Is it immoral to use a helm of opposite alignment on a captured evildoer?

[Anzyr]

SuicidalSkydiver wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

The LG person would not go to Hell and the Gods really don't get to much of a say.

I was under the impression that Pherasma judged a soul before sending it on its way. Is it ever specified how her final decision is made? As far as I remember, she looks upon every soul with an unbiased and calculating attitude. that doesn't sound much like she would simply say "OK, your alignment is X, of to Y you go"

While it doesn't say how she makes her final decision, presumably in most cases it really is as simple as "Well your alignment is X" or "Well your worshiped god X and they will take you".

[SuicidalSkydiver]

Anzyr wrote:

SuicidalSkydiver wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

The LG person would not go to Hell and the Gods really don't get to much of a say.

I was under the impression that Pherasma judged a soul before sending it on its way. Is it ever specified how her final decision is made? As far as I remember, she looks upon every soul with an unbiased and calculating attitude. that doesn't sound much like she would simply say "OK, your alignment is X, of to Y you go"

While it doesn't say how she makes her final decision, presumably in most cases it really is as simple as "Well your alignment is X" or "Well your worshiped god X and they will take you".

I just doesn't sound very calculating, really. Especially if no consideration is given to what they were like before the hat was out on their head

[Anzyr]

Doesn't matter what they were like before they got the helm. What you once were and what you could have been doesn't matter. What matters is what alignment you achieved when you died.

[LazarX]

This argument was never argued better than it was in the pages of Squadron Supreme.

For my book, I come down on the side of the late Ex-President Kyle Raymond, a.k.a. Nighthawk.

[Anzyr]

For the uninformed... how was it argued as I am now curious.

[LazarX]

Anzyr wrote:

For the uninformed... how was it argued as I am now curious.

I'm not going to even begin to try to condense the awesomeness of the Squadron Supreme Graphic Novel into a forum post.

[Stephen Ede]

Crap. Now you've made me want to look it up and I'm supposed to be catching a train. Grrrrr

[SuicidalSkydiver]

Anzyr wrote:

Doesn't matter what they were like before they got the helm. What you once were and what you could have been doesn't matter. What matters is what alignment you achieved when you died.

I think there's a slight problem with the fact that the judging of souls is never properly specified, and until it is neither argument is either right or wrong. At that point, it's completely down to who's GMing. after all, what they say goes.

[Anzyr]

Well not really if they want to be consistent with the cosmology. Since petitioners that reach the planes do in fact match their alignment...

[Liam Warner]

@Anzyr
That brings me back to the whole "Hey cool I can do whatever I want kill, rape, rob etc all my life and then on my deathbed I pop on this hat, fail my save and bang I'm good so I get to go to heaven." or the reverse "Okay now you know what you need to do this great, pious, noble saint is about to die. You put this on them repeatedly till they turn evil then stab them and our master gets their soul for all eternity." As opposed to the equally problematical evil turned good who dies early on they were evil, wanted to stay evil but now they get to go to heaven because of what someone else did.

@Tacticslion
Lots of posts I may be mixing you and your helms up with someone else who had a paladin that gave prisoners a choice wear this or die. Although given that your mermen become even more dubious a form of redemption.

As for your response to my example you have seriously twisted what I said (don't know if that was on purpose or not) but . . .

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.

Yes it may not be a good outcome but its their choice (and quite possibly something they would in later years change from on their own) and if necessary that evil spirit can be put down as well.

Hahah, that's a terrible example. If he's good, now, he won't want to murder the other guy.

Here's where you start to go wrong (unless your assuming good never kills). The other guy is murdering children to sustain his own life and conceal his crimes. Before he tried to go through the legal system to depose him and then led a rebellion that tore at his soul. However it was never to him about good/evil but about legal/illegal if killing orphans to live longer was legal he'd probably do it himself but since it wasn't he stood up to stop the law being broken. Now he no longer cares about the law only the good/evil side of it and thus regrets not just killing the king when he had a chance rather than trying to do things legally but conversely if killing orphans to live longer where now legal he'd stand up against that too.

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

That was the point of my example the king IS doing wrong his orphanages are regularly used to sacrifice the kids to power the spell sustaining his life and making him seem kind, good and keep people from wondering why so many kids die afterall they're orphans and the winters are harsh even with royal support. The difference is before he was rebelling against the illegal actions and now he protests against the evil ones (same action different focus) but doesn't have the discipline and ruthlessness to keep the rebellion together. By turning him from lawful evil to chaotic good against his will you destroyed the rebellion and directly set in motion events that lead to the king living for millenai and the murder of hundreds of innocent children (12 a year for the first 50 years till he managed to get the spell to draw out all their unlived years so he only had to kill one every decade or so to conceal the signs of aging). But hey the guy who's head wound up on a pike in front of the palace gates for treason now goes to heaven and the average life of the people in that kingdom is good so "good" result there.

relevant parts of my example (which you quoted) are in bold here.

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.

