I like alignment

[Knaight]

Not true, as you are normally only able to convince people who are already open to your point of view. If someone doesn't want to be convinced, then you aren't going to convince them, even after dropping a 100 ton truth hammer down on their head.

People aren't going to change opinions drastically over the course of one conversation, provided that said opinions are critically important to them. That doesn't mean that they can't change opinions drastically at all, as people do this all the time.

In any case, what makes the example brainwashing is the control being exerted. This isn't the marketplace of ideas, this is shoving propaganda at a prisoner with no contact with the outside world.

[Shadowknight12]

People aren't going to change opinions drastically over the course of one conversation, provided that said opinions are critically important to them. That doesn't mean that they can't change opinions drastically at all, as people do this all the time.

In any case, what makes the example brainwashing is the control being exerted. This isn't the marketplace of ideas, this is shoving propaganda at a prisoner with no contact with the outside world.

There's also the little detail about how some people will not change their minds on some of their opinions unless they are tortured or their wills are worn down and forced to do so against their will. Someone who is intent on being evil and would normally not change their mind no matter how many normal conversations you had with them is being brainwashed by this method into accepting something they would ordinarily never accept. This is a key distinction. If a person is the slightest bit open to redemption, then yeah, you don't need brainwashing. You wouldn't need control or the will saves either, because progress could be made in time. The fact that this can affect people who would be evil to their dying breath means this remains firmly within brainwashing territory.

[Talakeal]

So, since the last character to be proposed as an arguing point was rather extreme, what about someone who sincerely tries to help people, is a completely devoted friend/lover, and tolerant of others, but will cheerfully torture someone, healing them as needed to prevent death, if they badly harm someone she loves?

Or someone who, if she doesn't want to die of starvation, must kill a human or something similar at least once a month or so, depending on how long they would have had left to live before she did so, but is otherwise actively good?

Very evil. Torture for any reason is extremely evil, and there is little good that can ever come from it, especially in the situation you give where the damage is done and she is doing it cheerfully.

Killing to survive is certainly not good, and as a short term thing I could see a neutral, or possibly doing it out of desperation, but every month? If done with the remorse and the absolute minimum of pain and waste I could see it as a very dark neutral instead of actual evil, but certainly nowhere near good.

Keep in mind there are only three alignments. Just because a character could have WORSE motivation for their evil actions does not mean that evil actions with a slightly good motivation aren't still evil.

[cellingwood]

The Alignment System is like training wheels for a bike; it helps you learn the basics and keeps you from screwing up too bad, but it also keeps you from reaching your full potential.

[Callista]

Of course, D&D's diplomacy mechanic is clunky, and not calibrated to deal with these fine distinctions, so it may be best to not derive too much from the mechanics in terms of descriptive power.

Think you hit the nail on the head there. After all, very few DMs will let you make a single Diplomacy check to turn the raging enemy barbarian intent on decapitating you into your totally devoted fanboy who'd charge an ancient dragon if you told him to; but mechanically, that's possible too.

The use of Diplomacy at all presumes that the person you're talking to is willing to listen. As both a player and a DM I've encountered situations where Diplomacy gets attempted and the reply is, "No, this guy is just not going to listen to you. You can't enter into negotiations because he refuses to negotiate." While that should be used very sparingly, because it takes some control away from the player, it is entirely reasonable and patches up some of the problems with Diplomacy. If your audience doesn't want to listen, then you can't convince him. If your prisoner just glares at you when you try to explain that there's hope for redemption, you can't make the Diplomacy check in the first place because the skill simply isn't applicable if the person you're talking to doesn't want to negotiate.

I'm aware that this would be a houserule, but Diplomacy in general is a weak mechanic that can be used to convince NPCs of entirely unrealistic things, whereas NPCs can't use the same mechanics to convince PCs. If things were even, that Evil-aligned prisoner would be turning the tables on his captors, corrupting them to his side. But he doesn't, because the DM isn't enough of an ass to railroad the players into an alignment change that way.

