D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Maxperson]

Dooku was, IIRC, already corrupt when he commissioned the army, without the knowledge of the council.

None of which changes the fact that the movies just don’t ever deal with the slavery aspect of clones, or droids for that matter. They just don’t even acknowledge that there is anything to deal with. That is weird on the part of the storytellers. Trying to take that and act like the Jedi are evil within the context of the franchise is just silly.

Dooku didn't commission it. A Jedi Master named Sifo-Dyas did. He inadvertently ended up helping out the Sith.

 

[Maxperson]

We've always had it that summoned people (e.g. via Warrior Summoning or a Horn of Valhalla) come from a land of the dead appropriate to the summoner and go back there when the spell ends*; while summoned monsters come from the surrounding neighbourhood and go back whence they came when the spell ends*.

* - assuming they live so long; most don't.

I might be misremembering, but I thought I read in some edition that conjured monsters who are "killed" just end up back where they started, no worse for the wear. That's how I typically run it.

 

[Maxperson]

Give it a look sometime. It's not bad at all.

A lot of people didn't like Solo, but I did. Especially how it provided a solution that made sense to the Kessel Run parsec thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Dooku didn't commission it. A Jedi Master named Sifo-Dyas did. He inadvertently ended up helping out the Sith.

Sifo-Dyas died before the clone army was commissioned, and it was revealed to actually be Dooku who commissioned the army.

Why are we arguing about clone troopers? Do you actually care about this? I certainly don’t.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That is literally my point. We are responsible for the stories we tell.

edit: I’ve told you that I’m done engaging with you. Are you going to continue to try to interject into my interactions with others to try and make me engage with you?

Sorry man, my understanding was that you didn't want to discuss mind control with me because of the degree to which our opinions diverge. Not that you didn't want to discuss any topics. Also, you responded to me a few times after, even when I wasn't responding to you, so that was a bit confusing. If it's really an issue, you can feel free to block me. I won't take it personally.

 

[Remathilis]

Depends on where they come from. The game doesn't spell it out, so it's up to the DM whether they're just pulled from their dinner somewhere and enslaved, or if some god(s) of magic make deals with monsters to be on call and get paid for it. One way is evil and the other is not.

AD&D summon spells just straight up summoned any monster it could grab in the area. 3e grabbed outsiders (celestial/fiendish animals mostly) but nothing was stated that the celestial badger the wizard just summoned was a mercenary on call. I don't remember 4e summons, but 5e spells certainly seem to fit with the "grab an elemental/celestial/fey/fiend spirit and make them fight for you" system.

I guess it would be interesting to debate if the spirits that summoning/calling spells grab are actual sentient beings or just snippets of planar energy given form, but you can certainly rule that a casting Call Fey summons a pixie family to fight and die for you and you wouldn't be wrong.

his is no different than evocation. If you're using phantasmal killer to harm someone, it depends on the justifications. If you're hiding the opening of where the party is resting so you that you can be safer, it's not at all evil.

You casting an illusion to make your copper coins look like gold ones and then underpaying a merchant is scarcely better than outright armed robbery. Making yourself look like someone else to gain access to an area is identity theft. At best, it's a betrayal of trust. At worst, people have gone to jail for things first level illusionists do trivially.

And again, are you trying to steal thoughts from an innocent, or locate a kidnapped kid?

Is there much of a difference between casting Charm Person to make someone tell you their secrets or casting Detect Thoughts to rip them out of their head?

My point is that most D&D magic is at best amoral and at worst ethnically unconscionable. If charm spells are "evil" for robbing a person of autonomy, you're going to have to lump a lot of additional summoning, illusion, and divination spells in there as well. To the point where a typical arcane spellcaster could hardly be described as "Good" for knowing and using most of them.

