why all the hate on charm person?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sandslice wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Except you DO have control over what he does. It literally says it in the spell. You can make them do things against their nature with a Cha check.

No, "convince" is not an ability. That is the fluff justification for that very open-ended game mechanic that says unequivocally you can make Cha checks to CONVINCE someone to follow an order against their nature.

That is what the Cha check does. Technically speaking, you don't even need something convincing, you just need to say "Do it" and be likable enough.

You say "Kill your wife". Roll Cha check. Success he does it, fail he does not.

Then charm person is clearly more powerful than suggestion, and should not be first level since suggestion is third.

Suggestion: Is language-dependent, must be carefully worded per RAW, obviously harmful order negates the spell outright. Allows you to issue one order (with the saving throw being what ordinarily negates it.)

Charm person: Is not language-dependent, need only be communicated sufficiently, obviously harmful order is simply refused. Allows you to issue multiple orders, only a subset of which require an opposed CHA check to force. In addition, allows an array of useful "non-order" reactions.

Righto, yes. Charm Person does way too much for its slot. It's what I've been saying.


Rynjin wrote:
Sandslice wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Except you DO have control over what he does. It literally says it in the spell. You can make them do things against their nature with a Cha check.

No, "convince" is not an ability. That is the fluff justification for that very open-ended game mechanic that says unequivocally you can make Cha checks to CONVINCE someone to follow an order against their nature.

That is what the Cha check does. Technically speaking, you don't even need something convincing, you just need to say "Do it" and be likable enough.

You say "Kill your wife". Roll Cha check. Success he does it, fail he does not.

Then charm person is clearly more powerful than suggestion, and should not be first level since suggestion is third.

Suggestion: Is language-dependent, must be carefully worded per RAW, obviously harmful order negates the spell outright. Allows you to issue one order (with the saving throw being what ordinarily negates it.)

Charm person: Is not language-dependent, need only be communicated sufficiently, obviously harmful order is simply refused. Allows you to issue multiple orders, only a subset of which require an opposed CHA check to force. In addition, allows an array of useful "non-order" reactions.

Righto, yes. Charm Person does way too much for its slot. It's what I've been saying.

I feel the same way. It's not charm person's fault that it's "better" than dominate person in a 1st level spell. It's the fault of giving the effect of the spell too much power. I feel that if they just said that the person was helpful, and maybe giving you a +5 to your diplomacy rolls or something like that (and only maybe on this part), that it would be accurate for the theme of the spell and properly powered for a 1st level spell.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
What happens if Charm Person is cast on a sociopath who is literally incapable of feeling friendship for anyone?

We had that sort of come up in a game once - our sorceress charmed a guy who'd been stalking his own sister (an NPC celebrity bard) after we'd realized he was the suspect.

The GM paused for a moment and pondered out loud "Huh. What does this guy do with the people he loves?"

The GM then looked at the sorceress's player and announced "he's attacking you. Roll for initiative."

That... that was honestly pretty funny.

@ Chess Pwn - I think the key language of Jason's post wasn't the suicide stuff; the key language was "its not your puppet after all."

Massive Edit after re-reading Charm Person:

Also, refer to this and re-read what charm person actually does.

What it actually does is set a creature's attitude to "Friendly" as per the diplomacy rules. You don't even make it to "Helpful."

The opposed charisma check replaces the DC 25+ (or DC impossible) diplomacy check to try to get the subject to carry out an unreasonable request. Which can still automatically fail at the GM's discretion.

Essentially, if your GM is allowing your charm spells to automatically go beyond the bounds of what you can do through diplomacy, your GM is being incredibly generous to you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Righto, yes. Charm Person does way too much for its slot. It's what I've been saying.
I feel the same way. It's not charm person's fault that it's "better" than dominate person in a 1st level spell. It's the fault of giving the effect of the spell too much power.

Except the spell isn't that powerful.

The only people giving it too much power are the people who read "anything" and don't even really consider what that means in the context of the whole spell. As I mentioned above, there are two ways to parse that poorly worded sentence, one that is internally consistent with the spell and one that is not. People who choose the one that is not internally consistent end up overpowering this spell.

Chess Pwn wrote:
I feel that if they just said that the person was helpful, and maybe giving you a +5 to your diplomacy rolls or something like that (and only maybe on this part), that it would be accurate for the theme of the spell and properly powered for a 1st level spell.

Yes, something like that would have been much better.


I don't see how it cad be read differently. What is the opposed Cha check supposed to do then?


Zhangar wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
What happens if Charm Person is cast on a sociopath who is literally incapable of feeling friendship for anyone?

We had that sort of come up in a game once - our sorceress charmed a guy who'd been stalking his own sister (an NPC celebrity bard) after we'd realized he was the suspect.

The GM paused for a moment and pondered out loud "Huh. What does this guy do with the people he loves?"

The GM then looked at the sorceress's player and announced "he's attacking you. Roll for initiative."

That... that was honestly pretty funny.

@ Chess Pwn - I think the key language of Jason's post wasn't the suicide stuff; the key language was "its not your puppet after all."

Massive Edit after re-reading Charm Person:

Also, refer to this and re-read what charm person actually does.

What it actually does is set a creature's attitude to "Friendly" as per the diplomacy rules. You don't even make it to "Helpful."

The opposed charisma check replaces the DC 25+ (or DC impossible) diplomacy check to try to get the subject to carry out an unreasonable request. Which can still automatically fail at the GM's discretion.

Essentially, if your GM is allowing your charm spells to automatically go beyond the bounds of what you can do through diplomacy, your GM is being incredibly generous to you.