So as far as I'm concerned, converting someone through Diplomacy really shouldn't be possible unless that person were at the very least willing to listen--perhaps impressed by his captors' heroism, the way they treat him as their enemy and their prisoner, or perhaps having simply befriended them. And that part would be role-playing, both on the part of the DM determining whether the NPC would be open to reason, and on the part of the PCs interacting with that character in a way that either does or doesn't convince him that they might have something worth listening to.

[Shadowknight12]

So as far as I'm concerned, converting someone through Diplomacy really shouldn't be possible unless that person were at the very least willing to listen--perhaps impressed by his captors' heroism, the way they treat him as their enemy and their prisoner, or perhaps having simply befriended them. And that part would be role-playing, both on the part of the DM determining whether the NPC would be open to reason, and on the part of the PCs interacting with that character in a way that either does or doesn't convince him that they might have something worth listening to.

Are you aware that the way BoED presents it is not as a new use of the Diplomacy skill but as a completely new mechanic? This is not some Diplomancy shenanigans. This is the game coming up with a new mechanic and telling you what you roll in order to accomplish it. What would you have said if it had been a Charisma check instead of a Diplomacy roll? After all, what use of the Diplomacy skill allows for consecutive Will saves?

No, don't try to whitewash what BoED was doing and blame it on something we all know it's broken. The writers of BoED knew exactly what they were doing and picked Diplomacy because a Charisma check wouldn't roll high enough, so they needed an appropriate social skill.

EDIT: Also, for the record, that's not true. BoED specifically calls out this method as working on unwilling targets. Which are not, as you put it, "willing to listen" in the slightest. If that's the way you want to handle it, fine, that's a very good houserule and probably the only way to use it without it looking like blatant brainwashing. But please, don't try to imply that that's what the designers wrote because it's simply untrue.

[Lady Serpentine]

Very evil. Torture for any reason is extremely evil, and there is little good that can ever come from it, especially in the situation you give where the damage is done and she is doing it cheerfully.

Killing to survive is certainly not good, and as a short term thing I could see a neutral, or possibly doing it out of desperation, but every month? If done with the remorse and the absolute minimum of pain and waste I could see it as a very dark neutral instead of actual evil, but certainly nowhere near good.

Keep in mind there are only three alignments. Just because a character could have WORSE motivation for their evil actions does not mean that evil actions with a slightly good motivation aren't still evil.

She's definitely somewhere at the very least on the border of neutral and evil, yes. I'm not sure if I agree on the particular shade - it's not exactly something that comes up too often, after all, and she does scale what she does to how badly they were harmed, if it was done intentionally, etc. - but I certainly won't dispute the underlying point.

As for the second one, I'd say that having to feed off of the time that they'd have had to live or die herself would tend to make her fairly desperate. But yeah, again, it's going to be hard to make a case for her being anything but dark neutral at best (and the actual character, due to other personality traits, is likely NE or LE anyway, depending on whether things stemming from insanity count, but that's a separate issue).

Related to the same character, how does one handle the alignment of someone with a split personality? Especially since in her case the second personality isn't actually hers, but rather a spirit she bound to herself to prevent it doing more damage than it would if her personality weren't tempering it?

Edit:

I find it odd that the discussions of characters that I/others have an emotional investment in and specific conception of via having made and played them is overall more civil than the discussion of purely mechanical bits...

[hamishspence]

Someone who is intent on being evil and would normally not change their mind no matter how many normal conversations you had with them is being brainwashed by this method into accepting something they would ordinarily never accept.

Anything can look like brainwashing if you judge it harshly enough.

A criminal attending a compulsary rehabilitation program is being brainwashed into rejecting criminal behaviour.
An addict being made to attend rehab is being brainwashed into overcoming their addiction.
A child raised by their parents is being brainwashed into accepting the conventions of society.

Perhaps it's not as black-and-white as you make it sound?

[Amphetryon]

Anything can look like brainwashing if you judge it harshly enough.

A criminal attending a compulsary rehabilitation program is being brainwashed into rejecting criminal behaviour.
An addict being made to attend rehab is being brainwashed into overcoming their addiction.
A child raised by their parents is being brainwashed into accepting the conventions of society.

Perhaps it's not as black-and-white as you make it sound?

That first one reads very much like the moral of A Clockwork Orange, I'd say, and was Burgess' point.

