| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an additional Diplomacy check, using the creature's current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.
Can we stop acting like these are the same conditions? Values and nature have nothing to do with Charm Person and, assuming checks are made and saves are failed, will not do anything to prevent control. Diplomacy is not true mind control. Charm Person very obviously is.
Charm Person can make you do something you'd never otherwise do (such as cheat on your spouse). Diplomacy can't. That's the bottom line.
That's more a problem with Charm having some wonky ass rules than anything. As-written Charm can actually have more control over the target than Dominate...Dominate has no opposed Cha check to make people do stuff not otherwise covered in the rules.
Most people use a common sense ruling on the spell though, I think. When it's used in my games it's basically an enhanced Diplomacy check: it sets their attitude to Friendly (regardless of where it was before), and that's about the extent of it.
I let it be used as-written ONCE, and it was used to make someone murder their adoptive father, at which point I was like "Ehhhh...okay we need to fix that" (though it was a cool way to assassinate the guy).
I let it be used as-written ONCE, and it was used to make someone murder their adoptive father, at which point I was like "Ehhhh...okay we need to fix that" (though it was a cool way to assassinate the guy).
You nerfer.
So, long story made as sort as I can, I was in a new gaming group (four guys including me and three women) and an issue happened pretty damn quickly. Our group had a lot of neutral-based PC's (Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, Chaotic Neutral) but our DM (against my advice) allowed a guy to play Neutral Evil. Everything was going as well as it could but then the guy playing the NE divine spellcaster tries to "rape" a DM controlled NPC. I basically said TIME OUT and told the GM that this wasn't going to fly with me.
I have a niece who suffered from a date rape experience in collage and one of the three women has a sister who suffered an actual gang rape experience. So, yeah, this wasn't going to fly with me or the three women in our group. What was worse, the GM was trying to play "mediator" and at times he took the NE player's side (aka "it's just a game", "it's not real"). The NE Player pitched a royal fit and in the end, all three women and myself left the table and we've never looked back since.
I'd like to know if anyone here has experienced something similar to this sort of situation?
Idiots like the one in this story make me sick, they give all gamers a bad name. Regarding advice, I'd say give him one warning, then if he does something this stupid again, boot him out of the table.
Charm Person can make you do something you'd never otherwise do (such as cheat on your spouse). Diplomacy can't. That's the bottom line.I don't want to criticize GMs, but the "obviously harmful" clause is there for more than physical harm (in fact getting over "just" physical harm is what ten order is for).
People have already brought in multiple examples showing that this is clearly not intended by the RAW. It's a great and sensible house rule I would always use, but it's not technically what Charm Person does.
Cheating on your spouse is functionally life ending
Plenty of people cheat on their spouses and keep on living. Plenty don't even get caught.
allowing someone to bed you when you otherwise wouldn't has a lot is social effects that are critical to the NPC's way of life.
Too bad Charm Person doesn't have any clause protecting you from breaking your values.
As GM, the spell literally has a clause that says "if an NPC wouldn't normally do it you can try,
Yup.
and if the NPC absolutely wouldn't do it it will fail".
It doesn't say that. It should, but it doesn't, because it's not Diplomacy.
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
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....
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.
...
Snowblind pretty much sums it up for me, actually.
A few major notes:
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).
This spell can lead you to murder your friends if you're absolutely forced to choose between them and Elly Enchanter. Sure, most of the time nonlethal damage will be possible, but if you're a caster specializing in Save-Or-Die, or any of them have crazy good ACs, it's a legitimate possibility that the only way to save your "dear friend" Elly is to kill the people attacking her.
That is as harmful as it gets when it comes to your emotional state: Killing someone you care about to save someone who forced you to care about them more. And when Charm Person ends, how do you think the formerly charmed individual is going to handle it?
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.
This is the absolute most extreme it can get. Something I wouldn't do, even for my dearest friend? I get another Will save. If I fail, I do it. No more objections. And I don't know a lot you, but I think most people would do a lot for a "dear friend". When we pass that threshold, we're getting into pretty life-changing territory.
