Charm person


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

17 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can charm person be used to convince an NPC to kill someone dear to him, as being something the NPC doesn't ordinarily do, for any reason? Like by convincing that they are going to kill him so he must do it first, that they are an impostor and need to be killed, etc. If this is allowed to be something you can convince an NPC to do, what are the NPC's options for dealing with this? What are some of the least extreme reactions he can do to not carry it out? Are the alternate choices just as extreme for a lesser command, like if you've convinced the Orc to till a field would he need to till the field or kill himself to not have to?

In the blog that time forgot Jason responded saying that, Yes you can convince someone to kill a loved one, but that it would usually require the opposed charisma check. And if the NPC failed he could kill himself to not have to carry it out. Is this to mean that if the NPC loses the charisma check that they need to do something that drastic to get out of following the command? Or was this just one of the extreme options and the NPC has simpler options,Or was Jason wrong in his example and it's not a valid request?

Recent discussion on the matter here


as a GM, if you roleplayed the shit out of it, came up with all sorts of convincing arguements, and really came up with a compelling story why they would kill someone, then I'd consider it. but if you just said "I cast charm person, then I make a charisma check to get him to kill his cousin the evil duke." then no, its a level one spell, and should not be a save or suck to turn someone into your own personal assassin.

I'm a huge proponent for charm person working in fun and interesting ways, and all spells/skills for that matter. but it is a level 1 spell.

Dominate person is the spell your looking for. that will get what you need done every time, so long as they fail their will save twice.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Charm person makes the target treat you as friendly. Making the charisma check doesn't turn it into dominate person.

That charisma check is there for things like 'abandon your post' to a guard. Not for 'murder your best friend'.


As a 1st level spell, it is NOT that powerful. The charmed person sees you as a "friend". If your friend told you to kill someone dear to you, would you? The spell states that an affected creature never obeys harmful orders.


charm person would be usefull in a situation where you stealthed into BBEG's castle, managed to get a one on one with the captain of his mercenary guard company and got a charm person off on him. then you could offer him a stupid amount of money to switch sides, which mercenary companies often do, and use your CHA check to convince him that you'll "definately pay him later when this is all done." hell even convince him he's been paid with fools gold, or illusions of gold that arent actually real, really sell him on turning against his former master. but no, you could not really convince a good man to kill his family. you could convince an assassin to kill someone though.

I think a big part of peoples problem with charm person is that some people treat it like an I-win button, when in actually its an I have a great opportunity to slightly shift the balance of power in my game-button.

its a lot of fun to play around with the spell, and a great opportunity for roleplaying. as a GM though, you have to make sure its not the players I-win button.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To reiterate what I said above - charm person makes the target think of you as a friend.

In combat, that can get complicated very quickly, because it's very confusing to see one 'friend' fighting with your other (real) friends. (Even if you charm a lone monster, it's still weird because it doesn't make the target see your allies (the other PCs) as friends, just you. And seeing your 'friend' hanging around with these other miscreants is also confusing.) So I'm not going to address the in-combat use here - every player and every GM is going to see things differently. Just remember that it's a first level spell, and move on.

But, out of combat, it's pretty easy to gauge. Charm person makes the target do for you what they would normally do for a friend. Typically, this means things like: (And I do stress typically, because everyone has a different relationship with their friends.)

  • Pay for my drink
  • Share a secret
  • Give you a small loan
  • Tell a small lie on your behalf

The charisma check is for things that are out-of-character for that person, including larger versions of the above. Bluff can help here - "Let me past, I left my gloves in the Baron's quarters" is a lot easier to swallow that "Let me past, I need to kill the Baron."
The kinds of things you might do for a really old friend, who you can trust, with whom you've exchanged favors before.
Most things with non-trivial consequences are in here:

  • Do something that can hurt their livelihood
  • Risk physical injury
  • Reveal secrets that could cause them harm
  • Small legal or moral transgressions

Stuff beyond that is out of the bounds of a [Charm] sub-school effect. There is some leeway, obviously - a mercenary, bouncer, or other professional combatant is more likely to be willing to pick a fight for a 'friend' than a baker.

