| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bandits are usually lawless, so it's likely the law wouldn't care. As long as you do it out of sight, people in general won't know about it or care. As for alignment, personally I see no issues in it when it's a murderer with no remorse and you're doing it to get info rather than to get your personal assistant.
Third Mind... its entirely up to you.
I mean.. it depends on a lot. would you or your GM consider standing by while some one is tortured to be evil? would saving them from that be too GOOD? does your character, knowing the mechanics of the spell, feel like its ultimately better to get the info through magic than allow the torture? would the bandit despise you afterward for violating her mind or would she feel like you saved her from suffering torture due to her own pride?
In this case its a matter that You your character and your GM have to balance.
Personally I am more interested in what a third person would think about your actions because as a GM my job is to represent all of those third person views.
Fair point. With the other characters involved it will be a fiasco either way really. I'm sure the guy that likes the bandit captain would prefer we only talk to her, which I honestly feel won't go anywhere of use. I am however willing to give it a shot before taking other actions, maybe we'll get lucky and just talk the hard headed bandit into giving us the information normally. I really doubt it, but one never knows.
We have one that thinks she should be killed for her crimes outright, one that I don't think really cares what happens to captured prisoners as long as a decision is made.
Honestly, the way the bandit character is portrayed, I almost believe she wouldn't give anything through torture, and if she did, it wouldn't be anything of much use.
Actually, now that I think about it, I'll probably just make sure to be in a different room when whatever interrogation goes down as I foresee a PC vs PC conflict in the end. I may offer the idea to the torturer (as he's a sorcerer) but I'd rather not bother with a potential PC scuffle.
As for what the bandit might think; she already despises all of us before we do anything, so despising me further doesn't weigh heavily on my or my character's conscience. Normal civilians in this particular world despise bandits.
With your original question, whether using Charm Person is bad I would agree with others that it depends on context and situation. It's not 100% evil all of the time, but can be used in evil ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a side note. You are not talking about the same Charm Person spell as the rest of us. It is the opposed charisma check clause that makes Charm Person a horrible spell, not the make friendly part, which is something that can be done by repeated diplomacy checks.Side-note:
I'm however against the vague nature of the spell description, so we houseruled it to simply set the target to "friendly" attitude. With it's high duration, it's still considered one of the better 1st level spells. I think that's by far enough effect for a 1st level spells - for giving orders there's command and suggestion which have their own drawbacks (duration and spell level respectively)
No, when discussing it I'm discussing it as written and it's social and moral implications. I argue from the perspective of it's effect in the RAW, not in my houserule.
In fact your house ruling of Charm Person is a tacit admission that the version printed is abusive.
Yes, but that's not really what we're discussing.
This is not a side note. You are not talking about the same Charm Person spell as the rest of us. It is the opposed charisma check clause that makes Charm Person a horrible spell, not the make friendly part, which is something that can be done by repeated diplomacy checks.
I think you misunderstand. I think she means that the spell ONLY makes the target friendly, period. they remove the charisma check to force actions entirely.
on a side note...
not the make friendly part, which is something that can be done by repeated diplomacy checks.
though in terms of game mechanics its more aesthetic than anything the difference between diplomacy and charm is that your persuading instead of using outside influence (magic) to force a change.
mechanically the biggest difference is that a diplomacy check takes some time (a minute by RAW) while charm takes 3 to 6 seconds. also a GM can more easily modify the DC of a diplomacy taking into account a bunch of variables including how many times you have tried or how much effort you have put into the influencing of the person...
So. Because my multiple-times good-faith attempts at answers are apparently "dodging" and thus not good enough, it's time to cast ... twice! But I'll be nice and hide it behind spoilers, 'cause I like people.
It all depends on what you ask of the person in question. If he tried to kill you, get real, it's no big deal. In fact, if you want to save his life, charming him might be the only option you have. A more common application, I think, would be countering prejudice. Say that you come to a nice little village, where they loathe outsiders. You are passing through, but you need directions. Nobody will give you the time of day to even answer your questions, except for one guy who told you to go down to the river and drown yourself. With a charm person, you can get reasonably trustworthy information quickly and be on your way.
It is a tool. Not a safe one in all applications by any means, but a tool, and as such, it is not bad in and of itself.
This is far different from, in Ilja's terms, "a little cold".
Further, I'm not negating your opinion. It's still you're opinion. I'm getting necessary aid, because I'm lost without it.
Put yourself in the place of a stranger. You don't know where you are. You're friendly enough (or you try to be) but everyone you meet is both cold and refuses to talk to you (except one that insults you). In your terms, Blue, this would be the original post and the situation that you've found yourself in. The question is, "Why?" Why is everyone that way? Did you do anything? Certainly not on purpose. But if you've offended, and no one talks to you, you can't know how. It's a culture clash. It's also prejudice.
People have a right to their opinions, but they also have responsibility to others. Prejudice - at least in the sense that you hate someone else for no fault of their own - is wrong. Inherently. You can have it, but it's wrong. What's worse is acting on it. People in said village might not like outsiders, but there's nothing preventing them from lending aid to someone who needs it, except their own wicked ways.
And what did the Charmer do in the situation? Ask for directions. Not water, not food, not shelter, not a pleasant conversation, but directions. It might take a few minutes of their time, but there is no reason for them to be rude. A swift "I don't know." would suffice, if true. The example above, however, is cruel.
Now, we don't know why said group hates outsiders. In the real world, there's all sorts of reasons, so I can imagine they exist in fantasy cultures as well, and more so. Maybe they believe that all outsiders are devil worshipers. Maybe they believe that talking to one steals their soul. Maybe they just don't like people with a certain skin color or type of ears. We don't know. It doesn't matter, though, because they are wrong. The traveler in the post (who is "you", by the by) is a) passing through, and b) asking for directions. That's it. You've done nothing wrong (and presumably you, being yourself, are not out to do great evils). Being unable to sway their opinions, how would you suggest morally proceeding?
I boil this down to:
"It's wrong to use magic to remove my right to have my own opinion."You boil this down to:
"It's wrong to use magic to negate hateful prejudice and get along well with neighbors."
Yes, exactly. There are occasions when someone is, in fact, wrong. Not to have opinions, but to act on them.
I can believe the President (doesn't matter which, pick one) is a bad, evil man who loves nothing but himself and seeks to undermine the country (seriously: this is every president ever, depending on who you ask). I'm wrong, but I can believe that, and I have the right. However, regardless of the right to my belief, I don't have the right to act on that belief. That's why John Wilkes Booth was an awful person. He had an opinion (his right) and he acted on it (not his right).
In this case someone has an opinion (their right) and they act on it (not their moral right).
This opinion is prejudice. Literally, that is what their opinion is. You, the traveler, wish to get along with them, but that is impossible. You need directions, but no one will give them to you. You are in a strange (but charming!) town. What do you do?
You're saying they have the right to their own opinion, which means that they have a right to prejudice and, by default, if true, that means it would be wrong to use charm magic to negate prejudice. Which is what I said your position equates to.
Without an option like Charm Person, the only "moral" choice would be to try to convince someone of something. Curing is nice and all, but if there's no cause to use it, oh well. Prestidigitation is great, until the people accuse you of witchcraft, or trying to distract them to steal their stuff (because, remember, they loathe outsiders, and given human nature - admittedly presuming the town is human - that means most people will come up with excuses to continue their prejudice).
Here's another set of examples, based on your posits.
Let's say someone kicks my dog. I don't like that! However, that doesn't give me the right to treat anyone else poorly. Doing so is wrong on my part, especially when they're in genuine need.
Let's say I've had a bad day. I'm mad! However, that doesn't give me the right to treat anyone else poorly. Doing so is wrong on my part, especially when they're in genuine need.
