D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[HammerMan]

Except not. If someone is about to murder a child and you need to dominate him in order to make him stop, that's a good act plain and simple.

no it is a bad act with a good ends... and in my mind the ends don't justify the means.

 

[Maxperson]

That is the part that does not seem defined in the books. If the table agreement ruling is that social checks work on PCs similar to how spells do then it can be an outcome that is in doubt until a check is made. If the table agreement ruling is that PCs decide whether they can be influenced or not then it is something a PC can unilaterally veto regardless of a roll.

I cannot find an explicit statement in the rules on how social skills interact with PCs, just how they can interact with NPCs or others and it all seems suggestive rather than defined.

5e PH 185 for social interactions which is mostly about how to do so and talks about the DM might call for checks to determine NPC reactions. Page 178 for Charisma and social interaction skills which talk about influencing "others".

5e DMG page 237 is for ability checks and page 244 for social interactions and I do not see any discussion of whether it works differently for a PC trying to trick another another PC for example.

In 3e for example there were things in the social skills that explicitly could affect PCs and effects that explicitly could not.

I don't see that in 5e, it seems to be a rulings not rules situation.

While technically yes, the fact that you cannot find a single thing in the books saying that they work on PCs and literally every time social skills are mentioned, they are mentioned in the context of working on NPCs is very, very telling.

 

[Maxperson]

no it is a bad act with a good ends...

Says who? Where in the real world is it said or implied that stopping a person from committing murder by using mind control magic is a bad act?

and in my mind the ends don't justify the means.

This is a fine opinion for your games, but it doesn't hold up past that. The example wasn't torture, it was a simple, harmless domination spell to save the child.

 

[Faolyn]

Except not. If someone is about to murder a child and you need to dominate him in order to make him stop, that's a good act plain and simple.

That's more like using a lesser evil to stop a greater evil. You may have good intentions and committed a good act, but you still used an evil means to do it.

 

[Maxperson]

That's more like using a lesser evil to stop a greater evil. You may have good intentions and committed a good act, but you still used an evil means to do it.

Nobody in this thread has yet proven that mind control/influence is inherently evil and not simply a tool to be used for either good or evil. You've made the claim. Do you have proof to back it up?

 

[Faolyn]

Nobody in this thread has yet proven that mind control/influence is inherently evil and not simply a tool to be used for either good or evil. You've made the claim. Do you have proof to back it up?

Funny, when I asked you to prove that cannibalism is always evil, even in a consensual, ritualistic sense, you failed to answer. And yet I'm supposed to provide proof for you?

Let's go with the real world: is it ever a good thing to brainwash or gaslight someone? Is it ever a good thing to drug (someone without their consent) just to change their perceptions, memories, or desires? Is it ever a good thing to coerce someone into doing something (with coerce being defined as persuading someone to do something with force or threats)?

I don't believe that it's a good thing to shoot someone to stop them from doing something evil. It might be necessary, the only option available, but it's a necessary evil. Not morally good. Likewise, I don't believe that it's a good thing to dominate someone to stop them from doing something evil. It's less bad than outright killing them, and it may be for the greater good, but it's still a necessary evil.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't believe that it's a good thing to shoot someone to stop them from doing something evil. It might be necessary, the only option available, but it's a necessary evil. Not morally good. Likewise, I don't believe that it's a good thing to dominate someone to stop them from doing something evil. It's less bad than outright killing them, and it may be for the greater good, but it's still a necessary evil.

This is merely a semantic disagreement. One could easily say that good is the thing that is least evil in a given situation, thus, using violence (or mind control) to avert even greater harm is in fact good. I don't think it makes much sense to agonise over whether one calls it 'good' or 'lesser evil' because as long as everyone agrees that in such a situation that sort of action is permissible, there isn't any actual disagreement.

 

[Maxperson]

Funny, when I asked you to prove that cannibalism is always evil, even in a consensual, ritualistic sense, you failed to answer. And yet I'm supposed to provide proof for you?

I did answer you. You asked again in a PM and I responded.

Let's go with the real world: is it ever a good thing to brainwash or gaslight someone?

Apples and oranges. I'm not talking about brainwashing or gaslighting. Those are different instances and just because you can find some bad instances, does not make all instances bad.

 

[billd91]

Nobody in this thread has yet proven that mind control/influence is inherently evil and not simply a tool to be used for either good or evil. You've made the claim. Do you have proof to back it up?

That's because there isn't proof that charm spells are evil. There isn't proof they're not either. You either accept the axiom that overriding someone's will with your own via magic is inherently evil or you don't.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I'm sorry but no. forceing your will on others (dominate and suggestion), and even just magic ruffies (Charm and friends) are pretty evil.

Well, they're not magic ruffies, though. Friends is "I'm interesting and you'll be at least pleasantly disposed to what I say". Charm person is "I have some trust towards you, although I'm not going to do anything I otherwise wouldn't". To me they are magical shortcuts to what could be done mundanely given time and opportunity.

Suggestion as "do what I suggest as long as it won't harm you" and dominate as "you will do this" are different. Suggestion I view as evil as analogus as a firearm. It can cause great harm, or perhaps prevent harm through threat of use. With a modern mindset, it is not evil per se, but definitely morally gray. Dominate is right out, and would only be used morally in a narrow window of cases.