In a world where necromantic magic has been empowered...:
and the strength of the sun has waned, mindless hordes of zombies, skeletons, and more malefic undead have plagued the living for the past several decades. In the face of such horrors, few settlements have survived...and one of those is the walled city of Brindinford (See the 3.0 D&D module "Speaker in Dreams").
The city and the living, in general, have adapted in several ways::
Brindinford Defenses - Long ago, Brindinford was a major trade center on a major river with no fields in the immediate vicinity and its food came from small farming villages scattered in the nearby countryside. Forestation had been cleared about a mile outside of town on the east side of the river, but much of the west bank was still heavily wooded. When the dead began to walk again, an aging Baron Euphemes II prepared the city for the horrors to come, ordering the deforestation of Brindinford’s west bank to create a stockpile of lumber and arable farmland. Since then, the survivors of those small farming villages have come to till the fields just outside the city walls and under the vigilance of the town guards, whose bell tower remains ever ready to sound in warning.
Heirs to Power - It has been 35 years since Baron Euphemes II, the noble and imposing leader of Brindinford in St. Darius’ time, would have passed away many years ago. Without a wife or any children to take his place, who took up the reins of power afterward? Thirty five years ago, Sir Balder stood as the right hand to Baron Euphemes II, executing the Baron’s will as his health declined with age. Known by few, Sir Balder was a prince, the 7th son of a kingdom far to the northwest, a land of snowy mountains, deep forests, and noble werewolves, including Sir Balder himself. After many years of service to Brindinford and his noble lineage, Sir Balder perhaps makes the most sense as an heir to Baron Euphemes II. However, his duties before the Baron’s passing may have put him in an early grave, or perhaps Sir Balder’s sense of duty to family would show itself to be greater than his duty to the city and his personal ambitions, leading him to take up the journey to return to his father’s side, alongside his brothers, and defend his homeland instead. If so, the question remains, who leads Brindinford today and how did they find themselves in such a position?
People of the Land - Using the powerful tool that magic is, a cult devoted to the restoration and maintenance of agriculture might be created from the necessity to maintain farmlands and livestock with less daylight and few defenses from the relentless undead throughout the world. While not particularly well suited to taking up the mantle of repelling the undead or defending the land, they have made great strides in enhancing nature’s bounties to support settlements of survivors.
As believers of most, if not all, gods perish in great numbers, the knowledge of such faiths may disappear along with them. Some People of the Land may choose to worship specific deities from earlier times, particularly those with the plant, earth, or water domain or the seasons subdomain, but others may not care where their power comes from, perhaps even drawing tainted strength from among Infernal Dukes, Abyssal Lords, or worse that hold sway over nature. This may lead to People of the Land with less scrupulous motivations for joining the faith. In a world of decreasing supply, the demand for food would grow high. Those with the valuable knowledge and means to farm and create a steady supply of food would become significantly more elevated in station as they could sell for higher prices or barter for more goods and services than ever before. A city on the verge of starvation may find itself held hostage by a single person, using the city’s hunger as their only leverage. For those who seeks comfort through station rather than wealth, skilled spellcasters may find themselves on a city’s retainer to provide regular enrichment of the city’s crops throughout the year. In the case of the exceptionally rapacious, they might take over a smaller settlement as their leader, extorting and effectively enslaving those beneath them.
Though druids might be thought of as more suitable for this role, their focus on preserving nature rather than supporting mankind would likely prevent them from enhancing crops from an ethical standpoint. Similarly, druidic proclivities regarding building defenses on from naturally growth wood and shaped stone might put them at a disadvantage when undead hordes pass through the area faster than those defenses can be erected.
Lead up to the quandry:
Our caravan of a dozen or so was heading north to seek out the dwarves to help us break the undead army's siege on Brindinford. on the third day of travel, we encountered a band of hooded women standing around a pyre in the midst of a ruined caravan of their own. Upon approaching, they tell us in Dwarven, as they don't seem to speak common, that they were attacked and all their men were killed before their attackers left.
The paladin detects evil on the speaker and young girl she held close, both ringing as evil. He sheathes his sword and stows his shield, walks up to the two of them, slowly reaching out a hand to pull down the young girl's hood. The mother discusses her fears with the caravan's leader, the only one who speaks Dwarven, of what the paladin might do out of ignorant hatred. The caravan leader asks the paladin to hold, and the hooded women drop their hoods...and illusions, revealing themselves as Drow.
