PDA

View Full Version : Necromancy [good]?



Skjaldbakka
2009-08-11, 07:29 AM
Are there any necromancy spells with the [good] descriptor?

JeenLeen
2009-08-11, 07:38 AM
It might be Conjuration, but I believe the Deathless-related spells from either Faerun or Eberron are Necromancy [Good]. Deathless are like undead, but healed/bolstered by positive energy and hurt/rebuked by negative energy.

I think I recall a couple others, but can't recall the specifics. A spell granting a gaze attack, from Spell Compedium?

Talic
2009-08-11, 07:51 AM
From BoED:

Sicken Evil
Phoenix Fire
Sanctify the Wicked

Cyclocone
2009-08-11, 07:52 AM
I think I recall a couple others, but can't recall the specifics. A spell granting a gaze attack, from Spell Compedium?

Hmm, sounds like Opalescent Glare, from Planar Handbook (although i think it's in SpC as well, yes).

BoED has quite a few of them as well, notably Sanctify the Wicked -the [Good] Mind Rape.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-08-11, 08:14 AM
OP you can also search here http://www.imarvintpa.com/DnDLive/FindSpell.php. For ex a search for necromancy and good descriptors finds all the spells mentioned here.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-11, 08:15 AM
Most of the older-edition [Good] spells were either removed or, in the case of healing, moved to the new Conjuration (Healing) subschool because necromancy is eeevil. Pretty much the only places you're likely to find good Necromancy spells are in BoED (aka the "Exactly like evil, but it's good if we do it to evil people!" book), the Eberron books with Deathless stuff ("We made up deathless because we decided that all undead are evil in this edition and that wrote us into a corner!"), and possible planar material on the Positive Energy plane ("We can't write interesting new 3e Inner Planes monsters to save our lives!").

Can you tell I don't like their removal of most nonevil necromancy in 3e yet? :smallwink:

AstralFire
2009-08-11, 08:17 AM
Most of the older-edition [Good] spells were either removed or, in the case of healing, moved to the new Conjuration (Healing) subschool because necromancy is eeevil. Pretty much the only places you're likely to find good Necromancy spells are in BoED (aka the "Exactly like evil, but it's good if we do it to evil people!" book), the Eberron books with Deathless stuff ("We made up deathless because we decided that all undead are evil in this edition and that wrote us into a corner!"), and possible planar material on the Positive Energy plane ("We can't write interesting new 3e Inner Planes monsters to save our lives!").

Can you tell I don't like their removal of most nonevil necromancy in 3e yet? :smallwink:

It's okay because Phoenix Fire is awesome.

The Neoclassic
2009-08-11, 08:30 AM
Most of the older-edition [Good] spells were either removed or, in the case of healing, moved to the new Conjuration (Healing) subschool because necromancy is eeevil. Pretty much the only places you're likely to find good Necromancy spells are in BoED (aka the "Exactly like evil, but it's good if we do it to evil people!" book), the Eberron books with Deathless stuff ("We made up deathless because we decided that all undead are evil in this edition and that wrote us into a corner!"), and possible planar material on the Positive Energy plane ("We can't write interesting new 3e Inner Planes monsters to save our lives!").

Can you tell I don't like their removal of most nonevil necromancy in 3e yet? :smallwink:

Heh, you have good points. All the more reason to write our own necromancy [good] spells, I suppose. The only reasonable rationale I can think of for most necromancy being [evil] is that it tampers with someone else's life force, which could be considered an inherently evil act.

Riffington
2009-08-11, 08:32 AM
notably Sanctify the Wicked -the [Good] Mind Rape.

I've been thinking more on that spell. I wonder if the following makes sense.

The thing that Sanctify the Wicket does is to take away a person's free will - usually a firmly Evil act. A similar spell of one level lower would be Evil. However, in D&D, magic is incredibly powerful. Just as it can bend the laws of physics, it can also be used to bend the laws of morality - and that's one of the effects of this spell. Part of its powerful effect is to make itself Good, and (I assume, though am not sure) eliminate the possibility that casting it would turn the caster Evil.

Talic
2009-08-11, 08:40 AM
I've been thinking more on that spell. I wonder if the following makes sense.

The thing that Sanctify the Wicket does is to take away a person's free will - usually a firmly Evil act. A similar spell of one level lower would be Evil. However, in D&D, magic is incredibly powerful. Just as it can bend the laws of physics, it can also be used to bend the laws of morality - and that's one of the effects of this spell. Part of its powerful effect is to make itself Good, and (I assume, though am not sure) eliminate the possibility that casting it would turn the caster Evil.

Along the same lines as, "Poison is evil. It causes undue suffering, and so is wrong, even when used on the badnastyevils in the world."

"Hey kids, try these, they're ravages! They inflict excruciating agony on badnastyevils, in the exact same manner as poison, but they're good."

But wait... Wasn't the whole reason that poisons were evil that "undue suffering part? And ravages also inflict undue suffering?

Ah forget it. A cleric did it.

AstralFire
2009-08-11, 08:41 AM
Sanctify the Wicked is good because you read the description:



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.

The issue is that its mechanics pretty much look like a brain reprogram, but you will note that it has absolutely nothing to do with mind-affecting ability mechanics; Mind Rape does.

What you do is basically the equivalent of sending your foe to prison and putting him through a really good rehabilitation program. We have those IRL - we don't think those are evil. Is it merely because of the degree of their success?

He adopts your viewpoint because you're the one who cast it - your magic focuses on the things you find most heinous. And he reflects upon it. This is not "the caster can erase or add memories as she sees fit and alter emotions, opinions, and even alignment." (BoVD.) This is a Diplomacy Check of +Yes done every day for a year. Are you performing an evil act if you are a Diplomancer turning everyone you fight into a Good-aligned being by talking to them? I mean, you know that they're going to listen to you because you're just that good.

Fixer
2009-08-11, 08:44 AM
The thing that Sanctify the Wicket does is to take away a person's free will - usually a firmly Evil act.Not this again.

Belief that all creatures should be given free will is a chaotic belief, not a good one. Good creatures CAN and sometimes DO take away 'free will' if they believe the entity in question is abusing their choices or is making exceptionally stupid decisions.

CG is not pure good, LG is not pure good, they both have extremes in them that some do not agree with. A CG character wouldn't use Sanctify the Wicked because of alignment problems, but a LG character wouldn't have an issue.

{/end alignment discussion}

Hyozo
2009-08-11, 08:51 AM
{/end alignment discussion}

In a topic like this? Not likely, unfortunately. I do, however, agree with the rest of your post, especially the first line.

Fixer
2009-08-11, 08:54 AM
I was indicating my alignment discussion was over, not everyone else's.

By all means, argue alignments to your hearts' content. I will just sit back and watch.

While you are at it, feel free to jump into that morass that is "For the Greater Good" means 'Good' and not 'Lawful'. That one is my favorite alignment discussion.

Killer Angel
2009-08-11, 08:58 AM
The thing that Sanctify the Wicket does is to take away a person's free will - usually a firmly Evil act.

...which is more chaotic than evil, but...
If I rememer correctly, the spell gives a will ST to avoid the alignment change.
If so, you can look at the spell's text: "The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness", and read it in this way: the soul reflects, and this is an act of free will: if she makes the ST, she don't see the evil of her life, and don't change... :smallwink:

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-11, 09:31 AM
...which is more chaotic than evil, but...

Other way around. Chaos is freedom, lawful is obedience.

The Mentalist
2009-08-11, 09:31 AM
What you do is basically the equivalent of sending your foe to prison and putting him through a really good rehabilitation program. We have those IRL - we don't think those are evil. Is it merely because of the degree of their success?


Someone hasn't read A Clockwork Orange. I really think that's where they got the inspiration for that spell.

[Good] Necromancy... hmmm... not 'good' but there's always the Cure line.

AstralFire
2009-08-11, 09:34 AM
Someone hasn't read A Clockwork Orange. I really think that's where they got the inspiration for that spell.

[Good] Necromancy... hmmm... not 'good' but there's always the Cure line.

Cure's conjuration IIRC. Though if you ask me, all healing/harming should be either necromancy or evocation.

I'm familiar with A Clockwork Orange, yes. I don't necessarily subscribe to its views, and I think its remiss to assume that kind of methodology in a Sanctified spell with the [Good] descriptor.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-11, 09:35 AM
[Good] Necromancy... hmmm... not 'good' but there's always the Cure line.

Cure X Wounds is Conjuration either way.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-11, 09:36 AM
Heh, you have good points. All the more reason to write our own necromancy [good] spells, I suppose. The only reasonable rationale I can think of for most necromancy being [evil] is that it tampers with someone else's life force, which could be considered an inherently evil act.

It manipulates life force, which may or may not imply tampering--"Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force." Healing spells manipulate your life force by shunting tons of extra positive energy into it; that should fall under the umbrella of necromancy. Reincarnation brings your soul back in another body; that falls under necromancy much more than transmutation. Really, anything that deals with the soul or a life force should be necromancy (and often was in prior editions).

Putting trap the soul in Conjuration because it moves your life force to a gem and reincarnate in Transmutation because it creates a new body is pretty much the opposite of what should happen, anyway--if both were in Necromancy, it would both make more sense and get rid of this "necromancy is EEEVIL!" thing.

The Mentalist
2009-08-11, 09:36 AM
Cure X Wounds is Conjuration either way.

GAHH!! Sorry, I'm still mentally deficient when it comes to remembering that sort of thing.

AstralFire
2009-08-11, 09:40 AM
It manipulates life force, which may or may not imply tampering--"Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force." Healing spells manipulate your life force by shunting tons of extra positive energy into it; that should fall under the umbrella of necromancy. Reincarnation brings your soul back in another body; that falls under necromancy much more than transmutation. Really, anything that deals with the soul or a life force should be necromancy (and often was in prior editions).

Putting trap the soul in Conjuration because it moves your life force to a gem and reincarnate in Transmutation because it creates a new body is pretty much the opposite of what should happen, anyway--if both were in Necromancy, it would both make more sense and get rid of this "necromancy is EEEVIL!" thing.

Eh, the schools are just messed up and have various areas of conceivable overlap. Abjuration in particular bugs me.

I personally like Psychoportation, Clairsentience, Psychokinesis, Psychometabolism, Telepathy, and Metacreation much better as discipline splits.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-11, 09:58 AM
Really, anything that deals with the soul or a life force should be necromancy (and often was in prior editions).

I disagree. Cure/Inflict X Wounds should be Evocation. Because they draw energy from the PEP/NEP and channel it into you. That's what evocation does.

Plus, it's not even relevant since the only classes that can cast these spells don't care about what school they exist in.

AstralFire
2009-08-11, 10:04 AM
Well. It's relevant for Spell Focus, but yeah. Pretty much.

Psion specializations > Wizard specializations.

DragoonWraith
2009-08-11, 10:05 AM
I agree about the Disciplines, but it's worth noting that the names of the Disciplines of Psychoportation and Psychokinesis mean almost exactly the same thing. The "psycho-" bit means that this is having to do with the mind, and "-port" implies carrying while "-kinesis" means moving. So "carrying with your mind" versus "moving with your mind" - not a lot of difference there.

