| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic good (which a lot of modern morality is in align with) is the idea that the only objectively existing source of morality is the wants and desires of the individual. Anything that limits the individuals desires to do what they want is an imposition on a persons being, and the only excuse for doing that is to prevent anothers rights from being imposed on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a christian universe with one supreme god who's edicts supercede all else its more like an eastern or old world style world where you have dozens/hundred/thousands of gods with all differing views on the appropriate way to behave and what is good.
Not true.
If a cleric of Iomede and a cleric of Gorum each cast detect good, the results are going to be the same even though the tennants of the two religions are vastly different.
The various religions might be different, but good and evil are the same across all of them.
The most interesting thing, to me, about the fantasy world morality, is that evil people above 5th level all know that they are evil. There's no rationalizing or hiding from it. Alignment divenations are common. Evil people above 5th level are all either insane or actively embrace evil (arguably another kind of insanity).
The entire concept of moral relativism goes out the window in a setting where Paladins and Antipaladins exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If morality could not be argued there would not be at least three different goods.
Just because the paladin is good does not mean that they are right.
Many constitutions prevent laws. They're laws that stop other laws. Its largely a "thou shalt not" for the government, not the people. If the government can't control speech, association, and expression, has trouble searching the populace, has to jump through hoops to imprison people etc. then the laws are mandating chaos.
Is it immoral to use a helm of opposite alignment on a captured do-gooder?
Heh, the more interesting question is if its immoral to use a girdle of (gender swapping) on someone.
Keep in mind that an evil alignment does not mean you are a monstrous, vile, psychopath.
Detect evil detects an alignment. A Chelaxian Asmodean schoolmaster, whose only "crime" is that he strongly promotes the tenets he does, will ping the same as the antipaladin working to summon an army of demons into the schoolyard.
Is it immoral to use a helm of opposite alignment on a captured do-gooder?
Heh, the more interesting question is if its immoral to use a girdle of (gender swapping) on someone.
Are they a sexual criminal? Because we use the helm because they are a criminal of alignment.
So we must apply the same standards, otherwise you are scarecrow-ing (accidently but still).
Keep in mind that an evil alignment does not mean you are a monstrous, vile, psychopath.
Detect evil detects an alignment. A Chelaxian Asmodean schoolmaster, whose only "crime" is that he strongly promotes the tenets he does, will ping the same as the antipaladin working to summon an army of demons into the schoolyard.
I don't think a schoolmaster will be evil if his only crime is promoting words/text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that an evil alignment does not mean you are a monstrous, vile, psychopath.
Detect evil detects an alignment. A Chelaxian Asmodean schoolmaster, whose only "crime" is that he strongly promotes the tenets he does, will ping the same as the antipaladin working to summon an army of demons into the schoolyard.
Well not exactly.
Antipaladins have the aura of evil. A Chelaxian schoolmaster is likely not to even ping unless he has 5 hit dice and it would be faint as opposed to the Antipaladin's Strong aura of evil.
Keep in mind that an evil alignment does not mean you are a monstrous, vile, psychopath.
Detect evil detects an alignment. A Chelaxian Asmodean schoolmaster, whose only "crime" is that he strongly promotes the tenets he does, will ping the same as the antipaladin working to summon an army of demons into the schoolyard.
Not quite true. The schoolmaster would need to be at least 5th level (unlikely) or have levels in cleric/anti-paladin or some other class that grants auras or be an outsider or undead to register to detect evil.
In short, the antipaladin is notable evil at level 1. The schoolmaster needs to put in a lot more evil work (and level up) or multiclass to start registering.
|
I don't think a schoolmaster will be evil if his only crime is promoting words/text.
Many of the very worst human beings in recent times have likely not committed a single "evil act". They worked their evil through writing and talking and convincing other people to support and commit the atrocities they envisioned and promoted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WELP, a weekend of no internet and the thread dies. Then I check out what's happened. So I write this post, but, at the last minute, decide not to post it, since I didn't want to be "the one" that brought the topic back up. But since it's happening, I'm not complaining... :)
(By the way, I'm really hoping I'm not doing something unpleasant, here, as I'm actually enjoying the conversation and am learning interesting things. Also, I have no problem with this thread being raised.)
First: pres man's post was awesome, and Arturius had some excellent points, and I appreciate him for being more eloquent than I. I also loved some of his interesting campaign seeds! Charender reiterated points I'd tried (but apparently failed) to get across before.
SuicidalSkyDiver's and Anzyr's back-and-forth about Pharasma and her judgement process is an interesting one. In the RAW, Anzyr is correct insomuch as the Petitioner entry gives us any insight, from my reading, but SuicidalSkyDiver's points are extremely salient in Golarion, as it is a mystery and, in at least one other campaign setting, genuine attempted worship counted for more than alignment anyway (and, if I recall, there is some amount of fluff text there, too).
