D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Maxperson]

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

Why should someone's will to commit murder be valid? If it's not valid, then violating that invalid will is not an evil act.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Then again, people consent to participate boxing matches and other forms of BDSM.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Another consideration, within the context of 5e, is that both violence and mind control are things that all paladins have access to. Paladins are expected to fight, and have numerous violent spells, such as the various smites. All paladins also have access to mind control via Command and, at high levels, Geas.

Granted, paladins aren't always good-aligned in this edition, but one would expect that the designers wouldn't include a spell on the paladin's spell list that would cause a good-aligned character to become an oath breaker simply by virtue of casting it. Were mind control evil, the only oath in the PHB that could justify using it would be Vengeance (in which case they could have simply included those spells on the Vengeance paladin's bonus spells list).

Therefore, implicitly, it's seems clear that mind control (in D&D) is not intended as something inherently evil. Obviously, there are numerous evil applications for mind control that could cause a paladin to become an oath breaker, but it seems evident (IMO) that mind control isn't evil itself (within the context of 5e).

 

[HammerMan]

Says who?

anyone that values independent control of thought...

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?

I am pretty sure if you ask most people would think mind control =bad, at least a plurality

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.

taking away someone's free will by imposing your mind magically on another seems anything BUT harmless.

 

[HammerMan]

That is why the important part here is when the protagonist uses it.

It's easy to say that charms are evil when the evil person uses them.

The question here is whether they are evil when the PC uses them.

Dune 2021 is a great example of how the same power is portrayed differently morally.

If you think paul is the hero of the story please what ever you do, don't look into the books or any further into Hurberts' message.

Spoiler: don't read unless you know

paul and later his son are at best anti heroes and at worst out right villians (just not as bad as the baron, but most likely no worse then the current emperor when it starts) paul has to choose to allow a huge war, that will spread like a plague in his name just to survive. later hurbert went on to explain

“I wrote the Dune series because I had this idea that charismatic leaders ought to come with a warning label on their forehead: "May be dangerous to your health." One of the most dangerous presidents we had in this century was John Kennedy because people said "Yes Sir Mr. Charismatic Leader what do we do next?" and we wound up in Vietnam. And I think probably the most valuable president of this century was Richard Nixon. Because he taught us to distrust government and he did it by​

 

[HammerMan]

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?

justify is the perfect word... you can ask if an evil act is justfied without makeing it a good act.

A blunt instrument instead of a fist?

same answer, violence's is bad, bad can be justified

A knife instead of a blunt instrument?

see above but worse, becuse at this point you are not just useing force but deadly force

A gun instead of a knife?

see above... and again an escalation. do you REALLY have no choice but to shoot them? or did you WANT to shoot them and use the child as an excuse? or could you have punched them as above?

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.

never... You can justfie doing a bad act for a good cause, but that doesn't change the act from good to bad.

I can steal a new PS7 because I like video games, is that wrong?
I can steal a new car cause I want to is that wrong? (to quote rocket "What if I really really want it?"
I can steal food to eat so I don't starve... I can steal a loaf of bread so my sisters children don't starve... ends and means still remain seperate and looking to justify it is just that... are there ones that MOST people will say is an okay use of a bad act, yes, does it make it less bad NO

 

[HammerMan]

Have you seen the movie? They might get to the morality of it at some point but not in Part 1.

I have seen this and the last movie, and the scifi minis and read the books and discussed the books at length for both a writing approach and philosophical approach. There is PLENTY in the first movie to sow the seeds, but no I doubt they will go full Hurbert and show the evil of the protagonist (I will be happy but shocked to be wrong)

Having said that if you take all the Novels written by original author

Spoiler

Jason Mamoha's Duncan Idaho

is the protagonist

 

[HammerMan]

Another consideration, within the context of 5e, is that both violence and mind control are things that all paladins have access to. Paladins are expected to fight, and have numerous violent spells, such as the various smites. All paladins also have access to mind control via Command and, at high levels, Geas.

Granted, paladins aren't always good-aligned in this edition, but one would expect that the designers wouldn't include a spell on the paladin's spell list that would cause a good-aligned character to become an oath breaker simply by virtue of casting it. Were mind control evil, the only oath in the PHB that could justify using it would be Vengeance (in which case they could have simply included those spells on the Vengeance paladin's bonus spells list).

Therefore, implicitly, it's seems clear that mind control (in D&D) is not intended as something inherently evil. Obviously, there are numerous evil applications for mind control that could cause a paladin to become an oath breaker, but it seems evident (IMO) that mind control isn't evil itself (within the context of 5e).

alll this shows is the creators intent, and belief again I am trying to look at it and judge it form our perspective. In some editions cure wounds was necromancy, in others animate dead was an [evil] spell. 5e has removed so much of alignment I am not even sure the creators of 5e care about good vs evil

 

[HammerMan]

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.

so if someone took control (magically) of you and made you do something that you didn't want to, that is not evil, if the end result is non evil?

I am pretty sure word lawyering this gets to ANYTHING can be good... witch goes back to persuasion, and force... this is a scary thread indeed.

in your mind someone said you said cannibalisms is always evil(maybe another thread or maybe i missed it). So if you are a survivor of a plane crash and so is your son/daughter and they are starving, it is better to let them starve then eat the dead pilot?

 

[Fanaelialae]

alll this shows is the creators intent, and belief again I am trying to look at it and judge it form our perspective. In some editions cure wounds was necromancy, in others animate dead was an [evil] spell. 5e has removed so much of alignment I am not even sure the creators of 5e care about good vs evil

Okay, but to what end do we bring in our perspective to a game that's fundamentally about a different (fantasy) perspective?

I, personally, believe that RW violence is evil. So should I ban violence in the game? Judge that anyone who engages in violence (regardless of circumstances) is evil in alignment? Personally, despite my RW beliefs, I find in game combat to be fun and enjoyable.

I'm not saying the we shouldn't bring in that outside perspective. As I said upthread, rape isn't allowed in my campaigns, because of my own personal feelings. I do think it's worthwhile considering why, as well as what it adds (or subtracts) from the game. Removing rape from a campaign arguably subtracts nothing, and (I would think) makes the game more enjoyable for everyone involved. Removing mind control (or making it inherently evil) potentially denies players the fantasy of playing an enchanter, which is at least a bit of a downside.

If the goal of the thread is to simply discuss the RW implications of mind control, then from a technical perspective I'm still not convinced that it's inherently evil. I think there are ethical applications, even if they are few and far between (potentially in treating mental trauma, for example). From a practical perspective, however, there's not a single human being or group that I would be willing to entrust with that kind of power, not even myself.