#16
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
#17
|
|||||
|
|||||
"I...am an enchanter."
"By what name are you known?" "There are some who call me...Tim." "Greetings, Tim the Enchanter." "Greetings, King Arthur." ~~~ Short version: If your DM thinks John Cleese is evil, don't play an enchanter in that DM's game. (I'd link, but some folks might consider Monty to be above and beyond PG-13) Last edited by zevonian; Oct 25th, 2016 at 10:44 PM. |
#18
|
|||||
|
|||||
Enchantment magic isn't inherently evil, but what one chooses to do with it could be.
D&D provides a world where the bad guys are evil, so anything a good person does to them is considered fine and dandy. This is why a trip into the goblin camp usually results a pile of goblin corpses and a victory parade for the returning champions of justice. Most players don't go in trying to remediate the goblins' behaviour and work towards peaceful coexistence with the goblin horde. If your paladin was using charm magic in an unlawful way then I can totally see them losing their paladin powers. It's damn near impossible to apply real life morals to the D&D world. Pain, suffering and death are curable conditions. If a group of rogues were terrorising your town I'm pretty sure that getting a group of vigilantes together and murdering them would be highly unlawful and generally frowned upon. In D&D it's pretty much par for the course, and even a paladin could get in on the bloodshed and not suffer any undue consequences. -edit- From a mechanics standpoint I have to question combining a class that is reliant on heavy armour and a class that suffers arcane spell failure however perhaps knowing there's a good chance the spell won't work anyway pushes the spell closer to 'act of desperation' and desperate times call for desperate measures.
__________________
“Squeak is right" - Dirkoth Last edited by Raylorne; Oct 25th, 2016 at 11:13 PM. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And your example here is not mind-manipulation. It is called a job - getting paid for performing a service. The mind-alteration performed by Enchantment spells are more direct, in the sense that it really goes into your mind to mess things up in there. |
#20
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
But at what point does a generalist that uses (almost) nothing but enchantment differ from an enchantment specialist? As a generalist mage, I can choose all spell type X... am I crossing the line? As for the "job"... I'd still argue that granting someone the powers to create life, return the dead to life, alter weather, etc. (or, withholding them in a fit of pique) is not any less manipulating than an enchantment spell. Once again, I cast a spell, and change your opinion of me from neutral to friendly, that's "evil", but if I give you roses and a car, that's perfectly good? They are both manipulation.
__________________
"Go Chiefs." --- Raylorne Aside from RPG, I collect used postage Stamps, Some Coins (quarters), and 1/6th Scale military Figures. Let's talk! |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
The Wizard's specialization is a way of life. That's a deep investment. Also, assuming the same DM's world as in the OP, I'm guessing that a non-Enchanter Paladin that casts Enchantment spells on a regular basis will run into the same issues eventually.
I'm just stepping into the DM's shoes here, and I'm viewing it like Black Points on the driver's license: Enchantment specialization gets your license confiscated outright. Casting Enchantments nets you smaller amounts of Black Points that will eventually get your license confiscated if you do it often enough. |
#22
|
|||||
|
|||||
What if the paladin uses the charm spell to make the bad guy see the error of his ways and open up a shelter for abused women while also running a soup kitchen on the weekends. Is that still 'evil'?
__________________
“Squeak is right" - Dirkoth |
#23
|
|||||
|
|||||
"You want to buy some death sticks?"
"You don't want to sell the death sticks." "I...don't want to sell you death sticks." "You want to go home and rethink your life." "I want to go home and rethink my life." ~~~ If your DM doesn't want you to play a paladin that can change people's minds without fighting...then your DM hates Obi Wan Kenobi. Do you want a DM that hates Obi Wan Kenobi? What if that DM thinks Greedo fired first? You don't want that either. |
#24
|
|||||
|
|||||
...you had to bring up Greedo...
/me watches the thread go off the rails
__________________
“Squeak is right" - Dirkoth |
#25
|
|||||
|
|||||
If someone offers you a reward for doing something, they are not taking away your free will they are presenting you with an opportunity to exercise said free will with a choice. It may be an unbalanced choice but you still get to decide. If someone takes control of your mind and makes you do something you have no choice in the matter you are doing what the mind controller forces you to do. To me that's clearly different than telling someone that choosing something will get them a reward. It may or may not necessarily be evil, in the opinion of the DM of the OP it is, so in that world it is.
