Helm of Opposite Alignment ... Think "A Clockwork Orange"

[green slime]

Well, not if we have even more helmets. As soon as one of the helmet placers drifts to LE, *bam*, he registers as evil and someone else places a helmet on the new LE guy to make a new CG guy. Repeat forever, and you would have the society going toward Good much faster than it was going towards Evil, if it could keep producing enough Helmets.

Ah, but as I see it, it becomes too easily a tool to oppress disidents, rather than "merely" force enlightenment. Thusly, it is uninteresting for the ruler what alignment the helmplacer is, as long as he is doing his job (helming "treasoners"). By oppressing dissidents, it becomes far easier to control the populace. And is probably far cheaper than continually chasing/capturing/helming new generations of petty criminals. Instead, it is easier to accept a certain level of "beaureucratic misdemeanors" (corruption), cooperate with criminals (hey! they are paying taxes!), and put a strangle hold on all whom oppose your rule. And you can claim it was for the benefit of all. Any form of effective political opposition is rendered impotent, so your rule must be "good".

 

[Particle_Man]

And as soon as the ruler drifts into LE, the ruler's wife/friend/priest/etc., somebody dammit! will put a helm of opposite alignment on him. Then he becomes CG.

If everybody does it, no one stays evil! Magic helmets for the win!

 

[Felix]

"Fondling female employees is a morally neutral act".

Strawman.

Never have I claimed that force was a categorically neutral act. You claimed the use of force was a categorically Evil act.

Your interjected arm has not forced anything upon me, other than perhaps to cause pause in my stride.

I have used physical force to stop you from doing something you were intent upon doing. If you agree that me putting my arm out to stop you is in no way Evil, then you agree that the use of force is not a categorically Evil act.

Violence against others is basically wrong.

You have not yet defined violence. Please do so.

 

[Felix]

Ah, but as I see it, it becomes too easily a tool to oppress disidents, rather than "merely" force enlightenment. Thusly, it is uninteresting for the ruler what alignment the helmplacer is, as long as he is doing his job (helming "treasoners"). By oppressing dissidents, it becomes far easier to control the populace. And is probably far cheaper than continually chasing/capturing/helming new generations of petty criminals. Instead, it is easier to accept a certain level of "beaureucratic misdemeanors" (corruption), cooperate with criminals (hey! they are paying taxes!), and put a strangle hold on all whom oppose your rule. And you can claim it was for the benefit of all. Any form of effective political opposition is rendered impotent, so your rule must be "good".

Free speech is a Good thing.

Physically gagging someone removes their free speech.

So what is gagging someone who is about to yell, "FIRE!" in a crowd with the intent to cause a stampede and create a situation where people could easily die?

Simply because something can be Evil when abused does not necessarily mean that it is always and everywhere Evil.

 

[green slime]

Free speech is a Good thing.

Physically gagging someone removes their free speech.

So what is gagging someone who is about to yell, "FIRE!" in a crowd with the intent to cause a stampede and create a situation where people could easily die?

Simply because something can be Evil when abused does not necessarily mean that it is always and everywhere Evil.

No one stated it was. At least, I didn't.

You your self state "Free speech is a Good thing". This does not mean that everything said is good.

"Violence against another is Evil". This does not mean that every violent act is necessarily evil.

These are two identical parallels of the same phenomenen I described earlier. The abstract essence of a an act removed from the realities of a physical world, context, intent, and motivation.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

A Geas spell of some form would be more akin to the movie. In Clockwork, Alex de Large was subjected to an extreme form of aversion therapy that made him physically ill in any situation where he tired to do something he was conditioned against.

In D&D terms, slapping a Helm on a Paladin would make him enjoy taking small children and setting them on fire. But a Geas compelling a Paladin to "Murder every child you see" would cause the paladin to suffer death if he did not inflict harm upon small children.

I would say that to get a Clockwork Orange type effect, you would need some kind of combination of Geas and Inflict Curse to get this effect. Constructing some kind of multi use magic item to better achieve this effect would certainly be plausible in some campaign worlds.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Felix]

No one stated it was. At least, I didn't.

You your self state "Free speech is a Good thing". This does not mean that everything said is good.

Of course, but your post 131 highlighted the Evils without citing any potential benefit. Wouldn't want to be one-sided here, eh?

The use of force against others is inherently evil.

"Violence against another is Evil". This does not mean that every violent act is necessarily evil.

Violent acts can be Evil. Violent acts can be not-Evil. Why then must the use of violence (or force, apparently) in any particular act be Evil? Is there a reason other than, "Because it is"?

---

And please, green slime, shall we not define our terms? You rejected the definitions I suggested in post 123. I requested a definition of what you mean by "violence", because you have opted to not use "force" anymore, in posts 127 and 133. Would you please define violence?

 

[Bayushi Seikuro]

.

Another good one is a dragon magazine article/story about the origin of the Dark Sun preservers, which started because one of the bad guys found a treasure horde and put on a helm of opposite alignment, and became a good guy...temporarily (but long enough to help found the preservers, who later had to kill him when he was "uncursed").

I read and loved that story; I think it best showed how the Helms work. When the templar had his alignment and outlook changed and helped found the Preservers, he knew enough still of his old ways to institute code words and phrases, as well as a cell structure to the preservers.

That's why, when his curse was 'removed'/broken, and he led his minions back to the grove, his students came to question and distract him, while the bulk of the other students slipped away.

 

[Salthorae]

If I may interject sirs? I believe that by use of the term "violence" in this thread, green slime is intending to use the meaning of "harm (either physical or emotional)", thus Harming somone is inherently evil. And by harm i would think the definition woudl be to cause physical or emotional pain to someone.

I don't know that I agree with that idea that harm/violence is categorically evil, but it is food for thought.

As for the OP, Consider the idea yoinked... but to tell my DM about not for me to actually run because as Felix well knows I don't run games

 

[Felix]

If I may interject sirs? I believe that by use of the term "violence" in this thread, green slime is intending to use the meaning of "harm (either physical or emotional)", thus Harming somone is inherently evil. And by harm i would think the definition would be to cause physical or emotional pain to someone.

Possibly. But then this would imply that consequences plays a large role in the morality, whereas up until now it really hasn't been considered. I'd rather wait and hear it from the horse's mouth, as they say.

As for the OP, Consider the idea yoinked... but to tell my DM about not for me to actually run because as Felix well knows I don't run games

Salthorae doesn't run games because he's a pusilanimous bow-legged cowardly scab of a mongrel's whelp.

At least that's what I thought at the time.