Is it immoral to use a helm of opposite alignment on a captured evildoer?

[Liam Warner]

Sorry it was 3 am and I just didn't think of it, of course now I can't edit my post to add spoiler tags.

I only briefly touched on my home system everything else was aimed at pathfinder. However in response to your question no the growing isn't cut off by death its a vital part of it because souls don't go to heaven/hell/equivilent until much later in their growth normally they reincarnate over and over again in different lives (male, female, human, cat, slave, king) to learn different things. Eventually they reach a point where they either go to heaven/hell or reincarnate into a final life where they start to remember their previous existences and eventually become an immortal guide now learning and retaining skills as they slowly remember lives that weren't influenced by outside views while still able to look at them from a greater whole.

As for the rest of your post my responses are numbered according to your points.

3) You can kill them relatively painlessly, they don't even need to be awake and there are steps you can take to ensure they can't be raised after the fact. Even if you have them unconcious when they change them they will know on waking that they've been violated and changed.

4) There is a fundamental difference between killing someone (the soul remains intact, their mind remains intact, you can contact them and find out how things are going) and destroying them. Whether or not their objectively evil you have erased a living, thinking being from existence. As I said death is not the end of a being even in pathfinder but this is you have destroyed their very soul on a fundamental level that can't be undone.

5) Reasons why include casting uncertainty on their afterlife, invalidating the concepts of free will and redemption, creating a "good" person who is now tormented for the rest of their existence for crimes they would never have done, the fact that to "create" this good person you had to sacrifice an evil person. Yes they were evil but you desstroyed everything they were on a fundamental level to create your good person.

6) Except their not, the person that existed doesn't exist any more its not just evil - good its law to chaos or chaos to law. Your changing everything about them on a very basic level.

7) I was merely pointing out that it throws uncertainty on their final judgement. Is the good person judged according to the deeds the evil one did? Have you stolen a soul from hell? How much work must someone do to redeem themselves from something they would have done? If they were an immensely poewrful being who's abilities steemed from an unholy source can they do enough good now they no longer have those abilities? Seriously there are huge problems here from a theological perspective and that assumes you don't get an army of demons showing up to point out where your going wrong.

8) That is exactly what I'm saying. Executing someone is judging them in a mortal realm and a mortal manner. Putting the helm on someone fundamentally changes the being in question and does force the gods to change their judgmeent on your terms. The being that would have been sent to hell is now no longer evil because of what you did.

9) Yes its my opinion but redemption needs to be a choice, it needs to be worked for and earned in this case once they fail that save they are now instantly good, presumably will be judged as same and have such a different personality that they view going back to what they were (good or evil) with horror even if they were perfectly happy that way before and if restored with wish/miracle would be perfectly happy again. The difference again is when dead they still exist as themeselves here they don't. Yes I regret things I have done but that is the point I regret them as a result of growing and changing and its not forced on me. Also several of those things I regret if you put me in that circumstance again I'd do the exact same thing because it was necessary. If you put the helm on me I might decide it wasn't necessary and I CAN'T change back to the person who would. That is the difference here people grow and change after the helm goes on they take steps to prevent that change from happening. Where do you get the idea that redemption requires you loath what you were redeemed from? In Bhuddist teachings the whole point of redemption is to free yourself from earthly concerns like loathing something. No I understand the concept I just feel that if you come to it through magically enforced means there is no meaning to that born again. It was not your choice it was someone elses and that is why I say its cheapened and meaningless.

10) You're right there I missed the bit about them being happy with their new alignment although it seems odd that someone could have decades of memories of doing things they find repulsive and not be bothered by it. Although I will point out this really reinforces the whole problem with the helm from a religious perspective. Either you've just wiped a whole slew of someones life off the board when judging them (something that wouldn't be the case if you convinced them to change of their own free will) but if its the second case you could have a thoroughly evil, unrepentant villain who because of the decades of good deeds that now sicken them they did under the helms influence being able to go to heaven because when the magic ended on their death they were overall judged to have been a good person. Mercy in my opinion is imprisoning them and trying to convince them of the error of their ways with words and actions not with magic.

