| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
again. common sense, simple solution:
Player uses charm person > target npc fails, is charmed. (hereafter referred to as the 'charm-ee' > person using charm person (hereafter the 'charm-er') says "kill your family." > charm-ee, capable of full free will says "what on earth would I do that for?" (Said statement being charm-ee giving charm-er benefit of doubt, being friends and all (said statement being the fulfilled maximum of spell description)). > Whereupon Charm-er squeals "CHARISMA CHECK". > Whereupon Charm-ee says no, that's a sick, disturbing request no true friend would ask of another. > Whereupon Charm-er squeals "BUT I MADE MY CHARISMA CHECK!"
Whereupon the GM steps outside the PC-NPC interaction and, with reference to common sense, says that it is not and never will be down to a successful charisma check in this instance. The reason it is given to the gm to 'discrete' all over your 'I WIN' command, is because you as a player made the tacit agreement to recognize this person as a judge specifically for these instances. A charisma check isn't the be all, end all to the situation, the GM is.
There has been no wiggle room for a long time and to argue over the small details even after you've gone up to the "head guy" for a ruling and it's gone against you as an argumentative player for this spell (and I do mean you in the pejorative, not singling any single player currently trying to argue against this simple train of thought).
That is the general choke point of the argument. One side says charm person = sudden and free willed buddies, and the other says charisma check = do what I say. at least that's how I perceive it. I say give me Unnatural Lust any day. At least it's 6 seconds of awkward moment with the GM/table and then it's over.
edit: I mean, charm person is already a no-matter-what-you-suddenly-like-me magic spell. The expanse of possibilities is so large as it is, why does it need to become a level 1 domination spell. You're trying to use a veil of silk as a ball peen hammer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably. The point is that official Paizo material is inconsistent in itself on what charm can do, depending on the author and his or her interpretation of the spell text.
Or depending on the person and their relationship to the target. Its possible the magus wasn't very nice to begin with, or had one of those employer employee relationships where you WANT to drive 3 feet of electrified steel through your boss.
Did you put the cover on those Inventory Tracking Sheee
BZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!
Charm spells do two things, they make the target treat the caster as a close friend, and they allow the charisma check to get them to do things they ordinarily wouldn't do.
you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily doThe caveat is the "obviously harmful" phrase.
An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders
Interpreted by one extreme, it means other than physically hurting themselves, any order is acceptable with the cha check, no matter how monstrous. Interpreted to the other extreme, any request that even inconveniences the target is automatically refusable.
I think the common sense middle ground is to determine it by the personality and alignment of the target. Anything that would drive them insane with regret and grief afterwards, that they'd prefer death or prison or public humiliation to, they get to auto-refuse.
In that case, much like alignment and codes of conduct, the mileage of a charm spell is under GM discretion, and requires discussion with the GM rather than some impossible faq or errata.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A) Stuff you would do for a friend who asks.
B) Stuff you would never do, even for your best friend
C) Stuff you normally wouldn't do, but a friend of yours might be able to talk you into it.
One of these doesn't require a check, one does require check, and one doesn't allow a check.
|
I don't think UABS was asking for home campaigns since he stated he doesn't allow charm spells at his table. The problem lies when running or playing PFS.
If someone builds a legal character and has played under a GM previously with one set of "GM discretion" and for whatever reason takes that character to a different location or a new GM steps in with their own set of "GM discretion" who is correct? Without definitive errata this is going to be a continual problem at the tables.
Using the argument of "kill your family" is obtuse. Evil characters are not permitted in PFS play, and that is definitely an evil act (I don't care how you justify it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this has been given as much official treatment as its going to get.
An orc would not normally plow a field for you. It takes a charisma check.
The orc is not morally opposed to plowing a field. They're probably morally opposed to killing their mother: in that case it CAN"T be done with this spell, charisma check or not.
Charming some people into killing their allies is easier than others.
