Your own example actually explains why the vampire can't. Lets take your example, a Player is restrained. They then hear a harpy's music and now must walk toward the harpy. The Harpy's ability of saying the Player must walk toward the harpy does not in fact override the restrained condition that states the player cannot physically move. Even if the Harpy's Song says you must move, you cannot move by being restrained. I would also argue that depending on how you are restrained, pushing may not work to cause you to move. Telekinesis doesn't cause you to move per se, but moves you. Once again though, how you are restrained determining whether or not you can be moved by telekinesis.
The difference between a Harpy and the Vampire is the wording. That situation can easily be explained: the target must move, but the restrained condition states that the target's movement becomes 0. So, the target IS still moving its speed, but its speed is 0. So, it is technically still adhering to the Luring Song while at the same time not moving. As a DM, I'd say that the target should try any and all means to escape from the restrained condition in an attempt to move closer to the harpy, BUT if that isn't possible, the condition of the effect is still being fulfilled.
The vampire's feature; however, says that IT cannot revert. That would be like saying, a normal human can not turn into a Tyrannosaurus Rex. That statement is obviously true 99% of the time, but when you cast Polymorph that general rule is beaten by the specific rule of the spell. Much in the same regards a vampire can not choose to revert to its natural form while in mist form at 0 hit points, but Moonbeam beats that generic rule.
It doesn't say the vampire can't chose to turn, it specifically says it cannot turn. There is a difference. I see no reason at all to take the wording as the vampire can not choose to turn back into a physical form, but it can be made to do so. It says that the vampire cannot revert back, meaning that it cannot. Moonbeam cannot force a creature to do something that it cannot actually do, hence the moonbeam would fail.
Your own example actually explains why the vampire can't. Lets take your example, a Player is restrained. They then hear a harpy's music and now must walk toward the harpy. The Harpy's ability of saying the Player must walk toward the harpy does not in fact override the restrained condition that states the player cannot physically move. Even if the Harpy's Song says you must move, you cannot move by being restrained. I would also argue that depending on how you are restrained, pushing may not work to cause you to move. Telekinesis doesn't cause you to move per se, but moves you. Once again though, how you are restrained determining whether or not you can be moved by telekinesis.
The difference between a Harpy and the Vampire is the wording. That situation can easily be explained: the target must move, but the restrained condition states that the target's movement becomes 0. So, the target IS still moving its speed, but its speed is 0. So, it is technically still adhering to the Luring Song while at the same time not moving. As a DM, I'd say that the target should try any and all means to escape from the restrained condition in an attempt to move closer to the harpy, BUT if that isn't possible, the condition of the effect is still being fulfilled.
The vampire's feature; however, says that IT cannot revert. That would be like saying, a normal human can not turn into a Tyrannosaurus Rex. That statement is obviously true 99% of the time, but when you cast Polymorph that general rule is beaten by the specific rule of the spell. Much in the same regards a vampire can not choose to revert to its natural form while in mist form at 0 hit points, but Moonbeam beats that generic rule.
It doesn't say the vampire can't chose to turn, it specifically says it cannot turn. There is a difference. I see no reason at all to take the wording as the vampire can not choose to turn back into a physical form, but it can be made to do so. It says that the vampire cannot revert back, meaning that it cannot. Moonbeam cannot force a creature to do something that it cannot actually do, hence the moonbeam would fail.
It literally says "it can not turn". Not it can't be turned. Meaning, it can not use its action to transform into its vampire form.
Again, a human can not turn into a horse, but a magic spell can force it to do so. In the same way, the vampire can not turn into it's vampire form, but a magic spell can force it to do so.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
So, RAW says that the vampire can't revert (meaning it can't use its shapechanger feature to revert) and RAI (as interpreted by the lead designer of D&D) says that moonbeam can make it revert.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
A little too "technicality", but it when all details point to one direction, it's easier to draw one's own conclusions, right?
I mean, when things are more absolute, they usually have escape clauses ("Can't be done except by [list of things that can do it]" or "Can't be removed except by [list of removal options]"). Even when it's practically impossible, Wish is often referenced.
So, RAW says that the vampire can't revert (meaning it can't use its shapechanger feature to revert) and RAI (as interpreted by the lead designer of D&D) says that moonbeam can make it revert.