11) I'm sure a lot of paladins do fall its not an easy lifetime and solars aren't human so judging them by human standards is a misnomer. My point here is not that power corrupts but that its very easy to just take one step at a time until your well past any lines you would have set. If its okay to use a helm to turn an objectively evil person good how about enslaving a non-humanoid with charm spells because your preventing the evil they would have done and they aren't human? How about in 15 generations when your descendants who grow up with the idea that its okay to do this decide its okay to make that person they like love them because its for their own good and once changed they will enjoy it?

12) I'm pretty sure they are yes but this brings us full circle to the whole if evil are doing it is it REALLY good to use the same tactics and then declare them good because the goal is different?

13) I was actually specfiically referring to the process their and not the result. Yes once changed they do enjoy their new outlook (which again I had missed) but each time they make a save their aware of what was happening and didn't want it. We're not taking about immortality and the like your still you and while I don't know about you I find the idea of altering someone like this utterly repulsive and would rather die than be subjected to it. Note this is just the helm of alignment all but a few (e.g a young child having memories of being tortured and raped suppressed with their consent would be an example and even there it would be a last resort) memory and personality alteration through outside means come under the same terms.

14) Its not a houserule and again its only with regards to repeated attempts to change them. Can you honestly say if you felt your very nature being changed and altered on that fundamenetal level not once but over and over again because you were succesfully fighting it you wouldn't be horrified and perhaps driven mad?

15) That I think is the fundamental difference between us you're assuming they want to be changed I'm not. If they wanted to be changed they wouldn't be saving against it, if they asked for it then things would be different but this is having it applied to them against their will and I do not accept the objective net gain argument as a valid reason to claim something that is evil when done the other way around is now good. Again if the being wants it done that's one thing but I'm arguing about the application by force to a being that fights every step of the way. Of course if they did want to attone you don't need the helmet at all because they've already made that first step to change their alignment by thesemlves. Which is again where my main objection to this lies if you change them with outside magic its not their redemption, its yours and that is not the same thing at all.

16) Are you really the same?

Like/hate the color green (Yes), certain foods (Maybe what if you enjoyed eating living beings?), music? (Perhaps how much does hte law/chaos scale affect you maybe you now enjoy the less structured modern music over classical music?) Same.
Charismatic with a certain skill set (if you were a fighter or the like but what if your skills came from deals with demons, what if you were a lawful evil monk and are now chatoic good impacting your monk abilities?)? Same.
Skilled and interested in magic (probably)? Same.
Everything that isn't alignment (remember law/chaos is part of what's changed not just good/evil)? Same.

@Lord Twig
Fundamental difference of opinion I think I'd rather the evil person get judged for their deeds and if their afraid of an eternity of torture they can live their life trying to do good out of fear.

@StarbuckII
By that argument he'd admire their approach (or be horrified don't know him that well) then change the helms rules so it can't be used that way again.

[pres man]

Since the discussion has moved around to alignment in general and other topics, I just want to go into some thoughts.

Alignment Should be Defined Subjectively and Applied Objectively:

What I mean by this is that each group will have to decide where exactly the lines are drawn, but once those lines are drawn, they should be applied across the board.

Is Alignment Prescriptive or Descriptive?:

I would say both.

It is prescriptive in the sense that if you want to play a paladin or say a LN druid, you have to consider the alignment of the character when deciding how the character is going to act so that you don't change alignments and possibly lose the benefits of the class (become too good or evil for the LN druid for example). Or in the case of the helm, it tells you the character will act in accordance with the new alignment. That only makes sense if the alignment is prescriptive to the character.

This goes to the idea of the helm forcing someone to act a certain way. This is not entirely correct. The character still has free will within the confines of the new alignment (or any other alignment they may eventually develop as time goes on). So just as there are differences between two “natural” LG characters a helmed CE->LG is going to differ from other LGs as well.

On the other hand, alignment is also descriptive. Let's say a player claims their character is a CN rogue. Yet in game play, they continuously act in a CE way. The GM is probably going to let them know that their alignment has either always been CE or has at some point shifted to CE. Likewise, if the above LN druid acts in a fashion that is too evil for example, their alignment will also shift to LE.