[Anzyr]

Yes, that is how the Helm works and why the Alignment system doesn't. Keep in mind the same could be accomplished a spell with the (Alignment) descriptor, albeit slower. Pathfinder is a crapsack world and as I said above, you should avoid dying in at all costs regardless what alignment you die as.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Liam Warner wrote:

@Anzyr

That brings me back to the whole "Hey cool I can do whatever I want kill, rape, rob etc all my life and then on my deathbed I pop on this hat, fail my save and bang I'm good so I get to go to heaven." or the reverse "Okay now you know what you need to do this great, pious, noble saint is about to die. You put this on them repeatedly till they turn evil then stab them and our master gets their soul for all eternity." As opposed to the equally problematical evil turned good who dies early on they were evil, wanted to stay evil but now they get to go to heaven because of what someone else did.

@Tacticslion
Lots of posts I may be mixing you and your helms up with someone else who had a paladin that gave prisoners a choice wear this or die. Although given that your mermen become even more dubious a form of redemption.

As for your response to my example you have seriously twisted what I said (don't know if that was on purpose or not) but . . .

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.

Yes it may not be a good outcome but its their choice (and quite possibly something they would in later years change from on their own) and if necessary that evil spirit can be put down as well.

Hahah, that's a terrible example. If he's good, now, he won't want to murder the other guy.

Here's where you start to go wrong (unless your assuming good never kills). The other guy is murdering children to sustain his own life and conceal his crimes. Before he tried to go through the legal system to depose him and then led a rebellion that tore at his soul. However it was never to him about good/evil but about legal/illegal if killing orphans to live longer was legal he'd probably do it himself but since it wasn't he stood up to stop the law being broken. Now he no longer cares about the law only the good/evil side of it and thus regrets not just killing the king when he had a chance rather than trying to do things...

I think you might be misunderstanding Lawful...

[pres man]

Teal'c: Nothing I have done since turning against the goa'uld will make up for the atrocities I once committed in their name. Somewhere deep inside you you knew it was wrong, a voice you did not recognize screamed for you to stop. You saw no way out, it was the way things were, they could not be changed. You're trying to convince yourself the people you're hurting deserved it. You became numb to their pain and suffering, you learned to shut out the voice speaking against it.
Tomin: There's always a choice.
Teal'c: Indeed there is.
Tomin: I chose to ignore it.
Teal'c: Yet you sit here now.
Tomin: I sit here, and I cannot imagine the day when I will forgive myself.
Teal'c: Because it will never come. One day others may try to convince you they have forgiven you, that is more about them than you. For them, imparting forgiveness is a blessing.
Tomin: How do you go on?
Teal'c: It is simple. You will never forgive yourself. Accept it. You hurt others, many others, that cannot be undone. You will never find personal retribution, but your life does not have to end. That which is right, just and true can still prevail. If you do not fight for what you believe in all may be lost for everyone else. But do not fight for yourself, fight for others, others that may be saved through your effort. That is the least you can do.

[Liam Warner]

@ Durngrun was that aimed at me or Tacticslion?

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Liam Warner wrote:

@ Durngrun was that aimed at me or Tacticslion?

You, sir. Although no offense intended. Often I see people hold up the Lawful alignment as worshipping laws. I believe that is incorrect.

[Robert Carter 58]

Zhayne wrote:

I interpret it as yet another case where the alignment system assumes too much and contradicts itself.

"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."

"Game Masters should not use it to unduly hamper characters, nor should it be used to straitjacket PCs"

The Helm violates both of these. It also assumes that a character is even aware he has an alignment, much less what it is, something I would think would be quite rare.

My perceptions are muddied, of course, by my steadfast refusal to ever play an evil character. I'd merely hand my character sheet to the GM, as it's no longer my character. As the book says regarding alignment changes, "If the player wanted to play a character of a different alignment, he would have."

(And then there's the whole 'he has no choice but to act how he does, and since morality is a choice, there's no morality involved' thing, which would make him neutral in any event because he has no capacity for moral choice and isn't responsible for his actions.)

It is a CURSED item. It's kinda, supposed to, screw over the PC. Handing over your character sheet is a perfectly valid choice.

[Ashiel]

Gilarius wrote:

This is an excellent question. My answer is 'maybe'.

It depends on the version of Good the wizard/society follows. Do not confuse modern morality with a fantasy game's version. Taking away someone's free will is evil nowadays but might not be if the person/society in the game is Good but highly dictatorial. 'Our God tells us to make people Good'.

So, in this situation, what are the standards of behaviour in your game world for this society?

Actually oppression is tied to evil in D&D/PF, so yes, taking away someone's free will is evil regardless. That's not saying a good character can't act in according with evil some times. It's not even saying that most other good characters would even react poorly to it, but it's still evil.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Liam Warner]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Liam Warner wrote:

@ Durngrun was that aimed at me or Tacticslion?

You, sir. Although no offense intended. Often I see people hold up the Lawful alignment as worshipping laws. I believe that is incorrect.

Fair enough I point you to the first two paragraphs of the lawful evil description.

Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain (or in this case person) methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life.
He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

He didn't "worship" the law ala judge dread but he had enough honor (of his own definition) that when he found out the king was . . .

Violating Tradition: They are meant to uphold the laws and be a source of judgemnt.
Violating Loyalty: The king takes an oath to protect his subjects not murder them for his own gain.
Violating order: It is against the law to murder someone.

