Ethics: Helm of Opposite Alignment
![[Deleted User]](https://forums.beamdog.com/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 3,675
The user and all related content has been deleted.
- Ethics: Helm of Opposite Alignment129 votes
- Yes. Using the Helm of Opposite Alignment is right.24.81%
- No. Using the Helm of Opposite Alignment is wrong.28.68%
- Viconia DeVir is awesome!22.48%
- *Mystery Option*24.03%
Post edited by [Deleted User] on
0
Comments
However, due to the cheap shot with the poll questions, my answer was...well...
Essentially you are taking away someone's free will by equipping the helm on them. But I think you could morally justify that act if it were a punishment for a specific illegal act they had comitted.
But even that may be unacceptable to some societies. Ultimately, like a lot of these difficult moral questions, there is no absolute right or wrong answer.
Forced-on-mindwarping someone to better fit that ideal is not a Good act.
I think anyone employing the Helm of Opposite Alignment in such a fashion to better the world should feel familiar with a Serenity quote;
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.
If I'm Lawful Good, then I'm a strict believer in strong government, law and order, and helping the most people while doing the least harm. So hell yes; I'd put the Helm on her. A little harm for a lot of good.
If I'm Chaotic Good, the idea of subverting another's will in such a way would be abhorrent to me, and I wouldn't use it.
And if'n I'm Neutral Good, then I might consider using the Helm on a limited basis if the need was great enough, but I would organise to have the Helm removed at a later time, which would make for some interesting rp.
Also, Vic is awesome-sauce, no doubt.
She's grown up in a ruthless society, which has left her as somewhat cold and aloof, and she basically just wants to be left alone.
BTW, I couldn't vote on the poll because there were two (three) answers (anything but option 1) that I find appropriate. :P
Even more interesting would be to know what would happen to a person that has worn the helm for a long time once it was removed (not in game terms): Would they immediately revert back to their old ways or would the reverse alignment have rubbed off on their real persona as well? If it was not a mind control device then they would surely still retain their memories of the reverse alignment period and the pleasure and satisfaction they got from their reverse actions if you catch my drift...
A good person could always motivate it with giving his/her lovely drow an unidentified yet very spiffy helmet as a gift... It's been worn by a demon, surely it must be powerful! Once they realise all her nagging is gone, everyone's merrier, even her. Win/win... win.
As far as your second question, the magic works by completely reversing your ideology. Once the effects are removed, your belief systems are restored to normal. Although you (as potentially a good person) may feel that your belief systems are self evident and extremely compelling, someone of an opposing ideology, even after being exposed to your logic and manner of behavior for a long period of time, won't necessarily see your way of seeing and doing things as the obviously better choice once their own will and way of seeing/doing things is restored.
Changing a persons personality by force is wrong, but don't forget that we're talking about the ethics of turning an evil person good, potentially for ever. Is it more ethical to slay them where they stand?
Changing a person's personality by force is wrong. Period (IMHO). It makes no difference if you are changing from Good to evil or from Evil to good. forced change is just wrong in that you are subverting someone's choice and free will. Making it a situation of situational ethics like you are doing is a slippery slope.
That being said in modern society we mess with peoples minds a lot anyhow. Some people take medicine to become less aggressive for example, sometimes by force, and they often think it's better themselves once the effects have kicked in. I don't see that as being that much different. Once a person wears the helmet they can still have it removed, but I doubt they would want to. I'm not saying it's something that should be done without some serious thought, but I think it could be justified in some cases.
Since we don't know exactly how the helm operates this is all just theoretical anyhow, but I think it's an interesting philosophical argument.
If you are truely RPing, would you not think that if Vic suddenly changed her alignment, her God Shar would turn her back on Vic? Truely Shar would not grant her powers to a individual who would foolishly changed her alignment even against her will. If she was still a cleric then, who would she worship? Sune? Illmater? Or do you RP as an below average fighter trudging along beside you as a maiden in distress?
