Proper Reaction to Charm Person.

[strangebloke]

So, when the spell expires, the target knows that you charmed it.

But what is a reasonable reaction to this from a narration standpoint? What exact information does the target even realize? It isn't like the local miller has any idea what the 'charm person' spell is, beyond a general sense of magicalness. What if you're playing in a region of a setting where magic by and large doesn't exist? Do they just know that you influenced them somehow, or is it more specific?

Asking not for a campaign I'm running, but for a crappy fanfiction I'm writing. Trying to run a version of Harry Potter and the Natural 20.

[Frozenstep]

Loved that fanfiction.

Anyway, it comes down to the DM (or in this case, the writer), but since it came up, Harry Potter gives us a first hand account of Dominate Person (Or the imperius charm), which apparently fills your head with a pleasant fuzz and you just become super lax and receptive to commands. It seems targets do remember what they've done, so if someone gives out commands, you at least know the voice of the one giving you commands.

As for how a local miller would take it, it depends on how high-magic the world is, but even in a low magic setting I would probably have their first thoughts upon the spell ending would be they were possessed, perhaps by a demon or a witch.

[jh12]

In magical worlds, they would know that you cast the Charm spell on them, just like it says in the description. That's very uncool. If the rule of law is strong enough for that to be illegal and turning to the authorities is a reasonable option, and the person you cast it on is peaceable and generally law abiding, you should expect to be reported to the authorities and punished appropriately (execution, cutting out your tongue and hands, banishment, etc.). You've demonstrated that you cannot be trusted to be around people with access to your powers, so either you need to removed from access to people or your powers. If not, he should probably try to kill you and would be perfectly justified in doing so.

In the nonmagical realms, at the very least the person would know that you did something to him that affected his mind. That's still very uncool. You might not be arrested or killed because of the greater uncertainty, but shunning would be appropriate.

[strangebloke]

Loved that fanfiction.

Anyway, it comes down to the DM (or in this case, the writer), but since it came up, Harry Potter gives us a first hand account of Dominate Person (Or the imperius charm), which apparently fills your head with a pleasant fuzz and you just become super lax and receptive to commands. It seems targets do remember what they've done, so if someone gives out commands, you at least know the voice of the one giving you commands.

As for how a local miller would take it, it depends on how high-magic the world is, but even in a low magic setting I would probably have their first thoughts upon the spell ending would be they were possessed, perhaps by a demon or a witch.

Well, I'm working with 5e and with ASOIAF, so it is different.

Sure, superstitious general thoughts about you cursing them with your evil eye or something similar.


In magical worlds, they would know that you cast the Charm spell on them, just like it says in the description. That's very uncool. If the rule of law is strong enough for that to be illegal and turning to the authorities is a reasonable option, and the person you cast it on is peaceable and generally law abiding, you should expect to be reported to the authorities and punished appropriately (execution, cutting out your tongue and hands, banishment, etc.). You've demonstrated that you cannot be trusted to be around people with access to your powers, so either you need to removed from access to people or your powers. If not, he should probably try to kill you and would be perfectly justified in doing so.

In the nonmagical realms, at the very least the person would know that you did something to him that affected his mind. That's still very uncool. You might not be arrested or killed because of the greater uncertainty, but shunning would be appropriate.

LOL this seems a bit extreme. I mean, even if the miller knows it isn't like he can prove anything. If the guards are so quick to follow up with extreme punishment, whats to stop a less law-abiding miller from saying that his wife cast charm person on him, and therefore needs to die? If he stole something, sure, he'll get in trouble for that, but that's in addition to the charm effect.

Like, if the guy didn't do anything to you other than mess with you a bit, how angry would you even be? I can see him telling his neighbors not to trust you, but that's about as much as I'd expect.

Then too, the guy with the spellbook is probably rich, and likely to be more advantaged in the sight of the law.

[sophontteks]

A lot of people were executed for casting charms and spells on other people, and not a single one of them really cast a spell or charm. So, I'm sure a lot of innocent people are killed for charming others. There isn't really any burden of proof here. Is the miller a trustworthy, upstanding person? Do others collaborate with the story? I can see casting charm person really quickly turning into a witch hunt, and at that point its better for the authorities to just go with it rather then risk a riot.

[Keravath]

I would say that there is a clear mental effect of the spell so that the target knows that its volition and will to resist your words or react as they might normally choose were removed. They don't realize this until after the spell ends but it is very clear to the character that they were affected by something AND they know the person who was the source of it.

Naratively this could be however you choose to describe it.

"My mind felt like cotton and quite detached and afterward I couldn't believe how much I seemed to like this person"
OR
"Everything was so sharp and clear and this one person was particularly clear. Everything they said was fascinating and I couldn't stop listening. I even found it difficult to disagree with anything they said."
OR
"It was very strange. Suddenly I didn't quite feel like myself. My thoughts when I interacted with this one person were stuck on reacting favorably no matter what they said. I liked everything they said even when I disagreed with them. I even tried to convince my friends that the new person and their friends were cool and we should leave them alone."

How the victim reacts afterward depends on the specific victim, how much knowledge they have of what caused their reaction, and their capabilities.

Many characters would react extremely negatively to this sort of mind control. In a low magic world, the person using it would like be branded a witch/warlock/devil/demon/evil wizard and hunted down if the victim told their friends.

A more knowledgeable character in a high magic world would realize that they had been subjected to a charm person spell and depending on what they were convinced to do and what it means their reaction could be anywhere from very negative to neutral. They are unlikely to be friendly and open to someone who had charmed them. They could be neutral towards the caster if they are weaker than the caster and there isn't much they could do or if they agree with the goals if not the methods of the caster.

All of this depends on the NPCs, the situation and the game world.

[Sigreid]

Honestly, I think you would feel pretty much the same way you would feel if you were conned. So, you'd not be likely to trust that person in the future and beyond that your reaction would be proportional to how taken advantage of you feel you were.

[strangebloke]

A lot of people were executed for casting charms and spells on other people, and not a single one of them really cast a spell or charm. So, I'm sure a lot of innocent people are killed for charming others. There isn't really any burden of proof here. Is the miller a trustworthy, upstanding person? Do others collaborate with the story? I can see casting charm person really quickly turning into a witch hunt, and at that point its better for the authorities to just go with it rather then risk a riot.
Such witchhunts were usually predicated on the supposition that the caster got their powers in deal with the devil.

so, unless that's a reasonable assumption for the setting, I'd say that its not really comparable.

Even then, people in the middle ages were sometimes executed for *making* accusations of witchcraft. It all depends on context.


Honestly, I think you would feel pretty much the same way you would feel if you were conned. So, you'd not be likely to trust that person in the future and beyond that your reaction would be proportional to how taken advantage of you feel you were.

Right, I think the quesiton of what you actually did to them is very very important. If you stole a few coins from them, they'll be pissed. If you made them fail their guard duty, they'll be mortified and might never report it.

[sophontteks]

Such witchhunts were usually predicated on the supposition that the caster got their powers in deal with the devil.

so, unless that's a reasonable assumption for the setting, I'd say that its not really comparable.

These are simple people that do not know magic. It's all the devils work.
Or they are people who understand magic. Then they know this is a charm spell.

[Sigreid]

These are simple people that do not know magic. It's all the devils work.
Or they are people who understand magic. Then they know this is a charm spell.

I think in most D&D worlds the average person would know that magic just is, even if they don't understand it.

[jh12]

LOL this seems a bit extreme.

I don't think it's extreme at all. If you aren't using it on someone you would be willing to kill in a situation where you would be willing to kill them, Charm is an evil spell. Do you really think ordinary people would tolerate having someone around who is willing to invade their minds and subvert their wills for a little momentary gain? There's no way.


I mean, even if the miller knows it isn't like he can prove anything. If the guards are so quick to follow up with extreme punishment, whats to stop a less law-abiding miller from saying that his wife cast charm person on him, and therefore needs to die? If he stole something, sure, he'll get in trouble for that, but that's in addition to the charm effect.

How do you know he can't prove anything? Odds are, it's not just his words against yours because you were trying to get him to do something out of character, even if just slightly. Even if nobody noticed you cast the spell, that's evidence that weighs in his favor. But really, if you are able to go around casting Charm spells willy nilly, I'm pretty sure the court system can get some Zones of Truth set up. All they have to do is cast it and ask the miller what happened. Then it's off to your well-deserved punishment.


Like, if the guy didn't do anything to you other than mess with you a bit, how angry would you even be? I can see him telling his neighbors not to trust you, but that's about as much as I'd expect.

I would want to kill him. And I would do anything in my power to make sure it happened. You don't mess with people's minds then expect them to be okay with it.


Then too, the guy with the spellbook is probably rich, and likely to be more advantaged in the sight of the law.

Well if the society is so corrupt that they will tolerate evil magic users running around because they are rich, that's when you hire adventurers to kill the evil magic user. Surely not everyone in the land is corrupt.

Enough people and torches and pitchforks have also proven effective.

[Unoriginal]

They would know that all the "this one is a friend" feelings they had were fake.

An appropriate response depends on the character. A coward might flee, someone like the Mountain would cleave you in two were you stand, someone like Aria would put you on her list, some might tolerate your behavior if there is something important enough at stake.

[FaerieGodfather]

The appropriate moral response to someone using any form of mind control on you is to inflict as much harm upon them as possible by whatever means you have available.

There may be room for forgiveness, but not for justification.

[Kyutaru]

I expect the reaction is similar to being swindled. Or broken up with by your boyfriend who was cheating all along. The person feels used.

[Contrast]

The appropriate moral response to someone using any form of mind control on you is to inflict as much harm upon them as possible by whatever means you have available.

There may be room for forgiveness, but not for justification.

If I shove you to the floor in a friendly game of rugby that is entirely different from shoving you down a flight of stairs in an attempt to murder you despite the actions being the same. Intent and consequences do matter in terms of how something is perceived by the victim.

In many instances Charming someone is no more invasive than the non-magical version of 'mind control' used to compel people to believe things which are not true - being a very good liar. Now depending on the lie picking up the nearest heavy object and bludgeoning them to death may be a reasonable response but that's hardly a reasonable reaction to any form of lie.

Remember Charm Person is not Dominate Person - it makes you more receptive but does not force. If a friend took me out for a couple of drinks before asking me for a farvour technically they've drugged me to make me more amenable to their words but I'm not going to be angry about it at all. If they got me off my face drunk and tried to make me sign a legal contract giving them loads of money then yes I would be pissed. Circumstances, intent and results matter.

Depending on what the Charm was used for I would expect many people would either refuse to deal with the person again or would have disadvantage on subsequent Cha checks.

[FaerieGodfather]

In many instances Charming someone is no more invasive than the non-magical version of 'mind control' used to compel people to believe things which are not true - being a very good liar. Now depending on the lie picking up the nearest heavy object and bludgeoning them to death may be a reasonable response but that's hardly a reasonable reaction to any form of lie.

Remember Charm Person is not Dominate Person - it makes you more receptive but does not force. If a friend took me out for a couple of drinks before asking me for a farvour technically they've drugged me to make me more amenable to their words but I'm not going to be angry about it at all. If they got me off my face drunk and tried to make me sign a legal contract giving them loads of money then yes I would be pissed. Circumstances, intent and results matter.

The difference is consent.

If you feed me a couple of drinks before telling me an egregious falsehood, I still chose to take those drinks and I still chose to believe you. To whatever degree I am swindled, I can not deny that I am complicit in it.

Dose my drinks with something I am not expecting... and we are back to my original statement.

You can argue that the consequences-- the greater good-- might justify the use of such magic, and I might agree with you, but some things are mortally offensive regardless of the context.

[Contrast]

The difference is consent.

If you feed me a couple of drinks before telling me an egregious falsehood, I still chose to take those drinks and I still chose to believe you. To whatever degree I am swindled, I can not deny that I am complicit in it.

Dose my drinks with something I am not expecting... and we are back to my original statement.

You can argue that the consequences-- the greater good-- might justify the use of such magic, and I might agree with you, but some things are mortally offensive regardless of the context.

So you'd consider it reasonable to 'inflict as much harm upon them as possible by whatever means you have available' if someone bought you a double while telling you it was a single? And we're back to my original statement - specifics matter :smallwink:

If I used Charm Person to get a bouncer to let me into a club without paying the entry fee I do not think it would be reasonable for them to drop the rest of their life and come after me with the intent of inflicting as much harm on me as possible. The reaction is disproportionate to the injury.

[sophontteks]

I think in most D&D worlds the average person would know that magic just is, even if they don't understand it.
Saying the "Devils work" was bad wording on my part. It's a bit too christian. The idea of an unknown evil is a lot more varied. Its the work of <Insert evil here>.

People have an extreme apathy towards anything they don't understand. If they don't understand magic, they will tend to react to it with violence. It's a very common trope in history and fantasy alike.


So you'd consider it reasonable to 'inflict as much harm upon them as possible by whatever means you have available' if someone bought you a double while telling you it was a single? And we're back to my original statement - specifics matter :smallwink:

If I used Charm Person to get a bouncer to let me into a club without paying the entry fee I do not think it would be reasonable for them to drop the rest of their life and come after me with the intent of inflicting as much harm on me as possible. The reaction is disproportionate to the injury.
The bouncer is not going to come after you for avoiding a fee. They are coming after you for messing with their head. It's equivalent to slipping the bouncer a powerful drug. It's not the bouncer reacting disproportionately, its the person who invaded another persons head just to avoid paying a fee who acted disproportionately.

[Sigreid]

Saying the "Devils work" was bad wording on my part. It's a bit too christian. The idea of an unknown evil is a lot more varied. Its the work of <Insert evil here>.

People have an extreme apathy towards anything they don't understand. If they don't understand magic, they will tend to react to it with violence. It's a very common trope in history and fantasy alike.



IMO Magic is just the science of D&D. Most people don't understand the science and technology around them. Doesn't mean they hate and fear it.

[sophontteks]

IMO Magic is just the science of D&D. Most people don't understand the science and technology around them. Doesn't mean they hate and fear it.
Ah, yes because people are known for trusting science throughout history. Reminds me of the new castlevania series. Dracula's wife was burned for being a witch because she dabbled in science. You show people something they don't understand, and they will hate and fear it. I wish it wasn't so.

Even today there is a great apathy toward science. I don't want to get all "Political" here but the earth is flat, planes are spraying mind control gas over our heads, fluoride is a drug in the water supply used to keep the populace complacent, climate change is a lie, and college professors are filling their students with lie's to fit some great political agenda.

[Contrast]

The bouncer is not going to come after you for avoiding a fee. They are coming after you for messing with their head. It's equivalent to slipping the bouncer a powerful drug. It's not the bouncer reacting disproportionately, its the person who invaded another persons head just to avoid paying a fee who acted disproportionately.

To be clear here I'm not trying to argue charm spells aren't morally reprehensible. I'm saying that someones reaction to having a charm spell cast on them will likely depend heavily on how and why the charm was cast.

Are you honestly saying if you were DMing a game if a PC used charm person to get past a bouncer you would have that bouncer quit their job and spend their life hunting down and trying to kill the PC? Or would they report them to their manager/the local guard and then just...get on with their life because nothing actually bad happened to them? They would still be mad but not 'inflict as much harm upon them as possible by whatever means you have available' mad.

Maybe we're using different definitions of what 'inflict as much harm upon them as possible by whatever means you have available' means. If your definition of that is 'be angry if you see the person again' then we're probably in agreement. I interpreted 'inflict as much harm upon them as possible by whatever means you have available' as 'I have a new goal in life which is to inflict as much harm on this person as possible'. This seems a massive overreaction to me to something that in many cases won't be substantially worse than someone just lying to you.

Out of interest how do you feel people would react to finding out someone had cast Enhance Ability (Charisma) on themselves before speaking to them, seeing at the effect is identical mechanically?

[strangebloke]

So, I don't want the discussion to completely degenerate, so here's some examples.


Charm person is cast on an unsuspecting person. They chat for an hour, and over the course of the time genuinely come to like each other. The spell fades off, and though the magic fades, they're still have an hour of very pleasant memories.
Charm person is cast on a guard, someone who has the job of stopping people from getting in a place. The people get into the place and leave within an hour. Does he report what happened to him immediatley, or hope that no one noticed his role in letting them in?
Charm Person is blatantly used for theft. What is the reaction here? Would the resulting punishment be worse than for theft?



Assume that all of these take place in a setting where magic is reasonably commonplace and understood.

[jh12]

Are you honestly saying if you were DMing a game if a PC used charm person to get past a bouncer you would have that bouncer quit their job and spend their life hunting down and trying to kill the PC? Or would they report them to their manager/the local guard and then just...get on with their life because nothing actually bad happened to them? They would still be mad but not 'inflict as much harm upon them as possible by whatever means you have available' mad.

Something bad did happen to them. Something terrible. The PC invaded their mind and altered the very essence of who they are. Short of actually killing them, that's the worst thing you can do to someone.


Out of interest how do you feel people would react to finding out someone had cast Enhance Ability (Charisma) on themselves before speaking to them, seeing at the effect is identical mechanically?

The spells are entirely different mechanically. With a Charm spell you invade my mind and affect my being. With an Enhance Ability (Charisma) you are affecting your own self.

As for Strangebloke's examples:
1. The person realizes that none of their feelings are genuine and that they have been manipulated by an evil person. The person doesn't believe anything you told them during the conversation. They turn you in to the authorities or try to kill you.
2. It depends on the guard and the situation. A coward afraid of being punished would try to cover it up, an upright guard wouldn't. But if spells like Charm are common place, and the guard doesn't have any effective means to resist, why would the guard be punished for being affected by a spell?
3. Absolutely worse than ordinary theft. You've demonstrated that you possess great power but lack the responsibility necessary to wield it. Society is justified in ensuring that you lack the ability to wield that power going forward.

[hamishspence]

Something bad did happen to them. Something terrible. The PC invaded their mind and altered the very essence of who they are. Short of actually killing them, that's the worst thing you can do to someone.

That's more mindrape's schtick - a spell that can actually change a character's personality.

There's a reason why Charm Person is considered the least evil form of "mind control":

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharmPerson

And in 3.5 at least, an epic diplomat, can turn someone not just into a friend, but into a fanatic follower - without magic:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#diplomacy

Worth keeping in mind when assessing how charm person should be regarded, in both 3.5 and other editions like 5e.

[jh12]

That's more mindrape's schtick - a spell that can actually change a character's personality.

There's a reason why Charm Person is considered the least evil form of "mind control":

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharmPerson

Making a decision they wouldn't ordinarily make is changing their essence, even if only temporarily. Any amount of mindrape is too much. And very evil.

[BurgerBeast]

It’s the fantasy equivalent of slipping someone a mickey. Just think about how you’d feel if someone slipped something into your drink, at the bar, and then took advantage of you to whatever varying degree.

I think it’s pretty clear that it’s always worse when the offender has intentionally influenced your mind.

It is a big deal. It’s a very big deal. On principle.

I would want to kill the person, but I live in a modern society where the threat of capture and punishment is (at least to my estimation) very close to 100%. So fear would prevent me from doing it.

If I lived in a world where escape was a more probable outcome, I’d be increasingly more likely to kill the person.

Even with the risk of lifetime in prison, in our modern technological society, I’d be hard pressed not to kill someone who drugged my child or my wife.

There’s not really a question of malicious intent once you intentionally drugged someone - you have malicious intent.

[hamishspence]

In the D&D novel Spellfire, the CG Elminster suggests that wizards in general frown on those who charm often or for frivolous reasons. But the spell itself is not portrayed as intrinsically evil.



Depending on what the Charm was used for I would expect many people would either refuse to deal with the person again or would have disadvantage on subsequent Cha checks.

I can agree that this would be a reasonable minimum reaction though.

5e Charm is also considerably nerfed compared to previous editions. From "trusted friend and ally" in 3e to "friendly acquaintance". In 2e and earlier it was even more powerful than that.

[jh12]

In the D&D novel Spellfire, the CG Elminster suggests that wizards in general frown on those who charm often or for frivolous reasons. But the spell itself is not portrayed as intrinsically evil.

I agree it's not intrinsically evil. Very few things are. It's a tool, and like most tools it can be used for good or evil. If you cast it on someone who you otherwise would be willing to kill (or seriously hurt/incapacitate) in that situation, it's a perfectly fine spell used in a perfectly fine way. In almost any other situation, it's not. But the problem is with the user, not the spell.

But I think it makes more sense to look at things from the perspective of the abused, rather than the abusers, so Elminster's evaluation doesn't seem all that relevant to me.

[hamishspence]

The young Elminister lived under a wizard tyranny, and until Mystra got involved in his life, hated wizardry. for how easily it could be abused.

So his perspective on wizard magic is likely to be a bit more accurate than that of the average wizard, at least.

[Sigreid]

Something bad did happen to them. Something terrible. The PC invaded their mind and altered the very essence of who they are. Short of actually killing them, that's the worst thing you can do to someone.



I think you're overstating charm person a touch. It doesn't change your mind or your very essence. It makes you marginally more amiable to the person who cast it. Heck, while it does make it a bit easier to talk you into something you're not that opposed to anyway, it has 0 chance of someone talking you into something you absolutely would not do. Heck, if you hate someone such that they'd have disadvantage in talking you viewing anything they say in a favorable light, charm person would only get you back to an even chance.

[hamishspence]

I think you're overstating charm person a touch. It doesn't change your mind or your very essence. It makes you marginally more amiable to the person who cast it. Heck, while it does make it a bit easier to talk you into something you're not that opposed to anyway, it has 0 chance of someone talking you into something you absolutely would not do. Heck, if you hate someone such that they'd have disadvantage in talking you viewing anything they say in a favorable light, charm person would only get you back to an even chance.Going back to

"what is the proper way for the law to treat the use or attempted use of charm magic"?

And

"what is the normal reaction, in-universe, to a use or attempt"?

I think treating it as murder/rape or attempted murder/rape is a bit much.

I can't see it being treated that way in an average D&D setting.

It would be treated fairly seriously though - just not that seriously.


And IMO, the average judge will not hand down the same sentence as they will for attempted murder.

[jh12]

I think you're overstating charm person a touch. It doesn't change your mind or your very essence.

Yes, it most certainly does.


It makes you marginally more amiable to the person who cast it.

No, it makes you think the person who cast it on you is a friendly acquaintance. That can be a much bigger effect than making you marginally more amiable to them.

And regardless of the size of the effect, it is still changing your mind and the very essence of who you are. Someone you didn't like, or didn't know, is now your friendly acquaintance.


Heck, while it does make it a bit easier to talk you into something you're not that opposed to anyway, it has 0 chance of someone talking you into something you absolutely would not do.

While I agree that many people treat the Charm Person spell as if it is more powerful than it is, if that were true, there would be no need for the spell. If I absolutely would not do something for a stranger but would for a friendly acquaintance, and you are a stranger that casts the spell on me so that I will do it for you, then I've done something that I absolutely would not do. And it can stop a creature from attacking you.


Heck, if you hate someone such that they'd have disadvantage in talking you viewing anything they say in a favorable light, charm person would only get you back to an even chance.

How so? I don't hate my friendly acquaintances, so any disadvantage imposed by that would be forgotten.

[JackPhoenix]

In the D&D novel Spellfire, the CG Elminster suggests that wizards in general frown on those who charm often or for frivolous reasons. But the spell itself is not portrayed as intrinsically evil.

I wouldn't put much weight on anything Elminster says or thinks.

[hamishspence]

I wouldn't put much weight on anything Elminster says or thinks.

It came up when his CN ally brought up the possibility of the spellfire wielder being too powerful to be allowed to roam free - and maybe needing to be destroyed:


"Ye, I, and all gathered here now, are dangerous. Should we then be destroyed out of hand because of what we might do? Nay! It is the right and the doom of all creatures who walk Faerûn to do as they will; it is why we of the art frown so at those who charm often, or in frivolous cause.”

“Not even the gods took unto themselves the power to control ye or me so tightly that we cannot walk or speak or breathe save at another's bidding! It is their will that we may be free to do as we may. Slay a foe, sure, or defend thyself against a raider - but to strike down one who may some day menace thee? That is as monstrous as the act of the usurper who slays all babies in a land, for fear of a rightful heir someday rising against him!"

[FaerieGodfather]

If I used Charm Person to get a bouncer to let me into a club without paying the entry fee I do not think it would be reasonable for them to drop the rest of their life and come after me with the intent of inflicting as much harm on me as possible. The reaction is disproportionate to the injury.

That's the problem. You're only viewing the injury in terms of what the caster violated the victim's mind to accomplish.

The injury is violating the victim's mind in the first place.

[Contrast]

The spells are entirely different mechanically. With a Charm spell you invade my mind and affect my being. With an Enhance Ability (Charisma) you are affecting your own self.

And mechanically the impacts of both spells are 'you have advantage on charisma checks'. They're still 'drugging' you into liking them - they're just using pheromones rather than slipping something into your drink.


How so? I don't hate my friendly acquaintances, so any disadvantage imposed by that would be forgotten.

An acquaintance who you still remember has in the past used mind altering magic on you. Disadvantage plus advantage cancels out to a regular check.


That's the problem. You're only viewing the injury in terms of what the caster violated the victim's mind to accomplish.

The injury is violating the victim's mind in the first place.

If someone shoots me in the leg as part of a bank robbery in which they murdered several people they have committed a number of horrible crimes and I will likely be very angry at them. Would I quit my job, become a bounty hunter and start going to night school to learn the law so I can catch them, prosecute them and then try and become a prison guard so I can make their life hell in prison? Probably not. I'd probably just give my evidence to the police and then get on with my life. This isn't saying the person didn't do a bad thing, it's just that I have other stuff going on in my life which is more important to me than that.

Again I'm not arguing people wouldn't be angry - I'm just saying the statement that anyone who has Charm Person cast on them will make it their personal mission to hunt the caster down and murder them regardless of what the Charm was used for seems like an overly extreme position to take. People have jobs and families and a million other responsibilities which would be more important to them than personally hunting down and murdering the guy who conned them out of 10 gold.

[Unoriginal]

That's the problem. You're only viewing the injury in terms of what the caster violated the victim's mind to accomplish.

The injury is violating the victim's mind in the first place.

This.

Same way that drugging someone's glass while they weren't looking is violating, even if you don't do anytjhing else to them.


OP, if you want an impression of how in-universe such spells are handled, the Waterdeep's Legal Code has several mentions of the punishments a waiting those who mess with people's mind. They're pretty heavy.


Also, on a different subject, I don't think doing something like Harry Potter and the Natural 20 would work for 5e

HPatN20 is built on the absurdity of 3.5 munchkinry and rule-lawyering. 5e is SPECIFICALLY built on the assumption that the DM's call trumps anything the book says, and that DM should rule reasonably (which depends on what their table wants/like).

So either you'd be reducing 5e to "3.X once more", which 5e is not and it'd be nice to not see this misconception be spread, or you're losing the HPstN20 humor that isn't from the "fish out of water" elements of the usual crossover jokes based on referre cing the different works' events.

[FaerieGodfather]

That's the problem. You're only viewing the injury in terms of what the caster violated the victim's mind to accomplish.

The injury is violating the victim's mind in the first place.


Again I'm not arguing people wouldn't be angry - I'm just saying the statement that anyone who has Charm Person cast on them will make it their personal mission to hunt the caster down and murder them regardless of what the Charm was used for seems like an overly extreme position to take. People have jobs and families and a million other responsibilities which would be more important to them than personally hunting down and murdering the guy who conned them out of 10 gold.


That's the problem. You're only viewing the injury in terms of what the caster violated the victim's mind to accomplish.

The injury is violating the victim's mind in the first place.

You're right, people have priorities. Sometimes, testifying in court against the caster is all the justice they can afford. Sometimes, other priorities have to take moral precedence.

So I will amend my statement to say that the appropriate response to being charmed is to cause as much harm upon your attacker as you feel you can practically afford.

But that's the only moral limitation I will accept. There is no revenge for this grievance that I would call disproportionate.

[strangebloke]

That's the problem. You're only viewing the injury in terms of what the caster violated the victim's mind to accomplish.

The injury is violating the victim's mind in the first place.

But it is significantly different than a dominate effect, or even a mind-affecting drug.

It's an hour-long effect that doesn't remove your ability to reason. It makes you friendly towards the person, but only a pretty superficial level. You see a stranger, they greet you, and though you're initially wary somehow the person just seems incredibly nice. You chat for a bit, and then they go on their way and its only an hour later that your realize that they enchanted you. Once again, though, it isn't like they made you do anything, or could have made you do anything, really.

Personally, I'd view it as less intrusive than using disguise person to impersonate an acquaintance of theirs.

There has to be some amount of moderation here. Clearly you might refuse to work with the guy if he ever comes around again. You might even tell everyone you know to avoid him. But in a setting where magic users are real, powerful, and generally respected, it isn't going to be a small thing to get a powerful wizard convicted of something, especially if they're out of town within a day.


Also, on a different subject, I don't think doing something like Harry Potter and the Natural 20 would work for 5e

HPatN20 is built on the absurdity of 3.5 munchkinry and rule-lawyering. 5e is SPECIFICALLY built on the assumption that the DM's call trumps anything the book says, and that DM should rule reasonably (which depends on what their table wants/like).

So either you'd be reducing 5e to "3.X once more", which 5e is not and it'd be nice to not see this misconception be spread, or you're losing the HPstN20 humor that isn't from the "fish out of water" elements of the usual crossover jokes based on referre cing the different works' events.

Oh I am well aware. The premise is somewhat different. Two are inserted, a munchkin warlock and a more holistic, role-play focused fighter. The Munchkin forgets basic things like food, ticks off every third person they meet, and fosters an adversarial relationship with the GM. (in this case appearing as a glowing blob of light.) the more holistic player is able to get the GM to work with him to do unconventional things, and does a much better job attending to the world around him and how things change throughout the course of the story.

So I'd view it as a continuation to HPN20's skewering of 3.5e rules-lawyering.

[jh12]

But it is significantly different than a dominate effect, or even a mind-affecting drug.

No it isn't. It's a mind-altering spell.


It's an hour-long effect that doesn't remove your ability to reason. It makes you friendly towards the person, but only a pretty superficial level. You see a stranger, they greet you, and though you're initially wary somehow the person just seems incredibly nice. You chat for a bit, and then they go on their way and its only an hour later that your realize that they enchanted you. Once again, though, it isn't like they made you do anything, or could have made you do anything, really.

They did make you do something. They made you think they were a friendly acquaintance. And if they weren't trying to get you to do something else you wouldn't do otherwise, why cast the spell?


Personally, I'd view it as less intrusive than using disguise person to impersonate an acquaintance of theirs.

I would disagree because Disguise Person doesn't invade their minds and alter their personalities. But using Disguise Person to trick someone in normal (non-combat related) circumstances is also wrong, so that doesn't get you very far.


There has to be some amount of moderation here.

There is, but it's on the magic user's side. Don't cast spells on unwilling people outside of combat-type situations. Help the people put down the bad magic users, the ones who do cast spell on unwilling people outside of combat, and the people won't have to go full Uthgardt in self defense.


Clearly you might refuse to work with the guy if he ever comes around again. You might even tell everyone you know to avoid him. But in a setting where magic users are real, powerful, and generally respected, it isn't going to be a small thing to get a powerful wizard convicted of something, especially if they're out of town within a day.

Why would magic users be generally respected in a setting where they went around assaulting people on a regular basis? Feared? Hated? Sure. But respected? Plus, Charm Person is a first level spell, so it's not like the wizard has to be all that powerful to abuse it.

And if most of them don't, then the few that do look even worse in comparison.

[darknite]

It's like realizing you've been drugged to do something that was against your will. You may not realize that magic was involved, though to most denizens of a fantasy world, magic explains everything, but you know the person who charmed you did something that subverted your will. In medieval Europe it would be easy enough to someone get burned at the stake for that.

[JackPhoenix]

In Eberron, using mind affecting magic is considered a form of fraud. Another form of fraud is "Counterfeint of identity with criminal intent", which covers Disguise Self and shapeshifting, but the wording suggest that unless you cause problems, you can shift into whatever you want. Cases of fraud require court resolution, and usual punishments are fines, exile (may not be relevant outside Sharn) and branding.

In Waterdeep, impersonating a Lord or noble is serious crime, punishable by death in the first case, but there doesn't seem to be any penalty for impersonating commoners. Magically influencing someone without their permission is punishable by fine up to 1000 gp or imprisonment, with harder punishments when higher-ranking victim is involved

[Karnitis]

So I have a query to add to this debate then, given it's harry potter related. I'm not huge fan, nor do I want to bother googling BUT -
In book 4 or so, doesn't Ron get charmed with a love spell meant for harry? I don't remember how long he suffers from it, but I don't remember people saying that girl should be kicked out of Hogwarts and put in prison for the rest of her life - which is the general tone of this thread's majority.

So are we assuming, if charm for an hour = rape, minimum, that the girl from harry potter should have been kicked out school, possibly barred from magic altogether?

And apart from that, serious question this time, what do y'all think about the Friends cantrip? That gives ADV on CHA checks to a person, and they know they were charmed after. Is that just as bad? And what if you fail? If I roll a 5 & 7, I will still fail, so can they still really tell I charmed them?

[Kurt Kurageous]

To the OP,

Charm is not what civilized people do to each other. How the victim responds depends on whether they have access to some form of retributive justice.

Then there's the question of whether they would even report it.

Charm Person and Friends are akin to a humiliating assault by a bully who used their greater (magical) strength to knock over and pin another on the floor. How would you (the NPC) feel once they let you get up off the floor? What would you do?

[Unoriginal]

So I have a query to add to this debate then, given it's harry potter related. I'm not huge fan, nor do I want to bother googling BUT -
In book 4 or so, doesn't Ron get charmed with a love spell meant for harry? I don't remember how long he suffers from it, but I don't remember people saying that girl should be kicked out of Hogwarts and put in prison for the rest of her life - which is the general tone of this thread's majority.

Harry Potter has a HUGE problem with the fact that how horrific love potions are is barely addressed.

Voldemort's mother literally raped his father after making him drink love potion, but we're told we should be sorry for her because she had an abusive family.

Fred and George regularly sells potion that force people to consent to sex and pretty much everything else. To teenagers. And that's exactly what that girl tried to do to Harry, except Ron ate the drugged chocolate by accident. Yet it's treated like harmlessly embarrassing.

It's one of the many reasons why the HP setting is more horrific than Rowling intended.



So are we assuming, if charm for an hour = rape, minimum, that the girl from harry potter should have been kicked out school, possibly barred from magic altogether?

Yes, absolutely.

Note that using the Imperius curse, which is mind-control, on anyone in HP is punishable with immediate prison sentence.

For some reasons love potions don't get treated that way.



And apart from that, serious question this time, what do y'all think about the Friends cantrip? That gives ADV on CHA checks to a person, and they know they were charmed after. Is that just as bad?

Friends literally has the person you cast it on turn hostile once the effect ends and they realize what happened. So I guess you have your answer.


I will still fail, so can they still really tell I charmed them?

Luckily, no. They can tell you tried to cast a spell, though, given you noticeable waved your hands and said the spell's verbal components.

[hamishspence]

Note that using the Imperius curse, which is mind-control, on anyone in HP is punishable with immediate prison sentence.

Imperius is the equivalent of the Dominate line, not Charm. And the top end of it at that (Moody specifically states that you can make someone commit suicide with Imperius).


Harry Potter has a HUGE problem with the fact that how horrific love potions are is barely addressed.

Voldemort's mother literally raped his father after making him drink love potion, but we're told we should be sorry for her because she had an abusive family.

Fred and George regularly sells potion that force people to consent to sex and pretty much everything else. To teenagers. And that's exactly what that girl tried to do to Harry, except Ron ate the drugged chocolate by accident. Yet it's treated like harmlessly embarrassing.

It's one of the many reasons why the HP setting is more horrific than Rowling intended.

The issue is brought up here:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/HarryPotterAndTheHalfBloodPrince

With possible solutions being "the legal stuff is vastly weaker than the illegal stuff".

[strangebloke]

Imperius is the equivalent of the Dominate line, not Charm. And the top end of it at that (Moody specifically states that you can make someone commit suicide with Imperius).

Right. I think that's the thing here.

It doesn't make the person see you as a close friend, just as a 'friendly acquaintance.'

Ultimately, the power of that effect is contingent on how the person viewed you before you cast the spell. Cast it on an enemy? Hoo boy, yeah, that's really invading their mind. Cast it on a friend? Their behavior and personality wouldn't change at all. Cast it on a stranger? They notice that you made yourself seem very nice by some kind of magical means, but it isn't like you dramatically altered their personality.


So yeah, cast it on an enemy? That's a heck of an effect, nearly as strong as a mind-effecting drug. I can see them really really hating you after that and trying to get you killed. But they hated you before.
Cast it on a friend? Why did you do that? That was really pointless!
Cast it on a stranger? This is where I am not sure. Arguably, you could get the same effect with a plate of brownies, but obviously doing it with magic is more insidious. Even then, though, the extent to which you invaded their mind wasn't going to allow you to do anything truly awful to them. The kind of favors that a "friendly acquaintance" can reasonably expect are pretty limited.

[Unoriginal]

Imperius is the equivalent of the Dominate line, not Charm. And the top end of it at that (Moody specifically states that you can make someone commit suicide with Imperius).

You can easily use a love potion to make someone ruin their lives in was that would easily make Suggestion or weaker charms fail. While they were under their respective love potions, Ron was willing to furiously beat up his best friend for merely suggesting he was joking when declaring his newfound "love", and Tom Riddle Sr. abandoned his family, his friends, his hometown, his fortune and the woman he loved or at least was engaged with, plus had sex with and obeyed a total stranger.




With possible solutions being "the legal stuff is vastly weaker than the illegal stuff".

Except for the fact that it's known waiting for a while can strengthen the potency to dangerous levels.

If you sell someone a paintball gun who becomes a real gun if you don't use it for a couple of months, you're probably going to be charged with illegal weapon selling.

