Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.16762640 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Hey /tg/
Is brainwashing people to good a lawful good act?

>> No.16762668

Fuck no. At best it's a lawful neutral act, at worst, lawful evil. Taking free choice away from people through mind control, even 'for their own good' is never a good act. If done with genuine good intentions and as gently as possible, neutral. If you kidnap an evildoer and viciously brainrape him good, a la "A Clockwork Orange", it's evil. Mind control occupies a very nasty moral grey area D&D isn't really built to handle.

>> No.16762907

>>16762668
I thought that caring about free will is only for Chaotic people. It shouldn't be a problem for Lawful people who prefers Order over Freedom.

>> No.16762915

Depends on the side-effects. If everyone's happier for, it's good.

>> No.16762938

It's Evil by my book since you're enforcing your beliefs upon them WITHOUT really giving them a choice. Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic? Depends on the method.

>> No.16762956

Well, at least brainwashing criminals is better than killing them.

>> No.16762973

>>16762956
Debatable.

Many people would rather die than be forced to live a life not their own against their will with no chance of escape or even realizing its a lie.

>> No.16763001

>>16762973
Many people have crazy beliefs about what they want, there's no reason to take it into consideration.

>> No.16763033

>>16762956
Man, reading this makes me want to play a campaign where a Paladin brainwashes demons to become good and they become his loyal ally.

>> No.16763047

>>16763033
Sanctify the Wicked, 9th level spell for all classes.

>> No.16763058

>>16762973
>Live happy life, contribute to society, die natural death surrounded by loved ones at a ripe old age

or

>Be executed for your crimes

I know which I would choose given the choice.

>> No.16763070

>>16763033
How about making a whole city of redeemed demons/devils/bad guys in general?

>> No.16763099

>>16763070
Takes a long time, though. One year per creature. Maybe there should be a specific Order of Lawful Good people who's been doing this for a long time.

>> No.16763114

>>16763047
this spell proves that the brainwashing people is a-ok according to all the good deities.

>> No.16763118

>>16763099
Then there's an underground rebel group composed of Chaotic Good people who opposes them.

>> No.16763146

>>16763058
So you would be willing to sacrifice your life at the behest of some authority figure for the greater "good" giving up your opinions, thoughts and very identity just because someone disagrees with you? Would you prefer remembering your old life and knowing that your ideals were forcibly altered, or are you an "ignorance is bliss" kinda guy?

>> No.16763216

>>16763047
Isn't that spell not exactly brainwashing? It only makes the creature trapped inside contemplate their crimes. That's why it takes a whole year to do that and the creature can choose not to redeem itself.

>> No.16763229

>>16763216
It does take a year, but it can't fail.

>> No.16763240

In Book of Exalted Deeds was prestige class - Emissary of Barachiel. With "Lawful Good" entry requirements. And he exactly change creatures alignment one step closer to Any Good.
With saving throw. And it counts as Enchantment for the purpose of removing effect. So, i think, it counts as 'brainwashing'. And so, as author of BoED think 'brainwashing to good is a good act'.

>> No.16763329

Brainwashing is kind of a dick move, but good doesn't mean nice.

Under the right conditions, a good character could get away with it.

>> No.16763332

>>16763114
Reminds me of the Law Ending in Strange Journey where Zelenin brainwashes everyone on Earth with her song into one harmonious spirit.
It's my favorite ending though and the one I get where I first finished the game.

>> No.16763334

>>16763332

You just tried that twice.

Spoilers don't work on /tg/, remember?

>> No.16763340

>>16762668
>a la "A Clockwork Orange"
A bit off topic, but that is a VERY good movie

Back on topic:
Brainwashing = LE or LN
Persuading a person toward good = LG or possibly LN, TN, or NG
Leading by example = LG, NG, CG

>> No.16763346

How does "lawful" enter into the question, anyway?

>> No.16763348

Fuck no lawful stupid would never do anything that cool. Besides Lawful good characters are too weighed down by this idiotic concern for dignity and life and all that other crap to do what needs to be done. Lawful Evil on the other hand......

>> No.16763353

>>16763348
>hurrdurr moralfags
Nice waste of a post moron.

>> No.16763357

>>16763334
Well, now I feel stupid.

>> No.16763359

>>16763340
Decent movie. Better book, especially since they cut the last chapter of the book out of the movie.

>> No.16763362

Why the FUCK do you people still discuss that shit dnd moral system? If you actualy rp in your games, then it's compltely usless and only gets in the way. You shouldn't be asking yourself 'what would a lawful good character do', you should be asking 'what would MY character do'.

Why do you use it, /tg/?

>> No.16763395

>>16763332
Lawfag detected

>> No.16763420

>>16763357

If it's any consolation, you also LOOK stupid.

>> No.16763455

>>16763420
Damn

>> No.16763463

Hello, OP.
On the whole, no it isn't, unless it is done to say, an insane murderer in order to save lives, including his own.
That is an exceedingly situational case.

