I'm gonna start a lengthy debate here. I had a DM rule a while back that using suggestion, charm, or dominate on a group member was always evil no matter what. I sided that it was not necessarily evil and that it depended on the intension of the caster, but that it was certainly chaotic. I have no question that i am correct but thought I'd bring it up anyway. What do you guys think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those spells do not have the Evil descriptor, so therefore, by the RAW, they are not 'inherently evil'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Here's the only line regarding alignment that really matters, in my opinion.
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."
Everything else is just glitter on a pig.
That said, it seem like that particular DM may have stopped reading rather too soon in the Alignment chapter. The section on "Becoming Good" basically supports your intention-based view of this verbatim.
"Intention: Determining a creature's intention is largely a roleplaying task."
@Zhayne he was only arguing that using the spells on friendlies was evil. The spell has a wider range, so even if it was an evil act the spell would jot be evil. His side was that the act of using it on a party member was evil, not the spell itself
In 3.5 the book stated that good and evil represent you moral views while law and chaos represented the means which you achieve them
You can dominate a friendly PC who is already dominated, in an attempt to wrest control from an evil manipulator. That would, in my opinion, be neither evil nor chaotic.
Here, try this scenario. You've got a dragon problem. Silly thing's decided the local princess would make a great trophy/snack/chess partner and abducted her. She's got a brother. This prince likes his sister a great deal and is a bit hot-headed, so he wants to go off and confront this dragon. Thing is, he's not the next Jatembe, he's an aristocrat. You use suggestion to tell him to let you (and your friends) deal with this. How would it be evil (assuming you're on good terms with the prince) to do this? You just kept him from being killed by his own choices and increased the odds he gets what he wants.
Yeah, charm and compulsion magic can do many things. It's not always evil. I wouldn't even say it's always chaotic, as if you value individual freedom (hallmark of chaotic alignments) and you deprive others of it (via compulsions), wouldn't that be more lawful, or at least neutral?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Zhayne he was only arguing that using the spells on friendlies was evil. The spell has a wider range, so even if it was an evil act the spell would jot be evil. His side was th
This changes nothing. What you use the spell for determines if it's good or evil or lawful or chaotic or whatever assuming anybody even gives a rip.
If I see a fellow PC get ready to start a drunken brawl where someone could get hurt, and Dominate him into just walking out, I'd laugh in your face if you told me that was evil.
...if you value individual freedom (hallmark of chaotic alignments) and you deprive others of it (via compulsions), wouldn't that be more lawful, or at least neutral?
Yet another reason that alignment is such a schizophrenic mechanic...
Valuing freedom is also the explicit hallmark of good characters. (at least the freedom of anyone that isn't evil, whatever that means.)
And, one would assume, of evil characters (at least for anyone who can preserve their own freedom, and/or anyone who happens to be really useful to, or friends with, said evil character)....or else they'd all be turning themselves in to the local constabulary.
And then neutral characters, who presumably value freedom as a counterpoint to subjugation. I suspect they'd rather experience the former than the latter though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Alignment thread
@Zhayne he was only arguing that using the spells on friendlies was evil. The spell has a wider range, so even if it was an evil act the spell would jot be evil. His side was thThis changes nothing. What you use the spell for determines if it's good or evil or lawful or chaotic or whatever assuming anybody even gives a rip.
If I see a fellow PC get ready to start a drunken brawl where someone could get hurt, and Dominate him into just walking out, I'd laugh in your face if you told me that was evil.
yes it does, because you said the spell doesn't have the evil descriptor so its not inheritly evil. I was just trying to point out that I wasn't debating the spell itself, I was debating the manner in which I used it.
Imagine using it on friends was evil. I don't think it necessarily is, but just pretend for a moment. The spell still wouldn't have the evil descriptor because your not limited to using it on friends. You could use it on enemies as well and it wouldn't be evil, so it wouldn't have the evil descriptor even so.
That said, Its still not evil to use on a friendly, illustrated well in Lathiira's example.
Now that we've had a couple opinions, I'll give the exact example that happened in my game
This was a D&D 3.5 game. I was playing a C-G changeling psion (telepath). For any who may not know what a changeling was in 3.5, it was the offspring of a human and a doppelganger and they can change their appearance at will. We came across an enemy patrol and after having it out we decided we needed some recon on an enemy encampment. I assumed a patrolmans form and donned his armor and did my job. On the way out something went wrong and I found myself in battle in full plate armor. This shouldn't have been a problem for a psion but the DM didn't understand psionics well and forced spell failure on me even though psions aren't susceptible to such issues. Luckily my team was close by and ran in. When they got there, the prankster I am, I decided to manifest suggestion on a couple team mates and get them to help me take the armor off right in the middle of battle. My DC's were through the roof, they stood no chance. He deemed this evil which I thought was BS.
