So it's evil to use magic to alter the way someone thinks?
When did charm spells get the [Evil] descriptor?
And, to forestall the next obvious question: okay, so charm and dominate spells are temporary. Am I to understand that it's okay to use dominate monster on a BBEG for 20 days, but any longer and its evil? Why?
The main argument for this being an evil act seems to be that taking away a person’s freedom is evil. I think this is a mistake because freedom is not so much a matter of good vs. evil, but rather a law vs. chaos. This stems from the idea that anything positive must be good, so anything negative has to be evil.
While I think the idea of freedom and liberty is a great thing and should be upheld, it is not in itself “good”. That being said I don’t think that a paladin would have any problem using magic to change a person’s behavior.
Who you are and what you do is the only real choice you have in life. Permanently, magically, altering that thing into something else is probably one of the greater evils you can do to a person.
You can imprison them, you can execute them- but magically forcing them into just doing what you want? Not only is it incredibly lazy for the Paladin to do (should be teaching/converting) but its also disgusting and should be evil. (yes, I know, the game is silent on whether or not it is.)
Permanently Dominating someone and forcing them to do what you want is an abhorrent, vile thing whether you are forcing them to be nice or to be a jerk.
Having a prison with some pacify effect or whatnot is one thing. Using magic to apprehend someone and safely return them to the authorities is one thing.
But using that same magic to mentally neuter them and force them to view life as you do just because you think you are right?Evil, here you come.
-S
Magic is neither good nor evil. It is a tool and like any other tool it is the person using the tool that is responsible not the tool. So to say something is worse if it is done using magic is false. If you are allowed to use therapy on a person to change his behavior and still be considered good, why using magic is considered evil. If the person is in prison and forced to go to therapy there is no difference.
Modern medicine has found that a lot of behavior is the result of chemical imbalance in the brain. They have come up with medication to treat many of the conditions. What if in a fantasy world evil behavior is the result of a magical imbalance in the soul, maybe demonic possession? By your definition modern medicine is vile and evil when it uses medication to treat psychological problems.
Again I am not saying I agree that freedom and liberty are not important, but rather that is a question on the law vs. chaos axis not the good vs. evil.
It's actually pretty easy to purposely make cursed items. You can set the target caster level of a completed magic item to whatever you want, and then if you can't meet the caster level requirement, the DC goes up by five. So if you purposely set the final caster level to be 105, then the final total Spellcraft check to make the item would be DC 115. You are probably going to fail by more than 5, and voila, cursed item.Couldn't the paladin take the evil person to a cleric/bard/wizard and Geas him to not do evil things?
Seems a lot easier than having to seek out a specific cursed item over and over.
I'm sorry, but how can you set the caster level higher than your own?
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.
Nothing here says you can choose a higher one.
Not to mention, it is only a 10% chance that a cursed item ends up being a specific cursed item instead of some other effect.
|
So it's evil to use magic to alter the way someone thinks?
When did charm spells get the [Evil] descriptor?
And, to forestall the next obvious question: okay, so charm and dominate spells are temporary. Am I to understand that it's okay to use dominate monster on a BBEG for 20 days, but any longer and its evil? Why?
Using magic is not evil, using magic do something evil, like willingly killing an innocent, is evil.
Using magic is not evil, using magic do something evil, like willingly killing an innocent, is evil.So it's evil to use magic to alter the way someone thinks?
When did charm spells get the [Evil] descriptor?
And, to forestall the next obvious question: okay, so charm and dominate spells are temporary. Am I to understand that it's okay to use dominate monster on a BBEG for 20 days, but any longer and its evil? Why?
Using spells with the [evil] descriptor is evil. Even if its for a good cause.
Draco's Question 1 is relevant. This is exactly what I would do with a paladin that had the helm: offer an evil entity the choice of execution, or conversion. This is only assuming there are no better methods of dealing with the creature, such as handing them over to a justice system that is realistically able to handle them.
As for Question 2, it depends on the situation and the paladin. In general, I don't consider it a a problem if paladins default to slaying evil... that's their main job. They have full BAB for a reason.
