Is Domination Evil?

You know, there should be some sort of "ethics" or "alignment" icon as often as it comes up.

When is Domination evil?

1. When you dominate an evil opponent, and force them to tell you everything they know?
2. When you dominate an evil opponent, and force them to help you fight his companions?
3. When you dominate a evil opponent, and just keep him dominated forever, helping the forces of good (or at least not-evil)?
4. When you dominate a non-evil person for an extremely good reason (for example, you need X item to save a town from a dragon, but the person that has it won't give it to you for some reason)?
5. When you dominate a non-evil person because you need something he has, be it information or goods, and it *will* go to a good cause, but it's not a life-or-death situation?
6. When you dominate a non-evil person for some trivial reason, but the consequence doesn't really hurt the subject, either?
7. When you keep a non-evil person dominated for a very extended period of time?

We've had this discussion a lot in my group, as one of the players is a Psion Telepath with the Lesser Domination power. I'm just curious as to what others think.

Hardhead said:

You know, there should be some sort of "ethics" or "alignment" icon as often as it comes up.

When is Domination evil?


We've had this discussion a lot in my group, as one of the players is a Psion Telepath with the Lesser Domination power. I'm just curious as to what others think.

Click to expand...

As opposed to, say, just <i>disintegrating</i> the target?

tarchon said:

As opposed to, say, just <i>disintegrating</i> the target?

Click to expand...

I hate it when people don't read all of a post before responding. Notice that not all the items I mentioned involve evil people being the target of the Domination. In fact, most of the examples don't.

The following comments are not based on my personal value judgements, just on how most people seem to play the game.

1. Dominating an evil person is not evil.
2. Dominating a non-evil person is evil.
3. Dominating any person to take their possessions is evil (and less than subtle).

Item 1 is based on the general observation that you can do whatever you want to evil people. Slice 'em, dice 'em, dominate 'em. Makes no difference.

Item 2. is based on the general observation that while killing is seldom evil, enslaving others is always evil. And domination is a form of short-term slavery. It's even more powerful than slavery in a sense, since the slave can be forced to do something against his will if he fails his will save, while a regular slave can refuse to do it, choosing punishment or death for his disobediance.

Item 3. is based on the general observation that while killing is seldom evil, stealing is often evil. The degree of 'evilness' depending on the value of the item stolen and the alignment of the victim.

To my mind, dominating any sapient being - whether evil or not - is only permissable in a life-and-death situation for good people. And even then, it's their duty to end the domination as soon as possible.

Domination is one of the worst possible violation of one's mind - and thus should only be inflicted on someone when all other possibilities have been exhausted.


Ultimately, I think chaotics are more likely to use domination - "the end justifies the means" and all that - while lawfuls will search long and hard for any alternative to it. But whether you are lawful or chaotic, as long as you are good you should see domination as one of the very last resorts.

Hardhead said:

You know, there should be some sort of "ethics" or "alignment" icon as often as it comes up.

When is Domination evil?

1. When you dominate an evil opponent, and force them to tell you everything they know?
2. When you dominate an evil opponent, and force them to help you fight his companions?
3. When you dominate a evil opponent, and just keep him dominated forever, helping the forces of good (or at least not-evil)?
4. When you dominate a non-evil person for an extremely good reason (for example, you need X item to save a town from a dragon, but the person that has it won't give it to you for some reason)?
5. When you dominate a non-evil person because you need something he has, be it information or goods, and it *will* go to a good cause, but it's not a life-or-death situation?
6. When you dominate a non-evil person for some trivial reason, but the consequence doesn't really hurt the subject, either?
7. When you keep a non-evil person dominated for a very extended period of time?

We've had this discussion a lot in my group, as one of the players is a Psion Telepath with the Lesser Domination power. I'm just curious as to what others think.

Click to expand...

Few actions are good or evil, in and of themselves. The most common example is killing another human being. Circumstances matter. Of course, even with this caveat, removing another sentient being's will is pretty close (IMHO) to inherently evil. My personal view is that domination is on a level with torture - it may be truly necessary on rare occasions, but it should never be acceptable. It's simply too easy to abuse and the emotional scars to the victim too deep.

1. The victim's alignment is unimportant - the question is "Why do you want the information"? If you want it so you can break into his home, steal all his possessions, kill his family, and otherwise make a nuisance of yourself, well...No. If, on the other hand, he has information concerning a plot to assassinate the king, and other methods don't work, he may be fair game. Think of it as using drugs to facilitate interrogation - they shouldn't be used in most cases, but a few rare cases might be justified.

2. This is trickier - I suppose in a truly desperate case it could be justified, but consider the flip side: what if an opponent dominated you and made you fight your friends? I suspect you would most certainly consider that evil. Even if your opponent was simply a "grunt" in an opposing army, doing his job fighting for his country, how would you feel about being forced to attack and kill your comrades? I can't see this one being acceptable.

3. NOPE, NOPE, NOPE. Free will should as sacrosanct as life - dominating another sentient being so that he does what you think is "Good" is truly evil. First, it assumes the dominating being is infallible and omniscient. Second, even so, it simply turns a sentient being into a robot (or golem). Evil.

4. See the answer to question 1. Even so, other means should be tried first.

5. Sorry, but the fact that someone "needs" something someone has doesn't justify taking it, whether through threats, torture, domination, or whatever.

