The real question is whether forcing someone to use a cursed item is good ;-)That's not the question at all.Actually, I feel that it is a very interesting and blatantly ignored part of the question :-)))
YMMV
Meh. All Cursed means is that it is was a magical mistake. Cursed Items can be used themselves for any number of purposes.
The other has an insanity
I think you are using a personal, idiosyncratic definition of "insanity" here. At least, I'm unaware of any common usage of "insane" to mean "does things one believes are immoral".
So... are they evil?
I'm purposefully avoiding talking about what the alignment system says, so I'm not going to answer that.
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?
As I've already pointed out, in Golarion and similar settings, killing someone doesn't end their existence. Additionally, death is not permanent.
As for damnation, that's setting specific. My understanding of Golarion is that the Christian notion of salvation/damnation is not present. LE souls go to hell, but that's not damnation. The afterlife isn't a mechanism of reward/punishment for one's mortal actions. Hence, the question doesn't make sense to ask on Golarion (or settings with a similar afterlife). If your setting has a more Christian notion of the afterlife, then I still don't think you can jump from "it's okay to kill X" to "it's okay to use a HoOA on X". I'm far from an expert in Christian theology, but my understanding is that there is a resolution to your question. If removing agency was preferable to damnation, then God would have done so: no one would have agency and no one would go to hell.
I've stated this before, but it bears repeating:
I don't believe the helm grants salvation (or in its contrary use, damnation) simply by a failed save. In d20 alignment system, I understand why their might be a difficult distinction here. But, you don't stop being a criminal, or adherent to an evil deity, just because the helm was placed on your head.
Now, you may reevaluate those beliefs and behaviors and make changes...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to choose one's own values and principles is a pretty big part of agency.
Let us say that, for the sake of argument, I were to grant that the Helm of Opposite Alignment does diminish a person's agency to some degree.
Why do you think that it is an evil act to strip an evil person of their agency and desire to commit atrocities?
The other has an insanityI think you are using a personal, idiosyncratic definition of "insanity" here. At least, I'm unaware of any common usage of "insane" to mean "does things one believes are immoral".
So... are they evil?I'm purposefully avoiding talking about what the alignment system says, so I'm not going to answer that.
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?As I've already pointed out, in Golarion and similar settings, killing someone doesn't end their existence. Additionally, death is not permanent.
As for damnation, that's setting specific. My understanding of Golarion is that the Christian notion of salvation/damnation is not present. LE souls go to hell, but that's not damnation. The afterlife isn't a mechanism of reward/punishment for one's mortal actions. Hence, the question doesn't make sense to ask on Golarion (or settings with a similar afterlife). If your setting has a more Christian notion of the afterlife, then I still don't think you can jump from "it's okay to kill X" to "it's okay to use a HoOA on X". I'm far from an expert in Christian theology, but my understanding is that there is a resolution to your question. If removing agency was preferable to damnation, then God would have done so: no one would have agency and no one would go to hell.
Why is removing agency any worse than ending one's life? For a commoner they're practically equivalent. Sure someone can be revived from the dead, someone can also have the change caused by the helm removed as well. Now depending on the manner of death it may require significantly higher level magic to reverse the helm's curse than revive an individual, but is the effort necessary to reverse the act the point at which we decide that there is a defining difference.
Also of note, IIRC, is that when you die your soul moves to the plane appropriate for you alignment. After some time (not clearly defined) your soul (your "you-ness") begins to alter and change and become an outsider of the approrpiate type where in you lose most of who you are. So killing someone is condemning them to a cruel journey to lose themselves.
Why do you think that it is an evil act to strip an evil person of their agency and desire to commit atrocities?
I haven't said anywhere in this thread whether or not I think anything is an evil act. The only thing I've said is that it being justified to kill someone doesn't imply that it's justified to use a HoOA on them.
Why is removing agency any worse than ending one's life?
Where did I claim that these things are ordered like that? I don't recall claiming anywhere that removing agency is worse than killing. The only thing I've said is that it being justified to kill someone doesn't imply that it's justified to use a HoOA on them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is removing agency any worse than ending one's life? For a commoner they're practically equivalent.
The problem here is that you're conflating "mechanically" with "morally". Even though Pathfinder utilizes morality in a mechanical manner, these are not the same thing (even within this system).
Why is removing agency any worse than ending one's life?Where did I claim that these things are ordered like that? I don't recall claiming anywhere that removing agency is worse than killing. The only thing I've said is that it being justified to kill someone doesn't imply that it's justified to use a HoOA on them.
Why not?
I'm approaching this from the normal approach to this game which is "Kill stuff and get cool loot." Generally it is accepted that good or neutral characters travel around killing evil beings and taking their stuff. And that's good. That's what good does on a daily basis.
What separates killing evil from forcing evil to do an about face to good? Before we can say using the HoOA is evil you have to explain how it's usage on evil people is fundamentally different from killing them.
In general terms - killing evil people is good because it removes evil from the world.
Turning evil people into good people is even more good because not only does it remove evil from the world, it creates good in the world.
Good and evil are defined by the gods, they create the moral fabric of Golarion. Just as in the same way our real world religions and socities have shaped what is morally acceptable to us.
What separates killing evil from forcing evil to do an about face to good? Before we can say using the HoOA is evil you have to explain how it's usage on evil people is fundamentally different from killing them.
Killing people doesn't violate self-determination in the way that the HoOA does. If you kill someone, they're dead, but you haven't forced them to change who they are, to change their values and principles. This is the fundamental difference between them. In general, it being justified to kill someone doesn't imply that other usually prohibited acts against them are also justified. For example, it being justified for you to kill someone doesn't imply that it's justified for you to torture them.
Anyway, once again, I'm not saying anything about the alignment system. What I am saying is that you cannot jump from "it's okay to kill X" to "it's okay to use a HoOA on X".
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you think that it is an evil act to strip an evil person of their agency and desire to commit atrocities?I haven't said anywhere in this thread whether or not I think anything is an evil act. The only thing I've said is that it being justified to kill someone doesn't imply that it's justified to use a HoOA on them.
Ah, I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from. So is your only problem, then, the removal of agency?
At what point would you justify killing someone?
At what point would you justify using the helm?
Where do these intersect?
EDIT: smoother flow, eliminate redundancy, and because the conversation left me behind by a few posts. I really talk way too much. :)
Killing people doesn't violate self-determination in the way that the HoOA does. If you kill someone, they're dead, but you haven't forced them to change who they are, to change their values and principles. This is the fundamental difference between them. In general, it being justified to kill someone doesn't imply that other usually prohibited acts against them are also justified. For example, it being justified for you to kill someone doesn't imply that it's justified for you to torture them.
Let's examine this from PF's official stuff. Hell, the Abyss, and Abaddon.
Worthy of note,
It is not willful and random like the torments of the Abyss, or purely sadistic and spiteful like that of Abaddon. Evil and obedience here are honed to a razor's edge in service to a greater purpose: that of bending the will of souls, and the very architecture of creation itself to the greater glory of the lord Asmodeus and his perfect order.
