I don't think any good character can justify effectively using mind control to subvert someones actions and morals.
The only way you can justify it is through "the end justifies the means" sort of argument which is not in keeping with good alignments. Only neutral or evil characters fall back on "the end justifies the means".
If you happen to be of lawful good (or another good alignment) do you believe it is correct to equip an evil character (against their will) with the helm of opposite alignment just to serve your own purposes?
For example, I happen to like Viconia DeVir, but due to game mechanics the only way to keep her in a good aligned party while not breaking self imposed role play restrictions would be to equip her with the helm of opposite alignment. However, if my character is both good and likes Viconia then surely equipping her with a cursed item just to be with her is not right the right thing to do... Oh the dilemma...
In the Xmen comics, Professor X used to struggle with this all the time. In his view, forcing someone to change who they fundamentally are against their will was evil and anathema to his way of thinking. I tend to agree. Turning Magento into a goodie against his will would have made Xavier just as evil as Maggie used to be.
The Helm of Opposite Alignment is nonsensical to begin with, it would be like using a dominate spell to force someone to do good deeds. Sure, they will perform good actions, but you're not going to change their alignment because alignment depends on intention and free will as much as action. This is why animals and the utterly insane don't have an alignment/are true neutral: They lack the necessary capacity to take a determined moral/philosophical stand.
@the_spyder Of course, taking situational ethics to the logical endpoint rules out self defense. Because killing is always an evil action, even if it's out of a motive for self preservation (and heck, doesn't that just underline the selflishness of the act?). And killing someone to save yourself could be the first step on a slippery slope to killing people preemptively in case they may threaten you someday.
I don't think any good character can justify effectively using mind control to subvert someones actions and morals.
The only way you can justify it is through "the end justifies the means" sort of argument which is not in keeping with good alignments. Only neutral or evil characters fall back on "the end justifies the means".
So in the example of encountering the bloodthirsty, powerful and connected Sarevok, do you kill Sarevok or risk him likely killing innocents?
If the answer is killing him, is that really so much more morally superior to temporarily mentally controlling him with the intent of finding a better option to confine/reform him later? Both options equally protect the innocent (actually, the helm of opposite alignment increases the protection of the innocent) but only the helm offers the possibility of redemption.
If the answer is neither killing him nor controlling him (pretty much guaranteed to escape from jail - just like you do), is his killing the next innocent really morally superior to temporarily mentally controlling him with the intent to find a better option to confine/reform him later?
@dstoltzfus Lawful Good's main theme may be "the most amount of good for the most amount of people for the most amount of time," but that doesn't include repeated use of mind control, murder, or other unsavory tactics in the Evil toolbox. An LG character might need to do some pretty terrible things to make the world a better place, but casually changing somebody's entire outlook on life with a mind control helmet is going to quickly shift him to Lawful Neutral and then Evil.
@AHF Viconia doesn't just go around hurting people. She's Neutral Evil because she's willing to do whatever it takes to survive, but she's no bandit. She doesn't burn farmers alive in their outhouses for fun, she did it to protect herself from them. It's wrong to do anything untoward to her just because she might, at some point, in the future, maybe, possibly hurt somebody. If that were justification enough, then the Harper commander who wants to imprison CHARNAME in Jaheira's BG2 quests is also completely justified. She has mundane equipment and is a renegade drow with nowhere to go, and she only becomes dangerous when close-minded surfacers try to arrest or murder her. The truly Good thing to do would be to take her with you, unmolested, and try to show her a better way to live, which is what can ultimately happen in BG2 if you don't be a dick and murder her or obliterate her self with a mind control helmet.
@AHF Viconia doesn't just go around hurting people. She's Neutral Evil because she's willing to do whatever it takes to survive, but she's no bandit. She doesn't burn farmers alive in their outhouses for fun, she did it to protect herself from them. It's wrong to do anything untoward to her just because she might, at some point, in the future, maybe, possibly hurt somebody. If that were justification enough, then the Harper commander who wants to imprison CHARNAME in Jaheira's BG2 quests is also completely justified. She has mundane equipment and is a renegade drow with nowhere to go, and she only becomes dangerous when close-minded surfacers try to arrest or murder her. The truly Good thing to do would be to take her with you, unmolested, and try to show her a better way to live, which is what can ultimately happen in BG2 if you don't be a dick and murder her or obliterate her self with a mind control helmet.
