ah, but are they really happier, or is that just a result of the indoctrination that made them good? Much like a character who was good getting turned evil for a time, then feeling guilty when they return to good, an evil person could be insulted and repulsed by the "good" version of themselves. I don't know anything about Planescape, but from a general point of view the word "Forced", as in Forced alignment change, is rarely considered good by whoever is being forced. Sure, maybe they consider it a good thing afterwards, once the damage is done, but by that point I don't think it is the opinion of the original being, it is a whole new thing. In the cosmic scheme of things, it may be better, but I doubt the Original being will be happy with what their new self looks like.
D&D 5E Realigning a magic item
- Thread starter robus
- Start date
ah, but are they really happier, or is that just a result of the indoctrination that made them good? Much like a character who was good getting turned evil for a time, then feeling guilty when they return to good, an evil person could be insulted and repulsed by the "good" version of themselves. I don't know anything about Planescape, but from a general point of view the word "Forced", as in Forced alignment change, is rarely considered good by whoever is being forced. Sure, maybe they consider it a good thing afterwards, once the damage is done, but by that point I don't think it is the opinion of the original being, it is a whole new thing. In the cosmic scheme of things, it may be better, but I doubt the Original being will be happy with what their new self looks like.
Quartz
Hero
This seems lazy to me. And a major roleplaying opportunity missed. Surely the way to change the sword's alignment is to talk to it and show it the better way? Of course, the sword will be tempting her down the dark path too.
Kabouter Games
Explorer
And to anyone other than a murderhobo, that'd be obvious.
Seriously, your player, OP, is treating a sentient being, a thing with intelligence, personality, desires and dreams, like it's just ... a thing. If she thinks she can just send it off to be "reeducated," if anyone's alignment needs to change, it's hers.
I don't get this. Is changing a magic item a rule thing I haven't noticed? If it is, that's a thing I'd house-rule out of existence.
Attempts to change an item have no effect other than to unmake the item. It is what it is. The battle inside the pocket dimension would "neutralize" the weapon, all right - it'd remove the evil sentience entirely, along with all the benefits that that sentience brought. At most it'd end up a simple +1 sword. Further, if it's an artifact or unique item, there's nothing short of a capstone-level quest that'll unmake it.
Even if I decided to allow the sword to be re-aligned, the powers of the sword are not those of a "good" thing. "Good" heals, or burns with radiant damage, it doesn't rot with necrotic damage. You don't just swap those powers out; a death knight doesn't change its mind about killing kittens and suddenly become a deva. It's still a death knight. Once you convinced the entity that killing kittens is wrong, it would simply refuse to use those powers, possibly lamenting its past misdeeds so piteously that it refuses further violence. At that point, the sword becomes a burden not because there's an evil entity within, but because it's a useless lump of metal.
That means you'd have to re-spec the sword. You'd have to unmake it, remove the evil sentient entity - with all the moral and ethical problems that entails - and then either entrap (or convince) a good sentient entity to take up residence in the sword. That's creation of magic items completely out of the scope of player characters, in my opinion. All of which in turn means if you can do something stupidly simple like send it away to the shop for a frame-off restoration, it'd come back a completely different car, I mean sword. All of that would also cost a king's ransom, because the Arcane Brotherhood is essentially creating a new legendary magic item to spec.
At my table, it'd be a hell of a lot more simple.
1. No, you can't send it away, submitting it to the Faerun equivalent of sending a teen to a camp so they can "pray the gay away." That is itself an evil act.
2. Even if you could just send it off like that, what you want isn't possible without destroying and rebuilding the item, which will take months and cost an actual, literal mint's worth of coin.
3. You can try to convince it to change its ways. Every time you try to convince the sword it should be less evil (or refuse to do anything the sword wants, like killing kittens) there will be Conflict resolved according to DMG 216.
4. Once you do convince it to be not evil, it'll simply stop working. At all. If you try to make it work, there will be Conflict resolved according to DMG 216. (Of course the PC shouldn't know that until she tries to use it in combat.)
In the meantime, evil folks should be trying to steal the sword your player is so "meh" about. It's a legendary item, fer crissake. You think the Zhents or Red Wizards or whatever are gonna just go, "Yeah, whatevs"? Hell no! They're going to get it for one of their heroes. If I were you, OP, I'd have rivals perpetually trying to kill that character and all of her friends in order to steal it. To keep it in line with your current campaign, OP, there's an paladin of Tiamat somewhere who needs that sword, and she's plotting to get it, along with the Red Wizards - who assume all magic, especially evil magic, should be theirs - and the Zhentarim, who know its value to both the paladin of Tiamat and the Red Wizards, and think they can negotiate a deal. Hell, throw the Harpers in as well, who want the sword to keep it out of evil hands entirely, either by destroying it or sticking it in a vault somewhere safe.
Taking possession of an evil, sentient artifact or item has to have consequences. Good characters don't take possession of an evil item unless they have a plan to destroy it or prevent evil NPCs from getting it. Yeah, it's tropy, but this is a game of tropes.
That's my take, anyway. I'm usually all about trying to find ways to give the player what she wants rather than ways to deny her, but that has limits. This is one of those limits.