<snip>
Unlike nearly every other plane in the multiverse, Hell was populated and deigned by Asmodeus himself, all for the purpose of torment and purification. According to draconic lore, Hell was ravaged by Dahak during the early days of the Age of Creation, making it a place of suffering and fire.
and
These damned souls (known as petitioners) appear at random locations throughout the plane, all freshly sent from the Boneyard.
(found here)
Then,
There is no direction, no meaning, and no safe place in the Abyss - a being wandering in from another plane could easily be totally vanished when a rift closes.
Dretch are the most numerous kind of demon with a single damned soul being able to spawn dozens and dozens of the horrid creatures, as such they can be found on almost every layer of the Abyss.
And
Abaddon (pronounced AH-bah-don)[1] is the desolate home plane of the daemons. A wasteland of infinite and apocalyptic proportions, permanently eclipsed, it is home to the daemonic citadels of the Four Horsemen.
And, of course, petitioners tell us,
Abaddon (Neutral Evil): The “hunted” have bodies that are identical to what they had in life—these petitioners are doomed to be stalked and eventually consumed by the daemons that lust for souls. A hunted that survives long enough eventually warps and twists into a daemon. The hunted gain DR 5/— and fast healing 1 so that they provide a slightly more robust hunt for their daemonic predators.
And
Abyss (Chaotic Evil): “Larvae” are perhaps the most hideous of petitioners—they appear as pallid, maggot-like Creatures with heads similar to those they possessed in life. Larvae that feed long enough on Abyssal filth eventually transform into demons. They have cold, electricity, and fire resistance 10, and instead of a slam attack gain a bite attack as appropriate for their size.
And
Hell (Lawful Evil): The “damned” retain their mortal forms, but are heavily scarred by various tortures. Those who endure the torments of Hell long enough may eventually be approved for transformation into devils. The damned gain immunity to fire (but not immunity to the pain caused by fire—whenever one of the damned takes fire damage, it must make a DC 15 Fortitude save to resist being stunned by the pain for 1d4 rounds).
And, of course, there's
Creatures who die, become petitioners, and then return to life retain no memories of the time they spent as petitioners in the afterlife.
Memory wipe...
A petitioner who dies is gone forever—its “life force” has either returned to the Positive Energy Plane or, in some cases, provided the energy to trigger the creation of another outsider.
... or literally destroying them or replacing them with another creature. Okay.
(EDIT: literal, as opposed to the figurative, as everyone else is talking about with the helm)Not really much in terms of personal agency of the individual, so far. But those are only those who died and were raised, or those who died and then were killed. The other evil petitioners are mostly covered above (becoming evil outsiders), but then there's...
Petitioners who please a deity or another powerful outsider can be granted rewards—the most common such reward manifests as a transformation into a different outsider, such as an archon, azata, demon, or devil, depending upon the petitioner’s alignment.
... which could be nice, though I somewhat shudder to contemplate what "pleasing" evil deities or other powerful outsiders would be like. Also, this is certainly not common, given the descriptions of petitioners above that, but it's nice to know that's a possibility.
In rare cases, a creature can retain its personality from life all the way through its existence as a petitioner and into its third “life” as an outsider, although such events are rare indeed.
... but it looks like most of the time that completely eliminates any shred of the person they were before anyway, far more than the helm does, so...
... which one violates agency more? Regardless of how you look at it, dying while evil is a very bad deal. Only the occasional, rare individual isn't completely remade into something else without a life of torture, and only the rarest of those ever keep their own mind.
Not really seeing the kindness or respect of their agency of just killing them. And if they are killed, but later resurrected... that just puts you back to square one, unless they change alignment... but they were killed because they didn't want to change alignment, and they can't recall how awful their afterlife was. So...
EDIT: one of the interesting things is that the Petitioner part is hard-coded into the PF rules, not just Golarion setting. While you're fully able to ignore or re-fluff anything, it's just an interesting and worthwhile note to make.
Why is removing agency any worse than ending one's life? For a commoner they're practically equivalent.The problem here is that you're conflating "mechanically" with "morally". Even though Pathfinder utilizes morality in a mechanical manner, these are not the same thing (even within this system).
This is an interesting point. I'm curious where you'd pinpoint the difference being, if you can say.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Super good stuff
Damn Tacticslion.
You play hardball.
EDIT: I think we've confirmed that the afterlife sucks.
Super good stuffDamn Tacticslion.
You play hardball.
EDIT: I think we've confirmed that the afterlife sucks.
Hah! Thanks. Slowball, apparently, but I'm glad it's hardball. :)
(I kind of am shaped like a tortoise, actually. Hah! Both my avatar and my me, though in very different ways. Hm...)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Azharak the Burning Lord had been a good man once. He remembered it clearly. Millennia ago, he had been a crusader for the forces of good, fighting the very creatures he now ruled. He was a bastion of purity and valour, striking down evil and uplifting the weak. He even recalled showing mercy to those villains he thought could be swayed from evil.
But that all changed when a demon managed to put that misbegotten helmet on his head.
In that instant, he was forever changed. His body burned with anguish as his saintly powers left him; it was not the anguish of their loss, but the anguish that he had them at all. He hated what he had been. He loved destruction, pain, misery and torture of all he saw. He reveled in evil in to such extraordinary degrees that a new power filled him, one even greater than his former virtue had allowed.
His reign of terror was brutal, unforgiving, until a young champion took his head.
He awoke in the abyss, a crawling, seething thing of nightmares. His vile heart drove him upward, sacrificing those gullible others of his abyssal kind he could gather in order to advance his own apotheosis. Many times he breached the material plane, leading demonic invasions of the very kind he had once fought to stop. Each time he returned in a new form, with greater power and redoubled evil will.
Azharak became a lord in the Abyss, a figure of unassailable unholy might. And yet, in that time of triumph, something nagged at him. There was no reason for this. He enjoyed evil, but he could find no reason why he did. The Burning Lord's thoughts turned back to that day when the helm was placed on his head. It had given him these desires.
If such a little thing could have made him a lord of demons, what was he? A cosmic joke? A false king? The thought boiled in his mind. He had once been a paragon of good, and might be again by no choice of his own.
The Burning Lord knew fear.
That... is... EPIC.
:D
[snip]
I was wrong. Golarion's hell is closer to Christian conceptions of hell than I thought. That's actually disappointing.
But anyway, I don't think you defeat my overall point. Similar things happen to good or neutral souls:
The “chosen” have idealized versions of their mortal bodies. In time, after experiencing the pleasures Elysium has to offer, the chosen become azatas...
The “elect” appear similar to their mortal forms, save that they possess a golden halo and feathered wings. After spending enough time aiding heavenly tasks, the elect become archons...
The “shapeless“ retain their basic forms, but these forms constantly waver and shimmer, as if they were ghosts in peril of dissolving away. After wallowing in the chaos of Limbo for long enough, they can transform into proteans...
The “cleansed” take on the forms of animals that closely approximate their personalities. Upon achieving true enlightenment, they transform into agathions...
The “dead” appear as animated skeletons but are not Undead—in time, they can earn the right to become aeons.
The ultimate end of every soul on Golarion is to be recycled into an outsider. Dying as CG instead of LE doesn't change that. The evil-aligned planes are described as being awful places for their inhabitants, but that doesn't change the fundamental point. There's still the issue of self-determination. Let me slightly tweak what my claim: it being okay to kill someone (and hence send their soul to be tortured for an indeterminate period of time) does not imply it's okay to put a HoOA on them.
