Creating a history with PCs while influenced with enchantments.


Rules Questions


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alrighty, so here are the spells I will be focusing on for the time being: Charm Monster, Lesser Geas, Matchmaker, Unnatural Lust and Charm Person for now.

While I know the rules on what a NPC feels, remembers or knows after the spell's effect has worn off I would like to pose a few different scenarios that I am curious about.

1) In the instance I succeed in casting Charm Monster on a lesser dragon, would the dragon get a save roll if i tried to cast it on him again while he was still under the effects of the charm? The point being that he is considered to be friendly towards me. ALSO IN ALL INSTANCES I AM ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE SUBJECT.

2) In the instance that I am able to indefinitely keep the dragon in the charm, if I treated the dragon in a favorable way for an extended amount of time (3 months) would my favor in the dragon's eyes go up because I have formed a lasting bond with it? Could I eventually stop casting the spell on the dragon and he would still act like he normally would under the spell's effect because we have "been through so much together"?

3) If I were to explain to a charmed NPC that I was about to cast a non-harmful spell that will make them happier to be around me then cast Matchmaker on them continuously (targeting both myself and the subject) would they get a save if they agreed to it? Additionally, if I am utilizing two charm spells at once, if creating memories with the NPC does build at forming a relationship, does this happen at a faster rate? Does the love/ platonic relationship create other feelings such as jealousy, hate or loneliness? Do the feelings of love linger and after the spell ends does the NPC still love?

4) If I succeed in casting Lesser Geas on an individual and give them a task that they can accomplish over and over again indefinitely does that run the duration out? Example keep "X" away from "Y". They physically can accomplish that task over and over with no specific end in sight. In that scenario can the NPC develop a psychological disorder assuming that the task consumes his thoughts? If released from the geas, does the NPC still think about it and want to accomplish his/her task?

5) If I cast Unnatural lust on a person and have them kiss someone they would never even think about kissing, does it cause confusion? If the person does it in front of a crowd do they get embarrassed, feel shame or get depressed? Example: I get the duke (heterosexual male) to passionately kiss another male in a crowded environment where the duke is well known and homosexual tendencies are looked down upon.

Thank you in advance for entertaining my silly questions.


All are judgement calls, dependent upon relative power levels of the caster and the subject. Regardless of the charm, critters will remember how you treated them. The dragon will know you are casting charms, but it will rationalize it as "well, he's just practicing" if it's still charmed. Generally, enchantments are only workable as temporary solutions. The moment the critter makes the save and has the upper hand, you will get what you deserve.
The referee decides on personal histories, initial attitudes, and what actions are relevant. So, you should decide whether you talking as a player or as a referee.


Thank you for your reply parsimony.

I am mostly talking about in terms in the form of a player, however, I have also DM other games and would like to know how to judge this in terms of what is "fair". My wizard in the case is mostly a social caster and has very little combat effectiveness. My combats are usually filled me taking a defensive stance and letting teammates or mercenaries do all the work.

Is it fair to say that a level 3 spell, assuming it is successful, (matchmaker) being spammed several times everyday for an extended amount of time to take control of the "hearts and minds" of NPCs is a fair trade off for being mostly useless in combat?

Additionally, when you say "The moment the critter makes the save and has the upper hand, you will get what you deserve." are you suggesting that the moment that an NPC makes the save, they will revert back to their original disposition regardless if I have had them under a spell for 1 year or even 100 years?

EDIT: In tandem with the matchmaker, is Charm Monster to powerful if I allow a combat ineffective wizard to "pretty much" treat it like the ability to tame a monster? Essentially, over time, have the monster grow fond of its "master, partner, friend, etc..." and forming a lasting relationship that could lead to having a new ally?


I'd say that the moment a creature is released from a charm effect, it reevaluates its position towards the caster. it probably notices that it was under the effect of some magic (even if it cannot identify it). That may cause various emotions, depending on the NPC's personality. For example, it can make them angry or terrified. The realisation, that their relationship was based on a magical compulsion may make it feel betrayed, and start to think that all the good things they experienced wasn't real feelings, but a skewed perception caused by the spell. Freed from the charm, they may see the caster's actions differently.

But richer with all the experience of living with the catser for an extended period of time, they may also come to a conclusison that although the caster had been keeping them under a magical charm, the caster is a good person nevertheless, and remain friendly.

In most cases though, when a person learns that they were being manipulated, and their feelings were being controlled, I don't think they would be willing to forgive that easily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
1) In the instance I succeed in casting Charm Monster on a lesser dragon, would the dragon get a save roll if i tried to cast it on him again while he was still under the effects of the charm?

Yes, it will always get a save just like anyone else will. However, charmed creatures view you as a trusted friend while under the effects. This means if you can talk to them and say, 'Hey, I'm casting a spell on you.' They can voluntarily forgo a saving throw if doing so is what they'd do for an ally (and usually this is almost always considered reasonable and default.)

