| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Aka women will sleep with anyone given sufficient time and skill and their personal preferences don't matter. LAWL
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can be a great redemptive tool. "Tell me why you did [thing]." Being a trusted friend, you can get to root causes of behavior quickly. "Do you feel bad about it? Wish you had a way out of it?" etc.
a women will sleep with anyone given sufficient time and skill and their personal preferences don't matter. LAWL
That is not my view, I was only saying that if it was a possibility Charm Person only makes it quicker to make her your friend.
You cannot make a bluff check to become a trusted friend. You cannot make a diplomacy check to become a trusted friend.
Diplomacy: Gather Info- what kind of people are they friends with
Bluff: pretend to be that kind of personRape?
You cannot make a bluff check to become a trusted friend. You cannot make a diplomacy check to become a trusted friend. These skills do not work that way.
Again, YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND.
It does not matter if she's sleep with any trusted friend. YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND. Brain-washing her to view you as a friend does not somehow make it ok. YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND.
Just like using Charm Person to get someone to give you money is stealing, using it to get sex is rape. Charm Person means their consent is not valid.
Charm Person does not force either person in those examples to do what you have suggested. you still have to convince them and they have to be willing to perform said action for a trusted friend. even the opposed Cha check is not a compulsion. it is just you trying to convince your "trusted friend" that it is a good idea, and it only flies if the GM is convinced that the npc is convinced.
Regardless of what behavior you compel the subject to do, I've always thought that Charm Person should automatically have the [EVIL] tag written into it as part of the spell description. I just don't see any way for the use of that spell to NOT be evil.
I believe that is a misunderstanding if the [Evil] descriptor. Charm Person does not draw upon evil for its power. Fireball is used to kill. Killing is evil. Fireball is not evil because it's just fire, not fire from the pits of hell. The [Evil] tag are for spells fueled by evil, not spells use to commit evil.
1. You can't assume that you can become anyone's Trusted Friend.a women will sleep with anyone given sufficient time and skill and their personal preferences don't matter. LAWLThat is not my view, I was only saying that if it was a possibility Charm Person only makes it quicker to make her your friend.
1. at no point did i assume such.
You cannot make a bluff check to become a trusted friend. You cannot make a diplomacy check to become a trusted friend.Diplomacy: Gather Info- what kind of people are they friends with
Bluff: pretend to be that kind of person
Rape?Pretending to be someone that is like the people they are friends with does not make them your friend.
It certainly doesn't make you a TRUSTED FRIEND.
So it is entirely impossible to trick someone into being friends with you in Pathfinder? No undercover work, no way to gain the trust of the king's advisor, or make friends with the local thief to find the bandit's hideout?
Charm Person does not force either person in those examples to do what you have suggested. you still have to convince them and they have to be willing to perform said action for a trusted friend. even the opposed Cha check is not a compulsion. it is just you trying to convince your "trusted friend" that it is a good idea, and it only flies if the GM is convinced that the npc is convinced.You cannot make a bluff check to become a trusted friend. You cannot make a diplomacy check to become a trusted friend. These skills do not work that way.
Again, YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND.
It does not matter if she's sleep with any trusted friend. YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND. Brain-washing her to view you as a friend does not somehow make it ok. YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND.
Just like using Charm Person to get someone to give you money is stealing, using it to get sex is rape. Charm Person means their consent is not valid.
It forces them to view you as a trusted friend. That's brainwashing however you slice it.
Getting them to give you money is theft.
Getting them to let you take care of their kids for a night is kidnapping.
Getting them to have sex with you is rape.
They are not capable of giving valid consent, because YOU ARE NOT THEIR FRIEND. You have just zapped their brain and forced them to view you as one. Forcing someone to think of you as a trusted friend does not mean you ARE a trusted friend.
It doesn't matter if you need to make a check first, because you are making a check to get them to do something they would not normally even consider. You have twisted their mind and altered their perception of reality and who you are.
Again, YOU ARE NOT THEIR TRUSTED FRIEND. A spell that makes them think of you as one does not change the fact you are not one.
