| 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.
This reminds me of part of the "Dragonlance" backstory: specifically, the God-City of Istar. It was ruled by a LG king-priest who became so mighty and dedicated to his cause that he persecuted all subversives, which came to mean anyone not "good". The definition thereof changed over time, as he sank further and further into hubris. Eventually, in an alternative timeline to the official "Dragonlance" history (as written about in the "Legends of the Twins" book), he reached demigod levels and challenged even the Good gods that objected to his reign. Note, that he never lost his LG alignment, even when he fought his own patron deity over the justifications to his actions.
It begs the question: can we, without hubris, declare ourselves to be above the morality of our fellow humans, to pursue the greater good for our society?
To get back to the Dragonlance example, above: if you declare the King-Priest immoral, is it a good act to kill him - even if he's the greatest Good by the definition of the word in the world? Is it a good act to be a vigilante and kill evildoers, by your definition? And is it a greater or lesser good to do the same as an agent of Justice, as declared by your fellow humans?
This all starts to sound like a plot synopsis of the "Dexter" TV series.
[Trivia: in Latin, "dexter" means rightful. I derives from the word for "righthanded" (as opposed to "sinister" for lefthanded), but came to mean "proper".]
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.
| 2 people 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.
Thanks!
You're usually one of the people that, even when I disagree with, I like to read, too. :)
And, you know, I could always just be reading my own feelings into his post, too. We humans tend to do that. :D
I submit my definition is broad - but it's that broad because ultimately the person doing evil is made either frustrated, unhappy, or dead, and I would consider all of those "punishments" as a result of my behavior if I were threatened with them due to things I'd acted on.
O.O
One of the things to keep in mind (as well as respond to williamoak):
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.
This might be your meaning, but to be clear: punishment is meant as a deterrent, one that prevents people from doing the evil thing more - and that deterrent is also meant to work on the one being punished.
I actually agree: punishment is always a last resort, but, on the other hand (given my definition) it is a resort. I also agree it doesn't work on everyone. That's what I was trying to get at with some people being more or less fragile than others.
That said, I don't know that "fear" is necessarily "fear" as we (or at least I) usually think of it, even though I readily admit I have no better word for it. Instead, I look at it as a form of prudence, i.e. "Well that's a bad idea, and this is one reason why." The punishment itself is never the End itself or even supposed to be the reason for not-doing-evil, outside of those who are tremendously innately evil. Instead, it's meant to be a long-term reminder (to my mind) - either to the person being punished or the one who was punished (depending on the kind of punishment).
Punishment is for enlightenment, though it doesn't always work.
In this case, though? I think it's clear that it inherently works, as that's how the item is built and how the rules function.
I tend to think that avoiding violence is usually the best policy, but D&D is built around it. In those terms, then, a Helm becomes something of a sudden mercy, as it grants you a method of defeating the enemy without killing them and (more or less) permanently putting a stop to their attempts to perform evil (though, of course, circumstances apply).
One thing I wanted to mention about inherent alignment: to me, inherent alignment doesn't mean lacking free will. I've gone into greater detail elsewhere, but I'm still free to choose whether I want chocolate or ice cream, whether I like red or blue, and whether I like desert or a second helping. That's my freedom. I'm not free to choose to make gravity go away or indiscriminate murder good (though I could be deluded into thinking I'm free to do so).
Inherent alignment simply means I either lack a conscience (and lack the ability to develop one) or I lack the ability to become inured to my conscience.
In a way, it can be compared to congenital birth defect. Someone who lacks arms will always have a harder time of things than someone that does not. Doesn't prevent some people without arms from becoming amazing painters, excellent parents, and so on - it's just harder. Same deal, here, to my way of playing it.
In any event, we've always played it, regardless of the alignment change, that those who are affected by the helm see it as a genuine form of freedom - freedom from their old life, freedom from their old way of doing things, freedom from who they were before. They suddenly knew and understood in a way they never had. That, too, colors my perception, I'm sure. I find the alternate interpretations fascinating, and compelling in their own way. Though it does kind of remind me of The Incredibles:
"Mr. Santwi didn't ask to be saved. Mr. Santwi didn't want to be saved! And the injury received from Mr. Incredible's "Actions" - so called - causes him daily pain!"
"Hey, I saved your life!"
"You didn't save my life, you ruined it, that's what you did!"
"Listen, you ungrateful-"
"- MY CLIENT has no further comment at this time."
(The tune changed, later, of course.)
Heh. That was a great movie.
Regardless, I suggest, one way or the other, therapy. That said, adventurers usually don't have time to supply the needed therapy. That's usually why things like this happen. Then the now-good person (as they can trust them to not murder innocents) is usually handed over to someone else they can trust that will give them the therapy they need.
Of course, some people want more or feel uncomfortable with this, so it should MOST CERTAINLY NOT be in their games.
Keep in mind that the authors of the Dragonlance novels had pretty much decided NOT to be bound by game mechanics, nor did they use them in framing their stories after seeing how badly they hampered the first novel published. In fact observant readers will notice outright violations such as the several magic rings Par-Salian wears.
Alignment is a useful game mechanic. Taking it beyond that, always does more harm than good.
True enough, although "Legends of the Twins" was a partial-crunch book, published by Sovereign Press under license from WotC in 2005. It's written using 3.x system resources throughout, including stat blocks (Beldinas the God-Priest, anecdotally, is a Cr 25 cleric/righteous zealot).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It begs the question: can we, without hubris, declare ourselves to be above the morality of our fellow humans, to pursue the greater good for our society?
