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

[Rel]

I would urge caution in discussing the real world activities that may tend to stray into the political arena.

Thank you.

 

[Slife]

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.

Hmm... let's see if I can do a reducto ad absurdium on this...

Picking up objects is inherently evil. However, any specific act consists of all of its parts, and the evil of picking up items may be justifiable in certain circumstances. Saving a life, for instance, or clearing up litter. 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 picking things up indicates, that in and of itself, that picking things up is wrong, but that there may exist extenuating circumstances, for which picking up something was acceptable in that specific case.

After all, we'd all agree that picking up somebody's jewelry from their jewelry case in the dead of night without permission is wrong.

 

[green slime]

Hmm... let's see if I can do a reducto ad absurdium on this...

Picking up objects is inherently evil. However, any specific act consists of all of its parts, and the evil of picking up items may be justifiable in certain circumstances. Saving a life, for instance, or clearing up litter. 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 picking things up indicates, that in and of itself, that picking things up is wrong, but that there may exist extenuating circumstances, for which picking up something was acceptable in that specific case.

After all, we'd all agree that picking up somebody's jewelry from their jewelry case in the dead of night without permission is wrong.

Absolutely rediculous. You have done nothing of the sort.

an "object" is not an "other". It has no will.

 

[Slife]

Absolutely rediculous. You have done nothing of the sort.

an "object" is not an "other". It has no will.

It can be. I was deliberately vague in my definition of object. Additionally, it can be the possession of somebody who does have a will.

 

[Celebrim]

I've been trying not to follow this discussion because it seemed like it didn't have anything to do with role playing.

However, some one brought up word games and I've a weakness for lexicography. I find I mustl say that I see no sign that Felix is playing word games.

Using sudden strong force against a person or object is violence, regardless of the intent or outcome. If noone gets hurt in a football game, and if no one wants to hurt anyone in a football game, it remains a 'violent sport'. This is easily seen in that if something goes wrong, a severe and even life threatening injury can occur. How did that happen if there was no violence present? Rather, the injury occurred because of the violence of the activity that is being engaged in. To the same or a lesser extent, this is true of all sports because by thier nature sports involve sudden, rapid, and forceful motion. Sudden rapid and forceful motion is violence. A hurricane doesn't intend to harm anyone and has no moral character at all because its an object, but its still violent. At the very least, even in the 'non-contact' sports, you can inadvertantly do voilence to yourself, your surroundings, or spectators (consider the classic boy hits ball through window). You certainly do violence to the ball, and it is no less violent because the ball doesn't usually break. Even in 'non-contact' sports, say Ultimate, inadvertant contact will inevitably occur and result in pain and injury.

I wonder where green slime thinks of this. Is football or other contact sports because of its violence inherently evil? Or is it merely a 'justifiable evil'? Boxing? Soccer? Is the risk of inadvertant evil being done sufficient to make playing even a non-contact sport unjustifiable? Because of the clear and undeniable risk of violence, is playing soccer negligance on my part? Does green slime believe violence is inherently evil but negligence is not? Or even further, how about violence against self? Clearly there is nothing necessary in the practice of surfing or water skiing or many other acts of controlled violence? Does the risk that I will do violence against self (harming myself, my loved ones, and my community) render surfing evil? If not, how would I justify engaging in this highly unnecessary practice if all violence is evil? What is the justification for surfing?

But, just so I don't set up too much of a straw man, green slime clearly a rightly makes a distinction between objects and others. Doing violence to a ball probably isn't evil even under his claim that all acts of violence are evil, because its implied I think that he means violence against others (not objects or even necessarily self). (Although, we both probably agree that there are cases where violence against objects is evil because they are indirect attacks on an other.) So, lets deal with what I do consider a word game worth calling out someone for.

It may be the lesser evil....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.

This is a serious contridiction in his position. How can a thing be both evil and justifiable?

Isn't this the definition of justifiable: "capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible?"

Those things that are not justifiable are wrong. Those things that are justifiable are right. An evil act is precisely identical to an act that is not justifiable. We know that it is evil because there can be no justification for it. If on the other hand the act was right and just, then it can't be evil. "Justifiable evil" is an oxymoron, and in my opinion a very subversive and evil phrase. Because the implication of that phrase is that we can do things that we know to be wrong, unjust, and evil, but it was ok to them nonetheless. That seems to me to be a very dangerous line of thinking.

