How does Charm Person/Monster affect memory and perception? [Archive]

Renduaz

2021-03-23, 09:48 AM

Alongside similar effects like Suggstion, though I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of Suggestion's "Reasonable course" adjudication, moreso as to how they interact with a target's brain and their boundaries. I see a lot of players even in high profile podcasts treating Charm spells ( With a friendliness clause, not ones that daze creatures or just prevent them from attacking, etc ) like a Dominate effect, which makes creatures into mind-controlled husks, in a way.

But even when its not so blatantly abused, I think there are still a lot of unaswered questions as to how these spells encompass the minds of creatures that still retain their will, memoroes and deduction, and I'd like to present a few hypothetical scenarios to explore them:

1. A player casts Charm Person on a pair of guards, asks them to let him into a guarded vault, or even ignore bad acts/violence observed from fellow party members against other guards or whatever. A lot of players seem to think all of this work with little effort, but none of it does. If the guard is remotely dutiful or cares about his job, why would he let any friendly acquintance in? You *may* have advantage on pleading with them or making excuses or bribing them per Charmed rules, but there's also no guarantee that a dice roll will be called for to begin with if the dereliction of duty is preposterous.

Secondly, while the Guards can't attack you, they should still be able to attempt to bar the way to prevent you from doing something stupid or even calling for reinforcement/turning you in before you ruin their job and your potential safety, maybe putting in a good word about you just being drunk or not thinking clearly as they turn you in while charmed.

2. A player casts Charm Person, and informs the guards that they should let him in because they met as friendly acquaintance as recruits, and he's just off-uniform and needed to deliver a report. Or the player may even be wearing a uniform, yet the guard never saw him or heard him among his superiors anywhere. Some DM's would roleplay this attempt as an automatic smooth pass after a successful Charm, but its actually still in question.

Charm Person is not Modify Memory. The guards know you are on friendly terms, but they should have no recollection as to why, nor recall something that never happened because a trusted ally or friend brought it up, although they could be persuaded to have forgotten something, or an encounter.

But if they aren't, how would they regard deceit or malicious behavior/manipulation from someone they are forced to recognize as friendly throughout? Do they rationalize it? "He must be pulling a prank.. maybe he hit his head... is he desperate about something that happened..", etc, as opposed to changing memories of events?

3. A player just finished slaughtering all the guards's comrades, or even a given creatures family, Charming them mid-combat when they are the only ones left. Alternatively, an evil creature under direct orders to kill the player on sight, or ones that tend to do so by nature are charmed.

Bear in mind that the spell has no allusions to altering a target's memory, senses, reasoning, generalized emotions or generalized morality other than a magical compulsion to regard you as a friend. At this point, rationalization becomes extremely difficult or absurd. They recall what you did, or who you are, yet you are also their friend at the same time, but what happened? Did they just experience an uncharacteristic burst of forgiveness, or mercy? What if you queried them intensely as to why, and reminded them how things were just seconds ago?

What if those evil creatures would gladly kill any friend for money or out of fear of disobeying an overlord, but magically discover they simply can't attack you? What if you use the duration of the spell to personally admit that you hate the target, killed all their friends, etc. At what point their mind just glazes over like a daze or stroke and they just react with confusion or "I don't know..hard to think.." answers as to why you are friends, or try to flee or just start feeling very wrong?

Can someone with an average intelligence and basic Arcane understanding, or another mage, or someone you outright told or bragged to about Charming them realize that they Charmed by you, or that you are only friends because of a Charm? The spells say that once it ends, the target automatically does, but nothing says they are unable to figure it out within the duration on top of that, or at least suspect they fell under the influence of some magic from some source and try restoring their faculties. You could always be suspicious of even a friendly acquaintance charming you for some reason, especially as a mage, like a blind experiment or even innocent reasons. If a mage suspects he is Charmed, can he simply cast Dispel Magic on himself, if only to rule out the possibility, thus ending your control prematurely?

How would you handle any of those scenarios as a DM?

meta-dnd

2021-03-24, 04:09 AM

Hi Renduaz. Interesting question, and one that I struggle with too. I like this kind of exploration, as it fits my own desire to find over-arching metaphysics for various aspects of D&D that can help inform us about many different questions and allow us to come up with internally and mutually consistent answers. Developing the metaphysics of being charmed would be useful.

My starting point for adjudicating Charm Person relies on knowing how real-world interpersonal connections feel, when interacting with the following categories of people: a) a close friend, b) a person I like and respect, but who is not in my inner circle, c) someone I am neutral toward, d) someone that I have a mild dislike for, but no active antipathy, and e) someone I actively dislike. The way I feel about these 5 categories of people is very different from one another, and how I respond to unexpected, out-of-character, and/or egregious behavior from someone is radically different based on which of these categories they are in. For example, if a close friend and I were at a pub, and that friend suddenly punched someone in the face, I would be rather shocked, but I would also be likely to assume there was a good reason for this behavior (I don't have friends who randomly punch people in the face, so this is definitely unusual behavior).

From the "Charm Person" spell on PHB

You attempt to charm a humanoid you can see within range. It must make a Wisdom saving throw, and does so with advantage if you or your companions are fighting it. If it fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it. The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance. When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you.

From this, we know two things:

the "charmed" condition applies
the creature views the caster as a friendly acquaintance.

From the "charmed" condition on PHB-290:

Charmed

A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.

The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.

Back to my 5 categories above. The charmed creature views the caster as, at the very least, "a person they like" (although not necessarily the closest of friends). We could good so far as to say that (because the charmed condition indicates that the caster has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature) the creature has as much influence over the creature as a really close friend does. But I think that goes too far. The advantage granted on ability checks is benefit enough without also increasing the degree of influence the caster has on the target. So, let's say the target views the caster as a friend whom they have a sincere respect for, but does not necessarily feel is their best friend.

If I like and respect someone, and I see them do something that could get me fired from my job (your scenario #1), I'm still going to be angry with them, and I'm still going to tell them to stop doing what they are doing. I won't be jumping to violence as a solution, but my friendship and respect for them doesn't magically remove my instincts for self preservation, social propriety, etc. Because of this, I agree with your observations in scenario #1 ... Charm Person does not make the guards ignore bad acts or violence, and if a respected-but-not-inner-circle friend asked me me to let them into my security-conscious place-of-employment, I'd probably be rather irritated, not withstanding the friendship ... "Dude, you know that could cause me to loose my job ... why would you even ask such a thing?"

As for your second scenario, I am in complete agreement that Charm Person is not Modify Memory. The guards like the caster in the same way sometimes you see someone and instantly take a liking to them ... they just feel like a cool person to hang out with.

But if I meet someone and instantly like them, and they then go and do something deceitful and malicious, I am definitely going to call them on it. I will be giving them the benefit of the doubt, and using violence on them won't cross my mind, but that does't mean I won't push back on their behavior if I find it objectionable. I do not think the target would rationalize such behavior ... it is possible to like someone and still think their behavior is bad.

Notice how, in both scenarios above, the target never thinks to use violence, even if they object to the behavior of their friend. This is my way of implementing "A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects". It isn't that the target would magically find themselves incapable of performing the action if they tried it, but rather that they simply *do not think of using violence*. Game-mechanically, we can imagine that the Attack option is simply deleted from the target's list of available actions, and if they choose the Cast Spell action, it does not cross their mind to use any spell that would harm the caster.

Now we get to your scenario #3, which is especially fascinating. If Charm Person means "target views caster as a respected-but-not-inner-circle friend" and "it never crosses the target's mind to use violence against the caster", then I think the following things play out if the player has slaughtered all the guards comrades (or the creature's entire family).

There is no contest between "respected friend" and "slaughtered my family" ... I would rule that this part of Charm Person does not actually hold. Maybe the target has less rage in him than he otherwise would, but the horror of that should outweigh the power of a 1st level spell.

It simply does not cross their mind to use violence against you.

If a creature is forced to consider how odd it is that they are not considering violence against someone who has slaughtered their family, I think they should get an Wisdom (Insight) check to realize they are being charmed. And if they do realize it, it causes the spell to end early. This is *not* RAW, but rather my way of resolving an exceptional circumstance.

I definitely think someone can figure out if they have been charmed, given the right forcing function. I think Wisdom (Insight) is a good check to use, maybe using the caster's spell DC for the check. And yes, I think it makes total sense that if a mage knows he is charmed, that he can cast Dispel Magic on himself.

Charm Person is a 1st level spell, and yet is often adjudicated as being much more powerful. I'm all for allowing opponents various ways to escape the effects early based on common sense understand of the limits of friendship and how it affects one's tolerance for egregious behavior.

MoiMagnus

2021-03-24, 04:47 AM

IMO, the easiest way to address most of this concerns is to assume that Charm Person/Monster also reduces reasoning capacities of the target for everything related to the Charm.

The target doesn't know why the caster is a friendly acquittance, but unless something else forces them to question it. I'd say the best IRL comparison would be dreaming: completely absurd things happens around you and you roll with it as it if what everyday's life.

And as for the reach of what you can obtain from a "friend", I like to assume that someone with high Deception/Persuasion is able to leverage the absolute worst tactics of an emotionally manipulative jerk (gaslighting, etc), so should be able to obtain quite a lot BUT for the most extreme demands it might require half an hour of talking, with a significant portion of the talking being casual conversation to set up the adequate mood (bottles of alcohol might help too).

The spells say that once it ends, the target automatically does, but nothing says they are unable to figure it out within the duration on top of that, or at least suspect they fell under the influence of some magic from some source and try restoring their faculties.

I'd definitely rule as a GM that this is not possible without either (1) the caster or its allies really fumbling or (2) an ally of the target noticing something weird and trying to intervene. And in the latter case, I'd definitely give a disadvantage at the check to convince the charmed person that something is weird.

EggKookoo

2021-03-24, 07:38 AM

Unoriginal

2021-03-24, 08:03 AM

On this topic, I feel like two common forum sayings are particularly relevant: "a spell does what the spell says it does, no more and no less" and "Charisma checks are not mind control".

Charm Person/Monster, as pointed above, has two main effects:

1) The target consider the caster a friendly acquaintance.

2) The target cannot attack you.

In other words, the target is mentally compelled so that they cannot stop considering the caster a friendly acquaintance or be hostile toward them. So you can't reason the affected person out of considering the caster a friend they won't hurt, even if you point out the impossibilities and absurdities in what's going on, because the affected person cannot feel differently than what the spell imposes.

But as pointed out by meta-dnd, Charm Person is just a 1rst level spell, and as I pointed out earlier, a spell only does what the spell says it does, and "consider you a friendly acquaintance" is, in fact, not much, when one think about it.

To give an example:

X and Y have been best friends for decades, and X has bought the last place on the fastest mean of transport for Y as a gift, so that Y can go meet with their sibling they haven't met in a while. Z the spellcaster shows up and want that last place for themselves, so they cast Charm Person on X and ask to have the place given to them.

X now regards Z as a friendly acquaintance. And a friendly acquaintance asking a favor does not trump the fact Y is still X's best friend. So X has no reason to give Z what they want, even if they're more likely to be apologetic about it.

Now, Z could do other things than just asking for it. They could lie and say one of their relative at [place the transport will take them] is on their deathbed, and if they succeed their CHA (Deception) check AND if X is the kind to be moved by that situation, it may get Z the place. Or Z could offer to give X a Common magic item in exchange for the place, so that X can sell it and buy another place for Y at another time, which would likely result in a CHA (Persuasion) check (X would have likely refused such a bargain from a random stranger, but the Charm Person makes them consider it).

Charm Person IS mind control, but its limited scope of influence mean that most of the time you will need to convince the person using other means. It's just easier/possible in those conditions because the person doesn't think of you as an enemy or as a random stranger.

As another example: casting Charm Person on an judge who is so dedicated to their ethics and principles they wouldn't go easy on their own children is *not* going to get you a lighter sentence. At best you can get this particular judge to pass the case to a colleague due to conflict of interest.

To summarize: the target of Charm Person will do for you only what they would do for a friendly acquaintance. An irresponsible guard may let you in the place they're guarding, if they would do the same for any other friendly acquaintances. But letting an acquaintance get inside the opera for free because they know the supervisor never check isn't the same as letting said acquaintance ransack the owner's office searching for a specific document, because the guard knows they'll get blamed if it happens on their watch.

If the PCs kill a Charm Person'd person's colleague in front of them, or if the colleague was killed before the person was Charm Person'd, then said individual will react like they would should any other friendly acquaintance of theirs kill a colleague in front of them. An Orc Eye of Gruumsh might react with a "well done, that was impressive killing", while an Hobgoblin Captain may not be shocked by the act but express strong disapproval at the PC's conduct for not acting honorably.

All in all, the most consistant part of Charm Person/Monster, which does not depend on the circumstances or the target's personality, is the "won't attack you" part. Which is a non-negligible tactical advantage.

I interpret charm such that, in addition to the mechanical effects, the charmed creature believes the charmer would never intentionally harm or deceive it. That's basically my roleplaying hook for "friendly."

So charming a guard doesn't grant you immediate and automatic access to whatever he's guarding. You still have to persuade him. You have advantage on that roll per RAW, and, as the DM, I'd base the guard's reactions on the premise that you're telling him the truth. If you say you need to get in because of XYZ, he's inclined to believe you, or at least believe that you think that's true.

If you tell the guard something it knows is false, he'll assume you don't know the truth of the situation and will -- politely and in a friendly manner -- attempt to correct you. At the same time, if he's not 100% certain you're incorrect, he might doubt himself. This is the classic "I'm on an emergency mission from the king" thing. The guard isn't sure, and he sees you as friendly and also wants to take you at your word. That might be enough for him to let you through. How you determine "might" depends on how it's played out at the table. It could be that advantaged persuasion check, or it could be player-to-DM roleplaying. Or just fiat.

I can see it as...

