A very controversial spell

[NichG]

I rather disagree with the inability to use it with physics examples since pretty much the entirety of scientific theory is derived from logical principles, but yes, you got the point completely right.

My objection is mostly that its bad pedagogy, because it encourages people to argue it by debating the physics (which isn't the point of the example and is basically what happened in the last few pages of this thread) rather than trying to understand the logic part of it.

I'm certainly not saying that logic cannot be used for physics, I'm saying that physics is a bad way to teach logic because its muddled with the fact that generally the axioms can actually be incorrect since the goal of physics (to model the real world) is more specific than the goal of logic (to determine the truth values of statements and relationships given initial axioms).

By my recollection, it's still always false in fuzzy logic systems, since you need to use a fuzzy term to mean a consistent thing even if the actual condition has a scale of "more or less" correct. For example, I can say that something is entirely hot and it is not hot, and despite hot being subjective, it still falls under a case of equivocation to argue the truth of only hot and not hot.

Hm, I guess this is true. I can construct a system that works differently, but I can't actually think of a case in which that system would be useful. The 'different system' is in a spoiler since its barely relevant.

Spoiler

Show

Lets define a fuzzy logic system based on expectation values over sets of measurements, designed to operate at the system-average level rather than the individual measurement level. This is then used to 'boost' the individual binary truth values into a continuous truth value.

So an expectation value of X is <X>, which is the average result over many measurements. Not-X is !X is <1-X>. In this formalism, <X * !X> is always zero, but <X>*<!X> can be non-zero and represents the operation 'system-AND'.

So in this formalism, X system-AND !X can be non-zero.

What X system-AND Y actually means is 'the disjoint probability of finding X and finding Y in the same system of measurements', rather than 'the probability of X and Y being simultaneously true'.

But I don't really know cases in which this sort of 'and' would be useful. I guess it comes up when calculating measures of information, since you often do things like <XY>-<X><Y> in those calculations.

[Yukitsu]

My point is that your premise rests on your interpretation of those terms - if I disagree with the premise, then the logic of your argument doesn't matter

Subjective would be a better term than false

The big claim isn't that good and evil exist objectively in D&D - its that your version of Good & Evil represent the objective version that exists in game

In this instance, in which the terms are not precisely defined by RAW or put into a consistent framework, I think the door is wide open for interpretation

I reject the idea that RAW can be interpreted objectively in this particular alignment issue

The problem is, when a statement is open to interpretation, you're conceding that I'm right, and that there is no "one true statement" about whether or not that spell works in an evil way. Hence my entire argument relies on an inability to create an objectively correct metric, or if we can, we can objectively say that the spell is good because it is directly defined as such (which I don't want to do because I don't believe rules are tautological)

[hemming]

The problem is, when a statement is open to interpretation, you're conceding that I'm right, and that there is no "one true statement" about whether or not that spell works in an evil way. Hence my entire argument relies on an inability to create an objectively correct metric, or if we can, we can objectively say that the spell is good because it is directly defined as such (which I don't want to do because I don't believe rules are tautological)

I read all of your posts and did not get that - but, yeah that is what I have been arguing this whole time

I missed this one:

Everything that has a label on it (everything that we know about ever) is only that thing based on social construct and linguistics. Canada is a label for a piece of land, just like "orange" is just a label on a piece of fruit. That you may or may not recognize the term does not negate the underlying logic, even if you want to try and argue that it's a social-legal term. That is again, irrelevant.

My point being that when we are interpreting a legal set of rules for determining alignment, only the legal definitions of the terms good and evil are relevant

[Yukitsu]

My point being that when we are interpreting a legal set of rules for determining alignment, only the legal definitions of the terms good and evil are relevant

The law and legal terms actually have nothing at all to do with good and evil. Law was actually written assuming pragmatism and principles of justice. Morals and ethics, which are philosophical concepts, for a more in depth argument than yelling "you're evil because I don't understand what's going on" requires the language of logic or math.

[hemming]

Only if we are actually debating morality - but we're not

We're debating a set of written rules governing morality - which is what I'm referring to as a legalistic system

[Yukitsu]

Only if we are actually debating morality - but we're not

We're debating a set of written rules governing morality - which is what I'm referring to as a legalistic system

Legally, social constructs like Canada are a definitive thing, not just a sociopolitical construct.

More relevantly, the law would take the side that a specific clause within a rule over-rules any other argument unless the other is constitutionally guaranteed without exception. The legal interpretation would simply state that it's good because that's what it is stated to be, and the overarching principle around that isn't guaranteed against exception. That's a boring conversation.

[hemming]

Legally, social constructs like Canada are a definitive thing, not just a sociopolitical construct.

More relevantly, the law would take the side that a specific clause within a rule over-rules any other argument unless the other is constitutionally guaranteed without exception. The legal interpretation would simply state that it's good because that's what it is stated to be, and the overarching principle around that isn't guaranteed against exception. That's a boring conversation.