If the spell made them think your hair was red, regardless of its actual color, are they now brainwashed and incapable of giving consent in any manner?
So it is entirely impossible to trick someone into being friends with you in Pathfinder? No undercover work, no way to gain the trust of the king's advisor, or make friends with the local thief to find the bandit's hideout?You cannot make a bluff check to become a trusted friend. You cannot make a diplomacy check to become a trusted friend.Diplomacy: Gather Info- what kind of people are they friends with
Bluff: pretend to be that kind of person
Rape?Pretending to be someone that is like the people they are friends with does not make them your friend.
It certainly doesn't make you a TRUSTED FRIEND.
It's potentially possible given enough time and effort. It takes a lot more time and effort to become someone's trusted friend. And there's no guarantee this will work.
If you manage it, however, you actually ARE their trusted friend. Charm Person does not do this. Charm Person forces them to VIEW you as a Trusted Friend. That does not make you their trusted friend; it's brainwashing.
Charm Person makes the deception automatic (if the target fails their will save). What happens from that point on is no different than if you hade spent weeks pretending to be someone your not in order to gain someone's trust.
1. You can't assume that you can become anyone's Trusted Friend.a women will sleep with anyone given sufficient time and skill and their personal preferences don't matter. LAWLThat is not my view, I was only saying that if it was a possibility Charm Person only makes it quicker to make her your friend.1. at no point did i assume such.
"That is not my view, I was only saying that if it was a possibility Charm Person only makes it quicker to make her your friend. "
Ok, let me slightly restate my point. The fact is, you can't assume it was a possibility, and even if you do that doesn't make brainwashing to get there ok.
Again, YOU ARE NOT HER TRUSTED FRIEND.
using charm person is no different than using diplomacy to change a NPC's attitude up to and including to "helpful" which provides pretty much the same benefits as Charm Person. making someone your friend with Charm Person is no more evil than using diplomacy. what you do with that friendship while its active is clearly up for debate in this thread. the spell is just a quicker way to make someone helpful.
So it is entirely impossible to trick someone into being friends with you in Pathfinder? No undercover work, no way to gain the trust of the king's advisor, or make friends with the local thief to find the bandit's hideout?You cannot make a bluff check to become a trusted friend. You cannot make a diplomacy check to become a trusted friend.Diplomacy: Gather Info- what kind of people are they friends with
Bluff: pretend to be that kind of person
Rape?Pretending to be someone that is like the people they are friends with does not make them your friend.
It certainly doesn't make you a TRUSTED FRIEND.
It's potentially possible given enough time and effort. It takes a lot more time and effort to become someone's trusted friend. And there's no guarantee this will work.
If you manage it, however, you actually ARE their trusted friend. Charm Person does not do this. Charm Person forces them to VIEW you as a Trusted Friend. That does not make you their trusted friend; it's brainwashing.
Charm Person makes the deception automatic (if the target fails their will save). What happens from that point on is no different than if you hade spent weeks pretending to be someone your not in order to gain someone's trust.
Except you didn't spend weeks working on gaining their trust. You didn't give them the chance to see through your lies, assuming you ever had a chance of being friends with them to begin with -- it is far from certain and is up to the DM to decide.
No, you didn't do any of that. You just magically twisted their brain to force them to trust you. There's a massive difference.
So the time crunch makes it rape? Tricking someone into sleeping with you is not rape only if it takes a couple of weeks? Any quicker than that and it's brainwashing?
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?
The pathfinder devs have said it is up to the GM. Personally since I think dominate person should be stronger I only take it as far as what you might do for a really good friend in a bad situation.
So for me it comes down to how the character is RP'ed. If you are more on the bloodthirsty side you might be convinced to kill someone who has done nothing wrong in your eyes even if you would not normally kill someone without provocation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine you have children you love, and you know one day you will have to give them up for adoption. (You are terminally ill, or your country is becoming unsafe for you, or them, or something like that, I don't know.)
For years you are waiting to meet someone you can trust with guardianship of your beloved children.
One night you meet this weird guy who waggles his fingers, and you reallize... This is him! The trusted friend you have been waiting for.
