Hmm.. Mindrape IS [Good]

[CheshireCatAW]

I've been thinking a lot about alignment. Generally how Good vs Evil should be as important as Chaotic vs Lawful. So as to not derail my own thread in my second sentence, I'll cut to the chase.

I think using magic/psionics/whatever to make an evil person good is, in fact, a Good act. On the Good vs Evil axis you've certainly struck a blow for the good guys.

What makes this act repugnant to us playing the game is not that it is Evil. It's that it is on the scary side of Lawful. It's the casters order imposed on what they see as being detrimental.

This is mostly an "Oh crap, I hadn't thought of it that way" moment. I'm interested in knowing if anyone else has another perspective to add; I'd be eager to read it.

[Kylarra]

We already have Sanctify the Wicked.

[Optimystik]

And Programmed Amnesia is neutral.

Thus bringing moral relativism to D&D!

[Mastikator]

Mindraping someone evil to be good violates their dignity. Good people have respect for the dignity of living beings. The end does not justify the means, in D&D ethics.
QED Mindraping someone evil to be good is still evil.

For turning evil to good, there is atonement.

[Catch]

According cartoonish and declarative morality of of D&D, (e.g., the books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness, whose names nicely sum up the alignment system) punishing Evil creatures with Evil acts qualifies you as Chaotic Neutral.

Otherwise known as "pulling a Rorschach."

@V: I don't think it works that way. D&D is big on the value of innocence for the excuse or condemnation of violence. I mean, if there wasn't an easy out like "those Orcs had it coming," adventurers would actually be accountable for their actions. So, murdering wrongdoers is within the acceptable parameters of Good, but you're not allowed to cause undue suffering, or like it too much.

Silly, but dem's the rules, as written.

[Coidzor]

Mindraping someone evil to be good violates their dignity. Good people have respect for the dignity of living beings.

So does killing them. Unless you think pooping one's self is dignified. And most if not all of the living things one kills as an adventurer will poop themselves after dying.

Anyhoo, I view Mindrape as basically killing the person, just leaving the body behind.

[Trekkin]

Mastikator and Coldzior have a point. For the ethics and efficacy of forced, involuntary goodness, I refer you to a certain Clockwork Orange.

The whole point of atonement is that the villain chooses to be good (and promptly experiences a huge wash of self-loathing and other internal pain over his past actions). Funny how Good gods like pain too, just in self-inflicted form.

[Mastikator]

So does killing them. Unless you think pooping one's self is dignified. And most if not all of the living things one kills as an adventurer will poop themselves after dying.

Anyhoo, I view Mindrape as basically killing the person, just leaving the body behind.

Yes, if you just kill someone non-hostile out of the blue for absolutely no other reason than "they're evil", then yes, it violates their dignity and you're evil.
Killing is only acceptable in self-defense or in defense of others. Note that even then it's not "good". Otherwise demons and devils would be good.
D&D morality is black and white like that.

[Raven777]

So does killing them. Unless you think pooping one's self is dignified. And most if not all of the living things one kills as an adventurer will poop themselves after dying.

You'd think it's a really good argument until you realize it's about the Dead. Pooping. Themselves.

Anyway, on the serious side, it once again all boils down on Objective Alignments VS Relative Alignments. If you consider the struggle of Good against Evil on a rigid cosmic scale with deities and whole civilizations on either sides, then yes, slaying or converting Evil through any mean will always tip the scale towards the Good end of the Universe's alignment bar. Mind Raping people into goodness is therefore a good act. A very lawful, even tyrannic act, but benevolent nonetheless.

Do not forget that Good is about generosity, self sacrifice, all that jazz. Free will is the province of Chaos, not Good.

[Coidzor]

You'd think it's a really good argument until you realize it's about the Dead. Pooping. Themselves.

Because in this case, YOU Killed them. You killed all of the younglings!
I don't know why, but I didn't see the potential humor until I read your post. I am now lolling like crazy.
Dead creatures are still creatures too! They're not objects to be fabricated willy nilly!

