So how much humanity damage do you suffer for killing your first sentient creature? How much emotional trauma damage does it cause when you see a human skeleton for the first time? What is your psychosis score if you kill a loved one while you are under the effects of a confusion condition? Show me the damage, so me the harm, and I will agree with you. However, until you can show me the harm that the creature is inflicting upon itself, then it doesn't hold water.My last post above this last night asked the same thing for physical damage, but sadly went unanswered. What's the damage score for a burst appendix? What exactly is the impact of having your pinky finger chopped off? How about getting your ear removed? Presumably you agree that all of that is harm, but there are certainly plenty of physical injuries causing harm that are not quantified in the rulebook either. For a physical injury that isn't detailed in the rulebook does that trigger the 'obviously harmful' clause?
But regardless I think I'm done beating this dead horse as I can't see a resolution coming out of this. As far as I can tell your position includes the following items:
a) Harmful means purely physical harm by RAW. Though without an alternative definition for harmful being in the book I'd default to interpreting RAW by the actual meaning of the word.
b) Apparently because of this it's possible for you to outright 100% disobey a command to stub your toe badly (mild physical harm), but a failed opposed charisma check makes you murder your child (severe emotional harm).
c) In a situation where everybody among the GM and players agree that an action (such as murdering a child) is harmful to the murderer we're going to say that isn't actually harmful.You're welcome to run your game however you see fit and that's great since your group seems to all enjoy that. But to my mind your interpretation leads to very illogical and I think quite frankly ridiculous results.
If it wasn't enough harm to cause at least nonlethal damage, then it wasn't harm at all. Only discomfort. Dismembering people should deal damage. I'm not sure how you would dismember somebody without dealing damage, since you're assuredly cutting, breaking, or tearing some portion of their bodies, which is expressed through damage. The idea that when simply being outdoors when it is hot will deal damage to you but tearing your fingers off wouldn't just seems absurd. O.o
I mean at the very least if you determined that it was more painful than lethal then it would be nonlethal damage, and enough of that pain inflicting could eventually force someone to fall unconscious (such as in the case of torturing someone). Sure breaking their fingers won't necessarily kill the, but repeatedly causing such stress will eventually drive you unconscious due to damage, and continued applications of nonlethal damage becomes lethal (at this point those scrapes are getting to be too much, the pain from the tortured tendons is forcing your heart to race faster and faster, and the choking puke in your throat and tears and saliva are drowning you).
It seems a bit asinine to argue that chopping someone's ear off doesn't deal damage. One might say "well dismemberment and damage to specific portions of the body aren't in the game", which is true. The game doesn't specifically handle dismemberment, chopping off ears, kicking people in the balls, and so forth. However, this is actually where I believe a good GM is necessary to determine how much damage that would do while being as consistent as possible. "I want to kick him in the nads" would be an unarmed strike and deal appropriate damage, for example. "I want to tear off his ear without killing him, with this dagger" might involve an attack with the dagger at a -4 penalty to deal nonlethal (but severely painful) damage. You might alternatively decide it's a "dirty trick" and make them sickened for a round (perhaps asking if they're trying to inflict pain to incapacitate them, or for damage). Etc, etc.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
And then the GM makes a ruling on how believable or not those lies are and moves on from there. But frankly if you can make lies like that be believed with high bluff and high diplomacy then you don't really need charm person in the first place.I doubt she's got any bonuses so the Succubus would clearly be advantaged depending on the penalty assigned for the lie. Bluff however also outright says "Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)." Which is another instance of GM discretion being part of the rules.The Succubus also has 100 ft telepathy, and hits the woman with Charm Person.
So the woman already regards 'the voice in her head' as friendly, and now 'the voice' says that she's an agent of her god and that her children are really demons in disguise. The only way to save her children, is to drown the imposters.
So the friendly agent of her god tells her to drown the disguised demons, which will free her children and save them from torment.
Except for the ability to give creatures orders that aren't normally possible with Diplomacy, like making them attack their allies (the rules actually use changing your view of allies to enemies as an example of the power of charms).
Gonna toss it out there, most guys I know, have a +5 to their CMD vs nad shots.
Just saying.
Gonna toss it out there, most guys I know, have a +5 to their CMD vs nad shots.
Just saying.
It's gotta be some sort of feat. :PGonna toss it out there, most guys I know, have a +5 to their CMD vs nad shots.
Just saying.
Maybe some sort of Monk DR that Paizo is withholding from us?
I know I can't do that... >.<
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's gotta be some sort of feat. :PGonna toss it out there, most guys I know, have a +5 to their CMD vs nad shots.
Just saying.
Maybe some sort of Monk DR that Paizo is withholding from us?
