Newly GM's page

My group likes to roleplay it. Then again, were very mature and can handle it withouth getting into silly territory. Otherwise, its best to do fade to black when you dont know if everyone is okay with it.

Maizing wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Im gonna chime in be the black sheep and say this is not rape for real.

If the barmaid sleeps with her friends, then its her problem. Charm person makes you look like her friend. If she gets convinced to sleep with you, its because she have no problems with doing so.

Its easy to put morals in front of facts, but it doesnt change the fact the she still have to be okay with sleeping with friends for the spell to do it. Its not rape, its consensual.

She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.

Ill have to disagree with this, depending on the situation of said NPC. If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her. She sees you as a friend, and if shes okay with it then its not rape. Charm person isnt a compulsion spell, youre not taking away her free will to choose. If she does it, its consensual. Remember, charm person is a Charm spell, not compulsion one.

So what about when the spell wears off and she realizes that YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND? Her will was compromised whether you will admit it or not.

Or do you think it is not rape if she doesn't scream or struggle?

Ignoring Newly GM's comment,

What about when she realizes you don't drive a Ferrai?
What about when she realizes you don't play for the Packers?
What about when she realizes your dad wasn't one of the Beach Boys?
Were they not rape until she found out?

This ^. I just used a bad example, but he nailed it down well.

Newly GM wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

If you use bluff/disguise to pass as someone else and she notices later is rape?

God what is wrong with you.

That is rape by deception.

If you consider lie = rape, then its up to you.

But she wasnt forced to anything. She had to agree for it to occur. Thats not rape in my book.

Tough s~#*. It's rape.

INFORMED consent, dammit.

She had to agree in the first place! If she doesnt want to, if she doesnt sleep with friends or whatever, she can just refuse. Shes not under a dominate person effect.

Bailing on this. This is NOT something we need s#+#ting up the forums on Christmas.

Just reiterating a point needed to understand the spell, mind you I dont favor rape, but I dont see the use of skill check to convince someone as this.

Newly GM wrote:

If you use bluff/disguise to pass as someone else and she notices later is rape?

God what is wrong with you.

That is rape by deception.

If you consider lie = rape, then its up to you.

But she wasnt forced to anything. She had to agree for it to occur. Thats not rape in my book. Its consensual. A bad one for lying, but consensual.

Newly GM wrote:

If you use bluff/disguise to pass as someone else and she notices later is rape?

JESUS!! YES!!

Ill reiterate my point.

Diplomacy > friendly > ask to sleep with her > she accepts = rape.

If you see it that way, thats up to you.

But if you convince her and she agrees, its consensual.

Newly GM wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Im gonna chime in be the black sheep and say this is not rape for real.

If the barmaid sleeps with her friends, then its her problem. Charm person makes you look like her friend. If she gets convinced to sleep with you, its because she have no problems with doing so.

Its easy to put morals in front of facts, but it doesnt change the fact the she still have to be okay with sleeping with friends for the spell to do it. Its not rape, its consensual.

She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.

Ill have to disagree with this, depending on the situation of said NPC. If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her. She sees you as a friend, and if shes okay with it then its not rape. Charm person isnt a compulsion spell, youre not taking away her free will to choose. If she does it, its consensual. Remember, charm person is a Charm spell, not compulsion one.

So what about when the spell wears off and she realizes that YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND? Her will was compromised whether you will admit it or not.

Or do you think it is not rape if she doesn't scream or struggle?

If you use bluff/disguise to pass as someone else and she notices later is rape?

Again, im acting on the premise that you dont consider skill checks to sleep with someone as rape. If you do, I can see your point, but I dont see diplomacy/bluff = rape.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Razh wrote:

My thread imploded T.T

Not the first time this has happened if it makes you any happier. Charm Person is one of those things.

Edit: Oh! And This is me when one of my threads boomed.

Ha! I was in that one too! Maybe I should just shut up.

