PDA

View Full Version : Programmed Amnesia Ethics?



Eurus
2008-05-31, 12:44 PM
Okay, so as I'm sure you've all seen, there's already a thread about the ethics of Charm Person. Not wanting to derail that thread and unsure if this particular topic had ever been brought up, I figured I'd start a new one. So...

Is using Programmed Amnesia on a sentient creature to rewrite its memories unethical? And if so (or if not), is this an absolute, or only in certain cases? Imagine, for instance, a Good-aligned Wizard reprogramming a defeated enemy to 'fix' whatever psychological issues caused him to be the way he is, probably by simply erasing them. The bandit had an abusive father, so he goes around robbing authority figures? Change his memories so that his father was a priest who died peacefully in his sleep, and convince the bandit that his childhood dream was to join the clergy. Swipe his gear, wake him up, and point him to the nearest city. He'll never know the difference, and probably be much happier for it.

Evil? I personally don't think so, but you are completely rewriting a person's memories to make them conform to your own ethical standards. It's for their own good - it'd be much easier to just kill them or turn them in for a reward, that's for sure - but you didn't exactly give them a choice. (Though if you did, that'd be a whole problem of its own... Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in D20 form?) So. What's the ruling, here?

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 12:47 PM
Don't Go There!! Turn Back! Turn Back!!!!

elliott20
2008-05-31, 12:49 PM
DC already did that plotline in Identity Crisis, I think. :smallsmile:

Ziren
2008-05-31, 01:14 PM
It's for their own good - it'd be much easier to just kill them or turn them in for a reward, that's for sure - but you didn't exactly give them a choice. (Though if you did, that'd be a whole problem of its own... Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in D20 form?) So. What's the ruling, here?

Virtually, you have killed him. You erased his personality and replaced it with another. The man that robbed you doesn't exist anymore, which is, quite frankly, indistinguishable from killing him. In the D&D-universe, where afterlife is a certainty, it's probably even worse.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 01:25 PM
Virtually, you have killed him. You erased his personality and replaced it with another. The man that robbed you doesn't exist anymore, which is, quite frankly, indistinguishable from killing him. In the D&D-universe, where afterlife is a certainty, it's probably even worse.

On the other hand, you created another being. A good one, to add.

Kyeudo
2008-05-31, 01:27 PM
What you are realy asking here is "Does the ends justify the means?"

If you ask me, what your wizard did is mind rape on a grand scale. A person is the sum of their experiences and to change those experiences drasticly is to kill the person they once were.

Your wizard mentaly destroyed someone and from the wreckage created someone new. Is it wrong? Probably. Is it better than killing them? I don't know.

quiet1mi
2008-05-31, 01:39 PM
sounds like a good epilogue to a campaign...

where they find the BBEG bandit from their earlier levels as a cleric with the with exalted feats.He can aid them to conquer the new BBEG but they will encounter clues to his past... can they keep their new powerful ally from changing into a new enemy...Will the BBEG find out about the Bandit and use the Original darkness in the Bandit's heart to posses him and cause strife and betrayal with in the party... If the Bandit finds out what the wizard did will he forgive him... or only create an instrument of destruction and tyranny for the BBEG to use as revenge... Only time will tell fellow adventurers as the ninja bard's time is up he he must leave.. *smoke bomb*

Copacetic
2008-05-31, 01:53 PM
Ethically.... Yes. The Bandit was hurting other people, and would eventually be hunted down and killed by the local police anyway. Now he is much happier.:smallsmile:

Pronounceable
2008-05-31, 02:21 PM
Tricky. On the one hand, you've done worse than killing by completely destroying hisself. On the other hand, you have created a good person. Plus he was an evil bastard, though that itself couldn't justify this.

Verdict: I dunno.

Eurus
2008-05-31, 03:12 PM
Hmm. The killing analogy is a mighty powerful one. But that assumes that a person really is nothing more than the sum of their experiences, which may or may not be true. In a world like D&D, where the concept of a 'soul' is not just religious or theoretical, but scientifically provable fact, that sounds even harder to determine. You're not necessarily erasing them, but changing their motivations, hopefully causing them to make different choices. So I guess that in and of itself is a quandary; are you killing off one being and replacing it with another, or just 'changing' one? And even if it is the former... Well, maybe the ends to justify the means. Sure seems to work for Paladins when they're single-handedly 'saving the world' by slaughtering anyone who pings as Evil on the Detect-O-Meter. I'm not sure if 'destroying' someone's consciousness is worse than killing them, either, even if you didn't reprogram them. After all, if he was evil, he probably wasn't headed for a very nice place anyway. Merciful?

NecroRebel
2008-05-31, 03:15 PM
Tricky... As others have said, destroying the former person is actually more Evil than killing them in most settings where they are guarunteed to go to an afterlife that is suitable to them. In other words, you're literally robbing them of an eternity rather than just their current life.

On the other hand, you are creating a new person who will also have an afterlife that is suitable to them. So in essence you're giving someone else the original's eternity.

Hm. How are new souls handled? This may be relevant. If a brand new soul is created when a child is born, then the programmed amnesia is effectively identical to killing the father to birth the child. That isn't quite right, but it's close. If souls are constantly reincarnated, though, programmed amnesia is completely identical to forcing a reincarnation right then, but it otherwise changes nothing.

I'd have to say this use of PA is probably slightly Evil, except in a setting where reincarnation or oblivion is all that follows death. There are more Evil ways to use the spell, but even creating a Paladin from a Blackguard is still giving the Blackguard a fate much, much worse than death, which I feel cannot possibly be balanced by the potential Good the new person would cause.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 03:26 PM
Easy, It's a completely vile thing to do, no matter the end.

See, the best take on this subject is the one presented in A Clockwork Orange. Goodness must come from the person, not from an artificial alteration.

Rutee
2008-05-31, 03:28 PM
The ethics of Programmed Amnesia? If you use it, you're almost definitely a disgusting person. About the only case I can see using it in would be on someone Dominated for months who's guilt ridden over whatever they've been doing.

quiet1mi
2008-05-31, 03:30 PM
the who enchantment school is morally gray... especially that damn irresistible dance!:smallfurious:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 03:31 PM
The ethics of Programmed Amnesia? If you use it, you're almost definitely a disgusting person. About the only case I can see using it in would be on someone Dominated for months who's guilt ridden over whatever they've been doing.

That might be the one and only good use. If they cannot overcome the guilt, and they WANT it (The key difference from other uses), then it would be a Good action.

SolkaTruesilver
2008-05-31, 03:35 PM
oh, I think I know the Answer.

You will create a new person, off course, and that person will do good deeds for the rest of his life.

However, at his death, he will go to be Tried. But all magical effect affecting him will end, and he will revert to his older self. However, when he will be tried, his experiences will prove that he have been a "good" person.

It will end up having an evil person earning a place in Paradise, which, on the long run, is an incredible evil thing.

Grey Paladin
2008-05-31, 03:44 PM
Good.

The ex-bandit is still the same sack of meat, now he's simply a helpful, happy, one that contributes to society and may touch and improve the lives of countless others instead of doing the opposite.

By killing him you have destroyed a single person, strengthened Evil's hold in reality by sending them another guy to be used as cannon fodder, and possibly saved a bunch of lives the bandit would have otherwise taken in the process.

By converting him, you have overwritten his perception, made him Exalted and happy instead of dead, strengthened the forces of Good in the universe, saved the lives he would've taken AND saved or at least massively improved a few others due to his volunteer work.


Will you sacrifice many to damn one to suffering? does your thirst for justice overrides your desire for the greater good?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 03:45 PM
Good.

The ex-bandit is still the same sack of meat, now he's simply a helpful, happy, one that contributes to society and may touch and improve the lives of countless others instead of doing the opposite.

By killing him you have destroyed a single person, strengthened Evil's hold in reality by sending them another guy to be used as cannon fodder, and possibly saved a bunch of lives the bandit would have otherwise taken in the process.

By converting him, you have overwritten his perception, made him Exalted and happy instead of dead, strengthened the forces of Good in the universe, saved the lives he would've taken AND saved or at least massively improved a few others due to his volunteer work.


Will you sacrifice many to damn one to suffering? does your thirst for justice overrides your desire for the greater good?

That is not greater good. Look at Mindrape.

Yeah, stamped Evil, and for good reason. Programmed Amnesia is only barely better. Goodness must come from the heart, not from magic.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-31, 03:49 PM
DC already did that plotline in Identity Crisis, I think. :smallsmile:
And Professor X did it a couple times to Magneto in several stories (including Ultimate universe) even before that :smalltongue:

I'd say it's unethical... but that's as far as killing someone is. You are destroying a being to create another. It's the destroying part that is the problem.

Grey Paladin
2008-05-31, 03:50 PM
So, because one's environment forced one to be evil to survive, unlike yours, you deny that person the possibility to be happy and wish to damn him to eternal torment in the reaches, bolstering the forces of evil, and sacrificing these he would save to boot, only so 'justice' is met?

Yeah, that sounds good.

Notice Sanctify The Wicked is labeled Exalted.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 03:52 PM
So, because one's environment forced one to be evil to survive, unlike yours, you deny that person the possibility to be happy and wish to damn him to eternal torment in the reaches, bolstering the forces of evil, and sacrificing these he would save to boot, only so 'justice' is met?

Yeah, that sounds good.

Notice Sanctify The Wicked is labeled Exalted.

Exalted is also a bunch of boloney. Notice how it treats CE as ultimate evil (When it is clearly stated in the PHB that the ultimate evil is NE) and LG as the ultimate good.

What you do is capture the bandit, not kill him. Then, you work to make him change his ways. Honestly, is it that hard a thing to do?

Innis Cabal
2008-05-31, 03:54 PM
That is not greater good. Look at Mindrape.

Yeah, stamped Evil, and for good reason. Programmed Amnesia is only barely better. Goodness must come from the heart, not from magic.

But evil can come froms spells?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 03:56 PM
But evil can come froms spells?

Exactly. Few spells are truly good. Many spells are brutally evil, such as Avasculate, Mindrape, or the like. It's much easier to do evil than good, didn't you know that?

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-31, 03:57 PM
It depends on the society and your perceptions. And use Mind Rape instead, it is better in every way.

Grey Paladin
2008-05-31, 03:58 PM
Do not quote Book of Vile Darkness if you refuse to accept its counterpart.

As to doing it the good ol' way: Considering the number of Criminals in the world, and the fact the chance it'll reform him into a selfless creature incapable of evil is slim, yes.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 04:01 PM
Do not quote Book of Vile Darkness if you refuse to accept its counterpart.

As to doing it the good ol' way: Considering the number of Criminals in the world, and the fact the chance it'll reform him into a selfless creature incapable of evil is slim, yes.

Incapable of evil?

:smallamused:


NOTHING is incapable of evil. "Good" is not "stupidly messianic". Showing the benefits of being a good guy compared to those of being a bad guy is usually enough if they are big. THAT is what you should aim for.

And no, I do not need to quote the BoVD, the thing that says "regards CE as most evil alignment" comes directly from the BoED. Do you see now WHY it is a bunch of crap?

Grey Paladin
2008-05-31, 04:05 PM
Mindrape is from Book of Vile Darkness, you quoting its [Vile] tag yet refusing to notice Sanctify the Wicked's [Exalted] tag is odd.

You program the capability of evil out of him, the poor bastard is unable to do it as much as a fish is unable to fly.

In a perfect world, everyone would be Mindraped into such a state.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 04:10 PM
Mindrape is from Book of Vile Darkness, you quoting its [Vile] tag yet refusing to notice Sanctify the Wicked's [Exalted] tag is odd.