Let's say I'm racist. I hate those stupid gnomes! However, that doesn't give me the right to treat anyone else poorly. Doing so is wrong on my part, especially when they're in genuine need.
In such a situation, it's not "wrong" to persuade someone (without magic) that you're not their foe to get directions. Not lying, persuading. We agree on that? However that requires high social skills. Some don't have that luxury. That also requires time. Some don't have that luxury either.
So, if the only thing you're doing is convincing them not to hate you long enough to get directions (which was the original position), you're only doing the same thing faster.
This is literally using charm person to negate prejudice. That is what this is.
When I read your opinion on the matter I get the feeling that your trying to shoe horn the example into one where influencing the persons opinion is... not so bad. your implying the caster is obviously benevolent and nice, the target is obviously horrible and bad, and so forcibly changing his opinion is ultimately OK.
Racism is bad. Inherently bad. I'm not implying anything about the caster, I'm only going with what the original example gave: the caster would charm the guy, get directions, and leave without doing anything else. That's it.
Well, there's that. NEXT!
As I said, to answer your question directly in this new situation, given that people saw the event, knew enough about magic to realize what was going on, and the caster was dumb enough to do so obviously, well, yes, they'd hate him more. Except they already hated him, so he's not really any worse off, and he's got his directions, and he did no lasting harm to the guy he charmed (in the original situation).
As to your original situation, given the variables you gave, I've done my best to give you a good faith answer. You said that you left out information on purpose. Also, you have your own prejudice (but a different type than the above) as to what the "right" answer is - and that's fine, in this case. But let's look at the OP again:
The party captures two assassins who just tried to kill them in the middle of a tavern. The rogue takes one to a corner and starts applying 'physical discomfort' in order to find out who sent them. The Bard walks over to the other one whispers a few magic words and the assassin immediately begins to fawn over the bard answering every question, obviously under the effects of some mind effecting spell.
How would you say the other patrons of the tavern and later the rest of the town would view the comparative methods?
The party captures two assassins. You did not clarify whether or not the patrons knew they were assassins, just that they were. Ergo, it's up to us to decide if the patrons knew or not. The matter-of-fact way you indicate they are assassins, indicates that the patrons (who likely witnessed the event, as they are there) would likely have realized they were assassins. This would generally bias people against the assassins (unless they are 'pro-assassin' kind of people, but that's specifics you didn't give so...).
The assassins attacked the party in the middle of a tavern. This would generally bias people against the assassins (again, barring specifics you didn't give).
The rogue uses 'physical discomfort'. You don't quantify 'physical discomfort', however, given the earlier part of your post...
most people think that torture to get information from the enemy is pretty bad if not flat out evil.
a common answer to this is, use charm person.
but I recently had a debate with some one who made a very valid argument that using charm person is just as bad as torture.
... it's pretty straight forward that by 'physical discomfort' you mean 'torture'. I linked to three different locations about torture above so we're all now aware of what torture means. It's awful.
The bard "walks over to the other one whispers a few magic words and the assassin immediately begins to fawn over the bard answering every question, obviously under the effects of some mind effecting spell", which indicates that the patrons a) know about magic spells, and b) know that the character in question is a bard. No, you didn't say that they knew, but by not supplying counter information, you indicated it was a known, accepted variable. You also describe the effects of Charm (which you indicated, but did not outright say, was what the bard did) in a strange way that makes the assassin seem like a very odd person indeed. I certainly don't fawn all over my best friends. Hug them, sure, but not fawn over them, and I hug all sorts of people.
Given that, you ask...
How would you say the other patrons of the tavern and later the rest of the town would view the comparative methods?
Given that, I'd say that a) the patrons are pretty hard core because they stayed for their drinks and/or came back into the tavern shortly after assassins showed up and started trying to kill people, and b) would thus likely not care very much so long as the torture didn't disturb them (though it likely would, 'cause, you know, torture). Also, I'd suggest that people likely begin to have prejudices against rogues (and possibly bards) rather than "magic users" in general, as they know (again, as indicated) that there was a rogue and a bard. "Everyone" (I use the term loosely) would likely - in general, as opposed to in specific - view the torture as bad, 'cause, you know, torture. "Everyone" (again, the term is used loosely) would likely think, "Hey, at least the charmed guy isn't being tortured like that other one." or something similar. 'Cause, you know, torture.
To come to the conclusion that you have by way of your friend's argument (that charm is just as bad), you must presume:
- People must know enough about magic to know that it can mess with peoples' heads, but not enough to know why or how, or the ultimate effects.
- People must know enough about what's happening to know that assassins are involved.
- People must have stayed around long enough or came back quickly enough that they caught the PCs 'in the act'.
- People must be afraid of what they don't understand.
Those are entirely valid presumptions, but they weren't given in the OP.
So, there's that!
Also, your friend persuading you to change your mind about Charm? Totally exactly like the effects of Charm. I'd be suspicious of your fiend, if I were you. :)
Also, also, "killing people" isn't bad, unless it's done in the (pulling out a random number) 95% of cases in which it's bad. It entirely depends on the context. Yes, that's really how I answer that question.
In Pathfinder, killing evil people (like Assassins) isn't bad, and isn't generally seen as bad by the populous at large. Neither would charming them to prevent them from doing bad things. (BAM! Again a lack of dodging!)
So now to the crux of why it makes you uncomfortable: magic as a kind of "trick". It's not "honest", in your opinion, because it compels them to change their opinion.
Okay, but that's not true: a charmed person is still themselves with all of their current opinions, except they ignore their own opinion reference the caster. I can see the argument made that this is 'dishonest' somehow, but if you're straightforward and up front about it... it's not. I've got a psion who uses charm liberally with villains. Is he being dishonest? Not really. He usually even informs them that they've been charmed. He'll also usually dispel it and then duel them to the death one-on-one after arranging for a "fair" (more or less - presuming mostly the same basic value of equipment) duel. In this case, Charm isn't used for a dishonest gain, but to ensure honesty on all parts. Creepy? Sure, it can be, if you look at it that way. Wicked? Nope. Dishonest? Hard to be dishonest when you're telling someone how you're supposedly being dishonest.
In the end, it's pretty much entirely how you choose to look at it. So, you know, context matters.
I'm glad I finally figured out that the OP isnt asking 'what do you think people would think' and 'what do you think people *should* think' and instead is just asking 'what do you think.
Its when you try to justify your own views that seems to be the problem, because your justification for your opinion often includes issues like familiarity with magic, studies in the minutiae of one's perception of alignment... What you believe others would think, what you believe others should think... All of which the OP isnt truly interested in.
Simply "What would you think"
I know.. It took me like 200 posts to get clear on that.
He's not asking where do you think the line should be drawn, he's asking where do you draw the line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tacticsalon
the commoner on the issue of the commoner I understand that you believe the average commoner especially in that bar situation would basically feel that the charm person would be more acceptable than the torture. I understand, I get it, I respect that opinion and will take it into account if such a situation comes up. please accept that as my understanding and respect for that answer. Im not debating this part.
charming mean people In this situation I totally understand your view but let me restate your point as I think I understand it.
If i understand correctly your saying:
correct me if I am misunderstanding your point.
If I have the gist of it correct here is my answer.
I understand what your saying... I simply disagree.
I dont believe that you have any right, in fact I think its downright wrong, to force any one to change their opinion in any way even if its a harmless method for a harmless purpose. You have every right to try to convince the person to change their opinion, but you cant FORCE it.
