"But I just wanted to be liked!" Charm Person and ethics

[Blanks]

something we already have established isn't "that" much of a free will

Lets make that "something Solka claimed", I am still a true believer of free will.

We are already conditionned by our environnement anyway.

Agreed, by thats not the same as saying the world is pre-determined.

If your claim is that the world is pre-determined, and that free will therefore is an illusion, that removes the basis for morality. You cannot hold people responsible for something that they could not avoid doing. Then nothing is morally wrong (or right for that matter).

[Mewtarthio]

From the perspective of the victim, they didn't have anything forced upon them. They truly have spent time with a good friend.

In that case, would it be ethical for me to brainwash someone into having no desire save to slave away in my carcinogenic dust mines for the rest of eternity? From their perspective, nothing is forced on them: They chose to work in my mines because they truly enjoy the activity. After all, nobody really gets to choose what sort of job they'd enjoy.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Lets make that "something Solka claimed", I am still a true believer of free will.

Agreed, by thats not the same as saying the world is pre-determined.

If your claim is that the world is pre-determined, and that free will therefore is an illusion, that removes the basis for morality. You cannot hold people responsible for something that they could not avoid doing. Then nothing is morally wrong (or right for that matter).

No. My claim is that the will of the people is determined, and something totally immaterial. If you change the will of the people, it's not, in itself, an immoral action. If you abuse of people/blablabla/immoral acts, then it is an immoral action.

[Solo]

I can't answer that question, since I have not real knowledge of those schools of toughts.

Well, you probably should know this then:

There are several major schools of psychology. Behaviorism states that we have no free will, and our actions are mechanical and pre-determined.

It has been criticized as downplaying the role of free will and simplifying human behavior into rigidly mechanical terms.

Most of the other schools of psychology have different views on human nature, and believe we do have free will.

Being as the great minds of psychology have not come to a conclusion on this subject, I do not see how you can say with such certainty that we do not have free will.

You are certainly within your rights, however, to say that, in your opinion, people do not have free will.

[SolkaTruesilver]

In that case, would it be ethical for me to brainwash someone into having no desire save to slave away in my carcinogenic dust mines for the rest of eternity? From their perspective, nothing is forced on them: They chose to work in my mines because they truly enjoy the activity. After all, nobody really gets to choose what sort of job they'd enjoy.

No, because you took the example to the extreme, which is a big sophism. In your example, you steal the life of someone. Even if you brainwash him into acceptance, you denied him of his life, his possessions, his friends. It's an immoral action.

In the case of Charm Person, your victim still has all that. Which removes the "immoral" aspect of it.

[SolkaTruesilver]

There are several major schools of psychology. Behaviorism states that we have no free will, and our actions are mechanical and pre-determined.

It has been criticized as downplaying the role of free will and simplifying human behavior into rigidly mechanical terms.

Then call me a mild behaviorist. I believe you can still choose to do something bad. For example, you do not get to choose if you like someone or not. But you get to choose if you are going to punch him.

People still should be responsible for their actions, but not for their beliefs.

On the other hand, I feel that parents should be responsible for the beliefs they have brainwashed their children into (Ex: rascism, religion, etc..)

edit: (please take "belief" in the most mild way possible. Like "taste", or "what-you-think")

[Solo]

People still should be responsible for their actions, but not for their beliefs.

When people are intelligent enough to self-analyze and still choose to adhere to blatantly wrong opinions, I would call them responsible for their beliefs.

[Mewtarthio]

No, because you took the example to the extreme, which is a big sophism. In your example, you steal the life of someone. Even if you brainwash him into acceptance, you denied him of his life, his possessions, his friends. It's an immoral action.

But charming someone into temporarily being your friend still steals from him, albeit at a much smaller scale. You have stolen his time and his attention.

My example may have been a bit extreme, granted, so how about something a little less so: What if I brainwashed someone into working at a menial but safe job with fair hours for adequate compensation?

[SolkaTruesilver]

When people are intelligent enough to self-analyze and still choose to adhere to blatantly wrong opinions, I would call them responsible for their beliefs.

Not when they have been the victim of a brainwash when they were young. You are not born rascist or religious, but grew into it trough either ignorance of simply sheer lack of perspective.