You program the capability of evil out of him, the poor bastard is unable to do it as much as a fish is unable to fly.

In a perfect world, everyone would be Mindraped into such a state.

In a perfect world, everyone is inherently good, not Mindraped.

And if you want, erase mention of Mindrape in my posts. The point still stands.

Really, if your perfect world is made up with mindraped losers, I bet you LOVE Brave New World. It's a word for word thing there.

And you'll notice how The Utopia is consistently noted around the world by most scholars as one of the most horrible futures of humanity.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-31, 04:11 PM
Mindrape is from Book of Vile Darkness, you quoting its [Vile] tag yet refusing to notice Sanctify the Wicked's [Exalted] tag is odd.

You program the capability of evil out of him, the poor bastard is unable to do it as much as a fish is unable to fly.

In a perfect world, everyone would be Mindraped into such a state.

Mindrape doesn't have a [vile] tag, just an [evil] tag.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-31, 04:14 PM
Hmm, Mindrape is actually one of the best spells for a justive system to use. You get all of the persons memories and knowledge, so you know what crimes they committed and what they didn't, and then you can reprogram them to be good, hardworking, members of society.

Almost assuredly Lawful Evil but still.

Innis Cabal
2008-05-31, 04:20 PM
Exactly. Few spells are truly good. Many spells are brutally evil, such as Avasculate, Mindrape, or the like. It's much easier to do evil than good, didn't you know that?

Evil is only easier to do because so many people have their own opinion on it, and their opinion of good is so narrow. I think its alot harder for most people to kill someone then it is to save them. Chances are they wont do either and move on. Is that evil? I dont think so honestly. And those spells are only evil because they go against what soceity(and the printers) view of good and evil

Grey Paladin
2008-05-31, 04:21 PM
Azerian: Given this starting point, this is the best end one can hope for and realistically achieve.

In A Brave New World the government eliminates most of the concepts Central to humanity and eliminates creativity- with Mindrape you maintain all that makes mankind great and simply remove the stains.

The Utopia is feared by the scholars of our world because the only way to achieve it here is through the elimination of what makes Humans human. The problem is that we are incapable of, unlike Mindrape, changing the Hardcoding and can only script.

Tippy: Thanks.

Wooter
2008-05-31, 04:25 PM
What if someone sent an assassin after you, and you used Programmed Amnesia to fake your death? He tries to kill you, you knock him out, adjust his memory to think that he has killed you, then set him free to report back to his boss.

It doesn't even have to be you. An evil merchant killed his business partner, but his wife got away. He sends an assassin to kill her so she can't tell anyone. You fake her death, like above, and she moves to a new city under a new name.

Those don't seem to be even slightly evil uses, to me anyway.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 04:50 PM
What if someone sent an assassin after you, and you used Programmed Amnesia to fake your death? He tries to kill you, you knock him out, adjust his memory to think that he has killed you, then set him free to report back to his boss.

It doesn't even have to be you. An evil merchant killed his business partner, but his wife got away. He sends an assassin to kill her so she can't tell anyone. You fake her death, like above, and she moves to a new city under a new name.

Those don't seem to be even slightly evil uses, to me anyway.

That sounds like a neutral use.

But really, that's one very narrow use. Of COURSE, nothing is fully good or bad. Someone is guaranteed to find a good use for an evil spell and viceversa. But those are exceptions, nitpicks. In general, programmed amnesia is evil.

Grey Paladin
2008-05-31, 04:54 PM
You have yet to tell me why.

Does the hollow name of freedom justifies the loss of lives?

Flickerdart
2008-05-31, 04:58 PM
does your thirst for justice overrides your desire for the greater good?
Yup.

Changing a person from evil into good isn't particularly ethical, but it's a good act. What, who said the two had to be together?

The Corinthian
2008-05-31, 05:07 PM
I would say it's a Lawful and Good act. It's Good because it removes a force for evil and creates a force for good with a minimum of suffering. It's lawful because it denies freedom in favor of "what's best for you". Freedom is something Chaotic people are concerned with. Good people are concerned with helping others and preventing suffering. I would also say modern mainstream morality is highly Chaotic Good, which is why many people see this as an ethical problem. (Such as Flickerdart, above.)

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-31, 05:09 PM
Does the hollow name of freedom justifies the loss of lives?
Yes. Live free or die.

I think Franklin summed it up quite well:

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.

Once you have revoked your right to those freedoms though, I see no problem with society fixing you up. So no Mindraping to make everyone good and happy, but Mindraping criminals (after being judged guilty and going through the legal system) so that they become good, hardworking, productive members of society is something I have no problem with.

If someone wants it to be used on them selves, I also have no problem with it.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 05:15 PM
Indeed, there's that "When they came for the X's, I didn't speak, for I was not an X".

It's the truth. You don't support free will, you're going to get a massive payback from Karma.

Eurus
2008-05-31, 05:19 PM
I personally feel that, though it might not be a Good act, I don't consider it Evil either. If you are 'only the sum of your experiences', then you never really had a choice to begin with; all this is doing is changing you from being destined for evil, to being destined for good. If you do have free will and there's more to it than just prior experience and memories, then you're not killing them; just making them see things from a different perspective while still technically leaving them with free will. Nothing about Programmed Amnesia actually controls behavior; technically, the bandit you just reprogrammed could still decide to turn to Evil for whatever reason. You're just eliminating his previous motivations for doing so.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-31, 05:22 PM
Remember, there certainly are consensual uses of the various 'muck about with mind' spells - hiding information so that people don't break under torture, for example.

Gralamin
2008-05-31, 05:22 PM
I would say it's a Lawful and Good act. It's Good because it removes a force for evil and creates a force for good with a minimum of suffering. It's lawful because it denies freedom in favor of "what's best for you". Freedom is something Chaotic people are concerned with. Good people are concerned with helping others and preventing suffering. I would also say modern mainstream morality is highly Chaotic Good, which is why many people see this as an ethical problem. (Such as Flickerdart, above.)

In my Opinion Wrong. Its a Neutral act (maybe Neutral Evil), not Lawful Good. Good is concerned with helping others and preventing suffering, as you say, yet you are harming them and causing them to suffer, albeit unknowingly. It is not Lawful, as part of being lawful is understanding that everyone in society has some rights, and rights should be violated as little as possible.
Society as a whole is neutral.

Pronounceable
2008-05-31, 05:24 PM
See, the best take on this subject is the one presented in A Clockwork Orange. Goodness must come from the person, not from an artificial alteration.

Actually, Alex wasn't reformed in any way. He was just incapable of acting on his evil. He was still as vile as before, but was getting a taste of his own medicine. Which was a pretty awesome and wholly fitting thing to happen to that son of a female dog. Shame he got fixed in the end...

Here we're talking about actual removal of one's self, not merely the ability to perform evil. I wholeheartedly support removing of ability to cause suffering and then inflicting it upon those who have been evil. This complete destruction of the mean bastard's self is bothering me.

Though looking at it from the objective alignments of DnD, it's a good act (weakens universal evil while bolstering universal good).

Grey Paladin
2008-05-31, 05:27 PM
Tippy: Identity and choice for part of the population are not worth the denial of the 'freedom' to live that you have forcefuly taken from billions.

Azerian: Why is it that free will is good? why does the universe considers it so?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 05:29 PM
Tippy: Identity and choice for part of the population are not worth the denial of the 'freedom' to live that you have forcefuly taken from billions.

Azerian: Why is it that free will is good? why does the universe considers it so?

Because even ANIMALS tend to revolt against those stronger than them who have ruled by force when they can.

That's why. This isn't a thing only humanity does.

Eurus
2008-05-31, 05:30 PM
In my Opinion Wrong. Its a Neutral act (maybe Neutral Evil), not Lawful Good. Good is concerned with helping others and preventing suffering, as you say, yet you are harming them and causing them to suffer, albeit unknowingly. It is not Lawful, as part of being lawful is understanding that everyone in society has some rights, and rights should be violated as little as possible.
Society as a whole is neutral.

So a dystopic dictatorship can't be Lawful Evil because Lawful means respecting people's rights?

Grey Paladin
2008-05-31, 05:31 PM
Because even ANIMALS tend to revolt against those stronger than them who have ruled by force when they can.

That's why. This isn't a thing only humanity does.

Humans, animals, machines, all are one and the same.

What is your point?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 05:32 PM
So a dystopic dictatorship can't be Lawful Evil because Lawful means respecting people's rights?

No, Lawful means following pre-established codes.

In most societies, respecting people's rights IS part of a pre-established code of conduct. Thus, a rising dictator would be chaotic. A long established dictatorship would be LE.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 05:33 PM
Humans, animals, machines, all are one and the same.

What is your point?

That yes, the universe enforces it, if even non sapient creatures fight against those who try to rule by force when they can.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-31, 05:37 PM
Tippy: Identity and choice for part of the population are not worth the denial of the 'freedom' to live that you have forcefuly taken from billions.

It is better for a billion people to fight and die to protect the freedoms of a single individual than for said signal individual to be unjustly denied said freedoms.

If someone has forfeited their right to those freedoms, through criminal acts or the like, then I personally have no problem with doing anything you want to them (drug testing, slave labor, reprogramming, killing, gladiator fights, etc.). Once you decide to forfeit your rights and freedoms then you have none as far as I am concerned.

If a law is unjust or limits freedoms then it is your duty to do anything and everything to change or remove said law, up to and including taking up arms if needed. Failure to preform said duty is also a revocation of said freedoms.

You only deserve the rights and freedoms that you are willing to die to keep, it really is that simple. If you won't fight and die if needed for the right to live, or speak your mind, or anything else, then you don't deserve said right or freedom.

Eurus
2008-05-31, 05:39 PM
No, Lawful means following pre-established codes.

In most societies, respecting people's rights IS part of a pre-established code of conduct. Thus, a rising dictator would be chaotic. A long established dictatorship would be LE.

Fair enough, but 'most' is the operative word there. And as you say, an established dictatorship that serves as the accepted authority would be LE. So to say that respecting freedoms, in and of itself, is Lawful is inaccurate. Lawful sometimes, yes, but not at all necessary in the definition of Law.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 05:40 PM
It is better for a billion people to fight and die to protect the freedoms of a single individual than for said signal individual to be unjustly denied said freedoms.

If someone has forfeited their right to those freedoms, through criminal acts or the like, then I personally have no problem with doing anything you want to them (drug testing, slave labor, reprogramming, killing, gladiator fights, etc.). Once you decide to forfeit your rights and freedoms then you have none as far as I am concerned.

If a law is unjust or limits freedoms then it is your duty to do anything and everything to change or remove said law, up to and including taking up arms if needed. Failure to preform said duty is also a revocation of said freedoms.

You only deserve the rights and freedoms that you are willing to die to keep, it really is that simple. If you won't fight and die if needed for the right to live, or speak your mind, or anything else, then you don't deserve said right or freedom.

Tippy, you win and you can have your Emperor sized cookie.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j317/mccloud24/CHOCOLATE_CHIP_COOKIE.jpg

Cheers for the tremendously Insightful post.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 05:41 PM
Fair enough, but 'most' is the operative word there. And as you say, an established dictatorship that serves as the accepted authority would be LE. So to say that respecting freedoms, in and of itself, is Lawful is inaccurate. Lawful sometimes, yes, but not at all necessary in the definition of Law.

Correct. That is most certainly correct.

Now, a question. D'you know of any current national policy that doesn't respect the right to freedom?

