RAI is clear. Can we prove RAW? [3.5]

[Zaq]

Okay, consider an Exalted Druid with Vow of Nonviolence. I won't even bother to defend RAI that she cannot use her Animal Companion to rip off someone's face. That's just kind of silly, really. However, I'm unsure as to whether we can prove this using RAW. Does anyone care to try?

I know, I know, trying to find sense or logic in A) RAW or B) Book of Exalted Deeds is a fool's errand. You don't need to tell me this. Still, I'm curious.

[Zeta Kai]

Are you sure that you're not confusing RAW & RAI? Rules-As-Written are generally easy to prove; the words are right there on the page. Rules-As-Intended is trickier, largely up to interpretation, & ultimately unprovable without the designer's own words on the matter.

[lsfreak]

Are you sure that you're not confusing RAW & RAI? Rules-As-Written are generally easy to prove; the words are right there on the page. Rules-As-Intended is trickier, largely up to interpretation, & ultimately unprovable without the designer's own words on the matter.

No, it's pretty clear RAI you can't sick your pet on someone and have it rip its face off without losing Vow of Nonviolence. But does RAW prevent you from doing this? [Just clarifying, I don't know enough about it.]

[Zaq]

Are you sure that you're not confusing RAW & RAI? Rules-As-Written are generally easy to prove; the words are right there on the page. Rules-As-Intended is trickier, largely up to interpretation, & ultimately unprovable without the designer's own words on the matter.

Which is exactly the point. Normally I agree with you, but here I argue that in this case it's obvious that you're not intended to use your pet dinosaur to eat people so you don't have to get your hands dirty, but the hemming and hawing we see in what a VoNV character can and cannot do is squishy and indistinct. I'm wondering if someone cares to try to point out exactly what in the RAW would forbid you from doing this, or prove that RAW doesn't actually say you can't.

[Milskidasith]

See, this is the problem with wording. In most cases, RAW is easy; shapechange lets you break things, gate lets you chain gate, mindrape can be used to do anything. RAI is harder for those; did the dev's intend you to mindrape a commoner into loving the BBEG truly, and then Love's Pain the BBEG to death?

In this case, the wording is just poor. It's like trying to argue the RAW of Streamers, or Iron Heart Surge, or the vague way that AMF is worded (you can shoot rays through it? If a fireball hits on one side, it appears on the other side if it has range?)

[Kylarra]

If we quantify an animal companion as a weapon...


random amusement, VoNV only technically applies to weapons or spells, which leaves a few other avenues of attack still open.

[Zovc]

RAI is harder for those; did the dev's intend you to mindrape--

My train of thought stopped there. Is there a spell called Mindrape?

[kjones]

My train of thought stopped there. Is there a spell called Mindrape?

Book of Vile Darkness. Basically lets you rewrite someone's mind like their brain was a hard drive.

[Akal Saris]

It's your class feature, you have control over it. If you can prevent it from hurting (ie using lethal damage) or killing somebody, then you have the responsibility to do so because of your vow - no exalted character would actually swear not to harm creatures and then watch with a smile as his bear ravaged the kobold chieftain. The same would apply to a wizard with a familiar or a paladin with a mount.

I think the critical RAW part is that "you must not cause harm or suffering" - and commanding an animal to attack is clearly causing the attack. The same with training an animal to attack with lethal damage when it has a cue. Since there are options to train a pet to use nonlethal damage, you are obligated to do so, or simply to not use the animal companion.

Now, if there's a situation out of your control where the AC kills somebody (if you're asleep and it catches and kills a goblin, for example), then I'd say that it wouldn't cost the character his Vow, but that's another matter.

Don't get me wrong though - the BoED is all about RAI guiding gameplay, since it depends so much on a shared understanding between PCs and the DM of what "good" entails in a D&D game.

[Zeta Kai]

Alright, I read the thing (BoED, page 47). It seems that you can't really send your pet out to kill opponents without breaking the vow. It says "If you leave a helpless foe to be killed by your allies, you have broken your vow". The meaning is clear; your allies cannot kill helpless foes without ruining your day. Also, I'd say that your companion counts as an ally, & therefore feels remorse (along with the morale penalties) upon a kill.

