| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Keep in mind that charm person is an enchantment (charm) [mind-affecting]. As opposed to dominate person enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting].
Charm: A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend.
Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.
In other words, you're not getting better than being viewed "as a good friend". Yes, a friend can give another friend an order (or suggestion) - and doing so between friends allows for considerable leeway on what a person is willing to do for another, especially when helped along with an opposed Charisma roll.
Except in heavily dysfunctional relationships, it is not viable to ask your friend to kill his wife. Likewise it is not viable to have him make you the sole inheritor of his fortune when he has a loving family and offspring dear to him. But, you could get included in the will - and likewise you could get him to snub the wife for a night and go drinking with you instead.
Don't try to get more out of the spell. "Obviously harmful" is anything you could request where a friend would go: "hey man! that's not cool!" Generally this includes getting permission to sleep with the wife.
So this means nothing then, correct?
Many abilities and spells can cloud the minds of characters and monsters, leaving them unable to tell friend from foe—or worse yet, deceiving them into thinking that their former friends are now their worst enemies. Two general types of enchantments affect characters and creatures: charms and compulsions.
Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells and some monster abilities. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.
- A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
- A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
- A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).
- A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
- A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
- If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
- A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature's apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.
Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.
I'd say Charm is clearly capable of doing more than 'just making you friendly'.
I'm not sure you read the entirety of the thread, or just popped in to say your 2 cp, but it Charm is more powerful than you claim.
Nobody is arguing the GM's right to change anything. If that was the issue then it was just a misunderstanding. Our basic point was that GM "modifications" can't be used on the boards, well it was mine anyway.I was never arguing what the exact circumstance modifier should be. I was arguing that a GM had the right to assign one.
This was called fiat. I disagreed. I still do.
This is what I'm saying as well. I don't know why I have to keep saying it now, I've said it a number of times now.
Guys, I've read everything everyone's said on this thread and, having thought it over, I think we should just go back to yelling at each other about Antagonize.
Okay, seriously now: It seems pretty simply stated in the description of Charm that it makes the target regard you as friendly as relates to the diplomacy skill; it's worth considering that there's a higher level of "I like you" than friendly. It's written into the spell description of Charm that it doesn't make the target "helpful."
However any player out there has rule-lawyered a DM, Charm just can't be more powerful than Dominate, right?
Guys, I've read everything everyone's said on this thread and, having thought it over, I think we should just go back to yelling at each other about Antagonize.
Okay, seriously now: It seems pretty simply stated in the description of Charm that it makes the target regard you as friendly as relates to the diplomacy skill; it's worth considering that there's a higher level of "I like you" than friendly. It's written into the spell description of Charm that it doesn't make the target "helpful."
However any player out there has rule-lawyered a DM, Charm just can't be more powerful than Dominate, right?
I'm not sure what you're saying, are you saying Charm Person only makes someone friendly for the purposes of Diplomacy? If so, it's 'not so simply stated' as you believe.
For example, it is also 'simply stated' that the caster can order the victim to do something as long as it's not suicidal or obviously harmful. The victim and the caster then make opposed Charisma Checks. If the caster wins, the victim is convinced to follow the order. If the victim wins, the Caster can't issue the same order again.
Alot of good points in this debate. I try to follow the rules as closely as written myself, but I find CHARM PERSON to be written a bit too vague to cover all possible situations. I house-rule it this way to keep it balanced and clear for the players to understand:
CHARM PERSON will allow you to influence someone like you were their trusted ally, but you can't make them knowingly violate their alignment. For example: if you CHARM a Paladin and you want him to kill his mother, you would first need to convince him that what he is seeing is not really his mother, but a goblin in disguise and so he should kill the goblin who looks like his mother. But you couldnt simply say "kill your mother" or the Paladin simply wont do it because it violates his alignment. CHARM PERSON makes people susceptible to your suggestion, but it doesnt change who they are alignment-wise.
DOMINATE PERSON gives you complete control and will allow you to force them into performing actions that are against their alignment. In this case, you can actually just tell the Paladin to kill his mother, no lying or convincing needed. DOMINATE effectively suspends the targets alignment when receiving your orders.
This method/interpretation has always worked great for me as GM and its easy for the players to understand.
That's a fair house-rule, though it is a house-rule. I do like it though. I may adopt this as my own, do you mind?
However, when debating rule mechanics, house-rules aren't a factor.
