About Helms of Opposite Alignment

[Lord]

About helms of opposite alignment. From what I've seen people assume that the result of donning the helm would be the character almost immediately turning on his teammates, or at the very least turning on them at a later date. Either that or the player that dons the helm simply chooses to completely ignore the roleplaying aspect and do what they were going to do anyway. However the thing is, it seems to me that this view doesn’t necessarily hold water.
Even evil people have friends. Its entirely conceivable that the person donning the helm might very well still regard his friends and compatriots with the same respect and affection he might have otherwise. Perhaps he would be more willing to betray them, depending on who he was, but there is no reason he couldn’t have healthy relationships.
The measure of what makes one evil isn’t how you treat people who are your friends, or not just that, its how you treat complete strangers. It seems to me that it would be much more interesting if the character donned the helm, and seemed absolutely fine, only for him to later start gleefully preparing to torture someone because its convenient, or suggest they murder an entire village or profit, or be totally in favor of joining the villain. Or maybe the other players end up having the role of the kid with the leash, having to reign in their now psychotic friend.
In fact it seems to me that a good character is more likely to betray his comrades than an evil character, because the good character would feel a moral obligation to act against or redeem his company. Meanwhile an evil character might simply try to commit his evil deeds behind his parties back, while feeling no obligation to stop them in doing good deeds. If anything the good publicity would be to his benefit.
Anyway I was just musing over the subject. Has anyone on this board ever played the whole helm of opposite alignment thing like this? Or am I alone in this idea?

[Morty]

I'm honestly not sure why or how including such an item in your game be ever a good idea. Thus the problem solves itself, as it were.

[wumpus]

I'm honestly not sure why or how including such an item in your game be ever a good idea. Thus the problem solves itself, as it were.

Observing how the OOTS handles vampires, my guess is that such a helm would spawn an "evil twin" [change alignment as needed] who would then posses the character who donned the helm. Such an "evil twin" would have full memories and might as well be modeled as a xeroxed copy of the character sheet with the alignment changed. The xeroxing is important, as it would effectively be a different character from the original and they would diverge from that moment.

But it would easier not to include such things, especially if you care about free will and player agency (Durkon doesn't have much agency right now).

[hymer]

I once played a PC who, in his background story, had been a steely LE assassin and the paramour of a thieves' guild leader. Then he got hit with a helm of opposite alignment, and he didn't realize it. He quickly began slipping, and by the time he realized what was going on, he had decided to stick with CG. Still, it took a few weeks before he finally decided to flee the whole scene, though at this time he still loved the guild leader, and he was still hoping to find a way to redeem her by the end of the campaign. He just couldn't find a way he could stay in his old life. But if he could have, he would have.

I agree that there likely should be no immediate betrayal. Going from LG and thoroughly annoyed and hampered by your party members' annoying ways - that I can certainly see resulting in sudden deaths. But in general I'm with you, OP.

[Quertus]

About helms of opposite alignment. From what I've seen people assume that the result of donning the helm would be the character almost immediately turning on his teammates, or at the very least turning on them at a later date. Either that or the player that dons the helm simply chooses to completely ignore the roleplaying aspect and do what they were going to do anyway. However the thing is, it seems to me that this view doesn’t necessarily hold water.
Even evil people have friends. Its entirely conceivable that the person donning the helm might very well still regard his friends and compatriots with the same respect and affection he might have otherwise. Perhaps he would be more willing to betray them, depending on who he was, but there is no reason he couldn’t have healthy relationships.
The measure of what makes one evil isn’t how you treat people who are your friends, or not just that, its how you treat complete strangers. It seems to me that it would be much more interesting if the character donned the helm, and seemed absolutely fine, only for him to later start gleefully preparing to torture someone because its convenient, or suggest they murder an entire village or profit, or be totally in favor of joining the villain. Or maybe the other players end up having the role of the kid with the leash, having to reign in their now psychotic friend.
In fact it seems to me that a good character is more likely to betray his comrades than an evil character, because the good character would feel a moral obligation to act against or redeem his company. Meanwhile an evil character might simply try to commit his evil deeds behind his parties back, while feeling no obligation to stop them in doing good deeds. If anything the good publicity would be to his benefit.
Anyway I was just musing over the subject. Has anyone on this board ever played the whole helm of opposite alignment thing like this? Or am I alone in this idea?

Well, it can be hard enough to roleplay a magical compulsion in the first place. But when that compulsion is, "change this facet of the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs", well, it's not surprising that people have trouble with it.

No, just because you now enjoy kicking puppies does not mean you suddenly devalue decades of friendship.

Heck, as a rule, my evil characters are far more party- and group-oriented than my good characters. Good characters have morals, which may be more important to them than friendships, or at the very least may come into conflict with their friendships. Evil characters have no (or fewer) such compunctions.

So, really, if you want party cohesion, making a "no Good characters" rule would make sense. Unfortunately, the state of gaming generally isn't at that level yet.

[Millstone85]

Heck, as a rule, my evil characters are far more party- and group-oriented than my good characters. Good characters have morals, which may be more important to them than friendships, or at the very least may come into conflict with their friendships. Evil characters have no (or fewer) such compunctions.

So, really, if you want party cohesion, making a "no Good characters" rule would make sense. Unfortunately, the state of gaming generally isn't at that level yet.That's what "Neutral" characters were invented for. Cooperative gaming and PC-centric morality FTW!

[Segev]

Well, it can be hard enough to roleplay a magical compulsion in the first place. But when that compulsion is, "change this facet of the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs", well, it's not surprising that people have trouble with it.

No, just because you now enjoy kicking puppies does not mean you suddenly devalue decades of friendship.

Heck, as a rule, my evil characters are far more party- and group-oriented than my good characters. Good characters have morals, which may be more important to them than friendships, or at the very least may come into conflict with their friendships. Evil characters have no (or fewer) such compunctions.

