D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Maxperson]

and where did I suggest not stopping them?

again where did I say not to stop them?

In the scenario I proposed, clearly mind control was the only way to succeed with that.

So since you didn't understand, I'll say it again only I'll add in explicitly this time. If someone is about to murder someone and mind control is the ONLY way to stop that person from committing the murder, the act of mind control is a good thing.

excpet it is your argument at a larger scale (as long as it ends good it doesn't matter what you do)

It's not my argument at all.

but what if ruleing the world was the means to stop them (yes i added theft, is that a problem?) as long as his ends "stop bad thing" is good then his means "take over world" is too... just like "stop killer" is good (I think we all agree) but mind control is bad (we do not agree here) makes it Okay and justfies it.

Stop moving the goal posts. This is about singular instances of mind control to stop murder or rape, not ruling the world or ridiculous arguments like stopping me from eating in an unhealth manner.

replace mind control with kill
replace mind control with beat to a bloody pulp
replace mind control with beat up bad
replace mind control with beat up
replace mind control with punch in throat
replace mind control with punch in nose
replace mind control with takle and take away weapon
replace mind control with talk down

is talking someone out of murder the exact same as killing someone to stop the murder? both stop the murder. Do the means matter?

I'm not going to get into an argument about every possible way to stop someone from doing something bad, because they are not relevant to what I am saying.

All of those other ways to stop them are not options. In my scenario, you cannot get to them or talk them down. Mind control is literally your only option and if you don't use it the victim is murdered.

 

[HammerMan]

Just curious; is this purely an academic, philosophical discussion, or is someone advocating for change? Is there a faction here that wants all mind-effecting spells to be labeled explicitly as "evil"? What do you want to see in a future edition/revision/printing of the core rules that reflects your personal philosophical outlook vis a vis the nature of good and evil? People have struggled with these questions for literally the span of human history, after all. Do you need the game to reflect your opinion, or is it just fun to talk about?

good question. As the OP I am not for (and I think I said in my OP) removeing the spells. I am for a discussion and maybe a sidebar.

TLDR even low level enchantments can force your will on others and that is one of the most evil things you can do and we often play it off as no big deal. The trope is evil necromancer… but evil enchanter seem WAY scarier.


So someone suggested I wanted these spells removed from the game. Far from it, but a side bar in the 50th anniversary edition talking about the nature of how evil it is and the consequences could go a long way…

Now if you will excuse me I am off to make a Bard BBEG who is totally mind controlling a whole town.

 

[Micah Sweet]

good question. As the OP I am not for (and I think I said in my OP) removeing the spells. I am for a discussion and maybe a sidebar.

What would the sidebar say? Keep in mind that anything WotC prints in the PH is essentially them advocating that stance, and furthermore doing so in a way that cuts across all settings (since the core rules are ostensibly setting-neutral). And if they say it applies only to some settings, then the stance is relative and not a universal truth, as some here seem to believe. Is that ok?

 

[HammerMan]

In the scenario I proposed, clearly mind control was the only way to succeed with that.

okay, so you perform a pretty evil dark act (taking away someone's free will) and the ends is good... you stop the bad guy.

in the real world sometimes cops have to shoot people.
in the real world sometimes countries have to defend themselves by going to war
in the real world someone had to make the choice to nuke 2 cities to end a war...

ends can be good with bad means. the ends do not EVER excuse the means.

if keffer sutherland tortures a guy then kills two more, speeds through the city causeing massive amounts of car accadents were inocent people are hurt, BUT stops the nuke from going off savinging millions... he still did bad things.

So since you didn't understand, I'll say it again only I'll add in explicitly this time. If someone is about to murder someone and mind control is the ONLY way to stop that person from committing the murder, the act of mind control is a good thing.

no it isn't. the fact that you need to go to such an extreme to find a justification is telling.

It's not my argument at all.

okay then what is?

Stop moving the goal posts. This is about singular instances of mind control to stop murder or rape, not ruling the world or ridiculous arguments like stopping me from eating in an unhealth manner.

no you are placing goal posts... this is my thread from my OP about the act of mind control in general not a spesfic case... however the fact that you need to go to extreme cases to find a corner case of a good end is again telling...

if stopping murder is good, and saving life is good and helping someone eat healthy is good where is the line?

I'm not going to get into an argument about every possible way to stop someone from doing something bad, because they are not relevant to what I am saying.

your right... they are only relelvent to the discussion of sometimes good people do bad things to stop other worse bad things... this doesn't make the bad thing a good thing.

All of those other ways to stop them are not options. In my scenario, you cannot get to them or talk them down. Mind control is literally your only option and if you don't use it the victim is murdered.

then you get to choose, will you do a bad thing to save someone?

it is the same question with a gun.

If I (me, not you not some cop, not some theoretical person) had a gun and could shoot the guy across the street before he stabs a child, I don't think I could do it. I don't think I could take a life to save a life. taking a life is so far out of my ability it isn't funny.

now replace a child with MY child (I don't have kids so this has to be theroetical) maybe that changes... I have been told by many that it does.

now replace gun/kill with forcable take control of someone's mind. it is such a difference because I know it isn't real... if it was I don't think I could.

 

[HammerMan]

What would the sidebar say? Keep in mind that anything WotC prints in the PH is essentially them advocating that stance, and furthermore doing so in a way that cuts across all settings (since the core rules are ostensibly setting-neutral). And if they say it applies only to some settings, then the stance is relative and not a universal truth, as some here seem to believe. Is that ok?

