| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the defense that some have been raising as to why forcing the Helm is Good. Namely that Good/Evil is objective. That is a totally different argument and claiming that it has be decided and then using that so called decision to justify a win on this topic is b~$#@$#s. Unless you can point to game designers making an official ruling that Good/Evil is objective in Pathfinder.
There's a spell. It's called "Detect Evil". It tells you if someone is evil.
There's an entry on alignments. It defines good and evil.
Thus, objective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^^^^^
Jesus Christ, this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So no one ever makes decisions that changes their alignment?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.
I think you're making a good argument that the Helm of Opposite Alignment is a very gamey and rather slapstick item. But I think the intent of its effects, and more importantly how the OP assumes it affects the evildoer, is very clear: The Helm makes the evildoer want to do good things instead of evil things, in addition to swapping his black hat out for a white hat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the defense that some have been raising as to why forcing the Helm is Good. Namely that Good/Evil is objective. That is a totally different argument and claiming that it has be decided and then using that so called decision to justify a win on this topic is b~$#@$#s. Unless you can point to game designers making an official ruling that Good/Evil is objective in Pathfinder.There's a spell. It's called "Detect Evil". It tells you if someone is evil.
There's an entry on alignments. It defines good and evil.
Thus, objective.
Yep. I can't imagine how much more objective alignment could be.
Casting a Good Descriptor spell makes you more good. Casting a Evil Descriptor spell makes you more evil.
There are spells that specifically harm good, evil, lawful, or chaotic creatures. Not kinda sorta rustle their jimmies, harm them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say no. In fact, in a high-magic lawful good society, it would probably be a better alternative to execution or incarceration.
It concentrates on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Suddenly, the evil person knows exactly why what they did was wrong, and can start making amends immediately. It completely does away with the problem of sociopaths and repeat offenders.
The big problem would be potential suicides after the alignment shift.
Yeah, this.
I'm honestly amazed how many replies to the effect of "It's evil!" there seem to be. (To be fair, I've only read the first page.)
I mean, you can call it brainwashing or whatever, but turning evil people good is pretty much the Holy Grail of enlightened societies, and the goal of our modern penal system. (Not to say that our penal system has spectacular results.) Really, this is why we don't just cut the right hands off of petty thieves or indiscriminately execute murderers anymore. (Mostly.)
I can see an argument that using the Helm to turn someone Good is a lawful act, but then again, so what? The end result is less evil and more good, so I call it a win!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like this has less to do with morality (aka Good-Evil axis) and more to do with ethics (aka Law-Chaos axis). A Lawful character might believe it is right to do, because it will prevent the evil person from harming someone again, and will potentially cause them to go out and do good themselves. A chaotic character would be less keen to it, as it is in essence forcing the to become good, eliminating all choice in the matter. Because it so drastically rewrites their personality, it can't be really said to be any better than killing them.
This can't necessarily be applied broad-brush, similar to almost anything alignment related, as a Lawful argument could be made on the basis that Lawful is often synonymous with Deontological ethics, and this is very much antithetical of that, meanwhile consequential ethics is more tied to Chaotic, and using the helm would be ethical under that ethical system.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the defense that some have been raising as to why forcing the Helm is Good. Namely that Good/Evil is objective. That is a totally different argument and claiming that it has be decided and then using that so called decision to justify a win on this topic is b$%&$!%s. Unless you can point to game designers making an official ruling that Good/Evil is objective in Pathfinder.
Spells with the Evil descriptor are evil; that's why they have that descriptor. Same goes for Good or Lawful or Chaotic. That means that certain classes can't really cast them at all (divine classes of different alignments), but that other classes (arcane spellcasters, for the most part) can cast them as much as they like. But casting alignment spells a lot will and should turn the caster toward that alignment, unless the GM doesn't care about alignment and doesn't enforce such changes, in which case the GM should let EVERY player at the table know that alignment doesn't impact the game so that players who do play as if it does have a chance to adjust their play styles as appropriate.