[hamishspence]

While they were under their respective love potions, Ron was willing to furiously beat up his best friend for merely suggesting he was joking when declaring his newfound "love", and Tom Riddle Sr. abandoned his family, his friends, his hometown, his fortune and the woman he loved or at least was engaged with, plus had sex with and obeyed

See the aforementioned:



possible solutions being "the legal stuff is vastly weaker than the illegal stuff".


In Ron's case, Slughorn suggests that the reason the effects on Ron are so strong was that the chocolates in question had been kept for months.

[Unoriginal]

See the aforementioned:





In Ron's case, Slughorn suggests that the reason the effects on Ron are so strong was that the chocolates in question had been kept for months.

See my response above.

[hamishspence]

It may be closer to the case of eating something that's way past its "Best Before Date" and getting food poisoning.

[patchyman]

Right. I think that's the thing here.

It doesn't make the person see you as a close friend, just as a 'friendly acquaintance’.


Not to be disrespectful, but it seems that you’ve made up your mind regardless of what other people are writing (and count me among those who consider Charm Person as a serious offence which would lead a rash and reckless person to form a posse to beat the hell out of a person who pulled it).

Charm person is actively messing with someone’s mind. People generally take an extremely dim view of that.

The fact that you can achieve a similar effect with different spells that don’t mess with someone’s mind is completely irrelevant. This is akin to saying that if a friend would probably lend me 40$, he would not have a problem with my picking his pocket and just taking 40$ out of his wallet. One way is asking for a favor. The second is a massive betrayal.

[jh12]

Cast it on a stranger? This is where I am not sure. Arguably, you could get the same effect with a plate of brownies, but obviously doing it with magic is more insidious. Even then, though, the extent to which you invaded their mind wasn't going to allow you to do anything truly awful to them. The kind of favors that a "friendly acquaintance" can reasonably expect are pretty limited.


You already did something truly awful to them. You invaded their mind and subverted their will. It doesn't matter what you are trying to get them to do after that. It doesn't even matter if you were trying to get them to do something for their own good.

[Segev]

Let us consider friends. It gives you Advantage on Charisma-based checks against the target for 1 minute; after that, the target becomes Hostile to you because he realizes you messed with his head. Interestingly, this latter is framed as non-magical and given a fluff explanation, but (for example) would you really expect somebody to become hostile to you for doing this if, say, they asked you to demonstrate how it worked? Or other contrived circumstances where they'd be grateful by the time the minute was over (e.g. they're afflicted by a mental control effect and you use it to gain Advantage on an opposed roll with their controlling caster to try to counter the controller's orders)? The spell makes no provision for this, so either we're in "rulings, not rules" territory for the DM to decide if that bit doesn't apply, or it's actually part of the spell to sour attitudes towards you as a sort of rebound effect.

Why do I bring up friends? Because it is an interesting contrast with charm person in that charm person contains no text dictating the attitude dropping to Hostile. Indeed, the spell specifies that the Charmed creature is Friendly to you, and that, when the spell ends, it knows it was Charmed by you. The latter suggests that it doesn't know (or doesn't care) that it's Charmed by you while under the effects of the spell. The former could be read in a twisty way to say that the Charmed effect ends with the spell's duration, but the Friendliness doesn't.

Less cheesily, it doesn't specify that the creature ceases to regard you as a friendly acquaintance with the end of the spell. It also doesn't say the creature does make such cessation. Therefore, it is entirely up to the DM to determine where his attitude goes. I think this would depend a great deal on how you used or abused your "friend" while he was Charmed. If you just talked down that bandit from attacking you, and hired him to come with you as a bodyguard after negotiating and determining whether he'd mind or not, he may remain friendly. Yes, you Charmed him, but you also treated him well and are continuing to treat him well.

It's also worth considering the usual skeevy example(s) that get brought up wrt Charm and the like. So let's examine our Cassanova Bard who uses charm person on the comely bar maid. It makes her regard him as a "friendly acquaintance." Unless she's the sort to be friends with benefits with friendly acquaintances, it's unlikely that his Charms are enough to get her out of her skirt and into his bed. He still has to seduce her. He just made it so that he was handsomer, more charming, and generally more pleasant to be around (and a little more persuasive) while engaging in seduction. A friendly acquaintance can absolutely say "no" to a sexual encounter, even with somebody knowing how to say all the right things (i.e. having Advantage on Charisma-based checks). Assuming the assignation takes no more than the hour duration, afterwards, she knows he used magic to Charm her, but she also doesn't really have a sudden realization that he's uglier, nastier, or less charming than he seemed. If she is the sort to have regrets - perhaps she was on the fence about chastity and now feels remorse - she might be angry at him for the same reason she'd be angry at him for seducing her even without magic, but with slightly more justification. But it can't make her do anything she wouldn't for a friendly acquaintance.

Therefore, my conclusion is that the reaction to realizing they've been Charmed is based on how they view what happened while they were Charmed. Actual adjustments to attitude made with that Advantage and the starting point of "friendly acquaintance" probably stick, though might give a sour note to it for them to bring up if further conflicts develop. If, on the other hand, there are deeper reasons for dislike, those reasons reassert themselves and now you know your enemy/con man/rival just whammied you into liking him and doing things for him that you would never have done.

Remember that while it is mind control, it isn't compulsion. It's a "like me" beam, not a "do anything for me" beam. The angry thug in the bar you Charm and then befriend may realize you Charmed him after the hour is up, but will he really care when you're not insulting him, you're not provoking him, and he's had an hour to cool off and get to know you and your pals?

Believe me, I understand the real-world-thinking that this Enchanter just messed with my mind, of course I'm furious with him now that I know that! And if he took advantage of me in ways that put me out and leave me regretting the encounter, yes, I expect that I'd feel betrayed, angry, and violated. Just as if he'd walked up and mugged me after conning me into helping him get his (non-existent) little brother out of a pile of boxes pinning him down, or something.

But do the heroes hold it against the beautiful nymph when her enchanting beauty makes it hard to say "no" to her? Sometimes, yes; sometimes, no. It depends a lot on the encounter and its outcomes. Just because it's harder to say "no" to her than to another woman doesn't mean you can't say "no." It's just less pleasant/more unpleasant to do so.

The more deception and manipulation went into it, the more resentment it probably leaves behind. The more genuine effort to be a good friend, the more likely it's irksome but not going to ruin the newfound friendship.

[Monster Manuel]

Cast it on a friend? Why did you do that? That was really pointless!


There's an edge case where casting it on a friend makes a lot of sense. Let's say they're under some compulsion to attack you (confusion, crown of madness, whatever). Charm Person gives the target the Charmed condition which, on top of the advantage to social rolls, also says that the charmed creature can't attack the charmer. So, caster Charms his buddy, who is now unable to attack him, thus negating the spell or whatever that would have had the buddy otherwise trying to kill his friends. The Charm wears off in an hour, hopefully the other effect has as well, and the buddy is aware that you charmed him. "Hey, thanks," says the buddy. "That spell really saved our butts".

Circumstantial, but it's not nothin'.

[Monster Manuel]

Charm Person is blatantly used for theft. What is the reaction here? Would the resulting punishment be worse than for theft?


Yes. ABSOLUTELY yes.

In a world where magic is known and understood, you can assume the people writing the laws have at least a basic understanding of what a Charm spell can do. Laws are pretty harsh about what happens to traitors and secret-spillers. When the ruling class is interested in keeping secrets, the fact that someone with ill-intent can very easily make anyone on their payroll into a "trusted acquaintance" would be extremely threatening to them. Laws against that kind of manipulation would be accordingly harsh, and in many cases probably harsher than the crime committed under the Charm.

As a corollary, I would see Guards in this setting getting increasingly annoyed with apprehended perps who claim that they were Charmed into doing their mis-deeds. "Honest, guv'nor. Oi NEVAH woulda' taken it, only me boss CHARMED me into takin' it. 'E MAGICKED me into doin' it, 'e did". How could they ever prove he was lying?

[strangebloke]

Not to be disrespectful, but it seems that you’ve made up your mind regardless of what other people are writing (and count me among those who consider Charm Person as a serious offence which would lead a rash and reckless person to form a posse to beat the hell out of a person who pulled it).

Charm person is actively messing with someone’s mind. People generally take an extremely dim view of that.

The fact that you can achieve a similar effect with different spells that don’t mess with someone’s mind is completely irrelevant. This is akin to saying that if a friend would probably lend me 40$, he would not have a problem with my picking his pocket and just taking 40$ out of his wallet. One way is asking for a favor. The second is a massive betrayal.

I've not made up my mind completely, although I do disagree with the complete lack of qualification here.

Any enchantment effect, it seems, no matter the context, proof, or extent, appears to be worthy of execution by Mob Justice.

That seems an extreme interpretation, the sort imposed by a controlling DM whose been scarred by murderhobo player tendencies in the past. The only way to uphold it is by appealing to certain historical examples of draconic legal systems, which weren't actually ubiquitous even in their own time. Sure some people got burned as witches. Other people got burned for making false accusations of witchcraft. These comparisons further ring hollow because they're coming from a setting (our world) where magic is supposed to come from demonic powers and where proof of magical interference was impossible.

In a setting where magic is relatively common and often benign, "fear of magic" in general shouldn't be an issue.

So then the question becomes, absent any completely irrational response, what would be the rational response to this?

Now, it's possible that any mental interference at all would make a person incredibly angry. But I have a real tough time envisioning how a person might articulate such anger in some circumstances.

"That wizard, he cast a spell on me!"
"Oh no, were it a curse?"
"Nay! It made me like him better! We talked pleasantly for half an hour!"

The main actual usage of the spell, I find, is for stopping unnecessary violent conflict. Its for when the bartender freaks out and goes for his crossbow because he thinks you're with the cartel. In such a context, isn't a minor charm effect preferable to the alternative of getting beaten unconscious?

So no, I haven't made up my mind, except that the response should vary depending on circumstance.

[jh12]

It's also worth considering the usual skeevy example(s) that get brought up wrt Charm and the like. So let's examine our Cassanova Bard who uses charm person on the comely bar maid. It makes her regard him as a "friendly acquaintance." Unless she's the sort to be friends with benefits with friendly acquaintances, it's unlikely that his Charms are enough to get her out of her skirt and into his bed. He still has to seduce her.

And what if she is? Does that make her any less worthy of protection?


He just made it so that he was handsomer, more charming, and generally more pleasant to be around (and a little more persuasive) while engaging in seduction.

No he didn't. The effect is all in her mind. He forced her to think that "he was handsomer, more charming, and generally more pleasant to be around (and a little more persuasive)" while he tries to rape her.


A friendly acquaintance can absolutely say "no" to a sexual encounter, even with somebody knowing how to say all the right things (i.e. having Advantage on Charisma-based checks).

And is more likely to do so when not under a spell, which is the reason for casting the spell in the first place. There's no point in casting the spell if you aren't trying to affect her mind. There's no point in casting the spell if you aren't trying to make her more likely to do what you want, and less likely to do what she wants.


Assuming the assignation takes no more than the hour duration, afterwards, she knows he used magic to Charm her, but she also doesn't really have a sudden realization that he's uglier, nastier, or less charming than he seemed.

Sure she does. Because he is "uglier, nastier, or less charming than he seemed." The spell made him seem better. It didn't actually make him better.


If she is the sort to have regrets - perhaps she was on the fence about chastity and now feels remorse - she might be angry at him for the same reason she'd be angry at him for seducing her even without magic, but with slightly more justification. But it can't make her do anything she wouldn't for a friendly acquaintance.

So what? He wasn't a friendly acquaintance. He used a spell to convince her that he was and to become more susceptible to his advances because he has so little regard for her value as a person that he doesn't care whether she actually wants to have sex with him. He's a rapist, plain and simple, just like anyone who uses a love potion or other magical enchantment. And she has more than enough right to be angry with him for raping her regardless of her feelings about chastity.


In a setting where magic is relatively common and often benign, "fear of magic" in general shouldn't be an issue.

That depends on how responsible the magic users are. If they run around casting Charmed Person on the "local miller" to "mess with him a bit," why wouldn't ordinary people fear and hate magic?


The main actual usage of the spell, I find, is for stopping unnecessary violent conflict. Its for when the bartender freaks out and goes for his crossbow because he thinks you're with the cartel. In such a context, isn't a minor charm effect preferable to the alternative of getting beaten unconscious?

That's the one acceptable use, as a substitute for violence.

[Segev]

Now, it's possible that any mental interference at all would make a person incredibly angry. But I have a real tough time envisioning how a person might articulate such anger in some circumstances.

"That wizard, he cast a spell on me!"
"Oh no, were it a curse?"
"Nay! It made me like him better! We talked pleasantly for half an hour!"To be fair, the way it more likely is expressed is, "He bewitched me! I wasn't in my right mind! He made evil things sound reasonable!" Without articulating that "hanging out with him" is an "evil thing" in this guys mind, now, because he's mad as heck about being Charmed.


The main actual usage of the spell, I find, is for stopping unnecessary violent conflict. Its for when the bartender freaks out and goes for his crossbow because he thinks you're with the cartel. In such a context, isn't a minor charm effect preferable to the alternative of getting beaten unconscious?

So no, I haven't made up my mind, except that the response should vary depending on circumstance.I agree. It's a common problem with magical "charm" effects, because our natural instinct is to view that as fundamentally different from a really charming guy who can talk his way out of any trouble persuading the barkeep to give him a chance. But then we tack these spells and effects onto "charmer" characters. And they actually act counter-productively, because they make people like you less, not more.

So I think the appropriate way to handle it is simply to base it on how the Charmer treated the target. If they worked to expand on the "friendly acquaintanceship," then that should probably stick, assuming there's not underlying reason to have deeper feelings of resentment. (Charming the guy who's dedicated his life to killing you for what you did to his family won't stick, obviously.)

[patchyman]

I've not made up my mind completely, although I do disagree with the complete lack of qualification here.

Any enchantment effect, it seems, no matter the context, proof, or extent, appears to be worthy of execution by Mob Justice.

That seems an extreme interpretation, the sort imposed by a controlling DM whose been scarred by murderhobo player tendencies in the past.

You say you haven’t made up your mind, but I’ve counted about 5 different posters who have indicated that they would react fairly extremely and you have been rather dismissive, claiming that such a reaction is irrational or that this interpretation is that of “a controlling DM scarred by murderhobo player tendencies”.

Why do you have so much difficulty understanding that the posters are expressing how they would feel if a complete stranger used magic to take advantage of them?

[sophontteks]

Let us consider friends. It gives you Advantage on Charisma-based checks against the target for 1 minute; after that, the target becomes Hostile to you because he realizes you messed with his head. Interestingly, this latter is framed as non-magical and given a fluff explanation, but (for example) would you really expect somebody to become hostile to you for doing this if, say, they asked you to demonstrate how it worked? Or other contrived circumstances where they'd be grateful by the time the minute was over (e.g. they're afflicted by a mental control effect and you use it to gain Advantage on an opposed roll with their controlling caster to try to counter the controller's orders)? The spell makes no provision for this, so either we're in "rulings, not rules" territory for the DM to decide if that bit doesn't apply, or it's actually part of the spell to sour attitudes towards you as a sort of rebound effect.

Why do I bring up friends? Because it is an interesting contrast with charm person in that charm person contains no text dictating the attitude dropping to Hostile. Indeed, the spell specifies that the Charmed creature is Friendly to you, and that, when the spell ends, it knows it was Charmed by you. The latter suggests that it doesn't know (or doesn't care) that it's Charmed by you while under the effects of the spell. The former could be read in a twisty way to say that the Charmed effect ends with the spell's duration, but the Friendliness doesn't.

Friends makes a creature hostile in order to prevent friends from being spammable. It only works on creatures who aren't hostile, and makes them hostile afterwards. It is terribly written and has better use making creatures hostile then it does charming them. I appreciate the example, I just think friends is terribly written. It shouldn't make creatures hostile.

[Monster Manuel]

(Charming the guy who's dedicated his life to killing you for what you did to his family won't stick, obviously.)

But, what if you didn't actually kill his family? What if you used Charm Person to get him to sit down and talk it out. You spend the time while he is Charmed laying out what really happened, presenting strong evidence of who the real killer was, and expressing your desire to see the killer brought to justice just as much as he does. You're also completely honest with him; you tell him that you know how angry he is, and the only reason you're able to sit and tell him this is because of a spell you used to calm him down.

He never would have sat down with you to hear you out without the spell; you were on his kill-on-sight list. But after the Charm wears off, he doesn't forget the new information you provided him with. He's seen the evidence that he would have ignored otherwise, and remembers that you and he have a common enemy. All that DOES stick.

He also knows that you've enchanted him against his will. He'll naturally be skeptical of everything you just told him. But he also knows WHY you enchanted him.

Honestly, in this sort of situation, I think the victim comes out of the Charm LESS upset with you, not more.

If you used the Friends cantrip to try to Persuade him with advantage, he'd come out of it Hostile to you, regardless of what was said. With Charm, I think it's more nuanced.

[JackPhoenix]

To be fair, the way it more likely is expressed is, "He bewitched me! I wasn't in my right mind! He made evil things sound reasonable!" Without articulating that "hanging out with him" is an "evil thing" in this guys mind, now, because he's mad as heck about being Charmed.

Here's the thing: the victim can't trust their memory. Sure, we, the players, know messing with someone's memories is more difficult, less accessible and has limits, but commoner who's only heard inaccurate rumors about what mages can do to your mind? The victim remember they've had a pleasant chat with the caster, but is that actually what happened? Why would someone used magic to mess with someone's mind if they only wanted to hang out? What else has happened... is the memory true? Is there some hidden curse waiting in the victims mind? After all, you've all heard the tales about friend's friend's aquitance who claimed someone used magic to mess with him, but nobody believed him until he snapped and murdered his whole family before commiting suicide.... surely work of evil magic and not just the result of mental problems....

[Daghoulish]

I think I'm on the side of not so harsh. I mean, if someone charmed me with the spell and convinced me to give them 10$ (something I might do for a friendly acquaintance) and went about their day after having a nice conversation with them. An hour passes and the spell fades and it says I know I was charmed, but how would my mind actually articulate this? Would a voice tell me "YOU HAVE BEEN CHARMED BY MAGIC!" or would it more likely be "huh, that person was kind of a jerk. I don't think I like them anymore". I know it's magic, but the brain tends to rationalize things that happen and you can't explain. Suddenly disliking someone sounds like the instance your brain would kick into high gear and rationalize it. As a reasonable person the thing to do is go talk with them and see if you could reverse whatever happend (Hey man, could I have those 10$ back I need it for something.). People don't immediately go for "BURN THEM, BURN EVERYTHING THEY OWN!". That is a knee-jerk reaction if I've ever heard one. If it was really bad and they got something precious to me (family heirloom or things equivalent) then I'd notify the guards that I'd been robbed (leaving anything about mind control out) and alert my friends to not trust or talk to those people. But for 10$? My life,family,and friends are worth far more than 10$. I'll stick by them and get on with my life.

[Constructman]

In Eberron, using mind affecting magic is considered a form of fraud. Another form of fraud is "Counterfeint of identity with criminal intent", which covers Disguise Self and shapeshifting, but the wording suggest that unless you cause problems, you can shift into whatever you want. Cases of fraud require court resolution, and usual punishments are fines, exile (may not be relevant outside Sharn) and branding.

I think this is the correct degree of response. Anything more severe would be like organizing lynch mobs to go after MLM stooges. As much as I want to hang the Amway salesman from the trees for peddling ****ty goods and making me listen to his potentially hours-long spiel, that would just be excessive.

[Sigreid]

I think we've got 2 different looks at the spell going. Seems one side views it as kind of a magical rufi, where as I fall on a side that sees it as more the magical equivalent of setting up an impressive and comfortable lobby with pleasant music playing and some calming fragrances in the air to put me at ease before the salesman comes in for the kill.

From my perspective, if you view charm in that hostile of a light, you should be positively livid at the intentionally manipulative crap companies subject us to day in and day out.

[jh12]

I think we've got 2 different looks at the spell going. Seems one side views it as kind of a magical rufi, where as I fall on a side that sees it as more the magical equivalent of setting up an impressive and comfortable lobby with pleasant music playing and some calming fragrances in the air to put me at ease before the salesman comes in for the kill.

A lobby that can turn a mortal enemy into a friendly acquaintance for an hour is one impressive lobby.

[Sigreid]

A lobby that can turn a mortal enemy into a friendly acquaintance for an hour is one impressive lobby.

I still maintain that in my view it's no more insidious than the things we are exposed to every day by companies, governments and politicians using applied psychology.

[sophontteks]

Being charmed is about the same as being drugged. There are mind-altering drugs that can perform a similar role. It doesn't matter what you did afterwards, you still drugged someone. This is not a path toward friendship.

[Sigreid]

Being charmed is about the same as being drugged. There are mind-altering drugs that can perform a similar role. It doesn't matter what you did afterwards, you still drugged someone. This is not a path toward friendship.

I don't think I've seen anyone argue that it's a friendly act, just not necessarily any more evil/despicable than any other form of psychological warfare.

[sophontteks]

I don't think I've seen anyone argue that it's a friendly act, just not necessarily any more evil/despicable than any other form of psychological warfare.
Apples and oranges really. This an act between two individuals, two people. Gotta be careful applying human traits to large entities IMO.

But a lot of people are arguing that it's not a bad act, more like a prank, or something easily dismissed. It's messing with someone's head, taking away their control over their body and mind. That is a pretty terrible thing to do to someone.

[FaerieGodfather]

So are we assuming, if charm for an hour = rape, minimum, that the girl from harry potter should have been kicked out school, possibly barred from magic altogether?

Like most YA fiction these days, Harry Potter is a horrifying dystopia. Unlike most YA fiction these days, this is seemingly accidental.

Practically everything about the Hogwarts school would be called criminal negligence in a court of law, and yet powerful and respected wizards are proud to send their own children there.

It's the most realistic thing about the series.

[Segev]

Apples and oranges really. This an act between two individuals, two people. Gotta be careful applying human traits to large entities IMO.

But a lot of people are arguing that it's not a bad act, more like a prank, or something easily dismissed. It's messing with someone's head, taking away their control over their body and mind. That is a pretty terrible thing to do to someone.

I’m arguing that treating it the way you’re suggesting makes it next to useless on bards, sorcerers, and anybody who is meant to be social. It also should be considered more evil than creating undead.

Since it isn’t treated that way by the rules, your interpretation must be somehow wrong.

[BurgerBeast]

But, what if you didn't actually kill his family? What if you used Charm Person to get him to sit down and talk it out.

...

If you used the Friends cantrip to try to Persuade him with advantage, he'd come out of it Hostile to you, regardless of what was said. With Charm, I think it's more nuanced.

No it’s not more nuanced. Just because, under very specific circumstances, you can use it for a good cause (i.e. just because sometimes the ends justifies the means) does not prove that it is generally justifiable (i.e. that the means itself is justifiable). [Edit: what I mean to say is not even remotely justifiable. I know you’re not trying to claim it is generally justifiable. I just mean that even generally unjustifiable things have specific exceptions, but this is not enough to claim they are nuanced.]

Just because sometimes a doctor can drug you and cut you up with a scalpel and it is helpful does not make the drugging and cutting up of people “more nuanced.”

It is a disgusting thing to do. Even knowing that doctors can do it to good effect in some specific circumstances - it’s still disgusting and horrible, generally, for one person to drug and cut up another. [Edit: there’s no nuance to it. It’s understood that “nuance” is not a requirement for specific exceptions exist.]

- - -

To others who see my view as absolutist or extreme: I’m not equating the spells to rape (as others may be), personally, but I am saying that it is undeniably wrong, in principle, morally, to rob someone of their autonomy. We can argue the degree, but to my view it remains a matter of principle even while accepting that there are differences in degree.

It’s a bit like saying that stealing $2 is no big deal. I disagree. I think stealing is always a big deal. You’re free to say that stealing $1 million dollars is worse, and I’d agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that stealing $2 is still wrong, in principle.

(This example is relevant only insofar as you think theft is a moral concern, but for the purpose of this example just play along or invent a more relevant example that is moral and varies by degree.)

[Segev]

It doesn’t rob three of autonomy. That would be dominate. Charm just makes you more likable and persuasive.

[BurgerBeast]

It doesn’t rob three of autonomy. That would be dominate. Charm just makes you more likable and persuasive.

I maintain that it robs you of your autonomy, not entirely but to some degree.

This is because I disagree with you that it makes you more likeable and persuasive. It charms another person so that the target views you are as more likeable and persuasive than you actually are, which is why you are only more likeable and persuasive to the target but no one else.

It’s as if the target has had a couple of cocktails and has his or her beer-goggles on. But nobody else does. It’s mind-affecting.

If the target drank the beers himself (or herself), then it’s on him (her). If you secretly slipped him (her) the beers, it’s on you.

[Sigreid]

I maintain that it robs you of your autonomy, not entirely but to some degree.

This is because I disagree with you that it makes you more likeable and persuasive. It charms another person so that the target views you are as more likeable and persuasive than you actually are, which is why you are only more likeable and persuasive to the target but no one else.

It’s as if the target has had a couple of cocktails and has his or her beer-goggles on. But nobody else does. It’s mind-affecting.

If the target drank the beers himself (or herself), then it’s on him (her). If you secretly slipped him (her) the beers, it’s on you.

This is why I think we're talking a couple of different understandings of what it does. My reading it does not rob you of your autonomy, with the exception that it prevents the target from initiation hostilities against you (nothing in the spell would stop them from attacking any of your allies). If hostilities have already started, they get advantage on the save. Beyond that, they're marginally more likely to view what you say in the best light possible. It's not Suggestion, it won't plant an absurd idea in their head. It's not dominate, they won't do anything that is against their nature or code, or that will likely lead to harm for themselves or their actual friends/allies. It could, admittedly help you haggle with a merchant, but he's still not going to sell at a loss if he knows he can get a profit from someone else. And all of this is besides the fact that unless you have a decent charisma/charisma skills it's probably pretty useless, except for that bit about them not attacking you while under its effects.

[MadBear]

To me, the fact that the "Friends" spell exists, at least gives us an idea as to the intent of Charm Person. If Charm Person was supposed to provoke a hostile reaction, it'd probably say so, since there's already precedent.

[Reversefigure4]

An hour passes and the spell fades and it says I know I was charmed, but how would my mind actually articulate this? Would a voice tell me "YOU HAVE BEEN CHARMED BY MAGIC!" or would it more likely be "huh, that person was kind of a jerk. I don't think I like them anymore". I know it's magic, but the brain tends to rationalize things that happen and you can't explain.

This is about where I sit, too. It's feels like when a slick talking salesman convinces you to buy a product you don't want. Or the girl at the bar suddenly walks away and stops flirting with you the moment you've paid for her drink. Or when you realise that beggar you were feeling sympathy for is only pretending to be homeless. You feel conned, a little embarrassed, and a little angry.

You feel like the person was friendly and you were happy to help them out, but now that you've had some time to think about it, you feel a bit ripped off. Your reaction is dependent on the circumstances in which you've been cheated. If it's a small cheat (your new friend 'borrowed' $10), most people will just shrug, be unhappy, and move on with their lives. If it's a big cheat (you bought a new car), you'll attempt to reverse the transaction, possibly bringing the law into it.

The Charm can't make you do things you wouldn't do for a friend anyway, so you're generally not parting with vast hordes of money you absolutely can't afford to lose, or sleeping with someone despite your vows of chastity, or breaking a series of massive rules that'll instantly cost you your job.

(That's the reaction from the average man on the street, anyway. Somebody with enough knowledge of magic to recognise the specifics of Charm Person - ie, somebody who makes their Arcana roll - might react differently).

[jh12]

It doesn’t rob three of autonomy. That would be dominate. Charm just makes you more likable and persuasive.

That's not what the spell does at all. You don't cast the spell on yourself--you target a victim. It doesn't make you more likable and persuasive. It makes them less able to resist you. The spell affects them, not you. If that's what the spell did, it would work on anyone you interacted with over the course of the hour instead of just the victims.

And if the spell isn't robbing them of their autonomy, why are you casting it? If it doesn't affect their ability to make decision, what's the point? You are casting it because you want them to do what you want them to do, not what they want to do. That's robbing them of their autonomy.

[sophontteks]

I think you're overstating charm person a touch. It doesn't change your mind or your very essence. It makes you marginally more amiable to the person who cast it. Heck, while it does make it a bit easier to talk you into something you're not that opposed to anyway, it has 0 chance of someone talking you into something you absolutely would not do. Heck, if you hate someone such that they'd have disadvantage in talking you viewing anything they say in a favorable light, charm person would only get you back to an even chance.
I think a lot of people underestimate how strong the spell is. The charmed effect is very minor, but the spell also changes the targets opinion of you to a friendly aquantance. Its the later part people underestimate.

You are a friendly aquantance to the target for the entire duration of the spell, no matter what you do, or how you behave. This makes it very difficult for them to rationalize your behavior when you do things that would, under normal conditions, change their stance towards you.

[Sigreid]

I think a lot of people underestimate how strong the spell is. The charmed effect is very minor, but the spell also changes the targets opinion of you to a friendly aquantance. Its the later part people underestimate.

You are a friendly aquantance to the target for the entire duration of the spell, no matter what you do, or how you behave. This makes it very difficult for them to rationalize your behavior when you do things that would, under normal conditions, change their stance towards you.

I've got a lot of friendly acquaintances, they aren't people I lend money or give special deals. They're people I will do minor favors for if they dont inconvenience me much.

[Segev]

That's not what the spell does at all. You don't cast the spell on yourself--you target a victim. It doesn't make you more likable and persuasive. It makes them less able to resist you. The spell affects them, not you. If that's what the spell did, it would work on anyone you interacted with over the course of the hour instead of just the victims.

And if the spell isn't robbing them of their autonomy, why are you casting it? If it doesn't affect their ability to make decision, what's the point? You are casting it because you want them to do what you want them to do, not what they want to do. That's robbing them of their autonomy.

It makes you more charming to them.

And if rolling Charisma (Persuasion) isn’t robbing them of autonomy, why are you doing it?

If wearing clothing that flatters you and fits the situation, avoiding giving you Disadvantage on that Charisma(Persuasion) roll isn’t robbing them of autonomy, why are you doing it?

If bringing them a gift that gives you advantage on the Charisma(Persuasion) roll isn’t robbing them of autonomy, why are you doing it?

[strangebloke]

I've got a lot of friendly acquaintances, they aren't people I lend money or give special deals. They're people I will do minor favors for if they dont inconvenience me much.

I think his point is that the effect can be very powerful if used on someone who hates you, or depending on what is done to you while you're under the spell.

For example, if a friendly acquaintance came by and stole my car, I wouldn't consider them a friendly acquaintance any more. But with charm person in effect, I still do. I might be generally opposed to them, but I, almost literally, can't get too mad about it.

But this is getting towards context.

No it’s not more nuanced. Just because, under very specific circumstances, you can use it for a good cause (i.e. just because sometimes the ends justifies the means) does not prove that it is generally justifiable (i.e. that the means itself is justifiable). [Edit: what I mean to say is not even remotely justifiable. I know you’re not trying to claim it is generally justifiable. I just mean that even generally unjustifiable things have specific exceptions, but this is not enough to claim they are nuanced.]

Just because sometimes a doctor can drug you and cut you up with a scalpel and it is helpful does not make the drugging and cutting up of people “more nuanced.”

It is a disgusting thing to do. Even knowing that doctors can do it to good effect in some specific circumstances - it’s still disgusting and horrible, generally, for one person to drug and cut up another. [Edit: there’s no nuance to it. It’s understood that “nuance” is not a requirement for specific exceptions exist.]

- - -

To others who see my view as absolutist or extreme: I’m not equating the spells to rape (as others may be), personally, but I am saying that it is undeniably wrong, in principle, morally, to rob someone of their autonomy. We can argue the degree, but to my view it remains a matter of principle even while accepting that there are differences in degree.

It’s a bit like saying that stealing $2 is no big deal. I disagree. I think stealing is always a big deal. You’re free to say that stealing $1 million dollars is worse, and I’d agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that stealing $2 is still wrong, in principle.

(This example is relevant only insofar as you think theft is a moral concern, but for the purpose of this example just play along or invent a more relevant example that is moral and varies by degree.)

I think this is a very fair take on things. However, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to establish a "morality of charm person" thread, because any and all internet morality discussions degenerate into poo-flinging within five posts.

I'm asking what a reasonable response would be in a variety of situations. There's actually been a lot of interesting discussion here levied although its gotten lost in the noise of people with absolute opinions. Actually, although I've seen absolutist arguments for "Cast Charm Person? WHOLE TOWN KILL YOU" I've yet to see someone here describe it as a good thing, merely a bad thing that sometimes people will let slide for personal/contextual reasons.

anyway, to highlight some posts that I found interesting:

Yes. ABSOLUTELY yes.

In a world where magic is known and understood, you can assume the people writing the laws have at least a basic understanding of what a Charm spell can do. Laws are pretty harsh about what happens to traitors and secret-spillers. When the ruling class is interested in keeping secrets, the fact that someone with ill-intent can very easily make anyone on their payroll into a "trusted acquaintance" would be extremely threatening to them. Laws against that kind of manipulation would be accordingly harsh, and in many cases probably harsher than the crime committed under the Charm.

As a corollary, I would see Guards in this setting getting increasingly annoyed with apprehended perps who claim that they were Charmed into doing their mis-deeds. "Honest, guv'nor. Oi NEVAH woulda' taken it, only me boss CHARMED me into takin' it. 'E MAGICKED me into doin' it, 'e did". How could they ever prove he was lying?


They would know that all the "this one is a friend" feelings they had were fake.

An appropriate response depends on the character. A coward might flee, someone like the Mountain would cleave you in two were you stand, someone like Aria would put you on her list, some might tolerate your behavior if there is something important enough at stake.

[Vogie]

I think there's some issue with what precisely the "charm" term means.

Dominate Person, Geas & a GOO warlock's Create Thrall is the one that is akin to Mindrape - you are literally puppeting a person around.

Enthrall & an enchantment wizard's Hypnotic Gaze is more akin to mesmerizing or hypnotizing the target - they can't see anyone but you, so the rest of the party can just pass by that guard you're talking to. They may not realize what had happened, unless they realize time has passed.

Command and Charm Person is akin to making the target believe you're instantly as convincing as a good friend would be - you are twice as likely to convince them to do things due to advantage. How they feel about it afterwards depends on what it is you ask them to do: are you making them hold the murder weapon while you escape? Are you commanding the room to flee before something terrible happen? Did you tell them these aren't the droids you're looking for?

Friends, on the other hand, is more like you're being pulled one over on, like by a con man or a smooth talker - there's a defined moment where the target says "... Wait" at the end of the minute, with the varying level of Hostility coming as a Delayed Reaction (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DelayedReaction) or Double Take (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleTake) as soon as the duration runs out.

[Sigreid]

I think his point is that the effect can be very powerful if used on someone who hates you, or depending on what is done to you while you're under the spell.

For example, if a friendly acquaintance came by and stole my car, I wouldn't consider them a friendly acquaintance any more. But with charm person in effect, I still do. I might be generally opposed to them, but I, almost literally, can't get too mad about it.

But this is getting towards context.


I think this is a very fair take on things. However, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to establish a "morality of charm person" thread, because any and all internet morality discussions degenerate into poo-flinging within five posts.

I'm asking what a reasonable response would be in a variety of situations. There's actually been a lot of interesting discussion here levied although its gotten lost in the noise of people with absolute opinions. Actually, although I've seen absolutist arguments for "Cast Charm Person? WHOLE TOWN KILL YOU" I've yet to see someone here describe it as a good thing, merely a bad thing that sometimes people will let slide for personal/contextual reasons.

anyway, to highlight some posts that I found interesting:

I guess I'd say that I would much rather someone charm me for an hour and steal my car than conk me on the head with a pipe or threaten my life and steal my car.

[Imbalance]

If a person takes steps to make themselves presentable, such as keeping clean and neat grooming, fresh attire, splashes on a pleasing fragrance, makes themselves personable, and can be interesting in conversation and demeanor, you would say this person was charming. Personally, I would be wary about such a one, because my suspicion would be that all of that effort was based on the confidence and history of someone who is used to getting what they want from those who are easily swayed. This isn't to say that we couldn't be friends, but I would constantly be on guard against subtle manipulation. This is my will.

The spell in question removes my willful wariness, and is thus an equal violation to my individual sovereignty as any other assault on my natural rights. It is the real world equivalent to slipping a mickey into someone's drink with the intent of chemically altering their state of mind or degree of consciousness. I have no tolerance for this. At the very least, I would make the treachery publicly known and would be certain to have no further interactions with the caster. Beyond that, I would do everything in my power to ensure justice to the fullest extent of whatever laws govern the protections of such rights be levied against the perpetrator of the act. I don't know how much more egregious an influence of this spell's magnitude I would find abhorrently evil, but the utmost reciprocity would be to do whatever it takes to make damn sure they never do it again.

[Segev]

Dominate Person, Geas & a GOO warlock's Create Thrall is the one that is akin to Mindrape - you are literally puppeting a person around.This is true for the first two, but the GOO Warlock's Thrall is actually much weaker than that. All it does is apply the Charmed condition (which merely gives Advantage on Charisma checks and prevents them from attacking the Charmer) and give a constant, distance-independent telepathic link to the Thrall. It requires much more mundane brainwashing of the "voice in my head that sounds really persuasive" variety, and doesn't even provide charm person's "they see you as a friendly acquaintance" clause.


