If you notice i was basing my post off of SS's In which you diplomacy doesn't matter if its obviously harmful the spell fails.
Let's look at the region's laws for murdering someone. Now anything from being sentenced to death, to spending a life time in a prison full of disease, other people wanting to kill you, and the psychological effect it could have on the person all qualify as being harmful to that person because of a harmful order.
If psycologial effects count as harm to prevent murder then getting cut defending an ally has to fall under the same catogory of harmful.
As i keep saying get too loose with that one word and the spell does nothing.
|
If you notice i was basing my post off of SS's In which you diplomacy doesn't matter if its obviously harmful the spell fails.
Let's look at the region's laws for murdering someone. Now anything from being sentenced to death, to spending a life time in a prison full of disease, other people wanting to kill you, and the psychological effect it could have on the person all qualify as being harmful to that person because of a harmful order.
If psycologial effects count as harm to prevent murder then getting cut defending an ally has to fall under the same catogory of harmful.
As i keep saying get too loose with that one word and the spell does nothing.
And you are neglecting the fact that the spell is an encounter ender as is.
It literally makes the thing you are fighting stop fighting you, and more than that it makes them allied with you.
How much more do you want out of a first level spell?
The other side is arguing you can charm someone to kill their wife and children without any checks beyond an opposed charisma check, and even that check has no modifiers.
I'm about where you are Ciretose. I wouldn't allow it to cause you to mass murder loved ones (At least without heavy penalties and bonues in play).
However I'm also not at the point of murder being out simply based on the laws of the land or you becoming a social pariah or you losing your sanity.
If i make a guy my good friend and convince him to kill his rival in matters of business (who just also happens to have information that could have me aressted) then barring a good check on his part(bonues in play if he is against murder or penatlies if I fail to spin it good enough or both) then the fact that jail time might follow or that he might have sleepless nights shouldn't just end the spell.
Congrats you have now made the spell useless for anything other than making buds at the tavern.
Want infomation from a captured bandit? Too bad his crew would kill him so its harmful ergo he won't tell you.
Want that guard over there to look the other way while you just peek in the duke's bedroom? Nope Jail time at best for him so harmful move along.
How about getting the shop keeper to sell you the macguffin before the evil wizard comes to claim it. Nope if its not there he is probably dead so harmful won't do it.
In fact I revise my ealier statement you can't make drinking buddies drinking causes liver problems which are harmful order to drink is ignored.
Obvious Harm =/= Any Possibility of Eventual Harm
Convinvcing them that something dangerous is worth doing (like giving info on his bandit crew or ignoring his guard duties or risking the ire of a future customer or ... or ... or ...), is specifically written into the spell.
Commanding them to do something obviously harmful (like killing your wife and kids) is specifically written out of the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting really sick and tired of having people trying to make jabs at myself or others with this same damned comment.
===================
Also Ciretose, I don't know why the hell you keep saying I houserule Charm in my own games. I've never said that. The only thing I have ever said even remotely close to that, is that I use GM Fiat to assign modifiers depending on the order given. THAT'S ALL. STOP putting words in my mouth, and stop trying to make me look like a hypocrite.
GM assigned modifiers are apart of the game, but because GM assigned modifiers can change, DEPENDING ON THE GM, they cannot be applied in the discussion of the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well for me this has been a very educational thread, because I was totally baffled in my Ashiel tribute thread when so many people came in to bash on her. (im just going to ise the feminine pronouns here, the language makes it really tricky to stay gender neutral without reworking sentences in round about ways). So I guess I got a little insight into what it feels like to be on the other side of an argument with her. It does feel like she doesn't budge. But none of this changes the way I look at Ashiel. I realize Ciretose you have 4000 posts of history and it's like Israel vs Palestine by now, but I have been reading these boards for awhile very avidly trying to learn all I could to improve as a DM. My impression of Ashiel is still that she is a warm, helpful, creative person.
