Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Nagol]

<snip>

The cannot...not in a High Magic, High Fantasy system such as D&D where resource scheduling, and inherent balance, is all over the map (pre 4e). You can fully contrive situations to impose sharing the spotlight but the two parties won't be sharing in a way the characters will and means. They'll be sharing due to GM-forced, contrived situations that either bind spellcasters' unbeleivably disproportionate locus of control or make the task not worth the spellcaster player's time/effort to deploy a spell because there is absolutely no way for those two parties to dictate outcomes with the same breadth and potency...that is within the strictures of the above.

You can, but it does involve difficulty.


The problem is as you've identified one of the continuum Mundane <--------------------------------------------------------------------> Fantastical and where PC action can fall based on the game's overarching conception of what the character can affect.

There are three ways to fight it.

1. Define different masks where actions may fall on the continuum, for example, imagine defining effects in the game world according to 24 positions on the continuum and assigning each class 8 full effect, 8 partial effect, and 8 no effect points. Each class has a type of situation is it best in, but there is a large overlap in the middle. This is a game design solution and difficult to overlay on a game's existing preconceptions.
   
   

   M<-------------------->F
   FFFFFFFFFffffffff--------
   rrRRRRRRRRrrrrrr--------
   ccccCCCCCCCCcccc--------
   ----wwwwWWWWWWWWwwww----

2. Provide access to more fantastical elements outside the base PC definition for the players to take advantage of -- magic items, organisations, fantastical locales. The adventure is on a cloud castle how do the PCs get there? The Wizard can fly them up or the Rogue could plant his magic beans and climb the resulting beanstalk... This is a DM controlled solution as he has to provide the in-game resources. The game system can help or hinder this solution by making the resources fungible -- I struggled with this under 3.5 because the players sold the miscellaneous magic items in favour of augmenting their best scores and the game gave very high intrinsic value to fantastical ability items compared with "better number" items.
3. Extend the expected "mundane" abilities into the fantastical, in effect playing a more mythic campaign. This is a table solution and may end up falling into game design as well depending on how far you extend.

 

[N'raac]

My own experience is that, under classic D&D paradigms, it is typically easier for players of casters to get into this ahead of players of non-casters: in part because the players of casters have better resources for doing this (via their spells) - better in terms of both effectiveness and reliability - and in part because caster PCs tend to have better stats for this sort of stuff (esp mental rather than physical stats).

So, what, first you want to invest all of your character resources in being a big, huking brute, sacrificing wit, charm and insight to do so. Then you want to be a forceful, respected leader in the campaign world. These seem inconsistent to me. I would expect that the ability to influence people would be largely CHA-based. About the only reasonable exception I perceive would be intimiation-based interaction, an arena the game has decided to base on CHA (which I think is also a reasonable approach).

Leadership does not presently require high CHA to take, although it is (and should be) influenced by CHA. But Leadership's primary function seems to be that Cohort, and the addition of Cohorts is not welcome in a lot of groups. Now, what about a second feat, designed to provide larger numbers of low level, low power followers, and not provide cohorts? This would then be the feat one would take to build, say, a Mage College, a private army, a thieves' guild (or a merchant's guilt, for that matter) or a religious congregation? Perhaps we simply move the Followers down, say, 6 spaces on the chart ( so Leadership Level 4 attracts 5 L1 followers - that's average CHA at the earliest point you can take the feat) and the Cohort 4 lines up 4 levels (only at 6th do you get a cohort - so you need an above average CHA for this at L4, and even then you get a low level cohort).

Let's also add that the Cohort is not an adventuring companion, but a sub-leader. A junior officer, sergeant at arms, college registrar or what have you - your right hand man, certainly, but not in adventuring, in your private influence.

Ultimately, the game is about choices. If you choose to dedicate all your character resources to being the biggest, toughest, meanest, most powerful monster killer possible, then that is where you chose to focus, and that is the area where you will be able to succeed. If you are not prepared to dedicate any resources to any other activity, then you should not be surprised that you are not good at those activities, and may have to rely on your teammates when the challenges enter those arenas.

Now, maybe I'm a Mean Old GM, but I don't see the wizard, say, having such huge advantages in this arena. He can dump CHA, just like the fighter, without impairing his combat functionality (that Sorcerer has an advantage here). He probably focuses his skills on Spellcraft, UMD and esoteric Knowledge, and has no interaction skills. He can probably spare some skill points for interaction skills (an advantage not shared by the sorcerer), but they're still cross-class.

