D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Fanaelialae]

I can't think of a single telepathic heroes who hasn't gotten some dark arcs. Maybe something that hasn't lasted long enough or was written for children. Mind control doesn't count as very heroic.

In fairness, plenty of superheroes have had dark arcs, not just the telepathic ones.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Leaving aside for a moment the case of whether certain charms are evil I'd like to talk about the Enchanter Wizard.

Is pursuing Enchantment as a school specialty evil?

This isn't the Wizard knowing a charm just in case they need to use it. This is the Wizard pursuing mind control as a specialty.

Should Enchanters be seen like Necromancers? Not all Necromancy spells are evil but I'm not going to believe a Necromancer when they say they're not in it for animating corpses.

At least other schools have benign purposes. Transmutation isn't inherently evil or harmful. If you're an enchanter though your whole thing is to go around enchanting people.

Most enchantment and necromancy spells are harmful. I haven't met a Necromancer who only casts Gentle Repose.

I think I'm fine with saying Charms can be a grey area and can be themed and presented in such a way that protagonists are not evil for doing them.

Enchanters though? That seems like an evil profession to pursue.

it depends on how magic research works are they looking into how it works to better understand how to stop it or to use it for greater personal gains one is less likely to adventure than the other?

 

[AtomicPope]

A big change in D&D was removing the "evil" descriptor from spells. In 1e the use of poison was deemed "evil" and no person regularly using poison could have a good alignment. Necromancy had a stigma. AD&D had always stigmatized Necromancy as "evil" but it wasn't strictly limited to evil alignments like poison use. Second Edition expanded into kit classes that had sinister qualities, but I don't remember them being limited to evil alignments only. It wasn't until 3e where we had good and evil spell descriptors baked into the system. Book of Vile Darkness expanded on that. In 3e the intention of the spell didn't matter, it was the origin of the spell that determined whether or not the spell was evil. That's in-line with the original concept of the Great Wheel Cosmology™, exploring and expanding it.

In some ways I wish we'd get back to those fantasy elements of good and evil being living forces like in Time Bandits. On the other hand, it would limit the way many people want to play D&D so it's probably not the best way to go about doing it. Like with poison use, that in-and-of-itself shouldn't be relegated to evil for all campaigns. Allowing for flexibility is good for the game as a whole.

 

[Mind of tempest]

A big change in D&D was removing the "evil" descriptor from spells. In 1e the use of poison was deemed "evil" and no person regularly using poison could have a good alignment. Necromancy had a stigma. AD&D had always stigmatized Necromancy as "evil" but it wasn't strictly limited to evil alignments like poison use. Second Edition expanded into kit classes that had sinister qualities, but I don't remember them being limited to evil alignments only. It wasn't until 3e where we had good and evil spell descriptors baked into the system. Book of Vile Darkness expanded on that. In 3e the intention of the spell didn't matter, it was the origin of the spell that determined whether or not the spell was evil. That's in-line with the original concept of the Great Wheel Cosmology™, exploring and expanding it.

In some ways I wish we'd get back to those fantasy elements of good and evil being living forces like in Time Bandits. On the other hand, it would limit the way many people want to play D&D so it's probably not the best way to go about doing it. Like with poison use, that in-and-of-itself shouldn't be relegated to evil for all campaigns. Allowing for flexibility is good for the game as a whole.

that would require them to dictate what is morally right to people and what if they think something is good that you find utterly wrong? internet wars have likely plus real-world controversy is all but guaranteed.

 

[AtomicPope]

that would require them to dictate what is morally right to people and what if they think something is good that you find utterly wrong? internet wars have likely plus real-world controversy is all but guaranteed.

Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds did exactly that, and they were both quite popular and still are among 3e players. Having said that, I'd rather see these as campaign supplements rather than core rules like how 3e had spells with descriptors like good/evil/chaos/law. Putting limits on spells actually enhances a campaign because it delineates boundaries, whether they're magical, cultural, legal, social, economic, or whatever. In fact, the more I think about it the more I'd like to see those kind of supplements published for 5e.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds did exactly that, and they were both quite popular and still are among 3e players. Having said that, I'd rather see these as campaign supplements rather than core rules like how 3e had spells with descriptors like good/evil/chaos/law. Putting limits on spells actually enhances a campaign because it delineates boundaries, whether they're magical, cultural, legal, social, economic, or whatever. In fact, the more I think about it the more I'd like to see those kind of supplements published for 5e.

I can see your point but both were bad at said function on was just edge Saturday morning super evil and the other was more lawful good is god with not legally a poison in it to get around that rule, now a book on the forces of good and evil and how to portray them would be my jam.

however, we are in utter agreement on spell limitation as it means you have to honestly think about what you have which is good if you have fallen into too many patterns with your casters, bad for a sit downturn your brain off kinda game but I assume that is inferred

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

And that's why the DM must present creatures that are worth defeating, so you don't end up with 466-post-long discussion whether it's evil to use a particular spell against a creature.

Charming a creature is quite tender-hearted if the alternative is a fireball.

 

[HammerMan]

And that's why the DM must present creatures that are worth defeating, so you don't end up with 466-post-long discussion whether it's evil to use a particular spell against a creature.

Charming a creature is quite tender-hearted if the alternative is a firebALL

I can not stress enough that if you go back and reread my OP, I am talking about out of combat uses...

 

[Fanaelialae]

I can not stress enough that if you go back and reread my OP, I am talking about out of combat uses...

Plenty of people in this thread have been discussing combat uses.

Moreover, the line between the two can be indistinct. Say that there's a guard. A mage charms the guard to allow them entry. Plan B was to simply fireball the guard.

It wasn't a combat, but it avoided what would have otherwise been a combat/execution, so does it or doesn't it qualify as a combat use? I expect that not everyone might agree on the answer, but this isn't meant to propose a definitive answer. It is simply to illustrate that the delineation isn't necessarily as clean as it might seem at first glance.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

I can not stress enough that if you go back and reread my OP, I am talking about out of combat uses...

Me too. The PCs in the games I DM may try to charm a NPC first, but if that fails they may quickly escalate it to a combat situation, which frequently includes at least one fireball.

And that makes sense, because they are already convinced that they are dealing with a person that needs to be defeated - either in combat or through trickery. Defeat as I meant it does not always include death.

Btw, Charm Person is quite useless in most combat situations. Other enchantments are better though.