On another note, the architect of this system of sending souls around to be transformed into outsiders is Pharasma. She's the one who sends evil souls to hell, abaddon and the abyss. So if you're truly concerned about the soul of the anti-paladin on whom you are trying to place a HoOA, you really should be questing to kill Pharasma :)
|
|
@Vivianne Laflamme
You are correct. It does not necessarily follow that just because one may be morally justified in killing an evil person means that it is morally justified for one to torture or visit any and every other conceivable form of punishment on an evil person.
But I was curious, do you have an opinion on the use of the Helmet of Opposite Alignment as presented by the OP?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[snip]I was wrong. Golarion's hell is closer to Christian conceptions of hell than I thought. That's actually disappointing.
But anyway, I don't think you defeat my overall point. Similar things happen to good or neutral souls:
The ultimate end of every soul on Golarion is to be recycled into an outsider. Dying as CG instead of LE doesn't change that. The evil-aligned planes are described as being awful places for their inhabitants, but that doesn't change the fundamental point. There's still the issue of self-determination. Let me slightly tweak what my claim: it being okay to kill someone (and hence send their soul to be tortured for an indeterminate period of time) does not imply it's okay to put a HoOA on them.The “chosen” have idealized versions of their mortal bodies. In time, after experiencing the pleasures Elysium has to offer, the chosen become azatas...
The “elect” appear similar to their mortal forms, save that they possess a golden halo and feathered wings. After spending enough time aiding heavenly tasks, the elect become archons...
The “shapeless“ retain their basic forms, but these forms constantly waver and shimmer, as if they were ghosts in peril of dissolving away. After wallowing in the chaos of Limbo for long enough, they can transform into proteans...
The “cleansed” take on the forms of animals that closely approximate their personalities. Upon achieving true enlightenment, they transform into agathions...
The “dead” appear as animated skeletons but are not Undead—in time, they can earn the right to become aeons.
I... what? Where did I say those who died in non-evil didn't get changed? That's besides the point. The point is: they die and are either tormented until obliteration or tormented until transformation into a new (set of) creature(s). Either way, there's a lot of torment.
You mistake my point. Killing someone is violating their agency, one way or the other, and, with extremely few exceptions, eventually eliminating them from existence and replacing them, literally, with a new creature.
The helm does not do this. It leaves the person intact but with a reversed moral/ethical outlook, then sets them free from that point on.
Let me ask you something. If, say, a miser who hated everyone (but did nothing wrong) was suddenly charmed (like, say, by a charm spell) and had exactly one friend, and thus learned to actively enjoy his life more, is that the wrong thing to do?
You certainly violated his agency in your way of thinking. He hated his life and everyone else. Suddenly he doesn't hate and he's happier. Otherwise he's the same.
On another note, the architect of this system of sending souls around to be transformed into outsiders is Pharasma. She's the one who sends evil souls to hell, abaddon and the abyss. So if you're truly concerned about the soul of the anti-paladin on whom you are trying to place a HoOA, you really should be questing to kill Pharasma :)
I think you have this backward. I'm questing to stop the evil monsters who are currently destroying people.
They have earned their torment.
Me not sending them to that torment is, ultimately, a mercy - undeserved, unearned, but a good and kind thing to do anyway (presuming I can stop their evil).
Pharasma is not even made evil by this. They've earned their place, and what is she really going to do with all those evil souls anyway? Feed 'em to Groteus, I guess, which does who knows what with them, though it keeps the universe around for a bit longer.
But besides, it's clear that Pharasma isn't the archetect. Asmodeus was the one that designed Hell from the beginning - no one else. The Abyss existed before the gods took notice of anything, as did the Maelstrom.
Pharsama is mostly just the judge and facilitator. The "let God sort 'em out" of the "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" phrase belongs to Pharasma. She is not responsible for what they did in their life, nor for what the gods of the various realms they go to. She simply sends people where they belong. I bear her no ill will on that score.
Sounds like a perfectly neutral thing, to me. Reasonable, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I was curious, do you have an opinion on the use of the Helmet of Opposite Alignment as presented by the OP?
Yes. The scenario in the OP is pretty obviously immoral. I pretty much agree with Mikaze's reasoning (though I wouldn't use the word evil, since that threatens to invoke the alignment system).
The helm does not do this. It leaves the person intact but with a reversed moral/ethical outlook, then sets them free from that point on.
Until they die and are replaced with literally a new creature. That's the end result for everyone (barring liches and anyone who manages to snag immortality). Hence, the fact that it happens to evil people isn't really relevant.
They have earned their torment.
Then I don't see the point of what you said earlier. If they earned their torment (and hence Pharasma is okay to send them off to that torment), then you cannot use avoiding said torment as an argument for putting the HoOA on their head. But anyway, adding any amount of suffering to killing the person doesn't change my point: you cannot jump from "it's okay to kill X (and also inflict a lot of suffering them)" to "it's okay to put a HoOA on X".
But I was curious, do you have an opinion on the use of the Helmet of Opposite Alignment as presented by the OP?Yes. The scenario in the OP is pretty obviously immoral. I pretty much agree with Mikaze's reasoning (though I wouldn't use the word evil, since that threatens to invoke the alignment system).
The helm does not do this. It leaves the person intact but with a reversed moral/ethical outlook, then sets them free from that point on.Until they die and are replaced with literally a new creature. That's the end result for everyone (barring liches and anyone who manages to snag immortality). Hence, the fact that it happens to evil people isn't really relevant.
They have earned their torment.Then I don't see the point of what you said earlier. If they earned their torment (and hence Pharasma is okay to send them off to that torment), then you cannot use avoiding said torment as an argument for putting the HoOA on their head. But anyway, adding any amount of suffering to killing the person doesn't change my point: you cannot jump from "it's okay to kill X (and also inflict a lot of suffering them)" to "it's okay to put a HoOA on X".
I agree with much of this, and Mikaze's commentary as well. Adding on to that, it almost comes across as metagaming to me, the sort of things players would do to get around things. That alone would put me off it; the moral and ethical implications push it into something that I could not in good conscience consider 'good'. Just? Possibly. But not good.
They have earned their torment.Then I don't see the point of what you said earlier. If they earned their torment (and hence Pharasma is okay to send them off to that torment), then you cannot use avoiding said torment as an argument for putting the HoOA on their head. But anyway, adding any amount of suffering to killing the person doesn't change my point: you cannot jump from "it's okay to kill X (and also inflict a lot of suffering them)" to "it's okay to put a HoOA on X".
Do you read anything about mercy at all? No? Just skipped that part?
Or do you just disagree with the concept of mercy applied to those who have earned punishment?
Because, frankly, mercy is one of the major tenets of all good things. Showing it is unnecessary, but is, by definition, good.
The only way you could come to the conclusion that it is better to definitely send them to torment, is if you do not permit the concept of mercy as a good thing.
I definitely do not agree with that. That seems cruel and selfish. If I have the ability to grant mercy and stop their evil, it is better to do so.
