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

[green slime]

Sounds pretty hard core Chaotic rather than worrying about Good. LN society could easily use such a tactic, imo.

No, good concerns itself with the rights of the individual as well, as they value life. LG humans still operate as individuals, within accepted norms.

I can't see it as a neutral act to forcibly change people's morals and ethics. Indeed it is a "cursed" item, and has always been such.

"Good" can't ignore the means to the end, not even for the sake of expediency.

With the earlier La Femme Nikita example, btw, there's also the consideration that it doesn't have to be involuntary. I mean, it's a pretty standard trope used in that movie and for example Going Postal by Pratchett. "You've been executed. You are dead. But you have one single chance right now to choose a new life instead."

Yeah, fantastic "choice". Die, or do as we tell you. Deviate and Die.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

No, good concerns itself with the rights of the individual as well, as they value life. LG humans still operate as individuals, within accepted norms.

we disagree on this particular case, or, as suggested by your next response, are actually considering different cases.

Yeah, fantastic "choice". Die, or do as we tell you. Deviate and Die.

In both the cases I mentioned, and the suggested scenerio in the OP, the individual given the choice was lawfully (and for both good and Good reasons) sentanced to death. "Deviate and die" is a bizarre twisting of the scenerio, that I will just have to ignore as having nothing to do with what I suggested.

 

[Felix]

As, IMO, the suggested use to force people to comply with society, rather than through redemption by free choice and working to be a better person, causes the said society to be an Evil one.

Force is the only method governments have available to ensure people comply with society. It's not a matter of if force is used, merely how much.

For example:

I, in my chevy truck, pull you over and tell you you were speeding in front of my house, and that you must send my family $100. I have a gun holstered at my side.

A police officer pulls you over and tells you you were speeding in front of my house, and that you must send the government $100. He has a gun holstered at his side.​

Do you react the same way to these two situations? Likely not, because you ought recognize that the officer is authorized by the government to force you to pay a fine. If you got out of the car, wrestled me to the ground, took away my gun and left in your car, you would have a much easier time defending yourself in court than if you tried to do the same thing to a police officer. The police officer is allowed to use physical threats and force in response to what you do. If I did it, it would be aggravated assault and battery, even though your speeding threatened my family directly.

Force, and the threat of force, is the only tool the government has in its toolbox to ensure compliance. Governments favor the stick over the carrot; the carrot may bring some folks in willingly, but the stick will make sure everyone behaves, willing or not. Does this make all societies Evil?

Yeah, fantastic "choice". Die, or do as we tell you. Deviate and Die.

Vetinari called it something like, "the illusion of choice". The example KB cites is one where Moist Von Lipwig is given the choice to be the postmaster, and if he doesn't want to, he can just walk out that door. Another character later in the book chooses instead to walk out the door; simply because that door leads to a deep pit and death doesn't mean that a person couldn't believe that they chose to change willingly. And if they were unaware of the imminent death from refusing to cooperate, then the choice to cooperate actually was freely chosen. Isn't it?

 

[Felix]

Since the whisky's out of my system ...

The pronoun 'you' here is a little bit confusing. I'm not entirely sure if you were addressing me specificly, asking me for a normative judgement, or if you wanted to continue a discussion of what a speculated society might do.

When I say, "you", I suggest a situation that you yourself are in and ask how you would respond. If you were obligated to use the Helm but also make sure victims' need for justice was mollified, how would you accomplish the mollification?

In fact, requesting to have the helm applied would probably be seen as sufficient proof that the person was redeemed, although the danger here would seem to me that if they request to have it applied they may no longer need it and in which case it would do more harm than good. Presumably, a truly evil person would no more consent to having the helm applied than a truly good one would.

If the helm is a way to avoid physical pain or discomfort, in much the same way that Alex volunteered in A Clockwork Orange for the new rehabilitation to drastically reduce his sentence, then condemned could volunteer for Helming merely to avoid pain, instead of as a show of contrition.

I would think that the Helm would more effectively pursue a policy if prisoner willingness were not part of the equation; leave it up to Nurse Ratched instead of Randall McMurray. Not that this would necessarily be a Good thing, merely more efficient at pursuing a goal.

I do know that some societies are going to say that humans at least are not intrinsicly good or evil, and that they are the product of thier environment.

I'd argue that's as much of a theft of individuals' free will and self-determination as the Helm is.

 

[Hjorimir]

I think it is a great idea for a campaign setting with lots of potential for adventures! Everything else doesn't matter, all that matters is that it's a neat twist!

I say well done!

 

[Umbran]

I did mention my assumption that the purpose of the helm was, in fact, temporal. I don't think that temporal matter are always separate from religious ones: I merely asked you to consider the case if it were.

The purpose of a dam may be to provide water and electric power to a community, but that in no way means it won't have impact on the local fish ecology. What you want to use the thing for does not limit what it actually does. So, stated purpose is not relevant - the system meddles with the powers of the spiritual realm, and so those who are concerned with those powers will be concerned.

he would claim he's doing the same job he always was, only more quickly and with demonstrable certainty to anyone who cried foul at his religious tampering.

Hm. Yes, he would. Might I refer you to a book by Eve Forward - Villains by Necessity? It is quite a fun read, about a world where Good wins, and what happens as a result...

And for another wrinkle: I think the Good gods would jump at the chance to convert all these high-profile prisoners, meanwhile their former churches would fight like hell against this type of strong-armed conversion. So this situation would be very possible within an theocracy where the High Priests of other religions were hunted down and, if not converted, then forcibly de-clericed.

I think the chaotic powers (who support personal freedom and rights) would be staunchly against such stuff. The lawful ones would like this notion. The neutral ones would at least question it - some would end up on each side of the fence. And anyone against whome the trick was being used would be against it.

There's any number of pieces of science fiction that deal with "mindwiping" as a form of criminal justice, and they never make it a clear cut thing - so the basic answer as to why a government wouldn't do this is that the darned thing becomes a political nightmare, possibly leading to civil war. Only a government that is already desperate, or thoroughly secure in its position and agreement of the populace could use such a system without extra worry.

 

[green slime]

Force, and the threat of force, is the only tool the government has in its toolbox to ensure compliance. Governments favor the stick over the carrot; the carrot may bring some folks in willingly, but the stick will make sure everyone behaves, willing or not. Does this make all societies Evil?

No, but it means societies, as the modern cultural entities that they have swollen to become, are not good.

 

[Celebrim]

When I say, "you", I suggest a situation that you yourself are in and ask how you would respond. If you were obligated to use the Helm but also make sure victims' need for justice was mollified, how would you accomplish the mollification?

There are two problems with that question. The first is that if you ask me to make a valuation of what is right and wrong here, I'll have to explain it, and in explaining it sooner or latter we are going to tread over lines that will make people angry or uncomfortable. As soon as I go from suggesting the alternatives to stating what I believe, someone is going to want to convert me over to thier way of thinking.

The other problem is if you ask me to imagine that I'm a magistrate, even if I'm in abosolute authority, because of what I believe the system I would institute would be shaped by what I thought those people I had been given charge over would accept and understand. I have to think about the weaknesses and the strengths of the culture in question. For example, here in modern America, no matter what utility I would perceive in say a flogging compared to the alternatives, such a system would be foreign to people's experience and they wouldn't understand it as an act with the intention of being merciful. (Which is ironic, because I think only a culture slightly horrified by a flogging can profit from it.) I'd probably devise some different system I thought was good but which was more in accord with the cultural expectations of the nation - probably something like a term of prohabation and community service in some service/rehabiliation/transition program ran by the local communities. So alot would be riding on the culture of the people I was in charge of. It's not just a matter of me imposing what I believe. It would be taking something from within the boundaries of what I believed constituted a good approach and then making it work for the particular culture.

And really, there is a third problem. No one has ever measured free will. I don't know its nature nor is it to my knowledge known to science, and even if I'm asked to imagine an item that can override the violition of the being in question, I don't know what the consequences of that would be - individually or socially. Amongst like minded people, I'm considered (indeed have been called) something of a heretic for erring in what they percieve is too much on the side of human free will in my beliefs. But I confess to you that whether in humility or in folly, I'm not so certain of the validity of what I believe to pronounce judgement on this thing. Since it is a thing of which I'm not certain, I'd likely count myself among those that would be afraid to use it because it is a thing which seems a man would lack the authority to tamper with in his fellow man. Indeed, I see less evidence that man has the authority to compell someone to believe in what is right than I do that they may consider another of thier fellow men to be property. It is I think dangerous and uncertain ground indeed, and its a path I'd advice to tread most lightly if at all. Very likely a period of experimentation would be required to learn what the unforeseen consequences would be.

If the helm is a way to avoid physical pain or discomfort, in much the same way that Alex volunteered in A Clockwork Orange for the new rehabilitation to drastically reduce his sentence, then condemned could volunteer for Helming merely to avoid pain, instead of as a show of contrition.

I would think that - at least initially - only Helming those that volunteered in full knowledge of the consequences (something Alex didn't have) would be the safest and most ethical course. And, I'd personally want to wait a generation or two to examine the policy before applying it on a larger scale. But I am a cautious person, and I doubt that if the program was percieved as working that society as a whole would be so patient.

I'd argue that's as much of a theft of individuals' free will and self-determination as the Helm is.

Well, that supposes that we have free will to begin with. As you might guess, I tend to concur that this robs man of one of his few inherent dignities, but I have no way of proving that I'm right. So far as I know, neither did Jefferson. Which is why he wrote what he wrote, I would think.

 

[green slime]

Well stated Celebrim.

 

[Slife]

1. Cost. The Helm is a one use item, and costs 4000 gp. The average unskilled worker in D+D earns 1sp a day. It's awfully hard to justify that discrepency. If a country has any hungry or homeless people in cities, farmers in drought, or any other socio-economic issues, nobody is going to look at 4k spent on a criminal as money put to good use.

Alignment restrictions when crafting significantly lower the cost. They also prevent any problems with accidentally converting good people.

3. Unreliability. The Helm requires the target to fail a will save. You can't guarantee that.

Helm goes on, helm comes off. Helm goes on, helm comes off. Repeat until they get a natural one.