>> No.16763483

I would ne'er do it.

Batman says no, and Batman is right.

>> No.16763502

If someone is iredeemable evil, it seems like it's the right thing to do. That way, they don't have to die and they go on to make the world a better place themselves. Everybody wins.

>> No.16763512

>>16762668
Not sure how I see how free will has anything to do with... anything.

Good people make sacrifices to help save innocent life, and respect life. That doesn't imply they respect free will, in any way, but... says nothing of what they think about the life of sociopathic murderers.

Evil people harm or destroy innocent life. Depriving someone of their free will can be considered harm. So it is probably evil to mind control innocent people.

There is no case or precedent to be made that brainwashing evil beings to become good is bad.

>> No.16763514

>>16763353
I love you too. Its nice to see the anti-anti-morality lobby is still up and about.

>> No.16763515

If the spell is labelled EVIL, it's evil.

If the spell is labelled GOOD, it's good.

If the spell is not labelled with an alignment, using it is neutral and should not affect the alignment of someone at all.

This is D&D. Not Ethics 101.

>> No.16763521

>>16763483
Batman is Chaotic Good.

>> No.16763524

>>16763521

>batman
>good

Pick one.

>> No.16763529

>>16763521
I like the batman who hits people for eating chocolate icecream.

>> No.16763533

>>16763529
To be fair, it was evil chocolate ice cream.

>> No.16763538

>>16763512
And of course, I'm arguing from the D&D perspective of alignments, in which two paladins can kill each other on the field of battle with no evil act or intent having occurred (e.g. declared, honorable warfare between two law-abiding nations)

>> No.16763546

Permanent Brainwashing I think is Neutral if it's to something you can rightfully kill.

The thing with brainwashing is that, simply put, when you change someone's mind they're no longer the same person. You can essentially say that the person that existed before the brainwashing is now dead, and replaced by another person who may or may not be based on the original.

They won't be around to think "Oh woe is me, I am now helping at an orphanage instead of killing and raping children!" because they're dead, and someone else is controlling their body.

All in all Mind Control is almost like an extremely pure form of Necromancy, because you kill the person without maiming the body, and then recycle the body in it's entirety for your purposes.

At least that's my take on the subject.

The morality gets even greyer the smaller the effects however. Brainwashing is essentially using powers to directly change someone's mind, but technically isn't that exactly what we do on a very small scale with simple words? Your words have an impact on the person you say them to whether they allow them to or not.

>> No.16763550

>>16763533
tut tut. Its bad form to kick a man's head in when he's enjoying a cone of his favorite flavor. We all know anyone with a single speck of human decency would wait until he was finished and then brutally subdue him.

>> No.16763568

>>16763550
If you were about to eat arsenic ice cream (its ALMONDY) or laugh-yourself-into-a-coma Joker ice cream or die-of-fearcream or questionmark flavored ice cream whatever nasty fish flavored crap the Penguin or Catwoman would slip into icecream, would you really want Batman to let you finish it?

>> No.16763574

>>16763483
Agreed. And if one does as Batman does enough times, one will become as Batman is.

>> No.16763578

>>16763546
It also depends on how the new creation lives, however. Because you essentially take the person's will in brainwash them, you also assume full responsibility for their lives. If you brainwash someone and let them go on a murderous rampage, you yourself are to blame for the murders. If you brainwash someone and they live the rest of their life in hellish torment, then it's equal to you torturing them yourself. Depending on the scale of the brainwashing, your relationship to the creation becomes akin to that of a parent and child.

>> No.16763581

>>16763546
Interesting. So, the question is "What is the essence of a person? Is it his life or is it his beliefs or way of thinking?"
If it's the latter, then a man isn't the same person as when he's a child.
Or, as Dracula will say, "What is a man?"

>> No.16763582

>>16762640
Yes.

Autonomy is the only the ability to choose Evil instead of Reason and Good. By following Reason, you no longer have freedom, but become closer to Reason and the Good.

>> No.16763622

>>16763568
If I didn't check for poisons by making one of my preteen sex slaves lick the tip while I fondel myself watching then what kind of villian or just all around evil extra in the batman universe would I be?

There is one exception though. If I was to eat anything mint flavored or with mint spinkles I would gladly accept the boot to the head for my lack of taste.

>> No.16763631

>>16763582
Quiet, you!

>> No.16763646

>>16763622
In that case, I hope Batman growls something incomprehensible at you, drops you out a window so that you shatter both legs, growls something louder and more incomprehensible at you, then drags you away to be tossed into prison with a note to the other inmates telling them "Don't be mean to this guy just because he molests kids, please."

>> No.16763651

>>16763631
But... But that's my interpretation of what YOU said!

>> No.16763668

Isn't Sanctify the Wicked essentially necromancy? By casting a spell on someone, you effectively erase their original personality, then substitute it for one more pleasing to you. From where I'm standing, the only difference between that and what the Lich King gets up to is that the body doesn't decay.