I have not read the Dragonlance novels, so unfortunately I cannot comment on them. But I do not find it necessarily hubristic to declare oneself as being more moral than another person.
For example, a Paladin is not being hubristic if he believes himself morally superior to an Orcish marauder who kills, rapes and devours the helpless. He is not necessarily declaring himself above the morals of his fellow creatures. But he reasonably believes that he is adhering to a higher standard of conduct and that he is right to do so.
Going to your example, in my opinion, a Lawful Good priest king who becomes a tyrant and begins to cause unjustified suffering would no longer be a good person. If such a person started to believe himself to be the ultimate moral authority who need answer to no one (even the Gods who granted him his power!) because he has a total grasp on what is true, moral and just thereby making every action he takes moral he would no longer be Lawful good. He would have slipped into the zone of Lawful Neutral because he is no longer being a good person...one who values life. Instead, he simply values order and society as a whole. If some do not see the truth and goodness of his rule, they are brought to heel. Anyone who speaks out against him are detained for reeducation. And if he continues on down that road and became more harsh and repressive in enforcing his morality, he would soon become Lawful Evil.
And if the writer (or a GM) were to declare, "No, that character is still Lawful Good!" then I would have to respectfully disagree, because I do not believe vicious tyrants are lawful good. A Lawful Good ruler could certainly slip down the path towards prideful absolutist rule, but if he did so, he would no longer be Lawful Good.
|
| 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!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.
This is essentially the plot of the game I'm currently running, except it's not a king.
It's a god.
His new and militant church mind-controls criminals, forcing them to worship their Lawful "Good" deity, converts them to "Good" alignment using magic, and has created a "utopia" where everyone is "Good" and is purged of the evils of disobedience and free will.
The most horrific bit is what this new god did to celestials. Any which didn't escape his purge were essentially mind-wiped and turned into divine puppets - no free will, no personality, just angelic tools of holy death and destruction.
The most horrific bit is what this new god did to celestials. Any which didn't escape his purge were essentially mind-wiped and turned into divine puppets - no free will, no personality, just angelic tools of holy death and destruction.
How is that different from what Celestials already are?
I'd say that it can range from Neutral at best to Evil at worst.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the great disconnects between published fiction (including game worlds) and real life is that published fiction can be inherently correct within its own bounds while being entirely false within ours.
This can create extreme dissonance.
This is, for example, why some Christians crack open, say, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (3.0, naturally) and find listed under the "deities" section an entire pantheon of gods who demand worship, and immediately think it evil.
Or why socially conservative non-religious sorts can look at the same book, find that there is a "good" god(dess)* of hedonism, sensuality, and "festhalls" and go, "Uh, I'm pretty sure this is satanic."
(Especially when you think upon the fact that there really is no such thing as "safe" free intercourse in Forgotten Realms without the application of relatively high-level moderately uncommon magic and several spells that don't exist in any official publication except the one that was banned**.)
And, you know, there's nothing actually wrong with either of those reactions (except the "Satanic" one, as, clearly, it's more of a "Beezelbubian"***** thing.)
And yet, within the confines of the world's morality, as dissonant as it is (and incorrect to our morality) the "good" entry is entirely correct.
But, and here's the thing, that doesn't always translate into the real world very well, and it certainly doesn't always sit well with those of us who inhabit it. There is nothing wrong with this.
Instead, what it falls to us to do is to take the basics of what we're given and either modify it to suit our own needs, or adapt for the needs of the story and setting. I tend to prefer the latter, except for "extreme" cases... but then again, what is "extreme" varies from person to person.
Thus, the game should adapt to the best interests of the players and GM.
In this case, it would best be phrased, "It may be evil in our world (depending on your moral/ethical outlook and the extremity of the circumstances involved), but in the game world, it's only evil if the GM/Players decide it's evil in the context of the game world."
* And Sharess is one of my favorites, too! Man, I must suck as a conservative fundamentalist Christian.
** I'm not actually sure such a spell is here. In my much younger, wilder days*** on the 'net, I certainly found references to contraceptive spells and disease-prevention spells, even rules for it, but as I don't own the, er, "banned book" let's call it (I don't even know if it's kosher to say 'round here), I can't say whether or not it has such things. I actually rule them into the game, where needed.
*** Like, three years ago? Maybe? I dunno. Such a crazy young'n!****
**** Nope. :)
***** Man, I like asterisks. Also, no, it's not. Again, I'm a fundamentalist conservative Christian, folks. Right wing, too. Yeah, I'm one of those people. It's an imagination game in fake world.
A couple more questions:
Does changing someone's alignment grant clemency? Since we can now be certain that our CE murderer is now a LG murderer, does he escape the consequences of his past actions?
In other words, if we choose to use the helm as "rehabilitation", is it the total punishment a criminal deserves?
|
A Helm of opposite alignment will not work on a extra planer creature as the extra planer creatures alignment is only on portion of its being the larger portion of it being is the energy of its plane. that makes it alignment unchangeable by magical means. You can have redeemed demons but that is done by the freewill of the demon just as you can have a fallen angels, again by the free will of the angel.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Helm of opposite alignment will not work on a extra planer creature as the extra planer creatures alignment is only on portion of its being the larger portion of it being is the energy of its plane. that makes it alignment unchangeable by magical means. You can have redeemed demons but that is done by the freewill of the demon just as you can have a fallen angels, again by the free will of the angel.