Good and Evil are objective. In PF they exist as measurable fundamental forces of the universe. When you cast an [Evil] spell it corrupts your soul, even if only marginally. This is because there is literally a bit more Evil in the world after you finish casting that spell.
Given this setup, killing or changing the alignment of creatures that are seen as destined to be evil is objectively a good thing because it lessens the amount of Evil in the world. To what extent these "always evil" races are predestined to their alignment is the purview of individual campaigns and plots, but as presented, the alignment rules are completely ok with the genocide of evil races. This has to be the case to tell a traditional fantasy story and imposing our 21st century morality on the alignment system is basically a deconstruction of the genre, which is great (and frankly more interesting than Tolkien-style stories) as long as you recognize it for what it is.
This is what I mean by the disturbing implications of the alignment system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does this mean Charm Person is an evil spell, because it messes with a person's free will? An otherwise hostile adversary acting friendly because of magic cast upon them is taking away their free will also.
Within the alignment system it is a neutral, although probably more lawful than chaotic act; it is probably 100% paladin-approved and seen as an especially merciful solution to some problems that would otherwise require torture or killing.
If charm person or other min altering magic existed on Earth it would be condemned as barbaric and be super-duper illegal just about everywhere. It would be the kind thing that the Chinese do to political prisoners and most people would be put in jail for a long time for just trying to do.
Yeah, this.I'm honestly amazed how many replies to the effect of "It's evil!" there seem to be. (To be fair, I've only read the first page.)
I mean, you can call it brainwashing or whatever, but turning evil people good is pretty much the Holy Grail of enlightened societies, and the goal of our modern penal system. (Not to say that our penal system has spectacular results.) Really, this is why we don't just cut the right hands off of petty thieves or indiscriminately execute murderers anymore. (Mostly.)
I can see an argument that using the Helm to turn someone Good is a lawful act, but then again, so what? The end result is less evil and more good, so I call it a win!
Yes, and in fact, locking him into a small room and preaching at him all day long until he cracks and repents his evilness is not only Good, it's Exalted.
But of course we have the usual issues here- many folks just can't accept the Objective alignment system that is D&D. They don't really understand it, and despise it.
And, you could ask ANY alignment question, and there'd be a cadre of posters that argue the most extreme positions, or insist upon conflating modern day American morality with Fantasy medieval morality.
So, no one is going to convince anyone of anything. Well, except that they don't like your viewpoint and some others will "Flag This Post" on anything they disagree with. Some will even follow you from thread to thread.
Honestly they need to ban alignment threads.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a spell. It's called "Detect Evil". It tells you if someone is evil.There's an entry on alignments. It defines good and evil.
Thus, objective.
True, but the subjective part is how each person (player and DM) defines what an evil or good act, or what good or evil intention is.
Detect Evil won't tell you if killing an adversary is a good or evil act, or if sparing their life is a good or evil act. The DM usually defines that (and hopefully the players have some knowledge of this)
Worship a good and just deity and wear a phylactery of faithfulness. All your doubts dispelled forever for 1,000 gp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But of course we have the usual issues here- many folks just can't accept the Objective alignment system that is D&D. They don't really understand it, and despise it.
To be fair, most of us understand it. We just still despise it.
Because it so drastically rewrites their personality, it can't be really said to be any better than killing them.
STAHP. NO MOAR SAY. MYTH BUSTED.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone probably already posted this, but here goes:
New campaign idea:
There's a Kingdom with a zealous Paladin who forcibly employs this use of a HoOA as a punishment against evil-doers. All of them, from petty thief to mass-murdering psychopath. Altering anyone whose alignment is Chaotic Neutral or Evil-anything. The party meets this man and could become good friends with him until he witnesses a CN party member doing something questionable and either tries or succeeds in "bringing the criminal to justice."
This seems a great way to establish a Good-aligned villain (Lawful Good even) into a campaign. Especially if he refuses to back down while logically and rabidly defending his method as being "The best and only way."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly they need to ban alignment threads.
