So a wizard casts a charm person on a party member. That means that the party member will not attack the wizard. But:
1. Will he still be able to attack the wizard's friends? Will the charming wizard need to do a Charisma check to convince the charmed person not to attack them?
2. What if the party members tell their charmed friend to attack the charming wizard's friends, or to do the opposite of what the wizard tells him. How would you resolve that?
3. What if the charming wizard tell the charmed person just to leave the area. Would he do that? What if the party members tell him to stay?
My interpretation is that a charmed creature will treat you as a friend (but not its closest friend).
So with that in mind...
1) The charmed PC would probably accept a temporary truce, if one was called for, for the sake of his "new friend", or maybe switch to non-lethal methods of fighting.
2) The charmed PC might try to stop the fight, or might switch to non-lethal methods of fighting (if stopping the fight is a lost cause).
3) The charmed PC might be persuaded to leave, depending on the circumstances (e.g. if the charmed PC and his party stumbled across a group of bandits, then leaving them alone is reasonable). But telling the PC to abandon his friends in the middle of a pitched battle probably wouldn't work without a lot of convincing.
So a wizard casts a charm person on a party member. That means that the party member will not attack the wizard. But:
1. Will he still be able to attack the wizard's friends? Will the charming wizard need to do a Charisma check to convince the charmed person not to attack them?
2. What if the party members tell their charmed friend to attack the charming wizard's friends, or to do the opposite of what the wizard tells him. How would you resolve that?
3. What if the charming wizard tell the charmed person just to leave the area. Would he do that? What if the party members tell him to stay?
Charming effects their perceptions of YOU, not of anyone else. If they don't like your friends, they may well urge you to get new friends.
Charming effects their perceptions of YOU, not of anyone else. If they don't like your friends, they may well urge you to get new friends.
Correct. I have seen charm person and suggestion used like they were dominate person to many times.
Charming effects their perceptions of YOU, not of anyone else. If they don't like your friends, they may well urge you to get new friends.Correct. I have seen charm person and suggestion used like they were dominate person to many times.
So let's say an evil wizard and his lackeys attack your party and then in the middle of the fight the wizard charms you. What would be the wizard's best course of action to get you out of the fight, and how would your friends be able to counter that?
The evil wizard's best bet is to try to convince the charmed guy his allies have been replaced by dopplegangers/demons/whatever. Then side with him to capture or vanquish them. Bluff vs Sense Motive sounds appropriate.
That sounds like it would be tricky to pull off, but it is certainly a possibility.
I personally like the "charm the fighter and have him grapple his own wizard" trick.
Yeah even with a Bluff, that one is gonna take some work - as the persons party members are ALSO friends. It would probably lead to a few rounds confusion at best.
More likely the Charmed person would start to try break up the fight, using non-lethal means on his friends (party and charmer) but may still try hack to bits the 'enemies' attacking any of his buddies.
|
So let's say an evil wizard and his lackeys attack your party and then in the middle of the fight the wizard charms you. What would be the wizard's best course of action to get you out of the fight, and how would your friends be able to counter that?Charming effects their perceptions of YOU, not of anyone else. If they don't like your friends, they may well urge you to get new friends.Correct. I have seen charm person and suggestion used like they were dominate person to many times.
In a recent game, my wizard cast charm person on an NPC. While she was unable to motivate the NPC to fight his employer, she was able to convince him to defend her and effectively removed him from the fight.
If the wizard was able to convince the PC that the fight would be a threat to his person unless they fled, would be one way. The PC may feel that his companions are being irrational attacking his new friend and ensure that he makes it away safely.
The wizard could try to talk the PC into inaction by stating that he should stay out of the fight between his friends. The PC might even suggest this as his best course of action. However, if the PC sees that his new friend (the evil wizard) has been attacked without reason (the companions stumble upon him in a dungeon, for example) he may refuse to fight.
Mr. Fishy is infamous for Charm Person. Mr. Fishy is the scoriuge of Charm casting players.
1 Charm Person does not make the target RETARDED,(he can see fine, can hear you plot on his friends and the Paladin is a threat to his evil cult period.