I know I can't do that... >.<
Yeah, that would hurt girls just as much. "Ow! **** punt!" >.<
I haven't argued at any point that these things don't do damage. So I'm not sure what you're on about with half of that response. I've asked you to tell me how much damage those sort of things do, which is a rather different case. And the answer is they will do however much damage you as the GM say they will do. It will be just as harmful as you say it will be. It will cause just as much long term damage as they say it will. Lots of injuries aren't codified by the rules, but a GM has to decide what level of harm they entail. You're making these decisions anyway. Why is thinking about how much physical harm various things do perfectly plausible, but mental harm is 'throw our hands up in the air at the impossibility'?
The part you are ignoring is that there is no tangible harm befalling someone. There is no emotional damage. In reality, when you kill someone for the first time, you suffer for it. You can easily have post traumatic stress. You make throw up. You may suffer deep emotional issues. You may have stress induced heart pains. In D&D, you gain 135 XP. The emotional baggage that a creature feels is not harm in any sense that there is in D&D, and because it is not covered in the rules, there is no reason to assume that the rules are referencing something that essentially does not exist to them. That would be an absurdity.
Additionally, you're also arguing indirect harm that comes after the skewed vision of the world fades, yet having someone assist you in a dangerous endeavor (such as the charmed individual fighting for you) risks indirect harm, but is specifically allowed. This indicates that indirect harm is not a critical factor. While telling someone to wound themselves with a hand-grenade would be out of the picture, them being wounded by a hand-grenade in the act of doing something non-suicidal and non-self-harmful would be different.
As for how much damage within the rules those things do, there damage is not set yet. However, unless your GM decides to start making you take nonlethal damage for killing people due to emotional trauma and stress, then there is no leg to stand on. If you do not suffer some sort of harmful game effect for instances of possibly psychological damage, then there is no tangible harm. Now adding those things would be a house rule, and a house rule that I think would not add to the game very much as a heroic fantasy of people who go out and slay fantasy monsters. If you want to talk about psychological intangible harms as if they are game effects, we need to stop and determine exactly how many Cthulu Spawn you see before you have to turn your PC sheet over to your GM and roll a new character.
In reality, if anyone was to see virtually any demon (such as the succubus, but especially some of the more horrifying things like babau) then they would likely be crushed, placed in psychiatric evaluation (even if people believed in these creatures and you weren't considered insane, the sheer horror of them would be enough to cause countless mental maladies). But those things do not exist in D&D without changing it into something that it is not. Hell, Ripley in Aliens suffers long-standing nightmares just from encountering 1 aberration that can be killed with mundane human weapons (bullets), or with acidic resistant melee weapons. She wakes in cold sweats.
But in D&D, you don't do that unless you want to roleplay it that way. If you want to roleplay that your character as stoic and unswerving, then you are stoic and unswerving until you fail a saving throw against a fear effect, or you're mildly shaken or put off balance with Intimidate. However, if you want to roleplay differently and say "I had another restless night. I keep wondering if things would be different. I know they're just orcs, but when they were dying, one looked me in the eyes and I saw a soul...I don't know if I can keep up with this", then that's golden too. But it has no mechanical effect beyond the story that the controller of that character (the player for PCs, the GM for NPCs) is telling.
If one of my PCs was charmed and failed repeatedly (I'd have to fail a minimum of 3 checks to kill a loved one, the first to resist the spell, the second to ignore the order, the third to end the spell due to violent opposition) and my character murdered their loved one, I'd take it like an adult. It was a point the character was not in their right mind. I might roleplay it differently depending on the character. Maybe she becomes standoffish, and distances herself from others because of lack of trusting herself (because as far as she knows, she might not be in her right mind even now); or maybe he breaks down and casts off his strong-man facade and cries a river of sorrowful tears as he wonders what possessed him to do it; or maybe she tries to logically accept that she was under a charm spell and with all her education in magic she knows there was nothing else she could have done, but still has to face the nightmares each night when she thinks of her husband.
Those are all powerful opportunities to explore something that we might not normally get to consider. Powerful opportunities to establish an on going villain in a campaign, or to demonstrate that some things cannot be easily taken back no matter how much you wish they can. These are all great potentials for stories and roleplaying, but they are not mechanical effects. They are not the result of the numbers and borders that define the reality of the game. They are choices, that are entirely dependent on the ones playing the character, and these choices are neither weapons nor shields for or against mechanical effects.
Heck, we've got blasts of mental energy in the game that do severe hp damage. Is the mental energy hurting their body or is it harming their mind? I don't think there's a firm answer either way.
If you're taking damage from a mental attack, then you are tangibly suffering in the same way that you are tangibly suffering from catching on fire. It will kill you. You will physically be ended. You will have to be raised, you will need to be healed.