Eurus
2008-05-31, 05:51 PM
Correct. That is most certainly correct.

Now, a question. D'you know of any current national policy that doesn't respect the right to freedom?

Since when are we talking about the Real World, here? Doesn't really matter if there's a Real World equivalent - I'm sure there are some countries out there that might qualify, but as I don't know much about foreign government I'll keep my mouth shut about that - if it's set in a fantasy world.

The Corinthian
2008-05-31, 05:51 PM
In my Opinion Wrong. Its a Neutral act (maybe Neutral Evil), not Lawful Good. Good is concerned with helping others and preventing suffering, as you say, yet you are harming them and causing them to suffer, albeit unknowingly. It is not Lawful, as part of being lawful is understanding that everyone in society has some rights, and rights should be violated as little as possible.


How can you suffer unknowingly? And in what way is harm done? Freedom is denied, but denial of freedom in itself has nothing to do with good and evil.

As for the part on Law, with that definition, isn't Lawful Evil a contradiction in terms? A lemure has no rights in Hell. A slave in a mortal totalitarian society need not have any rights.

Grey Paladin
2008-05-31, 05:52 PM
Billions do not fight and die for your freedom, they die due to their own corrupted nature, suffering through their whole life. They die because you did not fight your selfish urge for an illusion of self determination.

What is the purpose of 'freedom'? of any form of government? reprogramming the world's population achieves what freedom sets out to without the path freedom takes.

Do you truly claim creating a world without selfishness, murder, lies, death, suffering, depression, racism, and conflict evil?

Freedom supports the 'right' to think of all these vile concepts, and if anything, is the truly evil philosophy between these two.

NecroRebel
2008-05-31, 05:57 PM
It is better for a billion people to fight and die to protect the freedoms of a single individual than for said signal individual to be unjustly denied said freedoms.

If someone has forfeited their right to those freedoms, through criminal acts or the like, then I personally have no problem with doing anything you want to them (drug testing, slave labor, reprogramming, killing, gladiator fights, etc.). Once you decide to forfeit your rights and freedoms then you have none as far as I am concerned.

If a law is unjust or limits freedoms then it is your duty to do anything and everything to change or remove said law, up to and including taking up arms if needed. Failure to preform said duty is also a revocation of said freedoms.

You only deserve the rights and freedoms that you are willing to die to keep, it really is that simple. If you won't fight and die if needed for the right to live, or speak your mind, or anything else, then you don't deserve said right or freedom.

The bit about criminals having no rights is iffy to me. I'm not entirely sure what it is about it though... Probably that to remove a person's rights is a greater crime than any they could have performed. Yes, that's definately it: as you say, it is better for a billion to die fighting for rights than for one to be treated unjustly, but then you say that it is fine for one to be treated unjustly if they happen to be a criminal? Do not say that it is justice, for justice is by definition relative to the crime.

Besides that, and perhaps the third paragraph to a lesser extent, I agree absolutely.


And, Grey Paladin: It comes down to the fact that the concept of "freedom" is, for Americans at least, the most sacred concept in our history. There are many manuscripts written by very well-known and wise men around the founding of the USA, such as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others, that set forth the ideals of that nation, and freedom is considered more important by those people and those educated in that society.

Callos_DeTerran
2008-05-31, 05:59 PM
That yes, the universe enforces it, if even non sapient creatures fight against those who try to rule by force when they can.

Non-sapient creatures fight against those who try to rule by force so that they in turn can rule by force. Not the best example to pick and demonstrate your point.

And where on earth in the PHB does it say that NE is the ultimate evil?

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-31, 06:02 PM
Billions do not fight and die for your freedom, they die due to their own corrupted nature, suffering through their whole life. They die because you did not fight your selfish urge for an illusion of self determination.

What is the purpose of 'freedom'? of any form of government? reprogramming the world's population achieves what freedom sets out to without the path freedom takes.

Do you truly claim creating a world without selfishness, murder, lies, death, suffering, depression, racism, and conflict evil?
Depends on the means used to create said world. If all of the people in said world freely choose said world then it's not evil (would be quite boring though).


Freedom supports the 'right' to think of all these vile concepts, and if anything, is the truly evil philosophy between these two.

The purpose of any government is to protect the freedoms of its citizens at any cost. The purpose of freedom isn't to make a "good" world or even a "better" world, its purpose is to allow free will.

If what you are talking about was tried in the real world I would gladly press the button to launch a few ICBM's at you. I would also gladly die to stop you. Life is not good or evil, life for the sake of being alive is worthless. Life is only worth what you can spend it to achieve. There are things I would gladly die to achieve or even for a reasonable chance to achieve. I would also gladly take other peoples lives to achieve those things I find worthy of the ultimate price.

If you don't have something that you are willing to kill and die for then your life is a waste. Just because you eat, sleep, ****, and breath does not make your life worth anything.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-31, 06:07 PM
Billions do not fight and die for your freedom, they die due to their own corrupted nature, suffering through their whole life. They die because you did not fight your selfish urge for an illusion of self determination.

What is the purpose of 'freedom'? of any form of government? reprogramming the world's population achieves what freedom sets out to without the path freedom takes.

Do you truly claim creating a world without selfishness, murder, lies, death, suffering, depression, racism, and conflict evil?
Depends on the means used to create said world. If all of the people in said world freely choose said world then it's not evil (would be quite boring though).


Freedom supports the 'right' to think of all these vile concepts, and if anything, is the truly evil philosophy between these two.

The purpose of any government is to protect the freedoms of its citizens at any cost. The purpose of freedom isn't to make a "good" world or even a "better" world, its purpose is to allow free will.

If what you are talking about was tried in the real world I would gladly press the button to launch a few ICBM's at you. I would also gladly die to stop you. Life is not good or evil, life for the sake of being alive is worthless. Life is only worth what you can spend it to achieve. There are things I would gladly die to achieve or even for a reasonable chance to achieve. I would also gladly take other peoples lives to achieve those things I find worthy of the ultimate price.

If you don't have something that you are willing to kill and die for then your life is a waste. Just because you eat, sleep, ****, and breath does not make your life worth anything.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-31, 06:16 PM
The bit about criminals having no rights is iffy to me. I'm not entirely sure what it is about it though... Probably that to remove a person's rights is a greater crime than any they could have performed. Yes, that's definately it: as you say, it is better for a billion to die fighting for rights than for one to be treated unjustly, but then you say that it is fine for one to be treated unjustly if they happen to be a criminal? Do not say that it is justice, for justice is by definition relative to the crime.
As far as I am concerned you aren't a criminal until the justice system has found you guilty of the crimes you are accused of. Until you are found guilty you have all the rights and freedoms of anyone else, but once you are found guilty of a crime then you loose those rights and freedoms. I would drastically alter a lot of the worlds legal codes and justice systems (drug laws anyone?) but thats a different matter.


Besides that, and perhaps the third paragraph to a lesser extent, I agree absolutely.
*shrug* If you aren't willing to kill me, and in the process be willing to die, if that is what is needed to stop me from taking a freedom from you then as far as I am concerned, that freedom apparently wasn't particuarly important to you.

Collin152
2008-05-31, 06:47 PM
I heard Mindrape!

Seriously, people, why don't you notify me of these threads?

Xuincherguixe
2008-05-31, 07:50 PM
This thread has gotten kind of political.

It's one of those pretty iffy areas.

There's also a world of difference between if they allow it, or if you forcefully rewrite their memories. I can think of a few things that people have taken it upon themselves to "fix" about others, regardless of the individuals opinion on the matter.

Not only that, but a person has a right to having bad experiences too. What we need is a "Deal with it" spell. A spell that enables a person to confront their issues, and overcome then.

And if they're still evil, then at least they're being evil by choice. If they have to die then ("Even though I don't blame my dad for everything? Yeah, this world still deserves to burn so I'm still going to activate the device that destroys the world"
*Arrow'd!*)

I would also say that regardless of what the various gods say (let's face it, they're not really good authorities on these subjects), an individual has a right to choose Evil. They shouldn't suffer for that. What they do is what they should be judged on.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 08:11 PM
Mindrape (the effect, and the spell), is very, very sick. A god made that person for a reason and you are undoing them and making someone new? That seems wrong on all levels. Unmaking, brain washing, blasphemy? About as evil as magic can get. Additionally, magic is neither inherently good, evil, or neutral. Magic is power, and it comes from existance. Is existing good, evil, or neutral? No. And so neither is Magic, power is neither good nor evil nor anything in between, only the beings who use it are.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 08:17 PM
Mindrape (the effect, and the spell), is very, very sick. A god made that person for a reason and you are undoing them and making someone new? That seems wrong on all levels. Unmaking, brain washing, blasphemy? About as evil as magic can get. Additionally, magic is neither inherently good, evil, or neutral. Magic is power, and it comes from existance. Is existing good, evil, or neutral? No. And so neither is Magic, power is neither good nor evil nor anything in between, only the beings who use it are.

Magic CAN be evil, though I still have to see proof that it can be inherently good. For a perfect example, Mindrape, which you even used. It's evil, whatever you do.

Hyozo
2008-05-31, 08:21 PM
Additionally, magic is neither inherently good, evil, or neutral. Magic is power, and it comes from existance. Is existing good, evil, or neutral? No. And so neither is Magic, power is neither good nor evil nor anything in between, only the beings who use it are.

Unless it involves creating the undead. In that case, even if you use them to put out fires or fight off invaders so innocents don't have to put their lives on the line, you're going straight to an evil aligned plane when you die. Magic just forces its own faulty ethics on you sometimes. :smallannoyed:

Lupy
2008-05-31, 08:25 PM
Unless it involves creating the undead. In that case, even if you use them to put out fires or fight off invaders so innocents don't have to put their lives on the line, you're going straight to an evil aligned plane when you die. Magic just forces its own faulty ethics on you sometimes. :smallannoyed:

What if it was a good person's corpse? When I die if someone needs my body to save kids in a bus in a river I'm glad they did, a body is merely a shell. As long as you dismiss the undead, it's okay I think. As for life after death, magic doesn't send you anywhere, some god does, and gods are not perfect, (except maybe creator, but we don't know for certain who created the mulltiverse, my vote is that there was nothing before it, it created itself).

Lupy
2008-05-31, 08:30 PM
Magic CAN be evil, though I still have to see proof that it can be inherently good. For a perfect example, Mindrape, which you even used. It's evil, whatever you do.

Magic CAN be good. Or neutral! Let's see, killing an insane Lich, a mockery of life created for evil and never dismissed is neutral, you killed but did it for the greater good (which can be neutral). Let's see a bus full of children is falling off a bridge and you cast feather fall on it. That was GOOD. You see? Magic is never inherently Good Evil or Neutral. Spells can be evil, but magic is merely the force that makes a spell work, not the spell itself, spells were invented by a being, magic was alwys there.

Collin152
2008-05-31, 08:34 PM
Magic is never inherently Good Evil or Neutral.

Sure it is.
Just look at the Book of Vile Darkness.
Many of those spells have no good applications.
And if you give me time, I will find core spells that are innatley one way or the other.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 08:36 PM
Sure it is.
Just look at the Book of Vile Darkness.
Many of those spells have no good applications.
And if you give me time, I will find core spells that are innatley one way or the other.