That's the post that my link is from. Someone was asking for clarification and said "What if I ask him to kill his family?" Then Jason responded saying that It would most likely require a CHA check. But that as an alternative the NPC could take his own life to prevent him from needing to kill his family. I'm Sorry to all who might think I'm not getting it and making it too strong. But To all the arguments.

"Killing family is harmful to him" - in Jason's post this was the question asked and Jason said in effect that the NPC would do it or kill himself. If it wasn't allowed per that line then Jason would have said that the command just fails per that clause.
"Jason just gave an overly extreme example of the options the NPC has" - If this is the case why not give a lesser alternative in the example? Why not show the minimum way to escape having to carry out the command?
"Anything it wouldn't ordinarily do isn't the same as Anything it would never do" - I don't see how you feel there's a difference here. Is something you'd never do a subset of things you don't ordinarily do? Thus they fall under the allowed options.
"DM_BLAKE and his 2 meanings" - I don't see any effectual difference between them. If you try to make it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do, you must make an opposed CHA check. Okay so I'm trying to make it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do, like kill his family, then you need to make an opposed CHA check. Okay so I succeed at the CHA check. Now what happens? I don't see what you think would happen, but from the phrasing of the sentence winning the check means you succeed at making it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. It is convinced it must do it.

I feel that as worded and explained by Jason, succeeding the CHA check means that the NPC is convinced to his very core that he NEEDS to do the thing. That as long as he lives he MUST carry it out, so death is the escape out of needing to fulfill the request.

*If I were the GM I'd say as a houserule of how this spell would work in my game giving limits to it and stuff, but as it's written I feel it's a super broken spell. I assert that as written and explained by Jason it's one of the strongest spells in the game. I'd love for a FAQ on this to put it in it's proper place.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
I don't see how it cad be read differently. What is the opposed Cha check supposed to do then?

Simple.

There are some things the guy wants to do. "Here, eat this candy." No problem.

There are some things the guy would not want to do. "Hey, do a hundred push-ups." You could get him to do this with a CHA check. It's not unreasonable for a friend to make this request ("I hate working out alone, would you work out with me?" But he might refuse "Sorry good buddy, I'm really busy". So you whip out the CHA check and convince him to do it.

There are some things the guy would never do. Obviously harmful. "Hey, please jump off of that cliff." No way, not even with a CHA check, because the spell says you cannot make him do things that are suicidal or obviously harmful.

Somewhere in-between the second and third situation are some things that are not "obviously" harmful but the guy would still never do it. "Hey, burn down your neighbor's home, pretty please?" is a request that almost nobody would do (the only likely exceptions are pyromaniacs and/or someone who really truly hates his neighbor AND doesn't really give a damn about ethical behavior. Everybody else would refuse that request. For example, in real life, there is no friend, trusted friend, or ally who could convince me to burn down my neighbor's house. Ever.

These in-between things are the basis of this debate, fueled by poor word choice in the Charm Person spell.

I admit, the wording could be better. It says trying to order him "to do anything he would not ordinarily do" requires a CHA check, but it does not say he will automatically do anything you request if you succeed - you still must read this with the other parts of the spell in mind, namely, that you are merely a friend trying to convince him, and that you cannot control him like an automaton, and he won't do anything harmful (by his definition of harmful).

In short, you cannot control him magically, but you can convince him to believe something because you're his friend. You can ask him to do something that people normally do for friends and he'll do it. You can ask him to do things that people normally don't do for friends and he might do it if it's not harmful, if you're convincing enough (CHA check). You can ask him to dothings that people never do for friends and he will simply refuse, every time, because he won't do that for a friend, no matter how convincing you are.

That's all it does.

Side note:

Spoiler:

Just kidding here, but, well, hmmmmmmm...

All these people (in this thread and countless other similar threads) who think this spell can get a guy to commit murder, it makes me wonder. Do they just not understand that the spell makes you a trusted friend, even though it says so? I hope that's the case. I seriously hope so.

The alternative seems to be that these people might, in real life, actually commit murder if their friend asks them to. Is that the problem? Does the average gamer think that friends commit murder just because a friend asks them to?

That makes me a little worried. I hope this is not the common behavior for gamers or I might need to rethink the risk I'm taking spending so much time with gamers...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
"DM_BLAKE and his 2 meanings" - I don't see any effectual difference between them. If you try to make it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do, you must make an opposed CHA check. Okay so I'm trying to make it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do, like kill his family, then you need to make an opposed CHA check. Okay so I succeed at the CHA check. Now what happens? I don't see what you think would happen, but from the phrasing of the sentence winning the check means you succeed at making it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. It is convinced it must do it.

Yeah, that one line seems to let you make the guy do whatever you want, even kill his family.

Except you cannot just read that one line and forget about the rest of the spell description.

Charm Person makes you the victim's trusted friend. It does not let you control them. This is explicitly stated.

You're my friend, my trusted friend, my ally - but you will NEVER "convince" me to kill my family. Normal people are not ever "convinced" to commit murder just because a friend says so. Yeah, it happens, but I think any psychologist would tell you that the guy who got convinced had seriously deep psychological issues. It's not normal. Friends don't have that kind of power over other (sane) friends.

Charm Person does not let you make the guy do obviously harmful things. This is explicitly stated.

Killing my family is obviously harmful. To them, for sure. And to me, for the lifetime of sorrow and loss and guild I will feel and the very real psychological damage it would do to me, not to mention getting caught and executed or locked in prison for life would also be harmful to me.

