Charm Person but with new situation


Rules Questions

Grand Lodge

Ahhh Charm Person, that wonderful first level spell that players love to abuse, and the spell that leaves GMs floundering in its ambiguity. I bring it up again because I think it's important to hash out certain characteristics of the spell itself, and because there was a certain scenario in my game over the weekend in which none of the previous threads have touched upon with Charm Person.

I think it is important to note that the Charm Spell does not remove the influence of the charmed creature's allies; neither does it force the charmed to act right away with whatever he was convinced to do, especially if it means danger to him or his actual allies.

I think the overarching issue with the spell is the word "convince" in the description. If this were given more clarification, especially as to how long the convincing takes and what someone can be convinced of- with some sort of numbers provided, or at least a deferment to another rule set, like diplo- the charm spell would be much better understood.

I'd appreciate a civil discussion about this, much like lawyers do with laws. Please don't say it's up to the GM, that's not what we're looking at this for. Obviously, a GM has the final rule, but we'd like to hammer out some details to make the Charm Spell fair for everyone- or at least seem fair.

Here are the facts concerning the above scenario and questions. Relevant RAW included.

Charm Person:

Charm Person
School enchantment (charm) [mind-affecting]
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
EFFECT
Duration 1 hour/level
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
DESCRIPTION
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

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. (Retries are not allowed.) 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. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

Charm/Compulsion Rules:

Charm and Compulsion

Many abilities and spells can cloud the minds of characters and monsters, leaving them unable to tell friend from foe—or worse yet, deceiving them into thinking that their former friends are now their worst enemies. Two general types of enchantments affect characters and creatures: charms and compulsions.

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.

Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.

Regardless of whether a character is charmed or compelled, he does not volunteer information or tactics that his master doesn't ask for.

Serious people:

Jiggy RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32: "...charm person is all but useless in combat, unless you have a very well-coordinated team and have pre-planned tactics for making it work." (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o5cv?Dealing-with-Charm-Person-Spam#1)

BigNorseWolf: "They're probably morally opposed to killing their mother: in that case it CAN"T be done with this spell, charisma check or not." (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ql5d&page=2?Charm-Person-Official-Ruling)

Ross Byers RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32: "That charisma check is there for things like 'abandon your post' to a guard. Not for 'murder your best friend'." .... "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." (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s49f?Charm-person#1)

FAQ:

Charm person makes a humanoid "friendly" to you, as per the rules found in the Diplomacy skill, but it also allows you to issue orders to the target, making an opposed Charisma check to convince the target to do something that it would not normally do. How does that work?

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. This is mostly in the purview of the GM. If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play. For example, if you use charm person to befriend an orc, the orc might share his grog with you and talk with you about the upcoming raid on a nearby settlement. If you asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand. If you asked him to help you till a field, however, you might need to make that check to convince him to do it.

That about wraps it up for this week. Keep those questions coming.

Jason Bulmahn

Special Spell Effects:

Many special spell effects are handled according to the school of the spells in question. Certain other special spell features are found across spell schools.

Attacks

Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

1. The trolls have a commander, a bard, who has not charmed them. However, he treats them very well, and they would die for this commander (they would not necessarily die for the king). The bard as "authority" over the trolls as their commander, and they have no reason to disobey orders given.

2. During the battle(one in which trolls have been killed already), a PC charms one of the trolls. During the charm, he states to the troll "prevent the bard from casting spells." QUESTIONs:
a. Is the action of this order a free action?
b. Is preventing their commander from casting spells an act which would "it wouldn't normally do?"
c. Would the order to prevent his commander from casting spells be a "suicidal or obviously harmful act?"
d. The PC believes (and conflicting RAW and FAQ info may support) that all the PC needs to do to "convince" the troll to prevent his commander from casting spells is an opposed charisma check. In essence, the PC believes an opposed charisma check is sufficient to force the troll to do anything the PC wants, because of the magic of the charm spell and the way it is written. The FAQ on this i also ridiculously vague, but Buhlman's sentence about making a check to kill one's family holds some weight.
e. If indeed "convincing" is needed, how long does it take to "convince?" A free action? Other methods of convincing or interacting to influence like Diplo and Intimidate require conversation and attention, which take more than one round. Is the ability check in the instance of this spell (an opposed Charisma check) simply a free action to speak and thus "convince," or does the act of "convincing" take more than a free action? Or is the act of "convincing" a longer action with the result of an opposed charisma check at the end?
f. Do the Diplomacy rules on making a request come into play with this spell?

