|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really wish Charm Person could be hammered out better for combat situations for clarification purposes rather then simply saying "let GM decide."
Here's the scenario:
A PC is confronting a troll and its commander, a Bard.
The PC puts Charm Monster on the troll and tells it to prevent the Bard from casting spells.
On the Troll's turn, the Bard, being the commander, orders the troll to a different area.
Who does the troll obey?
I'm of the opinion that the troll will obey the orders of its commander, because, well, he's its commander and the allied PC is just his friend. An opposed Charisma check to make the troll stop the Bard from spellcasting isn't necessarily needed, either, because stopping the Bard from spellcasting could be a simple hand on the mouth or something- the troll thinking he wants to stop his friends from fighting each other. However, one friend is more than that, it's his commander, and disobeying a direct order will have consequences.
If there is a check to be made between the bard commander and the pc caster, then what would that check be? As per the spell, the caster has to make charisma check vs. troll, but for the commander to give orders, he never has to make any checks.
So where in the rules does it hint at an opposed check between caster and bard? If there is a hint somewhere, then what check is made? Does a diplo or intimidate check become options?
I did see Buhlman's FAQ where he stated, " but killing loved ones is probably always going to require a check." Seems to me this may have been a mistake, but it wasn't corrected or clarified very well, so for now I'll use what he says.
Charm Person can make people kill their allies with a simple opposed Charisma check.
How long does it take to "convince" a charmed creature to do something it wouldn't normally do? Can you simply issue an order to "kill your commander" in one sentence, or does this require a several-round interaction process?
|
|
Remember- Charm Person/Charm Monster doesn't automatically get you control of the afflicted persons- it just alters their attitude towards you.
I'd say it'd be an opposed check, depending on the action, determines the DC.
Also consider the monster's attitude towards its master.
in your example, you're requesting to troll to possibly act hostilely towards its master. It's master is commanding it vacate the area.
Depending on the troll's attitude its master, unless you get a higher diplomacy roll vs its master's relevant roll, it may follow its master's command and just leave.
remember, the Troll can also choose to not do either depending on the rolls.
several other factors add to the DC like if you've already acted hostile towards the Troll prior to the Spell.
Look at Diplomacy rulings for requesting actions, and attitude towards PC.
I don't think that charm does anything much in combat situations as it is worded (opposed to dominate).
Just imagine yourself in the troll's place: your officer tells you to open fire on a person, who is also your friend. As history tells us, usually fire was opened (or the friend put to the sword), only rarely did people disobey their orders.
And when it comes to the point that the target becomes your friend and ally, what exactly would you do for a friend? Give him your money? Your keys? Drop your job to run an errant 1.000 km away for him? Help him murder a guard and rob the shop he was watching? Disobey your orders and leave your guard post? I would not do all those things players come up with what their new "friends" should do for them. Granted, with a glib tongue and good arguments someone may get me to do such things, but it will take at least some conversation. A few words during battle won't sway me at all.
Philosophy aside, you have only the SRD: Charm and Compulsion to go by. It is also a 1st level spell, so it should not be able to replace suggestion, a 3rd level spell, let alone dominate person (5th), which does what players expect of charm person.
You can take a look at the rule about two charm spells on the same target, too (core rules, pg. 208), which would lead to making opposed CHA checks against the bard as the other "controller".
|
|
Thanks for the answers. I pulled out some relevant information from RAW on:
Charm and Compulsion
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.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances,
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend
Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject's free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject's mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.
The troll would not normally go against its commanders orders. The orders of his friend go against the orders of his commander, so i would have the player and Troll make opposed checks. The bards skill has nothing to do with it at all.
|
|
The troll would not normally go against its commanders orders. The orders of his friend go against the orders of his commander, so i would have the player and Troll make opposed checks. The bards skill has nothing to do with it at all.
This is obvious, but what happens when the PC wins the opposed check with the troll? The spell doesn't remove the bard commander's influence.
The troll would not normally go against its commanders orders. The orders of his friend go against the orders of his commander, so i would have the player and Troll make opposed checks. The bards skill has nothing to do with it at all.This is obvious, but what happens when the PC wins the opposed check with the troll? The spell doesn't remove the bard commander's influence.