Of course, Psychoportation is meant to be "teleportation with your mind", though that's not implied by the name other than by the shared root. The "tele-" part is the more important bit of "teleport", though. Of course, "telekinesis" (movement + distance) and "teleport" (carry + distance) share the same problem; they only mean what we know them to mean because of historical use, rather than etymological. Which is probably true of all such words, really; you combine a few Latin or Greek words, and define it as some combination of those ideas, but your definition is generally more specific than the combined words would necessarily be.

Wow, I ramble.

Anyway, I concur with all Healing, Resurrecting, Soul-trapping type spells getting put back in Necromancy. The Necromancy is ebul stuff is really lame.

John Campbell
2009-08-11, 10:12 AM
Cure X Wounds is Conjuration either way.

They are now. They were Necromancy as late as AD&D 2E.


Plus, it's not even relevant since the only classes that can cast these spells don't care about what school they exist in.
Anyone can take Spell Focus.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-11, 10:23 AM
They are now. They were Necromancy as late as AD&D 2E.

No bearing on what we're talking about.


Anyone can take Spell Focus.

Spell Focus(Conjuration). You don't take that because you like +1 to the DCs of your heal/inflict spells.

John Campbell
2009-08-11, 11:11 AM
Spell Focus(Conjuration). You don't take that because you like +1 to the DCs of your heal/inflict spells.

Well, no, because the inflict spells still are Necromancy. Despite being exactly like cure, except with negative energy instead of positive.

Similarly, heal: Conjuration (Healing); harm: Necromancy.

But it can't just be the energy type, because disrupt undead, which fires a ray of positive energy, is Necromancy.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-11, 11:53 AM
Stuff

None of this has any relevance on my point that you don't take Spell Focus because you like using Cure/Inflicts. The classes that use Cure/Inflicts don't actually care what school they're in.

Riffington
2009-08-11, 12:30 PM
What you do is basically the equivalent of sending your foe to prison and putting him through a really good rehabilitation program. We have those IRL - we don't think those are evil. Is it merely because of the degree of their success?


There are key differences between brainwashing and rehabilitation programs. The first (and most important) is that rehabilitation programs are optional. You can choose to participate or to refrain. It is true that sometimes rehabilitation programs are offered as an alternative to prison - but if you increase the prison sentence in order to make the rehabilitation more coercive, this is considered evil in Western countries.
The second is that rehabilitation is honest. You tell people what you want to help them to become, and help them become it. The effort comes from them. In contrast, brainwashing involves manipulation.
The third is that rehabilitation builds a person up and makes them stronger. Brainwashing relies on tearing a person down. You must deprive them of sleep, individuality, etc in order to make them vulnerable. If they later return to unfiltered access to information/freedom, the brainwashing wears off. In order to maintain brainwashing you must keep them away from certain types of information/social situations, or you will lose control of them.
Thus, rehabilitation and brainwashing may have certain superficial similarities, but rehabilitation involves a person choosing to work hard to help themself reform (with your active assistance) whereas brainwashing involves manipulating, coercing, and controlling a person, as well as tearing away their inner self, in order to change their political/religious beliefs.

TL;DR: your analogy would be accurate if the spell only worked on a voluntary target.

hamishspence
2009-08-11, 12:36 PM
How different is it from placing a helm of opposite alignment on a target?

Is that an Evil act, morally equivalent to murder "killing the being's personality"?

LibraryOgre
2009-08-11, 12:41 PM
Personally, I would've gone with Conjuration making physical things, evocation dealing with most energies, and necromancy deal specifically with positive/negative energy.

AstralFire
2009-08-11, 12:56 PM
TL;DR: your analogy would be accurate if the spell only worked on a voluntary target.

You're making lots of inferrals about how a good spell is working. All we're given to go on is that it's:
- Pre-eminently good.
- Makes the target 'reflect upon their actions.'
- Not mind-affecting, while all forms of brainwashing are.

I'd argue the Will Save is being used as a shortcut/balancer to diplomancy.

The Neoclassic
2009-08-11, 01:01 PM
While the topic is heading this way, does anyone want to make me a list of spells that "should" be in another school? I might as well overhaul that while I'm doing other minor fixes for my setting. :smalltongue:

The conjuration/evocation/necromancy distinction as Mark Hall put it seems fitting to me, though I'm sure someone will disagree...

Riffington
2009-08-11, 01:10 PM
You're making lots of inferrals about how a good spell is working. All we're given to go on is that it's:
- Pre-eminently good.
- Makes the target 'reflect upon their actions.'
- Not mind-affecting, while all forms of brainwashing are.

I'd argue the Will Save is being used as a shortcut/balancer to diplomancy.

Diplomancy is the D&D equivalent of sleeping with 14 year olds. It's ok when another 14 year old does it, but you should know better.

MickJay
2009-08-11, 01:28 PM
Apparently it's not always OK, since in UK, for example, one of them might get on sex offender list anyway (for some reason, both never do).

Anyhow, I agree that all the life energy manipulation and direct kill/revive spells should fall into one school - they're two different facets of the same thing. Arcanum had "dark" and "light" necromancy schools, and most of the spells of one school were direct counterparts of the other.

Douglas
2009-08-11, 01:54 PM
While the topic is heading this way, does anyone want to make me a list of spells that "should" be in another school? I might as well overhaul that while I'm doing other minor fixes for my setting. :smalltongue:
I'll get around to making such a list for my own setting eventually, but I'm expecting it to be a fairly major undertaking. Especially as I'm planning to redefine the schools in a fairly major way. Same schools, but much clearer and more strictly adhered to guidelines for what spells go in each school.


The conjuration/evocation/necromancy distinction as Mark Hall put it seems fitting to me, though I'm sure someone will disagree...
My planned school redefinition scheme is based in large part on a post I think he made a while back, though I couldn't find it last time I tried looking. A lot of this was originally his idea, I believe, though I've made some changes:

Abjuration: Preserve-the-status-quo/protective magic, long duration energy* effects, and spells that directly affect other magic
Conjuration: Creation and transportation (teleport style) of physical things, and planar magic
Divination: Information gathering
Enchantment: Mind-affecting (immunity to this descriptor will be a lot harder to come by than in RAW, btw)
Evocation: short duration or instantaneous energy* effects
Illusion: Spells that fool the senses
Necromancy: Positive and negative energy effects, including healing and resurrection
Transmutation: Changing or moving (telekinesis style) physical things

* "Energy" in this context as a generic term includes fire, cold, acid, electricity, sonic, and force but not positive or negative energy. Light may also be included, and I'll decide on other things on a case by case basis when I get to them.

For a few spells I can think of quickly, this would put Wall of Force and Contingency in abjuration. I think I'd give Owl's Wisdom and the other mental stat boosters the mind-affecting descriptor and put them in enchantment, too.

quick_comment
2009-08-11, 02:15 PM
Last Judgement is a [good,death] necromancy spells. It skills 1 evil humanoid/2 levels, will save negates. 3d6 wis damage on a successful save.

Faleldir
2009-08-11, 02:20 PM
Don't forget to put [Fear] spells in Enchantment and Mage Armor in Abjuration!

JeenLeen
2009-08-11, 02:24 PM
Thus, rehabilitation and brainwashing may have certain superficial similarities, but rehabilitation involves a person choosing to work hard to help themself reform (with your active assistance) whereas brainwashing involves manipulating, coercing, and controlling a person, as well as tearing away their inner self, in order to change their political/religious beliefs.


I emphasis the above to mark a point about Sanctify the Wicked. (It seems this thread has been thoroughly derailed, so I might as well go with it.)

Sanctify the Wicked assumes, unlike most of the D&D world, that good is 'better' than evil. They are not two equally valid paths and powers. Rather, each person has a kernel of good in them, and it is this aspect of the inner self that is seen and cultivated.

In this sense, it is not tearing away but revealing their innermost self.
I do agree that this spell appears to be in contradiction to the general D&D cosmology, in which good and evil, like law and chaos, are equally valid paths (a double dualism, so to speak.)

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-11, 02:36 PM
I do agree that this spell appears to be in contradiction to the general D&D cosmology, in which good and evil, like law and chaos, are equally valid paths (a double dualism, so to speak.)

Not really. Any [good] outsider or exalted creature would consider good to obviously be the best possible option, and wouldn't agree with the multiverse at large when it comes to alignment equality, so as the spell being used by those characters, of course they're going to say it nurtures the seeds of good that everyone has inside of them.

Douglas
2009-08-11, 02:41 PM
Don't forget to put [Fear] spells in Enchantment and Mage Armor in Abjuration!
If that was in response to me, fear is a subset of mind-affecting and Mage Armor is a long duration energy (force) effect, so both are already taken care of.

hamishspence
2009-08-11, 02:47 PM
Not really. Any [good] outsider or exalted creature would consider good to obviously be the best possible option, and wouldn't agree with the multiverse at large when it comes to alignment equality, so as the spell being used by those characters, of course they're going to say it nurtures the seeds of good that everyone has inside of them.

It doens't work on fiends unless their Evil Subtype is removed first- since the Sanctified creature template states it cannot be applied to an outsider with the Evil subtype.

nonevil Outsiders with the Evil subtype do exist (Cambions in Expedition to the Demonweb Pits book number, apparently, 10% Non-Evil in their population And there is the notorious Succubus Paladin from WoTC site. And Fall-From-Grace in Planescape Torment.

However, these can't be artificially created with Sanctify the Wicked- since the spell doesn't work on Evil Subtype Outsiders. Instead, they have to have chosen The Path Of Non-Evil themselves.

It is possible to remove the subtype via other methods- a ritual in Savage Species, for example. However, at least in the case of the Succubus Paladin, this was clearly not done, since it retains the subtype.

Faleldir
2009-08-11, 03:03 PM
If that was in response to me, fear is a subset of mind-affecting and Mage Armor is a long duration energy (force) effect, so both are already taken care of.

Yes, that was me. I did a word search and it wasn't mentioned before, so I figured it wouldn't hurt to say that.

Susano-wo
2009-08-11, 04:58 PM
Riffington's diplomacy analogy: I almost died laughing :D

AstralFire: Thank you. The way the spell worked always bugged me because it seemed like it, regardless of the description, essentially made someone good, regardless of the individual. But when I think of the will save (which can be either the person resisting the unwanted sanctification, or the person trying to resist their evil impulses, thought, etc), as being part of the struggle during the process, it makes it a lot better.
The only thing I would definitely house-rule (if the spell ever came into practical effect--it takes, what, ten years?(not at home: book not present ^ ^)) is to make modifiers based on the 'creature's' personality and such.

AstralFire
2009-08-11, 05:08 PM
It takes a year, which is also something to note. Compare to Mindrape, which acts much faster. If you're taking a year with magic, you're either trying to purposely drag it out, or you're doing it the hard way, not the easy way.

Glad I could be of service. :smallsmile:

thegurullamen
2009-08-11, 05:30 PM
The way the spell worked always bugged me because it seemed like it, regardless of the description, essentially made someone good, regardless of the individual. But when I think of the will save (which can be either the person resisting the unwanted sanctification, or the person trying to resist their evil impulses, thought, etc), as being part of the struggle during the process, it makes it a lot better.