So unless a PC has made several prior instances of saving against ally effects when they cast without speaking specifically, assume they probably accept the spell with a reasonable explanation (or a lie, "It's bull's strength".)

Even if they make a Spellcraft check to identify that you are charming them (even on the first charm spell) they will rationalize it in the best possible light.
"Did you just cast charm monster on me?"
"Yep."
"Well, you must've had a good reason."

Note, this is not the same case were it a domination type affect. You couldn't control a creature to accept a spell without a save since those effects assume the creature is always struggling against your control and allowing that would be contrary to that wording.

Quote:
2) In the instance that I am able to indefinitely keep the dragon in the charm, if I treated the dragon in a favorable way for an extended amount of time (3 months) would my favor in the dragon's eyes go up because I have formed a lasting bond with it? Could I eventually stop casting the spell on the dragon and he would still act like he normally would under the spell's effect because we have "been through so much together"?

Depends on personality. It would treat you like someone who treated them well for 3 months in most cases, but if it has a personality where it find the thought of charm spells abhorrent (to a level more than disliking mental persuasion) it could be worse.

Imagine there are people that go around and offer bums money to fight each other. Some bums might think those people are helpful; their friends and such, and be happy for the opportunity to make money. Others might view the people as bottom-feeders or taking advantage of those in a bad situation and secretly despise them (but still take their money) regardless of whether the person treats them well or not. And beyond that, there are some people that will view kindness as an insult, weakness, or pity, and they refuse to think well of anyone who even makes a genuine offer of assistance.

Most dragons (even good ones) will consider someone with the power to charm them as a threat. How they react, is likely based on their alignment and what they've learned about the person over the time they were charmed, not just specifically how they were treated.

Quote:
3) If I were to explain to a charmed NPC that I was about to cast a non-harmful spell that will make them happier to be around me then cast Matchmaker on them continuously (targeting both myself and the subject) would they get a save if they agreed to it?

See 1. above. If they are charmed, they will likely forgive you.

Quote:
Additionally, if I am utilizing two charm spells at once, if creating memories with the NPC does build at forming a relationship, does this happen at a faster rate?

No, walking around a park with a drooling idiot for a week while charmed would be just as attractive as walking around a park for a week with a drooling idiot would have been otherwise. The spell just gives the drooling idiot a week to at least have the target learn their better qualities during that time when otherwise they'd have nothing to do with them.

Quote:
Does the love/ platonic relationship create other feelings such as jealousy, hate or loneliness?

No, it doesn't. If a person is a jealous person or insecure or full of hate they will be a jealous, insecure, or hateful friend or lover. In other words, don't assume they won't fart and hold your head under the covers just because they magically like you, they could just be crude (or a comedic genius, it's all timing really.)

The Phantom of the Opera was romantically interested in Christine but he was still jealous and hateful and bitter. He did things that would be viewed as romantic to only the most twisted of rationalizing psyches (kidnapping, murder, stalking.) Yet, no one could deny he was infatuated with her. So just because someone loves you... don't think they won't kill others or even you... just to prove how much they do.
"I made this half-monkey/half-pony monster just to please you.
You like monkeys... You like ponies...
Isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you?"

Quote:
Do the feelings of love linger and after the spell ends does the NPC still love?

No, unless it's actual love. When the spell ends, the effects end. The target is free to wonder what the hell they were thinking, even right in the middle of a sentence or just as they're about to say "I do." It's not like a dial slowly turning down from 11 or a gas tank sputtering out and the car coasting to a stop. It's like a switch, on and off.

Quote:
4) If I succeed in casting Lesser Geas on an individual and give them a task that they can accomplish over and over again indefinitely does that run the duration out? Example keep "X" away from "Y". They physically can accomplish that task over and over with no specific end in sight.

Only if your command was open-ended or continuous. If you say, "Give a gold coin to a beggar on the corner of Baker St. and Seer Ln." The geas is over when they do it. They don't get some sense of pleasure or satisfaction because the spell is obeyed. They won't just stand there and hand out coins to every beggar or toss a handful into the air for everyone. A clearer example, if you geas them with the command, "Don't kill any hookers today," they will (likely) refrain all day. It doesn't matter if one prostitute or 10 are standing on a corner nearby or walk past. The spell won't discharge half a day through or twice as fast because the Hooker's Ball is in town or the Ho-Train passes by.

If your command was, "Every day go and give money to a beggar," then they will, likely, attempt to do it until the duration expires. They don't have to, depending on what else is reasonably going on, but they'll take penalties until they do.
Quote:
In that scenario can the NPC develop a psychological disorder assuming that the task consumes his thoughts?

No, the spells don't do that themselves. Only if the tasks themselves are psychologically abhorrent to the target might they have to deal with nightmares or phobias later. Killing babies or sleeping in a nest of spiders or butchering a cow or something where they already fear the sight of blood.