2 Charm Person makes him your "friend" so don't ask for anything your real friends would tell you to go to hell over.
3 Being your friend does not make you his one and only. It can, but you won't like it. Trust a Fish.
4 Sometimes a bully is a bully, goblins and evil humoniod fall under this one. A violent and cruel creature does become nice because you want him to. A "friendly" goblin is still a goblin.
Maybe Mr. Fishy is a bad fish but it is a first level spell.
Outside of combat the spell can help with bluffs and diplomacy but logic and reason over rule whining casters.
Mr. Fishy is kind of creepy! :)
True, but he 's dealing with Charm Person the right way !!
Mr. Fishy is kind of creepy! :)
but he is right on all points.
a charmed character keeps his alignment throughout the whole thing. If you charm a brigand, he may not rob you, he may even cut you in for the spoils (if you pull your own weight) but he's not going to stop being a brigand for you. Likewise a lawfull neutral guard, normally immune to bribery, won't release you from prison, but he may make your stay more comfortable.
Our party is in constant peril of the charm person. The bard, who by dint of his avoidance of combat is usually fairly healthy midway through an adventure. He's chaotic neutral, so when he's charmed by the opposition, he has no problem fighting his own party. to him, his adventuring party is just a means to adventure, and so he's perfectly fine, under the influence of charm, to betray them.
It's a good thing I don't like evil in the party, or it could get worse.
Batts
2 Charm Person makes him your "friend" so don't ask for anything your real friends would tell you to go to hell over.
Unless you win an opposed Charisma check. If you win, you can make someone charmed do all kinds of things they wouldn't normally do. Not *ALL* things -- no suicidal or obviously harmful orders -- but practically anything else, including dangerous or stupid things.
So, in the case of this magic, you could convince your "friend" to do things your real friends would tell you to go to hell over. That includes giving you all their money ("it's for the good of the cause!") and even selling themselves into slavery ("we really need the money -- we'll bail you out real soon!").
The limitations on this magic are great -- in combat the +5 bonus on the saving throw makes it practically unusable. You must speak the language of the charmed subject. It only works on humanoids.
But once you can silent cast it while improved invisible, it's pretty nice (:
Reason and logic, the charisma check only gets you to do this you would normal do under duress of a friend. Remember that spell is in Mr. Fishy's bag too. Plus "friends" do "favors" for friends. Mr. Fishy is creepy but you started it.
the charisma check only gets you to do this you would normal do under duress of a friend.
There is nothing in the description of the spell that would imply this. The spell specifies the limits of what the Charisma check can do. It does not impose a limitation of "what you could get a friend to do".
LOGIC...Hey good bubby could you kill your dad then you and me can split the insurance. Roll, I'll wait. Even better see my first post the target isn't RETARD. The spell doesn't set a limit because the DM should. If your best friend asked you to murder your family would you. Would you if he made a opposed Cha check. Logic/reason trumps whiny casters.
LOGIC...Hey good bubby could you kill your dad then you and me can split the insurance. Roll, I'll wait. Even better see my first post the target isn't RETARD. The spell doesn't set a limit because the DM should. If your best friend asked you to murder your family would you. Would you if he made a opposed Cha check. Logic/reason trumps whiny casters.
You're ignoring the text of the spell in favor of the "reasoning and logic" of magic defined in Pathfinder.
Keep in mind that someone affected by charm person regards the casters words and actions in the most favorable way -- in a manner that is not based on reason or logic -- it's based on magic. Perhaps the victim's family was scheming to kill him; maybe taking them out had to be done to preserve the victim's safety. Of course this is unreasonable, but the magic causes those thoughts to be perceived in a way that is most favorable. . . most reasonable. . . most logical. The Charisma check is simply a method to "push" your agenda on the victim of the spell.
So a wizard casts a charm person on a party member. That means that the party member will not attack the wizard. But:
1. Will he still be able to attack the wizard's friends? Will the charming wizard need to do a Charisma check to convince the charmed person not to attack them?
2. What if the party members tell their charmed friend to attack the charming wizard's friends, or to do the opposite of what the wizard tells him. How would you resolve that?