If the player win, the troll has decided that his Influence outweighs that of his commander. If the troll wins, he makes the decision most natural to him, on this case, listen to his commander.
note: I'm assuming the bard is commander by title, and not using some form of charm or compulsion effect of his own.
correct. He issues an order, normally the troll would just follow the order. In this case he is compelled to follow the orders of both his commander, and the player. The player gives an order to prevent casting, the troll agrees and makes effort to do so. He then received another order from the commander that conflicts with the players order. At this point the Troll has to chose who to listen to. Because he is under the influence of a spell that impairs his judgment, he makes the CHA check. If he wins he turns to the player and says "sorry bro, job comes first." But if the Troll loses he tuns to the commander saying"I dont know, if i do that how can i prevent the casting?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I divide stuff up into three categories.
"Would do for a friend." Grab lunch for them, not attack them, try to stop somebody from hurting them, and so on.
"Would do as a personal favor for a friend." This is where the opposed charisma check comes in. It ranges from stuff like helping the friend move to loaning them a valuable personal item with some persuasion and something of similar value (though perhaps less personal significance) as collateral.
"If it's this or we're not friends, I'll pick 'not friends'." This is stuff where most people would draw the line if it were sprung on them, or it would only be done for somebody who qualifies as "best friend". Significant risk to life, limb, or livelihood fall under this category. This is the stuff where Charm Person can't help- at least, not without external help.
Under the circumstances, disobeying a direct (and otherwise untroublesome) order from a commanding officer is going to be tough unless it's something the troll normally does or wants to do. That can be softened with a good reason, though. Making it seem unlikely he'll get caught, or providing sufficient justification might allow for an opposed charisma check. Otherwise, the best he'll get is some stalling and feet-dragging.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimate Intrigue;
"The main thing to remember about charm magic is that it is not a compulsion (that is a different subschool of enchantment), which means it doesn't directly force someone to do something.
...
Just like in the Diplomacy section of Skills in Conflict (see page 184), being someone's friend doesn't mean the caster gets to dictate everything they do, and even the opposed Charisma check the spell grants can only go so far; it doesn't compel them to act exactly as the caster desires.
For instance, an evil necromancer might be willing to allow her friend to sit as her new right hand, but she won't quit her entire life's goal just because a friend asked, even with an opposed Charisma check."
The troll is unlikely to hurt or attack its commander, even for friend, not even with a charisma check.
You might get the troll to "stay out of the fight" with Charm Person though.
Think of it this way, your friend tells you to attack your boss (with no particular reason). Would you ever attack your boss if your friend randomly showed up and asked you to do it? No.
The troll isn't going to attack his commander unless the charmer can provide a good reason to. Charm Person just makes you friends, but you still wouldn't do things for them that you wouldn't do for a normal friend. Sure circumstances might change how you would react some. Maybe your boss is plotting to kill you and your friend is trying to save you, but your going to ask for evidence and ask other questions. Your friend probably isn't going to just immediately go along with such a request.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really wish Charm Person could be hammered out better for combat situations for clarification purposes rather then simply saying "let GM decide."
Well that's just too bad, because "let the GM decide" is the right answer. There is no RAW black or white on this issue, it's up to interpretation. Rightly so.
So ask your GM.
I've always thought it was odd that it is easier to end the influence of Dominate Person than Charm Person.
Dominating Vampire: Kill your wife and eat her flesh!
PC (fails new save): Yes, master
PC (makes new save): No, I made my save! Now I'll kill you!
Charming Bard: Kill your wife and eat her flesh!
PC (loses Cha check): Ok, I'll check with the DM and see if I should follow through on that
PC (wins Cha check): No, I'd rather not. Would you like to go get something else for lunch though?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about you, but I don't have any friends that could convince me to kill my wife. No matter how good of a friend they are.
Probably.
It depends on how long you've been married, see the "Marital Difficulty Modifiers" table on page 212 of Ultimate Intrigue.
I've always thought it was odd that it is easier to end the influence of Dominate Person than Charm Person.
Dominating Vampire: Kill your wife and eat her flesh!
PC (fails new save): Yes, master
PC (makes new save): No, I made my save! Now I'll kill you!Charming Bard: Kill your wife and eat her flesh!
PC (loses Cha check): Ok, I'll check with the DM and see if I should follow through on that
PC (wins Cha check): No, I'd rather not. Would you like to go get something else for lunch though?
The Charm and Compulsion rules give a charmed victim a save to end the spell entirely if they get forced to do something they would be violently opposed to. Anything that forces a save under dominate X will almost certainly also force a save under charm X.
|
Really wish Charm Person could be hammered out better for combat situations for clarification purposes rather then simply saying "let GM decide."
