Can a charmed character attempt to avoid further commands?

[Talakeal]

So if you are under the effects of the Charm Person spell you regard the caster as trustworthy. However, if you are aware that you are under the effects of the spell you would intellectually know that you are not in your right mind. In such a state is it permissible to try and avoid situations where the caster can try and command you? For example running away, casting Protection From Evil, or simply closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and shouting "La La La I can't hear you!"

[Karl Aegis]

Charm person doesn't exert mental control beyond a changing of attitude to friendly. You probably wouldn't do any of those rude things to your friend, but you can probably make an excuse to ditch the caster. After all, you probably have something more important to do all day other than doing your friends favors.

[Afgncaap5]

I think the spell sort of assumes that you're fine with the knowledge of having been Charmed (if you're aware of it) though you'd probably dislike any other spells cast at you, or similar spells being cast at your friends. That's just my interpretation of it, though, I'm pretty sure it's not supported by anything directly.

[Douglas]

I would rule that the spell makes you believe the caster is your friend regardless of evidence to the contrary. If your friend cast Charm Person on you, well, he was already your friend so that was pointless and redundant, right? What a joker. So anyway, about this castle you need help infiltrating...

[Duke of URRL]

No, the charmed person can't avoid too much. If they could, that would ruin the spell. And if the spell is ruined, it would have been deleted long ago.

First off, I'd say the charmed person would not know they have been charmed. At best, if they really thought about it, I'd say they would be confused.

So a character can't just metagame and say ''he cast charm person on me, I will go hide until it wears off''.


But on the bright side, Charm Person does not do much. It just makes the effected creature friendly to the caster. They don't become a mind slave.

[ericgrau]

Would you do those things to your party members? Would you believe someone who told you your party was controlling you?

[Talakeal]

No, the charmed person can't avoid too much. If they could, that would ruin the spell. And if the spell is ruined, it would have been deleted long ago.

First off, I'd say the charmed person would not know they have been charmed. At best, if they really thought about it, I'd say they would be confused.

So a character can't just metagame and say ''he cast charm person on me, I will go hide until it wears off''.


But on the bright side, Charm Person does not do much. It just makes the effected creature friendly to the caster. They don't become a mind slave.

I am not sure I agree with either of those premises, that being able to avoid the worst effects make the spell worthless or that WoTC deletes material that doesn't work as intended.

By RAW I am pretty sure that nothing about charm makes you forget that you were charmed, and the spell craft skill seems to all you to identify it as it was being cast.


I am not sure if it is "metagaming" to try and avoid commands (hence my initial question). For example, in real life when I have been drinking I avoid taking any risks, even one's I think are acceptable, because I know that alcohol impairs my judgment. Even if I feel I am not impaired, on an intellectual level I know I am. Likewise if I intellectually know I am under the effects of a charm spell even if I feel that someone is my best friend I may well know that is a result of the magic and act accordingly. But again, I am not sure.

As for charm not doing much, imo it is amongst the most powerful spells in the game, especially at level 1 (for 4 monster).
At the very least it makes a potential enemy friendly, entirely negating many encounters.
Then you can, if you win a charisma check you can order them to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do, the only limit given is ignore obviously suicidal orders. I have seen people use charm to make someone murder their friends and family, give away their most cherished possessions, violate their most sacred oaths, and in mature / evil campaigns commit all sorts of vile and inappropriate actions.

[Red Fel]

I am not sure if it is "metagaming" to try and avoid commands (hence my initial question).

Well, stop there. You used the magic word. Commands. That, I think, is the crux of the problem. Specifically: The fact that people treat Charm Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm) as a poor man's Dominate Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm).

Let's first review what Charm Person actually does:
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

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.

Let's break it down step by step. First, it makes the target's attitude towards you friendly. Well, what does that mean? Well, in the explanation for the Diplomacy skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm), a "friendly" attitude is described as "will take risks to help you," and tasks for a friendly NPC include "protect, back up, heal, aid."

Next, note the disclaimer - Charm Person does not let you control the target as if it were an automaton. (That's what Dominate Person is for.) You can try to give it orders, but it gets an opposed check to do something it wouldn't ordinarily do, and won't obey obviously harmful orders. So when you give examples like murdering friends and family, violating sacred oaths, and so forth... I'd say that kind of crosses the line into "obviously harmful." (Harm, in my mind, doesn't always mean physical harm. Spiritual or emotional harm is a thing.)

Okay. So let's bring it back. If you are under the effects of Charm Person, you "perceive [the caster's] words and actions in the most favorable way." Even if you knew you were under the influence of the spell, you would interpret it in a positive way. For example, "[Caster] is clearly just trying to calm me down. He's my friend, he's just trying to keep me from losing my temper and doing something stupid."

