Certainly they do. They can do whatever they want, in whatever manner they want, they just treat the caster as if they had the disposition of Friendly towards them
In addition, when the caster attempts to give them an order, and they fail to resist that order, they must carry it out. They can carry out the order in whatever manner they want, and they are not in any other way limited. They have free will; it's just restricted in a few aspects.
With your Charisma modifiers.So the charmed person has no free will then?
They do, but if you pass the check they're view of the world is skewed and you've convinced them to do what you say. They'll still act like themselves for the most part, just attempt to take out that order.
Yet with a failed cha check they have NO CHOICE but to obey.....Not dealing with the "Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world." part?
I mean, you quoted most of the rest of the section, I thought you felt what is included there would be relevant.
Or is it only the parts that don't contradict your argument?
Well, Jason said if they failed the check they can kill themselves instead... so they do have a choice.
|
Well, Jason said if they failed the check they can kill themselves instead... so they do have a choice.Yet with a failed cha check they have NO CHOICE but to obey.....Not dealing with the "Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world." part?
I mean, you quoted most of the rest of the section, I thought you felt what is included there would be relevant.
Or is it only the parts that don't contradict your argument?
Yeah because forcing someone to violate who they are to the core or commit suicide isn't evil at all
Also that is NO WHERE in the wording of the spell in any errata
|
|
Yet with a failed cha check they have NO CHOICE but to obey.....Not dealing with the "Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world." part?
I mean, you quoted most of the rest of the section, I thought you felt what is included there would be relevant.
Or is it only the parts that don't contradict your argument?
Really. Because that is the opposite of what that says. And what "not a puppet" means.
Funny that.
Yet the wording of the spell says they are forced to do it. actually implies they are forced to want to do it. Worse than rape, you are forced to WANT it
They're not forced to do it. For better or worse though you have persuaded them to do it. How they respond to this realization is up to them.
|
It's DM call so I don't know why the argument is still going on. A DM would decide what is against someone's nature and decide from there.
Nobody has a 100% RAW answer to how it works so just let it go.
We have now stepped into the "is homebrew" bad territory and we all know there is no wrong answer.
Call it how you want in your games.
|
Certainly they do. They can do whatever they want, in whatever manner they want, they just treat the caster as if they had the disposition of Friendly towards them
In addition, when the caster attempts to give them an order, and they fail to resist that order, they must carry it out. They can carry out the order in whatever manner they want, and they are not in any other way limited. They have free will; it's just restricted in a few aspects.
If they must carry out the order, by definition they don't have free will.
|
|
Well, Jason said if they failed the check they can kill themselves instead... so they do have a choice.Yet with a failed cha check they have NO CHOICE but to obey.....Not dealing with the "Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world." part?
I mean, you quoted most of the rest of the section, I thought you felt what is included there would be relevant.
Or is it only the parts that don't contradict your argument?
Jason said that was one option they may choose rather than follow an order, even with a successful charisma check. He also said in the very same sentence that they aren't puppets, which several of you seem to be conveniently not mentioning.
And all of this following the actual example he provided of needing a charisma check to get them to till a field. Then when pressed on a specific question of if it was possible to make them kill a loved one, he responded that they might kill themselves rather than follow that order, as they are not puppets.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
They're not forced to do it. For better or worse though you have persuaded them to do it. How they respond to this realization is up to them.
You have persuaded them they "should" do it.
Again, this is the important distinction between compulsion and charm.
If people want to set up another FAQ about modifiers, I would click it, as it is absurd to me that "Till the field" and "Kill your children" take the same roll.
Ciretose, the free will argument doesn´t really apply here.
Compulsion would just override their will and they get one save, if they fail they are vegetables.
Charm let´s them have their will, you just influence them. They have an initial save, for most orders and biddings you need a CHA check and if something is completely out of their way, they get another will save to break free. On top of that they get +5 if you and/or your allies are hostile.
That´s 3 chances with possible +5 vs 1 chance and a much lower DC.
For +5 it´s enough if the barbarian as much as growls or someone draws a sword. Then for your DC to work you need to specialize, we all know that and it´s consequences.
Outside of combat it´s really difficult to cast charm because of how spells and magic work. I´m pretty sure you and others know that too.
No one here says charm is like domination, it´s only similar. It also doesn´t work on a lot of creatures except for one sorcerer blooldline and either a rod, another bloodline or a 2 feat investment which you can`t use on other stuff and gimps you.
If you want to make a real argument that charm does not work this way, it would be much better to come up with a way how charm else works. Especially for the diplomacy thing and outside of combat. Because i and many others can´t see a way there.
Also what´s this "should" thing in game terms? % dice rolled? 50% chance? There is no such language in the descriptions. In any scenario or AP you have character descriptions and can decide based on them what´s out of their way. Else NPC´s and monsters are your characters and you know what´s out of their way, but you should be fair.