PC charms guard.
PC: Let me in!
Guard: I'm sorry, but only authorized people are allowed through this door.
PC: I am authorized. I'm on an important mission from the king.
Guard: Wow, really? Ok, I can let you in but you need to tell me the pass phrase.
PC: Uh... the pass phrase is... "bumblebee"
Guard: That wasn't the phrase they told me this morning. Are you sure?
PC: Yes, the old pass phrase was leaked. I was given this new on by the king himself.
Guard: Oh, ok! Wow, it must be important, then. You can go through. I should summon a messenger to spread the new pass phrase to the other guards...
PC: No, no, I wouldn't do that. The king told me they still haven't figured out who leaked the old one.
Guard: Ok, right.
PC: He told me you were completely trustworthy, though. You can keep a secret.
Guard: Well, that's... I'm just doing my duty!
PC: And doing it very well. Thanks...
PC goes through door.
Guard (to himself): Well, wasn't that something? I wonder what kind of important... (charm wears off) WHAT THE F--?

So yeah, it has a certain Monty Python implication, but that's mind-affecting magic for you.

That's a big power boost for Charm Person, though.

Unless the target is particularly naive or has a flaw like "my friends are everything to me, I trust them without question", I wouldn't have a "friendly acquaintance means the target always think you're telling the truth/is correct" effect added.

To me it would more go:

PC charms guard.
PC: Let me in!
Guard: I'm sorry, but only authorized people are allowed through this door.
PC: I am authorized. I'm on an important mission from the king.
Guard (starting to crack a smile): Oh, yeah? What's the pass phrase, then?
PC: Uh... the pass phrase is... "bumblebee"
Guard (laughing slightly): C'mon, stop joking around, I'll get in trouble if the magistrate sees you. But between you and me, thanks for coming, I'd go crazy just waiting here for hours.

da newt

2021-03-24, 08:33 AM

And just to point out the obvious, there are a bunch of different things that include the word Charm or apply the Charmed condition (vampire charm for example), and many of these include different 'riders' to the charmed condition.

For the specific effects of the Charm Person spell, I follow "a spell does what the spell says it does, no more and no less."

EggKookoo

2021-03-24, 08:33 AM

That's a big power boost for Charm Person, though.

So in my example, assume the player is making periodic persuasion checks to keep the conversation going. When the PC fails ("bumblebee") the guard reacts negatively as normal. But also, the guard doesn't view the PC as deliberately deceptive. The PC is a friendly acquaintance, after all.

I don't think I'm actually modifying the charmed condition so much as creating some structure around what it means to be friendly. I look at it like the PCs in the party. They're all friendly acquaintances (at least). If PC Bob says to PC Jane that he has no time to explain (he'll explain later) but he needs her sword, Jane is almost certainly going to give him her sword, although of course she's going to want that explanation at some point. Jane (more specifically Jane's player) assumes Bob is not going to deceive or harm her.

Quietus

2021-03-24, 08:55 AM

So in my example, assume the player is making periodic persuasion checks to keep the conversation going. When the PC fails ("bumblebee") the guard reacts negatively as normal. But also, the guard doesn't view the PC as deliberately deceptive. The PC is a friendly acquaintance, after all.

I don't think I'm actually modifying the charmed condition so much as creating some structure around what it means to be friendly. I look at it like the PCs in the party. They're all friendly acquaintances (at least). If PC Bob says to PC Jane that he has no time to explain (he'll explain later) but he needs her sword, Jane is almost certainly going to give him her sword, although of course she's going to want that explanation at some point. Jane (more specifically Jane's player) assumes Bob is not going to deceive or harm her.

Sure, but your party members generally are not friendly acquaintances. They are brothers in arms, which generally implies good friends, or better. That's a higher level of trust than the Charm Person spell applies.

Unoriginal

2021-03-24, 10:02 AM

So in my example, assume the player is making periodic persuasion checks to keep the conversation going.

Did you mean CHA (Deception) checks?

But also, the guard doesn't view the PC as deliberately deceptive. The PC is a friendly acquaintance, after all.

Again, unless the person is incredibly naive or has a flaw that makes them believe their friends unquestioningly, people do know their friends can be deliberately deceptive.

What they can assume is that their friend isn't deliberately going to cause them harm, but a friendly acquaintance not saying the whole truth isn't unexpected.

I don't think I'm actually modifying the charmed condition so much as creating some structure around what it means to be friendly. I look at it like the PCs in the party. They're all friendly acquaintances (at least). If PC Bob says to PC Jane that he has no time to explain (he'll explain later) but he needs her sword, Jane is almost certainly going to give him her sword, although of course she's going to want that explanation at some point. Jane (more specifically Jane's player) assumes Bob is not going to deceive or harm her.

Heavily depends of the person. A significant number of people won't let their friendly acquaintances or even their close friends borrow what they own without an explanation, and sometime even then.

The more the item is important, the harder it'll be to convince them.

If PC Jane has 3 swords and the one PC Bob asked to borrow is just a regular one as opposed to her ancestral Flame Tongue, then it's likely going to be easier than if it's the only weapon PC Jane has and there is no way to find a replacement.

Furthermore, "let me borrow your weapon, no time for explanations" is the kind of request that would make most people, and most adventurers in particular, wonder strongly what is going on, and maye even result in them wondering if PC Bob isn't mind-controlled or a fake PC Bob trying to deceive them, if PC Bob is agitated enough about *needing* that weapon but being unable to give a reason why.

EggKookoo

2021-03-24, 10:07 AM

da newt

2021-03-24, 10:17 AM

EggKookoo

2021-03-24, 10:31 AM

Succubus' Charm:

Charm. One humanoid the fiend can see within 30 feet of it must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or be magically charmed for 1 day. The charmed target obeys the fiend's verbal or telepathic commands. If the target suffers any harm or receives a suicidal command, it can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect on a success. If the target successfully saves against the effect, or if the effect on it ends, the target is immune to this fiend's Charm for the next 24 hours.

Thankfully the MM is quite specific about the power/limits of the Succubus' charm.

Yup, but it still doesn't convey what I'm looking for. In the end we're just talking about mind control, like a variant on command or something. My issue with charmed isn't its utility (especially in the case of the succubus) but how it's described. The PC charmed by the succubus and ordered to attack her ally can still yell out stuff like "Watch out, she's making me attack you!" And I don't see anything that says the PC is prohibited from doing anything not explicitly prevented by the succubus, such as dropping her sword before making the attack (resulting in an unarmed attack).

I mean, if I were the player in this situation (I wish, I'm apparently a forever DM), I would be resisting the succubus's orders tooth and nail. Drop my weapons, throw myself prone, whatever it takes. I mean if the evil monster that's obviously controlling my mind is creating some impulse to attack a friend, I'm going to find the least effective way to do that. Unless the succubus is somehow literally taking control of my body, which I don't think it can do.

Charmed should imply that I don't want to resist.

Tanarii

2021-03-24, 10:32 AM

Heavily depends of the person. A significant number of people won't let their friendly acquaintances or even their close friends borrow what they own without an explanation, and sometime even then. Yup. Not necesserily even for close friends.

Things that might not fly from a close friend, but are roughly on par with stuff many people assume would be automatic with Charm Person:
"Help me pay my car [horse] payment, I'm short this month but promise I can get you back next month."
"Let me crash on your couch [Cot] for a few days."

That said, the DMG has tables to help judge the DC for getting what you want from someone that is friendly. And is based on risk to the person. That's a good default place to start in determining what is possible and how difficult it will be.

Unoriginal

2021-03-24, 10:34 AM

The problem I have is that RAW charmed uses "friendly acquaintance" without context or, really, any definition. You can't really have a friendly acquaintance you just met. If I have a power that makes you think of me as a friendly acquaintance, what's the basis for that attitude? Where's the history that supports the notion that I can be trusted? What are our shared goals and interests?

The basis is "you are mind controlled, you cannot help doing it even if it makes no sense". The same way as an enemy can me mind controlled into killing a friend of 30 years for no reason other than the order given, they are compelled to treat you the way they treat their friendly acquaintances, without context.

When a PC is charmed by a succubus, I need to explain to the player what that means in the PC's head. If I say "you treat the succubus as a friend," the player rightly will say "How are we friends? I have no memory of meeting her before now." It's especially egregious because players (in my experience) loathe losing control of their PCs, so the justification had better be watertight. Why can't the PC ask the succubus something like "Hey, help me out, when did we meet?"

A succubus's Charm is not the same as Charm Person, the succubus remote-control the target and the target can't disobey. The PC can't ask the succubus "when did we meet?" because it's the succubus in the pilot seat.

So charmed must have some kind of mind-altering effect. But what? And how best to describe this change to a player whose PC has been affected?

Yes, there is a mind-altering effect, and it is that they are compelled to think of the caster as a friendly acquaintance and treat them as such.

I want charmed to feel like a narrative charm effect, where the subject feels some kind of deference toward and possibly awe for the charmer. Something like Renfield to Dracula, or maybe Wormtongue to Sauramon.

I get what you mean, but Wormtongue never felt particular deference or awe toward Saruman, and Renfield tried as much as he could to avoid doing Dracula's bidding when the vampire wasn't here. Both tried to kill their supernatural tormentors when said tormentors crossed one too many line.

If I'm going to alter the subject's mind, I want to do as little as possible to achieve this effect. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of new memory creation. So what's another option? The best I could come up with that felt acceptable was that the subject treated the charmer's words and actions as being in good faith (i.e. never intentionally deceitful or harmful). It definitely involves mind control as the subject has no experience-based reason to do this, but it allows the player to make decisions for his PC within a simple framework.

It's your choice to make and your prerogative as a DM, but it doesn't change that it is a significant power boost for Charm Person.

The PC charmed by the succubus and ordered to attack her ally can still yell out stuff like "Watch out, she's making me attack you!"

No, they can't. Unless the succubus ordered them to do it.

And I don't see anything that says the PC is prohibited from doing anything not explicitly prevented by the succubus, such as dropping her sword before making the attack (resulting in an unarmed attack).

The PC only does what the succubus order them. That prohibits doing what they are not ordered to do.

Unless the succubus is somehow literally taking control of my body, which I don't think it can do.

That's precisely what they do. Well, when one completely control the mind, the body follows.

The Charm of the succubus is so strong that if they give someone an order to kill themselves, the person get one save, and if they fail that they do it.

Renduaz

2021-03-24, 10:52 AM

Great feedback all around, I'll chime in to say that I concur with the assessment that a 'friendly acquaintance' is the lowest tier above 'Neutral', and below a friend, which appears to be both the RAI and RAW of a 1st level spell - Its a magical means of making an otherwise disdainful or apathetic target more forthcoming and pliable. Its equivalent to someone you met at a gathering once or twice and left a good impression.

That being said, the compulsion to continue regarding you as does not mean in my opinion that the target must eventually agree with what you say or judge an action itself in a certain light. Acquintances can have unbridged disagreements, get into arguments over topics, and have forceful red lines about some things. Charm won't stop that, it'll only prevent their attitude from turning neutral or hostile as it normally would if you push them hard enough.

So you could just be the most annoying acquaintance ever - " ( Player's name ), how many times do I have to tell you that I can't endorse X? Can we change the subject already?". You would only get additional persuasion attempts if you can find a way to appeal to a target in a manner that might sway a non-charmed acquintance.

As far as antagonistic actions toward the target, I don't think their reaction needs to be dampened or altered into some sort of agreeable disposition for what is a horrible act by all other metrics just because they can't see you as non-friendly. It could be akin to an extreme Stockholm Syndrome/cult-like brainwashing/abusive relationship type of situation.

The target could feel rage, profound sadness, etc about the deed, and even question you, their friendly acquaintance, as to why you would do something like that to them, but instead of turning hostile as usual, what would go on inside their magic-addled mind could be this - "No, no, no.. I can't believe player has done X, they're so...harmless. Maybe I'm hallucinating, and if not... maybe there is a justification for that, unlikely as it might be?". Now, with too much introspection spiralling, or if the player outright tells the target that they are doing those terrible things on purpose, I would agree the target will achieve a magically induced 'dream-like' state in which contradictory events and feelings happen around them which they are struggling to reconcile.

I would rule that a target which is usually stable, cool and collected, and particularly high INT/WIS targets, if they themselves are versed in magical effects or heard tale of such, particularly other mages, would sooner or later depending on those factors begin to ponder the possibilty that the co fusion or odd situations they find themselves in might be related to an external influence. Whether magic, ingesting some drug in their lunch, whatever.

At this point, just as even when dreaming you might try pinching yourself inside the dream as a response to so much as a minor sense of 'wrongness' about your role within, a trained mage could instinctively go "Hold on a second, just wanna make sure that nothing's wrong with my judgement" and proceed to cast Dispel Magic on themselves. A non-caster, by RAW, would have less effective recourses, but we should remember the following:

A friendly acquaintance, unless they're stuck in a guard post, but even the if the circumstances are dire enough, is under no obligation to dedicate an hour or any amount of their time to you. This is true whether they are busy or if they start feeling uncomfortable or emotionally distressed for any reason. They can opt to inform you that they're not in a good mood or feel tired or need time to think about something you said or did and promptly remove themselves from the premises, or try to to find someone else to consult with about what's happening.

You could try persuading them to stay, but if you fail, theh could just politely apologize, maybe offer a meeting at some other time, and continue leaving your vicinity.

EggKookoo

2021-03-24, 10:54 AM

No, they can't. Unless the succubus ordered them to do it.

Hm, help me out. PC Sue is charmed, so the succubus gets advantage on social interactions. Sue can't attack the succubus or target it with something harmful. The succubus-specific Charm feature says Sue obeys the succubus's commands. It doesn't say Sue is unable to act otherwise. Sue should be able to do anything she wants as long as it doesn't violate an existing command or the charmed condition. Barring the succubus saying "don't drop your weapon," why can't Sue do just that as soon as her turn comes up?

I mean, the succubus can charm Sue and then say "attack Bob with your sword," so then Sue lobs her clunky not-meant-for-throwing greatsword at Bob. "There, I attacked."