This is what I'm saying as well. I don't know why I have to keep saying it now, I've said it a number of times now.Nobody is arguing the GM's right to change anything. If that was the issue then it was just a misunderstanding. Our basic point was that GM "modifications" can't be used on the boards, well it was mine anyway.I was never arguing what the exact circumstance modifier should be. I was arguing that a GM had the right to assign one.
This was called fiat. I disagreed. I still do.
Ahh I see. The problem is, the ability to assign modifiers should be part of the discussion, as 1) it's normal for a GM to do so, and 2) it turns a ridiculously powerful 1st level spell into a spell closer to the power range a 1st level spell should have.
This is what I'm saying as well. I don't know why I have to keep saying it now, I've said it a number of times now.Nobody is arguing the GM's right to change anything. If that was the issue then it was just a misunderstanding. Our basic point was that GM "modifications" can't be used on the boards, well it was mine anyway.I was never arguing what the exact circumstance modifier should be. I was arguing that a GM had the right to assign one.
This was called fiat. I disagreed. I still do.Ahh I see. The problem is, the ability to assign modifiers should be part of the discussion, as 1) it's normal for a GM to do so, and 2) it turns a ridiculously powerful 1st level spell into a spell closer to the power range a 1st level spell should have.
If there was some list of modifiers we could use to reliably adjudicate modifiers, sure, it could be apart of the discussion. However there is no list of modifier. The closest thing that comes to it, is the Diplomacy modifiers.
However, the spell is different from the skill, and, while the Diplomacy modifiers could be a very good guideline, they aren't apart of the spell.
|
The question is what kind of roll.
They are arguing it is a simple opposed charisma roll, no adjustments. If you have a charisma of 8 you roll at -1, if I have a 16, I roll at +3 and there we go.
I am saying it follows the diplomacy rules for requests, which is why it says that the creature is treated as "Friendly" as per diplomacy.
Therefore the DC of the request would be modified based on what you are asking them to do.
There is no question of roll, it is in the description: it is an opposed Charisma roll between two personalities trying to either 1) force itself on another, or 2) trying to resist that force. If you dump Charisma, then too bad and life ain't fair, your force of personality has just come up against someone stronger.
Remember, you do not have to make a roll if the subject sees the request as reasonable. You only roll if you are trying to make it do something it considers dangerous or goes against its nature. Diplomacy has nothing to do with it, but you can always make a house rule that the skill does apply in certain situations.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 3.x, the standard situational modifier was a -2/+2 for favorable or unfavorable conditions. Just tossing that out there. Now, I'm going to go on with my post I said I'd make last night before I went to bed.
1.) Charm person quite clearly has two major effects. The first effect is making a character Friendly as per diplomacy, which makes it incredibly easy to use the Diplomacy skill to get everything you need from that point. In fact, if you have a positive Diplomacy modifier, you can take 10 and make them Helpful from this point. Now Helpful has the following benefits:
Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
So Charm Person is a great Diplomacy enhancer.
2.) Charm person's second effect is also quite clear. Without making a Diplomacy check, you may give a subject an order. Unlike with Diplomacy, you can make the creature do something it ordinarily wouldn't do. This could include literally anything, from eating broccoli to killing someone even. However, unlike with Diplomacy, the charmed creature gets an opposed Charisma check to resist these commands, but if it fails, it will do these things.
Both Tels and Quantum Steve have done a very good job demonstrating what charm spells are capable of doing, and giving some examples of how you might use them. A few more examples of how these might be used might include...
A sorcerer I was GMing for once charmed an employer who was in a very crotchety mood and then the party used Diplomacy to get him to give them a little more information about the job, and to help fund some of the costs that they were going to have doing the job (specifically, kobolds had thrashed them one time, weren't mentioned when the party was hired, and they spent 300+ gp getting healed when they were promised 300 gp each to find some missing people, so when normal discussion didn't work he pulled a jedi mind trick and renegotiated.
^ Might be an example of Charm Person used in a very gentle sort of way.
A succubus decides to have some truly awful fun, and charms a young mother who is exceptionally religious. She lies to the woman and tells her, perhaps without ever revealing her presence (due to her 100 ft. of telepathy) that her children are possessed by demons, and then commands her in the name of her own god to drown those children. The woman hears the voice, fails an opposed Charisma check against the succubus with the +8 Charisma, and then drowns her children. Later the woman is on trial for murder and questioned insanity, and the succubus is no where to be found and no one believes her when she said "god told me to..." through her tears.
^ Might be an example of charm person used in a very horrible sort of way.
But it can be used in both ways.
