| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ancient Greeks (pre-Homer) did not have a word for "friend". The closest they had was "ally", which meant someone who works with me to accomplish my goals.
That is still pretty much what the noun "ally" means today.
I just realized that the spells Charm Person and Charm Monster don't do what myself and everyone I've ever gamed with thinks they do. They cause the target to regard you as its trusted friend and ally.
Notice? The target thinks that:
(a) I am its friend
(b) I share and work towards its goals
So if I charm a farmer he might say, "Hi, Buddy! Want some of the jerkey I just finished making? While you're here, let's fix the leak in my barn's roof. I've been putting that off since it's really a two person job."
If I charm an owlbear it might growl, "Also angry all the time!? Follow me I hear something to kill!"
If I charm a vampire it might invite me to visit its castle, especially if I will help him hunt humans while we travel.
Almost never would these spells cause the target to willingly tag along with a bunch of smell adventurers into dangerous situations to solve quests. Those are my goals, probably not the goals of the target.
|
You left out the rest of the spell.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
The spell lays out pretty clearly what it can do, vis a vis Charisma checks and so on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never used Charm as a domination effect, nor seen it used as one.
The spell explicitly describes the following effects:
(1) It is treated as "friendly" towards you (a specific game term noted in the Diplomacy chapter).
(2) You can ask it to do something, and it will do it as long as it is something it would normally do.
(3) You can convince to do something it *wouldn't* ordinarily do with a charisma check, but cannot retry.
(4) You can never use the spell to convince them to harm themselves unless you can otherwise make the effort seem worthwhile (aka some roleplaying and possibly a diplomacy check).
(5) None of the above matters if you cannot communicate with the creature in some fashion.
(6) If you or an apparent ally do something threatening, the spell breaks immediately.
Seems decently clear-cut. It's basically a short-cut for using diplomacy to get it to the "friendly" status (which can be impossible in some circumstances).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You left out the rest of the spell.
Yeah, I know...
And I never meant to serious suggest we switch to the flavor text instead of the explicit RAW.
But using both would be funny...
"Kill more of these stupid elementals?" complains the charmed Giant Trap Door Spider. "Why? They have no blood! All right, all right, stop nagging. But when we get back home you are so much going to help me dig the most amazing burrow. And remind me again why I can't drink dry the friendly Fighter for dinner tonight?"
The charmed creature "thinking you share its goals" and the other effects of the spell are not mutually exclusive. The vampire/farmer/owlbear probably thinks that the charmer also drinks blood/tending crops/is-a-vicious-killing-machine and expects them to act appropriately. However, when they stop and ask the charmer what gives, any excuse the charmer uses will be accepted favorably. Should be fun RP though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ancient Greeks (pre-Homer) did not have a word for "friend". The closest they had was "ally", which meant someone who works with me to accomplish my goals.
That is all.
I always thought of Charm as a friend maker. A quick cast, and suddenly the bartender is willing to shower you with free drinks, or that monster has you over for dinner rather than just for dinner.
The ancient Greeks (pre-Homer) did not have a word for "friend". The closest they had was "ally", which meant someone who works with me to accomplish my goals.That is all.
I disagree, respecting that words can change their meaning among different age groups or on opposite sides of the country.
Does not the following example make sense?
"In the film Tangled, Flynn Rider is forced to become Rapunzel's ally. He promises to help her accomplish her goals of traveling to the capital city and watching the lights. Rapunzel considers Flynn a resource, not an ally, since his plans to hide and eventually fence the crown oppose her own objectives."
Maybe not in your demographic. But it would be sad if the English language is losing the flexibility to succinctly describe a non-mutual alliance.
You left out the rest of the spell.Yeah, I know...
And I never meant to serious suggest we switch to the flavor text instead of the explicit RAW.
But using both would be funny...
"Kill more of these stupid elementals?" complains the charmed Giant Trap Door Spider. "Why? They have no blood! All right, all right, stop nagging. But when we get back home you are so much going to help me dig the most amazing burrow. And remind me again why I can't drink dry the friendly Fighter for dinner tonight?"
