| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Suppose a Paladin in the course of her adventures finds a helm of opposite alignment.
1)If the Paladin uses the helm on another being against their will, does it violate the Paladin's code of conduct?
2)Can a Paladin associate with others who use the helm in this fashion?
3)Is use of this item against any alignment?
See Helm's stats below.
Helm of Opposite Alignment
Aura strong transmutation; CL 12th
Slot head; Weight 3 lbs.
Description
When placed upon the head, this item's curse immediately takes effect (Will DC 15 negates). On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG). Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook. A character who succeeds on his save can continue to wear the helmet without suffering the effect of the curse, but if he takes it off and later puts it on again, another save is required.
Only a wish or a miracle can restore a character's former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible. If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated. When a helm of opposite alignment has functioned once, it loses its magical properties.
Creation
Magic Items hat of disguise, helm of comprehend languages and read magic, helm of telepathy
First of all, I love your question and the item it stems from.
1) Now *I* don't think it should be against a paladin's code to use this, I actually think that it is more humane than execution or imprisonment (which is supposedly a form of rehabilitation). You skip the punishment phase and go straight to the rehabilitation, paladin's do stuff to people and creatures that are against their will all the time, might as well help them be better people while you are at it.
2) As with anything: it depends on how/why it is used. If someone is good and does it to people he suspects are evil without evidence or a trial, then no.
However, if a known criminal is convicted or caught red handed and it is a form of sentencing, then absolutely.
3) I don't think it is nor should it be. Again, it is simply a tool, like a sword or a prison cell. It all depends on how you use it.
hope this helps, just my 2 coppers
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it against the Paladin's code to permanently Dominate or Charm someone into acting contrary to their will?
That is exactly what this helmet does. It isn't making an evil person good- it is forcing someone to change to a way they *did not want to be*. The "evil to good" thing is a red herring.
A paladin would absolutely fall using this item- just as he would using any magic to manipulate someone as a marionette.
The Paladin needs to convert people and change their mind- not use mind altering magic to force them into his way of thinking.
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks Nessus. My first campaign in 3.5 had fun with this item - converted a NE Entropomancer boss character to NG.
I pose this question because I have designed a utopian country in my world that is dogmatically lawful good and have a lawful good state religion ruled by divine right given by said lawful good deity. The country's government detects alignments everywhere in public.
Neutral characters are tolerated, but evil characters are treated with disdain and sometimes bigotry. Social pressure in the form of extra friendly neighbors bothering you about your lifestyle (think Ned Flanders), and if necessary, scheduled counseling. People who are convicted of breaking laws (violence, theft) may be confined for rehabilitation, whether in a resort, a jail, or an asylum. Chaotic Neutral or Evil characters who enter rehabilitation that aren't converted to at least neutral get the helmet to the head. Should that somehow not work and the soul can't be saved from the cycle of evil souls going to hell, they turn them to stone. Deep in the earth, there are thousands of petrified evil folk, most of which are old and on the verge of dying of old age.
Depends, what do you thing of Doc Savage's Crime College?
Basically what I suggested - I hadn't seen that before though (thanks for sharing! :)). I would feel pretty creeped about it in our world, because I don't feel that there is a hell and also *free will*. In Pathfinder though, if people can learn that evil souls go to Hell(s), fueling the massive wars, such behavior for good seems justifiable. If you believe in that sort of thing, Devils and Demons are going to ruin everything in the end and they must be stopped.
That said, while a Paladin might serve or work with such a society, I am inclined to agree, Selgard, that is not Paladin personal behavior. I wish they spelled out the Code of Conduct better, though.
Is it against the Paladin's code to permanently Dominate or Charm someone into acting contrary to their will?
That is exactly what this helmet does. It isn't making an evil person good- it is forcing someone to change to a way they *did not want to be*. The "evil to good" thing is a red herring.
A paladin would absolutely fall using this item- just as he would using any magic to manipulate someone as a marionette.