It doesn't say that you can't bring enemies to the brink of death, though. You can technically order your pet to attack enemies without breaking your vow, via RAW. I wouldn't allow it though.

[Kalirren]

Well, arguably you can't make true love happen with mindrape.

But there are so many other instances in which the use of RAW is just stupid. The OP's is one of them. No, I don't believe RAW will give you an out here. Devotion, Share spells...nothing really horrible.

The only "RAW" I can think of comes from reading the BoED as a whole text, which emphasizes the necessity of sensible moral interpretation that would pass a Turing test. But that's just saying that "RAW claims that RAW-interpretation ought to defer to RAI-interpretation." Even if that is the sensible way of doing things, good luck getting an adamant powergamer to swallow that line.

I hate it when RAW arguments are made when there are obvious RAI arguments to be made.

[Tokiko Mima]

Well, arguably you can't make true love happen with mindrape.

Well, it wouldn't have to be "True Love," you just have to generate a person whose closest friend or dearest loved one is determined by you. So you just make them forget everyone else in their life and create false memories of the BBEG being their only friend (and therefore their closest.) Then they become a perfect conduit to deliver massive damage that the BBEG can only escape by being in an AMF at all times.

[Fiery Diamond]

Well, it wouldn't have to be "True Love," you just have to generate a person whose closest friend or dearest loved one is determined by you. So you just make them forget everyone else in their life and create false memories of the BBEG being their only friend (and therefore their closest.) Then they become a perfect conduit to deliver massive damage that the BBEG can only escape by being in an AMF at all times.

On the subject of mindrape, that spell is possibly the most evil thing possible to do. Rewiring someone's mind like that is ... well ... worse than torturing and murdering someone and preventing resurrection. There are some minor things that could be done with it that could have beneficial results, but even altering someone like that in such a minor way is something that no Good character should even remotely consider. The "sanctify the wicked" and all that nonsense is completely out of line. Rewiring someone to be Good should be considered an act of extreme Evil, and rewiring for other results...much worse.

[Kylarra]

Alright, I read the thing (BoED, page 47). It seems that you can't really send your pet out to kill opponents without breaking the vow. It says "If you leave a helpless foe to be killed by your allies, you have broken your vow". The meaning is clear; your allies cannot kill helpless foes without ruining your day. Also, I'd say that your companion counts as an ally, & therefore feels remorse (along with the morale penalties) upon a kill.

It doesn't say that you can't bring enemies to the brink of death, though. You can technically order your pet to attack enemies without breaking your vow, via RAW. I wouldn't allow it though.

Keep in mind though, most people you fight aren't helpless unless they're being forcibly debuffed by a wizard. So you could, theoretically by RAW, take them out in straight up combat (with the AC).

[MickJay]

On the subject of mindrape, that spell is possibly the most evil thing possible to do. Rewiring someone's mind like that is ... well ... worse than torturing and murdering someone and preventing resurrection. There are some minor things that could be done with it that could have beneficial results, but even altering someone like that in such a minor way is something that no Good character should even remotely consider. The "sanctify the wicked" and all that nonsense is completely out of line. Rewiring someone to be Good should be considered an act of extreme Evil, and rewiring for other results...much worse.

In the last discussion on StW, the consensus was more or less that it's effect goes against the Chaotic values, not Good ones (in terms of D&D, at least to the extent in which anything can be concluded from the conflicting evidence). "Respect for dignity of sentient beings" is about as close as Good values could be used against justifying StW, but we're not talking about some frivolous programmed amnesia here, it's about saving the being's soul and purifying it, at significant personal expense of the caster. It's very easy to conceive a LG character who would see it as his duty to save as many evil beings from the fate they are preparing for themselves. Of course, the more individualistic and less duty-driven modern society gets, the more StW will be seen as bad, but that's another pair of trousers.

Agreed that AC counts as either "ally", "weapon" or both, and can't be used to kill without violating the vow (to attack, yes, but only to subdue).