[CheshireCatAW]

Mindraping someone evil to be good violates their dignity. Good people have respect for the dignity of living beings. The end does not justify the means, in D&D ethics.
QED Mindraping someone evil to be good is still evil.

So does killing them. Unless you think pooping one's self is dignified. And most if not all of the living things one kills as an adventurer will poop themselves after dying.

This, basically. It's not any worse than most adventurers would do anyway. And since any Good character can go into an evil humanoid layer and kill them with no moral quandaries (within reason; I'm referring to the normal kobold/goblin/etc starter fantasy quest, not an orphanage) why not Mindrape them when you are capable of it? They get to live. Their children get to keep their parents. The livelihood of the community, if tied to the individual, is not in jeopardy.

Mastikator and Coldzior have a point. For the ethics and efficacy of forced, involuntary goodness, I refer you to a certain Clockwork Orange.

I would argue that there is nothing Evil about it. Yes, in the book they debilitate the poor guy and destroy his ability to live a life of any means, basically. However, the magical substitutes have no such flaw. Heck, he could learn to be an adventuring paladin if he really wanted to.

The mental freedom to do what you wish to do is not Good or Evil, it is Chaotic.

[WildPyre]

So does killing them. Unless you think pooping one's self is dignified. And most if not all of the living things one kills as an adventurer will poop themselves after dying.

Anyhoo, I view Mindrape as basically killing the person, just leaving the body behind.

This is why I highly recomend disemboweling your foes.

[PhoenixRivers]

Yes, if you just kill someone non-hostile out of the blue for absolutely no other reason than "they're evil", then yes, it violates their dignity and you're evil.
Killing is only acceptable in self-defense or in defense of others. Note that even then it's not "good". Otherwise demons and devils would be good.
D&D morality is black and white like that.

No, it's not.

RAW for D&D morality is that if you kill an evil creature for the purpose of ridding the world of evil? It's a "Good" act.

If you kill an evil creature for the purpose of taking its stuff? It's a "Neutral" act.

If you kill an evil creature as a sacrifice to an evil god? It's an "Evil" act.

The reason makes a difference, but killing evil creatures CAN be "good".

As for dignity? Meh. Many cultures believe in a dignity in death. For instance, the ancient japanese used seppuku to wipe away the blemish of dishonor and allow someone to die with dignity.

Dignity is more about ridicule, the cruel and unusual, belittling. Dignity is lost not because a prisoner is dominated and forced to fight his comrades. Dignity is lost when that prisoner, while dominated, is forced to consume his own offal.

Dignity's more about respect than it is about life or death. Torment and inhuman acts are the hallmarks of it.

Mental Control over others smacks of evil to us because most hold that a person's freedom is inviolate, on a basic level.

Freedom. It's an assault on freedom.

Freedom is a hallmark of Chaotic characters. The support of freedom and personal choice over order.

It's brute force order on its most basic level, and most people feel it's wrong. That doesn't qualify it for evil, in and of itself. The OP is right. Others are attempting to justify personal opinions of right and wrong into a good and evil context.

Yes, I believe it's WRONG as well. It's just not evil. It's entirely too much order. But mental control isn't evil (unless the spell description says it is).

[CheshireCatAW]

Eloquent retelling of my point.

Thank you, sir, for clarifying my point. This is one of the reasons I posted in the first place; You spoke exactly what I had thought, however I'm not terribly good at putting what I thought of into text.

[Mastikator]

Don't "meh" at dignity. The respect for dignity is one of the prime pillars that define good. If you don't respect the dignity of sapient beings, you're not good. Period.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Bazinga! No random killings. Life and dignity is too important. It says so in black and white.

[CheshireCatAW]

Dignity: http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...src=ref&ch=dic

I'm going to assume they're speaking of the respect and honor that is due to the person that it is due.

For example;

No skipping over your unstable dieing foe. It could mean a quick death, it could mean stabilization. As long as you accord them respect.