The paladin doesn't care that they are Drow and the leader engages the Drow to join the caravan's encampment for the night. However, before night falls, one of the caravan's scouts returns with a young man, bleeding and bound by the wrists. The Drow women's leader begins screaming and cursing at the young man, attempting to draw spell components before she's grabbed by the paladin. The caravan leader tries to mediate between the two as the Drow explains that it was the bound man's group that tricked the Drow group into joining them before attacking in the middle of the night to take the Drows' few supplies. The bound man replies, claiming that it was the Drow who attacked them, killing all in his group except him. The paladin uses Detect Evil on the bound man, who also rings as evil.
At this point, the caravan leader heads off to prepare a spell, as he is a cleric of light with an open spell slot for the day. In the meantime, the paladin implores that someone in the group feed and water the bound man with the food and water the paladin has provided. Only one is willing. As he is being fed, one of the Drow children in the wagon that the bound man is sitting against attempts to hop down the man with a dagger, and as she is dragged away from him, she screams, "You killed my daddy!"
A moment later, the caravan leader returns and tells us that he has prepared a spell that would allow us to trust the man's words, Touch of Truthtelling.
However, as a compulsion, this imposes on someone's free will and violates the paladin's code. He tells the caravan leader that if the spell is cast on the bound man, he won't be able to trust anything that he says because of the enchantment, making the point of casting the spell mute. The paladin would allow it though, if the man consented, to which the bound man declined. So, the caravan leader handed the situation over the legally-appointed judge traveling with the caravan...the paladin.
The start of the trial followed promptly and the man challenged the court's authority over him outside of Brindinford's walls. However, since Brindinford is the ONLY known settlement nearby and the caravan is comprised of Brindinford citizens, the judge believes he holds authority in the situation. The man's composure degrades quickly as he becomes angry and argumentative. He demands trial by combat. The judge asks for a signet ring, or patents of nobility, or anything to back his claim to the right of trial by combat. The man is unable to.
The judge declares that, given the circumstance, he will allow the man to challenge the court's authority to hold this trial...by combat. He accepts, is released from his bindings, and the circle for combat is set. The judge fights for the court, immediately declaring the man as his smite enemy, and the bloody fight starts. By the end, the man is bleeding to death on the ground, and the judge has a broken elbow. Regardless, the judge throws down his sword and uses Lay on Hands to stabilize the man, declares him guilty of murder, puts him in manacles, and has the man thrown
in the back of the wagon as a prisoner to be transported back to Brindinford after the caravan has completed its journey to the dwarves.
In hindsight, a question arose... under what alignment(s) does the non-consensual use of mind-affecting enchantments, such as charms and compulsions, fall? Is it lawful only if state-appointed authorities decide its use, or are there others that are legally allowed to use such magics without consent? Even if it's lawful, is it moral? Is this akin to blackmail, forcing someone to act or refrain from acting? Is it an invasion of privacy? Do the ends justify the means, being moral only if used for particular purposes?
It's pretty implied that most folks who specialize in Enchantment are of at best... an amoral inclination.
It should be noted that the Paladin's code has no mention of free will.
And it could very well be that the person refused the spell because he had plenty to hide.
Also keep in mind that in most game worlds, protections and assumed rights of the accused as we are accustomed to, don't neccessarily exist.
In fact the US is still a novelty in that they exist as much as they do.
The Paladin's one mistake was to not let the spell be cast on the accused. Of course if the accused was guilty, it's no surprise.
Whether this was right or wrong is dependent on the Paladin's assumed authority to render summary judgement. There's also a lot of context missing. Why didn't the Paladin care that they were drow since they're radiating evil as well? This could very well be a case where both victim and victimiser are equally monstrous. So maybe the child yells "You Killed My Daddy!" For all we know she and her entire family could be the Evil Brady Bunch, getting their jollies out of killing everyone they come across. She'd have to be pretty evil to radiate as a level 1 commoner.
It should be noted that the Paladin's code has no mention of free will.
The Paladin's one mistake was to not let the spell be cast on the accused.
It has no explicit mention of free will, that is true. However, "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act." I would argue that allowing or condoning a person's free will to be violated would constitute an evil act.
