Really this is my fault for trying to discuss this on the Internet but one more try....Put aside the issue of whether you think the word rape should be applied to it. Magically coercing someone into having sex with you is a bad thing to do.
I don't see it as magically coercing you to have sex. It's magically coercing you into thinking the caster is your friend. Then you decide how that person treats their friends. If the person isn't willing to sleep with someone just because they are close friends, then Charm Person isn't going to get them into bed. Yes, it's a bad thing to do. No, heroes should not be using charm person to seduce anyone.
Let's say their is someone who will jump into bed with anyone that owns a Ferrai. If another person convinces the first person that they own a Ferrai and they have sex, is that rape?
I don't run Charm Person as forcing you to do anything you wouldn't do for a friend. It is a first level spell. I don't think it should strip you of your free will. It convinces the target the caster is their friend. It does not make you think the person is your spouse or girl/boy friend. It doesn't make you think you known each other for a long time. You simply treat the caster as if they were your friend. That is all (in my games).
How much difference is there between a saving throw (and possible subsequent charisma check) and a bluff check? If a character makes a bluff or diplomacy check to seduce someone, is that rape? Is it purely because it's magic and not skill that makes it rape?
Let me take a different approach...
Uther Pendragon uses Merlin's spell to assume the likeness of Igraine's husband, seduces her, and beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?
Now assume that Uther isn't under a disguise self spell, but instead Igraine is charmed. Uther convinces Igraine he is her husband but "under a magical curse" to appear as Uther. He seduces her, she fails her save, and he beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?
Now we've hit an interesting area. In a word? Yes.
How much difference is there between a saving throw (and possible subsequent charisma check) and a bluff check? If a character makes a bluff or diplomacy check to seduce someone, is that rape? Is it purely because it's magic and not skill that makes it rape?
Yes to what? I asked multiple questions.
If I'm just trying to seduce someone, sometimes, no matter what I do, I'm going to get turned down.
But if you succeed, is it rape?
Charm Person on the other hand is, I wave a hand and now I've instantly got your attention. I've forced you to regard me favorably rather than try to convince you. In this case, I have literally shoved the drug down your throat.
You've got their attention but there is no guarantee you can seduce them. Most people do not have sex with someone just because they are good friends. If you are running Charm Person as a "do what I command" spell, then we are running it differently.
How much difference is there between a saving throw (and possible subsequent charisma check) and a bluff check? If a character makes a bluff or diplomacy check to seduce someone, is that rape? Is it purely because it's magic and not skill that makes it rape?Let me take a different approach...
Uther Pendragon uses Merlin's spell to assume the likeness of Igraine's husband, seduces her, and beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?
Yes, that is clearly rape.
Now assume that Uther isn't under a disguise self spell, but instead Igraine is charmed. Uther convinces Igraine he is her husband but "under a magical curse" to appear as Uther. He seduces her, she fails her save, and he beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?
Again yes, but it would still be rape if he used a high bluff check instead of charm person, would it not?
Here we go again!
Bring the popcorn, ill bring the soda.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How much difference is there between a saving throw (and possible subsequent charisma check) and a bluff check? If a character makes a bluff or diplomacy check to seduce someone, is that rape? Is it purely because it's magic and not skill that makes it rape?Let me take a different approach...
Uther Pendragon uses Merlin's spell to assume the likeness of Igraine's husband, seduces her, and beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?
Yes, that is clearly rape.
Again yes, but it would still be rape if he used a high bluff check instead of charm person, would it not?
Now assume that Uther isn't under a disguise self spell, but instead Igraine is charmed. Uther convinces Igraine he is her husband but "under a magical curse" to appear as Uther. He seduces her, she fails her save, and he beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?
...but that is exactly the way using a Charm Person spell would work... so you have just admitted that it is rape to get a charmed person to sleep with someone.
