The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 344
  1. - Top - End - #211
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_Saulot View Post
    Its confusing as ****
    I don’t see why. I’d expect that if you thought about it, there are plenty of people in your life who are less than friends, but more than just someone who you have a passing acquaintance with. People from work, the spouses of friends, other parents you know from your kid’s school. These aren’t bosom buddies, but they’re people who you would typically give the benefit of the doubt to.

    That being said, the “friendly acquaintance” is rarely going to go out on a limb for you.

  2. - Top - End - #212
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    I'm curious how people think the charm person spell compares to the glibness spell, it makes you do better on charisma checks too, if you are magically more charismatic and better able to persuade is that amoral?

    What if it was enhance ability?

  3. - Top - End - #213
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    It would largely depend on what you're persuading them to do. Snake oil salesmen, shady used car dealers, and skeevy pickup artists may not use magic to achieve their ends, but they're pretty largely considered to be dirtbags. Rape by deception was mentioned upthread and is a real-life crime that involves no use of force, no use of mind-altering drugs or magic, just the ability to deceive someone and therefore persuade them to do something they don't want to do. Selling someone a used car that you know will die fifty miles off the lot is fraud, making false claims about the efficacy of drugs is likewise criminal. Being more charismatic, persuasive, etc. isn't inherently a bad thing, it's entirely what you do with it.

    Charm Person could be used for positive ends, much like Glibness could. You could, with either Glibness or Charm Person, sit down next to a stranger and try to convince them that their excessive gambling is hurting them, their family, their friends, and they should really seek help. With Charm Person, at the end of it, they're going to think "wait, who the hell was that guy and why did I let him talk to me about my life" and with Glibness they're going to think "that guy really had a point." In one case you messed with their mind (frankly I'd consider casting a spell on any targets who didn't explicitly request/allow it to be a hostile action unless it can be proven to be totally benign like mass CLW on an unundead crowd) and violated their autonomy, in the other case you smoothed over the cracks in your personality and speech to lend greater credence to your words.

  4. - Top - End - #214
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by tieren View Post
    I'm curious how people think the charm person spell compares to the glibness spell, it makes you do better on charisma checks too, if you are magically more charismatic and better able to persuade is that amoral?
    Glibness doesn't raise all of the same concerns as Charm Person. The caster casts it on himself, unlike Charm Person which is cast on an unwilling person. The spell itself doesn't force anyone to do anything, unlike Charm Person which does force the person to view you in a particular way, does force the person to be more receptive to the caster's desires, and does prevent the victim from attacking you no matter how much they know they should.

    It's the difference between taking a shot for courage before you go up to the pretty girl because you're more charming when you loosen up and slipping something in her drink to make her more receptive. The end result might be the same, but the means matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elysiume
    In one case you messed with their mind (frankly I'd consider casting a spell on any targets who didn't explicitly request/allow it to be a hostile action unless it can be proven to be totally benign like mass CLW on an unundead crowd) and violated their autonomy, in the other case you smoothed over the cracks in your personality and speech to lend greater credence to your words.
    Exactly.

  5. - Top - End - #215
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    I wonder what people feel about the Suggestion spell then.

    Charm Person may as well be renamed to Inflict Psychology.

  6. - Top - End - #216
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Tiny Carl Jung casts "Tell me about your mother" -- http://dresdencodak.com/2009/01/27/a...and-discourse/

    Suggestion is mind influencing in the same way as charm person. The fact it doesn't have as many out of combat uses seems like a clear example of how mind control is a hostile and often reprehensible act.

  7. - Top - End - #217
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyutaru View Post
    I wonder what people feel about the Suggestion spell then.
    Suggestion is a mind control spell that should only be used as a substitute for violence.

    Are you suggesting that a person that used Suggestion to get someone to have sex with him wouldn't be a rapist?

    Charm Person may as well be renamed to Inflict Psychology.
    It's not about what the spell is named. It's about what the spell does.

    I've asked these two simple questions multiple times, and never even gotten an attempt at a response from anyone who thinks that Charm Person is an acceptable spell. So I will ask them to you, 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?