The Paladin needs to convert people and change their mind- not use mind altering magic to force them into his way of thinking.
-S
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Nowhere in there does it state that a paladin cannot use magic (charm or otherwise) to punish the offenders so long as it falls within the boundaries of Lawful Good. He is not doing it willy-nilly.
What do you think is better (more good) cutting off people's limbs? imprisoning them? Killing them? or forcefully changing their alignment? It is a form of punishment. One that is, in my opinion, A LOT more humane than taking someone's limbs or life away. Furthermore, even if you did convict the offender and locked him up or cut off his hand all you've accomplished is punishment, no rehabilitation has been done, the criminal is just as likely to do it again when/if he can. Corporal punishment is a deterrent, nothing more, I don't believe you can say the same about the forceful alignment change method.
I agree with Nessus there is nothing in the Paladin's Code of Conduct that stops them from using it or associating with those that use it(unless it was used to turn a person from good to evil) it's a way to stop and reform an evil, possibly gain a good ally, and start quick ramifications for the wrongs and evils that said person as committed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it against the Paladin's code to permanently Dominate or Charm someone into acting contrary to their will?
That is exactly what this helmet does. It isn't making an evil person good- it is forcing someone to change to a way they *did not want to be*. The "evil to good" thing is a red herring.
A paladin would absolutely fall using this item- just as he would using any magic to manipulate someone as a marionette.
The Paladin needs to convert people and change their mind- not use mind altering magic to force them into his way of thinking.
-S
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Nowhere in there does it state that a paladin cannot use magic (charm or otherwise) to punish the offenders so long as it falls within the boundaries of Lawful Good. He is not doing it willy-nilly.
What do you think is better (more good) cutting off people's limbs? imprisoning them? Killing them? or forcefully changing their alignment? It is a form of punishment. One that is, in my opinion, A LOT more humane than taking someone's limbs or life away. Furthermore, even if you did convict the offender and locked him up or cut off his hand all you've accomplished is punishment, no rehabilitation has been done, the criminal is just as likely to do it again when/if he can. Corporal punishment is a deterrent, nothing more, I don't believe you can say the same about the forceful alignment change method.
Then punish them. Put them in prison or execute them depending on what the law requires. But to magically warp the very essence of their being and twist their will around just because it happens to be into the direction the Paladin likes?
Unless the Paladin has another on hand to return the person to their correct state of mine when the "term of incarceration" is over then it is just mind control. And no.
-S
It sounds like the entire debate comes down to whether or not you think that mentally locking away someone's evil is more evil than physically doing so. In less biased terms, is there something inherently sacred about the mind and free will that makes these types of punishments worse than physical imprisonment. That's a disagreement of axioms, so it may not be possible to come to an agreement. Just know where your GM stands on the issue, and if you are the GM... good luck, and hopefully some of the arguments on this thread are at least enlightening.
This is the crux of the issue. Do you agree that "You can take our lives, but you can never take our freedom?" Would you rather face execution to avoid a lobotomy, because the very thought of losing your sense of self is so abhorrent to you that you'd rather die instead?
If you answered yes to either of those questions... congratulations, you have a valid opinion! But so does the guy that said no. What is inherently more sacred to you, your right to exist, or your right to choose?
I'm not sure if this is a hot-button topic, but the Book of Exalted Deeds offers two opposing arguments. In an early chapter discussing what is "Good", it goes into mind-altering magic. It describes it as not being inherently evil, but that over-use of it can lead to a loss of the dignity of sentient life. Using Charm to nonviolently convince a criminal to confess their crimes? Eehhhh, that might be ok. Making him dance and humiliate himself all the way to trial? No.
But then the BoED goes and gives us the Santified Creature template/spell combo. Which is essentially this entire argument in the form of an spell with the Good descriptor. This also happens to be why so many people dislike the book, because they consider the stripping of a creature's right to as least think the way they want to be, at the very least, Not Good.