Please support this claim mechanically.
|
|
A couple more questions:
Does changing someone's alignment grant clemency? Since we can now be certain that our CE murderer is now a LG murderer, does he escape the consequences of his past actions?
In other words, if we choose to use the helm as "rehabilitation", is it the total punishment a criminal deserves?
That's totally dependent on the Game World and how the GM runs it.
Of course, the reverse of what is being discussed would be an interesting villainous plot.
One question -- would a lawful neutral or chaotic neutral character that has this helm forced on him switch to the other alignment, or would his ethical neutrality be forced to either good or evil? If the latter is the case, then in a non-evil campaign you can always have a PC whose player is unwilling to play the new alignment switched to a non-playable alignment and thus be removed from play.
That's totally dependent on the Game World and how the GM runs it.A couple more questions:
Does changing someone's alignment grant clemency? Since we can now be certain that our CE murderer is now a LG murderer, does he escape the consequences of his past actions?
In other words, if we choose to use the helm as "rehabilitation", is it the total punishment a criminal deserves?
Fair enough. But, I would say that is entirely relevant to whether it is "moral" to use it on a villain.
Basically, if changing a creatures alignment sanctifies and purifies that creature... that probably makes the helm way more powerful than intended. If it does not... then I don't think you could morally use it with that intended outcome.
I have really been waffling... leaning towards saying that it is ok... I'm leaning the other way, now. Frankly, I won't give the helm the power of salvation.
Of course, the reverse of what is being discussed would be an interesting villainous plot.
One question -- would a lawful neutral or chaotic neutral character that has this helm forced on him switch to the other alignment, or would his ethical neutrality be forced to either good or evil? If the latter is the case, then in a non-evil campaign you can always have a PC whose player is unwilling to play the new alignment switched to a non-playable alignment and thus be removed from play.
Good question. Let's see what it says:
When placed upon the head, this item's curse immediately takes effect (Will DC 15 negates). On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG). Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook. A character who succeeds on his save can continue to wear the helmet without suffering the effect of the curse, but if he takes it off and later puts it on again, another save is required.
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. If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated. When a helm of opposite alignment has functioned once, it loses its magical properties.
I would say that you could read it in any way you choose, but the intent seems that only true neutrality is altered.
Interestingly, the helm is a transmutation effect.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Tacticslion.
That's totally dependent on the Game World and how the GM runs it.A couple more questions:
Does changing someone's alignment grant clemency? Since we can now be certain that our CE murderer is now a LG murderer, does he escape the consequences of his past actions?
In other words, if we choose to use the helm as "rehabilitation", is it the total punishment a criminal deserves?
Fair enough. But, I would say that is entirely relevant to whether it is "moral" to use it on a villain.
Basically, if changing a creatures alignment sanctifies and purifies that creature... that probably makes the helm way more powerful than intended. If it does not... then I don't think you could morally use it with that intended outcome.
I have really been waffling... leaning towards saying that it is ok... I'm leaning the other way, now. Frankly, I won't give the helm the power of salvation.
I can see that. However it does have the power of damnation, and it's not the only relatively low-powered thing to do so.
Also, given that it so fundamentally changes your alignment, it seems like whoever was changed would actively work to redeem themselves because previously they actively committed actions to damn themselves.
In other words, while potentially simply a semantic argument (I readily admit that I may be splitting hairs - I'm not sure), I don't see it as the helmet saving people, per se, it's the fact that they're no longer evil and their new tendency is what saves them.
In other words, the helmet is simply the catalyst by which their salvation comes, not the thing that saves them.
EDIT:
EDIT: Ninja'd by Tacticslion.
That's... rare. :)
(I'm almost always ninja'd by everyone. Because I write so much.)
To me yes its evil to an extent. I guess it all depends on when its used and how often.
If u are sticking the helm on every "evil" npc u come across as ur first action or how u want the outcome to be, then yes I view that as evil.
If u are sticking it on an evil person who is either to great a threat or has had a chance to repent and doesn't, then no I don't view it wholesale evil, more along the lines that its for the greater good.
I guess what I'm saying is, if u are using the helm as ur first attempt to handle a situation its evil and if ur doing it multiple times its evil. If ur using it as a last resort then to that I say its good. I guess its all in when and how often its being used. But then again incarceration is supposed to do what the helm does so yeahhh, there's still the personal choice.
So yes by raw, its a good act. My personal opionion though it wouod determine when and how often its used.
Do actions that cause alignment shifts affect the alignment caused by the helm of opposite alignment or the character's original alignment?
I can see that. However it does have the power of damnation...Fair enough. But, I would say that is entirely relevant to whether it is "moral" to use it on a villain.
Basically, if changing a creatures alignment sanctifies and purifies that creature... that probably makes the helm way more powerful than intended. If it does not... then I don't think you could morally use it with that intended outcome.
I have really been waffling... leaning towards saying that it is ok... I'm leaning the other way, now. Frankly, I won't give the helm the power of salvation.
Actually, I wouldn't give it that either. Making you evil, does not mean you have committed evil acts. Even if you do, it does not mean you have foregone salvation. According to the wording in the description, you might want to, and you might actively work in that direction, just as you might actively seek redemption if you were made good.
In other words, the helmet is simply the catalyst by which their salvation comes, not the thing that saves them.
This is a much more complicated question. What constitutes salvation? Does simply being good aligned qualify? Does an evil alignment mean automatic damnation? Can you follow the tenets of, let's say Torag, and still maintain an evil alignment? (I'm not talking about Clerics. I understand their restriction.) Would you still be a "follower" or "adherent"? Would you go to his realm on death?