The question is, does Sue want to fulfill the succubus's commands and want to attack Bob? Or is she doing it because some creature is poking at her brain with magic? If Sue has any awareness that she's being compelled, she's going to do whatever she can to mitigate the effects of that compulsion. If she's not aware, what's preventing that awareness? Nothing in baseline charmed or the succubus Charm even implies such a thing, except maybe that the name of the features are "charm." But that's exactly my problem with it.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-24, 11:17 AM

I'd expect that "friendly acquaintance" means that their disposition (see DMG) is set to friendly. That is, the DC for getting various things is lowered (relative to neutral or hostile). That's the mechanical effect of that phrase.

I do agree that even a friendly acquaintance asking for something like the production credentials for my job would get a "dude, what are you smoking? Of course I can't give those to you" response.

Renduaz

2021-03-24, 11:22 AM

Unoriginal

2021-03-24, 11:36 AM

Hm, help me out. PC Sue is charmed, so the succubus gets advantage on social interactions. Sue can't attack the succubus or target it with something harmful. The succubus-specific Charm feature says Sue obeys the succubus's commands. It doesn't say Sue is unable to act otherwise.

So your argument is that a creature with near total control over your mind and body will not just prevent you to act otherwise, despite having the capacity to do so?

The question is, does Sue want to fulfill the succubus's commands and want to attack Bob? Or is she doing it because some creature is poking at her brain with magic? If Sue has any awareness that she's being compelled, she's going to do whatever she can to mitigate the effects of that compulsion. If she's not aware, what's preventing that awareness? Nothing in baseline charmed or the succubus Charm even implies such a thing, except maybe that the name of the features are "charm." But that's exactly my problem with it.

The feature is clear: the Charmed individual obey the succubus. If nothing more or nothing less is said, then nothing more and nothing less happen.

You can't exact-word it, you can't resist it, you can't exploit it. The PC obeys orders. That's it.

Great feedback all around, I'll chime in to say that I concur with the assessment that a 'friendly acquaintance' is the lowest tier above 'Neutral', and below a friend, which appears to be both the RAI and RAW of a 1st level spell - Its a magical means of making an otherwise disdainful or apathetic target more forthcoming and pliable. Its equivalent to someone you met at a gathering once or twice and left a good impression.

That being said, the compulsion to continue regarding you as does not mean in my opinion that the target must eventually agree with what you say or judge an action itself in a certain light. Acquintances can have unbridged disagreements, get into arguments over topics, and have forceful red lines about some things. Charm won't stop that, it'll only prevent their attitude from turning neutral or hostile as it normally would if you push them hard enough.

So you could just be the most annoying acquaintance ever - " ( Player's name ), how many times do I have to tell you that I can't endorse X? Can we change the subject already?". You would only get additional persuasion attempts if you can find a way to appeal to a target in a manner that might sway a non-charmed acquintance.

As far as antagonistic actions toward the target, I don't think their reaction needs to be dampened or altered into some sort of agreeable disposition for what is a horrible act by all other metrics just because they can't see you as non-friendly. It could be akin to an extreme Stockholm Syndrome/cult-like brainwashing/abusive relationship type of situation.

The target could feel rage, profound sadness, etc about the deed, and even question you, their friendly acquaintance, as to why you would do something like that to them, but instead of turning hostile as usual, what would go on inside their magic-addled mind could be this - "No, no, no.. I can't believe player has done X, they're so...harmless. Maybe I'm hallucinating, and if not... maybe there is a justification for that, unlikely as it might be?". Now, with too much introspection spiralling, or if the player outright tells the target that they are doing those terrible things on purpose, I would agree the target will achieve a magically induced 'dream-like' state in which contradictory events and feelings happen around them which they are struggling to reconcile.

I would rule that a target which is usually stable, cool and collected, and particularly high INT/WIS targets, if they themselves are versed in magical effects or heard tale of such, particularly other mages, would sooner or later depending on those factors begin to ponder the possibilty that the co fusion or odd situations they find themselves in might be related to an external influence. Whether magic, ingesting some drug in their lunch, whatever.

At this point, just as even when dreaming you might try pinching yourself inside the dream as a response to so much as a minor sense of 'wrongness' about your role within, a trained mage could instinctively go "Hold on a second, just wanna make sure that nothing's wrong with my judgement" and proceed to cast Dispel Magic on themselves. A non-caster, by RAW, would have less effective recourses, but we should remember the following:

A friendly acquaintance, unless they're stuck in a guard post, but even the if the circumstances are dire enough, is under no obligation to dedicate an hour or any amount of their time to you. This is true whether they are busy or if they start feeling uncomfortable or emotionally distressed for any reason. They can opt to inform you that they're not in a good mood or feel tired or need time to think about something you said or did and promptly remove themselves from the premises, or try to to find someone else to consult with about what's happening.

You could try persuading them to stay, but if you fail, theh could just politely apologize, maybe offer a meeting at some other time, and continue leaving your vicinity.

I'd expect that "friendly acquaintance" means that their disposition (see DMG) is set to friendly. That is, the DC for getting various things is lowered (relative to neutral or hostile). That's the mechanical effect of that phrase.

I do agree that even a friendly acquaintance asking for something like the production credentials for my job would get a "dude, what are you smoking? Of course I can't give those to you" response.

Indeed. A Charm Person'd individual would only comply to an outrageous request if they would comply to such a request for any of the other "I met this person once or twice and they were nice" people in their lives.

That can help if you're trying to get a rich hedonist to bet a powerful magic item on the result of a sport event, but that's not going to get a by-the-book prison warden to free you.

EggKookoo

2021-03-24, 11:50 AM

So your argument is that a creature with near total control over your mind and body will not just prevent you to act otherwise, despite having the capacity to do so?

It's an axiom of RAW that features do what they say, no more. Nothing in the succubus's description says you're prevented from acting. Only that you must obey a command given you. I mean, do you stop breathing if the succubus doesn't remind you to every few seconds. Do you remain standing without explicit orders? How many command on its turn can the succubus give you? When the succubus orders you to attack Bob, can you ask for clarification?

Succubus: Attack your friend.
Sue: Which friend?
Succ: The one named Bob.
Sue: Ok, how?
Succ: What do you mean, how?
Sue: I have six weapons on me. Which one should I attack with?
Succ: Whichever is best.
Sue: I... [thinks] I'm not sure I can determine which one would be the "best." A number of them will do.
Succ: Just pick one.
Sue: One what basis?
Succ: USE YOUR SPEAR!
Sue: [waits]
Succ: What are you waiting for?
Sue: I don't have a spear. That's a halberd.
Succ: For Asmodeus' sake. Use that thing, then.
Sue: [grabs halberd, turns to random rock on the ground]: Rock, I dub thee Bob. [closes eyes, swings at rock with halberd with disadvantage because she's blind]
Succ: What the hell are you doing?
Sue: Bob is not a unique name.
Succ: I COMMAND YOU TO ATTACK THAT HUMAN RIGHT THERE IN A WAY THAT WILL CAUSE HIM PAIN!
Sue: Bob, your tacos are always soggy, your political conspiracy theories are juvenile and ill-researched, and your moustache makes you look like a washed up porn star.
Bob: Aw, man [takes 1pt psychic damage]
Sue: Some people consider my wit to be a weapon.
Succ: Damn, ouch.

Renduaz

2021-03-24, 11:52 AM

So your argument is that a creature with near total control over your mind and body will not just prevent you to act otherwise, despite having the capacity to do so?

The feature is clear: the Charmed individual obey the succubus. If nothing more or nothing less is said, then nothing more and nothing less happen.

You can't exact-word it, you can't resist it, you can't exploit it. The PC obeys orders. That's it.

The problem is that 'near-total control over mind and body' is not written anywhere. Only that the creature must obey commands whenever these are communicated, and unlike Dominate spells, it never even says 'to the best of its ability'. And 'exact-wording' commands is inherent to having to obey commands. I mean, even if you love the succubus a command can always be misunderstood.

You are right about the succubus being able to prevent it, however, it can only do so by wording verbal and telepathic commamds. The target does not automatically conform to the Succubus's intentions. But if a target is charmed mid-combat for example, the succubus can only communicate on her turn, and may not have sufficient time to word all of her restrictions appropriately.

Likewise, much as with a Planar Binding spell, the Succubus will have to make sure that her commands regarding the target's behavior and allowed autonomy encompasses everything that she wants to prevent it from trying or doing.

Renduaz

2021-03-24, 11:58 AM

It's an axiom of RAW that features do what they say, no more. Nothing in the succubus's description says you're prevented from acting. Only that you must obey a command given you. I mean, do you stop breathing if the succubus doesn't remind you to every few seconds. Do you remain standing without explicit orders? How many command on its turn can the succubus give you? When the succubus orders you to attack Bob, can you ask for clarification?

Succubus: Attack your friend.
Sue: Which friend?
Succ: The one named Bob.
Sue: Ok, how?
Succ: What do you mean, how?
Sue: I have six weapons on me. Which one should I attack with?
Succ: Whichever is best.
Sue: I... [thinks] I'm not sure I can determine which one would be the "best." A number of them will do.
Succ: Just pick one.
Sue: One what basis?
Succ: USE YOUR SPEAR!
Sue: [waits]
Succ: What are you waiting for?
Sue: I don't have a spear. That's a halberd.
Succ: For Asmodeus' sake. Use that thing, then.
Sue: [grabs halberd, turns to random rock on the ground]: Rock, I dub thee Bob. [closes eyes, swings at rock with halberd with disadvantage because she's blind]
Succ: What the hell are you doing?
Sue: Bob is not a unique name.
Succ: I COMMAND YOU TO ATTACK THAT HUMAN RIGHT THERE IN A WAY THAT WILL CAUSE HIM PAIN!
Sue: Bob, your tacos are always soggy, your political conspiracy theories are juvenile and ill-researched, and your moustache makes you look like a washed up porn star.
Bob: Aw, man [takes 1pt psychic damage]
Sue: Some people consider my wit to be a weapon.
Succ: Damn, ouch.

The only caveat here is that the rock is not his friend, to be fair. I would also say that the target cannot stop to ask for clarification, because it is compelled to obey as soon as the command is given, so it would just proceed to do as you said, by wit or by blind punch, against any friend of its choosing. That's also part of the catch though, because the Succubus might give a command that ends up causing more harm than good without any precise directions in place.

EggKookoo

2021-03-24, 12:03 PM

The only caveat here is that the rock is not his friend, to be fair.

I would agree but I live in a world where people keep pet rocks. She befriended the rock the moment she named it. I mean, what, is the succubus going to call her a liar (note there's nothing that allows the succubus to read Sue's thoughts)? That just opens up another path for Sue to debate the true meaning of friendship.

I would also say that the target cannot stop to ask for clarification, because it is compelled to obey as soon as the command is given, so it would just proceed to do as you said, by wit or by blind punch, against any friend of its choosing. That's also part of the catch though, because the Succubus might give a command that ends up causing more harm than good without any precise directions in place.

Fair enough, but that leaves the method and target up to Sue. So she closes her eyes (imparting disadvantage on herself) and swings out at Bob with an open hand. Of course, the succubus could give her a very specific order, but that's kind of my point. What the succubus is doing isn't "charming" in any reasonable sense of the term. She's using a variation on command. Which is fine as far as it goes. I just want a "charm" power to cause some kind of side-switching (in terms of intentions and goals) for the victim, rather than a straightforward compulsion.

If you can't get Sue to actually switch sides and become a (temporary) ally in her heart, she's always going to try to undermine the commands given her.

Segev

2021-03-24, 12:14 PM

Hm, help me out. PC Sue is charmed, so the succubus gets advantage on social interactions. Sue can't attack the succubus or target it with something harmful. The succubus-specific Charm feature says Sue obeys the succubus's commands. It doesn't say Sue is unable to act otherwise. Sue should be able to do anything she wants as long as it doesn't violate an existing command or the charmed condition. Barring the succubus saying "don't drop your weapon," why can't Sue do just that as soon as her turn comes up?

I mean, the succubus can charm Sue and then say "attack Bob with your sword," so then Sue lobs her clunky not-meant-for-throwing greatsword at Bob. "There, I attacked."

The question is, does Sue want to fulfill the succubus's commands and want to attack Bob? Or is she doing it because some creature is poking at her brain with magic? If Sue has any awareness that she's being compelled, she's going to do whatever she can to mitigate the effects of that compulsion. If she's not aware, what's preventing that awareness? Nothing in baseline charmed or the succubus Charm even implies such a thing, except maybe that the name of the features are "charm." But that's exactly my problem with it.

Given that it is specifically called "Charm," and that we know exactly how succubi "charm" people in folklore, I would say that the fluff is that Sue does, in deed, want to obey the succubus's command. At best (for un-charmed Sue), charmed Sue could be argued to want to please the succubus as the reason why she obeys the command, and thus might, if sufficiently motivated to not want the results of obeying it (other than earning the succubus's approval), try to give the appearance of obeying it while clandestinely subverting the end result, if that might not cause the succubus to be disappointed in Sue.

On the subject of memory control, the OP had a very nice scenario to examine as a case study: If Ed the Enchanter casts charm person on Gary the Guard, and tells him that they met at guard camp last summer and talks about how they hit it off and he thought they got along well, he can make a Charisma (Deception) check to convince Gary that Ed does, in fact, remember this. If you've seen the scene in Groundhog Day where the insurance salesman approaches Phil, at lest once Phil at least pretends to remember him (if not being convinced that he sort-of does). Gary, viewing Ed as "a friendly acquaintance," and faced with a presumably well-rolled Deception check that has Ed telling him they met last summer and hit it off, might feel guilty over having forgotten Ed and either pretend to remember him or convince himself that he does remember him. It's not "memory editing magic," just normal human unreliable memory fabulism.

