You didn't describe what the charisma check does at all.
I didn't describe how you think it works. Big surprise, i don't think it works the same way you do.
You didn't describe what the charisma check does at all.I didn't describe how you think it works. Big surprise, i don't think it works the same way you do.No, you didn't describe how the charisma check works at all.
"The charm person spell (and charm monster by extension) makes the target your friend. It will treat you kindly (although maybe not your allies) and will generally help you as long as your interests align." and then what?
and then the charisma check will get them to do something that they might not normally do for their friend, like plow a field. Not something that they DEFINITELY would not do for their friend like kill their mother.
Your position is both unevidenced and directly contradicted by the line that you can't treat them like an automaton. It does not say that you can't treat them like an automaton unless you make the check.
And assuming the order is not suicidal or harmful, In what part of the spell says the bolded text?
and then the charisma check will get them to do something that they might not normally do for their friend, like plow a field. Not something that they DEFINITELY would not do for their friend like kill their mother.
Three quarters of the spell says that
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)<---- Do you kill your mother for a trusted friend and ally? no. Hell, friendly isn't even the highest level you can hit with diplomacy.
he spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton,<----- Which is exactly what you're trying to do
Thats the argument against your interpretation. Do what you never do and build a case for your interpretation rather than breaking out the epistemic nihlism when it comes to the side you disagree with and declaring that because one side is "unevidenced" that yoru side is thus right.
Where does it say that the charisma check has NO limits imposed on it?
You still doesn't tell what the charisma check is there for.
I did. Multiple times. Its for something that your friend might or might not do, which falls out of the meaning of the word MIGHT.
Where does it say that the charisma check has no limits on it?
Where does it say that the charisma check has no limits?
It does not say that the charisma check has no limits.
Your conclusion that the charisma check has no limits is an interpretation,
As an interpretation you only go with it if its the best interpretation and its not.
1)) Raw. Its not there. Its not raw.
2) It violates 3/4 of the context of the spell telling you that you do not have absolute control over the person, that they are your friend , that they are not an automoton
3) Power level, makes it better than dominate person
By every conceivable measure this is a bad interpretation.
I honestly don't see where the charisma check enters in your interpretation. Either they do it because they would do it anyways, or they don't because they don't want and there is no cha check to change it.
No check required: "Hey, we're kinda lost here, which way is the town?"
Check required: "Hey, could I borrow all of your gold? I seem to be running low"
Check not gonna cut it: " You know your shaman has a 25 gp bounty on his head, what do you say we use that and start a bar tab?" (might move down to check required or no check required on a less loyal orc)
If the command is neither suicidal or harmful, what rules are you using to disallow the charisma check?
Check not gonna cut it: " You know your shaman has a 25 gp bounty on his head, what do you say we use that and start a bar tab?" (might move down to check required or no check required on a less loyal orc)
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)<---- Do you kill your mother for a trusted friend and ally? no. Hell, friendly isn't even the highest level you can hit with diplomacy.
he spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton,<----- Which is exactly what you're trying to do
You keep assuming that the charisma check is an entirely separate mechanism from the rest of the spell. That's not the only way to read it and its not even the best way to read it.
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)<---- Do you kill your mother for a trusted friend and ally? no. Hell, friendly isn't even the highest level you can hit with diplomacy.
According to the conditions of Charmed, you will resort to lethal measures against people seeking to harm your Charmer if you have no other choice. What happens if your mother, an orc barbarian, finds out you've been ensorcelled and attempts to kill your new best friend?
Mind you, this isn't controlling anyone like an automaton. In fact, it's a pretty damn risky maneuver. But the fact that such a situation does not instantly break the spell does show what Charm Person considers to be "suicidal or harmful".
According to the conditions of Charmed, you will resort to lethal measures against people seeking to harm your Charmer if you have no other choice. What happens if your mother, an orc barbarian, finds out you've been ensorcelled and attempts to kill your new best friend?
I do not see anything so specific to mandate that.
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)<---- Do you kill your mother for a trusted friend and ally? no. Hell, friendly isn't even the highest level you can hit with diplomacy.According to the conditions of Charmed, you will resort to lethal measures against people seeking to harm your Charmer if you have no other choice. What happens if your mother, an orc barbarian, finds out you've been ensorcelled and attempts to kill your new best friend?
