Is dominate person evil?

By the book it is not Evil, but IMC it is borderline Evil.

Well, I believe that Life and Liberty are among the most basic of rights, so if you want to take one or the other away, there had better be a darn good reason, such as: to prevent Life or Liberty from being taken away from more people.

In addition, in my book, paladins don't attack and kill people just because they're evil, and the purpose of justice is restitution (putting right what went wrong) rather than retribution (punishment for wrongdoing).

So, dominating people you would otherwise have to kill is fine, dominating or killing people who are going to murder, enslave or cause a great deal of suffering to other people is fine, but killing or dominating people for no good reason is not.

In my book, your actions are fine, but both the paladins are not displaying what I believe to be paladin-like behaviour.

My two cents.

Sounds like your DM thought it would create interparty conflict, which can be good for drama. It can also go too far. Like in this case where your buddy Paladin is kneejerk reactionary.

My recomendation is for some diplomacy. If you haven't yet, explain to your buddy what happened, ie his 'buddy' went nuts (possibly brianwashed or just a whack job) when alone with only you and your 'bodyguards'. You restrained him. You'll be perfectly willing to set him free into your friends recognizance (ie your Paladin stays near him, and reigns him in). If the rescued Paladin kepts acting like a dufus, he'll go under the spell agian until he can be restrain by someone capable.

If your Paladin didn't have any problems before with the dominated guards, way does he now? Or is he just sticking by his Temple Brother mindlessly?



TTFN

EvilE

Wee this topic's always fun ^_^

Personally, I don't think Dominate _____ is a line of evil spells. Casting it is not inherently evil, no more than swinging a sword is. If you cast it on someone and tell them to go do some business in the village well and everyone gets cholera... yah that's evil. If you tell them to not kill you or your friends, that's not really evil. Swing a sword at baby- evil, swing sword at rope to Errol Flynn over armed guards- not evil.

That said, if a DM thinks its evil, you should ask "Why?" If it's a part of his campaign setting, fine... good to know. If a character in a setting thinks its evil, your character should ask "Why?" and try to meet some kind of understanding. With paladins this can be tricky if not impossible, but just chalk that up to the sun circling the earth, the crickets warding off ninjas, and cat familiars almost always being portrayed as being overbearing towards their Wizard "masters" (term used very loosely).

The answer, as it formulates in my mind, basically states that what Dominate _____ is in the sense of right or wrong shouldn't hinge upon Our rights, Our beliefs, and Our cultural preferences so much as upon the rights, beliefs, and cultural preferences in your campaign. I know all the "inalienable" deals and the potential for platonic truths, but when we get down to it, those have about as much leverage in a dnd campaign as the law of the conservation of energy (here, have a fireball).

The answer, as usual, is "it depends". It's sorta like asking if Magic Missile is evil, or if using a knife is evil. It depends on how you use it. I would say the same about Animate Dead, but in that case the game system overrides my judgement and declares it Evil.

In this particular case, I think the first paladin's opinion was overly extreme and that he should have done something less than attack you. The second paladin had more reason for his gripe, but should have at least listened to his companion of (presumably) several years before attacking him regarding a guy they just met (that, for all he knew, might be a well-disguised demon). If such a thing happened in my game, my players would (correctly) suspect that demonic possession was involved.

That being said, I think Dominate is a very rude thing to do to a non-enemy, even if it isn't evil. Not quite like Magic Missiles in the back, but pretty close. Charm Person (which warps a mind a little as opposed to controlling it) is a lot better spell for short term determent of hostilities, and is probably what you should have used on the first (and possibly second) paladin.

clark411 said:

I know all the "inalienable" deals and the potential for platonic truths, but when we get down to it, those have about as much leverage in a dnd campaign as the law of the conservation of energy (here, have a fireball).

Click to expand...

Hey, some of us don't ignore those laws entierly... I need to actually put together rules for my action-reaction spell system.

I want to make some things clear the paldain that I dominated has been through hell and (the abyss) He has been broken by the demons he is bad shape they forced him into raping an elf who was traveling with him who now has killed herself. He is barely hanging onto to his sanity. My character also traveled with him but we became seperated. I met the the other PCs when we escaped our cells less than a few hours ago.

My character is not good not by a long shot most of her spells come from the school of necromancy. Dominating the paladin in her eyes was the best way to stop him without hurting him she does like this paldian.

When the party paladin demanded she release the other paladian she tried to explain and told him she would hvae to take more drastic measures if he attacked again and the party paladian threatened her if she did. He didn't offer to take responsibility for his friend. I did offer to remove the domination once we had found someplace safe to hide he refused to move until I did it. My character got pissy and refused to remove the domination. We are in the middle of the cells an alarm is going off and one demon ran from us to get reinforcments. The rest of the party left so now it is the paladian and me about to role initiative to attack each other. The DM called it a night because it was getting late.

I have talked to the DM and the other player and we have come up with a way to stop it I will ask the paladian to swear to control his friend he will agree and I will release the domination and most likely he will have to knock out his friend.

This all got me thinking where do you draw the line why is the paladian of light and goodness okay with me dominating evil guards and forcing them to fight their masters and maybe die but it is so wrong to stop a a severly out of control good guy who can endanger the entire party as well as himself. I suppose it is better to knock him in the head and put him out?

I think personally that it can be evil that is how I played it before. I also have issues with charm person taking someone's free will from them is never a good act though how bad it becomes depends on what you force them to do.

I also realize that I made a mistake bringing this character into the game the player who plays the paladian can have knee jerk reactions and can be as stubborn as I can be over role playing and staying true to your character. These two characters will be at each other throats again it is just a matter of time. The player did say to me that I need to fall into line and accept his character's orders or he would start to see me as a liability and have to do something about it.

Wow, wow, wow...instead of killing a few people, you peacefully subdued them?

When a paladin went bat guano crazy and tried to kill those peacefully subdued people, you peacefully subdued him as well for him being an unreasonable, mentally unhinged git?

And then when you ran across another paladin who refused to take responsibility for the first paladin were you to release the domination, you quite reasonably didn't release the domination spell?

Oh, let's also take into account the fact that the second paladin is now making veiled threats to your character if you, too, don't follow in the path of the mentally unhinged.

No, you're not being evil. Yes, dominate person can be evil. It's all a matter of how you dominate the target, however. It's no more evil than just killing an opponent; possibly less so. It's all about the way that you use it.

And dominating whacked out, "I should probably have lost my paladinhood" paladins certainly isn't evil, when they're bloodthirsty, might is right kind of guys. You were in the right for dominating the first paladin, as the lackeys weren't posing a threat, and were in the right for not releasing the paladin when the second one said to, as the second one made no indication he would try to make the first paladin act reasonably.

I've never been happier.

I think everyone knows my soap box about defining evil in your game, so I will not go into it but in my it mindcontrol is an evil act, it is wrong and taints a person but is forgivable.