"A friendly acquaintance" is exactly the sort of person you met once a while back and got on well with. It is easy to believe that you feel inclined to like him because you did, in fact, meet "that one time," even if you don't remember the specifics. That he does just provides further evidence, right? At least, as long as he's succeeding on those Charisma (Deception) checks that, due to the Charmed condition, he's making with Advantage.

The scenario of the adventuring party Ed is part of slaughtering Gary's coworkers in front of him, and then casting charm person on Gary when Gary is the only one left alive, I think the right way to handle that is (again) context-based: The party - Ed in particular - offers Gary a chance to surrender. Gary is probably shocked, scared, hurt, angry, etc., but the charm person spell amplifies those emotions that are useful to promoting viewing Ed as "a friendly acquaintance." Ed is offering Gary mercy. That's reason to be grateful. Gary is likely to accept the offer to surrender. Gary won't incorrectly assume that his group were in the wrong for fighting Ed's group, but he might be more inclined to see things from Ed's point of view.

Now, Ed can play this a number of ways, and I definitely can't think of, let alone write, all of them. But some approaches that might work would include more lying:

"Gary, buddy, it's me. You know I'd never hurt our friends; these guys were all doppelgangers!" is pretty brazen, but with Advantage on the Charisma (Deception) check, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Gary might buy that. (The strength of suggestion is that Gary likely buys it without any Charisma check at all if that's the suggestion and he fails the save.)
Ed could play good cop to the party's bad cop. Gary knows he's in trouble, and Ed is the one guy who might get him out of it. Sure, he knows Ed is not on his side in general, but maybe for this he really does want Gary to come out of this okay.
Ed could actually lean into intimidation. Subtly, he could play "good cop" with threats implied from others, but nothing stops him from outright threatening Gary. And Gary is more inclined to be afraid of Ed than otherwise, thanks to the Advantage on social interactions Ed has. Think of it as an abusive relationship: Gary sees Ed as a friendly acquaintance; he wants Ed not to be mad at him even though Gary is mad at Ed, and Gary doesn't like being mad at Ed even though he has good reason for it. This all tangles up Gary's emotions and makes Ed being pushy at least have a chance of working.
Ed could flat-out pull the "why do you make me hurt you?" nonsense and make it work with the right social rolls.
Ed could lie and claim that Gary's buddies aren't dead, and that they'll get medical care to keep them alive, but only if Gary can help Ed help Gary's friends by giving Ed whatever it is Ed is trying to get from Gary.

If something is just flat-out impossible - like Gary catching Ed murdering his beloved wife and children in horrific ways just prior to being Charmed - would probably be handled with some sort of shock or disbelief. It can't be that Ed just did that, can it? Mechanically, Ed cannot be attacked by Gary, and so contextually Gary can't bring himself to do so; maybe Gary is just so in shock and horror that he's unable to do violence. Or maybe he can attack the others but not Ed, because when he looks at Ed, his emotions twist at the betrayal and he has to flinch and go after somebody else. Somebody he still feels good about hating.

It stinks being angry at people you like. It hurts a lot more than being angry at people you don't care about or dislike. People shy away from it, looking for excuses to avoid it.

It doesn't mean that Gary is going to give Ed everything he wants. If Gary has good, solid, obvious reasons to refuse, being mad at Ed will only bolster them. But the combination of viewing Ed as "a friendly acquaintance" and the magical desire not to attack Ed and (importantly) Ed's Advantage on social rolls vs. Gary means Gary is more likely to be cowed, tricked, browbeaten, or the like. Even if he would still rather die than give up the King's secret location, Gary is more tormented by it than ever.

Renduaz

2021-03-24, 12:18 PM

I would agree but I live in a world where people keep pet rocks. She befriended the rock the moment she named it. I mean, what, is the succubus going to call her a liar (note there's nothing that allows the succubus to read Sue's thoughts)? That just opens up another path for Sue to debate the true meaning of friendship.

Fair enough, but that leaves the method and target up to Sue. So she closes her eyes (imparting disadvantage on herself) and swings out at Bob with an open hand. Of course, the succubus could give her a very specific order, but that's kind of my point. What the succubus is doing isn't "charming" in any reasonable sense of the term. She's using a variation on command. Which is fine as far as it goes. I just want a "charm" power to cause some kind of side-switching (in terms of intentions and goals) for the victim, rather than a straightforward compulsion.

If you can't get Sue to actually switch sides and become a (temporary) ally in her heart, she's always going to try to undermine the commands given her.

It would work if Sue is geniunely....special enough to believe she befriend a rock. Since 'friend' is subject to your personal feelings, you would be able to execute the command against a creature which your mind truly recognizes as such.

And yes, as I said, the target and method will be up to her. As for switching sides, the only thing I can off-handedly think of which does something like that to a drastic degree is, funnily enough, Philter of Love.

EggKookoo

2021-03-24, 12:33 PM

Given that it is specifically called "Charm," and that we know exactly how succubi "charm" people in folklore, I would say that the fluff is that Sue does, in deed, want to obey the succubus's command. At best (for un-charmed Sue), charmed Sue could be argued to want to please the succubus as the reason why she obeys the command, and thus might, if sufficiently motivated to not want the results of obeying it (other than earning the succubus's approval), try to give the appearance of obeying it while clandestinely subverting the end result, if that might not cause the succubus to be disappointed in Sue.

...and...

As for switching sides, the only thing I can off-handedly think of which does something like that to a drastic degree is, funnily enough, Philter of Love.

This is why I felt the need to apply a more concrete definition to "friendly acquaintance" in the charmed condition. Unoriginal says it makes charm person overpowered (or more powerful at least). I don't really disagree but it's been worth it, at least at my table. I'm not looking to take control away from a charmed player, but rather the reverse. I want to give the player a way to take control of the experience of their PC being charmed. Explaining how the PC sees the charmer -- no intentional deceit or harm -- allows the player to make decisions based on that. They're not compelled to obey the charmer (succubus orders aside for the moment) because of a simple mechanical rule that they could subvert. They're free to act as they will, just with additional factors to consider.

To account for charm person, a simple solution would be that if the charmed creature cannot escape the conclusion that you have lied to it (some kind of unbreakable contradiction or the like, or clear evidence of deception, or even the charmer admitting they lied), that could be counted as "harm" for the purposes of breaking the effect. So the charmer still has to be careful about what they say.

Unoriginal

2021-03-24, 12:35 PM

You are correct. According to RAW, the Succubus's Charm ability does not even state that the target considers the Succubus to be friendly. It applies the Charmed condition, but that only prevents you from attacking the Succubus and grants her advantage on social rolls. A Succubus's Charm is semi-equivalent to a Planar Binding spell - A hostile target can do anything in their power to twist the commands and act defiantly unless ordered otherwise.

I would bring both your, and Unoriginal's attention to the distinction made between the Charm Person and the Dominate Person spell, and what it means to be Dominated rather than simply Charmed:

>"While the target is Charmed, you have a Telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same plane of existence. You can use this Telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as Attack that creature, Run over there, or Fetch that object. If the creature completes the order and doesn't receive further direction from you, it defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability.

>"You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the Actions you choose, and doesn't do anything that you don't allow it to do. During this time you can also cause the creature to use a Reaction, but this requires you to use your own Reaction as well."

As you can see, total pupeteering is in fact an extremely demanding feat to accomplish that requires not just Dominating someone, but actively spending an action every single turn to do so. If you only issued a general command, the target must complete it and abide by its stipulations as best it can, but their free will returns to some extent when done.

For contrast, a creature which can use an ability to do the same would be the much more powerful Aboleth with its Enslave action, which states that a charmed target is "under the Aboleth's control", and thus has no control of their own.

None of those separate effect inform how the others work.

Charm Person: Target has advantage on save if engaged in a fight with caster or caster's allies. Target is Charmed, and consider the caster a friendly acquaintance. Anything harmful done by the caster or their companions to the target breaks the effect.

Dominate Person: Target has advantage on save if engaged in a fight with caster or caster's allies. Target is Charmed, there is a telepathic link between the caster and the target, and the caster can either commands without action, which they'll accomplish to the best of their capacity, or take direct control to make the target do an Action (or Reaction) the caster want them to do without doing anything that is not allowed. When not commanded, the target just preserve themselves to the best of their capacities. Damage does give the target a chance to break the effect. Target and caster being on separate planes break the effect.

Succubus's Charm: Target is Charmed, and obeys the fiend's verbal or telepathic commands. Getting damaged or given a suicidal command give a chance to break the effect. No limit is given on the means or manner to command, with Telepathic Bond specifically stating the normal range limits for Telepathy don't apply, and they are not required to be on the same plane.

Aboleth's Enslave: Target is Charmed, and under the Aboleth's control. Target can't take Reaction but can communicate telepathically with the Aboleth. Target is given a chance to break free if damaged or if more than 1 miles away from the Aboleth (once per 24h). Target and Aboleth being on separate planes break the effect. Aboleth dying break the effect.

So we have:

Target is Charmed: All

Target has advantage on save if fighting user & friends: Charm Person & Dominate Person

Broken by user or companions doing anything harmful to target: Charm Person

Broken by target & user being on different planes: Dominate Person & Enslave

Broken by user's death: All

Potentially broken by target taking damage: Dominate Person, Charm & Enslave

Potentially broken by target being given order target knows would result in target's death: Charm

Target directly controlled by user: Dominate Person & Enslave

Target knowingly obeys order resulting in target's death:Dominate Person & Charm (if save to break free failed)

Limited in time: Charm Person, Charm, Dominate Person

Potentially broken by being far enough of user: Enslave

I admit I was incorrect/overly hyperbolic when I said the succubus had total control over the target of their Charm. I apologize for that.

However, I maintain that using Telepathy the succubus can, on their turn, communicate exactly what they intend the target to do and the target would not be able to find any loophole to it, since the succubus can simply download the course of action in their mind AND also forbid actions which would hinder the task or them, and a succubus isn't dumb enough to not do that.

Of course, if the situation changes to the point the command is impossible, the target isn't going to take initiative and the succubus needs to wait their turn to modify the orders.

Ex: if a knight is ordered to KO their Cleric friend, the succubus will just send them the movie of it happening, with variations. If the Cleric gets KOed between the turn of the succubus and the one of the knight, the knight isn't going to select a different opponent on their own volition.

EggKookoo

2021-03-24, 12:43 PM

However, I maintain that using Telepathy the succubus can, on their turn, communicate exactly what they intend the target to do and the target would not be able to find any loophole to it, since the succubus can simply download the course of action in their mind AND also forbid actions which would hinder the task or them, and a succubus isn't dumb enough to not do that.

I don't dispute this at all. My frustration (with the game, not with your position) is that this feels more like command than anything else. Or a near relative to it. Communicating the entire course of action to the victim reminds me of how dominate monster works, where the caster can issue commands OR use its action to basically wear you like a meat puppet. I'm okay with saying the succubus is meat-puppeting you (RAW aside -- would this cost the succubus her action?), but I just don't see that relating to how charm works.

Segev

2021-03-24, 12:49 PM

...and...

This is why I felt the need to apply a more concrete definition to "friendly acquaintance" in the charmed condition. Unoriginal says it makes charm person overpowered (or more powerful at least). I don't really disagree but it's been worth it, at least at my table. I'm not looking to take control away from a charmed player, but rather the reverse. I want to give the player a way to take control of the experience of their PC being charmed. Explaining how the PC sees the charmer -- no intentional deceit or harm -- allows the player to make decisions based on that. They're not compelled to obey the charmer (succubus orders aside for the moment) because of a simple mechanical rule that they could subvert. They're free to act as they will, just with additional factors to consider.

To account for charm person, a simple solution would be that if the charmed creature cannot escape the conclusion that you have lied to it (some kind of unbreakable contradiction or the like, or clear evidence of deception, or even the charmer admitting they lied), that could be counted as "harm" for the purposes of breaking the effect. So the charmer still has to be careful about what they say.As I believe Unoriginal is saying in the post I quote below, the Succubus's Charm giving the ability to give commands that will be obeyed says nothing about charm person's ability to issue commands. They're different abilities, worded differently.

You can do a lot with charm person, but you cannot assume that the target of the spell will obey you. What you can do - and maybe that's what you're getting at here - is know that the reason the target is doing what you want is because he's been convinced to do so. Whether that's by hook, crook, or pleading. He is made more easy to persuade by his mild liking of the caster and inability to dislike him, and by the fact that the caster tends to roll well on social interactions with him (i.e. generally doesn't make gaffes and generally puts his best foot forward, even if he's not more charming than he could be in theory without the effect...or rather, the Charmed individual is more likely to ignore gaffes and bad plays and only pay attention to the good ones).

Ex: if a knight is ordered to KO their Cleric friend, the succubus will just send them the movie of it happening, with variations. If the Cleric gets KOed between the turn of the succubus and the one of the knight, the knight isn't going to select a different opponent on their own volition.Well, he might. It just won't necessarily have anything to do with the Succubus's wishes. He won't attack her, but he might attack one of her minions, unless she's ordered him not to. He may well attack whatever KO'd the cleric, both for taking down his friend AND because it stole the opportunity to look good for the girl he's infatuated with from him.

Renduaz

2021-03-24, 12:53 PM

Given that it is specifically called "Charm," and that we know exactly how succubi "charm" people in folklore, I would say that the fluff is that Sue does, in deed, want to obey the succubus's command. At best (for un-charmed Sue), charmed Sue could be argued to want to please the succubus as the reason why she obeys the command, and thus might, if sufficiently motivated to not want the results of obeying it (other than earning the succubus's approval), try to give the appearance of obeying it while clandestinely subverting the end result, if that might not cause the succubus to be disappointed in Sue

I think what can be objectively determined is that, even if that dyanmic was the exact RAI, it is not mechnically RAW since the ability itself only does as it says, but I would also like to contend that the name 'Charm' might not be as relevant as described, despite the lingual connotations. Firstly, we probably agree that in 'Charm Person', and as the spell explicitly mandates, the connection between the target's isn't really as strong as the associative imagination may presume. A more blatant example is the spell Geas, in which the target can even try to directly disobey and defy the caster with a damage penalty that only applies once a day, yet they are still 'Charmed'.