And you haven't addressed whether my points a, b and c are a fair statement of how you believe this should work. Honestly, if I the player know that murdering my child will cause me harm and if you the GM know that murdering my child will cause me harm, shouldn't that count as harmful for the purposes of this spell? It fits the text of the spell and it's far more logical than the alternative.
I simply disagree due to all of the above. Upon being convinced to kill your child, you have been convinced. Your sight of the world is skewed. It will probably leave you with a great sadness, resentment, and fear. Perhaps it is why you are adventuring at all and you hate or distrust magic. Maybe you are standoffish to all spell casters because at one point one of them affected your mind and made you do something that you have come to regret greatly. Perhaps your party doesn't even know why you seem to treat the party sorceress with a cold shoulder, or why you became so enraged when she used mental influencing magics on your enemies (perhaps it bothers you because you've been there).
I'm good and well for accepting that your loved ones are your allies. I'd be happy to allow the extra saving throw to resist the command and break the spell completely. Feel free to turn on the bad guy and put a sword in him, because while you were find being his bootlicker for a while, he stepped into something a lot deeper when he asked you to kill your friends/loved ones and jerked you out of it. But the rules specifically say that charms have the potential to skew your perception of the world and make you turn on your allies and treat them as your worst enemies; so I simply cannot buy the argument.
EDIT:
EDIT: Apologies if any of the above sounds hostile. But you seem to be missing the actual questions in my posts so I've tried to bring them more front and center.
S'cool man. No hard feelings. Also, vice versa. I mean no disrespect or hostilities to you or anyone else either; so if something could be taken in a bad way, be charmed and take it the best way possible. :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The death of your wife and children isn't harmful to you at all.
What kind of ridiculous person would think that would be harmful. Let me give you lots of examples and metaphors to show you, only if you reply with anything similar I will say that isn't in the rules.
If in order to "win" a debate you have to argue murdering your wife and children isn't harmful to you, you are probably on the wrong side of a debate.
Just sayin'
|
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[b], but you must win an opposed Charisma check to [b]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 [b]something very dangerous is worth doing.
For all those people who are saying that "obviously harmful" can never be done, how do you mesh that with "very dangerous" is worth doing?
Anything that's very dangerous is going to be "obviously harmful", and yet the description specifically allows you to convince your victim to do it.
People like to stick their fingers in their ears, scream "NAH NAH NAH NAH" and refuse to listen to anything that doesn't support their view point.
I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, and accepted that it's possible you can't force a Charmed Person to attack someone (despite the Charmed rules saying so) because of the 'obviously harmful' clause.
However, I wish I could go through every use of Charm Person by Paizo and see if the spell was being used improperly.
But that requires effort to argue with a brick wall, which is something, I figure, isn't really worth my time. I mean, I was perfectly willing to argue my point about how Charm could be used, and, for the most part, I think it's obvious to everyone now that you 'can' give them orders, and it's not simply Magical Diplomacy. Those that continue to think so, I won't argue with anymore, because nothing short of Divine Intervention by the Paizo Gods we refer to as Developers, will change their opinion.
At this point, I'm simply waiting on a Developer response, making comments and bad puns, and clarifying things if someone asks a question. Also, I'm typing this message.
The way I have always played "charm person" is that on an opposed charisma check the recipient of the spell will view the caster as a most trusted friend, or else as someone they are "smitten" with.
That means they will, in fact, do things that they wouldn't "normally" do. There is obviously always some wiggle room on this, but I view it sort of like:
Random buddy: "Hey, Joe, bet you won't jump off this rock into the water."
Joe: "Hell no, I'm not crazy!"
Vs.
Hot chick Joe wants to bed: "Joe, you know what I'd really like to see? I'd like to see if anyone is brave enough to jump in that water."
Joe: "Watch this!"
It's always worked for me.
That's always worked fine for me too AD.
People like to stick their fingers in their ears, scream "NAH NAH NAH NAH" and refuse to listen to anything that doesn't support their view point.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I found this post condescending and plainly hurtful to me, and I don't think its the first time I've felt that way in this thread.
I try very, very hard to listen to everything people have to say and try to see it from their point of view. Very hard.
I'm really sorry that it doesn't seem that way to you, but I do.
I guess I do need to lighten up, it's just a message board about a game, but I sometimes have this almost OCD need for everyone to agree, and it's coming out..
Another OCD thing I do, is I really want to know that I'm running my games "right". I want them to be fair for my players.
So if we can't get rulings from devs, the next best thing, maybe an evn better thing, would be for us to all decide together. When that isn't happening, and someone says the barrier to it happening is me going "nah nah nah" and sticking my fingers in my ears, that stings.