It's threads like these that make me realise that in D&D, good and evil have nothing to do with morality; they are merely two opposed sides in an interplanar war, to which we mortals are but the pawns. Good isn't just not nice; on the planar level, it's bloody nasty with an unhealthy dose of self-righteousness.

At least evil has the good grace to look like the monsters they are.

>> No.16763669

>>16763582
Agreed. Too much freedom can lead to destruction. People must be guided to the right path so that eternal peace and harmony can be achieved.

>> No.16763678

>>16763668
Neutralfag detected.

>> No.16763681

This reminds me of "Villains By Necessity". A group of the last "bad guys" has to save the world by bringing evil back. A wizard is brainwashing people into being good, but it's actually tipping the world out of balance and pushing it into the elemental plane of "Good" or something.

>> No.16763684

>>16763646
Harsh. Come to think of it I'd rather live in Metropolis if I lived in the DC Universe anyway. Supes may be a raging moralfag but he's not nearly as prone to psychotic rage as batman and he is rather stupid. But if I couldn't leave Gotham I would just surrender to the bat and quietely worm my way out of Arkham later only to set up Xanatos style scheme to get rich and then take the money and run.

>> No.16763690

>>16763668
Making someone good doesn't obliterate their personality, it merely permits an evil being to express the positive aspects of their personality. It likewise does not enslave them. They are free agents after taht.

The reason people have a problem with the Lich King is because he commits slavery and genocide. Just a lil thing like that. There is something of a huge difference between someone who enslaves others and commits genocide.

>> No.16763692

>>16763681
Sounds like Planescape Torment.

>> No.16763693

Mind Control: Backing a century's worth of argument into one simple spell.

>>16763546
I wouldn't call them any more dead than calling the you from your youth dead. Really, changing someone's mind could just as easily be related to an event in their life that would create a total turnaround for them. Really when you get down to it, it only seems evilish due to the compacting of what we observe normally into the course of a few minutes.

>> No.16763696

>>16763669
It's human nature to commit evil every once in a while. The essence of freedom the right to attempt it, and to take responsibility for it afterwards.

>> No.16763711

>It's human nature to commit evil every once in a while.

Not... really... unless you are a crazyperson who thinks every curse word, obscene jest, and act of fornication is evil.

>> No.16763729

>>16763711
Not really, unless you think every human being is Jesus/Buddha/Gandhi.

>> No.16763749

rolled 2 = 2

>>16763729
I'm not him, but I've certainly never done anything that could be classified as "evil".
Chaotic, sure. But nothing to harm anyone by intent.

>> No.16763750

>>16763729
Definitely not Gandhi, and I know your average person isn't a mummy demigod, but Buddha is a pretty good description of how the average joe is morally; some good aspects, some critical flaws (as in Buddha's case, the fact that he utterly hated a little over half of the Earth's population), but like the average joe never actually acted on his vicious impulses worse than some cruel words.

Its in no way normal to do evil "now and again."

>> No.16763769

>>16763750
>>16763749
But the impulses, the thoughts are there, are they not? That's my point. That's human nature. Not acting on them is a case of nurture defeating nature. Read: Lord of the Flies

The fact that even Buddha wasn't immune to these thoughts even further demonstrates my point.

>> No.16763772

>>16763750
>the fact that he utterly hated a little over half of the Earth's population
Where did you get that?

>> No.16763778

>>16763769
If we could eliminate those impulses, shouldn't we do so? I mean, you shouldn't be proud of your flaws, you know. You should attempt to eliminate them to make you a better person.

>> No.16763779

>>16763769
No one said "nature" was anything other than red in tooth and claw. Humanity without civilization is like a naturally boneless chicken. Children regressing into savagery isn't "normal."

And what was in dispute was that its human nature to commit evil ACTS every once in awhile; nothing implies good beings don't have evil THOUGHTS.

>> No.16763792

>>16763690

>Making someone good doesn't obliterate their personality

I would have to disagree; if an evil character became good via their own volition, or by being convinced by another, it would be a legitimate redemption. However, StW doesn't do either; instead, it uses magic to affect the mind of the target, reprogramming them to be good. Essentially, it's the Ludovico Technique in A Clockwork Orange; the personality of the individual is suppressed or removed in favour of one more suiting the ideals held by the caster. This is not redemption. This is reprogramming.

> It likewise does not enslave them. They are free agents after that.

Not really; it's the same kind of freedom given to Winston Smith after leaving room 101. They'd be allowed to get on with the new life granted to them, but that life is not one chosen by that character; instead, it's by whatever conditioning went on within the diamond prison. A person cannot be considered to be acting of their own free will if strong mind affecting magic has been used on them.

>> No.16763798

>>16763772
The Buddha had an extreme hatred for women, which really shocked me, considering my dad was a big time Buddhist for awhile.