Nope - we are making headway! The law is open to interpretation and the DM is the judge

Unless you choose to interpret the clause regarding "preservation of dignity" in the good alignment as a "constitutional guarantee" over riding the spell descriptor - thus you are an activist DM striking down individual laws that don't fit your interpretation of the alignment system

I'm good with that - as long as you are consistent

[olentu]

Legally, social constructs like Canada are a definitive thing, not just a sociopolitical construct.

More relevantly, the law would take the side that a specific clause within a rule over-rules any other argument unless the other is constitutionally guaranteed without exception. The legal interpretation would simply state that it's good because that's what it is stated to be, and the overarching principle around that isn't guaranteed against exception. That's a boring conversation.

Hmm, so what is your position. That the rules do not actually say the spell is good aligned. That the spell being good aligned contradicts another rule that takes precedence. Something else perhaps.

[Yukitsu]

Nope - we are making headway! The law is open to interpretation and the DM is the judge

Unless you choose to interpret the clause regarding "preservation of dignity" in the good alignment as a "constitutional guarantee" over riding the spell descriptor - thus you are an activist DM striking down individual laws that don't fit your interpretation of the alignment system

I'm good with that - as long as you are consistent

I disagree that DMs are judges actually. I've said this before, but a DM shouldn't have any unilateral power over the rules of the game, it doesn't make the game any better. Also, judges that only have power so long as you don't walk out on them would be awful at their job.

Laws aren't often open to interpretation though. Lawyers that try to interpret the law one way or the other rarely succeed except where a law is not clear, and even then it's the worst defence you can try to appeal to. For example, if something was called a felony rather than a misdemeanor, there is no case where that is not called a felony. This spell is a case where the rule is clear. It is a good aligned spell. There is no possible point of contention and no alternative possible interpretation.

What you could perhaps argue is that the specifics don't apply due to outside factors, but when debating the specifics of the spell themselves used exactly as described, there is no ambiguity.

Hmm, so what is your position. That the rules do not actually say the spell is good aligned. That the spell being good aligned contradicts another rule that takes precedence. Something else perhaps.

I'm of the opinion that the morality rules were put forward by people who don't have any idea what they're doing, and they're doing it by committee without talking to one another.

More related to the spell in specific, I don't view it as evil. The other alternatives in the scope of D&D is to either let the evil guy murder millions of people for no good reason because it'd be wrong to deny him his free will to do that, ignoring the millions who certainly didn't choose to be killed by the one guy, or to go ahead and just kill the guy condemning him to the 9 hells until he gets turned into a mindless dretch or whatever that spends all his time following the irresistible commands of his superiors for billions of years..

[hemming]

A DM adjudicates any number of rules based on their reading of RAW - the only way to deal with specific instances not explicitly covered by the rules is to adjudicate the application of a general rule/law

A judges job is literally to interpret the application of a law in a specific instance

It is a good aligned spell as written, but arguing against an alternative interpretation of good that excludes this spell is objectively not possible given RAW - leaving us lingering in our current thread

I actually agree with the Good ruling - but it does not invalidate the argument that "this is a badly written law/spell that is not coherent with the principles of the system"

[NichG]

This spell is a case where the rule is clear. It is a good aligned spell. There is no possible point of contention and no alternative possible interpretation.

The point of contention is basically that the rules may be inconsistent with themselves.

In a a logical system in which both X and !X are taken as axioms, anything can be proven. Thus if the rules say 'X' somewhere and '!X' somewhere else, that's a problem and its relevant to examine it.

It may also be that there are ways to resolving inconsistent axioms like that through the assumption of equivocation. In other words, the terms 'good', 'Good', and '[Good]' all appear in different places in the rules; while the default assumption may be that they all mean the same thing, if making that assumption causes the rule-set to be in a state where 'X and !X' then the choice is either to conclude that there are inconsistent axioms in the rules, or that the terms may in fact refer to different things.

As far as likelihood goes, I think the odds strongly favor 'well, there are inconsistent axioms and we have to do something about that' over 'the designers had an incredibly complex set of relationships between three similarly named but subtly different concepts in mind, and those relationships are held consistently all across the rules-text'.

[Yukitsu]

A DM adjudicates any number of rules based on their reading of RAW - the only way to deal with specific instances not explicitly covered by the rules is to adjudicate the application of a general rule/law

A judges job is literally to interpret the application of a law in a specific instance

Actually, a judge interpreting law against the explicit statement of the law provides an allowance for an appeal, unless it's the highest level of the court system where their decision typically means a revision of the law.