[Eldariel]

In the last discussion on StW, the consensus was more or less that it's effect goes against the Chaotic values, not Good ones (in terms of D&D, at least to the extent in which anything can be concluded from the conflicting evidence). "Respect for dignity of sentient beings" is about as close as Good values could be used against justifying StW, but we're not talking about some frivolous programmed amnesia here, it's about saving the being's soul and purifying it, at significant personal expense of the caster. It's very easy to conceive a LG character who would see it as his duty to save as many evil beings from the fate they are preparing for themselves. Of course, the more individualistic and less duty-driven modern society gets, the more StW will be seen as bad, but that's another pair of trousers.

And Mind Rape can be used to replicate Sanctify the Wicked! Ta-da! Exalted spell!

[olentu]

Actually I could see some situations where using sanctify the wicked might be arguably more evil (or at least less good) then using another method if it was not evil to ever do an evil act ever for any reason ever.

[MickJay]

Not exactly, the process, workings and requirements of the spells are completely different. Not that it makes much difference mechanics-wise, but if you're using BoED and/or BoVD, then you do want to pay attention to the game's fluff. You can't use mindrape and say "result justifies the means" when you have a much more subtle (and Good!) spell that allows to get similar result.

If anyone asked me, both of these spells (plus PA) should never have been included in the game anyway, Charm and Dominate are bad as they are.

[olentu]

Not exactly, the process, workings and requirements of the spells are completely different. Not that it makes much difference mechanics-wise, but if you're using BoED and/or BoVD, then you do want to pay attention to the game's fluff. You can't use mindrape and say "result justifies the means" when you have a much more subtle (and Good!) spell that allows to get similar result.

If anyone asked me, both of these spells (plus PA) should never have been included in the game anyway, Charm and Dominate are bad as they are.

Oh come now spells that allow a caster to control another person are not inherently evil unless it has the evil descriptor by a reasonable reading and extrapolation of the rules.

Though mindrape does have the evil descriptor so by a reasonable reading and extrapolation of the rules it is evil to cast even if one is casting it on ones self to save all that is good in the multiverse.

[MickJay]

But can you see the problem here? Controlling someone with magic is not evil, even though you're taking away their free will; and yet there are arguments that making someone change their mind with magic should be evil, even if it leads to the true and objective Good. If you do the same using diplomacy, no problem; if you cast a spell, it's no respect for dignity and ~evil~.

[Eldariel]

Not exactly, the process, workings and requirements of the spells are completely different. Not that it makes much difference mechanics-wise, but if you're using BoED and/or BoVD, then you do want to pay attention to the game's fluff. You can't use mindrape and say "result justifies the means" when you have a much more subtle (and Good!) spell that allows to get similar result.

If anyone asked me, both of these spells (plus PA) should never have been included in the game anyway, Charm and Dominate are bad as they are.

Well, then I'll gladly be evil and be doing good. Try to align me then. HA!

[olentu]

But can you see the problem here? Controlling someone with magic is not evil, even though you're taking away their free will; and yet there are arguments that making someone change their mind with magic should be evil, even if it leads to the true and objective Good. If you do the same using diplomacy, no problem; if you cast a spell, it's no respect for dignity and ~evil~.

Oh I am not saying that casting mindrape for any reason what so ever is not an evil act by a reasonable reading of the rules or that controlling people is necessarily an evil act by the rules. Why would you think that I was saying that.

What I am saying is that if one is going to forcefully alter someones alignment there are situations where (leaving aside the fact that mindrape is a spell where the act of casting it is evil by a reasonable reading of the rules) mindrape could give a more desirable result then sanctify the wicked due to the mechanics of one spell versus the other.

[raitalin]

Any one else reminded of the crux of DC's Identity Crisis?

[Yuki Akuma]

There is the fact that Sanctify the Wicked doesn't do anything to the target's mind. It traps him in a bubble and makes him reflect on his evil and repent over the course of a year.

It works under the assumption that everything barring Evil outsiders has good in them, which is silly, but it doesn't screw with their minds any more than diplomacy does.