I think in this case, trying to reason with, grapple, and knock out with your fists would all have to fail before resorting to lethal weapons because until they all fail, there's no compelling evidence that there's no other choice. Well... I might make allowances for orcs since they don't seem very matrilineal or high of familial piety.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).
Now, a rules lawyer player could claim that a mind-controlled PC attempting to grapple the raging orc barbarian would technically have the possibility of success, but that doesn't sound like what they would do if it was a real friend. And if the cleric can't tell that they aren't strong enough to grapple a raging orc, they may need to double-check their Wisdom score.
The bottom line is that Charm Person can compel you to kill your loved ones for someone who's in reality an enemy. And that's not deemed "harmful". Though it isn't exactly a "command", either.
I don't think it takes a rules lawyer to see that Orc 1 can try a lot of non lethal tactics with orc 2 if thats how they're inclined.
Lazar, can you explain the bolded text in the quote, then? Do you really believe in such an absolute? There is clearly intended to be a situation in which you are pushed into lethal combat.
BNW, you assume that the kid is an orc and, more importantly, that the kid is a melee fighter. Neither are necessarily true.
Kyrt, the RAI for that is pretty sketchy. I've heard some argue that orcs are immune to nonlethal altogether. :P
Okay, guys, can we stop obsessing over the fact that the example character is an orc? This nitpicking is so extreme, I think the chimps left hours ago.
I don't see how the idea that, "Gee, one of my friends is trying to kill another one of my friends, I may have to resort to drastic measures to stop this bizarre, totally unwarranted assault." is so alien. How would you run it if there weren't a charm and it was just one of your friends trying to kill the other?
Its not remotely nitpicking. A race known for being strong , warlike, and belligerent has a different reaction to two friends fighting than a pair of keebler elves.
Now you've accused me of rules lawyering and nit picking based on absolutely nothing. Knock it off.
Except the only reason "orc" was brought up was as a cue that the mother is a strong fighter whose attacks can be extremely lethal. "Human barbarian with Diehard" amounts to the same situation, but evidently offends the boards less, so I guess we go with that.
Its not remotely nitpicking. A race known for being strong , warlike, and belligerent has a different reaction to two friends fighting than a pair of keebler elves.
Now you've accused me of rules lawyering and nit picking based on absolutely nothing. Knock it off.
Can we please not make this argument personal? I didn't accuse anyone of rules lawyering—the example of rules lawyering was one I made up in the very same post—and "nitpicking" is not an offensive term. It's a critical one. The race is not relevant to the discussion of a spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks everyone for the debate so I'm going to put forth a specific situation that may happen in the future we have a party of 4lvl vilians in the way of the wicked they are bartering with a lvl 5 dwarf fighter who is for the most part specialized in crafting wepons and armor and is probably the most stubborn dwarf you've ever met. since its a dwarf let's say 8cha the arcanist of the group has a 16 cha and can make the dc of charm person 18 10(base)+5 stat+1 spell focus +2 potent magic exploit
He charms the dwarf and is successful he then asks the dwarf for 1 specific item for free the dwarfs pride and joy the best blade he ever crafted (a magic weapon ofcourse) now is this a straight cha check? Or more? Since its something he wouldn't give away for free to anyman no matter how close they are.
The following is how I'd probably run it:
It's well beyond what he'd do for a friend, regardless of how persuasive they are, so the spell can't do it. You would probably be able to use Charm Person to convince him to sell it for a fair price with an opposed charisma check- since ordinarily he wouldn't do that.From the examples, I divide it up into three categories.
"I am your friend. Let us do friend things together like the good friends we are!" This is the run-of-the-mill no-check stuff. Need a meal, a place to crash for a little while, or somebody to help you move? That's this stuff. The example given is an orc fighting some skeletons- something he'd regularly do with his buddies.
"Look man, I'm your friend. All I'm asking is for this one thing. Isn't our friendship worth that?" This is pushing it- bringing in the opposed charisma check. Sometimes you'll do stuff for your friends that you wouldn't normally do, but they've got to really press you for it. The example given is an orc plowing a field. Not something he'd normally do, but a friend might be able to guilt him into it.