But anyway, adding any amount of suffering to killing the person doesn't change my point: you cannot jump from "it's okay to kill X (and also inflict a lot of suffering them)" to "it's okay to put a HoOA on X".
So (please tell me if I'm wrong), in your mind, is it better
a) to kill someone (denying their agency) and send them to a lot of suffering (denying them agency and causing suffering)b) rather than to allow them to continue living, by denying their agency in one aspect (an agency that has been used to perpetrate evil), but then allowing them to utilize their agency in a different context (to spread over-all good) and, possibly, changing their eternal destination?
All that, and my earlier questions go unanswered.
1) when is it justifiable to kill someone?
2) when is it justifiable to place the Helm on someone?
3) is there ever a point where those things intersect?
("Never" is a possible answer to these, by the way, though, obviously, I would disagree with such an answer in both cases.)
One of the problems with this discussion is you're avoiding putting things in moral terms - which is fine - but the thread itself is based around a question of morality.
In Pathfinder morality, there can be no wrong in this, unless there's a piece of information we're seriously missing (the "does more harm than good" kind of information).
Ethically, we have opposed sides: the lawful communal and general "greater good" type side opposing the chaotic individualistic and "free will" type side.
(Though there are ways of looking at the "lawful/greater good" arguments as still enabling free will - insomuch as will is ever free - and very personal/individual good, as well as ways of looking at the "chaos/individualistic" side as better for the community as a whole.)
In the real world, where we don't have effects that definitively tell us if someone is definitively good right now, then, of course, we can't utilize something like this. Added to that, we don't have effects that allow us to call up God or His angels and get direct divine answers to every question we have instantly about morality and alignment. We also don't have the ability to literally visit the afterlife to take a look for ourselves. There will always be the question.
In Pathfinder world, however, there is no question - a Detect Evil (plus a few abjurations to negate abjurations and illusions) and a Phylactery of Faithfulness means that you can be definitively sure of yourself and your actions and where they sit on the morality side. It's not that hard to discover these things.
|
|
But I was curious, do you have an opinion on the use of the Helmet of Opposite Alignment as presented by the OP?Yes. The scenario in the OP is pretty obviously immoral. I pretty much agree with Mikaze's reasoning (though I wouldn't use the word evil, since that threatens to invoke the alignment system).
Neither would I, but I would have to ask:
If you would not call it "evil," what exactly do you find immoral about using a Helmet of Opposite Alignment to turn a clearly evil and destructive person into a good and decent person?
the moral and ethical implications push it into something that I could not in good conscience consider 'good.'
What exactly do you believe those moral and ethical are?
This is an interesting point. I'm curious where you'd pinpoint the difference being, if you can say.
This is a bit difficult, as it seems that Paizo has made quite an effort into making morality a mechanical concept (this may be an artifact of D&D in general). However, I believe that the primary difference lies in intent. That is, if an action itself is evil, one can use mechanics to represent this quite easily. The most obvious way this can be done is by adding the "evil" descriptor to a spell. This makes the difference between a good act and an evil act into a mechanical one.
On the other hand, intent is difficult to cache out mechanically. For example, killing an evil character can be either a good or evil thing dependent upon intent. One may classify killing evil character in order to end a lifetime of tyranny that has gripped the land as a good thing. Killing the same character because it's fun, or because the killer is a genocidal maniac, would probably be classified as an evil thing. I don't believe that there's a mechanical way to distinguish between these two.
The only issue with this is that it requires intent to figure in on morality, but arguing for such a thing is probably outside the scope of this thread. The example given also depends on whether or not one can even classify killing as a good thing, but that seems to be less of an issue as one could probably find a more appropriate example.
Edit: I added in the sentence "I don't believe that there's a mechanical way to distinguish between these two." In the second paragraph.
the moral and ethical implications push it into something that I could not in good conscience consider 'good.'What moral and ethical implications are those?
I'll requote Mikaze here because it says pretty much what I think about it:
Using it repeatedly on someone just to read magical results is a horrific form of psychological and spiritual torture, violating this unconsenting being's soul, forcibly changing their nature over and over with little concern for the person they are or the person they momentarily become.
It isn't a good thing to torture people. It's the sort of thing that is popular with "dark heroes" ala Wolverine, Liam Neeson in Taken, Jack Bauer in 24 and so on -- that said, it isn't good. It's that lovely shade of gray that is very popular.
And all that aside, the OP's description of what the wizard was going to do is so over the top metagaming that it just makes me shake my head. It falls into the "if I cast this and this, I get infinite money" sort of stuff that I just stare at players about and move on with the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you would not call it "evil," what exactly do you find immoral about using a Helmet of Opposite Alignment to turn an evil person into a good person?
My contention with the word "evil" is that in the context of Pathfinder, if you say something is evil, it can be ambiguous whether you mean evil in the moral sense or the alignment sense. I'm trying to avoid that ambiguity.
@Tacticslion: To answer your questions:
Barring convoluted and implausible scenarios, b. I will note that "denying their agency in one aspect" is a pretty euphemistic way to say "completely rewriting their values and principles against their consent".
1. Giving a full answer of this is a lot of work. It should suffice to say sometimes.
2. Barring convoluted and implausible scenarios, never.
3. No. The intersection of the empty set with anything is empty.
In response, let me ask you a question. Imagine you are roleplaying a LE character. Of course, this isn't a one dimensional "I'm evil lol" character. This character has goals, motivations, desires, etc. They're a fully-fleshed out character who just so happens to be lawful evil. This character is captured after a botched encounter and the paladin who captured him forcibly puts a helm of opposite alignment on this character until it sticks. Your character is forcibly turned CG. My question is: how do you roleplay your character now? How do you roleplay someone who has had their values forcibly and suddenly changed like this? What this character was thought was the right course of action yesterday now fills them with disgust. The sorts of things they were doing yesterday they know condemn as evil and are staunchly opposed to. How do you roleplay how your character deals with the fallout of this? What do you think this does to your character? How does this affect their sense of self?
Let's go further. Say your character knows all about the helm of opposite alignment (maybe the paladin told them). They know that in addition to changing your alignment, it forces you to not want to change back. So this character doesn't want to change back, but they know the only reason they don't want to change back is because of the helm that was forcibly put on their head. They know this and still, they don't want to change back. They are aware of how the helm has stolen their self-determination from them. Yet they are incapable of resisting it. They are made powerless in their own mind.
In response, let me ask you a question. Imagine you are roleplaying a LE character. Of course, this isn't a one dimensional "I'm evil lol" character. This character has goals, motivations, desires, etc. They're a fully-fleshed out character who just so happens to be lawful evil. This character is captured after a botched encounter and the paladin who captured him forcibly puts a helm of opposite alignment on this character until it sticks. Your character is forcibly turned CG. My question is: how do you roleplay your character now? How do you roleplay someone who has had their values forcibly and suddenly changed like this? What this character was thought was the right course of action yesterday now fills them with disgust. The sorts of things they were doing yesterday they know condemn as evil and are staunchly opposed to. How do you roleplay how your character deals with the fallout of this? What do you think this does to your character? How does this affect their sense of self?
