Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Drohem 10-09-06, 05:20 PM	This came up in game. A mostly CG party. A NPC is guarding an artifact we need to save the world, but we can't take because it has to be given freely. NPC wants someone to marry his fat daughter. We offered pounds of gold, but no he wants someone important to marry her. Several party members offer themselves, but no the old mage and my halfing figther aren't good enough. After much discussion, we ask the local Magistrate that is an NPC in our party if he will marry fat daughter. He said he would if we give him another powerful item we have on us. We don't want to part with it. Out of frustration, I ask the wizard to cast Suggestion on the Magistrate, that he should marry the girl. Our DM said that we were walking on the "dark side" and that it was an "evil" act to cast the spell on him. The Magistrate made his Will save. As a result, our DM said that he felt that any complusion-type spell is evil and walking down the dark path. He also said that we were in danger of alignment shift if we continued to use those spells while be CG. We argued that Elves and Celestials inherently have spells that are considered complusion-type spells, so how could using them be considered an evil act? He won't budge on the issue, and it has pretty much dereailed his campaign. This happened when we were 16th level characters, and he never indicated previously how he felt about complusion spells. Thoughts? Are these type of spells evil? Suggestion, Geas, etc.
Solaris 10-09-06, 05:24 PM	Are you playing in Middle-earth? Domination of a free will is the supreme evil there. Basically, it's up to your DM.
CryoSilver 10-09-06, 05:29 PM	So magically telling someone what to do is evil, but slaughtering monsters and taking their stuff isn't?
Always-Late 10-09-06, 05:46 PM	Compulsion effects are essentially the Thought Police. Now, the Thought Police don't have to be bad. But decide for yourself.
CryoSilver 10-09-06, 05:49 PM	Compulsions aren't NICE, but then, Holy Word isn't NICE. How the spell is used determines the alignment of the casting, unless it is inherently a good or evil spell (Unholy Blight, etc).
Artector 10-09-06, 05:52 PM	Usually if used for malicious intent. There's few benevolent uses for it though. I'd call this a benevolent use, you guys need the artifact. I don't know about the item you have but its a fair bet that it would lower your ability to save the world. So you are simply tweaking him for the greater good. (A little bit of an eberron viewpoint there...)
CryoSilver 10-09-06, 05:53 PM	Compulsion spells can be used to help characters do things that they would normally be too afraid or hesitant to do, as well. Too scared to cross the bridge because of your barophobia? Have the wizard Dominate you and order you to cross.
BlaineTog 10-09-06, 06:05 PM	I blame J.K. Rowling for this thread. Just because it's evil in one fantasy setting to take away someone's free will doesn't mean it's evil in all of them. D&D's system of morality and ethics functions differently from the real world's, and from much modern fantasy. In D&D, they are bad, and you are good, and you can generally do what you want to them to remove them from the picture. D&D doesn't want you worrying too much about the orc horde you just rained genocide upon, or whether or not you were within your right as mere fellow mortals to kill Boltreg the Vile Wizard. Kill them because they're evil and be done with it, or dominate them and force them to call off the attacking hordes, then kill them. It's all Good. ;) How very convenient that two threads with nearly identicle problems should pop up in both the General and Psionic boards.[/not sarcastic]
Seeker95 10-09-06, 06:14 PM	Whether they are evil or not depends on what you are doing with it, as with any other action in D&D. They are not, however [evil] since they do not have the [evil] tag. The former is behavior related. The latter is domain related.
Alac Luin 10-09-06, 06:14 PM	Using a compulsion spell to get someone to stop attacking you, not evil.(you are defending yourself) To get someone to leave a burning building, not evil.(respecting the persons life) Encouraging someone to ruin the rest of their life because you were to selfish to part with something, evil. (bringing harm to someone)
Tempest Stormwind 10-09-06, 06:18 PM	I despise alignment threads in general, but I'd like to throw a bone out to all of you good/evil dichotomers here. There's an entire other alignment axis people forget about. Chaotic viewpoint stresses the importance of free will. Lawful viewpoint stresses the importance of obedience. Therefore, wouldn't mental control (obedience, suppression of free will) be a LAWFUL act, rather than an EVIL one? It could be done for good or for evil purposes ("these aren't the droids you're looking for," anyone?), but that doesn't address the means, just the ends. (This is why I avoid alignment in general and subscribe to the Eberron perspective on it.)
Artector 10-09-06, 07:40 PM	I despise alignment threads in general, but I'd like to throw a bone out to all of you good/evil dichotomers here. There's an entire other alignment axis people forget about. Chaotic viewpoint stresses the importance of free will. Lawful viewpoint stresses the importance of obedience. Therefore, wouldn't mental control (obedience, suppression of free will) be a LAWFUL act, rather than an EVIL one? It could be done for good or for evil purposes ("these aren't the droids you're looking for," anyone?), but that doesn't address the means, just the ends. (This is why I avoid alignment in general and subscribe to the Eberron perspective on it.) When reading this thread I thought of that too. However, Lawful use of compulsion is probably more like: "Obey the lay; vote Republican*" Chaotic may be more like this: "Move out of my way." *Just kidding
boozerker 10-09-06, 08:29 PM	If you use it to make someone say "thank you", would that be evil? (or "excuse me" after burping)
angryman 10-09-06, 08:49 PM	I resent that! My old enchanter/mindbender was, Neutral and he was pretty liberal with his use of mind affecting spells. * He made some kind of telepathic link with his guards that helped them work as an efficient unit (the equivalent of walkie talkies) * He Dominated enemies instead of killing them * He also made all his lieges "support and appreciate his beneveolence" * He made his realm peaceful by subtlely misdirecting any raiders/enemy spies
RellenMarn 10-09-06, 10:32 PM	Compulsion s not inherently evil, but your use of it here was. Forcing someone to marry against there will is. Someone who resorts to compulsion to get their way with friends -- or even non evil enemies is evil. Please note this is a personal opinion and not based upon the DnD alignments. Think how you would react if someone did this to you....
Artector 10-09-06, 10:34 PM	Compulsion s not inherently evil, but your use of it here was. Forcing someone to marry against there will is. Someone who resorts to compulsion to get their way with friends -- or even non evil enemies is evil. Please note this is a personal opinion and not based upon the DnD alignments. Think how you would react if someone did this to you.... He'd marry her anyways, he just wanted the party's tribute. On a side note: The DM might have been trying to balance the game out a little if the item was too powerful.
Alac Luin 10-09-06, 11:17 PM	If you use it to make someone say "thank you", would that be evil? (or "excuse me" after burping) No, just annoying.
xanadu 10-09-06, 11:37 PM	Compulsion s not inherently evil, but your use of it here was. Forcing someone to marry against there will is. Someone who resorts to compulsion to get their way with friends -- or even non evil enemies is evil. Please note this is a personal opinion and not based upon the DnD alignments. Think how you would react if someone did this to you.... So letting the world go to hell in a handbasket instead of marrying some fat chick is "good"? :confused: I think Tempest is right on here in any event
RellenMarn 10-09-06, 11:48 PM	In a word, yes. You have no right to demand someone else suffers to save the world. You can appeal to their consciense, sure, but forcing someone to do something that will suffer for is evil, or neutral at best. I also question whether this could work, the plump maidens father is a Wizard, no? It seems likely he will notice a compulsion effect. What about talking to the girl? Ask her if she wants to marry some random fellow, explain the situation to her and that you are trying to save the world! Who knows she might help you persuade her father.
