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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Of course it's evil. Magically impaired consent is still impaired consent. Someone who uses charms to get someone into their bed is morally in the same position as deliberately getting someone drunk and then bedding them while they aren't in a position to meaningfully say no.
Dominate is more unambiguously evil, but charm and suggestion for this purpose are also evil.
Of course it's evil. Magically impaired consent is still impaired consent. Someone who uses charms to get someone into their bed is morally in the same position as deliberately getting someone drunk and then bedding them while they aren't in a position to meaningfully say no.
Dominate is more unambiguously evil, but charm and suggestion for this purpose are also evil.
Impaired consent is only illegal if you knew/caused her/she to be impaired.
Buying a drunk girl a beer to get drunker is impaired consent.But if she was drunk and you helped in no way (and you reasonably couldn't foresee that she was that wasted: aka important note called Mens Rea), then you wouldn't be in trouble if you did the nasty.
So since charm person might be argued same as buying someone beer to get in bed with them, but not exactly because since a Cha check is used you were just awesomer looking.
Of course it's evil. Magically impaired consent is still impaired consent. Someone who uses charms to get someone into their bed is morally in the same position as deliberately getting someone drunk and then bedding them while they aren't in a position to meaningfully say no.
Dominate is more unambiguously evil, but charm and suggestion for this purpose are also evil.
Impaired consent is only illegal if you knew/caused her/she to be impaired.
Buying a drunk girl a beer to get drunker is impaired consent.But if she was drunk and you helped in no way (and you reasonably couldn't foresee that she was that wasted: aka important note called Mens Rea), then you wouldn't be in trouble if you did the nasty.
So since charm person might be argued same as buying someone beer to get in bed with them, but not exactly because since a Cha check is used you were just awesomer looking.
He didn't say illegal, he said evil. And he's not charming some girl that was already charmed somehow pushing her into ultra charmed unknowingly. If she wouldn't sleep with you before the charm but does with the charm, doesn't that seem a little evil.
Precisely.
Personally, my guess is that in most good or lawful cultures, using charm spells for the purposes of sexual attraction is illegal. (The concept of mens rea does apply -- using a charm spell to slow down someone attacking you would be a different matter.)
And in most chaotic cultures, the relatives will beat you up on the spot if they catch you at it.
The in-universe nature of the charm person is never discussed in much detail, and I tend to think diverging interpretation is the source of much of the disagreement on the matter. I tend to regard it as equivalent to administering a mind-altering drug, which would definitely put you squarely in evil territory if you used it to get intimate with someone.
So, using charm person to get "intimate" with the ladies
an evil act? Suppose youre using silent/still so she doesnt
notice. My gm says yes, but charm isnt the same as dominate,
youre just making her like you, right?
Yes.
Alignment is one of the areas of the game which requires an arbiter (since there's no real world equivalent to the PF concepts of good/evil and chaos/law). You might try and change their mind, but until you do they have to make the call.
I think actually diplomacy rolls could be enough to get there with a decent CHA. Change her attitude two times from indifferent to the better, then you can make requests....
That would be similar to real life and no magic needed.
If you want magic, cast a hypnotism, because this changes the subjects attitude to you regarding some things you tell.
First off, there is a big difference between what is illegal and Evil. So the whole lawful/chaotic angle is a tangent, there is a reason why there are two components to alignment in this game.
I just don't see Charm as that powerful. It only makes you a "friend or ally."
People don't blindly go to bed with their friends. They would have to have been previously inclined to go to bed with you before the spell.
If Charm was so powerful as to remove all free will (so you could make people kill their own mother or sleep with you even against their will) there would be no need for more powerful spells like Dominate to exist.
Charm is just a magically version of a Diplomacy check, not mind control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ehm, charm let´s you compel people to do things with an opposed CHA check. If you win that, it´s very close to domination.
By RAW, diplomacy is enough for that actually, if entities don´t start hostile to you.
Domination works on more, doesn´t need a CHA check and does more.
IMHO if you use charm merely to break the ice, no. If you're rolling opposed Charisma checks to force activity that the recipient wouldn't normally do, then definitely (if the activity is extremely against the person's nature they also get a second saving throw as well).