As far as Succubus fluff and lore goes, I must admit that I don't have the MM page at hand right now, but I believe Succubus fluff is to approach humanoids who are naturally lustful or enamoured by the succubus's beauty, then trying to seduce them and spin grandiose promises or tales about all she could do and give to the target, with the Charm effect being more of a final push once the target develops intense feelinhs for her. It is also the case that a Devil prince will decide to send either a Succubus or Incubus to someone he wishes to corrupt, regardless of their magical abilities, because the seducer must appeal to their gender preferences.

Here's some food for thought - What if the Succubus uses Charm on a small child? By succubus fluff, the targets want to obey her because they are hopelessly romantically or sexually enraptured. How would the fluff play a part here? The child just feels admiration, or likes her playfulness? Sure, but that's a step back from the fluff.

I would rule, in harmony with RAW and RAI, that the target only wants to obey the succubus if the succubus manages to seduce it, especially for characters that might testify to having a Flaw trait when it comes to falling for that kind of manipulation.

EggKookoo

2021-03-24, 12:56 PM

You can do a lot with charm person, but you cannot assume that the target of the spell will obey you.

I hope I haven't been inadvertently arguing that by assuming the charmer isn't knowingly harming or deceiving it, that the charmed creature is compelled to obey. I mean it quite literally -- the charmed creature will interpret the charmer's words and actions through the filter of intended honesty, but otherwise behave normally.

Segev

2021-03-24, 01:03 PM

Here's some food for thought - What if the Succubus uses Charm on a small child? By succubus fluff, the targets want to obey her because they are hopelessly romantically or sexually enraptured. How would the fluff play a part here? The child just feels admiration, or likes her playfulness? Sure, but that's a step back from the fluff. Precocious crushes are a thing, and when the subject is not ... inclined ... to the obvious reasons for attraction, "she's a pretty lady who I want to like me because her attention makes me happy" can suffice and still be in the ballpark.

I hope I haven't been inadvertently arguing that by assuming the charmer isn't knowingly harming or deceiving it, that the charmed creature is compelled to obey. I mean it quite literally -- the charmed creature will interpret the charmer's words and actions through the filter of intended honesty, but otherwise behave normally.I'd be careful there. Maybe a filter of "he doesn't mean to hurt me," or something like that, but "assumed intended honesty" might be better reserved for the suggestion spell.

Unoriginal

2021-03-24, 01:10 PM

As I believe Unoriginal is saying in the post I quote below, the Succubus's Charm giving the ability to give commands that will be obeyed says nothing about charm person's ability to issue commands. They're different abilities, worded differently.

Indeed.

Well, he might. It just won't necessarily have anything to do with the Succubus's wishes. He won't attack her, but he might attack one of her minions, unless she's ordered him not to. He may well attack whatever KO'd the cleric, both for taking down his friend AND because it stole the opportunity to look good for the girl he's infatuated with from him.

I think we can base our reflection with the concept the succubus isn't idiotic enough to forget to order "don't attack my and my allies".

EggKookoo

2021-03-24, 01:16 PM

I think we can base our reflection with the concept the succubus isn't idiotic enough to forget to order "don't attack my and my allies".

What would be your process for determining how many orders or how complex the orders can be in a given round? Can the succubus outline her victim's next hour of activity, or is it more like the "simple order" element of dominate monster? Or something in between?

Renduaz

2021-03-24, 01:25 PM

None of those separate effect inform how the others work.

Charm Person: Target has advantage on save if engaged in a fight with caster or caster's allies. Target is Charmed, and consider the caster a friendly acquaintance. Anything harmful done by the caster or their companions to the target breaks the effect.

Dominate Person: Target has advantage on save if engaged in a fight with caster or caster's allies. Target is Charmed, there is a telepathic link between the caster and the target, and the caster can either commands without action, which they'll accomplish to the best of their capacity, or take direct control to make the target do an Action (or Reaction) the caster want them to do without doing anything that is not allowed. When not commanded, the target just preserve themselves to the best of their capacities. Damage does give the target a chance to break the effect. Target and caster being on separate planes break the effect.

Succubus's Charm: Target is Charmed, and obeys the fiend's verbal or telepathic commands. Getting damaged or given a suicidal command give a chance to break the effect. No limit is given on the means or manner to command, with Telepathic Bond specifically stating the normal range limits for Telepathy don't apply, and they are not required to be on the same plane.

Aboleth's Enslave: Target is Charmed, and under the Aboleth's control. Target can't take Reaction but can communicate telepathically with the Aboleth. Target is given a chance to break free if damaged or if more than 1 miles away from the Aboleth (once per 24h). Target and Aboleth being on separate planes break the effect. Aboleth dying break the effect.

So we have:

Target is Charmed: All

Target has advantage on save if fighting user & friends: Charm Person & Dominate Person

Broken by user or companions doing anything harmful to target: Charm Person

Broken by target & user being on different planes: Dominate Person & Enslave

Broken by user's death: All

Potentially broken by target taking damage: Dominate Person, Charm & Enslave

Potentially broken by target being given order target knows would result in target's death: Charm

Target directly controlled by user: Dominate Person & Charm

Target knowingly obeys order resulting in target's death:Dominate Person & Charm (if save to break free failed)

Limited in time: Charm Person, Charm, Dominate Person

Potentially broken by being far enough of user: Enslave

I admit I was incorrect/overly hyperbolic when I said the succubus had total control over the target of their Charm. I apologize for that.

However, I maintain that using Telepathy the succubus can, on their turn, communicate exactly what they intend the target to do and the target would not be able to find any loophole to it, since the succubus can simply download the course of action in their mind AND also forbid actions which would hinder the task or them, and a succubus isn't dumb enough to not do that.

Of course, if the situation changes to the point the command is impossible, the target isn't going to take initiative and the succubus needs to wait their turn to modify the orders.

Ex: if a knight is ordered to KO their Cleric friend, the succubus will just send them the movie of it happening, with variations. If the Cleric gets KOed between the turn of the succubus and the one of the knight, the knight isn't going to select a different opponent on their own volition.

Well, in the art of rules-lawyering, whenever the interpretation of RAW is disputed, precedents and 'sister effects' can often be perused in order to divine how WOTC possibly intended something, as supportive evidence. In this case, we can see that WoTC is very much aware of the difference between merely being friendly and charmed, to being inactively dominated, to actively being deprived of your autonomy, and makes sure to explicitly write it down for a high level spell and a high CR eldritch horror, yet deliberately omits all of those phrasings from the Succubus.

That aligns the RAI with the RAW - the primary RAW, in isolation, being that the only change of behavior in the target is that it obeys a command whenever the Succubus communicates one, and is subject to the Charmed condition. Aside from that, I have several objections to some of those premises:

1. "Target Directly contolled by user" - I have no idea why Enslave is excluded when it is actually the only ability which literally states that the target is under the Aboleth's control just by virtue of failing the save. Dominate Person only offers direct control when using an action, and Charm doesn't whatsoever. I would consider it indirect control when the target must independenty process and intrepret commands.

2. I disagree about the mind movie downloading thing and lack of loopholes. Telepathic communication is explicitly distinguished in any spell and ability and class feature using it from being able to share senses or transmit images and sounds telepathically. The succubus can only give telepathic verbal instructions, which means semantic loopholes.

I do absolutely agree though that the succubus can do her best to word her requests in foolproof or crafty articulation to the extent her intelligence would permit.

Unoriginal

2021-03-24, 01:37 PM

I think what can be objectively determined is that, even if that dyanmic was the exact RAI, it is not mechnically RAW since the ability itself only does as it says, but I would also like to contend that the name 'Charm' might not be as relevant as described, despite the lingual connotations. Firstly, we probably agree that in 'Charm Person', and as the spell explicitly mandates, the connection between the target's isn't really as strong as the associative imagination may presume. A more blatant example is the spell Geas, in which the target can even try to directly disobey and defy the caster with a damage penalty that only applies once a day, yet they are still 'Charmed'.

As far as Succubus fluff and lore goes, I must admit that I don't have the MM page at hand right now, but I believe Succubus fluff is to approach humanoids who are naturally lustful or enamoured by the succubus's beauty, then trying to seduce them and spin grandiose promises or tales about all she could do and give to the target, with the Charm effect being more of a final push once the target develops intense feelinhs for her. It is also the case that a Devil prince will decide to send either a Succubus or Incubus to someone he wishes to corrupt, regardless of their magical abilities, because the seducer must appeal to their gender preferences.

Here's some food for thought - What if the Succubus uses Charm on a small child? By succubus fluff, the targets want to obey her because they are hopelessly romantically or sexually enraptured. How would the fluff play a part here? The child just feels admiration, or likes her playfulness? Sure, but that's a step back from the fluff.

I would rule, in harmony with RAW and RAI, that the target only wants to obey the succubus if the succubus manages to seduce it, especially for characters that might testify to having a Flaw trait when it comes to falling for that kind of manipulation.

This is not the lore nor the fluff for the Succubus/Incubus in 5e. Thankfully, if I may add, as it was ripe with what one could call "unfortunate implications".

First, the MM says "the succubus or incubus resorts to charming a victim magically only when necessary, usually as a form of self-defense. A charmed creature isn't responsible for its actions, so forcing it to behave against its will won't bring the fiend closer to the ultimate prize: the victim's soul", making clear that the Charm has nothing to do with any attraction that the target could or could not have for the fiend.

Second, the 5e version of Succubi and Incubi do not play with the sexual lust of their victim, but their desires, temptations and pleasures as a whole, and certainly don't stop at people who are "naturally" lustful or enamored with their beauty. In fact the MM makes clear that in their typical MO they will only approach their intended victim after said target has been made more susceptible to temptation through being exposed to dreams of debauchery. Furthermore, the MM states "the succubus or incubus seduces or befriends its victim, indulging all its desires so that it performs evil acts of its own free will."

Basically, and fitting for creatures from the Despair Plane of Hades, the Succu/Incubi is like a drug dealer from an anti-drug PSA who will give you anything you want until you're too deep to stop yourself from doing anything they want. But it doesn't have to be sexual or lustful, just tempting.

Third:

It is also the case that a Devil prince will decide to send either a Succubus or Incubus to someone he wishes to corrupt, regardless of their magical abilities, because the seducer must appeal to their gender preferences.

This is absolutely not the case. A Succubus is an Incubus who is currently in a female-looking form, and an Incubus is a Succubus who is currently in a male-looking form, and they switch at will (as the MM says: "any succubus can become an incubus, and vice versa").

Renduaz

2021-03-24, 01:51 PM

This is not the lore nor the fluff for the Succubus/Incubus in 5e. Thankfully, if I may add, as it was ripe with what one could call "unfortunate implications".

First, the MM says "the succubus or incubus resorts to charming a victim magically only when necessary, usually as a form of self-defense. A charmed creature isn't responsible for its actions, so forcing it to behave against its will won't bring the fiend closer to the ultimate prize: the victim's soul", making clear that the Charm has nothing to do with any attraction that the target could or could not have for the fiend.

Second, the 5e version of Succubi and Incubi do not play with the sexual lust of their victim, but their desires, temptations and pleasures as a whole, and certainly don't stop at people who are "naturally" lustful or enamored with their beauty. In fact the MM makes clear that in their typical MO they will only approach their intended victim after said target has been made more susceptible to temptation through being exposed to dreams of debauchery. Furthermore, the MM states "the succubus or incubus seduces or befriends its victim, indulging all its desires so that it performs evil acts of its own free will."

Basically, and fitting for creatures from the Despair Plane of Hades, the Succu/Incubi is like a drug dealer from an anti-drug PSA who will give you anything you want until you're too deep to stop yourself from doing anything they want. But it doesn't have to be sexual or lustful, just tempting.

Third:

This is absolutely not the case. A Succubus is an Incubus who is currently in a female-looking form, and an Incubus is a Succubus who is currently in a male-looking form, and they switch at will (as the MM says: "any succubus can become an incubus, and vice versa").

Interesting, as I said I didn't have the 5e fluff at hand, but this still seems to confirm the spirit of the Succubus's Charm ability - They only employ it as necessary or for self-defense , and that ability forces the target to behave against their will. Now, that could match either a forceful violation of will with each individual command, or a general one that is present because the target 'wants' to serve the Succubus but only because of magic.

Since the latter is absent from the actual RAW in the stat-block, and as we are told that the Succubus sees little to no value in magic that doesn't bring them closer to the target's soul anyway, I see no reason to add such a ruling for fluff reasons.

Also, the dreams of debauchery method is kind of what I alluded to - They do their best to tempt willingly until you succumb, but someone who is naturally abstinent or disgusted by debauchery might be way harder to tempt of their free will.

Segev

2021-03-24, 02:02 PM

Also, the dreams of debauchery method is kind of what I alluded to - They do their best to tempt willingly until you succumb, but someone who is naturally abstinent or disgusted by debauchery might be way harder to tempt of their free will.

Coupling the succubus's telepathic link to it, this gets into an interesting examination of the Thrall ability of the Great Old One Warlock, too.

Specifically, can the succubus Charm somebody without them realizing it, and frame her commands telepathically in a way that they seem more like "intrusive thoughts" and "sudden urges" than "commands from an outside source?" Using Charisma(Deception), perhaps (which she has Advantage on, due to the Charmed condition), could she convince somebody that the command they're obeying is being obeyed due to their weak-willed desire to do so, rather than a magical compulsion? (This is assuming the succubus's Charm doesn't make them willing thralls in the first place by operating directly on their desires.)

The GoO Warlock's Thrall feature only grants a telepathic link and imposes the Charmed condition. The Thrall is under no obligation to obey the Warlock in any way, nor to even like him. The Warlock simply has Advantage on all social interactions with the Thrall, and can telepathically interact with the Thrall from any distance. A combination of Deception and Persuasion done over a long period might nevertheless convince the Thrall to see things the Warlock's way.

