What happens to a Devil when its alignment is forcibly changed?

According to PHB 122, in the section entitled Alignment in the Multiverse, for most creatures, “alignment is a moral choice.” Myth says good-aligned gods created the races that are free to choose to be evil (they have free will), while evil-aligned gods created the races that are very inclined towards evil, since they were born to serve the evil god in the first place.

However, there are some types of creatures — like devils — which embody an alignment in its essence:

Alignment in the Multiverse, PHB 122

A devil does not choose to be lawful evil, and it doesn’t tend toward lawful evil, but rather it is lawful evil in its essence. If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil.

My first thought was to not take this reading literally. The text could have meant that a neutral evil devil “isn’t really a devil,” but really, it’s still a devil. It’s a bit like imagining a guitarist who loses both hands. The loss of some part of a person’s essence makes them not the same person anymore.

However, keeping my attention on it, I’m finding this text more and more difficult to interpret. If a devil “is lawful evil in its essence” then what does it mean when “it would cease to be a devil”? What happens to a devil when its alignment is forcibly changed?

There are ways to forcibly change someone’s alignment, and a devil can be subject to some of them.

Behavior of Solve with $Assumptions changed in 12.2

Something changed with Solve between versions 12.1 and 12.2.

12.1:

Solve[n == n E^(r (1 - n)), n] (* Solve::ifun -- Inverse functions are being used by Solve, so some solutions may not be found; use Reduce for complete solution information. *) (* {{n -> 0}, {n -> 1}} *)  $  Assumptions = {n >= 0}; Solve[n == n E^(r (1 - n)), n] (* Solve::ifun -- Inverse functions are being used by Solve, so some solutions may not be found; use Reduce for complete solution information. *) (* {{n -> 0}, {n -> 1}} *) 

12.2:

Solve[n == n E^(r (1 - n)), n] (* Solve::ifun -- Inverse functions are being used by Solve, so some solutions may not be found; use Reduce for complete solution information. *) (* {{n -> 0}, {n -> 1}} *)  $  Assumptions = {n >= 0}; Solve[n == n E^(r (1 - n)), n] 

enter image description here

Is this an improvement or a bug? It seems hard for the condition ConditionalExpression[1, Re[r] == 0 || Re[r] > 0 || Re[r] < 0] not to hold, but maybe I’m overlooking something.

Two work-arounds:

$  Assumptions = {n >= 0, r \[Element] Reals}; Solve[n == n E^(r (1 - n)), n]  Solve[n == n E^(r (1 - n)), n, Reals] 

both give {{n -> 0}, {n -> 1}} (no Solve::ifun either).

Another example, not fixable by including Reals:

$  Assumptions = {n1 >= 0, n2 >= 0}; Solve[0 == n1 (1 - n1 - 0.5 n2), n1] 

enter image description here

How to allow cantrips to be changed

The wizard in my game has requested the ability to change out his cantrips similarly to his higher level spells. His justification is that every other wizard spell is memorizable, so having fixed spells seems antithetical. I kind of agree with him.

I know that there is no mechanism for changing cantrips, but I’m trying to come up with a fair means of doing so.

The two extremes, as I see it, are:

  1. Cantrips can be swapped out just like preparing any other spell.
  2. Retrain a the cantrip, taking 250 days of Downtime, as if learning a new skill.

I’m interested in having a good middle ground option, patterned on other rules, if possible.


Here’s the house rules I have tentatively decided on. Critiques welcomed.

Cantrip House Rules

For all following rules, when using a cantrip that you don’t currently “know”, for classes that use a spell book, the cantrip must be in the spell book. Cantrips count as 1st level spells for purposes of price and scribing.

  • When you gain a level, you may swap one cantrip for another that you have available.

  • As a Downtime Activity, a cantrip can be swapped for another that you have available after 10 days of practice and the expenditure of 20gp.

  • Cantrips can be prepared and cast as 1st level spells. If the cantrip effects improve with level, the spell slot used to cast it must be 2 levels higher per step of improvement.

  • Cantrips can be cast as rituals. The cantrip improves with level as normal.

As with any house rule, I reserve the right to change it if it breaks.


Be warned! My DMing style is quite liberal. If you use this, wizards, druids, & clerics in your group may become unbalanced.

