"But I just wanted to be liked!" Charm Person and ethics

[Counterpower]

If all you're doing is using it to make temporary friends just to make yourself feel good, then it's probably not evil (though it's shortsighted to use magic as a crutch).

I can't say I agree with that. As I see it, you're overriding the free will of another person for your own personal benefit. It may not be a material benefit, but it's still a benefit.

[SolkaTruesilver]

People do have the right to choose who they associate with, and if they don't want to be friends with you, I don't think it's right to essentially force them to like you.

[...]

And as much as we agree on what isn't acceptable with charm or domination abilities, I still think that the spells override the free will and ability to decide that most people, I think, take for granted. I think that like any right, those shouldn't be denied to a person without very good reason.

I think that someone who is denied free will, but not realising it, is not denied anything. Would you regret loosing something you don't know you even have?

I am not saying it's the RIGHT thing to do, but I am looking at the interpersonnal perspective. I am denying an ASPECT of someone's free will. I am not enthralling him. The sole thing I am denying him, is if he likes me or not. But the thing is, he doesn't realize that he doesn't like me. I am just that great guy he just met, and he feels good around me.

I think the whole Charm would fall into a "chaotic" alignement definition rather than an evil one. You can use charms for good or evil, but in every single act you use it, you are tricking someone, which is a chaotic act.

(btw, Counterpower, my character was CN. On the long run, all of my character's motivation was self-centered. (we were playing in a "conquered land" setting). He didn't joined The Resistance because he felt his homeland should be free, but because he knew they could save his ass. He was very, very careful about using Charm person because he KNEW that his powers were limited. If someone "awoke" (spell ending) and realized he acted irrationnaly (like, slept with him for no good reason, or given his family heirloom), he would suspect something. My character didn't wanted to give anyone any impression, except that he was a "great guy". His motives were.. egoist, but he did cared for other people, even if, at the end, it was to help himself.)

(read: a king without his pawn is no king at all)

believe it or not, SolkaTruesilver, your character is precisely what inspired this thread.

You spoke of using your Charm Person on the barbarian PC every morning to keep him your bodyguard and that just got me thinking about it.

Think of it in a different way, does this make the Jedi mind trick also far more questionable?

I had the intuition that it was the source, but I never assume anything

But to my character's defence, as I said earlier, he cared a lot about whi charmed "bodyguard". If what I said about King and Pawns is true, then you should consider the "bodyguard" as my Queen. He was my center-piece, my glass cannon. My character did everything he could to make his bodyguard happy and safe. (the player wasn't a dummy, but his character was. We agreed that when his character acted "intelligent", it was because my character suggested it to him).

Since we were in a "conquered land", the Barbarian would stand out and be killed quite easily if my character had not encountered him randomly, and "coached" him into subtility.

So, I'd say: Lost Free Will while ignoring you had it = Overrated

[Blanks]

it's pretty evil (or at least unlawful.)

Lets not go there in this thread, we will be derailed in no time

If all you're doing is using it to make temporary friends just to make yourself feel good, then it's probably not evil (though it's shortsighted to use magic as a crutch). If you use those new "friends" to obtain something selfish, then it becomes evil and tainted with greed of the caster.

So if I use my gun to murder people im evil, but if I just use it to scare people im good?

I know thats a different version but really, isn't it the same in a lot of ways?
What if someone really loathe your ideas and don't want to be near you because they think your ideas are evil (whatever they may be). If you force them to like you, aren't you in some way doing way more damage than a fireball ever could?

[SolkaTruesilver]

I know thats a different version but really, isn't it the same in a lot of ways?
What if someone really loathe your ideas and don't want to be near you because they think your ideas are evil (whatever they may be). If you force them to like you, aren't you in some way doing way more damage than a fireball ever could?

Not really. You are not forcing your ideas upon him. You are not destroying anything in his life. You are simply making yourself his "friend". It's even possible that while he considers you his friend, he knows he shouldn't hand out around with you, because his other friends wouldn't approve. A charm person do not make that person like you above any other.

[AKA_Bait]

I think that someone who is denied free will, but not realising it, is not denied anything. Would you regret loosing something you don't know you even have?

