Is Mind Control an evil action?

[mehs]

Essentially if you keep casting compulsion spells like charm person or such on people, including allies, would that eventually affect your alignment?

[jdizzlean]

since the spell doesn't have the evil desciptor, it would depend entirely upon what you're trying to get your target to do, which would purely be a function of roleplay as to whether your alignment would ever change.

[mehs]

So far the guy is using charm person type spells (specifically hidden diplomacy) to be able to be an annoying person and still have the party put up with him.

[Mnemius]

Evil? not by itself.

Depriving others of free will? I can see the chaos folks being upset with it more.
Though, the law types probably have issues with it too.

Personally, my bard character (who was all about free will and self-determination, found it... distasteful.)

<reads board rules> And... I think that's as far as I can go.

[Anteros]

By the rules it's not evil. By common sense it is. It's just going to depend on what your DM and your group feel.

[Elysiume]

Depends on what you're doing with it. I'd say that compulsion magic starts on the evil side of neutral; depriving people of their free will to suit your ends is pretty far from good. That's not to say that you can't use Dominate Person in pursuit of a good goal, but the waters are muddied when you delve into the ends justifying the means. That's a pretty gigantic discussion in and of itself, so I won't go into it. If you're just casting Charm Person at random for amusement because you find it funny to forcibly control someone's mind, it's somewhere towards chaotic evil. I'd hesitate to call it CE (the threshold for CE is incredibly high by the guidelines in the CRB), but it's definitely not lawful and it's definitely not good.

Casting Charm Person (or another spell on the spectrum of mind control) on an ally should result in losing an ally pretty quickly. My characters wouldn't remain allies with someone who cast Charm Person on them any more than I would remain friends with someone who spiked my drink. It's a massive violation of self and even if they didn't do anything to take vulnerable of my compromised state it's still something I'd consider unforgivable.

Finally, if a player is doing something entirely to annoy the party that's a problem that isn't solved with an alignment shift. Talk to them out of character or kick them out of the group unless you're one hundred percent confident that you have an in-game solution to the out-of-game problem.

[Psyren]

So far the guy is using charm person type spells (specifically hidden diplomacy) to be able to be an annoying person and still have the party put up with him.

Is he doing that to the party? Because that's a no-no. Also Diplomacy only works on NPCs, for that side of things.

[Crake]

I have had DMs who unwaveringly call using dominate flat out evil, and refuse to budge on their stance, soooo, if this is for a practical game, the only answer that matters is your DM's, you should ask him.

Personally, I say dominate is anti-freedom, not evil. If you think it's evil, then you must also think penetentiaries are evil.

[DeTess]

Personally, I say dominate is anti-freedom, not evil. If you think it's evil, then you must also think penetentiaries are evil.

The better comparison with dominate would be slavery, not prison imho.

As others have said, by RAW its not evil, but this is something many DM's can and will have opinions on. Personally, jedi mind-trick style stuff to get past guards and the like isn't that much of an issue alignment-wise, but dominate based minionmancy almost certainly is.

[Crake]

The better comparison with dominate would be slavery, not prison imho.

As others have said, by RAW its not evil, but this is something many DM's can and will have opinions on. Personally, jedi mind-trick style stuff to get past guards and the like isn't that much of an issue alignment-wise, but dominate based minionmancy almost certainly is.

I mean, historically, penetentiaries have been used as slave labour, taking people down to the mines, or building railroads, etc etc.

[Psyren]

I mean, historically, penetentiaries have been used as slave labour, taking people down to the mines, or building railroads, etc etc.

Well, lots of historical acts were not necessarily moral ones - but of course, that's about as specific as we're likely to get away with here.

Sticking within the bounds of D&D specifically, BoED has this to say:


Also within the context of respectful relationships, good characters exercise caution in the use of compulsion magic to force others’ behavior. Spells such as dominate person, geas, and suggestion allow a caster to control another person, robbing that person of free will. This may not be an inherently evil act, but it certainly carries a tremendous ethical responsibility. Forcing anyone to commit an evil act, of course, is evil. Furthermore, a creature under compulsion should be treated the same as a helpless prisoner, since that creature no longer poses a threat, at least for the duration of the spell. Once an enemy is dominated, for example, he should not be killed, but shown mercy and treated the same as a prisoner who had willingly surrendered. (The same holds true for charmed and compelled creatures.)