I agree with you on Viconia. You will notice that my question wasn't about Viconia because I think that is an easy choice.
It was a more challenging hypothetical involving a bloodthirsty killer to test the proposition that mentally controlling someone is never the superior moral choice for a good character. There are plenty of characters that fit this description in literature and other media (the Joker, "Red John", Hannibal Lector, etc.) and there is no shortage of evil killers in BG. I am deliberately using one that is too smart and too powerful to simply be thrown in jail without a high probability of harm to innocents. With the options available to the PC (can't cast imprisonment, etc.), it is largely down to a choice of kill the killer, control the killer, or put innocents at risk. (Vary the hypothetical if you think there is an easy out that I am missing to confront the hard choice.) I think there is a strong argument that the helmet is the most moral of those options.
I am asking about the individual action of giving someone a cursed item to benefit your own needs...
I think this is an easy question. Is it moral to control someone who presents no real threat to others with a mind control device for the purpose of benefiting your own needs? Of course not.
There are interesting and challenging moral questions here, but that one qualifies as low hanging fruit.
It gets more interesting if you add in addition context, such as a qualifier that use of the helm is the only way to stop Sarevok from escaping and waging war on the Sword Coast or some similar qualifier that puts different "good" moral interests in conflict.
Do you use a mind control device on Hitler to force him to be good and shut down the Nazi violence, antisemitism, etc. Suddenly that is a harder choice to say "no" to using the helm than in the context of someone who really just wants to be left alone in peace.
Consider that there are three broad ways of dealing with unrepentant evil.
The first is to kill them, which theoretically ends their capacity to cause evil, but D&D doesn't really work that way. Their soul will descend to the lower realms and they will either become food for a being of pure evil or become a being of pure evil themselves. Either way, killing them doesn't stop them from perpetuating evil, it just makes it somebody else's problem. And of course, death forecloses any opportunity at redemption. It is, however, easier than the alternatives, and depending on the scale being dealt with, resources may be too strained to make doing things the hard way even vaguely feasible.
The second is to restrain them, either physically in a prison or by constant surveillance ready to step in if they try to perform another evil act. This requires you to be able to overpower the evil person, and requires you to be able to do so at any time, which involves a considerable investment of resources. Because they maintain some degree of freedom, it is possible they may choose to change their ways, but in the meantime there is the risk that they will slip the leash or sow the seeds of evil without their wardens noticing. At least alignment detection magic means that you can tell the difference between a faked conversion and the real deal (though there are ways to confound that too). @Schneidend's proposed method of dealing with Viconia is a very loose version of this approach. So loose that all you have to do is be too good and she will get fed up with you and simply walk away, remaining evil. Of course, Viconia barely qualifies as evil in the first place.
The third is to mentally restrain them through magical compulsions (or in the real world, with drugs). In this way, they can be compelled to perform good acts instead of merely prevented from committing evil ones. On the other hand, since their will is not their own, you haven't actually solved the problem. You're only treating the symptoms, and as soon as the compulsion wears off they will be back as they were. Depending on the level of awareness they have while under compulsion, it may give them the opportunity to realize that doing good for its own sake can feel good, but they may be too busy seething at having their free will constrained to notice.
There are interesting and challenging moral questions here, but that one qualifies as low hanging fruit.
It gets more interesting if you add in addition context, such as a qualifier that use of the helm is the only way to stop Sarevok from escaping and waging war on the Sword Coast or some similar qualifier that puts different "good" moral interests in conflict.
Do you use a mind control device on Hitler to force him to be good and shut down the Nazi violence, antisemitism, etc. Suddenly that is a harder choice to say "no" to using the helm than in the context of someone who really just wants to be left alone in peace.