Make a Request:
If a creature’s attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature’s current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

3. The troll cannot act on anything requested by the PC until it is that troll's turn.

4. On the troll's turn, the bard commander orders the troll to abandon his post on the wall and return to a different area of the fort.
a. The commander, during any other time, doesn't have to make any roll whatsoever to have the troll obey an order. The commander is the troll's superior.
b. The troll sees the PC as a "trusted friend and ally." The troll also sees the commander as a "trusted friend and ally," but also sees the commander as his leader and an authority figure. Remember, the troll is not charmed by the bard commander and would die for him.

5. The troll now has two conflicting orders. One request/order from the PC to take an action against his own commander, the other given by that commander to vacate the area and go to a different area of the battlefield.
a. Let's say the FAQ and RAW do indeed allow the PC, with a successful opposed charisma check, to force the troll to go ahead and prevent the troll's bard commander from casting spells.
b. As above in a., the PC has issued an order which the troll must heed. However, the commander has also issued an order, and the commander never has to roll to issue an order as that troll's commander.
c. The trolls has two opposing orders, one given by a trusted friend and ally who's convinced him with opposed charisma checks (between the PC and troll) to take action against his own commander. The other order is from that commander, who needs no check, to withdraw to another area. Both characters would be successful in asserting their will. However, which will (request/order) will the troll heed? I would think that the commander's orders hold more weight than the PC's, because the bard commander never has to roll to issue an order like this.
d. If anything, the troll commander’s order may seem better than other alternatives, because if he assaults his own commander there will no doubt be repercussions, but if he doesn't listen to his PC friend, he could upset him. So removing himself from the area may be the best way out.

I believe the scenario would play out like this:

The troll sees the PC has a friend. It likewise keeps seeing the bard commander as its authority figure and friend. When given the order by the PC to prevent its friend and commander from casting spells, it thinks, "damn, stop my commander? I'll surely be punished for insubordination. The friends of my new PC friend have also killed some of my fellow troll friends, so I'm not sure what is going on. Uh oh, my commander is yelling an order again. Perhaps I should just prevent him from casting spells and reason with him to not hurt my new PC friend." Or turning to the new friend for clarification, needs some "convincing." (Which would take more than a free action)

But- the bard commander isn't casting spells, and it's the troll's turn, so the commander issues an order to relocate. The troll thinks, "well, my commander isn't casting spells at the moment, and he gave me an order. That order doesn't harm my new PC friend in any way, so I'll obey the order from my commander and do my duty."

Thus, the troll would relocate to the new position so ordered by the commander- it obeys his order while at the same time still holding the new PC friend in safety for not attacking the new PC friend or doing something that may cause harm.

Remember Charm Person isa level 1 spell shouldn't force the troll to disobey its commander, because the charm spell has no influence whatsoever on the bard commander's authoritative influence on the troll.

Here’s how it should work out:

PC casts Charm Person as a standard action on the troll who fails saving throw. Uses free action to say, "Stop those casters behind you from casting their spells."

When the troll's turn arrives, the commander bard says, as a free action, "Return to your post immediately! You are to execute order 4." (Order 4 is simply return to the inner fort doorway and protect the entrance at all costs). However, the PC then uses his free action, repeating his request/order to stop the casters from casting spells.

At the moment, the two casters (including the bard commander) are not casting any spells. The troll now has his action, but conflicting requests. He wouldn't normally take action against his bard commander. At this point, per the rules "All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks," the opposed charisma check made by the PC would automatically fail, because the act of stopping his commander from casting spells is offensive. End of issue.

However, let's say the request by the PC is "you need to retreat to a safer location, like back to your barracks" vs. the commander's order to move to the doorway. The troll has two requests. With a successful opposed charisma check, the PC can convince the troll that moving to the barracks is a good idea.

This "convincing" isn't a magical compulsion. The act of an opposed check is not imparting a magical will onto the troll. However, the act of convincing, if successful, would lead the troll to believe returning to the barracks is likely a good idea. The player playing the PC should then interact with the troll. However, this cannot be done as a free action, because the troll may have questions about why returning to the barracks is better than obeying a command from his captain. It would take at least a round or two for the opposed charisma check roll AFTER the PC interacts with the troll, just like a diplomacy check (in fact, the spell details in the FAQ: Charm person makes a humanoid "friendly" to you, as per the rules found in the Diplomacy skill). But what happens in the meantime? Combat is happening, the troll gets more orders. Just like with diplomacy, the two people must be engaged in conversation in order for the troll to be convinced. Since the spell does not state what an opposed charisma check entails, the convincing takes longer than a free action, but the check can still be made at the end of that interaction. But if the troll is given an order by his commander, it would simply follow that order and tell the PC friend he'll get back to him in a bit...

