Fair enough. It seems I and those I play with have been unknowingly houseruling this spell for a long, long time. [Since 2006ish]If said barmaid is diametrically opposed to the encounter, wouldn't that be classified as 'obviously harmful' [to her mental well-being and potentially to her marriage]?Would you consider being kept as the pet of a forest creature and used as a meat shield whose sole existence is based on physically defending said forest creature from harm, laying down your life if necessary, as "obviously harmful".
Because that is within the bounds of the spell. It's one of the ways Dryads use their SLA, so it's fair to say any interpretation of "obviously harmful" that excludes the above isn't the intended interpretation.
It doesn't help that critical rules are in the glossary
...
Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells and some monster abilities. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.A charmed creature doesn't gain any magical ability to understand his new friend's language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight with an actual friend).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn't normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature's apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect.
...
In order for all of the above to apply, the term "obviously harmful" has to be interpreted pretty narrowly. Add on the tactics of bestiary creatures with charm SLAs(enslaving creatures as guardians, convincing them to go off to the abyss, explicitly turning allies against eachother) and it becomes pretty clear that Charm effects are really powerful.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, let me say that I appreciate threads like this to let me know who I should avoid discussing certain things with.
As for the situation, it's abhorrent. I could just repost what Gwen said about the issue of actual exposure to things, but she said it as well as I could about the actual reality of sexual assault, and it's a subject I take very seriously. After that point, I wouldn't feel comfortable playing/being around that person knowing that they take a subject like that as lightly as they do.
Really, it's an issue regardless of gender, and I'd respond the same way to it regardless of who had started it.
Really, I had a situation like this at a table of mine once, and I believe it was the only time I ever had to walk away from my table in raw disgust. The party had just killed a doppelganger who's natural form (for story purposes) was an attractive female, and the item that creature had was a cursed hat of greater disguise which made anyone who wore it look like the former creature.
Once I told them that the doppelganger was attractive, one of the party members attempted to sexually assault both it and the player who had placed the hat on. The game was lighthearted up to this point, this was a complete mood shift and really a hard shift from that player, to whom which I had to removed from my games, and in a large part, my life as well.
Personally I think certain issues need to be discussed before the game, not even just ones of this severity, but anything that has the chance of ruining someone's time there, as we're doing this for fun. Graphic descriptions of gore (some people go overboard on this), graphic torture, sexual assault, and really most things you wouldn't see in an AP are good starters, but each group knows their own tolerance better than anyone on a message board would, so judge accordingly.
Me personally, I would be done gaming with this person and at this table, and really I'd probably stop gaming for a few weeks, but I just take things like this very seriously, and people who don't tend to worry me deeply.
I feel, at least given my experiences involving both the issue of inter-player conflict and that of handling sexual assault as a topic, as well as the issue of players being made uncomfortable, that the GM was faced with a dilemma, that while understandable, was handled poorly. I can understand that the GM wanted to mediate the group and attempt to remain impartial so as to avoid potentially creating ill will among the members of the group, but in doing, failed to recognize and properly address the clear and present level of discomfort felt by a large portion of the group. Without knowing more about the prior personal relationships of the various members of the group with the GM (if there were any), I would hazard a guess that the GM might have had a prior friendship with the offending player (I am of course, speculating here based solely on the information provided and some inferences based on prior experiences and observations of comparable situations). And while this may go towards explaining the GM's reaction to the situation, it does not excuse it, as it is really the GM's first job to facilitate fun for the group as a whole, or at least to do so as best they can.
And regarding the issue of Sexual Assault and Rape in story telling and especially interactive storytelling such as gaming, it is a very difficult topic to broach, especially since it is an issue which millions of women and men deal with on a daily basis and which can severely impact, if not destroy, their lives.
