You have 15 seconds to explain why all mind-altering actions are not Evil aligned

Wrong. Freedom vs Control is a Chaos-Order issue, not Good-Evil. You are a gibbering spastic and need to kill yourself.

Psychology for helping weak willed faggots doing what they want to do but are too scared to do it.
Is it an evil act to give someone who asks for it a thirty minute mind altering confidence boost so they can get up on stage and give the best speech of their life? Is it wrong to sell a love potion to a woman in a loveless marriage who wants to love their husband but can't?

The main things wrong with mind control is the lack of consent it is almost always used with. If your mind control and affecting spells are done with the consent of the person you are using it on, it is not an evil act.

I-is, there a source?

>Stick your hands into a goblin's chest
>Tear his ribcage apart with your bare hands
>grab another goblin and stick his head into the gaping maw you've created
>use healing magic to have the ribcage re-knit itself, piercing through the second goblin's skull

I don't get what you're saying. I expressly said taking away their free will (or hell, let's go a step further and introduce ego death as well) is a bad thing

t. thrallherd

The samefag damage control in here is laughable.

...

You're just making empty assertions and ad hominems. You're not smart enough to be interesting. Go away.

Eh, I can see where he is coming from. Fire is destructive, but setting a bandit on fire is good.

Mind controlling is horrible, but if you do something horrible to someone evil, not to cause suffering but to do good and prevent horrible things from happening, it is good.
See above.

That took more than 15 seconds user, Disqualified!

>doing something horrible to someone evil is good

this is where paladins start falling

You ever had a sword in your chest? It's pretty bad.

Someone trying to kill a an innocent lady for shits and giggles, who will try and kill you too, might just need an acid splash. Fundamentally, there is very little difference between throwing acid at someone versus making them walk into a pit of acid.

>torturing someone endlessly and using healing magic to keep them alive
Wew that was easy

you do not want to sell death sticks
you want to go home and rethink your life

I'm the DM and ill kick you out of the group for disagreeing with me

Are you familiar with Destiny? Specifically the Book of Sorrows? It's the story of how one of the game's enemies, the HIve, came into existence.

The three sisters found a ship and were on their way towards the Worm Gods when they were stopped by a being called the Levithan who tried to convince them to turn back. Being a being of immense power it could have easily destroyed the three sisters but wanted to convince them that the way of sky (The light) was the better way instead of the Deep (the Darkness) and yet it failed to convince them and they met with the Worm Gods. Should the Leviathan have compromised his morals and destroyed the sisters right then and there?

ishtar-collective.net/cards/viii-leviathan#books-of-sorrow

Because the person determining alignment got mind controlled.

Mind controlling someone is generally morally reprehensible, but it's justifiable in any situation where killing would be, even more so if the effect is temporary. It's also really hot.

If we are going by D&D alignments... "Because I am chaotic good I believe this is the right course of action in both the long and short term to overcome this obstacle to help save the world". Because I believe its good it is good. Or much like keeping a prisoner you are keeping them prisoner in their mind which is arguably more safe to do so for both partys. Alignments are shit anyway.

>Are you familiar with Destiny?
Haven't talked with her since highschool.
>Specifically the Book of Sorrows?
Never heard of it.

Depends on who the sisters were, what they did, etc. I can't say much on something I'm not that familiar with.

Well you cheeky cunt good thing i provided a link to the source. Read it if you want I think it's pretty neat but you may feel different.

Why are mind affecting spells A-Okay, but raising a skeleton with necromancy is automatically evil, even if, in most published D&D settings, it doesn't actually involve mutilating or binding any souls?

You have 15 seconds to explain to me why, in a world where mind-altering actions are possible and moral perception is therefore an arbitrary condition, there is such a thing as "Evil alignment".

>A murderer escapes jail
>The Enchanter controls his mind, prevents him from killing, and marches him back into jail (preferably one harder to escape from) with nobody hurt.

That was easy.

Going by D&D, any harm wrought to something "evil" is inherently good, regardless of its implications or whether or not it would be ethical or humane to be done to a neutral or good person. But moral alignments are stupid, so who cares

They can be utilized to ease pain and ensure that proper medical and/or healing can be applied to injured parties.

In D&D, instead of binding souls, it introduces negative energy to the world, essentially poisoning reality. A bit of a cop out, really.

