be incapable of fighting back identical to someone having their good side win over their bad side?

Your analogy is bad. Your example is wrong. Clockwork Orange is like Geas, not SotW, or even mindrape. It's an incorrect example even for mindrape.

Did the protagonist become a crusader? Did the protagonist atone for his crimes? Did the protagonist undergo a personality change? No, all that happened was he became incapable of fighting back. How is this mindrape let alone SotW?

[Jack_Simth]

Right? I realize it’s in the spin, but it doesn’t take THAT close a reading of StW to recognize obvious Unfortunate Implications.



But it’s an “argument” you always win, modulo a single Will save (which you can and almost certainly will debuff first), without knowing or caring about anything about your victim other than “lights up red on my Evil-dar, so my ‘Good’-torture is TOTALLY JUSTIFIED.”

In that sense, not even learning anything about your victim and just brute-force rewriting their moral/ethical outlook regardless is just a different flavor of violation. There’s no consideration of how the Evil happened or how to get the person to willingly reconsider it or genuinely choose to repent or how to give that person a chance to avoid falling into the same trap, it’s just strap on the eyehooks and see things my way.
They don't see it your way. No effect on the L/C axis, so a LG using the spell on a CE opponent is STILL not going to get along with them.

You're specifically choosing to read it in such a way as to make it not make sense. The spell uses mechanics to shorten the RP and get rid of the "No, this guy is just irredeemable" arguments for those who want to spend a massive amount of resources to redeem folks. You want to RP it all out? Fine. Get back to me after you've properly RP'd out a year of solitary contemplation, and then we'll talk.

[Doctor Awkward]

There's actually nothing at all inherently evil about mindrape, except for the name.

Philosophically speaking, a person is defined by their memories and experiences. Events that occurred to you throughout your life are paramount in shaping your sense of self and ultimately determining who you are as a person.

Mindrape allows you to alter all of these things as you see fit, effectively destroying the victim on a fundamental level and remaking them in your image rather than their own. It's one of the grossest violations you could possibly commit against another sentient being.

When considering its effect, it is possibly the most aptly named spell in any book.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Philosophically speaking, a person is defined by their memories and experiences. Events that occurred to you throughout your life are paramount in shaping your sense of self and ultimately determining who you are as a person.

Mindrape allows you to alter all of these things as you see fit, effectively destroying the victim on a fundamental level and remaking them in your image rather than their own. It's one of the grossest violations you could possibly commit against another sentient being.

When considering its effect, it is possibly the most aptly named spell in any book.It can be used to teach and heal. If not abused, it's no worse than any other magic or non-magic ability. Unless Autohypnosis used to memorize passages in a book is also evil?

As with (almost) everything else, it's all in how it's used. The potential for abuse is great, but the potential for beneficence is, as well.

[SLOTHRPG95]

They don't see it your way. No effect on the L/C axis, so a LG using the spell on a CE opponent is STILL not going to get along with them.

You're specifically choosing to read it in such a way as to make it not make sense. The spell uses mechanics to shorten the RP and get rid of the "No, this guy is just irredeemable" arguments for those who want to spend a massive amount of resources to redeem folks. You want to RP it all out? Fine. Get back to me after you've properly RP'd out a year of solitary contemplation, and then we'll talk.

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

With that said, the lack of regard for free will in the matter always seemed extremely un-Chaotic. If you were a CG caster shifting a willing, penitent target's alignment from LE to your own with Atonement, I don't think there's a problem. But if you were a CG caster repeatedly using StW on your foes, I think many DMs (myself included) won't think twice before shifting your alignment to NG to better match your actions. Or eventually, LG.

[Bucky]

One of the char-op threads a couple years back came up with a simple solution:
Make an Ice Assassin of yourself. Lock it up somewhere secure like a vat of quintessence in a private demiplane. Make some Ice Assassins of your frozen Ice Assassin. They hate the original Ice Assassin, not you. Just make sure the original Ice Assassin didn't know where it'd be stored and you're set.

[tiercel]

Maybe I need to quote this



So
1. the creature finds the goodness inside of it
2. That goodness becomes the dominant personality trait.

So how exactly is this similar to clockwork orange? No really, please explain. How are eye hooks and forcing a human to be incapable of fighting back identical to someone having their good side win over their bad side?

StW literally makes the person incapable either of choosing rehabilitation or of fighting back. (The victim doesn't get to choose to be good; the spell makes it so Just Has To.) The victim gets one saving throw to avoid having soul ripped out and stuck into Thou Shalt Be A Better Person Now Time-Out. After that? Unable to do anything other than burn inside until moral (and ethical) outlooks are forcibly set to be whatever I, in my far greater wisdom, have decided is appropriate. There is no interaction. There is no choice. This schmuck is literally helpless and powerless and has no contact with anything or anyone other than what must be a hateful, alien violation.

If someone manages to find and free the victim one second before the year is up (when the personality is so utterly violated and rewritten that the victim just finally surrenders to Someone Else Knows Best), then "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."

This is a spell granted by Pelor the Burning Hate (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?443306-quot-Pelor-the-Burning-Hate-quot-(from-Wizards-forum)).

I would go so far as to say that one set of criteria in the Nine Hells for an incoming petitioner to be fast-tracked to, say, a contract devil form would be
1) Was the mortal powerful enough to cast StW,
2) Was the mortal self-righteous enough to believe that violating another's mortal ability to choose his/her own moral path was actually "Good," and
3) Was the mortal cheesetastic enough to rules-lawyer out of paying for components for the spell?

Check all three of those boxes and Asmodeus probably has a job offer waiting.

[Jack_Simth]

"After one year, the trapped creature's soul adopts the alignment of the spell's caster (lawful good, chaotic good, or neutral good)."
OK, so I missed a detail. I'm apparently not the only one:


With that said, the lack of regard for free will in the matter always seemed extremely un-Chaotic. If you were a CG caster shifting a willing, penitent target's alignment from LE to your own with Atonement, I don't think there's a problem. But if you were a CG caster repeatedly using StW on your foes, I think many DMs (myself included) won't think twice before shifting your alignment to NG to better match your actions. Or eventually, LG.
Few folks are going to use it repeatedly due to a line at the end: "Sacrifice: 1 character level." You're engaging in some rather serious cheese to get it earlier or to use it often.


StW literally makes the person incapable either of choosing rehabilitation or of fighting back. (The victim doesn't get to choose to be good; the spell makes it so Just Has To.) The victim gets one saving throw to avoid having soul ripped out and stuck into Thou Shalt Be A Better Person Now Time-Out. After that? Unable to do anything other than burn inside until moral (and ethical) outlooks are forcibly set to be whatever I, in my far greater wisdom, have decided is appropriate. There is no interaction. There is no choice. This schmuck is literally helpless and powerless and has no contact with anything or anyone other than what must be a hateful, alien violation.

If someone manages to find and free the victim one second before the year is up (when the personality is so utterly violated and rewritten that the victim just finally surrenders to Someone Else Knows Best), then "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."
It's an abstraction. Yeah, they pulled things out to make the spell actually playable. Most NPC's (and PC's, for that matter) don't have sufficient background to make arguments that would be compelling to them for major changes to their outlook. For the spell to be playable, then, the author needed to cut stuff. The Diplomacy skill is the same way. The NPC doesn't get a choice in suddenly liking you, after all. The abstraction exists in part because most characters in the game simply aren't fleshed out enough to be converted without the abstraction. They cut something you consider critical, and you're using that to say the spell is extremely far from exalted. Well... your prerogative. But do understand that you're choosing to read it against the flavor.

[Seneschul]

I would go so far as to say that one set of criteria in the Nine Hells for an incoming petitioner to be fast-tracked to, say, a contract devil form would be
1) Was the mortal powerful enough to cast StW,
2) Was the mortal self-righteous enough to believe that violating another's mortal ability to choose his/her own moral path was actually "Good," and
3) Was the mortal cheesetastic enough to rules-lawyer out of paying for components for the spell?

Check all three of those boxes and Asmodeus probably has a job offer waiting.