"Forget this, you're no friend of mine!" This is something that a real friend wouldn't ask of you- something worth dumping a long-time friend over. Wish we had examples for this, but in the case of the dwarf, somebody asking him to just give them his most treasured possession for free is clearly just after his stuff and not actually a friend. A clever player might be able to bluff enough to move the request into the previous category, though. "I'm so sorry to impose, but I am in dire need of your sword. It is a matter of life and death. I swear upon the honor of my ancestors that it will be returned to you by sundown, and I will leave *something valuable* as proof of my intentions." That's something he conceivably might do for a desperate friend, although there might be a follow up question or two. Pass the bluff checks and opposed charisma check, leave the collateral, and skip town with the sword.
Your GM may run things differently, though!
The race is not relevant to the discussion of a spell.
Since the target's race may affect its relationships in the specific situation, I'd say you're wrong.
But the really salient point about all of this, and your assumption that the charmed creature would be forced to use lethal weapons, is that the charm spell doesn't change the target's relationship with any other creature - just the caster. Would he draw steel to defend a friend from an enemy? Sure. But would he draw steel on another friend or family member to do so? Probably not (again, CE cultures might endorse that sort of thing so your mileage may vary). Why would the charmed target try to kill one natural trusted friend and ally in favor of a spell-influenced trusted friend and ally before all other options have been exhausted? Simply put, that's stuff they ordinarily wouldn't do - perhaps even be violently opposed to doing. And if that's the case, he gets another save against the spell.
That's YOUR bottom line KC, there is no compelling evidence to make that a universal rule.A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).Now, a rules lawyer player could claim that a mind-controlled PC attempting to grapple the raging orc barbarian would technically have the possibility of success, but that doesn't sound like what they would do if it was a real friend.
The bottom line is that Charm Person can compel you to kill your loved ones for someone who's in reality an enemy. And that's not deemed "harmful". Though it isn't exactly a "command", either.
Just to make it clear, you do know he is referring to the Glossary for Charms and Compulsions(and the part that deals with charms specifically).
...
Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells and some monster abilities. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature's apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.
...
Once again, the above clearly indicates Charms are damn powerful. On top of that, Dryads. And Spirit Nagas. And many other creatures. They all use Charm Person as if it is Minor Dominate Person. What other proof do you need that the Charm is intended to be really powerful than Paizo published creatures being described as using Charm in really powerful ways, like enslaving humanoids as semi-permanent guardians (Dryads) or turning them into "fawning fanatics"(Spirit Nagas). Which is why I find the double edged sword comment amusing - those arguing that the "absurdly powerful" interpretation is the one intended are basically arguing that the PCs shouldn't be treated differently to the monsters with regards to how their spells are run.
EDIT: @Bill Dunn - See above, the glossary explicitly says that the charmed creature will defend the charmer from the charmed creature's (former) allies, but will prefer non-lethal tactics if they might work just like the charmed creature normally would in a fight with a friend.
You can deny the charisma check with the word harmful. Giving a friend, even my best friend my entire life's savings and wealth is egregiously harmful to me. It's a charisma check used on a "friend" it's basically convincing someone to do something, there are some things you would just never do no matter how convincing your friend is.
I guess several people have posted stuff in line with what I've stated here but it bears repeating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And assuming the order is not suicidal or harmful, In what part of the spell says the bolded text?
and then the charisma check will get them to do something that they might not normally do for their friend, like plow a field. Not something that they DEFINITELY would not do for their friend like kill their mother.
Three quarters of the spell says that
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly)<---- Do you kill your mother for a trusted friend and ally? no. Hell, friendly isn't even the highest level you can hit with diplomacy.
he spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton,<----- Which is exactly what you're trying to do
This right here. You've cut to the heart of the problem.
Half the people who read Charm Person get to that sentence that says "but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do" and then that's it. They read that ONE sentence, forget all the other stuff written in this spell, and assume that you can make someone do ANYTHING. Period. Just by making that check.
To that half of the crowd, Charm Person actually does let you control people like automatons (even though it explicitly says you cannot) because they ignore all the rest of the spell.
The other half of the people who read Charm Person take that same sentence in context with the rest of the spell.
That is the only logical way to read this spell. You CANNOT simply pick your favorite sentence and then just ignore the rest.
Or can you?
Let's try Fireball:
It says "A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level" - so my level 20 wizard can, say, do 20d6 to every creature within a mile, right? I can ignore the damage cap and the radius of the spell because, as we demonstrated with Charm Person, it's OK to ignore the parts of a spell we don't like.
Right?
Of course not!
So if you take that lamentably poorly written sentence of Charm Person and actually apply the rest of the spell to it, you immediately recognize that your victim thinks you're a trusted friend and ally and he will treat you as such. No more. If you ask your trusted friend and ally to loan you 10gp, he'll gladly do it. If you ask your trusted friend and ally to loan you 100gp he just might say "Gosh, buddy, I wouldn't even loan my own father that much. Be reasonable, how bout I lend you 10gp instead?" Maybe with a CHA check you can convince him. And if you ask your trusted friend and ally to give you ever copper he has and to sell his house and children and give you that cash too, he'll laugh in your face, then punch you in the nose, then never speak to you again.
Unless, of course, he really is that kind of CE d-bag who might really do that for a friend (moral of the story: cast Charm Person only on immoral d-bags if you want to get maximum benefit).
The race is not relevant to the discussion of a spell.Since the target's race may affect its relationships in the specific situation, I'd say you're wrong.
But the really salient point about all of this, and your assumption that the charmed creature would be forced to use lethal weapons, is that the charm spell doesn't change the target's relationship with any other creature - just the caster. Would he draw steel to defend a friend from an enemy? Sure. But would he draw steel on another friend or family member to do so? Probably not (again, CE cultures might endorse that sort of thing so your mileage may vary). Why would the charmed target try to kill one natural trusted friend and ally in favor of a spell-influenced trusted friend and ally before all other options have been exhausted? Simply put, that's stuff they ordinarily wouldn't do - perhaps even be violently opposed to doing. And if that's the case, he gets another save against the spell.
I'd say the save would be reasonable, although keep in mind that even putting Snowblind's post aside, if I had to choose, I'd be inclined to target the friend who's aggressive "for no reason" over the friend who's not fighting back.
Of course, if I realize my friend is under the delusion that I'm under mind control, it goes back to being a very hard choice to make.
But if I can't save both of them, I am going to have to make a choice. And according to the Charmed condition, if I have to save one of them, I am compelled to save the individual who charmed me. That is purely RAW.
Is it likely to come up? No, not particularly, though it certainly could (especially at low levels where the -4 for nonlethal makes hitting extremely difficult, and where a single errant crit can kill someone—hell, a single unlucky greataxe crit can kill a low-level wizard even with nonlethal).
I bring it up because it's something Charm Person is capable of, and that's what this conversation is about. When push comes to shove, you choose your Charmer over existing friends. Not to an automaton capacity, of course. That's just silly.
And if you ask your trusted friend and ally to give you ever copper he has and to sell his house and children and give you that cash too, he'll laugh in your face, then punch you in the nose, then never speak to you again.
Actually, Charisma checks aside, he won't. He continues being Charmed. He just shrugs the request off.
That said, it is conceivable that a trusted friend might give you all his money, especially if you convince him you'll pay it back. If he's a very giving person and you express your extreme need. I mean, this is basically your best friend we're talking about. Not if he's got a family to look after, though.
If it goes beyond what he'd do for the "trusted friend", he gets a second will save, but no more. Because there is a clause specifically for if you ask him to do something he wouldn't even do for a trusted friend, and a bonus Will save is all it boils down to.
Unless the request is "obviously harmful or suicidal", of course. But you can't just take "treats you like a trusted friend" and ignore the rest of the spell and condition. :P
For further reading:
See this.
Or this.
Or this.
Or this.
(Just because I'm too lazy to re-type this stuff when I've said it all before...)