Why is it, that I get the feeling that, while there are both male and female players saying that this use of a charm person spell would be rape, that there only male players saying that it would not be?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Puffs in*
Man this thread is getting heated, hope it doesnt get locked
*Puffs out*
How much difference is there between a saving throw (and possible subsequent charisma check) and a bluff check? If a character makes a bluff or diplomacy check to seduce someone, is that rape? Is it purely because it's magic and not skill that makes it rape?Let me take a different approach...
Uther Pendragon uses Merlin's spell to assume the likeness of Igraine's husband, seduces her, and beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?
Yes, that is clearly rape.
Again yes, but it would still be rape if he used a high bluff check instead of charm person, would it not?
Now assume that Uther isn't under a disguise self spell, but instead Igraine is charmed. Uther convinces Igraine he is her husband but "under a magical curse" to appear as Uther. He seduces her, she fails her save, and he beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?...but that is exactly the way using a Charm Person spell would work... so you have just admitted that it is rape to get a charmed person to sleep with someone.
Why is it, that I get the feeling that, while there are both male and female players saying that this use of a charm person spell would be rape, that there only male players saying that it would not be?
So it's rape because of Charm Person? Magical lies are rape, mundane lies are not? If it is rape either way (which it is) then why is Charm Person the culprit?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Puffs in*
Also remember that charm/dominate person doesnt have the evil descriptor, so while it can be easily used for evil things, its still possible to use it for the greater good.
*Puffs out*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's me:
"Clocks are not evil."
Here's the internet:
"What if I bashed your head in with a clock? Is bashing someone's head in not evil? What are you, some kind of head-bashing apologist!?"
I never meant to have a discussion about what is and is not rape. I was talking about what is and is not Charm Person. Rape was the example being used when I joined the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Durngrun Stonebreaker: Alright, I think I understand part of the problem, the way you run charm person seems odd to me. I think I get what you are trying to say but I don’t think I can agree with it and I suspect others feel the same way which is why so many people have a problem with what you are saying. Let me see if I can explain.
I just see it as sort of a magical lie. That's why there is a charisma check (to convince them to do something they normally wouldn't) instead if a bluff check. The spell is compelling the person to follow your commands, just making them more receptive to your requests.
First the charisma check is because you are not lying to them, you are trying to convince them to do something. If you do lie you will in fact need a bluff check as well. Also, if it is supposed to be some sort of magical lie it seems to me it should be a bluff check rather than using saving throws and charisma checks so I’m not sure I understand the first part of your argument.
Second, how does it make someone more receptive to your requests? To me this sounds like a drug impeding a person ability to think or reason somehow. I don’t understand how this would translate to the equivalent of a lie.
The lie in the case if Charm Person is the caster is your friend. In my games this is all that Charm Person does, magically convince that person the caster is their friend. Everything after that follows from that lie.
I don’t know about you but I’m fairly certain I couldn’t walk up to anyone, lie that I was there friend, and get them to just believe me and I would challenge even the best con artists out there to do it and be suddenly considered a person’s friend just the same as if they’d known them for years, they may be treated similarly, but to be truly considered the same as a real friend, I seriously doubt it. So once again I am back to seeing it as a drug rather than a lie. For me at least I just don’t see how it can be treated the same as a lie.
In short, the way I see it, you are magically altering an individual’s state of mind. A lie can be believed or not, a person has a choice. You are removing the ability for a person to even make that choice which basically strips them of a portion of their free will. I don’t really understand how you can think of it as a lie. Lies do not take away free will, drugs however can, which is why I believe this is far more similar to a drug then to a lie and consequently why I’m having difficulty seeing your argument that it could be merely the same as a lie.
In fact I'll even take things a step further and say that even if you are the best con artist on the planet and can in fact convince someone absolutely that you are their friend or even their very best friend it is still not the same thing. The end result may be the same, but one way you are taking away free will and the other way you are not. For me at least that distinction makes a tremendous difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Puffs in*
Also keep note that there are two questions to be made here: first, what uses of charm person can be considered evil. Second, how much evil those said uses can be considered.
