Seb-x's page

Scenario 3:

Dude walks into Dragon nest, casts charm on it then is really nice to it once it wakes up.
Charm expires..Dragon, famed for being wilful, solitary and supremely egotistical doesn't care that it just had it's will stripped from it, cause it was by this nice little guy with dimples from Rostland.
//

Spot the odd one out.

It makes sense. I am not saying that you are wrong, but mostly what I was aiming for was a general consensus on what happens to the relationship after the effects of the spell disseminate not necessarily what happens if the subject was a dragon. Thank you for your response though. This will add to what will be applied for the current game I am in. =)

Two more thoughts:

I'd avoid more than one week per step. It's a game still, and you can adjust somebody's attitude two steps for hours with a minute of conversation.

I wouldn't allow the helpful attitude as the result of this, since the spell only makes them friendly. You can impress them after the spell has worn off.

Thank you for your constructive feedback. It has been very helpful =)

So it would be worded as:
If you maintain a healthy friendly relationship during the duration of a Charm spell, there is a chance to maintain the friendship after the spell ends. As a rule of thumb, this requires one "week" spent with the target per step of attitude improvement, that the caster did more for the target during the charm's duration than the target did for the caster, and that the target not be aware that the caster was magically influencing them. The target can make a sense motive check to notice the influence, made against the DC for noticing magically influenced behavior. The target takes a -5 penalty on this check since noticing oddities in one's own behavior is more difficult, but they receive a +5 bonus for each attitude shift beyond the first (if they formed an impression of the caster before being charmed) and for each significant but not insurmountable reason for not being the caster's friend (e.g. a dragon that normally eats humans they see, or catching the caster in the act of stealing from them- provided the caster returned everything). Provided conditions are reasonable for maintaining the friendship, the caster makes a diplomacy check, but the DC is based on a friendly attitude, the shift is treated as the target's new base attitude towards the caster, and the number of steps moved doesn't increase the DC or limit the attitude change. Failure by less than five indicates that the target's attitude is now merely indifferent.

Does this seem good to you? Just changed the wording to say week.

Wouldn't you argue that recasting the spell on you would allow you a new save each and every time it was cast, as the charm is creating an artificial overlay on your basic personality. People break free of real world programming all the time. The magic overlay would reasonably be more subject to disruption.

I agree that a new save could be used if the individual did not want a spell cast on them. While under the effects of the charm their thought process is to treat you as a trusted friend. Would you expect a trusted friend to do something bad to you? On this I would argue that someone under the effects of a charm will more than likely forego wanting to make a save.

I think the argument here is the reliability of the method.

As Bob the Builder loves to point out, "When you are trying to decide if your idea really is clever, work out how well it would work against you and your allies."

I feel that it would work on us all the same. Utilizing a check system similar to what QUIDEST describe in the situation he described, I would be none the wiser if I had no idea I was being manipulated magically and never recognized that I was being the subject of a spell or if i never succeeded in a save roll. The DM simply could make me roll a DC against the charm every time I would do something that would make me go against what I would normally do. If I fail I fail. Hazard of the game.

I would reference the rules of diplomacy. Let's say this dragon starts out as Hostile. It's difficult to make him your friend because a diplomacy action takes a while and the DC is 25+Cha. But, you're a magic sorcerer, so you cast charm monster. Now, he's not attacking you, and the DC is 10+Cha because we 'treat the target’s attitude as friendly'. When you succeed diplomacy checks, you're improving the actual attitude towards you, and 'Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion)'. So, we rely on GM discretion (the writer of this post). Lots of psychology here, so bear with me.

If all the diplomacy happens during downtime, I'll use dating as the model here, and say the amount of time it takes to go from 'indifferent' to 'friendly' is about 6 months, but that says more about me than the game. From my experience, in the normal back and forth of life, 6 months is about the time it takes for relationship status to change permanently.

If all the diplomacy happens while adventuring, we do a strange thing and get more attached to people more quickly. Think of summer camps, missions abroad, college ski trips, or whatever experiences you've had that forced you in close proximity to others during intense events, and how quickly bonds form, and how deeply they go, simply because those involved are doing more strenuous activities each day. In my experience, a week is enough to permanently change an attitude one way or another. Again, perhaps reveals more about me than the game.

In this perspective, if your character is similar to me, there are three 'jumps' from hostile to friendly, so three weeks of adventuring or a year and a half of living. Other people might have different timings than that, depends on the character.

I feel this is sound logic and was thinking along these lines before I read your post, however, I feel 6 months from indifferent to friendly may be excessive. I acknowledge that you said this was based on you, but I look at being friendly as being a friend. Now that is not to say I am a "trusted" friend, however, I am not longer indifferent if i can call someone my friend.