>> No.16763809

What about Programmed Amnesia, actually rewriting someone's personality?

>> No.16763828

>>16763778
I don't see why not. However, we would essentially be giving up part of what makes us human in doing so. There are many who would be opposed to that. Good or Evil is simply a perception of us humans, if you erase the will of those very humans for Good, you erase the existence of Good and Evil and your actions lose their purpose.

>>16763779
It depends on what you consider Normal. One could very easily see Civilization as what goes on in A Clockwork Orange on a smaller (or much larger) scale. Human beings are trained to live up to society's standards, just like a domesticated dog. What Lord of the Flies demonstrates is that when you strip away that domestication, we're just like every other animal.

The only difference between Humans and Domestic Pets is that Humans know how to further domesticate their own offspring.

>> No.16763851

Alright I have to throw this in now.

There is no such thing as 'free will'. All decisions you make are based upon the wiring of your brain and the information you have at the time of making the decision. We perceive free will for 2 reasons: we do not fully understand our system, and any time we come to a conclusion it adds new information that adds to the data pool and can affect the solution.

the only reason one could see mind control as bad is if it involved torture, as that constitutes causing harm.

>> No.16763855

>>16763792

At least pretend to read the spell's description before casting judgment.

>it uses magic to affect the mind of the target, reprogramming them to be good.

No, it does not. It is not mind affecting, and...

>if an evil character became good via their own volition

"Trapped in the gem, the evil soul undergoes a gradual transformation. The soul reflects on past evils and slowly finds within itself a spark of goodness. Over time, the spark grows into a burning fire."

>it's the Ludovico Technique in A Clockwork Orange

Hardly. Alex still had evil desires, but could not act on them, and could not engage in self defense or consensual sex. A better analog would be the Geas spell, which causes sickness if you disobey the Geas and is, iirc, mind-affecting.

>This is not redemption. This is reprogramming.

Considering it is something they find within themselves, that there is no mental influence involved, that it affects creatures immune to mind control, you are flat out wrong.

Look, I don't much like the BoED too, its treatment of morality is hypocritical and at once mangles both demented Old-Testament style fundamentalism and creepy pervert hippie shit into one dysfunctional, disagreeable whole while still claiming to be "objectively good morality."

But the spell itself is not mental influence and the redemption is directly stated to come from within the person. If you want to rail against something, I'd go with the holy STD that is a punishment from the divine and that makes the person want to constantly rape but denies them the ability to climax.

>> No.16763859

>>16763828
Yeah, maybe without tasting evil, nobody will know the value of good. Still, my view of an ideal person is he who is most beneficial to others. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad to lose your humanity if you could achieve that ideal with it.

>> No.16763870

Everyone one in this thread has been invited by the Earth King to Lake Laogai

>> No.16763872

>>16763859

I've always had that issue with that argument. Getting rid of one end of the spectrum (pain and sorrow) doesn't really diminish all value in it's opposite, it just creates more focus on the gradient between the extreme of it and the normal.

>> No.16763881

>>16763870

And we're all delighted to accept his invitation!

>> No.16763883

>>16763809

Google for "Derren Brown Experiments Assassin"

>> No.16763888

>>16763855
Don't forget that raging infection is an affliction with an inhaled vector, so technically its not a sexually transmitted disease, but a respiratory infection that drives the victim mad with sexual desire. So they won't necessarily have to rape to transmit it, just wheeze on someone while they waste away, slowly dying of con damage while suffering from insatiable sexual desire.

Just seems a truly horrid way to die made more ironic by the fact the book elsewhere implies good people have to be merciful.

>> No.16763907

>>16763859
A slave meets that ideal. They meet the benefit of others, regardless of the cost to themselves. I'm not really discounting your ideal, but I figure that's something worth considering.

>>16763872
It's because morality is purely relative. There is no arbitrary 'good'. Without an Evil to compare it to, Good does not exist. Without light, there can be no shadow and whatnot.

>> No.16763926

>>16763907

Except that what would be defined as good would still occur and exist in the universe even without evil there. It just simply wouldn't be defined as good.

Best way to put it is:

If we get rid of all darkness, there still is light. People just won't refer to it as light anymore, as it just is.

>> No.16763933

>>16763907
That doesn't make any sense at all. Good beings can exist without there being evil beings, just fine. They are defined as protecting and helping innocent life, and will make sacrifices to do so, and respect life in general.

Too many people being like that is hardly a bad thing. There will always be natural disasters, accidents, and simply terrible shit happening as coincidence or fate.

>> No.16763956

>fate
Don't call the universe spanning multidimensional billiards game of particle interactions fate!