I think you've just asked an easy question on the opposite end of the same spectrum. Viconia is largely harmless, so using the helmet on her is clearly out of the question. Sarevok does harm on a regular basis and fully intends to keep doing so, so using the helm on him seems a lot more palatable. We're talking about a man who cannot be redeemed until after he has lost all of his powers, wealth, and allies, died, and been resurrected. You're asking if we should do something drastic about somebody who is ruinously dangerous, instead of asking us if we should do something drastic about somebody who is not. Both are easy, as the former is an obvious "yes," while the latter is an obvious "no."
Granted, though, I would prefer to simply kill him in open combat. The complete abolition of choice does not sit well with me.
I think this is an easy question. Is it moral to control someone who presents no real threat to others with a mind control device for the purpose of benefiting your own needs? Of course not.
There are interesting and challenging moral questions here, but that one qualifies as low hanging fruit.
It gets more interesting if you add in addition context, such as a qualifier that use of the helm is the only way to stop Sarevok from escaping and waging war on the Sword Coast or some similar qualifier that puts different "good" moral interests in conflict.
Do you use a mind control device on Hitler to force him to be good and shut down the Nazi violence, antisemitism, etc. Suddenly that is a harder choice to say "no" to using the helm than in the context of someone who really just wants to be left alone in peace.
It sounds like you and I are pretty much on the same page. My whole point is to disagree with those who are making it sound like use of the helm by a good PC is never justifiable and such use is always evil regardless of the circumstances. There is a lot of language that doesn't seem to allow for the possibility of moral usage:
I don't think making someone use the helmet against their will is what a good person would do.
* * *
In my interpretation, Good believes in freedom and equality. Forced-on-mindwarping someone to better fit that ideal is not a Good act
* * *
Is it some form of mind control device then it is surely unethical for a good person to use it
* * *
Using the helm, or in fact any force or coercion on someone without their consent would not be what I would think of as a 'Good' act.
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.
Situational ethics is like saying "It is wrong to kill. Except 'bad' people." If it is wrong to kill, it is wrong to kill. Makes no difference if they are good or bad. Once you make that qualification, who is to say what the next qualification is? Who makes the rules? How much power does that give someone? And will that power corrupt someone until they are 'Bad' people? It is a very slippery slope.
* * *
I don't think any good character can justify effectively using mind control to subvert someones actions and morals.
The only way you can justify it is through "the end justifies the means" sort of argument which is not in keeping with good alignments.
The situational ethics/killing example is a good one because I would think most of us agree that there are times when it is morally justified to kill and others where it is the right or possibly best moral choice given available options - self-defense, defense of others, defense of invasion, etc. Indeed, the whole D&D paradigm situationally uses killing as a high good moral choice all the time and gives its paragons of virtue (paladins) smiting power to help them kill evil. In those circumstance where killing is a morally good choice, it seems like the helm would nearly always be the more humane and moral choice than bashing some evil person's skull in and would result in not only the cessation of evil that killing does but proactive good by the person with the possibility of redemption, social justice, etc. that may not be available at the time the kill or not kill decision is on the table.
If the reality is what you say above:
You're asking if we should do something drastic about somebody who is ruinously dangerous, instead of asking us if we should do something drastic about somebody who is not. Both are easy, as the former is an obvious "yes," while the latter is an obvious "no."
and there are situations where it is obviously evil to use the helmet and situations where it is an obviously good moral choice, then that leaves a mess of gray in between and illustrates that it is not a simple black/white decision in every case. It becomes a matter of situation ethics - like most choices in life. (Using Baldur's Gate 2 as an example, think of the morally good choices that are a matter of situational ethics like siding with the Shadow Thieves. Is it "good" to support the Shadow Thieves? Not generally, but under those circumstances? Yes.)
@Mathmick: Agreed. The idea that any person could be categorised as Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil or any 'alignment' could only be valid within an rpg, or computer game. Unfortunately, people are not that easy to describe. (It's a major sticking point in my plan to take over the world.)
I think the answer to Bhaaldog's dilemma is to have one his other npc's persuade or trick his character into using the helmet on Viconia.
@Mathmick: Agreed. The idea that any person could be categorised as Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil or any 'alignment' could only be valid within an rpg, or computer game. Unfortunately, people are not that easy to describe. (It's a major sticking point in my plan to take over the world.)