Now, on to the part about avoiding commands. Here's the thing - Charm Person doesn't let you give commands, per say. At least not perfectly. It's sort of more like giving strong requests. And since the subject of the spell perceives the caster's actions in the best possible way, he wouldn't go out of his way to avoid these commands - clearly, the caster is his friend and wants to help him, so he'd want to help him help. If the caster were making suggestions, it wouldn't be a case of "How can I avoid doing this?" (Unless that's just how the particular NPC works; by being singularly unhelpful.) It would be a case of "I see you want me to do something; how can I do this in a manner that's commensurate with my ordinary way of doing things?"

Short version: They're not commands, at least not in the typical sense. Even assuming that they are, the subject of the spell wouldn't attempt to avoid them (unless that's the sort of person he is), because - being suddenly helpful - he would want to help the caster in any reasonable way. If you wanted to help someone, why would you avoid doing what they asked you to do?

[Darth Ultron]

By RAW I am pretty sure that nothing about charm makes you forget that you were charmed, and the spell craft skill seems to all you to identify it as it was being cast.

I do it that way too. I kinda does not make sense for a target to remember they were charmed, becasue they you get that loop. Zothkath the Vile Necromancer is my Friend. And a minute ago when I was not his friend I was going to kill him. But then he cast charm person on me. So now I think he is my friend, but know he is not my friend and I only think he is my friend as he cast charm person on me.



Likewise if I intellectually know I am under the effects of a charm spell even if I feel that someone is my best friend I may well know that is a result of the magic and act accordingly. But again, I am not sure.

Drunk is a great example....i think charmed people ''act drunk'', but only for things concerning their new friend.




Then you can, if you win a charisma check you can order them to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do, the only limit given is ignore obviously suicidal orders. I have seen people use charm to make someone murder their friends and family, give away their most cherished possessions, violate their most sacred oaths, and in mature / evil campaigns commit all sorts of vile and inappropriate actions.

I guess I do the spell differently. I don't go for the ''they are your mindless slave if you make a charisma check.'' I go for more the Best Friend idea. Charm Person makes the target think they are your best friend. So the limit is whatever a Best Friend would do. So, no best friend would ever, for example murder their family...and that would break the spell right there.

I'd also say that killing your family, giving away stuff, violating an oath and doing vile acts are all Harmful actions, and are not allowed by the spell.

[LooseCannoneer]

No, as a GM, I would even go as far as to rule that the charmed person does not even believe that they are charmed. After all, what's the point of friends if not people you trust not to do that stuff?

[SiuiS]

So if you are under the effects of the Charm Person spell you regard the caster as trustworthy. However, if you are aware that you are under the effects of the spell you would intellectually know that you are not in your right mind. In such a state is it permissible to try and avoid situations where the caster can try and command you? For example running away, casting Protection From Evil, or simply closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and shouting "La La La I can't hear you!"

No. You trust that he won't abuse his power, after all. If there's anyone who could be trusted to hold your leash/remote control, it's them! I mean, they're totes trustworthy, right?

Being logically aware of something and emotionally invested in the reverse tends to fare poorly for logic. Always. Humans are not logical beings. When someone can squash their own personal wants and do what they believe to be best despite their strong internal protests, we call that willpower. You already had your chance to exert willpower with tr saving throw. If you failed, and you are charmed, you are in the subset of people whose emotional wants and gratification and justifications will trump their intellectual understanding.

[Talakeal]

No. You trust that he won't abuse his power, after all. If there's anyone who could be trusted to hold your leash/remote control, it's them! I mean, they're totes trustworthy, right?

Being logically aware of something and emotionally invested in the reverse tends to fare poorly for logic. Always. Humans are not logical beings. When someone can squash their own personal wants and do what they believe to be best despite their strong internal protests, we call that willpower. You already had your chance to exert willpower with tr saving throw. If you failed, and you are charmed, you are in the subset of people whose emotional wants and gratification and justifications will trump their intellectual understanding.

AFAIK there is absolutely nothing in the rules to even suggest a charmed creature doesn't know that it is charmed. That is probably a decent house rule, but I am more concerned with the spell as written.

While I can see where you are coming from with the willpower thing, that seems a bit wrong to me. The save for the spell doesn't care about conditions or circumstances, is easy to bypass, and is a heck of a lot harder than exerting real world willpower. A monk with an 18 wisdom and Iron Will will still fail against an average wizard almost half the time, and I wouldn't consider such a character "lacking in willpower". I force myself to do things I don't want to do every day, and I wouldn't say I have anywhere close to said monk's willpower. Also, the game lacks any sort of mechanic to represent how much your character is trying to fight after the fact, and you will, say, have no more say in attempting to resist a charm spell if the caster asks you to loan them a silver piece or murder a small child.

You know, its funny, I think if you go by RAW charm is actually better than dominate in a lot of ways. Dominate does NOT alter your attitude and it takes a move action to actually give the creature orders and a full round action to cast, so unless you are doing something to get an extra action the enemy will actually get a chance to break to spell before you can tell them to do anything else.

[RoboEmperor]

@Red Fel
You're actually wrong. Here's a quote from the DMG glossary


Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of actions to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.