Quote:
If released from the geas, does the NPC still think about it and want to accomplish his/her task?

They will likely still think about it, since they know what they wanted to do, but they will probably not want to do it without some personal justification. For instance, everytime he gave a beggar a coin the local prostitute gave him a discount or they passed on interesting information. Then he might do it for that reason, but if it's someone who doesn't give money to beggars (or just doesn't want to right now) they won't do it.

Quote:
5) If I cast Unnatural lust on a person and have them kiss someone they would never even think about kissing, does it cause confusion? If the person does it in front of a crowd do they get embarrassed, feel shame or get depressed? Example: I get the duke (heterosexual male) to passionately kiss another male in a crowded environment where the duke is well known and homosexual tendencies are looked down upon.

Yes, they likely would be very confused, just like you would be if you did something you never you would suddenly and impulsively. Even if they didn't know they were under mental control, in a world where magic exists it is not an inconceivable thing to consider. Such things likely happen all the time in political situations and court event, whereas in our world, claiming someone is using mind-control would be dismissed as the thinking of a paranoid madman or conspiracy kook.

As for feeling embarrassed or shame, they could. It depends on the person, the situation, and how the situation ultimately affects their life. Depression however, is much less likely to occur unless the fallout or consequences of the action are dire (losing a job, family, position) and that's more based on a sense of loss or despair that's beyond the scope of the spell.


A dragon in particular would have Spellcraft and know it's a Charm spell. I wouldn't let a friend cast a spell on me to make me be his friend, so no waved save.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
A dragon in particular would have Spellcraft and know it's a Charm spell. I wouldn't let a friend cast a spell on me to make me be his friend, so no waved save.

But he's already your friend and you trust him as one. So he must have a good reason.

For instance, "I'm already your friend, so the charm spell won't hurt you and in fact... it's to protect you because if someone else charms you, I'll be able to counter it with an opposed charisma check." Okay, the last part wouldn't be in-character wording... but it's a perfectly valid and believable reason... and you just made a Spellcraft check to know that everything he said was completely true and reasonable, so you can't even claim you don't believe (which doesn't matter anyway, since you're charmed.) In fact, you might just be super-impressed with how clever your 'trusted' friend's plan is. Who'd have ever thought of something as clever as that? Man, you are so lucky to be friends.

Multiple Mental Control Effects wrote:
If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

A perfectly valid defense, or at least mitigator, against a friend getting charmed.


dotforlater


Pizza Lord wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
A dragon in particular would have Spellcraft and know it's a Charm spell. I wouldn't let a friend cast a spell on me to make me be his friend, so no waved save.

But he's already your friend and you trust him as one. So he must have a good reason.

For instance, "I'm already your friend, so the charm spell won't hurt you and in fact... it's to protect you because if someone else charms you, I'll be able to counter it with an opposed charisma check." Okay, the last part wouldn't be in-character wording... but it's a perfectly valid and believable reason... and you just made a Spellcraft check to know that everything he said was completely true and reasonable, so you can't even claim you don't believe (which doesn't matter anyway, since you're charmed.) In fact, you might just be super-impressed with how clever your 'trusted' friend's plan is. Who'd have ever thought of something as clever as that? Man, you are so lucky to be friends.

Multiple Mental Control Effects wrote:
If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.
A perfectly valid defense, or at least mitigator, against a friend getting charmed.

I know Spellcraft, I know Charm spells can let my "friend" convince me to do something I can't be compelled to do via normal social skills. No sale.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This works a lot better if you can cast your enchantments subtly. There are a few ways to do this- feats that can conceal your casting, the Charming Courtesan PrC (the strongest casting-hiding in the game, requiring two successful opposed checks to spot, plus steep penalties for the target), a number of ways to disguise one spell as another (generally relying on poor spellcraft), and the Vizier Mesmerist, who makes it seem like someone else cast the spell. If the target knows you cast Charm X on them, letting that lapse (especially after months) will result in the sort of hurt betrayal of finding out someone was only pretending to be your friend so they could use you, and was mocking you behind your back.

Even hiding your casting, once the spell is over, critical thinking may make them suspicious of the initial meeting and a sudden change of heart. The more steps their attitude shifted, the easier it would probably be to notice.

1. Heck yeah they get a save. You can lie and say you're healing them, but if they ID the spell, they won't choose to forgo their save.

2. Since the relationship is maintained by magic making the dragon friendly, it can't become helpful. See my preamble for my thoughts on after you let the spell lapse.

3. Charmed NPCs are only friendly, not helpful. You generally wouldn't let a friend brainwash you (barring a specific interest in that sort of thing), and your explanation makes it pretty clear that's what you're doing. The spell also makes you fall for them, so it's possible you'll admit what you did. In any case, see above for my thoughts on this, but doubly so (since romantic interest is a bigger shift and a significantly greater betrayal). At that level of head-messing, it's a lot more likely that they'll be able to tell after the fact even if you hid it, and I wouldn't expect to be able to get the artificial romantic interest to roll over into the real deal outside of some case-by-case exceptions.

