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

[Lonely Tylenol]

Just thought I'd make a note of something here. Check out this exchange on the subject of forced alignment change:

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

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, 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.

So according to this line of argument, forcing alignment change is not evil, as originally postulated, but is in fact neutral. It's not evil, but it's not good. Therefore it's the sort of thing that a LN society might engage in.

I thought I'd point it out because this is the first time in my years on this board that I've ever seen the process of argumentation change someone's mind in an alignment thread.

 

[KingCrab]

That is an amazing idea for adventures/campaigns. I love EN World for stuff like this.

 

[FireLance]

I don't buy that dichotomy. I think you can believe both that evil is an invalid choice and an unnatural state, and that sentient beings have a right to choose to be evil.

Perhaps a slight clarification, then. The normal/unnatural dichotomy I had in mind was more along the lines of lycanthropy, a compulsion effect, or some form of insanity that turns a normal person into a murderous psychopath. In a way, the condition interferes with your normal thought processes so that you do not seek a cure even if you would normally be inclined to do so. The question of the right to choose thus does not arise, as the condition takes the choice away from the afflicted creature in the first place.

 

[green slime]

Just thought I'd make a note of something here. Check out this exchange on the subject of forced alignment change:





So according to this line of argument, forcing alignment change is not evil, as originally postulated, but is in fact neutral. It's not evil, but it's not good. Therefore it's the sort of thing that a LN society might engage in.

I thought I'd point it out because this is the first time in my years on this board that I've ever seen the process of argumentation change someone's mind in an alignment thread.

No, my mind isn't changed. Perhaps I just wasn't willing to state/argue my entire case on this board.

IMO, Forcing alignment change is evil. There. Reiterated that. I agree with the case put forward by Celebrim. I also stated that in a previous post.

Firstly, there is nothing in the modern society that we live in that can achieve this in a measurable way, so this comparison is invalid. We can't detect evil.

Secondly, I'd rather avoid getting this thread closed by starting what would rapidly become a politicised discussion regarding the moral and ethical standards of modern America and other societies.

That said, I stated my belief that no modern society is "good" per DnD definitions. The best we can achieve on this planet (IMNSHO) , is LN. And that opinion of mine has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand: Forcing alignment change through a curse.

Lastly, of course a LN society can do Evil acts. They can do good acts as well. Somehow, it all gets weighed in the balance, and found to be just that: neutral. Of course a good society is held to higher standards, and expected to avoid Evil acts to a far greater extent. However, I find it hard to think of other conditions that a society could introduce to outweigh the Evil of forcing an alignment change upon dissenting citizens.

How would modern americans view having a religion forced upon them? Could this possibly be regarded as a neutral act in america? And yet choice of divinity is only one of the multitude of attitudes that this cursed item is going to affect.

Good people can get angry, frustrated, annoyed, and lash out in some inappropriate manner. So can societies. Being labelled "good", "neutral" or "evil" only implies tendancies and attitudes. Notice, however, that it is far easier to fall from grace than retain it. So it requires a lot more work, effort, and consideration to retain a "good" aura, than to be mere neutral, or worse.

So no, you'll have to look elsewhere for your "change of mind in an alignment thread".

 

[Felix]

If you believe that Evil is a valid natural state, and that sentient beings have the right to choose to be evil, then using a Helm of Opposite Alignment violates that right.

Being evil is natural.
Being a dog is natural.

Simply because something is natural does not mean that it does not represent a real threat. Would you allow your 3-year-old to run around with your dog that has a history of attacking humans? Likely not; you would probably have your dog put down; the law often requires it. So the fact that something is natural does not mean we should not take steps to protect ourself.

So you have an Evil person. He hasn't committed crime yet, so there's nothing to punish him for; this is similar to the dog who has never bitten anyone. The Evil person then commits several vile and criminal acts. Being Evil is as natural as it was for the dog to be a dog; if it didn't save the dog from punishment, why should it save the Evil man from punishment?

Forcing alignment change is evil.

...

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.

What is the fundamental difference between the Helm of Opposite Alignment and incarceration until a "free" choice is made to repent?