I don't think it's an issue of regret, it's an issue of rights. Consdier a parallel example with the right to property (since we are talking about the right to Freedom of Association here)

A wealthy man falls into a coma. He has a living will which puts the investment firm of Dewey, Cheetum and Howe in charge of managing his funds. They do a really good job and his money doubles during the time he is in the coma. Are they morally in the clear to take the profits for themselves? The unconscious man doesn't know he ever had the extra money and can't regret losing it.

[Blanks]

Not really. You are not forcing your ideas upon him. You are not destroying anything in his life. You are simply making yourself his "friend". It's even possible that while he considers you his friend, he knows he shouldn't hand out around with you, because his other friends wouldn't approve. A charm person do not make that person like you above any other.

He regards you as:
"A trusted friend and ally", percieving your words "in the most favourable way". I would say that is above most other...

And regarding him not having lost anything to not knowing it:

I am not saying it's the RIGHT thing to do, but I am looking at the interpersonnal perspective. I am denying an ASPECT of someone's free will. I am not enthralling him. The sole thing I am denying him, is if he likes me or not. But the thing is, he doesn't realize that he doesn't like me. I am just that great guy he just met, and he feels good around me.

Here is a little story (exaggeration promotes understanding is a danish phrase :) )
I use domination to kidnap you and bring you to a prison, where I alter your mind to forget your family and friends and steal all your belongings. Afterwards I charm you to regard me as your best friend, while having you lead the life of a slave, which you, in your altered state, percieves as normal.

Just because someone dont know they have lost something, doesn't mean they haven't lost it!

[Azerian Kelimon]

I think that someone who is denied free will, but not realising it, is not denied anything. Would you regret loosing something you don't know you even have?

Aah, a derivative of the flawed parable that is The Grand Inquisitor, yes?

Short answer? Yes.

Long answer? Yes, because you're manipulating my life and mind, and I'm no longer me, but a wretched, pathetic puppet subject to your truly vile desires. I'll live, suffer, die, or enter immortality through a blaze of glory in my own way, thank you very much.

This has the same flaw as The Grand Inquisitor, which puts you between two choices: Happy ignorance, or unhappy knowledge.

Problem is, it doesn't work that way. It is true that knowledge takes Happyness away...but to compensate, it brings peace. Thus, you stand to benefit from knowledge, under all cases.

[Counterpower]

I think that someone who is denied free will, but not realising it, is not denied anything. Would you regret loosing something you don't know you even have?

Would I be able to regret it? Probably not, if I didn't know any better. Would that mean I haven't been denied anything? Absolutely not. If the slaves don't even know what freedom or justice are, having been born into bondage, have they still been denied their freedom? I firmly believe that there are fundamental rights that all people are entitled to, and that the right to choose what one does is one of those. As with all rights, it does have limits, but denying it to people for the sake of being more popular falls firmly into unacceptable territory.

I am not saying it's the RIGHT thing to do, but I am looking at the interpersonnal perspective. I am denying an ASPECT of someone's free will. I am not enthralling him. The sole thing I am denying him, is if he likes me or not. But the thing is, he doesn't realize that he doesn't like me. I am just that great guy he just met, and he feels good around me.

I can understand that a little. Personally, possibly because I just finished four years of it, I'm still on the "high school drama" idea here, where most of the people I would be charming would rather not associate with me otherwise.

But you don't think that that person has the right to decide what they think of you? Again speaking personally here, I'd rather be liked for who I am as opposed to being liked automatically.

I think the whole Charm would fall into a "chaotic" alignement definition rather than an evil one. You can use charms for good or evil, but in every single act you use it, you are tricking someone, which is a chaotic act.

I honestly don't think charm is evil or chaotic or anything. As with any tool, the use you put it to decides the alignment connotations.

