Kensai's Weapon

[Hypersmurf]

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.

That a weapon that is aligned is a weapon that has an alignment.
That a weapon that is good-aligned is a weapon that has an alignment that is good.
That a weapon that is evil-aligned is a weapon that has an alignment that is evil.
That a weapon cannot have an alignment that is good and that is evil.

The Align Weapon spell is only used to show that "weapon that is aligned" and "weapon that has an alignment" are equivalent.

I don't have any problem with an Axiomatic Holy weapon; I see no reason why a weapon cannot have an alignment that is lawful and that is good. It's only the diametrically-opposed ones that cause the problem.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Moot? As in arguable? Yes, it is.

A Neutral Artificer still needs to make UMD checks to emulate a Good Alignment when making it Holy. He also still needs to make UMD checks to emulate an Evil Alignment when making it Unholy and it could be construed that while he is doing so, he would be taking damage from the Holy aspect of the weapon and hence, violating the "peace and comfort" clause of crafting items.

 

[moritheil]

Hyp - You agree that in general, a weapon need not have an alignment that corresponds to one of the nine alignments. But for some reason you draw a divide between aligned and unaligned weapons. Why? Solely because of the rules text in Align Weapon?

 

[moritheil]

Moot? As in arguable? Yes, it is.

A Neutral Artificer still needs to make UMD checks to emulate a Good Alignment when making it Holy. He also still needs to make UMD checks to emulate an Evil Alignment when making it Unholy and it could be construed that while he is doing so, he would be taking damage from the Holy aspect of the weapon and hence, violating the "peace and comfort" clause of crafting items.

IIRC the artificer does not become that alignment; he or she only qualifies to make the item as if he/she was of the needed alignment.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp - You agree that in general, a weapon need not have an alignment that corresponds to one of the nine alignments.

Right.

But for some reason you draw a divide between aligned and unaligned weapons. Why? Solely because of the rules text in Align Weapon?

Not solely; Damage Reduction also refers to "weapons imbued with an alignment", "projectile weapons with an alignment", "any alignment the weapon may already have".

But yes, it seems to me that an aligned weapon is a weapon that has an alignment, based on the text of DR and Align Weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

Right.

Not solely; Damage Reduction also refers to "weapons imbued with an alignment", "projectile weapons with an alignment", "any alignment the weapon may already have".

But yes, it seems to me that an aligned weapon is a weapon that has an alignment, based on the text of DR and Align Weapon.

-Hyp.

I don't read the rules as saying anywhere that the alignment of a weapon must be one of the nine alignments that characters must have. I can grasp the gist of your argument as being that no other alignments exist, but being strictly literal, there is no requirement that weapons cleave to that list.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I can grasp the gist of your argument as being that no other alignments exist...

Right.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

Right.

-Hyp.

Last time, though, I believe we made a distinction between the alignments allowed to characters and the alignments allowed in general. Want to see if the text that talks about alignments specifically applies to characters?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Last time, though, I believe we made a distinction between the alignments allowed to characters and the alignments allowed in general.

Alignment is a defined term in D&D. What does it means?

"One of the nine descriptors of morality for intelligent creatures."

So if a weapon has an alignment, what does it have? It has "One of the nine descriptors of morality for intelligent creatures."

The fact that the weapon is not an intelligent creature doesn't mean that it can't possess a descriptor of their morality... and there's no other definition of alignment in the game.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

Alignment is a defined term in D&D. What does it means?

"One of the nine descriptors of morality for intelligent creatures."

So if a weapon has an alignment, what does it have? It has "One of the nine descriptors of morality for intelligent creatures."

The fact that the weapon is not an intelligent creature doesn't mean that it can't possess a descriptor of their morality... and there's no other definition of alignment in the game.

-Hyp.

I see a glaring contradiction there. Your text quote about "one of the nine descriptors" specifically says "for intelligent creatures."

Intelligent weapons must have an alignment - and one of the nine alignments, at that. You have cited rules text from spells that suggests unintelligent weapons are treated as though aligned. But there is nothing that states that unintelligent weapons must have one of the nine alignments.

I'll admit that I wish someone would dig up the last discussion we had on this, as I get the feeling that I'm forgetting something.