Tact let me be clear, a person doesnt have to like me, doesnt have to agree with me, can think I am less than human, can do a lot of WRONG things. As long as they are not actively trying to harm me, cause others to harm me or through intentional inaction allowing me to come to harm I will fight and die for their right to their opinion and to act like a jerk.
Being unable to sway their opinions, how would you suggest morally proceeding?
the simple answer, move on.
the more complicated answer, try to sweet talk them, try to reason with them, say F-U and move on. Even if I had the power to magically and with absolutely no harm make him be nice to me I would not do it just for the sake of 'he is a jerk' or 'i don't like his attitude'so... are we understanding each other?
again, I understand you, I just dont agree. I honestly think this horse is dead and our two opinions could not be more clear.
Please dont throw in a tangent like "but what if you were starving and would die if you cant find food" because that is an entirely different situation.
@Tennengar, the original question was "what do you think the commoner would think" Im not really arguing that issue except to try and get people to address it without complicating it.
but a tangent has grown which is a debate over the morality of the act of charming some one. that is a side debate.
Blue (is it okay if I call you that?), I understand your opinion and, upon rereading my post, I could come across as harsh. I wasn't actually upset with you. I hope you know that! Despite my potentially harsh sounding words (which I tried to mitigate with smilies) I'm not upset. At all.
But, yes, we've stated each others' positions accurately.
The one point of contention about "moving on" (which I'd otherwise also advocate) is the word "need". As in you "need" directions. You can't move on without knowing where. So, again, morally, wat do? I'm genuinely curious, not for debate purposes, but for the purposes of, "At what point do needs take a back seat to individual rights to be petty."
We really need a Donkeyshow spell that makes people do unspeakable things to animals, and thus has the Evil descriptor.
Man what the
No no no no no no no no no
Text
First off, I want to say I don't think you're dodging anything - you've written good posts all through, even though I don't agree with you.
Further, I'm not negating your opinion. It's still you're opinion. I'm getting necessary aid, because I'm lost without it.
This is plain wrong though.
The first line of the charm person spell:
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally"
So if the persons opinion is "that person's a scum. I don't like him one bit and I don't want to have with him to do." then charm person is very drastically negating/changing that persons opinion - it's "forcing someone's opinion" taken to a literally extreme.
This is far different from, in Ilja's terms, "a little cold".
A bit, yes, but as always it depends on the circumstances. There may be reasons for them to loathe outsiders and be prejudiced against you. While my campaign world does not follow the "all orcs are evil" attitude, if an orc shows up in an elven village that has long been oppressed by outsiders - especially orcs - they have every reason not to show the orc to the nurtury even when it asks for directions and even if the orc's intentions IS in fact good. This is an extreme example (while it does fit the first description of the situation), but of course there's lots of areas inbetween where it's gray.
But regardless, prejudices don't have to be based on race. A peaceful halfling village may be prejudiced against strangers riding in with weapons by their side, because all their experiences with armed people has been negative. They have every right to not cooperate with a bunch of self-righteous strangers in armor that claim they're there on some mission that the halflings care nothing for, and forcing them to cooperate is something I would view as a directly evil act (not to speak about how the halflings would react) even if the force in question is an enchantment spell.
If an ogre camp led by a half-red dragon clad all in black armor with what seems to be a necklace of halfling skulls made one camp outside of the peaceful halfling village, and on the other side a group of unarmed gnome travelers made camp, would the halflings be acting evil for acting on their prejudice and keeping more watch over the ogres than the gnomes? Of course not, yet it's a decision made based on prejudice.
Again, that's an extreme example, but again, my point is that there are a lot of gray areas inbetween.
And if the half-dragon entered the halfling town and asked for directions, they have every right to deny the half-dragon this. Magically forcing one of the halflings to change his opinion on black-clad half-dragons and their ogre pals would in my book be an evil act, no matter how good the intentions.
So, if the ogres where a band of armed humans instead, would the halflings be more evil for denying them aid, and would the humans be less evil for forcing them to help them? In my opinion, not by much if any.
Blue is fine
the short answer is thats a totally different question and a straw-man argument. Your forcing the issue by using increasingly specific and unrealistic scenario until the only valid answer is the one you want to hear.
The long answer is moving on and figuring it out is always an option, figure it out, find it your self, Google maps it, pay someone to help you, ask a police officer or some other official who has a responsibility beyond the average citizen trying to figure out WHY they are refusing to help, etc.
However, if your forcing the issue to your own specific conclusion and the purpose for the directions is critical to the point that some one will die or be harmed without the directions then the dynamic has changed, we have now entered the realm of "through intentional inaction allowing me to come to harm" In that case after expressing my imminent need for the help to the best of my ability and offering to pay for the help I would then be forced to take action rather than looking around blindly until I drop dead. In which case I would STILL rather use a direct method like a lie or threatening them with physical harm than resort to magically twisting some ones mind with magic (or drugs).
Ilja, your point on charm and opinions is noted and correct. It does change opinions for a bit. :)
Blue, I'm glad it's fine! Underscores are a weakness of my typing. :)
As to your alternate options: again, we're operating under different uses of the word "need", and different base presumptions about "you", the traveler (and what world he was in).
If I were in a charming village in, say, Africa (a beautiful continent that I'd likely never find my way around given a thousand years), I'd likely not have the option of googling it. It would be far too dangerous for me to reasonably and justifiably strike out on my own. Presupposing the officers aren't part of the polled citizenry is also part of the presumptions. In this case, I need directions and there's really nothing I have. Persuasion is something that hasn't worked already (part of the situation, as prejudice has been clarified to not have allowed people to get the directions they need).
Alternatively, if I were someone of darker skin tone perhaps with less-than-enough funds finding myself in a very prejudiced small town somewhere is "in the middle of nowhere" in southern U.S., I might definitively need directions for all sorts of reasons, and might have no option for getting them (I know that I don't have anything resembling a modern cell, mine's old, and it gets terrible reception in many different places... hard to phone a friend). I'd have the same limitations as the above. Added bonuses include the fact that - regardless of what else is done, if I even look like I'm threatening someone, I'm going to go to jail (or worse).
Even more alternatively (and going with the spirit of the original question), if I found myself in, say, small town Ustalav, and I'm from, let's say the Mana Wastes, deposited there by magical flux, what can I do? Use my keen survival skills that I've never learned to live in the wild? Get myself arrested? What?
These are specific applications, sure. But they're specific applications that are just as valid as any other interpretation. We don't know why you, the traveler, are in said charming town, don't know why you "need" directions, and don't know why they hate you (other than prejudice). The idea is: you, the traveler, have done nothing wrong and intend nothing wrong, and just want to get out of there with as little fuss as possible.
I'm not trying to force you to come to my conclusion, at this point. I'm genuinely asking what is your interpretation of what would be best, which you answered. It's an answer I strongly disagree with, but alas, I'm not one for deceiving people or physically threatening them when I'm simply uncomfortable, even if it is necessary.
Necessary because, given enough time, I will die or be put through very terrible things for literally no fault of my own in the above situations. Because, you know, prejudice.
Here's the thing about fantasy racism. While profiling is a major and useful survival skill for players in most situations, if a guy (armed or not) is going around asking for directions, most any player I know would try to find out why. Townsfolk might not, but they may. It's highly unlikley that everyone would completely reject a guy just 'cause. It's far more likely that someone will take it upon themselves (unless the charmer looks brutishly powerful) to give the guy a lickin'. Which is also problematic, and entirely worthy of charming yourself out of a fight, to me. But that's not in the original presentation, so, I can't presume that.
Now the topic of charms and drugs (which is still valid to your OP, because it involves how people look at such things).
While there are some good comparisons between drugs and magic, they aren't the same thing.
