Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

[Themrys]

Ah, but let's say Cain just tells her that he's a millionaire, and that the mansion he's taking her to is his. In reality, the mansion is his brother, Abel's. Cain's just allowed to stay there for hookups, because Abel is a wingman like that.

Here, he's lied to Ella to get her to sleep with him, but I don't think that qualifies as rape by deception anymore. Unless you can point to literally any lie told during the course of pre-coital interactions to qualify as "rape."

That's still attempted rape by deception. He thinks she will only have sex with him if she thinks he's a millionaire.

Now, most women don't make a decision on whether to have sex with a man depending on whether he's a millionaire, so it is not likely she'll sue him, but it is unlikely she'll want to see him again. Because he tried to manipulate her.

And most of your others examples absolutely DO constitute rape, and I find it rather creepy that you do not seem to notice this. The half-orc example? The woman could give birth to a quarter-orc baby. Do you not realize what a horrible crime it is to expose her to that risk?
(Whether or not she is justified in hating orcs doesn't matter. It's her decision to make, regardless of how wrong her motives might be. As it is any woman's decision to make if she wants her potential baby to have baldness genes. As with pretending to be a millionaire, most women probably aren't going to sue a man for pretending to have hair, but the deception is still reprehensible and a reason to not want to see him again.)

The only example that's not somewhat rapey is the one with the flower, and it is rather disturbing you don't see the difference.

Humans aren't flowers. If I love roses, and meet a man who smells of roses, I know he's using perfume. That's not deception. Same with wearing nice clothes - clothes are not part of a person's body, we all know that someone who looks nice in specific clothes might not look nearly as appealing naked. We still appreciate the effort made to give us something nice to look at.

(And the problem with your examples is that the men don't make an effort to do something nice, but make an active attempt at deception. This is sadly a pattern shown by men in real life, too. Men seem to be willing to put MORE effort in deception than in rendering themselves genuinely more attractive. To put it bluntly, there seem to be a lot of men who would buy an expensive deodorant that claims to magically compel women to have sex with them ... but won't make the simple effort of just washing themselves with cheap plain soap.)


Edit: And yes, any lie can potentially constitute rape by deception. Whether or not it is viewed thus by the general population mostly depends on how "big" a lie it is considered by that culture. But let's be honest here, most men know (or think they know) exactly what lies will influence a woman's decision to have sex with them, and how angry she will be when/if the lie is revealed. And if they lie about those things, then that's at least attempted rape by deception and absolutely reprehensible, even if it cannot be persecuted.

[jh12]

I will also assert that charm person wouldn't enable anybody to rape me. I wouldn't have sex with a "friendly acquaintance." I wouldn't have sex with my best friend if we weren't husband and wife.

How wonderful for you. Much less wonderful is your belief that it's okay to rape people who are willing to have sex with friendly acquaintances.

And anything I can think of that a friendly acquaintance could get me to do for them, I wouldn't regret doing for a stranger. I might be annoyed, but it simply wouldn't be bad enough that I'd be so much as ranting about it, let alone call the cops or organize a lynch mob.

Again, it's just what you do while under the influence of the Charm Person spell that matters. It's the fact that you cast a spell intended to be used in combat on them against their will that overrides their will to help you get what you want. That, in and of itself, is highly objectionable.

What other spells should people just disregard if there aren't any horrible consequences?

You're once again presuming the conclusion, here. You're not demonstrating that he can get you to do anything that is against your will. You're asserting that it must be, because you don't have a "choice" whether to like him or not.

No she's not. If Ella is willing to sleep with every friendly acquaintance she has, any time, any where, and you aren't a friendly acquaintance you are just plain out of luck. If you interact with her like a normal person and become a friendly acquaintance, then good for you and have fun. If you use a spell to make her think you are a friendly acquaintance, when you aren't, you're a rapist. Ella has the absolute right to decide that she will sleep with friendly acquaintances and no one else. You don't get to decide that Ella will sleep with friendly acquaintances, plus you.

I assert that you have as little choice with Don Juan as you do with Elam (Ella's twin brother who also uses charm person).

