A very controversial spell

[TypoNinja]

I'd just like to point out that I'm glad we're finally dropping any and all pretense of this spell actually having anything to do with legitimately convincing the subject of things rather than forcibly brainwashing them. In another fifteen pages we might get to stop pretending that the spell is actually in any way consistent with the rules of good as defined by the system.

I've conceded nothing of the sort, since nobody has demonstrated such. I merely point out that its irrelevant to begin with.

Conversion by its nature ignores the subjects wishes, be it through mundane or magical means. If an evil creature wanted to stop being evil it is a choice they'd already have made. In preforming a conversion you convince the subject to do something he wouldn't have without your coercion.

Yet redeeming evil souls is explicitly called out as possibly the greatest act of Good one can preform, therefor its fairly easy to conclude that respecting the choices of an evil person is pretty low on the scale of things [Good] cares about. Making the world less Evil is clearly far more important.

[Yukitsu]

The bold is mine - Alignment is "a creatures general moral and personal attitudes"

Those don't tell me what I can or cannot do. They only inform what I prefer to do. When I wake up in the morning I have preferences that tell me what I want to do every day. I'm not a slave to those preferences, I still have to choose to follow them. When discussing free will, it doesn't matter that we don't get to pick everything, and it doesn't matter that we won't pick many things.

[ryu]

I've conceded nothing of the sort, since nobody has demonstrated such. I merely point out that its irrelevant to begin with.

Conversion by its nature ignores the subjects wishes, be it through mundane or magical means. If an evil creature wanted to stop being evil it is a choice they'd already have made. In preforming a conversion you convince the subject to do something he wouldn't have without your coercion.

Yet redeeming evil souls is explicitly called out as possibly the greatest act of Good one can preform, therefor its fairly easy to conclude that respecting the choices of an evil person is pretty low on the scale of things [Good] cares about. Making the world less Evil is clearly far more important.

Okay now you're just being silly. You do realize that actual conversions are all about making the subject want to change their beliefs or outlook rather than bluntly forcing them right? Some do it through trying to tempt with promises of a given afterlife. Some threaten punishment after death that you should be all too happy to avoid. Some promise enlightenment, a bettering of social standing, acceptance, friendship, or even a nice set of free activities to engage in. Others still are given as actual necessary resources like food, or cloths are handed out to make the idea seem better by association. The simple fact remains though that the vast and I do mean vast majority of such things aren't done by force. They're done by making the subject want it in some way, and then simply letting them do so. That's what a normal conversion looks like.

[hemming]

Those don't tell me what I can or cannot do. They only inform what I prefer to do. When I wake up in the morning I have preferences that tell me what I want to do every day. I'm not a slave to those preferences, I still have to choose to follow them. When discussing free will, it doesn't matter that we don't get to pick everything, and it doesn't matter that we won't pick many things.

That is a valid interpretation of the alignment system - but it is a purely subjective assessment of the matter at hand. For our purposes, you are also assuming RAI cares about free will and are reading this intention into other parts of RAW

Again - I'm good with that, as long as you are not claiming an objective RAW position and maintain consistency

Does changing your preferences alter the choices you make? Does forcibly changing your preferences then forcibly alter the ability to choose?

I can choose to do whatever I please within the four walls of a prison cell - but I do not choose to be in the cell

[Yukitsu]

That is a valid interpretation of the alignment system - but it is a purely subjective assessment of the matter at hand. For our purposes, you are also assuming RAI cares about free will and are reading this intention into other parts of RAW

Again - I'm good with that, as long as you are not claiming an objective RAW position and maintain consistency

I'm not claiming that, I've claimed that RAW is completely silent on the issue you're convinced it claims is evil.

The problem is, many of the terms you are using are ones with a "good evil" value judgment added to them. Dignity for one is simply a good sort of pride. Oppression is simply an evil sort of law. The concepts don't, by the rules, then turn all pride into something good or all law into something evil, that simply isn't in the rules. Trying to use those terms at all is an "RAI" accusation, not a rules as written one. That's what I refuse to address them in a pure RAW way, because they simply don't exist within the RAW.