As a lawful good person who guards people against tyranny, and with freedom being defined as, "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants in the absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government," I feel that Charms and Compulsions run contrary to that. They effectively create an inability to think as one wants due to foreign domination. Allowing that to take place under your authority, I believe, is an evil act.
Additionally, a Will save would let you lie with impunity under the spell. You still couldn't trust if what they were saying is true or not.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Why didn't the Paladin care that they were drow since they're radiating evil as well?
Until they have been witnessed committing an evil action, they could simply be a very greedy person or someone hailing from a typically self-centered and manipulative culture. Detect Evil doesn't let you determine guilt, only their typical moral leanings or actively evil intents. It's a decent tool for determining who to trust, but its limitations have to be kept in mind or it can quickly become unjust justification for a character's actions.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
This could very well be a case where both victim and victimiser are equally monstrous. So maybe the child yells "You Killed My Daddy!" For all we know she and her entire family could be the Evil Brady Bunch, getting their jollies out of killing everyone they come across.
She'd have to be pretty evil to radiate as a level 1 commoner.
That prospect could very well be true, but without evidence of those crimes, it would be unjust to hold those preconceptions against them.
The GM did note that the little girl was very faintly evil. I believe he's altering the 4 HD and below category for flavor. Aside from that, there are VERY few 1st level characters left in this setting, typically children as in this case.
For those that are interested, these are the tenets of this Paladin's code.
Paladin Code:
Greater Tenet - Proactive Code (Applies to Paladin and company, cannot be bent.)
All individuals deserve protection from danger or threat.
Greater Tenet - Personal Code (Applies only to Paladin, cannot be bent.)
An individual should be dependable in matters of achievement.
An individual should be morally right or justifiable.
An individual should deal fairly and equally with all concerned.
An individual should have compassion or forgiveness toward someone whom it is within their power to punish or harm.
Never let the least harmful options distract you from your pursuit of morally right and fair punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong.
To hunt for those who have perpetrated profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity.
To bring justice in the form of vengeance upon heinous transgressors against law and good.
Lesser Tenet - Personal Code (Applies to Paladin and company, can be bent to honor a greater tenet.)
All individuals deserve equal status, rights, and opportunities.
All individuals deserve the right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint; and in the absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
All individuals deserve a right to continue living.
All members of a community are to obey the proper enforcing authority of the laws and rules of that community.
Lesser Tenet - Proactive Code (Applies only to Paladin, can be bent to honor a greater tenet.)
An individual should be dependable in matters of accuracy and honesty.
All members of a community are to observe the community laws and rules regulating their behavior as members of that community.
Slavery is commonplace in most Pathfinder lore. Places that outlaw slavery are the exception rather than the norm. Many Lawful deities also condone slavery as appropriate.
You could argue that under local laws, use of mind control is Lawful when carried out by licensed or approved persons. I'd treat it the same as anyone carrying a weapon around town. If you're attacked, you're allowed to use it to defend yourself. If you use it unprovoked or to try to steal from someone, you're likely going to find yourself on the wrong side of the law.
It's a moral grey area for the purpose of good. Most deities opposed to slavery are Chaotic Good. Using a Dominate Person to satisfy your own carnal desires? Yeah, pretty much evil. Using it to get the cultist to confess his crimes to the local guard and lead them to their hideout? That's a pretty clear case of doing good. Arguments about alignment are a dime a dozen, so just roleplay it as best you can and consider what your character would believe based on their own moral code.
I'd call blocking the use of touch of truthtelling a chaotic act myself. As one of the tenets in that paladin's code says,
"Never let the least harmful options distract you from your pursuit of morally right and fair punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong."
I'd call that tenet the lawful point of view. The right not to be restricted in what you say is a lesser tenet in this code, subject to being bent in favour of the greater tenets. Here injuries and wrongs have been inflicted and the paladin has a duty to pursue morally right and fair punishment.
I count it as violation of free will. Assuming that there is such a thing as free will there is a fair amount of consensus that violating it is bad. On the other side there is the arguement that it can be used for good and therefore its alignment depends on how it is used. By RAW they lack alignment and there is no official prohibitation agianst its use in any alignment description
Also keep in mind that in most game worlds, protections and assumed rights of the accused as we are accustomed to, don't neccessarily exist.