(btw, Counterpower, my character was CN. On the long run, all of my character's motivation was self-centered. (we were playing in a "conquered land" setting). He didn't joined The Resistance because he felt his homeland should be free, but because he knew they could save his ass. He was very, very careful about using Charm person because he KNEW that his powers were limited. If someone "awoke" (spell ending) and realized he acted irrationnaly (like, slept with him for no good reason, or given his family heirloom), he would suspect something. My character didn't wanted to give anyone any impression, except that he was a "great guy". His motives were.. egoist, but he did cared for other people, even if, at the end, it was to help himself.)

I agree, that does sound CN. Like I said, I think I may be stuck on the "high school drama" model here, which is different than what you're describing.

But to my character's defence, as I said earlier, he cared a lot about whi charmed "bodyguard". If what I said about King and Pawns is true, then you should consider the "bodyguard" as my Queen. He was my center-piece, my glass cannon. My character did everything he could to make his bodyguard happy and safe. (the player wasn't a dummy, but his character was. We agreed that when his character acted "intelligent", it was because my character suggested it to him).

Since we were in a "conquered land", the Barbarian would stand out and be killed quite easily if my character had not encountered him randomly, and "coached" him into subtility.

Frankly, it sounds like you didn't need the charm spell at all. Isn't friendship based primarily on mutual respect and care for one another? I guess it's a little harder than that with a barbarian, but I find it hard to believe that you'd need a charm spell to keep him as a friend when it seems like you cared for him so much.

So, I'd say: Lost Free Will while ignoring you had it = Overrated

And as I see it, it's still a denial of a right that one doesn't deserve to lose simply for the sake of another friend. What's wrong with making friends without coercing them into it?

[Blanks]

I should perhaps add, that your description of the game with the barbarian is what i would describe as "mature and well thought out character interaction". And a little bit evil on your characters part.

I really like the idea of someone using magic to gain friends, and I am considering using that idea for a villain in my current campaign

[AKA_Bait]

I really like the idea of someone using magic to gain friends, and I am considering using that idea for a villain in my current campaign

I've already used it for a misguided budding sorcerer NPC. It's an interesting concept and problem. I mean, what teenager wouldn't be very tempted to win his crushes affections with a spell?

[Blanks]

I mean, what teenager wouldn't be very tempted to win his crushes affections with a spell?

You could easily have said what human wouldn't be temptet. But the really interesting question would be who would give in to the temptation?

[BloodyAngel]

Anyone mind if I throw a woman's opinion in here?

Too bad, because I'm going to...

Charm Person, as I have always run it... makes the person as friendly as possible to the target, but does not enforce any sort of real mind control... it manipulated emotion. Getting people to like you, I do not see as right or wrong... it is what you DO with that fondness that can be good or bad.

For instance, in my games, a bard who charms a woman and suggests she sleep with him will not always do so. Charm Person gives you a new best friend, and as we are all aware... not everyone is willing to sleep with their best friend. If the woman in question is chaste, married or otherwise against the idea of doing something of that nature with you... she is still against the idea when she is charmed. Due to the charm however, she may feel bad about telling you no, and you'll get the "Let's just be friends" speech. Likewise, charming a non-combatant character and asking him to bodyguard you probably won't work well. Now Dominate Person would work for all of those things... but dominating someone to sleep with you or die for you ARE evil.

I play controller-type characters a lot. It's fun to be seductive, manipulative, and sneaky. But I've also always run charm to be less mind control and more a way to sway people. A charmed enemy won't want to hurt you, and will seek every way possible to avoid it... but he will also not do anything foolish or likely to get himself hurt. In short, it's a case by case thing. I think if it would be evil to use bluff or diplomacy to get someone to do something, it's evil to charm them to do it. If a girl is already the type who isn't against a one-night-stand... and that charm spell makes her choose you... it's a neutral act, not an evil one. On a girl who is waiting for marriage and doesn't want to have sex... the charm person roofie just wouldn't work. It would probably just make her apologize for saying no, and sit down with you to talk about your feelings. If she's actually looking for a man, but against sex before marriage, it might get the slick bard proposed to... Hilarity ensues.

[Roderick_BR]

You are forcing someone to do something they don't want to. That's a form of slavery, that, in many societies, is considered evil and wrong.
It's just a step from effects like dominate.

