| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if forcing an evil being to turn good with the helm is an evil act, does that mean that forcing a good being to turn evil with the helm is a good act?
I know it's late, Evil Finnish Chaos Beast, but... really?
And unless you can get a game designer to state as an official ruling that such a deed is Good (I won't hold my breath on that) then you can't objectively claim that it is. :DA game designer does not get to tell me what is Good and Evil in my game.
Sadly, in Pathfinder Society they do. One of the reasons I have no inclination to play it, in fact.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that some people didn't understand that I was joking makes me sad.
Also, this thread makes me feel like the questions of Lawful vs Chaotic never come up in a given campaign. One would think that they're more important in a topic like this due to free will being a major factor here and all, but instead people turn this into a Good vs Evil debate for the most part. Lastly, if the side who says that robbing free will (even temporarily) or altering a disposition of someone is so horribly evil would be right in this, then the enchantment school of magic should be treated as far more evil than necromancy ever was. Some of the arguments used here just don't add up to me.
Yep. The only non-BoVD mind-affecting enchantment-type effect with the evil descriptor that stands out to me is the mind seed psionic power. Even trap the soul doesn't have the evil descriptor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting the feeling that a number of people in this thread don't actually understand what the term "Objective" means within the context of ethical theory.
Let's clear it up. It doesn't matter if the objective judge is really just the GM acting as the face behind the various gods who weigh and judge an act.
All that matters is that there is an absolute authority, and that everyone in the entire freaking world knows it.
There is magic of various kinds that will tell you if a person is good or evil. There is an extremely cheap item that will tell you directly from your god if they condone an action or not. There are Smite abilities that only work if a person has been judged by a divine moral agent.
These things mean that the relative good or evil of an action can be known. It isn't something people would even wonder about. Within the context of the game, the entire concept of ethical philosophy doesn't exist. There is no Kant, or Bentham, or Nietzsche. No one sits around and argues the way we are doing now about the ins and outs of free will vs. greater good. It isn't necessary because any decent priest can just ask a god and get a real, definitive answer.
So, the question of the helmet is very simple. Based on the points of view of the gods of your campaign world, would they view the alteration of an evil creature's moral views as an evil act.
If the gods don't care about Charm Person or Dominate, then chances are they aren't going to care about the Helm either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like this has less to do with morality (aka Good-Evil axis) and more to do with ethics (aka Law-Chaos axis). A Lawful character might believe it is right to do, because it will prevent the evil person from harming someone again, and will potentially cause them to go out and do good themselves. A chaotic character would be less keen to it, as it is in essence forcing the to become good, eliminating all choice in the matter. Because it so drastically rewrites their personality, it can't be really said to be any better than killing them.
This is my stance on it too I think. I don't think good or evil really has a say in it. The idea of 'free will' is always lumped in with the 'chaotic vs Law(order) axis. CG or CE would always be against being told how to act... while LG or LE believe everyone should act like them.
Honestly, I would probably lean more toward the LG Paladins mentality here... You HAD free will, and look at the crap choices you made. Now either be good or get executed...
Like any 'lawful' mentality, it could be abused if the people in power aren't 'good' enough... but in the right hands it'd be a pretty great society to live in.
He would PREFER if they CHOSE redemption... but the safety of the innocents is a lot more important then the evil-doers rights.
My kingmaker paladin has a habit of executing the really bad criminals in his kingdom... He would really prefer a guaranteed method of reform...
Asking a person if they want to get sent to their just reward (note how aweful the hells and abadon are) or be subject to an atonement spell shifting them to the good axis of alignment would be better. A lawful evil dude can still follow his values, he just gets his perception shifted about how much the rights others are worth. A chaotic evil person can be a force for positive change rather than a force for evil. A neutral evil person can trade sadistic pleasure for altruistic pleasure.
Atonement is a cleric spell so you could have a cleric of each faith available, and the church could help them get started doing good to make the transition easier.
Atonement doesn't work on outsiders though, and a killed outsider doesn't have a final reward to go to. So the helm is really their only hope. If it was the helm or destruction, which do you think is more humane?