A charmed creature doesn’t gain any magical ability to understand his new friend’s language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight between two actual friends).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to her.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature’s apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect

.

Emphasis on the bolded part. You can make a person do things that he would not do for a close friend which pretty much encompasses every action possibly imaginable, so you can make the guy do almost anything as long as you succeed the charisma check. Difference between dominate monster is, dominate can let you control the guy like a puppet without the charisma check, but charm monster requires the charisma check to do so.

It is also interesting to note that the underlined part of the quote says you are giving commands, not persuasive speeches, which further proves charm acts very similarly to dominate.

Now, there is some controversy on the 2nd bolded part. I say it's evidence that charm is a poor man's dominate, but other people say succeeding the 2nd will save does not make the charmed creature perform the action. It just merely maintains the charm while the creature still refuses to perform the action thats violently against its nature. The world is riddled with people who are hell bent on making you as weak as possible.

[Surpriser]

On the other hand "harmful" is not limited to "will kill or inflict severe bodily harm to me". Killing a small child or breaking my oath is definitely harmful to me (if only in a psychological way or because it would result in me losing my powers), so any command to that effect would be ignored without any save or Charisma check.
The second-to-last paragraph can also be read as: If you are commanded to do something harmful to you (to which you would naturally be violently opposed, if you don't have masochistic tendencies), you automatically refuse (by the clause above) AND are allowed a new save to break the whole charm (because you realize that your new buddy is not as nice as you thought).

In the end, it is a DM's call. I would definitely not rule it as Dominate Person with attached Charisma checks because that would make it more powerful than normal for a first level spell.

[elonin]

The way some groups have played charm person/monster goes beyond the I'm your friend and into your my serf. I'd do some things for a good friend but some things would be off limits. This might be in the territory of playing the spell as a poor mans dominate, but I have seen it played that way.

[Psyren]

which pretty much encompasses every action possibly imaginable

The line you didn't bold is important too:


A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to her.

And while the glossary says "grievously," the spell itself (which is the primary source for how the spell works, not the DMG glossary) merely says "obviously." Thus a great many actions are in fact prohibited.

[Nibbens]

A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight between two actual friends).

I actually find the above quote kind of interesting. This one spell effectively takes a PC out of the fight - fighting non-lethally, and attempting to grapple and bull rush (push) his two friends apart - placing himself between them... This could totally be disastrous for the PCs if this is used in combat...

[Psyren]

I actually find the above quote kind of interesting. This one spell effectively takes a PC out of the fight - fighting non-lethally, and attempting to grapple and bull rush (push) his two friends apart - placing himself between them... This could totally be disastrous for the PCs if this is used in combat...

Note the "possibility of success" clause though - so a charmed rogue, say, is probably not going to run around trying to grapple and bull rush the barbarian to stop him from hurting his new dryad friend. But he may get out his sap and flank with the dryad to try and "knock some sense" into his barbarian friend who is clearly acting strangely.

[SiuiS]

AFAIK there is absolutely nothing in the rules to even suggest a charmed creature doesn't know that it is charmed. That is probably a decent house rule, but I am more concerned with the spell as written.

And? There's nothing in my answer to suggest I believe otherwise. The entire point of "I trust you not to a use your charm magic" hinges on awareness of charm magic, doesn't it?



While I can see where you are coming from with the willpower thing, that seems a bit wrong to me. The save for the spell doesn't care about conditions or circumstances, is easy to bypass, and is a heck of a lot harder than exerting real world willpower. A monk with an 18 wisdom and Iron Will will still fail against an average wizard almost half the time, and I wouldn't consider such a character "lacking in willpower".

This is a false comparison. A wizard forcing supernatural control on you is going to be stronger than the call of that third jelly donut. You have one chance to have your will shine through before it is crushed by the wizard's will. That's pretty spot on.

If you routinely perform life or death decisions where you want to kill or save some one and do the opposite to follow your duty? Then your anecdotes would matter. I doubt you're in those situations.


Also, the game lacks any sort of mechanic to represent how much your character is trying to fight after the fact

No it doesn't. It directly has a series of sub rules about that exact thing.

[Darth Ultron]

A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.

A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to her.

If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.

The above three cover a lot. Taking the examples of: make someone murder their friends and family, give away their most cherished possessions, violate their most sacred oaths, and in mature / evil campaigns commit all sorts of vile and inappropriate actions.

1.Murder friends and family. I'd say that is ''grievously harmful'' and in most cases it would give another save.
2.Give away their most cherished possessions. Again, ''grievously harmful'' and in most cases it would give another save.
3.Violate their most sacred oaths. Again, ''grievously harmful'' and in most cases it would give another save.
4.All sorts of vile and inappropriate actions. Well...maybe, as this one is vague....but still a lot of room for ''grievously harmful'' and in most cases it would give another save.

You simply can't do too much evil with Charm Person. It is still a good spell, you just can't have a charmed person murder their family. You can have a charmed person do all sorts of other things. The light touch is the best. For example, telling the person to leave town and take a vacation will still get rid of them.