And when a player approaches the subject with such a cavalier attitude, and then proceeds to act in the manner described when they are told that their actions are making others at the table uncomfortable, it shows a disturbing lack of respect for the other players at the table, not only as individuals with whom they interact with on a (semi?)regular basis, but as human beings.
I say all of the above recognizing that their is a time and a place in which the issue of Rape and Sexual Assault can, should, and in fact needs to be addressed, but that time and place does not, and in all reality likely should not, unless agreed upon by the group, be in a setting in which people have gotten together to play a game, have fun, and in many cases, even escape from the realities of life for a bit.
I would love to hear more from OP regarding the situation, if there is more they'd like to share.
Finally, since this is a very heavy topic, if any needs some time away, here's animal planet's kitten cam: http://www.apl.tv/kittens.htm
This is why you should never allow evil characters (with perhaps an exception for LE).
CE creatures can be absolute monsters. They needn't necessarily be, but its quite appropriate for them to be. Rape is something that may be characteristically appropriate for such a horrible character to engage in.
That being said, such characters are not necessarily appropriate at any or all times, especially in a group you are not familiar with.
However, you have to handle the situation tactfully. To the OP, I do not mean this insultingly, but you probably could have expressed your issue in a less confrontational way (if your post here is an indication of how you expressed it in person). People tend to react poorly and stick to their position when confronted by an angry or upset person. It's an irrational response that is part of human nature. We often tend to double down with our course when confronted without time to appropriately think it through.
Had you instead said to the table, "Hey, I'm sorry but I'm not comfortable with that sort of activity at the table. Would you mind not doing that now or in the future?" You probably would have been met with a greater level of acceptance than yelling out "I'm not going to take this!".
So I agree that no one should have to deal with things that make them uncomfortable, we should also remember that the individual here was not necessarily trying to make you uncomfortable on purpose. He may have just had a very GRIM DARK conception for the character and campaign that was not shared. When confronted he responded irrationally because of the manner of the request. Which then led to the group eventually breaking up.
To be honest I think there is some fault with both parties involved here (though the majority does rest on the player of the evil character) as to the cause of the party breaking up.
I guess what I'm saying here is, lets not string up someone for crucifixion when it may not be quite as simple as described here.
Edit: I would also like to add that I think this thread has inspired me to add to my house rules a request to inform me (as the GM) privately of any topics that make you uncomfortable so I can try to avoid them as a GM and so I can make other players aware anonymously of said topics being issues.
While rape can definitely be a difficult topic for many, I do still think it has a legitimate story telling purpose, even if that purpose is to portray the depths of vileness that are possible. One such example I can think of is the movie "The Flowers of War" which is set in and around the historical event of the Rape of Nanjing. It is a incredible movie that deals with the topic of rape and was very emotional. After watching the movie I couldn't speak for an hour because of how overwhelmed I was. But the movie made me feel, and after I was over the initial shock I enjoyed the movie greatly.
Wow, what a huge can of worms. Just my two cents, but I've always thought the following about the subject of "taboo" occurences in gaming.
I don't believe any subject in fiction should be off limits. Some of the best stories are also some of the most disturbing. Sometimes fiction hurts, it makes you feel things that are uncomfortable and look at things from alien perspectives. This is not, in itself, a bad thing. If that's the style of story that the gaming group comes together to tell, so be it.
However, Pathfinder is, at its core, a work of collaborative fiction. The DM and the players work together to tell a story, with the DM being the one who provides the setting and the background characters, and the players providing the main protagonists. Now this isn't always the case of course, but it's a pretty standard baseline.
As such, the rules change a bit. Normally when a person experiences a work of fiction, it is between the stoyteller(s) and the reader/listener/what have you. If they don't wish to experience said material, that is their personal problem and they can simply choose not to. Since all members of a gaming group are participants in creating a story, their feelings matter much more. The story belongs just as much to one person as the next, and so each person has a share of responsibility towards each other. A sort of democracy comes into play, and if one person is trying to inject an element into the story others find offensive, the group really has to consider what everyone as a whole would like to do. It could be one person is offended in particular and is thus not a good fit for the group, or it could be that the group as a whole finds the actions of one distasteful and thus maybe that person should find another group that suits them more. The split could even be down the middle.
