Helm of Opposite Alignment

[Narren]

I'm a little confused on the text of this item. Obviously LG turns to CE, LE would be CG, and true neutral would be some extreme. What would NG be? CE? LE? NE? Same question for LN and CN.

[mootoall]

The Neutral alignment would stay the same, with the extreme alignment switching.

[OldTrees1]

I'm a little confused on the text of this item. Obviously LG turns to CE, LE would be CG, and true neutral would be some extreme. What would NG be? CE? LE? NE? Same question for LN and CN.

LG => CE
NG => LE or CE
CG => LE
LN => CG or CE
TN => LG or CG or LE or CE
CN => LG or LE
LE => CG
NE => LG or CG
CE => LG

It changes your alignment to be as different as possible (2 steps for TN, 3 steps for Half Neutral, 4 steps for Extremists)

[Benthesquid]

Neutral would change to the little discussed 'Fourth alignment,' Unneutral. Unneutral characters are obsessed with upsetting balance of any kind. They also tend to be extremely literally minded, and so spend most of their time drop kicking small children off of teeter-totters.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Neutral would change to the little discussed 'Fourth alignment,' Unneutral. Unneutral characters are obsessed with upsetting balance of any kind. They also tend to be extremely literally minded, and so spend most of their time drop kicking small children off of teeter-totters.

So... Chaotic Neutral?:smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

NG => LE or CE
LN => CG or CE
CN => LG or LE
NE => LG or CG

It changes your alignment to be as different as possible (2 steps for TN, 3 steps for Half Neutral, 4 steps for Extremists)


On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment (LE, LG, CE, or CG).

Neutral all by itself, in D&D rules, means what we normally call True Neutral (because what's disambiguation?). So what actually happens is that NG becomes NE (good to evil), CN becomes LN (chaotic to lawful) and so forth.

[OldTrees1]

Neutral all by itself, in D&D rules, means what we normally call True Neutral (because what's disambiguation?). So what actually happens is that NG becomes NE (good to evil), CN becomes LN (chaotic to lawful) and so forth.


On a failed save, the alignment of the wearer is radically altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment

In this context: The words Evil, Good, Chaotic, Lawful and Neutral are alignment components not full alignments.

Furthermore the effect is "altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment". The more steps, the more different.

So NG is broken into Neutral(ethics axis) and Good(moral axis). Neutral is changed to an extreme (Lawful or Chaotic) and Good is changed to Evil. End result is LE or CE.

All 4 possibilities are listed at the end: (LE, LG, CE, or CG)

[Brookshw]

Neutral would change to the little discussed 'Fourth alignment,' Unneutral.

Can I suggest a different take (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55828) on odd alignment axis?

[TuggyNE]

In this context: The words Evil, Good, Chaotic, Lawful and Neutral are alignment components not full alignments.

That's not generally how it's phrased, to my knowledge; instead, passages use phrases like "neutral with respect to good and evil". If you have a clear case where "neutral" all by itself means anything at all other than "true neutral", please indicate that. Otherwise, I believe the usual pattern should hold.


Furthermore the effect is "altered to an alignment as different as possible from the former alignment". The more steps, the more different.

So NG is broken into Neutral(ethics axis) and Good(moral axis). Neutral is changed to an extreme (Lawful or Chaotic) and Good is changed to Evil. End result is LE or CE.

As noted, that's not how it seems to break down; NE is as far from NG along the good-evil axis as possible, and since the alignment is neither chaotic nor lawful, it doesn't change along the ethical axis; nor is it TN, so it does not change to any of the possibilities listed specifically for TN (aka neutral).


All 4 possibilities are listed at the end: (LE, LG, CE, or CG)

Yes, but you're only using two of those possibilities most of the time, which is not what that section implies, raising problems for your interpretation.

1In short, you're picturing an algorithm that moves as many steps in any direction as possible; I'm picturing an algorithm that moves directly across the center of the alignment diagram if possible, or in any direction if not. The latter is, I think, closer to the intent, and seems to better reflect the choice of wording.

[OldTrees1]

That's not generally how it's phrased, to my knowledge; instead, passages use phrases like "neutral with respect to good and evil". If you have a clear case where "neutral" all by itself means anything at all other than "true neutral", please indicate that. Otherwise, I believe the usual pattern should hold.

alignment as different as possible from the former alignment—good to evil, chaotic to lawful, neutral to some extreme commitment
Grammatical Structure: A clause followed by a trio of clarifying clauses
Clause 1: Alignment as different as possible from the former.
Clause 2: The Alignment component Good would turn to the Alignment component Evil.
Clause 3: The Alignment component Chaotic would turn to the Alignment component Lawful.
Clause 4[my interpretation]: The Alignment component Neutral would turn into an extreme Alignment component. (Worded to communicate about both neutral[moral] and neutral[ethical])
Clause 4[your interpretation]: The Alignment True Neutral would turn into an extreme Alignment.

My interpretation of Clause 4 is consistent with the grammatical pattern established in Clauses 2 and 3. Furthermore it is consistent with the description of Clause 1 (LN to CN is 2 steps. LN to CE is 3 steps. An alignment 3 steps away is more different than an alignment 2 steps away)


As noted, that's not how it seems to break down; NE is as far from NG along the good-evil axis as possible, and since the alignment is neither chaotic nor lawful, it doesn't change along the ethical axis; nor is it TN, so it does not change to any of the possibilities listed specifically for TN (aka neutral).
The Helm's effect is to change the alignment to one that is as different as possible from the original. CE is more different from LN than CN is from LN.


Yes, but you're only using two of those possibilities most of the time, which is not what that section implies, raising problems for your interpretation.
I am using 1 possibility 4/9 of the time, 2 possibilities 4/9ths of the time and 4 possibilities 1/9th of the time. However each possibility is used equally often. I see no problems with this.



