D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Blue Orange]

House rule idea: Whatever mage created the Charm and Dominate spells designed them in a way where they can't be used to get someone to sleep with anyone because that was not what they wanted the spell to do.

That's actually a really good idea, and I think it could help rehabilitate the subclass for people who want to play a more 'diplomatic' or 'trickster' rather than 'artillery' wizard. Those types of spells often negate obviously self-destructive actions, so no reason you couldn't add that codicil on as well. Maybe the god of love prohibits it. (Rape is considered heresy in Kushiel's Dart, for instance.) It's a fantasy, do what you will.

 

[Maxperson]

That's actually a really good idea, and I think it could help rehabilitate the subclass for people who want to play a more 'diplomatic' or 'trickster' rather than 'artillery' wizard. Those types of spells often negate obviously self-destructive actions, so no reason you couldn't add that codicil on as well. Maybe the god of love prohibits it. (Rape is considered heresy in Kushiel's Dart, for instance.) It's a fantasy, do what you will.

Or here's an idea. Just don't use it to rape someone. I don't think you need to codify what people should know not to do in the first place.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

That's actually a really good idea, and I think it could help rehabilitate the subclass for people who want to play a more 'diplomatic' or 'trickster' rather than 'artillery' wizard. Those types of spells often negate obviously self-destructive actions, so no reason you couldn't add that codicil on as well. Maybe the god of love prohibits it. (Rape is considered heresy in Kushiel's Dart, for instance.) It's a fantasy, do what you will.

I kind of like the idea of spells being "programmed" in general. For example, a lot of fire damage spells specify that they don't actually set things on fire, so I imagine the magic-users who created those spells decided to set the "sets flammable objects on fire" attribute to "off". Spells like Summon Greater Demon might similarly be set to always summon Chaotic Evil demons (I thought about running an eccentric PC wizard once who was convinced this was the case and wanted to one day go on an expedition to find non-CE demons are).

 

[Faolyn]

Or here's an idea. Just don't use it to rape someone. I don't think you need to codify what people should know not to do in the first place.

Going by some horror stories I've read, there are a depressing number of people who do need that sort of stuff codified.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I will say that, while WotC doesn't want people using various enchantment spells in such a way, I figure they'd probably rather hope most people won't think of the implications of such spells rather than add a sentence forbidding such usage of the spells, which would make everyone aware of such implications where they might not have thought of them before.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Going by some horror stories I've read, there are a depressing number of people who do need that sort of stuff codified.

I establish rape as off-limits in my session zero. It's technically permitted as part of a character's background, but it's not permitted at the table; neither on nor off-screen. Thankfully, I can't recall a time when invoking the rule was necessary.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I establish rape as off-limits in my session zero. It's technically permitted as part of a character's background, but it's not permitted at the table; neither on nor off-screen. Thankfully, I can't recall a time when invoking the rule was necessary.

Personally when I DM I avoid any references to sex at all. I use succubi exclusively as spies, for example.

 

[Maxperson]

Going by some horror stories I've read, there are a depressing number of people who do need that sort of stuff codified.

Anyone who needs it codified won't be stopped by any code.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I will say that, while WotC doesn't want people using various enchantment spells in such a way, I figure they'd probably rather hope most people won't think of the implications of such spells rather than add a sentence forbidding such usage of the spells, which would make everyone aware of such implications where they might not have thought of them before.

Love potions are a staple of mythology. Using magic to get sex is a staple. Heck, even when the Gods "create love" aren't they violating free will? The whole portolio of Eros and Aphrodite is questionable, depending on how you want to read it ("Go there and meet Helen of Troy, she'll fall in love" "so, Pasiphae, I've a grudge against your husband, so you'll fall in love with his bull"). Most of our traditions dont give a damn to individuality anyway. In such a context, I don't think it's possible for many people familiar with classical education to be ignorant of the implications. They were also made very apparent recently, with love potions being discussed without disapproval by Hermione, Ginny and Molly, and they are sold at Hogwarts. I am pretty sure everyone will think of the implications.

Not having the restriction in the rules on the other hand, avoiding pointing out that the players could use the spell in this way during play.


Plus... Let's imagine a situation were marriage are arranged as a standard practice. Would you want the arranged husband and bride to hate each other all the time and have to suffer their whole live with this marriage or make it palatable by pouring a love philter in their marriage drinks? It will also improve the chances of having a heir producing marriage. I can see users of this magic in the family of the newlywed, not only the interested parties. It might be a way to fade it to black: nobody mentions it... because most marriage are "improved by a love potion" in the first place.

 

[Faolyn]

Anyone who needs it codified won't be stopped by any code.

Agreed.