"good" mindrape

[HaikenEdge]

But surely the evil character can do good anyways, if that's the character's desire. If I recall correctly, both the BoVD and BoED have stated outright D&D is not a consequentialistic setting; it doesn't matter what your ends are, if your means are evil, you're still an evil person if you achieve things for the greater good.

Basically, the evil character can already do good; their methodology might differ, but they're definitely capable of achieving the good.

And now I have no idea what the point I'm trying to make is.

[Phelix-Mu]

But surely the evil character can do good anyways, if that's the character's desire. If I recall correctly, both the BoVD and BoED have stated outright D&D is not a consequentialistic setting; it doesn't matter what your ends are, if your means are evil, you're still an evil person if you achieve things for the greater good.

Basically, the evil character can already do good; their methodology might differ, but they're definitely capable of achieving the good.

And now I have no idea what the point I'm trying to make is.

Evil people may indeed do good things, as the whole idea of evil is just give in to your own selfish impulses and self-centered desires. So, occasionally it is gratifying to do good, and the evil person may make an occasional exception and do good (just like the good person can do the occasional evil without instant alignment shift), but too much of that and they are now neutral.

The bigger issue is that doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still the wrong thing to do. The degree of evil may be mitigated by various circumstances, but evil is evil, and doing evil is something good people ideally avoid whenever possible (and maybe even more than that).

To the issue of StW, the now-good subject feels the inclination to be good of someone that has habitually been so, and the real guilt of someone that believes their past actions were at fault. If the subject makes a genuine effort to be evil, though, there is nothing in the spell that stops that.

In this way, the spell really just evens the playing field; normally, it's easy to go good->evil, and hard to go evil->good. StW makes both directions difficult to do, giving a creature an impulse to do good not backed up by their own actions (as normally being good isn't easy and is more difficult the more virtuous one wishes to be...only good habits mitigate this difficulty, and those are founded on good actions, which the subject of the spells has few to none of in their past).

[ShurikVch]

I continue to believe that the spell is basically a way to force an evil creature into a bit of good role play. While the evil-now-good creature will feel inclined to be good (like any good creature), that isn't a straitjacket. Any creature can undertake efforts to change their alignment if they decide to do so (though the amount of effort and degree of success will vary widely); StW alters this basic aspect of alignment not at all.

So there is no compulsion. It's not mind rape. It's a soft, very fluffy way to make an evil being consider and temporarily reap the benefits of being good, in hopes that they then decide to stay that way. Nothing forces them to remain so, at least not by my reading.

Nah! It's a magical compulsion. Shatter the gem a half-second too early - and villain is back in full inglory!
If freaking half-second separate stunning success and total failure of redemption, then it's have nothing to do with "see the right way", and everything with brainwashing
Also, target automatically adopts the alignment of the spell’s caster. Not just "Good", but the exactly same alignment as caster! (I wonder, what's will happen if Lilitu UMD scroll of StW?)
And one successful cast of Call Forth the Beast or Morality Undone will shift target all the way back to evil permanently (unlike "real good" creatures, who's only affected 1 hour/level (CFtB) or 10 minutes/level(MU))

Anyway, in the real world you put people who commit crimes in jail in the hope they learn their lesson.

Nope. We put them in jail to keep them from hurting good law-obedient people; and to scare those who inclined to crime but still not imprisoned and have no wish to. People tend to imitate behavior of their associates, so post-jailed people became (as general rule) even more criminal then before

[Phelix-Mu]

Where is the effect a compulsion on the subject's actions? Citation, please.

[ShurikVch]

Where is the effect a compulsion on the subject's actions? Citation, please.

Do you mean "compulsion" as sub-school, as descriptor, as mention in description, or as some general context thing?
There is no "compulsion" subschool, because it's necromancy, not an enchantment
There is no "compulsion" in-text, but so is in RAW for Helm of opposite alignment
And general context was just pointed early

[Phelix-Mu]

My point is that the effect of the spell has no power to compel any sort of action by the subject. Alignment is prescriptive, not proscriptive, and barely that. The template conferred can be lost voluntarily. No change made by the spell is permanent, and no specific outcome can be enforced. It's pretty much totally fluff. And in that respect a totally sub-par spell to be using, but since it generates a novel effect, it has its place.

[HaikenEdge]

Evil people may indeed do good things, as the whole idea of evil is just give in to your own selfish impulses and self-centered desires. So, occasionally it is gratifying to do good, and the evil person may make an occasional exception and do good (just like the good person can do the occasional evil without instant alignment shift), but too much of that and they are now neutral.

