I like alignment

[Math_Mage]

I ask you a question. Do you have to actually work to make everything make sense? Do you have to make a (perhaps subconscious) effort to make all the diverse material fit together? Because it's possible that you have done so automatically and are incapable of seeing what we're talking about. If I were to quote you several inconsistencies in books and you were to write several paragraphs on how everything fits together if you jump through logical and philosophical hoops, would that actually make a difference? It's highly possible that the vision of the alignment system that you have developed is so ingrained into you that nothing anyone can bring up can alter it because you have had time to brute-force everything to fit together and you're not even aware of that.

If that's the case, then it's useless to debate anything with you on a fundamental basis, because you are utterly impervious to anything anyone else can say. If I say "Well, BoVD is inconsistent with this and BoED contradicts that" and you go "no, because if you follow this interpretation, it all makes sense!" it's entirely dependant on whether we want to follow your interpretation or not. If we don't, then those inconsistencies don't disappear but you still can't see them, so we end up going nowhere.

Many things look strange before you put effort into understanding them. And putting effort into understanding something doesn't mean you lose the ability to see how other people could think it's inconsistent. I don't necessarily agree with hamishspence that it's all consistent, but your argument here is quite strange (not to mention just a little rude).

[hamishspence]

I ask you a question. Do you have to actually work to make everything make sense? Do you have to make a (perhaps subconscious) effort to make all the diverse material fit together?

As far as I recall, no. Can't think of any major "logical and philosophical hoops" that had to be jumped through.

Now if there was an example of something where one book stated "this act is always evil" and other stated "this act is always good" that would be the classic example of a major, egregious inconsistency.

I could certainly agree with the notion that there are minor inconsistencies - and probably more than a few. It's the major inconsistencies I don't recall seeing any of.

[Water_Bear]

The fact is that, in most cases, the various source-books are fairly consistent about what is Good and what is Evil, and to a lesser extent about Law and Chaos.

There are issues where I would argue against D&D 3.5's rulings on what is and isn't moral, because I personally disagree with them*, but they are fairly clear internally. Even the Poison/Ravage thing makes a certain kind of sense if you read the description of what Ravages are; they are "...magical traumas which turn the moral corruption of evil into physical corruption which wracks their bodies."

Again, it is very easy to go through the wealth of tips and rulings written about alignment and pick apart bits here and there where it doesn't fit perfectly. But Alignment is a system which cannot exist without interpretation; it is a role playing tool. Of course it won't work if you want to treat it like a set of absolute rules, because it is something which requires DM and player adjudication by design.

*The BoVD displays a kind of depressing misunderstanding of BDSM and other fetishes which is common in popular culture, especially fantasy literature. I tend to ignore it in my games so as not to offend my players, but the official word is that Kink = Evil. Luckily it doesn't come up often.

[Math_Mage]

Couple of orphaned posts being rescued here.

Anyway, perhaps it would indeed help to pick out a particular inconsistency. I mean, it's more productive than going back and forth where hamishspence says "I don't see any particular inconsistency" and you say "I don't believe you can't see any particular inconsistency."

[hamishspence]

*The BoVD displays a kind of depressing misunderstanding of BDSM and other fetishes which is common in popular culture, especially fantasy literature. I tend to ignore it in my games so as not to offend my players, but the official word is that Kink = Evil. Luckily it doesn't come up often.

I tend to the view that the BoVD examples represent the most extreme end- a long way from "safe, sane and consensual".

[Shadowknight12]

Many things look strange before you put effort into understanding them. And putting effort into understanding something doesn't mean you lose the ability to see how other people could think it's inconsistent. I don't necessarily agree with hamishspence that it's all consistent, but your argument here is quite strange (not to mention just a little rude).

I do not intend to be rude, I am merely stating that someone can find things so ingrained to them that they smooth over the inconsistencies naturally, like I do when it comes to biology and chemistry. Not everything is consistent (for example, there is a gaping flaw in the main theory of how biology works, which is that every cell comes from another cell, yet everyone ignores the fact that either life has never had a beginning or that theory is false (because the first cell must have come from something that was not a cell)). It's not something inherently bad or wrong, it's a part of human nature. We must merely be aware of it.