He felt he had no chance but to stand up to the king and as per the established rules and traditions get them to stand down. Then he found out the king also had magic (as well as general cover up techniques) and he wound up on the run and eventually leading a rebellion to restore the natural order of things (he doesn't even care who winds up ruling the kingdom so long as they do so according to the laws, traditions and standards of behaviour the are part of its civilized bedrock). Like I said had there been a law in place saying killing an orphan to extend your life is not murder or a crime he'd probably have been interested in it himself.

The next paragraph goes on to say

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particuarly taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unpricipled villains.

Which is the second part of his nature he upholds the law because it is what separates civilized people from savages. He'd not think twice about kicking a starving widow and her two kids out into the cold on a major holiday if they couldn't pay their rent but if there was a law saying people over 65 can't be evicted he'd leave the 72 year old grandfather in the house.

Even if you ignore that he could be lawful evil (as I have presented him) and still oppose the king because he is harming children when it could be helped (kill one of those long lived vermin who consider themselves to be people you'll get more out of it).

[pres man]

knightnday wrote:

I'll requote Mikaze here because it says pretty much what I think about it:

Quote:

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.

That is not how the item works. You can put it on them and if they make their save, then no effect but curse on the helm still exists. If it is removed and then put back on, the character must save again, rinse and repeat until the character fails their save. They're alignment isn't shifting each time, it only shifts when they fail their save, so once. At that point the item is no longer magical (and hence cursed).

To do what is suggested here, you'd need multiple cursed helms, and there doesn't seem to be any indication that is the case here.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Liam Warner wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Liam Warner wrote:

@ Durngrun was that aimed at me or Tacticslion?

You, sir. Although no offense intended. Often I see people hold up the Lawful alignment as worshipping laws. I believe that is incorrect.

Fair enough I point you to the first two paragraphs of the lawful evil description.

Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain (or in this case person) methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life.
He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

He didn't "worship" the law ala judge dread but he had enough honor (of his own definition) that when he found out the king was . . .

Violating Tradition: They are meant to uphold the laws and be a source of judgemnt.
Violating Loyalty: The king takes an oath to protect his subjects not murder them for his own gain.
Violating order: It is against the law to murder someone.

He felt he had no chance but to stand up to the king and as per the established rules and traditions get them to stand down. Then he found out the king also had magic (as well as general cover up techniques) and he wound up on the run and eventually leading a rebellion to restore the natural order of things (he doesn't even care who winds up ruling the kingdom so long as they do so according to the laws, traditions and standards of behaviour the are part of its civilized bedrock). Like I said had there been a law in place saying killing an orphan to extend your life is not murder or a crime he'd probably have been interested in it himself.

The next paragraph goes on to say

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he...

Aside from the fact this is a very contrived scenario, you still seem to be stuck on the "he's breaking the law" argument.

Why would the LE rebel care the king is killing orphans? (Not saying he can't, just haven't seen a good reason yet.) Your answer seems to be: "he's breaking the law." So what? He's the king. Is order being maintained? (Note: General order within the kingdom, not every single individual)
Also, he can't be in charge because he's chaotic? Wouldn't a band of rebels traditionally be chaotic?

[Doomed Hero]

Ashiel wrote:

Gilarius wrote:

This is an excellent question. My answer is 'maybe'.

It depends on the version of Good the wizard/society follows. Do not confuse modern morality with a fantasy game's version. Taking away someone's free will is evil nowadays but might not be if the person/society in the game is Good but highly dictatorial. 'Our God tells us to make people Good'.

So, in this situation, what are the standards of behaviour in your game world for this society?

Actually oppression is tied to evil in D&D/PF, so yes, taking away someone's free will is evil regardless. That's not saying a good character can't act in according with evil some times. It's not even saying that most other good characters would even react poorly to it, but it's still evil.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Isn't putting someone in prison, or casting Dominate, or even Charm Person, removing their free will?

Are any of those Evil acts?

[paul Riggs]

I agree with Ashel's take
What is the alignment of the wizard and his society.
If the Wizard was Chaotic good this act would be a great sin how could someone oppress anthers free will.
If he were Lawful the needs of society out weight the needs of the individual. From a Lawful good stand point the ends justify the means for the greater good. You have turned a harmful member of society good so they can help society instead of hurt it. But this is a very slippery slope that can go very wrong make everyone just the same. Like Clock work orange
In our society empathy is a virtue.
In the old roman society empathy was a vice a weakness.
Would it be more good and less objectionable if the prisoner had a choice.
1. life imprisonment
2. execution
3. forced atonement change to good and help society
4. banishment and death if you every come back

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

paul Riggs wrote:

I agree with Ashel's take

What is the alignment of the wizard and his society.
If the Wizard was Chaotic good this act would be a great sin how could someone oppress anthers free will.
If he were Lawful the needs of society out weight the needs of the individual. From a Lawful good stand point the ends justify the means for the greater good. You have turned a harmful member of society good so they can help society instead of hurt it. But this is a very slippery slope that can go very wrong make everyone just the same. Like Clock work orange
In our society empathy is a virtue.
In the old roman society empathy was a vice a weakness.
Would it be more good and less objectionable if the prisoner had a choice.
1. life imprisonment
2. execution
3. forced atonement change to good and help society
4. banishment and death if you every come back

Just to be clear, this is not at all like Clockwork Orange. The helm changes the person's alignment and then that character wants to act as someone of that alignment. Clockwork Orange was about behavior modification. The character still wanted bad things but felt physically sick whenever he thought about those behaviors.

