I interpret it as yet another case where the alignment system assumes too much and contradicts itself.
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."
"Game Masters should not use it to unduly hamper characters, nor should it be used to straitjacket PCs"
The Helm violates both of these. It also assumes that a character is even aware he has an alignment, much less what it is, something I would think would be quite rare.
My perceptions are muddied, of course, by my steadfast refusal to ever play an evil character. I'd merely hand my character sheet to the GM, as it's no longer my character. As the book says regarding alignment changes, "If the player wanted to play a character of a different alignment, he would have."
(And then there's the whole 'he has no choice but to act how he does, and since morality is a choice, there's no morality involved' thing, which would make him neutral in any event because he has no capacity for moral choice and isn't responsible for his actions.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read the book Villians by Necessity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The general situation is this:
An evil character has been beaten and carted back to town and tossed in the gaol and strapped to a chair with all his equipment removed. The wizard has used arcane sight to ascertain the character has no spellcasting abilities, and proceeds to use a combination of abjurations and divinations to ensure no false alarms due to misdirection or something before casting see alignment a few times to figure out if the captive is evil.
Nothing wrong so far? Making sure a prisoner is actually evil has nothing to do with your own alignment.
But then comes the next part.
The wizard whips out a helm of opposite alignment and proceeds to put it on the captive's head, take it off, put it back on, and repeat until his detect magic stops pinging and the helmet is expended.
Is that a good act? And is it immoral? Should the respect for the captive's free will preclude magical shenanigans for utilitarian reasons?
I love Mikaze, but disagree on the innate sanctity of all free will.
HOWEVER: part of that is because I define "evil" differently, and "good" differently in an Objectively Moral world.
There are going to be lots of problems with an instantaneous alteration.
Conversion: either before or after the alignment transformation (or both), depending on how evil they were the to-be-converted subject is going to need therapy of some sort. What kind of therapy (and the degree) will differ on the person and on the depth of alteration.
Therapy-Before-Redemption: This is basically persuasion at its most normal. Effectively, a set of diplomacy checks, this is what most people recognize as "free will" in play - when one person alters another's decisions by way of persuasiveness.
Therapy-After-Redemption: This is also persuasion, but not as normally conceived. In this version, the transformed entity must come to grips with who they were before, who they are now, and the differences between them. They have to reject their old life and fully embrace their new one, whatever that means.
A Helm of Opposite Alignment is a way of bypassing part one. Unlike in Real Life (tm), in PF we have methods of objectively determining the current alignment of a character, what their motivations are, and what their thought process is like (barring personal tricks or deceptions). Heck, we even have objective measurements for whether or not people are of the same faith as you... or at least they believe themselves to be the same faith as you.
Whenever anyone bypasses free will, there are those that are going to feel very, very violated. The more individualistic and freedom-focused they are, the more violated they will feel. And with good reason!
Charm spells are a sort of deception, while Dominate spells are outright elimination of free will. However: dominate spells, despite being more than capable of forcing you to do something you wouldn't do, are not evil. Charitable Impulse has no alignment descriptor at all, despite completely eliminating the free will of the target.
Much of our modern society is wrapped in the idea that the individual sanctity is of Prime Importance. This is not a bad idea - we respect and acknowledge people's choices, as par for being good over-all.
However, to my way of thinking, we can over-focus on that aspect of it. Someone who consistently violates others by way of their actions inevitably waive their rights. That's why we have a criminal justice system. No one believes that you should be permitted to do whatever you want to others.
But, then, what are the consequences? And here is where everyone disagrees on what is best.
Again, in modern interpretation, we prefer what we see as gentle, kind, and moderate punishments. This is not wrong. It's also not always helpful.
The entire purpose of punishment is to eliminate the negative behavior - either by removing it from society, or by teaching a transformative lesson. The latter, it should be noted, are really hard to execute, but are also the preferred outcome.
Free will is sacred, when it's not used to harm others.
So, let's look at the whole situation again.