Additional weirdness- Charm X makes the target friendly, so it will prevent them from shifting to helpful if they would normally have that attitude towards a romantic interest.

4. No. Spells do what they say, and once the spell is over, they're no longer compelled to do it. They might suffer from the experience, but it's very unlikely to be in a way that leads to an ongoing compulsion.

5. Unnatural Lust is a really heavy-handed spell, and I would expect a the target to shout, "Find and bring me the enchanter bound and gagged for trial!" Remember that casting is pretty obvious without investment, so you're not fooling anyone without at least a couple feats. Even if you do hide it, suddenly kissing somebody (especially if it's someone the target has no feelings for) is likely so out of character that the compulsion will be obvious to them.


PIZZA LORD AND QUIDEST

I thought that Pizza Lord had a good point in saying "Well you must have had a good reason." from this "The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way."

BUT

To mitigate the argument of if the dragon could save or not, what if I cast the spell on it while it was sleeping? Could it be possible then to build the relationship? While critical thinking could play a part in the situation, there have been a number of instances, in real life, where mortal enemies on the battlefield became friends, well respected adversaries that one would do favors for the other or had regular correspondence with. Could it be that the dragon just "felt a closeness at first-sight" to the character on a failed initial check? This would make it arguable that even when the spell ended the dragon (btw this could be anything, just using a dragon as an example as it pertains to the current game I am participating in) would evaluate the situation, but never comes to a conclusion that the relationship is no longer meaningful or harmful to maintain because of the positive experiences that have been occurring since the beginning of the relationship. (positive is subject to the one being controlled)

QUIDEST

I question your logic on how the magic maintaining the relationship keeps all interaction at the friendly level (not that it is flawed, mostly just wanting to challenge it again the extremes to see if you feel the same). EXAMPLE, while under the effects of a charm spell, the PC sacrifices itself by jumping in front of an arrow or magical blast because they genuinely wanted to protect the dragon as an ally. In normal circumstances, IRL, this would develop a friendship to the highest of levels, a life debt so to speak. Are you saying that the attitude would not be moved while under the effects of the spell? Additionally, would it not be moved after the effects of the spell have ended as they would still remember the actions of the PC?

PIZZA LORD QUIDEST

In regards to your answers "Even if they didn't know they were under mental control, in a world where magic exists it is not an inconceivable thing to consider. Such things likely happen all the time in political situations and court event, whereas in our world, claiming someone is using mind-control would be dismissed as the thinking of a paranoid madman or conspiracy kook." brainwashing does exist in the real world (or hypnotism), but if a politician were to use an excuse like that it would more or less cause people to not believe them or think they are crazy. I understand that magic exist in the world, however, I find it hard to believe that "the people" would easily accept the excuse "I was being controlled!" Would that not just be the go to for all political blunders?

AND

"5. Unnatural Lust is a really heavy-handed spell, and I would expect a the target to shout, "Find and bring me the enchanter bound and gagged for trial!" Remember that casting is pretty obvious without investment, so you're not fooling anyone without at least a couple feats. Even if you do hide it, suddenly kissing somebody (especially if it's someone the target has no feelings for) is likely so out of character that the compulsion will be obvious to them." Kinda going off what I said above about PIZZA LORD's response, lets say the situation is slightly different and a politician is spotted kissing a bar wench. Is he still going to call out for the the head of the enchanter or enchantress or just hope rumors will not spread?

Thank you all again for your input!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Seb-x wrote:
To mitigate the argument of if the dragon could save or not, what if I cast the spell on it while it was sleeping? Could it be possible then to build the relationship? While critical thinking could play a part in the situation, there have been a number of instances, in real life, where mortal enemies on the battlefield became friends, well respected adversaries that one would do favors for the other or had regular correspondence with. Could it be that the dragon just "felt a closeness at first-sight" to the character on a failed initial check? This would make it arguable that even when the spell ended the dragon (btw this could be anything, just using a dragon as an example as it pertains to the current game I am participating in) would evaluate the situation, but never comes to a conclusion that the relationship is no longer meaningful or harmful to maintain because of the positive experiences that have been occurring since the beginning of the relationship. (positive is subject to the one being controlled)

Casting while the dragon is asleep still grants a save (so you better hope the dragon doesn't pass), but that is good planning. Obviously, catching a dragon asleep is going to be tricky, but like you said, that's another matter. It's possible that they will reevaluate the relationship's start, but less likely. If I'm a dragon and make a point of eating anybody who dares disturb me, then I do have reason to suspect that my head was messed with. If I hate humans, the magic preventing that from getting in the way disappearing means I might start hate the caster despite some good memories while charmed. Without the magic smoothing over all the things I dislike about this human, things might just balance out to an indifferent attitude.