It is a good aligned spell as written, but arguing against an alternative interpretation of good that excludes this spell is objectively not possible given RAW - leaving us lingering in our current thread

That then leaves the theory of law and then requires you to come up with something outside of the rules that states that the spell is not good. Which leads us to philosophy. What you're looking for is an alternative interpretation of the rules, which doesn't seem to apply in this case (as by the most consistent interpretation of the rules, mind control is not evil).

I actually agree with the Good ruling - but it does not invalidate the argument that "this is a badly written law/spell that is not coherent with the principles of the system"

Yes, that's why it's more interesting to talk about it from outside the constraints of the rules.

The point of contention is basically that the rules may be inconsistent with themselves.

In a a logical system in which both X and !X are taken as axioms, anything can be proven. Thus if the rules say 'X' somewhere and '!X' somewhere else, that's a problem and its relevant to examine it.

It may also be that there are ways to resolving inconsistent axioms like that through the assumption of equivocation. In other words, the terms 'good', 'Good', and '[Good]' all appear in different places in the rules; while the default assumption may be that they all mean the same thing, if making that assumption causes the rule-set to be in a state where 'X and !X' then the choice is either to conclude that there are inconsistent axioms in the rules, or that the terms may in fact refer to different things.

As far as likelihood goes, I think the odds strongly favor 'well, there are inconsistent axioms and we have to do something about that' over 'the designers had an incredibly complex set of relationships between three similarly named but subtly different concepts in mind, and those relationships are held consistently all across the rules-text'.

I'm not sure that there is a definitive "this act is evil" anywhere within any of the categories of "good" here, so I'm not positive that that matters. In D&D, it being neutral wouldn't matter at all. Good individuals can do neutral things pretty much all day. To make this relevantly not a good act, you'd have to demonstrate that it's actively evil. I don't believe there is any evidence that that is the case, it seems that the lesser idea of mind control is simply neutral in D&D. That the game certainly would allow a neutral act for good ends be a good act in all categories adds more credibility that it probably is good under the rules under all interpretations of good.

[hemming]

Actually, a judge interpreting law against the explicit statement of the law provides an allowance for an appeal, unless it's the highest level of the court system where their decision typically means a revision of the law.

That is why the appeals process is so common - and the DM is the highest level of the court system (with appeals to GITP on extreme exception)

That then leaves the theory of law and then requires you to come up with something outside of the rules that states that the spell is not good. Which leads us to philosophy. What you're looking for is an alternative interpretation of the rules, which doesn't seem to apply in this case (as by the most consistent interpretation of the rules, mind control is not evil).

Nope - I would have plenty of ammo from within RAW to make this argument

[olentu]

I'm of the opinion that the morality rules were put forward by people who don't have any idea what they're doing, and they're doing it by committee without talking to one another.

More related to the spell in specific, I don't view it as evil. The other alternatives in the scope of D&D is to either let the evil guy murder millions of people for no good reason because it'd be wrong to deny him his free will to do that, ignoring the millions who certainly didn't choose to be killed by the one guy, or to go ahead and just kill the guy condemning him to the 9 hells until he gets turned into a mindless dretch or whatever that spends all his time following the irresistible commands of his superiors for billions of years..

Hmm, so are you saying that the D&D alignment system is not a valid system of morality then, or is it something else.

Who says the evil character in question is going to murder anyone, much less millions. There is no minimum level of murderous intent necessary for the spell to be cast.

[Yukitsu]

Hmm, so are you saying that the D&D alignment system is not a valid system of morality then, or is it something else.

It's a terrible system, but it is what it is. The game isn't really supposed to be a system where morality is a serious thing, so it doesn't matter if it is just kind of derpy.

Who says the evil character in question is going to murder anyone, much less millions. There is no minimum level of murderous intent necessary for the spell to be cast.

The fact that I'm spending a level and a 9th level spell rather than just letting the local jail manage it.

That is why the appeals process is so common - and the DM is the highest level of the court system (with appeals to GITP on extreme exception)

Technically, the "high court" would be the errata team. DM's only have a say so long as players tolerate it. Judges and the errata team can actually change rules whether you like it or not. Honestly, I don't ever treat DMs as though they hold any authority, I believe that holding the opinion that the DM has actual authority is harmful to the game as compared to cooperating.

Nope - I would have plenty of ammo from within RAW to make this argument

Do enlighten me.

[olentu]

It's a terrible system, but it is what it is. The game isn't really supposed to be a system where morality is a serious thing, so it doesn't matter if it is just kind of derpy.



The fact that I'm spending a level and a 9th level spell rather than just letting the local jail manage it.

Okay.

Eh, that's you. Not every spellcaster needs be so inclined

[hemming]

Well - to continue the analogy, the errata team is Congress...

And the statements are all over this thread regarding potential RAW contradictions with the principle at hand - from the BOEDs excerpts on redemption to the highly subjective preservation of dignity

I need go no further than the latter however...

