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

[Frosty]

So, if altering yourself is ok, then let's say there's a spell which gives you +30 to Diplomacy, and you used that skill to get someone into bed, because gosh darn it, you're just that DARNED convincing for CL x 10 minutes. Would that be better than using Charm Person?

[Solo]

You're basically asking if it's ok to make yourself a sexy beast for 10 minutes?

[Cuddly]

Envision this scenario. A lonely high school guy can't get it on with girls, so he goes to a party, exposes a cheerleader with huge.... charisma to a mind altering substance, and retreats into the bedroom with her.

What do you think?

I call it a ****ing good party.

[Solo]

I call it a ****ing good party.

I shall invite your female relatives to the next one that I attend.

[Blanks]

Isn't there a big difference between "spell of gain charisma" and "charm person"?
In one, you are changing yourself, thereby changing the way people percieve you. In charm person, you are reaching into their brain and changing them.

Thats a big difference to me. Net results may be the same, but there is clearly a moral difference.


Oh, and as others have said, DnD have actions being good or evil independent of results. Torture is always bad.
But I think a lot of people play their games a little bit more sophisticated than what WotC planned...

[Ether]

1. Why is it ok to charm someone with wit and a sexy body but not with a carefully crafted charm spell? Both have the same net effect (charm isn't a date-rape drug).

Because with a Charm Spell you're infringing on a persons right to choose.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Because with a Charm Spell you're infringing on a persons right to choose.

Since we have established that wits and sexy body can alter favorably one's opinion, I think anything that you do to influence is infringing on a person's right to choose.

[Solo]

Since we have established that wits and sexy body can alter favorably one's opinion, I think anything that you do to influence is infringing on a person's right to choose.

If you are equating making yourself more charming to altering someone's mind so as to make yourself appear more charming...

Well, let's say the difference is like giving a kid a self esteem boosting talk and a makeover vs getting a girl drunk in order to charm her. And by "getting the girl drunk", I mean you force alcohol into her system, not allowing her the choice of whether to drink it or not.

Increasing your own attributes makes you more attractive, but the other person ultimately gets to choose whether or not to accept you as a friend or whatever.

Charm Person doesn't give that choice.

Yes, I know, by the rules a high diplomacy check is a trump card, but that's meta-knowledge.

Plus, I think in these kinds of discussions, where we have a hypothetical setting run by DnD rules, it is assumed that Gate-rape, candle of invocation exploits, Pun-Puning, and etc cheese do not exist.

[Starbuck_II]

Because with a Charm Spell you're infringing on a persons right to choose.

There are many psychologist that say we do not have free will. So Charm Person cannot take away what we do not have.

In fact, some will go as far to say that a coerced confession is valid because there is no confession given of your own will. It is the stimulus in your environent that caused it.

Philosophy classes showed me that. I don't agree, but they do have a point. If we do not, than Charm Person is not wrong.

[Solo]

There are many psychologist that say we do not have free will.

There are also many psychologists who say we do have free will. I think you forgot to mention that.

But in any case, assuming it is true about us not having free will, what would you think of someone who habitually drugged people in order to make friends/get laid?

He's not depriving them of free will, right? They never had it in the first place!

[SolkaTruesilver]

If you are equating making yourself more charming to altering someone's mind so as to make yourself appear more charming...

Well, let's say the difference is like giving a kid a self esteem boosting talk and a makeover vs getting a girl drunk in order to charm her. And by "getting the girl drunk", I mean you force alcohol into her system, not allowing her the choice of whether to drink it or not.

Increasing your own attributes makes you more attractive, but the other person ultimately gets to choose whether or not to accept you as a friend or whatever.

Charm Person doesn't give that choice.

Yes, I know, by the rules a high diplomacy check is a trump card, but that's meta-knowledge.

Plus, I think in these kinds of discussions, where we have a hypothetical setting run by DnD rules, it is assumed that Gate-rape, candle of invocation exploits, Pun-Puning, and etc cheese do not exist.

Solo, you keep comparing Charm Person with getting someone drunk to abuse of them. It's not the same thing at all.

Drunk: - You loose all coherent cognitive function
- You loose (probably) memories of what happens
- You get a huge headache in the following morning

Charm Person: - You retain all your cognitive functions
- You remember everything that happened
- No side effect

The only thing a Charm Person spell does is make someone consider you as his trusted friend. It's not even remotely like alchool. Or rape-drug. The victim still has a choice wether or not sleeping with you. Or to talk or not to you.

[Worira]

Solo, you keep comparing Charm Person with getting someone drunk to abuse of them. It's not the same thing at all.