I did convince him that spell failure didn't apply to psions by the next game. Funny that I would have never even gotten the chance to pull this prank if he had understood this rule in the first place. Either way, I know I was also right about it not being evil. Prickishly funny yes, but evil no
Yeah, Alignment thread
right lol. The endless philosophical debate on alignment
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dominate person is not any more of an Evil spell than fireball is. It all depends on intent and usage.
...Luckily my team was close by and ran in. When they got there, the prankster I am, I decided to manifest suggestion on a couple team mates and get them to help me take the armor off right in the middle of battle. My DC's were through the roof, they stood no chance. He deemed this evil which I thought was BS.
On context alone, I can sort of see where he was coming from. This was the middle of a battle, you put them at risk to help yourself.
Obviously you did it so you could fight more effectively, but you could have (worst case) gotten them killed if they were so busy helping you that they couldn't defend themselves.
Personally I'd have called this chaotic behavior (ultimately self interested and capricious), but not evil. Evil is charming them into human shields or something.
Just my 2cp...alignment is still the RPG albatross.
I also claimed it to be chaotic. but I didn't really put them at risk to help myself, although I did benefit. there wasn't really any real risk though. sure we were in battle but it was well under control, certainly through my characters eyes. it was just funny. the humor required the combat to be at hand. like something a pixie might do, who are chaotic good I might add
|
No matter.
It takes more than a single evil act to change alignment.
By his restrictive view of alignment, using the Bluff skill, at all, is an evil act.
So, as everybody lies at some point, then everyone is evil.
Your DM is running an all evil campaign, in a world where every intelligent creature is evil.
Are we talking about JUST Charm, Suggestion, and dominate? or are we lumping all 'mind affecting/compulsion' spells in there.
Paladins have a LOT of spells that are mind affecting that steal an opponents free will and dictate who they will fight and when....
Knights calling is pretty cut and dry. You WILL make your move toward me... and I will get an AoO on you.
Compel hostility... Challenge evil... Marks of Forbiddence Stop people from fighting, still mind-affecting.
If RAW say that these are Paladin tools... then by nature they can not be inherently evil.
Alignment only exists as an Artificial Game Construct to try and stop players being nice as cherry pie one minute and an evil s*** the next because one happens to be more convenient than the other at that point in time.
And to make Paladins fall.
Oh, and as Laws force people to do things they don't want to, all laws are evil.
Anyone who owns a horse, is at one time, making it do something they do not want to do.
They are all evil.
True. Horses are pretty evil.
As are horse owners.True. Horses are pretty evil.Oh, and as Laws force people to do things they don't want to, all laws are evil.
Anyone who owns a horse, is at one time, making it do something they do not want to do.
They are all evil.
And parents. Even the ones that aren't horses.
Cleric: "Eat your vegetables, Billy."
DM: "Time to atone, evil-doer."
He was only claiming it was evil to do to an ally, not an opponent. Still, it was BS. Lathiira gave a super clear example that its not always evil just because its an ally
The act is not evil in its self..what you do with the charmed/controlled target then becomes the decider.
|
|
Paladin Player: I tell my drunken buddy across the bar to stop harassing the women, or I will call have to get rough.
DM: You are using a show of force, to have an ally do something he does not wish to do. This is an evil act. You fall.
OR
Paladin Player: I use my wand of Charm Person on my drunken buddy across the bar to convince him to stop harassing the women.
DM: You are using compulsion magic, on an ally to do something he does not wish to do. This is an evil act. You fall.
That pally got off too easy. He should have fallen when he let his buddy drink and talk to women. Could lead to dancing. Dancing leads to babies.
Babies might grow up to be Evil. And own horses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Alignment thread
Well, you can't deny that it was clearly marked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just found this in the Sarenrae section of Gods and Magic.
Clerics, paladins, and rangers may prepare lesser
geas as a 4th-level spell, but they can only use it to prevent
the target from performing illegal or immoral activities.
If people are still looking for Paizo authorized permission for good mind-control