Depending on the interpretation of RAW, it can be argued that the spell is otherwise inconsistent with Good

[NichG]

I'm not sure that there is a definitive "this act is evil" anywhere within any of the categories of "good" here, so I'm not positive that that matters. In D&D, it being neutral wouldn't matter at all. Good individuals can do neutral things pretty much all day. To make this relevantly not a good act, you'd have to demonstrate that it's actively evil. I don't believe there is any evidence that that is the case, it seems that the lesser idea of mind control is simply neutral in D&D. That the game certainly would allow a neutral act for good ends be a good act in all categories adds more credibility that it probably is good under the rules under all interpretations of good.

I'm not sure I buy this argument myself, but it may actually be sufficient to show that the act of casting the spell should be evil in any single circumstance. The reasoning is as follows: casting a [Good] spell is always a Good act (e.g. the act of doing so moves your alignment towards Good). This is explicitly stated in the rules for [Good] spells. So if the spell can be used in such a way that it should move your alignment towards evil, then there is an inconsistency with it being [Good]. For this sort of argument, the key thing to establish would be whether or not its ever evil to imprison someone of the evil alignment, for e.g. the blandest, least relevant degree of evil one can construct that still retains the evil alignment. If it is ever evil to do so then, conversion aside, the spell can be used for evil.

The less formal argument is to make reference to those characteristics attributed to the Good and Evil alignments, and show that the spell is consistent with the characteristics of Evil. Personally I find this more convincing than the formal argument, and I think it also is closer to people's instinctual gut reaction to the spell so its easier to see for a lot of people, but the cost of that is a lack of rigor due to the often hazy way that alignment fluff is specified. The key element here is probably the idea that 'oppression' is a core characteristic of the evil alignment. Thus, if the action of the spell can be taken to be a form of oppression then that allows the argument for inconsistency. Another BoVD 'evil act' that may qualify here is 'Bringing Despair', e.g. by inflicting extreme degrees of guilty emotions on the Sanctified target.

Interesting aside: BoED says 'intent does not matter for good', and BoVD says 'intent matters partially for evil'. That may mean that using StW with evil intent could in fact be a paradoxical (e.g. simultaneously good and evil) act.

[Yukitsu]

Well - to continue the analogy, the errata team is Congress...

Where I am, it's still the supreme court. No congress in Canada, sticks with the judges rather than the politicians thank goodness.

And the statements are all over this thread regarding potential RAW contradictions with the principle at hand - from the BOEDs excerpts on redemption to the highly subjective preservation of dignity

I need go no further than the latter however...

Depending on the interpretation of RAW, it can be argued that the spell is otherwise inconsistent with Good

On the first note, the creature isn't forced to redeem themselves by the spell. It merely changes their alignment. Suddenly being good doesn't redeem you of your past sins, and whether or not they choose to redeem themselves over it or not is still their free choice.

The argument about dignity is tricky because "preserve their dignity" is essentially a non-statement. Many definitions can go much further to state that an evil individual has no dignity. It typically just means that they're worth respecting. Regardless however, the dignity aspect doesn't come into play here.

[olentu]

On the first note, the creature isn't forced to redeem themselves by the spell. It merely changes their alignment. Suddenly being good doesn't redeem you of your past sins, and whether or not they choose to redeem themselves over it or not is still their free choice.

The argument about dignity is tricky because "preserve their dignity" is essentially a non-statement. Many definitions can go much further to state that an evil individual has no dignity. It typically just means that they're worth respecting. Regardless however, the dignity aspect doesn't come into play here.

Redeem their past sins? What does that have to do with anything.

Edit: Right, I almost forgot. I am still wondering about your response given that there is no minimum requirement on murderous intent for casting the spell and that while your characters may only choose those responsible for massive numbers of deaths not all characters must be so inclined.

[ryu]

Large sections of the human population in D&D are evil, and not just the mass murderers or other standard cliches. You also have the people who take pleasure in being jerks, but are generally harmless, as well as countless other people that while evil in temperament have never actually done anyone any significant harm. Does the man who just doesn't like people and deliberately forsook society to live in some remote location have no dignity?

[Loreweaver15]

It's a terrible system, but it is what it is. The game isn't really supposed to be a system where morality is a serious thing, so it doesn't matter if it is just kind of derpy.

You know, we have 1000+ pages of a webcomic on this site telling us that's ridiculous.

You guys can keep arguing from your bare-bones-blind perspective, I guess, but I'm going to continue to actually think about what these things mean, thanks.

[Yukitsu]

I'm not sure I buy this argument myself, but it may actually be sufficient to show that the act of casting the spell should be evil in any single circumstance. The reasoning is as follows: casting a [Good] spell is always a Good act (e.g. the act of doing so moves your alignment towards Good). This is explicitly stated in the rules for [Good] spells. So if the spell can be used in such a way that it should move your alignment towards evil, then there is an inconsistency with it being [Good]. For this sort of argument, the key thing to establish would be whether or not its ever evil to imprison someone of the evil alignment, for e.g. the blandest, least relevant degree of evil one can construct that still retains the evil alignment. If it is ever evil to do so then, conversion aside, the spell can be used for evil.