Funny, but that spider is vermin, therefore immune to a charm monster.
For your farmer example, my character would probably respond with:
"I'd love to, but my back is killing me. I've got an idea. How about you show me that secret moonshine recipe of yours (which my character has been hired to steal by a rival...I can't think of another good reason to be charming farmers) and then we sample the goods? We'll get that roof done tomorrow."
Funny, but that spider is vermin, therefore immune to a charm monster.
Why? It is a living creature, which is all that is required in the spell description.
Funny, but that spider is vermin, therefore immune to a charm monster.Why? It is a living creature, which is all that is required in the spell description.
Because spiders are vermin, and according to the rules concerning that creature type... (emphasis mine)
Vermin
This type includes insects, arachnids, other arthropods, worms, and similar invertebrates. Vermin have the following traits.
• Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms). Mindless creatures have no feats or skills. A vermin-like creature with an Intelligence score is usually either an animal or a magical beast, depending on its other abilities.
• Vermin breathe, eat, and sleep.
• Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
Ah! I stand corrected.
And this game has too many rules...
• Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).Ah! I stand corrected.
And this game has too many rules...
Well you share the same opinion as one of the game designers so you have that going for you!
Even Pre Homer, the Greeks still had the word philia, which means friendship.
|
|
charm is fun but when you want real puppet master control that's what Dominate is for and its so fun when used on evil aligned creatures because murdering their former allies isn't that far outside their nature. Then again the dame debate could be made for Charm if worded right and a high diplomacy or bluff is rolled.
"hey my new ogre friend help us kill your kinfolk and you will get to be the big boss-ogre!"
We need more charmed monster dialogue.
Charms are powerful weapons indeed. With an opposed Charisma check, you can force charmed creatures to do things they wouldn't normally do. I once heard a story about an assassin who used charm spells to do in her clients in the most cruel ways possible. This assassin loved causing as much harm as possible, because she thought it was funny. Truly an amoral sadist.
One example of what she did was charm the person she was sent to dispose of. She then, with her very impressive Charisma, forced the woman to murder her own family in their sleep. Then the woman hurled herself out the window of their home and onto the iron bar fence outside, killing herself out of grief when the assassin released her from her controls. The assassins hands never so much as touched a single dagger, and the deed was done.
Charms on their own -- when used for less malign purposes -- are very strong. Bards and Sorcerers get the most mileage out of them due to the Charisma. Turning someone into an ally can be very useful. At the very least they aren't going to hurt you while they're charmed, and it softens them up for Diplomacy something fierce (charm->friendly = low DC to make Helpful). Thus it's amazingly useful for getting information out of bad guys, or simply having them tell you stuff.
Dominate spells are even scarier in a sort of way. Dominate doesn't even rely on Charisma, which is scary when you think about it.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.
That does not mean you can force the monster to take any action it would not normally take, even if it falls outside of harming itself. What it means is that any action that the monster would not normally take requires an opposed charisma check. Combined that with the fact the spell says the creature treats you as a friend, and that you can't control it as an automaton means that you can get it to take actions it would not normally take. It in no way means that you can force it to do anything(without limits outside of harming itself).
In short the spell is not a short cut to dominate. It is a short cut past a the diplomacy skill, and it allows you to get the creature to do things they would not normally do within reason*.
*Within reason=varies by GM.
|
I see no problem here. The key here is that it is "friend AND ally" thus negating any one-sided realization of the spell.
If someone allied with you asks you to do something, you might say no.
If someone you regard as a friend asks you to do something, you might say no.
If someone you see as both a friend and ally asks you to do something, you will probably oblige. If it is dangerous, it might take some convincing.
Finally, I agree with BigNorseWolf in that the modern meaning of the word "ally" is a mutually-beneficial pact or bond.
They cause the target to regard you as its trusted friend and ally.
It always did this... who thought differently?
