A very controversial spell

[pwykersotz]

"Freedom before anything else" is chaos, not neutrality.

I don't disagree, but I read that as aligning with the sentiment:

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

I may be wrong.

[Segev]

"Being me and intact before anything else" is neutral.

Technically, that is neutral evil. Neutral still recognizes that "being me and intact" doesn't entitle one to harm others' rights to be themselves and intact, so some give and take is required. Evil is the only place for "me above all else," because it justifies proactive harm to others for your benefit.

[MadGreenSon]

Third layer was a Formian colonization and what motivated the Harmonium to begin this tactic. Arcadia lost 2 whole layers.

You're right. Memory must be slipping in my old age.

The moral-ethical alignment system can and should be just a bit more complex than is currently espoused. The way Planescape did it gave a lot of variation and depth to what is superficially very shallow.

That's why I generally do three part alignment rather than two. There can be a world of difference between Lawful Good (N) and Lawful Good (L) as an example or look at the possible variations for Chaotic Evil: Chaotic Evil (N), Chaotic Evil (Ab) or Chaotic Evil (C). Lots of room to make more depth-filled characters and makes more sense to me personally.

Sanctify the Wicked works exactly like something the Harmonium would come up with. It's very Lawful in it's approach far more than Good, but the Good is still present.
I can see similar spells for other ethical viewpoints too.

[Phelix-Mu]

Yeah, the Lawful/Chaos thing is dumb. And, if the poorly-worded spell wasn't a big enough problem, the spell is intimately tied to a not-spotless template as well.

To clarify my earlier post, I actually don't mind the spell, and have allowed characters to make use of it in the past, as well as had a couple npcs that were results of this spell. As long as the DM is up to ironing out the inconsistencies in the fluff and how the spell is presented, it's not a big deal. And it is a 9th level spell with a colossal sacrifice attached, so the DM should be carefully contemplating its use in the campaign in any case.

[Knaight]

By the standards of MODERN society, yes. But isn't good for goodness's sake a good thing?

The context isn't good for goodness's sake. The context is whether it is acceptable to murder someone and hand their body over to a similar person with a completely different ethical outlook. Even from a purely utilitarian perspective, this tends to fail - Act Utilitarianism might consider it acceptable, but just about every other kind doesn't. Using Desire Utilitarianism as an example - is it beneficial to society to encourage the desire to murder people and replace them with better people? Somehow, I suspect the answer is no.

[Werephilosopher]

Ok. I don't mean to interrupt the debate over whether or not the spell itself is moral. But I want to add to the conversation: if the spell only made the target Good, and did not change the target's place on the Lawful-Chaotic axis, what then? Would the spell still be morally ambiguous?

[MadGreenSon]

Yeah, the Lawful/Chaos thing is dumb. And, if the poorly-worded spell wasn't a big enough problem, the spell is intimately tied to a not-spotless template as well.

Are you sure you're not in the Harmonium?

The Law-Chaos conflict is more fundamental than Good-Evil in D&D's long history see: The Blood War.

Ok. I don't mean to interrupt the debate over whether or not the spell itself is moral. But I want to add to the conversation: if the spell only made the target Good, and did not change the target's place on the Lawful-Chaotic axis, what then? Would the spell still be morally ambiguous?

The spell is not morally ambiguous (in the D&D meaning of the term) it's ethically ambiguous (again D&D terms) The spell creates Good and is therefore morally good. It does so through the application of structured re-alignment of a target's mind/soul, therefore it's heavily Lawful too.

[Mrc.]

If there were a spell (and I don't think there is) that did the opposite, in that it auto changed any characters alignment to that of the caster on condition that the caster was evil, people would scream blue murder. Literally every paladin just became utterly useless. Adventuring parties have no inclination to actually stay together and now the "CN facade concealing CE" can be dropped eagerly. In short, it would destroy many parties.

Evil characters would most definitely make full use of a reversed version of StW because they would have none of the moral objections that good characters might have: extra minions and less enemies? Where do I sign up?

StW isn't like this, because the majority of players play good characters, and even in an evil campaign, I'd seriously consider making the DM inhale his own polyhedrals if he just pulled this trick on my character. The lack of control over your actions and the ability to just alter massive amounts of who he/she/it is takes away the input of the player into their character, and by doing that you effectively take over. If that's what you want, perhaps D&D isn't the right game for you.

Plus, it might not work out that well for you. Winter Soldier proved that much...

[SiuiS]

Caveat: I do not, personally, have a problem with this spell. It is a necessary form to reconcile the fluff of being convincing through piousness, with the reality that many DMs will just veto that sort of thing and so mechanically you need assurance.


