Is Domination Evil?

[tarchon]

I hate it when people don't read all of a post before responding. Notice that not all the items I mentioned involve evil people being the target of the Domination. In fact, most of the examples don't.

I read all of it, you just didn't think about all of it.

 

[Hardhead]

I read all of it, you just didn't think about all of it.

In that case, I'm sorry, but I don't know what you were talking about. I assumed the question was rhetorical, as in "what is Dominating them worse than just killing them?" Obviously, that doesn't apply to most of the examples, which was why I figured you'd skipped past them. The only other option I can think of is that you meant it seriously, to which I'd reply, "No, not opposed to disintegrating them." Though I don't know why you'd think that, either.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

What I find contradictory in the arguements here is arguing that while domination takes away someone's free will, killing them apparently doesn't. At least with domination you have the chance to break free of the spell and resume your life; with death, well, living is harder (not impossible in a D&D world, with undead and raising, but harder). I certainly know I can't excercise any will at all while decomposing.

I agree with this completely. Death is the ultimate loss of free will. Domination is a temporary spell effect toward a specific goal. It is no more evil than killing, which is not, by definition, evil in the D&D universe.

I think each use of Domination needs to be weighed on its own merits. Like any use of spellcraft, the result will likely depend highly on the caster.

 

[Gez]

In D&D, contrarily to the real world, it is known (rather than believed) and proven that there is an afterlife.

Hence, death is not the ultimate loss of free will.

Unless you die in a weird way that bound your soul somehow.

But plain death, from sword, fireball, or disintegration isn't.

 

[Al]

The free will argument is technically unsurmountable because one different paradigms: in that, whilst some posters feel free will is superior to life, others feel the opposite (due to souls or whatever). But here's the nub. Just as killing life can lead to the eventual saving of lives, so can domination actually be used to actually prevent the loss of free will. It's a net-sum game, and often dominating one bad guy is better than him imposing his 'free will' on other people.

If 'free will' were the tantamount virtue, then surely every BBEG could run around and do what he wants? No? This is because, even *if* free will is seen as the tantamount virtue, his actions compromise the free will of others. Domination to prevent him from carrying out his actions, therefore, can protect free will in the long run.

With these paradigms in mind.

1. To what purpose? If it is to stop BBEGs from carrying out some nefarious and detrimental plot, then go for it. If it's for kicks, obviously evil.
2. Generally not evil in a combat situation, assuming that the evil organisation of which he is a part is conducting some sort of evil scheme.
3. Depends on the nature of the 'evil' doer. Corrupt merchants, devious courtiers and the like- evil. Demons, psychopaths and other highly dangerous and irredeemable creatures- probably okay.
4. Only in a true case of emergency.
5. Evil, for the reasons outlined above.
6. Evil. This is the gratuitous taking of free will for nothing greater than one's amusement.
7. Likely to be evil, but dependent on circumstances. There are scenarios where this could be envisaged as okay, however. E.g. Non-evil person unwittingly needed as key sacrifice to unleash demonic plot, and has been tricked to meet cultists at sacrifice site. He does not agree to diplomacy, bribery, threats etc., so domination is for his protection (and that of others).

 

[Thresher]

I always had more of the irony of kicking down someones door, smashing up their stuff, hacking them and their companions to death with swords, axes, flails, burning their pet hydra to death in a fireball, stealing everything of worth and then doing the same to their neighbours in the next dungeon room.
In the name of Good!
Something of more of a moral dilemma... or maybe just a primer for home invasion

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I always had more of the irony of kicking down someones door, smashing up their stuff, hacking them and their companions to death with swords, axes, flails, burning their pet hydra to death in a fireball, stealing everything of worth and then doing the same to their neighbours in the next dungeon room.
In the name of Good!
Something of more of a moral dilemma... or maybe just a primer for home invasion

Why does this stereotype have to be dragged out of the dust it rests under (from not being used by the majority of gaming groups for years) and waved about for the distracting sneezing everytime someone tries to discuss the moral dillemas in their mature game? What would it take for this to stop? A special code we can put in our sigs that indicates we have not played a game post teenaged years (or maybe never) where we 'invaded' any living area without an unequivicol agressive act drawing us in? A poll to find out whether this immaginary game has any relation to the majority of enworlders? An emoticon of a giant red herring being waved about which could be used to cut down on the length of the silly posts in question? WHAT?

gggrrrrrrr......

Kahuna burger

 

[The Freak]

Domination is Always Evil. But then, so is adventuring (as pointed out by Thresher) However, it is a means to an end, and if the end is good (for instance saving the world or stopping a murderer), then it's justifible...

IMNSHO

 

[Kahuna Burger]

In D&D, contrarily to the real world, it is known (rather than believed) and proven that there is an afterlife.

Hence, death is not the ultimate loss of free will.

I don't think it is anyway... I mean, which is a worse violation of free will - to be unable to do anything making no choices (and not even knowing it) or to be forced to take an action contrary to your will, while constantly aware of both the act and your unwillingness?

Just saying "death is worse" isn't just beside the point (which it is) it is NOT automaticly correct! Much has been written and said through the ages to opine that many many things are worse than death... Since people have killed themselves to escape the mere memory of acts which they physicaly recovered from, I'd say it goes without saying that they would have rather died first.

Death is not the ultimate violation of free will. It is a null state. You do not expereicne death, only dying. A dominated person must expereince every moment of it, and remember it afterwards.

In terms of the ethical use of domination, I'd say that the commands given are more significant than the target chosen. Answering a question, taking null actions ("leave me alone" "come with us and don't attack us" etc) or just holding still are neutral uses of the spell. Active commands that go against the target's will ("Attack your friends" "Sleep with me" "grovel and swear loyalty to your sworn enemy") are evil. Using the spell for your own amusement is always evil regardless of how frivolous the commands are. Use of the spell is never a good act, though it could be part of a good plan of action, just like sneaking up and killing a guard. Thats how I'd call it.

Kahuna burger

 

[jmucchiello]

In my opinion and the campaigns I run, mental domination is similar to rape in that it involves one individual forcing his will upon another. In many societies in my games, if a wizard or priest mentally dominates another person, they are likely to face the death penalty if they are caught. There is never a good reason for rape, and there is never a good reason for domination.

Never a good reason? One can always contrive a "good" reason for anything:

Someone is about to throw themselves off a cliff to his death because he is depressed. You, a wizard, have only dominate person in memory. Are you saying preventing that death with domination is not good? Free Will is more important than Life? If the depression is temporary, won't he thank the wizard for preventing him from taking a foolish action?

Domination is no more evil than a sword or a fireball is.