Charm Person (and Metagame)

[Pigkappa]

I've been experiencing the following problem.

Whenever a Charm Person or Suggestion spell is cast successfully on someone, many people assume that when the spell wears off, that person will remember everything that's happened, realize they've been manipulated because they have done something which is different than their usual behaviour, and hate the caster. Even if what they have done is just a little different than usual and they could've been convinced to do it without any spell.

This is particularly true for the PCs. Whenever a PC is affected by a Charm Person or Suggestion, the player immediately thinks "I will play nice as long as it is in effect. Than I will use the first possible excuse to kill the caster." This happened to me both as a DM and as a player who wanted to Charm other characters.

Did you ever experience this? Can it be genuinely solved? Is it at least stated clearly that this is not correct in any official source?




I currently have a DM who says that this absolutely ok, that the effect of Charm Person is effectively "gain a friend for a few hours, an enemy forever", and this makes it a balanced spell because "gain a friend for a few hours, period" would be too good for a level 1 spell.

Now, as a Bard who has his own interests that are sometimes in conflict with some of the other PCs, this makes me feel very useless. I have been trying to make the point that we are delving in crazy dungeons with no treasure and risking our life at every corner (we are!) but couldn't convince the other characters who say they just like adventure. The DM has told me that having good social skills doesn't help with other PCs and that if I use Charm or Suggestion in any way, he won't object to them immediately killing me as the spell wears off (we're mostly Evil so there are no alignment issues).
I do expect a little of metagaming on their side but they're mostly honest. If they are Charmed and then the Charm wears off, the typical response would be asking the DM if they realize they've been Charmed or not. So the DM has a great power in making them kill me.

[Segev]

Have you tried talking to the other players OOC? If no social mechanics IC affect fellow PCs, and "charm" effects are actively detrimental to use (both things that, in most games, I would fully support, because it's tremendously uncool to have one player telling others that he gets to dictate their characters' actions), you have your IRL interactions to fall back on. And this is the healthiest place to deal with problems of enjoyment of the game.

Note, this is assuming that intra-party PvP is not a normal and fun thing you guys like to do anyway. If there'd be no OOC hard feelings, disregard my concerns about using these powers on each other. It's meta-game concerns for me, because I've seen games where a player used Charm-like magic to basically tell the other players that their characters had to do what he wanted them to do. It wasn't fun.


Now, assuming that you, as players OOC, are fine with whatever happens IC, then you have to ask whether it's acceptable for the other PCs to use their IC mechanics on each other. Do your other party members threaten violence or death if the party (or your character) doesn't do as the violence-threatening PC demands? Or is there a honor-amongst-thieves agreement not to turn on each other in this way? If the latter, there's not a lot you can do about the charm effect.

If you are looking for an argument to have with your DM, I, personally, would push for it requiring at LEAST a Spellcraft check to recognize that the way they felt before compared to how they feel now might mean you Charmed them. I'd also consider carefully how you use your Charm time; if you Charm them, and use it to a) save their lives, b) enrich them, and c) make sure that things go overall better, then argue after it wears off that you were taking a chance to show them how to maximize their efficiency or somesuch, you MIGHT win a utilitarian argument and convince them that you won't abuse this power over their emotions. But it's a risk.

Against NPCs, where Diplomacy and such should work, you should be able to, while they're Charmed, treat them well and use Diplomacy to push their loyalty levels to a point where, even if they realize you Charmed them before, their review of how you acted will cause them to be, at worst, mildly irritated. After all, you proved you really are a good friend to have, and didn't "take advantage" of it or anything other than a shortcut to avoid having to resort to unpleasantness or something.


There's always, as well, the option of making sure you can keep your "allies" Charmed 100% of the time. It's a bit hard with only an hour/level duration, but not entirely un-doable. If you can get it long enough duration, you can even persuade your friends to not resist the re-application of it. "If I don't, you might come out of it hating me, and you don't want to hate me, do you?"