3 days later the spell wears off and your children are gone and you reallize, that guy wasn't your friend he was a total creep.
That's what it would be like.
Are you guys saying that is fine and good, you gave your children to a trusted friend out of free will, like you always wanted too?
The spell just sped things up?
Where is the disconnect happening here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The description clearly includes a fair bit of stuff that goes beyond "helpful." So no, you are wrong.
Even if you were correct, you are still twisting their brain to help you. That thoroughly undermines their ability to give valid consent. It does not matter if you could have actually spent time with them and become friends (which is not certain). You've skipped that part and went straight to twisting their brain.
What you are saying is the same as saying "Drugging someone and raping them is ok if you COULD have convinced them to have sex with you." The fact there may have been valid alternatives to get what you wanted does not change the fact that you did not take them.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
that doesnt grant anymore control over your target than using diplomacy and rolling high enough to change their attitude to helpful. now this whole "valid consent" statement is only your opinion. using "Charm" magic does not equal the same as drugging someone. a charmed person can still think and reason as per the text i made bold in the spoiler.
The description clearly includes a fair bit of stuff that goes beyond "helpful." So no, you are wrong.
Even if you were correct, you are still twisting their brain to help you. That thoroughly undermines their ability to give valid consent. It does not matter if you could have actually spent time with them and become friends (which is not certain). You've skipped that part and went straight to twisting their brain.
What you are saying is the same as saying "Drugging someone and raping them is ok if you COULD have convinced them to have sex with you." The fact there may have been valid alternatives to get what you wanted does not change the fact that you did not take them.
** spoiler omitted **
that doesnt grant anymore control over your target than using diplomacy and rolling high enough to change their attitude to helpful. now this whole "valid consent" statement is only your opinion. using "Charm" magic does not equal the same as drugging someone. a charmed person can still think and reason as per the text i made bold in the spoiler.
This ^^^ Arlandor got it totally right, like I was explaining before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.
What is going on in this thread??????
She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.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.
Ill have to disagree with this, depending on the situation of said NPC. If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her. She sees you as a friend, and if shes okay with it then its not rape. Charm person isnt a compulsion spell, youre not taking away her free will to choose. If she does it, its consensual. Remember, charm person is a Charm spell, not compulsion one.
The description clearly includes a fair bit of stuff that goes beyond "helpful." So no, you are wrong.
Even if you were correct, you are still twisting their brain to help you. That thoroughly undermines their ability to give valid consent. It does not matter if you could have actually spent time with them and become friends (which is not certain). You've skipped that part and went straight to twisting their brain.
What you are saying is the same as saying "Drugging someone and raping them is ok if you COULD have convinced them to have sex with you." The fact there may have been valid alternatives to get what you wanted does not change the fact that you did not take them.
** spoiler omitted **
that doesnt grant anymore control over your target than using diplomacy and rolling high enough to change their attitude to helpful. now this whole "valid consent" statement is only your opinion. using "Charm" magic does not equal the same as drugging someone. a charmed person can still think and reason as per the text i made bold in the spoiler.
Don't ignore the special rules on requests.
You can convince them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do with an opposed charisma check. That goes beyond what Diplomacy allows. Removing of skills such as Sense Motive and Diplomacy is indicative of their loss of judgement. Further, the fact there are no very general caveats like Diplomacy has (where the DM can just decide something is impossible) further emphasizes this. The only caveats are against suicidal acts and harm, but even then the spell allows some leeway with influencing them.
So no, it isn't "just like you improved their attitude with diplomacy."
And even if it was, screwing with someone's mind and then using that compromised mind to get something invalidates consent. It doesn't matter if you could have done it another way.
That's like robbing a store and saying "well, I could have gotten a job there and been paid. This is...
Except for the fact that charm person is not a compulsion spell. Compulsion spells make you do things withouth you wanting to, takes away your free will. Charm spells do not. This is right on the core rulebook, we have the rules at our side. This is just opinion.
The description clearly includes a fair bit of stuff that goes beyond "helpful." So no, you are wrong.