If a person takes steps to make themselves presentable, such as keeping clean and neat grooming, fresh attire, splashes on a pleasing fragrance, makes themselves personable, and can be interesting in conversation and demeanor, you would say this person was charming. Personally, I would be wary about such a one, because my suspicion would be that all of that effort was based on the confidence and history of someone who is used to getting what they want from those who are easily swayed. This isn't to say that we couldn't be friends, but I would constantly be on guard against subtle manipulation. This is my will.I'm sure there are, in fact, ways that somebody could dress and act that would put you at ease and make you more inclined to trust them. You, personally, don't find being well-dressed and groomed to fit that bill, but perhaps you'd find a certain kind of laid-back disheveledness, or a particular subculture's style, to be more trustworthy. There is SOMETHING you find so, or you would be an extremely paranoid and distrusting person in general.


The spell in question removes my willful wariness, and is thus an equal violation to my individual sovereignty as any other assault on my natural rights. It is the real world equivalent to slipping a mickey into someone's drink with the intent of chemically altering their state of mind or degree of consciousness. I have no tolerance for this. At the very least, I would make the treachery publicly known and would be certain to have no further interactions with the caster. Beyond that, I would do everything in my power to ensure justice to the fullest extent of whatever laws govern the protections of such rights be levied against the perpetrator of the act. I don't know how much more egregious an influence of this spell's magnitude I would find abhorrently evil, but the utmost reciprocity would be to do whatever it takes to make damn sure they never do it again.Charm person doesn't actually impede judgment on any topic other than whether the person casting it is a stranger, enemy, or friendly acquaintance. It hard-sets to the last. (Arguable whether it downgrades from "good friend" to that; probably doesn't, but that's a DM call.)

It isn't dominate person or even suggestion.

Treating it as somehow worse than being naturally charming and likable is more than a little unfair, and basically makes the spell next to useless for anything BUT screwing people over, since its duration is only 1 hour. Treating it as an icebreaker and allowing that circumstances may make somebody say, "I know what you did, but I'll forgive it this time, since you haven't abused my trust," is reasonable.

Or do you think the girl who bats her eyes at a boy and does everything she can to get and keep his attention, flatters him, and works to get him to like her is abrogating his will because he has hormones?

[Asmotherion]

Well a good way to approach this is through hypnossis; Apparently after hypnossis you remember the interaction and may notice you responded to some suggestions you normally wouldn't have (rationalising them).

So if you were not aware of being hypnotised you'd probably go to the guy who was giving you the suggestions you were following and at least demand an explaination?

i don't believe charm person (as the spell) gives you some magical awareness of it's effects rather that you're able to rationalice and easyly deduce who was magically influencing you to act in a specific way; also that he used "something" on you (arcana for deducing the spell) and it was probably magic.

[deljzc]

I think describing the used of charm spell to your players as "Jedi Mind Trick" establishes a very good baseline of what type of suggestions are acceptable and what are not.

As a level 1 spell, there should be some pretty good restrictions on its power level of suggestion and I would argue asking too much during the spell could backfire, the subject immediately breaks out of the trance, and knows what is happening often becoming hostile immediately (or fleeing for help if at a disadvantage).

[Imbalance]

I'm sure there are, in fact, ways that somebody could dress and act that would put you at ease and make you more inclined to trust them. You, personally, don't find being well-dressed and groomed to fit that bill, but perhaps you'd find a certain kind of laid-back disheveledness, or a particular subculture's style, to be more trustworthy. There is SOMETHING you find so, or you would be an extremely paranoid and distrusting person in general.

Trust is earned according to one's actions and reputation, not according to their presentation. Suspicion is much more freely handed out. That may make me distrustful in a general sense, though I am practiced in the art of overcoming irrational paranoia and a similar consistency of actions is required to make me utterly distrust a person (or rather to trust that they are up to no good).


Charm person doesn't actually impede judgment on any topic other than whether the person casting it is a stranger, enemy, or friendly acquaintance. It hard-sets to the last. (Arguable whether it downgrades from "good friend" to that; probably doesn't, but that's a DM call.)

It isn't dominate person or even suggestion.

That alone IS an infraction against the target's own will. Also, the charmed condition arrests violence - you can't attack the one who charmed you even if you want to.


Treating it as somehow worse than being naturally charming and likable is more than a little unfair, and basically makes the spell next to useless for anything BUT screwing people over, since its duration is only 1 hour. Treating it as an icebreaker and allowing that circumstances may make somebody say, "I know what you did, but I'll forgive it this time, since you haven't abused my trust," is reasonable.

Or do you think the girl who bats her eyes at a boy and does everything she can to get and keep his attention, flatters him, and works to get him to like her is abrogating his will because he has hormones?

It is no less fair than any other deceit that one might fall for, but a far greater molestation. That some might find the lack of abuse of trust reasonable for forgiveness does not negate the fact that the spell manipulates the target's ownership of agency. The girl in your example is only altering herself. The boy's affection remains a matter of his own will, unless you are saying that one's hormonal influence excuses their actions, which is a whole other can of worms that have no desire to open.

I doubt I have the wherewithal to convince anyone what the "proper" response ought to be, but after thinking about it I posted what mine would be and why. As has been clear for some time, many people are a lot more comfortable with being mind-controlled to any degree than I am.

[Karnitis]

This just seems like a DM-dependent issue of 'good guys do good things' and 'bad guys do bad things.'

If thanos punches hulk into a building, you see shots of people screaming and fleeing impending doom. If hulk punches thanos into a building, you see some rubble and the fight continues.

As a DM, if you have a good-aligned character, you handwave the moral implications of Charm Person because you know the hero is doing what she has to do. With a evil-aligned character, your bard knows he's being a scumlord by Charming the barmaid even though he has +8 to Persuasion so he has to expect something bad might happen to him.

While I agree its contextual, I would say it's more contextual based on spellcaster who uses it. If you have a 'Neutral' player using Charm Person, he's probably actually Evil.

[Temperjoke]

I think your reaction to being charmed via Charm Person is going to depend on your feelings towards the person who cast it, and what they asked you to do or tell them. Like if you were ambivalent towards this person, you might think it weird/embarrassing that you did or said this stuff if it wasn't particularly important. If you were already suspicious of this person, it'd probably be a major thing for you that this happened.

As to the legalities, I mean, you are imposing a mental condition unwilling upon someone else, to gain an advantage over them. At the minimum if you were caught there'd be some sort of penalty, with the punishment varying depending on what your intent was, or what you had them do.

Morally, it'd be a gray action at best. There are far worse things that could be done than making someone think you're their best friend temporarily, after all, but at the same time you are forcibly altering the individual's mind, even if it is only temporary.

[jh12]

Treating it as somehow worse than being naturally charming and likable is more than a little unfair,

No it isn't. It's not unfair at all.


and basically makes the spell next to useless for anything BUT screwing people over, since its duration is only 1 hour.

The spell only has two real uses. Avoiding violence and screwing people over. You are screwing someone over when you cast a spell on them to make them more likely to do what you want them to do.


Treating it as an icebreaker and allowing that circumstances may make somebody say, "I know what you did, but I'll forgive it this time, since you haven't abused my trust," is reasonable.

You have abused their trust. You cast a spell (that can be used on an enemy in combat) on them without their permission that affects their mind. How is that not an abuse?

Sure, I slipped a roofie into your drink, but that was just an icebreaker. I only did that so we can be alone and you can see how charming the real me is. That's totally cool, right? If you think about it, it's really your fault because you were resistant to my charms and I'm totally too cool to be resisted. Why should you have a say in what happens when it gets in the way of what I want?

[LibraryOgre]

I think, by and large, you're going to see a negative reaction when you charm someone. There may be some people who will accept it as a conversational opening, and I could see it as such if they were being actively hostile when you cast it... but I think a lot of people are going to say "No, man, that's just ****ed up."

[darknite]

Being manipulated is not fun for the victim once they realize it's happened. The spell itself says they realize it's happened. How would you react if someone picked your pocket, took you out for a steak dinner on them and then revealed they had used your money? No matter how good that meal was, it's doubtful your going to let it slide with the person who took advantage of you.

[Segev]

Sorry, it's not mind control.

Therefore, you're not making them not responsible for their own actions.

You're specifically not able to get them to do things they wouldn't do for a friendly acquaintance.

If Bard Don Juan walks up to the bar maids, plays them a lovely song, and rolls Charisma to improve their attitude to "friendly," and spends Inspiration to get Advantage on his check to get them to hide him from the Baron's guards, is he a horrible person who has negated their free will?

If Bard Ella Enchantra walks up to the bar tender, dances a sultry dance for him, charm persons him as she rents an expensive room from him, and then rolls her check (also with Advantage, because he's Charmed and thinks of her as a "friendly acquaintance") to get him to hide her from the Baron's guards, is she any more horrible than Don?

The only mechanical differences are that Ella didn't make the Charisma check to change the barkeep's attitude to "Friendly," instead using charm person. Both are able to make their Charisma checks to ask their favor with Advantage, and both are considered "friendly acquaintances." The barkeep might later realize he was Charmed, while Don's barmaid friend never has that realization, but the dice rolls to persuade were equally easy/difficult, and the favors were the same, and both had equal opportunity to refuse based on how persuasive the bard in question was.

[jh12]

Sorry, it's not mind control.

Sorry, it is mind control. It's not a strong form of mind control, but it's strong enough to be morally reprehensible when used on an unwilling target outside of a combat-type scenario.


Therefore, you're not making them not responsible for their own actions.

Yes you are.


You're specifically not able to get them to do things they wouldn't do for a friendly acquaintance.

So what? You aren't a friendly acquaintance, and even if you started that way, you still are infecting their mind to make them more likely to do what you want.


If Bard Don Juan walks up to the bar maids, plays them a lovely song, and rolls Charisma to improve their attitude to "friendly," and spends Inspiration to get Advantage on his check to get them to hide him from the Baron's guards, is he a horrible person who has negated their free will?

That's game mechanics modelling normal human interaction and does not involve altering their mind against their will.


If Bard Ella Enchantra walks up to the bar tender, dances a sultry dance for him, charm persons him as she rents an expensive room from him, and then rolls her check (also with Advantage, because he's Charmed and thinks of her as a "friendly acquaintance") to get him to hide her from the Baron's guards, is she any more horrible than Don?

Absolutely.


The only mechanical differences are that Ella didn't make the Charisma check to change the barkeep's attitude to "Friendly," instead using charm person. Both are able to make their Charisma checks to ask their favor with Advantage, and both are considered "friendly acquaintances." The barkeep might later realize he was Charmed, while Don's barmaid friend never has that realization, but the dice rolls to persuade were equally easy/difficult, and the favors were the same, and both had equal opportunity to refuse based on how persuasive the bard in question was.

No, the mechanical difference it that Ella cast a spell on an unwilling victim that altered his perception of her and made him more likely to do what she wanted. Don Juan didn't. Don Juan engaged in normal human interaction with willing participants.

Again, why are you casting the spell if you aren't trying to get the victim to do something you think they wouldn't be willing to do for you otherwise?

[darknite]

Definitely mind control. You Charm a guy who was just torturing you and get them to release you.

"I mean, c'mon buddy, get me off this rack. I know Zardoz the Ultimate Bad@$$ told you to get answers, and I'm definitely going to tell him everything he wants to know. So I'll head down to his room and talk with him. Thanks, amigo!"

[Sigreid]

Only thing I'm getting out of this thread at this point is that some DMs rule the power of this spell far more generously than I do. Have fun with any further discussions.

[Imbalance]

Don used his talents to make himself more likeable.

Ella altered the bartender against his will with a targeted spell.

[Segev]

Don used his talents to make himself more likeable.

Ella altered the bartender against his will with a targeted spell.

And yet both rolled the same Charisma check with the same DCs, Advantage, and bonuses. And achieved the same results.

It's almost as if they're modeling the same thing.

Note, too, that charm person doesn't carry any official stigma (the way, say, animate dead does). Which suggests that any effort to call it evil mind control is blowing it way out of proportion.

Leaving morality aside, the barkeep realizes she Charmed him, but whatever risks he took in hiding her are now done, and she's still the nice young lady she was before; is it really worth deciding she's his enemy now?

In terms of responsibility for one's actions...no, you're still responsible, even if Charmed. If you do something for a guy who Charmed you, you would have been willing to do it for a friendly acquaintance. You can't be made to do something you would be morally opposed to. At best, you can more honestly claim having been deceived. Which is a means of escaping culpability, but not due to mind control. (And deception is the sin, here.)

[Themrys]

So, when the spell expires, the target knows that you charmed it.

But what is a reasonable reaction to this from a narration standpoint? What exact information does the target even realize? It isn't like the local miller has any idea what the 'charm person' spell is, beyond a general sense of magicalness. What if you're playing in a region of a setting where magic by and large doesn't exist? Do they just know that you influenced them somehow, or is it more specific?

Asking not for a campaign I'm running, but for a crappy fanfiction I'm writing. Trying to run a version of Harry Potter and the Natural 20.

Same as finding out someone drugged your drink, I'd imagine.

There's some very few circumstances in which the average person would forgive it - "You were beside yourself with pain and tried to hit the healer, so we drugged you so she could heal your broken leg" would be one, among good friends a "you were working yourself to death, we drugged your drink so you'd get some sleep" might also be forgiven, but that's about it. Self-harming behaviour is the only good reason to go against someone's free will.

If you cannot argue that it was in the person's own best interest to meddle with their free will, they are going to hate you for it.

In a remote village, I assume it would provoke a "burn the witch!" reaction. People who don't know what the spell does, exactly, are going to be even more worried about what the caster could have done to them while they were under it.

A person who very strongly disbelieves in magic (your average pseudomedieval fantasy village is not a setting where that's likely to happen) might rationalize it as very skilled verbal/emotional manipulation, and still distrust the person who did it.

People in general just aren't happy when they realize they did something that they didn't really want to do and that was against their own best interest, even if it was something pretty unimportant like buying something they don't need.

Only the most benevolent of manipulations can hope to have a "I wouldn't normally do this, but I guess it was good I did" effect. (Say, you use a spell to convince a chronically distrustful person to flee a danger they don't believe you exists. If you can prove the danger existed, afterwards, you will probably be forgiven - same as when you drag someone somewhere safe physically.)

[jh12]

And yet both rolled the same Charisma check with the same DCs, Advantage, and bonuses. And achieved the same results.

It's almost as if they're modeling the same thing.

But they're not.


Note, too, that charm person doesn't carry any official stigma (the way, say, animate dead does). Which suggests that any effort to call it evil mind control is blowing it way out of proportion.

No it doesn't. It can suggest any number of things, including that they haven't considered the implications of their spell.


Leaving morality aside, the barkeep realizes she Charmed him, but whatever risks he took in hiding her are now done, and she's still the nice young lady she was before; is it really worth deciding she's his enemy now?

Absolutely. Why wouldn't he? He now knows that she is anything but a nice young lady.


In terms of responsibility for one's actions...no, you're still responsible, even if Charmed. If you do something for a guy who Charmed you, you would have been willing to do it for a friendly acquaintance. You can't be made to do something you would be morally opposed to. At best, you can more honestly claim having been deceived. Which is a means of escaping culpability, but not due to mind control. (And deception is the sin, here.)

Who cares if you might have done it in a different situation for a different person? In this situation, with this person, they didn't think you would do it for them. Which is why they cast the spell on you.

Since you claim the Charm Person spell is no big deal, when you cast it in social situations I assume that you cast it openly and don't try to hide it. If there's nothing wrong with a Charm Person spell, why would anyone care that you cast it on their friend or family? You should be able to walk up to a young lady sitting with her brothers or best friends, openly cast Charm Person on her, then try to whisk her away without anyone objecting. Or openly cast it on a shop keeper in the middle of a crowded store with his guard standing right next to him. Does anyone actually think that's remotely realistic?

[Imbalance]

Changing yourself to elicit a positive response is not remotely the same as magically making up someone's mind for them.

[Themrys]

Note, too, that charm person doesn't carry any official stigma (the way, say, animate dead does). Which suggests that any effort to call it evil mind control is blowing it way out of proportion.


Substances that can be used to safely cause unconsciousness have a pretty good reputation in the real world, because there are legitimate good reasons to use them, like surgery, but it does not logically follow that people would not be very angry if those were used on them without medical need.

Logically, any spell that can be and regularly is used for good causes would not carry an official stigma. Doesn't mean every use of it is deemed okay.

It is a difference whether you make someone believe you are their friend in order to talk them out of doing something stupid that would harm themselves, or if you do it so that they risk their own safety on your behalf. So, use that spell to break up a tavern brawl, totally okay. Use it to make someone buy you a drink, not so much.

In a world where magic is common, people would treat it the same as physical actions. Physically restrain a man who is about to punch someone who is larger and stronger than him and would wipe the floor with him - he might later thank you for it, especially if he wasn't just angry but also drunk and thus not himself.

Physically restrain a woman because she wants to walk out on you and you want another chance to seduce her ... yeah, that's not going to get such positive reactions.

[OvisCaedo]

You know, I am reminded of an amusing distinction between spells, here. Namely that Charm Person says that they become aware of your charm, and that the similar cantrip Friends says that they are aware of your charm and automatically become hostile. Which is especially amusing because Friends is a fair bit less manipulative of the two.

of course, I don't think this actually means anything that should be paid much attention to. Just an odd thing.

[Segev]

But they're not. "Nuh-uh!"


Absolutely. Why wouldn't he? He now knows that she is anything but a nice young lady.Does he? Has she done anything (other than the in-dispute-as-to-its-providence casting of charm person) to make her a bad guest? Does he have reason outside of the in-dispute-as-to-its-providence action to judge her harshly for?


Who cares if you might have done it in a different situation for a different person? In this situation, with this person, they didn't think you would do it for them. Which is why they cast the spell on you."But, officer, I thought that was my girlfriend; that's why I beat up the guy hitting on her!" isn't a defense for beating up the guy hitting on her. You'd still be as culpable in either case.

If you do something wrong for a friendly acquaintance, you're still doing something wrong. It doesn't matter why you think of them as a friendly acquaintance. You're still responsible for what you did, because he can't force you to do something just by making you think fondly of him.

"But, honey, I thought she was your best friend when I slept with her; that's why it was okay! I didn't realize we hardly knew her!" isn't going to fly when your girlfriend catches you sleeping with another woman.

You might be a lot more torn up about allowing the Baron's Secret Police arrest the nice young man who's your friendly acquaintance than you would for that total stranger who acts nice when he needs you to hide him, and that might make you more inclined to help hide him from the Baron's Secret Police, but the fact that you would hide somebody from the Baron's Secret Police because you know them doesn't change that you would hide somebody from the Baron's Secret Police, which is still a crime.

Replace the Baron's Secret Police with the Noble and Righteous Paladin Guard who only arrest people who hurt others, and you're still more likely to be torn up about your friendly acquaintance Bob being arrested than that total stranger who said his name was Bob, but if you'd hide your friendly acquaintance from the Noble and Righteous Paladin Guard, knowing they're in the right in general, then you'd still hide somebody from the Paladin Guard, and you're still culpable for your complicity in letting the potential criminal go unpunished.



Since you claim the Charm Person spell is no big deal, when you cast it in social situations I assume that you cast it openly and don't try to hide it. If there's nothing wrong with a Charm Person spell, why would anyone care that you cast it on their friend or family? You should be able to walk up to a young lady sitting with her brothers or best friends, openly cast Charm Person on her, then try to whisk her away without anyone objecting. Or openly cast it on a shop keeper in the middle of a crowded store with his guard standing right next to him. Does anyone actually think that's remotely realistic?Would you honestly walk up to that lovely young lady and behave that way even without charm person and expect no negative reaction?

I never said it has no repercussions (though I did make a strong case when outlining similarities to alternative means of gaining Advantage and improving attitude). I said that having it default to "obviously now I hate this monster for raping my mind" was the wrong way to go. Of course your buddies are suspicious of the guy who walks up and openly casts charm person on you. They don't know him any better than you do, most likely, and they don't know his intentions. They probably are equally suspicious of the guy who walks up and starts laying on the charm to convince you to do whatever it is he wants you to do, assuming he's not capable of charming them, too.

In fact, the more analogous situation to how a mundane charmer would handle the bunch of friends together with the person he wanted to target would be to upcast charm person to include the whole group.

[jh12]

Does he? Has she done anything (other than the in-dispute-as-to-its-providence casting of charm person) to make her a bad guest? Does he have reason outside of the in-dispute-as-to-its-providence action to judge her harshly for?

She doesn't have to do anything more than that.


"But, officer, I thought that was my girlfriend; that's why I beat up the guy hitting on her!" isn't a defense for beating up the guy hitting on her. You'd still be as culpable in either case.

Which has nothing to do with what we're discussing, so super.


If you do something wrong for a friendly acquaintance, you're still doing something wrong. It doesn't matter why you think of them as a friendly acquaintance. You're still responsible for what you did, because he can't force you to do something just by making you think fondly of him.

But he can force you to think fondly of him. And make you less able to resist him. That makes a big difference. You wouldn't have done whatever you did if it wasn't for the spell. The spell is a but-for cause. But for the spell, whatever happened wouldn't have happened. That you theoretically might have done something similar in a different situation does not change the fact that in this situation, the spell caused it to happen.


"But, honey, I thought she was your best friend when I slept with her; that's why it was okay! I didn't realize we hardly knew her!" isn't going to fly when your girlfriend catches you sleeping with another woman.

No, but in a world where magic is real truthfully telling her that you were under the effects of a mind-altering spell that made you less able to resist couldn't hurt.


You might be a lot more torn up about allowing the Baron's Secret Police arrest the nice young man who's your friendly acquaintance than you would for that total stranger who acts nice when he needs you to hide him, and that might make you more inclined to help hide him from the Baron's Secret Police, but the fact that you would hide somebody from the Baron's Secret Police because you know them doesn't change that you would hide somebody from the Baron's Secret Police, which is still a crime.

That you don't think I have the right to decide who I risk legal punishment for is at the root of our disagreement. That's my decision to make, not yours.


Replace the Baron's Secret Police with the Noble and Righteous Paladin Guard who only arrest people who hurt others, and you're still more likely to be torn up about your friendly acquaintance Bob being arrested than that total stranger who said his name was Bob, but if you'd hide your friendly acquaintance from the Noble and Righteous Paladin Guard, knowing they're in the right in general, then you'd still hide somebody from the Paladin Guard, and you're still culpable for your complicity in letting the potential criminal go unpunished.

Again, that's my decision to make for me. Not yours.


Would you honestly walk up to that lovely young lady and behave that way even without charm person and expect no negative reaction?

Well I wouldn't, but I'm a drinker not a lover. But many would, and there's certainly nothing wrong with flirting with someone.


I never said it has no repercussions (though I did make a strong case when outlining similarities to alternative means of gaining Advantage and improving attitude). I said that having it default to "obviously now I hate this monster for raping my mind" was the wrong way to go. Of course your buddies are suspicious of the guy who walks up and openly casts charm person on you.

They aren't suspicious of him. They already know he is a bad person who has assaulted me. They are attacking him for assaulting me and to restrain him from taking further advantage of me.


They don't know him any better than you do, most likely, and they don't know his intentions. They probably are equally suspicious of the guy who walks up and starts laying on the charm to convince you to do whatever it is he wants you to do, assuming he's not capable of charming them, too.

Certainly not equally suspicious, because that guy hasn't assaulted me yet.


In fact, the more analogous situation to how a mundane charmer would handle the bunch of friends together with the person he wanted to target would be to upcast charm person to include the whole group.

Because he knows what he is doing is wrong and he wouldn't be able to get away with it without increasing the number of victims. It's not about what you can get away with. The fact that you would not cast a spell openly on people in the vast majority of situations is a pretty good sign that it's not a benign spell.

[LibraryOgre]

And yet both rolled the same Charisma check with the same DCs, Advantage, and bonuses. And achieved the same results.


But the ends do not justify the means. They both get to Advantage on a Charisma check, but they do so in a very different way.

Is it the same to get advantage on a Charisma check by being charming as casting a charm spell? Is it the same as being charming as holding a knife to someone's throat? I mean, it's just Advantage on a Charisma check I was after, and it's not like anyone was hurt.

The difference is FORCE. The difference comes in the MEANS by which you achieve the end. Someone who is charming (and spending inspiration to get advantage) uses Charisma to get someone to like them, they are not forcing them to like them. When someone achieves that advantage via Charm Person, they are forcing them to like them.

[Segev]

She doesn't have to do anything more than that. Well, at this point, we're just at "I say so" level of discussion. There can be no persuasion when your only argument is, "jh12 is right; Segev is wrong."


Which has nothing to do with what we're discussing, so super.You - or somebody - brought up the notion that it abrogated will and thus made the target not responsible for his own actions. I dispute that. This is exactly relevant to that.

You are not compelled to do anything. You are more likely to do something you would do under certain circumstances, but barring him using your trust in him to convince you that you're not really doing what you are doing, you're still culpable for anything you did do.


But he can force you to think fondly of him. And make you less able to resist him.So can Bard Don Juan by being charming and giving you a tip.


You wouldn't have done whatever you did if it wasn't for the spell.Sure you would have. Maybe not on behalf of this guy, but on behalf of an actual friendly acquaintance. It doesn't matter for whom you did it; you still did it. That was your choice to make.


The spell is a but-for cause. But for the spell, whatever happened wouldn't have happened.It would have if he'd actually been a friendly acquaintance. Again, who you do it for doesn't change that you would do it for someone, or that you did choose to do it. You weren't compelled. You could have told him "no, that's wrong; I won't do it. Not even for you, buddy."


That you theoretically might have done something similar in a different situation does not change the fact that in this situation, the spell caused it to happen.So, if I cast a spell that cures your daughter of a deadly disease, but will only do so if you steal the material component from the King's garden, which is the only place it grows, are you not responsible for the theft? It wouldn't have happened if not for the spell that required the component, after all.

If I cast a spell that turns you invisible, and you choose to go into the girls' (or boys', whichever you couldn't otherwise sneak into) locker room to oggle them, are you not responsible for the choice because you wouldn't have done it if you'd thought you'd get caught and my spell made you believe you wouldn't be?

It doesn't matter that the guy you did the deed for wasn't, in fact, a friendly acquaintance. He can't force you to do something; you still are responsible for your choices.


No, but in a world where magic is real truthfully telling her that you were under the effects of a mind-altering spell that made you less able to resist couldn't hurt.Is it truthful, though, when the mind-altering spell doesn't actually make you more likely to cheat on her than would your best friend hitting on you? It's still deceit, since it's implying you wouldn't have cheated. Should she not be just as concerned that the only reason you're NOT cheating on her with her best friend is because her best friend hasn't asked you to?


That you don't think I have the right to decide who I risk legal punishment for is at the root of our disagreement. That's my decision to make, not yours.When it comes to culpability for your actions, it's irrelevant. Sure, it's low to trick somebody into thinking you're somebody worth the risk when you're not (to them), but that doesn't make that somebody non-culpable for the actions he took on your behalf. He still knew the consequences and risks, and he still chose to do it. Nothing you did could force him to do it if he thought it morally or ethically wrong enough that he would not do it for a friendly acquaintance.


Because he knows what he is doing is wrong and he wouldn't be able to get away with it without increasing the number of victims. It's not about what you can get away with. The fact that you would not cast a spell openly on people in the vast majority of situations is a pretty good sign that it's not a benign spell.Or, like Bard Don Juan, he knows that he needs to convince the whole group that he's an up-and-up guy who deserves a shot with the pretty lady (or gentleman). Because if he only hits on the one target, the others will see him as opportunistic and predatory.

Once again, we come back to, "It's bad because I say it's bad, and therefore it's bad, no matter that it's no different in effect than other things I think are fine."


But the ends do not justify the means. They both get to Advantage on a Charisma check, but they do so in a very different way.

Is it the same to get advantage on a Charisma check by being charming as casting a charm spell? Is it the same as being charming as holding a knife to someone's throat? I mean, it's just Advantage on a Charisma check I was after, and it's not like anyone was hurt.

The difference is FORCE. The difference comes in the MEANS by which you achieve the end. Someone who is charming (and spending inspiration to get advantage) uses Charisma to get someone to like them, they are not forcing them to like them. When someone achieves that advantage via Charm Person, they are forcing them to like them.

This isn't really about ends justifying the means. It's about what you do with the means.

Would you say that it's no better for Bard Don Juan's chaotic evil twin to persuade somebody to commit murder for him than it is for Bard Ella Enchantress's chaotic evil twin to use charm person to persuade somebody to do likewise? Or would Ella's evil twin be even more in the wrong, because she used magic and Don's twin didn't?

My major concern, here, is that the "burn the witch!" reaction severely changes the nature of the spell and means that you can't play a non-evil Enchanter without crippling yourself as much as you would playing an Evoker who took a vow of non-violence.

[LibraryOgre]

This isn't really about ends justifying the means. It's about what you do with the means.

...which is just saying that the ends justify the means. That the means are unimportant, so long as the ends are the same.


Would you say that it's no better for Bard Don Juan's chaotic evil twin to persuade somebody to commit murder for him than it is for Bard Ella Enchantress's chaotic evil twin to use charm person to persuade somebody to do likewise? Or would Ella's evil twin be even more in the wrong, because she used magic and Don's twin didn't?

Yes, she would be more evil, because she used force to bring them to her point of view.

Don Juan, in convincing someone to commit murder, brings them to the point of agreeing with him, but cannot force them there; he might lay a trail with a silver tongue, and scatter it with gumdrops, but the person still has to, of their own free will, agree to walk that path. Ella forced the person to reach the point of agreeing with her, same as if she held a knife to their throat. It circumvents any inkling the person has that this is not a nice person to listen to, because, aside from a saving throw, there's no option. Mechanically, fail your one save, and that's all you have.

Charm Person represents force.

[jh12]

My major concern, here, is that the "burn the witch!" reaction severely changes the nature of the spell and means that you can't play a non-evil Enchanter without crippling yourself as much as you would playing an Evoker who took a vow of non-violence.

It doesn't change the nature of the spell. It reflects the nature of the spell. Outside of avoiding combat and a few other situations, affecting people's minds and overriding their will is a very bad thing. Ordinary people are not the playthings of magic users.

All of your attempts to deflect the conversation by discussing the culpability of the victim are irrelevant. We aren't talking about what the consequences should be for someone who is a victim of the Charm Spell. We are talking about what the consequences should be for the person casting the spell. Regardless of whether you want to hold the victim of the spell 100% accountable for their actions, the spell caster had no right to cast a spell on an unwilling target. The spell caster has no right to decide that I should treat him like a friendly acquaintance rather than the stranger he is. The spell caster has no right to decide that I should risk my life by hiding him from the Secret Police even if I would do so for someone I actually knew and liked. You can't avoid this fact by switching the focus on the victim's level of culpability.

I do find it funny that you are so hard on the victim of the Charm Person spell while being so willing to hand wave away any culpability of the spell caster. Sure I made them do something that got them arrested by the Secret Police, but it's totally cool because they would have maybe done it for someone else some other time. Sure I had to cast a spell on her and all of her friends to get them to talk to me, but that's totally cool because they talk to people they like all the time. It's totally the same thing.

[Segev]

...which is just saying that the ends justify the means. That the means are unimportant, so long as the ends are the same.



Yes, she would be more evil, because she used force to bring them to her point of view.

Don Juan, in convincing someone to commit murder, brings them to the point of agreeing with him, but cannot force them there; he might lay a trail with a silver tongue, and scatter it with gumdrops, but the person still has to, of their own free will, agree to walk that path. Ella forced the person to reach the point of agreeing with her, same as if she held a knife to their throat. It circumvents any inkling the person has that this is not a nice person to listen to, because, aside from a saving throw, there's no option. Mechanically, fail your one save, and that's all you have.

Charm Person represents force.Except that the person isn't forced to murder. He's forced - to use your term - to view Ella as a friendly acquaintance with a silver tongue. Don Juan genuinely is a friendly acquaintance with a silver tongue. In neither case can the Bard force somebody to commit murder if they wouldn't do so on behalf of a friendly acquaintance. They can't convince them to commit murder if they are not willing to commit murder. They cannot compel them. Don can't, and neither can Ella.


It doesn't change the nature of the spell. It reflects the nature of the spell.No, it reflects your interpretation of the spell. The "nature" of the spell is to make people view you positively while it lasts. The nature of the spell as written includes nothing about horrible abrogations of the target's will (even less than it did in 3.5, where you could compel some behaviors with opposed charisma checks).

In fact, the idea that it abrogates will is refuted by the fact that you can't force them to do anything with it. You just have a better chance to convince them to do something, because they view you as a friendly acquaintance. If they would already view you that way, anything you do to gain Advantage (like, say, take them out to lunch, or get a friend to help you convince them with a Help action) will be just as likely to convince them to do it as charm person would.


Outside of avoiding combat and a few other situations, affecting people's minds and overriding their will is a very bad thing. Ordinary people are not the playthings of magic users.1) Affecting people's minds is arguably what all social interaction is, and 2) you're not overriding their will; you are, at best/worst, deceiving them about your identity/the nature of your relationship with them.


All of your attempts to deflect the conversation by discussing the culpability of the victim are irrelevant.It's not deflection; your refusal to engage on it will, however, means I'll assume you can't argue against it, and are conceding the point.


We aren't talking about what the consequences should be for someone who is a victim of the Charm Spell. We are talking about what the consequences should be for the person casting the spell.Okay.


Regardless of whether you want to hold the victim of the spell 100% accountable for their actions, the spell caster had no right to cast a spell on an unwilling target.This can be said of literally every spell.


The spell caster has no right to decide that I should treat him like a friendly acquaintance rather than the stranger he is. The spell caster has no right to decide that I should risk my life by hiding him from the Secret Police even if I would do so for someone I actually knew and liked. You can't avoid this fact by switching the focus on the victim's level of culpability.Note again that the only difference here is whether you would do this FOR HIM or not.

Does Don Juan have a right to decide you'll hide him from the Secret Police? Because he's done so by using Charisma to change your attitude to Friendly.


I do find it funny that you are so hard on the victim of the Charm Person spell while being so willing to hand wave away any culpability of the spell caster. Sure I made them do something that got them arrested by the Secret Police, but it's totally cool because they would have maybe done it for someone else some other time. Sure I had to cast a spell on her and all of her friends to get them to talk to me, but that's totally cool because they talk to people they like all the time. It's totally the same thing.How am I hand-waving the spellcaster's culpability? The guy who hired you to murder Bob is still guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, regardless of how he got you to agree to it.

But you're right; we're talking about how Ella's hypothetical target for her spell - let's call him James - should react once he knows Ella Charmed him.

Since we're focused on charm person in a vacuum and we're not discussing whether ends justify the means, let's avoid ends which would naturally cause somebody to resent you and feel used, even if you only tricked them mundanely, and instead focus on something that, if you never realized you'd been Charmed (perhaps because you hadn't been, because Don was just that silver-tongued and convinced you mundanely), you'd not really have any resentment over.

Let's say Ella is a sorcereress who is really bad at meeting people, and is crushing on James. So she uses charm person to break the ice. She doesn't do anything but ask him out on a date. After the Charm wears off, James knows she used it, and at least part of his reaction is, "Why would she need to? She's pretty and interesting, and (possibly other than the fact that I'm a little uncomfortable with her having charm person'd me) I still view her as a friendly acquaintance I hope to get to know better on that date tonight."

Now, there are two (primary) ways he can take the "she ensorceled me" thing:

1) How dare she!? That sours everything; I can't be sure she's really that nice or pretty, maybe I would have hated her. Maybe I should hate her. I do hate her for mind-raping me!
2) That was...a bit rude/presumptuous, but she didn't do anything but ask for a date, and I can see how that goes. I don't see anything about our interactions that I regret so far. I'll give her a chance.

There is a sliding scale between them (and possibly a third extreme option of "Meh, no big deal; she's hot, and I like her 'charms' and hope to experience more of them, if you know what I mean," or something along those lines), but those are the major potential take-aways, I think.

My argument is that, if, after the hour is passed, James would have thought of Ella as a friendly acquaintance (with whom he has a date tonight), he shouldn't feel much more negative about her using charm person than expressed in (2). She didn't really abuse the artificial nature of their ease of talking, and in fact it was quite nice talking to her.

It seems that the position jh12 and Mark Hall and others are taking is that he should be somewhere closer to (1), not trusting that anything that happened during that hour was real, or that she wasn't manipulating him into something far more nefarious than a date, and maybe he would have hated every moment of being with her without it, so he's mad as heck and hates and/or fears her and never wants to see her again except possibly tied to a stake in the town square. Because she mind-controlled him into accepting a date with her, and he obviously wouldn't have agreed to one despite the pleasantness of the time, which was totally artificial and thus must have been really miserable without the mind-control.

[JackPhoenix]

2) That was...a bit rude/presumptuous, but she didn't do anything but ask for a date, and I can see how that goes. I don't see anything about our interactions that I regret so far. I'll give her a chance.

And how can you be sure it's not more magic making the decision for you?

That's the problem with mind-affecting magic. After that, you can't trust your own thoughts. You don't know if the spell is really gone, if there isn't another spell, and if you've actually made that decision out of your own free will. Sure, you think the spell is over, but you weren't aware of being influenced by magic the first time either until long after the fact.

[jh12]

you can't force them to do anything with it.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't make it true. You force them to view you as a friendly acquaintance. You force them to be less resistant to your desires. Not only are those things you force them to do, but anything they agree to do for you after that is, in part, a result of your force.


It's not deflection; your refusal to engage on it will, however, means I'll assume you can't argue against it, and are conceding the point.

There's no point in arguing against if because it's irrelevant. The level of culpability of the victim after the spell is cast has nothing to do with the culpability of the caster for casting the spell in the first place.


This can be said of literally every spell.

Absolutely. It's just that most people recognize that casting Magic Missile on someone to get your way in a social setting is a very bad thing. It's only spells like Charm Person where people pretend otherwise.


Note again that the only difference here is whether you would do this FOR HIM or not.

Which is the only thing that matters. I have the right to decide whether I would do FOR HIM or not. By casting Charm Person he is taking away my right to decide.