What i mean with the free will argmuent is that it is a language and philosophical trap here. The words may be different, but the game mechanics behind it are the same or similar as with domination, although charm is not domination, as pointed out above. The difference of being compelled or convinced to do something by magic is more a fluff one, you fail your save(s) you do it. The fact that someone used magic on you is normally already something hostile, if you retain a portion of your will or not is just depending on how powerful that magic is. That is also why you can´t really use charm outside of combat often, because charmed creatures are gonna be hostile later. For an out of combat application that solves those problems look at Hypnotism
Edit: Like Buri points out beyond i´m mistaken on dominate, but there is still a big difference.
Compulsion would just override their will and they get one save, if they fail they are vegetables.
Actually they would get two. Even dominate let's you save again, with a +2 even, if something is against your nature. However, dominate explicitly stops the dominated individual from doing anything else other than their given command while charm does not have this wording.
It looks like JJ's response has made unclear ambiguity clear ambiguity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like JJ's response has made unclear ambiguity clear ambiguity.
Which is exactly what he intended it to do.
And this thread is the direct result of it.
Ultimate Campaign addresses this, I guess. T-minus 35 days...
Ciretose, the free will argument doesn´t really apply here.Why would it not apply?
If you read my whole post above you find the answer to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like JJ's response has made unclear ambiguity clear ambiguity.Which is exactly what he intended it to do.
And this thread is the direct result of it.
Also people's confusion or unwillingness to allow the spell to be what it is rather than what it is not.
|
|
If you read my whole post above you find the answer to that.Ciretose, the free will argument doesn´t really apply here.Why would it not apply?
I don't think your answer addresses the issue.
You have two types of spells, one (charm) where the person retains free will (able to act as they wish) but are under incorrect beliefs of how the world operates because of the spell (believe the caster is a "trusted friend") and one where the person loses free will (compulsion).
Your description basically says they don't have free will, that the charm is a compulsion for all intents and purposes. That isn't what is described. In all examples, including JB's much cited example, the charmed person is not a puppet and retains free will.
What I think JB was trying to say is not that the only option to resist is to kill yourself, but rather that even if you were able to somehow convince someone that killing a loved one was the "right" or "only" thing to do, even then then might still not do it, because they aren't a puppet.
On the other hand, under a compulsion, they would have to do it, as long as the compulsion held, regardless.
Philosophically that is a nice discussion.
But in game terms it becomes really stupid.
I don´t say that someone under a charm spell had to kill himself to resist something, that is surely nonsense.
If you are charmed and told to kill a loved one, you get a second will save to break free with a +5, because it´s threatening you and your allies. If you don´t make that save, you start to believe that killing that person is the right kind of action. After the spell wears off, that believe might change again.
If you take that away, charm becomes utterly use- and senseless.
And you really failed so far with coming up on other suggestions or ways it could function and still be of gaming value and make sense in the game.
You just keep on telling that what a lot of others say is wrong, but never present alternatives.
That´s kind of unsatisfying.
Philosophically that is a nice discussion.
But in game terms it becomes really stupid.I don´t say that someone under a charm spell had to kill himself to resist something, that is surely nonsense.
If you are charmed and told to kill a loved one, you get a second will save to break free with a +5, because it´s threatening you and your allies. If you don´t make that save, you start to believe that killing that person is the right kind of action. After the spell wears off, that believe might change again.
If you take that away, charm becomes utterly use- and senseless.
And you really failed so far with coming up on other suggestions or ways it could function and still be of gaming value and make sense in the game.
You just keep on telling that what a lot of others say is wrong, but never present alternatives.
That´s kind of unsatisfying.
Its USELESS if you can't order people to do things against their nature by dint of an unmodified opposed charisma check? Really???
What's with the "really" appendage to a lot of questions I've seen lately? Is simply asking the question itself insufficient?
And for that matter, being someone's close friend is really really handy, if you know how to use it.
What's with the "really" appendage to a lot of questions I've seen lately? Is simply asking the question itself insufficient?
Really?
|
|
If you take that away, charm becomes utterly use- and senseless.
1. It is a first level spell.
2. Being able to turn an enemy into an ally is useless and senseless to you?Let me say that again. The spell turns an enemy into an ally.
How is that not of gaming value? Particularly as, again, a first level spell.
1. It is a first level spell.
2. Being able to turn an enemy into an ally is useless and senseless to you?Let me say that again. The spell turns an enemy into an ally.
How is that not of gaming value? Particularly as, again, a first level spell.
1) So is color spray.
Oh, and sleep. Sleep is a 1st level spell also as is true strike, summon monster I and so on. First level spells can and are very powerful with a given situation.
If you take that away, charm becomes utterly use- and senseless.1. It is a first level spell.
2. Being able to turn an enemy into an ally is useless and senseless to you?Let me say that again. The spell turns an enemy into an ally.
How is that not of gaming value? Particularly as, again, a first level spell.
So what does this ally then do? Especially in combat situations?
|
So what does this ally then do? Especially in combat situations?
Outside combat - anything and everything a good friend would do. Help you make contacts, find information, offer you hospitality, even costly assistance, like lending you their expertise (profession/craft/knowledge) free of cost etc... TONS of uses that don't include abridging their free will in anyway. (edit: obviously messing with someone's mind does in some ways mess with their free will. What I mean here is that they are not under a compulsion. You are not controlling their behavior.)
In combat - For one they don't fight against you, which if they were an enemy is better than a Hold Person spell. More they can actively advocate for you to their other allies "hey guys stop fighting we can work this out!" They might try nonviolent means of ending the conflict or protecting you. A charmed enemy in battle is better than any single-target damage/kill/incapacitate spell because they not only are out of the fight, but can do a lot to potentially aid you that doesn't involve hurting their other friends/allies - presuming you and your party members don't attack them and end the spell. Considering Charm is a will save it makes it ideal for taking that hulking brute and turning him into a giant teddy bear trying to understand why all his good friends are hurting each other. Way more useful than Color Spray in the right circumstances.
So, you don't think their mind being changed such that they offer free aid and assistance to a potentially former enemy undercuts their free will?
|
|
So, you don't think their mind being changed such that they offer free aid and assistance to a potentially former enemy undercuts their free will?
Surely it does, but in a different degree. If we were talking about the real world I'd say that charm and the entire enchantment school are deeply morally problematic - and I DID say above that using charm to get someone in bed was clearly an evil act, even in the context of a fantasy realm with abundant enchantment magic.
The difference I am talking about here is the difference between persuasion and coercion. The game even makes this distinction using the "compulsion" label. Charm is not a compulsion effect. I cannot force a charmed person to do anything. What I have done is persuade them I'm their friend, magically, so they behave differently than they normally would, but they are still in control of their behavior, not me. That's why the question of "what would a charmed person do?" can't really be answered by the rules, but only by the GM determining on the spot how a given character would behave in a specific situation when they perceive the caster to be a good friend.
For example: a ruthless mercenary fighting with his current allies for convenience more than loyalty, might well turn against his allies once charmed, because friendship trumps a paycheck. But would a loving husband suddenly turn on his wife or a mother her child etc? Of course not. Even using the examples people have given of persuading the target that their loved one is actually a demon in disguise or whatever - that's the sort of thing that takes time man. There's no way, no matter how good the charisma check or diplomacy check that anyone in my game is ever persuading a person to instantaneously reverse positions on something deeply important to them. Make them doubt? Sure. Make them hesitate? Of course. Make them turn and do something that one-second ago they would have died rather than do? That's the kind of power only Dominate and above has.
|
|
1. It is a first level spell.
2. Being able to turn an enemy into an ally is useless and senseless to you?Let me say that again. The spell turns an enemy into an ally.
How is that not of gaming value? Particularly as, again, a first level spell.
1) So is color spray.
Oh, and sleep. Sleep is a 1st level spell also as is true strike, summon monster I and so on. First level spells can and are very powerful with a given situation.
And neither spell you mentioned makes an enemy into an ally. Sleep takes 1 enemy out of combat (until awoken) and while color spray can effect multiple targets, those targets are 15 feet from the caster.
Meaning Charm person is already on the bleeding edge of 1st level, based on my reading. Well beyond, based on the removal of free will argument.
As to undercutting free will, no. If your best friend was cheating on you with your wife and you didn't know it, would that effect your free will? It may lead to bad decision, but so could a low "find traps" roll or failing to detect an illusion.
It looks like JJ's response has made unclear ambiguity clear ambiguity.
Can you, or anyone, quote this statement because I'm having a hard time finding a quote from James Jacobs in this thread. Although, perhaps its not that JJ or in another thread. I'd just like to read his statement to better understand the dev team position.
Keep in mind you're just not best of buds. You're a TRUSTED friend AND ally. The words of trusted friends have turned spouses against each other, sometimes to murder, under suspicions of infidelity. Wars have been started by kings from words of trusted advisers. It is possible, plausible, probable, even.
I think a real distracting problem here is this superficial "kill your child/spouse" thing. That´s a very unrealistic situation in the game.
Charm is not an utility spell. How do you cast that outside of combat in someone´s face? And if you fail they are just like: "Hey you tried to cast something one me! Guards! Oh i just kill you myself!"
Even if you succeed, everyone around is going to do the same. Because charm is not like a jedi mind trick, or has a duration of instantenious. It´s 1 standard action with Verbal and Somatic components, which means it is pretty obvious you are casting.
Perhaps you people should look at how diplomacy works. If you are really good at it, it is mechanically like a domination already.
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature's current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
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.
