D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Maxperson]

No, you didn't answer me

I did. You apparently missed it.

You claimed it was always, objectively evil but failed to produce any actual facts to back you up--you just insisted that your beliefs were objectively correct. But that's not what's important here.

Of course it's not important now. Now you're the one trying to claim something is inherently evil when it isn't.

Magical charms are the same as brainwashing and gaslighting or even drugs. It's using magic to change people's minds, thoughts, beliefs, and desires.

No they aren't. For mind control/influence to be inherently evil, the will that the control/influence is subverting, including the will to do heinous and evil things, must always be valid. My position is that the will to do evil or heinous acts are not inherently valid or right, therefore it's not inherently evil to stop the evil/invalid instances of will.

 

[Maxperson]

Would you feel the same way if the means were more conventionally violent? Does hitting someone who is about to murder a child justify hitting?

A blunt instrument instead of a fist?

A knife instead of a blunt instrument?

A gun instead of a knife?

Let's see, what's next... a flame thrower? A grenade? Where do the ends justify the means, and when do they not? Because all of these things are bad acts.

All of those things CAN be bad acts. Not are. There are instances where even killing isn't bad/evil.

 

[Raduin711]

All of those things CAN be bad acts. Not are. There are instances where even killing isn't bad/evil.

Well, like hitting. Your parents always told you not to hit. When you hit someone it hurts. It's bad.

On the scale of badness, it's pretty low, but it's definitely on there.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, like hitting. Your parents always told you not to hit. When you hit someone it hurts. It's bad.

Yep. I was also told to defend myself in a fight and hit back if I am attacked by another kid. Hitting in self-defense or defense of another is not a bad act.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

In the real world, yes. In some gaming worlds, probably. In other gaming worlds...

...maybe not.

 

[Faolyn]

I did. You apparently missed it.

I went back and looked. Nope.

Of course it's not important now. Now you're the one trying to claim something is inherently evil when it isn't.

It's not important because it's off-topic.

No they aren't. For mind control/influence to be inherently evil, the will that the control/influence is subverting, including the will to do heinous and evil things, must always be valid. My position is that the will to do evil or heinous acts are not inherently valid or right, therefore it's not inherently evil to stop the evil/invalid instances of will.

And my position is that taking away a creatures free will through means such as brainwashing, drugs, or magic is always an evil act. It may not be the biggest evil out there, but it's evil. Two wrongs, as they say, don't make a right.

And how do you judge if an act is evil or heinous enough? You and I might have very different ideas about what counts as evil enough. What if the DM uses alignment and the hypothetical child is Chaotic Evil? What if the killer is trying to stop a child who has engaged in or is is engaging in ritual cannibalism?

 

[Raduin711]

Yep. I was also told to defend myself in a fight and hit back if I am attacked by another kid. Hitting in self-defense or defense of another is not a bad act.

So when it comes to protecting a child, what method of defense starts being bad, and why?

 

[Maxperson]

So when it comes to protecting a child, what method of defense starts being bad, and why?

That's easy. Using greater force than the person attacking the child. If the person is using non-lethal force, so should you.

 

[Maxperson]

I went back and looked. Nope.

You clearly didn't look hard enough. I did answer it.

It's not important because it's off-topic.

It's directly applicable. You are claiming to be right doing the exact same thing you told me that I was wrong for doing.

And my position is that taking away a creatures free will through means such as brainwashing, drugs, or magic is always an evil act. It may not be the biggest evil out there, but it's evil. Two wrongs, as they say, don't make a right.

I've heard you. Your position is rooted in exactly the same spot my cannibalism position is rooted. If one is right, both are. If one is wrong, both are.

And how do you judge if an act is evil or heinous enough? You and I might have very different ideas about what counts as evil enough. What if the DM uses alignment and the hypothetical child is Chaotic Evil?

Differences of opinion happen. Those differences of opinion have nothing to do with whether or not mind control is inherently evil(it's not) or not.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, like hitting. Your parents always told you not to hit. When you hit someone it hurts. It's bad.

On the scale of badness, it's pretty low, but it's definitely on there.

Insofar as my parents taught me that, they were wrong.

Would you feel the same way if the means were more conventionally violent? Does hitting someone who is about to murder a child justify hitting?

A blunt instrument instead of a fist?

A knife instead of a blunt instrument?

A gun instead of a knife?

Let's see, what's next... a flame thrower? A grenade? Where do the ends justify the means, and when do they not? Because all of these things are bad acts.

Nah. I don’t buy it. Violence is without alignment, and can only be good or evil with context.

I assure you, consensual violence (like fighting sports is good, and can be extremely good. Moreover, some types of violence that aren’t consensual

Violation of a person’s Will is not analogous to violence in general, though it is a type of violence.