In fact the US is still a novelty in that they exist as much as they do.
Perhaps.
But something that is often overlooked is the ability to enforce the rights a person theoretically has.
In the US there are a lot of poor defendants that go to trial for very serious offences with hopelessly inadequate legal representation. This has lead to numerous wrongful convictions.
Personally I don't believe in free will, considering it a human conceit.
And violating a person's free will, if there is such a thing, may be bad. But it hardly compares to killing them. A regular occurrence in Pathfinder.
Also keep in mind that in most game worlds, protections and assumed rights of the accused as we are accustomed to, don't neccessarily exist.
In fact the US is still a novelty in that they exist as much as they do.
Perhaps.
But something that is often overlooked is the ability to enforce the rights a person theoretically has.
In the US there are a lot of poor defendants that go to trial for very serious offences with hopelessly inadequate legal representation. This has lead to numerous wrongful convictions.
Personally I don't believe in free will, considering it a human conceit.
And violating a person's free will, if there is such a thing, may be bad. But it hardly compares to killing them. A regular occurrence in Pathfinder.
To be fair most pathfinder parties fall somewhere south of good. Also humans are designed such that they must act as though they believe in free will even if they consciously don't
I'd call blocking the use of touch of truthtelling a chaotic act myself. As one of the tenets in that paladin's code says,
"Never let the least harmful options distract you from your pursuit of morally right and fair punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong."
I'd call that tenet the lawful point of view. The right not to be restricted in what you say is a lesser tenet in this code, subject to being bent in favour of the greater tenets. Here injuries and wrongs have been inflicted and the paladin has a duty to pursue morally right and fair punishment.
"Morally right and fair punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong." You'd have to personally witness or prove the injury/wrong before you could morally inflict punishment. Otherwise, any claim of wrongdoing, even without evidence, would be grounds for inflicting punishment, even if the target of said punishment was entirely innocent of such accusations.
For those that are interested, these are the tenets of this Paladin's code.
** spoiler omitted **
Where are these from? I thought that a paladins code was according to who he worshipped. A paladin of Iomadae is very different to a paladin of Erastil, both LG too.
It has no explicit mention of free will, that is true. However, "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act." I would argue that allowing or condoning a person's free will to be violated would constitute an evil act.
Several people have cited "free will" as a factor. Alas, free will is something that nobody bats an eyelash at violating when magic isn't involved. The moment a paladin arrests a (suspected) criminal, they are violating that (suspected) criminal's free will. The (suspected) criminal does not wish to be incarcerated, questioned, tried, and punished. They do not wish to be detained, or taken away. Their free will is violated, by entirely mundane means. Physical force and threat.
My point is simply this: if the goal is just, there is no difference between using an enchantment to restrain a reluctant (suspected) criminal and doing it physically.
Is using a charm effect wrong? Its no different than using certain words, dressing a certain way, sitting in a stance or using techniques (such as mirroring) to convince someone of something or change their emotional state.
As people we constantly try to charm people, we just don't acknowledge it as such.
Note that Puppet Control via Dominate is a different beast entirely
@Anguish: There is a difference between bodily autonomy and free will. Detaining someone (magically or mundanely) violates the first, but that person can still think whatever they want. Messing with a person's thoughts is another matter. However, Zone of Truth and other like spells wouldn't even violate the 5th amendment (protection against self-incrimination, which also likely doesn't exist at all on Golarion), since the target can refuse to answer or give evasive answers.
Honestly, I consider charm and compulsion spells pretty dreadful. If a spell altered memories or personal priorities, it would be able to visit horrors upon a person which are hard to match.
Frankly, I find the majority of necromancy spells less disturbing. This odd perspective was at the heart of an antagonistic state I wrote into a Pathfinder setting. They considered charm and compulsion to actually be chaotic because a king could be made subservient to a peasant witch, or all of authority subverted. Undead, meanwhile, were a reasonable form of mechanization.
Charming someone is the adventuring equivalent of slipping GHB in their drink. It seems acceptable on a person who is about to kill you, but wholly unacceptable in most other situations.
My only example of PvP in pathfinder was when an enchanter cast dominate on my dwarf barbarian because she didn't agree with a choice I'd made. When I came round, the dwarf chopped her hands off then used a wand of cure light wounds to stop her dying. Dominate is a heinous act - watch Jessica Jones to see why.