So, really, if you want party cohesion, making a "no Good characters" rule would make sense. Unfortunately, the state of gaming generally isn't at that level yet.

The reason "no good characters" doesn't work is because people make the bad assumption that "evil" means "stupid jerkface who backstabs his co-workers at every opportunity."



As to the topic of the thread, I think the OP has a good insight. Sir Justice Righteousman, LG Fighter, who puts on a Helm of Opposite Alignment won't suddenly want to murder his companions, if he was good friends with them before. He might be more willing to use them, but even then he'd be mindful of their feelings on the matter. He might be somewhat less generous or patient, but that doesn't mean he'll attack them. No, no. He'll just show a little more temper (as he doesn't feel the need to restrain it anymore when they make him mad, at least not in the same way). And he'll be more in favor of "fun" than "duty." And his idea of "fun" will probably take a much darker turn.

Any friends he valued before, he still will value. He will likely even value their happiness...perhaps no longer over his own, but maybe, depending on the depth of the friendship and his loyalty to them. Heck, he may still retain his former abiding loyalty to his liege lord. Chaos doesn't mean "disloyal." It just means that that loyalty is not necessarily expressed in faithful execution of the letter of the boss's commands. Maybe the spirit...maybe not. Chaotic loyalty can be askew from the will of the one to whom it is given; "for your own good" comes up more often from this kind of loyalty.

So our now-CE fighter might still be fiercely loyal to his friends and his liege. But he will be far more likely to take actions he things are for their good, even if he doesn't think they'd approve. He is more likely to reject their goals as "bad for them" if he honestly thinks they are. The Lawful retainer would never, for instance, accidentally let his boss's beloved die when trusted with her life, even if he thought her the worst possible thing to happen to his boss. Now that he's Chaotic, however, he's far more likely to try to separate her from him. He might even "fail" in his duty to protect her. Possibly by killing her himself, if he thinks he can conceal his willful action. Better to "fail" in his master's eyes than to let his master come to harm.


The suddenly-CE party member can be far more dangerous to the party's side goals, if he feels them detrimental to the party's well-being and major goals. Or he can be just as loyal to those, as well, depending on what he thinks of them. The thing about your suddenly-CE buddy is that he's going to be willing to do the wicked but easy solution. He's probably going to have less empathy for random strangers. But he's not, necessarily, more dangerous to you. In fact, he's more likely to forgive you your peccadilloes than he was before. The thief that always had to hide his activities lest he get reprimanded? Now Sir Righteousman (the fallen) will help him cover them up; he cares more about the thief buddy's immediate happiness and long-term physical security than the moral and ethical state of his soul and treating others well.

[WbtE]

The Helm has suffered from an interpretation shift on alignment. When the item was first imagined, alignment was something like an army list in a wargame. It indicated which outer plane (*) with which the character was aligned. "Lawful Good"? OK, you're working (consciously or not) with the Seven Heavens. "Chaotic Evil"? You're aligned with the Abyss. It didn't say all that much about the character's personality, because people could have all sorts of reasons for aligning with the goals of a plane - after all, humans used to be majority Lawful Good, and we're a fairly varied species! There might be kindly but Lawful Evil people who consciously aligned with the Nine Hells because they consider Good to be too weak to protect the Lawful arrangement of matter into life from all-consuming Chaos, or vicious psychopaths who none the less do the bidding of the Seven Heavens. (In any case, Lawful Good was more like mediaeval Catholicism than a modern Dudley-Do-Right creed.) It should be clear from this that swapping a person's alignment from the Seven Heavens to the Abyss would be quite profound and would definitely lead to enmity with former comrades but it might not change their personality.

As other posters have noted, under the "alignment as morality" interpretation that has dominated from the late 80s, the Helm doesn't make a lot of sense and certainly wouldn't lead to enmity between long-term friends. It's one of a number of alignment-based magics that are perfectly reasonable under the older interpretation, being gifts from one's extra-planar allies, but weren't properly adjusted as the game changed.

*: Note that True Neutrals (mainly the Druids) were trying to stop all of the outer planes messing with the prime, but had to settle for trying to get a stalemate because they'd been pretty badly beaten down.

[Millstone85]

It indicated which outer plane (*) with which the character was aligned. "Lawful Good"? OK, you're working (consciously or not) with the Seven Heavens. "Chaotic Evil"? You're aligned with the Abyss.I dislike the alignment system but I like the Outer Planes, so your explanation is one I really want to be true.

Sure, it only displaces the problem. What makes Celestia and its angels LG? What makes the Abyss and its demons CE? But the explanation can be a fantastic one. Angels are celestial machines, like modrons but in the service of virtue. Demons are sin in bestial form, like a more sadistic version of the slaadi.

[hamishspence]

The Helm has suffered from an interpretation shift on alignment. When the item was first imagined, alignment was something like an army list in a wargame. It indicated which outer plane (*) with which the character was aligned. "Lawful Good"? OK, you're working (consciously or not) with the Seven Heavens. "Chaotic Evil"? You're aligned with the Abyss. It didn't say all that much about the character's personality, because people could have all sorts of reasons for aligning with the goals of a plane - after all, humans used to be majority Lawful Good, and we're a fairly varied species!

Gygax's original quote sounded to me like Majority Lawful Neutral.


THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976
...
As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.

[Satinavian]

Have never seen the helm in game. But could see some uses for it. Like basically bypassing alignement specific barriers/magic by putting the helm on for a while. Or using it to make the good aligned lich possible.

But overall this item only displayes how broken alignment actually is.

[Segev]

Have never seen the helm in game. But could see some uses for it. Like basically bypassing alignement specific barriers/magic by putting the helm on for a while. Or using it to make the good aligned lich possible.

But overall this item only displayes how broken alignment actually is.

The items are generally one-shot, instantaneous items. You put one on, and if you fail a will save, your alignment is instantaneously switched. It notes that the victim magically likes his new alignment and (as would anybody sincerely holding a set of ethics and morals) is horrified by the notion of switching back.

