D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Voadam]

Agreed. I think the closest real-world analogue to Charm spells is being involuntarily drugged so that your judgement is impaired and you would do things that you would not normally do. So while it is bad, I don't think it is as bad as torture or death.

Not all drugs are involuntary. People voluntarily use alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine for example.

Bless and heroism are enchantments as well.

 

[Voadam]

I take back what I said earlier about dominate person, I was thinking of earlier edition versions of the spell, the 5e one also charms the target and is not just a full body control one.

 

[Azuresun]

It’s not terribly difficult to posit corner cases in an effort to refute a moral assertion but this is sheer infantilism. What are you? Five?

So far, you’ve suggested that charm person is no worse than having a prison guard pin you down and shove his fingers up your arse, which doesn’t lend a whole lot of weight to your position.

Nice dodge away from answering the question.

 

[Lyxen]

I take back what I said earlier about dominate person, I was thinking of earlier edition versions of the spell, the 5e one also charms the target and is not just a full body control one.

It's actually very powerful in 5e, as you have the charm effect (interesting in itself as it's fairly subtle, contrary to charm person which specifies it, the target is not made aware at the end of the spell that it was charmed by you), you have the telepathic command that don't even require an action on your part and that the target will do its best to obey, and you have the full body control, and this without range once you have cast the spell. The only real limitation is the duration and concentration.

Finally, in terms of influence, why would it be more evil to use charm person to gain advantage on social checks than use eagle's splendor on oneself to do exactly the same ? Both use magic to improve your influence on someone.

 

[Voadam]

It's actually very powerful in 5e, as you have the charm effect (interesting in itself as it's fairly subtle, contrary to charm person which specifies it, the target is not made aware at the end of the spell that it was charmed by you), you have the telepathic command that don't even require an action on your part and that the target will do its best to obey, and you have the full body control, and this without range once you have cast the spell. The only real limitation is the duration and concentration.

Right 5e dominate has a lot of charm going on, my memory from some prior editions was that you just could take control of their actions, not their minds, but I have not looked up specifics in a while.

Finally, in terms of influence, why would it be more evil to use charm person to gain advantage on social checks than use eagle's splendor on oneself to do exactly the same ? Both use magic to improve your influence on someone.

Well the same way it would generally be more evil to unilaterally and without consent artificially lower someone else's inhibitions to make them more receptive to your suggestions than to make your framing of your suggestions more appealing to them.

If someone freely and knowingly consents to a charm that would be a morally different situation than just casting a charm on them to influence them. I would analogize to the difference between choosing to drink and being slipped a spiked drink.

 

[Lyxen]

Well the same way it would generally be more evil to unilaterally and without consent artificially lower someone else's inhibitions to make them more receptive to your suggestions than to make your framing of your suggestions more appealing to them.

You are not answering the point. What I'ms aying is that the effect is exactly the same whether you use a spell on yourself or on them so that you can be more convincing. In neither of those cases is the victim consenting to anything. And neither is she consenting when you burn her to a crisp with fireball.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You are not answering the point. What I'ms aying is that the effect is exactly the same whether you use a spell on yourself or on them so that you can be more convincing. In neither of those cases is the victim consenting to anything. And neither is she consenting when you burn her to a crisp with fireball.

I think it has to do with our society's perception that deceiving/manipulating someone into doing something is more acceptable than drugging them to do so. The former is often considered just "boys being boys", while the latter is a crime.

Personally, I disagree with that distinction. I will agree that they are not identical in nature, but the people I have spoken with who have been in these terrible situations have related to me that in either case they oftentimes resulted in traumatic and long-lasting consequences on their well-being. Being drugged is clearly horrific. But being deceived and discarded by someone you believed you could trust is also incredibly harmful, oftentimes shattering a person's capacity for trust and intimacy.

I believe it that both are evil behaviors. It's simply that society accepts the former and (ostensibly) repudiates the latter.

On the other hand, if one were to drug or deceive an orc in order to prevent harm to an innocent, I wouldn't consider that an evil or harmful behavior at all. Which isn't exactly a real world scenario, but certainly something we could realistically encounter in D&D.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To add to the complexity, what kind of Nazis are we talking about? SA thugs or civil servants who joined the Nazi party so they could continue to work? Concentration camp guards who freely volunteered for the job or ”volunteers” who were former Soviet POWs and guarding a camp was better than being starved to death?
I know, people think Nazi is so clear these days, but even that identity isn’t entirely devoid of moral complexity.

So what am I getting at? Issues like this aren’t entirely amenable to black and white/evil and good analysis. And even if you apply some kind of axiomatic reasoning to it, your axiom is probably more idiosyncratic than a widely held truism and will miss a lot of subtlety.

yup yup yup...

Hey here is a group that has 0 issue dehumanizing killing and torturing people who disagree with them or just don't in general align with there idea of perfect... You are not a superhero, and have to choose (maybe not even just for you but for your family) to pay lip service and do basic jobs (some you may have been doing anyway) for them, or be labeled enemy... so you do it... you guard the camp, you file the papers, you answer the phones, you empty the garbage, you do almost anything... that now makes you enemy to the good side...

well off @HammerMan point, but also a good one.

back to charm and dominate and enchantment: yes it is pretty evil. Yes it is an evil tool, but a tool none the less... didn't he say that in the orginal 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…

 

[GMforPowergamers]

responded to wrong post

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You are not answering the point. What I'ms aying is that the effect is exactly the same whether you use a spell on yourself or on them so that you can be more convincing. In neither of those cases is the victim consenting to anything. And neither is she consenting when you burn her to a crisp with fireball.

why would it be more evil to get a person drunk/high to take advantage of them then it is to use make up or do my hair to look more attractive... man this thread has become scary.

also, yes walking into a bar and throwing a fireball is evil...