Hypnotism, the spell, explicitly says victims aren't aware they've been hypnotized after the fact, and its improvement of their attitude by two levels sticks as long as any Diplomacy check would (and without the "can't use it on PCs" rules) for one specific thing you persuade the target(s) of. You might try "Charming you is just a foible of mine you can forgive with little more than mild irritation" as a persuasive thing.

But again, be very careful with this; it's easy to fall into the "And now I force an opposed Cha check to make the party obey" trap. If you use Charm in order to get your way, make sure that you use it judiciously and only to get them to listen to you. Don't use it to take control of the party unless that kind of power-playing is the rule of the day anyway. (e.g., if the wizard or fighter uses threat of death and punishment to compel obedience, or the like.)

The meta-game is the crucial bit of this. Not because of players "metagaming" knowledge of your actions, but because you want to make sure you are first addressing your issues OOC, and that you're not ruining the other players' fun with their characters.

[Andrewmoreton]

Mind controlling other PC's causes or can cause vast personal ill will at the player level, resolve with your fellow players wether this is accepted behavior in your group.
Otherwise expect to be asked to leave the group or at least face vengeance in game, even if the characters cannot work it out the players know and then can accidentally fireball you to death or leave the monster to eat you.
Even if its acceptable to the group this probably means PVP is acceptable and be aware that when the genius level wizard in the party works out you charmed him then you will be killed/dominated otherwise removed as a threat.

I think IC recognizing a charm effect would not be that hard, they are aware of the spell they may have seen you casting . If they suddenly go from arguing/disliking you to agreeing with you and liking you they are likely to wonder of their minds were messed with. An evil character may well then preemptively murder you so it cannot happen again even without proof. Another Wizard or Bard will almost certainly recognize the spell effect at least with a spellcraft roll

[Psyren]

This is actually pretty easy to solve if the DM is working with you. Diplomacy doesn't work on your fellow PCs, but Bluff does; simply have the DM pass you notes, which you read, and then have your character strongly advise the PCs towards or away from various courses of action. The notes don't even have to say anything meaningful every time. The DM will then roll the other party members' Sense Motive against you secretly; if they fail, the DM plays along with what you're planning (should they ask), whereas if they succeed, he will point out that you don't seem trustworthy.

You should also pass notes to the DM when you're going to attempt a Bluff, or simply hand back the notes the DM gave you initially as your signal. The desired outcome here should be a stream of note-passing between you and the DM, such that the other players will be unable to metagame and figure out when you're lying to manipulate them and when you're simply acting on information the rest of them don't know. To further confuse the issue, the DM can have you roll your Bardic Knowledge check before passing you notes, or even announce that he's rolling it for you so that they can't metagame the result.

Finally, you can even cast Glibness beforehand to increase the chances of beating their Sense Motive (and therefore having the DM work with you.) However, if you cast Glibness in full view of the party, I would give them a Spellcraft check (possibly with a Perception check, depending on how far away you stood) to notice what you were up to.

[Hytheter]

I don't think people should necessarily hate you or realise that they were affected by a spell as soon as it ends.
Remember, Charm Person doesn't automatically make the target do anything you tell them. You have to win an opposed charisma check to make them do anything against their nature (which basically represents a combination of the spell and your natural persuasive skills), and they won't do anything obviously harmful even then.
So what happens when the spell wears off should depend on what they did under the spell. If it's something that ends badly for them, they might resent you, or perhaps feel foolish for being convinced. If it's beneficial though, they should be thankful for it!
If it's nothing they mightn't do normally they'll probably think nothing of it. Excepting extreme case, they'll probably just think you persuaded them by normal means, even if they regret it. Anything too far out of line will probably make them realise they were manipulated (but even then, they won't always assume that it was magical manipulation). And again, if whatever it is happens to benefit them, they might not even care.
As for generally realising they were affected by a spell, a spellcaster may recognise the casting/effects (perhaps with a spellcraft check) and a particularly savvy person may figure it out (Intellegence or Sense motive check maybe?) but it shouldn't be automatic, and the average citizen probably shouldn't reach that conclusion easily.