In the 2nd category, people who are still knowledgeable, but sadly cannot see the failure of their views. As long as they realise that the society would not accept actions based on such beliefs, and they don't act upon them, then I'd say they are allowed to believe whatever they want*

*as long as they don't drain their children with them, which is happening all too often.. :(

[SolkaTruesilver]

My example may have been a bit extreme, granted, so how about something a little less so: What if I brainwashed someone into working at a menial but safe job with fair hours for adequate compensation?

If he has the potential/capacity to do something else. Or wanted to try something else, then you denied him his dreams, or his ambition/potential, which is wrong.

Listen, I am not saying that using Charm Person to make somebody do things they wouldn't do outside of the spell effect is right. I am saying that Charm Person, merely to be friend, isn't wrong. You will not find any example when you force somebody to DO something they wouldn't naturally do that I'd say is a moral thing, because you are affecting their ACTIONS, which I find immoral.

[Solo]

Not when they have been the victim of a brainwash when they were young.

Being as humans have brains, which, I assume, can be sued for introspection, any reasonably intelligent person is capable of re-evaluating his beliefs and changing them if they are not compatible with real world observations and logic.

After all, not all the sons of racists few up to be racists; many determined for themselves that racism was incorrect and threw off their shackles, so to speak, even though they grew up in heavily racist environments - you might call it brainwashingly so..

If a person has the ability and opportunity to change, but do not, and if it is blatantly obvious that the person's belief conflicts with reality, then I am afraid it is indeed a person's own fault for having whatever erroneous belief.

[Blanks]

So what you are saying Solka, is more or less the following:

If:
People have free will about bigger issues, but not smaller ones.
They never find out they have been charmed.
You never charm in order to gain something material.
You treat them like genuine friends and not "puppets".

Then:
Its not evil to use "Charm person"

I think everyone can agree to that.

I just feel that its a lot of "ifs", and that any moral rule that depends on the subject knowing about whats happening is suspect, partly because it won't always be under your control if they find out or not.

[SolkaTruesilver]

If a person has the ability and opportunity to change, but do not, and if it is blatantly obvious that the person's belief conflicts with reality, then I am afraid it is indeed a person's own fault for having whatever erroneous belief.

I'll give you that point. But you assume that they all have the ability and opportunity to change, that's two big assumption.

Also, somebody can be very, very, very brillant, but never actually have the capacity for introspection.

[Ziren]

Not when they have been the victim of a brainwash when they were young. You are not born rascist or religious, but grew into it trough either ignorance of simply sheer lack of perspective.

Both of which is part of your personality, for which, according to your logic, you aren't responsible because it is exclusively shaped by your DNA and environment.

If he has the potential/capacity to do something else. Or wanted to try something else, then you denied him his dreams, or his ambition/potential, which is wrong.

Listen, I am not saying that using Charm Person to make somebody do things they wouldn't do outside of the spell effect is right. I am saying that Charm Person, merely to be friend, isn't wrong. You will not find any example when you force somebody to DO something they wouldn't naturally do that I'd say is a moral thing, because you are affecting their ACTIONS, which I find immoral.

Don't your friends influence your actions in any way by just being your friends?
I.E. if you were a homophobe and one day your best friend has his coming out you would probably (not necessarily) reconsider your attitude, wouldn't you? Note that this was an example of how friends can have positive influence on you. It's just as likely that they're having a negative one.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I just feel that its a lot of "ifs", and that any moral rule that depends on the subject knowing about whats happening is suspect, partly because it won't always be under your control if they find out or not.

Well, they will simply think, in retrospect, that they spent a good time with the wizard. They won't realize they were charmed. I actually believe that, if the victim spent ennough time charmed with the wizard, he will actually grow to genuily like him, since the "good experience" always have an influence about how you see someone.

But, Blanks, it was the OP's question. So I don't see why we are argumenting if the OP's statement is immoral or not: you just said "we can all agree on that"

[Dervag]

Confusing them will work juuuuuuust fine.

I do not think you are using the word 'confused' in the sense I am using the word 'confused'.
___________________________

Would you like to be under the influence of Charm Person so that someone else can make you their friend?

If no, we can agree that Charm Person should probably not be used for the purposes that the OP described.

If yes, then well...

If somebody were trying to overcome the initial barrier to acquaintance (taking "make you their friend") literally, I think I'd be OK with it afterwards if they turned out to be basically a decent and nice person in unrelated ways.

Would I want to be kept under that spell continuously? Not really, no, because it lends itself to abuse.

