Does a Charmed creature know afterward that it was Charmed?

[jmax]

Inspired by this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?556035-Can-you-conquer-real-world-with-Charm-person-and-Quest-Geass

The cited Rules Compendium entry says nothing about what happens after charm person expires.

Does a charmed creature inherently know afterward that it was charmed? Does that knowledge tend to cause them to become angry? Does it depend on their experiences while charmed?

I've always felt that the spell's usefulness is very narrow if the creature immediately realizes they were manipulated after the spell ends but that it becomes much more interesting if (a) they don't inherently realize that they were manipulated (although some might), and (b) their attitude depends considerably on their experiences while charmed and the results of those experiences. Nothing in the text of the spell supports either assertion.

I like to think of it as being moderately intoxicated, but only for purposes of interacting with the charmer. If the charmer tells you a bunch of funny stories, shows you a great time, and generally makes you happy without getting you into trouble, you might well feel considerable good will to the charmer after the spell effect wears off - similar to meeting someone and becoming friends while a little bit drunk. If you later discover (or if it's inherently obvious once you are no longer charmed) that the charmer has taken advantage of you in significantly detrimental ways, your attitude is likely to become quite sour.

The other problem I've always been concerned about with charm person is that it seems like it can be entirely negated by someone else seeing you cast the spell. They may not know it's a charm spell, but they'll definitely know you're casting if they see it. You could, however, cast before they and their companions see you. But that greatly limits the opportunities to use the spell, so you almost need the Disguise Spell feat or the Conceal Spellcasting skill trick to achieve its full potential.

How has everyone else interpreted these questions? How have DMs adjudicated the spell?

[Bronk]

I agree, the charm spell is best if the target never knows they were enspelled. The feats you mentioned would be one way of doing that, or you could cast it from a distance, or as a spell-like ability. Or be invisible or hidden, and silence them first.

It would still be useful even if the target had allies around, because the target would still be quite confused... why are all of its friends fighting? At worst, the target would be out of the fight, and that's still pretty good.

As for the immediate aftermath, if you just charmed a guard or something and had them open a door they weren't supposed to, all you'd need to do is have the guard let you tie them up.

As for how I'd run it, I just play it straight... they're inexplicably friends with the caster now, they don't know why, and they don't care. More in the style of a Harry Potter book imperio than a glassy eyed happy drunk movie imperio (without the domination).

[Elkad]

When you let the car salesman talk you into overpaying for a car, you have full knowledge of what happened. And it seemed agreeable at the time, because you signed.
And yet a few days later you realize you got played and are angry about it. And that's just Diplomacy and Bluff.

Or your date maybe slips something in your drink, removing your inhibitions or altering your perceptions, and the next morning you remember what you did in horror. Your actions were completely out of character.

You can still suspect. "I felt fine, then I went to the latrine. Shortly after that I got crazy. Hey, I left my drink on the table. I bet my date put something in it."
Thinking "I felt fine. Then I went nuts. Hey, my date cast something. Said it was a Message to the babysitter. I bet it was a Charm." is a similar logic leap. Possibly false of course.

Even if you did see "something" happen, you may not have proof of what it was. Or even which something was responsible. "That other person was handing out those cookies and insisted I try them."

I expect people would almost always realize their actions were out of character and be very angry about it. But without seeing and identifying the casting, it could easily have been someone else.

There is a reason charms have the "evil" descriptor in most of my worlds.

[jmax]

When you let the car salesman talk you into overpaying for a car, you have full knowledge of what happened. And it seemed agreeable at the time, because you signed.
And yet a few days later you realize you got played and are angry about it. And that's just Diplomacy and Bluff.

Or your date maybe slips something in your drink, removing your inhibitions or altering your perceptions, and the next morning you remember what you did in horror. Your actions were completely out of character.

You can still suspect. "I felt fine, then I went to the latrine. Shortly after that I got crazy. Hey, I left my drink on the table. I bet my date put something in it."
Thinking "I felt fine. Then I went nuts. Hey, my date cast something. Said it was a Message to the babysitter. I bet it was a Charm." is a similar logic leap. Possibly false of course.

Even if you did see "something" happen, you may not have proof of what it was. Or even which something was responsible. "That other person was handing out those cookies and insisted I try them."

I expect people would almost always realize their actions were out of character and be very angry about it. But without seeing and identifying the casting, it could easily have been someone else.

There is a reason charms have the "evil" descriptor in most of my worlds.