So awesome.
IT'S A TRAP SPELL, provided by the evil guys to the good guys, as a recruitment tactic ^_^

[Doctor Awkward]

It can be used to teach and heal. If not abused, it's no worse than any other magic or non-magic ability. Unless Autohypnosis used to memorize passages in a book is also evil?

As with (almost) everything else, it's all in how it's used. The potential for abuse is great, but the potential for beneficence is, as well.

You are writing the monologue for the villain in my next campaign.
This is great stuff. Keep going.

Maybe something about how people don't always know what's best for them and it would be irresponsible not to change them for the better even if it goes against their wishes?

[Psyren]

I view the contradictions of "all-consuming need" and "absolute command" to be an unstoppable force/immovable object situation myself. Though Ice Assassin is just banned at our tables anyway making it a moot point.

[Nifft]

You are writing the monologue for the villain in my next campaign.
This is great stuff. Keep going.

Maybe something about how people don't always know what's best for them and it would be irresponsible not to change them for the better even if it goes against their wishes?

He says a thing is fine if it's not abused, and your response is to make up a villain who abuses the thing.

You sure showed him.

[Doctor Awkward]

He says a thing is fine if it's not abused, and your response is to make up a villain who abuses the thing.

You sure showed him.

You missed the point.

The very nature of the spell is itself a violation. It is incapable of not being abused.

No one is competent enough to give consent to having their brain and personality be completely rewritten by someone else.

[InvisibleBison]

You missed the point.

The very nature of the spell is itself a violation. It is incapable of not being abused.

No one is competent enough to give consent to having their brain and personality be completely rewritten by someone else.

Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing stopping you from casting mindrape on yourself. That seems like a perfectly fine use of the spell to me.

[Nifft]

Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing stopping you from casting mindrape on yourself. That seems like a perfectly fine use of the spell to me.

Indeed, and an Ice Assassin clone of yourself might be sufficiently yourself to not trip up any ethical concerns.

[digiman619]

Indeed, and an Ice Assassin clone of yourself might be sufficiently yourself to not trip up any ethical concerns.

For the same reason that having sex with a clone of your self is not masturbation, no.

[Nifft]

{Scrubbed}

[digiman619]

{Scrubbed}

[RedMage125]

I view the contradictions of "all-consuming need" and "absolute command" to be an unstoppable force/immovable object situation myself. Though Ice Assassin is just banned at our tables anyway making it a moot point.

I also don't allow the spell, but I've always understood "absolute command" to be no different than any other form of mind control, while "absolute need" was the "natural" inclination of the IA.

Which is only one of many reasons why I was so amused by all the "Sorcerer King" builds before he moved to 5e. He'd invariably have an IA of himself, buffed out the wazoo...to include giving it Mind Blank, which, of course, means the IA immediately tries to kill him

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Which is only one of many reasons why I was so amused by all the "Sorcerer King" builds before he moved to 5e. He'd invariably have an IA of himself, buffed out the wazoo...to include giving it Mind Blank, which, of course, means the IA immediately tries to kill himPlease don't bring that up. He might be like Hastur, or Pazuzu. Mention him and he might appear.

But at least the first two might actually do something useful for you.

[Telonius]

So awesome.
IT'S A TRAP SPELL, provided by the evil guys to the good guys, as a recruitment tactic ^_^

I personally houserule an Evil version of Vow of Poverty for similar reasons. A deal that gets Baator the entire GP value of a character throughout their career, that looks great at first glance but actually ends up hurting the person in the long run. The Falxugon who came up with the idea was immediately promoted.

[RedMage125]

Please don't bring that up. He might be like Hastur, or Pazuzu. Mention him and he might appear.

But at least the first two might actually do something useful for you.

I just found it relevant to the topic at hand, especially in regards to the IA's desire to kill who it is a copy of, and the absolute control of the caster vis being dumb enough to put Mind Blank on it.

[zlefin]

You missed the point.

The very nature of the spell is itself a violation. It is incapable of not being abused.

No one is competent enough to give consent to having their brain and personality be completely rewritten by someone else.

why not?
also, it doesn't have to be a complete rewrite; partial rewrites are allowed.

[tiercel]

It's an abstraction. Yeah, they pulled things out to make the spell actually playable. Most NPC's (and PC's, for that matter) don't have sufficient background to make arguments that would be compelling to them for major changes to their outlook. For the spell to be playable, then, the author needed to cut stuff. The Diplomacy skill is the same way. The NPC doesn't get a choice in suddenly liking you, after all. The abstraction exists in part because most characters in the game simply aren't fleshed out enough to be converted without the abstraction. They cut something you consider critical, and you're using that to say the spell is extremely far from exalted. Well... your prerogative. But do understand that you're choosing to read it against the flavor.

The flavor *in the spell* seems to go against its own crunch, hence my interpretation. (Much like "Pelor the Burning Hate.") Forcing someone to be Good, as a Good act, seems... paradoxical. And it should be noted that the alignment change is forced is not merely flavor: it's kind of the whole point. If a Will save to resist the entire process fails, the victim has no choice in the matter. If the victim is freed before the process takes hold, they hate the caster so much that it's murder-time.

That's... pretty forced. At minimum, forcing a "Good" alignment change seems very much to me a "this is not going to end well" sort of situation.

1) Comparing StW to Diplomacy seems a bit inapt since by RAW D&D 3.5 Diplomacy mechanics are ... kinda awful, and generally recognized to require some DM interpretation. ("I need to Rule 0 this" does not make RAW-Diplomacy OK; I'm just pointing out that no table I've ever been at uses straight-up RAW Diplomacy "I rolled 46, he HAS to like me, I MAKE him like me, he doesn't have ANY CHOICE but to be at least Friendly!!!") In any case, even RAW Diplomacy doesn't affect alignment in any case; you could technically make a Balor "Helpful" (*shudder*) or even "Fanatic" (if the DM allows Epic rules in play at all, much less at non-Epic levels), but even then you'd wind up with a "Helpful"/"Fanatic" paragon of CE.

2) Yes, StW is not the only way to "force someone to be Good": one could obtain a Helm of Opposite Alignment, debuff the victim with Doomspeak/Mind Fog/Limited Wish/etc, and BAM forced-"Good," but that is explicitly called out as a curse, and no one is pretending that it is Good or Exalted to do so.

[Quertus]

2) Yes, StW is not the only way to "force someone to be Good": one could obtain a Helm of Opposite Alignment, debuff the victim with Doomspeak/Mind Fog/Limited Wish/etc, and BAM forced-"Good," but that is explicitly called out as a curse, and no one is pretending that it is Good or Exalted to do so.

I've got plenty of characters who would happily "curse" someone with a conscience. Even they would look askance at StW, though.

[Doctor Awkward]

why not?
also, it doesn't have to be a complete rewrite; partial rewrites are allowed.

For the same reason we don't allow people to kill themselves simply because they say they want to.
It's immoral because it's not a subject on which you can make an informed decision.

[AnonymousPepper]

For the same reason we don't allow people to kill themselves simply because they say they want to.
It's immoral because it's not a subject on which you can make an informed decision.

...Yes we do, it's called euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, or death with dignity, and it's legal in many Western jurisdictions.

[Doctor Awkward]

...Yes we do, it's called euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, or death with dignity, and it's legal in many Western jurisdictions.

In the interest of avoiding a potential flame war, I'll simply say that the ethical ramifications of Mindrape are exactly the same as how your campaign world treats this subject. You are effectively consenting to the destruction of the person you currently are in favor of becoming someone completely different.

[Cosi]

I also don't allow the spell, but I've always understood "absolute command" to be no different than any other form of mind control, while "absolute need" was the "natural" inclination of the IA.

That reading seems obviously correct to me. It doesn't matter how much you "need" something if you aren't making the decisions. You can need something you don't get or do, but if you disobey an order, it was clearly not an absolute command. Therefore, the consistent reading of the spell is the one that gives you full control.

[Troacctid]

Mind manipulation is not considered inherently evil magic. Spells like dominate person can effectively enslave someone, but they don't have the evil tag. Same with imprisonment—in fact, the imprisonment spell, which interns a creature indefinitely in a tiny bubble miles below the surface of the earth where even a wish or miracle spell can't bring them back, has no alignment tags, and the same is true of binding, which causes a similar indefinite imprisonment.