Sure, he can Charm someone. At least in my games, a Charm Person spell is not "diplomacy". A Fighter can threaten his life, or others he cares for. A person aproached by a persuasive (or not so persuasive) request may accept, or may reject, based on the diplomacy results. He's unlikely to be offended by the attempt. But a Charm spell is not diplomacy. First, you are casting a spell, a pretty obvious action. If the target does save, don't expect the target's response to be anything positive. If he does not, he is still not going to be happy when the enchantment wears off and his mind is no longer ensorcled. Just like those extortion efforts by the fighter or rogue are unlikely to carry a long-term result of a friendly ally.

And let's assume you have, and can maintain, Charm on the Duke. Do his existing allies suspect nothing? Does the spellcaster lack a reputation for these abilities (whether deserved from prior history, or uneserved because "everyone knows" wizards do that sort of thing)? Dispel Magic won't eliminate my successful efforts at diplomacy which have built a relationship of trust and friendship with the Duke, nor does Detect Magic raise cause for suspicion. They're pretty effective against that Charmed Person.

For me, the comparison needs to be between (say) casting a Passwall spell and pulling out your trusty pick and crowbar; or (say) casting a Hold Monster spell and wrestling the dragon to the ground bare-handed. That is to say, calling out "Stop thief!" should have some chance of working, but the person with the feat/ability should, in mechanical terms, be guaranteed a far easier time of it.

There are at least three ways, within D&D action resolution, that I can think of to make things easier: (1) less expensive in the action economy; (2) costs less gp; (3) requires an easier die roll (or perhaps none at all).

Investment in a feat is investment of character resources, so sure. You can already Skill Focus your diplomacy, and Negotiator will add a further +2. More feats, or feat chains, linked to skills and other noncombat activities would help, but again, this means redirecting resources from that "Hulking Brute" (or "Potent caster") structure to be good at something else. For the Fighter, that means giving up some combat prowess for non-combat abilities. That could include investing in INT and CHA (skill points and interaction skill bonuses) and having less STR/CON/DEX, directing skill points at interaction skills, selecting feats that enhance this aspect of the character, investing wealth in magic that enhances these, rather than combat abilities, etc. But it means choosing to be a more effective Leader of Men at the cost of being a less effective one on one combatant.

 

[sheadunne]

Ultimately, the game is about choices. If you choose to dedicate all your character resources to being the biggest, toughest, meanest, most powerful monster killer possible, then that is where you chose to focus, and that is the area where you will be able to succeed. If you are not prepared to dedicate any resources to any other activity, then you should not be surprised that you are not good at those activities, and may have to rely on your teammates when the challenges enter those arenas.

The difference here is that the wizard at least has some unique class resources available to make up for a lack of CHA, while the Fighter has no unique class resources available. All things being equal, the Wizard is better simply because he has class resources.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For one thing, the most authoritative dictionary of the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which you failed to cite.

English is a descriptive and not a prescriptive language. The OED is considered more authoritative than most at getting history right. It also contains more words than just about any other. On the other hand the greater depth the full OED gives to words makes it in many cases less useful rather than more for establishing the normal meanings of terms. On the other hand neither insincere nor disingenuous are obscure words and the M-W is (a) older than the OED, (b) highly respected and authoritative and (c) searchable so we can independently verify each others results.

If you check its definition of disingenuous (Second Edition, volume four, page 784), you'll find that it doesn't break it down into numerical listings (dispelling the notion that one can somehow "rank" the definitions of this word), noting that it can be applied to "persons and their actions." Emphasis mine here.

Indeed. You can act disingenuously. A disingenuous action is one at which the motivation for the action is at odds with the overt form of the action. A lot of flirting is disingenuous - it involves affecting a coyness or an arrogance that is at odds with the underlying person, and is intended to be seen as such. Another form of a disingenuous act is when a politician inserts a rider into a bill not for the purpose of getting the rider passed, but for the purpose of sabotaging the bill. Disingenuous acts are dishonest acts. Highlighting those two words proves nothing other than that you've highlighted two words.

Now, if we look at "sincere" itself (OED 2nd edition, volume 15, page 508), we'll see that it does have definitions broken down by numbers, and that 1b is "true, veracious; correct, exact." Emphasis mine again.