No, Charm does not "compel" anyone to do anything. It does not have the Compulsion descriptor. You do "convince" them however, just as a Diplomacy check might.
No, Charm does not "compel" anyone to do anything. It does not have the Compulsion descriptor. You do "convince" them however, just as a Diplomacy check might.
To me, using Charm Person to convince someone to sleep with you is simply using false pretenses to trick someone into bed. This can be really bad, or a gray area at worst.
For instance, say you had a friend who owned a boat. In fact, let's call it a yacht. If you borrow a friend's yacht, tell someone that it's yours and they decide to sleep with you because you seem like quite the catch, then it's a gray area. At least in my opinion.
On the other hand, if you were to convince someone that you're someone you're not, say by pretending to be their spouse at a costume party and they hook up with you in the coat room, well that's awful. I might even call that evil.
This applies, at least to me, to what their starting attitude towards you was. If they're normally indifferent to you, then I'd say it's about as bad as pretending to own the boat. If they're unfriendly or hostile, well, that's a bit more serious.
Opposed Charisma checks seem like a coercion, rather than a compulsion. Using them to pressure the target into sex makes you a b&!@%@$*. If the person was unfriendly or hostile, it also makes you a rapist, IMO. I'm not sure how I feel about if you use them when they started as indifferent, but it definitely doesn't make you a good person.
No, Charm does not "compel" anyone to do anything. It does not have the Compulsion descriptor. You do "convince" them however, just as a Diplomacy check might.
Suffice to say that this is simply wrong. You can, by the description, make a creature do something that it would not ordinarily due through the use of charm spells. While it lacks the compulsion subschool it does not force an action despite a mental state (as dominate person does) but instead alters their perception of reality (which is arguably more frightening).
It is at its root a deception, and a very devious one at that. It easily explains why the charm spells also grant their victims a +5 to their saving throw when in combat (because charming an enemy grants you an ally). It is not Diplomacy+.
The spell has two effects. The first effect is it makes your attitude Friendly. This is why I say that if you're just using the spell as an "Ice Breaker" then you're probably not doing anything too morally dubious other than getting your foot in the door and trying more mundane versions of wooing someone. In a kind of "okay, you have their attention, don't blow it" sort of way.
The second aspect of the spell forces actions.
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.
Which means a sorcerer with low morals could use their force of will to incite an action from the person. An action that is neither suicidal or obviously harmful to them. This could easily involve pillow talk, but as Mikaze noted this is pretty similar to "magical roofies".
Charm spells are not jokes mind you. They're a pretty big deal. Here is more on them directly from the rules.
Charm and Compulsion
Many abilities and spells can cloud the minds of characters and monsters, leaving them unable to tell friend from foe—or worse yet, deceiving them into thinking that their former friends are now their worst enemies. Two general types of enchantments affect characters and creatures: charms and compulsions.
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. Charms of this type include the various charm spells and some monster abilities. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.
A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
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).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
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.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature's apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.
Meanwhile compulsions.
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.
Regardless of whether a character is charmed or compelled, he does not volunteer information or tactics that his master doesn't ask for.
.
This is why creatures like the Succubus are dangerous. Charm effects are potent enough to incite violence against allies. To give an example of a charm spell being used in a truly heinous manner, let us return to the succubus for a moment.
Everyone has probably heard about people in reality doing things like drowning their children because "god told me to" or something along those lines. We think of these people as disturbed and unbalanced. In D&D however, it could be a sign of demonic influence (because hey, Succubi).
Let's say that a succubus was intent on undoing someone. Let's say an evil wizard binds up a succubi and sends her on a task to ruin a rival's life. The succubus greater teleports to the home of the victim and assumes the appearance of one of the servants. From their the succubus uses charm monster and her natural telepathy to manipulate those around her. The most vile thing she does is 'cause the rival's wife to drown their child. But how would this occur?
1: The succubus decides the rival would be too strong willed (maybe the rival is another high level wizard) and would notice someone attacking his mind. So she instead opts for his wife who a more normal person and will likely be far weaker of will.
2: The succubus uses her charm monster ability because she doesn't plan to play puppetmaster with her and dominate is an emergency tactic. Since it's a spell-like ability the succubus needn't speak, move, or anything else to use it. She just activates it in passing during one of her apparent cleaning routines (while she is disguised as a maid).
3: The succubus speaks to the wife with her telepathy (100 ft. range). Using her telepathy (which doesn't display whose form she is currently taking) the succubus tells the wife to kill her child. This is an act that the wife would resist and is also grossly against the wife's normal operations and thus the wife gets both an opposed Charisma check AND a new saving throw. However, due to the succubus having a +8 Charisma modifier and a DC 22 charm, the wife fails both and drowns her child because it seems like a good idea at the time.
The succubus can simply leave or continue spreading more hurt and destruction in her wake, but she's already indirectly murdered the child of the rival, likely stricken his wife with a mad grief when she returns to her proper senses (while it might have seemed right at the moment she was charmed, I'm sure she's going to be missing that drowned baby), and maybe set fire to his mansion on her way out ('cause what demon doesn't love a little arson to salt the wound, right?).
You can't re-write game terms. Charm Person lacks the Complusion descriptor, so it doesn't force the target to do anything. Rather it improves the targets out look on the caster to be the best possible. The opposed Charisma check is described as "convincing" them to do something they normally wouldn't do, not "forcing" them to do so.
I will see your Succubus, and raise you a Satyr.
The Bestiary's description of the satyr's behavior is exactly what we are discussing here.
Satyr's "adore wine, music, and carnal delights, and are renowned for wooing unwary maidens and shepherd boys and leaving a trail of awkward explanations and unplanned pregnancies in their wakes."
Their "talent for seduction lies in their talent for music. With the aid of the eponymous pipes, a satyr is capable of weaving a wide variety of melodic spells designed to enchant others and bring them in line with his capricious desires."
Pipes: A satyr can focus and empower his magic by playing haunting melodies on his panpipes. When he plays, all creatures within 60' radius must make a DC 18 Will save or be affected by Charm Person, Cause Fear, Sleep, or Suggestion depending on what tune the satyr chooses.
Spell like abilities: At will- Charm Person, Cause Fear, Sleep, Suggestion
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
It hardly seems that if the standard operating procedure of the satyr was an evil act, the creature would be neutral.
The difference between the satyr and the succubus is the satyr just wants to have a good time, it has no ill will to the participants in its revels. The succubus is a temptress intentionally trying to corrupt and destroy those it targets.
The OP didn't mention trying to corrupt anyone's soul. I maintain the actions are Chaotic, but not Evil.
As a side note, any DM would be well within their rights to rule that unwanted sexual contact was an "attack" that automatically broke a Charm effect. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing that rape is not an attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't re-write game terms. Charm Person lacks the Complusion descriptor, so it doesn't force the target to do anything. Rather it improves the targets out look on the caster to be the best possible. The opposed Charisma check is described as "convincing" them to do something they normally wouldn't do, not "forcing" them to do so.
You're arguing semantics. It still allows you to give them orders and they will obey them under a set of conditions. The rules are very clear that you can even have them fight their former allies or do anything that is not directly self-destructive. If you fail the Charisma check then you are going to do as you are told if you have been charmed and the order doesn't involve your suicide or self-destruction. Period.
It hardly seems that if the standard operating procedure of the satyr was an evil act, the creature would be neutral.
The difference between the satyr and the succubus is the satyr just wants to have a good time, it has no ill will to the participants in its revels. The succubus is a temptress intentionally trying to corrupt and destroy those it targets.
The OP didn't mention trying to corrupt anyone's soul. I maintain the actions are Chaotic, but not Evil.
It takes some evil to be Neutral. Satyrs using their magics to get some BJs from the local shepherd boy is pretty suspect on the morality scale (he's using that poor boy as a sex toy). Ill will or not, that's pretty messed up since the only reason the satyr is doing it is for their own pleasure. Same with knockin' up the local maidens.