For one, drugs require an introduction method that, if used quickly (instead of say, 'atmospheric enhancement', which also puts you at risk unless you have the appropriate attire... which just get weird, fast) require violence to enforce and grave risk of dealing injury to the person (from bent needles, shattered glass, potential disease, and other problems), or, if used without violence, requires substantial deception or at least some very good slight of hand. (Unless they're "in to that sort of thing" in which case we've got a very different conversation altogether.)
Further, there's always the chance that they have some sort of hidden allergy or unknown reaction to such things.
Charm is nothing like this. Charm is a spell with a limited duration which has no lasting effects (unless the GM wants it too, in which case, again, you're dealing with a different issue altogether).
As such, in my opinion, it can be a tool, like anything else, used for good or ill. And as such - dependent on the society, but presupposing, say, Andoranian, Chellaxian, Taldonian, or Varisian socieites - the ones in the Pathfinder campaign setting that would most likely have what you described in the OP occur - it would be generally preferable that people use charm instead of torture. Of course people would be creeped out by both the bard and the rogue, though, 'cause those guys got no decorum. They're just doing it right over there. How impolite and gauche.
They'd find it far less creepy than, say, an alchemist who actually just jabbed a guy with a sharp thing and suddenly - despite the violence they just saw applied - that new guy is looking all woozy and loves himself some of that alchemist. That's far more creepy, to me: violence that causes compliance... kind of like torture, really.
If I throw in 2 cents it's that the act of charming is chaotic, not evil.
However if we throw in other systems from other games, using the Force Persuade in Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic will almost always get you dark side points, or at least yelled at by your fellow Jedi companions. But only when the ends only mean that you get some sort of monetary or otherwise reward out of the deal. But to say Obi-Wan was evil for going "these aren't the droids you're looking for" would be kind-of silly.
So my stance is that it's Chaotic. It's just as "Evil" as having a Bluff of 50 and convincing the guy you're really his best friend at the local pub. It's not neutral as you're lying to the guy, you wouldn't need to charm person your friend, as it wouldn't do anything.
On the flip side, Paladins get Abadar's Truthtelling, this forces a character to say the truth no matter what. I would never make a paladin fall because he used a spell that's given to him for y'know, being a Lawful Good Paladin.
If I throw in 2 cents it's that the act of charming is chaotic, not evil.
Frankly, I see it more as 'lawful' than chaotic. It's more about a dictator's view of order and forcing everyone to live in harmony...
Chaotic is more "i'm right.. everyone else is wrong and I don't care..' Charm spells are more. "I'm right and everyone who doesn't agree with me... WILL agree with me" ;)
If I throw in 2 cents it's that the act of charming is chaotic, not evil.
However if we throw in other systems from other games, using the Force Persuade in Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic will almost always get you dark side points, or at least yelled at by your fellow Jedi companions. But only when the ends only mean that you get some sort of monetary or otherwise reward out of the deal. But to say Obi-Wan was evil for going "these aren't the droids you're looking for" would be kind-of silly.
So my stance is that it's Chaotic. It's just as "Evil" as having a Bluff of 50 and convincing the guy you're really his best friend at the local pub. It's not neutral as you're lying to the guy, you wouldn't need to charm person your friend, as it wouldn't do anything.
On the flip side, Paladins get Abadar's Truthtelling, this forces a character to say the truth no matter what. I would never make a paladin fall because he used a spell that's given to him for y'know, being a Lawful Good Paladin.
I would say just the opposite. The view that Ilja, and espescially Blue, have are extremely Chaotic. They are saying that no being should ever have their opinon changed, even if that opinion, and actions stemming from it, cause harm to another. Putting the opinion of one person above the well being of others is highly Chaotic. If anything, using Charm Person to force a person to behave in a civil manner would be Lawful. Just as rules force people to do things they might not want to do, or not do things they may want to do.
I'm not saying no being should have their opinion changed, and I don't think blue is either, just like I'm not saying no being should have a sword through their chest. I'm saying opinion alone - or refusal to cooperate with someone - isn't generally reason enough to do it. I'm against putting the [evil] descriptor on charm person just as I'm against it on the fireball spell, but casting either because someone doesn't like you is evil IMO.
If someone is planning to smash the wizard's head in? Go right ahead, not evil at all. Just like shoving a sword through their body wouldn't be evil. I even stated outright that in the OP's situations - to interrogate assassins - I'd not say it's evil.
Someone's refusing to give you directions? Forcing them to like you for something like that - whether on the tip of a blade or through Charm Person - is an evil act. How large depends on the circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say just the opposite. The view that Ilja, and espescially Blue, have are extremely Chaotic. They are saying that no being should ever have their opinon changed, even if that opinion, and actions stemming from it, cause harm to another.
I like how you ever so obviously ignored everything in my comments that makes me sound like a reasonable human being. I very clearly and on more than one post stated that I believe that a person has a right think and act as they chose as long as they do not cause harm, incite others to cause harm, or through intentional inaction allow others to come to harm. I also said you could not FORCE their change of opinion but you have every right to convince them to change their opinion as in through debate, education or some other direct and honest maner.
Your post is blatantly if not intentionally false. You don't have to agree worth me but doing your best to vilify through fallacy does not make your opinion more right.
Supreme, I appreciate your point, but I hope you see why I oppose using alignment in this debate. Mixing objective and subjective always leads to confusion and frustration.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say just the opposite. The view that Ilja, and espescially Blue, have are extremely Chaotic. They are saying that no being should ever have their opinon changed, even if that opinion, and actions stemming from it, cause harm to another.I like how you ever so obviously ignored everything in my comments that makes me sound like a reasonable human being. I very clearly and on more than one post stated that I believe that a person has a right think and act as they chose as long as they do not cause harm, incite others to cause harm, or through intentional inaction allow others to come to harm. I also said you could not FORCE their change of opinion but you have every right to convince them to change their opinion as in through debate, education or some other direct and honest maner.
Your post is blatantly if not intentionally false. You don't have to agree worth me but doing your best to vilify through fallacy does not make your opinion more right.
It might surprise you to learn that I do not think that holding free will to be sacrosanct is villainous. Free will is considered by some to be tantamount to life itself. I don't believe so myself, and I don't see Charm as inherently any worse than other forms of persuasion, simply more effective, but I don't think there's anything wrong with believing such a thing. (nor do I think that Chaotic means bad)
I do think that this thread has proven, however, that mundane persuasion cannot change an entrenched opinon. If the only way a lost person could get directions, or the victim of an attack can learn the identity of their enemy is Charm Person, then I cannot concieve of a reason it would be bad to do so. That you disagree makes you no less reasonable, but it does mean that you're placing free will above the lost person's wellbeing.
Scythia, you speak well.
The last paragraph is exactly the point I was trying to make, and I think you did so less insultingly than I (even though I was trying not to be).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since 373 posts is nowhere near enough, I'll throw in my two cents, from a slightly different perspective.
Perhaps it would be educational for people to consider how their characters feel, in-game, when Charm Person and other mind-bending spells are used against them.
I can tell you how I and others in my group feel about it. We hate it. With a passion. To the point, where the whole table objects to someone creating a big, dumb fighter with low wisdom. To the point that many of our characters have a violent and uncontrollable urge to do extreme physical violence to any creature they suspect of trying to charm them. That, of course doesn't mean we don't use it ourselves at times, but we generally do so only against obvious adversaries, and, hey, a little hypocrisy helps everyone sleep better at night.
Given how much our characters hate it, I think it's fair to extrapolate that many others would feel the same way, including bystanders watching it be done to someone else. At the very least, they would be apprehensive about the same thing being done to them and what they might be coerced/convinced into doing/revealing. Do, they hate it worse than wathing some be roguhed up or tortured for information? Eh, probably not, though a few might.