[Morty]

Observing how the OOTS handles vampires, my guess is that such a helm would spawn an "evil twin" [change alignment as needed] who would then posses the character who donned the helm. Such an "evil twin" would have full memories and might as well be modeled as a xeroxed copy of the character sheet with the alignment changed. The xeroxing is important, as it would effectively be a different character from the original and they would diverge from that moment.

But it would easier not to include such things, especially if you care about free will and player agency (Durkon doesn't have much agency right now).

That would be the only way to cover it that'd make any sort of sense, yes. Of course, at that point, it's no longer "opposite alignment", but "replace the original person with a morally-opposed copy". Not really the same thing. And besides, would a being spontaneously spawned the moment someone puts on the helmet, and compelled to act in a specific way, even have an alignment in any meaningful sense?

[Lord]

That would be the only way to cover it that'd make any sort of sense, yes. Of course, at that point, it's no longer "opposite alignment", but "replace the original person with a morally-opposed copy". Not really the same thing. And besides, would a being spontaneously spawned the moment someone puts on the helmet, and compelled to act in a specific way, even have an alignment in any meaningful sense?

Excellent point Morty. An alignment is by its very nature your ethical and moral standing. If you are just a creature that was created to act in an evil fashion, and indeed have no choice in the matter, then you are an automaton. It doesn't matter how many puppies a robot kicks. If its only following its preprogrammed nature without any real choice, then it cannot be considered evil.

Based on this, I would propose that the helm of opposite alignment transforms someone morally, and does not merely replace them with an evil twin.

[Morty]

Right, except it encounters the same problem. A magical helmet can't change anyone morally. It can magically force them to act in a way that's opposite to their previous morality and personal philosophy. Which won't have any effect on their alignment, not any more than their actions under a Dominate Person spell.

[Hawkstar]

I prefer the "You are aligned with the Outer Planes" version of Alignment. It only affects values insofar as they are aligned with the cultural values of the Outer Planes, and Actions insofar as they affect the objectives of the planes. (Of course, the objectives of the outer planes do have morality/values tied to them. Elysium wants Peace on Earth. Celestia seeks Rule of Law And Justice over the world. The Nine Hells want Domination. Gehenna wants the world to be a place of despair. The Abyss wants the world to be a place of endless chaotic carnage, etc.)

Putting on the helmet is an epiphany, not 'mind control'. Belkar getting a Wisdom Boost early in OotS played the sort of transformation for comedy (And wrong, but it was worth the laugh).

[Segev]

Right, except it encounters the same problem. A magical helmet can't change anyone morally. It can magically force them to act in a way that's opposite to their previous morality and personal philosophy. Which won't have any effect on their alignment, not any more than their actions under a Dominate Person spell.

1) The item explicitly does change their alignment, so regardless of whether they should be "held responsible" for their actions, their alignment is changed according to the rules.

2) The idea is that it fundamentally alters the underlying morals and ethics of the individual. It doesn't compel any behavior at all. It just changes what they value. How they think of other people. What they're willing to give of themselves or take from others.

A man who viewed cruelty as horrific and felt aiding others his highest calling might instead now find cruelty an acceptable tool or even delightful, and scorn his former weakness for others' plights.

The tricky thing about it is defining what is related to alignment and what is not. Is an impulsive person that way because they're Chaotic, or because they think a gung-ho attitude is the way to get things done? Would inverting their alignment to Lawful cause them to become more deliberative and prone to waiting before taking action, or would it merely change their impulses from "whatever seems effective at the time" to "whatever my algorithm based on orderly decision-making processes tells me to do?"

It's highly probable that a Good man would lose his charitable instincts and sympathy for others when he became Evil, but how far from his own personal circle would that extend? He probably could still have his wife be the most important person in the world to him. He'd still give anything for her, and his heart would break if she suffered. But now he would have no trouble weighing a stranger against her; the stranger pays for her happiness, no matter what the cost to that stranger. Even a charity-loving holy man might overtly remain charitable...but now his focus is on how to use this charity for his own aggrandizement. He may or may not start embezzeling, but he certainly will value it more for the adulation of being "charitable" than for the sake of honestly helping the needy.

Likewise, a Lawful Evil knight would not necessarily cease to be loyal to his Lawful Neutral liege lord when he became CG. Sure, he might look with disgust at how he twisted the clear spirit of the law into pretzels while holding to the letter, before. Certainly, he might think that his lord's strictness is a problem; look what it let his formerly-LE self get away with! But there's no reason a CG person can't have loyalty. He's just going to have MORE qualms about some orders, and be EVEN more likely to disobey them while seeking to achieve his lord's primary interest.

[Wardog]

It doesn't matter how many puppies a robot kicks. If its only following its preprogrammed nature without any real choice, then it cannot be considered evil.

What if it's programmed to enjoy it? :smallwink:

[Hawkstar]

Likewise, a Lawful Evil knight would not necessarily cease to be loyal to his Lawful Neutral liege lord when he became CG. Sure, he might look with disgust at how he twisted the clear spirit of the law into pretzels while holding to the letter, before. Certainly, he might think that his lord's strictness is a problem; look what it let his formerly-LE self get away with! But there's no reason a CG person can't have loyalty. He's just going to have MORE qualms about some orders, and be EVEN more likely to disobey them while seeking to achieve his lord's primary interest.

Whether an LE knight loses his loyalty for his lord when going CG depends entirely on where that loyalty comes from. If it's from an actual personal reason (Friend, father figure, etc.), it'll stay intact. But if it's simply from an order-derived sense of duty, it goes out the window.


Right, except it encounters the same problem. A magical helmet can't change anyone morally. It can magically force them to act in a way that's opposite to their previous morality and personal philosophy. Which won't have any effect on their alignment, not any more than their actions under a Dominate Person spell.The helm of Opposite Alignment functions more like Mind Rape, Programmed Amnesia, or the end result of Sanctify The Wicked than Dominate Person, but only affects Alignment (And values associated with alignment), not memory or other personality quirks.