Usually getting picked to join a team is a sign of respect (at the least for your abilities), especially if the team trying to recruit you is a rival. This seems at least on par with most other likely outcomes in terms of honorifics. Welcome to team "Good".

EDIT: What specifically about changing a character from X Evil to X Good harms the creatures' dignity?

[Gametime]

I would argue that there is nothing Evil about it. Yes, in the book they debilitate the poor guy and destroy his ability to live a life of any means, basically. However, the magical substitutes have no such flaw. Heck, he could learn to be an adventuring paladin if he really wanted to.

The mental freedom to do what you wish to do is not Good or Evil, it is Chaotic.

Except the point is that taking away his personal choice is, in and of itself, evil. The horrible things that happen to Alex are just hammering the point home, combined with a bit of a revenge fantasy on the part of the author.

The main point still stands: If you aren't being given a choice in the matter, the things you do don't count as "good." Now, there's a lot of grey area here and endless debates to be had about what sort of influences count as acceptable. Is education okay? Medication for what we think are illnesses? Does the very fact of making something illegal remove some of the choice involved in making a truly moral decision? Does the individual's choice matter more than the safety of the collective, and can we find an effective balance?

These are all very difficult questions. Mind raping someone to conform to your standards of goodness does not fall into this grey area.

I could see the argument for it being a good act by RAW (assuming you used a Good-Approved [TM] substitute for Mind Rape, which is always evil because it has the Evil descriptor). By any standard of common sense? No.

[CheshireCatAW]

Except the point is that taking away his personal choice is, in and of itself, evil. The horrible things that happen to Alex are just hammering the point home, combined with a bit of a revenge fantasy on the part of the author.

The main point still stands: If you aren't being given a choice in the matter, the things you do don't count as "good." Now, there's a lot of grey area here and endless debates to be had about what sort of influences count as acceptable. Is education okay? Medication for what we think are illnesses? Does the very fact of making something illegal remove some of the choice involved in making a truly moral decision? Does the individual's choice matter more than the safety of the collective, and can we find an effective balance?

These are all very difficult questions. Mind raping someone to conform to your standards of goodness does not fall into this grey area.

I could see the argument for it being a good act by RAW (assuming you used a Good-Approved [TM] substitute for Mind Rape, which is always evil because it has the Evil descriptor). By any standard of common sense? No.

What you just offered was a very good Chaotic argument against mindrape. You also brought up some very good points. If I mindrape EvilKobold into volunteering at an orphanage he is not committing a good act. He has no choice in the matter. However, -I- committed a Good act by mindraping him out of random/planned evil.

The only reason the book tries to convince you that losing freedom is evil is because we generally view Freedom and Good as intertwined. Whereas DnD does make this distinction. The priest in the book was complaining about it not being good because it would have been absurd for the hard hitting point to have been "It's too Lawful!"

EDIT: To be clear, I agree that it is horrifying. To put it in DnD terms, I'm probably neutral, leaning toward chaotic good. This is the worst thing I could imagine happening to me. But in DnD, where alignments can be rather clear cut, you can Mindrape for goodliness.

[Milskidasith]

Except the point is that taking away his personal choice is, in and of itself, evil. The horrible things that happen to Alex are just hammering the point home, combined with a bit of a revenge fantasy on the part of the author.

The problem is, D&D evil is strictly defined, and free will is neither good nor evil. Free will is more chaotic, less free will is lawful. Mind rape has horribly lawful effects by raw no matter what you do (or at the very least, strangely neutral if you're mind raping people to think freedom is awesome, but then you're a very hypocritical character), but it's not evil unless you use it to do something evil.

The main point still stands: If you aren't being given a choice in the matter, the things you do don't count as "good." Now, there's a lot of grey area here and endless debates to be had about what sort of influences count as acceptable. Is education okay? Medication for what we think are illnesses? Does the very fact of making something illegal remove some of the choice involved in making a truly moral decision? Does the individual's choice matter more than the safety of the collective, and can we find an effective balance?