Ogre4Hire 10-09-06, 11:55 PM	This is one of those gray areas that D&D really doesn't do to well at. Mostly, this seems to be a case of the DM trying to railroad you into giving up an item, then trying to penalize you for not wanting to give up that item.
Alac Luin 10-10-06, 12:05 AM	So letting the world go to hell in a handbasket instead of marrying some fat chick is "good"? :confused: The question was not about the NPC's actions it was about the PCs actions. I think Tempest is right on here in any event Tempest does have a point, but the spell being a lawful action does not eliminate that it is also an evil action. It can be viewed as both lawful and evil. Since the OP asked evil or not, that is what we are answering.
Terraneaux 10-10-06, 12:24 AM	Compulsion spells aren't inherently evil. But it's really easy to make them so they are. You can use a compulsion spell (or dominate) to do something good, like say make the participants in a tavern brawl stop fighting. It's no more evil than tackling them and making them stop the fight. Charm spells are a whole different ballgame IMHO. While the compulsion and dominate spells just seize control of the targets body, they are free to think on thier own. Charm robs them of that and it takes a damn rare occurance to encourage a truly good character to use these. That said, the situation that you described seems like an evil act. You are making someone marry someone they don't want to; it's like holding a gun to their head, but worse, because they can't choose to refuse and consequently get their head blown off. Unless, of course, that item is very critical to your "great quest" to defeat evil or whatever. Then it is still an evil act but is balanced by the greater good. Your DM, however, is wrong in saying that compulsion spells are always evil. Ask him if he would say that grappling someone to prevent them from killing someone is less evil than using a compulsion spell.
JulesCARV 10-10-06, 12:30 AM	So basically, the magistrate was willing to cooperate, for a price. You decide you like your items more than you like the magistrate's free will, and cast suggestion to force him to marry her. I'd say that's wrong. If you think that he would have married her anyway, and just wanted to get something extra out of it, you should have haggled the price down to some lesser item or something, and made clear that, marry the woman or not, he wasn't going to get the item he first asked for.
ArcTan 10-10-06, 12:32 AM	I don't like the idea of [Evil] subtype spells in the first place, but I will agree that if something as on the fence as the act of animating undead has the [Evil] subtype, I don't see how Dominate Person could possibly not be. But in a dog-eat-dog universe like D&D, you *have* to do a lot of evil things to fight for the cause of good. You have to stick people with a sword and cut them up. I don't see that as good. I don't see blasting people with a huge flaming explosion as good. A lot of these things aren't good, but you do them to the bad people and it evens out. If using an [Evil] descriptor spell is evil, so is killing people, and my ruling on it is the same as with killing people -- if you do it when it's necessary for a higher cause and don't take inherent joy in the act, then you succeed in the struggle to stay on the side of the light even while using tools of darkness. Even the hardest-core defenders of blind, stupid adherence to alignment rules have to admit that using an [Evil] spell is merely an evil *act* under the most simplistic possible D&D rules, and certainly is not by itself grounds for causing you to suddenly switch alignment to Evil if you do it for a good cause. Recognize that you *have* to walk on the dark path a few times in your career in order to do the right thing in the end, and accept it, and don't play a Paladin in case the DM is a jerk about making you Fall. Although I will say this is a far more potentially evil use of compulsion magic than the usual -- you're not using it to stop an evil person from committing an obviously evil act or to force an evil person to directly help you stop the plans of the bad guys -- you're using it to force someone who's done nothing wrong to make a very personal decision, intrinsic to his own happiness, he would *never* normally make, because you'd rather do *that* than pay him to commit an action that *in the long run* will *indirectly* advance you toward the goal of saving the world. And choosing to keep your fancy-schmancy expensive magic item rather than not destroy another man's free will and force him to marry against his will? That's pretty evil. (What gets me is how, once you reach a certain point, adventuring parties will insist that *every* magic item they have is essential to saving the world and they can't give *any* of them up, no matter how many they have. A party that wouldn't give up a magic item in exchange for someone else giving up *his entire life to marry a woman he doesn't love* is not a Good-aligned party.)
boozerker 10-10-06, 12:45 AM	This is one of those gray areas that D&D really doesn't do to well at. Heck, this is one of those gray areas the real world doesn't do well at. No, just annoying. :) Seconded :)
razorboy 10-10-06, 08:52 AM	In the campaign I'm currently running, Compulsion spells are not evil, and simply using them is not evil. However, if they are used towards evil ends (forcing someone to kill themselves, forcing someone to commit a crime, abusing someone through compulsion) then that will impact the caster's alignment. Furthermore, although Compulsion spells are not inherently evil, they are illegal on the other hand in my game. A caster who is caught using Compulsion spells to get a better price from a merchant, seduce someone, find out a state secret, and so on - is guilty of a crime and is punished accordingly. In that way, although I do not discourage my players from using those spells, they understand that there are potential consequences.
Magus Gar Kan 10-10-06, 11:07 AM	Compulsion spells are not inherently evil, unless they have the [EVIL] descriptor. However using them for evil ends would be an evil act, just like throwing a fireball into an orphanage full of children is an evil act :mage: :hides:
thanatos_lich 10-10-06, 11:18 AM	it depends on what you use them for.Surely stopping wars with compulsion is better than stopping them with slaughter.
Magus Gar Kan 10-10-06, 11:31 AM	After rereading your post, I have to say that the DM was within his rights, but for the wrong reasons. As were you. The DM's stance that all compulsion spells are evil is wrong. My earlier post explains why. However, the reasons why you used the spell were, at least by the description you gave, selfish at best. Selfishness may not be evil, but it is a trait strongly associated with it. The Magistrate was an NPC, why not attempt to use the diplomacy skill? Ask the DM if that would have made a difference? Out of curiosity? what was the item?
Nidair 10-10-06, 11:40 AM	It's just one letter on your character sheet that changes into another one. I wonder what's the big deal. You all seem like a party of do-gooders and I'm sure that you will change back soon enough with the next good deed (or 2). My old enchanter/mindbender was, Neutral and he was pretty liberal with his use of mind affecting spells. Somehow I spot a rather grim sense of irony in there...
CharlieRock 10-10-06, 01:05 PM	That's CRAZY! Derailing a game because of that ??!! Anyway, instead of casting Suggestion on the magistrate, why not cast polymorph on the daughter? (or even an illusion of lower level, the superficial reaver would never know until it was "too late"). p.s. derailing a game is the players' job. :P
boozerker 10-10-06, 01:27 PM	Somehow I spot a rather grim sense of irony in there... Yeah the grim sense of irony is anyone who thinks so probably has their mind affected :D (someone who's "right") As stated before, it really depends on what purpose you're using compulsion effects for -- especially in D&D. Seems more wrong in the real world, though.