Let's take one Wizard, and one Bard. Both are good, we don't care about their ethos right now.
Bard has maximized Diplomacy, Charisma, and so on. Perfected it, even. He cannot fail his Diplomacy checks. He laughs at Hostile creatures and they're suddenly... indifferent. But you can make requests of them. Given the difference between Hostile and Indifferent is 10, and the largest penalty is -15 to your check, it's basically a +5 to your DC. No biggie (especially with Aid Another and Eagle's Splendor). The Bard then convinces the person to become good. Total time: two minutes.
(It's worth noting, though, that the GM has the right to say it fails, "just because" - a new clause in PF.)
Wizard has dumped charisma and has no ranks in diplomacy. What hope does he have for redemption? None, really, unless he utilizes persuasive mind-altering techniques. And that's why many resort to the Helm. Repeatedly putting the helm on over and over again generates a 1/20 chance that someone automatically fails and switches. Total time: about two minutes.
So it's not really about time that gets people bothered.
Instead, it's about agency. Mechanically speaking, using diplomacy (unless a GM simply shuts it down by rules fiat*) and a helm are not that different. The ultimate effect is the same. But fluff-wise the one using diplomacy is persuading, while the one using the helm is forcing.
It's that dichotomy that makes people uncomfortable with. I understand that.
To me, however, once someone has earned the "evil" blip, they have, in fact, earned the evil blip. They have waived their rights, just as they've waived the rights of others. Thus, personally, I have no problem with a helm being used.
Now, to make this personal. If I were evil? I'd want the Helm put on me. I abhor the idea that I could - accidentally, ignorantly, or otherwise - be evil. Loathe it. Thus, in my take, being guaranteed that I'm good is entirely worth it. Following the "Do unto others..." rule, I thus come to the conclusion that I do.
Added to that, there's not much in the way of options for inherently evil creatures... some of whom didn't want to be inherently evil in the first place.
To me, redeeming those latter souls via a Helm is entirely valid - their free will was violated to make them evil, thus their new "free will" is culpable of being violated to make them no longer evil.
To some, that's monstrous.
To others... not so much.
But, again, here's the kicker: some people are more fragile than others. And even suddenly making you good doesn't necessarily teach you how. Thus, quite some time has got to go into a redemption, on one end or the other.**
So, to the General situation - it's not necessarily evil.
To the Specific situation - I can't say. Why were you trying to convert him in the first place? Where did your motivations lie? And what was done with or to him afterwords?
* To be clear, this is in the RAW. A GM isn't wrong for using this.
** Unless, of course, your my Kingmaker character who designed helmets to give about 24 years of training, philosophical discussion, and other moral, religious, and ethical training in the span of 24 hours by way of inducing a dream-state and utilizing a form of Modify Memory to grant those 24 years of experiences to a would-be convert to allow them to change at their own pace with reasoning and Diplomacy instead of enforcement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By normal human consideration of morality it is evil.
By game considerations of morality, I would consider it strongly "lawful" (to impose your will onto another being) and if the creature became good I would consider it a good act. Of course, this relies on the concept of objective morality (which is how the game was designed) but not how many people play it or accept it because they conflate real life morality with game morality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Worth noting, the Kingmaker character totally gives people that choice first. But it's usually "You threatened my people, killed/abused many, and died by my hand in order to stop your predations on innocents; I'm going to resurrect you, if you agree to this, or I'll prevent anyone from resurrecting you if you don't. Your choice."
In any event, the Clockwork Orange doesn't actually apply here.
Guy was still as evil as they come. He was just also inhibited from doing evil acts or deriving any sort of enjoyment. Ergo the misery he endured. He was never reformed or turned into a good person - his alignment never changed, just his behavior. It's much more similar to a dominate effect than a Helm, in my view.
It all depends on your view on ethics:
If you're on Kant's side of the fence, then it's plainly Evil. You just brainswashed someone, messed up their brain against their will. That's an Evil act and one with a major E.