Yes, once again you repeatedly assert something that is demonstrably false as if that will make it true. Can Don Juan do something that makes you not view him as a friendly acquaintance? Why yes, yes he can. Can Elam? Not during that hour where he's controlling her mind.

Save that, at the end of the hour, you can at least put your finger on what you found so Charming about Elam.

You can put the finger on what you found so charming about Don Juan the whole time. That's why you found him charming.

"Disregarding free will" and "coersion" are both under contention. I dispute that either are happening (With the exception of the inability for the subject to attack the caster.)

In other words, yes the spell indisputably disregards free will and coerces the target every time its cast, but that's inconvenient for my argument so I'll just ignore it.

Maybe she thinks he's cute, doesn't know anybody around here, is afraid that she might be raped if she's misjudged his character, and doesn't know how to break the ice with somebody she doesn't know.

Assaulting him probably isn't the way to go. And how is she getting him alone to where she can cast the spell on him without interference?

It's noteworthy that, in the case of "Ella is afraid of being raped but doesn't want to let that stop her from ever TRYING," charm person's protections against being attacked are actually a potential motivation for using it all by itself.

So now it's the mind control aspect of the spell that makes it okay? That's quite the pivot in a single post.

It's not impersonation. They aren't claiming to be anybody but who they are.

Complete and utter garbage. They're not just claiming to be a friendly acquaintance, they're forcing you to believe they are a friendly acquaintance.

[Segev]

That's still attempted rape by deception. He thinks she will only have sex with him if she thinks he's a millionaire.

Now, most women don't make a decision on whether to have sex with a man depending on whether he's a millionaire, so it is not likely she'll sue him, but it is unlikely she'll want to see him again. Because he tried to manipulate her.

And most of your others examples absolutely DO constitute rape, and I find it rather creepy that you do not seem to notice this. The half-orc example? The woman could give birth to a quarter-orc baby. Do you not realize what a horrible crime it is to expose her to that risk?
(Whether or not she is justified in hating orcs doesn't matter. It's her decision to make, regardless of how wrong her motives might be. As it is any woman's decision to make if she wants her potential baby to have baldness genes. As with pretending to be a millionaire, most women probably aren't going to sue a man for pretending to have hair, but the deception is still reprehensible and a reason to not want to see him again.)

Okay. Swap the genders. Cassie the half-orc amazon feigns humanity and is ashamed enough of her orc blood that she doesn't bring it up with Elam, even when Elam bad-mouths orcs. Heck, Cassie agrees with him, since she also thinks orcs are horrid. Cassie and Elam spend the night together. Did Cassie rape Elam?

The only example that's not somewhat rapey is the one with the flower, and it is rather disturbing you don't see the difference.

I find deception to be a problem in these sorts of situations, yes. I do not think it always rises to the level of rape, and I think "rape" is thrown around too readily. Frankly, I think anybody - partiuclarly men - who sleep with anybody outside of wedlock is an idiot simply because anything can be twisted around to make what was presumed to be totally concentual into an accusation of rape, and there's no defense. But that's neitehr here nor there: I'm quite willing to agree that deception is bad.

Humans aren't flowers. If I love roses, and meet a man who smells of roses, I know he's using perfume. That's not deception. Same with wearing nice clothes - clothes are not part of a person's body, we all know that someone who looks nice in specific clothes might not look nearly as appealing naked. We still appreciate the effort made to give us something nice to look at.

(And the problem with your examples is that the men don't make an effort to do something nice, but make an active attempt at deception. This is sadly a pattern shown by men in real life, too. Men seem to be willing to put MORE effort in deception than in rendering themselves genuinely more attractive. To put it bluntly, there seem to be a lot of men who would buy an expensive deodorant that claims to magically compel women to have sex with them ... but won't make the simple effort of just washing themselves with cheap plain soap.)

I was already assuming that Cain did basic hygiene; I'm sorry that your opinion of men in general is so low that you think we don't rise to that basic standard.