Cheers,
Bob
www.r-p-davis.com
Last edited:
And to anyone other than a murderhobo, that'd be obvious.
Seriously, your player, OP, is treating a sentient being, a thing with intelligence, personality, desires and dreams, like it's just ... a thing. If she thinks she can just send it off to be "reeducated," if anyone's alignment needs to change, it's hers.
I don't get this. Is changing a magic item a rule thing I haven't noticed? If it is, that's a thing I'd house-rule out of existence.
Attempts to change an item have no effect other than to unmake the item. It is what it is. The battle inside the pocket dimension would "neutralize" the weapon, all right - it'd remove the evil sentience entirely, along with all the benefits that that sentience brought. At most it'd end up a simple +1 sword. Further, if it's an artifact or unique item, there's nothing short of a capstone-level quest that'll unmake it.
Even if I decided to allow the sword to be re-aligned, the powers of the sword are not those of a "good" thing. "Good" heals, or burns with radiant damage, it doesn't rot with necrotic damage. You don't just swap those powers out; a death knight doesn't change its mind about killing kittens and suddenly become a deva. It's still a death knight. Once you convinced the entity that killing kittens is wrong, it would simply refuse to use those powers, possibly lamenting its past misdeeds so piteously that it refuses further violence. At that point, the sword becomes a burden not because there's an evil entity within, but because it's a useless lump of metal.
That means you'd have to re-spec the sword. You'd have to unmake it, remove the evil sentient entity - with all the moral and ethical problems that entails - and then either entrap (or convince) a good sentient entity to take up residence in the sword. That's creation of magic items completely out of the scope of player characters, in my opinion. All of which in turn means if you can do something stupidly simple like send it away to the shop for a frame-off restoration, it'd come back a completely different car, I mean sword. All of that would also cost a king's ransom, because the Arcane Brotherhood is essentially creating a new legendary magic item to spec.
At my table, it'd be a hell of a lot more simple.
1. No, you can't send it away, submitting it to the Faerun equivalent of sending a teen to a camp so they can "pray the gay away." That is itself an evil act.
2. Even if you could just send it off like that, what you want isn't possible without destroying and rebuilding the item, which will take months and cost an actual, literal mint's worth of coin.
3. You can try to convince it to change its ways. Every time you try to convince the sword it should be less evil (or refuse to do anything the sword wants, like killing kittens) there will be Conflict resolved according to DMG 216.
4. Once you do convince it to be not evil, it'll simply stop working. At all. If you try to make it work, there will be Conflict resolved according to DMG 216. (Of course the PC shouldn't know that until she tries to use it in combat.)
In the meantime, evil folks should be trying to steal the sword your player is so "meh" about. It's a legendary item, fer crissake. You think the Zhents or Red Wizards or whatever are gonna just go, "Yeah, whatevs"? Hell no! They're going to get it for one of their heroes. If I were you, OP, I'd have rivals perpetually trying to kill that character and all of her friends in order to steal it. To keep it in line with your current campaign, OP, there's an paladin of Tiamat somewhere who needs that sword, and she's plotting to get it, along with the Red Wizards - who assume all magic, especially evil magic, should be theirs - and the Zhentarim, who know its value to both the paladin of Tiamat and the Red Wizards, and think they can negotiate a deal. Hell, throw the Harpers in as well, who want the sword to keep it out of evil hands entirely, either by destroying it or sticking it in a vault somewhere safe.
Taking possession of an evil, sentient artifact or item has to have consequences. Good characters don't take possession of an evil item unless they have a plan to destroy it or prevent evil NPCs from getting it. Yeah, it's tropy, but this is a game of tropes.
That's my take, anyway. I'm usually all about trying to find ways to give the player what she wants rather than ways to deny her, but that has limits. This is one of those limits.
Cheers,
Bob
www.r-p-davis.com
There is any number of examples of monsters or creatures with evil powers using them for good. Were a Sword dealing necrotic damage to become good, why wouldn't it just use that necrotic damage on evil things? I agree that sending it away to be indoctrinated is a bad move, but sitting down and talking with it would not reasonably result in anything like it losing all of its power. After all, this is a sentient object, just as or most likely more intelligent than your average creature, so why wouldn't it be capable of changing?
I wouldn't make it easy, or fast, by any means, but I don't see a reason to not allow an attempt at changing a swords alignment, assuming it is considered the same as a creature.
Kabouter Games
Explorer
Nah. It's just ENWorld.
You're welcome. I hope you can tease some signal out of the noise.
Good point. I think I might have jerked my knee a bit too hard, there.
Here we begin to skate on the thin ice of fantasy tropes, in which some things are assumed to be inherently an irrevocably evil. This is the well from whence the whole "paladin killing a village of orc babies" debate - into which I do not wish to spiral - springs.
This is one of those tropes - the evil McGuffin is irrevocably evil - that I dislike breaking. Frodo didn't try to talk the Ring into being nice. He decided to unmake it in the Fire. That's a bad metaphor, since the Ring wasn't an individual, sentient, evil magical item, but it's all I can come up with on one cup of coffee. Some things, some entities, are just Evil, and that's that. Would you try to talk a balor into giving up that demoning thing and turning over a new leaf?