You do not even need Charm to make someone believe you are his bestest friend. Getting them drunk enough will do the trick. How would this rate on the Alignment scale ?
Honestly looking for morality in general spellcasting one way or another is a lost cause if you ask me. Pretty much all the direct damage spells represent horrible ways to die (I doubt getting immolated by burning hands to be a pleasant experience to say nothing of stuff like boneshatter). There's a legion of spells for altering mental states, dominating minds, changing memories, etc, people's privacy can be mocked with scrying, detect thoughts, and similar, and further you could cause untold environmental damage with things like earthquake or control weather.
And that's not even going to all sorts of other horrific things you can do like permanently blinding people, turning them into beasts, or mentally regressing people to animalistic intelligence.
Magic is by and large horrific if examined closely. If you want to draw the line at enchantments, that's fine, but examining magic with that scrutiny is ultimately self defeating in my mind since you'll have to swear off all of it in general with all the horrors at its disposal.
At the basic level enchantments, even if they strip away free will, are not evil. That may just be an oversight from the PDT but there is actually a spell descriptor that flat out tells you if a spell is innately evil and it isnt that common. So as a blanket statement, no, it is not evil to use magic to control someone.
Secondly, even a quick review of the Paladin spell list shows, Compel Hostility, Haze of Dreams, Honeyed Tongue, Knight's Calling, Fairness and, oh yeah, Touch of Truthtelling. So those are spells granted by the same source that watches and judges paladins for their actions. We should assume that using the paladin powers granted by their dieties would be in line with what the dieties were expecting when they granted them even if those spells in whole or in part remove free will or aid the paladin in changing the mental state of the target.
Spells are certainly open to abuse but in the scenario above there doesnt seem to be any intent to use the spell outside the very purpose that paladins were given the spell for.
Also, while thematic and all, i doubt any paladin would actually believe trial by combat would result in a divine judgement of guilt. Most paladins are smart enough to know that being gifted some power does not make them divine avatars ready to tackle demonic archlords and invincible against evil by default.
Truth spells used to arbitrate just laws are fantastic. You get rid of a lot of bias right there. It's not infallible (and would work best prefaced by a couple Greater Dispels), but it does a good job protecting the innocent from false arrest, etc. The reason there's a protection against self incrimination is to prevent forcing false confessions, but the spell actually does a better job of that.
Broadly speaking, enchantments are kind of creepy, yeah. But they can very easily be the lesser of two evils (or neutrals). Forcing someone actively dangerous to lay down arms is better than killing them, which is in turn better than them killing innocent bystanders.
I'd stick with the general rule I always use for any moral quandary involving magic: "Would doing the closest mundane equivalent to this be acceptable?" Granted, that works a lot better when there's an clear mundane equivalent to look at: it's easy to compare a Fireball spell to a flamethrower.
I guess for compulsion spells, you'd have to compare it to making someone to do what you want through force/threat of force. In that case, what's at stake and what you're compelling the target to do counts for a lot. I can't see many people complaining about such means being used for something like stopping the bad guy from setting an orphanage on fire, but you generally shouldn't force someone to obey you without a very good reason.
I played a Dwarven Spellbreaker Inquisitor in a quick campaign once who believed that all enchantment spells that affect anybody else's free will was evil and ought to be punished, even if that meant abolishing that school of magic entirely. It was a fun character, but I don't know how realistic that person's goals would have been in a longer and more open game.
I feel like if you want to run a game where you're slapping the evil tag on "Charm Person" and the like because removing the free will of a sentient being is an evil act, go for it.
I'd stick with the general rule I always use for any moral quandary involving magic: "Would doing the closest mundane equivalent to this be acceptable?" Granted, that works a lot better when there's an clear mundane equivalent to look at: it's easy to compare a Fireball spell to a flamethrower.
I guess for compulsion spells, you'd have to compare it to making someone to do what you want through force/threat of force.
What about the morality of, say, advertising products as "limited edition" when that company really means they'll bring them back every other month, just for the pressure to buy it immediately? Or short-duration overhyped sales with the same intention (hi Steam :P)? Or bringing grievances with another individual into public to try to get others to support your side? Or sharing a bottle of wine with someone before asking them for something? Or polite white lies, or verbal intimidation, or subtle guilt-tripping...