Would I want someone to use that spell to sleep with me? Well, if it were anyone I'd be basically OK with having slept with I wouldn't mind. But if it were such a person, they probably wouldn't need the spell- I'm a single guy, not a cheerleader.
_______________________

Perfume and charm person is NOT the same (would you object if all your spell slots were switched with perfume bottles?)

They're not the same. I was the one who introduced this comparison, and my point was "If perfume is OK, and Charm Person is not, where do we draw the line between them?"
_______________________

yup. Since I the only thing I lost in the process is my so-called free will to choose whom I like (something we already have established isn't "that" much of a free will; you can't choose who you like and who you don't). I don't really think it's that much of unethical thing to do. You are all freaking over the "loss of free-will", personnally, I don't really think there is such thing (not on the mind-scape you think it exists, anyway). We are already conditionned by our environnement anyway.

Human beings are self-editing; we are just about the only thing in nature that can deliberately change the parameters we use to make our own decisions. We can decide whether or not to do something on the basis of a seemingly relevant fact or not.

If you don't call that free will, then you've defined "free will" to be a chimerical fiction, and we might as well recycle the term "free will" to refer to something that can actually exist in the real universe. Such as the human ability to decide whether or not to do things, and to deliberately choose to ignore or consider new factors that we didn't pay attention to before.
__________________________

I can't answer that question, since I have not real knowledge of those schools of toughts.

Yes, but I ask you to acknowledge their existence and to realize that Behaviorism is not the only school of psychology or philosophy. Nor is it the only "scientific" one, since it doesn't have more evidence supporting it than its competitors do.
___________________________

No, because you took the example to the extreme, which is a big sophism. In your example, you steal the life of someone. Even if you brainwash him into acceptance, you denied him of his life, his possessions, his friends. It's an immoral action.

In the case of Charm Person, your victim still has all that. Which removes the "immoral" aspect of it.

You could use "Charm Person" to screw up someone's life, steal their money, or things like that. Con men would kill for the power Charm Person gives you.

Also, many people believe that they possess mental and bodily integrity, defined by their own control over their mind and body. Charm Person can be used to violate that belief. Even if the belief is a complete fiction, they still feel robbed, in which case you have hurt them greatly.
____________________________

[SolkaTruesilver]

Both of which is part of your personality, for which, according to your logic, you aren't responsible because it is exclusively shaped by your DNA and environment..

... exactly? Err.. I mean, that was my point.. You don'T get to choose your toughts.

Don't your friends influence your actions in any way by just being your friends?
I.E. if you were a homophobe and one day your best friend has his coming out you would probably (not necessarily) reconsider your attitude, wouldn't you? Note that this was an example of how friends can have positive influence on you. It's just as likely that they're having a negative one.

Perhaps. But I don't think hanging around an homophobe will make me one, if I am not already one.
Same with rascism.

If a rascist if charmed by a black, then there is a good amount of chance he will eventually make the connection (black =/= bad) since he is EXPOSED to his hate object. On the other hand, if a non-rascist white man is charmed by a Klan member, there is about as much chance for the Klan member to "convert" him as anyone can "convert" a friend to political beliefs. Personnally, I find it quite hard.

I really think direct exposition can only grow your tolerance factor, while intolerance has to be argumented

[Wulfram]

I'd make a distinction between the basic use of making someone into your friend, and the potential opposed charisma check.

The first I'd consider generally broadly equivalent to the use of tricks and deceit, while the second is the more like putting a knife to their throat.

Both are probably evil if used selfishly, but the first is in a relatively low level, everyday sort of way if you're not really hurting them.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Yes, but I ask you to acknowledge their existence and to realize that Behaviorism is not the only school of psychology or philosophy. Nor is it the only "scientific" one, since it doesn't have more evidence supporting it than its competitors do.

Oh, I ackowledge them, all right. I mean, I acknowledge that other people may think different things than I. It's just that I have defined my own view of what the human being is, and I am proud to be able to articulate it. You can take it or reject it, but isn't the point of an argumentation?

You could use "Charm Person" to screw up someone's life, steal their money, or things like that. Con men would kill for the power Charm Person gives you.

Also, many people believe that they possess mental and bodily integrity, defined by their own control over their mind and body. Charm Person can be used to violate that belief. Even if the belief is a complete fiction, they still feel robbed, in which case you have hurt them greatly.