>> No.16763959 [DELETED] 

>Implying we're not all 'brainwashed' from birth.
>Implying that people from different countries don't all seem to have different opinions on life due to the aforementioned 'brainwashing'.
>mfw when everyone in almost every setting is forced to worship the gods.
>mfw these people in the setting feel like they have a choice when they don't.
>mfw when this thread is maximum retard

>> No.16763971

>>16763959
The only setting in which you are forced to worship the gods is... Forgotten Realms, in which the gods unquestionably got everything they deserved, with interest.

>> No.16763978

Brain washing everyone to good is a Chaotic Good act bitches.

It's certrainly good to usher in a new era of goodness!
It's certainly chaotic to break the law and not give a fuck to do it!

Next on /tg/, is killing evil races without mercy evil or good? Find out after these messages from our sponsers!

>> No.16763979

>>16763907
A shadow is an absence of light. Without light whatsoever, a shadow turns into complete darkness.

>> No.16763994 [DELETED] 

>>16763959
>yfw when it was a stand up fight.

>> No.16764012

>>16763978
Well, I think committing genocide of an entire evil race is a good and noble act. I mean, they're evil, right? That's all that matters.

>> No.16764015

>>16763959
No one asked you Hicks

>> No.16764023

>is killing evil races without mercy evil or good?

I know you're not being serious, but:

The corebook definition of evil is harming innocents;
The corebook definition of good is being willing to sacrifice to help innocents;
One can then infer that children before a certain age could probably be considered innocents, and there will always be some members of a race who are innocent of crimes. I'm sure some people will argue that point though.
And you can't exterminate a race without killing innocents, so...

>> No.16764024

>>16763907
That's why everyone must become like slaves to each other, committing good without any selfish intent whatsoever. Then, a world filled with harmony will be a reality.

>> No.16764027

>>16764015
Sorry I ment Hudson Hicks hasn't done anything wrong

>> No.16764037

>>16763978
Genocide is pretty fucking evil. Even wiping out all Zombies would be pretty dickish, cause c'mon who'd want to kill Bub from Day of the Dead?

>> No.16764038

>>16764023

So there we have it folks! Seems like its Chaotic Good again! Why?

Killing a race of evil to safe everyone is good! But you'd have to kill a few babies making it chaotic evil! But since its we're doing it for the greater good, we're cracking out a cold one for Chaotic Good once more!

>> No.16764046

>>16764024
>>16763907
Good beings can have selfish aspects. They can be greedy.
Nor do they have to give until they die, just that they make sacrifices to support and defend innocent living things.
They may trade luxuries to save someone, but they won't be particularly inclined towards giving up their luxuries for the luxuries of another.
They won't automatically let you have the last cookie.
They may drink all but a drop of milk and leave it in the fridge.

>> No.16764049

>>16764038

Next on /tg/, which is the most broken alignment system in PnP! Find out after these sort messages from our sponsers!

>> No.16764055

>implying bad people don't think they're good people
>implying morals aren't subjective
>implying this system isn't a handicap on rolepaying

>> No.16764060

>>16763979
However without light existing neither would darkness. No life would have developed to use light, the concept of light wouldn't exist, so neither would the concept of absence of light.

The only reason we can say that shadow would exist is because we have experienced light.

>>16763926
As such, light would be an irrelevancy, as would shadow. With only good existing, good would cease to be a relevancy as well. How would it be any better than just brainwashing humans to never suffer again, regardless of evil or good? Evil is bad because it causes suffering, so why not eliminate suffering itself instead of evil?

If you purge Evil from society too long, Evil will be forgotten. With Evil forgotten, nobody would be able to defend themselves from it. It's like an invasive species being introduced into an ecosystem that has no defense against it, the ecosystem will be wiped out or at the very least put in severe threat.

>> No.16764063

>>16764038
Actually, its textbook evil, which is harming innocents.

First, killing evil beings is not a good act. Nowhere does it state this. This is pure fanon.
Second, "for the greater good" is completely irrelevant to anything.

So you are out to kill evil beings (not a good act), including the innocents (an evil act), for the greater good (which itself is not good).

>> No.16764069

>>16764027
You could have played it as a movie quote you know.

>> No.16764075

>>16764060

>evil has to exist in a society because we need it to teach people how to defend against evil.

By getting rid of all suffering or all evil, THERE IS NO EVIL TO COMBAT. It is irrelevant, good acts still occur, but it is irrelevant to note them as good.

It's called utopia.

>> No.16764084

>As such, light would be an irrelevancy, as would shadow.

Heat exists pretty much anywhere that chemical reactions occur. There is heat pretty much everywhere in our day to day lives, even heat exists in a block of ice. Ubiquity doesn't remove anything.

>If you purge Evil from society too long, Evil will be forgotten.

Celestials are generally quite aware of evil despite it having been arbitrary aeons since they last encoutnered it.

>With Evil forgotten, nobody would be able to defend themselves from it.

Good doesn't imply pacifism. And again, summoning up a batch o' celestials disproves notions that good can't fight without evil. Hell, some take a "fierce joy" in combat against evil.