There are two perfectly valid reasons, per the Charm Person RAW, that you cannot command a charmed person to kill his family. Unless he's already a deranged sociopath with homicidal tendencies (e.g. a CN adventurer) in which case maybe it would work, so perhaps Charm Person is most effectively used on the criminally insane. And adventurers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The spell also - nowhere - specifies that the charmed person must obey a successful CHA or commit suicide. So why that came up as Jason's only alternative to carrying out the orders is rather strange.

Mind-manipulation spells are always rather vague because they can be used in so many situations, in creative ways, that I think writers/designers simply don;'t try to limit or tackle by spelling things out in the spell desription.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm simply going to say that Jason B. is wrong on this as his interpretation is not supported by the spell text.

But we aren't going to get anywhere on this. The folks who want this spell to be as powerful as Dominate Monster, aren't going to be swayed by any further argument, any more than those who feel it should be kept to a reasoable power level for first level spell.

At this point the thread is going to be nothing more than repetitive.


The thing DM_Blake is that You are his trusted friend. That is one effect of the spell. The other is that you can convince him to do something he wouldn't normally do. The fact that you are his friend does in no way influence, modify, or effect the the ability you have to give an order and convince him to do it. And Jason was the one that showed that yes, you don't have full control, he can kill himself to not have to carry out the task you gave him. So from this he has free choice to choose
a) do the thing
b) kill himself (or something similarly drastic)
Nothing in the CHA check part does it say these are things that are only for friends, or whatever limitation you're saying. You're "Somewhere in-between" examples are things that as per the spell, are allowed to do. These aren't "requests that you wouldn't normally do for a trusted friend, but that you would potentially do for *someone?" But these are "requests you don't normally do, like burning down the neighbor's house."

I think the closest examples I have are
1) Minority report, they System says he WILL commit a murder, but he does many illegal and drastic things to prove that he WONT.

2) Pretend you're a devout Christian (if you're not), Now pretend that Jesus/God came to you and said, you must kill the heathen (like the holy wars).

3) You're a German under Hitler. Your job is to go and kill the Jews in the gas chamber. Many people said that even though they were against the idea and principle they still did it because they were ordered to.

So to sum up, it's not a request from some friend, It's that you are now convinced you must do something.


DM_Blake wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
"DM_BLAKE and his 2 meanings" - I don't see any effectual difference between them. If you try to make it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do, you must make an opposed CHA check. Okay so I'm trying to make it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do, like kill his family, then you need to make an opposed CHA check. Okay so I succeed at the CHA check. Now what happens? I don't see what you think would happen, but from the phrasing of the sentence winning the check means you succeed at making it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. It is convinced it must do it.

Yeah, that one line seems to let you make the guy do whatever you want, even kill his family.

Except you cannot just read that one line and forget about the rest of the spell description.

Charm Person makes you the victim's trusted friend. It does not let you control them. This is explicitly stated.

You're my friend, my trusted friend, my ally - but you will NEVER "convince" me to kill my family. Normal people are not ever "convinced" to commit murder just because a friend says so. Yeah, it happens, but I think any psychologist would tell you that the guy who got convinced had seriously deep psychological issues. It's not normal. Friends don't have that kind of power over other (sane) friends.

You say that now, but you've not been under the charm person spell and fail the opposed charisma check. For if you had been, you would have been convinced you needed to. Nothing in the line about the opposed charisma check limits it to things a friend would normally do for a friend but that this person doesn't normally do for a friend.


LazarX wrote:

I'm simply going to say that Jason B. is wrong on this as his interpretation is not supported by the spell text.

But we aren't going to get anywhere on this. The folks who want this spell to be as powerful as Dominate Monster, aren't going to be swayed by any further argument, any more than those who feel it should be kept to a reasoable power level for first level spell.

At this point the thread is going to be nothing more than repetitive.

I'm curious why you feel the text doesn't support what Jason said. If you win the opposed check he is convinced to do something, but can kill himself to stop him from doing it. Shows that he still has choices, just very limited choices. Like I've said before, I'd love to have something official limiting this spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
The folks who want this spell to be as powerful as Dominate Monster, aren't going to be swayed by any further argument

You do understand that the fact that some people read a spell in certain way doesn't imply they do it because they want to break PF in munchkin/powergaming way right? or it is that just too much to ask?


DM. wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The folks who want this spell to be as powerful as Dominate Monster, aren't going to be swayed by any further argument
You do understand that the fact that some people read a spell in certain way doesn't imply they do it because they want to break PF in munchkin/powergaming way right? or it is that just too much to ask?

+1

I would love the spell to be something like I suggested earlier. But if there was a lv1 spell that said "target a creature, that creature becomes your best friend. You May do 100D6 per level to that creature as a free action, but then the spell ends." What would you say to that? That it obviously doesn't work because you wouldn't do that much damage to your friend? that it can't be that strong since it beats disintegrate which is a much higher level spell? Here too, it's not the spell fault that it's so strong/broken. It's that it exists in the first place/isn't a higher level spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
I'm curious why you feel the text doesn't support what Jason said. If you win the opposed check he is convinced to do something, but can kill himself to stop him from doing it. Shows that he still has choices, just very limited choices. Like I've said before, I'd love to have something official limiting this spell.