Let's say that Abel, unaware that Ella hates bald men, hits on her, and his toupe is well-affixed and he doesn't usually have it fall off. He and she hit it off and go for a hookup together, and it's only in the morning, after the sun streams through the blinds, that she realizes Abel was bald. Did Abel rape her?


Let's say Cain is a very superficial guy, and likes a woman with long hair. Ella is celebrating her cancer finally going into remission, and is out to have a wild night of fun and frolic. She's wearing quite the fetching wig, and despite the ravages of her recent treatments, her hair is the only major impact to her apperance. Especially with the magic of makeup.

Cain would never sleep with a bald chick whose complexion was pale, but the two of them head off to bed and the lights are out before he knows it. Did Ella rape him by deceiving him into thinking she was better-looking than she was with her makeup, and by wearing a wig?


Cain thinks green-eyed redheads are the hottest women ever. Ella dyes her hair red and wears green colored contacts. This combination lets her grab his attention and keep it long enough to hit it off. Has she done something wrong, especially if he's disappointed to find out she's a brown-eyed brunette naturally?

[Themrys]

How wonderful for you. Much less wonderful is your belief that it's okay to rape people who are willing to have sex with friendly acquaintances.

Yeah, that's extremely disturbing.

Rather close to "she wore a short skirt, she deserved to be raped".

It is also so illogical to suggest someone who is not a rapist and actively enjoys rape would magically compel a person to see them as friendly acquaintance so that the person will have sex with them.

Perhaps I am not as socially awkward as I think I am, but I certainly do think I am the most socially awkward female person in any given group, and the most socially awkward person period in any group that isn't about D&D or similar games. And it wouldn't occur to me to use any manipulation on a man who has sex with everything that moves so that he'll have sex with me, because ... well, all I have to do is indicate a potential willingness to have sex, right? Why then do something as risky as using a spell on him that he might be able to resist and get angry about, or that someone else might notice I used, or ... etc.?

[strangebloke]

I feel like the discussion of how skeevy casting charm person on a girl you like is has really pulled away from the broader point. We all agree that it's skeevy, almost certainly going to piss the lady off, and probably illegal.

What's even up for debate? I find that it's eminently comparable to trying to get someone drunk, whatever your goal is. You're seeking to impair their judgement. When they sober up, they'll be pissed with you if they realize what you were doing, but might be more or less pissed depending on why you were doing it.

What did everyone think of the below system?

Based off of the discussion here (which has been great, btw) I would typically regard a person effected by this spell as having their base attitude improved by several increments, and then have those increments reversed when the spell wears off, but doubled.

So if we reduce hostile, friendly, etc. to a numerical scale from -3 to +3, it goes something like this:

George really dislikes Greg (attitude -2). Greg charms him. (attitude +1) they chat for a bit, and Greg improves his attitude by one (+2) George does a thing. Then the spell wears off and his attitude goes down by the amount it went up before, but double. (-6, going down to -3, which is the basement here.)

Jane is Greg's good friend (attitude +2). Greg charms her to prevent her from attacking him while she's under the effects of crown of madness. Her attitude stays at +2. the spell wears off. Nothing happens.

Lisa has never met Greg before. (attitude +0) Greg charms her. (attitude +1) He chats her up, improving her attitude. (attitude +2) The spell wears off. Lisa feels betrayed, but this is countered by the pleasant hour they spent. (attitude +0)

The addendum here is that if you do something to them while charmed that would lower their opinion, you treat it as if they were at that lower opinion when they were first charmed.

So if Lisa gets robbed, she'd retroactively go down to -1 before the charm effect, and then -2 when the effect wears off.

[Kyutaru]

NPC reaction adjustments? Now we're back to the old ways of doing things. Everyone needs a Charisma character to avoid getting put in jail the moment you enter town.

[jh12]

What did everyone think of the below system?

I think you've gone too far justifying the Jane example. Nobody has argued that Charm Person is inappropriate as a substitute for violence. That's the good use of it. But that's not the only reason Greg would cast Charm Person on his friend Jane. What if Greg casts Charm Person on his friend Jane because it makes her more likely to agree to go for sushi instead of steak and he really wants steak? Do you really think Jane would be okay with that just because they were already friends? Or would Jane be horrified that her friend would do something like that to her over something so trivial?

