Character kidnaps people who are in death row

Lawful what?

>lynch mob breaks into death row
>lynches all the people on it
>moral or immoral?

Your answer should be the same, unless, I suppose, you're a utilitarian. And if you're a utilitarian, you're lawful evil anyway.

>Possess advance neurosurgery that could potentially correct deep-rooted neurological problems
>Use it to make zombies instead
Gee, I wonder.

He doesn't want to rob people of their free will. The reason he uses it on the death row inmates is sort like an alternative death penalty. Do you want electrocution, lethal injection, or be turned into a crime fighting zombie.

...

>free will
bruh

Does he kidnap them or offer them a choice?

Flat out kidnapping. Doesn't want to risk his identity getting out there.
Hell could be a good explanation for why he isn't selling his tech either. People can trace that shit.

When it comes time for them to be executed they are turned into a zombie instead. If you want to make it seem less evil you could give the inmate a choice but I think it works better as a moral grey area if they are just turned.
They are about to be killed anyway this just makes use of their resources.

Death row is not for the sake of the inmates but of the victims and their loved ones. You rob them of their justice.

Not that I think the death penalty is a good idea. Judges lawyers and cops mess up because their still human and because of that your good tonrisk toasting the innocent everytime you stiff someone.

Ideally you'd have the prisoners in some sort of remote primarily self sustaining farm commune.

I figured it would be as if the execution went through but instead of actually being killed they get knocked out and then turned into a zombie. So the victims still get their justice but instead of just tossing another body into the ground you get the chance to do a little good. If you use them as masked heros then chances are nobody would ever even need to know.

>The concept of good and evil are only in DnD

Isn't this just the plot of Suicide Squad?

Yes but with no-name crooks losing free will and metaphorically becoming Crook Seeking Missiles.

Evil.

Let's cover one thing first: The death penalty itself is evil. It might be the law of the land, and in some cases an arguable necessity (but even then, wildly debatable), but it's evil.

But beyond that, you're not killing them. You're inflicting a cruel punishment on them in place of death. Even if you've destroyed their abilities to see themselves as a person, they are still a living being with things like an ability to feel pain.

Then there are ideas such as dignity. Those condemned to die, or those who are already dead, deserve some dignity in their deaths. Making them into your flesh puppets denies them a dignity, and is a final injustice to them.

And finally, there is a simple argument from practicality. If technology has reached a point where you can remote control a human being, that probably means that things like drones exist. So rather than using living human being who you have to subject to cruel procedures, why not just machines? It's got much less of a risk factor (don't need to break the law to acquire units), easier upkeep (replace parts and scavenge destroyed units), potentially to be partially automated, and best of all: You could probably go legit with a service like this right out the gate.

Basically, not only evil, but evil AND impractical. The worst kind of evil.

>using alignments

How is a paladin delivering the death penalty good but anything else evil?

What's good and evil is decided by society, and in the one posed criminals are sentenced to death. This is a good act, because eliminating evil is good.

>How is a paladin delivering the death penalty good
It's not.

Also, morality is not mere consensus. Mobs of people can be motivated to do evil things. This is how things like lynch mobs happens - a society with evil morals acts collectively to kill someone.

>You're inflicting a cruel punishment on them in place of death.
Does it really matter when they can't experience it anyway? So I guess it depends on just how much sapience they have left.
>Then there are ideas such as dignity.
Have you heard the phrase "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? If the zombies are effective at saving people it can make up for the wrong inflicted on arguably just that person. I doubt that Mchostage pants really cares about who saves his life from the "Insert comic book villain here". And as said, costumes.
>And finally, there is a simple argument from practicality
To be fair, if you use robots then you'll get called out as "that robot guy." With zombies you don't have to worry as much, because if it goes down people will have a harder time tracking you down or even being suspicious that it was being controlled remotely to begin with. You really don't want the wrong people knocking at your door basically.

If it doesn't matter what you do to an individual because you're doing something for the collective, why go through all this run around of death row convicts? Really you're just asking if death row means you still count as a human victim, and they do. You can't murder somebody on death row and claim it wouldn't matter, so you can't fucking kidnap and zombify them without breaking moral code. That you could do it to the dead bodies only makes it worse, because now you're doing it out of convenience, not good will.

>It's not.
It's not like life in prison is any better.
Either slow torture or a quick death.

>why go through all this run around of death row convicts?
Well who else are you going to make into a zombie?
>and they do
Yes and they're also the least bad option to zombify because they were going to die anyway and already did some pretty bad shit to get on DR in the first place. So if you have to zombify them because you can't get a reliable source that won't backstab you or just can't afford the drugs, it's more arguable.
>out of convenience, not good will
When trying to save the innocent, you kinda want to be convenient.

I'm not saying any of this ISN'T breaking moral code, I'm just saying it breaks it the least. Or second least at least.

>The death penalty itself is evil.
Not true.
>they are still a living being with things like an ability to feel pain
That's a very low bar. There's no inherent property of nociceptors which renders their activation an evil act. If you meant "ability to suffer from pain", that's up for question depending on how OP's brainchip actually works.
>Making them into your flesh puppets denies them a dignity
The dead aren't able to care about what happens to their corpses, and in fact I'd argue contrariwise that the propagation of the idea that corpses deserve "dignity" is at best wasteful; maybe evil; but certainly never good.

What if the society is an oppressive fascist police state and the "Death Row" inmates are actually innocent political prisoners?

That's a pretty damn big "what if."

It's a reasonable genre convention given the mad scientist superhero gimmick we have established.

But the OP didn't say anything about it. For all we know this can be his Batman OC.

That makes it even more plausible then.

Ok but would Mr Brainchip even know about that?

He apparently can smuggle them out of government execution chambers.
Dude is pretty much Doctor Hugo Strange already at this point.

Doesn't mean he would know if they are innocent or guilty, just that he's good at smuggling.

He has brainchip technology, he can probably scan their brains before he lobotomizes or murders them and turns them into human puppets?

Face it, this guy is your textbook supervillian mad scientist.

Controlling someone by putting a chip in them doesn't equal being able to brain scan somebodies memories.

From a genre convention it's in the same category, all you'd need to do is draw a panel with the guy on the table and the wires coming from his head into the computer and the screen showing some scenes from his life. Or just hand wave it, he's a brain surgeon in a cyberpunk game, he rolls Superscience INT +15 to do it or whatever game this is.

What is it with you and genre conventions?

To be fair people break out of Arkham so fucking often that they might as well not even lock the doors.

We use them to validate and contextualize hypothetical ideas for RPGs and other artwork.

So for instance about the brainchip guy, you don't think, "Why doesn't he use his magic battleaxe to kill the criminals?" Why not? So instead I ask why can't a supervillain brain surgeon installing brainchips into human victims not have brain scanning technology.

Probably because it's not exactly the same thing, controlling motor functions is different.
I guess he could have brain scanning tech in the sense of "alright what problems does this guy have". But memories are probably going to be a bit of a different issue all together.
But hell I'm not a brain surgeon so I'd really have no idea.

It would be up to the writer to decide what arbitrary limitations there are to the brain override microchips. Heck, while we're at it if you really want this guy to not ping as evil, just have the microchips have no lasting effect if they are disabled, instead of needing to braindamage his victims. Or drop the death row inmates thing, have him take willing volunteers like Jason Bourne

>instead of being punished they get to stay outside on do shit

brain chips aren't fucking real, they can sca a brain if they want to
they have literally no limits

Fair enough.
What would his villain name even be anyway? Brain man? Dr Revive?

Given he wants to hide his identity at all costs probably some generic bullshit like "The Puppeteer"

>He doesn't want to rob people of their free will so he just robs them of their free will :^)

Alright.

Evil, without a doubt.

But they're dead user. It's still punishment
.Dead and were going to be dead anyway.

That doesn't exclude him from being a hypocrite.

Why do ya gotta make this into some transworld depravity shit? It's really simple.
If you're committing an evil act, you have committed an evil act. If you have committed a good act, alongside, before, after, or as party of an evil act, you have committed a good act as well. How the acts of a man are weighed in determining his overall character is entirely subjective and not worth arguing.

He probably only gives a damn about innocent people. As soon as the judge bangs his hammer and points to the guillotine, your not innocent anymore.

>What's good and evil is decided by society
ohwaityoureseriousletmelaughevenharder.webm