That said, CP is a little less objectionable than others in the mind-bending category for reasons many have noted above, although by RAW, with a high-Charisma sorcerer or bard, it can still be devastatingly effective at low levels and in the right situation.
As for me when I'm wearing the GM hat, I kind of like CP. It offers the chance for great role-playing. I tend to go with the roleplaying something logically in response to the line of questioning/requesting rather than keep rolling opposed Charisma checks, but I'm an old fogie who believes you shouldn't have to roll a die for everything. For those who are RP challenged (and there are a couple at my table) we'll roll the opposed checks, although I have no problem giving situational modifiers based on the extremity of what is being asked (Note: I give those same bonuses to PCs who are charmed if asked to do something against their nature, something the players very much appreciate.)
Great points Brian, I totally agree.
I do think that this thread has proven, however, that mundane persuasion cannot change an entrenched opinon. If the only way a lost person could get directions, or the victim of an attack can learn the identity of their enemy is Charm Person, then I cannot concieve of a reason it would be bad to do so. That you disagree makes you no less reasonable, but it does mean that you're placing free will above the lost person's wellbeing.
I think the problem becomes more clear now. our difference is one of degrees.
In the asking directions example I think your default idea is that the asker is in some form of danger and is asking for directions to alleviate that danger. In my imagination 'asking for directions' is a generally mundane activity. I can live without the directions, I want to find a bathroom, the freeway, a friends house. in mundane situations I think forcing some one to like me to expedite my personal want is not right.
With that in mind I fall back to my caveats. If I am now in danger of coming to harm through the other persons inaction, I would feel justified in forcing the person to help me.
NOW the question becomes how to get that help. If my choice is cast a spell to force his mind to change or threaten him or even hurt him to make him give me the aid that will save my life my very last choice would be to charm him.
once again its a matter of degrees.
In my mind charming some one to get what I want is wrong, beating some one up to get what I want is also wrong. But if forced to do a wrong thin in order to reach a right result I would try to do the LEAST wrong thing to accomplish the goal. I think its less wrong to punch some one in the face and demand directions than it is to twist his mind into thinking I am his best friend.
would I ever use the charm to save my life or the life of another? Yes, but once again only if it were some extreme example where its the only valid and effective tool to use.
Is Zone of Truth, a paladin spell which requires him to be Lawful Good to cast, an evil act? You are forcing someone to say the truth against their own personality and will. It seems that the Mechanics conflict with the actual act.
I would say no. zone of truth does not force you to say anything. it just does not allow you to lie.
the person can chose to simply not talk. Or in fact they can cleverly speak misleading truths.
EDIT: And suddenly, this is two posts after I intended! Oops. I talk to much. :)
No, Blue, "well-being" is not the same thing as "mortal danger". There are activities that are necessary to ensure "well-being" that aren't necessary (and are thus generally considered unacceptable) in "normal" circumstances.
You can expect to live without directions because we live in a well-ordered, neat society that doesn't threaten you in any particular way. You can't expect to live without directions lacking those caveats. And one of those caveats is you're not being hated just because you're you. Given that, and you're not able to know for a fact the outcome of any social interaction, it does become necessary to get things like directions quickly and leave just as quickly.
Threatening someone - even if it is for a good cause - is the last option I would take, as I'm rather... averse... to harming other people in real life, despite delighting in martial arts. Even pretending or threatening things I don't intend would be difficult, because that's very dishonest and it harms the other person emotionally.
I can't agree with you, at all, that charming is the 'least' of the options. In one, given human nature, I threaten the person and make them even more afraid, and likely get embroiled in violence (or set whoever is next after me for violence). In the other, I don't, if I'm at all cautious. Doing the former, then, becomes irresponsible, not just for myself, but for others.
Doling out violence when there is a practical, non-violent solution is unconscionable to me. (Note: I wholly recognize and support the fact that at times violent solutions are not only expedient, but necessary.) "Bodily harm" is not a thing I want to leave behind me. "Annoyance" (whether or not its severe) isn't ideal either, but it's far better than bodily harm.
Reference you're discussion of degrees, your personal "wants" are very different from avoiding hatred that you did nothing to cause. Also, presuming a simple want goes against the nature of the set up (that you, the traveler, wanted to leave quickly). It seems like you're having a very difficult time imagining a situation in which directions are hard to come by and are necessary for your well-being (as is leaving an area quickly) at the same time. It does happen to travelers on occasion, however.
Personal examples time:
- Before we were married, my wife lived in Miami, about five hours drive away from where I lived at the time. I and my dad went to see her. We got lost in Miami. We weren't able to locate where we were on a map (as it turns out, several of the districts had been renamed and reorganized, as had a few street names, since our map was created, and several new constructions altered the flow of traffic). It took quite some time before we were able to get appropriate directions. Neither of us had iPads, iPhones (as they didn't exist), or access to any sort of internet or computer. Our maps were useless, few spoke our language, and there were few places that did that we could stop and feel safe in the part of town we ended up in. When we eventually did acquire directions, bully for us, we found we were going the wrong way and, if we followed the course we were currently on, we'd end up heading back north. Directions were, in fact, necessary.
- When I lived in Vilnius in Lithuania, during the early days of it being free from communist oppression (and trust me, I lived there, it was oppression), finding someone who spoke English wasn't a challenge. Finding someone who spoke at all to strangers on the street was. Lithuania, just so you know, is freezing cold (at 400 miles south of the arctic circle). It was not uncommon for people to freeze to death in the winter out there without shelter (especially since Vodka was common and unemployment was high - or, during the U.S.S.R. days, because employment was mandatory and depressing). The reason people didn't talk to you? You could be a spy, an informant, or a member of the KGB, or even a wanted person. They didn't want to get caught accidentally saying something that would get them in trouble. No one spoke on the streets or trolleys (though this has now changed quite dramatically, I'm pleased to say), but they might... for a good friend. I didn't know Lithuanian, I didn't know any of the people, and the ancient streets were easy to get lost in. It is not difficult to imagine someone without both parents unable to find there way, and unable to get someone to talk to them for fear of trickery or getting into trouble, they'd need high social skills. And if they lacked that... alas for them. Directions would be very necessary. (Also, at the time, Google was a distant dream; the internet was even pretty new.)
- The Philippines, specifically Cagayan de Oro are gorgeous (though I have trouble remembering how to spell the names), and ridiculously easy to get lost in. While many people I met there are friendly, I passed through several villages where, were it not for our friends who lived there, I would be quite sure were abandoned villages (he explained that the people were simply staying out of sight until the knew us better). Though I knew where I was supposed to go, in theory: supposedly following "the road" (rather obvious dirt trail leads into village, completely obscured "path" that I couldn't have told you was there leads out), there were several times I would have gotten lost and just been wandering for hours, potentially days, trying to find anything, and that could have been very bad. As time went on my friend there showed me various ways I could tell where the trails were, however each was semi-unique and difficult to describe without seeing it - so had I been going on my own, I would have needed to stop for periodic "directions" to go anywhere. Again, I had no iDevice or similar method of helping me out (and there were no cell towers anywhere near where we went).
These are just three quick examples, all of which fit the original spirit and theme of the question, each of which have varying levels of "need". Were I alone in such situations, I couldn't begin to fathom how I'd get out. If I had poor social skills... I'd be completely out of luck. Thus the utility of Charm for directions. In none of those situations was I in "imminent" danger - I didn't once have my life directly threatened. But the fact is, I didn't know what would happen or how people would respond to me, and I needed to simply go my way as quickly as possible.