You missed my point. If the GM decides that even failing check will mean the action won't be taken then why roll the check?
Yes I want you to answer that.
I already did. Reread the post you quoted, it was rather concise.
And in case you missed the quote.-->but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).
Emphasis redistributed.
Now if it is not going to work it is because the GM said it is not going to work which goes back to Jason saying it is GM discretion.
That is supported by this--> "Well, the point here is that it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness."
Now if the GM is deciding what is and is not outside of a creature's willingness does that not mean each GM has to decide what the creature will and will not do?
Note that what the creature will do after an opposed check still means they are willing to do it, but they needed some pushing. If they are not willing to do it, then they are not willing to do it. Period.
No. The check is if it is outside their nature. You seem to be adding another step of really really out of nature where they can just ignore things. Again this is not what Jason said. Ignoring the failed check is not an option. Taking extreme alternative actions to prevent themselves from going through with an otherwise uncontrollable compulsion due to a failed check is an option.
A) Stuff you would do for a friend who asks.
B) Stuff you would never do, even for your best friend
C) Stuff you normally wouldn't do, but a friend of yours might be able to talk you into it.One of these doesn't require a check, one does require check, and one doesn't allow a check.
So if B doesn't require a check, why does Jason's examples of an extreme order have some people doing it without a check, some people killing their family, and some killing themselves to avoid giving in to the compulsion they were unable to otherwise control, but no example of a person sticking his fingers in his ears and blowing raspberries?
The friend clause is an entirely different function of the spell and the only bearing it holds on the charisma check is in giving the spellcaster more room to work before having to use it.
GM´s discretion is an unfortunate point there often.
People tend to see charm person as a black or white thing, meaning either kill someone or else do nothing. But there´s a huge grey area in between that is much more likely and even in power-check.
A charmed NPC can help defend you, block other´s ways to reach you, give you a higher AC with aid another, disarm his former allies attacking you, even trip them or use other combat maneuvers (or spells if at disposal).
You could even send the NPC on a misson for help calling out you as the harrassed part, sending his real friends into trouble or prison.
That can be very effective tactics even on high levels.
A charmed NPC or monster is not in direct controll of the player though.
A request is made, dilpomacy rolled and maybe a CHA check, then the GM acts as it sees fit or in PFS how it is described there.
You're still missing the point that the Charisma check might still not even work. When the GM's discretion says that it won't even work, who do you think decides what happens?
The command may not work as desired. The check was still successful and forced an action. You are reading an "and/or" where there are brackets.
Sorry phone typing.
|
You're still missing the point that the Charisma check might still not even work. When the GM's discretion says that it won't even work, who do you think decides what happens?The command may not work as desired. The check was still successful and forced an action. You are reading an "and/or" where there are brackets.
Sorry phone typing.
I would say the command not working is "not working as desired" and within GM discression.
|
Charm spells do two things, they make the target treat the caster as a close friend, and they allow the charisma check to get them to do things they ordinarily wouldn't do.
you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do
I think the hang up here is in understanding what is meant by "things they wouldn't ordinarily do".
Example:
I just charmed a by-the-book customs agent on the docks of Westcrown. This customs agent would never consider letting a vessel arrive without paying the docking fees or signing the vessel as an arrival. Now a charmed customs agent, who is having a good chat with a "close personal friend" MIGHT consider skipping protocol, just this once. This is where an opposed charisma check is justified.
Whereas,
I just charmed the same customs agent on the docks of Westcrown. The agent's wife comes to visit with some lunch for the pair. I don't like that his attention is diverted away from me, so I tell him to push his wife into the water. "But she can't swim," he says. "Why would I ever do that?" He says. An opposed charisma check here is not justified as the "request" is so far out of the norm for him, even for a possibly evil man.
Charms are subtle controls, Compulsions are more direct. Charms alter perceptions, Compulsions change something inside the mind...
If this keeps coming up, then educate them on these distinctions.