So overall, I think the assumption that Charmed People should automatically hate you once the spell ends is a dumb one. It really needs to be reviewed based on the circumstances and whatever happened while under the spell.

PC interactions complicate things somewhat though, and it depends on the group. I'd probably avoid trying to mind control other characters though, since it could be seen as a form of railroading.
In your examples though, I don't think immediately killing someone because they convinced you to take a break from rewardless dungeons is reasonable, unless they do realise in character that they were affected by a spell.

[Pigkappa]

Have you tried talking to the other players OOC?
It's not going to do much good. They know out of game that my current character is a psycopath serial killer (and worst) because the DM let it slip (luckily without all the details) at the beginning. I won't convince them to trust me in game by arguing for it out of game.



Note, this is assuming that intra-party PvP is not a normal and fun thing you guys like to do anyway.
We've been killing each others many many times in previous games, so that shouldn't be ruled out. This time the agreement was to be a group of friends so that murdering each other while sleeping is not appropriate, but I really can't see how a Charm spell would be that bad, in particular if used in a meaningful way.
I didn't want to rule the group at the start, but now we're in the third pointless dungeon in a row in which we might die at every corner, we have no reason to believe in those who told us to explore it, and we know that huge things are going on in another part of the world where we would have great opportunities of becoming rich.



Do your other party members threaten violence or death if the party (or your character) doesn't do as the violence-threatening PC demands?
Yes.




if you Charm them, and use it to a) save their lives, b) enrich them, and c) make sure that things go overall better

Well, in that case nobody would whine about it, but I want to do this mainly to enrich myself by acquiring a few thousand slaves and letting a whole city being wiped out in the name of Nerull, so there's not much for them to take (sadly, they don't want a share of the slaves).



There's always, as well, the option of making sure you can keep your "allies" Charmed 100% of the time. It's a bit hard with only an hour/level duration, but not entirely un-doable.
I've already tried once but that didn't work. As I was controlled by an enemy who said me "harm one of your friends", I cast Charm Monster on one of them as that's something my PC usually does before other hurtful things. The plan was to renew Charm Monster every week.
Sadly, the player missed the following gaming session, the DM ruled that his character was away because he was involved in some kind of mission, and since he wasn't there I couldn't renew the spell. Since the DM doesn't look happy of me having PCs constantly charmed, that's something I'd rather avoid.



Diplomacy doesn't work on your fellow PCs, but Bluff does; simply have the DM pass you notes
Are you sure? I can't find the line saying that Diplomacy doesn't affect PCs but I thought it also said that Bluff didn't work. The DM also thinks so, and this makes my Glibness + Voice of the Dragon spells useless in this situation.

I have the Conceal Spellcasting spell trick and the Improvisation spell and several Sticky Fingers scrolls to gain a huge Sleight Of Hand bonus, so that nobody can see the Charm spell being cast.

[Psyren]

Are you sure? I can't find the line saying that Diplomacy doesn't affect PCs but I thought it also said that Bluff didn't work. The DM also thinks so, and this makes my Glibness + Voice of the Dragon spells useless in this situation.

Diplomacy calls it out explicitly:


Diplomacy (Cha)

Check
You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check...

Bluff meanwhile is opposed by Sense Motive, which PCs have. Note however that you do need the DM's cooperation to really make this work. You can't simply lie your ass off, tell the other player to roll Sense Motive, and then say "okay, your character believes me." (Well, technically you can do exactly that, but that is just asking players to metagame you.)



I have the Conceal Spellcasting spell trick and the Improvisation spell and several Sticky Fingers scrolls to gain a huge Sleight Of Hand bonus, so that nobody can see the Charm spell being cast.

That's great and all, but hiding the charm once it is cast is still next to impossible. Even if you beat their save every time, the active charm can still be detected on the character, and Sense Motive can detect that something is amiss anyway (at a fixed DC no less.) Given that your DM seems to be opposed to you charming the party, he will be likely to take the slightest excuse to make those rolls.