Basically, dominate is allowed, but you have a "tremendous ethical responsibility", which makes it difficult (but not impossible) to avoid crossing that line. I wouldn't use prison as an analogy myself, it should be a more temporary arrangement to get the person to due process.

[hamishspence]

Personally, jedi mind-trick style stuff to get past guards and the like isn't that much of an issue alignment-wise, but dominate based minionmancy almost certainly is.

The Mindbender PRC from Complete Arcane has "any nongood" as one of its limitations - and is basically a minionmancer.

[Segev]

In theory, especially if he's just using Diplomacy checks (which don't work on PCs, by the RAW, but let's ignore that for a moment), he's making himself NOT annoying to the party, but rather an amusing scamp whose antics are laugh-inducing in an "oh, you" sort of way. In practice, he's annoying the other PLAYERS if they didn't buy into this concept of his character and don't like what he's doing to the party. This is an OOC problem disguised as an IC one. Talk to the player about it; this is about everybody having fun at the table, not about the morals or ethics of the PC.

[Crake]

Well, lots of historical acts were not necessarily moral ones - but of course, that's about as specific as we're likely to get away with here.

Sticking within the bounds of D&D specifically, BoED has this to say:



Basically, dominate is allowed, but you have a "tremendous ethical responsibility", which makes it difficult (but not impossible) to avoid crossing that line. I wouldn't use prison as an analogy myself, it should be a more temporary arrangement to get the person to due process.

I mean, what is dominate if not imprisonment inside your own body, right?

[Serafina]

By the rules it's not evil. By common sense it is. It's just going to depend on what your DM and your group feel.Dominate spells are one of the best ways to peacefully resolve a conflict that might otherwise end lethally. By common sense, or rather most systems of morals and ethics, that's a vastly preferable outcome.
Sure it's not going to be pleasant for the person you're dominated to stop the violence, but it's going to be a lot better than being dead (or severely injured, which D&D rules account for very badly anyway).

Now, whether using Charm Person (or similar magic) to send away the evil empire guards who are trying to round up all the half-elves is any morally different than using the Bluff-skill - well, to a lot of people it will feel like it's different. It certainly opens up the whole can of ethics what free will even is - we can certainly manipulate other people just by talking to them, where's the moral boundaries to that? You're getting into complicated territory there.
But if you take a step back, and just look at the outcome and whether anyone was significantly harmed - well, certainly not more so than if you had used Bluff.

Stuff like this is why Charm and Dominate spells make perfect sense as non-evil, alignment-neutral spells. It's not evil magic, it's how you use it. Sure, it might be easy to use for evil purposes - but so can a Fireball.

[Resileaf]

Mind control in the sense where you keep someone your mindslave constantly would be evil, even if you were to use it on objectively evil people. Depriving someone of their free will for an extended duration wouldn't sit well with most people.
For short durations, such as stopping someone from doing something bad, or using it in the middle of battle to turn someone against their allies wouldn't be evil (certainly no more evil than throwing a fireball, at least).

[Psyren]

Dominate spells are one of the best ways to peacefully resolve a conflict that might otherwise end lethally. By common sense, or rather most systems of morals and ethics, that's a vastly preferable outcome.
Sure it's not going to be pleasant for the person you're dominated to stop the violence, but it's going to be a lot better than being dead (or severely injured, which D&D rules account for very badly anyway).

Now, whether using Charm Person (or similar magic) to send away the evil empire guards who are trying to round up all the half-elves is any morally different than using the Bluff-skill - well, to a lot of people it will feel like it's different. It certainly opens up the whole can of ethics what free will even is - we can certainly manipulate other people just by talking to them, where's the moral boundaries to that? You're getting into complicated territory there.
But if you take a step back, and just look at the outcome and whether anyone was significantly harmed - well, certainly not more so than if you had used Bluff.

Stuff like this is why Charm and Dominate spells make perfect sense as non-evil, alignment-neutral spells. It's not evil magic, it's how you use it. Sure, it might be easy to use for evil purposes - but so can a Fireball.

Thing is though - are you going to just keep them dominated forever? What stops them from just coming back to reignite hostilities when you're done subverting their will?

Domination is useful to transport a miscreant to a more enduring form of incarceration, but as a tool to end hostility on its own it's a bit lacking.

[Bohandas]

I'd call it closer to Lawful

[Eldonauran]

I, personally, see mind control (ie, the subversion of another's free will and/or the forceful realignment of a person's belief's or worldview) as no different than slavery. Placing constraints on a person's ability to ACT according to their free will (as in bondage or physical constraints) is a different matter depending highly on the context of the situation.