Does changing your preferences alter the choices you make? Does forcibly changing your preferences then forcibly alter the ability to choose?

I can choose to do whatever I please within the four walls of a prison cell - but I do not choose to be in the cell

Actually, no, the argument is that you cannot choose what you do within those walls. Free will A) isn't in the game in any relevant sense and thus stating anything about free will is inherently RAI, and B) in real ethics, only relevantly concerns situations where we fundamentally could not choose to do something. Being in a prison negates our free will. Enjoying pizza more than tacos does not negate our free will, as if we wanted to, nothing prevents us from getting a taco. We might end up regretting getting a taco, but we were free to do so. The one in prison is not free to get a taco whether he wants one or not.

[hemming]

I'm not claiming that, I've claimed that RAW is completely silent on the issue you're convinced it claims is evil..

I have repeatedly posted that I do not claim the spell is evil myself

The problem is, many of the terms you are using are ones with a "good evil" value judgment added to them. Dignity for one is simply a good sort of pride. Oppression is simply an evil sort of law. The concepts don't, by the rules, then turn all pride into something good or all law into something evil, that simply isn't in the rules. Trying to use those terms at all is an "RAI" accusation, not a rules as written one. That's what I refuse to address them in a pure RAW way, because they simply don't exist within the RAW...

They are both written in the SRD rules as key attributes of the Good and Evil alignments. I'm not trying to be snarky here, but go back and read the entries on Good and Evil - its RAW

Actually, no, the argument is that you cannot choose what you do within those walls. Free will A) isn't in the game in any relevant sense and thus stating anything about free will is inherently RAI, and B) in real ethics, only relevantly concerns situations where we fundamentally could not choose to do something. Being in a prison negates our free will. Enjoying pizza more than tacos does not negate our free will, as if we wanted to, nothing prevents us from getting a taco. We might end up regretting getting a taco, but we were free to do so. The one in prison is not free to get a taco whether he wants one or not.

A) Totally agree

B) being as Good and Evil exist in the D&D game as tangible, defined forces; adjudicating how and when alignment may affect choices (and how those choices in turn affect alignment) when not explicitly RAW is the purview of the DM

Edit - I do need to address the tacos though, so you may have once preferred tacos and would have chosen one. But I have changed your preferences and now you will no longer choose tacos

[TypoNinja]

Okay now you're just being silly. You do realize that actual conversions are all about making the subject want to change their beliefs or outlook rather than bluntly forcing them right? Some do it through trying to tempt with promises of a given afterlife. Some threaten punishment after death that you should be all too happy to avoid. Some promise enlightenment, a bettering of social standing, acceptance, friendship, or even a nice set of free activities to engage in. Others still are given as actual necessary resources like food, or cloths are handed out to make the idea seem better by association. The simple fact remains though that the vast and I do mean vast majority of such things aren't done by force. They're done by making the subject want it in some way, and then simply letting them do so. That's what a normal conversion looks like.

In preforming a conversion you convince the subject to do something he wouldn't have without your coercion.

What form, or how subtle your manipulation of the target is, does not change the fact that without the interference of the converting party, it is not a choice the subject would have made.

[Loreweaver15]

What form, or how subtle your manipulation of the target is, does not change the fact that without the interference of the converting party, it is not a choice the subject would have made.

And yet, there is a tangible difference between convincing somebody to do something with words and convincing somebody to do something by reaching into their brain and making them do it.

[NichG]

Unfortunately StW is not merely a [Good] spell it is a Sanctified spell which is called out as always being a good action to cast

Ah, you're right, I missed this distinction. Thanks!

Now, this is the strictest possible interpretation of RAW.

My argument relating to this using real life reasoning is that this instant is categorically distinct from the lack of free will presented in the sanctify the wicked spell. Sanctify the wicked does nothing to counter free will, as the individual may still choose to do evil. The one with the sword at their throat cannot.

Again, its 'freedom to choose' not 'free will' that is specifically called out in the rules. Making it about 'free will' takes it into very murky grounds since, as people have pointed out, free will is poorly defined in D&D.