Being able to choose after the fact doesn't mean anything. A sanctified creature could well choose to go back to evil afterwards. The problem with the spell is it is a focused version of mindrape.

The context isn't good for goodness's sake. The context is whether it is acceptable to murder someone and hand their body over to a similar person with a completely different ethical outlook. Even from a purely utilitarian perspective, this tends to fail - Act Utilitarianism might consider it acceptable, but just about every other kind doesn't. Using Desire Utilitarianism as an example - is it beneficial to society to encourage the desire to murder people and replace them with better people? Somehow, I suspect the answer is no.

Why is that the question? The text makes it clear that over the entire period, the creature rethinks it's stance, rather than being brainwashed. In abstract this act would be clearly immoral. In specific however we can be certain this is not what's happening, so the entire murder parallel is worthless as a base for comparison.

[Phelix-Mu]

Also worth considering is that, in D&D, being good is substantially more difficult than in real life, because the protagonists have to deal with issues that often can't be fixed without some evil (the destruction of living, free-willed creatures being a common and rather integral part of the game). Good people are regularly forced to do some pretty despicable things in the game, and if they want better methods, they usually have to accept other undesirable realities (like time constraints, collateral damage, and so forth). Even a character dedicated to being a real saint will run afoul of huge complications and be generally oft-atoning in the average campaign (and in some campaigns that character is probably not even viable).

StW's intention, I think, is to streamline a realistically desirable process (conversion from evil to good) into a single, powerful, high-level magical effect in the arsenal of the good. They accidentally made it read like brainwashing and a couple other undesirable bits.

EDIT: Sorry, I meant the "Lawful/Chaos" clause in StW that makes you inherit the exact alignment of the caster. I assume the intent was to make it so that the caster and the target would be on the same side at the end of the spell (would suck to burn a level and then end up with someone that still doesn't agree with you...of course, morally, a good person should accept that as a potential outcome in any case).

[Tanuki Tales]

Keep in mind that this is the same book that gave us "good diseases" and "good poisons" that Billy Batson level pure characters could use with impunity.

[MadGreenSon]

EDIT: Sorry, I meant the "Lawful/Chaos" clause in StW that makes you inherit the exact alignment of the caster. I assume the intent was to make it so that the caster and the target would be on the same side at the end of the spell (would suck to burn a level and then end up with someone that still doesn't agree with you...of course, morally, a good person should accept that as a potential outcome in any case).

I understand where you are coming from, I just can't ever see a Chaotic Good character using the spell and I think it'd be pretty unlikely from most Neutral Good characters as well.

[Zaydos]

Ok. I don't mean to interrupt the debate over whether or not the spell itself is moral. But I want to add to the conversation: if the spell only made the target Good, and did not change the target's place on the Lawful-Chaotic axis, what then? Would the spell still be morally ambiguous?

I'd say it would actually be more ambiguous. You can point to the Law-Chaos bit as why it comes down on the black side instead of the white, and most arguments against that ignore the Law-Chaos thing entirely. Without it I can see arguments for it being good, but you're still effectively killing them and replacing them with another similar but different individual. In D&D terms you're also effectively obliterating the original entity's soul, as you're preventing it from passing on to its native afterlife and it from being revived.

Now I wouldn't say this makes the spell, or act of using it, automatically evil. I'd say it puts it very firmly in Lawful with the morality of its use being dependent upon circumstances. It's not even the Good tag that is bothersome (casting a [Good] spell is not a good act, it just interacts with certain magic in special ways and cannot be used by evil clerics). The fact that it's a Sanctified spell (casting which BoED calls out as a Good act) is bothersome.

[veti]

Please, read the entire post before you respond.

No. Really. I've read too many posts on other threads that don't keep this in mind. As someone who is in college to research moral philosophy, I'd appreciate it if you find this important.

If you've studied the subject at that level, you can't be surprised that people's positions - even strongly held and passionately argued positions - are not necessarily logically coherent.

I guess what I'm trying to say here, is: why is sanctifying the wicked such a bad thing?

First off, what's the relationship between 'bad' and 'evil'? Are they synonyms?

Second, does your definition of Good require respect for free will? The SRD says good implies "altruism, respect for life, and concern for the dignity of sentient beings". Is it consistent with that framework to limit someone else's free will? I'd say "hell yes", but I admit I haven't thought through all the ramifications of that.

Short answer: some people take 'free will' very seriously indeed, view it as an absolute moral good and any infringement on it as automatically evil. Where, exactly, 'respect for free will' should sit in the hierarchy of 'good' things - alongside altruism, life, and 'respect for the dignity of sentient beings' - is a question that might be worth asking of those people.