Despite disagreeing with it, I think SuicidalSkyDiver (and later Ashiel) had an interesting point about subjugation an interesting premise to ponder and discuss. I'm curious how SSD thinks about imprisonment? (Ashiel made it clear that it's an evil thing turned to good ends, washing out to neutral in his opinion, like domination or the OP-tastic Helm oOA that we're discussing.)
I'm putting spoiler tags, 'cause this puppy is loooooong, for which I apologize. The first two spoilers are basically just back-and-forth with Liam. Feel free to ignore, if you're not him (or even if you are, and don't care!) as I'm spoilering those two specifically to move them out of everyone else's conversation.
@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.
Getting in on someone else's good deed despite your own misdeeds (and lack of comprehension) is, in fact, a powerful and recurrent trope in Christianity. Point in fact, it's the fundamental nature of the belief: none are worthy, but all can come in due to the actions of one righteous Man.
@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.
That was not me.
Although given that your mermen become even more dubious a form of redemption.
Out game used a different choice metric entirely.
"Change or die." is harsh, but not evil, especially given that, again, these were wanton murderers, bandits, and so on, those who not only had opportunities (after being judged) but rejected them; those that otherwise would have had to live in the same cities and regions as their former victims.But that is not the choice they were given.
"Do this or stay dead, because we already killed you in direct response to you killing our people. Also, if you choose not to return, I will ensure that you stay dead through the many methods at my disposal - you will not receive a valid offer of resurrection from anyone else."
They were already dead. The character brought them back to life in new bodies, in a new society, in a new location, without the prejudice of those they'd harmed before, without the temptations they'd previously given into, and with a new alignment.
And, the entire time, it was their own choice. I've not used a single helm of opposite alignment in that game.
They were currently experiencing (or about to experience) their own afterlife. They knew the consequences of their previous life and alignment and could keep it. They just weren't ever coming back to harm the people that they'd already harmed once.
Note, this isn't "Anyone who pings evil by detection." - there are plenty of those in the Kingdom; he actually knows all of them by name, and keeps tabs on them via magical information-compilation devices to ensure they don't harm innocents, but otherwise leaves them living their life as they please.
If you still find that dubious, than may I recommend that you move to a town that is full of repeat offenders on parole? Interestingly, the crime-rate in those areas tend to be much higher than they are in other locations. Curious thing, that, people defaulting to what they know when surrounded by environment that are familiar enough to permit said behaviors.
In any event, it's a bargain they've agreed to, not one that was forced on them, unlike the helm we're discussing.
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 . . .
No: I most certainly did not on purpose. You have my sincere apologies for doing so, as it was unintended.
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.
I admit that I totally crit-failed my perception or sense motive check somewhere in there. Somehow I either missed the king being a murdering psycho in reality (in which case, kill the cretin) or I misunderstood that as part of the original misunderstanding. My apologies on that regard, as it's entirely my fault.
So, let's go into the rest of our stuff!
Hahah, that's a terrible example. If he's good, now, he won't want to murder the other guy.
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.
1) It's a disingenuous example; to kind-of respond you from later in the thread, if the chaotic good guy dies and goes to heaven, good on him. Also, how could the paladin not tell the king was evil? If he knew, would he not discuss it with the lawful evil rebel guy first? There are so many points of failure for the paladin serving the evil king that it's kind of confusing.
2) The scenario is contrived. It fits every definition of "contrived" I can think of. The paladin (who can detect evil, but doesn't) is tasked by an evil king to defeat an evil rebel who is rebelling for, ultimately, a dumb reason (the king is doing something illegal), succeeds at getting to the guy, places the helm on him, and that somehow results in the destruction of the rebellion and the death of the now-good man. That said, contrived scenarios are not inherently wrong, but they are contrived and rare. This would be the exception and the corner case - not the thing you build an argument on.
3) Why would turning him chaotic good destroy the rebellion? The fact that previously he had to impose a sense of order to the chaos is not negated. His alignment is changed, not his skills or abilities. Either he has the same charisma and diplomacy and/or intimidate as he did before, or he does not... which really isn't the fault of the Helm.
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.
David Gemmel is a great author. I enjoyed that book, too, if it's the same one I'm remembering. The worst one was when I found out he murdered, like, a dozen orphans to make some elegant ladies cool one evening for a short time by a glowy ball. *shivers*
Still a contrived scenario in PF. Because Gemmel (and any non-PF/D&D author I know) doesn't write an objective alignment system (which is different from lacking an objective alignment) into the equation nor ways to check it, if there is one. There is no magic helmet that just reverses your alignment. There is literally nothing like this inside his works (or any works I can think of).
Thus, that situation does not play a part in Pathfinder.