Drunk: - You loose all coherent cognitive function
- You loose (probably) memories of what happens
- You get a huge headache in the following morning

Charm Person: - You retain all your cognitive functions
- You remember everything that happened
- No side effect

The only thing a Charm Person spell does is make someone consider you as his trusted friend. It's not even remotely like alchool. Or rape-drug. The victim still has a choice wether or not sleeping with you. Or to talk or not to you.

Again, you can issue orders. "Engage in sexual intercourse with me" is neither suicidal nor obviously harmful, so it's a valid order.

[Solo]

The reason i use alcohol is because it makes you more vulnerable to suggestions, like Charm Person, though Charm Person does more than alcohol can.

A better analogy could me made with some sort of mild mind control drug, but we don't have those.


Officially.

[Solo]

I fail to see why this debate is still on.

Just ask yourself this:

Would you like to be under the influence of Charm Person so that someone else can make you their friend?

If no, we can agree that Charm Person should probably not be used for the purposes that the OP described.

If yes, then well...

[SolkaTruesilver]

I fail to see why this debate is still on.

Just ask yourself this:

Would you like to be under the influence of Charm Person so that someone else can make you their friend?

If no, we can agree that Charm Person should probably not be used for the purposes that the OP described.

If yes, then well...

I suggest we say : Would you like to know you have been under the influence of Charm Person so that someone else can make you their friend?

Since, when you actually ARE under the influence, I don't think you have a choice to like it..

Personnally, I'd say: it depends. If I remember that person simply hanged around and had a nice chat with me, then I wouldn't really care. If that person abused my friendship, then I would not like it afterward.

[Solo]

I suggest we say : Would you like to know you have been under the influence of Charm Person so that someone else can make you their friend?

Since, when you actually ARE under the influence, I don't think you have a choice to like it..

Personnally, I'd say: it depends. If I remember that person simply hanged around and had a nice chat with me, then I wouldn't really care. If that person abused my friendship, then I would not like it afterward.

Well, since you get a will save, I think you'd know someone cast a spell on you.

So, you're saying as long as no one harms you, you're ok with giving them control over you?

[SolkaTruesilver]

Well, since you get a will save, I think you'd know someone cast a spell on you.(1)

So, you're saying as long as no one harms you, you're ok with giving them control over (2) you?

(1) I'd say not. After all, it would ruin the purpose of the spell if the person knew he was being manipulated.

(2) They are not "gaining control over me", the guy MADE HIMSELF MY FRIEND. I do not have to obey his every order! I still have my life, I still have to go to work, have my other friends, my interests, etc..

If he made me his thrall, then sure, that's outright bad. But in the scope of what the spell actually does, then I don't really care, as long as he doesn't use the new friendship for things that would harm me, or make me regret. What do I actually care? It's not like I usually have any choice over who I like and who I don't. I just usually do, period.

[Blanks]

Come on, saying perfume and charm person is just silly. Just like questioning the existence of free will.

Maybe you don't believe in free will, perhaps you do, but its really not relevant to the discussion...

Perfume and charm person is NOT the same (would you object if all your spell slots were switched with perfume bottles?)

[Solo]

(1) I'd say not. After all, it would ruin the purpose of the spell if the person knew he was being manipulated.

So, when someone makes a will save, does he know he's being hit with a spell?
[
quote]
(2) They are not "gaining control over me", the guy MADE HIMSELF MY FRIEND. I do not have to obey his every order! I still have my life, I still have to go to work, have my other friends, my interests, etc..[/QUOTE]

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do.

No, you do not have to obey his every order. However, he can still order you about.

[Flickerdart]

Wait a moment.

If Charisma equals...er, all kinds of attractiveness, does "Eagle's Splendour" function like an "Alter Self" of sorts?

[Blanks]

(1) I'd say not. After all, it would ruin the purpose of the spell if the person knew he was being manipulated.

Agreed

(2) They are not "gaining control over me", the guy MADE HIMSELF MY FRIEND. I do not have to obey his every order! I still have my life, I still have to go to work, have my other friends, my interests, etc..

He can get you to do things you normally wouldn't with an ability check. Thats a form of control.

And lets be clear about this:
He is not your friend!
He makes you think he is your friend, but really he could hate you like the plague. Describing it as a normal friendship is misrepresenting the facts - If it was a normal friendship, he wouldn't need the spell!


EDIT:
Removed a quote to focus my message

[SolkaTruesilver]

No, you do not have to obey his every order. However, he can still order you about.

