What are some good-aligned uses for a Love Potion?

>contributing to a mental illness is a good act.

Fantasy marriage counseling was probably a pretty easy job.

She's already genderswapped. The good act is making her accept it.

No the good act would be reversing it.

>how can using will altering magic potion be considered good thing ?

it can't

Make a succubus fall in love with a good aligned character like cleric or paladin, therefore paving the way for her redeemption.

>2016
>still caring about alignments

I figure "Have you tried love potion? Have you tried girdle of goolieflipping?" are the fantasy marriage counseling equivalent of "Have you checked that it is plugged in? Have you tried rebooting it?" in our tech support, solving 90% of cases.

Too tricky. That's end goal of an adventure tier stuff. For a commoner or low-level character, acceptance is better.

Are spells that give people courage evil then?

To lay the dragon

You can get one in PF for 2250 gp.

A potion to reverse the effect, that is.

>you are aware this thing will kill you
>common sense tells you to leave
>bard casts a spell to make you fight it anyway
Yes.

>Implying any commoner will ever own more than 10 gp

How many peasants who earn a couple of coppers a week will ever see one though?

There's no Good way of using a love potion as intended because mind control is bad. Come on, Dingus.

"Love" potions in the Dresden-verse only reduce inhibitions. Much like the noise that is their base. Although you do raise a good point, did the potion Susan drank in in the first novel affect how she felt for Harry?

>Dresden

Stop coming up with retarded questions just in order to justify your constant spamming of some shitty dA OC waifu, you pathetic motherfucker.

Dresden files.

>as intended

Poisons are made with the intention to kill, but many have found more benign purposes as life-saving disinfectants or insecticides.

The good act is to smite the evil creature to be quite honest.

>evil creature
What's evil about being a curse victim?

Being genderbent and made to fall in love with a guy isn't evil.

uuuuh make evil deathknightnazis feel love so they wont do their bissniss?

Ask a vampire or werewolf.

Depends on your definition of good. I mean you might be able to use it to get the leaders of two warring countries to fall in love with each other, ending the war and saving countless lives, but you would still be subverting their will.

Curing Postpartum Depression.

Assuming love potions create platonic love.

If they only make romantic love, its only use is as a non-lethal weapon, and only as a last resort.

Assuming they did not seek out to become one it is still not "good" to kill them. It can be justifiable "necessary evil" to put them down, but the "good" solution of the problem would be to decurse them.

Where I'm from, we call neccesary evils "good".

Otherwise, it's unfair to the people who have to commit them. Not everyone gets to be the ones who feed starving kittens.

How many peasants are genderswapped?

Is there anything that that writer doesn't manage to butcher? He's like a lore-rapist.

>butcher
kek

Take it straight to the dome and feel the love, maaaannnn.

I don't know but I'm getting kind of upset that Peace Talks keeps getting delayed. And to be fair, the first few books were Jim getting the setting fleshed out, seeing what works and what doesn't, and who hasn't tweaked a setting mid game.

If all involved parties have consented to the use of the love potion, then its use is a neutral act at worst. Why would it be used? Maybe two people are in a loveless relationship. Maybe they realize they'd be perfect for each other but there's no spark. Maybe they want to stay together for their children. Maybe it's an arranged marriage. Who cares? The important thing is they're not harming anyone but themselves, and they've chosen to inflict any such harm on themselves. So what's the problem?

Defiance of the divine will of the God/Goddess of Love.

Whatever is spawned from the unsanctioned union will likely be the next fantasy Hitler.

Me. It was my own fault. Never be rude to an adventurer, especially not one with a caster in the party.

God/desses of love are usually depicted as terrible people anyway. Capricious, random, care less for compatibility, long-term stability, and happiness than their own whimsy. I'm happy ending their tyranny.

Voldemort?

Suddenly, a lot makes sense.

There are none, you mewling wretch. Love is the greatest sin.

Using it on yourself to help bring happiness to your arranged political marriage

If the drinker and the soon-to-be-beloved both consent to it, it's certainly non-Evil. If that occurs as part of some overall Good action, then I'd say it's a Good use. For example, actors who intend to earn money for charity through their performance want to be more convincing.

hitler was the product of a single mother household though

sorry meant for

Means are neither good or evil.
It's the ends you use them for.