I took Jason's example differently than an "obey or off yourself" in response to a successful charisma check. Look at my post up thread. I took it to mean that you successfully planted the idea in the target's mind. They now think that's a good idea, something that just moments prior was abhorrent to them. Killing themselves is just one potential reaction to such a realization. Imagine how you'd respond if you genuinely believed someone you had complete trust in, loved completely, etc. just seconds before and now you have the unmistakable thought that killing them is a prudent thing to do. Nothing forces compliance, just the sudden thought that you should kill that person. How would you respond? That's how charm person plays out. With dominate, you simply go about killing helpless to the magical forces controlling you. That's the difference.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
I'm curious why you feel the text doesn't support what Jason said. If you win the opposed check he is convinced to do something, but can kill himself to stop him from doing it. Shows that he still has choices, just very limited choices. Like I've said before, I'd love to have something official limiting this spell.
I took Jason's example differently than an "obey or off yourself" in response to a successful charisma check. Look at my post up thread. I took it to mean that you successfully planted the idea in the target's mind. They now think that's a good idea, something that just moments prior was abhorrent to them. Killing themselves is just one potential reaction to such a realization. Imagine how you'd respond if you genuinely believed someone you had complete trust in, loved completely, etc. just seconds before and now you have the unmistakable thought that killing them is a prudent thing to do. Nothing forces compliance, just the sudden thought that you should kill that person. How would you respond? That's how charm person plays out. With dominate, you simply go about killing helpless to the magical forces controlling you. That's the difference.

So I am convince I must/should kill my family. I'll just go sit on my couch and do nothing about it.

If I understand what you're saying then this is an allowed response correct? And Jason just gave a super extreme response for funsies since the NPC could respond much less drastically, right? If I'm wrong please explain further because this is how I'm currently able to interpret what you're saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

So I am convince I must/should kill my family. I'll just go sit on my couch and do nothing about it.

If I understand what you're saying then this is an allowed response correct? And Jason just gave a super extreme response for funsies since the NPC could respond much less drastically, right? If I'm wrong please explain further because this is how I'm currently able to interpret what you're saying.

That's for you to decide. As Jason stated, you're not my puppet. However, yes, that's basically what I'm saying. If you would genuinely go chill on the couch and try to think things through, that's perfectly fine. The line I would draw as a GM would be more to discern if that reaction is genuine versus you, as a player, trying to cheese your way around the spell. So, at my table, there would be some discussions, note taking by me, and enforcement on my end of what you claim to be your character's psychology in those situations.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

So I am convince I must/should kill my family. I'll just go sit on my couch and do nothing about it.

If I understand what you're saying then this is an allowed response correct? And Jason just gave a super extreme response for funsies since the NPC could respond much less drastically, right? If I'm wrong please explain further because this is how I'm currently able to interpret what you're saying.

That's for you to decide. As Jason stated, you're not my puppet. However, yes, that's basically what I'm saying. If you would genuinely go chill on the couch and try to think things through, that's perfectly fine. The line I would draw as a GM would be more to discern if that reaction is genuine versus you, as a player, trying to cheese your way around the spell. So, at my table, there would be some discussions, note taking by me, and enforcement on my end of what you claim to be your character's psychology in those situations.

So any NPC can just ignore being convinced to so something. And I didn't say I'd think things through, I said just do nothing about it. Completely act as if I never was convinced I needed to kill my family. But okay cool, if that's how you'd rule it for your game.

Now lets say the guys reaction was to go to confess at the temple, well what if my next thing was to convince you not to go and to carry out the task? What if my next thing is to convince you to not do your response to that but instead to go carry out the task? How far would you say it needs to go before the guy carries out the task/kills himself to stop it?


LazarX wrote:

I'm simply going to say that Jason B. is wrong on this as his interpretation is not supported by the spell text.

But we aren't going to get anywhere on this. The folks who want this spell to be as powerful as Dominate Monster, aren't going to be swayed by any further argument, any more than those who feel it should be kept to a reasoable power level for first level spell.

At this point the thread is going to be nothing more than repetitive.

Yeah - what he said.

Or is that redundant?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
So I am convince I must/should kill my family. I'll just go sit on my couch and do nothing about it.

Hamlet, anyone?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Now lets say the guys reaction was to go to confess at the temple, well what if my next thing was to convince you not to go and to carry out the task? What if my next thing is to convince you to not do your response to that but instead to go carry out the task? How far would you say it needs to go before the guy carries out the task/kills himself to stop it?

About 1 hour per level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
So any NPC can just ignore being convinced to so something.

This statement alone is wholesale dismissal of the explanation I gave. If you can't figure out why, go cool off for a bit. You're a bit too entrenched in your own head.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Now lets say the guys reaction was to go to confess at the temple, well what if my next thing was to convince you not to go and to carry out the task? What if my next thing is to convince you to not do your response to that but instead to go carry out the task? How far would you say it needs to go before the guy carries out the task/kills himself to stop it?

As much as it makes sense to. Stop looking for magic bullet answers when it comes to trying to anticipate things that have subjective answers. Or, just cut to the chase and cast a dominate spell since that's what you're clearly going for.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
So any NPC can just ignore being convinced to so something.

This statement alone is wholesale dismissal of the explanation I gave. If you can't figure out why, go cool off for a bit. You're a bit too entrenched in your own head.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Now lets say the guys reaction was to go to confess at the temple, well what if my next thing was to convince you not to go and to carry out the task? What if my next thing is to convince you to not do your response to that but instead to go carry out the task? How far would you say it needs to go before the guy carries out the task/kills himself to stop it?
As much as it makes sense to. Stop looking for magic bullet answers when it comes to trying to anticipate things that have subjective answers. Or, just cut to the chase and cast a dominate spell since that's what you're clearly going for.

I'm not advocating what the spell should or shouldn't do. I'm merely using what I feel you're saying and pushing the boundaries. According to you any NPC will handle it as that NPC sees appropriate. And any NPC could feel it appropriate to ignore/forget having ever been convinced he need to kill his family. If I am mistaken here, please explain and restate what you meant, because this is again something I feel is allowed as per what you're saying.