If this were a pathfinder world, either the paladin (and those working with him) were morons, the GM was severely road-blocking, or the players (if there are any) are just missing the hints, and the GM needs to bust out the clue-by-four. Unless the paladin was playing by himself, in which case, the rebellion kind of really super-sucks, doesn't it? Just one guy in plate mail managed to get directly to their leader and pop a magic "undo" button on him. And if the paladin managed to do so, and the guy said that he should have just murdered the king, well... the paladin should really re-think what he's doing and talk to the guy.
Even if it did, the rebel in question wasn't doing it for any principled reason except some poorly-thought-out idea to protect himself, somehow, this is a classic case of deception - either the rebel is wrong, or the king is a monster, and the paladin's duty upon ascertaining that the helm actually worked is to investigate the king, not turn over the prisoner. Lawful good, by Paizo's definition, can be rebels, too, as can a paladin, given the depictions and Iconics in Council of Thieves.
It was a classic case of deception... in which case, the difficulty with coming up with an evil man okay with murder, but rebelling against the king because he did something vaguely illegal is dubious at best, to my way of thinking.
He's certainly not protecting himself. I'm actually with Darguun on this one - I'm not really seeing a solid enough reason for the evil guy to rebel. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. I admit it. But it's still dubious to my sensibilities.
(As an aside, if it wasn't David Gemmel, or if it was and you recall the name of the book, I'd love to know what and who you're talking about.)
Okay, so that's the back-and-forth! Now for everyone (who cares to read it)!
In most cases, running a sword through a guy's head will result in more evil than good, but in specific instances, it's necessary and a good act.
Let it be clear, I'm not exactly in either of Stephen Ede's camps - at least not as quite strictly as he defines them. I realize the preponderance of my arguments have probably sounded like school 1, but I'm actually closer to school 2... depending on how you view their descent into evil.
That last "depending" (subjective from our point of view, not-so-much from the in-Game-World view) is one of the (several) major points we're all arguing about - we each have our own subtle nuance about how that happens, and thus what's good to do about it.
Switching everyone willy-nilly is not a good thing, for sure. In most all of the cases that it would actually come up in games, though? Unless everyone here is running extraordinarily non-standard games, it seems very dubious that it would come up in normal play as some sort of "detect and helm" situation.[spoiler=Education Crime; is that a real thing? It seems like it should be.]
I don't think a schoolmaster will be evil if his only crime is promoting words/text.Many of the very worst human beings in recent times have likely not committed a single "evil act". They worked their evil through writing and talking and convincing other people to support and commit the atrocities they envisioned and promoted.
This was actually something I wanted to comment on, but couldn't figure out a way to do so; so I'm glad you did, Raven.
()I agree that it can be a very terrible thing, in the schoolmaster's case. If the schoolmaster in question is actively harming the minds and lives of others by his actions (and eventually purposefully causing terrible things by his will), do his actions not warrant a response? What is the level of appropriate response? The removal from his post, certainly, yet, unless he is the most minor of evils, that is unlikely to sway him. A geas/quest or mark of justice? A reversal of his alignment? An end to his life? What is the "limit" of pursuing his actions?
I'm not saying that any one of the above options (except the removal from his post) is the right response. I'm actually curious what people think.
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.
... and the delay of that evil spirit manifesting and the amount of good that can be done in the world in the meantime are irrelevant?
You seem to be under the impression that the guy isn't going to be killed. In all the examples I've used, the man is evil, has chosen evil, and is going to die (or has already died in the Kingmaker game) for the evil. I don't know what the man in the OP was going to have done to him.
In a vacuum, I defaulted to presuming that he's powerful enough that leaving him alone isn't an option, leaving him in prison isn't an option, and leaving him to sort things out on his own isn't an option.
Those are presumptions, I admit, but I thought I've made them pretty clear. Given that, the helm seems a good thing.
That said, even if not all of those are true, if the man is simply confused, it depends. If your option is straight up, "Kill him or not." I'll go for the "not" every time.
A Clcokwork Orange
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.
This. Holy crap, guys. He hated not being able to do evil. That's the opposite of what the helm does.
A Clockwork Orange was more like having him under a geas spell, or, even more accurately, a resetting mark of justice that activated whenever he did anything violent or sexual. Let that sink in. A Clockwork Orange's entire plot can be summed up by a Paladin spell.
That's certainly a kind of torture... and it's a paladin spell. Notable.
(As an aside, Usagi, it's not "shamefully" that you haven't seen A Clockwork Orange. It's about forced behavior modification, how everyone is secretly the worst person, and there's no such thing as redemption for anyone, with or without brainwashing. I hated it - not because it showed how forced behavioral modification could be horrifying, which it can be, but just because it had no redeeming people in it at all.)
For those who look at it (as I do not) as the end of one creature, and the creation of another: why is that evil?
You were going to end the first creature anyway. Completely annihilate them. Your goal was the end of their life (and thus the end of their existence as themselves).