So what's the difference here? Cosmology. Mindrape is dark magic that calls on the cosmic power of evil itself to warp someone's mind. The act of manipulating the energies involved leaves a stain on your soul even if you have noble intentions. Sanctify the wicked is the opposite. It calls upon the elemental goodness in the universe.

[zlefin]

For the same reason we don't allow people to kill themselves simply because they say they want to.
It's immoral because it's not a subject on which you can make an informed decision.

so? you're simply arguing poorly and are straight-up wrong. You've ignored the cases where instead of a complete rewrite, it's a partial rewrite to only address certain issues.

And we do allow people to take psychoactive drugs which alter their personality, and to take things like electro-convulsive therapy which cause permanent memory loss and other personality changes.

it's also straight up false that you can't make an informed decision. There are reasons to object to it; but nothing you've stated provides any basis for it not being an informed decision. That it may be a horrible thing to do and be tantamount to death doesn't make it an uninformed decision. Especially seeing as this is in the context of DnD 3.5, and it is a spell, therefore you can (in principle) make a knowledge or spellcraft check (or mixed checks of multiple types, still easy with guidance of the avatar) so high that you most definitely do fully understand the spell, and its effects/implications.

[Cosi]

The problem -- as it always is in alignment discussions -- is that what things do or don't get the [Good] or [Evil] tags has relatively little correlation with real-world notions of those terms. In many, perhaps most, ethical frameworks, re-writing someone's brain would be wrong. It doesn't magically become not wrong because the game slaps a [Good] tag on it, it just means that "does it have a [Good] tag" is poor indication of whether or not something is acceptable.

[Nifft]

The problem -- as it always is in alignment discussions -- is that what things do or don't get the [Good] or [Evil] tags has relatively little correlation with real-world notions of those terms. In many, perhaps most, ethical frameworks, re-writing someone's brain would be wrong.

Psychotherapy seems to be rather legal.

Education is often regarded as ethical.

Training pets and children to behave in specific ways is widely accepted.

Psychoactive pharmaceuticals are more likely to be questioned, but not generally illegal as a category.

Re-wiring brains is common and only sometimes problematic -- electroshock therapy, as originally practiced, is an example of one which is not well-regarded (but mostly because it was not sufficiently selective in its re-wiring).

Meditation is a kind of self-focused brain re-wiring.

I don't accept that brain re-wiring is inherently unethical, because we do it deliberately to ourselves and each other all the time.

[Doctor Awkward]

The problem -- as it always is in alignment discussions -- is that what things do or don't get the [Good] or [Evil] tags has relatively little correlation with real-world notions of those terms. In many, perhaps most, ethical frameworks, re-writing someone's brain would be wrong. It doesn't magically become not wrong because the game slaps a [Good] tag on it, it just means that "does it have a [Good] tag" is poor indication of whether or not something is acceptable.

It's only a problem when people forget that D&D doesn't correlate to the real-world in terms of morality.

The alignment system is an absolute scale with very carefully delineated criteria for what is good and what is evil.

You are not required to agree with it on a personal level. And no one can stop you from ruling things differently in your own games.

[Doctor Awkward]

so? you're simply arguing poorly and are straight-up wrong. You've ignored the cases where instead of a complete rewrite, it's a partial rewrite to only address certain issues.

And we do allow people to take psychoactive drugs which alter their personality, and to take things like electro-convulsive therapy which cause permanent memory loss and other personality changes.

it's also straight up false that you can't make an informed decision. There are reasons to object to it; but nothing you've stated provides any basis for it not being an informed decision. That it may be a horrible thing to do and be tantamount to death doesn't make it an uninformed decision. Especially seeing as this is in the context of DnD 3.5, and it is a spell, therefore you can (in principle) make a knowledge or spellcraft check (or mixed checks of multiple types, still easy with guidance of the avatar) so high that you most definitely do fully understand the spell, and its effects/implications.
..........

In the interest of avoiding a potential flame war, I'll simply say that the ethical ramifications of Mindrape are exactly the same as how your campaign world treats this subject. You are effectively consenting to the destruction of the person you currently are in favor of becoming someone completely different.

[tiercel]

The problem -- as it always is in alignment discussions -- is that what things do or don't get the [Good] or [Evil] tags has relatively little correlation with real-world notions of those terms. In many, perhaps most, ethical frameworks, re-writing someone's brain would be wrong. It doesn't magically become not wrong because the game slaps a [Good] tag on it, it just means that "does it have a [Good] tag" is poor indication of whether or not something is acceptable.

This. There are too many arbitrary-seeming alignment tags (deathwatch, anyone?) and inconsistency (channeling negative energy to create undead or rebuke undead is evil, casting inflict spells isn’t).


It's only a problem when people forget that D&D doesn't correlate to the real-world in terms of morality.

The alignment system is an absolute scale with very carefully delineated criteria for what is good and what is evil.

You are not required to agree with it on a personal level. And no one can stop you from ruling things differently in your own games.

Some people may occasionally argue D&D alignment too closely from personal/modern/real-life morality & ethics, but it’s probably a stretch to claim they’ve “forgotten” that D&D is, at least often and iconically, a game where heroes kill bad guys and take their stuff.

A problem is that alignment in D&D is supposed to be absolute, but often comes off as arbitrary and often very poorly delineated, being as it is a mishmash of pseudo-medieval, high fantasy, and more modern sensibilities. The poor delineation is most evident in the unrelenting profusion of alignment discussions: it is specious to simply dismiss the ubiquity of such discussions as simply “these people just don’t understand alignment,” unless perhaps the point being made is that arguably no one really understands alignment.

Alignment in D&D is at best general guidelines that can’t be easily ignored, due to the integration of alignment-detecting and -targeting magic, but hardly definitive on what (and in most cases, even who) is Good and what/who is Evil. —If nothing else, it’s pretty much explicitly in the realm of DM judgment as to what acts/how much it takes for a given being to change alignment by dint of the moral or ethical impacts of its actions. It is arguably condescending to assert “well no one can stop you from houseruling” when essentially anyone playing the game is at least interpreting the alignment guidelines and not merely racking up RAW “Good” points or “Evil” points for every possible action (or “Law” or “Chaos,” for that matter).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I don't see an [Evil] tag on psychic chirurgery. Or psychic reformation. Or on retraining, or rebuilding, or fanatic Diplomancing, or spreading knowledge through education, or charm/dominate spells, or Autohypnosis, or leveling up, or gaining skills or feats or spells or...

If changing someone's personality or mind or worldview is inherently Evil, then all of those things should have the tag.

If mindrape uses [Evil] energy to do what it does, that's understandable, but in that case, just cast it with the Consecrate Spell feat, so it's just as Good as it is Evil. Or use the Redeem Evil Items rule to turn a scroll of it Good and THEN learn it.

[Nifft]

I don't see an [Evil] tag on psychic chirurgery. Or psychic reformation. Or on retraining, or rebuilding, or fanatic Diplomancing, or spreading knowledge through education, or charm/dominate spells, or Autohypnosis, or leveling up, or gaining skills or feats or spells or...

If changing someone's personality or mind or worldview is inherently Evil, then all of those things should have the tag.

Also Atonement, the canonical voluntarily-get-help-to-change-your-mind spell.


If mindrape uses [Evil] energy to do what it does, that's understandable, but in that case, just cast it with the Consecrate Spell feat, so it's just as Good as it is Evil. Or use the Redeem Evil Items rule to turn a scroll of it Good and THEN learn it. It's much like how Deathwatch does something functionally harmless, but it's [Evil] because you use the wicked powers of death most foul to do the harmless thing.

[Troacctid]

Or use the Redeem Evil Items rule to turn a scroll of it Good and THEN learn it.
You can't redeem scrolls.

[Cosi]

Education is often regarded as ethical.

Yes, dominate person is clearly the same as education. The qualitative difference between the things people are talking about and the real world examples you are using are so vast as to make your comparison some combination of irrelevant, embarrassing, or insulting.