Yhea, with opposed charisma check, I know.

But as I said earlier, the only thing he do (and the only thing the OP was talking about) was simply hanging out with you. No sex involved, nothing else. Merely be friends, be it artificial friendship or not.

I wouldn't really much care about it. Since, in the inside of the spell, I'm alongside a friend, why would I care? In the outside of the spell, the memories I have of the time spent with the guy are good memories. Off course, if he shows up again, he would probably want to charm me again if he wants me to tolerate him.

[Ziren]

Yhea, with opposed charisma check, I know.

But as I said earlier, the only thing he do (and the only thing the OP was talking about) was simply hanging out with you. No sex involved, nothing else. Merely be friends, be it artificial friendship or not.

I wouldn't really much care about it. Since, in the inside of the spell, I'm alongside a friend, why would I care? In the outside of the spell, the memories I have of the time spent with the guy are good memories. Off course, if he shows up again, he would probably want to charm me again if he wants me to tolerate him.

So, you as a person, that isn't magicaly and mind-altering influenced, would care whether you had spent the time with a real friend or just someone who tricked you into believing he/she would be your friend.

And you're seriously arguing it wouldn't be unethical?

EDIT: Paraphrased the first sentence for clarity.

[SolkaTruesilver]

So you as a person without any magical and mind-altering influence would care whether you had spent the time with a real friend or someone who tricked you into believing he/she would be your friend.

And you're seriously arguing it wouldn't be unethical?

yup. Since I the only thing I lost in the process is my so-called free will to choose whom I like (something we already have established isn't "that" much of a free will; you can't choose who you like and who you don't). I don't really think it's that much of unethical thing to do. You are all freaking over the "loss of free-will", personnally, I don't really think there is such thing (not on the mind-scape you think it exists, anyway). We are already conditionned by our environnement anyway.

[Flickerdart]

From the perspective of the victim, they didn't have anything forced upon them. They truly have spent time with a good friend. Now, the Dominates specifically state that the person is under your full control, which is pretty unethical (for any Good being, at least), and since they get saves to resist it could be postulated they are aware of the compulsion.

I assume Suggestion functions in much the same way as Charm? It seems to require a reasonable request to begin with, though the person wouldn't regard you as a friend, and may likely regret doing whatever you wanted them to later on.

[Solo]

yup. Since I the only thing I lost in the process is my so-called free will to choose whom I like (something we already have established isn't "that" much of a free will; you can't choose who you like and who you don't).

I beg to differ. I definitely choose whom I like and dislike.

Tell me, how is one not able to choose whom one dislikes or likes?

You're fighting an uphill battle against reality, you know.

[Ziren]

yup. Since I the only thing I lost in the process is my so-called free will to choose whom I like (something we already have established isn't "that" much of a free will; you can't choose who you like and who you don't). I don't really think it's that much of unethical thing to do. You are all freaking over the "loss of free-will", personnally, I don't really think there is such thing (not on the mind-scape you think it exists, anyway). We are already conditionned by our environnement anyway.

The thing is, charm makes you friendly towards the caster, no matter what. You probably have lost friends of yours in real life (I can tell you that I have), because some day you discovered that they have become or always been *insert swearword of your choice*. Charm doesn't give you the choice to dismiss the friendship, even if keeping it up hurts more than ending it.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I beg to differ. I definitely choose whom I like and dislike.

Tell me, how is one not able to choose whom one dislikes or likes?

You're fighting an uphill battle against reality, you know.

I am totally not. You have you chosen if you like chocolate? If you like D&D? No, you just did. Some people don't like those things, but they never got to "choose"

It's the same with other people. Person X will like person Z, while person Y won't. Why? Because person Z have the kind of personnaly that makes him likable to X but not to Y.

You don't get to choose your own tastes, Solo. Get over it. You may (for example) get to like something (I would like to use a culinary example: arpergis). If you get exposed often ennough to the thing, you might get to grow fond of it, and eventually like it. That's one of the few example where your actually CHOSED to like something (for good or bad reason, ex: health). But except for that single event, you never have the opportunity to decide what you like in life and what you don't.

You just like them or not.

[Solo]

So, you align yourself with the Behaviorists? As noted as B.F. Skinner was, his theories have not been conclusively proven. Other schools of psychology have different views on our freedom of will and of choice.

[SolkaTruesilver]

So, you align yourself with the Behaviorists? As noted as B.F. Skinner was, his theories have not been conclusively proven. Other schools of psychology have different views on our freedom of will and of choice.

I can't answer that question, since I have not real knowledge of those schools of toughts.