Here's the scenario:
A PC is confronting a troll and its commander, a Bard.
The PC puts Charm Monster on the troll and tells it to prevent the Bard from casting spells.
On the Troll's turn, the Bard, being the commander, orders the troll to a different area.
Who does the troll obey?
If we assume that the Troll already has the same level of relationship with the Bard as it does with the PC thanks to charm person...
Okay, so now it goes into the personality/alignment of the troll and what they would do. Also, the memory ability of the troll might also play in (like if he forgets the old order as soon as he gets a new one).
So, troll being good friends with both, might try to accomplish both orders at the same time. They could also ignore both orders, just because they don't believe in taking orders at all. It may also boil down to a bribe or promise of bribe at a later date (like scooby snacks). And if one order can't be done (or they think it can't be done), they may just ignore it on that basis.
Another big consideration is non-specified orders can result in very varied actions. "preventing the bard from casting spells" could mean attack the bard, but it could mean any other number of things. Maybe distract the bard by making faces so the bard is laughing instead of casting spells. The creature could also determine that just don't know how to stop them from casting spells in a manner which is reasonable treating their good friend, the bard.
The Charm and Compulsion rules give a charmed victim a save to end the spell entirely if they get forced to do something they would be violently opposed to. Anything that forces a save under dominate X will almost certainly also force a save under charm X.I've always thought it was odd that it is easier to end the influence of Dominate Person than Charm Person.
Dominating Vampire: Kill your wife and eat her flesh!
PC (fails new save): Yes, master
PC (makes new save): No, I made my save! Now I'll kill you!Charming Bard: Kill your wife and eat her flesh!
PC (loses Cha check): Ok, I'll check with the DM and see if I should follow through on that
PC (wins Cha check): No, I'd rather not. Would you like to go get something else for lunch though?
Anything that forces a save for Dominate Person is impossible for Charm Person.
There's no such second-save rule, though; that's only in the Dominate Person check.
Agreed, I don't even know what it would mean to "force" a charmed creature to do something short of a threat that automatically ends the spell without a save required.
I think a big part of the problem is that in the opposed charisma check part it says you can get the creature to do something it wouldn't normally do if you succeed on the check.
For a charisma based character (like a sorcerer) this is probably very easy against most creatures. However, the charisma checks doesn't state any real limits. So I can understand why some people might think you can get a charmed person to kill a loved one by winning the opposed charisma check. Without doing a lot of reading in other places you might think it's reasonable.
The description also doesn't even reference Diplomacy (only the charisma check) which creates a secondary problem. If it did reference diplomacy a GM could use the clause that says "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."
But I think generally speaking the community mostly understand this spell to basically work as though you were automatically friendly under the Diplomacy skill rules.
Honestly it would probably have been better if they simply rewrote the spell that way, something to the effect of "For the duration of the spell the creature is Friendly (per the diplomacy skill) and will act towards the caster in that manner. You can make diplomacy checks to convince the creature to do things it wouldn't normally freely do for a friend, but some requests automatically fail if they go against the creature's nature or values too much, subject to GM discretion."
|
|
I think a big part of the problem is that in the opposed charisma check part it says you can get the creature to do something it wouldn't normally do if you succeed on the check.
For a charisma based character (like a sorcerer) this is probably very easy against most creatures. However, the charisma checks doesn't state any real limits. So I can understand why some people might think you can get a charmed person to kill a loved one by winning the opposed charisma check. Without doing a lot of reading in other places you might think it's reasonable.
The description also doesn't even reference Diplomacy (only the charisma check) which creates a secondary problem. If it did reference diplomacy a GM could use the clause that says "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."
But I think generally speaking the community mostly understand this spell to basically work as though you were automatically friendly under the Diplomacy skill rules.
Honestly it would probably have been better if they simply rewrote the spell that way, something to the effect of "For the duration of the spell the creature is Friendly (per the diplomacy skill) and will act towards the caster in that manner. You can make diplomacy checks to convince the creature to do things it wouldn't normally freely do for a friend, but some requests automatically fail if they go against the creature's nature or values too much, subject to GM discretion."
If it was role played right, I can totally picture a diplomacy or bluff check that convinces a person to kill themselves or others, even if that would normally be outside of their character's moral code.
But I'd never allow that to work without some amazing role playing.
I can't imagine ever a role play situation where you can convince someone to kill themselves (if they didn't already have emotional issues and were suicidal).