So if you were my GM and gave me your ruling above of what charm person did, and then I did what I said in my example, what would you do? This is the point I'm trying to get at. Where for you is the cut off of what's allowed by the spell as it is currently worded. I'll say again that in any home game I run charm person WILL be houseruled to a more appropriate strength. But in the event of say PFS, where would you say the cutoff is for running it as written? Or perhaps your answer to this was with you saying it's a subjective answer. And I ask is that meaning that you can't rule what would happen until you're forced to make the decision in game on the fly. Or was it something else you were trying to convey?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For our Animal Farm S&S campaign my wife has a Catfolk Enchanter that charms a random burly guy to carry her around whenever she leaves the ship, super funny :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man, the only thing that I ever get out of these threads is that, like, every lawful good, neutral good, or chaotic good character I've ever made is super-evil because they want to murder and take the stuff off of the still-cooling corpse of as few people as they can along the way. I mean, I go so far as to suggest that after charm, I spend time and effort to diplomacy and rehabilitate them, perhaps with a suggestion or two along the way. Truly, these people are loathsome individuals and as a player I should feel ashamed for their miscreant behavior.


Chess Pwn wrote:
According to you any NPC will handle it as that NPC sees appropriate.

Correct.

Chess Pwn wrote:
And any NPC could feel it appropriate to ignore/forget having ever been convinced he need to kill his family.

Incorrect. I never said they should ignore it. In fact, they can't ignore it. However, chilling out for a few, is completely acceptable. Aslo acceptable is someone of, shall we say, less than good moral standards could see the proposition as a good one and follow through. It completely depends on the subject.

Chess Pwn wrote:
So if you were my GM and gave me your ruling above of what charm person did, and then I did what I said in my example, what would you do? This is the point I'm trying to get at. Where for you is the cut off of what's allowed by the spell as it is currently worded. I'll say again that in any home game I run charm person WILL be houseruled to a more appropriate strength. But in the event of say PFS, where would you say the cutoff is for running it as written? Or perhaps your answer to this was with you saying it's a subjective answer. And I ask is that meaning that you can't rule what would happen until you're forced to make the decision in game on the fly. Or was it something else you were trying to convey?

There is no set bar as to what happens. That set outcome is only outlined in dominate spells. It depends on the target and their unique way of thinking, goals, etc. This isn't one area where you can go from table to table, present your logic, and do the same thing regardless of target. It's not that easy. I would do what I thought best matched the NPC's mindset. At each step I would evaluate the request (because it's just that, if anything from Jason's response remember the "they're not your puppet" part) as a sudden change in the target's thinking and go from there. I can say the only sure fire way to get NPC to kill their family is to use a dominate spell and hope they fail their second save.

The closest thing I can see ruling beforehand would be if you knew about something an NPC wanted to do but they couldn't bring themselves to think it was okay because of social pressures, maybe they just doubted themselves, and so on. A charm person would be a great way to give them the little nudge they'd need to do something they already basically wanted to do. I would see it as a great spell for the shy and timid as long as the given commands align with what they'd naturally want to do already. Mass charm person would be great to kickstart a revolution among an already oppressed people who are tired of it but might just be a little too afraid to do something about it, imo, but could likely win if they did act.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Knowing is half the battle Tacticslion, hopefully next time you'll remember to salt the fields


Buri Reborn wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
According to you any NPC will handle it as that NPC sees appropriate.

Correct.

Chess Pwn wrote:
And any NPC could feel it appropriate to ignore/forget having ever been convinced he need to kill his family.
Incorrect. I never said they should ignore it. In fact, they can't ignore it. However, chilling out for a few, is completely acceptable. Also acceptable is someone of, shall we say, less than good moral standards could see the proposition as a good one and follow through. It completely depends on the subject.

So now you're saying that a NPC could never have a personality where they would deal with that situation the way I described?

Buri Reborn wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
So if you were my GM and gave me your ruling above of what charm person did, and then I did what I said in my example, what would you do? This is the point I'm trying to get at. Where for you is the cut off of what's allowed by the spell as it is currently worded. I'll say again that in any home game I run charm person WILL be houseruled to a more appropriate strength. But in the event of say PFS, where would you say the cutoff is for running it as written? Or perhaps your answer to this was with you saying it's a subjective answer. And I ask is that meaning that you can't rule what would happen until you're forced to make the decision in game on the fly. Or was it something else you were trying to convey?
There is no set bar as to what happens. That set outcome is only outlined in dominate spells. It depends on the target and their unique way of thinking, goals, etc. This isn't one area where you can go from table to table, present your logic, and do the same thing regardless of target. It's not that easy. I would do what I thought best matched the NPC's mindset. At each step I would evaluate the request (because it's just that, if anything from Jason's response remember the "they're not your puppet" part) as a sudden change in the target's thinking and go from there. I can say the only sure fire way to get NPC to kill their family is to use a dominate spell and hope they fail their second save.

So you're saying the spell does nothing/whatever your GM feels like at the time. Which is a fine stance to have. But you're right, I don't like not having ANY basis for how a spell would be handled in a campaign. To me that shatters my suspension of belief that my character wouldn't have a good idea of how his spell would work most of the time. Like what the likely outcome is if he consistently succeeds at convincing them to only do the task and nothing else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dude, quit trying to take my responses as being omniscient and setting hard limits of being the only outcomes. My response remains the same: it depends on the NPC.