Hey, we need something to fill space between the class balance threads. Otherwise those would all turn into 400-post monstrosities repeating the same things over and over again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmmmm, it just occurred to me that whether or not this would be a violation of a Paladin's......Paladinhood is probably based on his deity's beliefs.
Would his god/dess see it as a great method of punishment/rehabilitation, or mind-rape?
Are you allowing them the chance to atone, or violating their most basic fundamental rights?
Remember, some NG and LG deities are alright with the "ends justify the means" reasoning, while others require you to do everything in your power to uphold order and good in every step of your journey.
It also just occurred to me that this method would probably be used by a Lawful Neutral Inquisitor...
To get back to the debate of whether or not it's moral: That's massively up for debate. It depends on your belief system and whether you feel the ends justify the means or not. There really is no correct answer here, guys. Different people will feel different things, that's just how it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But of course we have the usual issues here- many folks just can't accept the Objective alignment system that is D&D. They don't really understand it, and despise it.To be fair, most of us understand it. We just still despise it.To be equally fair some of us aren't arguing over whether good or evils exist in objective terms (although on that topic I'd like to point gods made of good DON'T show up at their worshipers birth and go "he'd evil slap a cap on him") but over whether getting a possibly good (I haven't seen any convincing counter arguments about what happens next) result by evil means makes those means suddenly good. Licking them up until they see their ways and come round to your pout of view is a choice on their part and that's redemption what you doing us enslavement and a violation of their very being. If you want to decrease the evil in the world kill them, then if they become a demon kill them again.
EDIT
@
Thelemic care to tie some more explanation as to why destroying someone's entire personality and views replacing them with ones so different they don't want to go back to what they were any more than they wanted to be what you turned them into is better than killing them and letting the be judged and punished by their gods than "myth busted'?
Because if they die while evil they either get tortured in the lower planes for eternity until their soul completely dissolves or they become immortal fiends that continue to wreak misery for eons, oftentimes more effectively than their mortal form could have ever dreamed of doing, all of which can potentially be prevented by making them put on a hat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly they need to ban alignment threads.
Violation of Freedom of Speech! Censorship! The man's tryin' ta keep us down! ;)
...But seriously, these threads can get crazy, but I can always just stop reading.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There really is no correct answer here, guys.
With this identity stuff we're still arguing about what is is. We've gone full Clinton.
Honestly they need to ban alignment threads.Violation of Freedom of Speech! Censorship! The man's tryin' ta keep us down! ;)
...But seriously, these threads can get crazy, but I can always just stop reading.
...
...
... I can stop any time I want!
But of course we have the usual issues here- many folks just can't accept the Objective alignment system that is D&D. They don't really understand it, and despise it.To be fair, most of us understand it. We just still despise it.
Agreed. I like alignment, at least on my own conceptual terms, but even I can understand and see how full of D&D legacy fail it is.
Agreed. I like alignment, at least on my own conceptual terms, but even I can understand and see how full of D&D legacy fail it is.But of course we have the usual issues here- many folks just can't accept the Objective alignment system that is D&D. They don't really understand it, and despise it.To be fair, most of us understand it. We just still despise it.
I like alignment too, but not necessarily as something that can be measured on an event by event basis. Sure, some spells and abilities can reveal if something has an aura, you'll never know if any individual act is good or not... unless you're a paladin, which is one of the reasons I'm not so keen on the Paladin's code, as written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magically effective?
Now I want some Lucky Charms.
A device that had an effect on someone's behavior that radical in the real world would have to work by very "compulsion" type means, overriding or making irrelevant someone's free will in drugs/brainwashing/etc type ways, and so would be evil.
You seem confused. It's D&D that has the objective morality. Real life has subjective morality.
Don't worry, I confuse them all the time too.
I don't think the creators of the helm of opposite alignment put nearly this much thought into it.
Of course not. It's a cursed item. And cursed items are typically bent towards screwing up PCs. That tends to be their main function in the game. Either that or plot hooks...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's hilarious is seeing people champion the "objective alignment system", and then declaring that it is perfectly Good to use psychological torture (e.g., Dominate Person) or physical torture on Evil people because it's "for the greater good", or that somehow the ends justify the means. There's more than a little cognitive dissonance there:)
It is objectively true that doing Evil to Evil is Good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's hilarious is seeing people champion the "objective alignment system", and then declaring that it is perfectly Good to use psychological torture (e.g., Dominate Person) or physical torture on Evil people because it's "for the greater good", or that somehow the ends justify the means. There's more than a little cognitive dissonance there:)It is objectively true that doing Evil to Evil is Good.
Yes! Scourging the Evil brutally and without mercy lessens the net potential evil in the world!
I thought that breakdown was enlightening.
Objectively, using the Helm is a Lawful act that creates more good in the world and diminishes evil.
1) Detect Evil can false detect (see neutral priest of evil god) and fails to detect as evil those who are. But aside from that unless the determination of what various alignment's are is determined then I would disagree.
2) "There's an entry on alignments. It defines good and evil.". Please, pull the other one, it has bells on it. The fact that this thread and 100's (in this forum) like it say how "objective" those definitions are. Hell it should be obvious to anyone read those definitions that the concept of Good/Evil/Chaos/Lawful are loose and open to the readers interpretation.
Maybe it is objective, maybe it isn't. But the one thing that is obvious to anyone with a bit a sense and honesty is that it's NOT a cut and dry view.
What do you mean fails to detect as evil those who are? Granted, Evil Deity but neutral priest is a false positive, Detect Evil is pretty accurate if not for other magic in the way.
Also getting rid of Neutral priests of evil deities probably does a lot of good in the long run. We dont need em seducing people to their dark masters! I'm not sure how true Belief=Power in regards to more followers meaning more power for deities in Golarion.
Anyways, the fact remains that Good and Evil are literal metaphysical forces in the universe and they have a cause and effect on one another. And when an action causes there to literally be less Evil in the universe, it is REALLY hard for that not to be also Good.
How does one determine alignment shifts or measure the moral severity of an action with an objective alignment system? How's D&D alignment objective in practice when everything within the system is subjected to a GM's discretion?
What's hilarious is seeing people champion the "objective alignment system", and then declaring that it is perfectly Good to use psychological torture (e.g., Dominate Person) or physical torture on Evil people because it's "for the greater good", or that somehow the ends justify the means. There's more than a little cognitive dissonance there:)It is objectively true that doing Evil to Evil is Good.
Pretty sure there was a movie made about that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, objective morality means that you can infallibly tell if an action is good or not with a 1,000 gp wondrous item.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean fails to detect as evil those who are? Granted, Evil Deity but neutral priest is a false positive, Detect Evil is pretty accurate if not for other magic in the way.A level 3 Human of Evil Alignment that is not a Paladin, Cleric or similar doesn't detect as Evil. Same with a 1 HD Undead.
Anyways, the fact remains that Good and Evil are literal metaphysical forces in the universe and they have a cause and effect on one another. And when an action causes there to literally be less Evil in the universe, it is REALLY hard for that not to be also Good.If magically forcing an alignment change on a Evil creature is a terribly Evil act then while you are making the creature Good you have just become Evil. So no gain. And if you have convinced others that forcing such things is Good and they start emulating it, then you are spreading more Evil. And once they start doing those who aren't actually Evil but merely different Evil is gaining ground. And then those you have altered decide to follow your example and promptly fall back into Evil and Evil is growing in leaps and bounds.
Do you see the problem? So long as your claim that it is Good is correct it works, but if it's wrong then your argument falls apart. And unless you can get a game designer to state as an official ruling that such a deed is Good (I won't hold my breath on that) then you can't objectively claim that it is. :D
Magically forcing an alignment change is at worst a Lawful action.
And I highly doubt that forcing one alignment shift is so huge that it shifts your morality instantly. Even if it were an evil act, one instance would still cause more good in the world.
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.
Magically rehabilitating a villain to stop them from killing folks is definitely a good act.