I love that spell. I built a non-lethal ranger around the idea of capturing particularly vile or powerful Spawn of Tiamat and sanctifying them by force. That I was essentially making a factory of good guys didn't escape the DM: he made me work to keep that thing hidden and safe from evil forces seeking to free their comrades.

I wish there were more white necro options other than healer and deathless (which I think is just kind of goofy. Our Undead Are Different indeed.)

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-08-11, 05:32 PM
The thing that Sanctify the Wicket does is to take away a person's free will - usually a firmly Evil act.

Debatable in regard to RL and 'people' but that debate is not allowed in thse forums. As regards D&D and imaginary characters, not at all. Killing and imprisonment are not evil -- IC evil is meant here. You can kill the evil dragon, or imprison it in a gem or statue or dominate it -- depriving the dragon of of free will in the process of each. Most likely none of these act are evil. (Well it depends what you make it do while dominated and whether you kill an entire family line of dragons because you are epic-pissed.) But do the same to a dragon whose scales are all shiny and metallic and it's a whole different D&D game. Any such an act on a good dragon is (more likely than not) evil. Them's the rules.


However, in D&D, magic is incredibly powerful. Just as it can bend the laws of physics, it can also be used to bend the laws of morality - and that's one of the effects of this spell...Part of its powerful effect is to make itself Good.
The spell does not change D&D morality. It changes the alignment descriptor and (supposedly) the behavior of the subject. The spell is not that different than a cursed item that may cause a player to turn evil on a failed save. That item is evil, not because it forces the subject to do something but because of what if forces the character to be. That's how it works in D&D. A cursed item that forces you towards chaos is 'chaotic' not because the mindless item has a 'morality', not because of how it acts predictably, but because it turns you chaotic.


There are key differences between brainwashing and rehabilitation programs.Irrelevant except that it is close to forum rules infraction since it is discussing RL politics.


your analogy would be accurate if the spell only worked on a voluntary target.
What fun would it be to dominate my enemies with fear and violence if they wanted to be dominated by me in the first place?!

Riffington
2009-08-11, 09:04 PM
Debatable in regard to RL and 'people' but that debate is not allowed in thse forums.
We're allowed to talk about whether it's wrong to take a person's free will away in real life. We're not allowed to talk about what specific religions would say about it.




The spell does not change D&D morality. It changes the alignment descriptor and (supposedly) the behavior of the subject. The spell is not that different than a cursed item that may cause a player to turn evil on a failed save. That item is evil, not because it forces the subject to do something but because of what if forces the character to be. That's how it works in D&D. A cursed item that forces you towards chaos is 'chaotic' not because the mindless item has a 'morality', not because of how it acts predictably, but because it turns you chaotic.
Mmm, not sure. Note that others (such as Astralfire) who are defending it being good are saying that it's actually doing something very different. Their claim is that it's not taking your free will, but rather nudging you (there are points for and against this viewpoint. For includes the Good descriptor and the year-long process; Against includes the Will Save).

Now, I was not really presenting a clear description of how the spell works so much as a "what if". Without stating a clear position on this specific spell: does magic have the power to bend the laws of morality? Can I create a new spell that turns a good person evil and then kills him (to ensure that he goes to the Abyss), kills every puppy he has owned in the most painful way possible, and bends the laws of morality to give itself the [Good] descriptor? Or does magic have no power over those laws?



Irrelevant except that it is close to forum rules infraction since it is discussing RL politics.
I've haven't been discussing RL politics. But we are allowed to talk about them in the abstract, or Clockwork Orange vs drug rehab programs (if we really need specific nonpolitical examples), or give names of nonexistent countries.



What fun would it be to dominate my enemies with fear and violence if they wanted to be dominated by me in the first place?!
That spell doesn't seem to use any fear or violence by itself. You have to use the fear and violence first to ensure that they willingly accept your spell.

Blacky the Blackball
2009-08-12, 01:49 AM
All the more reason to write our own necromancy [good] spells, I suppose.

Animate Cheerful Dead
Necromancy [Good]
Level: Clr 3, Death 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Targets: One or more corpses touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into cheerful zombies that follow your spoken commands with a constant happy smile on their face. While idle, cheerful zombies are silent; but when obeying orders they let out gentle whistling sounds as if to show how much they are enjoying their undeath.

The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area. Being cheerful and good, they won't directly attack any creature - but will follow orders mindlessly, so with carefully worded instructions can be made to "accidentally" harm people. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed cheerful zombie can’t be animated again.)

The material component of this spell is clown make-up costing 25gp per Hit Die of the undead, which must be applied to the face of the corpse during casting.

PId6
2009-08-12, 02:19 AM
I'd argue the Will Save is being used as a shortcut/balancer to diplomancy.
The problem is, the Will save is given when the spell is cast, hence the save only represents the creature resisting the effect of having its soul pulled into a gem. Once it's in there, the actual transformation offers no save whatsoever, making it impossible to resist the transformation no matter how willful or evil the target is.

Also, the spell forces the target to adopt your alignment, whether Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. If it's rehabilitation, it's very very efficient rehabilitation that can change someone to believe exactly what you believe, regardless of what it is. How is that different from brainwashing?

That said, I'm of the opinion that by D&D alignments, there's nothing Evil about brainwashing. Valuing free will has nothing to do with Good, but rather has to do with Chaos, so it would be a Lawful act to forcibly change someone's alignment. Just another failure of the alignment system.

Talic
2009-08-12, 02:34 AM
Sanctify the Wicked is good because you read the description:



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.

The issue is that its mechanics pretty much look like a brain reprogram, but you will note that it has absolutely nothing to do with mind-affecting ability mechanics; Mind Rape does.

What you do is basically the equivalent of sending your foe to prison and putting him through a really good rehabilitation program. We have those IRL - we don't think those are evil. Is it merely because of the degree of their success?

He adopts your viewpoint because you're the one who cast it - your magic focuses on the things you find most heinous. And he reflects upon it. This is not "the caster can erase or add memories as she sees fit and alter emotions, opinions, and even alignment." (BoVD.) This is a Diplomacy Check of +Yes done every day for a year. Are you performing an evil act if you are a Diplomancer turning everyone you fight into a Good-aligned being by talking to them? I mean, you know that they're going to listen to you because you're just that good.

So, it's good, because he's forced to reflect upon it, forced to find a bit of goodness, and forced to embrace that goodness, without any decision or choice on his part?

This is "the caster can change worldviews, outlooks, and alignments without the decision of the afflicted".

This isn't a "diplomacy" effect. This is a forced magical condition that traps someone, and forces them to be good. The how, and the why is irrelevant. It removes choice. You can argue it does not...

But is there any creature that will fall victim to this, and emerge a year later, and not be good? No? Then they can't choose to remain evil.

When you're choices are:
1) Become good, and regret your past deeds
2) Become good, and regret your past deeds

... Well, yeah.

The issue isn't that it changes outlooks. The issue is that it can do it to the unwilling. It's comparable to brainwashing through powerful drugs and psychological torture.

ericgrau
2009-08-12, 02:51 AM
[Good] spells thare are basically reflavored [Evil] spells rub me the wrong way. The only justification seems to be so that team B can have the same stuff as team A, not because it inherantly is this way. I mean, it's supposed to be evil because it's an unnatural form of extended soul-less life; some kind of abomination. But then you animate corpses with holy power and it's all kosher now? Or if it's the whole negative / positive energy thing that determines it, then what's so evil / good about either? Just say they're postive energy undead and remove the alignments from both spells. Or at least come up with some kind of explanation. Like the negative ghosts are twisted with the despair of an unfulfilled life while (in OotS, for example) the positive ghosts are noble spirits defending a purpose.

quick_comment
2009-08-12, 02:54 AM
The issue isn't that it changes outlooks. The issue is that it can do it to the unwilling. It's comparable to brainwashing through powerful drugs and psychological torture.

No, its not. Sanctify the Wicked lacks the mind affecting descriptor, which is certainly a descriptor that brainwashing would carry.

His choice is his willpower to remain evil even after a year of being shown all the reasons why he should not. D&D turns that into a will save.

PId6
2009-08-12, 02:59 AM
His choice is his willpower to remain evil even after a year of being shown all the reasons why he should not. D&D turns that into a will save.
The Will save applies only when the spell is cast to determine if it goes into the gem; if it's already trapped in the gem, it changes alignment after a year no save.

Sliver
2009-08-12, 03:38 AM
Killing and imprisonment are not evil -- IC evil is meant here. You can kill the evil dragon, or imprison it in a gem or statue or dominate it -- depriving the dragon of of free will in the process of each. Most likely none of these act are evil. (Well it depends what you make it do while dominated and whether you kill an entire family line of dragons because you are epic-pissed.) But do the same to a dragon whose scales are all shiny and metallic and it's a whole different D&D game. Any such an act on a good dragon is (more likely than not) evil. Them's the rules.

We are pretty much past this point, it was adressed before..
Taking away someone's free will forces them to act by your law - it is a lawful act. Shiny scales or not, the act itself is lawful.
Free will - chaotic. Forcing someone to your will - lawful.

Riffington
2009-08-12, 05:35 AM
We are pretty much past this point, it was adressed before..
Taking away someone's free will forces them to act by your law - it is a lawful act. Shiny scales or not, the act itself is lawful.
Free will - chaotic. Forcing someone to your will - lawful.

Well, it's been addressed but not resolved. There are a few reasons to suppose the opposite:
*The sheer number of Evil (Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful) creatures that practice slavery, and the paucity of Lawful Good creatures that do. Heironeous certainly doesn't like it.
*MindRape is [Evil], not [Lawful].
*RAW points out that Good implies "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Also, Law vs Chaos doesn't talk at all about the treatment of others below you (Law/Chaos reflects how you deal with authority and tradition, not how/whether you impose those)
*It makes a lot of sense to have all Good people value harmony and freedom; just that lawful ones value harmony more and chaotic ones value freedom more.

But I'm more interested in whether magic can change that. If so, does it have to be epic? Does it have to use divine powers? Or can you just add a level to a spell and change its alignment?

Skjaldbakka
2009-08-12, 06:50 AM
Well, we seem to have gotten outside the scope of the original question. I was just looking for a necromancy spell with the good descriptor, to take on my (formerly LE now approaching LG at the end of the campaign).

I've got all the anti-undead necromancy spells, and thought I would top it off with something actually good descriptor.

What does this 'phoenix fire' spell do? It doesn't sound like necromancy. Is it on the sorcerer list?

Fixer
2009-08-12, 07:10 AM
Well, it's been addressed but not resolved. There are a few reasons to suppose the opposite:
*The sheer number of Evil (Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful) creatures that practice slavery, and the paucity of Lawful Good creatures that do. Heironeous certainly doesn't like it.
*MindRape is [Evil], not [Lawful].
*RAW points out that Good implies "concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Also, Law vs Chaos doesn't talk at all about the treatment of others below you (Law/Chaos reflects how you deal with authority and tradition, not how/whether you impose those)
*It makes a lot of sense to have all Good people value harmony and freedom; just that lawful ones value harmony more and chaotic ones value freedom more.