I think the answer to Bhaaldog's dilemma is to have one his other npc's persuade or trick his character into using the helmet on Viconia.
The alignments actually could easily be used on real people...we just don't have the advantage of observing them from on high in order to do so. Alignments aren't some kind of personality litmus test. It's how you fit into the ebb and flow of the universe. You think the alignment system is too simplistic to describe people, but really the alignment system is dealing with aspects of ourselves that are so huge and cosmic that we cannot observe them.
Hells yes, I will put that Helm on Vikky! (note that I believe that once under the curse, she can take the helm off, but keeps it close. The curse keeps on working until removed, regardless of whether or not the helm is on. The curse activates once the helmet is put on ONCE).
I mean, I just don't want her stabbing me (or worse) for...whatever. The morals be damned!
Vikky is worth it.
Imagine it, a NG Vikky. Woohooo! Remember, she is NE (right?). So the helm makes her NG. What is not to like about that? As NE, you know Vikky is going to betray you at the first moment of perceived weakness. And if your CHARNAME is a male, you are always going to be perceived as weak! Well, until you make it to BG:EE ToB...hehe.
So put that helm on her! For your sake. For her sake. For all our sakes! Besides, we "know" that inside Vikky is a Neutral just wanting to come out! I am just helping it along...prematurely.
The alignments actually could easily be used on real people...we just don't have the advantage of observing them from on high in order to do so. Alignments aren't some kind of personality litmus test. It's how you fit into the ebb and flow of the universe. You think the alignment system is too simplistic to describe people, but really the alignment system is dealing with aspects of ourselves that are so huge and cosmic that we cannot observe them.
Actually, I do think a character's alignment has an influence on his/her personality. And by 'personality' I mean, "the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character." (desktop dictionary.) Certainly there are other important elements that make up a pc or npc's personality, but I would argue alignment is one of the stronger of these elements.
I want to be careful to always talk about characters and npc's here, because I just don't think people can be described by the alignment system. Unless of course, you allow that people change their alignments on an almost hourly basis. I'll give a quick example:
I'm driving to work, and I'm going a bit too fast so when the wombat runs out, I hit it. Looking in my rear-view I can see it's badly hurt, but I'm late for work so I just keep driving. (neutral evil) Later, I see the speed camera set up, ready to catch speeding drivers coming the other way. I start flashing my lights once, twice at on-coming traffic, warning them. (chaotic good) Later still, when I get to work, my apprentice offers me a quick smoke of his rollie before service starts, but knowing what he puts in his cigarettes, I refuse. (lawful good)
Okay, so it wasn't that quick an example, but y'all see my point, right? The alignment system was designed as an aid to help players roleplay a character, and at that task it excels. But for me, that's as far as it's usefulness goes.
For my own purposes? Darn straight I do! What if it was put on a chaotic evil person like Tiax? He may or may not become a better person (I don't think it would solve the fact that he is crazy) but it would let me keep him in my party at a higher reputation than I normally could.
The situational ethics/killing example is a good one because I would think most of us agree that there are times when it is morally justified to kill and others where it is the right or possibly best moral choice given available options - self-defense, defense of others, defense of invasion, etc. Indeed, the whole D&D paradigm situationally uses killing as a high good moral choice all the time and gives its paragons of virtue (paladins) smiting power to help them kill evil. In those circumstance where killing is a morally good choice, it seems like the helm would nearly always be the more humane and moral choice than bashing some evil person's skull in and would result in not only the cessation of evil that killing does but proactive good by the person with the possibility of redemption, social justice, etc. that may not be available at the time the kill or not kill decision is on the table.
Indeed. One must consider that PC's morality is likely different from that of their players, and the "Good" morality of many characters in this setting isn't really the same as that of our cultures.
Even Lawful Good in D&D is often much more like that of a generally good military person in our world than a Ghandi. Much more willing to make sacrifices and even accept some degree of collateral damage in trying to protect good. For such characters the Helm of Opposite Alignment won't necessarily give them any major moral qualms.
Yeah...paladins or really any other extremist mindset character would use it in a heart-beat, either for their own gain or due to it "being in the targets best interest".