That's definitely not anything definitive as it's contingent on a huge number of things. For example, that it is evil to imprison for a very temporary period a minor evil. The game doesn't prevent someone who for example, stole a loaf of bread for the thrill of it being arrested for a year by a good character while maintaining their good alignment, so the idea of imprisonment can clearly be dismissed no matter how minor the evil so long as the imprisonment is justifiable.

The less formal argument is to make reference to those characteristics attributed to the Good and Evil alignments, and show that the spell is consistent with the characteristics of Evil. Personally I find this more convincing than the formal argument, and I think it also is closer to people's instinctual gut reaction to the spell so its easier to see for a lot of people, but the cost of that is a lack of rigor due to the often hazy way that alignment fluff is specified. The key element here is probably the idea that 'oppression' is a core characteristic of the evil alignment. Thus, if the action of the spell can be taken to be a form of oppression then that allows the argument for inconsistency. Another BoVD 'evil act' that may qualify here is 'Bringing Despair', e.g. by inflicting extreme degrees of guilty emotions on the Sanctified target.

Interesting aside: BoED says 'intent does not matter for good', and BoVD says 'intent matters partially for evil'. That may mean that using StW with evil intent could in fact be a paradoxical (e.g. simultaneously good and evil) act.

The other problem is that it does absolutely nothing for people who are paying attention to the facts and logic behind them. The problem with the guilt argument is that it is practically impossible for any redemption to occur without guilt. That argument essentially makes any well portrayed redemption impossible, as it would involve the supposed evil of guilt. What's more, guilt is very different from despair. Despair would only occur if they thought they were beyond redemption, not if they realized they needed redemption. Oppression doesn't really apply to this spell as all forms of lawful alignment require some kind of restraint over what someone can or cannot choose. Just because something restricts it does not make it oppression.

As for the intent, I have no idea what circumstances an evil intent could be applied to the spell in question.

You know, we have 1000+ pages of a webcomic on this site telling us that's ridiculous.

You guys can keep arguing from your bare-bones-blind perspective, I guess, but I'm going to continue to actually think about what these things mean, thanks.

Actually, even within his post there he admits to what I've stated. Most groups do slaughter endless waves of goblins simply because they're evil. We do that because the game either encourages us to do so by rewarding that behavior, because the game doesn't do a good job of arbitrating more interesting moral quandaries.

[georgie_leech]

As for the intent, I have no idea what circumstances an evil intent could be applied to the spell in question.

"I could just kill you. I could end your life and send you to the god you adore, who will welcome you with as close to open arms as those who you serve can have, send you to the afterlife you desire. But I won't. That's not good enough. I'm going to trap your soul in this gem for a year. The entire time, a portion of my own soul will be showing you all the evil you've ever done. My spell will force you confront your own evil, and so redeem you for the force of good. By the end of the year, your alignment will be as mine. I will sever your connection with your god, deny you his succor and protection, and leave you to face all the enemies you've made without the power that allowed you to subjugate them. Death is too good for you."

[Loreweaver15]

Actually, even within his post there he admits to what I've stated. Most groups do slaughter endless waves of goblins simply because they're evil. We do that because the game either encourages us to do so by rewarding that behavior, because the game doesn't do a good job of arbitrating more interesting moral quandaries.

Okay, so you aren't just ignoring the meaning of the spell, it's all related arguments, then? Pretty sure he's saying that it's up to us to find the meaning of these ideas, not just dogmatically stick to them as written if they're screwed up.

[Yukitsu]

Okay, so you aren't just ignoring the meaning of the spell, it's all related arguments, then? Pretty sure he's saying that it's up to us to find the meaning of these ideas, not just dogmatically stick to them as written if they're screwed up.

I'm fully willing to argue within the confines of the rules and pretty much everything I've argued so far adheres to that. I don't respect them though, I don't believe they were intelligently written, or were written by so many people who weren't talking to one another, that the system just doesn't make any relevant sense any more.

And honestly, I disagree with him to a large degree with the conclusion he takes from the fact that most players just lop off the heads of goblins because they're supposed to be evil. D&D is ultimately just a game for most people. Consider morality, but don't use webcomics or games or movies to inform your view on morality. When I'm tired, it's been a long week and I just want to sit down with some friends and adventure, I don't want to be thinking if the thing I'm about to do should be considered evil or not, I want to smite some goblins.