Seb-x wrote:

QUIDEST

I question your logic on how the magic maintaining the relationship keeps all interaction at the friendly level (not that it is flawed, mostly just wanting to challenge it again the extremes to see if you feel the same). EXAMPLE, while under the effects of a charm spell, the PC sacrifices itself by jumping in front of an arrow or magical blast because they genuinely wanted to protect the dragon as an ally. In normal circumstances, IRL, this would develop a friendship to the highest of levels, a life debt so to speak. Are you saying that the attitude would not be moved while under the effects of the spell? Additionally, would it not be moved after the effects of the spell have ended as they would still remember the actions of the PC?

Charm Person says "This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly)." It's a bit of a RAW-heavy reading, so I really should have put a disclaimer in there that I don't actually expect GMs to run it that way. The spell says to treat the target's attitude as friendly, though, so I'd run that to include treating "normally helpful" as "friendly" still. Obviously, once the magic expires the subject is no longer forced into that attitude category.

Seb-x wrote:

PIZZA LORD QUIDEST

In regards to your answers "Even if they didn't know they were under mental control, in a world where magic exists it is not an inconceivable thing to consider. Such things likely happen all the time in political situations and court event, whereas in our world, claiming someone is using mind-control would be dismissed as the thinking of a paranoid madman or conspiracy kook." brainwashing does exist in the real world (or hypnotism), but if a politician were to use an excuse like that it would more or less cause people to not believe them or think they are crazy. I understand that magic exist in the world, however, I find it hard to believe that "the people" would easily accept the excuse "I was being controlled!" Would that not just be the go to for all political blunders?

Brainwashing and hypnotism are nothing like enchantment spells. Enchantments are reliable, repeatable spells that require six seconds and having the target in view. Brainwashing requires getting full access to the person for a much longer period of time and a lot of environmental stuff, and it's going to be a lot more reliant on the person's personality. If a politician were to disappear for three weeks, and then start appearing with two handlers that monitor his access to outside information, then yeah, people would buy the brainwashing story. As for hypnotism, it… doesn't work like that.

Seb-x wrote:
"5. Unnatural Lust is a really heavy-handed spell, and I would expect a the target to shout, "Find and bring me the enchanter bound and gagged for trial!" Remember that casting is pretty obvious without investment, so you're not fooling anyone without at least a couple feats. Even if you do hide it, suddenly kissing somebody (especially if it's someone the target has no feelings for) is likely so out of character that the compulsion will be obvious to them." Kinda going off what I said above about PIZZA LORD's response, lets say the situation is slightly different and a politician is spotted kissing a bar wench. Is he still going to call out for the the head of the enchanter or enchantress or just hope rumors will not spread?

He might still know something's up. Almost everybody doesn't just kiss strangers they find attractive, after all. Since it's not a public thing, he doesn't have to save face, but he'll probably want to find out who just messed with his head and mess with their neck in return.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
Getting somebody to stay friendly after Charm Person expires depends a lot on people's heavy bias towards consistency. If I'm friendly towards you today, I should be friendly towards you tomorrow. Knowing that my actions were being influenced by a spell breaks that- I no longer have a reason to act consistent. If there's another behavior that I'm also trying to stay consistent with, then there's a conflict. For example, if I'm a dragon that eats people, while I'm charmed, I'm setting that aside. After the spell expires, I have two things to be consistent with. It's possible that while charmed, I was thinking, "Oh, I like him, there's no reason to eat him yet," and now that I'm not being charmed, it would be consistent with longstanding behavior to decide, "Well, I don't like him as much now, so I guess it's time to eat him." Here's an example of this consistency bias in action. Could have some useful tips!


Going back to extended use of charm, when a well treated charmed dragon finally makes it save, even if it is a gold or silver dragon, it will not be happy with you. Dragons have egos bigger than their size category. They may not harm you but they will YOU to be their puppet for a commensurate amount of time -- most likely the rest of your natural life.
Maybe a hydra or a troll or a wyvern will be less fussy or not even get what happened. It was all good eats!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
parsimony wrote:

Going back to extended use of charm, when a well treated charmed dragon finally makes it save, even if it is a gold or silver dragon, it will not be happy with you. Dragons have egos bigger than their size category. They may not harm you but they will YOU to be their puppet for a commensurate amount of time -- most likely the rest of your natural life.

Maybe a hydra or a troll or a wyvern will be less fussy or not even get what happened. It was all good eats!

Oh yeah, once they make their save, they're going to know they just succeeded at a will save. If there's no good reason to assume somebody else, you could be in a lot of trouble, especially since it's a harmful act that will break the current charm spell on them.

I'm assuming that all these things end with the relatively gentle expiration of the spell and a failure to cast it again.


Where is the Charming Courtesan prestige class found?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Crag_Irons wrote:
Where is the Charming Courtesan prestige class found?