Justifying killing people because you have a good "to hit" has nothing to do with morals. Also, you can do subdual damage while having a full BAB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you kill an innocent child for a good cause its stil lan evil act
Same way if you rape the mind of a BBG for a good cause its still an evil act
So according to that logic killing for a good cause is evil as well? (what is more evil than snuffing a life out forever?)
In game killing isn't snuffing out life forever. In PF there is an after life with ones soul and actions being judged and either rewarded or punished. The only creatures trully snuffed out are outsiders which are personifications of their alignment so a paladin would generally have no issue snuffing out one of those so to speak.
And the defense of using a Helm and it being undone with a Wish or Miracle means that the spell could honestly just flip someones alignment on it's own. They are the most powerful spells in the game, it should not be beyond them.
Okay, how about changing up the examples a bit. So a farmer is father to a plucky young heroine that is throwing her self into dangerous situations to help innocents. The man worries for his daughter, so he gains some item/brews a potion/whatever that would make her no longer heroic. That would fundamentally change her outlook. I mean, he's not asking her to do evil things. He's just changing her so she won't be in danger.
What do you think of this use of mind alteration?
It's a different and separate use. The posted case is someone who will do harm to the greater world, breaking the social contract and can be punished for it. In your example it is a person being selfish for his own reasons without regard to the daughters feelings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Off-topic, but this thread has inspired an amazing story hook for my game. Upstart Good faith using a Helm of Opposite Alignment turns a city from a crime-ridden slum into a holy utopia. Concerned members of the villainous population call a meeting with representatives of the true Good faiths, and the PCs are tasked with investigating the situation. Kind of reminds me of the Marvel Civil War event. Thanks guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me look at it from the perspective of the codes based on the different gods of Golarion, go through their interests and see which one's would likely see the action in contradiction to their own ajudication.
Iomedae: The Inheritor is not big on redemption, preferring to smite evil. She's the archetypical goody-two-shoes with a rod up her butt as someone at one of the tables I played at put it (they were an inquisitor of Calistria). We know that in Mendev they'll put tieflings to death just for being tieflings. I'd guess Iomedae wouldn't like her ranks 'poisoned' by these 'falsely redeemed' creatures.
Torag: Likely something very similar to Iomedae, with emphasis on the strategic merits and weaknesses of the tactic being strongly considered.
Abadar: Concerned mainly about spreading civilization, order and commerce, I could see Abadar supporting a legal system wherein the helmet was used to make malcontents fall into step.
Irori: God of self-perfection, emphasis on 'self'. Irori would probably see the use of the helm as taking the easy way out and crippling the individual's ability to improve themselves without the aide or forced coercion of others.
Sarenrae: Sarenrae is big on redemption, but also is wiping the unrepentant off the face of the earth. I can likely see followers of Sarenrae split right down the middle on this matter. Because the side for the use of the helm can always say "Are we not destroying our enemies when we make them allies?"
Shelyn: Goddess of Love, Beauty and Art, Shelyn is also informed from her own half-brother of Zon-Kuthon of the pain of witnessing another fall to the depths of depravity and insanity. Her doctrine is to spread beauty everywhere one can, both physical and mental (much as how Lamashtu wishes to spread physical and mental ugliness). She is likely to be neutral on the helmet usage.
Erastil: God of Family, Farming, Village and Community. Old Deadeye wants to keep towns and families safe. He'd probably allow it as he's not one for overly complex questions of 'freedom' and 'long-term consequences'.
In summary, provided these are the outlooks we have for all the deities a paladin can worship (of the main pantheon), we have 1 LG deity that may support it, 1 LN deity that may support it, and 1 NG deity that may support it. We've also got 2 LG deities that likely don't support it and 1 LN deity likely doesn't support it.
The split vote is Sarenrae, a NG deity. We have a tie.
Personally I'd have it be a fall, but that's for reasons that go beyond written rules, mechanics and campaign setting conditions.
For a Paladin thread, involving alignment, and the possibility of falling, this has been shockingly civil.
Like, really shocking.
Is there a magus giving you a shoulder massage right now?
In game killing isn't snuffing out life forever. In PF there is an after life with ones soul and actions being judged and either rewarded or punished.
