Is dominate person evil?

[Elf Witch]

I thought I would get a census on what you all think of the spell dominate person. Is taking away someone's free will an evil act?

I am not sure how I feel my character used it for the first time last night on two evil fighters who work for demons in the abyss where we are currently trapped. Right now I have commanded them to protect me.

We rescused a paladin who is a temple brother to our party paladin the rescused paladin went nuts when just he and I were together with my dominated lackeys he tried to attack them I didn't want to hurt him or have him hurt my lackeys so I dominated him as well the only commond I gave him was to come and stand next to me and stop attacking.

Well whe the party paladin found out he went nuts and got angry demanding that I release his friend things got hot and the game ended with us ready to attack each other.

Now I am torn is this spell evil is casting it on evil guys okay but not okay on non evil guys. it is my most powerful fifth level spell.

I have to say that sometimes having a paldin in the party is a major pain in the rear

 

[TiQuinn]

Sounds like another case of a DM trying to create "acute paladin tensionits" in the group.

No, I don't think dominating the evil fighters to help protect you was an evil act. Your DM may think differently, however, so you should ask him about it directly.

 

[Elf Witch]

Sounds like another case of a DM trying to create "acute paladin tensionits" in the group.

No, I don't think dominating the evil fighters to help protect you was an evil act. Your DM may think differently, however, so you should ask him about it directly.

He does not think it is a good act and he thinks it makes perfect role playing sense that the paladin in the party would be very unhappy with this action that I took.

The thing that I am wondering is if it is possible for a paladin and caster who speclizes in spells like dominate person, enervation, bestow curse you basic necromancy everything but raise undead to be able to function in the same party?

 

[Painfully]

It's not the spell that's evil, it's the way you use it.

Having said that, you effectively turned the two warriors into bodyguards. The key being that you had them, "protect" you.

When you dominated the paladin, it was both a lawful, and a good act. Why? Because you prevented an unnecessary battle. Once the two warriors were dominated, they effectively lost their evil intent. A paladin who attacks them in such a condition (knowing about it) could be seen as commiting a chaotic act, and might be in danger of losing their paladinhood.

I'd say the rescued paladin is the one with issues right now.

As for the domination, I would simply instruct the paladin to, "cease his aggression." In all other respects, you can allow the paladin to act freely. If the party paladin doesn't like it, I'd simply say that his, "brother" needed to be restrained, and neither mention his domination, nor try to further influence him unless absolutely necessary.

A lot of these issues are subject to how your DM views things. People's ideas of paladins and their code can vary widely.

 

[Silveras]

Dominate Person, in the Players' Handbook, is not marked as Evil. If your DM has a house rule changing that, it is something s/he should have made clear.

Aside from that, the DM *may* be overplaying the Paladin. Paladins are very hard to play well, and it would not surprise me to find that DMs are no better at playing their NPC Paladins than many players are.

Dominating the rescued Paladin might be a little on the extreme side, but if s/he was not listening to reason, it might have been the least harmful way to go.

TiQuinn is quite right ... you should ask your DM if there is something your character should know about using Dominate Person.

 

[Silveras]

He does not think it is a good act and he thinks it makes perfect role playing sense that the paladin in the party would be very unhappy with this action that I took.

The thing that I am wondering is if it is possible for a paladin and caster who speclizes in spells like dominate person, enervation, bestow curse you basic necromancy everything but raise undead to be able to function in the same party?

Not being a good act does not make it an evil act. Evil, in standard D&D, is not just the absence of Good; that's Neutral.

However, if your DM feels differently, that is something s/he needs to make clear.

In my campaign world, the large "Good" kingdom has outlawed Necromancy, even the study of such spells as are not inherently Evil. They have done this because of the problems with Evil Necromancers; they cause too much trouble to the kingdom for study to be allowed. To the point, though: this is information I share with players during character creation. It is included in the background briefing I give players from that land, so they know what their character does (as far as that is concerned).

Outside of the game logic, I made this choice because I view Necromancy as thematically wrong for heroes. It is, in my world, the tool of Dark forces. That is the kind of decision DM's get to make all the time, but it is one they need to make sure they clearly explain to their players. So, in my world, a Necromancer and a Paladin would almost surely be trying to kill each other. However, by the core rules, that is not at all certain to be the case.

 

[ciaran00]

"No, not evil" *mouthing it as the person dominating him mentally instructs him to do so*

 

[Bagpuss]

Depends do you consider slavery evil? As basically that's what mental domination is. So yeah it's evil in my book. Well at least most of the time, in the case you gave it is the lesser of two evils as you might have been forced to use lethal means to restrain the paladin if you had not used dominate, but still I'ld expect use of domination to land me in trouble eventually.

 

[Numion]

Depends do you consider slavery evil? As basically that's what mental domination is. So yeah it's evil in my book. Well at least most of the time, in the case you gave it is the lesser of two evils as you might have been forced to use lethal means to restrain the paladin if you had not used dominate, but still I'ld expect use of domination to land me in trouble eventually.

I don't think it's the same thing as slavery. If you dominate evil persons to just to walk them to nearest town and jail, it amounts to nothing more than a pair of manacles. It's not inherently evil.

Just like manacles aren't evil, neither is dominate. Manacles, whip and a cotton farm might be evil as a combination, but if you don't use domination for such an effect, it's not evil.

At least it's not evil when used in combat to dominate people in the evildoers ranks and making them attack their own. It's just a combat spell then - one mean to the same end as everything else; killing the enemies.

Long-term servitude might be different.

 

[Bagpuss]

I don't think it's the same thing as slavery. If you dominate evil persons to just to walk them to nearest town and jail, it amounts to nothing more than a pair of manacles. It's not inherently evil.

It is more than a set of manacles, a person in chains is still free to resist, even if that results in a beating or being dragged to jail. He can protest his innocence and still not comply with his captors wishes. Mental domination removes all freedom of choice, you become nothing more than a puppet. So they also have no opportunity to reform or redeem themselves.

Maybe in the D&D sense it isn't Evil (with a big E), but its certainly far from good, and in the case in question I think the paladin is right.

I've played in campaigns where a Paladin (or anyone else of noble standing) is within his rights to challenge someone for casting Detect Lie or Know Alignment on them. Mentally controlling anyone is going to get you on the wrong side of them and their allies, and rightfully so.