I would say, however, that the person with a sword at their throat actually has far more freedom of choice than the target of Sanctify the Wicked. The person with a sword at their throat can choose to die. In the case of someone who is e.g. faithful to a deity of Evil and expects a reward in the Evil afterlife, this may even be the most reasonable choice.

The target of StW meanwhile cannot even make the choice to die instead of convert.

[Yukitsu]

Again, its 'freedom to choose' not 'free will' that is specifically called out in the rules. Making it about 'free will' takes it into very murky grounds since, as people have pointed out, free will is poorly defined in D&D.

I would say, however, that the person with a sword at their throat actually has far more freedom of choice than the target of Sanctify the Wicked. The person with a sword at their throat can choose to die. In the case of someone who is e.g. faithful to a deity of Evil and expects a reward in the Evil afterlife, this may even be the most reasonable choice.

The target of StW meanwhile cannot even make the choice to die instead of convert.

I disagree, the individual can then kill themselves. What's more, the target of sanctify the wicked can continue to live their life literally exactly as they would have before, they just won't want to. What is more, their resistance is then based entirely off of a falsehood, the game does not reward evil in the afterlife. We don't argue that it would be evil to knock out a guy trying to get through a door that he is convinced is hiding gold and treasure when it's actually an airlock, their ignorance actually provides rational justification for intervention.

I think what ultimately happens when discussing RAW is that there is no rule whatsoever that you can find that provides a contradiction to the specific rule. The more that is revealed, even your point of freedom of choice isn't actually stated to be evil. Even more, there is clearly an error in your view of freedom of choice, as their given example within the book on how to redeem people is to imprison them for X time, and then talk at them until you invariably succeed at converting them. I don't see that your view of freedom of choice is within the rules or even sensible outside of them.

Edit - I do need to address the tacos though, so you may have once preferred tacos and would have chosen one. But I have changed your preferences and now you will no longer choose tacos

But I still can choose a taco. In fact, I probably will at some point, people order things that they don't actually like from time to time. I just won't want to very often.

[hemming]

But I still can choose a taco. In fact, I probably will at some point, people order things that they don't actually like from time to time. I just won't want to very often.

I don't want to live in a world where this is not true! Also, per your prior post, they might have Taco Tuesdays in the prison

I have no problems with your position now that it is clarified - you are not staking a claim on the objective truth of D&D alignment, which was my only real issue.

Depending on how the alignment system is interpreted, I acknowledge that there are coherent arguments that the spell is poorly written and inconsistent with other principles of good

My personal position is that the spell descriptor is good and I find no issue of inconsistency with RAI in my games - but my position is wholly subjective and I freely admit it.

If you are playing in my game, its a good spell. If I'm playing in someone else's game, then its not my call.

[Phelix-Mu]

Hi Everyone! Nice to see the thread hasn't died yet... *chokes on drink at seeing the postcount*

Ahem, well, anyone wanna summarize the last umm *counts on fingers* six pages for me?

[hemming]

Hi Everyone! Nice to see the thread hasn't died yet... *chokes on drink at seeing the postcount*

Ahem, well, anyone wanna summarize the last umm *counts on fingers* six pages for me?

Summary: Everyone likes tacos but no one agrees on STW - pretty much the same as page one

[Phelix-Mu]

Summary: Everyone likes tacos but no one agrees on STW - pretty much the same as page one

Ah, excellent then. Glad to hear some real progress was made, in the manner of internet discussions. Clearly, with Taco Bell now offering a breakfast menu, the underlying premise of BoED must be re-examined in light of...well...breakfast tacos. A revolutionary principle in the war between good and evil if ever there was one.

Or just another investment move by Asmodeus. Only time will tell.

[Yukitsu]

Hi Everyone! Nice to see the thread hasn't died yet... *chokes on drink at seeing the postcount*

Ahem, well, anyone wanna summarize the last umm *counts on fingers* six pages for me?

People are getting to the point where I almost feel the need to label arguments based on whether they are coming purely from RAW, RAI or actual philosophy, and then label why I have used that, as people are asking me to use RAW to address non-RAW claims and vice versa.