I suggest the difference isn't so great; the incarcerated prisoner stays in his cell and most freedoms denied him. The environment is tailored to enforce regret in much the same way that a spanking enforces regret in a child. The prisoner is allowed to leave when an allotted time has passed, or earlier if he shows that he has changed - because of the enforced incarceration.

While we're at it, spankings are force and pain used to enforce family norms. Are they Evil?

In the one instance you have the use of force to immediately change outlook. In the other you have the use of force to not allow someone to leave until he "chooses" to change outlook. Unless both of these methods are Evil, how can the use or threat of force itself cause societies to be Evil?

I don't necessarily disagree that Helming is morally questionable; I'm just having trouble seeing how Force is. Because if the threat or use of force itself is exonerated from being Evil, then we would have to look elsewhere to say that Helming someone is Evil.

 

[FireLance]

Being evil is natural.
Being a dog is natural.

Simply because something is natural does not mean that it does not represent a real threat. Would you allow your 3-year-old to run around with your dog that has a history of attacking humans? Likely not; you would probably have your dog put down; the law often requires it. So the fact that something is natural does not mean we should not take steps to protect ourself.

So you have an Evil person. He hasn't committed crime yet, so there's nothing to punish him for; this is similar to the dog who has never bitten anyone. The Evil person then commits several vile and criminal acts. Being Evil is as natural as it was for the dog to be a dog; if it didn't save the dog from punishment, why should it save the Evil man from punishment?

I wasn't arguing that it shouldn't be used. I was arguing that it should be applied as carefully as depriving a creature of its freedom (imprisonment) or its life (execution).

What is the fundamental difference between the Helm of Opposite Alignment and incarceration until a "free" choice is made to repent?

Well, for one, you can't wish or miracle a free choice away.

I'm just having trouble seeing how Force is. Because if the threat or use of force itself is exonerated from being Evil, then we would have to look elsewhere to say that Helming someone is Evil.

This may get rather complicated, so please bear with me.

There are basically two schools of thought here: one school of thought believes that an evil act is an evil act, and that sometimes, all you can do is choose the lesser of two evils. From this perspective, the use of force is evil, even if it may be necessary to prevent even greater evil from happening. From this perspective, you might kill a man to stop him from burning down an orphanage, but even though you prevented the greater evil, killing him is still an evil act.

The other school of thought believes that it is possible to net off the good and evil that result from your actions. From that perspective, even though killing a man is technically an evil act, killing him to prevent him from burning down an orphanage is on balance a good one.

I believe that most people have moral values that are a mixture of these two systems. They do not mind committing small evils as long as the net result is good, up to a point. At the same time, they will have some lines that they will not cross, no matter how much good results from it.

 

[green slime]

What is the fundamental difference between the Helm of Opposite Alignment and incarceration until a "free" choice is made to repent?

There are all sorts of reason for which the real world resorts to incarceration. None of them rely on a "free" choice of repentence. Why do you insist on persuing this chain of thought, connected to the real world, in a game of absolutes?

Secondly, Real World examples: Repenting is not enough to avoid incarceration. You may get a reduced sentence, but never "get out of jail free". So much for real world comparisons.

I suggest the difference isn't so great; the incarcerated prisoner stays in his cell and most freedoms denied him. The environment is tailored to enforce regret in much the same way that a spanking enforces regret in a child. The prisoner is allowed to leave when an allotted time has passed, or earlier if he shows that he has changed - because of the enforced incarceration.

The real world is forced to make all sorts of practical compromises. Secondly the penal system isn't about forcing a change of attitude in the criminal mind (no matter how much the idea entertains us), as it is concerned with removing criminal elements from society in order to protect those less criminally inclined, and most importantly, in order to create the appearance that justice is being done.

Now, how people can argue that justice is done when manslaughter and murder can render shorter prison terms than economic embeezlement is beyond me.

While we're at it, spankings are force and pain used to enforce family norms. Are they Evil?

Yes. They are against the law in this country, and a parent that spanks a child here, where I am sitting, will face severe penalties, and likely lose custody of their child. The fact that this society continues function in spite of this "lack of parental discipline" may cause some surprise to you.

