I've always thought the main difference is dominate actually turns them into an automotan. You strip them of their free will and even though they get a second save, there is no never with dominate. There is however with charm.
I've always thought the main difference is dominate actually turns them into an automotan. You strip them of their free will and even though they get a second save, there is no never with dominate. There is however with charm.
There's some descriptive fluff in each spell that makes it seem as if there's significant differences between them, but the actual in game mechanical impact is virtually identical if you interpret charm that an opposed charisma check means the charmee will do anything except kill or seriously harm themselves. Because that's what dominate says too.
That's all that really matters. All the other stuff is just noise.
<Insert long arguement about how fluff matters that is entirely misinterpreted, fought over, and brought to extremes here>
Well now that thats over... Yeah I suppose if a cha- check can make them do anything then I suppose that is the only mechanical difference.
Don't get me wrong Sin, I like fluff, and fluff does actually matter in non-mechanical ways. There is definitely an in game flavor difference between:
"I smile and bat my eyes as I suggest to my charmed target that he lovingly put his sister to sleep with a long, slender blade"
and:
"With a crushing mental vise I force my dominated target to shove the jagged dagger into the heart of his confused and terrified sister."
But the sister is just as dead either way.
I just personally feel that level 1 charm should be much less powerful than level 5 dominate. I don't even have a problem with a fifth level "charm" spell that really, REALLY charms your target and can duplicate what a fifth level dominate spell can do.
I just think it's silly to argue that charm can do what people argue charm can do. But it's not their fault. It's just another case of seriously poor spell design.
|
Don't get me wrong Sin, I like fluff, and fluff does actually matter in non-mechanical ways. There is definitely an in game flavor difference between:
"I smile and bat my eyes as I suggest to my charmed target that he lovingly put his sister to sleep with a long, slender blade"
and:
"With a crushing mental vise I force my dominated target to shove the jagged dagger into the heart of his confused and terrified sister."
But the sister is just as dead either way.
I just personally feel that level 1 charm should be much less powerful than level 5 dominate. I don't even have a problem with a fifth level "charm" spell that really, REALLY charms your target and can duplicate what a fifth level dominate spell can do.
I just think it's silly to argue that charm can do what people argue charm can do. But it's not their fault. It's just another case of seriously poor spell design.
Or perfectly fine spell design in the hands of people looking for loopholes who play with permissive GMs.
I don't want each spell to take 15 pages to close all the possible loopholes.
I just play with people who aren't jackasses and GMs who know a two letter word that starts with "n" and ends with "o"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want each spell to take 15 pages to close all the possible loopholes.I just play with people who aren't jackasses and GMs who know a two letter word that starts with "n" and ends with "o"
Luckily I've spent 30+ years playing with that sort of GM and similar sorts of players ciretose.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING (not even the wonderful lemon cookies one player used to bring) makes me appreciate my player group more than reading these boards....
Thats a pretty mean way to put it I think. Sometimes people honestly misinterpret things, and it can be hard to change a person's mind.
Regardless, I'll try and use my way and talk when I feel like its wrong at the table. Compromise is a good chunk of the game sometimes, and its not really a deal breaker unless the situation gets out of hand.
|
|
Thats a pretty mean way to put it I think. Sometimes people honestly misinterpret things, and it can be hard to change a person's mind.
It is much easier to change the people at the table.
I quite often will disagree with a GM I play with over a given rule. And I'm sure when I run, they feel the same way. But we don't need to change each others minds because we are having fun and not being entitled jackasses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ug.. even when I am more or less in agreement with the point, I am starting to really, really dislike encountering the word "entitled...."
Yeah, thats a pretty nasty insult. Really groups unrelated people together and its hard to respond to.
Wasn't this about charmed being evil or not?
Yeah, thats a pretty nasty insult. Really groups unrelated people together and its hard to respond to.
Wasn't this about charmed being evil or not?
It was about whether it was evil to charm people to do certain things.
|
|
Yeah, thats a pretty nasty insult. Really groups unrelated people together and its hard to respond to.
Wasn't this about charmed being evil or not?
If someone cast a spell on you to make you like them, how would you feel after?
Exactly.
It isn't specifically an "evil" act in every context, but it sure ain't good.
|
|
Ug.. even when I am more or less in agreement with the point, I am starting to really, really dislike encountering the word "entitled...."