On more exciting news, I found a probable circular argument in the claim that the spell requires oppression to instigate, as well as coming to the realization that I can defeat some arguments by pointing out that both evil and good are not inherent to a whole of a scenario which may have differing things, which defeats decisively the "one evil scenario" argument decisively, as well as the "can be used for evil" argument.

But now I'm hungry instead, so I'm going to go make a pizza instead of doing all that right now.

[hemming]

Ah, excellent then. Glad to hear some real progress was made, in the manner of internet discussions. Clearly, with Taco Bell now offering a breakfast menu, the underlying premise of BoED must be re-examined in light of...well...breakfast tacos. A revolutionary principle in the war between good and evil if ever there was one.

Or just another investment move by Asmodeus. Only time will tell.

I swear this is my last taco related post - but Taco Bell is not otherwise consistent with the principles of [Good] tacos; it is a poorly attempted effort that needs to be rethought

They have essentially brainwashed into believing that they serve [Good] tacos - when on closer examination they are clearly [Evil]

[TypoNinja]

Yea! round 20!

And yet, there is a tangible difference between convincing somebody to do something with words and convincing somebody to do something by reaching into their brain and making them do it.

Nowhere does the spell say it does that.

Its a assumption from your own twisted imagination, with no basis in RAW.

[olentu]

Yea! round 20!




Nowhere does the spell say it does that.

Its a assumption from your own twisted imagination, with no basis in RAW.

Hmm, so are you saying that the spell does not change the target's personality or merely that the mechanism by which the spell forces a personality change is unknown and unknowable.

[Loreweaver15]

Nowhere does the spell say it does that.

Its a assumption from your own twisted imagination, with no basis in RAW.

Yay! Round 20!

The RAW is poorly written, self-contradictory, and does not take into account the implications it yields. The RAW is fairly meaningless to the discussion except as a backdrop, because we are not debating the RAW, we are debating the implications.

Summary: Everyone likes tacos but no one agrees on STW - pretty much the same as page one

I don't like tacos :P

[hemming]

I stand corrected

Summary: Everyone likes tacos and no one agrees on STW - pretty much the same as page one

[ryu]

I stand corrected

Summary: Everyone likes tacos and no one agrees on STW - pretty much the same as page one

I, for one, prefer a nice, homemade, mission-style burrito with several different and well done layers of flavor.

[TypoNinja]

Yay! Round 20!

The RAW is poorly written, self-contradictory, and does not take into account the implications it yields. The RAW is fairly meaningless to the discussion except as a backdrop, because we are not debating the RAW, we are debating the implications.



I don't like tacos :P

Ok, hair splitting time.

It doesn't imply what you want it to either.

[Coidzor]

The original portrayal of Mr. Scrooge, in the Dickens novel, does not have him "lording" his wealth over anybody. If anything, he grudgingly spends it even on himself. He is a miser. Cold and bitter to the core, but he doesn't take joy in others' pain. He simply doesn't see why he should be the one to relieve it, not when his own is so exquisite (to him) and people begrudge him that which he has suffered and sacrificed to acquire.

I'm not saying he's right, mind. But Scrooge is not bullying in the sense that he seeks out victims to make himself feel bigger, and he doesn't delight in hurting people or making them "debase" themselves.

Even in the Muppet song quoted a few times in this thread, it's very much a subjective view. He charges what he charges, and they feel it is too much and that he is not a good landlord. Imagine that: people not being happy with their landlord and poor people feeling that their lease or mortgage is too expensive.

I'm again not justifying anything, but I am asking for a bit of perspective. Could Scrooge be more generous? Could he be kinder? Absolutely; that is the point of the story. But he is not evil. He is miserable and unkind; he is not malevolent and cruel.

He'd sneer, scoff, and walk on by if he saw somebody being beaten; he would not stop to watch nor would he join in.

