Is dominate person evil?

[Nifft]

IMC, Dominate Person is not inherently evil. It is, however, very tempting, and prone to abuse. (Abuse is evil.)

-- N

 

[Deadguy]

I'm tempted to say that dominate is one of those classically neutral acts. It isn't particularly pleasant, as it strips away the will and turns the subject into a slave. But at the same time, it isn't anywhere near as nasty as just out-and-out killing another, or crippling them permanently or other more permanent solutions to getting rid of someone.

So as always, it's the intent that colours the actions. Using it to control someone and prevent them from hurting themselves or others might well seem a 'good' use of the spell, particularly if it was the only option to hand. Using it to avoid bloodshed spans the line between Good and Neutral, depending on who is controlled and what they (and you) might do otherwise. However, the spell has anotehr use, that of bending others to serve your will for your own selfish purposes. A classic Evil usage is dominting someone to be able to blackmail them for the actions they undertake whilst under its effects.

So events must be determined at the time, though you can have a pretty good idea what's likely to be acceptable. That, I am sure, is why it does't earn the [Evil] descriptor, even though it does seem pretty unpleasant. I generally ask myself: is it really much worse than searing the opponent in flames or dissolving them in an acid arrow?

 

[Jeph]

In my opinion, anyone who would take free will away from another is morally drelict. Morally derelict, however, is not a synonym for [Evil].

 

[Plane Sailing]

You can find an extensive discussion in this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71772

at least 50 posts there. Enjoy!

FWIW I look at the spell descriptor. No "[ evil ]" tag there, so it is not an evil spell.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm torn here. I once had an NPC who hated mind-control, having been dominated for quite a while, and having had friends die because of mind-control. To her, yes, it is morally better to beat someone into unconsciousness if they're endangering you than it is to dominate them. It may be harder to fight them, but often the more difficult act is the more morally decent one.

On the other hand, if you replaced dominate with sleep, then no, I'd hardly say forcing someone to sleep is evil. You could use the defense, "Hey, if I could've simply put him to sleep to stop the fight, I would have, but all I had that could stop him without hurting anyone was dominate." If you only use the dominate spell for the minimum amount of time, stopping hostilities, removing immediate threats, tying up the badguys and then dropping the spell, then I don't consider it any more evil than beating someone into unconsiousness.

But the moment you go from 'stop them from hurting me' to 'I think I could use these guys to my advantage,' you begin to tread the path of evil.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have been mulling this over today and I have to say that I have come to the conclusion that it is not always evil. Yes, I think it can be used for great evil and for very selfish reasons.

But then so can a lot of other spells like bestow curse or everyone's favorite fireball.

One thing I think you have to look at when you discuss good vs evil is motivation I really think that plays a large part in something. Using dominate as an example the way my character used it in the game is a good example of this. It was first used to stop an evil guard from killing one of the PCs the command was simple protect him. So the motivation there was purely non selfish so I would say non evil maybe even good because it was saving a life.

The second time the spell was used was to command them to fight their evil overlords this was done so that we would live so that is rather a self absorbed action but I think it is on the neutral scale due to the fact that both sides are fighting for their lives. I have never bought the it's good when good people kill evil but evil when evil kill good that is just to simple the motivation behind the killing is more important than the alingment of those doing the killing.

Casting it on the dreanged paldin was both a selfish act and a humane act so I could see it as both good and neutral.

I think a lot of what happens in DnD games or in real life for that fact is neutral rather than good most acts of war are not good even if in the end they do some good.

 

[reiella]

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

Hmm, the questionable one is dominating the paladin. I wouldn't like it myself, nor would I like it if one of my 'compatriots' was so dominated in order to 'calm' a situation. The suggestion of 'cease your aggression' would be more fit in the form of a Charm Person or Suggestion than Domination. As those actually apply to a single 'suggestion' yet still leaving the individual with most of their free will. After all, the paladin would be left with the option of just standing there, non-aggressive, until the caster commands him to do something else or the spell's duration expires.

Mental Domination is extremely questionable, as it removes the legitimacy of one of the more powerful forms of social/political revolution, the civil disobediance.

In all, I wouldn't necessarily call it evil, however, the continual use of domination to avoid "having to deal with bullheaded people" may well a good healthy start down the road to corruption.

I would also find the Paladin's reaction appropiate to be honest. I mean, would you be upset / stubborn if a NPC blatantly dominated one of your party members due to a disagreement?

 

[Elf Witch]

Hmm, the questionable one is dominating the paladin. I wouldn't like it myself, nor would I like it if one of my 'compatriots' was so dominated in order to 'calm' a situation. The suggestion of 'cease your aggression' would be more fit in the form of a Charm Person or Suggestion than Domination. As those actually apply to a single 'suggestion' yet still leaving the individual with most of their free will. After all, the paladin would be left with the option of just standing there, non-aggressive, until the caster commands him to do something else or the spell's duration expires.

Mental Domination is extremely questionable, as it removes the legitimacy of one of the more powerful forms of social/political revolution, the civil disobediance.

In all, I wouldn't necessarily call it evil, however, the continual use of domination to avoid "having to deal with bullheaded people" may well a good healthy start down the road to corruption.

I would also find the Paladin's reaction appropiate to be honest. I mean, would you be upset / stubborn if a NPC blatantly dominated one of your party members due to a disagreement?

Yes I would find it objectionable if one of my compaions were dominated for a trivial reason I would really find it bad if they were dominated and attacked us as a matter of fact I did when in another game the party cleric was dominated and he killed my familiar.

Dominating the paladin was not done to stop just a disagreement he was out of control with madness and I was alone and do not know the spells charm person or suggestion. And we were in a dangerous situation I am realy surprised that the DM did not use all this hoopla to have us attacked by the reinforcements the demon who ran away went to get.

Now I totally agree using domination to get bullheaded people to do waht you want is a very bad thing. Someone does not want to sell you their father's sword and you dominate them and make them do it is not a ggod act but on the other hand you dominate a person to stop him from hurting himself is that evil?

 

[Liolel]

Rather then restate what has been said before I will provide a link to the last debate on this.

Link

 

[Numion]

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.

Soooo ... it wouldn't be okay to knock someone out? Because then they'll lose the free will for the amount of time they're out.

It's pretty strange if it would be ok to tie someone up, but not to do the same with a prolonged sleep spell.