Or maybe you actually have a case for why "assert complete mental control over someone" and "high school" are totally morally equivalent. That seems like the kind of argument that won't be at all terrible to be involved in.


You are not required to agree with it on a personal level. And no one can stop you from ruling things differently in your own games.

I mean, sure, but it's deeply stupid to insist on using a term that has real meaning in a way that is not consistent with that real meaning. If you want to make up your own set of alignments, the non-stupid thing to do is to do what MtG does and start from things that don't have moral connotations to begin with. If you just call the team Orange instead of Good, the problem goes away, and things become way clearer because there's no chance for people to confuse their preconceptions with your definitions, because no one has preconceptions about what actions are morally Orange. Conversely, if you want to use the word Good, you better make damn sure none of the things you're asserting are Good are actually super terrible.

[tiercel]

You can't redeem scrolls.

Dungeons and Dragons: the game in which the most awful souls can be forcibly brainwashed by the use of a high-level, allegedly Good-aligned torture spell, but a piece of paper with magic writing in Comic Sans is beyond saving.

[Nifft]

{Scrubbed}

[Jack_Simth]

The flavor *in the spell* seems to go against its own crunch, hence my interpretation. (Much like "Pelor the Burning Hate.") Forcing someone to be Good, as a Good act, seems... paradoxical. And it should be noted that the alignment change is forced is not merely flavor: it's kind of the whole point. If a Will save to resist the entire process fails, the victim has no choice in the matter. If the victim is freed before the process takes hold, they hate the caster so much that it's murder-time.

That's... pretty forced. At minimum, forcing a "Good" alignment change seems very much to me a "this is not going to end well" sort of situation.

Nominally, the will save is just to trap them. The bits you're having problems with date back to (flawed) Greek philosophy. Because of course those ethical systems about good are all based on what's ultimately simple logic and evidence everyone has, so of course anyone who is simply given enough time away from the distractions of the world will come to the same conclusions and reform themselves (that's part of why so many prisons include "penitentiary" in the name: The prisoners are supposed to be penitents who are thinking about what they did and repenting. The "little" issue that philosophers came to mutually exclusive conclusions doesn't seem to have bothered the Greeks, and the recidivism rates of modern prison systems haven't gotten folks to stop naming prisons that way). It's based on demonstrably false premises, but that's the fluff of the spell. And that does match the mechanics.

If you'd like, you can also read through the redemption rules in the Book of Exalted Deeds on pages 28 and 29. That's skill checks vs. will saves. And the prisoner must be treated well for it to work, so no eye hooks allowed. The spell does much the same thing, magically, takes longer, and gives the prisoner something of a boost.


1) Comparing StW to Diplomacy seems a bit inapt since by RAW D&D 3.5 Diplomacy mechanics are ... kinda awful, and generally recognized to require some DM interpretation. ("I need to Rule 0 this" does not make RAW-Diplomacy OK; I'm just pointing out that no table I've ever been at uses straight-up RAW Diplomacy "I rolled 46, he HAS to like me, I MAKE him like me, he doesn't have ANY CHOICE but to be at least Friendly!!!") In any case, even RAW Diplomacy doesn't affect alignment in any case; you could technically make a Balor "Helpful" (*shudder*) or even "Fanatic" (if the DM allows Epic rules in play at all, much less at non-Epic levels), but even then you'd wind up with a "Helpful"/"Fanatic" paragon of CE.

Would you prefer I said that an NPC has no choice but to believe a lie if they blow a Sense Motive skill check? There's not really a shortage of things where we'd go "this requires the target to make a choice" in real life, where the game uses mechanics that remove choice. It's necessary. In order to convince someone of something - anything - in real life, you need to know enough about them to make the arguments that appeal to the person you're trying to convince. Hobgoblin # 386 doesn't have enough background for that to be possible. So mechanics are used. Will saves, opposed skill checks, whatever. Different writers handle it differently, but in the end, you have essentially the same thing: Some check or ability on the part of one agent changes the another agent.


2) Yes, StW is not the only way to "force someone to be Good": one could obtain a Helm of Opposite Alignment, debuff the victim with Doomspeak/Mind Fog/Limited Wish/etc, and BAM forced-"Good," but that is explicitly called out as a curse, and no one is pretending that it is Good or Exalted to do so.
So?

[Troacctid]

Dungeons and Dragons: the game in which the most awful souls can be forcibly brainwashed by the use of a high-level, allegedly Good-aligned torture spell, but a piece of paper with magic writing in Comic Sans is beyond saving.
I don't think it says much that you can't change the ethical worldview of a piece of parchment. It's a piece of parchment.

[Nifft]

I don't think it says much that you can't change the ethical worldview of a piece of parchment. It's a piece of parchment. You can change the alignment of an intelligent sword.

Clearly, the pen is mightier than the sword.

[Cosi]

Nifft, dominate person is a way of re-writing someone's brain.

Even if we ignore that, your claim is still just as stupid if you meant "programmed amnesia is the same as school" instead.

So, no, I'm not going to apologize for dismissing your bad argument as bad, because it was a bad argument. I will, however, respond to a good argument you make instead, because I have far more patience for you than you've earned or deserve.

[Nifft]

Nifft, dominate person is a way of re-writing someone's brain. You are wrong.

Dominate person is a way of controlling a person's actions. Their brain -- their will, their nature, what they consider acceptable vs. not -- is unchanged.

This is why the subject can resist, and why particularly unacceptable orders can allow the target to break your control.

This is all laid out explicitly, if you actually read the spell.



Even if we ignore that, your claim is still just as stupid if you meant "programmed amnesia is the same as school" instead.

Anyone can see that's not what I said.

If that's the sum of your argument then your argument is irredeemably stupid, which is particularly sad because even [Evil] sword can be redeemed in this thread.

[Doctor Awkward]

This. There are too many arbitrary-seeming alignment tags (deathwatch, anyone?) and inconsistency (channeling negative energy to create undead or rebuke undead is evil, casting inflict spells isn’t).

There is nothing inherently [Evil] about channeling negative energy.

The Negative Energy Plane (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#negativeEnergyPlane) is not an inherently evil place. It has no will of its own. There is no malice in the destruction it causes. It simply is. And it is because it must be. If you removed the Negative Energy Plane from existence you are not accomplishing some great good. You are likely dooming all of creation to the void on account of the disruption in the Great Wheel. There is likewise nothing inherently [Good] about positive energy. The Positive Energy Plane is a horrific place for any living mortal creature. If you travel there unprotected you are inundated with the raw power of creation until you are immolated from the inside out. Neither plane has an alignment trait. Both are antithetical to life as a we comprehend it even if we understand that positive energy is life edifying in smaller amounts, while negative energy is life denying in similar amounts. The energons (native inhabitants of those two planes) the xeg-yi and xeg-ya, have all the moral direction of an Elemental. Like the planes themselves, they simply are.

If channeling negative energy were an inherently evil act then it would be impossible for neutral clerics who choose to rebuke undead to stay neutral. Likewise for a neutral cleric who chooses to turn undead. If either of these were inherently good or evil you wouldn't have neutral clerics at all.

It has been my experience that if something seems inconsistent with regards to alignment, there is a roughly 99% probability that the issue is your interpretation of the material, not the material itself.

So far as the rules are concerned, a spell is never inherently evil simply by virtue of channeling negative energy. If the [Evil] tag is present then it's because of some other factor involved.


Some people may occasionally argue D&D alignment too closely from personal/modern/real-life morality & ethics, but it’s probably a stretch to claim they’ve “forgotten” that D&D is, at least often and iconically, a game where heroes kill bad guys and take their stuff.

A problem is that alignment in D&D is supposed to be absolute, but often comes off as arbitrary and often very poorly delineated, being as it is a mishmash of pseudo-medieval, high fantasy, and more modern sensibilities. The poor delineation is most evident in the unrelenting profusion of alignment discussions: it is specious to simply dismiss the ubiquity of such discussions as simply “these people just don’t understand alignment,” unless perhaps the point being made is that arguably no one really understands alignment.