GrenMeera what do you do for a living? You had a post somewhere upthread that almost seemed like some advanced alien version of aristotelian reasoning in play.
I guess I'll stop bumping this thread since so many people have called for a lock, and you guys probably know better then me when realistically nothing goods going to come of it. I regret letting the discussion end though. We seem actually all not too far from agreeing but furious at the other side for not coming another inch or two our way.
GrenMeera what do you do for a living? You had a post somewhere upthread that almost seemed like some advanced alien version of aristotelian reasoning in play.
lol I am exceedingly proud of that critique.
I am a game designer, and before ciretose cuts in with "Yeah, so is everybody here", my genre is not tabletop at all. I design and program video games.
Mostly for simulation companies or the military. My favorite work (that has gone public and I am allowed to talk about) has been with psychology studies out of Duke University.
I did level design and was the senior programmer on this project.
*sees all the rising tempers* But... but... loooove!
The language is getting harsher, and it's a slippery slope guys.
Don't make me type... words at you... crap... I have no power.
Anyway, to the topic at hand!
A creature can still be charmed or otherwise magically controlled while under this spell’s effects, but if such a creature ever receives a new saving throw against that effect as a result of being ordered to attempt to harm or otherwise oppose a true ally, he can roll that saving throw twice and take the better result as his actual roll.Honestly, I may have to say the same as ciretose on this point too. This sentence structure is:
"verb or verb, but if variable... then outcome."Because of this, you can't automatically assume that the variable option logic applies to all possible starting conditions. Summarily, this doesn't necessarily dictate that Charm can be used to order said harm since Dominate can fulfill all conditions to make the sentence true and workable.
Since the wordage of a completely different spell requires an assumption in order to negate the specifics of that spell itself, I'm still going to refer to the specifics of Charm, which dictate that "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders".
Here's the one! Rockin post, I can feel my brain working a little better every time I read it.
Link doesn't work on my iPad but I get the picture.
I'm not getting angry because the other side disagrees with me, as I can mostly see where they're coming from.
What I am getting angry about, is when keeps making jabs about needing to factor in a non-factorable number.
People keep saying we have to use GM Assigned Bonuses or Modifiers (otherwise referred to as Fiat) in the discussion of the saves, opposed checks etc.
However, what bonus or modifier are we going to use? +1? +5? +15? +7? +10? +57.5736? What number can we choose? What is the reasoning behind that number? Can you point at any rule in the book that supports that specific number as a valid bonus or modifier? How about a table? Is there an Opposed Ability Check Modifier Table? What page is it on?
None of those questions can be answered. Why? Because no such rule or guideline exists. No table is printed in the books. So we have no legitimate rule that tells you what bonus to assign. And since we have no rule to support the GM Assigned Bonus or Modifier number, we have to assume the GM Assigned Bonus or Modifier is +0 since that is the only fair number we can choose.
For instance, assuming we can order a victim to attack an ally, such as their wife, what bonus would we assign to the victim's roll? What penalty would we assign to the Caster's roll?
How about putting an unknown substance in your Wife's tea?
How about giving me the keys to a shop owners store?
How about emptying their wallet and giving me their money?
How about setting up a bear trap in front of their house's door so the first person that enters, triggers the trap?
How about leaving grease in a pan on a lit stove?
How about telling a child to play with a loaded gun?
How about telling a person to juggle with vials of Alchemist Fire?
How about telling someone to walk up to a bear and attempt to trim it's hair?
What bonuses do we assign? What penalties? What rule are we basing those numerical bonuses or penalties on?
A GM can assign a bonus or penalty as they see fit, but the exact quantity of those bonuses or penalties must be assumed to be +0 when we're talking about hypothetical situations, as those bonuses or penalties can only be decided by the GM at the time of the scenario.
==============================
The fact that I have to keep stating this again, and again, and again, and again is, really, very f@!~ing annoying.