Unoriginal

2021-03-24, 02:06 PM

Well, in the art of rules-lawyering, whenever the interpretation of RAW is disputed, precedents and 'sister effects' can often be perused in order to divine how WOTC possibly intended something, as supportive evidence.

I do not subscribe to the concept of rule-lawyering as anything worthwhile, personally. As for the question of RAW, that is a different topic.

1. "Target Directly contolled by user" - I have no idea why Enslave is excluded when it is actually the only ability which literally states that the target is under the Aboleth's control just by virtue of failing the save.

That was a copy/paste mistake. I apologize.

Using Charisma(Deception), perhaps (which she has Advantage on, due to the Charmed condition), could she convince somebody that the command they're obeying is being obeyed due to their weak-willed desire to do so, rather than a magical compulsion? (This is assuming the succubus's Charm doesn't make them willing thralls in the first place by operating directly on their desires.)

The MM is pretty explicit that the actions of a Charmed person are not of their own will (in the sense that their will simply doesn't factor in them, if they'd agree to them otherwise is a different thing) and that the fiends don't like using magical charm because it removes the target's responsibility in the equation.

I suppose a Charmed mortal could be convinced to serve the Succubus more easily while under the Charmed condition, but only the actions they take when freed from it and free to actually decide if they want to help them would count as the mortal's.

The GoO Warlock's Thrall feature only grants a telepathic link and imposes the Charmed condition. The Thrall is under no obligation to obey the Warlock in any way, nor to even like him. The Warlock simply has Advantage on all social interactions with the Thrall, and can telepathically interact with the Thrall from any distance. A combination of Deception and Persuasion done over a long period might nevertheless convince the Thrall to see things the Warlock's way.

That is a good point. The GoO Warlock could not compel their Thrall in a way any other individual using CHA checks with advantages would find impossible, but it does grant them constant advantage and a way to make the Thrall their audience at will.

Renduaz

2021-03-24, 02:16 PM

Coupling the succubus's telepathic link to it, this gets into an interesting examination of the Thrall ability of the Great Old One Warlock, too.

Specifically, can the succubus Charm somebody without them realizing it, and frame her commands telepathically in a way that they seem more like "intrusive thoughts" and "sudden urges" than "commands from an outside source?" Using Charisma(Deception), perhaps (which she has Advantage on, due to the Charmed condition), could she convince somebody that the command they're obeying is being obeyed due to their weak-willed desire to do so, rather than a magical compulsion? (This is assuming the succubus's Charm doesn't make them willing thralls in the first place by operating directly on their desires.)

The GoO Warlock's Thrall feature only grants a telepathic link and imposes the Charmed condition. The Thrall is under no obligation to obey the Warlock in any way, nor to even like him. The Warlock simply has Advantage on all social interactions with the Thrall, and can telepathically interact with the Thrall from any distance. A combination of Deception and Persuasion done over a long period might nevertheless convince the Thrall to see things the Warlock's way.

She can do it without recognition, as it is not a spell with somatic, verbal or material components, can be done with range, and the only effect is that the target makes a Wis save when the Succubus sees it and uses the action. So long as she isn't spotted or suspected.

As for the framing, with a GOO warlock, or a Sending spell, or a Dream or any other telepathic deception for that matter, that would only work if the target is inclined to rationalize delusions in such a way or if you can telepathically convince it of something. The succubus is equally limited, in that being ordered to raise your arm by a voice inside your head can instantly trigger a realization of being magically influenced unless you're really dumb, naive or insane to begin with, but the succubus can also do this:

"I command you to mentally attribute all of your actions from this point onwards to your weak will, and the voice in your head as a manifestation of your subconscious. You should also avoid recalling this first command in the future.".

And the target will do exactly that, because the commands have no limitation.

Unoriginal

2021-03-24, 02:23 PM

"I command you to mentally attribute all of your actions from this point onwards to your weak will, and the voice in your head as a manifestation of your subconscious. You should also avoid recalling this first command in the future.".

And the target will do exactly that, because the commands have no limitation.

The target believing they have a weak will that is the cause of all their action won't make the target actually weak-willed. They're just as capable of resisting temptation and intimidation as before, they just have a weird internal justification. Like "I'm weak-willed, so I can't resist the cries of help of those oppressed people, so I will defend them against this powerful noble".

Furthermore, if it *did* compel the person, it would make the succubus unable to claim their prize, as the person wouldn't have willingly surrendered.

Renduaz

2021-03-24, 02:36 PM

The target believing they have a weak will that is the cause of all their action won't make the target actually weak-willed. They're just as capable of resisting temptation and intimidation as before, they just have a weird internal justification. Like "I'm weak-willed, so I can't resist the cries of help of those oppressed people, so I will defend them against this powerful noble".

Furthermore, if it *did* compel the person, it would make the succubus unable to claim their prize, as the person wouldn't have willingly surrendered.

I did not imply otherwise. What it does is prevent the target from immediately blaming external influence/a curse etc on their sudden involuntary actions, as their mind has now been 'programmed' to deduce otherwise, but its still far from a perfect guise.

Succubus: Punch your party member, Alfred.
Target: Based on whether he actually dislikes Alfred or not, punches him either hesistantly or normally.
Alfred: The **** was that for?
Target: I don't know, I've just been having these subconcious urges lately, and I punched you because.. A. Just getting back at you for being a **** back when blah blah ( Target attempts to rationalize desire and action ) or B. I just...can't find the will to refrain from acting up on it.
Kendrik: Guys, is Target under some kind of magic spell?

If the Succubus really wants to control the target undercover for the long-term, a more comprehensive set of rationalizations and restrictions about keeping quiet or telling lies when questioned would have to be devised.

JackPhoenix

2021-03-24, 10:48 PM

What would be your process for determining how many orders or how complex the orders can be in a given round? Can the succubus outline her victim's next hour of activity, or is it more like the "simple order" element of dominate monster? Or something in between?

How much can you say in ~6 seconds?

EggKookoo

2021-03-25, 05:14 AM

How much can you say in ~6 seconds?

So it's the succubus's action to issue commands?

JackPhoenix

2021-03-25, 06:05 AM

So it's the succubus's action to issue commands?

Do you see any mention it takes an action anywhere in the ability description?

Unoriginal

2021-03-25, 06:06 AM

So it's the succubus's action to issue commands?

Speaking is a free action, but some DM limits how much you can say.

EggKookoo

2021-03-25, 06:41 AM

Do you see any mention it takes an action anywhere in the ability description?

No, which is why I'm asking how you'd rule it (or I guess I was asking Unoriginal... originally... but I'm open to anyone's opinion).

Speaking is a free action, but some DM limits how much you can say.

Right. The reason I'm asking is you said the succubus would impart a bunch of data in its commands, including all the necessary detail and wards against attacking her own allies. Just curious how you'd manage keeping that balanced with how much she can really communicate in about 6 seconds with time left over for A) her victim to take the action(s) she just told it to and B) still get her own action. Regarding A: Does the succubus issue the orders on her turn and then the victim waits until its turn to act? Or does the victim act immediately on the succubus's turn? Or does the succubus somehow get to talk as a free action on her victim's turn?

Maybe this is a topic for another thread...

Unoriginal

2021-03-25, 07:25 AM

Right. The reason I'm asking is you said the succubus would impart a bunch of data in its commands, including all the necessary detail and wards against attacking her own allies.

I know you want to be able to loophole exploit every single thing about the command, but the thing is, there is no limit in time for the given orders. "Don't attack my allies" can be given once and it'll stay as an ongoing instruction.

Regarding A: Does the succubus issue the orders on her turn and then the victim waits until its turn to act?

Yep, that's how it happens.

EggKookoo

2021-03-25, 07:53 AM

I know you want to be able to loophole exploit every single thing about the command, but the thing is, there is no limit in time for the given orders. "Don't attack my allies" can be given once and it'll stay as an ongoing instruction.

What I want is to give my players some sense of how to view the succubus, in a way that helps them roleplay their characters when charmed by her. Over and above the largely-useless "you feel an attraction for her" stuff. Were I the player with the charmed PC, I'd want to know exactly how my PC feels about the situation. I don't buy the idea that there's some "friendly acquaintance" bit that gets flipped from 0 to 1. What, exactly, is it that makes me suddenly trust her when I considered her an enemy a moment ago? Assuming I still remember a moment ago, and I don't see any reason why I wouldn't.

I don't have a perfect answer to this. But taking player control away is a contentious thing, at least at my table. It always sparks a conversation and debate over exactly how much control and awareness the PC has about the situation, as it would in real life.

Also, I want something called "charm" to function differently from the more brute-force mind/body-control powers like hold person, command, or dominate monster.

da newt

2021-03-25, 08:15 AM

For the Succubus, I think 'charm' is much too soft a descriptor for the effect - the target obeys all commands. That's not 'charmed' - that's controlled / dominated.

Gryndle

2021-03-25, 08:26 AM

I interpret charm such that, in addition to the mechanical effects, the charmed creature believes the charmer would never intentionally harm or deceive it. That's basically my roleplaying hook for "friendly."

So charming a guard doesn't grant you immediate and automatic access to whatever he's guarding. You still have to persuade him. You have advantage on that roll per RAW, and, as the DM, I'd base the guard's reactions on the premise that you're telling him the truth. If you say you need to get in because of XYZ, he's inclined to believe you, or at least believe that you think that's true.

If you tell the guard something it knows is false, he'll assume you don't know the truth of the situation and will -- politely and in a friendly manner -- attempt to correct you. At the same time, if he's not 100% certain you're incorrect, he might doubt himself. This is the classic "I'm on an emergency mission from the king" thing. The guard isn't sure, and he sees you as friendly and also wants to take you at your word. That might be enough for him to let you through. How you determine "might" depends on how it's played out at the table. It could be that advantaged persuasion check, or it could be player-to-DM roleplaying. Or just fiat.

I can see it as...

PC charms guard.
PC: Let me in!
Guard: I'm sorry, but only authorized people are allowed through this door.
PC: I am authorized. I'm on an important mission from the king.
Guard: Wow, really? Ok, I can let you in but you need to tell me the pass phrase.
PC: Uh... the pass phrase is... "bumblebee"
Guard: That wasn't the phrase they told me this morning. Are you sure?
PC: Yes, the old pass phrase was leaked. I was given this new on by the king himself.
Guard: Oh, ok! Wow, it must be important, then. You can go through. I should summon a messenger to spread the new pass phrase to the other guards...
PC: No, no, I wouldn't do that. The king told me they still haven't figured out who leaked the old one.
Guard: Ok, right.
PC: He told me you were completely trustworthy, though. You can keep a secret.
Guard: Well, that's... I'm just doing my duty!
PC: And doing it very well. Thanks...
PC goes through door.
Guard (to himself): Well, wasn't that something? I wonder what kind of important... (charm wears off) WHAT THE F--?

So yeah, it has a certain Monty Python implication, but that's mind-affecting magic for you.

in this example, and the op's #1 example I absolutely disagree.

Charm's ability to get you past security is only going to be effective on low security areas, because of the specific wording of of the spell.

I was a Park Ranger/EMT at the NC Zoo and site security was a big part of the job. If a good friend showed up, I might arrange to give them a tour, possibly even some behind the scenes stuff, but I would be with them every step of the way. And there would be no way I would take them to certain restricted areas- I wouldn't even take my best friend or my wife into the restricted areas like animal holding, vet areas or admin areas. Period. And I should point out the we were on the lighter side of security-someone guarding the castle gates or the king's chamber are going to be much more motivated. the greater the prize, the higher the likely hood of encountering guards that were selected for their dedication, discipline and loyalty; guards that aren't likely to betray their orders even for their best friend.

As DM what I would allow is if the caster had a reasonable plan (disguise, rational reason for breaking protocol, etc) then I would allow the charm to give ADV on a Deception check.

To turn a motivated guard into a mindlessly loyal idiot willing to completely throw away his dedication, career and possibly his life, that would require much stronger magic, comparable to Dominate.

EggKookoo

2021-03-25, 08:38 AM

Charm's ability to get you past security is only going to be effective on low security areas, because of the specific wording of of the spell.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that's how I think charm works RAW. I agree with you that my example is more powerful. That's my goal in houseruling it.

This is what I want charm person to be (in terms of Hawkeye's subsequent behavior, not necessarily that kind of visual whatsit). Or at least what it should feel like to be charmed by a succubus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUvX9YAOIhs

Wheras something like command or dominate monster is more like Armus controlling Data in "Skin of Evil" (couldn't find a good clip of that).

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-25, 09:26 AM

To be clear, I wasn't saying that's how I think charm works RAW. I agree with you that my example is more powerful. That's my goal in houseruling it.

This is what I want charm person to be (in terms of Hawkeye's subsequent behavior, not necessarily that kind of visual whatsit). Or at least what it should feel like to be charmed by a succubus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUvX9YAOIhs

Wheras something like command or dominate monster is more like Armus controlling Data in "Skin of Evil" (couldn't find a good clip of that).

That's not a first level spell. Not at all. That, I'd say, is even stronger than dominate, because it lets you work independently instead of having to micromanage.

Charm person lets you lower resistance to persuasion, even if the target doesn't like you. That's useful and valuable. But letting a 1st level spell be a social I win button, no.

Tanarii

2021-03-25, 09:31 AM

That's not a first level spell. Not at all. That, I'd say, is even stronger than dominate, because it lets you work independently instead of having to micromanage.
It was for a large part of D&D history. Charm Person used to be one of the best spells in the game. :smallamused:

Unoriginal

2021-03-25, 09:36 AM

It was for a large part of D&D history. Charm Person used to be one of the best spells in the game. :smallamused:

And D&D history is full of broken rules and ridiculous things.

Lik Asmodeus's haircut in 3.X

Tanarii

2021-03-25, 09:50 AM

And D&D history is full of broken rules and ridiculous things.
Given the only contribution to a session in the dungeon was a single 1st level spell, it made sense for it to be a doozy like Charm Person or Sleep. The limitation of only humanoids was meaningful though. It's once characters stepped outside the dungeon, or worse into urban adventuring, that it suddenly was way out of balance.

