A very controversial spell

[Drachasor]

Aw, for--how has this not come across yet? We're arguing that StW does not involve "presenting a convincing argument" at all. It, in point of fact, bypasses any actual "convincing" and just auto-converts. The Will save is not for resisting the argument; the Will save is for whether the spell hits you or not. If the spell hits you, you are brainwashed with no opportunity to resist the "convincing argument".

The text doesn't have anything about brainwashing. You're making that up because you dislike the spell. If you disagree, then quote text from it that states otherwise.

It quite clearly indicates the change happens because of internal realizations.

So when you wonder why your interpretation isn't accepted, maybe you should consider the fact it is based on made-up text that doesn't actually exist.

That is a ridiculous conclusion. We've already established that there's a difference between "stop bad people from hurting other people" and "go into somebody's mind and rip out pieces of them". What we're saying is not that Good people allow others to do whatever they want; what we're saying is that Good people don't reach into somebody's soul and start ripping things out.

Again, that's not what the spell does. Stop making stuff up.

The game mechanics don't indicate this, but the fluff allows for it. Which is still part of the rules as written, even if most people refluff things.

Simple example - this guy is a cleric of a NE god. He has faith in that deity and can be within one step of his alignment. Becoming TN would still allow him to be a cleric of that god, but becoming NG would actually rob him of his faith. So he has a logical, rational, and intensely personal reason to want to retain his alignment, or at the very least resist the full effects of StW.

Another example - this guy has levels in Blackguard. If he were Sanctified, those levels would become dead levels and he would lose the ability to function in his position and in the conflicts within which he is enmeshed.

Another example - this guy truly believes at a deep level in the ideas of survival of the fittest and every man for himself. He has a strong ideological reason to be evil.

The spell treats all of these cases identically - its not convincing people, its altering people.

The end effect is identical in regards to alignment and a template only. That doesn't mean the personalities at the end are identical. It doesn't mean the process isn't deeply personal. The spell indicates that it in fact is deeply personal.

Ok, so "good reasons" just means "invested"/"psychological history"/etc. Well, people can change and if someone is very logical then they can change their view based on new evidence/axioms. You've presented nothing that indicates those examples can't reform and become good guys.

I do think they are, yes. I said as much earlier on. Actual real-life brainwashing is basically a form of 'convincing argument' that may involve conditioning like controlling the person's environment, sleep patterns, etc, but also may just involve knowing how to say things that bypass the target's higher reasoning. A sufficiently convincing argument can in fact be brain washing.

Ok, so good characters aren't allowed to make convincing arguments.

If that's your standard, which D&D definitely doesn't support, then I think we are done here. You've essentially said good D&D characters can't use diplomacy effectively, otherwise they are brain washing people. Same if they construct a convincing argument via RP. Because if you ever change anyone's mind, then you've mindwashed them and you're a monster.

[olentu]

No, merely suggesting that it's only one small part of it and that part changes.

Obviously the creature's old behavior patterns and their new morality would conflict with each other.

I just think it's neither "Their alignment binds them to a new set of actions" nor "they'll immediately revert to normal" but instead something in between with the final outcome unknown from the start.

But remember spells don't imply anything. They tell you what they do. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't. Since we are dismissing any argument based on implication, the spell does not change the target's personality since it does not say it does. Thus inclinations can not change as they are part of the personality.

[ryu]

Okay show of hands right now people. Is there a single person on this entire forum who doesn't think diplomacy is borked? I defy any/all of you to defend it as a well written, and not all ridiculously badly written mechanic.

[squiggit]

But remember spells don't imply anything. They tell you what they do. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't. Since we are dismissing any argument based on implication, the spell does not change the target's personality since it does not say it does. Thus inclinations can not change as they are part of the personality.

It does, however change their alignment, which has an effect on personality.

You're right though, their natural inclinations wouldn't change, but their moral frame of reference does which can bring conflict to a character (which is why they're not necessarily going to stay good).