[Doomed Hero]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

The helm changes the person's alignment and then that character wants to act as someone of that alignment.

This is the crux of the "instant redemption" issue many people have brought up.

The Helm wouldn't actually redeem a person at all. It would just suddenly make redemption possible. It isn't a get out of jail free card. It's a second chance.

[Ashiel]

Doomed Hero wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Gilarius wrote:

This is an excellent question. My answer is 'maybe'.

It depends on the version of Good the wizard/society follows. Do not confuse modern morality with a fantasy game's version. Taking away someone's free will is evil nowadays but might not be if the person/society in the game is Good but highly dictatorial. 'Our God tells us to make people Good'.

So, in this situation, what are the standards of behaviour in your game world for this society?

Actually oppression is tied to evil in D&D/PF, so yes, taking away someone's free will is evil regardless. That's not saying a good character can't act in according with evil some times. It's not even saying that most other good characters would even react poorly to it, but it's still evil.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Isn't putting someone in prison, or casting Dominate, or even Charm Person, removing their free will?

Are any of those Evil acts?

Yes. Those are things that jive with evil. However, alignment is a measure of all things you do. Protecting the innocent is Good. If you imprison someone to protect others from the harm they will do, your net result is essentially Neutral.

It's the same reason that Paladins can kill bad guys. Because Paladins do not fall for doing neutral-things. Normally hurting and killing is evil, but paladins are typically doing altruistic and protective things when they are doing so. It's the reason why Paladins can come out of a pit of monsters, covered head to toe in the blood of his enemies, and still be a good guy.

[Liam Warner]

Stupid quote cutting off what I actually want to quote

@Durgram
Aside from the fact this is a very contrived scenario, you still seem to be stuck on the "he's breaking the law" argument.
Why would the LE rebel care the king is killing orphans? (Not saying he can't, just haven't seen a good reason yet.) Your answer seems to be: "he's breaking the law." So what? He's the king. Is order being maintained? (Note: General order within the kingdom, not every single individual)
Also, he can't be in charge because he's chaotic? Wouldn't a band of rebels traditionally be chaotic?

He cares because the king is violating tradition, law and the things that in his opinion define a society as opposed to a bunch of barbarians where might makes right. He might not agree with the laws, he might feel they're foolish or worthless but in that case you work to change the laws you don't just break them because you can. Just because he doesn't care about the slaves that are his property doesn't mean he wont free them every 7 years as proscribed by tradition. Although interestingly your argument he's the king does seem to imply anything he does is good even if its utterly illegal and in this case involves the murder of kids. As I said even if you lay that aside it could just be while he's evil he is still opposed to harming children.

Also the second is a misunderstanidng I think. Its a combination of things he's welded together a chaotic alliance of groups that work together only because of his own iron rule (adhearance to tradition and loyalty combined with instant execution of any who threaten it) as good he starts bringing in mercy and extenuating circumstances and doesn't have the internal self discipline necessary to keep these groups together.

Also its not WANT to act as their new alignment its HAVE to no choice.

The scenario is based off a book I read awhile back beloved, kindly magician slaughtering the kids to power his magic as magic in that system has a cost and he'd been possessed by a demon to try and keep living. The demon was the one killing the kids but protected by the previous magicians reputation even though he'd kill the kids at major events and no one ever noticed their dissaperance.

[Durngrun Stonebreaker]

Liam Warner wrote:

Stupid quote cutting off what I actually want to quote

@Durgram
Aside from the fact this is a very contrived scenario, you still seem to be stuck on the "he's breaking the law" argument.
Why would the LE rebel care the king is killing orphans? (Not saying he can't, just haven't seen a good reason yet.) Your answer seems to be: "he's breaking the law." So what? He's the king. Is order being maintained? (Note: General order within the kingdom, not every single individual)
Also, he can't be in charge because he's chaotic? Wouldn't a band of rebels traditionally be chaotic?

He cares because the king is violating tradition, law and the things that in his opinion define a society as opposed to a bunch of barbarians where might makes right. He might not agree with the laws, he might feel they're foolish or worthless but in that case you work to change the laws you don't just break them because you can. Just because he doesn't care about the slaves that are his property doesn't mean he wont free them every 7 years as proscribed by tradition. Although interestingly your argument he's the king does seem to imply anything he does is good even if its utterly illegal and in this case involves the murder of kids. As I said even if you lay that aside it could just be while he's evil he is still opposed to harming children.

Also the second is a misunderstanidng I think. Its a combination of things he's welded together a chaotic alliance of groups that work together only because of his own iron rule (adhearance to tradition and loyalty combined with instant execution of any who threaten it) as good he starts bringing in mercy and extenuating circumstances and doesn't have the internal self discipline necessary to keep these groups together.