[squiggit]

If there were a spell (and I don't think there is) that did the opposite, in that it auto changed any characters alignment to that of the caster on condition that the caster was evil, people would scream blue murder. Literally every paladin just became utterly useless. Adventuring parties have no inclination to actually stay together and now the "CN facade concealing CE" can be dropped eagerly. In short, it would destroy many parties.

Effects that can radically change someone's alignment already exist though outside StW and I don't see it making anyone "utterly useless". Hell, Mindrape is easier to cast than StW already.

[Tanuki Tales]

Some would point out that free will could be considered part of the dignity that good should be respecting.

[pendell]

WRT the original question, I strongly recommend the OP read "Second Foundation", by Isaac Asimov. In particular , the character of Captain Pritchard

Spoiler

Show

The hero of the previous book, Foundation and Empire, now converted into a loyal servant of the Mule, the villain of this and the previous book

who suffers brainwashing and reprogramming -- twice -- during the course of the book.

The thing is, the Captain Pritchard we see through most of the book *isn't* really Pritchard. He may have Pritchard's memories and body, but he's not acting as Captain Pritchard would act if Captain Pritchard was in full control of himself -- he's acting according to a top layer of programming which forces him to be the loyal servant of his worst enemy.

That, to me, is the problem with something like "Sanctify the Wicked".

Does it make sense to punish a man for murder if he falls victim to a mind control ray , and is then compelled by its owner to commit a murder? If so, then why does it make sense to reward a man for saving a drowning child, under the control of that same ray? The evil -- or the good -- is in the hands of the ray's controller and is something the victim is not accountable for at all.

So the thing is ... what you're doing is taking a free-willed human being and turning him into a puppet to dance on strings. The control may be subtle, the puppet may not even be aware he is a puppet, but a puppet he is nonetheless.

And good -- in D&D, at any rate -- does not make puppets out of other peoples, even good puppets in a good cause. It is better to provide evil with the tools and influence so that it can make that conversion of its own choice -- or if not, that it be restrained, by violence if necessary.

After all, why not simply cast Sanctify the Wicked on every child in society at birth, renewing it on an annual basis, so that society will only be good all the time? Maybe society would have fewer murders and what not, but it's not a society of human beings. It's a society of zombies being controlled by some puppet master.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Phelix-Mu]

I understand where you are coming from, I just can't ever see a Chaotic Good character using the spell and I think it'd be pretty unlikely from most Neutral Good characters as well.

Agreed. As written, I think the spell should have the Lawful tag, as it reads like some classic conversion by the sword method ("we were going to kill you, but this conversion is moral because, well...we were going to kill you.") LG, and stridently so, is really the group that feels, to me, like they are going to convert or purge the evil. NG is a little more live and let live, and CG probably doesn't like shutting the big-bad in mini-hell for a year; if it takes that much, just end the creature out of mercy and let the gods deal with it.

I really do like this discussion, by the by. Alignment discussions are really fun for me, and one of my guilty pleasures. I am actively procrastinating and hammering the refresh button, lol.

EDIT: I bears repeating that StW doesn't force one to continue being good. The Sanctified Creature template might, but that is a separate issue (templates based on behavior should be lost if behavior changes...duh).

[shylocke]

I see it like this. If sanctify the wicked is an evil spell, then how does a paladin get away with killing anything. If you kill a evil creature, you have taken away its free will also. And that would also mean that any sort of spell that forces an effect would be "evil". No troll will walk up to you can say" good day to you kind sir! Might you please cast a fireball at me?

[Knaight]

I see it like this. If sanctify the wicked is an evil spell, then how does a paladin get away with killing anything. If you kill a evil creature, you have taken away its free will also. And that would also mean that any sort of spell that forces an effect would be "evil". No troll will walk up to you can say" good day to you kind sir! Might you please cast a fireball at me?

Sanctify the wicked isn't just killing though - with how the spell is used, it's more like executing a prisoner or murdering a civilian. There are a great many contexts in which there is killing (e.g. self defense or defense of others) where Sanctify the wicked doesn't tend to be used.

[nedz]

If there were a spell (and I don't think there is) that did the opposite, in that it auto changed any characters alignment to that of the caster on condition that the caster was evil, people would scream blue murder. Literally every paladin just became utterly useless. Adventuring parties have no inclination to actually stay together and now the "CN facade concealing CE" can be dropped eagerly. In short, it would destroy many parties.

Not a spell, but an item — and only 4,000 gp.

