Is it possible to play a good-aligned controller (for example, enchanter)?


Advice

Grand Lodge

I have started to create a enchanter when I got to alignment. What kind of moral dilemmas would this create if I were to play LG or even worse CG? This lead me to my previous question.

How would you play a good aligned controller?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You'd use suggestion for things like "please don't hurt those kittehs" instead of for things like "do you want some candy, little girl?" You'd probably avoid dominate person altogether, except to stop someone from killing your allies.


The situation: A large group of bandits is harrassing traffic on traveled road.

Which of these results is preferable to a good character?

A: The bandits leader refuses to listen to reason, and forces a confrontation with the party, leading to the deaths of him and his men.

B: The enchanter dominates the bandits leader, and 'convinces' him to tell his men to surrender, as this is not worth losing all of their lives.

I think the key point of Enchantment on the moral level is that you've crossed the line when you use it to benefit yourself, instead of to benefit others. Excepting of course, when how you use it is clearly evil otherwise as well.

I could totally see a paladin picking up Charm Person/Suggestion with the UM feat that gives them access to bard spells in order to defuse hostile situations or obtain Surrender where it would otherwise be impossible, to spare their enemies pointless deaths in combat.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
You'd use suggestion for things like "please don't hurt those kittehs" instead of for things like "do you want some candy, little girl?" You'd probably avoid dominate person altogether, except to stop someone from killing your allies.

Your reply begs the question - can one be good and be an adventurer? You know, going around slaughtering Orcs, Gnolls, Goblins, Kobolds, Dragons, etc etc.


Definitely. You have the choice to leave foes alive, or bring them into trial. Whereas an evoker's choices are original recipe and extra crispy.


If you're using spells with the charm subschool, life gets a bit easier. Since you can interact with others to get them to do things when you're charming them, you make the choices of how to get them to do things, they get to react.

For compulsion subschool spells, you have to be on your best behavior. Don't send your minions into combat if you can help it; send them away from battle, get them to surrender and/or convince others to surrender, that sort of thing. Always treat your controlled flunkies well, and I mean with respect. In many ways, it's like using planar binding, now that I think about it.


Cartigan wrote:
Your reply begs the question - can one be good and be an adventurer? You know, going around slaughtering Orcs, Gnolls, Goblins, Kobolds, Dragons, etc etc.

Which is why alignment makes no sense, and real-lfe ethics have no place in D&D/PF. I should know better by now.


Evil does not translate directly to mean.

You can be a mean person who is good. You can be a kind person who is evil.

The Exchange

I recently watched the series The Legend of the Seeker, and in almost every episode, one of the main characters casts a permanent Dominate Person on at least one bad guy. Her motives are good, and she doesn't particularily enjoy dominating people, it's just a power she has and uses for good.

Besides, a good enchanter would prefer to use his power to prevent (or minimize) bloodshed; using his spells to help resolve conflict peacefully or to dominate a bad guy and making him tie himself up (or fall on his own sword so as not to endanger the ones the enchanter cares about).


Kydon wrote:
How would you play a good aligned controller?

Like Professor Xavier of the X Men.


Gilfalas wrote:
Kydon wrote:
How would you play a good aligned controller?
Like Professor Xavier of the X Men.

Wheelchair and baldness are optional of course.


Waffle_Neutral wrote:
I recently watched the series The Legend of the Seeker, and in almost every episode, one of the main characters casts a permanent Dominate Person on at least one bad guy. Her motives are good, and she doesn't particularily enjoy dominating people, it's just a power she has and uses for good.

As a note here, I disagree in this case: Confessors use their Domination abilities pretty consistently for their own benefit. Their stated purpose (proving people innocent) is almost certainly good; the actual use of it however is very consistently grey.

The use of Dominate Person to gain an ally in combat is definitely grey. Forcing someone to turn on their former allies and friends? Almost certainly evil.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Waffle_Neutral wrote:
I recently watched the series The Legend of the Seeker, and in almost every episode, one of the main characters casts a permanent Dominate Person on at least one bad guy. Her motives are good, and she doesn't particularily enjoy dominating people, it's just a power she has and uses for good.

As a note here, I disagree in this case: Confessors use their Domination abilities pretty consistently for their own benefit. Their stated purpose (proving people innocent) is almost certainly good; the actual use of it however is very consistently grey.

The use of Dominate Person to gain an ally in combat is definitely grey. Forcing someone to turn on their former allies and friends? Almost certainly evil.

Depends...

If i dominate the evil lackey and told him to fight his evil boss along with me (a good man) and my party (of good-doers) then the action is certainly good.
If i dominate the good lackey and told him to fight his good boss along with me (an evil man) and my party (of evil-doers) then the action is certainly evil.
Again don't confuse modern day ethics and morality with DnD alingment.