[Drachasor]

But remember spells don't imply anything. They tell you what they do. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't. Since we are dismissing any argument based on implication, the spell does not change the target's personality since it does not say it does. Thus inclinations can not change as they are part of the personality.

Or rather, it doesn't change their personality more than it says it does.

If the Evil Villain collected Wingback Chairs, then after the change he'll still collect them. If he loved to cook, he'll still love to cook. If he liked sarcastically mocking people, then he probably still does that. Etc, etc.

It's arguable that if he loved to fry orphans, then he doesn't like that anymore. Some changes are to be expected.

Okay show of hands right now people. Is there a single person on this entire forum who doesn't think diplomacy is borked? I defy any/all of you to defend it as a well written, and not all ridiculously badly written mechanic.

Sure. But I don't think that means that convincing arguments are the same as brainwashing. And while in 3.5 Diplomacy might have elements of this from an outside perspective, that doesn't mean that's how it works within the game either.

[ryu]

That's totally how diplomacy works within the game. Has anyone here not seen a demonstration of turning a hostile enemy into an obedient little fanatic with just a standard action? No chance of failure permanent dominate effect more or less.

[Phelix-Mu]

The problem with the alignment system is that D&D can't decide if its Proscriptive or Descriptive. Do you act that way because of your alignment or is that your alignment because you act that way? Its used both ways, which generates a lot of confusion on how it relates to an individual.

Part of the issue is that alignment is a simplification of a rather dizzyingly complicated series of interactions that goes on inside any sentient creature (even if they aren't totally cognizant that this all is going on).

1.) Habits: Good and evil (and probably law and chaos, too) greatly benefit from the way brains (and the non-brains of non-organics and others) work. When a person first encounters a novel situation, a large part of the brain gears up, assesses stimuli, references memories of similar situations, and tries to foresee outcomes and weigh risk/reward. Pretty much all beings experience this. However, in later situations requiring the same or similar choice, the brain often uses the established information from before (and analysis of the results of last time) to do the same decision-making with less effort.

Each time a choice is repeated, the individual can start from scratch with effort, but is more and more likely to default to the habit, the established pattern from previous, similar situations. Deviating from habits is hard, and gets harder with time.

Implication: People get to be so evil or good mainly through actions, patterns of behavior that are virtuous or vile. A person with a pattern of good actions is called a good person. A person with a pattern of evil actions is called evil. People can act however they want, but the habits they have acquired lend themselves to a sense of inertia and comfort in their established ways.

2.) Choices: Everytime a choice pops up, the person looks at risk/reward and past similar instances in making a choice. Habits play a role, but aren't the be all and end all of the process. Change is an effort, but each choice is essentially a free start (even if the person is unable to see it as such).

3.) Alignment: Alignment is mainly descriptive. But it can seem proscriptive, because a good person is full of habits of behavior that are virtuous. Being evil, for that person, is uncomfortable, even repugnant, and would require some significant incentive for them to deviate from their established ways.

4.) Change: Change is always possible, since, as noted, each choice, every moment, is a chance for a creature to break the mold and do something new. This is why alignment is not static. It can gradually from moment to moment, and flow in the direction of the new habits that the person is starting or the old habits that the person is reinforcing.

So, all that said, is a the post-StW subject that is now good inclined toward goodness? I'd say yes, but artificially so (and generally irrespective of that subjects personality in general). The person has the impression, from the time in the gem, that evil actions cause pain and suffering, and that being good is a better way to live in general. These memories are profound for that creature, since the year in the gem is nothing if not a major ordeal.

However, memories fade, and even an impression of goodness may not cure every villain of the influence of their past actions, the temptation to be evil in the future, and so forth. With the support that every good creature deserves, the subject of the spell can probably maintain their course, and every good act they commit lays another paving stone in the pattern of good habits and behavior. But, left to their own devices or waylaid by other evil creatures, or just subject to the general crapper that life occasionally is, evil can take hold again.

