Intimidate & Mind-affecting

[Engine]

Context: the group is shopping during a local fair, and one member of the party bought a Elixir of Love (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/e-g/elixir-of-love); the Inquisitor of Milani (a goddess devoted to freedom) argued that he wouldn't agree with the eventual use of such item because it would deny free will to the victim; the buyer responded that the Inquisitor does the same thing everytime he use Intimidate to demoralize an opponent.

I would like to ask the Playground to share some thought with me: using Intimidate to demoralize (as imposing penalties to an opponent) could be considered equivalent to using Charm Person and other similar mind-affecting effects, morally speaking?

[Taveena]

Coercion can be considered restricting freedom, but it's not quite as black and white as something which forces them to act a certain way.

[Gracht Grabmaw]

Absolutely not. If you intimidate someone into doing something for you, they're still free to disobey as long as they're prepared to face the consequences. A love potion or any other mind-altering magic removes that option entirely.

[Dalebert]

I think your player is getting too meta. Intimidate is just the game's way of resolving a social interaction. In game, characters shouldn't even be referring to such skills by their names. They don't think in those terms. It's ridiculous for him to even bring it up. Whereas casting a spell or using a magic potion that is specifically designed to compromise a character's facilities for reason is something very real and objective to the characters in game.

I actually deleted a lot of my response when I realized I was getting into the morality of the question which gets much more complicated. For instance, consider the difference between intimidating a villain to release an innocent person versus a thief intimidating an innocent person to get them to hand over their money. Intimidation is a threat, or at least an implied one, in order to get someone to do something. Their free will hasn't been compromised. They are still making a decision with their full faculties, but I suspect someone who believes in freedom would have a problem with one but not the other simply because one seems like a justified use. One is an act of aggression against and innocent person and the other is a defensive use against an aggressor.

[OldTrees1]

All coercion restricts Free Will. From simple Charisma all the way to Mind Control. However the restriction is not constant. Having a 16 Cha is less coercive than using Dominate Person. Most respond to this by arguing that coercion is not immoral by itself but is immoral when it has a significant impact on Free Will. Basically they choose an arbitrary point on the continuum based on reasons. Everything more coercive they will oppose and anything less coercive they will accept.

So is Cha immoral? What about Diplomacy? Intimidation? Charm? Dominate? ...

[Divide by Zero]

Free will is the ability to choose your own actions. Whether an action is physically impossible, or whether someone is imposing additional consequences for some actions, is irrelevant.

From a strictly mechanical perspective, the effects of the Intimidate skill could be argued to affect someone's ability to choose their actions, but in-character it does no such thing.

[Jeff the Green]

Free will is the ability to choose your own actions. Whether an action is physically impossible, or whether someone is imposing additional consequences for some actions, is irrelevant.

Debatable. Legally, coercion negates free will—one cannot enter a valid contract, for instance, if one is coerced. This is also the philosophical position of compatibilism, which suggests that free will is the ability to act according to one's motivation and coercion or restraint prevents this.

That said, calling the use of Intimidate to demoralize a breach of free will is a stretch under any philosophical assumption. The goal, after all, is not to force someone to do something you want but to take advantage of their unconscious reactions, making them easier to kill. (Whether killing itself violates free will is another question.)

[Greenish]

That said, calling the use of Intimidate to demoralize a breach of free will is a stretch under any philosophical assumption. The goal, after all, is not to force someone to do something you want but to take advantage of their unconscious reactions, making them easier to kill. (Whether killing itself violates free will is another question.)Presumably, the reference was to the non-combat use of Intimidate, which is mechanically very similar to Charm Person: both make the target friendly towards you for a short period of time.

[Jeff the Green]

Presumably, the reference was to the non-combat use of Intimidate, which is mechanically very similar to Charm Person: both make the target friendly towards you for a short period of time.

Normally I'd agree, but Engline specified using Intimidate to demoralize an opponent.

[Greenish]

Normally I'd agree, but Engline specified using Intimidate to demoralize an opponent.Huh, so he did. Way to ruin your own argument, unnamed player!

[Dalebert]

Presumably, the reference was to the non-combat use of Intimidate, which is mechanically very similar to Charm Person: both make the target friendly towards you for a short period of time.