Basically, if you wouldn't do it for your spouse and/or while drunk, you won't do it for a charm spell, even with a successful charisma check.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
baconwing wrote:
I think a big part of peoples problem with charm person is that some people treat it like an I-win button, when in actually its an I have a great opportunity to slightly shift the balance of power in my game-button.

I'm actually kind of surprised charm person still has its own rules. Jump gives you a bonus on your jump check. Disguise self gives you a bonus on a Disguise check and lets you do it faster.

Charm person could be rewritten to be a special Diplomacy check.


Ross Byers wrote:
baconwing wrote:
I think a big part of peoples problem with charm person is that some people treat it like an I-win button, when in actually its an I have a great opportunity to slightly shift the balance of power in my game-button.

I'm actually kind of surprised charm person still has its own rules. Jump gives you a bonus on your jump check. Disguise self gives you a bonus on a Disguise check and lets you do it faster.

Charm person could be rewritten to be a special Diplomacy check.

yes I agree, if you couldnt get someone to do what your asking using diplomacy, then you cant get them to do it with charm person. with charm person, you might be able to push it A LITTLE BIT, but not much more than a diplomacy check against someone who is at max friendliness to you


Dr Styx wrote:
As a 1st level spell, it is NOT that powerful. The charmed person sees you as a "friend". If your friend told you to kill someone dear to you, would you? The spell states that an affected creature never obeys harmful orders.

After I cast charm person on you and you fail your save.

Dear Dr Styx I am your trusted friend and ally, Your wife is currently an alien impostor and is heading up the invasion of Earth, with the intent to annihilate the all sentient beings. I need you to kill it today before it can reach its contact downtown. It has captured your real wife, and I'll be able to free her once you've taken out the impostor. Please, we need your help to save the world!

Now I win the opposed Charisma check, if one is needed. Now what happens? As per the spell you've now been convinced you need to do this since I won the Cha check.

Now if it's established that the above example is allowed and the result is you kill your fake wife or kill yourself, then saying "I cast Charm person" and assuming my character says something like the above when he wants you to kill your wife, to me, just speeds up play.

The fact that it's a lv 1 spell has nothing to do with the actual strength of the spell as is. Yes it implies a certain level of effects from lv 1 spells, so charm person should be weakened to an appropriate state or raised to a higher level. These would be excellent outcomes from a FAQ. Because if there was a lv 1 spell saying do 1000 damage no save and no SR, then that's what the spell does, even though it's a first level spell. "Should it be a lv 1 spell" is different question than "what does the spell actually do".

And the goal for this post is for a FAQ is to clarify what "a harmful order" is and what is allowed. Also to establish if "Something you'd never do" is the same as "something you wouldn't ordinarily do"

Now I've said my peace for this thread. I've already hashed this out in the linked thread. I'm just wanting to hopefully gather some support for a FAQ on this issue. So if you want to prove me wrong hit the FAQ button! If you want to join me in being correct, hit the FAQ button! :D

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Chess, charm person doesn't make the target automatically believe your lies. An 'impossible' lie has a -20 penalty. "Trusted" doesn't mean much here - if my best friend told me my wife was a pod person, I'd still wouldn't believe him without some damn good proof.

But yes, charm person combined with a glibness will get you pretty far. (Incidentally, there is a reason glibness is a higher level spell than charm person - charm person is not glibness with a saving throw.)

But that -20 penalty means you're either dealing with higher-level spells (glibness) or higher-level characters (which still indirectly means higher spell levels) or both.

Being a 'trusted friend and ally' doesn't make the target automatically ignorant of the consequences of their actions. I'm not going to commit murder for anyone, no matter how good of a friend they are. If for nothing else, because I don't want to get hung.

"Create a diversion so we can get in" is the kind of thing I'd maybe do for a friend, for a good enough reason. "Punch that big guy in the mouth, we need to start a barfight" is not. I'm not a violent person, but on top of that, I don't want to get punched back. The fact that the person asking is my friend doesn't change that.


Ross Byers wrote:

Chess, charm person doesn't make the target automatically believe your lies. An 'impossible' lie has a -20 penalty. "Trusted" doesn't mean much here - if my best friend told me my wife was a pod person, I'd still wouldn't believe him without some damn good proof.

But yes, charm person combined with a glibness will get you pretty far. (Incidentally, there is a reason glibness is a higher level spell than charm person - charm person is not glibness with a saving throw.)