Thus, if, in the process, you also gain a good-guy who knows what the evil creature knew, has the skills and abilities the evil creature had, and has the powers the evil creature wielded, dedicated to undoing the evil of the creature he was before... why is that a bad thing?
I mean, dudes, that would be the most awesome. Imagine a reverse-alignment clone of, say, any of the worst people in history working to undo their own atrocities. That's... really great.
(Now, of course, this is not to say that Helms of Opposite Alignment are good implements of good, and thus should totally exist in our world. While we might get counter-terrorist information from their most-highs, or eliminate wars because con-questing generals suddenly saw the error of their ways, the reverse is also true should these things exist.)
1) Its effects change the person's alignment, but they end up judged according to their first one when they die (the "good person gone to hell" effect).
- Rebuttal-1) This does not apply if the creature in question loses the forced alignment change upon death (that is, if it behaves like spell effects and "over-rides" their attributes, but ceases on death), as they are no longer a good person (and never were underneath the magic). This can be tragic if the evil person, after living a life of forced good truly wants redemption, but can now no longer find it. However, I will cover this under the "therapy" point, below. Regardless, if this was so, a Phylactery of Faithfulness would warn us.
2) Its effects cause an especially potent form of evil outsider or some other planar problems that we are unaware of.
- Rebuttal-2) We have no indication this is so, outside of pure speculation. If this was so, a Phylactery of Faithfulness would warn us. Currently the only thing we could conclude if we followed the "it ceases at death" line is that our options were (evil person->death, then wait->evil outsider) or (evil person->good person->eventual death, then wait->evil outsider) which brings a net total of good into the omniverse instead of evil.
3) Its effects are presumed to be "the end" with no form of therapy to assist the evil person in question. This can lead to tragic results such as suicide due to depression, or other self-harm without guidance; attempts at doing good failing horridly as the newly-minted good person simply doesn't know how; or someone with a mental instability suffering with their mental instability while being forced to be good. Or perhaps the villain (even beyond the magic) wants to redeem himself, but can't because magic.
- Rebuttal-3a) I've always stated that therapy should go with such conversions. The idea that they're turned and then left to their own devices seems short-sighted, to me. They may have mental issues, moral questions, and other elements that need training. This can't always be done by PCs (and time might be one of the reasons the villain was turned in the first place), but should be handled in some fashion or another to assist the former villain. Further, even without the magic, the ex-villain might come to long for true rehabilitation after living the life. In such cases divination effects can tell us whether it's a good idea or not, and the effects of the helm can be undone and the villain given an atonement. Also, Phylacteries of Faithfulness would warn us.
- Rebuttal-3b) Reference the mental problems (such as compulsions to do evil) or other such issues, the question comes down to: are they evil because of a mental defect (in which case that should also get fixed [see Therapy, above]) or did they develop a mental defect due to their evil (which is now fixed). Also, Phylacteries of Faithfulness would warn us.
- Rebuttal-3c) This heavily depends on how "gritty" the world in question is. If good guys are generally on the "Team Good" side, and don't do evil things (because, you know, they're good guys), then this can function just fine. Also, Phylacteries of Faithfulness would warn us.
4) Its effects have some sort of unforeseen consequences, where the fact that they were evil somehow made a worse evil not rise.
- Rebuttal 4) This would have to be a very contrived scenario, and is the height of the "specific exception to a general rule" concept. The "easy" way around this would be to put the helm on both evils. This is probably the one case where a Phylactery of Faithfulness might not actually warn us (as it's not directly an alignment issue), though it might. Divination effects, however, will.
All of those things are based around what might be in any given game, not what are in the written elements presumed in all games (though not all games cleave true to the same written elements supposedly presumed within them).
To me, unless shown that it directly negatively affects something other than the person you were going to kill anyway, I can't really see how this is a bad thing in-game.
In real life, on the other hand... considering we have no magical objective moral stick with which to measure (even if we have individual moral "sticks" by which we measure), I would conclude that most (though not all) situations in which it would be used would likely be evil. 'Cause people, amirite?
|
|
I specifically made a note to keep all my examples in the 'universally evil.' ;)
Which really bends the original debate quite out of shape.
Note also that "universal evil" does not really exist. In our modern western society, abuse of children is considered the worst evil.
Such was not the case in the European 19th century where the vilest criminal was undoubtedly the parricide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few semi-random thoughts:
1)If a LE rebel leader was trying to overthrow an evil king and a paladin grabbed the rebel and forced converted him via the helm. The rebel is now CG and loses all his focus on a methodical rebellion (I don't believe that is a necessity, but whatever), that doesn't mean the rebellion must end. The rebel leader now has an ally in the paladin (hey, I'm good, you are good, let's work together, the king is really doing some bad stuff, since I'm good now, you can believe me) and the paladin certainly has a strong sense of order (the whole lawful part of his alignment). Thus the paladin just becomes the leader of the rebellion with the former leader becomes the hot headed go it alone guy. "Dammit Murphy, you can't just keep doing jobs by yourself!"