[Segev]

I imagine people being flipped from Good to Evil and from Lawful to Chaotic tend to have a sense of "release." From guilt, from obligation, from any restraints that are not pragmatic. Suddenly, the things they "shouldn't" do aren't obstacles anymore. Going from Lawful to Chaotic, he considers his past self hide-bound and foolishly restricting himself for pointless rules, when all that matters is the intent behind them. Freed from restrictions and prescriptions of HOW he must do things, he becomes more goal-oriented, in his own mind. Going from Good to Evil, he no longer considers "temptations" to be bad things, unless he has pragmatic reason to. No longer does he care that it's "wrong." That's just weak, self-denying claptrap. Only if it has consequences he'll regret is it still something he feels need to hold back from. And then only until he can get away with it consequence-free.

People going from Evil to Good likely also feel it as liberating. Though they experience crushing guilt over what they've done, they suddenly don't see the world as empty of all save tools and potential threats. There is joy in connecting with others, in sharing others' triumphs. And while his old self would have balked at giving aid freely, the newly Good man has discovered a new source of joy in others' happiness.

The man going from Chaotic to Lawful feels it as a sense of clarity, I imagine. Chaos is messy. Directionless. Even with a personal purpose, his old self flailed about and was too incautious. Even if he was not cruel, even if he DID care and WAS good, he now sees that he showed a disregard for unintended consequences by refusing to organize his plans and stick to a well-designed agenda or algorithm. He speaks not of liberation, but of focus and certainty. It is a great comfort to have it, now that he's cast off the childish delusion that irresponsibility was freedom.

[2D8HP]

I imagine people being flipped from.... You had me at "release".

Now where's that helm, cause I'm sold!

:amused:

Seriously, where is it? I need it bad!

[D+1]

The helm of opposite alignment is a roleplaying challenge which a DM presents directly to players - usually when the DM doesn't realize that's what he's doing. The challenge is to suddenly about-face with your character and still have it be fun and interesting for you, as well as fun and interesting to see the results for all the other players and the DM too, and by the way the game should not blow up in everyone's face because a LG PC suddenly turned CE and it ALL went pear-shaped. That's a tall order. It's NOT something that most players are willing to take on out of the blue. It is something being INFLICTED on them without their knowledge or intent. It is something being inflicted BY the DM whether the DM understands and appreciates the consequences of doing so or not.

Not surprisingly EXTRAORDINARILY few players care to take up that roleplaying challenge. They typically feel they have enough on their roleplaying agenda just accomplishing their own goals in acceptable ways. Suddenly being told that those goals almost certainly must change and the way you go about achieving them also radically changes? Fun for all.

You typically get one of two reactions to this kind of monkey-wrench being carelessly tossed into the game. First is for the player to fight the whole affair tooth and nail. They refuse to roleplay the new alignment. They do anything and everything to get their PC back to where they were. DM's typically grouse but players have every right to be annoyed. This item is a "curse" item. It's a "Simon Says..." item. It's a "Gotcha!" item. It comes from a time when a significant part of playing the game meant that "smart" players had their PC's a paranoid as they could possibly be and took EVERY precaution EVERY time and SAID so, EVERY time, IN DETAIL. Failure to do so was the opportunity for the DM to slip in one of those cursed items, watch the PC effectively end their useful adventuring career and gleefully announce, "GOTCHA!" Fun for all. Oh yeah. Well, maybe once upon a time but the approach to RPGs in general has changed quite radically. D&D too.

The other reaction is to admit defeat. Yep. You got me you clever DM. Rather than roleplay the consequences of this to it's fullest, most sensibly disastrous and destructive-to-the-game conclusion, I concede. I will attempt to retain fond memories of my PC before his pointlessly stupid, ignominious removal from play. Let me get my dice and start rolling a new PC. I don't even WANT to continue to play that character because that is NOT the character I wanted. If I HAD wanted that kind of PC I'd have created my PC to BE that kind of character. You cannot FORCE me to play a character that I flat out do not want to play. Besides, if I HAD created that kind of character you'd have REFUSED to allow it because that alignment now so clearly clashes with all the other PC's. WHY in the world would you ACCEPT that character into the game NOW? It is stupid and illogical in the extreme. Just let me have him go disappear into obscurity and create a new PC that won't make all the other players hate me - and then make YOU, the DM, hate me for blowing open your campaign (even if it's YOUR freakin' fault for putting this campaign-destruction bomb in here yourself.)

The one reaction I have never, not even once, heard of happening is for a player to clap their hands together and say, "Oh boy! Just the sort of roleplaying shake-up that this game needed most. Let me see... Who or what do I $#@& with first to demonstrate my characters RADICAL new perspective?" And for the DM to respond, "Yeah! This will be fun for all!"

Helms of Opposite Alignment simply have no place in D&D (or any RPG) that is not being played by players and a DM who are all 100% on board with this kind of roleplaying atomic bomb and any and all consequences of its appearance. As a DM you DO NOT WANT this thing in your campaign - because of precisely what will happen if/when it actually gets used. As a player you don't want to play in a game where this kind of thing shows up out of the blue. The only way your PC could avoid it is to simply never be the first to put on/use any kind of magic item because of the intolerable fallout of being the PC to suck up the curse. Unless you just didn't care for your character in the first place you aren't going to have a whit of interest in playing your character's moral and ethical OPPOSITE (and starting right now). Or at least not at the EXPENSE of your current PC.

So, it doesn't matter much which of the two most common reactions you're going to get from players. You don't want either of them. Leave the helm of opposite alignment (and most of the other "gotcha" cursed items) out. Just say no.

[Millstone85]

If someone played Durkon at a table, I imagine they would now be playing both soul-Durkon and vampire-Durkon, though the DM might play vampire-Durkon as seen by soul-Durkon inside his mind.

