I agree with DM Bu-LA-kay that the "trusted friend" and "convince" are the governing words in the description, and it's what I always focus on when explaining it to anyone with a RAWrd-on about it.
If it is something that you couldn't convince a trusted friend to do, there isn't a chance of getting the charmed person to do it. Just because you can come up with some theoretical scene in which you somehow talk a friend into murdering a family member, doesn't automatically make it something a GM needs to accept is possible with this spell. Its up to the GM what can be convinced just like it would be if you were talking to an actual friend NPC.
See this is what really confounds me. Would the NPC normally kill his family? No, or at least lets assume that for now. Now we can try to give him orders when he's under the spell, so lets give him the order to kill his wife. Now since this is something he wouldn't do we have to make the Opposed charisma check to convince him to do it. We win and he is convinced to carry out our order or kill himself. I can't see how people say "But he wouldn't do that so it doesn't work" when the entire reason you're making the Cha check is because it's something he wouldn't do. If it's something he would do he'd do it without a check.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that per RAW/RAI it works, but to me that is the domain of dominate person.
Charm person should only go as far as what someone might do for a best friend/family member.
In my games--> The +5 DC makes you more convinced, but it still has limits. As an example you(an NPC) might, depending on your level of loyalty let the PC's in through a secret opening into the castle and that may lead to the king being killed, but you might not directly assist in the killing because that is way beyond your event horizon.
In my games, some one always threathen the charmed guy, before they get him to do stupid stuff:)
The entier mindbender part of magic is one of the things that works worst in games and best in stories. IMOP.
I generally use charm person as a shortcut to good relations if it works, and a way to close a way of story progression if they save.
For me the storytelling around spells like charm and dominate need to be extra tense. And then it works ok.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would also not hesitate to rule that a order to kill ones family was the same as hurt/harmfull order. Since i have a family and know that i would be more hurt/harmed if anything happend to them than to my self.
Charm puts you in a good spot and if can be very powerfull keep it on the king and you May be his trusted advicer forever(Grima Wormtongue) but some old yahoo with a staff May come by and ruin it all.
Because Dominate Person is a LAWFUL spell, not an Evil one. [lawful]Free will is a privilege, not a right. When people abuse it, sometimes it must be restricted. [/lawful]
It was a rhetorical question and I probably shouldn't deign this with a response as I might well be standing on a bridge but...
DOMINATE PERSON School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]
Go to PRD.
Where are you getting the idea it's a lawful spell?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My beef with Charm Person is easy.
I have a decent spellcraft. I ID you casting the spell. I fail my Will, then somehow I start treating you like you're my BFF, despite the fact that I know EXACTLY why I am. How do I roll with that?
My new friend must have had a good reason to cast that spell on me. I was being kind of a jerk to him, so maybe he cast it so I would realize we should be friends instead.
Yes, it's the: "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.)" that leads to so much abuse.
It takes really clear agreements between the GM and the players up front to clarify what constitutes an "obviously harmful act," and to agree on what the RAI of the spell is. That way, you (as GM) aren't trying to adjudicate it on the fly, and they (the PCs) aren't surprised when the spell doesn't work the way they thought it did.
It is a trope of fantasy, and so exists in fantasy rpgs, but it is a huge pain, both as player and as GM, to run.
It would be so much easier(and far less controversial) if it worked like the Charm hex - it simply gives you an automatic bump on NPC disposition for a period of time. But that doesn't fit the trope of the charm spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
here says
The charm answer didn't really clear things up for me; the example of tilling a field is still within the vague range of something a friend might do for you. How about ordering a man to murder his wife and children?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. Tilling a field might really depend on the creature (I dont think Orcs care much for farming), 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).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
So the lead designer came in and said that "ordering a man to murder his wife and children" "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)." So to me this says that if you win the check the man will kill his loved ones or take his own life. That is the alternative that Jason gave to following an order they were convinced to do by the charisma check.
IF the NPC could just not do it because "it's something he'd never do" or "Somthing you'd never convince a friend to do in real life" opposed to "something he'd normally not do" then I feel Jason would have said that and not given the example he did.
What's the DC on a CHA check for "murder your family" anyway?
What's the DC on a CHA check for "murder your family" anyway?
There is no DC, that's the problem
You just need to roll higher than them
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the DC on a CHA check for "murder your family" anyway?There is no DC, that's the problem
You just need to roll higher than them
I guess people with low Charisma don't like their families much.