Are they enough for a paladin to insta fall? Are they enough for a insta alignment change? I would say yes and no depending on how its being used. For example, stealing from a friend would be evil, but not enough for falling from good to evil alignment in one go. If you keep doing it, though, you will fall.
*Puffs out*
Here's me:
"Clocks are not evil."Here's the internet:
"What if I bashed your head in with a clock? Is bashing someone's head in not evil? What are you, some kind of head-bashing apologist!?"I never meant to have a discussion about what is and is not rape. I was talking about what is and is not Charm Person. Rape was the example being used when I joined the discussion.
Let's clear something up. Non-magically coercing someone into sex is bad. Using charm person to coerce people into sex isn't bad because it's magical, it's bad because it's coercing someone into sex.
If you didn't mean to have a discussion about what is and is not rape, then you shouldn't have entered the conversation by saying that using charm person to coerce someone into sex is "a far cry from rape".
Lets calm down folks, this discussion is getting a bit too heated. That was one example, the objective here is to discuss what can and cannot be considered evil with the use of enchantment spells, like charm/dominate person.
Naruto (awesome nick by the way!) nailed it down pretty well: two questions here, what is evil and how much it is evil. What is the limit to cross before you get an alignment change? This is a very tricky part of the alignment system, as everything is hard to define with precision.
*Puffs in*
Rape the girl? Evil (with a quick fall to evil alignment/lost powers land). Steal the girl? Evil (This one is a slow fall, but still bad). Buy her a soda and ask about what her evil boss's plans for the weekend is? Good (unless you think that torturing her for the information is better than this, but then again, this is subjective.)
*Puffs out*
Edit to avoid risks!: The last part is assuming that shes an evil underling, good characters dont throw spells on good folks after all.
Here's me:
"Clocks are not evil."Here's the internet:
"What if I bashed your head in with a clock? Is bashing someone's head in not evil? What are you, some kind of head-bashing apologist!?"I never meant to have a discussion about what is and is not rape. I was talking about what is and is not Charm Person. Rape was the example being used when I joined the discussion.
Let's clear something up. Non-magically coercing someone into sex is bad. Using charm person to coerce people into sex isn't bad because it's magical, it's bad because it's coercing someone into sex.
Then it's a good thing I've already said that multiple times. Again, I do not let the first level spell steal your free will and force you to have sex. If that is the way you run it, that's fine. Don't ask me to defend your interpretation of the spell.
Im gonna chime in be the black sheep and say this is not rape for real.
If the barmaid sleeps with her friends, then its her problem. Charm person makes you look like her friend. If she gets convinced to sleep with you, its because she have no problems with doing so.
Its easy to put morals in front of facts, but it doesnt change the fact the she still have to be okay with sleeping with friends for the spell to do it. Its not rape, its consensual.
I would say Charm Person is more akin to lying than drugging someone. However I'm in the "Charm Person doesn't equal Dominate Person" crowd. So I certainly wouldn't consider it a good thing, but a far cry from rape (at least in my games).Im asking more on the lines of morally dubious things like charming an innocent barmaid to sleep with you, when normally she would never agree to it.IMO, there's nothing "morally dubious" about that, any more than there's anything "morally dubious" about giving someone a drug that incapacitates them so you can rape them. Either way, it's evil.
Exactly this. Its not good, but its also not rape. Its neutral.
@Revel
Here's how I run it.
Cast Charm Person, target fails save, target now regards the caster as their friend. Nothing else is changed. You can make requests and if it is something they will do for a friend then they will do it, no problem. ("Hey man, can you give me a ride home after work?) Make a request they might do for a friend but are reluctant, then a charisma check is needed. (Can you help me move? I'm in a four-story walk up.) Ask them to do something they wouldn't under any circumstances and they will flatly refuse-no check required. (Would you mind killing your father for me?) If you try to lie to them you still make a bluff check with the DC modified by the fact they consider you a friend. Some lies might not require a bluff check because they are a friend (Hey, I got the new Xbox! Not really.), while some would be very difficult regardless of friendship. (Just found out I'm king of the Moon!)
