A heretical cleric of the Goddess of Beauty is collecting artifacts in order to cast a unique spell that will alter the...

Don't worry, your appearance won't be changed at all.

On the one hand, it would make life so much easier. On the other, being a tusked hulk with a noble heart won't be so easy.
Guess I'll still aid.
Do-goodin' ain't easy.
GUYS, I FOUND US SOME DINNER

I'm entirely okay with this.

It's not adding anything to anything though. It's completely removing one thing for another.

I mean, I'd remain perfectly average in all aspects, maybe with better hair, so, go for it?

Yes, but only because anyone fundamentally changing the nature of society and the universe and enforcing their ideals onto, literally, everybody regardless of their desires is undesirable.

The same logic that would be applied to any other "The Ends Justify the Means" type of actions; unrelated people are going to suffer in the societal resettling and you're responsible for their deaths.

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

>Goddess of Beauty
>Cestree
Pick one

...

Stone-cold

The goddess of love in the setting my most recent character is in is dedicated to inner beauty as well.
So she'd be totally down with this. Gonna help the shit out of her.

For her own sake and for the sake of the world, it's best to stop her.

People already put to much stake on appearance, but it ultimately being of marginal importance is what's best.

Appearance would become the single most important attribute of a person. It would define who they are, and immediately innitiate a caste system. Beautiful people would only want to interact and suppport other beautiful people, while ugly people would comisserate and collude together.

Very likely, it would end up with an eternal war, not unlike that between elves and orcs.

Pick the side that makes my pockets bigger and my tavern nights longer

Whose virtues are we going to be judged by?

Why would the most beautiful people, who under this new system are also the most virtuous, only help each other? That's not a very virtuous thing to do. The ugly people colluding to overthrow and destroy them would totally happen though.

You have to go back.

Beauty already correlates positively with all the desirable character traits.

Or it does IRL, anyway, your fantasy setting might be different.

Self preservation. Also, Justice is a virtue, and in just about any dispute most people would side with a pretty, and thus virtuous, person.

Go back where? I'm a "white" Trump voter.

>That's not a very virtuous thing to do

What's non-virtuous about choosing who you spend time with and do business with?

You know where.

Don't bully Cestree.

In my experience, outward appearance does indeed reflect their inner virtues.
So, I'm going to oppose her

Why? If you think outward appearance reflects inner virtue then nothing should change.

What are you afraid of user?

And thus the Morlocks and the Eloi were invented.

Because I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I know the absolute truth.
I consider the possibility that I could be wrong

Probably neither, but he will be somewhat hopeful she succeeds. He is currently starting to get doubts that what he's doing is right, and that sounds like a good answer.

Likely the ones outlined and used in D&D as part of their "objective" allignment system.

They're specifically designed to be as broad and inoffensive as possible, and are mostly built around common sense like "stealing and cheating is more bad than good" and stuff like the Golden Rule. It's actually less strict and definitely more vague and fluid than many people imagine it to be.

Stealing from one to give to another is not net neutral; it's net negative.
The virtue or lack thereof of a victim is not a valid defense for crime.
ergo
Stealing beauty from people to redistribute to the "worthy" is evil.

This isn't even touching that in the resulting chaos of such a change there would be incalculable human suffering as ugly or average tradesmen lose their work, urchins are denied alms for their appearance, the newly attractive are made targets as scapegoats of the wretched, and myriad other incidents.

That's not how it works. Nobody's attractiveness is 'stolen' or 'given to another'. You're changed to reflect what you are on the inside.

>stealing and cheating is more bad than good"
>It's actually less strict and definitely more vague and fluid than many people imagine it to be.

So were going to be judged by libertarians? Ill have to oppose this.

>The same logic that would be applied to any other "The Ends Justify the Means" type of actions; unrelated people are going to suffer in the societal resettling and you're responsible for their deaths.
If you apply that reasoning, any new inventions should result in a death penalty. Society changes all the time, and whatever you do, a lot of people are going to suffer for it. The only way to avoid responsibility is to ensure that the society remains as static as possible.