If you are on Bentham's side of the fence it's a Good act. You just made someone good, lessened the amount of evil in the world and increased the good. Sure, the one guy has been brainwashed and mentally molested but the outcome is in the best interest of the world. The need of the one is outweighed by the need of the many.
Now I want Golarion versions of Kant and Bentham that are still discussing things like Helms of Opposite Alignment and the Alchemist's Change Alignment discoveries.
|
A very long time ago when i was playing in the Forgotten Realms modules Storm Riders Black Courser, Blood Charge module series, My character, a 2nd eddition bard, crept up behind a litch our party was engaging and popped a helm of opposite alignment on the litches head switching it from CE to LG. I thought it was an excellent way to deal with an enemy.!
Another time, i was in a campaign, where we were dealing with Manshoon ( at 1st level mind you) and the GM decided that using a Curse of the Azure bond sort of magical tatoos to controll our characters, my wizard (3rd edition game) used his Craft wonderous item to make a helm of opposite alignment. I fully intended to mess with the GM's campaign by planting the healm on Manshoon's head. the campaign fell apart with angry GM and players all around much before that happened however.
Is it a good or bad thing to do? well my chaotic good characters weren't thinking about the consequences of their actions at the moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Story time. My tiefling in Council of Thieves had a half-devil mother who, after doing a fairly good job raising her for a year or so, threw her baby into the streets to die after she was certain that the child was a tiefling and not another half-devil (her wings weren't coming in right). The GM added this character as a consort of the BBEG, who tortured and murdered allies of our group and was always two steps ahead of us. MY character at first wasn't able to realize it was her mother, and the mother didn't realize it was her daughter (who she thought was dead).
Now, my character had serious psychological problems in that game (starting with an inferiority complex and believing herself to be trash), and she was receiving therapy from one of the two paladins of Shelyn in the party. It so happened that we wound up with a hat of disguise that was actually a helm of opposite alignment. The N Galtan spymaster information control freak (who probably worshiped Norgorber) marveled at the wonders of this item for enemy conversion and learning new secrets. The therapist paladin of Shelyn was sternly against its use on unwilling subjects--she prefers diplomatic efforts, and for those willing but unable to change, better to use an atonement spell instead and truly atone them.
Anyway, it became clear to Elysiel that her mother was one of the enemies. In the final fight, the battle was extremely one-sided in our favor, so Elysiel actually teleported out her (unconscious at the time) mother mid-fight and applied the helm until it stuck. She felt extremely guilty about it, which is why she went somewhere private to do it where the paladin wouldn't be watching and judging her.
Immediately following the helm, Celeste (the mother) needed a huge amount of therapy from Laeniaxis (the paladin) because she was suicidal with guilt. The only thing that stopped her from killing herself at first was that she was guilty about abandoning her daughter before. Laeni went off on Elysiel for what she had done. Elysiel, feeling guilty but still trying to defend herself and justify her act, pointed out that Laeni is always in favor of redemption over death, and Celeste would have more than likely otherwise been unredeemable. Laeni shook her head and said that now we would never find out.
The spymaster thought it was funny and he said that if she knew the mother/daughter relationship of the two characters, Abrogail Thrune would probably think that the two of them had engineered the entire Adventure Path as a Xanatos Gambit where one of the two of them would be in charge of the city, depending on which side succeeded.
The thought of playing a character whose alignment was forcibly changed to good, who's now living his life making amends (starting from level 1 and fighting for good as his life goal), then even as a player I'd never understand the vengeful/what-you-did-to-me-was-wrong motivation of the character who's been given the chance to help his victims and other innocents.
The player of the spymaster wanted this (this being the living life making amends, not the vengeful) to be his next character concept, but he wound up not joining our next campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice I just thought up an awesome campaign. The ruler of a kingdom makes an alignment changing machine and forces it on anyone they find to be "out of alignment". PCs have to join a resistance force to overthrow the evil bastard!