Does Don Juan have a right to decide you'll hide him from the Secret Police? Because he's done so by using Charisma to change your attitude to Friendly.

Don Juan doesn't decide for you. Don Juan doesn't force you to like him.


And how can you be sure it's not more magic making the decision for you?

And what's she going to do to you if you try to break up with her?

[Imbalance]

The spell literally imposes a decision about the caster that the target did not make of their own accord. How is that not a violation of free will? How is that not mind control? Nevermind any downstream effects, the caster makes a change in the mind of the target. That is the offense, and the original question was in regards to what the target may do or decide differently upon becoming aware of the charm.

[LibraryOgre]

Except that the person isn't forced to murder. He's forced - to use your term - to view Ella as a friendly acquaintance with a silver tongue. Don Juan genuinely is a friendly acquaintance with a silver tongue. In neither case can the Bard force somebody to commit murder if they wouldn't do so on behalf of a friendly acquaintance. They can't convince them to commit murder if they are not willing to commit murder. They cannot compel them. Don can't, and neither can Ella.


And compelling someone to be your friend is still compelling them. You're the one who made it about murder.

If Ella wants to make someone murder, she first has to convince the person to listen to her. Ella forces them to do that with a spell. She forces them to regard her words favorably. Don Juan may convince them, but convincing is not the same as force.

Look at this way. Bob is willing to give his friends $20... that's just the kind of person Bob is. Don Juan befriends Bob and Bob happily gives him $20. Don Juan may be unscrupulous and unwilling to be Bob's friend going forward, but he did convince Bob that he was his friend. Ella casts Charm Person, and Bob happily gives her $20. But Bob didn't have the ability to NOT be a her friend. She compelled his emotions.

This applies to any particular action... Charm Person can't make you do anything you wouldn't otherwise do for a friend, but it does short-circuit your ability to not consider someone a friend. Would you kiss a friend? You don't get to decide if Ella is a friend. Would you stop your friends from fighting? You don't get to decide whether or not Ella is your friend. Might learning things change whether or not someone is your friend? Not Ella!

[Segev]

And how can you be sure it's not more magic making the decision for you?

That's the problem with mind-affecting magic. After that, you can't trust your own thoughts. You don't know if the spell is really gone, if there isn't another spell, and if you've actually made that decision out of your own free will. Sure, you think the spell is over, but you weren't aware of being influenced by magic the first time either until long after the fact.By this logic, you can't ever trust that Don Juan is really your friend, and not just manipulating you. Can you trust you REALLY like him, and he's not just fooling you into thinking it with his slick tongue? Somebody - I forget who, now - actually said they automatically distrust people who dress nicely and present themselves well because he believes they're all out to trick him (or something to that effect). This makes as much sense as assuming you can't trust your feelings now that you know magic WAS involved.

In the end, what matters is how you feel, not how you "should" feel. Well, and how you'll feel in the future. What is good for you? If Ella is, aside from her crippling social anxiety which makes her feel the need to grease the wheels with magic, a nicer, better person who is a more genuine friend than Don Juan the conniving manipulator who makes you regard him as a friendly acquaintance while ticking every box on the checklist of "emotional abuser," you probably should pursue your friendship with Ella and would be better for regarding Don as the toxic mess he is.

Now, that's extreme, and not really convincing as a specific example. But the point is that getting hung up on whether it's "real" or not is less important than figuring out what is best for you and others in the long term.

Of course, now I'm veering towards my philosophical rant about why you shouldn't care if you're "really you" or "a fake." And that's way off topic.


No matter how many times you say this, it won't make it true. You force them to view you as a friendly acquaintance. You force them to be less resistant to your desires. Not only are those things you force them to do, but anything they agree to do for you after that is, in part, a result of your force. So does Don. But you're fine with it when he does it.


Which is the only thing that matters. I have the right to decide whether I would do FOR HIM or not. By casting Charm Person he is taking away my right to decide. Nope. You still have a right to choose what you do for him. He did trick you into thinking he's somebody you like better than you do, but you still choose what you will do. The tricking isn't very nice, but Don did the same thing.


Don Juan doesn't decide for you. Don Juan doesn't force you to like him.Sure he did. I couldn't resist his Charisma roll any more than I could make the Wisdom save against Ella's charm person in these examples.


And what's she going to do to you if you try to break up with her?If she uses charm person again? Probably still have me break up with her. I mean, I'm likely already sad about it; I don't like hurting people's feelings. Who says you can't break up with a friendly acquaintance? Especially if you want something significantly more than "friendly acquaintanceship" out of a romance?


And compelling someone to be your friend is still compelling them. You're the one who made it about murder.You're dodging the point, now.

1) technically, only compels them to be a friendly acquaintance, not a friend.
2) Claiming this makes it compulsion and then shifting to what you get the person to do while they're Charmed is bait and switch.

When I say it isn't compulsion, I'm talking about what you get them to do. Whatever that is. If the sum total of what you're getting out of using charm person is a pleasant hour of conversation, and nothing more, fine, you've made it a compulsion to see you as a friendly acquaintance. If you're getting ANYTHING ELSE out of it, it's not a compulsion, because they can still say "no" to you. Being a friendly acquaintance doesn't somehow make you the slave, unable to resist the requests of said acquaintance.


If Ella wants to make someone murder, she first has to convince the person to listen to her. Ella forces them to do that with a spell. She forces them to regard her words favorably. Don Juan may convince them, but convincing is not the same as force.Irrelevant, given that neither can force the murderer to commit murder. Don forces them to listen to him as much as Ella does; both make a die roll happen, and the results of the die roll dictate the behavior of the target wrt "listen to the Bard."


Look at this way. Bob is willing to give his friends $20... that's just the kind of person Bob is. Don Juan befriends Bob and Bob happily gives him $20. Don Juan may be unscrupulous and unwilling to be Bob's friend going forward, but he did convince Bob that he was his friend. Ella casts Charm Person, and Bob happily gives her $20. But Bob didn't have the ability to NOT be a her friend. She compelled his emotions. Bob had every bit as much power to not be her friend as he did to not be Don's friend. Don rolled Charisma checks, and Bob was compelled by them to be his friend. Ella made him make a save, and Bob was compelled by his failure to be her friend(ly acquaintance).


This applies to any particular action... Charm Person can't make you do anything you wouldn't otherwise do for a friend, but it does short-circuit your ability to not consider someone a friend. Would you kiss a friend? You don't get to decide if Ella is a friend. Would you stop your friends from fighting? You don't get to decide whether or not Ella is your friend. Might learning things change whether or not someone is your friend? Not Ella!You are aware it is possible to consider somebody a friendly acquaintance and still know better than to trust them, right?

I have friendly acquaintances whom I can get along with when we're hanging out, but whom I know better than to believe if they tell "interesting" stories and whom I wouldn't loan money to on the basis that I know it's not a loan and I don't want to sour things. If I give them money or anything else, it's knowing I won't see it again, and being comfortable that it's a gift. I also won't give them gifts as readily as some other friendly acquaintances because I know I wouldn't approve of how they use it under a lot of circumstances.

"Friendly acquaintance" means you will hang out with them, may do them some favors if it doesn't cost you too much, and aren't overtly hostile. It doesn't mean you forget their foibles.

I love (and like) my little brother, but I wouldn't trust him if he told me he'd be somewhere by a certain time, because I know better. I think he's more than a friendly acquaintance, but he woudln't get me to commit to something on the basis of his timing.

[patchyman]

Look at this way. Bob is willing to give his friends $20... that's just the kind of person Bob is. Don Juan befriends Bob and Bob happily gives him $20. Don Juan may be unscrupulous and unwilling to be Bob's friend going forward, but he did convince Bob that he was his friend. Ella casts Charm Person, and Bob happily gives her $20. But Bob didn't have the ability to NOT be a her friend. She compelled his emotions.

This applies to any particular action... Charm Person can't make you do anything you wouldn't otherwise do for a friend, but it does short-circuit your ability to not consider someone a friend. Would you kiss a friend? You don't get to decide if Ella is a friend. Would you stop your friends from fighting? You don't get to decide whether or not Ella is your friend. Might learning things change whether or not someone is your friend? Not Ella!

I would argue that even this description is not going far enough. Let's break the situation even further. Ella is a stranger. I do not know her. She casts Charm Person, and I fail my saving throw. I now view her as a friendly acquaintance. For the purpose of modelling this, I'll treat her the way I would treat my neighbour from across the street. I've had multiple friendly conversations with him, but I haven't invited him over for dinner or vice versa. Even at this point, the universe of actions I will entertain vis-à-vis has changed: Stranger on the street asks to borrow 20$, I wouldn't agree. Neighbour across the street asks to borrow 20$, I would probably lend it.

BUT WAIT! Ella can do more. Sure, under most circumstances, I would not lend a friendly acquaintance $100, but in an emergency? Maybe. So, Ella gets to roll a Persuasion (or more likely, a Deception check) to convince me to lend her $100 to help her out in an emergency.

To summarize, Segev is incorrectly portraying the situation as "what would you do for a stranger" vs. "what would you do for an acquaintance", whereas it would be more accurate to describe it as "what would you do for a stranger" (with the understanding that there are a lot of things you would never do for a stranger) vs. "what could a friendly acquaintance Persuade you to do".

[patchyman]

I have friendly acquaintances whom I can get along with when we're hanging out, but whom I know better than to believe if they tell "interesting" stories and whom I wouldn't loan money to on the basis that I know it's not a loan and I don't want to sour things. If I give them money or anything else, it's knowing I won't see it again, and being comfortable that it's a gift. I also won't give them gifts as readily as some other friendly acquaintances because I know I wouldn't approve of how they use it under a lot of circumstances.

"Friendly acquaintance" means you will hang out with them, may do them some favors if it doesn't cost you too much, and aren't overtly hostile. It doesn't mean you forget their foibles.

I love (and like) my little brother, but I wouldn't trust him if he told me he'd be somewhere by a certain time, because I know better. I think he's more than a friendly acquaintance, but he woudln't get me to commit to something on the basis of his timing.

It seems to me that what you are saying here is that you treat certain "friendly acquaintances" differently specifically *because* you know them. Your brother is always late, a friend is unreliable with money, etc. If your brother didn't have a reputation for being late (i.e. was like Ella in our story whom you don't know anything about), why would you treat him as if he did?

[jh12]

He did trick you into thinking he's somebody you like better than you do,

No he didn't. He cast a spell on me. He forced me to think I liked him better than I do, and he forced me to be more susceptible to his requests. There's nothing tricky about. There's nothing clever about it.

You keep saying that there's no difference between using a spell and using ordinary charisma. Just because both might involve a die roll does not mean they represent remotely the same thing.

Scenario 1: I'm in my friend's store. Another customer goes up to my friend at the counter and starts haggling over the prices. The customer is really charming and her charm seems to be working. I go back to my shopping because watching haggling isn't really that interesting.

Scenario 2: I'm in my friend's store. Another customer goes up to my friend at the counter and casts a Charm Person on him. I'm certainly not going back to my shopping, and I'm certainly not letting her interact with my friend anymore.

If you really think these two scenarios are remotely equivalent, then there's really no point in any further discussion.

[gloryblaze]

Sorry, it's not mind control.


I find it hard to take that claim seriously. It seems like you're claiming that when used by a person without ill intent (beyond willingness to cast spells on other people without consent), charm person does not result in serious negative consequences (the "Ella" example). Ella just gets a stranger to agree to go on a date with her - which they might have done anyways. And that's true - but that doesn't mean charm person isn't mind control, nor does it mean that it's morally OK to use it on others without consent (even if your ntentions are otherwise benign). Let's move away from the Ella example for a moment.

Dastardly Whiplash is a well-known murderer, thief, and scoundrel. He arrives in the Holy Empire of Noblebright and begins killing, stealing, raping, the whole nine yards. The king sends two of his best paladins, twin sisters Alice and Lucy, to kill him for his crimes. Alice and Lucy swear on their honor as paladins to do so. Alice and Lucy storm into his hideout, hostile and ready to fight to the death. Dastardly wins initiative and casts Charm Person on Alice. Tragedy strikes - even though she has advantage on the save because she's in combat with Dastardly, and even though she's proficient with Wisdom saving throws and is benefiting from Aura of Protection, she flubs the save and is charmed. Now it's Alice's turn - and because she's under the charmed condition, she cannot attack Dastardly, even though she's a king's knight, she knows he's a criminal, and she's sworn an oath to kill him. That's mind control right there.

But it gets worse. As combat continues, Dastardly starts killing Lucy with his spells. Lucy cries out to her sister for help, but Alice still can't attack Dastardly. She can't try to grab him and hold him back, either, because grappling is a special melee attack in 5e and she still can't target Dastardly with attacks (or spells or abilities with harmful effects!). And to add insult to injury, Dastardly gets to add Alice's Charisma modifier to his saves against Lucy's spells whenever he's within 10 feet of Alice, because Alice's Aura of Protection benefits all friendly creatures and she has no choice but to consider him friendly. Even outside of the oath and the knowledge of Dastardly's crimes, this is still clear evidence that charm person is mind control. If a friendly acquaintance of yours started beating your sister to death, I imagine they would very quickly cease to become a friendly acquaintance and you would try to defend your sibling/fight off the attacker. Alice can't do that.

Finally, after reducing Lucy below ~22 health, Dastardly casts sleep on her, rendering her unconscious. He then rapes and kills her in front of Alice, who is still unable to attack or cast spells on Dastardly to prevent this. Finally, as the hour approaches its end, Dastardly asks Alice to give him 85 gp to help him flee the country - enough to pay for a riding horse and saddle. As per DMG pg 245, Dastardly has to succeed on a DC 20 Persuasion check to convince a creature whose current attitude is "friendly" to "accept a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked". As a high level Bard, Dastardly has 20 Charisma and a +12 bonus to Persuasion checks thanks to Expertise. Alice agrees to do this favor for the wanted criminal who raped and killed her sister 85% of the time, while it would be impossible to get a creature whose current attitude is hostile or even indifferent to accept a significant risk or sacrifice according to the same tables.

Obviously, this example is the opposite extreme in just about every regard to the Ella example. However, I think it's a relatively definitive illustration that charm person is, indeed, mind control. The fact that Ella can use it benignly doesn't make it not mind control - it just means that Ella is willing to use mind control for extremely minor reasons, because she either doesn't care or doesn't know better.

[ashtrails]

Very interesting thread!

'Proper' really depends on the individual, but I'll throw in two things I haven't seen here at a glance:

Lots of posts stated that there's mechanically no difference between mundane manipulation and the charm effect and thus charm couldn't be any worse.
The difference fluff wise is the individual you try to pursuade. Their whole background and any social modifier gets nullified through the spell, while worldly means are still a gambit / factor / matter of very specific preparation. So I'd think they're very different.

The next one ties in to that:
What I, as someone who gets charmed and knew it would find most terrifying and disempowering would be (as someone without access to magical protection): no matter what I do, how well I prepare, or what I've learned from this; whatever I think or what my intends are afterwards:
Whoever did this to me, could do it again whenever they wish and I wouldn't even realize until they got whatever they want.
So I'd probably keep that in mind for any individual reaction. Especially very down to earth and worldly characters who are used to be in control of their life, especially due to physical prowess or strength of character could be really taken aback by the experience.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I basically agree that it's the magical equivalent of roofying or otherwise drugging someone to make them compliant, and should be treated as such both legally and in personal response. What you do after having achieved this compliance will effect the severity of the overall crime, both legally and morally, but charming someone will always aggravate the course of action, imo.

[Imbalance]

Somebody - I forget who, now - actually said they automatically distrust people who dress nicely and present themselves well because he believes they're all out to trick him (or something to that effect).

You keep referencing this, and I think you mean what I said in my first post of this thread, but you seem to have misunderstood. The statement was made to establish the difference in method, where you refuse to acknowledge that one exists, between the charmingness of the self vs. the act of magically replacing one's opinion of the caster with what the caster wishes it to be.


I love (and like) my little brother, but I wouldn't trust him if he told me he'd be somewhere by a certain time, because*I know better.*I think he's more than a friendly acquaintance, but he woudln't get me to commit to something on the basis of his timing.

Then, you are familiar with my example regarding the well-dressed charmer. Now, imagine that a complete stranger has made you feel almost as warmly about them as your brother, sans any pretext of personal history, and earns your commitment by having imposed this acquaintance without any agency from your own will. They didn't bat their eyelashes or dance or play a song (all examples of things that you would have freely formed opinions about as they transpired and decided, in context, how to respond), but instead made up your mind for you in regards to how you feel about them. Again, how is that not mind control?

[Segev]

A lot to reply to. I apologize for anything I miss, but I am rapidly running out of time to reply and may have to concede at the very least that I am in the minority in my opinion, and that I will not persuade. I am incapable of casting any sort of charm spell and have the Charisma of a moldy wet sock, so that's not surprising.


To summarize, Segev is incorrectly portraying the situation as "what would you do for a stranger" vs. "what would you do for an acquaintance", whereas it would be more accurate to describe it as "what would you do for a stranger" (with the understanding that there are a lot of things you would never do for a stranger) vs. "what could a friendly acquaintance Persuade you to do".Incorrect. I am quite specifically taking pains to include the Advantage on Charisma checks into account. You're actually reinforcing my point, too: in an emergency, your neighbor could convince you to loan/give him $100. Could he also convince you to sleep with him? To hide him from the cops? To be the wheelman in a smash-and-grab burglary?

When I say "it's not mind control," that's what I mean: it can't compel you (positively; the Charmed condition, as a later quote in this post points out, has a negative compulsion with some pretty amazing and scary implications) to do something you would refuse on moral or ethical grounds to do, because there's almost no way a "friendly acquaintance" could get you to violate core principles. The attitude-shift and the extra persuasiveness can get you to be more cooperative, but that's it.

I don't mean there's no influence on the mind. I do mean that there's no more influence on the mind than somebody smoozing up to you and buttering you up to be more likely to want to do things with or for them. Again, leaving out the Charmed condition's express compulsion not to attack the Charmer.


It seems to me that what you are saying here is that you treat certain "friendly acquaintances" differently specifically *because* you know them. Your brother is always late, a friend is unreliable with money, etc. If your brother didn't have a reputation for being late (i.e. was like Ella in our story whom you don't know anything about), why would you treat him as if he did?This is an interesting question. What IS your impression, aside from "I kind-of like him, but don't necessarily know him very well," of the Charmer? This would be extremely context-dependent.

Let's use the neighbor-across-the-street example. Your only real impression of him is that he's okay to have small talk with when you run into each other. You don't have any reputational stuff to go off of, because you really don't know him that well. Let's say he moved away two months ago, and you've no idea where he lives and have little means of getting in touch with him, but know he's not in the area anymore. Still, your casual reaction upon meeting him would be, "Hey! Frank! Long time no see! How's it going in...wherever you moved to? What brings you back to town?" Or something like that. (If that doesn't sounds reasonable for a "Friendly Acquaintance," then we can negotiate on this.)

Now, let's examine some common situations where charm person is stereotypically used:

You're a merchant (or a retail employee working at a store) and your neighbor happens to come into your store. He asks you for a discount, or a free item, or the like. Are you likely to give it to him? You have no special bond over having him have done you any favors, so you're not paying him back. He might promise to owe you one; do you trust him? Remember, he'd have to be back in town again later or something to pay you back; it's not as easy as loaning you his hedge clippers next time you're mowing your lawn.
You're a policeman or guard at a jail or penitentiary, and, lo and behold, the newest inmate is your former neighbor! This is a bit shocking; you had no idea he was involved in any criminal activity. Do you believe him when he tells you it's a case of mistaken identity, or that he's been framed, or that he's otherwise innocent? You know from your work history that "that's what they all say," and you've met some friendly and even charming crooks in your day. You wouldn't have guessed your ex-neighbor was one, but do you trust your employer and the system more than you trust this former neighbor of yours? Even if you believed him, would you help him break out? He's not a good friend, just a guy you know 'cause you used to live near each other. Would you slip him contraband? Would you look the other way while he broke the rules? How serious would those rules be? Just how much could he - with the most persuasive words possible - talk you into doing for him?
You're a server at a bar or restaurant, or otherwise in a public place where people socialize, and your ex-neighbor (who, for sake of argument, you've forgotten the name of and is not sexually repulsive to you - doesn't conflict with your orientation, etc.) walks up to you. After reminding you of his or her name, he or she tries (reasonably successfully, somehow always knowing the right way to say things) to kindle a conversation and maybe flirt. Are you willing to go have sex with your ex-neighbor, when he or she asks/propositions?

In all three cases, the answer is not a given; it will depend on the person. I doubt you'd last long as a guard if you help people break out of jail just because they're friendly acquaintances, but other than that, a lot depends on morals, ethics, and your general nature. What you're okay with doing for casual acquaintances.

The guard is highly unlikely to help with anything he saw as a break out attempt. The merchant is not likely to give away something for free that he wouldn't to a customer regular enough to know said customer's name. (Heck, I have a friend who owns a gaming store who I'm pretty sure would never give product away to me or any of our mutual friends, because it sets bad precedent. I wouldn't ask, either, because I can afford what I want and prefer to help support his store. But that's me, not possibly-nefarious-charm-caster.) The server or bar patron is only going to go have sex with the ex-neighbor if they're generally willing to have sex with people they know little about but find pleasant to be around.

I particularly object to the "slip them a roofy" analogy because that expressly turns off ability to participate, let alone resist or object: you're knocking somebody out, effectively, and using their body while their mind is not present at all. At absolute most, this is akin to plying them with drink. And even that's a bit stronger, since your faculties and judgment are all in place for everything except how persuasive this person is. You're not forgetting your morals, or your commitments. Your long-term planning isn't hindered. You can weigh consequences.

Again, I'm not saying nobody has any reason to be upset over it, nor that it wouldn't sour things. I am suggesting that it need not be "burn the witch/I hate you forever you evil mind-controller" and certainly doesn't serve as a basis for "you made me do that awful thing that I would never have done otherwise!" Sorry, you would have done it, just maybe not for HIM.


No he didn't. He cast a spell on me. He forced me to think I liked him better than I do, and he forced me to be more susceptible to his requests. There's nothing tricky about. There's nothing clever about it.Now you're splitting hairs. I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding me to try to justify disagreeing more strongly, or if you genuinely don't understand what I'm saying, but I can't really help this either way. Suffice it to say that "trick" wasn't trying to imply anything positive, here, when I used it, so attacking the comment by saying the Charm-guy's actions didn't involve cleverness is missing the point so much that I am wasting time refuting it even this much.


You keep saying that there's no difference between using a spell and using ordinary charisma. Just because both might involve a die roll does not mean they represent remotely the same thing.

Scenario 1: I'm in my friend's store. Another customer goes up to my friend at the counter and starts haggling over the prices. The customer is really charming and her charm seems to be working. I go back to my shopping because watching haggling isn't really that interesting.

Scenario 2: I'm in my friend's store. Another customer goes up to my friend at the counter and casts a Charm Person on him. I'm certainly not going back to my shopping, and I'm certainly not letting her interact with my friend anymore.

If you really think these two scenarios are remotely equivalent, then there's really no point in any further discussion.I can see the difference, however you are trying to argue the point by presuming the conclusion.

"Charm person is worse than just being charming, therefore I wouldn't allow a Charmer to persist, whereas I would allow a charming person to persist. Because of this, Charm Person is obviously worse than just being charming."

Can you genuinely not see why your argument falls flat to any logical analysis? I can agree that there is a difference, but you're failing to actually support that with your point, and your insistence on coming back to this circular argument prevents any actual discussion of why and how it's different. You're just saying, over and over, "It's different because I say so, and because I say so, it's different, so it's bad. Because I would react badly to it. And I would react badly to it because it's bad."

This kind of argumentation can be used to prove that it's just the same, too. Allow me to demonstrate: "If I saw somebody be charming at my friend in his gaming store, I'd wander off annoyed at the flirting but let my friend deal with it. If I saw somebody casting charm person on my friend in his gaming store, I'd also wander off annoyed at the particularly ham-fisted flirtig, but let my friend deal with it. In both cases, he's a grown man who knows what he needs to do to run his business, so I'll trust him to be able to resist any blandishments to do something harmful to himself."

There, obviously charm person is just fine, because I would react to it the same as I would to a charming flirt. If you really think these two scenarios aren't remotely equivalent, then there's really no point in any further discussion.

(I actually do think there's difference to discuss, but I'm demonstrating here how your argument doesn't actually prove anything other than the fact that you have an assertion you won't defend beyond re-asserting it and insisting there's no discussion to be had until I START the discussion by agreeing completely with you.)


It actually doesn't take a check at all to shift attitude. That's something that is supposed to happen through player skill during the conversation prior to the check, the latter occurring when you get to you request/demand. But not by more than one step, so no hostile --> friendly.
DMG p244-245.Ah, my bad. Man, Charisma is useless at actually making friends, then. Weird. The dump-Cha fighter brute with a player who has a silver tongue IRL is more likely to make friends in game than the silver-tongued bard whose player is trying desperately to play such a character for the same reasons a parapalegic cancer patient wants to play a physically fit warrior-athlete.


neighbor level friendly acquaint:
- Take out their trash can on Monday because they're going to be out of town.

Coworker on my team level friendly acquaint:
- Give them a ride to pick up their car after they dropped it off for a flat tire that morningSeems reasonable.

- Loan them $20 if they forgot their wallet and needed to buy some lunch, but by default expect it back the next day.Note how very important context is, here: you expect to see them again soon. This wouldn't apply, I'm sure, if you saw this coworker very rarely and weren't sure you'd see him again. (Would you gift $20 to a coworker for lunch?)

(You don't actually have to answer; I'm just examining nuance, here.)


Guy from the pub friendly aquaint:
- agree it's my turn to buy the next roundImplies a certain amount of reciprocation again.


Otoh I wouldn't allow a close friend to couch surf at this point in my life, let along a friendly aquaint. Nor borrow my car ... Any more. (I let a dorm friendly aquaint do that my second year in college. Oops.)

I certainly wouldn't try to hide a friendly aquaint. I'd be like "dude I don't need your trouble."Right.

So, then, I think this illustrates my point about it not being mind control pretty well. He can't force you to do those things you said you wouldn't. He can try to beg and plead and use his Advantage on Persuasion to change your mind, but unless you were on the fence, he's not succeeding.

Even if you're a target of his charm person spell, all this does is mean your only context is this interaction. You like him well enough, maybe trust him not to escalate to hostility without provocation, but you've got no reason to reciprocate any favors at this point. You might be amenable to exchanging favors, though. As long as the favors were things you'd do for friendly acquaintances whom you knew would pay you back (because you're going to get him to do so right now, or because you accepted a favor in exchange already).


I find it hard to take that claim seriously. It seems like you're claiming that when used by a person without ill intent (beyond willingness to cast spells on other people without consent), charm person does not result in serious negative consequences (the "Ella" example). Ella just gets a stranger to agree to go on a date with her - which they might have done anyways. And that's true - but that doesn't mean charm person isn't mind control, nor does it mean that it's morally OK to use it on others without consent (even if your ntentions are otherwise benign). Let's move away from the Ella example for a moment.

Dastardly Whiplash is a well-known murderer, thief, and scoundrel. He arrives in the Holy Empire of Noblebright and begins killing, stealing, raping, the whole nine yards. The king sends two of his best paladins, twin sisters Alice and Lucy, to kill him for his crimes. Alice and Lucy swear on their honor as paladins to do so. Alice and Lucy storm into his hideout, hostile and ready to fight to the death. Dastardly wins initiative and casts Charm Person on Alice. Tragedy strikes - even though she has advantage on the save because she's in combat with Dastardly, and even though she's proficient with Wisdom saving throws and is benefiting from Aura of Protection, she flubs the save and is charmed. Now it's Alice's turn - and because she's under the charmed condition, she cannot attack Dastardly, even though she's a king's knight, she knows he's a criminal, and she's sworn an oath to kill him. That's mind control right there.

But it gets worse. As combat continues, Dastardly starts killing Lucy with his spells. Lucy cries out to her sister for help, but Alice still can't attack Dastardly. She can't try to grab him and hold him back, either, because grappling is a special melee attack in 5e and she still can't target Dastardly with attacks (or spells or abilities with harmful effects!). And to add insult to injury, Dastardly gets to add Alice's Charisma modifier to his saves against Lucy's spells whenever he's within 10 feet of Alice, because Alice's Aura of Protection benefits all friendly creatures and she has no choice but to consider him friendly. Even outside of the oath and the knowledge of Dastardly's crimes, this is still clear evidence that charm person is mind control. If a friendly acquaintance of yours started beating your sister to death, I imagine they would very quickly cease to become a friendly acquaintance and you would try to defend your sibling/fight off the attacker. Alice can't do that.

Finally, after reducing Lucy below ~22 health, Dastardly casts sleep on her, rendering her unconscious. He then rapes and kills her in front of Alice, who is still unable to attack or cast spells on Dastardly to prevent this. Finally, as the hour approaches its end, Dastardly asks Alice to give him 85 gp to help him flee the country - enough to pay for a riding horse and saddle. As per DMG pg 245, Dastardly has to succeed on a DC 20 Persuasion check to convince a creature whose current attitude is "friendly" to "accept a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked". As a high level Bard, Dastardly has 20 Charisma and a +12 bonus to Persuasion checks thanks to Expertise. Alice agrees to do this favor for the wanted criminal who raped and killed her sister 85% of the time, while it would be impossible to get a creature whose current attitude is hostile or even indifferent to accept a significant risk or sacrifice according to the same tables.

Obviously, this example is the opposite extreme in just about every regard to the Ella example. However, I think it's a relatively definitive illustration that charm person is, indeed, mind control. The fact that Ella can use it benignly doesn't make it not mind control - it just means that Ella is willing to use mind control for extremely minor reasons, because she either doesn't care or doesn't know better.

What you're discussing here is the Charmed condition, not charm person specifically. Yes, this is the polar opposite of the Ella example, and is quite horrifying. And, as Dastardly has lived down to his name most spectacularly, I'd expect the reaction to be appropriate to the actions he took. In fact, I'd expect "YOU CHARMED ME!!" to be very, very low on the list of reasons Alice unleashes holy hell on Dastardly, and hates him with every fiber of her being.

I don't find this example persuasive of the general point that charm person should always be reacted to with horror and great offense any more than I agree that Don Juan engaging in seduction should be reacted to with horror and great offense just because Jack the Ripper also does so but then murders the helpless women when he gets them alone.

In addition, the claim that Dastardly benefits from Alice's "allies-only" aura effects is a bit spurious. Yes, she's compelled to view him as a friendly acquaintance, so what she's seeing is one friendly acquaintance who is behaving abominably, and it hurts her immensely to see him doing so. But it doesn't compel her to consider him an ally. Two actual friends can be non-allies, under various circumstances. If Alice and Lucy were having a sparing match with no holds barred in order to sharpen their skills, would you assume they both benefit from the other's auras? ...okay, bad example, auras don't stack that way. If Alice and Sally were sparring in such a fashion, and Sally is a fighter, would you expect Sally benefits from Alice's auras, even though they're acting as enemies right then? I wouldn't.

Likewise, even if somebody I loved dearly and could not in any way bring myself to stop were the one beating up my best friend, I wouldn't be compelled to cheer on the unjustified aggressor, nor to provide them any aid.

So we're left only with the Charmed condition's no-attack clause, not with charm person contributing anything the Charmed condition doesn't on its own. And, again, even then? Of course Alice should be horrified and furious that Dastardly Charmed her when it's over. But that doesn't mean that James, who had a nice lunch with the pretty but shy Ella, should also be horrified and furious that Ella used magic to make the lunch pleasant.

I would expect some mixed feelings, certainly, from James, but not "burn the witch! She made me enjoy having lunch with her despite in restrospect realizing that she was a really awkward conversationalist!"

Nevertheless, I applaud - really, I'm impressed - the creative illustration of how horrifying the "can't attack the perpetrator" clause in the Charmed condition can be. That has some serious utility for good guys and bad guys. You want your healer armed with some sort of mass Charm effect to open fights with, even if he does nothing else with it; it's sanctuary on crack!


You keep referencing this, and I think you mean what I said in my first post of this thread, but you seem to have misunderstood. The statement was made to establish the difference in method, where you refuse to acknowledge that one exists, between the charmingness of the self vs. the act of magically replacing one's opinion of the caster with what the caster wishes it to be.If that was your point, it probably wasn't what I'm referencing. Or you made that point very poorly (sorry). It was in response to me discussing somebody who dressed to the nines and did everything he could to make his presentation of himself appealing, and asking if that was also a terrible, horrible thing to do. And somebody responded, essentially, with "yes, and in fact, I'd find it very suspicious."


Then, you are familiar with my example regarding the well-dressed charmer. Now, imagine that a complete stranger has made you feel almost as warmly about them as your brother, sans any pretext of personal history, and earns your commitment by having imposed this acquaintance without any agency from your own will. They didn't bat their eyelashes or dance or play a song (all examples of things that you would have freely formed opinions about as they transpired and decided, in context, how to respond), but instead made up your mind for you in regards to how you feel about them. Again, how is that not mind control?
What commitment have they garnered from me?

This stranger has made, somehow, an amazingly good impression. He still is just a likeable guy I barely know. I have limited context to trust him beyond standard social contracts, and am only willing to do for him what I'd do for anybody who had earned some sympathies and good will. He can play on this to magnify that generosity of spirit, or even to make me perhaps act out of fear for myself or others based on trusting that we share a reason for fear (if he's good at deception - and he at least has Advantage, so I acknowledge this is a possibility). But he can't mind-whammy me into doing things for him that I wouldn't do for anybody, or that I'd only do for my family or closest friends. He isn't family or a close friend; he's a friendly acquaintance whom I know I barely know. The spell doesn't alter my memories, only my attitude towards him.

Once more (and for the last time in this post), when I say it's not mind control, I mean that. He's not able to compell me to take actions I wouldn't. He can, at best, convince me to do for him what I'd do for other friendly acquaintances.

I don't know about anybody else, but, for the most part, anything I'd do for a friendly acquaintance? I probably would have only mild regret and irritation, at worst, over having done it for somebody I realized cast a spell on me to get me to do it for them. It wasn't something I wouldn't have done for others I genuinely liked, so it almost certainly hasn't put me to any serious inconvenience.

Now, I might be more leery of them in the future, but if they didn't really take advantage of me in a way I even mildly regret, I'm probably more bemused than angry. I'm a little on guard next time we meet, and probably tell them not to do it again, but if I didn't see a reason to avoid them beyond "they used charm person on me," I probably would give them another chance. "Being taken advantage of" is a reason to avoid people. "Being talked into playing a game I haven't tried before" is not. "Being talked into a date" also is not.

(For me, personally, I wouldn't have sex with anybody to whom I'm not married, so no amount of charm person is going to get me into anybody's bed unless she's going to maintain it all the way past the altar. And by that point, I think we're well beyond "friendly acquaintances.")

[jh12]

When I say "it's not mind control," that's what I mean: it can't compel you (positively; the Charmed condition, as a later quote in this post points out, has a negative compulsion with some pretty amazing and scary implications) to do something you would refuse on moral or ethical grounds to do, because there's almost no way a "friendly acquaintance" could get you to violate core principles. The attitude-shift and the extra persuasiveness can get you to be more cooperative, but that's it.

You are using a very narrow, and idiosyncratic, definition of mind control, one tailor made so that the Charm Person spell doesn't satisfy it. Why does Charm Person have to be able to make someone violate their core principles to be an example of mind control? It compels you to view someone you should hate as a friendly acquaintance. How is that not an example of mind control? It compels you to be more receptive to their suggestions. How is that not an example of mind control? It compels you to do something for someone that you wouldn't do for that person under normal circumstances. How is that not an example of mind control? It prevents you from attacking someone regardless of how much justification you have for attacking them. How is that not an example of mind control?


I don't mean there's no influence on the mind. I do mean that there's no more influence on the mind than somebody smoozing up to you and buttering you up to be more likely to want to do things with or for them. Again, leaving out the Charmed condition's express compulsion not to attack the Charmer.

This is demonstrably incorrect. If someone is charming and improves my view of them then does something that offends me, my view of them will drop. If someone casts a Charm Person spell on me and improves my view of them then does something that offends me, my view of them will remain just the same. Why? Because they're controlling my mind. They've taken away my agency.


Now you're splitting hairs.

No I'm not. Saying "he tricked me" instead of "he cast a spell on me" misrepresents what's being discussed.


I can see the difference

Then there's hope for your friends yet.


This kind of argumentation can be used to prove that it's just the same, too. Allow me to demonstrate: "If I saw somebody be charming at my friend in his gaming store, I'd wander off annoyed at the flirting but let my friend deal with it. If I saw somebody casting charm person on my friend in his gaming store, I'd also wander off annoyed at the particularly ham-fisted flirtig, but let my friend deal with it. In both cases, he's a grown man who knows what he needs to do to run his business, so I'll trust him to be able to resist any blandishments to do something harmful to himself."

No it can't. Those scenarios are completely different and I don't believe you, or anyone else, would treat them as the same. I certainly am not going to allow my friend to be assaulted in front of me then go about my business. You admitted that my scenarios were different, while your argument requires them to be the same. I denied that your scenarios were the same, which is consistent with my argument.


What you're discussing here is the Charmed condition, not charm person specifically.

No, what gloryblaze is discussing is the Charm Person spell specifically. Notice the entire discussion about initiative order and saving throws? And you can't divorce the Charm Person spell from the Charmed condition that it imposes--that's like saying you don't know how four glowing arrows just slammed into that guy's chest because all you did was cast a Magic Missile spell at him.

And I note that you've made acsolutely no attempt to refute gloryblaze's express point--Charm Person is a mind control spell.

[Imbalance]

So much wall.


This stranger has made, somehow, an amazingly good impression. FULL STOP

He did this with a spell that made up your mind about him for you. This is mind control before anything else he might try to persuade you to do while charmed. This is not the same as you being impressed by his reputation or presentation or act or anything else. He changed you via magic just like a when a creep spikes your drink to chemically alter your inhibition.