The bigger issue is that doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still the wrong thing to do. The degree of evil may be mitigated by various circumstances, but evil is evil, and doing evil is something good people ideally avoid whenever possible (and maybe even more than that).

To the issue of StW, the now-good subject feels the inclination to be good of someone that has habitually been so, and the real guilt of someone that believes their past actions were at fault. If the subject makes a genuine effort to be evil, though, there is nothing in the spell that stops that.

In this way, the spell really just evens the playing field; normally, it's easy to go good->evil, and hard to go evil->good. StW makes both directions difficult to do, giving a creature an impulse to do good not backed up by their own actions (as normally being good isn't easy and is more difficult the more virtuous one wishes to be...only good habits mitigate this difficulty, and those are founded on good actions, which the subject of the spells has few to none of in their past).

That's kind of my problem with StW as a [Good] spell. It's clearly doing something for the right reasons (to make a creature good), but it's doing it in a way I, as a DM, would rule to be evil. To me, it's not much different than an evil character saving a city from a vampire invasion by finding a way to quarantine them to the slums and then just burning those same slums to the ground, regardless of how many people made their homes there; sure, they did it for the greater good (so it's the right reasons), but the amount of lives lost in the endeavor, when there were possibly other (if more strenuous and/or less likely to succeed) methods.

Basically, it's my beef with StW as a [Good] spell. It's the wrong thing, done ostensibly for the right reason.

[Phelix-Mu]

But since it hardly does anything at all, it can't really be said to be doing the wrong thing. Being evil and becoming good is hard; this spell makes it easy, just like being good and becoming evil (from "Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu" enough times, to other RAW ways to fall so fast that you break the sound barrier on the way down). The only real affect is that the evil subject spends a year in prison, feels bad about everything (to no mechanical effect), and gets eye lasers if they want to keep them. It isn't evil to inflict some emotional hardship on a deserving person in hopes of (from the perspective of good) saving their soul.

Of course the evil person views it as an affront. That doesn't mean that it is. Especially by D&D standards, where straight up killing that evil person for their evil deeds is often considered an acceptable moral choice. StW is vastly superior to the typical treatment that evil individuals get in the game.

[Jeff the Green]

Of course, even if the fluff were explicitly "you force the evil creature to do good", according to D&D morality this is, at worst, a neutral act. Neither Good nor Evil puts much stock in free will; that's Chaos's shtick.

[lord_khaine]

I am seriously surprised and shocked by the amounth of drama regarding this spell though.

To start with it has nothing to do with mindrape, it does not change memories or implant false suggestions, all it does is to force a change of heart regarding morality.

And i really cant see the arguments for how this could be anything but good, by the casting of this spell you give a soul another chance at attempting damnation.

While the target of this spell suposedly already has enough atrocities on its concience to make it deserve death or simular, then its merciful to give it a chance to change its way.

I dont think anyone would blink an eye at the suggestion of killing a dragon who have burned a village to the ground, why is it suddenly worse to prevent that from happening again, by making sure the dragon would not want to do something like that again?
Does people think cutting off its head gives it more of a free choice?

[Coidzor]

IIRC, the general term is more often Holy Mindrape.

The spell, as written, is fairly problematic. There's ways to make it... less problematic, though, and if one wants to have it in one's game, I would heavily recommend houseruling it into nigh-unrecognizability. Maybe lowering the spell level too, to go with making it... function very differently.

Or at least having a lesser version that the greater version that works perfectly is supposed to be a step up from.

To start with it has nothing to do with mindrape, it does not change memories or implant false suggestions, all it does is to force a change of heart regarding morality.

Mindrape is mostly brought up because it's a very powerful/loaded term and covers the brainwashing angle as well. For instance, people'd have much less issue with it if it didn't touch the ethical axis at all. So a CE person would become CG, LE -> LG, and NE -> NG, instead of where a CE/NE/LE person would become whatever alignment the spellcaster had and agree totally with the ethics and morality of the individual caster of the spell.

That's been said ad nauseum in these sorts of threads already though.

Of course, even if the fluff were explicitly "you force the evil creature to do good", according to D&D morality this is, at worst, a neutral act. Neither Good nor Evil puts much stock in free will; that's Chaos's shtick.