But I'm more interested in whether magic can change that. If so, does it have to be epic? Does it have to use divine powers? Or can you just add a level to a spell and change its alignment?Slavery, taken purely as ownership of a being for personal profit or entertainment, is not Evil by D&D standards (nor is it Good). When a character purchases a pegasus and rides it, that would be a form of slavery. It is what you *do* with a slave that makes it good or evil. In a society where economic classes are strict, and slaves would be lower class, and lower class is very poorly treated, having slaves can be a good act if you protect them and take care of them.

Mindrape: I don't have my book on me. I'll revise this later.

Concern for dignity means exactly what it says: "concern". It doesn't mean respect, it doesn't mean champion, it doesn't mean "under no circumstances will you diminish". It means "I will consider their dignity to be of importance and not disrespect them if at all possible to do good."

Law vs. Chaos specifically states a view of the position of oneself in relation with society and order. By extending this to Good alignment, Chaotic Good believes that all others should be free of forced society or inflicted order. Chaotic Neutral wouldn't care, most of the time. Chaotic Evil might actually enjoy taking away free will, but is just as likely to not care. Thus, the opposition of the taking of free will isn't purely Chaotic, but Chaotic Good. The reason this wasn't specified before was because Good was already an assumed, as we were discussing Good aligned spells.

JeenLeen
2009-08-12, 08:01 AM
First, to OP: I couldn't find Pheniox Fire in the Spell Compedium, but it's in Book of Exalted Deeds. You die, dealing 2d6/lv half-fire, half-holy to all evil in a 15-ft radius area (Neutral Refl half; good immune). You resurrect as resurrection 10 minutes later (with level loss.) As a Sanctified spell, any caster can learn it, IIRC.
There might be a bit more to the spell--a focus, or some additional mechanics.


Not really. Any [good] outsider or exalted creature would consider good to obviously be the best possible option, and wouldn't agree with the multiverse at large when it comes to alignment equality, so as the spell being used by those characters, of course they're going to say it nurtures the seeds of good that everyone has inside of them.

While I'll admit a good outsider or even a good cleric might say such for the sake of arguement, I don't think that's applicable here. The fluff around a spell is not describing what people think it does. It describes what the spell does.

This spell does find and cultivate a spark of good in the creature. Thus, we can conclude that such a spark does indeed exist.



So, it's good, because he's forced to reflect upon it, forced to find a bit of goodness, and forced to embrace that goodness, without any decision or choice on his part?

This is "the caster can change worldviews, outlooks, and alignments without the decision of the afflicted".

This isn't a "diplomacy" effect. This is a forced magical condition that traps someone, and forces them to be good. The how, and the why is irrelevant. It removes choice. You can argue it does not...

But is there any creature that will fall victim to this, and emerge a year later, and not be good? No? Then they can't choose to remain evil.

When you're choices are:
1) Become good, and regret your past deeds
2) Become good, and regret your past deeds

... Well, yeah.

The issue isn't that it changes outlooks. The issue is that it can do it to the unwilling. It's comparable to brainwashing through powerful drugs and psychological torture.

Mechanically, it does not allow a choice (a Will save to resist the alignment change), but it is not forced in any coercive way. Rather, a logical way. It seems that upon really looking upon your inner good (which the spell, yes, forces the person to do) and upon having time to contemplate it (which, again, is forced) any person will not but choose to become good.
It’s no different mechanically than sealing them in a gem and forcing them by torture to become good, but the fluff is different.

I can accept that it does ‘force a change of mindset’, but it does it according to the natural flow of things (according to the fluff of this spell), not unnaturally (such as Mindrape does.)

AstralFire
2009-08-12, 08:06 AM
The issue isn't that it changes outlooks. The issue is that it can do it to the unwilling. It's comparable to brainwashing through powerful drugs and psychological torture.

I say again - what's the difference between this and +Yes diplomacy? +Yes bluff? Any time you change someone's mind, especially with the aid of magic, you are converting the unwilling. Just because it doesn't have the magic tag doesn't make it any less successful. You're turning someone into what they weren't before in any regard, the difference is in how it is done.

The only reason this can at all be compared to 'brainwashing through powerful drugs and psychological torture' are because those are the only things we have with a high success rate, but those do not use Good methods - they involve a lot of pain, a lot of deprivation. Once again, I think inferrals are being made here about the spell which go counter to the descriptive text. Remember, the spell is not propaganda, we are not being misled about its true nature as a cover up, it is objectively Good (because D&D believes in objective Goodness, for some crazy reason) and therefore by default Good implications should be followed about how it works.


I couldn't find Pheniox Fire in the Spell Compedium, but it's in Book of Exalted Deeds. You die, dealing 2d6/lv half-fire, half-holy to all evil in a 15-ft radius area (Neutral Refl half; good immune). You resurrect as resurrection 10 minutes later (with level loss.) As a Sanctified spell, any caster can learn it, IIRC.
There might be a bit more to the spell--a focus, or some additional mechanics.

Prepared casters auto-have it. Spontaneous casters have to take a class.

PId6
2009-08-12, 08:31 AM
Mechanically, it does not allow a choice (a Will save to resist the alignment change), but it is not forced in any coercive way. Rather, a logical way. It seems that upon really looking upon your inner good (which the spell, yes, forces the person to do) and upon having time to contemplate it (which, again, is forced) any person will not but choose to become good.
It’s no different mechanically than sealing them in a gem and forcing them by torture to become good, but the fluff is different.

I can accept that it does ‘force a change of mindset’, but it does it according to the natural flow of things (according to the fluff of this spell), not unnaturally (such as Mindrape does.)
Assume for the sake of argument that indeed, everybody has the "spark of goodness" in them and that Good is ultimately the one true way in D&Dverse. So the spell would just be applying logic to the victims, showing them what is actually true rather than just brainwashing them to believe it's true.

Why then, does the spell automatically change the victim to the caster's ethical alignment? Even if we accept the idea that Good is ultimately right and proper, why is the victim forced to believe that Lawful Good is right or that Chaotic Good is right, depending solely on the caster's alignment? Why are they not allowed at all to decide "Gee, I think you're right about the good part, but I prefer individuality over authority" just because the caster's Lawful? How is that different from brainwashing?

Riffington
2009-08-12, 08:41 AM
Slavery, taken purely as ownership of a being for personal profit or entertainment, is not Evil by D&D standards
Source?


When a character purchases a pegasus and rides it, that would be a form of slavery.

Servant != slave.



Concern for dignity means exactly what it says: "concern". It doesn't mean respect, it doesn't mean champion
Actually it does.


it doesn't mean "under no circumstances will you diminish". It means "I will consider their dignity to be of importance and not disrespect them if at all possible to do good."
Sure, it's not the only thing (there can be conflicts between goods), but it means that it's a prime motivator. Taking away another's free will can be done by a good person only in the same sorts of circumstances that taking another's life can be done.



Law vs. Chaos specifically states a view of the position of oneself in relation with society and order. By extending this to Good alignment, Chaotic Good believes that all others should be free of forced society or inflicted order. Chaotic Neutral wouldn't care, most of the time. Chaotic Evil might actually enjoy taking away free will, but is just as likely to not care. Thus, the opposition of the taking of free will isn't purely Chaotic, but Chaotic Good. The reason this wasn't specified before was because Good was already an assumed, as we were discussing Good aligned spells.

Sure, that's fair (or at least can be for some people of those alignments). But Chaotic Good also believe in harmony - they'd be unlikely to cheat on their spouses if they have monogamous relationships, and would certainly not go starting race wars; Lawful Good also believe that people should generally have freedom, and certainly should not have their free will removed.

Fixer
2009-08-12, 09:33 AM
Servant != slave.What, in your definition, is the difference?

For my definition, paying for ownership of an intelligent (INT 3+) being is slavery. Thus, if you buy a pegasus, and ride it, you have enslaved that pegasus. You might set it free, but that doesn't change the fact that you had engaged in slavery with its purchase. Thus, the act of slavery (purchasing and/or owning slaves) is not Evil by D&D terminology.

Servants are not purchased, they are (in a term) rented. You agree to pay them, they agree to work for you. They have a choice. In slavery, the being being purchased doesn't have a choice in who buys them or how much is paid for them.

(Not ignoring the other questions, just trying to understand possible differences of definitions. Perhaps your seeing my definitions will answer your questions.)

Optimystik
2009-08-12, 10:13 AM
I've been thinking more on that spell. I wonder if the following makes sense.

The thing that Sanctify the Wicket does is to take away a person's free will - usually a firmly Evil act. A similar spell of one level lower would be Evil. However, in D&D, magic is incredibly powerful. Just as it can bend the laws of physics, it can also be used to bend the laws of morality - and that's one of the effects of this spell. Part of its powerful effect is to make itself Good, and (I assume, though am not sure) eliminate the possibility that casting it would turn the caster Evil.

BoED operates under the assumption that Good is the default state of all souls (the book states that they all come from the good-aligned Positive Energy Plane.) Based on that assumption, StW isn't a brainwash so much as a reset button. Note the spell does not function on soulless baddies.

So long story short, if you disagree on the source of souls, you're not likely to agree with the rest of the spell either.

Riffington
2009-08-12, 10:16 AM
What, in your definition, is the difference?

For my definition, paying for ownership of an intelligent (INT 3+) being is slavery. Thus, if you buy a pegasus, and ride it, you have enslaved that pegasus. You might set it free, but that doesn't change the fact that you had engaged in slavery with its purchase. Thus, the act of slavery (purchasing and/or owning slaves) is not Evil by D&D terminology.

Servants are not purchased, they are (in a term) rented. You agree to pay them, they agree to work for you. They have a choice. In slavery, the being being purchased doesn't have a choice in who buys them or how much is paid for them.

(Not ignoring the other questions, just trying to understand possible differences of definitions. Perhaps your seeing my definitions will answer your questions.)

I agree that the choice and agreement is the key: A servant can leave if he really wants. A slave cannot.

I don't think that the exchange of money or employer makes someone a slave instead of a servant. At my hospital, we had two years left on our contract; a bigger hospital bought the hospital and with it our contract (without asking us). Some of us had picked our hospital specifically to avoid working for the bigger hospital that bought us, but they now owned the contract. This didn't make us slaves: we could breach our contract and leave, paying economic penalties.

GreatWyrmGold
2009-08-12, 10:19 AM
Are there any necromancy spells with the [good] descriptor?

Yes. Pheonix Fire, if I recall correctly, is. It's in the BOED, and if I'm wrong,
I clearly remember that there was a Necromancy (good) spell in there.

Fixer
2009-08-12, 10:22 AM
BoED operates under the assumption that Good is the default state of all souls (the book states that they all come from the good-aligned Positive Energy Plane.)Now, with that information, I want to make up 'negative energy souls' for use with living beings....

PId6
2009-08-12, 10:28 AM
Based on that assumption, StW isn't a brainwash so much as a reset button.
Again comes the question of why they're reset to exactly the caster's alignment. Even if all souls are inherently Good (which they're not; positive energy isn't inherently good), why do they get no choice on whether to be Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic? Why is it that the caster can so perfectly "convince" anyone that his exact ethical alignment is the right one as well, no matter what it is?