The succubus is more likely to be more destructive with it, but it's not evil 'cause she's a succubus. Professor Xavier would be a pretty evil fellow if he was occasionally using his mind-affecting powers to have Jubilee pannin' the goods when nobody was looking. Even if his intention wasn't to harm or knock the good mutant up, that's basically what we're talking about the the satyrs. Using mind-affecting spells and/or powers to invoke an action you wouldn't have gotten with free-willed consent.
As a side note, any DM would be well within their rights to rule that unwanted sexual contact was an "attack" that automatically broke a Charm effect. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing that rape is not an attack.
You could, except due to the way charm works is that you're convincing them that it's consensual. Except it really isn't. It's just the charm talking.
"It's sex you didn't know you wanted." - Enchanter's Pickup Line?
I'll put it another way. If a Paladin was charmed by a succubus and made to do something evil (because he failed both his Charisma check and probably a second saving throw) I'm not taking the Paladin's powers away because he was not in his right mind when it was happening. He was under a magical influence and his will was not entirely his own (in fact his will was directly opposed to it).
This is an interesting coversation. I do not see Charm as a domination spell and their descriptors are different.
I was playing a witch in the Serpent Skull AP. We were on the island in the first module. We went to the cannibal camp and I was able to charm the big bad guy, the guy with the red hair. After I charmed him he lost interest in the other members of the party, told them to leave and had me stay. Well since he was my friend and found her exotic since she also had red hair he did what he did.
I find it deplorable, cowardly, and selfish, and I don't see it being a good act in many situations... I should also say I could could see it as being used in an entirely good willed nice way of getting close with someone you were too shy to talk to normally. Effectively charming yourself~. I think it depends on the situation.
Different GMs play enchantment and illusion and even social situations in different ways. I had a witch with charm hex and one of my DMs would play it out like a jedi mind trick. I've also had a DM who let intimidate play out as mind control. Its rare I have one that lets an NPC adamantly say no. When an NPC can't say no, it looks a lot less nice.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an interesting coversation. I do not see Charm as a domination spell and their descriptors are different.
I was playing a witch in the Serpent Skull AP. We were on the island in the first module. We went to the cannibal camp and I was able to charm the big bad guy, the guy with the red hair. After I charmed him he lost interest in the other members of the party, told them to leave and had me stay. Well since he was my friend and found her exotic since she also had red hair he did what he did.
Agreed, very interesting.
Stupid personal anecdote time:
My highest level PFS character is a cleric of Calistria that I modeled after 1st season Gaius Baltar from the new BSG. He lies just as easily as he tells the truth, he's interested in hooking up with women, and when you stick him with a crowd of people trying to do the right thing he'll "go along" with it and try to do the right thing. (luck and lust domains).
He has never tried to use magical means to coerce a woman into anything sexual, but he uses diplomacy and bluff skills (both maxed out with help from traits/feats) ALL the time to do so. I think I subconsciously made the decision early on that using magical means of sexual coercion was just too wrong/creepy to even RP it, but RPing a smarmy bastard otherwise might be fun.
Would the jedi mind trick be evil?
@Shalafi depends on what the jedi was attempting.
but charm > diplo. diplo can only raise 1-3 levels. charm == best buds.
as far as if it is evil/illegal/whatevs... well, if they used a mundane trick for same goal, would it be evil/illegal/whatver.
You're arguing semantics.
No, I am arguing defined gaming terms, in the context of the game.
It takes some evil to be Neutral. Satyrs using their magics to get some BJs from the local shepherd boy is pretty suspect on the morality scale (he's using that poor boy as a sex toy). Ill will or not, that's pretty messed up since the only reason the satyr is doing it is for their own pleasure. Same with knockin' up the local maidens.The succubus is more likely to be more destructive with it, but it's not evil 'cause she's a succubus. Professor Xavier would be a pretty evil fellow if he was occasionally using his mind-affecting powers to have Jubilee pannin' the goods when nobody was looking. Even if his intention wasn't to harm or knock the good mutant up, that's basically what we're talking about the the satyrs. Using mind-affecting spells and/or powers to invoke...
It doesn't take "some evil" to be Neutral. He just isn't motivated to do either weal or woe to others. There's no need for neutral characters to do Good and Evil actions in equal measure, but having said that if the primary defining behavior of the character was Evil then you would imagine that would make the character Evil.