Also, yes, putting effort into understanding something means that we construct our own interpretation of how that something works. The more effort we pour into it, the more resilient we are to changing it. Again, nothing wrong with that, it's human nature. We just have to be aware of when we've poured so much effort into understanding that we are going to automatically rebuke every possible criticism to our viewpoints, to avoid fruitless debates.

As far as I recall, no. Can't think of any major "logical and philosophical hoops" that had to be jumped through.

Now if there was an example of something where one book stated "this act is always evil" and other stated "this act is always good" that would be the classic example of a major, egregious inconsistency.

I could certainly agree with the notion that there are minor inconsistencies - and probably more than a few. It's the major inconsistencies I don't recall seeing any of.

No, it's the things you call "minor" inconsistencies. They are minor to you, because you have managed to rationalise them within your view of the alignment system. They are not minor to a lot of people.

Also, there's a matter of personal taste. I dislike how poison use is evil yet good defines itself as avoiding undue suffering (and there's nothing that avoids undue suffering like a quick-acting poison or a sleeping poison). I also dislike that the system is biased towards evil simply because people want cheap drama (see: Ravenloft did it first, and it was the one thing I always hated about Ravenloft, how if you were pristine and pure and good, everything was stacked against you (and you were likely gonna lose, because all the resources you could use to succeed pinged as evil), and if you were even slightly ungood, you were doomed to become a Dark Lord eventually, no middle ground). I also dislike how it's all written from one specific moral perspective (some people say you can't blame the writers from writing things from their own moral perspective, I say you can, since they are supposed to write things to integrate as wide a system of beliefs as possible).

In the end, pretending the alignment system is perfect and that it allows for every variety of playstyle is simply untrue. The alignment system, taken strictly as written, is full of inconsistencies (even if they're only 'minor' for some people) and supports only a few very narrow playstyles.

[hamishspence]

I dislike how poison use is evil yet good defines itself as avoiding undue suffering (and there's nothing that avoids undue suffering like a quick-acting poison or a sleeping poison).

and sleeping poisons are specifically called out as Not Evil in the very same source.

No, it's the things you call "minor" inconsistencies. They are minor to you, because you have managed to rationalise them within your view of the alignment system. They are not minor to a lot of people.

For me, probably the biggest alignment inconsistency issue, is over how compulsory "being merciful" is for Lawful Good aligned characters.

Manual of the Places calls out Celestia (the lawful aligned and good aligned plane) as the plane of "justice and mercy"

BoED goes out of its way to suggest that good characters must show mercy if they wish to stay Good- becoming "merciless" is a trap that they "must not succumb to".

But PHB 3.0 (reprinted in PHB 3.5, before BoED came out) states of Lawful Good "Alhandra, a paladin who smites evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is Lawful Good".

A problem. Perhaps not reaching "major problem" status for me, but I can understand why others would think it is.

The alignment system, taken strictly as written, is full of inconsistencies (even if they're only 'minor' for some people) and supports only a few very narrow playstyles.

Which are the "few very narrow play styles" that are supported?

[JadePhoenix]

My interest in D&D is waning. But I'll always be here, in the 3.5 section, arguing heatedly.

I'm just gonna leave this here.
I think everyone has the right to not like 3.5 or whatever, but if you don't like it, why do you have to spend your time bashing it every 5 seconds?

[Water_Bear]

With regards to the mercy thing, I think that it is a case of accidental equivocation. When you talk about destroying Evil mercilessly it means completely and without hesitation. When you talk about giving mercy to defeated enemies, it means being willing to accept genuine surrenders and give everyone a chance at redemption. The context changes the meaning of the word, and thus how we read it.

for example, there is a gaping flaw in the main theory of how biology works, which is that every cell comes from another cell, yet everyone ignores the fact that either life has never had a beginning or that theory is false (because the first cell must have come from something that was not a cell)

Also; not even slightly true. "Life" is just series of self-assembling molecular machines, and even something as simple as RNA can fulfill most of the criteria of biological life. Life did not originate as cells, but rather cells emerged as the dominant unit of life as RNA/DNA organisms became increasingly complex over time.

Abiogenesis is the most reasonable explanation for the origin of life on earth, and your inability to understand it does not in any way reflect on the "consistency" of evolutionary biology.

I don't mean to be rude, but this kind of reasoning is exactly what Creationists and other Anti-Science political groups use to try and dismiss legitimate scientific theories. It is very important that people understand what science is and what current theory states about our world.