>Fundamentally, there is very little difference between throwing acid at someone versus making them walk into a pit of acid.

bad grammar m8t. Superficially, there is no difference. On a fundamental level OTOH, one is killing them directly (respecting their autonomy, but preventing their action) while the other hijacks their autonomy to prevent their action.

THat's where the moral gray comes in. Utilitarians find these options identical, Kantians (aka 95% of paladins played well) do not.

It's just degrees. You have 15 seconds to explain why being persuasive is not evil aligned.

Because it's an attempt at moral grayness which has been lost in time; allowing PC necromancers to exist (you're "only" playing with free-roaming demonic energy) instead of being killed on sight. Necromancers in the source inspirations forcibly bound all the undead they raised.

Throwing acid at someones face is against their will, you walnut. In either scenario, you are not respecting their autonomy. That's why they are fundamentally the same.

>you're "only" playing with free-roaming demonic energy
Negative energy is not evil, you dweeb.

It's the fundamental force of decay, which the multiverse needs to exist.

>this is what enchanters actually believe

By degrees they will be brought to wield the devil's sword. Better to sling a millstone around thy neck and leap into the deep than follow the slippery slope of abrogating free will to its logical conclusions.

All depends on morality and the "stack" of ideals and rights, as in what is worth more, and if you are wronging your god by doing so.
If life is considered to be worth more than freedom, then of course the best way to maintain life is to strip freedoms. If free will is more valuable than life, than it is better to let evil face the consequences of their actions than to strip them of their ability to take those actions.

For the case of extreme circumstance, of course all of this comes into question. Is one free will worth the lives of many? ect. Not to mention whether the god you serve is an absolute protector of one or the other.

Really this question boils down to what is moral. If what makes humanity (or in the broader sense, sapience) valuable is our free(ish) wills and self-determination, then mind control, even for good, is a sin against the gods for tampering with their design and putting yourself absolutely over another. While if simply life itself is most valuable (probably due to the afterlife sucking ass) then mind control is just another tool.

That all being said, it seems that suggestion is a bit of a grey area, as the Big G of Abraham used it several times both for and against his people, but that's neither here nor there.

So to conclude this whole mess; Are you a true Red White and Blue Patriot, or a damned dirty commie!

It's not Mind-rape if it's an elf.

You've aptly demonstrated the 'lost in time' part of my point. Negative energy is just the power source. Demonic energy is the CPU [hence, mindless, animate undead are now not Tru Evil demons in a meat suit or soul-raped slaves ripped from peaceful rest, just dangerously irresponsible disposable golems].

What's the difference between super charismatic and mind control?

Let me paint you a picture: A terrorist is about to paint the walls with the meaty bits of everyone nearby. You can either shit their brain off entirely or make them see the value in life so their turn over a new leaf. What do you do? One of these actions is arguably lawful evil at worst, the other is clearly good in that it saves lives and may go on to benefit more people in the future.

not evil if you mind control them into cocksleeves

I never mind control people. I always play NG characters and I can't remember a time I ever cast one of the compel spells or dominate or anything like that. And I even play bards a lot. And I can recall a few situations where it would have been the easy route but we went through extra trouble to sneak past them or logically convince them or whatever the situation was.

People's free will is important!

When someone commits evil, they are implicitly entering into a contract that good people might intervene and stop them. But you should still try to actually convince them, not just cast a spell on them.

You have 15 seconds to explain why all killing actions are not Evil aligned

>Not becoming a Psychonaut, and delving into people's psyches to help them through trauma.
I pity you.

or you could shoot them in the cervical vertebrae.

But that's the point. Shooting people is good for killing terrorists and also good for contributing to society, to wit, it doesn't give people covert mind rape powers.

If you mind control the chap into walking away, good job. Now you have to live the rest of your life being tempted to magic date rape the knickers off the coffee shop lass two blocks down.

Maybe you're a saint who would never do that; but then, were that the case, you wouldn't have chosen the mind control path to begin with. You'd be a dirty martial who talks to people and lives rightly.

Made me laugh.
Stick someone in the positive energy plane, they literally heal so much they explode.

...