Because it means something. An entitled player (or GM) is someone who feels what they want is more important than making the group work best for everyone.
People don't like to be called out for acting this way, but the fact of the matter is that if you don't call them out and stop it, they are functionally treating everyone else like they are there to serve them.
The entitled person is the one causing the conflict. Identifying this isn't the cause of the conflict. It's the solution.
You give it your meaning, same as I do. I see it as hateful and I wonder why you use it. This is not something we need to talk about here though I don't think, which is why i'm trying to point us back to the whole charming thing...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Entitled" means something alright. It means the person using the term is being dismissive and condescending.
It just might also mean someone feels entitled, but not necessarily so.
|
|
You give it your meaning, same as I do. I see it as hateful and I wonder why you use it. This is not something we need to talk about here though I don't think, which is why i'm trying to point us back to the whole charming thing...
It is related.
If you charm someone in the game and don't expect that to have an effect on how that person views you and your group later when that charm wears off...
If you read more into the spell than is included...
This shouldn't be complicated in my opinion. You are messing with people's minds using magic, of course that is a dick thing to do.
But in the game you also kill lots of people, which is also a dick thing to do.
Context.
Or perfectly fine spell design in the hands of people looking for loopholes who play with permissive GMs.I don't want each spell to take 15 pages to close all the possible loopholes.
I just play with people who aren't jackasses and GMs who know a two letter word that starts with "n" and ends with "o"
Most of the time, I have an interpretation of a spell or rule and it just seems so bloody obvious to me, that I can't come close to understanding the 'other sides' opinion.
That is not the case here. This spell is very poorly worded. Half the arguments for it being powerful are based purely on the spell description, most of the arguements against are based on OTHER spell descriptions and trying to compare them.
Throwing out phrases like "This never happens, unless it might...' Is confusing.
If the designers intended Charm to be a mechanic the same as diplomacy, giving you no more than what you could have gained with diplomacy, then they should have USED that mechanic. However, leaving it out and making it a chr check is vague at best.
In fact, a spell description of "Target is instantly 'friendly' for purposes of diplomacy. Target gets a +5 to saving throw if in combat."
would REALLY have cleared up any confusion at all... AND taken less room
|
|
"Entitled" means something alright. It means the person using the term is being dismissive and condescending.
It just might also mean someone feels entitled, but not necessarily so.
The entitled person, by definition, isn't concerned about the feelings of those around them. They are dismissing the rest of the groups need in favor of their own.
So the only effective ways to get them to care enough to change the problem behavior is to make continuing that behavior uncomfortable for them, or to stop playing with them.
As a group, RPGers tend to have a larger than average number of social outcasts. Social outcasts tend to be a mix of very passive socially awkward people who are generally nice and who don't want to judge lest they be judged, and fear becoming the bully they were bullied by and jerks who are outcast because they are jerks.
If someone gets mad when they are called out for acting entitled, good.
Maybe they will be nicer to their passive friends and their passive group.
If the group isn't bothered, they aren't going to be getting called out, because they aren't doing anything wrong.
I'm on a messageboard, not having to play with any of them. If my opinion matter to them, it is probably because it rings true. If they are losing sleep over someone on the messageboard calling them "entitled" a nerve was probably struck for a reason.
I can assure you, I don't lose sleep over people on the internet.
|
|
Or perfectly fine spell design in the hands of people looking for loopholes who play with permissive GMs.I don't want each spell to take 15 pages to close all the possible loopholes.
I just play with people who aren't jackasses and GMs who know a two letter word that starts with "n" and ends with "o"
Most of the time, I have an interpretation of a spell or rule and it just seems so bloody obvious to me, that I can't come close to understanding the 'other sides' opinion.
That is not the case here. This spell is very poorly worded. Half the arguments for it being powerful are based purely on the spell description, most of the arguements against are based on OTHER spell descriptions and trying to compare them.
Throwing out phrases like "This never happens, unless it might...' Is confusing.
If the designers intended Charm to be a mechanic the same as diplomacy, giving you no more than what you could have gained with diplomacy, then they should have USED that mechanic. However, leaving it out and making it a chr check is vague at best.
In fact, a spell description of "Target is instantly 'friendly' for purposes of diplomacy. Target gets a +5 to saving throw if in combat."
would REALLY have cleared up any confusion at all... AND taken less room
I don't know that it would have cleared up any confusion, as the debate would then move to fighting over the diplomacy rules (another fight I've been involved in on here...) and still people would argue that friendly people would do X,Y and Z.