Also its not WANT to act as their new alignment its HAVE to no choice.

The scenario is based off a book I read awhile back beloved, kindly magician slaughtering the kids to power his magic as magic in that system has a cost and he'd been possessed by a demon to try...

Again, I'm not saying impossible but the LE villain is going to disrupt the entire kingdom because one man is breaking the law? That seems like it would create a lot of disorder. I never meant to imply the king was good, just that you would need a reason the Evil guy is opposed to the "kind, benevolent" king getting rid of a few orphans in order to stay in charge forever.

Also I believe the item specifically says they want to act as the new alignment. It's been posted several times but I'm very lazy. You can look it up and tell me if I'm wrong.

[phantom1592]

Cardinal Reinhardt wrote:

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).

To toss out another fictional example... How about Angel from Buffy? He was dirty rotten horrible serial killer... got 'cursed' with a conscience. Suddenly did what he could to make up for it in any way he could and stopped killing.

The 'conscience' was a 'curse'... but he did EVERYTHING he could to make sure that he NEVER went back to the psychopath that he used to be.

This is the key here... I don't think any 'good' person WANTS to be a 'bad' person. If a person suddenly finds themselves 'good'.... then they do not WANT to be what they were, and are happy with the new form. Much like any werewolf/Jekyll-hyde type story where the 'evil' person now revels in his newfound power... they aren't MAD that they got the new form.

Now... an independent person watching from the crowd may be horrified.... but the guy getting this done to him is ok with it.

[phantom1592]

Liam Warner wrote:

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?

Stephen Ede wrote:

Just a point. The Helm doesn't remove compusions. If a person is a pedophile, compulsive killer, thief ectre, they will still have those compulsions after the helm. They might feel better or worse about the compulsion (you never know, the villain might actually be LG but struggling against the compulsions and becomes CE and happily going along with the compulsions).

Based on what?

Where do these 'compuslsions' come from? I've heard it said that the rapists aren't about lust as much as power... I'm no psychology/criminology major... so I'll leave it at that.

If that's true then the Alignment change would 'fix' it. Compassion for others would overwrite the need to lord power over those weaker then you.

I like Tacticslion's comment a bit back about whether this is tied to alignment. The difference between 'Good/Evil' or insanity.

But I'm PRETTY sure there wouldn't be any 'LG' compulsive killers and rapists running around.

A more realistic response would be that they remember what their 'old' response would have been with disgust. Glad that they now know 'a better way'.

Seriously. These 'compulsions' should never be lumped in with 'lycanthrope bloodlust' or a 'vampire's hunger'... The characters have a 'choice' in the matter.

[strayshift]

I've not read the bulk of the thread but when we talk about rights (as in Human Rights legislation here in the UK) the concept of conflicting rights comes into view and the least restrictive restriction of rights.

Now an rpg is not going to have a legislative framework for rights but applying the UK's current framework you could say the Wizard:

1. Broke the Right to Torture or Degrading treatment (essentially a forced permanent punishment without trial).
2. Took Away the Man's Liberty (unless the wizard was an authorised officer of the law or under some circumstances a medical professional this is illegal).
3. Broke his right of Freedom of Conscience (interesting one this as he was evil and his actions probably reflected it).
4. Broke his right to a Fair Trial (by punishing him prior to a trial).

Now you could argue these infringements on his rights were necessary to protect the rights of others and thus justifiable however that would probably become unstuck if any of the punishments were permanent in effect as this would be deemed a disproportionate infringement on his rights.

Like I said however is no legislative framework around rights exists in rpg's (otherwise most pcs would be in deep sh*t).

And is the pc's act evil? Chaotic certainly probably looking at the Greater Good so I would say an extremely zealous Chaotic Good.

[phantom1592]

SuicidalSkydiver wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

The LG person would not go to Hell and the Gods really don't get to much of a say.

I was under the impression that Pherasma judged a soul before sending it on its way. Is it ever specified how her final decision is made? As far as I remember, she looks upon every soul with an unbiased and calculating attitude. that doesn't sound much like she would simply say "OK, your alignment is X, of to Y you go"

I believe it's meant to be very vague and mysterious. Nobody know how or why she judges as she does. Some go to heaven, some hell, some stay in her limbo graveyard. She's got this much power then even the other gods don't mess with her.

gods and Magic wrote:

At the moment of birth, she

knows where a particular soul will end up, but she reserves
her official verdict until the last possible moment, as she
knows prophecies can be wrong or fail. She believes in fate
and predestination but understands the need for vagueness
and misinterpretation to allow for the illusion of free will.

This sounds to me like whatever the alignment system... its' secondary to some 'higher' concept.

But again, it's vague and the GM gets a higher say then 'pharasma' :P

I like the part where it says that souls who died too soon can be sent back on a reincarnation trip to try again to reach their potential... Sooooo really who wore what helm isn't going to matter much in the grand scheme of things.

I see it as more 'what god you serve' as they send representatives to collect you and less 'what alignment' you were at that exact moment of death...

[The black raven]

Phantom, you are trying to apply alignment to real-life issues, which are much more complicated than what the game system ever tried to simulate.