Sorry, meant Enchanting Courtesan. Always mix that up… It's here! (It's the only method that works better for arcane/divine than for psychic casting.)


PARSIMONY and QUIDEST

I can get behind you on the dragon concept about their ego. That makes valid logical sense if they succeed in the check. Like QUIDEST was saying this is more for the spell if and when it expires, however, I am not necessarily looking to cast it again so there would be no failure. I am mostly thinking about what happens to the brain once the spell ends of its own accord. Do they know what happened to them after the spell ends (in regards to being controlled not events that transpired)? Should it not feel like they strongly felt something during the time and suddenly just "fell-out-of love" with said course of actions and/or people? When an enchantment spell is successful in all of its entirety and they did not make any successful checks against it (whether it be a knowledge check or save) should they not feel as if they REALLY felt the things they felt? And if they believe they really felt what they felt should that not cause residual or lingering feelings? Maybe not as strong, however, they surely cannot be nonexistent? I agree with QUIDEST when he said it would be more noticeable with the degree in changed in alignment or disposition to the action and or persons, however, there are increases in DC for that so the person should still feel like they REALLY wanted to do said thing or like said person. As a caster of enchantments shouldn't I desire the most above anything else is being able to successfully enchant someone and them not know that they were enchanted?

QUIDEST

In regards to your link you sent me. Are you saying that with time it is possible that, under the charm of magic, a true friendship can be forged, after the charm has ended, as long as they do not know they are being charmed? (As long as they make ZERO checks or saves against your charm)

"If I'm friendly towards you today, I should be friendly towards you tomorrow. Knowing that my actions were being influenced by a spell breaks that- I no longer have a reason to act consistent."

EDIT: That Enchanting Courtesan looks sweet. I am going to check that bad boy out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What they know:
What happened during the spell (although this was viewed positively at the time).
What happened before the spell (this could be important if they saw you casting, identified the spell, or had an initial negative reaction)
Any external feedback (allies would be able to make a DC 25 sense motive check to notice the charm's influence, assuming it isn't immediately obvious, and the spell has a magical aura)

With regards to the link, I'm mostly saying that I think that would be one of the main forces in making the friendship last.

If I had to make a set rule, it would be something like this:
If you maintain a healthy friendly relationship during the duration of a Charm spell, there is a chance to maintain the friendship after the spell ends. As a rule of thumb, this requires one day spent with the target per step of attitude improvement, that the caster did more for the target during the charm's duration than the target did for the caster, and that the target not be aware that the caster was magically influencing them. The target can make a sense motive check to notice the influence, made against the DC for noticing magically influenced behavior. The target takes a -5 penalty on this check since noticing oddities in one's own behavior is more difficult, but they receive a +5 bonus for each attitude shift beyond the first (if they formed an impression of the caster before being charmed) and for each significant but not insurmountable reason for not being the caster's friend (e.g. a dragon that normally eats humans they see, or catching the caster in the act of stealing from them- provided the caster returned everything). Provided conditions are reasonable for maintaining the friendship, the caster makes a diplomacy check, but the DC is based on a friendly attitude, the shift is treated as the target's new base attitude towards the caster, and the number of steps moved doesn't increase the DC or limit the attitude change. Failure by less than five indicates that the target's attitude is now merely indifferent.


QUIDEST

First of all thank you VERY much for the well thought and well written example of a ruling on this particular matter. It is very appreciated.

My one challenge to this is that could the DC be increase by X based on spending X amount of time with subject? Example: Spending 5 days to affect the attitude shift vs. spending 500 days to affect the attitude shift?

A min/max to be added into your ruling?


I would reference the rules of diplomacy. Let's say this dragon starts out as Hostile. It's difficult to make him your friend because a diplomacy action takes a while and the DC is 25+Cha. But, you're a magic sorcerer, so you cast charm monster. Now, he's not attacking you, and the DC is 10+Cha because we 'treat the target’s attitude as friendly'. When you succeed diplomacy checks, you're improving the actual attitude towards you, and 'Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion)'. So, we rely on GM discretion (the writer of this post). Lots of psychology here, so bear with me.

If all the diplomacy happens during downtime, I'll use dating as the model here, and say the amount of time it takes to go from 'indifferent' to 'friendly' is about 6 months, but that says more about me than the game. From my experience, in the normal back and forth of life, 6 months is about the time it takes for relationship status to change permanently.

If all the diplomacy happens while adventuring, we do a strange thing and get more attached to people more quickly. Think of summer camps, missions abroad, college ski trips, or whatever experiences you've had that forced you in close proximity to others during intense events, and how quickly bonds form, and how deeply they go, simply because those involved are doing more strenuous activities each day. In my experience, a week is enough to permanently change an attitude one way or another. Again, perhaps reveals more about me than the game.