[Segev]

Well, I meant more "talk to them about why you're not having fun with the current way the game is going." These players are, OOC, your friends, I presume. Does the DM want the party doing what it's doing, want the party to go off on this adventure you're interested in, or just not care? If the first, you won't succeed; the DM wants the party doing this, the other players seem okay with it, and what you want to do is not something they're interested in. Trying to force it IC will only be met with PC and DM resistance, which means that the DM will fiat it so things work as the other players want.

If the second, then talk to the DM about not dropping these pointless quests so that the big cool thing you and he want to have happen is stand-out as about all there is to do to get the other players' dungeon-delving fix.

If the third, then yeah, talk to the other players, and see why they object to going and doing this other thing.


So, you're a psycopathic serial killer who won't turn these tendencies on his allies...but they will threaten to kill him? Perhaps you should return those threats. Or, next time somebody threatens you like that, Charm him quietly. Don't use it to force anything. Talk to the DM in advance that this is a preventative measure; if the player decides his character wants to kill yours, that's when the DM reveals that his character, in fact, does not wish to do so.

If it comes to a "they'll murder you for it" thing, offer them a choice: you can use Charms, or you can threaten them with violent death the same way they threaten you. Though, if the agreement is that you're all friends who won't kill each other, you should probably not be Charming them, either.

Which brings us back to: Talk to the other players about why you're not enjoying the game.

And, if your character would be sick of this, he can always just refuse to go on the next one, or even leave this one. If it means he leaves the party, well...it means he leaves the party. You can bring in one who'd like the adventure the rest of the party is going on, or you can leave the game, yourself. But it sounds like this is a fun-ruining thing, so if you can't work something out OOC with the DM and players such that the game takes a direction that is enjoyable...


I do wonder, though, if you're an all-evil party...why are they so up in arms over you being a psycho murderer?

[supervillan]

It's an evil aligned party and there have already been PvP character deaths. PvP violence is fairly normal in evil parties in my experience, though it's not automatic. The nature of evil PCs is such that a stronger force has to hold them together, or else in the course of seeking their own advantage PvP violence is an entirely likely result. The other evil PCs don't need much excuse, and in my view are perfectly entitled to treat being subjected to a Charm spell in the same way as being subjected to a Fireball. Charm Person is not a buff.

When I've DM'd an evil campaign I've kept the party in line with an evil overlord (Drow King, in one example). That hasn't completely prevented PvP or PCs threatening each other with violence, but it's kept a lid on it. I've found that the PvP violence has tended to stabilise as characters grow more powerful. Partly this is because they get used to working with each other, partly it's because no one character can guarantee coming out on top if violence erupts.

I've also found, when playing an evil character, that some early character deaths result from PvP whilst the party establishes a dynamic or a hierarchy.

[Segev]

If it's a genuinely IC problem, and not the OOC one I think it is, then just being willing to play the game the way the others are is all you need. Use threat of violence as much as they do, and point out that Charming them is actually kinder. If they don't like it, you can just kill them next time they cross you.

Or, heck, kill the ones who object the first time.

If they're all ganged up against you, then you've already done something wrong, and it's either an OOC problem like I think it is, or your character is, IC, with the wrong party.

[Jack_Simth]

This is particularly true for the PCs. Whenever a PC is affected by a Charm Person or Suggestion, the player immediately thinks "I will play nice as long as it is in effect. Than I will use the first possible excuse to kill the caster." This happened to me both as a DM and as a player who wanted to Charm other characters.

Did you ever experience this? Can it be genuinely solved? Is it at least stated clearly that this is not correct in any official source?
Well, by RAW, they'll need to make a skill check to figure it out - either Sense Motive (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm) (DC 25 for Charm, Suggestion, and most enchantments; 15 for anything from the Dominate line) or Spellcraft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) (DC 15+spell level if they can detect you casting it, 20+spell level if they can detect the effects [which probably requires beating the sense motive roll, but might be allowed for the sudden shift in allegiences] or 25 + spell level [if they can't detect your casting, can't detect the specific effect of the spell, and can only go by the fact that they attempted a saving throw]).