Technically, yes, but this is what I meant when I said he was getting too meta. That's how the game mechanics work it out. In-game, that's not relevant. Intimidation tactics are just one more environmental factor that a person has to take into account when making a decision. You could just as easily say a wall is infringing on your free will because it's impeding your will of walking in that direction. If someone successfully intimidates you, all that really means is they altered your environment and you made a different choice based on your environment, e.g. "there's a scary-looking guy standing there and glaring at me. I don't want him to hurt me. I'll go a different direction." They could just as easily decide "I think I can take him." The decision remains theirs to make. Don't get hung up on the mechanics. That's meta-gaming. They're not actually manipulating the person's will in any way. The person's will just wasn't that strong to begin with and the failed roll is just the game mechanics that reflect that.

A mind-affecting magic, on the other hand, is actually going inside your head and altering your decision making process.

[Greenish]

Technically, yes, but this is what I meant when I said he was getting too meta. That's how the game mechanics work it out.That's why I said they're mechanically very similar. :smallamused:

[Arbane]

To play Modron's Advocate here for a second, what's inherently good about free will? If people have it, they will often use it in harmful and destructive ways.

I'd argue throwing someone in prison will mess with their expression of free will a lot more than an intimidate check. So will a Geas spell.

[Jeff the Green]

To play Modron's Advocate here for a second, what's inherently good about free will? If people have it, they will often use it in harmful and destructive ways.

I'd argue throwing someone in prison will mess with their expression of free will a lot more than an intimidate check. So will a Geas spell.

Actually, both from a D&D and real life perspective, I tend to agree. In D&D free will is very much a Law-Chaos issue; the only way it intersects with Good-Evil is when negating free will involves "hurting, oppressing, and killing." But using it to ensure a violent criminal doesn't violate parole isn't remotely Evil.

From a real-life perspective, many, if not most, ethical systems implicitly or explicitly use happiness/contentedness/eudaimonia or similar as a primary metric. (My own preferred system is among them, though only in an ultimate sense.) The only reason I generally advocate for minimizing violations of free will is that you're more likely to know what's best for you than I am, so the only time I should overrule you is when I have very good evidence you don't—you're depressed and trying to kill yourself, you're delusional and think you're invincibile, you have OCD and scrub your hands until they bleed, etc.

[Duke of Urrel]

Context: the group is shopping during a local fair, and one member of the party bought a Elixir of Love (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/e-g/elixir-of-love); the Inquisitor of Milani (a goddess devoted to freedom) argued that he wouldn't agree with the eventual use of such item because it would deny free will to the victim; the buyer responded that the Inquisitor does the same thing everytime he use Intimidate to demoralize an opponent.

I would like to ask the Playground to share some thought with me: using Intimidate to demoralize (as imposing penalties to an opponent) could be considered equivalent to using Charm Person and other similar mind-affecting effects, morally speaking?

I find this thread fascinating, even though I don't pay attention to too many discussions of what alignment means or ought to mean.

There are, in D&D, two questions here, because the game distinguishes morality, which is the north-south axis on the alignment chart dividing Good from Evil, from ethics, which is the east-west axis dividing Law from Chaos.

There are two alignment-based reasons why someone may find it wrong to give someone an Elixir of Love.

1. One is the objection of Good that this might threaten a creature's well-being.

2. The other is the objection of Chaos that this imposes a certain order or predictability upon a creature's behavior rather than leaves it to chance.

Neither objection is very strong by itself. It is only when you combine both Good and Chaos that you get really strong respect for freedom that includes the freedom of others as well as oneself. The less Good you are, the more exclusively you care about your own freedom, and the less you care about anybody else's freedom.

For example, as a Chaotic-Neutral creature, you hate the Law as it applies to all creatures, but if it comes down to a choice between your own freedom and another creature's freedom, it's usually clear whose freedom you will choose.

Chaotic-Evil creatures also hate Law generally, and they hate even to impose Law exclusively upon creatures other than themselves. However, since Chaotic-Evil creatures are likely to kill or torture any creature that displeases them, they really need no Law in order to exercise tremendous political power. And I would hesitate to call the creatures that must live under a Chaotic-Evil despot "free" simply because they always have the "choice" either to obey the despot or to disobey and be killed or tortured. The most you can say for the subjects of a Chaotic-Evil despot is that their lives are unpredictable – that they are, indeed. Ask any dretch.