Even if you were correct, you are still twisting their brain to help you. That thoroughly undermines their ability to give valid consent. It does not matter if you could have actually spent time with them and become friends (which is not certain). You've skipped that part and went straight to twisting their brain.
What you are saying is the same as saying "Drugging someone and raping them is ok if you COULD have convinced them to have sex with you." The fact there may have been valid alternatives to get what you wanted does not change the fact that you did not take them.
** spoiler omitted **
that doesnt grant anymore control over your target than using diplomacy and rolling high enough to change their attitude to helpful. now this whole "valid consent" statement is only your opinion. using "Charm" magic does not equal the same as drugging someone. a charmed person can still think and reason as per the text i made bold in the spoiler.
Don't ignore the special rules on requests.
You can convince them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do with an opposed charisma check. That goes beyond what Diplomacy allows. Removing of skills such as Sense Motive and Diplomacy is indicative of their loss of judgement. Further, the fact there are no very general caveats like Diplomacy has (where the DM can just decide something is impossible) further emphasizes this. The only caveats are against suicidal acts and harm, but even then the spell allows some leeway with influencing them.
So no, it isn't "just like you improved their attitude with diplomacy."
And even if it was, screwing with someone's mind and then using that compromised mind to get something invalidates consent. It doesn't matter if you could have done it another way.
That's like robbing a store and saying "well, I could have gotten a job there and been paid. This is...
THAT IS HOW YOU RUN CHARM PERSON. I do not choose to run Charm Person that way.
Ill have to disagree with this, depending on the situation of said NPC. If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her. She sees you as a friend, and if shes okay with it then its not rape. Charm person isnt a compulsion spell, youre not taking away her free will to choose. If she does it, its consensual. Remember, charm person is a Charm spell, not compulsion one.She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.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.
Yes, you screwed with her head to view you as a friend. That's what invalidates consent. YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY HER FRIEND. You can't use reasoning about how she'd be ok with friends doing something to say this is ok, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND.
Again, if a drug made someone your friend for a few hours and you used it to sleep with them, then it would be rape. Charm Person is no different. Both screw with someone's mind and make them do things they would not otherwise do. Again, just because you made someone see you as a friend does not make you a friend.
And the spell explicitly compromises free will and changes how the system arbitrates requests.
It makes them view you in a friendly manner. They will be more suceptible to accepting requests, but they are not going to do so if they dont want to. Their ability to decide is still there, they have free will to act, because this is not a compulsion effect.
If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her.
You are not her friend! She thinks you are, because magic!
Except for the fact that charm person is not a compulsion spell. Compulsion spells make you do things withouth you wanting to, takes away your free will. Charm spells do not. This is right on the core rulebook, we have the rules at our side. This is just opinion.Compulsion spells guarantee the person behaves as desired. Charm Person isn't one because it isn't foolproof. It still blatantly compromises your decision-making capability.
Just like diplomacy does when you pass on the check to make them friendly.
It makes them view you in a friendly manner. They will be more suceptible to accepting requests, but they are not going to do so if they dont want to. Their ability to decide is still there, they have free will to act, because...Read the spell. With an successful opposed Charisma Check (they don't get to use any skills and your diplomacy doesn't matter) you get them to do something they'd never do otherwise.
Their ability to decide is there in a sense, but it is heavily compromised.
Durngrun Stonebreaker nailed it down about how this works. Its the same as convincing them to do it with talk. Youre not ordering them to do something like dominate person does, thats why is a cha check instead of a will save.
Just like diplomacy does when you pass on the check to make them friendly.Except for the fact that charm person is not a compulsion spell. Compulsion spells make you do things withouth you wanting to, takes away your free will. Charm spells do not. This is right on the core rulebook, we have the rules at our side. This is just opinion.Compulsion spells guarantee the person behaves as desired. Charm Person isn't one because it isn't foolproof. It still blatantly compromises your decision-making capability.Read the skill description before you say stuff like this. It's blatantly not true.
"Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."
That's not part of Charm Person.
They will only do something to you if its what they would do to a friend, they wont kill their father if you tell them to, simply because they wouldnt do this for a friend. This is not dominate person.