But that -20 penalty means you're either dealing with higher-level spells (glibness) or higher-level characters (which still indirectly means higher spell levels) or both.

Being a 'trusted friend and ally' doesn't make the target automatically ignorant of the consequences of their actions. I'm not going to commit murder for anyone, no matter how good of a friend they are. If for nothing else, because I don't want to get hung.

"Create a diversion so we can get in" is the kind of thing I'd maybe do for a friend, for a good enough reason. "Punch that big guy in the mouth, we need to start a barfight" is not. I'm not a violent person, but on top of that, I don't want to get punched back. The fact that the person asking is my friend doesn't change that.

Quit it with the reasonableness, will ya?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

In the other thread, someone actually put this really well

7thGate wrote:

I find this fascinating, since I also interpret "something I would ordinarily do", "something I wouldn't ordinarily do" and "something I would never do" as nonintersecting sets, an interpretation that seems to be held by some people and not by others.

The question I have for myself is why I feel that way, since it would generally make sense that if a set of actions is described as matching a particular adjective, than all other actions should be "not" that adjective. As such, if an action is not an action that I would ordinarily do, it must be an action I wouldn't ordinarily do.

I thought about it, and I came to the conclusion that the reason why I felt differently was that the phrase has additional connotations beyond its literal definition. If you hear someone start a sentence, "I wouldn't ordinarily do this, but...", what are they about to agree to do? They are universally about to agree to do something contrary to what they normally do, but never something extreme. It is not a phrase that is used to describe murdering your family or lighting your neighbor's house on fire, its a phrase used to describe not giving someone a speeding ticket, letting a friend copy off your homework assignment or pretending to call in sick to work because the girl you met at a party last night wants you to do something. Describing murdering your family as something that "you wouldn't ordinarily do" is like describing torturing someone to death as being "unkind". Yes, technically, its probably an accurate statement, but its not the correct phrase for what you're trying to communicate. I think the difference between the implied and the literal definition further amplifies something that was already poorly written and mechanically flawed to help propagate a myriad of different interpretations for how this should function.

Emphasis mine.


A lot of the game is designed to be a GM's general guideline, rather than something that requires a Supreme Court of rule evaluation.

I'll spare you all the minutia of how I'd/or have dealt with "Charm Person" in the past. What I do offer is a call for common sense- recognize it is a 1st level spell, and it simply makes the target find the charmer particularly awesome. If the charmed individual finds a suggestion particularly absurd, it requires a charisma check- The charmer winning that check does not get 'control', rather, the charmed character will act in some way to the the request, in a manner appropriate to their alignment and personality.

That's just my take, but I'd caution against increasing the power of any 1st level spell, to anything close to a "Dominate Person" level of influence. Nobody is going to kill somebody they would not reasonably kill. They may strongly confront someone they previously had no problem with, but they won't resort to violence, unless they are an individual already prone to violence.


Are... are you picking a fight?

Cause if you are I really should open up the ticket booth


I agree, the use of charm is to get someone who would/is not ordinarily friendly toward you. A tired no non sense bouncer, an arrogant Lord of the land, an aggressive merc looking for your bounty.

A successful cast of charm changes the way these people see you, and then make them more likely to listen to you. Suggesting harmful actions to themselves or others they deem to be friends or family will not work with a successful CHA check.

As before you can get he chance to convince them of things they would do in the normal/pre-charmed disposition. ie, let you into the theatre, persuade a more favours out of the Lord, Pay off the merc or hire for your own cause.

In my experience as a DM the best use of Charm on a party member was to have go find the other guards to help their "new" friend. The PC was only told they were upstairs, and so spent the entirety of the combat somewhere else upstairs looking for help.


Ed, Pointless Argument Admissions Clerk wrote:

Are... are you picking a fight?

Cause if you are I really should open up the ticket booth

I've learned long ago, to never pick a fight with anyone named Ed! Eds fight dirty and balls may be crushed! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The best part about players using Charm Person waaaay beyond it's means is when the PC comes to the tavern after a long day and tells the other PCs what a great guy he met at the market and how he told the new best friend all of their tactics, including a detailed list on what magic items they have, what information they know about the bad guys, what order they prefer to walk down a 10 foot hallway, what illegal things they've done (if applicable), and who all of their surviving relatives are.

