D&D (2024) Playtest 8: Cantrips

[Bill Zebub]

Somebody should really write in to the Ethicist column at the New York Times and get their opinion about raising the dead.

 

[Azzy]

Somebody should really write in to the Ethicist column at the New York Times and get their opinion about raising the dead.

It would be absolutely hilarious were someone to actually do that as a lark.

 

[mellored]

Somebody should really write in to the Ethicist column at the New York Times and get their opinion about raising the dead.

Too bad we just missed getting it published on Halloween.

 

[Remathilis]

I dragged you into this?

OK then. If you think I have that power over you (whichever "you" I am talking to) when I don't, then I guess I will use that power to drag you right back out of this. Adios!

Martial mind control!

 

[Stalker0]

If Murder was the absolute worst thing that could happen to someone, we could not have a conception of "A Fate worse than Death" and that's a whole trope-page by itself.

I also think its an interesting thought experiment even in today's world in which most of systems of justice consider murder the "highest crime".

However, with the power of misinformation today, it is quite possible to spread a falsehood so impactful that it makes the death of a single individual look downright quaint. At what point does a lie become worse than murder?.... its a modern legal introspective.

 

[Horwath]

I also think its an interesting thought experiment even in today's world in which most of systems of justice consider murder the "highest crime".

However, with the power of misinformation today, it is quite possible to spread a falsehood so impactful that it makes the death of a single individual look downright quaint. At what point does a lie become worse than murder?.... its a modern legal introspective.

Political corruption is worse than a single murder IMHO.

I.E.
if public healthcare suffers because of stealing from the treasury(not getting high-end diagnostic or life support machines) that can cause hundreds or even thousands of deaths per year.

 

[Ashrym]

Wow, this thread went off topic since the last time I looked at it. I'm not going to go into a lot of posts on the topic but wanted to point a few things out.

The first thing I want to address is the irony of not using trigger or content warnings and spoilers given some of the comments that have come up. In a discussion about harm we should be more careful not to accidentally harm people who might be reading those comments. Just sayin'.

Good and evil are not the correct terms to be using in this discussion. Those words come with a lot of baggage even if the game has used those terms. The conversation has moved on to forms of violence in the game and justifying those forms of violence. For example, we were talking about the friends cantrip and charm person and those spells specifically target a person that they see the caster as "friendly". Using magic to change someone's attitude is a form of violence that can cause that person to make a decision that person would not have otherwise made. This is specific to what consent is and is not.

Consent is not valid if obtained through force, threat of force, fraud, ignorance, or from an altered state of mind (such as the aforementioned drugs). IE consent is voluntary and informed. A character who is using friends or charm person is committing an act of violence by impacting the target's ability to make decisions through magic regardless of the mechanics to resolve when applying persuasion checks. Persuasion on it's own is the ability of character to make a convincing case. Persuasion on a charmed target has also altered that target's attitude which changes to what that target might agree to do.

A character doesn't need magic for this to be true. Intimidation and deception are also forms of violence.

This does not mean enchantment is necessarily wrong either. Spells like sleep or calm emotions are also a form of violence and are used to avoid more severe forms of violence, as are other enchantment spells. Using enchantments to avoid escalated violence is not a bad thing. We should be asking ourselves what the intent is behind using that magic on those targets and the how and who benefits from the results. There's a big difference between using enchantment magic to exploit innocent people and humanely dealing with bullies.

Enchantments are a strong tool for removing the autonomy of those targets but that doesn't mean the same principles do not apply to other spells. We would still ask who benefits and how when we look at the intent when we examine those scenarios.

Someone mentioned illusions earlier. Yes, illusions can also fall into that category depending on how they are used. Enchantments fall under force or an altered state of mind in this discussion and illusion falls under fraud or ignorance depending on the context of those illusions. We are directly impacting a target's ability to make decisions. The character would be inflicting violence that directly impacts making an informed decision because the target is not informed of the reality of the situation.

The example given for zombies and skeletons helping the economy that was given earlier is an interesting topic. When a character animates a corpse and creates a zombie or skeleton that character no longer sees the target as it once was. For example, animating a human corpse has dehumanized the human that corpse was previously, and typically vilified it as a monster. The way those zombies and skeletons help that economy is through adding unpaid labor and doing that has essentially inserted the prison industrial complex into the game; possibly worse depending on the intent and context behind implementing a system like that. It might look good from a certain perspective but the concept itself seems rooted in colonialism. Rather than get into a discussion here I would encourage reading theory on that topic.

Conversely, a person might argue animating animals as automated equipment lessening the required labor of the working class. Deciding ethics and morality requires looking at the intent and context of each spell cast. It's not as simple as saying "such and such a spell or spell school is bad".