Ill have to disagree with this, depending on the situation of said NPC. If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her. She sees you as a friend, and if shes okay with it then its not rape. Charm person isnt a compulsion spell, youre not taking away her free will to choose. If she does it, its consensual. Remember, charm person is a Charm spell, not compulsion one.She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.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'm bowing out at this point, because I find this reasoning really disturbing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine you have children you love, and you know one day you will have to give them up for adoption. (You are terminally ill, or your country is becoming unsafe for you, or them, or something like that, I don't know.)
For years you are waiting to meet someone you can trust with guardianship of your beloved children.
One night you meet this weird guy who waggles his fingers, and you reallize... This is him! The trusted friend you have been waiting for.
3 days later the spell wears off and your children are gone and you reallize, that guy wasn't your friend he was a total creep.
That's what it would be like.
Are you guys saying that is fine and good, you gave your children to a trusted friend out of free will, like you always wanted too?
The spell just sped things up?
Where is the disconnect happening here?
Actually there is nothing evil in using spell like this, it is simply a form of deception which is chaotic but not necessarily evil. To give an example lets imagine caster was actually a CG wizard. Wizard hears this guy's problem and wants to help him and his children, but there is a big problem our wizard is a ugly, creepy looking guy with no social skills (he has a golden hearth though) so if he tried to use non-magical methods he will fail and cant help the guy. But being a wizard he uses charm person then takes custody of the kids, protecting them. Sure it was VERY chaotic yet it wasn't evil, in fact it was even good.
Of course caster can be evil bastard too but it is nothing to do with charm person. Used as a from deception like this charm person isn't more evil than disguise self.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't ignore the special rules on requests.
You can convince them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do with an opposed charisma check. That goes beyond what Diplomacy allows. Removing of skills such as Sense Motive and Diplomacy is indicative of their loss of judgement. Further, the fact there are no very general caveats like Diplomacy has (where the DM can just decide something is impossible) further emphasizes this. The only caveats are against suicidal acts and harm, but even then the spell allows some leeway with influencing them.
So no, it isn't "just like you improved their attitude with diplomacy."
And even if it was, screwing with someone's mind and then using that compromised mind to get something invalidates consent. It doesn't matter if you could have done it another way.
That's like robbing a store and saying "well, I could have gotten a job there and been paid. This is...
read the faq/errata on the charm person spell.
The charm person spell (and charm monster by extension) 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.
She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.
I do not want to defend Newly GM's "rape for real" comment but I do want to explain my position. Charm Person would not force her to consent. She would have to consent of her own free will. Charm Person would simply have her convinced it is a trusted friend asking for her consent. Again, This Is A Bad Thing To Do! If that one false piece of information removes her ability to consent, then you have to say any false information removes her ability consent. If you think Charm Person does more than convince her the caster is a trusted friend, then you are using Charm Person differently than I am and I'm not using your version in my argument.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.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.
OMG... what is going on in this tread. This isn't even Gender Studies 101 material, it's like Gender 010: Introduction to Being a Decent Human material.
To sum this up: ANYTHING BUT...
... IS A NO!
Charm person would clearly not fulfill the last one, and thus wouldn't count as consent.
Don't ignore the special rules on requests.
You can convince them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do with an opposed charisma check. That goes beyond what Diplomacy allows. Removing of skills such as Sense Motive and Diplomacy is indicative of their loss of judgement. Further, the fact there are no very general caveats like Diplomacy has (where the DM can just decide something is impossible) further emphasizes this. The only caveats are against suicidal acts and harm, but even then the spell allows some leeway with influencing them.
So no, it isn't "just like you improved their attitude with diplomacy."
And even if it was, screwing with someone's mind and then using that compromised mind to get something invalidates consent. It doesn't matter if you could have done it another way.
That's like robbing a store and saying "well, I could have gotten a job there and been paid. This is...
read the faq/errata on the charm person spell.
** spoiler omitted **...
This ^^^ Arlandor got it right, again. The rules support our reasoning.
If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her.You are not her friend! She thinks you are, because magic!
Correct. The friendship is a lie. Does a lie make it rape?