Baseline--don't do things to the GM that you don't want done to your PC.


I have bard who does use charm person in fights. He charms the foe then uses bluff or diplomacy to suggest less then optimal tactics against the other PCs or to surrender because they have already lost. This takes at least 2 actions. I am fine with that kind of thing.

Don't hurt them it's a misunderstanding leads to non lethal attacks.

There is 5 of us and only 4 of you give up now leads to 1 guy throwing down his sword. He may even try convince the others. It helps that my PCs have a rep for accepting surrender.

Run away you do not want to be a part of this causes a guy to just leave.


That's pretty ballsy to use Charm Person while your buddies are attacking it. How do you get around the +5 bonus they get to the save, or have you just had really good luck? I could see that working if your target doesn't realize you're with the other teammates, but if you're in the middle of a dungeon, I would think the targets would recognize you as a threat and likely part of that group.

Dark Archive

my razmiri "cleric" often uses charm person to save his own skin, since he's absolutely useless in a fight. on more than one occasion, I've paraphrased the crazy irish guy, stephen, from braveheart:

"razmir tells me he can get me out of this, but he's pretty sure you're fooked!"

he's optimized for enchantment spells, so bad guys rarely make the save even in combat. and that's assuming he hasn't popped off a charm spell using spellsong BEFORE combat. after that, he tends to shout "proteeeeect meeeeee!" before falling prone and going total defense, trying to stay out of the way. he'll toss out a channel or a buff spell from prone if necessary.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hasn't this already been put into the FAQ?


Also, remember that Charm Person only has a duration of 1 hour per level.

Any task that you wish the subject to undertake that requires more time than that is almost certainly going to end up as a failure.

Additionally, according the rules for Charmed in the glossary, if your request is one against wish the subject would be violently opposed, the subject automatically gains another saving throw to shake free of the spell entirely.

Lastly, Charm Person doesn't modify the subject's memory. If the subject is even passingly intelligent, they will be aware of the fact that their mind was influenced (most likely by magic) as soon as the effects wear off. That subject is not likely to sit around and feel, "Oh well," about such an event.


Saldiven wrote:

Also, remember that Charm Person only has a duration of 1 hour per level.

Any task that you wish the subject to undertake that requires more time than that is almost certainly going to end up as a failure.

Additionally, according the rules for Charmed in the glossary, if your request is one against wish the subject would be violently opposed, the subject automatically gains another saving throw to shake free of the spell entirely.

Lastly, Charm Person doesn't modify the subject's memory. If the subject is even passingly intelligent, they will be aware of the fact that their mind was influenced (most likely by magic) as soon as the effects wear off. That subject is not likely to sit around and feel, "Oh well," about such an event.

True, but if you get them to do something crazy then the spell has worn off when the authorities check if he was charmed to do it. And then it's his low CHA word against the God of bluffing's word.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Saldiven wrote:

Also, remember that Charm Person only has a duration of 1 hour per level.

Any task that you wish the subject to undertake that requires more time than that is almost certainly going to end up as a failure.

Additionally, according the rules for Charmed in the glossary, if your request is one against wish the subject would be violently opposed, the subject automatically gains another saving throw to shake free of the spell entirely.

Lastly, Charm Person doesn't modify the subject's memory. If the subject is even passingly intelligent, they will be aware of the fact that their mind was influenced (most likely by magic) as soon as the effects wear off. That subject is not likely to sit around and feel, "Oh well," about such an event.

True, but if you get them to do something crazy then the spell has worn off when the authorities check if he was charmed to do it. And then it's his low CHA word against the God of bluffing's word.

Unless the authorities make routine use of Touch of Truthtelling. Then the charmer is royally screwed unless they can get around it with an effect that isn't easily detectable and lets them lie through truth spells. Even if they can, it then becomes their word vs the charmee's, with the authorities knowing that something seriously wrong is happening. It will draw a lot of scrutiny onto the charmer, and they won't be able to get away with it more than once or twice before the authorities figure it out.

Oh, and just in case it isn't clear...yes, you can resist Touch of Truthtelling, but...