Quick, we know where this is headed. You get the safehouse, I'll get the food, a third stranger will mug us for the both of them!

Or maybe it'll all turn out okay.

Really, there's literally a faq explaining how the spell works, why should this create such a lenghty discussion? And people still goes out of their way to call us rape apologists, when we are just trying to prove our point. What the hell is going on here?

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Razh wrote:

My thread imploded T.T

Not the first time this has happened if it makes you any happier. Charm Person is one of those things.

Someone in that thread mentioned this item. I think we can all take a moment and say how messed up it is that Pathfinder includes a literal magic roofie as an item you can buy for only 150 gp.

By your definition of Charm Person...

Exactly, we have proven many times already how charm person works, people just refuse to understand the facts.

Newly GM wrote:

Im working on the premise here that you folk dont consider mudane lies = rape. But if thats how you think, I can understand your reasoning.

But to me, diplomacy/bluff doesnt equal rape.

Could you and the others stop hijacking my thread? This was supposed to be a healthy discussion...

I dont want my thread to get locked, but if this continues, this is probably what is going to happen. Please tone down folks!

I fail to see how this could be considered "hijacking". Were discuting how the spell is supposed to work, with is entirely within the intent of thread. The details may be uncomfortable for some, but its necessary to understand the spell.

Just to make it clear, no one is making apologies to rape. Were just saying that the spell doesnt force you to do something you dont want to. Its simple.

Im working on the premise here that you folk dont consider mudane lies = rape. But if thats how you think, I can understand your reasoning.

But to me, diplomacy/bluff doesnt equal rape.

Jessica Price wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Im gonna chime in be the black sheep and say this is not rape for real.

If the barmaid sleeps with her friends, then its her problem. Charm person makes you look like her friend. If she gets convinced to sleep with you, its because she have no problems with doing so.

Its easy to put morals in front of facts, but it doesnt change the fact the she still have to be okay with sleeping with friends for the spell to do it. Its not rape, its consensual.

She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.

Ill have to disagree with this, depending on the situation of said NPC. If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her. She sees you as a friend, and if shes okay with it then its not rape. Charm person isnt a compulsion spell, youre not taking away her free will to choose. If she does it, its consensual. Remember, charm person is a Charm spell, not compulsion one.

I'm bowing out at this point, because I find this reasoning really disturbing.

Yeah, this is quite disturbing.

Even the very fact that it can be called "reasoning" makes salient how the dominant discourse (what bell hooks calls imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy) infiltrates our very language. What part of the faculty of reasoning does the objectification of women arise out of? It must be a very dark place, manifesting in incidences like this thread.

I am not entirely sure what purpose this discussion even has, seeing as the basic premises that women are people and that sex has been taken into institutions of unequal power seems completely lost on some of the rape apologists here. Where does one even being to start a dialogue when these conditions haven't been met?

Its not apology to rape. Its a discussion about how the spell works. Its no different than convicing with a lie or diplomacy, Arlandor showed the faq that proves this one page ago. Its simple.

Now if you think that using a skill check to convince someone to sleep with you is rape, then thats up to you.

Newly GM wrote:

Thats exactly what im saying, they wont do it if they dont want to. Its so simple!

You are a disgusting piece of s*&%.

I didnt attacked anyone here, keep it civil. Name calling is against the "no jerks" rule of the forum.

Diplomacy/bluff to convince someone to have sex with you must be rape then.

Oh my...

Annabel wrote:

To sum this up: ANYTHING BUT...

A conscious

Sober,

18 years or older,

Uncoerced "Yes"
... IS A NO!

Charm person would clearly not fulfill the last one, and thus wouldn't count as consent.

if you use charm person if would not be coerced. no GM trying to follow the spirit of the spell Charm Person should allow said NPC to perform said act if under the alternate method of performing said action the NPC would not comply. using the dominate line of spells would be coercing the NPC. the charm person spell only makes the person reguard you as a trusted friend.

Thats exactly what im saying, they wont do it if they dont want to. Its so simple!

Holy hell this thread has gone to a really dark place.

INFORMED CONSENT IS SACRED. Charm Person violates it.

End of story.

Diplomacy > friendly > ask them to sleep with you > they accept = rape.

What?

Grimmy wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her.

You are not her friend! She thinks you are, because magic!

Correct. The friendship is a lie. Does a lie make it rape?

Exact. I frankly cannot understand how people are arguing that lying to them = rape. What is going on here? What the spell does is clear. What is written on the faq is clear. Youre not forcing them, They have the free will to choose.

Drachasor wrote:

Don't ignore the special rules on requests.

You can convince them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do with an opposed charisma check. That goes beyond what Diplomacy allows. Removing of skills such as Sense Motive and Diplomacy is indicative of their loss of judgement. Further, the fact there are no very general caveats like Diplomacy has (where the DM can just decide something is impossible) further emphasizes this. The only caveats are against suicidal acts and harm, but even then the spell allows some leeway with influencing them.

So no, it isn't "just like you improved their attitude with diplomacy."

And even if it was, screwing with someone's mind and then using that compromised mind to get something invalidates consent. It doesn't matter if you could have done it another way.

That's like robbing a store and saying "well, I could have gotten a job there and been paid. This is...

read the faq/errata on the charm person spell.

** spoiler omitted **...

This ^^^ Arlandor got it right, again. The rules support our reasoning.

Newly GM wrote:

Drachasor wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Except for the fact that charm person is not a compulsion spell. Compulsion spells make you do things withouth you wanting to, takes away your free will. Charm spells do not. This is right on the core rulebook, we have the rules at our side. This is just opinion.

Compulsion spells guarantee the person behaves as desired. Charm Person isn't one because it isn't foolproof. It still blatantly compromises your decision-making capability.

Just like diplomacy does when you pass on the check to make them friendly.

Read the skill description before you say stuff like this. It's blatantly not true.

"Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."

That's not part of Charm Person.

They will only do something to you if its what they would do to a friend, they wont kill their father if you tell them to, simply because they wouldnt do this for a friend. This is not dominate person.

Newly GM wrote:

It makes them view you in a friendly manner. They will be more suceptible to accepting requests, but they are not going to do so if they dont want to. Their ability to decide is still there, they have free will to act, because...

Read the spell. With an successful opposed Charisma Check (they don't get to use any skills and your diplomacy doesn't matter) you get them to do something they'd never do otherwise.

Their ability to decide is there in a sense, but it is heavily compromised.

Durngrun Stonebreaker nailed it down about how this works. Its the same as convincing them to do it with talk. Youre not ordering them to do something like dominate person does, thats why is a cha check instead of a will save.

Newly GM wrote:

Except for the fact that charm person is not a compulsion spell. Compulsion spells make you do things withouth you wanting to, takes away your free will. Charm spells do not. This is right on the core rulebook, we have the rules at our side. This is just opinion.

Compulsion spells guarantee the person behaves as desired. Charm Person isn't one because it isn't foolproof. It still blatantly compromises your decision-making capability.

Just like diplomacy does when you pass on the check to make them friendly.

Newly GM wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Im gonna chime in be the black sheep and say this is not rape for real.

If the barmaid sleeps with her friends, then its her problem. Charm person makes you look like her friend. If she gets convinced to sleep with you, its because she have no problems with doing so.

Its easy to put morals in front of facts, but it doesnt change the fact the she still have to be okay with sleeping with friends for the spell to do it. Its not rape, its consensual.

She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.

Ill have to disagree with this, depending on the situation of said NPC. If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her. She sees you as a friend, and if shes okay with it then its not rape. Charm person isnt a compulsion spell, youre not taking away her free will to choose. If she does it, its consensual. Remember, charm person is a Charm spell, not compulsion one.