[Phelix-Mu]

I see it like this. If sanctify the wicked is an evil spell, then how does a paladin get away with killing anything. If you kill a evil creature, you have taken away its free will also. And that would also mean that any sort of spell that forces an effect would be "evil". No troll will walk up to you can say" good day to you kind sir! Might you please cast a fireball at me?

Ah, the deeper issue! Killing things is evil. It may be the only possible way to prevent greater evil (the depredations of thoroughly evil creatures), but it's still a bad way to do things. A paladin that kills sentient, free-willed, evil beings should say prayers for the dead, for, ideally, every creature would be given time and space to realize the error of their ways. The world is not ideal, and when a paladin isn't working to make the world more ideal, he's fallen a bit short of his lofty goals. This is an awfully hard line to toe, though, and many a table relaxes things to avoid the brutal reality of good that BoED puts a spotlight on.

But, mechanically, there is little alignment effect in doing what must be done. Good people should strive for more, but live realistically and

[Fitz10019]

Why stop at the Evil? Why tolerate the Neutral?

Who decides what is Good?

Also, consider the pantheon. Whenever you cross a line, you give permission to the opposition to do the same. StW is bad for the economy of g-n-e souls in flux.

[Coidzor]

Eliminate the Law-Chaos shift. Add in tiered steps from Evil to Good over time that remain even if the gem is broken prematurely. Vile > Evil > Evil leaning towards Neutral > Neutral leaning towards Evil > Neutral > Neutral leaning towards Good > Good. Allow it to target anything from Vile to Neutral leaning towards Evil.

Either a Diplomacy check ala the BoED diplomacy rules for altering alignment or another Will Save for every alignment step. Make the check get progressively more and more difficult the more checks they've failed. Maybe allow for backsliding one step on a natural 20(no use of luck feats or "virtual 20s" allowed) or the equivalent of either a 01 or a 100 on a d%. Include something about the lost level being soul energy or raw goodness helping the innate spark of goodness find itself and be supernaturally empowered to guilt trip the creature.

Require something more for forcing a spark of goodness into creatures that wouldn't have a spark of goodness to model artificially forcing a conscience upon them. What sort of costs would be appropriate? Haven't the foggiest. Losing a level for a 9th level spell that does what Sanctify the Wicked does when Programmed Amnesia and Mindrape don't have that kind of cost seemed too steep to me to begin with.

Rewrite the ripping the soul out and destroying the body thing if you'd like to instead just have the whole creature in the gem-prison.

Anything else problematic remaining with taking the innate spark of goodness and making it a supernatural nag that can't be ignored or forcing an innately evil creature to have a conscience it can't ignore?

Why stop at the Evil? Why tolerate the Neutral?

Who decides what is Good?

Also, consider the pantheon. Whenever you cross a line, you give permission to the opposition to do the same. StW is bad for the economy of g-n-e souls in flux.

Bang for Buck, Time concerns.

The alignment system isn't a person. This question is silly. The spell fails if you target something non-evil, and can't be argued against.

No, Evil is already crossing the line as much as it possibly can unless you're in a setting like Dragonlance where Evil is defined as cheating as much as possible and Good and Neutral never wising up to this fact and continually waiting until someone else exposes Evil's cheating before doing anything.

The thing is, the Captain Pritchard we see through most of the book *isn't* really Pritchard. He may have Pritchard's memories and body, but he's not acting as Captain Pritchard would act if Captain Pritchard was in full control of himself -- he's acting according to a top layer of programming which forces him to be the loyal servant of his worst enemy.

That, to me, is the problem with something like "Sanctify the Wicked".

Sanctify the Wicked doesn't change the top level programming though. It changes the fundamental values at play.

After all, why not simply cast Sanctify the Wicked on every child in society at birth, renewing it on an annual basis, so that society will only be good all the time? Maybe society would have fewer murders and what not, but it's not a society of human beings. It's a society of zombies being controlled by some puppet master.

Because if Sanctify the Wicked has any metaphysical basis casting it on a blank slate has no meaning or point so you're just demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the spell, mainly. (And if you're a Pre-Epic or Epic caster and you understand your spells so poorly, how'd you live long enough to get that high of a level? )

[Optimator]

One thing to remember in D&D is that there is nor moral ambiguity or gray areas. There are angels who will tell you what's up.

[TypoNinja]

Some would point out that free will could be considered part of the dignity that good should be respecting.

Not necessarily, because if you have free will you can choose to be Evil. Good would oppose that.


From the BoED

Good is not nice, polite, well mannered, prudish, self-right-
eous, or naïve, though good-aligned characters might be some
of those things. Good is the awesome holy energy that radiates
from the celestial planes and crushes evil.