A bit confusing but also interesting. And it started with losing a fight, not putting a helmet on.

[Stealth Marmot]

Let me make this clear: I ban these from my game.

There is one simple reason: A DM has the right to have a character attacked, beaten, killed, maimed, hurt, even mind controlled for a time, but the DM does not EVER get to tell a player that "This is the way your character is" or "This is their beliefs, feelings, or reactions".

That is the only thing that the player ever gets to decide and the DM, who has literally everything else, has no right to take that away.

And forcibly changing an alignment does just that, takes the agency of the character away from the player.

This is also one of the reasons I ban the Deck of Many Things (ONE OF, there are many).

[D+1]

This is also one of the reasons I ban the Deck of Many Things (ONE OF, there are many).
DoMT is a different issue. When players have their characters draw cards THEY KNOW - or freakin' well OUGHT to know - that this is blatant life-and-death gambling. It's a Russian Roulette Powerball Lottery. It's actually a choice willingly made BY the player - the Helm of Opposite Alignment effectively never is. I know a few players who may have joked half-seriously about putting on a helm and then wreaking havoc - but again, those are players who are interested in being DISRUPTIVE, not players looking for roleplaying challenges. I have never, ever heard once of a player who willingly had their PC put a helm on because they wanted the roleplaying challenge of dealing with it AND had the DM agree to go along. Being a cursed-item it is instead always a thing that DM's try by hook and crook to get PC's to put on for that supposedly-fun "Gotcha!" moment - but then discover the hard way the appalling and unexpected consequences inflicted on players and their own campaign from that point on.

The deck is a conscious choice by players for their PC's to participate. It IS still an item that too many DM's fail to appreciate the damage it can do and are wholly unprepared to deal with the consequences, but players at least get a choice in the matter. If their PC eats it after drawing the wrong card/cards that's their own fault - even if it was otherwise similarly ill-considered of the DM to put it in the game.

[wumpus]

That would be the only way to cover it that'd make any sort of sense, yes. Of course, at that point, it's no longer "opposite alignment", but "replace the original person with a morally-opposed copy". Not really the same thing. And besides, would a being spontaneously spawned the moment someone puts on the helmet, and compelled to act in a specific way, even have an alignment in any meaningful sense?

I think the basic reason around such systems is that the characters are supposed to have mostly free will, with both responsibility and control of their actions. While things like charm, dominate, and illusion might exist, they don't fundamentally change the character in was like helm of alignment change or vampirism.

And while it might look different on the tabletop, to any [in game] but the "lost soul" victim of the helmet (who are unlikely to be heard from again) it looks the same.

But it is even easier and much to simply not have the thing in the game. While it might be better to tell the player to make a different character (unfortunately with specific characteristics chosen by the gamemaster) it is only barely better than having the gamemaster fundamentally change a character directly. I suspect that such a thing predates roleplaying altogether, and was gradually introduced as the entire concept evolved. I think it would have been better all around to use such an object to realize that alignment was a net detractor to roleplaying, not an asset.

[Pex]

In an old 3E group we found such a helm but kept it locked away. We figured we might need it one day for an NPC. Many levels later my character fails a saving throw and gets his alignment magically changed. During downtime the players remember the helm and use it to fix my character of his affliction. Brilliant!

[Satinavian]

The items are generally one-shot, instantaneous items. You put one on, and if you fail a will save, your alignment is instantaneously switched. It notes that the victim magically likes his new alignment and (as would anybody sincerely holding a set of ethics and morals) is horrified by the notion of switching back.
And, where is the problem with that ?

You still can overcome alignment barriers with just a helm and one "Remove Curse". Sure, the user would not want the curse removed after he puts the helm on, but nothing compels him to not prepare an easy removal beforehand.


And it is even less of a problem to the good lich. "Act of unspeakable evil" ? Bah, just have the helm ready and you can still effortless become good aligned afterwards.




Cursed items only work as intended if people don't know what they do. Otherwise they can be quite a boon.

[Stealth Marmot]

DoMT is a different issue. When players have their characters draw cards THEY KNOW - or freakin' well OUGHT to know - that this is blatant life-and-death gambling. It's a Russian Roulette Powerball Lottery. It's actually a choice willingly made BY the player - the Helm of Opposite Alignment effectively never is. I know a few players who may have joked half-seriously about putting on a helm and then wreaking havoc - but again, those are players who are interested in being DISRUPTIVE, not players looking for roleplaying challenges. I have never, ever heard once of a player who willingly had their PC put a helm on because they wanted the roleplaying challenge of dealing with it AND had the DM agree to go along. Being a cursed-item it is instead always a thing that DM's try by hook and crook to get PC's to put on for that supposedly-fun "Gotcha!" moment - but then discover the hard way the appalling and unexpected consequences inflicted on players and their own campaign from that point on.

The deck is a conscious choice by players for their PC's to participate. It IS still an item that too many DM's fail to appreciate the damage it can do and are wholly unprepared to deal with the consequences, but players at least get a choice in the matter. If their PC eats it after drawing the wrong card/cards that's their own fault - even if it was otherwise similarly ill-considered of the DM to put it in the game.

I agree with this on every level. At least the Deck is technically a CHOICE for the players, but I still ban it because it is essentially not only Russian Roulette for the players, but a good chance the players could actually wreck the entire game.

[Stealth Marmot]

In an old 3E group we found such a helm but kept it locked away. We figured we might need it one day for an NPC. Many levels later my character fails a saving throw and gets his alignment magically changed. During downtime the players remember the helm and use it to fix my character of his affliction. Brilliant!
What the hell did you fail your save against that changed your alignment permanently?

[Pugwampy]

The curse itself is interesting but the item in question sucks . I DM,d a mod where they had such an item . This was not attractive bait in my opinion . Half the classes dont want or cannot wear a metal helmet and technically in DND la la land helmets are part of certain armours like fullplate .