[JadePhoenix]

That first one reads very much like the moral of A Clockwork Orange, I'd say, and was Burgess' point.

So you are one of those people who misunderstood the book, after all.

[Amphetryon]

So you are one of those people who misunderstood the book, after all.

Nice personal dig.
I'd love to see proof of that, especially given the later-reprinted final chapter which was originally truncated from the publication.

[Taelas]

If "torture cannot be anything but an evil act" and the masochism they refer to is roughly equivalent to "character chooses to torture themselves"- maybe less ridiculous?

It is not torture.

Hey, wait a minute, it's not "imprisonment and brainwashing". The description of how to convert someone specifically states that you have to treat them kindly, talk to them, show them respect. Diplomacy is the skill you use when you are trying to communicate in a friendly manner with someone, without attempt to deceive. If you were brainwashing them or tricking them, you'd be using the Intimidate and/or Bluff skill, not Diplomacy. And I'm pretty sure that casting something like Crushing Despair or Mind Fog on them would not qualify as treating someone kindly even in the remotest sense. You'd put their attitude straight back to Hostile with something like that.

As far as chaos and mental freedom, even LG people will find brainwashing and most forms of mind control abhorrent. Any Good-aligned person will. You simply can't have Good without free choice, because if you aren't free to make a choice, your actions can't be aligned one way or another at all. If you want to convert someone, you can't do it by force--a forced conversion is not true faith.

The chaotics may be more viscerally horrified by it than anyone else, but even the most Lawful of Lawful Good characters will oppose brainwashing. Once you start to accept the use of mind control (other than simple tricks like Command or Hold Person), you're getting into LN and eventually LE territory.

How on earth do you arrive at this conclusion?

This is utterly, utterly wrong. Many Good people will object to mind control on the basis that it is far too easy to commit Evil with them, but the freedom aspect is Chaotic rather than Lawful.

'Brainwashing' is simply learned behavior taken to 11. If you touch a stove while it's on and you burn your hand, you have learned not to touch the stove while it's on. Laws do much the same. "This sort of behavior is illegal, therefore you will get punished for doing it." Proper brainwashing does it in spite of your own beliefs, of course, and the learned response is generally not strong enough that you cannot simply ignore it, but it is the same concept.

In short, as long as it doesn't clash with their other beliefs, a Lawful person has no issues with brainwashing. Look at Mechanus--the modrons are an entire race of carbon copies. If that isn't brainwashing taken to its most extreme, I don't know what is.

You may associate 'freedom' with 'good' because that is what western society usually does, but that has no impact on how it is in D&D.

[Water_Bear]

I have to agree with Szar_Lakol; the Diplomacy - Redemption trick is not really brainwashing in the traditional sense, although you might be able to make a case that it relies on brainwash-y tactics like Love-Bombing and Stockholm Syndrome.

Remember, it says that "the captors must treat the prisoner with exceptional care and respect - far better than the prison knows [they] would treat the characters if the situation were reversed" and that "the captors must display a willingness to forgive the evil the prisoner has done." These are prerequisites that have to be met even before the first Diplomacy check.

It is a little troubling that there is no way to resist the process except by blind luck (Diplomacy is trivially easy to max out, and Will saves suffer without Magic Items and Buffs) or by escaping, but it goes back to the idea that Evil is a disease. On some level, non-Fiend villains want to be redeemed and the process just breaks through their initial resistance to change.

Of course in one of my games, the PCs would have a tough time of it. Sure, some random mook might sit there and get preached at, but powerful villains have layers of tricks and defenses. DC 70 Bluff checks using Alchemical Teeth with Potions of Glibness to display a false alignment, casting Misdirection using Still + Silent or the Conceal Spellcasting Skill Trick, hiding a Ring of Mind Shielding with Permanent Invisibility cast on it, Gemjump, etc. Never make it too easy on your players, especially where major villains are concerned.

[Morithias]

Never thought of the redemption thing as brainwashing, but that has me thinking...I wonder if a DM would allow evil characters to do the same thing...using diplomacy or intimidate checks to break a good character's mind and turn them evil...

Hmm...this might belong in homebrew.

