Dear DM: Can I use a helm of opposite alignment?

[CyberThread]

So there are some serious monster choices and build choices that could be done, but sadly can't be because of evil alignment.

Would you, as the acting DM , allow a player to build a concept, that focused on using the helm of opposite alignment, to cheat the system?

[pwykersotz]

It depends on the munchkinry involved. It it was to allow extra numbers on the character sheet, I'd say no. If you truly wanted to explore society's reaction to a redeemed beholder, then sure. If you try to do both and take Beholder Mage or justify an Ur Priest background then I reserve the right to glare at you until you tone it down, unless your party is of equal optimization level.

[CyberThread]

It depends on the munchkinry involved. It it was to allow extra numbers on the character sheet, I'd say no. If you truly wanted to explore society's reaction to a redeemed beholder, then sure. If you try to do both and take Beholder Mage or justify an Ur Priest background then I reserve the right to glare at you until you tone it down, unless your party is of equal optimization level.

The helm would ruin all alignment based needs, like an ur priest, so no cheese on that.

[Crake]

Honestly, if someone want's to play a creature that's normally evil, but wants to use the helm to help fit in with the party better, then I say go for it. Of course, I'm the kind of DM who wouldn't care if the player was evil to begin with.

[Chronos]

I'd much rather rule, as a DM, that helms of opposite alignment simply don't exist, period. If you want to be a good <insert monster here>, then just say that you're the rare one-in-a-million exception who freely chose to be good. Mind you, I'd still talk with a player beforehand if that's what they wanted, just because that has the potential to be incredibly cliched.

[Aharon]

I'd much rather rule, as a DM, that helms of opposite alignment simply don't exist, period. If you want to be a good <insert monster here>, then just say that you're the rare one-in-a-million exception who freely chose to be good. Mind you, I'd still talk with a player beforehand if that's what they wanted, just because that has the potential to be incredibly cliched.

But that opens the door to super-special-snowflake PCs the Drow race consists of. The helmet is more interesting story-wise. The point against it IMO is that it requires either brushing over the implied mind rape or requires a mature table and consensus on how this kind of magic alteration should be viewed in game.

[Chronos]

Special snowflake Drow are problematic no matter how they came to be that way. And allowing the Helm as a precedent means that the party is just going to acquire one and grapple it onto the head of every significant villain they meet.

[HaikenEdge]

I don't get the problem with playing "evil" characters, since D&D pretty much defines good/evil as methodology; that's to say, I really have no problem as a DM allowing players to play heroic evil characters, so this isn't a situation I've ever actually encountered.

Since alignment is affected by deeds, I'd just have the player say they became their alignment through a series of deeds, rather than using a helm of opposite alignment. The helm opens up an entirely new bag of worms, since it only changes their alignment and not their outlook, goals or personality.

[CyberThread]

I don't get the problem with playing "evil" characters, since D&D pretty much defines good/evil as methodology; that's to say, I really have no problem as a DM allowing players to play heroic evil characters, so this isn't a situation I've ever actually encountered.

Since alignment is affected by deeds, I'd just have the player say they became their alignment through a series of deeds, rather than using a helm of opposite alignment. The helm opens up an entirely new bag of worms, since it only changes their alignment and not their outlook, goals or personality.


I don't thin it leads to snowflakes but rather a raw challenge to a player who wants to attempt it. As for the challenge, the helm does change those things. If your goals is to murder everyone, and you suddenly become Choatic good, then your goals change.



Also I can't really think of any natrually evil race, that is usable at a PC level, that a helm would benefit.

[Alex12]

The helm opens up an entirely new bag of worms, since it only changes their alignment and not their outlook, goals or personality.
The description of the item explicitly contradicts that.

Alteration in alignment is mental as well as moral, and the individual changed by the magic thoroughly enjoys his new outlook.
Personally, I'd allow it. I think there are some interesting ways you could play it. OTOH, I'm not the sort that's overly bothered about evil/good differences in options- if you were one of my players, and asked me as a DM if we could modify a class so it's basically the same except not evil and maybe with a bit of fluff differences, I'd have no problem with that. In one campaign (that kind of died) one character wanted to play a good ur-priest, and I allowed it.

[OldTrees1]

Would you, as the acting DM , allow a player to build a concept, that focused on using the helm of opposite alignment, to cheat the system?