Alignment in D&D is at best general guidelines that can’t be easily ignored, due to the integration of alignment-detecting and -targeting magic, but hardly definitive on what (and in most cases, even who) is Good and what/who is Evil. —If nothing else, it’s pretty much explicitly in the realm of DM judgment as to what acts/how much it takes for a given being to change alignment by dint of the moral or ethical impacts of its actions. It is arguably condescending to assert “well no one can stop you from houseruling” when essentially anyone playing the game is at least interpreting the alignment guidelines and not merely racking up RAW “Good” points or “Evil” points for every possible action (or “Law” or “Chaos,” for that matter).

Your argument concludes that that alignment must be poorly defined because of the many people disagree on the nature of it.

That's a form of argumentum ad populum.

It is a general truth that most people are very bad at separating their personal bias from objective analysis of a given subject. This is especially true for a subject as sensitive as the nature of right and wrong. Given that, it is much more reasonable to suppose that the majority of arguments regarding the absolute morality of D&D are a result of people arguing from a position of what they feel the text should say, rather than what it actually does say.

In the example of create undead, you have a spell that is tagged as an evil. It could be evil because it involves the desecration of the corpse and the disruption of peaceful death (more than one campaign setting has established that what happens to your corpse after your death can have a profound effect on the experience of your soul in the afterlife). It is this disruption that renders the act of creating undead evil. In spite of this, undead themselves are not inherently evil, as you can note through their hit dice. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType) Ultimately, however, the reason why is irrelevant. In D&D, the act of creating undead is evil. And that's all there is to it.

You can argue that it shouldn't be, and from a philosophically neutral standpoint some of those arguments might have merit. But the confines of D&D are not an objectively neutral environment and thus those arguments are all made on a faulty premise. Whether it is the desecration of a corpse, the disruption of peaceful rest, or any other excuse you might come up with, so far as alignment and the rules are concerned the creation of undead being an act of evil is a tautology.

[Cosi]

Nifft: neither of those are good arguments.

dominate person doesn't provide perfect control, but the control it provides is still an alteration of the mind that can reasonably be described as "re-writing someone's brain". You can still describe fireball as "burning people to death" despite the fact that it's possible to survive. Appealing to some kind of separation between "controlled actions" and "essential self" is just asserting that everyone must make exactly the same philosophical assumptions you do.

You can memory hole it all you want, but you did factually claim that "education" was re-writing people's brains to a sufficient sense to be a meaningful analogy. I gave you the chance to back down on this one. You opted to instead insult me, and insert that I was a hypocrite because you felt that an ambiguous phrase described different things than I did (assuming that people with different solutions to ambiguities than you are lying hypocrites is a common theme of yours).

Again, make good arguments. I'm willing to listen to good arguments. But I'm losing patience for the arguments you are making, because they are not good arguments.

[tiercel]

Nominally, the will save is just to trap them. The bits you're having problems with date back to (flawed) Greek philosophy.

If the Will save is nominally just for the trap, then the spell after the trap is “I am always right, you are always wrong, I auto-win the argument without having to even have an argument or know or care anything about you, because I am just that right” effect. That is a mind-boggling level of self-righteousness; such sophistry, applied to any end, could make anyone believe anything and believe it was both good and Good to do so.

I hope that you’ll excuse me if slapping a [Good] descriptor as some kind of bandage across the grotesquery of such absolute mental domination does little to assuage my horror at the prospect.

As for the general redemption rules, boiling them down to “you just have to buff your Diplomacy to overcome their modified Will save seven times in a row” is a savagely reductive take on the fluff described — the whole “mature audiences” tag on BoED was, I thought, supposed to indicate that “mere fluff” matters when it comes to Good, much less Exalted, conduct. The idea that a skilled disputant who treats a villain well, invests time in understanding him or her, and shows the villain a better way to achieve his or her actual core desires without actively seeking nor causing harm to others is at least a plausible sounding narrative (though I would be happier with some element of *choice* being called for, since redemption without any form of willful choice on the convertee’s part smacks still of “conversion by sword,” just with a fancier sword, i.e. suspect and likely not genuine).

However, StW abrogates even this. There is no resisting the perfect inexorable conversion of an entire worldview, no understanding or need for understanding. In short, the only veneer of goodness in this “ultimate” [Good] spell is in the tag.




So?

Using “ends justifies the means” philosophy is one thing, maybe, when struggling with a potentially morally fraught decision.

Saying “haha no moral ambiguity because I have a slip of paper marked [Good]” is a towering level of self-righteous hypocrisy.

[Nifft]

Nifft: neither of those are good arguments.

dominate person doesn't provide perfect control, but the control it provides is still an alteration of the mind that can reasonably be described as "re-writing someone's brain". That's totally wrong though. Their mind remains their own, which is why they are able to resist the spell.

If the spell did re-wire a brain, there would be no resistance.

Here's what re-wiring would look like: fail your save against Mindrape, and you won't resist because you will have been re-wired to be whatever I want you to be. There's no ongoing compulsion. You've just been re-wired.


You can still describe fireball as "burning people to death" despite the fact that it's possible to survive. Appealing to some kind of separation between "controlled actions" and "essential self" is just asserting that everyone must make exactly the same philosophical assumptions you do. No, just that they understand the topic.


You can memory hole it all you want, but you did factually claim that "education" was re-writing people's brains to a sufficient sense to be a meaningful analogy. I gave you the chance to back down on this one. You opted to instead insult me, and insert that I was a hypocrite because you felt that an ambiguous phrase described different things than I did (assuming that people with different solutions to ambiguities than you are lying hypocrites is a common theme of yours).

Again, make good arguments. I'm willing to listen to good arguments. But I'm losing patience for the arguments you are making, because they are not good arguments.

You're not able to understand your own arguments.

Seriously, Dominate Person is not the same as Mindrape, neither mechanically nor ethically. They're both Enchantments, and they both can be used to do (different) naughty things, but -- as mentioned just now -- the naughty things they can do are different things, and they're naughty for different reasons.

Education has been compared to thought control, and re-education is a euphemism for brainwashing. I guess you're unaware of any but the fluffiest connotations of the word? Well, whatever. We can't have a meaningful discussion when you don't understand either the game's mechanics or the wider, darker real world.

I guess you're feeling a bit heated, so let me offer you the chance to back down -- apologize now and we'll speak of this no more.

Or you can fry the egg on your face and wear it proudly. Your face, your call.

[Troacctid]

You can change the alignment of an intelligent sword.

Clearly, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Scrolls can't be intelligent! They're not permanent magic items.


If the Will save is nominally just for the trap, then the spell after the trap is “I am always right, you are always wrong, I auto-win the argument without having to even have an argument or know or care anything about you, because I am just that right” effect. That is a mind-boggling level of self-righteousness; such sophistry, applied to any end, could make anyone believe anything and believe it was both good and Good to do so.
On the other hand, "From my perspective, the Jedi are evil!" rings a bit hollow if you just massacred a room full of schoolchildren.

[Jack_Simth]

If the Will save is nominally just for the trap, then the spell after the trap is “I am always right, you are always wrong, I auto-win the argument without having to even have an argument or know or care anything about you, because I am just that right” effect.
Actually, no. The underlying (flawed) Greek philosophy behind it is that they'll convince themselves with time. They make their own "perfect argument".

That is a mind-boggling level of self-righteousness; such sophistry, applied to any end, could make anyone believe anything and believe it was both good and Good to do so.

Oh, the underlying assumptions that make the mechanics and fluff line up are incorrect, and this can be confirmed with both logic and historical evidence. Yet the belief is very old, and is still held (to varying degrees) by some. But that's also true of a lot of D&D. It's fantasy. But that's a side note.

Hmm. I've underlined, reworded, and italicized the main point - I suppose next comes bolding? - that with how most opponents are done you can't know enough about them to effectively argue with them, because they almost never have enough background; of necessity, this means mechanics are used - and when you use mechanics, you've removed the target's choice, but there's no real way around that while still making the game function. Any redeeming that doesn't boil down to "the DM says it works" will have a variation on the same "no choice" aspect.

But you've skipped addressing that. Repeatedly.