Thank you for your input =)

QUIDEST

I understand and agree with your logic. I do think that it should be 1 week more so than 1 day especially since we are discussing about the potential of permanent effects.

Could there be a list of time necessary potentially on a scale such as:

Time necessary to naturally affect an attitude change from in order from hostile to helpful. (Only in this direction as it takes time to build trust and friendships and a matter of seconds to potentially break them.)

Hostile to Unfriendly-------3 months// Ex. Prisoner is captured, but treated with dignity and respect while captured.

Unfriendly to Indifferent---1 month// Ex. Grumpy old person that does not care for young whipper snappers to be around, however, tolerates up to one or two that come and help them on a regular basis getting groceries, helping with chores, assisting with tending the farm etc.

Indifferent to Friendly-----2 weeks// Ex. Picking up a person at a bar and asking them on a date with a positive response and dating for said amount of time.

Friendly to helpful---------2 weeks// Ex. Developing relationship while going on an adventure together.

Attitude changes are subject to situation. Times are used as a general standard. During these times, positive interaction must occur on a regular basis. If interaction cannot happen on a regular basis, the time standards can and should be adjust by the DM accordingly. Additionally, attitude with an NPC can evolve at a faster rate if not skip a level altogether based on the situation. Ex. High stress situations where loss of life or limb is possible may influence attitude at a more rapid rate because going through hardship together drives camaraderie.

These are all subject to change and more than likely are not well thought enough, due to the time lack of time I placed into thinking of them, to actually pass as a finite rule, however I feel maybe it is a good starting point?

QUIDEST

First of all thank you VERY much for the well thought and well written example of a ruling on this particular matter. It is very appreciated.

My one challenge to this is that could the DC be increase by X based on spending X amount of time with subject? Example: Spending 5 days to affect the attitude shift vs. spending 500 days to affect the attitude shift?

A min/max to be added into your ruling?

PARSIMONY and QUIDEST

I can get behind you on the dragon concept about their ego. That makes valid logical sense if they succeed in the check. Like QUIDEST was saying this is more for the spell if and when it expires, however, I am not necessarily looking to cast it again so there would be no failure. I am mostly thinking about what happens to the brain once the spell ends of its own accord. Do they know what happened to them after the spell ends (in regards to being controlled not events that transpired)? Should it not feel like they strongly felt something during the time and suddenly just "fell-out-of love" with said course of actions and/or people? When an enchantment spell is successful in all of its entirety and they did not make any successful checks against it (whether it be a knowledge check or save) should they not feel as if they REALLY felt the things they felt? And if they believe they really felt what they felt should that not cause residual or lingering feelings? Maybe not as strong, however, they surely cannot be nonexistent? I agree with QUIDEST when he said it would be more noticeable with the degree in changed in alignment or disposition to the action and or persons, however, there are increases in DC for that so the person should still feel like they REALLY wanted to do said thing or like said person. As a caster of enchantments shouldn't I desire the most above anything else is being able to successfully enchant someone and them not know that they were enchanted?

QUIDEST

In regards to your link you sent me. Are you saying that with time it is possible that, under the charm of magic, a true friendship can be forged, after the charm has ended, as long as they do not know they are being charmed? (As long as they make ZERO checks or saves against your charm)

"If I'm friendly towards you today, I should be friendly towards you tomorrow. Knowing that my actions were being influenced by a spell breaks that- I no longer have a reason to act consistent."

EDIT: That Enchanting Courtesan looks sweet. I am going to check that bad boy out.

PIZZA LORD AND QUIDEST

I thought that Pizza Lord had a good point in saying "Well you must have had a good reason." from this "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."

BUT

To mitigate the argument of if the dragon could save or not, what if I cast the spell on it while it was sleeping? Could it be possible then to build the relationship? While critical thinking could play a part in the situation, there have been a number of instances, in real life, where mortal enemies on the battlefield became friends, well respected adversaries that one would do favors for the other or had regular correspondence with. Could it be that the dragon just "felt a closeness at first-sight" to the character on a failed initial check? This would make it arguable that even when the spell ended the dragon (btw this could be anything, just using a dragon as an example as it pertains to the current game I am participating in) would evaluate the situation, but never comes to a conclusion that the relationship is no longer meaningful or harmful to maintain because of the positive experiences that have been occurring since the beginning of the relationship. (positive is subject to the one being controlled)

QUIDEST

I question your logic on how the magic maintaining the relationship keeps all interaction at the friendly level (not that it is flawed, mostly just wanting to challenge it again the extremes to see if you feel the same). EXAMPLE, while under the effects of a charm spell, the PC sacrifices itself by jumping in front of an arrow or magical blast because they genuinely wanted to protect the dragon as an ally. In normal circumstances, IRL, this would develop a friendship to the highest of levels, a life debt so to speak. Are you saying that the attitude would not be moved while under the effects of the spell? Additionally, would it not be moved after the effects of the spell have ended as they would still remember the actions of the PC?

PIZZA LORD QUIDEST

In regards to your answers "Even if they didn't know they were under mental control, in a world where magic exists it is not an inconceivable thing to consider. Such things likely happen all the time in political situations and court event, whereas in our world, claiming someone is using mind-control would be dismissed as the thinking of a paranoid madman or conspiracy kook." brainwashing does exist in the real world (or hypnotism), but if a politician were to use an excuse like that it would more or less cause people to not believe them or think they are crazy. I understand that magic exist in the world, however, I find it hard to believe that "the people" would easily accept the excuse "I was being controlled!" Would that not just be the go to for all political blunders?

AND

"5. Unnatural Lust is a really heavy-handed spell, and I would expect a the target to shout, "Find and bring me the enchanter bound and gagged for trial!" Remember that casting is pretty obvious without investment, so you're not fooling anyone without at least a couple feats. Even if you do hide it, suddenly kissing somebody (especially if it's someone the target has no feelings for) is likely so out of character that the compulsion will be obvious to them." Kinda going off what I said above about PIZZA LORD's response, lets say the situation is slightly different and a politician is spotted kissing a bar wench. Is he still going to call out for the the head of the enchanter or enchantress or just hope rumors will not spread?

Thank you all again for your input!

Thank you for your reply parsimony.

I am mostly talking about in terms in the form of a player, however, I have also DM other games and would like to know how to judge this in terms of what is "fair". My wizard in the case is mostly a social caster and has very little combat effectiveness. My combats are usually filled me taking a defensive stance and letting teammates or mercenaries do all the work.

Is it fair to say that a level 3 spell, assuming it is successful, (matchmaker) being spammed several times everyday for an extended amount of time to take control of the "hearts and minds" of NPCs is a fair trade off for being mostly useless in combat?

Additionally, when you say "The moment the critter makes the save and has the upper hand, you will get what you deserve." are you suggesting that the moment that an NPC makes the save, they will revert back to their original disposition regardless if I have had them under a spell for 1 year or even 100 years?

EDIT: In tandem with the matchmaker, is Charm Monster to powerful if I allow a combat ineffective wizard to "pretty much" treat it like the ability to tame a monster? Essentially, over time, have the monster grow fond of its "master, partner, friend, etc..." and forming a lasting relationship that could lead to having a new ally?

Alrighty, so here are the spells I will be focusing on for the time being: Charm Monster, Lesser Geas, Matchmaker, Unnatural Lust and Charm Person for now.

While I know the rules on what a NPC feels, remembers or knows after the spell's effect has worn off I would like to pose a few different scenarios that I am curious about.

1) In the instance I succeed in casting Charm Monster on a lesser dragon, would the dragon get a save roll if i tried to cast it on him again while he was still under the effects of the charm? The point being that he is considered to be friendly towards me. ALSO IN ALL INSTANCES I AM ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE SUBJECT.

2) In the instance that I am able to indefinitely keep the dragon in the charm, if I treated the dragon in a favorable way for an extended amount of time (3 months) would my favor in the dragon's eyes go up because I have formed a lasting bond with it? Could I eventually stop casting the spell on the dragon and he would still act like he normally would under the spell's effect because we have "been through so much together"?

3) If I were to explain to a charmed NPC that I was about to cast a non-harmful spell that will make them happier to be around me then cast Matchmaker on them continuously (targeting both myself and the subject) would they get a save if they agreed to it? Additionally, if I am utilizing two charm spells at once, if creating memories with the NPC does build at forming a relationship, does this happen at a faster rate? Does the love/ platonic relationship create other feelings such as jealousy, hate or loneliness? Do the feelings of love linger and after the spell ends does the NPC still love?

4) If I succeed in casting Lesser Geas on an individual and give them a task that they can accomplish over and over again indefinitely does that run the duration out? Example keep "X" away from "Y". They physically can accomplish that task over and over with no specific end in sight. In that scenario can the NPC develop a psychological disorder assuming that the task consumes his thoughts? If released from the geas, does the NPC still think about it and want to accomplish his/her task?

5) If I cast Unnatural lust on a person and have them kiss someone they would never even think about kissing, does it cause confusion? If the person does it in front of a crowd do they get embarrassed, feel shame or get depressed? Example: I get the duke (heterosexual male) to passionately kiss another male in a crowded environment where the duke is well known and homosexual tendencies are looked down upon.

Thank you in advance for entertaining my silly questions.