#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
Are enchantment spells "evil"?
Here is what Pathfinder has to say about Enchantment Magic: About Enchantment Magic Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. All enchantments are mind-affecting spells. Two subschools of enchantment spells grant you influence over a subject creature. Charm: A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend. Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject. Is this technically evil? In my specific case I am playing a character with a dip into paladin and then leveling as wizard, and had intended to specialize in enchantment. My dm is saying that effecting someones mind through magic is evil, and thus I would likely lose my paladin abilities. Thoughts?
__________________
Natural 1's: 3 Natural 20's: 4 |
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
Moved to Gaming Advice.
-zev Ask your DM this: Is using Charm Person to con villains into getting to get out of your way and/or giving you stuff any more (or less) evil than cutting off their heads and taking their loot? Edited to add: Alternate question to ask: If such spells are evil, why do they not have the Evil descriptor (tag) such as the Contagion spell does in the Core Rulebook? Last edited by zevonian; Oct 24th, 2016 at 12:17 AM. |
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
well, the big answer is: if your DM says that manipulating other's minds through spells is evil, then it's evil.
I personally would say it would depend on the INTENT of said manipulation, but that's me. Alternatively, in most D&D worlds, enchantment spells are not evil, because they don't have the evil descriptor, and evil is a thing in and of itself: a tangible force/thing. Personally, if my DM told me what yours had said, I would say "thanks for clarifying that. I will play a different character concept, then, based on that." And I would also point out that using magic to effect someone's mind should not be any more evil than doing anything else to effect someone's mind. So, if I use a spell to make someone give me money, that's evil. If I threaten to harm them, to get them to give me money, then that's evil. And, if I bat my eyes, and promise them adoration and compliments, to get them to give me money.... What's the difference?
__________________
"Go Chiefs." --- Raylorne Aside from RPG, I collect used postage Stamps, Some Coins (quarters), and 1/6th Scale military Figures. Let's talk! |
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
I would definitely say that it is NOT evil, at least by D&D standards.
Remember, there are good people in the D&D world that are 'axe murderers'... They are killing and not in self defense. A spell -- any spell - is the same as a weapon. Is it more evil to use an enchantment spell to convince a bad guy to give away his coins or to use a fireball and take the coins from his dead corpse? |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
From a very strict interpretation, yes, mind-altering effects are inherently evil. This stems from a moral view of free will. By using mind-altering effects, you are essentially robbing the subject of free will.
In this interpretation, your Paladin is then restricted to persuade others only through logic and reason. Any other form of persuasion or deception (e.g. lying, appealing to the emotion, coercion) would also be robbing or manipulating the subject's free will. A tough DM you have, my Padawan. |
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
Just to play devil's advocate, but IF there is free will, why is logic and reason given a free pass to allow mind manipulation, but something like emotion is not?
What's the difference? Why can I attempt to make you like brussel sprouts via logic, but not emotion? "Tommy, eat your brussel sprouts. They contain anti-oxidants for a healthy body, as well as many vitamins you need." "Tommy, eat your brussel sprouts, so you will grow up big and strong like Michael Jordan." One is "good", and one is "evil"?
__________________
"Go Chiefs." --- Raylorne Aside from RPG, I collect used postage Stamps, Some Coins (quarters), and 1/6th Scale military Figures. Let's talk! |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Mostly because rationality (i.e. logic and reason) is factual, based on facts or truths that exist for all. Emotions are less so. Or something like that, according to my Philosophy 1 class. Teehee ^_^
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
It depends on the world and DM for sure. In generic D&D these spells are not evil any more than any other spell without the evil description is evil. It's the effect and use of the tool that determines whether evil was done in this case and mind control isn't any more or less evil than a fireball or cloudkill. Think Jedi mind trick where it's an innocuous act if you are using it for good reasons.
Your DM might have a different view on things in his setting, where denying another being free will and forcing them to act as you will them is a heinous act that removes the defining trait of a mortal, their ability to choose. The Dresden Files setting is like this and there are examples in other literature, for example in the Jessica Jones series, of how horrible mind control can be for the victim. Echoing the others: chat with your DM about what sort of things he views as evil before you go playing any class that requires avoiding evil acts to keep class features, like the paladin or a good cleric. You need to come to an understanding together of how evil works or else it'll be less fun (in my opinion) to play a paladin.
__________________
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain." It's time to toss the dice. Last edited by idilippy; Oct 24th, 2016 at 04:39 PM. |
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
It sounds like your GM has been reading Dresden Files. One of the Laws of Magic is that it shall not be used to alter the mind of another human.