2)Forced conversion leads to big baddie. Hmmmm, how about a fallen angel story. Why did the angel fall? Because it arose from the soul of an evil person that was forced to convert via the helm. When the person died their soul (as indicated by their current alignment) was good, they went to the celestial realms. Overtime the soul arose to an angel form. But always in the soul was a dormant seed of evil, just waiting for the fertile soil of a questionable situation to arise for it to sprout and grow. You can steal that idea if you wish.
3)Personally, I like the comparison to the "Death of Personality" from B-5 (obviously not the same due to retaining memories). I think that this probably should be viewed as akin to the death penalty. Not to be used for pick-pockets and such, but for someone you would be willing to put to death, this seems at least as "good" as that (both could in fact be considered neutral).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Pet Cemetery] Sometimes, death is better [/Pet Cemetery]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah (the pet cemetery thing made me think of good -> evil transformation). Turning someone from good to evil might be a "good" act if a population had basically gotten rid of all aggression.
I'm thinking about the humans before they met the Kzin in the Niven stories. Humanity had eliminated or controlled all aggressive feelings in order to maintain and control a huge population. When the Kzin showed up, the humans were ill-prepared to deal with them on their level. So some people were taken off of the medication and allowed for their baser instincts to reemerge and come up with ideas to kill the Kzin. Sort of a good -> evil conversion for the greater good.
"I don't want my pain taken away! I need my pain!" -Kirk
I don't think a schoolmaster will be evil if his only crime is promoting words/text.Many of the very worst human beings in recent times have likely not committed a single "evil act". They worked their evil through writing and talking and convincing other people to support and commit the atrocities they envisioned and promoted.
Can you give examples?
Even Hitler did more than words. He did do evil acts.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First I want to say I love the philosophical back and forth of these types of threads and I have read the whole thing (which took me several days, 'cause I'm slow).
I find myself agreeing almost completely with Tacticslion. I think he has the right of things on this one. Forcing an undeniably Evil (capital E) person to undergo the 'Helm Treatment' is a Good act. Just as killing him outright would be, but the 'Helm Treatment' would actually be better.
As for the fate of the petitioners in the afterlife, I have a little different perspective that makes me okay with their fate. Sure, everyone (or almost everyone in Pathfinder) dies and becomes a petitioner. Their essence is sent to their "final reward" and is eventually recycled into an outsider or their energy is used for some other purpose, completely eliminating that unique person. So in effect, oblivion.
Many people have expressed how much this sucks, and yes, it does suck. But as an Atheist I find it rather comforting. Sure, I will be completely gone, but I have already made peace with that. Knowing that some great Good-aligned outsider might rise from my soul's energy to continue doing good and helping people would make me happy (and by extension would also make my Good-aligned characters happy). It is better than the plant food fate that awaits me in the real world. :)
As for the temporary nature of the Helm of Opposite Alignment (the suggestion that it ends at death). I don't think it is temporary at all. It is a Transformation effect and I would say that the duration is not Permanent (which can be dispelled) but Instant (which cannot). The fact that it takes a spell like Wish or Miracle, and not Dispel Magic or Remove Curse, to reverse the effect suggests that the change is absolute and (for lack of a better word) permanent. Even after death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a schoolmaster will be evil if his only crime is promoting words/text.Many of the very worst human beings in recent times have likely not committed a single "evil act". They worked their evil through writing and talking and convincing other people to support and commit the atrocities they envisioned and promoted.Can you give examples?
Even Hitler did more than words. He did do evil acts.
Yes, he did. He was personally involved in the Beer Hall Putsch, which, despite being the stupidest possible move he could have made at the time and which resulted in his arrest, did involve kidnapping at gunpoint, followed by shooting at people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, he did. He was personally involved in the Beer Hall Putsch, which, despite being the stupidest possible move he could have made at the time and which resulted in his arrest, did involve kidnapping at gunpoint, followed by shooting at people.I don't think a schoolmaster will be evil if his only crime is promoting words/text.Many of the very worst human beings in recent times have likely not committed a single "evil act". They worked their evil through writing and talking and convincing other people to support and commit the atrocities they envisioned and promoted.Can you give examples?
Even Hitler did more than words. He did do evil acts.
I think it would be a pretty easy argument to make that ordering your minions to go out and murder people is just as evil as doing it yourself. In fact even just suggesting "this problem needs to be taken care of" is still evil if you know that it will result in the murder of innocents.
This isn't a court of law. There is an objective standard of Good and Evil. If you perform an action, even as slight as an innuendo, that you know will result in Evil, it is an Evil act.