  8. - Top - End - #218
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh12 View Post
    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?
    1) The morals of medieval society, where even having a knight come and take your wife was a "blessing". Or put simply, having the power to do so gives itself inherent rights to its use. Just as a conqueror who claims a land now has authority over its subjects just because he took it.
    2) His education level and competence at the magic he practices. Lawyers can choose to support innocent people or criminals. They have to right to decide which. What gives a bouncer the right to eject an unruly bar patron? His muscles.

  9. - Top - End - #219
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyutaru View Post
    1) The morals of medieval society, where even having a knight come and take your wife was a "blessing". Or put simply, having the power to do so gives itself inherent rights to its use. Just as a conqueror who claims a land now has authority over its subjects just because he took it.
    2) His education level and competence at the magic he practices. Lawyers can choose to support innocent people or criminals. They have to right to decide which. What gives a bouncer the right to eject an unruly bar patron? His muscles.
    I think jh12 means ethical rights, not legal rights or the "morals of medieval society", the latter being an extremely dubious justification in, you know, a fantasy world.

    Besides, we are talking about the reaction of the victim after the spell's effect ceases. In a society where strength is the only thing that counts, well, the person who cast that spell can pretty much count on being killed immediately the moment the spell isn't in effect anymore. Because, you know, the guy with the big sword just CAN.

    I mean, the paladin I play at the moment would draw his sword, but ask questions first ... but with the justification you give? "I am stronger, that gives me the right to violate everyone else"? My character is pretty much in favour of redemption, but might deem your hypothetic, very unrepentant spellcaster so dangerous (and, frankly, evil) he'd still kill him.
    Last edited by Themrys; 2019-05-11 at 04:33 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #220
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    Mark Hall's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "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.
    One thing I do like about 5e Charm is the precise definition of what being charmed means... you cannot attack the person, and they get Advantage on Charisma checks against you. It's still coercive, but it clearly defines WHAT it does and WHAT it means.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Savage Scrolls: A Savage Worlds/Elder Scrolls Conversion
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Avatar is from local user Mehangel
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  11. - Top - End - #221
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyutaru View Post
    1) The morals of medieval society, where even having a knight come and take your wife was a "blessing". Or put simply, having the power to do so gives itself inherent rights to its use. Just as a conqueror who claims a land now has authority over its subjects just because he took it.
    I'm not sure how I would have tried to justify casting Charm Person or any other spell on an unwilling victim, but likening it to medieval nobles raping the peasants certainly isn't the way I would have gone. Now let's think about the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system. What kind of characters think that might makes right and they can do whatever they want without regard for how it harms others? Certainly not the good ones.

    And if might makes right, why do you care that anyone would be offended by Charm Person and try to kill you? As Themrys has already pointed out, the response to Charm Person would be governed by exactly the same rules. If they are strong enough to do it, they deserve to do it, right? There's no need for laws, just nature, red in tooth and claw. Heck, in that situation people wouldn't even have to wait for wizards to abuse their powers--just the potential would be enough to justify a pogrom of wizards.

    2) His education level and competence at the magic he practices.
    How does his education level and competence at the magic he practices give him the right to decide who I should be friendly acquaintances with? If anything, all that studying has stunted his level of level of social development, making him absolutely the last person who should be making decisions about who I should be friends with.

    Lawyers can choose to support innocent people or criminals. They have to right to decide which.
    You realize that in any case where the lawyer decides whether he is representing guilty or innocent people, a private criminal defense attorney, the clients get to pick the lawyers too, right? The lawyer doesn't just walk up to a client and say, "I'm defending you."

    And while I couldn't do it, defense attorneys who represent people they believe to be guilty are still fulfilling a vital role in the justice system. Casting Charm Person to make someone like you isn't fulfilling any vital role at all.

    What gives a bouncer the right to eject an unruly bar patron? His muscles.
    This is 100% unambiguously incorrect. His muscles might allow him to eject an unruly bar patron, but they don't give him the right. What gives him the right to eject unruly patrons is property right of the bar's owner.