If they don't make the check, ask them how they know what's going on, then ask them to stop metagaming if they can't give you something reasonably IC.

That said, casting Charm, Suggestion, or any other hostile spell on your fellow PC's is foul play (unless it's a game where player vs. player is an acceptable practice - it's not at all tables, and the 'default' is that D&D is a cooperative game - and you need to be sure of this; check with the players and DM ooc if it's not explicit).

[navar100]

A wizard casting Charm Person on a fellow PC is akin to the rogue stealing from the party. You are destroying the metagame, so it will be resolved in metagame as in the victim hates your character forever and will try to kill him.

If it's an NPC bad guy doing the Charming, players still don't like it but it's part of the game. The NPC is a villain the party wants to defeat. Players loathe losing control of their PC.

Taking the two together provides the only justified scenario of a wizard casting Charm Person, or worse, on a fellow PC. If the fellow PC has already fallen victim to a bad guy's Charm or Suggestion and Dispel Magic failed or Protection From Evil is not available, a Charm or Suggestion used to try to negate the bad guy's commands is a somewhat desperate move than can be effective. The fellow player knows what's going on in the metagame and has no need to resent it.

[Hytheter]

Well, by RAW, they'll need to make a skill check to figure it out - either Sense Motive (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/senseMotive.htm) (DC 25 for Charm, Suggestion, and most enchantments; 15 for anything from the Dominate line) or Spellcraft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) (DC 15+spell level if they can detect you casting it, 20+spell level if they can detect the effects [which probably requires beating the sense motive roll, but might be allowed for the sudden shift in allegiences] or 25 + spell level [if they can't detect your casting, can't detect the specific effect of the spell, and can only go by the fact that they attempted a saving throw]).

Wait are they actual rules? Oh man I thought I was just coming up with that off the top of my head as a simple, logical solution. Evidently, the game designers agree with me. :D


A wizard casting Charm Person on a fellow PC is akin to the rogue stealing from the party.

With my group I did this. Sleight of Hand checks to pickpocket. I was never caught, so IC no-one did anything. :D

OOC I may have been slapped.

[Jack_Simth]

Wait are they actual rules? Oh man I thought I was just coming up with that off the top of my head as a simple, logical solution. Evidently, the game designers agree with me. :DEh. It's a way of determining IC vs. OOC knowledge. It doesn't *specifically* say you must make the roll when it's YOU... but as it gives rules for determining whether or not a particular subject is under the influence, well, it's definitely something to point to.

[Platymus Pus]

Charm person in a way they will like you even more.:smallwink:

[chainer1216]

charms spells and their like are temporary slavery spells, its mind rape, they have every reason to murder anyone who uses it on them, the magic should be more evil than any necromancy spell.

if you're in a evil game and you're using such brute force means of manipulation, you're gonna get stabbed.

also there's a specific version of suggestion that makes it so the target won't know that somebody else made them do it, its called Devil's Whispers from Cityscape, its a warlock invocation.

[Segev]

Um, no. "Charm" is not "slavery." It makes persuasion a lot easier, and all but guarantees that they'll stop and listen to you while you try to persuade them. It might piss people off if they have good reason for being pissed at you already and feel you've taken advantage of them. Given why people use Charm most commonly, that latter is likely. But it IS in the use.

Use Charm to just make people listen to you, then diplomacy and honest negotiation to work out something useful to all involved, and you've done nothing worse than if you just had that high a Diplomacy to begin with. Still, some might be irked, but do it right, and you can get them comfortable enough to forgive you so long as you continue to not abuse it.

If you're forcing Cha checks to get them to act against their normal proclivities, yes, they might well have good reason to be mad at you...but again, only if they can't later be convinced that it was, genuinely, in their best interests.