But this isn't about the now good-ified mind rapee being good or not, it's about the caster. Making somebody do good actions through force is very lawful and possibly good, but doing good acts certainly isn't evil.

These are all very difficult questions. Mind raping someone to conform to your standards of goodness does not fall into this grey area.

Because of two things: One, mindrape has the evil descriptor so it is automatically evil, and two, it just fits the D&D standards of lawful very well for removing free will, but good or evil is not appropriate.

I could see the argument for it being a good act by RAW (assuming you used a Good-Approved [TM] substitute for Mind Rape, which is always evil because it has the Evil descriptor). By any standard of common sense? No.

Common sense isn't RAW.

[Ravens_cry]

Common sense isn't RAW.

No. No it isn't. But if something bugs you in the rules, just change them. It's okay, you can stop hyperventilating. No one is going to arrest you if you all agree to change something because it's making the game not fun. This power can be used for evil, and for good,so be careful.

[awa]

not just the what but the how the spells called mindrape i imagine it's rather more violating then its neutral counterpart even if you use it to get the same effect.

Besides a person is the sum of their memories and personality a drastic overwriting destroying every thing they once valued and held dear is far more traumatic then just killing them.

And just to shoot this down before it even starts the good version (see this is the how again) dosent forcibly change their alignment it forces them to confront the evil of their own deeds and when that happens they realize they should in fact be good so and then change of their own free will

[Gametime]

Common sense isn't RAW.

...which is basically exactly what I said. RAW, it is not an Evil act to force someone to do Good things. I agree.

I do, however, think it is an evil act to force someone to do good things if we are using any moral system other than the admittedly bare one vaguely described by the Player's Handbook.

For what it's worth, the Book of Exalted Deeds says that charm and compulsion effects are "not inherently evil." It also, however, says this:

Sword-point conversion might be a useful political tool, but it is
almost entirely without impact on the souls of the “converts.”
Worse, it stinks of evil, robbing the victim of the freedom to
choose and echoing the use of torture to extract the desired
behavior.

It seems pretty clear that while chaos cares more about freedom than good does, it isn't completely irrelevant to the side of good. Depriving others of their freedom is, at the very least, morally suspect.

(The book also says that an evil act is always an evil act, no matter how good the outcome. Take from that what you will.)

[Gametime]

Besides a person is the sum of their memories and personality a drastic overwriting destroying every thing they once valued and held dear is far more traumatic then just killing them.

Technically, it wouldn't be traumatic at all because they'd have no idea it happened.

Of course, this is a pretty poor justification for doing it, but trauma, by it's very nature, isn't really a concern for the up-and-coming Mind Rapist.

[Coidzor]

Except the point is that taking away his personal choice is, in and of itself, evil. The horrible things that happen to Alex are just hammering the point home, combined with a bit of a revenge fantasy on the part of the author.

Alex?

[Gametime]

Alex?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_clockwork_orange

[awa]

just becuase you don't remember the trauma doesn't mean it never happened

[Coidzor]

^: Yes, but for the purposes of magic, the same magic that causes the change can in fact erase any and all negative impacts of the change.

On the other hand, it can leave the trauma intact and set up a whole bunch of rough contradictions and edges in the mind of the mind-raped that they lose structural integrity.

Basically, it's like a scalpel for the mind. Used skillfully it can promote wellness. Used irresponsibly or hamfistedly and it will create worse problems than a bullet.

And just to shoot this down before it even starts the good version (see this is the how again) dosent forcibly change their alignment it forces them to confront the evil of their own deeds and when that happens they realize they should in fact be good so and then change of their own free will

To exactly the alignment and philosophy of the caster... *nudge, nudge*

[taltamir]

Mindraping someone evil to be good violates their dignity. Good people have respect for the dignity of living beings. The end does not justify the means, in D&D ethics.
QED Mindraping someone evil to be good is still evil.