Ahem, read my posts all the way please. I stated that magic is the power that lets a spell work, I know of spells that are evil, but a being created that spell, magic just makes it work. Magic is a force, not something tangible.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 08:40 PM
Magic CAN be good. Or neutral! Let's see, killing an insane Lich, a mockery of life created for evil and never dismissed is neutral, you killed but did it for the greater good (which can be neutral). Let's see a bus full of children is falling off a bridge and you cast feather fall on it. That was GOOD. You see? Magic is never inherently Good Evil or Neutral. Spells can be evil, but magic is merely the force that makes a spell work, not the spell itself, spells were invented by a being, magic was alwys there.

Magic = spells, not the intent.

A fireball is NEVER a good spell. It is neutral. Same with feather fall, no matter what you use it for.

However, there is NO spell that is good (That I know of, there might be some), but there ARE evil spells.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 08:44 PM
Why is fireball never good? Or featherfall? Feather fall is good, it saves lives, I suppose I see why a destructive spell is chaotic, but destruction can be good (a forest fire that burns out excess brush).

Magic is released through spells, spells are magical, but spells are not themselves, the force (no, I don't mean you medichlorians!). Magic is an all powerful force sometimes released by beings through spells.

Solo
2008-05-31, 08:45 PM
However, there is NO spell that is good (That I know of, there might be some), but there ARE evil spells.

Cure Light Wounds!

Lupy
2008-05-31, 08:47 PM
Cure Light Wounds!

Thank you Solo, divine spells are often good, arcane spells can be too.

Calm can certainly be good, as can Heroism, Daylight, just look at the Bard spell list, Good, Evil, and Neutral. You see? Spells can be Good.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 08:49 PM
Cure Light Wounds!

Only if you enforce that negative energy is evil and positive energy is good. Inherently, they're not, as I could be healing a vicious bastard.

Lupy: It also saves the life of a manifestation of pure malevolence, like a demon. If such a creature still exists, it makes the world worse, full stop. So yeah, the spell is not inherently good.

Same with fireball. You could use it to clean a place up, but you could also use it to maim and torture.

NecroRebel
2008-05-31, 08:53 PM
As far as I am concerned you aren't a criminal until the justice system has found you guilty of the crimes you are accused of. Until you are found guilty you have all the rights and freedoms of anyone else, but once you are found guilty of a crime then you loose those rights and freedoms. I would drastically alter a lot of the worlds legal codes and justice systems (drug laws anyone?) but thats a different matter.

Fair enough. Regardless, though, it seems somewhat dissonant that you would willingly strip someone of their rights for, say, murder, which I for one would consider a lesser crime than stripping someone of their rights. It depends where you draw the line.



*shrug* If you aren't willing to kill me, and in the process be willing to die, if that is what is needed to stop me from taking a freedom from you then as far as I am concerned, that freedom apparently wasn't particuarly important to you.

Hmm... The problem is whether killing is truly necessary in this case. Morally, ethically, I'm forced to agree with you if death must come to ensure freedom, but I also feel that it isn't always a necessary path.




Cure Light Wounds!

Not necessarily Good; it can just as easily heal the wounds of a vicious and murderous dragon who's eating, say, France as it can anyone else. Strictly neutral.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 08:54 PM
Only if you enforce that negative energy is evil and positive energy is good. Inherently, they're not, as I could be healing a vicious bastard.

Lupy: It also saves the life of a manifestation of pure malevolence, like a demon. If such a creature still exists, it makes the world worse, full stop. So yeah, the spell is not inherently good.

Same with fireball. You could use it to clean a place up, but you could also use it to maim and torture.

Ahem, when has Negative energy ever helped a good person or positive energy helped an Evil one? And healing is good, you are being a good samaritan regardless of the person. Healing a demon? You are still helping a needy being.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 09:00 PM
Ahem, when has Negative energy ever helped a good person or positive energy helped an Evil one? And healing is good, you are being a good samaritan regardless of the person. Healing a demon? You are still helping a needy being.

When? Enervation. :smallamused: [/sarcastic]

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:02 PM
I will agree, magic is often Neutral, capable of good and evil, but if there is a circumstance wholly evil, there is a situation where it is wholly good. This is not because magic is neutral, it is because the multiverse is. Magic is everything, and literally nothing. But honestly I can't force you to believe a supernatural force that is above gods in a fictional game is not evil, maybe you have a real world reason to beleive this, but I do know you cannot prove magic evil.

I'm sorry, what is Enervation?

Solo
2008-05-31, 09:05 PM
I'm sorry, what is Enervation?

Ranged touch attack for 1d4 negative levels!

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 09:05 PM
I will agree, magic is often Neutral, capable of good and evil, but if there is a circumstance wholly evil, there is a situation where it is wholly good. This is not because magic is neutral, it is because the multiverse is. Magic is everything, and literally nothing. But honestly I can't force you to believe a supernatural force that is above gods in a fictional game is not evil, maybe you have a real world reason to beleive this, but I do know you cannot prove magic evil.

[/fauxlosophic].

Most spells are neutral. Some are inherently evil, like Mindrape, or that one that forced a target to kill itself in the most painful manner possible. Few if any spells are INHERENTLY good, because that means that, under no circumstances, that power can be perverted.

I never said ALL of magic was evil, so don't attempt to twist my words.

Collin152
2008-05-31, 09:06 PM
There is a spell that extracts pain and condenses it into a tangible form.
The extraction process does ont actually alleviate the pain.
In fact, as I recal, it hurts worse.
Evil.

There is a spel that synthesyses baleful drugs out of other things.
Evil.

Hyozo
2008-05-31, 09:06 PM
What if it was a good person's corpse? When I die if someone needs my body to save kids in a bus in a river I'm glad they did, a body is merely a shell. As long as you dismiss the undead, it's okay I think. As for life after death, magic doesn't send you anywhere, some god does, and gods are not perfect, (except maybe creator, but we don't know for certain who created the mulltiverse, my vote is that there was nothing before it, it created itself).

I agree with you, but tell that to the [evil] discriptor on any spell which would allow it.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:07 PM
Azerion, you did imply that more magic is evil than good. Before I go on, do you believe the multiverse is evil? If so, my response is... kind of a "I don't know how to respond to someone who believes either good or evil has triumphed" thing.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:08 PM
I agree with you, but tell that to the [evil] discriptor on any spell which would allow it.

What about [exalted] spells? They are good, are they not?

Collin152
2008-05-31, 09:09 PM
Azerion, you did imply that more magic is evil than good. Before I go on, do you believe the multiverse is evil? If so, my response is... kind of a "I don't know how to respond to someone who believes either good or evil has triumphed" thing.

Tell me, whats the ratio of good creatures to evil creatures in the Monster Manual?

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:09 PM
Tell me, whats the ratio of good creatures to evil creatures in the Monster Manual?

Isn't that because most adventurers are good?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 09:10 PM
Azerion, you did imply that more magic is evil than good. Before I go on, do you believe the multiverse is evil? If so, my response is... kind of a "I don't know how to respond to someone who believes either good or evil has triumphed" thing.

Indeed, more magic is evil than it is good.

Gimme a list of the spells that are good, under ALL. POSSIBLE. CIRCUMSTANCES.

Yeah, zilch, or can be counted with a hand.

Now, gimme a list of spells that are evil under ALL. POSSIBLE. CIRCUMSTANCES.

There's more of those. Put simply, there are more wholly evil spells than there are wholly good ones.

And cut the chewbacca's. Stick to the subject, which is magic.

Collin152
2008-05-31, 09:13 PM
Isn't that because most adventurers are good?

Then let's be more specific.
The ratio of good... Giants to evil giants.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:13 PM
Alright, yes, there are more evil spells on the list (although all I have access to is the SRD), but does that mean that there isn't as much good accomplished? Spells are used for good (generally) by good adventurers, which is most people. And if you believe Evil won, well, then I guess there is more evil. I think good will win, so there will be more good.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:15 PM
Then let's be more specific.
The ratio of good... Giants to evil giants.

Isn't that because most people want to fight evil Giants, rather than because "That's how it is."

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 09:16 PM
Alright, yes, there are more evil spells on the list (although all I have access to is the SRD), but does that mean that there isn't as much good accomplished? Spells are used for good (generally) by good adventurers, which is most people. And if you believe Evil won, well, then I guess there is more evil. I think good will win, so there will be more good.

Adventurers aren't "most people". Adventurers is "every PC", which is a different thing. Capishe?

And no, don't give me the "You think Evil has won" BS. What I am saying is that it's much, MUCH easier to do evil than good, and magic is no exception. That is all I have said, and anything else you think I imply is an illusion.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:17 PM
Is it that much harder to give an orphan a piece of bread than hit her with a rock? I think a conscience makes evil just as hard as good, does it not?

Collin152
2008-05-31, 09:18 PM
Isn't that because most people want to fight evil Giants, rather than because "That's how it is."

There are no other Giants.
Ergo, most of Giant society is Evil.

And since apparantly good monsters don't even need stats, if there were others, sureley they'd be at least mentioned.

Evil is easy. So theres more of it.
But evil is weak. So they don't nesecarily win.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 09:19 PM
Is ti that much harder to give an orphan a piece of bread than hit her with a rock? I think a conscience makes evil just as hard as good, does it not?

Most people don't have strong consciences. It's much easier to rob the orphan of anything it has than to sacrifice a part of your hard earned wealth for someone you don't even know. Sad, but true.

Xuincherguixe
2008-05-31, 09:20 PM
When can Inflict Spells be good? When used to heal an Awakened Zombie that got lynch mobbed when it was giving a flower to a little girl, and they thought it was attacking her.

Cure Light Wounds used in an Evil way? You made the Zombie, and it becoming self aware was an accident. You help the mob to help dispose of the evidence so you can return to your efforts to devise superior zombies with which to kill all life, in service to your dark god.


That first example essentially turned Inflict into a Healing spell, so it may not really count.

An Ogre is rampaging through town smashing up houses, and it's about to bash a kitten in with a club. You could use the inflict spell to get it's attention, and have it chase after you instead. (You don't even necessarily need to kill it)


Also, that theoretical "Deal With It" Spell would almost certainly be good :P

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:22 PM
There are no other Giants.
Ergo, most of Giant society is Evil.

And since apparantly good monsters don't even need stats, if there were others, sureley they'd be at least mentioned.

Evil is easy. So theres more of it.
But evil is weak. So they don't nesecarily win.

Hmm, I think there is at least a similar number of good giants, D&D doesn't cover the whole world. I like the idea about evil, but good can also be weak, there is just as much of it.

Albeit my life hasn't been as long as many of your's, I believe most real people are good, why shouldn't it be true in D&D? Pelor is a more popular god than say... Hextor or Nerull isn't he? Doesn't that mean more people are good in a world where everyone has a god?

EDIT: Nerull is in the same category, but that category has huge ranges, and Pelor is stated as the most popular human god. The elves have a good god and there are more of their spell casters than dark elves also.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:24 PM
When can Inflict Spells be good? When used to heal an Awakened Zombie that got lynch mobbed when it was giving a flower to a little girl, and they thought it was attacking her.

Cure Light Wounds used in an Evil way? You made the Zombie, and it becoming self aware was an accident. You help the mob to help dispose of the evidence so you can return to your efforts to devise superior zombies with which to kill all life, in service to your dark god.


That first example essentially turned Inflict into a Healing spell, so it may not really count.

An Ogre is rampaging through town smashing up houses, and it's about to bash a kitten in with a club. You could use the inflict spell to get it's attention, and have it chase after you instead. (You don't even necessarily need to kill it)


Also, that theoretical "Deal With It" Spell would almost certainly be good :P

Yes you can use magic for good or evil, I think it s used more for good though, (also remeber I said magic is neither good nor evil and I am trying to prove it is not evil rather than that it is good).