This gets back to the idea that Detect Evil on a Neutral cleric of an Evil god is a false positive. No, it isn't. You cast Detect Evil and there was Evil there to detect. The cleric has an aura of Evil. I don't care if the cleric himself is Neutral, he is an agent of Evil. Now I'm not saying that a paladin can just smite him (although if he did it would work, imho), but it would be wise to keep an eye on him just like any other person who detected as Evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be a pretty easy argument to make that ordering your minions to go out and murder people is just as evil as doing it yourself.
Actually, even more Evil, as now he is suborning yet another person into being evil.
So, for those of who think that using the Helm in this fashion is Evil:
You have a serial killer, who tortures and kills the innocents. But he has a bad childhood, and seems to have been "led astray". What do you do with him in Golarion?
Execute him?
or
Convert him?
As the Lion sez "For those who look at it (as I do not) as the end of one creature, and the creation of another: why is that evil?
You were going to end the first creature anyway. Completely annihilate them. Your goal was the end of their life (and thus the end of their existence as themselves).
Thus, if, in the process, you also gain a good-guy who knows what the evil creature knew, has the skills and abilities the evil creature had, and has the powers the evil creature wielded, dedicated to undoing the evil of the creature he was before... why is that a bad thing?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any specific rules for converting someone, through say diplomacy? I know it can make them helpful, but being helpful towards you doesn't mean they are no longer evil towards the universe at large.
Are there any specific rules for converting someone, through say diplomacy? I know it can make them helpful, but being helpful towards you doesn't mean they are no longer evil towards the universe at large.
The only rules I know of are from 3rd Edition which more or less involved imprisonment and months of diplomacy rolls.
There could be more somewhere, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any specific rules for converting someone, through say diplomacy? I know it can make them helpful, but being helpful towards you doesn't mean they are no longer evil towards the universe at large.The only rules I know of are from 3rd Edition which more or less involved imprisonment and months of diplomacy rolls.
There could be more somewhere, though.
Yep, In BoED. Like I said, it's not only Good, it's Exalted to lock someone up and preach at them for hours on end, day after day, month after month until they convert.
If that's exalted, using the Helm would be beatific.
I know a lot of posters dont like the Objective Alignment system that has been part of D&D since the start, but under those rules- this a Good thing. Discussions of IRL and other games morality systems aside.
Using skills follows the rules of the world. Using magic is akin to cheating. The helm is magic. Even worse, it is cursed, ie an innately damaging kind of magic.
Definitely not the same IMO.
Better to execute them, then? Their soul will go to endless torment. That's better?
Better to execute them, then? Their soul will go to endless torment. That's better?Using skills follows the rules of the world. Using magic is akin to cheating. The helm is magic. Even worse, it is cursed, ie an innately damaging kind of magic.
Definitely not the same IMO.
What's this consequentialism doing here? The Pathfinder alignment system isn't based on consequentialism. You're bringing real-world meta-ethical views into this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better to execute them, then? Their soul will go to endless torment. That's better?Using skills follows the rules of the world. Using magic is akin to cheating. The helm is magic. Even worse, it is cursed, ie an innately damaging kind of magic.
Definitely not the same IMO.
At least it does follow the rules ;-)
A good question is whether the evildoer would agree with this being done to him or not.
What's this consequentialism doing here? The Pathfinder alignment system isn't based on consequentialism. You're bringing real-world meta-ethical views into this.Better to execute them, then? Their soul will go to endless torment. That's better?Using skills follows the rules of the world. Using magic is akin to cheating. The helm is magic. Even worse, it is cursed, ie an innately damaging kind of magic.
Definitely not the same IMO.
Especially since 9 times out of 10 the person's soul is obliterated anyways so its not like its even an eternity of torment.
Especially since 9 times out of 10 the person's soul is obliterated anyways so its not like its even an eternity of torment.
But the good souls are all happy and such before being obliterated forever! That makes all the difference.
Sure, you'll hear about "the natural way" and about how it's important for souls to be recycled as outsiders. But let's recognize those for what they really are: lies to defend Pharasma's wicked soul trade! Her position of power in the multiverse is secured by her doling out souls to the various planes. She is perfectly happy to send any number of mortal souls to oblivion to increase her power.
Well, such fate does actually seem to be the fate of mortal souls, as in the perfectly normal way for them to end.
It may seem barbaric to us because we do not subscribe to this cosmology. It is likely accepted as unavoidable fact by mortals in the Golarionverse.
That's what's so insidious about it! Pharasma has had millennia for her priests to convince everyone that it's perfectly normal and unavoidable fact for her to trade their souls away for power. It's not that she doesn't allow people to question her cruel reign; she's made it so that people don't even think there's anything to question!
It's all quite devious.
Yep, In BoED. Like I said, it's not only Good, it's Exalted to lock someone up and preach at them for hours on end, day after day, month after month until they convert.