No where in the game does it say you MUST have 18+ rep to be considered a good party (I rarely ever get higher 15 or so....unless you donate to churches, there really aren't that many quests that give + rep, when you actually think about it). The rep system in general is broken, as implemented, because it doesn't consider intent for ones actions. 90% of evil characters wouldn't give a crap how much of a saint you were, as long as the riches and prestige kept flowing in (every single one of them is entirely motivated by greed or political power). Hell, having a good public rep would even allow them to get away with even more assholish behavior since they'd have strong public support...who'd you believe? Some down and out peasant or stranger, or crusading heroes part of a paragon of justice's entourage?
And Conversely, most of the good characters should leave immediately or outright attack for you any evil action, unless circumstances clearly deem there being no other choice and having to accept the lesser evil (paladins don't get that option....they either fall permamently or die in service of their beliefs).
People under the effects of a HoOA honestly believe they are and love their new alignment, as if they always had been it. (If PnP accurate, the change would also be permanent (the helm losing all power it's after being used, so it can't be used to reverse the effect), short of a wish/miracle.
The situational ethics/killing example is a good one because I would think most of us agree that there are times when it is morally justified to kill and others where it is the right or possibly best moral choice given available options - self-defense, defense of others, defense of invasion, etc. Indeed, the whole D&D paradigm situationally uses killing as a high good moral choice all the time and gives its paragons of virtue (paladins) smiting power to help them kill evil. In those circumstance where killing is a morally good choice, it seems like the helm would nearly always be the more humane and moral choice than bashing some evil person's skull in and would result in not only the cessation of evil that killing does but proactive good by the person with the possibility of redemption, social justice, etc. that may not be available at the time the kill or not kill decision is on the table.
Indeed. One must consider that PC's morality is likely different from that of their players, and the "Good" morality of many characters in this setting isn't really the same as that of our cultures.
Even Lawful Good in D&D is often much more like that of a generally good military person in our world than a Ghandi. Much more willing to make sacrifices and even accept some degree of collateral damage in trying to protect good. For such characters the Helm of Opposite Alignment won't necessarily give them any major moral qualms.
You are talking about a very slippery slope there. As soon as you start saying that you accept 'some degree of collateral damage in trying to protect good', where do you draw the line? Is one life 'acceptable collateral damage'? Are five? What about 10% of the human race? What about 49%? 'For the greater good, logic dictates that saving 51% of humanity justifies sacrificing 49%.
Take for instance the message behind Minority report. In order to do the best possible good, stop the most crimes and protect the most people, everyone's fundamental freedoms have to be suppressed to such a degree that even the threat of a potential criminal act must be punished. You get a totalitarian state.
In examining Issac Asimov postulated 'Three laws', you get something similar. When you put into the hands of a perfectly logical machine who can logically predict events and their probable outcomes to a much greater degree than humanity, the law that "You shall not harm, nor through omission of action allow to be harmed, a human being", where do they draw the line? If they allow their humans to go out in the street where they have no control, they might get run over by a car and killed. Therefore, since it is a logical possibility that, through omission of action (preventing the humans from leaving the house), they have violated the law of allowing a human to be harmed through omission of action. Therefore they have no choice but to act. In other words, the program must forbid allowing the humans free will.
Indeed. One must consider that PC's morality is likely different from that of their players, and the "Good" morality of many characters in this setting isn't really the same as that of our cultures.
Even Lawful Good in D&D is often much more like that of a generally good military person in our world than a Ghandi. Much more willing to make sacrifices and even accept some degree of collateral damage in trying to protect good. For such characters the Helm of Opposite Alignment won't necessarily give them any major moral qualms.
You are talking about a very slippery slope there. As soon as you start saying that you accept 'some degree of collateral damage in trying to protect good', where do you draw the line? Is one life 'acceptable collateral damage'? Are five? What about 10% of the human race? What about 49%? 'For the greater good, logic dictates that saving 51% of humanity justifies sacrificing 49%.
Take for instance the message behind Minority report. In order to do the best possible good, stop the most crimes and protect the most people, everyone's fundamental freedoms have to be suppressed to such a degree that even the threat of a potential criminal act must be punished. You get a totalitarian state.
