Laws in your campaign

[Celebrim]

While I don't try to make the spells themselves crimes the first scenario here would be treated as rape, the second as theft.

That's the traditional view I think most DMs have, and I think that is the assumption players usually make. If I don't use 'charm person' to commit a crime, then it's not wrong to use the spell. I think a few juvenile players might even assume that no violence is involved in 'charm person' and that the person 'consented', but I think that's pretty easy to dispense with.

But I came to feel that it was wholly inadequate. Mind control, even if not used to commit a crime, I think remains a crime largely equivalent to rape regardless of what it was used for. I say largely equivalent to rape because unlike rape, you could at least make a self-defense claim regarding mind control (that I think being the reason rape is often seen as more horrible than murder). But fundamentally, the reason the crime is heinous isn't because of its potential for abuse, but because it's always heinous to steal from someone their power of choice. Think about how you'd feel if you discovered someone had used 'charm person' on you.

And even if you don't agree with that, I think it's easy to see why a society would still write it's laws that way out of sheer bloody-minded. survival instinct. If something is real and a daily possibility, it very much changes your relationship to it. I think there is a mental gulf of understanding between the person in this world thinking about it, and how they'd think about it in a world were it happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But I came to feel that it was wholly inadequate. Mind control, even if not used to commit a crime, I think remains a crime largely equivalent to rape regardless of what it was used for. I say largely equivalent to rape because unlike rape, you could at least make a self-defense claim regarding mind control (that I think being the reason rape is often seen as more horrible than murder). But fundamentally, the reason the crime is heinous isn't because of its potential for abuse, but because it's always heinous to steal from someone their power of choice. Think about how you'd feel if you discovered someone had used 'charm person' on you.

The thing is charm person can also be used to get someone to listen to reason rather than categorically rejecting something. I don't see that use as offensive.

And even if you don't agree with that, I think it's easy to see why a society would still write it's laws that way out of sheer bloody-minded. survival instinct. If something is real and a daily possibility, it very much changes your relationship to it. I think there is a mental gulf of understanding between the person in this world thinking about it, and how they'd think about it in a world were it happened.

I don't think it would be a big issue because I doubt there are very many people in the gray area. The good guys aren't going to abuse it, the bad guys will do plenty else wrong, anyway. Any substantial misbehavior on the part of a caster is going to draw the death penalty or worse. (Measures may be taken to prevent resurrection.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While we are on the topic of laws--one country handles appeals differently. You're always free to appeal a conviction or judgment to the next higher level where you get a new trial. It's double or nothing, though--appeal a 1,000gp fine and lose and you'll pay 2,000gp.

 

[Celebrim]

The thing is charm person can also be used to get someone to listen to reason rather than categorically rejecting something. I don't see that use as offensive.

Mainly I think, because it doesn't happen to you.

But in any event, it doesn't actually do that. A spell like 'Owl's Wisdom' at least conceivably actually gets someone to listen to reason rather than categorically rejecting something. What charm person actually does is get a person to listen to you and give you greater consideration whether you are being reasonable or not. What charm person lets you do is get another person to listen to you when their reason would normally tell them to do otherwise. That is offensive. And naturally, everyone thinks that they are being reasonable...

And having a super-charismatic effect that makes everyone want to agree with you (or unable to disagree with you) certainly wouldn't help a person learn to rely on his reason to persuade people.

I don't think it would be a big issue because I doubt there are very many people in the gray area. The good guys aren't going to abuse it, the bad guys will do plenty else wrong, anyway.

It's inherently abusive. What gray area? It's use constitutes abuse of the target. In fact, it and it's ilk are probably the most abusive possible ability. Pretty much anyone who thought it was a gray area and could be used without abuse, I wouldn't trust to use it. It pretty much to me falls in the category of why Gandalf couldn't be trusted to carry The One Ring, because it would tempt you to use the ability to dominate the minds of others out of a desire to help them and do good.

If you could justify using mind control to get people to be reasonable, then you could justify giving everyone Soma because it improved the net happiness and contentment.

This is Imperious Curse stuff. If you use it on someone without their consent, and without legitimate self-defense need - it's pretty much not forgivable. And even when you could reasonably justify it - the only other choice besides mind rape was killing them or possibly torturing them - there is still something a bit disgusting about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the difference in our opinions is how powerful we view Charm Person.

 

[Celebrim]

I think the difference in our opinions is how powerful we view Charm Person.

No I think it is how sacredly we view human dignity. Or perhaps it is that we've just more internalized the idea of mind control.

If this was technological invention, if someone invented a machine that would create feelings of sympathy and good will toward its wielder, such that they viewed even a stranger as a close and trust worthy friend - then we'd be just as skeptical and to be frank, just as afraid, as those common folk in the fantasy world. If they could come in a room and turn on a box, and suddenly we'd view that person as a close friend and ally, that causes us an involuntary shudder. That's the stuff of horror movies, and those that utilized such devices would be monsters. And, we think we would be justified in that opinion, even if it was as of little power as whatever you imagine charm person to be.

 

[Andor]

No I think it is how sacredly we view human dignity. Or perhaps it is that we've just more internalized the idea of mind control.

If this was technological invention, if someone invented a machine that would create feelings of sympathy and good will toward its wielder, such that they viewed even a stranger as a close and trust worthy friend - then we'd be just as skeptical and to be frank, just as afraid, as those common folk in the fantasy world.

We pretty much do have such things. If I gave you a shot of tequila mixed with a variety of drugs, I could reduce your reason, inhibitions and possibly even memory of the event. We do treat this as a crime although not as bad as rape, (unless of course rape is involved.) However if I got you to sign a contract while under the influence of narcotics, you could have that contract annulled in any court, without question.

Now whether or not that is true historically kind of depends. While a contract made under duress would be considered invalid today, it used to be perfectly acceptable to beat someone unconscious, shove a coin in their hand and declare that since they had accepted your pay they were bound to your employ. (I.E. Press Gangs)

Consider the legend of Hercules. He killed his wife and family while under the effects of a curse sent by Hera. God level mind controlling magic. By the standards of his day, it didn't matter. The blood was on his hands, and he had to atone. Or to put it another way he became culpable when he failed his saving throw. Because this is unacceptable by today's standards, the story is often altered in modern retellings.

So while I agree with you that mind-controlling magic is a heinous violation of another person (although it's worth noting that "Charm Person" in particular cannot make you go against fundamental beliefs) it does not automatically follow that a society confronted with the reality of it would view it the same way. Or draw the same lines that we would draw. For example, would you convict a magic user of slavery for employing a summoning spell? (That includes kidnapping, total mind control, probably the commission of heinous violence against strangers, and probably receiving some violence in return, before getting popped back to your home plane like a state farm agent.)

 

[Dandu]

For example, would you convict a magic user of slavery for employing a summoning spell? (That includes kidnapping, total mind control, probably the commission of heinous violence against strangers, and probably receiving some violence in return, before getting popped back to your home plane like a state farm agent.)

Don't forget trafficking illegal immigrants.

 

[1of3]

An interesting thing is Law of the of the Land. While nowadays that's the standard way for law to work, that wasn't so in antiquity into the middle ages.

What's the alternative? Every community uses their own laws. When a Saxon kills a Saxon in Bavaria, use Saxon law.

 

[Imaculata]

My 3.5 pirate campaign has dueling laws. Basically, if you are challenged to a duel, and you accept, then a city official can make it lawful. Both parties must agree to strict dueling laws, and may both appoint a wizard to make sure that no magic is used to cheat. They both use regulation swords, and no armor. When one of them dies, it is not considered murder, because there was a city official to approve it.