Or Pazuzu could show up and...WAIT! NO! MY CAREFULLY LAID ARGUMENT UNDONE AGAIN!

CURSE YOU, PAZUZU!

[Loreweaver15]

The text doesn't have anything about brainwashing. You're making that up because you dislike the spell. If you disagree, then quote text from it that states otherwise.

It quite clearly indicates the change happens because of internal realizations.

So when you wonder why your interpretation isn't accepted, maybe you should consider the fact it is based on made-up text that doesn't actually exist.

Again, that's not what the spell does. Stop making stuff up.

Do you understand what extrapolation is?

Come on, people.

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.

How hard is it to get across that I'm asking you to consider what it means that the spell cannot fail?

EDIT: You know what? Nevermind. You guys are ignoring my words completely. I'm done.

[squiggit]

How hard is it to get across that I'm asking you to consider what it means that the spell cannot fail?

First: Will save
Second: Again, extremely slow acting extremely pricy ninth level spell. No surprise it has a low chance of failure.
Third: Extrapolation in this case is still essentially homebrew/inventing your own version of the spell because the conclusions you're coming to are not indicated anywhere in the spell (and again, rules are explicit).

You know what? Nevermind. You guys are ignoring my words completely. I'm done.

No, people are disagreeing with you. That's normal in a discussion. What's also normal (or should be at least) is responding in a polite and articulate manner to explain your point.

[georgie_leech]

Do you understand what extrapolation is?

Come on, people.

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.

How hard is it to get across that I'm asking you to consider what it means that the spell cannot fail?

EDIT: You know what? Nevermind. You guys are ignoring my words completely. I'm done.

You're leaving out the bit where the meaningful alignment shift occurs between the 5255999th round and the 5256000th round of the duration

My particular objection with the spell is that it fluffs a gradual conversion, but has the alignment change all at once; immediately prior to the year lapsing, breaking the gem leaves the soul just as evil as when the spell was first cast. Honestly, I'm fine with [Good] spells not always being a "good" thing to do, from the "Alignments are about fundamental forces that don't necessarily conform to ethics or morality" perspective, but that crunch-fluff mismatch always bothers me.

[Loreweaver15]

First: Will save
Second: Again, extremely slow acting extremely pricy ninth level spell. No surprise it has a low chance of failure.
Third: Extrapolation in this case is still essentially homebrew/inventing your own version of the spell because the conclusions you're coming to are not indicated anywhere in the spell (and again, rules are explicit).

Lied, not done. This is exactly what I'm talking about, jeez.

The Will save has nothing to do with whether the conversion succeeds or fails; it deals solely with whether the spell hits you or not. If the spell hits you, it autosucceeds. You cannot resist the conversion.

Second: How does how expensive the spell is relative to its effectiveness have anything to do with whether the spell is Good or not? Yes, it's a powerful spell. We've established that. That has nothing to do with the spell's moral content.

Third: So your contention is that we should refrain from considering what the effects of a spell mean when determining how to use it and whether it is right or wrong to do so?

[Drachasor]

Do you understand what extrapolation is?

Come on, people.

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.

How hard is it to get across that I'm asking you to consider what it means that the spell cannot fail?

EDIT: You know what? Nevermind. You guys are ignoring my words completely. I'm done.

Wish can make any non-magical item of any complexity worth up to 25k. No chance of failure. Period.

There are lots of high level things that would otherwise require a skill check or multiple skill checks, but the high level spell just does it. At that point magic can basically provide arbitrarily high bonuses and so skill checks just don't matter. You can do the same thing here without magic using the Conversion rules in the book as long as your check is high enough. This is no different, but the magic takes care of trivial checks because magic trumps mundane abilities.

The problem here is that you just don't understand how high level magic works. (The fact that high level magic is unbalanced and broken, which is part of the martial-caster disparity is another discussion). It does a lot of "autosuccess at skill checks" stuff.