So I changed it from cursed helmet to cursed cloak of Arachnida . Now everyone wanted to be Spiderman ...

[GungHo]

If someone played Durkon at a table, I imagine they would now be playing both soul-Durkon and vampire-Durkon, though the DM might play vampire-Durkon as seen by soul-Durkon inside his mind.

A bit confusing but also interesting. And it started with losing a fight, not putting a helmet on.

It's important to remember that Durkon, while he eventually did break away from the party, did not immediately go nutters. The helm of opposite alignment isn't a helm of berserk rage/confusion. I agree with D+1's assertion that it requires a certain level of consent and careful handling on the part of the players involved, who may not enjoy having their character "messed up" or who may think that they should start running around like Sulu in The Naked Time.

[Malimar]

I like the Helm of Opposite Alignment not for what it can do to players (most of whom are generally not careless enough to be afflicted) but for what it can do in the hands of the players. I'm completely cool with the evil king NPC getting bamboozled by the PCs into putting on a hat that turns him benevolent.

[2D8HP]

I think the grognardiest of Grognards at the Playground made it work:


...When my original D&D paladin had his alignment changed to chaotic (which mostly meant "evil" then), I was rooting for him to eventually be changed back. But in the meantime I played the character as well as I could, including backstabbing PCs and/or stealing their stuff. [It was pretty easy while they still thought he was a paladin.]


=Paladin turned evil]The game was original D&D.

The DM gave some players (not mine) a useless item. It was a Bag of Duplication. If you put something inside it, the bag would make a useless duplicate - food you couldn't eat, money that was clearly counterfeit, magic items that looked like exact duplicates but that didn't work.

The players were killed, but their bodies were recoverable, and I was playing an ex-paladin who had been turned chaotic (evil). But they didn't know it yet.

I recovered the bodies, and all their magic items, and took them to a priest. But I copied all their magic items in the bag, and left them the copies. I took the real items with me.

They never figured out why their magic items no longer worked, but they never suspected me of stealing them, because they knew the items hadn't been stolen

[Segev]

And, where is the problem with that ?Less a "problem" and more just me making sure you plot appropriately with the resource at hand.


You still can overcome alignment barriers with just a helm and one "Remove Curse". Sure, the user would not want the curse removed after he puts the helm on, but nothing compels him to not prepare an easy removal beforehand.Sure. Note, though, that it's easy to remove the helm. The magic is instant; you don't have to keep it on to stay flipped.


And it is even less of a problem to the good lich. "Act of unspeakable evil" ? Bah, just have the helm ready and you can still effortless become good aligned afterwards.Cute! I hadn't thought of that, but I should have. Though it doesn't absolve you of the guilt; who knows what atonement may be required for having willingly done such a thing with nary but a plan to inflict a conscience on yourself afterwards?



Cursed items only work as intended if people don't know what they do. Otherwise they can be quite a boon.Absolutely. Most cursed items have some pretty neat upsides if used right.

The -2 cursed sword's gift of always being there to draw no matter what is amazing.

[Red Fel]

Let me make this clear: I ban these from my game.

There is one simple reason: A DM has the right to have a character attacked, beaten, killed, maimed, hurt, even mind controlled for a time, but the DM does not EVER get to tell a player that "This is the way your character is" or "This is their beliefs, feelings, or reactions".

That is the only thing that the player ever gets to decide and the DM, who has literally everything else, has no right to take that away.

And forcibly changing an alignment does just that, takes the agency of the character away from the player.

Agree in part, disagree in part.

I agree that a HoOA, like a DoMT, is a major game-disrupting item, prone to abuse at best and calamity at worst, and for that reason wouldn't include it in a game. But I disagree that it genuinely takes agency away from the player. Oh, it does in part, but not completely.

Let me explain what I mean by "in part." It changes the character's alignment, which is a facet of the character. A facet, mind you, not the defining aspect of the character; significant, but not determinative. (Exception: If the character has abilities or class features that are alignment-dependent, in which case, you are history's greatest monster.)

But it doesn't change who your character is as a person. Part of the reason it took me so long to respond to this thread is that I've discussed the topic previously, and was trying to find the thread where I had done so. Found it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307809-Help-Being-Evil). In that thread, the OP's Barbarian had gone from CG to LE thanks to a DoMT. The focus of my posts in the thread (which can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16174270&postcount=3), here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16174664&postcount=9), here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16181385&postcount=31), and here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16186009&postcount=40), since I don't want to copy-paste the quotes) was that the alignment change doesn't change who the character is, but rather how they approach and look at the world. In a sense, it affords the player an opportunity to play the same character but in a dramatically different scenario.

Again, the change is made without the player's permission, and that's not good. It would be better if the players had at least, to some degree, agreed to allow forced alignment-change mechanics in advance. Springing that on the PCs is just dirty pool. But it's not automatically a bad thing. It's an opportunity to give depth to a character.

[Stealth Marmot]

Again, the change is made without the player's permission, and that's not good. It would be better if the players had at least, to some degree, agreed to allow forced alignment-change mechanics in advance. Springing that on the PCs is just dirty pool. But it's not automatically a bad thing. It's an opportunity to give depth to a character.

I agree that it won't change everything about the character, but for many players, if not most, alignment is considered a cornerstone of their character. It affects how they view the world, how they act, how they approach obstacles, how they feel.

It might be fun for an exercise, (IF the player consents) but players care deeply for their characters, and like I said, there is not a lot about a character that a player can truly own without the DM EXCEPT how that character feels, acts and approaches obstacles.

Respect is important to me, specifically the respect between players and DM, and a DM willfully screwing around with the character's fundamental makeup (even if it only PARTIALLY changes the character) is disrespectful to the player. To me, it is as major an insult as swapping out a players wizard levels for rogue and saying "You're playing this now and you like it." Even if all the other aspects of the character stay the same (race, gender, personality, alignment) it still messes the player up unfairly.