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[b], but you must win an opposed Charisma check to [b]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 [b]something very dangerous is worth doing.For all those people who are saying that "obviously harmful" can never be done, how do you mesh that with "very dangerous" is worth doing?
Anything that's very dangerous is going to be "obviously harmful", and yet the description specifically allows you to convince your victim to do it.
I think the difference could be this:
Very dangerous = possible harm. Obviously harmful = definite harm.Something like that. Good point though.
I also have seen the point made that the obviously harmful clause could invalidated almost any practical use of charm person. I have to think about that one, it is a good point as well.
I also have seen the point made that the obviously harmful clause could invalidate almost any practical use of charm person. I have to think about that one, it is a good point as well.
It doesn't invalidate. It just makes Charm =/= Compulsion.
Take us to your hidden bandit camp? Yes.
Help us kill bandits? No.
Hide this for me? Yes.
Steal this for me? No.
Carry these orders to our troops at the front? Yes.
Fight the battle for us? No.
Restrain your wife? Yes.
Kill your wife? No.
Some people seem to be arguing that Charm Person + Opposed Charisma Check is as strong, in its own way, as Dominate Person (stronger, in fact, because Dominate Person gives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus anytime you order the affected creature to do something it would normally oppose). And that it's balanced simply by changing the word "Order" to "Request".
People like to stick their fingers in their ears, scream "NAH NAH NAH NAH" and refuse to listen to anything that doesn't support their view point.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I found this post and a lot of other things you've written in this thread rude, flippant, condescending and plainly hurtful to me.
I try very, very hard to listen to everything people have to say and try to see it from their point of view. Very hard.
I'm really sorry that it doesn't seem that way to you, but I do.
I'm sorry if I came across that way, I did not intend to. I have, however, read every post, as I'm sure you have, and I've given thought on each post that has been made. I've seen good ideas in here, and bad ones as well.
I've taken every post made into consideration as I explained the way I think the spell is used. I have not merely stuck my head in the sand and ignored everyone. No one has yet to provide any conclusive evidence, that I can't use Charm Person to:
- Make a person friendly
- Ask information of them
- Give an order to do something that the friendly disposition wouldn't allow, as long as it isn't suicidal or obviously harmful.
- Make an opposed Charisma Check to enforce the order given. If I win, the order is followed, if I lose, the order is ignored.
That's what the spell does. My stance has not changed on that as no one has been able to give any conclusive proof that the spell doesn't do exactly as I've outlined.
There is a bit of clashing text between the rules for Charms and the text for the spell Charm Person, and that's something up to debate. There is also a debate on what the developers meant by 'obvious harm'.
I will admit I have gotten annoyed with posters on more than one occasion as they seemed to ignore the posts preceding them, jumping in with something to say, only for me to have to re-explain something for the third or fourth time (like assigning arbitrary modifier). In those cases, yeah, I was probably insulting, or coming off as 'more-knowledgeable-than-thou' and I can't help that. I'm only human and as a human, often times things sound better in my head, than when spoken. This can go double for the internet where the nuances in my voice and tone cannot be heard.
I would like to ask though, what have I said that has been specifically hurtful to you? I quickly scanned through the thread, but I can't remember saying anything to you that (as far as I can recall) would be hurtful. Whatever it was I said, I'm sorry. I like you as a poster (and fellow cultists :P) and I didn't intend to be rude or hurtful to you or any other poster.
I also have seen the point made that the obviously harmful clause could invalidate almost any practical use of charm person. I have to think about that one, it is a good point as well.It doesn't invalidate. It just makes Charm =/= Compulsion.
Take us to your hidden bandit camp? Yes.
Help us kill bandits? No.Hide this for me? Yes.
Steal this for me? No.Carry these orders to our troops at the front? Yes.
Fight the battle for us? No.Restrain your wife? Yes.
Kill your wife? No.Some people seem to be arguing that Charm Person + Opposed Charisma Check is as strong, in its own way, as Dominate Person (stronger, in fact, because Dominate Person gives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus anytime you order the affected creature to do something it would normally oppose). And that it's balanced simply by changing the word "Order" to "Request".
Those are some good examples, though I would argue that you could make them steal something.
As for being stronger than Dominate, I personally don't think so, and I'll explain why.
Barring meta-magic feats to change the spell, Charm Person has a base DC of 11 (Minimum 11 Ability score, first level spell). Depending on if you're a bard or sorcerer/witch/wizard, Dominate Person has minimum DC of 16 or 17 (4th levle spell for bard + 14 ability = 14; 5th level spell for others, 15 ability = 17).