The most realistic situation for that spell is you walk up somewhere, say to a guard, start casting. Initiative is rolled or you have a surprise round. Say you succeed and the save fails. Now your target is charmed. You can tell him to open the door for you, but there is still the other guy who´s going to sound an alarm or attack you or him. Now you tell him to protect you, because the other guy is evil. He´s not gonna fight his friend so there is a CHA check. You win he fights. You loose he does something else.
A lot of people don´t want to see how diplomacy already works ingame, much less charm person. It´s a pyramid and domination is on top of it, being the fastest and most easiest.
Oh and i didn´t yet see the arguments i asked for.
Have there been any depictions of people being charmed in Pathfinder novels?
|
|
@Hayato Ken - If you are referring to the "What do they do in combat" question, while it is true 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), he isn't going to fight you anymore, and may act to defend you if you are attacked.
I only know of Radovan being charmed by the Leucrotta in Queen of Thorns, but that´s their "lure" ability which is similar to suggestion. Kemeili says he is charmed in the text though, which is misleading, but ok in the novel. I don´t know any other references.
I thought about QoT as well but there's not really a scenario where someone stands next to someone and casts a spell and suddenly everyone is best mates.
There's a lot of passive illusion going on though in the beginning.
I only know of Radovan being charmed by the Leucrotta in Queen of Thorns, but that´s their "lure" ability which is similar to suggestion. Kemeili says he is charmed in the text though, which is misleading, but ok in the novel. I don´t know any other references.
Thanks, and what happened to the character?
I just looked up the lamia again, what lure ability?
Not Lamia, Leucrotta.
The "charmed" character was forcefully stopped by an ally, but still ran alone into the forest where the leucrottas then tried to devour him.
But it´s not the charm person spell which is debated here.
I am sorry, Ken, I got the two mixed up.
@Hayato Ken - If you are referring to the "What do they do in combat" question, while it is true 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), he isn't going to fight you anymore, and may act to defend you if you are attacked.
Oh i only saw your post now, seems he got eaten up before.
So we actually have the same opinion!I think a lot of this debate here is hairsplitting about using different language and things that actually don´t matter that much for game mechanics. A charmed person is acting for you in your favor, which is a prestep of domination, but not domination.
To me it seems that you can use every stat to come through the game in a meaningfull way. The mental stat ways are of course best with magic, but ninja, rogue and monk show that there are other ways too (if good or bad is another discussion for another thread!).
The CHA way is diplomacy<charms<dominations.
One is stronger than the other and does more, but in the end they do similar things, but not exactly the same.
I think many people play charm very similar to domination because it can get really lenghty and difficult else, especially in combat.
Its USELESS if you can't order people to do things against their nature by dint of an unmodified opposed charisma check? Really???
Why do you describe an 'unmodified' like that as if it was an epic penalty to the vicitm?? Frankly I see that as a great equalizer... something to stop high diplomacy characters from taking advantage.
Seriously my 5th level Paladin has a +12 (+14 vs Fey) to Diplomacy... and that's without any skill focus. Would you WANT casters to be modifying these rolls? Toss a little skill focus... put it in a wand... pump every point you have into it...
I look at 'opposed charisma' and see that I would be BETTER off using the Diplomacy skill :-/
|
|
Its USELESS if you can't order people to do things against their nature by dint of an unmodified opposed charisma check? Really???Why do you describe an 'unmodified' like that as if it was an epic penalty to the vicitm?? Frankly I see that as a great equalizer... something to stop high diplomacy characters from taking advantage.
Seriously my 5th level Paladin has a +12 (+14 vs Fey) to Diplomacy... and that's without any skill focus. Would you WANT casters to be modifying these rolls? Toss a little skill focus... put it in a wand... pump every point you have into it...
I look at 'opposed charisma' and see that I would be BETTER off using the Diplomacy skill :-/
You do realize there is a difficulty chart under diplomacy, right?
|
|
I think a real distracting problem here is this superficial "kill your child/spouse" thing. That´s a very unrealistic situation in the game.
Charm is not an utility spell. How do you cast that outside of combat in someone´s face? And if you fail they are just like: "Hey you tried to cast something one me! Guards! Oh i just kill you myself!"
Even if you succeed, everyone around is going to do the same. Because charm is not like a jedi mind trick, or has a duration of instantenious. It´s 1 standard action with Verbal and Somatic components, which means it is pretty obvious you are casting.Perhaps you people should look at how diplomacy works. If you are really good at it, it is mechanically like a domination already.
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature's current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion....
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
Let's look at a few keywords here.
"GM discretion"
" never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders"
Now with regards to the harmful part, it doesn't specifically say what kind or harmful or even it's meant as harmful to oneself so if you want to read each word at face value then as a DM I see trying to hurt a loved one is something that is considered harmful and therefore wouldn't work.