In this perspective, if your character is similar to me, there are three 'jumps' from hostile to friendly, so three weeks of adventuring or a year and a half of living. Other people might have different timings than that, depends on the character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Seb-x wrote:

QUIDEST

First of all thank you VERY much for the well thought and well written example of a ruling on this particular matter. It is very appreciated.

My one challenge to this is that could the DC be increase by X based on spending X amount of time with subject? Example: Spending 5 days to affect the attitude shift vs. spending 500 days to affect the attitude shift?

A min/max to be added into your ruling?

I would not add anything like that without first making it more challenging to begin with, and letting time negate the additional difficulty. This is power being added to existing caster toys, and should be carefully managed. The suggestion of changing a day per step to a week per step would be reasonable too. (Treating casting before the target sees you as indifferent starting attitude.) My reasoning for a day per step was making Charm Person difficult but manageable, and Charm Monster very useful. Essentially restricting it to one or more applications of Charm Monster is fair, but could limit party interaction unreasonably.


I think the argument here is the reliability of the method.

As Bob the Builder loves to point out, "When you are trying to decide if your idea really is clever, work out how well it would work against you and your allies."


QUIDEST

I understand and agree with your logic. I do think that it should be 1 week more so than 1 day especially since we are discussing about the potential of permanent effects.

Could there be a list of time necessary potentially on a scale such as:

Time necessary to naturally affect an attitude change from in order from hostile to helpful. (Only in this direction as it takes time to build trust and friendships and a matter of seconds to potentially break them.)

Hostile to Unfriendly-------3 months// Ex. Prisoner is captured, but treated with dignity and respect while captured.

Unfriendly to Indifferent---1 month// Ex. Grumpy old person that does not care for young whipper snappers to be around, however, tolerates up to one or two that come and help them on a regular basis getting groceries, helping with chores, assisting with tending the farm etc.

Indifferent to Friendly-----2 weeks// Ex. Picking up a person at a bar and asking them on a date with a positive response and dating for said amount of time.

Friendly to helpful---------2 weeks// Ex. Developing relationship while going on an adventure together.

Attitude changes are subject to situation. Times are used as a general standard. During these times, positive interaction must occur on a regular basis. If interaction cannot happen on a regular basis, the time standards can and should be adjust by the DM accordingly. Additionally, attitude with an NPC can evolve at a faster rate if not skip a level altogether based on the situation. Ex. High stress situations where loss of life or limb is possible may influence attitude at a more rapid rate because going through hardship together drives camaraderie.

These are all subject to change and more than likely are not well thought enough, due to the time lack of time I placed into thinking of them, to actually pass as a finite rule, however I feel maybe it is a good starting point?


miniatureian wrote:

I would reference the rules of diplomacy. Let's say this dragon starts out as Hostile. It's difficult to make him your friend because a diplomacy action takes a while and the DC is 25+Cha. But, you're a magic sorcerer, so you cast charm monster. Now, he's not attacking you, and the DC is 10+Cha because we 'treat the target’s attitude as friendly'. When you succeed diplomacy checks, you're improving the actual attitude towards you, and 'Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion)'. So, we rely on GM discretion (the writer of this post). Lots of psychology here, so bear with me.

If all the diplomacy happens during downtime, I'll use dating as the model here, and say the amount of time it takes to go from 'indifferent' to 'friendly' is about 6 months, but that says more about me than the game. From my experience, in the normal back and forth of life, 6 months is about the time it takes for relationship status to change permanently.

If all the diplomacy happens while adventuring, we do a strange thing and get more attached to people more quickly. Think of summer camps, missions abroad, college ski trips, or whatever experiences you've had that forced you in close proximity to others during intense events, and how quickly bonds form, and how deeply they go, simply because those involved are doing more strenuous activities each day. In my experience, a week is enough to permanently change an attitude one way or another. Again, perhaps reveals more about me than the game.

In this perspective, if your character is similar to me, there are three 'jumps' from hostile to friendly, so three weeks of adventuring or a year and a half of living. Other people might have different timings than that, depends on the character.

I feel this is sound logic and was thinking along these lines before I read your post, however, I feel 6 months from indifferent to friendly may be excessive. I acknowledge that you said this was based on you, but I look at being friendly as being a friend. Now that is not to say I am a "trusted" friend, however, I am not longer indifferent if i can call someone my friend.

Thank you for your input =)


Daw wrote:

I think the argument here is the reliability of the method.

As Bob the Builder loves to point out, "When you are trying to decide if your idea really is clever, work out how well it would work against you and your allies."

I feel that it would work on us all the same. Utilizing a check system similar to what QUIDEST describe in the situation he described, I would be none the wiser if I had no idea I was being manipulated magically and never recognized that I was being the subject of a spell or if i never succeeded in a save roll. The DM simply could make me roll a DC against the charm every time I would do something that would make me go against what I would normally do. If I fail I fail. Hazard of the game.