Of course, Charm Person is being used as a substitute for violence in the other situations as well. Lisa doesn't want to talk to Greg? Greg has three basic choices: (1) respect Lisa's wishes and go on his way, (2) cast Charm Person on her so she will think he's a friendly acquaintance and be more receptive to his desires, or (3) physically restrain her while he attempts to convince her that he's not such a bad guy even though he's currently restraining her. Option (2) is a substitute for (3), not (1). If he chooses either (2) or (3), he's not fit to be walking free among other people.

[Kyutaru]

Of course, Charm Person is being used as a substitute for violence in the other situations as well. Lisa doesn't want to talk to Greg? Greg has three basic choices: (1) respect Lisa's wishes and go on his way, (2) cast Charm Person on her so she will think he's a friendly acquaintance and be more receptive to his desires, or (3) physically restrain her while he attempts to convince her that he's not such a bad guy even though he's currently restraining her. Option (2) is a substitute for (3), not (1). If he chooses either (2) or (3), he's not fit to be walking free among other people.

Hmm. Why not? Charm Person used on another to alter their mind to be more amenable to your suggestions is precisely how psychology works. We don't condemn to prison those who psychologically influence others. It's even a profession used for noble purposes (most of the time). But it's also your run of the mill manipulative user controlling his girlfriend with money, affection withdrawal, isolation from family and friends, compulsive lying, threats and intimidation, undue blame, excessive criticism, name-calling and other insults, or constant put-downs and humiliation. While I think we can agree that the jock in high school who abused the self-esteem of girls so he could sleep with them is a piece of garbage, he's fit to be walking free among other people. At least legally speaking.

[Segev]

Given that I at no point suggested "she deserved it because...," I find the suggestion that I did to be indicative that people are not able to discuss this topic on its merits, and instead feel a need to construct a straw man to justify being mad at me for disagreeing with their interpretation of what the spell represents.

The fact that the sex-inverted variants are not being replied to and that accusations that I'm okay with rape are being jumped to suggests this further.

The point I'm making is that charm person can't compel you to do anything (beyond "not attack"). It doesn't make you think the person is your bosom pal. It doesn't make you think you're in love. It doesn't do anything but make you consider them to be a person you're reasonably comfortable being around and would do harmless favors for.

This is why I think people are blowing it out of proportion when they liken it to roofies, getting people drunk, or rape. It can't make people act like those things can. It's just not within the spell's power.

Let me try to make an analogy as to how I'm perceiving this argument.

Tom has a flower bed he planted at the edge of his property, bordering on Bob's. Bob has a weed trimmer he uses on the edge of his lawn, where it butts up against Tom's flowerbed. Bob doesn't want Tom's flowers getting into his lawn, so he's a little over-aggressive about edge-trimming and cuts down some of Tom's flowers.

There is a debate over how angry Tom has a right to be over this. I suggest that he has a right to be a little annoyed, but that as long as the flower bed isn't made hideous, the loss of an inch or so of the flower bed doesn't make anything look bad and the discussion should be calm, neighborly, and Tom should probably accept Bob's apology.

The other side of the debate seems, to me, to be being "disturbed" over how "okay" I am with Bob kidnapping Tom's dog and feeding it slowly through a woodchipper that is aimed at Tom's bay window.

Not only does the scenario not involve anybody killing any dogs, but the weed trimmer doesn't have the power to turn a dog into a bloody smear of mostly-liquid gore running down a bay window.

Similarly, charm person does not have the power to compel people the way that is being suggested. It simply isn't that powerful.

I assert that, for example, it can't be used to rape somebody for the same reason that using soap and water to clean up and wearing nice clothes that happen to be the prospective paramour's favorite color can't be used to rape somebody. For the same reason that any effort to specifically appeal to a desired lover doesn't qualify as "rape." Even if he or she later finds out that you deliberately presented yourself in a more pleasing light specifically tailored to their interests than your day-to-day self would suggest.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's...kinda complicated, thinking about it.

