Examples where, if used subtly, charm person can avoid ramifications:
The earlier example with the noblemen: Should there be a case where there are 3 "swing voters" on a council of 10 that could put you over the top, charming them to vote on your side would likely have no consequences. You've gained a benefit, or solved a social challenge with magic instead of skills, but there's no solid reason for the nobles to hold you in emnity.
Merchants have been mentioned: Perhaps you can convince a merchant for a line of credit or to become an investor in your adventuring company, granting you a horse/boat/wagon/other fairly expensive item for free to begin the adventure, only to repay him, return the goods and possibly a return on his investment after you are flush with treasure. Again, it becomes smart business after the fact, but you've gained a benefit in the short term, which is what matters in a metagaming sense (i.e. you know your character will be a millionaire by the time this is done, so short term loans are 0 risk)
Breaking the ice with a contact. If they start friendly, then staying friendly is a lot easier. Perhaps the captain of the guard hates gnomes and is hostile to them. Charm, a night of drinking together, one of the best nights of his life, suddenly this gnome doesn't seem so bad. You're use of diplomacy post charm has turned an antagonistic NPC into a friendly one who might come in handy later when the king's vizier throws you in the dungeon for a crime you are innocent of. The Lawful Guard Captain is likely to believe you are innocent, because you are actual friends now, no spell involved, and perhaps favour justice over the code of law and let you out so you can prove it. You haven't done anything except soften a racists prejudice and made a friend with the spell, but that can pay dividends.
Pushing encounters with neutrals into good encounters. You are hunting a criminal who fled town into the mystic forest and meet a band of savage fey hunters in the woods. You are trespassing in their territory. A simple charm spell and some social skills and they believe your story and are sympathetic to your cause. You can now gain valuable information, gain a potential guide or set of npc allies against the criminal who is the BBEG.
And, as above stated, the OG use of charm in the dungeon crawl: big dumb brute becomes your ally, potentially even beyond the use of the spell. Think Raistlin and Bupu even. With a little kindness and treating the charmed NPC as a friend, Crush the ogre might want to join your band of adventurers, because he truly believes that you are his real friends, not those nasty orcs who called him stupid.
That's 5 cases that are fairly common scenarios. Certainly your DM needs to be on board, but that's the case with all social encounters, because there are no social hit points to kill hostility, only loose mechanics that require rule 0 as a feature. And as long as you're subtle: not casting in front of them or using memory lapse or a banging bluff to dismiss the spell as something else, then you can use Charm effectively without making someone hate you.
|
I think some of you are way overstating how much people will realize their feelings weren't natural.
People tend to believe they're in control of themselves. That they're not total dupes, easily influenced by everyone. That while they may be following orders, their bosses haven't broken their mind.
People will go quite for to rationalize why they did what they did, and that they were in control doing it. That's the basis of a lot of unhealthy relationships ("No, I'm really not unhappy, he's just having a hard time, he's not abusing me") and lots of confidence games.
And in fact, do you personally know people who tend to believe that their desires are not under their control? Probably you think they're not very healthy - addicts, paranoids and religious nutcases. Because it's pretty hard to live a normal life if you're not firmly convinced that you have some form of self-control.
If this guard suddenly pipes up "but he mind-controlled me!", how many times is that going to happen before the warden decides he's had it with people who blame everything on mind control and hires actual responsible people?
Mind control is revolting precisely because it shakes people's fundamental assumptions about themselves. People go far to deny they've been duped, but if faced with indisputable proof, they feel violated.
Also, people often feel ashamed. Not being in control makes you weak and undependable. People often don't report being conned because they're ashamed.
===
So, with good Bluff and Diplomacy, you might be able to convince people that what they were doing was really their own idea. Yes, you need to come up with a convincing lie about what you were doing with the weird gestures, but after that if you don't do too weird stuff, people will often put up with it.
Finding out that someone was subject of mind control would actually take serious interrogation and investigation work.
|
You guys realize, that if Pathfinder had RULES for convincing people of things, this wouldn't be an issue, right?
Hey developers, care to take this one on?
It would be very simple to make Charm Person work like Jump, and give a bonus to your next social skill roll.
Check out Rich Burlew's new diplomacy rules for an example of what I'm talking about..
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Charm Person discussions come up as frequently as say..paladin ones do, because of its wording and the fact people both under and overplay the power of the spell.
Some people view it as a spell that will make you fall in love, cheat on your spouse, betray england, and cast your well founded religious beliefs aside for your new friend.
Some people, such as myself, believe the spell is nigh useless in a combat situation, and you need to be extravagently careful on who you cast it on, as 'treats you as a trusted friend and ally' might just mean he tells you why he's stabbing you in the back to advance in rank.
The issue depends on the person's morality. And thats why the spell is hard to adjudicate. It means the DM needs to know the mindset of every guard, shopkeep, random pretty girl and the like the party might Charm.
A guard might let his friend in. He might let them out. Chances are the guards are lawful though and will request documentation.