[Shadowknight12]

and sleeping poisons are specifically called out as Not Evil in the very same source.

Fine, my mistake. But let's look at the other poisons. Take a very powerful poison, like Black Lotus. It does not say in any source that it produces intense pain or any kind of suffering. Now let's assume it's used on a creature who has such poor Constitution that they die immediately (and presumably, painlessly). Isn't that far better than setting them on fire until they die, or stabbing them repeatedly with a sword?

Also, look at Ravages in BoED. They're supernatural poisons specifically meant to be used against evil people. Since they would presumably inflict the same pain (or would be equally painless) as a regular poison, then clearly the difference is not being merciful. The only other reason why Ravages are okay and poisons are not is that poisons are indiscriminate, while Ravages only damage Evil. So does that mean that paladins can poison a village's water supply with a Ravage in order to cull the evil from it? And if the paladin can poison his sword with a Ravage to kill someone they know it's evil, why can't they just restrict themselves to use poison on creatures they have specifically identified as Evil with their Detect Evil? Why do we need good-aligned poisons?

For me, probably the biggest alignment inconsistency issue, is over how compulsory "being merciful" is for Lawful Good aligned characters.

Manual of the Places calls out Celestia (the lawful aligned and good aligned plane) as the plane of "justice and mercy"

BoED goes out of its way to suggest that good characters must show mercy if they wish to stay Good- becoming "merciless" is a trap that they "must not succumb to".

But PHB 3.0 (reprinted in PHB 3.5, before BoED came out) states of Lawful Good "Alhandra, a paladin who smites evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is Lawful Good".

A problem. Perhaps not reaching "major problem" status for me, but I can understand why others would think it is.

Good, you've identified one of the main problems with the alignment system as written. The fact that most adventures are specifically written assuming the players will kill everything inside (by definition, not showing mercy) supports that assertion. D&D is a game steeped in the "killing things and taking their stuff" gameplay mechanic. That mechanic precludes mercy.

There's also the very concept of the paladin. The paladin is a warrior. It has been trained, mainly, to kill things. It may have a few divine abilities not directly related to killing or staying alive (like Lay on Hands or Remove Disease, arguably), but that doesn't mean that the paladin is not, first and foremost, a killing machine. And yet he is expected to be merciful, in direct defiance of his own purpose. He has an ability called Smite Evil, which means that he is expected to deal damage to evil foes. They could've given him an ability called "Hold Evil" or "Stun Evil" or something like that, but they didn't. Its iconic ability is the ability to deal extra damage with an attack.

Paladins do not work when one adheres strictly to what's been written about alignment. There is a strong disconnect between the lofty ideals of alignment and the actual reality of gameplay, and the player is the one that gets trapped in a lose/lose situation unless the DM is, ironically, merciful and avoids any thorny issues.

Which are the "few very narrow play styles" that are supported?

Well, clearly, everything must be morally black or white. There is no such thing as shades of gray, no room for nuance and no cosmological balance. The forces of good are always about to be wiped out (as is the natural conclusion of the alignment system favouring evil) and everything is hopeless because evil is so prevalent and so easy to fall prey to. It's the typical "points of light" setting, which some people say had not seen before 4e but I insisted it has been around forever. It's the stape of WW's World of Darkness and the 3e alignment system has supported that playstyle as well in everything but name.

Look at what Ravenloft had to do to allow for intrigue. It had to make Detect Alignment spells automatically fail (and IIRC, spells that behaved differently according to alignment). That is not a playstyle supported by the alignment system as is.

In fact, there is no room for moral variance in a lot of species without houseruling. You cannot have redeemed evil creatures without BoED's specific spell for it, and you cannot have a great number of benevolent red dragons because the MM says they're always evil.

The playstyles that a strict reading of the alignment system supports are either "this thing is evil so let's kill it because we're good and that's that" or "this thing is evil but we can't kill it so let's find a way to stop it in a different way or else the paladin falls, also, let's be very careful with every action we engage in or we'll turn evil." I call the first one "Consequence-Free Hack'n'Slash" and the second one "Morality Minefield."

Also; not even slightly true. "Life" is just series of self-assembling molecular machines, and even something as simple as RNA can fulfill most of the criteria of biological life. Life did not originate as cells, but rather cells emerged as the dominant unit of life as RNA/DNA organisms became increasingly complex over time.