Honestly, your KIND of describing a pretty good Ebenezer scrooge turnabout. I would play such a character as hating the mean selfish fool that I was, and try to make amends for all the injustices I had done back when I was... that... 'other' guy.
I would be generally guilty of the person I was, and embrace the new me realizing all my old values were skewed and twisted and nobody in their RIGHT mind would have been happy doing what I did...
Whether it was 3 ghosts that convinced me of that or the dude with the magic helmet, I would probably hug them, thank them profusely and go dancing down the street...
possibly breaking into a musical number ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, your KIND of describing a pretty good Ebenezer scrooge turnabout. I would play such a character as hating the mean selfish fool that I was, and try to make amends for all the injustices I had done back when I was... that... 'other' guy.
I would be generally guilty of the person I was, and embrace the new me realizing all my old values were skewed and twisted and nobody in their RIGHT mind would have been happy doing what I did...
Whether it was 3 ghosts that convinced me of that or the dude with the magic helmet, I would probably hug them, thank them profusely and go dancing down the street...
possibly breaking into a musical number ;)
Honestly, that's what I got out of that scenario at all. My interpretation of the "Ebenezer scrooge turnabout" was that it was voluntary, while the change in Vivianne Laflamme's example certainly is not. This seems to be the key here, the fact that the change was forced. I certainly would not thank someone for popping such a helm on me, let alone hug them. In fact, I believe my natural reaction would be sheer horror at the fact that my free will and ability to determine my own actions could be taken away so easily (especially now that I'm chaotic good).
3. No. The intersection of the empty set with anything is empty.
Please tell this to my students, they seem to not understand this concept.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In response, let me ask you a question. Imagine you are roleplaying a LE character. Of course, this isn't a one dimensional "I'm evil lol" character. This character has goals, motivations, desires, etc. They're a fully-fleshed out character who just so happens to be lawful evil. This character is captured after a botched encounter and the paladin who captured him forcibly puts a helm of opposite alignment on this character until it sticks. Your character is forcibly turned CG. My question is: how do you roleplay your character now? How do you roleplay someone who has had their values forcibly and suddenly changed like this? What this character was thought was the right course of action yesterday now fills them with disgust. The sorts of things they were doing yesterday they know condemn as evil and are staunchly opposed to. How do you roleplay how your character deals with the fallout of this? What do you think this does to your character? How does this affect their sense of self?
I know that this was addressed to Tacticslion, but I'd like to take a stab at this:
I personally would LOVE this as a role-playing opportunity. Were I to play an introspective character, he would realize that this was simply a conversion, not a true walk on the road to redemption. As such, he would do everything in his power to make sure that his new moral and life is as genuine as possible. Personally, if given the opportunity, I would go on a soul-searching quest to try and make up for all the horrible things that I did in my past.
Let's go further. Say your character knows all about the helm of opposite alignment (maybe the paladin told them). They know that in addition to changing your alignment, it forces you to not want to change back. So this character doesn't want to change back, but they know the only reason they don't want to change back is because of the helm that was forcibly put on their head. They know this and still, they don't want to change back. They are aware of how the helm has stolen their self-determination from them. Yet they are incapable of resisting it. They are made powerless in their own mind.
My character would shrug and say "You know what? That's fine. I love the new me. I like being kind and helping people for its own sake, without have to care for cruelly-enforced order and discipline. I love seeing the smiles of good men, women and children who are gladdened by my presence. I am free to love, to help, to share, to be kind and generous.
I now understand the value of decency and freedom, where I was so blinded by hatred and zealotry before. Don't you see? The helmet does not "forbid me" from going back to my old ways. I do not WANT to go back. And perhaps that is just that helmet talking. Maybe it is. But the happiness and joy I feel is REAL. It's the most real thing that I have ever felt. It's the most real thing I have. I will not go back to the misery and emptiness I felt before. It was that misery and emptiness that drove me to cruelty and atrocity."
And I would tell people who I affected "Please know, if I ever change back to the way I was...if some horrible calamity or act of the cruel gods turns me back into the monster that I was, please know that I am sorry. That I am so, so sorry. But do not show that monster one single shred of mercy. He doesn't deserve it."
I personally would LOVE this as a role-playing opportunity. Were I to play an introspective character, he would realize that this was simply a conversion, not a true walk on the road to redemption. As such, he would do everything in his power to make sure that his new moral and life is as genuine as possible. Personally, if given the opportunity, I would go on a soul-searching quest to try and make up for all the horrible things that I did in my past.
...
My character would shrug and say "You know what? That's fine. I love the new me. I like being kind and helping people for its own sake, without have to care for cruelly-enforced order and discipline. I love seeing the smiles of good men, women and children who are gladdened by my presence. I am free to love, to help, to share, to be kind and generous.
I now understand the value of decency and freedom, where I was so blinded by hatred and zealotry before. Don't you see? The helmet does not "forbid me" from going back to my old ways. I do not WANT to go back. And perhaps that is just that helmet talking. Maybe it is. But the happiness and joy I feel is REAL. It's the most real thing that I have ever felt. It's the most real thing I have. I will not go back to the misery and emptiness I felt before. It was that misery and emptiness that drove me to cruelty and atrocity."
And I would tell people who I affected "Please know, if I ever change back to the way I was...if some horrible calamity or act of the cruel gods turns me back into the monster that I was, please know that I am sorry. That I am so, so sorry. But do not show that monster one single shred of mercy. He doesn't deserve it."
You may be in very small company in that regard. I would bet that a larger number of players would be aghast if the OP's scenario was played out against their character. Yes, it's an interesting thought for character development when looking at it at arm's length. In the heat of the game, I fear that people wouldn't take it well and would argue against it.
This is an interesting point. I'm curious where you'd pinpoint the difference being, if you can say.This is a bit difficult, as it seems that Paizo has made quite an effort into making morality a mechanical concept (this may be an artifact of D&D in general). However, I believe that the primary difference lies in intent. That is, if an action itself is evil, one can use mechanics to represent this quite easily. The most obvious way this can be done is by adding the "evil" descriptor to a spell. This makes the difference between a good act and an evil act into a mechanical one.
On the other hand, intent is difficult to cache out mechanically. For example, killing an evil character can be either a good or evil thing dependent upon intent. One may classify killing evil character in order to end a lifetime of tyranny that has gripped the land as a good thing. Killing the same character because it's fun, or because the killer is a genocidal maniac, would probably be classified as an evil thing. I don't believe that there's a mechanical way to distinguish between these two.
The only issue with this is that it requires intent to figure in on morality, but arguing for such a thing is probably outside the scope of this thread. The example given also depends on whether or not one can even classify killing as a good thing, but that seems to be less of an issue as one could probably find a more appropriate example.
Edit: I added in the sentence "I don't believe that there's a mechanical way to distinguish between these two." In the second paragraph.
Fair enough. I would say that, yes, intent is, to some extent, determinate. I would even say that it's the most important part of determining the morality of many acts (casting Holy Word to slaughter lots of neutral people would be an evil that outweighs and "good" it might do, for instance).
As far as intent goes, though...