1In short, you're picturing an algorithm that moves as many steps in any direction as possible; I'm picturing an algorithm that moves directly across the center of the alignment diagram if possible, or in any direction if not. The latter is, I think, closer to the intent, and seems to better reflect the choice of wording.
Your algorithm (as described here) has no effect on TN. Your algorithm as you had previously described treated TN differently that it treated every other alignment. My algorithm effects TN and treats it the same as other alignments. The first and third algorithms are reasonable. I believe the third algorithm is being used by the item. (Although I assumed the first was used before I read the item)

[cakellene]

There is no opposite for neutral, thus it doesn't change.

[OldTrees1]

There is no opposite for neutral, thus it doesn't change.

Perhaps you might want to read the magic item. It does not work like its name implies. That is a reasonable houserule though.

[Thurbane]

This is a very different reading of the item than I have ever seen. I have always seen it as:

LG => CE
LN => CN
LE => CG
NG => NE
NN (true neutral) => LG, LE, CG or CE
NE => NG
CG => LE
CN => LN
CE => LG

http://i39.tinypic.com/159cpk.jpg

I do agree that the 3.5 wording could have been clearer, but the intent seems clear to me. YMMV.

[OldTrees1]

Does anyone know the other edition wordings?



It seems like there are 3 interpretations being represented here. In general if there are such diverse interpretations about something, it is best to ask your DM regardless about whatever the online debate "resolves".

[TuggyNE]

I am using 1 possibility 4/9 of the time, 2 possibilities 4/9ths of the time and 4 possibilities 1/9th of the time. However each possibility is used equally often. I see no problems with this.

I meant, whenever there is a neutral alignment (5/9 cases) 4/5 times your interpretation selects between 2/4 of the remaining possibilities, rather than all 4 as it says to for all neutral characters.


Your algorithm (as described here) has no effect on TN. Your algorithm as you had previously described treated TN differently that it treated every other alignment. My algorithm effects TN and treats it the same as other alignments. The first and third algorithms are reasonable. I believe the third algorithm is being used by the item. (Although I assumed the first was used before I read the item)

I have only ever described one algorithm, and it is one that is fully consistent with the description of the item.


I'm picturing an algorithm that moves directly across the center of the alignment diagram if possible, or in any direction if not.

That last clause refers to what happens if the character was TN and thus their alignment cannot move straight across the grid: they become one of the four extreme alignments randomly. (There was a bit of sloppiness in saying "any" instead of "any of four extremes", but that was my intent at least.)

I should probably also note that, in Core, TN already is treated differently from every other alignment. For example, Clerics cannot be TN unless their deity is, even if their deity has a neutral component in their alignment and would thus normally be within the single step allowed.

[OldTrees1]

@TuggyNE
Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding of your post.

Although I am disturbed that you only replied to the least important parts of my post. My major argument was that the 3 clarifying clauses were discussing alignment components (Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral) rather than discussing alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE, NG, NE, LN, CN and TN).

My primary evidence was that the first two clarifying clauses clearly used alignment components. This pattern would dictate that the third clause would also use alignment components or be separated with a transition from the first two clarifying clauses.


I meant, whenever there is a neutral alignment (5/9 cases) 4/5 times your interpretation selects between 2/4 of the remaining possibilities, rather than all 4 as it says to for all neutral characters.

And yet each of the 4 options comes up equally. If anything a gradual increase in possibilities as the alignment approached TN seems smoother than the drastic and sudden leap from 1 (8/9) to 4(1/9) possible outcomes that your algorithm causes.

[TuggyNE]

@TuggyNE
Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding of your post.

Although I am disturbed that you only replied to the least important parts of my post. My major argument was that the 3 clarifying clauses were discussing alignment components (Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral) rather than discussing alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE, NG, NE, LN, CN and TN).

My primary evidence was that the first two clarifying clauses clearly used alignment components. This pattern would dictate that the third clause would also use alignment components or be separated with a transition from the first two clarifying clauses.

At this point we're getting way too far into the weeds of lower textual analysis, and without, for example, sufficient statistical information on word choice distribution in the texts in question to actually do it right. Briefly, though, the general convention that neutral always means true neutral seems more important than the convention of using components, not least because Core seems to use circumlocutions a lot when discussing alignment axes, so casually throwing in the concept of "neutral on one axis" is basically unheard of as such. (Even the Druid class, which actually has that concept, disguises it as "CN, LN, [T]N, NG, NE" or whatever.)

[OldTrees1]

Agree to disagree then.

It is nice to see these rational and understanding discussions amidst the misunderstanding arguments that forums are prone to. Thank you. :)

[TuggyNE]

Agree to disagree then.

It is nice to see these rational and understanding discussions amidst the misunderstanding arguments that forums are prone to. Thank you. :)

Quite so. *tips hat*

[nedz]

Surely True Neutral should change to Random? I've made a little table, now whether you roll once, once per day or once per round is unknown. I think that maybe you should roll whenever you feel like it.

{table=head]d4|Alignment

1|LG|

2|CG

3|CE

4|LE
[/table]

[hymer]

Does anyone know the other edition wordings?

D&D Rules Cyclopedia (1991), Helm of Alignment Changing (p. 240):
“the DM should determine the new alignment randomly”

2nd edition DMG (1995), Helm of Opposite Alignment (p. 227):
"[…] the alignment of the wearer is radically altered – good to evil, neutral to some absolute commitment (LE, LG, CE, CG) as radically different from the former alignment as possible."

Edit: The D&D one of course runs on a different alignment system. Random determination makes more sense with only C, N and L alignments.
The second edition one, though, is even more poorly worded than the one you've been discussing.