[Segev]

At this point, people are ignoring what I'm saying in favor of arguing the definition of words, even after I've tried to clarify what I mean, to say, "Well, that's not what that word means, so I am going to call you wrong and disregard your point."


My sole point on it not being "mind control" is that you're not being victimized into doing something you wouldn't do. You may not have otherwise done it FOR THAT PERSON, but you can't claim you were forced to behave in a way you find generally objectionable.


Imbalance's comment that the "somehow" is "he cast a spell" is once again presuming the conclusion and then using that to prove the conclusion presumed. My point is that you must show that this is independently worse than any other means of "making a good impression." Saying "it is, therefore it is," isn't actually demonstrating your points. It's just re-asserting them.

Do you not see why you're failing to be persuasive? In this case, I'm not falling for any Charisma(Intimidation) checks involving insulting me or calling me out with implications that I'd date rape people and call it okay. I'm not being Charisma(Persuaded) by emphatic and empassioned insistance on your positions. I'm attempting to engage in an Intelligence(Logic) discussion, and everybody else is so busy saying "it's bad because it's bad, how can you not see that!?" that they aren't even paying attention to what I'm actually saying.


The positions you guys are taking are understandable! I get them! I just disagree. And since all you've got is "this is how we feel," all I have to do is say, "I disagree," and we're done with the discussion, because there's no disproving feelings. If you want to engage with me on this topic in a manner where there's actual possibility for discussion, we need to agree on some metric for evaluation that doesn't involve insisting that, because you'd react badly to it, it's bad, and you'd react badly to it because it's bad.

My position is that it's only bad if you start by assuming it's bad, unless they do something bad with it. If you don't start by assuming it's bad, then "of course I'd react badly to it because it's bad!" is an invalid statement.

[jh12]

My sole point on it not being "mind control" is that you're not being victimized into doing something you wouldn't do. You may not have otherwise done it FOR THAT PERSON, but you can't claim you were forced to behave in a way you find generally objectionable.

Which doesn't matter one bit. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion. If I wouldn't do something FOR THAT PERSON but they cast a spell on me that makes me do for it FOR THAT PERSON, they've controlled my mind regardless of whether I would do it for some other person. Who I do things for is just as much my decision to make as what I do.


Do you not see why you're failing to be persuasive?

Yes. You ignore any argument that's inconvenient for you while pretending that it's everyone else who is refusing to engage.

[Segev]

Which doesn't matter one bit. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion. If I wouldn't do something FOR THAT PERSON but they cast a spell on me that makes me do for it FOR THAT PERSON, they've controlled my mind regardless of whether I would do it for some other person. Who I do things for is just as much my decision to make as what I do. Sure. And if you're mad because you hate his guts when not charmed, that's fine.

The point you seem to be missing is that this is circumstantial, and you're trying to say, "Sleight of hand can be used to pick pockets, therefore stage magic should be outlawed because it involves sleight of hand."

My claim is that it's a tool, and while the use of it DOES influence how you look at things after the fact, it need not and should not automatically lead to viewing Ella in the same light Alice views Dastardly. You may not view her identically to how you view Don Juan, but you probably should view her closer to that. Sure, have some ambivalence and doubt, but base that on uncertainty whether she'll keep using it rather than letting things develop more naturally now that the ice is broken, rather than based on the notion that she cast charm person.


Yes. You ignore any argument that's inconvenient for you while pretending that it's everyone else who is refusing to engage.

I have addressed your points. You have responded with "nuh uh!" and re-asserted your points as premises, then declared that therefore, the conclusion is your point is correct. I've demonstrated this. I've even presented my position in the same format as you have, and your sole response is, "Well, that's wrong, because I don't believe you."

No logic at all. Just assertion that you reject my premise. This is why you're not persuading me that you're right. You just keep trying to insist I have to agree with you. You provide no evidence. Your arguments all rely on me already agreeing with you to hold any water.

You couldn't convince me to agree with you if you DID cast charm person on me with these kinds of arguments, because I wouldn't agree with my best friend in the world if they used that kind of argumentation to make a point.

[Hail Tempus]

My sole point on it not being "mind control" is that you're not being victimized into doing something you wouldn't do. You may not have otherwise done it FOR THAT PERSON, but you can't claim you were forced to behave in a way you find generally objectionable. That's nonsense, because you're ignoring the fact that Charm Person puts a finger on the scale. You weren't wholly in control of your faculties due to the actions of the person targeting you.

Following your logic, it's not a bad act to drug someone's drink in order to lower their inhibitions, if they'd already decided before the roofie-colada that they were going to go home with you at the end of the night.

[Unoriginal]

Let's imagine we're in a world where magic it possible and somewhat known about.

You're in a shop that's run by your friend, with them at the counter while you're away looking at some merchandise. Suddenly, someone enters the shop with a paper bag, point something hidden in a paper bag at your friend, and politely ask to be given the money inside the register. Your friend complies.

Do you assume that your friend is being taken advantage of by someone with a concealed weapon, or that it's a normal transaction?

You're in a shop that's run by your friend, with them at the counter while you're away looking at some merchandise. Suddenly, someone enters the shop with a paper bag, moves their hands weirdly and say some gibberish while holding the paper bag, and politely ask to be given the money inside the register, saying that it's an emergency and they'll pay it back later. Your friend complies.

Do you assume that your friend is being taken advantage of by someone who cast a spell on them, or that it's a normal transaction?

You're in a shop that's run by your friend, with them at the counter while you're away looking at some merchandise. Suddenly, someone enters the shop with a paper bag, and makes a great speech filled with pretty convincing arguments as to why your friend should buy the content of the bag. You don't know what's in the bag, but your friend sometime buys stuff from people who enters the shop, and that person's sales pitch is pretty great even if you're hearing it out of context. Your friend apparently thinks so too, because they take a good chunk of money from the register and give it to the stranger, getting the paper bag and its content in exchange.

Do you assume that your friend is being taken advantage of by someone who's very convincing, or that it's a normal transaction?

[jh12]

Sure.

And yet you keep bringing up the fact that you might be willing to do the same thing for someone else as if it were some kind of defense.


The point you seem to be missing is that this is circumstantial,

No it isn't. Charm Person is a mind control spell. If you cast it on a person you are controlling their mind. That's not okay outside of certain circumstances like combat. You've never once tried to explain why it's okay to control someone else's mind. You've just tried to pretend that's not what the spell does.


and you're trying to say, "Sleight of hand can be used to pick pockets, therefore stage magic should be outlawed because it involves sleight of hand."

No it isn't. That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I've said the opposite. Charm Person has legitimate uses, but controlling the mind of people in social situations isn't one of them. What I am saying, in fact, is the complete opposite of what you are pretending I am saying. I am saying that sleight of hand is okay because there are legitimate uses for it, but that doesn't make it okay to use sleight of hand to take things from unwilling people.


My claim is that it's a tool, and while the use of it DOES influence how you look at things after the fact,

You won't even be honest about what the spell does. It doesn't just influence how you look at things, it forces you to view things in a particular way. It can absolutely prevent you from doing things that you would otherwise do. That's not influence. That's control.


it need not and should not automatically lead to viewing Ella in the same light Alice views Dastardly. You may not view her identically to how you view Don Juan, but you probably should view her closer to that. Sure, have some ambivalence and doubt, but base that on uncertainty whether she'll keep using it rather than letting things develop more naturally now that the ice is broken, rather than based on the notion that she cast charm person.

She cast a mind control spell on me, one powerful enough to make a sister sit there and watch her sister be raped and murdered without intervening. So I should view her as the kind of person willing to do disregard the free will and autonomy of other people for a little social benefit. She's not as bad as Dastardly, but she's not fit to be walking free with access to her powers.


I have addressed your points. You have responded with "nuh uh!" and re-asserted your points as premises, then declared that therefore, the conclusion is your point is correct. I've demonstrated this. I've even presented my position in the same format as you have, and your sole response is, "Well, that's wrong, because I don't believe you."

No you haven't. You haven't addressed the fact that Charm Person is a mind control spell. You haven't addressed the fact that Charm Person works differently that ordinary human interactions. You haven't addressed the fact that Charm Person makes you do things for a person that you wouldn't ordinarily do. You haven't addressed the fact that it's wrong to control the minds of other people.

And you admitted in your post that I was correct that my scenarios were different and that your's were as well, despite your pretense otherwise. You couldn't even stand by your own examples.


No logic at all. Just assertion that you reject my premise. This is why you're not persuading me that you're right. You just keep trying to insist I have to agree with you. You provide no evidence. Your arguments all rely on me already agreeing with you to hold any water.

No they don't. They just don't accept yours. You are the one trying to impose an absurdly restrictive definition of mind control on the discussion to avoid admitting what the spell does. You are the one repeatedly insisting that there's no difference between the Charm Person spell and ordinary human interaction, despite several examples of why that isn't true. You are the one trying to deflect the conversation to the culpability of the victim rather than the abuser. You are the one trying to pretend that there's no difference between doing things for one person and doing it for another. Your entire argument rests on a bunch of absurd conclusions that have no bearing even in the artificial world where magic exists.

[Imbalance]

Let's imagine we're in a world where magic it possible and somewhat known about.

You're in a shop that's run by your friend, with them at the counter while you're away looking at some merchandise. Suddenly, someone enters the shop with a paper bag, point something hidden in a paper bag at your friend, and politely ask to be given the money inside the register. Your friend complies.

Do you assume that your friend is being taken advantage of by someone with a concealed weapon, or that it's a normal transaction?

You're in a shop that's run by your friend, with them at the counter while you're away looking at some merchandise. Suddenly, someone enters the shop with a paper bag, moves their hands weirdly and say some gibberish while holding the paper bag, and politely ask to be given the money inside the register, saying that it's an emergency and they'll pay it back later. Your friend complies.

Do you assume that your friend is being taken advantage of by someone who cast a spell on them, or that it's a normal transaction?

You're in a shop that's run by your friend, with them at the counter while you're away looking at some merchandise. Suddenly, someone enters the shop with a paper bag, and makes a great speech filled with pretty convincing arguments as to why your friend should buy the content of the bag. You don't know what's in the bag, but your friend sometime buys stuff from people who enters the shop, and that person's sales pitch is pretty great even if you're hearing it out of context. Your friend apparently thinks so too, because they take a good chunk of money from the register and give it to the stranger, getting the paper bag and its content in exchange.

Do you assume that your friend is being taken advantage of by someone who's very convincing, or that it's a normal transaction?

Assume nothing. Ask your friend wtf just happened. And especially in a world where charm person and the like are known spells, ask again an hour later. Your friend may thank you.

[Segev]

That's nonsense, because you're ignoring the fact that Charm Person puts a finger on the scale. You weren't wholly in control of your faculties due to the actions of the person targeting you.

Following your logic, it's not a bad act to drug someone's drink in order to lower their inhibitions, if they'd already decided before the roofie-colada that they were going to go home with you at the end of the night.Not comparable. Drugging somebody's drink can get them to make choices they wouldn't make regardless of who asked them to, because it interferes with their decision-making capability. The only decision charm person interferes with is a decision to attack the caster. Outside of situations like the Dastardly one, this is not normally part of the discussion as to why charm person is horrible. What people are getting at with those discussions is the implication that Ella is taking unfair advantage of James, making him do things he'll later regret. Except the spell can't do that. Not unless the regret is specific to James realizing later that Ella is somebody he actively dislikes and would not have wanted to benefit. Otherwise, the spell can only enable Ella to persuade James to do things he would normally do for a friendly acquaintance.


Let's imagine we're in a world where magic it possible and somewhat known about.

You're in a shop that's run by your friend, with them at the counter while you're away looking at some merchandise. Suddenly, someone enters the shop with a paper bag, point something hidden in a paper bag at your friend, and politely ask to be given the money inside the register. Your friend complies.

Do you assume that your friend is being taken advantage of by someone with a concealed weapon, or that it's a normal transaction?

You're in a shop that's run by your friend, with them at the counter while you're away looking at some merchandise. Suddenly, someone enters the shop with a paper bag, moves their hands weirdly and say some gibberish while holding the paper bag, and politely ask to be given the money inside the register, saying that it's an emergency and they'll pay it back later. Your friend complies.

Do you assume that your friend is being taken advantage of by someone who cast a spell on them, or that it's a normal transaction?

You're in a shop that's run by your friend, with them at the counter while you're away looking at some merchandise. Suddenly, someone enters the shop with a paper bag, and makes a great speech filled with pretty convincing arguments as to why your friend should buy the content of the bag. You don't know what's in the bag, but your friend sometime buys stuff from people who enters the shop, and that person's sales pitch is pretty great even if you're hearing it out of context. Your friend apparently thinks so too, because they take a good chunk of money from the register and give it to the stranger, getting the paper bag and its content in exchange.

Do you assume that your friend is being taken advantage of by someone who's very convincing, or that it's a normal transaction?

None of those are enabled by charm person. Unless my friend is the kind of person who'd give away his register's contents to a friendly acquaintance. I don't know anybody who would do such a thing for so limited a connection.


And, yes, if I saw a friend who ran a store being asked to give over the contents of the cash register, I'd intervene regardless of what or how the one making the request made it, because I'd want to find out why and make sure everything was okay. And, like I said, it'd be weird behavior for anybody I know to agree to do that.



Let me try to help you frame your arguments in a way that logically would point to what you want it to point to. Or, at least, provide a framework. What you need to do is find a way to demonstrate that charm person is always worse than any other non-magical form of persuasion that is considered even moderately socially acceptable. I think we all agree, for example, that charm person followed by a request for them to cover their meal because they forgot their wallet is not worse than murdering somebody and stealing their wallet to buy oneself a meal. We may have disagreement over whether charm person is worse than subtly threatening somebody to mug them. We agree that it is at least a little worse than just striking up a conversation and convincing somebody to help you out, though we disagree (strongly, it seems) on how much worse.

You need to - somehow, and I don't know how - demonstrate that making your target view you as likable is always worse than any other means of making them view you as likable.

Otherwise, you'll get me to agree only that what you do with it afterwards can make your entire set of actions reprehensible in the eyes of the target; you won't get me to agree that it does and always should make your target think you're the scum of the earth for violating their free will. Depending on the circumstances, you may well not have violated their free will (you have if it's highly relevant that they would activley not view you as a friendly acquaintance, and you have if you used it to prevent them from physically attacking you), and for certain purposes it's no worse than being a silver-tongued charmer.

I've provided argument and support for this position, by pointing out how the end results aren't different, and why it shouldn't be viewed as indicative of malign intent when malignancy didn't occur. The only counter-argument's I've gotten are, "It's totally different, because it's mind control! It's violating free will!" and I've shown how under the circumstances I think it shouldn't be reacted to in that way, it's not. The only replies have been, "It totally is, because I'd react as if it were bad, and that means it must be bad."

I fully agree, in scenarios where the caster abuses the person, the person should react accordingly when no longer Charmed. I'm saying it's situational, whereas the alternative position as I understand it is that it's universally evil and should always be reacted to as if the person tried to assault, mug, rape, and possibly murder you and your closest friends, even if all Ella did was get you to have coffee with a stranger.

(Well, she wouldn't get me to have coffee; I don't drink the stuff and can't stand it. But you get the idea.)



One final analogy, since people keep comparing it to assault and holding people at gunpoint. There is an aggressive sort of personality type which will do things like walk right up to a person, invade their space, and introduce themselves with somewhat inappropriate levels of physical affection. For example, the flirtatious woman who'll sit herself down on a guy's lap and try to use that awkwardness as an ice-breaker and to set the tone of the interaction with that unorthodox introduction. While I agree that many would be put off by this, if she's charming and manages to play it up right, there are those who'd be swept up in her energy and generally find it to be a whirlwind, but an entertaining one, and probably would give her a call when she left her phone number written on the back of their hand. Or would give her theirs if she asked.

Even if, an hour after they parted ways, the guy she'd flirted so aggressively with was looking back on it bemusedly, wondering how the devil she managed to make that obnoxious introduction work like she did...even if he is not caught up in her energy and thus left emotionally winded...he probably isn't going to say, "Wow, she abused me and my trust; I hate her now." He might question why he's still interested, but he's likely still interested, if only because it was a good time.

Charm person is similar. It is stepping over the bounds of social acceptability, but played right, and with harmless or good intent and a lack of abuse of the minimal trust it engenders (and it IS minimal, as we've seen throughout this thread when discussing how far you'd go for a "friendly acquaintance"), there's little reason why the reaction can't be, "Huh, wow, so that's what being charmed feels like. She was quite breathtaking, and I'm not sure...but maybe I'll give her another shot."

Romance here being used because it's the easiest way to illustrate crossing the social contract line and still pulling it off.

It's worth noting that hitting on the wrong person that way likely does create a scene. Somebody saving vs charm person likely does, as well.

[sophontteks]

Not comparable. Drugging somebody's drink can get them to make choices they wouldn't make regardless of who asked them to, because it interferes with their decision-making capability. The only decision charm person interferes with is a decision to attack the caster


The only decision interferes with is attacking???

Charm person changes a person's opinion of the caster to a friendly aquantance. An effect stronger then most drugs. It's directly comparable to drugging someone's drink. Just imagine how dangerous this would be in the same scene. Someone you hate, someone who you know would do you harm. Someone you know you should not trust. Then alakazam "Oh this seem like a totally fine person to spend my time with."

That is legitimately scarier then drugging someones drink.

[jh12]

What people are getting at with those discussions is the implication that Ella is taking unfair advantage of James, making him do things he'll later regret.

That's because Ella is taking unfair advantage of James.


Except the spell can't do that.

Except it can and does.


Not unless the regret is specific to James realizing later that Ella is somebody he actively dislikes and would not have wanted to benefit.

Which you admit, then pretend it doesn't matter. Yet another example of you ignoring anything inconvenient.

But that's not the only way Ella can take unfair advantage of James.


Otherwise, the spell can only enable Ella to persuade James to do things he would normally do for a friendly acquaintance.

This is another way Ella can take unfair advantage of James. It's for James to decide who his friendly acquaintances are, not Ella. It's for James to decide who he does favors for, not Ella. It doesn't matter how tiny the favor. It's not Ella's place to make that decision.

The spell also makes James more likely to go along with what Ella wants. There's another way the spell lets Ella take unfair advantage of James.

And if Ella does do something horrible to James or one of James's friends, the spell also prevents James from attacking her. That's another way the spell lets Ella take unfair advantage of James.

It turns out there's all kinds of ways the spell lets Ella take unfair advantage of James.


One final analogy, since people keep comparing it to assault

There's no comparison: it is assault (well, technically battery). In a world where magic is real, there's no doubt that casting a spell on an unwilling victim would be a battery.


While I agree that many would be put off by this, if she's charming and manages to play it up right, there are those who'd be swept up in her energy and generally find it to be a whirlwind, but an entertaining one, and probably would give her a call when she left her phone number written on the back of their hand. Or would give her theirs if she asked.

Ironically, you've provided another excellent example of just how different the Charm Person spell is from normal human interaction. The Charm Person spell doesn't work on some people but not others based on how receptive they are to you. It works on anyone who fails their saving throw. The Charm Person spell doesn't allow you to change your opinion of the person during the course of their domination, at least not negatively.

[Segev]

The only decision interferes with is attacking???

Charm person changes a person's opinion of the caster to a friendly aquantance. An effect stronger then most drugs. It's directly comparable to drugging someone's drink. Just imagine how dangerous this would be in the same scene. Someone you hate, someone who you know would do you harm. Someone you know you should not trust. Then alakazam "Oh this seem like a totally fine person to spend my time with."

That is legitimately scarier then drugging someones drink.

The only act that it can forcibly prevent you from doing when you would otherwise do it is attacking the charmer, yes.

It actually can't compell you to tolerate the charmer's presence, though it can make doing so a lot easier, to the point that you're not inclined to avoid it. I will grant that this is close enough for our purposes, though, so sure: it can compell you to tolerate the charmer's presence when you wouldn't, otherwise, by making you not dislike them. This is predicated on the specific circumstance of the charmer being somebody you actually have a predisposition to dislike, however. When the spell ends, even if you didn't know he charmed you, you were going to be mad at him and a little confused at how he pulled one over on you again. Knowing he Charmed you doesn't change much, in this case.

And, actually? If you know that person would do you harm? It makes you regard him as a friendly acquaintance, but it doesn't change that you know what he's done in the past. You're inclined to trust that he doesn't MEAN you any harm RIGHT NOW, but you're not an idiot. Okay, Loki's redeemed himself and turned over a new leaf. Consider the end of Thor:Ragnarok; Thor clearly is a bit fond of his adoptive brother, and isn't even holding a grudge, but he knows full well what Loki's capable of and even predicts him doing it. "You've grown predictable, Brother," he says, almost fondly. Sadly, in a "sad for Loki" sort of way, not in a "can't stand this jerk" sort of way.

Heck, even Alice in the Dastardly example knows Dastardly is a bad, bad man who will hurt her if he can get away with it. She just is helplessly, horribly fond of him, and doesn't want to hurt him and still likes him enough that she'd hang out if he'd just stop hurting Lucy. And that IS a horrific use of the spell that would, again, end with Alice loathing and seeking the vengeful destruction of Dastardly when the spell ended, whether she knew he'd charm person'd her or not. Knowing he did just provides clarity for her as to why she was acting as she did, or refraining from acting as she otherwise would have. It doesn't make her hate him any more; his actions while she was charm person'd far outweigh the spell itself.


So, no, I don't think it's "scarier" than drugging somebody. I do agree that if you use the enforced friendliness to get away with nefarious acts, the target will react with appropriate wrath afterwards. I do not agree that it is appropriate to assume that casting the spell in and of itself makes people hate you and view you as a serial rapist-murderer-arson-jaywalker.

[Imbalance]

What is brainwashing by your definition, Segev?

[Segev]

What is brainwashing by your definition, Segev?

Generally involves a long-term breaking down of identity and destruction of ability to tell reality from fiction, until the brainwasher is able to reconstruct a framework wherein the victim is emotionally and psychologically dependent on the approval of the brainwasher.

In less extreme cases, it's constant exposure to ideas and thoughts, with a punishment/reward setup designed to encourage agreement with specific beliefs.

If I'm correctly predicting the direction you're taking this, I think a closer identification might be Stockholm Syndrome, which is not quite the same thing, but has some similar elements. You'll note that victims of Stockholm Syndrome view the beneficiaries of their warped outlook as far more than "friendly acquaintances," attributing kindness and protector status to them more in line with that of a love interest, close friend, parent, or liege lord.

The only brainwashing power in the game I can think of is the Warlock's Create Thrall power granted by the Great Old One Patron. In truth, it's actually one of the weakest control powers out there, because it only gives you the Charmed condition and a telepathic link to the Warlock. We've seen good example of how the Charmed condition can be horrifying; if Dastardly is a Warlock who'd previously Thralled Alice before she escaped, her oath to take him down is tragic, because she's literally incapable of it. But, notably, nothing about being Dastardly's Thrall prevents Alice from running away nor compels her to obey him.

The brainwashing comes in from the dual impact of Charmed Condition making him have Advantage on all Charisma checks, and the inescapable telepathic link that lets him whisper into her mind whenever he wants. Constant exposure to thoughts and ideas that always sound so convincing can, in theory, get her to break and become his minion. THere's nothing mechanical enforcing this, though, so a player who doesn't want to can just yell back at or utterly ignore the Warlock's insideous call, and an NPC the GM wants to have be stalwart and resist can, in fact, do so. After all, the Thrall still is free to hate the Warlock, unlike a target of charm person.

In theory, I suppose, one could use charm person to brainwash somebody. But, in theory, one could use good quality home-cooked meals to a similar effect.

[gloryblaze]

What you're discussing here is the Charmed condition, not charm person specifically. Yes, this is the polar opposite of the Ella example, and is quite horrifying. And, as Dastardly has lived down to his name most spectacularly, I'd expect the reaction to be appropriate to the actions he took. In fact, I'd expect "YOU CHARMED ME!!" to be very, very low on the list of reasons Alice unleashes holy hell on Dastardly, and hates him with every fiber of her being.

I don't find this example persuasive of the general point that charm person should always be reacted to with horror and great offense any more than I agree that Don Juan engaging in seduction should be reacted to with horror and great offense just because Jack the Ripper also does so but then murders the helpless women when he gets them alone.

The issue is it’s impossible to discuss charm person in a vacuum. Charm person inflicts the charmed condition. In fact, it’s one of the easiest and most accessible ways to impose that condition, being only a level 1 spell.

The Jack the Ripper example is essentially backwards. From my perspective charm person is a morally dubious means that can be used for either horrible (Dastardly) or benign (Ella) ends. No matter what you do in the end, you used mind control to get there. In the Don/Jack example, you’re discussing a benign means (social skills) that can be used for benign (consensual sex) or horrible (isolation followed by murder) ends. The difference is that with social skills, the destination is more important than the journey because the journey was completely by the book. With charm person, the methodology is a the problem, not the end result.

Let’s try this on for size - in the US legal system, we have a “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. If evidence that would otherwise be perfectly admissible in court is obtained by illegal methods, it is inadmissible. If the police come into your home without probable cause, a warrant, etc. and find your secret murderdungeon full of dead bodies and unlicensed firearms, well - too bad! Even though allowing that evidence in would lead to not just a benign but actively positive result (convicting a murderer), we don’t allow that evidence because the method used to attain it (unreasonable search and seizure) is considered a violation of rights in our society. And I have to imagine that non-consensual charming is or ought to be a violation of rights in any magical world that has any conception of rights.



In addition, the claim that Dastardly benefits from Alice's "allies-only" aura effects is a bit spurious. Yes, she's compelled to view him as a friendly acquaintance, so what she's seeing is one friendly acquaintance who is behaving abominably, and it hurts her immensely to see him doing so. But it doesn't compel her to consider him an ally. Two actual friends can be non-allies, under various circumstances. If Alice and Lucy were having a sparing match with no holds barred in order to sharpen their skills, would you assume they both benefit from the other's auras? ...okay, bad example, auras don't stack that way. If Alice and Sally were sparring in such a fashion, and Sally is a fighter, would you expect Sally benefits from Alice's auras, even though they're acting as enemies right then? I wouldn't.

Likewise, even if somebody I loved dearly and could not in any way bring myself to stop were the one beating up my best friend, I wouldn't be compelled to cheer on the unjustified aggressor, nor to provide them any aid.

The paladin’s Aura of Protection specifically calls out “friendly” creatures, not “allies”. However, I agree that this is not a 100% RAW claim, it would be up to DM interpretation as to whether “friendly” in this context shares the same definition as the “friendly acquaintance” clause of charm person. I just thought it was a funny feature of the wording of the two and decided to throw it in - it’s not super material to the main point.



So we're left only with the Charmed condition's no-attack clause, not with charm person contributing anything the Charmed condition doesn't on its own.

The thing charm person contributed is the charmed condition (and all that follows)! People can’t go around inflicting charmed willy-nilly, they need a spell, magic item, racial trait, or class feature that lets them do it. Charm person is probably the single most accessible charm effect in the game, since it’s level 1 (and the cantrip version, friends, does not impose charmed).



And, again, even then? Of course Alice should be horrified and furious that Dastardly Charmed her when it's over. But that doesn't mean that James, who had a nice lunch with the pretty but shy Ella, should also be horrified and furious that Ella used magic to make the lunch pleasant.

I would expect some mixed feelings, certainly, from James, but not "burn the witch! She made me enjoy having lunch with her despite in restrospect realizing that she was a really awkward conversationalist!"

The issue isn’t “She made me enjoy having lunch with her despite in retrospect realizing that she was a really awkward conversationalist!”

The issue is “She made me enjoy having lunch with her despite in retrospect realizing that she was a really awkward conversationalist!”



Nevertheless, I applaud - really, I'm impressed - the creative illustration of how horrifying the "can't attack the perpetrator" clause in the Charmed condition can be. That has some serious utility for good guys and bad guys. You want your healer armed with some sort of mass Charm effect to open fights with, even if he does nothing else with it; it's sanctuary on crack!


That’s why charm person isn’t inherently evil, like animate dead, in my opinion. It has legitimate use as an application of force in combat against people you would be willing to inflict other forms of violence on. It just shouldn’t be used nonconsensually in social situations.

[jh12]

it can compell you to tolerate the charmer's presence when you wouldn't, otherwise, by making you not dislike them.

Again with the misrepresenting the spell, always trying to pretend that it's less powerful than it is. It doesn't make you not dislike them. It makes you think they are a friendly acquaintance. There's a world of difference between merely not disliking someone and actually considering them a friendly acquaintance.


This is predicated on the specific circumstance of the charmer being somebody you actually have a predisposition to dislike, however.

No it isn't. The charmer can be someone I don't know, someone I'm indifferent to, or even someone I'm already a friendly acquaintance with if they just want the extra boost they spell gives them in addition to someone I don't like.


When the spell ends, even if you didn't know he charmed you, you were going to be mad at him and a little confused at how he pulled one over on you again. Knowing he Charmed you doesn't change much, in this case.

Because your premise is wrong, you conclusion is necessarily wrong as well. And knowing that he battered you to make you spend time with him is certainly going to change things in most people's opinions.


And, actually? If you know that person would do you harm? It makes you regard him as a friendly acquaintance, but it doesn't change that you know what he's done in the past.

Which is even worse. Forcing me to treat someone I know I should hate as a friendly acquaintance for an hour is horrific, especially if I know that I should be hating them the whole time.


So, no, I don't think it's "scarier" than drugging somebody. I do agree that if you use the enforced friendliness to get away with nefarious acts, the target will react with appropriate wrath afterwards. I do not agree that it is appropriate to assume that casting the spell in and of itself makes people hate you and view you as a serial rapist-murderer-arson-jaywalker.

That's because you keep pretending the spell does something different than what it does and that people should just accept magic users casting spells on them without fighting back. Do you think a fighter or barbarian should be able to walk up to Ella, grapple her for an hour (just by the arm, nowhere inherently offensive), and call it flirting? All he did is keep her from walking away so he could talk to her. Whether she wants to talk to him doesn't matter, right?

[Imbalance]

I think a closer identification might be Stockholm Syndrome

Great example. Charm person is the Stockholm Syndrome spell for the sake of discussion. Unless the target resists the casting, they suddenly have an hour's worth of Stockholm Syndrome. The target did not previously hold any belief about the caster nor did they develop psychosis or become wholly irrational. In this example, let's be firm that the caster took no other action than casting the spell. At the end of sixty minutes the target knows that the caster had given them Stockholm Syndrome and that the positive feelings, undue loyalty, or any idea about the caster's humanity were not their own.

How should the target feel?

[Justin Sane]

Raise Dead is mind control - if Alice was dead, Raising her would change her mind (from non-functional to functional, but a change nonetheless).

Wall of Force is mind control - if Alice wanted to get to her bedroom, a Wall of Force would change her mind (from wanting to go into her bedroom to finding whoever prankster pulled this off).

A door lock is mind control - if Alice wanted to leave her home, a locked front door would change her mind (from wanting to leave her home to figuring out why she's being dragged into hypotheticals).

If all mind control is evil and the only appropriate reaction is to get the torches and pitchforks, what does that make of the local Cleric? The travelling Sorcerer? The locksmith's Guild?

[Segev]

The issue is it’s impossible to discuss charm person in a vacuum. Charm person inflicts the charmed condition. In fact, it’s one of the easiest and most accessible ways to impose that condition, being only a level 1 spell.I agree that you can't discuss it in a vacuum. I am, however, pointing out that it is, once again, in how you use it. And wanted to make sure we weren't leaving other ways of causing the Charmed condition out of consideration.


The Jack the Ripper example is essentially backwards. From my perspective charm person is a morally dubious means that can be used for either horrible (Dastardly) or benign (Ella) ends. No matter what you do in the end, you used mind control to get there. In the Don/Jack example, you’re discussing a benign means (social skills) that can be used for benign (consensual sex) or horrible (isolation followed by murder) ends. The difference is that with social skills, the destination is more important than the journey because the journey was completely by the book. With charm person, the methodology is a the problem, not the end result.Here's the thing, though: methodology is important because of the consequences of using those methods.

It's important whether you look both ways and wait at the crosswalk for the "walk" sign not because both doing so and not doing so (under the right conditions) won't both get you to the other side of the road, but because the risks to the walker are different. (As well as consequences to any poor driver who happens to hit the irresponsible walker.)


Let’s try this on for size - in the US legal system, we have a “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. If evidence that would otherwise be perfectly admissible in court is obtained by illegal methods, it is inadmissible. If the police come into your home without probable cause, a warrant, etc. and find your secret murderdungeon full of dead bodies and unlicensed firearms, well - too bad! Even though allowing that evidence in would lead to not just a benign but actively positive result (convicting a murderer), we don’t allow that evidence because the method used to attain it (unreasonable search and seizure) is considered a violation of rights in our society. And I have to imagine that non-consensual charming is or ought to be a violation of rights in any magical world that has any conception of rights.This actually extends from the fact that it's important to be able to tell that the government side of this equation has not been engaging in activities that could not just technically violate the rights of the guilty, but be used to frame the innocent. Additionally, rooting through people's private property, papers, etc. can reveal things nobody has any business knowing, and can cause distress and harm directly.

The closest you can come, here, is in saying that realizing you were affected by charm person can cause you distress over the sense of violation of the sanctity of your mind. This does require presuming that "magic made me think they were cool" is a violation of your mind. I could construct an argument that any sort of effort to make you think somebody is cooler than they are is equally a violation. I typically don't, because I don't believe it to be true, but I also don't see the "friendly acquaintance" and "advantage on Charisma" aspects to be such violations. I don't even see the "can't bring yourself to attack them" clause that way under most circumstances; Dastardly is a pretty extreme example.

Similarly, I wouldn't see Doctor Ambiguo taking on the job of saving the life of your child/spouse/loved one pro bono as a wicked deed by itself. If you later found out he was a monster who also serially raped and murdered people of a type which lets you know your loved one is not a potential victim, and saw him doing so to your best friend, the fact that you need him alive to finish the life-saving course of treatment might make it very hard, or even impossible, for you to bring yourself to attack him. That might make his offer to do so take on a much more sinister light, but it doesn't make the offer a malevolent effort at evil mind control when anybody does it.

Contrived? Yes, but I trust it still makes my point: the method is not important if the method doesn't have, itself, further consequences.

Charm person, used as Ella does, doesn't have the kinds of consequences that the doctrine of the poisoned fruit was developed to prevent.

I suppose my point is that the taboo we have over anything mind-affecting stems from how we don't have it in real life. Note how almost every form of mental influence we have IRL is considered just fine (right, Don?) unless it's also involving other forms of abuse that are already over the line on physical violence, or are hallmarks of abusive intent. Stockholm syndrome requires, first, a kidnapping. Brainwashing requires imprisonment and complete control over someone for an extended period of time. The seductor only becomes skeevy when he takes advantage of somebody, not when he just makes pleasant conversation that leaves her eager to see him again. The guy striking up a conversation to make quick friendly acquaintances is only a jerk if he then scams his new "friend."

We don't have real-world examples of people who can use magic to make it easier for them to get along with and break the ice with strangers. Therefore, it must be wicked!

Let's explore a new spell. This spell, called smarmageddon, buffs the caster, giving him a subtle bit of cleaning up and helping his clothing hang to best presentation for whatever style it represents, making his voice clear and generally pleasant, and enhancing his ability to read other people so that he has an almost preternatural sense of what they want, how they're perceiving him, and what they care about. People who fail a Charisma save are open books to him, and he knows just what to do or say to put them at ease (making them tend to regard him as a friendly acquaintance or better after a bit of conversation, if you go by the DMG rules about improving attitude based on their bonds/flaws/etc.), and has a pretty good idea how to present anything he wants to in the most influential light (giving him Advantage on Charisma checks). Further, anybody he can read so well makes utterly predictable attacks, enabling him to automatically dodge all their attacks, make all his saves, and ignore any status effects they inflict that he doesn't like, and reduce all damage they do to zero. i.e., they can't attack him, at least not meaningfully.

Note that smarmageddon hasn't done anything that being very skilled at Wisdom(Insight) couldn't do, in theory. I've exaggerated a bit, but only in the sense that I've taken the notion of reading somebody to an extreme.

Do you find this spell to be acceptable, even if Ella casts it with the intent to ask James out on a date?

Obviously, Dastardly would still be reprehensible for how he took advantage of Alice's inability to help Lucy while he had the spell up.

Okay, let's pretend for a moment you said the spell wasn't acceptable, anyway. What if we just expanded the rules for social interaction so that it was possible to read somebody that well? That is, after all, what social interaction is supposed to be modeling. At what point does mundane social skill become unacceptably wicked to use, because you're just too good at it?


The issue isn’t “She made me enjoy having lunch with her despite in retrospect realizing that she was a really awkward conversationalist!”

The issue is “She made me enjoy having lunch with her despite in retrospect realizing that she was a really awkward conversationalist!”Except that Don Juan made you enjoy having lunch with him because he's an excellent conversationalist. Is that not as bad?

If Ella "made you" enjoy lunch with her despite being an awkward conversationalist because she is gorgeous and was wearing a skimpy top, is that also wicked?


That’s why charm person isn’t inherently evil, like animate dead, in my opinion. It has legitimate use as an application of force in combat against people you would be willing to inflict other forms of violence on. It just shouldn’t be used nonconsensually in social situations.By that logic, animate dead shouldn't be inherently evil, eitehr, since you can use it for only good and make sure to clean up after yourself if there's an issue with uncontrolled undead doing bad things.

That may be another debate entirely, so to stay focused, I'll grant that animate dead is evil, and that's why people should react poorly to its users. But if I grant that, I must point to the fact that charm person is not evil to indicate that reacting poorly to its use when it isn't used to harm anybody is questionable.