That a side, a truely good person would sway ms Devir into becoming good through ethical conversation. It is bound to happen eventually in the story. Let it play out and give that helm to someone more deserving: Jaheira.
As for the question at hand, your character doesn't know that Viconia is Neutral Evil, and it wouldn't be particularly obvious since she's not going to go on any kind of psychotic rant about slaughtering people. There's not much reason for you to abandon her based solely on her alignment. Treat her like Morrigan in Dragon Age and just don't listen to her more Darwinian suggestions.
EDIT: Using a magic item to change a person's alignment against their will without good reason ("she'll be Good now" is not good enough) is decidedly Evil.
As someone who worked in sales and marketing for a bunch of years, I have a very VERY dim view of manipulation and coercion without the recipients consent or knowledge. But maybe that is simply me.
I actually think the issue is a bit more complicated for the PC than simply "if you convert an evil person to good against their will that is evil." Let's run through the various options for an NPC that values the collective good over everything.
You encounter an evil person like Sarevok who is powerful and foreseeably is going to kill innocents.
Option #1 - Kill him. Pro's: Eliminates the possibility of him hurting innocents. Con's: The worst possible outcome for him since it eliminates the possibility for change, new alternatives, etc.
Option #2 - Live and let live. Pro's: You don't take away his free will or his life. Con's: He can wash the Sword Coast in the blood of innocents.
Option #3 - Try to convert him. Pro's: Give him the option of converting without diminishing his free will. Con's: Until a successful conversion, he can wash the Sword Coast in the blood of innocents. If conversion fails, you have the con's of options 1 or 2.
Option #4 - Use a geas to ensure he doesn't hurt anyone. Pro's: Eliminates the possibility of him hurting innocents. Can be revoked or replaced with a superior alternative. Con's: Takes away his ability to make certain choices (at least on the pain of death). Pro or con: Doesn't change his basic impulses.
Option #5 - Use the helm of opposite alignment. Pro's: Eliminates the possibility of him hurting innocents. Can be revoked or replaced with a superior alternative. Not only stops him from doing bad, but results in him seeking out the opportunity to do good. Con's: Forcibly changes his basic impulses so as to remove his true free will. A form of mind control.
Which of these choices is the best for humanity? It isn't a clear cut call from where I stand - especially for the most evilly hard wired characters or any character that you can predict will kill an innocent. If that character is going to kill an innocent somewhere down the line, you can make a very credible argument that the only choices are either mind control (helm or geas) or killing him since letting him go will just mean he kills one or more innocents (along the lines of the argument that it is not OK to keep letting the Joker go over and over again where he just keeps killing and killing).
(Note: A slightly better possibility than killing the evil character, from the perspective of the evil character, is imprisoning the evil character. This is not possible in BG1 and is at risk for being reversed without the consent of the PC in BG2. I don't think it changes the basic debate.)
The betrayal issue is the biggest. But a utilitarian argument can be made for it.
CG would definitely do it...if they're personal views justify it. They would do whatever they thought was right to promote their agenda of bettering people and society.
NG would probably do it too...it depends on the particulars of the individual, but you could find a way easily enough.
LG is the only one that has enough restrictions to make it questionable (unless there are specific tendencies your character has that aren't obvious).
@Schneidend
Changing her alignment is not without good reason: it is seeking unlimited good for others (Viccy) and improving society as a whole (by perpetrating the increase of goodness and eliminating the presence of evil). It's basically like conversion, but with a magical item. Maybe it is brainwashing in some sense. It depends on how utilitarian his character is with that part of LG.
I do think it would be obvious that she is NE, simply because of her actions. Definitely not good anyway.
In the end though, if the helm was used from a selfish intention, then it would not be a LG act.
It totally depends, and I personally would condone it in any situation since it is completely reversible. It is temporary, so it is about the same effect as charming someone - a little more powerful, but the same general idea. If that stops evil acts, it is not itself inherently evil, although it is less than just.