Let's take person A who views the action and person B who performs the action. The action is irrelevant, but let's call it something that in most situations (hopefully, anyway) it would be a bad thing for person B to do, whether that is kill someone or place a helm of opposite alignment, or whatever it is.
a) the inability of person A to understand person B's intent doesn't make anything that person B does wrong (or right).
b) the inability of person B to understand person B's intent doesn't make anything that person B does wrong (or right).
c) person B might have multiple (conflicting) intents at the same time
d) the actions of person B, while normally awful, can be justified in certain contexts, with most intents
The ultimate morality of a confused person - one who has multiple intents or is unsure of theirs - is then determined by the action itself, and how they choose to respond to it, as well as the ultimate effects of it (though this last is tempered by their inability to necessarily know). This is when the personal agency of person B comes in insomuch as determining alignment goes. It's interesting, nuanced, and fascinating.
And I think that's an interesting and valid thing. In that case, morality is still objective, but not all observers will know the objective morality of the thing.
If you would not call it "evil," what exactly do you find immoral about using a Helmet of Opposite Alignment to turn an evil person into a good person?My contention with the word "evil" is that in the context of Pathfinder, if you say something is evil, it can be ambiguous whether you mean evil in the moral sense or the alignment sense. I'm trying to avoid that ambiguity.
That's fine. Let me make it a bit more clear, then.
1) In our world, I'd agree that it is probably in most circumstances an evil thing to do (and, you know, outright impossible) because we don't have a literally magical objective metric to measure by. There are a few cases in which I would not hesitate, but those cases are, as you know, just as impossible to come by as the helmet itself (because the helmet doesn't exist).
2) In PF-style world with a magical metric of alignment, which isn't metagame in the slightest (as it's in-character knowledge), and a pure, objective definition of good (which is, by definition, good) there is nothing wrong with this. We know that the person is evil. We know that if we kill them they will be tortured and then either be obliterated or go on to become even more evil. Even if they become a minor evil spirit after they die, if there is no other way to turn them (and there might not be for a variety of reasons) having them live a (probably temporary, since they're presumably mortal) good life is, ultimately, the best good I can do for them. They become a good person, live a good life, and (possibly) redeem themselves in time. We don't know, currently, if they can, but we know what happens otherwise, and either way, we increase the total good in the world at large.
@Tacticslion: To answer your questions:
Barring convoluted and implausible scenarios, b. I will note that "denying their agency in one aspect" is a pretty euphemistic way to say "completely rewriting their values and principles against their consent".
Uh, who's doing it euphemistically? We're talking about it right now. I presumed it was, well, presumed.
Our other option is killing them and possibly creating one (or more) evil outsiders somewhere down the road. So...
1. Giving a full answer of this is a lot of work. It should suffice to say sometimes.
It does. :)
2. Barring convoluted and implausible scenarios, never.
Alright. And why?
Again, in real-life (even though this couldn't happen in real life) I'd tend to agree with you. In fiction, not so much.
3. No. The intersection of the empty set with anything is empty.
As makes sense with the answer to "2" as "never". :)
In response, let me ask you a question. Imagine you are roleplaying a LE character. Of course, this isn't a one dimensional "I'm evil lol" character. This character has goals, motivations, desires, etc. They're a fully-fleshed out character who just so happens to be lawful evil. This character is captured after a botched encounter and the paladin who captured him forcibly puts a helm of opposite alignment on this character until it sticks. Your character is forcibly turned CG. My question is: how do you roleplay your character now? How do you roleplay someone who has had their values forcibly and suddenly changed like this? What this character was thought was the right course of action yesterday now fills them with disgust. The sorts of things they were doing yesterday they know condemn as evil and are staunchly opposed to. How do you roleplay how your character deals with the fallout of this? What do you think this does to your character? How does this affect their sense of self?
Let's go further. Say your character knows all about the helm of opposite alignment (maybe the paladin told them). They know that in addition to changing your alignment, it forces you to not want to change back. So this character doesn't want to change back, but they know the only reason they don't want to change back is because of the helm that was forcibly put on their head. They know this and still, they don't want to change back. They are aware of how the helm has stolen their self-determination from them. Yet they are incapable of resisting it. They are made powerless in their own mind.
That actually sounds pretty awesome. I'd love to play that character, now, to be honest.
(Maybe I can get my GM to work with me in a future campaign. Playing an evil character is hard for me, though. Hm...)I'd probably seek out an atonement, if possible, and get it done that way, too, just to be on the "secure" side of my new alignment. It would be pretty sweet.
As for how I'd play that, I'd play it like this:
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.
Given that I abhor my old alignment, suddenly I would realize that I'm free and I no longer have the old constraints, the old code, or the old self-obsession holding me back from doing good to the world at large. That paladin probably has too much of a stick shoved up somewhere, but I would most certainly respect him - all the more for the honesty he gives me the information of how he change me and why. Now, if he tries to control my actions with my new-found freedom, I'll shove that stick further up there, but, you know, I'll still respect the doofus.
I would also begin working from the "inside" so to speak (possibly with a nondetection, if that's a good idea) of whatever evil organization I was likely a part of before to dismantle and destroy their work. I mean, if I'd progressed really far in my evil goals, then I'm pretty highly placed and can manipulate things really well.
If I was just part of an adventuring party, well, it would entirely depend on my adventuring party's goals. If they weren't evil (or overly lawful) I'd probably be happy to carry on the carry on.
I certainly wouldn't abhor every aspect of my old existence - I might still agree that I look stylish, or I might still enjoy some of the same art or music or books or whatever that I did before, though possibly with different reasons... which would actually be really cool because I would have found a way to change my own view around on things that I used to enjoy, and, in that way, recolor all my memories positively.
Those things that I did to become evil in the first place, though, I would certainly mourn. Make no mistake, I would have had to do evil things. Just thinking mean thoughts on occasion means very little, thus I'd have to have been evil to be evil. I'd probably be deeply disappointed in and ashamed of my old self and be really glad I'm not so stupid now.
And, from this point on, I'd likely go forward with a determined zeal that I'll never be that old awful me again. The paladin has given me a new chance in life, freed me from the self-imposed slavery of the old, purified me from corruption, and did so with a cursed helm, of all things. Clever guy.
One of the things that I think you and I differ on is the ability for someone to "just happen" to be evil in any way.
Either they are evil (and thus have taken actions to become so) or they are not evil (and thus have not taken actions to become so). Similarly, good is not just something you "happen" to be.
Is it possible for someone to have lived a minor non-major life without large events to act on their good and evil but still have a non-neutral alignment? Yes. But they've already chosen which way they would go. Their goods or evils are in their small actions, those that they engage in every day. They are cruel, petty, ruthless, and vile in whatever small ways they can be until the big decisions come and they apply the same free will* then... which is, in the vast majority of all cases, exactly the same morality they've used previously.
* I don't believe "free will" means what most people use it to mean in these discussions. The short version is that there are always choices available to us, but we can, in fact, shackle ourselves to a particular method of thinking and behaving, making it extremely difficult to alter that set of behavior. This inner thought process, chosen by us to manifest in an outer behavior pattern is what alignment emulates to the best of its limited ability in-game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see what the issue with removing the agency of an evil person is. That happens all the time (that's what prison is).
