D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Remathilis]

I do think that using mind control is a little worse than using magical trickery, but both cases are definitely rape.

And yeah Zone of Truth only gets a pass because someone can just refuse to answer. It’s at best a spell that is very easy to abuse.

Again, I fail to see where deception is any better than coercion, but then again, the law specifies there are dozens of ways (and punishments) to kill a man, so...

 

[Maxperson]

Agreed.

So then we don't need a code. If the only ones who would follow it are the ones who wouldn't do it anyway, there's no point in codifying it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Again, I fail to see where deception is any better than coercion, but then again, the law specifies there are dozens of ways (and punishments) to kill a man, so...

In the year 2021, I just don't take ethics arguments involving the law very seriously.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

This was something that I gotta admit I only saw coming out of the last decade of discussion regarding fantasy tropes. It comes from viewing a lot of fantasy/fairy tale tropes in the eyes of a modern concept of autonomy. I think it's because technology has made things that were once thought of as magical possible (paging Arthur C. Clarke). We have drugs that can act like charm or sleep magic. We have technology that can always monitor us. We are driftingly slowly into transhumanism and what it means to be human. And we're trying to balance that with concepts like Right to Privacy, Right to be Forgotten, Right to Individuality, etc.

I think this conversation is going to keep going, and I don't think it stops at "charm spells are evil", because as I keep saying, a LOT of D&D magic has some very unethical or amoral elements to it, and if we are going to put charm magic into the "problematic" bag with necromancy, I think a lot of Conjuration, Divination and Illusion (and a fair amount of Transmutation) are going to join it.

 

[Remathilis]

In the year 2021, I just don't take ethics arguments involving the law very seriously.

Just pointing out that "Thou Shall Not Kill" has a lot of asterisks next to it.

 

[Blue Orange]

This was something that I gotta admit I only saw coming out of the last decade of discussion regarding fantasy tropes. It comes from viewing a lot of fantasy/fairy tale tropes in the eyes of a modern concept of autonomy. I think it's because technology has made things that were once thought of as magical possible (paging Arthur C. Clarke). We have drugs that can act like charm or sleep magic. We have technology that can always monitor us. We are driftingly slowly into transhumanism and what it means to be human. And we're trying to balance that with concepts like Right to Privacy, Right to be Forgotten, Right to Individuality, etc.

I think this conversation is going to keep going, and I don't think it stops at "charm spells are evil", because as I keep saying, a LOT of D&D magic has some very unethical or amoral elements to it, and if we are going to put charm magic into the "problematic" bag with necromancy, I think a lot of Conjuration, Divination and Illusion (and a fair amount of Transmutation) are going to join it.

We have sleep, paralysis, nausea, and confusion drugs. (PCP isn't that far from a real-life confusion effect.) Charm not so much--getting someone drunk won't necessarily make them like you.

Given modern concepts of autonomy, necromancy (at least in the sense of animating corpses) is a lot less problematic than charm or summoning. Consent is even possible--perhaps the village priest or sorcerer has standing permission to animate the corpses of the deceased in defense of the village. (Remember Hollowfaust in Scarred Lands, 3e?)

 

[Remathilis]

Given modern concepts of autonomy, necromancy (at least in the sense of animating corpses) is a lot less problematic than charm or summoning. Consent is even possible--perhaps the village priest or sorcerer has standing permission to animate the corpses of the deceased in defense of the village. (Remember Hollowfaust in Scarred Lands, 3e?)

Weeellll.... Here's where things get dicey. Concepts of the Soul (or Consciousness) and how you define those things get in the way. For example, if you assume there is no soul or that the soul is free of the body upon death (and the corpse is just so much leftover meat) than necromancy might have some ethical element to it; its literally recycling the body into a form that can labor endlessly without much of the problems a living being has. However, if you assume the soul or whatever is somehow still tied to the body after death, necromancy could be viewed as a form of slavery (even if voluntarily entered) for all eternity. Since modern science has yet to clearly determine what IS consciousness or what a Soul is (let alone what happens to either upon death) you could feasibly argue necromancy is simply reanimating meat or a form of eternal hellish slavery for all time. The jury is still out on that one.

 

[Fanaelialae]

We have sleep, paralysis, nausea, and confusion drugs. (PCP isn't that far from a real-life confusion effect.) Charm not so much--getting someone drunk won't necessarily make them like you.

Given modern concepts of autonomy, necromancy (at least in the sense of animating corpses) is a lot less problematic than charm or summoning. Consent is even possible--perhaps the village priest or sorcerer has standing permission to animate the corpses of the deceased in defense of the village. (Remember Hollowfaust in Scarred Lands, 3e?)

That's true, but consensual mind control is also feasible. For example, someone who suffers from a traumatic memory might seek out a mage to cast modify memory on them.

As is consensual summoning. Perhaps, at some time, the spirits made a bargain with mages, and in return agreed to serve mages when summoned. Having restrictions on what a summoned creature will do, based on those ancient pacts, could make for an interesting world building opportunity.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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.

It's easy for me to get my editions confused, but doesn't charm person already have this codicil? It makes the target treat you like "their best friend". While I can see making seduction easier I wouldn't say it's guaranteed.

Dominate on the other hand, well, its called "dominate" for a reason. I think there should be "black magic" in a setting, "forbidden curses" and the like. Dominate fits the bill there, and can be evidence for villainy.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I really feel charm effects should have other conditions that break them rather than merely the chramee being attacked. Granted, codifying such might be hard. Also, I feel that 'friendly acquaintance' is hella nebulous. How is a creature supposed to react if their 'friendly acquaintance' butchers their friends and allies in front of their eyes? Also, does the target actually factually know that they don't know you?