6. But can the consequences be trivial to the victim? Nope, not allowed.

7. See answer 3.

Keep in mind that my answers tend to focus on how domination would be viewed in the real world. In a particular game world, morality could be very different. And if I were playing a board game (not role-playing), I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to use all my units' abilities.

Hardhead said:

When is Domination evil?t

Click to expand...

IMO using Domination is not in and of itself evil. IMO Domination is only evil if it is used to preform or force another to preform an evil act.

Jürgen Hubert said:

Ultimately, I think chaotics are more likely to use domination - "the end justifies the means" and all that - while lawfuls will search long and hard for any alternative to it. But whether you are lawful or chaotic, as long as you are good you should see domination as one of the very last resorts.

Click to expand...

Heading out in a minute or two, but popping in for one quick reply that I might elaborate on later.

Anyway, I see it as just the opposite.

A Chaotic individual will, for the most part, have a greater respect for free will and personal choice. A greater respect for the individual. The further one gets from good, the more it becomes "MY free will" as opposed to just a general respect for others, but that idea still seems inherent to the Chaotic mindset.

A Lawful individual, on the other hand, has a greater sense of hierarchy, conformity, and sacrificing the individual for the good of the many. As such, I'd see them caring much less about dominating someone. There's a stronger sense of authority, domination and submission, that exists in the lawful mindset, in my mind. Less of a care for the individual.

Furthermore, I don't find the ends justify the means merely a Chaotic act. To a lawful individuals mind, they accept that the few many suffer for the benefit of the many, which is definitely a matter of the ends justifying the means.

Hardhead said:

You know, there should be some sort of "ethics" or "alignment" icon as often as it comes up.

When is Domination evil?

1. When you dominate an evil opponent, and force them to tell you everything they know?

Click to expand...

1. 
   No, but torturing for information would be. Wouldn't this kind of basically be the same as reading their mind without their permission.
   

   Hardhead said:

   [*]When you dominate an evil opponent, and force them to help you fight his companions?

   Click to expand...

   This situation is a little trickier. This is something that an evil person would do and I can think of a ton of ways this is evil and a ton of ways this is not. i.e. Evil wizard using a device summons a demon. Good party dominates henchman and has him destroy artifact, thus banishing the demon, no problem. Dominating an ogre and having him wipeout the band of orcs he's with, then you are treading on thin ice.
   

   Hardhead said:

   [*]When you dominate a evil opponent, and just keep him dominated forever, helping the forces of good (or at least not-evil)?

   Click to expand...

   Hmmm.... this is not real reform, this is robbing the evil opponent of choice. Something that I think the good would greatly value. This is not something that I would view as justice but as slavery. Let justice be served whether that is prison or death.
   

   Hardhead said:

   [*]When you dominate a non-evil person for an extremely good reason (for example, you need X item to save a town from a dragon, but the person that has it won't give it to you for some reason)?

   Click to expand...

   Here you are basically asking if the ends justify the means. You should read the Book of Vile Darkness for some examples of this. I look at evil in degrees. The first time or two, slight shift toward evil. Repeated uses makes the user a bully. Let's say the non-evil person is neutral. He doesn't care about that village or the dragon, but now you are forcing him to cooperate. There's that force thing. Good doesn't force people to do anything. Good also doesn't just sit back and let evil have free reign either.
   

   Hardhead said:

   [*]When you dominate a non-evil person because you need something he has, be it information or goods, and it *will* go to a good cause, but it's not a life-or-death situation?

   Click to expand...

   This is no different than an evil person dominating a good person for his own ends. This in my mind is clearly evil. You can't just throw dominations around for convenience sake. Let's dominate Uncle scrooge and have him donate his entire fortune to my church. It's going for a good cause. Ends almost never justify the means, that path leads to tyranny.
   

   Hardhead said:

   [*]When you dominate a non-evil person for some trivial reason, but the consequence doesn't really hurt the subject, either?

   Click to expand...

   Evil, you are stealing his ability to chose, to be his/her own being.
   

   Hardhead said:

   [*]When you keep a non-evil person dominated for a very extended period of time?

   Click to expand...

   Evil, you are stealing his ability to chose, to be his/her own being.

Hardhead said:

We've had this discussion a lot in my group, as one of the players is a Psion Telepath with the Lesser Domination power. I'm just curious as to what others think.

Click to expand...

While "Evil, you are stealing his ability to chose, to be his/her own being." can be used for all of the examples above, I hope that by drawing some paralells, you see that there is some gray area that does make this statement not apply.

Ultimately, I think chaotics are more likely to use domination - "the end justifies the means" and all that - while lawfuls will search long and hard for any alternative to it. But whether you are lawful or chaotic, as long as you are good you should see domination as one of the very last resorts.

Click to expand...

Funny, one can argue the reverse, saying that chaotics are more concerned with freedom.

(However, freedom of others is a concern of chaotic good people. Chaotic evil are rather for a form of jungle's-law anarchy.)



Judging when domination is evil is more complicated than what silentspace said was the consensus. I don't think one could provide clear specific rules for when it is evil, unless merely by saying "always" and putting the [Evil] descriptor.

My points would be:

• When the target is made to act contrarily to its will. (Not merely against, but contrarily.)
• When the target is made to perform an evil act.
• When the domination is made gratuitously.
• When the domination is extended longer than needed. (Through additional castings, for example, even if out of fear of the revenge of the freed target.)
• When the character intend to kill the target once its "task" is done -- or if said task is suicide.