If I just want to head somewhere and it's entirely a want, then yes, of course, repeatedly charming people for minor things that you can easily get elsewhere is just being a jerk. But that's clearly something that we're not advocating here.
Perhaps it would be educational for people to consider how their characters feel, in-game, when Charm Person and other mind-bending spells are used against them.
That's kind of empty though.
Charm person is an offensive spell that is being used by someone unfriendly to you...
How do you feel about ANY spell they cast? Anything from Magic Missle to illusions I didn't see through would tick me off something fierce ;)
Charm spells are annoying and frustrating cast on PCs... but at least I still get to play.
Sleep, paralyze, and my all time most hated 'HOLD PERSON'...
THOSE are the ones that I hate with a passion. ANything that says 'you don't get to play any more... sit there and watch us do this battle...' >.<
I don't see much difference between using Charm Person and using Diplomacy. Both just make person friendly, the spell is a lot easier to do as it's a standard action vs 1 minute of talking but the end result is the same if you make the DC for Diplomacy or the target fails their save. In the end the you get someone who will help you out as friend. The spell is short term the diplomacy check is more long term.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tact, the entirety of your post comes own to this....
I can't agree with you, at all, that charming is the 'least' of the options.
which is fine, your entitled to you oppinion, it does not make you a horrible person (much ^_^), I just happen to not agree.
Our fundamental difference is that you seem to feel that charm person (or a similar effect) to change their thoughts or actions is a harmless and reasonable action.
I absolutely feel that forcing a person to be nice, even using something as gentle as charm person, is an assault.
In your real world examples the people had reasons for not giving directions or helping you. Who are you to say those reasons are not valid? If a guy does not trust you because your an outsider dont you think that forcing his mind into being friendly toward you completely validates his NOT trusting you? What if, unbeknownst to you, talking to you gets him killed? Extreme example I know... but I have seen it happen, literally, physically, SEEN IT HAPPEN!
Once again, outside of causing harm a person has a right to not do what you want them to do, forcing them to do so even through something as gentle as a charm person spell is an assault, any assault is wrong to varying degrees.
Note: it may help you understand my POV to understand that I actually think Charm Person is even worse than Dominate.
In my view if you dominate me into doing something I dont like at least I can think back on it and say 'I had no choice it was forced on me'. But if you charm me into doing something I dont like I will forever be tormented by the idea that when I did that thing I actually LIKED what I was doing. The idea that charm person takes away even my ability to hate what is happening to me is terrifying.
Again, I can see your point, but fully disagree.
In all three cases that I mentioned the reason people were unwilling is for reasons that would not, under any circumstances, threaten them: they simply didn't know it, and I had no way to convince them. Ergo, I would feel as if it were justified using it, even if someone did so on me.
As a counter example, I've been pretty leery in the past of some people who pass through here looking a bit... unusual. The fact is, it's rare that someone does certain actions without being up to something. If, on the other hand, someone was simply passing through, needed directions or even a drink of ice water, charmed my suspicious self to get it, and then went on with no other harm done, I'd actually be a-okay with that, because, all things said, the guy didn't do anything wrong. Yes, my mind was changed, but he literally forced me to do nothing other than be a decent human being. And I'm okay with being a decent human being.
Now, again, if he used it for any other reason, I'd of course be miffed. But my free will being used to be cold, selfish, or cruel really isn't all that important, and certainly isn't good. I'd much rather be a good person - by my will or against it - than not.
While I understand what you're saying, in none of the situations I was in was there any reason to presuppose that it would harm anyone. I cannot imagine the situation you refer to, though I accept that ti's happened to you, but I'm willing to bet it's because you're in a warzone like environment. I was not. A post-cold-war environment, but not a warzone environment.
As another example, once we were in Cuba (yes, I traveled a lot, when I was younger). As a nice thing to some kids (and a few watching adults) totally willing to talk to us, we gave out baseball cards to the kids who had been playing baseball. Literally as soon as we got to the corner (just as we were starting to round it), police showed up, confiscated all the cards and generally harassed the people we'd just spoken with (we turned to watch), because we, being from the U.S. were clearly spreading anti-communist propaganda. This is a case of diplomacy leading to the exact same results of "unexpected negative consequences".
In the situations that I can fathom, unless I'm unknowingly in a very evil country with extreme situations occurring (something I would need to know about anyway, or else I might do more things to cause trouble), using charm in this way is pretty much identical to using a rapid, short-term diplomacy, including the unexpected negative consequences.
As I've said, I'm not afraid of someone bending my will to make me (even temporarily) a more decent person. There's nothing evil about that, and nothing sacrosanct about my personal will when I refuse to use it for good. I hold others to the same standard, generally.
That said, you've made your case, and I've made mine. We'll just agree to disagree agreeably. :)
And yeah, it' doesn't make you a horrible person (much ^-^).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blue: charm person is assault. So is torture.
Which is 'worse'? You think 'charm'. I think 'torture'.
But there's more to it than that. Each of the two methods in question has a spectrum along which the 'wrongness' of the assault must be judged. For physical torture, a wedgie and being flayed alive both count as torture, but they are not equal on that spectrum.
For 'mind rape', forcing someone to be friendly is assault, but absolute mind control is worse on that spectrum.
Is influencing people in any way 'assault'? Casting a spell allows a save, a diplomacy check has a DC. That DC may be such that the diplomacy check is certain to succeed.
What about 'seduction'? The seductrix is cynically trying to influence you without any real feeling of affection, and tricking you into having a real affection for her. Is this 'assault'?
What about falling in love? Both parties have solid, selfish, evolutionary reasons to pair-bond with a partner that best fulfils certain criteria. Seratonin is released in your brain causing feelings of happiness. Are we happy 'against our will'?
Rape itself is a serious subject and I won't trivialise it here, but looking down a woman's cleavage can be defined as assault, but it would be a cruel deception to pretend that looking down someone's top is as serious an assault as other types of rape, and if the phrase 'mind rape' is being used in connection with charm person then I conclude that the spell can be used for the mental equivalent of 'looking down someone's top', AND the same spell can be used for the mental equivalent of rape.
So the way the spell is used is how we determine how 'wrong' what you did with the spell is! The same is true when judging torture re: wedgie/fingernail-pulling.
In the original example, was the bard using charm person to make them talkative, or to murder babies? Were the torturer contingent pulling fingernails, or were they putting his hand in warm water and waiting for him to go to sleep?
The observers will judge each approach on it's own merits, and most people won't have the same prejudice re: charm person that you do. Some people have had a bad experience in their life that gives them a 'once bitten, twice shy' attitude to something in particular, and charm could be one of them.
But so could fingernail abuse.
Fair enough Tact
Malachi... diplomacy is diplomacy and charm is charm. A person looking sexy, being nice and convincing me to buy a widget because I subconsciously think that if I buy that widget they will like me even if its all an act just to sell the widget cannot be compared to magically grabbing me by the brain stem and taking away my free will to say I dont want it.
before we go any further we have to separate game from reality.
If, in the game world, some stranger NPC steps out of the bushes and says "hey Im a nice guy drink this potion" almost no GM worth his salt is going to roll a die and say 'he beat the arbitrary diplomacy DC and you drink the potion' (note the contents of the potion is irrelevant)
If the stranger NPC steps out of the bushes and charms you with a spell however and you roll a saving throw and fail, the strange NPC can say "hey ol' buddy, drink this potion its great" and you do it because your charmed and think he is your good friend who couldn't possibly harm you... even if you argue that you wouldn't drink any potion any one gave you for any reason all he has to do is beat you with a charisma check and ba-da-bing your sucking down a random potion.