Great example. Charm person is the Stockholm Syndrome spell for the sake of discussion. Unless the target resists the casting, they suddenly have an hour's worth of Stockholm Syndrome. The target did not previously hold any belief about the caster nor did they develop psychosis or become wholly irrational. In this example, let's be firm that the caster took no other action than casting the spell. At the end of sixty minutes the target knows that the caster had given them Stockholm Syndrome and that the positive feelings, undue loyalty, or any idea about the caster's humanity were not their own.

How should the target feel?The trouble here is that you're exaggerating what charm person does. Yes, if you've been magically made to be loyal to, love, trust unduly, or otherwise render yourself vulnerable to them in ways they took advantage of, of course you should be upset when you realize how you were used.

Charm person makes you think of them as a friendly acquaintance, not as a protector-figure of great benevolence who cares about you like a parent or liege lord should.

But let's grant a half-way point, because I know you're not trying for the most extreme expressions of Stockholm Syndrome, here, but just to emphasize the sense of connection that is, in fact, false.

So, let's say greater charm person does everything charm person does, except it makes you actively regard the person as a trusted friend.

If they in no way took advantage of that trust to wriggle out secrets you'd prefer to keep, and if all they did with it was get you to trust them enough to do something you find, after the fact, you don't regret doing, why should you be angry? Okay, okay, I get it: the thought of what he COULD have done is upsetting. But what he could have done and what he did are two different things.

If you spend a day with a new acuqaintance - perhaps you're on vacation somewhere and met a charming individual who offered to show you around - and you later found out that he was carrying a deadly weapon the whole day, are you mad at him for having had the ability to have killed you at any time? Unsettled? Sure. But he didn't, and he actually seemed pretty friendly, and you've parted ways amicably.

Personally, I wouldn't even be bothered; he clearly isn't abusing that weapon if I didn't know about it until later, and he didn't do anything I, in retrospect, found objectionable (leaving aside the weapon, since whether that should be found objectionable or not is the matter in question, here).

Barring the subject of the spell knowing its full capabilities, even jumping to the conclusion that "he could have raped my best friend in front of me and I'd have been powerless" is a stretch. Knowing he didn't abuse what you are aware has changed in your attitude with the passing of the spell should be reassuring.

I do understand it being a little sour. What I don't agree with is the excessive "burn the witch!" reactions that some are insisting should be the norm.

[strangebloke]

The only decision interferes with is attacking???

Charm person changes a person's opinion of the caster to a friendly aquantance. An effect stronger then most drugs. It's directly comparable to drugging someone's drink. Just imagine how dangerous this would be in the same scene. Someone you hate, someone who you know would do you harm. Someone you know you should not trust. Then alakazam "Oh this seem like a totally fine person to spend my time with."

That is legitimately scarier then drugging someones drink.

It has potential for that. Sure. I mean, you can totally cast it on someone and kill all of their friends.

But that isn't generally how its used, because it isn't a very good spell for that. I mean, it only stops people from attacking you, so its combat applications (even as a first level spell) are pretty weak. And if combat is occurring, the reaction of the person in question isn't really in any doubt. They're probably just as willing to fight you when the spell ceases as when they started. Heck, they'll fight you as combat is going on, just not with attack rolls.

More often, I see this spell used as an "counter panic" button. IE, you catch a thief in the act, and he gets ready to knife you, and you charm him because you're more interested in just talking to him than in having a fight. The bartender thinks you're with the cartel and goes for his crossbow, and you charm him to cool him down.

Their is also the social engineering angle. You cast it on a stranger, then make some social checks with advantage. In this case, although you have effected their mind, the effect is subtle. I'd say that it is comparable to spiking their drink, but only with more alcohol than they'd expect. You've inhibited (though not prevented) their ability to reason, and their anger upon sobering up and discovering this is going to highly depend on the target and what you were trying to do.


Raise Dead is mind control - if Alice was dead, Raising her would change her mind (from non-functional to functional, but a change nonetheless).

Wall of Force is mind control - if Alice wanted to get to her bedroom, a Wall of Force would change her mind (from wanting to go into her bedroom to finding whoever prankster pulled this off).

A door lock is mind control - if Alice wanted to leave her home, a locked front door would change her mind (from wanting to leave her home to figuring out why she's being dragged into hypotheticals).

If all mind control is evil and the only appropriate reaction is to get the torches and pitchforks, what does that make of the local Cleric? The travelling Sorcerer? The locksmith's Guild?

Yeah, I mean, I think that, while you could call charm person mind control, it requires a pretty broad definition of mind control. You're being rather hyperbolic, but the power of the effect varies a lot depending on the nature of the person you're casting it on.

To reiterate:


Cast it on a good friend? All you've done is stopped them from attacking you. They probably won't mind, since it was probably countering some other compulsion effect.
Cast it on a stranger? It's like you slipped an extra shot of vodka into their drink. They might be very pissed about this depending on the circumstances.
Cast it on an enemy? It's very akin to mind control. They'll hate you for this. But they already did.


Note that even in the last case, the spell doesn't make them forget who you are. They still know that you're a dangerous murderer with a long history of violence, they'll just see you as a friendly acquaintance who is also a murderer with a long history of violence. It isn't like they just abandon all manner of reason and immediately give you their social security number, address, and ring size.

To be clear, I don't quite agree with @Segev. I think that using charm person is nastier than other forms of social engineering, because you are forcing it on someone in spite of their will. It isn't much nastier than playing on a person's primal desires/fears to get them to behave favorably towards you against their better judgement, but it is different.

[Segev]

To be clear, I don't quite agree with @Segev. I think that using charm person is nastier than other forms of social engineering, because you are forcing it on someone in spite of their will. It isn't much nastier than playing on a person's primal desires/fears to get them to behave favorably towards you against their better judgement, but it is different.

Side note: the @ doesn't do anything to call attention of a poster to a thread.

And actually, you've just done a better job of expressing the nuance I've been trying to get across than I have, since I more or less agree with your formulation, here. My one quibble is that I don't agree it's like spiking his screwdriver with a little more vodka, because that implies impaired judgment. As you note, he doesn't forget that you're a dangerous murderer with a long string of victims; he just feels like you're a friendly acquaintance. So an affable murderer who is still dangerous but, as long as this affable dangerous murderer isn't engaging in murder, he's pleasant enough to hang out with, possibly in spite of yourself.

A guy who's drunker than he thinks could be persuaded to forget about the whole murder thing because he doesn't really have the judgment to keep all of that consequence-evaluation stuff in his head at once.

The trouble is that there is no real-world equivalent to properly analogize it.

Still, I agree that it is worse than Don Juan's approach, sufficiently that James may react a little less well than the bar maid Don seduced. But I don't agree that it's so bad that it would necessarily make a long-term difference to Ella's potential relationship with James.


And you did an excellent job framing why I say it's circumstantial. The guys you were fighting are going to be mad when it wears off, yes, but as you said, they already were.

The stranger is going to be off-put, but will largely still depend on his own personality and what, exactly, you did while he was charmed.

[jh12]

Except that Don Juan made you enjoy having lunch with him because he's an excellent conversationalist. Is that not as bad?

No he didn't. I enjoyed the lunch because Don Juan made excellent conversation and I enjoy excellent conversation. If I didn't enjoy excellent conversation, I wouldn't have enjoyed the meal. If he says something stupid, my mind can change. Charm Person doesn't give me those options.


If Ella "made you" enjoy lunch with her despite being an awkward conversationalist because she is gorgeous and was wearing a skimpy top, is that also wicked?

Again, Ella didn't "make me" enjoy lunch by wearing a skimpy top. I enjoyed lunch because Ella was wearing a skimpy top and I enjoy beautiful women in skimpy tops. Not everyone does. And sometimes even beautiful women in skimpy tops are so annoying that they aren't worth be friendly with anymore. Charm Person doesn't give me those options.

Dastardly made Alice view him as a friendly acquaintance even as he gleeful raped and murdered her sister right before her eyes. That's the level of mind control Charm Person imposes, regardless of what you use it for.

Two simple question for those who believe casting Charm Person on unwilling targets in social situations is no big deal:

1. What gives the caster the right to cast any spell on an unwilling target?
2. What gives the caster the right to determine that the target should view the caster as a friendly acquaintance for an hour?

[strangebloke]

Side note: the @ doesn't do anything to call attention of a poster to a thread.
I know this forum is populated by dinosaurs who love the outdated format, but I really wish we could switch to xenforo.

A guy who's drunker than he thinks could be persuaded to forget about the whole murder thing because he doesn't really have the judgment to keep all of that consequence-evaluation stuff in his head at once.
Conversely, a person who is drunker than he thinks might not like you very much. So its better and worse.

There is one time exactly where the spiked-with-vodka thing is exactly, mechanically comparable. With deception opposed by insight. Alcohol would impose disadvantage on insight, charm person gives advantage on deception. Its nearly exactly comparable.

But yeah, based off of the discussion here (which has been very great.) I would typically regard a person effected by this spell as having their base attitude improved by several increments, and then have those increments reversed when the spell wears off, but doubled.

So if we reduce hostile, friendly, etc. to a numerical scale from -3 to +3, it goes something like this:

George hates Greg (attitude -3). Greg charms him. (attitude +1) they chat for a bit, and Greg improves his attitude by one (+2) George does a thing. Then the spell wears off and his attitude goes down by the amount it went up before, but double. (-8, going down to -3, which is the basement here.)

Jane is Greg's good friend (attitude +2). Greg charms her. (attitude +2) the spell wears off. Nothing happens.

Lisa has never met Greg before. (attitude +0) Greg charms her. (attitude +1) He chats her up, improving her attitude. (attitude +2) The spell wears off. Lisa feels betrayed, but this is countered by the pleasant hour they spent. (attitude +0)

[Unoriginal]

Another approach:

Let's imagine a scenario where Ella didn't use Charm Person beforehand, but seeing that she couldn't convince James, decided to use Modify Memory to make him remember a perfectly charming conversation after which he agreed to date Ella.

In both this case and the one where he is charmed, James has no control over what he feels about the situation, and his perception of the events was altered to match Ella's desires.

What makes Charm Person better than Modify Memory, when used in that context?

[NotPrior]

I don't think anyone's said anything which would meaningfully separate charm person from spiking somebody's drink. Both leave you with the possibility of saying no, both can be broken if the caster/spiker pushes it too hard, and both affect your perception of a person positively.

Spiking a drink, especially with the goal of coercion, is illegal in many countries and looked down on with disgust, for good reasons.

Personally if I was johnny farmer and I was charmed into doing something I didn't want to do I'd try and rustle up a lynch mob immediately.

[Derpy]

I have trouble envisioning any social situation when charm person is good in the long run, because the target always knows afterward. And while the player might think they just used it to open the door, as it were, the target can never be sure what is them and what you forced on them. Starting a potential romantic relationship by not giving the other party a fair option does not bode well, and they know you forced their hand. You could trade a good deal with a shop keep for his guild marking you on their blacklist. mess with the guards mind to try to convince them to let you go, but then what? They know you messed with them to get it to happen, it's going to make it worse in the long run. Strong relationships tend to be built on trust, a first step of messing with the other party's mind is a poor foundation for a relationship ship what ever the temporary results or reasons. I don't know that most people would resort to torches and pitchforks over it, I think more urban societies would censor, blacklist, and/or fine the offender depending on world magic levels and local laws. It would probably start to make the person a social outcast depending on how much they used it, or start giving them a bad reputation. More rural places or superstitious communities might drive the offenders out, or call their local lord, probably happy if the person left.

[strangebloke]

Another approach:

Let's imagine a scenario where Ella didn't use Charm Person beforehand, but seeing that she couldn't convince James, decided to use Modify Memory to make him remember a perfectly charming conversation after which he agreed to date Ella.

In both this case and the one where he is charmed, James has no control over what he feels about the situation, and his perception of the events was altered to match Ella's desires.

What makes Charm Person better than Modify Memory, when used in that context?

Modify memory doesn't go away, and in the false memories, the person is truly powerless.

If you break the modification immediately after an hour is up and restrict yourself to a single hours worth of memories... It'd still be worse, and likely not as effective, because you determined their actions for that whole time period.

Like, "I remember that you seemed really nice when you first walked up, but I know now that's magic,"

vs.

"I remember saying hi and walking over and flirting, buying you a drink... But that's not something I'd do. That's not me at all. I'm married, I don't flirt like that."

This is explicitly a drawback of modify memory, and also one of the reasons modify memory is so horrifying. With all these restrictions, it'd be much less bad than normally, but still worse than charm person.

[Unoriginal]

Like, "I remember that you seemed really nice when you first walked up, but I know now that's magic,"

vs.

"I remember saying hi and walking over and flirting, buying you a drink... But that's not something I'd do. That's not me at all. I'm married, I don't flirt like that."

You're introducing an outside factor that makes the situation different, here.

I was not talking about making someone remember things they wouldn't do with a friendly acquaintance.

Again:

Situation 1: Ella casts Charm Person on James, then tries to ask him out on a date. Despite her normal awkwardness and lack of social skills, he is forced to see her as a friendly acquaintance, and in consequence strikes a friendly conversation with her and agree to go on a date with her.

Situation 2: Ella tries to ask James out on a date. Due to her awkwardness and lack of social skills, he refuses. Ella then casts Modify Memory on him so he remembers striking a friendly conversation with her and agreeing to go on a date with her.

Is Situation 2 worse only because those memories were permanently modified while Charm Person is temporary? Would the two be equivalent if Modify Memory only lasted one hour?

[strangebloke]

You're introducing an outside factor that makes the situation different, here.

I was not talking about making someone remember things they wouldn't do with a friendly acquaintance.

Again:

Situation 1: Ella casts Charm Person on James, then tries to ask him out on a date. Despite her normal awkwardness and lack of social skills, he is forced to see her as a friendly acquaintance, and in consequence strikes a friendly conversation with her and agree to go on a date with her.

Situation 2: Ella tries to ask James out on a date. Due to her awkwardness and lack of social skills, he refuses. Ella then casts Modify Memory on him so he remembers striking a friendly conversation with her and agreeing to go on a date with her.

Is Situation 2 worse only because those memories were permanently modified while Charm Person is temporary? Would the two be equivalent if Modify Memory only lasted one hour?

Not too different.

I mean, either way when it wears off, James is going to be upset. Exactly how upset depends on the rest of what happened.

I'm mostly just objecting to the "always a lynch mob, accept no substitutes" school of thought.

To use my metric James starts at +0, gets improved to +1 by a spell, and then reverts to either -1 if if nothing desirable (from his uninhibited perspective) occurred or just a flat +0 if something desirable did occur.

In other words, if he did want the date, he'll be less upset.

Either way, Ella probably should not do this and this indicates that she's a woman of loose morality. James would probably be within his rights to report her to the officials of the law.

[Hail Tempus]

Not too different.

I mean, either way when it wears off, James is going to be upset. Exactly how upset depends on the rest of what happened.

I'm mostly just objecting to the "always a lynch mob, accept no substitutes" school of thought. I think it's fair to say that though the level of response will vary, but it will almost always be negative.

In places like Waterdeep, with a functional government and police force, raising a lynch mob would be unlikely. But, a merchant who you ripped off, for example, has a lot of ways to mess up your life. I would imagine if a respected member in good standing of a guild testified to the appropriate guild governing organization that a PC used Charm Person on her, the party would very quickly find themselves barred from inns, taverns and shops in the city in question.

[tieren]

I kind of picture it like meeting your ex that you can't resist when they want something.

Away from them you get mad that they took advantage of you, again, but the next time they come around needing something and flash that smile you cave against your own better judgment, and when they leave you kick yourself, again.

Sure you know they took advantage of you, they charmed you into doing something you really probably shouldn't have, and you are mad about it, but you may not know they cast a magic spell on you.

[strangebloke]

I think it's fair to say that though the level of response will vary, but it will almost always be negative.

In places like Waterdeep, with a functional government and police force, raising a lynch mob would be unlikely. But, a merchant who you ripped off, for example, has a lot of ways to mess up your life. I would imagine if a respected member in good standing of a guild testified to the appropriate guild governing organization that a PC used Charm Person on her, the party would very quickly find themselves barred from inns, taverns and shops in the city in question.
Oh yeah, its certainly going to be illegal. The trick is getting the enforcer of the law to care. At the city/regional level, there's not likely going to be a unified response. At the local level, you could very well be small mob form.

But, like, the local lynch mob is a possible result to anything.

Charm person? That's a lynching.

Was seen doing rituals behind the tavern that seemed pretty spooky? That's a lynching.

Is a tiefling? That's a lynching.

[Imbalance]

The trouble here is that you're exaggerating what*charm person*does.

The trouble is I'm not, but you keep responding with several paragraphs that have nothing to do with the essence of my point. You start with a semblance of acknowledgment, then steer into territory that is beyond the root of the casting.


Yes, if you've been magically made to...

You have. Period. You weren't coerced, influenced, seduced or anything else that would at least leave you with your own conscientious choice to make about your view of the caster. You were magically made to view them as a friendly acquaintance - patently mind-hacked with an implanted thought from a spell. And THEN other effects may happen. The spell fabricates the initial thought. It does. Skipping past this caused condition with the same "nuh-uh" that you object to from others doesn't negate the fact.

[sophontteks]

It has potential for that. Sure. I mean, you can totally cast it on someone and kill all of their friends.

But that isn't generally how its used, because it isn't a very good spell for that. I mean, it only stops people from attacking you, so its combat applications (even as a first level spell) are pretty weak. And if combat is occurring, the reaction of the person in question isn't really in any doubt. They're probably just as willing to fight you when the spell ceases as when they started. Heck, they'll fight you as combat is going on, just not with attack rolls.

Its actually really good for that. Your situation is not what I described.

If I wanted a target to follow me to a place where my party is waiting to kill them charm person is the perfect spell, espesially if the target is aware that I am a threat to them. It is a great assassination tool. The biggest problem with picking a target off is getting them somewhere away from the watchful eyes of the authorities. I'd even go as far as saying that this is the best use of the spell.

Another great use is interrogation. Charm them, get the info, kill them.

Or robbing someone. If they regard you as a friendly aquantance for the duration of the spell, then they can't turn hostile when you take their possessions.

Charm Person is an awful spell for social encounters, and its not widely used. Its best as a nefarious spell. The kicker, that the target is aware after the spell passes, doesn't matter when they are dead.

[jh12]

Jane is Greg's good friend (attitude +2). Greg charms her. (attitude +2) the spell wears off. Nothing happens.

Jane is remarkably tolerant to being assaulted. What other spells can Greg cast on her without her permission? Is it just spells, or does she let Greg hit her when she gets out of line too?

[Angelalex242]

Charm Person is essentially the magical equivalent to slipping a girl roofies so you can have sex with her.

I imagine there's plenty of bards who use charm person in just such a way. "Hey, she's hot, make a wisdom save!"

And, since roofies in the real world are a felony...

[Segev]

Charm Person is essentially the magical equivalent to slipping a girl roofies so you can have sex with her.

I imagine there's plenty of bards who use charm person in just such a way. "Hey, she's hot, make a wisdom save!"

And, since roofies in the real world are a felony...

Again, it absolutely is not that.

Roofies render the victim helpless to resist.

Charm person quite specifically does not. The spell fails as soon as the caster attacks. In addition - and this is why I've harped so heavily on the point about not absolving you of choices made while charmed - it doesn't actually compell you to do anything the person asks you to. It only makes you more likely to if the fact that this person is a highly-persuasive friendly acquaintance is useful to getting you to do it, and they were either not highly persuasive or were not a friendly acquaintance without the spell.

So, if the girl sleeps with the bard who cast charm person on her, she would have slept with a friendly acquaintance with a silver tongue. She is not powerless to say "no." In fact, aside from using the spell to get her to give him the time of day, he'd have a roughly 15% lower chance to convince her to sleep with him without it.

She's not even "more drunk" than usual, let alone roofied. If she wouldn't sleep with a friendly acquaintance - which, I remind you, one can become over the course of a simple conversation if one hits it off well enough - then she wouldn't sleep with the bard, no matter that he used charm person on her.

To reiterate: the spell can't compell somebody in a way that makes them effectively helpless (at least, not in the terms we're discussing here, e.g. seduction/"slipping her a roofie"; the Dastardly example from earlier is a different case).

[sophontteks]

Again, it absolutely is not that.

Roofies render the victim helpless to resist.

Charm person quite specifically does not. The spell fails as soon as the caster attacks. In addition - and this is why I've harped so heavily on the point about not absolving you of choices made while charmed - it doesn't actually compell you to do anything the person asks you to. It only makes you more likely to if the fact that this person is a highly-persuasive friendly acquaintance is useful to getting you to do it, and they were either not highly persuasive or were not a friendly acquaintance without the spell.

So, if the girl sleeps with the bard who cast charm person on her, she would have slept with a friendly acquaintance with a silver tongue. She is not powerless to say "no." In fact, aside from using the spell to get her to give him the time of day, he'd have a roughly 15% lower chance to convince her to sleep with him without it.

She's not even "more drunk" than usual, let alone roofied. If she wouldn't sleep with a friendly acquaintance - which, I remind you, one can become over the course of a simple conversation if one hits it off well enough - then she wouldn't sleep with the bard, no matter that he used charm person on her.

To reiterate: the spell can't compell somebody in a way that makes them effectively helpless (at least, not in the terms we're discussing here, e.g. seduction/"slipping her a roofie"; the Dastardly example from earlier is a different case).
In both cases the goal is to get the victim alone, not make them helpless to resist.

[jh12]

So, if the girl sleeps with the bard who cast charm person on her, she would have slept with a friendly acquaintance with a silver tongue. She is not powerless to say "no." In fact, aside from using the spell to get her to give him the time of day, he'd have a roughly 15% lower chance to convince her to sleep with him without it.

But she wouldn't have slept with the THIS bard, on THIS night, without the intervention of the spell. If THIS bard didn't think she would say no to him on THIS night, why is he casting the spell? She is not willingly having sex with THIS bard on THIS night because he has overridden her will and clouded her mind. If a barbarian came in, held her down, and raped her, it would be absolutely no defense to say that she regularly has sex with with total strangers.


She's not even "more drunk" than usual, let alone roofied. If she wouldn't sleep with a friendly acquaintance - which, I remind you, one can become over the course of a simple conversation if one hits it off well enough - then she wouldn't sleep with the bard, no matter that he used charm person on her.

I think most people would have to be really drunk before they can't distinguish between friendly acquaintances and total strangers, or even enemies.

And yes, one can become a friendly acquaintance over the course of a single conversation. But unlike with a Charm Person spell, one is not forced to become a friendly acquaintance. Virtually all of your arguments are predicated on ignoring this difference.

You also ignore that the Charm Person spell does make her more likely to sleep with the spell caster than she would with an ordinary friendly acquaintance.

Two simple questions.
1. What gives the caster the right to cast any spell on an unwilling target?
2. What gives the caster the right to determine that the target should view the caster as a friendly acquaintance for an hour?

[Constructman]

Doesn't the PHB had a description in a sidebar about Enchantment spells?
This sidebar from the Spellcasting section?


THE SCHOOLS OF MAGIC

Academies of magic group spells into eight categories called schools of magic. Scholars, particularly wizards, apply these categories to all spells, believing that all magic functions in essentially the same way, whether it derives from rigorous study or is bestowed by a deity.

The schools of magic help describe spells; they have no rules of their own, although some rules refer to the schools.

Abjuration spells are protective in nature, though some of them have aggressive uses. They create magical barriers, negate harmful effects, harm trespassers, or banish creatures to other planes of existence.

Conjuration spells involve the transportation of objects and creatures from one location to another. Some spells summon creatures or objects to the caster's side, whereas others allow the caster to teleport to another location. Some conjurations create objects or effects out of nothing.

Divination spells reveal information, whether in the form of secrets long forgotten, glimpses of the future, the locations of hidden things, the truth behind illusions, or visions of distant people or places.

Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. Such spells can make enemies see the caster as a friend, force creatures to take a course of action, or even control another creature like a puppet.

Evocation spells manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect. Some call up blasts of fire or lightning. Others channel positive energy to heal wounds.

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature.

Necromancy spells manipulate the energies of life and death. Such spells can grant an extra reserve of life force, drain the life energy from another creature, create the undead, or even bring the dead back to life.

Creating the undead through the use of necromancy spells such as animate dead is not a good act, and only evil casters use such spells frequently.

Transmutation spells change the properties of a creature, object, or environment. They might turn an enemy into a harmless creature, bolster the strength of an ally, make an object move at the caster's command, or enhance a creature's innate healing abilities to rapidly recover from injury.

[Kornaki]

I think the smarmaggedon spell is the perfect example of how charm person is more evil. If Dastardly casts smarmageddon on Jane the paladin, what he's going to learn is that the way to make her like him is to stop killing her partner. There's some bizarre confusion about how powerful talking to a person can be. If you are in the process of murdering someone's best friend, there is literally nothing you can say to them that will make them friendly to you while you do that. Even if you could literally read their mind to find the most effective words to use, the only thing you will learn is that you need to stop killing their friend if you want them to like you.

[Frozenstep]

Let's explore a new spell. This spell, called smarmageddon, buffs the caster, giving him a subtle bit of cleaning up and helping his clothing hang to best presentation for whatever style it represents, making his voice clear and generally pleasant, and enhancing his ability to read other people so that he has an almost preternatural sense of what they want, how they're perceiving him, and what they care about. People who fail a Charisma save are open books to him, and he knows just what to do or say to put them at ease (making them tend to regard him as a friendly acquaintance or better after a bit of conversation, if you go by the DMG rules about improving attitude based on their bonds/flaws/etc.), and has a pretty good idea how to present anything he wants to in the most influential light (giving him Advantage on Charisma checks). Further, anybody he can read so well makes utterly predictable attacks, enabling him to automatically dodge all their attacks, make all his saves, and ignore any status effects they inflict that he doesn't like, and reduce all damage they do to zero. i.e., they can't attack him, at least not meaningfully.

Note that smarmageddon hasn't done anything that being very skilled at Wisdom(Insight) couldn't do, in theory. I've exaggerated a bit, but only in the sense that I've taken the notion of reading somebody to an extreme.

Do you find this spell to be acceptable, even if Ella casts it with the intent to ask James out on a date?

I haven't read everything in the whole thread, but still felt like throwing in my 2 cents on just this in particular.

smarmageddon would make you appear better to my fair judgement.

Charm person attacks my mind to cut my ability to make a fair judgement.

Even if they end up being mechanically similar, even if they let someone accomplish similar things, the method of doing so is still enough for one to be acceptable (if not scummy, but kind of in a "dating profile picture that's out of date" kind of way) and the other still evil.

[patchyman]

So, if the girl sleeps with the bard who cast charm person on her, she would have slept with a friendly acquaintance with a silver tongue. She is not powerless to say "no." In fact, aside from using the spell to get her to give him the time of day, he'd have a roughly 15% lower chance to convince her to sleep with him without it.


You have used this argument several times in this thread to mitigate the culpability of a person who casts Charm Person on a stranger; but does it really mitigate culpability?

Cain wants to sleep with Ella, but he is awkward around women. His friend Abel, however, is charismatic.

Abel spends the evening chatting up Ella, and Eventually, they slip away to a darkened room. Before slipping into the room, Cain (with Abel’s knowledge) switches places with Abel. Cain and Abel have similar builds.

Ella was willing to sleep with Abel, who she knew. She was not willing to sleep with Cain, who was a stranger to her. In real life, this is called rape by deception, and it is a crime.

Charm person allows a stranger to be treated as a friendly acquaintance. In what way is this meaningfully different from the scenario described?

[Deathtongue]

Raise Dead is mind control - if Alice was dead, Raising her would change her mind (from non-functional to functional, but a change nonetheless).

Wall of Force is mind control - if Alice wanted to get to her bedroom, a Wall of Force would change her mind (from wanting to go into her bedroom to finding whoever prankster pulled this off).

A door lock is mind control - if Alice wanted to leave her home, a locked front door would change her mind (from wanting to leave her home to figuring out why she's being dragged into hypotheticals).

If all mind control is evil and the only appropriate reaction is to get the torches and pitchforks, what does that make of the local Cleric? The travelling Sorcerer? The locksmith's Guild?I'd be real careful with this line of argument, Justin. As we can see from the puzzlingly vehement reactions to Segev, people have this weird dualist tulpa that they're projecting onto D&D. It's why using magic to buff your Persuasion check from an average of 15 to an average of 25 is viewed as okay but using charm person is not.

It has nothing to do with neurological interaction, it's solely because people have (or rather, assume) an idea of self that's separate from biology.

Interesting enough, you can see this disjunction in agency with the Guidance spell. If your Divine Soul sorcerer reveals after they signed the treaty that they used Disguise Self to make themselves look prettier than they really do, fewer people would react negatively than if they used Subtle Spell to cast Guidance during key points in negotiation.

The debate is interesting, in a 'we have so many unexamined assumptions about human agency that we project onto D&D' sort of way.

[strangebloke]

In both cases the goal is to get the victim alone, not make them helpless to resist.
For sure, that's a powerful usage of the spell. But to be clear, you probably aren't casting this spell, which has verbal and somatic components unless you've already got them alone. And once again its context dependent. If the person is afraid of you, and then they're charmed, they'll have a proportionally worse reaction when the charm expires.

To go back to my example, a person who is afraid of you would go from -1 to +1 when charmed, and then to -3 when the charm expired. With a -3 they'd be fully hostile to you and would try to get back at you in whatever way they realistically can.

You have used this argument several times in this thread to mitigate the culpability of a person who casts Charm Person on a stranger; but does it really mitigate culpability?

Cain wants to sleep with Ella, but he is awkward around women. His friend Abel, however, is charismatic.

Abel spends the evening chatting up Ella, and Eventually, they slip away to a darkened room. Before slipping into the room, Cain (with Abel’s knowledge) switches places with Abel. Cain and Abel have similar builds.

Ella was willing to sleep with Abel, who she knew. She was not willing to sleep with Cain, who was a stranger to her. In real life, this is called rape by deception, and it is a crime.

Charm person allows a stranger to be treated as a friendly acquaintance. In what way is this meaningfully different from the scenario described?

First of all, I think we're all in agreement that Charm Person is likely criminal in nearly every city where there are laws about such things.

Secondly, I'd say that this a good argument and I'd mostly agree with it. It's not completely analogous. In point of fact, there's no actual deception going on. They still know who you are and whatever they might otherwise know about you. Still, its close enough. However, I think Segev is merely trying to answer the idea some people seem to have that casting charm person is a mind control effect where you're completely removing the other's ability to refuse you.

Instead, its an impairment of judgement. It elevates your base level of friendship and makes you on average about 15% more persuasive, but it isn't anything crazy.

Roughly speaking I would say its analogous to buying someone a screwdriver, but making it like three times as alcoholic as they expect in an effort to drink them under the table. Its certainly very skeevy and a lot of people would be pissed and depending on the circumstance you might have the law banging down your door...

And once again, I'm not saying that casting charm person in such a way is anything other than morally reprehensible. Most usages of most enchantment effects are pretty bad, honestly. I'm just talking about how people might react in different circumstances.

[jh12]

In point of fact, there's no actual deception going on.

Why would you need to be deceptive when you are already using a mind control spell?


They still know who you are and whatever they might otherwise know about you.

This makes it worse, not better, because they are unable to act on their knowledge in the way they normally would.


Still, its close enough. However, I think Segev is merely trying to answer the idea some people seem to have that casting charm person is a mind control effect where you're completely removing the other's ability to refuse you.

But I don't think anyone has actually argued that, because it doesn't matter. Now people have pointed out the indisputable facts that it makes you treat them like a friendly acquaintance, makes you more susceptible to their desires, and makes you refrain from attacking them no matter what horrible thing they do (as long as it isn't to you), which Segev keeps pretending isn't mind control, but that's different.


Instead, its an impairment of judgement. It elevates your base level of friendship and makes you on average about 15% more persuasive, but it isn't anything crazy.

How is that not crazy? Both of those are huge effects and they stack. And that still doesn't cover all of the things that the spell does.


I'd be real careful with this line of argument, Justin. As we can see from the puzzlingly vehement reactions to Segev, people have this weird dualist tulpa that they're projecting onto D&D. It's why using magic to buff your Persuasion check from an average of 15 to an average of 25 is viewed as okay but using charm person is not.

Or why drinking coffee to give yourself energy is okay, but slipping a sedative in your opponent's drink is not. Silly people.

Plus, his examples are terrible. Raise Dead requires a willing soul.


It has nothing to do with neurological interaction, it's solely because people have (or rather, assume) an idea of self that's separate from biology.

You have this backwards. The people arguing that Charm Person is no big deal are the ones that need to have a self that's separate from biology. Without a self that's different from biology, there's no difference between an attack on the mind, like Charm Person, and an attack on the rest of the body, like Magic Missile. Nobody pretends that a magic user could run around town casting Magic Missile to get what he wants, but somehow nobody is supposed to care if they use Charm Person instead.

[Hail Tempus]

So, if the girl sleeps with the bard who cast charm person on her, she would have slept with a friendly acquaintance with a silver tongue. She is not powerless to say "no." In fact, aside from using the spell to get her to give him the time of day, he'd have a roughly 15% lower chance to convince her to sleep with him without it.
Except, the spell caster wasn't one of the woman's friendly acquaintances. But for her being subjected to the Charm Person spell, she wouldn't have considered sleeping with this stranger.

This position you're taking is really creepy when it comes to the question of consent. Following this argument to its natural conclusion, there's nothing wrong with a Doppelganger impersonating someone's spouse in order to have sex with them, since that's something they were willing to do anyway.

[Potato_Priest]

First of all, I think we're all in agreement that Charm Person is likely criminal in nearly every city where there are laws about such things.

I think consensual charm person would probably be legal in at least some places (and in others it'd be looked on as one of those crimes not generally worth prosecuting by itself). The few times I would consider myself to have been under the impact of the real world equivalent of the charmed condition were pretty fun, so it could have some good recreational applications.

If you and a close friend have had some fights lately and both want to enjoy your one day together this week, a mutual casting of charm person might make things start out smoother, for instance.

[Themrys]

Charm person is similar. It is stepping over the bounds of social acceptability, but played right, and with harmless or good intent and a lack of abuse of the minimal trust it engenders (and it IS minimal, as we've seen throughout this thread when discussing how far you'd go for a "friendly acquaintance"), there's little reason why the reaction can't be, "Huh, wow, so that's what being charmed feels like. She was quite breathtaking, and I'm not sure...but maybe I'll give her another shot."

Romance here being used because it's the easiest way to illustrate crossing the social contract line and still pulling it off.

It's worth noting that hitting on the wrong person that way likely does create a scene. Somebody saving vs charm person likely does, as well.

You are a man and you think like a man. You obviously never have had to worry about a woman (or man) wanting to rape you.

I'd say, romance is the field where it is least likely to "pull off" manipulation. As a woman, I run for the hills when I notice a man is trying to use any fancy psychology manipulation on me. Trying to trick me into drinking alcohol? Even worse.
A spell? I'd probably want to gather a lynchmob or call local law enforcement, depending on what's available. Definitely not consider giving him another shot. Someone who doesn't respect my free will is far too dangerous to associate with, and a man who is sexually interested in me and disregards my free will? Probably a rapist.

And I think a DnD PC would react quite a lot more like a woman in the real world than like a man, considering that, while sexual violence may not be a concern, being robbed, murdered,or tied to an altar to be sacrificed to a demon happens a lot more often to PCs than it does to the average person in the real world. It is very unlikely, at least from the experience of a player character, that someone who uses charm person on them does not have a nefarious plan.


@Unoriginal: Badly chosen example. Why would Ella cast "Charm Person" on James if she likes him?

As a very socially awkward woman with zero social skills, I can report that I have had a 100% success rate with asking men I was interested in on dates. Without any spellcasting. Being socially awkward, I wouldn't ever ask out someone I don't know, and people I do know well enough to trust them to want to date ... well, they are already friendly acquaintances.

I dislike this "but what about the socially awkward!" arguing that is often thrown around when it comes to disregarding other people's free will. Social awkwardness does not justify the use of coercion. In fact, people who would use coercion to get others to spend time with them aren't socially awkward, they are creepy.

Why would Ella even want to date James if he hadn't shown her enough kindness to make it seem likely he'd agree without the use of a spell?


I can only repeat what I wrote before: In a world where people know exactly what this spell does, they might tolerate it if it is used to prevent greater harm, but only then.

And I certainly cannot imagine it would be tolerated in a romantic situation. Not by women, anyways.

@Hail Tempus: I absolutely agree.

And anyone who would willingly impersonate a friendly acquaintance (in a situation where there isn't any lack of time) must have something seriously wrong with him - any normal person's course of action would be to just try and become a friendly acquaintance. It is not that difficult - unless of course you just murdered the other person's family or something like that.

[Segev]

You have used this argument several times in this thread to mitigate the culpability of a person who casts Charm Person on a stranger; but does it really mitigate culpability?

Cain wants to sleep with Ella, but he is awkward around women. His friend Abel, however, is charismatic.

Abel spends the evening chatting up Ella, and Eventually, they slip away to a darkened room. Before slipping into the room, Cain (with Abel’s knowledge) switches places with Abel. Cain and Abel have similar builds.

Ella was willing to sleep with Abel, who she knew. She was not willing to sleep with Cain, who was a stranger to her. In real life, this is called rape by deception, and it is a crime.

Charm person allows a stranger to be treated as a friendly acquaintance. In what way is this meaningfully different from the scenario described?

Ah, but let's say Cain just tells her that he's a millionaire, and that the mansion he's taking her to is his. In reality, the mansion is his brother, Abel's. Cain's just allowed to stay there for hookups, because Abel is a wingman like that.

Here, he's lied to Ella to get her to sleep with him, but I don't think that qualifies as rape by deception anymore. Unless you can point to literally any lie told during the course of pre-coital interactions to qualify as "rape."