I can see that. However it does have the power of damnation...Fair enough. But, I would say that is entirely relevant to whether it is "moral" to use it on a villain.
Basically, if changing a creatures alignment sanctifies and purifies that creature... that probably makes the helm way more powerful than intended. If it does not... then I don't think you could morally use it with that intended outcome.
I have really been waffling... leaning towards saying that it is ok... I'm leaning the other way, now. Frankly, I won't give the helm the power of salvation.
Actually, I wouldn't give it that either. Making you evil, does not mean you have committed evil acts. Even if you do, it does not mean you have foregone salvation. According to the wording in the description, you might want to, and you might actively work in that direction, just as you might actively seek redemption if you were made good.
In other words, the helmet is simply the catalyst by which their salvation comes, not the thing that saves them.This is a much more complicated question. What constitutes salvation? Does simply being good aligned qualify? Does an evil alignment mean automatic damnation? Can you follow the tenets of, let's say Torag, and still maintain an evil alignment? (I'm not talking about Clerics. I understand their restriction.) Would you still be a "follower" or "adherent"? Would you go to his realm on death?
It is a good question, as I tried to say.
I certainly don't have all the answers.
That said, my suggestion is: it's a catalyst, and a transmutation effect (instead of an enchantment or [mind-affecting] one). That means it transforms you - I would suggest, then, that if you embrace it (which the helm helps you do) you would actually, regardless of your current total deeds, be judged on who and what you have become.
BUT, it bears repeating, that I don't see this as the helmet saving you. The helmet is just a helmet. The "saving" is due to you being a different person.
The only times this will really come up is if someone uses the helmet then immediately kills the changed person.
That... isn't very likely, except for a few particular sadists. Even then, most people would prefer an ally of some sort - why waste a perfectly good helm on someone you're going to kill anyway?
In that case... I dunno, I probably couldn't judge. That's why I'd leave it to (in Golarion) Pharasma.
In almost any other case, I would say it either depends on what you were doing when you died (if you died through no fault of your own shortly thereafter attempting to, in whatever way possible, atone for your misdeeds, for example, but were cut down too early), or on how much you had done (if you had been, for example, actively working against your old ideals for some time). Either of those would be "worthy" of redemption/salvation, to me (at least in Golarion - my own religious views are somewhat different, by, you know, I'm going by game-world stuff).
And I'm not entirely sure, but I think... actually, no, you know what, I'm going to spend the time to try to look this up, later, when I have time, and the Pathfinder Wiki works again, instead of wildly speculating.
Again, though, it's worth noting that it's hardly the least powerful effect that can damn someone forever.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orphans are a notorious tax-sink for a good kingdom, and one of the prime recruits for pick-pockets and future assassins. To eliminate orphans is to perform a great service to the kindgom's greater good in the long run. Yet most would say that wasn't very nice
How is saving tax money by killing orphaned children part of the “greater good”? Good for whom exactly? I cannot think of anyone who would be considered good either in-game or in real life for murdering orphaned children simply on the off-chance that they might become bad people. And I do not believe any good person, real or imagined, would want to live in a society that regularly murdered children for the sole purpose of keeping the tax burden however much lighter.
Well it's no different here.
Giving an evil person a conscience is no different than murdering orphaned children? Okay, then.
To force a helm of opposite alignment on someone is to annihilate their very being.
No, it is to give them a different set of values. Their being remains intact. How they view the world, how they view themselves, how they feel they should interact with other people…that is what changes.
That's not very nice. You were not content to only end their corporeal existence and send them to whatever afterlife, nay, you decided that for whatever it is you consider good, every shred of their personality, free-will, ideology and way of looking at the world had to be torn out from under them, replaced by what you consider acceptable.
I think we’re dealing with simply changing their alignment. I do not know who is arguing that their corporeal existence must also to be ended.
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated". Sound familiar to anyone?
Yes. And do you remember the Next Generation episode when the Enterprise crew had a Borg POW, and helped give some of the Borg free will and identity, essentially helping them to unplug from the collective? The individual Borg never asked for that. It certainly a stripped them of their identity as merciless, soulless, unfeeling cogs in a greater all-consuming machine. In fact, that very matter is touched upon in a later episode. Was giving individual Borg the ability to think, feel and communicate as individuals an evil act?
You did not just kill that criminal, you took away his past, future, afterlife and legacies
…And? I have little interest in allowing evil characters to continue on causing death, destruction and suffering. I think the interests of the innocent come before the interests of the monstrous...especially when he is not going to be harmed in any way by the process of forceful alignment conversion.
It's a helmet we're putting on his head. We're not talking about throwing him into a sphere of annihilation.
If one were switching them from good to evil, there would be no question in anybody's mind that the one doing this was an irredeemable affront to all goodness and freedom. There is no redemption, only replacement by a twisted mockery of what used to be a person.
Yes. Turning someone from good to evil is a horrible action. Turning someone from evil to good is a good action. In the same way that ending the life of a mass-murderer just before he killed another innocent person may be considered good action, but a mass murderer killing another innocent person is an evil action. I argue that it is not the “turning” that is the problem, any more than “killing,” but who is being turned and for what reasons.
The only people that deserve this do so because it's a fate far worse than death.
How is an objectively evil being turned into an objectively good being a fate worse than death? Especially since the RAW states that the character enjoys his/her new alignment?