That, to me, is Charm Person.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
@Revel
Here's how I run it.
Cast Charm Person, target fails save, target now regards the caster as their friend. Nothing else is changed. You can make requests and if it is something they will do for a friend then they will do it, no problem. ("Hey man, can you give me a ride home after work?) Make a request they might do for a friend but are reluctant, then a charisma check is needed. (Can you help me move? I'm in a four-story walk up.) Ask them to do something they wouldn't under any circumstances and they will flatly refuse-no check required. (Would you mind killing your father for me?) If you try to lie to them you still make a bluff check with the DC modified by the fact they consider you a friend. Some lies might not require a bluff check because they are a friend (Hey, I got the new Xbox! Not really.), while some would be very difficult regardless of friendship. (Just found out I'm king of the Moon!)That, to me, is Charm Person.
Exactly. The barmaid will only sleep with you if shes okay with sleeping with random friends. If she does it, then its not rape, like people here are trying to argue. Youre not dominating her and forcing her to do it: You got to ask like a friend of hers.
The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
I have to disagree with this. She will view you like a friend, if she sleeps with her friends and you're succesful at asking her that, then its not rape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now for the people saying it's not rape, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am not accusing you of being rape apologists at all. I am not getting that vibe.
I'm thinking about the fact that we have only this one word, "rape", but the experiences it describes can range from bad to worse to unspeakable.
I wonder if some of you are thinking of the victims of the most traumatic and horrifying instances of rape, and what you really mean to say is that you don't want to see the weight and impact of the word lessened?
Now for the people saying it's not rape, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am not accusing you of being rape apologists at all. I am not getting that vibe.
I'm thinking about the fact that we have only this one word, "rape", but the experiences it describes can range from bad to worse to unspeakable.
I wonder if some of you are thinking of the victims of the most traumatic and horrifying instances of rape, and what you really mean to say is that you don't want to see the weight and impact of the word lessened?
As I said, its not rape because youre not forcing her to do it. Youre not using brute force, neither you are dominating her mind or anything. Youre passing as her friend. If shes okay with sleeping with friends, then its simply consensual.
Charm person is a Charm spell, not Compulsion spell. Dont forget that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's something I'm having trouble articulating. I'm going to use an anecdote from real life that I will put in spoiler tags because it is graphic and unpleasant and potentially triggering for victims.
Mods if you feel this is too heavy and need to delete I will understand, but I believe it adds to the discussion and makes a point I'm not sure how to make another way.
If this acquaintance of mine heard a story of a real world occurrence analogous to this scenario with charm person being used to coerce a barmaid, I imagine he would say, "That's a far cry from rape!"
I would understand the distinction he was trying to make, but in my opinion he would still be wrong, because words are words, and they have definitions.
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent.
Intercourse without valid consent is rape. The subject of charm person is being coerced, and is incapable of valid consent. I would consider her to be incapacitated by the effects of the spell.
This acquaintance of mine would likely not be willing to cede this point, because in his mind the word rape is reserved for violent, forceful, deeply scarring and traumatic instances of rape such as those inflicted on him.
Interestingly, though, I can't imagine him employing deception or coercion to circumvent the issue of consent. There was a hypothetical example introduced earlier of a man who claims ownership of a Ferrari to impress a woman. I believe my acquaintance would have a distaste for behavior such as that, because he would recognize it on some level to be of the same kind as what he was forced to endure. The difference is one of magnitude and severity.
There's something I'm having trouble articulating. I'm going to use an anecdote from real life that I will put in spoiler tags because it is graphic and unpleasant and potentially triggering for victims.
Mods if you feel this is too heavy and need to delete I will understand, but I believe it adds to the discussion and makes a point I'm not sure how to make another way.
** spoiler omitted **
If he heard a story of a real world occurrence analogous to this scenario with charm person being used to coerce a barmaid, I imagine he would say, "That's a far cry from rape!"
I would understand the distinction he was trying to make, but in my opinion he would still be wrong, because words are words, and they have definitions.
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent.Intercourse without valid consent is rape. The subject of charm person is being coerced, and is incapable of valid consent. I would consider her to be incapacitated by the effects of the spell.
So to you, using diplomacy to become friendly and convince her to do it is also rape? After all, the same way the skill check can fail, the spell also can with the will save.
I maintain my point. This is not the real world. Youre pretending to be her friend; to sleep with her, she have to consent in sleeping with a friend first. Youre not taking away her free will to choose. Thats what the Dominate, aka Compulsion spells does. Not charm person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.
I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.
Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.
The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.
I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.
Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.
Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.
Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its Neutral. A paladin would still have to atone. He's lying when pretending to be her friend, and thats against his code.
Sorry to split your post.
If you didn't mean to have a discussion about what is and is not rape, then you shouldn't have entered the conversation by saying that using charm person to coerce someone into sex is "a far cry from rape".
It seemed to me that Ms. Price was implying that Charm Person was the equivalent of drugging someone and having sex with their unconscious body. I never intended to imply that wouldn't be rape. My point was that is not Charm Person. (At least not the way I've ever ran it.)
The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.
I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.
Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.
Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.
Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its Neutral. A paladin would still have to atone. He's lying when pretending to be her friend, and thats against his code.
Well, let me stop you there. It's evil. I just wouldn't necessarily say its Evil. Although it certainly could be under the right circumstances.
Sorry to split your post.
It seemed to me that Ms. Price was implying that Charm Person was the equivalent of drugging someone and having sex with their unconscious body. I never intended to imply that wouldn't be rape. My point was that is not Charm Person. (At least not the way I've ever ran it.)
If you didn't mean to have a discussion about what is and is not rape, then you shouldn't have entered the conversation by saying that using charm person to coerce someone into sex is "a far cry from rape".
Exactly. Charm Person is not forcing the target into anything. It only makes them perceive you as a friend, just like a succesful diplomacy check does.
Well, let me stop you there. It's evil. I just...The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.
I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.
Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.
Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.
Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its Neutral. A paladin would still have to atone. He's lying when pretending to be her friend, and thats against his code.
I gave multiple arguments as to why it is not evil. What are yours?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically the sticky bit is the part of the spell where they say you can use an opposed Charisma check to make them do stuff they wouldn't do
I've never liked that part of it, it's too open ended. I'm more inclined to treat it like the Contacts system they have in Ultimate Campaign, where you weight Trust vs. Risk and maybe factor the Charmed person's Alignment a little.
Should be easy enough to get a Charmed Thief to break the Law
but a Charmed Paladin should be giving you the Hairy Eyeball and telling you "I know you are my very best friend in the world but I'm going to tell you why you're wrong to ask that of me. And then we are going to the church where you are going to ask Father O'Mally to set you a penance. It's for your own good because you are my very best friend."
...Well, letThe scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.
I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.
Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.
Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.
Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its Neutral. A paladin would still have to atone. He's lying when pretending to be her friend, and thats against his code.
The spell is inherently deceptive. There is no way to excise that part of it. I believe there are degrees to lying but all lying is bad.
...The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.
I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.
Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.
Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.
Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its Neutral. A paladin would still have to atone. He's lying when pretending to be her friend, and thats
If that were the case, any action involving bluff would be evil...
And thats why I say that its neutral. Neither evil or good. if it were inherently evil, it would also have the evil descriptor, just like infernal healing.
"Magic roofies are still roofies." is something that shouldn't need posting so often, yet it do.
Except for the fact that charm person is not dominate person. A charm effect, not compulsion effect. She retains her free will to do her own choices, the only difference is that she regards you as a friend. Just like if you succeeded on a diplomacy check, she becomes friendly, but she wont do what you asks if it is something that only a compulsion spell like dominate could achieve.
...The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.
I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.
Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.
Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.
Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its Neutral. A paladin would still have to atone. He's lying when
A spell with the [Evil] descriptior is usually one that is powered by evil.
...The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.
I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.
Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.
Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.
Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its Neutral. A paladin would still have
And charm person isnt powered by evil. Just using it wont be an evil act. Its normally not good to lie, but neither is evil. Its neutral.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, its pretty clear that charm person makes your target perceive you as a friend. But it also let you order him to do something he normally wouldnt, if you make an opposed charisma check.
Now, how far can this go? Can you order someone to kill a person he loves, or to sleep with you? If so, would it be an evil act to force them into something they dont want to do?
I have a player in my group using it do some questionable things, and with his high charisma he tends to have good chances at the opposed check. Even if spells like charm/dominate person arent inherently evil, I would say that forcing someone into doing something they normally would never agree to is a harder evil act.
What are your thoughts?
You can use it to turn an adventuring companion on another. At least, if the charmed person is the hired sword type.
From Shattered Star
...The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.
I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.
Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.
Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.
Its not evil, but definitely not good either. Its
Charm Person is not powered by Evil therefore it is not an [Evil] spell. That does not exclude the spell from being evil. Charm Person is willful deception. This is not a white lie or lie of omission. It's willfully convincing someone of a false narrative. It is not a good act or neutral act. It is evil but not necessarily Evil. The casting of the spell would not warrant an alignment change, although extensive use might.
...The scenario that was described, casting charm person on a barmaid to make her friendly towards you, rolling opposed charisma to convince her to sleep with you while charmed, seems unambiguously evil to me, for reasons already stated. There can be no meaningful consent under those circumstances.
I was surprised to see there was any controversy about that point in the discussion.
I mentioned the paladin with phylactery contemplating this course of action, because I thought it would highlight the absurdity of regarding such behavior as nothing more then a "morally dubious" use of enchantment magic. Can anyone really imagine the Paladin, a paragon of virtue, considering an act like this, and receiving guidance from his higher power saying "Hey, it's not a nice thing to do, but it's not thaat bad. Maybe just atone for it in the morning."
Yes it is evil. I have agreed to that from the get go. Good aligned PCs should be very much against this course of action. I cannot imagine a properly played Paladin ever attempting this and if they did, they would almost certainly fall for it.
I was saying (perhaps poorly) that Charm Person + charisma check does not guarantee you get to have sex with that person. Charm Person would only work on someone willing to have sex with their friends.
Charm Person does not, cannot, force someone to have sex with you. You do not lose free will. No more than if I convince you my shirt is red when it is actually green, steals your free will.
Thats the exact reason why its actually not evil. She have to be alright in sleeping with her friends. Her free will is not taken away. Thats not what the spell does. Youre passing as her friend.
Its not evil, but
So would using bluff constantly to convince people of a false narrative be an evil act?
Bluff is not evil, nowhere in the book the skill is stated as an evil act. To give someone a false perception through the use of lies is not good, but its also not an evil act. Neither is making them perceive you as a friend.
If you go by that way of thinking, all enchanters would eventually become evil for using spells like charm/dominate person. Im pretty sure that there are a lot of good enchanters out there using those spells constantly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So would using bluff constantly to convince people of a false narrative be an evil act?
Bluff is not evil, nowhere in the book the skill is stated as an evil act. To give someone a false perception through the use of lies is not good, but its also not an evil act. Neither is making them perceive you as a friend.
If you go by that way of thinking, all enchanters would eventually become evil for using spells like charm/dominate person. Im pretty sure that there are a lot of good enchanters out there using those spells constantly.
Yes, bluff is evil. Alignment is more than a single act, though. The guy who saves the kingdom without a single drop of blood by telling a series of elaborate lies is probably a good guy. Same as the hero who saves the kingdom by killing (which is listed as evil act) all the evil forces out to destroy it. However this is getting slightly off topic at this point.
I'm curious. I'm going to explain my reasoning why Charm Person is definitely the equivalent of roofieing someone and "coercing" them.
Barmaid example, Shes willing to sleep with her friends in this one. She would never sleep with a stranger.
Shes never met you before. You cast Charm Person forcing her to regard you as a close friend. Coitus ensues.
Heres the fact of the matter.
Without doing what you did, she would have never slept with you. So what does that mean? Obviously Charm Person had a huge effect on changing her mental faculties. If you think that this is okay, then so should this example.
You cast Dominate Person. You command them to regard you as a close friend. Then you tell her to act normally while heeding previous commands. Coitus ensues.
Guess what some drugs do? They lower your mental faculties making you more vulnerable. If you accept someone's offer in this state is it valid consent? No of course not because you are no longer in control of your own mind.
Which is exactly what these spells do. They change your frame of mind to better suit the caster.
I'm curious. I'm going to explain my reasoning why Charm Person is definitely the equivalent of roofieing someone and "coercing" them.
Barmaid example, Shes willing to sleep with her friends in this one. She would never sleep with a stranger.
Shes never met you before. You cast Charm Person forcing her to regard you as a close friend. Coitus ensues.
Heres the fact of the matter.
Without doing what you did, she would have never slept with you. So what does that mean? Obviously Charm Person had a huge effect on changing her mental faculties. If you think that this is okay, then so should this example.
You cast Dominate Person. You command them to regard you as a close friend. Then you tell her to act normally while heeding previous commands. Coitus ensues.
Guess what some drugs do? They lower your mental faculties making you more vulnerable. If you accept someone's offer in this state is it valid consent? No of course not because you are no longer in control of your own mind.
Which is exactly what these spells do. They change your frame of mind to better suit the caster.
So you consider dominate person on a enemy and using him to attack his allies during combat a evil act?
I'm curious. I'm going to explain my reasoning why Charm Person is definitely the equivalent of roofieing someone and "coercing" them.
Barmaid example, Shes willing to sleep with her friends in this one. She would never sleep with a stranger.
Shes never met you before. You cast Charm Person forcing her to regard you as a close friend. Coitus ensues.
Heres the fact of the matter.
Without doing what you did, she would have never slept with you. So what does that mean? Obviously Charm Person had a huge effect on changing her mental faculties. If you think that this is okay, then so should this example.
You cast Dominate Person. You command them to regard you as a close friend. Then you tell her to act normally while heeding previous commands. Coitus ensues.
Guess what some drugs do? They lower your mental faculties making you more vulnerable. If you accept someone's offer in this state is it valid consent? No of course not because you are no longer in control of your own mind.
Which is exactly what these spells do. They change your frame of mind to better suit the caster.
So just that we are perfectly clear (and then hopefully the discussion can go back to charm person), any deception is rape? Is that your position? If you tell someone you have a nicer car than you actually have or that you make more money than you actually and they have sex with you because of that erroneous belief, then you have committed rape, correct? That is all the spell does at my table.
Are you saying its rape because it robs them of their free will? Then that's your table. It does not rob you of your free will at my table. If an NPC casts Charm Person on a PC, they are still a PC. The GM does not take over their character (at my table.) They are not forced to take any action that they would not take off their own free will. The only effect is they believe, however wrong that belief is, that the caster is their friend.Played my way, Charm Person is not a "magical roofie." If that's the way you run it, that's fine. You will not convince me I'm wrong because of the way you run Charm Person.
I'm curious. I'm going to explain my reasoning why Charm Person is definitely the equivalent of roofieing someone and "coercing" them.
Barmaid example, Shes willing to sleep with her friends in this one. She would never sleep with a stranger.
Shes never met you before. You cast Charm Person forcing her to regard you as a close friend. Coitus ensues.
Heres the fact of the matter.
Without doing what you did, she would have never slept with you. So what does that mean? Obviously Charm Person had a huge effect on changing her mental faculties. If you think that this is okay, then so should this example.
that's not true, you could still get those results. It would just require a whole lot more time and at least a few skill checks. All Charm Person does is speed up the process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<sarcasm>
No, you guys don't understand. If she orgasms during the sex that she had to be charmed into doing, it wasn't rape.
</sarcasm>
This thread is a sad reminder that I am just extremely, extremely lucky.