Hayato Ken |
Why you stick to this cornercase of trying to hurt a loved one?
@Samasboy1: If you are still reading this, charm person is not an evil spell. It´s a high magic world and things like that are pretty common. However if you use it to get someone into bed who normally wouldn´t do that, it´s abusive and there could be repercussions afterwards. And if you are seen and identified casting a charm spell on someone it could be problematic too. That´s a difficulty the magic system forces on social casters. Suggestion or hypnotism might be better spells in this case, especially hypnotism which could be sold as a show and eventually protects yourself from consequences by the victim.
While the subject is fascinated by this spell, it reacts as though it were two steps more friendly in attitude. This allows you to make a single request of the affected creature (provided you can communicate with it). The request must be brief and reasonable. Even after the spell ends, the creature retains its new attitude toward you, but only with respect to that particular request.
Durngrun Stonebreaker |
Buri wrote: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?Oh, it totally does. Which is why GOOD spellcasters should only deal with enemies via less morally problematic methods, like burning them to death or stabbing them with swords repeatedly.
Everything's good when you do it to bad people!
hewhocaves |
I've used charm as a way to gather information from prisoners. Basically let someone else capture them, cast charm person and then come in. They're essentially your ally and with a little RPing you can get most information out of them.
In fact, if you plan it correctly you can set up your spells for the day to essentially guarantee they fail their save eventually.
Of course depending on the situation surrounding their capture and the spellcaster's role in it, the DM might want to put a bonus to either the save or the attitude. I mean, if the spellcaster injured or in some other way seriously affected them, then charm person might be less effective or ineffective.
The best analogy i can come to with charm person is the way people open up to the Doctor in Doctor Who. More than one character in the TV show has remarked after telling the Doctor something confidential that they have no idea why they would tell a complete stranger something so personal.
Just my 2c
LazarX |
Ashiel, your rules quotation is not from the spell, it's from the "special abilities" section, which may or may not refer to spells.
Also, that section which you are quoting also says this: "Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster."
So I have to parrot ciretose here and say that you have an amazing capacity for quoting the rules you agree with and ignoring those you don't.
I would like to hear a developer say what the ruling is on how to rule on "charm person". Do we use the literal rules as written in the spell (which do not describe any second charisma effect) or do we go with the "special abilities" section you quoted which do?
Even so, for many charisma optimized characters succeeding with TWO opposed charisma checks is still likely to be more successful than a will save in some cases.
You don't need a dev to quote spell text to you.
As far as the Charm Person spell goes,ONLY the spell text is relevant. Charm Person is NOT the charm ability that certain monsters have. Only the spell mechanics are relevant for this question.
137ben |
Arbane the Terrible wrote:Everything's good when you do it to bad people!Buri wrote: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?Oh, it totally does. Which is why GOOD spellcasters should only deal with enemies via less morally problematic methods, like burning them to death or stabbing them with swords repeatedly.
Burning someone to death is good...
Enslaving them with dominate person is good...Torturing them to death with boneshatter is good...
Turning them into a free-willed good aligned undead is evil.
Makes sense!
No, more seriously, enslaving someone with dominate person is ALWAYS Evil. Painlessly killing someone evil isn't. Turning them into your slave absolutely is evil.