Let's weave two threads together.

Imagine a LG kingdom in a typical D&D setting. The leaders genuinely pursue benevolent ends, through legalistic means. The majority of the populace does likewise.

Charity for the poor. Compassion for the ailing. Benevolence towards each other. A genuinely decent land, with genuinely decent citizens, leaders, and priests.

But still, people err. They fall into temptation momentarily, or choose the route of harming others with selfish and vicious acts.

Then there are the humanoids. For whatever reason, most are irredeemably evil. Evil humans or Evil humanoids, both wreak great harm.

And no matter what, then can never be truly defeated. No matter how assiduously the humanoids are hunted, they eventually return. No matter how vigorously (though justly) the laws are enforced, still people err.

So, the plan. A spell (in 3e parlance, an Epic Spell) which will cast a magical compulsion over the entire kingdom and all sapient creatures within its boundaries.

All alignments will change to LG. No one will be able to alter their alignment to any other. And all will feel the desire to do good and obey the law.

They design the spell. Develop its components. And, over the course of decades, prepare for its casting.

In this endeavor, they are supported by the LG citizens of the kingdom, who have tired of the suffering caused by thieves, rapists, and murderers, and grown weary of the endless war against the innumerable humanoids. All wish to see Evil eradicated, and this one spell will accomplish the task. So they pursue it.

This, despite clear signs that they are brooking the displeasure of the gods, especially those of Lawful Goodness. In the face of the opprobrium of the heavens, they prepare and cast the spell.

And it works. But the heavens respond.

The gods cast down the kingdom. They destroy the temples, wreck cities, and cause a giant sea to rise up and engulf the land.


Can Good become Evil? I would argue that, in this case, it's at least plausible. If one takes magical compulsion, the total mental domination of a kingdom and all within its borders, to be something wrong and Evil, then by pursuing ostensibly Good ends, one can wreak great Evil.

That's my scenario at least.

Kind of has a clock work orange feel. In real life i think most people would argue that free will is a key component of being good, and in this scenario that is being removed by the LG people. But under the alignment system of D&D, i dont really recall that being as much of an issue. Where i think this violates D&D goodness is it doesn't make evil characters good, it makes CG and NG characters LG. I can certainly see the LG argument for forcing an alignment conversion being preferable to killing and imprisoning all the evil folk. Again, just going by D&D alignments here, not real world good and evil. It would be interesting to see how a party of paladins would handle having that kind of power.

Nope. In D&D, mental compulsion is morally neutral and in some ways par for the course. There is no point under the D&D system of morality at which it would become evil unless, of course, you were using it to turn people evil.

Oh, and the only deities who would care enough to respond like that are the evil ones who, suddenly without any followers, would be powerless to do anything anyway. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works in most D&D settings. No followers, no mojo, no miracles, no nothing.

I think how "D&D good" you are depends, in large part, on your empathy for others. A good person has a wide empathy for living things. A neutral person has empathy for friends, family, tribe, and nation, in descending order. An evil person has no empathy (sociopathy).  Put another way, good people are people with consciences strong enough that they have to act good.

(This description of morality was made explicit in an old Dark Sun short story where the evil templar has his alignment magically changed and the result is that he experiences empathy and compassion for the first time).

A spell that makes everyone in a kingdom turn good would simply be increasing the empathy of everyone in the kingdom. No compulsion involved, merely an increased realization of the interconnectedness of life, etc. So I can't imagine the gods of good would be against this.

Quote from: amacris;539892I think how "D&D good" you are depends, in large part, on your empathy for others. A good person has a wide empathy for living things. A neutral person has empathy for friends, family, tribe, and nation, in descending order. An evil person has no empathy (sociopathy).  Put another way, good people are people with consciences strong enough that they have to act good.

(This description of morality was made explicit in an old Dark Sun short story where the evil templar has his alignment magically changed and the result is that he experiences empathy and compassion for the first time).

A spell that makes everyone in a kingdom turn good would simply be increasing the empathy of everyone in the kingdom. No compulsion involved, merely an increased realization of the interconnectedness of life, etc. So I can't imagine the gods of good would be against this.

Just keep in mind he isn't simply saying they turn good: everyone becomes lawful good. So chaotic good characters now become lawful good (Robin Hood stops stealing from the rich and begins paying his taxes). Everyone feels compelled to obey the law.

Question to the op. In this hypothetical, even though evil people have been eliminated is it still possible for evil laws to be enacted or stay on the books? What happens in this pure lawful good society when they have to choose between good and the word of the law?

Good point. I think there's more compulsion inherent in making someone "lawful" than making someone "good".

My particular definition of lawful is "rules-based decision maker" and of chaotic is "consequences-based decision maker." So, e.g., a lawful person is the sort who will not lie because he has a rule against lying, whereas a chaotic person will lie if he thinks the consequences of doing so will be better. This means you can inherently trust a lawful person's word, but a chaotic person's word doesn't mean much. (Simple example but this framework extends pretty well).

Magically compelling someone to be lawful would mean forcing them to ignore the consequences of their actions and apply rules they don't necessarily agree with. I think the lawful gods would be ok with this, but I don't think the good gods would be ok with this.

If a group tried that in the Majestic Wilderlands the gods would intervene. Although it is unlikely they would blue bolt the group or realms trying it. They would be much more subtle but no less devastating to the plan.  Setup a chain of domino series of events that leads to the plan not being implemented.

The preservation of free will is at the heart of the reason for the existence of the mortal races in the Majestc Wilderlands campaign. Circumventing free will on a massive scale like that would be view as an evil act.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;539879Let's weave two threads together.