Yes, you screwed with her head to view you as a friend. That's what invalidates consent. YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY HER FRIEND. You can't use reasoning about how she'd be ok with friends doing something to say this is ok, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND.

Again, if a drug made someone your friend for a few hours and you used it to sleep with them, then it would be rape. Charm Person is no different. Both screw with someone's mind and make them do things they would not otherwise do. Again, just because you made someone see you as a friend does not make you a friend.

And the spell explicitly compromises free will and changes how the system arbitrates requests.

It makes them view you in a friendly manner. They will be more suceptible to accepting requests, but they are not going to do so if they dont want to. Their ability to decide is still there, they have free will to act, because this is not a compulsion effect.

Arlandor wrote:

Drachasor wrote:

The description clearly includes a fair bit of stuff that goes beyond "helpful." So no, you are wrong.

Even if you were correct, you are still twisting their brain to help you. That thoroughly undermines their ability to give valid consent. It does not matter if you could have actually spent time with them and become friends (which is not certain). You've skipped that part and went straight to twisting their brain.

What you are saying is the same as saying "Drugging someone and raping them is ok if you COULD have convinced them to have sex with you." The fact there may have been valid alternatives to get what you wanted does not change the fact that you did not take them.

** spoiler omitted **

that doesnt grant anymore control over your target than using diplomacy and rolling high enough to change their attitude to helpful. now this whole "valid consent" statement is only your opinion. using "Charm" magic does not equal the same as drugging someone. a charmed person can still think and reason as per the text i made bold in the spoiler.

Don't ignore the special rules on requests.

You can convince them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do with an opposed charisma check. That goes beyond what Diplomacy allows. Removing of skills such as Sense Motive and Diplomacy is indicative of their loss of judgement. Further, the fact there are no very general caveats like Diplomacy has (where the DM can just decide something is impossible) further emphasizes this. The only caveats are against suicidal acts and harm, but even then the spell allows some leeway with influencing them.

So no, it isn't "just like you improved their attitude with diplomacy."

And even if it was, screwing with someone's mind and then using that compromised mind to get something invalidates consent. It doesn't matter if you could have done it another way.

That's like robbing a store and saying "well, I could have gotten a job there and been paid. This is...

Except for the fact that charm person is not a compulsion spell. Compulsion spells make you do things withouth you wanting to, takes away your free will. Charm spells do not. This is right on the core rulebook, we have the rules at our side. This is just opinion.

Newly GM wrote:

Im gonna chime in be the black sheep and say this is not rape for real.

If the barmaid sleeps with her friends, then its her problem. Charm person makes you look like her friend. If she gets convinced to sleep with you, its because she have no problems with doing so.

Its easy to put morals in front of facts, but it doesnt change the fact the she still have to be okay with sleeping with friends for the spell to do it. Its not rape, its consensual.

She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.

Ill have to disagree with this, depending on the situation of said NPC. If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her. She sees you as a friend, and if shes okay with it then its not rape. Charm person isnt a compulsion spell, youre not taking away her free will to choose. If she does it, its consensual. Remember, charm person is a Charm spell, not compulsion one.

Drachasor wrote:

The description clearly includes a fair bit of stuff that goes beyond "helpful." So no, you are wrong.

Even if you were correct, you are still twisting their brain to help you. That thoroughly undermines their ability to give valid consent. It does not matter if you could have actually spent time with them and become friends (which is not certain). You've skipped that part and went straight to twisting their brain.

What you are saying is the same as saying "Drugging someone and raping them is ok if you COULD have convinced them to have sex with you." The fact there may have been valid alternatives to get what you wanted does not change the fact that you did not take them.

** spoiler omitted **

that doesnt grant anymore control over your target than using diplomacy and rolling high enough to change their attitude to helpful. now this whole "valid consent" statement is only your opinion. using "Charm" magic does not equal the same as drugging someone. a charmed person can still think and reason as per the text i made bold in the spoiler.