That's totally how diplomacy works within the game. Has anyone here not seen a demonstration of turning a hostile enemy into an obedient little fanatic with just a standard action? No chance of failure permanent dominate effect more or less.

The mechanic effect looks similar, but you really are just convincing someone with simple words.

The disconnect here is what makes Diplomacy messed up, because it ISN'T mind control. Well, also because it is very easy to get very high checks.

You're leaving out the bit where the meaningful alignment shift occurs between the 5255999th round and the 5256000th round of the duration

My particular objection with the spell is that it fluffs a gradual conversion, but has the alignment change all at once; immediately prior to the year lapsing, breaking the gem leaves the soul just as evil as when the spell was first cast. Honestly, I'm fine with [Good] spells not always being a "good" thing to do, from the "Alignments are about fundamental forces that don't necessarily conform to ethics or morality" perspective, but that crunch-fluff mismatch always bothers me.

Clearly there's some sort of Contingent Epiphany as part of the spell.

That is the biggest part of it that doesn't really make any sense. That and declaring that the target will automatically hate the caster -- while very likely, that should really depend on the personality of the target and the circumstances.

[Phelix-Mu]

You're leaving out the bit where the meaningful alignment shift occurs between the 5255999th round and the 5256000th round of the duration

My particular objection with the spell is that it fluffs a gradual conversion, but has the alignment change all at once; immediately prior to the year lapsing, breaking the gem leaves the soul just as evil as when the spell was first cast. Honestly, I'm fine with [Good] spells not always being a "good" thing to do, from the "Alignments are about fundamental forces that don't necessarily conform to ethics or morality" perspective, but that crunch-fluff mismatch always bothers me.

Maybe time doesn't function the same way inside the gem? After all, they probably watch every scene of evil from their whole life in the span of a year...most people's lives don't fit into that span of time even with significant editing.

Moreover, this is a world of Planar Shepherds of Xoriat, flowing time planes and teleport through time. Is this spell really the least believable representation of time that you know of?

Actually, flowing time inside the gem might work, lol.

[georgie_leech]

The mechanic effect looks similar, but you really are just convincing someone with simple words.

The disconnect here is what makes Diplomacy messed up, because it ISN'T mind control. Well, also because it is very easy to get very high checks.

Quibble: Effects that suppress or counter mind-affecting effects affect* the Fanatic attitude like any other mind altering effect, and it is detected by Sense Motive in the same way one could detect Dominate Person or similar.

*I love English. Because I can: "Mind-affecting effects affect the effected affection as effects affect effects/aflictions effecting or affecting affection.

[olentu]

It does, however change their alignment, which has an effect on personality.

You're right though, their natural inclinations wouldn't change, but their moral frame of reference does which can bring conflict to a character (which is why they're not necessarily going to stay good).

And yet, by your own measure that does not happen. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't. And so the spell can not change the personality. Well unless, of course, your are claiming that the alignment can affect a character's actions by imposing some sort restrictive moral frame of reference. Almost as if there was some sort of bindings, perhaps made of cloth, restricting their actions.

Well that, or perhaps you wish to relax your standard and allow for consideration of what the spell implies. I would certainly not find it unreasonable for one to interpret the spell as heavily implying that there is a personality change, but that does not matter so long as implications are right out.

Or rather, it doesn't change their personality more than it says it does.

If the Evil Villain collected Wingback Chairs, then after the change he'll still collect them. If he loved to cook, he'll still love to cook. If he liked sarcastically mocking people, then he probably still does that. Etc, etc.

It's arguable that if he loved to fry orphans, then he doesn't like that anymore. Some changes are to be expected.

Now now, changes are only to be expected if we are allowing for the things the spell implies to have any weight. However spells don't imply anything. They tell you what they do. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't. And thus nothing that is not explicitly stated in the mechanic can be expected.