Does your opinion change when you take into account the general rules on Charm effects and the printed use of Charm person done by monsters that are absurdly extreme. Because I see nothing in your post about those. Please don't accuse others of ignoring half of the spell when you ignore half of the rules on charm effects and the printed examples of them being used. Justify how your interpretation meshes with rules that explicitly allow Charm Person to make allies fight each other defending the charmer (killing them if necessary), and the printed examples of monsters turning charmed creatures into enslaved guardians, "fawning fanatics and would-be sacrifices". Because as far as I can see your interpretation doesn't mesh, so to be rather blunt it's wrong.
And if it seems I am being really curt, it's because I am sick of having to put up the same rules text and Paizo published examples multiple times and despite that having them all willfully ignored by most of the posters on this thread. A lot of people are either being really lazy and not bothering to read the rules and examples, or they are being intellectually dishonest and ignoring rules that go against their preferred personal interpretation. If you don't think that's true, then how about acknowledging the rules and explaining how your view that a guard wouldn't lend their friend 100gp meshes with the guard apparently acting like a "fawning fanatic" for their friend or standing inside their friends home and guarding their house for no pay or reward of any sort, or even fighting off other guards for their friend when their friend commits a crime (to the death, if necessary). Because those are either explicitly allowed according to the rules, or published uses of the spell done by creatures.
Monsters are cheating jerks.
Monsters are cheating jerks.
You are right. We should just let that be codified into the rules and turn the game into 4th edition, where PCs are magical snowflakes and everyone else can do what the hell they want, with no regard to verisimilitude or consistency or anything else.
Can we please not make this argument personal?
That is and always has been up to you.
The race is not relevant to the discussion of a spell.
It very much is. It goes to the heart of the matter on how you view the spell. If you see it as making someone your friend then you have to accept that orcs and elves have very different views of friendship. If it makes them your robot then the target doesn't matter at all.
Asking your new friend dwarfy to dig you a tunnel strait through the mountain sounds like a fun weekend project.
Asking your new friend orcy to dig you a tunnel strait through the mountain sounds like more hard work than they'd ever done in their life.
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
Once again, the above clearly indicates Charms are damn powerful.
The 'grievously harmful' clause is open to GM interpretation, and any competent GM will use it to shut down players who attempt to use Charm Person like it was more than a first level spell.
Note that the 'new saving throw' bit does not say that if they fail the saving throw they will actually do what you told them.On top of that, Dryads. And Spirit Nagas. And many other creatures. They all use Charm Person as if it is Minor Dominate Person.
I just assume that the victims are people who aren't particularly opposed to doing what they're being told to do. Maybe working for a Dryad is more fun than their old job?
Anyway, it's fine to allow NPC-on-NPC magic to do things that you'd never let PC magic do, since that doesn't affect game balance.
That is and always has been up to you.
Can we please not make this argument personal?
Oh! Phew. You had me worried there.
Anyways, while race might be relevant, the fact that she was an orc was, as I said, solely a device for expediency. I am sorry that it has proven to fulfill the opposite function. You all may continue to discuss the impact race has upon the roleplaying functions of Charm Person, naturally—it's no skin off my scaly snout. My contributions here have been entirely concerned with one largely mechanical paragraph of the Charmed condition.
"You left me to live in a tree with a naked granola eating tree hugging hussy! How bad is your will save that you fell for that charm person!?
"What will saaaaa.. Oh Right. That will save. Yes. Completely out of my control darling....
Tip for GMs: if the spell makes the target think of the caster as a trusted friend, then presumably they'll feel free to make requests of the caster. Cast Charm Person on someone and maybe they'll immediately start trying to borrow money.
The 'grievously harmful' clause is open to GM interpretation, and any competent GM will use it to shut down players who attempt to use Charm Person like it was more than a first level spell.
Note that the 'new saving throw' bit does not say that if they fail the saving throw they will actually do what you told them.
This is true. I think it's debatable as to whether it was "intended", but I personally believe Charm Person to be one of the worst-thought-out spells in the CRB, so we can agree that it's probably the best way to interpret it.
Anyway, it's fine to allow NPC-on-NPC magic to do things that you'd never let PC magic do, since that doesn't affect game balance.
On the other hand, those monster habits are clearly intended to be applied to encounters with PCs as well, so calling the "enslave" use of Charm Person a "cutscene power" may not hold up under pressure. I don't particularly disagree with anything you're saying, though.