|
Anyway, @Spook: my interpretation is neither of what you posted, but is somewhere in the middle.
Try, "Charm person alters the basic outlook of the target, does allow for abuses of the target, but can be used without abusing the target."
In my view, it's very useful, and can be applied in many different situations, but it's not tremendously evil and it doesn't need to be a very last resort ever. I tend to use it as a time saver myself. :)
EDIT: By "time saver" I presume you mean (and I certainly do), "I don't have the time/ability to diplomacy this guy the long way for a legitimate reason." instead of, "I don't feel like doing, say, the dishes, so you should guys do them for me."
Exactly what I meant, yeah. It saves the time of having to sit in a room with him while focusing the magical equivalent of the hot lamps on him.
Its all about 'improve cooperation' not 'render into soulless zombie like automaton.' (Thats the dominate line)
As for answering the OP (as we all did kind of diverge when the R word showed up) it really depends.
In my own campaign setting I have some countries that actually legally regulate stuff like this for potential abuse, but they're obviously more 'cosmopolitan' then the standard pathfinder society. The United States in real life would probably classify Charm Person to be a coercive force and agreements made under it suspect (just like they do with people who sign when drunk) and information gained under interrogation might not be legally admissable, assuming they aknowledged magic was real.
The local populace itself determines how the local populace reacts though, and that has variables.
Are they witch burning magic fearing locals who keep pitchforks and lit torches available? They probably won't react too well.
Are they familiar with magic? Which gods do they follow? Personal experiences? Mythological histories and the like.
Heck, they might get cheesed /you're/ interrogating them, spells or no spells. I mean, you probably aren't the constable/city watchman/etc.
There's no real generic 'villager' anymore then there's a generic adventurer.
Thanks spook.
Your right, there are variables, but dont focus on them because then the discussion becomes about the variables.
make it up.
its you, as a commoner, who knows that magic exits but does not know the minute details and mechanics of spells. everything else is just extra complexity.
I am not asking in order to make a ruling. I am asking in order to give my mind a good example to draw on.
as you can read from this thread MY personal opinion would be that the commoner would mistrust the charmer and that mistrust would eventually spread through the town. But by reading these posts I would probably imagine that only a portion of the town would take offence and maybe call to 'burn the witch' while others in town would likely defend them leading to some interesting diplomacy situations.
Just to be clear: Natural 20's don't exist on skill checks.
Yes. And a topic it would be nice if we could keep out of this, please?
So does a really good diplomacy. I would also say it does not allow them to do most of those things.
charm person by RAW allows you to tell some one to do anything that will not bring direct harm to them and at best they get an opposed charisma to say no, which does not break the spell.you can, by RAW, have them sell their babies, knowingly eat human flesh, give you state secrets, run through town naked, or even jump across a chasm by convincing them that, 'sure its dangerous but if you roll a 20 youll be fine.'
By RAW, yes they can because not a single thing was obviously harmfull like walking through fire or attack the dragon.
I get the impression that at this point your just being argumentative. but giving you the benefit of the doubt I will make this last reply to that point.
Im sorry but by RAW diplomacy works entirely differently. By RAW diplomacy has many more caveats, the GM can raise the DC of the diplomacy check almost arbitrarily in respect to the question being asked. Ask someone to sell their kids to a passing orc band and the DM can say 'roll a DC 135 diplomacy check to see if you can somehow sweet talk the person into doing that.
Diplomacy is NOT charm person. Diplomacy is a method of reducing RP interaction to a series of roles to quickly deal with NPCs. At any time a GM can simply say THE NPC REACTS THIS WAY. also remember diplomacy is almost never used to force the PC to do anything on the other hand charm CAN force the PC.
Let me add one more thing and I am going to put this into a spoiler so that you dont confuse it with what I said above which is purely a matter of RAW.
the following is purely a matter of FLAVOR
Even by FLAVOR diplomacy and charm are entirely different.
using Diplomacy, Intimidate or Charm to make a person friendly through a dice roll are 3 entirely different acts
a third person seeing your character influence some one using diplomacy is going to react totally different than that person seeing you influence a person through intimidate and will react differently again by seeing you influence some one through magic.