I judge it to be Evil in most contexts, though there might be some instances where it is amoral or not immoral. These instances are not just times were I think it would be permissible to use such methods even though I see them as wrong. They would be instances where there is no possible way to reason with or dissuade someone from an action (ie, insanity and the like). There must be some level of intelligence or reason to be offended by the actions in order for there to be some kind of moral determination.

Within the context of Pathfinder/D&D alignment, I am a bit looser on my view of it. It is not immoral (or it is amoral) until the person exercising the control makes it otherwise.

[the_david]

Is he doing that to the party? Because that's a no-no. Also Diplomacy only works on NPCs, for that side of things.Hidden Diplomacy, not diplomacy. It's a spell that let's you intimidate someone (With an intimidate check.) and then they forget it happened. So, maybe?

Would it be evil to cast Calm Emotions on a panicked crowd? Well, it would probably not be the best idea in most circumstances. Sometimes the fear just helps when you're running away from a firebreathing dragon. But sometimes it could save lives.

Mind control is more than just Charm/Dominate Person.

[Elkad]

Mind control is slavery. Possibly short term. Possibly with noble intentions. But still slavery.
Determining if the end justifies the means is the issue.

In one of my game worlds it is strictly forbidden by law and custom. Even something as little as charming your way past a guard, or into a better deal with a merchant, is subject to harsh punishment.
If you bend someone's (any 3+ Int creature's) will via magic, you'd best have a good reason (like mortal combat), and even then it is frowned upon.

On the other hand, most Necromancy is accepted.

[Psyren]

Hidden Diplomacy, not diplomacy. It's a spell that let's you intimidate someone (With an intimidate check.) and then they forget it happened. So, maybe?

Party members don't have attitudes, so this shouldn't work either.



Would it be evil to cast Calm Emotions on a panicked crowd? Well, it would probably not be the best idea in most circumstances. Sometimes the fear just helps when you're running away from a firebreathing dragon. But sometimes it could save lives.

Calm Emotions is indeed fine, but not really applicable here - it doesn't grant any form of control.

[mehs]

In theory, especially if he's just using Diplomacy checks (which don't work on PCs, by the RAW, but let's ignore that for a moment), he's making himself NOT annoying to the party, but rather an amusing scamp whose antics are laugh-inducing in an "oh, you" sort of way. In practice, he's annoying the other PLAYERS if they didn't buy into this concept of his character and don't like what he's doing to the party. This is an OOC problem disguised as an IC one. Talk to the player about it; this is about everybody having fun at the table, not about the morals or ethics of the PC.

The spell is called hidden diplomacy, but what the spell actually is is an intimidate check with the spell forcibly making you forget that any coercion was used on you. The intimidate check then forces you to act friendly/give limited aid for 1d6x10 min

[Psyren]

The spell is called hidden diplomacy, but what the spell actually is is an intimidate check with the spell forcibly making you forget that any coercion was used on you. The intimidate check then forces you to act friendly/give limited aid for 1d6x10 min

Again though, PCs don't have attitude levels, so this would have no effect if used on the party. That's the part I'm not clear on. Are they upset because he's using it on NPCs and hogging the spotlight, or because he's using it on his fellow PCs and forcing them to roleplay in a certain way? The latter should be shut down immediately if that's the case.

[Andreaz]

Personally, I say dominate is anti-freedom, not evil. If you think it's evil, then you must also think penetentiaries are evil.

Well, the real question is how much do you want to apply real world morality?

Because if you apply any real world morality, anti-freedom IS evil, for there's no consistent set of moral rules that is both universally applicable and not-murderous that disobeys "People have a right to their own lives", very much a pro-freedom setup.

I'd just keep it simple and ditch alignments.

[Psyren]

Well, the real question is how much do you want to apply real world morality?

We pretty much don't as that is against forum rules.

Per BoED, dominate is allowed (if used very carefully) so it isn't inherently evil in D&D, but it has very quick potential to go bad.

[Andreaz]

Mhmm. I'm fine with understanding mind control as a tool and thus solely dependent on how its used.

[BlueWitch]

To be honest, it could even count as a "Lawful" action since it has to do with Order and Control; albeit, forced.

But as for the thread title; it's only evil if you make them do something evil. On it's own, I'd say it was Neutral.

Whether it's Evil or Good has to do with what you order them to do.