The Magic-users I always felt bad for were the ones that randomly got Magic Missile as their only spell. Great spell by for later on though, assuming you could stay alive long enough.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-25, 09:57 AM

And D&D history is full of broken rules and ridiculous things.

Lik Asmodeus's haircut in 3.X

Exactly.

I'll clip the rant about 5e not being an earlier edition, so we can leave the past well and thoroughly buried where it belongs. If someone wants to experience that style go play those games. And that goes for 3.X as well as earlier ones.

Segev

2021-03-25, 10:07 AM

What I want is to give my players some sense of how to view the succubus, in a way that helps them roleplay their characters when charmed by her. Over and above the largely-useless "you feel an attraction for her" stuff. Were I the player with the charmed PC, I'd want to know exactly how my PC feels about the situation. I don't buy the idea that there's some "friendly acquaintance" bit that gets flipped from 0 to 1. What, exactly, is it that makes me suddenly trust her when I considered her an enemy a moment ago? Assuming I still remember a moment ago, and I don't see any reason why I wouldn't.

I don't have a perfect answer to this. But taking player control away is a contentious thing, at least at my table. It always sparks a conversation and debate over exactly how much control and awareness the PC has about the situation, as it would in real life.First off, the succubus's ability says nothing about "friendly acquaintance." So for the succubus, the exact way you view her when she charms you is quite likely NOT as a "friendly acquaintance," but rather as somebody with whom you're so enamored that you'd do anything for her (except commit suicide). Hence the subject obeying all her commands.

How does that "look" or "feel" to the affected target? Given that it's called "charm" and the nature of the creature, likely it's some flavor of what I just said: you're enamored. Hearts floating around your head and filling your eyes, sighing like a romcom teen, love-at-first-sight, head-over-heels in "love." I put "love" in quotes because I don't want to debate whether that emotion is true love or not, but the alleged whammy that people who fall head-over-heels get is the likely explanation. And it sure will feel real to the subject who fails his saving throw.

Maybe it's sexual lust, maybe not. Maybe you just think she is the most adorable thing in the world. Maybe the pretty lady is somebody you want to like you because you live for her approval. Nothing (except your own survival instinct) matters as much as making her happy/earning her positive attention. And, thus, if she gives you a command, you will obey it.

That may not mean you like doing everything she asks you to do, but you'll do it because failing her is worse than the pain of doing the thing. Attack your best friend? It sucks, and you don't want to do it, but you want her to be disappointed in you even less, and so you do it. He's still your best friend, but she's infinitely more important to you.

Also, I want something called "charm" to function differently from the more brute-force mind/body-control powers like hold person, command, or dominate monster.Well, it does, technically, even in the succubus version. It has different mechanics. It seems to have the effects of dominate monster without the "assume direct control" option, though, so if you want it to be different, you have to lean into the fluff.

Dominate monster mentally enslaves the victim so that it must obey whether it wants to or not. You could run the Succubus's Charm the same way, but given the context, I would say that the narrative explanation is that where dominate makes you unable to disobey regardless of your feelings, Succubus's Charm changes your feelings such that you WANT to do what she commands because she's the most important thing in your life.

Unoriginal

2021-03-25, 10:20 AM

First off, the succubus's ability says nothing about "friendly acquaintance." So for the succubus, the exact way you view her when she charms you is quite likely NOT as a "friendly acquaintance," but rather as somebody with whom you're so enamored that you'd do anything for her (except commit suicide). Hence the subject obeying all her commands.

How does that "look" or "feel" to the affected target? Given that it's called "charm" and the nature of the creature, likely it's some flavor of what I just said: you're enamored. Hearts floating around your head and filling your eyes, sighing like a romcom teen, love-at-first-sight, head-over-heels in "love." I put "love" in quotes because I don't want to debate whether that emotion is true love or not, but the alleged whammy that people who fall head-over-heels get is the likely explanation. And it sure will feel real to the subject who fails his saving throw.

Maybe it's sexual lust, maybe not. Maybe you just think she is the most adorable thing in the world. Maybe the pretty lady is somebody you want to like you because you live for her approval. Nothing (except your own survival instinct) matters as much as making her happy/earning her positive attention. And, thus, if she gives you a command, you will obey it.

That may not mean you like doing everything she asks you to do, but you'll do it because failing her is worse than the pain of doing the thing. Attack your best friend? It sucks, and you don't want to do it, but you want her to be disappointed in you even less, and so you do it. He's still your best friend, but she's infinitely more important to you.

Well, it does, technically, even in the succubus version. It has different mechanics. It seems to have the effects of dominate monster without the "assume direct control" option, though, so if you want it to be different, you have to lean into the fluff.

Dominate monster mentally enslaves the victim so that it must obey whether it wants to or not. You could run the Succubus's Charm the same way, but given the context, I would say that the narrative explanation is that where dominate makes you unable to disobey regardless of your feelings, Succubus's Charm changes your feelings such that you WANT to do what she commands because she's the most important thing in your life.

The lore description for the succubus's Charm is pretty specific about how it's entirely different from their usual manipulations, and that the victims are innocent of what they're forced to do in that state because they have no power over it.

To me that indicates direct "you are not in control anymore", not "they magically make you want it so much you can't resist".

If I had to fluff it more in-depth, personally, I would make the Charm like their Kiss in the sense that it reveals the emptiness and despair that 5e succubi actually incarnate as fiends of Hades.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-25, 10:26 AM

Renduaz

2021-03-25, 10:40 AM

Speaking is a free action, but some DM limits how much you can say.

No, which is why I'm asking how you'd rule it (or I guess I was asking Unoriginal... originally... but I'm open to anyone's opinion).

Right. The reason I'm asking is you said the succubus would impart a bunch of data in its commands, including all the necessary detail and wards against attacking her own allies. Just curious how you'd manage keeping that balanced with how much she can really communicate in about 6 seconds with time left over for A) her victim to take the action(s) she just told it to and B) still get her own action. Regarding A: Does the succubus issue the orders on her turn and then the victim waits until its turn to act? Or does the victim act immediately on the succubus's turn? Or does the succubus somehow get to talk as a free action on her victim's turn?

Maybe this is a topic for another thread...

Not being able to knowingly do something that would take you more than 6 seconds is actually RAW rather than a ruling. Its not exactly clear how time works for turns, and some situations or actions make it less clear, but the rules do tell us that a single round is 6 seconds of real time.

So when it comes to actions, movement, bonus, reaction, Action Surge, etc, because those are embedded into our turn by WOTC RAW, we can assume or at least pretend that doing all of that stuff took less or as much as 6 seconds maximum. However, if I'm trying to do something as a free action which would reasonably take me two rounds of real time on a single turn, its impossible. So I can't just deliver a lecture unless I'm speaking at 10x fast forward by some weird magic or technology, and then I'll also need the creature to somehow understand it.

Composer99

2021-03-25, 10:53 AM

Unoriginal

2021-03-25, 11:34 AM

The succubus/incubus charm effect is, I think, too finicky for use in combat. There are too many chances for affected targets to "suffer any harm" on multiple occasions, allowing opportunity after opportunity to break the charm.

Well it's pretty explicitly a last resort. If the incusuccubus has to use it they're probably also eithe running away or cornered and out of options.

EggKookoo

2021-03-25, 11:53 AM

On the other hand, I'm absolutely not enough of a jerk that I'd consider weasel-wording things if I were playing someone affected by it. The intent is clear.

I will admit to a certain level of loathing for effects that take away decision-making control of my character. Especially with something as nebulous as a charm, as opposed to something straightforward like hold person or even a single/momentary-command thing. I want structure around it.

Even geas lets you disobey if you're willing to take the punishment.

Segev

2021-03-25, 12:58 PM

The lore description for the succubus's Charm is pretty specific about how it's entirely different from their usual manipulations, and that the victims are innocent of what they're forced to do in that state because they have no power over it.

To me that indicates direct "you are not in control anymore", not "they magically make you want it so much you can't resist".

If I had to fluff it more in-depth, personally, I would make the Charm like their Kiss in the sense that it reveals the emptiness and despair that 5e succubi actually incarnate as fiends of Hades.

Yeah. A succubus's Charm is not their primary thing. It's a defense tool, used only when necessary. Because it doesn't change their attitude (and thus doesn't count as damning their souls since it's involuntary). I'd expect that the succubus is mainly looking to cause a moment's distraction so it can slip away. Get the enemies fighting among each other so it can go ethereal and vanish. Succubi are not exactly combat monsters.

On the other hand, I'm absolutely not enough of a jerk that I'd consider weasel-wording things if I were playing someone affected by it. The intent is clear.

"You can't resist" kind of means "no agency," so it works with no moral culpability anyway. This isn't the colloquial, "It was too tempting; I just couldn't resist," that actually means, "I gave in to temptation," but rather a literal inability to resist. Yes, you want it, but you're magically compelled to give in to that desire. All ability to think about resisting is turned off. At best, you might realize that you don't like what you're doing, and try to find a way around the parts you don't like, but the very thought of disappointing the wonderful (wo)man who has given you the command is so abhorrent a thought that you literally, magically, cannot think to disobey.

If it didn't have an element of "overwhelming desire to please her" attached, I don't think they'd call it "charm."

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-25, 01:05 PM

"You can't resist" kind of means "no agency," so it works with no moral culpability anyway. This isn't the colloquial, "It was too tempting; I just couldn't resist," that actually means, "I gave in to temptation," but rather a literal inability to resist. Yes, you want it, but you're magically compelled to give in to that desire. All ability to think about resisting is turned off. At best, you might realize that you don't like what you're doing, and try to find a way around the parts you don't like, but the very thought of disappointing the wonderful (wo)man who has given you the command is so abhorrent a thought that you literally, magically, cannot think to disobey.

If it didn't have an element of "overwhelming desire to please her" attached, I don't think they'd call it "charm."

Beware of reading too much into the name. Being "charmed" has multiple multiple meanings. Including the magical one "control or achieve by or as if by magic". And in this case, especially given the text explanation, that seems to be the controlling (pun intended) meaning.

I will admit to a certain level of loathing for effects that take away decision-making control of my character. Especially with something as nebulous as a charm, as opposed to something straightforward like hold person or even a single/momentary-command thing. I want structure around it.

Even geas lets you disobey if you're willing to take the punishment.

My players don't like hard control. Especially stuff you don't get to save each turn against. So I generally don't use them. Soft control (ie things that limit options) is fine. That said, I expect that, in those few occasions where I do use hard control, the players treat it seriously and lean into the fiction described by the rules. This is a dominate effect by another name. I do the same as a DM--if a player uses an effect like that[1] on an NPC, I'm not going to try to weasel around it. I had my chance when I failed the save. They're in the driver's seat now. I happen to hate weasel-wording (and things that encourage weasel-wording) way more than I hate loss of control.

[1] For me, this includes such things as phantasmal force. If the NPC fails the save, they're affected. They won't try to make a check to disbelieve unless someone else points it out.

Segev

2021-03-25, 01:24 PM

Beware of reading too much into the name. Being "charmed" has multiple multiple meanings. Including the magical one "control or achieve by or as if by magic". And in this case, especially given the text explanation, that seems to be the controlling (pun intended) meaning.

Yes, but even the somewhat-badly-named Charmed condition in 5e still has elements that point to "liking the source" (can't attack them).

D&D has words for "compelled to obey without affecting your desires." They're things like "dominate," "enslave," or "command." Obviously, these aren't keywords because this is 5e, and it's all about rulings, not rules. But I think they would have called it "dominate" or "enslave" if they meant the Succubus's ability to be independent of her usual means of getting people to do her bidding. You can certainly rule otherwise, and seem to have some support from your interpretation of what the monster manual says. I disagree with that interpretation, but it isn't an invalid one.

For reference, not to persuade, my interpretation of it is that the succubus prefers to tempt people without magic because that makes them culpable, but that doesn't mean that using magic makes them act against their desires. It can as easily magically change their will as it can compel action against their will. Having changed their will, she's removed their agency and thus their culpability. While Charmed, I still interpret them as being affected by making them WANT to behave this way. Or at least, want to behave this way more than they want not to. But this was achieved by magically muddling their thoughts, removing thoughts of resistance, amplifying desire, and generally shutting down a lot of high-level agency-based decision-making. It magically realigns priorities. When the magic is gone, their priorities return, and while they might (if the magic was subtle enough) blame themselves, they are not actually guilty because they literally could not have wanted to behave differently. The parts of them that would have been able to resist were turned off.

If you've seen love potions in fiction, they usually make the person have dramatic changes in personality as they disregard any and every reason why their infatuation is in any way a bad thing (other than the possibility that the beloved may not reciprocate, which is the end of the world as far as the afflicted one is concerned). I think it's like that. The love potion afflicted characters are not considered culpable for what they do under that influence; it's mind control. But they absolutely WANT to be with the object of their affections while so afflicted. They WANT to obey, and obey happily (at least as long as they don't have super strong reasons to be unhappy even as they obey), when (s)he makes a request/gives a command.

PhoenixPhyre

2021-03-25, 01:29 PM

Yes, but even the somewhat-badly-named Charmed condition in 5e still has elements that point to "liking the source" (can't attack them).

D&D has words for "compelled to obey without affecting your desires." They're things like "dominate," "enslave," or "command." Obviously, these aren't keywords because this is 5e, and it's all about rulings, not rules. But I think they would have called it "dominate" or "enslave" if they meant the Succubus's ability to be independent of her usual means of getting people to do her bidding. You can certainly rule otherwise, and seem to have some support from your interpretation of what the monster manual says. I disagree with that interpretation, but it isn't an invalid one.

