D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[doctorbadwolf]

and now we got people challenging the notion that drugging people and taking advantage of them is worse than…making yourself more attractive looking.

 

[Voadam]

You are not answering the point. What I'ms aying is that the effect is exactly the same whether you use a spell on yourself or on them so that you can be more convincing. In neither of those cases is the victim consenting to anything. And neither is she consenting when you burn her to a crisp with fireball.

Yes the effect is the same, the methods are different with different ethical implications.

The difference is in the consent. If you reduce their mental resistance so that you have advantage that is a different consent and choice situation than when you make a more persuasive argument and get advantage.

The methods matter. Being persuasive can get someone to do what you want. Blackmailing or threatening them can get them to do what you want. The different methods to achieve the same end have moral implications.

Even in utilitarianism while the end result might be overall good, blackmailing someone to get there involves negatives and is less good than persuading them to do so.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Even in utilitarianism while the end result might be overall good, blackmailing someone to get there involves negatives and is less good than persuading them to do so.

This is a good point. Even a good result doesn’t automatically make the action good.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This is a good point. Even a good result doesn’t automatically make the action good.

Sure, but the same argument can be made against violence and killing of "bad guys". Plenty of people would argue that violence and/or killing is an evil that can result in good outcomes (such as rescuing an innocent hostage by shooting the hostage-taker).

However, violence and killing of "bad guys" is generally considered acceptable even for good characters (within the context of D&D).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, but the same argument can be made against violence and killing of "bad guys". Plenty of people would argue that violence and/or killing is an evil that can result in good outcomes (such as rescuing an innocent hostage by shooting the hostage-taker).

However, violence and killing of "bad guys" is generally considered acceptable even for good characters (within the context of D&D).

Edit: never mind. I already said I wasn’t engaging further with you on this. Replying anyway gets us nowhere.

 

[Lanefan]

All of this boils down to answering a simple question: in general, do the ends justify the means? Are evil acts acceptable in pursuit of a goodly goal?

A corollary question that sometimes arises is: do the means justify the ends? Is sticking to goodly means paramount even if doing so makes it certain that evil will win out?

 

[Fanaelialae]

All of this boils down to answering a simple question: in general, do the ends justify the means? Are evil acts acceptable in pursuit of a goodly goal?

A corollary question that sometimes arises is: do the means justify the ends? Is sticking to goodly means paramount even if doing so makes it certain that evil will win out?

It only boils down to that if you accept that influencing/overriding another's will is defacto evil.

Is Obi Wan Kenobi's "these are not the droids you are looking for" a horrific act the violates the will of the stormtrooper? Or, could it be a pacifistic solution that actually causes less (which might equate to zero) harm than the alternative of cutting his way through them with his light saber?

 

[payn]

It only boils down to that if you accept that influencing/overriding another's will is defacto evil.

Is Obi Wan Kenobi's "these are not the droids you are looking for" a horrific act the violates the will of the stormtrooper? Or, could it be a pacifistic solution that actually causes less (which might equate to zero) harm than the alternative of cutting his way through them with his light saber?

This is a false dilemma to make mind control seem like a good option. It's not, and considering it evil doesn't put it on par with murder either.

 

[Lanefan]

It only boils down to that if you accept that influencing/overriding another's will is defacto evil.

I don't, in game terms (real life is another thing entirely), but the question still remains in a broader sense and can be applied in all sorts of ways and situations: does a good outcome justify using evil means to achieve it.

Is Obi Wan Kenobi's "these are not the droids you are looking for" a horrific act the violates the will of the stormtrooper? Or, could it be a pacifistic solution that actually causes less (which might equate to zero) harm than the alternative of cutting his way through them with his light saber?

Neither. It's the best practical solution he has to the problem at hand, namely how to get into Mos Eisley without attracting attention. Whaling those guys with a lightsaber in broad daylight would, if nothing else, attract attention....

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Is obi wan evil... yes. 100% yes.
the more I learn about the Jedi (in both old lore and new) the more I know they are all at least immoral and most likely outright an evil cult.

having said that we look the other way to evil deeds in game all the time, and we have villians perform them in mass... but yeah, charm is pretty evil.

there is a reason G I Joe had lasers instead of guns and no one died. There is a reason why shooting the gun out of someones hand instead of shooting them was thought to be family friendly. Neither of these two things stop us from slitting throats, stabbing, and killing enemies.

does this make charm an evil that PCs may use... yea, I guess we can add it to the list. right next to firebombs...I mean fireball.