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 09:25 PM
Hmm, I think there is at least a similar number of good giants, D&D doesn't cover the whole world. I like the idea about evil, but good can also be weak, there is just as much of it.

Albeit my life hasn't been as long as many of your's, I believe most real people are good, why shouldn't it be true in D&D? Pelor is a more popular god than say... Hextor or Nerull isn't he? Doesn't that mean more people are good in a world where everyone has a god?

Newsflash: Most people are godless. The only place where you HAVE to have a god is FR, and that only applies to Paladins.

And really, while I understand your points (I'm a big fan of the Secondhand Lions speech. *), you have to understand this: Most people are weak willed, selfish bastards. They're ignorant, and fall easily into brutality. They look out for themselves and their loved ones, and everyone else can go to hell. It's horrible, but it's the way the world works, at least for now.

*Here's the Secondhand Lions speech. It's made of win and PWN:


Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:29 PM
That speech is touching.

Anyway, I see what you're saying about how most people are neutral, and I think most people have a god but aren't overly religous. My final (or almost final) point for the night is that magic is neither good, evil, neutral, lawful, or chaotic. Spells may be, Gods may be, Casters may be, but the magic is just there.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 09:31 PM
That speech is touching.

Anyway, I see what you're saying about how most people are neutral, and I think most people have a god but aren't overly religous. My final (or almost final) point for the night is that magic is neither good, evil, neutral, lawful, or chaotic. Spells may be, Gods may be, Casters may be, but the magic is just there.

If your point is that magic, as a whole has no alignment, I agree with you. The problem originates on everyone identifying magic as the spells.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:32 PM
Thank you Azerion (and Solo and everyone else who contributed), nice talking to you, good night.

Collin152
2008-05-31, 09:33 PM
I disagree.
Magic granted by an Evil god is Evil.
Why?
Use it for good. I dare you.
Evil god won't let you.

Lupy
2008-05-31, 09:34 PM
I disagree.
Magic granted by an Evil god is Evil.
Why?
Use it for good. I dare you.
Evil god won't let you.

Divine magic is different from Aracane Magic, the subject of our discussion. Divine magic is always aligned (I think). And Red Cloak uses his evil god's magic for good all the time.

I'm Logging now.

Collin152
2008-05-31, 09:37 PM
Divine magic is different from Aracane Magic, the subject of our discussion. Divine magic is always aligned (I think). And Red Cloak uses his evil god's magic for good all the time.



Then please, specify Arcane magic when making generalizations.

And he does not.

Xuincherguixe
2008-05-31, 09:39 PM
I disagree.
Magic granted by an Evil god is Evil.
Why?
Use it for good. I dare you.
Evil god won't let you.

Depending on what kind of evil god it is, he might. That particular act might not even serve his agenda beyond that of that it increases your opinion of him.


He could also be a god of well intentioned evil :P

SmartAlec
2008-05-31, 09:49 PM
As far as I am concerned you aren't a criminal until the justice system has found you guilty of the crimes you are accused of. Until you are found guilty you have all the rights and freedoms of anyone else, but once you are found guilty of a crime then you loose those rights and freedoms. I would drastically alter a lot of the worlds legal codes and justice systems (drug laws anyone?) but thats a different matter.


*shrug* If you aren't willing to kill me, and in the process be willing to die, if that is what is needed to stop me from taking a freedom from you then as far as I am concerned, that freedom apparently wasn't particuarly important to you.

Hang on a moment.

Reading these two paragraphs, you give the impression that it's ok for a criminal to commit murder in the name of his personal freedom; or that it's ok for someone to become a criminal in the process of defending his freedom.

Something's off there.

Aquillion
2008-05-31, 09:51 PM
Manditory flash video (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/272710).


The ethics of Programmed Amnesia? If you use it, you're almost definitely a disgusting person. About the only case I can see using it in would be on someone Dominated for months who's guilt ridden over whatever they've been doing.

I can think of several cases:

* The villain repents and asks to have programmed amnesia used on him, so that he doesn't have to live with the crimes he's committed.

* Someone discovers a small piece of information that could endanger the entire world; you give them the options of being imprisoned forever or having it erased from their memory (this being D&D, execution is not an option that would solve anything.) They choose memory erasure.

* As an alternative to killing someone (seriously, it's hard to argue that erasing parts of someone's memory is worse than killing them.) Ironically, though, Programmed Amnesia actually seems more likely to be evil in this sense than Mindrape... the long casting time of Programmed Amnesia means you can pretty much only cast it on a captive opponent, so it's hard to construct a scenario where you have to erase their mind or kill them. With Mindrape, though, you could be justified as saying 'I had one round to make them take a level 9 save which would've let them destroy the world if it failed, and the only spell I had available to do that was Mindrape.' Of course, the [evil] tag causes problems there.

* Rewriting the villain's mind to make them undo large-scale, wide-impact horrible things that they have done, which only they have the power to undo (e.g. only they know how to disarm the bomb, reverse the ritual, banish the demon, etc.)

Obviously, using Programmed Amnesia on someone against their will is as bad as attacking them with anything else, but I don't see it as being substantially worse than, say, Finger of Death or Disintegrate, or tossing someone into a Sphere of Annihilation. Sure you can be revived from those (although reversing a Disintegrate is basically as difficult as reversing a programmed amnesia, in most cases.) I find it hard to see why erasing part of their mind is substantially worse than erasing them completely.

Also, don't forget that there are still some creatures in the D&D world that are indisputably, without exception always evil. Against something like that, I would have no qualms about using Programmed Amnesia with very little provocation, if it could help someone else -- if I can use programmed amnesia to bind a Demon into being good, rebuilding and defending the city he just destroyed, I'll do it. The demon's nature is such that he does not have a choice about being evil, so I take nothing away from him by forcibly making him good.

Eurus
2008-05-31, 09:55 PM
I don't know if Programmed Amnesia would make a demon good. He doesn't have a choice, after all. Even if he wants to be good, he's Evil.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 09:59 PM
Manditory flash video (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/272710).



I can think of several cases:

* The villain repents and asks to have programmed amnesia used on him, so that he doesn't have to live with the crimes he's committed.

* Someone discovers a small piece of information that could endanger the entire world; you give them the options of being imprisoned forever or having it erased from their memory (this being D&D, execution is not an option that would solve anything.) They choose memory erasure.

* As an alternative to killing someone (seriously, it's hard to argue that erasing parts of someone's memory is worse than killing them.) Ironically, though, Programmed Amnesia actually seems more likely to be evil in this sense than Mindrape... the long casting time of Programmed Amnesia means you can pretty much only cast it on a captive opponent, so it's hard to construct a scenario where you have to erase their mind or kill them. With Mindrape, though, you could be justified as saying 'I had one round to make them take a level 9 save which would've let them destroy the world if it failed, and the only spell I had available to do that was Mindrape.' Of course, the [evil] tag causes problems there.

* Rewriting the villain's mind to make them undo horrible things that they have done, which only they have the power to undo. (For instance, villain obtains ultimate power,

Obviously, using Programmed Amnesia on someone against their will is as bad as attacking them with anything else, but I don't see it as being substantially worse than, say, Finger of Death or Disintegrate, or tossing someone into a Sphere of Annihilation. Sure you can be revived from those (although reversing a Disintegrate is basically as difficult as reversing a programmed amnesia, in most cases.) I find it hard to see why erasing part of their mind is substantially worse than erasing their entire body.

Also, don't forget that there are still some creatures in the D&D world that are indisputably, without exception always evil. Against something like that, I would have no qualms about using Programmed Amnesia with very little provocation, if it could help someone else -- if I can use programmed amnesia to bind a Demon into being good, rebuilding and defending the city he just destroyed, I'll do it. The demon's nature is such that he does not have a choice about being evil, so I take nothing away from him by forcibly making him good.

Answering those in order:

* Oh, so he gets a get-out-of-jail-free card? HELL NO. The guy's gotta deal with his acts and their consequences, just like everyone else. That's not evil, but it's repugnant in other ways to let someone chicken out of their acts after they've done them.

* How could that possibly happen? If that piece of information is dangerous, they just do not act on it, and having the choice between "Do what someone else tells you and have your mind tinkered with" or "Be killed" is not something fair, at all. It has a very wrong feeling to it.

* Like you said, if you can Programmed Amnesia someone, you can take them into custody. No need to use it, best to make them change because they WANT to.

* Yeah, SOME creatures are exempted from the rules ennunciated above. A demon is NEVER going to change, so transforming him into a good guy IS going to be permanent and authentic, unlike what happens with humans. Against beings that have real free will (Because a demon doesn't HAVE free will to be either good or evil. It has that picked for itself.), Programmed amnesia is almost always evil, except in a few contrived and strange situations.

Aquillion
2008-05-31, 10:04 PM
I don't know if Programmed Amnesia would make a demon good. He doesn't have a choice, after all. Even if he wants to be good, he's Evil.It would be fun to watch, at least.

More seriously, though, even if you can't actually shift their alignment, you can greatly reduce a demon's evil as a practical matter, changing them from a horrible monster into one who cheats on their tax returns or something.

Actually, this could make a great adventure. The PCs hear about a wizard who has been summoning demons (which have been ravaging the countryside) and go to investigate. It turns out an insane wizard has decided to 'save' demons and devils by summoning them, then mindraping / programmed amnesiaing them in various ways in an effort to make them good. When the PCs arrive in his lab he is quite insane, and various demons (equally insane -- some reduced to a childlike level, others driven mad by the conflict between their duel natures, some practically mindless or, in the case of devils, descending into absurdly convoluted moral legalise to try and resolve their inner conflict. A few escaped, and they're the ones who caused the problems that attracted the PCs in the first place. The PCs naturally end up fighting some of these demons and devils -- some are probably insane enough to attack them, mental rewrites or no -- and in the end they probably have to fight the mad wizard, who blames them for fighting and killing 'recovered' demons.

You could have the villain threaten to rewrite the minds of the PCs, too, although you should probably avoid having him actually doing it.


* Oh, so he gets a get-out-of-jail-free card? HELL NO. The guy's gotta deal with his acts and their consequences, just like everyone else. That's not evil, but it's repugnant in other ways to let someone chicken out of their acts after they've done them.Well, you can make that argument, but either way it's not evil (and there could be other reasons for it, too -- the villain could argue that, say, he doesn't want his old companions trying to turn him back to his evil ways, or trying to use his vast knowledge of evil information for evil purposes. So erasing it is the best option. Evil McEvilWizard can't just retire from ruling his evil kingdom that easily, even if he wants to; he might decide that erasing the specifics of his knowledge as an evil wizard is best.)

You might also need him for something -- maybe there's another evil threat on the horizon. While using mindrape to force him to help you against it would be evil, giving him the option of having Programmed Amnesia used on him so you can trust him if he wants to help you against this new threat instead of rotting in jail seems valid to me.

Emperor Tippy
2008-05-31, 10:19 PM
Hang on a moment.

Reading these two paragraphs, you give the impression that it's ok for a criminal to commit murder in the name of his personal freedom; or that it's ok for someone to become a criminal in the process of defending his freedom.

Something's off there.

I never said it was ok or not ok. Or that said criminal should be excused from the consequences of his actions. There is a difference though between some gang member who murders a police officer to take revenge for said officer arresting a fellow gang member and a person who kills a police officer because the officer is attempting to remove his rights or freedoms. One is just a criminal committing a crime, the other is a solider fighting a war.