The very definition of RAI would imply that it is what they intended to be the case, but not what is actually written. Otherwise it would be RAW. Hence, since they had to go to RAI, I would say that is strong evidence that as far as RAW is concerned I'm correct.
So, RAW says that the vampire can't revert (meaning it can't use its shapechanger feature to revert) and RAI (as interpreted by the lead designer of D&D) says that moonbeam can make it revert.
The very definition of RAI would imply that it is what they intended to be the case, but not what is actually written. Otherwise it would be RAW. Hence, since they had to go to RAI, I would say that is strong evidence that as far as RAW is concerned I'm correct.
False, RAW and RAI can be the same thing. In fact, for an overwhelming majority of the time that is true. If the rule is written as it was intended (aka that the vampire can't do the reverting) then it actually falls under both.
RAW: A natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical hit. RAI: When you roll the number 20 on the d20 roll to determine whether or not an attack hits, the attack is a critical hit.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
So, RAW says that the vampire can't revert (meaning it can't use its shapechanger feature to revert) and RAI (as interpreted by the lead designer of D&D) says that moonbeam can make it revert.
The very definition of RAI would imply that it is what they intended to be the case, but not what is actually written. Otherwise it would be RAW. Hence, since they had to go to RAI, I would say that is strong evidence that as far as RAW is concerned I'm correct.
False, RAW and RAI can be the same thing. In fact, for an overwhelming majority of the time that is true. If the rule is written as it was intended (aka that the vampire can't do the reverting) then it actually falls under both.
RAW: A natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical hit. RAI: When you roll the number 20 on the d20 roll to determine whether or not an attack hits, the attack is a critical hit.
You would silly never appeal to rules as intended, if in fact RAW covered your base. That would be silly. You don't go around saying the Intent of Rolling a 20 on an attack is a critical hit, you say mater of fact that rolling a d20 on an attack is a critical hit. The very fact of having to no longer appeal to RAW, means that there is at least enough ambiguity that means you can't and instead have to appeal to RAI. If RAW = RAI you always appeal to RAW. Its when they aren't the samething that you have to appeal to RAI.
So, RAW says that the vampire can't revert (meaning it can't use its shapechanger feature to revert) and RAI (as interpreted by the lead designer of D&D) says that moonbeam can make it revert.
The very definition of RAI would imply that it is what they intended to be the case, but not what is actually written. Otherwise it would be RAW. Hence, since they had to go to RAI, I would say that is strong evidence that as far as RAW is concerned I'm correct.
False, RAW and RAI can be the same thing. In fact, for an overwhelming majority of the time that is true. If the rule is written as it was intended (aka that the vampire can't do the reverting) then it actually falls under both.
RAW: A natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical hit. RAI: When you roll the number 20 on the d20 roll to determine whether or not an attack hits, the attack is a critical hit.
You would silly never appeal to rules as intended, if in fact RAW covered your base. That would be silly. You don't go around saying the Intent of Rolling a 20 on an attack is a critical hit, you say mater of fact that rolling a d20 on an attack is a critical hit. The very fact of having to no longer appeal to RAW, means that there is at least enough ambiguity that means you can't and instead have to appeal to RAI. If RAW = RAI you always appeal to RAW. Its when they aren't the samething that you have to appeal to RAI.
I mean, plenty of us have pointed out that the RAW states that the vampire can't make the transformation itself. We've also pointed out how the moonbeam spell specifically states that it does revert a shapechanger. We've ALSO pointed how how RAW states that specific beats general. Since none of those RAW arguments worked on you, I then posted a RAI answer stating that moonbeam does in fact make the vampire revert back into its natural state.
So, yes, I fully agree that it IS pretty silly that I had to cite BOTH RAW and RAI, but here we are...
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
So, RAW says that the vampire can't revert (meaning it can't use its shapechanger feature to revert) and RAI (as interpreted by the lead designer of D&D) says that moonbeam can make it revert.
The very definition of RAI would imply that it is what they intended to be the case, but not what is actually written. Otherwise it would be RAW. Hence, since they had to go to RAI, I would say that is strong evidence that as far as RAW is concerned I'm correct.