I can imagine a role play situation where you might convince them to kill a loved one, but there had better be a damn good reason and evidence.
And even charm/dominate spells have a line about obviously self destructive orders aren't followed, so you can't make creatures commit suicide.
|
|
I can't imagine ever a role play situation where you can convince someone to kill themselves (if they didn't already have emotional issues and were suicidal).
I can imagine a role play situation where you might convince them to kill a loved one, but there had better be a damn good reason and evidence.
And even charm/dominate spells have a line about obviously self destructive orders aren't followed, so you can't make creatures commit suicide.
You'd start by not calling it murder/suicide. You wouldn't be ordering death, you'd be asking a friend for help in a fictictional situation that caused them to take excessive risk for themselves or others.
As a good friend, you'd inform them of a dire situation requiring immediate attention. They'd want proof, of course, but they don't need actual proof, just assurances that actual proof exists and could be verified at a later date, ideally proof provided by a third party. An illusion or a forgery could do this, as could having a second PC (also charming, or as just a witness). Disguises could help too. Essentially, you are running a Con.
Now this situation should involve the apparent need to endanger the charmed person. It has to be reasonable, something a normal person could be convinced of.
For example, the lie is that timmy is stuck in the well and could be drowning or injured. An illusion is created over a spiked pit trap to make it appear as a well. Another PC is disguised as the frantic mother of Timmy. The Charmer is disguised as that good, but cowardly citizen, off to find help, rather than do it himself. They encounter the target that fails the save against the charm, he's brought over to assisst. A plan is created, the cowardly citizen and the frantic mother are going to hold a rope, while the charmed target is lowered into the well to save Timmy. A real rope is presented and tied around the charmed target. He goes down the well and the rope is not held by the others. He's spiked, likely to death.
And if you had a real well, could use that instead of the spiked trap. The key here is that going down the well puts the charmed target in danger, but if rescuing that kid is what he'd normally do, especially after being asked to help by his "good friend", then the risk is reasonable to him, despite being potentially suicidal.
And this would work in real life too, just without the charm spell. You'd be pretty evil, at that point, but a normal person could be convinced by a good friend that they needed to help someone else. And they'd likely be willing to risk themselves a bit to save someone. Especially an attractive mate or a small child. Totally cliche in the films, but still a real thing.
That's not technically convincing a person to kill themselves, it's convincing them to go on a exceedingly dangerous mission which is likely to get them killed.
Or in the case of your specific example you're convincing them to help you complete a heroic quest, not to kill themselves. They just don't know that you done a lot of planning to trick him into doing something likely to get him killed. Though....in your specific example I feel like they would simply throw the rope down to the kid and then they pull the kid up. No reason for the would-be hero to go into the well, but that's not really important.
Of course, you don't even need charm person to do this. You could do this with a lot of people "good" people who would be willing to help in this situation.
The important distinction though is what you are telling them or asking them to do. Asking someone to get the kid out of the well (and having setup a fake well with spikes unbeknownst) is very different from "Go jump in that spike pit". While you might be able to achieve the result of death of the charmed person or having them kill a loved one using trickery that isn't relevant. You can trick people into doing things with or without the charm spell. Nothing changes that. Of course, along the way they probably get Sense Motive checks to notice that you're lying. And then questions about why their friend is lying to them if they notice.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, you don't even need charm person to do this. You could do this with a lot of people "good" people who would be willing to help in this situation.
That's exactly it. Charm Person only works as well as having a good friend would normally work. The advantage with Charm Person is that it's quick, rather than investing time and effort into real friendships and trust.
The perfect spell for a nerd fantasy game, instant friendship.... (I'm teasing us nerds)
But they're still just a friend. You don't control them at all.
|
Really wish Charm Person could be hammered out better for combat situations for clarification purposes rather then simply saying "let GM decide."Well that's just too bad, because "let the GM decide" is the right answer. There is no RAW black or white on this issue, it's up to interpretation. Rightly so.
So ask your GM.
This should have been the end of the thread. The only way you can comprehensively cover jamming a square peg like a social tool into a round hole of a combat role is to quit being a RPG.
...
The Charm and Compulsion rules give a charmed victim a save to end the spell entirely if they get forced to do something they would be violently opposed to. Anything that forces a save under dominate X will almost certainly also force a save under charm X.Anything that forces a save for Dominate Person is impossible for Charm Person.
[Citation Needed]
There's no such second-save rule, though; that's only in the Dominate Person check.
- 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.