Sure, alignment might not be AS key to a character as class, but the alignment is shifted to its exact OPPOSITE. That is a major change, especially if you have one of the four corner alignments.

[Red Fel]

I agree that it won't change everything about the character, but for many players, if not most, alignment is considered a cornerstone of their character. It affects how they view the world, how they act, how they approach obstacles, how they feel.

*SNIP*

Sure, alignment might not be AS key to a character as class, but the alignment is shifted to its exact OPPOSITE. That is a major change, especially if you have one of the four corner alignments.

Okay, now, here I have to diverge. Yes, if you're playing, say, a Paladin, your alignment is a major, defining aspect of who you are. But if you aren't, and alignment is that definitive, I would argue that you do your character a disservice. Let me clarify, and this time I will raise a quote:


But coming back to the OP, the point - as now several people (myself included) have made - is that there is no single way to play an alignment. Alignment is a description, a single facet of a character, like eye color, handedness, appreciation of cats or lack thereof, alcohol tolerance, and capacity for karaoke. And just like there is no single way to play a blue-eyed, left-handed, cat-hating Dwarf who enjoys performing the works of Barry Manilow for an inebriated audience, there is no single way to play LE, or CE, or LG, or any of the other far less interesting alignments.

It's like, you're trying to put me in a box, man, with your labels, man. You can't put me in a box, man. I'm not part of your system.

Yes. Alignment has an impact on your character. And not one as small as hair color; a significant one. But if you let alignment define your character, that's not great, either.

A character is a person. Alignment is simply how that person interacts with the world. In some ways, whether and why a character loves puppies is more defining of that character than those two letters. How he reacts to parents, his own or those of others, is more defining. How he feels about thunderstorms. These are details that shape a character as a person.

Alignment influences how they perceive the world, but in some ways, it's mostly mechanical. It may foreclose or narrow some character options, but to allow it to be so determinative is to miss out on the richness a character can have despite alignment, rather than because of it.

[Segev]

One thing to remember is that a common suggestion is to view alignment as descriptive, rather than prescriptive. You don't help orphans and widows because you're a good person; you are a good person because you help orphans and widows. You don't kill prisoners when they become inconvenient because you're evil; you're evil because you kill prisoners when they become inconvenient. You don't obey your Order's instructions and creed because you're Lawful; you are Lawful because you obey your Order's instructions and creed.

With this in mind, a Helm of Opposite Alignment at first seems counter-intuitive. If alignment isn't prescriptive, how can the Helm change it?

The Helm changes your nature in such a way that you are now inclined to perform acts which would make you the opposite alignment you once were. It doesn't make you Good, so you can't kill prisoners. It makes you feel guilty about killing prisoners for no good reason, and so you are a good person.

It doesn't make you disobey your Order's instructions and break their creed by turning you Chaotic. It makes you cease to care about your Order's instructions and creed beyond the direct consequences to yourself and others of breaking them, and so you are going to act in ways that make you Chaotic.



So when you are hit with this curse, don't ask, "What must I do now?" Instead, look at what it is you do that makes you be the alignment you are pre-curse, and think of what a person just like you, but with opposite or lack of morals and ethics would do in the same situations. The Knight who would never break his Order's creed now sees how much suffering his slavish adherence to it has caused when he could have solved a problem simply by ignoring it in some cases. (Suffering to himself, if he's now N or E, if nothing else.)

He may, if (for example) he's gone from LE to CG, still see his LN Order's creed as having merit; after all, holding to it also sometimes prevented him from doing his evil will. Things he would have been guilty over, now that he's Good. But where before he'd look to twist the rules to his advantage, now he'll heed them ONLY when they serve the purpose of helping and protecting others. And even at that, he heeds them "in spirit" only. He might do exactly what they require sometimes - being free of rules means you aren't trapped into deliberately avoiding them, either - but only when he thinks they're the best way to do something.

What makes your character his alignment? You aren't changing his goals, necessarily. Nor his attachments. Merely his means towards and motives behind them. Figure out what it is - lines he will not cross, means he is willing to use, selfish or selflessness - that actually causes you to say he is the alignment he was. Those are the things to pervert, twist, and invert.

[2D8HP]

While the "Helm" is imaginary magic, external influences can cause dramatic changes to "internal" personality (see Phineas Gage (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)).

I notice that how good/evil/lawful/outlaw I am can change quite a bit based on traffic, how much caffeine that I've injested, how many bodies lying on the sidewalk I've had to step over to get to work, did I work in the jail, autopsy room or just offices that day, etc.

[Morty]

I think the basic reason around such systems is that the characters are supposed to have mostly free will, with both responsibility and control of their actions. While things like charm, dominate, and illusion might exist, they don't fundamentally change the character in was like helm of alignment change or vampirism.

And while it might look different on the tabletop, to any [in game] but the "lost soul" victim of the helmet (who are unlikely to be heard from again) it looks the same.

But it is even easier and much to simply not have the thing in the game. While it might be better to tell the player to make a different character (unfortunately with specific characteristics chosen by the gamemaster) it is only barely better than having the gamemaster fundamentally change a character directly. I suspect that such a thing predates roleplaying altogether, and was gradually introduced as the entire concept evolved. I think it would have been better all around to use such an object to realize that alignment was a net detractor to roleplaying, not an asset.

I'm not sure if there's no room for something like that. A curse that forces someone to act in a way that opposes their previous beliefs has its place. But it probably is better of not codified as a cursed item, yes. This is a part of 3e's unfortunate tendency to have a spell or magic item for absolutely everything. And using it on a player character is a very risky business that might work, but only if the player agrees to it beforehand... which, again, means it's better off as a one-time thing, rather than an entry in the DMG.

One way or the other, though, there's no use bringing alignment into it.

