After going through 8 levels dedicated to paladin yes. Succubus, as a quick example, however is CR 7. I don't think its a good excuse for compulsions to be make paladins fall. Its outside of the players power. I've seen GMs come up with all sorts of reasons to fall. Even me using infernal healing on a dying one in pfs. The GM even blamed me for it.
Thats not here or there though. This is about how evil Charm Person can be. I'm slightly bothered by the idea that it can be used as a dominate. I think its giving it more power than it really has, particualrly as a first level spell. As I said earlier people play out these skills and spells differently. Diplomacy, bluff, and charm person all mention that theres a chance that they just won't budge on it. No amount of magic short of dominate or possession is going to make them perform the act, and even then they get multiple saves, and its definitely not of their own will.
Lol, using it to make someone perform good acts? "Don't you think that would go well to charity, my dear?" Sounds entertaining, but it could be twisted to be pretty dark. The greatest evil convinces you to do things for the greater good. Thats the kind I've always played anyway, sure beats the Orphanage burners and baby eaters who carry cards that say "Hi, I'm Evil." but to each their own. I'd also like to point out your still could be something against their will. The ends don't justify the means moment. Could be a quick road to evil.
Thats not here or there though. This is about how evil Charm Person can be. I'm slightly bothered by the idea that it can be used as a dominate. I think its giving it more power than it really has, particualrly as a first level spell. As I said earlier people play out these skills and spells differently. Diplomacy, bluff, and charm person all mention that theres a chance that they just won't budge on it. No amount of magic short of dominate or possession is going to make them perform the act, and even then they get multiple saves, and its definitely not of their own will.
Doesn't really bother me all that much... there is a lot of precedent for higher level spells doing the SAME thing as a lower level spell... just BETTER (More HD,harder DC, Few/no saves)
Charm person says you can convince people to do things they wouldn't want to... by the time you hit higher levels... NOBODY is going to be failing those saves. the spell is useless. So they have Charm monster... then Dominate.... Each one is similiar in effect, but more effective for the caster, at the cost of a higher spell slot.
As for the OP? Yeah, I would consider this 'forced seduction' to be quite evil by nature. The purpose of your action is pure selfishness and thinking only of YOUR pleasure. No interest in what THEIR desire was...
The reason I'd say yes is because oppression is defined as evil.
Where in DnD/Pathfinder do you see oppression as being defined as evil?
Your contention that oppression=evil, and magical compulsions=oppression is indefensible from a game mechanic stand point, since if it were true all Mind Affecting spells would have the Evil descriptor too.
Lawful alignments are concerned with subjugating the individual to the collective (oppression), not necessarily Evil ones.
Tyranny is one of the words used for Lawful Evil. Taking away free will, choice, and freedom. Freedom is Chaotic Good, whimsy, absolute choice, and free will. The paladin variants in 3.5, and the Azata and Devils both represent this sort of thing if you want to look at outsiders and class examples, though devils are free to corrupt which is much more fun imo, and the way they act varies greatly. Definitions of alignment vary greatly between people though.
And I just want to make sure we remember charm person has the ability to say no. If you or your allies threaten or harm them, it ends on the spot. If you ask them to do something that will harm them or is suicidal, they'll stop. You just magically seem to say and do everything in just the right way to seem favorably. Its not mind control. What an npc(or dm) considers harm might vary greatly.
Charm person isn't "mind control" until you fail your opposed charisma check. Then it's totally mind control according to a large number of messageboard members.
Charm person isn't "mind control" until you fail your opposed charisma check. Then it's totally mind control according to a large number of messageboard members.
Yeah... I'm starting to wonder where the line is drawn. I'm starting to think I could convince someone to walk over a cliff "Don't worry, its only like 300 feet. That survivable! You trust me right? Giant eagles will save you." or just stab themselves. "Dont' worry man, swords don't hurt. I totally cast a spell on you". I don't trust my friends that much and I thought I was too trusting! Oh well, I've seen far worse in a game, and much simplier things used as mind control.
Oh mighty dragon and sin companion, if you disagree so heartily, would you bless us with your insights what charm person then is and how it exactly functions?
Charm person isn't "mind control" until you fail your opposed charisma check. Then it's totally mind control according to a large number of messageboard members.Yeah... I'm starting to wonder where the line is drawn. I'm starting to think I could convince someone to walk over a cliff "Don't worry, its only like 300 feet. That survivable! You trust me right? Giant eagles will save you." or just stab themselves. "Dont' worry man, swords don't hurt. I totally cast a spell on you". I don't trust my friends that much and I thought I was too trusting! Oh well, I've seen far worse in a game, and much simplier things used as mind control.
You are totally misunderstanding me Sin.
The argument presented repeatedly, vigorously and loudly on these message boards is that with charm person you can say "Hey, walk off that 1 mile high cliff. It will totally kill you. Do it anyway." Then when the charmed person refuses, you do an opposed charisma check, and if you win, the charmed person says "Walk off a mile high cliff and die? Sure. No problem."