I don't think you can reasonably distinguish between acts of force - especially force against a person - and violence. If I push a guy around, its still violent even if my intention is good and he suffers little pain and no lasting injury. If a guy cooperates with me in my pushing him around, but does so out of fear of greater violence, its also violent. I don't think green slime thinks otherwise, otherwise he couldn't condemn the police for using violence. When I say to my child, "It's time to take a bath.", and as sometimes happens she says, "Nooooo." when I pick her up bodily and put her in the bath that is violent to. I'm completely disregarding her wishes and forcing her into the bath, sometimes kicking and screaming. Similarly when I insist on holding her hand as we cross the street, and she picks her legs up in an attempt to struggle free from me in the midst of the street. I'm not going to let her go or stop dragging her right there, no matter how much evil someone thinks I'm doing to her.

Since green slime clearly is quite intelligent (he agrees with me) , I'd like to here about these alternative forms of child raising that don't involve any violence. Do they come from someone with actual children? Likewise, I'd like to hear about these alternative forms of rule of law that don't involve society empowering some few to have a legal monopoly on active and proactive violence. I refer you back to my cautious nature mentioned earlier. I don't think you can pass judgment on whether some new social innovation is working until you've had a couple of generations go by. Talk to me about it in 20-40 years. If it works then, I may advocate it.

Ok, I'll be back on topic after this... so long as we don't get into an argument about what words mean.

 

[green slime]

Never mind...

 

[Felix]

...

 

[Celebrim]

The strange case of the disappearing discussion.

 

[green slime]

You see that as an answer? You don't see something of a broad space between here and there, or is it all slippery slopes from where you are standing? Finally, you see that as an attempt to persist this thread or close it?

I think we perhaps should move on.

It was a reply to your wanting to see the effects a generation or two on (20-40 years). 28 years slots nicely into that span of time. You should check it out.

As a comparisson, a revolution in a middle eastern country happened the same year (I'm sure you know which one). Which society seems to be more appealing, based on the general level of violence these two societies as whole are willing to inflict upon their respective citizenry? Which would you define as more "good"? Having lived in both, I know which I prefer.

Perhaps we should indeed move on.

 

[Celebrim]

Only a wish or a miracle can restore former alignment, and the affected individual does not make any attempt to return to the former alignment. (In fact, he views the prospect with horror and avoids it in any way possible.) If a character of a class with an alignment requirement is affected, an atonement spell is needed as well if the curse is to be obliterated.​

While poetic, I don't think the Helm of Opposite Alignment does to a soul quite what you suggest. You can recover from the Helm both your alignment and your status as a alignment-dependent class; the text says it is a curse, and requires the use of Bestow Curse to create. Is not the obliteration of a soul somewhat strong for a 3rd (4th) level spell and a 4,000gp magic item, something not even Soul Bind can do?

You are getting somewhere to the heart of my problem answering the question. I don't think that the Helm of Opposite Alignment was intended to be an object which supports a robust discussion of spirituality, morality, and social consequence. It was originally a gamist device with I think light hearted intent. And, like so many of the spells and items in D&D, its power is judged by its game balance rather than its impact on the universe or its complexity. For example, spells like 'magic mouth', 'comprehend languages', and 'unseen servant' actually do things that are objectively harder than blowing up a room, but they are rated as low level spells because superficially they effect game balance less than for example a fireball. Or at least, they effect the game balance of the game that is assumed will by played by social convention less than a fireball.

So among the problems I have in this discussion is some elements of the item seem to contridict my understanding of the actual event. I think changing an alignment is far beyond the power of a simple mortal ability, because its a far more subtle thing than a mere compulsion (making someone hungry or angry for instance). Even in the quoted text you desribe, you ought to see a contridiction. The thing can be done by a mere 4th level spell, but it can only be undone by not only a 9th level spell but 9th level spells which are presumed to involve acts of raw possibly beyond mortal power. This might make some sense if the 4th level spell did something wholly destructive, but by no understanding of destructiveness can we explain what a helm of opposite alignment does. It not only destroys, but it puts something back in its place. This act of creation is objectively 'hard', and ought to be little less hard than making or destroying souls in the first place. It seems the province of the divine, not the province of a mere curse. 'May you thirst', sure. 'May you who are pure be wicked.' No, a curse can't do that IMO. If it could, the three wierd sisters wouldn't have needed someone like MacBeth. They could have just as easily cursed Duncan.

IMO, if it takes a Wish or a Miracle to undo it, it implies that it should have required a Wish or Miracle to do it in the first place. The item in question is radically underpriced, both in its conception of what actually takes place and the power unleashed, and its social consequence were such a power to be actually common.