The spell makes the person think you are their friend. What that means is more or less as up to GM adjudication as any other NPC interaction in the game.
As it should be.
At a certain point, you cause more problems than you solve by overdoing a spell. Each GM is going to have to figure it out for each group.
What bothers me is when people complain something like this spell is broken, and you realize they broke it by interpreting it as ridiculously more powerful than the text specifies.
It makes someone think they are your friend. The GM knows what the NPC would and would not do for a friend. When they stop being charmed, they will probably be pissed you were messing with their mind, and messing with peoples mind is kind of a jerk thing to do even when magic isn't involve, so imagine how much more mad someone would be if you used magic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I need to stay off these boards when I'm bored, slightly inebriated and had a bad day. Because on those occasions I do things like the following:
The entitled person, by definition, isn't concerned about the feelings of those around them. They are dismissing the rest of the groups need in favor of their own.
An "entitled person", by definition, is a person with a title. In more colloquial usage, as done here, an "entitled person" is a person who thinks they are "entitled" to something. That something might be money, food, a place to live, a particular job or even a favor. Entitled people, by and large, have as much concern about people around them as anyone else does. They just think that since they are supposed to get something that everyone else should agree and be OK with it. What you are describing here ciretose is not a "feeling of entitlement", what you have described is sociopathy.
So the only effective ways to get them to care enough to change the problem behavior is to make continuing that behavior uncomfortable for them, or to stop playing with them.
The only effective way to get people with an inappropriate sense of entitlement to lose the sense of entitlement is to convince them that they are not entitled to what they think they are entitled to. Berating, insulting or otherwise "making them uncomfortable" doesn't do anything about their sense of entitlement, it just makes them feel like they are being attacked unfairly.
As a group, RPGers tend to have a larger than average number of social outcasts. Social outcasts tend to be a mix of very passive socially awkward people who are generally nice and who don't want to judge lest they be judged, and fear becoming the bully they were bullied by and jerks who are outcast because they are jerks.
This entire paragraph seems to be a complete non-sequitur. Not to mention a pretty severe case of stereotyping gamers in a very negative way.
If someone gets mad when they are called out for acting entitled, good.
Maybe they will be nicer to their passive friends and their passive group.
I have rarely seen the rhetorical tactic of making someone angry be successful in getting someone to change their mind or their behavior.
If the group isn't bothered, they aren't going to be getting called out, because they aren't doing anything wrong.
This is only true if people are never called out unfairly.
I'm on a messageboard, not having to play with any of them. If my opinion matter to them, it is probably because it rings true. If they are losing sleep over someone on the messageboard calling them "entitled" a nerve was probably struck for a reason.
I can assure you, I don't lose sleep over people on the internet.
Heh, I don't think many people do ciretose, which is precisely why people are so rude to each other when they are online.
Since Charm Person only makes some act as if you were good friends, I would not say it is an Evil act. 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.
Dominate Person/Monster, on the other hand, would be rape, and Evil.
The answer is simple, but still more complicated than most people would say.
Neither are inherently Evil. The bit you pay attention to is the effects on the subject afterward. Are they miserable? Are they messed up? Did you give this person a disease or an unintended child they must then raise?
Basically, to quote the Bible, "By their fruit ye shall know them."
Only the DM can determine this, because the DM will know how this person will take what happened. They could be permanently psychologically scarred, OR they might have enjoyed the sex (some people get turned on by domination), OR they might not have cared one way or another.
|
|
stuff
If you don't tell someone that what they are doing isn't ok, they aren't going to stop doing it.
If it is ok, it isn't a problem.
As to making someone angry, people don't change if they aren't motivated to change. If the entitled player is getting what they want, all the time why would they change?
Entitlement is learned behavior.
stuffIf you don't tell someone that what they are doing isn't ok, they aren't going to stop doing it.
If it is ok, it isn't a problem.
As to making someone angry, people don't change if they aren't motivated to change. If the entitled player is getting what they want, all the time why would they change?
Entitlement is learned behavior.
Because taking it upon yourself to decide and tell other people they are wrong solves problems. Always.
EDIT: Or to put it another way, sometimes people just don't believe that there is anything wrong with what they are doing and in many cases they are right.
|
|
stuffIf you don't tell someone that what they are doing isn't ok, they aren't going to stop doing it.