I'm not advocating such a moral stance, I'm stating that it will apply to many "good" characters in the fictional worlds found in D&D. Some of the Forgotten Realms Paladins will be very much like the cops in Minority Report. Their ideal would often be rather dystopian to many of us in the real world, people don't always seem to realise or remember this.
I'd disagree. Well, to a point anyway. Yes, i think that most "Lawful Good" Paladin types are very rigid and hardline and would fit very well into Philip K Dick's world.
But being that, i don't think they would want to forcably modify someone's Mind. They are more likely to kill those that don't believe as they do rather than use force to modify their (for lack of a better word) souls. Freedom of Will, not freedom of Action seems to be the way of most religious types in fantasy.
There's a long history of "lawful good" types subjugating people for the idea of the greater good. So while, no, I don't think it's a "lawful good" act I think many "lawful good" aligned people would do it.
For me it's a no to Viconia and a yes to Sarevok.
The argument against situational ethics is in many ways a logical fallacy. There's a valid point in there somewhere, but taking an idea like that and calling it a slippery slope (which is actually the name of that particular logical fallacy) is irrelevant. Even if it could potentially lead to disastrous consequences, that would not change the outcome of the relevant question- it must be viewed void of outside influence to be answered correctly.
Comments
The only way you can justify it is through "the end justifies the means" sort of argument which is not in keeping with good alignments. Only neutral or evil characters fall back on "the end justifies the means".
@the_spyder Of course, taking situational ethics to the logical endpoint rules out self defense. Because killing is always an evil action, even if it's out of a motive for self preservation (and heck, doesn't that just underline the selflishness of the act?). And killing someone to save yourself could be the first step on a slippery slope to killing people preemptively in case they may threaten you someday.
If the answer is killing him, is that really so much more morally superior to temporarily mentally controlling him with the intent of finding a better option to confine/reform him later? Both options equally protect the innocent (actually, the helm of opposite alignment increases the protection of the innocent) but only the helm offers the possibility of redemption.
If the answer is neither killing him nor controlling him (pretty much guaranteed to escape from jail - just like you do), is his killing the next innocent really morally superior to temporarily mentally controlling him with the intent to find a better option to confine/reform him later?
It isn't this clean and clear.
Lawful Good's main theme may be "the most amount of good for the most amount of people for the most amount of time," but that doesn't include repeated use of mind control, murder, or other unsavory tactics in the Evil toolbox. An LG character might need to do some pretty terrible things to make the world a better place, but casually changing somebody's entire outlook on life with a mind control helmet is going to quickly shift him to Lawful Neutral and then Evil.
@AHF
Viconia doesn't just go around hurting people. She's Neutral Evil because she's willing to do whatever it takes to survive, but she's no bandit. She doesn't burn farmers alive in their outhouses for fun, she did it to protect herself from them. It's wrong to do anything untoward to her just because she might, at some point, in the future, maybe, possibly hurt somebody. If that were justification enough, then the Harper commander who wants to imprison CHARNAME in Jaheira's BG2 quests is also completely justified. She has mundane equipment and is a renegade drow with nowhere to go, and she only becomes dangerous when close-minded surfacers try to arrest or murder her. The truly Good thing to do would be to take her with you, unmolested, and try to show her a better way to live, which is what can ultimately happen in BG2 if you don't be a dick and murder her or obliterate her self with a mind control helmet.
It was a more challenging hypothetical involving a bloodthirsty killer to test the proposition that mentally controlling someone is never the superior moral choice for a good character. There are plenty of characters that fit this description in literature and other media (the Joker, "Red John", Hannibal Lector, etc.) and there is no shortage of evil killers in BG. I am deliberately using one that is too smart and too powerful to simply be thrown in jail without a high probability of harm to innocents. With the options available to the PC (can't cast imprisonment, etc.), it is largely down to a choice of kill the killer, control the killer, or put innocents at risk. (Vary the hypothetical if you think there is an easy out that I am missing to confront the hard choice.) I think there is a strong argument that the helmet is the most moral of those options.
There are interesting and challenging moral questions here, but that one qualifies as low hanging fruit.