Nope. They need redemption in their background instead. (Yes, even fiends qualify for redemption when I am in the chair)

[XmonkTad]

I've been looking through "ways to convert a creature" via RAW, and it looks like there are not a lot of ways. The Helm is a staple, Evangelists get it as their capstone, and "Sanctify the Wicked" can do it, but that's really all I found.

But if you want to play a redeemed beholder, your DM would be in the right to make you take the Sanctified Creature Template (BoED) which carries a +2 LA, and nerfs you by taking away your Su and Sp abilities. At that point, you'll probably need beholder mage.

[CyberThread]

but can you think of a lower level race that would actually be worthy of it, only thing I can think of is lilke imp or succbus

[OldTrees1]

I've been looking through "ways to convert a creature" via RAW, and it looks like there are not a lot of ways. The Helm is a staple, Evangelists get it as their capstone, and "Sanctify the Wicked" can do it, but that's really all I found.

But if you want to play a redeemed beholder, your DM would be in the right to make you take the Sanctified Creature Template (BoED) which carries a +2 LA, and nerfs you by taking away your Su and Sp abilities. At that point, you'll probably need beholder mage.

Atonement(SRD) and diplomacy(BoED) are valid RAW means that do not have guaranteed results. (aka they do not wash brains)

[XmonkTad]

but can you think of a lower level race that would actually be worthy of it, only thing I can think of is lilke imp or succbus

The sanctified creature template isn't very good. You certainly don't want to use it on anything with good Sp or Su abilities, since it will lose those. You could apply it to an awakened badger to get a menacing aura and Ex infini-rage for 1 HD and 2 LA. Of course, the Sanctified Creature aura does not actually make give the shaken condition, and cannot be used for fear stacking. Also, you can't apply it to an outsider with the evil subtype. It's for things that are generally evil, not things that are made of evil (for some reason).

It doesn't even mesh well with Incarnate Construct.

Usually, a creature isn't prohibited from adventuring because it's evil. Sanctified Creature only makes a mostly evil creature a good creature, but doesn't make a beholder any more playable (that's a party that would meet being chased out of a tavern).

[CyberThread]

The sanctified creature template isn't very good. You certainly don't want to use it on anything with good Sp or Su abilities, since it will lose those. You could apply it to an awakened badger to get a menacing aura and Ex infini-rage for 1 HD and 2 LA. Of course, the Sanctified Creature aura does not actually make give the shaken condition, and cannot be used for fear stacking. Also, you can't apply it to an outsider with the evil subtype. It's for things that are generally evil, not things that are made of evil (for some reason).

It doesn't even mesh well with Incarnate Construct.

Usually, a creature isn't prohibited from adventuring because it's evil. Sanctified Creature only makes a mostly evil creature a good creature, but doesn't make a beholder any more playable (that's a party that would meet being chased out of a tavern).


I never asked about sanctified creature <-< we are talking about a helmet.

[Raven777]

What's the problem with being evil? Evil can be quite affable, even quite heroic! Not every evil murders bystanders and devours children. Some are just selfish, some are just foul tempered, some are just racist, some just enjoy watching the world burn.

[Slipperychicken]

What's the problem with being evil? Evil can be quite affable, even quite heroic! Not every evil murders bystanders and devours children. Some are just selfish, some are just foul tempered, some are just racist, some just enjoy watching the world burn.

Maybe I'm playing with the wrong evil PCs, but the "token bad guy" (or "token 'edgy' PC" when evil alignments are banned) shtick quickly gets old. Doubly so when it's obviously just a front for the player to score more [evil] feats, lulz, cash, and kills, rather than a seriously-played character concept.

[OldTrees1]

Maybe I'm playing with the wrong evil PCs, but the "token bad guy" (or "token 'edgy' PC" when evil alignments are banned) shtick quickly gets old. Doubly so when it's obviously just a front for the player to score more [evil] feats, lulz, cash, and kills, rather than a seriously-played character concept.
Any PC described as the "token ____" is a bad example of "_____" PCs.
"_____" PCs can easily be seriously-played characters (except when "_____" == jokingly-played).

[squiggit]

Yeah "token bad guy" is an execution issue, not an issue with the idea itself.


Regarding the question in the OP... why the helm at all? Why not just... play a good one?

[OldTrees1]

Yeah "token bad guy" is an execution issue, not an issue with the idea itself.


Regarding the question in the OP... why the helm at all? Why not just... play a good one?

Shush... <.< >.> Some DMs haven't read Savage Species and its rule that PCs pick their starting alignment regardless of race.