This was actually the whole idea behind the Marvel Squadron Supreme 12-issue mini-series, check it out. Two factions, from the same superhero team, fighting over the implementation of the behavioral modification inititative that rewrote peoples minds so they became productive members of society.
Nice I just thought up an awesome campaign. The ruler of a kingdom makes an alignment changing machine and forces it on anyone they find to be "out of alignment". PCs have to join a resistance force to overthrow the evil bastard!This was actually the whole idea behind the Marvel Squadron Supreme 12-issue mini-series, check it out. Two factions, from the same superhero team, fighting over the implementation of the behavioral modification inititative that rewrote peoples minds so they became productive members of society.
Thanks!
I thought exactly of this when reading the thread but couldn't remember what comic it was.
Things did not work out like the heroes had hoped in that story.
|
I thought cursed items could still be identified but have a higher DC to do so?
Either you are ok with the helm or you just don't use it in your games. I completely forgot it even existed its that much of a non-factor at my table. Of course there is another alternative for those who think forcing it on people is evil. You could always have it come back to haunt them later in the game. Might even make an interesting story.
Just because his alignment gets changed doesn't mean he cant start killing people again and have it change back.I think the point of the helm is that the creature would want act as it's new alignment.This is how my Malconvoker acquired his Chaotic Good Pit Fiend Planar Cohort (The Thaumaturgist class feature not the Planar Ally spell). And yes, the creature does resist any attempts to return it to its original alignment:
"Only a wish or a miracle can restore a character's former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible. "
My Malconvoker wrote the whole thing off as a good act, since it turned a major source of literal evil into a source of good. And hey, its not like he personally put the helm on the pit fiend, he just arranged for it to happen. (Also because he as a Malconvoker thats pretty much his whole schtick.)
This is why, in a setting where morality actually is Objective (because of actual, real gods who decide what is and isn't good), changing anyone's alignment to Good is fundamentally a Good act. It doesn't just get rid of evil (like killing them would), it actually creates more good.
It might be arguably removing their freedom of choice, but Objective Morality doesn't have much to do with the nature of choices, and more to do with the nature of actions themselves.
Very true. But for us mere mortals, absolute morality is as alien and horrific as an Illithid's brain salad surgery. I think that most players, living inside their characters' minds, use subjective morality, which depends to an extend on freedom of moral choice-making.
This quandary reminded me of a scene in Serenity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxcTDoE_Kbg
Is the Operative a good man? He believes himself to be evil - but someone has to do it, for the greater good...
this method would be akin to basically torturing someone to force them to a new belief system, much like the Inquisition.Except a), it's painless, b) it actually works. What the inquisition did was wrong on much more basic principles: it inflicted pain for no actual gain.
Hogwash. Just because the pain was moral instead of physical doesn't mean it's less gruesome for the victim. Your arguments are the basis for places like Guantanamo Bay and similar camps across the globe.
Granted, your argument that this method at least works still stands.
Note: I am not arguing for or against the need for camps or methods like that. My subjective moral mind cannot always comfortably look at the absolute moral choices policy makers have to condone, or promote (or that they feel they have to, at least). It all boils down to the "greater good" question, and whether that is a thing at all.
Additionally, it might be made 'law' for this sort of punishment to be imposed/be a choice instead of execution. However, a Lawful Evil victim becoming Chaotic Good might decide to form a rebellion and overthrow this sort of set up. Lots of role-playing possibilities here.Oh man, there's one hell of a story waiting to happen there.
"This ends now. Do I want to change back? No. But if you expect me to thank you for this, go to hell. You forced this on me. I didn't choose this. I didn't get to earn this.
You really think I should be grateful?! Gods damn you.
I get to live the rest of my life not knowing if this is really me. I get to look in a mirror and wonder if I'm seeing a stranger. I will never know if I deserved what I am now. You took that from me.
I'll never know if what I am now is really me or that damned helmet.
That isn't redemption. That's Hell. And it ends now."