I'm aware of that meaning. The only time I've seen it used was for translations of the bible in which there was no attempt to read the reader's own meaning into the case.

I believe the full OED text to have been copied here - and shorter versions have been copied here and here.

In other words the OED definition you are citing and as has been cited by Google books is:

1: Not falsified or perverted in any way:
1a: of doctrine etc.: Genuine, pure
1b: true, veracious, correct, exact
1c: morally uncorrupted, uncontaminated.​

In order to claim definition 1b you need to claim the definition 1 heading. It's true, veracious, correct, and exact in that it hasn't been falsified or perverted in any way. And insincere using this definition of sincere means that it is untrue or false because it has been falsified or perverted.

If I am right about the OED's actual text based on your selective quotation then either you are misusing the OED by ignoring the category heading or you are intentionally selectively quoting only the part of the OED that backs up your point.

I also notice you look at sincere rather than insincere - does the OED under the entry of "insincere" say that it means the same as not sincere? Or does it say more than that? Because you've jumped straight from disingenuous to sincere without going through insincere (which the M-W defines as "Not sincere; hypocritical" - and the way it is not sincere is the sort of way that implies hypocricy).

Demonstrably false, unless you don't think that the OED is "any standard" of English.

Given that you haven't quoted the OED on the subject of Insincere at all, you haven't shown a thing. You have only quoted sincere. And insincere may be derived from sincere and by a literal meaning be not sincere - but words in English don't mean their literal meanings. And given that you appear to have selectively quoted the OED without including the context (and a text without context is a pretext) I don't think my disagreement is with the OED.

The entire OED entry matters - as does the actual entry for the OED on the word insincere - an entry that was conspicuously absent in your reply.

As I've already demonstrated multiple times, I never once accused pemerton of lying - a statement can be disingenuous because it lacks sincerity, which means that it lacks truth, as a quality of the statement itself.

Insincere in the M-W also points to hypocritical. Both are needed if you are to use the M-W effectively. But instead of bringing up the OED's description of Insincere you are instead using a secondary meaning of Sincere. Which is a different word. And the full OED passage you have taken out of context appears (if I am right) to demonstrate that it's truth in the sense of not being falsified or perverted.

For you to suggest otherwise means that you are, at best, tragically mistaken. At worst, it means that you're deliberately misinterpreting my previous statements in order to manufacture outrage over a non-existent accusation.

At best it means that you are tragically mistaken out of the way your use of the English language will be taken by people of good faith. And as you are giving offence to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] whether you mean to or not, and he has called you on this, that on its own should be enough to make you select language that will not give offence. However your response has been to resort to subsidiary meanings in the dictionary to say that what you were saying was not offensive. And when I pointed out what the dictionary said, your response involved some selective quoting, only quoting a little of the root word "disingenuous", entirely missing one of the important words (insincere) out, only partially quoting disingenuous, and seemingly only selectively quoting from one of the meanings of sincere in a way that ignores the overall meaning.

Anyway, thank you for giving me a distraction from worrying about my little sister's latest heart operation.

 

[Morrus]

You guys. Drop it, please. Nobody's going to "win" anything here.

 

[Alzrius]

English is a descriptive and not a prescriptive language. The OED is considered more authoritative than most at getting history right. It also contains more words than just about any other. On the other hand the greater depth the full OED gives to words makes it in many cases less useful rather than more for establishing the normal meanings of terms.

You're already going off track here. Noting that the OED has good cause to be cited as the most authoritative dictionary is a matter of fact, but you veer wildly away from that with your last sentence, which is filled with personal opinions on the "usefulness" of defining "normal" meanings of words. This is the basis for the mistakes you make later on.

On the other hand neither insincere nor disingenuous are obscure words and the M-W is (a) older than the OED, (b) highly respected and authoritative and (c) searchable so we can independently verify each others results.

Their lack of obscurity is a tangential point that has no bearing on the wider discussion, making that a notation that adds nothing. Likewise for the searchability of one dictionary versus another, since it goes without saying that we're checking sources. Other than that, the relative age of a dictionary is meaningless, since that has nothing to do with its authority (hence why you listed that separately from "(b)"), and while the Merriam-Webster dictionary is certainly highly-respected, I suspect that if we were to rank the authority of the various English-language dictionaries, it would not surpass the OED.