Think on his first reaction upon actually seeing Tiny Tim. Remember that those whom he sneers at are, in all appearance, healthy but not working as hard as he is and did. When he sees a true innocent who is doing nothing but striving hard to be helpful and cheerful, his heart does immediately go out to the boy. His own words about decreasing the surplus population sting him greatly.

One could claim this is a sign he was already changing by this point. The spirits spend progressively less time with him as the story goes on, so he had already had the majority of his experiences. But 90% of the Ghost of Christmas Past's events were about his happier memories, not about his sorrows. Not about his mistakes. He saw them, yes, but most of them were about the small joys, the things he should have appreciated more.

Scrooge never delighted in suffering. He bitterly mocked the plight of those he felt were lazy and trying to take from him in the manner of the grasshopper and the ant, but he was not delighting that they suffered. Merely angry that they should attempt to profit from him in return for nothing.

Selfish, miserly, bitter, and miserable. Not bullying, vain, cruel, and malevolent.

What about such a skinflint that they maintain their buildings poorly, such that people die? Or that price-gouge their customers so that they can't afford heat or other necessities and deaths result? Is that just strictly neutral to you too?

The RAW is poorly written, self-contradictory, and does not take into account the implications it yields. The RAW is fairly meaningless to the discussion except as a backdrop, because we are not debating the RAW, we are debating the implications.

If it was just the implications we'd have been able to come to at least something approaching a sort of general consensus or at least a plurality or at least two main camps rather than leaving the spell in the realm of bad jokes with an entire spectrum of understandings of what the spell set out to do in the first place vs. what it does vs. what it might do as a possible consequence of what it does.

[Hecuba]

Think about how the spell works for one second. It's an auto-success. There is no chance for it to fail. Just attempting to convert somebody would have a chance to fail; whether the person is too dug into their own convictions or is insane or just that awful a person, even the best attempt to convert someone will come up against people it can't convince. Therefore, that's not what's happening.

Contrary to the prior commentary in the thread, I don't find the description of the spell dissonant with its results. Rather I find the moral presumptions of the spell dissonant with the alignment system of the rest of D&D.

The fundamental issue would seem that the spell under question, like several other seemingly problematic issues in the same book, are written with a moral outlook more similar to French Romanticism and Enlightenment philosophy than either a modern Western outlook or the default D&D outlook.

The spell presumes that:

• Goodness inherently involves orderliness and duty.
• Every mortal has a spark of goodness that stems from their true nature.
• Given sufficient time and a perfect argument to appear to that spark of goodness, anyone can be redeemed.

Obviously, this doesn't mesh well with the 9 alignment system. If it were taken as a more general pattern for D&D, we would expect that:

• Lawful Good is best Good
• Neutrality is Diet Evil.
• All non-Good mortals are effectively mistaken or mentally ill (or have been actively corrupted): no-one with a perfect understanding of their choices would choose evil.

[Segev]

What about such a skinflint that they maintain their buildings poorly, such that people die? Or that price-gouge their customers so that they can't afford heat or other necessities and deaths result? Is that just strictly neutral to you too?

Honestly, this strikes me more as a law/chaos argument than a good/evil one. I'd argue that it would be GOOD aligned to go above and beyond whatever agreements he may have with his tenants. It would be chaotic to refuse to maintain them if his contracts said he had to. It would be evil to seek to trap them in his poorly maintained properties to milk money out of them without allowing them to get repaired.

But offering a contract for a specific property in specific condition with specific maintenance agreements, and allowing his tenants to sign or find somewhere else to live, is Lawful Neutral. It is evil if he deceives them about the condition so they're agreeing to something without knowing fully what they're in for when he knows full well they'll be more miserable than they think they will, but if they sign on the dotted line, knowing the house is poorly maintained and that he has no duty to maintain it, that's their choice.

And before you say "what if they have no other options?" let me point out that, then, Scrooge probably is doing them a favor by giving them an option they can afford that is better than living on the street with no shelter at all.


(You'll note that, even in the Muppet adaptation, the song sings of "cold and drafty houses," not of "houses falling in and crushing people" or the like.)