False, RAW and RAI can be the same thing. In fact, for an overwhelming majority of the time that is true. If the rule is written as it was intended (aka that the vampire can't do the reverting) then it actually falls under both.
RAW: A natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical hit. RAI: When you roll the number 20 on the d20 roll to determine whether or not an attack hits, the attack is a critical hit.
You would silly never appeal to rules as intended, if in fact RAW covered your base. That would be silly. You don't go around saying the Intent of Rolling a 20 on an attack is a critical hit, you say mater of fact that rolling a d20 on an attack is a critical hit. The very fact of having to no longer appeal to RAW, means that there is at least enough ambiguity that means you can't and instead have to appeal to RAI. If RAW = RAI you always appeal to RAW. Its when they aren't the samething that you have to appeal to RAI.
I mean, plenty of us have pointed out that the RAW states that the vampire can't make the transformation itself. We've also pointed out how the moonbeam spell specifically states that it does revert a shapechanger. We've ALSO pointed how how RAW states that specific beats general. Since none of those RAW arguments worked on you, I then posted a RAI answer stating that moonbeam does in fact make the vampire revert back into its natural state.
So, yes, I fully agree that it IS pretty silly that I had to cite BOTH RAW and RAI, but here we are...
You have in no way shown that a vampire is in fact capable of transforming once in mist escape. It says he can't revert back. It no where says he can't chose to revert back, but other effects can force him back. It plainly says he can't revert back. You can't add words to the description and then claim it is RAW as you are adding words.
Its literally like saying you can't walk and then something else says you must walk. (Something that grants you the ability to walk would be different). If you are incapable of doing something, you are in fact incapable of doing something no matter what tries to force you to.
Not to mention the vampires ability would be the specific here as Moonbeam would apply generally to shape shifters. I.e. the vamprie's misty escape is more specific than moonbeam.
Good wording. The vampire is not capable of transforming back. That doesn't mean it's impossible. A spell forces it.
The same way a human is not capable of flying (it's a generic rule: Humans can't fly. They have no fly speed). But the Fly spell takes care of that.
I mean, I understand that by now the argument is mostly "I see this, you see that", but, having read it again, it seems pretty clear to me that both RAW and RAI are that Moonbeam works on a vampire in mist form.
He's just arguing to argue now. His point was proven incorrect multiple times and he's literally the only person arguing the opposite. He keeps trapping himself in his own wording yet won't just take the 'L'.
You can only give someone so many examples before it's time to cut your losses.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Not to mention the vampires ability would be the specific here as Moonbeam would apply generally to shape shifters. I.e. the vamprie's misty escape is more specific than moonbeam.
Nope, that's not logical. The shape shifting trait has to be considered the more general rule because a) generally creatures don't have such a trait, and b) generally spells don't target such a trait. So the condition of [spell is targeting a creature with a shape shifting feature] is more general than the condition of [spell with specific effect against shape shifting creature is targeting a creature with a shape shifting feature].
Further test of logic that shows your estimation of which is general and which is specific is backwards: other shape shifter abilities don't specifically call out that they can be forced into use by a spell, yet that is what you seem to be insisting that the vampire's misty escape feature must do if it is able to be triggered by moonbeam. If your interpretation has created a hoop that has to be jumped through that literally no other feature jumps through as written, it should be obvious that something has been read incorrectly (in this case, it's reading the text meant to inform us that the vampire can't voluntarily change back like is generally the case with shape shifters as if it said that nothing, not even a wish, can cause the vampire to change back).
Good wording. The vampire is not capable of transforming back. That doesn't mean it's impossible. A spell forces it.
The same way a human is not capable of flying (it's a generic rule: Humans can't fly. They have no fly speed). But the Fly spell takes care of that.
I mean, I understand that by now the argument is mostly "I see this, you see that", but, having read it again, it seems pretty clear to me that both RAW and RAI are that Moonbeam works on a vampire in mist form.
So, my opinion, for whatever is worth.
The Fly spell grants you the ability to fly, it does not cause you to fly. Therein lies the difference. If you physically can't do something, then a spell that doesn't grant you the ability to do it, but would make you do it, doesn't work. For example, someone paralyzed being forced by a harpy to walk toward them. Since the person can't physically walk toward the harpy, and the harpy's song doesn't grant the person the ability to walk, the spell doesn't work.