Any who use it on these monsters had best use another on themselves right after though, because they stared into the abyss, fingered the hole they were staring at it through, and got utterly smashed on the sweet megalomaniacal syrup of self-righteousness.
I do not follow the point you are trying to make here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To force a helm of opposite alignment on someone is to annihilate their very being.
You did not just kill that criminal, you took away his past, future, afterlife and legacies.
The only people that deserve this do so because it's a fate far worse than death. Any who use it on these monsters had best use another on themselves right after though, because they stared into the abyss, fingered the hole they were staring at it through, and got utterly smashed on the sweet megalomaniacal syrup of self-righteousness.
I'm going to ignore the "orphan" part of your argument... just rethink that one.
The helm doesn't annihilate a person's very being. It doesn't erase their past. It definitely doesn't erase their future. The only way it would affect their legacy is if they took steps to alter their potential legacy. The afterlife... that's a different question. I have brought up some questions and issues about that earlier.
All the helm does is change a person's alignment. There is some debate here about what that entails. But, it certainly does not erase memories. It does not erase past actions. It does not erase the physical, mental, and emotional damage of those memories and past actions.
The real question is, "What fundamentally changes when the helm is put on?"
Do you actually become a different person? Or are you still... you? Albeit with a different moral stance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One preview later, and I got substantially ninja'd twice. Cool. :)
sweet megalomaniacal syrup of self-righteousness.
Hope it tastes good, then, Jamie! Now that that's been thoroughly covered twice, I'll just delete my own response.
In any event, now that PF Wiki is working for me, I created a list of all the possible things I could think to search for that might be relevant.
Atheism - it's possible they're just treated like atheists
Boneyard - or they're just kept around here until they decide what they want to do with themselves
River of Souls - or maybe they get stuck in recursive eddies of souls... that would be a "bad thing"
Groteus - or she feeds 'em to him to keep the universe alive a little longer
Astral Plane - they may just end up here as some atheist souls do)
Outer Sphere - I... really can't find much to help out, here
Outsider - this is what I'll spend the most time on, because it's the most complex.
Not all souls (regardless of alignment) transform into outsiders, and not all outsiders of a given type are composed of mortal souls.
Of the list of outsiders there, from my reading the articles, agathions, archons, daemons, demons, devils, kytons, proteans, and (possibly) psychopomps are all, to some degree or another (some more minor than others), derived from mortal souls. As I recall, inevitables are also forged from mortal souls by axiomites, while I really thought azatas were, too, but the first has no article yet and the second doesn't mention anything that could be construed in that fashion.
That covers two goods (lawful and neutral), all the evils, and chaotic neutral, as well as possibly true neutral (though I may just be reading that incorrectly). It potentially covers lawful neutral and chaotic good as well.
Thus it's quite possible that the fate that awaits someone altered by a helm is to become the CR 2 outsiders of whatever their alignment is. If that's so, that's one more exception to the "outsiders are the result of your life's choices, so you're safe to smite the devil out of the devil" rule that usually stands (the ability of certain outsiders to just straight up turn you into an outsider of their alignment is the other major exception).
However, if you want this to be an evil, act (which there's nothing wrong with in your campaign) you can also look as asuras. Asuras are especially interesting because they're noted as being born "of divine mistake". That's a straight-up "Whoops, you should never have existed." type thing, and I find that potentially interesting when related to "How would Pharasma judge a soul transformed in this way?"
Even if they don't just spontaneously form directly because Pharasma makes a particular mistake due to their current alignment, it's possible that after they're judged (for whatever reason) some do not "fit right" in their new home indirectly due to the alteration of the helmet. This slow aberrancy could cause them to transform into asuras, or if not that directly, again, it could be caused by some direct divine mistake ("Suddenly, they seem like fiends! No wait, don't smite them, they're not really- ... to late." or something else.) or just some other random part of the process along the way.
It's also interesting to note,
Redeemed Asuras
Rarely, however, contemplation on the nature of the multiverse or a desire for something more than eternal strife causes an asura to choose a different course. Such asuras meditate to become closer to that which they once sought to destroy, purifying themselves of their soul-burning hatred. Redeemed asuras are seldom good or religious, but they do wander the planes, dispensing wisdom and working against wanton destruction. Evil asuras loathe these traitors, and seek them out to destroy them with teeming fervour.
... which is really interesting when you think about the implications there.
That could be very fascinating role playing potential, and it could be an interesting element in campaign setting creation. Also, I can think of nothing worse than taking an evil person, turning them into a good person juuuuuuuuuuust long enough for them to start tasting the sweet and eternal paradisic beauty of heaven, only to suddenly have it ripped away from them by "Whoops, wrong judgement!" side-effect.
This "mistake" would be far more likely to happen if it only occasionally occurred - in other words, many converted-by-helm might settle perfectly well into their new role, but every once in a while something goes wrong. Also, it's very likely that (since they no longer remember their mortal lives) they have no idea that it was some random cursed item that did them in, either.
I would suggest, however, that helms are not the only way to create Asuras, otherwise there's not going to be many of those running around the game world.
That said, even if that's a true side-effect (there is no canon evidence that this is so, only an interesting pseudo-hypothesis for those who want it I just created), I can still find no reason not to perform this or a similar act on fiends, as they've either had their free will altered against their will in a way that can't be reversed, or they're the result of a lifetime of evil choices that split the soul into evil bits that have slowly recombined/mutated into its current form.
Also worth pondering, what happens if a formerly evil creature gets transformed by the helm, then seeks out and receives an atonement?
Specifically, there is,
Redemption or Temptation: You may cast this spell upon a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match yours. The prospective subject must be present for the entire casting process. Upon completion of the spell, the subject freely chooses whether it retains its original alignment or acquiesces to your offer and changes to your alignment. No duress, compulsion, or magical influence can force the subject to take advantage of the opportunity offered if it is unwilling to abandon its old alignment. This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.
... and,
Reverse Magical Alignment Change: If a creature has had its alignment magically changed, atonement returns its alignment to its original status at no additional cost.
... which you can choose between when using atonement.
What's interesting about it is that this is more or less contradicted by the helm's text,
When placed upon the head, this item's curse immediately takes effect (Will DC 15 negates). On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG). Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook. A character who succeeds on his save can continue to wear the helmet without suffering the effect of the curse, but if he takes it off and later puts it on again, another save is required.
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. If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated. When a helm of opposite alignment has functioned once, it loses its magical properties.
The interesting thing, here, is that I can't actually recall any sort of a magical alignment-switching thing outside of the helmet and atonement. So unless that second line is worthless in the game (or at least only refers to other atonement spells, which is strange), or there is something I'm not recalling, it seems designed specifically to counter the helm.
Anyway, that's about all I can come up with. I can't really find anything on hedge cases like this. In Forgotten Realms, Kelemvor would likely judge them "False", and thus keep them eternally in his court. Pharasma? No clue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you actually become a different person? Or are you still... you? Albeit with a different moral stance.
In the real world, this is an incredibly complicated question. In Pathfinder, "you" is whatever goes into the gem when the necromancer casts soul bind.
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!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.
Interesting idea. But if you are going to do such a campaign the PCs might find that they have strange allies, like thieves, murderers, drug addicts, and sociopaths wanting to join them for different reasons. Politics makes strange bed mates. It will be very hard to find allies to prevent turning sociopaths into good caring people who are remorseful for their wrongs and wanting to make amends.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a cursed item.
So is the girdle of masculinity/femininity, which is far more effective than any chirurgeon at treating gender dysphoria. And dust of choking and sneezing makes an effective combat item if you recognize it for what it is before you use it.
Cursed items are the penalty you occasionally pay for not keeping your Spellcraft skill maximized and learning the spell prerequisites, or not casting analyze dweomer on your loot before using or selling it. They are not evil as a group.
As for intentionally making cursed items, use the relevant Craft skill instead of Spellcraft, rush the creation, use tools with the broken condition, cast crafter's curse and bestow curse on yourself or have someone else do it and fail the saves intentionally, and don't memorize comprehend languages or read magic, then make a helm of comprehend languages and read magic. It's pretty much guaranteed to be cursed per RAW, though you only have a 1-in-10 shot of producing the specific cursed item as opposed to a regular helm with a drawback or other curse effect. But you're only out 2600 gold (or 2470 with the right trait). If you've already taken the Craft Wondrous Item feat for other reasons, and have the Hedge Magician trait, it's potentially cheaper to go this route than use wish.
Note that in 3.5 the helm of opposite alignment had a listed market price of 4000 gp, a prerequisite of 12th level or higher and the Craft Wondrous Item feat, and the rules allowed the intentional creation of specific cursed items. For some reason the prices and prerequisites for cursed items were omitted from the PF core rulebook, possibly due to that begging the question of "what happens if they fail a check to make a cursed item by 5 or more?"
|
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.
Best argument ever to have an evil race baby barbeque.....
|
|
It's a cursed item.So is the girdle of masculinity/femininity, which is far more effective than any chirurgeon at treating gender dysphoria. And dust of choking and sneezing makes an effective combat item if you recognize it for what it is before you use it.
Cursed items are the penalty you occasionally pay for not keeping your Spellcraft skill maximized and learning the spell prerequisites, or not casting analyze dweomer on your loot before using or selling it. They are not evil as a group.
And if you do not want the change it is a terrible curse. If you want to change alignment it is a boon to use the helm, if it is forced on you it Is a curse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a cursed item.
Forcing anyone to activate it is akin to torture, which is 100% evil.
Does that mean that using a Ring of Truth is 100% evil?
Does that mean that using a Zone of Truth, which does the same thing as the cursed ring, is 100% evil?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is that different from what Celestials already are?
The most horrific bit is what this new god did to celestials. Any which didn't escape his purge were essentially mind-wiped and turned into divine puppets - no free will, no personality, just angelic tools of holy death and destruction.
Celestials aren't divine puppets. They do have free will and personality.
Otherwise we wouldn't have fallen angels alongside those risen fiends. We wouldn't have Tabris. We wouldn't have azatas. We wouldn't have peri, who are living proof that outsiders have free will and can fall or rise.
They aren't portrayed as puppets without will or personality anywhere in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neither good nor evil. I'd say it's not a moral issue, but an ethical one. I could see a neutral or lawful character performing this action, but not a chaotic one, unless said chaotic character cares only about his/her own freedom (which may be the case for some CN or CE characters). So, basically, don't play CG.
Celestials aren't divine puppets. They do have free will and personality.
Otherwise we wouldn't have fallen angels alongside those risen fiends. We wouldn't have Tabris. We wouldn't have azatas. We wouldn't have peri, who are living proof that outsiders have free will and can fall or rise.
They aren't portrayed as puppets without will or personality anywhere in the game.
And this is why I'm still voting for a Mikaze cult. :)
(I totally forgot to respond to this, so I'm really glad you did.)Reference the forced alignment change, let me put it this way.
1) Someone is evil. They live a life of evil, doing evil things. Net evil in the omniverse increases.
2) Some do-gooder comes along and kills them, stopping their mortal evil. Net potential evil in the omniverse decreases.
3) Their soul is judged by Pharasma (presuming it makes it all the way there), and they are condemned to an evil plane.
4) They become an evil outsider that performs evil acts of evil, or they are tortured into oblivion. Net evil in the omniverse increases.
Welp, that sucks. Also, it's depressing.
There's a minor variation in there somewhere where they might get raised to do more mortal evil before eventually dying again and continuing to step three and beyond, or they might become an undead which, in canon, is a net increase in evil.
1) Someone is evil. They live a life of evil, doing evil things. Net evil in the omniverse increases.
2) Some do-gooder comes along and converts them, stopping their mortal evil. Net potential evil in the omniverse decreases. Net good in the omniverse increases. <Possible: net evil in the omniverse increases.>
3) They are now good. They live a life of good, doing good things. Net good in the omniverse increases.
4) Their soul is judged by Pharasma (presuming it makes it all the way there), and they are ??? to a(n) ??? plane.
5) They become a(n) ??? outsider that performs ??? acts of ???, or they are ??? into ???. Net ??? in the omniverse increases.
The method of conversion is what's being questioned here, but unquestionably, this leads to a total (in a vacuum of other information) net increase of over-all good, or at the very least a net decrease of over-all evil.
Presumably with the Diplomacy method, all the ??? will become good things. The only question is whether or not the helm will. We don't know, thus the ??? are there.
At worst, part 2 is a wash.
Of course there are variants in there, with people dying early, being turned into fiends against their will, or having other magical effects reverse the change.
In all cases, regardless of anything else, Option 2 is, by all information we have (though we are definitely missing something) still the better option... even if it's through a forced act.
Thus,
Neither good nor evil. I'd say it's not a moral issue, but an ethical one. I could see a neutral or lawful character performing this action, but not a chaotic one, unless said chaotic character cares only about his/her own freedom (which may be the case for some CN or CE characters). So, basically, don't play CG.
... is what I read this as.
(You totally ninja'd me, by the way, as I was writing this.)| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What the hell is a society doing putting evildoers in prison if they don't intend them to leave better than they went in?
Why not speed up the process with magic?
A derro is chaotic evil in large part because it is insane. Persuading it to become good is impossible without magic, and as a narcissistic psychopath it is going to reject your magic simply because it wasn't its idea in the first place. Is using wish or miracle to remove a derro's cannibalistic madness evil? Removing an insanity effect from other creatures is usually good. Is the fact that criminal insanity is one of its inherent racial traits what makes the moral difference between removing it from a derro and removing it from a criminally insane member of a PC race?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the hell is a society doing putting evildoers in prison if they don't intend them to leave better than they went in?
Have you looked at real-world penal systems? They're not all based around rehabilitation...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's something odd going on here.
The word "erase" and "destroyed" and "replaced" is being bandied about a lot.
Those aren't correct words.
The word is changed.
Lets take your arguments a bit further we aren't talking here about serial killers or monsters who destroy entire towns. We have Tom. Say hello Tom. "Hello Tom". Tom here beat his wife when he was drunk so we're going to fix him. First we turn him from a 29 year old man into a 15 year old one, then we turn him into a woman so he doesn't have all that strength to hurt another, next we rewrite her memories so rather than his life in the city slums she remembers growing up in a nice forum with loving parents and just to be sure pop this helm on her. Voila from a 29 year old slightly evil man who beat his wife we have a slightly good, sweet, 15 year old girl who doesn't remember a thing about who she used to be. I've just completely erased an entire beings soul but she's happier, her former wife is happier I did a good act didn't I?
Why? Why bother with doing all of that with Tom?
The suggestion is: make Tom not-evil and be good.
On the other hand, is Tom happier? Does his (now her) life ultimately bring her more joy? Than there is no reason to presume you did an evil act. Your intent was to bring about something better for him, and you did. She is happier and better off than she was before (though if she neurologically still identifies as male, it seems unlikely you made her happy at all).
If, on the other hand, you made Tom more misrable and unable to do anything about it (because she's still evil, regardless of what she remembers) you failed in your intent.
Reference suicide: that's one of the many reasons I've noted therapy is almost always a necessary thing. "Therapy" takes many different forms, though.
And yet, if someone does commit suicide due to regret of their own evil, does that not show they had a choice? They chose not to go on. It's a terrible choice, but their option was also death. Violent, painful death.
So... death or the potential to live or choose death - one death is at the hands of others, one on their own terms.
Free will still exists.
EDIT: 'cause ninja'd
What the hell is a society doing putting evildoers in prison if they don't intend them to leave better than they went in?Have you looked at real-world penal systems? They're not all based around rehabilitation...
This is actually a failure in our ability to convince and persuade more than anything else. That failure, in turn, creates self-propagating systems of violence and criminal behavior. People tend to believe that alteration (redemption) is not possible because they don't see it happen, and thus instead focus on removal, which is what many of our penal systems actually are... losing the very purpose of the "penal".
(The meaning is as in "penalty", which it can be, even if it isn't always, but the purpose of the penalty is to create change... which often isn't happening, or, if it is, not for the better/intended results.)In that case, again, finding a method that genuinely works is important.
Do we leave them locked up or dead, creating a cycle of continuing evil, or do we - however briefly they're here - allow them to undo the evil they've done.
Now, to be clear, this is not something you should do on any given criminal. In fact, doing so is probably a terrible idea, because there are probably some genuinely good people who are law breakers.
Instead, this is to be done on evil people which, in my view, is a whole 'nother ballgame altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on, people. Stop saying that erasing someone's memory is equivalent to murder. The last time you went outside, how many cars did you pass, and what colors were they? Do you remember? If not, is that person dead? If, were you to go back in time to converse with your ten-year-old self in disguise and find out you wanted to punch them, does that mean ten-year-old you is dead?
If people insist on the idea that rewriting memories is killing the "old them," what makes the "old them" more worthy of "life" than the "new them?"
What the hell is a society doing putting evildoers in prison if they don't intend them to leave better than they went in?Have you looked at real-world penal systems? They're not all based around rehabilitation...
There's a reason I framed it as a question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on, people. Stop saying that erasing someone's memory is equivalent to murder. The last time you went outside, how many cars did you pass, and what colors were they? Do you remember? If not, is that person dead? If, were you to go back in time to converse with your ten-year-old self in disguise and find out you wanted to punch them, does that mean ten-year-old you is dead?
If people insist on the idea that rewriting memories is killing the "old them," what makes the "old them" more worthy of "life" than the "new them?"
And I reiterate:
The Helm does not erase memories. Nowhere in the description does it even suggest that it does this.
All it does is change your alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the difference between changing its outlook on life and placing it in confinement indefinitely until it chooses to assume the outlook on life you desired in the first place?
If all people but one were good in the sense of being utterly self-sacrificing and placing no restrictions on others' free will, the lone evil one would control the world. All would be darkness. Approaching perfect goodness asymptotically would render the world more and more vulnerable to evil.
Of course, no mere mortal is perfectly self-sacrificing, and so at some point conflict arises, wherein suffering or gain will be unequally distributed. Who then has the right? Is the path of greatest net gain or smallest net loss spurned pointlessly?
Ideally, a few sacrifice for the good of the many. But in most cases you get the Nash equilibrium. The net enjoyment of sentient life is nearly always less than optimal at the Nash equilibrium, and when the actors are not rational, even worse outcomes can result.
Who has the right to decide? The gods? If gods are not perfectly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent (and it is logically impossible to be all three in a world where free will exists), they are just outsiders whose stat blocks haven't been published.
So if the gods themselves don't necessarily have the right to choose, then who does? Someone has to, or the whole world will suffer needlessly in the moral equivalent of the paradox of thrift. If *everyone* is perfectly self-sacrificing, the world is less joyful for no reason. If everyone decides to sacrifice just what is needed and enjoy as much as possible without interfering with others, you would find utopia, but this would require perfect knowledge by all thinking beings. And perfect knowledge and free will are incompatible, as free will only exists when meaningful choices can be made, and if there is perfect knowledge, every choice will either have a single, superior option to take (wherein there is only the illusion of choice), or one or more options that are no better than each other and thus offer no meaningful choice when the goal is net maximization of joy in the universe. The choice would be random, because if one of the otherwise equivalent options were more appealing in even the slightest, most subconscious way, then it would become the superior choice, and we are back to square one. And pure randomness is just as destructive of free will (which requires meaningful choice) as pure determinism (which eliminates choice).
And since free will and ignorance exist, someone must make choices to increase enjoyment in the universe. If usurping someone's free will is necessary to do so, and this choice makes them evil, and their evil will be punished in the afterlife, and they knowingly accept this punishment to increase the joy of others in the universe, are they not self-sacrificing, and therefore good? But if they know their willingness to self-sacrifice will prevent the need for sacrifice, does it cease to count, and self-sacrifice become evil? Has your head exploded yet? I'm going to sleep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is that different from what Celestials already are?
The most horrific bit is what this new god did to celestials. Any which didn't escape his purge were essentially mind-wiped and turned into divine puppets - no free will, no personality, just angelic tools of holy death and destruction.
Celestials aren't divine puppets. They do have free will and personality.
Otherwise we wouldn't have fallen angels alongside those risen fiends. We wouldn't have Tabris. We wouldn't have azatas. We wouldn't have peri, who are living proof that outsiders have free will and can fall or rise.
They aren't portrayed as puppets without will or personality anywhere in the game.
But their free will is different than that of mortals since they are alignment subtyped outsiders and thus are literally made of Good. I would argue that their free will is circumscribed to some extent by their basic nature in a way that cannot happen to a mortal creature.
Likewise for any outsider with an alignment subtype. The kinds of things required for outsiders to fall or rise is far beyond what can change a mortal's alignment and is the purview of monumanetal "holy s*&@" moments.
Addressing the main topic, I think that a creature living in a world with absolute Good and Evil which are literal building blocks of the universe would not see this kind of alignment change as forced. In fact it is likely the solution of choice to the "goblin baby" problem for a good portion of Lawful Good aligned faiths. I could totally see Paladins doing this to non-combatant members of an "always evil" race or targets of a crusade who have surrendered. While we recognize brainwashing, especially that which is religiously motivated to be a really bad thing, in a world where you can measure the marginal decrease of Evil in the world is would be seen as a merciful option which is beneficial to the world as large.
It goes along with the use of dominate effects as enhanced interrogation in the category of things that would be war crimes to the 21st century that paladins are completely ok with. The take home message is that the system of absolute morality as conceived for the game has some really disturbing implications. But then again I have been informed that I am highly cynical about Lawful alignments.