>> No.16764087

>traditional philosophy

>> No.16764094

>>16764087

well you have to use traditional philosophy to talk about the DnD alignment system.

>> No.16764097

>>16764063

>First, killing evil beings is not a good act.

So killing orcs in evil!

>Second, "for the greater good" is completely irrelevant to anything

The difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good!

>So you are out to kill evil beings.

Inherently good in a setting where evil is evil!

>Including the innocents

An evil act!

>For the greater good

Inherently good when the greater good is good!

Stop applying real world morality to a setting where evil is evil, good is good and neutral is neutral! Its not real life, so don't apply it as such! You don't start applying real life physics to DnD, so why morality!

Next on /tg/, is the root of most problems in PnP people applying real life morality/situations etc to fantasy settings? We'll be right back, stay tuned!

>> No.16764101

ARRRRGHH I hate when people use the Good-vs-Evil = Light-vs-Shadow thing. IT DOESN"T WORK THAT WAY. Observable things are still things, regardless of what you call them, they aren't conceptually linked. If I called a shadow "The black thing that follows people throughout the day" it would still be a shadow. Without a light source there may not be anything to cast the shadow, but that doesn't mean that if you're standing on a black light absorbing surface that suddenly LIGHT DOESN'T EXIST. They aren't mutually exclusive or rather they don't hinge upon each other to define themselves. Good and Evil do however.

>> No.16764122

>>16764075
Even if you eliminate evil, it will still spring up somewhere. Even if it takes so long that a species has to evolve itself in a subterranean cave to give birth to the concept of greed, stealing, and lying once more, or one mutation followed by a freak accident followed by another freak coincidence ends in a Human Baby being allowed out of the hospital without getting a proper neural reorganizing, evil will appear somewhere. When it does, and it enters a society devoid of evil, it will spread it's seeds until the balance is restored once more.

If you have a place full of people who are slaves to one-another, it's only a matter of time before a slave master shows up.

>> No.16764125

>>16764097
>So killing orcs in evil!

Its neither. As is covered in BoED and BoVD.

>The difference between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good!

Doing evil acts for the greater good is still evil. Period.

>Inherently good in a setting where evil is evil!

Nowhere is it stated that killing evil beings is good. It is, however, stated that killing innocents is evil.

>Stop applying real world morality to a setting where evil is evil, good is good and neutral is neutral!

I haven't applied real world morality to D&D even once in this thread, I'm applying D&D morality to D&D. You should try it sometime.

>> No.16764146

>>16764122
Good beings can still be greedy, lie, and steal, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. They just do so with a respect for life, particularly to defend and support innocent life.

>> No.16764150

>>16764122

>Oh, no, this does not meet the regulations of goodness
>DESTROY IT UTTERLY

It's called an epic level reality warping spell. If I eradicate evil and set up a ward that eliminates evil, EVIL WILL NOT POP UP.

>> No.16764171

>>16764101
Well there's your problem: that last sentence. I've always felt that the light and shadow metaphor suggested that good and evil were both subjective, and that furthermore evil was a product of good. Think god creates the devil to test christians to determine their worthiness for heaven or something like that. In this case good and evil aren't mutually exclusive, there is a definition of what is good, a definition of what is evil, and beyond that evil things may be done in the name of good thereby justifying them as good.

>> No.16764180

>>16764171

Which conflicts with DnD morality that acts as if good and evil are like light and shadow for reality.

>> No.16764183

>>16764084
>Heat exists pretty much anywhere that chemical reactions occur. There is heat pretty much everywhere in our day to day lives, even heat exists in a block of ice. Ubiquity doesn't remove anything.
Goddamn it, you know that's not what I was talking about.

>Celestials are generally quite aware of evil despite it having been arbitrary aeons since they last encoutnered it.
There's nothing that time can't change.

>Good doesn't imply pacifism. And again, summoning up a batch o' celestials disproves notions that good can't fight without evil. Hell, some take a "fierce joy" in combat against evil.
I don't know Celestials, but I would suggest they're not as good as they're claimed to be in that case. There is no such thing as an evil without context, and given context any evil can be explained just the same as a murder in self-defense. If they kill, and especially if they joyfully kill those things that meet their standards of evil, then they bear evil themselves. The universe is not so simple that evil is simply some dark force you can arbitrarily purge.

>> No.16764193

>I've always felt that the light and shadow metaphor suggested that good and evil were both subjective,

There is some subjectiveness involved -- for instance, its subjective what constitutes an innocent and, for the purpose of the paladin's code, what constitutes proper punishment. This is probably where "respect legitimate authority" comes in for paladins, and "fulfill the dogma of your god" comes in for clerics.

>and that furthermore evil was a product of good.

Not sure where that would come from.

>and beyond that evil things may be done in the name of good thereby justifying them as good.

Not in D&D, no.