Lets add one more caveate to that... comparing charm to Dominate
In the above example lets say the NPC did not beat you with the diplomacy check. guess what?... YOUR STILL CHARMED! now he says... "ok buddy try this cake instead" and gets to try a new charisma check against you again and again untill you fail as long as he does not ask the exact same thing twice
The game is very different from
I juggled this for a long time and came to this conclusion, your question is too biased. You cant have an honest debate when your using such extreme examples
its as if your trying to compare charm person to cutting off fingers while asking for directions to Cold Stone.
I am going to evoke the 'all else being equal' clause here.
All else being equal the bottom line for me is that if I have recently be forced to do something against my will. In the after math I would rather have in my memory the knowledge that I did not do it willingly and fought in any way I could, as opposed to the memory that at the time it was happening I did it happily because my mind had been forced to like what i was doing.
Take that and apply it appropriately to any situation in equal measures. If you ask for something trivial and for whatever reason I dont want to give it to you I would rather know that I was forced by your intimidating stare than to have my reasons magically removed and made to satisfy you. On the other side of the spectrum I would rather know that you forced me through domination or some extreme measure to do something horrible rather than forever remember that while doing that horrible thing I happily enjoyed it because for some silly reason my ability to not like it was removed from me.
ultimately it comes down to I value my free will more than my physical safety.
Your free to feel otherwise.
People defend mind breaking magic as a nice alternative but refuse my argument that necromancy is just a tool, not evil it used right....
Depends entirely on the necromancy used, how its used, and why.
But for now, all of the animate dead and create undead type spells have the [evil] descriptor, unless you're a juju oracle...
... unless you accept the retcon that "no we can't every do that, that's bad, and make it go away" which is really an annoying thing to do.
(To be clear, I thought juju oracles were the bomb diggity with Spirit Vessels. With the change to being unable to have non-evil undead, they they just suck.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All else being equal....
Given the same problem to overcome (whether that problem is 'asking directions', or 'who's your boss') then, in my opinion, torture is worse than charm, both for the victim and for what it tells us about the perpetrator.
If a person has had a bad experience with torture, then their opinion will be easy to guess. If a person has had a bad experience with their will being usurped magically (or chemically), then that person's opinion will be easy to guess.
But for those who have no reason to be biased, I suggest that this thread is a fair approximation of how the 'votes' would be cast. I think most would agree that torture is worse, with a minority thinking that charm is worse.
You are vocal in your opinion that charm is worse, and that's just as valid an opinion as anyone's. But it also reveals more about your mindset than it reveals about the actual effects of either torture or charm.
In the scenario in the bar, most of us feel that the bar patrons observing the events would be more disturbed by the torture. I imagine, as individuals, that their opinions would by divided in the same ratio as ours, but a mob mentality would mean that the feelings of the majority would dictate their reaction as a single entity, unless some charismatic individual was motivated to steer the mob toward his minority view.
A bit like you in this thread!
ultimately it comes down to I value my free will more than my physical safety.
This is the key to the whole thread and frankly a position that I don't see anyone swaying another's opinion on.
Personally, I value my individuality.. my memories.. my thoughts... I truly think that senility/dementia and/or Alzheimer's would be fates worse than death.
However, i do NOT put Charm spells anywhere NEAR that catagory. I'm a 'long-term' thinker. Torture will leave MUCH longer scars than a charm will.
After a couple of hours, your mind/thoughts/opinions are returned to you and your non the worse for wear.
After torture it will take a LOT longer to heal... and while you kept you 'free will' You can never play the guitar again... your face may be hideously scarred... you could be crippled... LOTS of 'painful' things that were done to you that you have to live with forever...
Even a Paladin can get an atonement for betraying a king... but he really can't 'Regrow' that hand they crippled. The charmed man can avenge himself... the crippled/dead man has to have someone else avenge him.
People defend mind breaking magic as a nice alternative but refuse my argument that necromancy is just a tool, not evil it used right....
Yep!
In mind it's always about the 'long term effects'. Animating corpses of loved ones is fairly horrific. Seeing your loving mother crawl her way from her grave and savagely shred the enemies of the visiting wizard and then walk out of town with him is pretty bad.
Fact is that those bodies were buried in good faith and not meant to be disturbed. They still belong to the people who PUT them there, and your walking off with someone elses property for purposes they would NEVER have agreed to.
There are of course exceptions :)
If the city is under siege and all the dead come back to defend their homeland... I'm sure the necromancer would be hailed a hero. As long as they are put back how he found them ;)
I had an 2E elven wizard one time who I intend to have him go the route of a necromancer. His goal was to try to reinvent 'arcane healing' like the wizards in the novels always seemed to have. Necromancy was the study of life and death... and while it focused on the death part, HE was going to try to focus on the 'life' part...
He was still ostrasized from elven society, but he was confident in his experiments...
I had visions of reversing Vampiric touch to GIVE HP... and taking and giving health from nature around him...
Sadly he died very early... :(
|
However, i do NOT put Charm spells anywhere NEAR that catagory. I'm a 'long-term' thinker. Torture will leave MUCH longer scars than a charm will.
Ja... but chicks dig da scars
After a couple of hours, your mind/thoughts/opinions are returned to you and your non the worse for wear.Ja... cept now you curl up in da corner wonder why you wuz screeming, "yea daddy give me more" instead'a tryin to fight.
me, I tek da beat down.
After torture it will take a LOT longer to heal... and while you kept you 'free will' You can never play the guitar again... your face may be hideously scarred... you could be crippled... LOTS of 'painful' things that were done to you that you have to live with forever...
Why always gotta compare nice gentle charm person to da worst mos' crippling evil torture you can rekkon?
scales dont match. If you da kind to use dat kind of torture you prolly da kind to use charm person to mek me rape me kids, kill me mudder and eat me dog.
If dat da case I still tek da torture.
Why always gotta compare nice gentle charm person to da worst mos' crippling evil torture you can rekkon?
Nature of the game.
There's not really a 'mechanic' for torture or 'beat down'... If your actually trying to 'HURT' the information out of someone... It's gotta be a hurt worthy enough to make you change your principles and crack.
I've never seen any kind of Assassin in media cave in because of a single punch to the gut... But a nice gentle charm person spell WOULD change his mind easier then 'mild roughing up'...
Actually... Thinking about it, I could actually see some kind of torture mechanic that forces the victim to make a Fort Save, Failure means you spill everything you ever knew...
It'd be comparable to weak willed person failing their will save against a charm...
Perhaps it would be educational for people to consider how their characters feel, in-game, when Charm Person and other mind-bending spells are used against them.
That's kind of empty though.
Charm person is an offensive spell that is being used by someone unfriendly to you...
How do you feel about ANY spell they cast? Anything from Magic Missle to illusions I didn't see through would tick me off something fierce ;)
Charm spells are annoying and frustrating cast on PCs... but at least I still get to play.
Sleep, paralyze, and my all time most hated 'HOLD PERSON'...
THOSE are the ones that I hate with a passion. ANything that says 'you don't get to play any more... sit there and watch us do this battle...' >.<
Maybe it's because I like playing good honest fighter-types that being mind-bent really ticks me off. I can fully understand the fireball of cone of cold coming at me from the bad guy. I mean I'm trying to ram three feet of sharpened steel through his innards, stands to reason he's trying to blow me up or turn me into an icicle. But screwing with my mind? Making me do things I don't want to that may even be harmful to myself or my frinds? That's just wrong, and anyone who tries it on me goes immediately onto the terminate with extreme prejudice list.
Sleep, paralyze and hold person are annoying, sure, but somehow not as bad to me. I'm being prevented from acting, but I'm not being forced to do things against my will.