Remember that there is no such thing as Detect Evil in our world.

So, all the arguments mixing up real life issues in game world situations hold near zero weight IMO.

In fact, your arguments make me feel like all those who oppose the use of the Helm are almost complicit to real-life extreme offenders, and thus should be ashamed to even try to defend such a insensitive point of view. I believe the word for this kind of "argument" in English is "bashing".

In the end, the decision rests in the hands of the GM and how he sees the alignments.

[Usagi Yojimbo]

In place of Clockwork Orange (which I have, shamefully, not seen) I comend to you all the Babylon 5 episode, "Passing Through Gethsemane".

They don't have a Helm, instead they can sentence you to 'death of personality'. The subject ends up agreeing with the people who applied the sentence.

[Tholomyes]

phantom1592 wrote:

To toss out another fictional example... How about Angel from Buffy? He was dirty rotten horrible serial killer... got 'cursed' with a conscience. Suddenly did what he could to make up for it in any way he could and stopped killing.

The 'conscience' was a 'curse'... but he did EVERYTHING he could to make sure that he NEVER went back to the psychopath that he used to be.

Ok, you sold me; anything that is even comparable to unleashing a character so annoyingly stilted and Mary Sue-esque into this world as Angel must be an Evil act.

[pres man]

Tholomyes wrote:

phantom1592 wrote:

To toss out another fictional example... How about Angel from Buffy? He was dirty rotten horrible serial killer... got 'cursed' with a conscience. Suddenly did what he could to make up for it in any way he could and stopped killing.

The 'conscience' was a 'curse'... but he did EVERYTHING he could to make sure that he NEVER went back to the psychopath that he used to be.

Ok, you sold me; anything that is even comparable to unleashing a character so annoyingly stilted and Mary Sue-esque into this world as Angel must be an Evil act.

Ahhhh come on, sometimes he could be Chaotic Awesome. LOL

[phantom1592]

The black raven wrote:

In fact, your arguments make me feel like all those who oppose the use of the Helm are almost complicit to real-life extreme offenders, and thus should be ashamed to even try to defend such a insensitive point of view.

The point I was going for, is that if in t

Well, honestly... that was my intention. It's kind of the backbone of debate to get the other side to take a solid look at their own stance and possibly reconsider.

he 'real world' I honestly can't hold up a person's free will to commit atrocities as some precious jewel to be protected at all costs... then I can't find myself agreeing with that stance 'in game' either.

We don't have magic helmets that can make the 'badness' go away in the real world... but we DO have various psychologists, chemists and doctors trying to find REAL ways to stop 'badness' in the real world.

And it's considered the right thing to do.

I think if someone used the helm on a truly evil person... there would be no complaints about it.

ACTUALLY... I think the opposite. I think that people would be raising a fuss over the fact that mega-evil got off easy. He should have been hung or executed or beaten or punished more then just 'turned' good.

I could see a lot of unrest brewing if the king kept letting the orphanage arsonists go with a simple hat swap...

[Andrew R]

phantom1592 wrote:

The black raven wrote:

In fact, your arguments make me feel like all those who oppose the use of the Helm are almost complicit to real-life extreme offenders, and thus should be ashamed to even try to defend such a insensitive point of view.

The point I was going for, is that if in t

Well, honestly... that was my intention. It's kind of the backbone of debate to get the other side to take a solid look at their own stance and possibly reconsider.

he 'real world' I honestly can't hold up a person's free will to commit atrocities as some precious jewel to be protected at all costs... then I can't find myself agreeing with that stance 'in game' either.

We don't have magic helmets that can make the 'badness' go away in the real world... but we DO have various psychologists, chemists and doctors trying to find REAL ways to stop 'badness' in the real world.

And it's considered the right thing to do.

I think if someone used the helm on a truly evil person... there would be no complaints about it.

ACTUALLY... I think the opposite. I think that people would be raising a fuss over the fact that mega-evil got off easy. He should have been hung or executed or beaten or punished more then just 'turned' good.

I could see a lot of unrest brewing if the king kept letting the orphanage arsonists go with a simple hat swap...

we also have people try to cure gays, because in our world many consider them immoral. so is this good?

[phantom1592]

Andrew R wrote:

we also have people try to cure gays, because in our world many consider them immoral. so is this good?

Awwwwww... now, I thought it was un-PC to lump 'gay' in with things like rape and murder...

I specifically made a note to keep all my examples in the 'universally evil.' ;)

[Saint Caleth]

strayshift wrote:

I've not read the bulk of the thread but when we talk about rights (as in Human Rights legislation here in the UK) the concept of conflicting rights comes into view and the least restrictive restriction of rights.

Now an rpg is not going to have a legislative framework for rights but applying the UK's current framework you could say the Wizard:

1. Broke the Right to Torture or Degrading treatment (essentially a forced permanent punishment without trial).
2. Took Away the Man's Liberty (unless the wizard was an authorised officer of the law or under some circumstances a medical professional this is illegal).
3. Broke his right of Freedom of Conscience (interesting one this as he was evil and his actions probably reflected it).
4. Broke his right to a Fair Trial (by punishing him prior to a trial).

Now you could argue these infringements on his rights were necessary to protect the rights of others and thus justifiable however that would probably become unstuck if any of the punishments were permanent in effect as this would be deemed a disproportionate infringement on his rights.

Like I said however is no legislative framework around rights exists in rpg's (otherwise most pcs would be in deep sh*t).

And is the pc's act evil? Chaotic certainly probably looking at the Greater Good so I would say an extremely zealous Chaotic Good.

I think that this thread has adequately demonstrated that there is a difference between an Evil aligned act and something that would be a human rights violation. There are plenty of things that even a paladin can do that the EU would strongly disapprove of.

[Charender]

Doomed Hero wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

The helm changes the person's alignment and then that character wants to act as someone of that alignment.

This is the crux of the "instant redemption" issue many people have brought up.

The Helm wouldn't actually redeem a person at all. It would just suddenly make redemption possible. It isn't a get out of jail free card. It's a second chance.

Well that, and many people are labeling the transformation process as torture. The problem is that how you label the process of transformation largely shapes how you view the overall act.

We have 2 possibilities
1. Suppose the helm forced you to relive every evil act you committed from the victim's perspective, that would be torture, but not necessarily an unjust torture.
2. What if the helm works by enlightenment(IE it gives the person a new information/perspective that fundamentally shifts how they view the world). If you punched me, and I told you how that made me feel, and as a result you decide not to punch me again.

It is entirely possible that the experience of of being transformed by the helm is an entirely painless experience with no side effects or lingering compulsions. Nothing in the rules requires the transformation process to be torture or require lingering compulsions.

Morality aside, I do find this situation to be very metagamey. The players know that the change is opposite and basically permanent, but I find it very had to believe that their characters would have nearly that much faith in it. If the Evil Baron suddenly became a nice guy how many people would believe it, and how many would think it was just part of another ploy to better oppress the people? It is like a player's character suddenly deciding to try using fire on a troll. Would you have tried fire if you didn't already know out of character it would work? Would you have even thought of trying the helm if you didn't already know out of character that its effects are powerful and permanent?

[Andrew R]

phantom1592 wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

we also have people try to cure gays, because in our world many consider them immoral. so is this good?

Awwwwww... now, I thought it was un-PC to lump 'gay' in with things like rape and murder...

I specifically made a note to keep all my examples in the 'universally evil.' ;)

Well in 3 religion's "how to" manual it is a death penalty offense.... So if they can "cure" them instead....

[BigNorseWolf]

Saint Caleth wrote:

think that this thread has adequately demonstrated that there is a difference between an Evil aligned act and something that would be a human rights violation. There are plenty of things that even a paladin can do that the EU would strongly disapprove of.

Yup. Its weird, but a lot of modern legal documents are lawful chaotic.

[Stephen Ede]

The Helm give a Will Save to resist. That means the Wearer can feel the Helm trying to force their mind to be overwritten, as per the rules when you get to make a Will save. You know you are fighting against what's been done to you, and you know what the effect us trying to do.

So I guess it depends on how people think they would feel if they felt something trying to overwrite all their thoughts and beliefs while they desperately resisted.

That said I think there are a chink of people who would still be fine with it. I remember in 3.5 they brought in a Paladin variant where instead of healing hands the Paladin had hands of torture and could even do evil without falling so long as they believed it was for the Greater Good. And there were a good chunk of people who thought this was perfectly fine and good......

Like I said several pages ago. Most people's positions reflect their RL alignment/Ethical views.

[Doomed Hero]

Let's please not bring homosexuality into this. It muddies the discussion. Being gay has nothing to do with being good or evil. There are good gay people and bad gay people. Putting a Helm on a gay person would change their moral stance, but they would still be gay. Might as well replace "homosexual" with "left handed" for all the relevance it has in this discussion.

The only way homosexuality would have anything to do with the alignment system would be if the GM decided that being gay was one of the traits of a given alignment (which would be weird, and very screwed up).

[Stephen Ede]

phantom1592 wrote:

Liam Warner wrote:

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?

Stephen Ede wrote:

Just a point. The Helm doesn't remove compusions. If a person is a pedophile, compulsive killer, thief ectre, they will still have those compulsions after the helm. They might feel better or worse about the compulsion (you never know, the villain might actually be LG but struggling against the compulsions and becomes CE and happily going along with the compulsions).

Based on what?

Where do these 'compuslsions' come from? I've heard it said that the rapists aren't about lust as much as power... I'm no psychology/criminology major... so I'll leave it at that.

If that's true then the Alignment change would 'fix' it. Compassion for others would overwrite the need to lord power over those weaker then you.

From what I've read a lot, but not all, of thee offenses are in the compulsions area (and what constitutes mental illness is a interesting point since basically by that standard we are all crazy to some degree). What you often have is people with compulsions towards various types of behaviour. But with a good will save they can avoid the compulsions. Those who fail will often take moral positions to justify their failure because humans prefer to think good things about themselves (thus people who desire to torture people they consider "wrong/evil" wish to see such acts as "Good").