---------------------------
I'm pretty sure every cursed item is meant to be played off as comical, so the helm doesnt have any effect more traumatic than any other fairy tale curse would. If it did cause trauma it would say that it stuns them or descibe the in game effects of crushing despair as afflicting evil creatures affected by the helm.
The only trauma the helm afflicts is at the prospect of being forced to return to their former alignment, whether they were a pit feind, or a paladin. Makes no difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I will design two different sets of in game politics now.
In one political system, the high priests of various churches are of a high enough level to cast commune and alignment applies.
In the other political system, the high priest of the church is an elected official with NPC class levels, probably in aristocrat, and no one has an alignment.
I wonder which my players would prefer. A world where good and evil can be proved through empirical evidence or one where good and evil are subjective.
Which do you all prefer. A world where the local priest can send a letter to a pontiff if something is good and a being of pure good can give the pontiff and, down the ladder, you an answer? Or a world where you have to make a call and no force in the universe can really say if its objectively right or not?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Whether your making them evils or good violating someone on such a fundamental level us an evil act it doesn't matter which way your going.
How is giving an evil person a conscience and a sense of empathy a violation?
"I had plans to burn down that orphanage full of kids to collect the insurance, and you TOOK THAT FROM ME!! You violated everything about me!"
If that is indeed a violation, then I believe evil people are deserving of that violation.
But for all those who consider forcible alignment conversion a total violation of the apparently sacrosanct free will of evil persons, how does this sound:
A violent criminal who would normally be sentenced to death for their crimes is given the choice between being hanged or being given the helmet. Is that fair?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if their is an absolute authority then that would be the same authority in all games. It isn't, so it isn't objective by your argument. Also as I've commented even within a game the GM isn't absolute authority on alignment. If the players disagree strongly with the GM their is a compromise or the game ends. So no absolute authority.I'm getting the feeling that a number of people in this thread don't actually understand what the term "Objective" means within the context of ethical theory.
Let's clear it up. It doesn't matter if the objective judge is really just the GM acting as the face behind the various gods who weigh and judge an act.
All that matters is that there is an absolute authority, and that everyone in the entire freaking world knows it.
You're metagaming, here. Players can negotiate definitions with DMs, and every DM has a different take on alignment, but within a given group's campaign world, morality is absolutely objective. (Barring house rules, of course.)
Objective morality within game A, B, and C doesn't require that every other game share the same objective moral values. Or even that game A, B, and C share the same objective moral values. Within each of those games, morality is absolutely objective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Within that specific game, and even then often with negotiation with players. Not within Pathfinder so much. That would require a clear list of rules for determining alignment in the RAW. RAW is objective. Magic Missile has set rules for range. Nothing subjective about it. Each game has the same unless they are playing a variant Pathfinder. With Alignment there is no such RAW or this thread wouldn't exist.
As Tequila Sunrise said, the game having objective Good and Evil does not require it to be the same Good and Evil in every instance, so long as in that instance it IS objective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Within that specific game, and even then often with negotiation with players. Not within Pathfinder so much. That would require a clear list of rules for determining alignment in the RAW. RAW is objective. Magic Missile has set rules for range. Nothing subjective about it. Each game has the same unless they are playing a variant Pathfinder. With Alignment there is no such RAW or this thread wouldn't exist.As Tequila Sunrise said, the game having objective Good and Evil does not require it to be the same Good and Evil in every instance, so long as in that instance it IS objective.
Agreed.
Also Commune exists. Granted sometimes it might say Unclear, but if its either killing a super powerful villain who was going to kill millions or transmute him into a force for good whether he likes it or not, then atleast he'll thank you for it afterwards. Maybe not if he ends up Chaotic Good, but I think I'd be more careful and only use it on Lawful Evil folks.
If you can ask your Good Deity what is or isn't Good, that sounds like Good is pretty Objective. Even if there are multiple Good deities, there is going to be a similar standard
So,
Consider for the moment that time when you're about to kill the BBEG. We have three options.
A: Ask him to surrender.(Probably not going to happen)
B: Kill him.(So we really don't care what he thinks now)
C: Forcibly turn him into a force of Good.(I don't see the problem when the alternative is just killing them anyways)
A almost never works.
B works and does nothing but decrease the net potential of evil in the short run and when magic like Resurrection exists, is still a bad solution since they can just get up and go on another murderrampage.