[RoboEmperor]

I agree that "grievously harmful" limits the effect of charm monster significantly. It's up to DM interpretation.

So the main difference between dominate is

1. Requires an additional charisma check for some commands
2. Can't be used in-battle effectively (charmed creature will attack both sides non lethally or something)
3. Can't be used to do extreme stuff (up to DM interpretation) like killing your own mother (unless the creature hates its mother), etc..

But it is more than just a "set to friendly" spell.

I use charm mainly to enslave called creatures.

To answer the OP's question, charmed creatures do not know they are charmed. Once the charm breaks though, he may or may not know he was charmed. If the creature knows the existence of the charm spell, then he can put two and two together to figure out why he acted in such a weird way. So no blocking ears and going "La la la"

[Talakeal]

Ok, so the situation where this came up in game:

I was running an encounter against a mated pair of dragons. The party sorcerer cast charm monster on one and was then going to order it to kill its mate while the party made off with their hoard. The dragon made its spell craft check and therefore knew it was charmed, and before the sorcerer could give the order the dragon cast Protection from Evil on itself. Said sorcerer claimed that if the dragon truly trusted him it wouldn't do such a thing, and rather than fight I gave in. The party looted the hoard while the two dragons fought and then told the badly wounded dragon who had just killed its mate to turn around and close its eyes, walked up behind it, and finished it off.

It makes sense, but it just seems wrong that a single fourth level spell was able to take out two equal CR dragons, especially considering that the 9th level spell dominate monster (and indeed most any spell in the game that a dragon isn't immune to) would have allowed the dragon to get out of the effect with a spell of its own after the fact.


And? There's nothing in my answer to suggest I believe otherwise. The entire point of "I trust you not to a use your charm magic" hinges on awareness of charm magic, doesn't it?.

Ok; its just you (and everyone else) keeps saying that is how they play it. The campaign where the problem came up in was running as close to pure RAW as possible, so any advice that involves making new rules doesn't really help and if such a rule DOES exist I would really like to know about it.



This is a false comparison. A wizard forcing supernatural control on you is going to be stronger than the call of that third jelly donut. You have one chance to have your will shine through before it is crushed by the wizard's will. That's pretty spot on.

If you routinely perform life or death decisions where you want to kill or save some one and do the opposite to follow your duty? Then your anecdotes would matter. I doubt you're in those situations.

As I said, you aren't exactly wrong, its just a different way of looking at it. The save is to resist the spell entirely, after that we are talking about how you behave while under the effects of the spell, they aren't the same thing imo.




No it doesn't. It directly has a series of sub rules about that exact thing.

Please explain? Are you referring to the charisma test to talk the person into something? Because willpower (or the severity of the request) don't factor into that.


A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.

A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to her.

If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.

The above three cover a lot. Taking the examples of: make someone murder their friends and family, give away their most cherished possessions, violate their most sacred oaths, and in mature / evil campaigns commit all sorts of vile and inappropriate actions.

1.Murder friends and family. I'd say that is ''grievously harmful'' and in most cases it would give another save.
2.Give away their most cherished possessions. Again, ''grievously harmful'' and in most cases it would give another save.
3.Violate their most sacred oaths. Again, ''grievously harmful'' and in most cases it would give another save.
4.All sorts of vile and inappropriate actions. Well...maybe, as this one is vague....but still a lot of room for ''grievously harmful'' and in most cases it would give another save.

You simply can't do too much evil with Charm Person. It is still a good spell, you just can't have a charmed person murder their family. You can have a charmed person do all sorts of other things. The light touch is the best. For example, telling the person to leave town and take a vacation will still get rid of them.

See, I read "obviously harmful" to me something that will actually hurt or kill the subject of the spell like ordering them to jump off a cliff or slit their throat. The example it gives doesn't help much, as it talks about how attacking a red dragon is beyond the scope, but holding it off for a moment is fine.

Where do you draw the line between "something they wouldn't ordinarily do" and "something that is obviously harmful?"

The spell says that you trust the caster and react to their suggestions in the most favorable way possible. To me the charisma check is less about willpower and more about emotional manipulation. You would, say, convince them that their is a really good reason for killing said innocent child, or that they really need your treasure more than you do, or that they really do love you more than your spouse does and you should run away with them.



To answer the OP's question, charmed creatures do not know they are charmed. Once the charm breaks though, he may or may not know he was charmed. If the creature knows the existence of the charm spell, then he can put two and two together to figure out why he acted in such a weird way. So no blocking ears and going "La la la"

Do you have a source for this? As I told SiuiS that is a reasonable and fairly common house rule, but if I could actually find a printed rule that corroborates that it is a game changer.