"I could just kill you. I could end your life and send you to the god you adore, who will welcome you with as close to open arms as those who you serve can have, send you to the afterlife you desire. But I won't. That's not good enough. I'm going to trap your soul in this gem for a year. The entire time, a portion of my own soul will be showing you all the evil you've ever done. My spell will force you confront your own evil, and so redeem you for the force of good. By the end of the year, your alignment will be as mine. I will sever your connection with your god, deny you his succor and protection, and leave you to face all the enemies you've made without the power that allowed you to subjugate them. Death is too good for you."

Drawing a blank on why a "more severe punishment" is by default evil.

[NichG]

That's definitely not anything definitive as it's contingent on a huge number of things. For example, that it is evil to imprison for a very temporary period a minor evil. The game doesn't prevent someone who for example, stole a loaf of bread for the thrill of it being arrested for a year by a good character while maintaining their good alignment, so the idea of imprisonment can clearly be dismissed no matter how minor the evil so long as the imprisonment is justifiable.

'So long as the imprisonment is justifiable' is exactly the question here. Lets take someone who, ten years ago, denied a starving person food when he had an abundance of it. That is, by BoVD standards, an evil act (negligent/willful inaction to prevent suffering is stated as evil). It's not an illegal act, so it excludes the Law/Chaos side of the question (which is misleading here). So the person is Evil.

That person is now supporting a family. Imprisoning their soul for a year means that their family will be left without a means of support. Someone who uses the spell on this (evil) target and also does not provide a replacement means of support for the family would be committing an evil act by the standards of D&D, using a [Good] spell to do it.

The other problem is that it does absolutely nothing for people who are paying attention to the facts and logic behind them. The problem with the guilt argument is that it is practically impossible for any redemption to occur without guilt. That argument essentially makes any well portrayed redemption impossible, as it would involve the supposed evil of guilt.

Sure, I don't disagree with this. I do disagree though that this is a counter-argument. Whether or not the rules are internally inconsistent is a separate issue entirely from whether or not the rules are capable of portraying certain events, whether they make playing certain characters practical, etc.

Note that I'm not arguing that the rules _should_ make it impossible to portray redemption, I'm just arguing that whether they do or not is an independent property - we may want the rules to allow certain things, but that's where changing the rules comes in; until then, this is an observation about how the rules as written behave, in order to inform those who want to change the rules what they may want to look at changing.

Whether or not the D&D rules about morality are problematic (and I think most people would agree that they are), we can independently discuss what the rules actually say as written. We can also discuss what we'd like the rules to do, but that is a separate (and totally valid) discussion which - and this is the important thing - would have different standards.

If we go to the 'what we would like the rules to be' discussion, then it becomes perfectly valid for someone to say 'I want my moral systems to treat brainwashing as evil' even if the rules currently do not support that interpretation. So one has to decide - are we talking about 'what is' or 'what we want'?

What's more, guilt is very different from despair. Despair would only occur if they thought they were beyond redemption, not if they realized they needed redemption. Oppression doesn't really apply to this spell as all forms of lawful alignment require some kind of restraint over what someone can or cannot choose. Just because something restricts it does not make it oppression.

Again, the rules as written are under no obligation to make it possible to be devoutly Lawful at the same time as being devoutly Good. That actually would not be an inconsistency, just a property of the rules as written.

If oppression is required to be Lawful (which is your statement here), then by the rules, there is conflict between being Lawful and being Good. And in fact BoED explicitly calls this out in its section on conflicts of interest.

Actually, even within his post there he admits to what I've stated. Most groups do slaughter endless waves of goblins simply because they're evil. We do that because the game either encourages us to do so by rewarding that behavior, because the game doesn't do a good job of arbitrating more interesting moral quandaries.

The game doesn't necessarily have to reward being Good. That assumes that the game's intent is to encourage people to play Good, which is not a given (and certainly not stated anywhere as explicit rules text).

[georgie_leech]

Drawing a blank on why a "more severe punishment" is by default evil.

That's someone motivated by vengeance and a desire to see the target be hurt, not out of any degree of compassion for the one they're "redeeming." I'm not trying to create an evil punishment, but a scenario that answers how someone might cast the spell with an Evil intent.

[Yukitsu]

'So long as the imprisonment is justifiable' is exactly the question here. Lets take someone who, ten years ago, denied a starving person food when he had an abundance of it. That is, by BoVD standards, an evil act (negligent/willful inaction to prevent suffering is stated as evil). It's not an illegal act, so it excludes the Law/Chaos side of the question (which is misleading here). So the person is Evil.

In D&D, alignment is never based on one minor action, so a single petty act doesn't define their entire alignment. That individual would still be overwhelmingly neutral. On that note, despite that, we could still justifiably jail him because we don't confine people for being evil. A good person can justifiably imprison them because they broke the law. That makes it a stronger statement. Imprisonment in D&D is not evil, even if the individual being imprisoned is not himself evil.