C works, decreases the net potential of evil, increases the net potential of good, and the BBEG now likes being Good and views Evil with horror.
Now all your posts got me thinking a way of using two helmets as a redemption gimmick .
Take a LE people , make him CG and then just after makes him LE again . Then tell him , now you have seen what the other side really is . your choice to stay as you are or change .
That would still be extreme but I could see some of my good characters doing so.
As a general rule, I don't agree with your take on 'extreme' in regards to the helm, but in this instance, I think I do. It would be an extreme waste of time. We already know that a character whose alignment has been changed by the helm views a return to the old alignment with horror.
B works and does nothing but decrease the net potential of evil in the short run and when magic like Resurrection exists, is still a bad solution since they can just get up and go on another murderrampage.
Or, even if they don't, B results in an increase in the number of fiends in the long run, thus also increasing the net potential for evil in the long run.
Someone's already mentioned this, but the Alchemist class has this interesting discovery. It comes with the following note:
The effects of this infusion may have serious repercussions for a creature suddenly struggling with a new outlook. Many see it as little more than forced insanity, and some good faiths outlaw its use.
... which is very interesting. Some good faiths do outlaw its use... but others don't. Why is that?
Some (in fact, "many") see it as little more than forced insanity.
One of the other interesting things about this is... unlike the helm... it doesn't change the person's preferences, only its morals.
What's interesting about this is that it ultimately creates a forced pain in the person in question, while ultimately granting them free will again, later.
So... is this evil too? It's only utility is to turn people good. That's it. It can't be used to turn people evil. There is no way to do so.
Another question.
Is it wrong to kill someone? If so, why is it wrong to kill someone?
I certainly have my own answer to this*, but I'm curious about everyone else's. I tend to think that this will help us understand a lot of where people are coming from.
* I'll share later, or earlier if you want; also, I'm interested in being swayed if there are good arguments.
So if forcing an evil being to turn good with the helm is an evil act, does that mean that forcing a good being to turn evil with the helm is a good act?
I think useing one would be more CN than anything else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like if you find the helm's usage morally evil and are opposed to it because it strips away freedom then you should also be opposed to killing people (including evil people) because it's strips away their freedom, or even putting them away in jail for the same reason.
Where is the line and how do you define it?
Mind raping someone into becoming the opposite person isn't quite the same as putting them in prison with restricitons on what they can do. However, killing someone is equally as bad as chnaging who they are fundamentally.
If we can accept that killing evil beings is good, then we should also accept that magically changing evil beings to good beings is also good.
So if forcing an evil being to turn good with the helm is an evil act, does that mean that forcing a good being to turn evil with the helm is a good act?I think useing one would be more CN than anything else.
You know, I read this and it was funny, because I know what you meant, but I first read it as "the person with the helm uses it... on themself" so my immediate response was, "not for long!" followed by the hilarious mental image of someone going, "This is a GREAT idea!", putting on the helm and voluntarily failing its save, becoming lawful neutral and going, "Well that was stupid."
:)
EDIT: this has nothing to do with the current discussion, this was just a really amusing thought.
If we can accept that killing evil beings is good, then we should also accept that magically changing evil beings to good beings is also good.
That does not follow, even going just from the freedom argument. In a setting like Golarion where souls exist, death does not end one's agency (and anyway, resurrection magic is a thing). The helm of opposite alignment does remove agency.
The real question is whether forcing someone to use a cursed item is good ;-)
My DM does it all the time. Are you saying that he's evil???
What if the subject wasn't helpless? What if you used beguiling gift or something similar?
I suspect most govorments, LG or otherwise would probly suffer mass riots or even wholesale govorment collapse were it to get out that they had and were using a device that forced others to completely re-orient their outlook.
I think using it on beings that have i theory free will is morally reprehensible and really is no better than 're-education camps' or thought police.
On beings like Outsiders, Im not clear how evil it is. In theory they are as they are because of the stuff they are made of and had no choice in the matter. That said however, When i thught about it i think alot of the existing examples of Celestials changing sides (ie the archdevils erynies etc) i think alot of the did so by free choice.
|
|
That does not follow, even going just from the freedom argument. In a setting like Golarion where souls exist, death does not end one's agency (and anyway, resurrection magic is a thing). The helm of opposite alignment does remove agency.