For extra meany points, have said teen wizard do it, and when the effect wears off, have the cheerleader outburst on him, saying how she actually liked him before, but now with this violation, she hates him forever. Even better, she had some errands to run, but because she spent time with him with her mind dominated, she missed the chance, and some one-in-a-lifetime opportunity is now lost forever for her.
I'm not Jewish, but I have the Craft Guilt feat

[Tsotha-lanti]

If you charmed someone into putting their weapon down so no one got hurt in a battle, or charmed a king into calling off a war, maybe you could wrangle it under "bad stuff for a good purpose", but not charming the cheerleaders so you can get sweet sweet nookie.

"Maybe" ? So you think it's morally more acceptable to kill enemies?

Charm person is force, but it's non-lethal force. It is not morally okay to use non-lethal force to get better deals or advance personal relationships, but it is morally very okay to use non-lethal force to subdue attackers, criminals, and the like. As a combat tool, it's always more moral than just about all other options.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Frankly, it sounds like you didn't need the charm spell at all. Isn't friendship based primarily on mutual respect and care for one another? I guess it's a little harder than that with a barbarian, but I find it hard to believe that you'd need a charm spell to keep him as a friend when it seems like you cared for him so much.

And as I see it, it's still a denial of a right that one doesn't deserve to lose simply for the sake of another friend. What's wrong with making friends without coercing them into it?

That's a chicken-and-the-egg problem. You assume that I wanted his good welfare whatever happens to him. Not so.

I wanted the good welfare of my pawn. Look at it this way: my character grew up and discovered his powers to charm. He is somewhat socially insecure (9 of wisdom), even if he is of keen intelligence (17) and well-liked (19 of charisma). He is not good at reading people. He prefers to charm someone into liking him rather than risk having that person lie to him.

The same with the barbarian (actually, he was a fighter). Solka simply did not wanted to risk having Verag (the half-orc) turn on him. He knew, that whatever happens between them. That whatever poison is spilled into Verag's ear (because Solka had political ennemies in the Resistance), Verag would always be truly loyal. You can convince a friend's heart to turn away. You cannot convince an enchantment to falter.

(That was Solka's point of view. God I loved this character)

Off course, Solka also grew to like Verag's... simplicity of mind. Verag was simply devoid of duplicity, and Solka liked it. So he somewhat had him protected.. by keeping sure the magic did it's work.

[elliott20]

Anyone mind if I throw a woman's opinion in here?

Too bad, because I'm going to...

Charm Person, as I have always run it... makes the person as friendly as possible to the target, but does not enforce any sort of real mind control... it manipulated emotion. Getting people to like you, I do not see as right or wrong... it is what you DO with that fondness that can be good or bad.

For instance, in my games, a bard who charms a woman and suggests she sleep with him will not always do so. Charm Person gives you a new best friend, and as we are all aware... not everyone is willing to sleep with their best friend. If the woman in question is chaste, married or otherwise against the idea of doing something of that nature with you... she is still against the idea when she is charmed. Due to the charm however, she may feel bad about telling you no, and you'll get the "Let's just be friends" speech. Likewise, charming a non-combatant character and asking him to bodyguard you probably won't work well. Now Dominate Person would work for all of those things... but dominating someone to sleep with you or die for you ARE evil.

I play controller-type characters a lot. It's fun to be seductive, manipulative, and sneaky. But I've also always run charm to be less mind control and more a way to sway people. A charmed enemy won't want to hurt you, and will seek every way possible to avoid it... but he will also not do anything foolish or likely to get himself hurt. In short, it's a case by case thing. I think if it would be evil to use bluff or diplomacy to get someone to do something, it's evil to charm them to do it. If a girl is already the type who isn't against a one-night-stand... and that charm spell makes her choose you... it's a neutral act, not an evil one. On a girl who is waiting for marriage and doesn't want to have sex... the charm person roofie just wouldn't work. It would probably just make her apologize for saying no, and sit down with you to talk about your feelings. If she's actually looking for a man, but against sex before marriage, it might get the slick bard proposed to... Hilarity ensues.

This actually reminds me of another wrinkle in this whole concept. Charm Person makes them friendly to you, which means that effectively, you gain a bit of a bonus when asking them for stuff. again, wrinkle.