You have 15 seconds to explain why all living beings are not Evil aligned

OP read Locke not Hobbes; or worse took Rousseau seriously lel

>Now you have to live the rest of your life being tempted to magic date rape the knickers off the coffee shop lass two blocks down.

Maybe you would, you creep.

> were that the case, you wouldn't have chosen the mind control path to begin with.
Or you are just a mage fascinated with the human mind/have a particular talent for it/aren't as blitheringly retarded as you are.

>You'd be a dirty martial who talks to people and lives rightly.
No, you wouldn't. You would be a mage who talks to people, lives rightly, and doesn't mind control people willy nilly the same way a good aligned Fighter doesn't axe people's heads of willy nilly.

Not all alterations are negative.

Its like... cutting someone is generally a bad thing. You are causing harm and doing damage. You can even kill them, on accident or on purpose. Is taking a blade to someone always an evil act?

No, because surgery is a thing. It isn't pretty, and it should only be done by someone who knows what they are doing, but you can cut someone to help them.

Mindwiping someone is evil. But sealing away a specific traumatic memory could change their life for the better.

A Clockwork Orange would have worked if more of the population was altered. Or they put the bastard in witness protection and gave him a new life.

>Now you have to live the rest of your life being tempted to magic date rape the knickers off the coffee shop lass two blocks down.
You're kinda fucked if you think it's that hard to resist raping someone.
People do it all the time. If you wanted to date rape someone, you could just go to a party and slip something into their drink.
And yet, SOMEHOW, people MANAGE to avoid the temptation. Isn't that fucking strange?

>if you understand core parts of Western ethical philosophy like Kant (or modern ethics & economics like public choice theory) you are a creep retard who doesn't into nuance

Everytime. It's like pottery. I'd blame public education but with the internet there is no excuse.

The question is, is it more fun for someone good to be mind controlled into being evil, or for the reverse?

Especially if they start to like it inside?

Are we ever going to tackle the difference between Suggestion and Domination? Cause it seems like suggestion is the compromise, where you are forcing the person to make a specific decision, over removing their free will entirely.

I don't feel the need to, so I play martials.

Mind controllers build a stockpile of rapey stuff, and claim they're never do it, no, devoting a lifetime to learning creepy mind-editing magic is for purely innocent purposes, believe us.

They're like libertarians arguing for "ethical CP."

Sure.

>Bad guy
>Sees recyclables laying around on the ground
>Urge to clean up intensifies

>Sees Children
>Look at those little meat bags, ripe for the punting. Could just toss them all on a pike, like kababs.
>Sees them crossing the street without looking
>Grabs them and tells them the danger of not being situationally aware. Gives snack money to reinforce good behavior.

Another fine day of evildoing...Ahh.

Fuck off. I'm a gun owner and into martial arts. If I see a little old lady, I know for a fact I can punch her right in the jaw and run off, but I'm not tempted to do it. I know I can legally shoot cats with a .22, but I don't because I don't want that.

Having power to do something does not mean you will be tempted to do it.

>crippling or killing someone is better than turning that someone into a decent person
>rehabilitating a would be murder means you'll be tempted to start delving into depravity

The slippery slope fallacy? Really user? There's more to mind control than using it to ruin lives. Just because you CAN do awful shit doesn't mean you always will. Part of being a non-sociopathic person is being able to know right from wrong. An average person could walk into a gun store, buy a gun, and just start slaughtering people until they were gunned down like a mad dog and yet most people choose not to. A person with mind altering abilities COULD shut down everyone's brains on a whim, and yet I guarantee you most people would chose not to were they gifted the ability. Most people would probably continue as they are. At worst you might get someone that makes traffic move out of their way to get somewhere on time or gives their boss the little nudge needed to get a promotion/pay raise. Not everyone is an asshole you know.

Best version of this is someone turning people 'evil' by whammying them with an effect that removes all of their filters and inhibitions, so all of the things they normally don't do out of their better judgement just start bubbling out. All of the things they know they shouldn't say or do, all of the vices they don't indulge in. The villains doesn't make them be evil, he just makes them do what they already want to do to make his point for him.

Of course, when they use this on a person who is actually fundamentally a good person, shit gets fucked as far as evil plans go. That shits how you end up with a Paladin that still wants to smite evil and help people, but now has no sense of restraint in how far he is willing to go to do so.

You keep on bringing up, "play a martial instead."