    And I'm morbidly curious to hear what you think about the Suggestion spell.

  12. - Top - End - #222
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themrys View Post
    I think jh12 means ethical rights, not legal rights or the "morals of medieval society", the latter being an extremely dubious justification in, you know, a fantasy world.

    Besides, we are talking about the reaction of the victim after the spell's effect ceases. In a society where strength is the only thing that counts, well, the person who cast that spell can pretty much count on being killed immediately the moment the spell isn't in effect anymore. Because, you know, the guy with the big sword just CAN.

    I mean, the paladin I play at the moment would draw his sword, but ask questions first ... but with the justification you give? "I am stronger, that gives me the right to violate everyone else"? My character is pretty much in favour of redemption, but might deem your hypothetic, very unrepentant spellcaster so dangerous (and, frankly, evil) he'd still kill him.
    I was focused on the legal rights as the person addressed the righteous fury of slaying such a caster for the mere wrongs he had committed. Read earlier too on how the dredges of society who are manipulative as all hell still do not end up in prison because being an ******* is not a crime.

    But if your paladin feels the need to strike down someone he thinks is scum, that's basically Paladin 101 and textbook zealotry. That happens more often than you might think, even in campaigns. You think they give the bad guy a chance to monologue or surrender? Heck no, Smite Evil.

  13. - Top - End - #223
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    One thing I do like about 5e Charm is the precise definition of what being charmed means... you cannot attack the person, and they get Advantage on Charisma checks against you. It's still coercive, but it clearly defines WHAT it does and WHAT it means.
    Sounds exactly like having a crush on the hot girl at school.

  14. - Top - End - #224
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh12 View Post
    I'm not sure how I would have tried to justify casting Charm Person or any other spell on an unwilling victim, but likening it to medieval nobles raping the peasants certainly isn't the way I would have gone. Now let's think about the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system. What kind of characters think that might makes right and they can do whatever they want without regard for how it harms others? Certainly not the good ones.

    And if might makes right, why do you care that anyone would be offended by Charm Person and try to kill you? As Themrys has already pointed out, the response to Charm Person would be governed by exactly the same rules. If they are strong enough to do it, they deserve to do it, right? There's no need for laws, just nature, red in tooth and claw. Heck, in that situation people wouldn't even have to wait for wizards to abuse their powers--just the potential would be enough to justify a pogrom of wizards.
    The potential for wizards to abuse their power is already a thing in some campaign settings where they are controlled and magic is regulated. Even within the same setting, people have different concepts of right and wrong, legal and immoral. If they feel violated and are strong enough to seek revenge, welcome to medieval society. Just don't kill anyone important or you'll end up in jail.



    Quote Originally Posted by jh12 View Post
    How does his education level and competence at the magic he practices give him the right to decide who I should be friendly acquaintances with? If anything, all that studying has stunted his level of level of social development, making him absolutely the last person who should be making decisions about who I should be friends with.
    The same way a doctor's education level gives him the right to decide treatments for patients, even should they be mind-altering or potentially lethal. Granted he has to pass a medical exam and gain a license, but what exactly do you think people do in wizard college? There are even settings where not having a license to practice magic makes it banned.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh12 View Post
    You realize that in any case where the lawyer decides whether he is representing guilty or innocent people, a private criminal defense attorney, the clients get to pick the lawyers too, right? The lawyer doesn't just walk up to a client and say, "I'm defending you."