[Tokiko Mima]

I can't say I agree with that. As I see it, you're overriding the free will of another person for your own personal benefit. It may not be a material benefit, but it's still a benefit.

Magic generally benefits the caster. If you charm someone but don't manipulate them to your advantage, how is it more beneficial than casting Eagle's Splendor on yourself? How is it different than if a Diplomancer talked to them with their 100+ Diplomacy skill?

So if I use my gun to murder people im evil, but if I just use it to scare people im good?

I know thats a different version but really, isn't it the same in a lot of ways?
What if someone really loathe your ideas and don't want to be near you because they think your ideas are evil (whatever they may be). If you force them to like you, aren't you in some way doing way more damage than a fireball ever could?

Being 'not evil' is different than being good. Intimidating people is generally not as evil as murdering them (I'm sure there are exceptions) and not every mental intrusion is necessarily to the victim detriment. Intimidation and to some extent killing are practiced by both angels and fiends.

As well, it has to be a very unusual situation for actual harm to come to someone just because they befriend someone with radically different ideas. Admittedly there does exist a small possiblity that a person could come to harm from Charm Person, and that makes it the casters responsibility to look out for his charmed temporary allies, just as a summoner is responsible for the damage his summoned creatures cause. It's not the power itself, it's how it's being used that makes it good or evil.

For example, suppose I'm a Chaotic Good Warlock with the Charm at will invocation. Instead of using it to create an army to fight against the evil warlord, I use it to simply take the warlords forcefully conscripted enemy soldiers out of the fight instead of having to Eldritch Blast them to death. In this case, haven't I prevented a great deal of harm and performed good deeds with my Charm ability?

[Solo]

Magic generally benefits the caster. If you charm someone but don't manipulate them to your advantage, how is it more beneficial than casting Eagle's Splendor on yourself? How is it different than if a Diplomancer talked to them with their 100+ Diplomacy skill?

Eagle's Splendor doesn't involve assaulting someone's mental defenses, and Diplomacy is talking them into something by being persuasive. Same result, but different means.

[Tokiko Mima]

Eagle's Splendor doesn't involve assaulting someone's mental defenses, and Diplomacy is talking them into something by being persuasive. Same result, but different means.

Exactly. There's little difference in results between talking someone you've never met before (and likely will never see again) into being your friend, and charming them. One way batters down mental defenses, whereas the other two batter down social defenses.

[AKA_Bait]

Exactly. There's little difference in results between talking someone you've never met before (and likely will never see again) into being your friend, and charming them. One way batters down mental defenses, whereas the other two batter down social defenses.

You don't think the means are important? I can get almost exactly the same results from falling down a flight of stairs and having the snot kicked out of me by some thugs. Are the acts morally the same?

[SolkaTruesilver]

You don't think the means are important? I can get almost exactly the same results from falling down a flight of stairs and having the snot kicked out of me by some thugs. Are the acts morally the same?

If both events were caused by someone wishing you harm, then yes.

[MartinHarper]

He regards you as:
"A trusted friend and ally", percieving your words "in the most favourable way". I would say that is above most other...

I have many trusted friends. Most of whom I wouldn't sleep with.

[Seffbasilisk]

I had a player once who spammed Charm Person on barwenches and attempted to sleep with them, all while arguing that it wasn't evil.

I knocked him down to neutral for that.

It's like spiking someone's drinks all night, then pulling them into a bedroom.
Evil.


I second Solo.

[Ziren]

Charm Person is basically emotional manipulation without the need of knowledge about human psychology, that is normally necessary to pull it off.

So, when would emotional manipulation be acceptable in real life? To resolve a hostage situation? Yes. To get people to like you for no real reason? No, no and no.

[Emperor Tippy]

Charm doesn't make them want to sleep with you. Or do anything like that. It makes you a trusted friend who's opinion they value. Is it good to use charm person to make someone your friend? No. But is it evil? No, as they still have free will. The fact that their perceptions have changed doesn't mean they don't have free will.