It's in what you do with it, not in its use by itself. (It does lend itself to abuse, of course. Even heroes who use it "abuse" it by using it on evil foes to get them to cooperate in the heroes' heroics, which are often not in the strict best interests of evil types.)

[TuggyNE]

charms spells and their like are temporary slavery spells, its mind rape, they have every reason to murder anyone who uses it on them, the magic should be more evil than any necromancy spell.

More evil than death knell?

Also, (charm) doesn't really work for full-on slavery, any more than being good friends with someone does.


also there's a specific version of suggestion that makes it so the target won't know that somebody else made them do it, its called Devil's Whispers from Cityscape, its a warlock invocation.

Presumably this is because warlocks would not otherwise be able to charm persons or monsters, since they don't get spells.

[lsfreak]

also there's a specific version of suggestion that makes it so the target won't know that somebody else made them do it, its called Devil's Whispers from Cityscape, its a warlock invocation.

Actually, there's an important difference here. The invocation makes the subject think it was their idea, while a normal suggestion the person thinks someone else convinced them to do it. In neither circumstance is the person necessarily aware they're under the effects of a spell - from the "victim's" perspective, there's no inherent difference between a suggestion spell and a good argument, unless the suggestion is something the "victim" wouldn't even actually consider.

[Pickford]

I've been experiencing the following problem.

Whenever a Charm Person or Suggestion spell is cast successfully on someone, many people assume that when the spell wears off, that person will remember everything that's happened, realize they've been manipulated because they have done something which is different than their usual behaviour, and hate the caster. Even if what they have done is just a little different than usual and they could've been convinced to do it without any spell.

This is particularly true for the PCs. Whenever a PC is affected by a Charm Person or Suggestion, the player immediately thinks "I will play nice as long as it is in effect. Than I will use the first possible excuse to kill the caster." This happened to me both as a DM and as a player who wanted to Charm other characters.

Did you ever experience this? Can it be genuinely solved? Is it at least stated clearly that this is not correct in any official source?

I currently have a DM who says that this absolutely ok, that the effect of Charm Person is effectively "gain a friend for a few hours, an enemy forever", and this makes it a balanced spell because "gain a friend for a few hours, period" would be too good for a level 1 spell.

Now, as a Bard who has his own interests that are sometimes in conflict with some of the other PCs, this makes me feel very useless. I have been trying to make the point that we are delving in crazy dungeons with no treasure and risking our life at every corner (we are!) but couldn't convince the other characters who say they just like adventure. The DM has told me that having good social skills doesn't help with other PCs and that if I use Charm or Suggestion in any way, he won't object to them immediately killing me as the spell wears off (we're mostly Evil so there are no alignment issues).
I do expect a little of metagaming on their side but they're mostly honest. If they are Charmed and then the Charm wears off, the typical response would be asking the DM if they realize they've been Charmed or not. So the DM has a great power in making them kill me.

Your DM is incorrect.

PHB 177:

A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. For example, if you secretly cast charm person on a creature and its saving throw succeeds, it knows that someone used magic against it, but it can't tell what you were trying to do. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, such as charm person, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

The key point here is that unless your target actually sees you casting in front of it (and makes the DC 11 spellcraft check to identify the spell), it has no way of knowing what has occurred.

In this case, the DM is inappropriately using meta-game knowledge for both players and monsters.

Edit: Incidentally, the DMG also gives a good representation of the difference between charm and compulsion effects (i.e. dominate person).

Charm effects actually change your outlook:


As the strange, wolflike creature loped toward Tordek, he realized that it was a good friend that meant him no harm. But why was Mialee casting a fireball at it?

Whereas compulsion effects...:


Lidda didn't know that the noble she was chatting up was actually a vampire. After one look into his eyes, she heard his voice in her mind, giving her orders that she obeyed without hesitation. She felt like a mere observer, trapped behind her own eyes, watching as "she" sought out her companions and invited them to a private party at the noble's estate.