[ryu]

Have you any idea the things I've made people do with diplomacy? I've made people run suicide missions with incredibly small chance of coming out alive and basically no payment worth even a scrap of what was being done. I've made dragons who wanted nothing more than to kill me, the party, and the entire village we were guarding gently let its head down so I could pet it. Keep in mind these are some of the more SANE examples of things I've done with ''just words.''

[Drachasor]

Quibble: Effects that suppress or counter mind-affecting effects affect* the Fanatic attitude like any other mind altering effect, and it is detected by Sense Motive in the same way one could detect Dominate Person or similar.

*I love English.

Point. But barring Epic use, what I said certainly stands.

Have you any idea the things I've made people do with diplomacy? I've made people run suicide missions with incredibly small chance of coming out alive and basically no payment worth even a scrap of what was being done. I've made dragons who wanted nothing more than to kill me, the party, and the entire village we were guarding gently let its head down so I could pet it. Keep in mind these are some of the more SANE examples of things I've done with ''just words.''

And that is something that can happen in real life too. That doesn't make it mind control.

Now now, changes are only to be expected if we are allowing for the things the spell implies to have any weight. However spells don't imply anything. They tell you what they do. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't. And thus nothing that is not explicitly stated in the mechanic can be expected.

The rules explicitly say that people of certain alignments value particular things. So going by RAW there are changes.

[squiggit]

The Will save has nothing to do with whether the conversion succeeds or fails; it deals solely with whether the spell hits you or not. If the spell hits you, it autosucceeds. You cannot resist the conversion.

That's more interpretation and extrapolation. The spell fails on a will save. You arguing the will save just means the spell fails to work is no more valid than me arguing that the will save means you're too willful to be sanctified.

Second: How does how expensive the spell is relative to its effectiveness have anything to do with whether the spell is Good or not? Yes, it's a powerful spell. We've established that. That has nothing to do with the spell's moral content.

Because when discussing how the mechanics of how the spell works we're discussing crunch at that point; it being a high level spell and therefore deserving a high rate of efficacy especially given its drawbacks is entirely valid because, ideally, spells should be balanced for the tier of play at which they're accessible.

Sanctify the wicked is competing at its tier with AoE save or die, wish, gate, time stop, and etc. So from a mechanics standpoint autosuccess is almost required for the spell to be even worth a look.

It's essentially the same as the diplomacy argument: Diplomacy doesn't suddenly become increasingly evil the more skill points you have in it, it's just a mechanical benefit (albeit an imbalanced one) of investing heavily into optimizing a single skill.

Third: So your contention is that we should refrain from considering what the effects of a spell mean when determining how to use it and whether it is right or wrong to do so?

No, I'm contending that when determining what a spell does we should read the text of the spell. And if we choose to homebrew because we're dissatisfied with the text remember that it's just that, homebrew.

And yet, by your own measure that does not happen. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't. And so the spell can not change the personality. Well unless, of course, your are claiming that the alignment can affect a character's actions by imposing some sort restrictive moral frame of reference. Almost as if there was some sort of bindings, perhaps made of cloth, restricting their actions.

But it does outright say it changes their alignment. My argument about "restrictions" was that alignment does not bind them wholesale to a particular path as you originally implied, only that it applies a certain framework that colors other actions.

[Phelix-Mu]

Alright, here is my homebrew fix for sanctify the wicked.

Sanctimonious the Wicked

Step 1: Plane shift to a plane other than the plane the target is native to.

Step 2: Gate the target to your location.

Step 3: Command the target to put on a helm of opposite alignment.

Step 4: MFKING PROFIT, YEAH! EAT THAT, BBEG.

Spoiler

Show

(If necessary, apply memory alteration effects to make them forget the helm is there or other stuff to make sure the effect sticks.)

jk?

[georgie_leech]

Maybe time doesn't function the same way inside the gem? After all, they probably watch every scene of evil from their whole life in the span of a year...most people's lives don't fit into that span of time even with significant editing.