[Stealth Marmot]

Okay, now, here I have to diverge. Yes, if you're playing, say, a Paladin, your alignment is a major, defining aspect of who you are. But if you aren't, and alignment is that definitive, I would argue that you do your character a disservice. Let me clarify, and this time I will raise a quote:

*snip*

We will have to agree to disagree (after all I consider myself CG, but probably am just N, and you appear to be LE :smallwink:).

I think Alignment is an important enough aspect of the Pathfinder/3.5 world that it is something that a player can and does turn back to when deciding characters actions and feelings. Over time people have increasingly de-emphasized alignment (for good reason) but I think changing it inherently changes how the character is played, to a high enough degree that it will potentially ruin the player's intent.

That does not include the situations where a class has alignment requirements, or they are playing a cleric who will end up pretty much altering deities on the spot.

That said, that's my opinion, and why I ban them in MY game. I suggest against it for everyone else, and argue against it, but I would never call a game invalid or stupid because of it.

[Pex]

What the hell did you fail your save against that changed your alignment permanently?

Mind Rape

Nasty spell.

[Stealth Marmot]

Mind Rape

Nasty spell.

I don't like judging an entire campaign on 2 words, but I'm going to.

Would not play.

[Red Fel]

I don't like judging an entire campaign on 2 words, but I'm going to.

Would not play.

Going to agree with this. I may be half-and-half on the HoOA, but Mind Rape is strictly agency-robbing. It is a "save or lose this character forever" spell. A DM who whips this spell out, nine times out of ten, is basically going for the nuclear option, and I wouldn't want any part in that game.

[Stealth Marmot]

Going to agree with this. I may be half-and-half on the HoOA, but Mind Rape is strictly agency-robbing. It is a "save or lose this character forever" spell. A DM who whips this spell out, nine times out of ten, is basically going for the nuclear option, and I wouldn't want any part in that game.

You know, i actually thought that it was a custom spell made by his DM, I just based the fact that a DM used a spell named "Mind Rape" to change an alignment was enough. Then I looked it up, turns out it's from the Book of Vile Darkness.

This fact doesn't change my stance a bit, but it makes me a bit disgusted with WotC for even creating that spell and publishing it.

[Segev]

You know, i actually thought that it was a custom spell made by his DM, I just based the fact that a DM used a spell named "Mind Rape" to change an alignment was enough. Then I looked it up, turns out it's from the Book of Vile Darkness.

This fact doesn't change my stance a bit, but it makes me a bit disgusted with WotC for even creating that spell and publishing it.
To be fair, WotC was, themselves, highly uncomfortable with the BoVD. They were simultaneously trying too hard and holding back too much, and it wound up being a bit of a mess. They couldn't bring themselves to go full-on VILE Evil, but tried to push themselves in some ways.

To be honest, despite the name, mind rape is not that horrific compared to some other things. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying it's in any way good, moral, or what not. But from the standpoint of a game which already includes dominate monster and charm monster, it's just a step up from them in terms of mind control. Mind rape at its core is just a powerful compulsion effect that makes the victim WANT to behave the way they're compelled to.

It's just horrific from a gameplay standpoint because it rips away agency from the player in a permanent sense, unless the player is cool with the altered mindset and goals (and basically potentially playing a different person with the same build, but that person is dictated by the caster of the spell).

IRL, of course, it'd be horrific for all the reasons you are likely thinking right now. But so would dominate person and modify memory. And even, in the wrong hands, charm person.

[Stealth Marmot]

Deleted post, don't want to get off subject.

[Red Fel]

IRL, of course, it'd be horrific for all the reasons you are likely thinking right now. But so would dominate person and modify memory. And even, in the wrong hands, charm person.

Oh, the only reason I was thinking was that it strips the player's agency absolutely, which is just a massive overstep by a DM.

Why? Is there another reason it's horrifying to lose your free will?

[Segev]

Oh, the only reason I was thinking was that it strips the player's agency absolutely, which is just a massive overstep by a DM.

Why? Is there another reason it's horrifying to lose your free will?

It's always horrifying to lose one's own free will. Whether one cares about others'... probably depends on whether the new will is in alignment with your own.

This is why I prefer mindless minions. No arguments. Intelligent ones can get uppity, even when they know you've got the upper hand and ability to enslave their will should they revolt. I usually send those on suicide missions shortly after replacing them, so their replacements can see the consequences.

[Pex]

I don't like judging an entire campaign on 2 words, but I'm going to.

Would not play.


Going to agree with this. I may be half-and-half on the HoOA, but Mind Rape is strictly agency-robbing. It is a "save or lose this character forever" spell. A DM who whips this spell out, nine times out of ten, is basically going for the nuclear option, and I wouldn't want any part in that game.

You weren't there. I was with that group for 12 years before real life finally disbanded it. This happened in year 9. We already had the cure.

[Stealth Marmot]

You weren't there. I was with that group for 12 years before real life finally disbanded it. This happened in year 9. We already had the cure.

Sorry if it sounded like we were being unduly judgemental on the campaign as a whole, but were even a trusted DM to pull that on one of my characters, even temporarily, I would have serious concerns. If it was from a DM I wasn't too familiar with, I would bow out at the end of session.

Clearly in your case the concern would have been unwarranted, but actions like that are red flags for me because I have experienced DMs willing to mess with campaign ruining or character ruining things without concern for their players.

[Red Fel]

You weren't there. I was with that group for 12 years before real life finally disbanded it. This happened in year 9. We already had the cure.

I did say "nine times out of ten." Party has the cure, or player and DM had a specific conversation on this topic previously, or even players trust DM implicitly to make this awesome, would all fall within that tenth case.

I've had precisely one DM whom I would trust to use that spell. I doubt he ever would, but if he did, I think it would fall into that tenth case. In my time with him, however, he never did.

[icefractal]

It is a "save or lose this character forever" spell.Well, forever unless your allies can muster a Miracle/Wish on you. Although yeah, if the caster is really going for it they can make "hide from your former allies" your immediate priority.

Edit: Sort of ninja'd