[Douglas]

Ok, so the situation where this came up in game:

I was running an encounter against a mated pair of dragons. The party sorcerer cast charm monster on one and was then going to order it to kill its mate while the party made off with their hoard. The dragon made its spell craft check and therefore knew it was charmed, and before the sorcerer could give the order the dragon cast Protection from Evil on itself. Said sorcerer claimed that if the dragon truly trusted him it wouldn't do such a thing, and rather than fight I gave in. The party looted the hoard while the two dragons fought and then told the badly wounded dragon who had just killed its mate to turn around and close its eyes, walked up behind it, and finished it off.
That order should have triggered the "violently opposed to" clause. As such, it should have immediately given the dragon a free extra save to break the spell entirely, and regardless of whether the save passed the dragon would disobey.

Also, if the other dragon made a spellcraft check, or just knew about charm spells in general and was smart enough to figure it out from behavior, it would be quite thoroughly justified in casting Protection from Evil on the charmed one. It's not a self-only spell, after all. It wouldn't even need to roll the touch attack, too, as the charm does not negate existing friendships so its mate would be quite willing to accept a beneficial spell.

[Darth Ultron]

Ok, so the situation where this came up in game:

I was running an encounter against a mated pair of dragons.

It makes sense, but it just seems wrong that a single fourth level spell was able to take out two equal CR dragons,



It Obviously makes no sense to me.



See, I read "obviously harmful" to me something that will actually hurt or kill the subject of the spell like ordering them to jump off a cliff or slit their throat. The example it gives doesn't help much, as it talks about how attacking a red dragon is beyond the scope, but holding it off for a moment is fine.

Where do you draw the line between "something they wouldn't ordinarily do" and "something that is obviously harmful?"



As the spell mentions, I use the ''Best Friend'' to draw the line. So a Charm can have an effected creature do anything a Best Friend would do for another Best Friend.

I read ''harmful'' as anything that would knowingly harm the person in any way. For example, asking someone to disarm themselves when they are in a hostile area is harmful. As is saying ''go attack that dragon''.

And it's simple enough, the top twenty of so ''things that a little kid would order a charmed person to do'' are things a person would not ordinarily do.

Charm is more of a soft touch, not a hammer.

Take the dragon example. ''Slay your mate'' is very much against what a good or neutral dragon would ordinarily do and is harmful to the dragons life. Ignoring others in your lair and not guarding your horde can both lead to the dragon being harmed So the dragon would not do it, and would get another save. And, even though the evil dragon is fine with killing it's mate ordinarily, the dragon still knows it would be harmful to do right at the moment and cares just as much about it's life and horde as the other dragons.

I'd say it might be possible to trick a dragon into leaving it's horde.....but it would be hard. It might be possible to make the case of the dragon needs to be elsewhere....but not easily. It would be much easier to just get the dragon to lower it's guard and do something unwise.

[RoboEmperor]

Do you have a source for this? As I told SiuiS that is a reasonable and fairly common house rule, but if I could actually find a printed rule that corroborates that it is a game changer.

Sorry, as for printed rules, the DMG glossary quote and the spell description is it. There are a few official examples. On the top of my head, a level 1 wizard in the DMG used charm person on a goblin to find out where its camp is.

On the contrary, it would be a house rule to ignore the "set it to friendly" part of the spell and treat it like an imminent mind controlling chip in your brain that you're trying to thwart. See how ridiculous this sounds?

Friendly attitude

Friendly Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate

If a DM rules that a charmed creature knows he is charmed and blocks his ears to avoid being commanded, I'll tell him he's ignoring the "close friend" part, and if he continues to BS his way into his ruling, I will walk, because this is a huge warning sign this DM is hell bent on forcing you to play a specific way and he will shut down any attempts on creativity.

It's not a house rule, it's common sense.
1. Charm is a mind-affecting spell. You're not thinking straight.
2. All the official charmed creature examples show an immediate change in attitude and it doesn't change back until the duration is over.

So you're about to kill a wizard, but then you suddenly fall in love (non-romantically) with the wizard, and you stay super friendly with your close friend until the spell duration is over. Your attitude is friendly. You want to help the wizard, because he is your bestest friend and you two go way back, even if you don't remember it. A person who wants to help doesn't block his ears and go "La la la you can't command me"

You can block your ears to resist someone casting geas/quest on you. You can block your ears to prevent someone casting suggestion on you, but charm monster does not have the language-dependent tag on it, so you can charm a guy sleeping, or a guy who is blocking his ears, going "La la la" and has his eyes shut, and once the charm is in place, the guy does not suspect any treachery from you and wants to help you, so he unblocks his ears and talks with you.

If you want to block your ears to resist commands when you're charmed, you gotta justify why you would block your ears and go "la la la" in the company of your closest friend.

About your dragon scenario:
1. Charmed creature won't attack its former allies.
2. Using the charisma check to force it to attack its former ally is up to DM's interpretation on grievously harmful.
3. Why couldn't the other dragon cast protection from evil on the charmed dragon?

So my DM would've ruled that the charmed dragon would stop the other dragon from attacking, but no more. He still would stop the PCs (non lethally) from taking their hoard. If the player complains he would say "use your brain. Charm some other creature to fight the dragons, or use the charmed dragon to fight other guys. Or charm both dragons and ask them to go away for a day."