But, there it is, the Good descriptor. I realize this is a 3.5 book and not Pathfinder, but if you are using it and its concepts in your Pathfinder game, then there you go: mechanical justification for using this procedure, as forced conversion against the will of evil creatures to not be evil is considered an inherent force for universal Good.
Probably not Chaotic Good, though.
Couldn't the paladin take the evil person to a cleric/bard/wizard and Geas him to not do evil things?
Seems a lot easier than having to seek out a specific cursed item over and over.
Couldn't the paladin take the evil person to a cleric/bard/wizard and Geas him to not do evil things?
Seems a lot easier than having to seek out a specific cursed item over and over.
It's actually pretty easy to purposely make cursed items. You can set the target caster level of a completed magic item to whatever you want, and then if you can't meet the caster level requirement, the DC goes up by five. So if you purposely set the final caster level to be 105, then the final total Spellcraft check to make the item would be DC 115. You are probably going to fail by more than 5, and voila, cursed item.
This Thread discusses the morality of that situation at length. I recommend reading the whole thing. Lots of good stuff from both sides.
This Thread discusses the morality of that situation at length. I recommend reading the whole thing. Lots of good stuff from both sides.
Interesting. Particularly one reply from The black raven:
For a Lawful character, it would heavily depend on what his traditions state.
I think an American Paladin (MURICA!) would find this practice abhorrent, because of the underlying traditions of personal liberty this country was founded on. Perhaps he would even Fall for going against such a core value of his beliefs. You could argue it goes against the "respect legitimate authority" clause if his legitimate authority (ideally) protects liberty.
An official of a Fantasy USA trying this method might be acting without legitimate authority, using powers not constitutionally granted to him to deny personal liberties. Even prisoners have rights. A paladin going along with it willingly would be violating his code of conduct.
But that's a vastly different culture than the one Rabbiteconomist is describing, and since his legitimate, literally divine-mandated government is acting on their own traditions, then protecting personal liberty wouldn't be part of any of their paladin's codes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On an entirely different note, a thought just occured to me. The Helm of Opposite Alignment affects the ethical component of your alignment as well as your moral one. So what would this society do about a Lawful Evil person? Hell, as a Lawful person, he might even submit to the Helm out of self-interest (it being the best option for him to get back to his life without jail time or what-have-you). But now he is suddenly Chaotic Good, and probably feels intensely violated by what just happened to him, since Freedom of Choice is probably one of the cornerstones of the CG alignment.
Now, he fully embraces being Chaotic Good, and part of that is clinging to his new-found conviction to the right of personal freedom with a passionate intensity. He does not want to go back to being Lawful Evil, but he does want to stop any and all future uses of the Helm. (Being Good means you are altruistic and you think of others, so he would want to spare everyone else the intense violation he feels.) Now this country just turned a selfish, manipulative person into a Freedom Fighter, and made a much bigger problem for themselves.
Which is to say, they probably shouldn't be changing anyone to Chaotic alignments.
Excellent question. And a pleasantly civil thread so far.
My personal take on the paladin code boils down to "good above all, honour above all else".
There are very few societies in my campaign that offer a blanket grant to Paladins to punish the guilty. Outside settlements, it's a whole different ball game, though.
Hypothesis 1: It is Good to remove Evil from the world.
If this hypothesis is true, then the helm is a clear yes.
Hypothesis 2: It is evil to use magic to change someone's personality.
Charm, Dominate, Geas, and Curse spells are not inherently evil. The uses to which they are put might be evil, but there is no blanket answer. As such, this hypothesis is not true.
Yes to the helm.
Hypothesis 3: Lawful societies seek to increase order and stability for their citizens (Good ones for everyone, Neutral ones for the majority, and Evil ones for those in control).
I consider this one a given. It is interesting to note that this means that LG societies are also trying to increase order and stability for their Evil citizens.
Hypothesis 4: Removing Evil from a society has a side-effect of increasing the stability of every citizen (except, perhaps, the Evil person removed).
I'm not sure I can think of a situation where removing a wilfully harmful person from society could reduce stability. So I'm going to accept this one, too.
As far as I can tell (much to my surprise), there is nothing preventing a LG society from using the helm. As such, the only thing really preventing a paladin using the helm is personal choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is no obvious right answer here. In one response above, greater clarity in the paladin's code is called for but that's impossible to provide. The paladin is the spearpoint of these kinds of issues because the class contains an effort to embody a moral code in a game mechanic. Any effort to more strictly define a moral code would spin out into mass chaos and argument (see all paladin threads everywhere.) The exact details of the paladin's code need to be worked out by the players and DM to be right-fitted to their tastes. And the definitions in one campaign or mix of players may not fit another group of players.
With that as a preface, I think a paladin should not use such a helm. The answer to me comes from the origin of the item.
In the traditional occurrence, the helm is cursed item - the outcome of a process gone wrong. And how did that happen? Again, just my opinion but given the existence of cursed items that change your gender and that the outcome bears no resemblance to the likely intended design, it seems to be the influence of chaotic, capricious powers. A paladin should not wish to encourage or support such powers and should favor the destruction of all cursed items not try to find a justification for using them (which only falls into the trap in the first place.)
It's also possible someone has developed the method to deliberately create such an item. Here too, I think the paladin should oppose. One critical role for a paladin is exemplar - if everyone did what paladins do, the world would be a better place and all that. While a paladin may be supremely confident he, his order, his god, his king, etc. will make the right decision about when to use such an item, he cannot have similar confidence in most of the world's inhabitants. If paladins are using such items, it by definition justifies everyone using them. Now there's nothing stopping the orcish cleric of Orcus from using such items on everyone in the halfling village but it sure seems a more likely outcome if the paladins are carrying helms of attitude adjustment (maybe with charges!) instead of shackles.
I, too, have found this to be a civil and interesting thread and I hope it stays that way. It hasn't forced me back to therapy over my problem with paladin threads.
I think it would be a good quick-fix but the paladin should follow it up by having them seek atonement so nothing bad happens if the curse is removed.
Then punish them. Put them in prison or execute them depending on what the law requires. But to magically warp the very essence of their...Is it against the Paladin's code to permanently Dominate or Charm someone into acting contrary to their will?
That is exactly what this helmet does. It isn't making an evil person good- it is forcing someone to change to a way they *did not want to be*. The "evil to good" thing is a red herring.
A paladin would absolutely fall using this item- just as he would using any magic to manipulate someone as a marionette.
The Paladin needs to convert people and change their mind- not use mind altering magic to force them into his way of thinking.
-S
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Nowhere in there does it state that a paladin cannot use magic (charm or otherwise) to punish the offenders so long as it falls within the boundaries of Lawful Good. He is not doing it willy-nilly.
What do you think is better (more good) cutting off people's limbs? imprisoning them? Killing them? or forcefully changing their alignment? It is a form of punishment. One that is, in my opinion, A LOT more humane than taking someone's limbs or life away. Furthermore, even if you did convict the offender and locked him up or cut off his hand all you've accomplished is punishment, no rehabilitation has been done, the criminal is just as likely to do it again when/if he can. Corporal punishment is a deterrent, nothing more, I don't believe you can say the same about the forceful alignment change method.
What if the law requires that you stick the helmet on them? That is what I was stating above. Also, what if there is no law? like in the wilds or something? I ask again, what is more good, decapitating someone who could be saved or saving them through magical means?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The correct thing for a paladin to do is to kill their evil enemy, who will then go to hell, where they will be tortured for all eternity / turn into a demon. Changing their enemy's personality for the better is far more immoral and inhumane.
Seriously, there is no established moral standard on the ethics of magical brainwashing, since there really isn't anything in the real world that is equivalent, so as a society we never needed to come to any firm conclusion on the subject. There is nothing in the Pathfinder rules declaring it to be evil, or Dominate spells would surely have the Evil descriptor. However, many GMs will instinctively feel that it is evil, and you probably won't be able to talk them out of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main argument for this being an evil act seems to be that taking away a person’s freedom is evil. I think this is a mistake because freedom is not so much a matter of good vs. evil, but rather a law vs. chaos. This stems from the idea that anything positive must be good, so anything negative has to be evil.
While I think the idea of freedom and liberty is a great thing and should be upheld, it is not in itself “good”. That being said I don’t think that a paladin would have any problem using magic to change a person’s behavior.
The main argument for this being an evil act seems to be that taking away a person’s freedom is evil. I think this is a mistake because freedom is not so much a matter of good vs. evil, but rather a law vs. chaos. This stems from the idea that anything positive must be good, so anything negative has to be evil.
While I think the idea of freedom and liberty is a great thing and should be upheld, it is not in itself “good”. That being said I don’t think that a paladin would have any problem using magic to change a person’s behavior.
This falls in line with my theory that Paladins are the greatest evil plaguing game worlds. That's a lowercase 'e', btw.
This falls in line with my theory that Paladins are the greatest evil plaguing game worlds. That's a lowercase 'e', btw.The main argument for this being an evil act seems to be that taking away a person’s freedom is evil. I think this is a mistake because freedom is not so much a matter of good vs. evil, but rather a law vs. chaos. This stems from the idea that anything positive must be good, so anything negative has to be evil.
While I think the idea of freedom and liberty is a great thing and should be upheld, it is not in itself “good”. That being said I don’t think that a paladin would have any problem using magic to change a person’s behavior.
The idea that since I am good anything I disagree with is evil is a hard trap to avoid. Unfortunately most people don’t see the trap and fall for it. I think that is one of the reasons the real world is so screwed up.
We can't use OUR 20th century prism of morality to judge.
So true.
I think it would be a good quick-fix but the paladin should follow it up by having them seek atonement so nothing bad happens if the curse is removed.
I like the atonement rule suggestion here for two reasons. Mechanically, it acts as a mild check against abuse, as atonements put you off adventuring for a bit, although it may not amount to much without teeth (such as you can only do this once before you need atonement, and if you do 1 or 2 times again before atonement you fall). I personally would not want to quantify the code of conduct in terms of sins (except maybe in regards to the Holy Hand Grenade (ye shall count to 3, no more no less). Thematically, the rule means the Paladin has to reflect on usage of the helm, perhaps to ensure he is on the right path and not letting his zeal get ahead of himself.
From what I have seen in the thread thus far, seems to be a general agreement that RAW the code of conduct does not ban the use of this item, with very respectful dissenters making good points. Paladins are Lawful Good, they respect and uphold authority, while seeking to help the poor, defenseless and downtrodden and oppose forces against Good and law. The alignment system as a whole is fairly mutable in terms of where ethical/moral boundaries lie (especially with regards to Law/Chaos), but I think it is reasonable to say that a common assumption is that Free will is more important to the chaos axis. However, the virtue of free will and the act of removing free will (Charm Monster, Dominate, Psionic mind control, some fungus creatures) is not defined as having an alignment subtype. Many of the races known for these abilities (Illithid/Mind Flayer, Aboleth, Vampire, Green Dragons) are evil, but even the Bralani Azata, CG Outsider, gets Charm Person as an at-will ability. A CHAOTIC GOOD OUTSIDER.
I think the comment about traditions and culture made earlier is key here. Following the logic of Avon Rekaes, a Paladin from Fantasy USA and serving in their hierarchy would respect US authority and its laws, which are enshrined in our Constitution. The law specifically spells out freedoms and rights. Changing alignments has a high probably of infringing someone's freedom of religious expression, (worshippers of neutral deities or neutral evil/chaotic neutral types might not be affected), it might be considered cruel or unusual punishment, evil non-chaotic behaviors may count as freedom of expression, or a local state might ban it if the federal government does not regulate it (10th amendment). ["All rise for the Supreme Court Justices! Today we hear the case of Vlaakith v. California].
In a society that had different laws that do not necessarily guarantee or instead prohibit freedom of expression (feudal lords), religious freedom (theocratic states), or even right to privacy or protection from unreasonable search and seizure (unfortunately during most of history), and/or collectivist cultures for civil order may feel differently about the organized and deliberate use of helms . Paladins here may seek equal access to justice for all, and may argue for context in legal decisions to include intent (conspiracy to commit a crime, mitigating circumstances, willful negligence) to promote Good behavior and/or to curb the harsh impartiality that may accompany a society leaning more to Law than to Good.
I am leaning towards giving the Paladin the personal choice of whether or not it is against their code. Paladins can disagree, and I can imagine Paladins in the aforementioned helm-using society trying to rally support for legislation that pushed for decreased usage, more oversight, or outright banning of the practice.
I think another way a society can try to handle is to offer the helm as part of a plea deal. The same society might include the following "You can go to prison for your crimes, or you can accept the Rite of Consent and start on the path to becoming a better person." For those who choose prison, Augury spells cast every day for evil prisoners/ evil religious worshippers predicting if they will die in the next day if not petrified. Petrification before death postpones death indefinitely, preventing evil souls going to Hell(s), and saves their life in case they can be saved in the future (an End of Days event perhaps?).
As an aside, I wasn't aware of bad Paladin threads, but I can easily see one erupting from controversial opinions. This thread has had great response - I'm glad it has been civil despite expectations. I intend to be respectful and open-minded in my posts. I also think the utopia I have created is creepy as hell. There are lots of Chaotic Good rebels living outside the borders, who agree that it's essentially mindrape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a Paladin who was actually Good would consider a gov't that did this to prisoners a "legitimate authority", but I actually expect Good people to be good, so that's on me.
|
Red Son's commie Superman used it on his enemies (through a kind of lobotomy and device added to the brain). In this way he avoided having to kill them outright.
That said, I am not sure how much of a Paladin was left in him (I guess it really depends on your individual take on both LG and being a Paladin).
That said, my very personal view on it is as follows :
1) If the Paladin uses it on an innocent person (for example turning them form Good to Evil), it is harming innocents = Evil, Paladin falls.
If he uses it on a guilty Non-Evil person AND it turns them to Evil = Evil, Paladin falls. If it turns them to Chaotic, it is also against the code (giving help that is used for Chaotic purpose), Paladin falls.
If he uses it on an Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral guilty person that turns to LG, it also depends on whether using the Helm is considered honorable or not. In my very own opinion, using a cursed item on someone against their will is NOT honorable, thus Paladin falls.
2) A Paladin could associate with Hitler, Jack the Ripper or Daech if it meant saving the world from Asmodeus. No problem here as long as there is some Greater Evil out there.
3) Some Good people may consider it Evil (as several posters do). Some Chaotic people may consider it definitely against free will and thus taboo. Those are specific individual views though.
As always in matters of alignment, the truth rests with the Gods (aka the GM).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out the 3.5 spell Sanctify the Wicked from the Book of Righteous Deeds. It does basically the same thing, over the course of a year, and it's considered an intrinsically good spell, that requires a good aligned caster. As long as the helm is used to turn the subject to good, I see no problem with it as far as paladins go.
|
|
That would be relevant if we were talking about history. The GAME however IS built on modern assumptions of ethics and morality, so all of that is irrelevant.
Because the game is built by modern western people for (mostly) modern western people, what you say has some basis.
However, there is a very clear description of the alignment system in the RAW and it does not exactly fit our modern western assumption of ethics and morality, sometimes very far from it.
And that is not even taking into account the fact that each and every person playing the game has a very specific view of what it means to be Good or Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.
The answer could be deity dependent. While trying to work out a code of conduct for an Iroran Paladin, I came up with the idea that interfering with somebody else's free will in such a manner might violate that individual code of conduct. However, a corollary of that conclusion would be that it would not violate the code of conduct of a deity who places less emphasis on free will.
The main argument for this being an evil act seems to be that taking away a person’s freedom is evil. I think this is a mistake because freedom is not so much a matter of good vs. evil, but rather a law vs. chaos. This stems from the idea that anything positive must be good, so anything negative has to be evil.
While I think the idea of freedom and liberty is a great thing and should be upheld, it is not in itself “good”. That being said I don’t think that a paladin would have any problem using magic to change a person’s behavior.
Who you are and what you do is the only real choice you have in life. Permanently, magically, altering that thing into something else is probably one of the greater evils you can do to a person.
You can imprison them, you can execute them- but magically forcing them into just doing what you want? Not only is it incredibly lazy for the Paladin to do (should be teaching/converting) but its also disgusting and should be evil. (yes, I know, the game is silent on whether or not it is.)
Permanently Dominating someone and forcing them to do what you want is an abhorrent, vile thing whether you are forcing them to be nice or to be a jerk.
Having a prison with some pacify effect or whatnot is one thing. Using magic to apprehend someone and safely return them to the authorities is one thing.
But using that same magic to mentally neuter them and force them to view life as you do just because you think you are right?
Evil, here you come.
-S
Who you are and what you do is the only real choice you have in life. Permanently, magically, altering that thing into something else is probably one of the greater evils you can do to a person.
But cutting into their flesh with a sharpened piece of steel in hopes of killing or seriously mutilating them, causing nothing but pain = good
You can imprison them, you can execute them- but magically forcing them into just doing what you want? Not only is it incredibly lazy for the Paladin to do (should be teaching/converting) but its also disgusting and should be evil. (yes, I know, the game is silent on whether or not it is.)
First of all you are not forcing them to do what you want, it is not a dominate spell, it is changing their moral outlook on life it is called rehabilitation (you just skip all the talking and years of therapy).
furthermore, no one said that the paladin would stop trying to convince and teach people, this would be a punitive measure used against people who have harmed innocents and are truly evil.Permanently Dominating someone and forcing them to do what you want is an abhorrent,
Again, not a dominate spell.
vile thing whether you are forcing them to be nice or to be a jerk.
So as long as you are forcing them into prison camps (which many have obligatory manual labor), or forcing them to die it's perfectly fine.
But using that same magic to mentally neuter them and force them to view life as you do just because you think you are right?
Mentally neuter them? (Use inflammatory words to push your point much?)
How about actually neutering them because you think you are right? Or separating their head from their body because you think you are right? How can taking someone's life be better than rehabilitating them (through magical means or otherwise)? Do you think evil people want to rehabilitated?No?
Then how is forcing them to do so with magic any different from doing it without magic?
Evil, here you come.
Kill people, cut their hands, feet, genitals off, imprison them for life, whip them because you think you are right.
Paladinhood, here you come
|
|
the game's alignment rules about good and evil in those areas, are clearly drawn from modern standards.
But they do not exactly conform to these. Mutilating a guilty person or inflicting massive pain on them as a punishment is seen as evil in most modern standards. However, you will not find a single word forbidding it to Good people in the RAW.
Draco's Question 1 is relevant. This is exactly what I would do with a paladin that had the helm: offer an evil entity the choice of execution, or conversion. This is only assuming there are no better methods of dealing with the creature, such as handing them over to a justice system that is realistically able to handle them.
As for Question 2, it depends on the situation and the paladin. In general, I don't consider it a a problem if paladins default to slaying evil... that's their main job. They have full BAB for a reason.