But don't even get me started on illusions. Freaking illusionists. Back in 1st edition when most illusionists were gnomes, just seeing a gnome start to wiggle his fingers was considered just cause to reduce the garden ornament population by one.
Sleep, paralyze and hold person are annoying, sure, but somehow not as bad to me. I'm being prevented from acting, but I'm not being forced to do things against my will.
We once had 3 out 5 of the party parlayze by Ghouls and Ghasts...
I got to sit there and just get chewed on... watching my hp drain away (thankfully this was before the coup de grace rules O.o) It was the most frustrating thing I ever dealt with...
In one of my first games I joined a group of about 8 or more... and got victim to hold person... I don't know how many rounds I was useless for... but with that many players... and that many bad guys on the board?? I was just watching for over an hour... at LEAST.
That wasn't just frustrating... it was BORING. I waan't even being attacked at that point, just sitting there like a paperweight >.<
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'll throw my log on this raging bonfire. Yay, discussion boards! We can all share our opinions no matter how ill-informed mine are. :D
The crux of the issue I see from the page 8 pages of discussion is this:
Charm person removes the ability to make self-determining actions and makes someone work against their nature.
Or alternately
Charm person doesn't do the above and in fact its damn near useless.
The second point stems from the fact that it can't compel someone to act against their alignment, they maintain faculties, but take suggestions given in the 'best light' as if recieving them from a trusted friend or ally.
Charm person is a first person spell I reckon because its duration and utility (do anything complex maybe) is superior to stuff like command or suggestion, but is limited in its coercive capability.
I've DMed in campaigns were a kobold sorceress once charmed the party rogue to 'Protect me' and he reasoned the best method of protecting her was to throw her over his shoulder and get her as far away from his other friends (the murder machine tearing through the other kobolds like tissue paper) as possible. There's also been the case where party members have charmed law enforcement only to discover that said law enforement /would/ lock up his best friend for violating the law, since thats what was best for them.
Charm Person is a spell meant for the subtle enchanter, not the guy who wants robots (those guys should get in line for necromancy and conjuration). It requires thinking things through and generally knowing your subject enough to benefit from orders given. Charming in combat is always a sketchy place because the spell counts as an attack itself, and it doesn't confer friend (or enemy for that matter) status on anyone else. Also heroes 90% of the time are casting it on what can colloquially be described as jerks, who if they'd sell their own mothers out for money wouldn't treat a 'trusted ally and friend' much better.
The downside to how charm person is written is it doesn't work as intended. It can't compel romantic affection, so even a succubus' charm spell doesn't do much besides make you feel friendly towards her, this is why she has to start using suggestions to brute force activities out of those who are let us say...shy around friends.
For questions of morality of use in an interrogation, I don't see it as being equivalent to torture. The assassin might have friends, family and the like in real life, doesn't mean they're on his professional 'I can tell people about work' list. If his mother walked in an told him to give up the secrets of Dark Ubel Von Murderstein, he might still deny her even if he genuinely thinks she's talking in his best interest. He might deny her because he thinks its in /her/ best interest to not know.
It is however a time saver.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's because I like playing good honest fighter-types that being mind-bent really ticks me off. I can fully understand the fireball of cone of cold coming at me from the bad guy. I mean I'm trying to ram three feet of sharpened steel through his innards, stands to reason he's trying to blow me up or turn me into an icicle.
I don't know if you meant it this way or not, and I'm not trying to be offensive (so I apologize if I am), but this was really hilarious. I can completely imagine Valeros or Merisiel say this exact same thing.
Also, it's really interesting that, again, Charm is contrasted to being Honest. How do you feel about (mundane) lying or cheating, intimidating, or just plain persuasion <i.e. bluff, intimidate, or diplomacy>?
But screwing with my mind? Making me do things I don't want to that may even be harmful to myself or my frinds? That's just wrong, and anyone who tries it on me goes immediately onto the terminate with extreme prejudice list.
And here's where we start to heavily diverge in what is actually being asked and how you're taking it. Pretty much everyone here has agreed that using Charm on a person to get them to do evil things is an evil act. Effectively, you answered a question no one was asking and argued for something no one actually disagreed with. This is a universally accepted fact. Actual questions are:
- OP: how does a common person see an assassin being charmed v. an assassin being physically tortured for information?
- Tangent 1: do you feel that charm is evil? <i.e. the morality argument>
- Tangent 2: can charm be justified in non-villainous uses for the purposes of ensuring basic life, health, and functionality? <i.e. the prejudice against a lonely traveler argument>
In the OP the assassin is certainly (hopefully) being forced to do something that may, in the long run, be harmful to himself or his friends (presuming those he works for and/or with are his 'friends')... but he's already tried to kill that guy that charmed him for no reason that you can determine except that he was paid money to do it. How would you (and by extension others) view that?
Sleep, paralyze and hold person are annoying, sure, but somehow not as bad to me. I'm being prevented from acting, but I'm not being forced to do things against my will.
So... you're okay with coup-de-grace being used against yourself and your party? What about others you love? It's an interesting take on it. Definitely different from my answer, but to each their own (I like staying alive).
But don't even get me started on illusions. Freaking illusionists. Back in 1st edition when most illusionists were gnomes, just seeing a gnome start to wiggle his fingers was considered just cause to reduce the garden ornament population by one.
Heh, kind of like how in our games, no matter the Halfling, whenever the players see one, they instantly check their pockets (we had a very... memorable PC, once). I'm guessing from this, that you don't like tricky things in general. Yes?
Anyway, @Spook: my interpretation is neither of what you posted, but is somewhere in the middle.
Try, "Charm person alters the basic outlook of the target, does allow for abuses of the target, but can be used without abusing the target."
In my view, it's very useful, and can be applied in many different situations, but it's not tremendously evil and it doesn't need to be a very last resort ever. I tend to use it as a time saver myself. :)
EDIT: By "time saver" I presume you mean (and I certainly do), "I don't have the time/ability to diplomacy this guy the long way for a legitimate reason." instead of, "I don't feel like doing, say, the dishes, so you should guys do them for me."
good point charlie.
A slight adjustment, if I may.
If this thread has provided any answer to the OP's questions, it's this: that people will have a wide variety of reactions to charm person, anything from violent repulsion, to "meh, no biggie", to "man, I hate turnips."
'Cause, you know, that happened in this thread. (Well, not turnips, precisely, but you get the idea.)
:)
EDIT: To be clear, what you posted was exceptionally accurate and well-said, Charlie.
Back in 1st edition when most illusionists were gnomes, just seeing a gnome start to wiggle his fingers was considered just cause to reduce the garden ornament population by one.
You stopped? For shame! I usually don't bother to wait for the finger-wiggling.
On topic as I'm not sure it was addressed and my point may have been too obtuse. Charm person does not make people act in a way they would not normally act. You get way better mileage out of charming the guy who would give his friends the shirt off his back than you do the sociopath who thinks that murdering their healer to save money is a better return on their investment and considers "friends" to be those who are deemed competent enough that to eliminate them would be more trouble that it's worth.
-TimD
I know this is nit picking but honestly...
charm person by RAW allows you to tell some one to do anything that will not bring direct harm to them and at best they get an opposed charisma to say no, which does not break the spell.
you can, by RAW, have them sell their babies, knowingly eat human flesh, give you state secrets, run through town naked, or even jump across a chasm by convincing them that, 'sure its dangerous but if you roll a 20 youll be fine.'
interestingly enough by RAW you may not be able to make them smoke a cigarette. ^_^
every one who, like me and most of us, rules charm person to be a lesser compulsion, an automatic diplomacy to friendly with no other benefits, allows the charmed to make rational refusals without making a charisma check or any other mitigation of the spell, is house ruling.