[Talakeal]

That order should have triggered the "violently opposed to" clause. As such, it should have immediately given the dragon a free extra save to break the spell entirely, and regardless of whether the save passed the dragon would disobey.

Also, if the other dragon made a spellcraft check, or just knew about charm spells in general and was smart enough to figure it out from behavior, it would be quite thoroughly justified in casting Protection from Evil on the charmed one. It's not a self-only spell, after all. It wouldn't even need to roll the touch attack, too, as the charm does not negate existing friendships so its mate would be quite willing to accept a beneficial spell.

That restriction isn't in the spell, and until someone pointed it out to me I wasn't aware that the DMG contained that clause hidden in the glossary. Still, let's just assume the dragon failed its second save for the sake of discussion.

The other dragon didn't know protection from evil unfortunately or it never would have been an issue.


Sorry, as for printed rules, the DMG glossary quote and the spell description is it. There are a few official examples. On the top of my head, a level 1 wizard in the DMG used charm person on a goblin to find out where its camp is.

On the contrary, it would be a house rule to ignore the "set it to friendly" part of the spell and treat it like an imminent mind controlling chip in your brain that you're trying to thwart. See how ridiculous this sounds?

Friendly attitude


If a DM rules that a charmed creature knows he is charmed and blocks his ears to avoid being commanded, I'll tell him he's ignoring the "close friend" part, and if he continues to BS his way into his ruling, I will walk, because this is a huge warning sign this DM is hell bent on forcing you to play a specific way and he will shut down any attempts on creativity.

It's not a house rule, it's common sense.
1. Charm is a mind-affecting spell. You're not thinking straight.
2. All the official charmed creature examples show an immediate change in attitude and it doesn't change back until the duration is over.

So you're about to kill a wizard, but then you suddenly fall in love (non-romantically) with the wizard, and you stay super friendly with your close friend until the spell duration is over. Your attitude is friendly. You want to help the wizard, because he is your bestest friend and you two go way back, even if you don't remember it. A person who wants to help doesn't block his ears and go "La la la you can't command me"

You can block your ears to resist someone casting geas/quest on you. You can block your ears to prevent someone casting suggestion on you, but charm monster does not have the language-dependent tag on it, so you can charm a guy sleeping, or a guy who is blocking his ears, going "La la la" and has his eyes shut, and once the charm is in place, the guy does not suspect any treachery from you and wants to help you, so he unblocks his ears and talks with you.

If you want to block your ears to resist commands when you're charmed, you gotta justify why you would block your ears and go "la la la" in the company of your closest friend.

About your dragon scenario:
1. Charmed creature won't attack its former allies.
2. Using the charisma check to force it to attack its former ally is up to DM's interpretation on grievously harmful.
3. Why couldn't the other dragon cast protection from evil on the charmed dragon?

So my DM would've ruled that the charmed dragon would stop the other dragon from attacking, but no more. He still would stop the PCs (non lethally) from taking their hoard.

If you don't know you are charmed then you wouldn't do anything to resist. But if you know that the person isn't really your best friend and you just believe he is because you are not in your right state of mind you have every reason to try and avoid contact. Imagine it like a murder mystery where someone suspects that their friend / lover is the killer; they don't out and out attack them, but they still avoid being alone in a room with them.

I think the problem stems from the text of the charm person spell. It is like they mashed together friends and dominate and got something that doesn't quite fit and takes a lot of assumption and interpretation to make the spell function at an appropriate power level. I think I will look at how AD&D handled it to see if that clarifies the situation...

[Douglas]

That restriction isn't in the spell, and until someone pointed it out to me I wasn't aware that the DMG contained that clause hidden in the glossary. Still, let's just assume the dragon failed its second save for the sake of discussion.
Even on a failed save, the order will still be ignored. The failed save would just mean it doesn't turn hostile again because of it.

Even keeping to just the text of the spell itself, without any of the other rules about charm spells in general, there's this line:

An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders
I'd say "fight your mate to the death" is an obviously harmful order.

Oh, and don't forget this clause:

If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.


The other dragon didn't know protection from evil unfortunately or it never would have been an issue.
That complicates things slightly. In that case, instead of casting it him/herself, the uncharmed dragon could suggest (in the normal English sense of the word, not a spell) that the charmed dragon cast it. (S)he is still a mate and presumably close friend, after all, and there are all these adventurers other than the sorcerer who might be about to try charm or dominate spells.:smalltongue: Or the uncharmed dragon could just not give a reason and the charmed one follows the suggestion because it comes from a trusted ally and there's no obvious reason not to.


If you don't know you are charmed then you wouldn't do anything to resist. But if you know that the person isn't really your best friend and you just believe he is because you are not in your right state of mind you have every reason to try and avoid contact.
Knowing he isn't really your friend and believing that he is your friend aren't really compatible viewpoints to hold at the same time.