Totally disregarding free-will and making people your slaves is pretty much LN because that's Formians, who somehow maintain an LN alignment despite being fairly Evil-lite in most of their depictions as antagonists.

[Hazrond]

-snip-

-snip

-snip

-snip-

doesnt the spell have an inbuilt clause for the whole "alignment slide" thing? i thought it had a sentence along the lines of "the creature abhors the idea of returning to its former alignment" somewhere in there, maybe i was thinking of the helm of opposite alignment...

[Coidzor]

doesnt the spell have an inbuilt clause for the whole "alignment slide" thing? i thought it had a sentence along the lines of "the creature abhors the idea of returning to its former alignment" somewhere in there, maybe i was thinking of the helm of opposite alignment...

I believe there is, yes. I think that mostly that's generally part and parcel to alignment change borne out of beliefs changing, so it could be clarification of how alignment works ("No, a person who is Good would not want to start sacrificing babies until they turned Evil again.") or it could be a supernatural compulsion. *shrug*

[Phelix-Mu]

doesnt the spell have an inbuilt clause for the whole "alignment slide" thing? i thought it had a sentence along the lines of "the creature abhors the idea of returning to its former alignment" somewhere in there, maybe i was thinking of the helm of opposite alignment...

Just checked. No.

In fact, the Sanctified Creature template makes mention that it can be lost if the creature that gained it begins to act in evil ways once again. Once the template is gone, the creature is basically back to normal, minus one year of its life.

@Coidzor: I checked the spell. I don't see the line you are referring to, but perhaps I was skimming in haste. Could you quote me a sentence that says that or implies such?

[Coidzor]

Just checked. No.

In fact, the Sanctified Creature template makes mention that it can be lost if the creature that gained it begins to act in evil ways once again. Once the template is gone, the creature is basically back to normal, minus one year of its life.

@Coidzor: I checked the spell. I don't see the line you are referring to, but perhaps I was skimming in haste. Could you quote me a sentence that says that or implies such?

Hazrond is the one who was referencing a line. I just doublechecked the template and the spell myself and didn't find it so it appears I remembered that part erroneously, with the closest bit being the following paragraph from the Sanctified Creature template:

Many sanctified creatures feel a burning desire to purge their past evil deeds by performing selfless acts and heroic deeds. They pursue their newfound dedication to good with the zeal of an archon. Some strive to destroy evil where they find it, while others try to persuade other evil creatures to seek similar enlightenment. With their outlook having changed to good, many sanctified creatures feel compelled to take up arms to protect the good and the innocent. Sometimes they join with celestials and good-aligned adventurers to fight evil head-on.

That they have a new outlook alone should suggest that, no, they're not just going to immediately start sacrificing babies until they're Evil again as so frequently gets brought up in these threads, "Or Alignment Is A Strait Jacket."

Amusingly, Sanctified Creature template sorta contradicts the spell Sanctify the Wicked by not having the ethical axis of the creature's alignment change when the template is applied.

[Phelix-Mu]

All of the quoted parts seem to refer to potential outlooks that are largely down to the individual.

Contrast that quote with the next paragraph.

From Sanctified Creature Template, BoED:

A sanctified creature that reverts to evil, deliberately or not,
loses all benefits of this template. Essentially, it is restored to its
state prior to becoming a sanctified creature.

This, to me, implies that the sanctified creature can fall just fine. And if they want to do so, what stops them? A creature can have two conflicting desires; nothing RAW says a person of one alignment can't have some impulse to behave otherwise, or some driving compulsion to do the opposite. If they follow through on their desire to do something evil (or not be good), then alignment change likely follows.

The whole spell, and all the mechanics that it implies, are extremely weak from an optimization standpoint, because the caster can't really exert much in the way of concrete influence. It's all down to how the DM is going to have the newly-good creature react to being good, which is a role play-heavy, mechanics-lite issue.

Now, a cooperative DM in a campaign using BoED stuff (which pretty much has to be used with the help of a cooperative DM) would do well not to have the StW'd creature revert to evil instantly, since that pretty much spits in the face of a character that just made significant sacrifice to cast StW. But being good is hard, and being evil is easy; I see nothing to suggest that an StW'd creature that is left to their own devices and subject to the normal temptation to be evil (just like every sentient being ever is subject to), can't just undergo normal alignment change. A caster would do well to keep in close contact with the StW'd creature, using additional Diplomacy checks or other controls to make sure that creature doesn't revert to its evil ways (or a more chaotic soul could just let the creature live its own life...pretty much down to preference).