Link doesn't work on my iPad but I get the picture.
Ah, that's a shame. I'm proud of that project. Maybe somebody else will watch the video and give you a rundown of how awesome it is! =^.^=
Still, joking aside, it would be rude of me not to thank you for your support of my posts, so thank you. I feel appreciated.
The fact that I have to keep stating this again, and again, and again, and again is, really, very f&&$ing annoying.
It's okay buddy! *correct number of shoulder pats*
Forums test our patience, mettle, and fortitude (no Will, or Reflex). I think we may have all been where you are right now, but cheer up! It doesn't get better, but you develop a nice calloused layer of cynicism to get you through the day!
Wait... now I'm sad.
Tels,
One idea I saw tossed around a lot was that the similar language we see between the language in Charm Person and the Diplomacy skill points us to the Diplomacy DC Modifier table as one source of suggested modifiers that could be applied to the opposed charisma check when issuing an order to a creature under the influence of a charm spell.
It's far from comprehensive but it gives you a framework.
As you say there's no way the rules can provide a specific number for every possible situation.
With any long thread, you have to expect there will be people who read the first post and type a reply. You can't let that get to you.
Another trick I do when it seems I'm repeating myself and people don't get it... Step back and check whether each party is using the same definition for the terms that are in play. Sometimes the person you are arguing with is in complete agreement with you and doesn't know it because of ill-defined terms. In the case of this thread I think you might have a very different definition of "GM Fiat" then at least a few participants in the discussion. Not that yours is wrong, it's not a particularly technical term after all, but if it means different things to different people it could still cause confusion.
I know you did address this earlier with dictionary references, but the pop-culture associations with the term as gamer jargon are pretty strong and I for one have a hard time breaking them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People keep saying we have to use GM Assigned Bonuses or Modifiers (otherwise referred to as Fiat) in the discussion of the saves, opposed checks etc.
This is tough for me to read because I abhor GM fiat, and avoid exercising it at all costs in my games. I wiped out a party tonight of characters that I care more about I think then their own players do. I had lovingly created an obsidian portal page, helped them craft the builds, helped them write back stories and weave them deeply into my campaign setting. I had imagined epic destinies for them, and had spent hours upon hours writing material for future adventures that was tailored to their back stories. Well, they showed up tonight with only three out of five guys, and wanted to charge right in kicking down doors anyway. And I couldn't stop rolling crits. I roll in the open, and I don't fudge anything. It was so close to a TPK. They all went down at some point. One actually died but he had two action points and used them to cheat death. In the end they got out of there with only one permanent, un-raisable death. I wanted to fudge something to save them the whole time but they know I don't do that, and that why we were all standing around the table with white knuckles watching every dice roll in suspense.
Honestly, I'm depressed. I wish I just fudged something and saved that one character. But I don't do GM Fiat.
On the other hand of course I applied situational modifiers to all kinds of rolls, why wouldn't I? That's how it works.
People keep saying we have to use GM Assigned Bonuses or Modifiers (otherwise referred to as Fiat) in the discussion of the saves, opposed checks etc.
This is tough for me to read because I abhor GM fiat, and avoid exercising it at all costs in my games. I wiped out a party tonight of characters that I care more about I think then their own players do. I had lovingly created an obsidian portal page, helped them craft the builds, helped them write back stories and weave them deeply into my campaign setting. I had imagined epic destinies for them, and had spent hours upon hours writing material for future adventures that was tailored to their back stories. Well, they showed up tonight with only three out of five guys, and wanted to charge right in kicking down doors anyway. And I couldn't stop rolling crits. I roll in the open, and I don't fudge anything. It was so close to a TPK. They all went down at some point. One actually died but he had two action points and used them to cheat death. In the end they got out of there with only one permanent, un-raisable death. I wanted to fudge something to save them the whole time but they know I don't do that, and that why we were all standing around the table with white knuckles watching every dice roll in suspense.
Honestly, I'm depressed. I wish I just fudged something and saved that one character. But I don't do GM Fiat.
On the other hand of course I applied situational modifiers to all kinds of rolls, why wouldn't I? That's how it works.
This is exactly why I roll behind the screen, so I can fudge things in the player's hand, because sometimes the Dice Gods are unfriendly.
Like, I once had a situation when a caster used Scorching Ray (with two rays) targeting the parties healer. I rolled four 20s in a row. This was at a level when the Cleric wouldn't have fared very well if he took 16d6 points of fire damage, and would likely have killed him. So I reassigned one of the Rays to another player, and kept both crits. By the way, one of our houserules is if you roll a natural 20 on a confirmation roll, the damage is maximized. I kept both crits as just regular confirmations, because it would just blow balls.
I do, however, have a policy when I feel the party needs to buckle down and take things seriously. In such situations, I remove the screen and roll in the open. When I do that, they know, "Shit just got real" and know they better not goof off or someone could very easily die. I tend to do this for 'boss battles' and similar situations.
Unless there is atable like in diplomacy. Of course there is no proof of Charm person= magic diplomacy.
It's not just myself that's been stating you can't use GM Modifiers in a forum discussion. I know Lord Wraithstrike has said the same thing a number of times on here.
But Ciretose has been advocating that Charm Person is nothing more than Magical Diplomacy. That the whole second passage of the spell means nothing, simply because the first passage says, "treat the target's attitude as friendly". That seems to be the only part of the spell he acknowledges as determining what the spell is capable of.
Tels I think you and me have a few things in common. We both appreciate the hell out of Ashiel that was the first thing that came up obviously. But also I've noticed we both have irregular sleep patterns, and we get so embroiled in a message board about a damn game that we actually let it stress us out.
But I gotta tell you I got caught in the crossfire between you and Ciretose a lot in this thread and it didn't feel good.
You guys have to let the war cool down.
Tels I think you and me have a few things in common. We both appreciate the hell out of Ashiel that was the first thing that came up obviously. But also I've noticed we both have irregular sleep patterns, and we get so embroiled in a message board about a damn game that we actually let it stress us out.
But I gotta tell you I got caught in the crossfire between you and Ciretose a lot in this thread and it didn't feel good.
You guys have to let the war cool down.
I know you have (and I'm sorry for that) because you seem to have a similar stance to Ciretose...
Well, actually, what is your stance anyway? I don't recall you ever stating it exactly, just that you were debating the points of everyone else's stances.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me? I say Charm Person = "These are not the droids you're looking for."
Me? I say Charm Person = "These are not the droids you're looking for."
I like it.
I want to say something about this idea that we can't include modifiers to the Cha check in our discussion because it is "GM Fiat".
Imagine this...
Poster 1:
"Mage hand is an awesome spell, I use it to pick up castles and dump them in the sea."
Poster 2:
"Mage hand can't do that, it can only lift 5 pounds."
Poster 1:
"Where in the rules does it say that a castle weighs more then 5 pounds? For the purpose of a rules discussion, we can not include arbitrary rulings about the weight of a castle. In your home game you can assign a weight of 300 tons but that is GM Fiat so we can't factor it in when discussing the strength of the spell."
Wow, since you decided to take it that far...
There is also no rule that says I can't take actions after my character dies. So that character that died in your previous session, can keep on acting because the rules don't say he can't.
There is such a thing as common sense.
So did you see what I'm saying with that though?
I'm sorry, I really don't think your post had any point other than to take something to the extreme by disregarding reason.
You're likening not including GM modifiers into a discussion, to being able to lift a castle with Mage Hand because the rules don't explicitly spell out how much a castle weighs.
We're talking about not including bonuses that only a GM can assign while talking about DCs or opposing checks. You decide to say that one could lift a castle with Mage Hand because only a GM can determine the weight of a castle. You're forgoing reason in an argument to do... what exactly? I'm not really sure.
Is your point that you think he have to include GM bonuses, without a GM to actually assign said bonuses? I'm really not sure exactly what point your're trying to make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is, you do have to consider the role that DM adjudication will play, when evaluating the relative power of a spell.
The Mage Hand example takes it to the extreme, to demonstrate this point.
The DM will always be there, deciding how much the castle weighs, and what modifier needs to be applied to the DC of the opposed Cha check, and so on and so forth.
If you take the DM out of the equation, it becomes impossible to talk about what a spell can and can not do.
Even humble Mage Hand could move mountains. There is no DM in our discussion to rule that the mountain is too heavy.
Likewise, Charm Person could convince a mother to drown her babies, without the DM there to rule that this would be perceived as obviously harmful.
Taking the DM out of the discussion renders the discussion meaningless.
Or so it seems to me.
|
If you notice i was basing my post off of SS's In which you diplomacy doesn't matter if its obviously harmful the spell fails.
Let's look at the region's laws for murdering someone. Now anything from being sentenced to death, to spending a life time in a prison full of disease, other people wanting to kill you, and the psychological effect it could have on the person all qualify as being harmful to that person because of a harmful order.
If psycologial effects count as harm to prevent murder then getting cut defending an ally has to fall under the same catogory of harmful.
As i keep saying get too loose with that one word and the spell does nothing.
At the end of the day, do you have proof that the way I look at the spell is wrong?
Harm comes in many forms and like I said before, it says nothing about it needs to be instant harm.
The point is, you do have to consider the role that DM adjudication will play, when evaluating the relative power of a spell.
The Mage Hand example takes it to the extreme, to demonstrate this point.
The DM will always be there, deciding how much the castle weighs, and what modifier needs to be applied to the DC of the opposed Cha check, and so on and so forth.
If you take the DM out of the equation, it becomes impossible to talk about what a spell can and can not do.
Even humble Mage Hand could move mountains. There is no DM in our discussion to rule that the mountain is too heavy.
Likewise, Charm Person could convince a mother to drown her babies, without the DM there to rule that this would be perceived as obviously harmful.
Taking the DM out of the discussion renders the discussion meaningless.
Or so it seems to me.
I don't think taking a GM out of the discussion renders it meaningless. With the exception of certain people, the only thing really being argued, is what is a viable order?
What constitutes a viable order is largely up to debate as it all hinges on 'obvious harm'. Myself and Ashiel, for example, believe that obvious harm means physical harm to the target of the spell. Others think no physical or emotional spell to the target, and others think no physical or emotional harm can be caused by the victim to anyone.
@Shallowsoul I mentioned this earlier.
Some synonyms of the word Harmful from the Collins Thesaurus of the English Language:
Damaging, Dangerous, Negative, Unhealthy, Unwholesome, Disadvantageous
But others have pointed out that the description of the charm school in general says a charmed creature will never harm himself.
So is that a clue as to how we should read Charm Person?
Or does the wording of Charm Person impose a further restriction then the one that applies to the whole charm school.
The point is, you do have to consider the role that DM adjudication will play, when evaluating the relative power of a spell.
The Mage Hand example takes it to the extreme, to demonstrate this point.
The DM will always be there, deciding how much the castle weighs, and what modifier needs to be applied to the DC of the opposed Cha check, and so on and so forth.
If you take the DM out of the equation, it becomes impossible to talk about what a spell can and can not do.
Even humble Mage Hand could move mountains. There is no DM in our discussion to rule that the mountain is too heavy.
Likewise, Charm Person could convince a mother to drown her babies, without the DM there to rule that this would be perceived as obviously harmful.
Taking the DM out of the discussion renders the discussion meaningless.
Or so it seems to me.
I don't think taking a GM out of the discussion renders it meaningless. With the exception of certain people, the only thing really being argued, is what is a viable order?
What constitutes a viable order is largely up to debate as it all hinges on 'obvious harm'. Myself and Ashiel, for example, believe that obvious harm means physical harm to the target of the spell. Others think no physical or emotional spell to the target, and others think no physical or emotional harm can be caused by the victim to anyone.
Right. I remember one edition of the game where it was limited to physical harm. It was the Moldvay Red Box. I played that way for about four months when I was a little kid. Charm Person was my favorite spell. So I have a sentimental bias that makes me wish it still worked that way. But they changed it in every edition since then. Mentzer Red Box, AD&D 1st Edition, AD&D 2nd Edition, and everything since. Oh well I got to have my fun with it for a while at least. I guess it's possible someone at Paizo liked the way it worked in Moldvay and wants to go back to that, but it seems like if they did, they wouldnt have kept the same old legacy wording of the spell. Maybe they'll weigh in eventually and let us know.
Need I remind everyone that it's a freaking 1st level spell?
Biting the hand that feeds you a bit eh?
Eh??
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Need I remind everyone that it's a freaking 1st level spell?
Biting the hand that feeds you a bit eh?
Magic Missile is a first level spell and it can shut down casting, used properly.
Grease creates a patch of difficult terrain that forces acrobatics checks.
Enlarge Person is one of the best buffs in the game, as is Mage Armor for certain classes.
True Strike gives you a virtually guaranteed hit or combat maneuver.
Sleep and Color spray end low level encounters, or fights with mooks.
I think it's only fair that a charm spell that can be shut down by Protection from Alignment and provides a save bonus when used in combat is powerful.
All I ever said was you probably can't use it to make an angel annihilate a whole population, or to make a mother drown her infants. Obvious harm and all that.
Still a cool spell.
Assuming an Evil Wizard had some method of getting around a Ghaele Azata's Holy Aura, would you say Charming her and ordering her to agree to the terms of the planar binding (agree to follow my orders and do you best to achieve my desires), would fall under the power of Charm Person?
I honestly don't know.
I think of the Azata as a being of such intrinsic good that subjecting herself to evil dominion would go against every fiber in her being.
I think that however we define harm for most creatures, even if it ends up being only physical harm to self, it would have the broadest possible definition from the perspective of a celestial. To such a being any harm that befalls innocents would be indistinguishable from harm that befalls herself.
I dunno, I prefer to look at the whole picture of the spell. By that I mean, normally a Ghaele would never submit, but if she is subject to a Charm spell, then the Ghaele thinks the Evil Wizard is her new best friend. As a being of intrinsic good, she would never think any friend of hers could commit evil, so it's not as if though it would be a harmful act to her.
My take on the thoughts that would run through a Ghaele's head that had been charmed.
"Aw, how sweet, my good friend Ashiel decided to use Planar Binding to bring me to his world so I can help him. If I want to stay, I need to agree to his terms. Hmm, I don't see anything wrong with following his orders and doing my bast to help him achieve his desires. Sounds like fun really!" I accept your terms!"
Also, something occurs to me. What exactly is determining which orders are or are not harmful? I mean, in the context of the spell being 'real' is Nethys, the God of Magic, monitoring every instance of Charm Person to allow or disallow certain orders because the constitute obviously harmful acts? Kind of an immersion question and doesn't really have any impact on the mechanics of the spell.
I dunno I've never played or run anything set in Golarion, or read a word of source material on it. I didn't even know Nethys was a God of Magic.
As for Planar Binding I'd have to brush up on it, I'm not too firm on the specifics of it at all. It looks complicated. But it's hostile from the outset right? The creature is resisting the whole time, it's plainly understood that this is a magical trap and that the creature is being imprisoned by it. So I'd say Charm Person would have no possible synergy with this spell and wouldn't even be worth casting as it would be instantly voided, just as it would if the caster initiated any other kind of hostilities. Of course the Holy Aura is another reason not to bother with Charm Person, but you know that.