Optimystik
2009-08-12, 10:29 AM
Now, with that information, I want to make up 'negative energy souls' for use with living beings....

Darkness is defined by the absence of energy, rather than the presence of it. A "negative energy soul" would thus be an extreme paradox.

Of course, necromancy itself is a paradox, so maybe it's possible.

JeenLeen
2009-08-12, 10:55 AM
Again comes the question of why they're reset to exactly the caster's alignment. Even if all souls are inherently Good (which they're not; positive energy isn't inherently good), why do they get no choice on whether to be Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic? Why is it that the caster can so perfectly "convince" anyone that his exact ethical alignment is the right one as well, no matter what it is?

Although I'm in support of StW as a good spell, as my above posts show, I do admit that this is a problem.

I could see it vaguely related as appreciate of the one who helped them reach redemption through casting the spell, they accept that person's ethical alignment as well as discovering their inner moral alignment to be good.
Can others add to this?

Optimystik
2009-08-12, 11:11 AM
Can others add to this?

Sadly, no: this is the part of the spell I disagree with too. You should be allowed retain your existing ethics even after your morality is reset. A sanctified Black Dragon should still have disdain for authority, just now channeled against tyranny rather than beneficial order. Similarly, a sanctified mindflayer should still believe in the value of community over individuality and thus remain lawful, even as it morally switches from subjugation to infrastructure and progress.

I have no idea why they added that detail to the spell. The best I can come up with is that they didn't want friction between the redeemed monster and its benefactor (imagine an LG party with clerics and paladins suddenly getting a CG member - the constant arguing could lead the thing right back to evil.) That's pretty ridiculous of course, but I can't think of anything else.

Note that I don't think that makes the entire spell a bad idea. I'd just omit that bit as a DM and let the monster's ethics remain intact. Much more interesting that way.

Riffington
2009-08-12, 11:20 AM
At what point does the average mindflayer's soul descend from it's just-created purity into the brutality that characterizes these creatures?

Because my concern is this: if the answer is "well, they're indoctrinated into evil as kids" then I guess that's cool - but that means you can easily raise mindflayer kids to be good responsible adults if you just steal them away from their evil parents. Whereas if the answer has something to do with mindflayers' brains or with the experiences they tend to have or whatever, then just purifying the soul won't keep it pure - they'll be turn towards evil soon thereafter, like most mindflayers.

Optimystik
2009-08-12, 11:35 AM
At what point does the average mindflayer's soul descend from it's just-created purity into the brutality that characterizes these creatures?

Because my concern is this: if the answer is "well, they're indoctrinated into evil as kids" then I guess that's cool - but that means you can easily raise mindflayer kids to be good responsible adults if you just steal them away from their evil parents. Whereas if the answer has something to do with mindflayers' brains or with the experiences they tend to have or whatever, then just purifying the soul won't keep it pure - they'll be turn towards evil soon thereafter, like most mindflayers.

Mindflayers aren't a good example; they are indoctrinated while growing up by the Elder Brains, who themselves take marching orders from Ilsensine. A hive mind society is about as textbook "override good" as you can get.

My personal pet theory is that the evil gods that govern the darker races corrupt the souls while putting them into offspring. Tiamat and Lloth, for instance, can't create souls but pull them from the same well as the other gods; they just put their own personal touches on them while wrapping them in mortal sausage. That explains why drow have to find Eilistraee for themselves during life, because Lloth gets first touch on all of them.

MickJay
2009-08-12, 11:36 AM
This discussion reminded me of one of Stanislaw Lem's short stories (from Star Diaries, IIRC), about robotic monks who, after decades of losing members to more advanced "atheist" robots' persuasion skills, finally developed a method of converting non-believing machines with the ultimate and absolute proof of God's existence, which would irrevocably enlighten the atheists. The only problem was that by that time the other machines were no longer even interested in theological disputes, and the monks decided that they had no right to force the truth on those who did not want to discuss it. Another point that was made was the lack of any real difference between normal discussion and the overwhelming burst of revelation - only the intensity and effectiveness were different, but both the reason for using them and the desired result were identical.

Incidentally, I can't help noticing a double standard in treating Good and Evil. If both Good and Evil are legitimate points of view, and both are objective, then why can't StW be a Good spell in its own right? It's purpose is to bring more Goodness into the world, and it does so admirably well. A lot of people seem to think that, for some reason, the Good alignment has to be "good" in every single way, according to every single moral philosophy there is (except perhaps the few really weird ones)... but exactly because Evil is an acceptable alternative, the Good can't be synonymous with the common understanding of "good" (if it was, then Evil would not really be a valid choice).

Now if the version about there being a grain of Goodness in everyone (except those who are physical manifestations of elemental Evil), then StW can be interpreted as a means of attaining the true (Socratic) wisdom, i.e., people are evil only because they are not truly wise - if they were, they would understand that being good is the right way to live. Long period of time, reflecting on one's past and so on seem to hint that the spell's author was thinking along these lines.

Ultimately, the D&D fluff about Good and Evil is so self-contradictory, that it usually provides a good number of arguments to support contrary opinions (viz., StW debates which pop up every now and then).

Optimystik
2009-08-12, 11:54 AM
The only problem was that by that time the other machines were no longer even interested in theological disputes, and the monks decided that they had no right to force the truth on those who did not want to discuss it.

Ah, but the circumstances in D&D are quite different. Here, we know that an evil and punitive afterlife exists, and that if an evil creature is allowed to persist in its ways, its soul will be tormented beyond all imagining until all the useful energy has been wrung from it and it is turned into a mane/dretch. This knowledge is what separates D&D evangelism from that in other settings, and certainly a 17+ level good cleric would know what's going to happen in the afterlife. Sanctifying a wicked soul here is less like brainwashing them, and more like jumping between the target and a bullet.


Incidentally, I can't help noticing a double standard in treating Good and Evil. If both Good and Evil are legitimate points of view, and both are objective, then why can't StW be a Good spell in its own right? It's purpose is to bring more Goodness into the world, and it does so admirably well.

It is a Good spell; all sanctified spells are treated as having the [Good] descriptor. They do all the things good spells do (improve the caster's alignment, uncastable by evil, etc.) The difference is that they require concrete sacrifices rather than just spell components.


Ultimately, the D&D fluff about Good and Evil is so self-contradictory, that it usually provides a good number of arguments to support contrary opinions (viz., StW debates which pop up every now and then).

I agree completely :smallyuk: They should have spent a bit more time on BoED before sending it to print.

hamishspence
2009-08-12, 12:04 PM
The positive energy plane is not Good aligned (neither is the negative energy plane Evil).

Also, BoED doesn't say much on where they come from, it's Magic of Incarnum (and the adventure Bastion of Broken Souls) that details how souls come from the Positive Energy Plane.

Optimystik
2009-08-12, 12:33 PM
The positive energy plane is not Good aligned (neither is the negative energy plane Evil).

True, it is not stated explicitly, but the tendency is heavily implied.

BoED 157, "Deathless": "Undead represent a mockery of life and a violation of the natural order of life and death...While undead draw their power from the Negative energy Plane, Deathless are strongly tied to the Positive Energy Plane, the birthplace of all souls. Deathless are...hardly more substantial than a soul in its purest state." In addition "Evil clerics can be stunned by overwhelming deathless auras just as a good cleric can be stunned by an overwhelming undead aura." Implying that a pure discorporate soul of sufficient power is anathema to evil just as a powerful concentration of negative energy is anathema to good.

Incarnum, by necessity, takes a more neutral view, but I wouldn't mind reading it again. :smallsmile:

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-12, 12:34 PM
The positive energy plane is not Good aligned (neither is the negative energy plane Evil).

But channeling from the PEP/NEP is Good/Evil.

quick_comment
2009-08-12, 12:49 PM
Lets say the way sanctify actually works is inside the gem, it gives you an argument as to why evil is bad and good is the way to go. The argument is indisputible - it works 100% of the time, on everyone except for devils. No mortal exists that cannot be swayed by this argument.

When you leave the gem, the spell erases the memory of what exactly the argument was, leaving you just with the knowledge that you want to be good for the rest of your life.


This is mechanically identical to the "stuff the soul into a gem and mindrape it" school of thought.

Blackfang108
2009-08-12, 12:53 PM
This is mechanically identical to the "stuff the soul into a gem and mindrape it" school of thought.

Mechanically, but it doesn't taste the same.

Boca Burgers v Hamburgers.

hamishspence
2009-08-12, 12:56 PM
But channeling from the PEP/NEP is Good/Evil.

Yes- thats primarily a cleric thing though (turn/rebuke). Negative Energy Spells (enervation, energy drain) have no alignment.

MickJay
2009-08-12, 01:02 PM
Mechanically, there's also no difference between a mercy kill, killing for food and slowly torturing an animal to death, because the result is the same.

Optimystik
2009-08-12, 01:14 PM
Lets say the way sanctify actually works is inside the gem, it gives you an argument as to why evil is bad and good is the way to go. The argument is indisputible - it works 100% of the time, on everyone except for devils. No mortal exists that cannot be swayed by this argument.

When you leave the gem, the spell erases the memory of what exactly the argument was, leaving you just with the knowledge that you want to be good for the rest of your life.

What? Sanctify doesn't manipulate your memories in any way. In fact, it does just the opposite: takes you on a tour of your depravity, much like Scrooge and the Ghosts, and gives you the proper context to appreciate the consequences of your actions.

The spell description does not specify the redemptive process because the players and DM are supposed to fill in the blank themselves, not because the process is magically excised from the creature's mind. Creatures remember everything that they see and experience in the gem.

Riffington
2009-08-12, 03:09 PM
What? Sanctify doesn't manipulate your memories in any way. In fact, it does just the opposite: takes you on a tour of your depravity, much like Scrooge and the Ghosts, and gives you the proper context to appreciate the consequences of your actions.

The spell description does not specify the redemptive process because the players and DM are supposed to fill in the blank themselves, not because the process is magically excised from the creature's mind. Creatures remember everything that they see and experience in the gem.

Really it would just fix the spell to add a sentence at the end "Occasionally, the target of the spell will leave the Gem at the year's end with their alignment intact."

Belobog
2009-08-12, 03:13 PM
Again comes the question of why they're reset to exactly the caster's alignment. Even if all souls are inherently Good (which they're not; positive energy isn't inherently good), why do they get no choice on whether to be Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic? Why is it that the caster can so perfectly "convince" anyone that his exact ethical alignment is the right one as well, no matter what it is?

Caster interference? It's not like one person knows what good really is, so when the spell is cast, it shows the subject what the caster thinks defines Good, and the Lawful- or Chaotic- side gets mixed in?

And I think Lords of Madness states Mindflayers are physically unable to feel good ways about things, so they're a troublesome example, anyway.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-12, 03:17 PM
But channeling from the PEP/NEP is Good/Evil.

CLW does not contain a [Good] descriptor, nor are Evil or even Vile creatures denied its use; therefore, positive energy in its most base form is not good nor evil.

Optimystik
2009-08-12, 03:25 PM
Really it would just fix the spell to add a sentence at the end "Occasionally, the target of the spell will leave the Gem at the year's end with their alignment intact."

That amounts to "Occasionally, the spell doesn't work" with no explanation why. At least have the DM roll, man. :smalltongue:


And I think Lords of Madness states Mindflayers are physically unable to feel good ways about things, so they're a troublesome example, anyway.

On their own this is true, but they can definitely be Sanctified; a mindflayer monk is actually used as the example of the spell's success in BoED. (Her eyes are gold, she wears a white robe, and she is is determined to make up for her life of evil.)

Jayngfet
2009-08-12, 04:13 PM
(Her eyes are gold, she wears a white robe, and she is is determined to make up for her life of evil.)

This another problem I have with good. Why in the nine hells doo good characters have to dress in white and gold while evil gets black robes? It oversimplifies things in the extreme.

Blackfang108
2009-08-12, 04:17 PM
This another problem I have with good. Why in the nine hells doo good characters have to dress in white and gold while evil gets black robes? It oversimplifies things in the extreme.

Robes?

Have you SEEN what the Female Clerics of Evil Deities are (not) wearing?

HAHAHAHA! "Evil wears Robes."

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-12, 04:40 PM
This another problem I have with good. Why in the nine hells doo good characters have to dress in white and gold while evil gets black robes? It oversimplifies things in the extreme.One of these days I'm going to make a Vile character with a penchant for wholesale slaughter that wears bright colors and has a perky personality. Just to confuse people.

AstralFire
2009-08-12, 04:43 PM
This another problem I have with good. Why in the nine hells doo good characters have to dress in white and gold while evil gets black robes? It oversimplifies things in the extreme.

Because white and gold is STYLISH.

Even if I was evil I'd wear white and gold.

Jayngfet
2009-08-12, 04:46 PM
Robes?

Have you SEEN what the Female Clerics of Evil Deities are (not) wearing?

HAHAHAHA! "Evil wears Robes."

Point taken, perhaps too much looking at some pictures of hags. But still the asthetics in general.

quick_comment
2009-08-12, 05:03 PM
They wear white and gold because good is associated with the sun and with light.

Evil however, is associated with darkness, shadows and the night. So they wear black.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-08-12, 05:16 PM
Well, we seem to have gotten outside the scope of the original question. I was just looking for a necromancy spell with the good descriptor, to take on my (formerly LE now approaching LG at the end of the campaign).

I've got all the anti-undead necromancy spells, and thought I would top it off with something actually good descriptor.

What does this 'phoenix fire' spell do? It doesn't sound like necromancy. Is it on the sorcerer list?

Phoenix Fire is a 7th level spell from BoED where you immolate yourself to damage evil creatured. It's not on the regular sorcerer/wizard list but on a "sanctified" spell list.

You can look a short description here http://www.imarvintpa.com/DnDLive/FindSpell.php

Here's an excerpt from WotC with a longer description http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004c


We are pretty much past this point, it was adressed before..
Taking away someone's free will forces them to act by your law - it is a lawful act. Shiny scales or not, the act itself is lawful.
Free will - chaotic. Forcing someone to your will - lawful.
You may think you are past this point but I respectfully disagree. There are several ways to "take away" a characters free will and make them act the way you want in D&D, command, suggest, dominate, magic jar... None of them have the lawful descriptor. And it is not a lawful act to dominate another character unless what you tell them to do is specifically "lawful".


We're allowed to talk about whether it's wrong to take a person's free will away in real life. We're not allowed to talk about what specific religions would say about it.
Once you start talking about RL "rehabilitation programs" or drug rehab programs "drug rehab programs", you start down the slippery slope of politics.



Mmm, not sure. Note that others (such as Astralfire) who are defending it being good are saying that it's actually doing something very different. Their claim is that it's not taking your free will, but rather nudging you (there are points for and against this viewpoint.

There conclusion is not different from mine. That is they are not saying that StW is Evil. So I have no beef with them.



Now, I was not really presenting a clear description of how the spell works so much as a "what if". Without stating a clear position on this specific spell: does magic have the power to bend the laws of morality?

That is a bad question. The inexact language and can lead one very far afield. And there is no need to do that in the case of StW. If you accept StW as good in game, then you can justify as good in game in a variety of ways. If you don't think StW is good or you don't want to use the good descriptor for the spell, that's fine too.



Can I create a new spell that turns a good person evil and then kills him (to ensure that he goes to the Abyss), kills every puppy he has owned in the most painful way possible, and bends the laws of morality to give itself the [Good] descriptor? Or does magic have no power over those laws?

Let's try to be clear. That is, the "laws" of the games are the rules of the game and whatever the payers accept as part of the game.

Suppose the PC wishes for "I wish that evil act X be done but I wish that this wish, not the act itself, be considered a good wish." The question is not is this possible in the game world, but what would be the story point?

Again, if you think StW does an evil act, then it deserves the evil descriptor and the spells purpose is not to make an evil character good in and of itself. Since, if as you believe, "forcing" an evil character to be good is evil an evil act itself, the spells true purpose in this interpretation is only to serve a higher evil.

MickJay
2009-08-12, 06:03 PM
It is a Good spell; all sanctified spells are treated as having the [Good] descriptor. They do all the things good spells do (improve the caster's alignment, uncastable by evil, etc.) The difference is that they require concrete sacrifices rather than just spell components.

The thing is, many people claim that it shouldn't Good - on the basis that its workings are not fully compatible with what they consider to be good, hence my argument. If Evil can be a good choice for some, then choosing Good might appear evil to some as well. :smalltongue:

Optimystik
2009-08-12, 06:25 PM
One of these days I'm going to make a Vile character with a penchant for wholesale slaughter that wears bright colors and has a perky personality. Just to confuse people.

You're a few years too late on that one. :smalltongue:

http://finalfantasy.cc/ffmembers/dissidia/image/artwork/Kefka-dissidia.jpg


The thing is, many people claim that it shouldn't Good - on the basis that its workings are not fully compatible with what they consider to be good, hence my argument. If Evil can be a good choice for some, then choosing Good might appear evil to some as well. :smalltongue:

The problem in D&D is that the penalties for a life of evil are both certain and widely known, at least in Greyhawk and Faerun. Most truly evil characters either think they will be the exception (99% of them are wrong) or they simply don't care (in which case sanctification is the least of what they deserve.)

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-12, 06:31 PM
CLW does not contain a [Good] descriptor, nor are Evil or even Vile creatures denied its use; therefore, positive energy in its most base form is not good nor evil.


Neutral Clerics and Undead
A cleric of neutral alignment can either turn undead but not rebuke them, or rebuke undead but not turn them. See Turn or Rebuke Undead for more information.

Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil.


When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.

Emphasis mine. Regardless of the natural state of Positive/Negative Energy it is a Good/Evil act to channel it.


Because white and gold is STYLISH.

Even if I was evil I'd wear white and gold.

Eh. I favor Black and Gold or Red and Gold. White and Gold would be hard to keep cleaning in between all the killing.


Most truly evil characters either think they will be the exception (99% of them are wrong) or they simply don't care (in which case sanctification is the least of what they deserve.)

If I recall, doesn't an evil soul become a demon/devil after X hundred years? I was certain it was in one of the Fiendish Codexes.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-12, 06:37 PM
Emphasis mine. Regardless of the natural state of Positive/Negative Energy it is a Good/Evil act to channel it.

Channeling, sure. Casting a spell which utilizes it, notsomuch.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-12, 06:39 PM
Channeling, sure. Casting a spell which utilizes it, notsomuch.

A spell which explicitly channels positive/negative energy.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-12, 06:42 PM
A spell which explicitly channels positive/negative energy.

They don't channel energy, though, otherwise they'd be Evocations--the school that channels energy. They create the energy (hence Conjuration).

Riffington
2009-08-12, 06:52 PM
There conclusion is not different from mine. That is they are not saying that StW is Evil. So I have no beef with them.
I'm not saying StW is Evil either.



That is a bad question. The inexact language and can lead one very far afield. And there is no need to do that in the case of StW. If you accept StW as good in game, then you can justify as good in game in a variety of ways. If you don't think StW is good or you don't want to use the good descriptor for the spell, that's fine too.

Doing anything more than listing StW is going far afield. It's fun to go far afield, and you are doing it now. Now, the specific way that I want to go afield is to ask whether I can invent a [Good] version of any spell simply by having the magic bend the laws of morality. And if so, how hard should that be?



Let's try to be clear. That is, the "laws" of the games are the rules of the game and whatever the payers accept as part of the game.
Sure. And in that framework, the questions I am asking is "if you were a player in the same game as me, would you allow magic to bend the laws of morality just like it can bend the laws of physics? And do you have any evidence or anecdotes to help your position?"



Suppose the PC wishes for "I wish that evil act X be done but I wish that this wish, not the act itself, be considered a good wish." The question is not is this possible in the game world, but what would be the story point?

Well, both are reasonable questions. One story point is the way in which good becomes corrupt - does it always corrupt into evil, or can it corrupt into a horrible-but-still-Good mockery of itself? It relates to the question of whether hypocrisy is worse than honest evil, or whether it's the tribute that vice pays to virtue. It ties into any kind of story about a well-intentioned character that doesn't fit into the Good alignment (or poorly-intentioned character that manages to fit there)



Again, if you think StW does an evil act, then it deserves the evil descriptor and the spells purpose is not to make an evil character good in and of itself. Since, if as you believe, "forcing" an evil character to be good is evil an evil act itself, the spells true purpose in this interpretation is only to serve a higher evil.
Well, that's a reasonable interpretation, and I might settle on it, but right now I'm too interested in playing with the other questions to have a clear position on that.

Skjaldbakka
2009-08-12, 07:22 PM
ZeroNumerous, this is one of those instances where you are wrong even if you quote all kinds of things out of context.

Why?

-Because there are evil clerics that are not undead.
-They have to cast healing spells to survive.
This does not effect their alignment, otherwise the warm fuzzies they get every time they heal themselves or an ally would make them no longer evil.

You would wind up with only nuetral (formerly evil) clerics, and good (formerly nuetral and/or good clerics).

This is why channeling positive/negative energy is a good/evil act in the context of cleric class features only, not spells.

Spontaneously converting a spell into a cure is a good act. Turning undead is a good act.

-------end of thought, beginning of new thought------

So, on the subject of good/evil spells -

I feel like casting X [evil] spell today. To maintain my good alignment, I'll prep a summon monster X of the same level, and summon something good aligned with it.

/facepalm

erikun
2009-08-12, 07:38 PM
So, on the subject of good/evil spells -

I feel like casting X [evil] spell today. To maintain my good alignment, I'll prep a summon monster X of the same level, and summon something good aligned with it.

/facepalm
So, which aspect of that is worse?

The good-aligned Necromancer, needing to create as much Holy Water (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blessWater.htm) as undead to maintain his good alignment, or the cruel psycho-murderer who just casts the spell to avoid magical evildar-detection?

(Yes, I hate parts of 3.5's alignment spectrum. :smallsigh:)


More to the point: a spell that re-stitches the body together might be considered both good and necromatic. Then again, it could just be considered 'neutral', like repair X damage.... or a transmutation, for the same reason.