If the reason you commit a crime is one of the more common reasons (wants money for drugs for instance) you have the freedom to commit the crime, but society has the duty and right to try, convict, and punish you for your crime. If you feel that your rights and freedoms are being infringed though, you have a duty to do whatever it takes to defend those rights and freedoms, and at the extreme that can entail the commission of crimes.

If you are willing to give up the fight to defend your rights and freedoms because you can't stomach what that defense requires of you then you know exactly how much you value that specific right or freedom and you don't deserve to keep that right or freedom if you are willing to cease fighting for it.

Let's take the supposed right to life, you are in a situation where you can kill me and if you don't I will kill you. Those are your only 2 choices. If you refuse to kill me then you value my life over your right to life and have thus lost said right to life.

Randel
2008-05-31, 10:26 PM
Personally, I would say that there are many uses for Programmed Amnesia that are good, many are evil, and many are neutral. Each specific use must be looked at individually to see what consequenses might result from it.

1. You and your fellow adventurers just stopped a BBEG who was building a superweapon to destroy the world or something else. You use program amnesia to erase the designs of his weapon from his mind, then another PA to rewrite his personality as a common farmer that likes to raise sheep, then kill him, then remove his head, then burn the head, then animate his headless corpse as a zombie, then dump the zombie in a lead-lined coffin in the ocean. Your whole plan is to make sure there is no freaking way that he's coming back to life and if he does then he shouldn't cause any more trouble. Its good or neutral because its just one safeguard among many to ensure that trouble doesn't happen again.

2. The wizard in your group had to research the BBEGs weapon and notes to destroy it and take out all backup plans. Finding himself facinated by the 'potential for good' the weapon has, he comes up with a few ideas but the party paladin has serious reservations about any part of the weapon remaining. After a brief discussion, the wizard decides to PA himself to erase his memory of the weapons designs so he won't be tempted to recreate them. However, he installs a command word that undoes the memory wipe and gives it to the Paladin (erasing the command from his own memory) so if they do run into trouble again the Paladin can restore his memory so they can stop the weapon again. Incredibly good simply because the wizard is doing it to himself for the better good (though less drastic means might be better).

3. The group stops someone from being assassinated, then PAs the assassin to make them think the person was killed. No attempt at reforming the assassin is made, just tricking them so the victim can escape. No more good or evil than if they used an illusion or other means to fake the death... if they tamper more with the assassin then count the other tamperins as a seperate case.

4. When erasing the assassins memory, they install some minor 'clue' in his past that makes him think that the guy who sent him murdered his parents. The PCs hope that eventually the assassin will start plotting revenge on his employer or do something else to mess with the bad guys plans. Getting into Magnificent Bastard territory because you're manipulating peoples minds and dreams and treating them like chess pieces in your infernal games... though this is an assassin we're talking about so if he finds out and questons you then you can say "Oh yeah, well next time think twice about trying to stab old ladies in the back." then transmute his bones into acid with some other 9th level spell. If used on a good guy then its just plain evil.

5. After your latest battle, you pick up the surviving enemies and use PA to make them become hard-working citizens and remove all those personality flaws that make them disagreeable. Arguably good because you would have just killed them otherwise and now they are contributing to society. Arguably evil because you're messing with their minds. Its also possible that they might notice flaws in their memory and after undergoing therapy realise that they were bandits that got brainwashed... at this point arguably they could return to their old persona and become bandits again, accept their new persona and become good, or do some combination of the two. Note that brainwashing crimminals off-hand could interfere with justice when the victims of their previous crimes find them enjoying a new life and personality and causeing all sorts of confusions.

6. You set up a therapy session for people who have serious psychological issues and PA them just enough to make them forget their nightmarish past or eliminate personality problems that have made them unhappy. Someone who is really racist but wants to change? Re-write their personality so they don't have that problem! Multiple personalitiles, some of which are homicidal? Elimitnate the troublesome personas and let the nice ones work! Each case would have its own ethical questions, but since they are all voluntary then you can argue that for good or ill the person chose to have it done. In such cases, it shoulf be noted that the effect might break down at some point due to magical interference of some other trauma, and in some cases it would be better or worse depending on the exact ailment. the 500 gp material component does play a part in it as well.

7. An adventurer returns from his big universe-saving heroics but finds himself shaking in his boots with the realization that reality is but a thin sheet of parchment covering the slathering, oozing, inhuman chaos that borders reality. Wanting to enjoy life for a while, he has his Wizard buddy zap him with a PA that makes him forget about most of his nightmarish adventures and makes him alot less jumpy and paranoid. However, a condition is put in so that he regains his memory and persona when trouble calls again, and he can put the veil back when trouble is over. Should be perfectly good because any hero that made his name gouging the seventeen eyeballs out of a lightning-fast horror from beyond or had to haul the mangled corpses of his best friends across a desert to find a cleric while fending off buzzards and sand-demons might have some trouble working around his three-year old children. Seems like the best use for the spell and can cause nift plot-hooks when thir children see their always calm and kindly dad suddenly shift into a no-nonsense badass that kills ogres with duel-wielded orge spines (that he ripped out of other ogres).



Just as a note, the spell description says that the effect is Permanent and is removed by Greater Restoration or Wish. You can also put in conditions that allow it to be removed otherwise. I would rule that since the spell is not instantaneous that the persons soul and personality are not truly killed but instead re-routed. Their supposedly erased memories and motivations are instead locked away, new fake memories and motives are put in elsewhere, and their mind is nudged into seeing these new memories. Someone who does a good deal of self-examination might notice the difference of these new memories and see that they are fakes, but they can't access their old memories unless the wizard installed conditions for them to do so.

Someone could find out that their memories are fake and then through self-examination and checking the facts could recognize which memories are fake. Then do some research to see what really happened during the times of their fake memories (or blank spots). If they are hit with Greater Restoration, then they can see their locked-away memories and motives and it they desire could willingly choose to accept the fake ones over the real ones or use their new personality over the old one.

Upon death, if there is an afterlife then its most likely that they judges would unlock the memories at least long enough for the person to re examine their life before getting judged. Don't know how that sort of stuff affects the verdict, but I would venture that the more extensive the Alteration then the more likely it is that actions made after the brainwashing get blamed on the wizard.

Recaiden
2008-05-31, 10:26 PM
Answering those in order:

* Oh, so he gets a get-out-of-jail-free card? HELL NO. The guy's gotta deal with his acts and their consequences, just like everyone else. That's not evil, but it's repugnant in other ways to let someone chicken out of their acts after they've done them.

* How could that possibly happen? If that piece of information is dangerous, they just do not act on it, and having the choice between "Do what someone else tells you and have your mind tinkered with" or "Be killed" is not something fair, at all. It has a very wrong feeling to it.

* Like you said, if you can Programmed Amnesia someone, you can take them into custody. No need to use it, best to make them change because they WANT to.

* Yeah, SOME creatures are exempted from the rules ennunciated above. A demon is NEVER going to change, so transforming him into a good guy IS going to be permanent and authentic, unlike what happens with humans. Against beings that have real free will (Because a demon doesn't HAVE free will to be either good or evil. It has that picked for itself.), Programmed amnesia is almost always evil, except in a few contrived and strange situations.

You're right, letting someone get off with what they've done is not evil. It is merciful, and a good action. The idea is incredibly offensive to me, but it is a good action, completely, which is the point. It is chaotic, they get the freedom to live without being guilty over their past actions.

I believe that the idea is that you would be unable to prevent others from discovering this information and acting on it. Those 2 solutions would solve this, although both have some loopholes.

Exactly.

Erasing their mind in real life is different from in Dnd. Characters have souls, which is who they really are, not their memories. Thus, changing someone's memories against their will for the greater good is a good act overall.

All magic can be either good or evil depending on how it is used. It may be partially evil, and for some spells (concentrating pain, etc.) there are almost always more good ways. It would take utterly ridiculous circumstances to make them good. The evil tags and the reason that most monsters are evil is that most PCs are good or neutral and it is harder to rationalize killing a creature that is good.

Finally, Demons and other outsiders have no choice, so they are always evil or good. Programmed amnesia may not be able to change this, as they are pure *alignment*

EDIT: Sanctify the wicked changes an evil creature to a good one, without erasing their mind or memories. Atonement also offers a creature the chance to, "freely chooses whether it retains its original alignment or acquiesces to your offer and changes to your alignment. " This does not actually cause them to "deal with it", but offers them a chance to do good. If they still choose evil, it is most likely that they are evil by choice and not by necessity.

Eurus
2008-05-31, 10:38 PM
Erasing their mind in real life is different from in Dnd. Characters have souls, which is who they really are, not their memories. Thus, changing someone's memories against their will for the greater good is a good act overall.

Exactly, that's what I think. The way I see it, either a person is a construct of their experiences and their lives are predetermined, or they have, at their core, a 'soul' or just plain natural psychology that allows them to choose, make decisions, and makes them who they are. If the former, you're taking something they never had for the good of all, including them. If the latter, you're not killing them, just changing that part of them. They still can make whatever choices they want, they just make these choices based on different criteria.

Solo
2008-05-31, 10:41 PM
I don't know if Programmed Amnesia would make a demon good. He doesn't have a choice, after all. Even if he wants to be good, he's Evil.

Doesn't change alignment. The demon would remember himself as being good, but now have impulses towards evil, and then go do evil acts.

Tokiko Mima
2008-06-01, 02:39 AM
Doesn't change alignment. The demon would remember himself as being good, but now have impulses towards evil, and then go do evil acts.

Whatcha talking about? Programmed Amnesia can and does change alignment. It's right in the Persona Rebuilding section of the spell description. It's the subtypes you can't change, and can result in the wacky but much beloved Succubus Paladin, for example.

I also don't buy the 'demons have no choice but to be evil' argument. True, demons are literally made of the chaos and evil swirling around in the Abyss, but as rational beings with enough free will not to be robots they aren't physically or mentally incapable of reform, despite the oft cited 'Always Evil' alignment tag in the MM. Just because as a human being you're an animal made of meat doesn't mean you should act like it all the time or allow animal/meat concerns to become your sole moral compass, right?

All you have to do to completely disprove this hypothesis is look at the reverse: How many angels and celestials have become evil and are even now currently seated among the powers of the Lower Planes? What happened to them being 'Always Good?'

I think that for some reason good aligned being becoming evil (especially right before your eyes) are seen as cool, whereas evil creatures becoming good is seen as clique (like Drizz'it, for one). Plus it helps that evil creatures have really cool and unique abilities/backgrounds that are fun to build characters around, whereas powerful good creatures tend to be more standard and boring. But from a paradigm standpoint it's really not more or less believable to change alignment or behavior either way.

SmartAlec
2008-06-01, 08:02 AM
7. An adventurer returns from his big universe-saving heroics but finds himself shaking in his boots with the realization that reality is but a thin sheet of parchment covering the slathering, oozing, inhuman chaos that borders reality. Wanting to enjoy life for a while, he has his Wizard buddy zap him with a PA that makes him forget about most of his nightmarish adventures and makes him alot less jumpy and paranoid.

That's essentially the end of the movie Men in Black. I confess, I didn't think it at all wrong to do so at the time.

nepphi
2008-06-01, 09:29 AM
Charming how it's always the one with the most to gain who defines this collective notion of "the greater good."

Casting my vote, for all the good it'll do.

Rewriting a person will never be good, because it's false. No choice was made, no conversion. It's saying that, once and for all, force is the only true and ultimate solution to all of society's root problems. Once you accept a little tyranny, you've thrown genuine life out the window and you're just arguing for how much rope they'll let you have before the noose pulls tight.