If one person becomes beautiful while another becomes ugly, they stole it. Doesn't matter what really happened, we're talking about the minds of a whole lot of scared, angry people who were changed for reasons they don't understand, and you've geared it so the people most likely to completely lose their shit over it are also the people most harshly affected. Lynch mobs would be everywhere.

That doesn't make any sense. So you're stopping her because you don't want to know the truth?

Utterly pedantic and your interpretation doesn't even sidestep the actual injury incurred by theft, the loss of valued property.

>Destruction of property of one and unrelated gift of coincidentally related property to another is not net neutral; it's net negative

Nope, you're just a retard.

The efficiency gains in the market from being able to spot good and bad actors at a glance constitute a net gain. A large one.

You wouldn't even need anti-fraud measures anymore.

Samefag

An interesting aside: if successful, this plan would create a world in which killing children with birth defects was the morally correct thing to do. After all, if they were good they wouldn't have been born wrong.

Side note: how do scars work now? If a good person gets doused in acid, do they become evil to reflect their disfigurement, or do good people simply heal better than ugly people, giving them an objective health benefit over the ugly. Puckered scars and weeping sores aren't beautiful, after all.

...

I’m with this poster. Changing the rules of reality is the kind of thing that gets the attention of deities. Given the scale, expect champions to be hunting you down, and maybe even an avatar.

yay, you can edit screencaps!

>timestamps

Their scars end up somehow making them MORE attractive.

>this plan would create a world in which killing children with birth defects was the morally correct thing to do

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Did you read any of it, or did you just see the end and post without thinking?

How the fuck is a baby a "good" or "bad" person yet?

I read your whole post, it didn't make you come across as any less psychotic.

I would obviously aid her, being in positions of power is somewhat dependant upon your appearance and at least pretending to be virtuous

>implying that was my post

In any case, kys moralfag

Grow a thicker skin before you post on my board please

Because if they were inherently good, they'd be cute.

Wouldn't babies, being basically of animal intelligence, by considered of the scale like in DnD terms?
I wonder if this would exempt them and leave them with their "default" beauty until gaining sentience or if they just come out like default average looking.

I will most certainly aid her. Good people do not deserve to judged for having an ugly appearance and beauty is just another tool for an evil person to manipulate others.

I would aid her because virtue should be rewarded, cruelty punished.

I would oppose her - if people assume that beauty always equates to goodness, then a simple glamour (or fleshcrafting, or a mere mundane disguise) can cause people to assume that someone is good simply because they are beautiful.

And that's assuming that the spell uses some objective, universally agreed-upon measure of both beauty and virtue.

>if people assume that beauty always equates to goodness, then a simple glamour (or fleshcrafting, or a mere mundane disguise) can cause people to assume that someone is good simply because they are beautiful.
Ehhh... user, sorry to burst your bubble but that already happens.

It happens to some extent, obviously, but it's limited by people's experiences with mean or just plain shallow people who happen to be attractive.
If every virtuous person was innately attractive, then someone who used an attrativeness spell would be actively assumed to be Good until everyone either noticed they were using it or doubted them enough to assume there's a subtle effect at play - and people tend not to challenge preexisting beliefs unless something big makes them change their mind.

Simply put, it turns "is she a good person or not" into "is she hiding her true appearance or not" - and the latter is a lot simpler to conceal than the former.

My faces when trans people aid her in droves, only to be made beautiful-as the gender they were assigned at birth.

What if the spell mentioned in OP's post makes it so that beauty-changing, be it magical or otherwise, is simply impossible or cannot be maintained for more than 5 minutes?

>It happens to some extent, obviously, but it's limited by people's experiences with mean or just plain shallow people who happen to be attractive.
Actually we are biologically made to be wary of ugly people, which is reflected upon our views as well. This is why we are more likely to believe someone ugly is a criminal, why villains are ugly and heroes beautiful. This is justified because ugly features are usually a show of poor quality genetics which are bad for our offspring.

am i ugly and likely to become beautiful, or beautiful and likely to become ugly, and if i become ugly is it just human ugly or could i actually transform into a demonic looking mother fucker?
Because that's really going to affect my choice here.

>checked
Well, assuming you're not one of those male feminists that rapes everything anyways.

Not OP, but it would be fun if good people became Elves and bad people became Orcs.

Instead of being divided between fantasy races we would be divided between clear good and evil.

I'd help her. Fuck the clergy, this is a much better system if only because it makes it easier to avoid and shun douchebags. Also it'd make life hell for roasties, that's a reward in and of itself.

we are not worthy of the bants you have given unto us.

>while ugly people would comisserate and collude together.
sounds like modern day society to be honest. At least under this new system we could tell who the good people were...

what about make up though?

Up until the ugly people succeed in redefining standards of beauty.

sounds exactly like modern society to be honest.

Probably aid if I'm virtuous. Probably stop her if I'm playing a dick.

kek

Wellthen their looks would just change

Its not virtuous at all. There's nothing wrong with it but you're not a good person for making ugly people live worse because you don't want to share.

>If one person becomes beautiful while another becomes ugly, they stole it.
But your beuty was not property and it wasn't moved to my ownership. I simply became more beautiful than you because you're a shitty person.

Clearly, all babies would born beutiful to reflect their innocence until they develop a personality and scars and disfiguration would be very cool or magically good looking. Of course that onloy happens to good hearted people, who'll naturally want to help everyone around them, by giving them courses on how to be a better person and therefor, more beutiful.

In fact, the world would be a lot simpler as bad people who abuse power and might would be revolting while everyone knows the good, honest and actually caring guy is by his beauty.

>you're not a good person for making ugly people live worse because you don't want to share.
People not sharing things with you doesn't make your life worse, because your life was already shitty. People don't harm you by don't want anything to do with you. What makes your life worse is you not producing the things that you actually need and hoping that someone else give them to you.

I try to stop her on the premise that "inner beauty" is a vague concept only used by ugly people.

>What makes your life worse is you not producing the things that you actually need and hoping that someone else give them to you.
...so being part of a society and not some hermit in the woods?

Bitch wants to make a world where virtue is rewarded.

But making people live a worse off life because of their looks is, a virtuous person would not allow a society where ugly people, no matter how justified and good they believe themselves, as a good person doesn't make any illusions of their worth.

Also making excuses for shitty behavior and calling a different type of assholery good.

But she's only rewarding it in the most vain way possible. It would also create a situation where vanity is rewarded in an extreme way, probably causing some sort of wacky downward spiral where everyone is ugly

If I'm a mild-mannered, genuinely kindhearted and outwardly polite person, but have a secret, burning hatred almost everyone I know for the superficial, hedonistic way they live their lives, what happens to me? Either way, I'm still going for it.

That is assuming that people who aren't good for goodness sake would become beutiful.

The whole thing would be that the majority of human beings would become ugly while people who sacrifice free time and all to the betterment of others or holds no vices would be a rare sight.

You are fully free to integrate society, produce and sell your goods. Your clients however will be mostly other orc looking people which you have a high chance of being scammed.

Nobody is making them live a worse life. If I said that I don't care about you, that isn't making your life worse.

A person that is good by definition wouldn't judge by vain appearance.

They would have however the objective certainty that you are ugly by your own foul deeds, thus you aren't being judged superficially and exactly by what you really are.

>You are fully free to integrate society, produce and sell your goods.
Or in other words, "not produce the things that you actually need and hope someone else will give them to you"

Somewhere along this chain of discussion you all forgot that the premise was that in the New World Order the ugly people would be ugly because they had done something to deserve it or were inherently evil, or at least devoid of good.
Under most morality system good, virtuous people have no obligation do do good unto evildoers. They might very well see it as more just and virtuous to make them dwell in a purgatory of their own making until they pulled themselves out of it by their own good deeds and willingness to improve.

No I'm assuming good for goodness sake has one less leg to stand on in this world where everyone wears a measure of how "good" they are on their face. You aren't really doing good if you know how things will turn out, your just acting in your own long term interest

Warn her that this is only gonna turn humanity into horrifying beings simply because of how subjective beauty is, both inwards and outwards.

Like it's only gonna result in Saya no Uta shit mark my words.