Mindshred 10-10-06, 08:53 PM	Forcing someone to marry someone else is not an evil act....lawful, yes, but not evil. Arranged marriages subscribe to the Lawful school of thought, and choosing your own mate plays to those Chaotic members of society. I don't see anything evil about the situation at all. Now, you can use Compulsion spells to make people do evil things, but that doesn't make them evil. Just like holding a sword to someone's back and forcing them to do evil things doesn't make the sword evil. It's just a tool.
xanadu 10-10-06, 09:19 PM	In a word, yes. You have no right to demand someone else suffers to save the world. You can appeal to their consciense, sure, but forcing someone to do something that will suffer for is evil, or neutral at best. Can't agree here otherwise the alignment Lawful Good does not exist. This was why i brought up Tempest's point. The OP asked about good evil and that is not the only axis of morality in the D & D world.
xanadu 10-10-06, 09:30 PM	Tempest does have a point, but the spell being a lawful action does not eliminate that it is also an evil action. It can be viewed as both lawful and evil. Since the OP asked evil or not, that is what we are answering. You are stating that it is an evil action here. Inherant/absolute evil is defined by the [evil] descriptor tag. Suggestion does not have it, thus in the D & D world it is not inherently evil. As a DM you may rule that such an act is in contradiction to a good alignment (one which I would disagree with because that is the DM imposing his morality upon me and the game over the rules). But that is not the only alternative. You also may rule that it is a neutral act as well as a lawful one Or you may rule that it is a [B]good act as well as a lawful one. Or you may rule that chaotic good characters are more concerned with ends rather than means for achieving the greater good and thus do not abide by the contention that traditions/mores/norms forbiding compulsion effects trump the greater good. You do realize the whole idea of compelling the individual to act against the greater good of the community is somehow wrong is not a moral absolute evil but a particular strain of philosophy that ultimately stems from the Classical Greeks who stuggled with this very notion (read Antigone sometimes). There is no right answer.
Alac Luin 10-10-06, 09:38 PM	Forcing someone to marry someone else is not an evil act....lawful, yes, but not evil. Apparently you have never been married. :P Arranged marriages subscribe to the Lawful school of thought, and choosing your own mate plays to those Chaotic members of society. I don't see anything evil about the situation at all. Arranged marriages also typically include something that benefits both families, political posturing etc. When the brides family does not benefit the groom/grooms family typically include dowry paid to the groom to take the girl off the hands of the parents. What the PC's did in this instance denied the groom what would be his right, because they were to selfish to sacrifice an item. Now, does this harm the groom? Yes, he has lost out financially- causing him financial harm. Since he was harmed by the PC's actions it is evil. Now the argument that it was “lawful” is actually weaker because it also has chaotic undertones (possibly disregarding traditions{the dowry}, and altered the status quo {of two single people}). So on the ground of law vs. chaos, this really is neutral.
Alac Luin 10-10-06, 09:47 PM	I didn't see this post untill after I posted the last one, since I was quoted, I feel the need to respond. You are stating that it is an evil action here. Inherant/absolute evil is defined by the [evil] descriptor tag. Suggestion does not have it, thus in the D & D world it is not inherently evil. Yes, I'm stateing the PC's actions were evil. In the D&D game I have never seen an action with the [evil] descriptor. So I'm not sure what your pont is here. As a DM you may rule that such an act is in contradiction to a good alignment (one which I would disagree with because that is the DM imposing his morality upon me and the game over the rules). But that is not the only alternative. You also may rule that it is a neutral act as well as a lawful one Or you may rule that it is a [B]good act as well as a lawful one. Or you may rule that chaotic good characters are more concerned with ends rather than means for achieving the greater good and thus do not abide by the contention that traditions/mores/norms forbiding compulsion effects trump the greater good. You do realize the whole idea of compelling the individual to act against the greater good of the community is somehow wrong is not a moral absolute evil but a particular strain of philosophy that ultimately stems from the Classical Greeks who stuggled with this very notion (read Antigone sometimes). There is no right answer. It is the DM's job to judge what is evil in his campain. We have the idea in game terms that bringing harm to someone is evil, simple enough. My oppinion is the OP's situation brought harm to the man, hence evil. I do wish the OP's DM does not stick with that "all compultions are evil". I never said that they are, in fact I gave simple ideas that they can actually be used for good.
xanadu 10-10-06, 11:55 PM	Yes, I'm stateing the PC's actions were evil. In the D&D game I have never seen an action with the [evil] descriptor. So I'm not sure what your pont is here. Sure you have. Some examples: Curse Water Necromancy [Evil] Create Undead Necromancy [Evil] Chain Devil (Kyton) Size/Type: Medium Outsider (Evil, Extraplanar, Lawful) It is the DM's job to judge what is evil in his campain. Yes it is. If the DM chooses to impose a DM fiat that creates tension in a game over a questionable ruling, that's too much jury and executioner in addition to judge We have the idea in game terms that bringing harm to someone is evil, simple enough. Emphasis mine. We do :confused: No we don't. You do. You are certainly entitles to your opinion and have the right to express it, but speak only for yourself and not assume your opinions are the norm. I don't agree with your statement because then the whole world is evil. We have all brought harm onto others. So it is not simple enough. I do wish the OP's DM does not stick with that "all compultions are evil". I never said that they are, in fact I gave simple ideas that they can actually be used for good. You did give ideas but your statement that bringing harm others = evil does not make it seem like you disagree with the OP's DM.