He's just arguing to argue now. His point was proven incorrect multiple times and he's literally the only person arguing the opposite. He keeps trapping himself in his own wording yet won't just take the 'L'.
You can only give someone so many examples before it's time to cut your losses.
If I was really the only person with the opposing view, this topic would not keep coming up on Beyond and other forums and would have never made its way into sage advice.
If I was really the only person with the opposing view, this topic would not keep coming up on Beyond and other forums and would have never made its way into sage advice.
Can you demonstrate that you aren't the only person maintaining the opposing view after being presented with the sage advice clarification that the view you are opposing is actually the one considered to be correct?
Good wording. The vampire is not capable of transforming back. That doesn't mean it's impossible. A spell forces it.
The same way a human is not capable of flying (it's a generic rule: Humans can't fly. They have no fly speed). But the Fly spell takes care of that.
I mean, I understand that by now the argument is mostly "I see this, you see that", but, having read it again, it seems pretty clear to me that both RAW and RAI are that Moonbeam works on a vampire in mist form.
So, my opinion, for whatever is worth.
The Fly spell grants you the ability to fly, it does not cause you to fly. Therein lies the difference. If you physically can't do something, then a spell that doesn't grant you the ability to do it, but would make you do it, doesn't work. For example, someone paralyzed being forced by a harpy to walk toward them. Since the person can't physically walk toward the harpy, and the harpy's song doesn't grant the person the ability to walk, the spell doesn't work.
How about this: a human being can't float into the air but the Telekinesis forces them to do so. The general rule is: humans cant move up into the air. The specific rule is: this spell causes the character to move in the air
Also, your example of a monster ability not beating the specific rule of whatever causes the Paralyzed condition is really NOT working in your favor. In this, the specific rule about the paralyzed condition made it so that you can not move, thus actually thwarting the monster's general ability.
You're just flailing blindly here and it's getting kinda sad.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Eh, you can exchange Reverse Gravity or Telekinesis for Fly, with the same argument on the topic, but it feels like you don't want to see another viewpoint, by now, so I will concede with that.
Certainly, there room for any kind of interpretation for any kind of rule in a table. As long as your group and DM are fine with it, there isn't even an argument. :)
Good wording. The vampire is not capable of transforming back. That doesn't mean it's impossible. A spell forces it.
The same way a human is not capable of flying (it's a generic rule: Humans can't fly. They have no fly speed). But the Fly spell takes care of that.
I mean, I understand that by now the argument is mostly "I see this, you see that", but, having read it again, it seems pretty clear to me that both RAW and RAI are that Moonbeam works on a vampire in mist form.
So, my opinion, for whatever is worth.
The Fly spell grants you the ability to fly, it does not cause you to fly. Therein lies the difference. If you physically can't do something, then a spell that doesn't grant you the ability to do it, but would make you do it, doesn't work. For example, someone paralyzed being forced by a harpy to walk toward them. Since the person can't physically walk toward the harpy, and the harpy's song doesn't grant the person the ability to walk, the spell doesn't work.
How about this: a human being can't float into the air but the Telekinesis forces them to do so. The general rule is: humans cant move up into the air. The specific rule is: this spell causes the character to move in the air
Also, your example of a monster ability not beating the specific rule of whatever causes the Paralyzed condition is really NOT working in your favor. In this, the specific rule about the paralyzed condition made it so that you can not move, thus actually thwarting the monster's general ability.
You're just flailing blindly here and it's getting kinda sad.
What's sad is you guys only see one viewpoint on a topic that is asked multiple times (on many different websites) implying your "clear" view isn't as clear as you make it sound. The fact the designers went to RAI, rather than arguing form RAW, would imply it isn't as clear as you make it sound. If this rule was indeed clear, the question wouldn't continue to come up over and over again.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
What's sad is you guys only see one viewpoint on a topic that is asked multiple times (on many different websites) implying your "clear" view isn't as clear as you make it sound. The fact the designers went to RAI, rather than arguing form RAW, would imply it isn't as clear as you make it sound. If this rule was indeed clear, the question wouldn't continue to come up over and over again.