Yet, "go kill your boss" is perfectly acceptable with a check.
Yet, "go kill your boss" is perfectly acceptable with a check.
Have you *met* his boss?...
|
|
He said that line made it so the GM could say Charm doesn't work like that in certain situations. He did say you could, command it to leave the battlefield, but not attack an ally. That seems legit, but according to what I'm reading it says "GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness." which sounds like it is in favor of the GM deciding WHEN opposed charisma checks are used, but not what for.
It mean that the GM will decide if the charmed orc hate Gronk and will kill him if you ask him nicely (i.e. if you pass the charisma check) even if normally he wouldn't do that, or if he like him and will never do that.
Or if he has a good family life and will never accept to kill his wife and child of if instead he hate them and will do it.
As a general rule I will consider a successful charisma check on the level of a very large and appropriate bribe when evaluating what the target creature will do.
Yet, "go kill your boss" is perfectly acceptable with a check.Have you *met* his boss?...
Have you? What if he was the type to give to charity and funded orphanages? We don't know. Fact is, "go kill your boss" is an acceptable command with a check. It's one of the few concrete examples that exist. It is what it is. Don't try to put more into the situation than is there.
As a general rule I will consider a successful charisma check on the level of a very large and appropriate bribe when evaluating what the target creature will do.
A charisma check is not diplomacy. Why would those modifiers apply?
He's not using any modifiers. He's saying that a good rule of thumb to to use is "If $100,000 could convince them to do something, then so could Charm Person with a Charisma check".
Ah!
And in case you missed the quote.-->but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).
Emphasis redistributed.
Did the character carry out the order yes or no?<--simple question
If the answer is no then they were not willing, and I don't think they would kill themselves. That was an extreme case.
PS: What would you consider to be harmful to themselves for the purpose of automatically saying no? Did the book mean just physical harm or psychological/mental harm to themselves.
Support your reasons.
There is! But, that's exactly the scenario described. It also has a lot of interesting connotations when objectively stating what the situation is.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they would rather kill themselves than do what their "friend" is asking, I think it sufficiently meets the definition of harm so that there would be no chance of them doing it. Succeeding at a Charisma check should not make a charmed person do without question something that a dominated person would get a new save against (Kill your family) or flat out wouldn't do (Kill yourself instead).
Lower level spell should be weaker than their higher level equivalents, or you're doing something wrong.
|
|
If they would rather kill themselves than do what their "friend" is asking, I think it sufficiently meets the definition of harm so that there would be no chance of them doing it. Succeeding at a Charisma check should not make a charmed person do without question something that a dominated person would get a new save against (Kill your family) or flat out wouldn't do (Kill yourself instead).
Lower level spell should be weaker than their higher level equivalents, or you're doing something wrong.
Agreed! :)
If they would rather kill themselves than do what their "friend" is asking, I think it sufficiently meets the definition of harm so that there would be no chance of them doing it. Succeeding at a Charisma check should not make a charmed person do without question something that a dominated person would get a new save against (Kill your family) or flat out wouldn't do (Kill yourself instead).
Lower level spell should be weaker than their higher level equivalents, or you're doing something wrong.
So the Lead Game Developer didn't know what he was talking about when he said they might do that instead?
So the Lead Game Developer didn't know what he was talking about when he said they might do that instead?
Forum posts are not (normally) errata or even FAQ's. That one in particular was part of a discussion, not a ruling sort of statement, especially since it started with "It's up to the GM". Yes, up to the GM when a Charisma check is required. I don't think he was making any statement as to what the end results of such a check would be.
Possible results:
Okay. So, the Lead Game Developer's thoughts on how something should work are irrelevant?
Certainly. However, to try to draw an objective, hardline of "no" is just as outrageous as say it must be valid in every scenario. I'm not so much arguing for the scope of the spell as I am highlighting this dichotomy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet, "go kill your boss" is perfectly acceptable with a check.
