Is dominate evil?

[Celebrim]

In a D&D world, "we" (being the mortals) are not necessarily the end of the chain, though. You create an agent, and put your will into it. If you yourself are an agent, you needed to come from somewhere. Something put will into you. There's free will somewhere in the stack. Unless you're going to say it is turtles all the way up...

There may be free will somewhere in the stack, but it doesn't have to reside in the mortal level. If it doesn't reside in the mortal level, it doesn't require infinite recursion. The is an argument usually seen from a misuse of Occam's razor. Occam's razor is perfectly happy to accept two or three or four or n components to the system provided that observation rules out n-1.

But I still think the point that "rights" don't have a meaning without free will still holds.

My point is that someone who doesn't think that free will holds, will also agree that your definition of 'rights' will not hold. Instead, they will see the real rights of the agents as being akin to the physical laws of the universe or to those granted to software agents. I can provide real world examples, but it would probably violate the board rules. Instead I'll just say that in our hypothetical fantasy world, the chaotics and the lawfuls don't actually know either how the world is and disagree with how it should be. Therefore, something like our inability to grasp the fundamental axioms of the universe probably holds true for them (at least on the mortal level) as it does for us. They could also be arguing over whether the universe favors destiny or free will, and be equally unable to prove their intuitive understanding or preference.

Think of it this way - every person in the USA has the right to walk down a sidewalk, yes? Barring some specific issue of public safety or what not, I mean. Really, you've got that right. Correct?

One of the difficulties here is if I talked about what I actually believed we'd quickly get into talking about things EnWorld doesn't smile upon. So I have to confine myself to saying things like, "In my opinion, law loosely maps to this set of philosophical positions, and so they'd view the hypothetical in this way..." And just for the record, I don't actually hold any of the positions I've hitherto talked about.

My brother was confined to a wheelchair for his entire life. Walking was a physical impossibility for him. The "right" to walk down the street was meaningless, as he could not choose to do so.

Many real world philosophical positions essentially hold that you could no more choose not to do the things that you do than your brother could choose to walk.

Perhaps, best to say that I think "indeterminism" as the world experiences it is perhaps not the way philosophers typically define it.

In reality, we may actually agree about a lot of things. Reality though tends to be sticky subject.

But, at that point, we are talking about belief systems (and thus effectively religion), so I doubt we can go much further without running up aginst the board rules.

Almost certainly.

 

[Umbran]

There may be free will somewhere in the stack, but it doesn't have to reside in the mortal level.

My original statement doesn't require it at the mortal level - just that it exists at all. I mentioned the turtles because some arguments that hold for long (even very long) chains can be shown to fail for *infinitely* long chains, and wished to see if that's what you meant.

My point is that someone who doesn't think that free will holds, will also agree that your definition of 'rights' will not hold. Instead, they will see the real rights of the agents as being akin to the physical laws of the universe or to those granted to software agents.

Okay, so I think there you've pretty much proved my point. I said that rights don't have meaning without free will. Certainly, this is "rights" as I mean them, since I was the speaker.

Those who believe in free will are going to agree with my statement. Those who do not will also agree, insofar as "rights" as I mean them don't exist at all, and thus don't have meaning with or without free will! My statement, is, in essence, tautological.

Instead I'll just say that in our hypothetical fantasy world, the chaotics and the lawfuls don't actually know either how the world is and disagree with how it should be. Therefore, something like our inability to grasp the fundamental axioms of the universe probably holds true for them (at least on the mortal level) as it does for us.

I think, in a D&D world, a Lawful mortal with a grasp of logic would probably claim the universe is not fully deterministic (yet), and free will exists (at least for now), because to do otherwise is nihilistic.

D&D's lawfulness implies a dedication to supporting and spreading law and order. If, however, you accept that the universe is already deterministic, then that determinism already includes the elements that mortals, in their ignorance, call "chaotic". There is no point to supporting and spreading law and order if, in fact, everyone is already in the grip of same. The job the lawful person wants to do is already done, further effort is not required, and we can all go home and have a nice cup of tea - and that we would do so is, of course, already fated.

In the real world, those who argue that the world is deterministic are not generally in the business of spreading or supporting the universe in its determinism, so the above argument doesn't apply. It is strictly for D&D-ism alignments.

And, in 3e and prior, where alignment is a palpable force of the universe that can be affected by mortal magics, to claim that chaos doesn't exist is kinda foolish. How do you cast "Protection from Chaos" if you claim that "Chaos" doesn't actually exist? What are you protecting against, and why do you have to protect against it?

This is an area where in-game philosophy is somewhat simpler than real-world philosophy

 

[Griego]

The usual argument is that dominate takes away free will, and that is evil.

But, in the context of the 3e and prior alignment system, I'm not sure that's the case - is not free will more an issue for the law/chaos axis? Laws restrict free will. By the usual argument, laws are thus evil, and Paladins could not exist!

My personal take on it is, as with most issues of morality and ethics, the question cannot be answered in general. Specific details of the situation, motivations, desired results, and actual all impact whether a thing is, in the end, evil.

I think the difference here between laws and domination is, you still have a choice to obey a law, or to disobey it. If you get caught, you will be punished, but you can still practice civil disobedience if you believe a law is unjust. If you're dominated, you are stripped of choice entirely. Even if you're not made to do anything you wouldn't do otherwise, this is still a gross violation, in my opinion. Besides, laws only restrict you from doing things you probably shouldn't be doing anyway. In theory.

 

[Elf Witch]

This has become a hot topic in my game. My sorceresses is neutral and she cast a dominate on a fighter who was trying to kill her and made him protect her from the other people trying to kill her.

The rest of the party had a hissy fit because they view what she did as evil. I don't get that at all, it would be okay to cast say fireball on him and burn him to death or maim him but taking his free will away and stopping him from killing her is evil.

I am in the camp that the spell itself is neutral the same as say fireball. It is how you use it that matters. Using fireball on a hoard of marauding orcs is a good act but using it on a bunch of innocent townsfolk makes it an evil act. I see dominate person the same way.

I can see mages casting dominate person on prisoners to make it easier to transport them. As others have pointed out using it to stop someone from harming someone else. These are hardly evil acts.

Now dominating an innocent and forcing them to do your biding is different you are basically kidnapping them, taking away their free will and taking them from their chosen life. It is no different than forcing them at sword point to do your bidding.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am not sure if it is more or less evil then burning someone alive with a Fireball.

 

[jonesy]

I am not sure if it is more or less evil then burning someone alive with a Fireball.

More. You can hit someone with a fireball by accident.

 

[Dausuul]

This has become a hot topic in my game. My sorceresses is neutral and she cast a dominate on a fighter who was trying to kill her and made him protect her from the other people trying to kill her.

The rest of the party had a hissy fit because they view what she did as evil. I don't get that at all, it would be okay to cast say fireball on him and burn him to death or maim him but taking his free will away and stopping him from killing her is evil.

I agree that self-defense is a perfectly legitimate use.

I can see mages casting dominate person on prisoners to make it easier to transport them.

Using it on prisoners for ease of transport is crossing the line IMO. You're using it for your own convenience, not out of necessity. I mean, you could also make the prisoners easier to transport by slitting their throats; but I think most people would agree that's venturing into evil territory.

Generally, I think that's a pretty good metric for use of dominate. If it would be acceptable to kill someone in a given situation, it's okay to dominate that person instead. If not, probably not.

 

[prosfilaes]

More. You can hit someone with a fireball by accident.

Less. The only goal of a fireball is to cause injury. A dominate can stop someone from hurting someone else, or even themselves, without causing injury.

 

[Shemeska]

It doesnt use negative energy so isn't an [evil] spell but would you classify its use as evil?

Using negative energy doesn't make something evil though. Many spells that use it aren't [evil], and negative energy itself and the plane it comes from aren't evil either.

 

[jonesy]

Less. The only goal of a fireball is to cause injury. A dominate can stop someone from hurting someone else, or even themselves, without causing injury.

A fireball can be a utility spell if you get creative. It is not just an injury creator. Dominate only dominates.