Jothki
2009-08-12, 07:41 PM
It seems to me that Good has always cared more about freedom of belief than about freedom of action. See Paladins falling if they commit an evil act, Upper Planes that allow Lower Planes to be as internally evil as they want as long as the destruction is contained there, and Exalted feats that arbitrarily constrain someone's ability to act regardless of what their intentions are and call themsleves the purest form of good even if others are harmed due to inaction.

Taking away someone's ability to believe in something is more of an Evil thing. A Good equivalent would leave someone as Evil as ever, but prevent them from ever doing any even slightly selfish action.

The Neoclassic
2009-08-12, 07:55 PM
It seems to me that Good has always cared more about freedom of belief than about freedom of action. See Paladins falling if they commit an evil act, Upper Planes that allow Lower Planes to be as internally evil as they want as long as the destruction is contained there, and Exalted feats that arbitrarily constrain someone's ability to act regardless of what their intentions are and call themsleves the purest form of good even if others are harmed due to inaction.

They allow the Lower Planes? Doesn't that start with the assumption that the Upper Planes are more powerful and could totally vanquish evil if they wanted to? Anyway, I don't think good/evil is about freedom much at all. Freedom and restraint seems more law/chaos to me.


Taking away someone's ability to believe in something is more of an Evil thing. A Good equivalent would leave someone as Evil as ever, but prevent them from ever doing any even slightly selfish action.

I'd disagree. I first of all don't see a lot of evidence that it's good to restrict someone from doing bad things but it's evil to keep them from thinking bad things too. I'd imagine that LG, NG, and CG individuals/outsiders would all have different views on this; I don't think you can lump all the ethical views together for this.

HOWEVER: What exactly is good will vary by DM interpretation. All DMs interpret the alignment system differently, so if that's how you run your games, go for it. I would not, but I don't use any Exalted stuff either (for many, many reasons). And sorry for derailing the thread a bit. :smalltongue:

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-08-12, 08:02 PM
I'm not saying StW is Evil either.
OK



Now, the specific way that I want to go afield is to ask whether I can invent a [Good] version of any spell simply by having the magic bend the laws of morality. And if so, how hard should that be?

Most spells have neither descriptor. For such spells what would it mean to have the [Good] descriptor. For ex, what is a [Good] Bull's Strength? You would have to change the spell so that it has something to do with the [Good] descriptor. For ex, [Good] Bull's Strength might give you that standard +4 Strength enhancement but an additional enhancement +2 Strength when fighting an [Evil] opponent or give you the ability to Smite Evil or some such.

For a spell with the [Evil] descriptor, you usually just have to have the same effect but opposite targets. For ex Protection from [Good] (rather than [Evil]) gives combat bonuses againt opponents that are [Evil].

So, to add [Good] to the spell, the spells effect must somehow tie in with the [Good], [Evil] or [Undead] descriptor.

Casting a spell without the [Good] or [Evil] spell descriptor is good or evil depending on the intent of the casting. For ex, casting Bull Strength on the evil fighter so he can better commit an evil act is itself and evil act.

Casting a spell with the [Good] or [Evil] spell descriptor is good or evil in itself. That is casting Summon Monster [Evil] is an evil act. Now all evil acts are not evil to the same degree. So for ex casting Summon Monster [Evil] is not as evil as say murder. In addition, an act may have multiple intentions. So a wizard may have a good intention in casting Summon Monster [Evil], say defeating an evil opponent. The same act, casting Summon Monster [Evil], may have multiple intentions and effects. Though no one act necessarily changes the wizards alignment, how often and to what effect the wizard uses Summon Monster [Evil] affects his overall alignment.



And in that framework, the questions I am asking is "if you were a player in the same game as me, would you allow magic to bend the laws of morality just like it can bend the laws of physics? And do you have any evidence or anecdotes to help your position?"

This phrasing is still confusing. The turn of phrase "bend the laws of physics" is only applicable in game because of the tension the game creates by having an imaginary world which is both like the real world and not like the real world. So in the imaginary world, like in the real world, a dropped ball should fall. But in the fantasy world, a character can make the ball levitate in midair by magic. Now in this imagined world, making the ball levitate is really not against the "laws of physics" nor should in normally come as a surprise in most campaign settings. Yet the phrase "bending the laws of physics" is still understandable.

"Bending the laws of morality" is a phrase that is not so easily understood. That is, there is the IC moral judgements, not moral laws, and the OC reaction by players to IC moral issues. There are descriptors [Good] and [Evil] that have game effect, for example combat bonuses. But there are no "laws" such as [Evil] + [Evil] <> [Good].



Well, both are reasonable questions. One story point is the way in which good becomes corrupt - does it always corrupt into evil, or can it corrupt into a horrible-but-still-Good mockery of itself? It relates to the question of whether hypocrisy is worse than honest evil, or whether it's the tribute that vice pays to virtue. It ties into any kind of story about a well-intentioned character that doesn't fit into the Good alignment (or poorly-intentioned character that manages to fit there)

Those are good questions but think they are best handled by story. Introducing spell mechanics into those only muddles the questions.

Optimystik
2009-08-12, 08:20 PM
Sanctify is explicitly Good, by virtue of being a Sanctified spell. That's the RAW. Now the ethics of it may be questionable by the standards of our world, but in D&D it is beyond reproach.


If I recall, doesn't an evil soul become a demon/devil after X hundred years? I was certain it was in one of the Fiendish Codexes.

The exact time varies, but it is a certainty.

PId6
2009-08-12, 08:57 PM
Sanctify is explicitly Good, by virtue of being a Sanctified spell. That's the RAW. Now the ethics of it may be questionable by the standards of our world, but in D&D it is beyond reproach.
We're saying it's inconsistent with established alignment descriptions, not to mention very very very hypocritical.

Also, if we're going by that logic, Deathwatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm) is considered an Evil spell, so by RAW, it's beyond reproach. However, the Slayer of Domiel, a PrC restricted to Lawful Good, gets it on their spell list. The problem here? Inconsistency. Hence, it's not beyond reproach if it's inconsistent with what is already established. And besides, nothing is beyond criticism.

AstralFire
2009-08-12, 09:07 PM
Deathwatch is well-known and admitted to be a misplaced tag that was supposed to go on an adjacent spell. I never get why people cite it in RAI discussions.

PId6
2009-08-12, 09:10 PM
Deathwatch is well-known and admitted to be a misplaced tag that was supposed to go on an adjacent spell. I never get why people cite it in RAI discussions.
Because it shows that WotC makes mistakes.

AstralFire
2009-08-12, 09:14 PM
Because it shows that WotC makes mistakes.

That's an entirely different type of mistake, though. That's like citing my propensity to forget to put the milk back in the fridge to back up a claim that I use poor word choices sometimes.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-12, 09:40 PM
They don't channel energy, though, otherwise they'd be Evocations--the school that channels energy. They create the energy (hence Conjuration).

It explicitly says it channels positive/negative energy. Regardless of how that energy gets there, channeling positive/negative energy is good/evil respectively.


ZeroNumerous, this is one of those instances where you are wrong even if you quote all kinds of things out of context.

It doesn't specify "when turning undead" It simply states, quite clearly, channeling positive/negative energy is good/evil regardless of the circumstance. This is RAW. While what you describe should be accurate(hell, the entire alignment system should be chucked), it isn't RAW. I agree that it's stupid, but that doesn't change that it's RAW. Just like Sanctify the Wicked is [Exalted] by RAW.

I pointed out a fact in RAW, you've erroneously stated otherwise.


The exact time varies, but it is a certainty.

Then I'd think a good Evil character's justification for being evil is simply "I'll be dead anyway. Better to have a body than just be a petitioner all my life."

Ravens_cry
2009-08-12, 09:57 PM
Deathwatch is well-known and admitted to be a misplaced tag that was supposed to go on an adjacent spell. I never get why people cite it in RAI discussions.
Heh, I always thought it was because hitpoints was considered to be THINGS PLAYER CHARACTERS MUST NOT KNOW, under the Gygaxian School of DM-ing. What's your source on this?

Riffington
2009-08-12, 09:57 PM
Most spells have neither descriptor. For such spells what would it mean to have the [Good] descriptor. For ex, what is a [Good] Bull's Strength?

What is a [Good] Summon Celestial Badger? Not really clear to me why either would or wouldn't be [Good]. I mean, Summoning a Celestial Badger is [Good] if you happen to use Summon Monster line to do it because that spell specifically says so. If you invented a different spell to summon a celestial badger, there's nothing by RAW or real-world morality or logic that says that different spell should be a Good act. What I wonder is if maybe the Summon Monster line transports the creature as well as leaking some energy from its plane, and it is that leaky [Good] energy that makes the spell [Good]. If so, it could be possible to add that [Good] energy to a different spell (sure, we'll take Bull's Strength) in some way, infusing the recipient with the strength of a Bull and spilling some celestial energy, granting a +4 strength bonus and no other effect other than to annoy nearby liches.



This phrasing is still confusing. The turn of phrase "bend the laws of physics" is only applicable in game because of the tension the game creates by having an imaginary world which is both like the real world and not like the real world. So in the imaginary world, like in the real world, a dropped ball should fall. But in the fantasy world, a character can make the ball levitate in midair by magic. Now in this imagined world, making the ball levitate is really not against the "laws of physics" nor should in normally come as a surprise in most campaign settings. Yet the phrase "bending the laws of physics" is still understandable.
I believe it does in fact violate the game laws of physics by means of the magic, and should indeed come as a surprise in game to those who understand physics but not magic. This is why Spellcraft is only a skill for spellcasting classes. If it were regular physics, all fighters would learn Spellcraft due to its utility in battle.


"Bending the laws of morality" is a phrase that is not so easily understood. That is, there is the IC moral judgements, not moral laws, and the OC reaction by players to IC moral issues. There are descriptors [Good] and [Evil] that have game effect, for example combat bonuses. But there are no "laws" such as [Evil] + [Evil] <> [Good].

Not really clear on that. There are moral laws in every setting; the lack of maths doesn't make them less law-like. Your analogy to physics still holds: D&D may have different laws of morality than Earth does, but there are still similarities. One hugely important difference is that in D&D it is much easier to investigate the laws of morality than it is on Earth, by means of certain magics. Whether such investigation in turn affects the subject being investigated remains an open question for you or Heisenberg.




Those are good questions but think they are best handled by story. Introducing spell mechanics into those only muddles the questions.

It's plausible. I like to play. I also like to muddle questions.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-08-12, 10:19 PM
What I wonder is if maybe the Summon Monster line transports the creature as well as leaking some energy from its plane, and it is that leaky [Good] energy that makes the spell [Good].

No. Using Summon Monster to summon a celestial badger [Good] makes the spell [Good] because a celestial badger is [Good]. That is you can think of Summon Monster I as 15 spells: Summon Celestial Dog [Good] ... Summon Fiendish Snake, Small Viper [Evil]. That's the game mechanics reason. You can fluff it anyway you want.



If so, it could be possible to add that [Good] energy to a different spell (sure, we'll take Bull's Strength) in some way, infusing the recipient with the strength of a Bull and spilling some celestial energy, granting a +4 strength bonus and no other effect other than to annoy nearby liches.