It gets more interesting if you add in addition context, such as a qualifier that use of the helm is the only way to stop Sarevok from escaping and waging war on the Sword Coast or some similar qualifier that puts different "good" moral interests in conflict.
Do you use a mind control device on Hitler to force him to be good and shut down the Nazi violence, antisemitism, etc. Suddenly that is a harder choice to say "no" to using the helm than in the context of someone who really just wants to be left alone in peace.
The first is to kill them, which theoretically ends their capacity to cause evil, but D&D doesn't really work that way. Their soul will descend to the lower realms and they will either become food for a being of pure evil or become a being of pure evil themselves. Either way, killing them doesn't stop them from perpetuating evil, it just makes it somebody else's problem. And of course, death forecloses any opportunity at redemption. It is, however, easier than the alternatives, and depending on the scale being dealt with, resources may be too strained to make doing things the hard way even vaguely feasible.
The second is to restrain them, either physically in a prison or by constant surveillance ready to step in if they try to perform another evil act. This requires you to be able to overpower the evil person, and requires you to be able to do so at any time, which involves a considerable investment of resources. Because they maintain some degree of freedom, it is possible they may choose to change their ways, but in the meantime there is the risk that they will slip the leash or sow the seeds of evil without their wardens noticing. At least alignment detection magic means that you can tell the difference between a faked conversion and the real deal (though there are ways to confound that too). @Schneidend's proposed method of dealing with Viconia is a very loose version of this approach. So loose that all you have to do is be too good and she will get fed up with you and simply walk away, remaining evil. Of course, Viconia barely qualifies as evil in the first place.
The third is to mentally restrain them through magical compulsions (or in the real world, with drugs). In this way, they can be compelled to perform good acts instead of merely prevented from committing evil ones. On the other hand, since their will is not their own, you haven't actually solved the problem. You're only treating the symptoms, and as soon as the compulsion wears off they will be back as they were. Depending on the level of awareness they have while under compulsion, it may give them the opportunity to realize that doing good for its own sake can feel good, but they may be too busy seething at having their free will constrained to notice.
Granted, though, I would prefer to simply kill him in open combat. The complete abolition of choice does not sit well with me.
It would be wrong to put a helmet of opposite alignment on a man to ensure he stayed loyal to his wife.
However, I can see the greater good of putting a helmet of opposite alignment on a dictator threatening the world with nuclear armageddon.
Now if we could mass produce these helmets... That would be a completely different kettle of fish...
It sounds like you and I are pretty much on the same page. My whole point is to disagree with those who are making it sound like use of the helm by a good PC is never justifiable and such use is always evil regardless of the circumstances. There is a lot of language that doesn't seem to allow for the possibility of moral usage: The situational ethics/killing example is a good one because I would think most of us agree that there are times when it is morally justified to kill and others where it is the right or possibly best moral choice given available options - self-defense, defense of others, defense of invasion, etc. Indeed, the whole D&D paradigm situationally uses killing as a high good moral choice all the time and gives its paragons of virtue (paladins) smiting power to help them kill evil. In those circumstance where killing is a morally good choice, it seems like the helm would nearly always be the more humane and moral choice than bashing some evil person's skull in and would result in not only the cessation of evil that killing does but proactive good by the person with the possibility of redemption, social justice, etc. that may not be available at the time the kill or not kill decision is on the table.
If the reality is what you say above: and there are situations where it is obviously evil to use the helmet and situations where it is an obviously good moral choice, then that leaves a mess of gray in between and illustrates that it is not a simple black/white decision in every case. It becomes a matter of situation ethics - like most choices in life. (Using Baldur's Gate 2 as an example, think of the morally good choices that are a matter of situational ethics like siding with the Shadow Thieves. Is it "good" to support the Shadow Thieves? Not generally, but under those circumstances? Yes.)
I think the answer to Bhaaldog's dilemma is to have one his other npc's persuade or trick his character into using the helmet on Viconia.
I mean, I just don't want her stabbing me (or worse) for...whatever. The morals be damned!
Vikky is worth it.
Imagine it, a NG Vikky. Woohooo! Remember, she is NE (right?). So the helm makes her NG. What is not to like about that? As NE, you know Vikky is going to betray you at the first moment of perceived weakness. And if your CHARNAME is a male, you are always going to be perceived as weak! Well, until you make it to BG:EE ToB...hehe.