On one hand, it's not illegal to get someone drunk so that they're more agreeable to your suggestions.

On the other hand, it would be illegal to get them drunk without their consent.

------------

We should probably tone down the level of severity in this topic. It's starting to make me consider looking up the forum rules to see if we're still in-bounds on this thread, and that's not a good sign for any thread.

[patchyman]

Ah, but let's say Cain just tells her that he's a millionaire, and that the mansion he's taking her to is his. In reality, the mansion is his brother, Abel's. Cain's just allowed to stay there for hookups, because Abel is a wingman like that.

Here, he's lied to Ella to get her to sleep with him, but I don't think that qualifies as rape by deception anymore. Unless you can point to literally any lie told during the course of pre-coital interactions to qualify as "rape."

Your decision to avoid answering the question asked is noted. Let each poster decide for themselves if you are unwilling to back down or simply trolling.

Once again, in what meaningful manner is using Charm person to have sex with a stranger different from the scenario I described?

[jh12]

Given that I at no point suggested "she deserved it because...,"

Yes you did. You've done it repeatedly. You're doing it again. That's what you are doing every time you say that it's okay to force Ella to have sex with you because she is willing to have sex with other people who are her friendly acquaintances. It doesn't matter that she voluntarily chose to have sex with you while you were forcing her to think of you as her friendly acquaintance because determining who her friendly acquaintances are is also one of the decisions that she is entitled to make. That's what Hail Tempus illustrated so deftly with the Doppelganger example.

The point I'm making is that charm person can't compel you to do anything (beyond "not attack"). It doesn't make you think the person is your bosom pal. It doesn't make you think you're in love. It doesn't do anything but make you consider them to be a person you're reasonably comfortable being around and would do harmless favors for.

And yet another example of you claiming that Charm Person can't do things even while providing examples of it doing those very things. Making them consider you a friendly acquaintance is compelling them to do something. Making them more agreeable to your suggestions is compelling them. Making them do something for you that they would have willingly done for someone else is compelling them.

Edited to add:

Hmm. Why not? Charm Person used on another to alter their mind to be more amenable to your suggestions is precisely how psychology works.

No it isn't. It's closer to psychiatry where medical professionals prescribe drugs that people can choose to take to alter their mood and behavior. Except it does away with the whole medical professional and voluntary decision to take the medication. Instead you just walk around injecting people with mood-altering drugs.

[Imbalance]

It's...kinda complicated, thinking about it.

On one hand, it's not illegal to get someone drunk so that they're more agreeable to your suggestions.

On the other hand, it would be illegal to get them drunk without their consent.

------------

We should probably tone down the level of severity in this topic. It's starting to make me consider looking up the forum rules to see if we're still in-bounds on this thread, and that's not a good sign for any thread.

M_O_G gets it.

[sophontteks]

Charm person compelling a person to do something is directly represented by giving the caster advantage on all charisma-based checks. There are other ways to compel someone to do something which are less invasive, but Charm person is definitely compelling people to follow your wishes.

[Kyutaru]

No it isn't. It's closer to psychiatry where medical professionals prescribe drugs that people can choose to take to alter their mood and behavior. Except it does away with the whole medical professional and voluntary decision to take the medication. Instead you just walk around injecting people with mood-altering drugs.

Balderdash. It does not act as a psychedelic or loosen their inhibitions. No mind-altering effects are present and professionals are often forced to give people medication that relieves them of their good sense. This does not do any of that. It alters a person's PERCEPTIONS of you. Their mood hasn't changed at all, they merely view you as a friend. They may still be the same depressive user they are to all their friends. Behavior may be changed but not through conditioning. They are choosing of their own free will how to respond to you with the simple adjustment that you are now someone they don't hate.

[LibraryOgre]

Balderdash. It does not act as a psychedelic or loosen their inhibitions. No mind-altering effects are present and professionals are often forced to give people medication that relieves them of their good sense. This does not do any of that. It alters a person's PERCEPTIONS of you. Their mood hasn't changed at all, they merely view you as a friend. They may still be the same depressive user they are to all their friends. Behavior may be changed but not through conditioning. They are choosing of their own free will how to respond to you with the simple adjustment that you are now someone they don't hate.