What happens to your class features if you short rest while your form has been changed?

Bob the Warlock has blown all of his spell slots. The friendly party druid casts Animal Forms on Bob, and while in his animal form he takes a Short Rest. After the rest completes, he drops out of animal form for whatever reason. Does Bob have his spell slots back, or does he have to take a rest while in his Warlock form to regain htem?

This kind of situation could also come up with Polymorph (all three varieties) or Shapechange, combined with Catnap.

Can a webpage differ in content if ‘http’ is changed to ‘https’ or if ‘www.’ is added after ‘http://’ (or ‘https://’)?

When I use the Python package newspaper3k package and run the code

import newspaper paper = newspaper.build('http://abcnews.com', memoize_articles=False) for url in paper.article_urls():     print(url) 

I get a list of URLs for articles that I can download, in which both these URLs exist

  • http://abcnews.go.com/Health/coronavirus-transferred-animals-humans-scientists-answer/story?id=73055380
  • https://abcnews.go.com/Health/coronavirus-transferred-animals-humans-scientists-answer/story?id=73055380

As can be seen, the only difference between the two URLs is the s in https.

The question is, can the webpage content differ simply because an s is added to http? If I scrape a news source (in this case http://abcnews.com), do I need to download both articles to be sure I don’t miss any article, or are they guaranteed to have the same content so that I can download only one of them?

I have also noticed that some URLs also are duplicated by adding www. after the http:// (or https://). I have the same question here: Can this small change cause the webpage content to differ, and is this something I should take into account or can I simply ignore one of these two URLs?

Why has the Final Fantasy series largely changed for the worst (or JRPs/RPGs in general)?

From what many remembered as open-world, explorable, side-quest, challenging battles and tactics of many similar RPGS/JPRGs of the 90s to the 2000s even, it now largely seems like the genre — especially referencing to FF series since they are among the "top dogs" of it — have diminished. I get the impression that lots of what made the old games good is lost:

  1. What was once more explorable of a main navigation element seems to have become more centered, linear, and/or restrictive. You can have nicer walking animations and prettier backgrounds, but the same "tunnel" like forward direction — or more aimless all-way walking potential in huge open areas replaces that special emphasis on simple old rooms (often smaller) with less to give graphically but more to give in a travel, explorative or more sensible approach than just "hunting" or "running around and grinding." If you make a large area you should at least give different elements to it than just "lots of space." If you scale up you need more of that "something" to scale up too — otherwise it’s more empty.

  2. The old free-to-explore open-worlds/world maps, airship/flying ship/etc. mechanics (even re-visit mechanics) are almost always chopped down or implemented much less attractively (think how it started with FFX and then onwards — i.e. you can "explore" fast but it’s really largely watered down stuff/processes in doing such). The whole "open world" aspect to the classics is largely reduced to large areas/fields but no longer a blend of different terrains, sub-areas, sections or just the general nature/element of traveling/entering/exiting different areas rather than storyline/linear rules imposed on all areas/paths.

  3. The battle system is definitely a hot topic, as some will tell you the new mechanics add some new flesh to the table while others feel the older system worked best and it’s been "slaughtered" merely at the attempt of "spicing up" something that people already liked for the most part/settled in with over time. The thing is — if the battle system is to be made "better" so to speak — it should try and maintain the same elements of what the skeleton of original battle systems were based on. As an example old turn-based games kept the same skeleton even when becoming "active time" battles where it’s every turn to grab for themselves the quickest. The idea was that you can maintain the same "skeletal base" of the mechanics and only tweak them better — but lots of newer stuff almost always tries to go completely a new path that strays away from this with new experimentation, impositions, rules, and/or unneeded "extra steps" at times too. Basically it’s like the game’s old and functioning system has been put less concern to while trying to "splice" its old DNA under the impression that you can supposedly better an old thing by going in a completely a new "frankenstein" direction rather than just sprucing up the initial base in a more specific/oriented/targeted manner that fulfills its initial life blood/base than trying

  4. Always an extreme. Nowadays it seems games of this series are either too linear or not linear at all — there’s no longer a good balance between the two. For example one game may have so much explorable, massiveness to specific areas that you would be to get lost/tired/grinding excessively/etc. in one area to then go to the next one and rinse and repeat. On the other hand you can go super linear (think FFXIII for example) where everything is just "new area -> go straight -> battle -> story -> repeat" and such. What made the classics arguably more "wow" is the fact that the game — when it needs to — switches from storyline/linearity to open/some explorableness (to pique the natural exploring instinct) while going back to restriction when danger arose (defensive mechanism/protective inhibition) — because both of these angles match human behavior/etc. it suits gameplay. But if you make it either too open or too linear you force one side too long and it doesn’t align naturally with the cycle of human operability/engagement well enough to have proper "ups" and "downs."

  5. More "complex" systems or angles regarding leveling/power ups/etc. In old games it’s often fairly simple and straightforward to a large degree on how something more direct leads to a more expandable nature of said system to grow and keep delivering. What has replaced easy but expandable seems to be complex and rigid — more learning curves but less direction to go once you "have it." Slowly I think the series has gone this way, possibly starting with FFXIII/around that era. You make something simple that expands as needed become complex that really doesn’t give much over time. Something like junctioning in FF8 starts simple but can scale up to cool stuff as the game goes on, especially with the addition of GFs to character stats and so on. In a game like FFXIII for example you can liken the "powering system" to weak remnants of FFX and FFXII in ways of both combat means and stat growth.

  6. Games/scenes (probably applies to others outside this genre/series/etc. though) are now largely presented as cinematics/films with bits of gameplay as the only crux to break apart that concept of whether it’s innately a movie with gameplay or gameplay with cinematics (like older games of the series where "movies" in, say, the FMV form/class were much less emphasized as part of the overall game). "Cutscenes" in old FFs were mostly seamless or passive — now they are expected to emphasize more (due to the graphics) and "fill" a part of the game/impression as such rather than just be more of a seamless flow with only particular moments having more "weight" to them. In old FFs, how much of the story is lost removing the dialogue/locked moment/cutscenes? Now compare that to how much would be lost in modern games. If there is more to "lose" from the cutscenes overall then maybe they are relied on too much to shape the impression or experience of the game.

Why were Orcs changed from lawful evil in AD&D 2e to chaotic evil by D&D 5e? [closed]

When I played AD&D 1e and 2e Orcs were listed as lawful evil in the Monster Manual. Lawful Evil as their alignment was consistent with other similar races like Goblins, Hobgoblins, and Bugbears. To my surprise the D&D 5e Monster Manual lists Orcs alignment as chaotic evil, with a description of how Orc tribes work. Why was the Orc alignment changed?

Plenty of AD&D 1e and 2e adventures had Orcs as mercenaries which fit the LE willingness to follow orders. Orcs as CE seem unsuited to organization beyond a tribe as they follow only the strong. The AD&D 2e Monster Manual even suggested that trade was possible with Orcs if you had a well defended enough settlement that trade would be easier than conquest.

My DM changed the spell “tiny hut” in my game. Is it a problem?

I am playing the wizard with the spell.

The DM came up with the idea of having strahd change the spells in my spell book, just slightly. This makes a little sense because my current character was his blood doll before becoming a PC. This serves to explain why many spell effects are actually different in Barovia.

As I said, i have the tiny hut spell. The DM asked me if it was ok if he swapped my tiny hut for a homebrew Ravenloft version. I thought it was a great idea and we talked about the specifics of the spell change beforehand and we agreed.

The spell now summons a mausoleum with a coffin and plaque for each person I want inside whether they are inside when cast or not. The walls are stone and are as impenetrable as the spell originally intended. But then there’s the door… it’s a wrought iron gate that can be seen through from either side but sound doesn’t pass through. The open areas of the gate won’t allow enemies to stab us and spells can’t pass through it. Though our swords can go through the other way and we can stick our hands out to finish casting a spell.

That all went over well with my surprised party members but the DM and I gave the door a finite HP and it got broken down by a pack of werewolves while we "fought" them through the gate. My party has mixed feelings about the door mechanic. And I can’t really say I blame them. The spell is supposed to make us invulnerable and obscured from sight.

I love the setting and random night encounters make the whole game feel more like we are in constant danger in Barovia. I worked on this mechanic with my DM because I don’t want my whole party to miss out on the experience just because I picked a spell that breaks the tension it’s supposed to have.

Is this a broken rule or should my party just accept it?