Moreover, this is a world of Planar Shepherds of Xoriat, flowing time planes and teleport through time. Is this spell really the least believable representation of time that you know of?

Actually, flowing time inside the gem might work, lol.

Maybe. I'd rather see it have a duration based on HD and Will Save; the more stubborn you are and the more power your habits have brought you, the more likely you are to hold on to your previous beliefs. Further, I'd rather the chance of the target turning Good be based on the length of time it spent in the gem. Like, break the gem halfway through the duration, and the target has a 50% chance of changing alignment. Lastly, it seems like there should be a step between "I hurt others for personal profit and pleasure" and "I protect others from those who would hurt them for personal profit and pleasure," and the obvious middle step is "I don't hurt others for personal profit or pleasure," i.e. Neutral. Maybe have the percentile dice rolled twice, and 1 success shifts the alignment by 1 step (counting diagonals like CE->TN or NE->LN as 1 step) and 2 successes means the complete shift occurs.

[ryu]

And that is something that can happen in real life too. That doesn't make it mind control.

And the hoards of demonic cultists made to immediately take up arms against the enormous freaking monster several CR above them as a group just because I didn't want to waste actual resources killing them? How about forcing people to mutilate themselves to give me safety ingredients for their resurrections just in case the body is destroyed? To put this in perspective I made a man chop off his pinky finger just so there would be no risk of me having to spend extra on true ressing over just ressing. No there was not pain mitigation involved.

[rmnimoc]

Lied, not done. This is exactly what I'm talking about, jeez.

The Will save has nothing to do with whether the conversion succeeds or fails; it deals solely with whether the spell hits you or not. If the spell hits you, it autosucceeds. You cannot resist the conversion.

Let's try this from yet again another angle:

I'm now electing to believe that the spell just gives you some alone time with your conscience and a fragment of the caster's soul. The caster's soul and your conscience spend 364 days writing up the perfect argument within the crystal. Day 365, it strikes, making you realize with gut-wrenching horror and disgust all the bad things you have done, and that you shouldn't do them any more.

You can't resist because the argument was crafted with your help. You basically told the caster how to make you good, and it worked. Any counter argument is shot down by the caster and the conscience working together, knowing your argument as soon as you do and making you realize it's flaws.

Is that any better?

I love English. Because I can: "Mind-affecting effects affect the effected affection as effects affect effects effecting or affecting affection.

That is hilarious.

[olentu]

But it does outright say it changes their alignment. My argument about "restrictions" was that alignment does not bind them wholesale to a particular path as you originally implied, only that it applies a certain framework that colors other actions.

Hmm, a certain framework that colors other actions. Something like, say, someone's inclinations.

[squiggit]

Hmm, a certain framework that colors other actions. Something like, say, someone's inclinations.

I'm drawing a distinction between moral inclinations (i.e. alignment) and habitual ones (the chair collecting mentioned earlier) here because it makes it easier to discuss in this framework. That might be where the disconnect here is coming from.

[olentu]

I'm drawing a distinction between moral inclinations (i.e. alignment) and habitual ones (the chair collecting mentioned earlier) here because it makes it easier to discuss in this framework. That might be where the disconnect here is coming from.

Hmm, so are you saying that one's "moral inclinations" are not part of their personality.

[Phelix-Mu]

Hmm, so are you saying that one's "moral inclinations" are not part of their personality.

They probably are a part of it, but personality is much bigger than just alignment. Even if the target's alignment changes, that probably leaves most of their personality intact.

[squiggit]

Hmm, so are you saying that one's "moral inclinations" are not part of their personality.

No. They're a part of one's personality, but only a part, not the whole sum of it.

A personality is defined by many things, alignment is only one of those things (and even beyond that alignment is not rigid either. "Lawful Good" won't necessarily be exemplified in the same way with any one person).