Rehabilitation, which is what we hope the end result of incarceration is, generally only happens through lots and lots of self-reflection, therapy, and struggle. It has to be wanted. The ones that don't want it tend to spend their whole lives in prison, and society looks at them as lost causes and failures.
We don't give them their agency back because they are unrepentant. We take it away more.
The helm actually would give an evil person's agency back to them. They wouldn't have to be killed or incarcerated for the good of others.
All it is doing is giving them a conscience, so they can try to work to undo the harm they have done. It doesn't give redemption. It offers it.
Rights come with responsibilities. A person who cannot uphold their responsibilities gets their rights taken away. You can rail against it all you want, but that's how it works. It's done because no one wants to be on the receiving end of someone who demands to be able to do whatever they want and refuses to take responsibility for their actions. The helm isn't removing someone's rights, it's forcing them to take responsibility. It's what every parent tries to do with their kids.
In fact, the helm's instafix solution to the problem of what to do with an unrepentantly evil person is pretty much the best case scenario.
Tacticslion has the right of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Realizing how stupidly large ^ post is, I'm making a new one instead of editing.
Also, MAN I've been ninja'd.
Just to step away from the good part for a moment. Your character was also lawful changed to chaotic in this example. So he now no longer cares about law and order in the same way. Would you be just as happy with the fact that now you KNOW why and how all those laws, those systems of structure that previously meant so much to you are just scrap paper?
Yeah. That'd be awesome. I mean, I'd mourn all the wasted days, but now I'm free! That's so liberating to no longer have to worry about that, ever again!
@Phantom1592
Quick question about all those pedophiles, rapists, serial killers (one I've asked before and not gotten an answer). The helm changes their alignment and makes them view all they did before with disgust BUT they apparently have the same memories. So is there anything here that would automatically change Character X from a pedophile/rapist/serial killer into one who who's not or would you instead still have a pedophile/rapist/serial killer who know hates their own drives. "She's cute . .. oh god" whip whip whip . . . "I'd love to . . . . Oh god I can't take this any more" throws self off a cliff.Apparently since they can't change back short of a wish/miracle what happens if said drives are too strong, too dark for them to reist and they snap creating a second personality who handles the murdering/raping for them? What if its not a second personality and Tom is still murdering everyone who reminds him of his step mother when the urge gets to powerful to resist. He's doing evil acts, hates that he's doing evil acts but he can never fall from good and he's too afraid to turn himself into to the guard?
This is a very interesting question.
I did think I answered it before, though, but maybe not.
My answer was:
- if it is a fundamental problem with their mind that they cannot control, then it is not alignment, it is insanity, which, you know, has different methods of curing in PF. In our world, we're still working on it.
- if it is, instead, a part of their alignment, than they are changed and freed from it automatically.
Yes in the afterlife you eventually transform and become a demon/angel/animal/what have you. However that is the judgement of Pharasma as to where you go NOT the judgement of a single mortal being seeing one subset of your life. By doing this you violate the person, throw their afterlife into doubt (what happens to someone who's been changed), forcing them to be something they wouldn't have chosen to be and preventing them ever making any moral decisions on their own.
Okay, so, according to you, if they are definitely going to become an evil spirit later, that's cool, because they chose it? M'kay.
How about this for an example your paladin is called in to deal with the rebels of a king who has a reputation for kindness, generosity and wise rulership. You manage to capture the leader of the rebels who is lawful evil. You put the helmet on him and make him chaotic good at which point you ungag him and ask what he thought of his life before and he says "My god its all so clear now . . . why the *@#$@#$ was I wasting my time trying to do things by the law I should have just stabbed that murdering psycho when I had the chance." Turns out the king is murdering children to power two spells an immortality one and one that makes him appear to be a good and just person to his subjects.
Hahah, that's a terrible example. If he's good, now, he won't want to murder the other guy.
This guy made his save and while he's evil he's always been lawful. He exploited, bankrupted and generally didn't care what happened to those under him but he did it by the law. Now of course he feels sorry for them but he's kicking himself that when he found out the truth he tried to depose the king legally as opposed to just walking up and stabbing him which resulted in his almost being executed and winding up head of the rebellion. A rebellion he can now no longer lead because without his lawful alignment he doesn't have the discipline and structure to hold a diseperate alliance of rebels together and without the evil alignment he doesn't have the ruthlessness needed to deal with certain trouble makers either.
Yeah, no, this is just a silly example. He wouldn't be sad he didn't kill someone when he had the chance. He'd be sorry that he rebelled against the guy who did no wrong.
As for the merfolk example I'm finding your paladins actions to be more and more dubious first the brain washing helms and now a transformation into a new species.
... my... paladin? Heh. Nope. Never said a paladin. You must have just decided he was for some reason.
And what, exactly, is the "brainwashing"? I never specified that I used the helms for "brainwashing" - aka forcing a change of behavior.
The character uses diplomacy, rhetoric, and conversation, as well as simulated events to teach new skills that maximize their natural talents and interests. The alignment was already changed before this as part of the deal made to bring them back to life (mind, they were already dead because they'd murdered and harmed the people of his kingdom).
As far as the changed races go, you did read that a) that was for the worst criminals and b) that was for those worst criminals who simply couldn't be trusted (for their own psychological reasons) to return to the society they'd (until recently) done so much harm in?
Sure, if you choose to read it as my lawful good kingmaker character simply rewriting their minds or forcing them into new skill-sets it would be brainwashing. This, on the other hand, is therapy and training. In one, they are forced by, well, force. In the other they are aided. If you still wish to consider it brainwashing, I'll be glad to accept that we're using two different definitions of the word and move on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, so the "objective" part just keeps getting smaller. :-)Got news for you even within those games it's subjective. Because as a GM myself I know that session to session I can view the same issues differently depending on what sort of day I've had. Hell, even within a session it can change if I feel guilty about been overly harsh earlier or just that the session has been going well or badly and thus influenced my feelings. But let me guess, that's still Objective in your book?
Stephen, I'm not trying to be rude, but you are misunderstanding the terms and their usage.
The stance the game is written from is that Objective morality exists within the context of the game world. That's why spells like Commune and abilities like Smite exist, and why they work.
They aren't smite this guy who I think is evil or even smite this guy who is a heretic to my church. It's just Smite Evil. That's Objective.
If you want those abilities to be Subjective, you have to re-write the entire alignment/morality system. You can do that. Smite Heretic is a perfectly awesome ability, and would allow for some great explorations of morally grey worlds.
Outside the game, at the table where you are arguing with your friends, that is Subjective. You are absolutely right about that. The thing that you seem to be missing is that what you are arguing about and deciding is what the Objective Morality of your setting will be.
You are free to change it from day to day based on your whim (though I'd advise against it for the sake of your game), but the fact remains that you, as GM, playing the various gods of your setting, are the final arbiter of morality in your game world.
Which means that from the perspective of the characters in the story, morality is Objective.
Lots of interesting things here, and DoomedHero posted what I would have on subjective/objective above, so just dropping that...
That's probably part of the problem. These aren't "Good" acts as a rule. They might not be evil, but they aren't generally Good either. The desire for everyone to go around looting and call themselves Good is part of the problem shown here. Because once you go down the road of "Whatever I want to do is Good" it's hard to stop.