So if you Helm such a person they will be forced to change their attitudes towards the acts and see them as Evil. But their Will saves may stiil be crap in which case they will continue to fail them, even when taking a 10, and commit the Evil acts. Except they will be unable to convince themselves it was ethically/morally ok. Now this is all stuff that can to some degree be done with theory... BUT people get to choose whether to take that therapy. You and others are saying they should get the therapy whether they are willing or not. Not even a choice - Prison for life vs Helm. Just "you get the Helm, tough sh1t Scum".

Quote:

he 'real world' I honestly can't hold up a person's free will to commit atrocities as some precious jewel to be protected at all costs... then I can't find myself agreeing with that stance 'in game' either.

I haven't seen anyone supporting a persons free right to commit atrocities but I and others have held up yours and others free rights to believe in what you wish (including the desire to commit atrocities) even if I would cheerfully have your freedom of action restricted so you couldn't carry out the atrocities you desire to do if you have shown yourself unable to resist actually doing those atrocities (note, I require proof of a crime before conviction. Not just the desire, but you may disagree on that as well. I know many to follow the "Detect Evil = Smite" view). But I'm fine with you having your personality overwritten in return for freedom IF that's what you choose. That should seem fair to you, yes? :-)

[Stephen Ede]

Doomed Hero wrote:

Let's please not bring homosexuality into this. It muddies the discussion. Being gay has nothing to do with being good or evil. There are good gay people and bad gay people. Putting a Helm on a gay person would change their moral stance, but they would still be gay. Might as well replace "homosexual" with "left handed" for all the relevance it has in this discussion.

That's fine. Left handedness has been seen as Evil. Thus we have Dexter = Right handed, Sinister = Left.

I myself was on the fringe of the are when children were punished for writing with the left hand and forced to use their left hands because using the left hand was wrong (and yes some people went as far as claiming it was evil). And they felt the right thing was to mentally condition children to only write with the Right hand. Bring out the Helm of "Opposite Handedness".

[BigNorseWolf]

Stephen Ede wrote:

Bring out the Helm of "Opposite Handedness".

Wouldn't that be a ruler? THWACK

[phantom1592]

Stephen Ede wrote:

(note, I require proof of a crime before conviction. Not just the desire, but you may disagree on that as well. I know many to follow the "Detect Evil = Smite" view).

Oh definitely.

My Paladin rarely even uses Detect Evil that often. It's too easy to bypass if someone really wants to. And most of the crimes he's had to execute for... He's been first hand witness to, sooooo no real good defense here. ;)

Stephen Ede wrote:

From what I've read a lot, but not all, of thee offenses are in the compulsions area (and what constitutes mental illness is a interesting point since basically by that standard we are all crazy to some degree).

This is really why I don't feel like digging too deeply into such subjects. Modern thinking is that EVERYTHING is a disease, and we are ALL sick in one way or another. Nobody gets to feel responsible for their actions anymore...

Stephen Ede wrote:

So if you Helm such a person they will be forced to change their attitudes towards the acts and see them as Evil. But their Will saves may stiil be crap in which case they will continue to fail them, even when taking a 10, and commit the Evil acts. Except they will be unable to convince themselves it was ethically/morally ok.

I personally would not play under such a DM. If I was a LG character and the definition of LG is pretty clearly delineated in the Core... and still have to make will saves for compulsions which are NOT in the rules...

I would not play that game. That's the kind of stuff that works in 'alignment free' games or in World of Darkness where 'character flaws' are half the game.

The 'good' vampire who fights the need to feed is the only example I could think of in a game like this that would still be legit. But that's also a 'biological' need.

On a separate note... Can you take 10 on saves? That's something I never even thought about before... Since a '1' always fails... I wouldn't have thought that was possible...

[Andrew R]

Doomed Hero wrote:

Let's please not bring homosexuality into this. It muddies the discussion. Being gay has nothing to do with being good or evil. There are good gay people and bad gay people. Putting a Helm on a gay person would change their moral stance, but they would still be gay. Might as well replace "homosexual" with "left handed" for all the relevance it has in this discussion.

The only way homosexuality would have anything to do with the alignment system would be if the GM decided that being gay was one of the traits of a given alignment (which would be weird, and very screwed up).

Lets bring it up because this is a discussion about the morality of changing people against their will for what you think is "good", much as christians want to "cure" the "evil" of gay folks...

[Doomed Hero]

Andrew R wrote:

Doomed Hero wrote:

Let's please not bring homosexuality into this. It muddies the discussion. Being gay has nothing to do with being good or evil. There are good gay people and bad gay people. Putting a Helm on a gay person would change their moral stance, but they would still be gay. Might as well replace "homosexual" with "left handed" for all the relevance it has in this discussion.

The only way homosexuality would have anything to do with the alignment system would be if the GM decided that being gay was one of the traits of a given alignment (which would be weird, and very screwed up).

Lets bring it up because this is a discussion about the morality of changing people against their will for what you think is "good", much as christians want to "cure" the "evil" of gay folks...

Real world morality: Subjective, open to debate, no one true answer.

Fantasy world morality: Objective, actual divine providence, any argument pales in the face of spells like Commune.

The two situations are completely incomparable. Apples and Oranges.