3. What if the charming wizard tell the charmed person just to leave the area. Would he do that? What if the party members tell him to stay?
I think that confusion followed by/concomitant with "can't we all just get along" is a logical response in situations like this. Imagine how you would feel if a bunch of your best friends and another one of your closest friends, with some of his friends, were suddenly trying to kill each other (and members of both parties were telling you to kill the others) I imagine you would try in some way to deescalate the situation, try to break it up, minimize the harm to all involved, if you could, while doing your best to protect yourself as well. Assuming you weren't evil, in which case you would probably pick the side you felt would benefit you the most, I think you would probably try to sort things out for yourself before taking any decisive action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So should Mr. Fishy call your family and warn them. You didn't say no. Mr. Fishy never said that charm person couldn't do that he just thinks that normally "good" person won't drop his alignment on your word any more than a real person would. A parnoid neutral or evil person could be pushed but Mr. Fishy still calls reason into play.
Rules and spirit are two cords braided together, remove one and the line works but it isn't as strong. Run the spell as you see fit.
Mr. Fishy follows the Motto of "Your game, your way." Mr. Fishy likes to argue but not if the arguement is "No your Wrong," and that is where Mr. Fishy sees this going.
Mr. Fishy sees your point, magic defies logic and reason. Mr. Fishy just feels that without logic and reason as a base magic loses some of it's color.
So should Mr. Fishy call your family and warn them. You didn't say no.
It's a good thing charm-type spells don't exist (: Very bad things could happen quite frequently. Then again, people experienced at brain washing have done some very naughty things in the past. In fact, I'd imagine they're still doing some very bad things. . .
Mr. Fishy never said that charm person couldn't do that he just thinks that normally "good" person won't drop his alignment on your word any more than a real person would. A parnoid neutral or evil person could be pushed but Mr. Fishy still calls reason into play.
Alignment is an indicator of how a character would generally act in a given situation. It doesn't imply that the character will *ALWAYS* act that way; it is a guideline. Sometimes "shades of gray" makes a particularly evil action seem less evil -- or a good action seem evil. Charm person introduces another layer. . .you could potentially be saintly good yet regard the words and actions of an incredibly vile and evil person as most favorable. How could someone feel that way at the same time? Answer: magic. Charm person can render alignment effectively useless. If evil words/actions are most favorable to a good person, then clearly a conflict exists. The game's mechanism for resolving that conflict is -- an opposed Charisma check. That's just how the game works.
Mr. Fishy likes to argue but not if the arguement is "No your Wrong," and that is where Mr. Fishy sees this going.
Those aren't fun arguments ):
Mr. Fishy sees your point, magic defies logic and reason. Mr. Fishy just feels that without logic and reason as a base magic loses some of it's color.
And -- in the case of this spell -- a significant amount of the spell's power could fluctuate depending on how "reason and logic" apply. Low level charm and illusion spells are always hotly debated. They're either too powerful or too weak. That to me says they're probably pretty balanced.
As for actual in-game stuff, tactically it is a combat/battle-field control spell. Other posters are correct that it's constantly used as if it were dominate person or suggestion. It really is a non-combat spell meant for RP scenes
The part most people ignore is the +5 bonus on the saving throw in combat. But if you're strong enough and your opponents are weak enough, then the spell really is quite powerful. Suggestion is better against stronger opponents simply because of the charm spells' bonus on the save. Dominate person is more powerful in combat, but not more powerful than charm monster if there are no humanoids to target it on. Of course dominate monster is powerful -- it's a 9th level spell q:
The charm spells really don't require RP to use effectively. For the purposes of RP, I try to put a spin on them to make them seem "convincing" to the table, but really there's no such restriction. In fact, players generally hate this spell because it does take away a lot of game control from them.
P.S. Fishy ... the 3rd person and tone have me wondering if you're not who I think ...
Mr. Fishy is Mr. Fishy who do you think Mr. Fishy is?!?
Alignment remained a factor.
We're talking about a Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder alignment system. It's not the same as morality and ethics. In the D&D/PF system, alignment does not have any direct tie to the charm person spell. Yes, a heroic creature would be more likely to find an evil creature's order to flee from combat a bad thing. However, a cowardly good creature might find the order to be a very good idea.
How do you resolve the situation in which a Good character is asked to do Evil things by someone who has charmed them? Having a working understanding of cognitive dissonance really helps adjudicate those situations.
Uh, it's an opposed Charisma check.
Mr. Fishy fears for your family.
Mr. Fishy fears for your family.
Actually, to kill an entire family (let's say, a mother, father, and a younger sibling) would require a number of opposed Charisma checks -- assuming it takes multiple actions to kill the whole family. A single fireball might kill them in one fell swoop -- that's just one check. If you design a character built around charming and Charisma checks, then on average you'd win those checks. But it wouldn't be consistent -- since the Charisma check is opposed, they could roll a 20 and you could roll a 1. . . unless you have a 52 Charisma and the victim has a 10 Charisma, you'd lose that roll and the victim wouldn't obey the order.
One point of contention is if retries are allowed on a different cast of charm person. I'd say no, a failed opposed Charisma check to get you to kill your dad would always be a failure, regardless of what cast you're on.
Wow, you guys must have real luck with your will saves. I played a beguiler, and stopped bothering to cast is as all but 1 person I ever tried saved against DC17 saves.
That being said, I completely agree with Mr. Fishy. You can TRY to convince someone that their family is plotting against them, but they don't have to believe you. It may call them to question their family, but you wont get any more benefit to convince them than if annother friend presented the same evidence. They may just think its a bad joke on your part.
That being said, I think diplomacy checks are WAY too easy in the game. I've seen too many people who can get others from hostile to friendly in a minute, even without magic.
That being said, I completely agree with Mr. Fishy. You can TRY to convince someone that their family is plotting against them, but they don't have to believe you. It may call them to question their family, but you wont get any more benefit to convince them than if annother friend presented the same evidence. They may just think its a bad joke on your part.
Actually, if you win an opposed Charisma check, they *have* to believe you -- the magic compels them to do so. That is, assuming the order is: "you must believe that your family is trying to kill you".
That being said, I completely agree with Mr. Fishy. You can TRY to convince someone that their family is plotting against them, but they don't have to believe you. It may call them to question their family, but you wont get any more benefit to convince them than if annother friend presented the same evidence. They may just think its a bad joke on your part.Actually, if you win an opposed Charisma check, they *have* to believe you -- the magic compels them to do so. That is, assuming the order is: "you must believe that your family is trying to kill you".
There is absolutely nothing in the spell description saying that. It says they view what you say favorably. It specifically states you don't get to control them, so they still get to think for themselves.
There is absolutely nothing in the spell description saying that. It says they view what you say favorably. It specifically states you don't get to control them, so they still get to think for themselves.
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.
What would the victim ordinarily not do?
Believe the victim's family is trying to kill the victim.
If you win the opposed Charisma check, the victim follows the order.
The order is: believe the victim's family is trying to kill the victim.
Thus, they are mentally "convinced" to follow the order.
When the spell ends, the control is relinquished and the order no longer must be followed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you believe that?
Did the monk tell you that?
Was it the evil mage that ate your dog? That guy is a jerk.
I still stand by the Charm Person doesn't make the target retarded. Love as a way of controlling someone? Mr. Fishy already posted on that, Mr. Fishy was called creepy...that stung Mr. Fishy. Most favorable way is not the same as slavish loyality.
I would allow Charm Person brainwashing. Repeated Charm Person spells cast on a target until the "your family is after you" command is deeply planted. But proof (real or faked) would help a lot.
P.S. Fishy ... the 3rd person and tone have me wondering if you're not who I think ...Mr. Fishy is Mr. Fishy who do you think Mr. Fishy is?!?
Mr. Fishy sits at the gaming table with us. I know who Mr. Fishy is. And yes, he is creepy...even when he plays a LG Cleric of Sarenrae.
Way to out a Fish. Check your email lately that's fish poop in the filter.
Check your email lately that's fish poop in the filter.
Um, eww.
|
That being said, I think diplomacy checks are WAY too easy in the game. I've seen too many people who can get others from hostile to friendly in a minute, even without magic.
I think those days may be behind us all, without the ludicrous number of synergy bonuses to Diplomacy available (and the change to Diplomacy DCs to change NPC attitudes).
No that is MrFish, not Mr. Fishy. Mr. Fishy is a force of crazy and wisdom, mostly crazy. And Fishyness.
No that is MrFish, not Mr. Fishy. Mr. Fishy is a force of crazy and wisdom, mostly crazy. And Fishyness.
And tasty sushi
Is that tartar suace or are you just oozing.
I would allow Charm Person brainwashing. Repeated Charm Person spells cast on a target until the "your family is after you" command is deeply planted. But proof (real or faked) would help a lot.
I agree with nearly everything Mealabox posted (not sure about the last 2 or 3 posts), and a few things Mr. Fishy posted are very good points.
The problem with much of Mr. Fishy's interpretation, is it makes the spell almost entirely useless. Whether the spell fails or succeeds becomes a foregone conclusion as determined by the whims of the GM.
Some examples of how my character has used Charm Person/Monster in our current game:
- While speaking to the leaders of two rival villages who were warring over resources, I secretly charmed both leaders and acted as a 3rd party mediator. Through a number of Bluff checks, Diplomacy checks (which received nice circumstance bonuses), and opposed Charisma checks, I convinced the losing faction that their losing the war was a foregone conclusion at this point and that rather than fleeing into the hills to lose more of his people to starvation and a years-long skirmish war, he should surrender his valley to the aggressors and relocate to my Lord's land where his people would be taken care of (fed and put to legitimate work) and protected (by my king's military). In the end, my lord gained an army of centaurs, the gnoll aggressors gained the centaur lands and resources, and I gained favor in the eyes of my king (as I expanded his power base), the centaurs (who continue believe I was merely trying to protect them), and the gnolls (who see me as a war hero who won them the war). Charm Person/Monster did not allow me to forgo the skill checks, but they sure made things much easier. A peace treaty (of sorts) was signed by the end of the week.
- After having been captured, I found myself begging a covey of (secretly charmed) hags to release us rather than kill us. I soon realized that the hags were so depraved, so evil, that they would even devour their own good friends if it meant a moment of satisfaction for themselves (more or less nullifying much of the charm benefit). I quickly changed my tactic: Seeing that they loved death, destruction, and other forms of chaos/mischief, I offered them a place at my king's side as his tactical advisers--for my king was about to start a war with the world (which is why I was gathering allies on his behalf). So I tempted them with the possibility of being a part of all the chaos and destruction that would ensue as well as being able to cause/direct much of it. They were so pleased by the offer, they not only freed us and let us be on our way, they also had us take piles of "useless" gold and magic items off of their hands. We later heard that some of the king's messengers finalized the deal with the hags, though most of said messengers never returned.
- While traveling between missions, our party's wagon was ambushed by a large tribe of kobolds. I was quickly able to identify their war leader and charmed him. I then made an opposed Charisma check (easily succeeding) and convinced him to call off the attack long enough for me to offer him and his men food (some animal feed we happened to have). After talking to the kobolds a bit, we learned that their entire tribe was starving and that was why they had attacked us. They were so grateful that we were willing to simply give them food (something no civilized humanoid had ever done before) they pledged their loyalty to my witch for as long as she continued to feed them. They guided our wagon through their swamp, helped us fight off a few enemies, and after I was able to secure a more permanent line of food from my king for them, made their entire tribe scouts and trap smiths within my king's military. Many dozens of other kobold tribes jumped onto the bandwagon soon after as a result.
Our next trip will see us dealing with a dragon.
As a result of good roleplaying and a couple of spells, my "wondering witch" is loved by the kobold clans, the gnoll empire, the centaur remnants, and by all of my homeland (except for her home village from whence she was exiled). She is also on good terms with the powerful hag witches of Euk swamp (though they are secluded, their power is far reaching).
I agree that charm effects do not make people retarded or change their alignment, but it does make them--flexible--flexible enough that a simple opposed Charisma check and some sensible explanation will go a LONG way on it's own. They don't automatically believe everything you say (you still need to make Bluff checks) though they do see your words in the most favorable light, so Bluff modifiers are going to be much more in your favor than they might normally be. Depending on the scope of the request, Diplomacy checks may also be in order (a friend is willing to offer limited help, but for them to be Helpful and put themselves at risk to offer aid, you still need to improve their attitude first). As with Bluff checks, charming them makes Diplomacy much easier (as they go from Friendly to Helpful rather than Hostile to Helpful).
My witch character is so successful in her charms not because she has min/maxed DCs and abilities (which she does) but because she treats her victims as intelligent creatures with wants and needs. Essentially, she acts like a mundane dignitary might (making offers and being respectful), but uses magic to speed things along.
Mr. Fishy promises nothing.
To sledgehammer this discussion back in the vague vicinity of the topic, how would Bluff be adjudicated in combination with charm person? Could you use a Bluff check instead of an opposed Charisma check, and would the DC for such a bluff be easier because of the charm (they really really want to believe you, because they trust you as a friend).
Ravingdork Mr. Fishy would allow Charm Person to work that way. Logic and reason should be a baseline not a wall of stone. The hags were evil, charmed the hags were evil. The gnolls and centuars were secretly charmed and you acted as a 3rd party mediator not a dictator. The charm orders were reasonable. The gnolls wanted to win and the centaur wanted to protect his people. The kobolds were offered food. You cast and play "charm" not dominate. Your control was subtle and fluid not slamed againist the targets normal agenda.
Like a friend you suggest reasonable acts and the target responsed in a reasonable way. Mr. Fishy is as reasonable as you are.
Check the skill but Mr. Fishy thinks that there is a bonus to bluff for "wants to believe you."
I would allow Charm Person brainwashing. Repeated Charm Person spells cast on a target until the "your family is after you" command is deeply planted. But proof (real or faked) would help a lot.I agree with nearly everything Mealabox posted (not sure about the last 2 or 3 posts), and a few things Mr. Fishy posted are very good points.
The problem with much of Mr. Fishy's interpretation, is it makes the spell almost entirely useless. Whether the spell fails or succeeds becomes a foregone conclusion as determined by the whims of the GM.
Some examples of how my character has used Charm Person/Monster in our current game:
- While speaking to the leaders of two rival villages who were warring over resources, I secretly charmed both leaders and acted as a 3rd party mediator. Through a number of Bluff checks, Diplomacy checks (which received nice circumstance bonuses), and opposed Charisma checks, I convinced the losing faction that their losing the war was a foregone conclusion at this point and that rather than fleeing into the hills to lose more of his people to starvation and a years-long skirmish war, he should surrender his valley to the aggressors and relocate to my Lord's land where his people would be taken care of (fed and put to legitimate work) and protected (by my king's military). In the end, my lord gained an army of centaurs, the gnoll aggressors gained the centaur lands and resources, and I gained favor in the eyes of my king (as I expanded his power base), the centaurs (who continue believe I was merely trying to protect them), and the gnolls (who see me as a war hero who won them the war). Charm Person/Monster did not allow me to forgo the skill checks, but they sure made things much easier. A peace treaty (of sorts) was signed by the end of the week.
- After having been captured, I found myself begging a covey of (secretly charmed) hags to release us rather than kill us. I soon realized that the hags were so depraved, so evil, that they would even devour...
These are exactly the uses I like seeing for charm person. The thing with each of these is that the people aren't acting dumb. The leaders in the 1st one think you have good, altruistic, intentions. Thats the benefitt. You negotiated and convinced them, rather than ordering them and them obeying.
The second case, the charm person stops the immediate hostilities and opens dialogue. That is the bennefit of the spell, not that it makes them your willing slave. You still had to convince them that your ideas to join with your king were beneficial to them. The same with the 3rd.
The important thing is the explanation. It opens doors, but it wont make people do things they are loath to do.
That being said, the DCs are still really low and you need to watch out you don't get caught :)