__________________
Be a Community Supporter | Build Better Characters | Nominate a Post of the Month
Every time I close the door on reality, it comes in through the windows. |
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
Devil's advocate again:
In such a world (where either manipulating an opinion without fact, or a world where magic cannot be used to alter the mind of another), I would offer up a simple sleight of hand artist... a typical magician (real world). He comes on stage, before an audience, reaches into an empty hat, and pulls out a rabbit. Per the "rules", he is now evil. I really doubt that a common stage magician and his bag of card tricks, illusions, etc., is evil. If DnD "magic" is required, then point out that Prestidigitation is an evil spell (it alters ones' perception of color, food, etc.).
__________________
"Go Chiefs." --- Raylorne Aside from RPG, I collect used postage Stamps, Some Coins (quarters), and 1/6th Scale military Figures. Let's talk! |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
dirkoth's examples are for a different, perhaps more general discussion of evil. But, yes, per a strict interpretation of morality, those are examples of evil.
While evil can come in degrees (e.g. from very minor evil to world-rocking evil), the distinction and considerations become more serious with regard to the Paladin, especially in the 3.5/PF editions where they are bound by very strict codes/ethics. While the Paladin may perhaps be allowed from time to time to perform minor evils toward a greater good, it is a wholly different ball game when the Paladin begins focusing on Enchantment as a chosen school of magic. This indicates a dedication to mind-alteration and mind-control, which are inherently evil in a very strict sense (although the degree can also vary according to the specifications of the spell). I think the DM in question has a point in warning the player ahead of time about this particular situation. It's one thing to pick an Enchantment spell here and there; quite different to take Enchantment as a school of specialization. |
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
It's not the end result, the manipulation, that is evil itself in a Dresden Files world, it is the act of using magic to force the mind to think, feel, and believe something that it simultaneously (deep in the mind below the magical binding) doesn't want to do. It's hugely damaging to the psyche of the person you force to behave counter to how they truly feel, with the magic making them believe these out of character actions are what they want to do. See also victims of Kilgrave.
It's different from tricking someone into thinking they are doing what they want to do, as with an illusion or bluffing or a good con game. It's forcing them to truly want to do the act that is counter to their nature, leaving the victim with the memory of choosing and wanting whatever you forced them to do while simultaneously knowing they would never have chose or wanted to do it naturally. The best outcome of this in Dresden Files land is long term nightmares, anxiety, depression, and other problems as the mind rebels against the forced thoughts and feelings. Suicide, complete mental breakdowns, and permanent mental conditions are also possible. The real reason it's forbidden in Dresden Files world is that it's addicting and ultimately damaging to the manipulator though, rather than for pure good/evil reasons. They just mostly happen to dovetail. And that's only for that world's interpretation of how mental magic affects folks, if you make dominate person work to where the person dominated has no ill effect and don't explore the idea of lasting mental damage I would say the only good/evil in that world would be the end result. It's up to the GM as it's their world, though as a player you can give input if they decide to stick with their original decision best thing to do is just play another concept.
__________________
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain." It's time to toss the dice. |
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
yeah, Dresden drew a number of lines like that - directly affecting a mind with magic is bad, but fooling the senses into drawing wrong conclusions was not. Using magic to kill is bad but conjuring fire to burn someone to ashes was ok.
edit: The point of all this is that it depends on what your GM determines the morality of the world is. The rules should be laid out beforehand so that a player doesn't build a character that treads on those lines without being aware of it.
__________________
Be a Community Supporter | Build Better Characters | Nominate a Post of the Month
Every time I close the door on reality, it comes in through the windows. Last edited by roninkelt; Oct 25th, 2016 at 04:20 PM. |
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
I find the discussion fascinating...
So, in the Paladin's world, his/her god will punish them for choosing to use enchantment spells, because said spells take away free will? And why does the Paladin care/love/work for said god? For the promise of reward? Special favors or treatment? How does the god reward the paladin for doing good? And how is that not mind manipulation, the very thing the Paladin is scorned for doing?
__________________
"Go Chiefs." --- Raylorne Aside from RPG, I collect used postage Stamps, Some Coins (quarters), and 1/6th Scale military Figures. Let's talk! |
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
Does the paladin work, spreading the word of their god, for selfless reasons. Because it is the right thing to do and expecting no reward?
__________________
Be a Community Supporter | Build Better Characters | Nominate a Post of the Month
Every time I close the door on reality, it comes in through the windows. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|