I know that most consider mind control evil, but is mind crush or 'get rid of the evil part' more acceptable?

I know that most consider mind control evil, but is mind crush or 'get rid of the evil part' more acceptable?

In DnD terms, change an evil alignment into neutral.

>in D&D terms
I'm D&D terms, you have objective Good and Evil, so it's fine. In literally any other setting though, it's pretty fucking evil by most measures as you're simply removing what YOU consider evil i.e. any element you find objectionable. It shouldn't be too hard to think of ways this ends poorly.

Forcing someone to behave a certain way isn't being true to that alignment. Making someone act good doesn't make them good, any more than mind controlling a good person to perform evil deeds doesn't make them a bad person.

If you could allow someone to objectively examine themselves, and if they decided they wanted to become a better person, that's good.

Lobotomizing someone, even in the name of good, is evil.

If some Lawful Evil dictator lobotomizes good people to make them obey the dictator's orders, is that Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic?

Still, Kaiba for example got better after Yugi sent his inner darkness to the Shadow Realm.

And doesnt this guy look like a total sweetheart?

It's an evil thing to do, it fundamentally changes someone from who they were, it's one or two steps shy of murder imo (Theyre no longer who they were).
Efficient at times, makes for the grounds of a great dystopian arc in a story, but I still consider it an evil act.

>Lobotomizing someone, even in the name of good, is evil.
Why? Is it better to just kill them or imprison them forever? Assuming that they're never going to become better on their own, why not force rehabilitation?

It's a simple matter of free will. To enforce rehabilitation and alter that will deviates the meaning of "freedom".

But inprisonment or execution don't? You have an odd definition of freedom, friend.

Personal freedom, physicality is a concept.