This ^^^ Arlandor got it totally right, like I was explaining before.

How do you treat it? Do you roleplay it, and how often does it comes to the table?

I'm curious. I'm going to explain my reasoning why Charm Person is definitely the equivalent of roofieing someone and "coercing" them.

Barmaid example, Shes willing to sleep with her friends in this one. She would never sleep with a stranger.

Shes never met you before. You cast Charm Person forcing her to regard you as a close friend. Coitus ensues.

Heres the fact of the matter.

Without doing what you did, she would have never slept with you. So what does that mean? Obviously Charm Person had a huge effect on changing her mental faculties. If you think that this is okay, then so should this example.

You cast Dominate Person. You command them to regard you as a close friend. Then you tell her to act normally while heeding previous commands. Coitus ensues.

Guess what some drugs do? They lower your mental faculties making you more vulnerable. If you accept someone's offer in this state is it valid consent? No of course not because you are no longer in control of your own mind.

Which is exactly what these spells do. They change your frame of mind to better suit the caster.

So you consider dominate person on a enemy and using him to attack his allies during combat a evil act?

Newly GM wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Grimmy wrote:

The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.

I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.

I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."

Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.

I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.

Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.

Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.

Its not evil, but

...

So would using bluff constantly to convince people of a false narrative be an evil act?

Bluff is not evil, nowhere in the book the skill is stated as an evil act. To give someone a false perception through the use of lies is not good, but its also not an evil act. Neither is making them perceive you as a friend.

If you go by that way of thinking, all enchanters would eventually become evil for using spells like charm/dominate person. Im pretty sure that there are a lot of good enchanters out there using those spells constantly.

Newly GM wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Grimmy wrote:

The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.

I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.

I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."

Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.

I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.

Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.

Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.

Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its Neutral. A paladin would still have

...

And charm person isnt powered by evil. Just using it wont be an evil act. Its normally not good to lie, but neither is evil. Its neutral.

"Magic roofies are still roofies." is something that shouldn't need posting so often, yet it do.

Except for the fact that charm person is not dominate person. A charm effect, not compulsion effect. She retains her free will to do her own choices, the only difference is that she regards you as a friend. Just like if you succeeded on a diplomacy check, she becomes friendly, but she wont do what you asks if it is something that only a compulsion spell like dominate could achieve.

Newly GM wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Grimmy wrote:

The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.

I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.

I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."

Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.

I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.

Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.

Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.

Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its Neutral. A paladin would still have to atone. He's lying when pretending to be her friend, and thats

...

If that were the case, any action involving bluff would be evil...

Newly GM wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Grimmy wrote:

The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.

I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.

I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."

Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.

I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.

Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.

Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.

Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its Neutral. A paladin would still have to atone. He's lying when pretending to be her friend, and thats against his code.

Well, let me stop you there. It's evil. I just...

I gave multiple arguments as to why it is not evil. What are yours?

Sorry to split your post.

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

If you didn't mean to have a discussion about what is and is not rape, then you shouldn't have entered the conversation by saying that using charm person to coerce someone into sex is "a far cry from rape".

It seemed to me that Ms. Price was implying that Charm Person was the equivalent of drugging someone and having sex with their unconscious body. I never intended to imply that wouldn't be rape. My point was that is not Charm Person. (At least not the way I've ever ran it.)

Exactly. Charm Person is not forcing the target into anything. It only makes them perceive you as a friend, just like a succesful diplomacy check does.

Grimmy wrote:

The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.

I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.

I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."

Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.

I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.

Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.

Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.

Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its Neutral. A paladin would still have to atone. He's lying when pretending to be her friend, and thats against his code.

There's something I'm having trouble articulating. I'm going to use an anecdote from real life that I will put in spoiler tags because it is graphic and unpleasant and potentially triggering for victims.