So according to that logic a paladin is better off killing everyone, good and evil, since they will be judged by someone infinitly more capable than he is?
It's actually pretty easy to purposely make cursed items. You can set the target caster level of a completed magic item to whatever you want, and then if you can't meet the caster level requirement, the DC goes up by five. So if you purposely set the final caster level to be 105, then the final total Spellcraft check to make the item would be DC 115. You are probably going to fail by more than 5, and voila, cursed item.Couldn't the paladin take the evil person to a cleric/bard/wizard and Geas him to not do evil things?
Seems a lot easier than having to seek out a specific cursed item over and over.
I'm sorry, but how can you set the caster level higher than your own?
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.Nothing here says you can choose a higher one.
Not to mention, it is only a 10% chance that a cursed item ends up being a specific cursed item instead of some other effect.
Actually you can do so above your caster level. This thread covers this topic with FAQ references if you are interested. Making magic items higher than your caster level :D
Hoh boy, the last time this came up, it went to 459 posts.
Actually you can do so above your caster level. This thread covers this topic with FAQ references if you are interested. Making magic items higher than your caster level :D
I agree that you can attempt to craft an item with a listed caster level higher than your own. What rule allows for you to arbitrarily set the caster level of an item higher than your own?
From the rules I quoted earlier, you can create an item at a lower level than your own, but never lower than the minimum needed to cast the spell. It doesn't say that you can choose a higher CL than listed in the item.
Actually you can do so above your caster level. This thread covers this topic with FAQ references if you are interested. Making magic items higher than your caster level :DI agree that you can attempt to craft an item with a listed caster level higher than your own. What rule allows for you to arbitrarily set the caster level of an item higher than your own?
From the rules I quoted earlier, you can create an item at a lower level than your own, but never lower than the minimum needed to cast the spell. It doesn't say that you can choose a higher CL than listed in the item.
The same rules do not say you can not do so, either, intent for doing so aside. But this is off-topic so I will refrain from commenting further on this sub-topic.
The same rules do not say you can not do so, either, intent for doing so aside. But this is off-topic so I will refrain from commenting further on this sub-topic.Actually you can do so above your caster level. This thread covers this topic with FAQ references if you are interested. Making magic items higher than your caster level :DI agree that you can attempt to craft an item with a listed caster level higher than your own. What rule allows for you to arbitrarily set the caster level of an item higher than your own?
From the rules I quoted earlier, you can create an item at a lower level than your own, but never lower than the minimum needed to cast the spell. It doesn't say that you can choose a higher CL than listed in the item.
If the rules don't say you can, then you can't. Its that simple.
If the rules don't say you can, then you can't. Its that simple.
It's implied by how several items are presented, with arbitrarily high caster levels. Such as the Belt of Giant Strength and Pearls of Power, in the FAQ below:
I looked over the magic item crafting rules and was unable to find an explicit statement on this question: Does creating a magic item require the creator to be of the same or higher caster level of the item itself? This doesn't seem to square with the CLs listed for specific magic items; for instance, a Belt of Giant Strength +2 has CL 8th, but the only spell required in its creation, bull's strength, has a minimum caster level of 3. Am I missing anything here?
Though the listed Caster Level for a pearl of power is 17th, that caster level is not part of the Requirements listing for that item. Therefore, the only caster level requirement for a pearl of power is the character has to be able to cast spells of the desired level. However, it makes sense that the minimum caster level of the pearl is the minimum caster level necessary to cast spells of that level--it would be strange for a 2nd-level pearl to be CL 1st. For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.
The relevant part is thus: "He can set the caster level to whatever he wants". This is followed by a paranthetical comment about setting it only as high as you can reach, but you can technically set the crafting DC so high you'd need to roll a 20 in order to successfully craft it, and you'd still end up with a cursed item on a roll of 15 or less.
At that point, I'd just stop jerking the PC's chain around if he really wants to make a cursed item and just let him make the damn thing. In any case, my interpretation of that paranthetical comment is just some unsolicited advice, and not actually a hard ruling that you can't set the DC to whatever you want, regardless if you can make the check or not.