Then it's not really their free will, is it? I mean, how you regard someone is the keystone of social interaction... your choices are going to be directly impacted by how you regard someone. Changing that fundamental nature... altering their mood as it applies to you... is the essence of altering someone's free will and choices.

"You can make any choices you like... but not ones that will let you harm me, or think badly of me in any way."

[jh12]

Balderdash. It does not act as a psychedelic or loosen their inhibitions. No mind-altering effects are present and professionals are often forced to give people medication that relieves them of their good sense. This does not do any of that. It alters a person's PERCEPTIONS of you.

Which is a mind-altering effect. Taking psychedelics doesn't alter the world around you. It alters your PERCEPTIONS of the world.

Their mood hasn't changed at all, they merely view you as a friend.

Which is a mind-altering effect. And likely loosens their inhibitions, or at least alters them, because many people act differently around friendly acquaintances than they do around strangers. And almost everyone acts differently around friendly acquaintances than they do around people they hate.

Plus, Charm Person makes you more susceptible to the caster's suggestions, which seems like a textbook example of loosening inhibitions.

They may still be the same depressive user they are to all their friends. Behavior may be changed but not through conditioning. They are choosing of their own free will how to respond to you with the simple adjustment that you are now someone they don't hate.

In other words, they are not choosing of their own free will because being able to determine who you like and don't like is an important part of free will. And that's not all the spell does. Leaving aside the Dastardly example, if Count Rugen cast Charm Person on Inigo Montoya and asked him to go get a drink, would you really say that Inigo Montoya refrained from stabbing him and got a drink with him instead out of his own free will?

I've asked these two simple questions multiple times, and never even gotten an attempt at a response. So I will ask them again.
1. What gives the caster the right to cast any spell on an unwilling target?
2. What gives the caster the right to determine that the target should view the caster as a friendly acquaintance for an hour?

[Imbalance]

I've asked these two simple questions multiple times, and never even gotten an attempt at a response. So I will ask them again.
1. What gives the caster the right to cast any spell on an unwilling target?
2. What gives the caster the right to determine that the target should view the caster as a friendly acquaintance for an hour?

Precisely nothing. No matter how anyone wants to slice the moral implications of what could happen after the fact, the very casting of the spell is a violation of the right to free will, and it's first effect is an unwilling decision.

[Mad_Saulot]

If I lived in a world where monsters roam and everyone carries a sword and someone came up and charmed me, I would kill them. The context is irrelevant it is a violation of my free will and there's no way I would stand for that. It is tantamount to Rape.

[Constructman]

If I lived in a world where monsters roam and everyone carries a sword and someone came up and charmed me, I would kill them. The context is irrelevant it is a violation of my free will and there's no way I would stand for that. It is tantamount to Rape.

And then the city watch arrest you for second degree murder while complaining to thesmelves that a simple fraud and abuse of arcana case spiraled out of control.

The spell does what it says it does. Nothing more, nothing less. If it doesn't change a creature's condition to Hostile, it doesn't change a creature's condition to Hostile.

[Mad_Saulot]

And then the city watch arrest you for second degree murder while complaining to thesmelves that a simple fraud and abuse of arcana case spiraled out of control.

The spell does what it says it does. Nothing more, nothing less. If it doesn't change a creature's condition to Hostile, it doesn't change a creature's condition to Hostile.

Casting any spell on me without my consent would make me hostile to you. Sure if theres a city watch I'd use the authorities to get back at the enchanter, if they refused I would follow them out of city limits and murderise them, in most D&D settings the world is a frontier that lacks universal laws so any spellcaster that ****s with me better kill me before the spell wears off or murder will come and I will be righteous.

[Kyutaru]

Casting any spell on me without my consent would make me hostile to you. Sure if theres a city watch I'd use the authorities to get back at the enchanter, if they refused I would follow them out of city limits and murderise them, in most D&D settings the world is a frontier that lacks universal laws so any spellcaster that ****s with me better kill me before the spell wears off or murder will come and I will be righteous.