Mods if you feel this is too heavy and need to delete I will understand, but I believe it adds to the discussion and makes a point I'm not sure how to make another way.

** spoiler omitted **

If he heard a story of a real world occurrence analogous to this scenario with charm person being used to coerce a barmaid, I imagine he would say, "That's a far cry from rape!"

I would understand the distinction he was trying to make, but in my opinion he would still be wrong, because words are words, and they have definitions.

wickepedia wrote:

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent.

Intercourse without valid consent is rape. The subject of charm person is being coerced, and is incapable of valid consent. I would consider her to be incapacitated by the effects of the spell.

So to you, using diplomacy to become friendly and convince her to do it is also rape? After all, the same way the skill check can fail, the spell also can with the will save.

I maintain my point. This is not the real world. Youre pretending to be her friend; to sleep with her, she have to consent in sleeping with a friend first. Youre not taking away her free will to choose. Thats what the Dominate, aka Compulsion spells does. Not charm person.

Now for the people saying it's not rape, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am not accusing you of being rape apologists at all. I am not getting that vibe.

I'm thinking about the fact that we have only this one word, "rape", but the experiences it describes can range from bad to worse to unspeakable.

I wonder if some of you are thinking of the victims of the most traumatic and horrifying instances of rape, and what you really mean to say is that you don't want to see the weight and impact of the word lessened?

As I said, its not rape because youre not forcing her to do it. Youre not using brute force, neither you are dominating her mind or anything. Youre passing as her friend. If shes okay with sleeping with friends, then its simply consensual.

Charm person is a Charm spell, not Compulsion spell. Dont forget that.

The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.

I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.

I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."

I have to disagree with this. She will view you like a friend, if she sleeps with her friends and you're succesful at asking her that, then its not rape.

@Revel

Here's how I run it.
Cast Charm Person, target fails save, target now regards the caster as their friend. Nothing else is changed. You can make requests and if it is something they will do for a friend then they will do it, no problem. ("Hey man, can you give me a ride home after work?) Make a request they might do for a friend but are reluctant, then a charisma check is needed. (Can you help me move? I'm in a four-story walk up.) Ask them to do something they wouldn't under any circumstances and they will flatly refuse-no check required. (Would you mind killing your father for me?) If you try to lie to them you still make a bluff check with the DC modified by the fact they consider you a friend. Some lies might not require a bluff check because they are a friend (Hey, I got the new Xbox! Not really.), while some would be very difficult regardless of friendship. (Just found out I'm king of the Moon!)

That, to me, is Charm Person.

Exactly. The barmaid will only sleep with you if shes okay with sleeping with random friends. If she does it, then its not rape, like people here are trying to argue. Youre not dominating her and forcing her to do it: You got to ask like a friend of hers.

Jessica Price wrote:

Razh wrote:

Im asking more on the lines of morally dubious things like charming an innocent barmaid to sleep with you, when normally she would never agree to it.

IMO, there's nothing "morally dubious" about that, any more than there's anything "morally dubious" about giving someone a drug that incapacitates them so you can rape them. Either way, it's evil.

I would say Charm Person is more akin to lying than drugging someone. However I'm in the "Charm Person doesn't equal Dominate Person" crowd. So I certainly wouldn't consider it a good thing, but a far cry from rape (at least in my games).

Exactly this. Its not good, but its also not rape. Its neutral.

Im gonna chime in be the black sheep and say this is not rape for real.

If the barmaid sleeps with her friends, then its her problem. Charm person makes you look like her friend. If she gets convinced to sleep with you, its because she have no problems with doing so.

Its easy to put morals in front of facts, but it doesnt change the fact the she still have to be okay with sleeping with friends for the spell to do it. Its not rape, its consensual.

Like I said thanks to everyone for their advice. I'm not sure whom newly gm is, but can assure it isn't my gm as I have metioned some of these issues to him in person. Btw I wonder if its to late to change my real name to seto83 lol.

Not sure where you're trying to get at here. You just made a few remarks last game, didnt discussed it at details like you did in this thread. I visit the forums regularly, but only made an account now to reply to you after seeing your post. Still, I dont think that discussing it here is being positive to us. We have to continue this conversation next time we meet, and I think the rest of the group should participate in it too.

Personally I think a lot of the issues that ever arise between player and GM tend to revolve around the fact the players "forget" that its the GM's job to tell a story. It is after-all their story to tell and the players are the characters in the story. In the last nearly three decades of gaming I have seen more than my fair share of players and GM's who nit pick at each others roles and its just absurd. The players should focus on playing and the GM focus on story telling. Simply put if either party doesn't like the way things are going then there is the door.

As a player I can say there have been countless times I have not been fond of how things turned out in a game or a campaign and for the most part I have been good to just accept on faith that the GM knows what he is doing. Of course a little nudge of help with rules or style have been given to new GM's but over all its their style and their story to do with as they see fit.

More specific to the issue of the Original Poster... as a GM I have many house rules that I use in my campaign such as Paladins being a Prestige class requiring 1 level of fighter and 1 level of cleric. With that said banning a class isn't really all that "out there". Granted doing so for the reasons you gave seems silly to me but is there a chance he said that simply because the GM didn't want to discuss it for fear of giving something away in the story? Perhaps barbarians are banned because there was a recent culling of the barbarian tribes by the evil king?

One of the things I make very clear to my players before they play is that I do not subscribe to what i call the "Everquest style of play". You don't walk out of town and only fight creatures you stand a 99% chance of winning against. If you go looking for trouble you will most likely find it. With that said when I write adventures and scenarios i write them in the point of view of the bad guys. If its something they should know... they will use it. If there is magic treasure in their horde... they will...

Thats exactly what im saying: im not doing anything withouth a purpose, as some of the posters are implying. Im no jerk, im no player killer, I just do what I believe to be the most logical approach to the circumstances (like using intelligent tactics for intelligent enemies for that matter). Seto (and some posters basing only on his comments) are implying that im doing everything out of nothing and being a jerk (DrDeth words), and I already stated the reasons why this is just wrong.

Hi all, im seto83 gm.
First and foremost, seto, im very disappointed with you. Accusing me of all this in a forum withouth even calling me out to discuss the matter isnt the best approach for this, specially when most of those said accusations are misinterpreted at best.

First thing, I didnt used these exact words for baning the barbarian. In fact, I banned them because they're harder for me to challenge than most classes, and as such I have trouble building encounters that are fair for everyone. Their ability to pounce, near immunity to magic and huge damage has proven more than a trouble for me in the past, and I decided it would be easier for me to GM withouth having to deal with this.

Second, I make the decisions I believe will be the most healthy for our gaming group. Sometimes it may seem arbitrary, but keep in mind that my main concerns are the game balance, something I try hard to achieve in order for a better overall gaming experience. The experience award is based on killing monsters alone for now, as im still analyzing the alternative metods for awarding it. It may change in the future, but for now I prefer to maintain it as is.

Third, you're accusing me of being a killer gm. Im not. If the players are using poor tactics in combat, its just normal for the monsters to attack what seems to be the better target in groups. Players should look to cover their more fragile allies in order to avoid such tactics. As for the added abilities in the monsters, I do this mainly to discourage the players from using the books as reference. I prefer to avoid the possibilities of metagaming, and this seems a good approach to do so.

Im really, really disappointed with you for making such accusations about me in the forums, man. Is that how much our 8 years or so of friendship is worth to you? I must ask you to not bring such things before even having a serious conversation with me, thats the least I could expect from you.

And yeah, im having some personal problems in the last few months, maybe my gm style has suffered a little from this, but I dont believe im being as horrible as youre implying to the community. Still, im sorry if I made you and the group feel that way. Sometimes its hard to separate real life issues from the gaming table.