Setting the DC as high as you want is useful for guarding against Dispel attempts as well. Say you have Wings of Flying that you got at 10th level, but now you're 18th and you're worried about the easy dispel check that could drop you hundreds of feet. You can invest in Wings of Flying with a higher CL, by "setting the caster level to whatever you want".
Nessus:
You are forcing them to think how you want. That is what the helmet does. You take someone who is evil and BAM they are good- just like you (the hypothetical paladin) are. You are forcing them to see the world and react to the world as you would. Its absolutely force and Its not technically Domination it is far, far worse. It is worse because they never wake up. They never have that moment of "Thank Goodness, I'm Me again!". Nope. They are never, ever themselves again without finding another item like it- or going through other magical hoops- to fix the problem.
From the item "...he views the prospect [of returning to normal] with horror and avoids it in any way possible"
So not only do they get their mind yanked but they like it and seek to Not go back to normal. How can this possibly not be an alignment hit for whoever is doing this to them?
And quite franky- yes. You can imprison them and even execute them if doing so is just and lawful for the place you are in. What you can't do is reach into their brain with a mixer and turn it on to make them what you want them to be.
If they commit a crime, imprison them. If the crime is heinous enough- execute them. But let them BE themselves.
I'm not using Mentally Neuter as inflammatory language. I'm using it literally. You are neutering who they are. You are going in and saying "we don't like this" and snipping it out and removing it to make the person behave the way you want to.
which is incidentally one reason we neuter our pets. Aside from preventing them from being able to procreate, it also has a tendency to curb certain behaviors that we want them to stop doing.
-S
If the rules don't say you can, then you can't. Its that simple.It's implied by how several items are presented, with arbitrarily high caster levels. Such as the Belt of Giant Strength and Pearls of Power, in the FAQ below:
The relevant part is thus: "He can set the caster level to whatever he wants". This is followed by a paranthetical comment about setting it only as high as you can reach, but you can...I looked over the magic item crafting rules and was unable to find an explicit statement on this question: Does creating a magic item require the creator to be of the same or higher caster level of the item itself? This doesn't seem to square with the CLs listed for specific magic items; for instance, a Belt of Giant Strength +2 has CL 8th, but the only spell required in its creation, bull's strength, has a minimum caster level of 3. Am I missing anything here?
Though the listed Caster Level for a pearl of power is 17th, that caster level is not part of the Requirements listing for that item. Therefore, the only caster level requirement for a pearl of power is the character has to be able to cast spells of the desired level. However, it makes sense that the minimum caster level of the pearl is the minimum caster level necessary to cast spells of that level--it would be strange for a 2nd-level pearl to be CL 1st. For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.
Its not implied. Either you can craft the item at the level listed in the book, or set it to your own or lower. If you are lower than the level listed, its a + to the DC to craft it. Additionally, if its not the listed caster level, then its a custom wondrous item and the GM should simply say, "no, craft it like it is listed."
Its not implied.
You're right, it was stated plainly in the FAQ:
"He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC)"
Discussion over, you are wrong. End of story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nessus:
You are forcing them to think how you want. That is what the helmet does. You take someone who is evil and BAM they are good- just like you (the hypothetical paladin) are. You are forcing them to see the world and react to the world as you would. Its absolutely force and Its not technically Domination it is far, far worse. It is worse because they never wake up. They never have that moment of "Thank Goodness, I'm Me again!". Nope. They are never, ever themselves again without finding another item like it- or going through other magical hoops- to fix the problem.
From the item "...he views the prospect [of returning to normal] with horror and avoids it in any way possible"
So not only do they get their mind yanked but they like it and seek to Not go back to normal. How can this possibly not be an alignment hit for whoever is doing this to them?
And quite franky- yes. You can imprison them and even execute them if doing so is just and lawful for the place you are in. What you can't do is reach into their brain with a mixer and turn it on to make them what you want them to be.
If they commit a crime, imprison them. If the crime is heinous enough- execute them. But let them BE themselves.
I'm not using Mentally Neuter as inflammatory language. I'm using it literally. You are neutering who they are. You are going in and saying "we don't like this" and snipping it out and removing it to make the person behave the way you want to.
which is incidentally one reason we neuter our pets. Aside from preventing them from being able to procreate, it also has a tendency to curb certain behaviors that we want them to stop doing.-S
We are simply not going to come to an agreement on this because:
I view the right to live as being morally superior and you view the right of free will as being morally superior.
Lets just agree that it all depends on how your DM sees it because there is no concensus on this issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, how about changing up the examples a bit. So a farmer is father to a plucky young heroine that is throwing her self into dangerous situations to help innocents. The man worries for his daughter, so he gains some item/brews a potion/whatever that would make her no longer heroic. That would fundamentally change her outlook. I mean, he's not asking her to do evil things. He's just changing her so she won't be in danger.
What do you think of this use of mind alteration?
Totally keeping with Lawful Neutral alignment.
And a lot of parents in RL would do this to their children who were "acting out", whether it it with drugs like ritalin, adderall or therapies to "cure" gays or whatever. (Note I don't equate these things as equal, I'm just pointing out that our society has tools for "alignment change", whether they work or not.)
And the action might have both good or evil consequences. He might be very glad to be holding his grandchildren many years from now. But a dragon that would have been slain by her heroic daughter might just kill those grandchildren.
It's not something I approve of. But it's something I could see a parent, with the wrong mindset, doing out of nothing other than the best of intentions.
Now lets say I'm a Paladin. Say I'm dealing with a villain who is a an immediate threat (Heath Ledger's Joker comes to mind)to innocents who needs to be taken down pronto. You have a helm of opposite alignment and chance to use it? Aren't you going to be responsible for a lot of live if you don't use it?
The point is, intention and circumstances has a lot to do with whether it's good or evil. Would evil people abuse it---heck yes, particularly LE people who want nice loyal servants. But these are people who potentially abuse everything because that is who they are. Does it scare me. Heck yes.
But would I be glad to see the very dangerous killer stopped by whatever means necessary? That is also a heck yes. And a good person would not use this magic lightly, just like he wouldn't kill lightly.
That is what being good is about.
And I'm glad we don't have to face this in RL.
Hope that was helpful, and thoughtful,
Kerney
|
|
You are forcing them to think how you want. That is what the helmet does. You take someone who is evil and BAM they are good- just like you (the hypothetical paladin) are. You are forcing them to see the world and react to the world as you would. Its absolutely force and Its not technically Domination it is far, far worse. It is worse because they never wake up. They never have that moment of "Thank Goodness, I'm Me again!". Nope. They are never, ever themselves again without finding another item like it- or going through other magical hoops- to fix the problem.
A violent criminal facing life in prison is discovered to have a brain tumour in the right supramarginal gyrus, the part of the brain responsible for empathy. It is believed that if the tumour is surgically removed, the criminal may be freed without fear that they would re-offend.
Would you say it is moral or immoral to remove the tumour?
If so, have you removed a part of the criminal's identity?
Does it matter how long the tumour has been there?
Does it matter whether the criminal wants surgery? Whether the desire for surgery is primarily a result of wanting to avoid prison?
For the record, I consider this perhaps the most intelligent paladin question I've seen on these boards. It's a really neat, deep question.
Now let me read all the venom it's engendered....
I think rehabilitation..even magical,is preferable to death.
In PF/D&D Good/Evil are practically elemental forces..removing evil and replacing it with Good is IMHO a Good act.
If someone had "water" alignment and you magically changed it to "Fire" would that be a "Fire" thing to do? I'd say yes.
We tend to view good/evil thru the lens of subjective morality.In a cosmology as defined as this there is no "subjective" good/evil ....
It's all literal.Changing someones mind is not the same as Slavery.
They still have free will afterwards..they are aligned to different "element" and are now seeing things in a different "light".
|
|
Using spells with the [evil] descriptor is evil. Even if its for a good cause.Using magic is not evil, using magic do something evil, like willingly killing an innocent, is evil.So it's evil to use magic to alter the way someone thinks?
When did charm spells get the [Evil] descriptor?
And, to forestall the next obvious question: okay, so charm and dominate spells are temporary. Am I to understand that it's okay to use dominate monster on a BBEG for 20 days, but any longer and its evil? Why?