Interesting.

Also...

I hope that you’ll excuse me if slapping a [Good] descriptor as some kind of bandage across the grotesquery of such absolute mental domination does little to assuage my horror at the prospect.
This is just throwing emotionally loaded words around. There's no argument here. So... I suppose I'll just note that you've stopped debating, and stop bothering to reply. Have a good day.


There is nothing inherently [Evil] about channeling negative energy. While no reason is given, in the Neutral Clerics and Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#neutralClericsandUndead) section, we have:
Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.

[Nifft]

Scrolls can't be intelligent! They're not permanent magic items. Well, you can change the alignment of an unintelligent sword too -- it's just going to be a bit less expressive about the whole experience.


On the other hand, "From my perspective, the Jedi are evil!" rings a bit hollow if you just massacred a room full of schoolchildren. Maybe he self-identifies as a Jedi when he says that.

-- -- --

Here's a new argument to discuss:

Role-playing is a psychotherapy tool. If you play this game, you are engaging in an activity which is used clinically to re-wire brains.

IIRC this was one of the initial objections to RPGs as a whole back in the era of MADD and the Satanism scare (... which boosted sales apparently).

[Meditation]

That's totally wrong though. Their mind remains their own, which is why they are able to resist the spell.

If the spell did re-wire a brain, there would be no resistance.

You have used the term “re-wire the brain” as a talismanic phrase whose definition is utterly ambiguous and therefore can be employed to mean whatever makes your claims seem to be correct. Explain the distinction between the two categories of mind-affecting spells you are describing without using ambiguous phrases or your argument will have no basis beyond assertion. I submit, however, that this cannot be done. For example:

The spell Modify Memory changes memories and has a Will save. If mnemonic information is stored via neural pathways and changing such pathways is construed as “re-wiring the brain,” that spell would be a straight refutation of the quoted formulation. Indeed, any impact on the behavior of another person that is specifically negated by a Will save and is mediated via a spell would fall under the implied definition of “re-wiring the brain,” hence there is only one category of mind-affecting spells, not two: the set of mind affecting spells that are not “re-wiring the brain” includes no spells, whereas the set of mind-affecting spells that are “re-wiring the brain” includes all mind-affecting spells. Since there is only one set of elements, not two, there is no point of comparison between two things.



Education has been compared to thought control

I can compare a kumquat with the concept of matrilineal inheritance. Does this comparison make those two things the same?

Spoiler: it doesn’t.



re-education is a euphemism for brainwashing

And education has also been used as a euphemism for brainwashing by bad actors. This does not mean that education is bad. This means that bad actors are bad. White supremacists adopted the term “white power” by bastardizing “black power.” Bad people lie about good things, even neutral things. It’s why they’re bad. Such behavior is not a mark against the thing that they’re lying about.



I guess you're unaware of any but the fluffiest connotations of the word? Well, whatever.

This is idle speculation with no basis in fact — disagreeing with your wrong ideas is not indicia of unawareness of the basis of your wrong ideas —


Well, whatever. We can't have a meaningful discussion when you don't understand either the game's mechanics or the wider, darker real world.

— followed by an ad hominem/insult that misconstrues both the game mechanics and the “real world.” (Yes, the world where there is an objectively verifiable afterlife where people who commit horrible deeds can be rewarded with immortality and the ability to enjoy committing those same deeds forever is less dark than the real world.)


I guess you're feeling a bit heated, so let me offer you the chance to back down -- apologize now and we'll speak of this no more.

This is projection: the poster is agitated and discomforted enough to dive into ad hominem, and therefore asserts that the person disagreeing with him/her is the one experiencing emotional distress, a more desperate version of a troll screaming that you need to chill out, over and over again.

[Meditation]

As for the immediate issue, the problem here — as is the problem in every single D&D alignment thread since the first BBS message board — is that the alignments are deliberately misnamed.

Go luck up the term “lawful” in any dictionary that you could cite without criticism in a college classroom. Do any of those definitions describe an eldritch, cosmic force that can contaminate the thinking of sapient creatures, taint objects on a fundamental, mystical level, or grant supernatural abilities?

If those definitions aren’t included in lawful, then the alignment that D&D calls “lawful” is not lawful in English. It is Something Else that has been labelled lawful in a propaganda coup.

All of the alignments refer to cosmic forces (that should be construed as cosmic horror); none of the definitions of the terms that are used to refer to those individual alignments include such cosmic forces in their definition. Therefore, none of those terms apply.

Imagine I made up a government. It has far-reaching influence in the world — it represent the most powerful state in the universe. I name this government Sandwich. Now: when you eat a hoagie, are you somehow consuming a state bureaucracy? Or does my naming a government Sandwich, despite the government’s reach and size, have literally no effect on whatever term I pervert into its name?

The latter. It’s the second one. That’s the right answer.

This is the answer to every alignment thread on this site, now and forevermore. It was the answer in the eighties when I first had the misfortune of running into this. What D&D calls “Good” isn’t good. It isn’t Evil, either. It isn’t Neutral, either. It’s none of those things. It’s just doggerel, cant, nonsense, evocative gibberish.

You can see how this works on an emotional level by simply changing the names of the alignments.

Taco Salad is an alignment. As an alignment, is a cosmic force that can manipulate sapient beings by granting superpowers, paranaturally transforming mental states, and telekinetically altering the world via physical objects contaminated with its taint. Taco Salad encourages its devotees to create societies of mutual aid and evangelize others into joining said societies.

Now, you could investigate what alignment Taco Salad was renamed after. More interesting is the following question: if Taco Salad was the first name you’d ever heard for a given alignment, would it be deceitful or manipulative to rename Taco Salad using the name of a moral descriptor? Is that what that descriptor means in English? Obviously not. But it’s a good way of tricking people, or yourself, into thinking that you’ve transformed a thing (goodness, evilness, lawfulness, neutrality) when, in fact, you’ve created an entirely different thing and simply renamed it.


Apropos of nothing: a world where Taco Salad is a named alignment is already more interesting than most universes in the fantasy kitchen sink genre.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Apropos of nothing: a world where Taco Salad is a named alignment is already more interesting than most universes in the fantasy kitchen sink genre.And definitely tastier.

[Jack_Simth]

As for the immediate issue, the problem here — as is the problem in every single D&D alignment thread since the first BBS message board — is that the alignments are deliberately misnamed.Nah. Halon's Razor (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor): "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

I'm much more inclined to think "different people have different ideas of what good, evil, lawful, and chaotic mean in practice - this is inclusive of the designers, and there's quite a few of those"

Everyone has different ideas, and there's lots of folks with different ideas working on the same product, so when any given person looks through that product... basically everyone is going to find elements labeled one or more of good, evil, lawful, and/or chaotic that they disagree with - often vehemently. In theory, this is part of what editors are for. However, WotC's never really been known for good editing, nor consistency

[Troacctid]

The existence of objective universal forces of good and evil in the universe is a classic fantasy trope going back not just to Tolkien but to the ancient folklore of many different cultures—including the folklore that D&D draws upon directly for material. To say that its definitions of morality doesn't match any real-world notions of good and evil is myopic. At its core, D&D's morality system is about a great struggle between the forces of light and darkness, just like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and countless other fantastic tales throughout history.

[zlefin]

..........

you can setup your campaign however you like; but that doesn't mean you're correct. it only makes you correct within to that specific game world and dm ruling; which was not the question at issue. On the actual proper question, you were proven wrong, and proven to have argued poorly, and you presented no counterargument to those points, it's as simple as that. I can get that you don't want to get into it though, noone likes being wrong.

[RedMage125]

Before I start, Nifft, Cosi, both of you should review the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1). That's all I will say on the subject, lest I violate them myself.


This. There are too many arbitrary-seeming alignment tags (deathwatch, anyone?) and inconsistency (channeling negative energy to create undead or rebuke undead is evil, casting inflict spells isn’t).
The Negative Energy Plane also is not Evil. That's because Negative Energy by itself isn't Evil. The inflict series of spells more or less channel raw negative energy into creatures.

