921
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 15 points 11 months ago

Back in 3rd Edition D&D there was a spell called "Holy Word" that could kill non-good creatures within a 40 foot radius of the caster, if the caster was sufficiently high level relative to the creatures. Good creatures were completely unaffected.

When tightly packed you can fit about 2000 people into a 40-foot-radius circle (total area is 5000 square feet). So one casting can deal with the population of a good-sized town. My gaming group speculated for a while about a society where it was a routine ritual to round up all the peasantry and nuke them with Holy Word to keep the population clear of evil. Never incorporated it into any campaigns, though. It's a bit of a sticky philosophical puzzler.

[-] melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 11 months ago

This is a weird one because despite being a "good" spell, it entails the mass murder of innocent neutrals. It really doesn't seem like a good action to me.

It seems like anyone who was okay with this would fall to neutral or evil simply by virtue of being okay with mass murder, and in turn fall victim to the Great Neutral Purge.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

Indeed, hence the sticky philosophical puzzler. I would think that the clerics themselves would start getting affected by the spell. Fortunately (for them), the effect of the spell when cast on someone of the same level as yourself is only deafness for 1d4 rounds. The Church could probably cover that up.

There was another interesting related situation that came up in an actual campaign I was in, involving the Blasphemy spell (a variant that only kills non-evil targets). My party and I were in our "home base", a mansion belonging to an allied NPC noblewoman, planning out our next excursion. A powerful demon we'd been tangling with attempted to scry-and-fry us, teleporting in and nuking us with Blasphemy. Unfortunately there were a lot of low-level NPC staff working in the noblewoman's household and the spell wiped them out instantly... except for one guy, who happened to be of evil alignment. He survived the encounter because of that.

Even though his alignment was evil, though, he'd never done anything wrong and didn't seem like he had any reason to do anything wrong in the future. So we weren't sure if we should fire him or what. It wasn't illegal to simply be evil, you had to actually do something evil before you could be punished. We just warned him we'd be keeping an eye on him, in the end, and kept him on staff.

[-] AlexisFR@jlai.lu 3 points 11 months ago

I'm pretty sure if you aren't a creature from a celestial plane of evil or good, only your actions define your alignment, not the other way around.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

Okay, he hadn't done anything wrong to us. I guess we could have paused the main campaign to spend a while investigating him, but we were doing one of those save-the-world things so we didn't have the time. :)

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

What is being good except having self-imposed restrictions to avoid doing something evil? This spell seems perfect. There will rarely be a time where a good aligned character could justify using it in an overpowered way. If it were inverted then you would see evil characters using it all the time. It's a self-imposed balance. You have a very powerful tool, but you must avoid using unless absolutely necessary.

[-] melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Ah, but there is an evil equivalent, Blasphemy. It affects non-evil creatures instead of non-good creatures, and as such has no self-balancing properties. There are even equivalents for Law and Chaos, which are... worryingly abstract.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago

Hmm, yeah. That doesn't seem like a great idea to give to people...

[-] AlexisFR@jlai.lu 1 points 11 months ago

Almost as if the whole objective good vs bad system is kinda poorly thought out...

[-] Jerkface@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I feel like there might be interesting ways to deal with it. Perhaps the mass killing of neutrals only ever happened the first time, which could have been many generations ago and under singular circumstances. Since then, only the odd one here or there ever dies during the purge. Perhaps it's been decades or centuries since anyone died to the purge, reinforcing belief in it's effectiveness as a basis for a pure society. It may have been so long that people wonder whether the purge is even real, or just a traditional ceremony carried out annually based on old myths. Then one year, it wipes out half the city. The party investigates?

[-] Godnroc@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

The ritual could have been real, but was quietly faked so that a corrupt leader could avoid facing their fate.

Or, the ritual was always fake but used as a cover to assassinate specific targets without consequences.

[-] d20bard@ttrpg.network 2 points 11 months ago

Another aspect of the puzzle is that not every evil deserves death. A bum who does minor theft almost as a habit, a hateful bitter man who antagonizes everyone but obeys the law, a teenager, a greedy business person who employs half the town but makes everyone's life a bit worse, and so on.

Good should have the self restraint to not go straight to murder.

[-] pyrflie@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

The system in question relied on a hard Alignment metric. So addressing each of your examples:

  • A bum who does minor theft almost as a habit: Theft would qualify as a Chaotic act and would have no bearing on the Good/Evil axis
  • A hateful bitter man who antagonizes everyone but obeys the law: This is a Lawful act and may or may not have an effect on the man's Good/Evil axis.
  • Teenager: there is no alignment associated with angst
  • A greedy business person who employs half the town but makes everyone’s life a bit worse: How he makes their life worse would matter in this instance, but he may be committing acts that affect his soul's alignment.