Yeah, I remembered you mentioned it, I just forgot to mention that you did. :)
(Also, I forgot to note that it came from BoVD, even though I was thinking of that exact passage.)I know a lot of posters dont like the Objective Alignment system that has been part of D&D since the start, but under those rules- this a Good thing. Discussions of IRL and other games morality systems aside.
This I think I can understand. There's a very strong (and healthy!) respect for individuality, free will, and personal agency 'round here. This is, in fact, a good thing, and as it should be. Thus the idea that someone could (or would) strip a person of that for any reason, whatsoever, rings eerily similar to potentially triggering problems that actual people actually have experienced due to violation, and seems close in some ways, to the brainwashing techniques that are used to break people and force them into doing what you want. The dissonance, then, of a helm that auto-changes someone against their will is something that is very, very Red Flag (tm) raising.
The problem, however, lies in that these are very different circumstances, and the goals, methods, and results of these effects as opposed to any of those that are used in real life.
In real life, the closest analogy is not, "I will turn you good." (even if that's what many people believe) but rather, "I will make you see things my way." In real life, the closest analogy is personal power and enforcing your own will and view on someone, rather than enlightenment or objective morality. In real life, it's dirty, painful, and cruel, regardless of the method used, because you're forcing your views, not "accurate morality" on someone else.
In Pathfinder (and the games from whence it descended), on the other hand, there is an accurate morality measuring stick. It doesn't matter what you believe or how you feel, there are Laws of the Universe that exist, and, in those laws, Alignment is part of it.
In Pathfinder (and the games from whence it descended), there are clear, concise ways to entirely alter your alignment and moral and ethical outlook instantly, cleanly, and honestly.
It's that "honest" part that is so difficult in the real world.
And, truth be told, I understand these arguments. There's nothing wrong with playing the game that way, or even feeling squicked out by the concept. What is wrong, however, is citing others who are not squicked out as somehow deviant or immoral or otherwise incapable of comprehending what's happening or whatever.
Just like there is a demonstrable difference between the way any sort of magic, Divine intervention, or other non-mundane effects (and many mundane effects) functions in real life and the way such things function in Pathfinder, there is a demonstrable difference in the accuracy of morality. If someone is good, they are good. That doesn't mean they have to agree with, like, or even respect a given entity (even if that entity is also good), and I'm okay with that.
In the real world, that's not always so, and thus a GM must - as always - tailor their game for their players.
On the other hand, there are others who feel that an "instant redemption" cheapens the nature of redemption. I understand the feeling, but disagree, as I don't feel that instantly being redeemed means you're finished - instead, I think that it means you're just started. I see redemption as the start of something.
It's interesting that so many people talk about the terror of erasing the old person. In part, I get that: being erased and replaced with an anti-you is a terrible thing. But there are a number of reasons I'm okay with this.
1) We're not talking about a given individual or a real-world alignment system. We're talking about an in-game alignment system with very different presumptions. If I took my real-world beliefs into Pathfinder, and held my standard to the game, I couldn't play in Golarion. I'm a strict monotheist in Real Life. I believe in One God, and no other. The Polytheism of PF (and the fallibility of the divine within it) simply does not fly. The Bible (my religious book of choice) cites Sorcery, Witchcraft, and Divination as sinful. That eliminates two of my favorite classes and my favorite school of magic. I could go on, but the point is made: I leave my own personal real-life beliefs at the door, accepting the difference that come with PF when I accept the gaming world and conventions therein. It's a game. A cool game, I grant, and one that can model "living worlds" as it were. The mechanics can create a viable world (with a bit of fiat here and there, such as accepting the fluff of a class or the Intent rather than Written Words of the rules, and so on) and can generally sustain themselves in a semi-coherent fashion. But having multiple lovers of differing genders and various states of matrimony simultaneously; going around shoving a sword through peoples' faces (even for good reason); literally going to Hell to fight Devil(s) therein; and so on do not have a place in my real life (as much as I really long for Prestidigitation and Mending as at-will swift-action supernatural abilities in real life).
2) We're talking about people who have already eliminated their rights by virtue of eliminating someone else's, and (in the cases I use) are going to die or are too dangerous to allow to live otherwise. The fact that they violated someone else already has made their own choices and will invalid. If I'm okay with killing them (and thus consigning them to a long torment and then oblivion) I'm not going to be too worried if, in the meantime I create a good person who seeks to do good things.
3) Each table will differ both subtly and substantially in how they approach such things (often without even thinking about it) and how they interpret being good, evil, and the interactions between people. The sliding scales of idealism/cynicism and grittiness/white washed and heroic/grimdark and all that. And that's great.
Anyway, /rambling, as I've got a toddler to put to bed. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I understand PF cosmology, Good and Evil are not value judgments. Good is not "cosmically right" because the Evil gods/forces are just as strong. They have a divine plan just like the forces of Good. Good and Evil are just teams, like Red and Blue.