CharlieRock 10-11-06, 12:04 AM	The fact that your DM has decided that late in the game that compulsion spells are evil means that it is just a convenient way for him to keep you from getting "out of the can". A "canned" scenario being that there is one right action for one obstacle. The RAW doesn't say that ,and in fact there is much evidence against. Such as, Pixies' are NG (not even CG) and cast Otto's Irresistable Dance (compulsion). If you use compulsion to get someone to stop threatening you with a knife, that is hardly evil. Etc. ,etc. . This is a smokescreen thrown up by your DM because you are not reacting to his "canned" scenario. :mage:
Drohem 10-11-06, 12:16 AM	After rereading your post, I have to say that the DM was within his rights, but for the wrong reasons. As were you. The DM's stance that all compulsion spells are evil is wrong. My earlier post explains why. However, the reasons why you used the spell were, at least by the description you gave, selfish at best. Selfishness may not be evil, but it is a trait strongly associated with it. The Magistrate was an NPC, why not attempt to use the diplomacy skill? Ask the DM if that would have made a difference? Out of curiosity? what was the item? Well, my description of the event in question was, obviously, down and dirty. The old man and father was NOT a wizard, just a regular old peasant. This is a homebrew campaign, but we arrived in a country with culture similar to china/japan. We were sent here by the Elf Queen from far off Elf lands via skyship. Dark armies are on our trail and will eventually come to this land. We were sent here to retreive some of the 12 artifacts of a monastic order. It was made explicit by the Elf Queen that without all these artifacts, we were pretty much doomed to failure if we tried to kill the ancient Ogre/Vampire Lord before he used the well of something to enslave the world under his undead yolk. One of our first encounters in this new land was an assult on a Ninja cult. We killed all the ninjas in there mountain hideout and freed a captive Celestial in the process. As we were preparing to leave the hideout, Submagistrate Chang approached us asking about an assassin. We informed him that we cleared the place out. Since then, he became our 'guide' in the new lands and capital city. We failed to kill the Ninja lord, however, and he later attacked my 16th CG Halfling fighter, reducing him to only several hit points, but left alive. Prior to this attack, we had been approached by a 'reformed' vampire who supposedly no longer drank the blood of sentient creatures. He had appeared several times before, but we weren't powerful enough to take him out. This time he again protested that he wanted nothing to do with the upcoming vampire war. I said as a token of good faith, then hunt down and kill this assassin. Well, after the attack on my Halfing, the 'good' vampire was true to his word and handed us the dead Ninja Lord. The Ninja lord had a powerful item (not sure if artifact or not), called the Ninjacron. It provides a +10 Leadership Score and allows you to know all the secret ninja moves, and imparts the ability to teach the ninja secrets to others. Now apparently, Magistrate Chang (recently promoted) was originally ordered to obtain this item. Cut to old man scene- my halfing has over 1/2 million gold worth himself alone. We offer old man pounds of gold to secure his fat daughter's future- not good enough. She has to marry someone of stature. Our elderly human wizard was not good enough since he was old, supposedly. My stout Halfing warrior was not good enough since he was a halfling. We ask if our guide Magistate Chang was good enough, and old man said yes. We ask Chang if he will marry girl in order to get artifact to save the world from evil Orge/vampire overlord. We had previously filled him in on our mission and previous encounters. We offer Chang pounds of gold to marry girl. No, he wants Ninjacron and nothing else. I don't know what his aims are with it, maybe ressurect ninjas for nefarious purposes. Just previously the DM gives my halfling fighter Leadership feat, makes him mayor of halfing quarter of capitol city, and then hands him the Ninjacron from another NPC. We know that war is a coming to these lands, and I decide I will teach a cadre of my new followers to become CG halfing ninjas to defend the lands and city here. Magistrate Chang won't budge, and after many attempts at negoations, and offers of wealth beyond measure, in frustration I make off-hand comment to our group's wizard that he should 'suggest' that Chang marry the girl. The wizard immediately proceeds to cast the spell before we could do anything. Chang makes his Will save, but now is very wary of the wizard. Then the DM makes pronouncement that we are 'walking the dark path' and endanger of alignment shift, etc. My halfling character actually likes Magistrate Chang because Chang is fat and has the same deep, abiding love of food like my halfing. The peasants daugther was fat, and was a good cook. My halfing figured it would be a good match anyway. It was not meant in an evil context, he was thinking his lonely working buddy could be happy with company and a good cook. But Chang was ambitious and wanted the Ninjacron to advance his status in society, and he could only do this with the item. Also, marrying a peasant girl apparently would hamper his social climb, even though it could potentially doom the world to undead enslavement.
Alac Luin 10-11-06, 12:34 AM	Sure you have. Some examples: You listed a bunch of spells, those are not actions, and one creature None of those are actions. Again, I have never seen an action with any kind of descriptor. Is walking into a tavern an evil action? Good action? An action is what someone does. Repelling goblins attacking a caravan is an action. Casting fireball on a bunch of orphans is another action. Yes it is. If the DM chooses to impose a DM fiat that creates tension in a game over a questionable ruling, that's too much jury and executioner in addition to judge Sorry, thats a DM's job. To rule the game as they can best determine the rules' Emphasis mine. We do :confused: No we don't. You do. You are certainly entitles to your opinion and have the right to express it, but speak only for yourself and not assume your opinions are the norm. Well, take a look at the rule books, it's there in the PHB Here it is from the SRD: GOOD VS. EVIL <snip>“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others<snip> My opinion is that this was hurting the bachelor. So, opinion is this was an evil action. Enough to shift their alignment? No way. Justify a warning, maybe. If you were this person's DM, you could have just ignored it. I don't agree with your statement because then the whole world is evil. We have all brought harm onto others. So it is not simple enough. No, it's not that "simple" But is also not that complicated. We have all harmed other, but what keeps many from being evil is we actually regret doing such, sometimes apologizing or doing something else to make it up to them. And if we do enough "good" things to make up for the bad. A character's alignment is a representation of their entire personality, not just one action. A DM is to judge a character's personality over the course of the game and judge what the alignment is. Personally, In my games the players rarely know what their alignment really is, sometimes it matches what they wrote on the character sheet, sometimes it's not. In fact I currently have a player with a character with a CN on the sheet, at this point in time they are really CG despite themselves (she claimed she wanted to be CE in the first place). The alignment shifts depending on how many/how big "evil" or "good" actions they do. You did give ideas but your statement that bringing harm others = evil does not make it seem like you disagree with the OP's DM. I don't disagree with the OP's DM that this action was a "questionably evil" act. One I might as a DM give a warning of, especially if a Paladin was in the party . I disagree with OP's DM that compulsions are inherently evil. What you do with them can be.
ArcTan 10-11-06, 02:38 AM	The fact that your DM has decided that late in the game that compulsion spells are evil means that it is just a convenient way for him to keep you from getting "out of the can". A "canned" scenario being that there is one right action for one obstacle. The RAW doesn't say that ,and in fact there is much evidence against. Such as, Pixies' are NG (not even CG) and cast Otto's Irresistable Dance (compulsion). If you use compulsion to get someone to stop threatening you with a knife, that is hardly evil. Etc. ,etc. . This is a smokescreen thrown up by your DM because you are not reacting to his "canned" scenario. :mage: I don't disagree that simply making all compulsion spells Evil-subtype spells is going way too far. On the other hand, this particular use of a compulsion spell -- against someone who's not evil himself, in order to override a free-willed decision he has the right to make, that's very central to his life and future happiness -- is pretty evil. Just like threatening to kill someone is not inherently evil -- adventurers have to use threats all the time against bad guys -- but threatening to stab this NPC unless he married the girl would be an evil thing to do, IMO.
