D&D (2024) Playtest 8: Cantrips

[Mistwell]

Depends on the mind control. Something that causes scarring and long lasting mental trauma? Plus, there's alternatives to being burned to death - knocking someone unconscious is a thing too.

I'm just saying that some people tend to prefer experiencing physical pain to mental pain.

We detailed the example. It involved erasing from the mind of a humanoid that you saw you and turning around to go the other way - to avoid combat where you're very likely to kill them.

From this, I am getting pushback that such mind control is more evil than actually burning them alive with a fireball. Which I am speculating is just internet hyperbole.

I mean, this line of thinking is essentially saying Dr. Who is committing a worse atrocity on everyone he uses his psychic paper on than actually murdering them - something he takes pains to not do.

 

[Mephista]

We detailed the example.

Not really following it - it came off as pretty silly to me as people grew more extremes on their sides. Why is there no option to just go invisible or use illusions? Why use mind wipes instead of Sleep? Its an unrealistic white room scenario that I just can't take seriously. Plus, if you're in a situation where you're either mind wiping or killing, I have to ask what's the point when spells to interrogate the dead exist. I just can't relate to it at all.

• Mind reading without consent is a violation. I consider it a greater violation than tricking someone with words and a pretty face, but a lesser violation to torturing someone for info.
• Hold Person is more a violation than grappling someone (the feeling of losing control of your body from a taser is horrific enough), but I would consider them ethically equal in terms of ethics and morals. It would FEEL more horrific than being knocked unconscious in the moment, but probably will have less long term damage. Death is definitely worse.
• In a battle, if a wizard uses Dominate Person to make one person turn on their allies and friends, then I'm sure many people would have preferred to burn to death than mind controlled.
• I consider Fear type magic to be a type of mind control, despite technically being an Illusion, and depending on the severity and use might count as torture.

These are all my personal opinions.

 

[James Gasik]

Because you chose to play an Enchanter, not an Illusionist?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

For that example?

You'd be pretty evil to not see the difference between momentarily controlling them to leave than to burn them all alive.

Are you seriously saying you don't know the moral difference for that scenario?

I'd like to amend my thoughts on this for clarification of my viewpoint. Because you are right, they aren't completely the same. Context matters.

First of all, I think we can all agree that D&D is big about killing/overcoming enemies to achieve a goal. Using magic of any kind towards that end isn't inherently more evil than anything else. Enchanting a rampaging hill giant or incinerating said hill giant are both valid paths to stopping the monster.

This means, Enchantment isn't more evil than any other school that harms others, whether physically or mentally, as long as it is not used against innocents.

The difference becomes apparent when innocents are involved. For the same reason you shouldn't fireball an innocent, or a town guard or an ill-tempered merchant against their will, you shouldn't charm/dominate them, violating their sovereign control over their own mind and body. Using any hostile magic against an innocent is bad, but when an Enchantment-user tries to justify it as ok because it isn't physical harm, it's just a weak attempt to justify reprehensible behavior.

 

[Mistwell]

Not really following it - it came off as pretty silly to me as people grew more extremes on their sides. Why is there no option to just go invisible or use illusions? Why use mind wipes instead of Sleep? Its an unrealistic white room scenario that I just can't take seriously. Plus, if you're in a situation where you're either mind wiping or killing, I have to ask what's the point when spells to interrogate the dead exist. I just can't relate to it at all.

• Mind reading without consent is a violation. I consider it a greater violation than tricking someone with words and a pretty face, but a lesser violation to torturing someone for info.
• Hold Person is more a violation than grappling someone (the feeling of losing control of your body from a taser is horrific enough), but I would consider them ethically equal in terms of ethics and morals. It would FEEL more horrific than being knocked unconscious in the moment, but probably will have less long term damage. Death is definitely worse.
• In a battle, if a wizard uses Dominate Person to make one person turn on their allies and friends, then I'm sure many people would have preferred to burn to death than mind controlled.
• I consider Fear type magic to be a type of mind control, despite technically being an Illusion, and depending on the severity and use might count as torture.

These are all my personal opinions.

I appreciate you're at least making ethical distinctions rather than lumping everything into a black and white either "Evil" or "Not evil" category.

 

[Mephista]

I appreciate you're at least making ethical distinctions rather than lumping everything into a black and white either "Evil" or "Not evil" category.

Glad to be appreciated! I get this can be a frustrating thing to talk about.

This is kind of an issue with shades of grey in it, imho. And that's not even touching on people who are using it as a kink, for law enforcement, entertainment or therapy.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For that example?

You'd be pretty evil to not see the difference between momentarily controlling them to leave than to burn them all alive.

Are you seriously saying you don't know the moral difference for that scenario?

So you are an absolute authority on the exact levels of morality that exist? You have the answers to perfect morality? Congratulations on your prizes for solving one of the longest running sections of philosophy.

You have made a value judgement that mind control is less evil that killing people. Earlier in this thread I was discussing with Mirrorrorrim who took a position that someone using just words, with no extra power, to try and influence them was evil. I bet that they may disagree with your conclusion.

Personally.. I don't see "But which of these is MORE evil" as being a particularly relevant topic of conversation.

Yes, it is in fact more evil to kill someone than to steal from them.

That's literally a universal criminal law example of a hierarchy of crimes, also found in almost all religions.

Please tell me you're acting like these are equivalents for internet debate purposes and not because you really don't see the difference?

We find torture more evil than cleanly murdering someone (the idea of "humane" comes to mind). By stealing in that scenario the perpetrator has begun a process that led to the extended, potentially years long, torture and torment of an individual, potentially leading to their deaths. Is a six second death truly less horrific than a death that is extended over years, with immense suffering and shame?

And, the fact that you think the law is at all relevant here... you know the law is not a measure of morality, right? Like... it is completely irrelevant what the LAW states on the issue.

Yes? That's like...the definition of ethical problems?

I think you are confusing an ethical dilemma here. I've never really heard of ethical problems, generally it is "is this ethical" and the asnwer is fairly yes or no. We don't have people who sit around and try to decide if breaking someone's fingers is ethical because they could have murdered their loved ones instead.

I said they rank equally evil. You're the one who seems to rank mind control as more evil than murder.

Wut? Firstly, no I didn't. Secondly how is this impassioned part right here "You'd be pretty evil to not see the difference between momentarily controlling them to leave than to burn them all alive." saying they are equal? You are literally calling me evil for saying they are equal.

And I still don't get why, because... both are bad. I've said that. I don't see why you need to prove one is worse than the other.

This is not the point you think it is, or you didn't finish your thought.

That most enchantment spells are used on non-combatant NPCs and not the violent enemies that you are generally committing violence against? I both finished that thought and made that point. Not sure which part you didn't see.

Making a person danced naked in the street briefly is clearly not as bad as poisoning a room full of people to death.

You're making me nervous here. Again, is this just a thing you're saying on the net for effect, or are you really not appreciating the difference in ethics here?

"You'd be pretty evil to not see the difference between momentarily controlling them to leave than to burn them all alive."
"I said they rank equally evil. You're the one who seems to rank mind control as more evil than murder."
"Making a person danced naked in the street briefly is clearly not as bad as poisoning a room full of people to death."

Pick a lane, please, the whiplash is incredible.

And, I think you seriously don't get the sheer unadulterated horror and pure evil that comes from forcing someone to expose themselves in public, against their will. You may need to revisit the concept of "A Fate Worse than Death"

Just as an example, I've recently been reading/watching a story where the protagonists discover that an evil ruler forced his population to eat magical fruits. These fruits made it impossible to express anything other than laughter. They laugh because they are starving, because they are angry, because they are sad. Quite literally we witness a bawling child, laughing at the extended execution of her father, because she is now incapable of doing anything else. She is incapable of grieving him, and can only laugh at his death.

There is a horror here, in losing your will, in losing your ability to make a choice, that I think you truly do not grasp.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Something more usable out of combat does not mean using it on civilians by default.

Here is an example from one campaign.

We needed to infiltrate some location and "liberate" certain items and information in some scrolls.

We could have just killed two guards at entrance, they we not evil, just hired mercs working for evil organization, not knowing they do.

So I just twinned suggestion and told them to go home and take a day off.

this is when using enchantment on somebody is actually a Good thing to do.

You could have also knocked them out, and not killed them. You could have also bribed them. You could have also simply snuck past them.

Just because you chose an option that was not murder doesn't mean you immediately chose a "good" option. It may be a better option, it may be an acceptable option, but I really balk at "Our other choice was killing them, so therefore we did a good thing" Because quite often in the world that would make many horribly evil things "good" because they could have just killed you instead.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You can cast plenty of Enchantments on yourself. Catnap, for example. Bless can target yourself. Stop making things up.

I am not making up Charm Person.
I am not making up Suggestion.
I am not making up Dominate Person
I am not making up Command.
I am not making up Compelled Duel.
I am not making up Dissonant Whispers.
I am not making up Tasha's Hideous Laughter.
I am not making up Crown of Madness.
I am not making up Enthrall.
I am not making up Hold Person.
I am not making up Tasha's Mind Whip.
I am not making up Enemies Abound.
I am not making up Fast Friends.
I am not making up Incite Greed.
I am not making up Compulsion.
I am not making up Confusion.
I am not making up Geas.
I am not making up Psychic Lance.
I am not making up Modify Memory.
I am not making up Otto's Irresistible Dance.
I am not making up Feeblemind.

Sure, not all enchantment spells need to be cast by another person on you. But the classic ones that we are imagining here? They are.

It absolutely does. The overwhelming majority of published spells are desgined for exploring, dungeon delving and fighting "monsters." I'm going to call BS on this objection. Especially after you made this claim earlier... about spells specifically designed for exploring. Air Bubble was literally published in Spelljammer to mimic space helmets for exploring extreme environments one finds in that setting, and you claim its not exploration. You tried to claim that Pyrotechnics wasn't a violent spell, when its literally a combat spell used to blind opponents.

Fireworks can be used to blind people too. They aren't combat weapons. And what about Creation and Fabrication? Where is the combat potential there? What about Move Earth, which specifically cannot trap or hinder creatures? Mighty Fortress? Temple of the Gods? Druid Grove?

There seem to be quite the number of non-combat spells. And yet there is no mention of a "bias" towards those types of spells not existing generally brought up in discussions of the game.

"If its not published, it doesn't exist" is such an odd stance to take when it comes to spells. For example: Candlekeep Library is supposed to be filled choke full of wizard spells - the number of spells that the library contains would vastly outstrip the number of actually published spells by several magnitudes. And that's far from the only collection of wizard magic in the game.

I mean, this is something painfully obvious. Do spells just suddenly pop into existance the moment a new book is published? Of course not, they always existed in the setting but were never detailed until the book came out.

I'm not the one making claims in defiance of facts. In fact, you seem to be the one making up fake rules here.

Alright. Since Vecna exists I declare that there are now one million more evil spell for enchantment that exist than good ones. And since obviously Vecna exists and would keep evil spells, this must be true, and you can no longer argue that there are more good spells. Until you tell me that because Mystra exists there are actually one million more good spells than evil spells for echantment, using the same logic. But then I point out that Dagon also exists. And then you...

Yeah, arguing "my facts not in evidence trump yours" is a waste of everyone's time. It is a red herring, because no matter how many spells you make up, I can make up more. Trying to make any claims at that point is meaningless.

No, you're just twisting words and cherry picking. I also said that its in the name. Dungeons and Dragons. Exploring dungeons (filled with traps and danger-puzzles, mind you!!!) and fighting monsters like dragons.

Its no secret that D&D is a very focused game.

I'm doing neither. I'm simply pointing out that "but I can make up more things" isn't a helpful measure.

Because you're being dismissive of any that doesn't fit your narrative. You're the one bending over backwards to justify ignoring a core book while trying to claim that non-core books from completely different editions should hold more weight. I mean, hells. Those aren't even skeletons and zombies you're talking about! The spell references the monster stats, and the MM is clear that skeletons and zombies are Evil aligned, and they're made from necrotic energy.

Why can't the Deathless be skeletons and zombies? My Eberron books absolutely give me statblocks using Skeletons and Zombies, along with wights and other undead. I've got a stat-block from Eberron of a Good Aligned Mummy who was not formed through evil, necromantic magic. And that's all 5e material.

I'm only "dismissive" because you are trying to have a single sentence in each of the monster lore sections override any possibility of a player taking the utter lack of such a sentence anywhere in the actual rules of their spell, to make something that isn't inherently evil. Also, what happened to alignment being a suggestion? Isn't that right at the beginning of the MM? "The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign." So, if I take the MM to be true... then the default is easily departed from and not mandatory.

You're the one who brought up the real world mythology of zombies first, mate.

You know what? I'm done. Have fun with your homebrew lore at your table. I'm out.

I brought it up because it is easy for someone to have a different idea what is meant by "zombie", meaning you can't default to "but you raised a zombie, and you know what that means!" They looked at the PHB, they relied on the PHB, and the PHB gave them a vague answer. The PHB didn't say that zombies are inherently evil. It didn't say that they attack people when uncommanded. In fact, it provides a solid basis for arguing the opposite.

The fact that "DnD isn't real mythology, it has its own rules" doesn't apply to the fact that, using the rules of DnD, a player could logically end up with a different point of view. One that is equally valid to the "default" of Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

You have made a value judgement that mind control is less evil that killing people. Earlier in this thread I was discussing with Mirrorrorrim who took a position that someone using just words, with no extra power, to try and influence them was evil. I bet that they may disagree with your conclusion.

Akshually... I didn't say influencing me without magic was evil. I said I was offended by a lot of it. Technically, I said:

"I am offended by lots of marketing and influencing, and politicians, and being forced to choose between bad choices, and I think Enchantment is the most evil spell school in the game. So yeah. If someone tries to manipulate me, I may get pissed."​

I can see where someone can think I meant both. But the thing they have in common is I don't want to be manipulated, whether magically, or nonmagically.

Even then, I recently posted an amendment to my position in post #344, clarifying that most magics are reasonably usable when fighting for one's life against an enemy, but what matters is using magic on innocents or those who don't mean you harm. Enchantment-users often think they are being soft, kind, or nonviolent when charming or dominating others, but that only matters when you don't want to kill an enemy/villain. But if you use it on an innocent, there is no question in my mind that you're being a villain yourself, no different than if you fireballed them. Murder is not the only unforgivable trespass.