Chaotic-Good creatures, in contrast, care deeply about freedom, more so than creatures of any other alignment, and they respect this freedom as much in others as in themselves, if not more. However, even the most passionately Chaotic-Good creature may not object to the use of Elixirs of Love entirely. There's always the utilitarian dilemma, which nobody of any alignment can avoid. Restricting one creature's freedom by causing it to fall in love against its own will may be a means to an appropriately Chaotic-Good end, such as the liberation of a great many other creatures that are presently oppressed.

I would hesitate to make a Chaotic-Good creature, even a very passionately Chaotic-Good goddess, object categorically to any possible use of an Elixir of Love. This blanket prohibition would also affect Charm spells – indeed, it would affect the entire Enchantment school of magic, which consists exclusively of Mind-Affecting spells. Should we assume that seriously Chaotic-Good creatures, for moral and ethical reasons, cannot become enchanters at all? Besides, no Chaotic-Good creature is likely to make a rule that allows no exceptions. That would be Lawful behavior.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

One point for pathfinder: Inspiring a debate about fear & mind affecting effects that isn't about inane primary source rules!

Regarding using intimidate out of combat to influence someone's behavior: While in-character there are important differences between mind-screwing someone and scaring them into doing something, they should both be wrong from the perspective of the character in question. Good thing he's only using Demoralize, heh.

[Arbane]

Regarding using intimidate out of combat to influence someone's behavior: While in-character there are important differences between mind-screwing someone and scaring them into doing something, they should both be wrong from the perspective of the character in question. Good thing he's only using Demoralize, heh.

Batman would disagree. :smallbiggrin:

[Engine]

A lot of good points here, thank you all for your help.
Just to be clear, I'm playing the Inquisitor of Milani and the only use I did of Intimidate is demoralizing enemies; coercion as "do what I want or I will hurt you" was never used in play, even against enemies. Anyway if you feel like debating about the morality and ethics of the use of social skills and mind-affecting powers, feel free to do it; it's an interesting debate, and I'm finding inspiration for my character.


I would hesitate to make a Chaotic-Good creature, even a very passionately Chaotic-Good goddess, object categorically to any possible use of an Elixir of Love. This blanket prohibition would also affect Charm spells – indeed, it would affect the entire Enchantment school of magic, which consists exclusively of Mind-Affecting spells. Should we assume that seriously Chaotic-Good creatures, for moral and ethical reasons, cannot become enchanters at all?

Good point. Just to be clear, my character expressed disagreement, not blanket proihibition. I'm not playing the kind of character that force other characters to follow his morals.


Besides, no Chaotic-Good creature is likely to make a rule that allows no exceptions. That would be Lawful behavior.

I chose to keep the alignment of the various characters out of the discussion because I didn't want a simple alignment debate. Anyway I would say that a character with a strong belief in personal freedom would still rule without exceptions that slavery, rape, torture, incarceration of innocents are wrong and she wouldn't condone them. The difference between Chaos and Law would be in methods, not principles, IMHO.


Debatable. Legally, coercion negates free will—one cannot enter a valid contract, for instance, if one is coerced. This is also the philosophical position of compatibilism, which suggests that free will is the ability to act according to one's motivation and coercion or restraint prevents this.

That's truly interesting. I will read more about compatibilism, it could help me flesh more my character.


Technically, yes, but this is what I meant when I said he was getting too meta. That's how the game mechanics work it out. In-game, that's not relevant. Intimidation tactics are just one more environmental factor that a person has to take into account when making a decision. You could just as easily say a wall is infringing on your free will because it's impeding your will of walking in that direction. If someone successfully intimidates you, all that really means is they altered your environment and you made a different choice based on your environment, e.g. "there's a scary-looking guy standing there and glaring at me. I don't want him to hurt me. I'll go a different direction." They could just as easily decide "I think I can take him." The decision remains theirs to make. Don't get hung up on the mechanics. That's meta-gaming. They're not actually manipulating the person's will in any way. The person's will just wasn't that strong to begin with and the failed roll is just the game mechanics that reflect that.

A mind-affecting magic, on the other hand, is actually going inside your head and altering your decision making process.

It's something I said too, that he was referring to game mechanics to justify his argument against my character's one. This abruptly ended the debate with a "I will still keep the Elixir and use it when I want". A missed chance for roleplaying, IMHO, and I'm not interest in arguing about it anymore at the table - the scene was really disappointing. My character would just use Dispel Magic on the victim if he feels like the other character is abusing his power.

[Sir Garanok]

In my point of view they are totally different things.

Mechanic wise they might have some resemblance,make somebody do something

but "rp" wise the elixir tricks and deceives the target while intimidate does not.

Also i wouldn't use false threats while intimidating with a lawful character,but that's another story.

[Psyren]

One point for pathfinder: Inspiring a debate about fear & mind affecting effects that isn't about inane primary source rules!

Primary Source and the idiotic debates it inspires is one of the main reasons I kicked 3.5 to the curb. Or rather, why I will always use PF as the chassis and import the parts I like from 3.5, rather than the reverse.


Batman would disagree. :smallbiggrin:

Beyond refusing to kill, Batman made no claims to morality. He certainly has no problem snapping the bones of countless disaffected street youths and toughs, or leaving them dangling from various fixtures in the cold night for hours.

[Vogonjeltz]

All coercion restricts Free Will. From simple Charisma all the way to Mind Control. However the restriction is not constant. Having a 16 Cha is less coercive than using Dominate Person. Most respond to this by arguing that coercion is not immoral by itself but is immoral when it has a significant impact on Free Will. Basically they choose an arbitrary point on the continuum based on reasons. Everything more coercive they will oppose and anything less coercive they will accept.

So is Cha immoral? What about Diplomacy? Intimidation? Charm? Dominate? ...

Beyond the fact that NPCs don't have such a thing as free will (remember, these are all DM puppets). This is lumping in apples with oranges.

Diplomacy and Intimidate are the game means of modeling activities. They are a means of determining if the NPCs act a certain way, but they aren't actually mind-affecting, in the way that charm person and dominate person are.

So the distinction is:

1) Grouping A (skills) models activities to allow the DM to make a system check for if the PCs are successful, rather than requiring the PCs to actually become convincing or roleplay realistic threats.

2) Grouping B (mind-affecting abilities) actually changes the way the targets mind operates.

The former does nothing to deprive the subject of free will (not that they have it anyway); the latter does.

[OldTrees1]

Beyond the fact that NPCs don't have such a thing as free will (remember, these are all DM puppets). This is lumping in apples with oranges.

Diplomacy and Intimidate are the game means of modeling activities. They are a means of determining if the NPCs act a certain way, but they aren't actually mind-affecting, in the way that charm person and dominate person are.

So the distinction is:

1) Grouping A (skills) models activities to allow the DM to make a system check for if the PCs are successful, rather than requiring the PCs to actually become convincing or roleplay realistic threats.

2) Grouping B (mind-affecting abilities) actually changes the way the targets mind operates.

The former does nothing to deprive the subject of free will (not that they have it anyway); the latter does.

When did I say my statement was based on the Mechanics of the skills? Everything I listed has the ability(in increasing magnitudes) of influencing a choice of another to the point of deciding that choice.

Charisma has a very minor influence and can only decide the choice of another when they were already heavily inclined towards that option already. Persuasion has more influence. Threats have even more. All the way to the other extreme(Mind Control) which can decide the choice of another even when they were already heavily inclined against that option.

I further went on to say that everyone that considers restraining free will to be wrong, chooses a point on this continuum. Below that point they consider the influence insignificant. You have chosen the mechanical divide between "skills" and "mind effecting abilities". Your choice in not invalid but neither is it proven nor universal.

Nitpick: Intimidate causes Fear. Fear is a Mind-effecting effect.

[Dalebert]

I further went on to say that everyone that considers restraining free will to be wrong, chooses a point on this continuum.

There's no continuum. There's a fundamental difference--a clear line between the two effects.


Nitpick: Intimidate causes Fear. Fear is a Mind-effecting effect.

Have you ever heard the expression that no one can make you feel a certain way?

A character is simply reacting to a change in his or her environment. Intimidation effects are completely external to your character (or an NPC). Their mind remains completely unaltered. That character is either inclined to be afraid or not which is reflected in whatever stat they're using to resist and possibly by circumstances (like say some character is inherently more afraid of orcs because of that character's history).

In any case, there's a fundamental difference, a hard line of distinction, between that change in someone's environment (e.g. an orc, an illusion of an orc) that they may or may not already be inclined to react to and actually injecting magic into them and altering their mind and how their mind reacts to their environment.

[OldTrees1]

There's no continuum. There's a fundamental difference--a clear line between the two effects.

Have you ever heard the expression that no one can make you feel a certain way?