For an example, if someone says "I'll give you 100 million dollars to go murder that innocent person, if you don't do it you get nothing" you get a choice. You decide whether or not you want the reward. They could also say "kill this innocent person or I will have you killed and your entire village razed to the ground" and you still get a choice. If they use a mind control spell and cause you to kill someone, you get no choice.
__________________
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain." It's time to toss the dice. Last edited by idilippy; Oct 26th, 2016 at 05:20 AM. |
#26
|
|||||
|
|||||
My further thought, based on the examples above, is that it is less about the 'evil' part of a paladin's ethos, but more about the 'lawful' side.
Evil is a relative term, since the D&D world believes that killing is not inherently an evil act. However, I could quite easily see taking away someone's free will as violating a code or ethos. I know it is semantical, but that's what I see. I COULD see a Chaotic Good character taking over someone's mind to kill a bad guy... But I can also see why that would not be acceptable for a Lawful Good character. Obi Wan would have been either Chaotic of Neutral Good and had no issues. Last edited by Squeak; Oct 26th, 2016 at 08:44 AM. |
#27
|
|||||
|
|||||
IMO it depends on how much of a point the GM wants to make of free will. If it's an important element in the story then it's worth making the distinction about enchantments, otherwise perhaps not.
Dresden Files definitely has free will as a significant element of the storylines, as does The Curse of Chalion. On another note - it's my opinion that the paladin as defined in D&D has always been an oddity - it implicitly relies on mostly modern western morality in a world that has, or should have, little to do with Western style monotheistic beliefs. There are other codes of conduct that would be a better fit or be more explicitly polytheistic. Bushido is one example that springs to mind.
__________________
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. |
#29
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
__________________
"Go Chiefs." --- Raylorne Aside from RPG, I collect used postage Stamps, Some Coins (quarters), and 1/6th Scale military Figures. Let's talk! |
#30
|
|||||
|
|||||
I don't agree that it's a manipulation of another's mind, unless the idea of manipulation is made so broad as to be meaningless. If everything that could possibly influence another person to make a decision is considered a manipulation then sure, but I think that's too broad to fit manipulation.
As an example in the real world, if you are considering applying for a job and I tell you that my company will give you a $10,000 sign on bonus in addition to your salary it would be additional stuff for you to consider when deciding where to work, but I don't think I would consider it manipulation. Manipulation has a connotation of being underhanded or false. If all I tell you that my company is offering a $10,000 sign on bonus, and avoid telling you that the first year pay is going to be $10,000 less than the industry average,that you are locked in to a 20 year no-compete clause, and have a $100,000 penalty if you leave the company in the next 20 years until after you have come here that would be closer to manipulation in my opinion. Not to go too deep into the rabbit hole and way off topic of the original thread, but from wikipedia and a psychology today post different definitions of psychological manipulation could be: "The exercise of undue influence through mental distortion and emotional exploitation, with the intention to seize power, control, benefits, and privileges at the victim’s expense" or "a type of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through abusive, deceptive, or underhanded tactics". A reward for good behavior would be a major stretch to call abusive, deceptive, or underhanded. You could make a case for emotional exploitation, though a thin one, but the intention to seize power, control, benefits, and privileges at the victims extent in this case is a major stretch as well. If there is more to it, something addictive about the power, or corrupting and ultimately harmful to the user, that would be more manipulative especially if it were covered up. And again, all of this is off field from the OP's post and I'm not going to make the case that all enchantment spells are evil in every D&D world and adventure. If the DMs world is one where violating another person's free will with magic is evil that's the way it works in their world, not the default assumption of it being just another tool with the result the important factor. Not that this isn't an interesting discussion, because it's thought provoking, just kinda moving off topic.
__________________
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain." It's time to toss the dice. Last edited by idilippy; Oct 26th, 2016 at 07:54 PM. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|