Grey Paladin
2008-06-01, 09:40 AM
Charming how it's always the one with the most to gain who defines this collective notion of "the greater good."

Casting my vote, for all the good it'll do.

Rewriting a person will never be good, because it's false. No choice was made, no conversion. It's saying that, once and for all, force is the only true and ultimate solution to all of society's root problems. Once you accept a little tyranny, you've thrown genuine life out the window and you're just arguing for how much rope they'll let you have before the noose pulls tight.

You are already under the rule of a tyrant that cannot be defeated by natural means: Mankind's vile nature and instincts.

What you object is trading a vile tyrant for a benevolent one.

nepphi
2008-06-01, 09:47 AM
Humanity has, through its own willpower;

1 - defeated polio's influence in many countries. What was a common fear for my grandparents and parents barely registers in my consciousness.

2 - created the principle of free society, where men can discuss and hold opinions without being tortured and beaten for "wrong thinking."

3 - looked at the empty skies above and said "I can go there," and then made that dream reality.

Feel free to think humanity evil all you want, but nowhere else has a body of minds come together in the face of rampant chaos and disease and said "No," and then wiped those forces out.

Callos_DeTerran
2008-06-01, 10:02 AM
Feel free to think humanity evil all you want, but nowhere else has a body of minds come together in the face of rampant chaos and disease and said "No," and then wiped those forces out.

The arguments can be made that rampant chaos might be preferable and we had no right to decide that anything deserves to be wiped out, but thats a different story.

Grey Paladin
2008-06-01, 10:04 AM
This is getting off-topic so I'll spoiler it.

So, through fear, humanity has:

1) Protected itself from pain and suffering.

2) Created a society (whose sole purpose is to intimidate its civilians into not killing one another) where you are punished by being thrown into jail instead of killed for 'thinking wrong', and holds a far narrower definition of wrong.

3) Had a few civilians who have seen the social benefits of inventing something and, for thirst for power and praise, did just that.

You must remember that more often then not, humanity is its own top source of suffering, as the top predator we have turned upon each other for there is nothing else to hunt.

I am not claiming humans are more vile then animals, I am claiming humans ARE animals. Altruism is a myth.

NecroRebel
2008-06-01, 10:13 AM
You are already under the rule of a tyrant that cannot be defeated by natural means: Mankind's vile nature and instincts.

What you object is trading a vile tyrant for a benevolent one.

Why are you so certain that mankind's nature and instincts are so vile? They are largely self-serving, yes, but not Evil by any sense of the word. In fact, quite the opposite; humans are instinctively social creatures that instinctively aid other members of their tribe, abhor killing other humans except as last resort, and just in general are actually fairly altruistic, which is one of the main definitions of Good. If you look at evolutionary psychology, most scientists in that field see altruism as an inborn and necessary part of human minds, while war and murder are less necessary.

Now, you may be arguing that the "largely self-serving" part at the beginning of my last paragraph is what makes humans so vile, but this is also not so. Greed is a desire for more, which leads people to seek more, which if taken to far can lead to evil, but if tempered by social altruism (where the people who have give to those who do not), it simply means that society as a whole has more.

Granted, instinctive human societies really only work entirely on a tribal level, no more than a few hundred individuals, but in the larger human social structures of today they still apply to a lesser extent.

Finally, you claim that the "tyrant" of human nature cannot be defeated by natural means. I ask this: can you name a good person? If so, you've disproven your point, because any good person must have defeated any evil nature they might have possessed, and there is no such thing as an unnatural means of going about it*.

*Unless you happen to use magic.


This is getting off-topic so I'll spoiler it.

So, through fear, humanity has:

1) Protected itself from pain and suffering.

2) Created a society (whose sole purpose is to intimidate its civilians into not killing one another) where you are punished by being thrown into jail instead of killed for 'thinking wrong', and holds a far narrower definition of wrong.

3) Had a few civilians who have seen the social benefits of inventing something and, for thirst for power and praise, did just that.

You must remember that more often then not, humanity is its own top source of suffering, as the top predator we have turned upon each other for there is nothing else to hunt.

I am not claiming humans are more vile then animals, I am claiming humans ARE animals. Altruism is a myth.

You posted this while I was typing my response to the other, and I have a few things to say about this:
1) is usually considered unequivocally good. However, it was not done through pain and suffering for the most part. Toil, perhaps, and some suffering to the nonhumans out there so we could eat them, but nothing ever comes without work and every creature must eat. Would you damn the wolves for hunting the deer? Is it right to say that one creature killing another is wrong if they would themselves die if they did not?

2) Where the hell do you live? In America, at least, you cannot be thrown in jail for "thinking wrong." Consider... Well, the Ku Klux Klan is a good example here. They preach that white people are inherently superior to everyone else, that white people should be the sole rulers of the USA or perhaps the world, that every non-white person should be expelled from the USA and perhaps the world, and in some cases that white people are always justified in killing nonwhites. This is absolutely at odds with the common American sentiments on all of these matters, but no Klansman is imprisoned just for saying or thinking these things. It is, in fact, the first legal right that is set down in the most sacred document of American law: the right to say whatever you like without punishment (within some constraints). There are also similar laws in most of the industrialized nations as well.

I cannot convince you that society was not formed simply to keep people in line out of fear, though I will not grant you this one. It is not the way things work, but it is a difficult point to address.

3) If you think most of the people who invented things did so out of a desire for wealth and fame and power, you're sorely mistaken. Most of the famous inventors in the world did so out of either necessity (they needed to do something that nothing existed to do) or altruistic motives (they actually wanted to help people).

Humanity does cause itself more suffering than anything else, but it is also the cause of the removal of more suffering. There were no monkeys at New Orleans after the hurricane, none in China after the recent quake, none after the tsunami in the Indian Ocean... The acts were of nature, the suffering of nature, but the comfort of humans.

Humans are animals. Social animals, to be more precise. Altruism is a biological necessity for social animals. Therefore, humans are altruistic out of biological necessity. Read some of the literature on evolutionary psychology on the topic of altruism; you may be surprised.

Ziren
2008-06-01, 10:54 AM
Is it that much harder to give an orphan a piece of bread than hit her with a rock? I think a conscience makes evil just as hard as good, does it not?

You're thinking of it the wrong way. The question would be: Is it harder to give an orphan a piece of bread than not doing it, although you have enough to share?

Grey Paladin
2008-06-01, 10:57 AM
I cannot name a single good person because true good does not exists in nature, it can only be created artificially- Selfishness is the sole drive for action and human interaction.

Altruism is a lie, our body has an innate system for rewarding us, these who perform such 'selfless' deeds merely seek the chemical reward, what most would call saints I call junkies that would do anything to get their drug.

Now, Unlike most animals, humans, in general, are never satisfied with what they have and always 'want more' as you have defined it. This combined with the fact that there is always competition for what they want and a limitied amount of such leads to constant conflict. Selfishness is the number 1 drive for teamwork, but teams are only ever as large as the number of places in the position they are attempting to aquire.

1) This is merely self-preservation.
2) Yet loudly supporting Nazism or plotting the death of the president will get you arrested . .
3) In the end, all goes back to selfishness.

Altruism as biologically defined is not your every-day altruism.

NecroRebel
2008-06-01, 11:31 AM
I cannot name a single good person because true good does not exists in nature, it can only be created artificially- Selfishness is the sole drive for action and human interaction.

Then you do not accept the existence of true evil, either; if there is no possibility of "good" then there is equally little possibility of "evil," as both are social constructs defined by the lack of each other.

What is this "artificial" good you speak of? Human actions are by definition natural, so anything that comes about as a result of human action is by definition natural. This means that your "artificial good" comes about solely by human nature one way or another... So, then, does Good come from Evil? :smallamused:


Altruism is a lie, our body has an innate system for rewarding us, these who perform such 'selfless' deeds merely seek the chemical reward, what most would call saints I call junkies that would do anything to get their drug.

So people cannot be altruistic because they always get something in return? That's mistaken; altruism requires only that what is gotten in return is less than is given.


Now, Unlike most animals, humans, in general, are never satisfied with what they have and always 'want more' as you have defined it. This combined with the fact that there is always competition for what they want and a limitied amount of such leads to constant conflict. Selfishness is the number 1 drive for teamwork, but teams are only ever as large as the number of places in the position they are attempting to aquire.

Ah, but humans are animals, are they not? Further, all animals, not just humans, constantly "want more." Give a monkey, or a wolf, or an ant, or a duck-billed platypus the opportunity for more food, better shelter, better mates, what have you, and they will take it. If there is no opportunity for advancement, any creature, including humans, will be "satisfied with what they have." The only difference is that humans know full well that there are ways that they can get more, that the opportunities are there.

Also, consider that every social animals, from termites to elephants, work together towards a common goal (survival usually), but in any of these cases if the hive or tribe or pack or herd or pod gets too big the majority can and will expel the weaker members. You claim that "teams are only ever as large as the number of places in the position they are attemptin to acquire." I counter that this is far from unique to humans.


1) This is merely self-preservation.

Of course it is. That's exactly my point. Protecting oneself from pain and suffering is merely self-preservation, and everything that preserves themself does it.


2) Yet loudly supporting Nazism or plotting the death of the president will get you arrested . .

Loudly supporting Nazism is protected under First Amendment rights, actually; there are many American National Socialist Party rallies and meetings annually, and the people who attend them do not get arrested.

Plotting the death of anyone will get you arrested. This is actually part of what I was debating with Tippy earlier, but in most societies causing someone's death is considered a bigger crime than almost any others. Conspiracy to commit homicide is a first degree misdemeanor IIRC, though I'm probably incorrect on that.


3) In the end, all goes back to selfishness.

Perhaps, but not for the reasons you claim. Incidentally, you didn't actually address my point. Are there, or are there not, inventors who invent simply to solve a problem, and not necessarily a problem they have? If so, it isn't entirely self-serving.


Altruism as biologically defined is not your every-day altruism.

No, but they have very similar definitions, and in fact the biological definition goes farther than the common definition. "Every-day altruism" is defined as "selfless concern for the welfare of others," which does not actually require action, while biological altruism is defined as "behavior that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor," which is action by definition.

hamishspence
2008-06-01, 11:47 AM
Getting back to the programmed amnesia.

In Waterdeep, apparently some criminals convicted of capital crimes (in the sense that Death sentence is an option for the judge) are sometimes given memory wipes, and then, given various high hazard mission, which they can take in return for clues to get their memory back bit by bit. Effectively, very difficult community service. Interesting.

In Total Recall, the star has given himself programmed amnesia, effectively creating a new person, who actively resists being turned into his old self.

Concerning morality of evil spells, Fiendish Codex 2 makes casting any Evil descriptor spell (there are no vile descriptor spells) a 1 point evil act. Anything other than that is a matter of personal views as to which are worse.

And neither inflict, or cure spells have no descriptor, so arent pertinent to the discussion.

Aquillion
2008-06-01, 01:35 PM
Charming how it's always the one with the most to gain who defines this collective notion of "the greater good."No-o, I'm saying that the one who isn't an insane megalomanical evil BBEG should be deciding it. Evil McEvilWizard forfeited his right to an opinion on how the greater good is decided by his eventual disposition the seventh time he burned down a major city and killed everyone inside.

Why are you suddenly so jumpy about PCs using force? PCs use for all the time. Look at the list of class features some time, most of them are pretty forceful.

Obviously if the PCs are going around using force for no reason at all, that's not a good act; but if they're doing it in situations that justify it and are doing it for altruistic reasons, they're probably good-aligned.