Dude, it's a game. You are going to kill shit. The difference between playing a rogue who sneak attacks a bandit vs. a barbarian who rages and axes them is mechanical, and people do thing different because it is fun.

>all that bs about mind magic

All wizards know mind altering magic, you retard. Evocation wizards can cast enchantment spells.

>They're like libertarians arguing for "ethical CP."
Those aren't even related. What the fuck are you on about?

Randomly shooting old ladies isn't the point here.
I think most people at some point have been angry enough at someone to have an unbidden thought of killing them.
Of course that is still a far cry from actually doing it. But in situations of extreme distress, one might be actually tempted.

>I-it's impossible multiple people disagree with me
>s-samefag! it's gotta be the same person!

That's where the individual comes in. A good aligned wizard sees someone making fun of his hat at the tavern, and starts getting harassed. He let's it slide, nothing worth hurting someone over, and if he starts getting violent, maybe just cast Suggestion and suggest that he goes home.
An evil aligned wizard mind controls him and makes him do a silly dance or something to that effect.

Personally, I've been in a situation where I was mentally thinking about how much I wanted to smack the shit out of them. Consequences or not, I'm a fully grown man, I'm not going to do that.

Speaking as someone with a bad temper, a tendency to hold grudges, and ready access to guns, I can tell you that you're still full of shit. My first thought when placed under extreme stress isn't "I want to kill the one causing it", it's usually the less extreme desire to walk away from the situation or to clock the offending person in the jaw. Nearly every single time I'm faced with decision I've chosen to walk away. Do you know why that is? IT'S BECAUSE I'M A RATIONAL AND GENERALLY WELL ADJUSTED FUCKING HUMAN BEING. This isn't a hard concept to grasp, dude.

Because authors are dumb and submit to the basic wisdom of disgust.

Because I use one-axis alignment (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic) and only those things which further the causes of the Gods of Law or the Gods of Chaos are anything other than neutral.

But the "good" wizard casting suggestion to avoid violence STILL used mind control. Is the loss of his free will at that moment really a "lesser evil" than the violence he would cause? It's hard enough to draw lines to make that slope quite slippery.

>Speaking as someone with a bad temper
I can see that, but i'm not the person you were talking to.

That's in the event he becomes violent and attacks the mage.

>Is the loss of his free will at that moment really a "lesser evil" than the violence he would cause?
Yes. Absolutely. The mage didn't get hurt, the assaulter didn't get hurt, the conflict is resolved, and nothing about the guys is really changed.

It's really not different than if a fighter would have just let it slide, but if he was assaulted, picked him up and thrown him out.

>It's hard enough to draw lines to make that slope quite slippery.
There you go with the slippery slope fallacy again.

Or you could rely on mind rape powers.
But that's the point. Mind raping is good for stopping terrorists and also good for contributing to society, to wit, it doesn't put guns in people's hands.

If you shoot the bastard, good job. Now you have the live the rest of your life being tempted to shoot the face off that annoying fucker at work who keeps stealing and hiding your stapler, you *need* that thing damnit

Maybe you're a saint who would never do that; but then, were that the case, you would have chosen to own a gun in the first place. You'd be a sensible mage who understands how people think and has a respect for life.

Now don't genuinely take this as an argument for mind control over guns, I'm just perverting your argument because it seems like it'd fit anything with potential for abuse, and guns was your choice for "this is the good option".
Yes, mind control nonsense has the potential for abuse, but so do a *lot* of things; we trust people not to do so, and have legal repercussions for those that do.

Oh shit everyone already made the point I was trying to make in a different conversation chain that I didn't follow. Welp.

>All wizards know mind altering magic, you retard. Evocation wizards can cast enchantment spells.
I mean, in DnD they technically don't inherently have the ability to cast it if they don't learn it, and if they have user's stance about "creepy mind-editing magic" maybe they won't choose an incredibly useful problem-solving tool!

It's for the best user. I think the other guy might need to read this multiple times before it actually clicks.

medicalnewstoday.com/info/cancer-oncology

Slippery slope is not a fallacy, i'm not just assuming this metaphor applies, i'm explaining why.
Also only the two last posts were mine

But say, if it's perfectly justified to use mind control to avoid violence here, is it fine for a ruler to use mind control on an entire population to prevent them from doing illegal violence?

Good and evil are not absolute when it comes to the real world.

A single action is not "tainted" and thus the entire result tainted, for the sake of interpretation of morality.

Killing is bad, it sure would be nice if we didnt have to kill, so we spend all this time, effort, emotional investment and resource into trying to rehab the evil "thing". Turns out it keeps relapsing easily, and doing much damage, which causes proportionally more suffering and evil than just fucking killing it would have in the first place. Ready for that slippery slope? It has kids. They are just wee little ones. So sad. But they are already mired in the culture, and despite your best efforts, shit goes wrong anyway. But you let them live to audlthood because you dont kill kids, because that is wrong. all the while they grow up doing evil shit anyway, and you finally have to kill them only after they have done a fuckton of evil just because you didn't have the conviction to blacken your heart a bit to do the necessary thing.

tl/dr:

I hope you are a speed reader nigga.

Yes. It is.
logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery_Slope

False Dichotomy. Temporarily preventing someone from assaulting you isn't the same as forcing a town to obey the law.

>DnD
>Alignments
There's your problem. Play a better game.

>free will
>No respectful god would accept this knowing
>Into the firepit you go heretic!

>I don't get what you're saying

There is no room for reason with this guy, carry on.

>implying free will exists.

You can't destroy imaginary things user, and people aren't worse off for having less of what they didn't have to begin with.

>a Paladin that still wants to smite evil and help people, but now has no sense of restraint in how far he is willing to go to do so.
So, a Paladin.

Oh great, you can quote fallacy names, congratulations.
But as i said, i am actually arguing why one thing leads to another, not just saying it does. Read the "exceptions" on that link of yours.
>Temporarily preventing someone from assaulting you isn't the same as forcing a town to obey the law
In this case it's the wizard himself being assaulted, but what if it wasn't? Another person will be assaulted, and the wizard uses mind control to prevent it. I don't see why not being the victim himself makes it all that different.
And then, why is that wizard more qualified to use mind control to stop violence than the town's ruler?

>tips hat

Slippery slopes are listed as fallacies in most beginner's fedora-adjustment guides. In actual logical construction, however, they are not an invalid argument.

Few enlightened gentlemen know this.

>I don't see why not being the victim himself makes it all that different.
Casting suggestion to make someone go home to prevent them from assaulting another isn't immoral either.
>And then, why is that wizard more qualified to use mind control to stop violence than the town's ruler?
Because temporarily preventing someone from assaulting an innocent isn't the same as forcing a town to obey the law.
It's a fallacy when the reasoning behind it is illogical.
>If you cast suggestion to stop rape, you might rape someone with suggestion! Just play a martial!

>Because temporarily preventing someone from assaulting an innocent isn't the same as forcing a town to obey the law.
But why is it different?
Both cases have a guy using mind control to prevent violence.
Does it magically become bad because it's "the law"?

Free will is not good; it is merely an example of distributed processing. Good is anything which promotes human flourishing. Evil is anything which inhibits human flourishing. Humans must flourish in order to provide the gods with greater worship. All actions which promote this end are morally sound.

>if you are the kind of person who selects paths with gray and black options, you are necessarily more likely to use them than a person who chooses paths without these options

Simple logic.

See
>You're not smart enough to be interesting. Go away.

Because it's the difference between shooting someone who's about to kill, and strapping every citizen with a collar that explodes if they break the law.

No, stupid logic. Lopping off someone's head is a path with gray and black options. Fighters are not more likely to kill innocent people.

Immobilizing people, and peppering someone with arrows while a wolf bites off their dick is a pathway grey and black options. Rangers are not more likely to kill innocent people.

>if you're the kind of person that goes out to buy a gun you are necessarily more likely to intentionally kill someone for petty reasons than a person that doesn't
Simple logic.

An isolated incident of protecting someone is not the same as subjugating a city. Seriously, in what way is subjugating a town to stop any opposition from rebelling similar to stopping a rapist on a train from adding some poor bastard to their struggle snuggle list?

More the like difference between strapping a single person with the collar and strapping everyone with it.
Because what is being actually done isn't different here, only the number of people it is done to.

Undoing mind-altering actions is itself a mind-altering action

People request hypnosis to change themselves on occasion