KrispyXIV wrote:


The use of Dominate Person to gain an ally in combat is definitely grey. Forcing someone to turn on their former allies and friends? Almost certainly evil.

I strongly disagree; but then, I place a much higher weight on what the controller is making his subjects do and why than I do on the subversion of free will.

If you're exercising your free will to do evil, I don't think being forced to instead fight evil for a short time constitutes an evil act.

Certainly I'd rather be dominated for five minutes than permanently killed.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
Certainly I'd rather be dominated for five minutes than permanently killed.

Really? Regardless of what you're forced to do in those five minutes?

I can think of few things more horrible than being forced to turn on your allies, friends and family.

Depressingly few things.


Last session, after defeating the BBEG and rounding up his minions, my sorcerer noticed one of the lieutenants reaching for a hidden weapon to attack with and I immediately charmed him and asked him to put the weapon down. I thought better to charm him to avoid the fight instead of killing a dozen people.


Could also depend on the culture your dealing with.

In the Elves of Golarion book, they make a special note about how mental control is one of the most despicable things to them. Their own free will and personal choice is paramount to them.

I play an elven sorcerer with the infernal bloodline. +2 to all charm schools. Not his fault... born with the powers...

He feels REALLY bad every time he DOES the spell...

I don't think of him as evil. he's done VERY little with this ability but defuse combat (and have uncle take him to the summer carnival in his backstory ;) )

The OTHER elves however consider him a horrible horrible person.

Liberty's Edge

KrispyXIV wrote:
I think the key point of Enchantment on the moral level is that you've crossed the line when you use it to benefit yourself, instead of to benefit others. Excepting of course, when how you use it is clearly evil otherwise as well.

Exactly. Any time you're justified in killing someone, you're far more justified in charming them. Charming someone is a violation of their autonomy, but at least they're still alive afterwards.

Using the charm spells would also be less problematic than the dominate spells, as one could argue that charming someone is not any more problematic than just plain old being charming and using Diplomacy. It's just faster.

But as soon as you start using enchantment spells to benefit yourself selfishly, like using charm person on a barmaid to get yourself some company for the evening (seen way too many players do that, and had to drop an anvil on them every time), you're crossing a line into moral hazard.


Gailbraithe wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
I think the key point of Enchantment on the moral level is that you've crossed the line when you use it to benefit yourself, instead of to benefit others. Excepting of course, when how you use it is clearly evil otherwise as well.

Exactly. Any time you're justified in killing someone, you're far more justified in charming them. Charming someone is a violation of their autonomy, but at least they're still alive afterwards.

Using the charm spells would also be less problematic than the dominate spells, as one could argue that charming someone is not any more problematic than just plain old being charming and using Diplomacy. It's just faster.

But as soon as you start using enchantment spells to benefit yourself selfishly, like using charm person on a barmaid to get yourself some company for the evening (seen way too many players do that, and had to drop an anvil on them every time), you're crossing a line into moral hazard.

While charm isn't dominate it is a form of mind control. You can force someone to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do with an opposed Charisma check. That means that you could be very good with the spell by showing restraint, or wholly evil by going nuts with the power before you.

You could force people to serve your lusts, marry you, or even slaughter their family if your Charisma check is stronger than their own. That's why charm spells are dangerous. A devious enchanter can effectively pass the baton to their minions. The stronger they are of body and weaker of mind, the better they are.

As for using charm spells for good, perhaps you would be interested in this post (copy / pasted from another thread).

Ashiel wrote:

Charm person is an insidious way to win converts in D&D. It lasts a long time, and not only can it break the initial ice but you can effectively force the victim to renounce their beliefs without even realizing that you're messing with them. A few good opposed Charisma checks later and you've got the makings of a small cult (keep in mind that it sets them to Friendly so your Diplomacy checks are even more likely to succeed now).

I'm not suggesting this an innately good method to use at all. It's definitely screwing with free will, but it can have its uses. I once had a psion who managed to convert a drow using charm abilities, which ultimately ended up with her no longer needing to keep the drow charmed for her to be on good terms with her.

Drow Conversion Notes:

In case you're wondering how it all went down, the party ended up in a terrible scrap with a group of drow who ambushed them. During the middle of the encounter she managed to charm one of the drow and forced her to stop fighting. After the fight, she refused to kill the drow in this state. She took the drow aside, and explained exactly what had transpired. She explained that to avoid killing her, or her harming her or her friends, that she had altered her mind so that she wouldn't hurt them. Now due to how Charm works, the drow takes this in the absolute best method possible, and is now frightened that her new friend would be in danger from her if she were to break free of the spell.