The spell is not about creating minions. It's really, really terrible at doing that.

[Malroth]

BoED villian with self repeating Sanctify the Wicked Traps that get used on everyone for every minor offence in the kingdom

[Red Fel]

If the creature is a non-Outsider, I acknowledge that, as a denizen of the Material, it has those delightful things like free choice and the ability to alter its fate through action. Although the Sanctified template strongly encourages it to remain Good, it is not required to. That said, I should note that the language of the template does strongly suggest that it would lack the desire to become Evil again, at least in the immediate future. I would compare it to the forced alignment change of a Helm of Opposite Alignment:

Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook.

. . .

Only a wish or a miracle can restore former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. (In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible.)

I note further that natives of the Material might lose the desire to return to their former alignment, but not the ability. Natives of the Material always have the ability.

Now, Outsiders are a different story. Note that Outsiders who receive the Sanctified template gain the (Good) subtype. That's major, because it means that being Good is now a fundamental part of the creature's being. It's not just a mental state; the creature is Good, inherently. Becoming non-Good would require a constant, active struggle. Consider the famous (in alignment discussions) illustration of the Succubus Paladin, a creature with the (Chaotic) and (Evil) subtypes who has embraced a life of Law and Good. Better yet, let's go to the videotape:

Eludecia is a succubus who converted to good as a conscious act of will, and the tension of the continual effort to maintain her redemption makes her quite an interesting character in a roleplaying sense.

Eludecia knows that she can never purge herself completely of her evil nature without magical aid, but for now, she shuns such help because she is determined to "make it on her own." Thus, she must fight each and every day to avoid slipping back into her evil ways. Thus far, she has succeeded admirably.

A creature with the (Good) subtype would have to struggle valiantly against its nature to become Evil, and thus lose the Sanctified template. Possible, certainly, but much harder than it would be for a native of the Material.

[Phelix-Mu]

While the Helm of Opposite Alignment may be illustrative, it seems mostly irrelevant, because cursed items do present an ongoing effect that is inherently hard to get rid of. It's the curse, not the alignment change, that is creating the effect, in my mind ("the magic" is the source of the change in attitude, not the change in alignment).

I don't suggest that there is no effect at all, or that it is trivial. But it is far from the near-ironclad utility of mindrape, which allows much more versatility and much more mechanical effect to back up its permanency.

In a sense, I would actually see this as indicative of the difference between good and evil.

StW: A hope for good, requiring sacrifice by the good, but by no means certain.

Mindrape: A surefire way to get the effect you desire (assuming the effect lands), the only cost being the moral compromise of the caster (a cost most evil people don't even register). Oh, and whatever it was that the pre-casting target was, now gone...but that's also fairly acceptable to an evil person.

Good, difficult but hopeful; evil, quick and full of damnation. I think it works out okay if you look at it this way (and ignore the dumb fluff writing and inconsistency regarding the ethical axis, which doesn't make much sense).

[Coidzor]

This, to me, implies that the sanctified creature can fall just fine. And if they want to do so, what stops them?

Going out and sacrificing babies until you're evil again isn't organic. It's not falling. Falling generally needs to make some sort of sense, which is one component of why forcing Paladins to fall against their will is so tiresome as a D&D trope.

Yes, they can go evil again, that doesn't mean that they don't have to deal with the same baggage with going evil and needing an actual justification for such that a newly minted Good character would need to not just get accused of acting against character.

[Knaight]

Both of the spells basically take the target, kill them, stick somebody else in their body, and give that somebody else their memories. StW and mindrape are really pretty similar if that's what is being looked at; both are essentially ways to kill people while making it seem like they aren't dead and exploiting their remains for your own ends. When the system condemns the use of poisoned arrows, marking StW as good seems off.

[Sith_Happens]

That's a pretty loose definition of "basically."

[satcharna]

It might be loose, but it's also the only conclusion you can draw from it. A personality is formed from your experiences. The spell removes that personality and creates a new one.
If your definition of personhood is based strictly on the body, then the spell does indeed turn someone good. But by that definition a psion that uses mind swap isn't the same person any more, and raising a corpse as a zombie would be the same thing as casting a resurrection spell. If you instead define personhood as being a personality formed from memories and experiences, then this spell effectively kills someone, and then sticks a new personality in the body, but giving it access to the old memories. There is no way to refluff this spell as good, because what it does is fundamentally not. It kills someone, and then hijacks their body.