Good may not necessarily oppose free will, but depending on the flavor, they may not exactly be in favor of it either.

Chaotic Good would likely be in favor of free will, even fight for it, especially against an oppressor, but a sufficiently rigid Lawful Good could just as easily view free will as a liability.

Good in D&D has little to do with warm fuzzies. Its an elemental force of existence fighting for dominance against its anti-force.

Most (if not all) Good people would support free will becuase that good is being filtered through the persons view. But the Celestial Archons, and other Paragons of Good literally made from the essence of their plane, who embody the righteousness of their eternal conflict with evil?

Your free will is dangerous to them.

[NichG]

The thing with D&D alignment is that it can often be quite tautological, which means that arguing something like 'is StW good?' can be misleading if its not clear what use of the term 'good' is meant here.

Is StW 'Good' in the D&D sense of the alignment? Yes, by definition, because it has the [Good] descriptor. But that answer is pretty uninteresting and its not really what people mean when they complain about it.

I think the core of the controversy with it (and some other BoED content) can be roughly grouped into two sets of problems:

1. Hypocritical Alignments: The StW spell seems to be hypocritical and in conflict with what Good claims to be philosophically in D&D.

To put this in context, this is what the SRD says about 'Good' and 'Evil' (emphasis mine):

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others

Arguably something which removes the agency for moral choice and responsibility and forces someone magically to abandon who they were is on shaky ground when it comes to having 'concern for the dignity of sentient beings', and if done for purely tautological reasons rather than behavioral ones (e.g. he is Evil, he should be Good, so we will make him Good; as opposed to 'he is doing awful things, so lets get him to stop by redeeming him') then its arguably a form of oppression as well.

Its interesting also that BoED itself, when talking about redeeming evil, explicitly comments that forcing redemption 'stinks of evil':

(about 'sword-point conversion')

Worse, it stinks of evil, robbing the victim of the freedom to choose and echoing the use of torture to extract the desired behavior.

So I think there is a solid argument that the StW spell is inconsistent with how 'Good' is claimed to work philosophically in D&D.

2. Moral Dissonance: The StW spell makes D&D Good appear to be at odds with real-life morality and moral thought, which causes dissonance and problems when people are playing nuanced characters who react to events and things in the world based on what they feel about them, not what the book says is right or wrong - e.g. the Paladin who decides to fight against the atrocities committed by Cosmic Good.

This becomes a much thornier issue to discuss, because everyone's views on morality are different and everyone will judge some things as more or less acceptable. This is the one that has big in-game consequences though and can cause a lot of grief (every Paladin fall debate ever...)

[Jacob.Tyr]

I just view it as a very effective prison sentence. It is no more or less brain washing than sending someone to prison and having them come out rehabilitated. Maybe tack on a few free ranks in a profession skill if you want it to even more closely mirror prison.

The issue I have, though, is the thought that an evil creature deserves such a prison sentence. If it were possible to take everyone who is in prison right now and put them through this spell, ending their prison sentence once the year was up, would you do it? They'd never re-offend, and would then be free to go about living a good life from then on.

[The Insaniac]

One thing about this is the context of the spell. Throughout the BoED it's hammered at you "good is not easy, good is not simple, the ends never justify the means." But then sanctify the wicked comes along and says "here's an easy button for good. The end (converting an evil creature) justifies the means (trapping it for a year and rewriting its moral and ethical framework). It always works, no matter how vile the creature. Oh, and it's unambiguously good." It just seems at odds with the message from the rest of the book.

Jacob.Tyr: It isn't a question of whether or not it makes the world safer. I don't think that anyone will disagree that turning that dragon into a good creature is better than leaving is to burn down villages. The question is: is the spell itself a [good] act? That is, is rewriting someones ethics and morality, no matter how much better it may be for the world, an unambiguously good act?

I don't think that people would object nearly as much if it weren't in the BoED (the book of utter and unsullied pureness) and it didn't have the [good] tag (casting this spell is unambiguously good and makes you a better person).

[Tanuki Tales]

One thing about this is the context of the spell. Throughout the BoED it's hammered at you "good is not easy, good is not simple, the ends never justify the means." But then sanctify the wicked comes along and says "here's an easy button for good. The end (converting an evil creature) justifies the means (trapping it for a year and rewriting its moral and ethical framework). It always works, no matter how vile the creature. Oh, and it's unambiguously good." It just seems at odds with the message from the rest of the book.

Keep in mind that this is the same book that gave us "good diseases" and "good poisons" that Billy Batson level pure characters could use with impunity.

Yeah....BoVD and BoED were not high points of quality when it came to splats.