The point is, neither side is wrong, and no judgement should be passed on either the party whose piece of the fiction offended, or those who were offended by it. The person did not in reality commit said offensive acts, and the offended party has a right to be offended at whatever they wish. However, everyone being (assumed) adults, either a compromise should be reached, or an amicable split should occur.
I am mostly with Gwen Smith on this.
I've a friend for whom I would have to seriously consider if I would ever have spiders attack. I have seen her freak out when she saw a real spider, and would not want to evoke that sort of reaction in game.
I am not a psychiatrist and really don't want to pick at someone's psychological wounds.
I want to have fun and laughs at the gaming table. Anything that gets in the way of that is something I want to try and avoid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking, having an evil character in a good/neutral party has an obvious problem- he does the same acts as the creatures you stab, so why shouldn't you stab him "in character"?
Now, having a single evil outlier can be compelling for the story. The wayward brother and his more restrained sibling is a rather nice storyline. That has potential for good dramatic conflict. But having an evil player requires a certain amount of restraint and responsiblity on the part of the player (since 'in character', he doesn't have any of that).
I would typically advise that, in this kind of situation, you should have a discussion before play so you can define the extent of his 'evil'. That way, you can make a list of 'do's' and 'don'ts' that would stop this whole mess from happening. That way, you know that you can get away with punching a snooty librarian every so often or sneak off with a noble's coin purse, maybe force the evil character to give the occasional apology with a fresh black eye and bloody nose if he does something too disruptive. Since the character can't know his boundaries too well, the player needs to know them so that you do not end up with this whole big fiasco.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah.
It's about comfort, cooperation, and the respect of other players.
It's not really important what the subject matter is, but when another player asks you to stop, as it makes them uncomfortable, you at least discuss a compromise.
I agree with both Blackbloodtroll's comment here and with the one posted by Gwen Smith.
Let me put it this way: rape is a powerfully demeaning experience. It makes you ashamed. It makes you feel like an unworthy object, unclean, and without agency. A shocking percentage of both men and women have experienced it. Rape survivors take years to reclaim themselves.
More so because we've been pressured to cover it up, to never talk about it. Often, we are blamed for what happened to us.
I recognize rape can make a powerful element in a back story, or as an example of a villain's excesses. But bring it into the present ongoing action of the game, I'm going to speak up and say, "Can we please not go there? As a survivor, this makes me really uncomfortable."
If that gets ignored, I'll walk from that table and never play with that group again. I don't want to play with people who can treat this subject with callousness.
Hmm
Yeah.
It's about comfort, cooperation, and the respect of other players.
It's not really important what the subject matter is, but when another player asks you to stop, as it makes them uncomfortable, you at least discuss a compromise.
I agree with both Blackbloodtroll's comment here and with the one posted by Gwen Smith.
Let me put it this way: rape is a powerfully demeaning experience. It makes you ashamed. It makes you feel like an unworthy object, unclean, and without agency. A shocking percentage of both men and women have experienced it. Rape survivors take years to reclaim themselves.
More so because we've been pressured to cover it up, to never talk about it. Often, we are blamed for what happened to us.
I recognize rape can make a powerful element in a back story, or as an example of a villain's excesses. But bring it into the present ongoing action of the game, I'm going to speak up and say, "Can we please not go there? As a survivor, this makes me really uncomfortable."
If that gets ignored, I'll walk from that table and never play with that group again. I don't want to play with people who can treat this subject with callousness.
Hmm
this is generally the legit reason for banning evil alignments from PC play.
Orcs, Drow etc...this is normal parts of their society, evil members of their races would likely act this way, but as you say "in the background" is stuff NPCs and monsters do.