Virtually no one at this point is even arguing against the idea of "consequences", but about how these consequences should manifest specifically.
...Understanding if it was to the target's benefit?
...Annoyed if it was inconsequential, but still undermining free will?
...Angry if it undermined their free will and it was negative?
...Violent if they don't like you and you undermined their free will?
Whenever they realize what happened.
...What are you asking, exactly?
I can't honestly tell how what I said relates to what you answered.
Eh, not asking. Just wondering about viable means of responding for NPCs based on a given circumstance.
-I said something about not wanting to limit enchantment spells and their consequences.
-You said that the problem isn't the existence of the spells and their consequences, but how those consequences should manifest.
-I imagined four contexts for NPC responses as a manifestation of consequences. But I think it can just be a "mild" response, a "negative" response that is not hostile, and a "hostile" response that requires a roll or starts combat.
That's on me for using question marks to denote suggestions rather than questions.
To add, the way consequences currently manifest are not bad universally in my opinion, but there is only one way that NPCs respond. So it makes sense for the response we have to occur in some circumstances, but context needs to matter. The best way to address the context is through a typology of:
-A situation where the NPC recognizes the spell was for good or not a big deal.
-A situation where the NPC is mad that the spell occurred but otherwise does not or cannot do anything about it.
-A situation where the NPC is mad and will become hostile if not talked down or managed.