Every spell cast on a target is either to help or is a form a violence. Those forms of violence can be less harmful or more harmful. Why the character chose that spell and the impact is what we should really examine in a discussion like this.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Consent is not valid if obtained through force, threat of force, fraud, ignorance, or from an altered state of mind (such as the aforementioned drugs). IE consent is voluntary and informed. A character who is using friends or charm person is committing an act of violence by impacting the target's ability to make decisions through magic regardless of the mechanics to resolve when applying persuasion checks. Persuasion on it's own is the ability of character to make a convincing case. Persuasion on a charmed target has also altered that target's attitude which changes to what that target might agree to do.

A character doesn't need magic for this to be true. Intimidation and deception are also forms of violence.

This does not mean enchantment is necessarily wrong either. Spells like sleep or calm emotions are also a form of violence and are used to avoid more severe forms of violence, as are other enchantment spells. Using enchantments to avoid escalated violence is not a bad thing. We should be asking ourselves what the intent is behind using that magic on those targets and the how and who benefits from the results. There's a big difference between using enchantment magic to exploit innocent people and humanely dealing with bullies.

Enchantments are a strong tool for removing the autonomy of those targets but that doesn't mean the same principles do not apply to other spells. We would still ask who benefits and how when we look at the intent when we examine those scenarios.

This is a good way to look at this.

The example given for zombies and skeletons helping the economy that was given earlier is an interesting topic. When a character animates a corpse and creates a zombie or skeleton that character no longer sees the target as it once was. For example, animating a human corpse has dehumanized the human that corpse was previously, and typically vilified it as a monster. The way those zombies and skeletons help that economy is through adding unpaid labor and doing that has essentially inserted the prison industrial complex into the game; possibly worse depending on the intent and context behind implementing a system like that. It might look good from a certain perspective but the concept itself seems rooted in colonialism. Rather than get into a discussion here I would encourage reading theory on that topic.

I have no idea what you are even trying to imply here, though. From one perspective, you have essentially stated that making machines is colonial and involves the prison industrial complex. I do not think that it would be a stretch to say that no one would consider a a remote controlled lawn mower as having any connections to colonialism or prison.

I think the crux of your position is the concept of dehumanization and the conception that making an undead is turning a corpse into an object. But, to that, I would respond that corpses are already typically closer to objects than to people. They can still be defiled and it can still be horrific to treat them poorly, but that is the case with important objects already, such as precious books or religious items. I would also point out that the use of corpses and body parts is not unknown to human societies. Saint's bones are often used as objects of worship. Mummies were once ground up by European artists to make paint. There are plenty of examples. Now, some of those are distasteful and seen as wrong, but a larger context can be applied. Wearing jewelry made of body parts would sound wrong, but many people wear lockets with locks of hair in them, from people they care about. The culture decides a lot about how these things are seen and treated.

Every spell cast on a target is either to help or is a form a violence. Those forms of violence can be less harmful or more harmful. Why the character chose that spell and the impact is what we should really examine in a discussion like this.

And again, this is an incredibly good point and a good way to approach these discussions.

 

[mellored]

Nearly every time you roll a d20, you're trying to asset your will over someone else's.

You want to get past a wall, and some guard wants you to stay out. Stealth, attacks, secret passage, spells, deception, ect... are all a clash of wills.

And that's not enough information to determine if it is good and evil. You need more context.

 

[Ashrym]

I have no idea what you are even trying to imply here, though. From one perspective, you have essentially stated that making machines is colonial and involves the prison industrial complex. I do not think that it would be a stretch to say that no one would consider a a remote controlled lawn mower as having any connections to colonialism or prison.

I think the crux of your position is the concept of dehumanization and the conception that making an undead is turning a corpse into an object. But, to that, I would respond that corpses are already typically closer to objects than to people. They can still be defiled and it can still be horrific to treat them poorly, but that is the case with important objects already, such as precious books or religious items. I would also point out that the use of corpses and body parts is not unknown to human societies. Saint's bones are often used as objects of worship. Mummies were once ground up by European artists to make paint. There are plenty of examples. Now, some of those are distasteful and seen as wrong, but a larger context can be applied. Wearing jewelry made of body parts would sound wrong, but many people wear lockets with locks of hair in them, from people they care about. The culture decides a lot about how these things are seen and treated.

Possible content warning regarding the prison system.

Spoiler: prison comparison

The transformation of a living person to a not living person to an undead creature can be seen as symbolic of the dehumanization and vilification of people within the prison system.

The concept of of benefiting from that unpaid labor force is rooted in replacement of enslaved people in the United States. Here is the relevant portion of the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The prison system replaces enslaved people with imprisoned people in the prison industrial complex, with Black People disproportionately represented within that system.

My comparison stems from that symbolic take because of how it parallels dehumanization. When we see a corpse do we remember the person or do we just see a corpse? Do we continue to refer to them by name or just a statistic? Do we fail to remember them at all? The corpse is still tied to the identity of the person, which is why that comparison exists.

Enough on that topic. If nothing else, it demonstrates perspective is relevant. ;-)