I'll just quote you Bulmahn's response that rings true regardless of your intended use of the spell:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
its not your puppet

You claim you're "merely" trying to get at my understanding yet your responses consistently take an adversarial tone. Go play it how you will. You have my answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
According to you any NPC will handle it as that NPC sees appropriate.

Correct.

Chess Pwn wrote:
And any NPC could feel it appropriate to ignore/forget having ever been convinced he need to kill his family.
Incorrect. I never said they should ignore it. In fact, they can't ignore it. However, chilling out for a few, is completely acceptable. Also acceptable is someone of, shall we say, less than good moral standards could see the proposition as a good one and follow through. It completely depends on the subject.
So now you're saying that a NPC could never have a personality where they would deal with that situation the way I described?

Chess Pwn,I think that's exactly the opposite of what he's saying. Maybe reread?

(Buri, please correct me if I'm wrong.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
littlehewy wrote:

Chess Pwn,I think that's exactly the opposite of what he's saying. Maybe reread?

(Buri, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Nah, I'm done. It seems no matter how general I try to be, Chess Pwn keeps trying to draw hard conclusions to each of my responses.


Buri Reborn wrote:

Dude, quit trying to take my responses as being omniscient and setting hard limits of being the only outcomes. My response remains the same: it depends on the NPC.

I'll just quote you Bulmahn's response that rings true regardless of your intended use of the spell:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
its not your puppet
You claim you're "merely" trying to get at my understanding yet your responses consistently take an adversarial tone. Go play it how you will. You have my answer.

I'm not asking you for a response that works for everyone. I'm asking as if I was a player for your table.

When I say "so you're saying" is me seeing if I have understood correctly what you're trying to convey.

I'm sorry it's coming off adversarial, do you have advice or suggestions on how to ask these same questions to you without it coming off adversarial?


littlehewy wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
According to you any NPC will handle it as that NPC sees appropriate.

Correct.

Chess Pwn wrote:
And any NPC could feel it appropriate to ignore/forget having ever been convinced he need to kill his family.
Incorrect. I never said they should ignore it. In fact, they can't ignore it. However, chilling out for a few, is completely acceptable. Also acceptable is someone of, shall we say, less than good moral standards could see the proposition as a good one and follow through. It completely depends on the subject.
So now you're saying that a NPC could never have a personality where they would deal with that situation the way I described?

Chess Pwn,I think that's exactly the opposite of what he's saying. Maybe reread?

(Buri, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as mean or rude or antagonistic. But I'm just trying to understand how he's saying things.

first he says that NPC's react according to how they would react. So I asked if that that means that an NPC's reaction could be to ignore/forget he had been convinced to Carry out the task. Then he said that an NPC can't ignore it. So then I clarified by asking if he was saying that an NPC's proper reaction could never be to ignore/forget it. I'm struggling to see how he's fitting his pieces together from what he's saying. If it's clear to you perhaps you can help answer for him, but from how my mind is interpreting what he is saying isn't clear on these details yet.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My 4 copper...

I don't hate Charm Person, but I do when NPCs use it. Taking control of the players and making them fight their friends? Not cool.

As for using it on NPCs, it's mind control plain and simple. The game doesn't see it as evil, but... many other games do. Sure, it's not Dominate Person... so you can't make them kill themselves or fight someone they are loyal to... but if you charm a minion who just works for the big bad until he finds the chance to stab him in the back, well then it works. But, it's still mind control. It may not be evil, but it's kinda shady.

Then you have the whole "charm the barmaid and take her upstairs" scenario. I've never had a player do that, but I've read about players who do that. Me? Sure, I'd totally let a player do that. It would also be an immediate shift to evil alignment. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 gold, I don't care of you are good. You're now evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think I'm going to attempt to speak for Buri anymore, but to put forth my own view, where it says,

PRD wrote:
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do

in no way does "anything it wouldn't ordinarily do" mean "anything at all", or "something it would never do". This is why RPGs need a GM.

My best friends could certainly convince me to do many things I wouldn't ordinarily do, but they could never convince me to kill somebody I loved.

I also strongly disagree with Jason's comment, and I'd bet if he were asked, he'd recant that statement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:


Then you have the whole "charm the barmaid and take her upstairs" scenario. I've never had a player do that, but I've read about players who do that. Me? Sure, I'd totally let a player do that. It would also be an immediate shift to evil alignment. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 gold, I don't care of you are good. You're now evil.

One evil action and your PCs have to shift alignment from good to evil, without even a stopover in Neutralville? That seems pretty harsh... If I were one of your players, I'd want that made clear to me at the start of play!

Dark Archive

littlehewy wrote:
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:


Then you have the whole "charm the barmaid and take her upstairs" scenario. I've never had a player do that, but I've read about players who do that. Me? Sure, I'd totally let a player do that. It would also be an immediate shift to evil alignment. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 gold, I don't care of you are good. You're now evil.
One evil action and your PCs have to shift alignment from good to evil, without even a stopover in Neutralville? That seems pretty harsh... If I were one of your players, I'd want that made clear to me at the start of play!

Oh, my players know my views on... what that would be. I'm not even saying the 4 letter word for what it is, so yeah. It might not be in my house rules, but that's how I feel about it. Charm Person is way out in left field from getting the barmaid drunk then taking her upstairs. That would get you stop in Neutralville. Charm Person to get her upstairs doesn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:


Then you have the whole "charm the barmaid and take her upstairs" scenario. I've never had a player do that, but I've read about players who do that. Me? Sure, I'd totally let a player do that. It would also be an immediate shift to evil alignment. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 gold, I don't care of you are good. You're now evil.
One evil action and your PCs have to shift alignment from good to evil, without even a stopover in Neutralville? That seems pretty harsh... If I were one of your players, I'd want that made clear to me at the start of play!
Oh, my players know my views on... what that would be. I'm not even saying the 4 letter word for what it is, so yeah. It might not be in my house rules, but that's how I feel about it. Charm Person is way out in left field from getting the barmaid drunk then taking her upstairs. That would get you stop in Neutralville. Charm Person to get her upstairs doesn't.