If it is ok, it isn't a problem.
As to making someone angry, people don't change if they aren't motivated to change. If the entitled player is getting what they want, all the time why would they change?
Entitlement is learned behavior.
Because taking it upon yourself to decide and tell other people they are wrong solves problems. Always.
EDIT: Or to put it another way, sometimes people just don't believe that there is anything wrong with what they are doing and in many cases they are right.
Unless they are doing things that effect other people.
Ironic you linked to the Westboro Baptist church. Thanks for a fine illustration of my point about some people being self important jackasses.
I assume your edit was not implying that you don't believe there is anything wrong with the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, correct?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Judging people is generally pretty bad. You're not going to make friends by attacking others for following the rules or disagreeing with you. These things should be discussed within the group. If the group wants to nerf (an unneeded nerf as an aside) charm effects then you should probably take some time to work that out and possibly lower the CR of creatures who revolve around such tactics (such as succubi) to match the changes appropriately.
But what I find very irritating is that when we're trying to have a real conversation here, you have to come in and call people entitled and saying that their group is full of GMs letting them look for loopholes and don't understand the word "no". It's highly offensive, especially when I'm one of those who has been discussing charm effects at length and advocating that it works as written.
For the record - not that you would care but so everyone else knows - I've been running games for a very long time and I've had to say no to players both veteran and newbie alike. My games are actually pretty darn mild in most cases, though I do a lot to communicate with my players and make sure everyone has a fair shake. There is nothing and no-one abusing or seeking to abuse anything that is in the game in my group and should a problem be found we talk together and patch it as needed. No worries.
So I really dislike with a great intensity my players and myself being lumped in with whomever these people are that you are talking about.
I assume your edit was not implying that you don't believe there is anything wrong with the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, correct?
Correct sir. I rather hate the Westboro Babtist Church. It's none of my business as to what they believe but the moment they come harassing other people for being different than what they believe is right is when they are seriously causing a problem.
It's this mindset that they must tell and condemn other people in an effort to make them change is what causes the majority of their problems with others. Because in their opinion they must tell other people to sate their sense of righteousness so that they will change. But what they are actually doing is ensuring everyone hates them and finds them psychotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they are doing things that effect other people.
Who are all these other people? What are these entitlements you speak of??
Honestly you seem to have jumped the rails here and are having an entirely different conversation than anyone else is here...
Disagreeing with the wording of a spell is in no way Player entitlement... Nor is it ruining anyone ELSES fun?!?! Unless your playing with a group where the players are charming each other and ordering them to stab their families...
There are a lot of threads bouncing around about entitlement... but not THIS one...
This thread is A) Does the spell work like XXXX and B) is that 'wrong'
|
|
You aren't generally trying to "Have a conversation". You are generally trying to advocate for some of the most liberal readings of rules possible, and attacking anyone who says your reading is too liberal.
You literally called someone a liar upthread for saying what is more or less the same thing the Developers said.
I don't care what you and your players do at your table. I do care when you say if someone says otherwise they are a liar. I do care when you act like your way is the way, and any reasonable GM would allow what I consider incredibly loose readings of rules be the norm, then condemn anyone who says otherwise as being cruel, uncreative, a liar, etc...
All things you and others I would classify as "entitled" players on here have done, regularly. And clearly it is causing problems in games outside of your table, because they keep coming here complaining about how mean their group is for not allowing them to do everything they want.
Forgetting that they aren't the only one at the table.
Most people on here take the more "go along to get along" approach, but I am not one who looks to Neville Chamberlain for guidance. I don't mind a few shots across the bow from other posters, my game works great.
And so does yours.
But one of us is out shopping "ideas" you can take to your table that will make most of us facepalm and drive most GMs crazy, and one of us is saying "Don't tell your GM or fellow players what the rules are, try to fit into the table unless you are planning on running yourself."
Which side do you think I believe each of us is on?
The crux of the problem with player entitlement isn't any one issue. It is the fact that a single player would be telling the rest of the group they are wrong, in actual real life games, rather than just typing on a messageboard.
No one, in any game, is entitled to more than the table norms. If you don't like the table norms, run your own table or find a new game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't generally trying to "Have a conversation". You are generally trying to advocate for some of the most liberal readings of rules possible, and attacking anyone who says your reading is too liberal.