Succubi are evil, well, because that's what they are. They are literally the embodiment of temptation corrupting the soul. That's what demons are, a physical depiction of evil. The fact both use Charm abilities is incidental to why they use them.
Your own quote from the appendix states "Charmed characters retain free will but makes choices according to a skewed world view."
The DM is free to give the affected person a second save (violently opposed), require a charisma check, or even consider sexual assault an "attack" that breaks the spell. I understand your point about the charisma check making the sex consensual, but I disagree. Since the charmed person retains free will, I think a DM would be within his rights to say sexual assault is an "attack" if he so chose.
MrSin- No one has argued it would be a good thing. Just no Evil. Probably Chaotic.
To use a different example, I think we would mostly agree that stealing is morally "wrong," but I don't think it meets the Pathfinder definition of Evil. Only Chaotic. That is the case here, yes it is wrong, but I don't see it meeting the threshold of Evil.
You're arguing semantics.No, I am arguing defined gaming terms, in the context of the game.
It takes some evil to be Neutral. Satyrs using their magics to get some BJs from the local shepherd boy is pretty suspect on the morality scale (he's using that poor boy as a sex toy). Ill will or not, that's pretty messed up since the only reason the satyr is doing it is for their own pleasure. Same with knockin' up the local maidens.The succubus is more likely to be more destructive with it, but it's not evil 'cause she's a succubus. Professor Xavier would be a pretty evil fellow if he was occasionally using his mind-affecting powers to have Jubilee pannin' the goods when nobody was looking. Even if his intention wasn't to harm or knock the good mutant up, that's basically what we're talking about the the satyrs. Using mind-affecting spells and/or powers to invoke...
It doesn't take "some evil" to be Neutral. He just isn't motivated to do either weal or woe to others. There's no need for neutral characters to do Good and Evil actions in equal measure, but having said that if the primary defining behavior of the character was Evil then you would imagine that would make the character Evil.
Succubi are evil, well, because that's what they are. They are literally the embodiment of temptation corrupting the soul. That's what demons are, a physical depiction of evil. The fact both use Charm abilities is incidental to why they use them.
Your own quote from the appendix states "Charmed characters retain free will but makes choices according to a skewed world view."
The DM is free to give the affected person a second save (violently opposed), require a charisma check, or even consider sexual assault an "attack" that breaks the spell. I understand your point about the charisma check making the sex consensual, but I disagree. Since the charmed person retains free will, I think a DM would be within his rights to say sexual assault is an "attack" if he so...
How much free will do you have if some random guy convinces you that your brother's going to cause the apocalypse unless you stab him right now?
Honestly, I do think that most enchantment spells should have an evil descriptor, because taking away someone's ability to make choices is one of the most evil things you can do.
|
|
This is using magic to facilitate coercion, which I don't think is an "attack" per se.
To me the bottom line is this:
is the character able - while charmed - to make a conscious choice about the coercion? Would the character be able to make a conscious choice if he/she wasn't charmed?
If you answer no to the first question, it's clearly wrong/evil. If you answer yes the second question makes things hazier.
The conversation gets more interesting.
I think it's pretty clear by RAW. And frightening. It doesn't matter how much the person hates you or if they would never sleep with you, if they fail their save and the opposed charisma check, sex is had.
Lets say there's a gnoll bard, his name is Charmy. He's got a thing for human priests. He casts charm person on Father Chase, who has taken a vow of celibacy. Father chase fails his save, moving his attitude from hostile to friendly. Charmy explains to Chase that he's really a chaotic good rebel from his own tribe. It's just he gets these urges (trigger innuendo and gestures. Eww...)
Couldn't father Chase help him out? Father Chase says no, because he has taken a vow of chastity, isn't interested in males, and he's not interested in Gnolls. Charmy insists, demanding Father Chase do ...things... which triggers the opposed charisma check. Chase looses his opposed charisma check.
Fade to black.
Does any of that not follow RAW? It seems to work as I understand the spell.