Sure, if you use it like a battering ram. But what if you're more subtle?


You're nursing a drink at a bar. You think you might feel a brief tingle, but hey, that's just the alcohol - after all, this is your third one, right? An dashing young man takes the seat next to you. You find him exceedingly funny and get along really well. He lets you buy him a drink, and you sit and chat for several hours swapping stories of your recent adventures. At the end of the evening, you both agree to meet for lunch the next day.

The next day, at the agreed upon time, you meet up at the tavern. The light is better now that the sun is streaming through the windows, and you can see that he isn't quite as attractive as you thought you remembered - probably not someone you would have paid any attention to if you'd been sober - but it's definitely him. You had a great time last night, so what the heck. He's still kind of cute in a bumbling sort of way, and his stories aren't quite as good you remember but are at least entertaining. You decide he's worth seeing again and go out on a few more dates.

Nothing bad happened. He was sweet and respectful the whole time. You didn't do anything you regretted. The second date wasn't quite as good as the first, but that's not that unusual. After you've been dating for several months, he admits that he used a little bit of enchantment to make himself seem more attractive to you before that first conversation - and only that first conversation.


Is that a plausible scenario with charm person cast from someone reasonably personable but a bit socially awkward and plain of looks? In such a scenario, should the charmee have recognized immediately when the charm wore off? Should she inherently be angry at the charmer once she finds out even if, after some introspection, she determines that he's never persuaded her to do anything she definitely would have been opposed to without a compulsion effect? And, perhaps most importantly, was the charmer outright despicable to have used the spell the one time or merely somewhat shady? Would your answer to all of those questions change if the initial push had been from letting him buy her a few too many drinks beyond the ones she'd already had?



EDIT: Sorry, meant to address both replies.


I agree, the charm spell is best if the target never knows they were enspelled. The feats you mentioned would be one way of doing that, or you could cast it from a distance, or as a spell-like ability. Or be invisible or hidden, and silence them first.

It would still be useful even if the target had allies around, because the target would still be quite confused... why are all of its friends fighting? At worst, the target would be out of the fight, and that's still pretty good.

As for the immediate aftermath, if you just charmed a guard or something and had them open a door they weren't supposed to, all you'd need to do is have the guard let you tie them up.

As for how I'd run it, I just play it straight... they're inexplicably friends with the caster now, they don't know why, and they don't care. More in the style of a Harry Potter book imperio than a glassy eyed happy drunk movie imperio (without the domination).

This is a very different use than I was envisioning, but it's a good example of another way to use the spell. In this case the target would likely absolutely resent you afterward, but how much of that is because of the spell itself and how much is because of what you did with it?

[Zanos]

RAW wise, you get a spellcraft check to identify spells whenever they are cast on you, even if you didn't hear/see the components.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm

I think unaided people might know they acted a bit differently but not really know why. The spell would probably specify if people becoming hateful or suspicious of you after the spell expired was a common thing.

[jmax]

RAW wise, you get a spellcraft check to identify spells whenever they are cast on you, even if you didn't hear/see the components.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm

I think unaided people might know they acted a bit differently but not really know why. The spell would probably specify if people becoming hateful or suspicious of you after the spell expired was a common thing.

Spellcraft is trained only, and the DC on identifying spells cast on you is quite hefty at 25+Spell Level, so that depends a fair bit on the "victim". Certainly it's a hazard when using it against other casters though.

[DeTess]

As a DM, I'd rule the victim might realize depending on how you used it. In Jmax' subtle example they probably wouldn't know anything is amiss, while if you charm a couple of prison guards to convince them to get out of the way so you can break your friends out, they'd definitely figure it out afterwards.

It'd also depend on the kind of world and the nature of the victim though. If you charm person a paranoid guy in a very high-magic setting, he might figure it out more easily than if you charmed a fairly easy-going dude in a low-magic setting.

[Jack_Simth]

How has everyone else interpreted these questions? How have DMs adjudicated the spell?

I give the vic a DC 25 Sense Motive check, same as everyone else gets, but with a cumulative +2 for each time the caster won the opposed Charisma check (because it's not something the vic would normally do, it adds up quickly).

Your random NPC without ranks? You can make an odd request or two and be reasonably confident of getting off scott-free. The noble who has to deal with people trying to pull one over on him all the time, and so is well trained in evaluating folks? He'll figure it out real quick.

[Nifft]

Just to be certain, you should always write "ESMERALDA THE ENCHANTRESS WAS HERE" in lipstick on his back.