A shopkeep probably will give a discount to his friends. Or he might believe his friends should always pay full price (dwarves like us always pay, right! I wouldn't besmirch yer honor!).
The vile cultist situation is where the spells use really becomes suspect. "Sneak us in," we say to the charmed NE cultist, and he sneaks us in and betrays us immediately (like he'd do to any of his other friends who he knows aren't in the cult) to improve his own standing.
You guys realize, that if Pathfinder had RULES for convincing people of things, this wouldn't be an issue, right?
Hey developers, care to take this one on?
I thought they already had. It makes the target Friendly.
If the bartender was initially Unfriendly, he's now Friendly. You typically can't make requests (as per Diplomacy skill) at all unless the target is at least Indifferent. So now you can make requests. If the request is something "dangerous" and that "could result in punishment," the target number is still DC 35, so it's not an instant I win. But if the aid is simple ("Can you tell me what the Earl of Duke's favorite drink is? I want to buy him a bottle as a present.") the DC is now only 5 instead of "Screw you."
|
You guys realize, that if Pathfinder had RULES for convincing people of things, this wouldn't be an issue, right?
Hey developers, care to take this one on?
I thought they already had. It makes the target Friendly.
If the bartender was initially Unfriendly, he's now Friendly. You typically can't make requests (as per Diplomacy skill) at all unless the target is at least Indifferent. So now you can make requests. If the request is something "dangerous" and that "could result in punishment," the target number is still DC 35, so it's not an instant I win. But if the aid is simple ("Can you tell me what the Earl of Duke's favorite drink is? I want to buy him a bottle as a present.") the DC is now only 5 instead of "Screw you."
Keep reading:
"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.)"
Do you typically allow Charisma checks to compel people to do things?
|
|
I do think there's a cognitive problem with this spell that typifies a "fantasy" problem - is magic normal?
If Charm Person is a normal part of life, then people will recognize it more frequently and will have already formed opinions about it. They will have seen it used on friends and loved ones and will likely not consider it a nice thing to do. At a society level there are likely laws dealing with its use, etc.
Where the setting is more like dark ages Europe with magic bolted on, then they might be quick to dismiss it.
In Gorlion, it seems they know what it is when they see it.
|
|
With modifiers, yes.
"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead[b], and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to [b]exert himself in any way and is unconscious.
You apply your character's Charisma modifier to:
Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead foes.
Bards, paladins, and sorcerers gain a number of bonus spells based on their Charisma scores. The minimum Charisma score needed to cast a bard, paladin, or sorcerer spell is 10 + the spell's level."
YMMV. Most GM's play it by ear, but yes Charisma is what is use to influence others. By definition.
The issue of magical crime is an issue of DM fiat. If your DM hates compulsion spells as a cheap way to bypass combat, then expect a hard rain to fall when you use them. If your DM thinks they are fun and a clever social tool, expect a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
I agree with the notion that the spell must be concealed and used in conjunction with social skills, but as I outlined, I see a variety of scenarios where it can be useful and fun without inspiring an arrest or a future enemy.
The analogy to paladins is quite apt: Some GMs are easy on enchanters, letting things slide, others have a very harsh view of what enchantments are and will not hesitate to put you on the wrong end of rule 0.
Do you typically allow Charisma checks to compel people to do things?
No. But I do allow Charisma checks to convince people to do things.
... something that is handled quite well by the Diplomacy rules. Normally the bartender doesn't go around volunteering information about the Earl's drink preferences, because that would be silly. But he'll answer questions if asked -- and if he likes the person asking enough to not simply give them a brush-off.
Imagine Charm Person used to convince someone to sleep with you. In our modern world, there are drugs that accomplish this and they're typically illegal.
As far as I know, flowers, chocolates, dinner, and a movie are all legal. As a matter of fact, I know of no drug that will "compel" someone to sleep with you, although I can think of several that will render that person incapable of resisting. That's basically the difference between "convince" and "compel"; if you need "compel," the spell is Dominate Person.
Having said that, I agree that using Charm Person to get someone to say "yes" is slimy, undue influence and could easily be illegal. But at least in theory, the person could still say "no" to sleeping with you, if, for example, they expected punishment.
ETA: bojac6 has the right of it. Charm will not make someone do for you what they wouldn't do for any close friend. As a matter of fact, since it only makes them "Friendly," not "Helpful," there are things that they will do normally for their BFFs (the people they feel "Helpful" towards) that they won't do for you, even enspelled.
Why would anybody really care about charm person, or even laws about it? As the spell is written, it just makes the person friendly with you.
Because it bypasses the fact that ordinarily you wouldn't be friends with this slime-bucket.
Just for the record I have a human Court Bard with a starting diplomacy of +17, good bluff too, as well as traits that allow a re-roll ad shift attitude 3 steps. By the time he is 6th level he's gonna make that dc 35 check roughly 50% of the time without magic.
