Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Mercing nazis in Europe in 1940 isn't really a case of "when it suits them". You've created a dichotomy wherein all guerilla actions are murder. Any ambush of the enemy, regardless of what the enemy is trying to do to your country and people, is murder? I think that's a pretty absurd notion.and yeah most descriptions of D&D evil include a bit about not having compassion for living things and freely hurting them when it suits them.
Is it? That seems like a wild assumption, to me. An assassin is someone with that tool in their tool box, who is willing to use it and/or has used it. That certainly doesn't necessitate any sort of eagerness to kill or reluctance to use other tactics first.The assassin doesn't kill in self defense, or as a last resort, its literally the first thing they turn to in their task resolution tool box.
Let's not get into current politically charged events, shall we?So, this is way out in the weeds. Sure, you can point to blatantly obvious situations, like war, and say it cant be evil. Though, do you think Iraqi war was justified?
Why would the court be relevant, here? Lots of things are good or neutral but can get you in trouble with the law. As for society, while it certainly gets more of a voice in an ethics debate about what is right or wrong than the legal system does, society causes incredible harm to innocent people all over the world. I don't find either question compelling.What about if I found out a neighbor was a serial killer, and just went over there and blew him away? Do you think the court and society would be ok with me doing that?
Oh, and by the by, you wouldn't exactly have no legal defense you could make if you killed a serial killer that you could then prove was murdering people around you and that you could reasonably believe was going targeting you or your family next. You'd probably not get off clean, but you wouldn't be facing the same charges as you would if you murdered your neighbor for stealing your lawnmower.
If hypnotism could do in real life what it can do in fiction, any hypnotist would at least be a justified subject of suspicion.To draw a real world analog, you believe that a person cannot study hypnotism "without catastrophic trauma to their own conscience and self-identity"? A stage hypnotist might make a volunteer do embarrassing things that they wouldn't otherwise do (dance like a chicken in front of an audience). That said, I don't think hypnotism is inherently evil by any stretch of the imagination.
I mean, if we disagree here, well...see below.You say that beating up bad people is Good. I disagree.
I just cannot reconcile this notion with any meaningful definition of words like "good", "evil", etc.I, by no means, have any love for bad people. That doesn't mean that I think violence against them (or anyone) is good though. Necessary, at times, perhaps.
Personally, I think that if you didn't want them in your bar or talking to your friend's sister, telepathically forcing them to leave is actually less bad than beating them up until they do what you want.
Our points of reference are too far apart to further engage on the subject usefully, I think. Especially since I doubt it was the OP's intent, nor Morrus's desire, to have drawn out discussions of sexual violence, torture, etc, in this thread.Either is a violation of their will and self, as I see it. However, forcing them to leave without violence is better than doing so by resorting to violence. It's a violation either way, IMO, but at least in the case of mind control they won't be suffering the reminders of the beating days later.
I think that a mage could certainly study charm person without defending into moral depravity. For example, they might study it with the intent of neutralizing violent confrontations non-violently. If learning charm person is somehow inherently immoral, then I would say that learning fireball (a spell that is not good for much else other than mass killing) is also immoral. However, I don't think that learning either spell is inherently immoral.
As I see it, it's how you use them (or intend to use them) that determines the morality. Heck, a wizard might learn both because they love magic and want to learn all spells (gotta catch 'em all), never intending to prepare or cast either. As far as I'm concerned, that's clearly not immoral.
Learning how to torture people is evil, and if you don't see the difference between that and learning to fight, that's fine. We disagree, and always will.
You've made the point in this very post. Controlling a person's mind is comparable to killing them. Not to stabbing them. Not to things people survive, but to the ultimate acts of violence. The only comperable acts to taking control of another person's mind are things that require trigger warnings in polite company to even talk about.Can you elucidate on your perceived difference there?
Breaking free of mind control seems analogous to bringing someone back from the dead. It doesn't undo what happened while they were mind-controlled/dead, but the condition no longer is active going forward.
While mind controlled someone could get you to open a palm print lock and there is no taking it back. They could also use the hand from your corpse to do so and when you are raised there is no taking that back.
The trauma of having been mind controlled will continue as a memory of a past event. So will the trauma of having been killed.