I disagree.
You literally called someone a liar upthread for saying what is more or less the same thing the Developers said.
Well when you're lying. And I didn't call the person a liar I said they lied. Which is true. They ignored 136 words from charm person and almost the entirety of the general charm rules and said it didn't do anything other than making them friendly. Clearly a lie.
I don't care what you and your players do at your table. I do care when you say if someone says otherwise they are a liar. I do care when you act like your way is the way, and any reasonable GM would allow what I consider incredibly loose readings of rules be the norm, then condemn anyone who says otherwise as being cruel, uncreative, a liar, etc...
Clearly I don't view this as a loose reading of the rules. Entirely the opposite. Nor have I said anything about cruelty, creativity, or a liar (beyond calling out obvious lies which if that's not legit then I have no idea what is).
All things you and others I would classify as "entitled" players on here have done, regularly. And clearly it is causing problems in games outside of your table, because they keep coming here complaining about how mean their group is for not allowing them to do everything they want.
Example? I haven't seen anyone come on the boards and say "OMG, my group is not playing the game the way the rules say, and Ashiel said the rules say X so it's all Ashiel's fault".
Most people on here take the more "go along to get along" approach, but I am not one who looks to Neville Chamberlain for guidance. I don't mind a few shots across the bow from other posters, my game works great.
Er, what?
But one of us is out shopping "ideas" you can take to your table that will make most of us facepalm and drive most GMs crazy, and one of us is saying "Don't tell your GM or fellow players what the rules are, try to fit into the table unless you are planning on running yourself."
Factually false.
Which side do you think I believe each of us is on?
Probably you on one and I on the other. Which is a mistake.
The crux of the problem with player entitlement isn't any one issue. It is the fact that a single player would be telling the rest of the group they are wrong, in actual real life games, rather than just typing on a messageboard.
If they are wrong then they are wrong. Every person in a group has a voice and that is why discussion is necessary. If the group has been incorrectly using falling damage (such as using the 3.5 method of falling damage {which I didn't mind actually} and thus someone pointing out the actual rules) then they should probably consider revising their expectations or officially make a house rule if everyone is cool with it.
No one, in any game, is entitled to more than the table norms. If you don't like the table norms, run your own table or find a new game.
Which has 0% to do with anything being said here in this thread.
On a more topic related note:
saying what is more or less the same thing the Developers said
Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness. Tilling a field might really depend on the creature (I dont think Orcs care much for farming), but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Kind of indicates that not only does it work pretty much as I said, but that the alternative would be the charmed individual possibly committing suicide if having to choose between following the order or murdering your wife, which is probably more extreme than even I had suggested.
I'm actually interested in talking about charm and its uses, but we've devolved into this tangential conversation about what charm is capable of so that we can come to a conclusion and discuss its merits in accordance to alignment. I'm pretty much on boat that using mind-control to make people have or preform sexual acts with you is pretty much grade A evil (it's oppression, it's selfish, it's likely to cause the suffering of someone else, etc).
I believe charm can be used in good ways or at least responsibly. Just as a Hero can use a sword to do good or evil (though swords by their nature are instruments of killing, which means they are more innately aligned with evil motivations than good). Charm could be used to make real friends from enemies (or allowing opportunities for you to use Diplomacy when normally Diplomacy wouldn't be possible), or it could be used to make the maid poison the master's food, or make someone give you their wallet.
It's all in how you use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play charm as if an old high school friend suddenly showed up out of the blue and asked me to do something.
I'd do a lot for an old high school friend. But I'm not going to moon a cop for one.
And that's more or less how I adjudicate "charm person" in the game.
|
|
@Ashiel - I love how you call someone a liar for ignoring text, then post
"Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness. Tilling a field might really depend on the creature (I dont think Orcs care much for farming), but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing"
But bold only sections, ignoring the parts that completely refute your argument.
So I fixed it for you. You are welcome.
To sum up, they are made a friend. What that means is up to the GM, but they are not your puppet.
|
|
I play charm as if an old high school friend suddenly showed up out of the blue and asked me to do something.
I'd do a lot for an old high school friend. But I'm not going to moon a cop for one.
And that's more or less how I adjudicate "charm person" in the game.
And more importantly, that appears to be what the Developers are saying the intent was. To make the person think they are your friend.
As to evil or not evil, you are casting a spell on someone that makes them act in a way they wouldn't otherwise. Kind of a jerk move, and unless something transpires otherwise they are probably not going to be too happy about being "charmed" when it wears off.
Evilness thereof would depend on the use made of it. "Hey, I'm your friend, forget about jumping off the cliff and let's go party." Is probably justifiable. Using it as a roofie, no.
But it's definitely one of those things where it's very easy to do evil, and you have to watch yourself very carefully if you're using it. Things that interfere with free will are like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel - I love how you call someone a liar for ignoring text, then post
"Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness. Tilling a field might really depend on the creature (I dont think Orcs care much for farming), but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing"But bold only sections, ignoring the parts that completely refute your argument.
Are...are you seriously serious here? I bolded the part that was relevant AND SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED NOTED THE PART THAT WASN'T BOLDED. Did you miss that?
Kind of indicates that not only does it work pretty much as I said, but that the alternative would be the charmed individual possibly committing suicide if having to choose between following the order or murdering your wife, which is probably more extreme than even I had suggested.
Bolding to draw attention. I didn't edit the damn thing out. Nor does anything above conflict with my stance so pay attention. I specifically said, repeatedly that they would get a check to resist, a saving throw to break the spell, and then would probably feel excessive regret and/or depression.
So I fixed it for you. You are welcome.
Um...you didn't do anything other than not pay attention. Are you arguing just to argue now? I mean, what you posted has 0% conflict with what I've been saying through the whole damn thread.
To sum up, they are made a friend. What that means is up to the GM, but they are not your puppet.
Because clearly I would commit suicide if my good friend told me to stab my significant other. Yes, that makes tons of sense. I mean, it happens every day right? Like, somebody says "Dude, your mom is a b~*@@, you should push her off a bridge", and then someone commits suicide immediately because they had to suddenly choose between murdering their mother or not living and chose not living instead.
Yeaaaaah...that makes 110% of awesome normal not psychologically unbalanced sense. Yes sir! I mean that's definitely what I'd call "friendly". God help you if you meet someone that's "helpful" right?
Out of curiousity, why would someone kill themselves instead of the caster when convinced to slay their friend? I just find that a quicker solution myself. Don't suppose anyone has a thought about that.
|
|
@Ashiel - You are the one making the argument that charm person makes you able to get someone to stab their significant other.
I am the one saying that is ridiculous.
Did you forget which side of the argument you were on?
He isn't saying "the" alternative is suicide. He is saying the creature might commit suicide before doing something so ridiculous, even if you win an opposed charisma check.
Because the creature isn't a puppet, isn't an automaton, he is just someone who is in all ways as they were EXCEPT they now think that you are their friend.
That is what the spell does.
|
|
Out of curiousity, why would someone kill themselves instead of the caster when convinced to slay their friend? I just find that a quicker solution myself. Don't suppose anyone has a thought about that.
They wouldn't. He is saying that if you tell them to do something like that, even if you win the opposed charisma check the player isn't a puppet and might kill themselves before following such a request, even from their best friend.
Out of curiousity, why would someone kill themselves instead of the caster when convinced to slay their friend? I just find that a quicker solution myself. Don't suppose anyone has a thought about that.They wouldn't. He is saying that if you tell them to do something like that, even if you win the opposed charisma check the player isn't a puppet and might kill themselves before following such a request, even from their best friend.
Oh! I read it as the person being convinced might kill themselves like... as a reaction, becuase they were going to but decided to kill themselves instead. You can imagine my face when I read it. It was... one of horror.
|
|
Oh! I read it as the person being convinced might kill themselves like... as a reaction, becuase they were going to but decided to kill themselves instead. You can imagine my face when I read it. It was... one of horror.Out of curiousity, why would someone kill themselves instead of the caster when convinced to slay their friend? I just find that a quicker solution myself. Don't suppose anyone has a thought about that.They wouldn't. He is saying that if you tell them to do something like that, even if you win the opposed charisma check the player isn't a puppet and might kill themselves before following such a request, even from their best friend.
I think that is Ashiel's argument as to how it works. If it weren't something seen often, I too would have a look of horror, under the facepalm of course.
It seems very, very obvious to me that what is being said there, in specifying the suicide option specifically, is that the Charisma check will get you just about anything, but if you give the target an order so mind-bogglingly against their character they'd rather die than complete it, they might be able to manage to kill themselves instead of obeying that order, per the GM's call. Short of that, though, the CHA check takes it.