Philip K. Dick could have written the book, you know? Between "A Mirror Darkly", "Flow My Tears" etc, it fits right in.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People in this thread arguing that alignment is a matter of choices clearly never read any of the "goblin baby" argument threads.
In terms of the game and it's denizens, free will and moral choice seem to be something of an anomaly. Most creatures have their alignments predetermined.
Angels, demons, inevitables, modrons, slaad, and the vast majority of outsiders simply are their alignment. They are actually made of alignment-matter. Who knows what would happen to them if their morality was forced to change. Could be that pit fiend would just instantly become a Solar in a strange "anti-fall from grace" thing.
Many other creatures are "this alignment by nature", personal choice be damned. According to the rules, all undead, even the intelligent ones capable of choice, are evil. So are many evil races. Orcs, goblins, hags. They aren't "evil because of their societies" or anything. They are smart enough to reflect on their actions. They're evil just because they are.
Hell, Dragons are even color-coded for our convenience. You think they choose what color their scales are going to be?
Morality in Pathfinder is a massive cosmic game. Whether the actions of one of the chips is free will based or not has exactly as much relevance to the entities playing as you would expect.
You can argue slippery slopes and value judgements all day, but the fact is, in the context
of the game, when you take chips from the evil guy, that's good.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To those who say that forcible alignment conversion is a violation of an evil person's free will, and thus is evil in and of itself, please explain: Why exactly is it evil to give a cruel butcher or torturer a conscience? To give a psychopath a sense of empathy? To give a blood-soaked tyrant a sense of guilt and shame?
Some say that it’s cruel because it strips them of their identity. My answer to that: GOOD. Their identities were horrible, and they deserved to be stripped and thrown upon the ash heap of nightmares and bad memories.
Some say may say that it’s cruel because those who are converted may be feel deep and abiding guilt and shame for what they have done. My answer to that: Good. They SHOULD feel guilty. I hope they feel guilty for the rest of their in-game lives for every single crime they have perpetrated upon they innocent and helpless, and I hope that guilt drives them to greater altruism in an effort to make up for all the pain they caused.
Some liken it to outright brainwashing. Well, I agree. It IS brainwashing (although arguably more effective). And I think it's great. No false “I saw the light” “Amazing Grace” moments. Their conversions are real and honest, and they have literally been made to become better people.
In so many games our heroic player characters kill legions of cruel bullies, insane butchers, murderous dictators and all manner of monsters human and inhuman, almost all of whom die without any regrets save that they were bested by a group of more powerful people than themselves. But is that really punishment for their crimes? That they’re dead? Or perhaps simply imprisoned? Nothing changed about them. They (generally) don’t feel guilty for any of the atrocities they have committed. I think a better punishment would be (1) to make them truly feel guilty for what they have done, and (2) to ensure that they do not commit such atrocities again by radically altering their moral compass.
Why do you believe that punishment is a good thing to inflict upon someone?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you believe that punishment is a good thing to inflict upon someone?
To make sure that the criminal does not repeat the crimes in the future. I believe that a world in which the aggregate number of atrocities being committed is lowered to be a good thing.
If forcible conversion of one evil person prevents them from hurting others in the future, and, indeed, perhaps even spurs them to go forth to prevent other atrocities from being committed, I believe that to be a good thing as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you believe that punishment is a good thing to inflict upon someone?
Why do you not?
The question is, "What do you do with someone who performs evil acts?"
1) Punish them
2) Let them keep doing evil acts
The only debate here is the valid severity of the punishment, as no one (at least I believe no one) is suggesting that evil people be allowed to continue committing evil.
Killing them due to their evil actions is a form of punishment.
Imprisoning them due to their evil actions is a form of punishment.
Torturing them is a form of punishment.
Changing their alignment is a form of punishment.
Talking to them strongly is a form of punishment (though not much).
Even stopping their plans is the a form of punishment, though it's the most minor most of the time, as, most of the time, they can just try again... which usually involves hurting other people against those other peoples' wills.