For reference, not to persuade, my interpretation of it is that the succubus prefers to tempt people without magic because that makes them culpable, but that doesn't mean that using magic makes them act against their desires. It can as easily magically change their will as it can compel action against their will. Having changed their will, she's removed their agency and thus their culpability. While Charmed, I still interpret them as being affected by making them WANT to behave this way. Or at least, want to behave this way more than they want not to. But this was achieved by magically muddling their thoughts, removing thoughts of resistance, amplifying desire, and generally shutting down a lot of high-level agency-based decision-making. It magically realigns priorities. When the magic is gone, their priorities return, and while they might (if the magic was subtle enough) blame themselves, they are not actually guilty because they literally could not have wanted to behave differently. The parts of them that would have been able to resist were turned off.

If you've seen love potions in fiction, they usually make the person have dramatic changes in personality as they disregard any and every reason why their infatuation is in any way a bad thing (other than the possibility that the beloved may not reciprocate, which is the end of the world as far as the afflicted one is concerned). I think it's like that. The love potion afflicted characters are not considered culpable for what they do under that influence; it's mind control. But they absolutely WANT to be with the object of their affections while so afflicted. They WANT to obey, and obey happily (at least as long as they don't have super strong reasons to be unhappy even as they obey), when (s)he makes a request/gives a command.

I prefer to not interpolate extra things into clear text. Titles are the least meaningful part of the rule, being purely descriptive. If it intended that the person was infatuated with the succubus, it would say so. Bootstrapping things in just based on the title is a road I really really don't like going down. Because opening that door (mixing metaphors here) opens the door to lots of other "creative reinterpretation" (aka munchkinry). Things do what they say they do. Nothing else. You have the charmed condition (meaning you treat them as a friendly acquaintance and cannot attack them). You must also obey her commands. That's it.

And the supporting text amplifies that she uses it as a defense and isn't bound by the same "must seduce first" limitations. It's not much of a defense if you can't do it to someone who (say) is revolted by your existence. A succubus can do it to a paladin of a very LG god who knows what she is and considers her presence an abomination. No amount of "heightening already present emotions" can account for that. It's a method for her to deal with people who aren't seduced/infatuated by her at all. For whom that thought is abhorrent.

Unoriginal

2021-03-25, 01:41 PM

EggKookoo

2021-03-25, 01:45 PM

Two things...

They're in the driver's seat now.

While I wouldn't say I like it, I'm much less bothered by a wholesale meat-puppet effect where the enemy takes control of my (PC's) body, or even control of his mind. I mean it sucks to have to deal with, but I get what's happening. My actions and thoughts are no longer my own. I'm making no decisions and applying no judgment or experience. I get it.

What frustrates me with the softer succubus-like charm (in mythology at least if not the game) is that weird space where I'm still me and I'm still nominally in control of myself, but now suddenly I'm on the enemy's side. I still get to apply what I know but somehow I also have thoughts that make me want to do the enemy's bidding. Yet I'm not allowed to know what those thoughts actually are or why I would be doing that, aside from I view that enemy as "friendly" in some abstract sense. It's wicked gamey.

Don't get me wrong. I'm okay with a world that has the magic that can do that. What I'm trying to understand is what it would feel like to be subject to that kind of thing and how to describe it to my players. The traditional approach with a succubus is to say something like "you're so enamored of her you would do anything to avoid upsetting or disappointing her" but that falls flat for me. Maybe I'm weird but I've never known another person -- including my wife and kids -- who could ever have that kind of hold on me. And the same is mostly true with the people I play with. Especially since while under the creature's spell I'm not prevented from knowing just two seconds ago I knew she was a threat. The whole thing just falls apart. The closest thing I can come up with is to tell my afflicted player that his PC interprets everything the succubus says to be true, and to act accordingly. If the succubus tells the PC that she loves him and his friends have all turned on him, he assumes it's true (or at least thinks she believes it's true, if he's faced with contrary evidence), and proceeds from there.

This isn't really about succubi. I started thinking of the charmed effect (which is typically a magical effect regardless of its source) this way in a previous campaign, with a warlock player who had Create Thrall. RAW CT is very underwhelming, so I enhanced how charmed works to make it more useful.

[1] For me, this includes such things as phantasmal force. If the NPC fails the save, they're affected. They won't try to make a check to disbelieve unless someone else points it out.

Right, this is a completely different thing. I can get behind seeing an apparition of my greatest fear or otherwise being subject to an illusion. It's just sensation at that point, and even if I'm reacting with a heightened fear state I'm still doing what I think makes sense based on what I know.

Renduaz

2021-03-25, 02:03 PM

I think there is a balance that can be achieved between the RAW and the desire to add some flavour to the Charm. RAW-wise, when Wizards of the Coast wants you to know that a target isn't just forced to obey, but must do so in good faith, they let you know. See Suggestion, with 'pursues the course you described to the best of its ability'. When they want us to know a creature is not only charmed, but friendly, they write it down. The 'Charmed' word does not give it for granted.

WOTC omitted all of the above from the Succubus's Charm, whether deliberately or not we'll never know, and Succubus fluff tells us that when they use magic against someone, they 'force them to act against their will', without any explicit mention of the target actually wanting it automatically, and could be speculated to be, RAI-wise, either a very generealized forcing of an act that involves an altertation of mentality, with the target likewise being friendly and doing the best of its ability to obey, which empowers the ability beyond its scope, or a straightforward inability to decline - which is also the RAW.

But there is a compromise here which will follow the letter of the word, refrain from augmenting the ability's written scope, and do justice to fluff and lore: At the moment in which the target receives an order, it is driven to obey by overwhelming emotion, but not for the Charm's entire duration. When the Succubus speaks, mentally or physically, you are entranced by her sultry or melodic voice, her grace and charm, or her appearance as the full force of her attention homes in on you. But as soon as the command is over, your cognition wrestles with your emotion. Your intelligence, your wisdom, your own ego remind you that you are in fact a hostage to a domineering entity and allow you to exert your own will by seeking to twist the command or avoiding unwanted outcomes.

You want a Succubus who is adored and wonderful like Segev describes? That Succubus is going to have to spend some time on the hard work of roleplaying, sending you dreams of debauchery, or appealing to your childlike wonder before you actually begin to perceive of her in that manner, and if **** goes down or she's found out by a party intervention or something, then the Charm will be the cherry on top of the cake - you'll think that you are following your instincts with some commands because you actually did love/adore her, and she has your best interests in mind.

But some Succubus shooting down from the inferno in some Nine Hells battlefield and using Charm? Not going to cut it. You are under no compulsion to be friendly or do your best, RAW-wise or Fluff-wise.You don't even know her and she spent zero time forming a connection as the first and major course of action dictates.

Segev

2021-03-25, 02:25 PM

I prefer to not interpolate extra things into clear text. Titles are the least meaningful part of the rule, being purely descriptive. If it intended that the person was infatuated with the succubus, it would say so. Bootstrapping things in just based on the title is a road I really really don't like going down. Because opening that door (mixing metaphors here) opens the door to lots of other "creative reinterpretation" (aka munchkinry). Things do what they say they do. Nothing else. You have the charmed condition (meaning you treat them as a friendly acquaintance and cannot attack them). You must also obey her commands. That's it.

And the supporting text amplifies that she uses it as a defense and isn't bound by the same "must seduce first" limitations. It's not much of a defense if you can't do it to someone who (say) is revolted by your existence. A succubus can do it to a paladin of a very LG god who knows what she is and considers her presence an abomination. No amount of "heightening already present emotions" can account for that. It's a method for her to deal with people who aren't seduced/infatuated by her at all. For whom that thought is abhorrent.The effect is clear-cut. All I'm doing is explaining why it's happening, in case the player has corner-case questions. Especially regarding how to RP it.

Both Dominate Person and Enslave impose the Charmed condition, though.They do! Note that the abilities themselves are not called "charm." The Charmed condition is poorly named and probably got stripped down to what it is in order to let it be a blanket condition they could insert into abilities like Enslave and dominate monster without unintended mechanical impacts. I think this was a mistake, since leaving it named "Charmed" causes things like the GoO Warlock 14's Thrall feature to sound like it does something it doesn't...and probably misled the writers into writing it as they did when they intended it to do more. Probably should have called it something like "Enchanted," given what it does. Enchanted creatures are unable to attack the one who Enchanted them, and one who imposed the Enchanted condition gains Advantage on social rolls against the Enchanted creature.

What frustrates me with the softer succubus-like charm (in mythology at least if not the game) is that weird space where I'm still me and I'm still nominally in control of myself, but now suddenly I'm on the enemy's side. I still get to apply what I know but somehow I also have thoughts that make me want to do the enemy's bidding. Yet I'm not allowed to know what those thoughts actually are or why I would be doing that, aside from I view that enemy as "friendly" in some abstract sense. It's wicked gamey.I think you're thinking too hard about it. I don't mean that in the usual "it's just a game, relax" sort of way, but rather I think you're thinking so hard on it that you're tangling yourself up in points that are not there.

Think of it, instead, as magically shifting your priorities. You know what you know. With the Succubus Charm as an example, you're not, however, "you." You've been replaced temporarily with a person whose highest priority is the succubus's desires, or at least pleasing her to get her positive attention to the point that you can't even THINK about refusing her commands. That would disappoint her, and aside from preserving your own life, nothing is more important than avoiding disappointing her. It's insidious and horrifying if you know what happened, and possibly equally horrifying but in a different way if you do not. When it's over, your priorities shift back, and now you either have this gross feeling of violation of having had your very self reshaped to suit her, or you think you really were that infatuated and blame yourself for not having the will to resist her temptations, thinking you did that of your own free will.

(Another way to interpret is is that, no, your PC didn't have the will to resist. Your PC did give in to temptation. That's what failing the Wisdom save means. But that's between you and the DM to determine. This does make the "they're not culpable" thing a harder sell, though, so I wouldn't go with it, myself.)

In terms of charm person, you (as the target) do, in fact, have a "friendly acquaintance switch" that "gets flipped." This isn't actually as far-fetched as it sounds. While, if I asked you why you were friends with somebody, you could stop and think about it, the emotional shortcut of "I like him" doesn't have you relive all your fond memories and positive experiences to re-evaluate that value every time; you're just happy to see your friend and will update that value based on new experiences with him (to use computer-like terminology).

So when charm person enforces that Ed the Enchanter is now "a friendly acquaintance," you may not stop to think about why you feel that way; you just respond reasonably positively to seeing him. It does get weird if Ed behaves in ways that should make you want to be hostile to him, but you can be mad at friends and still be friends/want to forgive them. Ed does something that makes you mad, and you're mad, but you're actually a bit on Ed's side if he's willing to try to convince you to forgive him, because you want to not be mad at your friendly acquaintance. "Get Gary to forgive me for picking his pocket," is probably something that can be pointed to on the social interaction table for "friendly acquaintance." "Get Gary to forgive me for getting him fired" probably isn't, and so while he's still inclined to be okay with you and do some things for you for old time's sake (or just out of liking you, you gosh-darned likable Ed), he's still mad at you and will have that sort of attitude.

This has a lot of impact, I think, when the Charm wears off. If Ed has made Gary mad, Gary suddenly knows he was Charmed and all the impetus to view Ed as "a friendly acquaintance" is entirely gone. Gary is likely dropping to hostile.

But, what if Ed was nothing but nice to Gary, and actively worked to improve their relations to the point that Gary views Ed as a friend? Sure, the Charm helps with that, but when it's over and Gary recognizes what Ed did, he still has the emotional state created by the social interactions. He might, again, be a bit miffed that his new friend did that to him, but he's more likely open to being convinced that Ed did it with good intentions. It's still likely going to make things rocky unless Gary really doesn't mind mind control (which seems unlikely), but it isn't an automatic downgrade of the relationship table, so the DM has leeway to consider whether forgiving the Charm effect to make friends is within Gary's wheelhouse.

Don't get me wrong. I'm okay with a world that has the magic that can do that. What I'm trying to understand is what it would feel like to be subject to that kind of thing and how to describe it to my players. The traditional approach with a succubus is to say something like "you're so enamored of her you would do anything to avoid upsetting or disappointing her" but that falls flat for me. Maybe I'm weird but I've never known another person -- including my wife and kids -- who could ever have that kind of hold on me. And the same is mostly true with the people I play with. Especially since while under the creature's spell I'm not prevented from knowing just two seconds ago I knew she was a threat. The whole thing just falls apart. The closest thing I can come up with is to tell my afflicted player that his PC interprets everything the succubus says to be true, and to act accordingly. If the succubus tells the PC that she loves him and his friends have all turned on him, he assumes it's true (or at least thinks she believes it's true, if he's faced with contrary evidence), and proceeds from there.You don't have to know what it feels like to imagine it. Fiction exists where people do crazy things "for love." And I think I used the love potion example earlier in this post. Certainly earlier in this thread, if not this post.

You know she was a threat, but now she's not threatening you and she's giving you a chance to win her approval. Surely, she'll return your affections if you just prove yourself to her!

Think of her approval as BEING your wife and kids, perhaps: if you don't do what she says, you'll never see your wife and kids again. Except you can't be mad at her about that, because her approval (which you now value even more than your wife and kids) is hers to give or deny, and it's your fault (in your mind) if you fail to win it.

Now, maybe that doesn't persuade you, but I'm sure people have done some horrible things they feel terrible about because of loved ones being held hostage.

In this case, take that and add it to you being desperately in love with and unable to see flaws in the person holding their affections hostage in this fashion.

That's where the magic is: it changes your priorities. Whatever it is you usually value, you value less than pleasing her.

This isn't really about succubi. I started thinking of the charmed effect (which is typically a magical effect regardless of its source) this way in a previous campaign, with a warlock player who had Create Thrall. RAW CT is very underwhelming, so I enhanced how charmed works to make it more useful.It is. With DM cooperation, or at least not active nerfing of social effects, you can arguably force over a period of time the victim to be brow-beaten into having a "friendly" attitude towards you and being easily persuaded to serve, to the point that serving is the creature's natural state, but you have to read deeply into the mechanics to figure out how to do that. :smallmad: