Is it possible for a charmed creature to attack its charmer?

[Infiniti2000]

It's just fishy. You're saying that your character's personality is so strong that you can ignore the effects of the magic, but everyone else's character can't be as strong and have to deal with the effects.

I don't buy your logic that suggests that just because you're lawful, you can ignore the charm.

Okay, you're Good, but you can ignore the known fact / proof he's evil. But, you're also Lawful, so therefore he's charm will not work as he planned. No, I don't buy it.

 

[Elemmakil]

Hostile: Will take risks to hurt you ~Attack, interfere, berate, flee
Unfriendly: Wishes you ill ~Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult
Indifferent: Doesn’t much care ~Socially expected interaction
Friendly: Wishes you well ~Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
Helpful: Will take risks to help you ~Protect, back up, heal, aid

Listen to frankthedm. He is absolutely right.

A lot of people overlook this part of charm. It makes the person your friend. It is always a bit nasty to adjudicate when used on players because of the element of judgment involved, but I would rule that you are being perfectly reasonable: you chat, advise, advocate, and offer limited help.

Remember, though, that charm has an additional effect:

From the SRD:
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. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

So, you would have to succeed on a charisma check.

-Elemmakil

 

[Wolfwood2]

It's just fishy. You're saying that your character's personality is so strong that you can ignore the effects of the magic, but everyone else's character can't be as strong and have to deal with the effects.

I don't buy your logic that suggests that just because you're lawful, you can ignore the charm.

Okay, you're Good, but you can ignore the known fact / proof he's evil. But, you're also Lawful, so therefore he's charm will not work as he planned. No, I don't buy it.

You know, I'm okay either way, because in off weeks from my paladin I've got a game where I'm playing a Beguiler. So whatever advice you give, I'm going to turn around and use against the DM of that game. You can't win!

I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that your advice is not "fishy" and ask you what would be the best way to have the character react in the event of a charm. I never wanted to 'ignore' the charm and suggested perhaps switching to non-lethal damage instead.

Should I instead stop the battle to try to broker peace between the mindflayer and the creatures whose brains he wants to eat?

 

[Elethiomel]

I think bringing the charm-casting evil brain-eating mind flayer to justice would be the right thing for your character to do if that would be the way he'd treat any ally, friend, or family member that he discovered eating the brains of innocent people.

 

[shilsen]

I second what those such as frankthedm, Elemmakil and Elethiomel said. You respond to the caster as if he were a very good friend. Since how you respond to a very good friend is dependent on your personality, it depends on your character's nature. If the caster can beat you on an opposed Charisma check, then he can make you act contrary to your nature.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think bringing the charm-casting evil brain-eating mind flayer to justice would be the right thing for your character to do if that would be the way he'd treat any ally, friend, or family member that he discovered eating the brains of innocent people.

Let's say the character discovered his own brother eating the brains of innocent people.

How would you describe the character's attitude to the brother in the course of bringing him to justice - Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly, or Helpful?

As an analogy - let's say there's a person who is Friendly to you. You say to them "I'm not your friend. You have no friends. You're a loser, and nobody likes you."

For the average person, this would adversely affect their attitude - it might make them Unfriendly towards you. If the person is Friendly towards you because of a Charm spell making them that way, though, is it possible for that statement to alter their attitude to Unfriendly? Or does the Charm cause them to remain friendly, despite the offence you may cause? (I knew a guy like this. He was a dick, but he had an ego so strong that he simply couldn't wrap his head around the idea that people didn't like him. If someone said something like the above to him (and people did), then they were obviously having a laugh, because he knew they were, of course, his friends.)

The description of the Paladin character sounds to me like someone who might like you, but that won't prevent him going from Friendly to Hostile if your actions warrant it. In the case of the mind flayer, the actions might be such that he would normally shift from Friendly to Hostile... but he is mentally incapable of making that shift while under the influence of the Charm.

-Hyp.

 

[Elemmakil]

Good point, Hyp. In fact, the line "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" definitely supports your conclusion.

The only potential flaw that I see is that it it relies somewhat on a distinction between action and inaction: the paladin would not, of course, break the law himself. However, by this interpretation, he would let someone else do it. However, he is obligated (by the law) to turn that person in. No matter the light in which he perceives their actions, he would not follow an order to break the law (without the charisma check).

So can the spell force inaction (don't tell anyone that I killed him), but not action (steal that loaf of bread for me)? Merely the action of not turning the person in requires much more than the friendly attitude, but turning the person in cannot be accomplished with a friendly attitude.

You see what I mean about inaction and action? Neither is possible, in this case, with exactly a friendly attitude, and I am not sure that inaction gets precedence. The line I quoted at the beginning of this rambling post more or less convinces me, I think. However, this forces the target to do something that it normally wouldn't, even through inaction. The spell states that this always requires a successful charisma check.

In short, I failed my save against your confusion spell, hyp, and am now arguing with myself. I'm not completely confident in either interpretation.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that your advice is not "fishy" and ask you what would be the best way to have the character react in the event of a charm. I never wanted to 'ignore' the charm and suggested perhaps switching to non-lethal damage instead.

Should I instead stop the battle to try to broker peace between the mindflayer and the creatures whose brains he wants to eat?

You should instead view the charmer's actions in the most favorable light, whatever that is, given the fact that it's magical. If what the charmer does is such an effront to your character such that you could ignore the charm and attack him, then the DM should rule that the charm is broken.

IMO, there's no possible way for you to attack the charmer while charmed. Whatever he does breaks the spell or you are still his friend and you don't attack. You'll find some other way or you'll find some way to cope with the problem without harming your new best buddy.

Here's another. The charmer could ask you to do something you wouldn't normally do (pick anything that violates your code). If you fail the opposed check, you do it, period. There's no, "Oh, I'm lawful so I get to ignore that." Similarly, there should be no "Oh, I'm lawful so I can attack the person who charmed me." That logic doesn't fly.

 

[Wolfwood2]

You should instead view the charmer's actions in the most favorable light, whatever that is, given the fact that it's magical. If what the charmer does is such an effront to your character such that you could ignore the charm and attack him, then the DM should rule that the charm is broken.

IMO, there's no possible way for you to attack the charmer while charmed. Whatever he does breaks the spell or you are still his friend and you don't attack. You'll find some other way or you'll find some way to cope with the problem without harming your new best buddy.

Here's another. The charmer could ask you to do something you wouldn't normally do (pick anything that violates your code). If you fail the opposed check, you do it, period. There's no, "Oh, I'm lawful so I get to ignore that." Similarly, there should be no "Oh, I'm lawful so I can attack the person who charmed me." That logic doesn't fly.

I'm going to quote you if the DM in that other game gives me any guff about my Beguiler charming people. "That logic doesn't fly," ought to teach him a lesson.

But okay, no attacky for me if get charmy. Guess I'll have to figure out some middle ground. Maybe paralyzed with indecision? Charms are weird. I prefer the cold, hard certainty of dominate.

 

[werk]

I prefer the cold, hard certainty of dominate.

QFT!