If you do not define some of these as punishment, then what we're dealing with is just semantics.
Lyon's post is harsh... but I find it valid.
If, at some point in the past, I could have used these helms on the various great villains of history, I wouldn't hesitate. How many people would have been spared as a result? Added to that, the villains themselves would have better non-destructive lives.
So, then, what is the better option? Allow the creature to commit evil? Or alter their nature so that they do not? Or murder them, taking away all of their free will, which, moments ago, seemed so precious?
And, as I've argued before, "free will" isn't really "free" outside of certain forms of insanity.
There are always limits on free will, whether those limits are social, innate (due to, say, being genetically sociopathic*), or sane (if I'm about to fall off a cliff and I'm offered snakes or a rope, I'm going for the rope).
This changes the limits on free will, but free will still exists within it.
That said, I agree doing it "just because" isn't the best way of handling things. The reason, situation, and other elements must be accounted for as well.
* This is true of most innately evil creatures in Pathfinder; demons push this even further into inherently psychopathic. I've no idea if people are or can be genetically sociopathic in real life, though if I recall - and I may be wrong, feel free to correct me - they can be genetically psychotic.
EDIT:
And now we thereby transition neatly into, "Do the ends justify the means?"
I didn't know we ever weren't discussing that.
It depends entirely on both the ends and the means. It was my impression that we've always been discussing. And while morality is objective (from my point of view) situations do arise in which certain actions are validated when they are not in others.
Example: Killing
1) Killing someone who is (for lack of better terms**) innocent of wrongdoing, is wrong.
2) Killing someone attempting to stab you, your spouse, or your child in the face with a deadly knife is the correct response.
Killing is always the sub-optimal choice if other choices are available, but there are cases in which it is necessary for the "greater good", and those aren't evil.
** The argument, "We are all guilty of wrongdoing" is often brought up here. Obviously, that's not what I mean.
Why do you believe that punishment is a good thing to inflict upon someone?To make sure that the criminal does not repeat the crimes in the future. I believe that a world in which the aggregate number of atrocities being committed is lowered to be a good thing.
If forcible conversion of one evil person prevents them from hurting others in the future, and, indeed, perhaps even spurs them to go forth to prevent other atrocities from being committed, I believe that to be a good thing as well.
The problems lies within your idea that punishment leads to redemption. Practical experience seems to indicate otherwise, at which point even the "greater good" argument falters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does someone feel an alignment change?
What actually changes when the helm touches your head?
Let's say you really hate the guy holding the helm... Do you stop hating him when he puts it on your head?
Is it as dramatic as: "I'm going to kill you!" becomes "I'm going to hug you!"?
Do you actually become a different person? Do your goals change? Do your paths to your goals change?
I have played "Evil" nice guys. I have played "Good" jerks. I have played "Lawful" subversives. I have played "Chaotic" stalwarts. I have also played more... "traditional" versions of alignments.
I think it would be an amazing story to go from CE trying to rule the land through subversion and assassination, to a LG trying to rule the land through domination and imprisonment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now we thereby transition neatly into, "Do the ends justify the means?"
In a system with objective morality, yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now we thereby transition neatly into, "Do the ends justify the means?"In a system with objective morality, yes.
To a limited extent. I think, right now, we're just discussing that limit.
EDIT: missed this, sorry, the thread is hopping and I'm slow. :)
The problems lies within your idea that punishment leads to redemption. Practical experience seems to indicate otherwise, at which point even the "greater good" argument falters.Why do you believe that punishment is a good thing to inflict upon someone?To make sure that the criminal does not repeat the crimes in the future. I believe that a world in which the aggregate number of atrocities being committed is lowered to be a good thing.
If forcible conversion of one evil person prevents them from hurting others in the future, and, indeed, perhaps even spurs them to go forth to prevent other atrocities from being committed, I believe that to be a good thing as well.
To a point, yes.
However, I would suggest that might be the fault of our punishment styles rather than a failure of "punishment" in general.
The question is only ever "What punishment do you find acceptable to use?" not "Should punishment ever be used?"
At least in the way that I define punishment, which may be different from yours. But, again, that's semantics.
This whole thing is why I don't care for alignment, Your alignment should be a result of how your character behaves, you shouldn't behave based on your alignment. This helm is troublesome in forcing people to act in a way that isn't in line with their character.
|
|
Does someone feel an alignment change?
What actually changes when the helm touches your head?
I would rule what changes is the character's most deeply-felt values.
It would make someone who once felt that the defense of life, honor, justice, temperance and restraint were of importance turn to prizing hedonism, delight in cruelty and excess, and believing the only life of any value is his own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can just see this becoming a huge philosophical flamewar, so I thought it might be a good idea to contribute...
I tend to be on the "ends do NOT justify the means" end of the spectrum. Wether you use the helm of opposite alignement one way (evil to good) or the other (good to evil) it's still evil. It's too easy in those cases to become so focused on one "aspect" of good (example: saving the enviroment) that we forget the rest (possible evil solutions: kill all humans, ecoterrorrism, eco-dictatorship).
Even punishement in itself is suggesting one evil act (or at least not good, such as restriction of freedoms & such) so as to discourage someone from performing an evil act. The whole point of punishment is that IT SHOULDNT HAVE TO BE USED AT ALL. It's there to dissuade others, so as to make them fear the consequences of evil. It's a lesser evil (causing fear) to prevent a greater evil (murder, theft, etc.). Many have discussed of the effectiveness of this method, and I think it works well on many, but not all, people.
And psycopathy, like many psychological troubles (depression, bipolarity, etc.), is a question of a lot of things. You can have a predisposition towards it, but without the right trigger it might never show. It is never a question of genetics alone (unlike, say, the color of your hair).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tacticslion - excellent post (as usual).
I would like to state that you use a very broad scope for the definition of punishment, with justification. I did not immediately have that in mind when I was reading Louis Lyons' post, so it may have been me mis-estimating intentions. Much as I dislike it, it would not be the first time.
As for the justifications surrounding continual punishments, i.e. long prison sentences, especially in comparing life sentences versus the death penalty (or life banishment to prison colonies): I am not sure I'm sufficiently qualified to preach on the subject, even if it's easy to get a strong emotional reaction, and I am reasonably well educated.
Does being your "brothers' keeper" allow you to be judge and hangman, too? Can we pronounce any one of us to be the voice and hands of a super-human "greater good"? We're drifting into theology here, I think, and that's probably best avoided.
I find it interesting, by the way, that there's a seeming tendency in the gaming industry towards "inherently" evil (and "inherently" good) creatures. Personally, I am not convinced there is such a thing as irredeemable evil, or good, but that could be the Shelynite in me speaking. I also enjoy agency / free choice quandaries in stories.
As an aside to the above: the whole concept of "inherent and immutable alignments" is badly implemented, since "fallen angel" and "redeemed vampire" (to pick but two examples) themes are rife in gaming and pop culture. Any idea why PF has chosen to handle things the way they did in this regard? I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problems lies within your idea that punishment leads to redemption. Practical experience seems to indicate otherwise, at which point even the "greater good" argument falters.
I don't think I mentioned redemption. Only conversion. I do not necessarily believe that evil characters subjected to forcible alignment conversion are "redeemed" because I believe redemption to be an act that requires the free choice to forsake evil and constantly strive to be a better person. If a Wish or Miracle spell can undo the conversion, then I do not believe that the person is truly "redeemed."
I still consider forcible alignment conversion from Evil to Good to be a good act nonetheless because it stems the tide of cruelty and atrocity in the world, taking away one more evil person and giving the world one more better person in the process.
Does someone feel an alignment change?
What actually changes when the helm touches your head?
I would rule what changes is the character's most deeply-felt values.