One of the things that everyone everyone forgets about this system is that Alignment has nothing to do with morality, but rather which prime plane the individuals soul was aligned with. Good is aligned with the Positive Energy plane, Evil with the Negative Energy plane, Lawful with Mechanus, and Chaos with Limbo. Each alignment also had a Power Word spell.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

Right, so anyone who is just somewhat selfish and more concerned about their own well being than others would die, even if they are not actively harming people.

Does the "harm evil" spell affect the now clearly evil cleric who is taking part in genocide?

[-] pyrflie@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If the caster is not of the alignment of the power word spell then yes they are effected by it, but since it's based off of HD vs CL they would likely only be afflicted with the lowest effect.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz -1 points 11 months ago

a hateful bitter man who antagonizes everyone but obeys the law

As one of those hateful bitter people in the eyes of others who still is lawful, I emphatically tell you that we are evil and absolutely would and should be killed by Holy Word and other such spells.

a teenager

Wait, what?

Actually everyone on your list should be killed by that spell, even the teenager though I vehemently disagree with that.

Like you can sit there and quibble about what is actually evil or not but this is magic, and what matters is what the majority of people consider evil, and they all hit the mark. Most adults are ageist bigots who'd wipe out all teenagers on a dime if they could, for example, even though that's pretty evil.

Good and evil are honestly pretty meaningless.

[-] Knightfox@lemmy.one 2 points 11 months ago

That's what he's saying, the spell can't discern between the mass murderer and the lowly thief, the user of that spell should have the restraint to not jump straight murder. Not all evil beings deserve death.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Debatable. I don't really think the thing is about what people deserve. A sword like that could be used for all kinds of different things, not just some moral crusade.

Hell, I'd use it to detect so-called good people without the stabbing and avoid them. The worst kind of people are good ones. Goodness itself is a kind of evil.

People are quibbling over what is good and evil but no one considers how useful a sword like that would be. D&D already has a hard-coded alignment system with predictable behaviors associated with each alignment so implying good and evil are subjective is meaningless.

Then again, morality itself is pretty meaningless so 🤷

[-] The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website 2 points 11 months ago

Only good? What about neutral alignment? (if that was a thing)

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

Here's the SRD entry for the spell. It definitely nukes the neutrals.

The evil equivalent is Blasphemy, which nukes all non-evil creatures. Yes, the neutrals get it from both sides.

Then there's Word of Chaos and Dictum, the Law and Chaos equivalents of those Good/Evil spells. Neutrals, believe it or not, death!

Pick a side, you neutral scum!

[-] sammytheman666@ttrpg.network 2 points 11 months ago

Tell my wife I said... hello

[-] The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website 2 points 11 months ago

Good.

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[-] enki@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago
[-] joelfromaus@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago

I have a sunny disposition that’s balanced out with depression. True neutral.

[-] sundrei@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago

Well, my parents were worshipers of Ishtar, so I was kind of born into it...

[-] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago

All I know, my gut says maybe.

[-] josefo@leminal.space 1 points 11 months ago

I now want a campaign based on those 4 spells, as swords.

[-] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Here’s the SRD entry for the spell. It definitely nukes the neutrals.

Which is kind of horrifying because most of the population of any given setting is supposed to be neutral. The average commoner isn't so greatly committed to following airtight moral codes that they'll ping on a detect whatever spell, whether that's good, evil, law, or chaos. Cast that on a crowd of randoms and you've probably wiped out three quarters of them.

[-] wahming@monyet.cc 1 points 11 months ago

The 'both sides are the same' idiots certainly deserve it

[-] abir_vandergriff@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

I hate these filthy neutrals. With enemies you know where they stand, but with neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

[-] Attaxalotl@ttrpg.network 1 points 11 months ago

What turns a man neutral? Lust for money? Power? Or were they just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[-] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago

Situations like this give me the inclination to treat D&D Good™ and Evil™ as physical properties rather than moral tendencies. D&D Good™ that is a little too eager to murder beings labeled as Evil™ falls short of what I would consider good. If someone used such power to kill someone who is a pathological liar and petty thief, that wouldn't seem good to me even if that person could be classified as Evil™ as the system defines it.

Then again while to me such act seems evil, I don't think I could call the caster Evil™ because D&D explicitly endorses killing Evil™ creatures as a Good™ act. Since the 1st edition, the purest paragon of Good™ that is the Paladin wields a weapon to kill.

this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
921 points (98.6% liked)

RPGMemes

10146 readers
106 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS