I am asking the exact question that I asked. I'll reword it for clarity.
Which clause of the Wish spell are you invoking to claim it can change the target's alignment? Be specific.
I do think that the effect is "greater" than the a spell, because if it was a spell, you could just copy that spell (assuming that spell was within the parameters of your class/opposed school definitions).
The whole purpose of my "Changing alignment is - with some limitations - in line with high-level Enchantments" argument is that while there's no spell in the books that does this, it's also clear that there are more spells in-world than there are in the books. Spells don't just pop up in-word when there's a new source book published in the real world.
Since it's within the power of what an 8th (or possibly even 7th, depending on limitations) level enchantment could do, and there is no limitation that the caster of Wish needs to be familiar with the spell he's attempting to emulate (outside of "opposition schools are harder"), I consider "emulating a potentially existing spell" to be fair game, since if it can exist, it does likely exist somewhere.
If I had my own house rules, would you consider it valid for me to claim that you're doing it wrong because you are violating my house rules?
With Simulacrum, you can explicitly duplicate a paladin and make the duplicate fall by forcing it to do evil.
Repeated acts of evil/good can and do affect alignment. This is pathfinder cannon. How much is needed is up to the GM.
A wish to change the metagame concept of alignment may not be possible, but it can sure change other metagame things like Int, Wis, and so on.
A wish to make a kingdom think you are the rightful king is listed as too powerful, so it will be detected or fail somehow. A wish for the royal family to declare you the true heir, however is acceptable and will work.
I think a wish that the target do good rather than evil could work.
/cevah
Helm of Opposite Alignment is only caster level 12. Anyone arguing that a wish to change someone’s alignment isn’t possible without perversion is 100% wrong. I don’t care if you don’t like it. It is an irrefutable fact that this is possible without perversion.
The way the wish works would simply be “I wish for ____ to be ____ alignment” and the target would get a will save. One and only one will save. And then they act like they always were that alignment, just like how they would if affected by a Helm of Opposite Alignment. It isn’t that difficult to understand this. This is basic Pathfinder.
If you can identify an 8th-level sorcerer/wizard spell or 7th-level non-sorcerer/wizard spell that does this, then by all means let's see it. Otherwise, it's solely in GM fiat territory. Stating that your house rule is "basic Pathfinder" and that tables who don't abide by your house rule are "100% wrong" is both unnecessarily combative and, well, 100% wrong.
A wish can do anything within the power of what has been stated in the spell.
I've read the entire thread, and nobody has come up with a published spell that duplicates this effect completely. Please point out where I have been combative ("100% wrong" aside, as that was a tongue-in-cheek redirect of your own phrase) and I will strive to correct it.
It’s not a house rule. It is fact. A wish can do anything within the power of what has been stated in the spell. A Helm of Opposite Alignment is within that, as it is only Caster Level 12. Also at least 5 other posts here have already listed spells that can achieve this. The only one being combative here is you.If you can identify an 8th-level sorcerer/wizard spell or 7th-level non-sorcerer/wizard spell that does this, then by all means let's see it. Otherwise, it's solely in GM fiat territory. Stating that your house rule is "basic Pathfinder" and that tables who don't abide by your house rule are "100% wrong" is both unnecessarily combative and, well, 100% wrong.Helm of Opposite Alignment is only caster level 12. Anyone arguing that a wish to change someone’s alignment isn’t possible without perversion is 100% wrong. I don’t care if you don’t like it. It is an irrefutable fact that this is possible without perversion.
The way the wish works would simply be “I wish for ____ to be ____ alignment” and the target would get a will save. One and only one will save. And then they act like they always were that alignment, just like how they would if affected by a Helm of Opposite Alignment. It isn’t that difficult to understand this. This is basic Pathfinder.
Wish doesn't duplicate magic items. It duplicates spells.
The magic item you've referenced is a... magic item. It is not a spell.
I fully agree that a Wish can be used to change a target's alignment, but that is only possibly by using the "greater" clause (which means you are in GM fiat territory). Unless you make a house rule to change a rule about Wish, magic items, spells, or something else I haven't thought of yet.
If YOU (and I am specifically talking about you, not a vague general you, but that could also apply) want to use your GM discretion to fully allow a Wish to do change the target's alignment and have no side-effects, YOU are fully within your rights to make that determination. The spell specifically authorizes the GM of the game to do that.
It also means that a different GM is fully within their authority to make a different determination, because that is exactly how the spell is written.
I'd imagine use of bestow curse might work to create a help of opposite alignment...
If you use it to curse the crafer so that he would have a higher chance of failing... then yes. AFAIK you cannot intentionally create cursed items.
Black Markets introduced purposely creating cursed items. Bestow curse is an additional prerequisite for doing so. They didn't add rules for crafting a helm of opposite alignment, but there are guidelines for crafting items with a "changes alignment" drawback. That'd be breakable via remove curse, though, whereas once the helm of opposite alignment whammies you, that's it--barring another wish or miracle (and possibly an atonement on top of that), you're stuck with it, forever, and you aren't even allowed to try to change it back.
Honestly, it's less a magic item than a minor artifact, and I don't allow it in my games.
It seems to me that the biggest cause of disagreement here is the inherent ickyness of alignment.
Say you wish that someone was LG. Great. What does that mean? We all seem to have different ideas.
So, what if the wish was worded, "I wish that this person values peace, friendship, sentient life, and the social contract, and, furthermore, I wish that this person feels great empathy towards the plight of all peoples, particularly non-aggressors." And then their alignment maybe changes to match their actions/thoughts/whatever.
Would that be a reasonable wish, would y'all say? It seems strictly less powerful than a geas to "take no actions other than those specified by myself, which you will obey in letter and in spirit, until the sun burns down to iron." (Which is not an open ended task.)
Post Script: Yeah, I know that the wording of that wish isn't airtight, and a Jackass Genie could have a field day with it. I don't care. If the DM doesn't like your wish, they'll find a reason it doesn't work, however you word it. If they think it's reasonable, then how it's worded doesn't matter.
The spell literally puts this in the realm of "GM discretion". There is no wrong answer... except to tell others that they have to make a decision one way or another.
Some people were just confused on this aspect and trying to weasel out of it by claiming it is an effect similar to spells, or that there should be a nebulous concept of "any effect could be a spell, so Wish can have any effect without side-effects." It's hogwash though. If you can't link the spell, it's GM discretion.