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.

>'get rid of the evil part'
Mind alteration? No, that's worse. because it's a more permanent mind control.

Execution also removes personal freedom, in a very permanent way. I suppose you could argue that it's better to be locked in a cell but with a free mind than free with a locked mind, but it's definitely an argument.

What about locking someone's ability to perform evil actions? E.g., they can want to all they want, but their body is incapable of acting on that impulse.

>Lawful Evil dictator
Are dictators Lawful? By definition they're not bound by Law, and a system where all decisions come down to leader's whims doesn't seem the least bit Lawful.

A better example of Lawful Evil would be a faceless, oppressive bureaucracy, and mind control fits that to a t.

What's the difference between forced "rehabilitation" and just killing them outright?

Dictators still tend to seek to put the world in some form of order, with themselves on top. Laws are for the lesser folk: the dictator himself need not concern himself with them, for he knows better.

They're generally as Lawful Evil as things go.

You leave as much of them intact as you can. Best case scenario, they're almost the same person. Worst case scenario, you get a new person rather than leaving their body to rot.

Usually there is a strict law system with a rule that dictator's will can override it. It's still lawful, because it's clearly defined what are the rules and in wich curcimstance and by who they can be overriden or redefined.

In DnD it is explicitly not evil. In fact there's a 9th level spell in book of exalted deeds that specifically forcibly redeems a creature and will even work on demons. In a setting where good and evil aren't explicitly defined, then it really depends on interpretation, but likely any target that could justifiably be smited to death would probably be justifiably forcibly redeemed.

You create a new being that is a benefit to society when you force rehabilitation. Sure sucks as much for the person who's personality dead as if they were reals dead, but fuck em, if they're enough of a danger they're worth killing, they're scum enough that I don't care if I'm exploiting their body for the good of the world.

A lawful dictator would rule a lawful kingdom, a chaotic dictator would rule a chaotic kingdom. Could really go either way.

Chaotic dictators tend to be more of the mad king types, where they make decisions based on their whims. Your classic lawful evil dictator is the type of person who sets out oppressive rules clearly so everyone knows them, and inflicts brutal punishments on whose who disobey. Nevertheless, the rules are set, and most of the time even they will begrudgingly obey them lest other people feel empowered to disobey.

>Why?
Because I said so.

Well I said no.

In this case though, it's just removing one aspect.

And people change every day, throughout all their lives, parts of them grow and others dissapear or are abandoned?moved on from. Not even the change of one thing If forced has to be permanent. Yugi didn't make Kaiba completely different, he was still a huge prick. He just stopped being a fucking máfia Boss that sent people to beat up the elderly

In p5 the Phantom thieves only really remove super warped desires

Things can go back or never return. The mind is fluid like water, só in the context it's less of mind Control and more of a directed temporary deviation that may ir may not be undone later naturaly, depending on the person.


Then again, Atem was literally an evil merciless fucker until he mellowed out by the end of DK and start of battle city.

I just don't see much benefit in it. Bullet and shallow grave or cremation should cost much less than "rhabilitation".

Maybe in case of some new colony or distant land where you have a shortage of working hands it can be beneficial.

>In fact there's a 9th level spell in book of exalted deeds that specifically forcibly redeems a creature and will even work on demons.
I want this.

So if you see a villain who was been turned into a good guy, who wants to stay a good guy, would you return him to evil because it's his true self?

I personally would feel pity for him.

You would pity him for having turned into a good guy who is also much happier than he was before?

It's not worth it in the strict economic sense. It's only worth it if you believe it's morally better than the bullet and grave approach.

Although there's also situations where it is economically better as well. Let's say we live in a world where souls exist. Good souls go to heaven, evil souls go to hell, the usual. Now let's add demons and other hellspawn as a threat. Kill an evil person, you've just added to the horde. Forcibly converting them to good means you've at least kept them out of the fight, and possibly made an ally. Sure you can argue about the ethics of it, but it's easier to argue ethics when an imp isn't chewing on your kneecap.

Too bad.

Yes.

That's weird user.

If I was a good guy and then discovered that I was once a murderer megalomaniac, you can bet I would be thankful about not being a psycho anymore.

According to the book Clockwork orange, you can't get rid of the evil within a person without killiing some of the good in it too.
In D&D terms? Yeah, why not? Lets mind rape evil doers, but good rape, not bad rape.

>Making someone act good doesn't make them good,
technically it doesn't force them to act good, it changes their nature such that they are good, and then they act differently as a result of this.

not sure if id classify it as lobotomizing either. definitely in a moral grey area, unless it was used as part of the justice system for known criminals.

that being said, it has no real world equivalent which is so well defined, and so discussion on that grounds is a moot point

>clockwork orange
The ending of the book sucks and you should only watch the movie

for you

Clockwork Orange was more creating an aversion to violence, but the problem is that violence is sometimes needed (like when he got beaten).

Evil however is completely dispensable, since protecting yourself or others (self defense) is good.

Aversion to violence AND classical music