Kensai's Weapon

[moritheil]

Did we?

I've generally taken the opposite view. A Holy weapon is "good-aligned". An Unholy weapon is "evil-aligned". The Align Weapon spell implies that a weapon that is aligned has an alignment, since it cannot be cast on a weapon that has an alignment; if a Holy weapon is not a weapon that has an alignment, then Align Weapon can be cast on it, but it seems that this is exactly what the clause was intended to prevent.

So I'd read it that a good-aligned weapon has an alignment that is good, and an evil-aligned weapon has an alignment that is evil, and a Holy Unholy weapon would have an alignment that is evil and good, of which there are none, so the combination is impossible.

After all, the 'incompatible abilities' footnote has to refer to something, right?

-Hyp.

I actually remember this discussion quite well, though you took a slightly different approach to explaining the issue then. Do you still hold that all weapons must have one of what you referred to then as "the nine alignments?"

 

[Hypersmurf]

I actually remember this discussion quite well, though you took a slightly different approach to explaining the issue then. Do you still hold that all weapons must have one of what you referred to then as "the nine alignments?"

I'm not sure what else "a weapon that has an alignment" would refer to in D&D...

As I recall, there was some sticking point around Holy bows with Unholy arrows, but I can't remember the details.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

I'm not sure what else "a weapon that has an alignment" would refer to in D&D...

As I recall, there was some sticking point around Holy bows with Unholy arrows, but I can't remember the details.

-Hyp.

You previously made the statement that all weapons had one of the nine alignments - an argument that you are scrupulously avoiding now, so there's no way this discussion will go the same way as the last one.

Essentially, my take is and was that the impossible combinations argument against something may be valid, but not the argument that no valid alignment exists with that combination of alignments.

 

[KarinsDad]

I understand your opinion overall, but I don't follow your emphasis on harm to the creator - if a weapon harms you, you can't create it?

The creator also needs a fairly quiet, comfortable, and well-lit place in which to work.

I opine that if the item is harming the creator, it cannot be considered a comfortable place to work.

 

[moritheil]

I opine that if the item is harming the creator, it cannot be considered a comfortable place to work.

I don't follow. The item is a weapon, not a place. Categorically, the item harming the creator is a different concern than the concern that the place be comfortable. (If you want to say that this disrupts the creator's concentration, because he/she keeps failing checks, I can understand that.)

 

[moritheil]

Oh yes, also:

I've generally taken the opposite view. A Holy weapon is "good-aligned". An Unholy weapon is "evil-aligned". The Align Weapon spell implies that a weapon that is aligned has an alignment, since it cannot be cast on a weapon that has an alignment; if a Holy weapon is not a weapon that has an alignment, then Align Weapon can be cast on it, but it seems that this is exactly what the clause was intended to prevent.

It seems to me that the ability to cast the spell on the weapon isn't central to the argument - if that's the only issue, then an artificer of sufficient level and resources should be able to make such a weapon without having to actually cast the spells at all, right?

If we argue that the artificer cannot do it because no one can do it, and not merely because the spells need to be cast, then there has to be some more fundamental reason.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't follow. The item is a weapon, not a place. Categorically, the item harming the creator is a different concern than the concern that the place be comfortable. (If you want to say that this disrupts the creator's concentration, because he/she keeps failing checks, I can understand that.)

Could you get good work done if your keyboard kept shocking you?

Isn't part of the comfort of a place the entire environment, not just the chair you sit in?

 

[moritheil]

Could you get good work done if your keyboard kept shocking you?

Isn't part of the comfort of a place the entire environment, not just the chair you sit in?

An environment may contain the item, but an item itself does not constitute the environment. Well, it's interesting to know that your interpretation works thus.

At any rate, it seems that this line of inquiry is moot for RAW because a neutral artificer can presumably make the item unplagued by such issues. Thus we must have something to fall back to should the alignment of the creator and the casting of the spell no longer present issues.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It seems to me that the ability to cast the spell on the weapon isn't central to the argument...

Oh, no, no, no. Sorry, I don't mean the Align Weapon spell is used to make the weapon Holy.

From the spell text:
A weapon that is aligned can bypass the damage reduction of certain creatures. This spell has no effect on a weapon that already has an alignment.

The implication here is that "a weapon that is aligned" and "a weapon that has an alignment" are synonymous. Otherwise, Align Weapon could be cast on a Holy weapon (which is aligned), since it doesn't have an alignment. It seems that the point of the line is to prevent someone casting Align Weapon on a Holy, Unholy, Axiomatic, or Anarchic weapon; the only other weapons which could be construed to 'have an alignment' are intelligent ones.

(That's also why I'd be surprised if I'd claimed that all weapons have an alignment, since that would make the spell useless...)

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

(That's also why I'd be surprised if I'd claimed that all weapons have an alignment, since that would make the spell useless...)

-Hyp.

I was surprised too. That's why I still remember it. (I don't have a link to it, but if you look back a year or so, you'll probably find it.)

So, what is the thrust of your argument now? The weapon has an alignment and thus cannot be given another one without losing the first? It doesn't seem that you're saying that, since the statement you made applies only to the align weapon spell, but I can't see what else your argument might be.