Why is everyone so down on Charm Person?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Yes, I already got a thread closed due to this concept, and this is partly my attempt to exonerate myself. I didn't even need to use charm person as an example in the original thread, as the DC would be the same if the guy used dancing lights to impress his dates and get a +2 on a Charisma check. But because I did use charm person, everyone got really disgusted.

Using dancing lights is an indirect attempt to influence someone's emotions, like inviting them to a fancy restaurant, flirting, or what not, and aren't bad or even "gray area" territory. That's the case even though dancing lights is magic.

Charm person (or drugs, or Dominate, or what have you) are direct attempts to change someone's emotions (for whatever reason) and I think that's where the divide comes. A lot of people might see Charm as indirect, at least when it comes to getting someone to do something they wouldn't normally do.

So, leaving out any form of mating behavior, I do not think that the victim of the charm should automatically hate the charmer, or even realize they were charmed, provided there is no evidence to the contrary.

Note that someone can be charmed (in real life) to do things they wouldn't normally do, and might kick themselves afterwards, asking "why did I do that?"

However, it's been my experience that Charm gets used like Suggestion or a mild Dominate in a game, often as a way to advance the plot (eg get someone to talk, or get an unwilling king to allow you to break some laws, etc). Perhaps people have better examples of how Charm can be used, in ways that wouldn't give the victim a chance to realize what has happened. Also note that Charm has some fairly obvious components (IIRC) that the caster would need to hide so the victim doesn't realize they've been toyed with magically.

 

[Dausuul]

Remember, this hypothetical tech device is something that makes you feel really good -- like you just caught up with an old friend. The only part that would disturb you is if you found it unnatural. I mean, if someone in the park gives you a sexy wink, or smiles at you to lift your mood, you know they're attempting to give you a hormonal rush that will make you like them -- but you don't mind.

It doesn't matter how you spin it, charm person is a form of emotional control. It is not domination, but it does mean you are reaching into somebody's mind and changing their perception of you, overriding their own decision-making abilities.

If someone did that to me, and I found out later (after the spell wore off) that that person had done it, I'd be furious. So would any halfway reasonable human being. It has nothing to do with how it makes me feel, or whether the person could accomplish the same effect by conjuring up a pretty illusion; I'm losing the ability to make my own decisions. If the wizard conjures a pretty illusion, I can decide for myself whether that's enough to make me think the wizard is a cool person. If the wizard reaches into my head and changes my opinion to "cool person," I have no choice in the matter.

Charm person makes a friend, yes... for exactly as long as the spell lasts. When the spell wears off, the person stops being your friend. That's the nature of spells. And if they realize their odd behavior was due to you using magic on them (and remember that you're in a world where magic of this type is known to exist), they're gonna be mad. That's the nature of people.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There are two things that Charm Person is good for.

The first is "random townspeople charming." Charm the hostile merchant to get a better deal. Charm the young lady at the local pub. Charm the king so he won't want to sic his guards on you. In this case, you can usually be subtle enough that no ill-will is detected from the spell. You leave the scene before it ends, and all that happens is that they think you were kind of keen for some reason they can't explain. In this capacity, it is an excellent narrative spell for your character, and really expresses the archetype of the enchanting arcanist who gets in your head and has that allure of the unknown. This can help you gain access to certain areas that are prohibited otherwise, in most of my campaigns. If the guards see you as a friend, they'll trust you inside, at least for a moment.

The other is "clever battle avoidance." A random group of insular dwarves in a dungeon might shoot first and ask questions later, but if you can just talk to them first (and use Charm Person), you might convince them to stop fighting you and maybe even team up with you. It won't be very useful after you start killing 'em, but if you can persuade the party to take a different tactic on these critters, it might prove a better outcome.

The key in both situations is that either the target doesn't really find out about the mind control (they just think you're persuasive, and you're there and gone fast enough so that they don't really register it), or that, once they find out, they trust you anyway (having won their trust through more mundane means as well). They might still suspect something (spellcasters are known for having the power to alter your minds), but it doesn't really matter to them because you've either proven yourself, or are out of the picture entirely.

It's a magical leg-up on the winning friends and influencing people game, and it's a useful shortcut for when words would take too long, or to establish a quick-and-dirty trust baseline (albeit one you need to quickly enhance with more mundane methods).

Basically, I want a charm person that simulates charm, not mind control. Buying you a beer, not a roofie in your drink. After someone gets done turning on the charm in real life, you might feel slightly used, but you might feel kind of flattered that they gave you all that attention. You might even be friendlier afterwards.

I want a charm person you could use to cheer up an angry baby. And I don't see in the spell description why you shouldn't. Do I have to make it a house rule?

I think all of these are pretty acceptable, while under the influence of the spell. Charm Person should cheer up an angry baby, and it should be able to get you a free drink from some goon at a bar. If you tell someone under the influence of the spell that they've just been magically charmed, feeling flattered would be a hilariously plausible result. And you absolutely shouldn't be poisoned by someone who is your "friend" under the influence of the spell. Even Evil people should recognize the value of friendship and comradeship, or at least "temporary alliances."

The thing about the spell is that it doesn't last all that long, in the end. It doesn't make you their friend for more than a few minutes. If you want to be their friend afterwards, you either need to charm them again, or use more mundane means to support yourself. And most people, as this thread has pointed out, aren't that stoked about having their minds altered. If you're still their friend when the magic wears off, they might forgive you ("I wouldn't know how cool a guy he is if he didn't!").

And, as a side note, IMC, people who have been charmed don't necessarily know they've been charmed. A spell only has its explicit visual effects. Even if they save against it, they only know that they saved against some mental assault. Only a trained spellcaster (or someone who made an Arcana check) would be able to say "You tried to charm me, didn't you?!"

 

[Korgoth]

I disagree with the majority sentiment.

When I think of Charm Person, I think more in terms of fairy tales and Clark Ashton Smith stories. A person who gets charmed may realize after the fact that he was brought under an enchantment... and if he does realize that, he's going to be scared and get the heck out of there. Why? Because sorcery that can control your mind is scary and unpredictable, and whatever is the source of such power is something that must be avoided.

I think the 'modern' obsession with numbers and game balance encourages a banal approach to magic. Why would that peasant you charmed be mad at you? He doesn't know you're a first level magic-user with 2 hit points. He knows that you're a mysterious personage who can control his mind. He will probably address you as "m'lord" and play the sycophant until he can escape.

Myself, I'm inclined to let low level spells be quite powerful in their incidental effects (if you look at early versions of Phantasmal Forces, etc. the effects were very open-ended and potent). I don't buy the old saw that low level magic-users are weak. That only applies to the unimaginative ones, or the ones that live in a computer game universe rather than a mysterious universe.

 

[Jeremy757]

The morality of mind influencing spells in a game about home invasion, killing and looting. Now that amuses me.

That's almost like the morality of running red lights in Grand Theft Auto.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the 'modern' obsession with numbers and game balance encourages a banal approach to magic. Why would that peasant you charmed be mad at you? He doesn't know you're a first level magic-user with 2 hit points. He knows that you're a mysterious personage who can control his mind. He will probably address you as "m'lord" and play the sycophant until he can escape.

Sure, that could be a valid track.

I'm a bigger fan of D&D's usual suggestion that magic is a natural force like, say, the stars in the night sky. They're mysterious and strange, but enough study and expertise will allow you to predict and determine what these are with reasonable accuracy. They're elite, high-class, above-the-norm, but they aren't to be feared. D&D's magic is more like Galileo's astronomy and less like the Inca view that the moon is eaten by a monster during an eclipse.

IMC, I normally take a "3rd edition-esque" approach to it, with spellcasters occasionally popping up in mid-sized towns, and big cities almost guaranteed to have them, including colleges and magical universities (just as there are martial academies and cathedrals for clerics).

I don't do this because of some supposed fixation on numbers. I do this because I genuinely enjoy this style of fantasy, much more so than I enjoy playing up the "ignorant fearful townsfolk" stereotype. I prefer my PCs to be part of the world and then to rise above it, rather than having them above it by virtue of their 1st-level tricks.

 

[Dausuul]

I disagree with the majority sentiment.

When I think of Charm Person, I think more in terms of fairy tales and Clark Ashton Smith stories. A person who gets charmed may realize after the fact that he was brought under an enchantment... and if he does realize that, he's going to be scared and get the heck out of there. Why? Because sorcery that can control your mind is scary and unpredictable, and whatever is the source of such power is something that must be avoided.

I think the 'modern' obsession with numbers and game balance encourages a banal approach to magic. Why would that peasant you charmed be mad at you? He doesn't know you're a first level magic-user with 2 hit points. He knows that you're a mysterious personage who can control his mind. He will probably address you as "m'lord" and play the sycophant until he can escape.

It really depends on how familiar the subject is with charm spells and with magic in general. A peasant will be scared. A fighter of the wizard's own level, who's fought wizards before and knows roughly what they can and can't do, will be mad.

Regardless, the point is - messing with someone's mind will be regarded by almost everyone as a hostile act. Subjects might be scared or they might be angry, but they won't just shrug and say, "Oh well, it's just his way of trying to make friends."

 

[Noumenon]

The morality of mind influencing spells in a game about home invasion, killing and looting. Now that amuses me.

That's almost like the morality of running red lights in Grand Theft Auto.

After seeing how powerfully this issue resonates with people, I wouldn't mock it. I've been partly persuaded, too -- I might not be doing my job as a DM by letting people charm all the time without affecting their alignment.

I remember stopping for red lights in Grand Theft Auto, the first time I played it. Good times.

 

[Kishin]

I think the 'modern' obsession with numbers and game balance encourages a banal approach to magic. Why would that peasant you charmed be mad at you? He doesn't know you're a first level magic-user with 2 hit points. He knows that you're a mysterious personage who can control his mind. He will probably address you as "m'lord" and play the sycophant until he can escape.

Except if magic is common enough in the world that the everyday individual is familiar enough with its effects to have an idea of what just occurred, he may very well have every reason to be angry and attempt to punch your lights out. Since D&D 3.0 specifically calls this out as a world assumption in the core, its not unlikely to be a common campaign feature.

Myself, I'm inclined to let low level spells be quite powerful in their incidental effects (if you look at early versions of Phantasmal Forces, etc. the effects were very open-ended and potent). I don't buy the old saw that low level magic-users are weak. That only applies to the unimaginative ones, or the ones that live in a computer game universe rather than a mysterious universe.[/quote]

Now, why do low level members of every other class get to be weak, but magic users don't? Those spells were open ended and potent because it was the first go around of the game, and the balance issues hadn't really shaken themselves out yet. Not only that, they were designed for a game world with different built in assumption.

I don't buy the old saw that magic should inherently be above and beyond everyone else in the party. Its a 1st level spell for a reason. But please, continue to fire offhand insults at those of us who don't adhere to your line of thought.

 

[WayneLigon]

For non-combat situations, one has to remember that some things a character would not do, not even for a best friend. A secret that a character didn't even tell their "former" best friends is unlikely to be spilled to the new best friend.

But that's not what the spell says. The 'best friend' effect is the 2E version of the spell. In 3E, if I pass an oppossed Charisma check, then you will do things against your nature such as sleep with me, rob someone, lie to your wife, etc; the only things you won't do are suicidal or obviously harmful-to-self actions, but you can trick someone into those actions you set things up beforehand.