Would Father Chase have done any of this without the spell? NO. He'd have been violently opposed to it. Charmy's spell is directly responsible for what happened. It has clearly forced Father Chase's consent. Is this an evil act? Certainly. Would it still be evil if it had been done by a different Charmy who isn't a Gnoll? Yes.
But lets look at situation two. Charmy isn't in the mood for a priest. He decides he wants redhead tonight.
Charmy visits Shayliss. Shayliss, as some of us may remember from rise of the runelords, has decidedly NOT taken a vow of chastity. Charmy cast charm person, and Shayliss fails her save. She hides her good friend Charmy in the bedroom, because as he explains there's a no good paladin around who has it in for Gnolls. They get to talking, and Shayliss gets bored. It doesn't take much convincing, and a quick diplomacy check later, Charmy and Shayliss fade to black. There is no opposed charisma check required.
A few hours later, the charm spell wears off and Shayliss lets out a godawful screech. She is no longer friendly with Charmy, and certainly doesn't want to hide him from the local paladin. Would she have slept with him without the spell?
NO. Not because he's a Gnoll, Shayliss doesn't care about that, but because if she just went around sleeping with strangers all day she'd never get anything else done; she has SOME standards. She would not have slept with him if they weren't good friends. Did the spell force consent? No. Did it trick her into consenting?
YES. That's rape, and rape is an evil act.
The spell explicitly by rules enables the caster to order you to do something you wouldn't normally do, even for a friend by way of its opposed charisma check mechanic. The opposed charisma check is basically convincing/demanding your 'friend' to do what you ask of them. Even if it's something you WOULD normally do with/for a friend, it's still deceiving you into doing something you wouldn't normally do for that person because they are not your friend.
"Lets just be friends." "I'm glad we're friends." I don't suppose these words ever come up... They can be pretty dreaded to some people. Friendly is not romantically linked at all. I can be friendly to a guy named Jeff, but not be attracted to him. I'm definitely not doing him any favors without question, especially not if its that sort of thing. The answer is just a no.
Wait, why does friendly mean gullible in those examples? Just becuase I am friendly to someone doesn't mean I believe everything they tell me. If my friend tells me they beheaded 8 dragons in a single swoop I don't believe him. Fanatic might, but even then thats pushing it.
Just a reminder, but diplomacy checks automatically fail if they put someone in danger or if they're against that person's nature. Dominate gets a second save when this happens. Bluff checks can be so far fetched they are impossible to believe(subject to dm discretion of course.) Charm can't make someone commit themselves to doing something that is obviously harmful or suicidal, and requires you to convince them that it is worthwhile to even consider. Theres a lot of DM discretion in most of this.
I think it becomes pretty simple.
Enchantment
Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior.All enchantments are mind-affecting spells. Two subschools of enchantment spells grant you influence over a subject creature.
Charm: A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend.
Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.
"Murder your brother." Which sub-school forces another person to do this? Is charm person that kind of spell?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want the dev team to answer one simple question about "charm person" that I've asked before.
"Can you cast 'charm person' on someone and with a successful opposed charisma check, have them stab their mother in the face?"
I think that if the answer to that question is "yes" then "charm person" is just a low-rent version of "dominate". If the answer to that question is "no" then the dev team needs to lay out exactly what the boundaries are that you can "compel" a person to do while charmed.
Personally, as a GM, I do not allow charm to be a low rent version of dominate.
I just want the dev team to answer one simple question about "charm person" that I've asked before.
"Can you cast 'charm person' on someone and with a successful opposed charisma check, have them stab their mother in the face?"
I think that if the answer to that question is "yes" then "charm person" is just a low-rent version of "dominate". If the answer to that question is "no" then the dev team needs to lay out exactly what the boundaries are that you can "compel" a person to do while charmed.
Personally, as a GM, I do not allow charm to be a low rent version of dominate.
I think the answer to that question would be "No" if the charmee is a normal person with the usual inhibitions against committing such an act. However, if the charmer interrupted the charmee while he was in the process of preparing to murder his own mother, then it probably would work.
I just want the dev team to answer one simple question about "charm person" that I've asked before.
"Can you cast 'charm person' on someone and with a successful opposed charisma check, have them stab their mother in the face?"