As with much of D&D, the minute you apply real-life ethical debates to it, the game conventions collapse.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

AD&D summon spells just straight up summoned any monster it could grab in the area. 3e grabbed outsiders (celestial/fiendish animals mostly) but nothing was stated that the celestial badger the wizard just summoned was a mercenary on call. I don't remember 4e summons, but 5e spells certainly seem to fit with the "grab an elemental/celestial/fey/fiend spirit and make them fight for you" system.

I guess it would be interesting to debate if the spirits that summoning/calling spells grab are actual sentient beings or just snippets of planar energy given form, but you can certainly rule that a casting Call Fey summons a pixie family to fight and die for you and you wouldn't be wrong.

It would be hilarious of someone summoned the PCs this way. Now that they're experimenting giving some PC species designations other than humanoid, I think they could potentially be valid targets...

 

[Maxperson]

AD&D summon spells just straight up summoned any monster it could grab in the area. 3e grabbed outsiders (celestial/fiendish animals mostly) but nothing was stated that the celestial badger the wizard just summoned was a mercenary on call. I don't remember 4e summons, but 5e spells certainly seem to fit with the "grab an elemental/celestial/fey/fiend spirit and make them fight for you" system.

I guess it would be interesting to debate if the spirits that summoning/calling spells grab are actual sentient beings or just snippets of planar energy given form, but you can certainly rule that a casting Call Fey summons a pixie family to fight and die for you and you wouldn't be wrong.



You casting an illusion to make your copper coins look like gold ones and then underpaying a merchant is scarcely better than outright armed robbery. Making yourself look like someone else to gain access to an area is identity theft. At best, it's a betrayal of trust. At worst, people have gone to jail for things first level illusionists do trivially.


Is there much of a difference between casting Charm Person to make someone tell you their secrets or casting Detect Thoughts to rip them out of their head?

All these examples just mean that for the most part, intent and action on the part of the caster, not magic, determine whether good, evil or neutral is happening. Which is what I said in my post. You can charm someone to bilk them, or to save kids. You can detect thoughts to verify guilt before a man condemned to die is executed, or rip his secrets out. You can use illusion to protect wealth, or cheat people. It's not the magic that's good or evil.

My point is that most D&D magic is at best amoral and at worst ethnically unconscionable. If charm spells are "evil" for robbing a person of autonomy, you're going to have to lump a lot of additional summoning, illusion, and divination spells in there as well. To the point where a typical arcane spellcaster could hardly be described as "Good" for knowing and using most of them.

Charm spells are not inherently evil. How you use them determines that. With very few exceptions, D&D magic is inherently at best and at worst, amoral. Almost all morality connected to magic is on the part of the caster

 

[Blue Orange]

I suspect a lot of this has to do with recent increases of concern around sexual assault, etc. and the back-of-everyone's-head realization that a first-level charm person spell would almost certainly be used in real life by the unscrupulous as a sort of super-powered date-rape drug, not to mention coercing people into marriage and the like. (Though given that magic isn't tied to upper-body strength, it would actually be something of an equalizer between the sexes even as it increased power differentials between spellcasters and nonspellcasters.) People in the real world attempt to manipulate, slander, and even murder romantic rivals, and love potions and charms have been a staple of folklore in many cultures; you don't think people would take unfair advantage of a magic spell that actually worked?

Very few people want to drag those themes into their game. But I think everyone's a lot more aware now that a morally ambiguous enchanter who doesn't think twice about charming shopkeepers into a big discount or kobolds into killing their brethren is quite likely going to use charm person (not to mention modify memory and dominate person!) to enhance their romantic life in very unethical ways. And that's why it's now the 'evil' school. Before, if you read old Dragon mags, it was sometimes thought of as a 'pacifist' alternative to killing the goblins you found in your dungeon.

 

[Maxperson]

It would be hilarious of someone summoned the PCs this way. Now that they're experimenting giving some PC species designations other than humanoid, I think they could potentially be valid targets...

I had a DM do that to the party once as the adventure hook. We were summoned to take part in an attack for a plot we decided we wanted to stop. We had to figure out who it was, where he was and then go stop him.