[DrakePenn]

Nope. They need redemption in their background instead. (Yes, even fiends qualify for redemption when I am in the chair)

There is actually a page on WotC about a succubus that fell in love with an angel, and redeemed herself to be with him. So its feasible. I totally agree by the way; I love the idea of a demon or devil going against their natural instincts and atoning for their actions.

[Slipperychicken]

There is actually a page on WotC about a succubus that fell in love with an angel, and redeemed herself to be with him. So its feasible. I totally agree by the way; I love the idea of a demon or devil going against their natural instincts and atoning for their actions.

Kinda messes with the whole "It's okay to kill fiends because they're beyond redemption" thing, though. If you're actually trying to achieve that sort of moral line-blurring, it would be awesome.

[OldTrees1]

Kinda messes with the whole "It's okay to kill fiends because they're beyond redemption" thing, though.

But that is only printed in one of the 2 books that has no moral authority (BoED and BoVD).
Note: Lack of blue means I am not being sarcastic. Those books really have no authority after screwing up so badly.

[Slipperychicken]

Note: Lack of blue means I am not being sarcastic. Those books really have no authority after screwing up so badly.

That's kind of like saying PHB has no rules authority because it screwed up the grapple rules, included the most poorly-balanced classes in the game (wizard, cleric, druid, monk), and introduced the most broken spells (i.e. Gate, Polymorph, and Shapechange).

[OldTrees1]

That's kind of like saying PHB has no rules authority because it screwed up the grapple rules, included the most poorly-balanced classes in the game (wizard, cleric, druid, monk), and introduced the most broken spells (i.e. Gate, Polymorph, and Shapechange).

Not quite
1)Fluff authority and rules authority are oh so slightly different
2)That is an overgeneralization, a better comparision(that still fails to point 1) would be that the PHB's rules on Grappling, Multiclass XP penalties and poorly balanced classes should be discarded, changed or replaced.

[Vhaidara]

That's kind of like saying PHB has no rules authority because it screwed up the grapple rules, included the most poorly-balanced classes in the game (wizard, cleric, druid, monk), and introduced the most broken spells (i.e. Gate, Polymorph, and Shapechange).

Is that a problem?

[Gemini476]

That's kind of like saying PHB has no rules authority because it screwed up the grapple rules, included the most poorly-balanced classes in the game (wizard, cleric, druid, monk), and introduced the most broken spells (i.e. Gate, Polymorph, and Shapechange).
Expanded Psionics Handbook+Tome of Battle all the way, man.


Also, remember that Always Evil does not mean that characters of that race always are evil! There can be one-in-a-million that are Good or Neutral as well. (Templates work differently, but even then you can change afterwards.)
Really, considering how common the whole Fallen Angel thing is you'd think that people were aware of that. Even the description for Atonement references being able to change alignment:

Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement simply offers a believable way for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.

Considering how often people are allowed to have things like "oh, I used to be a cook before I picked up the sword and went adventuring" and such I'm surprised that people disallow "oh, I used to be Evil but then I become not Evil because <reasons>".

[CyberThread]

Careful folks, these type of arguments tend to lead down a slippery chicken... err slope

[The Insanity]

I wouldn't allow the helmet.

[Sam K]

I don't thin it leads to snowflakes but rather a raw challenge to a player who wants to attempt it. As for the challenge, the helm does change those things. If your goals is to murder everyone, and you suddenly become Choatic good, then your goals change.

What's the challenge? Playing something completely unique is the easiest thing in the world, there's no frame of reference! It is completely unique, ANY way you play it is "right".

[CyberThread]

What's the challenge? Playing something completely unique is the easiest thing in the world, there's no frame of reference! It is completely unique, ANY way you play it is "right".



The challenges are the DM accepting what you propose.

[Shining Wrath]

The Helm of Opposite Alignment as something the character finds after creation - that is, the PC is asking you, the DM, to place this item so they can have their particular build?

Nope. Not gonna happen. Don't drop high level magic items like a vending machine.

An encounter with the HoOA as part of the PC back story, explaining how they became the Shunned Outcast driven from their people because, well, their alignment is opposite?

Now you're talking. Every PC has a story, and usually it's a weird one, because normal people don't take up adventuring.

As always with alignment - if you claim alignment X, every decision should reflect that alignment. You don't get to have an alignment of convenience that lets you have a cool build but causes no inconvenience. If you're Chaotic Good, doing what some authority figure tells you to do ought to grate on your nerves, et cetera.