cancerousmango 10-11-06, 02:55 AM	First off, TLDR (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TLDR). Secondly, no. Was it evil of Obi Wan to cloud stormtroopers' minds? No, because he was saving planets and people in the process, and gaining only his life in the process, while harming no one. If you use compulsion effects for personal gain as opposed to the betterment/aid of others, then it's evil. Q.E.D. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quod_erat_demonstrandum)
xanadu 10-11-06, 03:31 AM	You listed a bunch of spells, those are not actions, and one creature None of those are actions. :confused: How is cursing water and creating undead NOT actions? Those are verbs, and what "someone does," yes? Sorry, thats a DM's job. To rule the game as they can best determine the rules' If I am not mistaken, WOTC published an entire book dedicated to helping the DM provide a more amiable and enjoyable gaming environment in the DMG II. There are also numerous pages in the DMG. It is within the DM's prerogative to be make the game unenjoyable by imposing his morality via fiat upon his players but that is most certainly not his job Well, take a look at the rule books, it's there in the PHB Here it is from the SRD: GOOD VS. EVIL <snip>“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others<snip> Why look at the rules here and not under enchantment spells? Rather selective, aren't we? No, it's not that "simple" But is also not that complicated. We have all harmed other, but what keeps many from being evil is we actually regret doing such, sometimes apologizing or doing something else to make it up to them. And if we do enough "good" things to make up for the bad. Ok. Sorry you had to marry the fat *****. Give some of my ill gotten gains to my local parish and I saved the world. All is good now, yes? Sure it is complicated. Thousands of years of the greatest human minds pondering the nature of good and evil and still we as a species has not arrived at a consensus. Socrates could not resolve the dilemma but the OP's DM could :eek: Alignment/morality is rarely simple; too often crucial choices have elements of "evil" - to use the term waaaaaay too liberally as it is being used in this thread - no matter what they do. While I do agree the OP's scenario is rather problematic - I doubt I'd bargain if I had to save the world - enchantment spells are not inherently evil and using one to save the world in the scenario, while dubious and highly questionable is not "evil".
Calestin Kethal 10-11-06, 04:48 AM	Not that this is the best source, but the BoED states (pg 10) that compulsions aren't inherently evil, but there is potential for abuse. It really all depends on what you're doing with it. Which, unfortunately, makes it a jugdement call. edit: spelling
Alac Luin 10-11-06, 12:30 PM	:confused: How is cursing water and creating undead NOT actions? Those are verbs, and what "someone does," yes? The action of casting an evil spell is an evil act (so say the rules). The action does not have the evil descriptor, the spell does. Oh, and I hate that 3.5 makes creating undead an evil action, but thats a thread in itself. If I am not mistaken, WOTC published an entire book dedicated to helping the DM provide a more amiable and enjoyable gaming environment in the DMG II. There are also numerous pages in the DMG. It is within the DM's prerogative to be make the game unenjoyable by imposing his morality via fiat upon his players but that is most certainly not his job Hmm, I always thought the part of the DM's job is to enforce the rules his table uses. Typically this includes the PHB, the guidelines for what is evil and good are in that book. Yes, it is the DM's job. How else can he tell if he has a fallen paladin or not? This does not effect how the player acts in the real world, so whats the big deal. Why look at the rules here and not under enchantment spells? Rather selective, aren't we? Why should I look under enchantment spells? The spell isn't evil, I don't think I saw anybody on this thread say that they are. Most agree they can be used for evil actions. Several even think this was an evil action. (me being one of them). Just like dropping a fireball on a group of orphans should be considered evil under most circumstances. I don't need to look at evocations to tell me that. To be fair, some on this thread even think the DM was just upset that the players didn't follow the story line he laid out. Guess what, I may agree with that but I'm not sure. (would need to know more about the DM) Ok. Sorry you had to marry the fat *****. Give some of my ill gotten gains to my local parish and I saved the world. All is good now, yes? basically yes, if I understand where you're going with this. But if you save the world only to rule it for yourself.... Sure it is complicated. Thousands of years of the greatest human minds pondering the nature of good and evil and still we as a species has not arrived at a consensus. Socrates could not resolve the dilemma but the OP's DM could :eek: The nature of good /evil can be debated, Is having a slave evil? Not in itself. or is it? But, like I said, the rule books have some basic guidelines on what is evil and what is good. These guidelines are the same that just about every major religion and theology agree on. DMs have been doing it for years, its OK, we will all survive. Alignment/morality is rarely simple; too often crucial choices have elements of "evil" - to use the term waaaaaay too liberally as it is being used in this thread - no matter what they do. While I do agree the OP's scenario is rather problematic - I doubt I'd bargain if I had to save the world - enchantment spells are not inherently evil and using one to save the world in the scenario, while dubious and highly questionable is not "evil". I don't think the term "evil" is being used that liberally. "We want an item, and we will ruin this man's life so we can get it" is basically the fundamental of evil nature, as presented in the D&D tradition. Trying to justify it by telling yourself that "Hey, they are both fat anyway, they should get along fine" is only a weak attempt to make you feel better. My opinion is it would have been better if they just stole the darn thing.
Sulaco 10-11-06, 02:35 PM	My personal real-world opinion aside, I don't think it is a good/evil issue in D&D as much as it is a law/chaos issue. Dominating someone deprives them of a personal freedom, a tennet of the philosophy of the chaotic alignments. These PCs should be averse to dominating someone not cos it offends the good side of their alignment but cos it offends their chaotic side. This is one of the intrinsic problems with the two-axis alignment system, specifically that most people see everything on the single good/evil axis alone. Both lawful good and lawful evil societies and individuals will make use of domination, though for different results. It is those intentions and results which dictate the good/evil aspect.
Ocom 10-11-06, 02:53 PM	Compulsion, Evocation and Necromancy are all basically evil spell schools. But they are never always evil.
RecycledDM 10-11-06, 04:02 PM	OK, it has already been adequately covered that compulsion spells are not inherently evil, as they lack the [Evil] tag. It has also been opined that compulsion spells, though not inherently evil, can be used for evil means (I agree with this opinion). Now for some more opinions of mine... It is quite possible that many evil acts have been committed by many characters in the scenario described; however, a great deal depends on what the characters know and/or believe. The old man: Does he know/believe that the item he keeps is an artifact that can help prevent great evil from coming into the world? If so, then his putting a tangible price on it (a suitable groom for his daughter...or even the pounds of gold, if he had taken it) is a (neutral) evil act. It is made more so by the implication that he is not giving the item to you because you are the "good guys who are going to save the world," but because you offered to serve his selfish desires. On the other hand, if the old man does NOT know/believe the potential of the item he has, then it is more of a simple business arrangement, and the "good/evil; lawful/chaotic" nature of it really depends on how the daughter feels about being treated as property vis-a-vis societal norms about arranged marriages, etc. (I submit that it would take some very unusual circumstances to be able to argue that arranging a marriage could be a good act.) Does the old man know/believe the item's potential? If so, then about the only way he can be doing good by NOT giving it to you is if he believes that you are NOT the best/most trustworthy people to give it to :D . Magistrate Chang: Because you have a history with this NPC, I will take it on faith that he believes your story about needing this artifact to save the world from evil...AND that you are the best guys to have it. If he, of his own free will, offers to marry the girl--without compensation--in order that you may obtain the item, he has performed a (lawful) good or neutral (depending on societal norms about arranged marriage) act. Refusing to marry the girl--even though it means you don't immediately get the artifact--is a (lawful) neutral act; in effect, “go find someone else to marry the girl” (or find another means of obtaining it entirely). His entertaining a bribe of any kind (the Ninjacron, pounds of gold, etc.) is a (neutral) evil act, as he is putting his own ambition and/or greed above both saving the world AND doing what is probably his right under the law... He should act in a lawful neutral manner and tell you to go find some other sucker to marry the girl. While he's at it, he should invoke the power of the law (he is a magistrate, right?) and compel you to hand over the Ninjacron you said he was "ordered" (presumably by his governmental superiors) to obtain. Chang can do some clear good by, for example, offering to help you convince the old man to give you the item simply because it is the right thing to do…but this is NOT a good act if compelled of him or bribed out of him (or if he extorts the Ninjacron from you). Your party: You used a compulsion effect to attempt to subjugate the free will of at least one (possibly two, depending how the daughter feels) sentient person(s) and force them into a lifelong contract, when there were other means--means that preserved freedoms and dignity--you might have explored. Regardless of your intentions after obtaining the artifact, this means of obtaining the item is surely (lawful) evil. Not to mention, is the artifact truly “freely given” if the compulsion effect is used indirectly (i.e., on Chang) rather than directly (i.e., on the old man)? For that matter, is the item “freely given” if the old man puts ANY tangible, self-benefiting conditions upon his handing it over? Or if the daughter does not feel that she is a mere piece of property? I could see the old man saying that you need to perform some great deed or quest to prove your “worthiness” to have it, but so far the old man sounds pretty darned evil to me…how the heck did he become the guardian of this item?
Drohem 10-11-06, 04:19 PM	The old man and Magistrate Chang were both made fully aware of the artifact's power and necessity in defeated the Ogre/Vampire Lord prior to any negotations. We disclosed everything to them both. We spelled out our whole history of traveling from distant lands, and the trials therein. The artifact, according to DM, must be given freely and cannot be taken. We had a Lawful Neutral in our party who came up with some creative ways to circumvent this clause, but the rest of us, which are Chaotic Good, dismissed his options with prejudice. My Halfling Fighter made the off-hand comment to the Wizard out of frustration, and, much to everyone's surprise, immediately acted upon it. Even when given the chance to reconsider, he stuck to his guns and said the die was cast. much like Merlin and the rosepetal cake for Arthur, "too late." Now, was it a stellar moment in our parties career, no. Was it an evil act persay, no. Did the DM have the right to point out that it was not a stellar moment for Chaotic Good characters? yes. Was it right for the DM to rule in his campaign world that complusion type spells are inherently evil? yes. Was it ok this late in the campaign, without ever mentioning before this incident? probably not. The DM focused on the sentence, "He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do." Our reply was the next sentence, "He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society." My agruement is that although he hated doing it and disliked the whole business, it was not acting out of his alignment, nor was he in danger of any alignment shift due to this one situation. But all that aside, the real debate is whether or not spells of this nature are evil persay. The gist I have gotten, once all the high and mighty comments were filtered out, is that- no the spells in of themselves and there use are not evil.
CharlieRock 10-11-06, 04:25 PM	I don't disagree that simply making all compulsion spells Evil-subtype spells is going way too far. On the other hand, this particular use of a compulsion spell -- against someone who's not evil himself, in order to override a free-willed decision he has the right to make, that's very central to his life and future happiness -- is pretty evil. Just like threatening to kill someone is not inherently evil -- adventurers have to use threats all the time against bad guys -- but threatening to stab this NPC unless he married the girl would be an evil thing to do, IMO. Firstly, the NPC was a judge ,they are never innocent as they seem. :P This was one of those "in order to save the world we had to ..." exercises. Seeing as that they needed an item from these NPCs to save the world,they could justify their means.Not the best means, but not means for which the game should have gotten derailed for either.
MerlintheTuna 10-11-06, 04:47 PM	Has it been pointed out yet that casting a spell with an [Evil] subtype is not an inherently evil act? That aside, when in doubt, check domains. The Domination domain (CDivine) has the following patrons; Gruumsh, Hextor, St. Cuthbert, Wee Jas. Two lawful neutrals, a lawful evil, and a chaotic evil. Thus, compulsion spells appear to be, according to the books, generally Lawful, as Stormwind pointed out, with a side of Evil. This of course isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but it's a decent guideline.
WayneTheGame 10-11-06, 04:47 PM	In Star Wars, using a "compulsion" effect for personal gain is treading down the dark side. In Harry Potter, using the Imperius Curse is unforgiveable and lands you a life sentence in Azkaban (although the Imperius Curse is more like Dominate than Suggestion). In the Core D&D world, there is no such restriction on using the spell itself.. the action you suggest to the target, however, can be an evil act.
Alac Luin 10-11-06, 07:17 PM	The old man and Magistrate Chang were both made fully aware of the artifact's power and necessity ....<Snip> Was it an evil act persay, no.<snip> Despite what it may seem like I was saying in earlier posts, in no way did I think of these actions as "unforgivable sins" My point was, it was the exact opposite as a "good" act. The good act would have been sacrificeing the item he wanted makeing sacrifices is the D&D game's definition of "good". Just keeping the item, and finding another way would have been neutral. Well, all we have as opposite is "evil". Reading more of the story, it looks like the DM did force your hand. My agruement is that although he hated doing it and disliked the whole business, it was not acting out of his alignment, nor was he in danger of any alignment shift due to this one situation. If we go back to your original post As a result, our DM said that he felt that any complusion-type spell is evil and walking down the dark path. He also said that we were in danger of alignment shift if we continued to use those spells while be CG. No one was ever at risk from this one use, this was the warning (agree, it should have come much earlier in the game, at the lateist when the wizard wrote it into his spell book) But all that aside, the real debate is whether or not spells of this nature are evil persay. The gist I have gotten, once all the high and mighty comments were filtered out, is that- no the spells in of themselves and there use are not evil. No, they are not evil persay. I don't think anyone on this thread agrees with your DM on this (it is still his call).
ArcTan 10-11-06, 07:20 PM	...And the question that's rather important and not being asked here is how extreme the DM is making the statement that they're "walking the dark path". I mean, big deal. They're committing an Evil act. That happens a lot in these games. But is he making the Paladin immediately Fall? Is he making you grow horns and teeth? Are all your good-aligned artifacts suddenly not working for you? Have you been placed on your god's most-wanted list and is there an Aleax hunting you down? Is he using any other cheesy way to directly punish you for doing something Evil? If not, don't sweat it. So you're walking the dark path for a little bit when you try to use compulsion magic on the NPC. Just don't walk it any more and you have no reason to complain.
boozerker 10-11-06, 07:40 PM	Was it evil of Obi Wan to cloud stormtroopers' minds? Nobody's disputed this excellent point.