Yhea... so?
In the conditions said earlier, you are using "Charm Person" TO MAKE FRIEND. That's not screwing someone's life, stealing his money, having sex with him, making his thrall. All those things are immoral, since they are denying something from him.

Making "friend", in my personnal view of the world, isn'T denying anything at all. It's simply changing someone's view of the caster, one that the person simply did not had any choice over to begin with. Either he would have liked the caster, or he wouldn't. He had not choice over it.

[Ziren]

... exactly? Err.. I mean, that was my point.. You don'T get to choose your toughts.

Okay, I made myself clear there. Affinity to break rules (whatever they might be) is, according to your logic, exactly as predetermined as everything else. Therefore I can't be held responsible for any action.

Perhaps. But I don't think hanging around an homophobe will make me one, if I am not already one.
Same with rascism.

If a rascist if charmed by a black, then there is a good amount of chance he will eventually make the connection (black =/= bad) since he is EXPOSED to his hate object. On the other hand, if a non-rascist white man is charmed by a Klan member, there is about as much chance for the Klan member to "convert" him as anyone can "convert" a friend to political beliefs. Personnally, I find it quite hard.

I really think direct exposition can only grow your tolerance factor, while intolerance has to be argumented

At the very least your tolerance towards their intolerance will grow. If someone who has actively fought against racism is charmed by a racist, then he will most likely give up that fight (even if his mindset won't change) because he doesn't want to anger his "friend".

Or another, more simple example: You're more likely to start smoking if you hang around smokers.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Or another, more simple example: You're more likely to start smoking if you hang around smokers.

Owned!

All right, you got me there. You are right. But I'd say, if you take the Law of Great Numbers, over all, more good thing will happen out of this than bad things. I still think it's a marginally non-unethical actions, but there is a crapload of conditions for it to be non-unethical.

[Blanks]

you just said "we can all agree on that"

Yes, IF the conditions are met, its not evil. I just don't think they are met.

I would say that if you used Charm person to avoid having to harm a person its okay. But using it to gain friends, or in other words, because it feels nice for you... not okay on my scale.

Then again, I have to differentiate between what I would let a player do ingame, and my beliefs offgame.

[Starbuck_II]

\

You're fighting an uphill battle against reality, you know.

I for one always have a battle with reality. It is my ninja way.

[Collin152]

I do not think you are using the word 'confused' in the sense I am using the word 'confused'.

I think you vastly underestimate my natural powes of deception, manipulation, and other such devious methods of persuasion.


Also, it is totally possible to choose ones thoughts. I'm doing it right now.
Either that, or I'm far more insane than I previously believed.

[Hectonkhyres]

For a real world thing to ponder: Going by some of the arguments I have heard, all government is innately evil. The whole system is based on the principal that you need to be intimidated into doing the right thing for your own good. The fact that we would all die in an orgy of self-destruction and madness is apparently irrelevant.

Hell, in one of my homebrew campaign worlds, all gods are evil. A god in this world is a massively powerful (but not quite omnipotent) being with a permanently active mindrape spell in place. That the god can not turn off. Ever. If a god tells you to have a good day, you damn well will have a good day. And most of them don't abuse their power/curse.

My personal opinion is that a human being, or any other creature, has no inherent rights of any kind. Not the right to vote, nor the right to free speech, nor to be something other than a slave, nor even to live. All these things are things human being got together and decided everybody should have. That the world is a better place to live with these freedoms than without them... that we would rise up and butcher any person or group who tries and take them away.

But consider this: Slavery is condemned because human beings are bastards and, almost without exception, treat said slaves even worse than livestock. If you had some impossible, infinitely benign and wise being who is considerate of the wishes of his slaves, many would have far fewer problems. Look at the Abrahamic god as sometimes portrayed: mankind is referred to as his sheep and he is still seen as benign. Its all based around the oath of fealty.

[Flickerdart]

In that case, would it be ethical for me to brainwash someone into having no desire save to slave away in my carcinogenic dust mines for the rest of eternity? From their perspective, nothing is forced on them: They chose to work in my mines because they truly enjoy the activity. After all, nobody really gets to choose what sort of job they'd enjoy.

But this is your fault for making that order, not Charm's fault. Besides, it wouldn't work; Charm isn't that powerful.

Anyways, being Charmed makes you be friends, not enjoy everything you do. If your significant other asked you to slave away in said mines, you would NOT be happy doing it.

And if we're not talking about Charm, the argument is moot: Charm is the central topic here.

