I don't think my players play right with Charm spells

[Jon_Dahl]

First of all, I'd like to mention that I think the problem here is my DMing. Before I speak with my players, I'd like to find consensus here.

A couple of examples:
- A succubus has charmed two of the PCs. The uncharmed PC druid attacks the succubus with all he has and the succubus - without any resistance - asks the charmed PCs to help her. The PCs merely try to block the PC's attacks and try to ask him to stop, but make no effort to restrain him.
- A succubus charms the PCs and they agree that they will see each other the next morning. The PCs decide that they don't want to see her again (they have other things to do) and don't show up. Ever.

What do you think?

[torrasque666]

Assuming you're talking about their Charm Monster SLA, it carries this rider: "The spell does not enable you to control the charmed creature as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way." So it would be perfectly reasonable for them to interpret a command to "help her" as "block the attacks to stop our friend from harming our other friend." As for the second one, I got nothing.

[Flickerdart]

First of all, I'd like to mention that I think the problem here is my DMing. Before I speak with my players, I'd like to find consensus here.

A couple of examples:
- A succubus has charmed two of the PCs. The uncharmed PC druid attacks the succubus with all he has and the succubus - without any resistance - asks the charmed PCs to help her. The PCs merely try to block the PC's attacks and try to ask him to stop, but make no effort to restrain him.
- A succubus charms the PCs and they agree that they will see each other the next morning. The PCs decide that they don't want to see her again (they have other things to do) and don't show up. Ever.

What do you think?

For the first scenario, the succubus charming the PCs doesn't undo their friendship with the druid. If one of your friends tried to hurt another of your friends, you wouldn't come at the first one weapons swinging.

The second one is kind of dicey. The succubus is perceived as a trusted friend and ally. Saying "well we've got things to do, good bye forever" is not something one does to friends. It's reasonable, if they have a commitment they can't renege on, they would stand her up, but they would certainly come back, apologize, and reschedule.

Honestly, though, Charm is a 1st level effect. It's not all that.

[heavyfuel]

Like Fickledart said, Charm is a 1st lv spell. It's not all powerful.

On the first scenario, I'd be OK even if they did nothing at all against the Druid. The Succubus is a friendly person they just met, the Druid is their friend with whom they'be been through hell and back with (assuming they didn't just meet in a tavern). If your friend is bound to attack someone you just met, you might try to stop him, or "talk some sense" into him, but you certainly won't fight him on the Succubus behalf. I'll say that they might even help him, say if one of the players has a sworn vow or some like that.

As for scenario number 2, that's just poor role play on part of the players. While charm person won't bind them accept meeting up with the succubus at a later time, they have no reason to not go through with their word, no, not even if they're "chaotic neutral", which seems to be the universal excuse for being a bad player.

[Curbstomp]

Yeah. What the other three said above. Your PC's are acting roughly correctly as described. Maybe an apology for their 'friend' for standing her up is in order.

[Crake]

I dunno, you might not attack the druid with lethal force, but at the very least I think you'd try and restrain him so he cant attack your other friend. Say, grapple and pin. But from the sounds of it, they just stood in the way of the succubus, and then when the druid sidestepped them, they did nothing about it.

There is also the clause

You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.

And succubi have pretty damn high cha, so had she said "Knock out the druid, he's trying to kill me!" then it probably would have necessitated an opposed cha check, but still could have happened.

Similarly the players may have needed an opposed cha check for the second request (since they have important things to do), but they would definitely not have agreed, and then never shown up. Remember, charm monster lasts DAYS.

Charm may be a 1st level effect, but it's a damn powerful one.

[Rabidmuskrat]

Then the question becomes, what do you as a DM do when your players don't follow the charm's effects? Charm is hardly the kind of thing where you can say "No, your character doesn't do that, he does that instead". How do you 'punish' (and I use the word 'punish' in the loosest sense possible) players for not roleplaying charm's effect?

[Sir Garanok]

On the first scenario I'd would say depends on the alignment.

A chaotic evil character would not care if his fellow adventurers attacked,killed someone so doing nothing would be ok by me.

A lawful good one would be offended if his allies attacked someone who did nothing wrong(from their point of view),so trying to stop him is quite logic.

Under no circumstances would they be obliged to use violence to stop him.

Second scenario

I'd say depends on the reason they did not show up,if it was important business that could not be delayed apologizing seems ok.
Of course if a paladin/deeply lawful character gave his word to meet tomorrow that complicates things.