It's why the spell is useless against a CE character. If he's set on killing your party, he being your friend will just assume you would want to help, and even if you don't and say stop, he'll just say no. He's chaotic evil, they don't treat friendship like a CG would.
I'm in a life/death short-run campaign right now with several assassins racing to get to the target first. My friend said to grab Charm Person. I made the argument it was useless as I'll be making checks against actions opposed to their alignment or nature, which would be to kill me, not die, and get to the mark first. Anything I say to them will go against this nature. No thanks.
A CE character viewing you (through their eyes) in the "most favourable way" is actually not nearly as favourable as we would assume it is. They have a tendency to stab 'friends' in the back, thus, it is quite useless the more evil they are. At best, it means they will try to kill you last.
They may be your 'friend and trusted ally', but nothing will ever change their true nature, they simply have their nature, and view you as best as they can given their nature. Many things, in even the best nature they can muster, will never be persuaded from their goals or actions.
One example of what she did was charm the person she was sent to dispose of. She then, with her very impressive Charisma, forced the woman to murder her own family in their sleep. Then the woman hurled herself out the window of their home and onto the iron bar fence outside, killing herself out of grief when the assassin released her from her controls. The assassins hands never so much as touched a single dagger, and the deed was done.
Your DM treats Charm Person as more powerful than Dominate Person. I think he has seriously misread the intent of an 'enforced friendship'. That's all the spell is, enforced friendship. That's why you gain a bonus if they're in combat, and the spell is broken if you attack them. The enforcement in the mind that you are a friend is more difficult to believe, or has been logically broken.
The spell specifically states you cannot control the person and simply perceives your words in the most favourable way. If I was the closest, most treasured person in your life, could I ever convince you to maliciously slaughter your family?
No, I could not, and neither would a charmed person. When it lets you make a check to convince them, it's for scenarios where their life would be put at risk for your benefit, not to fulfill a command.
It's the difference between asking someone to beat up the goblin in the corner for you (not harmful) and holding off a red-dragon for 'a few rounds' while you escape.
You need to go back to the more colorful descriptions in 2E "Thus, a charmed crature would not obey a suicide command, but might believe the caster if assured that the only chance to save the caster's life is for the creature to hold back an onrushing red dragon for just a minute or two and if the charmed creature's view of the situation suggests that this coures of action still allows a reasonable chance of survival."
The charmed person is, as you would perceive, a "trusted friend and ally". If anything, all you need to do is know that Charm Person provides the 'illusion' of friendship to another, and if that friendship is brought into question, it risks being broken, and if it is definitely proved not to be true, it is lost. That's it.
A CE character viewing you (through their eyes) in the "most favourable way" is actually not nearly as favorable as we would assume it is. They have a tendency to stab 'friends' in the back, thus, it is quite useless the more evil they are. At best, it means they will try to kill you last.
They may be your 'friend and trusted ally', but nothing will ever change their true nature, they simply have their nature, and view you as best as they can given their nature. Many things, in even the best nature they can muster, will never be persuaded from their goals or actions.
Psychopathy is an easily understood example of Chaotic-Evil, but not all people with a CE alignment are psychopaths. All it means is that they are willing to hurt others to advance themselves and that they value freedom and self determination over the relative safety and security of living within a set of laws. The alignment doesn't preclude forming real friendships or other relationships. CE is not more or less evil than LE; any more than CG is more or less good than LG.
The issue here is the word "anything".
It is read as if you win the opposed charisma check you can get the victim to do anything.
What it mean is in order to have a chance to get the victim to do anything(any particular activity) you must win an opposed charisma check.
Examples
1.John will do anything, even if he does not want to if you if you bake him a cake<--Not how it works
2.If you want to have even the slightest chance to get John to do anything he does not want to do you have to bake him a cake. <--How it works
Example 2 is just saying what you have to do to have a chance. It is not guaranteeing that it will work.
it does look like D&D next is trying to fix the charm person conundrum.
I wonder what book, novel etc Gygax got the original idea from?
There too may rules in PF as mentioned above. I think they added too much detail to the spell description
Charms have always been pretty tricky to run in rpgs, IME
All you need to know is the ONLY thing charm person does, is make the person who is affected by it (without changing anything else about them) see you as "a trusted friend and ally". They see you in this light, as they would through their alignment, perception and understanding. Not anyone elses.
The bonus to the save is because of how difficult it will be to make the transition from being attacked, to accepting you as a "trusted friend and ally". When you or your allies threatens them, they realize that you are not really their "trusted friend and allie" and the enchantment breaks.
When you ask them to do anything that they would not normally willingly do (through their eyes) for a "trusted friend and ally" you have the chance to convince them (outside of the spells effect) with a Charisma check that what you have asked them to do is acceptable.
This does not mean murder their family, it means when you ask them to do something that might cause pause (against their alignment, normal activity, to put their possible life in danger) that it isn't that bad to go through with it.
Scenario: You have person A and B, both guards for the city watch. You are person C sneaking over the walls. You land just in front of them as you sneak over. They draw their swords and your dagger is out before you know it. You are now in combat. You cast a spell (say you're a Magus or something) on person A (Charm Person). They get a +5 vs. the spell because they are in an intense situation with the perception that you are a possible threat.
You succeed (they fail their save). You are now their "trusted friend and ally", you say you were just entering the city to come and see him and that you're no threat. You say the other person, B, is a threat and won't let you in. He's hired by the city and now you and he will have to kill him.
Unknown to you, person B is actually a "trusted friend and ally" (no charm, literally is his friend and ally). He pauses, now not sure what to do. He has the choice to kill one trusted friend and ally, or to kill another trusted friend and ally. Unfortunately this is as far as Charm Person can go, create the illusion that you are just as much of a friend and trusted ally as his fellow guard. In this scenario, you may be able to persuade him, with a Charisma check that you could both knock him out, he could let you go, and person B will forgive him in the morning. In this sense, he would be betraying a trusted friend and ally to assist another. It is unfortunate, but he has to choose one to hurt, and one to assist. Your GM may now rule that a Charisma based check can win him over in convincing him that this is the best action as a friend.
That is Charm Person, no lesser-dominate. It simply creates the enchantment to convince them that you are their "trusted friend and ally", no more, no less. You need to have played for much longer than PF to know that this is the intent, but unfortunately, they only gave Charm Person a few sentences and when people read it by RAW, they let people go off with a 1st level spell that can effectively make a king murder his entire kingdom...
A CE character viewing you (through their eyes) in the "most favourable way" is actually not nearly as favorable as we would assume it is. They have a tendency to stab 'friends' in the back, thus, it is quite useless the more evil they are. At best, it means they will try to kill you last.
They may be your 'friend and trusted ally', but nothing will ever change their true nature, they simply have their nature, and view you as best as they can given their nature. Many things, in even the best nature they can muster, will never be persuaded from their goals or actions.
Psychopathy is an easily understood example of Chaotic-Evil, but not all people with a CE alignment are psychopaths. All it means is that they are willing to hurt others to advance themselves and that they value freedom and self determination over the relative safety and security of living within a set of laws. The alignment doesn't preclude forming real friendships or other relationships. CE is not more or less evil than LE; any more than CG is more or less good than LG.
I won't get into an alignment debate. We both agree that alignment plays a part in role-playing, that's all we need agree on to see that Charm Person is impacted by ones alignment, which was the point. Being evil is enough to know that someone being Charmed is by no means a safeguard, as they will still act evil to anyone else but you, and have no reason to not be evil (their base nature) simply because a single friend/ally asks them to do so.
For charm I keep it simple: they are now your buddy, possibly in temporary love (bards and enchanters use it for unscrupulous ends) but not your puppet. That does not mean you cannot manipulate them though, but it takes some work and some more checks, cha, bluff and possibly diplomacy. Never mix with intimidate or calling for their suicide, the broth boils over.