So alignment both tells you how your character should act, but also changes to describe how your character does act. Your current alignment is your "natural" tendency, while your future alignment is based on your "choices". Or to put it another way:
Obiwan Kenobi: Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him.
Luke Skywalker: You mean it controls your actions?
Obiwan Kenobi: Partially, but it also obeys your commands.

Which is worse death or being corrupted/purified by the use of the helm?:

It might really depend on the afterlife. I would say that if there is no memory of the person when they were alive in the afterlife because they just become “energy” for some outer plane or they transform into a totally new creature, then I would say there is functionally and morally no difference between killing someone and helming them from the perspective of respecting their current self. In both cases their current self is destroyed. Even if you condemned a good soul to the pits, the soul itself wouldn’t “suffer” since it would either be consumed as energy for the plane or would turn into a new being with no memory of its previous self.

As an aside, I don’t think any core spells allow you to contact a specific soul. For example, speak with dead has you speak to the corpse and not the soul of the person and most other spells have you speak to deities or their agents. The only self-aware souls I can really think of in the core rules are ghosts.

If the soul is an aware remnant of their previous self, then this makes the question marginally more complicated. The greatest worry is that you’ll have a good soul judged based on the previous version of itself’s actions. That is an evil being lived a life of doing evil, is then helmed and dies “shortly” after (not long enough to “balance the scales”). The afterlife judges the soul based on all the actions tied to that soul and as the evil portion is greater it condemns the good soul to the pits. That is the most worrisome situation for a good character.

Of course if this is the case, normal attempts at redemption seem a dangerous road to go on. You redeem someone but they die before being fully able to balance the taint of their soul, you have just condemned them to a horrible eternity. I personally dislike this interpretation as it makes things like Vader sacrificing himself to destroy the Emperor less emotionally fulfilling. In some ways it would be nobler, sacrifice yourself for all eternity for someone else, but I prefer reward for good acts, versus still getting the shaft (sorry Emperor LOL).

Redemption through magic is less valid than non-magical redemption:

I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea that the person choosing to be redeemed is more valid and inspiring than the redemption being forced upon them. Of course we must be careful not to forget that if you are using magic to enhance your charisma and/or diplomacy, you are already stepping over the line a bit. But this is why I suggest the helm should only be used in the case of someone otherwise being put to death. In all other cases attempting a non-“forced” redemption is preferred. This is why Prof. X, despite having the ability to, doesn't just switch Magneto’s mind at the end of the first X-Men movie. If the choice was either kill him or “fix” him, I’m sure Xavier would have “fixed” him. But as long as there was another choice, he would prefer the other choice despite the dangers of it (allowing for evil to possibly occur is neutral, not evil; see also Bat-Man and Joker).

[Liam Warner]

Three things Pres man.

1) I touched on this briefly but how do the scales balance? I remember one tv show based around the concept that a pirate had to save 100 lives to redeem the 100 they killed and get into heaven. Of course in one episode he saves something like a dozen people and gets told by the angel in charge it still only counts for 1. However my point is Vader didn't just go good he sacrificed himself to take out the main source of evil in that universe at that time. Basically is it a 1 for 1 balancing act or a how much do you really believe in your change, how much are you prepared to sacrifice when you don't have to?

2) Again spoilers but there is a cannon mention while the memories are gone when someone becomes an outsider they can be regained and in that case the being doesn't get a bang your good they have to work at it, prove their dedication to their new status and can if they slip not only go back to evil but become utterly unredeemable.

3) Using magic to enhance your results depends I think on how your doing it. If your using magic to make yourself seem more inspiring, to give yourself a gift of gab and smothtalking that's different to using magic to make another creature think you are more X or be more receptive. That is the difference between . . .

Casts spell on self "And those who aren't here today shall count themselves cursed that when the darkness came they were not amongst we few, we brave who shall stand firm gainst the legions of hell itself."

Cast spell on others "And yeah we're totally going to die here, I mean they're demons they're going to rip us apart and feast on our souls."

Crowd "YAAYYYYYY!"

The first one makes you better able to appeal to them but leaves the decision up to them, the latter clouds their judgement and can lead to them doing things they wouldn't no matter how good a speaker you were.

[Lord Twig]

Liam Warner wrote:

As for the rest of your post my responses are numbered according to your points.