But that doesn't mean Negative Energy can't be used for an Evil purpose. Seriously, as someone who constantly debates with people on alignment threads, I don't understand why this is a difficult concept. Fire is not Evil. Fireball is not an [Evil] spell. You use Fireball to burn down an occupied orphanage, that's an Evil act.

The BoVD states, quite clearly, that Creation Of Undead is an Evil act (right up there with Harming the Soul, and Dealing With Fiends). It creates "a mockery of life and purity" and is explicitly "a crime against the world". That means that creating an undead creature by any means is an Evil act. A wight creates another wight with its Create Spawn ability? Evil (although the wight probably does not care). A vampire who has been carefully holding on to its humanity (and non-evil alignment*) by only drinking the blood of animals or offerings collected like Blood of Vol adherents who decides to make his lover a vampire (she is entirely willing) to have a companion has committed an Evil act. An Epic Cleric with the Zone of Animation epic feat (spend a rebuke undead attempt, animate all corpses in 60' as zombies), has committed an Evil act.

Spells like Animate Dead and Create (Greater) Undead have the [Evil] tag, because an Evil act is the only thing that those spells do. It's not "circular" logic (as some alignment detractors claim), it's cohesive[/I].

*Fun note. In 3.5e, an undead creature -regardless of its alignment- radiates Evil on a Detect Evil spell. Don't believe me? Look at Detect Evil, Undead have their own category. This is also consistent, because evil magicks are animating their body. Which, by the way, is also why Mindless undead are also Evil. Because the rules regarding creatures to whom Evil is inherent to their nature supercede the rules about creatures with no intelligence having no moral agency to have an alignment. A succubus paladin is still an outsider with the [Chaotic] and [Evil] subtypes, and still detects as such (she also would radiate Good and Law, but that just means she'd take damage from Holy Smite, Unholy Blight, Chaos Hammer and Order's Wrath). Evil is inherent to her nature, and to the nature of all undead, even if they do not have an evil alignment themselves.

Now Deathwatch...


It's much like how Deathwatch does something functionally harmless, but it's [Evil] because [b]you use the wicked powers of death most foul to do the harmless thing.
This. One is calling upon the powers of unlife to do it (because, fluff-wise, many undead can sense the presence of the living).

The cleric spell Status has the same overall effect, but does not call on powers of unlife, and has no alignment tag.



Some people may occasionally argue D&D alignment too closely from personal/modern/real-life morality & ethics, but it’s probably a stretch to claim they’ve “forgotten” that D&D is, at least often and iconically, a game where heroes kill bad guys and take their stuff.

A problem is that alignment in D&D is supposed to be absolute, but often comes off as arbitrary and often very poorly delineated, being as it is a mishmash of pseudo-medieval, high fantasy, and more modern sensibilities. The poor delineation is most evident in the unrelenting profusion of alignment discussions: it is specious to simply dismiss the ubiquity of such discussions as simply “these people just don’t understand alignment,” unless perhaps the point being made is that arguably no one really understands alignment.

Alignment in D&D is at best general guidelines that can’t be easily ignored, due to the integration of alignment-detecting and -targeting magic, but hardly definitive on what (and in most cases, even who) is Good and what/who is Evil. —If nothing else, it’s pretty much explicitly in the realm of DM judgment as to what acts/how much it takes for a given being to change alignment by dint of the moral or ethical impacts of its actions. It is arguably condescending to assert “well no one can stop you from houseruling” when essentially anyone playing the game is at least interpreting the alignment guidelines and not merely racking up RAW “Good” points or “Evil” points for every possible action (or “Law” or “Chaos,” for that matter).
The RAw are actually quite clear on what is Good and Evil.

The problem, which you alluded to, is people. People who substitute their own bias for what those words mean and do not use the RAW definitions. Me? My personal definitions of "Good/Evil/Law/Chaos" do not perfectly align with the RAW, but when I DM, I set aside my preconceptions and adjudicate those things based on what they mean in the game. Why? So my players can consult the same text that I use to make my decisions.

In 100% of the stories of "this is why alignment is bad" I have heard on these forums and the old WotC gleemax forums over the last 18 years, there is someone deviating from the RAW. 100%. No exceptions. Problem Players who try and use it to excuse bad behavior, or Jerkbag DMs.

But if a mechanic is only bad when it is misused, how is that in any way a valid indictment of the mechanic itself?

Spoiler: It is not.


Doctor Awkward, almost everything you said is amazing, and I have been making several of the same points for years, so forgive me, but I'm only responding to the parts I have input on.


If channeling negative energy were an inherently evil act then it would be impossible for neutral clerics who choose to rebuke undead to stay neutral. Likewise for a neutral cleric who chooses to turn undead. If either of these were inherently good or evil you wouldn't have neutral clerics at all.
As Jack_Smith pointed out, the PHB explicitly says that doing so is an Evil act. But we need to remember the RAW on the DMG page 134, which states that alignment change is gradual, and that no one act just changes one's alignment.

I think it's important to note that the cleric's ability is channeling power from another source. Specifically, their deity. And cleric's have very odd interactions with alignment, probably more so than any other class. A Cleric, for example, only radiates a powerful alignment aura of their deity's alignment, not their own. So a Neutral Good cleric of Heironious radiates a powerful aura of Law under Detect Law. A cleric also may not cast alignment tagged spells of an alignment that opposed his own or his deity's. So, a LN cleric of Moradin cannot cast [Evil] spells, and a LE cleric of Wee Jas cannot cast [Good] spells, but a LN cleric of Wee Jas can cast both [Good] and [Evil] spells. Furthermore, a level 11 LE cleric of Wee Jas only has a Moderate Evil Aura (as any other 11-HD evil humanoid), but an Overwhelming Aura of Law.

Let's also keep in mind that the "Channeling" power of a cleric is primarily used for interactions with undead. They are properly referred to as "turn undead" and "rebuke undead" attempts. So this kind of Channeling (using that as a proper noun to mitigate confusion with common use of the word, that might be equated with a casting of a cure or inflict spell), is specifically attempting to either flood them with positive energy to repel or destroy them, or "re-write" the Negative Energy present in the magicks that animate them in order to cow them or control them. Let's not ignore context here. I believe it is disingenuous for anyone to claim that a cleric's Channeling power is somehow "pure" positive or negative energy. If it was, it would have an effect on living flesh like the environmental effects of the Positive and Negative Energy Planes, respectively. Which it does not.



It has been my experience that if something seems inconsistent with regards to alignment, there is a roughly 99% probability that the issue is your interpretation of the material, not the material itself.
So much this. A lot of alignment detractors complain because the RAW do not resonate with them due to how they perceive things in their minds. Which to me, begs the question of "If you pre-existing conceptions do not resonate with the rules, why do you not alter your pre-conceptions, instead of assuming the rules are bad?"


So far as the rules are concerned, a spell is never inherently evil simply by virtue of channeling negative energy. If the [Evil] tag is present then it's because of some other factor involved.
Exactly this. Negative Energy is like a specific kind of battery that is the only kind of battery undead creatures need and use. But those batteries can be used for other, non-evil things.


Your argument concludes that that alignment must be poorly defined because of the many people disagree on the nature of it.

That's a form of argumentum ad populum.

It is a general truth that most people are very bad at separating their personal bias from objective analysis of a given subject. This is especially true for a subject as sensitive as the nature of right and wrong. Given that, it is much more reasonable to suppose that the majority of arguments regarding the absolute morality of D&D are a result of people arguing from a position of what they feel the text should say, rather than what it actually does say.
This is beautifully worded.


In the example of create undead, you have a spell that is tagged as an evil. It could be evil because it involves the desecration of the corpse and the disruption of peaceful death (more than one campaign setting has established that what happens to your corpse after your death can have a profound effect on the experience of your soul in the afterlife). It is this disruption that renders the act of creating undead evil. In spite of this, undead themselves are not inherently evil, as you can note through their hit dice. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType) Ultimately, however, the reason why is irrelevant. In D&D, the act of creating undead is evil. And that's all there is to it.
There's been other sources that showcase that their may be some link between the soul of the person whose corpse it is and the undead creature. Some are from Unofficial Sources, and others are Official Sources, but are Circumstantial Evidence. The Unofficial Source ones are Dragon Magazine. I remember one issue from October (I want to say 2005) where a lot of undead were discussed and some incorporeal undead were the soul of the person who died. Also, the Channel Divinity: Wee Jas article explicitly says that she may be accepting of certain forms of undead if they are created willingly, but she doesn't like Suel souls being used to make them, and also that someone who casts Animate Dead may modify the spell as it is being cast to grab a different soul to power it. Again, unofficial source.