Imagine it like a murder mystery where someone suspects that their friend / lover is the killer; they don't out and out attack them, but they still avoid being alone in a room with them.
I don't think that really fits. That scenario describes someone that you're really not sure whether they're actually your friend. A charmed person is completely convinced that the charmer definitely is a friend.


I think the problem stems from the text of the charm person spell. It is like they mashed together friends and dominate and got something that doesn't quite fit and takes a lot of assumption and interpretation to make the spell function at an appropriate power level. I think I will look at how AD&D handled it to see if that clarifies the situation...
I haven't played AD&D much, but from what I've heard it tended to leave a lot more ambiguities for the DM to rule on, so I wouldn't expect it to help much in clearing up an ambiguity.

In summary, I think the avenue you're trying to look into for limiting the effectiveness of Charm Person/Monster is not compatible with the letter or spirit of the rules, but there are others that are.

[endur]

Now, there is some controversy on the 2nd bolded part. I say it's evidence that charm is a poor man's dominate, but other people say succeeding the 2nd will save does not make the charmed creature perform the action. It just merely maintains the charm while the creature still refuses to perform the action thats violently against its nature. The world is riddled with people who are hell bent on making you as weak as possible.

"A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions."

If your alignment is good, and you are requested to do something evil, you don't have to do it. And you get a second saving throw just because your new "friend" was the source of the evil suggestion.

Or if you ask an evil charmed character to spend an hour helping the local soup kitchen, they don't have to do it. And they get a second saving throw.

[Douglas]

Or if you ask an evil charmed character to spend an hour helping the local soup kitchen, they don't have to do it. And they get a second saving throw.
I imagine most evil characters would regard this as a pointless nuisance, not something they actually strongly object to. Might take a charisma check, but a charm spell could get most to do this as a favor for their "friend".

A full up Blackguard or [evil] subtype outsider, though, those would get a new save for such an order.

Typical Evil does not usually object to Good acts the way Good objects to Evil. Rather, typical Evil just doesn't care, and will do whatever good or evil act(s) get the goal accomplished.

[Talakeal]

Wow, the DMG does make charm person a heck of a lot less powerful. I wonder why they didn't feel the need to put any of that additional info (or at least a reference to the DMG) in the spell description?

Although it also makes it slightly more powerful in that you only get an opposed charisma check to resist orders if those orders are for things you would never do even for a close friend. So that makes it a lot more powerful as you can (apparently) treat the person like your slave without any rolls so long as you don't order them to do things they would never do. I also wonder what exactly constitutes "would never do" without being harmful, violating allegiances or alignment, or attacking someone?


Also, as a curiosity; for DMs who run is as if people don't know that they are charmed, does the spell actually alter their memory in your game? Like, for example, I say to may friend "I am going to cast charm person on you now!" Then I cast the spell and he makes his spell-craft check and knows what spell I am casting. The spell affects him and I say to him "What spell did I just cast on you?" What would his response be? Will the answer change if I ask again once the spell has worn off?

[Douglas]

Although it also makes it slightly more powerful in that you only get an opposed charisma check to resist orders if those orders are for things you would never do even for a close friend. So that makes it a lot more powerful as you can (apparently) treat the person like your slave without any rolls so long as you don't order them to do things they would never do. I also wonder what exactly constitutes "would never do" without being harmful, violating allegiances or alignment, or attacking someone?
That depends very much on the individual. In general, I would decide the response to an order by considering how the victim would respond if an actual close friend requested it without using magic. Anything up to "ok, but you'll owe me for it" works automatically. If the response I'm imagining is "there'd better be a damn good explanation for this", then roll a charisma check. If it's "absolutely not", then the order fails. If it's "why the hell would you even ask that!?:smallfurious:", the order fails and roll a new save for breaking the spell entirely.


Also, as a curiosity; for DMs who run is as if people don't know that they are charmed, does the spell actually alter their memory in your game? Like, for example, I say to may friend "I am going to cast charm person on you now!" Then I cast the spell and he makes his spell-craft check and knows what spell I am casting. The spell affects him and I say to him "What spell did I just cast on you?" What would his response be? Will the answer change if I ask again once the spell has worn off?
His immediate response: "Charm Person. Why did you cast that, by the way? It seems a pointless waste of a spell since I don't need magic to be your friend."
After it wears off: Same thing.

If the friend is actually an enemy, but failed his save:
Immediate response: "Charm Person. Why did you cast that, by the way? It seems a pointless waste of a spell since I don't need magic to be your friend."
After it wears off: "You bastard! I'll kill you for that!:smallfurious:"

Note for that last reaction, it may only happen if something draws his attention to the event after the spell wears off. If you're gone by the time the duration expires and nothing reminds him of you, he may never think about it again, but as soon as something makes him think about either the casting or his behavior under the spell's influence, he will likely realize what happened and get angry about it.

[Talakeal]

On a related note, would it be possible for a charm spell to have negative consequences?