It would make someone who once felt that the defense of life, honor, justice, temperance and restraint were of importance turn to prizing hedonism, delight in cruelty and excess, and believing the only life of any value is his own.
But, why?
If you were a LG Paladin, who believed in protecting everyone with honor and justice and mercy... couldn't you become someone that believed you, and you alone are the only one strong enough to protect everyone, and the decisions you make, no matter how horrendous, are because you are the only one capable of making those tough decisions?
Isn't that actually the most realistic outcome?
I find it interesting, by the way, that there's a seeming tendency in the gaming industry towards "inherently" evil (and "inherently" good) creatures. Personally, I am not convinced there is such a thing as irredeemable evil, or good, but that could be the Shelynite in me speaking. I also enjoy agency / free choice quandaries in stories.As an aside to the above: the whole concept of "inherent and immutable alignments" is badly implemented, since "fallen angel" and "redeemed vampire" (to pick but two examples) themes are rife in gaming and pop culture. Any idea why PF has chosen to handle things the way they did in this regard? I'm genuinely curious.
I think these tendencies are a result of seeking the easiest way. You want to justify PCs murdering hordes? Justify by making them evil! It's the easiest way, since making a story with complex characterizations & realistic reactions is fairly elaborate. I personally dont like the "automatically evil" assumption, and dont use it in my games.
As for outsiders/undead... (personal opinion ahead) I'm of the mind that outsiders cant change their alignement; their appearance reflects what they where in life (with variations), considering their alignements. If they fall, they become the other thing.
As for undead, well, I dont think they necessarily need to be evil, but there is good justification for most being evil.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is punishment's purpose cathartic, vindictive, corrective, redemptive, or some combination of the four?
Personally, I believe that the primary purpose of punishment is incapacitation, i.e., preventing that particular criminal from continuing to commit criminal acts in violation of the law. In the game, that incapacitation can be done through imprisonment, execution, or by radically changing his moral and ethical compass in order to make the criminal a morally upstanding citizen.
Would you resort to:
Forcing them to listen to Miley Cyrus
Please. I'm not a monster.
How far would you, personally, go?
In game context? Solely through magical means, i.e., the Helm of Opposite alignment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious about the flipside to this debate: so what happens if evil people start using Helms of Alignment Change on good characters? Just by being 'evil', one could argue that this is perfectly acceptable behavior and that they are not subject to any moral implications for robbing good-aligned characters of their free will.
Too often in RPG's such as D&D and Pathfinder, Good-aligned characters are always restricted in what they can or cannot do, but Evil = Freedom (apparently); it's no wonder so many people want to play evil characters!
So an insane evil cleric could run around capturing good folk and using a cursed helmet on them to further the cause of evil in the omniverse, and that's apparently ok for him to do- but hey if a good guy does it, "oh no, that's an evil act".
I'm not saying it's a morally good act (it isn't), but I do think this is a good example of why D&D's alignment system only allows for a straitjacket view of morality that makes doing almost ANYTHING a potentially evil act.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that normative ethics in the real world relies on certain conventions to form moral judgements and arguments.
One of those, the big one even, is that we as individuals can't really objectively judge anything. there are too many variables and we can't ever completely decypher the intent of an action. That means personal scale judgements are really all we have to go on. It is really complicated. Kantian ethics is an exercise in exploring corner cases, and it has to be, because everything is a corner case.
In Pathfinder, it isn't like that.
There are objective moral judges who are actual, real powers with their own agenda. Bentham ethics becomes the only ethics. The moral judgements become weighed by which agenda an action pushes, rather than the intent of the agent. If Asmodeus tricks you into doing evil, you are still doing evil even if you don't realize it. The nature of evil is defined by actions, not intent. Iomede would laugh at Kant, and point to any paladin in the world and say "ask him if he knows evil when he sees it".
The question really become "would this action cause an actual alignment shift towards evil". If it wouldn't, it isn't evil.
On Golarion, Free Will is a joke until you can enforce your will on a large enough scale to get the attention of the gods.