[Jeff the Green]

It might be loose, but it's also the only conclusion you can draw from it. A personality is formed from your experiences. The spell removes that personality and creates a new one.
If your definition of personhood is based strictly on the body, then the spell does indeed turn someone good. But by that definition a psion that uses mind swap isn't the same person any more, and raising a corpse as a zombie would be the same thing as casting a resurrection spell. If you instead define personhood as being a personality formed from memories and experiences, then this spell effectively kills someone, and then sticks a new personality in the body, but giving it access to the old memories. There is no way to refluff this spell as good, because what it does is fundamentally not. It kills someone, and then hijacks their body.

You are aware that forcing someone to sit through a lecture, even one that is perfectly effective, is entirely different from entirely rewriting their personality, right? StW changes only their alignment. Nothing else.

[Larkas]

Holy straw man, Batman!

Seriously, now, if that made any sense, you would be killing yourself every time you changed your mind about something.

[satcharna]

It takes effect the very last second after a full year has passed. Otherwise it is ineffective. It compels the character to retain their new alignment. That's not the same thing as gradually turning someone good by letting their personality develop in that direction in the first place. If it were to gradually turn the character good without any magical compulsions, it could be argued to be a good spell. As-is it's just a very slow version of mindrape.

[Knaight]

You are aware that forcing someone to sit through a lecture, even one that is perfectly effective, is entirely different from entirely rewriting their personality, right? StW changes only their alignment. Nothing else.

If by "lecture" you mean "brainwashing", then sure. You're only changing the titanic aspect that is their moral opinions and resultant actions. It's not quite as thorough as mindrape, it's substantially more extensive than actual brainwashing tends to be.

Holy straw man, Batman!

Seriously, now, if that made any sense, you would be killing yourself every time you changed your mind about something.

Hardly. Putting aside how the whole matter of continuity of personhood and what personhood is is a messy business, it doesn't follow that the complete rewriting of a persons memories being the destruction of the person means that a tiny change in opinion on one thing is. This is like claiming that someone dies every time they get a cut, because the blood they lose dies and it's part of them.

[Larkas]

Hardly. Putting aside how the whole matter of continuity of personhood and what personhood is is a messy business, it doesn't follow that the complete rewriting of a persons memories being the destruction of the person means that a tiny change in opinion on one thing is. This is like claiming that someone dies every time they get a cut, because the blood they lose dies and it's part of them.

Exactly! You seem to be missing the part where StW doesn't rewrite anyone's memories (that would be mindrape), it merely changes that persons reactions to their own memories.

The fact that StW only takes effect after one year, being effectively useless before that, seems more like a mechanics shortcoming than a fluff one. Fortunately or not, regular D&D doesn't have NWN's alignment scale (there's something similar in a Dragon issue, but it's always subjective), and hence you can't just say that "every 3 days spent in the crystal moves the creature one point closer towards Good. Once the creature reaches maximum Good, the crystal shatters and the creature is released".

[Jeff the Green]

If by "lecture" you mean "brainwashing", then sure. You're only changing the titanic aspect that is their moral opinions and resultant actions. It's not quite as thorough as mindrape, it's substantially more extensive than actual brainwashing tends to be.

Right. So in all of the stories, real or imagined, where someone who has lived a life of iniquity hears a sermon, realizes that their life up til then has been empty, and converts on the spot, what really happened is that they died and someone else took over the helm. I mean, I know they're prone to calling themselves "Born Again", but that's supposed to be figurative.

[ryu]

If by "lecture" you mean "brainwashing", then sure. You're only changing the titanic aspect that is their moral opinions and resultant actions. It's not quite as thorough as mindrape, it's substantially more extensive than actual brainwashing tends to be.


Hardly. Putting aside how the whole matter of continuity of personhood and what personhood is is a messy business, it doesn't follow that the complete rewriting of a persons memories being the destruction of the person means that a tiny change in opinion on one thing is. This is like claiming that someone dies every time they get a cut, because the blood they lose dies and it's part of them.

Just gonna point out that continuity of personhood as a given for continuing to exist via uninterrupted stream of events is silly. Most every person you have ever met or will ever meet has their continuity interrupted every day by sleep. None of that memory of dreams stuff works either. People literally remember tiny fractions of what they dream at best. Not only that dreaming only occurs for a hilariously small fraction of the actual sleep period.