I think that if the answer to that question is "yes" then "charm person" is just a low-rent version of "dominate". If the answer to that question is "no" then the dev team needs to lay out exactly what the boundaries are that you can "compel" a person to do while charmed.
Personally, as a GM, I do not allow charm to be a low rent version of dominate.
I think the answer to that question would be "No" if the charmee is a normal person with the usual inhibitions against committing such an act. However, if the charmer interrupted the charmee while he was in the process of preparing to murder his own mother, then it probably would work.
Well, when I hear definitively from the dev team I'll accept that answer. Your answer will simply be dismissed by the pro-charm=dominate school with "all you need is a successful opposed charisma check, and dagger to the face will be done."
Once again, I quoted the charm effects. It is a mind-affecting effect that makes you do something under specific conditions. It does not give you absolute control over them, but it does give control over them. There's a difference between having your free will entirely stripped and your free will restricted. Charms allow you to give commands and those commands will be followed with few restrictions.
Just to point out that, yes, charm spells can be used to make people sleep with you. In fact, an elixir of love specifically references charm person spell.
The point is whether it's evil. I'd say yes. The reason I'd say yes is because oppression is defined as evil. Forcing your desires on someone magically is a form of oppression. Stealing their choice is a form of oppression.
I don't think mind-affecting effects, including charms and compulsions are innately evil. No more than fireball is innately evil. Though I believe they are easily used for evil and lead into evil very easily due to the simple temptations they present. Charm responsibly.
It doesn't really concern me that satyrs mentally and physically raping people are listed as Chaotic Neutral in the manual anymore than it concerns me that ogres aren't proficient with their weapons. Neutral people do evil thing all the time.
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?
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?
I wouldn't consider it an evil act.
I also wouldn't consider the vow broken - voluntarily, at least. I wouldn't make a paladin fall over something done while charmed, for instance.The wording of the charm person spell does make this ruling questionable though, since it specifies that you still have free will.
Personally, I'm in the camp that sees charm person as a VERY powerful spell, just barely under dominate person. It's one of the reasons I rarely or never use the spell in games. My current wizard took enchantment as a barred school.
AD, you bring up a very good point about a clarification of the limits of charm person RE: the stab mother in face comment. In absence of official ruling, that's all on the local GM, which means the spell can vastly grow or shrink in power from table to table.
Yes it's evil. Look at the atonement spell. It makes mention of deeds performed while charmed/compelled.
No, the person who has been charmed into breaking their oath has not committed a wrong subjectively.
There was a little Dungeons and Dragons book that I remember having as a kid. It had Kelek and Mercion and I can't remember who else. Mercion had an item that Kelek wanted and in order to get it he charmed her. He asked her for it and she said something along the lines like as my friend I can't give it to you. He asked again and she gave it to him.
Charm Person is quite clearly written.
You can charm the BBEG and have him slay his own minions.
You can also charm a minion, but the minion is probably weaker. In any way it´s detrimental to the original intents of the beings and they wouldn´t do their best at it.
If you charm the party paladin to go and rob the bank and kill all the employes, she would have done something evil and would need atonement, but at no cost.
No, the person who has been charmed into breaking their oath has not committed a wrong subjectively.
There was a little Dungeons and Dragons book that I remember having as a kid. It had Kelek and Mercion and I can't remember who else. Mercion had an item that Kelek wanted and in order to get it he charmed her. He asked her for it and she said something along the lines like as my friend I can't give it to you. He asked again and she gave it to him.
So Paizo had absolutely no reason to print the following?
If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you.
The idea that compulsions and domination can still cause a paladin to fall is pretty open for abuse. Just... my opinion.
How exactly can you charm a BBEG into slaying his minions? That sounds exetremely harmful! To him, his plans, and his minions. And it breaks if you or your allies does anything that could harm him.
Just saying. That wouldn't be there if it weren't possible.
You'd think paladins would have it hard enough. I know its there, but I'm not a fan of it.
On a note related to the thread, getting buddy with a paladin and telling him to do something that would cause him to fall would probably fall under the harming clause, and the attempt would definitely fall under evil I think.
Keep in mind they eventually gain immunity to charms and compulsions.