Evil people are not lost sheep in need of guidance. They are, (some of them) rational people who have chosen to play for team Evil. Just like strong good souls can escape oblivion and retain their memories when they become Archons, mighty evil souls can become Devils if their weight of evil is strong enough.
From a cosmic balance point of view, Helm-ing a villain is a good act, while helm-ing a hero is an Evil act. However, I feel that doing so is morally wrong.
The helm is a sort of nuclear option in the war of good and evil. Most sentients are terrified of being utterly destroyed and replaced with and Anti-you. This interferes with the natural flow of souls into the afterlife. Just like even most evil outsiders don't like Daemons for destroying souls, I feel most forces of Good and Evil would be opposed to the use of helms in this way. This is because everyone knows that if one side starts using them, so will the other side. And then no one wins.
This could lead to an interesting campaign where the resident paladin may be forced to team up with a devil to stop some mortal from Helm-ing other mortals.
In summary: join team Evil. We have dental.
My homebrew LN deity of Order (also in charge of sending souls to their destination) might take an interest, well him and his army of inevitables.
Don't forget it effects the ethical as well as moral side of the person. While someone might be interested in changing their moral side, the idea of changing their ethical side might be repulsive to them.
That is a big down side to this. Consider a LE enemy that a paladin captures. There may be a lot about how the person views honor and loyalty that the paladin can relate to. To destroy the evil part, he'd have to destroy that too. I'm sure a paladin would rather due a true conversion to good than a cursed one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the cursed helms are really supposed to be that common.
This thread has been quite interesting. In my mind, forcing the helm on a person is always a chaotic and evil act. I don't play with objective good and evil though.
As an aside, this thread inspired me to make a "good" nation where similar devices are used to correct illegal/immoral behavior. The ruler is a depressed guy, consigned to the fact that the use of such alignment-altering devices makes his nation safer, but really disliking the stripping of personal freedom.
The practitioners charged with correcting the alignments of criminals periodically are removed from the job and undergo the process them selves. Constantly using such an item causes their alignment to drop from LG to CE over a long time.
This is all secret from the people of course. After they go through the alignment readjust, their memories are wiped in the short term, and longer term memory is a bit fuzzy.
I think it will be a very interesting scenario for the players. Looking forward to seeing how they react to an all LG society, every citizen. Plus how they react once they learn why.
This thread has been quite interesting. In my mind, forcing the helm on a person is always a chaotic and evil act. I don't play with objective good and evil though.
If you don't play with objective good and evil, how is using the helm always evil? Wouldn't it depend on the circumstances? If someone believes they are doing a good thing by saving a life and helping an evil person become good by using the helm, who are we to judge? They see themselves as a good person doing the best they can to make the world a better place.
Plus, if the person the helm was placed on already sees themselves as good, would it even do anything? I mean, sure, he killed a lot of people, but they were evil people anyway (in his opinion) and it was in order to save even more people who are good (again in his opinion)! In his own mind he is already a good person, so what would change?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, if the person the helm was placed on already sees themselves as good, would it even do anything?
I suppose that if you were using this as a standard for good/evil - then the helm would change the person to someone who sees themselves as evil.
Really, though, the helm itself seems to depend on the concept of objective good/evil.
This thread has been quite interesting. In my mind, forcing the helm on a person is always a chaotic and evil act. I don't play with objective good and evil though.
What would the alignment of capital punishment be in your setting then, assuming it could be done in a "fair" way (use of divination magic to ensure no false positives)? It would seem that it would also have to be chaotic evil as well.
I think he means he doesn't play with an Objective System, but still Objective Alignment. Many people confuse the two. It's easy to do.
I think he means he doesn't play with an Objective System, but still Objective Alignment. Many people confuse the two. It's easy to do.
Okay. I'm confused. What's the difference?
If you don't play with objective good and evil, how is using the helm always evil?
When I say I don't play with objective good and evil, what I mean is that good and evil are not quantifiable things. Having 5 evil guys in the world doesn't mean that there is more evil in the world (evil as a force or something that can be measured.)
As such, killing an evil creature is not a good act because you're reducing the amount of evil in the world. Killing an opponent in combat is usually a neutral act.
The common idea of putting the helm on an evil person and turning them good is a good act because it removed evil from the world and added good is not how I view the alignment system.
The reason that using the helm is always evil is that it, in a fashion, destroys a part of a character's personality, the fabric that makes them them self. In my mind, that is worse than simply killing someone.
What would the alignment of capital punishment be in your setting then, assuming it could be done in a "fair" way (use of divination magic to ensure no false positives)? It would seem that it would also have to be chaotic evil as well.
Well, the way I view it, positions don't have alignments, only actions. So, are we referring to the person that determines that the criminal should receive capital punishment (judge), the executioner that actually carries out the deed, or what?