    And while I couldn't do it, defense attorneys who represent people they believe to be guilty are still fulfilling a vital role in the justice system. Casting Charm Person to make someone like you isn't fulfilling any vital role at all.
    This was part of the same point as the wizard for a reason. Lawyers receive the same education and granted rights associated with it as a wizard might. While a lawyer is chosen, he is also sometimes appointed. He can also take matters into his own hands when the person is deemed incompetent. His ability to choose between good and evil pertains to his knowledge of the law and how it's far from black and white. Casting Charm Person may not fulfill a societal role but how is helping a witnessed murderer escape justice doing that? Seems more like anti-societal aid yet permission exists for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh12 View Post
    This is 100% unambiguously incorrect. His muscles might allow him to eject an unruly bar patron, but they don't give him the right. What gives him the right to eject unruly patrons is property right of the bar's owner.
    If he's hired, he requires might. Without might, he has no right to attempt to dispose of unruly patrons. Even when not hired, there have been many incidents at bars where I or another person has had to step in and throw out the unruly patron or subdue someone causing a scene. Was a hired by the bartender for this? No, my muscles and propensity for meeting out justice say it all. If anyone disagrees, feel free to throw me out too. If you can.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh12 View Post
    And I'm morbidly curious to hear what you think about the Suggestion spell.
    Per the Suggestion spell:

    The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell.

    If the suggestion is reasonable to the person being suggested, it obeys. If it is not, or harms itself in any way, it does not. In what universe would this spell allow anyone to rape someone unless the idea of intercourse with the caster was already a reasonable suggestion to them? It falls under obviously harmful acts otherwise.

  15. - Top - End - #225
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    In Waterdeep using mind-altering spells on anyone, noble or not, is a crime punishable with up to a 1k gold fine for the first offense, and hard time for repeat offenses.

  16. - Top - End - #226
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    In 5e, Charm Person applies the charmed condition, which does exactly two things:
    • Stops them from attacking you unless you or your companion does something harmful first.
    • Gives you advantage on Charisma checks to interact with them socially.


    The first one seems perfectly civic-minded and acceptable to me - if everyone had access to that sort of effect, there would be a lot less muggings and random stabbings going around. I see no reason to get upset over that aspect of the spell. The second one only comes up if you attempt to socially interact with them. If you're intimidating someone (and the fact that they aren't allowed to hurt you hasn't already resolved the situation) you're probably in the wrong. If you're tying to deceive someone, you're almost definitely in the wrong. But just trying to persuade someone isn't inherently bad, and the bonus from Charm Person does not seem to be any more potent or violating than causing someone to regard you as a friendly acquaintance via more traditional methods, like sharing a meal together, being especially fashionable or, most saliently, having the party bard walk you though what you should and should not say (AKA use Aid Another) ahead of time.

    5e Charm Person is, IMO, no more morally fraught than basic job interview prep.

  17. - Top - End - #227

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by sophontteks View Post
    In Waterdeep using mind-altering spells on anyone, noble or not, is a crime punishable with up to a 1k gold fine for the first offense, and hard time for repeat offenses.
    Is this from Dragon Heist? Or from an earlier book on Waterdeep?

  18. - Top - End - #228

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Also:

    Enthralling Performance

    Starting at 3rd level, you can charge your performance with seductive, fey magic.

    If you perform for at least 1 minute, you can attempt to inspire wonder in your audience by singing, reciting a poem, or dancing. At the end of the performance, choose a number of humanoids within 60 feet of you who watched and listened to all of it, up to a number equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum of one). Each target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw against your spell save DC or be charmed by you. While charmed in this way, the target idolizes you, it speaks glowingly of you to anyone who talks to it, and it hinders anyone who opposes you, although it avoids violence unless it was already inclined to fight on your behalf. This effect ends on a target after 1 hour, if it takes any damage, if you attack it, or if it witnesses you attacking or damaging any of its allies.

    If a target succeeds on its saving throw, the target has no hint that you tried to charm it.

    Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a short or long rest.


    I'm now imagining a rookie Glamour Bard who didn't quite grasp how his class features worked at the courthouse or at the fantasy DMV furiously arguing with the clerk trying to weasel his way out of the fine while surrounded by a horde of fangirls.

  19. - Top - End - #229
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Constructman View Post
    Is this from Dragon Heist? Or from an earlier book on Waterdeep?
    W:DH. I've already mentioned about 5 or 6 pages ago.