I'm approaching this from the normal approach to this game which is "Kill stuff and get cool loot." Generally it is accepted that good or neutral characters travel around killing evil beings and taking their stuff. And that's good. That's what good does on a daily basis.
You've got an interesting point, Stephen, but it doesn't fully hold up, if you take what Claxon is actually saying.
Claxon isn't saying they do this in order to become good, he's saying they do this both because of and in spite of the fact that they are good - it is an integral part of the lives of those who are good, regardless of the alignment of the act of - in civilized non-deadly settings - killing something and taking its stuff.
It's not "Whatever I want to do is Good", but, "This is good, necessary, and also comes with rewards, even though in civilized non-deadly environments this is not what we would do."
In general terms - killing evil people is good because it removes evil from the world.Again a very debatable claim. Not saying that killing is Evil, but claiming a default Good for doing it is more than a little dubious.
Killing evil people doesn't make you a good person. If, on the other hand, killing an evil people removes evil from the world, it is good in the sense that it, you know, removes evil from the world.
That said, it's not infinitely good in all situations, I certainly agree. Especially since options like the Helm exist, allowing them to continue to live but changing the way they use their agency.
Good and evil are defined by the gods, they create the moral fabric of Golarion. Just as in the same way our real world religions and socities have shaped what is morally acceptable to us.If you read through some of the stuff on the God's it's pretty clear that the God have different views on the Good/Evil debate. And I don't mean the Good Gods have different views to the Evil Gods, but that the Good Gods don't see 100% eye to eye.
One of the interesting parts of PF is the fact that gods might have different ideas of what's "best" but they generally agree on what's (morally) "good". They certainly disagree about many things, though, which is fine.
And you are correct in that they don't "define" what is good and evil in terms of choosing what is good and evil, but they define what is good an evil by being what they are.
While good and evil may not be defined via mandate from the gods themselves, that doesn't make it less Objective, but more - a "divine" entity of finite wisdom and ability is just as much subject to the Objective morality as others... however, their finite wisdom is higher than almost everyone else, and the fact that they are, objectively, good (or evil or what-have-you) means that there will is going to give you results according to their alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, so the "objective" part just keeps getting smaller. :-)
Nope, the objective part remains a part of the game world, while the subjective part remains a part of the real world.
Got news for you even within those games it's subjective. Because as a GM myself I know that session to session I can view the same issues differently depending on what sort of day I've had. Hell, even within a session it can change if I feel guilty about been overly harsh earlier or just that the session has been going well or badly and thus influenced my feelings. But let me guess, that's still Objective in your book?
This is you creating subjective morality within your own game world. Essentially, you've instituted an unspoken house rule and are now projecting it onto every D&D/PF game everywhere.
As a side note, you'd be in the right if this were a 4e game forum. Which I've been enjoying since 2008, subjective morality and all! But as this is a PF forum, you're wrong.
But you're right that we've reached the point of pointless debate. You're not going to change your mind, and neither are we. So happy gaming, dude!
On the topic of Pathfinder afterlifes... I think a lot people have misunderstood how the cosmos is set up. Going to "Hell" isn't a punishment the way it would be in our world. People in Pathfinder end up in Hell because it is the place that most suits them. A LE person being sent to a LE environment is by no means a punishment, anymore then sending a Lawful Good person to Heaven is. Now some LE people may disagree that they are suited to a LE environment, but their alignment would respectfully point out that their wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the original question by the OP: Is respect for free will covered by the D&D/Pathfinder alignment system? If not, then no, unless the DM wills it.
Is it a Good act? Probably not, but it's not necessarily Evil, either. Killing the bad guy isn't an Evil act according to the basic alignment system, and that's a much worse thing to do. Now, if the DM says different (say, he rather likes subjective morality, or is using the 'all killing is bad' rules from Heroes of Horror), then it's obviously different.
Is it immoral? In as much as 'immoral' doesn't mean 'evil', then yes, it's rather immoral. It isn't the worst option, though.
---
I think one thing that people are missing is that the effect of the helm is a specific, continuous magical effect that can be un-done by a Wish. The question then should be "Does death, which normally ends other magical effects, end the one from this cursed item as well?" As it does not specifically state this, it's up to DM discretion. I, personally, am inclined to say that it does end. Which means when the CE guy turned LG croaks and his spirit is ejected from his body, he returns to his original alignment and gets assigned an afterlife accordingly. Which may be worse than some of the other alternatives offered here in that he fully believed he would get a glorious reward only to go straight to the Hells anyway. Something specifically thwarted and tormented in such a fashion would be a perfect seed for the DM creating an especially nasty Outsider.
Another thing to consider is that the stated Wish effect to restore alignment doesn't actually give or allow a save for the afflicted person. Which means turning Mega-BBEG Good can be un-done at some point by another sufficiently powerful, nasty BBEG. At which point you now have two of them in one place. And there's nothing in the wording that stops a single Wish from undoing MULTIPLE said people in the same area, so having a legion of brainwashed goodies turn bad could be a problem.
Of course, flipped the other way, with Good people turned Evil, it could make for an awesome campaign, as the players can start not knowing what's causing the good guys to turn and yet, once they achieve high levels, they can unravel the master Evil plan by freeing the most powerful of the good guys turned bad. And have that sickening gut reaction when they realize they already killed many of the most famous heroes before they figured this out.
---
Finally, I don't see how a bunch of this matters with the soul going to the afterlife, since the more experienced and powerful players will know they need to contain the enemy's soul permanently or destroy it in some fashion to prevent them from being resurrected anyway.
The LG person would not go to Hell and the Gods really don't get to much of a say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of Pathfinder afterlifes... I think a lot people have misunderstood how the cosmos is set up. Going to "Hell" isn't a punishment the way it would be in our world. People in Pathfinder end up in Hell because it is the place that most suits them. A LE person being sent to a LE environment is by no means a punishment, anymore then sending a Lawful Good person to Heaven is. Now some LE people may disagree that they are suited to a LE environment, but their alignment would respectfully point out that their wrong.
I dunno. Being turned into a giant insect larva to be used as foodstuffs by more powerful Outsiders, turned into living building materials, or having your soul dissolved into nothingness seems to be a good definition of a 'punishment' if I ever saw one.
On the topic of Pathfinder afterlifes... I think a lot people have misunderstood how the cosmos is set up. Going to "Hell" isn't a punishment the way it would be in our world. People in Pathfinder end up in Hell because it is the place that most suits them. A LE person being sent to a LE environment is by no means a punishment, anymore then sending a Lawful Good person to Heaven is. Now some LE people may disagree that they are suited to a LE environment, but their alignment would respectfully point out that their wrong.I dunno. Being turned into a giant insect larva to be used as foodstuffs by more powerful Outsiders, turned into living building materials, or having your soul dissolved into nothingness seems to be a good definition of a 'punishment' if I ever saw one.
Then Heaven is just as much of a punishment as the souls that go there will merge with the plane. (Seriously, don't die in PF at all costs...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with the above poster its a VERY Lawful Good at... to the point that it would put it at odds with the other good alignments- chaotic good for the complete removal of individual choice and neutral good for having SOME kind of balance at least between freedom and order.