"Yes master....
"..but you made the saving throw!
"Shush, I've wanted to do this for years..."
And in case you missed the quote.-->but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check, and might not even work (the creature might take its own life instead, its not your puppet after all).
Emphasis redistributed.
Did the character carry out the order yes or no?<--simple question
If the answer is no then they were not willing, and I don't think they would kill themselves. That was an extreme case.
PS: What would you consider to be harmful to themselves for the purpose of automatically saying no? Did the book mean just physical harm or psychological/mental harm to themselves.
Support your reasons.
You are moving the goalposts here. Just a second ago you said you can blow off checks now you are trying to use my words proving otherwise as points in your favor.
You are right that killing themselves is pretty extreme, but that was the point of the original question. I suspect the original author was trying to think of as outlandish a command as he could to try and see if Jason would tell him, no this is beyond the scope of this spell. Instead Jason pointed to three possible outcomes, two of which were compliance and one of which was suicide in the face of the compulsion. This doesn't enter the stadium, let along the ball park of some NPCs just disregarding the command so it isn't worth rolling the CHA check.
If it doesn't result in hit point loss, I don't call it "harmful." I try to keep my fluff and mechanics as separate as possible for organized play.
The OP was concerned about organized play, and I can sympathize with that concern. Charm (like animate, summon, etc) can be disruptive at a table if a player chooses it to be so. Charm can also bypass major plot lines at times (like many divination spells can). These can be problematic and I would not want them upsetting the game. As a GM I would ask the player not to, explain what was wrong with the proposed course of action and if he didn't follow my request I might either A) Tell him he has completed the scenario but the rest of the party is going to play on as if he hadn't, or B) try to come up with some outcome that could salvage the scenario and still treat the NPC as at least a part of him was driven to accomplish the command and some major steps were taken to prevent this, or C) simply use the fiat you propose. What I won't do is pretend like I have a RAW reading of the spell, the FAQ, or Jason's explanation of the FAQ to back up my ruling.
I am sorry that I am not going to do any future digging. As I said in my first post, I have spent many hours doing this in the past for this very question, and I am not going down that road again. Take that as you will.
If they would rather kill themselves than do what their "friend" is asking, I think it sufficiently meets the definition of harm so that there would be no chance of them doing it. Succeeding at a Charisma check should not make a charmed person do without question something that a dominated person would get a new save against (Kill your family) or flat out wouldn't do (Kill yourself instead).
Lower level spell should be weaker than their higher level equivalents, or you're doing something wrong.
They can choose to harm themselves instead of follow the command, that was the very example given; the harming of themselves just can't be the command.
I have a retired enchanter sorcerer with sky high DCs. With the exception of Kitsune enchanters I have seen theorycrafted, I have never seen another caster that could beat his DCs. But I would never cast charm person on a character instead of charm monster or dominate. The first save just missed way too often to be reliable. Now if you were to heighten a charm with a CHA caster, then yes, I agree it is more powerful than dominate. If you are not heightening or not a CHA caster, I will take the dominate every time.
More seriously...
Go kill your boss WAS an acceptable suggestion (probably with a charisma check) to that one individual person. It does not mean that its always acceptable.
So this is the thread that lead to that FAQ (which, incidentally enough, didn't answer the question).
I'm debating with myself as to whether or not I want to rehash that thread...
I believe many people are still confusing charm effects with compulsion effects. A poster earlier quoted the comparison straight from the core rules, but looked like his post was ignored.
For those that need more convincing read the section dealing with spell creation in Ultimate Magic. If charm person is changed to a compulsion with a mere charisma check it becomes more powerful then any other 1st level spell out there. When creating a spell the "Golden Rule" according to Ultimate Magic is "Compare your spell to similar spells, and to other spells of its intended level."