I guess people with low Charisma don't like their families much.What's the DC on a CHA check for "murder your family" anyway?There is no DC, that's the problem
You just need to roll higher than them
Not when they're being controlled by magic
What's the DC on a CHA check for "murder your family" anyway?DC "Not gonna happen".
Charisma DC checks are only applicable for something a person MIGHT do. Like getting the guard slip you past the gate because "you left something inside."
So how does your stance and example work with the example that Jason gave? Where in charm person does it say that "there's an opposed charisma check to convince them to do something they might do but haven't really done" instead of "Charisma check to convince them to do something they wouldn't do"? Again, in the spell they help you and do things they'd normally do for a good friend with NO CHECK. There's only a check to convince them to do things THEY WOULDN'T DO.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
here says
The charm answer didn't really clear things up for me; the example of tilling a field is still within the vague range of something a friend might do for you. How about ordering a man to murder his wife and children?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. Tilling a field might really depend on the creature (I dont think Orcs care much for farming), 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).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingSo the lead designer came in and said that "ordering a man to murder his wife and children" "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)." So to me this says that if you win the check the man will kill his loved ones or take his own life. That is the alternative that Jason gave to following an order they were convinced to do by the charisma check.
IF the NPC could just not do it because "it's something he'd never do" or "Somthing you'd never convince a friend to do in real life" opposed to "something he'd normally not do" then I feel Jason would have said that and not given the example he did.
That's not how I read what he wrote at all. I don't believe he meant that as the definitive list of options that the creature can take. He is just giving an example of how the, totally not controlled, creature that has been influenced by the charmer, might take any action that the GM decides it would take in this situation.
His whole point (IMO) is that the GM should be free to determine where this situation goes. No list of actions that you could try to convince someone of can possibly cover everything, and it isn't going to be able to cover the spectrum of the personalities of individuals that could be charmed and how they might react, so by default, the GM decides.
It works perfectly with Jason's stance since I'm not leaving out the part where he says " it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness" Maybe the person in question hates his family and is just looking for a shove to get him into doing something he wants to do. Charm Person IS NOT DOMINATE. If the person truly loves his family, there is no check because harming them is way outside his general willingness. On the other hand though, he might loan you his horse if you asked nicely.So how does your stance and example work with the example that Jason gave? Where in charm person does it say that "there's an opposed charisma check to convince them to do something they might do but haven't really done" instead of "Charisma check to convince them to do something they wouldn't do"? Again, in the spell they help you and do things they'd normally do for a good friend with NO CHECK. There's only a check to convince them to do things THEY WOULDN'T DO.What's the DC on a CHA check for "murder your family" anyway?DC "Not gonna happen".
Charisma DC checks are only applicable for something a person MIGHT do. Like getting the guard slip you past the gate because "you left something inside."
NO you're understanding it wrong. The line " it is really up to the GM to decide what is inside and outside a creature's general willingness" is to determine if a check is needed or if the NPC would do it without a check. If it's something he's WILLING to do then he just does it for you if you ask, no cha check needed. if it's something he's NOT WILLING to do, then you make the cha check to convince him. THEN it might not work because he has the option of killing himself instead of carrying out your order. Jason says that killing a loved one will USUALLY need a check, because USUALLY people aren't willing to kill their loved ones. IF there were to be no check because harming them is way outside his general willingness do you think that Jason would use that very thing as his EXAMPLE for when a check usually would be needed to convince them to do it?
I'm really not seeing how you can feel what you're saying is at all in line with what Jason said.
So the lead designer came in and said that "ordering a man to murder his wife and children" "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)." So to me this says that if you win the check the man will kill his loved ones or take his own life. That is the alternative that Jason gave to following an order they were convinced to do by the charisma check.
IF the NPC could just not do it because "it's something he'd never do" or "Somthing you'd never convince a friend to do in real life" opposed to "something he'd normally not do" then I feel Jason would have said that and not given the example he did.That's not how I read what he wrote at all. I don't believe he meant that as the definitive list of options that the creature can take. He is just giving an example of how the, totally not controlled, creature that has been influenced by the charmer, might take any action that the GM decides it would take in this situation.
His whole point (IMO) is that the GM should be free to determine where this situation goes. No list of actions that you could try to convince someone of can possibly cover everything, and it isn't going to be able to cover the spectrum of the personalities of individuals that could be charmed and how they might react, so by default, the GM decides.