Final musings:

Would the troll get another chance to save v. the charm spell when given a command, before or after an order is given, with regard to keeping his commander from casting spells?

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

Or in the least, in order to "convince..." per the charm spell, the above scenario could play out like this: Troll gets both orders, and being from a friend and another from a commander, may question the friend- "Dear friend, why would I stop my commander from casting spells? That would cause me some problem after the battle!" The charmed person isn't struck dumb, and doesn't have to act immediately on the friend's (PC) demand, right? I don't think he does. In Bulmahn's example in FAQ, surely the attempt to "convince" per the charm spell someone to kill their family would take at least a few minutes of persuasion, right? I would bet my long GM/DM "career" on the fact that since Charm Person is a first level spell, succeeding an opposed Charisma check does not in any way force the charmed person to act immediately after a simple free action opposed check.

Along the same lines, when someone wants to do a Diplomacy check, I've always made the PC actually talk to me (or the NPC) as though they were trying to convince. Based on what they said, I'd apply bonuses or penalties to the roll. A Diplo roll isn't just a flick of the wrist- the person playing the PC must speak, at least. Perhaps the opposed Charisma check should be done in the same way. Nothing says the GM must allow the player to roll a diplo check and be done with it; in fact, GMs I've played with always make someone at least talk. I think it's the same way with opposed charisma checks in the charm spell. The spell says in order to convince, an opposed roll is needed. OK, fine, well, the player also has to speak and say how they are trying to convince. The GM can then apply modifiers just like a diplo or other such check.


1 - This starts to shift into the question of how much can you say as part of a free action.

The caster is doing a diplomacy check to make the request of the troll to stop the bard from casting spells. If the trolls are loyal enough that they would die for the commander (bard) then it would take a lot of convincing to get them interfere with his actions. It may be possible, but it would probably take several rounds of diplomacy and the GM should probably expect the player to come up with a convincing argument as opposed to just saying, "I use diplomacy," and rolling a die. The charm spell does not make the charmed creature forget the immediate past, so this would not be an easy task.

2 - Would the troll normally do this?

Probably not. He's loyal enough to the bard to die for him. Other trolls have died. He would not normally act against the bard during a fight. Opposed charisma checks will be needed.

3 - What would the bard do to the troll?

A charmed person does not obey suicidal or obviously harmful orders. Just because the trolls all respect the bard enough to die for him doesn't mean that he's not a severe disciplinarian. If there is reason to believe that acting against the bard would bring harmful punishment then the troll would not do so.


Being a troll , "Hey boss, stop..." picking them up and shaking them a little is probably seen as the equivalent of shaking someone on the shoulder to get them to notice something,something you'd do to keep a friend from getting blasted by the bard.

Scarab Sages

nogoodscallywag wrote:
I'd appreciate a civil discussion about this, much like lawyers do with laws.

Civil discussion....huh? Sounds like you want a debate between rules lawyers, not actual lawyers.

An actual Lawyer would not answer unless getting paid, and even there they'd stick with the vaguest answer possible. This is because the answer is vague and the Lawyer is presenting Professional advice, not just advice. "Ask your GM" is the Lawyer answer because it is the best answer for the Lawyer to give, as it is 100% within the rules and doesn't put the solution within their responsibility. Now it's the GM's fault if you dislike the answer.

As for a rules debate, I think this has been covered and you want another answer. I'd ask the GM, but it sounds like you did and want to go above them.

Grand Lodge

Thank you, Murdock, for your enlightening answer.

First, this particular scenario has not been covered.

Second, I'm the GM. And forgive me if I want to get it right.

Third, yes, I actually want rules lawyers to chime in, otherwise, as a GM I would have just said, "I'm the GM, deal with it." I wanted to know what others thought on the particular situation of dueling commands.

Fourth, lawyers don't always get paid, it's called "pro bono."

#useless

Sovereign Court

You've pretty well got the RAW covered in the OP. How you choose to sythesize it is frankly up to you.

I like to apply the K.I.S.S. principle whenever I can, and the KISS rule of thumb I advocate for adjudicating Charm is to view the Charmee as viewing the Charmer as his bestest of best friends. Is the charmee turning on his boss for the benefit of the charmer within the bounds of a Diplomacy check or is it something outside the bounds of reason? You can't legislate that... you have to gut call it depending on the context. Good news though, if you're the GM, whatever call you make... You're right!

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Charm Person but with new situation All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.