D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[doctorbadwolf]

That does not seem to follow from the example.

The example seems to apply to overpowering someone in a grapple just as much as to killing them or using mind control.

Not at all.

The mind controller/grappler/killer takes control of the opponent's hand and uses it to open the palm lock they did not want opened.

The grappler hasn't taken control of the person's mind. Or killed them, for that matter. It's a patently silly comparison.

After words it is done once the mind control is broken/the grapple is released/the body is raised. The target has control of themself again.

Whatever was done while the target was not in control of their hand, happened.

Whatever happened isn't necessarily the point, though. While being grappled and physically forced to do something against your will is humiliating, horrifying, and traumatizing, (which is why bullies and abusers do it so much) it does not force your mind to do anything. You are still in control of your nervous system, you are still able to resist, even if in vain.

I really think that folks who think that isn't worse than physical violence are failing to conceptualize the experience.

Mind control would be more like the effects of long term entrapment in an abusive relationship or a program of reeducation, except done to you in a moment. I know people who have survived such situations, and most of them recognize their own trauma in mind control stories like season 1 of Jessica Jones.

Anyway, I should step away from this.

Mind control intersects with real world trauma pretty strongly, and the arguments I see in these discussions often resemble those I've heard from people who don't understand what is so traumatic about some pretty awful stuff that happens to people IRL. I'd consider a human trafficker to be even worse than a murderer IRL, or just as bad at the very least.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Historical events are ok because

they don't violate the site's ban on political arguments.

 

[GMMichael]

. . .I think that from a modern perspective (i.e. the one we share), depriving someone of their autonomy and volition is unequivocally evil. . .

Funny, that the institutions that commit such an act are often the ones that define evil...

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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.

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.

If a witch had mind controlled Hitler and the rest of the Nazi leadership in 1942 and made them order the Wehrmacht to surrender immediately, would that have been an evil act?

 

[Azuresun]

Yes, it is. Inherently and unequivocally.

No it isn't. Inherently and unequivocally.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That was my first thought as well.

Although enchantments of this kind are a staple in fiction and folklore, it should be noted that it's generally the villain who is deploying this kind of magic, and if the protagonist attempts it, it generally goes awry.

I think that from a modern perspective (i.e. the one we share), depriving someone of their autonomy and volition is unequivocally evil.

So how about compelling summoned creatures and outsiders?

I don't think it's true that from the modern perspective it is unequivocally evil.

Take prison, for example. Being locked away in prison most certainly deprives a person of their autonomy and volition.

Leaving aside cases of innocent people being wrongfully incarcerated, I would say that the modern perspective doesn't view incarceration as evil, but rather a consequence of committing crimes. Certainly prison does violate one's autonomy and volition - a prisoner cannot go where they please, or do what they please, and may be subject to extremely invasive searches that I doubt anyone would welcome.

Of course, if someone were to take an innocent person and incarcerate them in such a way, we would view it as evil. However, when done to criminals it is typically viewed as justice.

I certainly think that compelling a summoned creature can be evil. For example, forcing a summoned celestial to commit evil acts. However, I don't think that all compelled acts are evil. Using a summoned demon to rescue a child who would otherwise drown might infuriate the demon, but I think it's vastly overreaching to call it evil. Rescuing a drowning child is a good act. It doesn't suddenly become evil because you compelled a summoned demon (who is at no actual risk) to do it.

 

[steeldragons]

I fundamentally disagree. Not all violence is murder. All mind control is violation of Will.

Arguably, "charm" spells (Friends, Charm Person, et al) are not "mind control" so much as mind/emotion/perception "influencing." You can not force them to harm themselves or do things that are intrinsically against their nature. The target knows they were ensorcelled when the spell wears off. It's a...mental "nudge."

Is the bard or knightly- or warlordy-played battlemaster guy (some missionary or preachery paladin or cleric types) who "influence" you through inspiration or rallying calls or uplifting sermons (which tangibly change your rolls for the better or enemy rolls for the worse) "evil" for using those features? I presume you/reasonable people will say, "No, of course not." So my query, then, is, "Why not?"

That can be contrasted with the other arm of Enchantment magics, everyone's favorites, the "compulsions." This is mind "control." You don't have a choice [if you fail the save]. You, generally, awaken from the spell with no knowledge of what you've done. The compulsions are your, arguably, intrinsically evil enchantments. While we look at Dominate as the quintessential example of this, it really starts waaaay back at 1st level, with the cleric's Command spell. Hold Person! Though, I believe, in both of those lower level cases you are aware of what you're doing/is happening to you. You just can't help it... makes it even more evil, if you ask me.

Right out the gate, it's not the enchanters or the necromancers you need to watch and worry about being evil. It's those shifty pompous clerics.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I don't think it's true that from the modern perspective it is unequivocally evil.

Take prison, for example. Being locked away in prison most certainly deprives a person of their autonomy and volition.

This is a poor example, and misses the mark. The case in point refers to intervening in an individual's selfhood, and compromising the integrity of their consciousness.

Better - but still inadequate examples - might include lobotomizing psychiatric patients, unsanctioned anaesthesia, spiking someone with LSD without their consent, or administering large doses of lithium sulfate to Alzheimer's sufferers in order to pacify them. How do you feel about those?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Arguably, "charm" spells (Friends, Charm Person, et al) are not "mind control" so much as mind/emotion/perception "influencing." You can not force them to harm themselves or do things that are intrinsically against their nature. The target knows they were ensorcelled when the spell wears off. It's a...mental "nudge."

Is the bard or knightly- or warlordy-played battlemaster guy (some missionary or preachery paladin or cleric types) who "influence" you through inspiration or rallying calls or uplifting sermons (which tangibly change your rolls for the better or enemy rolls for the worse) "evil" for using those features? I presume you/reasonable people will say, "No, of course not." So my query, then, is, "Why not?"

That can be contrasted with the other arm of Enchantment magics, everyone's favorites, the "compulsions." This is mind "control." You don't have a choice [if you fail the save]. You, generally, awaken from the spell with no knowledge of what you've done. The compulsions are your, arguably, intrinsically evil enchantments. While we look at Dominate as the quintessential example of this, it really starts waaaay back at 1st level, with the cleric's Command spell. Hold Person! Though, I believe, in both of those lower level cases you are aware of what you're doing/is happening to you. You just can't help it... makes it even more evil, if you ask me.

Right out the gate, it's not the enchanters or the necromancers you need to watch and worry about being evil. It's those shifty pompous clerics.

I have been thinking about this and it indeed is a tad muddy whether charm person let alone friends are mind control. Some classes can do similar things without magic. Swashbuckler has a charm effect that works like charm person, but is presumably perfectly mundane. And we generally don’t think mundane people being charming is mind control… Yet when it is a spell it definitely feels more mind controly.

The more powerful effects like suggestion and compulsion are in that sense clearer as they’re blatantly obviously mind control.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The case in point refers to intervening in an individual's selfhood, and compromising the integrity of their consciousness.

Better - but still inadequate examples - might include lobotomizing psychiatric patients, unsanctioned anaesthesia, spiking someone with LSD without their consent, or administering large doses of lithium sulfate to Alzheimer's sufferers in order to pacify them. How do you feel about those?

I feel this touches on utilitarianism, which is, considerably of current importance.