Source on this? I think I like it

The Redeemer (of Necromunda)

>Where I'm from, we justify anything we like by saying that we're right.
So like everywhere else, then?

What an incredibly disingenuous argument, thanks for reminding me that this is Veeky Forums. Insecticides and anti-bacterials are poisons being used EXACTLY as intended, just in low enough doses that they aren't also killing the humans using them. If your setting has love potions that coincidentally also cure acne if applied topically, that's great, but don't compare 'niche curious side effect' to 'exact same effect on a smaller scale'. You're an idiot, user.

Give it to two people who already like each other and want to be in a relationship.

Love potions themselves are neutral at best and evil at worst. The forcibly manipulate someone's feelings is pretty anti-good, unless manipulating those emotions somehow causes a greater good to occur, somehow saving lives and the like.

That's not true at all!

Diluting it among the drinks of every participant in a peace accord, so that each person will feel a hearty respect or grudging admiration for their former foes, as well as a willingness to make concessions that won't screw one country over more than the other.

magical realm aside, forcing a straight dude to fuck other dudes wouldn't be good aligned, even if he's currently anatomically compromised.

Manipulating emotions is kind of inherent in mammals, though. I guess that's different from purposefully doing it with a potion. I mean, that takes forethought and planning and shit.

There are laws of magic?

Causing a chain of events that allows Chronenburg Rick and Morty to find a good home.

Making a young red dragon fall in love with an adult gold.

You mean it would never be Lawful, but it could be Good.

Isn't that like the first step that leads to the apocalypse or something?

Magically depriving someone of their free will is not a Good action, user.

It totally is if the being in question is an extraplanar Evil creature. They're irredeemably Evil and they're also made of Evil. Slaying or neutralizing them will always be Good. The method of execution doesn't matter because there is no rational reason to be merciful to Devils and Demons. No one is obligated to spare pure Evil any form of suffering. All that matters is that Evil was smote.

Putting a Helm of Opposite Alignment on a demon is no worse than cutting it down with your sword. It's arguably better as it leaves a Good being in its wake.

Making a homosexual man or woman fall in love with a person of the opposite sex, thus curing him or her of his or hers mental illness.

Only if they're both male.

That happens in real life though with closet cases. They end up loving their spouse but aren't really attracted to them.

So it is just the name of a drink?

>Otherwise, it's unfair
Fuck you. It's exactly fair, and people who don't have the fortitude to accept the harm they do shouldn't be talking about "necessary evils". If you're unwilling to face the reality of your actions, if you have to pretend they weren't REALLY bad in order to sleep at night, then you are, by definition, unqualified to judge them.

If you've gotta kill somebody to make the world a better place, then by all means do it, but don't take pride in the killing, and don't pretend you can ignore what you did because you had a reason for it. Too many people have hard-ons for making "tough choices", and too few for decency.

More of a neutral use then a good use

If some cute guy is into you and you want to love them back but you are too jaded to feel anything

It sounds like you just want to make those hard choices even harder for some reason.

Give it to people who hate themselves irrationally.

Better to just cripple and imprison them, yeah?

Fuck you captcha, eating my image

Political sabotage and blackmail to dethrone a corrupt individual in power. That royal that kept crowing on and on about human supremacy and how other races need to be slaughtered to the last? A few sips of love potion and the next thing you know the party "happens" to stumble upon them going to town on a hobgoblin, and wouldn't you know it? They happened to be dragging along a few of the guards with mentions of how they saw a hobgoblin creeping into the castle earlier.

Love potions are very rarely used by Good chemists, usually for the sake of breaking Anime Protagonist Density Syndrome or restoring emotions to those who have psychological issues.

Sure. I want them to actually be hard choices instead of "Muh greater good means I don't need to feel guilt". You're responsible for all the consequences of your actions, not just the ones you wanted. It's impossible to be perfectly good under that standard, obviously, but that doesn't make it acceptable to quit trying or to define your way out of any wrongdoing.