  20. - Top - End - #230
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Constructman View Post
    Is this from Dragon Heist? Or from an earlier book on Waterdeep?
    Should be from heist. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
    Quote Originally Posted by JackPhoenix View Post
    W:DH. I've already mentioned about 5 or 6 pages ago.
    I was really surprised it wasn't mentioned yet. Guess I missed it, sorry.
    Last edited by sophontteks; 2019-05-11 at 09:59 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #231
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyutaru View Post
    The same way a doctor's education level gives him the right to decide treatments for patients, even should they be mind-altering or potentially lethal. Granted he has to pass a medical exam and gain a license, but what exactly do you think people do in wizard college? There are even settings where not having a license to practice magic makes it banned.
    "I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous." That was written some 2,500 years ago and doctors today are still making oaths based on that writing. Outside of an emergency situation, if a doctor does something to a patient without the informed consent of the patient the doctor has violated the patient's rights. Patients can refuse treatments. Patients can get second opinions. Doctors have been charged criminally, and sued civilly, for acting on patients without the patient's consent. Some have even been executed for war crimes. Because a medical license doesn't give you license to ignore the will of your patients.

    If wizard college isn't teaching its wizards that they aren't allowed to cast spells on unwilling people in social situations, their students aren't getting their money's worth.

    This was part of the same point as the wizard for a reason. Lawyers receive the same education and granted rights associated with it as a wizard might.
    Lawyers already have a bad enough reputation as it is. They don't need you making them seem worse.

    Lawyers have only one more right than any other person walking down the street, and it's a pretty minor right. That right, the only right they have that sets them apart from anyone else, is the right to practice law as a profession. It's really not much of a right, certainly not one that gives them power over anyone else.

    Of course, many lawyers get their educations so they can protect people for the kind of predators that would cast spells on unwilling victims, especially spells that affect the mind so you might want to try a different profession. Now that I think about it, pretty much every profession depends on the consent of their customers. Except maybe the police, but do you really want to try to make that comparison?

    While a lawyer is chosen, he is also sometimes appointed.
    Even when a lawyer is appointed, the client can generally still refuse. Because consent matters. A client can decide that he would rather represent himself than be represented by a lawyer he doesn't trust or respect.

    He can also take matters into his own hands when the person is deemed incompetent.
    This is the only situation where a client can't refuse representation. But the lawyer absolutely cannot cannot take matters into his own hands and do whatever her wants. A lawyer who is appointed by the court to represent a person who has been deemed incompetent following a legal proceeding has a fiduciary duty to act in that person's best interests. If he puts his interests above the incompetent client's he will be facing legal and professional repercussions. Can you say the same about a person who casts the Charm Person spell? Whose interests are they acting in?

    Besides, what does a lawyer representing an incompetent person have to do with a wizard casting a spell on a fully competent individual? If you've been assuming the victim is incompetent the whole time, this all got a lot darker.

    His ability to choose between good and evil pertains to his knowledge of the law and how it's far from black and white.
    No, his ability to choose between good and evil started well before he went to law school and law school didn't contribute much to it. You can't make it out of high school without being able to choose between good and evil. You can't even make it out of elementary school without being able to chose between good and evil. And very little of law school is about good and evil. It's mostly about contracts, and torts, and corporations, and civil procedure, and things like that.

    Casting Charm Person may not fulfill a societal role but how is helping a witnessed murderer escape justice doing that? Seems more like anti-societal aid yet permission exists for it.
    Because the best way to ensure that innocent people are not convicted while still having a functioning criminal justice system is to have an adversarial legal system where the government has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while the accused is able to vigorously contest the charges. The theory has been pretty well understood at least since William Blackstone said that it was better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man, and that was over 200 years ago.

    If he's hired, he requires might. Without might, he has no right to attempt to dispose of unruly patrons. Even when not hired, there have been many incidents at bars where I or another person has had to step in and throw out the unruly patron or subdue someone causing a scene. Was a hired by the bartender for this? No, my muscles and propensity for meeting out justice say it all. If anyone disagrees, feel free to throw me out too. If you can.
    He might require might to throw you out, but he doesn't need might to have the right to throw you out. Try throwing out someone the bar owner doesn't want thrown out sometime and see how well your theory works for you (actually don't, because you will likely find yourself arrested for assault and battery). And if the bar owner wants you to leave, but you refuse, the bar owner can have you arrested for trespassing. Even if you are a big manly man and she's just a little tiny wisp of a thing.