So if I understand you, you're saying in the example that Jason gave, that Jason is saying that the NPC under charm person loses the CHA check and is convinced to kill his loved ones. But instead of doing that the NPC could do anything else he wanted, and that Jason used Killing himself as the alternative for his example for fun and that the NPC could have totally just said no.
I feel that Jason is saying it's TOTALLY up to the GM to decide if a CHA check is needed. But that if the NPC loses it has to do something DRASTIC like KILLING THEMSELVES to not carry out the order.
Your problem is that you're seeing everything as a binary yes or no. Charisma checks work in that wide spectrum between called "Maybe".
The spell is a yes or no question. Is the NPC convinced to carry out the order or Kill themselves to not have to? If you feel there's a way your views and what Jason said please elaborate more on it to help me see it. Because with what you've said so far I don't feel it addresses the issues that Jason brought up.
Your problem is that you're seeing everything as a binary yes or no. Charisma checks work in that wide spectrum between called "Maybe".
That "Maybe" takes on a lot different connotatiosn depending on the situation. You approach a gate guard and you throw a Charm Person on him with the idea of getting him to let you pass. The Maybe can take on a variety of DC's depending on the consequences.
1. The castle is owned Sir Richard, the Kind-hearted. The guard in this case knows that if he's caught letting his friend pass, he faces discipline, maybe some stockade time.
2. The castle is owned by Ivan the Strict. The guard faces certain stockade time, perhaps a dozen lashes in addition.
3. The castle is owned by Oscar the Idiot who does't have a clue, and he cheated the guard out of 5 silvers last week. He'll probably let you in without any trouble.
4. The castle is owned by the Archmage Oxymandias who has arcane eyes everywhere, and he punishes those who break discipline by slowly turning them inside out, making sure they stay alive long enough to feel the whole process. That's your hard sell case.
If I were GM here's how I'd rule it
1) The guard isn't willing and thus you make the opposed CHA check.2) The guard isn't willing and thus you make the opposed CHA check.
3) This guard is willing and thus he does it with no CHA check.
4) The guard isn't willing and thus you make the opposed CHA check.
And if you succeed then they are convinced to do the order or something drastic like KILL THEMSELVES. There isn't a scaling DC for this, there IS NO DC for this spell, it's an opposed CHA check. Again, if you feel I'm missing something from what the spell says or Jason said feel free to share. Preferably with quotes to the lines and what you feel it's saying that supports your view. I am using them to support my view and I feel you haven't been. This is why I'm not changing my mind or readily agreeing with you. But if you can give a nice supported stance then I'm willing to be wrong on this topic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I understand you, you're saying in the example that Jason gave, that Jason is saying that the NPC under charm person loses the CHA check and is convinced to kill his loved ones. But instead of doing that the NPC could do anything else he wanted, and that Jason used Killing himself as the alternative for his example for fun and that the NPC could have totally just said no.
I feel that Jason is saying it's TOTALLY up to the GM to decide if a CHA check is needed. But that if the NPC loses it has to do something DRASTIC like KILLING THEMSELVES to not carry out the order.
I'm not saying that the response shouldn't be drastic. You said that the charmed creature has only two choices, Kill it's family or kill itself. I think that there are more options. They depend on the creature influenced, the situation, and other factors too numerous to be worth trying to list. The person GMing determines how the creature reacts, not some binary skill check that either passes or fails.
One... Jason did not bring it up, the message board poster did. He gave a response which was mostly "It's up to the GM to figure out the situation would pan out." He did not give out an ironclad mechanic formula, nor did he feel that one is appropriate.Your problem is that you're seeing everything as a binary yes or no. Charisma checks work in that wide spectrum between called "Maybe".The spell is a yes or no question. Is the NPC convinced to carry out the order or Kill themselves to not have to? If you feel there's a way your views and what Jason said please elaborate more on it to help me see it. Because with what you've said so far I don't feel it addresses the issues that Jason brought up.
Yes Jason didn't bring it up but with the example he said it's up to the GM if the NPC is willing or not, and that that's what decides if a CHA check is needed. Then Jason says that if the NPC loses he can still not carry it out by KILLING HIMSELF. My interpretation is that Jason views the command to kill loved ones is similar to "Tilling a Field" for an orc.
I guess people with low Charisma don't like their families much.What's the DC on a CHA check for "murder your family" anyway?There is no DC, that's the problem
You just need to roll higher than them
LMAO!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you believe the lie does not mean you are forced to then go kill your half brother.It happens IRL all the time. Your best friend tells you some lie about your half-brother that he raped your wife or something, and you believe him...
Charm Person explicitly allows that sort of thing. As long as you pass the Cha check, they believe you. Give them a plausible reason, and you're set.
As per Charm Person, yes, yes it does.
You give the justification (in my case, as I recall, it was that the brother and father had been replaced by dppelgangers or something), tell them to do it, and make the Cha check.
100% rules legal.
Dumb as hell, but legal.
And that's why the game has a GM to adjudicate things. In this situation, the GM can say, "No. Because that's dumb."
I feel that if it was so easy to not carry out the task by going to a temple then Jason would have used something less drastic than suicide as the alternative to not carrying out the order. He says it's up to the GM if there needs to be a check, but says that they either carry out the task or commit suicide. I feel that if the alternative didn't need to be that drastic then Jason would have used a milder alternative In his example of how it would play out
|
|
I feel that if it was so easy to not carry out the task by going to a temple then Jason would have used something less drastic than suicide as the alternative to not carrying out the order. He says it's up to the GM if there needs to be a check, but says that they either carry out the task or commit suicide. I feel that if the alternative didn't need to be that drastic then Jason would have used a milder alternative In his example of how it would play out
I can see how you might interpert it that way, and if you are the GM then that's perfectly valid. It's probably not how I would do it as a GM but if I was playing at your table I would support whatever decision you made.
And I support my gm on his ruling. (Which was that the spell did nothing, but oh well) I'm just not seeing the reasoning of arbitrarily changing the spell but saying that's how the spell always works, that they aren't changing it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There aren't the only examples of where use of mind affecting actions were considered by fantasy cultures to be an evil act, regardless of the end intended by the user.
Not sure I agree with this. You see quotes from the Sword of Truth series where male confessors have this type of power (though probably more of a dominate-y nature) and they are pretty much killed BEFORE they ever develop it. Because the POWER corrupts their stupid male-ness.
I would argue that fear of this powers corruption likely causes other people to venture into less savory actions (seriously, the murder method for these kids is described in great detail and does NOT sit well with most readers- because we want to see INFANTS as innocent) and these are kids who SOME day will have this charm power. And this is the ONLY power they really get.
I think in general though having magic in a world changes things up a bit. Harry Potter chastises a curse that dominates people but treats Love Potions with laughable teen-comedy shenanigans. A Love Potion is basically a magical date-rape drug, but they are common even in Pathfinder. There is a level 1 Psionic power called "Attraction" that just makes you REALLY like something.
I have read somewhere that descriptor's for spells aren't meant to be restrictive to the average caster though. Clerics and Paladins etc. are held to a higher moral standard (or SHOULD be at least) even if they are Evil, etc. For everyone else... meh... Wizards should at least be aware of the casting of Evil spells because how else could they avoid corruption? And evil casters should know about the 'good' magic because it is what you seek to corrupt.
That aside: Magic exists. The rules are different. I am sure the majority of Golarion have been Charm Personed... and maybe that is part of Wizards training... like the equivalent of Psychologists here. You wanna CAST a spell? You gotta be the target first! (Except for you know... disintegrate... that would suck)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your problem is that you're seeing everything as a binary yes or no. Charisma checks work in that wide spectrum between called "Maybe".The spell is a yes or no question. Is the NPC convinced to carry out the order or Kill themselves to not have to? If you feel there's a way your views and what Jason said please elaborate more on it to help me see it. Because with what you've said so far I don't feel it addresses the issues that Jason brought up.
I don't think he was saying that it was "obey or commit suicide." The spell doesn't compel you to obey. And it specifically states that you cannot command someone to commit suicide. So you can't put someone in a situation where suicide is their only option or they must obey the command. That's clearly outside the power of the spell.
I think Jason was simply giving an example - if rather extreme - of one of many options open to a character who loses to the CHA check while under the influence, not the only alternative. To give it that scope of influence takes it waaaaay beyond a simple lvl 1 spell.
Your problem is that you're seeing everything as a binary yes or no. Charisma checks work in that wide spectrum between called "Maybe".The spell is a yes or no question. Is the NPC convinced to carry out the order or Kill themselves to not have to? If you feel there's a way your views and what Jason said please elaborate more on it to help me see it. Because with what you've said so far I don't feel it addresses the issues that Jason brought up.I don't think he was saying that it was "obey or commit suicide." The spell doesn't compel you to obey. And it specifically states that you cannot command someone to commit suicide. So you can't put someone in a situation where suicide is their only option or they must obey the command. That's clearly outside the power of the spell.
I think Jason was simply giving an example - if rather extreme - of one of many options open to a character who loses to the CHA check while under the influence, not the only alternative. To give it that scope of influence takes it waaaaay beyond a simple lvl 1 spell.
I just don't understand why he'd list suicide as the alternative to killing their loved ones if it wasn't needing to be that drastic to not carry out the order when he lost the CHA check. Like, I don't see in what he says how this scenario is possible:
PC)"I charm you"
NPC)"I failed and am charmed"
PC)"you need to kill your loved ones"
NPC)"I would never do that"
TIME FOR OPPOSED CHA CHECK
PC)yes I got higher
NPC)"You know you're right, I need to kill my loved ones"
NPC)"But you know what, I'm just going to not do that. I'm going to sit on my couch and do nothing"
PC)But I won the CHA check.
GM)Too bad. Suicide is only one option, a super extreme option, I took a different option that would have made more sense to use in Jason's post if it could be this easy.
Because that situation is the same play as this one
PC)"I charm you"
NPC)"I failed and am charmed"
PC)"you need to give us the blueprints to the castle/let us in the castle"
NPC)"I would never do that"
TIME FOR OPPOSED CHA CHECK
PC)yes I got higher
NPC)"You know you're right, I should give you the blueprints/let you in"
NPC)"But you know what, I'm just going to not do that. I'm going to sit on my couch and do nothing"
PC)But I won the CHA check.
GM)Too bad. Suicide is only one option, a super extreme option, I took a different option that would have made more sense to use in Jason's post if it could be this easy.
Like, I feel that the people who say no to the first say yes to the second, and I'm not see why they'd feel that way.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
PC)"I charm you"
NPC)"I failed and am charmed"
PC)"you need to kill your loved ones"
NPC)"I would never do that"
TIME FOR OPPOSED CHA CHECK
PC)yes I got higher
NPC)"You know you're right, I need to kill my loved ones"
NPC)"But you know what, I'm just going to not do that. I'm going to sit on my couch and do nothing"
PC)But I won the CHA check.
GM)Too bad. Suicide is only one option, a super extreme option, I took a different option that would have made more sense to use in Jason's post if it could be this easy.Because that situation is the same play as this one
PC)"I charm you"
NPC)"I failed and am charmed"
PC)"you need to give us the blueprints to the castle/let us in the castle"
NPC)"I would never do that"
TIME FOR OPPOSED CHA CHECK
PC)yes I got higher
NPC)"You know you're right, I should give you the blueprints/let you in"
NPC)"But you know what, I'm just going to not do that. I'm going to sit on my couch and do nothing"
PC)But I won the CHA check.
GM)Too bad. Suicide is only one option, a super extreme option, I took a different option that would have made more sense to use in Jason's post if it could be this easy.Like, I feel that the people who say no to the first say yes to the second, and I'm not see why they'd feel that way.
It's the usual "cherry picking the rules" situation.
People argue that "wouldn't ordinarily do" is all-encompassing. In your example, killing your own family is EXACTLY the same as handing over a blueprint, all under the auspices of something the charmed person "wouldn't ordinarily do".
But wait a minute! There's more!
What happened to that? Isn't killing your own family "obviously harmful"? "Oh, no! That's totally different! That's just fluff text. It just means you can't make the charmed people kill themselves. Nothing else is off-limits!"
You can't have it both ways. If "wouldn't ordinarily do" means ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO, then "obviously harmful" must at least mean SOMETHING. As a GM, I would rule that an action that would cause lifelong psychological trauma is "obviously harmful". If you can't make a charmed person saw his own leg off, you can't make him murder his beloved wife. And if you argue you CAN make him saw his own leg off, then you're guilty of interpreting "wouldn't ordinarily do" as broadly as possible, and "obviously harmful" as narrowly as possible.
It's the entire reason for this thread: The GM and the players MUST agree on a balance between "wouldn't ordinarily do" and "obviously harmful". If you choose to ignore one or the other, then you don't have a leg to stand on. (Hey, did you get charmed by any chance?)
EDIT: And just so we're clear, lead designer or no, I think Jason really dropped the ball on this one. His example clearly and plainly violates the text. "Oh, if you order him to kill his family and win the CHA check, he might just kill himself instead." "An affected creature never obeys suicidal orders."
Wait? What? You can't tell them to commit suicide, but you can make them commit suicide by telling them to do something they really don't want to do? There's a serious fault in logic right there...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you expect Jason to come up with an exhaustive list of possibilities? You're also misquoting Jason. He didn't say, "He can still not carry it out by killing himself." He said, "the creature might take its own life instead; it's not your puppet." As a DM, I could come up with dozens of other "mights," too...
Those "mights" are even in the spell description itself:
An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.
(emphasis mine)
There is and should be a lot of leeway and interpretation in what a GM allows a character to do with this spell, and it really should focus largely on roleplaying and what works best for that particular gaming table. (IMO obviously, as clearly not everyone's or else this thread wouldn't exist)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And clearly the RAI on Charm Person is not to dominate the subject of the spell. It's influence, that's it. It's what you might be able to get from someone who really, really likes you, which does not include "murder your friends or family for me!"
Who knows - maybe it was a late night and Jason wasn't quite on his game.
It's the difference between thinking suicide is an acceptable proposition (almost always a grim idea) and wrestling with that thought - charm - and there being no question about it that you're offing yourself - dominate. Even though those spells say such a thing is off limits, it illustrates the difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think many people are reading this text the wrong way.
The spell text says you cannot control the person.
At best, you are a trusted friend. But if you ask the victim to do anything he would not normally do, you need to convince him.
I think everyone agrees up to this point, but then this is where people get off track:
"Convince" is not a game term. It's not a condition, template, universal monster ability, combat maneuver, or any other game mechanic. It simply means what it really means in real life: tell or demonstrate something in such a way that you are believable.
It happens IRL all the time. Your best friend tells you some lie about your half-brother that he raped your wife or something, and you believe him...
Charm Person explicitly allows that sort of thing. As long as you pass the Cha check, they believe you. Give them a plausible reason, and you're set.
OK, fine, as a trusted friend you've told your victim that his half-brother raped his wife. You make the check and he believes you. You still have no way to make him murder his half-brother. He might just go to the authorities. He might go punch him in the face and tell him to leave and never come back. He might go stone his wife to death because that's what people do in his culture. You have no control over what he does.
Now, if you manage to word your lies in such a way that he has only one plausible recourse, especially if that recourse is the one the guy is likely to choose (it helps if you charmed a psychopath in the first place), then yeah, you have managed to influence his behavior by convincing him that your lies are true.
That's the best you can get with this level 1 spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Jason gave the RAI of the spell. If you fail the check you have to follow what is wanted. My problem with the spell is that if you are "convinced" to do something then you would do that, and not kill yourself instead, so the cha check should be to "convince them to do things they really do not want to do subject to GM discretion". Of course now you have to depend on your GM to be fair, but that is another topic altogether, but with dominate person they just do what they are told. Well they might get another save, but that is also another topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, fine, as a trusted friend you've told your victim that his half-brother raped his wife. You make the check and he believes you. You still have no way to make him murder his half-brother. He might just go to the authorities. He might go punch him in the face and tell him to leave and never come back. He might go stone his wife to death because that's what people do in his culture. You have no control over what he does.
Something like this might even break the spell, causing the person to no longer consider you a friend. Oftentimes, the bearer of bad tidings- no matter how well intentioned- ends up being the person that ends up as the object of misdirected ire. There's a reason there is a trope of the boy/girl ending a friendship when the friend reveals that said boy/girl's significant other was a cheater/dirtbag/etc, because it often happens.
It's things like these that make me enjoy spells like charm person from a roleplay perspective, because there are still a lot of nuances of interplay between player and DM that must go on in order to achieve the ends that you want to achieve; or at least more nuances than can (should, IMO) be found in a simple d20 check.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Jason gave the RAI of the spell.
Maybe. Jason is awesome, but perhaps not infallible. I think he really missed the boat here. His post that was quoted above allows this example:
Mage wants to charm a NPC to kill himself so he casts Charm Person on the guy.
Mage: Kill yourself.
Guy: Haha, I trust you, friend, but I can and will disobey that request.
Mage: OK, go kill all the people in that village over there.
Guy: I don't want to.
Mage: Too bad, I am more charismatic than you are so do it!
Guy: Crap, I still don't want to so I will kill myself.
Mage: Booyah! That's what I wanted all along!
All of which completely ignores the part that the charmed guy will not do harmful things.
Sorry Jason, I think you spoke too quickly on this subject and maybe didn't consider all the ramifications for this first level spell.
If you fail the check you have to follow what is wanted.
Maybe, as long as it isn't harmful. And as long as it is something that a trusted friend could talk you into without any puppet-mastery mind control
The problem here is the vague wording that allows two different parsings of this sentence:
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.
Parsing one: You can convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do by trying to make an opposed CHA check.
Parsing two: If you try to make it do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do, you must make an opposed CHA check.
Both of these parsings are perfectly valid interpretations of that sentence. the first version suggests that ANYTHING is possible if you make the check. The second version suggests that you cannot make him do anything without making the check. The first one is inclusive - all things are possible (as long as you make the check). The second one is exclusive - nothing is possible (but a check might override it).
I submit that only the second one is valid.
Why?
First, the spell says you cannot control the guy. This directly contradicts the notion that all things are possible with the check. Why say "You can't control him" and then say "with a check you can control him"? That makes no sense at all.
Second, the part I quoted says you can TRY to give it orders by CONVINCING the victim. The part I didn't quote says you're a trusted friend. I have lots of trusted friends, but not one of them could convince me to kill my family, or kill my neighbor, or kill a random stranger, or even injure a random stranger - no matter how convincing they are. So why do we think Charm Person gives this power when it explicitly says it does not?
Last, it's a freaking level 1 spell. Why is everyone so intent on making it duplicate the 4th level Dominate Person spell? Worse, at least the Dominate Person spell would let that guy make a new save when you tell him to kill his family while Charm Person does not, and if he makes that save the Dominate is completely gone. If you fail your opposed CHA check with Charm Person, the guy is still charmed but just not convinced to do what you suggested (no retries), but you can still suggest many other things, even similar things. So everyone wants the level 1 Charm Person spell to be even more powerful than the level 4 Dominate Person spell. I just don't get it.
Put all this together and you get: "Since you cannot control him, all you can do is try to convince him to do what you want, and if you try to suggest that he should do something he would not ordinarily do, you must win an opposed CHA check to convince him - but even if he believes your convincing argument (you win the check), you still cannot control the actions he takes when he responds to your convincing argument."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except you DO have control over what he does. It literally says it in the spell. You can make them do things against their nature with a Cha check.
No, "convince" is not an ability. That is the fluff justification for that very open-ended game mechanic that says unequivocally you can make Cha checks to CONVINCE someone to follow an order against their nature.
That is what the Cha check does. Technically speaking, you don't even need something convincing, you just need to say "Do it" and be likable enough.
You say "Kill your wife". Roll Cha check. Success he does it, fail he does not.
Then charm person is clearly more powerful than suggestion, and should not be first level since suggestion is third.
Suggestion: Is language-dependent, must be carefully worded per RAW, obviously harmful order negates the spell outright. Allows you to issue one order (with the saving throw being what ordinarily negates it.)
Charm person: Is not language-dependent, need only be communicated sufficiently, obviously harmful order is simply refused. Allows you to issue multiple orders, only a subset of which require an opposed CHA check to force. In addition, allows an array of useful "non-order" reactions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens if Charm Person is cast on a sociopath who is literally incapable of feeling friendship for anyone?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What happens if Charm Person is cast on a sociopath who is literally incapable of feeling friendship for anyone?
Magic.
The enchantment overrides his sociopathy such that, for the first time in his life, he actually does feel friendship. A new experience for him. He might even like it.
Or he has no idea how to handle these new feelings and murders the person who made them feel these weird things.
Everyone has different ways they deal with trust.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or he has no idea how to handle these new feelings and murders the person who made them feel these weird things.
Everyone has different ways they deal with trust.
Maybe.
But that turns this spell into a trap. Don't cast it on the wrong guy or when you become his "trusted friend and ally" he'll kill you.
I think that's probably too big a stretch. It's like saying "don't cast magic missile on a guy who has a schizophrenia because the missiles won't know which personality to target to they'll bounce back on you instead". yeah, you could do that. But since that's not really how either spell works, it would be a really weird way to turn either good spell into a suicide trap for the caster.