Imagine a LG kingdom in a typical D&D setting. The leaders genuinely pursue benevolent ends, through legalistic means. The majority of the populace does likewise.

Charity for the poor. Compassion for the ailing. Benevolence towards each other. A genuinely decent land, with genuinely decent citizens, leaders, and priests.

But still, people err. They fall into temptation momentarily, or choose the route of harming others with selfish and vicious acts.

Then there are the humanoids. For whatever reason, most are irredeemably evil. Evil humans or Evil humanoids, both wreak great harm.

And no matter what, then can never be truly defeated. No matter how assiduously the humanoids are hunted, they eventually return. No matter how vigorously (though justly) the laws are enforced, still people err.

So, the plan. A spell (in 3e parlance, an Epic Spell) which will cast a magical compulsion over the entire kingdom and all sapient creatures within its boundaries.

All alignments will change to LG. No one will be able to alter their alignment to any other. And all will feel the desire to do good and obey the law.

They design the spell. Develop its components. And, over the course of decades, prepare for its casting.

In this endeavor, they are supported by the LG citizens of the kingdom, who have tired of the suffering caused by thieves, rapists, and murderers, and grown weary of the endless war against the innumerable humanoids. All wish to see Evil eradicated, and this one spell will accomplish the task. So they pursue it.

This, despite clear signs that they are brooking the displeasure of the gods, especially those of Lawful Goodness. In the face of the opprobrium of the heavens, they prepare and cast the spell.

And it works. But the heavens respond.

The gods cast down the kingdom. They destroy the temples, wreck cities, and cause a giant sea to rise up and engulf the land.

In essence, you just described the premise for the DragonLance setting.

Quote from: Drohem;539919In essence, you just described the premise for the DragonLance setting.

I was about to reply but then you said this. You're completely right.

I think that the LG realm would eventually fall apart without any poking from the gods. The lawful component would add a certain amount of rigidity to the society that I doubt it would be able to respond to changes in the surrounding environment over the decades or centuries. The epic spell that changes alignments might be successful in the short term, but devastating in the long term.

Quote from: Drohem;539919In essence, you just described the premise for the DragonLance setting.

Did I?

I could see it working out that way. "Compelling people to be good" I think is a pretty morally grey area because often doing evil to someone and making someone else do good look very similar. Its a very fine line between mind controlling someone to make them give you 100 gold pieces out of compassion, and just stealing 100 gold pieces in the first place.
So, in spite of all the benefits I could see even good characters - deity or not - disagreeing on whether the super-mindrape spell is cool.

From the deities perspectives, if they wanted everyone to be LG all the time, they could have made them that way in the first place. (If they tended toward LG). If there's an afterlife then all the killing done by evil creatures isn't really that bad from their perspective, and so it may be worth it to have free will so that the souls of creatures get properly sorted into the various heavens and hells. i.e. should characters even get into the Seven Heavens if they've been magically compelled to be LG all their life? How are the gods supposed to know if they're worthy?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;540078From the deities perspectives, if they wanted everyone to be LG all the time, they could have made them that way in the first place.

D&D alignment differs from edition to edition, sometimes greatly. BECMI had Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic, 3e had different definitions, and 4e had 5 alignments, not 9. In addition, each GM applied alignment in different ways, many choosing to ignore it.

Any statements of "X and Y is absolutely and always true for alignment in D&D" are logically unsupportable. Alignment meant different things in different editions.

More, as Estar pointed out, it meant different things in different settings. Which (and this may be my Torg bias showing here) is fine with me.

So, when building a specific setting, the GM/writer decides the cosmology and metaphysics: what alignment means, what powers/desires the gods have, and the nature and reason for an afterlife (if any exists at all). (Or not. Many just ignore this, and can be right to do so.)

Back to your point. Some D&D settings have an overgod who set up the morality of the setting, who oversees the gods like gods oversee mortals (Ao?), and who establishes Laws (or rules or principles) the gods must follow. Some have competing arrays of Good and Evil (and Lawful and Chaotic) deities, who either created the world in concert or competition or who arrived at this world with their followers (ala Kelewan).

In either case, humans and demi-humans (elves, etc.) are not locked into alignments (though humanoids typically are). This is done for a reason.

Maybe it's imposed by the overgod (one of the Godly Laws). Maybe it's a pact between the various deities, so the world can be preserved (no god on god violence, mortals can choose whom to obey).

Whatever the reason, moral choice is granted certain races and this principle is embedded in the godly code of conduct. This choice even extends to allowing mortals to develop compulsion spells.

On a one-on-one basis, such spells don't rock the boat. But on a large enough scale, it can constitute a de-facto breach of Godly Laws.

Whether its all the gods acting together, just the gods of Evil and Chaos, or the overgod forcing the LG gods to clean up the mess, the gods are forced to remove the offending kingdom.

So, there's a reason (demi-)humans can choose their alignment. And the reasons are built into the setting. And those reasons have consequences.

But a cosmology and metaphysics can be constructed which would allow for the scenario identified. IMHO.

What if the spell did not affect their offspring?

It would make an interesting generational battle kind of campaign. Imagine the evil a teenager could wreck in a kingdom of LG where everyone assumes that everyone else is LG...

In Planescape, single alignment kingdoms are the norm in the alignment planes and when one visits them, everything exists through the lens of the particular alignment and the god of the realm.

Its very cool to visit, but I am unsure I'd want a whole campaign in a single alignment zone.