That person is now supporting a family. Imprisoning their soul for a year means that their family will be left without a means of support. Someone who uses the spell on this (evil) target and also does not provide a replacement means of support for the family would be committing an evil act by the standards of D&D, using a [Good] spell to do it.

This question also applies when dealing with for example, an evil cackling overlord about to kill millions that happens to have a family. If you kill him as people don't tend to disagree would be good, you are still denying those individuals. Are you therefore arguing that this scenario is a measure between the good you're doing and the evil you're doing?

He also has the moral impetus to make sure that he can care for them, it is not the moral impetus of everyone else to make sure that they are fed. Similarly, if I had people depending on me for my livelihood, me committing crimes to do so is my shortcoming, not the legal system's.

Sure, I don't disagree with this. I do disagree though that this is a counter-argument. Whether or not the rules are internally inconsistent is a separate issue entirely from whether or not the rules are capable of portraying certain events, whether they make playing certain characters practical, etc.

It isn't by itself, I tend to put out three or four separate strings of reasoning because I want to quash the argument from multiple different angles. None of them defeat the argument under all conditions individually, but each points out a flaw from a specific angle. I could put a big label of "My argument is about the rules as written" or "This argument is based on logic divorced of the specifics of the game" or "This is an argument noting the problems with another argument" but I figure you're bright enough that I shouldn't have to.

Note that I'm not arguing that the rules _should_ make it impossible to portray redemption, I'm just arguing that whether they do or not is an independent property - we may want the rules to allow certain things, but that's where changing the rules comes in; until then, this is an observation about how the rules as written behave, in order to inform those who want to change the rules what they may want to look at changing.

Whether or not the D&D rules about morality are problematic (and I think most people would agree that they are), we can independently discuss what the rules actually say as written. We can also discuss what we'd like the rules to do, but that is a separate (and totally valid) discussion which - and this is the important thing - would have different standards.

Yes, I assumed you wouldn't want redemption to be impossible, hence why I made that argument, it weakens the assertion unless you're willing to take that stance. I put a separate argument, that being that there is no reliable association between guilt and despair either in common English or the rules against the problem from another angle.

If we go to the 'what we would like the rules to be' discussion, then it becomes perfectly valid for someone to say 'I want my moral systems to treat brainwashing as evil' even if the rules currently do not support that interpretation. So one has to decide - are we talking about 'what is' or 'what we want'?

I have an argument against both which are separate arguments. Like I said, it's a good idea typically to point out flaws in an argument from multiple angles rather than simply picking one and definitively proving it wrong in that way, as invariably the other will show up anyway.

Again, the rules as written are under no obligation to make it possible to be devoutly Lawful at the same time as being devoutly Good. That actually would not be an inconsistency, just a property of the rules as written.

Yes, but you now have to prove an RAW example of necessary contradiction between the two. I've shown that denial of free will and imprisonment are not and cannot be proven evil in D&D by the rules, and so at this point you would need to find another relevant contradiction between the two.

If oppression is required to be Lawful (which is your statement here), then by the rules, there is conflict between being Lawful and being Good. And in fact BoED explicitly calls this out in its section on conflicts of interest.

Actually, my statement is that control is required for all forms of law. Oppression is simply adding a value tag to the manner in which that control takes place. That imprisonment is a form of control, but in and of itself we've seen that it is not oppression.

The game doesn't necessarily have to reward being Good. That assumes that the game's intent is to encourage people to play Good, which is not a given (and certainly not stated anywhere as explicit rules text).

What is a given is that it is sold because people have fun doing so. There are other possibilities, but it would fail to conform to reality. Simply put, more people have fun as a paladin smacking goblins about than worrying about a serious moral quandary. The latter may be good from time to time, but as you have conceded, the game isn't well designed for it.

That's someone motivated by vengeance and a desire to see the target be hurt, not out of any degree of compassion for the one they're "redeeming." I'm not trying to create an evil punishment, but a scenario that answers how someone might cast the spell with an Evil intent.

Strangely, I've not seen much regarding motivation. The means are considered good or evil, and the ends can be good that justify evil (but not vice versa) but they don't seem to care whether you are doing something with evil intent or not, because clearly the ends are good. I also can't really reconcile this as even being possible, since none of that is what he was going to get for dying, he just gets an eternity of torture as a mindless outsider.

[NichG]

In D&D, alignment is never based on one minor action, so a single petty act doesn't define their entire alignment. That individual would still be overwhelmingly neutral.

Alright, so he's Ebeneezer Scrooge - filthy rich and he secretly enjoys the suffering of those worse off than him and the despair he inflicts by openly enjoying the fruits of his riches while they watch, bereft of the things they need to live while he enjoys his excess.

On that note, despite that, we could still justifiably jail him because we don't confine people for being evil. A good person can justifiably imprison them because they broke the law. That makes it a stronger statement. Imprisonment in D&D is not evil, even if the individual being imprisoned is not himself evil.