Pfft, they have no dignity... I think you meant dignity as in fundamental rights though... But its still not why it is bad. It isn't enough to say "it violates their rights", you have to explain how it does so, and why, and why it is wrong.

Mind rape fundamentally destroys what makes them... them. The ID, the uniqueness, the soul is fundamentally altered.
You are better off killing them... you haven't redeemed anyone, you have destroyed them and replaced them with a doppleganger who happens to have whatever memories you wish for it to have.

But it could be used surgically on the willing though. EX: A victim of horrid abuse might actually PAY you to use mindrape and remove the memory of it from his/her mind. Not to mention it is a highly efficient way to teach magic...
"you can spend 80 years trying to master wizardry... or I can mindrape you into being an epic wizard in 6 seconds"

For turning evil to good, there is atonement.

Atonement does not alter one's alignment, atonement merely restores your magical powers if they were lost, by breaking the seal your god placed on them (even a god cannot take away vested power)

Example, Jozen has been vested to be a cleric of palor by a higher level cleric via a secret ritual (RAW), making him a first level cleric. At level 10 he commits a crme against pelor by helping is new girlfriend, a vampire priestess of baal and pelor seals his ability to prepare spells. Jozen still has all his currently prepared spells available for casting. If Jozen atones for his mistake, a cleric of pelor or another good god must cast atonement on him to break the seal on his powers (no, palor isn't going to do it).
If Jozen wishes it, he may instead join the church of baal where a cleric of baal must cast atonment on him to unseal his clerical power (making him a 10th level cleric of baal).

Yes it makes very little sense... but thats how it works. It gets wonkier if he had worshipped an ideal before, or worships an ideal later... plus... atonement scroll + UMD = win.

[Gametime]

just becuase you don't remember the trauma doesn't mean it never happened

Mental trauma consists in the aftereffects of a stressful event, and the damage associated with it come as a result of being unable to cope with the emotions and memories associated with that event. Merely not being able to remember an event might not remove any possibility for trauma, but magically having the event wiped from both your conscious and subconscious mind would, by definition.

This is, again, not to condone the act of mind rape. Arguing that it's wrong based on the trauma it causes is merely a flawed argument, since it can't result in trauma unless the person's mind is restored later.

In a similar vein, death would undoubtedly be a very traumatic event if we could remember it afterward. Most people would agree that the fact that we can't experience any trauma from it doesn't detract from the evil of murder.

[CheshireCatAW]

not just the what but the how the spells called mindrape i imagine it's rather more violating then its neutral counterpart even if you use it to get the same effect.

Ok, ignore the name of the spell. Obviously, as you mention later in your post, it could be called anything else for the good side. Like lovepillows. Lovepillows makes you good. And I'm assuming you mean it's more violating because the fluff describes it that way, yes? Well, Lovepillows does the same thing but without the violence. Personally, I don't think it changes the act one iota whether you are violent or not, you still fundamentally changed a person. Likely against their will. And I'm pretty sure some people would find that violation at least as deep as a sword to the gut.

Besides a person is the sum of their memories and personality a drastic overwriting destroying every thing they once valued and held dear is far more traumatic then just killing them.

Maybe. Can you tell me from personal experience how traumatic death is? I figure it's pretty darn bad. Or not. I have no personal experience of my own. And you're not overwriting their memories. It's like when you grow up and go "Wow, I wish I hadn't stolen that candy bar when I was young." Well, except it happens rather more quickly.

just to shoot this down before it even starts the good version (see this is the how again) dosent forcibly change their alignment it forces them to confront the evil of their own deeds and when that happens they realize they should in fact be good so and then change of their own free will

Well, all I have to say is that it still does the exact same thing. Now, if I made an Evil spell that confronts you with all of the opportunities you missed because you were good/charitable and at the end it makes you Evil does that make it any better? Absolutely not.

As previously stated this is Lawful. HORRIBLY HORRIBLY Lawful. But I could see an extreme Lawful Neutral country use this as a punishment.