I was talking bout the general idea of casting spells. Casting evil spells is evil because its defined as evil in as a term, there is no interpretation there.
Its not implied.You're right, it was stated plainly in the FAQ:
"He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC)"
Discussion over, you are wrong. End of story.
Ok, then you can't meet the DC of 115 as you suggested, therefore it is not a valid level for you to set. Unless you have a +95 modifier for the spellcraft check.
Even still, you only have a 10% chance to get a "specific cursed item." Its not like you're going to be churning these out at any reasonable pace.
I think that "good" is what the gods who are good feel is good, though what is "just" is up to the discretion of each god. A paladin must be both good and just in her actions, therefore use of the helm of opposite alignment does not fall under good or evil as it is a weapon to vanquish evil or good as a sword, but under what is just, for the murder of innocents with said blade is evil though the souls of said innocents may reach a peaceful afterlife, though the smiting of evil damns their souls to the hells yet is decidedly good. If it is just to smite evil and preserve innocence but unjust to magically manipulate others souls, then another god may argue it to be just, yet both are correct in their judgement. Anything not involving the DM is a well educated guess.
I think that "good" is what the gods who are good feel is good, though what is "just" is up to the discretion of each god. A paladin must be both good and just in her actions, therefore use of the helm of opposite alignment does not fall under good or evil as it is a weapon to vanquish evil or good as a sword, but under what is just, for the murder of innocents with said blade is evil though the souls of said innocents may reach a peaceful afterlife, though the smiting of evil damns their souls to the hells yet is decidedly good. If it is just to smite evil and preserve innocence but unjust to magically manipulate others souls, then another god may argue it to be just, yet both are correct in their judgement. Anything not involving the DM is a well educated guess.
A Paladin does not have to answer to any god. He answers to the very concepts of Good and Law. I concede that you do have to ask the DM what Good and Law have to say in his world, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No you don't believe the right to live as being morally superior. You believe turning someone into your meat sock puppet is morally superior. The fact that you have to mind-rape them and destroy their personality to make that meat sock puppet doesn't bother you at all.
But I do agree that it depends on how your GM sees it.
Well it was all nice and civil until you got here, I don't believe it will serve any purpose whatsoever to discuss this matter with you since the first thing you did is put words in my mouth and you have clearly already made up your mind on the subject. If you ever want to discuss like adults I'll be here.
|
Interesting question, but I believe the answer to be simple.
Any character can morph their alignment over time, usually in response to external stimuli, but more often done to open a class set or other meta-gaming aspect by a player. All judgement aside, if done by the PC to him/her self its great, but if it is done through magic the player hates it, however the PC is just fine with it. Players need to step back and see the hypocrisy there.
Rule #1 on Alignment:
Whatever alignment you are at any given moment is inherently the correct one... for you.
The converted NPC will thank the Palidan as their eyes have been opened no matter what the outcome alignment is.
No evil act has occurred. It's not a compulsion. It's not a charm. The person is happy and won't set out to find an arch-mage to reverse it. Life experiences may alter their alignment in the future, just as watching your parents being murdered certainly skews your outlook on life and crime.
Next, the question is it LAWFUL for a Palidan to do this? That answer is dependent on the scenario in which it takes place. If its condoned by the church it is fine. There are societies that would welcome this as rehabilitation. There are deities and societies that wouldn't.
You are forcing them to think how you want. That is what the helmet does. You take someone who is evil and BAM they are good- just like you (the hypothetical paladin) are. You are forcing them to see the world and react to the world as you would. Its absolutely force and Its not technically Domination it is far, far worse. It is worse because they never wake up. They never have that moment of "Thank Goodness, I'm Me again!". Nope. They are never, ever themselves again without finding another item like it- or going through other magical hoops- to fix the problem.A violent criminal facing life in prison is discovered to have a brain tumour in the right supramarginal gyrus, the part of the brain responsible for empathy. It is believed that if the tumour is surgically removed, the criminal may be freed without fear that they would re-offend.
Would you say it is moral or immoral to remove the tumour?
If so, have you removed a part of the criminal's identity?
Does it matter how long the tumour has been there?