[jmax]

I give the vic a DC 25 Sense Motive check, same as everyone else gets

Huh, I never noticed the use for Sense Enchantment with Sense Motive. That would have come in handy a few sessions back. And I don't think I could have failed the check even on a 1.

Reference for everyone else:


Sense Enchantment
You can tell that someone’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (by definition, a mind-affecting effect), even if that person isn’t aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target’s activities.

When do you allow the victim to make the check? Is that after the charm wears off? It's not necessarily supported by Rules As Written (and not expressly contradicted either), but it is interesting.

[Venger]

No, because the spell doesn't say they do. If that were the case, there would be text indicating this. Spells like this exist, and if the creature remembers what you did, the text will specify it (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlUndead.htm)

[Darth Ultron]

For me:

The vast bulk of people have no idea they were ever charmed. They remember everything from the charmed time, in a vague way. It's a lot like intoxication or even just being sleepy: the things you recall don't make sense.

Of course, a good third of people....even in a non magical world...will think any time something like this happens that they have been ''Bewitched" by an evil spell. And in a magical world...it might even be true.

To just see someone 'cast a spell' should not be too much of a Red Flag most of the time. In the average default type average magic setting, people would be casting spells often enough.

Though it would be very obvious if you cast a charm in a very obvious way.

[Crake]

There's nothing indicating that they automatically know that they were charmed, but they can still follow logic. If you were in a conversation with a guard, they were refusing entrance, then you chanted some words and made some strange hand movements, then suddenly they were more than happy to let you in, they might not think it at the time (since you're their best friend), but looking back upon it, yes, they'd know you charmed them. On the other hand, if you still/silent charmed them from an alleyway, before approaching them, being kind, and asking politely for entrance, which they promptly gave you, the might look back at that and be confused as to why they did such a thing, but unless they're aware of magic and how it works, they won't immediately jump to the conclusion of having been charmed.

[WhiteBread]

The thing about mind affecting stuff in dnd is that you have to make it as believable as possible. Instead of just saying "Guard, let me through!" you are better off saying "I give you this gold coin and now let me through."
Remembering the first sentence after the charm effect subsides would make anyone think they were charmed. Why would a guard risk his job and/or life letting people in he doesn't know? Even if he has no proof, he would automatically assume that he either was druged or charmed. Most likely by the bunch that just went past him.
On the other hand, remembering the second sentence would make it more natural. The guard might think along the lines of "why he let himself be bribed". Only the most loyal of guards would doubt their sudden greed.

Besides only people with the spellcraft skill and a DC of 20 + spell level realise there is a spell in effect. In my eyes 90% of NPC's shouldn't be able to see through the spell at all.

[Jack_Simth]

The thing about mind affecting stuff in dnd is that you have to make it as believable as possible. Instead of just saying "Guard, let me through!" you are better off saying "I give you this gold coin and now let me through."
Remembering the first sentence after the charm effect subsides would make anyone think they were charmed. Why would a guard risk his job and/or life letting people in he doesn't know? Even if he has no proof, he would automatically assume that he either was druged or charmed. Most likely by the bunch that just went past him.
On the other hand, remembering the second sentence would make it more natural. The guard might think along the lines of "why he let himself be bribed". Only the most loyal of guards would doubt their sudden greed.

Besides only people with the spellcraft skill and a DC of 20 + spell level realise there is a spell in effect. In my eyes 90% of NPC's shouldn't be able to see through the spell at all.
Sense Motive is a skill, and can explicitly recognize when anyone's behavior is being affected by an enchantment. They may not know "Oh, Charm person!" (that's Spellcraft), but there's a fair number of folks who'll know "Wait... his behavior is being influenced by magic!"


Huh, I never noticed the use for Sense Enchantment with Sense Motive. That would have come in handy a few sessions back. And I don't think I could have failed the check even on a 1.

Reference for everyone else:



When do you allow the victim to make the check? Is that after the charm wears off? It's not necessarily supported by Rules As Written (and not expressly contradicted either), but it is interesting.After it's done always seemed most sensible to me.

Why does this seem odd to folks? I consider my own motives all the time.

[Pleh]

You could probably allow the player to make some kind of skill check like spellcraft or spot to notice the spell being cast and then put that check result on the back burner until the charms effects have resolved whether for success or failure. Then after the full resolution of the charm effect you could you could bring back to recollection the things that they saw just before being Charmed.

