Is Domination Evil?

[Camarath]

Free will should as sacrosanct as life - dominating another sentient being so that he does what you think is "Good" is truly evil.

I do not believe that "free will" should be valued as highly as you are suggesting.

 

[Liolel]

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?

First thing first in my mind domination is never good but sometimes neutral and all the rest of the time evil. It also should be avoided usually.

1. This I have to say depends. If you force them to tell you the secret entrance to the lair of the bbeg who's trying to destroy the world then its not good but not evil. However if you are trying to get blackmail information on the target it is evil.

2. My opinion on this is it's not good or evil. What you do with the dominated person afterwards determines the alignment. If you then send them to other badguys to say they betrayed the organization its evil, however if you let them go for there help and know they won't cause more trouble its neural.

3. This I would say is always evil, the only reason I didn't say dominate is always evil is it has a limited duration. Permanently enslaving a mind thats unwilling is always evil. Sometimes the ends can't justify the means

4. This is neutral as long as you tried other options like diplomacy or even bribery first. Basically its neutral if you try to avoid it in this situation and evil otherwise.

5. This is like number 4 except the slant towards evil is much more slippery slope. It will become an evil act very quickly.

6. This I say is always evil, taking control of a mind is a hideous act when done without good reason.

7. Extremely evil. See my reply to 3 for the reasons.

I am not looking to get into a debate so if you disagree with these posts I'll just accept that you have your own opinion and not try to defend myself, but I will also not change my thinking unless you had posted some really convincing arguments.

 

[Nightfall]

According to Chardunites, domination is the name of the game folks!

 

[Hardhead]

Thanks for the responses everyone, they're very interesting (and about what I'd expect). Let me ask a bit more cut-and-dry question to go along with it. Would you say that the psionic power Thrall is always evil? It's like a Domination except it can't be dispelled and never ends (duration is Instantaneous). If ordered to take actions against their nature, the subject gets a new save with a -10 (!) penalty. Even if they pass, they don't break the Thrall, they just don't ever have to preform that action.

 

[Privateer]

What I find contradictory in the arguements here is arguing that while domination takes away someone's free will, killing them apparently doesn't. At least with domination you have the chance to break free of the spell and resume your life; with death, well, living is harder (not impossible in a D&D world, with undead and raising, but harder). I certainly know I can't excercise any will at all while decomposing.

Also, I believe temporary domination is far better than torture. You get the information either way, but in one you hurt someone horribly and in the other you don't.

Permanent domination is tricky. In my opinion, having an ogre wail on his compatriots is no more or less evil than just disintegrating the whole lot -- it has the same net outcome, but through a different method. Keeping the ogre with you for months and breaking its will is a subject that should be addressed on a case-by-case basis for evil.

Why are enchantments which don't cause physical pain normally thought of as more evil than flaying the skin off of your opponents? I'd probably rather lack free will and have the chance to return to my original state than to have the moisture sucked from my flesh or my bones rended from my body. YMMV, of course.

 

[Gez]

Difference between domination and death:

Death don't especially harm your soul. Domination enslave it for the duration of the spell (and thrall, for your whole life).

If you die, your soul goes to wherever it's supposed to go, unless weird stuff happen (like you are sacrificed to a fiend that reaves your soul, or you become undead, etc.).

Generally, soul is considered more important than life, for the soul is immortal while the body is temporary.

 

[Ferret]

One and two are a grey area for me, unless it is vital.

Three, six and seven fall into my evilness column on the basis that all apart from six can be done with create undead (with similiar effects) and that is evil; six is evil, take the example of making someone look a fool in a village, or making them, make you breakfast: Its and invasion of privacy.

Four and five can be justified, but should only be used when no other alternitive is possible.

 

[Gothmog]

In my opinion and the campaigns I run, mental domination is similar to rape in that it involves one individual forcing his will upon another. In many societies in my games, if a wizard or priest mentally dominates another person, they are likely to face the death penalty if they are caught. There is never a good reason for rape, and there is never a good reason for domination. If you need info from a captured enemy and are dead set on using spells, use Detect Thoughts, Mind Read, ESP, or some other ability. Just because the target is evil doesn't make it ok to do whatever you want to them- esp for a good character.

 

[Particle_Man]

Formians use Dominate a lot, and they are all LN. So it can't be that evil, and likely isn't chaotic at all. More lawful than anything else (subsume the other's will to the "good" of the whole).

That said, CG PC's would see Dominate as evil, while LG PC's might see it as appropriate at times.

Holding an evil individual as a Thrall forced to do good deeds seems like an appropriate "punishment" for his misdeeds, and I could see a psionic society going for it. Although, Thrall is pretty high level and costs EP, so it isn't going to be used on everyone.

So I guess I see Dominate as (Lawful) Neutral. It really depends on what you do with it. So 1-4 ok and not evil, 6-7 probably wrong, maybe even evil. 5 I am on the fence about. A paladin probably shouldn't do 5. I'd say it depends on the exact situation.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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?

1. 
   
   These are as good an act as they would be if you used other means to accomplish the same goal. This is morally superior to torture, as torture leaves longer-lasting effects on both body and mind.
   
   

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

   
   This is slavery. Probably lawful, but definitely evil.
   
   

   [*]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)?
   [*]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?

   
   In the first instance, this is essentially commandeering the item in an emergency. If you've made every effort to persuade him to give up the item willingly, this is better than killing him to take it. If you return the item immediately afterwards or appropriately compensate him for its loss, it's an acceptable good action.
   
   Dominating him to get information is just a more direct approach than Detect Thoughts. Not very nice, but acceptable if it's important. Dominating him to get goods you "need", when it's not a life-or-death situation, is theft-- more specifically, magical armed robbery. Returning the item to the NPC makes it less evil, and would require a Paladin to make a sincere effort at recompensation and an atonement.
   
   Donating stolen goods to a cause is not a good action.
   
   

   [*]When you dominate a non-evil person for some trivial reason, but the consequence doesn't really hurt the subject, either?
   [*]When you keep a non-evil person dominated for a very extended period of time?

The first is a very mildly evil act.

The second is slavery, and the fact that the target is non-evil makes it even more evil than when you were enslaving the evil target.