They are not the same.
I am sure your going to argue this point on general principal but I am done with that tangent. it is mildly insulting because even though we are talking about a game I feel like in a round about way your arguing that getting some one into bed through flirting and getting someone into bed using Ruffie's is some how the same because the immediate result is the same.
I dont think your a horrible person but we have reached an impass. I think that diplomacy is different from charm. You think otherwise. your free to feel that way until some one grabs you by the brain stem and makes you like them because they feel that liking them is the NICE thing to do regardless of your opinion on the matter.
While diplomacy and charm are exceedingly different in Pathfinder, in older editions (specifically 3.0 and 3.5)... they weren't so different, which may be where some confusion in PF lies.
The GM had less control at that point, and it was quite possible to make a hostile person friendly, and an unfriendly fanatic... basically, turning diplomacy into the equivalent of making a modified charisma check to force a target into doing something they wouldn't normally do. (You could also turn a hostile target into a fanatic, but that was much harder, and really, I recommend against it, in general, as by that point, the diplomacy skill is actually imploding on itself and becoming more useful during the short term, but less useful during the long term.)
Now, while that took a while to get skills that high, unlike the specified effects of Charm Person, diplomacy worked on any creature and was permanent. Besides being more difficult, it was basically a slower, more permanent* charm spell, and someone with enough ranks could definitively alter another person into doing the things Charm could - the primary difference was that Charm was easier, quicker, and more temporary and allowed a (relatively low) save to avoid, and was subject to various defenses*.
That's changed a great deal in Pathfinder, and the two are no longer quite synonymous, as the skill has a much more limited utility (a great shame, in my opinion; I'd have preferred they slightly nerf the spell rather than the skill as much as they did).
Anyway, that might help clear up some of the confusion.
While Charm can be used like a swift diplomacy (and that's more or less what I use it for most of the time in-game), it's not quite as equivalent anymore.
* Note, before some of you correct me, here is the 3.5 diplomacy skill (note the complete lack of time mentioned as well as the static DCs); and here is the epic variation where it notes the fanatic state, the subjection to mind-affecting effects, how it reacts to immunity, its limited duration, and the like. Basically, getting people to fanatic sucked and was limited, while the other was not. Also, while diplomacy could be enhanced through normal leveling, I've never seen a non-Pun-Pun/non-omnificer build that could do so quickly or efficiently, though it might exist, thus my hedging. Also, Charm Person, Charm Animal, and Charm Monster in the old system (the latter two pretty much just referring to the first).
Yes. And a topic it would be nice if we could keep out of this, please?anyone that can say yes to that would have to admit it is because removing free will is bad, so where can people argue anything else?
You asked the question to which you oppose the only reasonable answer. Then complain about a simple and direct answer. does that mean that any one who says NO to that is saying that removing free will is a good thing?
she stated her point, which to be honest I cant see how any one could see otherwise, why is that answer not enough?
Sleep, paralyze and hold person are annoying, sure, but somehow not as bad to me. I'm being prevented from acting, but I'm not being forced to do things against my will.
We once had 3 out 5 of the party parlayze by Ghouls and Ghasts...
I got to sit there and just get chewed on... watching my hp drain away (thankfully this was before the coup de grace rules O.o) It was the most frustrating thing I ever dealt with...
In one of my first games I joined a group of about 8 or more... and got victim to hold person... I don't know how many rounds I was useless for... but with that many players... and that many bad guys on the board?? I was just watching for over an hour... at LEAST.
That wasn't just frustrating... it was BORING. I waan't even being attacked at that point, just sitting there like a paperweight >.<
Been there, believe me. Just doesn't bother me as much as it does you, apparently. Maybe I have a higher boredom tolerance level or something. Being paralyzed is always a good opportunity to make a snack run or to begin a sarcastic commentary on what everyone else is doing. We also almost always have someone not show up for a game, so there is usually a character to take over, or take over someone's follower, or animal companion. And I also don't mind just watching for a while. I'm still hanging with my friends, so it's all good.
Maybe it's because I like playing good honest fighter-types that being mind-bent really ticks me off. I can fully understand the fireball of cone of cold coming at me from the bad guy. I mean I'm trying to ram three feet of sharpened steel through his innards, stands to reason he's trying to blow me up or turn me into an icicle.I don't know if you meant it this way or not, and I'm not trying to be offensive (so I apologize if I am), but this was really hilarious. I can completely imagine Valeros or Merisiel say this exact same thing.
Also, it's really interesting that, again, Charm is contrasted to being Honest. How do you feel about (mundane) lying or cheating, intimidating, or just plain persuasion <i.e. bluff, intimidate, or diplomacy>?
But screwing with my mind? Making me do things I don't want to that may even be harmful to myself or my frinds? That's just wrong, and anyone who tries it on me goes immediately onto the terminate with extreme prejudice list.And here's where we start to heavily diverge in what is actually being asked and how you're taking it. Pretty much everyone here has agreed that using Charm on a person to get them to do evil things is an evil act. Effectively, you answered a question no one was asking and argued for something no one actually disagreed with. This is a universally accepted fact. Actual questions are:
- OP: how does a common person see an assassin being charmed v. an assassin being physically tortured for information?
- Tangent 1: do you feel that charm is evil? <i.e. the morality argument>
- Tangent 2: can charm be justified in non-villainous uses for the purposes of ensuring basic life, health, and functionality? <i.e. the prejudice against a lonely traveler argument>
In the OP the assassin is certainly (hopefully) being forced to do something that may, in the long run, be harmful to himself or his friends (presuming those he works for and/or with are his...
No offense taken, humor was at least part of my goal, glad to know at least someone else thinks I'm occasionally funny.
I would lump charm in pretty much with lying and cheating (bluff) on the dishonesty scale. Intimidation is a gray area, and I have little problem with diplomacy (stands to reason, since I get paid for doing it). In my own tangent, I do hate the way all of what used to be just great opportunites for roleplaying has now been reduced to die rolls and even the randomness of that can be taken away by a good optimizer to produce foregone conclusions. How is that fun? but I seriously digress.
As for your question trying to redirect me to what you perceive as the mark, I think I did answer it in my post, but obviously didn't communicate it well if you didn't note it. I think people observing would feel less uneasy about charm than about torture, but many would probably still feel uneasy/uncomfortable with it. Not out of sympathy with the obviously unsympathetic assassins (or maybe not so obviously, since who really can tell who the good guys and the bad guys are in a bar fight?), but because of general uneasiness with powerful people doing anything to anyone weaker against their will, just because they can. Most of the world falls in the weaker/non-magical class, and it's got to get old knowing you are always at the mercy of those with the power.
On your tangents. Not evil inherently, but easy to bend to evil purposes, and a potential slippery slope if used for convenience rather than necessity (and who defines which is which?). Certainly it can be justified for preserving life and health, in most cases. Just beware of that slippery slope.
Sorry this took me so long. A couple days of focusing elsewhere and somehow this just fell off my radar.
First paragraph: nice! Good! I'm often worried when I find something that hilarious it wasn't meant to be, and that turns awkward... but I thought it was, so I figured I'd share. :)
Second: cool. That makes sense and is a reasonable association to make. Correlated question, then, is, "Are those tools evil?" (which you actually answer below.)
Third: I can see that now. Heaven knows I don't communiate clearly all the time (it's one of the many reasons I have a compulsion to spam my spell-like ability. :) I do disagree with your assessment of "just because they can", but continuing that line is probably not going to go anywhere productive. :)
Fourth and final paragraph: that's pretty much my point. What one person defines as "necessity" another defines as "convenience" and, while slippery slopes do exist and need to be cautiously avoided, it's a bit of a gray area in general (though not necessarily in any one person's view in specific). So on that we agree wholeheartedly.