[WhiteBread]

Sense Motive is a skill, and can explicitly recognize when anyone's behavior is being affected by an enchantment.

Sense motive only works if you try to see an echanting effect on someone (not anyone) and that means not yourself or why would they phrase it that way for sense motive? I think if there is only one guard/person he won't be able to use the sense motive skill on himself.

There is also another thing about sense motive that makes it difficult to use. Namely the time it takes to discern someone is affected by magic with the sense motive skill. You need something that indicates it. Like odd behaviour or if you don't know that person something that is really really odd in the behaviour of that person. A guard getting bribed doesn't always mean you can automatically assume that it is magic even with a good sense motive check. And if you have nothing that indicates it, sense motive should be very vague. It could very well take a whole day to conclude that someone is not acting like himself if my reading of the "action" part on sense motive is not wrong.

Moreover sense motive is not a foolproof skill check. Any DM would give only a vague answer except for a critical role for this skill check. Something along the lines "His behaviour is odd and could stem from magic but you are not sure.". Otherwise this would be a foolproof way for paladins to sniff out any evildoer easily.

[Jack_Simth]

Sense motive only works if you try to see an echanting effect on someone (not anyone) and that means not yourself or why would they phrase it that way for sense motive? I think if there is only one guard/person he won't be able to use the sense motive skill on himself.
Why not? There's a LOT of things that are used on a target, and it's generally assumed that one can target one's self. Besides: I'm only letting them roll for that after it's over. Have you never taken the time to review your own motives?

There is also another thing about sense motive that makes it difficult to use. Namely the time it takes to discern someone is affected by magic with the sense motive skill. You need something that indicates it. Like odd behaviour or if you don't know that person something that is really really odd in the behaviour of that person. A guard getting bribed doesn't always mean you can automatically assume that it is magic even with a good sense motive check. And if you have nothing that indicates it, sense motive should be very vague. It could very well take a whole day to conclude that someone is not acting like himself if my reading of the "action" part on sense motive is not wrong.
You're using Sense Motive to gain information. That's a one-minute check. The Sense motive is to tell the difference between "This guy is being influenced to take the bribe by magic" and "This guy just took the bribe of his own will". Using listed abilities to do exactly what they say is hardly "assuming".

Moreover sense motive is not a foolproof skill check. Any DM would give only a vague answer except for a critical role for this skill check. Something along the lines "His behaviour is odd and could stem from magic but you are not sure.". Otherwise this would be a foolproof way for paladins to sniff out any evildoer easily.
Nah, just the ones using mind-affecting stuff. There's lots of ways people can do evil without using mind-affecting effects. But really: Why can't mundanes have nice things? A Wizard can do much the same in three rounds with just Detect Magic and Spellcraft, after all.

[PacMan2247]

There's nothing indicating that they automatically know that they were charmed, but they can still follow logic. If you were in a conversation with a guard, they were refusing entrance, then you chanted some words and made some strange hand movements, then suddenly they were more than happy to let you in, they might not think it at the time (since you're their best friend), but looking back upon it, yes, they'd know you charmed them. On the other hand, if you still/silent charmed them from an alleyway, before approaching them, being kind, and asking politely for entrance, which they promptly gave you, the might look back at that and be confused as to why they did such a thing, but unless they're aware of magic and how it works, they won't immediately jump to the conclusion of having been charmed.


Why does this seem odd to folks? I consider my own motives all the time.

These sum it up pretty well, in my opinion.

Also, I think a lot of people are giving the charm lines a lot more credit than they're due. These spells make affected targets temporarily consider you "a trusted friend and ally" and perceive your "words and actions in the most favorable way", but I'm seeing some things that seem to ignore the line beginning "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders..." For a guard on duty, neglecting that duty would have direct harmful consequences for them. You might be able to use the Charisma check to persuade one to let you visit an imprisoned friend, even outside of visiting hours (if those are a thing), but the instant you're trying to get that friend out with you, they're probably going to be fighting even harder than the other guards to cover their foul-up. If you get away and don't kill that guard, you might even create a nemesis for yourself (in addition to whatever authority they served before inevitably being dismissed for this) because you were their friend, they trusted you, and you betrayed them. Similarly, using charm person to get a guard to accept a bribe is counterproductive because why is this trusted friend of mine trying to bribe me? I'm not saying the general concepts can't work, just that there are enormous pitfalls scattered all around this sort of thing. Facing the consequences for violating people's free will and the laws of nature doesn't seem like something that comes up very often.