To make it even less skeevy (ignoring whether one night stands can be anything but skeevy), let's say Cain is bald. He knows that Ella has rejected every bald suitor; he watched her flirt a bit with two guys with hair and utterly, coldly reject three bald guys, just while he was working up the courage to approach her. Dejected, he laments his fate of being bald to his twin brother, Abel. Who is also bald, but has worn a very convincing toupe for years. Abel, being a bro, gives Cain his backup toupe (kept clean and fresh in case anything happens to the one he's wearing).

Cain walks up and flirts with Ella, who finds him very charming now that he's confident his brother's "magic" (not really, just how he thinks of it) toupe will help him break the ice. One thing leads to another, and before too long, they're turning off the lights in the bedroom and stripping down. By the time the toupe comes off, Ella is too distracted and the lights too dim to notice.

Has Cain raped her? She certainly never would have given him the time of day, let alone slept with him, if he'd let her know he was bald.


Cain is a half-orc who has lived amongst humans his whole life, and has taken great pains to disguise his non-human heritage. He's actually pretty charming even for a full-fledged human, even if he's not the most charismatic human in the world. (Trained in various Cha-skills, has a Cha of 14 or even 16.) With his Disguise check that he makes every morning, and very careful grooming, and having had his tusks pulled in a fit of self-loathing as a young pubsecent, he manages to pass as a particularly rugged and buff human male.

Ella has a passionate hatred for orcs and all their get. However, she does have a thing for big, strong men. She's just convinced that orcs and their get are universally repugnant rapists who would use and abuse her if she let herself be alone with them. She meets Cain, who is charming and suave, or at least reasonably so, and he's her type. He never tells her he's half-orcish, and even agrees with her slurs against orcs if she brings any up (because he also finds orcs repulsive and hatable, and tries desperately not to live down to that side of his blood). They have sex together, and the next morning, she finds out from his vicious rival that Cain is a half-orc.

She never, ever would have slept with him except for his lie of omission. Did he rape her?


Ella has an absolute passion for a particular rare flower, loving everything about it from the smell to the color. Cain learns this, and arranges a suit in that color and cologne in that scent, and puts one of those flowers in his lapel. When he sits down next to her at the bar, this immediately gets her attention, and he's able to strike up a conversation with her on the subject. He doesn't lie, or feign more interest than he has, but he takes full advantage of her temptation to lean in and sniff him to get her to agree to dance, and to spend time with him, and to make her more likely to want to listen to him when he plies her seductively.

When Cain no longer smells of the cologne after the shower the next morning, and she finds him to be a little less enchanting, and she realizes it was his use of her favorite flower in myriad subtle ways that made him so interesting in the first place, should she hate him? Especially if, over the course of remembering the evening, she can think of more things that she enjoyed in his company, that had little to do with the flower?


In each of these cases, he's engaged in some form of deception. The middle two were arguably no more deceptive than a member of a biker gang who typically showers once a year whether he needs it or not deciding to shave, shower, and dress in a tux for a date taking a debutant to an opera. I doubt most people would find any but the "pretending to be rich" angle to be particularly skeevy, assuming they don't find looking for a hookup skeevy in the first place. Heck, the last one, I'm not sure is deceptive. But it's certainly very akin to charm person, in that it influences Ella and only Ella to be more prone to give her attention and interest to Cain.

[jh12]

That sure is a lot of words to not answer the question. You seem to have a problem with answering simple questions.

[Segev]

You are a man and you think like a man. You obviously never have had to worry about a woman (or man) wanting to rape you. You're quite right; I've never been in that position. I will also assert that charm person wouldn't enable anybody to rape me. I wouldn't have sex with a "friendly acquaintance." I wouldn't have sex with my best friend if we weren't husband and wife. (I do hope, one day, to find a woman to be best friends with, fall passionately in love with, and marry, but I sadly doubt that will ever happen at this point.)

And anything I can think of that a friendly acquaintance could get me to do for them, I wouldn't regret doing for a stranger. I might be annoyed, but it simply wouldn't be bad enough that I'd be so much as ranting about it, let alone call the cops or organize a lynch mob.


I'd say, romance is the field where it is least likely to "pull off" manipulation. As a woman, I run for the hills when I notice a man is trying to use any fancy psychology manipulation on me.What if their idea of "fancy psychology" is finding out what you're interested in and brushing up on the subject as an ice-breaker? They're not going to lie about their interest level, just try to be able to have a reasonable conversation on the subject with you as a segue to getting to know you better.

I mean, I get it, there are guys who think they're "pick-up artists" who have all these weird ideas about how to mainpulate women, and I'm not even going to discuss their techniques or the (lack of) ethics involved in them. For one thing, I don't know enough about it to have a coherent conversation. I just question whether this is really a parallel to something that only makes you regard the caster as "a friendly acquaintance."


Trying to trick me into drinking alcohol? Even worse. Also not equivalent, as I've repeatedly pointed out.


A spell? I'd probably want to gather a lynchmob or call local law enforcement, depending on what's available. Definitely not consider giving him another shot. Someone who doesn't respect my free will is far too dangerous to associate with, and a man who is sexually interested in me and disregards my free will? Probably a rapist. You're once again presuming the conclusion, here. You're not demonstrating that he can get you to do anything that is against your will. You're asserting that it must be, because you don't have a "choice" whether to like him or not. I assert that you have as little choice with Don Juan as you do with Elam (Ella's twin brother who also uses charm person). Save that, at the end of the hour, you can at least put your finger on what you found so Charming about Elam.


And I think a DnD PC would react quite a lot more like a woman in the real world than like a man, considering that, while sexual violence may not be a concern, being robbed, murdered,or tied to an altar to be sacrificed to a demon happens a lot more often to PCs than it does to the average person in the real world. It is very unlikely, at least from the experience of a player character, that someone who uses charm person on them does not have a nefarious plan. React this way to the prospect of it being cast in the future? Sure. Though again, at worst, it makes you unable to attack the guy; it doesn't compell you to even trust that he won't turn on you.

Thor repeatedly treats Loki as a friendly acquaintance, particularly notably in Ragnarok. But note how he doesn't give his friendly acquiantance of an adopted brother a chance to backstab him.



As a very socially awkward woman with zero social skills, I can report that I have had a 100% success rate with asking men I was interested in on dates. Without any spellcasting. Being socially awkward, I wouldn't ever ask out someone I don't know, and people I do know well enough to trust them to want to date ... well, they are already friendly acquaintances. Anecdotal. I know women for whom that is not the case.


I dislike this "but what about the socially awkward!" arguing that is often thrown around when it comes to disregarding other people's free will. Social awkwardness does not justify the use of coercion. In fact, people who would use coercion to get others to spend time with them aren't socially awkward, they are creepy. "Disregarding free will" and "coersion" are both under contention. I dispute that either are happening (With the exception of the inability for the subject to attack the caster.)


Why would Ella even want to date James if he hadn't shown her enough kindness to make it seem likely he'd agree without the use of a spell?Maybe she thinks he's cute, doesn't know anybody around here, is afraid that she might be raped if she's misjudged his character, and doesn't know how to break the ice with somebody she doesn't know. It's noteworthy that, in the case of "Ella is afraid of being raped but doesn't want to let that stop her from ever TRYING," charm person's protections against being attacked are actually a potential motivation for using it all by itself.

Ella never has to fear a blind date turning violent because they can't attack her. If they're gentlemen who would never do so, it never comes up and the effect is never revealed. Well, save for knowing she used the spell when it wears off.



And I certainly cannot imagine it would be tolerated in a romantic situation. Not by women, anyways.I don't think any man who believes it to be what you believe it to be would tolerate it, either.


And anyone who would willingly impersonate a friendly acquaintance (in a situation where there isn't any lack of time) must have something seriously wrong with him - any normal person's course of action would be to just try and become a friendly acquaintance. It is not that difficult - unless of course you just murdered the other person's family or something like that.It's not impersonation. They aren't claiming to be anybody but who they are.

That said, if you can honestly say it's not that hard? You're not as socially awkward as you think you are.

[Themrys]

Ah, but let's say Cain just tells her that he's a millionaire, and that the mansion he's taking her to is his. In reality, the mansion is his brother, Abel's. Cain's just allowed to stay there for hookups, because Abel is a wingman like that.

Here, he's lied to Ella to get her to sleep with him, but I don't think that qualifies as rape by deception anymore. Unless you can point to literally any lie told during the course of pre-coital interactions to qualify as "rape."


That's still attempted rape by deception. He thinks she will only have sex with him if she thinks he's a millionaire.

Now, most women don't make a decision on whether to have sex with a man depending on whether he's a millionaire, so it is not likely she'll sue him, but it is unlikely she'll want to see him again. Because he tried to manipulate her.

And most of your others examples absolutely DO constitute rape, and I find it rather creepy that you do not seem to notice this. The half-orc example? The woman could give birth to a quarter-orc baby. Do you not realize what a horrible crime it is to expose her to that risk?
(Whether or not she is justified in hating orcs doesn't matter. It's her decision to make, regardless of how wrong her motives might be. As it is any woman's decision to make if she wants her potential baby to have baldness genes. As with pretending to be a millionaire, most women probably aren't going to sue a man for pretending to have hair, but the deception is still reprehensible and a reason to not want to see him again.)

The only example that's not somewhat rapey is the one with the flower, and it is rather disturbing you don't see the difference.

Humans aren't flowers. If I love roses, and meet a man who smells of roses, I know he's using perfume. That's not deception. Same with wearing nice clothes - clothes are not part of a person's body, we all know that someone who looks nice in specific clothes might not look nearly as appealing naked. We still appreciate the effort made to give us something nice to look at.

(And the problem with your examples is that the men don't make an effort to do something nice, but make an active attempt at deception. This is sadly a pattern shown by men in real life, too. Men seem to be willing to put MORE effort in deception than in rendering themselves genuinely more attractive. To put it bluntly, there seem to be a lot of men who would buy an expensive deodorant that claims to magically compel women to have sex with them ... but won't make the simple effort of just washing themselves with cheap plain soap.)


Edit: And yes, any lie can potentially constitute rape by deception. Whether or not it is viewed thus by the general population mostly depends on how "big" a lie it is considered by that culture. But let's be honest here, most men know (or think they know) exactly what lies will influence a woman's decision to have sex with them, and how angry she will be when/if the lie is revealed. And if they lie about those things, then that's at least attempted rape by deception and absolutely reprehensible, even if it cannot be persecuted.

[jh12]

I will also assert that charm person wouldn't enable anybody to rape me. I wouldn't have sex with a "friendly acquaintance." I wouldn't have sex with my best friend if we weren't husband and wife.

How wonderful for you. Much less wonderful is your belief that it's okay to rape people who are willing to have sex with friendly acquaintances.


And anything I can think of that a friendly acquaintance could get me to do for them, I wouldn't regret doing for a stranger. I might be annoyed, but it simply wouldn't be bad enough that I'd be so much as ranting about it, let alone call the cops or organize a lynch mob.

Again, it's just what you do while under the influence of the Charm Person spell that matters. It's the fact that you cast a spell intended to be used in combat on them against their will that overrides their will to help you get what you want. That, in and of itself, is highly objectionable.

What other spells should people just disregard if there aren't any horrible consequences?


You're once again presuming the conclusion, here. You're not demonstrating that he can get you to do anything that is against your will. You're asserting that it must be, because you don't have a "choice" whether to like him or not.

No she's not. If Ella is willing to sleep with every friendly acquaintance she has, any time, any where, and you aren't a friendly acquaintance you are just plain out of luck. If you interact with her like a normal person and become a friendly acquaintance, then good for you and have fun. If you use a spell to make her think you are a friendly acquaintance, when you aren't, you're a rapist. Ella has the absolute right to decide that she will sleep with friendly acquaintances and no one else. You don't get to decide that Ella will sleep with friendly acquaintances, plus you.


I assert that you have as little choice with Don Juan as you do with Elam (Ella's twin brother who also uses charm person).

Yes, once again you repeatedly assert something that is demonstrably false as if that will make it true. Can Don Juan do something that makes you not view him as a friendly acquaintance? Why yes, yes he can. Can Elam? Not during that hour where he's controlling her mind.


Save that, at the end of the hour, you can at least put your finger on what you found so Charming about Elam.

You can put the finger on what you found so charming about Don Juan the whole time. That's why you found him charming.


"Disregarding free will" and "coersion" are both under contention. I dispute that either are happening (With the exception of the inability for the subject to attack the caster.)

In other words, yes the spell indisputably disregards free will and coerces the target every time its cast, but that's inconvenient for my argument so I'll just ignore it.


Maybe she thinks he's cute, doesn't know anybody around here, is afraid that she might be raped if she's misjudged his character, and doesn't know how to break the ice with somebody she doesn't know.

Assaulting him probably isn't the way to go. And how is she getting him alone to where she can cast the spell on him without interference?


It's noteworthy that, in the case of "Ella is afraid of being raped but doesn't want to let that stop her from ever TRYING," charm person's protections against being attacked are actually a potential motivation for using it all by itself.

So now it's the mind control aspect of the spell that makes it okay? That's quite the pivot in a single post.


It's not impersonation. They aren't claiming to be anybody but who they are.

Complete and utter garbage. They're not just claiming to be a friendly acquaintance, they're forcing you to believe they are a friendly acquaintance.

[Segev]

That's still attempted rape by deception. He thinks she will only have sex with him if she thinks he's a millionaire.

Now, most women don't make a decision on whether to have sex with a man depending on whether he's a millionaire, so it is not likely she'll sue him, but it is unlikely she'll want to see him again. Because he tried to manipulate her.

And most of your others examples absolutely DO constitute rape, and I find it rather creepy that you do not seem to notice this. The half-orc example? The woman could give birth to a quarter-orc baby. Do you not realize what a horrible crime it is to expose her to that risk?
(Whether or not she is justified in hating orcs doesn't matter. It's her decision to make, regardless of how wrong her motives might be. As it is any woman's decision to make if she wants her potential baby to have baldness genes. As with pretending to be a millionaire, most women probably aren't going to sue a man for pretending to have hair, but the deception is still reprehensible and a reason to not want to see him again.)Okay. Swap the genders. Cassie the half-orc amazon feigns humanity and is ashamed enough of her orc blood that she doesn't bring it up with Elam, even when Elam bad-mouths orcs. Heck, Cassie agrees with him, since she also thinks orcs are horrid. Cassie and Elam spend the night together. Did Cassie rape Elam?


The only example that's not somewhat rapey is the one with the flower, and it is rather disturbing you don't see the difference. I find deception to be a problem in these sorts of situations, yes. I do not think it always rises to the level of rape, and I think "rape" is thrown around too readily. Frankly, I think anybody - partiuclarly men - who sleep with anybody outside of wedlock is an idiot simply because anything can be twisted around to make what was presumed to be totally concentual into an accusation of rape, and there's no defense. But that's neitehr here nor there: I'm quite willing to agree that deception is bad.


Humans aren't flowers. If I love roses, and meet a man who smells of roses, I know he's using perfume. That's not deception. Same with wearing nice clothes - clothes are not part of a person's body, we all know that someone who looks nice in specific clothes might not look nearly as appealing naked. We still appreciate the effort made to give us something nice to look at.

(And the problem with your examples is that the men don't make an effort to do something nice, but make an active attempt at deception. This is sadly a pattern shown by men in real life, too. Men seem to be willing to put MORE effort in deception than in rendering themselves genuinely more attractive. To put it bluntly, there seem to be a lot of men who would buy an expensive deodorant that claims to magically compel women to have sex with them ... but won't make the simple effort of just washing themselves with cheap plain soap.)I was already assuming that Cain did basic hygiene; I'm sorry that your opinion of men in general is so low that you think we don't rise to that basic standard. :smalleek:

Let's say that Abel, unaware that Ella hates bald men, hits on her, and his toupe is well-affixed and he doesn't usually have it fall off. He and she hit it off and go for a hookup together, and it's only in the morning, after the sun streams through the blinds, that she realizes Abel was bald. Did Abel rape her?


Let's say Cain is a very superficial guy, and likes a woman with long hair. Ella is celebrating her cancer finally going into remission, and is out to have a wild night of fun and frolic. She's wearing quite the fetching wig, and despite the ravages of her recent treatments, her hair is the only major impact to her apperance. Especially with the magic of makeup.

Cain would never sleep with a bald chick whose complexion was pale, but the two of them head off to bed and the lights are out before he knows it. Did Ella rape him by deceiving him into thinking she was better-looking than she was with her makeup, and by wearing a wig?


Cain thinks green-eyed redheads are the hottest women ever. Ella dyes her hair red and wears green colored contacts. This combination lets her grab his attention and keep it long enough to hit it off. Has she done something wrong, especially if he's disappointed to find out she's a brown-eyed brunette naturally?

[Themrys]

How wonderful for you. Much less wonderful is your belief that it's okay to rape people who are willing to have sex with friendly acquaintances.


Yeah, that's extremely disturbing.

Rather close to "she wore a short skirt, she deserved to be raped".

It is also so illogical to suggest someone who is not a rapist and actively enjoys rape would magically compel a person to see them as friendly acquaintance so that the person will have sex with them.

Perhaps I am not as socially awkward as I think I am, but I certainly do think I am the most socially awkward female person in any given group, and the most socially awkward person period in any group that isn't about D&D or similar games. And it wouldn't occur to me to use any manipulation on a man who has sex with everything that moves so that he'll have sex with me, because ... well, all I have to do is indicate a potential willingness to have sex, right? Why then do something as risky as using a spell on him that he might be able to resist and get angry about, or that someone else might notice I used, or ... etc.?

[strangebloke]

I feel like the discussion of how skeevy casting charm person on a girl you like is has really pulled away from the broader point. We all agree that it's skeevy, almost certainly going to piss the lady off, and probably illegal.

What's even up for debate? I find that it's eminently comparable to trying to get someone drunk, whatever your goal is. You're seeking to impair their judgement. When they sober up, they'll be pissed with you if they realize what you were doing, but might be more or less pissed depending on why you were doing it.

What did everyone think of the below system?


Based off of the discussion here (which has been great, btw) I would typically regard a person effected by this spell as having their base attitude improved by several increments, and then have those increments reversed when the spell wears off, but doubled.

So if we reduce hostile, friendly, etc. to a numerical scale from -3 to +3, it goes something like this:

George really dislikes Greg (attitude -2). Greg charms him. (attitude +1) they chat for a bit, and Greg improves his attitude by one (+2) George does a thing. Then the spell wears off and his attitude goes down by the amount it went up before, but double. (-6, going down to -3, which is the basement here.)

Jane is Greg's good friend (attitude +2). Greg charms her to prevent her from attacking him while she's under the effects of crown of madness. Her attitude stays at +2. the spell wears off. Nothing happens.

Lisa has never met Greg before. (attitude +0) Greg charms her. (attitude +1) He chats her up, improving her attitude. (attitude +2) The spell wears off. Lisa feels betrayed, but this is countered by the pleasant hour they spent. (attitude +0)

The addendum here is that if you do something to them while charmed that would lower their opinion, you treat it as if they were at that lower opinion when they were first charmed.

So if Lisa gets robbed, she'd retroactively go down to -1 before the charm effect, and then -2 when the effect wears off.

[Kyutaru]

NPC reaction adjustments? Now we're back to the old ways of doing things. Everyone needs a Charisma character to avoid getting put in jail the moment you enter town.

[jh12]

What did everyone think of the below system?

I think you've gone too far justifying the Jane example. Nobody has argued that Charm Person is inappropriate as a substitute for violence. That's the good use of it. But that's not the only reason Greg would cast Charm Person on his friend Jane. What if Greg casts Charm Person on his friend Jane because it makes her more likely to agree to go for sushi instead of steak and he really wants steak? Do you really think Jane would be okay with that just because they were already friends? Or would Jane be horrified that her friend would do something like that to her over something so trivial?

Of course, Charm Person is being used as a substitute for violence in the other situations as well. Lisa doesn't want to talk to Greg? Greg has three basic choices: (1) respect Lisa's wishes and go on his way, (2) cast Charm Person on her so she will think he's a friendly acquaintance and be more receptive to his desires, or (3) physically restrain her while he attempts to convince her that he's not such a bad guy even though he's currently restraining her. Option (2) is a substitute for (3), not (1). If he chooses either (2) or (3), he's not fit to be walking free among other people.

[Kyutaru]

Of course, Charm Person is being used as a substitute for violence in the other situations as well. Lisa doesn't want to talk to Greg? Greg has three basic choices: (1) respect Lisa's wishes and go on his way, (2) cast Charm Person on her so she will think he's a friendly acquaintance and be more receptive to his desires, or (3) physically restrain her while he attempts to convince her that he's not such a bad guy even though he's currently restraining her. Option (2) is a substitute for (3), not (1). If he chooses either (2) or (3), he's not fit to be walking free among other people.

Hmm. Why not? Charm Person used on another to alter their mind to be more amenable to your suggestions is precisely how psychology works. We don't condemn to prison those who psychologically influence others. It's even a profession used for noble purposes (most of the time). But it's also your run of the mill manipulative user controlling his girlfriend with money, affection withdrawal, isolation from family and friends, compulsive lying, threats and intimidation, undue blame, excessive criticism, name-calling and other insults, or constant put-downs and humiliation. While I think we can agree that the jock in high school who abused the self-esteem of girls so he could sleep with them is a piece of garbage, he's fit to be walking free among other people. At least legally speaking.

[Segev]

Given that I at no point suggested "she deserved it because...," I find the suggestion that I did to be indicative that people are not able to discuss this topic on its merits, and instead feel a need to construct a straw man to justify being mad at me for disagreeing with their interpretation of what the spell represents.

The fact that the sex-inverted variants are not being replied to and that accusations that I'm okay with rape are being jumped to suggests this further.

The point I'm making is that charm person can't compel you to do anything (beyond "not attack"). It doesn't make you think the person is your bosom pal. It doesn't make you think you're in love. It doesn't do anything but make you consider them to be a person you're reasonably comfortable being around and would do harmless favors for.

This is why I think people are blowing it out of proportion when they liken it to roofies, getting people drunk, or rape. It can't make people act like those things can. It's just not within the spell's power.

Let me try to make an analogy as to how I'm perceiving this argument.

Tom has a flower bed he planted at the edge of his property, bordering on Bob's. Bob has a weed trimmer he uses on the edge of his lawn, where it butts up against Tom's flowerbed. Bob doesn't want Tom's flowers getting into his lawn, so he's a little over-aggressive about edge-trimming and cuts down some of Tom's flowers.

There is a debate over how angry Tom has a right to be over this. I suggest that he has a right to be a little annoyed, but that as long as the flower bed isn't made hideous, the loss of an inch or so of the flower bed doesn't make anything look bad and the discussion should be calm, neighborly, and Tom should probably accept Bob's apology.

The other side of the debate seems, to me, to be being "disturbed" over how "okay" I am with Bob kidnapping Tom's dog and feeding it slowly through a woodchipper that is aimed at Tom's bay window.

Not only does the scenario not involve anybody killing any dogs, but the weed trimmer doesn't have the power to turn a dog into a bloody smear of mostly-liquid gore running down a bay window.

Similarly, charm person does not have the power to compel people the way that is being suggested. It simply isn't that powerful.

I assert that, for example, it can't be used to rape somebody for the same reason that using soap and water to clean up and wearing nice clothes that happen to be the prospective paramour's favorite color can't be used to rape somebody. For the same reason that any effort to specifically appeal to a desired lover doesn't qualify as "rape." Even if he or she later finds out that you deliberately presented yourself in a more pleasing light specifically tailored to their interests than your day-to-day self would suggest.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's...kinda complicated, thinking about it.

On one hand, it's not illegal to get someone drunk so that they're more agreeable to your suggestions.

On the other hand, it would be illegal to get them drunk without their consent.

------------

We should probably tone down the level of severity in this topic. It's starting to make me consider looking up the forum rules to see if we're still in-bounds on this thread, and that's not a good sign for any thread.

[patchyman]

Ah, but let's say Cain just tells her that he's a millionaire, and that the mansion he's taking her to is his. In reality, the mansion is his brother, Abel's. Cain's just allowed to stay there for hookups, because Abel is a wingman like that.

Here, he's lied to Ella to get her to sleep with him, but I don't think that qualifies as rape by deception anymore. Unless you can point to literally any lie told during the course of pre-coital interactions to qualify as "rape."


Your decision to avoid answering the question asked is noted. Let each poster decide for themselves if you are unwilling to back down or simply trolling.

Once again, in what meaningful manner is using Charm person to have sex with a stranger different from the scenario I described?

[jh12]

Given that I at no point suggested "she deserved it because...,"

Yes you did. You've done it repeatedly. You're doing it again. That's what you are doing every time you say that it's okay to force Ella to have sex with you because she is willing to have sex with other people who are her friendly acquaintances. It doesn't matter that she voluntarily chose to have sex with you while you were forcing her to think of you as her friendly acquaintance because determining who her friendly acquaintances are is also one of the decisions that she is entitled to make. That's what Hail Tempus illustrated so deftly with the Doppelganger example.


The point I'm making is that charm person can't compel you to do anything (beyond "not attack"). It doesn't make you think the person is your bosom pal. It doesn't make you think you're in love. It doesn't do anything but make you consider them to be a person you're reasonably comfortable being around and would do harmless favors for.

And yet another example of you claiming that Charm Person can't do things even while providing examples of it doing those very things. Making them consider you a friendly acquaintance is compelling them to do something. Making them more agreeable to your suggestions is compelling them. Making them do something for you that they would have willingly done for someone else is compelling them.

Edited to add:

Hmm. Why not? Charm Person used on another to alter their mind to be more amenable to your suggestions is precisely how psychology works.

No it isn't. It's closer to psychiatry where medical professionals prescribe drugs that people can choose to take to alter their mood and behavior. Except it does away with the whole medical professional and voluntary decision to take the medication. Instead you just walk around injecting people with mood-altering drugs.

[Imbalance]

It's...kinda complicated, thinking about it.

On one hand, it's not illegal to get someone drunk so that they're more agreeable to your suggestions.

On the other hand, it would be illegal to get them drunk without their consent.

------------

We should probably tone down the level of severity in this topic. It's starting to make me consider looking up the forum rules to see if we're still in-bounds on this thread, and that's not a good sign for any thread.

M_O_G gets it.

[sophontteks]

Charm person compelling a person to do something is directly represented by giving the caster advantage on all charisma-based checks. There are other ways to compel someone to do something which are less invasive, but Charm person is definitely compelling people to follow your wishes.

[Kyutaru]

No it isn't. It's closer to psychiatry where medical professionals prescribe drugs that people can choose to take to alter their mood and behavior. Except it does away with the whole medical professional and voluntary decision to take the medication. Instead you just walk around injecting people with mood-altering drugs.

Balderdash. It does not act as a psychedelic or loosen their inhibitions. No mind-altering effects are present and professionals are often forced to give people medication that relieves them of their good sense. This does not do any of that. It alters a person's PERCEPTIONS of you. Their mood hasn't changed at all, they merely view you as a friend. They may still be the same depressive user they are to all their friends. Behavior may be changed but not through conditioning. They are choosing of their own free will how to respond to you with the simple adjustment that you are now someone they don't hate.

[LibraryOgre]

Balderdash. It does not act as a psychedelic or loosen their inhibitions. No mind-altering effects are present and professionals are often forced to give people medication that relieves them of their good sense. This does not do any of that. It alters a person's PERCEPTIONS of you. Their mood hasn't changed at all, they merely view you as a friend. They may still be the same depressive user they are to all their friends. Behavior may be changed but not through conditioning. They are choosing of their own free will how to respond to you with the simple adjustment that you are now someone they don't hate.

Then it's not really their free will, is it? I mean, how you regard someone is the keystone of social interaction... your choices are going to be directly impacted by how you regard someone. Changing that fundamental nature... altering their mood as it applies to you... is the essence of altering someone's free will and choices.

"You can make any choices you like... but not ones that will let you harm me, or think badly of me in any way."

[jh12]

Balderdash. It does not act as a psychedelic or loosen their inhibitions. No mind-altering effects are present and professionals are often forced to give people medication that relieves them of their good sense. This does not do any of that. It alters a person's PERCEPTIONS of you.

Which is a mind-altering effect. Taking psychedelics doesn't alter the world around you. It alters your PERCEPTIONS of the world.


Their mood hasn't changed at all, they merely view you as a friend.

Which is a mind-altering effect. And likely loosens their inhibitions, or at least alters them, because many people act differently around friendly acquaintances than they do around strangers. And almost everyone acts differently around friendly acquaintances than they do around people they hate.

Plus, Charm Person makes you more susceptible to the caster's suggestions, which seems like a textbook example of loosening inhibitions.


They may still be the same depressive user they are to all their friends. Behavior may be changed but not through conditioning. They are choosing of their own free will how to respond to you with the simple adjustment that you are now someone they don't hate.

In other words, they are not choosing of their own free will because being able to determine who you like and don't like is an important part of free will. And that's not all the spell does. Leaving aside the Dastardly example, if Count Rugen cast Charm Person on Inigo Montoya and asked him to go get a drink, would you really say that Inigo Montoya refrained from stabbing him and got a drink with him instead out of his own free will?

I've asked these two simple questions multiple times, and never even gotten an attempt at a response. So I will ask them again.
1. What gives the caster the right to cast any spell on an unwilling target?
2. What gives the caster the right to determine that the target should view the caster as a friendly acquaintance for an hour?

[Imbalance]

I've asked these two simple questions multiple times, and never even gotten an attempt at a response. So I will ask them again.
1. What gives the caster the right to cast any spell on an unwilling target?
2. What gives the caster the right to determine that the target should view the caster as a friendly acquaintance for an hour?

Precisely nothing. No matter how anyone wants to slice the moral implications of what could happen after the fact, the very casting of the spell is a violation of the right to free will, and it's first effect is an unwilling decision.

[Mad_Saulot]

If I lived in a world where monsters roam and everyone carries a sword and someone came up and charmed me, I would kill them. The context is irrelevant it is a violation of my free will and there's no way I would stand for that. It is tantamount to Rape.

[Constructman]

If I lived in a world where monsters roam and everyone carries a sword and someone came up and charmed me, I would kill them. The context is irrelevant it is a violation of my free will and there's no way I would stand for that. It is tantamount to Rape.

And then the city watch arrest you for second degree murder while complaining to thesmelves that a simple fraud and abuse of arcana case spiraled out of control.

The spell does what it says it does. Nothing more, nothing less. If it doesn't change a creature's condition to Hostile, it doesn't change a creature's condition to Hostile.

[Mad_Saulot]

And then the city watch arrest you for second degree murder while complaining to thesmelves that a simple fraud and abuse of arcana case spiraled out of control.

The spell does what it says it does. Nothing more, nothing less. If it doesn't change a creature's condition to Hostile, it doesn't change a creature's condition to Hostile.

Casting any spell on me without my consent would make me hostile to you. Sure if theres a city watch I'd use the authorities to get back at the enchanter, if they refused I would follow them out of city limits and murderise them, in most D&D settings the world is a frontier that lacks universal laws so any spellcaster that ****s with me better kill me before the spell wears off or murder will come and I will be righteous.

[Kyutaru]

Casting any spell on me without my consent would make me hostile to you. Sure if theres a city watch I'd use the authorities to get back at the enchanter, if they refused I would follow them out of city limits and murderise them, in most D&D settings the world is a frontier that lacks universal laws so any spellcaster that ****s with me better kill me before the spell wears off or murder will come and I will be righteous.

God help anyone who swindles you.

[Themrys]

If I lived in a world where monsters roam and everyone carries a sword and someone came up and charmed me, I would kill them. The context is irrelevant it is a violation of my free will and there's no way I would stand for that. It is tantamount to Rape.

It's not tantamount to rape. It's tantamount to putting a drug in your drink. It's an action that can be reasonably assumed to be done with the intent to rape later on, but is not in itself the same as rape.

Inside a city, no one would care about the difference, you'd call the city watch in any case. Out in the wilderness, well, anyone stupid enough to do something that's likely to make others suspect them of having sinister intentions runs the risk of getting killed. A lawful good character would draw their sword and demand a very good explanation, but more neutrally inclined characters ... well, it doesn't usually pay to hesitate too long about killing a probably hostile person in a world full of monsters.

[Mad_Saulot]

God help anyone who swindles you.

No one swindles me, they know what would happen.


But aye if you are the forgiving type then you might not consider it rape, thats your thing fair enough. I would and I would kill to vindicate myself.

This reminds me of critical role where Scanlen the gnome throws charms around like candy, their DM lets him cast these spells as if they were unnoticed, in my games unless you are an arcane trickster or a sorceror then you cant hide the casting of a spell, I always use the rule that spell casting always reveals your position, no spell is subtle unless you have the feat, so if I saw someone near me casting a spell it should initiate an initiative roill as I would attempt to interupt the casting.

My players are quite sensible compared to most and generally dont go around throwing spells around inside a city (I guess I lucked out with these guys) but watching critical role and reading other DMs experiences with silly players I dont know how you handle it without constantly either giving in and making magic essentially legal, or making all magic illegal in public and being forced to send the watch after silly players constanty.

Charm has always been a divisive spell and the arguments surrounding it wouldnt fit into a warehouse.

The description of the spell is vague enough to be misinterpreted enmasse, I suspect the Devs kept the spellon purpose just to mess with us, they probably should have removed it from the spell lists like various other easily OP spells.

Charm takes an opponent out of the fight (if cast in combat), its a level 1 spell, thats OP.

and can be easily abused outside of combat, I would be seriously tempted to remove it completely if it ever became a prolem at my table.

Otherwise I play it as written, that the subject of the spell becomes subservient to you and will follow your orders short of doing direct harm to themselves or their loved ones.

[hamishspence]

I play it as written, that the subject of the spell becomes subservient to you and will follow your orders short of doing direct harm to themselves or their loved ones.

"follows your orders" was the case in 1e.

Later editions, however, didn't say anything quite that controlling. 5e's "friendly acquaintance" is probably the least able to to be ordered around of all the versions of People Affected By Charm Person through the editions.

[Mad_Saulot]

"follows your orders" was the case in 1e.

Later editions, however, didn't say anything quite that controlling. 5e's "friendly acquaintance" is probably the least able to to be ordered around of all the versions of People Affected By Charm Person through the editions.

Aye and "friendly acquaintance" is suibjective as ****, whats that even mean? What is the definition of "friendly acquaintance" it is not universal, one culture will put more emphasis on what it means to be a "Friend" than another....I guess since D&D is american we must use their cultural definitions as a guide? In some cultures "friends" will eagerly bleed for each other..

[hamishspence]

"Acquaintance" is the important bit. Combined with "friendly", it means "someone you know, but not very well, not as well as a proper friend.

For comparison, the 3.5 version of the spell says "trusted friend and ally" - significantly better.

[Mad_Saulot]

Its confusing as ****

[hamishspence]

This blog entry:

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2012/12/spells-through-ages-charm-person.html

discussed how the spell has changed from edition to edition.

[Mad_Saulot]

"Acquaintance" is the important bit. Combined with "friendly", it means "someone you know, but not very well, not as well as a proper friend.

For comparison, the 3.5 version of the spell says "trusted friend and ally" - significantly better.

OK I know a fair number of people irl, many of them you could describe as "friendly" but if they were on the wrong side in a fight/war I'd still stab them to death. Only my proper "friends" have my protection.

[Hail Tempus]

Its confusing as **** I don’t see why. I’d expect that if you thought about it, there are plenty of people in your life who are less than friends, but more than just someone who you have a passing acquaintance with. People from work, the spouses of friends, other parents you know from your kid’s school. These aren’t bosom buddies, but they’re people who you would typically give the benefit of the doubt to.

That being said, the “friendly acquaintance” is rarely going to go out on a limb for you.

[tieren]

I'm curious how people think the charm person spell compares to the glibness spell, it makes you do better on charisma checks too, if you are magically more charismatic and better able to persuade is that amoral?

What if it was enhance ability?

[Elysiume]

It would largely depend on what you're persuading them to do. Snake oil salesmen, shady used car dealers, and skeevy pickup artists may not use magic to achieve their ends, but they're pretty largely considered to be dirtbags. Rape by deception was mentioned upthread and is a real-life crime that involves no use of force, no use of mind-altering drugs or magic, just the ability to deceive someone and therefore persuade them to do something they don't want to do. Selling someone a used car that you know will die fifty miles off the lot is fraud, making false claims about the efficacy of drugs is likewise criminal. Being more charismatic, persuasive, etc. isn't inherently a bad thing, it's entirely what you do with it.

Charm Person could be used for positive ends, much like Glibness could. You could, with either Glibness or Charm Person, sit down next to a stranger and try to convince them that their excessive gambling is hurting them, their family, their friends, and they should really seek help. With Charm Person, at the end of it, they're going to think "wait, who the hell was that guy and why did I let him talk to me about my life" and with Glibness they're going to think "that guy really had a point." In one case you messed with their mind (frankly I'd consider casting a spell on any targets who didn't explicitly request/allow it to be a hostile action unless it can be proven to be totally benign like mass CLW on an unundead crowd) and violated their autonomy, in the other case you smoothed over the cracks in your personality and speech to lend greater credence to your words.

[jh12]

I'm curious how people think the charm person spell compares to the glibness spell, it makes you do better on charisma checks too, if you are magically more charismatic and better able to persuade is that amoral?

Glibness doesn't raise all of the same concerns as Charm Person. The caster casts it on himself, unlike Charm Person which is cast on an unwilling person. The spell itself doesn't force anyone to do anything, unlike Charm Person which does force the person to view you in a particular way, does force the person to be more receptive to the caster's desires, and does prevent the victim from attacking you no matter how much they know they should.

It's the difference between taking a shot for courage before you go up to the pretty girl because you're more charming when you loosen up and slipping something in her drink to make her more receptive. The end result might be the same, but the means matter.