Sanctify changes that specific part of one's personality, their alignment. Alignments do have specifically defined goals and outlooks, so that changes. The rest of one's personality isn't said to be altered by the spell. This is what makes it different than, say, mindrape and what allows the sanctified creature to potentially Fall again later on.

So going back to the dragon example. The dragon may still like the taste of humans, but a Good outlook might make that unsettling to him and he'd abstain. Or he might later decide the flavor is too good to pass up and slowly shirks his Good inclinations.

The wingback chair collecting warlock still likes collecting chairs after he's been Sanctified by a lawful good paladin (unless we're playing in a setting where wingback chairs are considered evil) but he's less likely to be willing to steal or harm others to acquire more pieces to his collection.

[olentu]

They probably are a part of it, but personality is much bigger than just alignment. Even if the target's alignment changes, that probably leaves most of their personality intact.

Oh yes, that is probably true. However I believe the quote was:

This is your problem here. Spells don't imply anything. They tell you what they do. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't (which is why the Pathfinder spell that reduces a target to raw protons, electrons and neutrons doesn't cause radiation or nuclear fission).

Again we're getting into the territory where you're devising your own homebrewed version of the spell.

So by squiggit's own measure the spell can not possibly include any sort of alteration of the target's mind without an explicit (not implicit) statement. Thus the personality can not change as that would be an alteration of the target's mind.

No. They're a part of one's personality, but only a part, not the whole sum of it.

A personality is defined by many things, alignment is only one of those things (and even beyond that alignment is not rigid either. "Lawful Good" won't necessarily be exemplified in the same way with any one person).

Sanctify changes that specific part of one's personality, their alignment. Alignments do have specifically defined goals and outlooks, so that changes. The rest of one's personality isn't said to be altered by the spell. This is what makes it different than, say, mindrape and what allows the sanctified creature to potentially Fall again later on.

So going back to the dragon example. The dragon may still like the taste of humans, but a Good outlook might make that unsettling to him and he'd abstain. Or he might later decide the flavor is too good to pass up and slowly shirks his Good inclinations.

The wingback chair collecting warlock still likes collecting chairs after he's been Sanctified by a lawful good paladin (unless we're playing in a setting where wingback chairs are considered evil) but he's less likely to be willing to steal or harm others to acquire more pieces to his collection.

But remember spells don't imply anything. They tell you what they do. If the mechanic doesn't say it does something, it doesn't. Since we are dismissing any argument based on implication, the spell does not change the target's personality since it does not say it does. Thus inclinations can not change as they are part of the personality.

[Drachasor]

And the hoards of demonic cultists made to immediately take up arms against the enormous freaking monster several CR above them as a group just because I didn't want to waste actual resources killing them? How about forcing people to mutilate themselves to give me safety ingredients for their resurrections just in case the body is destroyed? To put this in perspective I made a man chop off his pinky finger just so there would be no risk of me having to spend extra on true ressing over just ressing. No there was not pain mitigation involved.

As I noted above, Fanatic is especially broken part of the epic rules. That technically is mind control. If you aren't doing that, then the stuff you mentioned isn't going to happen via Diplomacy.

Outside of that it isn't mind control in the game, and like i said before the skill itself leads to some oddities and is poorly done.

Btw, your mutilation plan doesn't work. The body part needs to be part of them at the time of death. Also, if it was houseruled to work, why not just use hair?

Edit: Not sure why you are belaboring this. I already said that generally the skill doesn't line up well with reality. Now you are trying to argue with me that it...doesn't line up well with reality? Eh?

[Phelix-Mu]

But alignment is part of the personality, too. Are some inclinations part of alignment? Sounds like the spell explicitly changes part of the personality in that it changes alignment.

To clarify: The changes cause by the spell are very narrow in scope, but not so narrow as to not indicate a change in some aspects of personality. I merely think that the change in personality is not significant enough to reduce the chance of regression. And, for a former baddie, the chance of regression is higher than it is for the average Joe, in any case.