...the caster knows. And observers don't see the characteristic signs of the spell. So resisting the spell is tantamount to telling the authorities that you aren't going to talk.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Saldiven wrote:

Also, remember that Charm Person only has a duration of 1 hour per level.

Any task that you wish the subject to undertake that requires more time than that is almost certainly going to end up as a failure.

Additionally, according the rules for Charmed in the glossary, if your request is one against wish the subject would be violently opposed, the subject automatically gains another saving throw to shake free of the spell entirely.

Lastly, Charm Person doesn't modify the subject's memory. If the subject is even passingly intelligent, they will be aware of the fact that their mind was influenced (most likely by magic) as soon as the effects wear off. That subject is not likely to sit around and feel, "Oh well," about such an event.

True, but if you get them to do something crazy then the spell has worn off when the authorities check if he was charmed to do it. And then it's his low CHA word against the God of bluffing's word.

Or, he could just go get all his buddies and family to come and slaughter the party en masse. Or, maybe the local authorities have magic use enough to detect that he's telling the truth, and those magic using authorities come to arrest the party caster.

It's amazing how players seem to think that the players can come up with super original uses of spells or abilities or rules interpretations that will NEVER come back to bite them.

A rule of thumb: Any rule interpretation that makes any given spell, effect, special ability, attack, etc. stronger is in the worst interest of the party. This is because those effects will be used against the party far more often than the party will ever use them against any single opponent.

{Any GM that is allowing effects to have an interpretation at the higher end of the power spectrum and then not using that same interpretation against the party is making a huge mistake in game balance.}


Meh, have him kill his family and then meet you out in the middle of no where a few hours away and kill him there. Yes magic can solve a lot, and it can solve a lot of those solutions. If they are going to do it they better do a good job or they'll be caught.


You can't use Charm Person for murder anyway, that is a 'harmful' action, which the spell explicitly forbids.


Hey guys, can I only focus on half a spell's text to make it do what I want? Is that a metamagic feat or...?


When half a spell's text lets you ignore the other part then that's what you do.
Or when the half we're focusing on isn't related to the other part.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Chess, your assertion seems to be 'If I threat these as unrelated, I can get the result I want.' or 'I can use these rules to override those rules, meaning those rules might as well not exist.'

The reaction of the more moderate elements in this thread (and every other charm person thread you post your 'pod person wife' hyythesis in) is that those rules are related and 'those rules' do affect 'these rules' or their wouldn't have been included in the book.

Part of communicating like a human being is teasing out meaning from context. It why when someone asks 'Do you have the time?', you answer 'It's quarter past noon' (or whatever the actual time is), not 'yes.' The 'yes' is an accurate response to the question they asked, but we can almost always surmise that they asked because they want the immediate and obvious follow up: 'What time is it?'

Trying to read the rules as if their structure is meaningless and redundant does not mean you were smarter than the designers. It means you're communicating badly and then being smug about it.

At least the pendulum is moving, I guess. There was a time when a charm person debate on these forums meant people claiming that no one could ever be charmed because they saw you casting the spell and therefore have the masterful presence of mind to ignore your new-found friendship.


The spell says it makes them friendly to you as a trusted and valued friend.
You don't control them as a robot, but they listen to you in the best way.

(we've now moved on to the second part that doesn't relate to the first other than if a check is needed.)
You can give them orders.
If the order is something they wouldn't ordinarily do (GM decides if it's something they would ordinarily do or not) then you go to the opposed CHA check to convince them they need to do it.

The fact that they are friendly doesn't have an effect on the limitations of the CHA check. It does influence if you need to make the check, as if it's something they'd ordinarily do for a trusted friend then there's no check. The CHA check isn't limited to things IRL someone could convince a friend to do for them ordinarily, because those are things that don't need a check. The check is to do things they wouldn't do for a friend. If you win the CHA check they are convinced they need to do your order, otherwise what was the point of the check?

And then there's the post from Jason clarifying the FAQ that HE put out about charm person minutes after HE posted the FAQ. Mark/PDT now does this more officially with some of the FAQs they make today, give some clarifying soon after posting the FAQ. So I feel you can't just wave off his post as that was the official way they did thing back then. He made a FAQ and then He clarified HIS faq.

In his response he clarifies that kill you spouse and kids is a valid order to give. That you'll usually need the CHA check. That the NPC can commit suicide to prevent himself from carrying out the order. Since he has the choice of doing it or death, thus he'd not an automaton.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Meh, have him kill his family and then meet you out in the middle of no where a few hours away and kill him there. Yes magic can solve a lot, and it can solve a lot of those solutions. If they are going to do it they better do a good job or they'll be caught.

Again, it isn't mind control. In fact, the rules for Charm specifically state it isn't mind control.

But, then, acknowledging that undermines your entire argument, doesn't it?

And, "a few hours later?" Remember the duration of Charm Person? If you're high enough level to have several hours of Charm Person duration, you probably have access to better mind influencing magic, anyway, making this discussion largely irrelevant.

Oh, and magic does solve a lot of problems, especially if you take a very liberal interpretation of the rules.

Again, I really hope your GM uses these interpretations against your party if he allows them to be used by the players. It won't take very long for the party to come to a decision that this interpretation is probably not the best way to go, regardless of any interpretation of what the rules do or do not say on the matter.


Chess Pwn wrote:

The spell says it makes them friendly to you as a trusted and valued friend.

You don't control them as a robot, but they listen to you in the best way.

(we've now moved on to the second part that doesn't relate to the first other than if a check is needed.)
You can give them orders.
If the order is something they wouldn't ordinarily do (GM decides if it's something they would ordinarily do or not) then you go to the opposed CHA check to convince them they need to do it.

The fact that they are friendly doesn't have an effect on the limitations of the CHA check. It does influence if you need to make the check, as if it's something they'd ordinarily do for a trusted friend then there's no check. The CHA check isn't limited to things IRL someone could convince a friend to do for them ordinarily, because those are things that don't need a check. The check is to do things they wouldn't do for a friend. If you win the CHA check they are convinced they need to do your order, otherwise what was the point of the check?

And then there's the post from Jason clarifying the FAQ that HE put out about charm person minutes after HE posted the FAQ. Mark/PDT now does this more officially with some of the FAQs they make today, give some clarifying soon after posting the FAQ. So I feel you can't just wave off his post as that was the official way they did thing back then. He made a FAQ and then He clarified HIS faq.

In his response he clarifies that kill you spouse and kids is a valid order to give. That you'll usually need the CHA check. That the NPC can commit suicide to prevent himself from carrying out the order. Since he has the choice of doing it or death, thus he'd not an automaton.

Save somehow you jump to death being the only other option from it being listed as one other option. Which no real reason for that rather large leap in logic.


Saldiven wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Meh, have him kill his family and then meet you out in the middle of no where a few hours away and kill him there. Yes magic can solve a lot, and it can solve a lot of those solutions. If they are going to do it they better do a good job or they'll be caught.

Again, it isn't mind control. In fact, the rules for Charm specifically state it isn't mind control.

But, then, acknowledging that undermines your entire argument, doesn't it?

And, "a few hours later?" Remember the duration of Charm Person? If you're high enough level to have several hours of Charm Person duration, you probably have access to better mind influencing magic, anyway, making this discussion largely irrelevant.

Oh, and magic does solve a lot of problems, especially if you take a very liberal interpretation of the rules.

Again, I really hope your GM uses these interpretations against your party if he allows them to be used by the players. It won't take very long for the party to come to a decision that this interpretation is probably not the best way to go, regardless of any interpretation of what the rules do or do not say on the matter.

I'm assuming that when Jason clarified a FAQ he made minutes after he made it it's a valid source.

So I agree that it's not mind control, Jason even said once you convince a person to kill his family he'd do so or commit suicide, choices.
Assuming he doesn't commit suicide he kills his family, and when a spell lasts hours per level, a lv3 sorcerer could easily have it last 5 hours, which is plenty of time.


RDM42 wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

The spell says it makes them friendly to you as a trusted and valued friend.

You don't control them as a robot, but they listen to you in the best way.

(we've now moved on to the second part that doesn't relate to the first other than if a check is needed.)
You can give them orders.
If the order is something they wouldn't ordinarily do (GM decides if it's something they would ordinarily do or not) then you go to the opposed CHA check to convince them they need to do it.