Does it matter whether the criminal wants surgery? Whether the desire for surgery is primarily a result of wanting to avoid prison?
1) Ask them. If they want it removed, no issue. If they don't want it removed- you don't remove it.
2) As above.
3) as above
4) It definately matters. If they say no then the answer is no. If they say yes the answer is yes.
Of course, they serve out the sentence of whatever it is they did. they did it regardless of any tumor and a surgery shouldn't alleviate that. But if said surgery could keep them from repeating the offense or committing other offenses and the patient is willing to undergo the treatment then go for it- even if their only wish is to keep from doing the crime again.
(in no way would I allow them a get out of jail free card due to the removal of the tumor. 1) the doc's could very well be wrong, 2) the guy/gal did the crime and should do the time for whatever it is they did.)
-S
If the penalty for the crimes committed by the evil person was death; would the helm be a reasonable alternative to killing them outright?
If you are already willing to execute and end their life over the actions they have committed, why is knowingly making them a good person "more wrong"?
If rehabilitation is considered a "good thing" then why isn't this simply magic taking the part of the rehabilitation? I mean, magic already takes over for plenty of other things in the world. Sick? See the cleric. Need a better pointy stick? See the wizard.
You could take weeks/months/years of diplomacy while keeping the evil character imprisoned, trying to reason with them and make them see the errors of their ways. Maybe even with yearly/monthly/weekly/daily atonement spells to provide a way for the character to choose to change their alignment.
Or you can pop this handy dandy cursed item you bought from the local back alley hedge magician on their head and presto bammo changed no muss no fuss. Well, it is only a DC15 will save, so maybe you'd have to pop it on their head a couple of times to be sure.
Nessus:
You are forcing them to think how you want. That is what the helmet does. You take someone who is evil and BAM they are good- just like you (the hypothetical paladin) are. You are forcing them to see the world and react to the world as you would. Its absolutely force and Its not technically Domination it is far, far worse. It is worse because they never wake up. They never have that moment of "Thank Goodness, I'm Me again!". Nope. They are never, ever themselves again without finding another item like it- or going through other magical hoops- to fix the problem.
From the item "...he views the prospect [of returning to normal] with horror and avoids it in any way possible"
So not only do they get their mind yanked but they like it and seek to Not go back to normal. How can this possibly not be an alignment hit for whoever is doing this to them?
And quite franky- yes. You can imprison them and even execute them if doing so is just and lawful for the place you are in. What you can't do is reach into their brain with a mixer and turn it on to make them what you want them to be.
If they commit a crime, imprison them. If the crime is heinous enough- execute them. But let them BE themselves.
I'm not using Mentally Neuter as inflammatory language. I'm using it literally. You are neutering who they are. You are going in and saying "we don't like this" and snipping it out and removing it to make the person behave the way you want to.
which is incidentally one reason we neuter our pets. Aside from preventing them from being able to procreate, it also has a tendency to curb certain behaviors that we want them to stop doing.-S
We are simply not going to come to an agreement on this because:
I view the right to live as being morally superior and you view the right of free will as being morally superior.
Lets just agree that it all depends on how your DM sees it because there is no concensus on this issue.
We aren't going to come to an agreement- you are probably right.
And I'm ok with that. :) Finding people with different opinions who are able to converse both meangingfully and without rudeness is one of the joys of the internet. Thanks for that!The right to do anything is with the person holding the right, not with some one else. But tantamount to any right is the right to choose. The right to life is the right to choose to live or die. In this case, you are taking away their right to be who they are- even if that is evil.
You say: Either I kill him or I change who he is forever. He gets no say in the matter- I think living is more important so on with the mind-blender!
I say: Putting the helmet on him is wrong. Changing who he is, is wrong. Whether or not the justice system in question decides he needs to die for the wrongs he did, putting his brain into the blender is wrong. Its not "life or helmet pick one". Its "Do the right thing, or do the right thing." The lesser of two evils is not at issue- we're talking about what should a paladin do not what laws should a kingdom have.
If the paladin walked up to someone and said
I have decided to stick a blender on your head and when I'm done you will be someone completely alien to who you are now- someone you are not and never have been and do not currently want to be because who it will make you is a better person than who you are now".. How can that not be wrong?