[Segev]

Obviously, this doesn't mesh well with the 9 alignment system. If it were taken as a more general pattern for D&D, we would expect that:

• Lawful Good is best Good
• Neutrality is Diet Evil.
• All non-Good mortals are effectively mistaken or mentally ill (or have been actively corrupted): no-one with a perfect understanding of their choices would choose evil.

To be fair, enlightened self-interest almost invariably leads to good-aligned behavior. IT tends to be short-sightedness or lack of complete understanding of the broader nature of interaction and consequences that lead people to evil behavior in pursuit of selfish interests. They usually benefit more if they do not engage in such behaviors. (Though that works best if nobody engages in such behaviors; this is a form of the Prisoners' Dilemma.)

[ryu]

To be fair, enlightened self-interest almost invariably leads to good-aligned behavior. IT tends to be short-sightedness or lack of complete understanding of the broader nature of interaction and consequences that lead people to evil behavior in pursuit of selfish interests. They usually benefit more if they do not engage in such behaviors. (Though that works best if nobody engages in such behaviors; this is a form of the Prisoners' Dilemma.)

Thing is though that this only holds true for the kind of stupid evil that makes the target fully aware they're being wronged and who's wronging them. Manly highly intelligent, but awful people perform much more sophisticated evil that pushes all negative consequences on the victim or a third party with no realistic chance of recourse.

[Segev]

Thing is though that this only holds true for the kind of stupid evil that makes the target fully aware they're being wronged and who's wronging them. Manly highly intelligent, but awful people perform much more sophisticated evil that pushes all negative consequences on the victim or a third party with no realistic chance of recourse.

Nah, the thing is, enlightened self-interest still dictates that greater benefit arises from not doing this. Those you don't wrong can ultimately produce more, and you also don't develop a reputation for hurting those you work with, which means you can more easily find people who will work with you.

The problem again arises from incomplete information and a short-sighted benefit-me-now attitude conflated somewhat with the fact that you cannot be sure the person you're exploiting wouldn't do the same to you if they had the power to do so. (That last, again, is part of the Prisoners' Dilemma problem.)

[olentu]

Nah, the thing is, enlightened self-interest still dictates that greater benefit arises from not doing this. Those you don't wrong can ultimately produce more, and you also don't develop a reputation for hurting those you work with, which means you can more easily find people who will work with you.

The problem again arises from incomplete information and a short-sighted benefit-me-now attitude conflated somewhat with the fact that you cannot be sure the person you're exploiting wouldn't do the same to you if they had the power to do so. (That last, again, is part of the Prisoners' Dilemma problem.)

Well yeah, if you propose a situation where everyone knows all relevant information all the time and they have flawless mental ability to assess and respond to the situation without any random aspect creeping in (oh, and everyone starts in an equal position and is given equal opportunities relative to the others plus probably some other stuff I am forgetting) then sure trying to cheat the system is a losing proposition since, you know, everyone knows you are trying to cheat as soon as you start and you can't just force them since they have the same resources and opportunities that you do.

On the other hand, as you say, that is generally not the case.

[ryu]

Nah, the thing is, enlightened self-interest still dictates that greater benefit arises from not doing this. Those you don't wrong can ultimately produce more, and you also don't develop a reputation for hurting those you work with, which means you can more easily find people who will work with you.

The problem again arises from incomplete information and a short-sighted benefit-me-now attitude conflated somewhat with the fact that you cannot be sure the person you're exploiting wouldn't do the same to you if they had the power to do so. (That last, again, is part of the Prisoners' Dilemma problem.)

The problem is indeed one of incomplete information, both in terms of what an unenlightened person knows and knowledge of the general knowledge pool of the unenlightened public. I also find it funny that in most prisoner's dilemmas the situation is framed such that regardless of how nice and trustworthy the other person is you see the most optimal choice from a pure gain standpoint is the evil one even if it introduces more bad to the system for the other person. This holds true whether or not they betrayed you with their choice. This is why various forms of restraints and artificial penalties are often introduced to make the negative option less attractive. It's agreed to willingly because making sure the other prisoner doesn't betray you is worth more than betraying them tends to be.