3) You can kill them relatively painlessly, they don't even need to be awake and there are steps you can take to ensure they can't be raised after the fact. Even if you have them unconcious when they change them they will know on waking that they've been violated and changed.

You are looking at this a certain way and adding your own bias into the description. I would say: "If you have them unconscious when they change them they will know on waking that they've been changed and be happy about it." Same situation, two different interpretations. My way is painless and yours they are tormented by what they did, but are happy they aren't that way anymore?

Liam Warner wrote:

4) There is a fundamental difference between killing someone (the soul remains intact, their mind remains intact, you can contact them and find out how things are going) and destroying them. Whether or not their objectively evil you have erased a living, thinking being from existence. As I said death is not the end of a being even in pathfinder but this is you have destroyed their very soul on a fundamental level that can't be undone.

You are not destroying their soul. It is still there, just changed. And it can be undone with a miracle, wish, or (I presume) another helm. But of course if you did reverse the change, did you just destroy the very soul of the good being that was created?

I think we will have to disagree on this. I say changed, you say destroyed and replaced.

Liam Warner wrote:

5) Reasons why include casting uncertainty on their afterlife, invalidating the concepts of free will and redemption, creating a "good" person who is now tormented for the rest of their existence for crimes they would never have done, the fact that to "create" this good person you had to sacrifice an evil person. Yes they were evil but you desstroyed everything they were on a fundamental level to create your good person.

Again, no one is destroyed and no one is created. No one is sacrificed. They gave up their right to free will by being Evil when they had it. They could have tried for redemption at any time, but didn't. So it is time to force the issue. Kill them, helm them, whatever. They deserve to die and probably need to die to protect others.

In addition, if I had to destroy their "very soul" so they couldn't be resurrected I would do that as well. Again, in my opinion oblivion isn't the worse thing out there and probably better than they deserve.

Liam Warner wrote:

6) Except their not, the person that existed doesn't exist any more its not just evil - good its law to chaos or chaos to law. Your changing everything about them on a very basic level.

Not everything, they are still the same person but with an adjusted moral compass. Just going to have to disagree on this one as well.

Liam Warner wrote:

7) I was merely pointing out that it throws uncertainty on their final judgement. Is the good person judged according to the deeds the evil one did? Have you stolen a soul from hell? How much work must someone do to redeem themselves from something they would have done? If they were an immensely poewrful being who's abilities steemed from an unholy source can they do enough good now they no longer have those abilities? Seriously there are huge problems here from a theological perspective and that assumes you don't get an army of demons showing up to point out where your going wrong.

Uncertainty is fine. Give the judger of souls a challenge. Personally I would send him on to the "good place" but require that he continue to work for his redemption. He should be happy to do it, the helm says he will be. ;)

As for demons showing up to complain. I have no interest in what a bunch of demons think, just as a truly Evil person wouldn't care if a bunch of angels expressed displeasure about him helming a saint.

Liam Warner wrote:

8) That is exactly what I'm saying. Executing someone is judging them in a mortal realm and a mortal manner. Putting the helm on someone fundamentally changes the being in question and does force the gods to change their judgmeent on your terms. The being that would have been sent to hell is now no longer evil because of what you did.

And this is a good thing.

Liam Warner wrote:

9) Yes its my opinion but redemption needs to be a choice, it needs to be worked for and earned in this case once they fail that save they are now instantly good, presumably will be judged as same and have such a different personality that they view going back to what they were (good or evil) with horror even if they were perfectly happy that way before and if restored with wish/miracle would be perfectly happy again. The difference again is when dead they still exist as themeselves here they don't. Yes I regret things I have done but that is the point I regret them as a result of growing and changing and its not forced on me. Also several of those things I regret if you put me in that circumstance again I'd do the exact same thing because it was necessary. If you put the helm on me I might decide it wasn't necessary and I CAN'T change back to the person who would. That is the difference here people grow and change after the helm goes on they take steps to prevent that change from happening. Where do you get the idea that redemption requires you loath what you were redeemed from? In Bhuddist teachings the whole point of redemption is to free yourself from earthly concerns like loathing something. No I understand the concept I just feel that if you come to it through magically enforced means there is no meaning to that born again. It was not your choice it was someone elses and that is why I say its cheapened and meaningless.