Oh, it's certainly rape, which is obviously a pretty big evil act. I was just commenting on your implementation of forced alignment changes for PCs, and how they differ from the norm.

Each to their own, though. I'm definitely not suggesting badwrongfun :) So long as your players know the drill and you run it consistently, there's nothing for me to criticise there.


littlehewy wrote:

I don't think I'm going to attempt to speak for Buri anymore, but to put forth my own view, where it says,

PRD wrote:
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do

in no way does "anything it wouldn't ordinarily do" mean "anything at all", or "something it would never do". This is why RPGs need a GM.

My best friends could certainly convince me to do many things I wouldn't ordinarily do, but they could never convince me to kill somebody I loved.

I also strongly disagree with Jason's comment, and I'd bet if he were asked, he'd recant that statement.

I don't know if you've read the entire thread or not so I'll sum up some of my issues with what you've said to see how you feel it works with them.

1) isn't something it would never do also something it doesn't ordinarily do? Where do you feel it's making the distinction?

2) Except the spell specifically says that if you lose the opposed charisma check then you DID convince them. As the real world doesn't have this spell I feel you can't use it. The spell says you convince them, regardless of how crazy the command. So according to what the spell says why do you feel that such thing wouldn't be allowed.

3) I would love for something official to change the spell or limit the effects of the spell. But with what information we have I feel that I am portraying the power of the spell. And I'm not seeing where as written it's being limited. Muri was the closest to giving a good answer that fit everything, but he got tired of explaining his view in a way that I could understand. I don't blame him, as sometimes it takes a lot of answers for me to get the clear picture. Also I'm afraid that he read my posts in an argumentative tone rather than in a nice tone. As tone is hard to convey in text if he or anyone has advice on this please share. I really enjoy communicating better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In July, on the release date of 'Occult Adventures', the Mesmerist, will be arrested for being evil-by-nature, no matter alignment, by the PC fantasy police.


Chess Pwn wrote:

I don't know if you've read the entire thread or not so I'll sum up some of my issues with what you've said to see how you feel it works with them.

1) isn't something it would never do also something it doesn't ordinarily do? Where do you feel it's making the distinction?

No, they are definitely not the same thing. I demonstrated that when I stated:

Quote:
My best friends could certainly convince me to do many things I wouldn't ordinarily do, but they could never convince me to kill somebody I loved.

Bungee jumping is something I wouldn't ordinarily do. Killing my spouse is something I would never, ever do. They are definitely different qualitative categories.

Quote:

2) Except the spell specifically says that if you lose the opposed charisma check then you DID convince them. As the real world doesn't have this spell I feel you can't use it. The spell says you convince them, regardless of how crazy the command. So according to what the spell says why do you feel that such thing wouldn't be allowed.

No, it doesn't specifically say if you win the check they are convinced. It says you can try by making an opposed Cha check. It doesn't definitively state the outcomes.

Don't get me wrong, I think the spell is poorly worded and could use an FAQ. But again, that's the GM's job, to interpret the rules. If you were my GM, we'd play it your way - I'd respectfully note my disagreement with your interpretation once, and that would be it. Words must be interpretated. It's tricky, because there are usually multiple ways to interpret words (which is why lawyers get paid the big bucks). My interpretation, though, fits with my understanding of the power level of a first-level spell, which is why I interpret it that way. Yours doesn't, which is why I disagree. In the end, though, there's no definitive right answer here.

'Cause words :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
littlehewy wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

I don't know if you've read the entire thread or not so I'll sum up some of my issues with what you've said to see how you feel it works with them.

1) isn't something it would never do also something it doesn't ordinarily do? Where do you feel it's making the distinction?

No, they are definitely not the same thing. I demonstrated that when I stated:

Quote:
My best friends could certainly convince me to do many things I wouldn't ordinarily do, but they could never convince me to kill somebody I loved.
Bungee jumping is something I wouldn't ordinarily do. Killing my spouse is something I would never, ever do. They are definitely different qualitative categories.

I'm still not seeing what in the spell is making you feel it has such distinctions between these things. Wouldn't "things you never do" be a subset of "things you don't normally do"? I have and never will climb mount everest, thus I don't ordinarily climb mount everest. I'm not seeing how you're getting that effect from the spell as is.

littlehewy wrote:
Quote:

2) Except the spell specifically says that if you lose the opposed charisma check then you DID convince them. As the real world doesn't have this spell I feel you can't use it. The spell says you convince them, regardless of how crazy the command. So according to what the spell says why do you feel that such thing wouldn't be allowed.

No, it doesn't specifically say if you win the check they are convinced. It says you can try by making an opposed Cha check. It doesn't definitively state the outcomes.
Quote:
but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.

It specifically does says you must win an opposed Cha to convince it to do something. It says you can try to give it orders, but must make a check if it's something it wouldn't normally do. Are you saying that it says you must make a CHA check to convince it to do something but that if you win you still don't convince them to do it?

littlehewy wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I think the spell is poorly worded and could use an FAQ. But again, that's the GM's job, to interpret the rules. If you were my GM, we'd play it your way - I'd respectfully note my disagreement with your interpretation once, and that would be it. Words must be interpretated. It's tricky, because there are usually multiple ways to interpret words (which is why lawyers get paid the big bucks). My interpretation, though, fits with my understanding of the power level of a first-level spell, which is why I interpret it that way. Yours doesn't, which is why I disagree. In the end, though, there's no definitive right answer here.