>> No.16764195

>>16764183

Except that the universe is exactly that. In DnD, Good and Evil are objective. Eliminating evil does not make evil no longer recognizable, as it is the universe that recognizes it as evil.

>> No.16764196

>>16764150
Such a thing is literally impossible. Evil isn't just something you purge, it's an interpretation people create of actions they don't understand.

If you have a complete understanding of everything, evil ceases to exist.

>> No.16764205

>>16764180
Oh noes? Your point? Try a homebrew game or, fuck, any other system out there. There are a variety of perspectives in roleplaying games. Even within the unwieldy umbrella of D&D.

>> No.16764211

>>16764195
Well I suppose if we're talking about the DnD universe and not the real world, then you're right.

>> No.16764216

It's rape, pure and simple.

No the action is not good.

>> No.16764219

>>16764195
it's universally assented that the D&D system of objective morality is retarded

>> No.16764225

>Goddamn it, you know that's not what I was talking about.

You said if light was everywhere, it would cease to be light. That's strictly untrue.

>and given context any evil can be explained just the same as a murder in self-defense.

Since evil is defined as the willingness to harm or kill innocents, that rather precludes the possibility of it being for self defense.

>If they kill,

Pacifism is not a requirement to be good.

>and especially if they joyfully

Angst is not a requirement for good.

>those things that meet their standards of evil,

There is one standard for evil: harming and destroying innocent life.

>then they bear evil themselves.

This is D&D. Violent confrontation is a perfectly reasonable way to protect the innocent. Of course, forgetting that the point of violence is to defend the innocent and not to kill evil beings for the sake of killing evil beings, can easily let you become evilly aligned.

>The universe is not so simple that evil is simply some dark force you can arbitrarily purge.

You CAN arbitrarily purge it from any area of finite space, though. Such as a city, nation, continent, or planet.

>> No.16764236

>>16764219
Well, its less intrusive and concept-destroying than, say, nwod's morality systems for most lines, but moreso than, say, the insanity/corruption meter of 40k roleplay (try as I might, we're 2 sessions til Ascension and noone's broken 10 insanity/corruption).

>> No.16764248

>>16764216
not really

it's more like speed-therapy for disturbed people

>> No.16764277

>>16764236
>(try as I might, we're 2 sessions til Ascension and noone's broken 10 insanity/corruption).

Are you joking? That's usually how much I have at character creation, due to how several homeworlds and several background packages grant Insanity and/or Corruption, and those are better ones.

>> No.16764279

>>16764219
>it's universally assented that the D&D system of objective morality is retarded
>implying D&D uses objective morality

Never played Planescape I guess.

>> No.16764297

>>16764279

Just to clarify this guys post for you guys: the backstory for D&D's Outer Planes, where the concepts of good and evil are personified and identified, states that a lot of the universe's rules work just because a lot of people believe they do. Thus D&D's morality system is indeed subjective even though personifications and magic involving it exist, because those personifications and magical effects exist as a product of what most people in the universe believe is Good and Evil.

>> No.16764305

>>16764236

And really, a few Fear checks is enough to break 10 Insanity. Were you playing on Easymode or something?

>> No.16764307

>>16764277
Jaded at character creation, rolled a 02 for my fear test with a daemon prince. Not much to get corrupted by, despite us constantly talking about how running into some Khornates (preferably CSM & daemons) itchin' for a scrap or something would be awesome.

>"Nah I was thinking you'd fight tau next"

>mfw

>> No.16764324

>>16764297
Planescape has subjective morality? See: the Outer Planes, wherein if a plane gets too evil, it will sink into, or towards, the Lower Planes. Also note how the Upper Planes never make war upon each other, while the Lower Planes do.

Beliefs and shit have an effect (in Planescape) but never to the point of redefining what constitutes good and evil... ever.

>> No.16764332

>>16764297
So, if people don't believe evil exists, it wouldn't exist, right?

>> No.16764339

>>16764332

Basically, yes.

>> No.16764349

>>16764324

Yes, and the definitions of what is "evil" and thus sent to the lower planes are the product of people's beliefs. People's beliefs really do define what constitutes good and evil, all the time.

>> No.16764386

>>16764339
So, if we brainwash people to believe that there is no such thing as evil, we could eliminate evil altogether, right?

>> No.16764391

>>16763240
I would disagree that the Emissary of Barachiel is a brainwasher (but, full disclosure here, I'm playing one in our current campaign, so I might be biased). The Emissary's Calling ability to affect people and change their alignment requires a diplomacy check and use of the Words of Creation, hence why it deals non-lethal damage to the user.

The Words of Creation are a language that has no words for anything malicious, but can describe love, kindness, and redemption in ways even epic bards could only dream of.

So I view the Calling ability as basically a celestially-infused use of diplomacy that uses such sublimely eloquent phrasing the people around you are moved to tears and driven to change their ways. They still have to go through the seven days of transition, as per the rules for redemption in a previous chapter of BoED, but they can also get an Atonement to immediately make the change permanent.