I don't know for sure... I have some ideas.

something like "We think of physical force, but the idea of mental force is a fantasy aspect of the game. remember when you use charm/enchanment/mind effects you are performing mental violence's and mentally violating the target. "
I don't know I don't get paid to write the books, I am sure that we can find someone to write something better.

Edit: I almost forgot... I think WoTc SHOULD take a stance, this is not a neutral idea, forcing someone to do your will is pretty dark... and playing 'the voice' or 'jedi mind trick' or 'charm person' as anything less then a violation of other seems weird to me... but we do violat others all the time in games...

 

[Maxperson]

okay, so you perform a pretty evil dark act (taking away someone's free will) and the ends is good... you stop the bad guy.

You keep saying that, but people do not have the right to any sort of will that they want. It's not free. You are not free to murder someone and will to that endis invalid. You are not free to rape someone and will to that end is invalid.

Before you can make the bolded claim, you have to prove that it's right and appropriate for people to have the free will to murder someone.

no you are placing goal posts... this is my thread from my OP about the act of mind control in general not a spesfic case... however the fact that you need to go to extreme cases to find a corner case of a good end is again telling...

if stopping murder is good, and saving life is good and helping someone eat healthy is good where is the line?

You made a general claim of "mind control is always evil." You can complain about corner cases all you want, but if there's even a single exception, then your claim is refuted. I didn't move the goal posts. I refuted your claim by providing an example where it's incorrect.

 

[HammerMan]

You keep saying that, but people do not have the right to any sort of will that they want. It's not free. You are not free to murder someone and will to that endis invalid. You are not free to rape someone and will to that end is invalid.

Before you can make the bolded claim, you have to prove that it's right and appropriate for people to have the free will to murder someone.

no I don't I just have to prove you have the right to bodily and mental autonomy. what kind of proof would you like that you don't get to just force your beliefs and values on others by imposing your will on them? I will attempt to accomadate that once you tell me what kind of proof you seek.

You made a general claim of "mind control is always evil." You can complain about corner cases all you want, but if there's even a single exception, then your claim is refuted. I didn't move the goal posts. I refuted your claim by providing an example where it's incorrect.

except you have not provided an exception to use of charm/mind control. You have postulated that anything you do to stop X is inherently good. I oppose that stance with "Good ends do not justify or retroactivity goodify (is that a word?) a bad act"

there is no refuting in any of your arguments about weather mind control is or is not bad. You have argued repeatedly that you can use mind control to stop a bad act. You can do a lot of bad things to bad people to stop bad acts... your act is still a bad thing.

Refute the base concept not the results of a signal action. (becuse no where in my OP did I say mind control can not be used FOR good...infact if you go back I gave examples) here is from my 1st post...

Slight tangent: mind control in stories is not always evil Professor X when not written like a jerk (aka pick and choose your continuity) can be a good telepath. I am 100% sure we could fill a thread just with examples of GOOD telepaths that only force there will on others in dire circumstances… however even then we are left with what I see as the problem… invasion of privacy on the most intimate (not like that player) level and the horror of forcing someones will on someone else…

 

[Maxperson]

no I don't I just have to prove you have the right to bodily and mental autonomy. what kind of proof would you like that you don't get to just force your beliefs and values on others by imposing your will on them? I will attempt to accomadate that once you tell me what kind of proof you seek.

This is an argument that boils down to it's okay to decide to, and go through with murder. After all, stopping someone from committing murdering is forcing your values and beliefs on him.

I very much disagree with that.

there is no refuting in any of your arguments about weather mind control is or is not bad.

I've provided the same amount of proof of that act being good that you have for it being evil. You made the original claim, you need to back it up with more than, "This is what I believe."

 

[Faolyn]

You clearly didn't look hard enough. I did answer it.

Not unless you think your opinion is the same as facts.

It's directly applicable. You are claiming to be right doing the exact same thing you told me that I was wrong for doing.

So it's OK because you claim I did it first? Sheesh.

I've heard you. Your position is rooted in exactly the same spot my cannibalism position is rooted. If one is right, both are. If one is wrong, both are.

Er, no. That's ridiculous. In the cannibalism issue, some real-world people have engaged in it for a cultural or religious ritual that is designed to show honor to their dead, or to keep the spirits of the dead among their people. I'm not talking about individuals from a culture that doesn't do but chooses to engage in it anyway, and who eat people who aren't consensual or who can't consent.

But name me one instance of mind control being used for legitimate good.

Or let's put it this way: what it I decided to mind-control you? Make you think things you wouldn't normally think, make you do things that you would normally refuse to do, that would be contrary to your nature and desires.

I'm sure you're going to say "but if it was for the greater good, it'd be OK," but I'm equally sure that if you were actually trying to do a thing that I felt you needed to be mind-controlled into not doing, you wouldn't agree--because no matter what your mental state is, you would feel you had a legitimate reason for doing the thing.

Like, you're an adventurer, trying to adventure. There's bandits or slavers or some other legit bad guys and, like any other True Adventurer, you get decide to get into combat. And I decide to dominate you, because killing is wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

But name me one instance of mind control being used for legitimate good.

You can't imagine a instance where dominate could be used for good? I can. To stop a murder in the act of being committed.

Or let's put it this way: what it I decided to mind-control you? Make you think things you wouldn't normally think, make you do things that you would normally refuse to do, that would be contrary to your nature and desires.

Apples and oranges. I'm talking apples(stopping an active murder or rape) and you are talking oranges(mind controlling someone for the heck of it).