    Because might has never meant right, and certainly not in any civilized society. Right, and the power to enforce that right, are two very different things. The measure of the justice of a society is the difference between the two. What you advocate is an unjust society, where rights go unenforced and are trampled upon for a want of power.

    And again, if this whole, might makes right is really how you feel, why are you complaining about people wanting to kill people who cast Charm Person on unwilling victims? If they're strong enough to kill the caster, you should be celebrating their achievement because they've proven that they were right.

    Per the Suggestion spell:

    The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell.

    If the suggestion is reasonable to the person being suggested, it obeys. If it is not, or harms itself in any way, it does not. In what universe would this spell allow anyone to rape someone unless the idea of intercourse with the caster was already a reasonable suggestion to them? It falls under obviously harmful acts otherwise.
    That's not what the spell says. It says it has to sound reasonable, not that it has to be reasonable. Let's look at one of the examples the spell description provides. "For example, you might suggest that a knight give her horse to the first beggar she meets." Is that something that would have sounded reasonable to the knight outside of the spell? Of course not. It just has to sound reasonable, not be reasonable, and it only has to sound reasonable to someone under the influence of a magical spell. I'm pretty sure that for most knights, "have sex with me" sounds a whole lot more reasonable than "give your horse to the first beggar you meet."

  22. - Top - End - #232
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    In many D&D settings, the concept of inviolable sovereignty of self, free will, or individual rights is not nearly so strong as in the real world, Consequently, the ramifications for influencing a person’s mind or decision making process would not be met by the same vitriol that is being displayed in this thread, in my opinion.

    Charm Person has been compared to many real-world things, and I’m not going to muddy the waters by attempting my own comparison. Suffice it to say that in a world with active gods, innate magic users, and adventurer’s abound, it would not be beyond belief for common folk to know that their thoughts and actions may be manipulated by outside forces, even benevolent ones. It is possible, even probable, however, that the average man-on-the-street will still consider a Charm effect to be a violation.

    Even so, I do not believe that the usual response to such a spell would be a lynch-mob, or legal action like many posters here are asserting. Instead, the common folk would spread the word amongst themselves that the caster in question is a mind-mage, or an enchanter, or in general simply someone not to be trusted. Commoners would be reluctant to talk with and do business with the Charmer, people would refuse to look them in the eye or be alone in a room with them. A directly affected party, if feeling particularly courageous and indignant about the charm they were put under, might slap the Charmer if they saw them again.

    The usual reaction of a community against a powerful individual who has abused that power is not burning at the stake - it is ostracization.

    This of course covers the use-cases in which a commoner is asked to do something relatively innocuous, legal, and only mildly objectionable under the best of circumstances. If a charmed person is asked to do something illegal (dubious as to whether this falls under ‘friendly acquaintance’ territory), or asked to overlook something illegal, or asked to provide access to otherwise off-limits or restricted areas or information, then the charmed person would probably inform the local authorities of the infraction, as well as the surrounding circumstances. The illegal actions or restricted access may then be punished as expected.

    Additionally, using the spell against a protected category, such as nobles, priests, or government officials, may result in much harsher, more direct consequences. The subversion of these protected classes often represents an attack on the integrity of the institutions of the community, as well as them being the most powerful members of the community. The allegations from these individuals are likely to be taken very seriously, and may result in the harshest penalties the community is capable of levying against the Charmer (if a PC, often complete non-access to the goods and services available in town).

    The power disparity between the charmed and the Charmer is a key component here. D&D fantasy societies often do not have the same rights and protections against mind-influencing effects as we do in the real world, and frequently lack the power to enforce their autonomy against transgressors. Additionally, D&D fantasy society is stratified in a much more explicit way than in real life, with clear distinctions between the rights and protects of the upper classes and the lower classes. What may be considered a crime against a noble is simply a courtesy amongst the lower classes - what is punishable by death if inflicted upon a priest is merely impolite is done to a tanner. The response to these infractions will consider the relative powers of the charmed and the Charmer, and will almost certainly not immediately leap to ‘grab your torch and pitchfork’.