Indeed. You can act disingenuously. A disingenuous action is one at which the motivation for the action is at odds with the overt form of the action.

Or, as I've amply demonstrated, it's an action wherein the act itself does not possess truth as an element, rather than being concerned with the motivation of the actor.

A lot of flirting is disingenuous - it involves affecting a coyness or an arrogance that is at odds with the underlying person, and is intended to be seen as such. Another form of a disingenuous act is when a politician inserts a rider into a bill not for the purpose of getting the rider passed, but for the purpose of sabotaging the bill. Disingenuous acts are dishonest acts. Highlighting those two words proves nothing other than that you've highlighted two words.

Leaving aside the examples you've posted, highlighting those two words does indeed prove something - that there's a legitimate alternative method of understanding what I've been saying.

I'm aware of that meaning. The only time I've seen it used was for translations of the bible in which there was no attempt to read the reader's own meaning into the case.

In that case, I would recommend that you read more widely, as there's a reason why the OED includes that meaning with such prominence.

I believe the full OED text to have been copied here - and shorter versions have been copied here and here.

In other words the OED definition you are citing and as has been cited by Google books is:

1: Not falsified or perverted in any way:
1a: of doctrine etc.: Genuine, pure
1b: true, veracious, correct, exact
1c: morally uncorrupted, uncontaminated.​

In order to claim definition 1b you need to claim the definition 1 heading. It's true, veracious, correct, and exact in that it hasn't been falsified or perverted in any way. And insincere using this definition of sincere means that it is untrue or false because it has been falsified or perverted.

I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here, save for repeating the definition a few times - something that is not falsified or perverted means that it has no element of untruth to it. If something is untrue unto itself, rather than being untrue due to the motivations of the person saying/doing it, then it's still untrue.

If I am right about the OED's actual text based on your selective quotation then either you are misusing the OED by ignoring the category heading or you are intentionally selectively quoting only the part of the OED that backs up your point.

It's not correct to call that a selective quotation - I'm quoting the operative part of the definition for the purposes of this discussion. The category heading is not ignored because it's pertinence here is self-evident. Something that is falsified or perverted is not correct; ergo, something that is disingenuous lacks correctness, with no statement towards the speaker's motives or state of mind.

also notice you look at sincere rather than insincere - does the OED under the entry of "insincere" say that it means the same as not sincere? Or does it say more than that? Because you've jumped straight from disingenuous to sincere without going through insincere (which the M-W defines as "Not sincere; hypocritical" - and the way it is not sincere is the sort of way that implies hypocricy).

It says quite a bit more than that, but again, I fail to see how that's relevant - words can have multiple definitions, so unless you're claiming that every instance of a word's use means that it's employing every definition simultaneously, that's irrelevant. Given that, as you noted, the M-W defines "insincere" as being "not sincere" that pretty well closes the book on that argument. That is includes a secondary definition does not change the first definition.

Given that you haven't quoted the OED on the subject of Insincere at all, you haven't shown a thing. You have only quoted sincere. And insincere may be derived from sincere and by a literal meaning be not sincere - but words in English don't mean their literal meanings. And given that you appear to have selectively quoted the OED without including the context (and a text without context is a pretext) I don't think my disagreement is with the OED.

From what I can tell here, you're attempting to introduce some sort of dissonance between "insincere" and "not sincere," and so say that citing something as lacking the defining qualities of "sincere" does not mean that it's the same thing as "insincere." Needless to say, I look askance on that argument - when you find yourself saying that "words in English don't mean their literal meanings," you may want to reassess your thinking.

Insofar as it goes the OED definition of "insincere" (Second Edition, volume seven, page 1,028) notes that it is "not sincere or genuine" as the first part of the very first definition given. It does also give mentions of dissembling, but the semicolon there shows that these are separated meanings (incidentally, it also cites "disingenuous," and explicitly states that this can be said or persons or their actions).

The entire OED entry matters - as does the actual entry for the OED on the word insincere - an entry that was conspicuously absent in your reply.

Incorrect. This is another attempt on your part to try and state that any use of a word invokes all meanings of the word, no matter how disparate they might be in context.

Insincere in the M-W also points to hypocritical. Both are needed if you are to use the M-W effectively. But instead of bringing up the OED's description of Insincere you are instead using a secondary meaning of Sincere. Which is a different word. And the full OED passage you have taken out of context appears (if I am right) to demonstrate that it's truth in the sense of not being falsified or perverted.