Maybe you would. If that works for your table, fine! It all comes down to what works for the people around a particular table. Heck, if the rest of my table decided to make it work for them, I'd allow it, even though I don't care for it.
As for "losing" all its power, I don't think I said that. I said "removing and replacing it" - in the case of unmaking and remaking it - or "refusing to use it." Speaking of which...
I'm not saying I wouldn't allow the attempt. I'm saying I would absolutely ensure the attempt to change the entity's alignment, even if technically successful, wouldn't have the result the player wants.
It's just too awesome an opportunity for me to create drama. I mean, FFS, do you just let them use wish without doing everything you can to twist it? That way lies madness!Okay, try to change the thing.
Until you convince it, every time you try to use it, you're in Conflict, and you stand a good chance of not getting anything done. "What? Not kill the kittens? Pansy. Stand aside, weakling, and let me get on with it."
When you're in the middle of convincing it, winning it over, it's in an existential crisis which stops it providing its powers. "But you said killing for fun is wrong. It still feels fun to me. I dunno...I have to think about it."
Once you do convince it, it has the zeal of the newly converted, and you'll have to convince it to use its powers. "Stab the orcs? Wait, what? You hypocrite! You told me killing is wrong! How could you!? Let me talk to them instead."
In every case, Conflict, according to the DMG, p. 216. That's not just rules-based Conflict, that's also conflict in the context of dramatic incidents. Conflict is what drives Story, which is what this game is about. So not giving the player exactly what she wants contributes infinitely more to the game.
This is a fun conversation.
Bob
www.r-p-davis.com
Nah. It's just ENWorld.
You're welcome. I hope you can tease some signal out of the noise.
Good point. I think I might have jerked my knee a bit too hard, there.
Here we begin to skate on the thin ice of fantasy tropes, in which some things are assumed to be inherently an irrevocably evil. This is the well from whence the whole "paladin killing a village of orc babies" debate - into which I do not wish to spiral - springs.
This is one of those tropes - the evil McGuffin is irrevocably evil - that I dislike breaking. Frodo didn't try to talk the Ring into being nice. He decided to unmake it in the Fire. That's a bad metaphor, since the Ring wasn't an individual, sentient, evil magical item, but it's all I can come up with on one cup of coffee. Some things, some entities, are just Evil, and that's that. Would you try to talk a balor into giving up that demoning thing and turning over a new leaf?
Maybe you would. If that works for your table, fine! It all comes down to what works for the people around a particular table. Heck, if the rest of my table decided to make it work for them, I'd allow it, even though I don't care for it.
As for "losing" all its power, I don't think I said that. I said "removing and replacing it" - in the case of unmaking and remaking it - or "refusing to use it." Speaking of which...
I'm not saying I wouldn't allow the attempt. I'm saying I would absolutely ensure the attempt to change the entity's alignment, even if technically successful, wouldn't have the result the player wants.
Okay, try to change the thing.
Until you convince it, every time you try to use it, you're in Conflict, and you stand a good chance of not getting anything done. "What? Not kill the kittens? Pansy. Stand aside, weakling, and let me get on with it."
When you're in the middle of convincing it, winning it over, it's in an existential crisis which stops it providing its powers. "But you said killing for fun is wrong. It still feels fun to me. I dunno...I have to think about it."
Once you do convince it, it has the zeal of the newly converted, and you'll have to convince it to use its powers. "Stab the orcs? Wait, what? You hypocrite! You told me killing is wrong! How could you!? Let me talk to them instead."
In every case, Conflict, according to the DMG, p. 216. That's not just rules-based Conflict, that's also conflict in the context of dramatic incidents. Conflict is what drives Story, which is what this game is about. So not giving the player exactly what she wants contributes infinitely more to the game.
This is a fun conversation.
Bob
www.r-p-davis.com
Ah, so at this point we agree, just not on the exact degree to which it should go. I agree that some items and creatures are just irrevocably Evil, but that would differ from table to table. Some would consider the One Ring Evil-Period(TM), while some would think it might just be misunderstood.
In the interest of what I consider the most interesting story possibility to come out of this, the player must go deep into philosophy of good and evil, and just how far you have to go before the End no longer justifies the means. After spending a long, long, LONG time teaching the sword philosophy, and probably some basic Warfare etiquette, the player could probably get what they want. Of course, this is something that would take years in-game, and possibly just as long out of game, real Campaign-grade stuff. Not the sort of moral dilemma you throw into a one-shot for a couple of sessions.
Kabouter Games
Explorer
Precisely.
Which in my experience with the murderhobos I seem to get, would cause them to chuck the thing in a bin, sell it, or deal with the discomfort of being a good character attuned to an evil item.
I happen to be fairly well-read on philosophy for someone who hasn't taken a degree in it, and could off-the-cuff a pretty solid Aristotelian logic argument based on syllogisms. That would actually be appropriate for a medievaloid fantasy setting, as it was the standard logical discussion construct until the 1800s.
Similar Threads