  23. - Top - End - #233
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    Mark Hall's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyutaru View Post
    The same way a doctor's education level gives him the right to decide treatments for patients, even should they be mind-altering or potentially lethal. Granted he has to pass a medical exam and gain a license, but what exactly do you think people do in wizard college? There are even settings where not having a license to practice magic makes it banned.
    A doctor, however, can only apply those treatments in certain circumstances.

    1) With your permission.
    2) In an emergency situation.
    3) When you have been declared incapable of making your own decisions.

    So, while one can argue that Charm Person is moral when using it to stop someone from attacking you (i.e. condition 2), any other situation is going to be difficult to say "Well, DOCTORS learn things, and MAGES learn things, so they're similar."
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Savage Scrolls: A Savage Worlds/Elder Scrolls Conversion
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Avatar is from local user Mehangel
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  24. - Top - End - #234
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by jh12 View Post

    Even when a lawyer is appointed, the client can generally still refuse. Because consent matters. A client can decide that he would rather represent himself than be represented by a lawyer he doesn't trust or respect.
    "
    What jh12 wrote is absolutely right. McCoy v Louisiana, 2018. Supreme Court case. Guy gets arrested. There is overwhelming evidence against him. He is looking at the death penalty. The guy claims a frankly bizarre and ridiculous wide spread conspiracy against him.

    His lawyer, against the client’s wishes, concedes that his client killed the victims. It is not seriously contested that this is the most likely chance for the client to avoid the death penalty.

    The Supreme Court confirms that the lawyer was acting unconstitutionally: he cannot concede his client’s guilt if the client maintains his innocence.

  25. - Top - End - #235
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcelinari View Post
    What may be considered a crime against a noble is simply a courtesy amongst the lower classes - what is punishable by death if inflicted upon a priest is merely impolite is done to a tanner. The response to these infractions will consider the relative powers of the charmed and the Charmer, and will almost certainly not immediately leap to ‘grab your torch and pitchfork’.
    *Everything* depends on circumstances, nobody is disputing that, and power discrepancy between victim and agressor is always going to be a circumstance.

    However, your same reasoning could be applied to any crime, even murder. In many societies if a noble murdered a member of the rabble it was not considered a big deal, and the family of the victim might not seek redress if they thought it would cause more trouble than good.

    However, adventurers are traditionally outsiders, who are already viewed with suspicion. And casting Charm person doesn’t mean that the wizard can incinerate the whole village, plus even wizards need to sleep.

    The level of magic in the setting and people’s understanding of it is also a factor. If magic is rare and wondrous, people might assume that someone who casts Charm person can call on substantially greater power, although they might also conclude that because they don’t understand it, they should attempt to destroy the caster just to be safe.

  26. - Top - End - #236
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    Sep 2010

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    So, while one can argue that Charm Person is moral when using it to stop someone from attacking you (i.e. condition 2), any other situation is going to be difficult to say "Well, DOCTORS learn things, and MAGES learn things, so they're similar."
    Fighters, too, learn things. Doesn't mean they are allowed to threaten anyone with a sword to force them to treat them as friendly acquaintance.

    For all I know, mage academy doesn't have lectures on ethics.

    The paladin character class is one of the few where it can be reasonably assumed they did learn something about ethics, but strangely enough, paladins waving their weapons around to force their own will on other people seems to be considered bad roleplaying.

    Why is a mage allowed to charm person the barmaid so she'll have sex with him, but the paladin isn't allowed to threaten her with physical violence to get the same outcome? I mean, the paladin is a moral authority, right?