Shrug. By the time my sorcerer is 6th level, he has Suggestion spells.
|
|
Even if you just equate it to intoxication, you're doing it without their knowledge or consent. Perhaps you're locking them in the bathroom so they get a contact high off of the second hand smoke. It's still not going to be something society tolerates. All it would take is a single victim, particularly in a Lawful or Chaotic society (for alternate reasons).
And even IF Charm Person was somehow a lesser offense than Suggestion, that doesn't mean that spill over fear about Suggestion wouldn't still be a factor. It seems like yours is a world where powerful compulsions don't actually exist, so lesser ones are nothing to be afraid of. Again, without that Spellcraft check, how do you tell the difference?
Yes, and the FAQ button is up there in the upper right corner. But here’s the answer: "Charm Person: How does the "try to issue orders" aspect of this spell work?
The spell makes the target your friend. It will treat you kindly (although maybe not your allies) and will generally help you as long as your interests align. This is mostly in the purview of the GM.
If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play.
For example, if you use charm person to befriend an orc, the orc might share his grog with you and talk with you about the upcoming raid on a nearby settlement. If you asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand. If you asked him to help you till a field, however, you might need to make that check to convince him to do it.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/01/13”
2. There are so many books out, including 3rd party stuff, that this question can not be answered.
Your other questions are answered here:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
“Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.”
Yes, quite a few, including the fact that few NPCs have Spellcraft. Still spell, Silent spell, and other things, too.
Well, to most of us there’s no other questions. Why not try the Rules Question forum, and be specific?
The SRD has just the material Paizo has decided to make public. It doesn’t have Adventure path stuff or 3rd party stuff. Have you tried reading it?
How do they know it’s a spell unless they can see the effect or have Spellcraft?
And even IF Charm Person was somehow a lesser offense than Suggestion, that doesn't mean that spill over fear about Suggestion wouldn't still be a factor. It seems like yours is a world where powerful compulsions don't actually exist, so lesser ones are nothing to be afraid of. Again, without that Spellcraft check, how do you tell the difference?
The same way any other dispute gets resolved in a Lawful society; through the legal process. If I point a gun at a cop and he shoots me in self-defense, the fact that the gun was not loaded at the time (or even that it was a toy gun) will not matter. If he manages to subdue me, I might be able to bring up the evidence that it was a toy gun at my trial for attempted murder -- "My lord, I knew full well that the gun was empty, and therefore could not possibly have been intending to murder him" but it wouldn't get me off on a lesser charge of menacing, assault, making terrorist threats, et cetera.
If the best defense to a charge of Rape-by-Enspellment that I can make is "but it was only a level 1 charm spell, not a compulsion spell," ... well, at that point the burden of proof might well be on me to prove which spell I cast.
Certainly my admitting that I ensorcelled someone with intent to weaken their resistance to my blandishments would not go over well.
|
|
How do you disguise a spell as something mundane (without the metamagic feats obviously)? I thought the bluff skill would come into play, but the skill description makes no mention that it can be done. Or am i missing something?
It's pretty much homebrew. Some GMs allow a Bluff, Sleight of Hand, or Stealth check to conceal spellcasting or pass it off as something harmless (opposed by Sense Motive, Perception, or Spellcraft). Usually there's some sort of modifier for the number of components. Some GMs allow any spell with no components to be stealthy without a check required. None of this is in the rules.
Except that charm person isn't a roofie. At worst, it's the magic equivalent of alcohol. After using Charm Person, you'd still need to seduce the person. It'd be easier, sure, but it wouldn't be any harder than trying to seduce someone after a 3rd or 4th date. There is no compulsion element to Charm Person.
Now, is using Charm Person to sleep with somebody slimey? Yes, very. But it's no different from a pickup artist.
If Charm Person = Intoxication it certainly is worse than pickup artists. A heavily intoxicated person can be considered unable to meaningfully consent in North America. If you get someone drunk because you know they wouldn't sleep with you sober, you could be facing very similar charges to someone who used roofies.
No. At absolute best, it's the equivalent of spiking the other person's non-alcoholic drink with alcohol when they're not looking, in order to get you to sleep with them.
Also this.
The SRD has just the material Paizo has decided to make public. It doesn’t have Adventure path stuff or 3rd party stuff. Have you tried reading it?
Why are you bringing up adventure path/3rd party stuff?
Did you not ask "2.Is there a higher level version of the hynoptism spell?" There may well be.
I suppose you are familiar with Hypnotic pattern.
If you have time and a plan charm person can be an awesome spell. Don't use it to force people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do. Use it to make friends. Cast it on that Judge or guard and then proceed to have a great time (drinking, eating, going to the fights, whatever.) Then do it again a few days later, and again and again. Pretty soon you have a real friend not a charmed one. Then the NPC is likely to help you anyway and if you have to charm him or her, he remembers doing something for his friend, which is not so wierd, as opposed to for a stranger. Charm person is a great way to build contacts. Combine this with other mind influencing spells and you can seriously control people without them even suspecting something is going on.
This is where I recommend my guide to charming people.
Briefly put: subtle is your friend. Charm works better with copious use of Sense Motive and social skills, and not moving people too far outside their comfort zone.