That the alternative is some other thing doesn't make the underlying action totally and completely evil.
-S
|
|
You didn't like my exposing the truth of your claim regarding valuing the life of someone, when you are advocating the destruction of the person themself, and pretending you are mere talking of "free will".
Domination removes free will, but you are still inside screaming to get out. The Helm rewrites the old person and creates a new one. Which is why it takes a Wish or Miracle to recreate the original person. Co,ong back from the dead is simple in comparison.
Is it really accurate to say that changing alignment destroys the person, though? It doesn't change a person's memories or ability to reason, it doesn't erase their relationships, it leaves most of their aesthetic tastes intact. Many personality traits (extroversion, optimism, confidence, perfectionism, abstract vs practical bent) are independent of alignment.
Would you consider magically changing any component of the mind to be destruction of the person?
If no, how do you decide what part or parts of the mind are essential to the "person"?
If so, would you consider non-magically changing any component of the mind to be destruction of the person? If I sabotage a marriage, have I destroyed two persons? What if I give someone a drug to make them more optimistic and extroverted?
They are unlikely to even feel the emotional attachments because if they did they would still retain the alignment.
How do you justify that? I can certainly have an emotional attachment to someone I disagree with on issues of ethics or morality, or someone with whom I did things I now regret.
You are fine with rewriting the personality of a person so long as the physical shell is kept alive. Because you consider the physical shell the important part.
Alignment is a significant personality descriptor but not the only one. Jumping from "alignment is not essential to the person" to "you only care about the physical shell" is premature and that mis-representation of the opposite opinion is why others are finding you hard to discuss with.
A violent criminal facing life in prison is discovered to have a brain tumour in the right supramarginal gyrus, the part of the brain responsible for empathy. It is believed that if the tumour is surgically removed, the criminal may be freed without fear that they would re-offend.
Would you say it is moral or immoral to remove the tumour?
If so, have you removed a part of the criminal's identity?
Does it matter how long the tumour has been there?
Does it matter whether the criminal wants surgery? Whether the desire for surgery is primarily a result of wanting to avoid prison?
1) Ask them. If they want it removed, no issue. If they don't want it removed- you don't remove it.
2) As above.
3) as above
4) It definately matters. If they say no then the answer is no. If they say yes the answer is yes.
Of course, they serve out the sentence of whatever it is they did. they did it regardless of any tumor and a surgery shouldn't alleviate that. But if said surgery could keep them from repeating the offense or committing other offenses and the patient is willing to undergo the treatment then go for it- even if their only wish is to keep from doing the crime again.
Ok, so the sole determinant of someone's inviolable identity is the ego, not their drives or unconscious preferences. The fact that the person doesn't feel empathy is irrelevant next to the fact that they want to feel empathy.
So how do you feel about people changing their mind, and how that relates to identity? If I wake up one morning and realize I have an addiction I want to get rid of, am I an entirely different person? After all, the "me" last night was perfectly happy to want a particular substance and the "me" this morning does not want to want it. Does it matter whether I can consciously point to what changed my mind?
|
|
Lawful - We have rules because they protect the many. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Can a Lawful society execute criminals? ex: death penalty
Can a Lawful society neutralize criminals? ex: chemical castration
A Lawful character would justify using a helm to protect the good people of (insert town name) if it was indicated by the laws of the society. However a Paladin isn't Judge, Jury, Executioner unless granted that authority by the society. He would still have to abide by the applicable laws so I think a Paladin wouldn't use the helm, although he would turn them over to authorities knowing full well what the criminals fate will be after trial.
If troubled, he may meditate on the meaning of liberty vs freedom, and if he has doubt he should seek answers from his clergy (GM), but he wouldn't fall. If he wants to roleplay it, I would use the doubt to "cause a fall" and he loses his powers until he learns to forgive himself.
Not everything goes away with a simple atonement, some scars go deeper.
A great example of this is The Tomb of Horrors (paperback novel based on the module of the same name).
Oh, I'm imagining the roleplay opportunities if the Paladin wants to atone. He's trying to help the CG mage return to his LE roots... No No No, Stop that! You are being to nice!