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.A good PC can't use it recklessly (just like they can't throw around Finger of Death or Disintegrate recklessly) or they're violating the second bolded bit; but as long as they show due concern in either case, and use them in a generally altruistic sense, they are good-aligned.

And yes, altruism is both real in the D&D universe and one of the defining parts of a good alignment, as explicitly defined by the SRD. If you want to talk about your personal real-world moral philosophy, go someplace else, we're not interested here.


Feel free to think humanity evil all you want, but nowhere else has a body of minds come together in the face of rampant chaos and disease and said "No," and then wiped those forces out.Uh, we're still talking the D&D world, right? Because I can think of several races that will object to that statement.

And, come to think of it, humanity hasn't done most of those things in the D&D world. It's debatable whether they've done any of them. We know they're not evil overall because their alignment isn't "usually evil" in the SRD, but that's the best we can say.

Vikazc
2008-06-01, 03:10 PM
I read the first 4 pages before the arguments about magic alignment got tedious, so back to the original topic. Using Programmed Amnesia or Mindrape to reform criminals and evil people.

In the D&D world in particular, this is a good act. The arguments that you are destroying a person by removing their experience, or changing the way their God created them, do not even begin to hold water. For the first, you can't be destroying the person, because souls are indeed existent and irrevocable in this world. If changing their experiences makes them a better person or a worse person, then a given soul starts neutral, which invalidates the second argument. Thus the effect of this spell would follow the common movie plot of "Giving them the childhood/father/love they never had" as opposed to cruel beatings. You are in every possible way improving the world, and the individual by giving him happier memories. You do not actually change him as a person, barring the extreme uses of mindrape. You just let him make the choice of how to be from a different basis.

As to uses in the real world, most of the arguments come down to freedom. That is to say, people want the freedom to be able to think about and commit selfish and evil acts. The most telling argument put forth was by Tippy, when he said that both that criminals don't deserve their freedom because they stopped contributing to society and so on. Following this was the comment that if a given society all willingly consented to Mindraped utopia, it would be allowable, but no if there was any dissent.

If you really stop to think about it, anyone who would argue against a peaceful world where everyone was happy, did nice things, and never had the impulse to do evil, is an evil person at heart. When given the choice for that Mindraped utopia, the people who wouldn't agree to it, are people who are unwilling to give up their freedom to do evil. In this Utopia, no one would be able to be lazy, or steal, or be selfish. Opposing that is by it's very nature evil.

There is a notable difference between this and previously mentioned books on the topic, in that you could Mindrape someone to truly receive joy from being good and create this blissful place. In most of these books, and in real life, it is not possible to do that, even if most people would be happy and satisfied to be kind, peaceful and happy, there are some who are lazy and greedy and only coercion or violence would keep them in line and stop them from corrupting the system. This approaches the point made by Tippy, that criminals do not deserve rights or freedom. So by that standpoint, anyone opposing this magnificent social order, could and should be executed to prevent corruption of the system.

It's pretty obvious if you read all that, freedom is difficult thing to deal with, because if you don't give it to everyone, you really can't justify giving it to anyone, without the use of naked force. And so we drift back to the natural order of things: The strong decide, and the weak abide.

Grey Paladin
2008-06-01, 03:19 PM
Awesome

I'll just shut up and let you do the talking.

Vikazc
2008-06-01, 04:13 PM
I always end up posting when the threads over and no one reads it anymore >_<

chiasaur11
2008-06-01, 04:21 PM
I read the first 4 pages before the arguments about magic alignment got tedious, so back to the original topic. Using Programmed Amnesia or Mindrape to reform criminals and evil people.

In the D&D world in particular, this is a good act. The arguments that you are destroying a person by removing their experience, or changing the way their God created them, do not even begin to hold water. For the first, you can't be destroying the person, because souls are indeed existent and irrevocable in this world. If changing their experiences makes them a better person or a worse person, then a given soul starts neutral, which invalidates the second argument. Thus the effect of this spell would follow the common movie plot of "Giving them the childhood/father/love they never had" as opposed to cruel beatings. You are in every possible way improving the world, and the individual by giving him happier memories. You do not actually change him as a person, barring the extreme uses of mindrape. You just let him make the choice of how to be from a different basis.

As to uses in the real world, most of the arguments come down to freedom. That is to say, people want the freedom to be able to think about and commit selfish and evil acts. The most telling argument put forth was by Tippy, when he said that both that criminals don't deserve their freedom because they stopped contributing to society and so on. Following this was the comment that if a given society all willingly consented to Mindraped utopia, it would be allowable, but no if there was any dissent.

If you really stop to think about it, anyone who would argue against a peaceful world where everyone was happy, did nice things, and never had the impulse to do evil, is an evil person at heart. When given the choice for that Mindraped utopia, the people who wouldn't agree to it, are people who are unwilling to give up their freedom to do evil. In this Utopia, no one would be able to be lazy, or steal, or be selfish. Opposing that is by it's very nature evil.

There is a notable difference between this and previously mentioned books on the topic, in that you could Mindrape someone to truly receive joy from being good and create this blissful place. In most of these books, and in real life, it is not possible to do that, even if most people would be happy and satisfied to be kind, peaceful and happy, there are some who are lazy and greedy and only coercion or violence would keep them in line and stop them from corrupting the system. This approaches the point made by Tippy, that criminals do not deserve rights or freedom. So by that standpoint, anyone opposing this magnificent social order, could and should be executed to prevent corruption of the system.

It's pretty obvious if you read all that, freedom is difficult thing to deal with, because if you don't give it to everyone, you really can't justify giving it to anyone, without the use of naked force. And so we drift back to the natural order of things: The strong decide, and the weak abide.

That there is evil. You'd make it so no man could truly be good as he'd just be forced too, and you'd fail to even eliminate evil fully, as some people would still, despite the pain it caused them, do the wrong thing, if for no other reason than to be free. A world where you entered that on your own might just be dull. A world with that forced on mankind would be hell.

Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, I do not object because no man is fit to be a slave, but because no man is fit to be a master.

Flickerdart
2008-06-01, 04:25 PM
I always end up posting when the threads over and no one reads it anymore >_<
Maybe it's because you win the thread and there's nothing left to say?

However, it's the capacity to be ABLE to do evil and reject it that truly makes good. If someone can't do evil, they could still be a shallow and overall crappy "good" person.

Scintillatus
2008-06-01, 04:29 PM
I want to preface this by saying that I don't want to seem condescending or dismissive.

However, I would suggest that the posters within this thread expand their knowledge of the human psyche, of morality outside of a Judeo-Christian society, of literary works on the subject - Brave New World, 1984 et al - and consider also such topics as existentialism and mental health.

Quite frankly, what you are advocating, in a real-world situation, no less, is the most heinous, violent and unacceptable act of any kind. As a man who believes in free will and a willing reformation, I will make no threats of murdering you or brainwashing you because you espouse this warped and inhuman belief structure.

Instead, I simply ask; please, expand your horizons. Do not get trapped in this black hole of the Left wing. Collectivism (or Nihilism) taken to this degree is in no way healthy.

I'm going to cut it short here, I really do not want to participate in a debate with any proponents of this "punishment" - I feel physically ill (this is not hyperbole) simply imagining one man who believes in this heinous act against the core humanity of a man, and the idea of a group of you makes me very very sad.

chiasaur11
2008-06-01, 04:40 PM
I want to preface this by saying that I don't want to seem condescending or dismissive.

However, I would suggest that the posters within this thread expand their knowledge of the human psyche, of morality outside of a Judeo-Christian society, of literary works on the subject - Brave New World, 1984 et al - and consider also such topics as existentialism and mental health.

Quite frankly, what you are advocating, in a real-world situation, no less, is the most heinous, violent and unacceptable act of any kind. As a man who believes in free will and a willing reformation, I will make no threats of murdering you or brainwashing you because you espouse this warped and inhuman belief structure.

Instead, I simply ask; please, expand your horizons. Do not get trapped in this black hole of the Left wing. Collectivism (or Nihilism) taken to this degree is in no way healthy.

I'm going to cut it short here, I really do not want to participate in a debate with any proponents of this "punishment" - I feel physically ill (this is not hyperbole) simply imagining one man who believes in this heinous act against the core humanity of a man, and the idea of a group of you makes me very very sad.

Agreed. I mean, some, minor, uses in emergencies mentioned above might be okay, but the world? I like to think I'd die before living in that world.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-01, 04:44 PM
Agreed. I mean, some, minor, uses in emergencies mentioned above might be okay, but the world? I like to think I'd die before living in that world.

As I already said, I would gladly die before living in a world like that.

Mindrape and Programmed Amensia have many valid uses, but their use on a mass scale to make a supposed "utopia" is not one of them.

Vikazc
2008-06-01, 06:12 PM
I want to preface this by saying that I don't want to seem condescending or dismissive.

However, I would suggest that the posters within this thread expand their knowledge of the human psyche, of morality outside of a Judeo-Christian society, of literary works on the subject - Brave New World, 1984 et al - and consider also such topics as existentialism and mental health.

Quite frankly, what you are advocating, in a real-world situation, no less, is the most heinous, violent and unacceptable act of any kind. As a man who believes in free will and a willing reformation, I will make no threats of murdering you or brainwashing you because you espouse this warped and inhuman belief structure.

Instead, I simply ask; please, expand your horizons. Do not get trapped in this black hole of the Left wing. Collectivism (or Nihilism) taken to this degree is in no way healthy.

I'm going to cut it short here, I really do not want to participate in a debate with any proponents of this "punishment" - I feel physically ill (this is not hyperbole) simply imagining one man who believes in this heinous act against the core humanity of a man, and the idea of a group of you makes me very very sad.

I dont know that I am one of the folks you're referring to, but just to clarfiy, I wasn't speaking from my own point of view, but rather from the point of view of objective human morality. In that sense, the greater good is essential. The perfect society that would not litter, or be slothful, is objectively much more *good* then any current society.

The concept of choice, freedom, and individuality are not universally good. At best the freedom to choose good or evil could be called Neutral. And thats giving it some credit. The potential to be evil, is itself evil. Without the potential, evil can't exist. Ergo, the lack of that potential, is good. If a lack of freedom or individual choice made something evil, we would have to classify termites, bees and lemmings as evil. Since that isn't the case, freedom is not by definition "good". Societies can exist functionally without it.

It doesn't mean a society is evil to exist with choice or the potential for choice. It does however mean that a society without choice or freedom is not by definition evil. Which sort of makes this whole argument a moot point. People born with choice as an option are just by and large loath to give it up.

Ziren
2008-06-02, 05:26 AM
I dont know that I am one of the folks you're referring to, but just to clarfiy, I wasn't speaking from my own point of view, but rather from the point of view of objective human morality. In that sense, the greater good is essential. The perfect society that would not litter, or be slothful, is objectively much more *good* then any current society.

I disagree. You're so called "greater good" is achieved by taking the potential for being good or evil from every human. And how can a society in which not a single good person exists be more good than ours, even if there are more evil then good people?



The concept of choice, freedom, and individuality are not universally good. At best the freedom to choose good or evil could be called Neutral. And thats giving it some credit. The potential to be evil, is itself evil. Without the potential, evil can't exist. Ergo, the lack of that potential, is good. If a lack of freedom or individual choice made something evil, we would have to classify termites, bees and lemmings as evil. Since that isn't the case, freedom is not by definition "good". Societies can exist functionally without it.

A person or creature, that is unable to choose between good or evil is neutral, regardless of it's actions. Granted, this doesn't translate well into D&D alignment, but since you're talking about real world societies as well...