A character is simply reacting to a change in his or her environment. Intimidation effects are completely external to your character (or an NPC). Their mind remains completely unaltered. That character is either inclined to be afraid or not which is reflected in whatever stat they're using to resist and possibly by circumstances (like say some character is inherently more afraid of orcs because of that character's history).

In any case, there's a fundamental difference, a hard line of distinction, between that change in someone's environment (e.g. an orc, an illusion of an orc) that they may or may not already be inclined to react to and actually injecting magic into them and altering their mind and how their mind reacts to their environment.

I have heard that expression. Try not to think of an Elephant.

Humans have the ability to effect the minds of other humans via their mere presence(causing memories), changing the factors for a decision(persuasion), or through even more intrusive means(conditioning or mental trauma). So yes mundane humans can exert a force that alters the minds of others. The magnitude of the force and the magnitude of the alteration are dependent on the method.

But I thought we were talking about Free Will not brain altering. Let us consider this argument.
P1) Free Will is unrestricted when there are no influences on the decision.
P2) Persuasion is the act of influencing a decision.
C) Persuasion restricts Free Will

Now this can result in the following worlds:
W1) Persuasion is an illusion hence Free Will is unrestricted by it.
W2) Persuasion exists but its restriction of Free Will is insignificant.
W3) Persuasion exists and its restriction of Free Will is not insignificant.

So while there may be a clear line between significant and insignificant on the continuum, it remains a continuum.

[Vogonjeltz]

When did I say my statement was based on the Mechanics of the skills? Everything I listed has the ability(in increasing magnitudes) of influencing a choice of another to the point of deciding that choice.

Charisma has a very minor influence and can only decide the choice of another when they were already heavily inclined towards that option already. Persuasion has more influence. Threats have even more. All the way to the other extreme(Mind Control) which can decide the choice of another even when they were already heavily inclined against that option.

I further went on to say that everyone that considers restraining free will to be wrong, chooses a point on this continuum. Below that point they consider the influence insignificant. You have chosen the mechanical divide between "skills" and "mind effecting abilities". Your choice in not invalid but neither is it proven nor universal.

Nitpick: Intimidate causes Fear. Fear is a Mind-effecting effect.

You didn't need to say that, that's how it is handled within the game. Those skills reflect mechanics behind the scenes, but it would be portrayed as the NPC making the decision, not having the decision made for it. We know these skills exist and work, but the characters do not.

re: nitpick, Fear effects are defined as "any spell or magical effect", which intimidate is not. It causes fear, and so fear immunity works against it, but it isn't mind-affecting, though it's unusable on the nonintelligent. So, for example, you can intimidate a Lich, but you can't intimidate a mindless Skeleton.

Mind-affecting is a spell descriptor, the Intimidate skill does not have it, though the Fear spell does.

Although the Intimidate skill shares some similarities to fear effects, it isn't one.

[OldTrees1]

You didn't need to say that, that's how it is handled within the game. Those skills reflect mechanics behind the scenes, but it would be portrayed as the NPC making the decision, not having the decision made for it. We know these skills exist and work, but the characters do not.
When a fluff question is asked, why would you presume I would answer with mechanics? I did not say I was talking about the mechanical abstraction because I was not talking about the mechanical abstraction.

[Miss Disaster]

You didn't need to say that, that's how it is handled within the game. Those skills reflect mechanics behind the scenes, but it would be portrayed as the NPC making the decision, not having the decision made for it. We know these skills exist and work, but the characters do not.

re: nitpick, Fear effects are defined as "any spell or magical effect", which intimidate is not. It causes fear, and so fear immunity works against it, but it isn't mind-affecting, though it's unusable on the nonintelligent. So, for example, you can intimidate a Lich, but you can't intimidate a mindless Skeleton.

Mind-affecting is a spell descriptor, the Intimidate skill does not have it, though the Fear spell does.

Although the Intimidate skill shares some similarities to fear effects, it isn't one.This is an excellent explanation of a rather complicated game mechanic. And to note, you have a number of spells that can cause the conditions of fear escalation (Shaken/Frighten/Panick/Cower), yet do not have the Fear or Mind-Affecting spell descriptors. Look at the spells Shadow Well and Howling Chain for example.

[Vogonjeltz]

When a fluff question is asked, why would you presume I would answer with mechanics? I did not say I was talking about the mechanical abstraction because I was not talking about the mechanical abstraction.

