log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

HammerMan

Legend
When you talked about conmen convincing people to do things. But provide another definition then!
forcing your will on others... this can be through trick, through drug, through magic... but it is making someone go against what they would naturally do... talking in most normal fashions can not do so. You can change someones mind by bringing new fact to light or by rephraseing or by even recontextulizing information... all without being manipulative, all without gas lighting, all without con jobing people... all without being a grifter.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

forcing your will on others... this can be through trick, through drug, through magic... but it is making someone go against what they would naturally do... talking in most normal fashions can not do so. You can change someones mind by bringing new fact to light or by rephraseing or by even recontextulizing information... all without being manipulative, all without gas lighting, all without con jobing people... all without being a grifter.
Yeah, sorry this is way too nebulous. Talking to people is not mind control, and "making someone go against what they would naturally do" could just as well apply to a therapist convincing an addict to drop drugs.
 


HammerMan

Legend
Yeah, sorry this is way too nebulous. Talking to people is not mind control, and "making someone go against what they would naturally do" could just as well apply to a therapist convincing an addict to drop drugs.
okay... so then lets stick to magic and game mechanics that force strangers to treat you like a friendly aquentence, or lets you tell them something and they have to do it, or allows you to take control of them and issue them orders (since that is what started the thread...charm/suggestion/friends/dominate)
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
I'm actually seeing charm abilities in a better light than I thought I would at first.

Is Glamour Bard's Enthralling Performance evil?

When the PCs do it - probably not
When the antagonists do it - probably

When it is done against NPCs it is basically an instruction to the DM on how to have the NPCs react. It's written as a PC power. If the DM were to give the power (or similar) to an NPC to use on the players then it would be stripping them of their free will and as they are the heroes this is bad.
 

HammerMan

Legend
When it is done against NPCs it is basically an instruction to the DM on how to have the NPCs react. It's written as a PC power. If the DM were to give the power (or similar) to an NPC to use on the players then it would be stripping them of their free will and as they are the heroes this is bad.
if the test as to weather or not a mechanic is good or evil is if it is used on a PC seems weird...
 

I'm actually seeing charm abilities in a better light than I thought I would at first.

Is Glamour Bard's Enthralling Performance evil?

When the PCs do it - probably not
When the antagonists do it - probably

When it is done against NPCs it is basically an instruction to the DM on how to have the NPCs react. It's written as a PC power. If the DM were to give the power (or similar) to an NPC to use on the players then it would be stripping them of their free will and as they are the heroes this is bad.
Sure seems relative to me. The great debate on the nature of good and evil continues!
 




Mirtek

Hero
The purpose of a hammer--and here we'll go with a ball peen, claw, or sledge, not a warhammer--is to hammer in nails, hit chisels or punches, and break inanimate objects. It can also be used to kill someone, but that's not its actual stated purpose. It's not built to be a weapon.

A mind-control spell's actual, stated purpose is to take over someone else's mind, thoughts, and emotions and deprive them of their free will. There is literally no other purpose for a mind-control spell. In fact, they literally can't be used for any other purpose.

Do you understand the difference here?
So are many weapons and combat spells.
 

okay... so then lets stick to magic and game mechanics that force strangers to treat you like a friendly aquentence, or lets you tell them something and they have to do it, or allows you to take control of them and issue them orders (since that is what started the thread...charm/suggestion/friends/dominate)

I feel there is pretty stark divide between soft effects such as friends and charm person and hard effects such as suggestion and dominate. The former basically mostly just do things that persuasion skill could do, except faster and more effectively, whilst the latter obviously are direct mind control.

Granted, I feel that RAW only attacking the target breaking the charm could theoretically result some situations which would be hard to justify without mind control. Then again, the game allows the same effect applied non-magically... My suggestion would be to broaden a bit the things that break the charm, and then I would be fine classifying it just as very efficient persuasion rather than mind control. But the current situation is rather weird.
 
Last edited:


Remathilis

Legend
These things here--immobilizing people and blinding or deafening them--aren't rape. They are, however, assault.
So even if the terminology isn't accurate, is it fair to call them "evil"? I mean magic missile is literally assault and serves no other function but for assault with intent to injure or kill.

I think the 9/10ths of the PHB spells are either illegal, immoral or unethical to use, regardless of rationale for it's use, is a safe statement.
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
I feel there is pretty stark divide between soft effects such as friends and charm person and hard effects such as suggestion and dominate. The former basically mostly just do things that persuasion skill could do, except faster and more effectively, whilst the latter obviously are direct mind control.

Granted, I feel that RAW only attacking the target breaks the charm could in theoretically result some situations which would be hard to justify without mind control. Then again, the game allows the same effect applied non-magically... My suggestion would be to broaden a bit the things that break the charm, and then I would be fine classifying it just as very efficient persuasion rather than mind control. But the current situation is rather weird.

It is entirely reasonable to rule 'attack' to mean things other than making an attack roll for the context of the spell.

The rules aren't written as all encompassing. A lot is left to the DM to rule on.

One time a PC cast Hypnotic Pattern and then the target ended up getting doused in water. I ruled that it was enough to take them out of the charm. The player argued that even though the target was shook there was no action spent on the part of the adversaries so it doesn't count because the spell specifically mentions that an action must be taken. The player later felt rather foolish in their stance but at the time they were so laser focused on the spell description that they didn't see the thematic intent.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Can that be extended to other types of magic though?
Obviously.
Is a spell that robs you of your senses (blindness/deafness) a type of rape?

Is a spell that robs you of your mobility or control of your body (hold person) a type of rape?

Is a spell that forces you have unwanted emotions (cause fear, calm emotions) a type of rape?

Is a spell that reads your mind unwillingly (detect thoughts) a type of rape?

Is a spell that summons creatures to fight and die for you a type of rape?

Is spells that perfectly fool your senses (illusions) a type of rape?

Is spells that allow you to watch a person undetected (scry or even invisibility) a type of rape?

I'm not necessarily arguing charm spells aren't, but I'd like to see what else should be called out for similar treatment.
These comparisons suggest, to me, that you aren’t getting why mind control is rape.
 

HammerMan

Legend
I feel there is pretty stark divide between soft effects such as friends and charm person and hard effects such as suggestion and dominate. The former basically mostly just do things that persuasion skill could do, except faster and more effectively, whilst the latter obviously are direct mind control.
okay, but it is still forcing (if save fails) you to feel a fake connection, and unlike time/skill (aka acutally becoming a friendly aquintence) you loose it after an amount of time, and in the case of friends they not only know but it says they WILL become hostil after.

Granted, I feel that RAW only attacking the target breaking the charm could in theoretically result some situations which would be hard to justify without mind control. Then again, the game allows the same effect applied non-magically... My suggestion would be to broaden a bit the things that break the charm, and then I would be fine classifying it just as very efficient persuasion rather than mind control. But the current situation is rather weird.
I don't see how a 9th level rogue ability (I think the only one) is any different then a 1st level spell. either way, even if we build in an exception for the rogue (I don't know why but to just for sake of argument) the charm spell itself still is at the very least a murky subject (and I would say an evil act)
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So even if the terminology isn't accurate, is it fair to call them "evil"? I mean magic missile is literally assault and serves no other function but for assault with intent to injure or kill.

I think the 9/10ths of the PHB spells are either illegal, immoral or unethical to use, regardless of rationale for it's use, is a safe statement.
The knowledge of how to fight isn’t evil. Weapons aren’t evil. Physical violence does not, outside of nitpicky edge cases, rob anyone of their fundamental self. “What about stabbing people with magical lasers” doesn’t change the argument at all.
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top