In one case you messed with their mind (frankly I'd consider casting a spell on any targets who didn't explicitly request/allow it to be a hostile action unless it can be proven to be totally benign like mass CLW on an unundead crowd) and violated their autonomy, in the other case you smoothed over the cracks in your personality and speech to lend greater credence to your words.

Exactly.

[Kyutaru]

I wonder what people feel about the Suggestion spell then.

Charm Person may as well be renamed to Inflict Psychology.

[pragma]

Tiny Carl Jung casts "Tell me about your mother" -- http://dresdencodak.com/2009/01/27/advanced-dungeons-and-discourse/

Suggestion is mind influencing in the same way as charm person. The fact it doesn't have as many out of combat uses seems like a clear example of how mind control is a hostile and often reprehensible act.

[jh12]

I wonder what people feel about the Suggestion spell then.

Suggestion is a mind control spell that should only be used as a substitute for violence.

Are you suggesting that a person that used Suggestion to get someone to have sex with him wouldn't be a rapist?


Charm Person may as well be renamed to Inflict Psychology.

It's not about what the spell is named. It's about what the spell does.

I've asked these two simple questions multiple times, and never even gotten an attempt at a response from anyone who thinks that Charm Person is an acceptable spell. So I will ask them to you, again.

1. What gives the caster the right to cast any spell on an unwilling target?
2. What gives the caster the right to determine that the target should view the caster as a friendly acquaintance for an hour?

[Kyutaru]

1. What gives the caster the right to cast any spell on an unwilling target?
2. What gives the caster the right to determine that the target should view the caster as a friendly acquaintance for an hour?
1) The morals of medieval society, where even having a knight come and take your wife was a "blessing". Or put simply, having the power to do so gives itself inherent rights to its use. Just as a conqueror who claims a land now has authority over its subjects just because he took it.
2) His education level and competence at the magic he practices. Lawyers can choose to support innocent people or criminals. They have to right to decide which. What gives a bouncer the right to eject an unruly bar patron? His muscles.

[Themrys]

1) The morals of medieval society, where even having a knight come and take your wife was a "blessing". Or put simply, having the power to do so gives itself inherent rights to its use. Just as a conqueror who claims a land now has authority over its subjects just because he took it.
2) His education level and competence at the magic he practices. Lawyers can choose to support innocent people or criminals. They have to right to decide which. What gives a bouncer the right to eject an unruly bar patron? His muscles.

I think jh12 means ethical rights, not legal rights or the "morals of medieval society", the latter being an extremely dubious justification in, you know, a fantasy world.

Besides, we are talking about the reaction of the victim after the spell's effect ceases. In a society where strength is the only thing that counts, well, the person who cast that spell can pretty much count on being killed immediately the moment the spell isn't in effect anymore. Because, you know, the guy with the big sword just CAN.

I mean, the paladin I play at the moment would draw his sword, but ask questions first ... but with the justification you give? "I am stronger, that gives me the right to violate everyone else"? My character is pretty much in favour of redemption, but might deem your hypothetic, very unrepentant spellcaster so dangerous (and, frankly, evil) he'd still kill him.

[LibraryOgre]

"follows your orders" was the case in 1e.

Later editions, however, didn't say anything quite that controlling. 5e's "friendly acquaintance" is probably the least able to to be ordered around of all the versions of People Affected By Charm Person through the editions.

One thing I do like about 5e Charm is the precise definition of what being charmed means... you cannot attack the person, and they get Advantage on Charisma checks against you. It's still coercive, but it clearly defines WHAT it does and WHAT it means.

[jh12]

1) The morals of medieval society, where even having a knight come and take your wife was a "blessing". Or put simply, having the power to do so gives itself inherent rights to its use. Just as a conqueror who claims a land now has authority over its subjects just because he took it.

I'm not sure how I would have tried to justify casting Charm Person or any other spell on an unwilling victim, but likening it to medieval nobles raping the peasants certainly isn't the way I would have gone. Now let's think about the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system. What kind of characters think that might makes right and they can do whatever they want without regard for how it harms others? Certainly not the good ones.

And if might makes right, why do you care that anyone would be offended by Charm Person and try to kill you? As Themrys has already pointed out, the response to Charm Person would be governed by exactly the same rules. If they are strong enough to do it, they deserve to do it, right? There's no need for laws, just nature, red in tooth and claw. Heck, in that situation people wouldn't even have to wait for wizards to abuse their powers--just the potential would be enough to justify a pogrom of wizards.


2) His education level and competence at the magic he practices.

How does his education level and competence at the magic he practices give him the right to decide who I should be friendly acquaintances with? If anything, all that studying has stunted his level of level of social development, making him absolutely the last person who should be making decisions about who I should be friends with.


Lawyers can choose to support innocent people or criminals. They have to right to decide which.

You realize that in any case where the lawyer decides whether he is representing guilty or innocent people, a private criminal defense attorney, the clients get to pick the lawyers too, right? The lawyer doesn't just walk up to a client and say, "I'm defending you."

And while I couldn't do it, defense attorneys who represent people they believe to be guilty are still fulfilling a vital role in the justice system. Casting Charm Person to make someone like you isn't fulfilling any vital role at all.


What gives a bouncer the right to eject an unruly bar patron? His muscles.

This is 100% unambiguously incorrect. His muscles might allow him to eject an unruly bar patron, but they don't give him the right. What gives him the right to eject unruly patrons is property right of the bar's owner.



And I'm morbidly curious to hear what you think about the Suggestion spell.

[Kyutaru]

I think jh12 means ethical rights, not legal rights or the "morals of medieval society", the latter being an extremely dubious justification in, you know, a fantasy world.

Besides, we are talking about the reaction of the victim after the spell's effect ceases. In a society where strength is the only thing that counts, well, the person who cast that spell can pretty much count on being killed immediately the moment the spell isn't in effect anymore. Because, you know, the guy with the big sword just CAN.

I mean, the paladin I play at the moment would draw his sword, but ask questions first ... but with the justification you give? "I am stronger, that gives me the right to violate everyone else"? My character is pretty much in favour of redemption, but might deem your hypothetic, very unrepentant spellcaster so dangerous (and, frankly, evil) he'd still kill him.

I was focused on the legal rights as the person addressed the righteous fury of slaying such a caster for the mere wrongs he had committed. Read earlier too on how the dredges of society who are manipulative as all hell still do not end up in prison because being an ******* is not a crime.

But if your paladin feels the need to strike down someone he thinks is scum, that's basically Paladin 101 and textbook zealotry. That happens more often than you might think, even in campaigns. You think they give the bad guy a chance to monologue or surrender? Heck no, Smite Evil.

[Kyutaru]

One thing I do like about 5e Charm is the precise definition of what being charmed means... you cannot attack the person, and they get Advantage on Charisma checks against you. It's still coercive, but it clearly defines WHAT it does and WHAT it means.

Sounds exactly like having a crush on the hot girl at school.

[Kyutaru]

I'm not sure how I would have tried to justify casting Charm Person or any other spell on an unwilling victim, but likening it to medieval nobles raping the peasants certainly isn't the way I would have gone. Now let's think about the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system. What kind of characters think that might makes right and they can do whatever they want without regard for how it harms others? Certainly not the good ones.

And if might makes right, why do you care that anyone would be offended by Charm Person and try to kill you? As Themrys has already pointed out, the response to Charm Person would be governed by exactly the same rules. If they are strong enough to do it, they deserve to do it, right? There's no need for laws, just nature, red in tooth and claw. Heck, in that situation people wouldn't even have to wait for wizards to abuse their powers--just the potential would be enough to justify a pogrom of wizards.The potential for wizards to abuse their power is already a thing in some campaign settings where they are controlled and magic is regulated. Even within the same setting, people have different concepts of right and wrong, legal and immoral. If they feel violated and are strong enough to seek revenge, welcome to medieval society. Just don't kill anyone important or you'll end up in jail.




How does his education level and competence at the magic he practices give him the right to decide who I should be friendly acquaintances with? If anything, all that studying has stunted his level of level of social development, making him absolutely the last person who should be making decisions about who I should be friends with.
The same way a doctor's education level gives him the right to decide treatments for patients, even should they be mind-altering or potentially lethal. Granted he has to pass a medical exam and gain a license, but what exactly do you think people do in wizard college? There are even settings where not having a license to practice magic makes it banned.


You realize that in any case where the lawyer decides whether he is representing guilty or innocent people, a private criminal defense attorney, the clients get to pick the lawyers too, right? The lawyer doesn't just walk up to a client and say, "I'm defending you."

And while I couldn't do it, defense attorneys who represent people they believe to be guilty are still fulfilling a vital role in the justice system. Casting Charm Person to make someone like you isn't fulfilling any vital role at all.
This was part of the same point as the wizard for a reason. Lawyers receive the same education and granted rights associated with it as a wizard might. While a lawyer is chosen, he is also sometimes appointed. He can also take matters into his own hands when the person is deemed incompetent. His ability to choose between good and evil pertains to his knowledge of the law and how it's far from black and white. Casting Charm Person may not fulfill a societal role but how is helping a witnessed murderer escape justice doing that? Seems more like anti-societal aid yet permission exists for it.


This is 100% unambiguously incorrect. His muscles might allow him to eject an unruly bar patron, but they don't give him the right. What gives him the right to eject unruly patrons is property right of the bar's owner.
If he's hired, he requires might. Without might, he has no right to attempt to dispose of unruly patrons. Even when not hired, there have been many incidents at bars where I or another person has had to step in and throw out the unruly patron or subdue someone causing a scene. Was a hired by the bartender for this? No, my muscles and propensity for meeting out justice say it all. If anyone disagrees, feel free to throw me out too. If you can.


And I'm morbidly curious to hear what you think about the Suggestion spell.
Per the Suggestion spell:

The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell.

If the suggestion is reasonable to the person being suggested, it obeys. If it is not, or harms itself in any way, it does not. In what universe would this spell allow anyone to rape someone unless the idea of intercourse with the caster was already a reasonable suggestion to them? It falls under obviously harmful acts otherwise.

[sophontteks]

In Waterdeep using mind-altering spells on anyone, noble or not, is a crime punishable with up to a 1k gold fine for the first offense, and hard time for repeat offenses.

[Grek]

In 5e, Charm Person applies the charmed condition, which does exactly two things:
Stops them from attacking you unless you or your companion does something harmful first.
Gives you advantage on Charisma checks to interact with them socially.

The first one seems perfectly civic-minded and acceptable to me - if everyone had access to that sort of effect, there would be a lot less muggings and random stabbings going around. I see no reason to get upset over that aspect of the spell. The second one only comes up if you attempt to socially interact with them. If you're intimidating someone (and the fact that they aren't allowed to hurt you hasn't already resolved the situation) you're probably in the wrong. If you're tying to deceive someone, you're almost definitely in the wrong. But just trying to persuade someone isn't inherently bad, and the bonus from Charm Person does not seem to be any more potent or violating than causing someone to regard you as a friendly acquaintance via more traditional methods, like sharing a meal together, being especially fashionable or, most saliently, having the party bard walk you though what you should and should not say (AKA use Aid Another) ahead of time.

5e Charm Person is, IMO, no more morally fraught than basic job interview prep.

[Constructman]

In Waterdeep using mind-altering spells on anyone, noble or not, is a crime punishable with up to a 1k gold fine for the first offense, and hard time for repeat offenses.

Is this from Dragon Heist? Or from an earlier book on Waterdeep?

[Constructman]

Also:

Enthralling Performance

Starting at 3rd level, you can charge your performance with seductive, fey magic.

If you perform for at least 1 minute, you can attempt to inspire wonder in your audience by singing, reciting a poem, or dancing. At the end of the performance, choose a number of humanoids within 60 feet of you who watched and listened to all of it, up to a number equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum of one). Each target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw against your spell save DC or be charmed by you. While charmed in this way, the target idolizes you, it speaks glowingly of you to anyone who talks to it, and it hinders anyone who opposes you, although it avoids violence unless it was already inclined to fight on your behalf. This effect ends on a target after 1 hour, if it takes any damage, if you attack it, or if it witnesses you attacking or damaging any of its allies.

If a target succeeds on its saving throw, the target has no hint that you tried to charm it.

Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a short or long rest.

I'm now imagining a rookie Glamour Bard who didn't quite grasp how his class features worked at the courthouse or at the fantasy DMV furiously arguing with the clerk trying to weasel his way out of the fine while surrounded by a horde of fangirls.

[JackPhoenix]

Is this from Dragon Heist? Or from an earlier book on Waterdeep?

W:DH. I've already mentioned about 5 or 6 pages ago.

[sophontteks]

Is this from Dragon Heist? Or from an earlier book on Waterdeep?
Should be from heist. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

W:DH. I've already mentioned about 5 or 6 pages ago.
I was really surprised it wasn't mentioned yet. Guess I missed it, sorry.

[jh12]

The same way a doctor's education level gives him the right to decide treatments for patients, even should they be mind-altering or potentially lethal. Granted he has to pass a medical exam and gain a license, but what exactly do you think people do in wizard college? There are even settings where not having a license to practice magic makes it banned.

"I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous." That was written some 2,500 years ago and doctors today are still making oaths based on that writing. Outside of an emergency situation, if a doctor does something to a patient without the informed consent of the patient the doctor has violated the patient's rights. Patients can refuse treatments. Patients can get second opinions. Doctors have been charged criminally, and sued civilly, for acting on patients without the patient's consent. Some have even been executed for war crimes. Because a medical license doesn't give you license to ignore the will of your patients.

If wizard college isn't teaching its wizards that they aren't allowed to cast spells on unwilling people in social situations, their students aren't getting their money's worth.


This was part of the same point as the wizard for a reason. Lawyers receive the same education and granted rights associated with it as a wizard might.

Lawyers already have a bad enough reputation as it is. They don't need you making them seem worse.

Lawyers have only one more right than any other person walking down the street, and it's a pretty minor right. That right, the only right they have that sets them apart from anyone else, is the right to practice law as a profession. It's really not much of a right, certainly not one that gives them power over anyone else.

Of course, many lawyers get their educations so they can protect people for the kind of predators that would cast spells on unwilling victims, especially spells that affect the mind so you might want to try a different profession. Now that I think about it, pretty much every profession depends on the consent of their customers. Except maybe the police, but do you really want to try to make that comparison?


While a lawyer is chosen, he is also sometimes appointed.

Even when a lawyer is appointed, the client can generally still refuse. Because consent matters. A client can decide that he would rather represent himself than be represented by a lawyer he doesn't trust or respect.


He can also take matters into his own hands when the person is deemed incompetent.

This is the only situation where a client can't refuse representation. But the lawyer absolutely cannot cannot take matters into his own hands and do whatever her wants. A lawyer who is appointed by the court to represent a person who has been deemed incompetent following a legal proceeding has a fiduciary duty to act in that person's best interests. If he puts his interests above the incompetent client's he will be facing legal and professional repercussions. Can you say the same about a person who casts the Charm Person spell? Whose interests are they acting in?

Besides, what does a lawyer representing an incompetent person have to do with a wizard casting a spell on a fully competent individual? If you've been assuming the victim is incompetent the whole time, this all got a lot darker.


His ability to choose between good and evil pertains to his knowledge of the law and how it's far from black and white.

No, his ability to choose between good and evil started well before he went to law school and law school didn't contribute much to it. You can't make it out of high school without being able to choose between good and evil. You can't even make it out of elementary school without being able to chose between good and evil. And very little of law school is about good and evil. It's mostly about contracts, and torts, and corporations, and civil procedure, and things like that.


Casting Charm Person may not fulfill a societal role but how is helping a witnessed murderer escape justice doing that? Seems more like anti-societal aid yet permission exists for it.

Because the best way to ensure that innocent people are not convicted while still having a functioning criminal justice system is to have an adversarial legal system where the government has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while the accused is able to vigorously contest the charges. The theory has been pretty well understood at least since William Blackstone said that it was better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man, and that was over 200 years ago.


If he's hired, he requires might. Without might, he has no right to attempt to dispose of unruly patrons. Even when not hired, there have been many incidents at bars where I or another person has had to step in and throw out the unruly patron or subdue someone causing a scene. Was a hired by the bartender for this? No, my muscles and propensity for meeting out justice say it all. If anyone disagrees, feel free to throw me out too. If you can.

He might require might to throw you out, but he doesn't need might to have the right to throw you out. Try throwing out someone the bar owner doesn't want thrown out sometime and see how well your theory works for you (actually don't, because you will likely find yourself arrested for assault and battery). And if the bar owner wants you to leave, but you refuse, the bar owner can have you arrested for trespassing. Even if you are a big manly man and she's just a little tiny wisp of a thing.

Because might has never meant right, and certainly not in any civilized society. Right, and the power to enforce that right, are two very different things. The measure of the justice of a society is the difference between the two. What you advocate is an unjust society, where rights go unenforced and are trampled upon for a want of power.

And again, if this whole, might makes right is really how you feel, why are you complaining about people wanting to kill people who cast Charm Person on unwilling victims? If they're strong enough to kill the caster, you should be celebrating their achievement because they've proven that they were right.


Per the Suggestion spell:

The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable. Asking the creature to stab itself, throw itself onto a spear, immolate itself, or do some other obviously harmful act ends the spell.

If the suggestion is reasonable to the person being suggested, it obeys. If it is not, or harms itself in any way, it does not. In what universe would this spell allow anyone to rape someone unless the idea of intercourse with the caster was already a reasonable suggestion to them? It falls under obviously harmful acts otherwise.

That's not what the spell says. It says it has to sound reasonable, not that it has to be reasonable. Let's look at one of the examples the spell description provides. "For example, you might suggest that a knight give her horse to the first beggar she meets." Is that something that would have sounded reasonable to the knight outside of the spell? Of course not. It just has to sound reasonable, not be reasonable, and it only has to sound reasonable to someone under the influence of a magical spell. I'm pretty sure that for most knights, "have sex with me" sounds a whole lot more reasonable than "give your horse to the first beggar you meet."

[Marcelinari]

In many D&D settings, the concept of inviolable sovereignty of self, free will, or individual rights is not nearly so strong as in the real world, Consequently, the ramifications for influencing a person’s mind or decision making process would not be met by the same vitriol that is being displayed in this thread, in my opinion.

Charm Person has been compared to many real-world things, and I’m not going to muddy the waters by attempting my own comparison. Suffice it to say that in a world with active gods, innate magic users, and adventurer’s abound, it would not be beyond belief for common folk to know that their thoughts and actions may be manipulated by outside forces, even benevolent ones. It is possible, even probable, however, that the average man-on-the-street will still consider a Charm effect to be a violation.

Even so, I do not believe that the usual response to such a spell would be a lynch-mob, or legal action like many posters here are asserting. Instead, the common folk would spread the word amongst themselves that the caster in question is a mind-mage, or an enchanter, or in general simply someone not to be trusted. Commoners would be reluctant to talk with and do business with the Charmer, people would refuse to look them in the eye or be alone in a room with them. A directly affected party, if feeling particularly courageous and indignant about the charm they were put under, might slap the Charmer if they saw them again.

The usual reaction of a community against a powerful individual who has abused that power is not burning at the stake - it is ostracization.

This of course covers the use-cases in which a commoner is asked to do something relatively innocuous, legal, and only mildly objectionable under the best of circumstances. If a charmed person is asked to do something illegal (dubious as to whether this falls under ‘friendly acquaintance’ territory), or asked to overlook something illegal, or asked to provide access to otherwise off-limits or restricted areas or information, then the charmed person would probably inform the local authorities of the infraction, as well as the surrounding circumstances. The illegal actions or restricted access may then be punished as expected.

Additionally, using the spell against a protected category, such as nobles, priests, or government officials, may result in much harsher, more direct consequences. The subversion of these protected classes often represents an attack on the integrity of the institutions of the community, as well as them being the most powerful members of the community. The allegations from these individuals are likely to be taken very seriously, and may result in the harshest penalties the community is capable of levying against the Charmer (if a PC, often complete non-access to the goods and services available in town).

The power disparity between the charmed and the Charmer is a key component here. D&D fantasy societies often do not have the same rights and protections against mind-influencing effects as we do in the real world, and frequently lack the power to enforce their autonomy against transgressors. Additionally, D&D fantasy society is stratified in a much more explicit way than in real life, with clear distinctions between the rights and protects of the upper classes and the lower classes. What may be considered a crime against a noble is simply a courtesy amongst the lower classes - what is punishable by death if inflicted upon a priest is merely impolite is done to a tanner. The response to these infractions will consider the relative powers of the charmed and the Charmer, and will almost certainly not immediately leap to ‘grab your torch and pitchfork’.

[LibraryOgre]

The same way a doctor's education level gives him the right to decide treatments for patients, even should they be mind-altering or potentially lethal. Granted he has to pass a medical exam and gain a license, but what exactly do you think people do in wizard college? There are even settings where not having a license to practice magic makes it banned.


A doctor, however, can only apply those treatments in certain circumstances.

1) With your permission.
2) In an emergency situation.
3) When you have been declared incapable of making your own decisions.

So, while one can argue that Charm Person is moral when using it to stop someone from attacking you (i.e. condition 2), any other situation is going to be difficult to say "Well, DOCTORS learn things, and MAGES learn things, so they're similar."

[patchyman]

Even when a lawyer is appointed, the client can generally still refuse. Because consent matters. A client can decide that he would rather represent himself than be represented by a lawyer he doesn't trust or respect.
"

What jh12 wrote is absolutely right. McCoy v Louisiana, 2018. Supreme Court case. Guy gets arrested. There is overwhelming evidence against him. He is looking at the death penalty. The guy claims a frankly bizarre and ridiculous wide spread conspiracy against him.

His lawyer, against the client’s wishes, concedes that his client killed the victims. It is not seriously contested that this is the most likely chance for the client to avoid the death penalty.

The Supreme Court confirms that the lawyer was acting unconstitutionally: he cannot concede his client’s guilt if the client maintains his innocence.

[patchyman]

What may be considered a crime against a noble is simply a courtesy amongst the lower classes - what is punishable by death if inflicted upon a priest is merely impolite is done to a tanner. The response to these infractions will consider the relative powers of the charmed and the Charmer, and will almost certainly not immediately leap to ‘grab your torch and pitchfork’.

*Everything* depends on circumstances, nobody is disputing that, and power discrepancy between victim and agressor is always going to be a circumstance.

However, your same reasoning could be applied to any crime, even murder. In many societies if a noble murdered a member of the rabble it was not considered a big deal, and the family of the victim might not seek redress if they thought it would cause more trouble than good.

However, adventurers are traditionally outsiders, who are already viewed with suspicion. And casting Charm person doesn’t mean that the wizard can incinerate the whole village, plus even wizards need to sleep.

The level of magic in the setting and people’s understanding of it is also a factor. If magic is rare and wondrous, people might assume that someone who casts Charm person can call on substantially greater power, although they might also conclude that because they don’t understand it, they should attempt to destroy the caster just to be safe.

[Themrys]

So, while one can argue that Charm Person is moral when using it to stop someone from attacking you (i.e. condition 2), any other situation is going to be difficult to say "Well, DOCTORS learn things, and MAGES learn things, so they're similar."

Fighters, too, learn things. Doesn't mean they are allowed to threaten anyone with a sword to force them to treat them as friendly acquaintance.

For all I know, mage academy doesn't have lectures on ethics.

The paladin character class is one of the few where it can be reasonably assumed they did learn something about ethics, but strangely enough, paladins waving their weapons around to force their own will on other people seems to be considered bad roleplaying.

Why is a mage allowed to charm person the barmaid so she'll have sex with him, but the paladin isn't allowed to threaten her with physical violence to get the same outcome? I mean, the paladin is a moral authority, right?

@patchyman: Exactly, the average adventurer is more likely to be, himself, on one of the lowest steps of the social ladder. Which nullifies all advantages gained from the victim not being a particularly important person. A nobleman might get away with violating the free will of a beggar, a beggar who violates the free will of another beggar is not so likely to get away with it.

[Potato_Priest]

Why do y’all assume adventurers to be at the bottom of the social ladder?

Adventurers are, irrespective of other things, powerful. Powerful people tend to travel in the same circles as other powerful people, because that’s where they can make things happen and get stuff done. Whether a person’s power comes from their great coffers of gold, their skill with a weapon, or their degree from a magical University (in a system where merely getting a higher education at all is indicative of enormous privilege) makes little difference: they are all powerful and important people, and ought to be treated as such.

It’s definitely possible to have a game where the adventurers are low class, poorly known rabble, but I don’t think it should be assumed to be the standard when the DMG (I might be wrong and it’s the player’s handbook, whichever one has the section on tiers of play) states that by level 5 players are generally taking part in adventures that impact the fates of kingdoms.

[Marcelinari]

However, adventurers are traditionally outsiders, who are already viewed with suspicion. And casting Charm person doesn’t mean that the wizard can incinerate the whole village, plus even wizards need to sleep.

The level of magic in the setting and people’s understanding of it is also a factor. If magic is rare and wondrous, people might assume that someone who casts Charm person can call on substantially greater power, although they might also conclude that because they don’t understand it, they should attempt to destroy the caster just to be safe.

In general, I disagree. Adventurers are outsiders, yes, and often they blow through town just like other merchants, wanderers, troubadours and troupes. It is often more effective and less risky to make the town passively inhospitable to the wanderer, in the hopes that they will pass through and away more quickly, rather than attempt to confront the stranger. After all, if you accuse a stranger outright of mind-meddling and sorcery, it is ultimately your word against his (although your neighbours are more likely to side with you than against you), and if you try and jump directly to ‘he’s a mind meddler and sorcerer, so we should kill him’, your neighbours will probably demand a slightly higher degree of proof.

If you skip the ‘convince your neighbours’ part and simply try to stab the stranger in the night, well, that’s a murder. Even if it’s found to be justified, the reputation of a town that abides such behaviour will tank. You don’t want to be that creepy town that murders its visitors in the night. It’s not a good look.

[jh12]

If you skip the ‘convince your neighbours’ part and simply try to stab the stranger in the night, well, that’s a murder. Even if it’s found to be justified, the reputation of a town that abides such behaviour will tank. You don’t want to be that creepy town that murders its visitors in the night. It’s not a good look.

If it was justified, it wouldn't be murder so why would the town's reputation take a hit? I'd much rather live in a town known for defending itself than one with a reputation of letting people come in to town, assault the inhabitants, and walk away unmolested. A town with that kind of reputation attracts the wrong sort of people.

[Constructman]

I've heard people say that the closest real-world equivalent we have to adventurers were the Italian mercenary companies of the late Medieval and early Renaissance. Of course, the scale is a little different, as those companies usually were in the hundreds or even thousands of personnel while an adventuring party tends to cap out at six people. But the principle is the same: a group of heavily armed men swimming in cash and possibly already hired by the local lord have just rolled into town; do you want to be the one to mess with them? Especially the one that can throwing around balls of fire? While they're leaving you alone and minding their own business when they could easily rob you blind or more "subtly" extort you for money and goods if you ticked them off? Unless the lord of the land or his knights are in town, that answer is probably no.

[Marcelinari]

If it was justified, it wouldn't be murder so why would the town's reputation take a hit? I'd much rather live in a town known for defending itself than one with a reputation of letting people come in to town, assault the inhabitants, and walk away unmolested. A town with that kind of reputation attracts the wrong sort of people.

“They killed a woman there last month in her sleep. The innkeeper gave some guy a key and they just walked in and slit her throat. What kind of people do that?”

“Ah, but they said she was a Charmer, a mind-meddler! She bewitched a clerk into letting her see the mayor, so they said. Who knows what she could have done!”

“Yeah, so they said. But who’s to know what really happened? They killed her without a word of warning, never let her say anything in her own defense. Would you stay at that inn, knowing the innkeeper could give the key to a cutthroat? I know they said that they gave all her property to her companions, but do you really believe that they didn’t pocket something at least? Would you trade in that town, if they’re willing to murder visitors in cold blood? Your word would never be enough to prove your innocence.”

I am honestly quite taken aback by your position here. We clearly have wildly different ideas on capital punishment, vigilante justice, and extrajudicial killings, as well as mob justice.

Suffice it to say that when I refer to the murder being ‘justified’, I do not mean ‘justifiable homicide’, which is generally an act taken when imminent harm threatens one’s self or others, and instead mean ‘had it coming to ‘em’, which far more accurately describes a revenge killing/assassination. There are astonishingly few communities where the latter is not a heinous crime even if the victim really did have it coming.

[jh12]

I am honestly quite taken aback by your position here. We clearly have wildly different ideas on capital punishment, vigilante justice, and extrajudicial killings, as well as mob justice.

We have very different concepts of justice, not mob justice. Your approach of telling the little people to lie back and enjoy while the powerful people run roughshod over them leaves no chance for justice at all. If the authorities won't protect them, what choice do they have other than to protect themselves?


Suffice it to say that when I refer to the murder being ‘justified’, I do not mean ‘justifiable homicide’, which is generally an act taken when imminent harm threatens one’s self or others, and instead mean ‘had it coming to ‘em’, which far more accurately describes a revenge killing/assassination. There are astonishingly few communities where the latter is not a heinous crime even if the victim really did have it coming.

Having a powerful spell caster in your midst who has already abused his powers is a case of imminent harm. You don't have to wait until someone starts casting a spell to be justified in fighting back. Under your theory a person never has the right to fight back against a person casting a Charm Person spell, unless they can somehow manage to disrupt the casting. They can't fight the caster while they're under the influence of the spell, and according to you they aren't justified in fighting them once the spell wears off either. That, quite frankly, is horrific. People aren't meant to the be the playthings of magic users.

[patchyman]

In general, I disagree. Adventurers are outsiders, yes, and often they blow through town just like other merchants, wanderers, troubadours and troupes. It is often more effective and less risky to make the town passively inhospitable to the wanderer, in the hopes that they will pass through and away more quickly, rather than attempt to confront the stranger. After all, if you accuse a stranger outright of mind-meddling and sorcery, it is ultimately your word against his (although your neighbours are more likely to side with you than against you), and if you try and jump directly to ‘he’s a mind meddler and sorcerer, so we should kill him’, your neighbours will probably demand a slightly higher degree of proof.


Small communities, where they’ve known the accuser since they were born vs stranger from out of town, with different customs, maybe even a non-human, I suspect they would tend to side with the accuser, and that is without considering possible evidence implicating the caster.

Witch hunts were a thing in history, and it was generally outsiders that suffered the most.

[patchyman]

But the principle is the same: a group of heavily armed men swimming in cash and possibly already hired by the local lord have just rolled into town; do you want to be the one to mess with them? Especially the one that can throwing around balls of fire? While they're leaving you alone and minding their own business when they could easily rob you blind or more "subtly" extort you for money and goods if you ticked them off? Unless the lord of the land or his knights are in town, that answer is probably no.

To answer both you and PotatoPriest, when I think adventurer, I tend to think more level 1 to 3, i.e. a person who would be highly at risk from a bunch of farmers with pickaxes.

Given attrition, adventurers that don’t advance and low barriers to entry, I figure most adventurers in the world are extremely low level.

[Witty Username]

The appropriate moral response to someone using any form of mind control on you is to inflict as much harm upon them as possible by whatever means you have available.

There may be room for forgiveness, but not for justification.

Does that include calm emotions?


edit:I realize that I am curious about disguise self as well. and the entire schools of illusion and enchantment. throw in conjuration as well.

edit2: sorry, I've got one more.
So it sounds like the thread is in two camps, one that charm person is analogous to social presence and that it is about as justifiable as skilled public speaking and the other camp which is of the opinion that it is mind altering magic and analogous to forcing another to your viewpoint. Both sides appear to be that using it to avoid combat is justifiable.
A thought problem for your approval, Say we have Bart the Bard. He has expertise in perform and likes to sing at taverns for his own amusement, also he likes to cast charm person at the highest level he can cast to enhance his audiences' enjoyment of his performance. After an hour the charm person ends, and the audience becomes aware that they have witnessed a magical performance. Is this Bard evil?

[Justin Sane]

Another perspective: Charm Person might not be Good or Evil, but it is indeed Chaotic.

[Constructman]

A thought problem for your approval, Say we have Bart the Bard. He has expertise in perform and likes to sing at taverns for his own amusement, also he likes to cast charm person at the highest level he can cast to enhance his audiences' enjoyment of his performance. After an hour the charm person ends, and the audience becomes aware that they have witnessed a magical performance. Is this Bard evil?

Do you one better. The Glamour Bard can do this once every short rest without expending a spell slot. And unlike Charm Person, there's nothing that says that the Charmed individuals realize it affer the hour is up, nor do people who make the save realize what you tried to do. Is ability to turn up to 5 people into BTS ARMY three times a day evil? Are the Fey who taught them this magic evil?

[jh12]

A thought problem for your approval, Say we have Bart the Bard. He has expertise in perform and likes to sing at taverns for his own amusement, also he likes to cast charm person at the highest level he can cast to enhance his audiences' enjoyment of his performance. After an hour the charm person ends, and the audience becomes aware that they have witnessed a magical performance. Is this Bard evil?

Yes, in addition to being a pompous and thin-skinned, Bart the Bard is evil. He puts his own wants and desires over the autonomy of other people. He cast a spell intended to be used in combat on multiple unwilling people. He has no right to do that. He altered the minds of multiple people, forcing them to think in particular ways that benefit him. He has no right to do that. It's not his place to decide how much people should enjoy his performance. It's his place to perform and the people to enjoy it as they see fit.

Plus, they haven't witnessed a magical performance. Instead, their minds were magically altered while watching a mundane performance. He didn't cast anything on himself that made his performance any better. Whatever effect Charm Person actually has on their enjoyment, which I wouldn't expect to be all that much (if anything at all), it doesn't come from the performance being any better but from their mind being altered. More than likely it just keeps people from booing his terrible performance, because any bard who could actually play and sing wouldn't need to resort to such gimmicks to impress the crowd (and unlike with actually enjoying the performance, most people are much more likely to refrain from booing a friendly acquaintance than a total stranger). It's Bart the Bard's insecurities that cause him to cast the spell on the crowd, not any actual desire for them to enjoy themselves more. That's just the lie he tells himself to justify it. Many evil people come up with stories to tell themselves that make what they're doing seem alright.

And why would any tavern owner let someone like Bart the Bard in their establishment, much less up on the stage? He's the bard who is so bad at performing that he has to cast a spell on the audience to make them listen.


Do you one better. The Glamour Bard can do this once every short rest without expending a spell slot. And unlike Charm Person, there's nothing that says that the Charmed individuals realize it affer the hour is up, nor do people who make the save realize what you tried to do. Is ability to turn up to 5 people into BTS ARMY three times a day evil?

Yes, in addition to being vain, the Glamour Bard who uses Enthralling Performance just for fun is evil. It's only point is to stoke his ego at the expense of their will.

[Edit: I'm still looking for a decent response to these questions from anyone who thinks that Charm Person is an acceptable spell. They apply just as much to Bart the Bard and Gary the Glamour Bard as they do to anyone else.

1. What gives the caster the right to cast any spell on an unwilling target?
2. What gives the caster the right to determine that the target should view the caster as a friendly acquaintance for an hour?]

[LibraryOgre]

I've heard people say that the closest real-world equivalent we have to adventurers were the Italian mercenary companies of the late Medieval and early Renaissance. Of course, the scale is a little different, as those companies usually were in the hundreds or even thousands of personnel while an adventuring party tends to cap out at six people. But the principle is the same: a group of heavily armed men swimming in cash and possibly already hired by the local lord have just rolled into town; do you want to be the one to mess with them? Especially the one that can throwing around balls of fire? While they're leaving you alone and minding their own business when they could easily rob you blind or more "subtly" extort you for money and goods if you ticked them off? Unless the lord of the land or his knights are in town, that answer is probably no.

Cowboys, especially as presented in cowboy movies.

[Hecuba]

Yes, in addition to being a pompous and thin-skinned, Bart the Bard is evil. He puts his own wants and desires over the autonomy of other people. He cast a spell intended to be used in combat on multiple unwilling people. He has no right to do that. He altered the minds of multiple people, forcing them to think in particular ways that benefit him. He has no right to do that. It's not his place to decide how much people should enjoy his performance. It's his place to perform and the people to enjoy it as they see fit.

Plus, they haven't witnessed a magical performance. Instead, their minds were magically altered while watching a mundane performance. He didn't cast anything on himself that made his performance any better. Whatever effect Charm Person actually has on their enjoyment, which I wouldn't expect to be all that much (if anything at all), it doesn't come from the performance being any better but from their mind being altered. More than likely it just keeps people from booing his terrible performance, because any bard who could actually play and sing wouldn't need to resort to such gimmicks to impress the crowd (and unlike with actually enjoying the performance, most people are much more likely to refrain from booing a friendly acquaintance than a total stranger). It's Bart the Bard's insecurities that cause him to cast the spell on the crowd, not any actual desire for them to enjoy themselves more. That's just the lie he tells himself to justify it. Many evil people come up with stories to tell themselves that make what they're doing seem alright.

And why would any tavern owner let someone like Bart the Bard in their establishment, much less up on the stage? He's the bard who is so bad at performing that he has to cast a spell on the audience to make them listen.

Yes, in addition to being vain, the Glamour Bard who uses Enthralling Performance just for fun is evil. It's only point is to stoke his ego at the expense of their will.


This heavily depends on the expectations of the society in question regarding the use of magic in performance. It's quite possible that, in a magic sufficed world, elements like this become an expected part of the production of elite musical performances.

There are two keys to such a presentation:
Narratively, situations like that need to be proactively presented to be established. This allows characters who would object to that kind of performance to decline to participate, much as someone might choose not to take a mind-altering drug even if society permitted it.
Ethically, consent is still paramount for situations like this.


But unless you're willing to grapple with the relevant exposition and deal with the implications of consent - it should be presumed evil. Without consent, it's the equivalent of dosing the entire unwitting audience of a concert because you feel your music is best understood while on psychedelics.

The fact that magic is less likely to have side effects is an amelioration of secondary harm, not a negation of the primary transgression.