Tempest Stormwind 10-11-06, 07:51 PM	Nobody's disputed this excellent point. In fact, it's shown up twice; I mentioned it back on page 1 when I brought up the Law connection (which Sulaco's elaborated on better than I could). I think it's just your DM unable to think on his feet. I'm blessed with one who can at the moment, and (playing an intelligent, if weak, character who fights through summoning) I get the chance to work with that as often as I can (i.e. "I know I'm not hitting him; he's practically a ninja. But, he's on a thin, rickety floor over a lava pit, right? I'll blast out the floor underneath him.").
theotherdraxen 10-12-06, 12:39 AM	The main question, I believe, is: Are complusion type spell inherently evil? The answer, IMO: no. However, this instance, and the alignment of the group, would indicate that yes, it is evil, and in direct contrast of your party alignment. The Chaotic Good paladin variant from UA is called paladin of freedom. They get the Aura of Resolve which renders them immune to compulsion effects and offers allies a +4 to resist them. A Lawful Good character might be prone to using a compulsion spell, for laws are to be obeyed, whether you want to or not. A Chaotic Good character wouldn't. People who fight for liberty are most often Chaotic Good (though Lawful can too). Freedom and Liberty are Chaotic Good. To use compulsion spells for personal gain or selfishness is a non Chaotic-Good act, and very much against the philosophy of a Chaotic Good person (and yes, even chaotic people have a life philosophy, it's just a chaotic one). If you were lawful, or even neutral, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. But not if you are chaotic good. Your characters should feel as ashamed of themselves as a Lawful Good character who just lied to save his expensive magical belt.
Drohem 10-12-06, 01:35 AM	The main question, I believe, is: Are complusion type spell inherently evil? The answer, IMO: no. However, this instance, and the alignment of the group, would indicate that yes, it is evil, and in direct contrast of your party alignment. The Chaotic Good paladin variant from UA is called paladin of freedom. They get the Aura of Resolve which renders them immune to compulsion effects and offers allies a +4 to resist them. A Lawful Good character might be prone to using a compulsion spell, for laws are to be obeyed, whether you want to or not. A Chaotic Good character wouldn't. People who fight for liberty are most often Chaotic Good (though Lawful can too). Freedom and Liberty are Chaotic Good. To use compulsion spells for personal gain or selfishness is a non Chaotic-Good act, and very much against the philosophy of a Chaotic Good person (and yes, even chaotic people have a life philosophy, it's just a chaotic one). If you were lawful, or even neutral, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. But not if you are chaotic good. Your characters should feel as ashamed of themselves as a Lawful Good character who just lied to save his expensive magical belt. everyone is entitled to their opinon. I agree to disagree; "San Diego in old German means whale's ******." BTW, there were no paladins involved nor any Lawful Good characters, and obtaining the artifact was not for personal gain or selfishness.
SephDragoon 10-12-06, 02:19 AM	Frankly, changing alignments is a load of crap anyways... I had my DM change my alignment in my game. I was Chaoting Neutral, but I kept saving people. Going out of my way at times. My DM figured that because of this, I was Chaotic Good instead. I didn't put up a fight, I let him do it. So, then, the Mayor of a town witnessed what he thought was us killing a soldier. It was actually us killing a traitor, a guy in service to one of the evil gods (an NPC who ended up coming back later in the campaign and blowing up a city...). Well, he couldn't prove it, though he was the mayor. he decided instead to just have us work for him. Well, I decided after a bit, you know what, this guy is a pain... So, I was headed to his mansion to kill him. I told my DM what I planned, and he said, "Hey, you're a good guy, you can't do that." To which I replied, "I didn't write down Chaotic Good on my sheet, you did." Moral of the story, if you change someone's alignment based on one action, you will be forced to change it back in the very next session when they do an action that doesn't fit the alignment you just gave them. Making a character Evil because they did an evil thing just means the next orphan they save is going to make you change it back to Good. All in all, no DM should change someone's alignment unless they view a long term change of attitude. And even then, it could just be that the player wasn't given a chance to prove his alignment, like in my case, where while he does help people on average, he's not above taking on assassination jobs and the like...
Calestin Kethal 10-12-06, 02:58 AM	Here's a bit of off topic education: :teach: Per se (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/per%20se) is Latin. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perse) it can also be spelled as perse. (Last bulleted item.) According to Dictionary.com it means: by, of, for, or in itself; intrinsically (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsically). ... The more you know! :D
CharlieRock 10-12-06, 10:05 AM	I have never seen it spelled perse. I think wikipedia may be mistaken there (all the information is authored by volunteers and unchecked, btw). I should spell it per se, because that is how I was taught. ;) p.s. I believe that last bulleted item is referring to a common misspelling. :)
Sulaco 10-12-06, 10:09 AM	"San Diego in old German means whale's ******." What the hell are you talking about? San Diego means "Saint Diego" and is named after St. Didacus of Alcalá (San Diego de Alcalá de Henares in Spanish). Whale is "wal" in German. Where does "wal" appear in San Dieago?* *Ten smacks to the head of anyone who says "in the bay." ;)
Sulaco 10-12-06, 10:16 AM	I have never seen it spelled perse. I think wikipedia may be mistaken there (all the information is authored by volunteers and unchecked, btw). :) Perse is not a valid or variant spelling of per se, it is a shade of purple. If Calestin Kethal had clicked on the link beside that bit in wikipedia he'd have seen that it indicates that "perse" is a misspelling. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/perse.html
CharlieRock 10-12-06, 10:33 AM	So, which St.Louis is St.Louis named after? :cool: ^thread hijack'd
Vestigial_Thumb 10-12-06, 11:05 AM	*Ten smacks to the head of anyone who says "in the bay." ;) There goes my joke. Anyways, it was an Anchorman reference.
ArcTan 10-12-06, 11:47 AM	What the hell are you talking about? San Diego means "Saint Diego" and is named after St. Didacus of Alcalá (San Diego de Alcalá de Henares in Spanish). Whale is "wal" in German. Where does "wal" appear in San Dieago?* *Ten smacks to the head of anyone who says "in the bay." ;) He's quoting the movie Anchorman with Will Ferrell. The joke in this scene is that Will Ferrell's character, Ron Burgundy, is a major celebrity in San Diego (the eponymous anchorman of the local TV news station) and trying to impress a girl he's into with his encyclopedic knowledge of the city and its inhabitants -- but, of course, turns out to be insanely, maniacally, almost creepily ignorant about the city, as he is about almost everything. The girl in the scene, in fact, tells him it's impossible for "San Diego" to mean anything to do with whales, to which he replies, "I'm sorry, you're right, I was making that up. I don't know what San Diego means. No one does, and I suppose no one ever will". She responds that, in fact, San Diego means "Saint Diego", leading to an uncomfortable silence after which he changes the subject.
Vestigial_Thumb 10-12-06, 04:14 PM	but, of course, turns out to be insanely, maniacally, almost creepily ignorant about the city, as he is about almost everything. Except jazz flutes, which is something you have to find out about by watching the film, Sulaco. Hilarious.