Indeed. Of course you even get another saving throw according to the general rules for being charmed. So if you fail the Charisma check AND fail the extra saving throw, it's crisis time. :P
It seems very, very obvious to me that what is being said there, in specifying the suicide option specifically, is that the Charisma check will get you just about anything, but if you give the target an order so mind-bogglingly against their character they'd rather die than complete it, they might be able to manage to kill themselves instead of obeying that order, per the GM's call. Short of that, though, the CHA check takes it.Indeed. Of course you even get another saving throw according to the general rules for being charmed. So if you fail the Charisma check AND fail the extra saving throw, it's crisis time. :P
Well if thats the case why not just kill the caster? "How dare you even suggest such a thing! This is all your fault!"
|
|
They wouldn't. He is saying that if you tell them to do something like that, even if you win the opposed charisma check the player isn't a puppet and might kill themselves before following such a request, even from their best friend.This makes no sense at all to me. I can't even begin to see how the quote could be read that way. Why on earth would the target kill themselves instead of following the order you gave them if (instead of killing themselves) they actually had the option to simply say "dude, no. just... no" or try to kill the caster instead? (Pulling off the latter of which, incidentally, would also necessitate an auto-break of the charm even on the successful check.)
It seems very, very obvious to me that what is being said there, in specifying the suicide option specifically, is that the Charisma check will get you just about anything, but if you give the target an order so mind-bogglingly against their character they'd rather die than complete it, they might be able to manage to kill themselves instead of obeying that order, per the GM's call. Short of that, though, the CHA check takes it.
No. We know what the point of the post is. How?
"Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness."
Is the point. How do we know? Because he literally says "the point here is."
What he is saying is the creature may more likely kill themselves than be convinced by any means to kill their loved ones. Because they aren't puppets.
Let me try this another way. Why are you looking for the spell to be more than what it is described as, specifically making someone believe they are your friend?
Short of the developer showing up at your house and saying "Dude, it makes the person your friend. It's the GM's call what that means about what they will and won't be willing to do for a friend." I don't know how much clearer they could have made it.
|
|
Well if thats the case why not just kill the caster? "How dare you even suggest such a thing! This is all your fault!"It seems very, very obvious to me that what is being said there, in specifying the suicide option specifically, is that the Charisma check will get you just about anything, but if you give the target an order so mind-bogglingly against their character they'd rather die than complete it, they might be able to manage to kill themselves instead of obeying that order, per the GM's call. Short of that, though, the CHA check takes it.Indeed. Of course you even get another saving throw according to the general rules for being charmed. So if you fail the Charisma check AND fail the extra saving throw, it's crisis time. :P
Because you think the caster is a trusted friend. That actually is something the spell does.
The scenario could go Cast charm, make a ridiculously high charima check with all sorts of difficulty modifiers to convince your friend that their wife is a demon, guy kills himself rather than believe you or kill his wife, because he loves his wife that much.
Hey, if my wife is fair game so is my best friend. Thats the way I see it anyway. Then again I probably shouldn't describe what I mostly see as a bunch of crazy.
|
Man everyone utterly failed to charm each other in this thread.
I think the OP's question was addressed many times over and the answer seems unanimous: yes, of course using magical coercion of any kind to get someone to sleep with you is an evil act. Whoever think this is a gray area should please stay away from college or bars or anywhere that intoxication or vulnerability is likely to occur.
As for the argument between Ashiel and everyone else: Charm isn't a compulsion effect. It makes them receive your words in the most favorable way. Sure those words could be orders. Anyone can give orders to anyone at any time - but since charm isn't a compulsion effect the target isn't obliged to follow those orders. They receive your words in the most favorable way. GM's will (and obviously do) interpret that differently. I'd say it gives pretty wide latitude. You probably can convince someone to do things greatly out of character including taking serious risks and even intervening physically to protect you. But it has to be roleplayed out and will vary considerably group to group and situation to situation exactly to what extent you can push the charm. I for one am glad for once to have a spell that is fundamentally an opportunity for roleplaying rather than another combat mechanic.
As always the YMMV disclaimer sits over this discussion. If Ashiel has fun interpreting Charm the way she does, so be it. But we all might try using a little more mundane diplomacy in this thread.