Where did this person actually break the law? I'm pretty sure that 'not giving food to a starving person' isn't illegal under any particular D&D society I've read about.

This question also applies when dealing with for example, an evil cackling overlord about to kill millions that happens to have a family. If you kill him as people don't tend to disagree would be good, you are still denying those individuals. Are you therefore arguing that this scenario is a measure between the good you're doing and the evil you're doing?

I'm not arguing anything about that particular scenario at all, because it isn't really relevant to my point. For the point I was trying to make, it need not be the case that there is always a conflict between the good done and the evil done, only that there exists even one single hypothetical case in which there could be such conflict.

He also has the moral impetus to make sure that he can care for them, it is not the moral impetus of everyone else to make sure that they are fed. Similarly, if I had people depending on me for my livelihood, me committing crimes to do so is my shortcoming, not the legal system's.

The person in question has committed no crimes. He's a merchant and uses completely legal means to provide for his family. The Law/Chaos axis is a red herring here.

It isn't by itself, I tend to put out three or four separate strings of reasoning because I want to quash the argument from multiple different angles. None of them defeat the argument under all conditions individually, but each points out a flaw from a specific angle. I could put a big label of "My argument is about the rules as written" or "This argument is based on logic divorced of the specifics of the game" or "This is an argument noting the problems with another argument" but I figure you're bright enough that I shouldn't have to.

The label matters since that governs what is actually relevant to the discussion at hand.

If we're discussing RAI or RAMS, then my answer to this entire thread is simply 'change the spell' and 'fix the inconsistencies of the alignment system' and we have no actual debate anymore.

Yes, I assumed you wouldn't want redemption to be impossible, hence why I made that argument, it weakens the assertion unless you're willing to take that stance. I put a separate argument, that being that there is no reliable association between guilt and despair either in common English or the rules against the problem from another angle.

What I want isn't really relevant to a RAW discussion. If RAW leads us to the conclusion that redemption is impossible, then so be it - that is an aspect of RAW. I'm fully willing to take that stance (and I fully believe that RAW is something full of inconsistencies, and hiding that under 'well, it doesn't make sense so lets ignore that' is disingenous - on a forum that has a very strong RAW-based culture, its important to explicitly recognize the inconsistencies and all of their negative consequences in order to make a strong case that RAW actually needs to be changed there)

When it comes to 'how do I want to run my own game?' then whatever the books actually say is basically irrelevant since I'll change it to suit my tastes, so its pretty hard to discuss. In my games, you can have 'Pelor' in your alignment line if you want, but that doesn't give much of a common ground to discuss at that point.

Yes, but you now have to prove an RAW example of necessary contradiction between the two. I've shown that denial of free will and imprisonment are not and cannot be proven evil in D&D by the rules, and so at this point you would need to find another relevant contradiction between the two.

Imprisonment can fall under 'oppression'. Its actually a fairly standard example - evil kingdom imprisons dissidents, etc. Also, 'free will' has nothing to do with anything. The specific text in BoED is about 'freedom to choose', which is actually broader in some ways (one could have free will but not be free to choose).

And as far as proving anything with respect to the Lawful alignment, I don't really - its completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Actually, my statement is that control is required for all forms of law. Oppression is simply adding a value tag to the manner in which that control takes place. That imprisonment is a form of control, but in and of itself we've seen that it is not oppression.

Whether or not something is required for all forms of law isn't actually relevant though.

What is a given is that it is sold because people have fun doing so. There are other possibilities, but it would fail to conform to reality. Simply put, more people have fun as a paladin smacking goblins about than worrying about a serious moral quandary. The latter may be good from time to time, but as you have conceded, the game isn't well designed for it.

Again, I don't think this is really relevant to the question of what the rules actually say. This is more something that'd belong in an RAI argument.

As I said earlier in this comment, if we want to talk about designing a game to encourage heroic behavior/explore moral quandries/etc, that is a discussion we can have, but if we want to go there we have to completely table any reference to the 'rules as they are now', because at that point, whatever BoED or anything actually says becomes irrelevant to 'how we want the game to be'. At that point we say 'Poison? Sure, knock yourself out! Deathwatch? No, it doesn't make you evil. Sanctify the Wicked? It's a [Law] spell.' or whatever.

Strangely, I've not seen much regarding motivation. The means are considered good or evil, and the ends can be good that justify evil (but not vice versa) but they don't seem to care whether you are doing something with evil intent or not, because clearly the ends are good. I also can't really reconcile this as even being possible, since none of that is what he was going to get for dying, he just gets an eternity of torture as a mindless outsider.

All the motivation stuff is in BoVD, where they identify three categories of intent as relevant to acts being evil. BoED is the one that says 'an act is an act is an act, evil can't justify good, and intent matters not'.