Quote from: Drohem;537854The McGuffin had to be given freely and could not be taken by force or theft; otherwise it would screw up the magic involved or some such thing.

Then the complusion spell would have failed as well. Sounds like a case of the referee railroading a solution.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;537836Much like killing or kidnapping, taking away someone's free will is, IMO, an inherently unethical act. This doesn't mean it's necessarily evil, however. Just like a sniper killing a hostage taker before he can kill his hostages, the use of compulsion magic can be justified.

In D&D, there are certain spells which are inherently evil. These generally involve the actual use of "evil energy". Using such spells really has no ethical parallel in the real world. Compulsion magic, however, is not of such a type.

I agree with Justin.

By my own moral compass, taking out someone's free will is one of the most unethical acts imaginable. But in some situations, it can be justified by a major good achieved, like in the hostage situation.

Quote from: Imperator;537970By my own moral compass, taking out someone's free will is one of the most unethical acts imaginable. But in some situations, it can be justified by a major good achieved, like in the hostage situation.

This is one of those situations where magic says something about the campaign.  If 'free-will' is an important concept in your game and correlated with good (ie, you have to choose to be good or it's meaningless), then overriding that is definitely evil.  Historically, the individual right to choose is fairly recent.  This was certainly not a right the peasants and serfs enjoyed throughout the middle ages, nor would any of them consider it something they should have.  As recently as the early 20th century, workers in the US were assaulted and sometimes killed for choosing to organize in order to obtain better working conditions, even though they had been guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for over a century.

Hence, if society has a largely fatalist bent, then compulsion magic may not be evil; it may not even be a moral or ethical question.  A feudal lord would only be upset if you charmed a serf or two into doing something besides working the fields or what-have-you.  It was only with the rise of the merchant class that 'free-will' began to take on any meaning in the context of individual people.

Quote from: StormBringer;537973This is one of those situations where magic says something about the campaign.  If 'free-will' is an important concept in your game and correlated with good (ie, you have to choose to be good or it's meaningless), then overriding that is definitely evil.  Historically, the individual right to choose is fairly recent.  This was certainly not a right the peasants and serfs enjoyed throughout the middle ages, nor would any of them consider it something they should have.  As recently as the early 20th century, workers in the US were assaulted and sometimes killed for choosing to organize in order to obtain better working conditions, even though they had been guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for over a century.

Hence, if society has a largely fatalist bent, then compulsion magic may not be evil; it may not even be a moral or ethical question.  A feudal lord would only be upset if you charmed a serf or two into doing something besides working the fields or what-have-you.  It was only with the rise of the merchant class that 'free-will' began to take on any meaning in the context of individual people.

Watt Tyler might disagree with you on that one

Quote from: StormBringer;537973This is one of those situations where magic says something about the campaign.  If 'free-will' is an important concept in your game and correlated with good (ie, you have to choose to be good or it's meaningless), then overriding that is definitely evil.  Historically, the individual right to choose is fairly recent.  This was certainly not a right the peasants and serfs enjoyed throughout the middle ages, nor would any of them consider it something they should have.  As recently as the early 20th century, workers in the US were assaulted and sometimes killed for choosing to organize in order to obtain better working conditions, even though they had been guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for over a century.

Hence, if society has a largely fatalist bent, then compulsion magic may not be evil; it may not even be a moral or ethical question.  A feudal lord would only be upset if you charmed a serf or two into doing something besides working the fields or what-have-you.  It was only with the rise of the merchant class that 'free-will' began to take on any meaning in the context of individual people.

I think you make an excellent point here. Obviousy, I answer from my own moral compass because any other answer should be tailored to the realities of the setting you are emulating.

Now, I think that the right to choose is something that no one can take from you, no matter the historical time you live in. After all, those peasants could and did choose to revolt against their lords and willingly give their lives before suffering more oppresion.

If someone was pointing a gun at your family and asking you to give them the secret that may destroy your world, you CAN accept that your family will die and refuse to do it. A horrid decision, of course, but you can do it.

Personal responsibility is an absolute concept. Robbing someone from it seems horrid to me. Even if it is to achieve a greater good I would have my doubts.

Quote from: estar;537850The real problem is that the DM is being a dick. Aside from that casting compulsion on the old man was not an evil act. Definitely not a lawful act but also not an evil act. Why? Because the macguffin is needed to save the world. The man was acting selfish for his own self interest. The use of the spell is little different than physically subduing him (which the party could have done) taking the item. In fact now that I think about it why wasn't sleep used?

Well my group wouldn't of put up with the old man's shit for that long and would have FIREBALLED his ass and took it anyhow, most act as Anti-Heroes anyhow.  They try to do the right things but wont put up with dicks that get in the way of saving the world.

Quote from: flyingcircus;538030Well my group wouldn't of put up with the old man's shit for that long and would have FIREBALLED his ass and took it anyhow, most act as Anti-Heroes anyhow.  They try to do the right things but wont put up with dicks that get in the way of saving the world.

It couldn't be taken by force; it had to be given freely.

Always a catch huh?

BTW, what was the item anyhow?  Just curious.

Quote from: Imperator;537986I think you make an excellent point here. Obviousy, I answer from my own moral compass because any other answer should be tailored to the realities of the setting you are emulating.

A moral compass that is the reflection of the last few centuries of your society's development.  If you were Asian instead, I think you find the notion of unlimited free-will rather quaint and somewhat decadent.  So, even in a specific campaign, there will be times and places when compulsion magic is an absolute evil and others where it will be almost routine.  Some of those places may not be evil, as well; consider a society that is very Lawful Neutral.

QuoteNow, I think that the right to choose is something that no one can take from you, no matter the historical time you live in. After all, those peasants could and did choose to revolt against their lords and willingly give their lives before suffering more oppresion.

They did, eventually.  Importantly, though, they rebelled against the lords, not the king.  They were still willing to submit to the king's rule.  This is arguably the exercise of free will, as they chose to serve the king as they always had.

QuoteIf someone was pointing a gun at your family and asking you to give them the secret that may destroy your world, you CAN accept that your family will die and refuse to do it. A horrid decision, of course, but you can do it.

If the secret will destroy the world, they are going to die either way, right?  

Naturally, this is usually a stalling tactic in action movies so the hero can buy time while the villain puts plans into motion to exploit this secret.

QuotePersonal responsibility is an absolute concept. Robbing someone from it seems horrid to me. Even if it is to achieve a greater good I would have my doubts.

Responsibility is the oft forgotten price of free will that few are willing to pay, it seems.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537975Watt Tyler might disagree with you on that one

But again, they weren't looking for complete freedom; I think that concept would have been very foreign to them.  They wanted better treatment from their feudal lords, or to get rid of them of that didn't work.  They were still very much of the mind that God appointed the King to rule and appointed them to serve.  It was the natural order.  Paying almost everything you own for a poll tax makes it difficult to serve, however.  

Quote from: StormBringer;538100A moral compass that is the reflection of the last few centuries of your society's development.  If you were Asian instead, I think you find the notion of unlimited free-will rather quaint and somewhat decadent.  So, even in a specific campaign, there will be times and places when compulsion magic is an absolute evil and others where it will be almost routine.  Some of those places may not be evil, as well; consider a society that is very Lawful Neutral.


They did, eventually.  Importantly, though, they rebelled against the lords, not the king.  They were still willing to submit to the king's rule.  This is arguably the exercise of free will, as they chose to serve the king as they always had.


If the secret will destroy the world, they are going to die either way, right?  

Naturally, this is usually a stalling tactic in action movies so the hero can buy time while the villain puts plans into motion to exploit this secret.


Responsibility is the oft forgotten price of free will that few are willing to pay, it seems.

Well, I find little to nothing to disagree with you here, to be honest.

Depends what you mean by "evil".

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;538102But again, they weren't looking for complete freedom; I think that concept would have been very foreign to them.  They wanted better treatment from their feudal lords, or to get rid of them of that didn't work.  They were still very much of the mind that God appointed the King to rule and appointed them to serve.  It was the natural order.  Paying almost everything you own for a poll tax makes it difficult to serve, however.  

They actually wanted no Lords except the King, the end to surfdom, including the right to free movement, indentured labour and pime nocte, the repeal of the Poll tax and proper wages.

And they weren't to fond of the king -

"When Wat Tyler saw the King, he said to his men, 'Here is the King; I will go and speak with him; do not move from your place till I give you this sign,' and he moved his hand to show what he meant. 'Then step forward and kill every one that is with the King, but save him alive, for he is young, and we can do what we please with him. We will carry him about England, and be masters of the whole land.' Then he spurred his horse to where the King was, coming so near that his horse's head touched the [9] crupper of the King's saddle. 'King,' said he, 'dost thou see all these people?'

" 'Yes,' answered the King, 'I see them. Why dost thou ask?'

" 'Because they are all under my command, and have sworn to do whatsoever I shall bid them.'

" 'Well,' said the King, 'I do not blame them.'

" 'But dost thou think that all these men, and as many more as there are in this city under my command, ought to go away without having your promise in writing to take with them? Not so; but we will take the writings with us.'

etc...

The Kings men jumped Tyler, killed him then the peasants fled.

And the King made a proclamation Villeins you are and villeins you shall remain,
but after anpother 100 years surfdom was gone from Britain

And let's not ignore the fallacy of equating serfdom with magical compulsion.

There is no state of servitude, coercion, or slavery yet available in the real world that is equivalent to magical compulsion. Even the most oppressed citizen of the most oppressive regime is free in their thoughts (if nowhere else). Viktor Frankl established that, I would think.

If magic can override the will, it can violate your freedom of conscience more than anything available in the mundane world. So, they're not the same.

And, if you consider oppression and slavery to be morally questionable, then magical compulsion is at least as morally questionable.

There are times it may be necessary, the proverbial necessary evil. But that doesn't mean it should be used casually or for a minute longer than is necessary.

The Jedi. Ben tricked the stormtroopers into allowing them into the city. He didn't permanently enslave them. The use of mental compulsion was probably unavoidable, commensurate with the threat, lasted no longer than was necessary, and was no more intrusive than necessary. Contrast that with a Jedi who, say, compels sexual favors from someone or enslaves them for life or orders them to suicide just to watch them die.

In this case—the pixelbitching GM and roadblock NPC—it would be justified. A necessary evil so the characters could actually save the world.

Mental compulsion is morally gray, perhaps necessary in certain circumstances, but not a power to use often or casually. It's easily abusable, tends to corrupt, and symptomatic of the worse people and cultures in history. (Thank god no such thing exists. Yet.)