'Cause words :)

Your interpretation of what the spell should be probably does indeed fit the power level of a 1st level spell. But I don't see HOW you're interpreting what is there to be what you say the limitations are. My interpretation I feel is using the simplest definitions of what is said along with the example that Jason gave to the effects of the spell. I'd love for it to be changed or FAQed into lower power, but as it's currently made and explained by Jason, I don't feel you can limit the spell such and say you're not making a house-rule on it. I now know you haven't read everything I've posted because I've said multiple times that if I were to GM I would houserule it to be different, so If I were your GM It wouldn't be ran as I interpret it.


littlehewy wrote:
stuff

If there was a lv1 spell that said "target a creature, that creature becomes your best friend. You May do 100D6 per level to that creature as a free action, but then the spell ends." What would you feel about that? that it can't be that strong since it beats disintegrate which is a much higher level spell? It's not the spell's fault that it's so strong/broken. It's that it exists in the first place as is/isn't a higher level spell.


I really, honestly read "something it wouldn't ordinarily do" as not including "something it would never do". I'm not trying to wring out an interpretation that is kinda maybe possible, that's actually how I read it.

You read it differently. Like I said, 'cause words. Words are not numbers that can always be added, divided, square rooted etc to find an exact, objectively correct answer. Sometimes they can, but I think this is a case where ambiguity exists. I'm not lawyering to try to get you to agree with what I think the spell should be, I'm telling you what those words mean to me.

Just to repeat, I don't think that "something it would never do" is a subset of "something it wouldn't ordinarily do". An action that is "something it wouldn't ordinarily do" suggests strongly that it's an action that may possibly be undertaken, but not ordinarily. "Something it would never do" is not in that category. I think that if charm person were intended (note my use of the subjunctive to indicate the lack of this being a real possibility) to allow the caster to convince the subject to do whatever the caster wanted, the spell would use stronger language, such as, "you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do something it otherwise wouldn't do", or, "you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything you like"*.

Does that make my position clearer?

Edit:
* Or, "with a successful opposed Cha check, the subject will follow any orders you give it that are not directly harmful".


Okay so you have three buckets, a normally do, not normally do, and a never normally do. I guess if you hold that those three buckets exist and are discrete then them using the specific language for the middle bucket would exclude the "never do" bucket.

I don't have three buckets. So you're correct that we view it differently, but I do now see where you're coming from on this point.

I feel that you've created an artificial limiting distinction that isn't really there and shouldn't be. Nothing in the text implies this distinction of definition. But it's how you read it, so for you it exists.

The reasoning for my view is what is based on the question, what is the distinguishing factor that changes "an action that may possibly be undertaken, but not ordinarily" to "Something it would never do"? I know in my life there were things that I'd never do, and I thought I'd never do them up until the point that I did them. Looking back I still can't understand what exactly caused the change, but I'm now back to never wanting to do them again.

This view of mine leads me to feel that all the wordings you gave in your example mean the exact same thing in regards to the effects of this spell.

TLDR I now understand where you're coming from, but feel you're wrong in your interpretation of the meaning of "not ordinarily do". I feel you're artificially adding a limiting factor that isn't really there. But you've conveyed your point so as of now I don't have further questions for you. Thank you for your time :D


Chess Pwn wrote:

Okay so you have three buckets, a normally do, not normally do, and a never normally do. I guess if you hold that those three buckets exist and are discreet then them using the specific language for the middle bucket would exclude the "never do" bucket.

I don't have three buckets. So you're correct that we view it differently, but I do now see where you're coming from on this point.

I feel that you've created an artificial limiting distinction that isn't really there and shouldn't be. Nothing in the text implies this distinction of definition. But it's how you read it, so for you it exists.

The reasoning for my view is what is based on the question, what is the distinguishing factor that changes "an action that may possibly be undertaken, but not ordinarily" to "Something it would never do"? I know in my life there were things that I'd never do, and I thought I'd never do them up until the point that I did them. Looking back I still can't understand what exactly caused the change, but I'm now back to never wanting to do them again.

This view of mine leads me to feel that all the wordings you gave in your example mean the exact same thing in regards to the effects of this spell.

TLDR I now understand where you're coming from, but feel you're wrong in your interpretation of the meaning of "not ordinarily do". I feel you're artificially adding a limiting factor that isn't really there. But you've conveyed your point so as of now I don't have further questions for you. Thank you for your time :D

Agreeing to disagree must be considered a huge win on an Internet forum :) Cheers mate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Okay so you have three buckets, a normally do, not normally do, and a never normally do. I guess if you hold that those three buckets exist and are discreet then them using the specific language for the middle bucket would exclude the "never do" bucket.

That's "discrete", not "discreet"!

Drop and give me twenty!


Grammar Coach wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Okay so you have three buckets, a normally do, not normally do, and a never normally do. I guess if you hold that those three buckets exist and are discreet then them using the specific language for the middle bucket would exclude the "never do" bucket.

That's "discrete", not "discreet"!

Drop and give me twenty!

NOOOO!!! Dang typo. You've cost me my avoiding exercise today.

1, 2, 3... 20


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Looks at the constant back and forth disagreement

That wand of Charm Person was so worth it.

101 to 150 of 213 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / why all the hate on charm person? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.