It goes on to state that when designing a spell the "hierarchy of power" must always be taken into account. The most powerful of these is "spells that allow you to control an opponent" Next it gives specific list of what are considered "benchmark" spells that you should compare to the spell. It lists them by spell level. At first level the spells magic missile and burning hands are the benchmark. If charm person is run as a compulsion with a mere charisma check it is extremely more powerful then either of those benchmark spells. In the list of 3rd level spells it lists "suggestion" with the following statement " Suggestion: This is the lowest-level spell in which the caster is able to compel the target to act, yet the spell's control is still limited to “reasonable actions.”
If you read the complete text you will find that duration is also a determination of power level for a spell and an hour per level duration is very high. Unless I am mistaken Jason was the lead designer of Ultimate Magic. Read the entire passage and I think you will come to the conclusion that this spell was never intended to be as powerful as this interpretation being presented here.
This isn't a new argument and I have already spent more time with it than I planned. If you don't believe in the idea of free will, rather you think our decisions are the sum of our experiences and processing ability, the difference between charm and compulsion becomes negligible; definitely not a good reason to ignore written rules. As to the power metric, I have spoken to that a little here as well; also not a new argument and also not out of line with how certain other individual spells can outshine others under certain given circumstances.
I know that I personally don't find the arguments of "been there done that" very compelling, but perhaps it does offer insight into why some things seem to have been glossed over. The only compelling argument in this thread for the "just superfriends" position is that Jason has stated in the past that he is not a "rules guy" and he is more of a "creative guy." But in light of the fact that his words were part of the FAQ and they are the only ones we have to go on as far as explanations for this spell goes, the "true rules guys" seem to support his position, which is very clear in my opinion. I honestly think the only reason someone could argue that what he said wasn't clear is because they didn't want to accept it.
It is pretty straightforward.
It is a charm, not a compulsion.
The target treats you like their best buddy ever. They see you in the most favorable way possible...
If you charm a guy and tell him to kill his family... well, you're a jerk, but more importantly... would he ever do this?
He thinks of you as a dear friend. He likes you, a lot... and would love nothing more than to please you... but, can he go through with the command? If he is a good guy who likes his family... not going to happen.
No matter how convincing his best friend in the world is (the charmer), he just simply wouldn't be willing to kill his family.
There are just things people simply won't do. No matter how good a friend it is that asks them to, or commands them to, they won't do it.
//////
Think about something you personally would never do, ever, for any reason. Whether it is killing your family, or your dog, or whathaveyou. Now, if your best friend pleaded with you, in desperation, to do this horribly forbidden thing... would you do it?
Nope. It'd break your heart that your friend was asking you to and you couldn't do anything about it, but you simply wouldn't do it.
That is a charm.
Now... Compulsions? Totally different animal. These bad boys rob people of free will, they make you into meat puppets who blindly follow orders.
This isn't a new argument and I have already spent more time with it than I planned. If you don't believe in the idea of free will, rather you think our decisions are the sum of our experiences and processing ability, the difference between charm and compulsion becomes negligible; definitely not a good reason to ignore written rules. As to the power metric, I have spoken to that a little here as well; also not a new argument and also not out of line with how certain other individual spells can outshine others under certain given circumstances.
I know that I personally don't find the arguments of "been there done that" very compelling, but perhaps it does offer insight into why some things seem to have been glossed over. The only compelling argument in this thread for the "just superfriends" position is that Jason has stated in the past that he is not a "rules guy" and he is more of a "creative guy." But in light of the fact that his words were part of the FAQ and they are the only ones we have to go on as far as explanations for this spell goes, the "true rules guys" seem to support his position, which is very clear in my opinion. I honestly think the only reason someone could argue that what he said wasn't clear is because they didn't want to accept it.
I have no reason to not accept a sound argument. I neither play a sorcerer that uses charm spells or utilize this tactic when DMing. Stating that someone didn't want to accept the obvious truth would indicate they have something to gain by not doing so. I have nothing to gain... Do you play a sorcerer that utilizes charm person/monster?
|
|
For those arguing for the lesser dominate person interpretation (excepting those playing devil's advocate), just remember, if you really want charm person to behave that way, expect the evil spellcasters you face to treat it the same way...
The evil DM in me starts to think evil things when players try to rules lawyer interpretations that violate the spirit as well as the word of the rules. When that happens, I start to come up with interesting interpretations as well. For instance, the clause about any hostile act directed at the victim, breaking the spell, really gets me thinking that asking the victim to kill his loved ones or do something diametrically opposed to this ethos would constitute a psychological attack (or threat) and therefore break the spell...
If folks really want to stretch it, the GM is perfectly capable of doing the same. If you don't like it, then perhaps that group isn't for you and you should go find a munchkin game elsewhere?
I agree what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Something sort of the opposite happened with my group. I dominated a PC, but the table argued they could carry out the order I gave the PC in a way they saw fit essentially negating the "dominate" portion of the spell. I let them have their way, but I secretly hope they try charms and dominates on the NPCs.
I have no reason to not accept a sound argument. I neither play a sorcerer that uses charm spells or utilize this tactic when DMing. Stating that someone didn't want to accept the obvious truth would indicate they have something to gain by not doing so. I have nothing to gain... Do you play a sorcerer that utilizes charm person/monster?This isn't a new argument and I have already spent more time with it than I planned. If you don't believe in the idea of free will, rather you think our decisions are the sum of our experiences and processing ability, the difference between charm and compulsion becomes negligible; definitely not a good reason to ignore written rules. As to the power metric, I have spoken to that a little here as well; also not a new argument and also not out of line with how certain other individual spells can outshine others under certain given circumstances.
I know that I personally don't find the arguments of "been there done that" very compelling, but perhaps it does offer insight into why some things seem to have been glossed over. The only compelling argument in this thread for the "just superfriends" position is that Jason has stated in the past that he is not a "rules guy" and he is more of a "creative guy." But in light of the fact that his words were part of the FAQ and they are the only ones we have to go on as far as explanations for this spell goes, the "true rules guys" seem to support his position, which is very clear in my opinion. I honestly think the only reason someone could argue that what he said wasn't clear is because they didn't want to accept it.
I was admitting that my saying that 'this is old hat' was not a sound argument. I acknowledge its weakness, but I wanted to throw it out anyway as perhaps a little explanation as to why I wasn't going into as must depth as possible.
My first PFS character (now retired 12) was a charmer. He was built from the ground up to have enchantment DCs as high as possible and his charm spells got the best boosts of any of his spells.
I stopped charming person at about level 5? It was an awesome spell at low levels and could be used to break roleplay/story-based scenarios even at some higher levels, but I didn't desire that. But in its power as a low level spell, I don't think it much different than sleep or color spray. Those two are ass-kickers when you are low level, but you hit a point where you just won't use them any more. Charm, is I guess, a little different in that it would still be useful out of combat at times for higher levels, especially if you are unscrupulous with it.
For those arguing for the lesser dominate person interpretation (excepting those playing devil's advocate), just remember, if you really want charm person to behave that way, expect the evil spellcasters you face to treat it the same way...
The evil DM in me starts to think evil things when players try to rules lawyer interpretations that violate the spirit as well as the word of the rules. When that happens, I start to come up with interesting interpretations as well. For instance, the clause about any hostile act directed at the victim, breaking the spell, really gets me thinking that asking the victim to kill his loved ones or do something diametrically opposed to this ethos would constitute a psychological attack (or threat) and therefore break the spell...
If folks really want to stretch it, the GM is perfectly capable of doing the same. If you don't like it, then perhaps that group isn't for you and you should go find a munchkin game elsewhere?
I was actually a little disappointed by my GM that just wanted me to stand still for a while during charm. I expected more.
Your outcome given in the second paragraph almost couldn't be any farther from the outcome described by the Lead Designer as how the encounter should be handled.