I agree it has to be worked for. I would just add that the helm give the evil guy that opportunity. An opportunity that he would never have pursued if I hadn't helmed him.

Liam Warner wrote:

10) You're right there I missed the bit about them being happy with their new alignment although it seems odd that someone could have decades of memories of doing things they find repulsive and not be bothered by it. Although I will point out this really reinforces the whole problem with the helm from a religious perspective. Either you've just wiped a whole slew of someones life off the board when judging them (something that wouldn't be the case if you convinced them to change of their own free will) but if its the second case you could have a thoroughly evil, unrepentant villain who because of the decades of good deeds that now sicken them they did under the helms influence being able to go to heaven because when the magic ended on their death they were overall judged to have been a good person. Mercy in my opinion is imprisoning them and trying to convince them of the error of their ways with words and actions not with magic.

No where does it say the magic ends at death. After the helm takes effect there is no magic at all. It is an instant change that has a permanent effect, just like a fireball. You don't suddenly "unburn" when you die, neither do you become "ungood" when you die after being effected by the helm.

Liam Warner wrote:

11) I'm sure a lot of paladins do fall its not an easy lifetime and solars aren't human so judging them by human standards is a misnomer. My point here is not that power corrupts but that its very easy to just take one step at a time until your well past any lines you would have set. If its okay to use a helm to turn an objectively evil person good how about enslaving a non-humanoid with charm spells because your preventing the evil they would have done and they aren't human? How about in 15 generations when your descendants who grow up with the idea that its okay to do this decide its okay to make that person they like love them because its for their own good and once changed they will enjoy it?

I will just say that the Slippery Slope is listed as a logical fallacy for a reason.

Liam Warner wrote:

12) I'm pretty sure they are yes but this brings us full circle to the whole if evil are doing it is it REALLY good to use the same tactics and then declare them good because the goal is different?

The tactic itself is not inherently good or evil. If a demon uses a flanking maneuver it isn't evil. I can use flanking maneuvers as well and it doesn't make it good. But I am doing good when I do a flanking maneuver and the demon is doing evil when he does his. Big difference.

Liam Warner wrote:

13) I was actually specfiically referring to the process their and not the result. Yes once changed they do enjoy their new outlook (which again I had missed) but each time they make a save their aware of what was happening and didn't want it. We're not taking about immortality and the like your still you and while I don't know about you I find the idea of altering someone like this utterly repulsive and would rather die than be subjected to it. Note this is just the helm of alignment all but a few (e.g a young child having memories of being tortured and raped suppressed with their consent would be an example and even there it would be a last resort) memory and personality alteration through outside means come under the same terms.

And I would rather die than be turned Evil as well. And the Evil person would rather die than be turned good. The difference is I'm a good person and he is an Evil person. Once the again, the Evil person lost his right to existence by being an Evil person.

Liam Warner wrote:

14) Its not a houserule and again its only with regards to repeated attempts to change them. Can you honestly say if you felt your very nature being changed and altered on that fundamenetal level not once but over and over again because you were succesfully fighting it you wouldn't be horrified and perhaps driven mad?

You could definitely say that, but not according to the rules.

Liam Warner wrote:

15) That I think is the fundamental difference between us you're assuming they want to be changed I'm not. If they wanted to be changed they wouldn't be saving against it, if they asked for it then things would be different but this is having it applied to them against their will and I do not accept the objective net gain argument as a valid reason to claim something that is evil when done the other way around is now good. Again if the being wants it done that's one thing but I'm arguing about the application by force to a being that fights every step of the way. Of course if they did want to attone you don't need the helmet at all because they've already made that first step to change their alignment by thesemlves. Which is again where my main objection to this lies if you change them with outside magic its not their redemption, its yours and that is not the same thing at all.

No, we are not assuming they want to be changed. But it doesn't matter what an Evil person wants. An Evil person wants to sacrifice my familiar to dark gods for unholy power. Just because he wants it doesn't mean he gets to have it. What he wants is Evil.

What I want is to turn him Good, which is by it's very definition, Good.

Liam Warner wrote:

16) Are you really the same?

