D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Voadam]

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.

I don't think D&D has ever defined the magic animating zombies and skeletons as yanking the departed souls of the dead from the outer planes to mindlessly animate their old bodies. Most of D&D had the souls departing the body and going to an afterlife in the outer planes and sometimes becoming a petitioner or other outsider. The most impact would usually be not being able to raise them while their body was in an undead state.

4e had a whole specific theory of that kind of stuff in their undead book with the different parts and aspects of the soul and my recollection is that animating the body for zombies and skeletons did not affect the departed soul parts.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think D&D has ever defined the magic animating zombies and skeletons as yanking the departed souls of the dead from the outer planes to mindlessly animate their old bodies. Most of D&D had the souls departing the body and going to an afterlife in the outer planes and sometimes becoming a petitioner or other outsider. The most impact would usually be not being able to raise them while their body was in an undead state.

4e had a whole specific theory of that kind of stuff in their undead book with the different parts and aspects of the soul and my recollection is that animating the body for zombies and skeletons did not affect the departed soul parts.

Right, And under such metaphysics creating zombies is not particularly evil. Granted, it would be polite to only use corpses that had been donated to necromancy, or just so old that no one really cared. (We display ancient corpses in museums.)

 

[Scribe]

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.

This is how I'm going to attempt to navigate these things. A difference between suggestion/compulsion/domination.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

It's not even 'best friend' it's just 'friendly acquaintance.' It gives advantage to social rolls though.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No. It's not even that strong. In 5e is makes them a friendly acquaintance. So no friendlier than someone you've met at a party a few times.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not even 'best friend' it's just 'friendly acquaintance.' It gives advantage to social rolls though.

Sure, but you only get a roll when the outcome is in doubt. No means no.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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?

Well, I think butchery would be an obvious break of the spell. It's only 1st level after all. You friend wouldn't kill your other friends.

As far as "remembering" them, if they claim they know you maybe you do. You get a good vibe from them, and maybe you did meet them at the last harvest festival or something. The ale flowed like water, after all. Or, the caster can state right up front that they're new in town, looking for some information, can you help them out? You get a good vibe off of them, so sure, why not?

If the target thinks who the heck is this guy and what does he really want, then the target must have made their save.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, I think butchery would be an obvious break of the spell. It's only 1st level after all. You friend wouldn't kill your other friends.

That would makes sense. But that's not how the rules work. Only harming the target breaks the effect.

As far as "remembering" them, if they claim they know you maybe you do. You get a good vibe from them, and maybe you did meet them at the last harvest festival or something. The ale flowed like water, after all. Or, the caster can state right up front that they're new in town, looking for some information, can you help them out? You get a good vibe off of them, so sure, why not?

If the target thinks who the heck is this guy and what does he really want, then the target must have made their save.

Sure, I'd probably run it as something like that. But then again, wording is nebulous. Can a person you don't even remember meeting qualify as 'friendly acquaintance'?

 

[Lanefan]

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,

Which is truly ridiculous in many ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yeah, the stories, legends and myths that form the underpinnings of fantasy gaming are rife with beliefs and activities that were commonplace at the time but horrifying and disgusting to the modern eye. Willful ignorance of this fact may be the only way for the 21st century gamer to enjoy the hobby.