Alac Luin 10-12-06, 04:49 PM	everyone is entitled to their opinon. I agree to disagree; "San Diego in old German means whale's ******." BTW, there were no paladins involved nor any Lawful Good characters, and obtaining the artifact was not for personal gain or selfishness. The "selfishness" was seen in not "trading" the item in the parties possession. Made the trade, everyone would have been happy. The judge would have gotten the item he wanted... Old man would know his daughter was taken care of... Party would have gotten the item they needed. What I wonder is how the judge will react when he figurers out he was tricked into marring the girl.....
theotherdraxen 10-13-06, 10:38 PM	The "selfishness" was seen in not "trading" the item in the parties possession. Made the trade, everyone would have been happy. The judge would have gotten the item he wanted... Old man would know his daughter was taken care of... Party would have gotten the item they needed. What I wonder is how the judge will react when he figurers out he was tricked into marring the girl..... I think the marriage itself is an evil thing. Once the controlled man's spell wears off, he'll be married to a woman in which he has no interest for a deal he did not want to make. The two would be a miserable couple.:weep: I do not feel, personally, that it was right to force two people to marry, and any good aligned character, whether lawful or chaotic, should at least feel some amount of guilt. Necessary evils are still evils, and if you feel no remorse, then you are probably not good. I may have responded a little harshly in my last reply, but it's only because I'm tired of seeing Chaotic as the good person's 'get out of jail free card' for evil deeds. Maybe that wasn't the case here, though I feel it is. No offense meant. BTW: I do feel that worrying about an alignment change shouldn't be a problem for players or DMs (unless the DM penalizes their players for it). It's a tracking system for your role-playing. Your make your alignment, not the other way around. If the DM warns you, ignore it. If he changes it, then it probably wasn't a suiting alignment for you to begin with, or the DM just misread your character. I do not feel any need to play within the bounds of an alignment; just play your character however you wish, and let the game decide how smite works on you! :D
Gwenfloor 10-13-06, 11:04 PM	It all depends on how you use the spell. A non-evil example is this: A horde of brigands are about to assault a small village. The town enchanter casts a spell to make the brigands compelled to avoid the area. The Enchanter saved dozens of lives with a compulsion spell. Not evil in my opinion.
Alac Luin 10-14-06, 12:00 AM	I think the marriage itself is an evil thing. Once the controlled man's spell wears off, he'll be married to a woman in which he has no interest for a deal he did not want to make. The two would be a miserable couple.:weep: The thing is, he would have married the girl by his free will, if he received the item from the PCs. <snip>...we ask the local Magistrate that is an NPC in our party if he will marry fat daughter. He said he would if we give him another powerful item we have on us. We don't want to part with it. <snip> It would have been no different then any other arranged marriage. That is if I'm reading the account correctly, considering bits of the story are scattered over at least 3 separate posts (sometimes seaming to contradicting itself). Now yes, once the spell worn off, he finds himself married to the girl. He remembers that the PCs tried to convince him to marry her. He will remember him saying OK, if I get this item. He will remember the PCs visiting him and then he married the girl, without getting the item. Yes, they will be miserable. Depending on culture, divorce can happen. “Marriage” still implies a life time commitment, but suggestion has Duration: 1 hour/level or until completed. Now look in the spell description... “ If the condition is not met before the spell duration expires, the activity is not performed.” This does suggest there must have been a hasty wedding, and there is nothing that would stop him from getting the marriage annulled, due to unnatural influence.
Drohem 10-14-06, 02:01 PM	It seems that a lot people responding have an issue with arranged marriages and consider it evil to force someone to marry another. I see this as an extension of 21st century western-american culture. Out of the 6 billion humans on our planet today, the majority live within cultures and societies that condone and practice arranged marriages. Is the majority of our own human population evil then?
ted_the_mindflayer 10-14-06, 03:11 PM	So is the shot gun wedding evil? I would say no As soon as the priest says 'man and wife' he is marryed and the suggestion would be broken and the sir would run away. (That is where a shot gun helps) Unless it ends up you didn't cast a charm and he really loves the fat chick and they live happily ever after :yuck:
FloppyLlama 10-14-06, 05:01 PM	So basically, the magistrate was willing to cooperate, for a price. You decide you like your items more than you like the magistrate's free will, and cast suggestion to force him to marry her. I'd say that's wrong. I'm pretty much in agreement here. Just because you're the "gewd guyz" doesn't mean you get to control people's minds when they make things a little inconvenient for you. It seems that a lot people responding have an issue with arranged marriages and consider it evil to force someone to marry another. I see this as an extension of 21st century western-american culture. Yes, but the "arranged" marriage here was rather arbitrarily decided by a bunch of individuals who barged in. Furthermore, it was arranged with little planning or forewarning. Magistrate is sitting in a chair, cleaning an old script. PCs leap in through a pair of large doors. PC Wizard: Ah-hah! It benefits us to have you marry this person! PC Wizard casts Suggestion. PC Wizard: Marry her, now! PC Leader: Quick, to retrieve the artifact! PCs bolt out the door, leaving the Magistrate with a stunned expression. Even in cultures with arranged marriages, things like this really don't qualify. (I realize this is not exactly how it happened, but it cuts to the spirit of its coercive and surprising nature) Out of the 6 billion humans on our planet today, the majority live within cultures and societies that condone and practice arranged marriages. Is the majority of our own human population evil then? Not unless you establish that Morality is defined by majority rule.
ted_the_mindflayer 10-14-06, 05:55 PM	Yes, but the "arranged" marriage here was rather arbitrarily decided by a bunch of individuals who barged in. Furthermore, it was arranged with little planning or forewarning. Magistrate is sitting in a chair, cleaning an old script. PCs leap in through a pair of large doors. PC Wizard: Ah-hah! It benefits us to have you marry this person! PC Wizard casts Suggestion. PC Wizard: Marry her, now! PC Leader: Quick, to retrieve the artifact! PCs bolt out the door, leaving the Magistrate with a stunned expression. It sounds like a reality show. Eventually everything will become reality show until it replaces reality.
Alac Luin 10-14-06, 07:23 PM	Is the majority of our own human population evil then? The majority of our own human population are capable of performing evil actions, that does mean they are all completely evil. (I'm not speaking against arranged marriages whatever my personal opinions are about arranged marriages may be). Magistrate is sitting in a chair, cleaning an old script. PCs leap in through a pair of large doors. PC Wizard: Ah-hah! It benefits us to have you marry this person! PC Wizard casts Suggestion. PC Wizard: Marry her, now! PC Leader: Quick, to retrieve the artifact! PCs bolt out the door, leaving the Magistrate with a stunned expression. I love the visual:D
theotherdraxen 10-15-06, 12:03 AM	Does anyone wonder how the Judge's daughter feels about all this?
Nidair 10-15-06, 07:25 AM	If you change someone's alignment based on one action, you will be forced to change it back in the very next session when they do an action that doesn't fit the alignment you just gave them. Words of wisdom.