Literally no one finding something to be unclear is not the required state for something to be considered completely clear. All it takes for something to be considered clear is for the vast majority of people reading it to come away with the understanding that was intended, which is the case with these rules.
Further, a lot of the folks I've seen bring up questions are saying that they can see two ways on their own - the intended and correct one, plus another that they thought up but don't think is correct even though a particular reading of the text supports it - so even they aren't actually confused or thinking the rule is unclear.
I mean, people can and do ask questions to the effect of "This rule does this thing I think it does, right?" because the text is plenty clear, they just lack confidence in their own ability to judge intent and meaning of text.
So how frequently a question comes up isn't a direct indicator that the thing being asked about is actually unclear - that's judged by how many people, after clarification of intent is made by the author, end up saying or thinking "That's not how I thought it was supposed to be." Which in this specific case, appears to be a very small number of people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Again, a human can not turn into a horse, but a magic spell can force it to do so. In the same way, the vampire can not turn into it's vampire form, but a magic spell can force it to do so.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Also, Mike Mearls (co-lead designer with Jeremy Crawford) already addressed this in Sage Advice: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/03/can-a-vampire-using-misty-escape-be-reverted-with-moonbeam/
So, RAW says that the vampire can't revert (meaning it can't use its shapechanger feature to revert) and RAI (as interpreted by the lead designer of D&D) says that moonbeam can make it revert.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Oh, nice catch on grammar minutae. :p
A little too "technicality", but it when all details point to one direction, it's easier to draw one's own conclusions, right?
I mean, when things are more absolute, they usually have escape clauses ("Can't be done except by [list of things that can do it]" or "Can't be removed except by [list of removal options]"). Even when it's practically impossible, Wish is often referenced.
False, RAW and RAI can be the same thing. In fact, for an overwhelming majority of the time that is true. If the rule is written as it was intended (aka that the vampire can't do the reverting) then it actually falls under both.
RAW: A natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical hit. RAI: When you roll the number 20 on the d20 roll to determine whether or not an attack hits, the attack is a critical hit.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I mean, plenty of us have pointed out that the RAW states that the vampire can't make the transformation itself. We've also pointed out how the moonbeam spell specifically states that it does revert a shapechanger. We've ALSO pointed how how RAW states that specific beats general. Since none of those RAW arguments worked on you, I then posted a RAI answer stating that moonbeam does in fact make the vampire revert back into its natural state.
So, yes, I fully agree that it IS pretty silly that I had to cite BOTH RAW and RAI, but here we are...
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Good wording. The vampire is not capable of transforming back. That doesn't mean it's impossible. A spell forces it.
The same way a human is not capable of flying (it's a generic rule: Humans can't fly. They have no fly speed). But the Fly spell takes care of that.
I mean, I understand that by now the argument is mostly "I see this, you see that", but, having read it again, it seems pretty clear to me that both RAW and RAI are that Moonbeam works on a vampire in mist form.
So, my opinion, for whatever is worth.
He's just arguing to argue now. His point was proven incorrect multiple times and he's literally the only person arguing the opposite. He keeps trapping himself in his own wording yet won't just take the 'L'.
You can only give someone so many examples before it's time to cut your losses.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Can you demonstrate that you aren't the only person maintaining the opposing view after being presented with the sage advice clarification that the view you are opposing is actually the one considered to be correct?
How about this: a human being can't float into the air but the Telekinesis forces them to do so. The general rule is: humans cant move up into the air. The specific rule is: this spell causes the character to move in the air
Also, your example of a monster ability not beating the specific rule of whatever causes the Paralyzed condition is really NOT working in your favor. In this, the specific rule about the paralyzed condition made it so that you can not move, thus actually thwarting the monster's general ability.
You're just flailing blindly here and it's getting kinda sad.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Eh, you can exchange Reverse Gravity or Telekinesis for Fly, with the same argument on the topic, but it feels like you don't want to see another viewpoint, by now, so I will concede with that.
Certainly, there room for any kind of interpretation for any kind of rule in a table. As long as your group and DM are fine with it, there isn't even an argument. :)
Edit: Meep. Ninja'd by sloporion's Telekinesis.
#WellActually, if you read Mearl's response, you'd know he never said anything about RAI. So... your point is still invalid
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.