Abiogenesis is the most reasonable explanation for the origin of life on earth, and your inability to understand it does not in any way reflect on the "consistency" of evolutionary biology.

I don't mean to be rude, but this kind of reasoning is exactly what Creationists and other Anti-Science political groups use to try and dismiss legitimate scientific theories. It is very important that people understand what science is and what current theory states about our world.

I come from a third-world country, and my university taught me Biogenesis as the main dominant theory in biology when it gave me a biochemist degree. No, it was not a religious university. So please, do try to realise that sometimes other scientists in other places have been formed differently.

[hamishspence]

Also, look at Ravages in BoED. They're supernatural poisons specifically meant to be used against evil people. Since they would presumably inflict the same pain (or would be equally painless) as a regular poison, then clearly the difference is not being merciful.

Why "presumably"?

And if the paladin can poison his sword with a Ravage to kill someone they know it's evil, why can't they just restrict themselves to use poison on creatures they have specifically identified as Evil with their Detect Evil? Why do we need good-aligned poisons?

No idea. It must be noted that most of the Ravages can't kill people on their own since they don't do CON damage- in this context they may be "a non-evil way of paralysing enemies when you don't have access to other means".

Well, clearly, everything must be morally black or white. There is no such thing as shades of gray, no room for nuance and no cosmological balance.

To quote BoVD "Even with the most black and white approach to morality, shades of grey will exist".

In fact, there is no room for moral variance in a lot of species without houseruling. You cannot have redeemed evil creatures without BoED's specific spell for it, and you cannot have a great number of benevolent red dragons because the MM says they're always evil.

BoED has two means- that spell, and the Diplomacy rules. The MM does say that Always X creatures that change their alignment are at most "rare exceptions"- true.
EDIT: Also, the DMG gives an evil character redeeming themselves (at least from Evil to "Neutral but well on the way to good") as one of its Changing Alignment examples.

The playstyles that a strict reading of the alignment system supports are either "this thing is evil so let's kill it because we're good and that's that" or "this thing is evil but we can't kill it so let's find a way to stop it in a different way or else the paladin falls, also, let's be very careful with every action we engage in or we'll turn evil." I call the first one "Consequence-Free Hack'n'Slash" and the second one "Morality Minefield."

One can strike a balance, as per many of Callista's posts- using violence when it is called for, keeping an eye open for non-violent resolutions to problems, and so forth- it does not have to fall into either of those extremes.

[Callista]

I tend to the view that the BoVD examples represent the most extreme end- a long way from "safe, sane and consensual".

Yeah, I agree there. D&D doesn't particularly go into adult topics very much (which I'm grateful for; I get embarrassed enough when I have to role-play flirting with someone I'm not attracted to IRL). I'm pretty sure that what the BoVD refers to isn't just the ordinary sort of thing that might happen between a loving but kinky couple. It's more like the sort of thing that happens when a serial killer finally tracks down his victim and has his way with them. If it weren't, it wouldn't fit into the general definition of Evil as wanting to harm others, damage life, etc.

There's nothing that particularly says it can't be harmless kinkiness that's referred to in the BoVD, but when there are two potential interpretations, one consistent with the PHB and the other not, I tend to go with the one that's consistent.

I do have one issue with the BoVD--the Deformity feats--but even they seem to have a heavy evil tinge to them even though being particularly ugly or unhealthy isn't evil in and of itself. The way they tend to mimic ill health, injury, and death, and can be seen as symbolically rejecting life in favor of death. I don't think that they should have the evil-only prerequisite, but they are awfully dark.

[Shadowknight12]

Why "presumably"?

Because there are no specific rules detailing if they are different from ordinary poisons in that regard, so yes, presumably, we assume they work like ordinary poisons unless otherwise noted.

No idea. It must be noted that most of the Ravages can't kill people on their own since they don't do CON damage- in this context they may be "a non-evil way of paralysing enemies when you don't have access to other means".

Yet there are plenty of ordinary poisons who do just that. Why not tell paladins that it's okay to use non-lethal poisons? Note, also, that paladins can't use sleeping poison either.

See, that's the sort of thing that makes me lose my respect for whoever wrote those alignment books. Instead of saying "Well, guys, we didn't think it through, so here we have optional rules that you guys can use to relax the paladin code" or something to that effect, we have an endless stream of people claiming everything is fine and works perfectly while they continue to build upon an already shaky and unstable construction.

To quote BoVD "Even with the most black and white approach to morality, shades of grey will exist".

And then it actively punishes players for trying to do just that. Take a character who uses demons or other evil things to fight evil. They are clearly evil themselves, yet a paladin falls for associating with them in order to stop an Elder Evil or something of the sort. That's not supporting shades of gray.

BoED has two means- that spell, and the Diplomacy rules. The MM does say that Always X creatures that change their alignment are at most "rare exceptions"- true.

Yes, and the Diplomacy method takes a significantly longer time than the spell and is also on an individual basis (meaning, it's infeasible to have an entire population of good-aligned Always Evil creatures). It's also eerily similar to brainwashing, since the target literally cannot resist. If the player succeeds on the roll enough times, the target turns good. Yet Mindraping someone into being LG is evil why?

One can strike a balance, as per many of Callista's posts- using violence when it is called for, keeping an eye open for non-violent resolutions to problems, and so forth- it does not have to fall into either of those extremes.

Yes, but the problem is that it all depends on how you interpret the alignment system. I could make a paladin fall every single time it kills a foe because they are committing an evil act (they are causing undue suffering and ending a life, which I'm sure you can come with book quotations on how it can be construed as an evil act), but that'd be detrimental to the game. The only way Callista's method works is if you have a DM willing to be selective with the alignment system, which is exactly what I've been advocating from Day One. Take whatever you like about the system and ignore the rest. Find a way to fit the system to your playstyle and not the other way around.

[hamishspence]

I do have one issue with the BoVD--the Deformity feats--but even they seem to have a heavy evil tinge to them even though being particularly ugly or unhealthy isn't evil in and of itself. The way they tend to mimic ill health, injury, and death, and can be seen as symbolically rejecting life in favor of death. I don't think that they should have the evil-only prerequisite, but they are awfully dark.

Seems like a reasonable argument.

It's interesting that while Exalted characters lose their Exalted feats for committing Evil acts, characters with Vile feats only lose those feats if they change alignment to Neutral, or if the supernatural entity/force granting the feat is sufficiently ticked off- not for committing Good acts.

Similar principles apply to the vast majority of "Evil-only" classes (mostly in Dragon Magazine) and prestige classes- with some of the Evil Paladin variants being about the only exception.

Take a character who uses demons or other evil things to fight evil. They are clearly evil themselves, yet a paladin falls for associating with them in order to stop an Elder Evil or something of the sort. That's not supporting shades of gray.

Most likely to be evil- unless they're a malconvoker from Complete Scoundrel. Defenders of the Faith discusses the issue of "temporary team-ups with an evil guy against a much greater evil"- and says that it won't necessarily make you Fall. "Associating with an evil character" isn't in the "Things that will make a paladin Fall" section of the Paladin Class description in PHB.

Yes, and the Diplomacy method takes a significantly longer time than the spell and is also on an individual basis (meaning, it's infeasible to have an entire population of good-aligned Always Evil creatures). It's also eerily similar to brainwashing, since the target literally cannot resist. If the player succeeds on the roll enough times, the target turns good.

The spell is actually much slower- it takes a whole year to do its work, and requires the character to sacrifice 1 character level.

Actually, with the Diplomacy check, the character gets a Will save every time vs the Diplomacy result (with a bonus if they're an Always Evil creature, a Blackguard, or similar). Only if they fail 7 saves in a row (at a rate of 1 save per day) do they change alignment to Neutral, and they have to fail another 7 saves in a row to change alignment to Good

Yet Mindraping someone into being LG is evil why?

For whatever reason the Mindrape spell itself has the Evil tag.

[Taelas]

Common justification "LG means punishing those who harm or threaten innocents- for some crimes, the only proportionate punishment is torture"

Terry Goodkind seemed to use something along those lines when one of his heroes orders a minor villain tortured to death (and says it is merciful compared to the punishment she would have imposed), in Faith of the Fallen.

A Lawful Good character would be committing an Evil act under that justification. It's perfectly in line with what a Lawful Good character can do, but that does not make it anything but Evil.

"Using drugs" isn't in the Evil Acts section though, it's right after that, in a separate section. Possibly in a "it leads to evil behaviour to get the resources to feed the addiction" justification.

It's a separate section, yes, but the subject is treated nowhere else except there and the entire Fetishes and Addictions section implies (though does not outright state) that they are aspects of Evil creatures. It makes no room for Good or Neutral characters with those traits, despite most of them not requiring Evil behavior in the least. It doesn't require them to belong to Evil creatures either, but the distinction isn't enough.

I tend to the view that the BoVD examples represent the most extreme end- a long way from "safe, sane and consensual".

If it actually had any language to that effect, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and the subject isn't treated anywhere else. I'm sure the designers meant precisely what you are suggesting, but when they don't print it, it doesn't really matter what their intent was.

And again, implying masochism is Evil is the very height of ridiculousness.

For me, probably the biggest alignment inconsistency issue, is over how compulsory "being merciful" is for Lawful Good aligned characters.

Manual of the Places calls out Celestia (the lawful aligned and good aligned plane) as the plane of "justice and mercy"

BoED goes out of its way to suggest that good characters must show mercy if they wish to stay Good- becoming "merciless" is a trap that they "must not succumb to".

But PHB 3.0 (reprinted in PHB 3.5, before BoED came out) states of Lawful Good "Alhandra, a paladin who smites evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is Lawful Good".

A problem. Perhaps not reaching "major problem" status for me, but I can understand why others would think it is.

The Book of Exalted Deeds treats many aspects of Exalted characters as if they were required for Good characters. This is yet another, and it is yet another reason why I think the book is terribly written.

[hamishspence]

Unfortunately, it doesn't, and the subject isn't treated anywhere else. I'm sure the designers meant precisely what you are suggesting, but when they don't print it, it doesn't really matter what their intent was.

It's brought up in the Faerun book Shining South- the Scourge Maiden prestige class for those parties that "have the moral latitude to accept a sadist in their midst". The Scourge Maiden can be LE, NE ... or LN, so doesn't have to be evil.

A Lawful Good character would be committing an Evil act under that justification. It's perfectly in line with what a Lawful Good character can do, but that does not make it anything but Evil.

And again, implying masochism is Evil is the very height of ridiculousness.

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?

[Callista]

That brand of masochism always reminds me of the Yuuzhan Vong of Star Wars. They practically worship pain, and are what would be considered probably Usually Lawful Evil in terms of D&D alignment.

[hamishspence]

That sounds about right.

I've read some of the Vong War (New Jedi Order) books- but that was ages ago- the only ones I've read recently are the first three (Vector Prime, Onslaught, Ruin), and Traitor (Stover is one of my favourite SW authors).

[Callista]

Yeah, the Yuuzhan Vong are cool in a creepy way. Their love for pain seems to have a lot to do with their religion and their way of keeping their society's rigid caste system in place. It's almost like they deliberately torture themselves so that they can be familiar with pain, inured to it so that they don't shy away from causing pain to others.

The quality of the writing in Star Wars has been average lately, but they're still good enough to be entertaining on a rainy day.

The whole BoVD thing does make me want to create a firmly Good-aligned character who is ugly, disagreeable, and rude--subvert some of those "beautiful is good, good is nice" tropes. I guess all I'd have to do is go for a low charisma. Maybe even a character who was raised by wolves or bears or something. Not with the Feral template, though; that's too limiting...

Hmm. I think I have a possible backup for if my paladin character dies. And she is a bit young and silly, so she may well kick the bucket if her 10 INT and sixteen-year-old lack of maturity hits too hard.

*starts pondering feral children, alignment, and the logistics of insisting on eating only raw meat*

[willpell]

Jade Phoenix and Jade Dragon, heh.

I've seen so often people saying that 'written fluff is crap' in these forums that I wonder why they play D&D at all, if everything is so bad.

As a White Wolf alumni, what I like about D&D is that it has very clear mechanical rules that make it possible to put a high degree of detail into scenarios. It's not so good at constructing personalities, so I fall back on the white wolf influence for that part of things, but D&D has much better rules for resolving combat and other mechanical situations. As befits its origin as a miniatures wargame, with roleplaying later tacked on.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'm just gonna leave this here.
I think everyone has the right to not like 3.5 or whatever, but if you don't like it, why do you have to spend your time bashing it every 5 seconds?

Because I'm deep into the game. I've read the books I have nearly cover to cover various times. Like it or not, I have strong opinions on the material.

Jade Phoenix and Jade Dragon, heh.



As a White Wolf alumni, what I like about D&D is that it has very clear mechanical rules that make it possible to put a high degree of detail into scenarios. It's not so good at constructing personalities, so I fall back on the white wolf influence for that part of things, but D&D has much better rules for resolving combat and other mechanical situations. As befits its origin as a miniatures wargame, with roleplaying later tacked on.

That too. In addition to 3.5, I also play Exalted. Exalted has amazing fluff. Very detailed, very good. I consider adding fluff to Exalted something of far more magnitude than making homebrew for 3.5, let alone refluffing 3.5, and refluffing is practically a cardinal sin. Meanwhile, homebrewing artifacts and Charms is practically expected. Hell, I could completely convert Exalted's setting to Strands of Fate, and I would be absolutely fine. I play Exalted for the setting. The setting is amazing. I play 3.5 for the mechanics. And frankly, the mechanics suck.

[Shadowknight12]

Most likely to be evil- unless they're a malconvoker from Complete Scoundrel. Defenders of the Faith discusses the issue of "temporary team-ups with an evil guy against a much greater evil"- and says that it won't necessarily make you Fall. "Associating with an evil character" isn't in the "Things that will make a paladin Fall" section of the Paladin Class description in PHB.

Actually, yes it is. It's right there "or who grossly violates its code of conduct." Then go to the Associates part under the code of conduct, which says "a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code." Depending on whether you interpret the associates part to belong to the code of conduct or not, a paladin could fall for such associations. And if you say that the associates part does not belong to the code of conduct, then we must treat it as a separate class feature and interpret it literally. A paladin will never associate with an evil character or someone who offends their moral code. It doesn't matter if it's fluffed as the paladin refusing, as the paladin's deity demanding that they cease associating or if a black void swallows the paladin whole the moment the paladin agrees to associate with an evil character, such an association does not happen as per RAW.

The spell is actually much slower- it takes a whole year to do its work, and requires the character to sacrifice 1 character level.

Ah, you're right, my bad. I guess Diplomacy brainwashing is faster and cheaper.

Actually, with the Diplomacy check, the character gets a Will save every time vs the Diplomacy result (with a bonus if they're an Always Evil creature, a Blackguard, or similar). Only if they fail 7 saves in a row (at a rate of 1 save per day) do they change alignment to Neutral, and they have to fail another 7 saves in a row to change alignment to Good

That's trivial and you know it. Mind Fog, Crushing Despair, Bestow Curse, so on and so forth. There are plenty of spells that lower a Will save to the point where the target can only succeed on a natural 20. And even if we keep the saves, so what? The target literally cannot stop the conversion from happening and cannot choose to remain Evil. There are no ways to be immune to that (not even by immunity to mind-affecting effects) and it's both permanent and irreversible.

That looks pretty evil to me. But then again, I'm Chaotic, so I find thought-rewriting (even "for the greater good") to be the stuff of nightmares.

For whatever reason the Mindrape spell itself has the Evil tag.

Exactly. Two weeks of imprisonment and brainwashing are somehow better and less evil than casting a spell. Both of them achieve the same thing. In fact, the spell is at least reversible. And you can gain immunity to the spell in various ways. No, I think the spell is the fairer and more merciful option.

[Callista]

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.

[Shadowknight12]

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.

None of that precludes imprisonment. There is such a thing as a gilded cage, you know. Regardless of how comfortable the imprisonment is, you cannot allow the evil character to flee from your grasp because A) it will continue to do evil, and B) you must make the Diplomacy roll, and you cannot make the roll without talking to the target. I suppose a valid option is to follow the target like a shadow, stopping them from doing evil and forcing them to listen to you against their will, but is it really freedom when you're walking around on a leash?

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.

No, actually. Diplomacy does not imply friendliness in the slightest.

Diplomacy includes etiquette, social grace, tact, subtlety, and a way with words. A skilled character knows the formal and informal rules of conduct, social expectations, proper forms of address, and so on. This skill represents the ability to give others the right impression of oneself, to negotiate effectively, and to influence others.