[DeTess]

Whether it's Evil or Good has to do with what you order them to do.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that though. What if someone where to dominate you (or any other random neutral-ish passers-by) and order you to spend a year working for a good cause without compensation. Would you consider that a good act?

[King of Nowhere]

In my party the barbarian got a magical curse that caused him to become obsessed with gold and to go crazy at the sight of large amounts of gold.
We often had to dominate him to stop him from murdering people and steal gold. We never managed to find a permanent cure.
So, that's a perfectly non-evil use of compulsion.

But yes, most uses are evil. And messing up with people's brains "for the lulz" is definitely evil. Very evil.

In my campaign world, aside from a few special allowed cases, that kind of compulsion is regarded as 'similar in concept to rape, but potentially worse'. The guy in your group would elicit a large manhunt and would face a long jail sentence

[icefractal]

IMO, of course -
Short term mind control is acceptable in the same situations where physical restraint would be. Someone's about to throw a Molotov at a crowd? Mind control to stop them is fine, and so would tackling them be.

Long term mind control is basically slavery. On the one hand, still better than death if it's not permanent, right? On the other hand, it creates a perverse incentive, much like asset forfeiture. On the third hand, the entire "kill them and take their stuff" concept is a massive perverse incentive itself ... adventurers are a sketchy concept if you think too hard about it.

Stuff like Charm Person isn't as big, but still seems unethical without a very good reason. What would you think about someone who slips drugs into people's drinks to make a better impression?

[awa]

IMO, of course -
Short term mind control is acceptable in the same situations where physical restraint would be. Someone's about to throw a Molotov at a crowd? Mind control to stop them is fine, and so would tackling them be.

Long term mind control is basically slavery. On the one hand, still better than death if it's not permanent, right? On the other hand, it creates a perverse incentive, much like asset forfeiture. On the third hand, the entire "kill them and take their stuff" concept is a massive perverse incentive itself ... adventurers are a sketchy concept if you think too hard about it.

Stuff like Charm Person isn't as big, but still seems unethical without a very good reason. What would you think about someone who slips drugs into people's drinks to make a better impression?

On the at least its better than death, not always. A lot of people would rather be dead than harm their friends or family. Imagine the survivors guilt, real people can feel suicidal due to guilt when their comrades died and they didn't just because of random chance. Imagine if they were forced to cut down those comrades with their own hands forced to watch unable to stop themselves. Think of their comrades forced to fight against one of their own who they recognize cant control themselves.

In my personal opinion Is dominate always evil? No it depends on what you do with it. However it is incredibly easy to perform horrific acts with it and is most useful functions are probably borderline evil. I would suspect most people are extremely nervous around enchantment specialist maybe not quite as bad as necromancers and demon summoners but not by much. The kind of person who thinks yes stealing the will of those around me is my lifelong ambition maybe not the kinda guy you want to wander around unattended.

In regards to law vs evil, i dont think that applies, control over disorder, is law and chaos but that's more a philosophical problem and it breaks down fast when people are involved. Freedom vs security might fall on the law chaos axis but being made a slave hurts the slave (ignoring rare edge cases) and hurting people unnecessarily is evil. And long term mind control is worse then slavery a slave can if nothing else choose death a dominated or mind raped individual cannot.

[jintoya]

The spell he's using should not work on a PC, mainly due to the fact that just because you are intimidated doesn't mean you won't act in the contrary to his interests.
Further more as stated above, players don't have an attitude chart... That's up to the player, so I'd just punch him (in game) next time he starts that, you should try talking to him first, but if he just shrugs and continues...

On the point of mind domination type magics, if say they are just a little lawful evil, if used long term, really lawful evil. Domination is what demons are all about.

[awa]

The spell he's using should not work on a PC, mainly due to the fact that just because you are intimidated doesn't mean you won't act in the contrary to his interests.
Further more as stated above, players don't have an attitude chart... That's up to the player, so I'd just punch him (in game) next time he starts that, you should try talking to him first, but if he just shrugs and continues...

On the point of mind domination type magics, if say they are just a little lawful evil, if used long term, really lawful evil. Domination is what demons are all about.

i dont think law applies, if you randomly mind-control people that's chaotic (and evil) if you force them to go go on a random killing spree just for fun that is even more chaotic (and evil)

nit pick i think you mean devils, but even so orcs are big on domination as well, slaves are popular among most evil races not just the lawful ones.

[jintoya]

i dont think law applies, if you randomly mind-control people that's chaotic (and evil) if you force them to go go on a random killing spree just for fun that is even more chaotic (and evil)

nit pick i think you mean devils, but even so orcs are big on domination as well, slaves are popular among most evil races not just the lawful ones.
I always mix demons and devil's up unless I have the reference right in front of me, so thank you for the correction.
And I agree that if you did it for a purpose, then the act you command of them may be any alignment, and I'd agree that it would override the lawful/evil nature of it.

But by itsef, I'd say the spell is mostly about exerting control over another person and bringing them to heel. Thus, lawful/neutral.
If used with a command, that has a clear alignment, then I'd say it's aligned more strongly with the command given than anything, making it a variable alignment spell

[Bohandas]

i dont think law applies, if you randomly mind-control people that's chaotic (and evil) if you force them to go go on a random killing spree just for fun that is even more chaotic (and evil)

It's lawful because it creates a heirarchial structure

EDIT:

I'd also argue against it being evil because of its enormous potential for non-violent conflict resolution

[ezekielraiden]

It's lawful because it creates a heirarchial structure

EDIT:

I'd also argue against it being evil because of its enormous potential for non-violent conflict resolution

But it's Chaotic because it's obedience purely due to the weak being pushed around by the strong. The moment the strength is gone, so is any alleged structure. We can do this all day, so I have no interest in continuing this type of thing as a back-and-forth. Just noting that pithy, hyper-focused quips rarely work for characterizing the alignment of an action.

And if you believe the only form of violence is physical, I don't know how to help you. Most of the violence we do to one another IRL contains no physical injury. I certainly agree that mind control (generally) includes no physical violence, but it is still a violent act. And I'll also grant that most D&D worlds don't include death as a direct side effect of mind control abilities, so it's certainly fair to say that it's a less-lethal-methods approach. That doesn't make it nonviolent. Nor would its purported nonviolence make it Good. Slavers also use nonviolent methods because damaged slaves are less valuable, and slavery is quite clearly evil in D&D.

You have violated the mind of another. If you do so merely to subdue or transport without risking greater harm, then it's mental handcuffs--still violent, still the removal of body autonomy, but at least in pursuit of a noble goal, and preferably only undertaken when alternatives are scarce. Hence, unaligned. What you do with it matters. Similarly, using a geas to ensure a prisoner obeys parole would be Lawful but probably not Good, as the spell is used to ensure compliance with a preexisting legal determination, while "mess with someone's head" type uses would seem pretty clearly Chaotic.

Ironically, it sounds like the BoED actually has the right call. The context, purpose, and method of use determine the alignment of the spell. I respect anyone who commits to a philosophical reason for calling it Evil (e.g. violation and total removal of agency is true evil always), but disagree with that conclusion myself.

[awa]

But it's Chaotic because it's obedience purely due to the strong being pushed around by the weak. The moment the strength is gone, so is any alleged structure. We can do this all day, so I have no interest in continuing this type of thing as a back-and-forth. Just noting that pithy, hyper-focused quips rarely work for characterizing the alignment of an action.



this
using force to make people do what you want is not inherently lawful otherwise almost every evil race would be lawful regardless of how or why they do it.

[ezekielraiden]

this
using force to make people do what you want is not inherently lawful otherwise almost every evil race would be lawful regardless of how or why they do it.

That said, it helps if I use the phrase in the correct order (I had accidentally swapped strong and weak which...made it a little weird. It's fixed now.)

[Elkad]

this
using force to make people do what you want is not inherently lawful otherwise almost every evil race would be lawful regardless of how or why they do it.

There is a difference between force and domination. I have a choice if it's force. That choice might be to have you kill me in some horrible way, but it's still there.

[jintoya]

It's only chaotic if you use it to undermine rule and order, otherwise I'd argue that it, as a standalone act without orders, is lawful.
The creation of a new order to supercede the old
(Your orders superceding their free will)
Does not make it chaos... Just MORE order.
If a bad guy kills another bad guy, he is not a good guy.
So if one order trumps another order, it's not chaos.

Edit:
Chaotic types love free will, this is the polar opposite of this, putting something free in chains and constraining it, is lawful, good or evil.
For an example of this, you need look no further than... Any governed society ever.

[awa]

Edit:
Chaotic types love free will, this is the polar opposite of this, putting something free in chains and constraining it, is lawful, good or evil.
For an example of this, you need look no further than... Any governed society ever.

chaotic types love free will for themselves, whether they want to share it with everyone else is a matter of their own good or evil. A chaotic evil warlord forcing every one to obey his arbitrary whims or die is not spreading free will and he is not creating order (because his whims are not consistent enough to be a code of law). Mind control is not inherently chaotic or lawful what you do with it and how you use it determines that.

[jintoya]

chaotic types love free will for themselves, whether they want to share it with everyone else is a matter of their own good or evil. A chaotic evil warlord forcing every one to obey his arbitrary whims or die is not spreading free will and he is not creating order (because his whims are not consistent enough to be a code of law). Mind control is not inherently chaotic or lawful what you do with it and how you use it determines that.
Alright, but we are evaluating the spell itself.
I agree that if you use a spell for evil, that usage specifically is evil, similarly if you use it for good, that specific casting of the spell is good.

Without any specific command, it is simply "just obey me" which is lawful

The rest of it is "you no longer have any will of your own" which I think is more open to interpretation, but let's say you were the true neutral victim of this spell... You likely would rather avoid being bent to someone's will... So I'd consider it evil... How you use it is going to override this as the situation is unlikely to be this cut and dry

[awa]

Without any specific command, it is simply "just obey me" which is lawful



I disagree but at this point I think we have both made are position clear and their is not really any further benefit to arguing on this particular aspect any longer.

[jintoya]

I disagree but at this point I think we have both made are position clear and their is not really any further benefit to arguing on this particular aspect any longer.

Perhaps, I think where I disagreed with you was on "the strong pushing around the weak is chaos" I'm paraphrasing, but to me.... That is what a government is... And it's decidedly lawful.

Anyways, good debate... At a certain point we are just splitting hairs, and that's not really productive

[mehs]

But it's Chaotic because it's obedience purely due to the weak being pushed around by the strong. The moment the strength is gone, so is any alleged structure. We can do this all day, so I have no interest in continuing this type of thing as a back-and-forth. Just noting that pithy, hyper-focused quips rarely work for characterizing the alignment of an action.

And if you believe the only form of violence is physical, I don't know how to help you. Most of the violence we do to one another IRL contains no physical injury. I certainly agree that mind control (generally) includes no physical violence, but it is still a violent act. And I'll also grant that most D&D worlds don't include death as a direct side effect of mind control abilities, so it's certainly fair to say that it's a less-lethal-methods approach. That doesn't make it nonviolent. Nor would its purported nonviolence make it Good. Slavers also use nonviolent methods because damaged slaves are less valuable, and slavery is quite clearly evil in D&D.

You have violated the mind of another. If you do so merely to subdue or transport without risking greater harm, then it's mental handcuffs--still violent, still the removal of body autonomy, but at least in pursuit of a noble goal, and preferably only undertaken when alternatives are scarce. Hence, unaligned. What you do with it matters. Similarly, using a geas to ensure a prisoner obeys parole would be Lawful but probably not Good, as the spell is used to ensure compliance with a preexisting legal determination, while "mess with someone's head" type uses would seem pretty clearly Chaotic.

Ironically, it sounds like the BoED actually has the right call. The context, purpose, and method of use determine the alignment of the spell. I respect anyone who commits to a philosophical reason for calling it Evil (e.g. violation and total removal of agency is true evil always), but disagree with that conclusion myself.


Would think it is more towards LE as specifically in pathfinder, asmodeus' whole thing is "free will is for chumps" with a heavy portion of tyranny, slavery, etc. That and bureaucratic infighting within the constraints of the ordered system pretty much sums up devils.

[FaerieGodfather]

The intent of the rules appears to be that Enchantment is more Evil than any other school, and Good spellcasters may use charm and compulsion spells casually as long as they don't use them to cause serious harm to people who don't deserve it.

Despite my violent personal feelings on this subject, that's about how I handle it in my games. The only way for the festering contradictory gibberish of D&D's alignment morality system to function in a campaign is by committing to reference it as little as humanly possible and absolutely reject any of the moral logic presented by its designers as the natural morality f the setting.

[Bohandas]

I'd also argue against it being evil because of its enormous potential for non-violent conflict resolution

On a related note, curses are also not inherently evil. The one that makes you lose combat actions could replace prisons.

[jintoya]

On a related note, curses are also not inherently evil. The one that makes you lose combat actions could replace prisons.

I think they largely get the evil tag because they use negative energy and are also largely used by the bad guys...I use curse spells for the funny... Making a diplomat break wind in the middle of social encounters is still a curse.