The Circumstantial Evidence bit is all Core Rules. And it seems to show some connection between the undead creature and the soul of the person who died. To wit, if you are killed with Disintegrate, and your ashes scattered through portals into different planes, you can still be brought back with True Resurrection. But if you are killed with a sword, and a level 5 Evil cleric comes along and turns your corpse into a zombie no magic at all can bring you back until that zombie is destroyed. (True) Resurrection still functions like Raise Dead, except where explicitly noted otherwise, which means they are all Touch spells that require the body. Resurrection can function if you cut off a finger or something, but if that low-level necromancer makes the body a zombie while the party is bringing your finger to town to get Resurrected, you are out of luck. True Resurrection only makes a new body if the original body has been destroyed. If your buddy was killed, and properly entombed and buried, you can't just cast True Resurrection somewhere else later to make him a new body and bring him back, you need the body if it exists, and it cannot be an undead creature. Note that no exception is made for incorporeal undead. You get killed by a wraith and made into one, your body is still available for your party to bring back to town. But that wraith needs to be killed to being you back. This seems to show some connection between the soul of the person who died and the undead creature that now exists. Also, many undead, such as ghouls, wights, vampires and such, retain the memories and personalities of their former selves.



You can argue that it shouldn't be, and from a philosophically neutral standpoint some of those arguments might have merit. But the confines of D&D are not an objectively neutral environment and thus those arguments are all made on a faulty premise. Whether it is the desecration of a corpse, the disruption of peaceful rest, or any other excuse you might come up with, so far as alignment and the rules are concerned the creation of undead being an act of evil is a tautology.
I would like to add that, although tautological, said tautology is not a logical fallacy in this instance, because D&D is a construct of Fantasy. And the devs reserve the right to say "in the default RAW of this game, X is Evil", and therefore, by RAW, it is. It may seem to have been arbitrary decision to some people's perceptions, but the rest of the fluff and mechanics remain coherent and internally consistent WITH that decision.


As for the immediate issue, the problem here — as is the problem in every single D&D alignment thread since the first BBS message board — is that the alignments are deliberately misnamed.
*snip*
All of the alignments refer to cosmic forces (that should be construed as cosmic horror); none of the definitions of the terms that are used to refer to those individual alignments include such cosmic forces in their definition. Therefore, none of those terms apply.

*snip*

This is the answer to every alignment thread on this site, now and forevermore. It was the answer in the eighties when I first had the misfortune of running into this. What D&D calls “Good” isn’t good. It isn’t Evil, either. It isn’t Neutral, either. It’s none of those things. It’s just doggerel, cant, nonsense, evocative gibberish.

You can see how this works on an emotional level by simply changing the names of the alignments.
*snip*
But it’s a good way of tricking people, or yourself, into thinking that you’ve transformed a thing (goodness, evilness, lawfulness, neutrality) when, in fact, you’ve created an entirely different thing and simply renamed it.

Apropos of nothing: a world where Taco Salad is a named alignment is already more interesting than most universes in the fantasy kitchen sink genre.
You were so close to the right track here, and you lost it at the end. You are correct in that, as a construct of FANTASY, the devs can call anything whatever they want (ex: the creatures modeled from the Greek Gorgon Sisters are not called "Gorgons", but rather a race named after one of said sisters, while a D&D "Gorgon" is something else entirely). And they have a right to say "x is good, y is evil". At least as far as delineating the core, default assumptions of the game (because individual DMs can alter whatever they wish).

What you are apparently refusing to acknowledge is that a lot of the things that D&D defines as "good" or "evil" DO resonate, at least somewhat, with things that most people in the Real World can agree with. You sometimes run into problems with things that are pure fantasy, but even then, not always, as a lot of fantasy (Western fantasy in particular) follows fairly common themes, motifs and tropes. Murder (as defined in 3e as "killing a sentient being for selfish or nefarious purposes") is an Evil act. Most people IRL can relate to that. Dealing With Fiends, likewise. Especially when you delve deeper into the mechanics that fiends are literally made of evil. Creation of Undead may not seem Evil to everyone, but most people can understand why, when the developers state "it is a crime against the world to create a corrupt mockery of life and purity", they would label such as "evil". And really, that's all that's required for these things to resonate. If you can have some kind of buy-in, using Reasonable (Wo)Man Theory, with how these things are defined, any further disconnect or "failure to resonate" is on the head of the individual with whom it does not, as they are the outlier.


Nah. Halon's Razor (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor): "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

I'm much more inclined to think "different people have different ideas of what good, evil, lawful, and chaotic mean in practice - this is inclusive of the designers, and there's quite a few of those"

Everyone has different ideas, and there's lots of folks with different ideas working on the same product, so when any given person looks through that product... basically everyone is going to find elements labeled one or more of good, evil, lawful, and/or chaotic that they disagree with - often vehemently. In theory, this is part of what editors are for. However, WotC's never really been known for good editing, nor consistency
I think that a failure to set aside one's own personal bias when adjudicating what a game says of those things, however, is just that...a failing*. The designers, as creators of a fantasy construct, reserve the authority to say "x is good, y is evil". Plain and simple. They actually ARE fairly consistent, at least in this instance. There are very few instances -using RAW and not house ruled or home brewed examples- where these things break down. There are some, yes. But by and large, the rules are consistent with each other.

*Caveat that I do not espouse some kind of "right way to play the game". The only wrong way to play is when people at the table are not having fun. HOWEVER, I also believe, as a matter of ethics, that any and all house rules or deviations from RAW need to be laid out beforehand to the players.



The existence of objective universal forces of good and evil in the universe is a classic fantasy trope going back not just to Tolkien but to the ancient folklore of many different cultures—including the folklore that D&D draws upon directly for material. To say that its definitions of morality doesn't match any real-world notions of good and evil is myopic. At its core, D&D's morality system is about a great struggle between the forces of light and darkness, just like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and countless other fantastic tales throughout history.
I quite agree. And those same fantasy tropes are some of the things that I cite when people ask "what good purpose do alignment mechanics serve?". The answer being giving mechanical voice to those same tropes. Holy power, be it in spells or weapons. Evil taint that can be detected. The exact nature of HOW a place of Evil (like Baator) would affect someone who is aligned with the forces of Good (i.e. a Neutral wizard would be less bothered by environmental effects there than a paladin).

[Blue Jay]

It has been my experience that if something seems inconsistent with regards to alignment, there is a roughly 99% probability that the issue is your interpretation of the material, not the material itself.

...leading you to the conclusion that there is a roughly 99% probability that you've misinterpreted sanctify the wicked, right?


I hope that you’ll excuse me if slapping a [Good] descriptor as some kind of bandage across the grotesquery of such absolute mental domination does little to assuage my horror at the prospect.

Try to look at it from a "Rules as Intended" perspective.

Y'all have focused on the "Good" tag so far, but did you also notice that sanctify the wicked lacks the "mind-affecting" tag?

With that in mind, plus the description of the spell's effects --- "...The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness...." --- it should be clear that the writers didn't envision this spell as a form of "mental domination": they envisioned it as a spell that facilitates the creature making a change that, deep down, it really wanted to make anyway.

As Jack_Simth has said several times, the mechanics of the game are an abstraction of the imagined events. So, the Will save, the wait time, the effects of early termination... all of this is just an abstraction of the process of conversion.

Whether or not it's a particularly good abstraction of the imagined events is a different matter. But to question the alignment and morality of a spell because you're unwilling to see a different interpretation of the mechanical abstraction is just being obtuse.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked. In addition to real world religion and politics, this thread has also veered into flaming and trolling.