Not so, as demonstrated above.

At best it means that you are tragically mistaken out of the way your use of the English language will be taken by people of good faith. And as you are giving offence to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] whether you mean to or not, and he has called you on this, that on its own should be enough to make you select language that will not give offence. However your response has been to resort to subsidiary meanings in the dictionary to say that what you were saying was not offensive. And when I pointed out what the dictionary said, your response involved some selective quoting, only quoting a little of the root word "disingenuous", entirely missing one of the important words (insincere) out, only partially quoting disingenuous, and seemingly only selectively quoting from one of the meanings of sincere in a way that ignores the overall meaning.

The only way to arrive at the above goal is through willful misinterpretation of the facts presented previously, which is a shame since it means that you're admitting that you're trying to twist my words. I had hoped that this was simply a case of you being tragically misguided, but it seems that you're deliberately going out of your way to find the most offensive meaning possible, even when expressly told that's not what I stated.

Simply put, at this point I have pointed out that there are multiple, nuanced meanings for the word "disingenuous" and have shown how it can be applied to a person's statement (to say that it lacks an element of truth unto itself) without speaking in any regard to the person saying it.

Your response has been to state that any use of a word must include all of its disparate meanings simultaneously, and that even though I've explained in great detail why my words not only didn't mean what you thought they did - and that my usage of them was in no way arcane - you continue to insist that they contained another meaning altogether, and that any instance of suggesting a particular definition of a word (rather than all of them at once) is "selecting quoting" from its definitions.

There is, quite simply, no truth to your claims (notice that I'm referring to your claims in particular, rather than you in general), which makes them, in a notable irony, disingenuous.

Anyway, thank you for giving me a distraction from worrying about my little sister's latest heart operation.

Certainly. I hope that it goes very well for her.

 

[Alzrius]

You guys. Drop it, please. Nobody's going to "win" anything here.

Whoops, I had already started writing my response before you posted this, Morrus. Sorry!

EDIT: And, just to be clear, let me state that I consider the matter closed and will say no more on it.

 

[N'raac]

The difference here is that the wizard at least has some unique class resources available to make up for a lack of CHA, while the Fighter has no unique class resources available. All things being equal, the Wizard is better simply because he has class resources.

I don't disagree that the Wizard's spells provide him a significant level of flexibility. That said, the Fighter has what, 11 bonus combat feats over 20 levels which allow him to have a pretty fair repertoire of combat tricks, even if he chooses to devote all of his general feats to other purposes. The Wizard would end up with four metamagic or item creation feats by taking the same approach.

Let's assume the Fighter takes Skill Focus: Diplomacy and Negotiator, augmenting his diplomacy score by +5, and invests in cross class ranks. The wizard is equally able to devote cross-class ranks, but doesn't make the feat investment. What's the Wizard's great answer to the Fighter's superior diplomatic skills? He certainly has some spells, but magic is also subject to detection and dispelling. If the wizard is all loaded up with negotiation magic and happens to have an unexpected combat encounter, what does he do? The Fighter still has all his combat skills. He can also influence any number of people with that Diplomacy - he doesn't run out of skill checks per day, nor does he need to rest for a day to move from being a diplomat to a warrior.

Both pale in comparison to a Bard, or even a Cleric with a decent CHA and diplomacy and sense motive as class skills, but such characters are better geared for Diplomacy.

Now, I agree completely that the 3rd Ed non-spellcaster classes merit more and better abilities. I think Pathfinder does a good job enhancing them without making the other classes suffer (everyone gets more goodies; the classes that needed them most get more additions), although still not perfect. It also levels the playing field between class and non-class skills a lot (+3 bonus rather than doubled costs and halved maximums makes a huge difference; Skill Focus can offset a Class skill, with an even bigger bonus with a significant investment in the skill), and provides a lot more options with its Archetype model.

Even there, the Fighter's bennies are combat-focused - but that provides even more combat advantages, so he has lots of options in his field of expertise even if he chooses to direct some skill points and regular feats into a second area of expertise. Does he have to give up some combat focus to be a diplomat and a leader? Sure. But, again, the game is about choices. If you want to be the UberWarrrior, then devote all your character resources to being the UberWarrior - but that is all you will be. If you want to be good at two, or three, things, you won't be as good at any of them as a character focused entirely on that one area - but you also will be quite useful in two or three areas, rather than exremely powerful in just one.

If the wizard wants to wear armor and wield a greatsword, he will have to give up some wizardly prowess as well. He, too, makes choices. He won't be as great a caster, but he'll be much more useful in an anti-magic zone, or dealing with very spell-resistant opponents. He can afford to focus more on casting, though - if he relies on his allies to deal with those challenges where he is not so potent, and is reduced to a support character. Our Sorcerer felt pretty useless in a recent (fairly low level) encounter - the enemy was immune to her enchantments, resistant to her damaging spells and pretty hard to hit even with a mundane ranged attack (while flying). But she could still use Mage Hand to manipulate a skull from the local "decor" in the enemy's face for an "aid another" effect at range. Not the game-winner, but a definite boon to the group. She had her moment to shine, when she was dropping Goblins with her Sleep spell - this time, others get to shine, but that doesn't mean she has to sit around bored, doing nothing. It does mean the player may have to think outside the box.

 

[Starfox]

2) Make it so that convoluted sequences of "mundane" action can be specified and adjudicated in just one step, just as spellcasting (in D&D) can be.

This is really interesting and a worthy topic.

The mechanic is one that summarizes individual play when a party member leaves the group. There are plenty of times when this particular mechanic could be used and I think it would primarily be used by Rogue/Thief characters, who are the ones who more often than other characters, disappears to either scout, infiltrate, or investigate, but it could apply to any character who temporarily leaves the group to engage in some other activity (a ranger who scouts ahead, a cleric who leaves to visit the church, etc).

This is very insightful and could solve a lot of situations. Sometimes the player want's so play out this as a scene, sometime the GM wants to, and in those cases you should generally play it out. But in many cases it is simply not convenient or desirable to do so, and will bore a large part of the group. And while this applies to a lot of scouting/information gathering situations, it is sometimes relevant for the central crux of the mission - while the whole mission centers on opening the safe and the rest of the mission is a transport there, if only one player is involved in the safecracking, it might still be best to resolve that abstractly. A typical situation for this wold be netrunning in Shadowrun, one of the most time-consuming solo tasks ever. Another are for tasks like spell research.

The problem is, players might feel cheated if what they expected to be their time in the spotlight is abbreviated to a single die roll. Also, in a solo task like this success or failure too eaily hangs on just a single roll. Something like the 4E skill challenge system could work. Is this what skill challenges should have been? Actually, the ideal system for this ought to be simpler than that, but should still involve more than a simple roll.

 

[Starfox]

So, what, first you want to invest all of your character resources in being a big, huking brute, sacrificing wit, charm and insight to do so. Then you want to be a forceful, respected leader in the campaign world. These seem inconsistent to me. I would expect that the ability to influence people would be largely CHA-based. About the only reasonable exception I perceive would be intimiation-based interaction, an arena the game has decided to base on CHA (which I think is also a reasonable approach).

the Fighter has what, 11 bonus combat feats over 20 levels which allow him to have a pretty fair repertoire of combat tricks, even if he chooses to devote all of his general feats to other purposes. The Wizard would end up with four metamagic or item creation feats by taking the same approach.

The figher's 11 combat feats indeed means he has much greater freedom to select non-combat abilities for his remaining 10 feats. So in this way he should have access to some nice non-combat tricks too. The problem is that there are few non-combat feats of notice, and that combat is generally regarded as so important that to "waste" a fighter's feat on noncombat abilities draws snide remarks. Just like the fighter is supposed to dump his mental attributes to be a better combatant. The fault here is manifold - it is a cultural expectations issue, but also a problem with how the fighter class is built (MAD) and how much of his attribute points he is expected to devote to be competitive.

But a Charm spell is not diplomacy. First, you are casting a spell, a pretty obvious action. If the target does save, don't expect the target's response to be anything positive. If he does not, he is still not going to be happy when the enchantment wears off and his mind is no longer ensorcled. Just like those extortion efforts by the fighter or rogue are unlikely to carry a long-term result of a friendly ally.

Very much this. A character that was mistreated while charmed is likely to realize this and magical coersion should be illegal in most fantasy societies. A party that has access to mundane Diplomacy can avoid using the first case, and even if they do use it can treat the carmed character in a way that does not make him hostile afterwards - when he thinks back on his own responses, they make sense because he was treated well.