Wouldn't you argue that recasting the spell on you would allow you a new save each and every time it was cast, as the charm is creating an artificial overlay on your basic personality. People break free of real world programming all the time. The magic overlay would reasonably be more subject to disruption.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like QuidEst's guidelines, with a good dose of GM discretion applied.

I'd also point out that the target's reaction if it does realize it was charmed would vary wildly based on their personality. Some might simply revert to their initial attitude, some might be a bit disgruntled but still think on you somewhat more favourably than before being charmed as a result of coming to see your good qualities, and some might have such a dislike of being manipulated that they'd become even less friendly than they were initially.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Two more thoughts:
I'd avoid more than one week per step. It's a game still, and you can adjust somebody's attitude two steps for hours with a minute of conversation.

I wouldn't allow the helpful attitude as the result of this, since the spell only makes them friendly. You can impress them after the spell has worn off.


No mechanical help, but..

In Kingmaker Adv Path 'War of the River Kings' Irovetti uses Charm to get what are definitely more than 'friendly' efforts on the part of the charmed Spirit Naga. (If using the mechanic here we could infer post-charm charming) Nonetheless she wants to murder Irovetti on being released from the charm's effect.

With his charmed Remorhaz, pretty sure all he does is feed and home it, but likewise it hates him enough to lose it's life in the pursuit of his death. (Turning on him when he's ~7 lvls higher and in his own castle w/ guards and allies etc)

Scenario 1:
Chemist walks into the Dragon's Den & fills the air with drugs that make the Investors predisposed to liking the wannabe entrepreneur..

Investors make money, investors still sue chemist into bankruptcy once they find out they were drugged.
//

Scenario 2:

Dude spikes girls drink in bar to make her like him, 'shows her real good time' she wakes up and calls her mates asking them to dismember guy.
//

Scenario 3:

Dude walks into Dragon nest, casts charm on it then is really nice to it once it wakes up.
Charm expires..Dragon, famed for being wilful, solitary and supremely egotistical doesn't care that it just had it's will stripped from it, cause it was by this nice little guy with dimples from Rostland.
//

Spot the odd one out.


Daw wrote:
Wouldn't you argue that recasting the spell on you would allow you a new save each and every time it was cast, as the charm is creating an artificial overlay on your basic personality. People break free of real world programming all the time. The magic overlay would reasonably be more subject to disruption.

I agree that a new save could be used if the individual did not want a spell cast on them. While under the effects of the charm their thought process is to treat you as a trusted friend. Would you expect a trusted friend to do something bad to you? On this I would argue that someone under the effects of a charm will more than likely forego wanting to make a save.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
QuidEst wrote:

Two more thoughts:

I'd avoid more than one week per step. It's a game still, and you can adjust somebody's attitude two steps for hours with a minute of conversation.

I wouldn't allow the helpful attitude as the result of this, since the spell only makes them friendly. You can impress them after the spell has worn off.

Thank you for your constructive feedback. It has been very helpful =)

So it would be worded as:
If you maintain a healthy friendly relationship during the duration of a Charm spell, there is a chance to maintain the friendship after the spell ends. As a rule of thumb, this requires one "week" spent with the target per step of attitude improvement, that the caster did more for the target during the charm's duration than the target did for the caster, and that the target not be aware that the caster was magically influencing them. The target can make a sense motive check to notice the influence, made against the DC for noticing magically influenced behavior. The target takes a -5 penalty on this check since noticing oddities in one's own behavior is more difficult, but they receive a +5 bonus for each attitude shift beyond the first (if they formed an impression of the caster before being charmed) and for each significant but not insurmountable reason for not being the caster's friend (e.g. a dragon that normally eats humans they see, or catching the caster in the act of stealing from them- provided the caster returned everything). Provided conditions are reasonable for maintaining the friendship, the caster makes a diplomacy check, but the DC is based on a friendly attitude, the shift is treated as the target's new base attitude towards the caster, and the number of steps moved doesn't increase the DC or limit the attitude change. Failure by less than five indicates that the target's attitude is now merely indifferent.

Does this seem good to you? Just changed the wording to say week.


Untentril wrote:


Scenario 3:

Dude walks into Dragon nest, casts charm on it then is really nice to it once it wakes up.
Charm expires..Dragon, famed for being wilful, solitary and supremely egotistical doesn't care that it just had it's will stripped from it, cause it was by this nice little guy with dimples from Rostland.
//

Spot the odd one out.

It makes sense. I am not saying that you are wrong, but mostly what I was aiming for was a general consensus on what happens to the relationship after the effects of the spell disseminate not necessarily what happens if the subject was a dragon. Thank you for your response though. This will add to what will be applied for the current game I am in. =)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Seems pretty reasonable! It strongly favors casting on them before they get to form an impression (lower DCs, potentially shorter time) and without them noticing you cast (which, if the spell is identified, blows the whole thing). Sounds about right. It's not easy, but it gives you a chance when you might not have one otherwise.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Creating a history with PCs while influenced with enchantments. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.