[Shadowknight12]

Anything can look like brainwashing if you judge it harshly enough.

A criminal attending a compulsary rehabilitation program is being brainwashed into rejecting criminal behaviour.
An addict being made to attend rehab is being brainwashed into overcoming their addiction.
A child raised by their parents is being brainwashed into accepting the conventions of society.

Perhaps it's not as black-and-white as you make it sound?

The key difference between all that and actual brainwashing (and bear in mind that yes, any of the situations you have cited can turn into brainwashing when certain conditions are met) is the fact that the person remains free to reject what they are being taught. After all, if a child being raised by law-abiding parents was being brainwashed, we'd never have teenagers breaking the law. And if addicts and criminals were being brainwashed, we'd never have repeated offences. In fact, some addicts can refuse rehab altogether (one Amy Winehouse once made a formal dissertation on the subject).

When it comes to BoED, the character does not have the freedom to reject what they're being taught, and after sufficiently breaking down the target's will, the target changes alignment. There is, at no point, any sort of choice on the target's behalf about whether to accept this "redemption" or not. There isn't even a choice for the target to Bluff its captor and fool them into believing that they are being redeemed while still retaining their evil alignment. That's what makes it brainwashing, the fact that it removes the target's choice. The target fails enough saves and changes alignment, just as if a cavalcade of Mindrape spells had been cast on it.

[hamishspence]

As far as chaos and mental freedom, even LG people will find brainwashing and most forms of mind control abhorrent. Any Good-aligned person will. You simply can't have Good without free choice, because if you aren't free to make a choice, your actions can't be aligned one way or another at all. If you want to convert someone, you can't do it by force--a forced conversion is not true faith.

The chaotics may be more viscerally horrified by it than anyone else, but even the most Lawful of Lawful Good characters will oppose brainwashing. Once you start to accept the use of mind control (other than simple tricks like Command or Hold Person), you're getting into LN and eventually LE territory.

How on earth do you arrive at this conclusion?

This is utterly, utterly wrong. Many Good people will object to mind control on the basis that it is far too easy to commit Evil with them, but the freedom aspect is Chaotic rather than Lawful.

You may associate 'freedom' with 'good' because that is what western society usually does, but that has no impact on how it is in D&D.

Now- what do the books have to say on this?
BoED page 8

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

BoED page 10

good characters exercise caution in the use of compulsion magic to force others' behaviour. Spells such as dominate person, geas, and suggestion allow a caster to control another person, robbing that person of free will. This may not be an inherently evil act, but it carries a tremendous ethical responsibility. Forcing anyone to commit an evil act, of course, is evil. Furthermore, a creature under compulsion should be treated the same as a helpless prisoner, since that creature no longer poses a threat, at least for the duration of the spell. Once an enemy is dominated, for example, he should not be killed, but shown mercy and treated the same as a prisoner who had willingly surrendered. (The same holds true for charmed and compelled creatures).

BoED page 12

Neutral Good
...
They support law when it promotes good but not law for its own sake. Similarly, they like the idea of personal freedom but are not sure everyone should have it: too much freedom gives evildoers too much room to prosper.

Chaotic Good
Chaotic good characters are strong-willed individuals who tolerate no oppression, even in the name of the common good.
...
While promoting a legal system that places few restrictions on individual freedom, chaotic good individuals look to other forces- religion, philosophy, or community, for example, to encourage good behaviour and punish evil behaviour.

BoED page 11

Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil.

Cityscape page 148

The institution of slavery should always be regarded as an evil by any good-aligned characters in a campaign.

Complete Arcane page 167:

Enchanters have few predilections in alignment, though their belief that individual will is the strongest force in the multiverse slants them slightly toward chaos over law.

Evil enchanters believe that those who lack the ability to overcome or resist the power of the mind deserve to be servants to that power, existing only to be commanded by those with the ability to do so.

Good enchanters adopt the viewpoint that while bending another being to one's will is rarely right, it is preferable to killing. A good enchanter deprives an enemy of his volition only as long as he needs to, and when such is warranted, takes pains to return the subject to his normal state in such a way as to avoid a traitor's punishment at the hands of his people.

What conclusions do you guys think can be drawn from these?