[Azerian Kelimon]

For a real world thing to ponder: Going by some of the arguments I have heard, all government is innately evil. The whole system is based on the principal that you need to be intimidated into doing the right thing for your own good. The fact that we would all die in an orgy of self-destruction and madness is apparently irrelevant.

Hell, in one of my homebrew campaign worlds, all gods are evil. A god in this world is a massively powerful (but not quite omnipotent) being with a permanently active mindrape spell in place. That the god can not turn off. Ever. If a god tells you to have a good day, you damn well will have a good day. And most of them don't abuse their power/curse.

My personal opinion is that a human being, or any other creature, has no inherent rights of any kind. Not the right to vote, nor the right to free speech, nor to be something other than a slave, nor even to live. All these things are things human being got together and decided everybody should have. That the world is a better place to live with these freedoms than without them... that we would rise up and butcher any person or group who tries and take them away.

But consider this: Slavery is condemned because human beings are bastards and, almost without exception, treat said slaves even worse than livestock. If you had some impossible, infinitely benign and wise being who is considerate of the wishes of his slaves, many would have far fewer problems. Look at the Abrahamic god as sometimes portrayed: mankind is referred to as his sheep and he is still seen as benign. Its all based around the oath of fealty.

I wouldn't introduce Religion here, both because of rules, and because the perspective of the Abrahamic god changes MASSIVELY when you look at everything it is claimed he said.

Preeminent example: For the chance of having revenge on the hebrews, he offers Moses to void the pact with Abraham (Yes, he DID that offer) and to make a new pact with him. All the hard work would go to waste. Everything would have been for naught.

To me, that is the attitude of a very moody and untrustworthy being. Almost a con man. Not a good guy, certainly.

[Hectonkhyres]

Oh, agreed, but thats a different subject. Lets try a hypothetical usind a god of a different type and personality:

Just picture a god in D&D, the only god worshiped on some world of the prime material, who decided to take care of the sapients of said world at the cost of a little of their free will. Everyone there is subject to the effects of a charm spell by him with no saving throw.

He is your friend and, with no choice in the matter, you are his. He basically lets you live your life as you wish but pops in to give you a little advice from time to time and perhaps pull your ass out of the odd fire. You end up living your life in a more satisfactory and less painful measure than you would if left purely to your own devices.

Is this god evil, a thing to be fought and slain by a group of adventurers and their resident Ur-Priest? It may not be a world quite suited for everybody, but is it a nightmarish thing that shouldn't be allowed to exist? This scenario is a larger scale version of what using charm for benign purposes is to my eyes.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Oh, agreed, but thats a different subject. Lets try a hypothetical usind a god of a different type and personality:

Just picture a god in D&D, the only god worshiped on some world of the prime material, who decided to take care of the sapients of said world at the cost of a little of their free will. Everyone there is subject to the effects of a charm spell by him with no saving throw.

He is your friend and, with no choice in the matter, you are his. He basically lets you live your life as you wish but pops in to give you a little advice from time to time and perhaps pull your ass out of the odd fire. You end up living your life in a more satisfactory and less painful measure than you would if left purely to your own devices.

Is this god evil, a thing to be fought and slain by a group of adventurers and their resident Ur-Priest? It may not be a world quite suited for everybody, but is it a nightmarish thing that shouldn't be allowed to exist? This scenario is a larger scale version of what using charm for benign purposes is to my eyes.

Nope, he ain't evil. I'd classify him as neutral.

See, there's a reason to let children burn themselves with the fire (And then douse the flames and make sure the burn is very, very, very light). They have to learn from their mistakes, else, they'll just try and repeat the experiment when you're not looking. It sounds harsh, but trust me, experience is the best teacher you'll ever find.

[Flickerdart]

Nope, he ain't evil. I'd classify him as neutral.

See, there's a reason to let children burn themselves with the fire (And then douse the flames and make sure the burn is very, very, very light). They have to learn from their mistakes, else, they'll just try and repeat the experiment when you're not looking. It sounds harsh, but trust me, experience is the best teacher you'll ever find.

Wasn't there some book on this? Where they had a whole planet of humans who evolved a particular trait doing that to the entire universe? Making fires not hurt, and injuries heal instantly and so forth. And then the being taking care of one planet dies or stops, and it screws them all over?

No, there definitely was a book like this. Some sci-fi book. I think people with that trait were called Slides, or Swipes, or something.