I disagree. The Helmet does not remove one's agency. It is not as though the character using it becomes lobotomized and cannot think or take any actions. Rather, it dramatically shifts one's values and principles. A person is still able to act in accordance with his or her conscience, but that person's conscience has been radically altered to reflect their new alignment.
In fact, the RAW state:
" Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook. [...] 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."
It sounds like the character very much retains his/her sense of agency. They come to enjoy their new moral outlook and adopt it as their own, and in no way wish to be changed back. And they can still act in accordance to their (new) conscience, or lack thereof.
Now you could say that forced alignment conversion so fundamentally changes the character of a person that the act itself is evil because it erases and rewrites one's personality. That is fine. But I do not believe it eliminates the character's agency. It simply changes the fundamental beliefs, worldviews and moral outlooks of the affected character. Their agency is otherwise unaffected.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT 2: Huh, ninja'd.
If we can accept that killing evil beings is good, then we should also accept that magically changing evil beings to good beings is also good.That does not follow, even going just from the freedom argument. In a setting like Golarion where souls exist, death does not end one's agency (and anyway, resurrection magic is a thing). The helm of opposite alignment does remove agency.
As noted before, this is all about personal agency in a specific context. EDIT: (For clarity) Although they still have agency to act within their new alignment.
So are the preponderance of enchantment affects evil, too? What about Bestow Curse? What about Hold Person? What about Trap the Soul? What about Planar Binding (including lesser or greater varieties)? What about Diplomacy? What about Intimidate?
It also depends on how you interpret a Will save.
If a will save is a direct violation of someone, that's one thing.
If, on the other hand, you look at the will save as a feature of the person themselves, it could be quite different.
In other words, it depends on how you interpret the save. If the save is simply a failure on the part of the person making it - the exploitation of something within themselves, for example, that responds to the offer of magic, it actually is still a function of their personal agency - just a portion of themselves that they normally never permit, probably due to cultural or social pressure.
Of course, most people don't interpret things that way. And that's fine. I'm pretty sure that's not RAI and I'm not saying you should. I'm pointing out, however, that it can be chosen to be interpreted differently.
On that topic, though, Crusader, I'm pretty sure those who are against this whole thing would be against anything that forces a will save to make this happen.
I wonder, though, if that could be used with custom one-use atonement items of some sort. Could be interesting. (Obviously the compulsion wouldn't force them to accept the alignment change.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are really two dimensions here :
1) That you use the helm on someone
2) Which alignment that person is (and thus which alignment he ends up being)
People who argue that using the Helm can be Good are actually talking about the second part, while people who argue that it is always Evil are talking about the first part.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If one uses the Helm on a random person in the crowd (until it works its curse), is it Good ? Neutral ? Evil ?
You mean just forces the Helm of Opposite Alignment on some random passerby? That would be so incredibly reckless that if it were done with the knowledge of what could occur, I would consider it extremely evil.
I realize that the analogy does not necessarily hold, but to me, it is like shooting a gun randomly into a crowd of people on the off-chance that the person you hit might be a dangerous criminal.
I think it would be good to use it on a criminal who is about to be executed for his crimes. It would force him to comprehend the true extent of his crimes by making him emphathize with his victims and suffer terrible remorse. That seems just.
I don't think a forced alignment change to good is mind control. The individual retains free will but they are forced to see things from a different perspective. Their cold, uncaring, malevolent nature is stripped away, and they are blessed with the gifts of empathy and kindness.
This is more or less how I look at it as well. The potential of some to hate themselves (and do self-harm) after the fact is one reason why I state that Therapy of one sort or another is necessary. Therapy to help them come to terms with who they were and who they are.
Again, that's why my Kingmaker character who specializes in forced alignment change (although most usually after the characters are dead, and he doesn't use these helms as he has none) uses his Dream Helmets to create 24 years of experience, training, and so on within the memories of the creatures so-changed.
One other thing he often does is, when dealing with the worst criminal offenders who have no way to live differently, he often polymorphs them into merfolk and places them into a new society with completely different interactions and elements from the society they left behind. The better to start a new life.
And, again, it's interesting, because a lot of people take this form of forced alignment change as a method of ignoring the sanctity of life and will. I can see that.
However, to me, it is not about forcing something on someone whether they want it or not. That's not the angle that my people (some of whome have used this trick in the past) come from.
Instead it is:
1) Ending a threat to innocents
2) In such a way as to give even your foes a satisfying life (as hopefully not-your-foes)
3) For the betterment of all (including your foes)
4) By ensuring they will never again serve evil.
I disagree. The Helmet does not remove one's agency. It is not as though the character using it becomes lobotomized and cannot think or take any actions. Rather, it dramatically shifts one's values and principles. A person is still able to act in accordance with his or her conscience, but that person's conscience has been radically altered to reflect their new alignment.
Being able to choose one's own values and principles is a pretty big part of agency. Anyway, whence the connection between conscience and the alignment system? I don't see why alignment differences are due to conscience. Consider two people who both believe theft to be immoral. Person A doesn't engage in theft (because they think it is immoral). Person B does engage in theft (they think it is immoral, but don't care or that is overrode for whatever reason). These two people have the same conscience. Is their alignment the same?
So are the preponderance of enchantment affects evil, too?
Use of spells like dominate monster absolutely destroy agency. The same arguments that apply to the Helm would apply to these sorts of spells.
My point is that you cannot jump, as Claxon claimed, from "it's okay to kill X" to "it's okay to use a HoOA on X".
Suppose you're a paladin and you live in a Lawful Good society. Let's take it for granted that using the helm is an accepted practice for the rehabilitation of criminals.
Would you hesitate to use it on a LE aristocrat?
Would making him good offset the potential for destabilization of making him chaotic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Supposed to be an "EDIT:" but that doesn't work, now, for some reason, so...
To be more clear, it's done because, ultimately, it's literally and figuratively for their own good, although they might not recognize that before hand.
To put this in one context, my son is two and half. There are things he desperately wants and things he desperately hates. He demands often, throws things, and has temper tantrums. Because I care about my son, I often reject his sense of "agency" and prevent him from taking actions.
Now, the difference here is, of course, he's two. He doesn't "know any better" (though often times, I know he knows better, because I can see it in his clever little face; funny buddy) and, as the authority figure in his life, I must make those decisions to violate his agency for his good, and for everyone's good.
... and yet, that isn't such a difference after all in some cases.
If someone has been actively perpetrating evil, and I am tasked (for one reason or another) with the responsibility of stopping him, he is now my responsibility, and, due to the circumstance, he has become my responsibility.
My options include violating his agency or permitting him to do evil. I either violate his agency by killing him or violate his agency by correcting him.
Killing him is, of course, the most common solution in PF. This is a clear violation of his agency and will - unless it was some sort of strange suicide plot by a deranged individual, but I'd imagine that's extremely passingly rare.
Correcting him has a huge number of meanings and methods. We're discussing one of them.
Given that morality is objective in any given setting, I can know that an evil person will be a good person. Thus, even if I won't personally like the new ethical outlook of the other person, I can know they will be a good person. I find that within myself to be acceptable - it doesn't matter if we like each other, so long as we're both good people. (As noted above, if it became clear to me that I was evil, and, for some reason, I was against becoming good, I desperately want someone to put a helmet on me. I know that situation will never come up in real life, but if it does, put the helm on me until I'm good, no matter how much I protest, scream, or rail against you. Thanks, guys, I appreciate it!)
To me, it seems I'm going to be "violating their agency" one way or the other. One ends with them dead and likely becoming one or more fiends eventually in most all cases. The other ends with them being a good person, living a good life in most all cases. I know which of the two seems more benevolent, personally.
I disagree. The Helmet does not remove one's agency. It is not as though the character using it becomes lobotomized and cannot think or take any actions. Rather, it dramatically shifts one's values and principles. A person is still able to act in accordance with his or her conscience, but that person's conscience has been radically altered to reflect their new alignment.Being able to choose one's own values and principles is a pretty big part of agency. Anyway, whence the connection between conscience and the alignment system? I don't see why alignment differences are due to conscience. Consider two people who both believe theft to be immoral. Person A doesn't engage in theft (because they think it is immoral). Person B does engage in theft (they think it is immoral, but don't care or that is overrode for whatever reason). These two people have the same conscience. Is their alignment the same?
They do not have the same conscience.
One has a conscience.The other has an insanity and a similar definition to the first one's conscience.
So are the preponderance of enchantment affects evil, too?Use of spells like dominate monster absolutely destroy agency. The same arguments that apply to the Helm would apply to these sorts of spells.
So... are they evil?
My point is that you cannot jump, as Claxon claimed, from "it's okay to kill X" to "it's okay to use a HoOA on X".
To be clear:
- You would prefer to kill helpless foes to altering their alignment?- You would prefer to damn someone to an eternity than altering their mortal life?
EDIT: tag fix
The real question is whether forcing someone to use a cursed item is good ;-)
That's not the question at all.
Chaotic Good
My soul is good, but free. Laws have no conscience. Blind order promotes disorder. Goodness cannot be learned just from a book of prayer. Compassion does not wear a uniform. The smallest act of kindness is never wasted. Repay kindness with kindness. Be kind to someone in trouble—it may be you who needs kindness the next day.Core Concepts: Benevolence, charity, freedom, joy, kindness, mercy, warmth
A chaotic good character cherishes freedom and the right to make her own way. She might have her own ethics and philosophy, but is not rigidly held by them. She may try to do good each day, perhaps being kind to a stranger or giving money to those less fortunate, but does so purely out of joy. Such a character makes up her own mind up about what is good and right based upon truth and facts, but does not fool herself that evil acts are good. Her goodness is benevolent—perhaps occasionally blind, but always well meant.
A chaotic good character can seem unpredictable, giving alms to an unfortunate outside a church but refusing to make a donation within. She trusts her instincts and could put more stock in the words of a beggar with kind eyes than the teachings of a harsh-looking bishop. She might rob from the rich and give to the poor, or spend lavishly for her own joy and that of her friends. In extreme cases, a chaotic good character may seem reckless in her benevolence.
Chaotic Neutral
A rolling stone gathers no moss. There is only today. Be like the wind and be taken wherever fate sees fit. He who fights fate courts folly. You only live once. Power to those who do not wish for power. Avoid anything in a uniform. Challenge the old orders.Core Concepts: Capriciousness, fate, freedom, individuality, liberty, self-possession, unpredictability
A chaotic neutral character values his own freedom and ability to make choices. He avoids authority and does not fear standing out or appearing different. In extreme cases, he may embrace a lifestyle entirely suited to himself—living in a cave near a city, becoming an artist, or otherwise challenging traditions. He never accepts anything at face value and makes up his own mind rather than blindly accepting what others tell him to do or think.
The strong rejection of this seems pretty clearly chaos. This is not evil. This is not even wrong. No one should necessarily love this as the "best" idea. But from the objective standards in PF, it seems that it's clearly not evil.
|
|
Suppose you're a paladin and you live in a Lawful Good society. Let's take it for granted that using the helm is an accepted practice for the rehabilitation of criminals.
Would you hesitate to use it on a LE aristocrat?
Would making him good offset the potential for destabilization of making him chaotic?
The right question here is "Is the LE aristocrat a criminal ?".
Evil does not necessarily imply criminal. Even in a LG society. Unless said society is the birthplace of the "Ping Evil = Kill" pseudo-Paladins obviously.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect most govorments, LG or otherwise would probly suffer mass riots or even wholesale govorment collapse were it to get out that they had and were using a device that forced others to completely re-orient their outlook.
Do you really?
As someone else has mentioned... the Helm is not a lobotomy.
HOWEVER... Lobotomies HAVE been used on violent psychologically dangerous people before. And riots haven't been a problem. Electroshock.. drug therepy.. there are lots of things that 'alter your mindset' that have been popular through history.
Pedophiles, rapists, serial killers... I don't think the general public would really care HOW these people were rehabilitated s much as the fact that they are no longer a threat to their loved ones.
Again, its a matter of abuse. Are they using the helm as way of dealing with the worst society has to offer... or are they hitting everyone who jaywalked or muttered an angry insult at the leaders...
What's the different between 'Hat of make person good' and 'pills that supress homicidal tendencies?'