You can fluff it anyway you want.



I believe it does in fact violate the game laws of physics by means of the magic, and should indeed come as a surprise in game to those who understand physics but not magic. This is why Spellcraft is only a skill for spellcasting classes. If it were regular physics, all fighters would learn Spellcraft due to its utility in battle.

Too much wrong here to correct.



Not really clear on that. There are moral laws in every setting; the lack of maths doesn't make them less law-like.

Missed the point. "Laws of physics" (or biology, chemistry, etc) is a RL term that refers to models, mathematical or otherwise, that describe the behavior of the physical world. "Laws of physics" in game do not refer to specific models for the physical behavior of the imaginary world. "Laws of physics" in game to the commonality the fantasy world is supposed to share with RL, ie it is supposed to be physically similar.

"Laws of morality" is not a commonly used RL term so it's unclear whether you mean ethics or morality in general moral laws. But in RL, there is no model, as in the scientific use of the term, for morality. "Laws of morality" is not a commonly used game term either although many games and settings offer mechanics related to in game moral behavior. Many games and setting also have a bias as to what the moral behavior ought to be like in game. In D&D alignment and alignment descriptors are a set of descriptors with some specific functionality in game. D&D also has well know biases about moral behavior. But there are is no complete and unambigous "laws of morality" defined in the RAW. So it is hard to know what you mean by this term.



I also like to muddle questions.
No doubt.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-12, 10:34 PM
It explicitly says it channels positive/negative energy. Regardless of how that energy gets there, channeling positive/negative energy is good/evil respectively.

I refuse to have this preposterous argument with you again. Believe what you like.

Optimystik
2009-08-12, 11:49 PM
Because it shows that WotC makes mistakes.

So do the police, but we haven't abolished all law enforcement. Nice try.


Then I'd think a good Evil character's justification for being evil is simply "I'll be dead anyway. Better to have a body than just be a petitioner all my life."

Compared to eons of rigorous torture and loss of identity, not having a body has perks.

PId6
2009-08-12, 11:54 PM
So do the police, but we haven't abolished all law enforcement. Nice try.
Strawman. I make no claims to abolish the game rules or whatever you're saying here. I simply argue against the idea that since it is labeled "Good" by RAW, the spell cannot be questioned.

quick_comment
2009-08-12, 11:59 PM
Strawman. I make no claims to abolish the game rules or whatever you're saying here. I simply argue against the idea that since it is labeled "Good" by RAW, the spell cannot be questioned.

No, but we can establish the probability of them making a mistake.

We have probably what, 5000 published spells? And a single one of them has a mistaken descriptor?

PId6
2009-08-13, 12:11 AM
No, but we can establish the probability of them making a mistake.

We have probably what, 5000 published spells? And a single one of them has a mistaken descriptor?
It takes one counterexample to disprove the stipulation that "WotC is infallible." I realize that nobody made that stipulation, but people have said that it must be all pure good because it's labeled as "Good". I'm pointing out that since WotC can make mistakes, just because they call it "Good" doesn't mean it necessarily follows that it is Good, or at least, should be Good.

HamHam
2009-08-13, 12:19 AM
It takes one counterexample to disprove the stipulation that "WotC is infallible." I realize that nobody made that stipulation, but people have said that it must be all pure good because it's labeled as "Good". I'm pointing out that since WotC can make mistakes, just because they call it "Good" doesn't mean it necessarily follows that it is Good, or at least, should be Good.

Except that the example you brought up is a misprint.

StW is not.

Since the alignment system is in it's entirety a fictional construct, if it says the spell is Good then the spell is Good. There is no external referent to say otherwise. It doesn't even have to be internally consistent if it doesn't want to.

olentu
2009-08-13, 12:26 AM
Except that the example you brought up is a misprint.

StW is not.

Since the alignment system is in it's entirety a fictional construct, if it says the spell is Good then the spell is Good. There is no external referent to say otherwise. It doesn't even have to be internally consistent if it doesn't want to.

Hmm was deathwatch issued errata when I was not paying attention.

PId6
2009-08-13, 12:32 AM
It doesn't even have to be internally consistent if it doesn't want to.
You know what, you're right. I can't argue about it if it's not meant to be rational. I think I'm done here, good night.

Optimystik
2009-08-13, 12:41 AM
Strawman. I make no claims to abolish the game rules or whatever you're saying here. I simply argue against the idea that since it is labeled "Good" by RAW, the spell cannot be questioned.

With Deathwatch, we have both official word of a mistake and a mechanical reason to doubt its classification. (An [Evil] spell on a sanctified character's spell list.) StW has neither, therefore your "counterexample" fails to stand.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-13, 02:40 AM
With Deathwatch, we have both official word of a mistake and a mechanical reason to doubt its classification. (An [Evil] spell on a sanctified character's spell list.) StW has neither, therefore your "counterexample" fails to stand.

IMHO, this only comes from the fact that BoED is poorly edited. Let's face it: among wotc products, there are good and poorly edited ones.

MickJay
2009-08-13, 07:56 AM
Does StW really take away the free will? There's absolutely nothing that prevents the sanctified person to become Evil again, should they wish to do so. Lots of Good characters "fall" to Evil, why should those cleansed by StW be different?

Blackfang108
2009-08-13, 09:03 AM
Does StW really take away the free will? There's absolutely nothing that prevents the sanctified person to become Evil again, should they wish to do so. Lots of Good characters "fall" to Evil, why should those cleansed by StW be different?

They wouldn't.

MickJay
2009-08-13, 09:16 AM
Yeah, I mean, it sounds more like a very effective rehab than brainwashing...

Optimystik
2009-08-13, 09:25 AM
IMHO, this only comes from the fact that BoED is poorly edited. Let's face it: among wotc products, there are good and poorly edited ones.

Yes, there are errors; no, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.


Does StW really take away the free will? There's absolutely nothing that prevents the sanctified person to become Evil again, should they wish to do so. Lots of Good characters "fall" to Evil, why should those cleansed by StW be different?

The book specifically states they can fall to Evil again, particularly if Good characters alienate the sanctified creature by remaining distrustful and unwelcoming. But generally some external influence is required, because the target's desire to reform will be real.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-13, 10:01 AM
Yes, there are errors; no, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.


I wasn't referring to errors, but more to misconcepts. See the poison = evil thing. And the ravage = poison but good thing.

Don't get me wrong, ravages can be a good idea (baby). But misconceptions are really annoying (bathwater).

Designers should just take a look on the core book before write things. Poison = Disonhorable----> ok. Poison = Evil ---> crap

Cyclocone
2009-08-13, 10:16 AM
What can change the nature of a man?
Certainly, a single spell shoulden't be able to!

Regardless of how much BoED logic you use to try and justify StW, it can't change the fact that it's still mechanicly just a [Good] Mind Rape.
It doesn't matter how much Great Justice you add, when the end result is still intrinsically "lol, I curbstomp his alignment. Everyone, ready an action to high-five".

The alignments of NPC is the DMs to decide, and if players want to redeem someone, they should have to work for it. Good is supposed to be the Longer Road, and being able to take a shortcut with StW cheapens the monumental achievement that redemption should rightfully be.

AstralFire
2009-08-13, 10:18 AM
What can change the nature of a man?
Certainly, a single spell shoulden't be able to!

Regardless of how much BoED logic you use to try and justify StW, it can't change the fact that it's still mechanicly just a [Good] Mind Rape.
It doesn't matter how much Great Justice you add, when the end result is still intrinsically "lol, I curbstomp his alignment. Everyone, ready an action to high-five".

The alignments of NPC is the DMs to decide, and if players want to redeem someone, they should have to work for it. Good is supposed to be the Longer Road, and being able to take a shortcut with StW cheapens the monumental achievement that redemption should rightfully be.

It takes a year in which nothing can be disturbed and the caster loses an entire level. Even if the spell fails or gets disrupted. 'Easy road'?

So I say again, is it wrong if someone uses a really high Diplomacy over and over again to achieve the same result? I mean, hell, Diplomancy isn't hard. Even without cheesing it up and a decent score, you can just go back once a day and try again until they are your friend!

Frankly, Sanctify the Wicked is probably the hardest of all roads available to a 17th to 20th level character.

Cyclocone
2009-08-13, 10:26 AM
It takes a year in which nothing can be disturbed and the caster loses an entire level. Even if the spell fails or gets disrupted. 'Easy road'?

So I say again, is it wrong if someone uses a really high Diplomacy over and over again to achieve the same result? I mean, hell, Diplomancy isn't hard. Even without cheesing it up and a decent score, you can just go back once a day and try again until they are your friend!

Frankly, Sanctify the Wicked is probably the hardest of all roads available to a 17th to 20th level character.

I'm sure Pelor will sponsor a thoughtbottle and a genesis demiplane if you help "spread the gospel".
Being able to change someones allignment should not be possible that way.

About Diplomancy, I think it is considered cheese for a reason.

Optimystik
2009-08-13, 10:54 AM
I'm sure Pelor will sponsor a thoughtbottle and a genesis demiplane if you help "spread the gospel".
Being able to change someones allignment should not be possible that way.

You're not doing it for Pelor and any nebulous rewards he may provide. You're doing it to save the creature's soul.

Keep in mind that during the year, the caster (minus his highest level) is likely to be set upon by all manner of horrors. The Fiends certainly wouldn't want you tearing a soul from their grasp, and groups the target belonged to like the Flayer Sovereignity or priests of Tiamat won't be likely to leave you alone either. Since you have to be above 11th level to cast this, you will be extremely easy to find. And if the gem is shattered at any point before the spell is complete, even on the last day, the bad guy pops out with his body reconstituted and a large chip on his shoulder. So if you think this spell is "easy," you are just being unimaginative.

hamishspence
2009-08-13, 11:53 AM
IMHO, this only comes from the fact that BoED is poorly edited. Let's face it: among wotc products, there are good and poorly edited ones.

Its not just BoED. Miniatures Handbook has it on the "Must Be Good aligned" healer class spell list, as well.

on curing spells, BoED explicitly states "Not inherently good, since they can be performed in the interests of evil"

While positive energy is "closely linked to holy power" as BoED puts it, neither positive nor negative energy is inherently good or evil in itself- casting energy drain or harm is not automatically an evil act.

Kylarra
2009-08-13, 12:02 PM
I'm sure Pelor will sponsor a thoughtbottle and a genesis demiplane if you help "spread the gospel".
Being able to change someones allignment should not be possible that way.
I'm pretty sure genesis demiplanes and thoughtbottles are considered cheese for a reason. :smallamused:




About Diplomancy, I think it is considered cheese for a reason.

hamishspence
2009-08-13, 12:08 PM
Regardless of how much BoED logic you use to try and justify StW, it can't change the fact that it's still mechanicly just a [Good] Mind Rape.


The two have very little in common. One is a mind-affecting spell, one not. One can be used to edit the target's memories, the other can't. One is Sanctified, the other is not Corrupt (opposite type).

Generally, the differences are greater than the similarities.

Calling it a Good version of the Mind Seed psionic power would be closer, but even then, it only gives the target creature your alignment, not your personality.