Now Dominate, Mind Rape, and Programmed Amnesia are another story. Dominating a criminal to make him drop his gun is good. Mind Raping/Programmed Amnesiaing a criminal to rebuild him so that he doesn't commit crimes and is a hard working, productive member of society is good or neutral. But using them for selfish reasons is evil. The target doesn't have free will, you are making them a slave.

[SolkaTruesilver]

So, when would emotional manipulation be acceptable in real life? To resolve a hostage situation? Yes. To get people to like you for no real reason? No, no and no.

That is totally untrue. People have an intuitive knowledge of how to make other people like them. Other can learn how to make other people like them. It's all a matter of some sort of manipulation. It's no more immoral. You aren't taking anything from anyone. Friendship doesn'T cost anything to anyone.

Yhea, the person "isn't given the choice", but trully, what does that person loose when you merely wants him to be your friend? Nothing. Now, if you used the magic to get something out of them, that would be bad. But except for that, you simply ask something to someone which has no consequence on their lives.

[AKA_Bait]

Yhea, the person "isn't given the choice", but trully, what does that person loose when you merely wants him to be your friend? Nothing. Now, if you used the magic to get something out of them, that would be bad. But except for that, you simply ask something to someone which has no consequence on their lives.

I take it that you think the choice itself has no value. Personally, I consider the choice to like or dislike a person, and to trust or not trust a person, to have immense value indpendant of any physical consequences.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I take it that you think the choice itself has no value. Personally, I consider the choice to like or dislike a person, and to trust or not trust a person, to have immense value indpendant of any physical consequences.

Actually, I find the spell to be a good thing. Take into account two possibilities, which depend on your basic tastes, which you don'T totally control:

1- You like someone, which brings your something good in your life. This has a positive value on your life (+)

2- You dislike, or are totally neutral to that person. Which brings either a negative (-) or totally nullyfied (0) value to your live.

Charm person makes it always a + for the "victims" of the caster. These person now have another person they like in their lives, and maybe someone less they disliked/were neutral to.

The person won't loose their older friends. They won't loose anything material. They won't violate their own moral code. They will simply have more positive feeling toward people around him (specially the caster).

It turns a random-choice based on your basic tastes to an always-good feeling. Tell me how you are loosing, except for your so-adored "free will to dislike someone"?

It's not even you are forced to hang out with someone you dislike in your inner self. YOU LIKE HANGING WITH HIM! That's the magical trick! It's not even a nuisance for you anymore! What did you lost in your life? Bitterness?

[Ziren]

That is totally untrue. People have an intuitive knowledge of how to make other people like them. Other can learn how to make other people like them. It's all a matter of some sort of manipulation. It's no more immoral. You aren't taking anything from anyone. Friendship doesn'T cost anything to anyone.

Okay, but Charm Person is emotional manipulation on a "Pick Up Artist"-level.

You know, your explanation does sound a lot like the excuse rapists try to use: "The victim likes sex, so by having sex with him/her, I was doing him/her a favour."
Just because people like to have friends that doesn't mean that they like to be your friend.

[AKA_Bait]

It turns a random-choice based on your basic tastes to an always-good feeling. Tell me how you are loosing, except for your so-adored "free will to dislike someone"?

Here is where we disagree. My attitude toward a person is not just a random choice based upon my basic tastes. There are some people in this world I simply do not, and cannot, respect or consider a trusted friend and ally.

They needn't have done anything to me, personally. They might have done something to someone I know. They might be in a profession I find abhorrent (example: crack dealer).

I don't want to be friendly towards these people, not just as a matter of personal desire but also because I believe that people who behave in the ways I find abhorrent enough to want to shun shouldn't have friends. I don't want to be seen being friendly to them. I don't want others to be friendly to them. In those cases I want to be part of the social pressure put upon a person to change their behavior, even if they behavior has not harmed or threatened me, specifically.

There are lots of things I would do for a 'trusted friend and ally'. There are other people in this world I would not so much as pick up a peice of paper for. Charm Person would strip me of that choice.

What did you lost in your life?

The ability to make my own value judgments about the person casting the spell. To me, that's far more important than an artificial friend.