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

[Felix]

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

I agree. Often the threat of violence force works in its stead. And I suggest that the use of force in and of itself is not an Evil act.

It is not evil to tackle a rapist off a victim. This is a blatant use of physical violence force against the rapist. Would you suggest that standing there watching saying, "Stop. No. No, don't do that." is better? Because if the use of force is always and everywhere Evil, then there is no way to be Good other than to allow everything and everyone to do whatever they want to you and those you love. I cannot believe that physical force used to stop violent crime is in any way Evil.

Can acts which use force be evil? Naturally. But is is not that they use physical force that causes them to be Evil.

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.

I retort:

Walking across the street when not at an intersection is against the law. This does not make jaywalking evil.

The use of force with regard to children is in some cases required. If your child walks out into the middle of a busy road, do you simply sit there and tell them to come back? Or do you rush out, grab them and... wait for it... physically forcefully pull them out of the path of oncoming traffic?

Clearly, much like how jaywalking isn't evil because it's against the law, the use of force, even with regard to children, is not always and everywhere Evil. If that is the case, then there is something other than the force itself that causes a forceful action to be Evil or Good. You can't rubber-stamp an act Evil because there existed force.

EDITED for word games.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The use of force with regard to children is in some cases required. If your child walks out into the middle of a busy road, do you simply sit there and tell them to come back? Or do you rush out, grab them and... wait for it... physically forcefully pull them out of the path of oncoming traffic?

not that that has anything to do with spanking, and you are pretty liberally mixing force as a physical description with force meaning violence.... shifting the basis of discussion bodes poorly for your position.

 

[Felix]

not that that has anything to do with spanking, and you are pretty liberally mixing force as a physical description with force meaning violence.... shifting the basis of discussion bodes poorly for your position.

Violence:
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment

Force + Speed = Violence.

Throwing yourself at someone to stop them doing something is both forceful and violent. Grabbing and pulling someone out of the way is a violent act.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Violence:
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment

Force + Speed = Violence.

Throwing yourself at someone to stop them doing something is both forceful and violent. Grabbing and pulling someone out of the way is a violent act.

You are deconstructing instead of communicating. There is an argument to be made for violence as neutral (not one that I necessarily will agree with, but the potential is there for one that can be respectfully disagreed with) but word games that make the word violence essentially meaningless aren't it.

 

[Felix]

You are deconstructing instead of communicating.

I was showing how substituting violence for force, something I did only twice and in response to the same substitution, did not muddy my point by showing how violence is a marriage of force with speed; force is a necessary component of violence.

I have, however, edited the two times I used violence for force. Honestly, what changed?

 

[Phlebas]

Ignoring the morals, and focusing on the story aspects, this could be a brilliant background for a dirty dozen type scenario......... and that would also explain the 'why would you pay 4000gp a time' question as thats a pretty cheap method of getting some mid/high level adventurers working for the state out of guilt.....

I also like the idea of a super-villain to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice with this....

don't know wether or not I can fit it into my current campaign, but consider it 'yoinked' for the future

 

[green slime]

It is not evil to tackle a rapist off a victim. This is a blatant use of physical violence against the rapist. Would you suggest that standing there watching saying, "Stop. No. No, don't do that." is better? Because if the use of force is always and everywhere Evil, then there is no way to be Good other than to allow everything and everyone to do whatever they want to you and those you love. I cannot believe that physical force used to stop violent crime is in any way Evil.

It may be the lesser evil. Unneccessary violence is surely Evil. However satisifying it may be to me personally, shooting the rapist in the head cannot be considered a good act. In fact, I'd say, yes, that is an evil act. I don't think I'd let that consideration actually stop me, though.

Can acts which use force be evil? Naturally. But is is not that they use physical force that causes them to be Evil.

I'd argue otherwise, but there we just differ. I'll just say, that there are levels of evil, and that a minor use of force, may be justifiable in a certain situation, but that does not remove the onus on the individual commiting the violence to prove that the level of violence used was indeed justifiable.

Walking across the street when not at an intersection is against the law. This does not make jaywalking evil.

No, it makes for busy policemen, and is a case of society declaring its citizens impotent and imbecilic. Which we see more and more of.

The use of force with regard to children is in some cases required. If your child walks out into the middle of a busy road, do you simply sit there and tell them to come back? Or do you rush out, grab them and... wait for it... physically forcefully pull them out of the path of oncoming traffic?

We were talking about "helming" individuals the state didn't like, then spanking. Now it is saving a life.... How would you have it? Where did I state, that saving a life was not worth committing a microscopic evil? It could hardly be said to be painful. Of course, this is never a problem anywhere. Secondly, the entire scenario could have been prevented with some forethought, on the part of the guardian.

Clearly, much like how jaywalking isn't evil because it's against the law, the use of force, even with regard to children, is not always and everywhere Evil. If that is the case, then there is something other than the force itself that causes a forceful action to be Evil or Good. You can't rubber-stamp an act Evil because there existed force.

No, I still disagree. The use of force against others is inherently evil. However, any specific act consists of all of its parts, and the evil of the use of force against others may be justifiable in certain circumstances. Saving a life, for instance. But you must be able to justify it, to whichever nonbiased authority you defer to (God, Allah, the Justice Department, JLA, or preferably, me ). Without the justification, it is wrong. The very fact that you need to justify an act of force against others indicates, that in and of itself, the use of force against others is wrong, but that there may exist extenuating circumstances, for which the use of force was acceptable in that specific case.

 

[Particle_Man]

I suppose one could take a metaphysical view.

If what matters is the alignment of the person at time of destruction (with respect to where the soul goes) then converting people (or at least powerful people) to good using helms of opposite alignment might be preferable to just killing them and adding one more soldier to the side of the devils when the impending final battle between supernatural good and supernatural evil occurs. Heck, you might convert them to good and *then* kill them.

Of course, that would depend upon the (perceived) metaphysics of the game world.

 

[Felix]

The use of force against others is inherently evil.

Any change of example (Helming, spanking, life-saving) was an attempt to suggest to you that force was not of itself Evil. Not even the teensyist bit in the case of saving the life of a child. However, you'll have it that pulling someone out of the way of a car is partly an Evil act. Very well. There are of course other points you raise that I take exception to, but I'm not going to pursue them in the interests of closing this line of discussion. Would you like the final word?

 

[Felix]

I suppose one could take a metaphysical view.

If what matters is the alignment of the person at time of destruction (with respect to where the soul goes) then converting people (or at least powerful people) to good using helms of opposite alignment might be preferable to just killing them and adding one more soldier to the side of the devils when the impending final battle between supernatural good and supernatural evil occurs. Heck, you might convert them to good and *then* kill them.

Of course, that would depend upon the (perceived) metaphysics of the game world.

What would you do with a person who was penitent and contrite for his actions after being Helmed? Rather, would contrition change the fundamental nature of their soul such that were the curse to be removed by a Wish, would the repentance have made a difference on the original alignment of the individual?