I didn't. I interjected that the fluff is modeled by game mechanics in different ways depending on the continued existence of free will (diplomacy/intimidate) or not free will (charm/compulsion).

My point was that though intimidate is coercive, it isn't restrictive of free will.

Side bar: how we define free will is substantially alterative of how we define restrictions on it.


This is an excellent explanation of a rather complicated game mechanic. And to note, you have a number of spells that can cause the conditions of fear escalation (Shaken/Frighten/Panick/Cower), yet do not have the Fear or Mind-Affecting spell descriptors. Look at the spells Shadow Well and Howling Chain for example.

Thank you, good note on the other non mind-affecting fear status adders.

[OldTrees1]

I didn't. I interjected that the fluff is modeled by game mechanics in different ways depending on the continued existence of free will (diplomacy/intimidate) or not free will (charm/compulsion).

My point was that though intimidate is coercive, it isn't restrictive of free will.

Side bar: how we define free will is substantially alterative of how we define restrictions on it.

Your side bar is more valid than your point.

If you define "restrict" as "eliminate", then your point is valid.
If you define "restrict" as "reducing", then my point is valid.
Bogs restrict movement, they do not eliminate it.

Intimidate does "restrict" free will in that it exerts a force on the decision. The force is of lesser magnitude than Mind Control which "restricts" free will by exerting a decisive force on the decision.

[Jeff the Green]

My point was that though intimidate is coercive, it isn't restrictive of free will.

As I mentioned above, under compatibilism (the position held by the majority of philosophers, and implicitly by just about every legal system, by the way) this is an entirely nonsensical sentence. Coercion definitially negates free will.

[OldTrees1]

As I mentioned above, under compatibilism (the position held by the majority of philosophers, and implicitly by just about every legal system, by the way) this is an entirely nonsensical sentence. Coercion definitially negates free will.
I would say coercion restricts free will, mild forms of coercion do not remove free will entirely.

[Jeff the Green]

I would say coercion restricts free will, mild forms of coercion do not remove free will entirely.

It depends entirely on your definition of free will. In compatibilism there isn't a difference. Once an agent is prevented from acting according to their motivation, such as by coercion, there is no free will. This is the position taken by every legal system I'm familiar with, under which you cannot form a contract while under duress and usually criminal actions are not in fact crimes if committed under duress.

I can't say whether that is the case under libertarian free will, largely because I don't think libertarian free will makes any sort of logical sense. And the other positions on the matter state that there is no free will at all, so the issue is moot.

[Vogonjeltz]

It depends entirely on your definition of free will. In compatibilism there isn't a difference. Once an agent is prevented from acting according to their motivation, such as by coercion, there is no free will. This is the position taken by every legal system I'm familiar with, under which you cannot form a contract while under duress and usually criminal actions are not in fact crimes if committed under duress.

I can't say whether that is the case under libertarian free will, largely because I don't think libertarian free will makes any sort of logical sense. And the other positions on the matter state that there is no free will at all, so the issue is moot.

Assuming free will even exists (I don't ascribe to this position), Coercion never prevents acting, so even a coerced party retains free will.

Compatibilism is descriptive of autonomy, not free will, which is the ability to actually choose between available options.

[Jeff the Green]

Compatibilism is descriptive of autonomy, not free will, which is the ability to actually choose between available options.

No, under compatibilism that is the definition of free will. Under compatibilism, which posits determinism, the libertarian version of free will is impossible but the ability to act according to one's motivation can meaningfully be called free will (and in fact is the only meaningful definition).

[Hubert]

Assuming free will even exists (I don't ascribe to this position), Coercion never prevents acting, so even a coerced party retains free will.

So if I point a weapon at someone and ask for all their money, I can say that they willingly gave it to me? :smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

No, under compatibilism that is the definition of free will. Under compatibilism, which posits determinism, the libertarian version of free will is impossible but the ability to act according to one's motivation can meaningfully be called free will (and in fact is the only meaningful definition).

Free will under determinism is the capability to make uninfluenced choices, standard free will is the ability to make choices, and determinism dictates there are no choices at all, just the illusion of choice for lack of perspective.

That's three different possibilities that do not agree.


So if I point a weapon at someone and ask for all their money, I can say that they willingly gave it to me? :smallbiggrin:

Under duress, which would still likely land you in jail