For example, what if the character who is charmed is the type who is naturally controlling or abusive of their friends and loved ones? Might you have a situation where a charm spell makes a character obsessed with the caster in bad ways? For example stalking them, attacking their loved ones out of jealousy, forcing themselves on the wizard, keeping them prisoner so they can always be close, refusing to let them engage in dangerous behavior, etc.?

Now, I don't mean to use this as a munchkinny way to screw enchanters. I am talking about legitimate RP in keeping with the target's nature.

For example, once I had two players in a group, an enchanter and necromancer. Now, the necromancer was obsessed with the undead and saw mortality as a weakness to be overcome, and his only real friends where the undead. A bit like the late Tsukiko.

They got into an argument, and the enchanter decided to charm the necromancer to force him to go along. The necromancer's player declared that his character would then attempt to kill the enchanter and raise him as an undead pet, as that is how the necromancer would legitimately respond to having such a strong fascination with someone.

As the DM I said I would allow it and then I let the enchanter dismiss the spell before anything serious came of it.

I thought it made for an interesting RP scenario, but I am not sure if that is actually a reasonable response to a charm spell.

[Deophaun]

Ok, so the situation where this came up in game:

I was running an encounter against a mated pair of dragons. The party sorcerer cast charm monster on one and was then going to order it to kill its mate while the party made off with their hoard.
Fails outright:

A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight between two actual friends).
Until the second dragon attacks the party, the first dragon isn't going to attack.

And yes, this also triggers the "violently opposed" clause, and the dragon gets another save. So, that's all the command accomplished, which makes it entirely counterproductive.

Edit: And meanwhile, I'm assuming Second Dragon knew First Dragon could cast protection from evil, and therefore, being First Dragon's mate, could quite easily convince it that it might be a good idea to cast the spell.

[georgie_leech]

On a related note, would it be possible for a charm spell to have negative consequences?

For example, what if the character who is charmed is the type who is naturally controlling or abusive of their friends and loved ones? Might you have a situation where a charm spell makes a character obsessed with the caster in bad ways? For example stalking them, attacking their loved ones out of jealousy, forcing themselves on the wizard, keeping them prisoner so they can always be close, refusing to let them engage in dangerous behavior, etc.?

Now, I don't mean to use this as a munchkinny way to screw enchanters. I am talking about legitimate RP in keeping with the target's nature.

For example, once I had two players in a group, an enchanter and necromancer. Now, the necromancer was obsessed with the undead and saw mortality as a weakness to be overcome, and his only real friends where the undead. A bit like the late Tsukiko.

They got into an argument, and the enchanter decided to charm the necromancer to force him to go along. The necromancer's player declared that his character would then attempt to kill the enchanter and raise him as an undead pet, as that is how the necromancer would legitimately respond to having such a strong fascination with someone.

As the DM I said I would allow it and then I let the enchanter dismiss the spell before anything serious came of it.

I thought it made for an interesting RP scenario, but I am not sure if that is actually a reasonable response to a charm spell.

If it was an NPC Necromancer, I'd probably feel a little cheated if I was the enchanter. Between two players however, I agree, that is an interesting RP twist. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

That depends very much on the individual. In general, I would decide the response to an order by considering how the victim would respond if an actual close friend requested it without using magic. Anything up to "ok, but you'll owe me for it" works automatically. If the response I'm imagining is "there'd better be a damn good explanation for this", then roll a charisma check. If it's "absolutely not", then the order fails. If it's "why the hell would you even ask that!?:smallfurious:", the order fails and roll a new save for breaking the spell entirely.


His immediate response: "Charm Person. Why did you cast that, by the way? It seems a pointless waste of a spell since I don't need magic to be your friend."
After it wears off: Same thing.

If the friend is actually an enemy, but failed his save:
Immediate response: "Charm Person. Why did you cast that, by the way? It seems a pointless waste of a spell since I don't need magic to be your friend."
After it wears off: "You bastard! I'll kill you for that!:smallfurious:"

Note for that last reaction, it may only happen if something draws his attention to the event after the spell wears off. If you're gone by the time the duration expires and nothing reminds him of you, he may never think about it again, but as soon as something makes him think about either the casting or his behavior under the spell's influence, he will likely realize what happened and get angry about it.

Agreed on all points here.


On a related note, would it be possible for a charm spell to have negative consequences?

For example, what if the character who is charmed is the type who is naturally controlling or abusive of their friends and loved ones? Might you have a situation where a charm spell makes a character obsessed with the caster in bad ways? For example stalking them, attacking their loved ones out of jealousy, forcing themselves on the wizard, keeping them prisoner so they can always be close, refusing to let them engage in dangerous behavior, etc.?

Now, I don't mean to use this as a munchkinny way to screw enchanters. I am talking about legitimate RP in keeping with the target's nature.

Well, "friendly" has a specific meaning in D&D - "wishes you well." You would have to be pretty clueless about your friend's desires for those things to be considered "well-wishing" I'd say. Which is not to say that your scenario is impossible, but I wouldn't expect it in any but the most simplistic creatures, and even if it came up, the enchanter should have little trouble getting you to cool it.