D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[doctorbadwolf]

It might be worse, but primarily because I don't think prison guards could be trusted not to abuse such power.

Take a different example. A violent criminal has a gun to a child's head. There is no question in anyone's mind that the criminal will shoot the child unless stopped. You have only two guaranteed ways to stop him. You have a sniper who never misses a head shot. And you have a telepath whose niche superpowers allow them to force violent criminals to surrender to the authorities peacefully. Or you can choose a third option, but the child's survival is not guaranteed. Which do you choose?

Personally, I think using the telepath is the obvious moral choice.

If your only path forward is “gun to a child’s head” I’m not going to engage further.

 

[Lanefan]

I think that from a modern perspective (i.e. the one we share), depriving someone of their autonomy and volition is unequivocally evil.

In reality, yes. In the game, I'm not as convinced; if the choice comes down to charm/dominate a foe or kill/maim it (which it often does) then to me charm/dominate becomes the decent option.

And charming another PC is the perfect answer if said PC has been possessed or otherwise altered (e.g. been hit with an opposite-alignment curse) and would otherwise pose a threat.

So how about compelling summoned creatures and outsiders?

Summonees usually show up pre-compelled to obey the summoner, don't they?

 

[Lanefan]

I dont evaluate my in game actions based on real world history. Charming people is evil, but its not on par with numerous other actions. It typically happens once or twice a campaign and its not an issue. I did have a player once who used charm in every possible situation they could. Eventually, I had to explain to them the character was a bit of a scum bag and heading down a path where they would have a knife at their throat and no friends to help. Its situational and abuse usually has repercussions. Being an assassin is the same. You cant reason your way out of being evil. Eventually it will catch up with you. I wont stop you from playing such a character, but I'll never agree to such being a good character.

You probably wouldn't like a particular character I once played, then.

She was a Dryad (thus had charm as an innate racial ability) Bard (thus had charm as a baked-in class ability) with both Charisma and Comeliness (yes, this campaign was the one time we ever used 7 stats) off the charts meaning anyone she tried to charm was at massive penalties to their saving throws.

Needless to say, her usual MO was all charm all the time. We did T1 Hommlet, and our approach ended up being to have my Bard charm an entire town full of Kobolds (over 500 of them!) and sic them on the dungeon, then mop up what was left. That she also spoke Kobold helped immensely here.

Easiest dungeon ever.

Broken as hell, mind you, but fun to do once.

 

[Faolyn]

Breaking free from mind control is undoing it, isn't it; every bit as much as being raised undoes being dead or being cured undoes being hurt.

Absent time travel, you can't undo what you did while under someone's control any more than you can undo missing some time because you were dead for a while.

I feel I should say that these really are just my feelings on the matter. I'm not trying to pull out rules here to support me.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If your only path forward is “gun to a child’s head” I’m not going to engage further.

Because it demonstrates that mind control isn't itself inherently evil, but rather how it is used. I never said that most uses of mind control weren't evil, I only claimed that mind control isn't inherently evil (meaning there is at least one use case where it isn't evil).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because it demonstrates that mind control isn't itself inherently evil, but rather how it is used. I never said that most uses of mind control weren't evil, I only claimed that mind control isn't inherently evil (meaning there is at least one use case where it isn't evil).

It demonstrates no such thing. It demonstrates that even an inherently evil act can have mixed (and thus partially good) ends. That’s it.

 

[Lyxen]

Because it demonstrates that mind control isn't itself inherently evil, but rather how it is used. I never said that most uses of mind control weren't evil, I only claimed that mind control isn't inherently evil (meaning there is at least one use case where it isn't evil).

Exactly, some people have some bizarre notions that influencing an adversary's mind is inherently evil when burning him to a crisp is not.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

A violent criminal has a gun to a child's head. There is no question in anyone's mind that the criminal will shoot the child unless stopped.

It’s not terribly difficult to posit corner cases in an effort to refute a moral assertion but this is sheer infantilism. What are you? Five?

So far, you’ve suggested that charm person is no worse than having a prison guard pin you down and shove his fingers up your arse, which doesn’t lend a whole lot of weight to your position.

 

[Baron Opal II]

So how about compelling summoned creatures and outsiders?

If the creature is condensed from the ether templated from the Realm of Forms and to it they shall return, then it is a morally neutral act.

If the creature is pulled from a distant realm, usually in fiction there is some bargaining for services. It's a bit rude like a cold call, but ultimately it is a bargain. If the summoner has sufficient might and will to simply compel the creature then that would be questionable. Then I guess we would have to consider if it had a mind.

I don't consider the lower level spells like friends and charm person evil. I consider that targets under their effects won't do anything that they otherwise wouldn't. The caster just becomes exceptionally, well, charming. Suggestion is on the borderline. They might do something they otherwise would not, although not anything drastic like harm themselves. Domination is right out as that is extinguishing the will of the target and making them your puppet.

Within that guideline, how it is used is also important. Making a target pliant to get information for the (actual) greater good is fine. Using the target for personal amusements would be a violation.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

So, taking the most extreme possible utilitarian argument to try to prove your point is a weak argument. Firstly it assumes that utilitarianism is correct. Secondly, the most extreme possible ender’s game level hypothetical is meaningless even if we assume utilitarianism.

So, yes or no?