The fact that they are friendly doesn't have an effect on the limitations of the CHA check. It does influence if you need to make the check, as if it's something they'd ordinarily do for a trusted friend then there's no check. The CHA check isn't limited to things IRL someone could convince a friend to do for them ordinarily, because those are things that don't need a check. The check is to do things they wouldn't do for a friend. If you win the CHA check they are convinced they need to do your order, otherwise what was the point of the check?

And then there's the post from Jason clarifying the FAQ that HE put out about charm person minutes after HE posted the FAQ. Mark/PDT now does this more officially with some of the FAQs they make today, give some clarifying soon after posting the FAQ. So I feel you can't just wave off his post as that was the official way they did thing back then. He made a FAQ and then He clarified HIS faq.

In his response he clarifies that kill you spouse and kids is a valid order to give. That you'll usually need the CHA check. That the NPC can commit suicide to prevent himself from carrying out the order. Since he has the choice of doing it or death, thus he'd not an automaton.

Save somehow you jump to death being the only other option from it being listed as one other option. Which no real reason for that rather large leap in logic.

I'm assuming that when Jason clarified a FAQ he made, minutes after he made it, it's a valid source.

Jason even said once you convince a person to kill his family he'd do so or commit suicide. He didn't list it as a choice, one choice, or an example of choices. He gave it as the alternative to carrying out the task.


For me, I take a very broad view of the following restrictions: "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell."

Then again, I also take a very broad view of "obviously self-destructive" over in the Dominate Person spell. It appears that lots of people like ignoring these restrictions.


You have to realize how much you are stretching logic here to arrive at a desired point?

(Note: this is to the post above the previous post, not the previous post)


never mind, was fixed.


Chess Pwn wrote:


I'm assuming that when Jason clarified a FAQ he made, minutes after he made it, it's a valid source....

I disagree. It's how he runs his game but it's nothing official. And it certainly isn't how I'd run a simple 1st level spell. Heck, I wouldn't even let Dominate Person do it because killing your own family is obviously self-destructive.


If, when you were pulled over for speeding, a cop said 'you could leave earlier instead.' He isn't ruling out taking a different route or rescheduling your appointment.


Trying to say you can use Charm Person to murder families just because a game developer happened to say so...

Is boldly stating that they cannot, have not, will not make mistakes.

So explain errata.

Charm Person is first level, and explicitly forbids harmful action in the text of the spell.

It's right there. Specific text in the spell overrides general text of the charmed condition...

You can't use a first level spell for domination. That's what Dominate spells are for.

I would LOL so hard if I saw someone try these shenanigans with Charm Person, and obviously get shut down HARD by the GM.

I would point and laugh.


alexd1976 wrote:

Trying to say you can use Charm Person to murder families just because a game developer happened to say so...

Is boldly stating that they cannot, have not, will not make mistakes.

So explain errata.

Charm Person is first level, and explicitly forbids harmful action in the text of the spell.

It's right there. Specific text in the spell overrides general text of the charmed condition...

You can't use a first level spell for domination. That's what Dominate spells are for.

I would LOL so hard if I saw someone try these shenanigans with Charm Person, and obviously get shut down HARD by the GM.

I would point and laugh.

I'm going to go a step further - Dominate Person won't work either because killing your own family is obviously self-destructive. At least that's how I run it at my table but I'm not a fan of the ever-expanding power of casters. They're already quite powerful.


MeanMutton wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Trying to say you can use Charm Person to murder families just because a game developer happened to say so...

Is boldly stating that they cannot, have not, will not make mistakes.

So explain errata.

Charm Person is first level, and explicitly forbids harmful action in the text of the spell.

It's right there. Specific text in the spell overrides general text of the charmed condition...

You can't use a first level spell for domination. That's what Dominate spells are for.

I would LOL so hard if I saw someone try these shenanigans with Charm Person, and obviously get shut down HARD by the GM.

I would point and laugh.

I'm going to go a step further - Dominate Person won't work either because killing your own family is obviously self-destructive. At least that's how I run it at my table but I'm not a fan of the ever-expanding power of casters. They're already quite powerful.

When I play evil, I like getting my hands dirty, so I don't see spells like this in play often.

If I want a family dead, I kill them myself. Usually with fire.

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Charm person All Messageboards