Of course, my Emissary also makes heavy use of Suggestion, a la the Jedi mind trick. If she needs to get past some guards, she'll suggest something like, "Now is the perfect time to go make a sandwich," or, "This person looks familiar. You should let her in," or, "You should go home and be family man."

>> No.16764393

>>16764349
I assume this is from Torment, since this was never the case in any printed Planescape book.

>> No.16764435

>>16764391
Makes me remember that I love playing a character that can talk his way out of every situation, especially convincing the villain to go to the good side.

>> No.16764442

>>16764386
That would require a hell of a lot of brainsoap.

>> No.16764505

>>16764349
People's beliefs also produce gods, don't they?

>> No.16764532

>>16764505
Only in third party products such as the rather kickass but discontinued third party Immortals Handbook.

>> No.16764593

>>16764386
Interesting campaign idea.

>> No.16764641

So, what's the best build to make a character with supreme brainwashing/persuading ability for good?

>> No.16764657

>>16764641
Prolly cleric. High wis and cha, max diplomacy, take a few domains that would fit, done.

>> No.16765321

>>16763851
Okay I'm going to have to disagree with this. While its true that are brain "weighs" each decision by looking at the details and then picks whats best for us, the idea that we ideally select one all the time based on pure instinct with no "free-will" is bullshit. Why? Because most decisions aren't just mathematical calculations with a definate right answer. The vast majority od decisions fall into the category known as "incomprables". Try as we might we can't effectively compare them, we have to just choose. And that is free will. A great textual example that discusses this is Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken".

>> No.16765384

>>16765321
> Because most decisions aren't just mathematical calculations with a definate right answer.

The human brain is a poor number calculator, anyway. It's better at abstracts. And abstracts can still be calculated. This is where assumptions and patterns come into play.

The act of choosing is a calculation. It's just not a numerical one. It's a weighing of the abstract values of outcomes, costs, and predispositions. Abstract values it largely doesn't understand on a conscious level.

>> No.16765461

>>16765384
That mathematical part was a metaphor. My point was that abstract or not most decisions aren't calculations. Sure there are some that are, of course, but the vast majority are "incomprables" either because we lack information or because their true apples to origins comparisons (which funnily enough, while often cited as an example comparing apples to orange is not a incomprable). Also often times much of what we call the reasoning behind a decision is just us trying to justify ourselves after we were put on the spot and had to just "choose".

>> No.16765530

>>16765321
Explain to me a situation in which someone can be forced to make a choice and not have it be influenced by anything else.

>> No.16765597

>>16765461
If choice is not the result of influences, then choice is completely random.

These are the only options.

For something to be 'incomparable', then all foreseeable results must be equal. And the result of those asked to choose should be of relatively equal distribution. And they can not be at fault for their choices because the outcomes they were aware of and the influencing factors all said the same equal things about both options. For such a scenario, free will could exist. But it would also be as meaningful as coin flips.

For options that have foreseeable unequal outcomes in any way, then we have to accept that the outcomes are weighed.

>> No.16765620

I never knew so many people on /tg/ were okay with taking away free will. Is there any particular reason for this?

>> No.16765644

No, never.
And Lawful Good doesn't mean 100/100. Guess what, you can be Lawful Good and still do the occasional bad thing and still be Lawful Good.

>> No.16765655

Eve Forward, "Villains by Necessity." Good wizard brainwashes everyone into being good, and only six truly evil people are left in the whole damn world, and they have to save the world from the power of good before everything is obliterated due to the imbalance in power.

Lovely book, right up there with Louise Cooper's "Time's Master" Trilogy, where Chaos gets an overhaul and turns out not only to be the good guys, but the NICE guys.

>> No.16765682

>>16765620

RPG neckbeards lust after control because they feel that their lives are going out of control.

>> No.16765697

Can never be a Good act. Can be a Lawful act depending on the definition of Law that the character follows. But brainwashing is more "Evil" than killing or torturing. Because when you fight or torture a victim has a chance to counter-act or survive or react as they want to. Brainwashing takes even that away.
But a Lawful Good character could very well do it. The end would most likely lead to more Good or at least less Evil, but that has nothing at all to do with the act of brainwashing someone itself.

>> No.16767165

Why is free will considered "good" ?

And if retraining one's free will is "evil," does that mean we should be adding the "Evil" subtype to all Enchantment/Charm spells?

>> No.16767263

>>16765620

Because free will is an outdated construct from a time when we didn't know how the brain works, and has stayed in philosophy for said reason is only a recent discovery.

>> No.16767334

>>16767165
>Why is free will considered "good" ?

Because this is an AMURRIKAN imageboard

>> No.16767337

>>16767263

>> No.16767362

>>16767334

>> No.16767609

For every bad person brainwashed into a law abiding citizen, a good, honest, hard working person is corrupted, and forced to do the bidding of evil.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action