In the one instance you have the use of force to immediately change outlook. In the other you have the use of force to not allow someone to leave until he "chooses" to change outlook. Unless both of these methods are Evil, how can the use or threat of force itself cause societies to be Evil?

But I just explained. It is Evil.

I don't necessarily disagree that Helming is morally questionable; I'm just having trouble seeing how Force is. Because if the threat or use of force itself is exonerated from being Evil, then we would have to look elsewhere to say that Helming someone is Evil.

See the fundamental difference is the reason for incarceration. It isn't to enforce a change of mindset. You can't. You can give people the tools for which to encourage that change, but you can't enforce it. In the RW, during incarceration, you give people the opportunity to change their lives around. You can't make them do this. You can't make them vote Republican. You can't make them all homosexual. You can't make them like the colour green. The reason for their incarceration, is that they have broken a social contract. In breaking this social contract, they have created for themselves a debt to society. This debt can be paid off in a variety of ways, but most often, in the RW, involves removal of basic freedoms. Some countries still use capital and corporal punishment. Most civilised countries today avoid floggings, stonings, beheadings, hangings and the like.

That said, I don't consider incarceration to be particularly "good" either. It neither rehabilitates the criminal, nor provides any real compensation to the victims. In the RW, it is a necessary evil. I'm glad it exists though.

In days of yore, a criminal could be sentenced to exile, and would also fear social stigmatisation from their class (if at least well off), as well as possible excommunication.

Forcing people to do your will through strength of arms is wrong. Convincing people to do your bidding through Diplomacy, is not.

 

[Felix]

I wasn't arguing that it shouldn't be used. I was arguing that it should be applied as carefully as depriving a creature of its freedom (imprisonment) or its life (execution).

Oh, sure. I just wanted to stay away from, "It's natural to be Evil, so because it's natural you can't do anything to him." The Helm would be along the same lines as execution, with the same sober and thoughtful judgment.

One school of thought believes that an evil act is an evil act

The other school of thought believes that it is possible to net off the good and evil that result from your actions.

There is no school of thought which claims that the use of force is not inherently evil?

While we're at it, spankings are force and pain used to enforce family norms. Are they Evil?

Yes.

Wow.

I seriously doubt continued alignment conversation between us will produce anything of value.

 

[Kaodi]

Well, for one, the repenting person can choose to fake it.

Prison is not really designed to adjust people from being " evil " to " good " . For one thing, not everyone in prison is " evil " . There are a crap load of neutral people in there as well, and probably even the odd good person with chaotic tendancies, hehehe... As I was saying, any alignment shift that is encouraged by prison is mostly limited to a subset of seemingly lawful conditions. However, one does not have to give up being a free spirit to stay out of jail, they have to give up crime. Or, get smarter.

There is nothing in prison that is actually forcing anyone to change their entire outlook on life. Perhaps, long periods of hardship and reflection may encourage this, but we have ample evidence that just as often, or more often, they do not.

Now, compare that to being able to instantly turn Stalin into a hippie...

Or... If someone charges you with a knife, and you manage to disarm and subdue them, self defense would not be considered an evil act. However, if you were armed with a machine gun, and you ripped them to shreds, then " self defense " would be an evil act. Everything assuming that this were a random street encounter in a more or less civilized society.

Similarly, if sending a person to prison is disarming and subduing them, then hitting them with a Helm of Opposite Alignment is practically ripping them apart. Perhaps not as permanent as killing them, but neither would cutting off all of their limbs and replacing them with fully function futuristic prosthetics, yet that would be considered quite evil as well. Yet, that is essentially what you are doing with the Helm of Opposite Alignment, ripping off their mental limbs and replacing them with something else.

 

[green slime]

Wow.

I seriously doubt continued alignment conversation between us will produce anything of value.

I see a value in opening your eyes to the fact that alternatives to violence exists, even in the realm of child care.

I reiterate:

Spanking a child is against the law in many countries, and a parent that spanks a child here, where I am sitting, will face severe penalties, and likely lose custody of their child. The fact that these societies continues function in spite of this "lack of parental discipline" may cause some surprise to you.