Making someone do what you want through threat of force is a fine comparison in some cases. Dominate Person as an equivalent of holding a gun to someone's head to order them around, that makes sense. But for something like Charm Person or Malicious Spite - or other effects that are more "giving the target this attitude, but they determine how they act on it" than outright "do this now" - in that case the comparison becomes a bit shaky, and with effects like They Know or Coward's Cowl, it becomes even trickier.
At a certain point, the difference between enchantment magic and perfectly mundane manipulation starts to look a little hazy. Because, frankly, we try to make each other do or think or feel things all the time. We've gotten very good at doing so without any magic whatsoever. And frankly, I hope eventually philosophy and more knowledge of psychology interact enough for people to conclude things like some marketing tactics are not okay.
So, yeah, I do agree with "compare to the closest real-world equivalent, and so more or less I'd apply the same rules to enchantment as to any other manipulation - it's not ideal, but it's acceptable if you're doing so taking the greater good and the other person's own best interests into account, and there isn't any way (as far as you have any way to know) to accomplish the same thing while respecting their right to make their own decisions.
This is, of course, for non-combat purposes - situations like casting Charm Person to convince the guard to let you through, so you don't have to murderize him instead. In terms of combat, my thoughts would generally be "is this going to leave lasting psychological harm if this person survives?" Casting Hold Person to keep someone from attacking, fine, it's not any worse than chopping them up with an axe certainly. Something like... say, repeatedly casting Murderous Command on someone to keep them from attacking by making them attack their girlfriend's corpse instead (I have never claimed my mesmerist is a good person lol) ...then you're probably looking at the south end of Neutral, at least.
Okay, psychology/philosophy-obsessed aspie getting out of the way now, tl;dr version "yes enchantments are icky but sometimes okay." :P
I have lost track of how many times I had a player character of mine charmed and I advised the caster to run away. After all -- If my best friend were foolish enough to attack the murderhobos that I was adventuring with, what do you think I would tell him to do?
Personally, I see enchantments as less a moral quandary than an ethical one. Even that's iffy, because it would be more Lawful than Chaotic to try and force someone to believe the way you do. After all, Modrons from D&D were a hivemind, forced to think one particular way, and they were extremely lawful.
I'll also point out that using enchantment can't be that big an evil act, if one at all, because your standard Solar, you know, the beings created as Good's greatest nonmortal champion, has at least one enchantment ability.
I think this depends more on the morality of the character than in absolutes.
One character could think that casting an enchantment to solve an issue without bloodshed or further trouble is good, and he'd probably have his part of reason. Other character, same alignment, maybe same deity, could say that it's a violation of his mind, his free will, whatever, and he'd be right too.
Who can tell which of them is right? Sometimes characters are defined by themselves, not just for their class/alignment/deity, and that's what makes each character unique.
@Anguish: There is a difference between bodily autonomy and free will. Detaining someone (magically or mundanely) violates the first, but that person can still think whatever they want. Messing with a person's thoughts is another matter. However, Zone of Truth and other like spells wouldn't even violate the 5th amendment (protection against self-incrimination, which also likely doesn't exist at all on Golarion), since the target can refuse to answer or give evasive answers.
I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but that might make it worse to resort to physical restraint.
To know you're being forced through experiences you adamantly do not wish to partake in but have no ability to avoid is traumatic. To be blissfully convinced all is well is not.
Yeah, overall I'm inclined to say the spell's not inherently evil, it's just a matter of how you use it. Just like how it's evil to fireball an orphanage, but not evil to fireball the orcs who are about to kill all the orphans.
You do not even need Charm to make someone believe you are his bestest friend. Getting them drunk enough will do the trick. How would this rate on the Alignment scale ?
See, I'd consider getting someone drunk enough to take advantage of them a pretty awful thing to do. Arguably Evil. Absolutely Evil in some cases.
So yeah, I consider "Charm _____" spells to be incredibly shady most of the time. Not inherently evil, but in many cases they're closer to Evil than Good, and generally should be avoided when possible.
Now, truth spells I see being a bit better, because while there's absolutely an argument that they're infringing on free will, they lack the emotional manipulation that Charm spells engage in, and the spells that allow the subject the choice to tell the truth or be quiet are ultimately just verification spells, no worse than divination (which... to be honest, there's certainly some privacy concerns with divination spells!).