Like/hate the color green (Yes), certain foods (Maybe what if you enjoyed eating living beings?), music? (Perhaps how much does hte law/chaos scale affect you maybe you now enjoy the less structured modern music over classical music?) Same.
Charismatic with a certain skill set (if you were a fighter or the like but what if your skills came from deals with demons, what if you were a lawful evil monk and are now chatoic good impacting your monk abilities?)? Same.
Skilled and interested in magic (probably)? Same.
Everything that isn't alignment (remember law/chaos is part of what's changed not just good/evil)? Same.

Not much to disagree with here, but I would say losing abilities doesn't change who you are. Just because you are no longer a Monk doesn't mean your a different person.

Liam Warner wrote:

@Lord Twig

Fundamental difference of opinion I think I'd rather the evil person get judged for their deeds and if their afraid of an eternity of torture they can live their life trying to do good out of fear.

Obviously they were not afraid enough to be good, otherwise they wouldn't be Evil. And if you are just being good because you want to go to the happy place and not be tortured for eternity, isn't that just selfishness? But once again we are going to have to just disagree on this.

[Liam Warner]

Yeah considering that last post I think our views are just too opposed to reach an agreement, good thing we aren't adventurers in a fantasy world because good or evil I think I'd go after someone doing that till one of us was dead (and I don't really want to die)

[Doomed Hero]

Draco Bahamut wrote:

Lets play a fun game:

Situation: Your character is a paladin, and his twin brother is a irredemeable anti-paladin. Your father and mother are good people but love both of them and allowed the evil twin to much forgiveness in hope of his redemption. He has done terrible things and will be executed if captured by all good kingdoms, but it is your character brother.
He capture your character in hope of using the helm of opposite alignment because he loves him and want the family to be together in evil. Your character escapes and win an epic duel and the evil twin goes uncounscious with the cursed helm close by. The parents get inside the room and urge your character to use the helm on him, to heal the evilness of his mind so he can be a paladin like him, that what they believe.

What is right for the paladin to do ?

Helm him.

Then try to help him get through horror and self loathing when the guilt for his crimes sets in.

Urge him to turn himself in, throw himself on the mercy of the courts and do whatever it takes to make amends, even if it means facing execution.

If he survives his ordeal in court, then it's up to him to join the family righting wrongs, seeking atonement through deeds.

If he is executed, and a change of heart isn't enough to save him from damnation, then I would save up the money/go on a quest to raise him from the dead so he can try again.

I'm willing to commit my brother to earthly justice and make him pay for his deeds in life, but if there's a way to save him from whatever hell waits for him, I'm going to find it.

[BigNorseWolf]

Quote:

Of course in one episode he saves something like a dozen people and gets told by the angel in charge it still only counts for 1

Who knew Gimli wound up being an angel...

[phantom1592]

Liam Warner wrote:

Three things Pres man.

1) I touched on this briefly but how do the scales balance? I remember one tv show based around the concept that a pirate had to save 100 lives to redeem the 100 they killed and get into heaven. Of course in one episode he saves something like a dozen people and gets told by the angel in charge it still only counts for 1. However my point is Vader didn't just go good he sacrificed himself to take out the main source of evil in that universe at that time. Basically is it a 1 for 1 balancing act or a how much do you really believe in your change, how much are you prepared to sacrifice when you don't have to?

Ahhhhh the 100 lives of Black Jack Savage! I remember loving that show. :)

As for Vader... I don't think he ever 'became good.' I think it was always the plan of ANY sith to kill their master and take over.

Been a few years, but I seem to remember him actually SAYING they'd rule the galaxy, father and son....

;)

[Stephen Ede]

Just thought this might be of interest.
One of my players is having her character use Diplomacy, Psychology (yes, she has ranks in it) Modify Memory and Geas on a Spriggan captive/follower she acquirred to send him back to his tribe and as Chief to move the tribe into a place useful for her and her Husband (King + Queen in Kingmaker) and to basically take the posistion of "Responsible Community Leader". Not something that CE Spriggans are known for. It's not a Helm of Opposite Alignment but yeah, I'm calling it definitely "of dubious morality" i.e. not-good, possibly evil. Fortunately her LG Silver Dragon husband only thinks she's using Diplomacy and Psychology and this is just part of her successful track record for reabilitating people who won't/don't function well in society.