Not really sure where you're going with this. There are cases where one or the other is the more humane option - probably, I'd have asked Ozai which he'd prefer. But I like that Aang stood by his principles, there, even if I don't share them. And I also like that he didn't buy the argument that necessity has anything to do with morality.

"Greater Good" isn't actually the intended purpose behind committing "necessary evils." That's simply a "ends justify the means" ideology.

A "neccesary" evil is one that cannot be done without. It's not optional. It's not something that ends up being slightly more good than bad in the grand scheme of things, it's something that needs to be done because the cost of not doing it would be disastrous.
Someone has to do it.

Why should anyone feel guilt for doing what needs to be done?

>Why should anyone feel guilt for doing what needs to be done?

Because they still did it. Whatever harm it caused that force people to rationalize it as necessary was still done. You might not need to worry about whether or not you're a "bad person" or whatever, but you still owe sympathy and your best efforts at making amends to people who were hurt by your actions. My point is that necessity isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for morality. It's just a valid reason why people might do bad things.

>no midsummer's night dream

That's irrational guilt at that point. If you are feeling bad because circumstances made performing a superficially "bad" thing a necessity, you didn't really have any control over being forced to make that "decision."

If the choice is between "what must be done" and "not doing what must be done", that's hardly a decision to feel guilty about if you choose the former. It's nice to go through the motions and to feel that irrational guilt, since it's much better for someone to feel guilty when they shouldn't than to not feel guilty when they should, but there's no real need to try and conjure up some misattributed guilt just for the sake of feeling sympathy towards people who were hurt. You should feel that sympathy regardless of how irrationally guilty you might feel.

>any of that feyfuckery
>good-aligned

>If the choice is between "what must be done" and "not doing what must be done"

Okay, but my argument is that "what must be done" could be "bombing a village with some innocent people in it", and I think that's something you should feel guilt over even if it really was necessary. It's just that you shouldn't let that guilt stop you. Presumably, the guilt of failure to act would be greater still. Sometimes life sucks and you get put in an impossible situation like that, but you can't get rid of that problem by defining it away, any more than the redefinition of a planet destroyed Pluto.

The correct response to somebody saying, "You killed my family!" isn't "It was necessary, therefore it was a good act." It's "I'm sorry that was necessary." And, to be clear, the post I was responding to originally did literally say that it was good to commit a necessary evil.

Or, the short version - if you're going to judge people for their deeds, do that. If something's evil, and somebody does it, then that person did something evil, even if they ALSO did something good or necessary.

>Evil wizard visits prosperous kingdom
>Wizard curses the king and queen to never feel love for each other again
>Good alchemist dispatches evil wizard (somehow)
>Hears of the curse put on the king and queen
>makes two love potions for the two
>King and queen love each other again

Granted, this is a farfetched scenario. I would use love potions as the most extreme form of marriage counseling.

Repopulating a country ravaged by war or plague.

I always picture Redeemer having Blackadder's voice.

Apologies should not given out so lightly, especially formal ones.

If you were forced to kill someone's family, you are sorry that it had to be done, and not that you did it. The key distinction is that your action is blameless, and any reparations would formally come at the cost of those who pushed the situation to where it became a necessity. Anything from your own coffers would be charity.

Performing a necessary evil is good. It is necessary. The evil part is a bit of a misnomer, an unfortunate add-on to distinguish the act from all the other necessary actions a good person might have to do.

That's not going to work, lack of love isn't why the population is low, war and plague is. Deal with the war and plague and the population will fix itself, otherwise you just have thousands of loving couples with babies killed by the plague

Well, if your setting has good-alignment, then it has evil-alignment. Presumably.

And if it has evil-alignment, then it has characters and actions which are inarguably evil. Presumably.

So, a good use for a love potion would be to prevent an evil character from taking an evil action that they otherwise would. Something like drugging up the demons so you can set them up for an ambush, rather than letting them sacrifice a town full of children.

Beyond that rather contrived situation, not really. Fucking over someone's head and taking over their choices is a pretty non-good action, overall.