[Lamech]

On the subject of AC: Your allies are allowed to rip people's faces off for you. Now "leave a helpless foe" I do belive refers to physically moving away, as it comes right after the part about the allies getting a penalty for killing them. Of course, maybe your not allowed to make foes helpless for you allies, raw isn't quite clear. (But then you can physically leave... so...) AC is most certainly not a weapon, its an ally; kind of like a feebleminded warblade. So I think its fine if the AC ends up killing a enemy. All though I suspect its bad form if an you ask an ally to kill someone, and thats the same for the AC.

On the subject of mindrape being evil: There is an exalted class, Emissary of Barachiel, whose whole point is to forcibly change people's alignment to lawful good. Not just good, but lawful good. And its a mind-affecting ablity too so its really not just diplomacy. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that forcibly rewriting people's alignment is not evil.

[Jack_Simth]

Any discussion of ethics and morallity between individuals will break down eventually - because ultimately, any discision of ethics and morality relies on some set of fundamental assumptions, which can be neither proven nor disproven (even Kant defended his definition of "person" with a question rather than rigorous logic). When you reach the point where it can no longer be argued, both sides will usually see the other as blatantly, obviously, mind-numbingly wrong, and wonder why the other doesn't see it that way when it is so clear.

Why is this relevant?

Well, D&D has considerably more than a single author. Any time one of the books is going over an issue of ethics and morality, it's being written by a small subset of D&D authors. So when you've got multiple books covering it, you'll occasionally get blatant contradictions between them because they were written up by people with different fundamental assumptions.

So ask your DM - he's the one arbitrating it.

[Yora]

BoED seems to go with the assumption, that everything is good, if it's done by angels.
Using poison is evil. Using poison that only works against evil creatures is not.
Altering a creatures mind is evil, making it lawful good is not.

But can you see the problem here? Controlling someone with magic is not evil, even though you're taking away their free will; and yet there are arguments that making someone change their mind with magic should be evil, even if it leads to the true and objective Good. If you do the same using diplomacy, no problem; if you cast a spell, it's no respect for dignity and ~evil~.

By that logic, it would be the same thing if a begger asks for some coin or if he forcefully takes it from someone passing by? ;)
You probably see the flaw.

[Salt_Crow]

I'd say Animal Companion is a part of the druid's class feature, therefore she cannot use it to rip things off for her if she's got the vow of nonviolence. Same goes for Cohorts I guess.

[MickJay]

By that logic, it would be the same thing if a begger asks for some coin or if he forcefully takes it from someone passing by? ;)
You probably see the flaw.

Well, yes, that's precisely what I wanted to demonstrate

Diplomacy vs. magic:
1) you are trying to affect someone to change their point of view
2) you do so against that person's will (if it wasn't that way, there would be no need for either diplomacy, nor magic)
3) if your diplomacy is high enough, its effectivness will be indistinguishable from magic; it will be faster, and it will not be subject to neither will save, nor magic resistance
4) D&D mechanics suck at representing social interactions, and the shortcuts provided by magic make it even worse
5) if you want to play campaigns where morality, good and evil count for much, pick any of the dozens of systems that are far superior to D&D in this respect

[Cespenar]

Any discussion of ethics and morallity between individuals will break down eventually - because ultimately, any discision of ethics and morality relies on some set of fundamental assumptions, which can be neither proven nor disproven (even Kant defended his definition of "person" with a question rather than rigorous logic). When you reach the point where it can no longer be argued, both sides will usually see the other as blatantly, obviously, mind-numbingly wrong, and wonder why the other doesn't see it that way when it is so clear.

Why is this relevant?

Well, D&D has considerably more than a single author. Any time one of the books is going over an issue of ethics and morality, it's being written by a small subset of D&D authors. So when you've got multiple books covering it, you'll occasionally get blatant contradictions between them because they were written up by people with different fundamental assumptions.

So ask your DM - he's the one arbitrating it.

I foresee that this message is going to be the most ignored one, despite, no, because of its wisdom.