God help anyone who swindles you.

[Themrys]

If I lived in a world where monsters roam and everyone carries a sword and someone came up and charmed me, I would kill them. The context is irrelevant it is a violation of my free will and there's no way I would stand for that. It is tantamount to Rape.

It's not tantamount to rape. It's tantamount to putting a drug in your drink. It's an action that can be reasonably assumed to be done with the intent to rape later on, but is not in itself the same as rape.

Inside a city, no one would care about the difference, you'd call the city watch in any case. Out in the wilderness, well, anyone stupid enough to do something that's likely to make others suspect them of having sinister intentions runs the risk of getting killed. A lawful good character would draw their sword and demand a very good explanation, but more neutrally inclined characters ... well, it doesn't usually pay to hesitate too long about killing a probably hostile person in a world full of monsters.

[Mad_Saulot]

God help anyone who swindles you.

No one swindles me, they know what would happen.


But aye if you are the forgiving type then you might not consider it rape, thats your thing fair enough. I would and I would kill to vindicate myself.

This reminds me of critical role where Scanlen the gnome throws charms around like candy, their DM lets him cast these spells as if they were unnoticed, in my games unless you are an arcane trickster or a sorceror then you cant hide the casting of a spell, I always use the rule that spell casting always reveals your position, no spell is subtle unless you have the feat, so if I saw someone near me casting a spell it should initiate an initiative roill as I would attempt to interupt the casting.

My players are quite sensible compared to most and generally dont go around throwing spells around inside a city (I guess I lucked out with these guys) but watching critical role and reading other DMs experiences with silly players I dont know how you handle it without constantly either giving in and making magic essentially legal, or making all magic illegal in public and being forced to send the watch after silly players constanty.

Charm has always been a divisive spell and the arguments surrounding it wouldnt fit into a warehouse.

The description of the spell is vague enough to be misinterpreted enmasse, I suspect the Devs kept the spellon purpose just to mess with us, they probably should have removed it from the spell lists like various other easily OP spells.

Charm takes an opponent out of the fight (if cast in combat), its a level 1 spell, thats OP.

and can be easily abused outside of combat, I would be seriously tempted to remove it completely if it ever became a prolem at my table.

Otherwise I play it as written, that the subject of the spell becomes subservient to you and will follow your orders short of doing direct harm to themselves or their loved ones.

[hamishspence]

I play it as written, that the subject of the spell becomes subservient to you and will follow your orders short of doing direct harm to themselves or their loved ones.

"follows your orders" was the case in 1e.

Later editions, however, didn't say anything quite that controlling. 5e's "friendly acquaintance" is probably the least able to to be ordered around of all the versions of People Affected By Charm Person through the editions.

[Mad_Saulot]

"follows your orders" was the case in 1e.

Later editions, however, didn't say anything quite that controlling. 5e's "friendly acquaintance" is probably the least able to to be ordered around of all the versions of People Affected By Charm Person through the editions.

Aye and "friendly acquaintance" is suibjective as ****, whats that even mean? What is the definition of "friendly acquaintance" it is not universal, one culture will put more emphasis on what it means to be a "Friend" than another....I guess since D&D is american we must use their cultural definitions as a guide? In some cultures "friends" will eagerly bleed for each other..

[hamishspence]

"Acquaintance" is the important bit. Combined with "friendly", it means "someone you know, but not very well, not as well as a proper friend.

For comparison, the 3.5 version of the spell says "trusted friend and ally" - significantly better.

[Mad_Saulot]

Its confusing as ****

[hamishspence]

This blog entry:

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2012/1...rm-person.html

discussed how the spell has changed from edition to edition.

[Mad_Saulot]

"Acquaintance" is the important bit. Combined with "friendly", it means "someone you know, but not very well, not as well as a proper friend.

For comparison, the 3.5 version of the spell says "trusted friend and ally" - significantly better.

OK I know a fair number of people irl, many of them you could describe as "friendly" but if they were on the wrong side in a fight/war I'd still stab them to death. Only my proper "friends" have my protection.