So put that helm on her! For your sake. For her sake. For all our sakes! Besides, we "know" that inside Vikky is a Neutral just wanting to come out! I am just helping it along...prematurely.
I want to be careful to always talk about characters and npc's here, because I just don't think people can be described by the alignment system. Unless of course, you allow that people change their alignments on an almost hourly basis. I'll give a quick example:
I'm driving to work, and I'm going a bit too fast so when the wombat runs out, I hit it. Looking in my rear-view I can see it's badly hurt, but I'm late for work so I just keep driving. (neutral evil) Later, I see the speed camera set up, ready to catch speeding drivers coming the other way. I start flashing my lights once, twice at on-coming traffic, warning them. (chaotic good) Later still, when I get to work, my apprentice offers me a quick smoke of his rollie before service starts, but knowing what he puts in his cigarettes, I refuse. (lawful good)
Okay, so it wasn't that quick an example, but y'all see my point, right? The alignment system was designed as an aid to help players roleplay a character, and at that task it excels. But for me, that's as far as it's usefulness goes.
"Kivan! Come here! I have a nice new helm for you!"
One must consider that PC's morality is likely different from that of their players, and the "Good" morality of many characters in this setting isn't really the same as that of our cultures.
Even Lawful Good in D&D is often much more like that of a generally good military person in our world than a Ghandi. Much more willing to make sacrifices and even accept some degree of collateral damage in trying to protect good. For such characters the Helm of Opposite Alignment won't necessarily give them any major moral qualms.
No where in the game does it say you MUST have 18+ rep to be considered a good party (I rarely ever get higher 15 or so....unless you donate to churches, there really aren't that many quests that give + rep, when you actually think about it). The rep system in general is broken, as implemented, because it doesn't consider intent for ones actions. 90% of evil characters wouldn't give a crap how much of a saint you were, as long as the riches and prestige kept flowing in (every single one of them is entirely motivated by greed or political power). Hell, having a good public rep would even allow them to get away with even more assholish behavior since they'd have strong public support...who'd you believe? Some down and out peasant or stranger, or crusading heroes part of a paragon of justice's entourage?
And Conversely, most of the good characters should leave immediately or outright attack for you any evil action, unless circumstances clearly deem there being no other choice and having to accept the lesser evil (paladins don't get that option....they either fall permamently or die in service of their beliefs).
People under the effects of a HoOA honestly believe they are and love their new alignment, as if they always had been it. (If PnP accurate, the change would also be permanent (the helm losing all power it's after being used, so it can't be used to reverse the effect), short of a wish/miracle.
Take for instance the message behind Minority report. In order to do the best possible good, stop the most crimes and protect the most people, everyone's fundamental freedoms have to be suppressed to such a degree that even the threat of a potential criminal act must be punished. You get a totalitarian state.
In examining Issac Asimov postulated 'Three laws', you get something similar. When you put into the hands of a perfectly logical machine who can logically predict events and their probable outcomes to a much greater degree than humanity, the law that "You shall not harm, nor through omission of action allow to be harmed, a human being", where do they draw the line? If they allow their humans to go out in the street where they have no control, they might get run over by a car and killed. Therefore, since it is a logical possibility that, through omission of action (preventing the humans from leaving the house), they have violated the law of allowing a human to be harmed through omission of action. Therefore they have no choice but to act. In other words, the program must forbid allowing the humans free will.
But being that, i don't think they would want to forcably modify someone's Mind. They are more likely to kill those that don't believe as they do rather than use force to modify their (for lack of a better word) souls. Freedom of Will, not freedom of Action seems to be the way of most religious types in fantasy.
For me it's a no to Viconia and a yes to Sarevok.
The argument against situational ethics is in many ways a logical fallacy. There's a valid point in there somewhere, but taking an idea like that and calling it a slippery slope (which is actually the name of that particular logical fallacy) is irrelevant. Even if it could potentially lead to disastrous consequences, that would not change the outcome of the relevant question- it must be viewed void of outside influence to be answered correctly.