(Actually, this example runs afoul of the "suicidal" clause. I'll stick to my "stab your mother in the face" example.)
Sin, Your example here is fine, my rebuttal is off base.
Oh mighty dragon and sin companion, if you disagree so heartily, would you bless us with your insights what charm person then is and how it exactly functions?
If you read my posts Ken, you would know that I have asked the developers, repeatedly, to answer this simple question:
"If I charm a person and tell them to stab their mother in the face, if I win the opposed charisma check, will they do it?"
It doesn't MATTER what my "insights" are, and I've already said (in several other threads) that "charm person" should be limited to influencing your target as if you were a trusted friend. No more, no less. "Here, this is awesome, you should take a drink!" No problem.
"Hey, stab your mother in the face." Not a chance.
Oh? The way I want it to be run you mean? My interpretation is that it makes you seem extra super nice and favorable, every word dripping in just the right tone and just the way you've always loved them and every lie you want to believe me as thought I were a trusted friend.
Mechanically, I'm friendly disposition and you want to believe me. However your not going to be gullible, nor attracted to me, nor do anything that could harm you. My interpretation of harm includes social stigma, time constraint, and any potential harm to friends, allies, or your own intentions.
So for instance, I could ask you to spend time with me tonight. However you had plans tonight, or you just don't like me that well and you tell me "Oh no, I'm sorry I'm just too busy. Another time maybe." or "Oh lets just be friends." or... "What? NO! Thats disgusting! I don't even like your species! Imagine what mother would say!"
I could certainly convince you to check the cave at the edge of town because it has treasure, but not if your sure it has dragons in it. If you thought maybe you could get away with it you might do it, but situations vary greatly. If you were a paladin and that was against the law, you'd tell me not to be so greedy and that you weren't willing to break the law for me.
Yeah I can see that people see it that way AD. I totally disagree with that because that is obviously suicidal and will totally harm you. The cliff thing, not your ideas.
So, here's a question. Suppose you are the target of a charm person spell and you have sworn a vow of chastity, but you get your pants charmed right off.
Have YOU committed an evil act?
If I was to judge it, no. No you hadn't. The alignment system requires will to function. It is about making choices. That's why you cannot have an alignment if you are mindless your <3 Intelligence, because you cannot make moral choices.
If you are made to do something due to magical influence overriding your mind then the choice is not yours to make. It would be no different than loosing your vow of chastity because you were physically forced into having sex, which means you didn't break your vow - they did - and thus you have upheld your vow. In much the same way an angel would not stop being Good even if compelled to do evil due to a planar binding spell forcing it to do things against its will.
The atonement spell is also an oddity to be certain. Paladins must willingly commit an evil act. There is nothing willing about being controlled by a spell. In fact, you're even given two rescue squads and a helicopter to get you out of that flood if your will is so firmly against it (two saving throws and a charisma check). IMHO, though I believe that charm person and the rest of the charm effects work as they say they do (and not be a steaming pile of crap at every level you find them at) I likewise would not require a Paladin to atone for such simply because the Paladin didn't break his rules (though it's worth noting that the Paladin may seek atonement out of guilt rather than requiring his powers be restored, similar to how Paladins periodically seek atonement merely for working with evil characters).
Where in DnD/Pathfinder do you see oppression as being defined as evil?
Your contention that oppression=evil, and magical compulsions=oppression is indefensible from a game mechanic stand point, since if it were true all Mind Affecting spells would have the Evil descriptor too.
Lawful alignments are concerned with subjugating the individual to the collective (oppression), not necessarily Evil ones.
You didn't try very hard. It's right in the core alignment rules. In fact, it is a defining trait of evil.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Anytime that you are HURTING, OPPRESSING, or KILLING then you are in keeping with the EVIL alignment. The idea that all mind-affecting spells would have the evil descriptor is about as asinine as the idea that all damaging spells would have the evil descriptor along with any spell that killed people or caused pain.
There is a difference between committing evil and the spell descriptors (which influence how spells interact with one-another and determines whether clerics can cast them if they manage to have them on their spell list).
Adventurers commit minor evils constantly. However, those evils are traditionally "justified" by also sharing aspects of goodness. For example, protecting lives is a Good trait. If a Paladin kills an orc with his sword (evil) out of altruistic desire to protect the innocent or his companions (good) then the Paladin is committing a neutral act (assumed since there are in fact no aligned acts defined in the game which means that RAW it is impossible for a Paladin to commit an "evil act" unless we interpret an evil act to be an action that in its whole is in keeping with the Evil alignment).
Wouldn't the "stab your mother in the face" command run afoul of the "a Charmed character fights his allies only if they threaten his new friend and even then uses the least lethal means" clause? At least, for the majority of people who hold positive feelings of attachment to their mothers (orcs, drow, etc need not apply).
Since it is unlikely your mother is a)present, b)a threat, and c)you could probably subdue her short of stabbing her in the face.
I note, this is given as a hard rule of Charms in the appendix, so I don't see that it would be subject to a Charisma check (at least not without more to it, like 'That thing that looks like your mom is really a doppelganger assasin, quick kill it. You know I am telling the truth.').
I know 3.5 is not Pathfinder, but here are some articles on adjudicating Charm, it presents a more limited view of what Charm does than many here are advocating.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050812a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050819a
Freedom isn't Chaotic Good.....its just Chaotic. Chaotic neutral is just as "free" as Chaotic good, just not benevolent to others, and Chaotic evil seeks the same freedom but wants to actively exercise that freedom to hurt others.
They do use the term "oppress" in in discussing evil. But look at Lawful Neutral, "believe in a order for all, and favor a strong, organized government." You don't have to be actively hostile to a people to oppress them. In fact, you can have benevolent ends and still be oppressive. Most curtailments of civil rights in the modern age are justified on keeping us safe from crime and terrorism. In other words, for our own good. And most politicians and a plurality of voters seem to honestly believe it is true that the sacrifice of freedom is worth it for the additional safety.
If a Paladin kills an orc with his sword (evil) out of altruistic desire to protect the innocent or his companions (good) then the Paladin is committing a neutral act (assumed since there are in fact no aligned acts defined in the game which means that RAW it is impossible for a Paladin to commit an "evil act" unless we interpret an evil act to be an action that in its whole is in keeping with the Evil alignment).
I don't know where you get this idea on how good actions and evil actions interact, but it is fundamentally against how a objective morality works....
First, killing the orc wouldn't be evil. According to the only work I know that explores the subject in detail, destroying evil creatures is Good. Saving innocents is Good. So his action is Good.
But if killing the orc was evil, it wouldn't matter why he did it, he would fall. If paladins could do evil to accomplish good, then the code would be worthless and we wouldn't need the atonement spell or Grey Guard prestige class.
Wait, are we about to get into a philosophical conversation about current day politics and what people want, the definition of freedom, and freedom vs safety in a thread about how evil it is to magically make someone like you on the bar scene? It must be late for me because I feel like I missed something.
About killing orcs... I've actually had a DM who would make a paladin or monk fall for killing orcs. Especially if they were secretly good orcs, they were using those poisoned blades in the dark alley to protect themselves! They just didn't speak common very well! Shedding blood is a thought only bad guys have!(he wasn't my dm for long)
Back to the beginning... Yeah, totally deplorable and selfish. I'd call that Evil. I'll argue it won't always work, but definitely on the evil side. You could probably be nicer about it, but its not exactly leaning towards good with the information given.
Mechanically, I'm friendly disposition and you want to believe me.
Actually that's incorrect. Nothing in the spell description says the target wants to believe you. This subverts their own thoughts and would be a compulsion. However, they take what you say in the most friendly manner possible. Even friends can be idiots. I have a few. I'm that person from time to time.
Now, Paizo's own use of the spell is very interesting. Spoilering this for anyone interested in playing Shattered Star as it gives a huge part of plot away for Curse of the Lady's Light.
The guardian of this room is one of Ashamintallu's charmed minions-a deathly pale man with long, bone-white hair woven into a long braid, dark eyes, and well-fitting and revealing clothes. This is Gnaeus Gnaru, a dhampir who was, until recently, "Sorshen's" champion. Gnaeus is a native of the city Pangolais in Nidal, but his work as a sellsword saw him traveling across Avistan as different jobs took him different places . Several months ago, he took a job as a bodyguard for a Korvosan wizard who had uncovered a map of the chambers below and within the Lady's Light, and wanted to loot the infamous ruin. The expedition went well, with the wizard's use of dimension door to enter the caves without interacting with the troglodytes or boggards at all, but soon after they reached the interior of the Lady's Light, things went bad as they were confronted by Ashamintallu herself, disguised as Sorshen. The wizard panicked and fled, and Ashamintallu swiftly charmed Gnaeus and sent him off to kill his previous employer. For many months thereafter, Gnaeus served "Sorshen" as a lover, guardian, and pet, always under the thrall of her enchantment magic. She forbade him from wearing his breastplate, telling him "it was a shame to cover up that incredible body." But when the Gray Maidens arrived, "Sorshen" cast Gnaeus aside in favor of a new plaything-Oriana. Now, Gnaeus has been all but discarded. He suspects his mistress commanded him to guard this room from further intruders as much to get him out of sight as anything else. He's still under the lingering influence of a charm monster spell, but this does nothing to blunt the jealousy and depression he's suffering at having been cast aside by the woman he has come to love. Madness has begun to eat away at him, and he's been spending a fair amount of time lately brooding over his fate.
For those that didn't read the spoiler, essentially what is represented is a way to use charm person that has someone go off to kill someone but doesn't describe how. It hand-waves that part. It's conceivable the person was charmed into thinking they were egregiously cheated, they were plotting to kill them first, etc. However, even in this case, they're essentially talking about a stranger. I would need some sort of proof of accusations about my own kin before I grab my gear. A good, forged note or some-such with a charm person? Now we're talking. Then again, I may just leave town. I'm not compelled so a specific action isn't forced. In the spoiler they're talking about a sellsword so they have a shaky morality anyway most likely. So, possible? Yes. How? Still unclear.
Oh I know it doesn't specify that they want to believe you. Thats just how I see friendly/helpful, particularly with charm person. Thats only a +5 to bluff, its a simple modifier. I'm sure someone else would eschew it, and other people would say it deserves more. If your my friend I want to believe you! Doesn't mean I will. We all do it from time to time. If you were to tell them something they didn't want to believe at all I'd probably not give them the +5.
I'm not sure what to think of that story really. Yeah, with a lot of detail I could see someone convinced to go mad or kill someone, but that would appear to be something that takes a lot more time and effort than a single opposed cha check. I know certain more vile characters would be pushed to do something they'd already want to do. Someone with deep mother issues might not have too many second thoughts, but thats going someplace dark and scary that we shouldn't have to in most situations.
Another example I've seen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*reads thread titles, considers it interesting and checks the posts*
*notices Paladins and allignments were mentioned*
*runs away as fast as possible*
Something that shuts down the 'all [compulsion] is evil idea...
Something fun under the Sarenrae entry.
The church is not averse to using spells like lesser geas and mark of justice to help guide malcontents toward goodness.
alsoin the same entry...
Clerics, paladins, and rangers may prepare lesser
geas as a 4th-level spell, but they can only use it to prevent
the target from performing illegal or immoral activities
Sooooo yeah, even LG characters can compel people with certain commands and in certain situations. It's the action you tell them to do... not the 'act of taking free will' that would be considered Evil.
There's a lot of interesting points here, I'm loving this thread.
Personally, I think charm person could use some official revision or clarification on it's limits, either way.
Perhaps there's other hints to it's power limits?
I'm trying to remember where else opposed charisma checks come into play, and all I can remember is that you can force an outsider to agree to your terms with an opposed CHA check during the planar binding process. Does this bear any relevance to the charm spell? I don't know. Any opinions on this? Can anyone think of another place it's used?
I'd suggest submitting it as an FAQ candidate, but I suspect the dev response would be that it is up to your GM. If there was a clarification, I suspect it couldn't be done in the normal few sentence answers of an FAQ and would need an essay. Speaking of FAQ's though, and sorry if someone else brought this up and I missed it...
A bit of searching found this: http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5ldw0?The-FAQ-That-Time-Forgot
This gives an example for charm person's opposed CHA check: convincing an orc to till a field. Now, the examples given illustrate pretty well when an opposed CHA check is required and not relative to that one character, but I don't think it really covers the limits of how much an opposed CHA check can make someone do.
An orc who doesn't feel like farming probably isn't nearly as opposed to farming as person stabbing his own mother in the face, to use AD's example.
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).
This section establishes an important limit on charm spells. To me, this indicates that most characters would not murder a friend at the will of a charm person spell, CHA check or no. Perhaps this is meant as an upper limit to the spell; violence reluctantly, but not willing to inflict fatal harm on friends or loved ones unless absolutely necessary? If this IS meant as an upper limit, it would prevent the mother stabbing scenario. This guideline leaves a lot unspecified when it comes to non-violent acts however, there's a LOT of shades of grey the charm person spell can cover, and every person has different moral values.
Unfortunately, there is no in game mechanics in place for establishing how much or how little someone wants to do something. A 1-5 scale of a characters desires or something would be very helpful for quantifying the limits of charm person, and also dominate person relative to each target. I have no idea how to go about establish anything like that, so this is a fairly useless suggestion.
Buri had an excellent point by bringing up uses of charm person in Paizo's AP's and modules. Theoretically, any uses of the spell published would be a sort of precedent for legal uses of the spell, right?
Any other examples?
Prey suppose that you may use charm person to make someone perform good acts? Less of an issue perhaps?
If nothing else its less of an issue because no third parties were harmed in the process.
I could see people being harmed. I certianly wouldn't have good feelings about being magically coerced into picking up litter...
Putting a murderer in jail is a form of coercion. Is it evil?
By the same token, forcing an anti paladin to NOT murder people is not in fact evil.
You've never seen the smile on a PC when they laugh at that man when they have control over him have you? Thats pretty sadistic. They think its hilarious, but when you view it from another angle it gets pretty dark. Going to Jail and being mind controled are 2 very different things I think.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly the same situation as having sex with someone who is drunk (not "has had a drink" but "drunk"). You may still have free will, but your judgment is impaired. If you do not have a full understanding of what you are consenting to, you cannot give consent. Using Charm Person in order to get someone to sleep with you is like getting someone drunk in the knowledge that they won't sleep with you sober - it's saying "No means give me another beer."
If you say that Charm + Charisma Check = Dominate then it quickly goes into "roofies" territory, but even if you assume that a Charmed person will never do something against their nature (kill a loved one, violate a vow of celibacy) it's still evil to use it for seduction.
Most people don't sleep with their friends, so charming them wouldn't be enough to make someone who wasn't already interested in you go to bed with you.
People also don't sleep with anyone who they are sexually interested in. There are plenty of celebrities I think are extremely attractive but would not sleep with, partly because they are strangers to me. It's called being "necessary but not sufficient."
I'm going to use the phrase "morally wrong" here instead of "evil" because "evil" has some pretty strong connotations, but I want to be clear that when I say "morally wrong" I mean "at least a little evil" not "nongood" or "chaotic."
Roger, a business owner, wants to hire a web designer who has experience in graphic design and computer programming. Martha is a computer programmer looking for a job and she lies about having graphic design experience in order to get the job. Martha has done something morally wrong. She cannot defend herself by saying "but I never would have been hired if I hadn't had programming experience!" The graphic design experience wasn't sufficient, but it was necessary. Roger wouldn't have hired Martha if he knew she didn't have the right experience.
Roger will only sleep with people who he is sexually attracted to and who aren't in another relationship (Roger isn't a homewrecker). Martha, a married woman, lies to him and says she isn't in a relationship, and sleeps with him. She has done something morally wrong. She can't defend herself by saying "but he wouldn't have done it if he wasn't interested in sleeping with me." Being single wasn't sufficient to seduce Roger, but it was necessary. Roger wouldn't have slept with Martha if he knew she wasn't single.
Roger will only sleep with people who he is sexually attracted to and who he personally likes and considers good friends (he thinks trust is important in a sexual experience). Martha uses a Charm Person spell to make Roger think that the two of them are good friends, and sleeps with him. She has done something morally wrong. It's not enough to say "But Roger doesn't sleep with all of his friends, he must be sexually interested in me." Being Roger's friend wasn't sufficient to seduce him, but it was necessary. Roger wouldn't have slept with Martha if he hadn't considered her a friend.
I'd like to point out something for those who insist charm is a steaming pile (and by that I mean functions like diplomacy) and doesn't grant a measure of control over your thrall.
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.
Minion.
|
Well, since I've seen dozens of posts on these boards claiming that "charm person" can make you murder your mother if you fail a charisma check, I'd say date rape isn't out of the question.
"Creative" reading of spell power combined with "narrow" reading of spell limitation seems to be a leading cause of facepalm on the messageboard.
|
|
I'd like to point out something for those who insist charm is a steaming pile (and by that I mean functions like diplomacy) and doesn't grant a measure of control over your thrall.
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.Minion.
not absolute or mindless
4 words > 1 word
Jinx, you owe me a coke!
I'd like to point out something for those who insist charm is a steaming pile (and by that I mean functions like diplomacy) and doesn't grant a measure of control over your thrall.
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.Minion.
I dunno, Ashiel.
I'd say charm turns the creature into a really passionate fanboy of the caster, but not a mindless servant, otherwise, why even bother making Charm a different effect from Compulsion?
I don't think you can convince a mother to drown her baby, but you can convince her that burning her husband's spell books is a great idea, as it will give him more time to spend with his family.
The spell does say that if tell the victim to fight its friends, she'll do it using the least damaging way possible, so I assume the victim does believe that there's a good enough reason to fight her friends, but she won't blindly do whatever you say.
Maybe, by RAW, you can use charm to force people to do stuff they'd absolutely never do (like a loving mother drowning her baby), but I believe that's not the intended effect.
One should probably also look at how charm compares with other spells -- it's a first level spell, at lest the humanoid version. It's not suggestion (third level) or dominate (5th level) and shouldn't be interpreted in such a way as to make those spells redundant.
I humbly proffer my guide to effective charming.
"Creative" reading of spell power combined with "narrow" reading of spell limitation seems to be a leading cause of facepalm on the messageboard.
I'm facepalming right now in fact.
I dunno, Ashiel.
I'd say charm turns the creature into a really passionate fanboy of the caster, but not a mindless servant, otherwise, why even bother making Charm a different effect from Compulsion?
I agree. I don't think it makes them a mindless servant either. There is a really huge difference between being able to force them into something with a successful check and being a mindless servant. Dominate does that and does it quite well (they even become very robot-like). Charm doesn't give you absolute control by any means. Charm makes them your friend which is where you may leave it.
However, charm has a secondary effect of allowing you to issue orders. The subject may resist the order with a Charisma check. Quite literally a charmed individual can test to ignore you literally each time you try to issue an order it doesn't like and if it succeeds you can't issue the same order again. As a raw Charisma check it's also very difficult to push it into auto-succeed territory (even with a Charisma 30 / Charisma 1 there's still the possibility that the minion will resist the order).
I use the example of the succubus because it is an example of the worst that you could do with it. One of the most vile examples of how far you could conceivably go with it in the hands of a truly wicked creature with an obscenely high Charisma modifier against a creature that is both weak willed, unprotected, and with a mediocre Charisma score. It shows how wicked and devious mind-control can be, especially when there is no sign that it's even happening (as in the case of SLAs).
It's worked pretty much this way since 3.x as well. Except that you'll notice that in 3.x the protection from (alignment) spells all protected against charm person. Each spell worked against effects like charm person regardless of alignment. However, Paizo nerfed all the protection spells which means that you absolutely must have the perfect counter prepared/known and you cannot counter Neutral.
Compare the two...
Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature. Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast. This second effect works regardless of alignment.
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target. This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target.
Both note charm person as an effect that possess or exercise mental control over the creature, but the Pathfinder version merely grants an additional saving throw to suppress it and doesn't work against all alignments anymore. So charm person had a counter at its own level. IMHO, I'd have kept it as the 3.5 version but made it less effective against spells that were a higher level (similar to light/darkness spells).
But enough of that, back to my previous point before I get tangential. My point is that you can exercise control over someone and make them do things they would never have wanted to do normally. This is expected. I mean, reading the spell it even takes this into consideration and if you are ordered to do stab your mother in the face then you not only get a Charisma to resist it but you get a whole new saving throw to end the spell effect all together. The shock of that order can break the spell unless it's very strong relative to you. Why else would this clause exist if not for these sorts of purposes?
In my opinion it works very similar to the scene in Episode III where Anakin has Dooku at his mercy and Darth Sidious tells him to kill him. Anakin isn't into it and then you hear Darth Sidious speak in his dark-sided voice and orders him "Do it". Execution follows. It goes against everything Anakin has been training for, he could be punished if found out, and so forth, and yet he just did it. He even showed remorse afterwards and said that he shouldn't have done that, but Sidious passed it off as his own need for revenge.
You get two rescue squads and a helicopter before you get washed away with the charm waves. There is a reason for that, and the +5 to your saving throw in combat. Charm effects are strong, and yet even with this understanding they are not as strong as most spells on their respective levels (they are a major go big or go home spell, easily resisted or negated, a huge number of foes have outright immunity to them, they are single-target except for the highest level versions, and they don't give absolute control which means that your minions may ignore what you say).
Dominate is another beast entirely. It's far less forgiving when it comes to what it can easily resist and doesn't get Charisma checks to ignore commands, and it quite literally can make you fight just as nasty-powerful as you can to hurt anyone. Dominate is terrifying. Charm is dangerous if used deviously but I don't see the problem here in terms of it being too powerful.
The alternative is actually just the opposite. It's too weak.
One should probably also look at how charm compares with other spells -- it's a first level spell, at lest the humanoid version. It's not suggestion (third level) or dominate (5th level) and shouldn't be interpreted in such a way as to make those spells redundant.
I humbly proffer my guide to effective charming.
You didn't make it 1 paragraph through your guide before lying to people and ignoring what the spell says it does. That's not very kosher y'know.
EDIT: Please don't misunderstand though. I think your guide is a good one. I'd recommend any enchanter who really wants to get the most mileage out of charm spells to also invest in social skills like Diplomacy. Charm make such skills very easy to succeed with and bring an attitude to Helpful which negates the need for most other checks you would have needed to make otherwise.
My issue with your guide comes in the first paragraph where you claim that charm person and its derivatives do nothing more than make your target friendly to you. If that were the case the spell would have no further description past its very first sentence. There are 156 words in the charm person spell effect description and 280 in the glossary that details their effects. Out of those, you only acknowledged 20 of them. That means you ignored 136 words in the description of charm person alone.
That seems like a bad way to start a guide about a spell.
|
|
And while we are at it, let us look at those words.
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming."
And of course, the recent FAQ.
"The spell makes the target your friend. It will treat you kindly (although maybe not your allies) and will generally help you as long as your interests align. This is mostly in the purview of the GM. "
To the OP:
Morally wrong; also, deeply sketchy.
I'm failing to see why your bold text is relevant. It is not contradictory to anything I've said, nor is it contradictory to the rules as they are written. It's very simple. They are not automatons and they do treat you as friendly. However, you may give them orders. Not requests. Orders. And they will carry out those orders unless they are obviously suicidal or those that are grievously harmful to him, as the rules note.
You cannot have a charmed character commit suicide, mutilate themselves, or have them knowingly run through a trapped hallway, or swim through acid to reach a button on the other side to raise the bridge across. Simple enough. It's not rocket science.
The catch is that they still must follow other types of orders within the limitations that are set forth. Specifically you can even have them turn on their former friends and/or allies, though they try to fight them in the most nonlethal ways possible. If you give them orders that they are obscenely opposed to then they get another save to shirk the entire spell.
Example
The party wizard casts charm person on the daughter of a local lord (such as a Jarl). The spell lasts days. Initially he asks the daughter to give them a little information about the Jarl and maybe makes a Diplomacy check and the party knows a bit more about the Jarl's business activities.
Later upon suspecting the Jarl to be up to some no goodness, the wizard tries to get the daughter to sneak into the Jarl's chambers and steal some of his personal financial documents to determine if he's really involved in the local hobgoblin raids and is intentionally failing to stop them due to them bribing him off with stolen loot. The daughter would not do this and no amount of Diplomacy would convince her otherwise, and so the wizard makes a forced Charisma test to get her to do it anyway. He succeeds and she steals the documents.
Later still, the party realizes that he is indeed involved in the local raids as their investigation suggested and the documents prove. However, bringing him to justice will be difficult. The party's rogue gets the idea to slip the Jarl and his guards some roofies during dinner to knock them all out so the party can move in and capture him without a big conflict. A risky endeavor as no one in the party would be allowed anywhere that they could poison the food from. So once again they decide to fall back to their charmed minion.
Except, the problem is, the daughter-minion would be violently opposed to poisoning her father and his guards and/or delivering her father into the hands of the law. So when the wizard gives the order this time she pops a new saving throw and makes it. Suddenly she shakes out of the charm person effect and regains her senses. From here she probably either panicks, freaks out, or perhaps sets a trap for the party by agreeing to poisoning the guards and then reporting to her father so that all the guards spring to life after a feigned poisoning.
Being able to issue orders like a mindless automaton would be like treating the charmed creature like a golem who obeys every command unquestioningly, without resistance, and without other motivations. Charm doesn't work like that in any of its forms (be it person, monster, mass-person, or mass-monster). It does offer a measure of control over the victim in addition to its adjusting their attitude, but being able to force an action if they fail a check and commanding a mindless automaton are two exceedingly different things.
Again, there are 156 words in charm person and even more in the glossary. Words that define how charm exceeds merely being friendly. If a player tried to tell me that having an NPC be "friendly" means that they will obey orders with a Charisma check and fight their friends and allies to protect them, I'd have to raise an eyebrow and give them the "O rly?" expression before simply telling them that friendly doesn't work like that. Charm does.
What is to misunderstand about you calling him a liar?
Oh, no, there's nothing to misunderstand about that. The part I don't want him to misunderstand is that just because he was caught in a lie that it somehow invalidates the rest of his guide. It doesn't (though it does make it more suspect, as I know I would be extremely hesitant to take the advice of someone who just lied to me in the opening sentence and was ignoring the vast majority of the spell that the guide is about).
But saying that all charm does is make you friendly is just a strait up lie. Anyone who reads the spell past the first 20 words of the 156 words can tell that it is a lie. Even if they cannot agree on what the spell does do, they can tell that it doesn't only make them friendly because it goes way deeper than that just in the spell text.
For what he had said to be true, the spell description must end after the first two sentences, like this:
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
However, the spell has in a separate paragraph material describing the additional effects of the spell and goes into specific detail about giving orders, resisting orders, self-preservation limits, and the charm specific rules in the glossary note additional saving throws if ordered to do something that the creature would be greatly opposed to.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
That's an awful lot to ignore and say doesn't exist in a guide that is supposedly about the spell in question, eh? I mean, when you tell me something that I can see is plainly false through casual observation of the subject matter, I'm going to know you're lying.
You make a good point, Ashiel, but I'm still not convinced. Let me try to explain why.
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
Note that the target doesn't get an extra saving throw with a +X bonus and/or another Charisma check. It never hurts itself for you.
Now, why is that "never" there? Why does a charmed creature absolutely refuses to do something, despite your control over it?
The most sensible answer is that putting one's self in harm's way for the benefit of the caster is "asking too much" from the target creature. It's something most sane people would adamantly refuse to do, even if the idea came from their bestest friend and/or personal hero.
Kinda like poisoning your parents or drowning your babies. It's too much to ask from someone, no matter how charming you are. Now, once you ask such things, the victim gets the extra saving throw/charisma check/whatever. If she rolls well enough, she breaks the spell, but if she fails to do so, she will refuse to do what you asked, but will take it in the best possible way ("Oh, he didn't mean to suggest that I poison my father, what he meant is that Dad would like if I used some extra spice on his food"), and then she'd still see you as her bestest friend ever, despite the fact that you just seriously suggested her to kill her own father.
Of course, this might vary from person to person, an evil prince who sees the king as too old and weak to rule might not see killing his own father as such a bad thing, and might actually heed your advice.
I might be wrong by RAW, but I think that's how it was supposed to work. It makes sense to me, anyway. Charm is, IMHO, supposed to be a rather limited form of mind control.
I just can't see a 1st level bard convincing someone to kill its own family, but I do see said bard convincing saidsomeone to leave the front door open all night for the bard to come in whenever he wants (and then kill the target's family, but she didn't tell the victim that was her goal).
Charm makes the target see you as her best friend and put great weight to whatever nonsense you say. Compulsion turns the target into your puppet.
That's just my 2 cents, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, pretty much.
Like I said, I'm mostly coming at it from the viewpoint that charm isn't dominate, and isn't suggestion. Suggestion can get you to do crazy things, within limits. Dominate makes you do whatever the caster wants, and even then you get a save if its too alien to what you are. So no way should charm be as powerful as either of those spells.
The fundamental point of my guide, by the way, is that you don't win as a enchanter by winning the opposed charisma check. You win by managing things so you never have to make that check at all.
Charm certainly isn't as powerful as either of those spells. There's a save bonus when it's used in combat (+5), a charisma check needed to give orders, and an additional save when it's used to give an order the person is violently opposed to.
Suggestion and dominate give you one layer of protection without special abilities or magic items; your will save. Charm person gives you four. If it weren't powerful it would be quite possibly the worst spell in the game.
Also;
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.
This text would not need to exist if you couldn't attempt to give those orders. You can give commands (corroborated by both this text and the charm person text), which can be things the creature is violently opposed to. If you think they won't obey those commands anyway... why the save to not obey them?
You make a good point, Ashiel, but I'm still not convinced. Let me try to explain why.
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
Note that the target doesn't get an extra saving throw with a +X bonus and/or another Charisma check. It never hurts itself for you.Now, why is that "never" there? Why does a charmed creature absolutely refuses to do something, despite your control over it?
Personally my issue is with the 'might.' It KINDA nullifies the word 'NEVER'
If Never means NEVER... then how 'MIGHT' I 'CONVINCE' you to do something 'obviously harmful?'
The way I read it is the 'never' is attached to the generic order... and the 'might be convinced' is the Charisma check.
So no, I could never order you to kill a loved one... but I MAY be able to 'convince' you to....
How can you have a 'might' written after a 'never'?
My view is that "never" applies to things to thing you'd absolutely never do, even for the closest of friends. (such as killing yourself or your family), but the "might" is for something yhat you'd only do for your best friend ever.
e.g.: You can never convince the subject to jump inside a dragon's mouth, but you might convince it to explore the dragon's lair with you. Maybe even help you in your battle against the fire-breathing beast.
The way I see it he would never do something harmful, especially not put myself directly into a position that is dangerous(Murder is a good example of this...) and you have to convince me to do something I'm particularly against.
I'd also be against harming my friends. That directly harms me, my plans, and my relationship with them. Unless I'm someone who otherwise doesn't care about those things or see a problem in any of them.
And its easy put might before never. You just did it in that sentance, and so did I in that last one! In the charm person description they look like two seperate things. I can be opposed to farming your field, but if theres coin involved I might do it and I don't see any harm involved(well... unless you have like, man eating crops or something, but who can see that coming!)
What, having someone be your best friend ever isn't powerful enough? Charm is a great spell, even if your ability to make people do stuff is limited.
I can imagine charming a cook. Do I need him to kill anyone? No, but I really want his recipes for dumplings. He just refuses to give me them. Should never have dumped charisma. Oh well, cheap meals are good too.
What, having someone be your best friend ever isn't powerful enough? Charm is a great spell, even if your ability to make people do stuff is limited.
No, it isn't. It doesn't even actually make someone your best friend ever. it makes them friendly, not helpful. And that use for it is worthless unless your target is alone.
"Hey, that guy waggled his fingers and spoke some arcane incantations in the Loud Clear Voice indicative of spell casting, and then Jeremy started acting all weird. Get him!"
But regardless, what you or I think is powerful enough is irrelevant. It's clear in the text of charm person that "you can try to give the subject orders". Therefore, you can try to give the subject orders. Unless you're going to ignore that part of the spell, but this is the General Discussion forum, not Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew.
To be fair, it never says you succeed at convincing them to do whatever.
RAW only tell us that the Charisma check is necessary, but not that it's sufficient.
And we can always have fun with the definition of "harmful". One could say killing a friend is obviously harmful to one's self, as it will surely cause sadness, at the very least, and make you weaker, as you now have one less friend/ally than before.
So, yeah, I believe charm spells are in that limbo where things are not nearly as well defined as they pretend to be.
I don't think they're poorly defined. Being charmed means that you will turn on your friends/allies if they are trying to fight your charmer. That is something you would never do, right?
The glossary defines the charm effect pretty strongly. It notes that the harm being spoken of is to yourself. You can't charm someone into committing suicide, drinking poison, setting themselves on fire, whatever. You just can't. It will not happen. Everything, everyone, anything else is fair game.
Now the thing is we can argue semantics all day long. If I was charmed into harming my sister I'm harming her. I love her, I would miss her, I'd probably drop into a great depression, but in the literal sense of the word I am not harming myself by harming her.
Harm, to physically hurt or injure. In this case, it is impossible to make a charmed creature physically hurt or injure themselves. None of this emotional psychobabble semantical crap. If we went with that then the spell becomes a big steamy pile because I could distort the meaning until you literally could do NOTHING with it for virtually any action could conceivably cause some harm to the charmed character in some abstract way.