So the minimum will save for Charm is 11 (and you get a +5 to the save if you're in combat) while the minimum Will save for Dominate is 16 or 17. Now, Charm also requires an opposed Charisma Check to issue an order, so both sides roll 1d20 and add their Charisma Modifier; Dominate doesn't need this. If someone is violently opposed to the Charm issued order, however, they also get another saving through (per the Charm Rules) and if they make it, the spell is broken. Dominate also has another save, but it's made at a +2 bonus. Dominate also doesn't have any clauses to it. If I order you to kill your wife and children, and you don't make your save, you will kill your wife and children.
While Charm Person can seem like Dominate at first glance, Dominate is a much more powerful spell, and we didn't even go into the other aspects of Dominate (such as the telepathy or no range limit on orders).
People like to stick their fingers in their ears, scream "NAH NAH NAH NAH" and refuse to listen to anything that doesn't support their view point.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I found this post and a lot of other things you've written in this thread rude, flippant, condescending and plainly hurtful to me.
I try very, very hard to listen to everything people have to say and try to see it from their point of view. Very hard.
I'm really sorry that it doesn't seem that way to you, but I do.
I'm sorry if I came across that way, I did not intend to. I have, however, read every post, as I'm sure you have, and I've given thought on each post that has been made. I've seen good ideas in here, and bad ones as well.
I've taken every post made into consideration as I explained the way I think the spell is used. I have not merely stuck my head in the sand and ignored everyone. No one has yet to provide any conclusive evidence, that I can't use Charm Person to:
- Make a person friendly
- Ask information of them
- Give an order to do something that the friendly disposition wouldn't allow, as long as it isn't suicidal or obviously harmful.
- Make an opposed Charisma Check to enforce the order given. If I win, the order is followed, if I lose, the order is ignored.
That's what the spell does. My stance has not changed on that as no one has been able to give any conclusive proof that the spell doesn't do exactly as I've outlined.
There is a bit of clashing text between the rules for Charms and the text for the spell Charm Person, and that's something up to debate. There is also a debate on what the developers meant by 'obvious harm'.
I will admit I have gotten annoyed with posters on more than one occasion as they seemed to ignore the posts preceding them, jumping in with something to say, only for me to have to re-explain something for the third or fourth time (like assigning arbitrary modifier). In those cases, yeah, I was probably...
Tels,
It seems like if you had read my posts as carefully as you claim, you would know that I am 100% in agreement with every single one of your bullet point items above.The crux of the discussion is whether it is a house-rule to apply situational modifiers to the opposed charisma check, and what constitutes "obvious harm".
Anyway let's just try not to get the thread locked. I really want a ruling or a consensus on this.
Yeah dominate is way stronger, and doesn't rely on the caster having a high Charisma score, just a good save DC. Due to the way ability checks work, a commoner with a 10 Charisma has a 10% chance to tell a succubus with a 27 Charisma just what she can do with her order. If it was a domination, not hardly.
In the example with the dryad, once again, she had less than a 25% chance to both land the charm on the party's hypothetical weak-willed and Charisma-dumped Fighter without him refusing her order to kill his party or breaking the spell entirely.
If he had been dominated, it would have been much nastier. Beyond the extra stuff you get to do like Tels notes (no range limit, the telepathy, the ability to perceive through the victim's senses, and complete lack of resistance via a Charisma check) it also doesn't rely on your ability to communicate with your victim.
It's far more powerful because it is less resistible. It still gets to make saving throws vs things it's opposed to, but it's against your save DC and offers no other outs. Unlike with charm spells, hostile actions do not break the domination. That means you can dominate someone, debuff the hell out of them, and then command them to do something, and there is nothing they can reasonably do to stop you. Dominate, bestow curse (-4 to all saves), bestow curse (-6 Wisdom), Intimidate (-2 to all saves), and anything else you want to do. Then "kill everyone in your home town". Now the poor guy saves at a -7 (counting the +2) and fails. He's now the wizards own personal b%*%+.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You are a sick, sick, evil, twisted, demented bastard...
I love it! Don't ever change.
Quoted for emphasis :P
|
|
Take us to your hidden bandit camp? Yes.
Help us kill bandits? No.Hide this for me? Yes.
Steal this for me? No.Carry these orders to our troops at the front? Yes.
Fight the battle for us? No.Restrain your wife? Yes.
Kill your wife? No.
Except I don't think that anything you said 'yes' to really counts as 'very dangerous', unless carrying the orders to the front is where the literal battle line is. Then you're in the realm of "I'm almost guaranteed to get drawn into the fighting" and you're back into 'obviously harmful.
Maybe restraining your wife could be seen as very dangerous, since she's likely to get in a bunch of swings at you, but that's obviously harmful to you because of the non-lethal damage you take when she connects her punches.
Tels you said you were confused about what you had said specifically to me that I took offense to. it was probably things directed at Ciretose that happen to apply equally to me since my stance and position on this question are identical to his.
Actually this thread was bad blood from the very first post, which completely misrepresents my position on the issue.
But let's just not get into it. I've already had posts deleted in this thread and I'm salty about that. Let's let it rest.
Tels you said you were confused about what you had said specifically to me that I took offense to. it was probably things directed at Ciretose that happen to apply equally to me since my stance and position on this question are identical to his.
Actually this thread was bad blood from the very first post, which completely misrepresents my position on the issue.
But let's just not get into it. I've already had posts deleted in this thread and I'm salty about that. Let's let it rest.
*hugs the king bunny and gives him a carrot and a lettuce basket* :D
For all those people who are saying that "obviously harmful" can never be done, how do you mesh that with "very dangerous" is worth doing?Anything that's very dangerous is going to be "obviously harmful", and yet the description specifically allows you to convince your victim to do it.
I think the difference could be this:
Very dangerous = possible harm. Obviously harmful = definite harm.Something like that. Good point though.
Serum,
What do you think of my take on this?
*hugs the king bunny and gives him a carrot and a lettuce basket* :DTels you said you were confused about what you had said specifically to me that I took offense to. it was probably things directed at Ciretose that happen to apply equally to me since my stance and position on this question are identical to his.
Actually this thread was bad blood from the very first post, which completely misrepresents my position on the issue.
But let's just not get into it. I've already had posts deleted in this thread and I'm salty about that. Let's let it rest.
*chomp chomp chomp*
*chomp chomp chomp**hugs the king bunny and gives him a carrot and a lettuce basket* :DTels you said you were confused about what you had said specifically to me that I took offense to. it was probably things directed at Ciretose that happen to apply equally to me since my stance and position on this question are identical to his.
Actually this thread was bad blood from the very first post, which completely misrepresents my position on the issue.
But let's just not get into it. I've already had posts deleted in this thread and I'm salty about that. Let's let it rest.
You will smile and not be sad or unamused for the rest of the thread! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I'm willing to drop it if you are, but I am still sorry for insulting you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*chomp chomp chomp**hugs the king bunny and gives him a carrot and a lettuce basket* :DTels you said you were confused about what you had said specifically to me that I took offense to. it was probably things directed at Ciretose that happen to apply equally to me since my stance and position on this question are identical to his.
Actually this thread was bad blood from the very first post, which completely misrepresents my position on the issue.
But let's just not get into it. I've already had posts deleted in this thread and I'm salty about that. Let's let it rest.
You will smile and not be sad or unamused for the rest of the thread! :D
1d20-2
See, that is not obviously harmful.
I comply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blessed, blessed be for Ashiel the Mediator! Settling conflicts, bringing happiness and spreading joy wherever he may go!
|
|
For all those people who are saying that "obviously harmful" can never be done, how do you mesh that with "very dangerous" is worth doing?Anything that's very dangerous is going to be "obviously harmful", and yet the description specifically allows you to convince your victim to do it.
I think the difference could be this:
Very dangerous = possible harm. Obviously harmful = definite harm.Something like that. Good point though.
Serum,
What do you think of my take on this?
So, as an example, ordering someone in heavy armor to repeatedly make 5ft jumps over a 100ft deep pit filled with acid is perfectly acceptable? It's only possible that he's going to fall in, not definite!
The way I'm reading it, that would be very dangerous, and it might be convinced it was worth doing. Probably not more then once without a good explanation.
PRD:
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
Hmm...
"If you keep jumping up and down on the edge of the pit, you'll cause it to collapse in on itself, saving you, me and everyone else from falling it. Jump up and down on the edge of the pit."
Wow, Ashiel and I do not good enchanters make!
*chomp chomp chomp**hugs the king bunny and gives him a carrot and a lettuce basket* :DTels you said you were confused about what you had said specifically to me that I took offense to. it was probably things directed at Ciretose that happen to apply equally to me since my stance and position on this question are identical to his.
Actually this thread was bad blood from the very first post, which completely misrepresents my position on the issue.
But let's just not get into it. I've already had posts deleted in this thread and I'm salty about that. Let's let it rest.
You will smile and not be sad or unamused for the rest of the thread! :D
1d20-2
+2 for carrots, +2 for reasonable request that makes sense, +4 cha (Ashiel has a 16)
Cha check = 14
Fixed that for ya
Hmm...
"If you keep jumping up and down on the edge of the pit, you'll cause it to collapse in on itself, saving you, me and everyone else from falling it. Jump up and down on the edge of the pit."
1d20 - 2
That's a good idea, that could be pulled off.
Yeah, it is, but my Charisma is killing me here.
Good thing I invested all those ranks in Bluff, because otherwise, I wouldn't be able to lie worth a damn!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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[b], but you must win an opposed Charisma check to [b]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 [b]something very dangerous is worth doing.For all those people who are saying that "obviously harmful" can never be done, how do you mesh that with "very dangerous" is worth doing?
Anything that's very dangerous is going to be "obviously harmful", and yet the description specifically allows you to convince your victim to do it.
Rescuing a baby from a burning building is very dangerous, but not obviously harmful.
Setting your own house on fire with your children inside is obviously harmful but not particularly, personally, dangerous.
What the spell is saying is that the person isn't going to do anything that is going to harm themselves in any way.
What Ashiel and Tels keep saying is "They don't know it is harmful" as if an illusion spell is included that makes them not aware of the world and the fact that killing your wife and children while burning down your house may be harmful.
You conveniently ignore the fact it says charms can make people believe their own allies are their worst enemies. You can make someone turn on their best friend, beloved wife, or first born son, and make them believe that they are their most hated enemy and kill them.
They're not your beloved wife and son. They're your hated enemies.
You conveniently ignore the fact it says charms can make people believe their own allies are their worst enemies. You can make someone turn on their best friend, beloved wife, or first born son, and make them believe that they are their most hated enemy and kill them.
They're not your beloved wife and son. They're your hated enemies.
Neither the spell description in the CRB nor the one at PFsrd mention the target's feeling towards their allies, only towards the the caster of the spell. Charms as a category of magic may well do what you claim, but the specific spell charm person doesn't seem to.
As a DM, I'd be completely willing to have a Iago type use charm person to convince an Othello type to kill his wife, just like in the play, but, just like in the play, it would require more than one diplomacy roll.
|
|
You conveniently ignore the fact it says charms can make people believe their own allies are their worst enemies. You can make someone turn on their best friend, beloved wife, or first born son, and make them believe that they are their most hated enemy and kill them.
They're not your beloved wife and son. They're your hated enemies.
Actually, it says
"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)."
and
"A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him."
griev·ous (grvs)
adj.
1. Causing grief, pain, or anguish: a grievous loss.
2. Serious or dire; grave: a grievous crime.
You know, like killing your wife and children.
|
|
You conveniently ignore the fact it says charms can make people believe their own allies are their worst enemies. You can make someone turn on their best friend, beloved wife, or first born son, and make them believe that they are their most hated enemy and kill them.
They're not your beloved wife and son. They're your hated enemies.
Neither the spell description in the CRB nor the one at PFsrd mention the target's feeling towards their allies, only towards the the caster of the spell. Charms as a category of magic may well do what you claim, but the specific spell charm person doesn't seem to.
As a DM, I'd be completely willing to have a Iago type use charm person to convince an Othello type to kill his wife, just like in the play, but, just like in the play, it would require more than one diplomacy roll.
Or at least one diplomacy roll, as they are arguing for none at all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word convince in there seems to be overlooked a bit too. Generally, it takes a fair bit of time to convince anyone to do something they don't want to. The opposed charisma roll is not described a roll that happens in a round. By rights, by the time you've convinced them, your first level spell may well have worn off.
Also, anytime a spell asks for a dm controlled character to act, it is calling on the rules that Tels keeps calling GM fiat. Those rules are written specifically for these situations.The spell does not specifically spell out effects of control like dominate does, which means the GM has to interpret what happens. since the need to consider what is against he victims nature is called on, the GM has to consider alignment, fealty to others, relevant position in the society, happiness in their current lot in life etc. This means DM has to call on rules that allows for modifications based on such things. That is not DM fiat, that is rules application.
Also, charming a creature makes it the casters friend, not his companions friends. It's funny watching casters get tackled to the ground by a well meaning charmed minion as they scream "Watch out! Those guys tried to kill us earlier, I'll protect you with my body while my friends kill them"
A chaotic evil creature is going to respond far differently to a lawful good character. Chaotic evil guys betray their trusted allies all the time, just for starters. They also kill or betray other people close to their trusted allies to curry favour or remove competition for attention.
How much of that are you guys considering in this discussion about a spell that calls for a DM to make decisions about their npc. This is what makes this an interactive and interesting role play game, rather than just battleships.
Typing on iPad, so appologies for mistakes and bad grammar.
Having a GM take control of an NPC isn't the same thing as a GM assigning bonuses or penalties to the roll. It's simply the GM deciding what the character does.
Also, I noted that a clever Controller (as the Player may be controlled the Charmed Victim, not just the GM) can turn things around on the Charmer.
For instance, let's use the 'kill your wife' example, and assuming you could give the order. 'Kill your Wife' is very vague, and a clever person could easily outwit the charmer. For instance, the Charmer gives the order, and walks away as his victim proceeds to carry it out. However, the victim is violently opposed to killing his wife, but knows he has to.
So he, instead of walking up to her and stabbing her, decides to plan it out. He goes down to the shady part of town, and looks to buy a hard to acquire poison. This takes time, and then he has to turn around and leave. By the time he's finished with this, hours could have passed. Possibly even time enough for the Charm to wear off. If it hasn't enough time may have passed so that the next meal won't be fore hours. So the victim gets back, realizes it's too late to use the poison, and decides to poison her at breakfast in the morning. So he goes to sleep, and wakes up Charm free.
He tried to kill his wife, but chose poison as the method. It's like Wish, sometimes you get what you want, just not in the method you desire.
|
|
Charm person makes the victim friendly. Sure, It's awesome to use when the person you are targeting is hostile, since Diplomacy by itself can only get said person to indifferent. Once charmed, you can can use Diplomacy to make said friendly person helpful. You can use Diplomacy to make requests of the victim.
You can order the charmed victim to do things, because it says so in Charm Person's description. Orders are not requests. You don't order your friend to make a sandwich, you ask him to. You order subordinates to make you a sandwich. Luckily for you, the victim isn't your friend, you are his. He perceives everything you say and do in the most favorable way. This means that when you order your charmed victim to make you a sandwich, he takes it as a request. If he wouldn't normally do it for a friend, you have to make an opposed Charisma check to do it. If he's violently opposed to it, he gets a saving throw. You don't need a diplomacy check to do this.
Replace "make me a sandwich" with anything that's not suicidal or obviously harmful.
I believe the situation with the Succubus, the mother, and the child would work this way:
1) Succubus charms the mother.
2) Succubus uses Bluff to telepathically tell the mother she's a messenger from her god. She has a +27 to her bluff skill: she could take 10, eat -10 from the lie being far-fetched, and still have a higher DC than the wife possibly could make. Not only that, the charm person effect twists the succubus' words favorably.
3) Succubus uses Bluff to tell mother that her children have become fatally tainted by demons, and the only way to stop the taint from spreading (and to guarantee their journey to the good afterlife) is to kill them immediately. Again, the mother's going to believe it because the Bluff DC is so high.
4) Succubus orders that the mother kills the children, who, according to the voice in her head, will soon be dead anyway, and would be saving her children if they died by her hand. The choice, in the mother's head, is to do nothing and watch as the corruption spreads to everyone, or kill them now to save them all.
5) Since this is not something that the mother would normally do, an opposed charisma check occurs (which will generally be a +8 vs a +0 for your average mother), and in this case loses.
6a) The mother is also violently opposed to killing people, so she gets a saving throw. In this case, she makes it and throws off the charm! The succubus shrugs, teleports in, and kills the children herself while the mother can only watch in horror. Better a minor assault on the mind than none, right?
6b) The mother fails her saving throw and kills the children. She cries while doing it, but she knows what she's doing is the right thing to do.
Moral of the story: Succubi are scary.
|
|
I guess the wife isn't an ally then...
I agree that it wasn't the best example to use with you, since you've outright denied that the man will ever be forced to kill the wife, but that wasn't the point of the post. It was an example, of how the spell might not work out as the caster intended, since the victim still has free will and can decide how to go about something if the order is not specific enough.
|
|
Except it also specifically says to treat them as "friendly" per the diplomacy rules. Not "Helpful", "Friendly". They don't generally waste space in a spell with information you aren't intended to use.
The wife and kids thing is out, unless you are arguing they aren't allies. Harmful is a very broad term, and presuming they aren't automatons (which is a safe assumption since it says they aren't) you are going to have to convince them of these intricate plots that everyone assumes are part of the spell somehow.
1. They won't do anything harmful. Period. Full stop. Killing your loved ones is going to be harmful. That is why you call them "loved" ones.
2. If they must fight allies, they will do so 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).
Anyone got a summon Dev spell handy. I'm pretty sure they could kill this thread...
|
|
Like I said, charm person is useful in being able to turn a hostile, unfriendly, or indifferent person into friendly so you can easily make requests of them, or turn them helpful.
However, you're skipping an entire paragraph of description. If charm person only did what you said it did, there would be absolutely no need for the second paragraph.
You still aren't acknowledging that charm person lets you order your victim to do things. It's one more thing you can do with the spell. Requests are not orders. It's not considered compulsion, because the victim still has free will in deciding how to carry out those orders.
Would it have been better for the succubus pretend to be the voice of a devil and instead say "You must NOT kill your children, for they will soon infect the entire village with their devil's taint, and everyone will die a slow, painful death. Killing them now is the only way to stop that!"? I'm pretty sure following that order would be obviously harmful in the mother's eye.