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.
Violently opposed to it, even. And it still only comes down to a single save.
So even if I'd be "violently" opposed to having seemingly consensual sex with a dear friend, I could still be coerced into doing it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was DMing and a player did that, they'd be out full stop: zero negotiation. I'd also probably never speak to them again. I have less than zero tolerance for the kind of person that plays a game, under any context, with the thought: "Hey, you know, my character should rape this person."
Side story: One of the things I've worked to establish in games I help organize is a general feeling of safety. This generally means feeling comfortable, having good venues, and being aware of the audience. It's making sure that female, and male, players feel safe to play and to have a good time.
I remember once upon a time, we'd been about to add an organizer to one of the groups I helped run. I explained he could choose any venue he wished, so long as it: was clean and well-lit, and felt safe.
After that, he took a second, and third look at different venues he'd been thinking of. The local coffee shop made the list, some folks' houses did...a local gaming store did not, which was one the spots he'd originally thought of.
Comfort is a big thing. He later thanked me for bringing it up--he'd never thought of it in that context.
Keeping a comfortable environment and game doesn't mean fluffy bunnies--but it does mean being cognizant of others. For example, we still played Cards Against Humanity--just never at a time someone had brought their kids.
As for rape... There are fewer topics that have players coming up and saying: that guy makes me really uncomfortable. Are all the players like that? Or, that guy is creepy. If he's here, I apologize as I've enjoyed your games, but I'm not coming back so long as he plays.
Or, they just don't say a thing. ...and leave, never to come back. That's the worst, because you never get the chance to make it better. The important takeaway is to not expect many gamers to be comfortable with it, and if you're in a crowd, you're better off not.
Another important takeaway is this: arguing "they shouldn't be so sensitive" doesn't change just how uncomfortable rape makes many people. It is equally important to understand how creepy appearing to argue in "support of" rape can make the arguer appear.
If this is something that you as a person don't understand--instead of arguing, please accept it works this way with others. Don't argue the point, but say: I'm sorry, and move on, without that element in the game. Otherwise, you'll risk being labeled as "that creepy guy".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of the actual taboo being broken, there are a few fundamental truths to tabletop gaming that the wise man would generalize to his entire life, I think:
1) Don't introduce anything to the table that anyone seriously objects to. We all know the difference between "I think gunslingers are dumb" and "I don't want to watch that guy eat his dead father".
2) Anything can be okay if and only if everyone is cool with it. I have my limits, and I know them, and so does my group.
3) There's absolutely no point in trying to make any argument that relates to real life, morality, freedom of speech, or any other such thing. It doesn't matter if X is right or wrong if X is ruining your game for one or more players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My 0.02$
Rape in D&D is weird, wrong, and immoral. It can make players at a table feel uncomfortable or down right disgusted. I had a similar experience when one of my female players raped a male NPC. I didn't play in that game ever again.
That being said, D&D had a lot of evil s~*! in it. Murder, torture, genocide, theft, extreme poverty, and so much other crap. It's very hard to quantify one crime over another because their all terrible in their own ways. Hell, in my campaign there is a evil Ultron like machine literally using Grey Goo to genocide and turn everyone into zombie machines.
I think, for future players and DM's, it might be a good idea to lay down some ground rules about what the players expect in a campaign. This is me speaking generally, not to the OP, if your campaign is gonna feature some gore, torture, genocide, unjustly murders, tell your players. Because some people might be uncomfortable with a R rated game. T
I think this is definitely something to keep in mind. This is a level 1 spell, and no amount of manipulation should allow its power level to elevate to something like Domination.An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.I will always read the specific wording on charmed person to say that even with an opposed Charisma check some requests will fail. Period. It's a level 1 charm that is not automation, just makes a person act as a close friend would.
Oh, I totally agree. I believe that it's a poorly-written spell. You guys don't. Since it's not really relevant to this discussion, though, we should probably leave it at this: If Charm Person can be and is used to get sex, it's obviously rape. If not, it's not (though it might be attempted rape).
Might as well avoid a rules debate here.