Do you see the world friendly anywhere? You could argue that social grace, tact and etiquette require some degree of friendliness, but the definition of the skill itself merely says "give others the right impression of oneself, negotiate effectively and influence others." You can do all that without being friendly in the slightest. You aren't being threatening either, of course, because otherwise you'd be using Intimidate, and you aren't saying any falsehoods, or else you'd be using Bluff, but you are attempting to influence another person into rewriting their thought processes. I don't think I need to explain to you that you can very much brainwash someone while being friendly (or simply non-threatening) and not saying a single lie.

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.

Rules quotations, please. Mind Fog can be a permanent, pre-existent effect on whatever area you are keeping your target imprisoned, which means that since you are not casting a spell at the target, you are not committing an attack. If you are in doubt, look up the Invisibility spell and see what actions constitute an attack. If you are not engaging in any of those actions, you are not attacking your target, so their attitude has no reason to worsen.

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. The chaotics are 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 mind control, you're getting into LN and eventually LE territory.

Yet that's exactly what BoED describes. You are converting a person to your alignment against their will (hence all those Will saves; what did you think they represented?) through relentless and continuous social influence. That is the very definition of brainwashing. You are rewriting someone's thoughts. You can't look at that and tell me that's not brainwashing. It may not be proper mind control (as you cannot direct their actions), but it is tampering with someone's psyche for your own ends.

[Callista]

These are Good characters doing this stuff. That means they care about the dignity of sentient life, that they have a lot of compassion, that they want to protect others, bring hope, show people a better way to live. If you looked only at the instructions for converting someone, you could find room for doing it by brainwashing the person; but that doesn't fit into the bigger picture--this is a Good-aligned person who's doing this because they care about the prisoner and want to bring them the same hope that they themselves have--not a Lawful Evil tyrant trying to force someone into worshiping Big Brother.

[Shadowknight12]

These are Good characters doing this stuff. That means they care about the dignity of sentient life, that they have a lot of compassion, that they want to protect others, bring hope, show people a better way to live. If you looked only at the instructions for converting someone, you could find room for doing it by brainwashing the person; but that doesn't fit into the bigger picture--this is a Good-aligned person who's doing this because they care about the prisoner and want to bring them the same hope that they themselves have--not a Lawful Evil tyrant trying to force someone into worshiping Big Brother.

See, that's exactly what they tell you when they're brainwashing you. That they're not evil, they care about you, that they're doing this for your own good, showing you a way to be happier, bringing you hope and earning you an eternal reward in the afterlife. It's all emotional manipulation and the reason that people actually believe it is the reason why brainwashing works.

If you get rid of all the emotional smoke and mirrors and analyse the methods coldly, you must come to the realisation that it's brainwashing. Is it done for the greater good? Sure, I'll give you that. But you cannot convince me that the BoED diplomacy rules for converting someone to goodness are not brainwashing, because that's exactly what they are as per their very definition.

In fact, the only way where you could get me in murky terrain would be to focus on the "for the greater good" aspect, rather than trying to deny something that is blatant and indisputable.

[Knaight]

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?

That's not "less ridiculous", that is a transparent rationalization for the gut reaction that masochism is bad. It involves pretending that the reason torture is wrong has absolutely nothing to do with harming another against their wishes, which an act of masochism by definition is not.

[Callista]

If you get rid of all the emotional smoke and mirrors and analyse the methods coldly, you must come to the realisation that it's brainwashing. Is it done for the greater good? Sure, I'll give you that. But you cannot convince me that the BoED diplomacy rules for converting someone to goodness are not brainwashing, because that's exactly what they are as per their very definition.

If that's true, then convincing anybody of anything, ever, is brainwashing.

[Shadowknight12]

If that's true, then convincing anybody of anything, ever, is brainwashing.

If you convince them of something against their will through relentless and unceasing social influence? Yes, yes it is. That is the very definition of brainwashing.

If you tell me that BoED's rules are meant to be used only on willing targets (perhaps replace the Will saves with a DC), then it's a completely different thing. But what you're not really getting is that all of this is being done to unwilling targets. Therein lies my main beef with the fact that this is supposed to be "good" behaviour. It's the Mindrape spell by another name.

[Deophaun]

If that's true, then convincing anybody of anything, ever, is brainwashing.

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.

However, in the case of BoED, the good character is trying to wear down the targets resistance to here they cannot refuse the good character's point of view anymore. It is that wearing down that makes it brainwashing.

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.