==================================
@ Wraithstrike I don't actually think that charm person is overpowered or should be a higher level spell. Magic missile is an almost guaranteed casting failure when readied against another caster at higher levels, making it better at preventing spells than even greater dispel magic readied for the same purpose. Now I'm sure that one would say that shield blocks magic missile and so it's okay. I would disagree because shield is only available to arcane casters generally.
Now charm person has some pretty severe limitations. Firstly, the foe must be a humanoid (the more useful charm monster spell is 3rd-4th level, which removes this restriction). Secondly, it's a mind-affecting spell (not a huge deal but with charm monster it means that you still can't charm mindless creatures, constructs, or undead). Thirdly, charm effects can be blocked by protection from *alignment* spells which are also 1st level spells, that are both very common (possessed by adepts, clerics, sorcerers, and wizards) but are available to every class (potions of it are only 50 gp, and adding it as a permanent magical effect is between 4,000 to +6,000 gp). It's also naturally blocked by high level wards as well. Fourthly, it grants a +5 saving throw bonus if you or your allies are threating the creature in question, which makes it difficult to use in hostile situations.
Do I think charm is a good spell. It has very clear and obviously useful uses. I don't think it's overpowered. I do think it may have been a mistake to change the protection spells to only allow the mind-warding feature against the appropriate alignments (the 3.x version of protection spells granted bonuses vs specific alignments, but the mind-affecting protections functioned regardless of alignment).
Very nicely said Ashiel, it perfectly sums up the use of the spell.
Not to harp on but I don't really see how this is anything other than an obviously harmful command to be honest, which should never work. The spell clearly says you can use charisma to try and get somebody to do something they normally wouldn't do. Then equally clearly says that you can never make somebody do something obviously harmful. I contend that this action is most definitely obviously harmful.A succubus decides to have some truly awful fun, and charms a young mother who is exceptionally religious. She lies to the woman and tells her, perhaps without ever revealing her presence (due to her 100 ft. of telepathy) that her children are possessed by demons, and then commands her in the name of her own god to drown those children. The woman hears the voice, fails an opposed Charisma check against the succubus with the +8 Charisma, and then drowns her children. Later the woman is on trial for murder and questioned insanity, and the succubus is no where to be found and no one believes her when she said "god told me to..." through her tears.
^ Might be an example of charm person used in a very horrible sort of way.
That's the problem with the 'obviously harmful' term. It can mean physical harm, emotional harm, social harm, monetary harm, political harm etc.
It also says someone could be persuaded to do something dangerous. So one could persuade the mother her children are really demons, via the Diplomacy skill, then once persuaded, give them the command to drown the demons.
It is no longer 'obviously harmful' in her eyes, as she's killing demons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the DC to convince her of that would presumably be insanely high.
At this point I think we have entered dead horse territory until a Dev weighs in.
There is no DC, only an opposed check. Succubus has a 27 Charisma, or a +8 bonus. The NPC woman is going to have a +2 at best. So they roll 1d20 and add their modifiers.
That's the check. That's it. If we were in a game, a GM could add a bonus or penalty to either check, but we're not. No DC, opposed rolls.
Right, but as said earlier in the thread this isn't diplomacy it's a result of the magic of charm person. The description of the spell allows somebody to use a charisma check to have them do something they otherwise wouldn't do, something that diplomacy wouldn't normally allow. It also explicitly states that the person can never do something obviously harmful. Just as the earlier beneficial aspect this is surely an aspect of the magic of the spell. I don't think the RAW supports usng diplomacy checks to convince the subject that something obviously harmful isn't really obviously harmful.
Actually it is. Their disposition is friendly, you can then use Diplomacy to improve it to Helpful. That's one of the uses of the spell, as a Social Force Multiplier.
Again with the Ally thing. Drowning your children? A no go.
Using charm to get you to murder strangers, rob from people and all that- fine. But using charm to get you to kill your loved ones, friends, and such?
I guess it depends on how you define "ally".
Dictionary.com says as its 2nd definition:
to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.
IMO? It wouldn't work.
-S
Again with the Ally thing. Drowning your children? A no go.
Using charm to get you to murder strangers, rob from people and all that- fine. But using charm to get you to kill your loved ones, friends, and such?
I guess it depends on how you define "ally".Dictionary.com says as its 2nd definition:
to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.IMO? It wouldn't work.
-S
See that's the thing. The Succubus is using the skill Diplomacy to convince the mother her children aren't children, that they have, instead, been replaced by demons. Once she is convinced they are demons, then the Succubus orders the mother to drown the demons, not her children.
|
But the DC to convince her of that would presumably be insanely high.
At this point I think we have entered dead horse territory until a Dev weighs in.
There is no DC, only an opposed check. Succubus has a 27 Charisma, or a +8 bonus. The NPC woman is going to have a +2 at best. So they roll 1d20 and add their modifiers.
That's the check. That's it. If we were in a game, a GM could add a bonus or penalty to either check, but we're not. No DC, opposed rolls.
Notice what I said about dead horse. I think there is, you think there isn't. I cite the diplomacy reference, you don't.
Potayto, Poetato, Tomato, Toemato...
Some day a dev will weigh in, until then we apparently will both play more or less as I described, only you'll call it a house rule for some reason.
<shrug>
|
|
Maybe, but the succubus can try to convince the woman very slowly, in the end meaybe the womankill the boy by "her" own decition.But the DC to convince her of that would presumably be insanely high.
Except one bad save ends the spell.
Anyway, I am out of this thread until the dev rules in or something less repetitive happens. I think all sides have made positions clear and we need a dev to rule.
But the DC to convince her of that would presumably be insanely high.
At this point I think we have entered dead horse territory until a Dev weighs in.
There is no DC, only an opposed check. Succubus has a 27 Charisma, or a +8 bonus. The NPC woman is going to have a +2 at best. So they roll 1d20 and add their modifiers.
That's the check. That's it. If we were in a game, a GM could add a bonus or penalty to either check, but we're not. No DC, opposed rolls.
Notice what I said about dead horse. I think there is, you think there isn't. I cite the diplomacy reference, you don't.
Potayto, Poetato, Tomato, Toemato...
Some day a dev will weigh in, until then we apparently will both play more or less as I described, only you'll call it a house rule for some reason.
<shrug>
Funny how we've repeatedly pointed out that Charm Person isn't Diplomacy, yet you continue to think it is.
By the way, I love how Ashiel is twisting the rules to suit his needs. [/sarcasm]
I think you guys should all go read the section titled "Charm and Compulsion" in the core rulebook on page 561. It clarifies many of the points being argued. For example:
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming character as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions. (So asking someone to kill their loved ones wont work because he retains his allegiances).
It also states that if a charmed character is commanded to do something he would be violently opposed to (such as harming a loved one), the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
Go read it and you'll likely get some new insights on the discussion.
That section has been quoted no less than 3 times in this thread all ready.
It doesn't however, address the issue of using the Diplomacy Skill to convince someone that someone they care about isn't who they say they are. Such as a Succubus using Diplomacy to convince a mother her children have been replaced by demons. At that point, the Succubus would use the Charm Person to order the mother to drown the 'demons'.
See that's the thing. The Succubus is using the skill Diplomacy to convince the mother her children aren't children, that they have, instead, been replaced by demons. Once she is convinced they are demons, then the Succubus orders the mother to drown the demons, not her children.Again with the Ally thing. Drowning your children? A no go.
Using charm to get you to murder strangers, rob from people and all that- fine. But using charm to get you to kill your loved ones, friends, and such?
I guess it depends on how you define "ally".Dictionary.com says as its 2nd definition:
to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.IMO? It wouldn't work.
-S
Diplomacy doesn't turn someone into a moron. Now if you wnt to turn her kids into demons using an illusion or use some mind manipulation magic on the mom herself- fine. do so.
But expecting diplomacy to let you convince someone her children are demons to get around the built-in restrictions on a spell?From Diplomacy:
"Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."
If you think it isn't against a mom's vaules or her nature to convince it that its children are really demons, then you are really just trying to make sure that this trick works.
Now I could conceive in theory where a mom and her children might actually be antagonistic towards each other- but such would be the extreme not the norm. And it wouldnt' be involving diplomacy or charm effects to convince someone their ally really isn't.
-S
Actually, convincing a person of something that is untrue would be bluff, not diplomacy, but...meh.
Interesting enough to note is that people are quick to say that circumstance modifiers should be applied to the situation of Cha vs Cha, even though unlike Planar Binding, it doesn't mention anything about it specifically (planar binding actually notes the GM can assign anywhere from +0 to +6 on the Charisma check to force the outsider into service); however, some are then quick to suggest that the mother would simply not do so because she wouldn't believe the demon.
Yet, I'm forced to wonder. If you had a mother, who was charmed into believing that this disembodied voice was entirely benevolent, one might think that this disembodied malevolent voice was everything that it said it was. Drowning your children is dangerous but neither suicidal in its own right nor does harm actually come to you from doing so (because at the moment you're convinced it's what to do). Where are these huge circumstance bonuses for putting on a good show? Where is the penalty for believing that your god or goddess is involved? I see no such lamentations about circumstance bonuses now (not that I mind, as I'd not apply more than a +2 if at all anyway). Now later the emotional pain, realization as to what has occurred, and those sorts of pains may come in; but at that point it is akin to poor Marius handing the soulstone over to Baal. It seemed like a good idea at the time...
I think that's actually where the real terror of the succubus lies. A powerful Charisma, an incredible silver tongue (+27 bluff, +19 Diplomacy), and the means to draw you end and exert their powerful will over your own (charm spells). A creature so terrifying as to make you drown your own children in a confused state, leave you to rot in a psychiatric ward as you wonder every day why you listened, and making everyone who knew you question if it was simple insanity or some sort of terrible side effect of deep religious belief. The succubus has done exactly as she desired. Sowed fear, despair, faithlessness, and may reap the fruits of anarchy as these sorts of things drive people apart.
To me, charm effects can be used for great good, or for terrible evil. It is the caster's responsibility. To see an example of a charm effect that is just as life changing but in a much better light, I have another example for you (from an actual game).
I once played a psion (telepath) who functioned as the party's face. She was decidedly Neutral Good. She wasn't a pacifist but she didn't like violence either. Once during a particularly terrible encounter, she managed to charm a drow priestess. Now drow priestesses are more than just a little evil and nasty. They're brainwashed from birth to see the world in a twisted light. They believe their own ways, customs, and cultures are good and see normal surface elves as evil and terrible, and honestly mercy is not something they are particularly known for. However, upon getting the priestess charmed, our heroine had the priestess stop her attack on the party. What did our heroine do? She was honest with her.
She explained to the priestess that the priestess' feelings towards her, while powerful, were placed there by herself. She explained she did this because she had to stop the priestess from killing her and her friends, and that she wanted to do so without hurting the priestess. She explained that if the priestess resisted her power, then the priestess may actually attempt to kill her again. The priestess took this in the best ways possible, and understood exactly what she was saying. The priestess didn't want to be free of this grasp if it would mean killing her friend. The very idea sounded abhorrent to her at the moment. So the priestess remained passive. She still acted like the priestess would have acted, but made special exceptions for her new "friend" and her allies. Over time, our heroine actually made that friendship more tangible in a more real sense. The ice-breaking effect of the charm opened up diplomatic channels between the party and the drow, and over time she eventually had a legitimate change of heart.
Eventually, the psion didn't renew her charm on the drow, but the drow didn't attack her. After so long, the drow had found that this friend had really been a friend all along, but that she needed to be charmed to give her a chance to see it. She became a recurring ally, who the party would see from time to time, who always appreciated the telepath giving her a chance to see the world through new eyes.
Now, obviously, the latter example took much longer than the succubus did. Of course, good things often take more time and effort. It's easy to destroy something in a instant, but the best things are built over time.
You are right, the succubus absolutely could ordee the mother to kill her children if the mother was convinced/deceived they were demons. But the succubus could not just simply tell the mother to kill her children outright without deceiving her first, because the charm will not invaildate the charmed individual's (the mother) prior allegiances. (as stated on page 561 that you should read)
I'm looking at the rules for charms & compulsions. It doesn't say what you say it says.
Many abilities and spells can cloud the minds of characters and monsters, leaving them unable to tell friend from foe—or worse yet, deceiving them into thinking that their former friends are now their worst enemies. Two general types of enchantments affect characters and creatures: charms and compulsions.
Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells and some monster abilities. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.
A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature's apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.
Regardless of whether a character is charmed or compelled, he does not volunteer information or tactics that his master doesn't ask for.
If the succubus orders her to kill them, then best case scenario for the mother is she might get another saving throw against the spell (actually the best case scenario would be the mother rolling really well and the succubus rolling really poorly), but there's nothing that stops her from killing or even believing that those who she formerly loved and trusted are not now her enemies and need to die. If the succubus told the mother to fight the children, she would use the least harm possible. I imagine if she told her to kill the children, she would use the least painful and/or violent method possible (maybe that's why she drowns them, I dunno; depending on their size and age, drowning might be less violent that couping them while they sleep).
EDIT: Speaking of role-playing, this would make for quite an awesome adventure as the party questions the mother, realizes something nefarious and unseen is afoot and begins looking into it; possibly getting the mother released since she was under a magical condition that denied her certain sensibilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some synonyms of the word Harmful from the Collins Thesaurus of the English Language:
Damaging, Dangerous, Negative, Unhealthy, Unwholesome, Disadvantageous
Any of those apply to infanticide?
Some synonyms of the word harmful from the Collins Thesaurus of the English Language:
Damaging, Dangerous, Negative, Unhealthy, Unwholesome, DisadvantageousAny of those apply to infanticide?
Heh. Some of those are funny. Unwholesome made me grin. XD
Some synonyms of the word harmful from the Collins Thesaurus of the English Language:
Damaging, Dangerous, Negative, Unhealthy, Unwholesome, DisadvantageousAny of those apply to infanticide?
It's not infanticide, its demonicide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you played a character who was a loving mother, and a 1st level caster cast a 1st level spell on you and you got to roll one dice before the DM told you, you drown your children, wouldn't you feel funny about it?
I know this is kind of irrelevant because we are discussing what is written, not what should be written, but I'm only hoping this will give you enough pause to consider that another reading might not be unreasonable.
I'm keeping an open mind here, I promise, but I still get a strong impression from the "obviously harmful" wording that this spell was supposed to have some stringent limitations.
You are right, the succubus absolutely could ordee the mother to kill her children if the mother was convinced/deceived they were demons. But the succubus could not just simply tell the mother to kill her children outright without deceiving her first, because the charm will not invaildate the charmed individual's (the mother) prior allegiances. (as stated on page 561 that you should read)I'm looking at the rules for charms & compulsions. It doesn't say what you say it says.
...Many abilities and spells can cloud the minds of characters and monsters, leaving them unable to tell friend from foe—or worse yet, deceiving them into thinking that their former friends are now their worst enemies. Two general types of enchantments affect characters and creatures: charms and compulsions.
Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells and some monster abilities. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.
A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go
"A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend".
Succubus orders mom to drown kids. Mom doesn't obey. Period. End of story. Spell broken? no, but order blatantely disobeyed.
Succubus orders mom to attack kids. Mom doesn't obey. Period. End of story. Spell broken? no- but order blatantely disobeyed.
The Only way to get her to try it is for the children to attack the succubus first. And even then she'll use non-lethal force. (so drowning is still out).
Diplomacy doesn't get around this either.
You need a dominate, or other spells/effects to get around this prohibition.
-S
It's not infanticide, its demonicide.Some synonyms of the word harmful from the Collins Thesaurus of the English Language:
Damaging, Dangerous, Negative, Unhealthy, Unwholesome, DisadvantageousAny of those apply to infanticide?
So she thinks her children are possessed by demons right? Therefore drowning them will be a wholesome activity? It will not have any disadvantages? There will be no dangers involved? It will seem like a healthy way for her to spend an afternoon?
And that reply was to Ashiel from a few posts back sorry. On my iPad and still getting the hang of typing on this newfound gadget!
Me too I hate it. I get Ninja'd constantly.
|
|
This topic has turned on to a roundabout and may never get off. I do not see why we need any official help from Paizo, as the spell description says everything you need. If you want to use it to enhance a Diplomacy check, that is also valid as well. I am sure a player and GM could use the spell to great effect.
It's not infanticide, its demonicide.Some synonyms of the word harmful from the Collins Thesaurus of the English Language:
Damaging, Dangerous, Negative, Unhealthy, Unwholesome, DisadvantageousAny of those apply to infanticide?
So she thinks her children are possessed by demons right? Therefore drowning them will be a wholesome activity? It will not have any disadvantages? There will be no dangers involved? It will seem like a healthy way for her to spend an afternoon?
Sure! Slaying the forces of evil is a great thing to be doing. In fact, if she were religious at all (a very likely possibility), she'd probably see it as her duty to put the demons down.
I said this in the main thread and I'll say it here.
If you get too loose with the harmful part of the spell then it does nothing at all worth a spell slot. And what I mean by that is that anything outside of the most basic commands could be weasled to be harmful.
When determining harmful you should look at only if completing that act in and of itself will bring harm. You should not be looking at the down the line reprucussions, such as criminal charges banishment or the like.
If you look at those type of things then you can't ask a captured orc to reveal the plans of his great leader as he knows them. Why you ask simple he knows that if he tells you and lives they would kill him if they found out therefore its harmful to tell you. You can't ask the guard to let you sneak a quick peek at the kings bedchamber because if its learned he did he will be fired at best.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd think if my best friend IRL told me my children were demons, I'd still get a second opinion...