Anyway thats the magic of dnd there are not many thing you HAVE to do,you just decide taking rules into consideration.

[HammeredWharf]

Then the question becomes, what do you as a DM do when your players don't follow the charm's effects? Charm is hardly the kind of thing where you can say "No, your character doesn't do that, he does that instead". How do you 'punish' (and I use the word 'punish' in the loosest sense possible) players for not roleplaying charm's effect?

The same way you'd 'punish' them for betraying a real friend. At worst, it might warrant an alignment change. The succubus will be annoyed, of course, but it's not like charming PCs is the only thing it can do.

[Jon_Dahl]

I dunno, you might not attack the druid with lethal force, but at the very least I think you'd try and restrain him so he cant attack your other friend. Say, grapple and pin. But from the sounds of it, they just stood in the way of the succubus, and then when the druid sidestepped them, they did nothing about it.

Yes, I did mention the word "restrain" in the OP, but some posters here talk about attacking like you have to kill the druid. Am I missing something here? Imagine if your friends were fighting, or one of your friends attacked another. The only options are brutally attacking one of them or doing nothing?

There is also the clause


And succubi have pretty damn high cha, so had she said "Knock out the druid, he's trying to kill me!" then it probably would have necessitated an opposed cha check, but still could have happened.

Similarly the players may have needed an opposed cha check for the second request (since they have important things to do), but they would definitely not have agreed, and then never shown up. Remember, charm monster lasts DAYS.

Charm may be a 1st level effect, but it's a damn powerful one.

That's a good point.

[jedipotter]

1. The charmed person would just try and spot the fight, not kill anyone or do nothing. The ''crazy killer charmed person is silly''.

2. This can go either way. People do not always meet friends. Though most of the time something big needs to happen, or they are not really friends.

[Zanos]

Yes, I did mention the word "restrain" in the OP, but some posters here talk about attacking like you have to kill the druid. Am I missing something here? Imagine if your friends were fighting, or one of your friends attacked another. The only options are brutally attacking one of them or doing nothing?

I dunno, not getting involved seems like something a lot of people might do if mutual friends we're fighting. Their actions in the first scenario seem reasonable to me. The second one is a bit dicier if there was no reason they bailed on the meeting.

As an aside I'm going to add that I think long duration personality altering magic is bad form for a DM to use, since it has a tendency of murdering player agency.

[Telonius]

For example 2 ... well, it kind of depends. Charm Monster is days/level, so they'd still be under the effects of it. But people do cancel appointments, even with trusted friends and allies, for all sorts of reasons. If they're canceling for a reason that would make sense in-character, I'd be fine with it. (If it's an especially chaotic character, "Because I felt like it" would count as a reason that made sense).

If they're just trying to metagame it and don't have a good in-game reason to break the appointment, then no. If I'm feeling generous, I might allow an opposed Charisma check to break the appointment.

[Sith_Happens]

For reference, here's an expanded description of what being charmed entails.

[Jon_Dahl]

For reference, here's an expanded description of what being charmed entails.

First of all, let me express my sincere gratitude for posting that link. Now everything is crystal clear.
Secondly, I'm upset with myself that I had overlook that in the SRD. I swear that I have never seen that text before, which sounds ridiculous.

The answer to my first question:

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 between two actual friends).

Second question:

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.

That's great! My only comfort here is that judging from this thread, I'm not the only one who hasn't read that part of the rules. Thank you once again Sith_Happens.

[Sith_Happens]

That's great! My only comfort here is that judging from this thread, I'm not the only one who hasn't read that part of the rules. Thank you once again Sith_Happens.

You'd be surprised just how many seemingly unrelated mechanics have key rules tucked away in the "Special Abilities" glossary. Eventually you learn to cross-reference pretty much everything with it just to be on the safe side.

[Jon_Dahl]

You'd be surprised just how many seemingly unrelated mechanics have key rules tucked away in the "Special Abilities" glossary. Eventually you learn to cross-reference pretty much everything with it just to be on the safe side.

It's somewhat infuriating that they have scattered and hid the rules, but I'm glad that you brought them up.

Here's your reward, enjoy:

Spoiler

Show

[Sith_Happens]

Here's your reward, enjoy:

Spoiler

Show

...What did I just watch.

[dascarletm]

...What did I just watch.

my last bit of sanity falling into the void.

[nedz]

At least it didn't involve a mankini

[Jack_Simth]

...What did I just watch.

An animated GIF of two people playing out that weird merger technique from Dragonball (with a third person playing the result).