So the drow ended up traveling with the party behind the scenes (the psion didn't ask her to participate in combat or anything), and the drow willingly allowed the psion to renew her charm whenever it would be close to expiring (willingly failing her saving throw and lowering spell resistance as needed). Over time, the friendship became a real one, and the drow experienced a life that was better than the one she had. In the end, the drow was finally freed from her charm and had real friendship with the party who had essentially given her a new chance at life instead of killing her. So over the course of several adventures (with downtime between) her alignment shifted from Evil to Neutral to Good, and she even acquired a good deity.

Now Charm person and its kin can be used in a much more forceful and devious method, but this character used it to make peace and begin the process of communication, which ultimately ended in a peaceful conversion for the betterment of everyone involved.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:
While charm isn't dominate it is a form of mind control. You can force someone to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do with an opposed Charisma check. That means that you could be very good with the spell by showing restraint, or wholly evil by going nuts with the power before you.

Sure. You can also force someone to do something they wouldn't normally do with an Intimidate check. My point was that the charm spells are not much different (morally speaking) from any mundane form of manipulation. Especially not the way those work in D&D.

Quote:

As for using charm spells for good, perhaps you would be interested in this post (copy / pasted from another thread).

...

That was cool. Wouldn't really work in my own campaigns, but I like the idea.


Gailbraithe wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
While charm isn't dominate it is a form of mind control. You can force someone to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do with an opposed Charisma check. That means that you could be very good with the spell by showing restraint, or wholly evil by going nuts with the power before you.
Sure. You can also force someone to do something they wouldn't normally do with an Intimidate check. My point was that the charm spells are not much different (morally speaking) from any mundane form of manipulation. Especially not the way those work in D&D.

Well you can force an enemy to treat you as friendly/helpful or some such with Intimidate, but it doesn't mean you can simply Intimidate someone into drowning their child or loving you. Even with a super Diplomacy. With charm person you can do both and they'll love you for it. That's one of the things that makes the enchantment school so scary.

Quote:
Quote:

As for using charm spells for good, perhaps you would be interested in this post (copy / pasted from another thread).

...

That was cool. Wouldn't really work in my own campaigns, but I like the idea.

Thanks. We tend to stick to the RAW pretty closely, and the psion in question was perhaps overly peaceful for your typical D&D party. Instead of melting faces she preferred to stop the violence whenever possible, while being very defensively oriented herself (she clanked around in full plate (at great penalties but she wasn't much of a fighter anyway), manifested powers that punished people for attacking people, and used a lot of mind-control).

RAW charming makes them take anything you say in the best possible way. Not the most logically possible from a rational point of view, the best possible. Hence why when she charmed the drow and told the drow that she had indeed influenced her mind to make her a friend, the drow was horrified at the idea of being broken from the charm. Obviously, to the drow, her new friend was doing what was in their mutual best interest, and the idea of suddenly losing her care for the psion if she was freed from the enchantment was to the charmed drow a horrible concept.

Imagine for a moment if you loved someone. You loved this person more than anything else. You would possibly forsake everything for this person. Then you found out that if you broke free of this grasp, you might lose this feeling or even KILL that person you loved. Then multiply this by about x100 because you can't even use standard rational thinking. It's kind of like that.

Fortunately for our psion and her party, she not only had a good Charisma, but also maxed Diplomacy so she was legitimately very good at dealing with people. Once charmed you're automatically friendly, and it's just a DC 15 + Cha mod to move them from Friendly to Helpful. After you've spent legitimate time with someone, and actually acted as a friend instead of an owner, eventually that person is going to take notice on a natural level. If you can have Stockholm syndrome, I'm certain that this sort of thing would be much, much stronger and ultimately more real to those who were charming and charmed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kydon wrote:

I have started to create a enchanter when I got to alignment. What kind of moral dilemmas would this create if I were to play LG or even worse CG? This lead me to my previous question.

How would you play a good aligned controller?

Well one... you take steps to avoid overriding free will instead of resorting to controlling all the time. In other words you dominate only when it's necessary. And also remember that since you are a wizard you DO have other spells that you cast every now and then.

Use charms instead of compulsions, (then again it's worth remembering that even the Lawful Good Tenser wasn't above geasing adventurers to do his bidding if he couldn't seal a deal and the isssue was important enough)

Being lawful good in enchantment is much like any other school. You avoid abusing people with magic as much as possible.


I like that the OP recognized this is a case where CG is more of a moral quandary than LG. The LG enchanter has every reason to get people in lock step with good, while the freedom loving CG person is violating his fundamental belief in freedom.


Kydon wrote:

Is it possible to play a good-aligned controller

Depends. Wiimote, yes, but PSX controllers are neutral at best (and the sixaxis ones are usually chaotic). XBox-controllers are, of course, evil. :P

As for the question of good-aligned enchanters: If you can kill things with impunity, then using mind control on them can't be automatically slapped with the big E.


Even murdureous command(UM) does not have the evil descriptor. So good gods do give acesses to murderous command.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is it possible to play a good-aligned controller (for example, enchanter)? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.