    @patchyman: Exactly, the average adventurer is more likely to be, himself, on one of the lowest steps of the social ladder. Which nullifies all advantages gained from the victim not being a particularly important person. A nobleman might get away with violating the free will of a beggar, a beggar who violates the free will of another beggar is not so likely to get away with it.
    Last edited by Themrys; 2019-05-12 at 12:00 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #237
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    HalflingPirate

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Wheat Country
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Why do y’all assume adventurers to be at the bottom of the social ladder?

    Adventurers are, irrespective of other things, powerful. Powerful people tend to travel in the same circles as other powerful people, because that’s where they can make things happen and get stuff done. Whether a person’s power comes from their great coffers of gold, their skill with a weapon, or their degree from a magical University (in a system where merely getting a higher education at all is indicative of enormous privilege) makes little difference: they are all powerful and important people, and ought to be treated as such.

    It’s definitely possible to have a game where the adventurers are low class, poorly known rabble, but I don’t think it should be assumed to be the standard when the DMG (I might be wrong and it’s the player’s handbook, whichever one has the section on tiers of play) states that by level 5 players are generally taking part in adventures that impact the fates of kingdoms.
    Last edited by Potato_Priest; 2019-05-12 at 03:03 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by No brains View Post
    See, I remember the days of roleplaying before organisms could even see, let alone use see as a metaphor for comprehension. We could barely comprehend that we could comprehend things. Imagining we were something else was a huge leap forward and really passed the time in between absorbing nutrients.

    Biggest play I ever made: "I want to eat something over there." Anticipated the trope of "being able to move" that you see in all stories these days.

  28. - Top - End - #238
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    Quote Originally Posted by patchyman View Post
    However, adventurers are traditionally outsiders, who are already viewed with suspicion. And casting Charm person doesn’t mean that the wizard can incinerate the whole village, plus even wizards need to sleep.

    The level of magic in the setting and people’s understanding of it is also a factor. If magic is rare and wondrous, people might assume that someone who casts Charm person can call on substantially greater power, although they might also conclude that because they don’t understand it, they should attempt to destroy the caster just to be safe.
    In general, I disagree. Adventurers are outsiders, yes, and often they blow through town just like other merchants, wanderers, troubadours and troupes. It is often more effective and less risky to make the town passively inhospitable to the wanderer, in the hopes that they will pass through and away more quickly, rather than attempt to confront the stranger. After all, if you accuse a stranger outright of mind-meddling and sorcery, it is ultimately your word against his (although your neighbours are more likely to side with you than against you), and if you try and jump directly to ‘he’s a mind meddler and sorcerer, so we should kill him’, your neighbours will probably demand a slightly higher degree of proof.

    If you skip the ‘convince your neighbours’ part and simply try to stab the stranger in the night, well, that’s a murder. Even if it’s found to be justified, the reputation of a town that abides such behaviour will tank. You don’t want to be that creepy town that murders its visitors in the night. It’s not a good look.

  29. - Top - End - #239
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    If you skip the ‘convince your neighbours’ part and simply try to stab the stranger in the night, well, that’s a murder. Even if it’s found to be justified, the reputation of a town that abides such behaviour will tank. You don’t want to be that creepy town that murders its visitors in the night. It’s not a good look.
    If it was justified, it wouldn't be murder so why would the town's reputation take a hit? I'd much rather live in a town known for defending itself than one with a reputation of letting people come in to town, assault the inhabitants, and walk away unmolested. A town with that kind of reputation attracts the wrong sort of people.

  30. - Top - End - #240

    Default Re: Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

    I've heard people say that the closest real-world equivalent we have to adventurers were the Italian mercenary companies of the late Medieval and early Renaissance. Of course, the scale is a little different, as those companies usually were in the hundreds or even thousands of personnel while an adventuring party tends to cap out at six people. But the principle is the same: a group of heavily armed men swimming in cash and possibly already hired by the local lord have just rolled into town; do you want to be the one to mess with them? Especially the one that can throwing around balls of fire? While they're leaving you alone and minding their own business when they could easily rob you blind or more "subtly" extort you for money and goods if you ticked them off? Unless the lord of the land or his knights are in town, that answer is probably no.
    Last edited by Constructman; 2019-05-12 at 07:59 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •